# data[].attributes.body
State of the Students is a nonpartisan student-led organization that serves to bridge the gap between students & their elected officials and encourage youth participation in the civic process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Educating and empowering students

OUR MISSION

Committed to growing youth engagement.

State of the Students is a nonpartisan student-led organization that serves to bridge the gap between students & their elected officials and encourage youth participation in the civic process. We believe that a functioning democracy starts with impactful, experiential civic education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State of the Students | Connecting, Leading, Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Educating and empowering students OUR MISSION Committed to growing youth engagement. State of the Students is a nonpartisan student-led organization that serves to bridge the gap between students & their elected officials and encourage youth participation in the civic process. We believe that a functioning democracy starts with impactful, experiential civic education.

# data[].attributes.body
Published by Ballotpedia, a digital encyclopedia of American politics and elections.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Electoral College is the process by which the states and District of Columbia elect the president of the United States. Each state and D.C. is represented by a number of electors equal to the size of its congressional delegation. There are 538 electors in total. To win the Electoral College, a candidate must receive a majority-at least 270-electoral votes.

The Electoral College will meet in mid-December to cast their votes after the general election on November 3, 2020. Although there is no constitutional provision or federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the election results in their state, electors typically vote for their state's popular vote winner. Some states have provisions permitting the disqualification and replacement of an elector whose vote deviates from the state's popular vote.

This page provides the following information about the Electoral College:

Electoral votes per state in the 2020 presidential election

The following map shows the number of electoral votes per state in the 2020 presidential election.

The following table lists the number of electoral votes per state in the 2020 presidential election.

The Framers of the Constitution struggled to determine an effective way of electing a president and debated a number of solutions, each with its own issues in a developing nation. Selection by voters, Congress, and state legislatures were considered. The following issues were raised for each option:

Direct election: Communication and transportation made campaigning nearly impossible, meaning candidates in highly populated areas would be favored due to local recognition.

Congressional election: Congressional election could lead to political bargaining and susceptibility to international influences.

State legislature election: State legislatures could lead to the erosion of federal powers because the president would show favor to the electors.

The Framers came up with a compromise by creating the Electoral College. Electors, equaling the number from each state's congressional delegation, would be chosen to cast the votes for president. Initially, each elector was given two votes. The candidate with the second-highest vote total was elected vice president. Each state's legislature was permitted to form the rules on how the electors were chosen. The original rules of the Electoral College included the following:

Electors were to meet separately in their states in order to mitigate brokering political deals.

Electors did not gather together to cast their votes.

At least one of the candidates had to be chosen from a state other than the elector's.

A vote equaling at least the majority of the number of the electors was required to elect a president.

The United States Congress set the dates to meet electors.

In the Constitution

The Framers included the formation of the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. The following text is a transcription of the Constitution in its original form. Sections that are linked have since been amended or superseded:

XII Amendment

The original rules did not establish separate votes for president and vice president. Instead, the winner was named president and the runner-up vice president. In 1800, this system resulted in a tie between both members of the Democratic-Republican ticket, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. The tie went to the United States House of Representatives to be resolved, which led to the passage of the 12th Amendment.

The 12th Amendment was ratified in 1804 and created the following rules:

Each state's electors were to meet in one location, but separate from other states' delegations.

The safe harbor provision was added. The provision provided that if a state's results were disputed and the state's legislature passed a procedure to resolve the issue, a finalized agreement can be made within six days prior to the election.

Votes for president and vice president were cast as separate ballots, and holding true to the Constitution, one of the votes had to be for someone outside of the elector's state.

The following text is a transcription of the 12th Amendment in its original form. Sections that are linked have since been amended or superseded:

"

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

"

XXIII Amendment

The 23rd Amendment was ratified in 1961. The amendment allocated electoral votes to the District of Columbia equal to the number of delegates it would have if it were a state, but not to exceed the number of votes given to the least populated state.

The 23rd Amendment reads as follows:

Eligibility

Each state is charged with establishing how electors are chosen. The only people barred from serving as electors by the Constitution are those who hold an "Office of Trust or Profit under the United States," including members of the legislature and judiciary, federal law enforcement officers and military personnel and other public employees of the federal government.

Elector nominations

Thirty-two states use state party conventions to nominate major party candidates to the position of elector. Five states use the state party's central committee to nominate candidates. Other methods include nomination by governor, nominations based on unspecified party, the use of primary elections and by the state's preferred presidential candidate. Minor party candidates have different state specified nominations.

Election of electors

Originally, the electors were chosen by the legislators in each state. However, voters now choose all electors nationwide. When voters go to the polls on election day, they cast votes for the electors who are nominated for each presidential candidate's party. In 48 of the 50 states, a "winner-take-all" system is used to determine where all of the state's electoral votes will go. Whichever party's electors receive the most votes get to allocate all of the state's votes to their chosen candidate for both president and vice president. The exceptions to the "winner-take-all" system are Maine and Nebraska. These states split the votes based on districts.

Faithless electors

The U.S. Constitution does not dictate how presidential electors are to cast their votes, but, in general, electors are expected to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state or the candidates of the party that nominated them to serve as electors. Electors who choose not to vote for the winner of the popular vote or the candidates of the party that nominated them are known as faithless electors. Faithless electors are rare. With more than 23,000 electoral votes cast since 1789, only 165 electors did not vote for their party's presidential or vice presidential nominee.

Several states have passed laws against faithless electors and require electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state, for the candidate of the party that nominated them to serve as electors, or in accordance with any pledge they may have been required to make at the time of their nomination. In states with these types of laws, faithless electors can be fined or replaced, or their votes can be nullified. As of 2016, no faithless elector had ever faced prosecution.

States with laws seeking to bind the votes of presidential electors include:

States without laws seeking to bind the votes of presidential electors include:

Faithless electors in the 2016 election

There were seven faithless electors in the 2016 election. Donald Trump was projected to win 306 votes, but two Republican electors in Texas voted for other individuals: Ohio Gov. John Kasich and 2012 presidential candidate and former Rep. Ron Paul. Trump won Texas by approximately 10 points. Electors from Texas cast their votes by secret ballot.

Chris Suprun, the elector who voted for Kasich, explained his vote in an op-ed for The Hill. "Never in American history has a president-elect presented more conflict of interest questions and foreign entanglements than Donald Trump. Surely, electors have a constitutional duty if, after the popular vote but before the electoral vote, there emerges credible evidence that they are electing someone who is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President," said Suprun. He encouraged his fellow electors to deny Trump the presidency, saying, "Stand up and be counted. History will remember what you do in this moment."

Four Democratic electors in Washington state did not vote for Hillary Clinton, who won the state by almost 16 points. Three electors voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell-who did not run for president in 2016. A fourth voted for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American tribal leader from South Dakota. The electors who voted for Powell said their votes were not against Clinton. One, for example, said that she voted for Powell "in the hopes that Democrats and Republicans could reconcile." The elector who voted for Faith Spotted Eagle, Robert Satiacum, said his vote was about environmental concerns. "It's all about the water. We need leaders who understand that," said Satiacum. Faith Spotted Eagle was instrumental in protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota throughout 2015 and 2016. Satiacum had said in early November 2016 that he would not vote for Clinton.

One Democratic elector in Hawaii voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, who ran against Clinton for the 2016 Democratic nomination. Clinton won Hawaii by 32 points in the general election. Sanders won the state's caucuses during the Democratic primaries by close to 40 points.

Arguments in favor of the Electoral College

Geographically distributed national support

Since no single region contains a majority of electoral votes, candidates cannot win by focusing only on regional issues while leaving other areas of the country out. It also encourages a candidate to select a running mate from a different region in order to build coalitions of states while campaigning. Those who support this theory suggest that even more important that winning a majority vote, is the ability to gain wide distribution of support across the country. In the event that the popular vote is very close, the thought is that the candidate with a wider distribution of support would beat a candidate with more popular support.

Enhanced minority influence

In states with concentrations of ethnic and racial minorities or special interest groups, often being states with high numbers of electoral votes, winning over those groups can swing an election due to the "winner-takes-all" system in the Electoral College. The votes of minority groups can carry more influence than their amount of votes would suggest.

Two party system stability

For a third party to win the presidency, they would need to have enough electoral votes to prevent a majority to any candidate and have enough U.S. House support to be elected over the two major party candidates. Because of this, the Electoral College process essentially forces third party voters to merge into one of the two major parties. Likewise, the two major parties, seeking the votes to win the election can mold their platforms to gain the votes of third party movements. The goal is to have two parties representing the centers of their respective platforms. Supporters of this theory suggest that extremists would have more incentive to campaign if the elections were based solely on popular vote, because if runoff elections were required to win the presidency, parties would tend toward more radical platforms to gain more support.

Maintains federal system of representation

As a requirement by the federal system of the United States, certain responsibilities must be left up to the states when it comes to representation in the federal government. The structure of the Electoral College provides the states the ability to determine the outcome of presidential elections, due to its similar setup to the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, balancing the power of smaller states with that of the most populous.

Arguments against the Electoral College

There are three possible ways a presidential candidate could lose the popular vote but still be elected as president.

If three candidates split the electoral votes in a way that none reach the majority required, either one candidate would have to withdraw from the race and give the support of his electors to another candidate, or the U.S. House of Representatives would be charged with electing the president, per the 12th Amendment.

If one candidate's support was heavily concentrated in more populous states, but another candidate's support is spread out geographically and by only a slim majority, a candidate receiving only a minority of the popular vote could win the electoral vote.

If a third party received enough votes that no candidate gets more than 50% of the popular vote, candidates can still be elected by a majority electoral vote. This is not uncommon in U.S. history and has happened 15 times.

Historical instances

In 1824, four candidates split the electoral college vote in a way that none received the majority. John Quincy Adams was elected president by the House even though Andrew Jackson received more electoral votes.

In 1836, the Whig Party ran three candidates in different areas of the country. Their thought was that the local candidates would win their party the majority of electoral votes at which time, they would choose amongst themselves who would be president. The Democratic-Republican candidate, Martin Van Buren, won the majority electoral vote and the presidency.

In 1876, Samuel J. Tilden (D) won the popular vote but lost the electoral majority by one vote to Rutherford B. Hayes (R).

In 1888, Grover Cleveland (D) won the popular vote but lost the electoral majority to Benjamin Harrison (R).

In 2000, Al Gore (D) won the popular vote but lost the electoral majority to George W. Bush (R).

In 2016, Hillary Clinton (D) won the popular vote but lost the electoral majority to Donald Trump (R).

"Faithless electors" possibility

While a "faithless elector" has never changed the outcome of an election, there have been seven instances of an elector casting a vote for a candidate other than for the one they pledged. This was often attributed not to the elector trying to sway the election a certain way but in trying to make a statement due to the rarity of the occurrence.

Depressed voter turnout

Since a candidate with a majority of the popular vote can still lose a presidential election, some argue it creates a disincentive to participate in the presidential election. No matter how high the voter turnout is, the state still receives the same amount of electoral votes for a presidential candidate. Others do not believe this is an issue because of the other offices at stake during any particular election day, from state offices to U.S. House and Senate seats.

Inaccurate reflection of the population

Because each state has a minimum of three electoral votes, votes from those in the least populated states count more toward the electoral vote than votes from those in more populous states. For instance, in 1988, the seven least populated states combined to count for as many electoral votes as Florida, yet the total population of those states was less than that of Florida.

Another example of the failure to provide an accurate reflection of the population is when it comes to third party candidates. If a third party candidate does not carry a majority in any state, they could carry a significant minority of the popular vote throughout the country, but they may not get a single electoral vote in the election.

Noteworthy events

Supreme Court rules states can enforce laws penalizing faithless electors (2020)

On July 6, 2020, the United States Supreme Court issued rulings in two connected cases that upheld the constitutionality of penalties for faithless electors. Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca were consolidated when originally granted review by the court. On March 10, 2020, the cases were no longer consolidated but remained linked.

In Chiafalo v. Washington, the state of Washington fined electors after they voted contrary to Washington state law requiring that they cast their electoral college ballots for the winner of the popular vote. The electors claimed the fines were unconstitutional and appealed them to an administrative law judge, who upheld the imposition of the fine. The electors appealed to the Thurston County Superior Court. The court affirmed the secretary of state's decision. On appeal to the Washington Supreme Court, the appellants moved for direct review. The state supreme court affirmed the ruling of the trial court, holding that the imposed fines were constitutional under Article II, section 1, that the electors were not granted absolute discretion in casting their votes under Article II or the Twelfth Amendment nor did the fine interfere with a federal function, and that an elector acts under the authority of the State, meaning that no First Amendment right is violated when a state imposes a fine based on an elector's violation of their pledge.

In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, electors made a similar argument to that of the plaintiffs in Chiafalo v. Washington. The case dated back to the 2016 presidential election when three of Colorado's presidential electors tried to cast their votes for candidates other than Hillary Clinton, who won the state. Then-Secretary of State Wayne Williams told the electors they must vote for Clinton or be removed. Two of the electors then opted to vote for Clinton, but one-Micheal Baca-would not and instead tried to vote for John Kasich. Baca was then removed and replaced with another elector. The three electors filed suit, claiming Baca's removal amounted to a deprivation of their rights. The case was eventually appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which determined that the nullification of Baca's vote and his removal from office were unconstitutional.

Both cases were argued before the Supreme Court on May 13, 2020. The court issued rulings for both cases on July 6, 2020, that upheld the constitutionality of penalties for faithless electors. In Chiafalo v. Washington, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Washington Supreme Court's decision, holding that a state may enforce an elector's pledge to support their party's nominee and the state voters' choice for president. In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision in an 8-0 per curiam decision for the reasons outlined in Chiafalo v. Washington.

Recent news

This section links to a Google news search for the term U.S. + Electoral + College

External links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Electoral College is the process by which the states and District of Columbia elect the president of the United States. Each state and D.C. is represented by a number of electors equal to the size of its congressional delegation. There are 538 electors in total.

# data[].attributes.body
History and facts about the Electoral College and it's relevance for the election outcome.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lots of people dream of becoming President of the United States. But to officially run for office, a person needs to meet three basic requirements established by the U.S. Constitution (Article 2, Section 1).

A Presidential candidate must be:

A natural born citizen (U.S. citizen from birth)

At least 35 years old and

A U.S. resident (permanently lives in the U.S.) for at least 14 years

Step 1: Primaries and Caucuses
People with similar ideas usually belong to the same political party. The two main parties in the U.S. are Republican and Democrat.

Many people want to be President. They campaign around the country and compete to try to win their party's nomination.

In caucuses, party members meet, discuss, and vote for who they think would be the best party candidate.

In primaries, party members vote in a state election for the candidate they want to represent them in the general election.
Step 2: National Conventions and General Election
After the primaries and caucuses, each major party, Democrat and Republican, holds a national convention to select a Presidential nominee.

The party's Presidential nominee announces his or her choice for Vice President.

The Presidential candidates campaign throughout the country to win the support of the general population.

On election day, people in every state cast their vote .
Step 3: The Electoral College
When people cast their vote, they are actually voting for a group of people called electors.

The number of electors each state gets is equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. A total of 538 electors form the Electoral College.

Each elector casts one vote following the general election. The candidate who gets 270 votes or more wins.

The newly elected President and Vice President are then inaugurated on January 20th.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lots of people dream of becoming President of the United States. But to officially run for office, a person needs to meet three basic requirements established by the U.S. Constitution (Article 2, Section 1). A Presidential candidate must be: A natural born citizen (U.S. citizen from birth) At least 35 years old and A U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
In this episode from the New York Times Daily podcast, Jesse Wegman, a member of The Times’s editorial board, describes how the winner-take-all system came about and how the Electoral College could be modified.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
transcript

michael barbaro

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is "The Daily."

In two of the past five presidential elections, the Electoral College has awarded the White House to the loser of the popular vote, raising questions about the legitimacy of how America picks its leader. Editorial board member, Jesse Wegman, on the origins of that system and just how close America came to dismantling it.

It's Thursday, October 22.

Jesse, I think by now everyone understands that President Trump won the White House four years ago by losing the popular vote and winning the Electoral College vote, but can you remind us of the specific math involved in that split.

jesse wegman

Sure. I mean, what's amazing about it is he didn't just lose the popular vote, he lost it by a huge number. Nearly 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump in 2016. And yet, because of 77,000 votes in just three states in the upper Midwest - Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin - Donald Trump wins the entire presidency.

michael barbaro

The math there is very hard to wrap your head around. 77,000 somehow outweighing 3 million.

jesse wegman

It's smaller than the size of a college football stadium. And it decided the election for the entire country.

michael barbaro

Which is a legitimately strange way to conduct a nationwide presidential election. And I think the question everyone has and what we want to talk to you about is how we developed such a peculiar system in the United States for picking a president. One that allows for the popular vote, the majority's will, to be ignored or outvoted by a minority of voters. And it turns out you are an expert in this area, pretty much the expert in this area. So tell us that story.

jesse wegman

All right so in 1787, the framers who come to Philadelphia to design our new Constitution had no idea how to pick the leader of a self-governing republic. No one had done it before, certainly not on this scale. And they argued about it almost from the first day to the last day of the constitutional convention, four months over the summer of 1787. Their concern was that most people wouldn't know national political candidates. They knew the people in their local communities because that's where they lived, that's where they spent all their time. They didn't travel. They didn't have national media. So they wouldn't know political candidates on the national level. So that leads to this intermediary body of what they called electors.

michael barbaro

Jesse, who are these electors? And what is their precise role in picking the president?

jesse wegman

Well, the idea that the framers had was that they would be this body of elite well-educated men, people who had been mayors or judges or war generals. And that they would come together, and they would deliberate and decide for themselves who was the fittest person to be the president of the United States.

michael barbaro

And so to some degree, it might just be based on their preferences.

jesse wegman

Right. Well, it's interesting the Constitution is actually silent on this matter. What the Constitution does provide for his how many electors each state gets. And it's a simple mathematical calculus. A state gets the number of electors as it has members of Congress and its two senators. So you just add those two numbers together, and that's the number of state gets. Beyond that, the Constitution left everything up to the states. The state legislatures could decide for themselves how to choose these electors, how to award them to the candidates. It was all up to them. They didn't have to give the voters of their state any say at all in choosing the president. So in the end, voters themselves have no constitutional right to play any role at all in the selection of the president.

michael barbaro

Right. So from the start this is envisioned as a pretty elite and removed group of people, who have been entrusted by the framers to make this decision on behalf of voters, who are basically cut out of this process. That's the Electoral College at its birth.

jesse wegman

Exactly. The founders themselves were elite white men. And so it was natural for them to think that they were the best to decide. Many of them were slave holders. And I think that reminds us of one of the most egregious examples of how the Electoral College was not representative of the people. Remember, one of the key compromises that the Constitution was the 3/5 clause. And that was the clause that allowed the slave-holding states to count their slaves as 3/5 of a white person for the purposes of representation in Congress. That transfers over into the Electoral College. And that extra power is hugely important. It gives the slave-holding states an extra 12 or more electors in the Electoral College.

michael barbaro

And again, seems to highlight, just how disconnected the Electoral College is from any modern understanding of democracy and letting the people pick the president.

jesse wegman

Exactly.

michael barbaro

So Jesse, how do we get from this version of the Electoral College - so divorced from voters - to something closer to what we have today, in which voters do play a meaningful role in how the Electoral College works?

jesse wegman

Well, in the early years, states were experimenting with all sorts of different methods of using the Electoral College. But within a few decades, they had very quickly shifted to letting the people of their state, the eligible voters anyway, vote for the electors and then awarding those electors in a manner called winner-take-all. And it was in placed largely by the early 1820s.

michael barbaro

So explain winner-take-all as a concept.

jesse wegman

Sure. I mean, it means exactly what it sounds like, which is that a state gives all of its electors, 100 percent of them, to whichever candidate gets the most votes in that state. And what that means is every voter in that state who voted for somebody other than that candidate is essentially erased when the electors cast their ballots.

michael barbaro

So this is more or less the system we still have to this day?

jesse wegman

Yes, that's right.

michael barbaro

So this winner-take-all system, this is not something envisioned by the framers. It seems like it kind of came to us in a pretty haphazard way.

jesse wegman

Right. People like to imagine that the system that we used today was handed down to us from the framers. And in fact, the framers didn't talk at all about the winner-take-all rule. It didn't come up at the convention. And when they saw it start to be adopted in the states in the early 1800s, they were horrified. James Madison, the man we think of as the father of the Constitution, tried to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of winner-take-all rule because he saw how corrosive it was to erase up to half of voters in the state.

michael barbaro

It sounds like he didn't succeed.

jesse wegman

He didn't.

michael barbaro

So Americans more or less make peace with this winner-take-all system even though it is routinely discounting tons of votes for the losing presidential candidate.

jesse wegman

That's right. And what's also happening in the same time is that an American democracy that in the earliest years only represented a tiny percentage of people, is expanding consistently. So even as you have that Electoral College with the winner-take-all rule, you are also expanding American democracy at the same time. You have a Civil War to end slavery and to make citizens and voters of Black Americans. You have the women's suffrage movement, which results in giving the vote to half of the adult population who didn't have it before. All of these things are making American democracy a truer and fuller expression of the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. And meanwhile, in the background, you have this Electoral College system with the winner-take-all rule that is consistently eliminating millions of Americans votes.

michael barbaro

Right. But it sounds like that inconsistency is not so present in the civic discourse.

jesse wegman

That's right. Nobody really talks about it or even understands it until the 1960s, when the Civil Rights Movement burst into full bloom. And suddenly, Americans are thinking about their democracy in an entirely new way.

jesse wegman

And then into the middle of all of this upheaval -

jesse wegman

Comes a first-term senator from Indiana named Birch Bayh.

