More stories

  • in

    Texas legislature gives final approval to sweeping voting restrictions bill

    The fight to voteTexasTexas legislature gives final approval to sweeping voting restrictions billBill, nearly identical to a measure that passed last week, gives poll watchers more power and prohibits 24-hour and drive-thru voting The fight to vote is supported byAbout this contentTue 31 Aug 2021 18.50 EDTLast modified on Tue 31 Aug 2021 18.52 EDTSign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterThe Texas legislature gave its final approval on Tuesday to a new bill that would impose substantial new restrictions on voting access in the state.The restrictions would only add to those already in place in Texas, which has some of the most burdensome voting requirements in the US and was among the states with the lowest voter turnout in 2020.The Texas house of representatives gave its approval to a final form of the measure on Tuesday, 80-41. The senate quickly followed with an 18-13 vote Tuesday afternoon. The bill, nearly identical to a measure that passed the legislature last week, would prohibit 24-hour and drive-thru voting – two things officials in Harris county, home of Houston, used for the first time in 2020.‘Democracy will be in shambles’: Democrats in last-ditch effort to protect voting rightsRead moreIt would also prohibit election officials from sending out unsolicited applications to vote by mail, give poll watchers more power in the polling place and provide new regulations on those who assist voters.The bill now goes to the desk of Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican. Civil rights groups are expected to swiftly challenge the measure once it is signed into law.The sole remaining point of disagreement between the two houses on Tuesday was a provision inserted by the House that would have clarified people could not be prosecuted for illegally voting unless they knew they were ineligible.The bipartisan provision was inserted after Crystal Mason, a woman from Fort Worth, was prosecuted and sentenced to five years in prison for mistakenly voting while ineligible in 2016. Lawmakers ultimately removed the protection after objections from the Texas senate Republicans, who said it could be used to protect non-citizens who illegally voted, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, is also bringing charges against Hervis Rogers, who waited seven hours in line to vote in 2020, but appears to be ineligible because he was on parole for a 1995 felony conviction.The bill marks the end of a weeks-long standoff between Democrats and Republicans over the bill. In late May, Democrats walked out of the legislature, denying Republicans the necessary quorum to pass the initial version of the bill, which would have made it easier for judges to overturn elections and restricted early voting on Sundays, a day traditionally used by African American churches to encourage people to vote.Republicans subsequently cut both provisions from the bill. But before a new version could be considered in a July special session, Democrats in the state house left the state and flew to Washington DC, again denying Republicans a quorum to proceed with legislation. While the Democrats in Washington lobbied federal lawmakers to pass federal voting restrictions, state senator Carol Alvarado undertook a 15-hour filibuster on the senate floor to try and block the measure.Earlier this month, after Abbott called a second special session to consider the measure, the house speaker, Dade Phelan, signed civil arrest warrants for the Democrats who refused to show up at the capitol (no one was ultimately arrested). But slowly, a trickle of Democrats began to return to the capitol, giving Republicans a majority, and enraging Democrats who wanted to continue to stay away.Democrats always knew Republicans would eventually pass the bill. But they hoped that by staying away from the capitol, they were buying time for Congress to act while also trying to hold negotiating leverage with Republicans, Rafael Anchía, a Democratic state representative, told the Guardian earlier this month.While the new law is likely to be aggressively challenged in court over the next few months, Democrats made it clear that the only way to stop it would be federal voting reform. The filibuster, a senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance legislation, stands in the way.“At this point, there is only one solution to preserve democracy and voting rights in Texas and around the country: we must enact federal legislation that will protect our voting rights,” Gilberto Hinojosa, the chairman of the Texas Democratic party, said in a statement.“We need the US Senate to take up the baton, pass this bill into law, and preserve our democracy. Nothing less is on the line.”TopicsTexasThe fight to voteUS voting rightsRepublicansDemocratsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Newsom has a huge cash advantage in California’s recall vote. It may mean nothing

    CaliforniaNewsom has a huge cash advantage in California’s recall vote. It may mean nothing The governor’s rivals have only a fraction of his funds, but an unorthodox voting process throws the usual rules out the windowAndrew Gumbel in Los AngelesTue 31 Aug 2021 06.00 EDTLast modified on Tue 31 Aug 2021 08.50 EDTIf war chests won elections, Gavin Newsom would have nothing to fear from the effort to recall him as governor of California.As the campaign moves into its final frenzied phase ahead of 14 September, the official voting day, Newsom and his supporters have outraised the entire panoply of his would-be replacements by a wildly lopsided margin.Last week, Newsom’s fundraising haul surpassed the $58m he raised in 2018, when he first ran for governor and won, and that total is on track to hit $70m or more before all is said and done. The pro-recall effort, by contrast, has raised only about $8m, and only three of the 46 candidates to replace Newsom have raised seven figures on their own account.Larry Elder, the Trump acolyte and firebrand conservative talkshow host, has established himself as the frontrunning challenger with a haul of about $6m, and the only Republican to eclipse that total, the businessman and perennial candidate John Cox, is largely writing checks to himself.Newsom’s huge fundraising advantage guarantees absolutely nothing, however, because the unorthodox, rarely tested rules of the recall don’t allow the incumbent to face off directly with his opponents. Rather, the ballot is split into two parts: the first asking voters whether Newsom deserves to stay in office, and the second asking who should replace him if he doesn’t.Apathetic voters could hand California recall to Republicans: ‘Folks seem unaware’Read moreWhile money can be very useful to an incumbent in a normal election to create a clear contrast with a challenger whose policy positions may be unpalatable to a majority of voters, that’s not the situation Newsom faces, because he is excluded from the second question on the ballot. Polls indicate that he may win two or three times as many votes as Elder, but that won’t help him if he doesn’t reach 50% on the first, yes-or-no recall question.And it’s far from clear that he can buy his way out of that problem – even in a state that last year voted for Joe Biden over Donald Trump by a 30-point margin.“There are a number of forces driving this election and they are only partly controllable by having a lot of money,” said Raphael Sonenshein, a political scientist who runs the Pat Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University, Los Angeles. “What Newsom’s faced with is 100% a mobilization election, not a persuasion election … And campaign strategists are still learning how to mobilize voters.”Money can, of course, buy television ads and fund get-out-the-vote operations. But the challenge for Newsom in an election that does not follow the usual calendar, and has not yet fired up registered Democrats the way it has fired up anti-Newsom Republicans, is to persuade low-propensity voters to send in the absentee ballots sitting on their kitchen tables. And that, Sonenshein said, was a much trickier proposition – “more of an art than a science”.California has a long track record of humiliating candidates who thought they could win office through sheer force of financial muscle. But the recall is also an outlier by US political standards, a constitutionally questionable process designed more than a century ago that doesn’t follow the usual patterns – concerning money or anything else.That, in turn, has raised two interesting questions. One, if money is only so useful to the anti-recall forces, how come people are showering Newsom with so much of it? And, two, if the recall is giving the Republicans their best – perhaps their only – shot at high office in a bluer-than-blue state, how come their donors are largely staying away?Think California’s recall election doesn’t affect you? It really does | The Week in PatriarchyRead moreOn the Democratic side, campaign experts say, special interest groups are writing checks to Newsom largely because the recall provides them with a unique opportunity to do so and because they see only advantages in giving to a Democratic party that controls a supermajority in both houses of the state legislature and, one way or another, is likely to win the next regularly scheduled gubernatorial election in November 2022. While individual contributions in an election are capped at $32,500 per candidate, contributions to a pro- or anti-recall campaign have no legal limits.