divide

INCLINE VILLAGE, Nev. — Jim Ross has had a long and fruitful career as a Democratic campaign strategist. Among his victories was electing Gavin Newsom as San Francisco mayor.

Tom Ross has enjoyed similar success on the Republican side. He counts Kevin McCarthy’s election to the Legislature and, later, Congress, among his wins.

But perhaps his most important achievement, Tom Ross said, was working on the 2008 campaign that established California’s independent redistricting commission — “the gold standard” for fair and impartial political map-making. “It needs protecting,” he said.

No, said Jim Ross. It needs overriding.

He backs Newsom’s effort to undo the commission’s work in favor of a gerrymander that could boost Democratic chances of winning the House in 2026 — or else, he fears, “there will be ongoing Republican domination of politics … for decades to come.”

The two are brothers who, despite their differences, harbor an abiding love and respect for one another, along with an ironclad resolve that nothing — no campaign, no candidate, no political issue — can or ever will be allowed to drive a wedge between them.

“Tom’s the best person I know. The best person I know,” Jim, 57, said as his brother, 55, sat across from him at a local burrito joint, tearing up. “There’s issues we could go round and round on, which we’re not going to do.”

“Especially,” said Tom, “with someone you care about and love.”

That sort of fraternal bond, transcending partisanship and one of the most heated political fights of this charged moment, shouldn’t be unusual or particularly noteworthy — even for a pair who make their living working for parties locked in furious combat. But in these vexing and highly contentious times it surely is.

Maybe there’s something others can take away.

::

The Ross brothers grew up in Incline Village, not far from where Nevada meets California. That was decades ago, before the forested hamlet on Tahoe’s east shore became a playground for the rich and ultra-rich.

The family — Mom, Dad, four boys and a girl — settled there after John Ross retired from a career in the Air Force, which included three combat tours in Vietnam.

John and his wife, Joan, weren’t especially political, though they were active and civic-minded. Joan was involved in the Catholic church. John, who took up a career in real estate, worked on ways to improve the community.

The lessons they taught their children were grounded in duty, discipline and detail. Early on, the kids learned there’s no such thing as a free ride. Jim got his first job at the 76 station, before he could drive. Tom mowed lawns, washed cars and ran a lemonade stand. The least fortunate among the siblings wore a bear suit and waved a sign, trying to shag customers for their dad’s real estate business.

To this day, the brothers disdain anything that smacks of entitlement. “That’s our family,” Jim said. “We’re all workers.”

Like their parents, the two weren’t politically active growing up. They ended up majoring in government and political science — Jim at Saint Mary’s College in the Bay Area, Tom at Gonzaga University in Washington state — as a kind of default. Both had instructors who brought the subject to life.

Jim’s start in the profession came in his junior year when Clint Reilly, then one of California premier campaign strategists, came to speak to his college class. It was the first time Jim realized it was possible to make a living in politics — and Reilly’s snazzy suit suggested it could be a lucrative one.

Jim interned for Reilly and after graduating and knocking about for a time — teaching skiing in Tahoe, working as a sales rep for Banana Boat sunscreen — he tapped an acquaintance from Reilly’s firm to land a job with Frank Jordan’s 1991 campaign for San Francisco mayor.

From there, Jim moved on to a state Assembly race in Wine Country, just as Tom was graduating and looking for work. Using his connections, Jim helped Tom find a job as the driver for a congressional candidate in the area.

At the time, both were Republicans, like their father. Their non-ideological approach to politics also reflected the thinking of Col. Ross. Public service wasn’t about party pieties, Jim said, but rather “finding a solution to a problem.”

Jim, left, and Tom Ross have only directly competed in a campaign once, on a statewide rent control measure. They talk shop but avoid discussing politics.

(William Hale Irwin / For The Times)

Jim’s drift away from the GOP began when he worked for another Republican Assembly candidate whom he remembers, distastefully, as reflexively partisan, homophobic and anti-worker. His changed outlook solidified after several months working on a 1992 Louisiana congressional race. The grinding poverty he saw in the South was shocking, Jim said, and its remedy seemed well beyond the up-by-your-bootstraps nostrums he’d absorbed.

