US voting rights

Subterms

    Latest story

    175 Shares51 Views

    Republicans are trying to ensure we’ll never have another fair election | Judith Levine

    by

    “Christians, get out and vote, just this time,” Donald Trump exhorted the audience at a campaign event organized by the conservative Turning Point Action in July 2024. “In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”Since his defeat by Joe Biden in 2020, Trump has been building toward delivery on that promise, first by fomenting suspicion of widespread election fraud, then by trying to overturn the results via legal challenge and intimidation, and finally, on 6 January 2021, by force. Now the White House and Republicans both in Washington and the states are colluding more brazenly than ever to “fix it” – “it” meaning free and fair elections they might lose.Republicans’ aim is permanent control of the US government. Trump’s is the crown. As their assaults on voting rights – and the institution of elections itself – escalate, their success begins to look, if not inevitable, alarmingly possible.Trump’s tactics are working.The 2020 election was the cleanest and most efficient in memory. Claims of rampant fraud are lies – the big lie, as the 2021 House impeachment committee put it. But not among Republican voters. A Pew survey taken before the 2024 election found that Trump supporters were “deeply skeptical about the way the election will be conducted”, especially compared with Harris supporters. Whereas over 85% of Democratic voters believed in 2024 that absentee ballots would be counted accurately, and ineligible voters prevented from voting, among Trump supporters only 38% and 30%, respectively, felt the same.Buoyed by the big lie – and liberated by the supreme court’s 2013 gutting of the Voting Rights Act – voter suppression attempts reached a peak after the 2020 elections, when legislators introduced more than 400 restrictive bills. Signing Georgia’s 98-page Election Integrity Act in 2021, Brian Kemp, the Republican governor, was unambiguous about its partisan aim. “After the November election last year” –when record turnout in the reliably red state yielded victories for Biden and two Democratic US senators, and the secretary of state resisted Trump’s shakedown to “find 11,780 votes” to reverse the outcome – “I knew, like so many of you, that significant reforms to our state elections were needed,” he said.By September 2024, 31 states had enacted 114 such laws.In May 2024, Trump told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he would accept the results of the election only if “everything’s honest” – that is, if he won. This definition of honesty took hold. According to some polls, before election day, fewer than a quarter of Trump supporters believed the election would be fair. After it, their confidence rates more than doubled. And while Republican concerns about fraud were pervasive in 2020, they were – surprise, surprise – virtually nonexistent when the 2024 results came in.With their man in the White House, congressional Republicans set about preparing for his coronation. Three days into Trump’s term, the Tennessee representative Andy Ogles introduced a bill to amend the constitution to allow presidents to serve three terms. At Trumpstore.com, you can buy a red “Trump 2028” cap for $50.On 25 March Trump issued the executive order “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections,” which melds his xenophobic paranoia-mongering with his desire to “fix” elections. Its mandates range from requiring proof of citizenship to vote (an answer to the spectral threat of undocumented people stuffing the ballot boxes) to a ban on the bar codes that expedite vote counting.The executive order itself is illegal. The constitution gives the states, not the president, the power to regulate elections.On 4 April, the House passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (Save) Act, requiring registrants and voters to document citizenship.The GOP’s election-interference campaign is accelerating. On 7 July, the justice department’s civil rights division wrote a letter to Greg Abbott, the Texas governor, and Ken Paxton, the state attorney general, alleging that four of its majority-minority “coalition districts” are illegal under the Voting Rights Act and directing the state to redraw its electoral map. Voting rights experts dispute this interpretation. In fact, the law prohibits the dilution of the electoral power of voters of color either by packing them into one district or spreading them out by gerrymandering–which is what the new map would do.In mid-July, the justice department issued broad requests to state election officials to turn over their election data and voter rolls. In Colorado, where Biden won by 11 points in 2020, a guy called Jeff Small – chief of staff to the Colorado Republican representative and Save Act cheerleader Lauren Boebert – began contacting officials claiming he was working with the Trump administration on election “integrity” and asking if they would kindly let the feds, or somebody, inspect their voting machines, according to Washington Post reporting. After one such request, the Department of Homeland Security called to follow up.Officials of both parties were outraged, especially when it came to monkeying with the equipment, an illegal act. “Anybody who is asking for access to the voting machines outside of the law” is suspicious, the Republican executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association told the Washington Post. “That automatically raises red flags in terms of their intent.”Colorado’s Democratic secretary of state made the larger point: “This all is part of a bigger ploy to further undermine our voting in this country,” she said. “They are actively in a power grab.”Meanwhile, the White House was leaning on Texas’s governor and legislative leaders to redraw their electoral map according to Trump’s specifications, dismantling Democratic strongholds to create five more Republican House seats – to which the president averred his party was “entitled”. When Texas got onboard, on 3 August the state’s 51 Democrats left the state, risking fines and arrest, to thwart the effort.To cover all bases, on 7 August, Trump ordered the commerce department to prepare a new US census leaving out undocumented immigrants. Under the constitution, the census counts the number of “persons”, not citizens; it must be conducted “within every … ten years”, and states must redistrict to concur with new data. In a post on Truth Social, the president described a bespoke tally “using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024”.The same day, the vice-president, JD Vance, descended on bright-red Indiana with a trio of Trump appointees to strong-arm its leaders to redistrict as well. Afterward, on X, Indiana’s lieutenant governor, Micah Beckwith, genuflected to Vance: “Your bold leadership and unwavering support for President Trump’s mission to expand the conservative majority in Congress is exactly what America needs right now.”On Fox News, the vice-president echoed Trump’s contention that counting undocumented immigrants in the census unfairly gives the advantage to Democrats, whom he also charged with “aggressive” gerrymandering. “We’re just trying to rebalance the scales,” Vance said.After two weeks, Democrats returned to the Texas state house. Republican leaders forced them to sign “permission slips” to leave the chamber and assigned police escorts to monitor them. After refusing to sign, one Democrat spent nights in the chamber. While speaking on the phone with Gavin Newsom, the California governor, from the bathroom, she was informed the call constituted a felony, she said.On Saturday, the Texas senate approved legislation creating the new map, which Abbott says he will sign “swiftly”. The move had already set off an avalanche of mid-decade redistricting, led by California. Other states, controlled by both parties, may follow.Last week on Truth Social, Trump announced he would “lead a movement” to eliminate mail-in ballots – an idea he apparently picked up from Vladimir Putin – and also “inaccurate” voting machines. He said he would sign an executive order to this effect soon. “Remember, the States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,” Trump fantasized. “They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.”Maybe the following order will eliminate voting altogether – for the good of our country, of course.

