Joseph Zambon
Summary
- Rep. Langworthy held his July Telephone Town Hall on July 28, 2024.
- Callers asked about funding for Chautauqua Lake cleanup, the integrity of the November elections, and the messaging bill he introduced to cancel visas if a student engages in political protest.
- Langworthy continues to spew inflammatory rhetoric in his weekly emails but less so in his telephone town halls.
- It appears Langworthy is trying to establish a national presence like other NY congressmen, Claudia Tenney and Elise Stefanik.
- He should take a lesson from the disgraced career of another Western New York Republican, Michael Caputo.
- Election denier Langworthy continues to spread disinformation and subtle threats – “eyeballs watching everything” – about the coming election.
- He repeats the false Republican talking point about the need for a national voter ID.
- Langworthy knows that national voter ID would disenfranchise 5-10% of voters and would be a step toward a totalitarian state.
On Wednesday, July 31, 2024, Rep. Nick Langworthy conducted his monthly Telephone Townhall. This event highlighted a growing concern about his approach to communication and representation.
Recently, I’ve criticized Langworthy for his highly partisan and inflammatory weekly emails. For instance, in his July 28, 2024, newsletter, Langworthy took a harsh stance against several legislators absent from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress. His targets included Vice President Harris, although she later had a private meeting with Netanyahu, and about 40 Democrats, including former Speaker Pelosi and one Republican Congressman. Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance was also absent, but for some reason, Langworthy forgot to criticize him.
Langworthy’s choice of words was strikingly harsh, labeling the absentees as “disgusting and deeply disrespectful,” a “disgraceful slap in the face,” and accusing them of siding with “terrorist sympathizers.” His rhetoric mirrored broader Republican talking points, as other GOP members said similar things.
Langworthy is free to say nasty things about any and all Democrats without fear of repercussions at the ballot box. Langworthy’s district is solid Republican. It has been a Republican stronghold for forty years except for now-Governor Kathy Hochul’s single term.
After Representative Chris Lee’s resignation following his sex scandal, Kathy Hochul briefly held the seat before losing it to Chris Collins following reapportionment. During his time as representative, Chris Collins faced his own legal problems representatives named “Chris” have a history of scandal in the 23rd district). He and his son were arrested for insider trading by the FBI. Despite his criminal indictments, he was re-elected by the voters in his district. He resigned his seat ten months later and went to prison. However, there was a happy ending for Collins. President Trump pardoned Collins during his last days in office, together with many other politically connected felons.
Given the firmly Republican nature of his district, Langworthy’s fervent MAGA stance appears to alienate not just non-MAGA Republicans but also Democrats within the 23rd district.
His inflammatory rhetoric is part of a broader strategy to increase his national visibility. As a former chair of both the Erie County Republican Party and the New York Republican Committee, Langworthy’s messaging aligns closely with other rabid MAGA Republicans with national visibility like Congresswoman Claudia Tenney and Congresswoman Elise Stefanik. Tenney is a darling of conservative media. She appears frequently on Fox News where she sometimes makes disparaging comments about her district. Elise Stefanik is the fourth-ranking Republican in the House as chair of the Republican conference. She replaced Liz Cheney, who believed in country over party and, for that reason, was hated by her colleagues.
Again, Langworthy’s ambitions may extend well beyond representing New York’s 23rd congressional district. As a young and ambitious political figure, he’s already made significant strides in his career. He was notably the youngest chair of the New York Republican Committee and has maintained long-standing connections with former President Trump. Trump endorsed Langworthy in his initial congressional run and, alongside members of the Trump family, Langworthy served on Trump’s presidential transition committee. Like Michael Caputo – a fellow NY-23rd district Republican and Roger Stone ally – Langworthy might be eyeing a role in a second Trump administration. Even if Langworthy were to resign his seat, the district would remain Republican.
Langworthy would do well to heed the cautionary tale of Michael Caputo.
A seasoned Republican operative, Caputo was appointed by the Trump White House as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services despite his lack of scientific or medical expertise. His tenure saw him interfere with the Centers for Disease Control’s communications, including delaying or altering reports. He was following White House instructions to align the HHS and the CDC with Trump’s policies on COVID-19. For instance, Caputo attempted to block the release of a CDC report criticizing hydroxychloroquine, a drug Trump was promoting for the treatment of COVID despite its questionable efficacy. His actions provoked strong backlash from CDC scientists who were working to save lives. Caputo’s increasingly erratic behavior led him to accuse the CDC of plotting against Trump and even to claim that hit squads were after him.
Caputo’s experience is a stark warning to anyone considering a similar path. It underscores the importance of maintaining integrity and expertise in political careers and the risks of aligning too closely with partisan interests.
There are essentially two versions of Langworthy: the "email" Langworthy and the "telephone town hall" Langworthy.
