US voting rights

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Florida must seek court preapproval to change some voting laws, judge rules

      by

      Florida must seek court preapproval to change some voting laws, judge rulesFederal judge Mark Walker says state’s discrimination against Black voters warrants extraordinary oversight Florida cannot change certain voting laws without getting preapproval from a federal court for the next decade, a federal judge ruled on Thursday, saying the state has an ongoing and extensive history of discrimination against non-white voters that warranted extraordinary oversight.US district judge Mark Walker put the state back under preclearance on Thursday as part of a 288-page ruling striking down new voting restrictions in Florida limiting the availability of drop boxes, and making it more difficult for third-party groups to register voters. “Florida has repeatedly, recently, and persistently acted to deny Black Floridians access to the franchise,” he wrote in his opinion.Placing a state under federal preclearance is an extraordinary, and rarely used, action. A provision of the Voting Rights Act allows judges to place jurisdictions under federal supervision if there is evidence of intentional discrimination. Until Thursday, courts have not placed any states back under supervision since the supreme court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v Holder.“Without preclearance, Florida can pass unconstitutional restrictions like the registration disclaimer with impunity,” Walker wrote in his opinion. “Without preclearance, Florida could continue to enact such laws, replacing them every legislative session if courts view them with skepticism. Such a scheme makes a mockery of the rule of law. Under any metric, preclearance is needed.”Florida is expected to quickly appeal the ruling. The state is likely to find a more favorable audience in the US court of appeals for the 11th circuit and the US supreme court, which have both looked skeptically on challenges to new voting laws.Walker appeared to acknowledge the court’s hostility to voting rights in his ruling, writing “the right to vote, and the VRA particularly, are under siege”.In addition to the preclearance requirement, Walker’s opinion blocked a provision in the law that required election officials to continuously monitor ballot drop boxes and made them less available outside early voting hours. He also blocked a requirement that third-party voter registration groups provide voters a disclaimer that they might not deliver their registration in a timely manner. He also blocked a provision prohibiting assistance within 150ft of a polling place. Those requirements, he said, ran afoul of both the US constitution and the Voting Rights Act.The legislature enacted some of those provisions, Walker wrote, intending to discriminate against Black voters. Black voters are more likely, on average, to use drop boxes, he noted, and the legislature restricted their availability during times when Black voters were more likely to use them. Non-white voters are also more likely to rely on third-party voter registration groups than white voters and likely to wait longer in line at the polls, Walker noted. The legislature, he said, was aware of data showing the disparate impact.“The Legislature would not have passed the drop-box provisions, the solicitation definition, or the registration return provision absent an intent to discriminate against Black voters,” he wrote.A spokesperson for Florida governor Ron DeSantis did not immediately return a request for comment.TopicsUS voting rightsFight to voteFloridaUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Maryland judge rules Democratic-drawn electoral map is unconstitutional