Jim came to see government as a necessary agent for change and improvement, and that made the Democratic Party a more natural home. “There’s not one thing that has bettered human existence that hasn’t had, at its core, our ability to work collectively,” Jim said. “And our ability to work collectively comes down to government.”

Tom looked on placidly, a Latin rhythm capering overhead.

He believes that success, and personal fulfillment, lies in individual achievement. The Republicans he admires include Jack Kemp, the rare member of his party who focused on urban poverty, and the George W. Bush of 2000, who ran for president as a “compassionate conservative” with a strong record of bipartisan accomplishment as Texas governor.

(Tom is no fan of Donald Trump, finding the president’s casual cruelty toward people particularly off-putting.)

He distinctly remembers the moment, at age 22, when he realized he was standing on his own two feet, financially supporting himself and making his way in the world through the power of his own perseverance.

“For me, that’s what Republicans should be,” Tom said. “How do you give people that experience in life? That’s what we should be trying to do.”

::

Newsom’s 2003 campaign for San Francisco mayor was a brutal one, typical of the city’s elbows-out, alley-fighting politics.

It took a physical toll on Jim Ross, Newsom’s campaign manager, who suffered chest pains and, at one point, wound up in the hospital. Was the strain worth it, he wondered. Should he quit?

“The only person I could really call and talk to was Tom,” Jim said. “He understands what it is to work that hard on a campaign. And he wasn’t going to go and leak it to the press, or tell someone who would use it in some way to hurt me.”

That kind of empathy and implicit trust, which runs both ways, far outweighs any political considerations, the two said. Why would they surrender such a deep and meaningful relationship for some short-term tactical gain, or allow a disagreement over personalities or policy to set things asunder?

Jim lives and works out of the East Bay. Tom runs his business from Sacramento. The two faced each other on the campaign battlefield just once, squaring off over a 2018 ballot measure that sought to expand rent control in California. The initiative was rejected.

Though they’ve staked opposing positions on Newsom’s redistricting measure, Proposition 50, Jim has no formal role in the Democratic campaign. Tom is working to defeat it.

The brief airing of their differences was unusual, coming solely at the behest of your friendly columnist. As a rule, the brothers talk business but avoid politics; there’s hardly a need — they already know where each other is coming from. After all, they shared a bedroom growing up.

Jim had a story to tell.

Last spring, as their mother lay dying, the two left the hospital in Reno to shower and get a bit of rest at their father’s place in Incline Village. The phone rang. It was the overnight nurse, calling to let them know their mom had passed away.

“Tom takes the call,” Jim said. “The first thing he says to the nurse is, ‘Are you OK? Is it hard for you to deal with this?’ And that’s how Tom is. Major thing, but he thinks about the other person first.”

He laughed, a loud gale. “I’m not that way.”

Tom had a story to tell.

In 2017, he bought a mountain bike, to celebrate the end of his treatment for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He’d been worn out by six months of chemotherapy and wasn’t anywhere near full strength. Still, he was determined to tackle one of Tahoe’s most scenic rides, which involves a lung-searing, roughly five-mile climb.

Tom walked partway, then got back on his bike and powered uphill through the last 500 or so yards.

Waiting for him up top was Jim, seated alongside two strangers. “That’s my brother,” he proudly pointed out. “He beat cancer.”

Tom’s eyes welled. His chin quavered and his voice cracked. He paused to collect himself.

“Do I want to sacrifice that relationship for some stupid tweet, or some in-the-moment anger?” he asked. “That connection with someone, you want to cut it over that? That’s just stupid. That’s just silly.”

Jim glowed.

Reporting from Washington — For those outside Washington, government institutions seem equally dysfunctional. Inside the Beltway, however, the Senate occupies a somewhat special place.

The upper chamber is often revered – especially by its own members — as a more thoughtful, deliberate and collaborative body, where respect for minority viewpoints is baked into cherished rules and precedents.

But one by one, those long-standing traditions that have served as a check against extreme legislation or appointments are being tossed aside amid growing partisanship and a closely divided government.

Rather than nudging senators to compromise, the rules are now a being used in a procedural arms race that threatens to erode the very culture and practice that made the Senate different than the majority-rules House.

“This is the latest manifestation of a changing and declining Senate,” said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution and the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

Trump made promises to blue-collar voters. Democrats plan to make sure he follows through »

“The polarization between the parties and the intensity of sentiment outside the Senate has already led to changes in norms and practices,” he said. “Our system is not well structured to operate in a period of intense polarization.”

