Category: republicans

  • Texas Governor Greg Abbott speaks at a press conference at the Texas State Capitol on May 18, 2020, in Austin, Texas.

    Texas Republicans are pushing legislation that advocates say will “gerrymander” the state’s appeals courts after Democrats swept judicial races in districts serving Dallas, Houston and Austin.

    The Texas Senate Jurisprudence Committee on Thursday advanced SB 11, a bill introduced by Republican committee chair Joan Huffman to redraw the boundaries of the state’s court of appeals districts. The bill and its state House counterpart in their current form propose only minor tweaks to several districts — but voting advocates warn they are “shell” bills that will soon be loaded with much bigger changes based on proposals from a powerful group to “gerrymander” court districts just months after Democratic judges swept appellate races in five of the state’s 14 districts.

    The bill is expected to be based on proposals by Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a deep-pocketed legal advocacy group that urged lawmakers to merge the state’s 14 districts into five to seven mega-districts, which advocates say are designed to dilute the power of urban areas and make it difficult for Democrats to win in the future.

    “This is 100% partisan driven,” Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of the voter advocacy group Common Cause Texas. said in an interview with Salon. “The political party they don’t like is winning too many districts, so they just want to change them so that can no longer happen.” Gutierrez testified at Thursday’s hearing.

    Texas is one of two states where Republicans are seeking to redistrict courts after the 2020 election, and GOP legislators in several other states have advanced legislation seeking to reform their judicial systems for partisan gain. Pennsylvania Republicans are also pushing an amendment that could “gerrymander” the state’s courts, Alicia Bannon, who heads the Fair Courts Project at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, said in an interview with Salon. Though the effort was originally born out of a ruling striking down a partisan Republican gerrymander, in recent months “the court’s also been targeted for its role in some of the decisions in connection with the 2020 election ensuring that people had a meaningful opportunity to vote,” she said.

    State courts played an outsized role in the 2020 election as former President Donald Trump and his allies pushed dozens of baseless lawsuits alleging election fraud without any evidence. They could play an even greater role in the coming months as Republican state lawmakers push more than 360 bills to restrict voting in 47 states, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center, including more than two dozen in Texas. Republicans are also gearing up for a new round of legislative redistricting that could cement GOP minority rule for the next decade after the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts had no jurisdiction over partisan gerrymanders.

    The Texas bill offers few details but is ultimately expected to include some version of reforms proposed by Texans for Lawsuit Reform, according to Gutierrez and news reports. The group released a lengthy report proposing a plan that would shrink the state’s 14 court districts to seven, along with three other plans to reduce that number to just five.

    “We’re fairly sure it will be one of those proposals, or something closely modeled there, and generally what people expect is taking the current composition of the court and reducing it, probably almost in half, to create these mega-districts where you would have maybe one Democrat. But the majority of those court of appeals districts would then become completely controlled by Republicans,” Gutierrez said.

    A spokesman for Huffman did not respond to questions from Salon.

    The National Democratic Redistricting Committee said it is monitoring the “judicial gerrymandering” bill.

    “NDRC strongly believes that the entire redistricting process should be free of map manipulation and that includes municipal and judicial processes as well,” Molly Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the group, said in a statement to Salon. “When it comes to judges — who are meant to be impartial arbiters — making sure they are not manipulated by a hyper partisan redistricting process is critical.”

    Texans for Lawsuit Reform argue that the courts should be consolidated to address unequal workloads and to make the system more efficient. But David Slayton, administrative director of the Texas Office of Court Administration, told the legal news outlet Texas Lawyer that the idea to redraw appeals court boundaries did not come from the Texas judiciary, suggesting the push came from the group. George Christian, senior counsel for the lawsuit reform group Texas Civil Justice League, told the outlet he agrees that changing the district boundaries could make the court system more efficient, but said the current effort raises obvious questions about partisanship.

    “There is a very legitimate question people will ask,” he said. “Why the sudden interest in the appellate courts, now that a lot of Democrats are winning those elections?”

    Texans for Lawsuit Reform, which bills itself as a nonpartisan group of “lawyers who want the civil justice system in Texas to be efficient and fair,” argues that the state would save money with fewer courts and eliminate docket equalization, which results in the transfer of cases between court districts and is “generally unpopular with litigants, lawyers, and justices.”

    “Our 14 appellate courts have unequal workloads, and in some parts of our state, a district court answers to several different appellate courts. Texas should consolidate its intermediate appellate courts to achieve more efficiency and administrative rationality,” the group’s website says.

    Gutierrez told Salon that there is a legitimate need to address drastic differences in caseloads, but that the current effort is a political exercise.

    “We’ll see what the actual bill looks like, but if you wanted to seriously address that problem, I think you would be more transparent about what’s in the bill and bring in more of the stakeholders who really know these courts and understand the caseloads and impacts,” he said. “But the people in the room who are involved in this are Texans for Lawsuit Reform. That seems to be it.”

    Though Democrats have little say in the GOP-dominated Texas legislature, the bill could face strong pushback from rural areas of the state that will be heavily impacted. Yvonne Rodriguez, chief justice of the state’s 8th Court of Appeals in El Paso, told local news outlet El Paso Matters that she believes the details of the legislation are intentionally being kept under wraps so Republican sponsors can spring it at the “last possible moment” to avoid giving opponents “any time to really mount a defense against it.”

    Rodriguez warned in an interview with Texas Lawyer that the Texans for Lawsuit Reform proposals would combine her court with larger urban districts and force attorneys and litigants to travel hundreds of miles to the nearest appellate court while resulting in higher legal bills and job losses.

    “That is the worst result we could reach,” state Rep. Joe Moody, a Democrat who represents El Paso, told El Paso Matters.

    El Paso’s Democratic court could be merged with a heavily Republican area or combined with other Democratic areas to create Republican majorities in other districts.

    State Sen. Cesar Blanco, who represents the city, told the outlet that such a measure would disenfranchise heavily Democratic voters.

    “Redistricting is always very politically motivated. It’s about who gets what, it’s about keeping and managing power, and I think this consolidation is a move to do that,” he said.

    “If you live in a rural part of the state, the odds of you ever again being able to elect the traditional candidate that you’re familiar with, who knows your community, go down practically to zero,” Gutierrez told Salon, adding that heavily minority parts of South Texas would be heavily impacted as well as whiter, more conservative parts of the state.

    The latter aspect poses the biggest threat to the bill.

    “They went out of their way to really innovate gerrymandering in Texas, which is hard to do but they figured out a way. But this is one that I feel harms so many different communities,” Gutierrez said, predicting that the impact on traditionally Republican areas of the state could doom the bill in committee.

    “There are definitely a lot of groups who represent minority Texans or parts of the state along the border” who oppose the bill, he added, but “I think we’re going to find a lot of groups in red or rural parts of Texas that hate the bill just as much.”

    The state’s Senate Jurisprudence Committee hearing also included SB 1529, which Gutierrez described as a backup bill “clearly intended” as a plan to offer a “different way to reconfigure the courts in Texas” if SB 11 fails.

    It “basically creates what people are referring to as a business court,” he explained. “Right now, anything civil goes through the court of appeals system, but the business court would be a statewide court, like our Texas Supreme Court. Civil matters that would normally go to the court of appeals will go to that court. It’s Texas, so automatically these default to Republican judges for the foreseeable future. It definitely seems to be part of a plan to address what they see as the problem: Democrats winning a bunch of these traditional court of appeals races.”

    The effort underscores Republicans’ focus on reshaping the judiciary in states, often in “retaliation against particular decisions coming out of the court,” Bannon (of the Brennan Center) told Salon. Legislators in at least 17 states proposed at least 42 bills last year to “diminish the role or independence of state courts,” according to a Brennan Center analysis.

    Perhaps the most noteworthy is Pennsylvania’s effort to pass a constitutional amendment that would “open the door to gerrymandering the judicial system,” Bannon said. That effort has extended into this year and took on additional importance after Republicans waged a failed months-long effort to overturn Trump’s electoral defeat in that state.

    Republicans, who tried and failed to impeach judges who had struck down their partisan gerrymander, earlier this year advanced a measure aimed at changing the way appellate judges are elected. Judges are currently elected statewide and a majority are from urban areas near Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The GOP proposal would replace the existing system with judicial districts drawn by the Republican-led legislature every 10 years — apparently in hopes of reshaping the state Supreme Court’s 5-2 Democratic majority, after it repeatedly ruled against them. The effort could mirror the state’s legislative gerrymandering, which has allowed Republicans to control the state House since 2011 and the state Senate since 1993, even though Democrats routinely win statewide races.

    Republicans argue the amendment, which cannot be vetoed by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf, is intended to “include the full diversity of Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.” But Democrats say the new effort is an extension of the state GOP’s success at gerrymandering its way into power.

    “A decade ago, Pennsylvania Republicans gerrymandered themselves into majorities in the legislature and congressional delegation,” former Attorney General Eric Holder, chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, told The New York Times. “Now that their grip on power has been forcibly loosened by the courts, they want to create and then manipulate judicial districts in a blatant attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary and stack the courts with their conservative allies.”

    The bill already passed the House last year but needs to be passed by both chambers this year to make it onto the ballot. Republicans hoped to advance the measure in time for the amendment to appear on the ballot in May’s primary elections, but that effort has been delayed. Senate President Pro Tem Jake Corman, a Republican, vowed that the measure was not dead and the legislature would soon hold hearings on the issue and perhaps look at alternative options to changing judicial elections.

    Meanwhile, more than 100 advocacy groups and labor unions have signed a letter to state lawmakers warning that the plan is “the largest attempt to disenfranchise Pennsylvanians in the history of our Commonwealth” and “a massive threat to the independence of our judiciary.”

    Republicans in Tennessee launched a different kind of effort in response to the court rulings surrounding the 2020 election, moving to remove a Nashville judge who ruled to expand absentee voting amid the coronavirus pandemic. The effort ultimately failed after widespread condemnation. “That was just another example of a bill that was very explicitly linked to decisions coming out of the 2020 election,” Bannon told Salon.

    The Republican push to reshape state courts comes after a successful four-year campaign to reshape the federal judiciary. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., led the confirmation of more than 220 federal judges and three new Supreme Court justices after blocking many of former President Barack Obama’s nominees, including his 2016 Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland (who is now attorney general).

    Unlike the federal judiciary, the efforts to remake state courts have received relatively little attention.

    “State supreme courts are extremely powerful bodies that often fly under the radar,” Bannon said. “Ninety-five percent of all cases are filed in state court. State supreme courts are usually the final word in interpreting state laws and state constitutions, and they have a great deal of power in everything from voting rights to environmental issues, corporate law issues and criminal justice. They’re very powerful bodies and people often don’t pay a lot of attention.”

    Though the Pennsylvania effort is clearly partisan, “in other instances, it’s harder to point to one particular opinion or decision coming out of a court,” she added. “Rather what you see is a broader effort to gain more political control over the judiciary.”

    In Montana, newly-elected Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a bill earlier this year that gives him the power to appoint anyone he wants to fill judicial vacancies, rather than being required to choose from a list of nominees vetted by an independent commission.

    “That’s another kind of instance where we’re seeing political actors basically trying to inject more politics into the selection process,” Bannon said.

    Other recent efforts have seen mixed success. Despite assailing Democrats over calls to expand the federal judiciary, Republicans successfully packed the Georgia and Arizona Supreme Courts, giving GOP governors even more power in states that are increasingly trending toward Democrats. Both states “added seats to the court in a pretty overt effort for overtly partisan benefit,” Bannon said.

    Kansas lawmakers responded to a court ruling requiring additional funding for public education by passing a law that threatened to defund the entire state judiciary before it was overturned.

    North Carolina has also advanced numerous bills that would “politicize the court,” with varying degrees of success, pushing to change judicial selection methods and undermine Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s judicial appointment power, Bannon said. “The common denominator was basically trying to give the legislature more power over judicial selection and essentially seeking a partisan advantage in those courts.”

    For the most part, however, efforts to politicize the courts have failed once voters caught on. Just one of the more than 40 bills to undermine the power or independence of state courts proposed last year ended up passing, according to the Brennan Center.

    “One thing we’ve seen in a number of states where courts have been targeted this way is that when the public does pay attention to this issue, they don’t like what they’re seeing,” Bannon said. “People understand the importance of having an independent judiciary. They don’t want judges to be just another set of politicians and they don’t like power grabs with respect to the courts. … I think people on the whole understand the importance of an independent judiciary. But given the centrality that state courts play, I think it’s a real worry that this is just the tip of the iceberg, in terms of the kinds of attacks we’re going to see going forward.”

    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.

  • Gov. Asa Hutchinson delivers a speech on the second day of the Republican National Convention on July 19, 2016, at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio.

    The Arkansas state legislature passed a bill on Monday barring transgender people under 18 from receiving vital gender-affirming care like hormones and puberty blockers. If Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson signs the bill, it will be the first of its kind to become law in the U.S.

    The bill, HB 1570, bars doctors from providing puberty blockers, which are reversible treatments that pause puberty temporarily, to trans people under 18. The bill also prohibits doctors from prescribing hormones, referring trans people under 18 to other specialists, or performing gender-affirming surgery on them.

    In addition, the bill allows insurance companies to refuse coverage for gender-affirming care to trans people of any age.

    “HB 1570 is one of the most extreme and harmful anti-trans bills in the country,” wrote the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arkansas. “If passed and signed, it will be the most extreme piece of anti-trans legislation ever signed into law.”

    Opponents of the bill like the ACLU say the bill will put young Arkansans at risk of mental health issues like depression, social isolation and suicidal ideations. Studies have shown that trans people who use puberty blockers in their adolescence are more likely to have better mental health outcomes and less suicidal thoughts as adults.

    Opponents also say the ban takes away the right of supportive parents to seek health care for their children and might force families with trans children to move out of state.

    And they have blasted the ban for elevating unscientific and transphobic fearmongering.

    For example, one of the bill’s Republican sponsors, Sen. Alan Clark, has claimed it is necessary to “protect children from making mistakes that they will have a very difficult time coming back from.”

    Trans advocates have decried this stance as a fundamental attack on the right to gender self-determination, which should be protected for all people, including youth. And they have pointed out that Clark’s claim is entirely baseless in relation to puberty blockers, which have fully reversible effects if a person decides to stop taking them. Indeed, if a young person has any uncertainty about what gender identity they wish to inhabit in the future, they can buy themselves time to make a more considered decision through puberty blockers, which prevent puberty from causing permanent physical changes that could increase their lifelong experiences of dysphoria.