      by

      Maryland judge rules Democratic-drawn electoral map is unconstitutionalLegislature was accused of gerrymandering after substituting its own new district maps for ones drafted by outside commission A Maryland judge ruled on Friday that the state’s new congressional map is unconstitutional, the first map by a Democratic-controlled state legislature to be struck down by a court this redistricting cycle.So far courts have intervened to block maps they found to be GOP gerrymanders in North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania, infuriating Republicans and leading conservatives to push for the US supreme court to limit the power of state courts to overturn maps drawn by state legislatures.US state legislatures threaten citizens’ rights. We ignore them at our perilRead moreJudge Lynne Battaglia issued the ruling after a trial last week in which Republican lawmakers contended that Maryland’s congressional map approved by the general assembly in December violates the constitution by drawing districts that favor Democrats, who control the legislature.“The limitation of the undue extension of power by any branch of government must be exercised to ensure that the will of the people is heard, no matter under which political placard those governing reside. The 2021 Congressional Plan is unconstitutional, and subverts that will of those governed,” Battaglia wrote.The judge added that she was entering a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs to reject the map and “permanently enjoining its operation, and giving the general assembly an opportunity to develop a new Congressional Plan that is constitutional”.Battaglia has a long history in Maryland’s judiciary. She served as a member of the state’s highest court from 2001 to 2016. She served as Maryland’s US attorney from 1993 to 2001. She also was chief of staff to the former Maryland senator Barbara Mikulski, a Democrat, from 1991 to 1993.An appeal by the state is almost certain. Raquel Coombs, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, said the office was reviewing the decision.In Maryland, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one and Democrats hold a strong majority in both chambers of the legislature, the GOP has long criticized the map as one of the most gerrymandered in the country.“Judge Battaglia’s ruling confirms what we have all known for years – Maryland is ground zero for gerrymandering, our districts and political reality reek of it, and there is abundant proof that it is occurring,” said Doug Mayer, a spokesman for Fair Maps Maryland. “Marylanders have been fighting for free and fair elections for decades and for the first time in our state’s shameful history of gerrymandering, we are at the precipice of ending it.”The ruling comes under the unusual circumstances of Maryland having a Republican governor in a redistricting year. Governor Larry Hogan, who has long sought reforms to the way the state draws political boundaries, created a separate commission to draw maps for the state’s congressional seats and state legislative districts in hopes of taking politicians out of the process of drawing districts.Hogan submitted the maps to the general assembly, but the legislature moved forward with maps approved by a separate panel that included top legislative leadership, including four Democrats and two Republicans.Hogan vetoed the map approved by the legislature in December, saying it made “a mockery of our democracy”. After the judge’s ruling, the governor called on lawmakers to approve the map submitted by the commission he supported.“I call on the general assembly to immediately pass the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission maps that were written with accountability and transparency,“ Hogan said in a statement. “This is an historic milestone in our fight to clean up the political process in our state, and ensure that the voices of the people we are elected to serve are finally heard.”If the case comes before the Maryland court of appeals, the state’s highest court, it will be considered by a panel on which all but one of the serving judges was appointed by Hogan.Chief Judge Joseph Getty last week delayed the state’s primary elections from 28 June to 19 July, as courts weigh challenges to the state’s new legislative map as well as the congressional map.At trial last week, a witness for Maryland Republicans testified that partisan considerations had taken over when Democrats drew the map. Democrats currently hold a seven-to-one advantage over the GOP in the state’s eight US House seats. The new map made the district held by lone Republican representative, Andy Harris, more competitive for a Democrat to potentially win.Sean Trende, an elections analyst at RealClearPolitics, testified as a witness for Republicans at last week’s trial that Democrats “are almost guaranteed to have seven districts and have a great shot at winning that eighth district”.The trial involved two lawsuits. One was brought by a group of Republican state lawmakers backed by Fair Maps Maryland. The other was brought by the national conservative activist group Judicial Watch.TopicsMarylandUS voting rightsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US state legislatures threaten citizens’ rights. We ignore them at our peril

      by

