Category: Voting rights

  • A person in a car leans out the window to place their ballot in a drop box labeled with Maricopa County Official Ballot Drop Box

    Since the 2020 general election, there has been a proliferation of new election laws and restrictions on voting. Reveal reporters would like to know how this is affecting you and the people around you. We won’t share any information you provide without speaking to you first and getting your approval.

    How Are Voter Suppression Tactics Affecting You and Your Community?  is a story from Reveal. Reveal is a registered trademark of The Center for Investigative Reporting and is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Since the 2020 general election, state lawmakers across the country have introduced legislation that would dramatically criminalize voting activity. Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting has collected and analyzed those bills into this first-of-its-kind database. 

    Reveal used records from LegiScan, which catalogs virtually every bill introduced by state-level lawmakers in all 50 states, to identify and classify the bills, which we have divided into the following categories:

    • Empowering a law enforcement agency by giving it more power or resources
    • Creating a new enforcement agency 
    • Creating new criminal penalties
    • Increasing penalties for existing offenses

    For bills that would create or increase criminal penalties, Reveal further categorized them based on the type of activity they would criminalize:

    • Voting
    • Voter assistance
    • Ballot collection
    • Election administration
    • Election interference

    Each database entry contains information about the bill’s provisions, when it was introduced, the political party of its sponsors and its latest status, according to LegiScan. Bills that are marked as “carried over” were moved into the next legislative session. In some cases, there are repeat entries for a bill because it was introduced multiple times in the same or different legislative chambers. The database logs bills introduced from Nov. 16, 2020, to Oct. 19, 2022.

    Read the investigation: State Legislatures Are Dramatically Increasing Law Enforcement Involvement in Elections 

    Share your story: How Are Voter Suppression Tactics Affecting You and Your Community?

    This story was edited by Soo Oh and Maryam Saleh and copy edited by Nikki Frick. 

    Ese Olumhense can be reached at eolumhense@revealnews.org. Melissa Lewis can be reached at mlewis@revealnews.org. Farah Eltohamy is Reveal’s 2022-23 Roy W. Howard investigative reporting fellow and can be reached at feltohamy@revealnews.org. Soo Oh can be reached at soh@revealnews.org. Follow them on Twitter: @essayolumhense, @iff_or and @farahelto.

    Search for the Crime Bills That Target Voting and Elections in Your State is a story from Reveal. Reveal is a registered trademark of The Center for Investigative Reporting and is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • We speak to law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw and civil rights attorney Barbara Arnwine, who are on an Arc of Voter Justice bus tour of 26 cities across the country to increase Black voter turnout at critical midterm elections in November. They discuss fighting voter suppression and racial gerrymandering, and the high stakes in states where Republicans have instated bans on what they describe as critical race theory. “African American voters are key to all these races,” says Arnwine. “They’re going to vote what’s in the best interests not only of their community, but the entire nation.” Crenshaw says she is handing out banned books and education to voters because “when racism is unspeakable, then democracy — a full multiracial democracy — is unachievable.”

    TRANSCRIPT

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

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

    The midterm elections, less than three weeks away, will determine the balance of power in Congress, and Black voters could play a key role. Black voters helped Democrats flip two Senate seats that gave them control of the Senate in Georgia’s 2020 special runoff election. Democratic Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock of Georgia now faces Republican challenger Herschel Walker. This comes as Georgia’s Republican Governor Brian Kemp is fighting for reelection against Democrat and voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams in a rematch, after he signed into law new restrictions that disproportionately disenfranchise voters of color. It was one of many voter suppression efforts in Republican-led states.

    In Florida, Republican Governor Ron DeSantis’s election police unit — that’s right, he has set up an election police unit — has arrested people for voting. Florida law allows formerly incarcerated people to vote unless they were convicted of murder or felony sex offenses. Those arrested say Florida officials encouraged them to vote, and didn’t know about the exclusion. This is police bodycam footage of Tampa resident Tony Patterson and his arresting officer, recently obtained by the Tampa Bay Times.

    POLICE OFFICER 1: Apparently, I guess you have a warrant.

    TONY PATTERSON: For what?

    POLICE OFFICER 1: I’m not sure.

    POLICE OFFICER 2: It’s for voter stuff, man.

    POLICE OFFICER 1: For voter —

    POLICE OFFICER 2: It’s — what it is, it — I think the agents with FDLE talked to you last week about some voter fraud, voter stuff, when you weren’t supposed to be voting maybe.

    TONY PATTERSON: This here is crazy, man. Y’all putting me in jail for something I didn’t know nothing about. Why would you all let me vote if I wasn’t able to vote?

    AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined by two guests who are on a 26-city Arc of Voter Justice bus tour. They’re joining us from Jacksonville, Florida, on one of their tour stops. Barbara Arnwine is a civil rights lawyer, president of the Transformative Justice Coalition. And Kimberlé Crenshaw is distributing banned books en route as part of “From Freedom Riders to Freedom Readers: The Books Unbanned Tour.” She’s also executive director of the African American Policy Forum, a professor of law at UCLA and Columbia University.

    We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Barbara Arnwine, your hashtag is #10MillionMoreBlackVotes. How are you doing this?

    BARBARA ARNWINE: Oh, we’re doing it in two ways. One is we’re registering new voters. There’s something like 6 million unregistered African American voters in this country. And we’re also saying to those who are registered, the 35% who don’t vote, that you’ve got to show up and show out every election. Don’t only vote presidential. Vote in the midterms. It’s so critical. Vote the whole ballot; don’t only focus on the top positions. But no matter what you do, vote. No matter what you do, make sure you’re registered. No matter what you do, vote.

    AMY GOODMAN: And can you talk, Kimberlé Crenshaw, about how you’re linking these two issues, the banned book tour, From Freedom Riders to Freedom Readers, and why that’s so critical when we’re talking about voter turnout and voter registration?

    KIMBERLÉ CRENSHAW: Well, Amy, it’s no secret that our democracy is in crises — the efforts to suppress Black voting, the efforts to gerrymander districts. This is all part of a democracy that’s in deep trouble. But what a lot of people don’t realize is that the same people who are trying to gerrymander our districts are trying to gerrymander our history. The same people who want to change the outcomes of elections want to change the story of us, the material, the books that tell the full story about America.

    So, we’ve decided that because there is no daylight between racial justice and a fully multiracial democracy, we were going to join this tour to provide the information, the books, that those who are anti-Democrats don’t want us to know. So we’re passing out 6,000 books, titles that have been banned in many of the states that we’re in, ranging from the autobiography of Ruby Bridges, the 6-year-old who integrated schools in New Orleans, to classics like Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye or Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Between the World and Me.

    People need to understand what is behind this effort to ban what they call critical race theory. What they’re essentially doing is banning the telling of our history and its contemporary consequences. We think when voters know exactly what they’re trying to do, they will show up, and, as Barbara said, they will show out.

    AMY GOODMAN: And so, can you talk about the response? I mean, you’re right now actually in Jekyll Island, Georgia, headed to Jacksonville. Georgia is — to say the least, all eyes are on this state, when you have this race between Herschel Walker and Reverend Raphael Warnock. Reverend Raphael Warnock just won two years ago but now will run for a full Senate term — all of the attention on this. Can you talk, Barbara Arnwine, about the significance of this race and some of the other ones that you’re tracking?

    BARBARA ARNWINE: Well, obviously, African American voters are key to all these races, because — and, you know, we’re nonpartisan, and we believe that if African Americans vote, they’ll vote correctly, because they’re going to vote what’s in the best interests not only of their community, but the entire nation. That’s one thing we know about African American voters: They think broadly. Especially African American women voters have a real sense of social justice for all. So, it’s really important to mobilize this bloc.

    And what we’re seeing already in Georgia is an incredible, unprecedented, historic turnout of African American voters. They are 37% of the current early voting percentages. That’s an increase, significantly, from being 29% in the 2018 midterm elections. So, African Americans are hearing us. We’ve been going to communities that have the lowest voter turnout and saying, “Your vote matters. It doesn’t matter if all the candidates don’t come to see you because they don’t consider you high propensity voters; we consider you the most important voters. Register. Vote.”

    So, yesterday, when we did our votercade and we went through some of the poorest, most depressed areas in Brunswick, you should have seen the people. This was like what we’ve been seeing everywhere. They came out. They were clapping. They were giving the power fist. They were yelling. They were screaming. They were so excited that somebody considered them important. Somebody was coming directly to them and saying, “Vote. It matters.” It was just beautiful.

    That is the experience we’ve had in Richmond, where we were on motorcycles driving through the city with the Buffalo Soldiers in a long, six-block-long motorcade. It’s been amazing. When people see the John Lewis buses, they honk on the freeways at us. They honk as we roll, because people get the message. They’re so happy to see somebody saying “vote” in a positive way, not about candidates, just about the fact that as Americans and the fact that we care and love our democracy, that it demands that we participate, that we vote.

    AMY GOODMAN: Kimberlé Crenshaw, you are in Georgia. That other key race is the rematch between the longtime voting rights activist Stacey Abrams and Brian Kemp, the governor, for the governorship of Georgia. The significance of this race? And you’re visiting these sites of white supremacist terror, from the Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina, to — talk about the places that you have been.

    KIMBERLÉ CRENSHAW: Yes. We visited Wilmington, which is the site of a racial coup in 1898. And one of the reasons that was just so significant to us —

    AMY GOODMAN: In North Carolina.

    KIMBERLÉ CRENSHAW: — at the African American Policy Forum — yes — was that, when we had the January 6th attempted coup, there were a lot of pundits, including our president, who said, “This is not who we are.” And it is evidence of the fact that when our history has been erased, we don’t know that we’re heading in the same direction. In fact, violent coups are exactly who we’ve been.

    But when we went to Wilmington and looked at the site where the coup began, where a newspaper was burned to the ground and countless numbers of African Americans were killed and a duly elected biracial government was deposed, there’s no marker there. There’s no placard. There’s no “this is what happened.”

    And that same sentiment, that erasure of our history, is what is behind these book bans and behind the effort to challenge The 1619 Project. It is, in fact, an effort to make racism unspeakable. And our position has been that when racism is unspeakable, then democracy — a full multiracial democracy — is unachievable. There is no daylight between the two. Even though when people think and talk about “Is our country going to the edge? Can it happen here?” a lot of people say it can’t, but that’s just telling us that they don’t realize that Black history and American history are one and the same. It has happened here. And unless we understand its legacy and its implication today, it’s on the way of happening here again. And that’s what we cannot allow to happen.

    AMY GOODMAN: Talk about your plans in Florida. In that video we played in the introduction, astounding story of what the governor has done in having arrested — with his election police, arresting people who were attempting to vote. They said, these men who were in prison and came out, that they can register, and if they qualify — because they didn’t know they did, because they had served time in jail — they will be allowed to vote. And then they were handcuffed and arrested for voting. Your response?

    BARBARA ARNWINE: Well, they were handcuffed and arrested for voting while they had in their hands their voting cards. Now, if you’re sent a voting card by your county registrar, wouldn’t you assume that that means you have the right to vote?

    So, the fact that DeSantis — you know, people here call him DeSatan — has decided that he wants to use and play the race card by having mostly Black — look at who he’s arresting. It’s not just, you know, whites, because more whites have been affected by these felony disenfranchisement laws than Blacks, but he’s mainly arresting Black people, that he’s playing the race card because he wants to be president. Doesn’t that say something ill about the concept of our democracy, the concept of who we are, that we want a —

    AMY GOODMAN: We have —

    BARBARA ARNWINE: — person who is using race? Because it worked before, right? With Trump. So they’re saying, “OK, we’ll do it again.”

    AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there, but I want to thank you so much for being with us, Barbara Arnwine, civil rights lawyer with Transformative Justice Coalition, and Kimberlé Crenshaw, executive director of the African American Policy Forum and professor of law at UCLA and Columbia University, speaking to us from Jekyll Island, Georgia. I’m Amy Goodman. Thanks so much.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Iowa eliminated nine days of early voting. New Hampshire took away ballot drop boxes. And Georgia made providing water to voters waiting in line a crime.

    In many states, nearly all controlled by Republicans, it will be more difficult to vote than it was two years ago. That’s especially true for lower-income Americans and people with disabilities, voting-access advocates warn. They stress that new restrictions target methods of voting used disproportionately by people of color.

    In those states, voting has also been reshaped by rulings from conservative judges and newly drawn districts that favor Republican candidates.

    A review of voting laws in the 50 states and Washington, D.C. by the Center for Public Integrity paints a stark picture of the state of voting in America — one in which states are taking two different paths. While several states passed bills that grabbed headlines and created barriers to the franchise, states controlled by Democrats made access to voting easier and more equitable. Some states with split-party control went one direction and some went the other.

    We found:

    • Twenty-six states worsened equity in voting and representation.
    • Twenty states and Washington, D.C., improved it.
    • Four states have made little change in either direction.

    Our review found that 160 million Americans live in the states reducing equity, and 151 million live in the places expanding it. About 20 million Americans live in the states where the situation did not change substantially.

    The rollback in voting access has been fueled by falsehoods from former President Donald Trump and his allies about the 2020 election — an election that officials in his own administration, elections experts and state and federal judges have affirmed was secure and accurate. “Instead of celebrating that, what we saw was a rush to enact legislation on the false premise that the 2020 election, and elections generally, are riddled with widespread voter fraud,” said Jasleen Singh of the Brennan Center for Justice.

    The attacks on access have targeted methods disproportionately used by people of color and younger, more Democratic-leaning voters. “These are direct attacks on voters that legislators think will vote for the other party,” said Sylvia Albert of Common Cause. “It is clearly an attack on Black and brown and low-income voters.”

    The restrictive state laws have come as the Supreme Court has dealt several blows to the Voting Rights Act. The court will consider significant cases about gerrymandering and state legislative powers over elections in its current term, which began this week.

    The Democratic and mixed-party-control states that made voting and registering easier since the 2020 election span the country: New Mexico created protections for polling places on tribal land; Illinois made vote-by-mail accessible to all voters permanently; Maine made it easier to participate in primaries.

    In a handful of states where voting rules have barely budged since 2020, Democratic governors thwarted GOP legislation with vetoes, an establishment Republican blocked restrictive voting measures, or court challenges paused or prevented legislation from taking effect. In those states, the status quo could easily be shattered by a flip in control over the governor’s office or a handful of politicians retiring or losing primaries.

    Voting laws, and the way they’re interpreted by election officials, depend on where you live. Voters in different states — and sometimes even neighboring cities or counties — can face sharply different options for casting their ballots.

    In Utah, for example, all voters receive a mail ballot and can track its status online. If the voter wants to register and vote in person at a polling place, the law allows for them to do that on Election Day.

    In Mississippi, meanwhile, voting in person on Election Day is the only option available to all voters. Excuses for voting absentee are limited, mail voting ordinarily requires multiple notarized signatures, and a voter must register 30 days before an election.

    The varying rules make for a disjointed, unequal landscape of voting in the United States.

    “We should all have equal access to the ballot. Otherwise, we don’t all have the same freedom to vote,” said Danielle Lang of the Campaign Legal Center.

    Our team of journalists took a close look at the details of voting across the United States, reporting on the registration process, voter-roll purges, redistricting and more. As Democracy Fund’s Tammy Patrick, a former elections official in Arizona, put it: “In elections, the details matter.”

    Millions of Americans face challenges to exercising their right to vote, even if they live in a state that has increased access. For voters with disabilities, Indigenous voters living on reservations and eligible voters with felonies on their records, barriers have been especially high.

    Many voters will also find that their influence in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress has been diluted by a round of partisan gerrymandering. Political districts are redrawn each decade, with the most recent round based on the results of the 2020 Census.

    In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a political issue beyond the reach of federal courts. Politicians — who draw the maps in many states — took the cue.

    Across the country, states have drawn maps in ways that reduce the number of competitive congressional districts nationwide. Republican leaders in Indiana created a congressional map an expert called “one of the most extreme gerrymanders in history.”

    Many states’ redistricting maps have been contested in court, with plaintiffs alleging that their state’s constitution bars partisan gerrymandering or contending that the maps discriminate against Black or Latino voters. Judges have ordered maps in some states, including New York, to be redrawn. Ongoing litigation in several states means that district boundaries could change for some voters again before 2024.

    Districts for some state legislative, city council and school board seats have also been redrawn, often with little of the public attention that maps for congressional seats receive. Battles for the future of democracy are not restricted to statehouses and Washington, D.C. — they are taking place at city halls, county government buildings and school board meetings across the nation.

    “Democracy isn’t just about voting rights, pulling a lever for your candidate. It’s the idea that everyone matters, that we’re in it together,” said Micah Kubic of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas.

    Fights over access to the ballot box raise fundamental questions, he said: “Who counts? Who matters?”

    Record Voter Turnout and Conspiracies

    Absentee voting surged in the 2020 election, conducted in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. States scrambled to craft policies that allowed more voters to cast a ballot without visiting a polling place on Election Day. When the dust settled, 2020 proved to be the highest-turnout election in 120 years.

    “Voters responded to expansions in access in 2020 by coming out in record numbers,” said Common Cause’s Albert.

    Falsehoods about Trump’s loss, many of which focused on mail voting and election results in racially diverse urban areas, became motivating forces for Republican candidates and elected officials at all levels — from Congress to sheriff’s departments.

    On Capitol Hill, federal voting rights legislation stalled. Senate Democrats couldn’t break a filibuster to act on what President Joe Biden has called “the single biggest issue.”

    Lawmakers in states where Republicans control all branches of government have run into no such gridlock. They seized on Trump’s rhetoric about fraud to pass a flurry of election-related bills in 2021 and 2022 that make voting more difficult.

    “These changes are saying back to voters, ‘Oops, we don’t actually want you to vote,’” Albert said.

    Texas, Florida and Georgia all attracted nationwide scrutiny for election bills that restrict access to ballot drop boxes, and several states have created potential criminal penalties related to the work of election officials.

    “This past session was spent on what I consider voter suppression bills,” said LaVon Bracy of Faith in Florida, a longtime voting rights advocate in the state.

    In Virginia and Florida, Republican officials have created units to investigate and prosecute election fraud, an issue that is vanishingly rare in the United States. Florida’s election police recently made high-profile arrests of 20 people for voting with felony convictions, which the state allows in some cases but not others. But reporters quickly found major flaws, including evidence that state officials and even the head of the election police were involved in approving those Floridians’ efforts to register.

    Beyond specific policies making voting more challenging, advocates fear that the headlines about arrests and criminalization of election violations will keep some people from even trying to vote.

    And then there are the battles over mail and absentee voting. In places where these options have long been popular and uncontroversial, such as Utah and Arizona, the practice has come under attack by right-wing activists and elected officials. Republican legislators in Arizona passed a law to purge people from the state’s list of voters who automatically receive a mail-in ballot. They will now be removed if they fail to vote for two election cycles and don’t respond to a notice sent by mail.

    Even proposals that haven’t become law concern elections experts. “We have never seen the number of restrictive laws being proposed,” said Singh, who tracks voting legislation at the Brennan Center for Justice.

    The misinformation about voting has also upturned the lives of the professionals who run elections. Many have received threats and now fear for their safety. Others have quit.

    “In that absence, you get the loss of institutional knowledge. But then you also have this void that can be filled by bad actors,” said Democracy Fund’s Patrick. “And that’s a concern by many election officials in the field: Who’s going to fill those roles?”

    Patrick added that if the attacks on election officials continue, the profession could see another wave of resignations before the 2024 presidential election.

    Disenfranchisement and Barriers to Voting as Old as the Country

    Changes in state laws are written in language that is race-neutral, but their impact is anything but.

    “Racial discrimination in voting has been a particularly pernicious and enduring American problem,” a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report stated in 2018. The commission pointed to voter ID laws, voter-roll purges, challenges to eligibility and proof of citizenship measures as “voting procedures that wrongly prevent some citizens from voting.”

    Legislatures in states around the nation debated and passed precisely those types of measures in 2021 and 2022, often invoking voter fraud and election security.

    The current wave of election legislation comes less than a decade after the nation’s strongest tool for battling disenfranchisement was gutted.

    Previously, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 required jurisdictions with a history of discrimination in voting to “preclear” changes with the Department of Justice or a federal court in D.C. Several southern states, along with Arizona and Alaska, fell under the preclearance requirement. So did counties in states including California, Florida and North Carolina.

    All are now free to make changes without federal approval because of the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Shelby County v. Holder.

    Many of those jurisdictions began making major changes to elections well before 2020, with Texas alone closing over 700 polling places. Recently enacted laws in states including Texas and Georgia would have previously required preclearance. Now they don’t.

    “There is a direct attack on Black voters,” said James “Major” Woodall of the Southern Center for Human Rights.

    Woodall and other voting access advocates say that the restrictive laws make their work even more difficult. Jerry Gonzalez of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials said the state’s 2021 law, SB 202, “leaves undue pressure on local organizations like ourselves that work to help people navigate the gauntlet of trying to cast your vote. It shouldn’t be that difficult to vote in our democracy.”

    The Center for Public Integrity’s reporting documented inequities in access to voting and representation in every state and D.C., regardless of which party controlled state government. In some cases, voting laws are governed by state constitutions that date back to the era when Black Americans, Indigenous people and women were denied the right to vote.

    In many Democratic-controlled states, Black and Latino voters wait in long lines simply to vote — sometimes because their communities lack the resources to open additional polling places, staff additional early voting sites or provide language assistance.

    Yet our review also found that in states controlled by Democrats, and some whose control is split between the parties, voting has become easier. Kentucky opened vote centers, allowing residents to cast ballots at any voting site in their jurisdiction. California made 2020’s universal vote-by-mail effort permanent, while Connecticut expanded access to absentee voting.

    Voting access doesn’t always break down cleanly on red-blue lines. Voting in the United States is in many ways regional. Western states like Colorado, Washington and Utah have long embraced mail voting, among the biggest equalizers in access to elections. In addition to Washington, D.C., the two states that allow people incarcerated for felonies to vote are in northern New England and among the least diverse states in the country: Maine and Vermont. Southern states, where Black voters make up a significant share of the electorate, and conservative Midwestern states have enacted many of the strictest voter identification laws.

