Category: Voting rights

  • GOP Attack on “Election Fraud” Is Really an Attack on Black Voters

    Many events marking the first anniversary of the deadly January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol are focusing on voting rights, as false claims about voter fraud have fueled Republican efforts to restrict voting access, especially for Black voters. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed Tuesday to proceed with a vote to change the filibuster rule to prevent Republicans from blocking new voting rights legislation. Professor Carol Anderson, author of White Rage and One Person, No Vote, says former President Trump’s false claims about voter fraud prompted a wave in 2021 of some of the most aggressive and racist assaults on voting rights in recent U.S. history. “It is Jim Crow 2.0,” Anderson says of Republican voter suppression waged through state legislation. “It is designed to make sure we have minority rule in the United States, that we don’t have a democracy.”

    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.

    More than 200 vigils and events across the United States today will mark the first anniversary of the deadly January 6 insurrection at the Capitol, when a largely white mob of Trump supporters tried to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election and subvert democracy. Many of today’s events will focus on voting rights, as former President Trump’s false claims about voter fraud have fueled Republican efforts to restrict voting access. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed Tuesday to proceed with a vote to change the filibuster rule to prevent Republicans from blocking new voting rights legislation.

    MAJORITY LEADER CHUCK SCHUMER: There is no better way to heal the damage of January 6th than to act so that our constitutional order is preserved for the future. If we do not act to protect our elections, the horrors of January 6th will risk becoming not the exception but the norm. The stakes could not be higher, so we are going to move forward.

    AMY GOODMAN: But Democratic leadership may lack the votes needed. On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin voiced skepticism about changing the filibuster rules.

    SEN. JOE MANCHIN: Let me just say, to being open to a rules change that would create a nuclear option, it’s very, very difficult. That’s a heavy lift.

    AMY GOODMAN: For more, we go to Atlanta, Georgia, to speak with Carol Anderson, professor at Emory University, author of One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression Is Destroying Our Democracy and White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide.

    Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Professor Anderson. Can you talk about what you think is at the root of Trump’s big lie about the election? It was a year ago today, January 6, not only the deadly insurrection — and maybe these are linked — but that a Black man, Reverend Raphael Warnock, and a Jewish man, Jon Ossoff, had just won the two Senate seats in Georgia.

    CAROL ANDERSON: Yes. And so, for me, what is at the root of this is the delegitimization of Black voters, the delegitimization of African Americans as citizens who have the right to vote. And we heard that in November and December, when you kept hearing about the big lie. And you heard Newt Gingrich talking about: “They stole the election in Philadelphia. They stole the election in Milwaukee. They stole the election in Atlanta.” Notice that he identified cities that have sizable Black populations, and linking those cities with the theft, with the theft of democracy, with the theft of this election, stealing it from good, honest, hard-working white folk. That was the subtext that led to the insurrection: the delegitimization of African Americans as citizens, as voters.

    AMY GOODMAN: And so, if you can talk about what was at the root of what was happening a year ago, the certifying of the national election? But also, it was not only about Biden. At this point a year ago, by the afternoon, it was very clear that the Senate would be Democrat. And you had this group of white supremacists, of right-wing extremists, one carrying a Confederate flag, marauding through the Capitol. Talk about the connection between those two and what you think has to happen now.

    CAROL ANDERSON: And so, the connection really is the assault on American democracy via what I call this bureaucratic violence of voter suppression. And what we saw in the 2020 election and in the 2021 runoff here in Georgia, the Senate runoff, was that you had this massive voter turnout by Democrats, by African Americans, by Asian Americans, by Latinos, by Indigenous people, who were voting for the Democrats. And that flipped the — that flipped the White House, and it flipped the Senate. And that flipping of the Senate to blue, that is what made the election, in the eyes of the white supremacists, in the eyes of the white nationalists, illegitimate.

    So, when you have Mo Brooks, out of Alabama, talking about, “If you only count the legal votes, then Trump is the winner,” so that means that the illegal votes are those for African Americans — are those coming from African Americans, are those votes coming from Latinos, are those votes coming from Native Americans, are those votes coming from Asian Americans. It’s saying that the only real Americans are white Americans, white conservative Americans. Those are the only real Americans. That is what is at the foundation of this assault. That is why you saw the Confederate flag being hauled up in the Capitol, something that Robert E. Lee wasn’t even able to do.

    AMY GOODMAN: Professor Anderson, your fellow Georgian, the oldest-ever living president, Jimmy Carter, just wrote an op-ed in The New York Times today, saying, “Our great nation now teeters on the brink of a widening abyss. Without immediate action, we are at genuine risk of civil conflict and losing our precious democracy.”

    So, as we look back, let’s also look forward to the 2024 election. There are 200 vigils that are being held today across the country about voting rights. You have this, well, some call him senator, some call him “the other President Joe” — that’s Joe Manchin — questioning whether he would change the filibuster rules. Talk about how filibuster links to voting and what the wave of voting suppression laws has — what has to be done about them.

