Category: Arizona

  • Cameras stream live footage from the Arizona vote audit in Maricopa County, Arizona, on May 4, 2021.

    Nearly six months after voting ended in the 2020 presidential election, Republicans are leading an effort in Arizona to throw undue doubt into President Joe Biden’s win in the state — and they’ve hired conspiracy theorists to help lead the charge.

    Republican legislators in the state, who hold a majority in the legislature, successfully subpoenaed 2.1 million ballots earlier this year. Senate Republicans demanded the ballots from election officials in Maricopa County, which put Biden over the top and then didn’t have anywhere to put the ballots once they got them.

    The GOP obtained the ballots with the goal of completing their own audit of the election results, despite the fact that the state’s own audits, as well as Maricopa County’s audit, found no evidence of voter fraud.

    Still, Republicans think that they can conduct a better audit — perhaps one with different results — and have hired a company with zero experience with elections to do so. As Judd Legum of Popular Information wrote, “The counting will continue until results improve.”

    The company Republicans have hired, for $150,000 of taxpayer money, is called Cyber Ninjas. Cyber Ninjas is a Florida-based cybersecurity company which has been described by its founder, Doug Logan, as a “Christian company.” Logan has espoused views supporting the conspiracy theories put forth by “Stop the Steal” groups and QAnon-affiliated Ron Watkins, who propagate the false claim that it was Donald Trump, not Biden, who truly won the election.

    Arizona is not Logan’s first rodeo in challenging election results. He was previously listed as an expert witness in a lawsuit in Michigan where the plaintiffs claimed that voting machines were rigged.

    Though the company has tried keeping their audit methodology under wraps, they’ve been ordered by a judge to disclose documents with procedures for the audit. The procedures “[don’t] make any sense, and I’ve seen a lot of audits,” Tammy Patrick, senior elections adviser for Democracy Fund and former Maricopa County elections worker, told USA Today.

    The documents detailing procedures for “forensics” are vague and unclear. One such procedure evidently being employed by Cyber Ninja is using UV lights to check for watermarks on the ballots. Arizona’s ballots don’t have watermarks, and the Brennan Center for Justice has warned that the lights could make the ballots deteriorate, but that hasn’t stopped conspiracy theorists from believing that using the UV light might reveal a secret watermark.

    Observers and election experts have also caught the auditors making basic mistakes like using blue pens that might alter the vote on a ballot or not securing the area where ballots are being counted by locking the doors.

    Cyber Ninjas has also recruited former state lawmaker Anthony Kern to help validate ballots. Kern is a Trump supporter who was at the Capitol on January 6 with the mob trying to get the election results overturned.

    State Republicans are also evidently trying to raise funds beyond the $150,000 from the government for the audit effort, Legum reports. The Arizona Senate is soliciting donations to raise $2.8 million for the effort on a website, Fund the Audit.com, owned by an organization created by former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, also a known Trump supporter.

    Trump himself has been bragging about the audit, despite the fact that Arizona lawmakers don’t have the authority to overturn election results. Still, he’s been telling Mar-a-Lago guests that the audit will perhaps help reinstate him — although, even if the legislators could overturn the result of the state’s election, and if there were any evidence of fraud, the 11 electoral votes it would give the former president would still not be enough to give him the win he wants.

    So then why are Republicans still chugging along to overturn Arizona’s results? It’s unclear, but the audit is already likely having harmful effects. Most Republican voters still believe that the election was rigged; and the very fact that Republicans are conducting an audit may indicate, to some, that there are legitimate reasons to believe that there was fraud, no matter how spurious the real reasons for the audit are.

    Political observers warn that the results of the audit, even if they’re falsified or based on flawed methodology, could end up adding fuel to the Republicans’ voter suppression fire in Arizona and across the country.

    “The idea, obviously, is to create a new truth for Republicans,” wrote MSNBC’s Steve Benen, “at which point pro-Trump forces can exploit the lie to justify new voter-suppression efforts and perhaps even related efforts in other states, where Republicans can hire Cyber Ninjas of their own.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Voters enter Burton Barr Central Library to cast their ballots on November 3, 2020, in Phoenix, Arizona.

    Arizona is taking center stage in the relentless effort to rein in voter participation in the name of “election security,” advancing the first in a batch of bills aimed at making vote by mail harder. These Republican-led efforts are based on the discredited lie that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and mail-in voting is insecure. Yet, it was only after the statewide federal elections in Arizona were won by the opposing political party suddenly Arizona’s mail-in voting processes became untrustworthy.