    Puberty blockers are “medically effective in treating gender dysphoria in youth without generating any long-term desire for reversals,” writes STAT News.

    “There is NOT a medical debate over this care. There is a consensus that it is safe, effective, & necessary,” wrote ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio on Twitter. “Stripping youth of this care even when it is recommended by their doctors, supported by their parents, and demanded by the dire situations of the youth is cruel & deadly.”

    “As a 14-year-old, I shouldn’t have to be worried about my rights being taken away. I should not have to go out of my way to make other people happy,” Wyatt Williams, a 14-year-old trans boy, told The Guardian. “I don’t want other kids to have to grow up at age 10 and have their basic human rights debated.”

    Trans children have said the treatments Republicans seek to ban are essential to their mental health. “If I weren’t able to have the healthcare I’m currently provided, I’d probably be dead right now,” Corey Hyman, a 15-year-old trans boy, told The Guardian. Hyman began taking testosterone after seeking care from doctors and therapists dozens of times over two years.

    In the bill, Republicans cite cherry-picked statistics from sources like the American Psychological Association (APA) to make it seem as though the science is on their side on the issue of gender-affirming health care for trans people. But major medical organizations including the APA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the World Health Organization, and many others say the types of gender-affirming health care banned by the Arkansas legislature should be legal and accessible to all.

    The ACLU has called on Hutchinson to veto the bill. “Stopping this bill is necessary to defend and protect the lives of trans people,” it tweeted on Tuesday. “Every trans and non-binary person deserves access to gender affirming health care, no matter where we live or what type of health insurance we have.”

    However, Hutchinson has already signed a slate of other transphobic bills into law recently, including one banning transgender women and girls from participating in school sports teams and another allowing doctors to refuse care to patients based on religious objections, which opponents say allows for disproportionate discrimination against LGBTQ people.

    The bills in Arkansas are part of a slate of anti-trans bills being proposed and passed across the country by Republicans in state legislatures. Mississippi and Tennessee have also passed legislation barring trans women and girls from participating in sports, and South Dakota’s Governor, Republican Kristi Noem, signed an executive order doing so on Monday.

    Republicans in 25 states have introduced more than 80 bills targeting trans people so far in 2021, which is the most anti-trans proposals filed in a single year.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Arkansas lawmakers have passed “the single most extreme anti-trans law” amid a growing number of proposals to limit transgender rights in the US.

    The bill bans transgender young people from accessing gender-affirming care such as hormones and puberty blockers.

    The republican governor of Arkansas now decides whether the bill is signed into law as transgender rights campaigners and youth health and welfare groups criticise the bill’s passage.

    Rumba Yambú, director of Arkansas trans group Intransitive, said:

    It’s one of the worst bills that they could have created.

    They added:

    It’s just expected that if this passes, it will cost lives, and they don’t seem to care about that. It’s already difficult enough to survive here, when they’re not actively creating more laws to oppress us.

    Dangerous legislation

    The Arkansas senate, which contains 27 Republicans, seven Democrats, and one independent, voted 28-7 for the bill yesterday.

    Asa Hutchinson, the Arkansas governor, can sign or veto the bill within five days of receiving it. If he does not act, it becomes a law regardless. Hutchinson has not made a statement about the bill but has previously backed anti-transgender legislation.

    Transgender campaigners are calling on allies to petition Hutchinson to veto the bill.

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has vowed to take legal action if the law is passed, with transgender justice deputy director Chase Strangio calling it “the single most extreme anti-trans law to ever pass through a state legislature”. Strangio said:

    I really worry about the fact that we’re just a few votes away from some of the most sweeping and damaging and potentially genocidal laws from ever being passed, and we barely have a mention of it in the bigger national conversation of what’s going on in this particular moment in U.S. history

    The bill prevents Medicaid from being used for trans-related care, as well as banning gender-affirming care for transgender people up to 19-years-old.

    Growing anti-trans legislation

    The bill’s passage comes as more and more conservative lawmakers introduce laws restricting transgender rights across the US.

    Other states beside Arkansas have proposed bills restricting access to gender-affirming care. Among them are Texas, Alabama, and Florida.

    Arkansas has also just passed a law preventing student transgender women and girls from competing in sports matching their gender identity. Similar laws have been passed in Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Dakota.

    According to Human Rights Campaign, legislation filed earlier in March marked 2021 as having the highest number of anti-trans bills introduced in history.

    Criticism

    Several organisations have criticised the impact anti-trans legislation will have on the mental health of transgender children.

    A doctor in Arkansas told the senate on 22 March that they had seen “multiple” children in the emergency room for attempted suicide after the bill passed the house.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics has voiced its opposition to anti-trans youth legislation, recommending transgender children have access to gender-affirming care:

    With alarm and dismay, pediatricians have watched bills advance through state legislatures across the country with the sole purpose of threatening the health and well-being of transgender youth.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics has long been on the record in support of affirmative care for transgender children through our clinical policy.

    The academy added:

    Politics has no place here. Transgender children, like all children, just want to belong. We will fight state by state, in the courts and on the national stage to make sure they know they do.

    A law that cannot pass

    If this bill is signed into law, it could open the gates for conservatives to take away the rights of transgender people across the US.

    As a doctor told the Arkansas senate, these laws are not only backward and discriminatory; they often have tragic consequences for transgender people.

    Featured image via Flickr/Ted Eytan

    By Jasmine Norden

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • A voter is seen at the Metropolitan Library polling place on Election Day in Atlanta, Georgia, on November 3, 2020.

    Over the past 10 days, Georgia Republicans rushed a voter suppression omnibus bill that will make it much easier for the state legislature to overturn elections in the future.

    The bill removes the Georgia secretary of state as the head of the state election board and directs the legislature to appoint the board’s leader. Two of the other four members of the election board are already chosen by the legislature, so this would give the legislature a voting majority on the body, which has wide and deep oversight over election administration in the state.

    “This is extraordinarily dangerous,” Sara Tindall Ghazal, former election protection director for the Georgia Democratic Party, told Mother Jones. “When you’re appointing the majority of the body that you’re responsible to, it’s self-dealing.” Georgia’s legislature is controlled by Republicans due to strong conservative gerrymandering over the state.

    The bill also gives the state election board sweeping powers over county election boards, including the authority to dismantle those they view as unfit and to replace them with their own appointed superintendents, who have full control over how elections operate in their counties.

    “It’s looking at total control of the election process by elected officials,” Democratic county election board member Helen Butler told The New York Times. “It’s all about turnout and trying to retain power.” The elections board serves more of an executive function in the process, but the new bill gives legislators majority power over the agency.

    The county election officials were, as The New York Times described it, “one of the last lines of defense” against attacks on elections and the will of the voters during the 2020 election. The vast majority of county officials fended off a coordinated effort by conservative Texas-based True the Vote to challenge the eligibility of 364,000 voters in Georgia. That move was “one of the oldest tricks in the voter suppression playbook,” American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia attorney Sean Young told AJC.

    Not only would the new legislation likely lead to the appointment of county officials who are more sympathetic to such partisan moves, but it would also see voter eligibility challenges taken more seriously, even if they’re essentially spurious. The bill allows unlimited challenges to voters’ eligibility and forces local election boards to hear them within 10 days, which could lead to hastily thrown out ballots or voter roll purges.

    Georgia’s voter suppression bill also includes provisions to limit the number of ballot drop-offs, add voter ID requirements for mail-in ballots, and outlaw passing out food and water in voting lines.

    Voting rights experts say that former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party may have had more success in the many election challenges if these laws had been in place during November’s election. “Republicans are brazenly trying to seize local and state election authority in an unprecedented power grab,” former Georgia state representative and voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams told The New York Times. “Had their grand plan been law in 2020, the numerous attempts by state legislatures to overturn the will of the voters would have succeeded.”

    “It will make what we all lived through in 2020 child’s play,” said Lauren Groh-Wargo, head of Fair Fight Action, earlier this week in a press call. “Donald Trump won’t have to strong-arm our election administrators. The most radical fringes of the Republican Party sitting in the state legislature will be able to wipe out boards of elections, challenge voters because they don’t have the right name according to them or they don’t look the way they think they should look. This is Jim Crow 2.0.”

    It’s not just happening in Georgia. Republicans are considering similar power-grabbing maneuvers in at least seven other states — in other words, the same officials who claimed that the 2020 election was fraudulent are now launching attacks on those who stopped Trump from committing election fraud.

    Now that they’ve passed a sweeping bill in Georgia, Republicans are likely emboldened to seek similar changes elsewhere. Over the past months, the GOP has been looking into exporting similar bills in Georgia and Arizona to other states — and, with a win in hand, they might succeed.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sens. Mitch McConnell and Roy Blunt conduct a news conference in the Capitol to oppose the House Democrats' elections legislation "For the People Act," on March 6, 2019.

    The For the People Act, Democrats’ wide-ranging election and ethics reform bill, got its first hearing this week in the Senate Rules Committee. The bill, Senate Bill 1 (S. 1), addresses numerous problems with the current electoral system and includes sweeping measures to block voter suppression efforts, expand voting, disclose dark money, and limit financial conflicts of interest among elected officials.

    The bill has already passed the House but will have no chance of getting through the Senate, where Democrats have the slimmest possible majority, under the current filibuster rule that imposes a de-facto 60-vote hurdle to enact most legislation. As the stakes for voting rights become clear, pressure to eliminate the filibuster has intensified, but two Democrats, Sens. Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), still oppose that move.

    In the face of a Jim Crow-level attack on voting rights led by Republicans in the majority of state legislatures, S. 1’s passage is crucial, says the Brennan Center for Justice.

    “The landmark legislation would create a national baseline for voting access that every American can rely on, and it would foil state efforts to manipulate voting rules to exclude eligible voters or create discriminatory outcomes,” wrote several Brennan Center experts.

    Because Republicans believe that their electoral success relies on limiting the number of people and kinds of people who can vote, right-wing groups closely allied with the GOP are focused on preventing the bill’s passage. Conservative groups are using ads, activist tool kits, social media posts, statements, and letters to Congress to attack S. 1 and its House equivalent, H.R. 1, sometimes with falsehoods about its contents.

    The numerous conservative groups trying to block S. 1 include the pay-to-play business group the American Legislative Exchange Council, members of the State Policy Network, and the secretive, Christian Right coalition the Council for National Policy.

    Ads and Rallies

    Heritage Action, the political arm of the think tank the Heritage Foundation, is promoting false information about the For the People Act, which it calls “The Corrupt Politicians Act.” This campaign appears to be part of Heritage Action’s $10 million effort to suppress the vote.

    Heritage Action’s “Save Our Elections” tool kit provides talking points, call notes for members of Congress, social posts, and graphics for use.

    Heritage Action for America ad against H.R. 1 / S. 1 - Don't Support the Corrupt Politicians Act

    The main falsehood from Heritage Action is that taxpayers would fund political campaigns. H.R. 1/S. 1 funds voluntary public campaign financing for federal House and Senate candidates with a surcharge on federal fines, penalties, and settlements for certain tax crimes and corporate malfeasance — not with tax dollars.

    Heritage Action for America ad against H.R. 1 / S. 1

    Heritage Action repeats this lie on its website multiple times. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) echoed the lie in statements and a web video. During this week’s first Senate panel, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lied about “taxpayer-funded bumper stickers and attack ads.”

    Another Heritage Action social media graphic even falsely claims that “H.R. 1 would allow politicians to take a second salary from their campaign funds.” Anti-Muslim hate group ACT for America also spread this misinformation (alongside a Martin Luther King, Jr. quotation), prompting the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center to debunk the claim.

    American Action Network (AAN), the biggest dark money group tied to House Republicans, began an ad campaign on March 1 targeting 51 Democrats. AAN ran radio ads in all of those districts and digital ads in 15 swing districts, including that of Rep. John Sarbanes (MD), the primary sponsor of H.R. 1.

    While AAN, Heritage Action, and Republican elected officials attempt to brand the public campaign financing program as corrupt, the purpose of the program is just the opposite: to lessen corporate influence of politicians by allowing candidates to more easily raise campaign funds without the help of business PACs. Democrats named the program the “Freedom From Influence Fund.”

    Heritage Action teamed up with the anti-LGBTQ Family Research Council, FreedomWorks, and the Tea Party Patriots to organize a rally in West Virginia to pressure Manchin to oppose S. 1, as well as H.R. 5, a bill to expand protections for LGBTQ people, and to protect the filibuster. Heritage Action bused in participants from out of state and provided free lunch for them, according to Documented.

    Ted Cruz Solicits Help from ALEC’s Ranks, Manchin’s Constituents

    Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) sought the help of American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) state lawmakers to oppose S. 1 on a call the Associated Press reported on over the weekend.

    “H.R. 1′s only objective is to ensure that Democrats can never again lose another election, that they will win and maintain control of the House of Representatives and the Senate and of the state legislatures for the next century,” Cruz lied to an unknown number of those affiliated with the pay-to-play operation, where legislators and corporate lobbyists meet behind closed doors to adopt model legislation on a broad range of public policy issues.

    ALEC’s sister organization, ALEC Action, produced and circulated a tool kit flush with talking points to distort H.R. 1/S. 1, alleged that it “gags citizens’ free speech” and makes “partisanship the rule, not the exception.”

    Cruz reportedly held a rally in West Virginia targeting Manchin on March 20 alongside the Council for National Policy (CNP), a secretive Christian Right group with deep ties to the Trump administration. CNP operatives that reportedly spoke at the rally include: Eric Berger, co-founder of FreeRoots; Jake Hoffman, president and CEO of Rally Forge; Ken Blackwell, board member of CNP Action and former Ohio secretary of state; Kelly Shackelford, chairman of CNP Action and president and CEO of First Liberty Institute; and Mike Thompson, senior vice president of CRC Advisors.

    Local reporting from the rally showed that a small rally occurred, but CMD could not confirm that any of the above were in attendance.

    Republican AGs and Secretaries of State Voice Opposition

    The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), also known as the “corporate attorneys general” for its pay-to-play arrangement that offers greater access to the attorneys general based on the amount one contributes to the group, appears to be working to prevent S. 1’s passage.

    Twenty Republican attorneys general sent a letter on March 3 to Senate and House leadership that highlighted the “Act’s constitutional vulnerabilities” and threatened a lawsuit, stating, “Should the Act become law, we will seek legal remedies to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens.”

    RAGA’s vice chair, Missouri AG Eric Schmitt, told Politico, “We’re standing up and fighting back.” Republican AGs have already filed suit to upend Biden’s executive order to restore the social costs of greenhouse gases, to restore the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, and to restore immigrant deportations following a Biden executive order to place them on pause for 100 days.