    CAROL ANDERSON: And what really has to be done is that what we saw in the face of the big lie was that you had a number of states, including Georgia, that passed these voter suppression laws, that figured out how did African Americans, how did Latinos, how did Asian Americans, how did young folk, how did poor folk access the ballot box, and figure out a way how to shut that access down or to make it much more difficult. And you also had laws lowering the guardrails that protected this democracy from Trump being able to overturn the will of the voters. And so, that two-pronged attack is what is happening right now in our state laws.

    We need federal legislation to come in and protect the rights of American citizens to vote. That is the Freedom to Vote Act, and that is the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. We need both of those in place. But we’ve got this filibuster thing that says that you need to have 60 votes in order to even discuss this thing, to discuss protecting American democracy, to protect voting rights for American citizens. We need to have those laws passed so that we can have a free and fair election in 2024. The election is being rigged right in front of our very eyes. The ways to stop American citizens from voting, it is Jim Crow 2.0. It is designed to ensure that we have minority rule in the United States, that we don’t have a democracy. It is a way to subvert having a fully vibrant, multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious democracy. That is what’s on the table. That’s why the filibuster that is blocking federal voting rights legislation has to be stopped. Joe Manchin is wrong.

    AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to former Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro, who was speaking with Ari Melber on MSNBC and outlined his support for what he called the Green Bay sweep, a plan to overturn the election results in six states, including yours.

    PETER NAVARRO: The plan was simply this: We had over a hundred congressmen and senators on Capitol Hill ready to implement the sweep. The sweep was simply that. We were going to challenge the results of the election in the six battleground states. They were Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nevada.

    ARI MELBER: Do you realize you are describing a coup?

    PETER NAVARRO: No. I totally reject many of your premises there.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, that was Peter Navarro, Professor Anderson. And he included Georgia in that. And, of course, President Trump was putting enormous pressure on your Republican secretary of state to find the 11,000-plus votes, and the Republicans resisted. Today there’s no Republican leadership at the ceremonies at the Capitol. Your thoughts?

    CAROL ANDERSON: And it begins to tell you. So, right after the insurrection, the invasion of the Capitol, you had Republicans coming out being appalled, being aghast. But that flipped relatively quickly, and you saw this loyalty to Trump being the defining characteristic of being a Republican: You are loyal to Trump; you are loyal to overthrowing the will of the voters.

    And you saw here in Georgia, when Brad Raffensperger and Brian Kemp basically refused to bend to Trump’s will, how they have become anathema, so that Raffensperger lost the — the new law, legislation, here has removed his power on the state election board. And you saw there were billboards up defining Kemp and Raffensperger as enemies, as enemies of democracy, because they did not abide by Trump’s will. That is where we are right now, where we have a party that is loyal to a man and not loyal to the country, not loyal to American democracy, not loyal to the United States of America.

    AMY GOODMAN: Finally, would you call President Trump racist? Would you call the voter suppression laws that are being enacted around the country straightforward racist?

    CAROL ANDERSON: Trump is racist. Trump gained his political power on birtherism, which was denying the legitimacy of Barack Obama, a Black man.

    And the laws that are being passed, they are as subtle and as vicious as the Jim Crow laws that came up in the 1890s and the early 20th century. They don’t say, “We don’t want Black folks to vote,” but the laws are written in ways that use the characteristics, the socioeconomic characteristics, of African Americans to stop and block African Americans from being able to vote. So, if you thought those Jim Crow laws were racist, then the ones that we are dealing with right now are equally racist.

    AMY GOODMAN: Carol Anderson, professor at Emory University, author of the new book The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America, also author of One Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression Is Destroying Our Democracy and White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide.

    Next up, we look at the lead-up to the insurrection and what followed with Newsweek’s William Arkin. Stay with us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell speaks to reporters following a Senate Republican Policy Luncheon on Capitol Hill on January 4, 2022, in Washington, D.C.

    Since June, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Republican caucus have filibustered three separate Democratic voting rights bills, refusing to permit even a floor debate on the legislation as GOP-led states intensify their assault on the franchise.

    But with Senate Democrats gearing up for yet another attempt to strengthen federal voter protections, McConnell is signaling a willingness to cooperate with the majority party on a far more narrow reform effort — one that would entail tweaks to the obscure Electoral Count Act.

    “It obviously has some flaws,” McConnell said Wednesday of the 1887 statute, which sets out procedures for the counting of electoral votes and gives members of Congress the ability to dispute the results of presidential contests. Nearly 150 Republican lawmakers voted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, just hours after the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol last year.

    Reforms to the Electoral Count Act are “worth, I think, discussing,” the Kentucky Republican added.

    Voting rights advocates immediately sensed danger — and urged Democrats not to play along with the GOP leader.

