RUTHFULLY YOURS

Not that many years ago one went to vote. One found the district. One stood and waited until the 107-year-old volunteers (bless them) found your name, and then you entered a booth, drew a curtain behind you and pressed little levers for your choices.

Now, for inexplicable reasons, you get a two-sided paper with little circles above each candidate that one must fill. You do this while standing behind a three-sided booth. Then you take this paper, covered by a manila folder, to another centenarian who removes the manila folder and tells you to place your paper in a scanner. Mine came back because the little circles were not filled in. Back to the first booth where you correct your error after waiting on line for an available booth, and then it is back to the scanner which, after a wait with your paper exposed to nosy onlookers, eats your paper of choices.

Where my sons vote six scanners were out of order and the wait was interminable. I was lucky. The younger volunteers, in their late eighties, recognized another superannuated woman and ushered me through.

Why did they replace an efficient system where you could do your patriotic duty in minutes behind the curtain with one that crowds the room with perplexed people wandering back and forth seeking the right booth and then the right scanner? I’ll never know. When I voted for Grover Cleveland it was so easy.

But why complain? My candidate won.

Asra Q. Nomani is a former Wall Street Journal reporter and a co-founder of the Muslim Reform Movement. She can be found on Twitter at @AsraNomani.

A lot is being said now about the “silent secret Trump supporters.”

This is my confession — and explanation: I — a 51-year-old, a Muslim, an immigrant woman “of color” — am one of those silent voters for Donald Trump. And I’m not a “bigot,” “racist,” “chauvinist” or “white supremacist,” as Trump voters are being called, nor part of some “whitelash.”

In the winter of 2008, as a lifelong liberal and proud daughter of West Virginia, a state born on the correct side of history on slavery, I moved to historically conservative Virginia only because the state had helped elect Barack Obama as the first African American president of the United States.

But, then, for much of this past year, I have kept my electoral preference secret: I was leaning toward Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Tuesday evening, just minutes before the polls closed at Forestville Elementary School in mostly Democratic Fairfax County, I slipped between the cardboard partitions in the polling booth, a pen balanced carefully between my fingers, to mark my ballot for president, coloring in the circle beside the names of Trump and his running mate, Mike Pence.

After Hillary Clinton called Trump to concede, making him America’s president-elect, a friend on Twitter wrote a message of apology to the world, saying there are millions of Americans who don’t share Trump’s “hatred/division/ignorance.” She ended: “Ashamed of millions that do.”

That would presumably include me — but it doesn’t, and that is where the dismissal of voter concerns about Clinton led to her defeat. I most certainly reject the trifecta of “hatred/division/ignorance.” I support the Democratic Party’s position on abortion, same-sex marriage and climate change.

But I am a single mother who can’t afford health insurance under Obamacare. The president’s mortgage-loan modification program, “HOPE NOW,” didn’t help me. Tuesday, I drove into Virginia from my hometown of Morgantown, W.Va., where I see rural America and ordinary Americans, like me, still struggling to make ends meet, after eight years of the Obama administration.

Finally, as a liberal Muslim who has experienced, first-hand, Islamic extremism in this world, I have been opposed to the decision by President Obama and the Democratic Party to tap dance around the “Islam” in Islamic State. Of course, Trump’s rhetoric has been far more than indelicate and folks can have policy differences with his recommendations, but, to me, it has been exaggerated and demonized by the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, their media channels, such as Al Jazeera, and their proxies in the West, in a convenient distraction from the issue that most worries me as a human being on this earth: extremist Islam of the kind that has spilled blood from the hallways of the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai to the dance floor of the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla.

In mid-June, after the tragic shooting at Pulse, Trump tweeted out a message, delivered in his typical subtle style: “Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!”

One of the most intriguing political shifts Tuesday was Donald Trump’s relative popularity with union members. Exit polls show that Hillary Clinton did not win union households in nearly the numbers that President Obama did in 2012. Although major unions like the AFL-CIO supported Mrs. Clinton, millions in the rank and file didn’t. Mr. Trump’s victory should provide hope to any union members alienated by their increasingly out-of-touch leaders.