jesse wegman

Starting in 1966, Senator Bayh begins an effort to abolish the Electoral College by constitutional amendment.

jesse wegman

He sees it as the last step in that arc of democratization.

jesse wegman

So he begins holding hearings. He begins talking to experts.

jesse wegman

By 1968, 80 percent of Americans are onboard. They want a national popular vote for president.

jesse wegman

This includes Republicans. It includes Democrats. Everybody is onboard.

jesse wegman

Bayh did something that no one in American history had done to that point, which was he tied the Electoral College's inequalities to the expanding equality of the representative democracy. And that was the moment at which everyone saw it most clearly and thought, we need a new system. So finally, we have the election of 1968. And that was the last straw for the Electoral College for most Americans. Because what happened in that election is that the race between the Democrat, Hubert Humphrey, and the Republican, Richard Nixon, was nearly thrown into chaos by a third party candidate named George Wallace.

jesse wegman

He was the governor of Alabama and a staunch segregationist.

jesse wegman

And in the late 1960s, he doesn't really have a political party anymore. He runs as a third party insurgent.

jesse wegman

His goal wasn't to win the presidency himself. He knew he couldn't do that.

archived recording (george wallace)

Well, let me say this, that, yes, I'm in the race to spoil, but not to spoil in the sense that you're talking about - is to spoil a chances of both national parties electing a president.

archived recording

Well, let's try this.

archived recording (george wallace)

And that's, of course, what we are doing.

jesse wegman

And what he wanted to do was to stop Nixon and Humphrey from winning an electoral college majority and thus force them to cut deals with him in exchange for his support.

archived recording (george wallace)

So we have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

archived recording

OK, Governor. Let's ask another hypothetical -

jesse wegman

It was actually a brilliant plan to weaponize the mechanism and the design of the electoral college to enhance the power of segregationists in the South over everybody else in the country.

michael barbaro

So Wallace's candidacy was designed to deliberately exploit the weaknesses, the vulnerabilities, the quirks of the Electoral College system, it feels like, dating back all the way to the 3/5 compromise in the way that it gives the South a lot of sway.

jesse wegman

Exactly. So Wallace's candidacy fails in the end. But he got close enough -

jesse wegman

- that millions and millions of Americans were completely horrified at the system that they had for electing the president.

jesse wegman

Then you get to late 1968, early 1969. Even Richard Nixon, who is now the president who won under the electoral college, is on board with eliminating it and replacing it with the popular vote. There is an unprecedented push to abolish the Electoral College through an amendment to the Constitution. Senator Bayh leads this push. But remember, to get a constitutional amendment passed, you need to get it through both houses of Congress with 2/3 support. And then you need 3/4 of the states, 38 states, to ratify it. So that's a pretty heavy lift. But in late 1969, the House of Representatives, for the first time in American history, passes an amendment overwhelmingly to abolish the Electoral College, replace it with a popular vote. It looks like there is support in close to enough states to ratify this. The only hurdle remaining is the Senate.

michael barbaro

And so what happens in the Senate?

jesse wegman

The amendment gets filibustered to death. Three Southern segregationist senators lead the charge to essentially block any debate on the Electoral College. And they end up killing it a year later in September of 1970.

michael barbaro

And why would these segregationist senators care so much about blocking this amendment?

jesse wegman

Well, remember, the country in the 1960s is going through these massive political and racial upheavals where Jim Crow is finally being killed off through the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. These guys, who are the descendants of slave holders themselves, had gotten used to their Black voters not existing. Because of winner-take-all, you know, there's a majority of white people in the state. They knew that they would always control their state's voice in the vote for president. And if you had a popular vote for president, they knew that those Black people in their state would have just as much voice in choosing the president as they did.

michael barbaro

So three senators from states that have long benefited heavily from the outsized power of their presence in the Electoral College and who supported, it sounds like, segregation, they block the will of the majority of Americans to create a voting system in which the will of a majority of Americans would become the method for picking a president?

jesse wegman

That's right. And the best effort we've ever had in American history to abolish the Electoral College, to elect the president by a popular vote and vindicate the principles of the Declaration of Independence, dies on the floor of the Senate in a filibuster in September of 1970. We've never gotten that close again.

[music]

michael barbaro

We'll be right back.

So Jesse, if there was such broad and bipartisan consensus about the need to scrap the Electoral College in the 1970s, why is nothing ever done over the next five decades? Presumably, these segregationist senators leave the Senate. So how is it that that consensus you just described unravels so quickly?

jesse wegman

Well, one answer is that the public energy for massive large scale electoral reform doesn't linger for long. Right? There are bursts of it. And then it dies out quickly. So you really have to take advantage of this, as Birch Bayh, I think, understood and tried to do. But when that effort failed, it was very hard to rekindle the spirit. The other factor here is that the Electoral College lined up with the popular vote in all of the years from 1970 onward. So Americans don't really see the distortions caused by the winner-take-all rule. It looks like a system that's basically working. Then we get to 2000.

archived recording 1

From Channel 10, this is Eyewitness News.

archived recording 2

Tonight George W. Bush is preparing his move to the White House while Al Gore says, not so fast.

jesse wegman

So in 2000, remember that we knew on election night Al Gore had won the popular vote in the country by what ended up being about half a million votes.

michael barbaro

Right.

jesse wegman

But because of that winner-take-all rule in the Electoral College, Florida, which was an extremely close state -

jesse wegman

- ends up going to George W. Bush by just 537 popular votes.

michael barbaro

Right.

jesse wegman

Those 537 votes end up giving George W. Bush all 25 of Florida's electors.

jesse wegman

Zero go to Al Gore. That's the winner-take-all rule in action.

jesse wegman

So suddenly Americans realize, oh, our system for picking the president really is screwy.

jesse wegman

We are letting people win the White House who have lost the popular vote in the whole country.

michael barbaro

But of course, we know that this did not lead to a major set of reforms around the Electoral College.

jesse wegman

Yes.

michael barbaro

But I wonder why that was, Jesse. Because it would seem like a moment in which there's a major split between the Electoral College and a popular vote would revive that 1970s appetite for change.

jesse wegman

Well, there was shock. And there was outrage about how that election went. But remember, within nine months, the September 11 attacks happen. Then you have the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq. And Americans basically get distracted and focus on other issues. Until 2016 -

jesse wegman

- when the same thing happens again.

archived recording 1

Trump carried at least 279 Electoral College votes to Clinton's 218.

archived recording 2

Because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost three million votes.

jesse wegman

But this time, the popular vote loser loses by six times as much as happened in 2000.

michael barbaro

And yet, Jesse, once again, there is not a serious effort at reforming this deeply flawed system.

jesse wegman

Well now, twice in 16 years, the same party has benefited from the Electoral College and the winner-take-all rule. And the same party has suffered from it. So it really seems like a partisan issue now in a way that it never had before. Before Election Day 2000, this was not a partisan issue. But by 2016, it looks to all of us today, like, oh, of course, Republicans like the Electoral College and Democrats don't. The truth is that people like the Electoral College when they think it's going to help them win. And I think that is now the biggest hurdle to any kind of reform.

michael barbaro

Right. Because what incentive does half the country, anybody who is a Republican Party member, have to reform the system that keeps giving them an outsized place in picking a president?

jesse wegman

And that's the unfortunate thing. Although I think that the key thing that people need to remember is that the Electoral College hurts basically everybody. When winner-take-all is used, it creates two kinds of states. It creates safe states, which are most states - states where nothing that any candidate does is going to change the outcome. Those states get completely ignored. Their interests get ignored. Their fears get ignored. The candidates don't pay attention to them. The only states that matter are the states we call battleground states.

michael barbaro

Right.

jesse wegman

Because those are the states where a candidate can actually move enough votes to switch all of the electors in that state from one pot to the other. And as a result, candidates focus all of their attention, all of their advertising dollars, all of their policy platforms on the interests of voters in those states, and sometimes on just a sliver of voters. I mean, look at what happened at the debates.

archived recording (mike pence)

You yourself said, on multiple occasions, when you were running for president, that you would ban fracking.

archived recording (kamala harris)

So first of all, I will repeat, and the American people know, that Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact.

archived recording (mike pence)

More taxes, more regulation, banning fracking, abolishing fossil fuels.

jesse wegman

The candidates spent 5 or 10 minutes debating fracking and who was supporting fracking and who didn't support fracking. I mean, fracking is an important issue. But it's not that important that they should have ignored all the other issues that other states care about, such as climate change or things that matter to tens of millions of Americans. Instead, we're talking endlessly about this issue that affects a relatively small number of people, mostly in Western Pennsylvania, which happens to be a battleground state.

michael barbaro

So you're saying while people may view the Electoral College right now as a red issue or a blue issue, as a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, you're saying anyone who doesn't live in a battleground state - in a Pennsylvania or a Wisconsin or a Florida - should be upset with the system and feel invested in remaking it, because of the way that it not just cancels out their vote, but cancels out their presence in the presidential race and their interest in how a president governs for four years?

jesse wegman

That's exactly right. And that's roughly 80 percent of Americans who don't live in battleground states. And yet, who should count just as much as those who do live there. Why should a New Yorker's vote or a Texan's vote or a Californian's vote count less than, say, someone in Florida or Michigan or Wisconsin? It makes no sense. The president represents all Americans equally, no matter where they live. And yet because we have these winner-take-all rules, presidents can effectively act as battleground state presidents.

michael barbaro

Presidents for literally six states.

jesse wegman

Exactly.

michael barbaro

But Jesse, even if lots of Americans - the 80 percent you just mentioned - do become offended by this system, wake up and say, I want to toss out the Electoral College, there's still the issue of just how much bipartisan support would be required to do it in Congress and in the states, and Republican lawmakers, no doubt, being quite resistant to that.

jesse wegman

It's true. But remember, the winner-take-all law is a state law. They can change those laws whenever they like. And if they do that, we can actually get to a popular vote for the president without touching the Constitution.

michael barbaro

So you're saying there's a workaround to what Senator Bayh tried in the 1970s that would effectively get you to where many people want to go?

jesse wegman

Well, I wouldn't call it a work around. There's an idea of how to do it differently, which has been circulating among the states for the last 15 years or so. This is called The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. And this is states agreeing to award their electors differently. They give all of their electors to the candidate who wins the most votes in all 50 states and D.C. combined. And what that means is, the candidate who wins the popular vote becomes the president. And it kicks in when states representing a majority of electoral votes join.

michael barbaro

How many states representing how many Electoral College votes have joined this agreement so far?

jesse wegman

Right now, there are 15 states plus D.C. that have joined. And they total, together, 196 electoral votes. So they're 74 votes short of the 270 you need to become president. So with states representing 74 more electoral votes, this agreement would take effect and would elect the president by, effectively, a national popular vote.

michael barbaro

Hm. I'm curious which states you think might get this compact to that 270. And are they controlled by Republican legislatures?

jesse wegman

So that's part of the problem. Right now, all the states that have joined this agreement are led by Democrats. And so it looks, from the surface, like a Democratic plot to overtake the election and to install Democrats in the White House. But actually, in 2016, there were three Republican-led states that were on the cusp of joining this agreement. And then we had the election and everybody ran back to their partisan corners.

michael barbaro

So once again, and this is a familiar feeling in this conversation, we're hitting a wall, where it looks like America is going to be stuck with this winner take all Electoral College system for the foreseeable future.

jesse wegman

It does look like that. I agree. But I think it's really important to remember that states do change over time. And right now what we're seeing is some really big and important Republican majority states are shifting demographically in ways that are very likely going to turn them into Democratic majority states in the very near future. Texas has 38 electoral votes. It is the biggest prize for Republicans right now, every four years. And Texas is going to turn blue. It's probably not going to happen this year. But I think it's very possible that it happens in 2024 or 2028. The fact that we're talking about it at all this year should freak Republicans out. Because suddenly, they are going to become the minority in their state in the presidential election, and their votes will now be erased completely from that tally, the way that Democrats' votes are now. If Republicans can't win Texas, I think their paths to an Electoral College victory are basically eliminated.

michael barbaro

But then the question becomes, would Democratic support for keeping the system start to grow? Would they forget the wounds of 2000 and 2016 if suddenly the system begins to win for them?

jesse wegman

I think that's always a risk. And it's what we've seen in the past. I think, at this point, given the traumas of 2000 and 2016, Democrats are not going to so quickly jump back on board with the Electoral College. I think they've seen how much damage it causes close enough in history that they will stick with this reform.

michael barbaro

Hm. So in your head, sometime soon - maybe it's next year, maybe it's four years from now, maybe it's eight years or 16 years - the electoral wounds suffered by both parties will lead Republicans and Democrats in each state to decide the system really doesn't work, and sign up for this state-by-state compact that would assign Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote. That's how you see this playing out over time.

jesse wegman

Exactly. So then I think, you know, we're 230 years into this system of electing the president. When does it end? When do we change it? And I mean, I just think it's going to have to be when both parties have suffered enough in a short enough time period that they realize that it doesn't help anybody. And then I think we have the opening to switch to a system in which everybody counts equally, and everybody's vote matters. And the person who gets the most votes in the country wins the election.

michael barbaro

So when there is enough back-to-back pain for both parties is when this all finally changes?

jesse wegman

Yes. I would like to say that everyone believes in political equality and majority rule and these grand principles of representative democracy. But in the end, it comes down to people suffering enough that they want to change the system.

michael barbaro

Well, Jesse, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

jesse wegman

Thank you.

michael barbaro

We'll be right back.

Here's what else you need to know today. The maker of OxyContin, Purdue Pharma, has agreed to settle a major case brought by the federal government, by pleading guilty to criminal charges and paying penalties of up to $8.3 billion. The case revolves around illegal payments that Purdue made to doctors so that they would prescribe its painkillers, including OxyContin, a highly addictive drug responsible for thousands of deadly overdoses across the country. Purdue has demanded that the federal charges against it be resolved before it reaches an even larger settlement with thousands of cities, tribes, states and individuals, who claim that the company's aggressive marketing of OxyContin directly hurt them and their communities. And in his latest embrace of gay people, Pope Francis appeared to break with the position of the Roman Catholic Church by supporting civil unions for same-sex couples. Officially, church teachings consider homosexual acts, quote, "disordered." And the church is opposed to gay marriage. But in comments made to a documentary filmmaker, Francis unexpectedly called for a civil union law to protect gay couples.

That's it for "The Daily." I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.

In two of the past five presidential elections, the Electoral College awarded the White House to the loser of the popular vote. Is the system broken?

Hosted by Michael Barbaro; produced by Luke Vander Ploeg, Rachel Quester, Leslye Davis and Rachelle Bonja; and edited by M.J. Davis Lin.

The winner-take-all system used by the Electoral College in the United States appears nowhere in the Constitution. It awards all of a state's electors to the candidate with the most votes, no matter how small the margin of victory. Critics say that means millions of votes are effectively ignored.

The fairness of the Electoral College was seriously questioned in the 1960s. Amid the civil rights push, changes to the system were framed as the last step of democratization. But a constitutional amendment to introduce a national popular vote for president was eventually killed by segregationist senators in 1970.

Desire for an overhaul dwindled until the elections of 2000 and 2016, when the system's flaws again came to the fore. In both instances, the men who became president had lost the popular vote.

Jesse Wegman, a member of The Times's editorial board, describes how the winner-take-all system came about and how the Electoral College could be modified.

Jesse Wegman, a member of The New York Times's editorial board.

Image

In the 1960s and 1970s, Senator Birch Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, led the push to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote. Credit... Charles Bennett/Associated Press

There are a lot of ways to listen to 'The Daily.' Here's how.
We want to hear from you. Tune in, and tell us what you think. Email us at thedaily@nytimes.com. Follow Michael Barbaro on Twitter: @mikiebarb. And if you're interested in advertising with "The Daily," write to us at thedaily-ads@nytimes.com.

Jesse Wegman contributed reporting.

"The Daily" is made by Theo Balcomb, Andy Mills, Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Annie Brown, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa Anderson, Wendy Dorr, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, Kelly Prime, Sindhu Gnanasambandan, M.J. Davis Lin, Austin Mitchell, Neena Pathak, Dan Powell, Dave Shaw, Sydney Harper, Daniel Guillemette, Hans Buetow, Robert Jimison, Mike Benoist, Bianca Giaever, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi and Rachelle Bonja. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Mikayla Bouchard, Lauren Jackson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Nora Keller, Sofia Milan and Desiree Ibekwe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
transcript michael barbaro From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is "The Daily." In two of the past five presidential elections, the Electoral College has awarded the White House to the loser of the popular vote, raising questions about the legitimacy of how America picks its leader.

# data[].attributes.body
A 10--episode series where experts address the question: “How can American democracy survive and thrive in our toxic information environment?” Hosted by the News Literacy Project.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Influencers have come to dominate our social media feeds by projecting an authenticity that lends them credibility in today's media landscape. But behind the scenes lies a complex marketing system designed to promote the brands that support the livelihoods of these influencers that is often less than transparent. In our latest episode we speak with Emily Hund, author of The Influencer Industry: The Quest for Authenticity on Social Media, about the evolution of social media influencers and how disparate events like rapid advances in technology and the decline of traditional news outlets have boosted their prevalence and impact since their emergence during the Great Recession.
AVAILABLE ON:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Influencers have come to dominate our social media feeds by projecting an authenticity that lends them credibility in today's media landscape. But behind the scenes lies a complex marketing system designed to promote the brands that support the livelihoods of these influencers that is often less than transparent.

# data[].attributes.body
Read articles in the news media from different political perspectives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AllSides Headline Roundups™ bring you top news stories from the left, center and right of the political spectrum - side-by-side so you can see the full picture.

We rotate the order of headlines to avoid biasing our coverage in favor of the left, which otherwise would always be listed first.

Learn how AllSides provides balanced news

MSNBC (Left bias) announced it's canceling opinion commentator Mehdi Hasan's Sunday night show on Thursday, drawing opinions from journalists and media outlets. For Context: Hasan is known...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AllSides | Balanced news via media bias ratings for an unbiased news perspective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We use media bias ratings to provide balanced news, perspectives and issues across the political spectrum. Unbiased news coverage doesn't exist - there is no such thing as unbiased news or t

# data[].attributes.body
Published by ABC news, this website focuses on opinion poll analysis, politics, economics, and sports blogging.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight delivers analysis of politics from campaign fundraising to election day and beyond.

# data[].attributes.body
An interactive map that enables you to create your own 2020 Election forecast by looking at the electoral map of the states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This isn't a popularity contest™

It will take 270 electoral votes to win the 2024 presidential election. Click states on this interactive map to create your own 2024 election forecast. Create a specific match-up by clicking the party and/or names near the electoral vote counter. Use the buttons below the map to share your forecast or embed it into a web page.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
270toWin - 2024 Presidential Election Interactive Map

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create your own forecast for the 2024 presidential election

# data[].attributes.body
Pick your topic! This database contains breaking news and features about the critical issues - including the election - we face today. Includes news articles from major newspaper, documents, statistics, and videos.
You get direct access when you are on campus. When you are off campus, go to the Topics tile of the Library Lounge to see the username and password for this database.

# data[].attributes.body
Current and previous news articles, social media postings, videos, and infographics on all issues. You get direct access when you are on campus. When you are off campus, go to the Topics tile of the Library Lounge to see the username and password for this database.

# data[].attributes.body
An overview from the Anti-Defamation League explaining the history and actions of the Antifa movement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Antifa is not a unified group; it is loose collection of local/regional groups and individuals. Their presence at a protest is intended to intimidate and dissuade racists, but the use of violent measures by some antifa against their adversaries can create a vicious, self-defeating cycle of attacks, counter-attacks and blame.

# data[].attributes.body
Defining Extremism: A Glossary of White Supremacist Terms, Movements and Philosophies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A concept used to describe religious, social or political belief systems that exist substantially outside of belief systems more broadly accepted in society (i.e., "mainstream" beliefs). Extreme ideologies often seek radical changes in the nature of government, religion or society. Extremism can also be used to refer to the radical wings of broader movements, such as the anti-abortion movement or the environmental movement. Not every extremist movement is "bad"-the abolitionist movement is one example of an extreme movement that had admirable goals-but most extremist movements exist outside of the mainstream because many of their views or tactics are objectionable.

The alt right (short for "alternative right") is a segment of the white supremacist movement consisting of a loose network of racists and antisemites who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of politics that embrace implicit or explicit racism, antisemitism and white supremacy. Many seek to re-inject such bigoted ideas into the conservative movement in the United States. The alt right also includes many racist users of image boards and message forums such as 4chan, 8chan and Reddit who enjoy harassing or "trolling" people who disagree with their views.

Christian Identity is a religious sect and one of the longstanding segments of the white supremacist movement. Its beliefs center on a racist and antisemitic variation of British-Israelism or Anglo-Israelism, which teaches that people of European ancestry are actually descended from the so-called "Lost Tribes" of ancient Israel and are thus the chosen people of God. Identity believers claim that non-whites were created by God not when God made "man," but rather when he created the "beasts of the field," and they refer to non-whites as "mud peoples." Many Identity adherents furthermore believe that Jews are descended from Satan through a sexual liaison between Eve and the serpent. They are not Christian fundamentalists, who strongly oppose their views.

Terrorism is a pre-planned act or attempted act of significant violence by one or more non-state actors in order to further an ideological, social or religious cause, or to harm perceived opponents of such causes. Significant violent acts can include bombings or use of other weapons of mass destruction, assassinations and targeted killings, shooting sprees, arsons and firebombings, kidnappings and hostage situations and, in some cases, armed robberies. Domestic terrorism consists of acts or attempted acts of terrorism in which the perpetrators are citizens or permanent residents of the country in which the act takes place and are not members or agents of foreign or international terrorist organizations.