There are essentially two versions of Langworthy: the “email” Langworthy and the “telephone town hall” Langworthy. The former is known for his name-calling, half-truths, and misleading statements. In contrast, the latter avoids the inflammatory language but still relies on partial truths and misleading claims. While he may present his viewpoints in a more restrained manner during his telephone town halls, the underlying MAGA rhetoric remains consistent.
Take, for example, Langworthy’s most recent Telephone Town Hall on July 31, 2024. His introduction was typical, setting the stage for what was to come. When it came to the question-and-answer segment, however, things took an intriguing turn.
Although the questions are supposed to be spontaneous from constituents in the 23rd district, the second question focused on election integrity—a topic heavily laden with Republican talking points. Langworthy is, himself, an election denier. Langworthy’s response was so steeped in partisan rhetoric that it raised suspicions about whether the question was pre-arranged.
“What do you plan on doing to ensure voter integrity”
Question: “What do you plan on doing to ensure voter integrity and uh make sure that there’s gonna be nothing nefarious going on in our district, in our state or around the country?
Langworthy: “…We recently passed in Congress a bill called the SAVE Act…which would require, it would ban foreign nationals and those here illegally from registering to vote. You’d have to produce documentation that they are American citizens to enter our voter roles…I’m a champion of voter ID. There’s no better way to police our elections than to have national voter identification…We have passed legislation that would put these national standards in place…I think a lot of states that had problems in 2020, you saw governors drunk on power, abuse the executive order privileges that they were given by their state legislatures change election law on the fly…COVID or no COVID, that’s not right… I know that there’s just from my own party, there are a lot more lawyers on guard, there’s a lot more efforts to safeguard…there’s a lot more eyeballs watching everything right now. Just to make sure everything is as letter perfect as it can be in this upcoming election.
Misleading About the SAVE Act
But I’m deeply concerned about the illegal immigrants that have come into this country and efforts to register them to vote. That’s why we passed the Save Act…the Save Act would clean up our elections. It would prevent non-citizens from registering to vote. And uh, it would give everyone the peace of mind that only American citizens are exercising their right to vote…All of your elected leaders need to hear from you that you support voter identification if you do. It is not an undue burden. You need to show identification for so many things in this world that are less serious than choosing the next leader of the free world.”
Response Riddled with Misleading Statements
Let’s break down Langworthy’s response, as it is riddled with misleading statements.
The underlying assumption of the question is that widespread voter fraud occurred in the 2020 election, necessitating corrective legislation. Langworthy’s response perpetuates several falsehoods:
False/Misleading Message #1: Trump won the 2020 election, but Democrats stole it through voter fraud.
Langworthy, along with other prominent figures like Tenney and Stefanik, echo Trump’s false claim that he won the 2020 election and that it was stolen. However, Trump himself has privately admitted his loss. A week after the election, he expressed his disbelief to White House aide Alyssa Farah, saying, “Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?” Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, revealed that Trump confided in Meadows, “I don’t want people to know we lost, Mark. This is embarrassing.” Furthermore, in a 2021 interview with author Ramin Setoodeh, Trump openly stated, “After I lost the election…”.
Trump’s public assertions of a stolen election and his inflammatory tweet, “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th,..Be there, will be wild!” incited the January 6th insurrection.
Nine Dead as a Result of January 6th
The tragic aftermath of that day included the deaths of four individuals in the crowd—Ashli Babbitt, Kevin D. Greeson, Rosanne Boyland, and Benjamin Philips—as well as the deaths of five police officers. Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who was attacked by the mob, died on January 7. Metropolitan Police Department Officer Jeffrey Smith, along with Capitol Police Officers Howard S. Liebengood, Gunther Hashida, and Kyle DeFreytag, also lost their lives, with the latter four committing suicide.
Despite Speaker Johnson’s obstruction, the consequences have been significant: 1,265 individuals have been charged, 718 have pleaded guilty, including 213 for assaulting federal officers, obstructing law enforcement, or seditious conspiracy, and 460 people have been incarcerated.
The 2020 Election Wasn’t Stolen
Rep. Liz Cheney, the former chair of the House Republican Conference, said, “The president and many around him pushed this idea that the election had been stolen. ..It wasn’t true…There were over 60 court cases where judges, including judges appointed by President Trump and other Republican presidents, looked at the evidence in many cases and said there is not widespread fraud.”
Ken Block was hired by the Trump campaign to find voter fraud in the 2020 election. Block found that the 2020 presidential election was not stolen and that there was no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change the election outcome.
An academic study published in a top-tier journal examined Republican election fraud claims. It examined the claim that the Dominion voting machines switched votes from Trump to Biden, that there were suspiciously high turnouts in Democratic strongholds, and that Biden failed to win “bellwether counties he should have won.” They found, “Reviewing the most prominent of these statistical claims, we conclude that none of them is even remotely convincing… For each claim, we find that what is purported to be an anomalous fact about the election result is either not a fact or not anomalous.”