    But in the aftermath of the 2020 election, with a weakened Voting Rights Act, national politics are playing a powerful role in the rules determining how Americans do — and don’t — cast their ballots.

    More than a dozen GOP-controlled states adopted bans on outside funding for elections. Money from the nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life was a lifeline for underfunded elections offices in 2020 but became the subject of right-wing conspiracies centered around its ties to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

    “Those policies were being driven by a national narrative,” said the Campaign Legal Center’s Lang. “That came straight from the top in 2020, from President Trump.”

    In Idaho, League of Women Voters President Betsy McBride said she’d never previously heard concerns about voter registration drives or people delivering absentee ballots for their elderly neighbors.

    That changed after national Republicans and right-wing media targeted both. “This list of bills all over the country look pretty much the same, the talking points are the same,” she said.

    The Idaho League of Women Voters fought hardest against a proposed bill, similar to laws passed in other Republican states, that would have made it a crime to “knowingly collect or convey another voter’s voted or unvoted ballot.”

    “It was a felony with a big fine,” McBride said. “So it was clear that a lot of the work that the churches were doing and other groups was just going to come to a halt. We have a huge veterans home. And whether or not they have a living spouse is quite problematic.”

    The proposal was passed by the Idaho House along with a slew of other voting restrictions, but they died in the state Senate, where a single Republican legislator, State Affairs Committee Chairwoman Patti Anne Lodge, refused to give them a hearing. Lodge did not seek re-election, and McBride worries that there will be no stopping similar bills next year.

    In the coming months, the Supreme Court will consider Moore v. Harper, a case that could give state legislatures nearly unchecked power to set election laws — even if those laws violate state constitutions or create extreme partisan gerrymanders. If the justices side with the “independent state legislature theory,” it will open the door for further restrictions in voting access in dozens of states.

    The court also agreed to take up Merrill v. Milligan, another case that could weaken the Voting Rights Act. If the court’s conservative majority sides with Alabama’s attorney general in the case, they could make it possible for states to draw districts in a way that dilutes the power of voters of color. That would gut one of the last remaining voting rights provisions of the law.

    Advocates for voting access say their work has never felt more urgent. “It’s pretty terrifying how fragile our democracy is right now,” said Davis Hammet, the president of Kansas-based civic engagement group Loud Light.

    Project team

    Reporters: Aaron Mendelson, Jared Bennett, Karen Juanita Carillo, Gina Castro, Kimberly Cataudella, Ileana Garnand, Alan Hovorka, Lindsay Kalter, Robby Korth, Lizzie Mulvey, Pratheek Rebala, Hayley Starshak, DeArbea Walker, Jordan Wilkie, Peter Winslow

    Editors: Matt DeRienzo, Jennifer LaFleur, Mc Nelly Torres, Jamie Smith Hopkins

    Audience engagement: Lisa Yanick Litwiller, Janeen Jones, Ashley Clarke, Vanessa Lee and Charlie Hsing-Chuan Dodge

    Fact-checking: Yvette Cabrera, Kimberly Cataudella, Ileana Garnand, Melissa Hellmann, Kristian Hernández, Aaron Mendelson, Corey Mitchell, April Simpson, Peter Newbatt Smith, Maya Srikrishnan, Joe Yerardi, María Inés Zamudio

    Audio: Juliana Marin

    This article first appeared on Center for Public Integrity and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In the wake of Hurricane Ian, we are seeing a lot of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the media. We shouldn’t be confused: He is running for reelection and aspires to run for president. Anything he does in the aftermath of this disaster should be viewed as performative gamesmanship. Based on what we’ve seen, it is safe to say that his administration is about power and control. There is no reason to believe the devastating storms of this season will somehow lead to better treatment of the vulnerable. He has demonstrated a vindictiveness and cruelty that is more suited for a movie villain than a duly elected leader in a democracy.

    In April 2022, MSNBC columnist Michael Cohen wrote of DeSantis, “Over the past several weeks in Florida, DeSantis has shown what a politician unmoored from fundamental democratic principles — and intent on waging political warfare — can achieve.” Cohen expressed those sentiments after DeSantis tossed out congressional lines that a bipartisan committee developed and drew his own. Advocates like me argued that DeSantis’s lines would make it harder for Black people to elect candidates of their choice.

    But there have been a host of moments that have highlighted DeSantis’s true nature. For instance, he took steps — such as failing to mandate COVID-19 vaccines — that undermined the health and safety of children and education during a hellish pandemic. Most recently, his character was on display when he rounded up unsuspecting immigrants with promises of housing and jobs, and instead shipped them to a community in Massachusetts that was neither prepared to welcome them nor aware they were coming.

    DeSantis has also revealed his true colors through his treatment of persons with felony convictions. After Floridians voted for a ballot initiative to enable returning citizens and people with felonies to vote, DeSantis immediately found a way to make it harder for returning citizens to exercise that right. Later, he and his acolytes began arresting said individuals when they attempted to participate in our nation’s democracy by registering to vote. Leading up to the August 9 primary, DeSantis’s election officials arrested 20 people for allegedly being ineligible to vote. After the Florida Rights Restoration’s constitutional amendment expanded access to the ballot for persons with felonies, many people who had been incarcerated believed that they’d have a true shot at participating in our nation’s democracy. The threat of being prosecuted for voting as a returning citizen will have a chilling effect on participation in future elections.

    In a word, DeSantis has gone to great lengths to make life harder for people who do not look like him and people who do not vote like him. But at this moment, I am especially troubled that he and other Florida Republicans voted against or opposed disaster relief (some as recently as September 2022) even though the climate crisis is causing weather emergencies to occur with increased frequency and coastal communities like ours are especially vulnerable. And the trauma outlasts a news cycle. In Florida, the disasters have become deadlier and costlier, leading, in part, to increased housing costs, a dearth of affordable housing and rising homelessness. Being an elected leader means one must be a planner; DeSantis not only didn’t prepare but also appears to resent people who attempt to do so.

    For those reasons and more, we should not be confused about who DeSantis is. He’s shown us time and time again. If he didn’t care about the most vulnerable in good times, why do we expect him to change now? Don’t let the plentiful media appearances fool you. There is no need to suggest that the storm is a make-or-break moment for this administration. It is already broken.

    No one should be complicit in helping DeSantis overhaul his image. The same people who were vulnerable before Hurricane Ian — marginalized communities including people of color, people living in poverty, people with prior criminal records, women and children — remain vulnerable today. There is no other way to say it.

    While I believe in redemption, no one is above accountability. Leaders who go out of their way to make others suffer should not get a pass. DeSantis should be evaluated with the same measure of grace he has given to others — and that is very little. But most importantly, we should not be fooled: He has shown us repeatedly who he is’

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As public support of the conservative-dominated Supreme Court falls to a record low, justices are set to hear major cases on affirmative action, voting rights and online speech. The court opened its term Monday with new Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson becoming the first Black woman in U.S. history to hear a Supreme Court case. Although Jackson is a welcome progressive voice on the bench, “all she’ll be able to do is to highlight the extremism of the conservative majority voting bloc on the Supreme Court,” says The Nation’s legal correspondent Elie Mystal. He adds that the term ahead includes challenges to Native American sovereignty, voting rights, LGBT rights and more.

    TRANSCRIPT

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

    AMY GOODMAN: The U.S. Supreme Court opened its new term Monday with a historic first as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first Black female justice to ever hear a Supreme Court case. President Biden nominated Jackson after Stephen Breyer announced his retirement. On Friday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson spoke at an event organized by the Library of Congress ahead of her first day on the court.

    JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: As I reflect on my own recent experience of being appointed as the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, it is that, more than anything, that I have witnessed. People from all walks of life approach me with what I can only describe as a profound sense of pride and what feels to me like renewed ownership. I can see it in their eyes. I can hear it in their voices. They stare at me as if to say, “Look at what we’ve done.” They say — they say, “This — this is what we can accomplish if we put our minds to it.” They might not use those words, but I get the message. They are calling on the ancestors, harkening back to history and claiming their stake at last. They are saying to me, in essence, “You go, girl.” They’re saying, “Invisible no more. We see you, and we are with you.”

    AMY GOODMAN: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, speaking Friday. She joins the Supreme Court at a time when conservatives hold a six-to-three majority and public support of the court is at an all-time low. A recent Gallup poll shows just a quarter of the country has a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court. In its last term, the conservative court overturned Roe v. Wade and expanded gun rights in the United States. The court will be hearing major cases this term on affirmative action, voting rights, LGBTQ rights, online speech and more.

    To talk more about what’s ahead for the court and the significance of the latest justice on the court, Elie Mystal is with us, The Nation’s justice correspondent, author of the best-selling book Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution, his recent article, “The Supreme Court Returns on Monday, Stronger and More Terrible Than Ever.”

    Elie, welcome back to Democracy Now! Let’s start with this historic first. Let’s start with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Talk about the significance of this newest justice and then what she faces on this docket.

    ELIE MYSTAL: Good morning, Amy. Thank you for having me.

    Yeah, Ketanji Brown Jackson is great. Her first day was yesterday. She already got right in there, asking really pertinent and probative questions of the attorneys at the case, so she didn’t seem to need a whole lot of time to get comfortable in her new job.

    I think she’s going to be a great justice. I think she is going to have a great career ahead of her — writing dissents, because she is clearly in the minority on that court, and the things that are coming down the pipe are terrifying and horrible, and all she will be able to do is — through her questioning at oral arguments and through her writing at decision time, all she’ll be able to do is to highlight the extremism of the conservative majority voting bloc on the Supreme Court.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, let’s talk about affirmative action and voting rights. Voting rights, the oral arguments will be heard tomorrow. Talk about these two cases and how they could change this country.

    ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah, so let’s start with voting rights. That case is actually today, Amy. It’s 11:00. I’m already —

    AMY GOODMAN: Sorry, today.

    ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah — getting ready for it. The first kind of case out of the docket here is a case that involves a gerrymandered district in Alabama. Their state should have had two majority-majority districts — majority-minority districts; instead, they only had one. Back and forth a little bit. And what will likely come down is yet another attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Now, people need to understand, when the Constitution was written, exclusively by white males, five of the current justices on the Supreme Court were not allowed to vote. We’ve gone through a lot of constitutional amendments. We had a war, trying to establish some idea of universal suffrage. But that idea of universal suffrage didn’t become a reality for a large minority of Americans until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. And it is that act that Chief Justice John Roberts has been an enemy of for his entire career. One of the first things that we will see from this term is yet another Roberts-led attack on the idea of universal suffrage.

    Later this month, we will hear our cases on affirmative action. Amy, I’ve said many times, Republicans and Clarence Thomas have been trying to kill affirmative action for as long as I’ve been alive. And this term, this October, they will do it. They will hear a case this October — excuse me — that will allow them to do it. And this June, they will finally end affirmative action. I think any hope that they would find some way to keep the idea of affirmative action alive went out of the window when they overturned Roe v. Wade, because when you have a court that’s willing to overturn 50 years of precedent and reduce women to the status of second-class citizens, it is not hard to overturn another 50 years of precedent and make college admissions safe for mediocre white failsons, which is what they’re going to do this June.

    AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Sackett v. the EPA. The case challenges the Clean Water Act and the federal government’s ability to protect and preserve wetlands. During oral arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned Damien Schiff, the lawyer for the Sackett family, which sued the EPA. Let’s listen.

    JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: Why is it that your conception of this does not relate in any way to Congress’s primary objective? Do you dispute that the primary objective, as stated in the statute — I guess it’s at 1251 — is that Congress cared about making sure that the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation’s waters was protected?

    DAMIEN SCHIFF: Justice Jackson, we don’t dispute that. However, no statute pursues its purpose or its objective at all costs, that the limitations in the statute are as much a part of its purpose as its affirmative authorization.

    JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: So why didn’t Congress say “immediately adjacent”? If they were trying to achieve something different than what the regulations had said about adjacency, if they were balancing their concerns about protecting the integrity of the navigable waters with the property interests in the state’s right to control it, why didn’t they say “immediately adjacent” in terms of the wetlands coverage?

    AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as she spoke in the oral arguments of the first case that she is considering in the Supreme Court as a Supreme Court justice. Elie Mystal, put it into lay terms here, what this case is against the EPA.

    ELIE MYSTAL: Oh, yeah, so I love the question that you played, because a lot of your viewers understand or have heard what originalism is, right? The idea that when in doubt, when there’s ambiguity, we should go back to the original intentions of the white male, exclusively, Founding Fathers and think about what they might have wanted back in the 18th century, right?

    So, Ketanji Brown’s question, she does it the other way, right? What’s the alternative to originalism? Well, it looks something like what Justice Jackson asked, right? Because she is looking at what Congress wanted, right? We should interpret laws, we should interpret ambiguity in laws, not based on what some long-dead white people wanted; we should interpret laws based on what the law was intended to do by the people — many of whom are still alive — by the people who passed the law. So, when she’s looking at the Clean Water Act, she’s thinking, “What did Congress want the Clean Water Act to do?” not “What did James Madison perhaps want the Clean Water Act to do back in a time when he didn’t understand that you couldn’t drink lead?”

    So, just the framing of the question, the framing of her question, in and of itself, is a response and a resistance to the conservative majority on the court. Unfortunately, it’s a resistance to the conservative majority on the court, and the decision in this case, when it comes down, will probably once again harken back to long-dead white men instead of our modern issues with climate change. And again, the court already showed its hand on that last term when it eviscerated the Clean Air Act and Congress’s ability to regulate under it.

    AMY GOODMAN: Elie, before we go, if you can give us a preview of the cases involving Native American families and LGBTQ rights?

    ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah, these are critical cases that are also coming up later in this term. For Native American families, it’s a direct challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act that has been drummed up by conservatives who want to adopt Native children. Now, the Indian Child Welfare Act says that it is tribal sovereignty, it’s the tribes that get to determine what happens to the children if their birth parents can’t care for them. This makes sense if you understand tribal nations as sovereign entities. But if you think like a Republican and you understand them as exploitable resources, then you get to this attack where we have white parents who want to adopt Native children, over the objection of their tribes, arguing that being prevented from adopting those Native children is racism against white people — which is a ridiculous answer. It’s like a French couple wanting to adopt an American child, being told no, and being like, “Oh, you’re racist against the French.” Like, that’s that argument.

    The final case that you talked about that’s also critically important is what you asked me about, the Native case and the —

    AMY GOODMAN: LGBTQ rights.

    ELIE MYSTAL: — and the 303 Creative. So, this is an attack on LGBTQ rights. We have a woman in Colorado who runs a graphic design store, who wants to post on her website for weddings that she will not graphically design anybody’s wedding, any same-sex marriage Evite pages or whatever she does. That’s a point-and-click violation of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. But this woman is claiming that she has a free speech right to be bigoted in her public service. Again, given the previous Supreme Court attacks on the rights of non-cis-hetero white men, I think that case is also likely to come down 6-3 in favor of the bigotry that this woman proposes.

    AMY GOODMAN: Elie Mystal, of course, we’re going to come back to you as we look at the Supreme Court term, The Nation’s justice correspondent, author of the best-selling book Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution. And we’ll link to your article, “The Supreme Court Returns on Monday, Stronger and More Terrible Than Ever.”

    Next up, we look at the former French colony of Burkina Faso, which just saw its second military coup in a year. What does the U.S. military have to do with it? Stay with us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • After vetoing similar legislation last year and threatening to do so again last month, California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday signed Assembly Bill 2183 into law, making it easier for farmworkers in the state to participate in union elections.

    The Democratic governor’s about-face on the measure represents a major victory for labor leaders. It follows a monthslong push by United Farm Workers of America (UFW) and the California Labor Federation (CLF) and comes in the wake of pressure from President Joe Biden and two high-ranking national Democrats with California ties — Vice President Kamala Harris and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    “This is an incredible victory,” said UFW president Teresa Romero. “Starting next year, farmworkers can participate in elections free from intimidation and deportations. ¡Sí se puede!”

    A.B. 2183, which the CLF called “the most consequential private sector organizing bill in our state’s history,” gives farmworkers a streamlined way to unionize without having to cast a ballot at a polling place on or near growers’ property following a monthslong anti-union campaign.

    Proponents say the newly enacted law, which contains several provisions aimed at preventing union-busting and was opposed by dozens of agriculture industry groups, will make it harder for bosses to subdue and retaliate against the workers who provide most of the nation’s fruits and vegetables, many of whom are undocumented and fearful of being deported.

    When California’s Democratic-led Legislature approved the bill last month, Newsom’s office expressed opposition. The governor only signed it after his administration, the CLF, and UFW “reached a ‘supplemental agreement’ on provisions that will be introduced in the next legislative session,” the New York Times reported Wednesday.

    According to the Associated Press: “The agreement includes a cap on the number of unionization petitions over the next five years and will allow state regulators to better protect worker confidentiality and safety, Newsom’s office said. It would do away with an option for workers to unionize through mail-in voting that is contained in the current language, but keeps a ‘card check’ election process.”

    Under the revised law, farmworkers will still have the opportunity to “vote from home or anywhere else they feel comfortable,” reducing the likelihood of employer intimidation, UFW legislative and political director Giev Kashkooli told the news outlet.

    As the CLF explains:

    Majority sign-up, or “card check,” allows workers who want to join a union to sign a card authorizing the union to represent them in collective bargaining. If a majority of workers sign cards, the cards are submitted to the National Labor Relations Board (private sector) or the Public Employment Relations Board (public sector). If the Board finds that the majority of workers want a union, the union is entitled to recognition. In California, public sector employees already have the right to majority sign-up; all workers should be able to organize under this fair and democratic system.

    In a video, Romero told those who led and supported the fight for free and fair union elections that “this is your victory.”

    “Every one of you who struggled and donated your time and your energy to get this done,” said Romero. “Farmworkers organized and sacrificed to make their voices heard and to pass A.B. 2183.”

    Starting on August 3, as KCRA reported Wednesday, UFW members embarked on “a 24-day, 335-mile journey from Kern County, near Bakersfield, to the state capitol, a march that civil rights activist César Chávez first led in 1966.”

    Although Newsom disappointed farmworkers by announcing near the end of their march that he “cannot support an untested mail-in election process,” labor organizers around the state — with an assist from Biden and other top Democrats — continued to hold rallies and eventually won important reforms.

    On social media, the CLF wrote: “This victory belongs to every farmworker who marched and sacrificed. It is shared with the whole California labor movement, who mobilized and stood in historic solidarity with the United Farm Workers. The fight of farmworkers is the fight for all of labor.”

    That message was echoed by Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, who said that “this is what happens when we organize with urgency. Together, we can win.”

    The effort to secure free and fair union elections follows “years of dwindling union membership among California farmworkers,” the Times noted. “There are more than 400,000 agricultural workers in the state,” but the percentage who are unionized is “statistically zero,” according to recent estimates based on data from a 2020 Bureau of Labor Statistics survey.

    Organizing agricultural workers was made more difficult last year when the U.S. Supreme Court’s far-right majority ruled that a California regulation granting union representatives access to farms amounted to an uncompensated government taking of farm owners’ private property.

    “In this historic time when workers want a union more than ever before, everything we do — including legislatively — must be focused on organizing,” CLF chief officer Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher told the Times on Wednesday. “It’s natural that in California, our farmworkers will be leading the way.”

    Also on Wednesday, Newsom signed A.B. 2530, which protects the healthcare benefits of striking workers. As Unite Here put it, the newly enacted law allows workers to “exercise their right to strike for better jobs without jeopardizing their families’ access to care.”

    In a statement, Gonzalez Fletcher said, “Workers have the right to stand up to their boss and go on strike to improve wages, working conditions, and for a better life.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • From record inflation to attacks on reproductive rights, to an unfair and inequitable redistricting, it can feel like all hope has been lost this year. But many voters are not giving up.

    My state of Louisiana has faced multiple challenges, particularly when it comes to the electoral process. Historically, we have seen literacy tests, brutal attacks on persons seeking to register to vote, the elimination of voting sites, changing polling sites without notification, and other efforts to deny and abridge the right to vote. We have experienced voter suppression in all its forms, including its newest more insidious form, racial and partisan gerrymandering.

    In 2022, the Louisiana state legislature drew unfair congressional district lines. Voters, including those reached through my organization, the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, testified throughout this year’s redistricting process, which saw unprecedented, historic citizen participation. This fight then pivoted to asking Gov. John Bel Edwards to veto the maps. He did so, and then the legislature overrode his veto. we took our case to court in the Middle District and initially won. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling and temporarily halted the drawing of a second minority-majority district until the high court rules in Alabama’s redistricting case in October. (A minority-majority district is one in which the majority of the constituents are racial or ethnic majorities.) Presently, we have one minority-majority district although Black population growth warrants a second minority-majority district. As our legal counsel has noted, the current congressional district “severely dilutes Black voting power by packing Black voters from New Orleans and Baton Rouge into a single U.S. congressional district.” We have been temporarily delayed in the fight for fair maps — but not permanently denied.

    There have been multiple efforts to silence the voices of the growing majority minority. At every turn, and before every election, a new tactic has been introduced to abridge some voters’ ability to participate in our nation’s democracy. Democracy Docket summarized research detailing over 100 years of voter suppression in Louisiana — from restricting who could register, closing polling sites, limiting when people could vote, permitting felony disenfranchisement, the efforts to curtail access to the ballot in Louisiana have been ongoing. These barriers, obstructive as they are, do not alter our drive, our passion, and our hunger for pro-democracy action.

    We have been deferred but we will not be deterred. In fact, more than 250 Black Louisiana voters to showed up at our state capitol during the opening of the redistricting special session on February 1 and 2 and to make their voices heard during the redistricting session. They filled the state capitol and showed that our community is concerned and engaged. Many voters came even though a second minority-majority district would not impact their part of the state.

