More stories

  • in

    Quebec woman pleads guilty to mailing poisonous ricin to Donald Trump

    Quebec woman pleads guilty to mailing poisonous ricin to Donald TrumpPascale Ferrier made the toxic substance herself and sent it with letters to Trump and Texas law enforcement officials in 2020 A French-Canadian woman has pleaded guilty to mailing ricin to Donald Trump.Pascale Ferrier, 55, admitted to making the poison at her residence in Quebec in September 2020, the US Department of Justice announced.Ferrier placed the ricin in envelopes that included letters addressed to Trump at the White House and to eight Texas law enforcement officials associated with detention facilities where Ferrier had been held.Ricin, a deadly poison, can be made from waste material produced in the processing of castor beans. It can be produced as a powder, mist or liquid, or in pellet form.‘These are conditions ripe for political violence’: how close is the US to civil war?Read moreIn each letter, Ferrier wrote that she included a “special gift”, adding that if it “doesn’t work, I will find a better recipe for another poison”. She also wrote: “or I might use my gun when I will be able to come” and concluded: “Enjoy.”According to court documents, the letter to Trump also stated: “You ruin USA and lead them to disaster. I have US cousins, then I don’t want the next four years with you as president. Give up and remove your application for this election.”The nine envelopes were intercepted in Texas and Washington DC. The Secret Service informed the FBI about the letter to Trump.“Special weapons of mass destruction coordinators and hazardous material experts were required to deploy to various locations where the letters were received, due to the presence of the ricin toxin powder in the envelopes,” court documents said.The letters were sent to a facility in Maryland for further testing.Shortly after the letters were intercepted, Ferrier drove to a border crossing in Buffalo, New York, where she was arrested. According to court documents, asked by border officials if she was OK, Ferrier said she was wanted by the FBI over the ricin letters.Authorities found in her car a loaded firearm, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, two knives, a stun gun, pepper spray, a truncheon and a false ID document.Ferrier pleaded guilty to violating federal prohibitions with respect to biological weapons. As part of a plea deal, she is expected to serve 262 months in prison. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for 26 April.The case comes amid a concerning rise in political violence towards lawmakers which experts warn endangers the health of US democracy.“There is no place for political violence in our country, and no excuse for threatening public officials or endangering our public servants,” the US attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew M Graves, said in a statement.“We hope this resolution will serve as a warning that using our mail system to send a toxic substance and other threats of this type will cost you your freedom for many years.”Last November Joe Biden urged Americans to take a stand against political violence.“We are facing a defining moment,” the president said. “We must with one overwhelming, unified voice speak, as a country, and say there’s no place for voter intimidation or political violence in America.”TopicsDonald TrumpPoisonUS crimeUS politicsLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

  • in

    US jury convicts man pictured with feet on Pelosi’s desk during Capitol attack

    US jury convicts man pictured with feet on Pelosi’s desk during Capitol attackRichard Barnett was found guilty of felony obstruction of official proceedings, civil disorder and theft of government property A jury has convicted the man who invaded the US Capitol on 6 January 2021, with a mob of extremist Donald Trump supporters and was pictured with his foot up on a desk in then House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office.Richard Barnett, from Gravette, Arkansas, was found guilty on all counts after the jury deliberated for about two hours on Monday, including felony obstruction of an official proceeding, civil disorder and theft of government property after he took an envelope from Pelosi’s desk.Barnett became infamous after pictures and video circulated of him lounging at a desk in Pelosi’s office during the riots.He spoke to a New York Times reporter shortly after storming Congress, where thin security was breached as hundreds charged the building following a rally where outgoing president Donald Trump encouraged the crowd to go to the Capitol in an attempt to overturn his election defeat to Joe Biden.Barnett recounted taking the envelope.“I didn’t steal it,” Barnett told the reporter. “I put a quarter [25c] on her desk, even though she ain’t fucking worth it, and I left her a note on her desk that says, ‘Nancy, Bigo [his nickname] was here, you bitch.’” He was arrested two days later.Bigo Barnett testified in his own defense. It was, at times, combative and there were some vulgarities. He directly addressed jurors during testimony.. with seeming attempts at humor & when seemingly caught in contradictionsJury returned guilty verdict with lightning speed— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) January 23, 2023
    Barnett testified in his own defense and directly addressed the jury, though evidently failing to persuade them of his innocence. He had outbursts in court, at one point shouting “it’s not fair” but was silent upon the announcement of the verdict on Monday.US district judge Christopher Cooper is scheduled to sentence Barnett on 3 May. The judge agreed to let him remain free on certain conditions until his sentencing.NEW: Capitol riot defendant Jacob Therres has just pleaded guilty to assaulting/resisting police. He admits throwing 4×4 wooden plank and striking officer in the head. And he admits deploying chemical spray. Estimated sentencing range: 6-7 years in prison pic.twitter.com/WjZCqaaSlW— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) January 23, 2023
    In another case, Jacob Therres, 25, of Fallston, Maryland, pleaded guilty to the felony charge of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers, using a dangerous weapon. He was arrested last November.Court documents declared that among multiple assaults on law enforcement officers on 6 January 2021, he sprayed chemicals and threw a long, heavy plank at a line of police officers outside the Capitol and the wood struck an officer’s head. Therres will be sentenced on 24 April.TopicsUS Capitol attackLaw (US)US politicsNancy PelosinewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Roe v Wade: US women win abortion rights – archive, January 1973

    Roe v Wade: US women win abortion rights – archive, 197323 January 1973: The supreme court rules that a woman has a near-absolute right to an abortion, but only in the first three months of her pregnancy Washington, 22 JanuaryIn a long awaited decision the United States supreme court ruled today that a woman has a near-absolute right to an abortion, but only in the first three months of her pregnancy. During the later stages the State has an increasing power of intervention, the court ruled by a seven to two majority; and during the last trimester can refuse to allow the operation.The decision, which came today as part of a lengthy ruling which declared the Texas and Georgia anti-abortion laws unconstitutional, has been generally welcomed by liberal groups here. Mrs Lee Giddings, of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, said today she was “absolutely thrilled.”US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe v WadeRead moreBut one of the two dissenting supreme court justices, the Nixon appointee Justice Byron White (the other dissenting justice was also a Nixon appointee, Mr William Rehnquist), later criticised the verdict as “improvident, extravagant, and an exercise of raw judicial power.”In his