US voting rights

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia election deniers helped pass new laws. Many worry it’ll lead to chaos in November

      by

      Conservative activists in Georgia have worked with prominent election deniers to pass a series of significant changes to the procedures for counting ballots in recent weeks, raising alarm about the potential for confusion and interference in the election certification process in a key swing state this fall.Since the beginning of August, the five-member state election board has adopted rules that allow local election boards to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” into election results before they are certified, and to allow any local election board member “to examine all election related documentation created during the conduct of elections prior to certification of results”. The same rule also requires local boards to reconcile any discrepancies between the total number of ballots cast and the number of voters who check in. If it can’t reconcile the numbers, the board is authorized to come up with a way to figure out which votes count and which do not.At its upcoming meeting in September, the board is also expected to approve a measure that would require local officials to hand-count ballots to check the machine tabulations. Experts have warned that hand-counts are unreliable, costly and time-consuming.Georgia law requires county officials to certify an election no later than 5pm on the Monday following election day (the deadline will be one day later this year because of a state holiday). Legal experts have noted that state law is clear about that deadline and that none of the recent rules change that.But at the same time, observers are concerned new changes are seeding the ground to give local county commissioners justifications to object to the certification of the vote.“State law clearly states the certification deadline. They can add on whatever they want, but cannot go against the existing state law that says it has to be certified by a specific date,” said Julie Houk, a voting rights attorney at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. At the same time, she added: “What’s going to happen when they have not completed a review of those thousands of records? Are the board members going to say ‘we can’t certify’ even though it requires them to?”“What’s going to happen if certain board members or boards determine that now that we have all the records we’ve demanded, we can’t get through them in time to certify?”The changes have caused considerable alarm in one of the most competitive battleground states this presidential cycle, which is expected to be extremely close. Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump in 2020 by 11,799 votes, a razor-thin margin.Georgia’s state election board, charged with making election rules consistent with Georgia law, was not really paid attention to until this year. But in recent months it has moved forward with a blitz of changes. Earlier this year, Republicans essentially forced out a member who had rebuffed proposed changes and replaced him with someone who has been more sympathetic to the changes.That new member, Rick Jeffares, has previously posted in support of Trump’s election lies, though he recently told the Guardian he believed the former president lost in Georgia in 2020. He also said that he had proposed himself for a job with the Environmental Protection Agency in a second Trump administration.The new rules enacted by the board have been shaped with input from the Republican party and a network of election denial activists. The precinct reconciliation rule adopted on Monday, for example, was presented by Bridget Thorne, a Fulton county commissioner who has run a private Telegram channel filled with election conspiracies. She said during the meeting on Monday she had worked with a number of people on the proposal, including Heather Honey, a prominent activist in the election denialism movement.Input on rules has also come from the state Republican party, the New York Times reported. Julie Adams, who is connected to a network of election deniers and has refused to certify two elections this year as a member of the Fulton county election board, has also had input on the rules, ProPublica reported.Trump has publicly praised three of the Republicans on the board who have constituted the majority to enact the new rules. During a rally earlier this month he called them “pitbulls fighting for honesty, transparency and victory”.Three lawyers tied to Trump also spoke out in favor of the new rules on Monday. They included Hans von Spakovsky, a lawyer at the Heritage Foundation who served on Trump’s voter fraud commission, Ken Cuccinelli, who had a top role in the Department of Homeland Security under Trump, and Harry MacDougald, who is defending former justice department official Jeffrey Clark in the Georgia criminal case dealing with Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.John Fervier, the Republican chair on the board who voted against the rule, said he was also concerned about refusal to certify elections.“We’ve seen boards, or board members recently, that refused to certify because they didn’t see X, Y or Z documents. I think this just even opens the door more to that,” he said.During Monday’s meeting, those who supported the rule insisted that local county commissioners could refuse to certify an election if they did not believe the tally was accurate.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“One individual board member does not have authority to overrule other board members,” Thorne said. “Board members would have the right to disagree if they wanted to disagree. But hopefully by having this process in place, everyone will be confident and go ahead and certify.MacDougald, one of the lawyers supporting the proposal, suggested that a judge could not force a majority of election board members to certify a result they believed was incorrect. “The board members have the right to vote on certification, that necessarily gives them the right to vote against it,” he said.“Unless a board member has full confidence in the administration of the election, that it was done without error, they should not certify the election,” von Spakovsky said at the meeting.Election officials have expressed concern about the new rule that prevents them from counting any ballots in a precinct if the number of voters checked in doesn’t align with the number of ballots cast. These small discrepancies often occur because of human error – a voter might check in and leave with their ballot or a voter concerned about their mail-in vote counting might decide to cast a vote in person. These small discrepancies are almost always smaller than the margin of votes and are explained in a reconciliation report to the secretary of state after the election.There also could be problems with the portion of the rule that empowers local boards to come up with a way of tabulating the votes if the discrepancy, no matter how small, can’t be explained.“Let’s say I’m at a poll that has 500 ballots. And we go through and determined one of those 500 voters should not have cast that belt for whatever reason,” said Joseph Kirk, the election director in Bartow county, Georgia, which is about an hour north-west of Atlanta. “How do we know which ballot to take out of the box? They’re anonymous.”Even if the election result is eventually certified, any discovery found during the new investigatory phase could become fodder to continue to challenge the election results. In 2020 and 2022, Trump and allies seized on human errors to falsely argue that they were only the tip of a corrupt system.The Georgia Association of Voter Registration and Election Officials, an organization that represents election officials across the state, called on the board to stop making changes, warning that continuing to do so would cause confusion.“Any last-minute changes to the rules risk undermining the public’s trust in the electoral process and place undue pressure on the individuals responsible for managing the polls and administering the election,” said W Travis Doss, the group’s president and the executive director of the board of elections in Richmond county, Georgia. “This could ultimately lead to errors or delays in voting, which is the last thing anyone wants.” More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Georgia approves election rule that could delay vote certification