    Judith Levine is Brooklyn-based journalist, essayist and author of five books. Her Substack is Today in Fascism More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares84 Views

      in US Politics

      Schwarzenegger’s mission: terminate partisan rigging of California’s electoral maps

      by

      Arnold Schwarzenegger brags in his X profile that “I killed the Predator”, but even he was shocked when, as the freshly elected governor of California more than 20 years ago, he saw how unfairly the state’s electoral boundaries were carved up.One district in the eastern part of the state had such a long, thin middle section it was nicknamed the “swan”. Another was known as the “Jesus district” because you had to walk on water to get from one side to the other. Yet another, in LA’s San Fernando Valley, was memorably described by the Stanford law professor Pam Karlan as “a ghastly-looking, multi-headed, insect-like polygon with 385 sides”.This was the time-honored dark art of gerrymandering, practiced in state after state by whichever party happened to have a majority in the state legislature and wanted to keep things that way. To Schwarzenegger, though, a political neophyte after his long career as a Hollywood action hero, it looked a lot like election-rigging.“For a long time I thought that was something that happened way back in the 1800s,” Schwarzenegger said in a 2005 address to the state, “but the practice is still alive and well today.”What shocked Schwarzenegger was not that Democrats, then as now in control of the state legislature, were stealing seats from Republicans. (Decades earlier, Republicans had done much the same in the opposite direction.) It was, rather, that gerrymandering neutered the power of people’s votes. The year before his speech, in 2004, not a single one of California’s 153 congressional and state legislative seats changed party hands.“What kind of democracy is that?” he asked.It was an unusual question for any US politician to ask – most elected officials, of both parties, accepted gerrymandering back then as part of the price of doing business – and it set Schwarzenegger on a reformist path he has never relinquished.First, he proposed appointing a panel of judges to take over from the state legislature in redrawing district lines. When that was rejected by voters, he advocated instead for an independent redistricting commission, which began redrawing state legislative lines in 2008 and congressional district lines in 2010 – a reform that has proved enduringly popular with voters and has made California one of the most competitive states in the union for seats in the US House of Representatives.It’s a legacy Schwarzenegger has no intention of relinquishing, not even now that Texas Republicans, acting on the orders of Donald Trump, have redrawn their state maps to add another five Republican-leaning congressional districts, and California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, has vowed to “fight fire with fire” with an initiative to suspend California’s independent commission and add five Democrat-leaning districts in the Golden state.“I’m not going to go back on my promise,” Schwarzenegger told the New York Times last week. “I’m going to fight for my promise.”Schwarzenegger, a rare moderate Republican in an increasingly radical party, is an outspoken Trump critic and said he hated what the president had asked the Texas Republicans to do.But, he said, sinking to the same level in California was no answer, and it made no difference to him that Newsom was pitching his plan as a temporary arrangement. “We are not going to go into a stinking contest with a skunk,” he said. “We are moving forward.”To underline that he meant business, Schwarzenegger appeared for the interview – and later in a post on X – in a T-shirt that read: “F*** the politicians, terminate gerrymandering.”Thus the stage is set for a showdown between the current California governor, who will take his emergency redistricting proposal to voters in November, and the formidable former holder of the same office.Already, Schwarzenegger has started tapping into his old political networks to set up a campaign and fundraising machine to thwart Newsom, and according to his staff he is planning a major policy address – in effect, a campaign launch – sometime in September.The issue is energizing Republicans across California. Kevin McCarthy, the former House speaker, has ambitions to raise more than $100m to defeat Newsom’s Proposition 50, also known as the Election Rigging Response Act. Charles Munger Jr, the billionaire son of Warren Buffett’s longtime business partner Charles Munger Sr, is reported to have pledged $30m towards the same effort.The California Young Republican Federation has described Newsom’s initiative as a “dangerous power grab” – echoing almost exactly Democratic rhetoric about the Trump-inspired gerrymander in Texas – and Steve Hilton, the leading Republican candidate running to succeed Newsom next year, is helping to spearhead a legal challenge.Hilton argues that the independent redistricting commission was already skewed unfairly in favour of the Democrats, since Republicans won a little under 40% of vote in California last November but hold just 17% of California’s 52 House seats.“If we had truly independent districting and fair representation, Republicans would have an extra 12 House seats today,” Hilton says, rounding the number in his party’s favour. (Commissioners would counter that he is overlooking a handful of highly competitive races in Republican-leaning districts that Democrats won by narrow margins.)View image in fullscreenThe first polls on Newsom’s initiative are inconclusive, with voters seemingly split between liking independently drawn districts and a narrow plurality – especially Democrats – understanding the desire to counter what the Republicans are doing in Texas. Independents and Republicans are far more skeptical, if not outright hostile.Still, the campaign to stop Newsom will start at an inherent disadvantage, since Democrats have not lost a statewide election since 2006 and California voters, while not as liberal as Republican politicians sometimes like to portray them, have consistently shown a visceral dislike of all things Trump.Schwarzenegger is likely to be the most powerful weapon in the anti-Newsom arsenal, because he has no fondness for Trump and because his embrace of independently drawn electoral boundaries transcends any partisan allegiance. Since leaving office in 2010 he has campaigned in favour of independent commissions around the country – in states that lean both blue and red – and has spoken outside the supreme court when the justices have considered gerrymandering cases.He is also likely to serve as a bridge between Republican partisans and civic groups like the League of Women Voters of California, which views Newsom’s initiative as a slippery slope from which there may be no easy recovery.“Temporary exceptions rarely stay temporary,” the League warned in a statement. “Once you break a safeguard, you don’t just risk one or two or three elections, you set a precedent that future politicians can and will use again … Long-term damage to democratic norms will outlast any short-term gain.”California’s state legislature voted on Thursday to put Newsom’s initiative on the ballot but, after Texas voted to finalize its own maps, stripped out language that would have automatically abandoned California’s proposed partisan gerrymander if Texas chose to reverse course. Democratic lawmakers argued the escape clause was unnecessary because the Texas legislature had already acted. But scrapping it may also create the perception that Democrats, who enjoy a supermajority in the state legislature, have lost interest in playing fair – exactly the scenario Schwarzenegger warned against back in 2005.“The system is rigged to benefit the interests of those in office … not the interests of those who put them there,” he said then. “And we must reform it.” More