    “It’s a trap!” the progressive organization Indivisible warned in an email to supporters late Wednesday as momentum behind Electoral Count Act reform continued to build, fueled by the work of right-wing organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute and Cato.

    Earlier Wednesday, both Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) — whose refusal to support filibuster reform is a major reason for Democrats’ failure to pass voting rights legislation — voiced support for the push to alter the Electoral Count Act.

    Manchin, who is facing pressure from a McConnell-aligned dark money group to uphold the 60-vote filibuster, told Politico that nascent discussions on the 1887 law are “a good start.”

    “At least they’ve got people talking now,” said the West Virginia Democrat. A bipartisan group convened by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has reportedly begun discussing a plan to reform the Electoral Count Act.

    A spokesperson for Sinema, meanwhile, said the Arizona senator “continues to believe bipartisan action is needed to strengthen our democracy and has been in constant contact with colleagues in both parties on this and other potential areas of common ground.”

    But voting rights campaigners and experts fear that growing focus on the Electoral Count Act will distract from more fundamental efforts to end voter suppression, partisan gerrymandering, and other anti-democratic practices that Republicans are deploying in states across the country ahead of the pivotal 2022 midterms.

    Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, wrote in a series of tweets earlier this week that while changes to the Electoral Count Act are worth pursuing, they would be no substitute for the passage of robust federal voter protections.

    “We must not deny the truth: that voter suppression schemes create obstacles designed to frustrate voting and drive down turnout among Black, Latino, Asian American, student, and disabled voters,” wrote Ifill. “It is an affront to democracy and a denial of full citizenship that must be addressed.”

    Indivisible co-executive director Ezra Levin expressed similar concerns in a statement Wednesday evening.

    “Who on this earth believes Mitch McConnell woke up this morning and decided to start caring about democracy? Nobody,” Levin said. “McConnell is working to outmaneuver Democrats.”

    Reforming the Electoral Count Act “would do nothing to reverse or prevent gerrymandering or voter suppression,” he continued. “If McConnell can convince Manchin and Sinema to go down this path, that would successfully sideline efforts to pass the big, consequential democracy bills that combat voter suppression.”

    “Our message to Senate Dems is simple: Don’t get distracted!” Levin added. “Pass the damn Freedom to Vote Act and John Lewis [Voting Rights Advancement Act], and don’t fall for McConnell’s tricks.”

    In a new petition, Indivisible urges Senate Democrats to “add reforms to the Electoral Count Act as an amendment to the Freedom to Vote Act to ensure these reforms are passed ALONGSIDE the other bills.”

    Thus far, it appears that the Senate Democratic leadership does not intend to back Electoral Count Act reform as a standalone alternative to the Freedom to Vote Act and other voting rights legislation.

    “The Electoral Count Act [reform] says you can rig the elections anyway you want and then we’ll count it accurately,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told Politico in an interview.

    The Freedom to Vote Act, a compromise measure crafted after the GOP and Manchin obstructed the more sweeping For the People Act, has the support of every member of the Senate Democratic caucus.

    If passed, the bill would establish Election Day as a legal public holiday, expand early and mail-in voting, prohibit partisan gerrymandering, and strengthen campaign finance regulations, among other reforms.

    But because no Republicans support the bill, the legislation has failed to reach the 60-vote threshold required under the current filibuster rule.

    While Schumer is vowing to pursue changes to the upper chamber’s rules if Republicans filibuster the Freedom to Vote Act a second time, Manchin has declined to endorse specific filibuster reforms.

    “Being open to a rules change that would create a nuclear option — it’s very, very difficult,” Manchin told reporters earlier this week, referring to the procedure by which Democrats could alter Senate rules without needing Republican votes.

    “It’s a heavy lift,” he added.

    Sean Eldridge, founder and president of Stand Up America, noted in response that “Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans reformed the filibuster to confirm three Trump Supreme Court nominees with simple majority votes.”

    “If 51 votes is good enough for a lifetime confirmation to the highest court in our land,” Eldridge wrote on Twitter, “it should be enough to protect our freedom to vote.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer talks to reporters following the weekly Senate Democratic policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on December 14, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has promised to set up a vote on changing the filibuster later this month if Republicans in the Senate continue to block voting rights legislation.

    This isn’t the first time Schumer has suggested changing filibuster rules as a means to subvert Republicans. In September, he hinted that Democrats could potentially change the filibuster rule after the For the People Act was blocked; a more moderate compromise bill offered by conservative Democrat Joe Manchin (West Virginia) was eventually blocked by a GOP filibuster too.

    Schumer made a similar promise to change filibuster rules in early November, after Republicans blocked voting rights legislation for the fourth time in less than a year — that time, it was the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would have allowed federal oversight on state election laws to prevent racial discrimination at the ballot box.

    This time, Schumer’s promise appears to hold more weight, as he’s selected a day for Democrats to vote on changing the filibuster.