      US state legislatures threaten citizens’ rights. We ignore them at our perilThe bodies have become the engines of policymaking, behind Georgia’s voting restrictions and Florida’s ‘don’t say gay’ bill Hello, and happy Thursday,Since late last year, I have been intensely focused on the frantic efforts by both major parties to put themselves in the best position to win US House races this fall.State-by-state, lawmakers are undertaking the once-a-decade task of redrawing all 435 districts in the US House. In most states, legislatures are responsible for drawing the new lines, and to no one’s surprise, both parties have jostled to draw as many districts in their favor as possible. While many, including me, expected Republicans to dominate the process, because they have control of more legislatures, Democrats have been boosted as a result of anti-gerrymandering reforms and an aggressive legal strategy.Reading lots of analysis about what’s happening at the congressional level, I started thinking that there was a much more significant redistricting story that was being largely overlooked. As they’ve been drawing congressional districts, state lawmakers have also been redrawing districts for their state legislatures (yes, they are setting the boundaries for the districts they run in).US supreme court blocks new Wisconsin voting maps in boost for RepublicansRead moreThis lack of attention is significant because state legislatures have become the engines of policymaking in the US. Take a second and think about the most controversial pieces of legislation you’ve heard about recently. Maybe it’s the sweeping new voting restrictions in Georgia. The “don’t say gay” bill in Florida. Anti-abortion bills in Texas and Oklahoma. All of these measures were passed in state legislatures, not Congress. With the federal government bogged down in gridlock, state legislatures, where one party often has control, have become the forums to pass legislation on issues such as school funding and public health that directly affect people’s lives.“The gerrymandering of the state legislative maps, it’s actually more important than even the congressional gerrymandering,” David Pepper, a former chairman of the Ohio Democratic party, told me. “We have this repeat cycle where every few weeks an outrage of some state law that passed somewhere and then we all cover the court case. But very rarely do people go back and look at: ‘What’s the cause of all this craziness in states?’”Republicans currently control 62 legislative chambers, while Democrats control 36. There are 23 states where Republicans have complete control over state government, and 14 where Democrats do.While things are slightly better for Democrats than they were a decade ago, control of state legislatures is unlikely to change over the next decade. Just 17.5% of districts are estimated to be competitive, a slight decrease from a decade ago, according to Chris Warshaw, a political science professor at George Washington University.“Most of the plans are pretty uncompetitive and most are biased in favor of one of the two parties. So I don’t think we’re likely to see many state legislatures flip control over the next decade,” he said.Letting Republicans depress the vote is ‘not in the cards’: a US governor on a race that may shape democracyRead morePerhaps no state better embodies the consequences of state legislative gerrymandering than Wisconsin. The Wisconsin state assembly, the legislature’s lower chamber, is widely understood to be one of the most gerrymandered bodies in the US. It’s so distorted that it’s virtually impossible for Republicans to lose a majority in it – even if they got a minority of the vote, they would still be able to hold a majority of the seats.Republicans have used that advantage recently to press a slew of anti-democratic policies, including a partisan review of the 2020 election that made the impossible case for how the lawmakers could “decertify” the results of the 2020 race.Earlier this month, Democrats had hoped they would get a slight boost in the legislative maps. After looking at a range of proposals, the state supreme court picked a new legislative map submitted by Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, saying it best complied with an earlier court order to make as little change as possible to the current maps.But on Wednesday, the US supreme court stepped in and threw out those maps, taking issue with the creation of additional Black-majority district in the Milwaukee area. It sent the case back to the state court for further consideration.“The will of the people is traditionally the law of the land. That is not the case at this point in time,” Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, told me last week.Also worth watching…
      I spoke with Evers about the stakes for his re-election bid and democracy.
      Listen to Pamela Moses, the Black Memphis woman sentenced to six years in prison for trying to register to vote, speak about her case.
      This redistricting cycle has blunted the political power of voters of color.
      Arizona Republicans are advancing a measure that would do away with no-excuse mail-in and early voting, which is widely used in the state.
      Ohio Republicans remain engaged in a high-stakes standoff with the state supreme court, which has refused to let GOP lawmakers enact gerrymandered electoral districts.
      TopicsUS newsFight to voteUS voting rightsUS politicsRepublicansDemocratsWisconsinfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘It’s a scare tactic’: Pamela Moses, the Black woman jailed over voting error, speaks out