    • 150 Shares90 Views

      in US Politics

      Ron DeSantis enters the chat: governor eyes chance to redraw Florida maps

      by

      With Gavin Newsom and Greg Abbott, the respective heavyweight governors of California and Texas, trading blows over plans to gerrymander the 2026 midterms, it was always kind of inevitable that Florida’s Ron DeSantis would enter the chat.The Republican sees his state, the nation’s third-largest by several metrics, not least its 28 congressional seats, as pivotal in the redistricting wars for control of the House.So few were surprised this week when DeSantis gave his full-throated endorsement to two projects to try to save the Republican majority: Donald Trump’s call for an unprecedented mid-decade census that could blow things up nationally; and state Republicans’ efforts to redraw existing district maps in their favor, similar to Abbott’s scheming in Texas.“We have 28 now, we might have 29, 30, 31, maybe. Who knows?” DeSantis said at a press conference in Melbourne on Monday, expressing his belief that a new national population tally that excludes undocumented immigrants could expand Florida’s congressional delegation.Currently, 20 of those 28 seats are held by Republicans. Even without a census, DeSantis and allies including the Florida house speaker, Daniel Perez, have concluded that tinkering with existing boundaries and dumping blocs of Democratic voters into heavily Republican districts could net them several more.Perez, bolstered by a Florida supreme court ruling in July that approved DeSantis’s wholesale stripping of Black voters’ influence in the north of the state, is convening a “select committee on congressional redistricting” to do the same in the south.The long-serving congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Trump bete noire Jared Moskowitz are two of the prominent south Florida Democrats in DeSantis’s crosshairs.“We are going to have to do a mid-decade redistricting,” DeSantis said. “Obviously you would have to redraw the lines. Even if they don’t do a new census, even if they don’t revise the current census, I do think that it is appropriate to be doing it.”To Florida Democrats who have promised to fight the emerging threat to the eight House seats they do still hold, DeSantis’s maneuvering is a stereotypical power-play by a governor who has frequently been able to bend the state legislature to his will.“This isn’t about drawing lines on a map, this is about who gets hurt and who gets silenced in this thing we call democracy, or in this democratic process,” said Shevrin Jones, a Democratic state senator whose district covers parts of downtown Miami and Miami Beach.“Floridians were extremely clear years ago when we voted on fair districts that the redistricting process should be fair and transparent, that it should be reflective of the people and not the political ambitions of those who are in power. Yet that’s what we’re seeing right now.”To many critics, the Florida supreme court’s ruling, authored by the chief justice, Carlos Muñiz, a DeSantis appointee, was a sleight of hand: it stated that the districts drawn – by Republicans – that ensured fair Black representation violated a 2010 voter-approved constitutional amendment banning partisan and racial gerrymandering during redistricting.Yet the effect of the ruling was to essentially nullify the amendment by validating DeSantis’s manipulation of the northern districts to the Republicans’ advantage, and to give him a green light to do the same anywhere else.Nikki Fried, the chair of the Florida Democratic party, said the governor had seized on the ruling to blatantly attempt to rig the 2026 midterms.“After gutting representation for Black Floridians and stacking the court to uphold it, he wants to further gerrymander and suppress the vote of millions of Floridians,” she said in a statement.“If Ron DeSantis spent half as much time solving real problems as he does scheming to steal elections, maybe we wouldn’t be in the middle of a housing, insurance and education crisis.”Republicans hold a supermajority in both chambers of the Florida legislature, so any walkout by Democrats, similar to that seen in Texas where lawmakers fled the state to deny quorum, would be ineffective.Instead, Jones said, his party, at state level at least, will continue to call out what they see as underhand efforts by the DeSantis administration to join the national Republican drive to save its House majority in support of Trump’s agenda.“I understand where Gavin Newsom and a great deal of Democratic governors are coming from when they say fight fire with fire. That’s fair, we can’t continue as Democrats to show up to a gunfight with slingshots,” he said.“I also understand that the Republicans are in power, and I understand they have no scruples about what they’re doing, I get that. The question is when or how can we find the alliances that exist to push back on the bullshit that the Republicans are doing, because it’s an absolute threat to not just democracy, but an absolute threat to our national security and our future.”Jones said that DeSantis, a lame-duck governor about to enter his final year in office before being termed out, had leapt upon the opportunity to inject himself back into the national picture.Still wounded by the humiliating collapse of his pursuit of the Republican presidential nomination a year and a half ago, DeSantis has seen himself eclipsed in the 2028 race by emerging hopefuls including Vice-President JD Vance and secretary of state Marco Rubio, the former Florida senator.“This isn’t just about Florida, it’s about national political positioning. The only way Ron DeSantis can prove that his voice is still loud is doing or saying asinine things like this to continue to kiss ass to Trump,” Jones said.“I think the governor is trying to restart a failing campaign that lost gas quickly, and I think he’s trying to fill it back up. But that car doesn’t work any more, and I don’t know any mechanic that wants to work to fix it.” More