    Republican Secretaries of State in 15 states and the lieutenant governor of Alaska also submitted a short letter opposing H.R. 1/S. 1 in which they claim that the bills “intrude upon our constitutional rights and further sacrifice the security and integrity of the elections process” without specifying how or in what ways.

    Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill, who led the effort, was selected by the Republican State Leadership Committee to chair its National Commission on Election Integrity in February.

    Letters and Statements

    Numerous additional right-wing groups have signed letters and statements opposing S. 1.

    Conservative Action Project, an offshoot of CNP, published a statement condemning the bill and using many of the same talking points that other right-wing groups have employed. Signing the statement were multiple CNP officials, ALEC President Lisa Nelson, Trump acting Homeland Security secretary and Heritage Foundation visiting fellow Ken Cuccinelli, Leadership Institute President Morton Blackwell, Club for Growth President David McIntosh, and Conservative Partnership Institute Chair Jim DeMint.

    The latter group recently hired Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and Cleta Mitchell, a top voter suppression attorney who resigned from her law firm after media reports that she was on Trump’s infamous call with the Georgia secretary of state, urging him to “find” thousands of votes to afford him a victory there in 2020. Meadows was also on that call and days earlier had traveled to Georgia, where he pushed the voter fraud myth. He could face scrutiny in a Georgia criminal probe of Trump’s actions. Mitchell and the Conservative Partnership Institute, which is planning to create a dark money machine, will reportedly target H.R. 1.

    The Heritage Foundation has published several anti-H.R. 1 blogs, including one by its president, Kay James, which alleges that fraud, mismanagement, and “last-minute election rules changes” (due to the pandemic) caused Americans to lose faith in their elections.

    Former Vice President Mike Pence is now a Heritage fellow, and his first publication was an anti-H.R. 1 essay for Daily Signal, Heritage’s online media site. The essay, a call for increased “election integrity,” cites unproven “significant voting irregularities” and claims that the bill will offer more opportunity for election fraud.

    People United for Privacy and the State Policy Network

    The non-profit People United for Privacy, launched as a project of the State Policy Network in 2016 to protect nonprofit donors from public scrutiny and to support efforts at the state and federal level to prevent disclosure of donors to governments, is also actively working to oppose H.R. 1 and S. 1.

    People United for Privacy, which received $1 million in dark money from Leo funding vehicles the Wellspring Committee (2018) and Rule of Law Trust (2019), organized a letter to Congressional leaders to “reject” the bills and, again, perpetuated the lie that the bills “would violate the First Amendment rights of Americans.”

    A large number of State Policy Network members signed onto the letter, as well as Charles Koch’s Americans for Prosperity and Libre Initiative.

    A messaging kit distributed by People United for Privacy at the State Policy Network 2019 Annual Meeting recommends “key words and phrases to move hearts and minds” on fighting donor disclosure proposals such as those included in the For The People Act. For example, in “laying out principles” it recommends using “freedom of speech” and the “first amendment,” and in “characterizing the threat,” it advises utilizing “corrupt politicians” and “legalized corruption.”

    Additional conservative organizations that put out statements and letters against the For the People Act include:

    • Americans for Prosperity, which has long opposed campaign finance transparency, wrote a letter to Congress and an op-ed in The Hill.
    • The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote a letter to the House.
    • The Honest Elections Project, which was set up by Federalist Society Vice Chair Leonard Leo, issued a dramatic statement claiming, “Nearly every single policy in H.R. 1 is designed to make our elections less secure, create more confusion, invite more uncertainty, and cause greater division in this country.”
    • The Institute for Free Speech wrote a letter to Congress opposing the bill that falsely claimed that taxpayers would fund campaigns. “if H.R. 1 is enacted, American taxpayers would be constitutionally required to fund the speech of all candidates that meet the qualifications for matching government funding,” the letter misinforms the reader. The letter includes a whole section on “taxpayer-financed campaigns.” The institute’s Bradley Smith is a Republican witness in the Senate’s S. 1 hearings. In his written testimony, he claims that criminal fines, penalties and settlements are in fact “taxpayer funds.”
    • True the Vote, which is being sued by a megadonor for misuse of funds, sent an email to its list calling H.R. 1 an “authoritarian mashup” that it has opposed since its first introduction in 2019. Founder Catherine Engelbrecht urges supporters to call their senators about the bill, which she claims “legalizes election fraud.” “It is the most dangerous piece of legislation I’ve ever read. I’m not kidding,” she wrote.

    The Other Side of the Aisle

    Nearly all Democrats in Congress are cosponsors of the For the People Act, and it passed the House in a party-line vote of 220-210.

    Liberal and nonpartisan democracy groups are strongly supporting the legislation. End Citizens United, a super PAC, is spending $3.2 million promoting the bill. That’s part of a $30 million ad and organizing campaign by End Citizens United, Let America Vote, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, to urge senators to vote for S. 1.

    A coalition of nearly 200 organizations from labor, racial justice, voting rights, environmental, and other communities, the Declaration for American Democracy, is supporting the For the People Act.

    The Sixteen Thirty Fund, a major dark money donor to liberal election spending groups, told HuffPost that it “unequivocally supports the For The People Act and its historic provisions to strengthen our democracy by expanding voting rights, enhancing ethics rules, and reforming campaign finance regulations.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks during a news conference following the Senate Republican Policy luncheon in Washington. D.C., on March 23, 2021.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., remained steadfast in his decades-long commitment to alternative facts, bandying falsehoods this week about the civil rights history behind the filibuster, H.R. 1, and his contact with President Biden.

    McConnell delivered his first lie when he argued during a Tuesday press conference that the filibuster “has no racial history at all. None.” He added, “There’s no dispute among historians about that.”

    There’s not much dispute because McConnell’s claim is flat-out untrue. Historians broadly agree that the filibuster is deeply rooted in the legislative tradition of obstructing civil rights for Black people. According to a study conducted by The Washington Post, of the 30 measures derailed by the filibuster between 1917 and 1994, “exactly half addressed civil rights — including measures to authorize federal investigation and prosecution of lynching, to ban the imposition of poll taxes and to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race in housing sales and rentals.”

    In fact, one of the key factors in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the defeat of the filibuster routinely employed by segregationist senators, which is why former President Barack Obama once called the maneuver a “Jim Crow relic.”

    McConnell doubled down on the untruths on Wednesday morning when he alleged that the Biden administration has thus far made “no effort whatsoever” to work with Republicans. The minority leader specifically claimed the had not been invited to the White House and had not spoken to President Biden since he took office.

    “I don’t believe I’ve spoken with him since he was sworn in,” McConnell told reporters. “We had a couple of conversations before then.”

    According to The Washington Post, McConnell in fact spoke with Biden twice in early February. On one occasion, the minority leader himself claimed the two had spoken about the status of the coronavirus relief bill. On another, McConnell claimed he “spoke with both President Biden and Secretary (of State Antony) Blinken yesterday about the situation in Burma.”

    McConnell’s office later acknowledged those conversations had in fact occurred.

    In the past, Biden and McConnell have been on comparatively amicable terms. As Obama’s administration came to a close, McConnell praised Biden’s work as Obama’s vice president. “He doesn’t waste time telling me why I am wrong,” McConnell said of Biden at the time. “He gets down to brass tacks, and he keeps in sight the stakes. There’s a reason ‘Get Joe on the phone’ is shorthand for ‘Time to get serious’ in my office.”

    In a December interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, the senator referred to his relationship with the president as a “friendship.” McConnell was the only Senate Republican who attended the funeral of Biden’s son, Beau.

    Last week, however, McConnell decried the Biden administration’s “left-wing” tendencies, but said he had expected them all along. “I’m not surprised that he’s not a moderate. He just seemed moderate,” said the senator. “So I’m not surprised there’s a left wing administration. I anticipated it.”

    He concluded, “And that’s why it’s going to be very difficult to craft bipartisan agreements, because they want to jam things through their way, hard left, which I don’t think the American people expect any bipartisanship to support.”

    McConnell’s third lie of the week came when he claimed during a hearing that the Democratic-backed voting rights bill, H.R. 1 or the For the People Act, is a wholly unnecessary piece of legislation because “states are not engaging in trying to suppress voters whatsoever.”

    That’s a stark contrast with reality, which has seen an intense Republican-backed push for state-level voter restrictions across the nation. More than 150 Republican-sponsored proposals in at least 33 state legislatures are currently under consideration — all of which aim to restrict voting rights by limiting mail-in ballots, heightening voter ID requirements, closing alternative registration options and other tactics.

    In Georgia, voting rights activist Stacey Abrams made headlines this month when she called the state’s new voting bill “a redux of Jim Crow in a suit and tie.” The bill, if signed into law, would repeal no-excuse absentee voting for Georgia residents, 1.3 million of whom used the method to cast ballots in last year’s general election.

    In South Carolina, one bill under consideration would mandate signature matching for all absentee ballots. A Texas proposal would require the Department of Public Safety to verify each voters’ citizenship.

    The For the People Act, meanwhile, aims to set national standards in voting rights by establishing independent redistricting commissions, prohibiting campaign spending by foreign nationals, reforming the Federal Election Commission and more. McConnell has forcefully argued against the bill, labeling it a partisan Democratic power-grab. “This is clearly an effort by one party to rewrite the rules of our political system,” he said on the Senate floor, “But even more immediately, it would create an implementation nightmare … that would drown state and local officials who run elections.”

    McConnell also claimed in a Tuesday podcast that Democrats want to turn the FEC into a “prosecutor” in issues of campaign finance.

    “We had record turnouts last year…. So this is not to drive up turnout,” McConnell said of the bill, “Turnout’s already driven up.” In fact, despite record turnout, there were numerous reports of voter-suppression tactics in 2020.

    The Senate minority leader also described the Democrats’ plan to reduce the FEC board from six to five members — two from each party and one unaffiliated member — as yet another partisan power grab. It could better be described as an effort to break partisan gridlock. As Salon reported in November, Republicans themselves have tried to pack the FEC board with members of their own party, and left it without a viable voting quorum for 14 months under the Trump administration.

    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.

  • After Election Day in November, then-President Donald Trump’s campaign furiously sent out donation solicitations to Trump’s followers, vowing to use the money to fight the election results. His followers acquiesced, a new report finds, and among those who stormed the Capitol in January, donations spiked to new highs after he lost the election.

    Among the first 311 people to be charged in the Capitol attack, NBC finds, donations to Trump increased by 75 percent in the five weeks following his loss in the election, compared to the five weeks prior to the election. One man, NBC found out from campaign filings, donated 40 times after Trump lost the election — once, five times in a single day, when Trump tweeted that he wouldn’t concede. In total, previous reports have found, Trump raised $207.5 million in just 19 days following his loss to Joe Biden in the election.

    The campaign told its followers then that the money they donated would go toward legal fees for fighting the election results, but that was only true if a donor gave more than $5,000. Otherwise, 75 percent went toward the new political action committee that Trump formed in November, and the other 25 percent went to the Republican National Committee.

    At the end of the day, the Trump campaign, as of Federal Election Commission filings from last month, only spent $6.8 million of what it raised post-election on legal fees — for challenges that all ended up failing anyway.

    The fundraising efforts for a candidate who already lost the election were so egregious that even a GOP lawmaker, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois) called them a “scam” and a “big grift.” As far as the GOP goes, however, Trump’s tactics seemed to have just been the start of a new era for Republican fundraising.

    Republicans “are increasingly realizing that the best way to appeal to GOP voters is to ape his strategy of acting more like a shock jock than a politician,” wrote Amanda Marcotte for Salon earlier this week. Recent fundraising efforts seem to be revealing a pattern: A Republican can do something racist or otherwise heinous and not only do they not face consequences, they can use the momentum of the backlash to raise more funds.

    Take the case of conservative Ohio Senate candidate Josh Mandel, formerly the state treasurer. Last week, he posted a blatantly racist tweet that was derogatory toward Mexicans and Muslims. Then, when Twitter banned his account for 12 hours, he sent out a fundraising plea claiming that he was being censored by big tech. When he came back, Ohio Capital Journal reporter Tyler Buchanan pointed out in a tweet, “[Mandel’s] account posts a *tweet* claiming he was canceled from *Twitter*. I’ll leave it to you to assess the logic on that one.”

    This fundraising tactic extends to Republicans at various levels of government across the country. Complaining about “cancel culture” seems to have become a means to an end of either raising money or “playing victim,” as Marcotte wrote, after being called out for “acting like crude bigots and jerks.”

    Their recent outcry over what they spun into the left’s attempt at “canceling” Dr. Seuss, for instance, ended up as a fundraising opportunity for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). The NRCC offered a copy of The Cat in the Hat to donors who gave $25 — never mind the fact that it was the Seuss estate that made the decision to discontinue publishing some of his books with racist imagery, and that The Cat in the Hat wasn’t one of them.

    Sometimes the victimization ploy isn’t directly linked to fundraising but still ends up serving the same cynical purpose of making Republicans appear more sympathetic, which they can use to fundraise under the guise of “cancel culture” victimhood. After Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-Wisconsin) recent racist remarks about the Capitol attack, for instance, he went on a press tour publicizing how the left was silencing him for his remarks, writing an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal and going on Fox to complain as much.

    Though Johnson doesn’t appear to have fundraised directly off that stunt, the play at victimization is part of what allowed Trump to raise hundreds of millions off his followers after he lost the election.

    “The Republican cult of victimhood is dangerous because if you believe that you have been wronged by forces beyond your control, you may also believe that you are justified in fighting back by any means imaginable,” wrote Max Boot for The Washington Post. In national politics, fighting back for the average person can often look like shelling out cash.

    GOP fundraising in some ways follows old patterns but still appears to be getting bolder. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado), for instance, this week came under fire for fundraising off of Monday’s shooting in her state that left 10 dead. As Democrats floated gun control measures to attempt to contain gun violence, Boebert’s office sent out a fundraising email just hours after the shooting. “They want to take our guns, the email read. “We cannot lose this right.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Following the violent attack on the Capitol in January, dozens of corporations issued statements vowing to stop or pause political donations to Republicans who voted to overturn the 2020 election or to politicians at all. It seems some of those promises, however, were short lived.

    On Monday, Popular Information reported that AT&T, Intel and Cigna appear to have already broken their pledges. In January, AT&T and Intel had vowed to suspend donations to the Republicans who voted against certifying the Electoral College vote, while Cigna said they would stop giving to those who “hindered the peaceful transition of power.”