    The Democratic wins at the top of the ticket, albeit narrow, were driven by high turnout and a rise in mail voting usage. Arizona had historically high turnout in 2020, about 10 percent higher and about 800,000 more voters than in 2016. In 2020, out of 3.4 million ballots counted, 2.4 million were cast by mail. Indigenous voters and especially those living on tribal lands played a decisive role. State legislative races were very close in some districts, with both houses of the Arizona Legislature almost evenly divided

    Arizonans are extremely concerned that proposed changes to the “permanent early voting list,” also known as the PEVL, would disrupt longstanding practices that encourage voting. The list is wildly popular in the state. It makes voting much easier because voters on the list automatically receive their ballot in the mail without having to affirmatively request it. About 3.2 million voters are on the list right now, and voters of all political stripes are almost equally represented. The list currently consists of 36 percent Republicans, 35 percent Democrats, and 29 percent unaffiliated voters or those registered with other parties.

    At the same time as attacks on mail in voting are moving through the legislature, the Arizona Senate is engaged in an unprecedented legislative “audit” of the ballots of a single county — Maricopa — in a quest to discover irregularities in those ballots. The senate is proceeding with the audit even though Maricopa County already conducted its own audit of ballots and a forensic audit of the voting machines, and both confirmed the outcome of the 2020 election.

    This audit could also be used as an excuse for passing bills that restrict access to voting. In fact, a Republican senator has announced she is holding up all voting bills — positive or negative — until the results of the audit are reported because she is convinced the review of Maricopa ballots will reveal issues that need a legislative remedy. But it’s only a temporary reprieve because as long as the legislature remains in session, anti-democratic bills can be brought to a floor vote, passed, and head over to the governor.

    One of them is S.B. 1485, which the Arizona House passed last week, failed in the Senate, and is currently under a motion for reconsideration. It would require counties to purge from the early voting list voters who did not vote an early voting ballot in both the primary and general election in two consecutive election cycles. Even if they voted in person in every election during the four-year period, they would still be removed from the early voting list because they didn’t use their early ballot.

    Removing voters from the permanent early voting list makes it more likely that those people will not participate in elections. Increasing opportunities for mail-in voting brings marginal voters into in elections and retains voters who might otherwise choose not to participate. Current estimates predict that 125,000 to 150,000 voters will be jettisoned from the early voting list if this bill is signed into law. If it had been enacted in 2019, approximately 126,000 Arizonans who voted in 2020 would have been removed. A voter who does not receive their mail ballot will have to vote in person, which can be difficult for some people, especially those living on remote tribal lands. The predicted number of voters who risk removal are well above the margins of victory in both the 2018 and 2020 statewide federal elections.

    Unfortunately, S.B. 1485 is just one in a series of bills introduced this year that aim to limit access to mail voting. S.B. 1713 would require voters to include their date of birth and one of two acceptable ID numbers when they return their early ballot: an Arizona driver’s license number or voter registration number. By excluding other types of ID, the state is closing the door on many voters who do not have these numbers. Moreover, the universe of voters who do not have a driver’s license disproportionately consists of voters of color and older voters. While the bill allows voters to use their voter registration number on the return envelope, most voters do not have that number readily available. This bill would force voters to jump through additional hoops to send back their early ballot. Importantly, failure to include this additional information gives election officials a reason to toss out those ballots.

    Several other restrictive bills would make it harder for voters to fix — or “cure” — a mail ballot that has problems, and they threaten criminal penalties for both election officials and citizens for trying to encourage mail voting. S.B. 1003 would limit the time for curing a missing signature on a mail in ballot to 7 p.m. on Election Day. The cure period for mismatched signatures and other missing information is longer: voters have until the fifth business day after the election to do so.

    H.B. 2792 would make it a felony for an election official to send a voter an early ballot unless the voter requests it. S.B. 1106 would, among other things, subject any person to criminal liability for knowingly assisting another person that resides in another state in voting including by forwarding an early ballot to that person. The broad contours of the bill could encompass seemingly benign action, like a parent sending a mail ballot to their child away at college in another state.

    All of these bills have already been passed by one chamber of the legislature and have been passed out of committee by the other, so they stand a real chance of heading to the governor’s desk soon. Compounding these attempts to limit voter participation, the legislature has already tied the hands of local election officials by enacting a new law this month that prohibits state and local election officials from receiving or spending “private monies” in the administration of elections. This legislation, like others around the country, is a backlash against the philanthropic grants to help election officials to cope with the increased costs of running the 2020 election amidst a pandemic. True to form, Arizona did not attempt to remedy the shortfall with additional tax dollars.

    As state legislatures perpetuate the myth that mail voting is insecure, it’s vitally important to call out these blatantly undemocratic efforts to prevent certain people from voting. Grassroots organizations in Arizona deserve enormous credit for beating back the worst bills in Arizona during this session. While the Arizona legislative “audit” and its attendant political gamesmanship plays out, it’s still necessary to guard against dangerous attacks on mail-in voting that could result in disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters.

