Alan Wessman
@alanwessman.bsky.social
Former candidate for Utah County commissioner in 2024, United Utah Party. Politically moderate. Former Utah House candidate, district 64 (Spanish Fork). Husband, dad, hiker, misplacer of common household items.
This was a good passage from the amicus brief linked in the quoted skeet.
![Moreover, such a definition would be difficult to square with the argument President Trump himself recently made to this Court (in his capacity as a then-former President) that the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021 did not amount to even an "insurrection," let alone a "rebellion," because it "did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow or resist the U.S. Government." Reply Brief for Petitioner in Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, at 15 (Feb. 2024), 601 U.S. 100 (2024). Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes its disqualification rule upon covered persons who "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [United States]" If the Solicitor General were correct that any "violent resistance to lawful authority, including to the enforcement of particular laws," establishes a rebellion, then the January 6 uprising obviously would have qualified as a "rebellion," in which case it would
have served no purpose for former President Trump to argue to this Court that it was not even an "insurrection." See General Orders No. 100: Instructions for the Government of Armies of the
United States in the Field Art. 151 (the so-called "Lieber Code," issued by President Lincoln on April 24, 1863) ("The term rebellion is applied to an insurrection of large extent, and is usually a war between the legitimate government of a country and portions of provinces of the same who seek to throw off their allegiance to it and set up a government of their own.").
It is, therefore, very unlikely Applicants will be able to successfully defend the
President's actions on the basis of the Solicitor General's virtually unbounded definition of "rebellion."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:hhcci3pzrcuo6w3zhemp6mdd/bafkreiaumwlhmfg4vklo2crd5ayrpkyfrb4suhbt4tm7dtyv4mf3vayovu@jpeg)
October 29, 2025 at 8:57 PM
This was a good passage from the amicus brief linked in the quoted skeet.
Not claiming to be a good cook, but here’s my second effort at making naan, hopefully heading in the right direction.
October 20, 2025 at 12:19 AM
Not claiming to be a good cook, but here’s my second effort at making naan, hopefully heading in the right direction.
I see that the Lyman Loophole was preserved. That’s pretty outrageous, to count votes cast for someone who ran against a party’s nominee as being cast for that party. Completely contrary to voter intent and undoubtedly captures some votes that would never have been cast for the party.
October 6, 2025 at 8:25 PM
I see that the Lyman Loophole was preserved. That’s pretty outrageous, to count votes cast for someone who ran against a party’s nominee as being cast for that party. Completely contrary to voter intent and undoubtedly captures some votes that would never have been cast for the party.
Was the text of the new bill publicly available Friday evening, or was it made public this morning?
le.utah.gov/~2025S1/bill...
le.utah.gov/~2025S1/bill...
October 6, 2025 at 8:20 PM
Was the text of the new bill publicly available Friday evening, or was it made public this morning?
le.utah.gov/~2025S1/bill...
le.utah.gov/~2025S1/bill...
Prop 4 says “measures” (plural) of partisan symmetry
From Judge Gibson’s ruling (ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/d7/08/7d2771...)
From Judge Gibson’s ruling (ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/d7/08/7d2771...)
September 30, 2025 at 5:37 PM
Prop 4 says “measures” (plural) of partisan symmetry
From Judge Gibson’s ruling (ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/d7/08/7d2771...)
From Judge Gibson’s ruling (ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/d7/08/7d2771...)
Similar vibes Friday 👊
September 28, 2025 at 11:24 PM
Similar vibes Friday 👊
Skyline Drive and Eccles Canyon are spectacular. I’ve never seen red aspens before this year.
September 28, 2025 at 11:04 PM
Skyline Drive and Eccles Canyon are spectacular. I’ve never seen red aspens before this year.
Photo of war-ravaged downtown Portland this June.
September 27, 2025 at 4:01 PM
Photo of war-ravaged downtown Portland this June.
(4)(a) mentions incumbents and candidates, but the partisan fairness calculation has nothing to do with those, only party-level voting patterns. It makes no sense to lump them all together, especially since it would thus allow a map that is partisan-bias “fair” to favor an incumbent or candidate.
September 22, 2025 at 4:30 PM
(4)(a) mentions incumbents and candidates, but the partisan fairness calculation has nothing to do with those, only party-level voting patterns. It makes no sense to lump them all together, especially since it would thus allow a map that is partisan-bias “fair” to favor an incumbent or candidate.
(1)(c)(iii) is the Phil Lyman exception, wherein the Republican Party wants to claim that votes against its nominee for governor still count if they were for a guy who bucked the party after the primary and ran as an independent. It’s an override of the voters’ express choice.
September 22, 2025 at 4:30 PM
(1)(c)(iii) is the Phil Lyman exception, wherein the Republican Party wants to claim that votes against its nominee for governor still count if they were for a guy who bucked the party after the primary and ran as an independent. It’s an override of the voters’ express choice.
Section (1)(c)(ii) says that you don’t get to count any race if one of the two major parties didn’t field a candidate, even if a third party candidate did run. That’s more theoretical for a statewide race since major parties run candidates for all the races, but it’s still a bias.
September 22, 2025 at 4:30 PM
Section (1)(c)(ii) says that you don’t get to count any race if one of the two major parties didn’t field a candidate, even if a third party candidate did run. That’s more theoretical for a statewide race since major parties run candidates for all the races, but it’s still a bias.