ruling, Justice Harry Blackmun said that during the first three months of a pregnancy “the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the woman’s doctor.” After that, the State “In promoting its interest in the mother’s health” may regulate the abortion procedure by among other things, making laws, regulating the doctor’s terms of reference.Only in the third three-month period, when a foetus could presumably live, if there was a premature birth, can the State “regulate or even forbid abortion.” The justices ruled the State could intervene thus “where it was necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of life or the health of the mother.”The one dissenting voice raised today at the supreme court ruling came from the Women’s National Abortion Action Committee, which condemned the “artificial and arbitrary” time limits imposed by judges. A spokesperson, as they say here, says that “a woman should always have an absolute right to determine what happens to her own body.” Harsh reaction is also expected, of course, from the Roman Catholic church and other anti-abortion lobby groups.This is an edited extract. Read the article in full.TopicsAbortionFrom the Guardian archiveRoe v WadeUS supreme courtReproductive rightsLaw (US)WomenUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    ‘I see things now that I’ve never seen before’: the Maricopa county attorney fighting false election claims

    Interview‘I see things now that I’ve never seen before’: the Maricopa county attorney fighting false election claimsRachel LeingangTom Liddy, a lifelong Republican, is a target of his own party for fending off lawsuits against the county over blatant election lies Down the hall from Tom Liddy’s office in downtown Phoenix, a whiteboard tracks all the election law cases filed against Maricopa county, where he works as civil division chief. Liddy has defended the county against dozens of claims, including that the 2020 election was stolen and that only hand-counted ballots can be trusted.In his office, he keeps ammunition in a safe to protect himself should a threat, which have become more frequent, become reality at work. At his desk, he’s surrounded by photos of his family, who have also become a target.Republicans have already filed dozens of bills to restrict voting in 2023Read moreLiddy is the son of G Gordon Liddy, the longtime political operative who was sentenced to prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. The 15-year veteran of the Maricopa county attorney’s office has run for Congress, hosted a conservative radio show, and defended the county in high-profile trials, including a racial profiling case that became a national flashpoint.The lifelong Republican, who calls himself a “student of politics”, still maintains his conservative principles, despite the pushback from members of his own party who have sued the county and made him a central character in their attacks. Before his work at the county, he worked as an attorney for the Republican National Committee.In recent years, he’s seen more cases based on flimsier facts. A barrage of suits after the 2022 election, when Democrats won key statewide races, contended that that year’s election was stolen as well. The county has succeeded in the courts – though it has come at a political cost for the largely Republican elected officials who run the county.As a result of his work defending Maricopa county, Liddy became the subject of a leaked video shared on social media by allies of Kari Lake, the failed Republican candidate for Arizona governor, which he says led to death threats. The FBI recently filed charges against a Texas man who threatened Liddy and his children.Known for his fiery comments and strongly worded legal letters, Liddy isn’t one to shy away from a fight.“I would hope that my friends would have kind things to say about me and the people who crossed me would be still pissed off about it,” he said.The Guardian spoke to Liddy about the rise in election lawsuits and how he’s protecting his family from violent threats against them.This interview has been edited for length and clarity.There were even more post-election lawsuits after the 2022 election than in 2020. Why do you think that is?In 2020, we saw a lot of lawsuits filed that would never have been filed before. I think it opened up the eyes of a lot of people. ‘Hey, you can contest these elections more often than if you just lose by 510 votes.’ What’s different is when you lose by more than a little bit, and you sue not to canvass or re-canvass or recount or contest, but just throw the spaghetti on the wall and see what sticks.What we’re seeing now, which I never saw before, is folks not just contesting the election, but rather demonizing county officials or state officials or entrepreneurs who are in the business of creating voting systems or voting machines. Prior to the end of the cold war, the Soviets were trying to convince the world that our system of government was no good and was no better than theirs. And now, I think that there are folks in this country that are starting to feel that way, or at least, trying to persuade others of that. I see things now that I’ve never seen before.In a few of the election lawsuits in 2022, Maricopa county asked for lawyers’ fees or sanctions – a rare move. What’s the thought process there?When lawyers go into the court, be it a state court or federal court, you may only bring facts forward and you’re obligated to do an investigation to determine that the facts that you’re getting ready to present to the court are true. We’ve been hearing a lot of stuff in 2020, 2021 and 2022 said in court that are not true. If somebody goes into court and says something that’s not true, egregiously so, the court has the power to call them on it.When we asked for sanctions, we got sanctions in federal court. The plaintiffs went in and said, ‘The elections Maricopa county is running are unconstitutional because they don’t use paper ballots.’ What? How can you say we don’t use paper ballots? The plaintiffs were two individuals that were running for office at the time. Each had voted for themselves on paper ballots for at least the last 10 years. So we asked for sanctions.I think the courts have a responsibility as well. We are a nation of laws. We adjudicate our differences peacefully in court. You can’t do it by lying to the judge or lying to the jury. If you think that’s the right way to do it, then you’re a Pino: Patriot In Name Only.Candidates have filed lawsuits over their losses even when the margins were wide. You mentioned two candidates, Mark Finchem and Kari Lake, who tried to outlaw tabulation machines. Can you seek sanctions against the plaintiffs themselves or is that atypical?Atypical, but there is a method to do it. Generally, sanctions are against the attorneys, not just because they should know better, but they must know better. It’s their obligation. There are rules of the court and rules of civil procedure. One of the rules is that if you make claims before court, you have to do at least a basic investigation to ensure that those facts are true. You can’t just be hired by a plaintiff, the plaintiff says, ‘up is down, down is up, black is white, white is black,’ and you write it in your brief and tell the court. The standards are not that high, but we’ve been hearing some things that aren’t even close to true in some of these lawsuits for three years. Somebody’s got to stop it. The courts have an obligation, in my view.Are you still a Republican?Oh, yeah.Most of the people filing these egregious lawsuits are Republicans. Has this affected how you see your politics or your beliefs?No. I’ve been a Republican since long before I could vote. One of the proudest days of my life was my 18th birthday when I went and registered to vote. I’m a real Republican and I will not change. I will be when they bury me. Now, other folks that come in here and claim to be Republican or claim to be conservative, they don’t even know what conservative