    The nationwide dislike of voter suppression measures has left little doubt: Americans, from everyday people to high-ranking corporate executives, understand that laws seeking to deter participation constitute an unacceptable attack on democracy. It’s well past time for state legislators to stop these efforts.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sens. Mitt Romney and Kyrsten Sinema speak to each other during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on March 5, 2020, in Washington, D.C.

    Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) is teaming up with Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) to form a bipartisan minimum-wage raise to counter the $15 federal minimum wage favored by progressives, the White House and the U.S. public. But the wage that Romney and Sinema are reportedly advocating for is lower than the minimum wage in Sinema’s own state.

    Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) told HuffPost that the senators’ plan is to raise the federal minimum wage to $11 an hour. In Sinema’s home state of Arizona, however, the minimum wage is currently $12.15 an hour — higher than the threshold that Sinema is seeking to set federally.

    Though neither Sinema nor Romney have confirmed that figure, Sinema has previously expressed her support for an $11 minimum wage. Manchin is reportedly circulating his own proposal for an $11 federal minimum wage indexed to inflation.

    Romney has signaled to The Hill that he and Sinema were in agreement over what the proposal would be. “We’re negotiating a minimum wage proposal which we would ultimately take to our group of 20 and see how they react to it and then go from there,” he told the publication, referring to a group of 20 centrist senators.

    The proposal stands in contrast to progressives’ proposal of slowly raising the minimum wage to $15 over the next few years. A $15 minimum wage has been a benchmark for progressives for almost a decade. Politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) fought for the $15 minimum-wage proposal to be included in the last stimulus package, but it was eventually shot down.

    Sanders has since continued fighting for raising the federal minimum wage to $15 by 2025 and phasing out of the subminimum wage that he calls for in his Raise the Wage Act proposal. “In the wealthiest country on Earth, people should not be working for starvation wages,” Sanders said last month. But centrists have continued standing staunchly against it despite months of prodding from the left.

    Sinema gained the particular ire of progressives for her opposition to the proposal when she seemingly gleefully gave a thumbs down to the $15-wage proposal in the Senate last month. Raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2025, the Economic Policy Institute finds, would help raise the pay of 32 million workers in the U.S. — 21 percent of the workforce.

    Polls have shown that in pushing for an $11 federal minimum wage instead of a $15 minimum wage, Sinema goes against the will of her own constituents.

    Data for Progress found last month that 61 percent of Arizona voters support a $15 minimum wage, including an overwhelming 89 percent of Democrats — Sinema’s own party. That same poll found that 47 percent of voters said they’d be less likely to vote for Sinema over her opposition to the $15 minimum wage, including 60 percent of Democrats.

    Progressives have pointed out to Sinema that her opposition to filibuster abolition or reform is also unpopular in her state. Over three in five Arizonan voters, a poll found in February, are more in favor of passing legislation than upholding the filibuster.

    Though the $15 minimum wage has been a benchmark for the left for quite some time, many progressives have also pointed out that $15 an hour is barely a living wage in some places. Economist Robert Pollin recently told Truthout that if the minimum wage had stayed the same as it was in the 1960s, factoring in labor productivity and inflation, it would be $31.67 an hour today — over four times the current federal minimum wage of $7.25.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • People stand in line to vote outside the Main Street Branch Library vote center on November 3, 2020, in Huntington Beach, California.

    As retaliation against Democrats taking control of Congress and the White House in the 2020 election, lawmakers in 47 states are filing record-shattering numbers of bills to restrict voting access across the country. Since mid-February, the Brennan Center for Justice reported on Thursday, lawmakers have introduced 108 bills restricting voting on top of the 253 bills they had already filed at the Brennan Center’s last count.

    In total this year, state lawmakers have introduced a staggering 361 bills that restrict voting in some way, the Brennan Center has found — and they show no sign of stopping. The 108 new bills introduced in the last six weeks represent a 43 percent increase in the total number of voter suppression bills, and 55 of those bills in 24 states are moving through the legislatures, either passing a chamber or receiving committee action, such as a hearing.

    Many Republicans across the country hide the fact that the bills are aimed at suppressing votes by claiming that the bills are actually about “election integrity.” But the GOP was clearly inspired by former President Donald Trump, who continually repeated lies about the election being fraudulent. Republicans took those words to heart and have been emboldened to introduce bill after bill suppressing voters and blatantly admitting that they believe “everybody shouldn’t be voting.”

    Many of the bills being introduced take aim at absentee voting and early voting, and almost a quarter of the bills seek tighter ID requirements, the Brennan Center finds. Early and mail-in voting surged in 2020 as states increased the availability of both in order to curb the spread of COVID-19.

    Republicans, reeling from their losses in 2020 and operating with the knowledge that they tend to have worse chances in elections when more people vote, are now looking to restrict both mail-in and early voting.