Best of all, growing numbers of these workers have the right to decide that they don’t want to support a union that doesn’t represent them. Twenty-six states now have right-to-work laws, which bar unions from getting workers fired for not paying union dues. Similar legislation might be on the way after Republicans’ sweeping victory on Tuesday. Even more consequential could be Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominees. If the president-elect makes good on his promise to choose constitutionalists, the court could enshrine right-to-work protections for every government employee in the country.

Start with the states where right-to-work bills have been blocked by Democrats. Last year the Missouri legislature passed one with strong majorities: 92-66 in the House and 21-13 in the Senate. But Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed it, claiming that “it’s wrong for the middle class and it must never become the law of the Show-Me State.”

Term limits have ended Gov. Nixon’s tenure, and on Tuesday voters rejected his preferred successor. Instead they elected a Republican, Eric Greitens, who says he believes in right to work “because it would stop companies and union bosses from taking a cut of your paycheck to support their political organization.”

The story in New Hampshire is similar. In 2011 the legislature tried to make the state right-to-work. Then-Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, vetoed the bill. A strong majority of the New Hampshire House tried to override the veto, 240-139, but they came up 12 votes short of the two-thirds needed. A similar bill didn’t make it through the legislature last year, though Gov. Maggie Hassan would have likely vetoed it anyway.

But on Tuesday the state elected a new Republican governor, Chris Sununu. “We haven’t brought a major business into the state in eight years,” he said earlier this year, adding that right to work could change that. If so, New Hampshire would be New England’s first right-to-work state.

In Kentucky right-to-work legislation died in the Democratic House last year, after it was passed by the Republican-dominated Senate. Yet now Republicans have taken full control of the legislature for the first time in nearly a century. The GOP flipped a whopping 17 of the state’s 100 House seats on its way to a 64-36 majority. In a postelection newspaper op-ed, Gov. Matt Bevin included right to work in his list of priorities for the next session.

At the Supreme Court the stakes are even higher, as Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association shows. The suit involves Rebecca Friedrichs, a California teacher who wants nothing to do with her union. She argues that being forced to financially support the government union violates her First Amendment rights. CONTINUE AT SITE

White House press secretary Josh Earnest raised some eyebrows on Wednesday when he engaged on the question whether President Obama would pardon Hillary Clinton before leaving office. Earnest did not indicate that the president had made any commitment one way or the other, but the fact that he is clearly thinking about it is intriguing.

The question primarily arises because there is significant evidence of felony law violations. These do not only involve the mishandling of classified information and the conversion/destruction of government files (i.e., the former secretary of state’s government-related e-mails). It has also been credibly reported that the FBI is investigating pay-to-play corruption during Clinton’s State Department tenure, through the mechanism of the Clinton Foundation — the family “charity” by means of which the Clintons have become fabulously wealthy by leveraging their “public service.” Thus far, Mrs. Clinton has been spared prosecution, but we have learned that the e-mails aspect of the investigation was unduly limited (no grand jury was used); and the legal theory on which FBI director James Comey declined to seek charges is highly debatable, even if it has been rubber-stamped by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The proximate cause driving the pardon question, however, is President-elect Donald Trump’s commitment that if victorious, he would appoint a special prosecutor to probe his rival’s “situation.”

This is one of what will no doubt be many things that Mr. Trump will find were easier to say in the heat of the moment (a contentious debate between the candidates) than to do in his new political reality. During the campaign, nothing damaged Clinton as badly as the specter of criminal jeopardy. But now Trump has been elected, and he has a governing agenda that will require cooperation from Capitol Hill. A prosecution of Clinton would provoke Democratic outrage, which means media outrage, which, in turn, means Republican panic.

Much of the outrage is ill-considered — although that doesn’t stop some smart people from expressing it. The objection is that the United States is not, for example, Turkey, where the Islamist despot persecutes his political opposition. But the comparison is apples and oranges. Clinton would not be under investigation for opposing Trump; the probe would be based on evidence of non-trivial law-breaking that has nothing to do with Trump. We know this because Clinton’s misconduct has already been the subject of ostensibly serious investigations by the incumbent administration’s law enforcers. If your position is that a politician may be investigated only if her own party is in power, then you are the one politicizing law enforcement — and creating an environment that breeds corruption.