Before discussing the ongoing fallout from the abrupt end to the shutdown, it is important to rise above the last 72 hours to acknowledge that those who seek to preserve democracyy still have the momentum and the moral high ground. We also have the support of a strong majority of the American people. It could be otherwise, so the fact that we head into the beginning of the 2026 midterms in a position of strength should not be overlooked or taken for granted. We worked damned hard to get here, and we shouldn’t let the politics of the shutdown diminish our achievements or dampen our spirits.
The denouement of the shutdown was “inside politics” at its worst.
But we are facing a moment that transcends politics. We are fighting to preserve the Constitution and the rule of law from an unrelenting assault by a party facing extinction unless it can codify minority rule as a permanent feature of our republic.
Those stakes have nothing to do with healthcare premiums or the hostages taken by Trump during partisan negotiations. They have everything to do with whether we can end Trump’s attempt to circumvent the checks and balances crafted by the Framers of the Constitution.
Last Tuesday’s elections—and the mass protests that preceded them—demonstrated the only reliable path forward: We the people, rising to claim our rightful place as the source of power and legitimacy for the government that exists to serve us. If we are lucky, our elected officials will help us in that endeavor. If they choose, instead, to focus on politics as usual, we will have to do it without them.
The shutdown continues to generate an incredible volume of reader response. Many have had their fill and are ready to move on. Others are incensed and ready for change in leadership and membership in the Senate. Still others want to convince their fellow Democrats that ending the shutdown was the right course of action and that demanding change in Democratic leadership and Senate membership is counterproductive to our common goal of stopping Trump’s assault on the Constitution.
The consensus in the Comment section of yesterday’s newsletter was that Lawrence O’Donnell’s commentary on Monday evening helped calm the anger of many readers by contextualizing the difficult job of serving as Minority Leader and emphasizing how long Senator Schumer managed to hold the Democratic Caucus together. The commentary by Lawrence O’Donnell is here: Lawrence: With Trump’s shutdown ending, Dems are closer than ever to forcing Epstein files release.
Reader and fellow Substack author TCinLA had the top-rated comment, in which he praised O’Donnell’s commentary. See the Comment section to yesterday’s newsletter, here, led by TCinLA’s comment.
Lawrence O’Donnell is a national treasure and the best on-air political commentator of them all (and I say that as a major Rachel Maddow fan). If you find O’Donnell’s commentary helpful, that is a benefit to all as we move toward our shared objective of defeating Trumpism.
I think Lawrence O’Donnell missed the point by focusing on the “inside politics” of the Senate as an institution, in which O’Donnell served for many years as a staffer. While his commentary offers an interesting political analysis of why the collapse of the caucus occurred, he did not address the feelings of betrayal that many Democrats felt about the end of the shutdown. It is a rare thing for major parts of the Democratic base to feel betrayed, and O’Donnell did not acknowledge that part of the story.
On Wednesday, O’Donnell acknowledged his oversight in a back-handed way by bringing on Senator Sheldon Whitehouse to talk about “feelings,” which O’Donnell claimed was not his strong point. Senator Whitehouse went on to say that “People are entitled to their feelings, but any effort criticizing fellow Democrats is wasted energy.”
Both O’Donnell and Whitehouse miss the point. Those who are upset about the abrupt end to the shutdown aren’t experiencing “feelings” like jealousy, irritation, or sadness. They are experiencing a sense of betrayal by elected officials who are supposed to represent their constituents’ interests.
Senator Whitehouse suggested that it was wrong for Democrats to express their feelings by seeking to unseat sitting senators during primaries. (That is not a direct quote, but the implication of what he said.) I find Senator Whitehouse’s suggestion shocking.
Yes, we must remain focused on our goal of defeating Trumpism, but deciding to elect leaders with the courage to stand up to the existential threat to democracy posed by Trump is not “disloyal” or “disunifying.” It is our patriotic duty and constitutional right.