The term "extreme right" is used to describe right-wing political, social and religious movements that exist outside of and are more radical than mainstream conservatism. In the United States, the extreme right consists primarily of two large, slightly overlapping spheres. In one sphere is the white supremacist movement, including its various submovements, such as neo-Nazis, racist skinheads, and the alt right, among others. In the other sphere are anti-government extremist movements such as the militia movement and sovereign citizens (collectively, this sphere is often referred to as the "Patriot" movement). Also in the extreme right are several "single-issue" movements, which each tend to be the extreme wing of a more mainstream conservative movement; these include anti-abortion extremists, anti-immigrant extremists, anti-Muslim extremists, and anti-public lands extremists, among others.

See Extreme Right; the terms are synonymous.

See Extreme Right; the terms are mostly synonymous. However, because some people use the term "far right" to also incorporate some aspects of mainstream conservatism, the term is more vague than extreme right or radical right and thus is not preferred.

A hate crime is a criminal act against a person or property in which the perpetrator chooses the victim because of the victim's real or perceived race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability or gender. Some state-level statutory definitions in the United States may include additional (or fewer) categories. Hate crime and hate speech are not synonymous and most hate speech is not hate crime.

An organization whose goals and activities are primarily or substantially based on a shared antipathy towards people of one or more other different races, religions, ethnicities/nationalities/national origins, genders, and/or sexual identities. The mere presence of bigoted members in a group or organization is typically not enough to qualify it as a hate group; the group itself must have some hate-based orientation/purpose.

Holocaust Denial is a type of antisemitic propaganda that emerged after World War II and which uses pseudo-history to deny the reality of the systematic mass murder of six million Jews by the Nazis and their allies during World War II. Holocaust deniers generally claim that the Holocaust never happened, or that some much smaller number of Jews did die, but primarily to diseases like typhus. They also claim that legitimate accounts of the Holocaust are merely propaganda or lies generated by Jews for their own benefit.

Asatru is a religious sect that attempts to revive ancient Norse religious beliefs and practices of pre-Christian Europe. Asatru is not, in itself, a racist religion, though some white supremacists consider themselves Asatruists. Other white supremacists have adopted a more explicitly racial form of Asatru that is most frequently termed Odinism (sometimes Wotanism). It appeals to white supremacists because it is a "warrior religion" in contrast to the ostensibly pacifist Christianity, and because they consider it a "tribal" religion for people of European descent, as opposed to the more universal Christianity, which was also descended from Judaism. Odinists and racist Asatruers will often describe themselves as racialist, tribal or folkish.

Neo-Nazis are one of the main segments of the white supremacist movement in the United States and many other countries. They revere Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany and sometimes try to adopt some Nazi principles to their own times and geographic locations, though many neo-Nazis primarily adopt the trappings, symbology and mythology of the Third Reich.

Racist skinheads are a variation of the skinhead subculture that arose in Great Britain the late 1960s and early 1970s and have come to compose one of the major segments of the white supremacist movement in the United States. In contrast to "traditional" skinheads or anti-racist skinheads, racist or "white power" skinheads adopt many neo-Nazi beliefs and trappings. At the same time, they share many common elements of the skinhead subculture, such as head shaving, clothing, tattoos and symbols, rituals, and music.

Traditional white supremacists are one of the major segments of the white supremacist movement in the United States, as well as the oldest. The term is used to refer to a variety of groups and individuals whose white supremacy centers around or originated from the struggle to deny equal rights to African-Americans. Ku Klux Klan groups are the most common type of traditional white supremacist, but the movement also includes other groups, such as the Council of Conservative Citizens, the League of the South, and others.

"White Genocide" is a term coined by white supremacists for propaganda purposes as shorthand for one of the most deeply held modern white supremacist convictions: that the white race is "dying" due to growing non-white populations and "forced assimilation," all of which are deliberately engineered and controlled by a Jewish conspiracy to destroy the white race. This same conviction can be seen in the so-called "14 Words" slogan, the most popular white supremacist slogan around the globe: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." White supremacists commonly claim that they must take action, even violent action, or the "white race" will "perish from the Earth."

White nationalism is a term that originated among white supremacists as a euphemism for white supremacy. Eventually, some white supremacists tried to distinguish it further by using it to refer to a form of white supremacy that emphasizes defining a country or region by white racial identity and which seeks to promote the interests of whites exclusively, typically at the expense of people of other backgrounds.

"White Power" is a white supremacist slogan designed to mimic the "black power" slogan often used by African- Americans in the 1960s/70s. It is a commonly shouted at white supremacist events as a racist rallying cry.

"White Pride" is a white supremacist slogan appropriated from expressions of ethnic pride by various minority groups in the United States. White supremacists often use the slogan, or variations thereof, to deny any racism on their part, claiming that they are merely exhibiting "white pride."

White separatism is a form of white supremacy that emphasizes the idea that white people should exist separately from all inferior, non-white races, whether by establishing an all-white community somewhere or removing non-whites from their midst. Some white supremacists also use the phrase because they believe it may be more benignly perceived by others than the term "white supremacist."

White supremacy is a term used to characterize various belief systems central to which are one or more of the following key tenets: 1) whites should have dominance over people of other backgrounds, especially where they may co- exist; 2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society; 3) white people have their own "culture" that is superior to other cultures; 4) white people are genetically superior to other people. As a full-fledged ideology, white supremacy is far more encompassing than simple racism or bigotry. Most white supremacists today further believe that the white race is in danger of extinction due to a rising "flood" of non-whites, who are controlled and manipulated by Jews, and that imminent action is need to "save" the white race.

White supremacist prison gangs constitute one of the main segments of the white supremacist movement in the United States. Though most such gangs originate behind bars, today, white supremacist prison gangs are as active on the streets as in jails and prisons. Members of such gangs tend to have a less sophisticated understanding of white supremacy and their ideology is usually of secondary importance to criminal behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Defining Extremism: A Glossary of White Supremacist Terms, Movements and Philosophies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A concept used to describe religious, social or political belief systems that exist substantially outside of belief systems more broadly accepted in society (i.e., "mainstream" beliefs). Extreme ideologies often seek radical changes in the nature of government, religion or society.

# data[].attributes.body
An overview of the history of fascism over the last 100 years, and the concurrent antifa movements. This book is available to borrow from our school library.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Although the Nazis portrayed themselves as a workers' party, they were predominantly middle-class citizens. The party was also strongest in rural protestant regions. Farmers, small businessmen, artisans & civil servants were the backbone of the Nazi party. They feared the loss of their incomes & status, were angry at big business & organized labour, and dreaded a communist revolution. Factors that made them vulnerable to the crude conspiracy theories promoted by the nazis."

"Why do you allow these men who are in power to rob you step by step, openly and in secret, of one domain of your rights after another, until one day nothing, nothing at all will be left but a mechanised state system presided over by criminals and drunks? Is your spirit already so crushed by abuse that you forget it is your right - or rather, your moral duty - to eliminate this system? - 3rd Leaflet of the White Rose"

More quotes...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Although the Nazis portrayed themselves as a workers' party, they were predominantly middle-class citizens. The party was also strongest in rural protestant regions. Farmers, small businessmen, artisans & civil servants were the backbone of the Nazi party. They feared the loss of their incomes & status, were angry at big business & organized labour, and dreaded a communist revolution.

# data[].attributes.body
An overview from the Anti-Defamation League explaining the history and actions of the Proud Boys movement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ideology: Primarily alt lite: Misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration. Some members espouse white supremacist and anti-Semitic ideologies and/or engage with white supremacist groups.

Membership: Unknown, likely several hundred.

Notable characteristics: Members frequently wear black and yellow Fred Perry polo shirts.

Global footprint: Proud Boys have chapters in most states and several international chapters in Britain, Norway and Australia.

Membership: Controlled by local chapter leadership and subject to initiation rituals.

Tactics: Public rallies and protests. Members have been known to engage in violent tactics; several members have been convicted of violent crimes.

The Proud Boys represent an unconventional strain of American right-wing extremism. While the group can be described as violent, nationalistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and misogynistic, its members represent a range of ethnic backgrounds, and its leaders vehemently protest any allegations of racism. Their founder, Gavin McInnes, went so far as to file a defamation lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center when the SPLC designated the Proud Boys a hate group.

In McInnes' own words, the Proud Boys are a "pro-western fraternity," essentially a drinking club dedicated to male bonding, socializing and the celebration all things related to western culture. In reality, the Proud Boys bear many of the hallmarks of a gang, and its members have taken part in multiple acts of brutal violence and intimidation. While the Proud Boys insist that they only act in self-defense, several incidents -including one in which two members of the group were convicted of attempted gang assault, attempted assault and riot- belie their self-professed peaceful nature. Indeed, many members have criminal records for violent behavior and the organization actively pursues violence against their perceived enemies.

During an October 2018 brawl outside the Metropolitan Republican Club in Manhattan, for which two Proud Boys members were convicted and sentenced to substantial prison terms, and seven others pled guilty, the Proud Boys were joined by the 211 Bootboys, an ultra-nationalist and violent skinhead gang based in New York City. In October 2019, members of the Denver chapter of the Proud Boys marched with members of Patriot Front and former members of the now-defunct neo-Nazi group Traditionalist Worker Part y. These relationships show the Proud Boys to be less a pro-western drinking club and more an extreme, right-wing gang. Ideologically, members subscribe to a scattershot array of libertarian and nationalist tropes, referring to themselves as anti-communist and anti-political correctness, but in favor of free speech and free markets.
History
The Proud Boys was formed in 2016 by VICE Media co-founder, Gavin McInnes. In an op-ed in the far-right outlet Taki's Magazine-notorious for its regular contributors, which included white supremacist Jared Taylor-McInnes announced the foundation of the group, describing its members as "Western chauvinists who refuse to apologise [sic] for creating the modern world," and who "long for the days when 'girls were girls and men were men.'" According to McInnes, the Proud Boys, whose name is taken from a song in the musical Aladdin, are a response and opposition to "politically correct culture."

McInnes, whose VICE magazine built its reputation on publishing juvenile and often offensive material, had been trying to establish himself for years as a professional provocateur, making wildly racist statements and claiming it was all ironic, or tongue-in-cheek. In 2002, he said, "We seem really racist and homophobic because we hang around with fags and niggers so much. It just becomes part of our vernacular."

At the same time, McInnes was becoming increasingly overt in his xenophobia and racism, telling the New York Times in 2003 that, "I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of. I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life."

According to McInnes' plan, the roughly 1,000 Proud Boys would be organized into chapters nationwide. Membership would be divided into ranks from one to four.

To attain level one, an initiate must publicly state: "I am a proud Western chauvinist, I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world."

To reach level two, the initiate must endure a beating by his comrades while reciting the names of five breakfast cereals. This is ostensibly to demonstrate "adrenaline control;" leaked online videos show the ritual to be far less violent than what McInnes described. Initiates are told to limit masturbation to once per month. The idea behind this ban -- that porn is making men weak and keeping them from forming real relationships with women -- is common throughout the right-wing extremist movement. In his op-ed, McInnes wrote: "Though sexual intercourse is encouraged, Proud Boys have an endgame and it is to settle down and have kids. They have absolutely no respect for feminists but venerate the housewife so much, they are actually becoming quite popular with women."

To achieve the third level, an initiate must get a Proud Boys tattoo. Common variations are "Proud Boy," "POYB" (acronym for Proud of Your Boy") and "Uhuru," a Swahili word for "freedom" that the Proud Boys have appropriated as their battle cry.

Finally, the fourth level, which McInnes did not describe in the foundational document, is an honorary degree awarded for "a material sacrifice or service by a brother." McInnes said in an interview that the fourth degree is awarded for "a major fight for the cause. You get beat up, kick the crap out of an antifa," but he later backpedaled, saying it "obviously doesn't mean you go to someone's house or even pick a fight with one at a rally. Fourth degree is a consolation prize for being thrust into a shitty situation and surviving."

In October 2018, as law enforcement sought members of the Proud Boys for their role in the fight outside the Metropolitan Republican Club, Proud Boys leadership released a "clarified" set of bylaws that seemed to contradict their prior, violent rhetoric. The new language reads: "Any requirement that a brother commit a violent or illegal act as a condition precedent to receiving a fourth degree is, by this bylaw, abolished."

In early 2019, before Proud Boys John Kinsman and Maxwell Hare were convicted for their role in the 2018 fight, McInnes announced that he would no longer be formally involved with the Proud Boys. Leadership was assumed briefly by disgraced Texas attorney, Jason van Dyke, before he was replaced by Enrique Tarrio, a Cuban-American from Miami. Tarrio, the current chairman, is also running for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2020.
Violence
Violence has been a key component of the Proud Boys since the group's creation.

On August 22, 2020, members of the Proud Boys fought with counter-protestors in Portland, Oregon. This clash between right-wing and left-wing activists was one of many in Portland and other American cities throughout the summer, and Proud Boys had been a fixture at most of them.

Patriot Prayer, frequent Proud Boys collaborators, organized another protest that turned violent, on August 15, 2020. The event was attended by Proud Boys, including Alan Swinney, who would later brandish a revolved at the August 22 protest, and who came to the August 15 event armed with a paintball gun, which he used on counter-protestors. One person was injured after being hit with a paintball pellet, although it is unknown if Swinney was the shooter. At least two gunshots were reported during the protest; the shooter remaining unknown. One day earlier, Proud Boys clashed with counter-protestors in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

No members of the Proud Boys were arrested in the aftermath of these protests although a Multnomah County judge issued a new warrant for Tusitala Toese following his appearance at the August 22 protest.

McInnes has repeatedly advocated brutal tactics when dealing with the Proud Boys' sworn enemies -- anti-fascist counter protestors, otherwise known as antifa -- and leaked chats from social messaging app Telegram reveal a clear pattern of inciting violence. In a June 2016 episode of the "Gavin McInnes Show", McInnes warned his enemies, "We will kill you. That's the Proud Boys in a nutshell. We will kill you."

And yet, the group's leaders have repeatedly attempted to distance themselves from violence, both threatened and actual. In the aftermath of the 2018 brawl in Manhattan, McInnes stated in an interview with NewsmaxTV that he does not "control these guys" and described himself as "the founder, not the leader." Similarly, Tarrio has repeatedly insisted that the Proud Boys organization is nonviolent.

Again, real world events belie the claims made by various Proud Boys leaders. Not only have there been several instances where Proud Boys have engaged in unprovoked violence, their social media conversations also demonstrate how inciting violence and responding to small slights with brutal force is key to the Proud Boys' strategy. In fact, while the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights (FOAK) was formed to serve as a "tactical defense arm" (italics ours) of the Proud Boys, its leader, Kyle Chapman AKA Based Stickman, is a violent felon who has repeatedly encouraged violence against anti-fascist activists, and whose persona stems from his history of threatening counter-protestors with a heavy iron stick. Similarly, Proud Boys and their allies purposefully organize and act in a manner that will all but guarantee violence. In advance of the August 2019 "End Domestic Terrorism" rally in Portland, Oregon, organizer and outspoken Proud Boys ally, Joe Biggs, posted videos of himself holding a spiked baseball bat with the words "Make America Great Again" emblazoned on it, telling the camera that "We're going to put this to good use." He also posed wearing t-shirts reading, "I'm Just Here for the Violence" and "Death to Antifa."

Screen shots of conversations on Telegram reveal how members of the Proud Boys consider any provocation to be a direct assault that legitimizes any use of force as acceptable retaliation. In advance of an April 2019 rally in Rhode Island, a poster wrote, " If any contact is made with you, that's assault. If they take your hat, spray you with silly string, spit, push... It's assault. We need to have all our guys there before we retaliate though if we can. The cops aren't going to let us fight long. We need to inflict as much damage as possible in the time we have." In the same chat room, a Proud Boy member using the name "Jason Cardona" posed with a hatchet, writing, "Group, meet Kindness." Later he posed with a large knife and wrote, "If they want to meet wisdom all they have to do is ask." Poster "Col. Kish" wrote, "It's a prior service Marines [sic] to get out and continue beating the fuck out of communists, semper Fi ooh ra."

At the rally in Rhode Island, among others, there have been instances of Proud Boys engaging in unprovoked attacks, as well as groups of Proud Boys attacking single counter-protestors.

In January 2020, Proud Boy member, Tusitala "Tiny" Toese, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor assault charge for an attack on a man in Portland. Fellow Proud Boy, Donovon Flippo, had earlier pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault for the same incident.

In August, 2019, former Patriot Prayer member and current Proud Boy member, Russell Schultz, along with five others, was indicted for rioting following a fight outside the Cider Riot bar in Portland.
Links to the political mainstream
On February 21, 2018, a new video appeared on the Proud Boys' YouTube channel, showing Roger Stone, convicted felon and longtime advisor to President Trump, staring into the camera and reciting the Proud Boys initiation: "Hi. I'm Roger Stone. I'm a western chauvinist, and I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world." Stone has had a long relationship with the Proud Boys, posing in countless pictures with various members, appearing in videos, receiving support from the group during his 2019 trial and even using them as private security at events. But Stone is not the only link between the Proud Boys and the political establishment.

After Gavin McInnes' speech at the Metropolitan Republican Club in 2018, conservative commentator Ann Coulter tweeted, "Get a Proud Boys wristband to defend the men who defend you." Several Metropolitan Republican Club members defended the decision to host the Proud Boys leader, and Alan Bialeck, a Club board member, told BuzzFeed News that he believes McInnes was merely expressing his right to free speech.

In October 2019, Donald Trump, Jr. posed for a photo with Proud Boy member Luke Rohlfing. It is unclear whether Trump Jr. was aware of Rohlfing's political views, but the photo is part of a long-term Proud Boys strategy: posting alongside high-level Republicans in hopes of gaining legitimacy.

Both U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) and then-Florida Gov. Rick Scott have been photographed alongside Proud Boys, as have U.S. Reps Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25) and Devin Nunes (CA-22).

Sen. Cruz took his support a step farther, backing a non-binding resolution that would have defined anti-fascist activists as domestic terrorists after Enrique Tarrio launched a petition in favor of the bill. Even President Trump took notice and tweeted that "Major consideration is being given to naming ANTIFA an "ORGANIZATION OF TERROR."

The Proud Boys have also been embraced by a number of Fox News hosts; McInnes has appeared on Sean Hannity's Fox News program more than 24 times, and Tucker Carlson has appeared on McInnes' show.
Racism:
While the Proud Boys often publicly denounce white supremacy, their activity has attracted white supremacists who share the group's opposition to progressive politics and proclivity for violence. The Proud Boys participated in the 2017 protests at the University of California-Berkeley, alongside a variety of white supremacist groups, including Rise Above Movement (R.A.M), Identity Evropa (now the American Identity Movement, or AIM) and the Traditionalist Worker Party (TWP). Similarly, members of Identity Evropa/AIM and TWP have joined Proud Boys and fellow right-wing group Patriot Prayer events in Portland. One man, wearing a patch for the Proud Boys-associated Fraternal Order of Alt Knights (FOAK), attended the October 2017 neo-Nazi "White Lives Matter' rally in Shelbyville, Tennessee. During the rally, he taunted the counter-protesters by destroying an antifa flag. Members of the Proud Boys also attended the violent August 2017 "Unite the Right" white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. They later circulated an image of themselves in a celebratory pose with a flag they "captured" from antifa. In October 2018, Proud Boys posed with members of the 211 Bootboys, an ultranationalist skinhead group, after McInnes' speech at the Metropolitan Republican Club in New York City.
Misogyny: Islamophobia: Anti-Semitism:
Although McInnes has decried racism and anti-Semitism, his past statements tell a different story. He has posted videos of himself giving the Nazi salute and repeatedly saying "Heil Hitler." He was accused of anti-Semitism in March 2017 when he posted a video on Rebel Media called "Ten Things I Hate about Jews," which was later retitled "Ten Things I Hate About Israel."

McInnes has made a number of contradictory statements about Zionism. Prior to his spring 2017 trip to Israel, McInnes appeared in a Rebel Media video in which he asked people to crowdfund his trip to Israel so he could see what the country was like for himself; however, in that same video, he referenced both "The Culture of Critique," by white supremacist Kevin MacDonald, and David Duke's book "Jewish Supremacism." It was during this trip that McInnes appears to have had somewhat of an anti-Semitic awakening. On his show on March 8, 2017, McInnes muses that Jews were somehow responsible for World War II because "the Treaty of Versailles, wasn't that disproportionately influenced by Jewish intellectuals?" He also defended Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis, saying, "Like at one point, the tour guide goes, 'You know, and there are people who think that this didn't happen.' And I felt myself defending the super-far-right Nazis, just because I was sick of so much brainwashing. And I felt like going, 'Well, they never said it didn't happen. What they're saying is that it was much less than six million and that they starved to death and they weren't gassed." Then he finishes his train of thought with some thoughts about Jews' "obsession" with the Holocaust. "God, they're so obsessed with the Holocaust. I don't know if it's healthy to dwell."

At another point McInnes said: "Jews: If you don't want to get people mad, don't be annoying."
Transphobia:
In 2014, McInnes wrote a controversial article for the blog "Thought Catalog" titled, "Transphobia is Perfectly Natural," which included the passage, "Haven't you seen all the totally functional, happily married, normal trannies walking around? They aren't all dead, you know...They're non-heteronormative. In fact, the only thing more normal than castrating yourself and taking tons of hormones to grow tits is chopping them off."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ideology: Primarily alt lite: Misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration. Some members espouse white supremacist and anti-Semitic ideologies and/or engage with white supremacist groups. Membership: Unknown, likely several hundred. Notable characteristics: Members frequently wear black and yellow Fred Perry polo shirts. Global footprint: Proud Boys have chapters in most states and several international chapters in Britain, Norway and Australia.