The latest example came Wednesday when GOP lawmakers took the extraordinary step of changing committee rules to advance two of President Trump’s Cabinet nominees without any Democrats in attendance.

Democrats, revealing their own willingness to defy Senate niceties, had boycotted the votes on Steven Mnuchin as Treasury secretary and Rep. Tom Price as head of Health and Human Services as they sought more answers on the nominees’ records.

Now Trump would like to see other Senate rules scrapped to the ensure approval of his Supreme Court nominee, Neil M. Gorsuch, whom Democrats had vowed to block even before his name was revealed.

Democrats are still stinging over Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal for most of last year to grant a vote for President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Supreme Court nominations have rarely been subjected to filibusters, but Democrats are talking about taking such a move against Gorsuch. In response, Republicans are considering changing Senate rules so only 51 votes are needed to end the delaying tactic, rather than the current 60. The move is seen as so severe it’s been dubbed the “nuclear option.”

“I would say, ‘If you can, Mitch, go nuclear,’ because that would be an absolute shame if a man of this quality was caught up in the web,” Trump said Wednesday.

Democrats opened the door themselves in 2013 when they used the nuclear option to push through several of Obama’s judicial and executive nominations, which Republicans had been filibustering.

The final frontier in this procedural war could be ending the use of filibusters on ordinary legislation. That would means that bills — which typically require 60 votes to advance in the Senate — could be moved with a 51-vote simple majority. With Republicans currently holding 52 seats, it would relegate Democrats to bystanders in the Senate.

“What is the Senate if that’s gone?” asked one Senate aide. “It’s just the House.”

The Senate has long been a frustrating place. Its slow pace and cumbersome rules are nothing like the more rambunctious House, where the majority can quickly pass a legislative agenda.

But the founders designed the bicameral system with that unique difference — one chamber to swiftly answer the will of the people, the other for a more measured second look before sending bills on to the White House.

Only in the 20th century did senators create an option for ending a filibuster as a way to cut off prolonged debate.

It all sounds pretty archaic to an increasingly frustrated public that is reeling in an intensely partisan environment.

Trump’s election has only accelerated the pressure to end the civilities of the past. On the Republican side, tea party activists pressured Republicans to jam Obama’s agenda, even if that meant shutting down the government.

Now Democratic voters are marching in the streets to stop Trump, pressuring their party leaders to confront just as aggressively what many fear is a dangerous agenda.

“What we’re seeing now is that the base is more motivated than any of us have ever seen,” said Mark Stanley, spokesman for Demand Progress, a 2-million-member progressive group whose activists will be calling and emailing Democratic senators to oppose Gorsuch. It recently turned out 3,000 people at a Democratic senator’s town hall meeting in Rhode Island to protest his vote for Trump’s CIA director nominee.

“Especially in these unprecedented times we’re in, Democrats have to stick by their principles and do what their constituents are really asking for,” Stanley said.

Though both parties have contributed to the gridlock in the Senate, it was McConnell’s willingness to utilize the filibuster as an ordinary weapon in the Obama era — rather than the occasional cudgel — that is largely seen as having fueled today’s standoff.

McConnell has made it clear that Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will be confirmed even if Democrats mount a filibuster — all but declaring he will use the nuclear option to do so.

Trump and the GOP are charging forward with Obamacare repeal, but few are eager to follow »

Such a move would probably poison legislative operations in the Senate for the foreseeable future.

The prospect has so alarmed some Democrats that they may be willing to hold their nose and vote for Gorsuch to preserve the filibuster. Others are not so sure.

Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats, acknowledges that when he arrived in the Senate in 2013, he, too, was so quickly frustrated by the obstruction that he was willing to consider rules changes.

But the former governor vividly remembers a private meeting of the Democratic caucus when one of the older senators advised the newer arrivals about the importance of the Senate as the cooling body and urged them to think about the long-term ramifications of their actions.

“One of the things that surprise me about this place is that people do things and they expect it’s not going to have results four or five years from now,” King said. “I’ve come to realize the 60-vote majority requires some kind of bipartisan support which ultimately makes legislation better.”

