More stories

  • in

    The Arizona county that could decide the future of Trump – and America

    For years, Carlos Garcia would grab his bullhorn each afternoon and head downtown to the office of Joe Arpaio, the brash, hardline, anti-immigrant Maricopa county sheriff who became known as “the Donald Trump of Arizona”.
    When Garcia’s protests began in 2007, just a handful of devoted activists joined him. A conservative firebrand, Arpaio was re-elected every four years by the mostly white residents of the state’s most populous county. He was seemingly untouchable.
    But as Arpaio’s crusade against immigrants intensified, the backlash grew. “We literally went from five to 200,000 people,” Garcia said of the protests.
    On 8 November 2016, the same night Donald Trump won the White House, Arizona finally ousted Arpaio. After nearly a quarter-century in power, the sheriff was undone by Latinos, young progressives and white voters who Garcia believes “felt shame over Maricopa’s reputation” as a hostile and intolerant place.
    interactive
    Just as Arpaio’s tenure foreshadowed Trump’s national rise, the same forces that expelled the sheriff in Maricopa county appear to have flourished across the country as the president pursued his own hardline agenda. And now, those forces – catalyzed by the coronavirus pandemic – may seal the president’s fate in next week’s US election.
    “We are a community that has suffered through Trump-like policies for such a long time,” said Garcia, who was elected to Phoenix city council in 2018. This year, Latinos and others are mobilizing to defeat the “Arpaio in the White House”.
    The future of America
    Maricopa county, which encompasses Arizona’s capital, Phoenix, and blossoming rings of surrounding suburbs, has nearly 4.5 million residents and dominates the state politically. One third of Maricopa residents identify as Latino, according to US census data. More

  • in

    Wisconsin can't count mail-in ballots received after election day, supreme court rules

    The US supreme court has sided with Republicans to prevent Wisconsin from counting mail-in ballots that are received after election day.
    In a 5-3 ruling, the justices on Monday refused to reinstate a lower court order that called for mailed ballots to be counted if they are received up to six days after the 3 November election. A federal appeals court had already put that order on hold.
    The ruling awards a victory for Republicans in their crusade against expanding voting rights and access. It also came just moments before the Republican-controlled Senate voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett, a victory for the right that locks in a conservative majority on the nation’s highest court for years to come.
    The three liberal justices dissented. John Roberts, the chief justice, last week joined the liberals to preserve a Pennsylvania state court order extending the absentee ballot deadline but voted the other way in the Wisconsin case, which has moved through federal courts.
    “Different bodies of law and different precedents govern these two situations and require, in these particular circumstances, that we allow the modification of election rules in Pennsylvania but not Wisconsin,” Roberts wrote.
    “As the Covid pandemic rages, the court has failed to adequately protect the nation’s voters,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent that noted the state allowed the six-day extension for primary voting in April and that roughly 80,000 ballots were received after the day of the primary election.
    Democrats argued that the flood of absentee ballots and other challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic makes it necessary to extend the period in which ballots can be counted. Wisconsin, a swing state, is also one of the nation’s hotspots for Covid-19, with hospitals treating a record high number of patients with the disease. The supreme court allowed a similar extension to go into effect for Wisconsin’s April election, a decision that led to nearly 80,000 additional votes getting counted in the contest (Trump carried the state in 2016 by just under 23,000 votes).
    Republicans opposed the extension, saying that voters have plenty of opportunities to cast their ballots by the close of polls on election day and that the rules should not be changed so close to the election.
    The justices often say nothing, or very little, about the reasons for their votes in these emergency cases, but on Monday, four justices wrote opinions totaling 35 pages to lay out their competing rationales.
    Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged the complications the pandemic adds to voting, but defended the court’s action.
    “No one doubts that conducting a national election amid a pandemic poses serious challenges. But none of that means individual judges may improvise with their own election rules in place of those the people’s representatives have adopted,” Gorsuch wrote.
    Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, echoed Trump in writing that states should announce results on election night.
    States “want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter”, he wrote. “Moreover, particularly in a presidential election, counting all the votes quickly can help the state promptly resolve any disputes, address any need for recounts, and begin the process of canvassing and certifying the election results in an expeditious manner.” He also wrote states had an interest in avoiding “the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.”
    That comment earned a sharp rebuke from Kagan, who said “there are no results to ‘flip’ until all valid votes are counted”.
    She noted that the bigger threat to election “integrity” was valid votes going uncounted. “nothing could be more ‘suspicio[us]’ or “improp[er]’ than refusing to tally votes once the clock strikes 12 on election night. To suggest otherwise, especially in these fractious times, is to disserve the electoral process,” she wrote.
    Kavanaugh cited Vermont as an example of a state that “decided not to make changes to their ordinary election rules” due to the pandemic, even though, in fact, the state authorized the secretary of state to automatically mail a ballot to all registered voters this year, in order to make it easier for everyone to vote absentee.
    In a significant footnote, Kavanaugh also wrote that state courts do not have a “blank check” to step in on state laws governing federal elections, endorsing conservative justices’ rationale in deciding the election in 2000 between George W Bush and Al Gore.
    Two decades ago, in Bush v Gore, the supreme court decided – effectively – that Bush would be the US president after settling a recount dispute in the swing state of Florida. Back then, three conservative justices – William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – said that the Florida supreme court “impermissibly distorted” the state’s election code by ordering a recount of a close election, during which voting machines were found to have issues correctly counting the votes.
    In Monday’s ruling, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch – both Trump appointees – endorsed that view expressed in the Bush v Gore case, a move that could foretell how the court, which now has a 6-3 conservative majority, would rule if the results of the presidential election are contested.
    Justices Thomas, Samuel Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh recently voted to block a deadline extension to count ballots in Pennsylvania. However, with only eight justice on the court at the time, and the conservative justice John Roberts siding with liberals – at tied court ultimately upheld the deadline extension.
    But Pennsylvania Republicans, sensing an ally in Barrett, have asked for a re-do. In making their case, they are arguing that the state supreme court overstepped by ordering officials to count mail-in ballots that are sent by election day but arrive up to three days later.
    Agencies contributed to this report More