# data[].attributes.body
An article from the Anti-Defamation League that explains the rise of a powerful faction within the KKK.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Loyal White Knights (LWK) is the one of the largest and most active Klan groups in the United States.

LWK members follow a version of traditional Klan ideology infused with neo-Nazi beliefs.

LWK are best known for their distribution of racist, antisemitic, anti-immigrant, homophobic and Islamophobic propaganda.

LWK have organized and participated in public white supremacist rallies; they also hold private gatherings and cross burning ceremonies.

Background
The Loyal White Knights (LWK) are one of the 35 to 40 groups that make up the organized Klan movement in the United States. Like the rest of the stagnant Klan movement, the LWK are currently operating in the shadows of segments of the white supremacist movement that have moved on from the outdated, stigmatized Klan robes and burning crosses.

The LWK, based in Pelham, North Carolina, is the largest and the most active Klan group in the country with approximately 100 members.

Approximately 40 percent of the active Klans in the United States - including the LWK -- promote an ideology infused with neo-Nazi beliefs. In addition to being anti-black, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, and homophobic; they are also virulently antisemitic. Over the years, the LWK's willingness to embrace neo-Nazi tenets has allowed them to form symbiotic relationships with neo-Nazi groups. From 2012 through early 2016, the LWK participated in a number of public rallies alongside members and associates of the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement (NSM).

In April 2016, approximately 40 members of the LWK participated the NSM's national rally in Rome, Georgia. Following the rally, the LWK played a role in the formation of the Aryan Nationalist Alliance (since renamed Nationalist Front), a coalition of several other nazified Klan groups, racist skinhead crews, and neo-Nazis. The LWK's participation in this formal alliance was short-lived; after a few months, the LWK was no longer listed on the NSM website as part of the alliance, and the groups' joint rallies ended abruptly.
Origin and Leadership
Christopher Eugene Barker and his wife, Amanda Barker, formed the LWK in 2011 and have led the group ever since. At the LWK's height they had 200 or more members, but those numbers have decreased by at least half, thanks in large part to Christopher's many arrests for a range of crimes, including alcohol related offenses, assault, domestic battery, threats and weapons violations. For extended periods of time, Amanda has served as the LWK's de facto leader while Christopher was limited by a court-ordered probationary agreement that he could not be "in the company of any gang members/security threat group members, including but not limited to the Ku Klux Klan."

Despite the non-association clause, Barker and California Grand Dragon William Ernest Hagen were arrested in December 2016 on charges related to the alleged felony assault of another Klansman during a Klan gathering at Barker's home in Yanceyville, North Carolina. The charges were later dropped after the victim refused to testify, but news of the brawl further damaged Barker's reputation as a Klan leader, which was already tarnished by rumors that he acted as an FBI informant against another Klansman, Glendon Scott Crawford. (In December 2016, Crawford was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for planning to use a radiation dispersal device to kill Muslims and Barack Obama).
Activity
The most consistent Klan activity involves the distribution of racist, antisemitic, homophobic and Islamophobic fliers on doorsteps and driveways around the country. From 2014 through 2018, the Anti-Defamation League tracked an average of 79 Klan fliering incidents per year. The Loyal White Knights are by far the most active fliering group. Over the past five years they have been responsible for more than half (217 of 394 incidents or 55%) of all Klan propaganda distributions. More than three quarters (67 of 85 incidents or 79%) of 2018 Klan propaganda incidents are attributed to the LWK.

Throughout 2018, the LWK's propaganda has reached communities in 15 states, including California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia. Though the group's fliers do occasionally appear in more far-flung states, the LWK is best categorized as a regional Klan. An overwhelming majority (53 of 67) of its fliering incidents this year has targeted the mid-Atlantic region, with most of the incidents concentrated in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

The LWK occasionally participate in public rallies but have not done so for more than a year. Their last rally was in July 2017 when fifty-odd Klansmen associated with the LWK rallied against the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from a park in Charlottesville, Virginia. The rally was scheduled between two events at the same location, a May alt right rally and torch march and the infamous "Unite the Right" rally in August. It was the LWK's attempt to join forces with the alt right or at the very least take advantage of the alt right's rising visibility. While it was the largest rally organized by a Klan group in recent years, the event failed to draw support from the rest of the white supremacist movement.
Additional LWK activity:

Roxboro, North Carolina, December 3, 2016: A LWK caravan of approximately 25 vehicles drove through Roxboro, with people waving Klan flags and shouting, "White Power!" The slipshod caravan replaced a previously planned "victory parade" in Pelham, North Carolina, celebrating the election of Donald Trump.

Tupelo, Mississippi, August 26, 2016: Several members of the LWK attended an Aryan Nationalist Alliance (ANA) meet-and-greet on private property. Approximately 30 people attended the event, including members of the NSM, racist skinheads associated with the Aryan Strike Force, and the Texas Rebel Knights, a now-defunct Klan group.

Rome, Georgia, April 23, 2016: More than three dozen members of the LWK participated in a rally organized by the NSM.

Anaheim, California, February 27, 2016: Six LWK members attempted a "white lives matter" rally, but the event ended in mayhem when the would-be-rally attendees were attacked by counter-protesters.

Tupelo, Mississippi, November 7, 2015: Approximately 35 white supremacists, including members of the LWK, NSM and Texas Rebel Knights, rallied against immigration and alleged "white genocide."

Columbia, South Carolina, July 18, 2015: In response to calls to remove the Confederate flag from the South Carolina state house grounds following the deadly mass shooting in Charleston by Dylann Roof, approximately 125 white supremacists attended a protest organized by the LWK. Later that evening, many of the same individuals attended a private cross burning in Enoree, South Carolina.

Memphis, Tennessee, March 30, 2013: The LWK organized a rally protesting the City Council's decision to rename Jefferson Davis Park, Nathan Bedford Forest Park and Confederate Park. Approximately 75 white supremacists attended, including members of the LWK, Mississippi White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Sadistic Souls, Combat 18, Supreme White Alliance and NSM.

Criminal Activity:
Individuals connected to the Klan movement have been convicted of a wide range of crimes ranging from murder sprees to assault. They have attempted and conspired to commit murder. They have been arrested for illegally possessing a variety of weapons, from brass knuckles to weapons of mass destruction. It is worth noting that a number of these criminal incidents occurred independently of any Klan or Klan-like activities. Nevertheless, these incidents illustrate how Klan groups often attract people with criminal histories or tendencies. The following are some of the criminal incidents attributed to members and associates of the LWK:

Roxboro, North Carolina, April 27, 2018: In August 2018, a Person County District Judge ruled against Justin Adams and fined him for littering. Adams, a member of the LWK from Hagerstown, Maryland, was arrested while distributing antisemitic Klan flyers and charged with littering while in the Roxboro area to attend a private Klan rally.

Orange, California, April 7, 2017: A Superior Court jury found William Hagen guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and making criminal threats. The charges stemmed from an April 2015 incident in which Hagen assaulted a homeless man and threatened him with a box cutter. He was sentenced to eight years in prison. Hagen was the leader of the California chapter of the LWK.

Providence, New York, August 2015: A federal jury convicted a New York man involved in a bizarre plot to procure and use a radiation-emitting weapon. The jury found Glendon S. Crawford guilty of conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction and distributing information relating to weapons of mass destruction. To help finance the construction of the weapon, Crawford inexplicably approached two synagogues in New York (who contacted the authorities), as well as the LWK, trying to get them to give him money for the purported device. Crawford himself claimed to be or to have been a member of the United Northern and Southern Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Loyal White Knights (LWK) is the one of the largest and most active Klan groups in the United States. LWK members follow a version of traditional Klan ideology infused with neo-Nazi beliefs. LWK are best known for their distribution of racist, antisemitic, anti-immigrant, homophobic and Islamophobic propaganda.

# data[].attributes.body
An overview from the Anti-Defamation League explaining the history and actions of the QAnon movement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
QAnon is a wide-reaching conspiracy theory popular among a range of right-wing extremists and even some public supporters of President Trump.

QAnon, surfaced in 2017 on 4chan, is first and foremost an online trolling and disinformation movement. While it is difficult to gauge the size of the movement, it is likely that QAnon adherents number in the tens of thousands.

Adherents follow the anonymous Q, and believe world governments are being controlled by a shadowy cabal of pedophiles (who will eventually be brought to justice by President Trump).

The QAnon theory is scattershot and sprawling and anti-government elements; its adherents actively sow distrust in democratic institutions.

While the ADL does not believe that all QAnon adherents are inherently extremists, this is a dangerous theory that has inspired violent acts.

Introduction
QAnon is a global, wide-reaching and remarkably elaborate conspiracy theory that has taken root within some parts of the pro-Trump movement. It is an amalgam of both novel and well-established theories, with marked undertones of antisemitism and xenophobia.

Fundamentally, the theory claims that almost every president in recent American history up until Donald Trump has been a puppet put in place by a global elite of power brokers hell bent on enriching themselves and maintaining their Satanic child-murdering sex cult. Q is a reference to "Q clearance" or "Q access authorization," terms used to describe a top-secret clearance level within the Department of Energy.

According to QAnon lore, this global elite, known as "The Deep State" or "The Cabal," control not just world governments, but the banking system, the Catholic church, the agricultural- and pharmaceutical industries, the media and entertainment industry; all working around the clock to keep the people of the world poor, ignorant and enslaved.
Connection to Mainstream Politics
Despite a profound lack of any supporting evidence, QAnon has successfully made the leap from the paranoid catacombs of online subculture into America's mainstream conservative movement. As the QAnon ideology has gained a wider audience, a cottage industry of merchandise, food supplements and lifestyle advice has emerged alongside it, all rooted in the same profound distrust in governments, established sciences and mainstream media. It has attracted a following of private citizens, rapacious grifters and even national politicians, as well as considerable support within other extremist movements, particularly the militia and anti-government movements.

QAnon adherents have been linked to acts of murder, violence, kidnapping and public disturbance. In 2020, the novel coronavirus has provided additional fodder for QAnon followers, who have eagerly folded the pandemic into their profoundly paranoid worldview.

In January 2020, 20 candidates running for U.S. Congress openly supported the QAnon conspiracy theory. While some have already been defeated or dropped out, and it is unlikely that many of those remaining will win, the pervasiveness of the theory is striking. It is also concerning that support for QAnon has become conflated with allegiance to President Trump, perpetuating a belief that his political opponents are illegitimate enemies of humanity.

The QAnon movement has attached itself to the sense of persecution and unfair treatment felt not only by supporters of President Trump but often voiced by the president himself, and while the President has not directly embraced QAnon, he has actively furthered the narrative that there are traitorous forces within the government and the Democratic party.
What followers believe
QAnon contains a number of deeply convoluted and all-encompassing conspiracy theories; it is a host of seemingly disparate ideas touching on everything from the faked death of JFK, Jr. to Satanic blood rituals and nuclear deterrence, tenuously centered around the belief that society is controlled by a global cabal of high-powered criminals. This kitchen sink approach is a major reason why QAnon has gained such a substantial following in its relatively short life; it envisions a big tent conspiracy capable of accommodating all kinds of theories and global events.

It's not all doom and gloom: QAnoners also believe there are good forces at play, men and women working within the government to thwart the Deep State. QAnon followers refer to these people as the "white hats."

The internet has provided these would-be saviors a new opportunity to share the truth outside the strictures of the Deep State-controlled "mainstream media." Cell phones, email and social media have made it easier to disseminate what followers believe to be the facts about Deep State crimes and have made the criminals trackable and their crimes traceable.

In the infinitely hash-taggable world of QAnon, this development led to #ThePlan, a far-fetched pipe dream that explains not only the presidency of Donald Trump but also the resistance to his administration by the forces QAnon hopes to defeat.

According to Q, the mysterious insider who is "leaking" this information to the public, the white hats stopped Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from stealing the 2016 election. As the theory goes, the Democratic elites needed to win the presidency in order to pay back funds the Clinton Foundation stole from other nations under the guise of 2010 emergency earthquake aid to Haiti. Rather than help desperate Haitians, the Clintons used the money to fund a massive child sex trafficking operation from the disaster-stricken nation.

Luckily, the white hats identified the only person they consider honest and moral enough to resist the evil of the Deep State: then-candidate Donald Trump.

Ever since Trump's election, Q and the white hats have been embroiled in what they view as an epic battle with the Deep State. The successful completion of the Plan hinges on thousands of alleged secret indictments, supposedly to be compiled by the Department of Justice against prominent Democrats, elites and Hollywood celebrities. Once these indictments are unsealed, they believe the crimes of the elites will be exposed, and they will promptly be arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay.

Several aspects of QAnon lore mirror longstanding antisemitic tropes. The belief that a global "cabal" is involved in rituals of child sacrifice has its roots in the antisemitic trope of blood libel, the theory that Jews murder Christian children for ritualistic purposes. In addition, QAnon has a deep-seated hatred for George Soros, a name that has become synonymous with perceived Jewish meddling in global affairs. And QAnon's ongoing obsession with a global elite of bankers also has deeply antisemitic undertones.
Origins
On Saturday afternoon on October 28, 2017, a post cropped up on 4chan's profoundly racist, sexist and xenophobic /pol forum. Sandwiched between racist commentary and a post speculating about a non-existent Hilary Clinton sex tape, the post offered a stark news flash: "HRC extradition already in motion effective yesterday with several countries in case of cross border run." Over the next few days, the user (who would not introduce the "Q" moniker for several days) made a series of cryptic predictions referencing the Mueller probe, the Clintons, Soros and Obama, and hinted at a vast conspiracy within the U.S. government. "Priority to clean out the bad actors to unite people behind the America First agenda. Many in our govt worship Satan," an October 29 post warned. Initially lost in the cacophony of 4chan, the posts were brought to the attention of #pizzagate adherent Tracy Diaz who shared them with her sizeable audience.

Soon, discussion boards dedicated to Q popped up on Reddit, widening the audience for the fledgling conspiracy theory. Not only was Reddit significantly more user friendly than the bewildering boards on 4chan, it already had a thriving community of conspiracy theorists who were more than happy to take the QAnon ball and run with it. From there, the theory spread to even more mainstream platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, where users, both real and fake, shared and amplified the increasingly serpentine theory. As the theory became more widespread, the Q logo became a commonplace sight at Trump rallies where adherents parsed every word and gesture from the President, looking for hints about the Plan or Q. Even Trump joined the fray, retweeting noted QAnon adherents or slogans.
Leadership and followers
Nobody knows who is behind the QAnon conspiracy theory, although rumors abound. From the very first posts in late 2017, Q's identity has eluded the hordes of self-proclaimed Q researchers who obsessively pore over every detail of every post. Because of the anonymous nature of the message boards where Q posts, the real identity of the poster is almost impossible to ascertain.

QAnon believers claim Q is a person, or persons, within the top echelons of government with access to highly sensitive data, who have chosen this moment to reveal the nefarious conspiracy outlined in The Plan. There is no evidence to suggest that the entity behind the posts is a government employee or has access to secret information. Q's "information" is so cryptic and vague that the author could be anyone.

In many posts, Q encourages their audience to put the pieces together themselves, or "paint the picture," thereby allowing QAnon adherents to fill in the numerous blanks with their own musings and paranoias. This creates the illusion that Q is bestowing valuable information, while actually supplying virtually nothing.

A faction of Q researchers believe that Q is a man in his twenties named Austin Steinbart who is posting from the future using quantum computing. In the world of QAnon, this seems as likely as anything else.

When it was revealed in early April that Steinbart had been arrested for extortion and likely suffered from mental illness, the Q community - characteristically -- considered it both definitive proof that he was Q and absolute proof that he wasn't.
Activity
Although QAnon followers are primarily active online, apart from displaying logos and merchandise at public rallies, in several cases the conspiracy theory has spilled into the real world with violent consequences. In August last year, Yahoo! News reported that the FBI considers "conspiracy-driven domestic extremism" to be a growing threat. An FBI intelligence bulletin, written by the bureau's Phoenix field office and obtained by Yahoo News, specifically mentioned QAnon and explained, "The FBI assesses these conspiracy theories very likely will emerge, spread, and evolve in the modern information marketplace, occasionally driving both groups and individual extremists to carry out criminal or violent acts."

While most QAnon believers are not violent and limit their involvement to furthering the conspiracy online, a number of real-world events have borne out the FBI's warning.

August 12, 2020, Waco, Texas: Police arrested and charged 30-year-old Cecilia Celeste Fulbright with driving while intoxicated and aggravated assault after she chased two cars and crashed into one. Fulbright claimed she was attempting to "save a child from pedophiles." Fulbright's social media history indicates that she was deeply influenced by the QAnon conspiracy theory. She once wrote in a text message to an acquaintance that President Trump was "literally taking down the cabal and the pedophile ring." This paranoid obsession with pedophiles and child trafficking is common within QAnon. A former roommate said Fulbright had a history of untreated mental health issues.

August 2020: Several hundred "Save the Children" rallies were organized across the country. In the early days of August, QAnon followers began using the hashtags #savethechildren and #saveourchildren to garner attention for their baseless allegations of child sex trafficking by Democrats. This campaign quickly made the leap into the real world with nationwide rallies. Not all these rallies were directly linked to QAnon, but an NBC investigation found that the organizers of the largest rallies all espoused QAnon opinions on their private social media.

March 20, 2020, Russellville, Kentucky: QAnon follower Neely Blanchard was charged with kidnapping her children. Blanchard has been active online promoting both QAnon conspiracies and anti-government, sovereign-citizen dogma.

December 30, 2019, Kalispell, Montana: Cynthia Abcug was taken into custody, charged with conspiracy to commit kidnapping. Her son had previously been taken from her after Abcug had become obsessed with QAnon conspiracy theories, claiming in one YouTube video that child protective services "has child trafficking rings in certain areas." A warrant by the Parker Police Department says that child protective services took custody of her child because Abcug was suspected of Munchausen syndrome by proxy. According to the Washington Post, Abcug stopped going to therapy and started leaving her Denver-area home only to meet with QAnon followers. She spoke of "evil Satan worshipers" and pedophiles, according to her daughter's report to police.

April 2019, New Mexico: Members of the United Constitutional Patriots militia, a right-wing militia operating on the US-Mexico border, held nearly 300 migrants at gunpoint. The group and its leader, 69-year-old Larry Mitchell Hopkins, actively promote the QAnon conspiracy theory on their social media accounts.

March 13, 2019, Staten Island, New York: Anthony Comello allegedly shot and killed Gambino family crime boss Francesco Cali outside his home on Staten Island, New York. In court Comello displayed many references to QAnon. According to statements made to his attorney at the time of arrest, Comello believed that Cali was part of the "deep state" working to unseat President Trump. In court filings, Comello's attorney has argued that "Mr. Comello's support for QAnon went beyond mere participation in a radical political organization, it evolved into a delusional obsession."

January 23, 2019, Washington, DC: Ryan Jaselkis attempted to set fire to the Comet Ping Pong pizza shop. Jaselkis had previously posted a QAnon conspiracy video on his parents' YouTube channel. Comet Ping Pong is an important location in QAnon circles; in 2016, Edgar Maddison Welch fired a military-style rifle into the pizzeria because he believed it was harboring a Democrat-run sex slavery ring. The #pizzagate conspiracy theory forms much of the basis for QAnon.

June 16, 2018, Hoover Dam, Nevada: QAnon believer Matthew Wright pleaded guilty on a terrorism charge after blocking the Hoover Dam in Nevada with a homemade armored vehicle on June 15,2018. Wright was armed and had more 900 rounds of ammunition in his vehicle when he was arrested.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
QAnon is a wide-reaching conspiracy theory popular among a range of right-wing extremists and even some public supporters of President Trump. QAnon, surfaced in 2017 on 4chan, is first and foremost an online trolling and disinformation movement. While it is difficult to gauge the size of the movement, it is likely that QAnon adherents number in the tens of thousands.

# data[].attributes.body
Resources to answer all questions related to voting in Massachusetts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Elections Division administers state and federal elections and provides information on voting and elections to the public, candidates and government officials.

# data[].attributes.body
A practical guide with links to help you vote.

# data[].attributes.body
United States Government Website

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get answers to questions about voting. Learn how to register to vote and where to vote. Learn about local, state, congressional, and presidential elections.

# data[].attributes.body
An article from the New York Times comparing the process state to state of verifying signatures for mail-in ballots.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Click on the signatures to identify the match.

More than half of states rely on signature matching to verify the identities of people who vote by mail. These states compare signatures they have on file (from voter registrations, ballot applications or the D.M.V.) with the ones voters put on their ballot envelopes.

But the practice is not implemented consistently across states, or even within them. The New York Times reached out to officials in every state that conducts matching to ask about their procedures. Most leave decisions to local officials or provide minimal instructions. Only Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Oregon, Washington and West Virginia said that they provided statewide guidelines or training materials.

Colorado has been conducting all-mail elections since 2014 and has robust guidelines for verifying signatures. While some large counties use signature verification software to speed up the process - like that used in banking to verify signatures on checks - others, like Jefferson County near Denver, check each signature manually.

The Times asked Cody Swanson, the county's elections director, to compare a series of real and fake "Rebecca" signatures with a real one. Here's what he said about them.

Rejected.

"Broadly, it just does not look similar. We have a straight up-and-down slant, whereas the reference signature mostly goes to the right."

Although a person's signature can vary over time, some features tend to remain. Officials are trained to evaluate a signature first on "broad" characteristics like size, proportion, slant and speed of writing.

Rejected.

"It's very, very consolidated, whereas the reference image has a nice flow to it and takes up about double the space."

Rejected.

"You've got lots of seeming hesitation in slow movements that would indicate someone trying to replicate someone else's signature."

Rejected.