    It wasn’t always this way. The Georgia GOP recently passed a wide-ranging omnibus bill that takes on provisions they formerly favored, such as mobile voting buses and drop boxes for absentee ballots. The new law bans voting buses and restricts drop-box locations, though it was Georgia Republicans who originally passed the state’s no-excuse absentee voting when it was largely used by Georgia’s elderly white populations. The GOP lawmakers are now trying to get that provision overturned in their fight to impose voting restrictions.

    Lawmakers in Georgia, Texas and Arizona have filed the most bills aimed at voter suppression so far, the Brennan Center finds. Georgia and Arizona flipped blue in the presidential election, and Texas is potentially turning purple soon. Georgia Republicans last week passed their sweeping voter suppression bill, and bills in Texas and Arizona are currently on their way through the legislature.

    More concerning is that many of the laws also target the way that elections are administered and target election officials, which could open up avenues for Republicans to outright steal elections in the future. Following partisan attacks on state and local election administrators from Trump and his army of Republican lawmakers, state legislators are now targeting local election officials. Some lawmakers are exploring the possibility of creating criminal penalties targeting election officials, the Brennan Center writes.

    The omnibus bill that just passed in Georgia manipulates election administration in such a way that it could hugely favor conservatives in a state that’s already gerrymandered to favor Republicans.

    The law removes the secretary of state as the head of the election board and makes it so that the majority of the election board can be picked by the Republican-controlled legislature. It also gives Republicans wide purview over who is allowed to run elections at the local level. Additionally, the law makes it easier for conservative groups to challenge voters’ eligibility and potentially get votes thrown out — precisely what the conservative group True the Vote tried to do in the state but couldn’t execute effectively.

    Republicans have also passed restrictive voting bills in Arkansas, Iowa and Utah into law, the Brennan Center finds. These bills make it harder to vote with restrictions such as recategorizing voters as inactive if they miss one federal election and making it harder for them to vote early, absentee or regularly.

    A bill passed in Utah, according to the Brennan Center, will make voter roll purges more prone to error because it gives county clerks just 10 days to cross-reference death certificates with voter rolls and purge voters who may have died. The bill does not require the clerks to give notice of the purge or require that the purges be audited.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As dozens of voter suppression bills in Georgia and Arizona gain traction, new reporting finds that Republican leaders, under pressure from groups like the Heritage Foundation, are quietly organizing to establish guidelines for voter suppression and spread similar bills across the country.

    Party leaders, The New York Times reports, are looking into using language like that of Arizona’s restrictive, racist voter ID laws in other states. For new laws, they’re working on a list of “best practices” for their party to follow in writing bills pertaining to elections.

    The party has also created a group within the Republican National Committee (RNC), Nick Corasaniti and Reid J. Epstein write for The New York Times, for “election integrity” composed of two dozen members “tasked with developing legislative proposals on voting systems.”

    Following the patterns of the “legislative proposals” on voting that Republicans have filed in the months following the 2020 election, this group is likely brainstorming further voter suppression efforts within the RNC. The committee is populated by officials who were “deeply involved” in former President Donald Trump’s so-called “stop the steal” efforts to question and overturn the 2020 presidential election.

    The idea to begin filing waves of voter suppression bills didn’t come out of nowhere. Though Republican state lawmakers are a huge driving force behind such bills — and there was obvious pressure from congressional Republicans and the president to question election integrity — Republicans in Georgia, for instance, were approached by members of an outside group with interest in rolling back voting access: Heritage Action for America, a political sister organization to the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation.

    Shortly after a meeting between Georgia Republicans and Heritage Action members in late January, dozens of bills aimed at making it harder to vote flooded the state legislature. Of the 68 bills, The New York Times found, at least 23 had similar language or were similar in principle to a Heritage Foundation letter that the members gave the lawmakers, as well as a report, which laid out the group’s preferred action items on restrictive voting laws.

    “The alignment was not coincidental,” write Corasaniti and Epstein. “As Republican legislatures across the country seek to usher in a raft of new restrictions on voting, they are being prodded by an array of party leaders and outside groups working to establish a set of guiding principles to the efforts to claw back access to voting.”

    This reporting suggests that the drive to pass sweeping legislation making it harder to vote across the country is strong among Republicans and even more united than it may have seemed previously.

    As the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) showed in February, the “stop the steal” ideology is still strong and healthy within the Republican Party despite, and perhaps because of, Democratic power in Congress and the White House. CPAC organizers devoted seven panels during its weeklong event to the idea of stolen elections, including a panel titled “Protecting Elections Part VI: Failed States (PA, GA, NV, Oh My!).”

    Looking into the future, the Heritage Foundation, through Heritage Action, is planning to spend $24 million across eight states, including battlegrounds that flipped blue in 2020, such as Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan. They plan a two-year effort to “produce model legislation for state legislatures to adopt” on voting, per The New York Times.