      by

      The Georgia state election board approved a new rule on Monday that gives local officials more power to investigate votes after election day, increasing concerns the Republican-controlled body is steamrolling a series of consequential changes that could pave the way for chaos this fall.The rule approved Monday authorizes any member on a county board of election “to examine all election related documentation created during the conduct of elections prior to certification of results”. Even though Georgia law still requires certification of the vote by 5pm the Monday after election day, experts are concerned that these maneuvers give election deniers significant leeway to slow down the certification process and create uncertainty.“It provides no safeguards against requests unscrupulously designed to delay or obstruct the lawful certification process,” lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, the watchdog groups Citizens for Responsibilities and Ethics in Washington (Crew) and the Public Rights Project wrote in a letter to the board. “It would empower individual county board members to make unreasonable and vexatious demands for any election-related documents – even ones that have no bearing on certification – without providing any basis for their requests.”The board has moved aggressively to implement new procedures ahead of the election and three Republicans on it have earned public praise from Donald Trump. Earlier this month, it adopted a new rule that gives local boards the power to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” into elections before certifying. It does not define what constitutes a “reasonable inquiry.”The new power to request all election-related documents comes as Julie Adams, a Republican on the Fulton county election board, has refused to certify elections in the state’s largest county and has claimed she has been denied access to adequate information. Adams is also suing the county board of the elections and its election director with the backing of the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute to require more access to election documents.Adams is connected to a network for election deniers led by Cleta Mitchell, a Trump ally who aided his attempt to try and overturn the election. Several activists in that network helped shape the rule the board adopted on Monday, ProPublica reported.“Trump and his Maga allies have taken over the Georgia state election board to try and give a veneer of legality to their illegal scheme to disrupt the certification of Georgia’s 2024 election results,” said Lauren Groh-Wargo, the chief executive of the voter rights organization Fair Fight. “Many of Trump’s key election denier allies are behind these illegal, anti-freedom changes to Georgia election rules, and it’s all with the goal of helping Trump win the ‘Peach State’, even if he doesn’t earn a majority of Georgians’ votes.”The new rule also requires the board of elections in each county to meet no later than 3pm on the Friday after the election to compare the total number of unique voter ID numbers in each precinct with the total number of ballots cast in that precinct. The votes in each precinct can’t be counted until the investigation is resolved. If the results can’t be reconciled, the board is authorized to “determine a method to compute the votes justly”.Several Republicans on the board framed the new rule, which it adopted with a 3-2 vote, as an effort to ensure that only valid votes were cast. “If the board found votes that were made illegally, they should not be counted,” said Janice Johnston, a Republican on the board.But others on the board said it was acting beyond its powers and said the proposal was opening the door to delay certification.“This board is once again exceeding our authority,” said John Fervier, the board’s Republican chairman, who joined the lone Democrat on the board to vote against the rule. “We are not elected officials. And we should not try to create law.”It’s not unusual for there to be small discrepancies between the total numbers of votes cast and the total number of voters. These differences are usually not large enough to affect an election outcome.“The most common cause for a discrepancy is usually if someone leaves with their ballot before casting it,” said Tate Fall, the director of elections in Cobb county in suburban Atlanta. “This would cause there to be one more check-in on the poll pads then there are ballots in the scanner. Typically poll workers catch these discrepancies early as they check the machine counts hourly.” She added that any discrepancies are always explained in a reconciliation report submitted to the Georgia secretary of state’s office after an election.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSara Tindall Ghazal, a Democrat on the board, said during Monday’s meeting that voters sometimes will cast a ballot in person after voting by mail because they’re worried their vote won’t count. In those cases, election workers will typically cancel the mail-in vote before tabulation, she said.The board is still considering a proposal to have election workers hand count every ballot cast on election day. The original proposal, submitted by Sharlene Alexander, a Republican election board member in Fayette county, would have required three workers at the precinct to separate ballots into stacks of 50 and count them by hand on election night. After receiving feedback from election officials, Janelle King, a Republican member on the board, amended the proposal to allow counties to begin counting the next day. They would still be required to complete the count by Georgia’s certification deadline.King’s amendment meant that the board had to put off a final vote on the rule until its next meeting in September.Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, has heavily criticized the proposed rule changes, saying they would lead to delays in election results and decrease trust in results.“Georgia voters reject this 11th hour chaos, and so should the unelected members of the State Election Board,” he said in a statement last week. “These misguided, last-minute changes from unelected bureaucrats who have never run an election and seem to reject the advice of anyone who ever has could cause serious problems in an election that otherwise will be secure and accurate.” More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Extremist or mainstream: how do Tim Walz’s policies match up globally?