    All Black people are impacted by the lack of a second congressional district. A second person voting in their interest on key issues is critical. Moreover, a second congressional district would give Baton Rouge and the Delta parishes an opportunity to have a voice. This is important for a host of reasons, including the fact that Poverty Point (in the Delta) is the poorest place in the country and it is 80 percent Black. They have experienced a failure to thrive because they’ve not been a priority. It seems that this region is an afterthought given the current configuration of the districts. That is why all Black people understand that having multiple African American leaders in Congress would strengthen democracy and make it more likely that legislation important to Black voters, such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Bill, could advance.

    While we have faced setbacks in our efforts to secure a second minority-majority seat, we are not without hope. We have not resigned in defeat. Defeat only occurs when we refuse to believe that victory is possible. Defeat comes when we refuse to fight, and in communities across the country, many people are fighting for a future for which our children can be proud. We believe better is possible and attainable.

    This year has been tough, but we cannot lose sight of the progress we’ve made and the possibilities for our future. For instance, since 2015, my organization has focused on building infrastructure, celebrating many wins in the process, including:

    • Ensuring naturalized citizens could vote like every other voter in Louisiana;
    • Reenfranchising formerly incarcerated people with our founding and anchor partner VOTE, as well as a ballot measure ending the racist practice of convicting people with non-unanimous juries;
    • Expanding Medicaid, which provides more than 350,000 Louisianians with health care;
    • Expanding voting rights for the last two years as the rest of the country was going the other way.

    But there are other wins which may not seem “sexy” but are incredibly important. We built trust through our advocacy work, created space for deep listening and the centering of directly impacted people and built momentum that will support our advocacy work in the future.

    It is impossible to overstate that progress doesn’t happen overnight; it is a gradual process. We are working right now to prepare Black voters in the 5th District to elect their candidate of choice because this fight isn’t just about this year, but about the next 10 years. As we head into the 2022 midterm elections, we do not have to hang our heads. Freedom is a long game. It is also a perpetual struggle. We will never get to the point where we can shift into cruise control. That is not what our ancestors fought for — this moment requires no less than to hold the line on what they fought for and to continue to position future generations for success.

  • For nearly 10 hours on Georgia’s primary day, Olivia Coley-Pearson tracked down every potential voter she could find, working two cellphones as she paced the parking lot outside the polls, repeating the same message: “You need to tell all your cousins, your brothers, your sisters, your aunts, your uncles — everybody you know — to come on down here to vote.”

    A third of her neighbors in Coffee County struggle to read at a basic level, and she wanted to make sure they had help navigating their ballots. In the late afternoon, she slid behind the sparkly pink steering wheel of her SUV for her final push of the day, heading down a long stretch of road where buildings gave way to fields and thickets of pine. She turned in to the Kinwood Estates mobile home park and stopped at the edge of a familiar dirt driveway just as Shondriana Jones, 30, bounded down the steps of a trailer.

    “I can’t find my ID and Mama, she’s still at work,” Jones said.

    Coley-Pearson has helped the family vote for years — she’s known them since she and Jones’ mother, Sabrina Fillmore, were young. Now 60, Coley-Pearson serves as a city commissioner in Douglas, the majority-Black county seat. Fillmore, 54, works at the local poultry plant cutting chickens. Neither Fillmore nor her daughter can read beyond a first-grade level, but they rarely miss an election, believing their votes can influence everything from their electricity costs to the way police treat them.

    Coley-Pearson urged Jones to track down a utility bill to prove her identity at the election office just as Fillmore returned from a 10-hour shift, exhausted. With the women aboard, Coley-Pearson started the car, anxiety brewing in her mind.

    Even though federal law guaranteed the two women the right to have someone help them vote, Coley-Pearson knew too well that this right was under attack. For all of the recent uproar over voting rights, little attention has been paid to one of the most sustained and brazen suppression campaigns in America: the effort to block help at the voting booth for people who struggle to read — a group that amounts to about 48 million Americans, or more than a fifth of the adult population. ProPublica analyzed the voter turnout in 3,000 counties and found that those with lower estimated literacy rates, on average, had lower turnout.

    “How the system is set up, it disenfranchises people,” said Coley-Pearson, who blames Southern political leaders for throwing up hurdles. “It’s by design, I believe, because they want to maintain that power and that control.”

    Conservative politicians have long used harsh tactics against voters who can’t read — poor, often Black and Latino Americans who have been failed by the U.S. education system and who conservatives feared would vote for liberal candidates. Some states have required voters who needed help to sign an affidavit explaining why they need assistance; some have prevented voters who couldn’t read from bringing sample ballots to the polls and limited the number of voters that a volunteer could help read a ballot. Time and again, federal courts have struck down such restrictions as illegal and unconstitutional. Inevitably, states just create more.

    Over the last two years, the myth of election fraud, supercharged by former President Donald Trump in the wake of his 2020 loss, has fueled a barrage of new restrictions. While they do not all target voters who struggle to read, they make it especially challenging for voters with low literacy skills to get help casting ballots.

    Last year, Georgia passed a law limiting who can return or even touch a completed absentee ballot. Florida expanded the radius around election locations in which volunteers are prohibited from asking people if they need help. Texas passed a law prohibiting voters’ assistants from answering questions or paraphrasing complicated language on the ballot; a federal judge struck down several sections of the law in June. But the court left other provisions in place, including ones that increase penalties for helping voters who don’t qualify and require people who assist voters to fill out more paperwork. Texas did not appeal the decision.

    To appreciate the impact of voter suppression, consider that recent elections have been determined by a narrow sliver of the electorate:

    Despite losing the popular vote, Trump secured the presidency in 2016 by winning Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by a margin of just under 80,000 total votes.

    President Joe Biden prevailed in 2020 by winning Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin by just over 40,000 votes combined.

    Coley-Pearson recognizes the importance of this moment for Georgia, which is no stranger to close elections. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp faces another challenge from Democrat Stacey Abrams, and Sen. Raphael Warnock is attempting to hold on to his seat in a race that could tip the Senate back to Republican control. But to Coley-Pearson, helping people vote isn’t only about politics or even just about their rights as individuals. It is about the future of democracy at a time when it seems like the views of the majority are being marginalized by the actions of the few.

    As a child in the 1970s, she’d watched as her mother, Gladys Coley — who stood just above 5 feet and had only an eighth grade education — rose to the helm of the local NAACP and challenged the discriminatory school system and police department. Her mother begged her not to return from college in Atlanta, but Coley-Pearson wanted to fight for the people of Coffee County, too. As she headed to the polls on primary day this past May, though, she couldn’t subdue her fear that by helping Jones and Fillmore, she was putting a target on her own back.

    Over the course of several years, she’d become tangled in an investigation of supposed voter fraud, which took aim at her attempts to assist voters who requested help. She had pleaded her case to television cameras and at a hearing before the state’s highest election official. She had even wound up in jail.

    “Intimidation is real,” Coley-Pearson said. “If we don’t continue to vote, they’re going to have us right back where it used to be.”

    Coley-Pearson was born in an era when Southern states forced convoluted literacy tests on voters to keep Black people out of the polls. In those days, local voting officials often made exceptions for white people who couldn’t read. In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act prohibiting racial discrimination at the polls. That didn’t stop white conservatives, especially in the South, from continuing to discriminate against voters with low literacy skills, who, due to centuries of oppression, were disproportionately Black.

    Conservatives argued that removing barriers for voters who couldn’t read would allow the federal government to overrule states’ decisions on how to run local elections and would hand more votes to liberal candidates. Clearly, they said, voters with low reading skills would be easily swayed by anyone assisting them, leading to rampant fraud.

    “Today the bureaucrats are issuing certificates to vote to people who cannot read the ballot nor even the instructions on a ballot or on a voting machine,” segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace declared in late 1965. “The left wing liberals need as many illiterates as they can get to vote in order to keep them in power.”

    By 1981, voters of color, including those with low literacy levels, still faced “white resistance and hostility,” according to a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report. “For many minority voters, the kind of assistance that they receive at the polls determines whether they will vote,” the report stated. “If minority voters who do not speak English or who are illiterate receive inadequate assistance, they may become too frustrated and discouraged to vote or they may mark their ballots in such a way that they will not be counted.”

    Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to affirm that voters who need help due to an “inability to read” could bring someone, other than their employer or union representative, to assist them in the voting booth. A string of subsequent lawsuits shows this federal action again failed to eradicate the discrimination.

    In a 2001 case, the federal justice department claimed that white poll managers in Charleston County, South Carolina, were intimidating Black voters who requested assistance. According to testimony given in the case, the poll workers launched a barrage of questions at these voters, such as, “Can’t you read and write? And didn’t you just sign in? And you know how to spell your name, why can’t you just vote by yourself? And do you really need voter assistance?”

    A federal judge found that there was “significant evidence of intimidation and harassment,” but said evidence of the mistreatment was too “anecdotal” to take direct action.

    In 2012, the chairman of Coffee County’s board of elections filed a complaint against Coley-Pearson and three other residents, alleging that they’d assisted voters who didn’t legally qualify for help. Georgia law only allows voters to receive assistance if they are disabled or cannot read English. The secretary of state’s office, then under Kemp’s leadership, initiated an investigation.

    The following summer, a 52-year-old line cook named Alvin Williams answered his phone to find a state investigator on the other end. The man had questions about the 2012 election. “It looks like you were assisted by Olivia Pearson,” said state investigator Glenn Archie, in a recording obtained by ProPublica. (Archie did not respond to a request for comment.) “It’s not marked why she assisted you and I was wondering why you needed assistance.”

    The tone of the man’s voice made Williams nervous. “Because I can’t read. I’m illiterate,” Williams told Archie. He’d dropped out of school at 16 to work full time catching chickens and selling them to the local poultry plant, a job he’d skipped classes for since he was 11 to help support his family.

    “I’m sure she read the candidates to you,” Archie said. “Did you get to pick the people you wanted to vote for?”

    “Yes, sir,” Williams said. “I can’t read. That’s why she was helping me.”

    “That’s no problem,” the investigator assured him. “She can assist you if you have problems reading.”

    But the call left Williams humiliated and fearful of how his vote could be used against him or Coley-Pearson. “I don’t fool with the law,” he said in a recent interview. “And I don’t do nothing for them to fool with me.”

    Some other voters told investigators that they had requested and received help even though they could read. The investigation found that Coley-Pearson and the other volunteers neglected to verify whether some voters qualified for help and incorrectly filled out forms indicating why voters needed assistance. It also found that election workers failed to include required information on many forms and turned them in without making sure they were accurate.

    Testifying at a 2016 hearing chaired by Kemp, Coley-Pearson maintained that she hadn’t broken any laws. In response to a poll worker’s claim that she’d touched the voting machine, Coley-Pearson said she’d merely accompanied voters who had requested her assistance and stood by to answer questions about the process or read names on the ballot. She said she followed the instructions of the poll workers, signing forms when directed.

    “If someone asks me for help, I felt an obligation to try to assist if I could,” she testified at the hearing, stressing that she never told anyone who to vote for. Coley-Pearson suspected there was a deeper significance to the investigation and told the board, “Sometimes things are done to try to maybe dis-encourage, or whatever, other people from voting, and I don’t feel like that is fair.”

    The state election board chose not to recommend her case for criminal prosecution, but a local district attorney’s office prosecuted her anyway, which made national headlines in BuzzFeed. It charged her with two felonies for improperly assisting a voter and for signing a form that gave a false reason for why a voter needed assistance. The trial ended with a hung jury. One of two Black people on the jury told a local reporter that she was the only holdout; everyone else voted to find Coley-Pearson guilty. She was tried again in a nearby county and, after about 20 minutes of deliberations, the new jury acquitted her of all charges. The district attorney’s office did not respond to ProPublica’s emailed questions.

    Three other volunteers took plea deals in which they admitted to making false statements on forms indicating the reason that a voter needed assistance; in exchange, they got probation, after which any fines would be waived. One of them, James Curtis Hicks, said that if he had fought his case and lost, he could have faced jail time or a mountain of fines. He didn’t want to take any risks. “Around here, to me, they target the leaders, the people that are standing up for the rights of the minority,” he said in a recent interview. “To shut me and Ms. Pearson down, it would stop a whole lot of people going to the polls.”

    For years, the 59-year-old truck driver had kept tabs on Coffee County voters to see if they needed help reading the ballot. But after the settlement, he stopped. “I didn’t want a focus on me to suppress anyone else,” he said. “I really felt intimidated.”

    But the charges didn’t deter Coley-Pearson.

    Before Jones could vote that May afternoon, she needed to get temporary identification. Dodging the pouring rain, she and Coley-Pearson scuttled into the elections office shortly before it closed. At nearly 6 feet tall, Coley-Pearson towered over the woman sitting behind a plexiglass barrier.

    “She needs a voter ID, sweetie,” Coley-Pearson said, leaning in. The woman handed Jones an application.

    “You need me to do it, baby?” Coley-Pearson asked softly.

    Jones nodded, “Yes, ma’am.”

    The woman at the counter emphasized that Jones had to complete it on her own.

    “She has trouble reading and writing,” Coley-Pearson said.

    After a tense moment, the woman agreed that Coley-Pearson could fill out the form. She read the questions out loud and filled in Jones’ answers, pointing out which lines to sign and date.

    Jones is in the third generation of her family that is not able to read. Her grandmother never learned how, and her mother, Fillmore, left high school in her sophomore year, after frequently being disciplined for fighting. As an adult, Fillmore briefly attended an education program to help her learn how to read, but she felt discouraged and left.

    Jones graduated from high school in Coffee County but says she reads at the same first-grade level as her mother. She remembers attending special education classes with more field trips than written assignments and says teachers never diagnosed her with a learning disability or gave her one-on-one assistance. School administrators also frequently suspended her for fighting, she said. “They were trying to get rid of me.”

    Coffee County has long failed to provide an equal education for students of color. In 1969, federal officials sued its school board for refusing to integrate white and Black schools. Even after the school system was integrated, Black students continued to receive fewer academic resources and harsher punishments than their white peers. A decade ago, the district acknowledged its shortcomings in reading instruction and the need to rectify its problems with literacy, which were more pronounced for Black students.

    The county’s lower literacy rate is related to its high poverty rate, and since integration, the district has worked to increase opportunities for students of color, Coffee County School District Superintendent Morris Leis said in an email; he added that the district does not use discipline to “push out” children who have academic challenges, and it has reduced racial disparities in discipline after it initiated a new program in 2014. By that time, Jones had graduated.

    She aspires to learn how to read through an adult education program and to eventually work at a child care center, but she cannot do so without steady transportation. She has not applied for a driver’s license; though she could take the written test orally like her mother did, she hasn’t been able to find someone who has time to help her study the examination booklet.

    Ordinary tasks are often insurmountable for her. She owns a smartphone, but mining the web for information is daunting. After she fell several months behind on her electric payments, she could not read the notice that warned her lights would be cut off. She likely qualifies for low-cost internet, but she cannot navigate the instructions for accessing it. When she takes her son to the doctor’s office, she prints his first and last name on the forms but asks the staff for help with the rest. Unable to decipher her most valuable documents, like her birth certificate, she entrusts them to her aunt, who can read and helps determine what she needs for appointments and applications.

    Jones worries most about keeping up with her 4-year-old son as he grows. She can read beginner books to him, but she knows his knowledge will soon surpass her own.

    For Jones, the voting process itself is like a literacy test. If she changes her address, she cannot easily update her registration. If she enters the polling booth alone, she may recognize a few names on the ballot, but any unfamiliar words could confound her, particularly when it comes to the often-confusing constitutional amendments. She prefers voting by mail, which allows her more time to process her choices, but Georgia’s new election law is making that more difficult. The law has banned outside groups from mailing out absentee ballot applications that have the resident’s information already filled in, and it has limited who can submit the applications on voters’ behalf. The law does include exceptions for people helping “illiterate” voters, but experts say its limit on assistance could still discourage those voters from requesting help.

    “Any law that limits assistance is going to have an impact on voters with limited literacy,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, acting director of voting rights at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Whether or not that’s the intention of the lawmakers, that’s always a difficult thing to say. But I do think sometimes it may very well be the intention.”

    It is impossible to say precisely what role literacy plays in voter turnout. There are many other factors that contribute to lower participation, including some closely intertwined with literacy, such as income and education level. But to put the importance of reading ability in perspective, ProPublica analyzed data on turnout from the three most recent national elections and compared it to average estimated literacy levels for over 3,000 counties. (Read more about our analysis, and the data used, in our methodology.) Our analysis found that if low-literacy counties had turnout similar to high-literacy counties, they could have added up to about 7 million votes to the national total for each of those three elections.

    Across the country, people like Jones are stumbling through inscrutable election processes fraught with poor ballot design and rigid registration rules. Some are choosing not to vote at all. (Read more about how some states are trying to make voting more accessible.) “We know in general that the more barriers we put in front of people, the lower the participation rate,” said Donald Moynihan, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University. “Even if someone with lower literacy has the same desire to vote as someone reading this article, they have to overcome more barriers.”

    In 2014, for example, Ohio legislators began requiring voters to fill out more complicated versions of absentee and provisional ballot forms while at the same time limiting the assistance they could get from poll workers. Minor errors in the paperwork could lead to people’s votes not being counted. In a lawsuit, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless claimed that the laws disproportionately harmed poor, nonwhite and low-literacy voters who would be more likely to have their ballots rejected for minor errors.

    Data submitted as evidence shows that thousands of forms were tossed in the 2014 and 2015 general elections for simple problems such as incomplete addresses and birthdays. Poll workers refused one form because the street name “Cuthbert” was misspelled as “Cuthberth.” Several others were rejected because birth dates were listed as the current date, an indicator that voters may not have understood the instructions.

    In 2016, a federal judge struck down the measures, concluding they disproportionately harmed Black voters. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that state rules requiring perfect completion of absentee ballot forms posed an undue burden to voters. But the panel said the other measures were minimally disruptive and left in place regulations that limited the assistance voters could get from poll workers and the amount of time voters were given to correct errors on absentee and provisional ballots.

    “What the case demonstrates is the indifference of officials from one political party, and of unfortunately many federal judges, to voting rights and to the need to make voting not only secure, but relatively unburdensome,” said Subodh Chandra, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

    A similar law in Georgia suspended voter registration applications when the information on the form didn’t exactly match a driver’s license or social security record. (If voters didn’t correct the information within 26 months, Georgia could cancel their registrations.) When then-Secretary of State Kemp ran for governor against Stacey Abrams in 2018, his office suspended the applications of an estimated 53,000 voters, most of them Black, due to these discrepancies. Kemp won the election by about 55,000 votes.

    A federal judge ordered Georgia to ease the restrictive program, calling it a “severe burden” on some voters. Politicians, academics and advocates have accused Kemp of voter suppression not only for suspending registration applications over minor discrepancies, but also for purging tens of thousands of infrequent voters from the rolls — a more aggressive effort than is made in other states.

    Kemp press secretary Katie Bryd disputed the allegations and noted that Kemp had implemented automatic voter registration through the state’s department of motor vehicles in 2016, which added hundreds of thousands of eligible voters to the rolls. “Politically driven, irresponsible accusations of voter suppression alleged at Governor Kemp have been repeatedly found void of basic facts and validity,” Byrd said in an email.

    Today, voters flagged for minor discrepancies in their registration paperwork can no longer be removed from the rolls, but they do have to show a photo identification before they vote.

    As Coley-Pearson parked at the polling station, her thoughts flew back to a similar day not long ago when she wound up handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser.

    In October 2020 — more than two years after she was cleared of the felony charges — she was standing in a voting booth helping a young woman with low literacy skills read a ballot, as is allowed by law, when the county’s election supervisor, Misty Martin, confronted her. Martin yelled at Coley-Pearson to not touch the machines and told her she was barred from returning to the polls. Coley-Pearson said she wasn’t touching any machines. “We’re done,” she told the young woman after she finished voting. “Let’s go.”

    Martin, who also has used the last names Hampton and Hayes, called the police to report that Coley-Pearson was disruptive, and the department issued a trespass warning barring her from the polls indefinitely. Later that morning, when Coley-Pearson returned to drop off another voter, she was arrested in the parking lot and charged with criminal trespassing. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is looking into election interference claims in Coffee County, including an incident in which Martin allowed several computer experts connected with Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 results into her offices, where they may have had access to election systems; Martin resigned from her county post under pressure last year. She did not respond to ProPublica’s questions related to either incident.

    The charge hung over Coley-Pearson for nearly two years; this past June, a state judge agreed to drop the case if she signed a consent order agreeing to follow election law. “There was no evidence of any crime here,” Coley-Pearson said. “It feels like you’re fighting a losing battle.”

    Her daughters see how the last several years have worn her down. AiyEsha Coley said she would sometimes wake up at 4 a.m. to feed her newborn and would find her mother on Facebook, reading through disparaging comments. Her daughters have long campaigned for her to retire from city commission, scared that the stress might eventually kill her. She’s starting to come around, and she plans to leave her post next year.

    Now peering into her back seat, Coley-Pearson worried her presence could interfere with Jones and Fillmore’s ability to vote. “I did not want any type of confrontation, I did not want any kind of accusations, I just didn’t want any hassle,” she said.

    She told them she would not be going in with them and instructed two close friends to help them instead. “When you get through, you all come down there to the tent,” she said, motioning to where her volunteers were sitting out of reach of the rain.

    Coley-Pearson watched the women shuffle into the building and fretted as she waited, leaning on her mobile walker at the edge of the parking lot with a group of volunteer canvassers. She had reminded her friends of the rules, but she knew that sometimes, following them was not enough. “They might try to look for anything they could use against them,” she said.

    After nearly an hour, Jones and her mother emerged, beaming.

    Coley-Pearson’s nerves settled, at least for the moment.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Soon, the U.S. Supreme Court will once again rule on whether multiracial democracy has a future in the United States.