    New Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show, Judd Legum of Popular Information reports, that it took roughly a month for the corporations to go back to making political donations to Republicans.

    On February 26, Intel sent $15,000 to the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC), which Legum writes, is “the main fundraising vehicle” for House Republicans — 139 of whom voted to overturn the results of the election. On the February 22, AT&T donated $5,000 to a leadership PAC called the House Conservatives Fund that’s affiliated with Rep. Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), who voted against certifying the Electoral College vote.

    And on February 4, merely three weeks after their initial pledge, Cigna donated $15,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). The NRSC is run by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida) who voted to overturn the results of the election and, as Legum notes, had indeed “hindered the peaceful transition of power” by perpetuating the notion fueled by former President Donald Trump that the election was fraudulent. Then, three weeks later, Cigna donated another $15,000 to the NRCC.

    All three corporations told Popular Information that these donations didn’t violate their pledges, despite the fact that they donated to funds that support many of the politicians who advanced false and dangerous election narratives. For instance, Legum notes, Cigna’s NRSC donation will likely go toward helping Republicans like Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), both of whom have continued to perpetuate the lie that President Joe Biden’s election was fraudulent.

    In January, corporate PAC donations had plummeted. A Roll Call report finds that the corporations who vowed to stop or pause donations had donated a total of $2.7 million to politicians and PACs in January of 2019 versus only $50,150 in 2021 at the same point in the election cycle. (Some donations may have been made prior to the pledges following the Capitol attack.) That’s an over 98 percent drop.

    Politicians definitely felt the dip in finances. Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported that politicians’ aides were scrambling to get corporations to start donating again — suggesting that lawmakers wouldn’t fight as hard against progressive policies if they were deprived of a corporate cash flow.

    Political fundraisers for both sides of the aisle, including the NRCC and NRSC, are reportedly reaching out to corporations to try to win back their donations. These organizations are likely looking to fill their coffers for the 2022 election, which is shaping up to be contentious.

    Still, the corporations’ decisions to renege on their vows isn’t entirely surprising, and more broken pledges may be revealed as more donations are subject to disclosure in 2021. Plus, corporate donations are only a small slice of the pie — individuals like corporate executives and employees often donate much more than the corporation itself does. That money, however, isn’t counted on behalf of the corporation. Corporate lobbyists, too, through dark money loopholes, can give money to influence candidates while avoiding corporate affiliations.

    In fact, many of the corporations who vowed to halt political donations in some way also lobbied against the For the People Act, or H.R. 1, which would expose dark money influence in politics — and thus potentially expose other ways that these corporations will support politicians that their pledges renounced.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On March 16, 2020, as COVID-19 was first spreading across the U.S., then-President Donald Trump issued a tweet about his support of U.S. industries, saying that he would protect them from the “Chinese Virus.” What followed, a new study has found, was a steep rise in tweets containing anti-Asian hashtags as anti-Asian sentiments rose across the country.

    The study, published Friday in the American Journal of Public Health, examined nearly 700,000 tweets and more than 1.2 million hashtags posted over the weeks surrounding Trump’s initial tweet about the “Chinese Virus,” and its authors found Trump’s tweet was likely the cause of a rise in the use of the #chinesevirus hashtag. While the use of #covid19 only rose by 379 percent through the course of the study period, the use of #chinesevirus rose by 8351 percent.

    “The week before Trump’s tweet the dominant term [on Twitter] was #covid-19,” Yulin Hswen, study co-author and epidemiology professor at the University of California, San Francisco, told The Washington Post. “The week after his tweet, it was #chinesevirus.”

    Those who used #chinesevirus were much more likely to attach other anti-Asian hashtags to the post than those who used #covid19, the study’s authors found. While only one in five of the #covid19 tweets examined had anti-Asian sentiments, half of the tweets with #chinesevirus were anti-Asian. Over the two-week course of the study, anti-Asian hashtags rose from 12,000 to almost half a million.

    Though the study’s authors didn’t examine whether these tweets were tied to the rise in anti-Asian sentiments and hate incidents offline, they do note that other studies have found that the use of hashtags promoting hate speech has been associated with hate crimes.

    “Hashtags allow information to travel beyond the initial social network and can form collations of speech,” the study authors wrote. “This has led researchers to examine how hate-speech hashtags are associated with hate crimes. In this research, the variable that best predicted real-world violence was the hashtag used in the tweet.”

    The study’s authors also note that Trump’s position as an authority was likely partially responsible for the rise in anti-Asian posts online, since “racist attitudes may be reinforced by institutional support,” they write. Some of the tweets they cited in the study were particularly violent and virulent, with anti-Asian slurs and hashtags like #bombchina.

    Previous studies on similar subjects have also found an increase in racism against Mexicans and Latino people during the 2016 election when Trump was spewing racist statement after racist statement to gain support for his presidency.

    The study lends credence to what Asian Americans have been speaking up about for the duration of the pandemic: The scapegoating of China for the pandemic has led to the scapegoating of all Asian American people, regardless of their actual ethnic background, and is causing racism against Asian Americans to flare across the country.

    This is also bolstered by another recent report by Stop AAPI Hate, which said that nearly 3,800 anti-Asian incidents have been reported in the past year. And last week, a white shooter killed eight people in a murder spree in Atlanta, Georgia, including six Asian women — an incident that has not been explicitly tied to the pandemic but that is inextricable from the rise in racist sentiments against Asian Americans.

    Though the study examined sentiments on Twitter, politicians like Trump — largely Republicans — have uttered racist phrases like “Chinese virus” and “kung flu” in public forums and even on the House floor. These sentiments from public officials have likely also fueled anti-Asian racism in the country.

    Last week, during a House hearing on violence and racism against Asian Americans, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) used derogatory terms against Chinese people while ranting about how China caused the pandemic, while simultaneously glorifying lynching, calling it a form of justice. Rants like Roy’s are likely part of why, polls have found, the vast majority of Republicans are convinced that China is responsible for the virus and an “enemy” to the U.S.

    Though these sentiments are about a country that many Asian Americans may not have any affiliation with at all, views on the country, Stop AAPI Hate found, are likely tied to anti-Asian racism. In an analysis of more than 1,800 incidents reported to the organization between March and May of last year, 27 percent of the assailants in the incidents mentioned “China” or “Chinese” during the incident. Several of them directly used the term “Chinese virus.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • While 87% of Democrats think what Trump did was wrong and that he should have been convicted of inciting the insurrection, 66% of people who believe that Trump won the election. Continue reading

    The post The Lie That Smolders appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

    This post was originally published on BillMoyers.com.

  • President Joe Biden walks to Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House on March 19, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Joe Biden’s first months in office have comprised a flurry of actions on the domestic front, including a historic stimulus bill. In this exclusive interview, the celebrated public intellectual Noam Chomsky shares his views on some key policies embraced by the Biden administration. Chomsky is Institute Professor Emeritus at MIT and Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona. His latest books are Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet (co-authored with Robert Pollin and C. J. Polychroniou; Verso, 2020), Chomsky for Activists (Routledge, 2020) and Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance (Haymarket Books, 2020).

    J. Polychroniou: President Joe Biden has been in office for approximately two months now, in the course of which he has signed scores of executive orders meant to reverse the policies of Donald Trump. But he has also managed to pass a huge and ambitious stimulus bill unlike anything seen during peacetime. What’s your assessment of Biden’s actions so far to deal with the most pressing issues facing U.S. society: namely, the coronavirus pandemic and the pain caused to millions of Americans on account of the pandemic?

    Noam Chomsky: Better than I’d anticipated. Considerably so.

    The stimulus bill has its flaws, but considering the circumstances, it’s an impressive achievement. The circumstances are a highly disciplined opposition party dedicated to the principle announced years ago by its maximal leader, Mitch McConnell: If we are not in power, we must render the country ungovernable and block government legislative efforts, however beneficial they might be. Then the consequences can be blamed on the party in power, and we can take over. It worked well for Republicans in 2009 — with plenty of help from Obama. By 2010, the Democrats lost Congress, and the way was cleared to the 2016 debacle.

    There’s every reason to suppose that the strategy will be renewed — this time under more complex circumstances. The voting base in the hands of Trump, who shares the objective but differs from McConnell on who will pick up the pieces: McConnell and the donor class, or Trump and the voting base he mobilized, almost half of whom worship him as the messenger God sent to save the country from … we can fill in our favorite fantasies, but should not overlook the fact that what may sound [ridiculous] has roots in the lives of the victims of the neoliberal globalization of the past 40 years — extended by Trump, apart from some rhetorical flourishes.

    In those circumstances, passing a stimulus bill was a major accomplishment. Republicans who favor it, and know that their constituents do, nevertheless voted against it, in lockstep obedience to what the Central Committee determines. Some Democrats insisted on watering it down. But what finally passed has valuable elements, which could be a basis for moving on.

    There are huge gaps. The bill surely should have contained an increase in the miserable minimum wage, an utter scandal. But that would have been very difficult in the face of total Republican opposition, along with a few Democrats. And there are other crucial features that are missing. Nevertheless, if the short-term measures on child poverty, income support, medical insurance and other basic needs can be extended, it would be a substantial step toward fulfilling the promise envisioned by such careful observers as Roosevelt Institute President Felicia Wong, who reflected that, “As I see it, both the scale and the direction of the American Rescue Plan break the neoliberal, deficits-and-inflation-come-first mold that has hollowed out our economy for a generation.” We haven’t seen anything that could elicit such hopes for a long time.

    There is also hope in appointments on economic issues. Who would have imagined that a regular contributor to radical economics journals would be appointed to the Council of Economic Advisers (Heather Boushey), joined by the senior economic adviser of the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute, (Jared Bernstein)?

    Biden’s strong support for Amazon workers, and unions generally, is a welcome shift. Nothing like it has been heard from the chambers of power in many years. In a sharp reversal of Trump legislation, the tax changes raise incomes mostly for the poor, not the rich. Economic Policy Institute President Thea Lee summarizes the package by saying that it “will provide crucial support to millions of working families; dramatically reduce the race, gender, and income inequalities that were exacerbated by the crisis; and create the conditions for a truly robust recovery once the virus is under control and people are able to resume normal economic activity.” Optimistic, but within reach.

    House Democrats have passed other important legislation. H.R. 1 protects voting rights, a critical matter now, with Republicans working overtime to try to block the votes of [people of color] and the poor, recognizing that this is the only way a minority party dedicated to wealth and corporate power can remain viable.

    On the labor front, the House passed the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, “a critical step toward restoring workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively,” the Economic Policy Institute reports, a fundamental right that “has been eroded for decades as employers exploited weaknesses in the current law.” It’ll probably be killed by the Senate. Even apart from party loyalty, there is little sympathy for working people in Republican ranks.

    But even so, it’s a basis for organizing and education. It can be a step toward revitalizing the labor movement, a prime target of the neoliberal project since Reagan and Thatcher, who understood well that working people must be deprived of means to defend themselves from the assault.

    Decline of union membership is by now recognized, even in the mainstream, to be a major factor in rising inequality — a phrase that translates to “robbery of the general public by a tiny fraction of super-rich.” The Economic Policy Institute has reviewed the facts regularly, most recently in a chart that graphically demonstrates the remarkable correlation between rising/falling union membership and falling/rising inequality.

    More generally, there is a good opportunity to overcome the baleful legacy of Trump’s bitterly anti-labor Labor Department, headed by corporate lawyer Eugene Scalia, who used his term in office to eviscerate worker rights, notoriously during the pandemic. Scalia was perfectly chosen for the transformation of the Republicans to a “working-class party,” as hailed by Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley in a triumph of propaganda, or maybe sheer chutzpah.

    Michael Regan’s appointment as Environmental Protection Agency administrator should replace corporate greed by science and human welfare in this essential agency, a move toward human decency that in this case is a prerequisite for survival.

    It’s easy to find serious omissions and deficiencies in Biden’s programs on the domestic front, but there are signs of hope for emerging from the Trump nightmare and moving on to what really should, what really must be done. The hopes are, however, conditional. The temporary measures of the stimulus on child poverty and many other issues must be made permanent, and improved. Crucially, activist pressure must not cease. The masters of the universe pursue their class war relentlessly, and can only be countered by an aroused public opposition that is no less dedicated to the common good.

    What do you think of Biden’s refusal to cancel $50,000 in student loans?

    A bad decision. What the realistic options were, I don’t frankly know. Higher education at a high level should be recognized to be a basic right, freely available, as it is elsewhere: in our Mexican neighbor, in rich developed countries like Germany, France, the Nordic countries, and a great many others, with at most nominal fees. As it substantially was in the U.S. when it was a much poorer country than it is today. The postwar GI Bill of Rights provided free education for great numbers of white males who would never have gone to college otherwise. There is no reason why young people of any race should be denied the privilege today.

    In light of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Biden has vowed to fight domestic terrorism by passing a new law “that respects free speech and civil liberties.” Does the U.S. need a new domestic terrorism agenda?

    A prior question is whether we should retain the current domestic terrorism agenda. There are strong reasons to question that. And any expansion should be a matter of serious concern. That aside, white supremacist violence is no laughing matter. Through the Trump years, the FBI and other monitors report steadily increasing white supremacist terror, by now covering almost all recorded terror. Armed militias are rampant — Trump’s “tough guys” as he’s admiringly called them. The problems can’t be overlooked, but have to be handled with great caution and a close eye on the temptations for abuse.

    Biden has proposed a plan to strengthen the middle class by encouraging unionization and collective bargaining, and his recent affirmation of the rights of workers to unionize, which was widely interpreted as support for Amazon workers’ rights to organize in Alabama, has spread considerable enthusiasm among progressives. Indeed, Biden’s support for unions is in pace with the highly favorable ratings that unions have been receiving in the last couple of years. What’s behind the support for unions in the present era?

    One reason is objective reality. The sharp rise in inequality is a growing curse, with extremely harmful effects across the society. As mentioned earlier, it closely tracks decline of unions, for reasons that are well understood. Historically, labor unions have been in the forefront of struggles for justice and rights. They also pioneered the environmental movement, as we’ve discussed before. Workers’ organizations are changing in character with the growth of service and knowledge-based economies. They have shared interests, and foster the values of solidarity and mutual aid on which the hope for a decent future rest. Many unions retain the world “international” in their names. It should not just be a symbol or a dream. The dire challenges we face have no borders. Global heating, pandemics, disarmament will be dealt with internationally, if at all. The same is true of labor rights and human rights more generally. At every level, associations of working people should once again be prominent, if not leading the way, toward a better world.