    Meanwhile, during a Wednesday hearing on S.1, the For the People Act, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) claimed that reports such as the one from the Brennan Center for Justice, which suggests that there’s a concerted effort by Republicans to suppress votes, are unfair, since only a few of them have become law so far.

    But Blunt, who did not vote to overturn the results of the election but did vote to acquit Trump, ignores that the very Brennan Center report he cites in the hearing finds that the number of voter suppression bills being filed in legislatures across the country is over four times the number filed during the same time last year — generating an unprecedented amount of legislation. He also ignores the fact that Republicans have outright admitted what they’re trying to achieve with these efforts. As one Arizona lawmaker said earlier this month, “everybody shouldn’t be voting.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Trump supporters protest in front of the Maricopa County Election Department while votes are being counted in Phoenix, Arizona, on November 6, 2020.

    A judge from the Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona has ordered the state’s Republican Party and its lawyers to pay over $18,000 in attorney fees that were incurred during their failed attempts to mount a legal challenge to the election results and President Joe Biden’s win in the state.

    Judge John Hannah was scathing in his decision released on Friday, saying that the suit was “groundless,” partially because the Republicans sued the wrong people and because their reasons for bringing the lawsuit were “flimsy” and “improper.” The Republican Party claimed that the Arizona secretary of state had misstated the law but then named county election officials as the defendants in their suit instead of the secretary of state. It failed to acknowledge this error.

    The judge says that the Republican Party has admitted that it “filed this lawsuit for political reasons. ‘Public mistrust’ is a political issue, not a legal or factual basis for litigation,” Hannah wrote. The party’s lawyers had stated that their reason for filing the suit was mistrust in the election results — though they fail to mention that that mistrust was created by former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party itself.

    The judgment was issued for “reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses against an attorney or party that brings or defends a claim without substantial justification or solely or primarily for delay or harassment,” Hannah wrote. The party “made no serious pre-filing effort” to ensure their argument was justified before bringing the suit, the judge argued.

    He also says in his decision that the arguments from the party’s lawyers represented “a lack of good faith” and that their questioning of the Court’s inquiries into their own arguments was “gaslighting.”

    “Arizona law gives political parties a privileged position in the electoral process on which our self-government depends,” Hannah concludes. “The public has a right to expect the Arizona Republican Party to conduct itself respectfully when it participates in that process. It has failed to do so in this case.” The $18,000 in fees had previously been paid for with taxpayer money.

    In statements protesting the judge’s decision, the party’s attorneys doubled down on their arguments, which had been refuted by the judge, saying that the order “encourages public distrust in the government for being openly hostile to them.” As the judge stated, however, public perceptions, in this case, are not legal grounds for a lawsuit.

    The Arizona Republican Party filed two of the eight lawsuits that challenged the results of the election in Arizona. All of them failed, and there has been no evidence of voter fraud in the state.

    Following the slate of failed lawsuits after the election, Republicans across the country have been trying a myriad of other tactics to try to skew future election results in their favor.

    In January, a Republican state lawmaker introduced a bill to grant the Arizona legislature the ability to overturn the results of a presidential election in the state. The bill would “effectively disenfranchise voters” across the state, wrote Truthout’s Chris Walker. The bill was never brought to a vote.

    Arizona has also been a hot spot for Republicans introducing bills aimed at suppressing voters in the state, with lawmakers filing two dozen bills that make it harder to vote. Several of them are aimed at imposing restrictions on voting by mail and limiting them to a very narrow window. Republicans have been particularly targeting voting by mail after it was expanded in many states due to COVID-19 — and it was used by many Black voters in places like Georgia.

    Republicans in Arizona have also basically admitted that they want fewer people to vote because they believe that it will help them win elections. A lawyer representing the Arizona Republican Party told the Supreme Court that laws allowing more people to vote puts them “at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats.”

    And last week, a Republican lawmaker in the state said that Republicans are looking to place restrictions on voting because they believe that “everybody shouldn’t be voting.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A "no voter fraud" sign is displayed by a protester at the Maricopa County Elections Department office on November 4, 2020, in Phoenix, Arizona.

    Across the country, Republicans have been behind a flurry of over 250 laws introduced to suppress voting after their candidate lost the presidential election. One Arizona lawmaker on Thursday had an answer for why the GOP is pushing these laws: “[Republicans] don’t mind putting security measures in that won’t let everybody vote — but everybody shouldn’t be voting.”

    Democrats, GOP Rep. John Kavanagh of Arizona explained to CNN, want everyone to be able to vote and are “willing to risk fraud.” Republicans, especially since former President Donald Trump lost the election, are more concerned about voter fraud — which is statistically insignificant according to voting officials — so they’re willing to suppress votes, Kavanagh said.