    The highest court is expected to rule on Moore v. Harper by June 2023, and the stakes of the case couldn’t be higher. If it goes the wrong way, this case could unleash widespread purges of voters from voting rolls, dramatic restrictions to popular early voting hours and locations, discriminatory barriers to voting access, and fewer protections against voter intimidation.

    How we got here begins with North Carolina’s last redistricting case to make it to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019, when the justices themselves laid out a path for voters to pick their leaders — not the other way around.

    Its ruling in that case, Rucho v. Common Cause, arose after North Carolina’s lawmakers put politics over people and rigged our voting maps so that, in the Old North State, Republicans would always come up winners.

    I was one of the lawyers from North Carolina who argued the Rucho case in front of the court. We were joined by voters in Maryland who faced the same kind of manipulations from Democratic lawmakers.

    In the majority 5-4 opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts told us that partisan gerrymandering was “incompatible with democratic principles” but that federal courts weren’t the place to bring lawsuits about partisan gerrymandering because it was a “political question” better left to the states. The chief justice told voters they could take challenges to unfair voting maps to state courts, tasked with protecting fundamental rights under state constitutions.

    So, when North Carolina lawmakers in 2021 unfortunately once again carved up our state’s maps for partisan gain — disenfranchising primarily Black voters to give Republicans an advantage in coming elections — we asked state courts to intervene.

    In response, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a historic ruling, declaring partisan gerrymandering illegal in our state. The landmark ruling favored voters and the responsive districts they deserve and served as vindication for the hundreds of thousands of advocates who marched, testified and used their voices to demand fair maps.

    Unwilling to relent, now these same North Carolina lawmakers are making a desperate bid to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking a majority of justices to betray the promise of Rucho and tie the hands of those who would seek reform on the state level.

    In this current case, Moore v. Harper, my organization, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, represents the nonpartisan advocates at Common Cause, in what many are calling one of the most consequential voting rights case since Shelby County v. Holder (2013).

    In Moore, North Carolina lawmakers, led by Speaker of the House Tim Moore, are relying on a fringe legal idea espoused by a handful of politicians called the “independent state legislature theory.” Using an illogical and ahistorical reading of the U.S. Constitution — already dismissed by the Supreme Court as recently as 2015 — state politicians claim they shouldn’t be subject to the checks and balances we all expect from 3 co-equal branches of state government. Instead, they demand unchecked power to draw Congressional maps and run federal elections.

    Should five of the justices side with the lawmakers’ scheme, Moore would create a chaotic election system, pitting state and local elections against new federal election rules. Legislators would be free to violate voters’ rights, and state courts couldn’t stop them.

    Specifically, this case could give state lawmakers justification to restrict our votes, draw rigged maps, and cast doubt on our election results — all in the name of partisan gain.

    It’s clear that a bad result in Moore could disproportionately harm Black, Native, Asian American and Pacific Islander, and Latinx voters, but they aren’t the only ones at risk here — Americans of all races and political leanings would feel the repercussions of such an extreme outcome. Voters seeking fair representation through the checks and balances of state courts would suffer in Republican and Democratic states alike.

    An extreme outcome in Moore is a lose-lose situation for Americans and it would only make it more difficult for voters to turn public sentiment into public policy. From abortion access and Medicaid expansion to closing the digital divide and expanding disaster relief and recovery, Moore would mean voters would have even less input on the issues driving us to the polls.

    Those who oppose the threats to election integrity and democracy posed by Moore have joined together in a national campaign led by Southern Coalition for Social Justice and Common Cause to engage our communities, tell our stories, and organize hundreds of thousands of new advocates through town halls, rallies and voter registration. Over the next few months, we’ll educate the public about this full-throated attack on multiracial democracy from a few rogue legislators — felt everywhere from church basements to busy boardrooms to the neighborhood ballot box this November.

    Over the last decade, North Carolinians have defeated continuous attempts to rig election districts, delegitimize our courts and disenfranchise Black voters. Not only did we beat back efforts to gerrymander our congressional districts as recently as 2019, but our people stopped plots to gerrymander judicial districts, pack our courts for partisan gain and pass racist barriers to voting access, like photo voter ID requirements. As in those cases, in Moore, we have a strong case to make with history, legal precedent and common sense on our side.

    As the date of Supreme Court’s momentous ruling on Moore approaches, let’s all work together to signal to our elected leaders that people, not politicians, are worth the fight for multiracial democracy. That means having Congress pass comprehensive voting rights reform, such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, so we can build an inclusive democracy where everyone in the U.S. can thrive, participate and have their voices heard.

  • The past year has been char­ac­ter­ized by wide­spread assaults on voting rights across the coun­try. This has been espe­cially true in swing states where the 2020 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion saw narrow margins. As our colleague Will Wilder explains, even among these states, Arizona stands out as a focal point for the fight over voting rights.

    Here, we look at one provi­sion of Arizon­a’s Senate Bill 1485, which was passed into law in May 2021 but won’t be in effect for the midterms. The bill turns Arizon­a’s extremely popu­lar “Perman­ent Early Voting List” into an “Active Early Voting List.” Voters on the list are auto­mat­ic­ally mailed a ballot before every elec­tion. Under the new rules, Arizon­ans will be removed from the list if they go four years without cast­ing a ballot by mail. Even if a voter parti­cip­ates but only does so in person, they will fall off the list.

    Like in much of the West­ern United States, Arizon­ans have a robust history of cast­ing their votes by mail. Since 2010, an aver­age of two-thirds of the elect­or­ate has voted by mail. Like four other states, Arizona has allowed voters to sign up to receive a ballot in the mail for all elec­tions, obvi­at­ing the need to fill out a new absentee ballot request form for each and every contest. Accord­ing to voter file data from L2 Polit­ical, some 3 million Arizon­ans (roughly 75 percent of the elect­or­ate) were on the list in April of 2021, shortly before S.B. 1485 was passed.

    To analyze the expec­ted effects of the law, we looked at voter file data from L2 Polit­ical, which records whether and how each voter parti­cip­ated in an elec­tion. Although voters won’t be removed from the list for a few years, we wanted to know who would be impacted based on the list as it was when the legis­lature was consid­er­ing this change. To do so, we looked at which voters on the list cast a mail ballot in any elec­tion in 2017, 2018, 2019, or 2020. If they voted by mail in any of these elec­tions, they are considered “not at risk” of being dropped; they are considered “at risk” if they did not cast a mail ballot.

    In Arizona, voters do not self-identify their race or ethni­city when they register to vote. To estim­ate each voter’s race or ethni­city, we use a tech­nique common among polit­ical scient­ists called Bayesian Improved Surname Geocod­ing, which predicts race/ethni­city based on each voter’s last name and the demo­graph­ics of the census block in which they live. This method is widely used by academ­ics and voting rights litig­at­ors alike to predict racial/ethnic demo­graph­ics. While it cannot perfectly estim­ate any indi­vidu­al’s race or ethni­city, it has very low error rates at the popu­la­tion level. (This method considers “Latino” to be mutu­ally exclus­ive from other races and ethni­cit­ies — put differ­ently, a voter is considered either white or Black or Latino.)

    To be clear, being dropped from the perman­ent early voting list does­n’t mean that a voter will be disen­fran­chised. They’ll receive a notice from the state indic­at­ing that they’ve been removed and can then either reen­list or vote in person. However, many voters might miss the noti­fic­a­tion in the mail — and mail deliv­ery is not always reli­able. As such, some people might not end up voting if they don’t receive their expec­ted mail ballot. And for all voters, the require­ment to rejoin the list of mail voters imposes the sort of small costs that can add up to major burdens on the right to vote — a prob­lem under any circum­stances, and doubly so when the costs have such clear racial dispar­it­ies as the Arizona bill.

    The chart below shows the share of each racial/ethnic group that is at risk of being dropped from the early voting list. About 11.6 percent of voters — or more than 340,000 Arizon­ans — are at risk of being removed, but there are clear racial dispar­it­ies. While just 8.4 percent of white voters on the list went four years without voting by mail, this was the case for more than 21.1 percent of Latino voters.

    This adds up to big discrep­an­cies in the over­all number of voters who could be dropped when broken down by race and ethni­city. Although 31 percent of voters on the list are nonwhite, these voters make up half of those at risk of being dropped. All nonwhite racial groups are overrep­res­en­ted among those at risk of being removed, but none as much as Latino voters.

    Latino voters make up just 17 percent of the perman­ent early voters who aren’t at risk of being dropped but more than a third of those who might fall off the list. The figure below shows the relat­ive risk ratio that each racial group faces of being removed from the list. If a group’s share of the at-risk popu­la­tion is equal to its share of the total popu­la­tion, the group’s risk ratio is 1. A risk ratio above 1 indic­ates that a given group is overrep­res­en­ted in the at-risk popu­la­tion. As you can see, each racial/ethnic group except for white Arizon­ans is above 1 (although the risk ratio for Asian Amer­ican voters is very close to 1).

    Under­min­ing the perman­ent early voting list also spells danger for Arizon­a’s Native Amer­ican communit­ies. Because Native Amer­ic­ans make up a relat­ively small share of the popu­la­tion, it is often diffi­cult to identify them using tech­niques such as surname geocod­ing. As an altern­at­ive, we used the geocoded voter file and census shapefiles to identify voters who live on Native Amer­ican tribal lands. To be sure, this misses Native Amer­ic­ans who live off reser­va­tions. Never­the­less, it is help­ful to know whether indi­vidu­als living on reser­va­tions are dispro­por­tion­ately harmed by the new law.

    The differ­ence is stark: about 23 percent of voters on the list who reside on tribal lands are at risk of removal, compared to only 11.6 percent of perman­ent early voters statewide. In other words, voters on tribal lands are more than twice as likely to face removal.

    These results make plain that S.B. 1485, like so many other policies that restrict access to voting, will have a dispro­por­tion­ate effect on voters of color and Native Amer­ican voters.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Wednesday, around 250 farmworkers and their supporters took their first steps of a 24-day Delano-to-Sacramento march to demand more voting options for farmworkers when casting a ballot on unionization.

    The march, organized by United Farm Workers, or UFW, has been billed as the “March for the Governor’s Signature,” a reference to demands that California Gov. Gavin Newsom sign a new bill meant to protect farmworkers from voter suppression by employers.

    “California is a very wealthy state and agriculture contributes to that wealth, but farmworkers continue to be poor and their families suffer — that’s what we need to change,” Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the UFW, told a crowd of marchers gathered at Forty Acres, the site of UFW’s original headquarters in Delano.

    “We want everything that you’re doing here to reach the hearts of the growers and the heart of the governor,” said Huerta, before shouting “Si se puede,” a phrase she originated in 1972, while campaigning against legislation that denied workers’ right to organize during harvest seasons.

    Over the next several weeks, participants are expected to march roughly 15 miles per day, before reaching the state capital in Sacramento on Aug. 26, which Gov. Gavin Newsom declared “California Farmworker Day” last October. They’ll be marching in the scorching summer heat, behind the same Lady of Guadalupe banner that UFW has been using since the 1960s.

    According to Elizabeth Strater, director of strategic campaigns at UFW, that history was palpable during the march’s launch, which she called a kind of “family reunion” for farmworkers, organizers, clergy and other union workers who attended in solidarity with the farmworker movement.

    The new bill — the Agricultural Labor Relations Voting Choice Act, AB 2183 — would allow farmworkers to cast a vote on unionization through mail-in ballots or at a drop-off location. Current regulations dictate that workers must cast ballots at in-person-only polling places, typically located at their place of employment, where they may face intimidation from supervisors.

    “The vast majority of those elections are on the growers’ property, under the watchful and often retaliatory eye of their bosses,” said Strater, who explained that such a system has “an incredibly chilling effect” on a largely undocumented workforce.

    Even as policymakers have lauded farmworkers as essential workers at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, they’ve largely sided with the agricultural industry in curtailing or neglecting workers’ right to organize over the past several years. As of 2021, fewer than three percent of farmworkers belong to a union, and farmworkers still lack the right to collectively bargain and unionize in most states.

    On Cesar Chavez Day this April, farmworkers and advocates organized marches in 13 California cities criticizing the governor’s continued refusal to meet with farmworkers to discuss the most recent bill. Newsom also vetoed a similar bill in September 2021, which would have allowed for mail-in unionization ballots.

    Farmworker organizers faced another blow in June 2021, when the Supreme Court ruled in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid that labor organizations could no longer go on grower’s property to meet with workers.

    Still, longtime organizers like Roberto “El Capitan” Bustos, who led UFW’s famed 400-mile march to Sacramento in 1966, were in attendance on Wednesday to encourage marchers to persevere despite political setbacks.

    “I’m here again — I’m still marching,” Bustos told those gathered on Wednesday. “You can’t get lost. Follow our footprints. You’re going to see our footprints along the way.”

  • His last night as a prisoner in North Florida, Kelvin Bolton couldn’t sleep. Fifty-five years old, with a wispy goatee the same color as the gray flecks in his hair, he was about to get out after serving a 2 1/2-year sentence for theft and battery. The last time he’d seen his brothers and sisters at a big family gathering, he’d marched onto the dance floor ostentatiously, turned away and wrapped his arms around himself to caress his own back. As he swayed goofily to the music, everybody laughed.

    Now Bolton was so close to being free and seeing his family again. The next morning, a bright Wednesday in April, he was already dressed in his street clothes and cleared to go when the woman processing his paperwork stopped him.

    “The lady said, ‘Hold on, you can’t go anywhere,’” Bolton remembered in a recent phone call.

    Confused, he asked her what was going on, he recalled. There was a warrant out for his arrest for incidents in 2020, she explained gruffly. But that was impossible. He’d been in jail at the time, awaiting his prison stint.

    Guards loaded Bolton into a van, then drove an hour and a half south to deposit him in Alachua County Jail.

    There, he found out what he’d done wrong.

    He’d voted.

    In 2018, Florida voters overwhelmingly passed Amendment 4, in a historic ballot initiative that restored the right to vote to most state residents with felony convictions. Until then, Florida had been one of only four states — the others were Iowa, Kentucky and Virginia — where people who had committed felonies needed to petition the governor to have their voting rights restored. It was a grim legacy of 19th-century laws passed after the 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote.

    Supporters applauded the law as restoring voting rights to what experts estimate is over 1 million people in Florida, about 5% of the population of the state.

    But the state’s dominant Republican lawmakers quickly installed a financial hurdle to those new rights. The following year, they passed a law to clarify that people convicted of felonies could only vote if they first paid off any money they owed for committing their crimes. The penalty for registering or voting without doing so: a felony charge for voter fraud.

    On the surface, the mandate seemed reasonable: Even advocates for Amendment 4 agreed that requiring paying off fines and restitution to victims was just. In Florida, however, that task proved a sometimes insurmountable challenge — one that disproportionately hit Black people. Florida has no centralized database to allow people to figure out what legal financial obligations they owe to the state. Instead, its 67 counties and various state agencies each maintain their own databases. The state also does not track information for federal or out-of-state convictions, which people are also required to pay off before voting.

    On top of the fines and restitution, Florida layers on court fees that can run into the hundreds of dollars. Together, a voter’s debt can run into the thousands, a financial hole that some may never climb out of.

    “That’s kind of the bottom line of the absurdity of this — it’s Kafkaesque,” said Dan Smith, chair of the political science department at the University of Florida. “It’s very troubling that we would have state attorneys prosecuting individuals who did not know their status, and there was no way for them to determine their status.”

    Florida’s voting hurdles are part of a national pattern. For years across the country, Republican state lawmakers have been implementing new restrictive voting laws, including reducing access to vote-by-mail ballots, stricter voter identification rules and limits on early voting. These efforts have accelerated since Donald Trump promoted the false claims that Joe Biden stole the 2020 presidential election. Democrats, meanwhile, have pushed to expand voting access.

    Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis boasted that in 2020, Florida, a swing state with a history of contentious elections, “held the smoothest, most successful election of any state in the country,” while he also signed a flurry of voting law changes that he said would further strengthen the integrity of future votes. And DeSantis has tacitly endorsed prosecuting people convicted of felonies for voter fraud. In April, he signed a bill establishing the Office of Election Crimes and Security, which will investigate alleged election violations.

    Despite the increased scrutiny, voting fraud remains so rare in Florida that it hasn’t come close to altering election outcomes. The Florida Department of State in 2020 received 262 election fraud complaints, just 75 of which were referred to law enforcement or prosecuting authorities, according to the agency.

    “Florida is an outlier, because the intentional targeting of citizens with felony convictions as a way to undermine democracy has been a throughline in that state,” said Nicole Porter, senior director of advocacy for the Sentencing Project. “And the attempt to address that, by popular vote, has been undermined by the legislature.”

    In 2020, a representative of the Alachua County Supervisor of Elections conducted a series of outreach efforts at the local county jail to let inmates know of their new rights and offer to help them add their names to the voter rolls.

    During three visits to the jail, the official helped sign up at least 10 inmates, including John Boyd Rivers, Dedrick Baldwin and Bolton.

    Rivers, 44, felt a visceral thrill at the prospect. Sitting in his cell in February 2020 facing a battery charge for hitting his wife, he was told by the county representative that he could register to vote. The official, he said, told him that he could disregard the check box on the form that asks whether the applicant has a felony conviction because he didn’t have a disqualifying felony. That seemed odd to Rivers, since he had a previous felony conviction. (He subsequently was sentenced for the battery charge.) No one told him anything about needing to pay off his financial obligations before registering to vote, Rivers said, and the jail didn’t give him an accounting of those debts when he was later released.

    Back at home, Rivers was excited when his voter registration card arrived in the mail. He’d lost his right to vote at 18, he said, after voting just once. Now he could vote in a presidential election. He and his wife went to their polling place, and he cast his vote for Donald Trump.

    Bolton, too, was excited to sign up. He also said no one told him he’d need to pay off his debts before casting his ballot. Although he registered as a Republican, he said he decided to vote for Biden.

    In all, 10 of the men who the official helped register to vote have been charged with voter fraud on the grounds they were ineligible.

    Their alleged illegal voting was first spotted by a citizen who analyzed Florida’s voting rolls and then shared the information with the state. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement subsequently launched an eight-month investigation, after which it identified the 10 inmates.

    State investigators found that some jail employees remembered the elections official giving clear directions to inmates about having to pay off financial obligations, while others did not. The investigation concluded that the jail visits were “lacking in both quality and longevity” and “showed a haphazard registration of inmates.” But the state prosecutor nevertheless proceeded with charges, although not against county officials.

    Officials at the Alachua Supervisor of Elections office declined to comment to ProPublica. But Supervisor of Elections Kim Barton denied any wrongdoing in a statement released in June.

    Brian Kramer, the state attorney for the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida, defended his office’s prosecutions to ProPublica, saying he believed the 10 men knew they were committing fraud. “I’m not going to say I will prosecute or not prosecute because it’s politically popular or unpopular,” he said.

    Four of the 10 have pleaded guilty and have been sentenced to between 364 days and three years in prison. Bolton and three others have vowed to go to trial, while the remaining two await arraignment. They face charges that carry a penalty of up to five years in prison, five years of probation or $5,000 in fines. Eight of the men are Black, and two are white.

    Critics say the charges are unjust and, at a bare minimum, excessive. In nearby Lake County, the state prosecutor declined to bring charges against sex offenders who had registered to vote despite the law prohibiting voting rights restoration for those charged with sex offenses or murder. In April, two white men living in The Villages in Sumter County, an overwhelmingly white county in central Florida, pleaded guilty to each casting two ballots for Donald Trump during the 2020 election. Rather than face prosecution, they entered a pretrial intervention program, under which they must serve 50 hours of community service and attend an adult civics class, among other requirements. Because the men in Alachua County have prior felony convictions, they are ineligible for pretrial intervention and face harsher sentences.

    “I’m thinking I’m doing something good for the community, so that’s why I chose to try to do it,” Bolton said. “It was not malicious — I was not trying to commit a felony of voting fraud. I never would have voted.”

    Baldwin, 47, who is in prison on a manslaughter conviction, was sentenced to an additional 364 days. He felt “set up,” he said, since nobody told him he wasn’t eligible.

    “There’s no way Biden was that important to me to vote for him,” he said in an email to ProPublica from prison. “We were flat out tricked into voting.”

    The elections official who visited the jail denied telling the men that they could disregard the check box and said he warned them that they’d need to pay off their financial obligations, according to a person familiar with the matter who declined to be named because he feared reprisals. The elections official declined to comment to ProPublica on the record.

    The voter fraud charges were especially bitter for Rivers. By the time they were filed, Rivers said, he had already used part of his federal stimulus check to pay off more than $3,000 in costs related to his criminal record so he could reinstate his driver’s license and return to work.

    “I should have known there would be some kind of catch,” Rivers said.

    Florida’s history of felon disenfranchisement dates back to 1838, when the state’s first constitution prohibited people convicted of bribery or assorted “high crimes and misdemeanors” from voting. After the Civil War, faced with the prospect of formerly enslaved Black men voting, the state expanded the law so that anyone convicted of a felony lost the franchise. But in 2018, 64% of Florida voters approved Amendment 4, allowing people convicted of felonies, except for murder or sexual offense convictions, to vote.

    This embrace of new voters became more complicated the following year when the state legislature passed its law. It required that people convicted of felonies must determine their own eligibility before registering to vote. The Florida Department of Corrections and county detention facilities are required to provide notice to inmates at the time of their release of their outstanding financial obligations.

    But it is unclear if all of the facilities do so.

    Florida charges those convicted of crimes with an array of fines and fees, some of which statutorily cannot be eliminated or reduced. Defendants facing felony charges are assessed $100 to use a public defender, as well as a $100 prosecution fee. At least one person already sentenced in the Alachua County cases has been charged an additional $671 for his voting fraud charges on top of the financial obligations he already owed.

    Finding out what someone owes is time-consuming and expensive. An analysis led by Traci Burch, a political science professor at Northwestern University, tried to determine the legal financial obligations owed by a random sample of 153 Florida residents convicted of felonies and found consistent information for only three of them. Counties often keep poor records, have cumbersome websites and employ unhelpful clerks.