    This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Raphael Warnock Slams GOP Assault on Voting Rights in First Senate Speech

    Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock, whose election in January helped bring the chamber under Democratic control, used his first speech on the floor of the Senate this week to assail Republican efforts to restrict voting rights. He called the raft of voter suppression bills being introduced in states across the country “Jim Crow in new clothes,” denounced false claims of voter fraud spread by Donald Trump and others, and called on Congress to pass the For the People Act, also known as H.R. 1, a sweeping voting reform bill that would greatly expand access to the ballot. “Make no mistake: This is democracy in reverse,” said Warnock, who is the first Black senator elected in Georgia. “Rather than voters being able to pick the politicians, the politicians are trying to cherry-pick their voters.”

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

    Senate Democrats have introduced sweeping voting rights legislation passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month. The For the People Act aims to improve voter registration and access to the polls, ends partisan and racial gerrymandering, forces the disclosure of dark money donors, increases public funding for candidates and imposes strict ethical and reporting standards on members of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Republicans have signaled they’ll use the filibuster to defeat the bill.

    This comes as voting rights are under attack in courthouses and statehouses across the country. Republican state lawmakers have introduced over 250 bills in 43 states to limit voter access. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court appears poised to uphold controversial voting limits in Arizona, in a case that would further gut the Voting Rights Act.

    We turn now to newly elected Georgia Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock’s first Senate speech. He’s the first Black senator to represent Georgia and the first Black Democrat to be elected to the Senate in the South. Reverend Warnock is also a pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, which was the spiritual home of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Now Senator Warnock focused on voting rights in his maiden floor speech, but he began by condemning the deadly shootings at the three spas in the Atlanta region on Tuesday that left eight people dead, including seven women, six of whom were of Asian descent.

    SEN. RAPHAEL WARNOCK: Mr President, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to pause to condemn the hatred and violence that took eight precious lives last night in metropolitan Atlanta. I grieve with Georgians, with Americans, with people of love all across the world. This unspeakable violence, visited largely upon the Asian community, is one that causes all of us to recommit ourselves to the way of peace, an active peace that prevents these kinds of tragedies from happening in the first place. We pray for these families.

    Mr President, I rise here today as a proud American and as one of the newest members of the Senate, in awe of the journey that has brought me to these hallowed halls, and with an abiding sense of reverence and gratitude for the faith and sacrifices of ancestors who paved the way.

    I am a proud son of the great state of Georgia, born and raised in Savannah, a coastal city known for its cobblestone streets and verdant town squares. Towering oak trees, centuries old and covered in gray Spanish moss, stretched from one side of the street to the other, bend and beckon the lover of history and horticulture to this city by the sea. I was educated at Morehouse College, and I still serve in the pulpit of the Ebenezer Baptist Church, both in Atlanta, the cradle of the civil rights movement. And so, like those oak trees in Savannah, my roots go down deep, and they stretch wide, in the soil of Waycross, Georgia, and Burke County and Screven County. In a word, I am Georgia, a living example and embodiment of its history and its hope, of its pain and promise, the brutality and possibility.

    Mr President, at the time of my birth, Georgia’s two senators were Richard B. Russell and Herman E. Talmadge, both arch-segregationists and unabashed adversaries of the civil rights movement. After the Supreme Court’s landmark Brown v. Board ruling outlawing school segregation, Talmadge warned that blood will run in the streets of Atlanta. Senator Talmadge’s father, Eugene Talmadge, former governor of our state, had famously declared, “The South loves the Negro in his place, but his place is at the back door.” When once asked how he and his supporters might keep Black people away from the polls, he picked up a scrap of paper and wrote a single word on it: “pistols.”

    Yet, there is something in the American covenant — in its charter documents and its Jeffersonian ideals — that bends toward freedom. And led by a preacher and a patriot named King, Americans of all races stood up. History vindicated the movement that sought to bring us closer to our ideals, to lengthen and strengthen the cords of our democracy. And I now hold the seat, the Senate seat, where Herman E. Talmadge sat.

    And that’s why I love America. I love America because we always have a path to make it better, to build a more perfect union. It is a place where a kid like me who grew up in public housing, the first college graduate in my family, can now stand as a United States senator. I had an older father. He was born in 1917. Serving in the Army during World War II, he was once asked to give up his seat to a young teenager while wearing his soldier’s uniform, they said, “making the world safe for democracy.” But he was never bitter. And by the time I came along, he had already seen the arc of change in our country. And he maintained his faith in God and in his family and in the American promise, and he passed that faith on to his children.

    My mother grew up in Waycross, Georgia. You know where that is? It’s way ‘cross Georgia. And like a lot of Black teenagers in the 1950s, she spent her summers picking somebody else’s tobacco and somebody else’s cotton. But because this is America, the 82-year-old hands that used to pick somebody else’s cotton went to the polls in January and picked her youngest son to be a United States senator.

    Ours is a land where possibility is born of democracy — a vote, a voice, a chance to help determine the direction of the country and one’s own destiny within it, possibility born of democracy. That’s why this past November and January, my mom and other citizens of Georgia grabbed hold of that possibility and turned out in record numbers: 5 million in November, 4.4 million in January — far more than ever in our state’s history. Turnout for a typical runoff doubled. And the people of Georgia sent their first African American senator and first Jewish senator, my brother Jon Ossoff, to these hallowed halls.

    But then, what happened? Some politicians did not approve of the choice made by the majority of voters in a hard-fought election in which each side got the chance to make its case to the voters. And rather than adjusting their agenda, rather than changing their message, they are busy trying to change the rules. We are witnessing right now a massive and unabashed assault on voting rights unlike anything we’ve ever seen since the Jim Crow era. This is Jim Crow in new clothes.

    Since the January election, some 250 voter suppression bills have been introduced by state legislatures all across the country, from Georgia to Arizona, from New Hampshire to Florida, using the big lie of voter fraud as a pretext for voter suppression, the same big lie that led to a violent insurrection on this very Capitol — the day after my election. Within 24 hours, we elected Georgia’s first African American and Jewish senator, and, hours later, the Capitol was assaulted. We see in just a few precious hours the tension very much alive in the soul of America. And the question before all of us at every moment is: What will we do to push us in the right direction?

    And so, politicians, driven by that big lie, aim to severely limit — and, in some cases, eliminate — automatic and same-day voter registration, mail-in and absentee voting, and early voting and weekend voting. They want to make it easier to purge voters from the voting roll altogether. And as a voting rights activist, I have seen up close just how draconian these measures can be. I hail from a state that purged 200,000 voters from the roll one Saturday night, in the middle of the night. We know what’s happening here: Some people don’t want some people to vote.

    I was honored on a few occasions to stand with our hero and my parishioner, John Lewis. I was his pastor, but I’m clear he was my mentor. On more than one occasion, we boarded buses together after Sunday church services as part of our Souls to the Polls program, encouraging the Ebenezer church family and communities of faith to participate in the democratic process. Now, just a few months after Congressman Lewis’s death, there are those in the Georgia Legislature, some who even dare to praise his name, that are now trying to get rid of Sunday Souls to the Polls, making it a crime for people who pray together to get on a bus together in order to vote together. I think that’s wrong. Matter of fact, I think that a vote is a kind of prayer for the kind of world we desire for ourselves and for our children. And our prayers are stronger when we pray together.

    To be sure, we have seen these kinds of voter suppression tactics before. They are a part of a long and shameful history in Georgia and throughout our nation. But, refusing to be denied, Georgia citizens and citizens across our country braved the heat and the cold and the rain, some standing in line for five hours, six hours, 10 hours, just to exercise their constitutional right to vote — young people, old people, sick people, working people, already underpaid, forced to lose wages, to pay a kind of poll tax while standing in line to vote.

    And how did some politicians respond? Well, they are trying to make it a crime to give people water and a snack as they wait in lines that are obviously being made longer by their draconian actions. Think about that. Think about that. They are the ones making the lines longer, through these draconian actions. And then they want to make it a crime to bring grandma some water while she’s waiting in a line that they’re making longer. Make no mistake: This is democracy in reverse. Rather than voters being able to pick the politicians, the politicians are trying to cherry-pick their voters. I say this cannot stand.

    And so I rise, Mr President, because that sacred and noble idea — one person, one vote — is being threatened right now. Politicians in my home state and all across America, in their craven lust for power, have launched a full-fledged assault on voting rights. They are focused on winning at any cost, even the cost of the democracy itself. And I submit that it is the job of each citizen to stand up for the voting rights of every citizen. And it is the job of this body to do all that it can to defend the viability of our democracy.

    That’s why I am a proud co-sponsor of the For the People Act, which we introduced today. The For the People Act is a major step in the march toward our democratic ideals, making it easier, not harder, for eligible Americans to vote by instituting commonsense, pro-democracy reforms, like establishing national automatic voter registration for every eligible citizen and allowing all Americans to register to vote online and on Election Day; requiring states to offer at least two weeks of early voting, including weekends, in federal elections, keeping Souls to the Polls programs alive; prohibiting states from restricting a person’s ability to vote absentee or by mail; and preventing states from purging the voter rolls based solely on unreliable evidence, like someone’s voting history — something we’ve seen in Georgia and other states in recent years. And it would end the dominance of big money in our politics and ensure our public servants are there serving the public.

    Amidst these voter suppression laws and tactics, including partisan and racial gerrymandering, and in a system awash in dark money and the dominance of corporatist interests and politicians who do their bidding, the voices of the American people have been increasingly drowned out and crowded out and squeezed out of their own democracy. We must pass For the People so that people might have a voice. Your vote is your voice, and your voice is your human dignity.

    But not only that, we must pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. You know, voting rights used to be a bipartisan issue. The last time the voting rights bill was reauthorized was 2006. George W. Bush was president, and it passed this chamber 98 to 0. But then, in 2013, the Supreme Court rejected the successful formula for supervision and preclearance contained in the 1965 Voting Rights Act. They asked Congress to fix it. That was nearly eight years ago, and the American people are still waiting. Stripped of protections, voters in states with a long history of voter discrimination and voters in many other states have been thrown to the winds.

    We Americans have noisy and spirited debates about many things — and we should. That’s what it means to live in a free country. But access to the ballot ought to be nonpartisan. I submit that there should be 100 votes in this chamber for policies that will make it easier for Americans to make their voices heard in our democracy. Surely, there ought to be at least 60 in this chamber who believe, as I do, that the four most powerful words uttered in a democracy are “the people have spoken,” therefore we must ensure that all of the people can speak.

    But if not, we must still pass voting rights. The right to vote is preservative of all other rights. It is not just another issue alongside other issues. It is foundational. It is the reason why any of us has the privilege of standing here in the first place. It is about the covenant we have with one another as an American people: E pluribus unum, “Out of many, one.” It, above all else, must be protected.

    And so, let’s be clear. I’m not here today to spiral into the procedural argument regarding whether the filibuster, in general, has merits or has outlived its usefulness. I’m here to say that this issue is bigger than the filibuster. I stand before you saying that this issue — access to voting and preempting politicians’ efforts to restrict voting — is so fundamental to our democracy that it is too important to be held hostage by a Senate rule, especially one historically used to restrict the expansion of voting rights. It is a contradiction to say we must protect minority rights in the Senate while refusing to protect minority rights in the society. Colleagues, no Senate rule should overrule the integrity of our democracy, and we must find a way to pass voting rights, whether we get rid of the filibuster or not.

    And so, as I close — and nobody believes a preacher when he says, “As I close” — let me say that I — as a man of faith, I believe that democracy is the political enactment of a spiritual idea: the sacred worth of all human beings, the notion that we all have within us a spark of the divine and a right to participate in the shaping of our destiny. Reinhold Niebuhr was right: “[Humanity’s] capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but [humanity’s] inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.”

    John Lewis understood that and was beaten on a bridge defending it. Amelia Boynton, like so many women not mentioned nearly enough, was gassed on that same bridge. A white woman named Viola Liuzzo was killed. Medgar Evers was murdered in his own driveway. Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman, two Jews and an African American standing up for that sacred idea of democracy, also paid the ultimate price. And we, in this body, would be stopped and stymied by partisan politics, short-term political gain, Senate procedure?

    I say let’s get this done no matter what. I urge my colleagues to pass these two bills, strengthen and lengthen the cords of our democracy, secure our credibility as the premier voice for freedom-loving people and democratic movements all over the world, and win the future for all of our children. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

    AMY GOODMAN: That’s Georgia’s new Democratic senator, the Reverend Raphael Warnock, giving his first speech from the Senate floor. In a rare display in the Senate, the people in the room gave him a standing ovation.

    When we come back, we speak to Heather McGhee, author of the new book The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together. Stay with us.

    [break]

    AMY GOODMAN: “We’ll Never Turn Back” by Mavis Staples. The 81-year-old legend just got her second dose of a coronavirus vaccine.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • During a hearing on the increasing discrimination and violence against Asian Americans in the House on Thursday, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) suggested that lynching was how justice can be carried out for the families of the Asian women who were murdered in Atlanta, Georgia.

    In his testimony, Roy equated the white man who murdered eight people, including six Asian women in a racist murder spree on Tuesday, to immigrants in the south who he claims are “absolutely decimating” U.S. cities, and also to protesters in last summer’s Black Lives Matter uprisings who may have damaged property while advocating for racial justice.

    Roy then suggests that the groups of people he listed deserve “justice” the way he defines it: “There’s old sayings in Texas about — find all the rope in Texas and get a tall oak tree.” Roy then went on to say, “You know, we take justice very seriously, and we ought to do that. Round up the bad guys, that’s what we believe.”

    Roy immediately faced criticism for his statements, with many pointing out that what he’s describing isn’t a real form of restorative justice. “No, that’s just American lynching,” said Cornell Williams Brooks on Twitter, Harvard professor and former CEO of the NAACP. “Rep. Roy, don’t dip your rhetoric in the blood of racial trauma.”

    Roy went on to complain, “My concern about this hearing is that it seems to want to venture into the policing of rhetoric in a free society, free speech, and away from the rule of law and taking out bad guys.”

    Following which, he went on a rant about the Chinese government, its treatment of the Uighurs, and holding China responsible for the coronavirus pandemic, while repeatedly using the disparaging phrase “ChiComs,” popularized by the virulently racist late talk show host Rush Limbaugh. He displayed printouts of screenshots and evidence that he believed showed the extent of the Chinese government’s responsibility for the spread of COVID-19.

    “I’m not going to be afraid of saying I oppose the ChiComs,” said Roy during the hearing. “And when we say things like that, talking about that, we shouldn’t be worried about having a committee of members of Congress policing our rhetoric because some evil doers go engage in some evil activity as occurred in Atlanta, Georgia.”