    “Not everybody wants to vote, and if somebody is uninterested in voting, that probably means that they’re totally uninformed on the issues,” Kavanagh told CNN. “Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well.”

    CNN does not specify what Kavanagh means by the “quality” of votes, though it’s possible that Kavanagh may be referring to the party that the vote is for. After all, when asked to explain why the Republican Party wants to gut the Voting Rights Act last week, the attorney for the Arizona Republicans told the U.S. Supreme Court that allowing more people to vote “puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats.”

    Though it’s been clear to observers that the Republicans are trying to suppress votes — especially the votes of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color — with bills restricting voting access and challenging the Voting Rights Act, it’s rare that a lawmaker has said it as directly as Kavanagh has.

    Kavanagh, it should be noted, is wrong in his sweeping statement about why people don’t vote. Some don’t vote in presidential elections in the spirit of protest; others may choose not to vote even if they are well informed on the issues because they don’t think their single vote makes a difference; and still others don’t vote not because they don’t want to, but because they cannot, owing to their inability to overcome the many barriers that have been created — largely with the underlying intention of suppressing their votes — such as those pushed by Republicans in many states where they control the government.

    In Arizona alone, Republicans are targeting voting rights with two dozen measures. Several of them, CNN reports, impose new restrictions on voting by mail and limit mail-in ballots to a very narrow window.

    Republican Arizona State Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita claims that the reason she sponsored the law shrinking the early voting period is that she wants to ensure that mail-in ballots aren’t sent to the wrong people. The bill would automatically exclude people from receiving mail-in ballots if they haven’t voted in the last four elections and they don’t respond to a mailing from the state. “Allowing voters to sign up in perpetuity does increase the opportunity for things to go wrong,” Ugenti-Rita said.

    The issue of ballots being sent to the wrong place is a vanishingly small issue since election officials can recognize if people have double voted. Since 2010, the Arizona attorney general’s office has only successfully prosecuted 30 counts of voter fraud.

    Nevertheless, the Brennan Center’s February analysis of voter suppression bills across the country found that Arizona led the country in proposed bills that make it harder to vote — though, with bills filed since then, Georgia may be giving Arizona a run for its money. Georgia and Arizona are particular targets for Republicans since they surprisingly voted blue on Election Day last November, leading to the GOP losing control of Congress and the White House.

    Many of the voter suppression efforts being waged by Republicans are almost explicitly racist. A bill that passed Georgia’s Senate last week, for instance, ends no-excuse absentee ballots in the state after Black voters turned out in droves with mail-in ballots. The state’s House has also passed legislation that severely limits early voting in the state on Sundays, which are typically huge days for Black voting due to church-led “souls to the polls” events.

    Republicans are also waging challenges, as referenced earlier, to the Voting Rights Act in the Supreme Court. The Voting Rights Act was originally established to ensure that racial discrimination didn’t prevent Black and other nonwhite people from voting, but Republicans are going to bat to gut what’s left of the law.

    Congressional Democrats have been fighting back against these efforts with H.R.1, the For the People Act. The House passed the act last week, and if it became law, would increase transparency in campaign financing, attempt to prevent gerrymandering and establish a nationwide automatic voter registration system. No Republicans voted for the bill.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Michael Carvin speaks into a microphone on the steps of the united states supreme court

    An attorney representing the Arizona Republican Party on Tuesday helpfully admitted outright what has long been obvious to observers of the GOP’s decades-long assault on the franchise: Easier voting makes it harder for Republicans to win elections.

    Asked by right-wing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett to explain the Arizona GOP’s interest in upholding a state law that disqualifies ballots cast in the wrong precinct — a restriction that voting rights advocates say discriminates against people of color, an assessment backed up last year by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — Republican lawyer Michael Carvin responded that striking down the regulation would put “us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats.”

    “Politics is a zero-sum game,” Carvin added.

    Voting rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers welcomed the openness with which Carvin conceded the intent behind the Arizona law, one of two state regulations the conservative-dominated Supreme Court is set to rule on shortly — a decision that could have major nationwide implications as the GOP ramps up its voter suppression efforts across the country.

    “I mean we all knew this, but didn’t think they would say it out loud,” tweeted Arizona state Rep. Reginald Bolding (D). “Today in the highest court in the land, an Arizona GOP attorney basically admitted Republicans want to suppress the vote because if they don’t it puts them ‘at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats.’”

    Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) added that “the mask is off.”

    “Republicans want to steal your right to vote and pulverize democracy because they don’t think they can win elections on ideas or humanity,” Pascrell said Tuesday.

    Last January, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated an Arizona law banning on out-of-precinct (OOP) voting and restricting volunteers’ collection of early ballots on the grounds that “racial discrimination was a motivating factor in enacting” the regulations. The Arizona Republican Party appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which agreed to take up the case.