    In a “Dear Colleague” letter on January 3, Schumer wrote about the anniversary of the January 6 Capitol attack, noting that the U.S. had faced numerous threats to its democracy since the 2020 presidential election — including the onslaught of Republican-backed voter suppression bills across the country.

    “Much like the violent insurrectionists who stormed the US Capitol nearly one year ago, Republican officials in states across the country have seized on the former president’s Big Lie about widespread voter fraud to enact anti-democratic legislation and seize control of typically non-partisan election administration functions,” Schumer wrote. “While these actions all proceed under the guise of so-called ‘election integrity,’ the true aim couldn’t be more clear. They want to unwind the progress of our Union, restrict access to the ballot, silence the voices of millions of voters, and undermine free and fair elections.”

    Schumer vowed that the Senate would “take strong action to stop this antidemocratic march” by passing voting rights protection bills. But Democrats must change filibuster rules to prevent Republicans from blocking such legislation, he added.

    “We must ask ourselves: if the right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy, then how can we in good conscience allow for a situation in which the Republican Party can debate and pass voter suppression laws at the State level with only a simple majority vote, but not allow the United States Senate to do the same?” Schumer said.

    The Senate “must evolve, like it has many times before,” to address the assault on democratic rights, Schumer went on. He said that a vote on changing the filibuster was scheduled for January 17 — Martin Luther King Jr. Day — “to protect the foundation of our democracy: free and fair elections.”

    Of course, it will be difficult for Democrats to persuade Republicans to allow the passage of voting rights legislation or to vote for altering the filibuster — and several moderates in the Democratic caucus have also expressed opposition to such a move, most notably Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. However, other moderates in the caucus, including Angus King (I-Maine), Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) and Jon Tester (D-Montana), have been negotiating with Manchin and Sinema since before the holidays to discuss amending the filibuster rule. Possible amendments to the rule could include returning to a standing or talking filibuster in order to block legislation.

    Schumer’s letter didn’t specify whether he wanted to make small changes to the filibuster or end the rule completely.

    Polling from March of last year indicated that most Americans are in favor of ending the filibuster completely if it would enable the passage of meaningful voting rights protections. In a Data for Progress/Vox survey, 52 percent of respondents said they would support altering the archaic Senate rule if it meant the For the People Act would get passed, while only 37 percent said they would be against it.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene speaks during a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol on February 5, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    In a social media post on Wednesday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) expressed openness to the idea that people should be temporarily banned from voting if they recently relocated from a Democratic-leaning state to a Republican-run one.

    In her tweet, Greene shared a statement from Pedro Gonzalez, an associate editor for the right-wing Chronicles Magazine, who said that he “actively” supports “discriminating against transplants” who come from Democratic-leaning states.

    “They shouldn’t be able to vote for a period, and they should have to pay a tax for their sins” of being from a liberal state, Gonzalez explained.

    Greene endorsed the idea and added her own commentary.

    “After Democrat voters and big donors ruin a state like California, you would think it wise to stop them from doing it to another great state like Florida,” Greene said. “Brainwashed people that move from CA and NY really need a cooling off period.”

    Greene said the idea would be especially possible “in a National Divorce scenario.” Although she didn’t elaborate on what that meant, her statement seemed to suggest that she was considering the possibility of Republican-led states seceding from the country.

    Of course, Greene has been more than willing to accept campaign contributions from out of state, including from the states she derided in her tweet. Greene “has raised $179K from CA donors in the current cycle, the most of any state, per FEC,” said Seema Mehta, a political writer for the Los Angeles Times.

    The Georgia congresswoman’s comments were widely disparaged on Twitter, including by lawmakers from the states she was criticizing.

    “Don’t ignore this,” warned Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-California). Greene’s comments demonstrate “what a GOP-run country looks like,” he went on.

    “They will take your right to vote if you don’t agree with them,” the congressman said, adding that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) is “fully behind” Greene’s extremist sentiments.

    The authoritarian and anti-democratic viewpoints espoused by Greene are increasingly common within the Republican Party, several historians have noted. If Republicans win in next year’s midterms or in the 2024 presidential race, some experts have warned that their leadership could push the United States toward fascism.

    “This is real, this is serious and it’s frightening,” said Brian Clardy, a professor of history at Murray State University. In the next two election cycles, “democracy itself will be on trial,” he added.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Voters can be seen at booths as people waiting in line in the foreground

    Republican state lawmakers are showing no signs of slowing down the “tidal wave of restrictive voting legislation” that ramped up across the country in 2021, according to a new analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice on Tuesday that warns such attacks are set to continue or even escalate in the New Year.

    The past year saw an undeniable acceleration of the passage of anti-democratic state laws, the Brennan Center reported Tuesday, with state legislatures enacting more voting restrictions in 2021 than in any year since the organization began tracking such laws in 2011. Nineteen states passed 34 restrictive laws between January 1 and December 7.

    The analysis points to several categories of anti-voting restrictions, including laws restricting access to voting by mail, new or expanded voter ID requirements, the criminalization of “ordinary, lawful behavior by election officials” who try to help voters, and laws allowing voter purges.