      by

      Within hours of Minnesota’s governor, Tim Walz, being chosen by Kamala Harris to be her Democratic presidential running mate, Donald Trump and team began attacking him as a “dangerously liberal extremist”.Trump surrogates seized on Walz’s record of expanding voting rights for former felons, combatting the climate crisis, and other measures as proof that Harris-Walz would be the “most radical ticket in American history”.If you step back from the melee, and look at his gubernatorial acts through a global lens, they appear anything but extreme. From the perspective of other industrialised nations, what Trump denounces as leftwing radicalism looks little more than basic public welfare provisions.Far from being militant and revolutionary, initiatives such as paid family leave, free college tuition and rudimentary gun controls – all championed by Walz in Minnesota – have long been regarded as middle-of-the-road and unremarkable in large swathes of the world. Through this frame, it is not Walz who is the outlier, but his Republican critics.Here are how some of Walz’s most impactful reforms compare with the rest of the world.Free school lunchesView image in fullscreenWalz’s record: “What a monster! Kids are eating and having full bellies so they can go learn.” That was Walz’s sardonic reply to CNN when he was asked about having introduced free breakfast and lunch for all Minnesota schoolkids. The 2023 measure puts Minnesota among just eight US states that offer school meals at no cost to all children, no matter their family’s income.Around the world: Several countries provide free lunches for their children nationwide. Sweden, Finland and the three Baltic nations all provide meals at no cost for all schoolchildren irrespective of income, and many more European countries provide targeted or subsidised meals. Even a developing country such as India ensures access to lunch for more than 100 million kids daily.“The idea of offering free meals to all students during the school day is hardly new – many countries already do so,” said Alexis Bylander at the Food Research and Action Center, a US anti-hunger organisation. “Numerous studies show the benefits, including improving student attendance, behaviour and academic success.”Combatting the climate crisisView image in fullscreenWalz’s record: In February 2023 Walz signed legislation committing Minnesota to having all its electricity produced by wind, solar and other clean energy sources by 2040 – an even more ambitious timeframe than adopted by California, America’s sustainable energy leader. The legislature also passed more than 40 climate initiatives, including expanding charging infrastructure for electric vehicles and introducing a new code for commercial buildings to cut energy use by 80% by 2036.Around the world: By global standards, Minnesota’s ambitions do not stand out. Some 27 countries have written into law target dates by which they will become net zero – that is, stop loading additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In the developed world, Finland is leading the way, pledging to be net zero by 2035, and to begin absorbing more carbon dioxide than it produces by 2040. In December, almost 200 countries at the Cop28 climate summit in Dubai agreed to call on all countries to transition away from fossil fuels and for global renewable energy to be tripled by 2030.Child tax creditView image in fullscreenWalz’s record: Last year the governor signed into law a child tax credit program for low-income Minnesota families. The measure sought to fill the hole left by a federal scheme that expired in 2021 after Congress failed to extend it. The Minnesota plan is the most generous of its type in the US, offering $1,750 per child and reaching more than 400,000 children.Around the world: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the forum of high-income democracies, reported in 2018 that 34 of the 35 countries with available information provided their people with some form of family benefit including tax credits. The OECD compared the value of family benefits for two-child families, measured as a percentage of average earnings, across 41 countries and found that the US came in at No 40, with only Turkey being less generous in its support.Basic gun controlsView image in fullscreenWalz’s record: The governor identifies as a proud gun-owner and hunter, and he accepted Harris’s invitation to be her running mate wearing a camo hat. That didn’t stop him in May 2023 enacting a slew of gun safety measures, including requiring all private sales of handguns and semi-automatic rifles to go through an FBI background check that looks for evidence of criminal or mental health risks. The changes also introduced a “red flag law” that allows relatives and other interested parties to intervene when someone is in danger of injuring themselves or others with guns.Around the world: International comparisons show that Americans own vastly more guns than civilians in other rich countries – 121 guns per 100 Americans, compared with five guns per 100 people in the United Kingdom. The number of gun killings per 100,000 people is also vastly higher: 4.12 in the US, 0.04 in the UK.Other countries also have much tougher gun controls that make those introduced by Walz look weak by comparison. Canada requires gun buyers to have a licence to possess or acquire a firearm and first time applicants have to wait a mandatory 28 days; it also imposes mandatory safety training and a ban on military-style rifles that does not exist in the US. The UK also bans some semi-automatic rifles and most handguns. Japan tightly restricts gun ownership, banning most guns other than air guns and a few other special categories and even then requiring owners to submit to annual inspections.Paid family and medical leaveWalz’s record: House File 2, enacted by the governor last year, gave Minnesotans access to up to 20 weeks in every year of partial wages to cover medical leave after a life-changing diagnosis, mental health leave, or time off to care for a new baby. “Paid family and medical leave is about investing in the people that made our state and economy strong in the first place,” Walz said as he signed the bill.Around the world: The US is the only OECD member country without a national law giving all workers access to paid leave for new mothers. Thirty-seven out 38 OECD countries offer national paid maternity leave – the only exception being the US. France, which holds the top spot, allows mothers and fathers to take paid leave until their child is three years old.The US is also one of only six countries with no form of national paid leave covering either family or medical leave in the case of a health concern.Voting rights for former felonsWalz’s record: The governor signed a bill that restores the vote to more than 50,000 Minnesotans who have been convicted of a felony. The Trump campaign denounced the measure as evidence of Walz’s “dangerously liberal agenda”, which is ironic, given that Trump himself, as a convicted felon, will only be able to vote for himself in November thanks to a similar reform in New York.Around the world: A report released by Human Rights Watch (HRW) in June concluded that the US was an “outlier nation in that it strips voting rights from millions of citizens solely on the basis of a criminal conviction”. In 2022, more than 4 million people in the US were disenfranchised on those grounds. By contrast, when HRW surveyed 136 countries around the world, it found that the majority never or rarely deny the vote because of a criminal record, while those with restrictions tend to be much less draconian in their approach than US states. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Black Alabama mayor reinstated after nearly four-year battle