is, really. I not only want smaller government, lower taxes, more personal responsibility, greater protections for the private ownership of firearms, I’m pro-life. Being a Republican and being a Democrat has never really been about being for one candidate. It’s always been for a basket of ideas.But that’s me, Tom Liddy the person, speaking, not Tom Liddy the government lawyer. My political beliefs don’t influence what I do. I defend my clients and my client is Maricopa county. I’m happy and pleased to do that. I think it would be an abuse of the public trust to hijack government power to benefit one party or the other. I just would never do that.How much does it cost the county to defend itself against these lawsuits? You mentioned that before the 2020 election, you helped the county bolster its election law team, increasing from one specialized lawyer to about eight people who dedicate at least some of their time on elections. It seems like it’s been expensive.No doubt that it’s expensive. I don’t have that figure. The real expense, much, much larger than just the legal expenses, is the time that the county employees, be they in the recorder’s office or in the elections office or support of the board of supervisors, have to put into it, because normally they’re doing the government’s business. My salary is what my salary is, whether I’m in court duking it out with somebody defending the county or not. These other folks have jobs to do. So you’ve got to ask yourself what they could have done that they weren’t able to do. The dollars and cents is a lot but I think the opportunity cost is much, much higher.The video that captured your phone conversation with the Lake campaign …[Interrupts] Captured 2min and 8sec of a 12-minute phone call.The video showed a heated conversation between you and lawyers for Lake and the Republican National Committee. It was posted online and spread among rightwing channels to imply you weren’t being helpful or transparent with the attorneys. Has something like that happened to you before?That’s an ethical violation for a lawyer to tape a conversation with another lawyer without telling the lawyer. So somebody put that on the internet and said that a Kari Lake campaign volunteer called me – that’s not true. I called a lawyer who was working for the Lake campaign and other candidates. We had many phone calls a day leading up to that. One of the other lawyers there was – and I didn’t know at the time – a lawyer for the Republican National Committee. After we’d had a conversation and they had asked me maybe three or four questions, I said, ‘let me go get the answers for you.’ And then this other guy came on the line and said, ‘Now it’s really important that we get these questions answered quickly … because there’s a lot of angry people out there that want to take to the streets, and I don’t want to have to tell them that Tom Liddy has not been cooperative.’I said, ‘That sounds like a threat.’ I said, ‘Tell them whatever you want to tell them, but if you’re not happy working with me, then don’t work with me, don’t call me, don’t ask me questions. But don’t think for a minute you could intimidate me, because you cannot, and you can’t intimidate Maricopa county, either.’ I admit I used colorful language. It was recorded, and they took only the last two minutes and put it out on the internet.Since then, I’ve been getting death threats. One of those death threats is very real, very specific. The Dallas field office of the FBI notified me of it. The FBI came in and met with my employer and my employer told me to arm myself and that the ammunition I had was not the correct ammunition. They issued me this [pulls out a box of bullets from a safe in his office] – that’s a hollow point. That’s a man-stopper. They issued me and my four children body armor, because this son of a bitch from Texas specifically threatened to kill my four children.The Texas man who made those threats was just charged recently, right?Arrested and denied bail in Lubbock, Texas. That’s the one who threatened to kill my four children, but there are plenty others that were not specific. That makes it difficult for my family to enjoy Thanksgiving, when I’ve got 24-hours-a-day armed security around my home, cameras all over my home and body armor for my kids, and I gotta pack iron everywhere I go. Listen, I’m a second amendment guy – I got plenty to protect myself, all sorts of different calibers. Come at me from up close or far away, I’m prepared. But that’s not how you want to live. That’s not how you want to celebrate Christmas and Thanksgiving. So this guy was arrested I think shortly after Christmas, but that’s what my family had to deal with.Did it give you any sense of relief when he was arrested?Definitely a sense of relief, but also just happiness that the system works, somebody’s going to pay the piper. Now, he’s entitled to defense counsel, he’s entitled to a trial, a jury of his peers. I’m looking forward to flying to Texas to testify against him. I’ll be happy to do it because that’s the way the system works.Do you still have security at your home?I’m not going to comment on that. This office will provide me whatever my family needs to keep us safe. I will say, the threat level has changed since this guy was not only arrested, but denied bail. But there are still security at my home, and we still have body armor, and I still carry a firearm with me.Is it accurate to say that this was not happening before the past couple of years? Or have you experienced similar levels of threats at other times in your career?I have experienced levels of threats before in my career, but nowhere near this volume. This is the only time that the FBI contacted me.Elections have become so polarized, with threats against elections officials and lawyers like yourself and endless lawsuits after a candidate loses. What gets us out of this situation as a country?I would say the same thing that got us out of previous problems that we’ve had. Sometimes the troublemakers are either held responsible, or they fade away, or they disappear in a flash. I think there’ll be more than just lawsuits to change it. I am very optimistic that we will come together again, and we will move forward, and our best days are ahead of us. But I’m not so naive as to think we can solve this problem by one lawsuit here, one Bar complaint there.Do you think things will get better or worse in the short term, in terms of the amount of misinformation and disinformation after elections?I think better. I think that a lot of the stuff we saw in 2020 was very chaotic. Some of the stuff we have seen in 2022 was a little bit more organized. Not necessarily well founded, but a little bit more organized. My fear is that this sort of thing becomes an industry and that if people can make a name for themselves or make money, then that’s an incentive to keep doing it. Election contests are an important part of the law, but just suing for the sake of suing, and suing so you can say you’re suing and then set up a defense fund and raise millions of dollars – that’s not healthy for our society.TopicsUS newsThe fight for democracyRepublicansArizonaUS elections 2020US midterm elections 2022Donald TrumpLaw (US)interviewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Alex Jones lawyer’s license is suspended for releasing sensitive records