"The overall size and spacing is a flag initially. And then we also are finding inconsistencies with the specific shapes within that signature."

If election judges find inconsistencies in broad characteristics, they look closer at "local" characteristics like individual letter proportions and sizing; beginning and ending strokes; the presence or absence of pen lifts; and curves, loops and cross points (the areas where different shapes meet).

Rejected.

"The ending stroke on that is very fancy, but definitely not seeing that in the reference image."

Rejected.

"This one is a great example of pen lifts."

Rejected.

"The R is looking relatively similar. But the E is much larger and more pronounced."

This signature would have been initially rejected because of the size, slant and proportions of some of the letters.

Signature matching in Jefferson County is a multi-step process. If an election judge accepts a ballot based on the most recent signature on file on a first pass (usually in five to 10 seconds), it is counted.

But if it is initially rejected, the signature is evaluated using additional historical signatures by a bipartisan two-judge team (usually in one to five minutes). If at least one judge accepts it, it is counted. If both reject it, voters are notified and given the chance to confirm their identities and get their votes counted.

Accepted, after seeing additional reference signatures.

(Mr. Swanson correctly identified all of these forged signatures, including three additional ones included in the illustration at the top of this page. In reality, voter fraud of any type is extremely rare.)

Election officials in Jefferson County match ballot signatures that have been scanned by sorting machines and displayed alongside the voter's most recent reference signature on file.

There are even faster ways to do this. In neighboring Denver, automated signature verification software executes the first round of matching. Election judges review signatures the machine does not accept in up to two additional stages.

Automatic verification is now used in about 70 large counties across the country, according to Greg Council, a vice president at Parascript, the company that provides Denver's software.

Signature verification software was developed more than 15 years ago for the banking industry, Mr. Council said. In general, the threshold for accepting a check is set much lower than for accepting a ballot, and much more human review is still used for elections.

"If banks are risk averse by compliance and regulation, election officials are a different order of magnitude more risk averse," he said.

In Denver, the software is set to accept only very close matches, about 15 to 20 percent of ballots.

According to Mr. Council, in addition to processing ballots faster, automated software can also reduce delays because it generates fewer "false positives" - ballot signatures that are legitimate but rejected because they have degenerated over time or were written on different surfaces or under different circumstances.

Tammy Patrick, a senior adviser at the Democracy Fund, says she encountered many legitimate reasons for mismatching signatures while she was an election official in Arizona: "People had broken arms. They were signing with the other hand - that'll change the signature right there. I had people that told me they had had a stroke; people who told me they were signing it on their dashboard while they were driving down the highway; they signed it on top of the blue collection box at the post office, or on top of their mailbox."

"Never once did I have a voter say that they had not voted that ballot," she said.

The reason Ms. Patrick talked to those voters in the first place was because her state had a procedure in place called "notice and cure," notifying voters whose ballots contained a signature mismatch or other error, and giving them the opportunity to verify their identities and get their votes counted.

What happens when signatures don't match

Disqualification of ballots is not widespread but could make a difference in very close elections. Nationally, 1.4 percent of mail ballots were rejected in 2018, with 67,000 thrown out for signature mismatch (the third-most common reason behind "other reasons" and lateness).

While some states rely on a witness, photo ID or other information to verify mail voters, more than half conduct signature matching, either by law or in practice. Some compare ballot signatures with dozens of historical ones on file, while others compare only with the signature on the voter's ballot application or from a low-resolution image captured on a D.M.V. signature pad.

Amber McReynolds, who runs the National Vote at Home Institute, argues that for now, signature matching is the best way to strike a balance between security, transparency and accessibility for voters. But it has to be done right, said Ms. McReynolds, who helped put in Colorado's all-mail voting system as an election official.

Before 2020, many states did not require election officials to notify voters of a signature mismatch and give them a chance to "cure," or fix their ballot. In many cases, voters were never aware that their votes were thrown out.

But in a series of lawsuits this year, judges have ruled almost uniformly that under the Constitution, due process requires that voters be notified of a problem and have the chance to fix signatures that are being used to certify their ballots.

Note: State procedures may still change before Election Day. · Sources: Campaign Legal Center; secretary of state offices; state election boards

At least nine states have newly changed their practices. Just four do not have a notice and cure policy in place, and lawsuits are still pending in all of them except South Dakota.

Mark Gaber, the director of trial litigation at the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog group that has brought five of at least 12 signature matching cases litigated this year, argues that it is problematic to rely on the practice to verify voters.

"Courts have found that there's a high risk of wrongly being identified as not having signed your ballot," he said.

Still, if states are going to conduct signature matching, he said, there should be a robust system for catching errors. Some methods have proved more effective than others. During North Dakota's June primary, 83 percent of voters who were reached by phone about a mismatch verified their ballot in time. That was the case for just 34 percent of those who were reached only by mail.

Even with the opportunity to fix a signature mismatch, there are other pitfalls for those voting by mail. Depending on the state, ballots can be rejected for incomplete witness information or failure to place a ballot inside an inner "secrecy envelope."

Mr. Gaber advises voters to carefully read instructions when completing a ballot at home, because they don't have a voting machine or a poll worker to notify them that they've missed something. And when it comes to the signature, consistency is key.

"Be aware, both when you request the ballot and then when you sign it, that you should use your 'careful signature,' not your 'signing the receipt at the 7/11 signature,'" he said. "Or if you're going to do that one, do it again when you vote the ballot."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Two of These Mail Ballot Signatures Are by the Same Person. Which Ones?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Click on the signatures to identify the match. More than half of states rely on signature matching to verify the identities of people who vote by mail. These states compare signatures they have on file (from voter registrations, ballot applications or the D.M.V.) with the ones voters put on their ballot envelopes.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Legal Fight Awaiting Us After the Election

# data[].attributes.subject
The Legal Fight Awaiting Us After the Election

# data[].attributes.body
by Jeffrey Toobin, New Yorker, 9/28/20

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The aftermath of November's vote has the potential to make 2000 look like a mere skirmish.

The immediate aftermath of the Presidential election of 2000 has taken on the air of legend. On Election Night, news organizations first called Florida for Vice-President Al Gore-then, about two hours later, withdrew the call and, about four hours after that, declared that George W. Bush, the governor of Texas, had won the state, giving him enough electoral votes to become President. Gore called Bush to concede, and left his hotel in a motorcade to announce the end of his campaign to his supporters. His aides, learning that the race in Florida was, in fact, too close to call, tried frantically to contact the Vice-President in his limousine. They reached him just in time, and he telephoned Bush to retract the concession. Bush indignantly told Gore that his "little brother"-the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush-had said that he had won. "Let me explain something," Gore replied. "Your little brother is not the ultimate authority on this."

Like all historical events, the following thirty-five days can look, in retrospect, inevitable, even preordained. But they were a product of choice, improvisation, and happenstance. Gore demanded recounts in four Democratic-leaning counties, which began the painstaking process of studying their punch-card ballots and determining whether the tiny boxes known as chads had been fully detached. Bush responded by filing a lawsuit in federal court in Miami to stop the recounts. In one of the lesser-known events surrounding that case, James A. Baker III, Bush's lead strategist at the time, called John C. Danforth, the former Republican senator from Missouri and an ordained minister, who was famous for his rectitude. Baker wanted Danforth to be Bush's spokesman in the suit. Danforth was horrified. "Candidates don't sue," he told Baker. "You could ruin Governor Bush's career. He's only fifty-four years old, and the decision to file a court case like this would be a black mark that followed him forever. And it would destroy the reputation of everyone involved on the Bush side."

Danforth came from an era when political norms dictated a culture of deference to announced electoral outcomes. ( Richard Nixon, reflecting these values, chose not to challenge the results of his narrow defeat in 1960.) Baker thanked Danforth for his time and proceeded to file that lawsuit and several others, mobilizing the Republican Party behind the efforts for the George Bush-Dick Cheney ticket. There were street protests outside the Vice-President's mansion ("Get out of Cheney's house!"), and a deployment of the finest political and legal talent in the Republican Party. Many of the lawyers working on the recount cases, far from suffering damage to their careers, were guaranteed political futures-they included John G. Roberts, Jr., whom Bush appointed to the Supreme Court, and Noel Francisco, who became President Trump's Solicitor General.

To the frustration of countless Democrats, Gore took a high-minded, traditional approach, asserting that the recount was a legal, not a political, process, and directing his supporters to stay off the streets. (Gore told the Reverend Jesse Jackson to call off protests that he had organized against the disenfranchisement of African-Americans in Florida.) In this spirit, Gore named the diplomat Warren Christopher, rather than a pol, to lead his recount efforts, and relied on a talented but small group of lawyers in Florida, who struggled to keep up with Republican reinforcements from around the country. The contrasts were cultural in addition to being substantive. David Boies, Gore's lead lawyer toward the end of the process, promenaded along the broad plazas of Tallahassee, bantering cheerfully with reporters and passersby. Benjamin Ginsberg, the general counsel to the Bush campaign and the dean of Republican election lawyers, paced the streets in a state of rage. "They are trying to steal this," Ginsberg said repeatedly, of the Democrats, color rising to the top of his bald head. In the end, Bush's resort to the courts proved to be his salvation. In the case known as Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court, by a vote of five to four, held that the recounts violated Bush's rights, thus sealing his victory in Florida.

Ultimately, George Bush was declared the winner in Florida by five hundred and thirty-seven votes, out of some six million cast. The result might have been the same if Gore had chosen a more assertive strategy, but the parties' contrasting approaches-Republican aggression versus Democratic restraint-remain a crucial legacy of the contest. That year, the recount struggle came as a surprise to both candidates. This year, each side has mustered for a legal fight that began months ago and may well continue long after November 3rd. President Trump has ratcheted up the Bush strategy of total political warfare: he has already refused to commit to accepting the outcome of the election. "The only way we're going to lose this election is if the election is rigged-remember that," he said recently. "So we have to be very careful. . . . The only way they're going to win is that way. And we can't let that happen."

Democrats say that a strategy of reticence is a thing of the past. One Democratic veteran assured me that the Democratic Party of today is "totally different" from the Party of 2000: "Much less institutionally focussed, more ideologically grounded, and uncompromising. There is zero chance that anybody is going to say at some point that it's better for the country that we settle the matter now, give in, and then try to win in four years. No one thinks that another four years of Trump is survivable. The campaign believes this is an existential battle."

Compounding all this is the coronavirus pandemic, which will force dramatic changes in how voters cast their ballots. The number of mail-in ballots will increase substantially: recent national polls suggest that about a third of all voters plan to vote by mail this year. Trump has assailed the practice of voting by mail, asserting without evidence that it is susceptible to fraud. In fact, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Utah have used universal mail-in voting-in which the state mails a ballot to each registered voter-for some time, including in previous Presidential elections, with few significant problems. There is no meaningful difference between absentee voting and mail-in voting, but Trump supports absentee voting, even using it himself. In early August, when he was signing his Florida absentee-ballot application, he said, "Absentee ballots are good. Universal mail-ins, when you get inundated with these things, are bad and will lead to terrible things, including voter fraud." More recently, Trump has spoken at length about the purported evils of universal mail-in voting. "They are sending out fifty-one million ballots to people that didn't ask for them," he said during an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, on the final night of the Democratic National Convention. "This will be the most fraudulent election in history. . . . It's just a horrible thing. It's going to be impossible to police." (It's unclear where Trump got that figure; at other times, he has used the figure of eighty million.)

Last month, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill to provide an additional twenty-five billion dollars to the U.S. Postal Service, largely to insure that it could process the additional mailed ballots. Trump has vowed to veto the bill if it reaches him. "They need that money in order to make the post office work, so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots," he said. "If we don't make a deal, that means they don't get the money. That means they can't have universal mail-in voting. They just can't have it." In recent weeks, he has also attacked the use of drop boxes, which allow voters to deposit their ballots before Election Day. He has claimed, without evidence, that they can be used to perpetrate electoral fraud.

Trump's grievance is almost certainly tied to the fact that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail in the upcoming election than Republicans are. This will contribute to a phenomenon called the "blue shift"-votes that are counted, and reported, later on tend to favor Democrats. This year's blue shift may be particularly dramatic. In a recent poll by Hawkfish, a data firm associated with Democrats, only nineteen per cent of Trump supporters said that they planned to vote by mail, compared with sixty-nine per cent of Biden supporters. Using data from late-summer polls, Hawkfish predicted that Election Night results could show Trump in the lead, with a total of four hundred and eight electoral votes. Four days later, with seventy-five per cent of the mail-in votes counted, Biden would take the lead, with two hundred and eighty electoral votes and, with all the votes counted, the former Vice-President would win the Presidency, with three hundred and thirty-four electoral votes.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has sought to undermine voters' faith in the democratic process-going so far as to suggest, on Twitter, that the election should be delayed until people could "properly, securely and safely" vote. (He later backtracked on the idea, which would require a change to federal law.) Last week, Trump tweeted, "the Nov 3rd election result may NEVER BE ACCURATELY DETERMINED." The norms of political conduct, already fading at the turn of the century, now seem to have disappeared altogether. As a result, the aftermath of the 2020 election has the potential to make 2000 look like a mere skirmish.

Democrats and Republicans have already filed dozens of lawsuits in attempts to define the rules in November-an overture for the battles that may follow the election. If Trump is the id of his campaign, its superego is Justin Riemer, the chief counsel of the Republican National Committee, who previously worked for the Virginia Board of Elections. Riemer eschews overstatement in favor of the careful words of a onetime bureaucrat. "We see what's going on as a systemic attack on the existing absentee-voting safeguards that are in place around the country," Riemer told me. "We acknowledge that there is going to be much more absentee voting, so it's never been more important to have those safeguards." In recent weeks, the Trump campaign has been sending questionnaires to election officials in swing states, asking for details about how they intend to conduct the election and count the votes. The officials' answers could become important evidence in any post-Election Day litigation.

The architect of the Democrats' pre-Election Day legal strategy is a Washington lawyer named Marc Elias. He is a partner at the firm Perkins Coie, the former professional home of Bob Bauer, who defined the role of the Democratic election specialist and served as the White House counsel under President Obama. Bauer is bearded and professorial; he now teaches at New York University School of Law and advises the Biden campaign. Elias, who relishes the combat of litigation, is more of a street fighter. He came to prominence in 2008 and 2009, when he represented Al Franken in an extended recount in a Minnesota Senate race. Franken eventually prevailed by three hundred and twelve votes, out of nearly three million cast. "That shaped my approach," Elias told me. "Everything you do in the voting process should shape what happens at the end, when the votes are counted." In light of the likely challenges to changes in vote totals after Election Day, the Biden campaign has established a legal task force, which includes hundreds of lawyers. It's led by Bauer and Dana Remus, the campaign's general counsel, and includes two recent Solicitors General in Democratic Administrations, Walter E. Dellinger III and Donald G. Verrilli, Jr.

Shortly after the pandemic broke out in the United States, in March, Elias, in a blog post titled "Four Pillars to Safeguard Vote by Mail," outlined the Democrats' approach:

1. Postage must be free or prepaid by the government.

2. Ballots postmarked on or before Election Day must count.

3. Signature matching laws need to be reformed to protect voters.

4. Community organizations should be permitted to help collect and deliver voted, sealed ballots.

To someone unversed in the arcana of election law, these demands may seem uncontroversial-but Riemer likes to frame each of Elias's pillars as an invitation for voter fraud. "Federal law says that Election Day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and we believe that's when the election ends," Riemer told me. "And the postmark rule is impractical." He believes that states should make their own decisions about postage-paid envelopes, and that election officials must compare the signatures on absentee ballots with those on voter-registration documents to insure that only eligible people vote and that no one votes twice.

Riemer also emphatically opposes the community collection of ballots-the practice by which campaigns or community groups gather absentee ballots from multiple voters and submit them together-known by Republicans as "ballot harvesting." It is true that community ballot collection, unlike Elias's other pillars, has been associated with voter fraud, if rarely. In a 2018 race in North Carolina's Ninth Congressional District, a Republican operative, according to investigators, filled in at least a thousand mail-in-ballot requests, many without the voters' knowledge. After the fraud was exposed, the state held the election again, several months later. Republicans often cite this past May's election for city council in Paterson, New Jersey, which led to charges of fraud for the misuse of mail-in ballots against several local officials. Trump tweeted, "So much time is taken talking about foreign influence, but the same people won't even discuss Mail-In election corruption. Look at Paterson, N.J. 20% of vote was corrupted!" At a news conference, Trump told reporters that they should look into Paterson, "where massive percentages of the vote was a fraud." The fraud involved several hundred votes; as in North Carolina, a judge ordered a new election.

Campaigns face a maddening variety of challenges as they try to change, or even fully understand, the rules of the road. The United States has arguably the most decentralized election administration of any advanced democracy. This is especially evident in the process for choosing a President. Each state conducts a separate contest for its electoral votes, with its own rules for casting and counting ballots. But there are approximately ten thousand five hundred different voting jurisdictions, many of which have their own distinctive procedures as well. The legal doctrine known as the Purcell principle, named for a Supreme Court case from 2006, holds that courts should refrain from making changes to election procedures close to Election Day, because of the potential for creating confusion for voters. (The court has never defined how close is too close.) As a result, the debates over Elias's four pillars, and also over universal mail-in voting, are being played out in state after state at a frantic pace.

Each party has created a Web site to track the progress of election litigation around the country. The Republican site, protectthevote.com, lists cases in nineteen states, and the Democratic site, democracydocket.com, lists cases in twenty-eight. By one accounting, there are now more than two hundred pending lawsuits about the rules for the November election. The claims in the lawsuits vary, but there are consistent themes. The Democrats are seeking both to make it easier to vote and to relax restrictions that prevent individual ballots from being counted. The Republicans are insisting on measures that they assert will limit the number of improper or fraudulent votes.

During the first week of August, Nevada's Democratic legislature and governor passed a substantial revision to the state's election law, effectively creating an all-mail contest in November. The Trump campaign sued. "Many of those provisions will undermine the November election's integrity," the suit asserted, in a hundred-and-fourteen-page complaint. "Some go beyond that, crossing the line that separates bad policy judgments from enactments that violate federal law or the United States Constitution." According to Trump's lawyers, the revised law "requires county or city clerks to count potentially fraudulent or invalid ballots, thereby diluting the votes of honest citizens and depriving them of their right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment." In response, Elias's team asserted that the Nevada legislature "has taken the necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that all Nevadans have safe and meaningful opportunities to vote, both during the pandemic and after." (The case is pending.) More recently, New Jersey made a similar move to offer all residents the opportunity to vote by mail, and Republicans sued to invalidate the new rules, again asserting that the system would lead to fraud. Phil Murphy, the state's Democratic governor, who initiated the change, said, of the Republican suit, "Bring it on." (This case is also pending.)

There are at least five ongoing cases in Pennsylvania, several of them Republican-backed efforts to restrict "ballot harvesting." But, even if limits are imposed, it is not clear how they would be enforced or what, exactly, they would be. Could family members drop off one another's ballots? What about distant family members? Close friends? How close? Who would monitor that process? Democrats have filed a suit in Pennsylvania to obtain prepaid postage for absentee ballots and to relax a postmark-date requirement. In another of the Pennsylvania cases, a Republican challenge to the vote-by-mail procedures, a federal judge, J. Nicholas Ranjan, told the plaintiffs, in effect, to put up or shut up-to produce evidence of fraud "in their possession, or if they have none, state as much." The Republican plaintiffs submitted a five-hundred-and-twenty-four-page filing that mentioned examples of fraud by voter intimidation at the polls and by the alteration of vote totals, but provided no examples of fraud in mail-in elections. (This case, too, is pending.) Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gave the Democrats an important victory, holding that the state should count all mailed-in votes that were postmarked by Election Day and permitting election officials to add more ballot drop boxes.

Some of the lawsuits involve relative minutiae. In Iowa, Republicans sued three counties that sent absentee-ballot applications to voters with their names and addresses already filled in. "We think voters should have to fill out that information themselves," Riemer told me. (The G.O.P. won that case.) Only a handful of the lawsuits appear to have been resolved. Rhode Island waived a requirement stipulating that voters obtain the signature of a witness in order to file an absentee ballot. Republicans challenged the change. Their case was rejected in federal district court and in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and they failed to persuade the Supreme Court to review the judgment. But, even when the Republicans fail to win in court, their lawsuits succeed in raising issues that Trump and his allies may use to claim fraud in the event that the vote count ends with Biden in the lead.

One of the ironies of the Republicans' obsession with fraud is that theirs is the party with the more significant recent history of misconduct at the polls. Shortly before the 1981 governor's race in New Jersey, the Republican National Committee created the National Ballot Security Task Force. The group consisted mostly of armed off-duty police officers hired by the G.O.P. to monitor polling sites in Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Newark and Trenton. The group, whose members wore "NBST" armbands, posted large signs outside polling places that read "WARNING-THIS AREA IS BEING PATROLLED BY THE NATIONAL BALLOT SECURITY TASK FORCE. IT IS A CRIME TO FALSIFY A BALLOT OR TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAWS." The task-force members challenged the right of some people to vote and blocked the way to the polls for others. In the election, the Republican, Thomas Kean, narrowly defeated the Democrat, James Florio.

The Democratic National Committee sued the R.N.C. for its role in creating the task force, and in 1982 the two sides settled the case with a so-called consent decree. The Republicans admitted no wrongdoing, but they agreed to refrain from engaging in tactics that suppressed the vote, especially those that affected minority voters. They also said they would not hire anyone to wear armbands at the polls and agreed to allow a federal court to review in advance any plans to conduct ballot-security operations at polling places. Over the years, the R.N.C. has attempted to have the consent decree lifted, arguing that it is obsolete and unnecessary, without success. Finally, in 2018, Judge John Michael Vazquez, over Democratic objections, lifted the decree.