    What’s more, it can cost money merely to find out how much money you owe. Four in 10 Florida counties charged either a payment or processing fee to look at their databases, and 15% charged a fee to access certain records, according to Burch’s research.

    In 2020, Smith, the Florida political scientist, estimated that just over 1 million people would be eligible to vote under Amendment 4. Of that number, about 77% had outstanding legal financial obligations, rendering them ineligible to vote under Florida’s new law until they paid their debts. Four out of five Floridians with felony convictions owed at least $500 in fines and fees, Smith’s analysis found. More than 59% owed more than $1,000.

    The state legislature immediately disqualified about 750,000 people from being able to vote when it passed its law requiring people convicted of felonies to pay their debts first, Smith estimated. And the new law’s impact was felt much more harshly by Black people, who faced greater fines and fees: 26% of white Floridians with a felony conviction would be eligible to get their voting rights restored under the new requirement, but only 18% of Black people, according to Smith.

    In May 2020, a district court judge ruled that parts of the law were unconstitutional and that the law had established a pay-to-vote system. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling the following September, saying it was in the state’s power to require the payoffs and the law didn’t violate people’s rights. The state Supreme Court has also issued an advisory opinion that deemed the law legitimate.

    Unsurprisingly, the number of people with felony convictions who have registered to vote has fallen far short of what supporters hoped. More than 85,000 such people registered in Florida ahead of the 2020 election.

    Supporters of the law say that it’s only fair to have people fulfill their full sentences, including paying any crime-related debts. Some state attorneys, including Kramer, the attorney prosecuting the Alachua cases, have also developed processes within their jurisdictions by which people with felony convictions can verify their voting eligibility or request to reduce their fines and fees.

    Felons who have not yet registered to vote can also appeal to the state to have certain fees reduced or eliminated, said Republican State Sen. Jeff Brandes, the sponsor of the law demanding the payoffs before voting rights restoration.

    “We truly believe there are people who are indigent that will just simply never be able to pay,” he said. “The court only collects a fraction of what is given out anyways. And so there should be a way for the state to grant some grace or for the court to grant some grace and provide people flexibility.”

    Kelvin Bolton has been sitting in the Alachua Council Jail since April, waiting for his case to proceed.

    He’s been in and out of the system since he was 16, piling up a long record of mostly nonviolent crimes, most recently for stealing a car, groping a woman in a store and taking cigarettes from a Dollar General.

    He aims this time to keep a vow he made to his family and himself to stay straight. He said he is frustrated that the prosecutor subsequently created a program for people convicted of felonies to check their voting eligibility while he and the others are still facing charges.

    “Why would they want to keep charging us for something that they’re in the wrong for?” he said. “The state is in the wrong for what they did to us.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • When I was the age that my daughter is now, my favorite sweatshirt had the words “Choice, Choice, Choice, Choice” in rainbow letters across its front. My mom got me that sweatshirt at a 1989 rally in response to Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld a Missouri law restricting the use of state funds and facilities for abortion, an early attempt to eat away at Roe v. Wade. And though many adults in the Wisconsin neighborhood where I grew up thought that message inappropriate for a 13 year old, I wore it proudly. Even then, I understood that it spoke not just to a person’s right to an abortion, but also to the respect and dignity that should be afforded every human being.

    Since then, it has become increasingly clear that our society does not confer rights and dignity on we the people — as seen in the slashing of school food programs, the denial of Medicaid expansion in states that need it most, attacks on Black, Brown, and Native bodies by the police and border patrol, as well as the Supreme Court’s recent decisions to put fossil-fuel companies ahead of the rest of us, guns above kids, and deny sovereignty to indigenous people and tribes, while failing to protect our voting rights and ending the constitutional right to abortion.

    For millions of us, the Dobbs v. Jackson decision on abortion means that life in America has just grown distinctly more dangerous. The seismic aftershocks of that ruling are already being felt across the country: 22 states have laws or constitutional amendments on the books now poised to severely limit access to abortion or ban it outright. Even before the Supremes issued their decision, states with more restrictive abortion laws had higher maternal-mortality and infant-mortality rates. Now, experts are predicting at least a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths across the country.

    As is always the case with public-health crises in America — the only industrialized country without some form of universal healthcare — it’s the poor who will suffer the most. Survey data shows that nearly 50% of women who seek abortions live under the federal poverty line, while many more hover precariously above it. In states that limit or ban abortion, poor women and others will now face an immediate threat of heightened health complications, as well as the long-term damage associated with abortion restrictions.

    Indeed, data collected by economists in the decades after Roe v. Wade indicates that the greater the limits on abortion, the more poverty for parents and the less education for their children. Worse yet, the 13 states that had trigger laws designed to outlaw abortion in the event of a Roe reversal were already among the poorest in the country. Now, poor people in poor states will be on the punishing spear tip of our post-Roe world.

    While the Supreme Court’s grim decision means more pain and hardship for women, transgender, and gender non-conforming people, it signals even more: the validation of a half-century-old strategy by Christian nationalists to remake the very fabric of this nation. For the businessmen, pastors, and politicians who laid the foundations for the Dobbs ruling, this was never just about abortion.

    The multi-decade campaign to reverse Roe v. Wade has always been about building a political movement to seize and wield political power. For decades, it’s championed a vision of “family values” grounded in the nuclear family and a version of community life meant to tightly control sex and sexuality, while sanctioning attacks on women and LGBTQIA people. Thanks to its militant and disciplined fight to bring down Roe, this Christian nationalist movement has positioned itself to advance a full-spectrum extremist agenda that is not only patriarchal and sexist, but racist, anti-poor, and anti-democratic. Consider the Dobbs decision the crown jewel in a power-building strategy years in the making. Consider it as well the coronation of a movement ready to flex its power in ever larger, more violent, and more audacious ways.

    In that context, bear in mind that, in his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the Dobbs decision gives the Supreme Court legal precedent to strike down other previously settled landmark civil rights jurisprudence, including Griswold v. Connecticut (access to contraception), Lawrence v. Texas (protection of same-sex relationships), and Obergefell v. Hodges (protection of same-sex marriage). Whether or not these fundamental protections ultimately fall, the Supreme Court majority’s justification for Dobbs certainly raises the possibility that any due-process rights not guaranteed by and included in the Constitution before the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 could be called into question.

    The Christian nationalist movement long ago identified control of the Supreme Court as decisive for its agenda of rolling back all the twentieth-century progressive reforms from the New Deal of the 1930s through the Great Society of the 1960s. Less than a week after the Dobbs decision, in fact, that court overturned Massachusetts v. EPA, the 2007 ruling that set a precedent when it came to the government’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by polluting industries. May Boeve, head of the environmental group 350.org, put it this way:

    “Overturning Roe v. Wade means the Supreme Court isn’t just coming for abortion — they’re coming for the right to privacy and other legal precedents that Roe rests on, even the United States government’s ability to tackle the climate crisis.”

    To fully grasp the meaning of this moment, it’s important to recognize just how inextricably the assault on abortion is connected to a larger urge: to assault democracy itself, including the rights of citizens to vote and to have decent healthcare and housing, a public-school education, living wages, and a clean environment. And it’s no less important to grasp just how a movement of Christian nationalists used the issue of abortion to begin rolling back the hard-won gains of the Second Reconstruction era of the 1950s and 1960s and achieve political power that found its clearest and most extreme expression in the Trump years and has no interest in turning back now.

    Abortion and the Architecture of a Movement

    Throughout American history, a current of anti-abortion sentiment, especially on religious grounds, has been apparent. Some traditional Roman Catholics, for instance, long resisted the advance of abortion rights, including a church-led dissent during the Great Depression, when economic disaster doubled the number of abortions (then still illegal in every state). Some rank-and-file evangelicals were also against it in the pre-Roe years, their opposition baked into a theological and moral understanding of life and death that ran deeper than politics.

    Before all this, however, abortion was legal in this country. As a scholar of the subject has explained, in the 1800s, “Protestant clergy were notably resistant to denouncing abortion — they feared losing congregants if they came out against the common practice.” In fact, the Victorian-era campaign to make abortion illegal was driven as much by physicians and the American Medical Association, then intent on exerting its professional power over midwives (mainly women who regularly and safely carried out abortions), as by the Catholic Church.

    Moreover, even in the middle decades of the twentieth century, anti-abortionism was not a consensus position in evangelical Protestantism. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention, evangelicalism’s most significant denomination, took moderate positions on abortion in the 1950s and 1960s, while leading Baptist pastors and theologians rarely preached or wrote on the issue. In fact, a 1970 poll by the Baptist Sunday School Board found that “70% of Southern Baptist pastors supported abortion to protect the mental or physical health of the mother, 64% supported abortion in cases of fetal deformity, and 71% in cases of rape.”

    So what changed for those who became the power-brokers of a more extremist America? For one thing, the fight for the right to abortion in the years leading up to Roe was deeply intertwined with an upsurge of progressive gender, racial, and class politics. At the time, the Black freedom struggle was breaking the iron grip of Jim Crow in the South, as well as segregation and discrimination across the country; new movements of women and LGBTQ people were fighting for expanded legal protection, while challenging the bounds of repressive gender and sexual norms; the increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam had catalyzed a robust antiwar movement; organized labor retained a tenuous but important seat at the economic bargaining table; and new movements of the poor were forcing Washington to turn once again to the issues of poverty and economic inequality.

    For a group of reactionary clergy and well-funded right-wing political activists, the essence of what it was to be American seemed under attack. Well-known figures like Phyllis Schlafly and Paul Weyrich, who would found the Moral Majority (alongside Jerry Falwell, Sr.), began decrying the supposed rising threat of communism and the dissolution of American capitalism, as well as what they saw as the rupture of the nuclear family and of white Christian community life through forced desegregation. (Note that Jerry Falwell didn’t preach his first anti-abortion sermon until six years after the Roe decision.)

    Such leaders would form the core of what came to be called the “New Right.” They began working closely with influential Christian pastors and the apostles of neoliberal economics to build a new political movement that could “take back the country.” Katherine Stewart, author of The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism, often cites this Paul Weyrich quote about the movement’s goals:

    “We are radicals who want to change the existing power structure. We are not conservatives in the sense that conservative means accepting the status quo. We want change — we are the forces of change.”

    Indeed, what united these reactionaries above all else was their opposition to desegregation. Later, they would conveniently change their origin story from overt racism to a more palatable anti-abortion, anti-choice struggle. As historian Randall Balmer put it: “Opposition to abortion, therefore, was a godsend for leaders of the Religious Right because it allowed them to distract attention from the real genesis of their movement: defense of racial segregation in evangelical institutions.”

    Many of the movement’s leaders first converged around their fear that segregated Christian schools would be stripped of public vouchers. As Balmer points out, however, they soon recognized that championing racial segregation was not a winning strategy when it came to building a movement with a mass base. So they looked elsewhere. What they discovered was that, in the wake of the Roe decision, a dislike of legalized abortion had unsettled some Protestant and Catholic evangelicals. In other words, these operatives didn’t actually manufacture a growing evangelical hostility to abortion, but they did harness and encourage it as a political vehicle for radical change.

    Looking back in the wake of the recent Dobbs decision obliterating Roe v. Wade, Katherine Stewart put it this way:

    “Abortion turned out to be the critical unifying issue for two fundamentally political reasons. First, it brought together conservative Catholics who supplied much of the intellectual leadership of the movement with conservative Protestants and evangelicals. Second, by tying abortion to the perceived social ills of the age — the sexual revolution, the civil rights movement, and women’s liberation — the issue became a focal point for the anxieties about social change welling up from the base.”

    What this movement and its allies also discovered was that they could build and exert tremendous power through a long-term political strategy that initially focused on Southern elections and then their ability to take over the courts, including most recently the Supreme Court. Abortion became just one potent weapon in an arsenal whose impact we’re feeling in a devastating fashion today.

    A Fusion Movement From Below?

    As Reverend William Barber, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, has pointed out, check out a map of the states in this country that have banned abortion and you’ll find that you’re dealing with the same legislators and courts denying voting rights, refusing to raise municipal minimum wages, and failing to protect immigrants, LGBTQIA people, and the planet itself. As the Economic Policy Institute described the situation after Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion on abortion hit the news in May:

    “It is no coincidence that the states that will ban abortion first are also largely the states with the lowest minimum wages, states less likely to have expanded Medicaid, states more likely to be anti-union ‘Right-to-Work’ states, and states with higher-than-average incarceration rates… Environments in which abortion is legal and accessible have lower rates of teen first births and marriages. Abortion legalization has also been associated with reduced maternal mortality for Black women. The ability to delay having a child has been found to translate to significantly increased wages and labor earnings, especially among Black women, as well as increased likelihood of educational attainment.”

    Indeed, the right to abortion should be considered a bellwether issue when judging the health of American democracy, one that guarantees equal protection under the law for everyone. Fortunately, the most recent Supreme Court rulings, including Dobbs, are being met with growing resistance and organizing. Just weeks ago, thousands upon thousands of us came together on Pennsylvania Avenue for a Mass Poor People and Low Wage Worker’s Assembly and Moral March on Washington and to the Polls. On the very day of the Dobbs decision and ever since, protests against that ruling, including acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, have been growing.

    In a similar fashion, striking numbers of us have begun mobilizing against gun violence and the climate crisis. At this moment as well, we seem to be witnessing the rise of a new labor movement with workers already organizing at Starbucks, Dollar General stores, and Walmart, among other places. The Christian nationalist movement relies on a divide-and-conquer strategy and single-issue organizing. A pro-democracy and justice movement must resist that approach.

    As a Christian theologian and pastor myself, I’ve been deeply disturbed by the growth of the Christian nationalist movement. We would do well, however, to heed their focus and fury. Its leaders were very clear about how necessary it was, if they were ever to gain real power in this country, to build a national political movement. In response, the 140 million poor and low-wealth Americans, pro-choice and pro-earth activists, and those of us concerned about the future of our democracy must do the same, building a moral movement from below. And such a movement must not be afraid of power, but ready to fight for it. Only then can we truly begin to reconstruct this country from the bottom up.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • By Theckla Gunga of Inside PNG

    Papua New Guineans, your future is in your hands, vote wisely.

    As the campaign trail wound up its last hours at the weekend, voters were being urged to keep their future in mind when choosing and voting this election starting tomorrow.

    Alvin Gia Huk, an independent candidate, and runner up in the 2017 National General Elections for the Mendi-Munihu Open seat in Southern Highlands Province is encouraging voters to not repeat the mistakes made in the past when electing people who didn’t have their interest at heart.

    He said voters needed to make wiser decisions for long term benefits for their children, the district and the province as a whole.

    Inside PNG
    INSIDE PNG

    “Don’t follow money and materials today and spend the next five years being neglected of your basic right to services. You have the power to change your course in the next week, to receive what is rightfully yours and have a better quality of life,” he said.

    Among other policies, he said a change in voters’ attitudes was what he had been promoting and encouraging throughout the campaign period.

    “I have been educating voters since last elections to not vote with a cargo cult mentality or based on family lines, tribal ties and vote for quality”.

    He admits it has been a challenge breaking the cargo cult mentality but he sees some progress from the previous elections.

    Voters have become more educated and aware of what they deserve and what qualities they want in their leaders.

    PNG women candidates campaign to bust open all-male Parliament
    PNG women candidates campaign to bust open all-male Parliament
    Video: Stefan Armbruster reporting for SBS News

    The PNG elections run from July 4 to 22.

    Asia Pacific Report’s coverage of the PNG general election is being boosted by partnerships with media groups such as the independent Inside PNG, The National, PNG Post-Courier and RNZ Pacific. 

     

     

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • We speak with Bishop William Barber and Reverend Liz Theoharis, co-chairs of the Poor People’s Campaign, about plans for Saturday’s Moral March on Washington and to the Polls to demand the government address key issues facing poor and low-income communities. The march will bring together thousands of people from diverse backgrounds to speak out against the country’s rising poverty rates, voter suppression in low-income communities and more. “To have this level of poverty that’s untalked about too often … is actually morally indefensible, constitutionally inconsistent, politically insensitive and economically insane,” says Barber. Theoharis says the lack of universal healthcare in the U.S. is a major source of economic insecurity and has contributed to the COVID-19 death toll. She asks how a rich country “that spends more money on healthcare than any other nation with a comparable economy still has [these] kind of poor health outcomes.”

    TRANSCRIPT

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

    AMY GOODMAN: Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

    As the United States experiences its worst inflation in decades with skyrocketing food, gas and energy prices, we end today’s show in Washington, D.C., where the Poor People’s Campaign has organized a massive Moral March on Washington Saturday. The demonstration is being led by low-income people and workers demanding access to stable housing, healthcare, living wages, gun control, and reproductive and voting rights.

    For more, we’re joined in Washington, D.C., by Bishop Dr. William Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, president of Repairers of the Breach. We also hope to speak with Dr. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign.

    Bishop Barber, welcome back to Democracy Now! If you can talk about what you’re doing in Washington? As inside the Capitol there is this epic historic hearing around the previous president’s attempted coup, the man who would not let go of power but was forced to in the end, I’m wondering if you could contrast what we’re seeing exposed there with what you’re doing this weekend.

    BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Well, thank you, Amy.

    We are not the insurrection. We are the resurrection, and a resurrection of thousands, of every race and creed and color and kind and geography, who are coming nonviolently to Washington, D.C., from all across this great land, to say that the 140 million poor and low-wealth people in this country, 43% of this nation, 52% of the children, 68% — 60% of Black people, 33% of — 30% of white people, 68% of Latinos, and so forth and so on, 87 million people who are uninsured or underinsured, 32 million people that get up every morning and work jobs that do not pay a living wage, less than $15 an hour — we won’t be silent or unseen anymore.

    The time has come for us to have a Third Reconstruction. We had one in the 1800s, one in the 1960s. We need one now, that’s about policy, reconstructing a moral framework, political framework in this country, because to have this level of poverty, that’s un-talked-about too often and unseen and unheard, is actually morally indefensible, constitutionally inconsistent, politically insensitive and economically insane. So people are coming. But poor people are coming to say not only do we need a moral reset — and low-wage workers are saying it — we represent 32% of the electorate now, poor people do, and 45% of the electorate in battleground states. And it’s time for that power to be organized, mobilized and felt in every election throughout this country.

    Now, when we look at what you see in these hearings, we have to ask the question, I think: Why were Trumpism or Trump and his team fighting to hold onto power? Why wouldn’t McConnell and them impeach him when they had a chance? I believe, Amy, and we believe, this isn’t just about personality, but policy. We’re witnessing a crisis of democracy, because some of the people who didn’t go along with Trump in this and didn’t go along with Eastman’s scheme still took the time to see if it was right, if there was a way they could do it. They still voted 99% of the time for Trump’s policies of extremism. And they still believe in a political policy coup d’état to suppress the vote, to rob the government of its resources by giving tax cuts to the wealthiest and to the greediest and the corporate interests, that disempowers the government from doing the things it needs to do for the least and the left-out and the workers and women. They are still the group that wants to take — to have a political coup d’état and take women’s rights to their own body. They’re still the group that wants to block living wages, block healthcare, block addressing climate change, block police violence. And all of these policies produce a policy murder. And we found out just this week that the denial of universal healthcare during COVID, for instance, has cost 330,000 lives. We found out, because of Trump and his allies’ policies in the beginning of COVID, poor people died at a rate of two to five times higher than anyone else in this country.

    So, we are the contrast. What you saw January 6th was the insurrection. What you see on Saturday is a resurrection. It’s a resurrection of people coming together, the Mass Poor People’s, Low-Wage Workers’ Assembly and Moral March to the Polls. And we are calling on people to still join us at Third and Pennsylvania at 9:30 a.m. on Saturday morning.

    AMY GOODMAN: Liz Theoharis is also with us, the Reverend Dr. Liz Theoharis, who is co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign and president — also executive director of the Kairos Center at Union Theological Seminary.

    Liz, welcome back to Democracy Now! If you could talk about the significance of this march, and this coming at a time where a Yale study just came out saying that something like 338,000 people who died of COVID-19 during the pandemic in the United States — a third of the people — died unnecessarily, could have been saved if the U.S. had Medicare for All? Can you talk about how healthcare is a basic right, as one of the tenets of what people are calling for in Washington?

    REV. LIZ THEOHARIS: Well, thanks so much, Amy, and it is great to be back.

    And as Bishop Barber said, and as you just referenced, this study came out this week that says that, yeah, a third of the people who did not have healthcare would not have died from this pandemic. What we in the Poor People’s Campaign have been putting out, and we did a study with Jeffrey Sachs and with folks over at Columbia University that showed that between two and five times the number of poor people from poor communities died from the pandemic than richer communities and richer people. And again, this is because of these underlying issues of health inequality, of poverty, of low wages.

    And so, indeed, when we gather on Pennsylvania Avenue on Saturday and we hear the voices, the stories, but also the solutions coming out of poor and low-income people’s experience and lives, we will surely hear about the need for healthcare. As Bishop Barber has said, we need healthcare to be connected to people’s bodies, not to their jobs. And how is it, in this rich nation, that spends more money on healthcare than any other nation with a comparable economy, still has the kind of poor health outcomes, still has 87 million people who before the pandemic were uninsured or underinsured, and even some more who have — you know, tens of thousands who have lost their healthcare coverage in the worst public health crisis in generations?

    And again, this just does not have to be. It actually — you know, we could spend less on healthcare and lead healthier lives, and everyone could have universal coverage. We need to expand Medicaid, but we also need to implement a single-payer universal healthcare system. And again, this will lift society from the bottom.

    And so, this and then the cry and demand for living-wage jobs, for adequate housing, for immigration reform, for protecting this democracy, they’re all connected. And we see the interconnections, the intersections of the denial of healthcare, the destruction of our environment, the militarization of our communities, and the problems of poverty and low wages that are infecting almost half of the population, and, therefore, bringing this impoverished democracy to a real crisis.

    AMY GOODMAN: Liz Theoharis, you’ve also said that declaring war is a declaration of war on the poor. Explain.

