The Arizona primary that took place on Tuesday, March 22, 2016, is facing a firestorm of criticism.

The state steeply cut the number of polling places for this election, due to officials’ predictions of low turnout and high mail-in votes, but also as a means to reduce costs. In 2012, Maricopa County (one of Arizona’s most populous) had 200 voting locations; on Tuesday there were but 60, meaning one location for every 21,000 voters. This led to enormous lines: voters reported waiting over 5 hours to vote, some past midnight.

Some areas dominated by Latinos had a single polling place, others none at all. “In my district, there is only one polling place,’’ state senator Martin Quezada wrote. “In my neighboring district, LD 30, there are no polling places.” Elvia Diaz slammed election officials for not providing voting places for communities based on prior voting patterns in an op-ed for the Arizona Republic:

“We were looking for locations that were larger so we could have more people in them,” [Maricopa County Recorder] Helen Purcell said. “We decided that you could go anyplace which we’ve never done before. So we looked at an area, and factored into that how many early ballots we usually get in that area and how many people normally vote at the polls. We didn’t look at it as legislative districts. We looked at the overall picture of our voters.”

So, it is  no coincidence many poor and predominantly Latino areas didn’t get a polling place. Purcell and her staff figured few of them vote anyway.

Purcell says she “screwed up,” but refuses to resign.

It is unknown how many residents decided not to vote or left a polling place before voting due to the enormous lines and long wait times. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner by the press at about 8:30 p.m. Arizona time, which critics say likely caused more people to abandon their struggle to vote.

There were also voters mistakenly listed as “independent,” “no party,” or “libertarian” — even people registered as Democrats for a very long time — due to software problems. As Arizona is a closed primary, these residents were not allowed to vote. They were given “provisional ballots” instead — yet provisional ballots are not counted if one is listed as an independent, libertarian, or no party affiliation.

Arizona Republic reported:

“In Coconino County, they’re handing them out like candy,” [Maricopa County Elections Director Karen] Osborne said of the provisional ballots.

Yesenia Alteres, 18, waited for more than 20 minutes in a line that wrapped around the Maryvale polling place. Alteres was prepared to cast her first-ever vote in a presidential race, unaware that as a registered independent her vote would not be tallied in the presidential primary.

An organizer broke the news to her when she reached the front of the line.

Alteres said she would have voted for Sanders.

A petition to the Obama Administration quickly popped up, declaring:

Numerous voters who switched from Independent to Democrat could not vote and were turned away or given provisional ballots which in turn were never counted. We the people of the United States of America find this act alarming and would like a complete investigation to uncover the violations that occurred during the Arizona voting on 3/22/2016 and prosecute those responsible to the fullest extent of the law.

On Wednesday, the mayor of Phoenix called for the Justice Department to investigate.

Bernie Sanders called the primary a “national disgrace.”

It is unclear how drastically these issues affected the outcome (Clinton ended up with 58% of the vote, Sanders with 40%). As Heavy put it:

So far, most of the complaints are coming from people who wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders. They are alleging that if this wasn’t a technical problem or a glitch, perhaps a demographic was targeted or people on a donation list were targeted. However, it’s also possible that Hillary Clinton voters simply aren’t reporting problems they had since she was the winner in Arizona, therefore they have little motivation to complain about difficulties they encountered.

There are plenty of Clinton opponents calling foul, as it is well-known independent voters favor Sanders by massive margins and also appeals to Latinos.

One writer was enraged that Hillary was declared the winner with less than 1% of the vote reported and with many voters still waiting in line. He also drew attention to an NBC News report that showed 60% of early, mail-in voters were older women likely putting Hillary Clinton ahead, allegedly providing an incentive for the Clinton campaign to create low turnout on election day, keeping Bernie’s supporters — men and youths (as well as independents and Latinos) — away from the polls. NBC News said:

The early vote by women is dominated by older age groups. Voters under 30 account for only 7 percent of Democratic early voters compared to 41 percent for the over 65 crowd. The large number of women, particularly older women, who have already cast Democratic ballots, is a good sign for Hillary Clinton.

As of Wednesday afternoon, the petition had over 60,000 signatures. It needs 100,000 to receive an official reply from the White House.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

April 1, 2016–During a speech at the State University of New York on Friday morning, a hearty gust of wind lifted Hillary Clinton’s blouse about eight inches, revealing a six pack.

“I’ve been on a strict diet and exercise routine since Iowa,” Clinton told NYBC 4 after the speech. “High-intensity interval training. Heavy weight, low rep.”

Clinton is only the latest presidential candidate working to slim down in hopes of nabbing the Powerlifter vote, a key demographic, especially in the upcoming primaries in New England. Jeb Bush and Chris Christie put forth similar efforts, before they hung up their Harbinger Big Grip No Slip Weightlifting Straps and bowed out of the race for the Republican nomination.

Neither had as much success as Clinton. When Jeb Bush showed off his new body at a speech in New Hampshire in February he was forced to meekly ask an unimpressed gathering, “Please clap” — this was widely marked as the beginning of the end for his campaign.

“Hillary Clinton has consistently lagged behind her main Democratic rival in the power clean, deadlift, and leg press,” Bernie Sanders campaign spokesman Dean Waterston said in a press release after the breeze incident at SUNY, which some have already called Washboardgate. “It’s no surprise to us that the secretary would start high-intensity interval training at this stage of the campaign, it’s just disappointing it’s politically motivated. Senator Sanders has been lifting for decades, since his time at the University of Chicago.”