      by

      ‘It’s a scare tactic’: Pamela Moses, the Black woman jailed over voting error, speaks outExclusive: Longtime activist who still faces the possibility of a retrial tells the Guardian she believes she’s being ‘persecuted’ for being outspoken Pamela Moses, the Memphis woman who was sentenced to six years in prison for trying to register to vote, says she is grateful to be released – but believes the case against her was a “scare tactic” to discourage other people from casting a ballot.Moses was released from prison on bond on 25 February after a judge unexpectedly granted her request for a new trial, citing evidence, obtained by the Guardian, that had not been disclosed to Moses’ defense.New evidence undermines case against Black US woman jailed for voting error | The fight to voteRead moreIn her first interview since being freed Moses recalled the moment in the courtroom when Judge W Mark Ward decided to grant her a new trial – and said she was “overwhelmed with joy”. Video shows Moses nearly in tears and screaming in excitement when Ward ruled he was granting her a new trial.She knew that judges rarely reverse themselves and grant requests for new trials, but she had been praying Ward would see beyond her criminal record. “I was very grateful that God had allowed him to correct his own mistake, and that’s what you need in the criminal justice system.”But Moses, a longtime activist who founded the Memphis chapter of Black Lives Matter, still faces the possibility of a retrial. Moses says she was unaware she was ineligible to vote, and state officials acknowledged they made an error in indicating to her that she was eligible. Her case has brought renewed focus to the practice, common in many US states, of depriving people convicted of certain felonies of their voting rights for widely varying lengths of time, but sometimes for life.“It’s a scare tactic, what they did to me,” Moses told the Guardian. She thinks other people with criminal convictions will think twice before seeking to cast a ballot in elections. “It’s like, ‘if she went to jail for that, we don’t need to do that. We don’t need to follow her because we’re going to be in jail for six years too.’ I would say it sends a confusing message to people who want to vote.“Why should people be worried if they’re going to be prosecuted for doing their civic duty?”Moses is a well-known activist in Memphis who has filed numerous cases in local and federal courts, often representing herself. She has been outspoken against a number of local officials, including the local election commission, judges and Amy Weirich, the local district attorney who is prosecuting her case. She said she believes she’s being “persecuted” for being so outspoken.“If you silence the loudest person that’s screaming, ‘hey Black people, go vote, don’t vote for her, remove her from office’ then you eliminate the opposition,” she said. “I believe, not only if I wasn’t Black, but if my name wasn’t Pamela Moses, this probably never would have been a case.”Moses’ case attracted national attention because of the harshness of her sentence, which seemed at odds with the evidence in the case. Before the trial, election officials in Memphis conceded that they erroneously never removed her from the voter rolls after she pleaded guilty to felony charges in 2015.In 2019, Moses launched a campaign for mayor of Memphis and sought clarification from court officials about whether she had completed her felony probation and could appear on the ballot. A judge told her she was still on probation, but Moses still believed she was eligible and went to a probation office and asked them to verify her eligibility and sign a certificate saying she could vote. After about an hour of investigating, the probation officer did so.Prosecutors blamed Moses for this. In their request for an indictment, they wrote she “convinced” the officer to sign off on the document. And during her sentencing hearing, Ward, the judge overseeing her case, accused her of deceiving the probation officer into signing off on the eligibility certificate. Moses said she didn’t trick anyone and was stunned to hear such an assertion.“I was like wow, I need to go to magic school or something. I’m the new Houdini. I’ve got that much power to trick somebody I’ve never met, never seen in my life into doing something just by walking in the place? You know, no.”But a document obtained by the Guardian last month, after the trial concluded, showed that probation officials investigated the incident and found that the probation officer, identified as Manager Billington, had made an error on his own. Even though Moses’ file said she was still on probation, Billington thought that another person had made a mistake. The official who conducted the investigation ultimately determined that Billington was negligent and to blame for the error.Moses went out of her way to defend Billington. “I don’t like how everybody is portraying that supervisor as a bad person. That man did his job,” she said. “I don’t think that man did anything other than what he could do based on the information that he had in front of him.”But Moses was critical of Weirich, the prosecutor, who has said Moses bears some of the responsibility for her sentence because she declined to accept a plea deal that would not have resulted in additional prison time. “I gave her a chance to plead to a misdemeanor with no prison time,” Weirich said in February “She requested a jury trial instead. She set this unfortunate result in motion and a jury of her peers heard the evidence and convicted her.”Moses pushed back on that characterization. “I haven’t done anything in my mind wrong so why would I plead to anything?” she said.“We have a right to that. But you want me to give it up because you want it to be right? It was about the principle to me. “I hadn’t done anything wrong.”Weirich’s office did not immediately return a request for comment. Weirich has yet to say whether she will pursue a new trial. Moses and her new legal team plan to hold a press conference in Memphis on Friday asking her to drop all of the charges.Her prosecution may already be having a local policy impact. Citing her case, a coalition of civil rights groups is pushing the county commission to conduct a “racial equity audit” to examine whether there is racial discrimination in Weirich’s office.The Moses case is one of several high-profile instances that underscores the disparity between how white and Black defendants can be treated when it comes to election crimes. Several white defendants across the country received minimal punishments, such as probation, for purposefully impersonating family members in order to cast multiple votes – yet Black people who made mere mistakes when attempting to follow complicated processes and procedures received prison sentences.“The reason why Ms Moses’ situation has got the attention of the nation is because this sort of disparate treatment happens all the time,” said Rodney Diggs, one of her attorneys. “The disparate treatment between people of color and non-people of color. You can just see the differences.”Moses had been in jail since December, when the judge overseeing her case abruptly revoked her bond. She said that she contracted Covid-19. She was unaware of the attention her case was getting, except for periodic dispatches from a jail nurse who would mention that she had seen her on the local news.Her incarceration had been particularly hard on Tyler, her 24-year-old son, who she said lost his job and took on tasks like handling her mail and bills.Since she’s been released, she said she has spent time with her 13-year-old son Taj – a “mini me”. The weekend after she was released, they went to a funeral for a relative who had been killed. She has been taking him to school and they watch Netflix together. She hasn’t had to explain her case to him because he’d researched it on the internet. “He asked me certain things. And I just divert,” she said.Still, Moses said she still has a lot of anxiety. On Wednesday, she was at 40% back to normal. On Thursday, she said she was up to 65%.“I’m anxious. I’m worried because these charges haven’t gone away,” she said. “I mean look at how much money they spent on this. Just think about it. They probably could have built a school with all the money they spent prosecuting me over a piece of paper.”TopicsUS voting rightsFight to voteUS politicsRaceTennesseeMemphisfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Why dissent by conservative justices in voting rights cases is alarming