    Alex Jones lawyer’s license is suspended for releasing sensitive recordsNorman Pattis cannot practice in Connecticut after releasing medical records of Sandy Hook families during Infowars host’s trial A judge has suspended the license of a lawyer who was representing Alex Jones when the attorney appeared to have accidentally released sensitive court records surrounding the defamation lawsuits after the Sandy Hook school killings that the notorious conspiracy theorist lost.Alex Jones owes $1.5bn and declared bankruptcy. So how is Infowars still running?Read moreIn a court order that she issued on Thursday, Connecticut judge Barbara Bellis suspended New Haven-based Norman Pattis from practicing law in the state for six months.Bellis, who decried Pattis’s actions as “inexcusable” and an “abject failure”, wrote: “We cannot expect our system of justice or our attorneys to be perfect, but we can expect fundamental fairness and decency.”Pattis had sent out medical records pertaining to some of the families of those killed during the Sandy Hook attack, along with other information that was considered confidential, Bellis’s ruling showed.Despite Pattis’s claim that the release of the records was an “inadvertent mistake”, Bellis “flatly rejects” the claim. In her court order, she wrote that “there was no fairness or decency” in how Pattis handled “sensitive and personal information” at the center of a lawsuit in which the families of Sandy Hook victims accused Jones of using the shooting that killed 26 at the school to build his audience and make millions of dollars through his false claims that the tragedy was a hoax aimed at forcing the US to accept gun reform.“At a basic level, attorneys must competently and appropriately handle the discovery of sensitive materials in civil cases. Otherwise, our civil system, in which discovery of sensitive information is customary and routine, would simply collapse,” Bellis continued.An assistant of another attorney for Jones, in a related case in Texas, mistakenly sent their legal adversaries’ Jones’s text messages that contradicted sworn statements from Jones claiming he had nothing on his phone related to the deadly school shooting.Rulings in the lawsuits against Jones in Texas, where he resides, and Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook attack occurred, have resulted in Jones being ordered to pay more than $1bn in damages after he was found to have unduly inflicted anguish on victims’ families, among other harm.In a statement to the Associated Press, Pattis said he plans to challenge the order with a higher court, writing: “We’re looking forward to appellate review.”Pattis is currently representing a member of the rightwing extremist group Proud Boys in Washington DC who has been criminally charged with seditious conspiracy surrounding the violent January 6 riots that took place at the US Capitol exactly two years ago Friday.TopicsNewtown shootingUS justice systemUS politicsLaw (US)Defamation lawnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    The untold story of how a US woman was sentenced to six years for voting

    The untold story of how a US woman was sentenced to six years for voting The case of Pamela Moses sparked a national outcry – but newly uncovered documents reveal the extent of its injusticeIt was the morning after Labor Day and Pamela Moses was in a rush.All summer, the outspoken activist had been feuding with election officials in Memphis, Tennessee. She wanted to get her name on the ballot for Memphis’s 2019 mayoral election, even gathering enough signatures to do so. But officials said she could not run – a prior felony conviction made her ineligible to seek office.Now, there was a new problem. In late August, the local elections commission sent her a letter saying they were going to cancel her voter registration. Moses was confused – she had been voting for years. That day, she was determined to sort it out.But what unfolded over just a few hours that day on 3 September 2019 would upend her life. It would lead to a sudden arrest months later at O’Hare airport in Chicago and culminate in a six-year prison sentence for voter fraud.Her case would go on to touch a nerve in the US and cause a national outcry. While there’s no comprehensive data on voter fraud prosecutions based on race, it was one of several recent examples in which Black defendants like Moses have faced long criminal sentences for voting errors, while white people have faced little punishment for more fraud. Long after the abolition of poll taxes and literacy tests, Black Americans still face significant scrutiny for trying to exercise their right to vote.What I learned from my interview with Pamela Moses, imprisoned for a voting errorRead moreTo make matters worse there is a byzantine bureaucracy in Tennessee and other US states, which can make it nearly impossible for people with felony convictions to vote again. The system has allowed officials to block people from voting for owing small sums of money and prosecutors to bring charges against others who make good-faith mistakes about their voting eligibility.But at the center of the Moses case was a relatively simple question: should someone who makes a voting mistake face serious criminal charges?Nearly everyone in Memphis seems to know Moses, 45, or has heard of her.She’s a self-taught student of the law – the librarians in the county law library know her by name – and has sued many of the top officials in Memphis, frequently representing herself in court. She’s appeared in local papers over the years. She’s had disagreements with other local activists and founded her own non-profit.“If she sees something that she feels is unjust, she’s going to say something about it,” said Dawn Harrington, who has been friends with Moses for over two decades and is the executive director of Free Hearts, a criminal justice non-profit. “She’s not going to be afraid of the backlash that might happen.”“She’ll always take you to the limit,” said Michael Working, a criminal defense attorney in Memphis who has represented Moses and known her for a decade. “She’s willing very often to be publicly flogged by the government on principle.”In person, Moses is at times mercurial, but often charming. She can rattle off the history of Memphis neighborhoods, the names of local judges, lawyers and statutes that she’s researched, sprinkling in bits of hip-hop history (she also writes and produces her own music). She is fiercely protective of Taj, her teenage son.Few officials attracted Moses’s ire as much as Amy Weirich, a Republican who served as the district attorney in Shelby county, which includes Memphis. Several years ago, Moses made local headlines when Weirich prosecuted her for stalking and harassing a local judge, tampering with evidence and forgery.In 2015, Moses pled guilty to those charges and was sentenced to several years of probation. Years later, she would say that pleading guilty and not fighting the case “was the worst mistake of my life”. She believed she was innocent, but the conviction led people to think she was guilty.Harrington, her longtime friend, said that the case cemented her status as someone who was disliked by people in high office in Memphis. “She had been on the bad side of the powers that be there,” she said.When Moses pled guilty, there was a hearing in which a judge questioned her and made sure she understood the consequences of her decision. But there was one ramification that neither the judge nor any of the lawyers present brought up: Moses would lose the right to vote for life.To understand Moses’s case, one needs to know that America has long stripped people convicted of felonies of the vote.After constitutional amendments in the 19th century expanded the franchise to Black Americans, many states passed felon disenfranchisement laws as a way to continue to keep African Americans from the ballot box and therefore prevent them from wielding political power, said Christopher Uggen, a professor at the University of Minnesota who has studied the topic closely. He suggested the laws have persisted because people with criminal convictions are stigmatized, and so seeking redress for them is politically fraught.Today, the laws continue to heavily affect Black Americans – 5.3% of the adult Black population is disenfranchised because of a felony, compared to 1.5% of the non-Black adult population. Overall, an estimated 4.6 million people can’t vote because of a felony conviction in the US.Bar chart comparing felony voting disenfranchisement of Black Americans to all AmericansMoses’s home state of Tennessee strips any person convicted of a felony