The manner in which the vote of the eight Democratic Senators unfolded demonstrates they knew they were betraying their constituents. It is no coincidence that none of those eight Democrats are standing for reelection in 2026. That was a calculated move by “centrist” Democrats to protect themselves from a decision they knew would be wildly unpopular with their constituents—dare I say, viewed as a “betrayal” by their constituents.
Moreover, the late-night, last-minute agreement was designed to catch constituents by surprise. The eight Democrats could have said, “We intend to vote to end the shutdown in 48 hours. I ask my constituents to let me know what they think about that decision before I cast my vote.”
Instead, they cast their vote and rationalized it afterward. (I included Tim Kaine’s letter to constituents in yesterday’s newsletter.)
Many readers continue to send impassioned emails explaining why ending the shutdown was the right decision. I acknowledge there is room for good-faith disagreement on the political strategy. (My deep disagreement relates to the defense of democracy concerns that many people overlook.)
However, assuming for discussion that it was the correct political decision to end the shutdown, Senator Schumer should have attempted to unify the caucus behind ending the shutdown once it became clear that the Democratic caucus could no longer hold the line. Schumer should have then provided Democrats with advance notice and explanation for the decision, with the benefit of a united caucus.
The lack of notice exacerbated the feelings of betrayal, as did the decision to assign the task to eight Democratic senators who will not face voters in 2026. The latter decision was cynical and superficial. We know why those eight Senators were selected, and we understand that the intent was to insulate them from their constituents. That should not be how the Democratic Party conducts itself.
Indivisible has chosen not to support the primaries of any sitting senator or candidate who refuses to call for new leadership in the Senate. That is not disloyal and should not be characterized as “disunifying” (as Senator Whitehouse suggested). Indivisible is leading an effort to recruit strong leaders willing to stand up to Trump. Seats in the Senate are not sinecures. Every senator serves at the will of the voters, and to suggest that Democrats must support senators in primaries whom they believe are unfit for the job is wrong and offensive.
When the primary season is over, every Democrat should support every Democratic senatorial candidate in the general election—including any of the eight senators who voted to end the shutdown. (I realize that several of them are retiring and so won’t be in a primary.)
We can and will work out the slate of Democratic nominees for Senate in 2026. That’s just politics. What is more important is that we continue the massive grassroots resistance to Trump’s lawless regime. The results of that resistance paid off last Tuesday. We must move past our disappointment over the abrupt end to the shutdown and tend to the urgent need to defend democracy.
Post-script: One benefit of ending the shutdown is that the House will be forced back into session to pass the continuing resolution. Speaker Mike Johnson said that he would swear in Rep. Adelita Grijalva, on Wednesday, November 12. That is good news, indeed.
Senator John Thune sneaks in a provision to the “continuing resolution” that allows Republican senators to sue the government for damages
Heather Cox Richardson was one of the first commentators to note that Senator John Thune had inserted a provision into the continuing resolution that allowed Republican senators to sue for damages based on the January 6 investigation. Per HCR,
Tucked within that last appropriation is a measure that allows the eight Republican senators whose phone logs were seized during former special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation of the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, to sue the government for up to $500,000 apiece.
If that provision is included in the final continuing resolution approved in the House and signed by Trump, here is what will happen:
Eight Republican senators will sue the US for $500,000 each. Attorney General Pam Bondi will settle the lawsuits by agreeing to pay each of the senators $500,000 in damages. American taxpayers will pay eight Republicans a total of $4 million because phone logs were obtained by the government in response to a valid subpoena.
And, not for nothing, those eight Senators voted on a bill in which they have a direct, substantial pecuniary interest. See Politico, Thune secures provision in government funding bill letting senators sue for phone records seizure - POLITICO
Per Politico:
Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch were not consulted on the provision as part of the otherwise bipartisan bill, according to a senior Democratic legislative aide granted anonymity to speak candidly.
“I am furious that the Senate Minority and Majority Leaders chose to airdrop this provision into this bill at the eleventh hour — with zero consultation or negotiation with the subcommittee that actually oversees this work,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the ranking member of the legislative branch subcommittee, in a statement. “This is precisely what’s wrong with the Senate.