      by

      Why dissent by conservative justices in voting rights cases is alarmingDemocrats won two major victories, but a dissenting opinion from three of the supreme court’s justices set off alarms bells Hello, and Happy Thursday,It’s no secret that the US supreme court has been hostile to voting rights recently. But two recent decisions, I think, highlight why what the court is doing is both alarming and inconsistent.Get the latest updates on voting rights in the Guardian’s Fight to vote newsletterOn Monday evening, the court gave Democrats two major victories, blocking Republican attempts to impose unfair congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. In both states the respective state supreme courts had redrawn them to be fairer – decisions which the US supreme court upheld. Yet even though legal experts expected this outcome, a dissenting opinion from three of the court’s conservative justices set off loud alarm bells for me.The dissent was authored by Justice Samuel Alito (and joined by Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch in the North Carolina case). The three justices wrote that they would have blocked the state supreme court maps from going into effect. They pointed to a provision in the US constitution, the elections clause, that explicitly gives state legislatures the authority to set the “time, manner, and place” of federal elections. That provision, they said, likely means that state supreme courts can’t impose a new map, even if the one the legislature adopts violates a state’s constitution.“If the language of the Elections Clause is taken seriously, there must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections,” Alito wrote.Alito’s dissent embraces an idea called the “independent state legislature doctrine”. Increasingly popular among conservative litigants, it argues that state courts cannot second-guess election rules – whether it be a gerrymandered map or a new voter ID law – passed by a legislature. It would give state legislatures enormous power over elections.The theory largely fell into disuse in the early 20th century, according to a paper by Michael Morley, a law professor at Florida State University. The supreme court has also repeatedly rejected the idea over the last century. But in a handful of cases during the 2020 election, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Thomas all expressed interest in the idea.The focus on this idea is also notable because it is directly at odds with what Alito and other conservative justices have said recently.Reading Alito’s dissent, I couldn’t help but think of a majority opinion that he, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh signed onto in 2019. In that case, called Rucho v Common Cause, they were part of a majority that said federal courts could not do anything to stop partisan gerrymandering. But, Roberts wrote, state laws and state courts could continue to police it. It was a clear instruction to litigants that they should take their cases about partisan gerrymandering to state courts, which is exactly what they did in North Carolina and Pennsylvania.Now, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch – and maybe Kavanaugh – seem to be backing away from that position.It’s not the only area of voting rights law where the supreme court has pulled a kind of bait-and-switch recently. In 2013, when a majority of the court, including Roberts, Alito and Thomas, gutted the the heart of the Voting Rights Act, designed to prevent voting discrimination, it pointed to another provision of the law, section 2, as a tool litigants could continue to use. But recently, the court has been slowly chipping away at section 2, too, making it harder to challenge laws under it and stepping in to overrule lower courts that have relied on it to block discriminatory maps. Taken together, the cases show how the supreme court is slowly attacking laws that are supposed to prevent Americans against voting discrimination.One other piece of Alito’s dissent deserves attention because it is, I would argue, hypocritical. In two short paragraphs, Alito explained why he didn’t think it would be a big deal for a court to step in and order North Carolina to adopt new congressional districts after candidates had begun filing for office ahead of the state’s 17 May primary. The public interest favored such a reset, he said, to ensure that districts were constitutional. All candidates would have to do, he said, was file a new form indicating they were running in the districts the legislature, not the state supreme court, had adopted. “That would not have been greatly disruptive,” he wrote.But last month, Alito took the opposite approach when he agreed with an opinion by Kavanaugh saying it would be too disruptive to impose new, non-discriminatory maps for Alabama’s 24 May primary – a week later than the one in North Carolina. Kavanaugh wrote: “Running elections statewide is extraordinarily complicated and difficult. Those elections require enormous advance preparations by state and local officials, and pose significant logistical challenges.”That argument prompted a furious response from Justice Elena Kagan, who said discrimination in Alabama should not get a free pass merely because elections were on the horizon. “Alabama is not entitled to keep violating Black Alabamians’ voting rights just because the court’s order came down in the first month of an election year,” she said.The opposing conclusions Alito reached in both cases underscores the immense discretion he is wielding on the bench to evaluate these claims. In North Carolina, when the legislature’s constitutional rights were at issue, it warranted the supreme court’s intervention. In Alabama, when Black Americans’ voting rights were at issue, he believed the court’s intervention was not needed.Also worth watching…
      A Colorado election clerk was indicted on charges she helped allow unaurthorized access to voting equipment.
      Florida Republicans are on the verge of creating a new office to investigate election crimes.
      The top election official in Texas’s largest county announced she would resign after the county experienced significant voting problems in the state’s primary.
      Newly released records in Wisconsin provide insight into a widely criticized review of the 2020 election.
      TopicsUS supreme courtThe fight to voteLaw (US)US politicsUS voting rightsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We must march forward’: Kamala Harris commemorates Bloody Sunday anniversary in Selma