  • in

    Amy Coney Barrett takes oath after being confirmed to US supreme court – video

    A majority of US senators have voted to confirm Donald Trump’s supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. ‘On this vote, the yays are 52. The nays are 48,’ announced US senator Chuck Grassley. Trump then held a celebratory swearing-in ceremony on the White House lawn. Barrett said. ‘I will do my job without any fear or favour and … I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences.’ Lawmakers voted along party lines, although Republican Susan Collins of Maine joined Democrats to vote against Barrett’s confirmation. Barrett, 48, will secure a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the nation’s highest court. Long term, her appointment could have a major impact on a range of policies governing abortion rights, immigration and LGBTQ+ rights
    Amy Coney Barrett confirmed to supreme court in major victory for US conservatives – live More

  • in

    CBS releases footage of Trump walking out of 60 Minutes interview

    US president halts recording after question about his use of social media and name-callingUS politics live – the latest updatesFootage of the US president abruptly walking out of a CBS 60 Minutes interview has been released by the network, in a row that has been rumbling since the interview was taped on Tuesday.Donald Trump had already posted clips on his own social media, in an effort to show he had been mistreated by the interviewer, Lesley Stahl. He had called the segment “fake” and “biased” in advance. Continue reading… More

  • in

    Joy to the Polls: the group performing for Americans as they line up to vote

    Non-partisan group aims to bring ‘a feeling of safety and a feeling of joy’ amid voter suppression, virus fears and long waiting times As hundreds of people queued to vote early in Philadelphia this weekend, a group of performers had a special tactic to keep people’s spirits up.A collective of artists and activists have being performing on line while people wait to cast their ballots, hoping to bring a little joy to an election season which looks to be rife with voter suppression, intimidation tactics and long waiting times. Continue reading… More

  • in

    Trump insists US ‘rounding the corner’ as Covid cases surge across country

    Cases are rising rapidly, with more than 8.5m cases and a death toll of 225,000, as battleground states see surging case numbersUS politics – live coverageA day after his own chief of staff said the US had effectively surrendered to the coronavirus, Donald Trump told reporters his opponent in next Tuesday’s presidential election, Joe Biden, had “waved the white flag on life”. Related: ‘The system is broken’: Americans cast their vote for better healthcare Continue reading… More