      by

      Patrick Braxton, the first Black mayor of an Alabama town that has not held elections in several decades, has spent the last four years fighting to be recognized. Finally, after an extensive legal battle, he and the town officials who refused to acknowledge him as mayor have reached a settlement, according to federal court documents.Per the settlement agreement, Braxton will be officially seated as the mayor of Newbern, Alabama, and be able to fully serve in this capacity for the first time in nearly four years, pending approval by Judge Kristi K DuBose of the southern district of Alabama.The town has also committed to holding regular municipal elections, which will happen openly and transparently, beginning in 2025. Until then, all current town council members will resign. An interim town council, composed of new people and members of the town council Braxton originally appointed, will help guide the town until it has elections.Morenike Fajana, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund (LDF), which has been involved with the case since last year, said: “It’s been a really long battle.“It’s been four years that this has been ongoing and there have been different setbacks and challenges. But I feel like [Braxton] is appreciative of the fact that this is happening now and he is proud to have the opportunity to serve the town of Newbern.”Braxton said that he has kept his church and community members informed of daily updates about the court case and is happy to finally give them some good news.“Everybody is pleased and happy,” he said. “They’re glad we can put this behind us and start moving forward and working for the town … The children, some of them don’t quite understand about everything, and then some of them are old enough to know this is a big deal for the community.”All of the community will hear the news by 30 August, by which time the parties will hold a public town meeting informing Newbern residents of the agreement.Braxton is excited to finally do what he set out to do nearly half a decade ago: to unify and improve the town.“I think I got a wonderful team, people that’s going to work with me and help the community,” he said.Newbern, located about an hour and a half away from Montgomery, captured national attention in 2023 when it became widely known that white officials had refused for three years to allow Braxton, the first Black mayor in Newbern’s history, to exercise his mayoral duties.The 133-person town is about 80% Black and 20% white, but the town’s leadership, excluding Braxton and his town council, has been majority white for decades. The defendants in the lawsuit, including the previous mayor and council, refused to hold elections.During discovery for the case and last month’s hearing about a motion for preliminary injunction, those on the former town council admitted to never holding elections.“They claimed that they didn’t know they had to,” Fajana said. “Instead, their process was when a position became vacant, they would just kind of recruit among their community and the people that they knew. They would just appoint that person and it would happen, basically, in a covert manner. That had been the process for as long as anybody could remember. Anybody who was serving in the past town council said that’s how they came to power.”Per the settlement, the defendants “specifically deny having engaged in any wrongful practice, or other unlawful conduct”, saying instead they reached the “compromise” to avoid protracted litigation.Braxton told the Guardian in 2023 that the town’s previous mayor had told him that it wasn’t possible to have elections in the small town. He decided to run anyway, out of a desire to help his community, which has a significant poverty rate.“For decades, officials in my town have excluded me and other voters from participating in elections and having a say in what happens here,” Braxton said in a statement provided by the LDF earlier this year.In 2020, Braxton became mayor by default when he was the only person to file for office. Following his election and swearing in, he appointed a town council.Unbeknownst to him, or anyone else in the town, the previous town council and mayor held a secret, special election during which they voted themselves in as town council. Braxton did not attend their parallel town council meetings, not recognizing them as legitimate. The parallel town council removed him from office and reappointed the former mayor to the position. They were aided, the lawsuit alleges, by the town’s bank and clerk.“It’s really about those facts, it’s about what happened in 2020 with this alleged parallel election process and then also, which is equally important, the failure of the town to have any sort of municipal election, whether for mayor or town council, for decades dating back to as long as anyone who has been involved in this case can remember,” Fajana said.Now that he’s fully recognized as mayor and able to serve in that capacity, Braxton is looking towards the future.Per the agreement, he will submit a list of potential names for town council to the Alabama governor, currently Kay Ivey, who will fill the positions. If she does not, the probate judge of Hale county will declare a special election on 31 December 2024. All elected officials elected or appointed before the 2025 municipal election, including Braxton, will have their terms end that year, in pursuance with Alabama law.“Once we get my town council in place,” he said, “I think the town is going to take off and start moving from here.” More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Millions of US voters lack access to documents to prove citizenship

