Politics

The Uncommitted Movement’s weird quasi-endorsement of Kamala Harris, explained

Published

2 years ago

November 12, 2024

The Uncommitted Movement’s weird quasi-endorsement of Kamala Harris, explained

The Uncommitted Movementthe group that helped organize the casting of hundreds of thousands of uncommitted ballots in the Democratic presidential primaries to pressure the party to change its position on supporting Israel, announced Thursday that it will not be endorsing Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign. In the same announcement, however, the group also called for the movement to vote against former President Donald Trump and to avoid third parties.

In other words, Uncommitted effectively criticized Harris as fundamentally problematic on Israel policy while simultaneously encouraging people to vote for her.

The announcement marks a concession that the group is weak — but also that it wants to stay in the game in the long run.

The seemingly contradictory recommendations are bound to anger plenty of progressives upset by the Biden administration’s policies on Israel. But it adds up to a largely coherent strategic position, based on an assessment of the limited power of the pro-Palestinian movement at this juncture and the correct appraisal that Trump would make the situation in Gaza even worse. I’d say the announcement marks a concession that the group is weak — but also that it wants to stay in the game in the long run in the hope to one day shape the Democratic Party’s policies on the issue.

In its announcement of its non-endorsement, the Uncommitted Movement cited its dissatisfaction over Harris’ declining its request to meet with Palestinian Americans in Michigan who have lost loved ones in the Gaza Strip and discuss their demands for an arms embargo on Israel and how to pursue a cease-fire deal. This came after the Democrats refused to invite any Palestinian Americans to speak at the main stage at the Democratic National Convention about the war in Gaza, despite the presence of dozens of Democratic delegates affiliated with the Uncommitted Movement and their vigorous lobbying for a speaker on the issue. (By contrast, the DNC gave a speaking slot to the parents of an Israeli American hostage, who was tragically killed after the convention.) Harris did briefly meet with two members of the Uncommitted Movement in early August but reportedly declined to commit to a longer meeting about arms restrictions on Israel. Alongside all of this, Harris has deployed rhetoric about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that signals a continuation of the policy status quo and sternly reprimanded pro-Palestinian protesters who disrupted one of her events.

“Vice President Harris’s unwillingness to shift on unconditional weapons policy or to even make a clear campaign statement in support of upholding existing U.S. and international human rights law has made it impossible for us to endorse her,” the group said in a new statement.

At the same time, the statement argued, Trump would be worse for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip because he would “accelerate the killing in Gaza while intensifying the suppression of anti-war organizing.” For this reason, the group states, Uncommitted supporters should vote against Republicans “up and down the ballot” and avoid third-party candidates who could “inadvertently boost” Trump’s chances.

The Uncommitted Movement’s attempt to thread a needle here is awkward. Its statement is, all in the same breath, a complaint about Democrats and also a de facto soft endorsement of them. Some activists will object to the Uncommitted Movement voluntarily giving up its leverage over the Democratic Party, out of the belief that holding out on an endorsement announcement might’ve resulted in some concessions from Harris with another month and a half to go until Election Day. Still others — some of them likely out of the belief that Harris probably won’t signal any policy changes on a hot button issue unless she wins office — will say the Uncommitted Movement’s mealy-mouthed quasi-endorsement is riskier than articulating a clear position that Trump is the biggest imminent threat to Palestinian life.

But the Uncommitted Movement’s overall posture should be familiar to anyone on the left who thinks about the hard reality of voting in America: Even on issues on which Democrats are not good, or are even downright terrible, Republicans are often worse. That’s certainly true in this case. The Biden administration’s effectively unconditional aid to Israel has been morally indefensible and catastrophic for Palestinian civilian life. But Trump would in all likelihood embolden Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even more than President Joe Bidenintensify Israel’s brutal domination of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and revel in brutal repression of protesters at home.

I do think the Uncommitted Movement could have waited longer to issue a statement — perhaps until some time in October, to test Harris more and capitalize on a potential upswing in protests over the issue. But ultimately I’m sympathetic to its attempt to balance values with strategic efficacy. The non-endorsement allows the group to credibly identify potential positive policy changes in the future, since an endorsement would’ve squandered that claim to specific judgment of politicians’ policy positions. At the same time, the voting guidance correctly counsels the movement to think about minimizing harm for Palestinians, seeking the best possible activist terrain in the medium- to long-term future, and choosing to organize against politicians who could conceivably be influenced. It also marks a recognition that the Democratic Party has made it clear that its strategy is to ignore the pro-Palestinian movementknowing that the movement has lost significant momentum with Harris’ nomination and data indicating the war in Gaza is not a top tier issue even for most young voters.

In its statement, the Uncommitted Movement argues that the antiwar movement must try make inroads into the Democratic Party and develop coalitions that contest the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s significant influence on the party on Israel policy. That’s an important long-term goal. For the time being, the best hope the antiwar movement has is to keep up the pressure on the party through a fierce protest movement that demands that Democrats put and end to their abominable disregard for life in the Gaza Strip.

Zeeshan Aleem

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for BLN Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Blue Light News, and he has also been published in, among other places, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation, and The Intercept. You can sign up for his free politics newsletter here.

Politics

‘We are winning elections’: Bernie Sanders on Democrats’ progressive wing

Published

18 hours ago

September 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

‘We are winning elections’: Bernie Sanders on Democrats’ progressive wing

lead image

Politics

Trump wants the Postal Service to radically overhaul mail voting. But ballots are already going out.