    As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern wrote last year, the Arizona law “places a heavy burden on people of color. In 2016, for example, the rate of OOP voting in Pima County was 150 percent higher for Hispanics, 80 percent higher for blacks, and 74 percent higher for Native Americans than for white voters. Across the state, racial minorities voted OOP at twice the rate of whites.”

    “One key reason for this disparity,” Stern explained, “is the state’s own crusade to shutter polling places following the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which let Arizona change its voting laws without federal approval. Maricopa County, where more than 60 percent of Arizonans reside, slashed the number of polling places by 70 percent between 2012 and 2016.”

    During oral arguments in the case on Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared ready to rule in favor of keeping the discriminatory restrictions in place, potentially spelling further disaster for the Voting Rights Act.

    “In its most important voting rights case in almost a decade, the court for the first time considered how a crucial part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 applies to voting restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on members of minority groups,” the New York Times reported. “Several members of the court’s conservative majority said the restrictions were sensible, commonplace, and at least partly endorsed by a bipartisan consensus reflected in a 2005 report signed by former President Jimmy Carter and James A. Baker III, who served as secretary of state under President George Bush.”

    In an appearance on MSNBC late Tuesday, Ari Berman of Mother Jones said that “it’s hard to be optimistic” about the fate of the Voting Rights Act “with this court that already gutted the Voting Rights Act.”

    “I’m not sure they’re gonna go so far… just to say that the Voting Rights Act is completely eliminated,” said Berman, “but they might just interpret it in such a restrictive way that it’ll be functionally eliminated or reduced to so little protection for minority voters that they can’t really look to the courts for relief any more.”

    “The fact that Republicans are challenging the Voting Rights Act at the very moment that they’re trying to pass all of these new voter suppression laws that very likely violate the Voting Rights Act just shows how big of a threat to democracy we see right now from the Republican Party,” Berman added.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • In this edition of “Dissenter Weekly,” host and Shadowproof editor Kevin Gosztola covers a “software bug” exposed by whistleblowers, which resulted in hundreds of people staying incarcerated past their release dates.

    Kevin also highlights an update on a previous whistleblower story involving an ICE union deal the Trump administration inked during their last days in office.

    The show concludes with coverage of a contractor who blew the whistle against Perdue, an agribusiness that produces poultry, and a story from the Grayzone involving leaked files that reveal how the BBC and Reuters were involved in a British covert program to “weaken Russia.”

    This week’s stories:

    Whistleblowers In Arizona Allege ‘Software Bug’ Kept Hundreds Incarcerated Past Release Dates

    DHS Secretary Rejects ICE Union Agreement From Last Days Of Trump, Which Whistleblower Exposed

    Whistleblowing Farmer Alleges Perdue Terminated Contract After He Exposed ‘Sickly Chicks’

    ‘Systemic Issue’: US Justice Department Fails To Notify Contractors Of Whistleblower Rights

    Leaked Documents: BBC, Reuters Involved In British Covert Program To ‘Weaken Russia


    Assange Legal Team Finalizing Response To US Government’s Appeal


    LIKE ON FACEBOOK SUBSCRIBE ON YOUTUBE FOLLOW ON TWITTER



    Send tips and feedback to editor@shadowproof.com

    This show is brought to you by Shadowproof.com, a 100% reader-funded press organization. If you enjoy our work, you can support us with a donation or by subscribing for $5/month or more: https://shadowproof.com/donate

    The post Dissenter Weekly: Whistleblowers Expose ‘Software Bug’ Keeping Incarcerated Past Release Dates appeared first on Shadowproof.

    This post was originally published on Shadowproof.

  • A sign alerting people that masks are required on campus seen at Bloomsburg University, in Bloomsberg, Pennsylvania, on February 6, 2021.

    President Biden included $35 billion in funding for higher education in his American Rescue Plan. If this aid makes it into the final Covid relief law, college and university employees across the country will no doubt applaud.

    The pandemic has hit this sector hard. Around 260,100 university employees (14.6 percent of the total workforce) have lost their jobs since February 2020. Staff also make up most of the Covid-19 deaths on college campuses.

    But while federal funding is welcome, it is no guarantee of equitable treatment for higher education workers. Economic disparities and unsafe working conditions are motivating staff on a growing number of college campuses to build power through union organizing.

    One of the most ambitious university organizing efforts is taking place in Arizona. Late last year, staff at two schools — the University of Arizona and Arizona State University — formed United Campus Workers Arizona Local 7065, a “wall-to-wall” union representing all of the schools’ employees. The union now aims to organize all higher education workers throughout the Grand Canyon state.

    At one point, Arizona had one of the highest Covid-19 transmission rates in the world, and yet many university workers were still being sent back to schools without proper precautions while others were facing furloughs and layoffs.