of the right to vote. Nearly 472,000 people of voting age can’t vote in Tennessee because of a felony conviction, the vast majority of whom have completed their sentence, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice non-profit. It’s estimated that more than one in five Black people of voting age in the state can’t vote because of a felony.In Tennessee, it is also extremely difficult for these people to get their voting rights back once they complete their sentences. There are three different sets of rules, depending on when the person was convicted. A request to even just fill out the state’s required application for the restoration of voting rights can be rejected for any reason – without explanation.Tennessee’s confusing system isn’t unusual. Many US states, particularly in the south, require anyone with a felony conviction to go through a bureaucratic process if they want to vote again.In Mississippi, people with certain felony convictions have to petition the legislature to restore their voting rights individually – and hardly anyone makes it through.In Florida, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment in 2018 to repeal the state’s lifetime voting ban for most people with felonies. But the Florida legislature quickly stepped in and passed a measure that said completing a sentence meant paying all outstanding fines and court fees, which put voting again out of reach for many. Even if people can afford to pay, it’s extremely difficult to figure out how much they owe since the state has no centralized way of keeping track.Bar chart of the five states with the highest estimated rates of Black felony voter disenfranchisementThat uncertainty is the point of these laws, said Nicole Porter, the senior director of advocacy at the Sentencing Project.“I think there is intentionality behind the complications,” she said. “It’s about chilling or minimizing participation in the electorate by certain constituencies. It’s the modern day manifestation of very hard policies that dominated the Jim Crow era.”This was the tangled web Moses stepped into just after Labor Day in 2019.Because she didn’t realize she had lost her voting rights, she had been voting regularly until the summer of 2019. When she was informed that her voter registration was about to be canceled, Moses called the elections commission and asked what to do. She said a staffer advised her to go through the restoration process. (The elections commission declined to say to the Guardian whether it had ever advised her to do so.)The next step Moses took was the one on which her conviction – and its reversal – rested.One of the people required to fill out the form for her voting rights restoration was a probation officer, who had to confirm that Moses’s criminal sentence had concluded. When Moses showed up at the probation office on 3 September, she met with the manager on duty, named Kristoffer Billington, who had worked for the probation office for five years. He had never filled out the form before, he would later testify in court.Moses told him her probation was finished, and he went to the back of the office to research her case. Billington called a colleague in a different office for help. They both looked at Moses’s file in the computer system.According to the information they saw, it looked like Moses had finished her probation in 2018. But there was a problem – Moses’s computer file still showed she was on unsupervised probation. Billington thought this was a bureaucratic error and believed someone had forgotten to close out her file.As he was examining the case, the receptionist repeatedly called Billington’s office to tell him Moses was growing impatient and wanted to turn in the form to the election office, he would later testify. After about an hour of research, he wrote on the form that Moses had completed her probation, signed it and returned it to her.Billington had made a mistake. Unbeknownst to him, there were more case files that showed Moses’s felony probation wouldn’t expire until the following year, 2020. In parallel, Moses had been fighting in court that summer to have a judge declare that her sentence was over because she wanted to run for mayor. In court filings, she argued that her probation had expired. But courts disagreed. Moses didn’t think those rulings were correct and thought Billington and the probation office would be able to give her a more definitive answer.It might seem hard to believe that there was a dispute about something as basic as when Moses’s sentence ended. But those kinds of ambiguities are actually quite common, Uggen said.“People who aren’t subject to supervision don’t really understand how fuzzy things like release and supervision dates are,” he said. “Anybody inside the system or across jurisdictions knows that what’s written on this piece of paper might be very different than that other piece of paper.”And these bureaucratic mistakes can land people in prison.Just 30 minutes after Moses left his office, Billington got a call from someone in the Tennessee attorney general’s office telling him he made a mistake on the form. And after Moses turned in the form, the elections office quickly caught the mistake too. A few days earlier, they had referred her to prosecutors for potential voter fraud, owing to the fact they had learned she had been regularly voting while on probation.“Isn’t whether or not she completed the required probationary period for the 2015 felonies the subject of the [ongoing court case],” Pablo Varela, an attorney for the elections commission, emailed Kirby May, a prosecutor in the district attorney’s office shortly after Moses turned in the form. “How can the Court Clerk issue this attached document stating she has been granted final release from incarceration or supervision?”‘It’s a scare tactic’: Pamela Moses, the Black woman jailed over voting error, speaks outRead moreMay responded later that afternoon and attached a copy of a July court order saying Moses was still on probation. She was still ineligible to vote, he said.Vicki Collins, a staffer at the elections commission, forwarded Moses’s application to the Tennessee secretary of state’s office to review. “The Shelby County Election Commission has been in an ongoing lawsuit with Ms. Moses. She has been denied the right to be on the ballot for Mayor because she is still on probation until 2020,” wrote Collins, who specialized in helping people with felony convictions get their voting rights back. A little over an hour later, a lawyer with the secretary of state’s office wrote back. She agreed Moses was ineligible to vote, but offered a new reason for why.In 2015, one of the crimes Moses pled guilty to was tampering with evidence, which causes a permanent loss of voting rights in Tennessee. All of the research Billington had done at the probation office was irrelevant. It didn’t matter whether she was on probation or not.The next morning, Collins, the elections staffer, appeared happy to learn Moses was permanently barred from voting. “LOOK AT HER STATUS!!! PERMANENTLY INELIGIBLE,” she wrote in an email, including a smiley face.The same day, the elections office also received a letter from the Tennessee department of corrections alerting them to Billington’s error. The letter didn’t say that Moses was to blame or that Billington was deceived.The elections office quickly wrote to Moses explaining she was permanently banned. “Absent a change in state law, future attempts to register to vote anywhere in Tennessee may be considered a class D felony,” read the letter from Linda Phillips, the election administrator in Shelby county.Later that evening, Phillips expressed concern that she hadn’t received a reply from Moses. “I am a bit concerned that Pamela Moses did not respond to my email telling her she would never be able to register to vote.” She hinted at concerns for her own safety over the issue, writing “I do have a concealed carry permit,” in an email to a member of the election commission.In a response to questions from the Guardian, Phillips said: “If incorrect information is provided to our office, intentionally or unintentionally, the state of Tennessee alerts us about the inaccuracies. That’s what happened in Ms Moses’s case.”She also defended the emails she and Collins sent after learning Moses was ineligible to vote.