“Let me be perfectly clear,” Bernie Sanders told a reporter at Dalia’s Cafe in Soho, “Secretary Clinton’s Super PAC has received huge sums of money from the Supplemental Industry. The top tenth of 1% is not donating to her expecting nothing in return. We have to put an end to the reckless greed of Big Protein that is wrecking this economy.”

“I am so sick of these lies,” Clinton later snapped at a Louie’s Gym member at a campaign rally in Brooklyn on Friday afternoon. “I have never taken a single supplement to make these kinds of gains.”

Clinton is not the only one facing criticism, however. The Democratic National Committee is under fire from Bernie Sanders supporters concerned about what kind of advantage the supersets will give Clinton over Sanders when the race draws to a close. Clinton also leads Sanders in regular sets.

“She really looks great,” Bill Clinton said when pressed to comment on the incident. “She’s been working hard.” Chuckling, he continued, “Sometimes I spot her.”

Donald Trump, no stranger to controversy in this election, told a crowd of supporters in Wisconsin, “I shouldn’t say it, I feel bad saying it, believe me, but you have to wonder if Bill would have spent more time at home if Hillary had had abs like that a long time ago. I shouldn’t say that, I feel terrible. Terrible.”

Facing a firestorm of criticism, Trump later walked back the comment.

At about the same time, The Madison Times reported Ted Cruz broke his back going for a new wide-stance squat P.R. of 55 pounds.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.  

Tennessee’s Republican-led congress approved a bill on Monday, April 4, 2016, that would make the Holy Bible the official state book; it is unclear whether G.O.P. governor Bill Haslam will sign it into law, though he has said before he sees it as disrespectful and perhaps unconstitutional.

The bill’s sponsor, State Senator Steve Southerland, argues the Bible’s historical and cultural contributions to Tennessee makes it worthy of such a designation. The Tennessean writes Southerland made an “emotional plea in favor of the legislation,” even quoting one of his Jewish friends who supports the bill in an attempt to demonstrate people of minority faiths could get behind the idea.

In Tennessee, 3% of adults are of faiths other than Christianity and 14% are atheists, agnostics, or otherwise unaffiliated.

Opponents see the bill as a blatant “endorsement of religion” (Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery), a violation of precedents that separate church and state and establish secular government, including but not limited to the U.S. Constitution.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation called the bill a “supremely inappropriate attempt by zealous legislators to force Christian ideology upon all Tennesseans, regardless of their religious — or nonreligious — preferences” and implied the bill was illegal.

Some religious Republicans opposed the measure because they saw it as degrading the Bible; the senate majority leader even called it “sacrilegious.” The Bible would join other state symbols such as the official reptile (Eastern box turtle) and wild animal (raccoon).

Tennessee would be the first state to make the Bible its official state book. Lawmakers in Mississippi and Louisiana tried in 2015 but failed.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill may soon be the law of the land in Canada.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau supports the legislation introduced on Thursday, April 14, 2016. It is expected to be voted into law, as the Liberal Party controls most of the legislature. In February 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down a ban on assisted suicide for people with serious medical conditions, a ban upheld since 1993.

Americans would not be able to take advantage of the policy by heading north. According to The New York Times, “The proposed law limits physician-assisted suicides to Canadians and residents, who are eligible to participate in the national health care system, preventing a surge in medical tourism among the dying from other countries.”

Adult Canadians could get medical drugs from their doctors and end their lives by themselves or with family, or have their doctors help them at the hospital. A doctor would be required to refer people to other doctors if he or she personally objected to assisted suicide. Canadians with mental health issues would not be included in those eligible.

Germany, Japan, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Columbia, and other nations have legalized assisted suicide.

A matter of fierce debate over whether people deserve the right to kill themselves to end their suffering, this is as controversial in the United States as it is in Canada. Assisted suicide is legal in 5 states; one in six Americans can therefore legally end their lives in this manner.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

On Friday, April 15, 2016, Kshama Sawant — social justice activist, socialist, and Seattle city councilwoman — called for Bernie Sanders to form a new political party (or join the Green Party) and run as an independent if he does not clinch the Democratic nomination for president. Sawant launched a petition to gather support for the idea, not dissimilar from one created earlier on MoveOn.org.

Sawant wrote:

The stakes are too high to let this moment slip through our fingers… We can’t allow the corporate media, Wall Street PACs, and the Democratic Party establishment to derail this movement before the real presidential election even begins. An independent run by Bernie could open a new era in American politics if linked to building a new party for the 99% and laying the foundation for an ongoing mass political movement that runs hundreds of left candidates for all levels of government, independent of corporate cash.

In an article for Occupy Wall Street, Sawant declared that the “Democratic Party establishment is completely opposed to this political revolution,” in which Sanders is “a lightening rod for the enormous discontent at the billionaire class and its domination over the political system.”

Addressing concerns among many on the Left, including Bernie Sanders himself, that an independent run would draw votes away from Hillary Clinton and hand the Republicans the White House, Sawant suggests Sanders wouldn’t necessarily need to run to win, but rather build a force for future elections:

…there is no reason he could not at least run in the 40+ states where it’s absolutely clear the Democratic or Republican candidate will win, while not putting his name on the 5-10 closely contested “swing states”… The confidence and energy our youthful, working-class political revolution will turn into demoralization and disorganization if the movement is corralled into Clinton’s Wall Street funded campaign…

The Green Party is a third party (remember Ralph Nader?) that will be on the ballot in at least 20 states when the U.S. votes in November. Its platform closely aligns with Bernie Sanders’. Its “Four Pillars” are Peace (ending U.S. wars and its global military presence), Ecology (renewable energy), Social Justice (stronger wages for workers), and Democracy (expanding the voice of the people and getting money out of the political process).

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.