      by

      Nearly one in 10 eligible voters lack easy access to documents to prove their citizenship, according to a new survey, underscoring how Republican efforts to purportedly prevent non-citizens from voting could disenfranchise millions.If asked to quickly locate a passport, birth certificate or naturalization papers to produce proof of citizenship tomorrow, more than 21 million Americans – about 9% of eligible voters – would not be able to, according to the survey, conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice, VoteRiders, Public Wise, and the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement (CDCE) at the University of Maryland. Nearly 4 million American citizens – 2% in total – lack access to any form of proof in citizenship.The survey comes as Donald Trump and his allies have seized on fears about immigration to make the threat of non-citizen voting a major talking point ahead of November. Republicans have exaggerated the threat of non-citizen voting – which is already illegal and rare – and have pushed for federal legislation that would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.“We all know – intuitively – that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections. But it’s not been something that is easily provable,” Mike Johnson, the US House speaker, said last month.Two states that have already tried measures to require documentary proof of citizenship, Kansas and Arizona, offer case studies in how such a restriction can disenfranchise voters. In Kansas, 30,000 people had their voter registration held up between 2013 and 2016 because of the law. In Arizona, a proof-of-citizenship requirement for state elections has negatively affected tribal voters and college students.Researchers also found racial disparities in who has access to citizenship documents. About 3% of voters of color do not have access to proof-of-citizenship documents, compared with 1% of white Americans. Americans of color were also more likely to not have easy access to the documents compared with their white counterparts.“Our estimates are probably conservative measures of impact,” the researchers wrote in a blogpost announcing their findings. “While it’s true that most Americans can access these documents, most of us don’t walk around town carrying our passport or birth certificate. If those documents were required for voter registration, most would not have them readily available to take advantage of opportunities they encounter at schools, churches or other community spaces where registration drives register many Americans to vote.”About 4% of independents, 2% of Democrats and 1% of Republicans lacked easy access to proof-of-citizenship documents, the survey found.In addition to citizenship, the survey also found that about 21 million Americans of voting age do not have a non-expired driver’s license, with non-white voters less likely to have one.About 30% of Black Americans between 18 and 29 did not have a driver’s license and 47% did not have one with a current name or address. About 5% of white Americans in the same age group did not have a driver’s license, and 42% did not have one with a current name or address.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Millions of eligible voters lack a current form of photo ID – and it’s not easy to get one,” said Lauren Kunis, the executive director of VoteRiders, which helps people get ID. “Getting an ID can mean needing to track down underlying proof-of-citizenship documents like a birth certificate, navigating bureaucracy and paperwork, or spending hours at an ID-issuing office that is hard to reach. For these reasons and many more, voter ID laws make it more complicated, costly and confusing to cast a ballot in America today.”The survey is consistent with a Brennan Center survey nearly two decades ago that found 7% of Americans do not have easy access to proof-of-citizenship documents.“The current protections against non-citizen voting are effective: ballots cast by non-citizens are vanishingly rare,” the researchers wrote. “Requiring proof of citizenship would solve nothing, but it would create major barriers to registration for eligible voters, especially those who already face disproportionate barriers to participation in our democracy. We should be making it easier, not harder, for these citizens to participate.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Will Trump, a convicted felon, be able to vote for himself in November?