The 2020 Presidential election will be the first in almost four decades in which Republicans will be free from the strictures of the consent decree. The Trump campaign and its allies have announced plans to hire fifty thousand poll watchers in fifteen states to monitor voting locations. Riemer told me, "The Democrats have had an unfair advantage for years because of the consent decree, and we're just trying to have a fair playing field. Our people will be well trained. They are not there to intimidate, they are not there to suppress the vote. They are there to get out the lawful vote." But the President has suggested that the Republican poll watchers will not necessarily be so restrained. Sean Hannity, in the interview during the Democratic Convention, asked him, "Are you going to have an ability to monitor, to avoid fraud and cross-check whether or not these are registered voters-whether or not there's been identification to know that it's a real vote from a real American?" Trump answered, "We're going to have everything. We're going to have sheriffs, and we're going to have law enforcement, and we're going to have, hopefully, U.S. Attorneys, and we're going to have everybody, and attorney generals." (The President has no authority over local officials.) Sherrilyn Ifill, the president and director-counsel of the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Education Fund, said, of the poll watchers, "We should prepare for widespread intimidation of voters at the polls and the use of dubious lists that challenge their eligibility to vote. This has long been a tool that has been recognized as a form of voter suppression. It's an utterly appalling message that no President should be sending out to the public."

In advance of the 2016 election, Roger Stone, Trump's longtime friend and adviser, organized a group called Stop the Steal, which was ostensibly intended to stop voter fraud at the polls. In response, Elias's team invoked the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which prohibits private citizens from interfering with the right to vote, and won a court injunction against Stone's efforts. Elias doesn't rule out a similar lawsuit this fall. In addition, Democrats and nonpartisan civil-rights groups like Ifill's plan on being stationed at as many polling places as possible, to defend the rights of voters. In such a polarized environment, the presence at the polls of watchers with conflicting agendas presents one of the leading possibilities for conflict, if not violence, on Election Day.

Shortly after the polls close, states will begin releasing vote tallies, largely based on ballots cast at polling places. The news networks and the Associated Press are likely to be cautious about issuing projections of victory for one candidate or the other on Election Night. Instead, the vote-counting process could go on for days, if not weeks, under the constant gaze of partisans from both sides. According to Richard Hasen, a professor of law at the University of California, Irvine, "Representatives of the campaigns have the right to be present during every step. Every ballot has to be verified, every envelope has to be sealed, every voter identity checked, and the campaigns get to dispute every judgment that's made." Even if courts have clarified the procedures for casting and counting votes in each state and locality, the possibilities for disputes arising as those rules are applied to the actual ballots are nearly endless. How closely must the signature on an absentee ballot match that on the voter-registration form? What happens if a voter clearly indicates her intent-say, by circling a candidate's name-but fails to fill in the correct bubble on the form?

New York's Democratic primaries, on June 23rd-among the first major contested elections to take place during the pandemic-offered a modest preview of the chaos we could see after November 3rd. In those races, landslides were called quickly and without controversy. But the process of resolving the closer contests was long and agonizing. I observed one of them at a Board of Elections counting center, on West Thirty-first Street, in Manhattan. The main race still in dispute was the Democratic primary between Carolyn Maloney, the longtime representative from a district that includes the East Side of Manhattan and slivers of Brooklyn and Queens, and Suraj Patel, a young businessman and activist. Turnout was high for a primary. Patel had also challenged Maloney in 2018-about forty-four thousand people voted in that election. This year, the tally on Election Night put Maloney ahead by six hundred and forty-eight votes, 1.6 per cent, but more than sixty-five thousand votes had been cast by mail, and, two weeks later, none of those had yet been counted. In a typical pre-pandemic race in New York State, about ninety-five per cent of voters cast their ballots in person. This year, it is estimated that between forty and sixty per cent will vote by mail. (In Illinois, more than 1.1 million people had applied for absentee ballots by August; in 2018, only four hundred and thirty thousand people in the state voted absentee.)

The magnitude of the challenge for election officials was evident as soon as I entered the counting room, which took up most of the eighth floor of a large office building. There were about twenty counting tables, set at least six feet apart. Two board staffers sat at each table, and they were monitored by representatives from both campaigns; everyone was masked. At the tables, people tried to maintain social distance-mostly in vain, since they were all squinting at the same ballots. The staffers first compared the signatures on the envelopes with the ones in the registration book, and then inspected the ballots themselves. The pace was glacial. At first, staffers counted just two hundred ballots a day, though after a week or so the pace quickened to about eight hundred a day. Still, the initial count took more than a month.

New York, which is heavily Democratic, is unlikely to be competitive in the Presidential election, but there is every reason to believe that the count in the Maloney-Patel race will be simple and straightforward compared to what might happen around the country in the Presidential contest. Based on previous trends, at least twice as many people will vote in November as voted in the June primary; that means at least double the number of absentee ballots to count. In the case of a close race, a recount-in which each side could contest the validity of each ballot-would certainly go on for longer than the month-plus that it took for Maloney to declare victory.

As the New York race also demonstrated, mailed ballots have a markedly higher rate of disqualification. About twenty per cent of the ballots from Manhattan and Queens, and nearly thirty per cent of those from Brooklyn were disqualified-many because voters didn't sign the envelopes of the absentee ballots, or because they sealed the envelope with tape rather than with moisture. The Postal Service had failed to apply postmarks to many of the absentee ballots, so the Board of Elections disallowed all those that were received after Election Day. Patel successfully sued in federal court to have more ballots counted, especially those without postmarks. But by that point, in early August, Maloney's lead had grown to four per cent, and the Associated Press called the race for her. (Patel conceded on August 27th.) "The Democrats want to blame Trump and the Republicans for all the problems with voting, and claim that it's vote suppression," Samuel Issacharoff, a professor at New York University School of Law, told me. "But the Republicans had nothing to do with the fiasco in New York. The Democrats made all the rules there. There was no conspiracy-the system is just not set up to absorb that many absentee ballots and count them in a reasonable period of time."

The high disqualification rate for absentee ballots poses a special peril for Democrats. According to a study co-written by Daniel Smith, a professor at the University of Florida Law School, the mail-in ballots of racial and ethnic minorities, and also of young voters, were rejected at a substantially higher rate than those of older white voters across counties, even though the counties varied in the over-all rate at which they rejected ballots. High disqualification rates for mail-in votes were evident in 2020 races around the country. According to studies by the Washington Post and NPR, during the primaries, mailed ballots were disqualified at a far higher rate than in 2016-five hundred thousand in total were deemed invalid. (By comparison, about three hundred and eighteen thousand ballots were disqualified in the 2016 general election.) Franita Tolson, a professor at the U.S.C. Gould School of Law, told me, "You will still see many claims that absentee ballots have been wrongly rejected, and those will lead to court cases. The fact that we are generating lots of voting by mail will generate a lot of litigation."

Daniel Smith said, "Ultimately, in Florida, it may all come down to the three-member Canvassing Boards, who will decide whether each vote counts. This time, they won't be staring at chads but comparing signatures and deciding if they match."

In the days following Election Night, there is likely to be an increasing disparity between the initial poll tallies and the numbers that include mail-in votes. This is not exactly new. According to Edward B. Foley, a professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, for most of the twentieth century, the preliminary count on Election Night was about ninety-nine per cent of the total count, but, even before COVID, "a new normal developed, because of greater reliance on vote by mail." For example, on Election Night in 2018, the Republican Martha McSally led the Democrat Kyrsten Sinema by one per cent in the Arizona Senate race. But there were still about six hundred thousand votes to be counted, a quarter of the total number, and, once they were, it was clear that Sinema had won comfortably, by about fifty-five thousand votes. This year, with more mail-in votes, a blue shift is likely to take place in nearly every state.

Voters in nine states will get their ballots mailed to them directly by default, and thirty-six states will offer no-excuse absentee voting-that is, voters will be allowed to choose to vote by mail without having to give a reason. These include two major swing states, Pennsylvania and Michigan. In the past four Presidential elections, Foley explained, Pennsylvania experienced a blue shift of about twenty thousand votes: "That was before COVID and before the state moved to no-excuse absentee voting, so that means there will be a great deal more mail-in votes this year than in the past." (In the Pennsylvania Democratic primary, in June, which had a low turnout because the Presidential nomination had already been decided, it took more than two weeks to count the votes.)

There is nothing sinister about the fact that Democrats use mail-in voting more than Republicans do. Foley's concern is that Trump will claim that the blue shift, if it occurs, is evidence of partisan foul play, particularly if it eliminates an apparent Election Night lead in an important state. (Some Democrats have deemed a possible Trump lead on Election Night the "red mirage.") "If the votes keep shifting, Trump may demand that the Election Night numbers be certified, because he doesn't trust the mail-ins," Foley said. In 2018, after a blue shift narrowed the Election Night leads of Republican statewide candidates in Florida, Trump tweeted, "The Florida Election should be called in favor of Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis in that large numbers of new ballots showed up out of nowhere, and many ballots are missing or forged. An honest vote count is no longer possible-ballots massively infected. Must go with Election Night."

The prospect of a blue shift, and Trump's reaction to it, is one reason that Michael Bloomberg decided to spend a hundred million dollars to help Biden in Florida. "In swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, they count their Election Day votes first and then the mail-in votes, so it's entirely possible that Trump will be ahead there," Howard Wolfson, a senior political adviser to Bloomberg, told me. "Trump has no respect for decorum or tradition, so we assume that he will just claim victory at that point and argue that any ballots that come in after that point are fraudulent." Florida, on the other hand, counts mail-in votes as they arrive, so the Election Night total may well come close to the state's final result. Wolfson explained, "Florida is obviously very close, and it's a state that Trump really has to win to get to two hundred and seventy electoral votes. If we can show that he lost Florida on Election Night, it makes it pretty much impossible for him to claim victory in the election. That was a huge factor in why we decided to invest in Florida."

It took a Supreme Court ruling to conclude the Presidential race in 2000-and there is an additional set of procedures that may come into play in 2020. They have roots in an even more controversial Presidential election, which took place in 1876. That year, on the night of November 7th, it appeared that Samuel J. Tilden, the Democrat, had defeated Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican. But the results in several Republican-dominated states had not yet been reported. The vote was especially close in Florida. Shortly before the Electoral College was to meet, in December, the Florida Canvassing Board certified electors pledged to Hayes, but the state's attorney general certified Tilden as the winner. Louisiana and South Carolina also sent contradictory certifications to Washington. Because neither candidate commanded a clear Electoral College majority, Congress improvised a solution, establishing an electoral commission of five senators, five House members, and five Justices of the Supreme Court. A few days before Inauguration Day, 1877, the commission voted eight to seven to award the Presidency to Hayes. Republicans like Hayes had established Reconstruction in the South after the Civil War, but, as part of the deal that made him President, Hayes agreed to end Reconstruction, with disastrous implications for African-Americans.

Foley told me, "Congress knew that what happened in 1876 was a disaster, an embarrassment, and then there were two more close elections, in 1880 and 1884, so they realized they really had to do something about it." As a result, Congress passed the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which purported to establish a procedure for resolving disputed Presidential elections. The statute was, Foley said, "a placeholder, better than nothing, which they figured would be improved over time. But Congress has never returned to the issue, and the law has never really been tested. No one really knows what it means."

There does seem to be general agreement on one provision of the 1887 act: the "safe harbor" clause. It provides that, if a state submits its final tally in the Presidential contest by six days before the meeting of the Electoral College, that decision is "conclusive" and thus free from legal challenge. This year, the safe-harbor deadline is December 8th; the Electoral College meets in each state capitol on December 14th.

It is unclear, however, what will happen if a slow vote count puts a state in jeopardy of missing the deadline. The Court's opinion in Bush v. Gore provides one possibility, based on Article II of the Constitution, which says that the states must appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." In its Bush v. Gore opinion, the Court observed that, in the early days of the Republic, the state legislatures, not the voters, selected the Presidential electors in some states. Thus, the opinion went on, "the State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors." The bland legal language obscures the magnitude of this conclusion. It means that a state legislature can simply ignore the votes cast by the state's citizens and award its Presidential electors to the candidate of its choice. "This is the most frightening prospect of all," Issacharoff said. "It's a deep confrontation with the idea that we as citizens have the right to vote for President."

In 2000, Republicans in the Florida legislature had been planning to invoke this constitutional provision if the length of the recount jeopardized the state's ability to submit electors in time to be counted. But, to date, no state in the modern era has attempted to preëmpt its voters in this way. Still, the Constitution can arguably be read to give legislatures the power to do so. It's even conceivable that, if President Trump claimed that a Biden victory in a state was based on fraud, a Republican legislature could overturn the result. If a legislature wanted to try this maneuver-to award its state's Electoral College votes on its own-could the governor veto it?

In four crucial swing states-Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin-there is a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor. The Constitution speaks only of the legislature, and the answer appears to be that the governor would have no role-but no one knows for sure. The 1887 act also says that, after a state makes a "final ascertainment" of its results, the governor must send a certification to the Archivist of the United States. If the governor refused to do so-or sent a certification of a result that conflicted with the legislature's, or the courts', determination-would that action invalidate the certification by the legislature? No one knows. In any case, it appears clear that, if a state fails to submit a winner by December 14th, the decision about its electoral votes goes to Congress.

The 1887 act appears to offer some guidance on the question of what Congress might then do-but not much. "I defy you to read the law and understand it," Foley said. "I've been working on it for a decade, and I still don't understand it completely. It's just a morass." The law mandates that both Houses of Congress meet in a joint session-scheduled, this cycle, for January 6, 2021-to certify the Electoral College tally. At that meeting, there can be a challenge to the counting of votes if at least one representative and one senator offer it. At the joint session in 2001, several House members sought to challenge Bush's victory over Gore, but no senator joined them. Thus, Vice-President Gore, as the presiding officer, was obliged to rule the challenges to his defeat out of order. Michael Moore, in his documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," included excerpts from the joint session, using the failure of even a single Democratic senator to challenge Bush's victory as a symbol of the Party's spinelessness.

So what happens if, unlike with the 2000 election, at least one senator joins a House member to challenge the electoral-vote results in a state? The law offers minimal guidance. One thing is clear: the House and the Senate would have separate proceedings, and vote separately, on which electors to seat in the contested states. With the result of the election on the line, the level of contention would be extraordinary. Would there be hearings? Would witnesses testify? How long would the House and the Senate debate the issue? No one knows.

The complexities accumulate. It's possible that some states, if their results are tied up in the courts, might not submit any electors to Congress. What happens if there are fewer than five hundred and thirty-eight electoral votes cast? As Charles Stewart III, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said, "Do you need a majority of those cast, or do you need two hundred and seventy? That is not clear." And what if the House approves one slate of electors and the Senate approves a different one? Since Democrats now control the House and Republicans the Senate, such a scenario seems possible, even likely. According to Stewart, in the event of a conflict between the House and the Senate over which slate to approve, the Electoral Count Act says that the one signed by the governor of the state prevails. (If the Democrats retake the Senate in November, the chances of conflict between the House and Senate will be lessened, because this vote will occur after the third of the year, when the new senators will be seated.)

Another hypothetical: after the House and the Senate rule on the challenges, neither candidate obtains either two hundred and seventy electoral votes or a majority of those votes cast. Then the final decision would belong to the House of Representatives. The vote in the House would take place not in the usual fashion, by members of Congress, but, rather, by delegation. In other words, each state would get one vote in the House, based on a majority vote of the members of the state's delegation. If it comes to this, the result seems clear. Republicans control twenty-six delegations in the House, and Democrats control twenty-three. Trump would win the election. "Sometimes, when I think about this stuff, I have to go take a nap, because it's so convoluted," Stewart said.

Bob Bauer, the veteran Democratic lawyer, is not inclined to hysteria. "I don't portray the situation as a catastrophe, because all that does is scare away voters," he said, of the upcoming election. "But it is true that it's an unparalleled challenge, because we have a frail election infrastructure in the best of circumstances, and now the pandemic is layered on top." One of Bauer's concerns is outside the control of either campaign-that foreign powers would engage in cyberterrorism on Election Day and afterward. "There's a risk of cyber insecurity, with the possibility that foreign actors will try to interfere with the process," he said. The specific possibilities include hacking into voter-registration databases and vote-counting software, and a full-fledged attack on the electric power grid. Bauer went on, "But there's a higher risk that they will try to convince people that they've interfered with the process and create confusion that way."

There's an extreme imbalance in party resources when it comes to information about possible foreign interference, because the President controls the nation's intelligence apparatus. In a public statement on August 7th, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence asserted that China, Russia, and Iran were already attempting to interfere in the election. Russia's extensive efforts on Trump's behalf in 2016 have long been documented, and, according to the statement, they are continuing in 2020: "Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden." Other possible foreign efforts "seek to compromise our election infrastructure for a range of possible purposes, such as interfering with the voting process, stealing sensitive data, or calling into question the validity of the election results."

Later that month, the Trump Administration shut down some access to information about these foreign efforts, asserting without evidence that there had been leaks in previous briefings. In a series of letters to congressional leaders on August 29th, John Ratcliffe, whom Trump recently named the director of National Intelligence, after his service as a Republican representative from Texas, announced that he would cease in-person briefings about "election security, foreign malign influence, and election interference," and instead supply only written reports. Democrats were indignant about being unable to question intelligence officials before the election. "President Trump, through his hand-picked DNI-chosen for loyalty, not experience-is attempting to deprive Congress of the information they need to do their part," Biden said in a statement. "There can be only one conclusion: President Trump is hoping Vladimir Putin will once more boost his candidacy and cover his horrific failures to lead our country through the multiple crises we are facing." Last week, Ratcliffe reversed course and agreed to provide some in-person briefings to Congress, but Democrats will still head into the election substantially in the dark about how foreign powers may attempt to manipulate the outcome.

As Election Day approaches, the President has escalated his level of incitement. With the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, last week, a battle with the Democrats in the Senate is almost inevitable. Trump has already moved from allegations of fraud to intimations of unlawfulness and violence. "Gotta be careful with those ballots," he said on September 8th, in a speech in North Carolina. "Watch those ballots. I don't like it." He continued, "Be poll watchers when you go there. Watch all the thieving and stealing and robbing they do." Trump has advised his supporters to vote twice-once by absentee and once at the polls, to make sure their votes count. (This would be a crime.) He has expressed sympathy for the anti-Black Lives Matter counter-protesters who fired paintballs at their adversaries in Portland, and has defended Kyle Rittenhouse, the pro-Trump vigilante who is accused of killing two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Trump also retweeted a prediction that political unrest "could lead to 'rise of citizen militias around the country.' " In light of these provocations, it seems that anything short of a landslide for either Biden or Trump could lead to chaos. It's unsurprising that, when the Transition Integrity Project, a group of a hundred bipartisan experts, ran a series of simulations, they concluded that "the potential for violent conflict is high, particularly since Trump encourages his supporters to take up arms."

One Republican, perhaps the one most knowledgeable about how elections really work, has decided that Trump has gone too far. Earlier this month, Benjamin Ginsberg, the scourge of the Gore forces in Florida, wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, calling out Trump's baseless provocations about the election. "I spent 38 years in the GOP's legal trenches," he wrote. "I was part of the 1990s redistricting that ended 40 years of Democratic control and brought 30 years of GOP successes in Congress and state legislatures. I played a central role in the 2000 Florida recount and several dozen Senate, House and state contests." Ginsberg denounced Trump's encouragement of double voting and rejected the President's claim of widespread voter fraud: "The truth is that after decades of looking for illegal voting, there's no proof of widespread fraud. . . . Elections are not rigged."

Ginsberg told me, "I was a tough partisan and proud of it-but I think it's important for Republicans and Democrats to look at the real evidence of what's happened over forty years. Unfortunately, Republicans have gotten away from that during this cycle." For decades, Republican candidates depended on Ginsberg for his counsel and his advice, but there is every sign that he, like all apostates from the cause of Trump, will be ignored and scorned by the President and his allies. Instead, it will be Trump's party that sets the path to Election Day, and beyond. ♦

An earlier version of this article misrepresented the office James Florio held in 1981.

Read More About the 2020 Election

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Legal Fight Awaiting Us After the Election

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The aftermath of November's vote has the potential to make 2000 look like a mere skirmish. The immediate aftermath of the Presidential election of 2000 has taken on the air of legend. On Election Night, news organizations first called Florida for Vice-President Al Gore-then, about two hours later, withdrew the call and, about four hours after that, declared that George W.

# data[].attributes.headline
What Happens If Trump Contests the Election?

# data[].attributes.subject
What Happens If Trump Contests the Election?

# data[].attributes.body
A podcast broadcast on NPR on October 1, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to Fresh Air podcast

subscribe to Fresh Air podcast

'Atlantic' writer Barton Gellman says the 2020 election could trigger a constitutional crisis, and if the election is close, it could take weeks to determine the results in key battleground states as mail-in ballots are scrutinized for technical flaws and counted. If President Trump cries fraud and his supporters take to the streets, state legislatures could resolve to set aside the popular vote in their states and choose their own partisan delegations to the Electoral College. "This is not going to be a normal election. ... Preserving its legitimacy is going to take extra effort," he says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Happens If Trump Contests the Election? : Fresh Air

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'Atlantic' writer Barton Gellman says the 2020 election could trigger a constitutional crisis, and if the election is close, it could take weeks to determine the results in key battleground states as mail-in ballots are scrutinized for technical flaws and counted.

# data[].attributes.body
Source: United States Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the presidential election process, including the Electoral College, caucuses and primaries, and the national conventions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Key Points

The boogaloo movement is an anti-government extremist movement that formed in 2019. In 2020, boogalooers increasingly engaged in real world activities as well as online activities, showing up at protests and rallies around gun rights, pandemic restrictions and police-related killings.