  • in

    How Texas went from low voter turnout to nation's top early voting state

    “Donald Trump needs to be goin’ bye-bye,” Ann Wolfe said as she approached one of Austin’s Holiday Inn hotels, now doubling as a polling place.
    Although the man in the White House claims he’s pro-life like her, she said, “under his watch, over 200,000 people are dead”. So while Wolfe was open to candidates from both parties down ballot, she planned to throw her support behind Democratic nominee Joe Biden, who she thought was at least “a normal human being”.
    “It seems like it’s the most important vote that we’ll ever have to have in this lifetime,” she said.
    [embedded content]
    In a tidal wave of political engagement, more than 7 million Texans have already cast a ballot during the general election, the vast majority in-person. The numbers are propelling what is historically one of the lowest voter turnout states to the top of the nation’s leaderboard in terms of the sheer number of people who have voted thus far. That groundswell of participation is even more striking in context, as democratic hurdles remain ever-present at the polls while fears of Covid-19 also loom large.
    “What we’re seeing is that Texans will crawl through broken glass to be able to make sure their voices are heard this election,” said Abhi Rahman, communications director for the Texas Democratic party.
    In the midst of the early voting period, extended by Governor Greg Abbott amid the coronavirus pandemic, approximately 43% of registered voters statewide had voted as of Sunday, logging more than 80% of the total turnout from four years ago with over a week left in the election.
    “It is really quite something that people are turning out in the numbers that they are. And that they’re standing in line for hours when this is early voting, this is not Election Day, and many Texans have never done that before because it is such a low voter turnout state,” said Brittany Perry, an instructional associate professor in political science at Texas A&M University.
    In Harris and El Paso counties, more than two-fifths and roughly a third of registered voters respectively had cast ballots by Sunday, despite sometimes encountering three-hour-long waits, according to Election Protection. Broken machines thwarted residents in Travis and Fort Bend counties on the first day of early voting, yet both have already experienced turnout around 50% of registered voters as of last weekend. And, while there have been curbside voting issues in Bexar and Hidalgo counties, that hasn’t stopped more than 600,000 people from participating in the electoral process, long before 3 November.
    Donald Trump and his broader agenda are likely at least part of what’s driving so many voters to the polls, said Emily M Farris, an associate professor of political science at Texas Christian University. “Trump’s path to the White House is basically impossible without winning Texas’ 38 electoral votes,” she said.
    And the president’s handling of the coronavirus crisis is weighing on people’s minds in the state, where cases persist and 17,700 people have died. “Obviously, the way, you know, this whole pandemic has panned out, I think it’s important for us to have support from our government. I just don’t feel that,” said Ileanna Mercado, a school counselor on her way to vote for Biden in Austin. “I just would like for our country to go in a very different direction.” More