“Any email exchanges within [the elections commission] regarding announcements of Ms Moses’s ineligibility to vote should be perceived as urgent notice to ensure staff awareness, considering Ms Moses’s frequent and sometimes harassing visits to our offices,” she said.TimelineTimeline of Pamela Moses caseShowMarch 2014 After a felony conviction more than a decade earlier, Moses successfully has her right to vote restored.April 2015 Moses loses her voting rights again after she pleads guilty to several felonies, including tampering with evidence and perjury.July 2019 Moses is blocked from running for mayor of Memphis because of a prior felony conviction. A judge says she is still serving a probationary sentence from her 2015 conviction.August 2019 Shelby County Elections Commission tells Moses she is ineligible to vote and will be removed from voting rolls.September 2019 Probation office and local clerk fill out and approve a form saying Moses is eligible to vote. Election officials reject Moses’ request, telling her she is permanently banned from voting.November 2019 Moses is indicted for illegal registration and voting. She is arrested while traveling through customs at Chicago’s O’Hare airport. November 2021Moses is convicted of making false entries on an official registration or election document. January 2022 Moses is sentenced to six years in prison.February 2022 A judge orders a new trial for Moses, in part because of documents not turned over to her defense.April 2022 Prosecutors announce they are dropping charges against Moses.Two months later, prosecutors filed a 14-count indictment, charging Moses with illegally voting nearly a dozen times after her 2015 guilty plea. She was arrested at O’Hare airport while returning to the US from a trip abroad.Later, prosecutors offered her a deal, saying if she pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge she would get six months of unsupervised probation and no additional prison time. She refused.“It was about the principle to me,” Moses said. “I hadn’t done anything wrong. All I did was try to get my right to vote back and you don’t like me,” she said. “I was okay with going to jail if people could understand what this is really about. I don’t regret making that decision.”Just before the trial began, prosecutors dropped 12 of the 14 charges, declining to prosecute her for illegally voting. There was no evidence that anyone had told Moses she was ineligible to vote, and the fact that the elections office had sent her voter information made it harder to prove she knew.The trial began on 3 November 2021 and lasted just two days. A single question remained: did Moses knowingly trick Billington to falsely say she was off probation when he filled out the form?May, the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case, zeroed in on the numerous times after 2015 that Moses had asked courts to declare she was off probation and judges had rejected her requests.“It’s like a child going up to both her parents, ‘Gimme, gimme, gimme’ … They make the mistake and give it, even though they’d told no, no, no. It’s the same thing, she knew what she was doing on September 3rd,” he said at the trial. “She was desperate to try to get her rights restored, she wanted to run for mayor, whatever, she was desperate. She didn’t care, she was going to try anyway. This was her last stitch [sic] effort.”When Billington testified, he owned up to his mistake. But May argued Moses had deceived him, even though she was not in the room when he did his research and signed off on the form. Billington said Moses had told him she was off probation when she walked into the office and was acting impatient as he researched her case.Ferguson, Moses’s lawyer, argued that the state was punishing Moses for its own mistake. “If they can’t get it right, we can’t convict her for not getting it right,” he said in his closing argument.Ultimately the jurors found Moses guilty. In late January, W Mark Ward, the judge overseeing the case, sentenced Moses to six years in prison. Weirich, the prosecutor, said Moses had brought a trial and any harsh punishment on herself by refusing to take the plea.“I gave her a chance to plead to a misdemeanor with no prison time. She requested a jury trial instead. She set this unfortunate result in motion and a jury of her peers heard the evidence and convicted her,” she said at the time.Local reporters had been following Moses’s case, but in early February, it started to receive national attention. The Guardian published a story highlighting Moses’s punishment. The next evening, Rachel Maddow did a segment on Moses’s case, comparing her six-year sentence to those of white Trump supporters who had received lesser sentences for intentional acts of voting fraud. The New York Times, Washington Post and Associated Press, among other outlets, followed. Moses, detained in prison, didn’t know her case was getting more attention.Then, a few weeks later, new information came to light.Through a public records request, the Guardian obtained the result of an internal investigation from the Tennessee department of corrections looking into why Billington had signed off on Moses’s voting eligibility. The supervisors who had investigated squarely placed the blame on Billington for the error, undercutting the prosecution’s idea that Moses had deceived him into signing off on the form.Perhaps most significantly, Moses’s lawyers had never seen the document before – prosecutors hadn’t turned it over with all of the other evidence in the case. That lack of disclosure was potentially unconstitutional and entitled Moses to a new trial.The day after the Guardian published the document, Moses had a previously scheduled hearing to request a fresh trial. Judges rarely granted such requests – the hearing was supposed to be a formality on the way to an appeal. At any rate, that morning, Moses’s lawyer submitted the missing document to the court.Harsh punishments for Black Americans over voting errors spark outcry | The fight to voteRead moreRemarkably, Ward unexpectedly granted Moses’s request for a new trial. He said that the document should have been turned over to Moses’s lawyers before the initial trial and that he had erroneously allowed certain other evidence to be admitted. Moses, who had been in jail, broke down in tears in the courtroom.It wasn’t the first time Weirich’s office has come under fire for failing to disclose evidence to a defendant. A 2014 study by the Fair Punishment Project found her office ranked first in Tennessee in prosecutorial misconduct. Weirich sought to distance herself from the error. The department of corrections, not her office, was to blame for not turning over the missing document, she said.Two months later, Weirich announced she would drop all charges against Moses. “She has spent 82 days in custody on this case, which is sufficient,” she said in a statement, also noting Moses remained permanently barred from voting. “In the interest of judicial economy, we are dismissing her illegal registration case and her violation of probation.”Both Weirich and Ward would go on to lose their re-election bids in August.Moses’s case may have prompted a national outpouring of disapproval, but tendentious-seeming voter fraud charges have not disappeared.In August, for instance, Florida governor Ron DeSantis announced the state was prosecuting 19 people with prior criminal records for voter fraud. Many of the people charged said they were confused about their eligibility and that no one had told them they couldn’t vote.Crystal Mason, a Black woman in Texas, is still appealing a five-year prison sentence for casting a provisional ballot in the 2016 election while on supervised release for a federal felony. Mason has said she had no idea she was ineligible, and the ballot had even been rejected.Moses, as well as those who have followed her case, doubt that it will be one of the last.Both the Shelby county elections commission and the Tennessee department of corrections declined to say whether they had changed their processes for helping people determine their voting eligibility in the wake of Moses’s case. “Any changes in that process would be done at the state level,” Phillips said.One morning at the end of April, just after the charges were dropped against her, Moses held a press conference at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. She was there to speak publicly for the first time about Weirich’s decisions to drop the charges against her.