It was something of a swipe against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who was involved in negotiating the funding bill with Thune. Schumer’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Supreme Court extends order temporarily limiting SNAP payments
The Supreme Court extended Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s administrative stay that effectively limited the payment of full SNAP benefits pending a decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
The extension of the administrative stay for two days was apparently intended to allow Congress to pass a funding bill that would restore full SNAP benefits. Justice Jackson opposed the extension of her initial stay. See The Hill, Supreme Court extends block SNAP benefits.
The full Court has assumed jurisdiction and granted broader relief than Justice Jackson’s original order. Her dissent from the order suggests that her action in granting the initial stay was, indeed, an effort to prevent the Court from extending the period during which SNAP benefits would be limited.
Supreme Court grants review of case involving counting of mail ballots received after Election Day
As I noted yesterday, the Supreme Court has granted review of a Fifth Circuit decision that invalidated Mississippi’s law allowing mail ballots to be counted up to five days after Election Day, if they were mailed on or before Election Day.
The grant of review could be a troubling sign. Some members of the reactionary majority have expressed doubts about the legitimacy of mail ballots received after election day—parroting Trump’s claim that such ballots are presumptively suspicious. See Democratic National Committee, Et Al. V. Wisconsin State Legislature, where Justice Kavanaugh wrote,
Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.
Of course, valid ballots counted after Election Day do not “flip” the results. They determine the result, just like every other valid vote cast by any legal means.
One possibility is that the Supreme Court will use the Mississippi case to require mail ballots to be received by election day in order to be counted. If that is the Court’s intent, it would likely be an effort to grant an advantage to Republican voters, who typically vote in person, rather than by mail.
But as Ian Millhiser explains in Vox, the more likely reason for the grant of review is to reverse a particularly egregious decision by extremist justices on the Fifth Circuit. See Ian Millhiser, The Supreme Court will decide whether to toss out thousands of ballots, in Watson v. RNC.
As explained by Millhiser,
The GOP’s argument is quite a stretch, and it is likely that it would have died in the lower courts if the case had not been assigned to an unusually partisan panel of judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The opinion was authored by Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee who may be the single most reversed judge on any federal appeals court.
So, while the Court’s decision to take up the Watson case is a little troubling — if the justices sign onto the Republican National Committee’s verkakte legal theory, it would be a worrisome sign that the Court may try to rig future elections — that outcome is probably unlikely. Oldham’s, and the GOP’s, legal arguments are so weak that they are unlikely to receive more than three votes, even on this Supreme Court.
If Millhiser’s analysis is correct, that is good news for Democrats—and democracy.
Democrats continue their success in the redistricting battles
Trump is attempting to rig the 2026 midterms by urging Republican states to engage in mid-census gerrymandering to create new “safe” Republican seats. There are three problems with Trump’s effort: Blue states are fighting back, some red states are balking, and Republican gerrymandering is built on 2024 voting patterns that likely will not exist in 2026.
On Tuesday, the NYTimes reported that an effort to eliminate a Democratic seat in Kansas has hit a roadblock. See The New York Times: Kansas Redistricting Was on the Fast Track. Then Some Republicans Said No. (Accessible to all.) It appears that the single Democratic congressional seat in Kansas City is safe, for now.
In Utah, a state court judge ordered the state to create a new congressional map with at least one “lean Democratic” district. See CNN, Judge adopts Utah congressional map that creates a Democrat-leaning district for 2026.
Per CNN,
Republicans currently hold all four of Utah’s House seats and have advanced a map poised to protect them.
Judge Dianna Gibson ruled just before a midnight deadline that the Legislature’s new map “unduly favors Republicans and disfavors Democrats.”
She had ordered lawmakers to draw a map that complies with standards established by voters to ensure districts don’t deliberately favor a party, a practice known as gerrymandering.