      by

      ‘We must march forward’: Kamala Harris commemorates Bloody Sunday anniversary in SelmaUS vice president takes to Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama as congressional efforts to restore the 1965 Voting Rights Act falter US vice president Kamala Harris visited Selma, Alabama on Sunday to commemorate a defining moment in the fight for the right to vote, making her trip as congressional efforts to restore the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act have faltered.Under a blazing blue sky, Harris took the stage at the foot of the bridge where in 1965 white state troopers attacked Black voting rights marchers attempting to cross.Harris called the site hallowed ground on which people fought for the “most fundamental right of America citizenship: the right to vote”.The not-surprising, very bad defeat of Biden’s attempt to protect voting | The fight to voteRead more“Today, we stand on this bridge at a different time,” Harris said before a cheering crowd of several thousand.“We again, however, find ourselves caught in between. Between injustice and justice. Between disappointment and determination … nowhere is that more clear than when it comes to the ongoing fight to secure the freedom to vote.”The nation’s first female vice president – as well as the first African American and Indian American in the role – spoke of marchers whose “peaceful protest was met with crushing violence. They were kneeling when the state troopers charged. They were praying when the billy clubs struck.”On “Bloody Sunday”, 7 March 1965, state troopers severely beat and tear-gassed peaceful demonstrators, including a young activist, the late John Lewis, who later became a longtime Georgia congressman.The images of violence at the Edmund Pettus Bridge – originally named for a Confederate general – shocked the nation and helped galvanize support for passage of the Voting Rights Act.Fifty-seven years later, Democrats are unsuccessfully trying to update the landmark law and pass additional measures to make it more convenient for people to vote. A key provision of the law was tossed out by a US supreme court decision.“In a moment of great uncertainty, those marches pressed forward and they crossed,“ Harris said. “We must do the same. We must lock our arms and march forward. We will not let setbacks stop us. We know that honoring the legacy of those who marched then demands that we continue to push Congress to pass federal voting rights legislation.”In Selma, a crowd gathered hours before Harris was scheduled to speak. Rank-and-file activists of the civil rights movement, including women who fled the beatings of Bloody Sunday, were seated near the stage.The milestone of Harris becoming the nation’s first Black female vice president seemed unimaginable in 1965, they said.“That’s why we marched,” Betty Boynton, the daughter-in-law of voting rights activist Amelia Boynton, said.Is America a democracy? If so, why does it deny millions the vote?Read more“I was at the tail end and all of the sudden I saw these horses. Oh my goodness, and all of the sudden … I saw smoke. I didn’t know what tear gas was. There were beating people,” Boynton said.But Boynton said Sunday’s anniversary is tempered by fears of the impact of new voting restrictions being enacted.“And now they are trying to take our voting rights from us. I wouldn’t think in 2022 we would have to do all over again what we did in 1965,” Boynton said.The US president, Joe Biden, said the strength of the groundbreaking 1965 Voting Rights Act “has been weakened not by brute force, but by insidious court decisions”.The latest legislation, named for Lewis, who died in 2020, is part of a broader elections package that collapsed in the US Senate in February.“In Selma, the blood of John Lewis and so many other courageous Americans sanctified a noble struggle. We are determined to honor that legacy by passing legislation to protect the right to vote and uphold the integrity of our elections, including the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act,” Biden said in a statement.The US supreme court in 2013 gutted a portion of the 1965 law that required certain states with a history of discrimination in voting, mainly in the South, to get US Justice Department approval before changing the way they hold elections, with voting rights activists warning the action is emboldening states to pass a new wave of voting restrictions.TopicsUS voting rightsThe fight to voteKamala HarrisUS politicsAlabamaUS supreme courtUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      New evidence undermines case against Black US woman jailed for voting error | The fight to vote

