US elections 2020

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The data proves it: 2020 US election was a remarkable success | The Fight to Vote

      by

      Fight to voteUS newsThe data proves it: 2020 US election was a remarkable successDespite pandemic, election ‘report card’ shows record high turnout, embrace of mail and early voting and relatively few ballot rejections Sam Levine in New YorkThu 19 Aug 2021 10.00 EDTLast modified on Thu 19 Aug 2021 10.23 EDTSign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterHappy Thursday,A few months after every federal election, a little-known federal agency called the US Election Assistance Commission (EAC) releases a trove of data it collects from all 50 states on what happened in the election. The survey offers one of the clearest pictures of the nuts and bolts of the election: things like how people voted and registered, the demographics of poll workers, and provisional and mail-in ballot rejection rates. It’s a report card of sorts, and for the people who study how elections are run, it’s a bible of useful data.The survey for the 2020 election came out on Monday, and it provides unambiguous evidence of what a remarkable success the presidential election was, against all odds. Nearly every state recorded an increase in voter turnout. Overall, more than 67% of America’s citizen voting age population voted in the election – a record high. Despite fears that the surge in mail-in balloting would lead to an increase in ballot rejections, the overall rejection rate remained the same.“It is basically an indicator of the success of the election,” said Barry Burden, the director of the elections research center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Election administrators managed to pull it off and support a record number of voters.”Now Burden and other experts are poring over the data to see which trends might stick in future elections and which might have been a quirk of the pandemic and other unusual circumstances of voting in 2020.The survey shows, for example, that Americans dramatically shifted the way they voted. Only about a third of voters cast their ballots on election day, choosing instead to cast their vote either by mail (43.1%) or early in person (30.6%). That’s a sharp change from previous years, when the majority of voters cast their ballots on election day.“I don’t know if that’s going to be the way future elections are defined,” Burden said. “Some surveys of voters have indicated that quite a few of them who voted by mail want to go back to voting in person. But lots who voted by mail for the first time became fond of it, became aware of it, frankly.”“We’re likely to have this multi-modal system in place for years to come,” he added.An election system in which there are significant numbers of people voting three different ways (in person, early, and by mail) has significant political and administrative consequences. Election administrators will have to figure out how to run essentially three different elections for voters.It also makes running campaigns more complicated, Burden noted. Traditionally, campaigns run a heavy persuasion effort right until voting begins, and then invest in get-out-the-vote efforts. But more voting by mail means that people are casting their ballots earlier.“Now they need to be running both of those efforts kind of simultaneously from about mid-September, when the first absentee ballots go out, 90 days in advance to military and domestic absentees. That’s just complex, and I think some research has showed it’s more expensive to run campaigns in this way.”Charles Stewart, an election administration expert at MIT, said he plans to dig deeper into ballot rejection rates. Among rejected ballots, about a third went uncounted because of signature matching problems. Around 12% were rejected because the voter missed the deadline to return the ballot.“There was great concern about new people not following instructions and having a lot of rejections,” he said. But despite the fact that there were double the number of absentee ballots this year, “the percentage of absentee ballots rejected was about what it was in the past”.“Although, the way I think about these things is that since we doubled the number of absentee ballots, that means there was double the number of people whose votes didn’t get counted because of something wrong. But nonetheless, from this other perspective, it wasn’t all that bad,” he added.Even so, Stewart and Burden both want to investigate why a handful of states had rejection rates that appeared to far exceed the national rejection rate of 0.8%. Those states include Arkansas (6.4%), New Mexico (5.0%), New York (3.6%) and Mississippi (2.3%). Burden cautioned against drawing quick conclusions from the data:“I do have a concern that the data are still a little hinky. Not all of the states reported what share of absentee ballots were rejected, and a couple of them reported data that was not complete,” he said.Stewart also said he also wanted to better understand why Washington, Oregon and Colorado – states that long have had universal vote by mail – continued to have rejection rates around the national average, despite their expertise and experience in the area.“1% is a pretty high rejection rate,” he noted.Overall, Burden said, the survey should be used as hard evidence to help build trust in American elections.“I think what the average American hears about in the press is partisan disagreements over whether there was fraud or whether there’s going to be another audit in some state,” he said. “One way to rebuild the confidence of some voters is to remind them of how wonderful the election was.”Also worth watching…
      House Democrats introduced a fresh bill that would update the Voting Rights Act. It would put states back under federal supervision if they repeatedly discriminate against voters and strengthens Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, overriding a recent supreme court decision that made it more difficult to challenge discriminatory voting laws. Democrats plan a quick vote on the bill in the US House next week, but it still faces the obstacle of the filibuster in the Senate.
      The Republican-controlled state election board in Georgia voted to authorize a review of the board of elections in Fulton county, home to Atlanta and the most populous in the state. The review could lead to the state board taking over the county elections board under a controversial provision in Georgia’s new voting law.
      The FBI is now helping investigate whether a local clerk in Colorado illegally divulged election information to conspiracy theorists. The state’s top election official this week said that Tina Peters, the clerk in Mesa county, accessed a secure room in late May and copied election management software.
      TopicsUS newsFight to voteUS elections 2020US politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Are the Democrats doomed in 2022? Politics Weekly Extra