False/Misleading Message #2: There is widespread voter fraud, and we need new legislation to restore election integrity.
Langworthy’s assertion that there is widespread voter fraud necessitating new legislation is not supported by evidence. There is no indication that noncitizen voting has ever affected the outcome of any election.
Langworthy advocates for the SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act), claiming it will prevent voter fraud. However, current laws already effectively address these concerns. The SAVE Act targets foreign nationals and undocumented individuals to prevent them from voting. But it’s important to note that citizenship is already a legal requirement for voting in the United States. Therefore, this proposed legislation merely duplicates existing protections without addressing any new or unaddressed issues.
The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections. It requires applicants to attest under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens. Violators are investigated and prosecuted.
The SAVE Act, which is unlikely to pass in the current Congress, proposes requiring proof of citizenship to vote. However, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled against the mandate.
In 2004, Arizona enacted a law that required proof of citizenship for voting even though there was no evidence that non-citizens vote. The Arizona Attorney General has not prosecuted or convicted any non-citizen for illegal voting in many years. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down this law. They ruled that the required documentation violated the Voting Rights Act. This judicial precedent (although it doesn’t appear that the Supreme Court believes in precedent anymore) underscores why similar proposals, like the SAVE Act, will face significant legal challenges and are unlikely to succeed.
In response to the Supreme Court ruling, Arizona started a bifurcated voter registry. Arizona voters who provide acceptable proof of citizenship can vote in local, state, and federal elections. Arizona voters who do not provide acceptable proof of citizenship go onto the “federal only” list. They are allowed to vote only in federal elections and disenfranchised in state and local elections.
Republican Efforts at Voter Suppression
The Arizona law disenfranchises from state and local elections the homeless, Native Americans, and college students, all of whom do not usually have the needed documents. College students, for example, are three times more likely to be on Arizona’s “federal only” rolls than other groups.
Disenfranchising college students where they go to school fulfills a long-time Republican goal. College students have been a significant anti-Republican vote in local elections.
Taking a cue from Arizona, Texas Republicans thought that bifurcated voter rolls were a good idea. Texas Republicans filed bills that would create separate voter registration systems. There would be a “Valid for federal elections only” group and a separate “State and local elections” group for voters who met Texas’s additional voter registration requirements.
Alabama and Georgia have passed, but have not implemented, legislation imposing voter registration requirements directly conflicting with federal law, but they have not yet developed bifurcated voter registration rolls.
If the SAVE Act were implemented, it’s estimated that about 9% of voters, or 21 million people, would lose their right to vote. The list includes groups that have historically voted Democratic, including college students, homeless people, African Americans, and the elderly.
Contrary to what Langworthy says, the SAVE Act is not designed to safeguard elections—there are already laws to do that. The SAVE Act is a not-so-subtle effort at voter suppression. It is a way of eliminating voters who vote against Republicans.
Langworthy claims that the SAVE Act would “clean up our elections” by preventing non-citizens from voting and ensuring only American citizens exercise their right to vote. However, this claim ignores several key realities about voting and voter ID laws. According to the League of Women Voters,
1. Voter Fraud is Extremely Rare: In the 2020 election, where over 250 million votes were cast by mail, there were just 193 criminal convictions related to voter fraud. This minuscule number highlights how rare voter fraud truly is.
2. Voter Photo ID Laws are Ineffective: Evidence shows that voter photo ID laws do little to combat fraud. These laws often become a tool for voter suppression rather than fraud prevention.
3. Voter Photo ID Laws Promote Voter Suppression: Contrary to Langworthy’s assertion that ID requirements are “no big deal,” voter photo ID laws impose undue burdens. They are a “big deal” for many people. Many voters lack the necessary photo ID, including 18% of seniors over 65, 16% of Latino voters, 25% of Black voters, and 15% of low-income Americans. The cost and logistics of obtaining an acceptable ID can be prohibitive, particularly for Native Americans and those in rural areas. I suppose if the Republicans could disenfranchise older voters, they could do away with Social Security. Also a long-time Republican goal.
False/Misleading Message #3: Voting is a privilege, not a right – wrong!!
Langworthy’s comparison of voting to other activities that require ID, such as flying or buying alcohol or driving a car, is misleading. Voting is a constitutional right protected by the 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments. Air travel, purchasing alcohol, and other activities requiring photo ID are not protected under the constitution. They are privileges, not rights. People have the privilege to drive a car. They have the right to vote.
The unnecessary voter restrictions Langworthy supports echo discriminatory practices from the Jim Crow era, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, designed to disenfranchise marginalized communities. Voter ID laws are not about securing elections. They are tools of voter suppression to skew the system to favor Republican interests