[email protected]

@LisaMascaro

ALSO

Despite talk of GOP unity, Trump’s programs face fight from Republican budget hawks

‘Believe me’: People say Trump’s language is affecting political discourse ‘bigly’

Trump’s rise draws white supremacists into political mainstream: ‘I am winning,’ says David Duke

More coverage of Congress

Live coverage from the campaign trail

PORTLAND, Ore. — One program distributes laptops in rural Iowa. Another helped people get back online after Hurricane Helene washed away computers and phones in western North Carolina. Programs in Oregon and rural Alabama teach older people, including some who have never touched a computer, how to navigate in an increasingly digital world.

It all came crashing down this month when President Trump — on his own digital platform, Truth Social — announced his intention to end the Digital Equity Act, a federal grant program meant to help bridge the digital divide. He branded it as “RACIST and ILLEGAL” and said it amounts to “woke handouts based on race.” He said it was an “ILLEGAL $2.5 BILLION DOLLAR giveaway.” The program was funded with $2.75 billion.

The name seemed innocuous enough when the program was approved by Congress in 2021 as part of a $65-billion investment meant to bring internet access to every home and business in the United States. The broadband program was a key component of the $1-trillion infrastructure law enacted under the Biden administration.

The Digital Equity Act was intended to fill gaps and cover unmet needs that surfaced during the massive broadband rollout. It gave states and tribes flexibility to deliver high-speed internet access to families that could not afford it, computers to kids who did not have them, telehealth access to older adults in rural areas, and training and job skills to veterans.

Whether Trump has the legal authority to end the program remains unknown. But for now the Republican administration can simply stop spending the money.

“I just felt my heart break for what we were finally, finally in this country, going to address, the digital divide,” said Angela Siefer, executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a nonprofit that was awarded — but has not received — a $25.7-million grant to work with groups across the country to help provide access to technology. “The digital divide is not just physical access to the internet, it is being able to use that to do what you need to do.”

The word ‘equity’

While the name of the program probably got it targeted — the Trump administration has been aggressively scrubbing the government of programs that promote diversity, equity or inclusion — the Digital Equity Act was supposed to be broader in scope.

Though Trump called it racist, the words “race” or “racial” appear just twice in the law’s text: once, alongside “color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability,” in a passage stating that no groups should be excluded from funding; and later, in a list of covered populations, along with older adults, veterans, people with disabilities, English learners, people with low literacy levels and rural Americans.

“Digital Equity passed with overwhelming bipartisan support,” Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the act’s chief proponent, noted in a statement. “And that’s because my Republican colleagues have heard the same stories as I have — like kids in rural communities forced to drive to McDonalds parking lots for Wi-Fi to do their homework.

“It is insane — absolutely nuts — that Trump is blocking resources to help make sure kids in rural school districts can get hot spots or laptops, all because he doesn’t like the word equity!”

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which administers the program, declined to comment. It’s not clear how much of the $2.75 billion has been awarded, though in March 2024 the NTIA announced the allocation of $811 million to states, territories and tribes.

‘More confident’

On a recent morning in Portland, Ore., Brandon Dorn was among those taking a keyboard basics class offered by Free Geek, a nonprofit that provides free courses to help people learn to use computers. The class was offered at a low-income housing building to make it accessible for residents.

Dorn and the others were given laptops and shown the different functions of keys: control, shift and caps lock, how to copy and paste. They played a typing game that taught finger and key placement on a color-coded keyboard.

Dorn, 63, said the classes helped because “in this day and age, everything has to go through the computer.” He said it helped him feel more confident and less dependent on his children or grandchildren to do things such as making appointments online.

“Folks my age, we didn’t get this luxury because we were too busy working, raising the family,” he said. “So this is a great way to help us help ourselves.”

Juan Muro, Free Geek’s executive director, said participants get the tools and skills they need to access things like online banking, job applications, online education programs and telehealth. He said Trump’s move to end funding has put nonprofits such as Free Geek in a precarious position, forcing them to make up the difference through fundraising and “beg for money to just provide individuals with essential stuff.”

Sara Nichols works for the Land of Sky Regional Council, a multi-county planning and development organization in western North Carolina. On the Friday before Trump’s inauguration in January, the organization received notice that it was approved for a grant. But like other groups the Associated Press contacted, it has not seen any money.