      by

      Analyst David Shor and Jonathan Freedland look at the data and the polls and discuss why the Democrats should be worried – and what they need to do to improve their chances of winning the next presidential election

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      When Joe Biden became the 46th US president in 2020 many Democrats were celebrating, but one – the data analyst David Shor – was nervous. After crunching the numbers and looking at the extensive data, David believes that if the Democrats continue as they are, the party is going to lose the next presidential election. The 30-year-old prodigy is one of the most in demand data analysts in the US – to such an extent that Politico has written an article about him entitled “The cult of Shor”. So what data has he seen to cause him such alarm? And what should the Democrats be doing to get back on track? David Shor talks problem and remedy with Jonathan Freedland. Archive: Freedom News TV Send us your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts More

    • 188 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans will defend their Caesar but new revelations show Trump’s true threat | Lloyd Green

      by

      OpinionDonald TrumpRepublicans will defend their Caesar but new revelations show Trump’s true threatLloyd GreenThe DoJ has dealt two blows and the 6 January committee is winding up for more. They know democracy is in danger

      Sidney Blumenthal: What did Jim Jordan know and when?
      Sun 1 Aug 2021 01.00 EDTOn Friday, Donald Trump received two more unwelcome reminders he is no longer president. Much as he and his minions chant “Lock her up” about Hillary Clinton and other enemies, it is he who remains in legal jeopardy and political limbo.IRS must turn over Trump tax returns to Congress, DoJ saysRead moreTrump’s allies on Capitol Hill will again be forced to defend the indefensible. That won’t be a bother: QAnon is their creed, Trump is their Caesar and Gladiator remains the movie for our time.But in other ways, the world has changed. The justice department is no longer an extension of Trump’s West Wing. The levers of government are no longer at his disposal.Next year, much as Trump helped deliver both Georgia Senate seats to the Democrats in January, on the eve of the insurrection, his antics may cost Republicans their chance to retake the Senate.Documents that would probably not have seen the light of day had Trump succeeded in overturning the election are now open to scrutiny, be they contemporaneous accounts of his conversations about that dishonest aim or his tax returns.Those who claim that the events of 6 January were something other than a failed coup attempt would do well to come up with a better line. Or a different alternate reality.Ashli Babbitt is no martyr. Trump will not be restored to the presidency, no matter what the MyPillow guy says. Trump’s machinations and protestations convey the desperation that comes with hovering over the abyss. He knows what he has said and done.First, on Friday morning, news broke that the justice department had provided Congress with copies of notes of a damning 27 December 2020 conversation between Trump, Jeffrey Rosen, then acting attorney general, and Richard Donoghue, Rosen’s deputy.As first reported by the New York Times, the powers at Main Justice told Trump there was no evidence of widescale electoral fraud in his clear defeat by Joe Biden.He replied: “Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to me.”That goes beyond simply looking to bend the truth. As George Conway, a well-connected, prominent anti-Trump Republican, tweeted: “It’s difficult to overstate how much this reeks of criminal intent on the part of the former guy.”One White House veteran who served under the presidents Bush told the Guardian: “‘Leave the rest to me’ sure sounds like foreknowledge.”Just “connect the dots and the dates”, the former aide said.The