“When it comes to Black people in the south, whatever we do, if it’s wrong, you’ve got to pay for it,” she said. “If there was a white person and I got treated the way I did, I would be just as upset. But you don’t see white people getting treated like that.”Since her case was dropped Moses has been working on an album and documentary, and she’s continued to push to be able to vote again.She’s still seeking a gubernatorial pardon from her 2015 conviction is suing Tennessee to try to get the state’s felon disenfranchisement law declared unconstitutional. She’s also suing local officials for damages in her voter fraud case. “I don’t know what the future holds, but I do know I will get to vote again,” she said.“I want people to take away that it’s not over just because Pamela is free,” said Dawn Harrington, Moses’s friend.” Because there are so many other Pamelas all across the state.”Brandon Dill contributed reporting from MemphisTopicsTennesseeThe fight for democracyLaw (US)US politicsUS prisonsUS voting rightsRaceMemphisfeaturesReuse this content More

  • in

    Highest-profile January 6 trial begins with Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio

    Highest-profile January 6 trial begins with Proud Boys leader Enrique TarrioChairman of militia group and four others are charged with seditious conspiracy related to Capitol insurrection The January 6 committee investigating the attack on the Capitol may have issued its huge final report, but the wheels of the justice system in the US are grinding on and one of the most high-profile trials emerging from the insurrection is about to begin in earnest.Jury selection began last week with the seditious conspiracy trial against ex-Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio and four others involved in the far-right, often violent militia group.From Liz Cheney to Donald Trump: winners and losers from the January 6 hearingsRead moreTarrio and his co-defendants in the Washington DC federal court trial – Ethan Nordean, Zachary Rehl, Dominic Pezzola and Proud Boy organizer Joe Biggs – are charged with seditious conspiracy and other counts related to the attack that delayed congressional certification of Joe Biden’s election victory, injured dozens of police officers and is linked to multiple deaths. They have all pleaded not guilty to the charges.A fifth man charged in this case, Charles Donohoe, pleaded guilty in April to conspiring to attack the Capitol. Under Donohoe’s plea deal, he agreed to cooperate against his co-defendants. Approximately 900 people have now been arrested in the Capitol attack, with prosecutors securing convictions against hundreds.The start of the trial comes amid a wider reckoning with those responsible for the January 6 attack.Several hours after jury selection started on Monday in the Proud Boys trial, the House committee probing the deadly insurrection issued some of its findings – and made a criminal referral against Trump to the US Department of Justice, recommending charges. The trial also comes several weeks after two leaders of the Oath Keepers – another far-right group – were found guilty of seditious conspiracy for their involvement in the insurrection.Federal prosecutors allege that Nordean, Biggs, Rehl and Pezzola were among the 100 Proud Boys who convened alongside the Washington Monument at 10am on 6 January. They met around the time that Trump was addressing thousands of supporters in a park called the Ellipse.These soon-to-be rioters in that group then made their way to the Capitol. Around 1pm, one of them broke through police, spurring the violence that would consume Capitol Hill, court documents allege.Nordean, Rehl, Biggs and Pezzola allegedly led the mob and were among the first people to push past police. Biggs allegedly recorded a video where he observed the mob and said: “We’ve taken the Capitol,” per court documents.Tarrio was not in Washington DC during the insurrection, as he had been arrested two days prior for allegedly vandalizing a Black Lives Matter sign at a historical Black church during a December 2020 demonstration. Prosecutors contend that Tarrio was among the leaders of this conspiracy to thwart election certification.Several days before the riot, Tarrio posted about “revolution” on social media, prosecutors said in court papers. In an encrypted messaging group which prosecutors maintain was created by Tarrio, one member purportedly said: “Time to stack those bodies in front of Capitol Hill,” per the Associated Press.Despite being arrested several days prior, Tarrio heralded the rioters’ attack, writing “don’t [expletive] leave” on social media and later posting “we did this…” prosecutors said.While there appears to be extensive evidence against these men, much of which has long been in the public record, prosecutors must show more than their in-person or social media presence that day to prove seditious conspiracy.“They’re going to have to show an agreement between two people or more, they’re going to have to show a common scheme or a common plan,” said Los Angeles criminal defense and appellate attorney Matthew Barhoma, founder of Barhoma Law.“Showing up on January 6 at the same time doesn’t mean that a conspiracy indeed existed. They’re going to have to go a little bit beyond that to show there is a common agreement – basically a smoking gun in the sense that they intended to overthrow the government,” he added. “They’re going to have to show that they wanted to act in a common plan in furtherance of that plan to overthrow the government or to delay or hinder the United States government.”‘These are conditions ripe for political violence’: how close is the US to civil war?Read moreThat said, “seditious conspiracy is actually in some ways, much easier to prove than regular criminal conspiracy,” explained longtime attorney Ron Kuby, a longtime criminal defense attorney with a focus on civil rights.“Seditious conspiracy is the only conspiracy that does not require proof of an overt act on the part of participants,” Kuby said. “Generally speaking, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to do something unlawful, and in all other conspiracy cases, at least one of the participants has to take a substantial step toward that unlawful purpose.”“Here, it’s really a sidenote, footnote, endnote and asterisk. They don’t have to prove an overt act, what they they have to prove there was an agreement to oppose the lawful authority of the United States of America by force.“There’s a tsunami of evidence, both in terms of what was said among the participants, which the FBI has obtained and decrypted as well as what they did, which is all well-documented on video.”Although evidence appears to abound, one possible defense strategy would be to portray the alleged plotters as buffoons. “These guys were angry knuckleheads but you know, they’re not planning to overthrow the government,” Kuby said of this possible approach.It’s unclear whether these Proud Boys members would go along with that, even if this could help their cases.