      by

      Despite his 34 felony convictions, Donald Trump will likely still be able to cast a vote for himself in November because of Florida and New York’s voting rights restoration laws.Florida, where Trump has his primary residence, allows people convicted of felonies to vote depending on the law in the state where they are convicted.New York is one of 23 states where people convicted of a felony can vote, even if they are on parole or probation, as long as they are not incarcerated.“A felony conviction in another state makes a person ineligible to vote in Florida only if the conviction would make the person ineligible to vote in the state where the person was convicted,” Florida’s department of state website reads.But Florida’s law is confusing, especially after state voters passed amendment 4 in 2018, which restored the right to vote to most people with felony convictions who have completed all terms of their sentence. The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, which led the campaign for amendment 4, has sued over the process, but dropped a lawsuit against the state earlier this month after the department of state said it would hold a workshop to update the process for people with felony convictions to learn about their voting eligibility.Trump could lose his right to vote if he were incarcerated on 5 November, but legal experts say it is unlikely he will be sentenced to jail time. There will also likely be a lengthy appeal which could extend past election day.“We have to wait to see what happens with Trump’s sentencing and possible appeal in New York to see what happens with [his] voter eligibility,” said Neil Volz, deputy director of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition. “That said, we are in uncharted territory when it comes to people with convictions being able to vote.”“After New York goes through their process, whether President Trump can vote with a felony conviction will depend on what the state of Florida does,” he added. “Our belief is that no one should be above the law or below the law when it comes to voter eligibility for people with convictions, and that everyone should operate under the same set of standards.”If Trump did lose his right to vote, he could always apply for rights restoration with Florida’s clemency board, which is made up of Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, and his cabinet. The board is scheduled to meet three more times in 2024. DeSantis endorsed Trump when he dropped out of the presidential race in January. More

    • 188 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court rules South Carolina doesn’t need to redraw congressional map to consider Black voters