insurrection came 10 days later. As the former Trump campaign chair and White House strategist Steve Bannon framed it on 5 January: “All hell is going to break loose.”Truer words were never spoken.Unfortunately for Trump, Friday’s news cycle didn’t end with the events of 27 December. A few hours later, the DoJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), its policy-setting arm, once led by Bill Barr, Trump’s second attorney general, opined that Trump’s tax returns could no longer be kept from the House ways and means committee.Ever since Watergate, presidents and presidential candidates have released their tax returns as a matter of standard operating procedure. Trump’s refusal to do so was one more shattered norm – and a harbinger of what followed.The OLC concluded that the committee’s demand for those records comported with the pertinent statute. Beyond that, it observed that the request would further the panel’s “principal stated objective of assessing the IRS’s presidential audit program – a plainly legitimate area for congressional inquiry”.Here, the DoJ was doing nothing short of echoing the supreme court. A little over a year ago, the court rejected Trump’s contention that the Manhattan district attorney could not scrutinize his tax returns and, in a separate case, held that Congress could also examine his taxes.In the latter case, in a 7-2 decision, the court eviscerated the president’s argument that Congress had no right to review his tax returns and financial records. Writing for the majority, John Roberts, the chief justice, observed: “When Congress seeks information ‘needed for intelligent legislative action’, it ‘unquestionably’ remains ‘the duty of all citizens to cooperate’.”At that point, Trump had made two appointments to the high court. Both joined in the outcome. So much for feeling beholden.Prospective witnesses before the House select committee on the events of 6 January ought to start worrying. House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, Congressman Jim Jordan: this means you. By your own admissions, you spoke with Trump that day.It was one thing for Merrick Garland’s justice department to continue the government defense of Trump in E Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit. It’s a whole other thing to expect Biden’s attorney general to play blocking back for Trump. It is highly unlikely here.The justice department does not appear ready to come to the aid of those who sought to overturn the election. Already, it has refused to defend Mo Brooks, the Alabama congressman who wore a Kevlar vest to a 6 January pre-riot rally.‘Just say the election was corrupt,’ Trump urged DoJ after loss to BidenRead moreOn top of that, the Democrats control Congress and Liz Cheney, dissident Republican of Wyoming and member of the 6 January committee, hates Jordan. It is personal.“That fucking guy Jim Jordan. That son of a bitch,” Cheney told the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen Mark Milley, about Jordan, according to Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker of the Washington Post.Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican who like Cheney voted to impeach Trump over 6 January and has joined the select committee, may also be in the mood to deliver a lesson. Congressional Democrats may want to see Jordan and McCarthy sweat. The House GOP got the committee it asked for when it withdrew co-operation. It faces unwelcome consequences.As for Trump, he may well continue to harbour presidential aspirations and dreams of revenge. But as Ringo Starr sang, “It don’t come easy.” Indeed, after Friday’s twin blows, things likely became much more difficult.TopicsDonald TrumpOpinionTrump administrationUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesUS taxationUS domestic policycommentReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      IRS must turn over Trump tax returns to Congress, DoJ says