      by

      New evidence undermines case against Black US woman jailed for voting errorExclusive: Prosecutors argued Pamela Moses ‘tricked the probation department’ into giving her documents – but a new email adds to evidence undercutting that claim Hello Fight to vote Readers,I have an update in my reporting on the case of Pamela Moses, the 44-year-old Black Lives Matter Activist in Memphis who was sentenced to six years in prison for trying to register to vote. The case has attracted significant national attention because many see Moses’ sentence as too severe and a clear example of disparities in the US criminal justice system.Get the latest updates on voting rights in the Guardian’s Fight to vote newsletterThe prosecution’s case is built around the argument that Moses knew she was ineligible to vote because she was on probation, and people on felony probation in Tennessee cannot vote. Indeed, a few months before she tried to register, a judge had issued an order telling Moses her probation was ongoing. But nevertheless, prosecutors argued, she convinced a probation officer into signing a form saying she was eligible to vote and then knowingly submitted the document knowing it was false. “You tricked the probation department into giving you documents saying you were off probation,” W Mark Ward, the judge who sentenced Moses, said in January.Moses, for her part, told me she did not know she was ineligible and her lawyers have said she went to the probation office genuinely seeking clarity about whether she could vote. A new email I obtained through a public records request adds to evidence undercutting the claim that Moses tricked the officer.In September 2019, just two days after a probation officer mistakenly signed a certificate telling Moses her probation was complete, officials at the Tennessee department of corrections investigated how exactly their employee made the error. Their investigation didn’t find that Moses had deceived a probation officer, but rather that the officer had made a good-faith mistake.The review found that the probation officer – referred to as Manager Billington – spent about an hour investigating whether Moses was still on probation. Billington came across a note in Moses’ file noting that in 2016, she had been placed on supervised probation for two years. Even though the system said that Moses remained on unsupervised probation, Billington thought this was a mistake. The person who handled the file, he believed, forgot to close out the case when the supervised probation ran out. That’s why he ultimately signed Moses’ voting certificate saying her probation had expired in 2018 and she was eligible to vote.“Manager Billington advised that he thought he did due diligence in making his decision,” Joe Williams, an administrator in the department of corrections, wrote to Lisa Helton, a top department official. “Manager Billington failed to adequately investigate the status of this case. He failed to review all of the official documents available through the Shelby county justice portal and negligently relied on a contact note from a court specialist in 2016.”Williams went on to note that if Billington had looked harder, he would have found additional documents, issued in 2019, that said Moses was on probation. Williams conceded that it was “tedious” to find some of that information. “The information that Manager Billington had at the time he signed the Voters Restoration was insufficient to reasonably affirm that an offender was off supervision.”Thanks to new congressional maps, most Americans’ votes won’t matterRead moreThe email says that Moses waited in the lobby of the probation office and seemed impatient while Billington investigated. It does not suggest that Moses bore responsibility for the mistake.“They acknowledged that the mistake was theirs in this letter,” said Blair Bowie, an attorney at the Campaign Legal Center, who is providing information to Moses’ defense on voting rights restoration issues. “This really runs contrary to the prosecution’s characterization of the incident as Ms Moses tricking the probation officer.”Claiborne Ferguson, the attorney who represented Moses during her trial, said he had not seen the email before I showed it to him Wednesday morning. He said it was consistent with Billington’s testimony during Moses’ trial in which he accepted responsibility for the error.Amy Weirich, the district attorney prosecuting the case, declined an interview request. “I gave her a chance to plead to a misdemeanor with no prison time. She requested a jury trial instead. She set this unfortunate result in motion and a jury of her peers heard the evidence and convicted her,” she said in a statement.Any acknowledgment of an error from the probation department is potentially significant because it challenges the argument that Moses knowingly voted illegally, experts said. “Mistake of fact is never a defense. But one of the major exceptions is if you’re relying on someone who is officially responsible for telling you whether you’re breaking the law or not then you’re not guilty of a crime,” Bennett Capers, a former federal prosecutor who is now a law professor at Fordham University, told me.When he sentenced Moses, Ward dismissed the idea that an error by the probation department meant Moses wasn’t guilty of a crime. Such an argument, he said, is like saying “a person who obtains money from a bank by posing as another person is not criminally responsible because the bank should have discovered the fraud and not given the money to the thief.”Steven Mulroy, a law professor at the University of Memphis who specializes in criminal and election law, told me he didn’t think that analogy was appropriate.“She was honest about who she was, and she knew that probation would check her records,” said Mulroy, who is also running for district attorney. “A better analogy would be the central bank branch said she had insufficient funds for a check; she doubted it and thought it might be a mistake. She went to her actual bank branch, who checked their records, said she had sufficient funds, and issued her a money order which she then tried to cash.”After reviewing the email, I asked the department of corrections whether it believed Moses had deceived its employee. An agency spokesperson didn’t answer directly.“I can only say that the officer did not conduct a complete review and should not have signed the form, said Dorinda Carter, a department spokesperson. “Corrective action was taken against the officer who mistakenly completed the form.”Bowie said the case spoke to wider problems with the confusing process people with felonies have to go through to get their voting rights restored.“The cost of those mistakes is always paid by the person trying to restore their voting rights,” she said.Brandon Dill contributed reporting from MemphisAlso worth watching …
      A North Carolina court approved new state legislative maps, as well as a new congressional map for 2022, after the state supreme court struck down GOP-authored plans because they were too gerrymandered.
      The Pennsylvania supreme court also adopted a new congressional plan.
      The Texas lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, caused delays in the processing of absentee ballot requests by telling supporters to send their requests to the state, not local election officials.
      TopicsUS voting rightsFight to voteMemphisUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court is letting racist discrimination run wild in the election system | Carol Anderson