    Blaming the Chinese government for COVID and extending that blame to Asian Americans is exactly what members of Congress and the Asian community have been speaking out against for the past year, and especially in the wake of Tuesday’s attack.

    This sort of blaming and inflamed rhetoric that Roy is so afraid to have taken away from him is, advocates say, partially responsible for a precipitous rise in anti-Asian incidents, including the murder of a Thai man in San Francisco, during the pandemic. On Wednesday, the group Stop AAPI Hate released their newest report showing nearly 3,800 documented incidents expressing anti-Asian hate like verbal harassment and physical assault over the past year. Women, in particular, suffered most of those attacks.

    Jay Baker, a Georgia sheriff’s spokesperson who had chalked up the Atlanta shooter’s motive to his having had “a bad day,” came under fire on Wednesday when reporters discovered that he, too, had perpetuated the idea that Chinese people were responsible for the pandemic. Last year, on Facebook, Baker shared a picture of a T-shirt he was promoting that said, “Covid 19 IMPORTED VIRUS FROM CHY-NA.”

    The fact that the hearing was held in part to discuss and condemn this sort of racist rhetoric was apparently lost on Congressman Roy who spent a majority of his five minutes perpetuating it. Roy’s words elicited an emotional response from Rep. Grace Meng (D-New York) during the hearing.

    Comments like Roy’s, Meng said, blaming the Chinese government for the pandemic are “putting a bull’s eye on the backs of Asian Americans across this country, on our grandparents and on our kids,” Meng said. “This hearing was to address the hurt and pain of our community and to find solutions. We will not let you take our voice away from us.”

    Some observers like Rep. Ted Lieu (D-California) pointed out that Roy’s celebrating lynching as a form of justice flies in the face of the fact that lynching has been historically used as a weapon against marginalized groups. One of the worst mass lynchings in U.S. history was against Asian Americans: In 1871, a mob of an estimated 500 white people rounded up a group of Chinese men and one child and hanged them on gallows erected in downtown Los Angeles.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Voters enter a polling station at the Zion Baptist Church on January 5, 2021, in Marietta, Georgia.

    Georgia Republicans’ SB 202 used to be a two-page document preventing third party groups from sending absentee ballots to people who have already received one. On Wednesday, Republicans ballooned the bill into a 93-page omnibus including many voter suppressing, wish list items from other bills.

    The Republicans introduced the bill only one hour before the House’s Special Committee on Election Integrity meeting, giving legislators and voting rights groups very little time to review the bill. Republican State Rep. Barry Fleming introduced 50 new sections to SB 202, including previously considered provisions like adding additional ID requirements for voting absentee, limiting early voting windows, and outlawing passing out food and water to people standing in line to vote.

    The additions also included some new proposals, aimed mostly at making it harder to vote — notably, one proposal would make it so that Georgians can file an unlimited number of challenges to “the qualifications of any person applying to register to vote” in the same county or municipality. The bill then requires the board of registrars to set a hearing on a challenge within 10 days after serving notice to the person whose voting “qualifications” are being challenged.

    Attached to the beginning of SB 202 is now a preamble explaining Republicans’ apparent stated motivations behind introducing the bills to “comprehensively revise elections and voting.” The new proposals “are designed to address the lack of elector confidence in the election system on all sides of the political spectrum, to reduce the burden on election officials, and to streamline the process of conducting elections in Georgia by promoting uniformity in voting,” the Republicans write.

    Voting rights advocates in the state were outraged by the last-minute changes. During a press conference, Andrea Young, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, called it “disgraceful” and characterized the sweeping voting rights bills as “ambushes.” “This is not evidence-based policy making,” she said, “this is not how laws should be made that govern our most precious right that is our right to vote.”

    “GA Republicans are doubling down on undermining our democracy,” wrote Fair Fight Action on Twitter. “Surprising advocates, legislators, and voters with a nearly 100 page bill is undemocratic and unacceptable. The committee must REJECT the substitute to SB 202 and this shameless and dangerous attempt to restrict voting rights and rush through harmful anti-voting proposals.”

    Former Georgia State Rep. Stacey Abrams, a voting rights advocate who founded Fair Fight Action, called the Republican attacks on voting rights “Jim Crow in a suit and tie” earlier this week.

    Many of the Republicans’ voting proposals currently pending in Georgia are almost explicitly racist, targeting Black peoples’ right to vote in particular. One proposal that was among those added to SB 202 on Wednesday would limit early voting on weekends in larger, Democratic-leaning counties in the state. In fact, the proposal takes particular issue with the fact that weekend voting was offered at all during the 2020 election in metropolitan areas.

    “More than 100 counties have never offered voting on Sunday, while many metro Atlanta counties did so in 2020,” the bill reads. “As a result, standardized advance voting hours means a dramatic increase in voting hours for some counties with slight decreases in other counties.” Voting on Sunday seems to be a particular grievance for Republicans targeting early voting in Georgia — early voting on Sundays is a huge driver of Black voter turnout thanks to “souls to the polls” drives organized by Black churches.

    “This omnibus voter suppression bill combines nearly every tactic to disenfranchise Black voters that we’ve seen to date,” wrote Janai Nelson, associate director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, on Twitter. “Advocates received only 1 hour’s notice before the hearing. This is a hijacking of democracy in plain sight.”

    The new proposal to add voter eligibility challenges also has racist connotations. About half of the 50 states allow voter challenges currently, and the Brennan Center for Justice notes that it’s a law that’s not only susceptible to abuse, but it’s also susceptible to abuse against people of color, students and people with disabilities in particular.

    “Challenger laws were historically enacted and used to suppress newly enfranchised groups, like African Americans and women. Many states originally enacted challenger laws to block marginalized voters’ access to the polls,” Nicolas Riley of the Brennan Center wrote.

    The Brennan Center has also previously found that the voting restrictions proposed in the state will affect Black voters the most. “Voter suppression is always unacceptable, and the razor thin political margins in Georgia may mean that suppression efforts like these will change political outcomes,” wrote Kevin Morris of the Brennan Center earlier this month. Republicans more likely than not are looking to push those margins in their favor.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Despite all of the voter suppression efforts, threats of voter intimidation and a raging pandemic, the people of the United States participated in record numbers in last November’s election. And they voted Trump out. Continue reading

    The post Voting Rights Under Threat  appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

    This post was originally published on BillMoyers.com.

  • The Wisconsin State Capitol is seen on December 4, 2018, in Madison, Wisconsin.

    The Wisconsin State Senate refused this week to take up a resolution that would honor a number of Black figures in recognition of Black History Month, but within the same session also voted in favor of a resolution giving honors to the late talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

    Ostensibly, Republicans said they did not want to pass the Black History Month resolution, authored by Black lawmakers in the Wisconsin legislature, because it was too specific and included figures they deemed to be controversial.

    “We asked them to do [a Black History Month resolution] that was more generic, like the ones we had done in the past,” State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said. “They really didn’t want to. So we never reached consensus.”

    Those same concerns, however, did not stop the Republican-led State Senate on Tuesday from passing a resolution for Limbaugh, who dispensed hatred and vitriol toward a number of groups on his radio program for decades, largely without remorse, prior to his death. In defending their vote, some Republicans even painted Limbaugh in a positive light, while ignoring his blatantly hostile and hate-filled history as a broadcaster.

    “He was a bold conservative voice, he was a cultural phenomenon, but also very importantly, he was a philanthropist,” Republican State Sen. André Jacque said.

    The resolution on Limbaugh further described him as “a talk radio pioneer beloved by millions of loyal listeners for his ardent defense of conservative politics.”

    Democratic lawmakers were fast to condemn their colleagues from across the political aisle.

    “The Republicans have issues with who we as a Black body choose to honor, but yet we have to sit in this body and honor somebody like Rush Limbaugh who was a homophobic, xenophobic racist,” State Sen. LaTonya Johnson, a Democrat, said.

    “You own this. You own his rhetoric. You own his sentiment. The (GOP caucus) owns this — his racism,” Johnson added in other remarks.

    Johnson made attempts to read some of the remarks from Limbaugh’s past that Republicans refused to recognize. However, as she was doing so, some members of the GOP State Senate caucus decided to leave the room instead.

    Limbaugh, who died of lung cancer last month, attacked a number of groups on his radio program, including members of the LGBTQ community, feminists and people of color.

    The radio host promoted the racist “birtherism” conspiracy theory, which wrongly alleged that former President Barack Obama was not born in the U.S., and frequently played a racist parody song about the former chief executive that included a racial epithet in its title and lyrics. Limbaugh also mocked and openly celebrated the deaths of gay men on his show during the AIDS epidemic, and disparaged Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke by calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute” for testifying before Congress in 2012 about access to birth control.

    Immediately after his death last month, Vos requested that Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, issue an order that all flags throughout the state be lowered to recognize Limbaugh’s life. Evers ignored the request, and instead ordered flags to be lowered to commemorate the 500,000 Americans who had perished at that point across the U.S. as a result of the coronavirus pandemic — another topic that Limbaugh often minimized and lied about to listeners of his radio program.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell holds a press conference following the Senate GOP policy luncheon in the Rayburn Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on March 2, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) on Tuesday threatened to grind rulemaking in Congress to a halt if Democrats get rid of or reform the filibuster, which currently requires a 60-vote consensus for most bills to pass the Senate.

    “Nobody serving in this chamber can even begin to imagine what a completely scorched earth Senate would look like,” McConnell said on the floor on Tuesday. Republicans would make the Senate, he said, look like a “100-car pileup, nothing moving.”

    Without the filibuster, McConnell said that previous actions will be like “child’s play.” “I want our colleagues to imagine a world where every single task, every one of them, requires a physical quorum,” he threatened.

    He also said that Republicans would try passing conservative policies like defunding Planned Parenthood and sanctuary cities and expanding abortion restrictions, right-to-work laws and oil drilling if they regain control of the Senate. Most of these proposals poll overwhelmingly unfavorably with the public.

    This is the second time this year that McConnell has warned Democrats against removing the filibuster. “A scorched-earth Senate would hardly be able to function,” he said in January. “It wouldn’t be a progressive’s dream. It would be a nightmare.”

    Back in January, soon after the new Congress came in, McConnell held up the Senate by forcing a stalemate on Senate-sharing agreements with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) over the filibuster issue. He only relinquished that stalemate after moderate Senate Democrats Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) said that they would vote against filibuster abolition.

    Today’s Senate, however, is hardly a progressive’s dream anyway. The filibuster is currently already blocking a broad spectrum of Democratic and progressive legislation, and the recent stimulus was only able to pass because it was considered under budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority. Proposals like Democrat’s election-reforming H.R.1, the pro-union PRO Act and the $15 minimum wage are basically dead in the water due to the filibuster even though they’ve been passed by the House.

    The filibuster, reporting has found, already hurts the Democrats more than it does Republicans. In past administrations, Republicans have obstructed more than their fair share of bills by using the filibuster and are generally more willing to use the filibuster as a political weapon.

    McConnell has a particular mastery of using the filibuster, as he demonstrated numerous times under President Barack Obama. And he knows that he can use the filibuster to grind the Senate to a halt anyway. “So long as it applies only to legislation, the filibuster is a Republicans-only weapon,” wrote Hayes Brown for MSNBC in January. “There’s nothing left, it seems, for the GOP to fear from it — aside from its eventual demise.”

    McConnell’s comments come at a time when the future of the filibuster is more uncertain than it was earlier this year, though still unlikely to be abolished. On Monday, the number two ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) said that the filibuster is a “weapon of mass destruction” that is obstructing progress by holding the Senate “hostage.” And last week, Manchin signaled an openness to filibuster reform, which is a softer stance than his previous fiery opposition to axing it altogether.

    Many progressives view the filibuster, with its racist history of being used to oppose civil rights, as the biggest current legislative hurdle for progress on the federal level. In Arizona, progressives are reminding Sinema that her own stated views mesh better with filibuster abolition than her current stance of upholding it, and that she could face primary challenges from the left if she doesn’t change her mind.

    Progressive groups like the Sunrise Movement have committed to continue turning up the heat on politicians to get the filibuster removed. The movement to end the filibuster has already succeeded in getting more moderate lawmakers like Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) and John Tester (D-Montana) to say they’ll vote against it or at least consider filibuster reform.

    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.

  • Former gubernatorial candidate for Georgia Stacey Abrams speaks at University of New England's Portland campus on January 22, 2020.

    On Sunday, Stacey Abrams panned the slate of voter suppression laws being pushed by Republicans in Georgia, saying that the “racist” laws are “a redux of Jim Crow in a suit and tie.”

    “We know that the only thing that precipitated these changes — it’s not that there was a question of security. In fact, the secretary of state and the governor went to great pains to assure America that Georgia’s elections were secure,” Abrams told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday.

    Following their losses in the 2020 election in Georgia and across the country, Republicans in state legislatures have introduced hundreds of bills aimed at making it harder to vote. The bills introduced in Georgia are particularly far-reaching, and, if signed into law, would severely restrict early and absentee voting in the state.

    Democrats won big in Georgia in recent elections, due partially to the work of voting rights activists like Abrams who helped turn out more voters in the state, especially Black voters and voters of color. Black voters especially turned out in droves to vote early or by mail this election, and reporting found that some were even driven by what they viewed as previous voter suppression efforts in the state.

    Now, following record voter turnout, Republicans are trying to suppress voting in the state, and many of the attacks on voting seem to be aimed squarely at getting fewer Black voters to vote. One of the provisions they’ve proposed and passed is a bill restricting early voting to only one Sunday prior to election day, perhaps due to the fact that Sundays are big for Black voter turnout thanks to “souls to the polls” events.

    “And so the only connection that we can find is that more people of color voted, and it changed the outcome of elections in a direction that Republicans do not like,” Abrams said. “Instead of celebrating better access and more participation, their response is to try to eliminate access to voting for, primarily, communities of color.”

    “There’s a direct correlation between the usage of dropboxes, the usage of in-person early voting, especially on Sundays, and the use of vote-by-mail and a direct increase in the number of people of color voting,” Abrams continued.

    Republicans last week voted to end Georgia’s no-excuse absentee voting, which they’ve had in place since 2005 and was originally a Republican proposal that they now view as having turned against them politically. The state Senate had also moved forward with a Republican proposal to end automatic voter registration, which led to record voter turnout after it was implemented in 2016, but the senators ended up tabling that proposal.