    “The administration’s seeming prioritization of financial issues over its employees’ health was alarming,” Laurie Stoff, a professor and one of the organizers of the unionization effort at Arizona State University, told Inequality.org. The university’s president, Michael Crow, dismissed scientific standards for reopening schools as “inappropriate” at the college level.

    But the frustrations that boiled over during the pandemic had been simmering for a long time, Stoff explains. All but the most secure tenured ASU professors have “at will” employment status, meaning they can be terminated without any justification.

    “This has made it much easier for the university to keep workers quiet, as they are afraid to speak out against their mistreatment,” Stoff said.

    Long before the pandemic, many lower-level ASU employees weren’t making a living wage and were struggling with rising healthcare costs, which, when combined with a lack of cost-of-living wage increases, amounted to pay cuts.

    Stoff said lower-level employees’ economic insecurity is particularly grating because of the stark contrast with those at the top end of the university’s pay scale. President Crow made $1.15 million in 2019, the 10th-highest salary among U.S. public university presidents. The school’s football coach made three times as much, with $3.5 million in pay that year. They also just boosted the pay for the Vice President for Athletics by $150,000 and gave him a $500,000 bonus, while telling faculty and staff that they won’t receive any salary increases due to the pandemic.

    These disparities are not unique to the Arizona. Across the country, full-time professors with tenure make up a rapidly shrinking share of university employees as schools seek to slash labor costs. Given the added strain of the current crisis, it’s perhaps unsurprising that multiple staff and student unions have signed union contracts during the pandemic, most recently at Augsburg University in Minneapolis.

    Stoff hopes that the union can pressure university leaders to pay greater attention to the needs of all of its employees. Thus far, she says, ASU has paid lip service to institutional changes that would benefit the lowest-paid workers on campus, who are disproportionately workers of color. “Many of the demands of groups representing the interests of students and workers of color have fallen on deaf ears and are largely ignored.”

    The union also aims to secure a living wage and greater job security for all employees, increased health care benefits for graduate students and adjuncts, and stronger protections against Covid-19. These gains for employees, Stoff insists, would be good for everyone.

    “The union is not the enemy of the school,” she said. “We want to create the best possible working environment at the university, which is also our students’ learning environment.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Phoenix, AZ – This afternoon, U.S. District Court Judge Steven Logan denied Apache Stronghold’s request for an injunction preventing the giveaway and destruction of sacred Oak Flat to Rio Tinto/Resolution Copper.  Judge Logan said that Apache Stronghold has no right to ask the Court for help because they are not an officially designated a “sovereign nation.”  Judge Logan said that the U.S. Government has no Trust Responsibility to the Apache even though their Treaty of 1852 says, “the government of the United States shall so legislate and act as to secure the permanent prosperity and happiness of said Indians.” 

    The post Judge Refuses Injunction To Stop Sacred Oak Flat Destruction appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Amy Kaper promises she is not a gang member.

    The 29-year-old graduate student does not run drugs, traffic guns, or work in any organized crime ring.

    But, she did protest police violence last year.

    For that, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and the Phoenix Police Department are aggressively prosecuting Kaper — and a group of 17 other defendants, including three minors — for being part of a criminal street gang following an October 17 protest in downtown Phoenix.

    In fact, officers and prosecutors allege the group is as dangerous — and in some ways more dangerous — than notorious gangs like the Crips, Bloods, and Hells Angels.

    The post Officials Create ‘Fictional Gang’ To Punish Phoenix Protesters appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Opponents of a copper mine project that would obliterate an Apache sacred site east of Phoenix asked a federal judge Wednesday to stop work on the project.

    The group Apache Stronghold filed the first in a series of three lawsuits Jan. 12 to stop Resolution Copper from proceeding with a huge copper mine below Oak Flat, a site deemed sacred to many Apaches and other Southwestern tribes.

    The suit was filed three days before the Forest Service issued the final environmental impact statement regarding the mine project on Jan. 15, starting a 60-day clock on a land swap that would turn the land over to Resolution. 

    The site, currently a Forest Service campground, sits about 5 miles east of Superior just off U.S. Highway 60.

    The post Emotional Court Hearing Over Proposed Copper Mine At Oak Flat Sacred Site appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • With the threat of nuclear war once again a part of the national conversation, Reveal looks at nuclear threats both foreign and domestic. This episode takes listeners to Iran and finds out what life is actually like inside North Korea.

    As the Trump administration pushes for the biggest increase in spending on nuclear weapons since the Cold War, Reveal explores how they’ve changed. Instead of annihilation, think “flexible” nuclear weapons that can threaten “limited” nuclear war. That’s the idea anyway.


    Head over to revealnews.org for more of our reporting.

    Follow us on Facebook at fb.com/ThisIsReveal and on Twitter @reveal.

    And to see some of what you’re hearing, we’re also on Instagram @revealnews.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.