      by

      The US supreme court is letting racist discrimination run wild in the election systemCarol AndersonThe court has approved or tolerated massive voter roll purges, extreme gerrymandering and election laws that have a disparate impact on minorities The US supreme court, in a 5-4 decision, used the ruse that it was too close to an election – three months away – to scrap a racially discriminatory, Republican-drawn legislative map in Alabama. A lower court had previously ruled against the state because its gerrymandered congressional districts diluted the voting strength of African Americans by ensuring that 27% of Alabama’s population would garner only 14% of the state’s congressional representation. But that reality didn’t faze five justices; the US supreme court was just fine with letting a policy designed to disfranchise Black voters unfurl and do its damage in an oncoming federal election.The echoes of a brutal past are resonating in this decision.After the civil war, Congress passed the 1867 Reconstruction Act, which provided that Black men had the right to vote, and then Congress followed that with the 15th amendment, which banned states from using race, color or previous conditions of servitude to undermine the right to vote.In a series of decisions in the late 19th and early to mid-20th centuries, however, the supreme court systematically dismantled those protections, as well as others crafted to support African Americans’ citizenship rights and defend against white domestic terrorism waged by the Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations. Focusing on voting rights gives some indication of how pernicious the decisions were. The 1874 Minor v Happersett ruling asserted that the right to vote was not part and parcel of American citizenship.In 1876, United States v Reese et al dealt with a Black man who was trapped in a malicious catch-22 that prevented him from voting. He tried to pay his poll tax, which was required to vote, but the tax collector refused to accept the payment and the registrars would not allow him to cast a ballot without payment. The court ruled, despite this crude and brazen denial of his right to vote, that the 15th amendment “does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one”.As states then began fully implementing Jim Crow legislation to disfranchise African Americans, the court, in the Williams v Mississippi (1898) decision, looked at the poll tax and the literacy test and ruled that those chokepoints to the ballot box – which had already removed 90% of registered Black voters in Mississippi from the rolls – did not violate the 15th amendment.In a 1903 case out of Alabama, Giles v Harris, the supreme court determined that it was powerless to stop a state from disfranchising Black voters even if the methods were unconstitutional.This assault on African Americans’ right to vote was an assault on American democracy aided and abetted by the highest court in the land. The results were devastating. By 1960, there were counties in Alabama that had no Black voters registered, while simultaneously having more than 100% of white age-eligible voters on the rolls. In Mississippi a mere 6.7% of eligible Black adults were registered to vote.It took the blood, the courage and the martyrdom of civil rights workers combined with the political spine of a president and congressional leaders to break this stranglehold on the right to vote. The legislature passed and President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which would save America from its worst self. And, this time, in the late 1960s, the US supreme court came down on the side of democracy and the 15th amendment. Two crucial decisions buttressed the VRA, noting that it was not only constitutional but also created to deal with “the subtle, as well as the obvious, state regulations which have the effect of denying citizens their right to vote because of race”.The Roberts court, however, bears no resemblance to the one in the 1960s and has all the anti-voting rights earmarks of the court after the civil war. The Roberts court’s assault on the VRA and the 15th amendment has been relentless and brutal to American democracy.The Shelby County v Holder (2013) decision ended the most powerful tool in the VRA’s wheelhouse, pre-clearance, and allowed states and jurisdictions with a demonstrated history of racial discrimination to implement laws and election policies without the prior approval of the US Department of Justice or the federal court in Washington DC.Within two hours of that decision, Texas implemented a voter ID law that led district court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos to rule that the new measure not only had a discriminatory effect, it also had a discriminatory intent. The state appealed to the fifth circuit, pleading with the judges to not dismantle the voter ID law because it would be too disruptive to the looming midterm election in 2014.When the case reached the US supreme court, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority ruled in favor of Texas without comment. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent, however, tore away at the state’s ruse that it was too close to the midterms to stop a racially discriminatory law in its tracks. The greatest threat to confidence in elections, she wrote, was to allow a “purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters” to be used in a federal election.But the majority on the US supreme court was fine with letting discrimination run wild in the election system.That has been abundantly clear in a number of voting rights cases that have come before the Roberts court since the Shelby County v Holder decision. Each one, whether massive voter roll purges in violation of the National Voter Registration Act, extreme partisan gerrymandered districts, or election laws that have a disparate impact on minorities, has been approved, either by acts of commission or omission, by the US supreme court.There are consequences.The very legitimacy of the court is at stake. Right now it’s as precariously perched as the right to vote and American democracy. Unfortunately, the Roberts court has played a major, horrific role in this preventable disaster.
      Carol Anderson is the Charles Howard Candler professor of African American studies at Emory University and the author of White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide and One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression is Destroying Our Democracy. She is a contributor to the Guardian
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS supreme courtLaw (US)US voting rightsRacecommentReuse this content More