Another good result! It will likely be appealed, and there is already talk of impeaching the judge. But what was supposed to be smooth sailing for Trump’s efforts turned out to be a treacherous voyage—for Trump.
Experienced lawyers willing to volunteer for pro-democracy organizations
I have received two requests from experienced attorneys looking for opportunities to volunteer their expertise to pro-democracy organizations. I feature the first offer below. Stay tuned for tomorrow’s offer from an experienced senior partner / trial lawyer from a global law firm (now retired).
Pro-Democracy Organizations: Need a Steady Hand?
A reader wrote asking me to help him find a way to join the front lines of the fight for democracy. He’s a seasoned corporate lawyer leaving a thriving tech startup because he understands it’s an all-hands-on-deck moment for democracy.
He’s navigated everything from an IPO to public company board rooms to a tech startup. He now wants to bring those legal and practical skills to the fight for democracy by joining a pro-democracy or rule of law organization full-time.
I asked the attorney what he could bring to the table for a growing organization. He said, “The organization can throw whatever they want to me. I’ll figure it out. They can delegate with confidence.”
If your organization could benefit from someone like this, please reply to rbhubbell@gmail.com and I’ll connect you.
Opportunities for Reader Engagement
Join Force Multiplier and Fair Fight on November 13th
Fight the MAGA Election Takeover: Support Fair Fight Action! Join Force Multiplier and Zoom with Fair Fight President Lauren Groh-Wargo on November 13, 2025, 7-8:00 pm ET. Register and Donate HERE. Republicans are trying to gut the Voting Rights Act and establish one-party rule Fair Fight has played a leading role in fighting voter suppression in Georgia and across the US. Now they are raising the alarm about the twin threats of the Administration’s plans to declare an electoral emergency, and the potential impact of two Supreme Court cases regarding the Voting Rights Act. Your donation supports Fair Fight’s research, communications and organizing against these threats. Register and Donate HERE.
Join Susan Wagner and Ben Wikler on “It Needs to be Said”
This week, Susan Wagner will be speaking on a Substack livestream with Ben Wikler, Chair Emeritus of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin (WisDems). As Chair from 2019-2025, he oversaw victories in 10 out of 13 statewide elections in the nation’s most closely divided state.
WisDems drew national awards and recognition as the country’s premier state political party, mobilized more than 100,000 people to volunteer for campaigns, grew to a team of hundreds, raised more than a quarter of a billion dollars, and played a pivotal role in flipping the state’s Supreme Court majority and ending its state legislative gerrymander. House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi described him as the “preeminent state party chair.”
Tune in Thursday, 11/13 (9pm ET/6pm PT) on Substack when Susan will talk to Ben about where we go from here.
Concluding Thoughts
When the Supreme Court first granted review in the Mississippi mail ballot case, I experienced a moment of concern. However, even before I learned that it is unlikely the Court will prohibit the counting of mail ballots after Election Day, I realized that Democrats should not panic, regardless of the outcome of the case.
If the Court rules that all mail ballots must be received by Election Day, we will have time to adjust to changed circumstances. All parties—Democrats and Republicans—will be required to play by the new rules. It will take effort, discipline, and effective messaging, but there is no structural obstacle to rising to the new voting paradigm.
And while it is generally true that Democrats vote by mail more frequently than do Republicans, it is not universally true. Republicans will need to educate and motivate their voters to vote in person or mail their ballots early—messaging that will also reach Democratic voters.
We won’t lose our democracy over a change in the timing of when mail ballots must be posted. We will adapt and react. Too much is at stake not to. We did so during the Covid pandemic, and we can do so in 2026, if necessary.
In the meantime, don’t fret over a challenge that has not yet materialized. Let’s concentrate on the actual challenges we face today.
Talk to you tomorrow!
Pro-Democracy Protest Photos
San Fernando Valley Brigade, CA:
Eugene, OR
Towson, MD:
Daily Dose of Perspective
Reader Kathy W. writes, “Erie, Colorado, tonight! Thought you might like this one. My son sent it to me!”
From Today’s Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed