Elections, Secretary of State

Subterms

    More stories

    • 25 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Internal Inconsistencies

      by

      The people who claim widespread election fraud have made little effort to put together a logical argument.More than 100 Republican nominees for statewide office or Congress this year have falsely claimed that election fraud helped defeat Donald Trump in 2020. Almost 150 members of Congress — more than half of the Republicans serving there — went so far as to vote to overturn the 2020 election result.These claims of election fraud have become the mainstream Republican position. In some places, winning a nomination virtually requires making such statements. In other places, the claims appear to carry little political cost, at least in the primaries. And very few elected Republicans have been willing to denounce the falsehoods.Given the prominence of the issue, it’s jarring to see how little effort its proponents have put into making an argument on behalf of their claims. They have offered no good evidence, because there is not any. They have also failed to offer even a logically consistent argument. Consider:If anything, the rare examples of cheating from 2020 tend to involve Trump supporters. Prosecutors charged three registered Republicans living at The Villages, a Florida retirement community, with voting more than once in the presidential election. One of them has since pleaded guilty: he both voted in Florida and cast an absentee ballot in Michigan.Trump and his allies have never explained how other Republicans could have done so well if fraud were widespread. In the 2020 House elections, Republicans gained 14 seats. In the Senate, Democrats did win a 50-50 split, but the party lost races in Maine, Montana and North Carolina that it had hoped to win. In the 2021 elections, Republicans did well again, winning the governor’s race in Virginia. It’s hardly a picture consistent with Democratic election rigging.During the 2022 primaries, most Republican candidates have accepted the results without claiming fraud. That’s been true even of candidates who lost their races, as my colleagues Reid Epstein and Nick Corasaniti have reported. Examples include Representative Madison Cawthorn in North Carolina; Representative Mo Brooks in the Senate primary in Alabama; and two Trump-backed candidates in Georgia. When Trump supporters lose to other Republicans, they generally accept defeat.Loyalty, not logicOf course, the claims of voter fraud are not going away. If Trump runs again, he will probably allege cheating in any election that he loses. At least some other Republicans now seem likely to do the same, perhaps in response to close or unexpected losses in 2022.A “Stop the Steal” protester in 2020.Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesBut the lack of any substantive argument to back up these claims suggests that even some of the people making them may not believe them. The claims have instead become a way for many Republicans to show loyalty to their party and to signal that they consider Democrats to be inherently illegitimate holders of power.Sometimes, these signals are tinged with racism, as Brandon Tensley of CNN has noted: The fraud claims often involve cities with heavily Black or Latino populations, like Detroit, Philadelphia and Milwaukee. Rudy Giuliani, for example, alleged — without any evidence — that residents of Camden, N.J. (roughly 90 percent of whom are Black or Latino) illegally vote in Philadelphia (which, unlike Camden, is in a swing state). In Alabama, Brooks has said fraud occurs largely in Birmingham and other heavily Democratic cities.The spread of such lies has left many historians and political scientists anxious about the future of American democracy. There is no shortage of subjects on which Democrats and Republicans can reasonably — even passionately or angrily — disagree: How much should the country restrict abortion? What about gun use? Or immigration? How high should taxes or government benefits be?All those issues are valid matters of debate in a democracy. When one side loses a struggle, it can look for ways to regroup and win the next one.But a concerted campaign to delegitimize political opponents — through falsehoods and without much of an attempt at logical argument — is something quite different. It’s an attempt not to win a democratic contest but to avoid one.For moreThe Washington Post has compiled a list of the current Republican nominees who support Trump’s false election claims, and The Times has listed the congressional Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 election.In coming primaries in Arizona and Michigan, candidates who have made false fraud claims are trying to win the Republican nomination to become secretary of state, overseeing elections.THE LATEST NEWSBritainBoris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister, at Downing Street yesterday.John Sibley/ReutersBoris Johnson is stepping down. He’s planning to serve as prime minister until the fall.His resignation comes after days of political drama and calls for him to quit from within his Conservative Party. More than 50 government ministers or aides had left.It’s unclear who will succeed Johnson. The Conservative Party will start a leadership contest that will determine who will be the next prime minister.War in UkraineThe main train station in Lviv in April.Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York TimesAbout six million Ukrainians are displaced within the country and nearly five million others have fled to other Europe countries.President Biden told the wife of Brittney Griner, the basketball star detained in Russia, that the U.S. would pursue “every avenue” to bring the player home.PoliticsBiden has tried to remain above the partisan fray. Some Democrats wish he were more of a fighter, The Times’s Michael Shear writes.James Comey and Andrew McCabe, former F.B.I. officials who clashed with Trump, were both subjected to rare, intensive I.R.S. audits.The Jan 6. committee will interview the former White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who fought Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.Joe Rogan said that he had refused to have Trump on his podcast, calling him “an existential threat to democracy.”Other Big StoriesFed officials are planning another big interest rate increase, even as the economy shows some signs of cooling.The Highland Park shooter had been able to legally buy weapons, even after police encounters and despite Illinois’s relatively strict laws.The glaciers of the Alps are buckling under the summer heat that is now common in Europe.A California jury found a man guilty of murder in the 2019 shooting of the rapper Nipsey Hussle.A judge sentenced Jerry Harris, a star of the Netflix documentary “Cheer,” to 12 years in prison for sex crimes involving minors.An explosion destroyed part of the Georgia Guidestones, a mysterious monument promoted as “America’s Stonehenge.”OpinionsWhat’s an ectopic pregnancy? What does Plan B do? Take Times Opinion’s Post-Roe sex ed quiz.Medical debt burdens Americans mostly because they’re underinsured rather than uninsured, Aaron Carroll argues.MORNING READSArt: She paid $90,000 for a Marc Chagall painting. Now a French panel wants to destroy it.Wimbledon: Singles matches get attention, but doubles are “a joy to play.”Roommates: A gecko and a possum family, living together in harmony.A Times classic: The science of veganism.Advice from Wirecutter: Packing cubes for smarter traveling.Lives Lived: Willie Lee Morrow was a barber in San Diego when a friend brought him a gift from Nigeria: a wooden comb meant to tease out curly hair. Morrow created what came to be known as the Afro pick. Morrow died at 82.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETIC Two teams can shake up college football: Rivals Oregon and Washington can dramatically shift the future for two major conferences. Meanwhile, all eyes remain on what Notre Dame is about to do. Tension is building as the college football landscape shifts.Are N.H.L. players being held in Russia? A Russian star appears in jeopardy of not being able to return to the United States. This scenario has been a concern for league executives this off-season.An N.B.A. player faces NFT scrutiny: A veteran player co-founded an NFT community, but now many investors feel they have been swindled.For access to all Athletic articles, subscribe to New York Times All Access or Home Delivery.ARTS AND IDEAS Trevor Rainbolt identifies countries in seconds.Jack Bool for The New York TimesGen Z geographyThe premise of the online game GeoGuessr is simple: You’re dropped somewhere in the world, seen through Google’s Street View, and must guess where you are. Often that means clicking to move through the landscape and scanning for clues.Trevor Rainbolt, 23, has found online fame posting videos in which he locates himself in seconds, The Times’s Kellen Browning writes. His geography skills verge on wizardry — he can identify a country by the color of its soil — and his highlights regularly get millions of views on TikTok.“Candidly, I haven’t had any social life for the past year,” Rainbolt said. “But it’s worth it, because it’s so fun and I enjoy learning.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookChristopher Testani for The New York TimesRoast peaches with boneless chicken thighs in the oven, and let them meld with those flavorful drippings.What to WatchIn the movie “Hello, Goodbye and Everything in Between,” an adaptation of a young adult novel, two high school seniors agree to break up in a year.What to ReadThese books will guide you through Berlin.Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was chutzpah. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Our world (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. After, use our bot to get better.Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — DavidP.S. The word “whackadoodle” appeared in The Times for the first time, in an article about the Georgia Guidestones.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about an anti-abortion campaigner. On “First Person,” a gay Ukrainian soldier. On the Modern Love podcast, a nanny’s secret world.Matthew Cullen, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. Sues Arizona Over Voting Restrictions

      by

      It is the third time the Justice Department under Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has sued a state over its voting laws.The Justice Department sued Arizona on Tuesday over a new state law requiring proof of citizenship to vote in a presidential election, saying the Republican-imposed restrictions are a “textbook violation” of federal law.It is the third time the department under Attorney General Merrick B. Garland has challenged a state’s voting law and comes as Democratic leaders and voting rights groups have pressed Mr. Garland to act more decisively against measures that limit access to the ballot.Arizona’s law, which Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed in March, requires voters to prove their citizenship to vote in a presidential election, like showing a birth certificate or passport. It also mandates that newly registered voters provide a proof of address, which could disproportionately affect people with limited access to government-issued identification cards. Those include immigrants, students, older people, low-income voters and Native Americans.“Arizona has passed a law that turns the clock back by imposing unlawful and unnecessary requirements that would block eligible voters from the registration rolls for certain federal elections,” Kristen Clarke, the assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, told reporters on Tuesday.Ms. Clarke said that by imposing what she described as “onerous” requisites, the law “constitutes a textbook violation” of the National Voter Registration Act, which makes it easier to register to vote. The department said the law also ran afoul of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in asking election officials to reject voter registration forms based on errors or omissions that are not relevant to a voter’s eligibility.As of March, 31,500 “federal only” voters could be prevented from voting in the next presidential election under the new requirements if state officials are unable to track down their information in time to validate their ballots.Some voting rights groups contend that the number of affected voters could be even greater. But even a few thousand fewer votes could be decisive in Arizona, one of the most closely contested battleground states: In 2020, Joseph R. Biden Jr. defeated President Donald J. Trump in Arizona by about 10,000 votes.A spokesperson for Mr. Ducey did not immediately respond to requests for comment. When he signed the bill in March, Mr. Ducey said the law, expected to take effect in January, was “a balanced approach that honors Arizona’s history of making voting accessible without sacrificing security in our elections.”Arizona has been at the center of some of the most contentious battles over the 2020 election. Six months after the election, its Republican-led Senate authorized an outside review of the election in Maricopa County, an abnormal step that quickly devolved into a hotbed for conspiracy theorists. The state has also passed multiple laws that impose new restrictions to voting.Even before the Republican-controlled Legislature passed the measure, existing state law required all voters to provide proof of citizenship to vote in state elections. Federal voting registration forms still required voters to attest that they were citizens, but not to provide documentary proof.In 2013, the Supreme Court upheld that law but added that Arizona must accept the federal voter registration form for federal elections. That essentially created a bifurcated system in Arizona that would require documented proof of citizenship to vote in state elections but allow those simply registering with the federal voter registration form the ability to vote in federal elections.The new law could threaten the registrations of those voters, preventing tens of thousands of them from casting a ballot in presidential elections, voting rights groups contend.“There’s certainly going to be some people in Arizona that are not going to be able to vote under the proof-of-citizenship requirement,” said Jon Greenbaum, the chief counsel for the nonpartisan Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and a former Justice Department lawyer.While the new law would have sprawling consequences for many groups, local election officials have noted that delivering documentary proof of citizenship can be especially hard among Native American populations, which were key to helping flip Arizona to Mr. Biden in 2020.“You may have folks who were born on reservations who may not have birth certificates, and therefore may find it very difficult to prove citizenship on paper somehow,” said Adrian Fontes, the former election administrator for Maricopa County and a current Democratic candidate for secretary of state. “Things of this nature have always been of great concern for election administrators in Arizona.”Shortly after taking office, Mr. Garland announced an expansion of the department’s civil rights division in response to a wave of laws introducing new voting restrictions after the 2020 election.In June 2021, the department sued Georgia over its sweeping new voting law that overhauled the state’s election administration and introduced a host of restrictions to voting in the state, especially voting by mail. In November, the department sued Texas over a provision limiting the assistance available to voters at the polls.Marc Elias, a Democratic elections lawyer who represented a group that filed a suit against Arizona earlier this year, said he was relieved to see the department follow through on Mr. Biden’s pledge last year to counter a threat from Republican-sponsored state laws he called the “most significant test to democracy” since the Civil War.“Adding the voice and authority of the United States is incredibly helpful to the fight for voting rights,” Mr. Elias said in an interview. More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Five Takeaways From Tuesday’s Elections

      by

      The biggest question heading into Tuesday’s primaries was whether Democrats would be successful in guiding Republican voters to choose weak nominees for the general election.In Illinois, Democrats’ biggest and most sustained investment succeeded, but in Colorado, Republicans chose candidates who didn’t have nominal primary support from across the aisle, setting up several general elections that are expected to be very competitive.Elsewhere, far-right candidates remade Republican politics down the ballot in Illinois, while incumbents who aren’t facing ethics inquiries coasted to victories. And a special election in Nebraska was far closer than anyone expected.Here are five takeaways from Tuesday’s contests across eight states.Democratic meddling in G.O.P. primaries produces results … sometimes.Democrats have determined that it’s much easier to win a general election if you can handpick your opponent — especially if that opponent happens to be a far-right Republican who can easily be painted as an extremist.So in Colorado and Illinois, they tried to help those sorts of candidates.Such meddling isn’t a new phenomenon — it rose to prominence in the 2012 Missouri Senate race — but Democrats have used the risky strategy this year to prop up a series of underfunded far-right candidates running against Republican establishment favorites who were seen as a greater threat to Democrats in November.On Tuesday, Democrats learned that it’s possible to elevate a flawed Republican if he already has a functioning campaign, but that they can’t make something out of nearly nothing.In Illinois, Gov. J.B. Pritzker, the billionaire Democrat, spent $35 million to stop Mayor Richard C. Irvin of Aurora, a moderate Republican, while promoting Darren Bailey, a far-right state senator who once vowed to kick Chicago out of the state.Mr. Pritzker at a deli in Chicago on Tuesday. He backed Mr. Bailey in the belief that he would be a weaker general-election candidate than Mayor Richard C. Irvin of Aurora, a moderate Republican.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesMr. Bailey had been campaigning for more than a year and had his own billionaire patron, the conservative megadonor Richard Uihlein. Mr. Pritzker did such a good job stamping out Mr. Irvin that the mayor placed a distant third, more than 40 percentage points behind Mr. Bailey.“Tonight, J.B. Pritzker won the Republican primary for governor here in Illinois,” Mr. Irvin said in a concession speech. “He spent a historic amount of money to choose his own Republican opponent, and I wish Darren Bailey well.”Key Results in New York’s 2022 Primary ElectionsOn June 28, New York held several primaries for statewide office, including for governor and lieutenant governor. Some State Assembly districts also had primaries.Kathy Hochul: With her win in the Democratic, the governor of New York took a crucial step toward winning a full term, fending off a pair of spirited challengers.Antonio Delgado: Ms. Hochul’s second in command and running mate also scored a convincing victory over his nearest Democratic challenger, Ana María Archila.Lee Zeldin: The congressman from Long Island won the Republican primary for governor, advancing to what it’s expected to be a grueling general election.N.Y. State Assembly: Long-tenured incumbents were largely successful in fending off a slate of left-leaning insurgents in the Democratic primary.But the same tactics didn’t work in Colorado, where a shadowy Democratic group spent nearly $4 million attacking Joe O’Dea, a construction executive who supports some abortion rights, while trying to aid Ron Hanks, a far-right state representative who didn’t spend anything on television advertising.Mr. Hanks’s threadbare campaign raised just $124,000 — a pittance that in many places can barely pay for a competitive state legislative race. Democrats couldn’t help lift Mr. Hanks to victory if he couldn’t help himself.Mr. O’Dea now figures to give Colorado Democrats what they feared: a competitive general-election contest against Senator Michael Bennet, who has privately told people his race will be difficult.Colorado Republicans reject two election deniers.Not since Georgia’s elections over a month ago have Republican primary voters summarily rejected a slate of 2020 election deniers — but those contests were colored by former President Donald J. Trump’s failed quest for vengeance against Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.In two statewide races in Colorado, Republicans had a choice between a candidate who accepted the outcome of the 2020 election and one or more whose campaigns were animated by their rejection of the legitimacy of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory.In both cases, voters chose the candidate tethered to reality.In the Senate race, Mr. O’Dea accepted the results of the election, while Mr. Hanks predicated his campaign on denying them. In a video announcing his campaign last year, Mr. Hanks shot a gun at what appeared to be a photocopier labeled as a Dominion voting machine.Joe O’Dea, a Republican who supports some abortion rights and accepts the outcome of the 2020 election, won his party’s nomination for Senate in Colorado.David Zalubowski/Associated PressAnd in the Republican primary for secretary of state, Tina Peters, the Mesa County clerk, who is under indictment in relation to a scheme to find evidence that the 2020 election was fraudulent, placed third in a contest in which she was the best-known candidate.Ms. Peters and the second-place finisher, Mike O’Donnell, who has also promoted 2020 falsehoods, combined to win a majority of the vote, but both placed well behind Pam Anderson, a longtime local election official.The Colorado races are hardly emblematic of Republican voters nationwide. In Illinois, Mr. Bailey and Representative Mary Miller, who both refused to accept the 2020 results, strolled to victory in their primaries. New York Republicans gave nearly two-thirds of their primary vote for governor to Representative Lee Zeldin and Andrew Giuliani, who have also cast doubt on the results.It’s Darren Bailey’s party in Illinois.Mr. Bailey, the newly minted Republican nominee for governor of Illinois, didn’t just trounce a field of better-funded candidates (with a lot of help from Mr. Pritzker). His coattails extended down the ballot to lift an array of like-minded conservatives.Throughout Central and Southern Illinois, signs read “Trump-Bailey-Miller,” highlighting the alliance between the former president, Mr. Bailey and Ms. Miller. The congresswoman, who apologized last year after making an approving reference to Hitler, won her primary against Representative Rodney Davis after the two were drawn into a district together.Down the ballot, Mr. Bailey’s personal lawyer and traveling campaign companion, Thomas DeVore, was leading the Republican primary for attorney general over Steve Kim, a former staff member for Gov. Jim Edgar.Supporters of Mr. Bailey at his election night party in Effingham, Ill. Jim Vondruska/Getty ImagesA few of Mr. Bailey’s picks in state legislative races defeated rivals backed by campaign cash from Kenneth Griffin, the Chicago billionaire and chief benefactor of the Illinois Republican Party.One of Mr. Bailey’s chosen candidates for the Illinois House, Bill Hauter, a pediatric anesthesiologist at a hospital in Peoria, campaigned on a platform opposing public health restrictions to stem the coronavirus pandemic.Early Wednesday, Dr. Hauter was up by double digits in his open-seat primary for a Central Illinois district against a candidate funded in part by millions of dollars Mr. Griffin spread across the state to support moderate, establishment-friendly candidates in down-ballot primaries.“I’m up against a lot of money,” Dr. Hauter said in an interview at a Bailey campaign stop last week in Lincoln, Ill. “But money is not the motivation. It’s not message, it’s not supporters, it’s not enthusiasm. It’s not all these things that you need.”It still requires special circumstances to oust an incumbent.In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul fended off two challengers. Her late-in-the-game lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado, also coasted.And in other states, several members of Congress who were thought to be endangered prevailed:Representative Michael Guest of Mississippi, a Republican who was dogged by his vote for a commission to investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol;Representative Blake Moore of Utah, a Republican who allied himself with Senator Mitt Romney and Representative Liz Cheney, who are now apostates for much of their party;Representative Danny K. Davis of Illinois, a Democrat who narrowly held off a spirited campaign from a progressive challenger.Republican senators in Oklahoma and Utah also had little trouble winning renomination.But there are lines voters won’t let candidates cross. Representative Steven Palazzo, a Mississippi Republican, lost a runoff after the Office of Congressional Ethics concluded he had misused campaign money, including directing $80,000 toward a waterfront home he was trying to sell.Mr. Palazzo fell to Mike Ezell, a sheriff.Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York, center, after easily winning her Democratic primary on Tuesday.Desiree Rios/The New York TimesIn New York, Ms. Hochul was never believed to be in danger against her two challengers, one more liberal and one more conservative than she is.But Mr. Delgado’s victory was less assured. He faced a robust challenge from Ana María Archila, a former immigrant rights activist who made her name confronting Senator Jeff Flake in a Senate elevator during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.Mr. Delgado, who joined Ms. Hochul’s administration in May after his predecessor resigned in scandal, still took about 60 percent of the vote in a three-way race.Surprisingly close, but no cigar, for Nebraska Democrats.Few outside the Cornhusker State paid much attention to the special election to fill the House seat vacated by former Representative Jeff Fortenberry, who resigned after he was convicted of lying to federal investigators. It was widely assumed that Mike Flood, a Republican state senator, would coast in Tuesday’s special election and again in November.But the combination of a low-turnout contest, an under-the-radar effort from local Democrats and anger over the Supreme Court’s decision last week ending the constitutional right to an abortion led the Democrat in the race, State Senator Patty Pansing Brooks, to come within a few points of Mr. Flood in a district Mr. Trump carried by double digits in 2020.“Nebraskans turned out to send a very loud and clear message that access to abortion services must be legal and protected,” said Jane Kleeb, the Nebraska Democratic Party chairwoman. “We can and will win in red states.”Mr. Flood and Ms. Pansing Brooks will face off again in November, and the incumbent will again be a heavy favorite. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Tina Peters Loses the G.O.P. Primary for Colorado Secretary of State

      by

      Tina Peters, a county clerk who has been charged with seven felonies related to a scheme to surreptitiously copy sensitive voting data, lost her bid for the Republican nomination for Colorado secretary of state on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press.She was defeated by Pam Anderson, a longtime local election official who served as a clerk and recorder for Jefferson County and as president of the statewide county clerks’ association. Late Tuesday, Ms. Peters was also trailing Mike O’Donnell, a former nonprofit executive who has promoted numerous falsehoods about the 2020 presidential contest. Ms. Peters is part of a movement of Trump-inspired Republicans who deny the 2020 election’s legitimacy and are running to be the top election official in their states, including Jim Marchant in Nevada, Audrey Trujillo in New Mexico and Kristina Karamo in Michigan.Ms. Anderson, by contrast, has vocally opposed misinformation about the 2020 election and has a page on her campaign website dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories about voting machines and the role of Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, in funding elections.She has, however, pushed to expand auditing processes performed by local election officials in Colorado.In Colorado, a former swing state that has leaned toward Democrats in recent years, Ms. Anderson faces what is likely to be an uphill battle against Jena Griswold, the current secretary of state and a Democrat.Ms. Peters’s arraignment on 10 criminal charges, including seven felonies, is set for early August. She has pleaded not guilty.A former flight attendant who ran a construction company with her ex-husband, Ms. Peters was elected in 2018 as the clerk and recorder in Mesa County, a Republican stronghold amid the red-rocked canyons of western Colorado.After the 2020 presidential election, Ms. Peters grew suspicious of the national results, and attended a local event where a presentation was delivered by a high school teacher from Ohio known for spreading false election conspiracy theories.By May 2021, according to court documents, Ms. Peters was helping orchestrate an operation to copy voting machine data before and after a software update process known as a trusted build, in an attempt to prove that the machines were faulty.After her office ordered security cameras shut off in a secured area holding voting machines, court records say, Ms. Peters helped Conan Hayes, a former professional surfer who had worked with Mr. Trump’s legal team as it challenged the 2020 results, sneak into the trusted build process under a false identity.In early August, passwords to the Mesa County election equipment appeared on a QAnon figure’s Telegram channel and then on a right-wing website, leading to an investigation by the Colorado secretary of state that quickly garnered national attention.Ms. Peters’s newfound celebrity on the right soon led to appearances across the conservative media ecosystem, including on the former Trump aide Stephen K. Bannon’s podcast.This February, Ms. Peters announced her bid for secretary of state.In March, she was indicted on 10 criminal counts related to the effort to copy voting equipment software, including attempting to influence a public servant, criminal impersonation, conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, identity theft and first-degree official misconduct. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Election Workers Don’t Feel Safe Despite Federal Effort to Combat Threats

      by

      WASHINGTON — “Do you feel safe? You shouldn’t.”In August, 42-year-old Travis Ford of Lincoln, Neb., posted those words on the personal Instagram page of Jena Griswold, the secretary of state and chief election official of Colorado. In a post 10 days later, Mr. Ford told Ms. Griswold that her security detail was unable to protect her, then added:“This world is unpredictable these days … anything can happen to anyone.”Mr. Ford paid dearly for those words. Last week, in U.S. District Court in Lincoln, he pleaded guilty to making a threat with a telecommunications device, a felony that can carry up to two years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.But a year after Attorney General Merrick B. Garland established the federal Election Threats Task Force, almost no one else has faced punishment. Two other cases are being prosecuted, but Mr. Ford’s guilty plea is the only case the task force has successfully concluded out of more than 1,000 it has evaluated.Public reports of prosecutions by state and local officials are equally sparse, despite an explosion of intimidating and even violent threats against election workers, largely since former President Donald J. Trump began spreading the lie that fraud cost him the 2020 presidential election.Colorado alone has forwarded at least 500 threats against election workers to the task force, Ms. Griswold said.The sluggish pace has sparked consternation among both election workers and their supporters, some of whom say they are souring on the idea of reporting the menacing messages to prosecutors if nothing comes of it.“The reaction usually is ‘Thank you for reporting that; we’ll look into it,’ and there’s no substantive follow-up to understand what they’re doing,” said Meagan Wolfe, the president of the National Association of State Election Directors. That leads some “to feel there isn’t adequate support that can deter people from doing this in the future,” she added.U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland formed the Election Threats Task Force in June 2021.Kenny Holston for The New York TimesThe depth of election workers’ fear was underscored in hearings this month by the congressional panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, assault at the U.S. Capitol. Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, who are mother and daughter and both election workers in Atlanta, told of being forced into hiding by a barrage of threats in December 2020, after being falsely accused of election fraud by Rudy Giuliani, who was then Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer. Protesters tried to enter a relative’s house in search of the two. Eventually, they quit their positions.That is not the norm, but neither is it uncommon. Ms. Griswold said one Colorado county clerk wears body armor to work, and another conducts business behind bulletproof glass.“In my experience, if someone is telling you over and over how they’re going to hang you, asking you the size of your neck so they can cut the rope right, you have to take the threats really seriously,” she said, citing threats she had received.The city clerk in Milwaukee, Claire Woodall-Vogg, said she had “completely redesigned our office at City Hall for safety reasons” after receiving hundreds of threats, which she said had been forwarded to the task force.An investigation by Reuters in September turned up more than 100 threats of death or violence to election officials in eight battleground states, which at that time had produced four arrests and no convictions.A survey in March by the Brennan Center for Justice found that one in six local election officials have personally experienced threats, and nearly a third said they knew people who had left their jobs at least in part because of safety concerns.Justice Department officials declined to comment on the task force’s progress. The department has said previously that the task force was tracking and logging election-related threats, and had opened dozens of criminal investigations as a result. That led to charges