“Even if Newsom loses,” said Dan Schnur, a former Republican political consultant who teaches political communications at Berkeley and the University of Southern California, “California donor interests won’t have to risk harming their relationships in Sacramento in any significant way … Even if Newsom isn’t in a position to show his gratitude, in about a year the next Democratic governor will be.”Among the biggest donors to the anti-recall effort are Reed Hastings, the Netflix chief executive, who supported one of Newsom’s primary challengers in 2018; the prison guards’ union, which does not give to Democrats exclusively but won a pay raise earlier this year that Newsom championed against the advice of his budget analyst; and the teachers’ union, whose previous support for Newsom became a political liability during the worst of the Covid-19 lockdowns because schools remained shut under union pressure.On the Republican side, the lack of funding enthusiasm reflects a broader change in the party since the only previous gubernatorial recall in California, in 2003. Back then, the GOP threw its weight wholeheartedly behind the campaign to kick out the then governor, Gray Davis, and replace him with its superstar alternative, Arnold Schwarzenegger.This time, by contrast, the party played no role in gathering signatures for a recall petition, which was spearheaded by a retired sheriff’s sergeant from the Central Valley who has frequently expressed frustration with the state Republican party’s leadership. The party has also stayed largely out of the race itself, offering less than $200,000 to the recall campaign – a stark contrast to the more than $2m that the California Democratic party has kicked in for Newsom.“The California Republican party isn’t spending a lot of money on this race because they don’t have a lot of money,” said Schnur.The party is demoralized all around, since it has won no statewide office in California since Schwarzenegger and is increasingly eclipsed by its own grassroots, who have acted with increasing autonomy – some might say defiance – in the age of Trump. They, not the party, have fueled Elder’s rise over the previous frontrunner, the more moderate former mayor of San Diego, Kevin Faulconer, and over Cox, Newsom’s challenger in 2018 who lost then by more than 20 percentage points.Money has not been the determining factor in any of these developments. Indeed, according to Schnur, California’s most reliable Republican donors are already looking forward to next year and a handful of competitive congressional races in California that could help swing control of the US House of Representatives back to the GOP. “It’s only recently that Newsom’s chances became an open question,” Schnur said, “and these donors generally like to be in early rather than late.”If the recall is challenging received wisdom in both parties about how to finance and run an election campaign – albeit for diametrically opposed reasons – that’s partly because there is no reliable playbook to ride what is proving to be a pretty untamable horse. “You’re talking about what in European terms would be a snap election,” Sonenshein said. “And we don’t have snap elections … It’s still better to have more money. But everyone assumes your likelihood of winning is dependent on how much money you have, and I’m not sure that’s true.”TopicsCaliforniaUS politicsRepublicansDemocratsfeaturesReuse this content More