    The Brennan Center also highlighted “a new trend” in which “legislators introduced bills to allow partisan actors to interfere with election processes or even reject election results entirely,” such as Arizona’s H.B. 2720, which would empower state legislatures to reject election results and Texas’s S.B. 7, which would allow elected judges to do the same.

    Journalist and voting rights expert Ari Berman noted that despite the frenzied race by Republican lawmakers to pass laws they claim are aimed at maintaining “election integrity” — with 440 restrictive voting laws proposed in 2021 — zero states have found any evidence of widespread voter fraud.

    Looking ahead to 2022, at least 13 bills have been pre-filed in state legislatures in four states — Arizona, Missouri, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — meaning they’ll receive top priority when the new legislative session begins.

    “These early indicators — coupled with the ongoing mobilization around the Big Lie (the same false rhetoric about voter fraud that drove this year’s unprecedented wave of vote suppression bills) — suggest that efforts to restrict and undermine the vote will continue to be a serious threat in 2022,” reported the Brennan Center.

    Dozens of what the report called “carryover bills” — which have not reached resolution in 2021 and will be debated next year — focus on restricting voters’ access to mail-in voting. Republicans in Pennsylvania and Kansas aim to shorten deadlines for applying for and delivering mail ballots, while Ohio lawmakers will continue debating whether election workers can assist people who return ballots.

    Five carryover bills propose criminal penalties for election officials who mail out unsolicited ballots or for individuals who assist voters — including people with disabilities — with returning mail ballots.

    Out of at least 74 pre-filed bills, at least seven also target voting by mail, “including shortening the time period in which a mail ballot may be requested, eliminating Covid-19 as an excuse for voting by mail, and expanding the grounds on which an absentee ballot can be rejected.” In at least five states, six bills that have been pre-filed for 2022 aim to establish “illegitimate partisan review boards of election results,” the group reported.

    South Carolina’s H.B. 4550, for example, would amend the state’s code of laws “to create a joint committee to be known as the ‘Restore Election Integrity Now’ (REIN) Committee,” which would be empowered to review election security, the accuracy of the election process, and other aspects of voting.

    “These reviews have typically been designed to set the stage for future efforts to suppress votes and subvert election outcomes,” said the Brennan Center, noting that four of the six pre-filed bills focus on continuing “questionable and politically motivated reviews of the 2020 election results” like those that were initiated in six states in 2021, while two would set up review boards for future elections.

    Both are part of “a disturbing legislative trend,” said the organization, in which “partisan state legislators have empowered other partisan actors who are not part of the election administration process to access and review ballots and other materials.”

    The Brennan Center identified several states—including Arizona, Texas, Michigan, Missouri, and Pennsylvania—as “key states to watch” in the coming year, noting that their legislatures have already passed several restrictive bills and are set to try to enact even more.

    In Texas, S.B. 1, one of the country’s harshest anti-voting laws which “makes it harder for voters with disabilities and language access barriers to obtain assistance, constrains election workers’ ability to stop harassment by poll watchers, and bans 24-hour and drive-thru voting, among other measures,” landed the state on the list of key states.

    Michigan was also identified as a hotspot for voter suppression in 2022, with anti-voting rights activists organizing a ballot initiative that would impose new requirements on voters such as including the last four digits of their Social Security number on their voter registration or absentee ballot applications.

    “There are solutions to this alarming and unprecedented attack on our democracy,” noted the Brennan Center. “Congress has the power to take bold action now to protect American voters from the kinds of restrictions enacted this year and the looming threats to voters and elections that may be imposed in 2022 and beyond.”

    The organization urged the Senate to pass the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, both of which have been passed by the House but remain stalled in the Senate due to the filibuster and the Democrats’ razor-thin majority.

    These attacks on voting rights will continue in 2022,” tweeted the group. “The Senate must protect our democracy.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A woman votes at a booth

    Georgia Senate President Pro Tempore Butch Miller is pushing to eliminate all absentee ballot drop boxes in the state, only months after he voted to install them.

    Miller, the No. 2 Republican in the state Senate and a candidate for lieutenant governor, has introduced Senate Bill 325, which would eliminate drop boxes, a focal point among pro-Trump Republicans who ginned up unfounded fears about mail-in voting. The state’s election board approved the use of drop boxes amid the pandemic last year.

    “Drop boxes were introduced as an emergency measure during the pandemic but many counties did not follow the security guidelines in place, such as the requirement for camera surveillance on every drop box,” Miller said in a statement. “Moving forward, we can return to a pre-pandemic normal of voting in person. Removing drop boxes will help rebuild the trust that has been lost. Many see them as the weak link when it comes to securing our elections against fraud. For the small number of Georgians who need to vote absentee, that will remain as easy and accessible as it was before 2020.”

    Voting rights groups accused Miller of “going all-in on the Big Lie.”