in February against men from Texas and Nevada and the recent guilty plea in Nebraska.Claire Woodall-Vogg, the city clerk in Milwaukee, had to reconfigure the clerk’s office due to safety concerns.Scott Olson/Getty ImagesThe task force also has conducted training and education sessions on threats with state and local law enforcement and election officials and social media platforms. Each of the 56 F.B.I. field offices has assigned an agent to collect and analyze threat reports, and federal prosecutors have been trained in assessing and investigating threats.The trickle of prosecutions in the wake of those moves is explained in part by federal law, which defines illegal threats extremely narrowly in the name of preserving the constitutional right to free speech.“You need to say something like, ‘I am going to kill you.’ It can’t be ‘Someone ought to kill you,’” said Catherine J. Ross, a professor and expert on First Amendment law at George Washington University. “That’s a very high bar, and intentionally a high bar.”That so-called true threat doctrine classifies even many extreme statements as protected political speech. That rules out charges in a great many cases of threats against election officials — even when the recipients feel terrified for their lives.Joanna Lydgate, founder and chief executive officer of the bipartisan legal watchdog organization States United Democracy Center, said she was encouraged to see results from the task force and understood, “These cases can be challenging to bring, and they take time.”She said: “We definitely hope to see more of this from DOJ, because investigating these threats, building these cases and holding people accountable is critically important, especially as we’re looking toward the midterms.”In Arizona, the office of Secretary of State Katie Hobbs has reported more than 100 threats to the F.B.I. in the last year, said a spokeswoman, C. Murphy Hebert. Ms. Hebert said she was confident that the task force was reviewing those threats, but that could be cold comfort to recipients who have not seen results.“For the folks monitoring and the folks being targeted, a hundred messages saying ‘You should die’ is pretty threatening,” she said. “But based on what we know of the process,” they are not actionable, she said.Protesting supporters of U.S. President Donald J. Trump are reflected in a window of a tabulation center during the 2020 presidential election in Maricopa County, Ariz.Jim Urquhart/ReutersMatt Crane, the executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, said threats sent to him in the past year included voice mail and online chatter urging that he, his wife and children be shot in the head. He said he had reported at least one threat to the F.B.I.But while the bureau has helped clarify how its threat review process works and has met with local clerks, he said, he still does not know whether his report was followed up on.“It does not give a lot of comfort to the people who receive threats,” he said. “I’ve heard some say: ‘Why should I report it? I’m better off just carrying my gun with me and if something happens, at least I can do something to protect myself.’”Other experts say the lack of both action and transparency was undermining the principal goal of the task force — to stop the epidemic of violent threats.“Three prosecutions in a year for a problem that is nationally widespread seems awfully low,” said David J. Becker, a onetime voting rights lawyer at the Justice Department who now directs the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation & Research. “Whether accurate or not, the impression among election officials is that the effort the Department of Justice launched with great fanfare a year ago isn’t getting the job done.”The Brennan Center report in March found that more than half the threats against election officials who were polled had gone unreported, and that a vast majority of threats were forwarded to local law enforcement agencies, not state or federal law enforcement.Four in 10 election officials said they had never heard of the task force. And while the Justice Department has increased outreach to election officials and publicized a hotline that can be used to report complaints, “there is really very little detail about what happens when complaints are made,” said Lawrence Norden, the senior director of the center’s Elections and Government Program.“Election officials rightly feel that public repercussions for these threats are going to be critical to curtailing them,” he said. But, so far, there have been too few court cases to provide any sense that offenders will be held accountable.Until that changes — if it does — election officials need more reassurance that law enforcement has their back, he and others said.“You have a lot more election officials who are exercising their Second Amendment rights than before 2020,” said Mr. Crane, the head of the Colorado clerks association. “It only takes one of these crazy people to show up at your doorstep.” More