The term "boogaloo" is a slang reference to a future civil war, a concept boogalooers anticipate and even embrace.

The ideology of the boogaloo movement is still developing but is primarily anti-government, anti-authority and anti-police in nature.

Most boogalooers are not white supremacists, though one can find white supremacists within the movement.

The boogalooers' anti-police beliefs prompted them to participate widely in the Black Lives Matters protests following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in May 2020.

Boogalooers rely on memes and in-jokes, as well as gear and apparel, to create a sense of community and share their ideology.

Boogalooers have been arrested for crimes up to and including murder and terrorist plots.

I. Origins: From Slang Term to Movement

The boogaloo movement is a developing anti-government extremist movement that arose in 2019 and features a loose anti-government and anti-police ideology. The participation of boogaloo adherents in 2020's anti-lockdown and Black Lives Matter protests has focused significant attention on the movement, as have the criminal and violent acts committed by some of its adherents.

Before there was a boogaloo movement, there was the concept of "the boogaloo" itself: a slang phrase used as a shorthand reference for a future civil war that became popular in various fringe circles in late 2018. By 2019, people ranging from gun rights activists to libertarians and anarchocapitalists freely used the term "boogaloo," urging people to be "boogaloo ready" or even to "bring on the boogaloo." The term itself didn't specify a type of civil conflict, allowing different types of extremists to insert their own particular fantasies as the concept spread on numerous discussion forums and social media sites.

The term itself derives from a longstanding joke referencing the 1984 film Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, in which the first part of the film's title is replaced by something else to suggest some sort of sequel. When George W. Bush followed in his father's footsteps to the U.S. presidency, for example, some people jokingly referred to it as "Bush 2: Electric Boogaloo."

"Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo" was one longstanding version of this joke. In recent years, however, some people used this phrase to refer to a future conflict over the issue of guns or gun confiscations. Such references have appeared on a variety of platforms, making it difficult to pinpoint their conceptual origins. However, the website Bellingcat suggested in May 2020 that the "Weapons" forum (or "board") of the website 4chan "appears to be" where the term became regularly used in this context.

ADL research has confirmed the likelihood that conversations in the weapons forum (more commonly known as "/k/") solidified the boogaloo concept. For years, "electric boogaloo" jokes and references of all kinds were a popular trope in posts on /k/. Among them were "Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo" references, many of which posited a future civil war started over the issue of guns, such as gun owners rising up to prevent guns from being confiscated. "I went from a gun owner, hunter and light prepper," claimed one /k/ poster in December 2018, "to awaiting the great American civil war 2 electric boogaloo." Other /k/ denizens used the "Civil War 2" reference to describe other versions of a future conflict, such as a war between liberals and conservatives or a war between different races.

Such civil war "boogaloo" references became increasingly common on /k/ from summer 2018 onward. By the end of 2018, so many people were familiar with "Civil War 2: Electric boogaloo" that /k/ posters discovered they could drop the first part and people would still understand what they were referring to. "Shame Asians don't ally with whites," claimed one /k/ resident in October 2018. "It'd be nice to have other people capable of civilization standing by when electric boogaloo comes." Another person asked on /k/ in December 2018 how people would "fight in the Electric Boogaloo if they don't have a gun?"

Eventually, the word "electric" also fell by the wayside. "When the boogaloo starts, antifa and civnatfags will be slaughtered by their pets in under a week," claimed one poster in November 2018 (the term "civnatfags" is 4chan slang for so-called "civic nationalists" or alt-lite extremists). "Can't wait for boogaloo," wrote another /k/ poster that month. "You want your fight? You got it."

By 2019 the concept of "boogaloo" as a future civil war had spread widely. Though it was still an inchoate concept, in which white supremacists might use it in one context, such as race war, while militia adherents or gun enthusiasts might refer to it terms of government overreach or gun grabbing, an emerging online community quickly developed its own vocabulary and memes. Variations of the term "boogaloo" emerged, like "Big Igloo" and "Big Luau," humorous sound-alike alternatives that spawned some of the earliest boogaloo symbols, such as igloo images and tropical shirts. "Big Igloo" spawned variants such as "icehouse," while the phrase "Big Luau" led to numerous party-themed synonyms for the boogaloo, including "hoedown" and "hootenanny" (as in "the big hootenanny"), as well as "fiesta" or "spicy fiesta" (with the word "fajitas" sometimes used as a substitute for "guns" or "rights").

Boogaloo-related memes solidified the boogaloo concept. Memes are discussed in greater detail below, but they were important not only in creating a conceptual framework for the boogaloo but also in helping to turn the boogaloo from a concept into a movement. Some of the first online boogaloo spaces, such as Facebook groups, were primarily for sharing memes.

By mid-2019, "boogaloo" had become more than just a slang term; an actual movement was cohering around the concept. It is important to distinguish between the people who have used or may use the term "boogaloo" to mean a future civil war and those people who have actually become part of the boogaloo movement itself. In particular, though white supremacists also used or promoted the use of the term "boogaloo" in 2019-20-including some accelerationist white supremacists who used it in the context of a future race war -- for the most part they did not become part of the movement itself.

People who did join the movement adopted terms to describe themselves, such as boogaloo bois/boys, boogs, and boojihadeen. They also created physical artifacts to proclaim their allegiance, including distinctive symbols, flags, patches, clothing, and stickers.

Boogalooers grew rapidly over the next year, primarily through online spread. One boogaloo Facebook page, the Big Igloo Bois page, garnered more than 32,000 "likes" before Facebook took it down in June 2020. Facebook page "likes" used as a measurement tend to overstate actual support for extremist causes, but numerous boogaloo Facebook groups (i.e., discussion forums) achieved significant memberships as well. HonoLuau Sunrise, a boogaloo Facebook group created on June 30, 2020, accumulated more than 2,000 members by August 5. CNN Bois, another boogaloo Facebook group created around the same time, reached 9,400 members in just a couple weeks (before Facebook took it down). Not all online participants are necessarily true believers, but it seems fairly clear that the boogaloo movement likely surpassed 10,000 adherents by summer 2020. The number of boogalooers taking part in real world activities, as opposed to merely online activities, has been much smaller.

II. The Ideologies and Beliefs of the Boogaloo Movement

Much of the ideology of the boogaloo movement originated in other fringe movements and subcultures. Though some boogalooers joined the movement as their first experience with fringe or extreme beliefs, others had previous exposure to different beliefs and philosophies, which they brought with them to the boogaloo movement.

One important subculture that influenced the boogaloo movement is the "chan" subculture common to forums like 4chan, with its emphasis on memes, trolling and deliberate irreverence. Another important subculture was America's hardcore firearms subculture ( a small percentage of Americans own a large portion of the total firearms in the country), itself closely linked to the single-issue RKBA (right to keep and bear arms) movement.

Even more influential have been several minimalist government philosophies. These include libertarianism (which promotes individual freedoms and seeks minimal government), anarchocapitalism (which seeks the removal of central governments but emphasizes private property and the free market), voluntaryism (which advocates all relationships be based on mutual consent), and minarchism (which seeks a minimal government that performs only certain specified functions).

Of the two, libertarianism and anarchocapitalism are the most influential within the boogaloo movement. Many boogalooers strongly support Jo Jorgenson, the 2020 Libertarian Party candidate for president. Jorgenson herself appeared on a boogaloo-related podcast in the summer of 2020. Spike Cohen, the party's vice-presidential nominee, also has had ties to boogalooers. Anarchocapitalist (or "ancap") references and imagery are also very common among boogalooers.

These anti-government philosophies have helped make the boogaloo movement staunchly anti-authoritarian, anti-state, and anti-police in nature.

Some boogalooers have ties to another anti-government extremist movement: the militia movement (including Three Percenters). This movement, motivated by conspiracy theories and a fixation on firearms, has historically opposed the federal government and federal law enforcement. Its adherents viewed the federal government as analogous to the British during the American Revolution and saw themselves as patriots protecting Americans and their liberties.

The militia movement long focused on perceived victims of government, like those killed by federal agents during deadly standoffs at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992 and Waco, Texas, in 1993. It had a strong vein of anti-law enforcement sentiment and also sought a minimalist, libertarian-like government.

However, the recent history of the militia movement during the Trump administration has caused many boogalooers to take a dim view of the movement. The militia and Three Percenters strongly supported Donald Trump-the first major party nominee the movement ever supported- and his election in 2016 caused the movement to lose much of its anti-government fervor; it is hard to be intensely anti-government while strongly supporting the person at its head.

Boogalooers certainly noticed. "[Militia/Three Percenters] are always ready to take a knee and blow the state as long as they have an R in front of their name," wrote one boogalooer to a Facebook group in June 2020. Another called them "3per maga cucks." Another group member, a Three Percenter himself, agreed: "They've gone from protectors of tyranny to protectors of the tyrants. It breaks my heart seeing them act this way."

In many respects, the boogaloo movement resembles a reincarnation of the pre-Trump militia movement, though stripped of the militia movement's focus on New World Order conspiracy theories. Boogalooers hold the anti-government and anti-law enforcement attitudes common in the early years of the militia movement. They also regularly make Revolutionary War references-with some even insisting that "boogaloo" doesn't stand for "Civil War 2" but rather "American Revolution 2." Boogalooers frequently reference Ruby Ridge and Waco, even though those events occurred before many boogalooers were even born.

Had the election of Trump not sapped the anti-government anger of the militia movement, many people who are boogalooers today might have joined militia or Three Percenter groups instead.

The still-developing boogaloo movement doesn't yet have a concrete ideology but does have a set of shared ideas orbiting the concept of a future "boogaloo". These include:

The Enemy. Boogalooers are, in general, anti-government, anti-state and anti-police, but not always in equal measure. A debate that took place on one boogaloo-related Facebook page in late June 2020 illustrates the differences among boogalooers. "Just a reminder," posted "Chief Boogaloo" to his page, "police are not the enemy here. It's the jackasses in power. The will of the few is imposed on the many here."

But this idea immediately met pushback. "Tyrants don't enforce their own laws," responded another boogalooer. "Cops do it for them. Cops are 100% the enemy. That's like saying King George was the only enemy. Not the redcoats who went to kill the colonists." This idea had support from others. "I agree 100%," wrote a third, "They are absolutely the enemy."

Violence. The idea of violence is widely accepted within the boogaloo movement; one boogaloo meme uses an image from The Simpsons cartoon to make the point that the purpose of the "boojahideen" is to implement "violently installed Freedom and Liberty" against the federal government. "We don't want civil war," explained a boogalooer on the HonoLuau Sunrise Facebook group in July 2020, "we want the politicians' heads on spikes."

When a moderator of one popular boogaloo page announced in July 2020 that "P A T R I O T Wave" did not support violence, he was met with immediate pushback. "I condone acts of violence," responded one boogalooer. "At some point," wrote another, "you have to support violence." In July 2020, Chris Stone, the administrator of one Facebook boogaloo group, "Fiesta Aficianados Anonymous," announced that his group "is for those completely willing to Fiesta [i.e., start the boogaloo], but who would also like to reach out and try to avoid the Fiesta while maintaining their Fajitas [guns/rights]."

Boogalooers often discuss how or when to engage in violence. Many think of violence in reactive rather than proactive terms-such as responding with violence to law enforcement attempts to enforce "Red Flag" laws (laws that allow the temporary confiscation of firearms from those deemed to be a threat to themselves or others for mental health or other reasons). "Some of y'all probably know it's a matter of time before you get the flag and [are] getting ready accordingly," posted someone calling themselves "Boojahideen" to Facebook in January 2020. "...A few can't wait for it to happen." One meme posted to Facebook in late 2019 depicted the boogaloo starting in reaction to "the final unjust gun and/or tax law."

Mobilization. "Rebellion is in our blood," proclaimed one Facebook boogaloo page, "Tropical Aloha Vibes," in July 2020. "According to most people," wrote Caleb Erlenbach for the Join the Uprising website in September 2019, "10-15% support [in the population] for the boogaloo is a conservative estimate. 5% of 340 million is 17 million." Other boogalooers, not so self-assured, have felt the urge to mobilize people to action. "What shall history remember us as?" asked one of the moderators of the "P A T R I O T Wave" Facebook page in June 2020. "Shall we be remembered as the poor, terrified, and pathetic cowards who let slip the reigns of their great nation unto the dogs of the filth and the corrupt?...Or...shall we be the Americans who dared to stand when the nation knelt?" A month later, the moderator of "Tropical Aloha Vibes" made a similar call to arms: "Will you answer the call? Will you choose freedom over comfort?...Will you turn a blind eye, or will you ravage your tyrants? SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS."

The Left. The boogaloo movement is a right-wing extremist movement, with most of its adherents coming from various fringe right-wing movements or philosophies. As a result, boogalooer attitudes towards the left range from moderately to extremely hostile. Many picture the boogaloo as being directed primarily or substantially against the left itself.

At the same time, because the movement is so new that it lacks the ideological coherency of more mature movements, one can find individuals in boogaloo movement spaces who evince left-leaning ideas. Typically, such individuals are left-leaning libertarians who may have some liberal or progressive social views while at the same time being hostile to left-leaning views about the role of government. Benjamin Ryan Teeter, one of two boogalooers charged in September with attempting to provide material support to Hamas, identified himself on social media as a "left anarchist." There are also a few ties between boogalooers and left-leaning pro-gun groups. In March 2020, a Facebook group for left-oriented boogaloo memes emerged. Originally called the Leftist Boogaloo Side Quest Memes group, it later changed its name to Leftist Side Quest Memes (a "side quest" is an optional goal in a video game). As of mid-August 2020, the group had more than 800 members discussing "what we would do in a Boogaloo situation."

Pedophiles. Although boogalooers primarily oppose the government and police, the movement does have other interests. Perhaps the most prominent-and unusual-of these is an obsession with pedophiles. This fixation may have been inherited in part from the 4chan subculture, which has had its own longstanding focus on pedophiles, and in part from pedophilia-related conspiracy theories such as " Pizzagate" (a 2016 theory that claimed a pedophile sex-slave ring connected to prominent Democrats was being operated from a Washington, D.C., pizza parlor) and Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy financier and convicted sex offender whose 2019 jail suicide spawned numerous conspiracy theories in both left-wing and right-wing circles. It is possible that QAnon, a popular right-wing conspiracy theory that evolved as a grander and more elaborate version of Pizzagate, may have also had some influence, though connections between QAnon and the boogaloo movement are limited.

Boogalooers want pedophiles to die, whether at the hands of law enforcement or boogalooers themselves. "The fuking [sic] FBI is not protecting children anymore," wrote a boogalooer to the HonoLuau Sunrise Facebook group in July 2020, "and if your [sic] a Fed boi reading this on this page you need to fuking [sic] get back to the constitution and yeet [shoot/kill] these fuking [sic] pedos." Boogalooers frequently share sentiments or memes about "yeeting" pedophiles or putting pedophiles in woodchippers. "Feet first into the wood chipper!" announced the moderator of Tropical Aloha Vibes in July 2020 when sharing a pedophile-related meme. "I cannot stress this enough," posted user boog4liberty on Instagram in March 2020, "#pedos #tyrants and #commies get the #yeet during the #boogaloo free helicopter rides and skydiving lessons for them."
III. The Boogaloo Movement and Racism/White Supremacy
When the boogaloo movement first emerged publicly, a number of journalists characterized it as a white supremacist movement seeking to start a race war. This characterization occurred in part from early promotion of the term "boogaloo" by white supremacists such as Paul Nehlen and its approving use by some white supremacists, especially accelerationists.

However, using the term "boogaloo" is not equivalent to joining the boogaloo movement, which consists primarily of anti-government and anti-police extremists and even has a few people of color in its ranks. "We are not racist," wrote one boogalooer on his Facebook profile in April 2020 in response to media characterizations of the boogaloo movement as white supremacist. "[The] only hate I have is for overreaching government."

Many boogalooers have complained about media coverage linking them to white supremacists. "Chief Boogaloo" claimed in June 2020 that one news organization was "trying to run more effective smear campaigns based off of ignorant ass information." Another boogalooer, using the screen name "Booga Schwan," asked on Facebook the following month, "Do you think they'll ever ACTUALLY talk to any of us?" He claimed to have written to media outlets pushing back against their characterization, with no response. "Trying to make it racial is for ratings and readers," he concluded.

Yet there are people with racist or even white supremacist beliefs who do try to participate in boogaloo movement spaces online or in real world activities. "I'm noticing an infiltration [of racists]," wrote one person on a boogaloo Facebook group in July 2020. The poster, a libertarian-leaning Black woman who goes by Clarese Nakiea, also claimed to run a boogaloo Facebook group herself. The fact that moderators of boogaloo-related groups and chat rooms do occasionally kick out racists or white supremacists also illustrates that there are people with such views interested in the movement. Racist boogalooers who avoid making explicitly racist or antisemitic posts can evade detection altogether.

Some, however, are quite open about their racist or white supremacist beliefs. One boogalooer active on Facebook and Twitter as "Molotov," is an explicit white supremacist who believes in race war, arguing as he did in late July on Twitter, "the only answer is to give blood and steel." The previous month he extended an offer to journalists to interview him, as "an active member of [the boogaloo] community," so that he could "help shine a light on the good aspects."

With the movement's public image in mind, boogalooers often insist their movement is not racist. "The Thin Hawaiian Line does not discriminate," declared the owner of Fenix Ammunition, a small Michigan-based business linked to the boogaloo movement, on the company's Facebook page in June 2020. In May, Fenix posted a meme featuring people (labeled as "boog bois" of different colors) linking arms under the banner of "hating racists." Another boogalooer, "Chief Boogaloo," posted on Facebook in June that "the Boog has zero tolerance or time for racism, ignorance, and stupidity," suggesting that the "proverbial 'they'" seek to ignite "division of the masses."

Many of the boogaloo movement's expressions of anti-racism include violence. One common boogaloo meme features a boogalooer shooting a white supremacist who has asked to "boogaloo" with them. Other boogaloo memes promote the "yeeting" (shooting or killing) white supremacists or otherwise threatening them with violence.
IV. Boogaloo and BLM
The protests that followed the killing of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis in May 2020 included a number of boogalooers, who showed up with military gear, weapons, tropical shirts and other boogaloo symbols. Most boogalooers who took part did so because of their own strong anti-police attitudes, perceiving an opportunity to make common cause with others angry about police brutality. "To focus on the immediate threat and the common enemy is how we move forward," claimed an administrator of a popular boogaloo Facebook group, the Big Igloo Bois, in late May 2020, while "setting aside some differences [with Black Lives Matter] no matter how seemingly big they are."

The leader of a Tennessee-based boogaloo group encouraged people to show up at protests, arguing, "This could be a major opportunity for the liberty movement to be publicized and brought into a new light." During the first week of protests alone, boogalooers showed up at demonstrations in at least 11 different cities.

As boogalooers participated in BLM protests, many shared photographs of themselves posing with Black protesters and members of groups like Black Guns Matter. For boogalooers, such photographs were clear visual evidence that their movement was not white supremacist.

Boogalooers have also integrated some martyrs of the Black Lives Movement into their own pantheon of people who died at the hands of police. One widely shared boogaloo meme, which appears in several variations, displays the boogaloo "igloo" flag while listing numerous right-wing extremists killed by police (including Vicki Weaver, Duncan Lemp and Robert LaVoy Finicum) alongside Black people killed by police (such as Oscar Grant, Breonna Taylor and Eric Garner).

Of people of color killed by police, boogalooers seem to reference Breonna Taylor most frequently. Taylor was killed in March 2020 by police officers executing a no-knock search warrant in Louisville, Kentucky; her case contains many elements that incite adherents of the boogaloo movement, including police violence, no-knock warrants and a civilian (in this case, Taylor's boyfriend) using a firearm to defend himself. For many boogalooers, the circumstances of the shooting of Taylor also bear a strong resemblance to those surrounding the killing of boogalooer Duncan Lemp by police in Maryland that same month.

One boogalooer has actually been killed while taking part in a Black Lives Matter protest. In late July 2020, a motorist shot and killed Garrett Foster while Foster was participating in a BLM protest in Austin, Texas. Foster was a frequent presence at protests against police brutality in Austin, often accompanying his Black fiancée, Whitney Mitchell. Foster's social media postings included several boogaloo-related posts in the months before he was shot, while after the shooting one person claimed on a boogaloo Facebook page that Foster had been part of his group, "providing a security escort for the march." Boogalooers across the internet responded to Foster's death with the slogan, "Aloha 'til Valhalla."

Despite the number of boogalooers at BLM protests, the boogaloo movement is not united in support of BLM. While some boogalooers have been highly supportive, others have cast a more jaundiced eye on the movement. "Fuck BLM," declared one boogalooer on Facebook in late May, "[they're] one of the most racist groups out there." It is "ignorant," posted another a few days later, "to think BLM isn't a terrorist organization filled with black supremacists, and white liberal Marxists."

"Imagine marching with Marxists," one boogalooer wrote on Facebook in early July after seeing a photograph of boogalooers and BLM protesters together in Virginia. "I'm lost," wrote one member of a boogaloo Facebook group on July 6. "When I first got into the fiesta it was extremely anti-communist. Now we're allying with a known communist organization?"

Other boogalooers have claimed that only the BLM leadership is Marxist/communist. "Most of the people marching under the banner have no clue what the leadership of BLM is about," wrote another boogalooer. "They are strictly marching for the lives lost. Those people's hearts are in the right places." Another agreed: "A great deal of the members are not Marxists, unlike the BLM leaders."

Overall, boogalooers tend to be very sympathetic to the narrow cause of opposing police violence, while less supportive or even antagonistic towards other BLM goals.