Land of Sky had spent a lot of resources helping people recover from last year’s storms. The award notice, Nichols said, came as “incredible news.”

“But between this and the state losing, getting their letters terminated, we feel just, like, stuck. What are we going to do? How are we going to move forward? How are we going to let our communities continue to fall behind?”

Filling unmet needs

More than one-fifth of Americans do not have broadband internet access at home, according to the Pew Research Center. In rural communities, the number jumps to 27%.

Beyond giving people access to technology and fast internet, many programs funded by the Digital Equity Act sought to provide “digital navigators” — human helpers to guide people new to the online world.

“In the United States we do not have a consistent source of funding to help individuals get online, understand how to be safe online and how to use that technology to accomplish all the things that are required now as part of life that are online,” said Siefer of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. This includes providing families with internet hot spots so they can get online at home and helping seniors avoid online scams, she said.

“Health, workforce, education, jobs, everything, right?” Siefer said. “This law was going to be the start for the U.S. to figure out this issue. It’s a new issue in the big scheme of things, because now technology is no longer a nice-to-have. You have to have the internet and you have to know how to use the technology just to survive, let alone to thrive today.”

Siefer said the word “equity” in the name probably prompted Trump to target the program for elimination.

“But it means that he didn’t actually look at what this program does,” she said. “Because who doesn’t want Grandma to be safe online? Who doesn’t want a veteran to be able to talk to their doctor rather than get in a car and drive two hours? Who doesn’t want students to be able to do their homework?”

Ortutay and Rush write for the Associated Press and reported from San Francisco and Portland, Ore., respectively.

A MAJOR retailer has revealed a plan to roll out self checkouts to more than 100 stores – and its proving divisive with shoppers.

Homeware experts Dunelm will have unveiled the new till systems in more than half of its UK stores by the end of 2026.

1

Dunelm announced the move in a financial update to shareholders, explaining it was focused on “harnessing our operational capabilities”.

It has since revealed that trials had been held for 12 months and generated positive feedback.

A Dunelm spokesperson said: “We have been trialling assisted self-service tills in a number of our stores over the past year, receiving some very good feedback from customers who have welcomed the ease, speed and convenience of this option.

“As a result, we will be rolling out to more stores in our estate in the future. We continue to offer regular tills across all our stores should customers prefer this option.”

Despite the store’s claims, self service checkouts have long proved divisive for consumers.

Dunelm’s Taunton store was among the first to see the new systems installed and a report in the local press attracted varied comments.

One reader said: “I will not be using them! I very much disagree with upper management’s underhand way of getting rid of staff so they get more money in their salary and they very rarely work properly anyway.”

When the news was first revealed another shopper said they “hate” self service tills and wanted “just regular” ones instead.

Another customer said they would only use it if they were given “a discount for doing someone’s job“.

While a third person said they “absolutely” hate them too.

Last month the boss of Booths supermarkets admitted that its customers were happier after the business took the decision to remove self-checkouts from stores.

Previously released data from The Grocer revealed that the checkouts could see service satisfaction scores fall by as much as 8%.

Last year, Asda also said it will put more staff on the tills as part of a £30m investment to get customers back in stores.

But, despite some negative reviews other stores are increasing their use of self checkouts.

Sainsbury’s is currently testing a giant hybrid self-scan till with a scanner on a moving conveyor belt.

This would give shoppers more space to scan and pack bigger trolleys.

Primark has also introduced self scanning tills across a number of its stores, alongside Zara and Berskha.

A full list of the Dunelm stores to receive the self-checkouts has yet to be revealed.

How to dodge the self checkouts

If you want to dodge the self checkouts, you may want to consider using scan as you go technology.

Scan as you go systems are the latest addition to the supermarket shopping experience with several retailers making them a permanent feature in big stores.

They allow customers to scan as they browse, either using their smartphone or a handheld device.

Then most shops allow you to check out at a completely different area to other shoppers, saving time in queues.

It means that shoppers can keep track of how much they’re spending as they go around the aisles, allowing you to budget and stick to your list.

It also means that you can bag your groceries as you wander around too – saving you even more time.

Do you have a money problem that needs sorting? Get in touch by emailing [email protected].

Plus, you can join our Sun Money Chats and Tips Facebook group to share your tips and stories