    • 163 Shares148 Views

      in US Politics

      Some Democrats want to use gerrymandering. That’s a bad idea | Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti

      by

      When Texas Republicans unveiled yet another contorted congressional map last week – one that would all but erase Austin’s Latino-led seat and increase the Republican party’s federal House tally by up to five seats in total – the outcry from Democrats was immediate and justified. But beyond the Democratic state legislators’ brave effort to stymie the proposal by boycotting the vote, a different refrain has also been heard by leading Democrats in other states: if they do it, why can’t we?Governor Gavin Newsom of California has vowed to “fight fire with fire”, advancing a proposal that would redraw California’s own congressional map to offset Republican gains in Texas. New York’s Kathy Hochul has also embraced the prospect of aggressive gerrymandering in Democratic-controlled states, sidestepping the independent commissions that Democrats themselves had once championed and successfully implemented in both California and New York.It is an understandable impulse, but it is the wrong one – for both strategic and principled reasons. To begin with, Democrats are destined to lose a gerrymandering arms race. They control fewer state legislatures and the very nature of electoral map engineering currently favors Republican power-grabbing, since most Democratic voters live in densely populated urban areas, which makes it easier to concentrate them in fewer electoral districts.A simulation conducted through 538’s Atlas of Redistricting in which every state is aggressively gerrymandered to maximize the House seats of the party in power at the state level results in a notional House of 262 Republicans and 173 Democrats: a 30-plus seat jump for the Republican party compared with a non-partisan map that maximizes for district compactness. Nor is this a far-fetched scenario. Rather than forcing the other side to back down, retaliation appears more likely to lead to further escalation, in this as in other domains of all-out binary conflict.When running for governor of Illinois in 2018, JB Pritzker had initially pledged to back an independent districting commission but subsequently signed one of the most brutal Democratic gerrymandering plans in the country, which has yielded just three Republican districts out of 17 in a state where Donald Trump won 43% of the votes in 2024. That precedent is now being pointed to by Texas Republicans to justify their own gerrymandering plan.But there is also a deeper reason why “fighting fire with fire” is a bad idea when the goal is to protect democracy from purported challenges to it: the “fire” in question amounts to a violation of one of democracy’s core values – ultimately, the principle of voting equality – and would therefore end up doing the work of democracy’s enemies for them.The metaphor of “fighting fire with fire” can in fact be traced back to the thought of the German émigré scholar to the United States, Karl Loewenstein, who in the 1930s recommended the use of self-consciously “anti-democratic means” – such as party bans and restrictions of voting rights – to fight fascism, in the name of what he called “militant democracy”.Far from achieving their intended goal, such measures were instrumental in the consolidation of the Nazi regime in Germany, given that Adolf Hitler was first nominated chancellor through an emergency presidential decree intended to forestall the prospect of a socialist takeover (construed as a greater threat for German democracy than nazism itself), and that the ban on other political parties Hitler quickly imposed was justified on the grounds that it was necessary to protect the German constitutional order in the aftermath of the Reichstag fire of 1934.Similarly perverse uses of the logic of “militant democracy” have since become a standard component of the authoritarian playbook – from Augusto Pinochet’s 1973 coup in Chile to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s 2016 counter-coup in Turkey, both of which undid democracy in their countries under the guise of protecting it against purported enemies.A fully gerrymandered congressional map in the United States would thus not just be bad for Democrats. It would also be terrible for American democracy since it would effectively disenfranchise local minorities across the country, yielding an overall competition between two mirroring forms of authoritarianism: Democratic or Republican one-party rule at the local level.If Democrats want to continue to portray themselves as the party of democracy against the Trump administration’s thinly veiled authoritarian ambitions, they should begin by practicing on own their turf the same principles of democratic civility and self-restraint they accuse their opponents of violating.Crucially, this doesn’t mean “doing nothing” in the face of Republican gerrymandering. The point is rather that (big and small “D”) Democrats should use democratic rather than authoritarian means to protect democracy against its enemies – which is to say, win elections by advancing more attractive policy platforms and mobilizing voters more effectively in support of them, rather than by changing the rules to their own benefit.That the Trump administration’s substantive policy decisions – from its inflationary trade wars to the fiscally regressive One Big Beautiful Bill Act – seem destined to do most harm its own electoral constituencies offers plenty of opportunity for fair-and-square political comeback. Ultimately, however, the Democrats’ chances of success in upcoming electoral cycles will depend on their capacity to present a more attractive political alternative to the current Republican party’s brand of populist authoritarianism.Instead of mirroring their opponents, Democrats should therefore seek to differentiate themselves from them, which at present can only mean: strict adherence to democratic norms and forthright advocacy of a more progressive policy platform. When a house is on fire, more fire won’t help. What is needed is water – which is to say, something different, that is at the same time an antidote against fire’s damaging effects.