    “Instead of figuring out how to put together policies that will help our people, he is preemptively erecting barriers to voting a year out,” Stephanie Ali, policy director at the New Georgia Project, said in a statement, arguing that Miller’s proposal shows he is “terrified” of the state’s changing demographics after Republicans got swept in the last round of statewide races.

    Election officials around the country have warned that proposals like Miller’s will make it more difficult to vote, particularly for voters of color.

    “Efforts like Sen. Miller’s to remove drop boxes or place other restrictions on voting are not about election security, but part of a national coordinated attack on democracy,” Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, chairwoman of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, told Salon. “Nationwide, the voter suppression proposals and laws disproportionately affect people of color and working people — these are the voices extreme lawmakers are trying to suppress to tip future elections in their favor. Candidates should win by running good campaigns, not by undemocratically taking away Americans’ freedoms.”

    Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who has pushed back against false GOP election claims and Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his loss, rejected Miller’s claim that every county did not have video surveillance, noting that officials had identified only one irregularity: a woman who cast a ballot one minute after the deadline.

    “This office and I have worked very hard on making sure we have integrity up and down the line,” he told WSB-TV.

    On Tuesday, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that helped the GOP write a slew of new voting restrictions, ranked Georgia No. 1 in the country on “election integrity,” including the new drop boxes.

    “It means that we’re a leader in voter integrity and also security,” Raffensperger told the news outlet.

    Georgia Democrats called out Miller for pushing the proposal after he said in a recent interview that newly-arrived Georgians “need to assimilate into our values and our culture.”

    “Butch Miller’s proposal to blow up our elections based on lies is part of his sad, desperate attempt to win over far-right voters after Donald Trump endorsed his primary opponent,” Scott Hogan, executive director of the Democratic Party of Georgia, said in a statement. “We already know Butch Miller is terrified of Georgia’s diversifying electorate — now, he’s trying to silence the voters of color who elected Democrats last cycle by banning one of the most popular ways they chose to cast their ballots.”

    Just months earlier, Miller joined other Georgia Republicans in supporting Senate Bill 202, a sweeping set of voting restrictions that codified the use of drop boxes, even while restricting their availability. But Miller now faces an opponent endorsed by Trump, and appears intent on trying to win over Trump supporters after the former president accused him of not doing enough to try to overturn his election defeat. Repeated reviews and investigations have found no evidence of fraud or widespread irregularities in Georgia — or for that matter in any other state.

    “Trump’s grip on the Republican Party is clear: he has made endorsing the Big Lie a litmus test for his support,” Griswold said. “Now, hundreds of candidates running under the GOP banner at the county, state and federal levels have promoted lies about the 2020 elections. We need lawmakers and election administrators who will respect voters and their decisions at the ballot box, even if they don’t like the outcome. That is how democracy works.”

    Miller is running to replace Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican who opted not to run for re-election after spending much of the year battling election conspiracy theories from his own party. Duncan has said that he does not think anything should be done about drop boxes.

    “I’m one of those Republicans that want more people to vote,” he said earlier this year.

    An analysis by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Georgia Public Broadcasting earlier this year found that heavily Democratic counties like Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb and Gwinnett were far more likely to use the drop boxes than Republican areas. More than 305,000 of about 547,000 absentee ballots in the metro Atlanta area were cast using drop boxes, compared to just 32% of the absentee votes in 11 smaller countries.

    “This legislation is nothing more than a last-ditch attempt to further undermine faith in the results of the 2020 election and win support with those who simply cannot accept that they lost,” Fulton County Commission Chairman Robb Pitts said in a statement. “Our absentee ballot drop boxes were safe and secure — three counts of the vote and monitors from the Secretary of State’s office proves that.”

    Georgia has already restricted the use of drop boxes. Though SB 202 required each county to have at least one drop box per 100,000 active voters, they must now be located inside early voting sites and can only be accessible during early voting days and hours. Voting rights advocates accused Republicans of seeking to “limit options in the metro areas versus the rural areas” where Republicans tend to do better.

    Miller’s proposal comes ahead of two high-profile elections in the state next year. Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., the state’s first Black senator, is up for re-election and appears likely to face Trump favorite Herschel Walker, a former NFL star. Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican who has rejected Trump’s election fraud claims, is set to take on Trump-endorsed former Sen. David Perdue in the GOP primary, ahead of a potential rematch with former Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams, who refused to concede her race in 2018 after accusing Kemp of voter suppression. Abrams has charged that Georgia Republicans’ crackdown on ballot access is a “redux of Jim Crow in a suit and tie” targeting Black voters.

    SB 202 is already having noticeable effects on the state’s elections. Rejected absentee ballot requests rose 400% in November’s municipal elections after the state imposed new restrictions, and 52% of rejected applications were denied because they were submitted after the state’s new deadline, which requires voters to request ballots at least 11 days before an election. State lawmakers have also used the new law to replace local election officials with their own picks, often replacing Black Democrats with white conservatives.