  • in

    ‘Democracy will be in shambles’: Democrats in last-ditch effort to protect voting rights

    The fight to voteUS voting rights‘Democracy will be in shambles’: Democrats in last-ditch effort to protect voting rightsParty members say their control of both the House and Senate is at risk if they do not pass new legislation to protect elections The fight to vote is supported byAbout this contentSam Levine in New York and Ankita Rao in WashingtonTue 31 Aug 2021 06.00 EDTLast modified on Tue 31 Aug 2021 08.40 EDTSign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterDemocrats are pushing what may be their last chance to hold off voter suppression efforts by Republicans, and say that their control of both the House and Senate is at risk if they do not pass their new legislation to protect elections.Their bill, which cleared the US House on a party-line vote last week, has now been taken up by a bitterly divided Senate. It would ensure that states with a recent history of voter suppression must obtain federal approval before making any changes to their election systems, while also undoing a recent supreme court decision that makes it harder to challenge laws under the Voting Rights Act.Will America’s latest redistricting cycle be even worse than the last? Read moreBut Democrats appear unlikely to get more than a handful of GOP votes in the Senate on the bill. They need the support of 10 Republicans to overcome the filibuster, the procedural rule requiring 60 votes to advance legislation. Just one Senate Republican, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, has said she supports reauthorizing the provision, an early signal of how difficult it will be to get Republicans to sign on at a time when state party members are pushing more voting restrictions.Outside groups continue to escalate pressure on members of Congress to pass the bill, which is named after John Lewis, the civil rights icon. They held marches in Washington on Saturday – the 58th anniversary of the historic march on Washington, where Martin Luther King Jr gave his I Have A Dream Speech.Theodore Dean, 84, attended the 1963 march and drove 16 hours from Alabama to attend the march for voting rights in Washington on Saturday.“I’m here because I got grandchildren and children,” he said. He added that the fight over voting rights “gets worse every year. Sometimes it feels like it goes down instead of up. My children and grandchildren need to be able to vote too.”Democrats have highlighted the importance of passing voting rights legislation since the beginning of the year, but the bill arrives in the Senate at a moment when the stakes are uniquely high. State lawmakers are currently drawing maps for electoral districts that will be in place for the next decade. Unless the bill passes, it will be the first time since 1965 certain states with a legacy of racial discrimination won’t have to get their district approved before they go into effect. That could encourage state lawmakers to draw districts that make it harder for Black and other minority voters to elect the candidate of their choice, critics say.The blockade also underscores how Democrats have not yet found a way to deal with the filibuster. Even amid loud calls to do away with the process, a handful of moderate Democrats, led by Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have refused, holding up Democratic efforts to pass voting rights protections, among other measures.“The same people who are suppressing the vote are also using the filibuster to block living wage – it’s not about one issue,” said the Rev William Barber, a co-leader of the Poor People’s Campaign and a civil rights leader. “Anyone who tries to make this about one issue like voting rights, you’re misleading the people. You have to draw this line and connect the dots.”There are also fraught political stakes for Joe Biden. Amid growing concern the White House wasn’t taking the fight for voting rights seriously enough, the president gave a public speech on the topic in July. Still, White House advisers have said they believe they can “out-organize” voter suppression, an idea that has infuriated civil rights leaders.“You said the night you won that Black America had your back and that you were going to have Black America’s back,” the Rev Al Sharpton, the civil rights leader, said at the rally in Washington on Saturday. “Well, Mr President, they’re stabbing us in the back. In 49 states, they’ve got their knives out stabbing us in the back.“You need to pick up the phone and call Manchin and others and tell them that if they can carve around the filibuster to confirm supreme court judges for President Trump, they can carve around the filibuster to bring voter rights to President Biden,” he added.“We have a problem here. We have Republicans on one side saying the bill isn’t needed,” said Derrick Johnson, the president of the NAACP. “And then we have far too many Democrats who lack the sense of urgency that it’s going to be absolutely critical to protect the rights of voters.”Republicans successfully filibustered a different voting rights measure earlier this year – one that would prohibit partisan gerrymandering, as well as require same-day, automatic and online voter registration. But Derrick Johnson, the president of the NAACP, said he was confident this bill would actually pass.“I don’t think we’re gonna have the same fate with this piece of legislation that we’ve seen, being stalled in the Senate. I do believe there will be the necessary political will to pass it,” said Johnson, who has met with the White House and members of Congress to push for the bill. Pressed on whether he believed 10 Republicans would sign on to the bill, Johnson suggested Democrats could do away with the filibuster to pass the bill.“I’m not suggesting it’s gonna require 10 Republicans. I am suggesting the legislation will pass,” he said. “I don’t see a doomsday. I see a reality that voting rights protections must pass before the end of this year … Our democracy will be in shambles if it’s not done.”A Republican filibuster of the John Lewis bill could offer Democrats wary of getting rid of the rule one of the clearest examples to date of how it has become a tool of obstruction. The last time the Senate voted to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act in 2006, it passed 98-0 before being signed by George W Bush, a Republican.“This iteration of the Voting Rights Act, this should be something that should garner bipartisan support. And if it garners none, and if there’s not even a serious conversation about tweaks to get to a deal, then I think that tells us something,” said Damon Hewitt, the president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a group that strongly supports the bill.“It tells us that there was never really an attempt to play ball. Or, even if there was some attempt, there was just insufficient political will,” he added.Texas Democrats also heightened the stakes when they fled the state capitol last month to thwart Republican efforts to pass new sweeping voting restrictions. The Texas lawmakers spent much of the last month in Washington lobbying to pass federal voting protections. The standoff ended last week when the Texas bill passed; if Congress fails to act on its own legislation now, it could make the effort from Texas lawmakers look futile.In Washington on Saturday at the march, there was a sense of history and an awareness of how the fight for voting rights now mirrored the struggle of the civil rights movement.“Our ancestors did these marches and did these walks and talk – so this is like something that I’m supposed to do,” said Najee Farwell, a student at Bowie State University.“It’s kind of changed but you still can see the same stuff going on. If you look at pictures back from 1950 it’s still the same stuff going on right now,” said Jemira Queen, a fellow student.TopicsUS voting rightsThe fight to voteDemocratsRepublicansUS SenateUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More