  • in

    'Just like propaganda': the three men enabling Trump's voter fraud lies

    One night in late February 2017, Hans von Spakovsky, a lawyer at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative thinktank in Washington DC, fired off an email.
    The White House was creating a commission to investigate voter fraud, an issue von Spakovsky had long pursued. But he was concerned the Trump administration was considering Democrats and moderate Republicans for the panel, and “astonished” no one had bothered to consult with him or J Christian Adams, a friend and fellow conservative lawyer.
    “There are only a handful of real experts on the conservative side on this issue and not a single one of them (including Christian and me) have been called other than Kris Kobach, secretary of state of Kansas. And we are told that some consider him too ‘controversial’ to be on the commission,” he wrote. “If they are picking mainstream Republican officials and/or academics to man this commission it will be an abject failure because there aren’t any that know anything about this or who have paid any attention to this issue over the years.”
    The email eventually made its way to Jeff Sessions, then US attorney general. A few months later, Kobach, von Spakovsky and Adams were appointed to Donald Trump’s commission.
    [embedded content]
    It seemed inevitable. For years, all three men had used their positions both inside and outside of government to peddle the myth that American elections are vulnerable to fraud. Though this idea has been debunked repeatedly, and despite the ultimate failure of Trump’s commission, these men continued to promote the idea that widespread voter fraud justified stricter voting regulations.
    “We’ve seen this going on for the last few decades,” said Richard Hasen, a law professor and election expert at the University of California, Irvine. “These ideas have moved from the fringes to the center of many Republican arguments about reasons for making it harder to vote.”
    Now the myth of voter fraud is dominating the election. Trump has questioned the legitimacy of the vote, falsely suggesting it will be “rigged” against him and his campaign has floated using the idea of a fraudulent election as the basis for overriding the popular vote in key states, according to the Atlantic. Despite the pandemic, the president and his campaign have litigated to restrict mail-in voting and expand the use of poll watchers, citing the potential for tampering.
    State Republicans have followed suit. Texas’s governor, Greg Abbott, limited each county to only one place where voters could return their mail-in ballots. South Carolina Republicans successfully fought to preserve a witness requirement for absentee ballots. Alabama Republicans have pointed to the potential for fraud to justify mail-in ballot restrictions. And in Wisconsin, a conservative group is urging the state supreme court to order the swift removal of more than 130,000 people from the voter rolls, citing the need to prevent fraud.
    Von Spakovsky and Adams have been right in the mix. Von Spakovsky has quietly met and consulted with Republican election officials across the country, according to ProPublica. Adams has loudly hyped the dangers of voting by mail, earning Trump’s attention.
    The hysteria over voter fraud has reached an alarming pitch. And this dangerous moment in US democracy would not be possible without the work of these three men.
    Creating false evidence
    Kobach, von Spakovsky and Adams worked in the justice department in the George W Bush administration at a time when pursuing claims of voter fraud was a priority. Since leaving, a core part of their strategy has been to distort statistics to depict voter fraud as a widespread problem.
    As Kansas’s top election official, Kobach found a remarkably effective way to do this. He oversaw Interstate Crosscheck, a consortium of dozens of states that agreed to share voter data to find people registered in more than one state. The system matched voters by their first name, last name, date of birth and partial social security number.
    One academic study found that more than 99% of the people the system flagged as duplicates were actually distinct voters. It was also more likely to flag eligible voters than ineligible ones. In 2013, Virginia officials used Crosscheck to remove nearly 39,000 voters from the state’s rolls, but one local registrar reported that 17% of voters in his county were wrongfully flagged and some voters turned up at the polls to find they weren’t registered.
    Kansas agreed to end the Crosscheck program last year.
    “There has been an extreme element on the right who have pushed a false narrative of widespread fraud for a long time. The idea that voter lists are bloated with ineligible voters has been a key element of that false narrative,” said David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, and an expert in election administration.
    Under Adams, Pilf has used questionable data to make similar claims. In 2016 and 2017, the organization published a report alleging thousands of non-citizens had cast votes in Virginia. It even included the personal information of some of those accused, who turned out to be citizens and sued Pilf for voter intimidation. Pilf eventually apologized, but internal emails showed the group was at least aware of a possible mistake before publication.
    “We still have the opportunity to convert pushback into official confusion to justify our call for top-down overhaul,” Logan Churchwell, a Pilf spokesman, wrote in one email in response to concerns. “The fog of war favors the aggressor here.”
    This year, the group released a report attempting to prove mail-in voting was vulnerable to fraud. Pilf initially claimed that about 1m mail-in ballots were undeliverable in 2018, but corrected the number after ProPublica revealed it was inflated and the organization had “doubled the official government numbers”. The report also claimed that 28.3m mail-in ballots had gone “missing” between 2012 and 2018. But experts told ProPublica that those were probably ballots that the voter decided not to return.
    Trump still touted media coverage of the study in a tweet, saying: “Don’t allow RIGGED ELECTIONS!”