      by

      South Carolina Republicans do not need to redraw their congressional map, the US supreme court ruled on Thursday, saying that a lower court had not properly evaluated the evidence when it ruled that the lawmakers had discriminated against Black voters.In a 6-3 decision, the justices sent the case back to the lower court for further consideration. The decision, in Alexander v South Carolina Conference of the NAACP, is a major win for Republicans, who hold a slim margin in the US House with six of South Carolina’s seven congressional seats. It also could give lawmakers more leeway to discriminate in redistricting and use partisanship as a proxy for race. That could be enormously powerful in the US south, where voting is often racially polarized.“A party challenging a map’s constitutionality must disentangle race and politics if it wishes to prove that the legislature was motivated by race as opposed to partisanship. Second, in assessing a legislature’s work, we start with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith,” wrote Samuel Alito in an opinion that was joined by the court’s five other conservative justices.“The three-judge district court paid only lip service to these propositions. That misguided approach infected the district court’s findings of fact, which were clearly erroneous under the appropriate legal standard.”The dispute centered on the way the Republicans who control the state legislature redrew the state’s first congressional district after the 2020 census. After Nancy Mace narrowly was elected in 2020, they shifted the district’s boundaries to make it much friendlier to Republicans. As part of that effort, they moved 30,000 Black voters from Mace’s first district to the sixth, currently represented by Jim Clyburn, a Black Democrat. A lower court had ruled that lawmakers had impermissibly relied on race when they drew it after the 2020 census, saying they had to redraw the district.The case had dragged on for so long, however, that the lower court and the supreme court recently allowed South Carolina to use the district for this year’s election.Mac Deford, an attorney challenging Mace, observed oral arguments in person. Deford said he watched Chief Justice John Roberts wrestle with the connection between race and politics.“From my viewpoint, there was some signaling that they were going to draw some sort of line between race and politics. And I think that they did in this case,” Deford said, noting how in the earlier decision Shelby v Holder Roberts had proposed the idea that southern legislators had long abandoned heavy-handed racial discrimination in voting.“This could be sort of setting the stage for a subsequent case, maybe next year, that could be brought on the Voting Rights Act that could further strip away the vote.”The challengers in the case, the South Carolina branch of the NAACP and a South Carolina voter, argued that those actions violated the 14th amendment’s ban on sorting voters based on race. South Carolina Republicans argued that they were motivated by partisanship, not race.In 2019, the supreme court said that there was nothing federal courts could do to stop gerrymandering based on partisanship. Sorting voters based on race, however, still remains unlawful. This was the first case that came to the court since its 2019 decision, forcing the justices to clarify their standard when the two issues are intermingled.The lower court had relied on a trove of evidence and experts that the challengers offered to conclude that South Carolina Republicans were sorting voters based on their race. One of those experts used an algorithm to draw 20,000 maps that didn’t take race into account but complied with traditional redistricting criteria. But Alito and the other conservative justices said that evidence was not good enough.Alito zeroed in on the fact that the challengers in the case had not offered an alternative map that achieved the partisan goals of Republican lawmakers – a safe Republican district – and that also had a higher Black voting age population as the challenged district. Such a map, he wrote, was critical to proving that South Carolina Republicans had considered race above other considerations.“Without an alternative map, it is difficult for plaintiffs to defeat our starting presumption that the legislature acted in good faith,” he wrote.That rationale drew a sharp rebuke from Elena Kagan, who accused the majority of getting the decision “seriously wrong” and inventing “a new rule of evidence”.“As of today, courts must draw an adverse inference against those plaintiffs when they do not submit a so-called alternative map – no matter how much proof of a constitutional violation they otherwise present,” the liberal justice wrote in an opinion. “Such micro-management of a plaintiff ’s case is elsewhere unheard of in constitutional litigation. But as with its upside-down application of clear-error review, the majority is intent on changing the usual rules when it comes to addressing racial-gerrymandering claims.”Kagan went on to outline how Thursday’s decision would give states much more leeway to enact discriminatory maps and voting policies.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“In every way, the majority today stacks the deck against the challengers. They must lose, the majority says, because the state had a ‘possible’ story to tell about not considering race – even if the opposite story was the more credible,” Kagan wrote in the opinion, which was joined by the court’s two other liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.“When racial classifications in voting are at issue, the majority says, every doubt must be resolved in favor of the state, lest (heaven forfend) it be ‘accus[ed]’ of ‘offensive and demeaning’ conduct.”Leah Aden, a lawyer at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund who argued the case on behalf of the plaintiffs at the supreme court in October, said the decision “usurps the authority of trial courts to make factual findings of racial discrimination as the unanimous panel found occurred with South Carolina’s design of congressional district 1”. She said the challengers would continue to fight to redraw the map at the lower court.Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, said Alito and the court majority had “once again come up with a legal framework that makes it easier for Republican states to engage in redistricting to help white Republicans maximize their political power”.“He did so by reversing the burden of proof that should apply in these cases in two ways to favor these states: pushing a ‘presumption of good faith’ and raising the evidentiary burdens for those challenging the maps,” he wrote on his blog.Clarence Thomas, a conservative justice, also wrote a lengthy separate concurring opinion in the case saying that federal courts should not be involved in policing constitutional claims of racial discrimination in redistricting – a radical idea that would be a break with the court’s longstanding jurisprudence. “It behooves us to abandon our misguided efforts and leave districting to politicians,” he wrote. The concurrence was not joined by any of the other justices.Joe Biden also criticized the decision in a statement Thursday afternoon.“The Supreme Court’s decision today undermines the basic principle that voting practices should not discriminate on account of race and that is wrong,” he said. “This decision threatens South Carolinians’ ability to have their voices heard at the ballot box, and the districting plan the Court upheld is part of a dangerous pattern of racial gerrymandering efforts from Republican elected officials to dilute the will of Black voters.”George Chidi contributed reporting More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Minority Rule review: rich history of America’s undemocratic democracy