    REV. LIZ THEOHARIS: So, you know, that actually comes from Dr. King and from many that have come before. But Dr. King, you know, when he comes out against the Vietnam War all those years ago, says that war, in all its form, is a war on the poor, and it’s cruel manipulation of the poor.

    And we’re seeing this today. I mean, we don’t have a draft in this country, but we have a poverty draft. And 22 veterans commit suicide every day in this country because of the moral costs of war. And if we look at our military budget, 53 cents of every discretionary dollar goes to the military. We can’t even spend 15 cents on healthcare and living-wage jobs and investments in our children and in anti-poverty programs combined. You know, this disproportionately impacts poor people. And that’s poor people in the United States, and that’s poor people across the world. As Dr. King said, you know, you have poor people come together from this rich nation to go and kill poor people across the world. And we’re seeing this, you know, across the world in this moment, as well.

    AMY GOODMAN: Bishop Barber, this is Pride Month, and there have been serious attacks or attempted attacks, from Coeur d’Alene to the Bay Area. You had Patriot Front in Coeur d’Alene, a small army stopped by police before they attacked a Pride march. Can you talk about the far right and the white supremacists using Christianity to justify what they’re doing?

    BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Well, I don’t call them “right.” I never use the term “far right” and “far left.” I think those terms are problematic. And one of the things the Poor People’s Campaign is saying is we need to have a moral conversation about right versus wrong, constitutional versus unconstitutional. And that’s part of our problem.

    The reality is that that’s heresy. Any time you use religion to justify violence against gay people, against women, against the poor, against any segment of a community, when you use it to suppress the vote, when you use religion to try to block living wages and healthcare, it is exactly wrong. One of the reasons it’s wrong from a moral and a religious standpoint is because those become the policies of death. You know, every piece of regressive policy costs lives. When you deny healthcare, it costs lives. When you attack LGBT communities, you cost lives. When you allow guns to flourish in the society, people to walk around with AK-47s, you cost lives. When you block living wages and people moving up out of poverty — we knew that, even before COVID hit, poor people were dying at a rate of 700 people a day, nearly 30 people an hour per day, 250,000 a year, from the effects of poverty. That is contrary to the biblical call to life. It is contrary to the call of the ancient prophets that says, “Woe unto those who legislate evil and rob the poor of their rights and make women and children their prey” — P-R-E-Y. It’s contrary to the call of Jesus, that we’re supposed to be about life and good news to the poor. And it’s contrary to the Declaration of Independence, that we are supposed to be about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and contrary to the Constitution promise to establish justice and equal protection under the law.

    We are a movement of life, though. What we are saying is — and on Saturday, we are having Black people, white people, Brown people, Asian people, Native people, gay people, straight people, Republicans, Democrats, veterans, nonveterans. These are the voices you will hear, poor and impacted people, on the stage. It’s not a march and a rally and an assembly, really, for [inaudible] —

    AMY GOODMAN: We have 10 seconds.

    BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: — for people to come and talk for people. People will talk for themselves. We are the resurrection and not the insurrection.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, we want to thank you both so much for being with us, Bishop Dr. William Barber and Dr. Liz Theoharis, co-chairs of the Poor People’s Campaign, holding the Mass Poor People’s Assembly and Moral March on Washington on Saturday.

    Oh, and, Liz, I also want to congratulate your sister Jeanne Theoharis. The film The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks, based on Jeanne’s best-selling book by the same title, just premiered last night at the Tribeca Film Festival, directed by our former Democracy Now! producer Yoruba Richen, as well as Johanna Hamilton. It is fantastic, not to be missed by anyone. It was at the Tribeca Film Festival.

    And that does it for our show. Democracy Now! is produced with Renée Feltz, Mike Burke, Deena Guzder, Messiah Rhodes, Nermeen Shaikh, María Taracena, Tami Woronoff, Camille Baker, Charina Nadura, Sam Alcoff, Tey-Marie Astudillo, John Hamilton, Robby Karran, Hany Massoud, Mary Conlon.

    On Monday, a Juneteenth special — don’t miss it — on Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. Stay safe.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The day after a horrific school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, in which 19 children and two adults were killed on Tuesday morning, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) told reporters that he supports passing legislation to reform gun laws in the U.S. — unless doing so will require getting rid of the filibuster.

    Manchin has consistently defended the filibuster over the past year and a half, even as it was repeatedly used by Republicans to sabotage the Democratic party’s entire legislative agenda, including the Build Back Better Act.

    Shortly after the Uvalde shooting, Manchin expressed dismay that Republicans in the Senate wouldn’t join him and his Democratic colleagues to pass “common sense” gun legislation. For any gun reform bill to pass in the Senate, it would likely require the backing of all 50 Democrats, plus 10 Republicans, without being blocked by the filibuster.

    “It makes no sense why we can’t do common sense things to try to prevent some of this from happening. It’s just unbelievable how we got here as a society,” Manchin told reporters.

    But the right-wing Democrat continued to defend the filibuster, claiming it is “the only thing that prevents us from total insanity,” despite the fact that Republicans will likely employ the rule to block any proposed gun legislation from passing.

    “You know where I stand,” Manchin added, referring to his stance on changing filibuster rules.

    Although Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has expressed support for bringing a vote on gun measures to the Senate floor, he told his colleagues on Tuesday not to expect one any time soon, as it would likely be blocked by a Republican filibuster.

    Manchin has refused to budge on the filibuster several times since President Joe Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. He has repeatedly expressed his opposition to proposals to change filibuster rules in order to pass legislation that would have blocked Republican state lawmakers from disenfranchising voters.

    Democratic insiders have said that Manchin has seemed open to reforming the archaic Senate rule in past negotiations, only to abruptly change his mind soon after.

    “You think you’re just about there. You think you’ve got an agreement on most of the things and it’s settling in. And then you come back the next morning and you’re starting from scratch,” a Democratic source said to Axios in January, describing the process as akin to “negotiating via Etch A Sketch.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A state circuit court judge in Florida is set to block congressional maps drawn by the administration of Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), finding that they improperly and illegally diminished Black voters’ voices.

    In a statement on Wednesday regarding a lawsuit seeking to block the maps, Leon County Circuit Judge Layne Smith — who was appointed by DeSantis himself — signaled he would block the maps concocted by the governor’s office in a formal ruling later this week.

    Had the maps been allowed to remain in place, they would have reduced the number of Black-majority districts in the state by half, from four districts to two. Rep. Al Lawson, a Florida Democrat whose district would have been impacted by DeSantis’s maps, hailed Smith’s decision to strike down the governor’s boundaries as illegal.

    “The judge recognizes that this map is unlawful and diminishes African Americans’ ability to elect representatives of their choice,” Lawson said. “DeSantis is wrong for enacting this Republican-leaning map that is in clear violation of the U.S. and state constitutions.”

    In his statement, Smith noted that the two majority-Black congressional districts were dismantled in a blatantly unjust way. In one of those districts, Smith highlighted how hundreds of thousands of Black voters were shifted “between four different districts” in DeSantis’s maps, effectively removing their voices from being heard in Congress.

    “The African American population is nowhere near a plurality or a majority” in any of those four districts, Smith pointed out.

    Smith cited the state constitution’s Fair District amendment, which prohibits maps from being drawn if they disenfranchise marginalized communities or purposely favor one political party over another.

    “I am finding that the enacted map is unconstitutional under the Fair District amendment … because it diminishes African Americans’ ability to elect the representatives of their choice,” Smith said in his statement.

    Smith will likely replace DeSantis’s gerrymandered maps with one of two that the Republican-controlled legislature had previously passed, which the governor had vetoed earlier this year. Though still advantageous to the GOP, those maps are seen as somewhat better (though by no means perfect), in terms of respecting Black voters’ voices, than the ones DeSantis demanded be passed after his veto.

    DeSantis’s office said it plans to appeal the ruling, once it’s officially made later this week. Voting rights groups, meanwhile, praised Smith’s assessment of the maps, viewing his decision to block them as the right move.

    “The DeSantis’ enacted congressional map is a threat to the rule of law. … This preliminary injunction from the court is a start to ensuring that the laws of the sunshine state are followed and the voices of voters are fairly represented,” said Cecile Scoon, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida.

    Jasmine Burney-Clark, founder and consulting director of Equal Ground Education Fund, an organization dedicated to expanding voting rights, agreed.

    “No Floridian – including Governor DeSantis – is above the law,” Burney-Clark said in a statement regarding the ruling. “This is one step forward in the fight to protect Black voters, and we will keep doing everything in our power to ensure our voices are heard.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A number of voting rights groups in the state of Florida have filed a legal motion to stop the enforcement of congressional redistricting maps that were designed and signed into law earlier this month by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), saying that the maps will diminish the voting power of Black residents.

    The groups filing the motion include the League of Women Voters of Florida, Black Voters Matters Capacity Building Institute, the Equal Ground Education Fund, Florida Rising Together, and various state residents affected by the changes. They allege that the new maps are in violation of the “Fair Districts Amendment” in the state constitution, which prohibits political maps from being drawn and instituted if they disenfranchise marginalized communities or purposely favor one political party over another. They are asking a state judge to invalidate the maps for use in this year’s midterm elections.

    The maps have been widely criticized for cutting the number of Black-majority congressional districts in the state in half, from four districts to two under the new guidelines.

    The constitutional provision being cited in the lawsuit states that “no apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.” It also prohibits the drawing of districts “with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice.”

    Cecile Scoon, president of the League of Women Voters of Florida, released a statement explaining why her group and others were filing the motion.

    “The League and the other plaintiffs have chosen to not stand by while a rogue governor and a complicit state Legislature make a mockery of Florida’s Constitution and try to silence the votes and voices of hundreds of thousands of Black voters,” Scoon said, adding that the “shameful refusal to protect” Black voters’ rights by the Florida Supreme Court also “harms every citizen in the state, regardless of race.”

    The motion, filed in a Leon County court earlier this week, notes that the governor’s reorganization of the Fifth Congressional District in the state “cracks Black voters among four majority-white districts, thus diminishing their voting strength.”

    Black lawmakers have previously spoken out against the new maps. Before the maps were signed into law, state Sen. Randolph Bracy, a Democrat who is running for Congress in one of the affected districts, decried DeSantis’s actions as blatantly racist.

    “The fact he has the gall to do something like this clearly shows what he thinks of minorities and Black voters,” Bracy said. “It’s stunning in this day and age he would try to wipe out Black representation.”

    U.S. Rep. Al Lawson, the Democrat who currently represents Florida’s Fifth Congressional District, similarly blasted the new maps drawn by DeSantis’s office.

    The proposed maps are “a continued scheme by DeSantis to erase minority access districts in Congress in order to create more seats for the Republican Party,” Lawson said.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Monday, a group of House Democrats introduced a bill guaranteeing that workers get paid time off to vote in federal elections as other voting rights initiatives have fallen flat.

    The Time Off to Vote Act, introduced by Representatives Nikema Williams (D-Georgia), Matt Cartwright (D-Pennsylvania), Cheri Bustos (D-Illinois) and Andy Levin (D-Michigan), would require employers to give their employees at least two hours off of work to vote, either on election day or on a day with early voting.

    Many states have no regulations requiring that workers get time off to vote; even in states that do guarantee that right, many only require that workers get unpaid time off, meaning that workers may not be able to take advantage of the benefit without suffering financially.

    The bill would help to normalize regulations for paid time off across the country, a critical step toward expanding voting access. It requires that the paid time off be separate from workers’ existing benefits.

    “No one should be forced to choose between earning their full paycheck or participating in our democracy,” Williams said in a statement. “In the last two elections, countless Georgians waited in line for hours to vote. Many waited all day. The Time off to Vote Act will make it easier for working people to exercise their sacred right to vote.”

    For months, Democrats have tried — and failed — to pass legislation to protect voting rights. President Joe Biden emphasized the issue during his first year in office, but Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) killed Democrats’ hope of being able to pass sweeping anti-corruption election bills like the For the People Act, which voting rights advocates have said are crucial to protecting democracy.

    The Time Off to Vote Act has been introduced in previous years, but has never been taken to a vote. Proposals like making Election Day a federal holiday also aim to ensure that work isn’t a barrier to being able to vote, but about a quarter of workers don’t receive days off on federal holidays, according to a 2018 federal survey.

    Not being able to get time off to vote is a major barrier to voting, making it hard or impossible for people to cast their ballots. According to a FiveThirtyEight/Ipsos poll conducted after the 2020 election, waiting in long voting lines and not having time off are two of the top barriers to voting. With Republicans creating stricter guidelines for mail-in ballot access, some people may be blocked from voting at all.

    These barriers affect Black and Latinx voters disproportionately. Racist voter suppression policies have led to fewer polling stations in predominantly Black and Latinx neighborhoods, meaning that people in these communities often have to wait in line for hours to vote; data has shown that Black and Latinx voters wait about 45 percent longer on average than white voters.

    Voters in poorer neighborhoods are also more likely to face long lines while waiting to vote — and for many low-income people, this is an impassable hurdle. Some workers aren’t allowed to take time off to vote, and those that have the option of taking unpaid time off often can’t afford to do so, especially when they may have to wait hours in line.

    While the Time Off to Vote Act could help expand voting access, two hours may still not be enough in places like Georgia, where some workers waited 10 hours or more to vote in the 2020 presidential election.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • PNG Post-Courier

    Prime Minister James Marape has called on Papua New Guineans not to vote for “money, relatives or cargo” in the country’s 2022 general election that kicks off later this month.

    He made the call yesterday on the third anniversary of his resignation from the O’Neill-led government on 11 April 2019 due to “sheer frustration” at the way the country was being run.

    Marape on that day in 2019 had resigned in protest at the way he said at the time Peter O’Neill was running down the country.

    Reflecting on that occasion, Marape urged the people “to exercise your right to vote wisely in the 2022 elections”.

    “Don’t vote for money, don’t vote for relatives, and don’t vote for people or parties who have sold your birthright,” he said.

    “If I have not done well for this country, if I am not the leader of your choice, then vote in someone else who can do better.

    “Pangu Pati, and the coalition that I have worked with over the last three years –– including National Alliance, United Resources Party, United Labour Party, People’s Party, Liberal Party, National Party, People’s Movement for Change, Allegiance Party, Triumph Heritage Empowerment Party, One Nation Party, People’s Labour Party, Social Democratic Party and others –– have tried our best to stabilise our economy and restore credibility for this country.”

    ‘Steadied the ship’
    He said so much had happened since that fateful day on 11 April 2019.

    “I never knew I was going to be Prime Minister. I resigned [as] one man because I was fed up with the way Peter O’Neill was running down our country.

    “Yes, he was doing some good, but the greater part of him was for personal gratification and gain and I could not knowingly remain in his government.”

    Marape said the country had been through a lot of political turbulence since he took office, the most-infamous being the failed no-confidence vote of November 2020, spearheaded by O’Neill.

    “There were political challenges right up until the 18-month grace period of my election as prime minister was up in November 2020,” he said.

    “There were economic challenges, there were covid-19 challenges, but we have prevailed through the Grace of God.

    “We have steadied the ship.”

    The writs are issued on April 28, and voting is due June 11-24.

    Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • On Tuesday, the Arizona state Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit from the state’s Republican Party that sought to completely eliminate mail-in voting.

    The Arizona Republican Party’s attempt to abolish or severely curtail mail-in voting in the state is part of a nationwide push by the GOP to place more restrictions on voting in response to former President Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 election.

    Republicans issued the request to Arizona’s highest court earlier this year, asking it to dismantle the mail-in voting system, or, failing that, to eliminate the “no excuse” provision of its statute that allows any eligible voter in the state to request an absentee ballot. That provision has been allowed in the state since 1991, meaning that it has been utilized in the last eight presidential election cycles.

    Nevertheless, the party argued in its lawsuit that “in-person voting at the polls on a fixed date (election day) is the only constitutional manner of voting in Arizona.”

    At the time, Democrats spoke out against the lawsuit.

    “This is yet another attempt by the Arizona Republicans to make it harder for people to vote,” said state Sen. Raquel Terán, who is also the chair of the Arizona Democratic Party.

    Earlier this week, Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat and a defendant in the lawsuit, condemned the state GOP’s attempt to eradicate mail-in voting.

    “Abolishing early voting doesn’t make our elections more secure — it just makes it harder for eligible Arizonans to vote,” Hobbs, who is also running for governor, wrote in a tweet. “These partisan attacks on our freedom to vote are about suppressing the vote, not protecting it.”

    Although the ruling is a win for voting rights, the victory may be short-lived. In its ruling, the Arizona state Supreme Court said that they rejected the Republican Party’s lawsuit because it hadn’t gone through the proper channels. The party can resubmit their complaint in lower state courts, the court said.

    Still, the temporary win for voting rights will likely be enough to ensure that mail-in voting remains an option for registered voters in the state, at least through the 2022 midterm elections later this year. Arizona Republicans were hopeful that the state Supreme Court would rule in their favor before November, tossing out mail-in voting before this year’s races.

    Any attempt to dismantle mail-in voting would be an unpopular choice in the state. Recent polling indicates that Arizonans overwhelmingly support keeping voting by mail as an option in elections, with 74 percent backing the measure and only 10 percent saying they oppose it.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Monica Palmer stands in front of several microphones.

    In April 2021, Monica Palmer walked into The Token Lounge, a rock-and-roll bar outside Detroit, for a meeting of Michigan’s 13th Congressional District Republican Committee. About 75 people gathered around tables on a black-and-white checkerboard dance floor. 

    For three years, Palmer had filled an obscure position deep within the gears of the U.S. election system. She was a member of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, appointed by party leaders to certify election results.

    But that anonymity vanished after Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election became apparent and then-President Donald Trump began casting about for ways to reverse it. 

    The campaign to block Biden’s election was particularly intense in Wayne County, and three months after Biden had taken office, the intensity hadn’t waned for Palmer. She’d been invited to The Token Lounge by David Dudenhoefer, the committee’s leader and one of the people who had put her on the board. He wanted her to explain why she had certified the election and effectively delivered Biden the votes he needed to carry the state.

    Dudenhoefer spoke first.

    “Hey, if we don’t focus on what happened in 2020 and straighten that out, you can forget 2022, 2024, 2028, 2030,” he said, according to a video recording of the event. “Because right now, tens of millions of Americans feel like these elections are rigged. And I’m one of them.” 

    When it was Palmer’s turn to speak, she stood in front of a dark stage in a green summer dress and flip-flops and was at once defiant and contrite.

    “Now I will take the heat,” she said, adding that she was “off-focus” during the highly contentious public Zoom meeting in which the certification took place. She told the group that she didn’t want to certify the election but that, legally, she had no choice. 

    “The only thing that the Board of Canvassers has the authority to do is to compare the statement of voters, the number of ballots that were received versus the number of ballots that were tallied and to make any mathematical corrections,” she said.

    In fact, Palmer and her Republican colleague on the board, William Hartmann, had first voted not to certify the election, citing differences between the number of votes cast and the number of votes tallied in some precincts. The board was deadlocked 2-2. But the Republicans changed their votes to yes after a Democrat on the board promised that state officials would audit results down the road.

    Dudenhoefer wasn’t impressed with that explanation. “You were willing to compromise your beliefs, your principles and your standards for a promise of something down the road,” Dudenhoefer told Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting. 

    When it came time to renominate Palmer for the board, he and his colleagues declined. To replace her, they nominated three candidates who all have said they didn’t trust the results of the 2020 election. Two of them were active in efforts to overturn the 2020 election before they were nominated for the canvassing board.

    This isn’t just happening in Wayne County. Since the 2020 election, Republican leaders in Michigan have purged GOP canvassers in eight of the largest counties, including Macomb, Washtenaw, Ingham, Kalamazoo, Livingston, Saginaw and Genesee, according to a report by The Detroit News last year. At least half of them have been replaced with people who have publicly cast doubt on the 2020 election results.

    Jeff Timmer, who ran the Republican Party in Michigan from 2005 to 2009, says he’s alarmed by what’s happening to his party.

    “They’ve been able to infiltrate the Republican Party right down to the precinct level in a way that I’ve been astounded by,” he said. “They have paid attention to those very obscure, small party positions, precinct delegates, getting their people in place to chair county Republican parties all across the country – not just to Michigan.”

    Indeed, Republicans have mobilized against GOP officials who didn’t go along with Trump’s plan to stop the certification across the country. They’ve worked to unseat many of those officials and place election deniers in key positions, from county clerks to canvassers and up to the secretary of state, attorney general and even governor. 

    Altogether, the movement raises the specter that a campaign to overturn the 2024 election could be much more coordinated than 2020 and face much less resistance.


    Lawrence Norden of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University law school said the GOP shake-up of election officials in swing states is dangerous and unpredictable.

    “I would say in some ways, we are in an unchartered territory, certainly in modern history when it comes to election administration,” he said.

    A county canvassing board can’t reverse the results of a national election by itself. But Norden said disputes over county election results could create enough chaos and confusion that the election is taken out of the hands of voters and given to a partisan state legislature to decide the outcome. 

    “It provides an opportunity to muddy the waters on what really happened in an election, provides the opportunity for more time for litigation to try to encourage state legislatures to step in to try to prevent a certification of results that that side doesn’t like,” he said.

    This idea – that a legislature can step in and override the vote of the public – is known as the independent state legislature doctrine, and it has caught fire in conservative legal circles lately. 

    Michigan: Test Lab of the Anti-Democratic Movement

    In the weeks after the 2020 election, Wayne County was one of the most politically contentious places in America. 

    Droves of Republicans went to Detroit’s TCF Center the day after Election Day, where poll workers were counting absentee ballots. Amped up by Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud and false rumors that poll watchers were illegally being turned away, they banged on glass walls and chanted, “Stop the count!”

    Michigan, a swing state, is mostly Republican and White, except for its main metropolitan area. Wayne County is predominantly Democratic. Its largest city, Detroit, is nearly 80% Black. And, if you take away Wayne County from the vote, Michigan goes from a clear Biden victory to a clear Trump victory.