    Adams declined to be interviewed for this story. “We don’t make claims about voter fraud,” he wrote in an email. “We point out vulnerabilities in the system. You have us mixed up with someone else. You are also exaggerating the so-called ‘error’ that ProPublica wrote about, it was a fraction that appeared on one document. But that’s what you are paid to do, be ridiculous.”
    At the Heritage Foundation, von Spakovsky has touted a database that purports to show nearly 1,300 examples of “proven” instances of voter fraud. But the database is extremely misleading, containing cases going back decades and voters who made mistakes. (Von Spakovsky said in an email that the database is “thoroughly sourced and backed up by detailed references to government documents and media reports”.)
    “You use the word ‘widespread’ fraud as if that is the only criteria [sic] worth considering. That is absurd,” he wrote in an email. “The Heritage Foundation Election Fraud Database demonstrates that there are many ways to engage in election fraud and that it occurs often enough that we should be concerned about it and should try to address it.”
    Conservative media have helped widely disseminate these lies nonetheless. Kobach authored a 2018 op-ed in Breitbart News claiming “proof” that out of state voters had swung the 2016 election in New Hampshire. His smoking gun was state data showing that some voters used an out-of-state license to register on election day. Adams cited the data in his own op-ed.
    But at the time, New Hampshire did not require voters to have an in-state driver’s license to vote. The state’s top election official quickly rebuked Kobach. Nonetheless, state Republicans passed a law tightening residency requirements linked to voting.
    “It’s the same thing over and over and over – say it, say it, say it – and push it out there,” said Lorraine Minnite, a professor at Rutgers University-Camden who studies accusations of voter fraud. “It functions just like propaganda.”
    (Kobach did not respond to several written questions for this story.)
    Creating laws
    Armed with their misleading data, these men have influenced and shaped laws making it harder to vote.
    While at the justice department, von Spakovsky “was just looking for stuff so that he could push voter ID”, said Joe Rich, a former head of the department’s voting section who clashed with von Spakovsky.
    In 2005, Georgia submitted a new voter ID law for approval to the department. Around the same time, von Spakovsky anonymously published a law review article advocating for voter ID laws, which career employees believe should have led von Spakovsky to recuse himself from the case.
    Instead, von Spakovsky privately emailed with an attorney on the justice department team reviewing the law, fed him “arguments and analysis” and advised him to password protect documents from other attorneys. The career attorneys recommended against approving the measure, noting it would impede the voting access for African Americans, but were overruled by supervisors at the justice department with help from von Spakovsky’s feedback, according to the Nation.
    A federal judge would later block the law, which reduced the number of acceptable forms of voter ID from 17 to six, noting that the acceptable forms of ID had fees associated with them, which amounted to a poll tax. A revised version of the law went into effect a few years later.
    “He’s been the moving force behind photo IDs,” John Lewis, the civil rights icon who died earlier this year, told the New Yorker in 2012 about von Spakovsky. “It’s like he goes to bed dreaming about this, and gets up in the morning wondering, ‘What can I do today to make it more difficult for people to vote?’
    “When you pull back the covers, peel back the onion, he’s the one who’s gotten the Republican legislatures, and the Republican party, to go along with this – even though there is no voter fraud to speak of. He’s trying to create a cure where there is no sickness.”
    Von Spakovsky defended his work at the justice department.
    “Fighting against election fraud ensures that every American who votes has confidence that his or her vote was counted,” he said. “I joined the civil rights division of the Department of Justice to enforce the Voting Rights Act and other federal voting laws in order to help safeguard our elections. Our job was to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans – and that’s what I did.”
    In 2010, meanwhile, Kobach was elected Kansas secretary of state, and leveraged his new position to advocate for voting restrictions too. The Kansas legislature passed a 2011 law that required people to prove their citizenship when they register to vote – one of the most severe restrictions in the country.
    Around the same time, bills cropped up around the country seeking to require voters to show a form of specific photo identification at the polls. Many of the laws appeared to be copies of each other – this was not a coincidence. They were written by the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), a consortium of conservative politicians and business groups founded in 1973 that offers a library of “copycat” model bills.
    In their 2011 or 2012 legislative sessions, voter ID bills passed in Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin.
    Republicans have pointed to these measures as deterrents to voter fraud, but in some cases, openly admitted they hoped the new laws would boost their political fortunes. “I don’t want everybody to vote,” Paul Weyrich, conservative activist and Alec founder, said in 1980. “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”
    In April of 2012, Alec eliminated its Task Force on Public Safety and Elections, which created policies on voter ID and elections, and removed the voter ID bill from its library. But recently, the group created a new group focused on election issues, and both von Spakovsky and Adams have spoken at Alec gatherings in recent years.
    Deep pockets
    Behind Adams, von Spakovsky, Kobach is a circle of wealthy conservative donors, sharing close ties and a revolving door of staff and consultants.
    The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a conservative group in Wisconsin, and DonorsTrust, known as a “dark money ATM” of the Koch network, have helped funnel millions to the organizations shaping restrictive voting laws and helping the myth of voter fraud proliferate, according to OpenSecrets data. More