    Griswold said laws like SB 202 are part of the “worst attack on democracy in recent history.” She called on Congress to pass voting rights legislation in response to the ballot access crackdown, urging the Senate to reform the filibuster because “American democracy is more important than antiquated Senate rules.” While the Senate has renewed its focus on voting rights amid increasingly aggressive Republican gerrymandering, which threatens the Democratic House majority, conservative Democrats like Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have ruled out any changes to the filibuster.

    “Access to the ballot box shouldn’t be dependent on voters’ zip code, political party or the amount of money in their bank account. Every eligible American deserves to have their voice heard and their vote counted,” Griswold said. “Congress needs to do its job and pass the Freedom to Vote Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Act as soon as possible to combat this historic wave of voter suppression.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Raphael Warnock Calls to End Filibuster, Pass Voting Rights Acts

    Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia implored conservative members of his party to stop obstructing voting rights legislation in a powerful speech on the floor of the Senate Tuesday. While Warnock did not name Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, the two have come out against doing away with the filibuster in order to allow Democrats to pass the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Warnock said there was no chance of Republicans joining the effort to safeguard democracy and that only a change to the filibuster could secure passage of the bills. “Who is being asked to foot the bill for this bipartisanship? And is liberty itself the cost?” Warnock said.

    TRANSCRIPT

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

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, as we end today’s show with Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock’s powerful speech from the floor of the Senate Tuesday as he called on the conservative members of the Democratic Party to stop obstructing voting rights legislation. He didn’t name Senators Joe Manchin and Sinema, who have come out against doing away with the filibuster in order to allow Democrats to pass the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

    SEN. RAPHAEL WARNOCK: “Conniving methods that were getting in the way of the free exercise of the constitutional right to vote,” his rallying cry that day, in 1957, was “Give us the ballot.” So, Madam President, in light of the conniving methods of voter suppression we have seen enacted into law since the January 6th attack on the Capitol, I come to the floor today to share with the people of Georgia and the American people the message that I shared with my colleagues over the weekend and earlier today during our caucus meeting.

    I said to my Democratic colleagues over the last several days, number one, unfortunately, the vast majority of our Republican friends have made it clear that they have no intention of trying to work with us to address voter suppression or to protect voting rights. They have embodied by their actions the sentiments of conservative strategist Paul Weyrich, who dared say in 1981, quote, “I don’t want everybody to vote.” That’s what he said. “Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact,” he went on to say, “our leverage in the elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

    Second thing I said to my Democratic colleagues today is that while we cannot let our Republican friends off the hook for not being equitable governing partners, if we are serious about protecting the right to vote that’s under assault right now, here is the truth: It will fall to Democrats to do it. And if Democrats alone must raise the debt ceiling, then Democrats alone must raise and repair the ceiling of our democracy. How do we in good conscience justify doing one and not the other?

    Some of my Democratic colleagues are saying, “Well, what about — what about bipartisanship? Isn’t that important?” I say, of course it is. But here’s the thing we must remember: Slavery was bipartisan. Jim Crow segregation was bipartisan. The refusal of women’s suffrage was bipartisan. The denial of the basic dignity of members of the LGBTQ community has long been bipartisan. The three-fifths compromise was the creation of a putative national unity at the expense of Black people’s basic humanity. So, when colleagues in this chamber talk to me about bipartisanship, which I believe in, I just have to ask: At whose expense? Who is being asked to foot the bill for this bipartisanship? And is liberty itself the cost? I submit that that’s a price too high and a bridge too far.

    And so I struggled this weekend. I talked to folk I believe in. Among them, I spoke with Reverend Ambassador Andrew Young, who was with Dr. King until the very end, about this vote. I talked to Ambassador Young, and I asked him, “What do you think?” And he said, “I try not to worry, but I’m worried about our country.” And then this 89-year-old battle-worn soldier in the nonviolent army of the Lord drew silent on the phone. And then he said to me, “Tell your colleagues that among your constituents are people who literally laid their lives on the line for the basic right to vote. They lost friends. They lost so much.”

    And so, this is a real moral quandary for me, and it makes it difficult for me to cast this vote today. But after many conversations, with colleagues, with Georgians, with experts who know the economy, with voting rights advocates and civil rights leaders, I will indeed vote today with anguish. I will vote to raise the debt ceiling. I’m voting yes because I’m thinking about the kids in the Kayton Homes housing projects where I grew up in Savannah, Georgia. I’m thinking about the hardworking families pushing to recover from the pressures of this pandemic, those who are on the margins and those who are least resilient, for whom a collapse of the economy would be catastrophic. And ironically, many of these are the same people who are also being targeted by the voter suppression efforts I mentioned earlier. I’m thinking of them and the people of Georgia as I cast my vote today to raise the debt ceiling.

    But I’m also thinking about what we need to do to keep our democracy and our economy strong today and for the next generation. Once we handle the debt ceiling, the Senate needs to make voting rights the very next issue we take up. We must do voting rights, and we must deal with this issue now.