(D) is not clear how the per-district “adjusted vote share” is to be used in determining each party’s “expected seat share.” Is it whichever party has the highest number in each district? Meets a threshold? It doesn’t say.
And again, is 50% an implicit two-party assumption?
And again, is 50% an implicit two-party assumption?
September 22, 2025 at 4:30 PM
(D) is not clear how the per-district “adjusted vote share” is to be used in determining each party’s “expected seat share.” Is it whichever party has the highest number in each district? Meets a threshold? It doesn’t say.
And again, is 50% an implicit two-party assumption?
And again, is 50% an implicit two-party assumption?
Section (1)(b)(i)(C) does not specify what “based on the partisan index data for each census block” means or how that block-level data is used to calculate the district-wide value.
It also isn’t clear if the number from (B) can be negative, and if not, then how the subtraction in (C) works.
It also isn’t clear if the number from (B) can be negative, and if not, then how the subtraction in (C) works.
September 22, 2025 at 4:30 PM
Section (1)(b)(i)(C) does not specify what “based on the partisan index data for each census block” means or how that block-level data is used to calculate the district-wide value.
It also isn’t clear if the number from (B) can be negative, and if not, then how the subtraction in (C) works.
It also isn’t clear if the number from (B) can be negative, and if not, then how the subtraction in (C) works.
The 50% figure in (1)(b)(i)(B) is unexplained. Does it repredent an idealized random distribution of voters between two parties if voters had no preferences? If so, this assumes only two parties and is an inherent bias against third parties.
September 22, 2025 at 4:30 PM
The 50% figure in (1)(b)(i)(B) is unexplained. Does it repredent an idealized random distribution of voters between two parties if voters had no preferences? If so, this assumes only two parties and is an inherent bias against third parties.
“Average of the partisan vote share”: is this a weighted average by votes cast in each race, or by only partisan votes, or averaging the share equally across races? The bill doesn’t say.
“The three immediately preceding elections” means a quick shift in popular support won’t be reflected.
“The three immediately preceding elections” means a quick shift in popular support won’t be reflected.
September 22, 2025 at 4:30 PM
“Average of the partisan vote share”: is this a weighted average by votes cast in each race, or by only partisan votes, or averaging the share equally across races? The bill doesn’t say.
“The three immediately preceding elections” means a quick shift in popular support won’t be reflected.
“The three immediately preceding elections” means a quick shift in popular support won’t be reflected.
The bill defines a “partisan bias test” and a “partisan index” algorithm.
As a software engineer I find this to be a poorly engineered algorithm and not well defined.
As a software engineer I find this to be a poorly engineered algorithm and not well defined.
September 22, 2025 at 4:30 PM
The bill defines a “partisan bias test” and a “partisan index” algorithm.
As a software engineer I find this to be a poorly engineered algorithm and not well defined.
As a software engineer I find this to be a poorly engineered algorithm and not well defined.
Literally this cartoon
September 21, 2025 at 2:12 PM
Literally this cartoon
I did like it! This is the translation I read. The endnotes were very helpful for context.
I think I had read it back in college but I remembered very little of it. Found a lot of thought provoking stuff this time around.
I think I had read it back in college but I remembered very little of it. Found a lot of thought provoking stuff this time around.
September 16, 2025 at 12:58 AM
I did like it! This is the translation I read. The endnotes were very helpful for context.
I think I had read it back in college but I remembered very little of it. Found a lot of thought provoking stuff this time around.
I think I had read it back in college but I remembered very little of it. Found a lot of thought provoking stuff this time around.
This statement by Mr. Green is false, as simply adopting one of the commission’s recommended maps can satisfy both requirements. The legislature faces a dilemma of its own making, not an externally imposed one.
September 5, 2025 at 11:13 PM
This statement by Mr. Green is false, as simply adopting one of the commission’s recommended maps can satisfy both requirements. The legislature faces a dilemma of its own making, not an externally imposed one.
Hmm, on the other hand…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scherzo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scherzo
August 31, 2025 at 6:45 PM
Hmm, on the other hand…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scherzo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scherzo
I found the edit in question, and the pseudonymous editor who added it does appear from their contribution history to be a Lost Causer. Many of their other contributions have been reverted by other editors but unfortunately not all.
August 30, 2025 at 5:54 PM
I found the edit in question, and the pseudonymous editor who added it does appear from their contribution history to be a Lost Causer. Many of their other contributions have been reverted by other editors but unfortunately not all.
New fire on Buckley Mountain above Provo, Utah has grown rapidly and is already creating pyrocumulus. Photo taken from Spanish Fork, Utah, roughly 8 miles to the south.
August 18, 2025 at 12:21 AM
New fire on Buckley Mountain above Provo, Utah has grown rapidly and is already creating pyrocumulus. Photo taken from Spanish Fork, Utah, roughly 8 miles to the south.
Arguably he is African American in terms of national origin, which is the other prong of “Black or African American.” For a college application this is not deceptive, as it actually does express the sort of personal background that is relevant to admissions committees.
July 3, 2025 at 11:08 PM
Arguably he is African American in terms of national origin, which is the other prong of “Black or African American.” For a college application this is not deceptive, as it actually does express the sort of personal background that is relevant to admissions committees.
Wildflower garden.
June 10, 2025 at 8:12 PM
Wildflower garden.