      Carlo Invernizzi-Accetti is an associate professor of political science at the City University of New York, City College More

    • 188 Shares152 Views

      in US Politics

      Sixty years after the Voting Rights Act, our voices are being eroded | Al Sharpton

      by

      In a moment when we should be celebrating one of the most important pieces of legislation in American history, we are in fact at a worse place as a nation than when it was passed. Those of us fighting to protect the right to vote find ourselves against a movement that doesn’t want to take us back to 1965. They want to create an America that more closely resembles the one of 1865.Sixty years ago, in a rare and profound act of consensus, Congress passed a law to end the centuries-old rigging of American democracy. Yet today the system is as rigged as ever, with the battered Voting Rights Act on life support.The erosion of our rights is playing out before our eyes. Purged voting rolls have helped to install a regime that arrests undocumented people and American citizens alike. A loss of faith in the system led many people to stay at home on election day; now they live in fear of walking outside their door. Empowering states to create restrictive laws has yielded less access to not only the right to vote, but to healthcare, jobs and home ownership.At the center of this is Donald Trump – a man whose legacy as president is marked by rampant voter disenfranchisement. This is a man whose claim to fame is fame itself, who views voting as nothing more than a popularity contest that he’s terrified to lose. It’s why he questioned the integrity of our democratic network in 2020 instead of graciously accepting that 7 million more Americans preferred Joe Biden over him.Trump’s campaign against voting rights marches on, as he fills the courts with judges who will continue to kill civil rights through a thousand cuts. Barriers to voting and the silence of those still able to cast ballots has emboldened and empowered him to bully media conglomerates into complacency and corporations into abandoning diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Free of fear from the voters, Trump has gone full bore in desecrating the legacy of the civil rights movement – going so far as to use government files on Dr Martin Luther King Jr to distract from his own political headaches.But we cannot in this moment forget the power King saw in the right to vote. In his 1957 Give Us the Ballot speech at the Lincoln Memorial, King declared to 25,000 people that with the vote: “We will no longer have to worry the federal government about our basic rights.”Yet today that fear persists, perhaps stronger than ever. We have indeed come full circle from March 1965, when the nation was rattled by the images of a young John Lewis and dozens of peaceful protesters getting their heads cracked open and their organs bruised on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. The national outrage of Bloody Sunday that sparked mobilization toward passage of the Voting Rights Act has been replaced by a numbness to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids, the arrests of elected officials and the snipping of social safety nets.The solution to it all remains the right to vote. A week after the brutal beatings in Selma, King declared voting “Civil Right No. 1” in the New York Times. He called it the “foundation stone for political action”, one we must build upon today. Within five months, Congress bravely voted to end racist literacy tests, enable federal examiners to protect voter registration, and fight the ugliest forms of voter suppression.America was stronger for a generation, until the election of her first Black president sparked a conservative backlash that is today at its peak. The opening salvo came in 2013, when the supreme court gutted the law’s core federal pre-clearance provisions in Shelby county v Holder. It chipped away more eight years later, giving states further authority to enforce stricter voter ID laws, purge voter rolls, and reverse early and absentee programs meant to expand access to the polls. In short, Shelby v Holder opened the door for a manicured version of Jim Crow.It is for these reasons that we will lead a March on Wall Street later this month. The 28 August demonstration, held on the anniversary of the March on Washington, will send a message to Trump and his Maga allies in Congress. You may restrict our ability to vote in the president, the senators and the Congress members we support. But you cannot restrict how we vote with our dollars. Black voters have a skyrocketing buying power expected to hit $1.7tn by 2030. We must use it to make sure those we support stand by us.Until we get to a day when the integrity of voting is restored, when we can finally pass the John R Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, we will use the power we have. Trump may use the bully pulpit of the White House to influence companies’ investments in Black America, but we have the ability to hit their bottom line.Celebrating this anniversary of the Voting Rights Act means honoring the sacrifices of those who shed their blood and laid down their lives for our most fundamental freedom and recommitting ourselves to the struggle by tapping into the unwavering hope and persistence that fueled the civil rights movement. To settle for anything less would be unconditional surrender to the segregationists against whom King, congressman Lewis, Fannie Lou Hamer and the other great civil rights leaders stood.