      by

      Donald TrumpIRS must turn over Trump tax returns to Congress, DoJ saysDepartment says House panel has ‘sufficient reasons’ for requesting returns as Nancy Pelosi hails ‘victory for the rule of law’ Joan E Greve in Washington, Martin Pengelly in New York and agenciesFri 30 Jul 2021 17.40 EDTFirst published on Fri 30 Jul 2021 14.58 EDTThe US Department of Justice on Friday ordered the Internal Revenue Service to hand Donald Trump’s tax returns to a House committee, saying the panel had “invoked sufficient reasons” for requesting them.Trump pressured DoJ officials to falsely claim election corrupt, memos showRead moreThe news was a second blow for Trump in a matter of hours, after released DoJ memos revealed that as part of his campaign to overturn his election defeat by Joe Biden, he pressured top officials to falsely label the 2020 election as corrupt, then “leave the rest to me”.House speaker Nancy Pelosi applauded the DoJ’s order to the IRS to release Trump’s tax returns to the ways and means committee.“Today, the Biden administration has delivered a victory for the rule of law, as it respects the public interest by complying with Chairman [Richard] Neal’s request for Donald Trump’s tax returns,” Pelosi said in a statement.“Access to former President Trump’s tax returns is a matter of national security. The American people deserve to know the facts of his troubling conflicts of interest and undermining of our security and democracy as president.”Candidates for president traditionally disclose their tax returns, although they are not legally compelled to do so. Trump kept his out of the public eye when he ran for the White House in 2016, saying they were under IRS audit, and did not release them while in office.Once Democrats took control of the House in 2018, amid the investigation of Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, they began to seek the records in court.Trump fought hard to keep his tax returns out of the public eye but the New York Times obtained some of the records, which showed Trump paid almost nothing in federal income taxes in the years before he entered the White House.In a memo on Friday, the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel said Neal, the Massachusetts congressman who chairs the ways and means committee, had “invoked sufficient reasons for requesting the former president’s tax information”.Under federal law, the OLC said, the Department of the Treasury “must furnish the information to the committee”.The 39-page memo was signed by Dawn Johnsen, installed by the Biden administration as the acting head of the OLC.Trump’s treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, said he would not turn over Trump’s tax returns because they were being sought for partisan reasons.The House ways and means committee sued for the records under a federal law that says the IRS “shall furnish” the returns of any taxpayer to a handful of top lawmakers. The committee said it needed Trump’s taxes for an investigation into whether he complied with tax law.Trump’s justice department defended Mnuchin’s refusal and Trump intervened to try to prevent the materials from being turned over to Congress. Under a court order from January, Trump would have 72 hours to object after the Biden administration formally changes the government’s position in the lawsuit.Bill Pascrell, a New Jersey Democrat who chairs the House ways and means subcommittee on oversight, said: “It is about damn time. Our committee first sought Donald Trump’s tax returns on 3 April 2019 – 849 days ago. Our request was made in full accordance with the law and pursuant to Congress’s constitutional oversight powers.”Daniel Goldman, an attorney who counselled Democrats during Trump’s first impeachment inquiry and trial, said: “The former OLC opinion supporting Mnuchin’s ability to withhold Trump’s tax returns was perhaps the most egregious and baseless opinion of many bad ones during the Trump era.”Michael Stern, a former senior counsel for the House Office of General Counsel, told Politico Trump had options to stop the release of his returns.“I think Trump will be given an opportunity to either file a new case or file something in this case in which he states his legal grounds for objecting to his tax returns being produced,” he said, adding: “It’s definitely not over yet.”Elsewhere, the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr, has obtained copies of Trump’s personal and business tax records as part of a criminal investigation.Trump tried to prevent his accountants from handing over the documents, taking the issue to the supreme court. The justices rejected Trump’s argument that he had broad immunity as president.Speaking to Reuters about the DoJ order, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who was ethics counsel to George W Bush, said it seems the Biden justice department “is no longer going to simply kowtow to Donald Trump”.“Every other president has disclosed their tax returns” he said, “and finding out what the conflicts of interest are on the president or a former president who may have made decisions that now have to be revisited – that’s critically important.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS politicsUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Just say the election was corrupt,’ Trump urged DoJ after loss to Biden