    But there was no fraud in Michigan, or Wayne County, that would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election. A bipartisan state Senate Oversight Committee investigation led by Republican Ed McBroom spent months scrutinizing and found no evidence of widespread or systematic election fraud.

    The Michigan secretary of state’s office completed 250 election audits and found no evidence of fraud or discrepancies that would have changed the results. In the end, of the 174,000 absentee ballots cast in Detroit, only 17 were found to be questionable. 

    A group of protesters wave a giant flag that says "Trump won."
    Demonstrators gather at the Michigan statehouse in Lansing in October 2021, claiming they don’t believe Donald Trump lost the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Credit: Photo by Nic Antaya/Getty Images

    Still, across the country, the GOP platform rests more and more on the baseless assertions that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump and that the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol was harmless. A handful of swing states have become testing grounds for this movement. Much of the playbook has been written in Michigan, and it stretches back far before the election. 

    • In April 2020, hundreds of protesters, some armed with rifles, descended on the Michigan statehouse in a failed attempt to force an end to COVID-19 restrictions. 
    • In October 2020, 13 men were arrested on suspicion of plotting to kidnap Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and overthrow the state government. 
    • On Dec. 14, 2020, the day Democratic electors were meeting at the statehouse to certify the election for Biden, Michigan GOP leaders showed up in person to try to stop them. Sixteen of them signed and sent documents to the National Archives falsely claiming to be the legitimate Michigan electors and casting phony votes for Trump.
    • On Jan. 5, 2021, Meshawn Maddock, co-chair of Michigan’s state Republican committee, helped organize a rally in Washington, D.C., for Trump supporters in advance of his Stop the Steal rally the next day. She organized buses to transport Michigan Republicans to the Capitol.  
    • Right now, supporters of Trump’s election lies are campaigning for the top three statewide office races in 2022 – governor, attorney general and secretary of state

    And then there’s the purge of county canvassers. 

    Conducting a county election canvass is usually a mundane bureaucratic process. Each of Michigan’s 83 counties has a canvassing board made up of two Republicans and two Democrats. Their job is to make sure the number of voters in each precinct matches the number of votes cast and sign off on the results. 

    But now those positions are being packed with 2020 election deniers, potentially setting the stage for even more election chaos in 2024.

    In Macomb County, which borders Detroit to the north and is the third most-populous county in the state, the newest Republican canvasser is Nancy Tiseo, who in 2020 suggested that Trump should suspend the Electoral College so military tribunals could investigate voter fraud.

    In tiny Antrim County, there’s Victoria Bishop, wife of far-right talk show host “Trucker” Randy Bishop. She moderated an event last year with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, where he said the Supreme Court should remove Biden from office and reinstall Trump.

    New Republican canvasser Marvin Rubingh, who sits on the Antrim County board with Bishop, said Trump’s lie that the election was stolen was a “credible allegation.”  

    Kalamazoo County appointed Tony Lorentz, who said he wasn’t sure Biden won the election or whether he would certify elections in the future. 

    Monica Palmer, the Wayne County canvasser who was ousted, declined to go on the record for this story. In the weeks after the election, she’d received death threats and text messages with photos of dead naked women. Some of the threats mentioned her daughter. She even found herself on the phone with Trump after the certification as his campaign was still fighting in courts in Michigan to overturn the election. 

    As a result, she gave a handful of interviews and then tried to lay low, hoping the harassment would blow over. But after she was kicked off the board, she went on “The Paul W. Smith Show,” a Detroit radio program, and described the ongoing purge as part of a new GOP election strategy. 

    “There are people within the state party who are getting rid of any canvasser that isn’t pulling the line of, ‘We need to stop everything,’ ” she said.

    “To find out they’re doing this across the state,” she said, “what other motive would it be?”

    The Guys Who Picked Palmer’s Replacement

    When it was time to name who would replace Palmer, the decision came down to David Dudenhoefer and two other Republican committee leaders in and around Wayne County. 

    Until recently, Dudenhoefer – known to friends and colleagues as “The Dude” – was the chair of Michigan’s 13th Congressional District Republican Committee. In 2020, he ran for Congress against Democrat Rashida Tlaib and lost with 18% of the vote. His head is shaved clean and his goatee is showing gray around the chin. When he’s not running for office in a suit and tie, he can be spotted around southeast Michigan in a T-shirt that reads: TYRANNY RESPONSE TEAM. He says he can’t prove it, but he believes the 2020 election was rigged. 

    Joining Dudenhoefer was a young activist named Shane Trejo, head of Michigan’s 11th Congressional District Republican Committee. The day after Palmer voted to certify the election, he sent her a text message. It read: “You should quit all your GOP posts and never show your face at an event ever again.” Since then, Trejo has pushed for suppressive changes to state voting laws, such as outlawing outdoor ballot drop boxes. He writes for the far-right blog site Big League Politics and used to co-host a podcast called “Blood Soil and Liberty” with a member of the White nationalist group Identity Evropa. (“Blood and Soil” was a Nazi slogan during the Third Reich.)  

    Video stills of Shane Trejo and David Dudenhoefer
    Shane Trejo (left) and David Dudenhoefer Credit: YouTube screen shots

    Dudenhoefer and Trejo were joined by William Rauwerdink, an investment manager and the kind of behind-the-scenes political player that most voters never hear about. He’s held positions on state and local GOP committees and was indicted in 2003 on 16 felony counts related to one of the largest financial fraud schemes in Michigan’s history. He pleaded guilty to charges of fraud, conspiracy and making false statements to investigators. He served three years and nine months in prison and was ordered to pay $285 million in restitution to lenders and shareholders.

    Trejo didn’t respond to multiple requests for an interview, and Rauwerdink declined to speak on the record. But Dudenhoefer wanted to talk, mostly about what he sees as a quick and steady slide into authoritarianism since Trump left office. He says mask mandates, vaccine requirements and COVID-19 lockdowns imposed by Michigan’s Democratic governor have eroded his freedom and damaged the livelihoods of his family and friends. 

    “They’ve seen a government shut their business down,” he said. “They’ve seen a government force them to put a cotton mask around their face. They’ve seen things that they never thought they would see government do.”

    He said he and his wife spent the last several months in Florida so she could work as a nurse without being vaccinated against COVID-19. 

    He scoffed at the idea that Republicans are threatening democracy by refusing to accept the results of the election. Or that democracy is even what the country should strive for.

    “Well, the type of democracy I’m interested in is where the individual’s liberties are protected always,” he said, “and under a straight democracy that would come into question.”

    That being the case, he says majority rule is not what he’s looking for in a government.

    “Let’s do this then, OK? So if we got 300 million Americans and the majority of them decided to make cannibalization legal, and now we can just start eating each other,” he said. “I mean, does that make it right?”

    One of the people Dudenhoefer and his colleagues nominated to replace Monica Palmer was Robert Boyd, who said publicly last year that, had he been on the board of canvassers in 2020, he would not have certified Biden’s win. Asked why he thought the results were illegitimate, he said he didn’t know because he “wasn’t there.”

    Boyd declined to speak to Reveal.

    He wouldn’t say whether he would certify the elections in 2022 and 2024, which will both take place during his term on the board.

    “Well, Rob is somebody that’s just level-headed,” Dudenhoefer said. “I mean, he puts a lot of thought into things. And I don’t know the man well, you know, just so you understand that.” 

    Who Can Stop the Election Deniers?

    Dudenhoefer and his colleagues can’t just install the next canvasser directly, though. 

    Once party leaders decide on three nominees, they submit them to their county commission. The commissioners then vote on which one to appoint to the board. But that’s not what happened in Wayne County.

    In September, the Wayne County Commission met to appoint Palmer’s replacement. Fourteen of the 15 commissioners are Democrats. The lone Republican commissioner, Terry Marecki, made a motion to vote on appointing Boyd from the three candidates Dudenhoefer and company had nominated. But when commission Chair Alisha Bell asked for a second … silence. 

    No one spoke. 

    The commission could have challenged Boyd’s nomination. It was a public meeting, a chance for voters to better understand who administers their elections, how they get that power and what their motives are. 

    “I wanted to get that moron in front of us and put him through his paces,” said Tim Killeen, the only Wayne County commissioner to respond to an interview request for this story. “Do you even know what the job of canvasser is? Do you understand magisterial duties? Do you plan to violate your oath of office? I wanted to smoke him out under oath.”

    Yet he and his fellow Democrats quietly let that opportunity die on the floor. No one protested. No one raised a concern about the future of democracy. Just silence.

    Killeen believes Democrats on the commission suspected Boyd would not be an honest broker of democracy. But he argued that vocalizing that would’ve done little good. By law, if the commission doesn’t make the appointment, the task falls to the county clerk. He said his colleagues “didn’t want to get their hands dirty” by voting on his nomination.

    “I caved to political peer pressure,” he said. “I wanted to extract a few pounds of flesh. That was my desire, but it wasn’t my decision.” 

    In the end, Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett made the appointment. Boyd is now a Wayne County canvasser and will help administer the next election.

    Reveal producer Najib Aminy and former Reveal reporter Byard Duncan contributed to this story. It was edited by Andrew Donohue and Maryam Saleh and copy edited by Nikki Frick. 

    Trey Bundy can be reached at tbundy@revealnews.org. Follow him on Twitter: @TreyBundy.

    Inside the GOP’s Purge of Local Election Officials in Michigan is a story from Reveal. Reveal is a registered trademark of The Center for Investigative Reporting and is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • A view of the U.S. Supreme Court on January 18, 2022, in Washington, D.C.

    The United States Supreme Court sided with Republicans in the Wisconsin state legislature on Wednesday, overturning state legislative maps that had been approved by both Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and the conservative majority state Supreme Court.

    In an unsigned decision, the majority of the federal Supreme Court said that the state court had not given enough consideration to whether the Voting Rights Act required adding a seventh assembly district in the state Assembly that would be made up primarily of Black voters. The Court found that the state court “committed legal error” in failing to consider the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause when deciding on the maps.

    The ruling remands the case back to the state Supreme Court, which can reconsider Evers’s maps. But “any new analysis,” the federal High Court said, “must comply with our equal protection jurisprudence.”

    The addition of a seventh majority-Black district in the state would arguably fall in line with both the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection clause, given that Black residents in the state comprise close to 7 percent of the state’s total population.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissent blasting the decision as “unprecedented,” which Justice Elena Kagan signed on to.

    “The court today faults the State Supreme Court for its failure to comply with an obligation that, under existing precedent, is hazy at best,” Sotomayor said.

    In a separate ruling, the Supreme Court let maps that redrew U.S. congressional boundaries stand.

    Elections clerks in the state noted that the Supreme Court’s decision will complicate their work since the ruling essentially tosses out the state legislative maps, three weeks before candidates for office are set to start getting nomination papers signed by constituents.

    “We are 3 weeks away from Nomination papers being circulated, and because of the Right Wing SCOTUS action here, we do not have legislative districts,” Democratic Party insider George Gillis said.

    Several progressive organizations in the state spoke out against the ruling.

    “The rightwing justices on the U.S. Supreme Court swerved way out of their way to favor their Republican friends in the Wisconsin legislature. It is but the latest example of how nakedly partisan the high court has become,” said Matthew Rothschild of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

    Sachin Chheda of the Fair Elections Project noted the hypocrisy of the Court’s ruling — the Court had rejected Voting Rights Act claims in previous challenges from Democrats in other states, but accepted them when it helped Republicans in Wisconsin.

    “Never has it been clearer that the U.S. Supreme Court majority will do anything it can to advance Republican interests, rather than the law, the Constitution, and the will of the people,” Chheda said.

    Evers also seemed to agree with that assessment. In a statement reacting to the ruling, the Wisconsin governor noted that the Supreme Court “made a remarkable departure, even from their own recent actions, by deciding to reject our maps that the Wisconsin Supreme Court selected just a few weeks ago.”

    “Our maps are far better than Republicans’ gerrymandered maps we have now and their maps I vetoed last year,” Evers added, “and we are confident our maps comply with federal and state law, including the Equal Protection Clause, the Voting Rights Act, and the least-changes standard articulated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Workers drop ballots into a secure box at a ballot drop-off location in Austin, Texas, on October 13, 2020.

    The rate of rejected mail ballots soared in the March primary elections in Texas — and those rejections disproportionately affected Democrats, especially Black voters in the state’s biggest county.

    Nearly 23,000 ballots, or about 13% of all returned mail ballots, were thrown out across 187 Texas counties in the March primaries, according to an analysis by the Associated Press. In past election years, the rejection rate was around 1% to 2%, according to the Texas Tribune.

    The rejection rate hit more liberal areas of the state with more than 15% of mail ballots thrown out in Democratic-leaning counties, compared to 9.1% in Republican-leaning counties. In Tarrant County, election officials rejected 813 ballots in the Democratic primary under the new voter ID rules, but just three ballots in the Republican primary, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

    One of the highest rates of rejections was in Harris County, which includes Houston and is the state’s largest population center (and the third most populous county in the nation). Election officials were forced to discard nearly 7,000 ballots there, about 19% of all returned mail ballots. They threw out just 0.3% of returned mail ballots in the 2018 primaries.

    The March election data also shows a stark racial disparity, according to an analysis by The New York Times. Voters in areas of Harris County with large Black populations were 44% more likely to have their mail ballots tossed than voters in areas with large white populations.

    Texas already limits mail voting to voters over 65 or those who have a verified excuse to vote absentee. The startling increase in mail ballot rejections could foreshadow an even larger wave of thrown-out ballots in the general election, which is likely to see much higher turnout. That could potentially be echoed in the 18 other states that have imposed harsh new voting restrictions after former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election loss.

    Most of the rejected ballots were flagged under a provision in the new voting law that requires voters to provide their driver’s license number or a partial Social Security number. Some voters left the field blank or entered an ID number different than the one election officials had on file. The state provides a limited period of time for voters to correct problems on their ballots, but the vast majority of ballots flagged for rejection were not fixed before the deadline.

    The reason for the disparities in rejection rates between Texas counties is unclear. While Harris County, which has 2.5 million registered voters, rejected about 19% of mail ballots, Dallas County, which has 1.4 million registered voters, rejected only about 9.5% of mail ballots.

    Geographic and demographic differences between those counties could well play a role. Harris County spans more than 1,700 square miles, nearly twice as much as Dallas County, which made it challenging to “reach every voter with very limited resources,” Harris County Elections spokeswoman Nadia Hakim said in an email to Salon.

    Hakim also said that Harris County officials “did not receive any guidance or materials from the Texas Secretary of State, nor did we receive a budget to run campaigns or advertisements to educate voters on the changes.” She added that county election officials spent three months educating voters before the election and allocating staff to focus on outreach to voters whose ballots were marked for rejection.

    Hakim said that her office “is deeply troubled by the number of mail ballot rejections” during the March primary, especially considering the much lower number of rejections in 2018. “The new voting laws brought on by Senate Bill 1 are leading to the disenfranchisement of Harris County’s most vulnerable populations, including communities of color, the elderly, and voters with disabilities.”

    Sam Taylor, a spokesman for the Texas secretary of state’s office, told Salon that state officials have heard from county officials that the vast majority of rejected mail ballots “were due to voters who did not provide any ID information on their carrier envelope,” even though they had successfully applied for a mail-in ballot using the same ID information.

    Taylor said the office is now devoting “a significant portion of our voter education campaign to enhancing awareness of the new mail-in ballot ID requirements.” He continued, “We are confident we will have all the information we need to apply any lessons learned during the primary to an even more robust voter education campaign” directed at the general election in November.

    Voting rights groups are skeptical that Texas officials will do enough, and say the stark increase in ballot rejections demonstrates the need for federal intervention.

    “Texas was already the hardest state to vote in before Republicans passed these laws that made it even harder,” said Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of Common Cause Texas, in a statement to Salon. “What we’re seeing today is a small preview of what we can expect to see at a far wider scale in November unless the federal government finally takes real action to intervene.”

    Gutierrez said the Texas secretary of state’s office was repeatedly told about the potential for these problems when the voting-restriction bill was going through committee. He suggested that state officials had “ample opportunity” to address these issues but “instead chose to focus on playing politics [as] implementation was left to local officials who received little to no guidance or communication from our state’s chief election officer.” He predicted “far bigger problems in November when we have exponentially more people showing up to the polls.”

    Last November, the Justice Department sued Texas over the new voting law, alleging that restrictive measures in the bill violate both the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. The complaint specifically notes that the provision requiring the rejection of mail ballots due to “certain paperwork errors or omissions that are not material to establishing a voter’s eligibility to cast a ballot” violates the Civil Rights Act.

    The bill’s restrictions on “which absentee ballots cast by eligible voters can be accepted by election officials are unlawful and indefensible,” DOJ Civil Rights Division chief Kristen Clarke said last year.

    More than a dozen Texas Democrats sent a letter to Clarke earlier this month asking the federal government to expedite its lawsuit against the state due to an “unprecedented” increase in rejected mail ballots.

    “Unfortunately, this wrongdoing is a direct — and intended — result of Texas Senate Bill 1 … with the sole purpose of making it more difficult for Texans to vote and, thereby, undermining the democratic process,” the letter said, calling on the Justice Department to “deploy the necessary resources to combat this injustice.”

    Rep. Mark Veasey, the lead author of the letter, said in a statement that the “destructive” Republican voting law “disproportionately undermines the voice — and vote — of minority and low-income communities.”

    It’s by no means clear that the federal lawsuit will succeed, especially since it is likely at some point to come before the current Supreme Court, whose conservative supermajority has already let other legally dubious election laws stand. Attorney General Merrick Garland warned last year that the DOJ’s power to protect voting rights was limited after the Supreme Court gutted part of the Voting Rights Act that required states with a history of discrimination to pre-clear any electoral changes with the department.

    Democrats have repeatedly attempted to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore the pre-clearance requirement (among other voting reforms) but it has been repeatedly filibustered by Republicans. Two “moderate” Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have rejected their own party’s efforts to repeal the filibuster, effectively dooming the legislation (which both claim to support).

    Voting rights groups say the Senate needs to renew its effort to pass the voting rights legislation ahead of the upcoming elections. The Texas law “caused heart-breaking confusion” in the March primaries that “hit older voters and voters with disabilities particularly hard,” Grace Chimene, president of the League of Women Voters of Texas, said in a statement to Salon.

    “In Harris County, older Black voters were especially impacted by this anti-voter legislation,” Chimene said. “This law is a throwback to the poll taxes of the Jim Crow era. … The federal Voting Rights Act must be restored to ensure that every voter in Texas — regardless of where they live, what they look like, how old they are, if they have disabilities, or what language they speak — has equal access to the ballot box.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Votes wait to be counted by staff at the Maricopa County Elections Department office on November 5, 2020, in Phoenix, Arizona.

    The Arizona Senate on Wednesday passed a Republican-authored bill that advocates warn could prompt “the most extreme voter purge in the country” by requiring state residents to retroactively provide proof of citizenship to stay on the rolls.

    Marilyn Rodriguez, founder of the Arizona-based firm Creosote Partners, argued in a Twitter thread that H.B. 2492 is a “monumentally terrible attack on our elections.”

    “Take the proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration, which was adopted in ’04. By making this a requirement for voters, this bill would retroactively apply it to the millions of AZ voters registered before the proof of citizenship law took effect 18 years ago,” Rodriguez explained. “Arizona is the only state in the nation with a documentary proof of citizenship requirement currently in force, but it exempts previously registered voters. But this bill would do away with that protection.”

    Without intervention by the Arizona Supreme Court, Rodriguez continued, “the clear language here means that to be eligible to vote — regardless of when you registered — you need to have shown proof of citizenship.”

    “Imagine how many of Arizona’s 4.35 million registered voters would be immediately forced off the rolls or given just 30 days to provide proof of their citizenship, such as a birth or naturalization certificate,” she wrote. “This is a recipe for chaos, not election integrity, and it would likely cut the state’s electorate in half overnight. If Arizona proceeds with this bill, it will draw numerous lawsuits and be in lonely, uncharted waters defending the indefensible.”

    Just one of a slew of voter suppression measures that the GOP-controlled Arizona legislature is currently working to advance — including a bill to abolish early voting — H.B. 2492 now heads to Republican Gov. Doug Ducey’s desk, having passed the state House last month along party lines.

    Arizona, which President Joe Biden carried narrowly in 2020, emerged as a flashpoint in efforts by former President Donald Trump and his Republican allies to overturn the election results.

    Following the November 2020 presidential contest, state Republicans fueled by Trump’s baseless claims of fraud hired the now-defunct firm Cyber Ninjas to conduct an audit of ballots in the state’s most populous county. The review ultimately found that Biden won the election.

    But Arizona Republicans, as evidenced by H.B. 2492 and other legislation, have yet to abandon their unfounded narrative that the state’s election system is riddled with unlawful voting and “foreign interference.”

    “A group of Arizona legislators continue to directly attack democracy and voting rights using every tool at their disposal,” Alex Gulotta, Arizona state director of All Voting Is Local, said in a statement Wednesday. “Ducey must veto H.B. 2492, which creates illegal barriers to voting for the people of Arizona by imposing improper requirements on voter registration.”

    Gulotta warned that the legislation, sponsored by state Rep. Jake Hoffman (R-12), requires “anyone who registered to vote before 2005 to provide additional documentation” and “targets voters born outside the United States for special scrutiny and investigation.”

    “Bills like this one are being passed through the Arizona legislature to appease a small, but loud group of legislators who are basing their decisions on unfounded claims from the sham election review conducted by the discredited and defunct Cyber Ninjas,” said Gulotta. “This is the latest anti-voter measure from a group of legislators who are more interested in grabbing power than protecting the will of the people. Even though their own Senate rules attorney told them this bill was illegal, they continue to recklessly squander taxpayer money by provoking inevitable and expensive litigation.”

    H.B. 2492 is one of more than 250 bills that state-level Republicans nationwide have intro­duced, pre-filed, or carried over into 2022 in an effort to restrict ballot access, according to the latest tally by the Brennan Center for Justice.

