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.
How do we understand the judge’s statement, then, that the first indictment indicted no PC for any of the three counts? This is what I’m confused about. Misstatement by judge? Misstatement by foreperson?
November 17, 2025 at 7:15 PM
How do we understand the judge’s statement, then, that the first indictment indicted no PC for any of the three counts? This is what I’m confused about. Misstatement by judge? Misstatement by foreperson?
‼️ This is astonishing.
‼️ There is a legal mystery as to whether the grand jury actually indicted Comey as the government claims.
‼️ The circumstances of the indictment and known facts do not square with the govt’s account of how it was obtained.
‼️ There is a legal mystery as to whether the grand jury actually indicted Comey as the government claims.
‼️ The circumstances of the indictment and known facts do not square with the govt’s account of how it was obtained.
![On November 14, 2025, the prosecutor filed a declaration with the Court attempting to
address the issue of whether the transcript […] was
the full and complete transcript. The prosecutor stated that after the grand jury was
left to deliberate on the first indictment at approximately 4:28 p.m., she had no further contact with
the grand jury. The prosecutor further stated that at approximately 6:40 p.m. she was notified by
the then-First Assistant United States Attorney that the grand jury returned a true bill on only two of the three counts presented by the government. The prosecutor, according to her declaration,
then proceeded to the courtroom for the return of the indictment. The hearing on the return of
the indictment began at approximately 6:47 p.m.
The short time span between the moment the prosecutor learned that the grand jury rejected
one count in the original indictment and the time the prosecutor appeared in court to return the
second indictment could not have been sufficient to draft the second indictment, sign the second
indictment, present it to the grand jury, provide legal instructions to the grand jury, and give them
an opportunity to deliberate and render a decision on the new indictment. If the prosecutor is
mistaken about the time she received notification of the grand jury's vote on the original
indictment, and this procedure did take place, then the transcript and audio recording provided to the Court are incomplete. If this procedure did not take place, then the Court is in uncharted legal territory in that the indictment returned in open court was not the same charging document presented to and deliberated upon by the grand jury. Either way, this unusual series of events, still not fully explained by the prosecutor's declaration, calls into question the presumption of regularity […], and provides another genuine issue the defense may raise to challenge the manner in which the government obtained the indictment.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:hhcci3pzrcuo6w3zhemp6mdd/bafkreie2nxwomptrszk4cblgyj3wez5m6dvrazuyhtgffpmamwz24rt6g4@jpeg)
November 17, 2025 at 5:26 PM
‼️ This is astonishing.
‼️ There is a legal mystery as to whether the grand jury actually indicted Comey as the government claims.
‼️ The circumstances of the indictment and known facts do not square with the govt’s account of how it was obtained.
‼️ There is a legal mystery as to whether the grand jury actually indicted Comey as the government claims.
‼️ The circumstances of the indictment and known facts do not square with the govt’s account of how it was obtained.
Aurora borealis from Spanish Fork, Utah. The pink glow was visible to the naked eye but more vague and less bright than the photo captured.
November 12, 2025 at 3:09 AM
Aurora borealis from Spanish Fork, Utah. The pink glow was visible to the naked eye but more vague and less bright than the photo captured.
Governor Cox should read the judge’s ruling which explains the authority she has to designate a map when the legislature refuses to enact one that complies with the state Constitution and statute. He shouldn’t just ad lib a legal fiction.
![It is undisputed that the 2011 map is unconstitutionally malapportioned under both the federal and Utah constitutions. It is likewise indisputable that the absence of a lawful congressional map is unsustainable. See 2 U.S.C. §2c (requiring states to create single-member congressional districts). Even if Legislative Defendants were correct (they are not) that Proposition 4 does not authorize a court-imposed map, no one disputes that state courts are empowered-and in fact on many occasions have the "unwelcome obligation"—to remedy an unconstitutionally malapportioned map or the absence of a legal one. The U.S.
Supreme Court and federal and state courts across the country have recognized as much for ecades. See Scott v. Germano, 381 U.S. 407,409 (1965) (*The power of the judiciary of a State to require valid reapportionment or to formulate a valid redistricting plan has not only been recognized by this Court but appropriate action by the States in such cases has been specifically encouraged."); Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25 (1993); see also Wattson v. Simon, 970 N.W.2d 56 (Minn. 2022); Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 967 N.W.2d 469 (Wis.
2021); Alexander v. Taylor, 51 P.3d 1204,1208 (Okla. 2002); Clarke v. Wis.
Elections Comm'n, 998 N. W.2d 370,396 (Wis. 2023); Norelli v. Sec. of State, 292 A.3d 458,462-64 (N.H. 2022). State and federal courts recognize that in the absence of a legally compliant map, courts are empowered to take necessary action to ensure a legally compliant map is in place. See, e.g., Maryland Comm. for Fair Representation v. Tawes, 377 U.S. 656,676 (1964) (finding that Maryland's state legislative maps violated the U.S. Constitution and allowing the Legislature the opportunity to redraw the maps, but noting that the Court should take action if the legislature fails to enact a legally valid map, and that "under no circumstances should the [upcoming] election...be permitted to be conducted pursuant to the existing or any other unconstitutional plan");](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:hhcci3pzrcuo6w3zhemp6mdd/bafkreih5q4wdt6svajouvybk6ike6ls7cemxx6x2fwic3suip6znff2siy@jpeg)
November 11, 2025 at 11:28 PM
Governor Cox should read the judge’s ruling which explains the authority she has to designate a map when the legislature refuses to enact one that complies with the state Constitution and statute. He shouldn’t just ad lib a legal fiction.
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