There's an article in today's New York Times reporting the debate of
Democratic candidates for Senator in Maine.
Asked if they supported ending Daylight Saving two of the leading
candidates said yes, the third said no, the fourth said unsure.
On 2026-07-17 01:51 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Brooks Harris wrote:
I feel all these technical difficulties created by the Sunshine
Protection Act are dangerous and the Senators who may vote on it are
probably mostly unaware if it.
I don’t typically reach first for random sweeping criticism of elected
officials, but on this topic I think it’s on target.
Lawmakers hear the two main, simplistic arguments for “permanent DST” — it’s
hard to adjust clocks, and sunny evenings are preferable to sunny mornings —
and race to enact a feel-good measure with little to no consideration for
possible ill effects.
The quote from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in 2022:
“All I know is, constantly, every year, my wife wants [DST] to be
permanent.”
illustrates just how many technical tokens lawmakers are spending on this
subject.
My representative emailed a survey question earlier this week: “Are you in
favor of making Daylight Saving Time permanent to avoid changing clocks twice a
year?” The obvious loading of the question, to avoid mentioning that permanent
standard time would also eliminate clock changing, is unsurprising, given that
she is already on record as supporting a move to year-round UTC–6. The email
invited lengthier responses, and I plan one, but how much that can change her
mind is questionable.
--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