    “Across the country, Republican state legislators are trying to purge voters and erect massive barriers to the ballot box in order to choose their voters and exclude everyone else,” said Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America. “Arizona’s H.B. 2492 is one of the most egregious examples of anti-voter legislation being peddled by the GOP under the guise of election integrity.”

    “But there’s no hiding their true intentions; this bill places a disproportionate — and often insurmountable — burden on older, minority, and low-income voters,” Harvey added. “A vote for H.B. 2492 is a vote to disenfranchise Arizonans. Governor Ducey must now decide whether he’s on the side of everyday Arizonans or the Republican legislators who are trying to silence their voices.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Black voters at polling place

    The Louisiana Senate recently continued the state’s long history of racial oppression by voting down Sen. Cleo Fields’s congressional redistricting map. What’s more, the Louisiana House voted down Rep. Randal Gaines’s congressional redistricting map. Gaines is a veteran and civil rights attorney who represents one of the areas hardest hit by Hurricane Ida (river parishes), and Fields is an attorney and former congressman. Gaines’s and Fields’s proposals included two majority-minority districts (electoral districts where the majority of the constituents are people of color) giving them an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice — something Black voters in the state advocated for. Since the Black population has grown in Louisiana, an additional seat representing this shift is warranted, just and fair.

    But in Louisiana, as in other parts of the country, map drawers are refusing to create new electoral opportunities for communities of color. What’s more, they are actively dismantling Black voting power by carving up Black communities in some states or packing Black communities into fewer districts in other states. These manipulative tactics make it harder for Black voters to elect candidates of choice, regardless of turnout or Black population growth.

    We’ve seen this play out time and again in Louisiana, where Black voters have not always been treated equitably. My organization, the Power Coalition for Equity & Justice, understood this history and participated in a statewide roadshow allowing legislators and voters to directly engage around redistricting. Throughout the roadshow, which ran from October 20, 2021, through January 20, 2022, voters shared extensive testimony on the importance of representation.

    Across the state, countless voters expressed the need for legislators to add an additional majority-minority district given that 33 percent of the state’s population is Black. Louisiana has six congressional districts; one-third of six is two. Rather than surrendering to the will of the people or the logic of population growth, legislators continue machinations that will silence voters.

    State Sen. Sharon Hewitt suggested she was actually protecting Black voters by not creating a second majority-minority district because she didn’t think a 51 or 52 percent majority-Black district would turn out to vote, meaning they wouldn’t be able to elect a candidate of choice. But many Black voters would take 51 or 52 percent any day over not having a committed and representative voice. No legislator should be able to unilaterally decide what voters need; voters should have more influence.

    In the absence of a process that levels the playing field by allowing voters to select who represents them, legislators have outsized influence. For instance, our current congressional House delegation sits on several powerful committees. As the second-poorest state in the country, Louisianians are not benefiting or growing from this representation. In fact, our delegation recently voted against the president’s infrastructure bill, with the exception of Congressman Troy Carter, who currently holds the only majority-Black seat. Their resistance could have blocked a wonderful opportunity to invest in crumbling infrastructure. This is a risk we cannot continue to take.

    It is clear that any maps with an additional district will never make it out of committee. State leaders will certainly try to amend on the floor, much like they did on the Senate side, when State Senator Fields made a powerful and compelling plea for his colleagues to do the right thing.

    The next step is for a map with only one majority-minority district to go before Gov. John Bel Edwards, who can and should veto the map. Edwards should unite with the people of color in his state, particularly since Black voters helped propel him into office. For his part, Governor Edwards said he would veto unfair maps.

    He would be in good company. Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky and Gov. Laura Kelly of Kansas vetoed the racially discriminatory maps put forth by legislatures in their states. Their vetoes were overturned, but their willingness to support the people of their state will be reflected in the history books. Moreover, several residents from three Kansas counties sued to block the state’s newly passed congressional maps, which conservatives in the state passed in early February.

    Louisiana has the second-largest Black population in the country, second only to Mississippi. If the governors of Kansas and Kentucky, who have much smaller Black populations, can stand for equity and fairness, Governor Edwards can certainly do the same.

    There can be no protection without representation.

    Much of what has happened during our redistricting process seems to be heading toward litigation. I hope Louisiana’s leaders remember that we experienced a 4.8 percent drop in the white population, and demographic trends show that it will continue to decrease. My question is: When our population shifts to a white minority, will legislators think it is fair, given the decisions they have made to continue to racially gerrymander and silence the voices of voters of color? I hope Louisiana’s leaders consider that people of color represent more than 40 percent of the population, and with the current maps being considered, only receive less than 25 percent of the representation. In what scenario would anyone take less than they deserve?

    The truth is that immigration is driving population shifts in the United States. And most of the people immigrating to this country are people of color, including Black immigrants. Legislators cannot hold communities of color hostage by continually drawing district lines that ignore population growth.

    As we think about redistricting, we should ground it in the broader fight for freedom. As Davante Lewis, director of public affairs and outreach for the Louisiana Budget Project, noted in his testimony before the House Governmental Affairs Committee, Black people have endured decades of trauma. Legislators can help ensure progress by drawing fair maps and allowing voters of color to elect candidates of their choice. To gaslight voters by downplaying their population growth is a continuation of their traumatic history.

    All people deserve elected officials who will advocate for them. Legislators should not be able to cherry-pick their voters. But unless and until we have an equitable process, legislators will continue to thwart the will of the people, especially when the people are Black, people of color, or persons living in poverty.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Washington, D.C.: The Difficulties of Firing Police Officers

    A group of hackers attacked the Metropolitan Police Department in 2021, leaking 250 gigabytes of data and confidential files.

    Buried in tens of thousands of records, Reveal reporter Dhruv Mehrotra found a disturbing pattern. Records of disciplinary decisions showed that an internal panel of high-ranking officers kept some troubled officers on the force – even after department investigators substantiated allegations of criminal misconduct and recommended they be fired.

    Aurora, Colorado: ‘Excited Delirium’ and Ketamine in Police Confrontations 

    When Elijah McClain was stopped by police in Aurora, Colorado, in 2019, he was injected with a powerful sedative, ketamine, and died after suffering cardiac arrest. His death sparked widespread protests.

    KUNC reporters Michael de Yoanna and Rae Solomon covered McClain’s case, and it made them wonder how often paramedics and law enforcement use ketamine and why. What they found led to real change.

    St. Louis: The History of Prisoner Disenfranchisement Laws in Missouri

    Prisoner disenfranchisement laws have been on the books since the founding of our nation and disproportionately affect voters of color. 

    Reveal Investigative Fellow and St. Louis Public Radio journalist Andrea Henderson reports from Missouri, where about 63,000 formerly incarcerated people could not vote in the last presidential election. She speaks to a community activist who credits getting his right to vote restored as the start of putting him on his current path.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • Voters line up at a polling station to cast their ballots during the presidential primary in Houston, Texas on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.

    Early voting for a March 1 primary election opened yesterday in Texas, where civil rights groups are warning the Republican Secretary of State John B. Scott of a “crisis of confidence” among voters as election officials scramble to implement the state’s punitive new election law.

    According to a letter to Scott signed by 30 civil rights groups this week, he squandered precious time “chasing down” former President Donald Trump’s conspiracy theories about the 2020 election results when state officials should have prioritized helping voters and election officials navigate Senate Bill 1, the new restrictions on voting and mail-in ballots that Republicans rammed through the state legislature last year.

    “Altogether, the issues stemming from the passage of anti-voter Senate Bill 1 create multiple deliberate barriers to voting with far-reaching consequences,” said Charlie Bonner, communications director for MOVE Texas Action Fund, in a statement. “These failures have led to mass confusion surrounding our voting processes that continue to undermine trust in our elections.”

    Scott briefly signed onto one Trump’s ill-fated lawsuits that attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential vote in Pennsylvania before Republican Gov. Greg Abbott appointed him to Texas secretary of state last year. For Republicans, Scott is a champion of “election integrity,” a buzzword describing the idea that restrictions on voting are needed to prevent fraud. Despite Trump’s claims, there is no evidence of widespread fraud in 2020 or any other recent election, and critics say Texas Republicans are continuing a longstanding tradition of diluting the voting power of people of color, workers and people with disabilities.

    The uncertainty and confusion hanging over the Texas primaries was underscored late last Friday when a federal judge in San Antonio issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of a portion of the voter restriction law that made it crime for public officials to encourage or “solicit” applications to vote by mail. Plaintiff election officials said the restrictions violated their First Amendment rights and made it difficult to help elderly and disabled people apply for mail-in ballots without potentially committing a criminal offense.

    Scott’s office did not respond to Truthout’s request for comment, but a spokesman told Politico that some county officials have “almost been overly restrictive on themselves.” But the incentive to be “restrictive” is clear: “Unlawfully soliciting” mail-in ballots is now a felony punishable by 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $10,000, according to the Texas Tribune.

    Across the state, officials have complained about rejecting large numbers of mail-in ballot applications due to confusion over the law’s cumbersome new ID requirements. Senate Bill 1 also enhanced criminal penalties and paperwork for people who assist voters, creating hurdles for elderly and disabled voters and the people who care for them.

    Officials have rushed to update forms to alert voters to new rules and penalties ahead of the midterms, and Scott’s office was initially forced to ration voter registration forms after running out of paper due to problems in the supply chain.

    “This was a seismic blunder that threatened many thousands of eligible voters, and which you worked to fix only after a massive public outcry,” the groups wrote in the letter.

    Scott’s office has responded to lawsuits and public outcry by issuing guidance on a rolling basis, but advocates say Scott still has not done enough to educate voters about new rules and procedures for mail-in voting. For example, Scott’s office rolled out a new website for tracking mail-in ballots, but most voters don’t know about it, according to the letter.

    “Unlike Secretary Scott, we have been working directly with voters to provide the support and guidance that they deserve in the wake of the confusion of Senate Bill 1,” said Stephanie Gómez, associate director for Common Cause Texas, in a statement.

    The groups said public confidence in Texas elections was already eroding before Abbott appointed Scott last year. In 2019 and again in 2022, attempts at purging non-citizens from voter rolls have wrongly targeted naturalized citizens and intimidated immigrant voters.

    In 2020, Scott’s predecessor forced election officials in Harris County, which includes most of Houston, to abandon a plan to send mail-in ballot applications to every registered voter due the pandemic, according to civil rights groups. Republican election officials also worked with Abbott to severely limit the number of mail-in ballot drop boxes available to voters shortly before the 2020 election.

    Texas Republicans went on to pass Senate Bill 1, which the Justice Department has challenged in court in defense of elderly and disabled voters. Republicans passed the new penalties for encouraging or “unlawful soliciting” of mail-in votes after a series of legal fights with Democratic election officials in Harris Country and other populous areas over the issue. Mail-in ballots are highly controversial in Republican-led Texas, where high voter turnout in 2020 left Trump with a narrower margin of victory over President Joe Biden than the former president may have expected in a traditionally red state.

    In September, Trump demanded that Abbott pass legislation authorizing a “forensic audit” of ballots in Texas long after state officials declared the 2020 election “smooth and secure.” Within hours of Trump’s request, Scott’s predecessor ordered an audit of the results in the state’s four largest and most diverse counties, including Harris County. Abbott appointed Scott to take over as secretary of state soon after.

    Initial results of the review released last month found few discrepancies, confirming what many observers in Texas already knew: There was no widespread voter fraud in 2020. Voting rights advocate chalk it up to a thinly veiled and hyper-partisan attempt to bolster Republican conspiracy theories about a stolen election that fueled a wave of voter suppression efforts in Texas and other states.

    The civil rights groups say Scott has been vocal about making the election audit his “first and foremost” priority while his office should have been preparing for a primary election with new voting restrictions in place. They say Scott must use the time remaining before the March 1 vote to expand efforts to educate voters about the changes, issue clearer guidance to local officials, and protect voters from intimidation by partisan poll watchers who are empowered to intervene at polling locations under Senate Bill 1.

    “The longer these issues go unaddressed, the more voters [are] impacted, and the more extreme the impacts on our democracy become,” Bonner said.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Demonstrators stand outside of the Georgia Capitol building, to oppose a bill that will add voting restrictions to the state's upcoming elections on March 3, 2021, in Atlanta, Georgia.

    A new wave of power grabs by Georgia’s Republican legislators is threatening to wrest control of key local government bodies where Democrats, often people of color, have recently been elected and currently hold governing majorities.

    The Republican moves are an effort to consolidate political control after passing sweeping legislation in 2021 that limited popular early voting options, and allowed state officials to oust county election officials and possibly overturn results.

    The latest power grabs are occurring under the umbrella of reconfiguring political districts after the 2020 census, and they target county commissions, school boards and prosecutors in the metro-Atlanta region and other areas where recent elections have left Republicans as political minorities.

    “They are not waiting for the [next] election,” said Richard Rose, Atlanta NAACP president. “That’s not quick enough for the powers that run Georgia.”

    “They used to believe in local control,” said Helen Butler, a civil rights activist who was purged from Morgan County’s Board of Elections by GOP legislation passed in 2021. “The legislature is now coming in and saying, ‘we don’t like the maps that local people put together,’ and they’re drawing their own maps… They want total control.”

    Legislation that is now progressing includes Republican-drawn maps for county commissions in several metro-Atlanta counties, where numerous elected Democrats, who are Black, say they are being targeted for replacement by Republicans, who are white. In one of those counties, Gwinnett, home to the state’s largest school district and most diverse demographics, a bill would make its school board elections nonpartisan — masking a candidate’s party — and reschedule the election months before November, when voter turnout is lower.

    The school board’s new chair, Tarece Johnson, speaking at a statehouse press conference on January 27, said the Senate-passed legislation was “targeting people of color and attempting to suppress the vote, erase their historical truths and censor diverse perspectives.” Republicans pressing for the change have attacked the board’s leadership, which only recently changed to control by elected Democrats, as incompetent.

    That same charge, of managerial incompetence, has been used to justify legislation that passed in 2021 to remove local election officials, such as in Spalding County on Atlanta’s outskirts. It is also the rationale of another bill that would allow a newly created state panel to fire elected prosecutors, which is the latest development in a GOP effort to unseat Deborah Gonzalez, the state’s first Latina district attorney, who won after pledging to ignore low-level drug offenses.

    “It was a very progressive platform, and I was very vocal about wanting to run to address systemic racism,” Gonzalez told the Marshall Project, a media outlet covering the justice system.

    County-level partisan targeting often escapes coverage by national media. In Georgia, however, a national battleground state where demographic changes have evenly divided its electorate, the Republican takeover attempts follow 2021 legislation that rolled back early in-person and mail-based voting options, and empowered a GOP-run state board to purge election officials in eight counties. Voting rights advocates fear 2021’s legislation could set the stage for overturning election results. The latest power grabs worry but do not surprise advocates.

    “We are hearing more and more that the worst abuses, the worst discriminatory redistricting and gerrymandering is playing out at the local level,” said Yurij Rudensky, a redistricting counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. “This is becoming an increasing concern in states that were formerly covered by [preclearance in] Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This is the first redistricting cycle to occur without those protections.”

    “In decades past, all of these sorts of changes, whether it is where district lines fall or the size of local governing bodies, county school boards, city councils, etc., would be assessed [by federal officials in Washington] for their tendency to diminish the influence of communities of color,” he said. “And there was certainly a deterrent effect because a legislature like Georgia’s legislature would know that what they were doing would have to pass muster.”

    But outside of the Atlanta-based policy and activist circles that are tracking the power grabs, many Georgia voters are not yet aware of the Republicans’ latest moves, said Julius Johnson, who runs a democracy center in rural Hawkinsville — in mid-Georgia — that includes a food bank, meeting space, Black history museum and library, and hosts voter drives.

    “Typically, locally, people don’t realize the importance of the local elections,” said Johnson, a Democrat who lost a 2020 bid for the state Senate. “We have to articulate very clearly what’s happening here — ‘Here is the Republican strategy to get these people in at the local levels’ — so that we can get people to step up their game with participation and keep people voting.”

    Deepening Structural Racism?

    Many Democrats have described the latest GOP moves as the latest structural racism in Georgia politics. The bills to redraw local districts, change who serves on local boards, alter the timing of local elections, and expand ways to unseat locally elected officials are seen by these officials as imposing rules that will steepen the path for people of color to hold majority power. The latest bills come after Republicans in 2021 reversed policies that made early voting easier.

    “They’re leveraging their power wherever they happen to have it,” said Ray McClendon, Atlanta NAACP political action chair. “If you look at all of these [voting] changes, it is not to take us back to Jim Crow where you have to count jellybeans in a jar to vote. All they need to do is just take off three, four or five percent of voter turnout and they will accomplish what they want.”

    McClendon said that the GOP’s 2021 election reforms were designed to discourage voting and disqualify votes cast early — which is when many working-class Georgians prefer to vote. Unlike the aftermath of the 2020 election when Donald Trump pressured top state officials to “find” enough votes for him to win, McClendon said the GOP’s strategy is for local officials to winnow votes.

    “The combination of all of these [rule] changes on the mail-in ballot, no longer being able to have Sunday voting in certain cases because they stacked local election boards, the narrowing of the dates for early voting, the cutting back on the number of voting locations and drop boxes — they don’t sound like they are onerous provisions individually,” McClendon explained. “But when you take them collectively, and you take the fact that every one of these is in a state that is purple, these are steps that are intended to ensure minority rule.”

    Data suggests McClendon’s analysis is correct. In November 2021’s municipal elections, the number of rejected absentee ballots increased 45-fold when compared to the percentage that were rejected in November 2020’s presidential election. The GOP’s 2021 law required that all ballot applications and returned ballots be accompanied by a photocopy of a voter’s ID.

    Republicans, notably, have rejected the accusations of racism surrounding their voting reforms and county gerrymanders as “ugly” and “baseless.” They have defended their bills as efforts to make local government more representative, especially in parts of Atlanta where whites may now be in the political minority. (GOP sections of the city have repeatedly tried to secede.)

    “I do believe that all of the communities in our county matter,” Rep. Bonnie Rich, R-Suwanee, whose map redrawing county commissioner districts in Gwinnett County passed her chamber, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “That is why I drew lines that represent those distinct communities.”

    Rep. Houston Gaines, a Republican who represents a portion of Athens, a city about 70 miles east of Atlanta, told the newspaper that the legislature-imposed maps “protect the voice of every Athenian… [thus] ensuring greater opportunities for minority communities.”

    Critics like the NAACP’s Rose say that rhetoric — portraying white Republicans as victims of discrimination after losing to people of color — is offensive. It also masks what is unfolding.

    “It is a complete overhaul of the system that we know of,” Rose said. “They have to make sure that they control the elections, that they control the counting, that they control how absentee ballots are processed… And, in some counties, like Gwinnett, for example, where the county commission is all Democratic, they now want to change that. They want to change the school board… They feel they must change it if it does not allow them to maintain power.”

    Georgia’s 2022 Primaries

    There are many signs that Georgia’s upcoming primaries on May 24 will be chaotic for election officials, candidates, campaigns, and groups urging voters to turn out. The ballot will feature each party’s nominees for federal, state, and local office, including local judgeships. In short, the legislature’s election law and voting rule changes (and federal redistricting litigation) have left many issues unresolved, which makes it harder to inform voters about what will affect them.

    In August 2021, the Georgia Association of Voter Registrars and Election Officials (GAVREO) passed a resolution in which they “implore[d]” the legislature to postpone 2022’s primary from May to June, because the officials needed time to make “complicated redistricting changes,” such as finalizing maps, allocating resources and related planning before candidates could file to run for office.

    GAVREO’s plea was ignored, just as, several months before, a handful of counties with Black election officials (administrators and policymakers) were “blind-sided” when their lobbyists discovered that GOP legislators were drafting bills to fire them (by requiring they live in the county) or to purge election board members (who were Democrats), according to emails obtained by American Oversight, a progressive law group that has used public document requests to expose numerous anti-democratic effort by pro-Trump Republicans.

    All of Georgia’s 159 counties are affected by the post-2020 legislation. But the counties that have been additionally targeted in specific legislation have notable populations of color. As a result, organizers like the NAACP’s McClendon or Helen Butler, who is executive director of the Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, a civil rights group, have been scrambling to track the changes to help voters chart a path through what she says is intentional chaos.

    “They’re throwing so much stuff at us that we just have to put things in place,” Butler said. “Our ‘Democracy Squads’ monitor boards of elections to see what they’re planning on doing with regards to the vote… We send people to meetings. We get their minutes. We basically try to get people to report to us in real time so that we know what’s going on.”

    “The chaos is real,” McClendon said. “It builds on what they are already doing to marginalize a percentage of voters. They are creating so many whack-a-mole situations that all we are doing as activists is trying to beat down one thing after another and then another thing pops us.”

    In the meantime, the NAACP and its allies from the 2020 campaign — which include professional associations in communities of color and data-driven grassroots campaign experts — are looking to revive those networks and stand up “democracy centers” across the state, so that ordinary Georgians have trusted sources for addressing local needs, including voting.

    “We have talked about the issues to raise, and one has to be true patriotism,” Rose said. “You cannot support the insurrection of January 6, and if you’re a veteran you cannot support the Confederacy… We’re also going to talk about bread-and-butter issues like Medicaid expansion, because rural hospitals are closing. And education, because the GOP is losing its mind over critical race theory, which has never been taught in public schools.”

    But while Rose is looking to reactivate the grassroots networks that led Georgia to elect a Democratic presidential candidate and two Democratic U.S. senators in 2020, the Republican-run state legislature is seeking to reconfigure state and county election districts and boards in Georgia’s blue epicenters — by finding ways to oust popularly elected representatives.

    “It’s untethering policymaking from public will and from voter preference in response to changing demographics and the political changes and policy preferences changes that go along with that,” said the Brennan Center’s Rudensky. “It’s very concerning because it really cuts to the heart of what our system is supposed to be about.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.