      Rev Al Sharpton is an American Baptist minister, civil rights activist and radio talkshow host More

    • 175 Shares193 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Latinos deserve a district’: alarm as new Texas maps dilute voting power in Austin

      by

      When representative Greg Casar won his election last year, he became the first Latino to represent the Texas capital city of Austin in the US House of Representatives. A panel of federal judges had drawn his district’s lines after a prolonged legal battle over racial gerrymandering.But under the map Texas Republicans unveiled last week, Casar would instead live in the modified version of his neighboring district to the west, which would swallow east Austin – a gentrifying but historically working-class area home to Mexican American and Black residents once forced by segregation laws to live on the east side of town.“Even a conservative supreme court said central Texas Latinos deserve a district, and that’s why my district exists,” Casar said. “If Donald Trump is able to suppress Latino voters here in Austin, he’ll try to spread that plan across America.”Texas Republicans took the unusual step of redistricting several years early in an attempt to deliver more congressional seats to Donald Trump ahead of next year’s midterm elections. Democratic state lawmakers fled the state Sunday to try to thwart the GOP redistricting plan by denying state lawmakers a quorum needed to pass it into law. The Texas governor, Greg Abbott, said Monday he would seek to arrest and possibly unseat and replace Democratic lawmakers who do not return.In majority-minority Texas, where Black and brown voters have traditionally leaned left, the overtly political ploy is teeing up another in a series of legal battles over racial gerrymandering that have erupted repeatedly for more than a decade.The dramatic reshaping of Casar’s district 35 is one of the most egregious examples cited by civic groups concerned that the new map will dilute Latino voter strength and make it harder for candidates of color to win congressional elections.“The map as proposed clearly violates the Voting Rights Act and is unconstitutional,” said Lydia Camarillo, the president of the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project. “It’s canceling out districts that are part of the Voting Rights Act … and it’s not giving Latinos the right to represent their voice based on their population growth.”Hispanics are the largest population segment in Texas, at about 40%. Only one-fifth of the state’s 38-member House delegation is Hispanic, however.Since the last census, civic groups like Camarillo’s have contended that the state’s booming Hispanic population growth merits two more Latino-majority congressional districts under the Voting Rights Act – one in Houston and the other in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area. A dozen organizations and several individuals are pressing Texas to create the two Latino-majority districts in an ongoing federal lawsuit in El Paso.The new GOP-drawn map not only fails to provide those two Latino-majority districts, but it significantly dilutes the voting strength of the ones that exist, critics say.“This is a calculated move that exploits Texas’ historically low voter turnout for those in charge to maintain power,” Jackie Bastard, the executive director of the voter turnout group Jolt Action, wrote in an email. “By deliberately diluting Latino voting strength across districts, these maps would severely diminish the impact of our ongoing voter mobilization efforts and silence the voices of Texas’ fastest-growing demographic.”Those intricacies are often difficult to tease out. Congressional district nine, represented by Democratic representative Al Green, for example, is a so-called “coalition district” under the current map, with no one ethnic or racial group holding a solid majority. In practice, however, it functions more like a Black-opportunity district in a state where African American voters are becoming a smaller share of the electorate.Under the new map, district nine’s Black population plummets to 11%, while the Hispanic voting age population now holds a majority.But the historically low voter turnout rate there raises doubts that the district will actually function as a Latino-majority district, said Gloria Leal, the general counsel for the League of United Latin American Citizens, one of the plaintiffs in the El Paso case. Representative Sylvia Garcia’s district 29 also dropped enough to raise concerns, while retaining a majority on paper.Representative Henry Cuellar’s district 28, on the other hand, saw the opposite approach under the new map – Hispanics voters shot up to roughly 90% of the voting age population.“They added like 20 percentage points to that district to pack us all in,” Leal said. “We oppose the current map that exists and we adamantly oppose the proposed map,” she added.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAny redrawing of Texas districts is likely to draw the scrutiny of the federal courts, given the state’s long history of voter suppression. The Voting Rights Act, which will celebrate its 60th anniversary on Wednesday, prohibits both diluting a protected groups’ votes across multiple districts and packing voters into a single one.Carrying out such sweeping changes so quickly at the request of the White House may also raise legal questions that go beyond the Voting Rights Act, according to Thomas A Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs in the El Paso case.“This is clearly improper,” Saenz said. “Trying to circumvent judicial review by acting so close to an election is straight-up unlawful.”Political analysts had widely viewed Republicans’ goal of finding five congressional seats for Trump as an overly ambitious one that may backfire. The map that Republicans came up with in 2021 to fortify their current lopsided majority in the congressional delegation appeared hard to alter without making the party more vulnerable to Democratic challenges.Texas conservatives appear to have exceeded those expectations, according to Rice University political scientist Mark Jones – partly by “riding roughshod” over the Voting Rights Act.“I underestimated the level of disregard of the Voting Rights Act,” Jones said. “It’s not clear how the Voting Rights Act constrained this map in any significant way, with the exception that Republicans focused on hitting absolute majorities of Hispanics in a few districts.”Still, Jones said, Republicans drew the map with an exceptionally favorable year in mind. If Republicans fail to consolidate the inroads they made in last year’s election, which is normal during a midterm, the new map could easily fail to produce a single new GOP congressional seat in Texas. It might even lead Republicans to lose a seat, according to Jones.“One thing that is very clear about this whole process is these maps are being drawn under a very rosy scenario,” Jones said. “And with Trump not on the ballot, with the natural referendum on his presidency, an economy that may be problematic – it’s tough to imagine Republicans hitting 2024 numbers in 2026.” More

