Election 2024: By October, Voter Divisions were No Longer about Race but Gender
The presidential election of 2024 was in its final weeks of campaigning as the Hispanic Outlook went to press in late October. Residents in besieged neighborhoods in battleground states and communities in target areas such as Pittsburg, PA, told the Hispanic Outlook they were ready to start fall bonfires to burn the hundreds of pieces of campaign material left at their doorsteps by fervent campaign workers from both parties every day. They had seen it all before in 2016 and 2020. But this time, the tone of the material is different, residents said. More apocalyptic. Message such as: If Republicans win, it will be the end of (liberal) democracy and the rights of a woman to have an abortion, say the Democrats. If the Democrats win, all the borders will be open, allowing millions of unvetted migrants to come in and stay and end the rule of law, claim Republicans. Gone is the rhetoric about being too old to run for office or being the first of a particular identity group to win a nomination and other appeals to racial identity. The biggest divide between Democrats and Republicans was found in the final weeks to be about gender, not racial tribalism, about economic class rather than ethnic identity. Disputes concerned upholding or not traditional values such as marriage, having children, affording to own a home, school choice and participating in school sports based on biological gender. Now, the political party bases were split along age and gender lines – women for Democrats and men – mainly Black and Hispanic men – for Republicans. That heralded a visible split between Americans who had attended four years of college – increasingly female.
A majority of all voters consistently polled in favor of deportation of illegal immigrants – starting with those who had been convicted of violent crimes and including many on temporary permits they had knowingly overstayed – the biggest source of illegal immigrants until the border surges in 2022-4. Pollsters and pundits were remarking on these differences, particularly among Hispanic voters. Even reporters and columnists in the reliably liberal New York Times, such as the venerable David Leonhardt, found that “while Democrats will undoubtedly win most votes of Latinos, they need landslide margins - 85 percent and more - to win the election”. Three weeks out from the election, 40 percent of Hispanic voters were indicating they would not vote for Harris and 20 percent and growing percentages of Black voters indicated doubt. The defectors in both parties were disproportionately men.
The big question in the last exhausting week of electioneering is how long after the polls close will Americans and the world know the results? Some say it could be well over a month if the races are very tight. Both parties have geared for protests and legal actions on behalf of losing candidates to demand recounts amid accusations of fraud. By the time you read this, you will know whether this is all true or not.
Congressional “Lame-Duck Period” is near
The six to eight week period after a November election and before newly elected and successful former legislators are sworn in — are tricky. Many important bills, including appropriations, need to be passed in that short amount of time. But many are held up until the national election results are confirmed. Whoever wins the presidency and which party dominates the House and the Senate affects every pending bill’s chances of going forward and being voted in and signed into law before the end of the session on December 31. Otherwise, the next Congress could follow the typical pattern where some bills are held up and have to be re-introduced and argued all over again. Some members could be inclined to hold off passage of the bills if they believe any upcoming switches in party control would heighten their leverage over a deal. The Lame Duck Congress returns on November 12 for a few final weeks of work.
Lame duck sessions can be seen as the most political leveraging time of all. This year’s lame duck includes appropriations bills to keep the government funded. “Several bills have passed through committees on a bipartisan basis related to AI research and workforce training bills, which could be prime areas for agreement,” according to experts quoted in Roll Call magazine. “But other subjects like AI’s role in misinformation, elections and national security are areas rife with potential partisan roadblocks and would likely be more difficult to include in a lame duck deal.” Former President Donald Trump has expressed reservations about regulations, saying he wants AI development to be rooted in “free speech and human flourishing. Vice President Kamala Harris, who served as attorney general in the tech-heavy state of California, has been more vocal about addressing AI’s potential risks while balancing opportunities for innovation.”
Bills dealing with education choice, Title IX, as well as border reform, will most likely not be dealt with in a lame duck session. These topics were hot campaign issues and will probably be used as leverage with a new President.
Scotus Starts Its New Session
Untied to the election schedule, the third branch of government - the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) - began its new term as usual after the summer break. It opened on Monday, September 7. Almost everyone on Capitol Hill expects the cases dealt with in this session will be much calmer than last year—unless, of course, the presidential election becomes contested enough to end in court. Issues surrounding noncitizen voting and proof of citizenship in order to vote have already made it to the docket. Many of the expected cases involve the Department of Education. Those include LGBTQ issues involving gender identity in sports participation under Title IX. Tennessee and Louisiana have initiated two lawsuits against the Education Department and Secretary Miguel Cardona, seeking permanent injunctions to block the application of the law. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th and 6th Circuits currently granted preliminary injunctions, blocking the new rules from going into effect. Four justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented, saying that the injunctions blocking the entire Title IX rules are overbroad. The Alliance Defending Freedom argues that “the Education Department’s rules would force schools to “allow males who claim to identify as female to enter girls’ private spaces such as restrooms, locker rooms, and showers; to participate in girls’ physical education classes.”