“The natural impulse of every defense lawyer is to portray their clients in a fashion which is most likely to result in acquittal, but that’s not necessarily the way most defendants want to be portrayed,” Kuby said. “The Proud Boys may not want to be portrayed as loud-mouthed knuckleheads who were just egging each other on to say dumber and dumber things because they’re not that bright.”Tarrio’s attorneys have contended that he didn’t tell or encourage anyone to storm the Capitol or act violently, while Nordean’s lawyer alleged that justice department prosecutors were singling him out because of his political beliefs, the AP reported.In an email to the Guardian, Tarrio’s attorney, Nayib Hassan, said: “Mr Tarrio is looking forward to the start of the trial. We look forward to making our presentation of the evidence and acquitting Mr Tarrio of the governments allegations.”Rehl’s lawyer reportedly wanted the judge to dismiss the indictment on First amendment grounds, claiming the charges were rooted in free speech issues. Asked for comment, Biggs’s attorney, Norm Pattis, said in an email: “We look forward to the presentation of evidence in this case. We stand by his plea of not guilty.”TopicsUS Capitol attackJanuary 6 hearingsLaw (US)The far rightUS politicsJoe BidenDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Republicans lead charge to ban noncitizens from voting in local elections

    Republicans lead charge to ban noncitizens from voting in local electionsEight states have passed laws against ballot access, even as some progressive cities are extending local voting rights Louisiana voters recently approved a constitutional amendment barring anyone who is not a US citizen from participating in elections, becoming the eighth state to push back against the growing number of progressive cities deciding to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.Conservative donors pour ‘dark money’ into case that could upend US voting lawRead moreWhile noncitizens are prohibited from voting in federal elections and no states allow noncitizens to vote for statewide office, ambiguous language in constitutions has allowed localities to pass statutes legalizing noncitizen voting in local or school board elections. A short but expanding list of cities include two cities in Vermont, almost a dozen in Maryland, and San Francisco.Other cities are trying to join that list, including Boston and Washington DC, where the latter city’s council in October passed legislation allowing noncitizens who have lived in the city for at least 30 days to vote in local elections. New York City’s council also passed a measure in December to allow close to 900,000 green card holders and those with work authorization to vote in local elections, but a state trial court struck it down in June, finding it violated the state constitution. The ruling is currently being appealed.The potential for major cities like DC and New York to expand their electorates prompted backlash from Republican lawmakers.“This vote sends a clear message that the radical election policies of places like San Francisco, New York City and Washington, DC have no place in Louisiana,” Kyle Ardoin, the Republican secretary of state, said in a statement after the passage of the constitutional amendment, which he said will “ensure the continued integrity of Louisiana’s elections”.Louisiana law already prohibits anyone who is “not a citizen of the state” from voting, so voting rights advocates say the new amendment is an effort by Republicans in the state to limit voting based on false allegations that noncitizens are committing voter fraud by participating in elections.Louisiana’s amendment made it on to the 10 December ballot after it was passed by both chambers of the state legislature. Over 73% of Louisiana voters approved it, making Louisiana the latest in a series of states moving to explicitly write bans into their constitutions.Before 2020, just Arizona and North Dakota specifically prohibited noncitizens from voting in local and state elections, but voters in Alabama, Colorado and Florida all approved constitutional amendments in 2020 and Ohio approved one in November.Ohio’s amendment came after one town in the state, Yellow Springs, passed an initiative in 2019 to allow noncitizens to vote, giving voting rights in local elections to just a few dozen people in the small town. A few years later in 2022, Republican lawmakers proposed what would eventually become the constitutional amendment banning the practice and revoking the right from noncitizens in Yellow Springs.Fulvia Vargas-De Leon, senior counsel at LatinoJustice PRLDEF, a New York-based immigrant rights group, said the movement for ballot amendments is just one way that some lawmakers are trying to restrict voting rights.“It is a response to the expansion of the right to vote, and our concern is that since 2020, we’ve seen such attacks on the right to vote,” she said, adding that the pushback was coming because of an anti-immigrant sentiment “but also a larger effort to try to ban who has access to the ballot”.The United States allowed noncitizens to vote for much of its early history. From the founding of the country through 1926, noncitizens could vote in local, state and federal elections. But anti-immigrant sentiment led to lawmakers in most states to push for an end to the practice.“Resurgent nativism, wartime xenophobia, and corruption concerns pushed lawmakers to curtail noncitizen voting, and citizenship became a voting prerequisite in every state by 1926,” William & Mary professor Alan H Kennedy wrote in a paper published in the Journal of Policy History this year.In 1996, Congress passed a law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections, making illegal voting punishable by fines, imprisonment and deportation.But on the local level, the subject has re-emerged as a topic for debate in recent decades, as the populations of permanent noncitizen immigrants has grown in many cities.Advocates for noncitizen voting argue that documented immigrants pay taxes and contribute to their local communities and should have their voices heard when it comes to local policy.“We should have a representative democracy, where everyone who is part of the fabric of the community, who is involved, who pays taxes, should have a say in it,” said Vargas-De Leon, whose group intervened in the New York litigation and has filed the appeal.But conservative groups say that allowing noncitizens to vote dilutes the votes of citizens. Republican strategist Christopher Arps started the Missouri-based Americans for Citizen Voting to help states amend their constitutions to explicitly say that only US citizens can vote. He said that people who want to vote should “at least have some skin in the game” by completing the citizenship process.“We’ve been hearing for the past five, six years about foreign interference, Russia and other countries,” he said. “Well to me, this is a type of foreign interference in our elections.”It would also be a “bureaucratic nightmare”, he said, for states to have to maintain two separate voter rolls for federal and local elections, and could lead to illegal voting if noncitizens accidentally vote in a federal election.Though noncitizen voting still has not been signed into law in DC, Republicans in Congress have already introduced legislation to block it. One bill, introduced by the Texas senator Ted Cruz last month, would bar DC from using federal funds to facilitate noncitizen voting.“Allowing noncitizens and illegal immigrants to vote in our elections opens our country up to foreign influence, and allows those who are openly violating US law or even working for hostile foreign governments to take advantage and direct our resources against our will,” Cruz said in a statement.But Vargas-De Leon pointed to the benefits of expanding the electorate to include the country’s 12.9 million legal permanent residents and other documented immigrants.“All we’re trying to do here is ensure that everyone has a say in our government,” she said.TopicsUS newsThe fight for democracyUS politicsLaw (US)LouisianaOhioFloridaVermontfeaturesReuse this content More