    • 113 Shares96 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas House reconvenes without quorum as Democrats flee state

      by

      Texas Democrats in the state legislature denied its speaker a legislative quorum Monday by leaving the state, forestalling plans proposed by the White House to redistrict Texas’s congressional lines to more greatly favor Republicans.When the legislature gaveled in at 3pm local time on Monday, Republicans fell short of a quorum by eight votes after Democrats fled to Illinois, a legislative conference in Boston, New York and elsewhere.In an extraordinary escalation, the state’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott, said he he had ordered the Texas department of public safety to “locate, arrest and return to the House chamber any member who has abandoned their duty to Texans”.“There are consequences for dereliction of duty,” Abbott said in a statement on Monday, after the Republican-dominated House issued civil arrest warrants in an attempt to compel the return of the members who fled. “This order will remain in effect until all missing Democrat House members are accounted for and brought to the Texas Capitol.”Democrats hold 62 of the 150 seats in the legislature’s lower chamber, so as long as at least 51 members remain out of Austin, the Texas legislature cannot move forward with any votes, including a plan to redraw the state’s congressional maps to give Republicans five more seats in Congress.The Texas speaker, Representative Dustin Burrows, adjourned the house until 1pm on Tuesday after issuing a call for absent lawmakers and threatening their arrest. He cited pending legislation on flood relief and human trafficking – and not the contentious redistricting proposal before the chamber – in his call for Democrats to return.“Instead of confronting those challenges, some of our colleagues have fled the state in their duty,” Burrows said. “They’ve left the state, abandoned their posts and turned their backs on the constituents they swore to represent. They’ve shirked their responsibilities under the direction and pressure of out-of-state politicians and activists who don’t know the first thing about what’s right for Texas.”Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, who fled his own impeachment hearings and refused a court order to release his travel records after speaking at the rally in Washington that preceded the January 6 insurrection, has described wayward Democratic legislators as “cowards”.Speaker Burrows said the house would not sit quietly. “While you obstruct the work of the people, the people of Texas are watching and so is the nation, and if you choose to continue down this road, you should know there will be consequences.”The Texas House Democratic Caucus said in response: “Come and take it.”“We are not fighting for the Democratic party,” state representative James Tallarico said in a video message recorded at an airport. “We are fighting for the democratic process, and the stakes could not be higher. We have to take a stand.”Most of the Democratic caucus absconded to Chicago, a city with a Democratic mayor and city council in a state with a Democratic governor and legislature.Illinois governor JB Pritzker, who owns the Chicago Hyatt hotel, announced on Monday he would provide free rooms to the Texas Democrats for as long as they are out of state.A special session of the Texas legislature lasts for 30 days, but Abbott can renew the call for a special session at will. Under new rules the Texas house adopted in 2021, each lawmaker will be fined $500 a day for each day they abscond from the state. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Gavin Newsom may call special election to redraw California congressional maps

      by

      California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, may call a special election in November to begin the process of redrawing the state’s congressional maps in response to Texas’s plans to change its own maps to help Republicans keep their majority in the House of Representatives.Donald Trump is pushing Texas and other Republican-dominated states to carry out mid-decade redistricting that will favor the GOP and potentially stop Democrats from retaking control of the House in next year’s midterm elections. Governors in Democratic-led states have responded by warning they will move to redo their own maps if Texas goes ahead with its plans, which could create an additional five Republican-leaning districts.California is viewed as the best opportunity for Democrats to pick up seats through gerrymandering, but voters will first have to approve changes to an independent redistricting commission that was given the power to draw congressional districts in 2010.Speaking at a Thursday press conference, Newsom said “a special election would be called, likely to be the first week of November” to approve the changes.“We will go to the people of this state in a transparent way and ask them to consider the new circumstances, to consider these new realities,” the governor added.The party out of power typically regains control of the House in a president’s first midterm election, as the Republicans did under Joe Biden in 2022 and Barack Obama in 2010, and Democrats did during Trump’s first term in 2018.Newsom argued that another two years of unified Republican control of Congress would be especially harmful for California, noting that Los Angeles residents were still waiting for lawmakers to approve aid from the wildfires that ravaged the region earlier this year.“They’re doing a midterm rejection of objectivity and independence, an act that we could criticize from the sideline, or an act that we can respond to in kind – fight fire with fire,” Newsom said.While Republicans could gain the most seats by redrawing Texas’s maps, Ohio, another red state, must also redraw its maps before next year’s election, and there’s talk of redistricting to the GOP’s advantage in Missouri and Indiana.Democrats are seen as having a more difficult path to improving their odds of winning the House majority through redistricting, often due to their states’ embrace of independent commissions intended to draw fair congressional amps.Voters created the California citizens redistricting commission in 2008 to draw its legislative maps, and in 2010 expanded its powers to congressional districts. Newsom said, “We’re not here to eliminate the commission,” but rather to respond to what he described as “the rigging of the system by the president of the United States.“And it won’t just happen in Texas. I imagine he’s making similar calls all across this country. It’s a big deal. I don’t think it gets much bigger,” Newsom said. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas Republicans unveil congressional map that could gift them five seats