      by

      Donald Trump‘Just say the election was corrupt,’ Trump urged DoJ after loss to BidenNotes obtained by House oversight committee show Trump pressured officials to falsely claim the election was not legitimate Hugo Lowell in WashingtonFri 30 Jul 2021 14.49 EDTFirst published on Fri 30 Jul 2021 13.23 EDTDonald Trump pressured top justice department officials to falsely claim that the 2020 election was corrupt so he and his allies in Congress could subvert the results and return him to office, according to newly released memos.“Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to me,” the former president told the former acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, and his deputy, Richard Donoghue, memos obtained by the House oversight committee showed. The notes were taken by Donoghue, who documented a 27 December call with Trump and Rosen.Jared Kushner set to move away from politics and launch investment firmRead moreTrump’s demand to the justice department represented an extraordinary instance of a president seeking to influence an agency that is supposed to operate independently of the White House, to advance his own personal interests and political agenda.It is also the latest example of the far-reaching campaign mounted by Trump over the final weeks of his presidency to cast doubt on the results of the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden in a contest devoid of any widespread voter fraud.In the December call, Donoghue told Trump that the justice department had no power to change the outcome of the election, to which the former president replied that he had no such expectation and that he and his allies in Congress would advance the voter fraud claims.Trump did not specifically name the members of Congress on board with his plan, but at various points through the call referred to the House Republicans Jim Jordan and Scott Perry, as well as the Senate Republican Ron Johnson, who are some of his most vociferous defenders on Capitol Hill.The memos taken by Donoghue and turned over to the House oversight committee, which has been investigating Trump and the 6 January attack on the Capitol, directly connect key Republicans to his disinformation campaign to unlawfully subvert the 2020 election.Jordan was among a slew of House and Senate Republicans who voted against certifying Biden’s election victory at the joint session of Congress on 6 January, before a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in a violent insurrection that left five dead and nearly 140 injured.But the top Republican on the powerful House judiciary committee has since downplayed his role in the former president’s pressure campaign. “Congressman Jordan did not, has not, and would not pressure anyone at the justice department about the 2020 election,” a spokesperson said.The DoJ has typically fought to keep private, executive-branch discussions between presidents and top advisers secret, to avoid setting a precedent that could prevent officials from having candid conversations for fear that they might later becoming public.But the DoJ’s release of the Donoghue memos to Congress reflects a determination that, as with Richard Nixon and Watergate, congressional investigators ought to have the ability to scrutinize potential wrongdoing by a sitting president.The move by the DoJ also follows its decision this week not to assert executive privilege for Rosen to testify to Congress – clearing the path for other top Trump administration officials to appear before congressional committees investigating the former president.Officials at the DoJ and the White House Office of Legal Counsel concluded that executive privilege exists to protect the country, rather than a single individual – and said in a letter it would not be appropriate to invoke the protection for Trump’s efforts to push his personal agenda.Carolyn Maloney, the chair of the House oversight committee, on Friday commended the release of the memos: “These handwritten notes show that President Trump directly instructed our nation’s top law enforcement agency to take steps to overturn a free and fair election.”In the December call, the notes show both officials pushed back against Trump, who, at one point, alleged that there had been widespread fraud in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Arizona, which he described as “corrupted elections” – an assertion that drew an immediate condemnation from Donoghue.“Much of the info you’re getting is false,” Donoghue told Trump, adding that the DoJ had completed dozens of initial investigations into his claims but were unable to substantiate any, according to the memos. “We look at allegations but they don’t pan out.”But Trump, undeterred and seemingly anxious about his looming departure from office, pressed on: “Ok fine – but what about the others?” he said, the memos show, referring to the slew of other conspiracies about voter fraud in Georgia. “Not much time left,” Trump added.The former president, in an ominous moment of foreshadowing, then raised the prospect of purging the DoJ’s top officials and installing in their place loyalists such as Jeffrey Clark, who was then the head of the DoJ’s civil division.“People tell me Jeff Clark is great, I should put him in,” Trump said, according to the memos. “People want me to replace DoJ leadership.” The New York Times reported that Clark a week later schemed with Trump to oust Rosen as acting attorney general and force Georgia to overturn its election results.TopicsDonald TrumpUS elections 2020Trump administrationHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More