V. The Boogaloo Social Media Presence and Communications

Social media played a significant role in the creation and growth of the boogaloo movement. Mainstream social media platforms like Instagram and Reddit helped the boogaloo concept spread from obscure online spaces like 4chan's /k/. Boogalooers capitalized on the platforms' large audiences to spread their message and draw new supporters who brought a range of ideologies to the table.

Perhaps no social media platform was more integral to the rise of the boogaloo network than Facebook. For nearly a year, from mid-2019 through mid-2020, boogalooers were able to freely share memes advocating revolution or civil war, as well as violence against the government or law enforcement, in public and private Facebook groups and on public Facebook pages. Scores of boogaloo pages and groups attracted thousands of Facebook users. These platforms allowed users to spread extremist rhetoric and form connections with each other. For example, the three self-identified boogalooers arrested in May 2020 for allegedly plotting to incite BLM protesters against police in Las Vegas were all members of the same Nevada-based boogaloo Facebook group.

In the spring of 2020, as publicity around the boogaloo movement grew, Facebook finally took steps to curb the boogalooer presence on its platform. On May 1, 2020, Facebook banned the use of "boogaloo" and related terms when paired with references to weapons or calls to action. On June 4, following the Las Vegas arrests, the social media company announced that its algorithms would no longer recommend boogaloo groups. Finally, on June 30, Facebook removed several hundred boogaloo accounts and groups from its platform and said boogaloo content was banned from its platform.

Boogalooers responded to the Facebook "purge" in two primary ways. Some moved to other platforms, where they hoped to find a more permissive environment. MeWe and Discord emerged as two popular destinations, though Discord also disabled boogaloo-related accounts and chat channels in June. Boogalooers also tried platforms such as KeyBase, Slack, Guilded and RocketChat. However, though boogalooers were able to establish some traffic on several platforms, none matched the size of the Facebook audience and itinerant boogalooers have struggled to thrive.

Many boogalooers have opted to remain on Facebook and attempt to evade the ban, at the risk of having their pages and groups deleted. To increase their survival odds, boogalooers are avoiding the term "boogaloo," using different names and code phrases as camouflage.

Initially, many boogalooers substituted other tropical phrases for "big luau," employed alternative arctic references for "big igloo," or used seemingly unrelated phrases like "Mike Honcho's Fun House," or simply "[redacted]." As restrictions tightened, boogalooers adopted more imaginative terms, such as substituting "spicy fiesta" or "baja blast" for "big luau." In one campaign following the June 30 removals, boogalooers named new groups after established media brands like CNN, NBC, and Vice News and referred to themselves as journalists, hoping to make it harder for social media platforms to find and take down their pages.

The ability of boogalooers to quickly rebrand illustrates the resilience of the movement and leaves Facebook playing catch-up. What matters to boogalooers is the concept of the boogaloo, not a centralized organization or even the word "boogaloo" itself. Its decentralized model means anyone can start a boogaloo-related page or group; if a particular term becomes too well-known on Facebook, boogalooers simply replace it with another in-joke reference or take a seemingly random word or concept, imbuing it with meaning they originally gave to "boogaloo." As one boogaloo meme referencing the 2019 movie Joker put it, "Please forgive my laughter, some people think we care what it's called."

The creation and sharing of memes is especially important to the boogaloo movement. These combinations of text and imagery are a key way the movement spreads its ideas. In particular, boogalooers often employ "shitposting," a form of communication common on platforms such as 4chan, where users filter extreme, violent or hateful messages through darkly humorous memes and messages.

Boogalooers memes often use common internet jokes and pop culture and video game references to communicate their beliefs. In boogaloo internet spaces it is common to see memes glorifying the future civil war, emphasizing the need to prepare for it, encouraging violent behavior, espousing hostility towards law enforcement, or even mocking how crazy boogalooers must appear to outsiders.

In the tradition of shitposting, these memes are steeped in humor and irony, a tactic that serves three purposes. First, they make boogaloo messaging more appealing because people enjoy humor and are more likely to share a humorous meme. Second, boogalooers make the content more digestible by softening the violent underpinnings of some of their beliefs: while many people might reject an explicit call for violence against police, some might be more receptive to a meme that cloaks such violent sentiment with an overlay of humor. Finally, humor-infused memes provide posters with plausible deniability if they are questioned by authorities, since they can claim they were only joking.

Though boogaloo-related memes typically take the outward form of common internet jokes, the messages are often rife with in-group language and shared cultural references. This in-group language helps followers identify fellow boogaloo supporters and avoid censorship.

Early "joke" slang and nicknames, like "Big Luau" and "Big Igloo," as well as alternative names for boogalooers, such as boog or boojahideen, could be used both as jokes and as methods of avoiding censorship. These original variations inspired much of the boogaloo iconography, including Hawaiian shirts, tropical patches, and the igloo that appears on the boogaloo flag.

Common topics of discussion include the coming conflict and how to prepare for it, what weapons and gear to obtain or to include in their "boog kits," what the boogaloo will look like, and what might come after. Boogalooers may also mock or threaten enemies such as law enforcement-the "alphabet bois" or "soup bois."

Some refer to themselves as boogaloo martyr Duncan Lemp when interviewed by media, while others use "Duncan Lemp" as a screen name. Lemp-related hashtags such as #weareDuncanLemp, #JusticeforDuncan, and #SayHisName are commonplace.

VI. Boogaloo Real World Activity

Though boogaloo movement activity remains predominantly online, by late 2019 boogalooers had started to venture into the physical world, a process that accelerated in 2020. In particular, boogalooers have been drawn to three types of protests and events: 1) rallies promoting gun rights or opposing gun control measures; 2) the nationwide protests in April and May decrying coronavirus lockdown measures implemented by state governments; and 3) the Black Lives Matter protests across the country that followed the killing of George Floyd in May. Each type of event reflects a different concern of the boogaloo movement.

Firearms first drew boogalooers into the public sphere, as states around the country debated gun control measures in the wake of high profile shootings like the August 2019 El Paso shooting spree by white supremacist Patrick Crusius. On January 20, 2020, the Virginia Civil Defense League (VCDL), one of the state's largest Second Amendment groups, hosted a gun rights "Lobby Day" on the steps of the state capital in Richmond, Virginia, that attracted thousands of pro-gun activists and anti-government extremists from across the country. Before the event, some commenters had called for a boogaloo in response to any effort to impose stricter gun measures; the VCDL itself encouraged this attitude by sharing a YouTube video that asked whether the boogaloo was about to begin in Virginia. On "Lobby Day," boogalooers wearing Hawaiian shirts were among the protesters. One attendee, a member of a boogaloo Facebook group called "Patriot Wave," carried a sign that read, "I have a dream of a Boogaloo."

In spring 2020, coronavirus-related events took center stage. As the virus spread, prompting many states to implement lockdown measures to combat it, the anti-authority boogaloo movement found a new cause. Protests against lockdown measures began in late March, organized largely by antigovernment extremists, and gained steam in April as more mainstream conservative organizations picked up the cause.

Boogalooers appeared at a number of these anti-lockdown protests, framing the lockdown measures as the efforts of a tyrannical government to strip Americans of their liberties. At protests across the country, boogalooers attended rallies as individuals or in small groups, sometimes openly advocating for a civil war. Most wore Hawaiian shirts and many were armed. At one rally in Olympia, Washington, on April 19, Matt Marshall, the leader of a local Three Percenter group, encouraged his followers to come wearing the boogaloo-linked clothing. Others showed their support for a future civil war by carrying signs, such as one in Sacramento, California, that read, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Boogaloo."

Usually, boogaloo supporters appeared at protests organized by others. However, in May, members of the Facebook group "Blue Igloo" organized several small protests in Raleigh, North Carolina.

In early lockdown protests, boogalooers tended to take a relatively passive role, letting their attire, symbols, and firearms send messages for them. Later, as some local businesses decided to ignore local mandates and reopen, some boogalooers discussed showing up at such establishments to "protect" them from local officials. This came to pass on May 4 in West Odessa, Texas, where a bar owner and seven protesters--six of whom were armed--were arrested following a standoff with local authorities over the bar's reopening. One of the arrested protesters, Wyatt Winn, had liked numerous boogaloo pages on Facebook, posed for photos with armed men wearing Hawaiian shirts, and shared memes referencing Duncan Lemp.

The killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers on May 25 and the many protests that followed opened the way for more boogaloo activity. Boogalooers were on the ground in Minneapolis itself in the early days of protests; some even made a cross-country trek to participate.

In the months that followed, boogalooers became a common presence at protests against police brutality. In May, to give just a few examples, boogalooers joined protests in Louisville, Kentucky; held a boogaloo flag in Norfolk, Virginia; and expressed anti-police sentiments in Dallas, Texas. On June 1 alone, boogalooers were photographed at events in Charlotte, North Carolina; Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; and Seattle, Washington, while one boogalooer was arrested for bringing an AR-15 to a protest in Chattanooga, Tennessee. In July, among other appearances, boogalooers in Richmond, Virginia, joined with BLM protesters on July 4 and July 25.

Boogalooers' roles at such protests varied. At some, members of the movement simply joined other protesters. At others, boogalooers claimed to provide "security" for protesters.

Boogaloo involvement in BLM protests was not always peaceful. In Columbia, South Carolina, two boogaloo supporters were arrested during a May 30 protest. One individual was charged with inciting a riot and aggravated breach of peace after he allegedly threw a water bottle at police officers during a protest; a second person faced numerous charges after allegedly stealing a police jacket from a police vehicle.

More notably, three self-identified members of the boogaloo movement were arrested on May 30 in Las Vegas at a parking lot near a BLM protest while in possession of materials to make Molotov cocktails. At a protest the previous day, one conspirator allegedly urged the crowd to use violence; at the time of their arrest, the three boogalooers were reportedly discussing how best to use their Molotovs against law enforcement.

Boogalooer involvement in BLM and other protests evolved during the summer of 2020 as they attended more events in greater numbers across the country, with some even attending as cohesive groups. On August 1, for example, more than a dozen boogaloo supporters gathered in Austin, Texas, to protest police brutality.

Perhaps no event shows their evolution as much as a right-wing anti-mask protest in Columbus, Ohio, on July 18. Local boogalooers showed up to provide "security" for protesters. However, when Proud Boys, a different type of right-wing extremist group, started to insult and harass nearby BLM protesters holding a concurrent event, boogalooers intervened on behalf of the BLM activists, and one boogalooer was arrested after allegedly fighting a Proud Boy. This flip from protecting right-wing anti-mask protesters to protecting left-wing BLM protesters illustrates the unusual space that the boogalooers occupy in today's political environment.

VII. Merchandising the Boogaloo

The growth of the boogaloo movement has fueled the creation of boogaloo-related merchandise. On smaller websites as well as more mainstream platforms like Amazon, Etsy and eBay, vendors offer boogaloo-related patches, decals, and clothing. A North Carolina brewing company named one of its beers "The Boogaloo," complete with a label featuring an image of George Washington wearing a tropical shirt. When pressed, a co-owner said he named the beer in response to gun control legislation under consideration in Virginia. The company stopped selling the beer in May 2020.

A number of businesses offering boogaloo-related items normally sell firearms, firearms accessories, ammo, or "tactical" gear. Fenix Ammunition, a Michigan-based company, has enthusiastically promoted boogaloo ideas and memes since 2019 and has sold boogaloo stickers and jerseys. "The boogaloo has already mutated, metastasized, and spread far beyond the understanding of the mainstream media," the company posted on its Facebook page in February 2020. "We'd like to think our efforts have contributed in some small way." That same month, declaring that Virginia legislators supporting gun control legislation seemed "determined to kick off the Boogaloo," Fenix offered free shipping to all Virginia residents. In July, however, Facebook took down Fenix's page on the site, as well as its Instagram account, apparently because of its boogaloo-related content.

Other businesses have also sold boogaloo items or used boogaloo ideas to attract customers. Norton Concealment, for example, a Georgia-based company that primarily sells gun holsters, has frequently used boogaloo-related hashtags such as #boogtime, #boogaloo, and #boog to help advertise its wares on Facebook. Ark Tactical, a gun store in Lakewood, Colorado, has shared numerous boogaloo memes and hashtags on its Facebook page, the latter including #bigigloo, #largeluau, #largeiceshelterbuildersunion, and more. Ark Tactical also frequently uses the slogan "We Luau on Thursdays."

A Tennessee-based company, Shall Not Comply, which primarily sells gun-themed and right-wing-themed apparel, began offering "Hawaiian Luau" patterned accessories for hearing protectors (used by shooters), as well as its own "Boogaloo Bound" shirts. HolsterCo LLC, a Michigan business that sells holsters and firearms has sold its own boogaloo-related shirts and decals since September 2019. Patch Ops, an Ohio-based company that sells clothing patches, has offered a variety of boogaloo-related patches for sale featuring slogans such as "Boogaloo 2020," "Boogaloonia," and "The Boog to Resist Tyranny." The Kentucky-based Bad Moon Armory, which makes custom parts for AR-15 assault-style weapons, debuted photos on Facebook in August of a boogaloo-themed Cerakoted AR-15 lower receiver featuring a tropical shirt design. "Everybody wants to be a #BoogBoi," the business posted, "until it's time to get lei'd."

Companies' attempts to link themselves to the boogaloo-- either to increase sales or because of ideological affinity (or both)-has helped spread the boogaloo concept, just as a decade ago, many businesses helped spread the Three Percenter concept in exactly the same ways.
VIII. Notable Boogaloo Arrests and Incidents
Though just a year old, the boogaloo movement has already established a disturbing record of criminality that includes murder and terrorist plots. The heavily weapons-oriented subculture of the movement, combined with the extreme anti-government and anti-police nature of its ideology and its fixation on a future boogaloo is a mix that lends itself to adherents embracing unlawful tactics.

Boogaloo-related criminal incidents in 2019-2020 include the following:

Dundalk, Maryland, October 2020: The FBI arrested 39-year-old Frank William Robertson Perry after agents raided his home and discovered a rifle, ammunition, and a tactical vest. Perry is prohibited from owning firearms due to a past second-degree burglary conviction. The FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force identified Perry as a boogalooer, and Perry allegedly shared boogaloo-related content on his Facebook page.

Michigan, October 2020: Federal and Michigan state law enforcement agencies arrested 13 people who were allegedly plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. In addition, the plotters, who were part of a group called "The Wolverine Watchmen", allegedly discussed targeting police officers, using violence to spark a civil war, and storming the Michigan capitol. According to court documents, the men said that they were training for the boogaloo, and their leader went by the moniker "Boogaloo Bunyan" online. Other members wore Hawaiian shirts and openly talked about the boogaloo.

Madison Heights, Wisconsin, October 2020: 43-year-old Eric Allport was shot and killed by FBI agents after he opened fire on agents who were trying to execute an arrest warrant for a federal weapons offense. Allport has since been claimed by several boogalooers as a member of the movement, though his involvement has not been verified by the ADL.

Minneapolis, Minnesota, September 2020: Michael Solomon and Benjamin Ryan Teeter, both self-proclaimed boogalooers, were charged with conspiring to provide material support to Hamas. The two men allegedly also discussed destroying a courthouse, sparking a riot by attacking police and white supremacists at protests, and killing politicians to further their efforts to overthrow the U.S. government. The pair allegedly expressed to an FBI informant posing as a member of Hamas their desire to serve as "mercenaries" for Hamas to make money for their movement. In July, Solomon and Teeter allegedly provided the informant with five silencers and showed an interest in manufacturing more silencers as well as fully automatic weapons, reportedly believing they would be used by Hamas to attack Israeli and American soldiers.

Gilroy, California, August 2020: Alan Viarengo was charged with felony counts of stalking and harassing a public official after allegedly sending at least 24 anonymous letters to the Santa Clara County Health Inspector that harassed and threatened her for implementing measures limiting the spread of the coronavirus. Viarengo allegedly repeatedly used the term "boogaloo" and associated imagery in his letters. Following his arrest, police seized more than 100 firearms, as well as explosives and ammunition from Viarengo's home.

Lancaster, Texas, June 2020: A 29-year-old bodybuilder, Philip Russell Archibald, was charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, namely steroids. According to prosecutors, Archibald was "publicly tied" to the boogaloo movement: he followed multiple Instagram accounts dedicated to the concept and allegedly discussed using "guerrilla warfare" against National Guardsmen patrolling Black Lives Matter protests.

Bartonville, Texas, June 2020: Former Marine Daniel Austin Dunn was indicted for making threats against police officers on Facebook and Twitter. Dunn, who possessed several firearms, allegedly referenced the boogaloo in his posts and in one instance he shared an image of a boogaloo flag.

Santa Cruz, California, June 2020: Air Force sergeant Steven Carrillo was arrested after opening fire on police officers in an ambush that killed one of them. Police were seeking Carrillo because he had allegedly been linked to a May 29 shooting in Oakland that killed a Federal Protective Service security guard. According to the FBI, Carrillo was associated with the boogaloo movement and investigators found a ballistic vest with a boogaloo patch in his vehicle. Prior to his arrest, Carrillo allegedly wrote the word "boog" in blood on the hood of a vehicle he had hijacked. Carrillo has been charged with 19 felonies, including murder and attempted murder. An accomplice, 30-year-old Robert Justus, who allegedly drove the vehicle during the May 29 attack, is facing charges of aiding and abetting murder, as well as attempted murder.

Columbia, South Carolina, June 2020: Kevin Ackley was arrested for inciting a riot and aggravated breach of peace after he allegedly threw a water bottle at law enforcement officers during a protest. According to the Richland County Sheriff's Department, Ackley wore boogaloo clothing, including a hat that read "Boojahideens for Liberty," and was in possession of a boogaloo flag. A day earlier, Joshua Barnard, a self-proclaimed boogalooer, was arrested during a May 30 protest. Barnard was charged with breaking into a motor vehicle, instigating a riot and a number of other charges for actions that allegedly included stealing a police jacket from a Columbia Police Department vehicle. He also faces related to marijuana distribution and was rearrested on June 12 on charges related to the alleged sexual exploitation of a minor.

Chattanooga, Tennessee, June 2020: Trevan Young, a Black man, was arrested at a George Floyd protest after police allegedly discovered a disassembled AR-15 in his backpack as well as multiple AR-15 magazines, two of which were loaded and easily accessible. Young was also carrying a sign referencing Duncan Lemp and Breonna Taylor. He was charged with possession of a firearm with intent to use it for harm, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. Young had reportedly liked and shared boogaloo content on Facebook.

Las Vegas, Nevada, May 2020: Three boogalooers- Andrew Lynam, William Loomis and Stephen Parshall--were charged with conspiracy to cause destruction and possession of an unregistered destructive device (Molotov cocktails) at a Black Lives Matter protest. The three men, who were part of the same Nevada-based boogaloo Facebook group, allegedly hoped to use violence to incite BLM protesters against the police, and had plans to blow up a nearby energy substation as well as a building associated with a local recreational area. In July 2020, one of the men, Stephen Parshall, was also charged at both the federal and state level with sexually abusing his teenage stepdaughter.

West Odessa, Texas, May 2020: Ector County sheriff's deputies arrested Wyatt Winn as part of a group of eight people who allegedly engaged in an armed standoff with local law enforcement over lockdown measures. According to the sheriff, six of the protesters were carrying "AR-15 type weapons" and were charged with possessing firearms on a licensed property, while a seventh was charged with interfering with a peace officer's duties. According to his social media, Winn followed about two dozen boogaloo-related pages on Facebook, shared photos of himself posing with a group of armed men wearing Hawaiian shirts, and shared memes referencing Duncan Lemp.

Loveland, Colorado, May 2020: Federal agents arrested Bradley Bunn, charging him with possessing destructive devices after allegedly finding four pipe bombs during a search at his residence. Following his arrest, Bunn allegedly told investigators that he was, "willing to take out a few law enforcement officers in order to wake people up to what's going on." Though it is not confirmed that Bunn was involved in the boogaloo phenomenon, several Colorado boogalooers made online comments after his arrest, suggesting they knew him and were all part of the same circle.

Texarkana, Texas, April 2020: Aaron Swenson, a 36-year-old Arkansas resident, was arrested in Texas after posting a livestreamed video to his Facebook account while he allegedly drove around looking for a police officer to ambush and execute. According to authorities, Swenson wrote on Facebook, "I feel like hunting the hunters." When arrested, Swenson was wearing an armored vest; police found several loaded firearms in his vehicle. Swenson has been charged with attempted capital murder of a police officer, attempted murder, and making a terroristic threat against a police officer. A review of Swenson's Facebook account reveals that he had liked more than a dozen boogaloo-related groups and had shared several boogaloo images on his own page. In an homage to Duncan Lemp, Swenson had also updated his profile picture to a photo of himself wearing a Hawaiian shirt and an armored vest, tagging the photo with the hashtag #HisNameWasDuncan.

Belton, Missouri, March 2020: White supremacist Timothy Wilson of Raymore, Missouri, died during a shootout with FBI agents conducting a sting operation on him. Wilson showed up for a meeting with the FBI agents to pick up an inert explosive device he had sought to obtain from the undercover officers, which he allegedly intended to use to target a local hospital. Wilson, who was associated with two Neo-Nazi groups and was the subject of a long-running federal investigation, reportedly referred to his plot as "Operation Boogaloo." It is not clear if Wilson was simply using the term "boogaloo" or if he had actively been involved in the boogaloo movement itself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The boogaloo movement is an anti-government extremist movement that formed in 2019. In 2020, boogalooers increasingly engaged in real world activities as well as online activities, showing up at protests and rallies around gun rights, pandemic restrictions and police-related killings. The term "boogaloo" is a slang reference to a future civil war, a concept boogalooers anticipate and even embrace.