Published

2 days ago

September 4, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump’s controversial demands for the Postal Service to overhaul and monitor millions of mail ballots hit another snag on Friday, when North Carolina became the first state in the nation to start sending out ballots for the November election.

In March, Trump signed the initial executive order, which aimed to crack down on mail-in voting — which he regularly alleges without evidence is a vector for widespread voter fraud — and assert an unprecedented amount of federal control over the upcoming elections.

Under this order and the subsequent rule drafted by the U.S. Postal Service, the USPS would refuse to deliver ballots to states that failed to provide lists of eligible mail voters or did not adhere to an approved envelope design style.

Since then, the order has faced legal challenges, and it remains paused by a federal judge’s orders. But the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the new rule to proceed — something current and former election officials from both parties say would be both a legal nightmare that oversteps the federal government’s traditional role in elections and a logistical one that is happening far too close to the November election to implement even if they agreed with it.

“Why the hell are you rocking the boat this late in the game?” said Stephen Richer, a former Republican recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, who has clashed with Trump allies for defending the security of the 2020 election.

Still, election officials are trying to project a sense of normalcy for voters, particularly in North Carolina, which serves as a test of whether established local election systems can operate normally amid intensifying federal scrutiny.

“I want to emphasize this point because there has been a lot of outside noise: Our county workers are ready,” Sam Hayes, a longtime Republican lawyer in the state and now executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, said in a Thursday afternoon press conference.

He added, “All we can do is what we’re doing. … It is business as usual as far as I’m concerned.”

Despite the legal challenges, the Trump administration has continued to press the courts to let it proceed. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to lift an order from a Massachusetts judge which temporarily prevents the USPS from enforcing their rule. It is the second time the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to step in, after winning an earlier victory in which the high court dismissed an earlier hold on the rule as premature.

“The uncertainty is coming from a single activist judge who continues to try and obstruct President Trump from implementing commonsense measures to protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans vote in American elections,” White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement. “These safeguards for mail ballots were proposed months ago giving election officials ample time to prepare for the 2026 election.”

The USPS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Election officials said that if the rule goes into effect this close to November, it would cause chaos and place added strain on the USPS and election officials. And an anonymous federal whistleblower said in a report circulated earlier this week by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that the USPS was moving forward in a “secretive, rushed, chaotic, and fundamentally flawed process” to try to implement the new system ahead of the midterms.

In the coming weeks, states across the country will follow North Carolina’s lead. Nine other states will begin mailing ballots in the next two weeks, according to a tracker from the National Conference of State Legislatures — with the biggest day for mailing coming 45 days before the election in mid-September.

“It would be so outrageous to try to let this go into effect. It’s hard to even imagine,” said Ben Hovland, a senior fellow for democracy at the progressive think tank Center for American Progress and former Democratic commissioner with the Election Assistance Commission who was fired by Trump in July.

He added, “It would be a break-glass moment for our democracy.”

The rule would require meticulous changes to ballot handling and tracking practices that Hovland said are impossible to implement before Election Day in about two months, effectively disenfranchising millions of voters.

“Ballots are printed. Envelopes are printed. You can go on and on with all the practical reasons that show that implementing something like this at this time is not feasible,” he said.

Richer said he doubted the new rules would bring about more security. Even if the USPS received lists from the states, according to the postal service’s final rule, it would not do any additional vetting of the list, Richer said.

“It’s just that the mail ballots have to be on that list, and I don’t see what added value for election integrity that does,” he said.

He added, “It creates a lot of administrative burden, and I think it creates a lot more opportunity for error.”

While a decision looms in the courts, election officials and experts cast doubt on the likelihood of the rules going into effect before November. A more pressing issue, they said, is the confusion and uncertainty surrounding mail-in ballots, which could subvert and change the behaviors of voters.

“It makes things seem messy or difficult, and it can dissuade people from participating or coming out to vote,” Hovland said. “It certainly also helps establish a pretext to make bad faith claims about election results.”

Hovland said that while none of these claims of voter fraud are backed up with facts, they could cause Americans to lose faith in the voting process.

Still, some current officials contended they were well-prepared for whatever happens — and that they’d be able to communicate effectively with voters who have become increasingly buffeted by dramatic rhetoric about the once-unmentioned nuts and bolts of actually running an election.

“There’s always a lot of noise around elections, that’s not going to change, and it can be hard to differentiate that from what’s actually going on on the ground,” said Jason Tyson, director of external affairs for the North Carolina State Board of Elections.

As Election Day approaches, Tyson and election officials said they urge voters to check their registration status and make a plan to vote.

He added, “I think we’ve got a really well-trained, solid staff who are ready, and who have gone through all of the checks and balances and points of contact that we need to do to get to where we are.”

Politics

Missouri Supreme Court pauses GOP gerrymander, likely netting Democrats 1 House seat

Published

3 days ago

September 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Missouri’s Supreme Court suspended a congressional map that state Republicans drew last year that would have netted the GOP an additional House seat, likely keeping the seat in Democratic hands this November.

The court ruled unanimously on Thursday that a referendum petition organized by Democrats to put the new congressional maps to a vote was incorrectly deemed insufficient by Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, and ordered that the gerrymandered map be put to a vote in the fall.

Voters will ultimately decide the fate of the new lines in November. But in the meantime, it cannot be in place for the midterms, meaning Rep. Emanuel Cleaver’s original Kansas City-based district will likely stay in Democrats’ hands this fall.