      by

      Republicans have unveiled a new congressional map in Texas that would allow the party to pick up as many as five additional congressional seats, an aggressive maneuver that has already met decisive outcry from Democrats and comes as the GOP tries to stave off losses in next year’s midterm elections.Republicans already hold 25 of Texas’s 38 congressional seats. But at the urging of Donald Trump, Texas’s governor, Greg Abbott, called a special session this month to redraw the state’s congressional districts. After contentious hearings across the state, Republicans unveiled their proposed map on Wednesday.“We expected them to be greedy,” said Sam Gostomski, executive director of the Texas Democratic party. “The bottom line is, they are going to turn Texas into almost certainly the most gerrymandered state in the country.”Had the map been in place for the 2024 election, Trump would have carried 30 of the districts, while Kamala Harris would have carried just eight, according to data from Dave’s Redistricting App, an online tool that allows for analysis of voting districts.On first glance at the maps, “it was more packing and more trying to divide people,” said state representative Barbara Gervin-Hawkins, a Democrat from San Antonio and a member of the Texas house’s redistricting committee. “We’re trying to digest it and look at it and look at the numbers and see how it all plays out.”Republican legislators held three hearings to hear from voters about redistricting. But the proposed maps were not presented at the meetings, rendering the legally required hearings into a pro forma exercise.“How do people even know what to comment on if the maps aren’t published?” she said. “I call it a sneak attack to put the maps out after the hearing.”The map unveiled on Wednesday represents the most aggressive effort for Republicans. While analysts said Republicans could target three Democratic seats easily, trying to claim more risked spreading GOP voters too thin.One of the proposed changes in the maps would consolidate two Democratic seats in Austin, currently held by Representatives Greg Casar and Lloyd Doggett. Other changes include shifting boundaries of districts in south Texas, where Republicans have made inroads among Hispanic voters.“Merging the 35th and the 37th districts is illegal voter suppression of Black and Latino Central Texans,” Casar said in a statement. “If Trump is allowed to rip the Voting Rights Act to shreds here in Central Texas, his ploy will spread like wildfire across the country. Everyone who cares about our democracy must mobilize against this illegal map.”The map also radically redraws district lines in Houston, eliminating one majority people of color seat held by Democrats.“The map is extreme invidious discrimination and accomplishes what the President has demanded of the governor and more,” said Al Green, a member of the US Congress. “The DoJ demanded that the race card be played, and the governor dealt the people of Texas a racist hand.”Green pledged to run for re-election, despite the changes in district boundaries.Democrats narrowly won two seats in south Texas where a majority of voters also chose Trump. The redistricting widens the margin a Republican congressional candidate might expect to win, given the 2024 result.Democrats have already denounced the Republican efforts as a naked partisan power grab and have contemplated redrawing maps in states where they hold the power to do so. A Super Pac supporting House Democrats has pledged to donate upwards of $20m to target Republicans.The redistricting process in states typically occurs at the start of each new decade, when new census data is available.“This proposed map is a racially discriminatory, brazen power grab. It is an insult to all Texans, who have demonstrated overwhelming, bipartisan opposition to President Trump’s order to draw a mid-decade gerrymander. Texans deserve better than this, and if the legislature and the governor follow through with enacting this egregious gerrymander, it will face fierce legal challenges,” said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, which has opposed the Texas effort.Democrats have few options to fight the redistricting. While a court challenge will be filed almost immediately, federal judges in the conservative fifth judicial circuit may not resolve the dispute before the 2026 election, and may not resolve it in their favor.The Texas house select committee on redistricting has scheduled a public hearing on the proposed maps for Friday. The Texas AFL-CIO put out a call on Wednesday afternoon to pack the capitol in Austin and testify.Democratic legislators may leave the state in order to deny Republicans a legislative quorum and prevent them from passing law. Doing so presents practical and legal costs for those who do, but may be the last remaining bargaining chip they have before the issue enters the courts.“I can tell you that our members are going to fight it for as long as it takes,” Gostomski said, “but at the end of the day, the only real legal mechanism in place is, at some point, the GOP leadership has to decide if they are more interested in representing their constituents than protecting Donald Trump’s power.” More