    Voter suppression has a long, racist and violent history in the U.S., and scholars say that the Jim Crow era of racist laws still has an effect on voter suppression today. Even before this year’s wave of state laws, voter suppression efforts ahead of the 2020 election — like Donald Trump’s sabotaging of the United States Postal Service’s ability to deliver mail-in ballots — were so similar to Jim Crow era laws that some activists have taken to calling them “Jim Crow 2.0.”

    Republicans’ push to limit the windows for early voting in the state, for instance, is a law that appears to affect everyone equally but in reality would likely further subjugate voters in nonwhite communities. Nonwhite voters in Georgia already have to wait for hours in line to vote as the number of polling locations were decreased precipitously in places like Atlanta, which has a majority Black population.

    The measures to narrow the period for early voting would likely increase the already long lines in certain areas. Republicans have further proposed outlawing the handing out of water and food to people waiting in line to vote, making it a misdemeanor crime to do so.

    These bills in Georgia are part of Republicans’ efforts nationwide to suppress voting — and Republicans have basically admitted as such. Last week, a Republican in Arizona offered his reasoning for the efforts within his state to pass similar voter restrictions. “Everybody shouldn’t be voting,” he said in explaining why Republicans are working so hard to suppress the vote. “Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Low-level inmates from El Paso County detention facility prepare to load bodies wrapped in plastic into a refrigerated temporary morgue trailer in a parking lot of the El Paso County Medical Examiner's office on November 16, 2020, in El Paso, Texas.

    A new study, which examines the outcomes of different states’ approaches to the coronavirus pandemic based on what party their governors belonged to, shows that, for most of 2020, states with Republican governors were more likely to see higher incidence rates and death tolls versus states with Democratic governors.

    Published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Preventive Medicine this month, the study, conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Medical University of South Carolina, took a look at different parts of the pandemic and saw a noticeable shift happening at the start of summer last year.

    At the onset of the pandemic, from March until early June, there were higher per capita incidence rates as well as deaths from the virus within Democratic states. But from July through the remainder of the year, states with Republican governors had worse outcomes.

    “From March to early June, Republican-led states had lower Covid-19 incidence rates compared with Democratic-led states. On June 3, the association reversed, and Republican-led states had higher incidence,” the study said.

    “For death rates, Republican-led states had lower rates early in the pandemic, but higher rates from July 4 through mid-December,” the study added.

    “Governors’ party affiliation may have contributed to a range of policy decisions that, together, influenced the spread of the virus,” said the study’s senior author Sara Benjamin-Neelon, a professor in the Bloomberg School’s Department of Health, Behavior and Society. “These findings underscore the need for state policy actions that are guided by public health considerations rather than by partisan politics.”

    Why did “blue” states fare worse at the start of the pandemic than “red” ones? The researchers theorize it had less to do with policies implemented by Democratic governors, and more because those areas were “home to initial ports of entry for the virus in early 2020.”

    Meanwhile, researchers said, “The subsequent reversal in trends, particularly with respect to testing, may reflect policy differences that could have facilitated the spread of the virus,” the study stated.

    The pandemic, the authors added, “became increasingly politicized in the U.S. and political affiliation of state leaders may contribute to policies affecting the spread of the disease.”

    Several Republican governors did indeed prioritize “reopening” their states’ economies, with detrimental outcomes, around the time the study said things began to shift. Former President Donald Trump himself seemed to politicize methods to stem the spread of coronavirus, stating in a Wall Street Journal interview that he thought people wore masks in order to demonstrate their disapproval of him.

    Trump also tried to wrongly suggest in September that drastic rises in the number of cases and deaths due to COVID-19 were not because some states were loosening standards, but rather due to Democratic leadership.

    “Blue states had tremendous death rates. If you take the blue states out, we’re at a level that I don’t think anybody in the world would be at,” Trump had claimed. “We’re really at a very low level. But some of the states, they were blue states and blue-state-managed.”

    The findings of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Medical University of South Carolina study demonstrate that the former president’s assertions were way off.

    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.

  • Senate Minority Whip John Thune is flanked by (L-R) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Roy Blunt as he talks during a press conference on Capitol Hill on March 2, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    While Democrats were busy passing the latest COVID stimulus package that will provide relief to millions of Americans through Congress, Republican leaders were pleased to introduce their own legislation: a renewed attempt at repealing the estate tax.

    The legislation was unveiled on Tuesday by Senators John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) and John Thune (R-South Dakota) and has been co-sponsored by 24 other Republican senators, or about half of all Senate Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), according to a Kennedy press release. Rep. Jason Smith (R-Missouri) has also introduced similar legislation in the House.

    The federal estate tax’s current top rate is 40 percent, but thanks to exemptions that grow every year, an estate in 2021 would have to be worth $11.7 million for individuals and $23.4 million for married couples before the estate tax kicks in. The exemption was previously around $5 million but was doubled by then-President Donald Trump in 2018.

    Because the threshold is so high, an estimated less than 0.1 percent of estate tax returns will pay the federal estate tax for 2020. In other words, Republicans are fighting for a repeal of a tax for the richest 0.1 percent of dead people.

    Republicans are touting this legislation as helpful for families, especially farmers, who pass down their homes and property to their children. The repeal of the estate tax, in similar GOP attempts past, has had the endorsement of the conservative American Farm Bureau (AFB).

    But, as the LA Times points out, the estate tax also only applies to the biggest and richest of farming families. The AFB estimated that, in 2020, a farm would have to be about 3,700 acres to be subject to the estate tax. Meanwhile, the average farm, according to the Department of Agriculture, is 444 acres.

    “Couching the estate tax repeal as a benefit for America’s valiant business and farm owners is a scam. The largest category of assets in estates by far is publicly traded stock,” wrote business reporter Michael Hiltzik for the LA Times. “Repealing the estate tax would be a massive handout to rich families, enabling them to concentrate their wealth to an extent the Founding Fathers found inimical to society.”

    President Joe Biden proposed a host of increased taxes on the rich on his campaign trail, including reducing the tax exemption on estate taxes drastically to $3.5 million for individuals, going back not only to pre-Trump levels but pre-2011 levels. Though he has not endorsed a wealth tax, other Democrats and progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) have been working on a wealth tax on the ultrarich to level the playing field and help raise funds for the federal government.

    Republicans like to claim that they’re the party of the working class: As MSNBC points out, just a few weeks ago, Sen. Ted Cruz, a co-sponsor of the estate tax repeal, said, “The Republican Party is not just the party of country clubs. The Republican Party is the party of steel workers, construction workers, pipeline workers, police officers, firefighters, waiters, and waitresses.”

    While Republicans were unveiling this legislation this week, Democrats were negotiating and voting through the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which, by some estimates, is expected to lift 16 million out of poverty this year. This stimulus plan, which has sorely needed relief for Americans in the form of $1,400 relief checks and tax credits for the middle and lower classes, got zero Republican votes.

    In fact, Republicans (and some notable centrist Democrats) fought tooth and nail through the stimulus negotiations to get the $1,400 checks and $15 federal minimum wage out of the bill — the same minimum-wage proposal that would be a huge boon to the servers that Cruz says he represents.

    Though the estate tax currently raises much less than it could since the exemption is so high, the Office of Management and Budget has still projected that estate and gift taxes will raise $205 billion from 2019 to 2028. That’s enough to cover the $54 million that the Congressional Budget Office estimated a $15 minimum wage would add to the deficit over a similar time period more than 3.5 times over.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Tim Ryan

    Noting that his Republican colleagues seem to be more interested in the fate of children’s books than workers’ rights, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) reprimanded his fellow lawmakers from across the political aisle with a fiery speech on the House floor, deriding them for having their priorities out of order.

    Ryan’s rousing diatribe came about during debate on Tuesday regarding the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, a piece of pro-union legislation that passed the House mostly along party lines. The bill received 225 votes in favor of passage, with just five Republicans backing it.

    Among other provisions, the bill would impose harsher civil penalties on companies that try to fire union organizers, would outlaw tactics businesses use to delay unionization, and would override so-called “right-to-work” anti-union laws that have passed in several states across the U.S.

    During debate of the bill prior to its passage, several Republicans complained about what the proposal would entail, with some expressing qualms about it being too drastic a change in favor of workers. Ryan dismissed those fears, condemning them as being out of line.

    “One of the earlier speakers said, ‘This is the most dramatic change in labor law in 80 years.’ And I say, thank God,” Ryan said.

    “In the late ’70s, a CEO made 35 times” what a worker earned back then, Ryan noted. “Today, it’s three to 400 times the worker. And our friends on the other side [are] running around with their hair on fire.”

    Becoming more animated in his delivery, Ryan spoke forcefully against GOP opposition to the bill:

    Heaven forbid we pass something that’s going to help the damn workers in the United States of America. Heaven forbid we tilt the balance that has been going in the wrong direction for 50 years.

    Ryan also noted that Republicans seemed to oppose every effort possible to help American workers over the past several years.

    “We talk about pensions, you complain. We talk about the minimum wage increase, you complain. We talk about giving them the right to organize, you complain,” he said. “But if we were passing a tax cut here, you’d all be getting in line to vote yes for it.”

    “Now stop talking about Dr. Seuss and start working with us on behalf of the American workers,” Ryan added.

    The last line Ryan delivered before yielding the floor referenced a decision earlier this month by the company that runs the estate of children’s author Dr. Seuss (real name Theodor Geisel) to halt the printing of his books that contained racist caricatures. The decision only affects six of Seuss’s books out of many dozens that are still in print, and effectively discontinues the publication of titles that include pictures portraying Asian and African people in negative and hateful ways.

    Several right-wing commentators, as well as many Republican lawmakers, have seized upon the move as proof of a supposed “cancel culture” being pushed by the left, even though the decision was made by the company itself without outside pressure. Some right-wing voices have even falsely suggested that President Joe Biden played a role in the cancelation of the six titles.

    In one example of the manufactured outrage by Republicans regarding the Dr. Seuss books, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) recently shared a video of himself declaring that he still likes the author, while reading “Green Eggs and Ham” — a book that is not among the six by Geisel that the company managing his titles has decided to stop printing.

    The speech from Ryan has been viewed and shared tens of thousands of times on social media. Its popularity is perhaps twofold, as those who are sharing or liking it are likely promoting the expansion of workers’ rights while also attempting to highlight the absurdity of right-wing lawmakers trying to create controversy where none appears to actually exist.

    Despite most in the U.S. holding positive views of unions, the PRO Act faces difficult odds of passage in the Senate, where a Republican filibuster of the proposed bill will likely halt it from becoming law.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Lindsey Graham conducts a news conference as the Senate debates the coronavirus relief package on March 5, 2021.

    In a Sunday interview with Axios, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., described former President Trump’s hold over the Republican Party as something of a hostage situation.

    The former President, Graham said, “could make the Republican Party something that nobody else I know could make it. He could make it bigger. He could make it stronger. He could make it more diverse. And he also could destroy it.”

    The senator continued to describe the former President along the lines of the duality of man. Trump, he said, has both a “dark side” and some “magic” in him. “What I’m trying to do is just harness the magic.”

    Prior to Trump’s nomination in 2016, Sen. Graham had been a staunch critic of the former President, arguing that he was not mentally fit for the role. After Trump was nominated, however, Graham quickly fell into Trump’s good graces, becoming one of his most ardent allies.

    Although Graham did not support Trump’s impeachment, the senator admitted that Trump “needs to understand that his actions were the problem” leading up the Capitol insurrection.

    “Donald Trump was my friend before the riot,” Graham said. “And I’m trying to keep a relationship with him after the riot. I still consider him a friend. What happened was a dark day in American history, and we’re going to move forward.”

    He continued, “So here’s what you need to know about me: I’m going to continue — I want us to continue the policies that I think will make America strong. I believe that the best way for the Republican Party to do that is with Trump, not without Trump.”

    The senator’s comments come amid a great reckoning among conservatives about Trump’s influence in the future of the Republican Party.

    Several Republicans, such as Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Sen. Mitt Romney. R-Utah, have expressed an interest in charting a new course without Trump. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has criticized Trump in the past several weeks, but said that he would ultimately support the former President’s potential bid in 2024.

    Trump has been selective about his endorsements in the upcoming Senate elections. Weeks ago, Trump backed the primary opponent of Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, R-Ohio, who was one of the ten senators who voted to impeach him. The former president also endorsed Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C. the only black Republican in the Senate.

    Trump has also shown signs of breaking with certain Republican organizations cashing in on his political capital. On Saturday, NBC News reported that the former president’s lawyers sent cease-and-desist letters to three Republican organizations — the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the National Senate Committee — demanding that they discontinue the usage of Trump’s name and likeness.

    During Trump’s CPAC speech two weeks ago, the former president listed off the names of Congressional Republicans who voted to impeach him, urging his followers to “get rid of them all.” He said that the only way to support “our efforts” is to elect Trump-supporting Republicans.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Demonstrators stand outside of the Capitol building on March 8, 2021, in Atlanta, Georgia.

    Georgia’s Republican-controlled State Senate passed an omnibus bill Monday that would end no-excuse absentee voting in the state.

    The omnibus legislation severely restricts who can vote by mail, requires those without a driver’s license to submit a copy of approved ID twice while registering to vote by mail, bars election officials from sending unsolicited absentee ballot request forms, and requires emergency election rule changes to be approved by lawmakers within 20 days. That package is expected to pass the House.

    In addition to Monday’s bill, the Senate is also considering an omnibus that passed the House last week that includes further ID requirements for absentee voting and restricts more racially diverse counties that lean Democratic from offering early voting on weekends. Last week, the state’s House also passed a law that would criminalize handing out water bottles to people waiting in line to vote.

    In its marathon session, the legislature is also considering additional election-related bills that would aid Republican efforts at voter suppression. One would end the automatic voter registration that has led to a 93 percent increase in voter registrations and record voter turnout in the state since it was implemented in 2016. Another would create a statewide jury to hear cases of election fraud, which is currently basically nonexistent in the country.

    The wave of bills to restrict voting in Georgia is a keystone in the countrywide Republican effort to restrict voting after the 2020 election drew record turnout. Georgia is a particular target after the state flipped blue in November due largely to the state’s Black voters turning out in droves, thanks to the work of grassroots organizers. Georgia voters aided in handing Democrats the White House and the Senate this election cycle.

    Though Republicans have offered a host of reasons for offering these bills, many of them are squarely aimed at suppressing the vote. When more voters turn out, Republicans are more likely to lose elections. In a hearing on the Senate omnibus, SB 241, American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia Director Christopher Bruce said that the bill “treats the government like a babysitter who has to give voters permission to cast a ballot.”