      by

      Ari Berman’s new book is a rich history of America’s ambivalent attitude toward majority rule. The founding document declared “all men are created equal”, but by the time a constitution was drafted 11 years later, there was already a severe backlash to that revolutionary assertion.To prevent the union from disintegrating, free states and big states repeatedly gave in to slave states and small states, producing a constitution that would be adopted by the majority.The first and worst decision was to give each state two senators regardless of population. Virginia had 12 times the population of Delaware. Today, the situation is vastly worse: California is 63 times bigger than Wyoming. By 2040, Berman writes, “roughly 70% of Americans will live in 15 states with 30 senators, while the other 30%, who are whiter, older and more rural … will elect 70 senators”.The filibuster, a delaying tactic that led to most legislation requiring 60 votes to pass the Senate – but which has no basis in the constitution – makes the country even more undemocratic. Forty Republican senators representing just 21% of the population have blocked bills on abortion rights, voting rights and gun control supported by big majorities.The House of Representatives was supposed to be closer to the people than the Senate, which wasn’t even elected by voters when first created. But when the free states placated the slave states by allowing them to count every enslaved Black person as three-fifths of a human being, for the purposes of representation, that increased how many representatives slave states sent to the House.To Berman, it was “a fundamental contradiction that the nation’s most important democratic document was intended to make the country less democratic”. As the New Yorker Melancton Smith noted at the time, the constitution represented a “transfer of power from the many to the few”.The national voting rights correspondent for Mother Jones, Berman also offers a horrific description of the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by modern-day oligarchs to make America even more undemocratic. In just six years, the Federalist Society raised an astonishing $580m “through a shadowy network of a dozen dark money nonprofit groups” to put its “preferred judges on the bench”. The society has gotten a huge bang for its buck – more than 500 judges appointed by both Bushes and 226 appointed by Donald Trump were endorsed by the Federalists.The worst results of this hammerlock on judicial appointments are at the very top of the pyramid: “For the first time in US history, five of six conservative justices on the supreme court have been appointed by Republican presidents who initially lost the popular vote and confirmed by senators representing a minority of Americans.”And what is the “signature project” of these justices? The dismantling of the civil rights laws that are the greatest legacy of the 1960s.Federalist Society judges worked in lockstep with the Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, whose priority has been to put an end to all effective limits on who can spend how much in every election.“I never would have been able to win my race if there had been a limit on the amount of money I could raise and spend,” McConnell wrote of his first race, in 1984. Eighteen years later, the Republican John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold managed to ban unlimited donations. Their law survived McConnell’s first lawsuit to undo it, on a 5-4 supreme court vote. But four years later, after the extremist Samuel Alito replaced the moderate Sandra Day O’Connor, the court gutted the law, allowing unlimited corporate expenditure as long as ads “didn’t explicitly” endorse a candidate.“Thus began a trend,” Berman explains. “GOP-appointed judges reliably supported Republican efforts to tilt the rules and institutions of democracy in their favor … which in turn helped Republicans win more elections and appoint more judges, with one undemocratic feature of the system augmenting the other.”As the country’s founders adopted a constitution that disenfranchised all Black people and all women, modern conservatives do all they can to keep the voting rolls as unrepresentative as possible, particularly as people of color become the majority in the US. Racism remains the strongest fuel for efforts to make it as hard as possible for Black and younger voters to exercise their franchise.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe worst recent example of this was the failure of a narrowly Democratic Senate to adopt a voting rights act in 2021. It failed when Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, both Democrats then, refused to alter the filibuster rule. Manchin supported the bill, then reversed with a specious explanation: while the right to vote was “fundamental to American democracy … protecting that right … should never be done in a partisan manner”Berman’s book ends on a more hopeful note, with descriptions of Democratic victories in Michigan and Wisconsin.In Michigan, a 29-year-old activist, Katie Fahey, figured out she could end the gerrymandering which had let the Republicans dominate her state by putting a ballot initiative before the voters. She needed 315,000 signatures. In one of the few good news stories about social media, she was able to use Facebook to gather 410,000 signatures in 110 days without any paid staff. In 2018, the reform won with an amazing 61% of the vote. Another initiative that dramatically expanded voter access through automatic and election-day access passed by 66%.The end of gerrymandering enabled Democrats to flip both houses in Michigan in 2022, “giving them control of state politics for the first time in 40 years”. And in Wisconsin, the election of an additional liberal justice to the state supreme court finally ended Republicans’ domination of the state government.The hopeful message is clear: despite massive Republican efforts to suppress liberal votes, it is still possible for a well-organized grassroots campaign to overcome the millions of dollars spent every year to prevent the triumph of true democracy.
      Minority Rule is published in the US by Farrar, Straus and Giroux More