    The restrictions won’t affect everyone equally, and some of them seem to openly target Black voters. The House omnibus limits early voting to only one Sunday prior to elections, for instance, and Sundays are known to be huge drivers of Black voter turnout across the country thanks to “souls to the polls” events.

    Voters of color also disproportionately have to wait in long lines in order to vote, which could be a reason for Republicans trying to bar handing out food and water in voting lines. All of these restrictions combined led Democratic State Rep. Jasmine Clark to call the House bill “textbook voter suppression.”

    “The only reason you have these bills is because they lost,” Bishop Reginald T. Jackson, who oversees the African Methodist Episcopal Church churches in Georgia, told The New York Times. “What makes it even more troubling than that is there is no other way you can describe this other than racism, and we just need to call it what it is.’’

    One Democratic lawmaker denounced the Republican efforts as “white supremacy.” “It’s pathetically obvious to anyone paying attention that, when Trump lost the November election and Georgia flipped control of the U.S. Senate for Democrats shortly after, Republicans got the message that they were in a political death spiral,” said Georgia State Rep. Renitta Shannon during the House’s debate of the omnibus. “And now they are doing anything they can to silence the voices of Black and brown voters specifically because they largely powered these wins.”

    A report by the Brennan Center for Justice found that Georgia Republicans’ pushes to restrict voting will hurt Black voters the most. Voting by mail surged among Black voters in the state during the 2020 election. And, in 2020, Black voters made up 36 percent of the share of Sunday early voters in the state versus only about 27 percent of early voters on other days.

    No-excuse absentee voting was initially a Republican proposal when it passed in 2005, aimed at getting more Republicans to vote. But absentee voting has turned against them, and they’re now trying to repeal that bill.

    “This is voter suppression under the spurious guise of ‘election integrity,’” noted The New York Times’s 2020 election correspondent Trip Gabriel.

    “There were simply not all of these questions about the integrity about voting by mail when it was mostly Republicans, largely white seniors, using this method,” said Shannon last week. “But now that Black and brown voters have used vote [by] mail to show up in ways like they never have before, now there are questions about the integrity of vote by mail.”

    The Georgia bills are part of efforts by Republicans across the country to restrict voting. Republicans have introduced, pre-filed or carried over 253 bills as of February with the goal of restricting voting access, according to the Brennan Center. Republicans are also behind a case in the Supreme Court that could severely weaken what’s left of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits laws that result in racial voting discrimination.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sens. Ron Johnson and Rand Paul arrive at Dirksen Building on December 8, 2020.

    Republican lawmakers, led by Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, are attempting to grind the Senate to a halt to delay passage of a sprawling $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package as Democrats race to get the legislation to President Joe Biden’s desk before March 14, when millions of jobless Americans will begin losing their unemployment lifelines.

    After the Senate on Thursday afternoon approved a procedural motion to begin consideration of the aid bill — with all 50 Republicans voting no — Johnson objected to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) request for unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the bill in order to start debate, forcing the Senate staff to read aloud all 628 pages (pdf) of legislative text.

    What followed was nearly 11 hours of barely comprehensible speed-reading by alternating Senate staffers to a nearly empty chamber; not even Johnson, who forced the reading, remained on the floor through the whole process, which finally came to an end at around 2:00 am ET Friday.

    “When Sen. Johnson voted to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, he didn’t force staff to read the bill,” tweeted Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.). “But now that working people need help, he’s forcing a delay.”

    Johnson’s stunt likely represented just the start of Republican efforts to delay passage of a popular bill that would send direct relief checks to an estimated 280 million people in the U.S., extend and boost unemployment benefits, significantly expand the child tax credit, bolster coronavirus vaccine distribution efforts, deliver aid to state and local governments, and more.

    On Friday afternoon, the Senate is expected to kick off the notorious and dreaded vote-a-rama, which Republican lawmakers are expected to drag out by putting forth a slew of unrelated and doomed-to-fail amendments to the $1.9 trillion package, potentially delaying a final vote for days. The package will then return to the House, which will have to decide whether to make changes or simply push through the Senate’s version.

    “Historically what’s happened is… we offer a couple of hundred amendments on the Republican side,” Johnson said Thursday. “And we get a couple of dozen voted on, and people tire out. I’m coming up with a process that keeps people from tiring out. I’m getting sign-ups. I’m laying out a three-shift schedule.”

    Asked how long he wants the amendment process to last, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said earlier this week, “I’m hoping for infinity.”

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, noted on Twitter that Republicans are delaying “a relief package that 76% of Americans support — including 60% of Republicans.”

    “The goal isn’t compromise,” said Jayapal, “it’s obstruction of all of our priorities.”

    In response to new Labor Department figures showing that more than a million Americans filed initial unemployment claims last week, Jeremy Funk, spokesperson for Accountable.US, said in a statement Thursday that “in the face of ongoing economic struggles due to the pandemic, all Senate Republicans seem to want to do is listen to themselves talk.”

    “If the polls are any judge, the only political points they’re scoring with obstruction are against themselves,” said Funk. “The longer McConnell and company hold back help, the longer the Trump recession will be — and the public won’t soon forget who sat on their $1,400 checks in the middle of it.”

    One expected amendment that is actually relevant to the relief package is Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) $15 minimum wage proposal, a last-ditch effort to include the pay raise in the aid bill after the Senate parliamentarian advised that it runs afoul of budget reconciliation rules.

    Originally a part of the $1.9 trillion package, Senate Democrats removed the $15 wage provision following the unelected parliamentarian’s advisory opinion, which Vice President Kamala Harris is refusing to overrule despite having the constitutional authority to do so. Sanders is urging the Senate Democratic majority to ignore the parliamentarian’s advice and approve the long-overdue wage increase.

    “Many millions of workers are earning starvation wages — and I underline that, starvation wages — in this country,” Sanders said Thursday in a floor speech making the case for his amendment. “I’d love to hear anybody get up here and tell me that they could live on $7.25 an hour, they could live on 8 bucks an hour, they could live on 9 bucks an hour — you can’t.”

    Watch:

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Voters wait in a long line to vote at the Buckhead library in Atlanta on the first day of in-person early voting for the Georgia Senate runoff election on December 14, 2020, in Atlanta, Georgia.

    Republicans in Georgia are passing restrictive voting laws, ostensibly to “protect” people’s votes but which critics have said create unnecessary burdens to voters, particularly within communities of color.

    Georgia House Bill 531, which passed in the Georgia General Assembly on Monday, would add a voter ID requirement for absentee ballots, limit the number and locations of early voting drop-off boxes, and reduce early voting days during the weekends prior to an election — including allowing just one Sunday to vote early.

    If passed into law, individuals could be charged with misdemeanor crime if they hand out food or drinks to voters standing in line on election days.

    Critics warn that some of the restrictions are completely unnecessary and could harm get-out-the-vote “Souls to the Polls” events that are common among Black churches across the state.

    Voting lines in Georgia are notoriously long, particularly in Black and Brown communities, where the number of voting locations has been cut drastically in recent years. It can take voters several hours to cast their ballots at polling places on election day.

    “Why do we have to add in making it illegal to give a bottled water to someone? If we’re really not trying to suppress the vote, why are we even making giving water to someone an issue?” Democratic State Rep. Patty Bently told 13WMAZ.

    Democratic Rep. Kimberly Alexander said that GOP lawmakers are ramping up voter suppression efforts after two incumbent Republican U.S. senators and former President Donald Trump lost the state in recent elections.

    “Republicans in the Georgia General Assembly are trying to change the rules of the election here in Georgia, rules that you wrote, because you were handed defeat,” Democratic Rep. Kimberly Alexander said to Capitol Beat News Service. “You know that your only chance of winning future elections is to prevent Georgians from having their votes counted and their voices heard.”

    The bill is scheduled for debate and a vote in the Republican-run Senate. A separate set of measures are also being considered in that legislative chamber, which would limit which voters could apply for absentee ballots, disallowing the state’s “no-excuse” practice of granting any voter who requests a ballot to get one.

    The Senate bill would restrict absentee ballots to voters who are over age 65, physically disabled or are out of town at the time of an election.

    Several states across the U.S. have adopted or pursued restrictive voting laws following Trump’s loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

    “Republicans responded to historic turnout by introducing a wave of legislation restricting voting rights in states across the country,” Anoa Changa wrote for Truthout. “Safeguarding our rights, which are constantly under attack at the state level, requires the same level of engagement (if not more) than that given to presidential and other federal elections.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Citizens stage a march for a fair vote count in the presidential election in Washington, D.C., on November 6, 2020.

    Framed as a battle to save democracy, the 2020 election and its aftermath only exposed the vulnerabilities within the U.S. political system. While millions of voters overcame the “big lie” at the national level, the focus on federal elections has overshadowed the ongoing struggle at the state level to protect democracy.

    Republicans responded to historic turnout by introducing a wave of legislation restricting voting rights in states across the country. Repeatedly debunked lies about fraud and election administration continue to fuel the proposed changes to a manufactured problem.

    In Georgia, where a multiracial coalition sent shock waves through the political world, Republicans introduced several dozen bills aimed at limiting the turnout seen in the general and runoff elections. Advocates have recently honed in on two bills, calling them the worst voting legislation since the Jim Crow era. Georgia Senate Bill 241 would end no-excuse absentee ballots and add witnessing and ID requirements for those using absentee ballots.

    Early Monday morning, concerned citizens gathered to protest the passage of Georgia House Bill 531, a far-reaching bill being pushed through the state house under the pretense of improving election integrity and security. The bill would do the opposite by limiting availability of absentee ballot drop boxes, limiting early and weekend voting, and shortening the length of period for runoff elections and absentee ballot deadlines. The bill would also prohibit a practice commonly known as “line warming,” which can include providing people in the vicinity of a polling location with snacks, water or even an umbrella. The bill passed the house 97-72.

    Protesters against Georgia House Bill 531 rally outside the state capitol on March 1, 2021.
    Protesters against Georgia House Bill 531 rally outside the state capitol on March 1, 2021.

    But protecting democracy is more than beating political opponents at the federal level. Safeguarding our rights, which are constantly under attack at the state level, requires the same level of engagement (if not more) than that given to presidential and other federal elections. The current attack on voting rights and election administration runs parallel to efforts to undermine progress on critical issues, such as reproductive rights and criminal legal system reforms.

    “When we think about democracy, we think about everyone being able to participate in government,” said Ohio State Rep. Erica Crawley in an interview with Truthout. “And be able to participate in how they are governed and who is representing their interests, whether it’s at the local, state or federal level.”

    Crawley, who represents Ohio’s 26th legislative district, sees the current round of legislative attacks on voting rights as having broader repercussions. “We can’t talk about democracy without talking about voter suppression, without talking about gerrymandering, without talking about how it impacts reproductive health and health care,” Crawley said.

    Despite the Republican supermajority in the Ohio legislature, Crawley says it is her duty to continue to make sure her constituents are aware of the many fights always in motion. Regarding reproductive health care, Crawley said she specifically pushes for reproductive justice.

    “It’s not just whether someone has the ability to choose whether to have children or not to have children, but it also takes them to account those social determinants of health that have continued to be barriers for communities of color,” Crawley explained. She also raised the need for continuing to push legislation protecting and advancing Medicaid, Medicare and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Crawley sees Ohio Senate Bill 17 as one example of the threats to communities in need. Allegedly to address fraud, advocates say the bill could cost over 100,000 families needed food benefits.

    “We know those things are fundamental to taking care of a family and moving up the economic mobility ladder,” said Crawley.

    Crawley is not alone in her efforts. As a member of the State Innovation Exchange’s Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council, Crawley is one of over 400 legislators across the country who champion reproductive rights and reproductive justice. Coined in 1994, reproductive justice is defined as “the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities.”

    And like Crawley, many of her counterparts see the parallels between safeguarding the right to vote and reproductive health rights and justice.

    “Voting rights doesn’t stand on its own, and reproductive health rights and justice isn’t on [their] own,” Jennifer Driver told Truthout. Driver serves as the senior director for reproductive rights at the State Innovation Exchange. “These two things are actually linked and really do impact one another.”

    Driver said that people often forget about the power of state policymakers. “Policy is localizing,” Driver said. “All policies really do happen at the local level.” Driver recognized the work of state and local grassroots organizations, but noted the need to support progressive legislators in terms of partnerships, coalition-building and policy education.

    Driver also said that part of the challenge is helping voters understand there is more to reproductive rights than abortion, but without stigmatizing the word “abortion.”

    While some have moved to seeing these issues as intersecting concerns, Driver said people need to move away from siloed approaches to work. In conversation with Truthout, Allison Coffman named the Amplify-GA campaign as an example of how people are seeing the intersecting lanes of elections, voting rights, and reproductive health and justice.

    “Although Amplify’s work doesn’t focus on elections, we know that in order to achieve reproductive justice, everyone must be able to freely cast their votes and have a say in the leadership of policymaking that affects us,” said Coffman, the director of Amplify-GA.

    Coffman described Amplify-GA as a “collaborative space for reproductive health rights and justice organizations and allies, working to expand abortion access in Georgia, and to advance reproductive justice more broadly.” Amplify-GA member organizations include Access Reproductive Care Southeast, Feminist Women’s Health Center, National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, New Georgia Project, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, SPARK Reproductive Justice Now, and URGE: Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity.

    “Rights do not guarantee access,” Coffman explained. “And the same groups that are being impacted by the voting restrictions are being impacted by restrictions around reproductive justice, and specifically abortion access.” Historically marginalized groups like Black, Brown, Indigenous and LGBTQ folks, as well as young people and immigrants are the same groups that are being targeted by both attacks, according to Coffman.

    Georgia State Rep. Park Cannon agreed with Coffman’s assessment. “No one should face a mandate on the health and strength of their body,” Cannon told Truthout. She called on her legislative colleagues to continue building with their respective constituents and broader communities to bring about a future of peace and grace.

    “This pandemic has shown us the importance of personal decision making and autonomy,” Cannon said. “Georgia needs to do a better job with caring for the health of its people. We have not expanded Medicaid, which is why I’ve signed a piece of legislation to expand Medicaid in the state of Georgia.” She pointed to the expansion of Medicaid for new mothers postpartum as a step in the right direction.

    By now it should be clear that decades of political appeasement have not worked. The fundamentals of democracy purportedly are about freedom and access to the things people need for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    “The same lobbying firms, nonprofits and religious associations are attacking critical rights, and are doing it without regard for the impact on Black and Brown Georgians,” said Cannon.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.