    So let me be clear: I’m so proud of what we did with the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the major economic investments we’re putting finishing touches on that will close the Medicaid coverage gap and deliver historic relief to Georgia farmers and expand broadband access and so much more. But, Madam President —

    AMY GOODMAN: That’s Democratic Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock’s excerpt of a powerful speech from the floor of the Senate Tuesday as he called on conservative members of his own party to stop obstructing voting rights legislation. Reverend Warnock is also pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, which was the spiritual home of Dr. Martin Luther King and his father.

    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, Charina Nadura, Sam Alcoff, Tey-Marie Astudillo, John Hamilton, Robby Karran, Hany Massoud and Mary Conlon. Our general manager is Julie Crosby. Special thanks to Becca Staley, Paul Powell, Mike Di Filippo, Miguel Nogueira, Hugh Gran, Denis Moynihan, David Prude and Dennis McCormick. You can go to democracynow.org for all of our shows, and also check us out on Instagram, on Facebook, on Twitter. I’m Amy Goodman. Remember, wearing a mask is an act of love.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Kyrsten Sinema departs from a meeting with fellow Democratic Senators in the basement of the U.S. Capitol Building on December 15, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Right-wing Sen. Kyrsten Sinema on Wednesday cast further doubt on Democrats’ nascent effort to pass voting rights legislation before the end of the year by reiterating her defense of the Senate’s legislative filibuster, an archaic rule that the GOP minority has used to stonewall bills aimed at protecting the franchise.

    Democratic leaders signaled Wednesday afternoon that they intend to shift their focus to a last-ditch voting rights push ahead of the new year after talks over the party’s Build Back Better package faltered, as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) indicating he wants to gut the expanded child tax credit — a non-starter for progressives.

    But just hours after the party’s rapidly changing strategy began to emerge, Sinema (D-Ariz.) all but dashed any lingering hopes of concrete action on voting rights, with her spokesperson telling Politico that the senator opposes even minor tweaks to the filibuster rule.

    “Senator Sinema has asked those who want to weaken or eliminate the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation which she supports if it would be good for our country to do so,” said Sinema spokesperson John LaBombard, who warned that newly passed bills could be “rescinded in a few years and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law, nationwide restrictions on vote-by-mail, or other voting restrictions currently passing in some states extended nationwide.”

    Voting rights advocates were quick to slam Sinema’s latest filibuster apologetics as ridiculous, arguing it shouldn’t take a supermajority in the U.S. Senate to thwart voter suppression legislation passed along party lines by state-level Republicans.

    “This is so asinine,” replied Stephen Wolf, a staff writer at Daily Kos Elections. “Republicans are already passing a wave of voting restrictions at the state level while the Supreme Court dismantles what’s left of the Voting Rights Act. Sinema doesn’t support the voting rights legislation. The filibuster just lets her pretend she does.”

    Mother Jones journalist Ari Berman echoed that point:

    Politico reported Wednesday that Senate Democrats are attempting to persuade Sinema and Manchin — another ardent defender of the filibuster — to support “installing the talking filibuster, which would force the minority to hold the floor and continuously put up at least 41 votes to block legislation, or creating a filibuster exception specific to the issue of elections and voting.”

    Thus far the right-wing senators have not agreed to either change, even after both voted earlier this week to bypass the filibuster to raise the U.S. debt ceiling. Manchin has previously suggested he would be open to reinstituting the talking filibuster, which would represent a major shift from the current-day rules that allow senators to mount a filibuster via email.

    Filibuster reform would require the support of all 50 members of the Senate Democratic caucus.

    “We’re carving out exceptions to the filibuster left and right depending on how important we all think an issue is. And yet we still don’t have an exception to pass voting rights? How out of touch are we?” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) lamented in a recent tweet.

    For months, voting rights advocates and state lawmakers have warned that congressional Democrats are running out of time to prevent a wave of GOP-led redistricting and voter suppression — anti-democratic efforts that could prove decisive in the upcoming midterm elections. Republicans need to flip just five Democratic seats to take control of the House in 2022.

    The Freedom to Vote Act, a compromise measure co-sponsored by Manchin and Sinema, would bar partisan gerrymandering, institute campaign finance reforms, and bolster ballot access. Republicans filibustered the bill when Senate Democrats attempted to pass it in October, and they would likely do so again if Democrats bring the legislation to the floor without a rule change.

    Progressive advocacy groups and state lawmakers have called on Senate Democratic leaders to postpone the upcoming holiday recess and do everything in their power to pass strong voting rights legislation, including eliminating the filibuster entirely.

    Emily Kirkland, executive director of the local advocacy group Progress Arizona, said in a statement late Wednesday that “in continuing to support the filibuster, Senator Sinema is single-handedly destroying any hope of progress on voting rights or democracy reform at the federal level for the foreseeable future.”

    “History will not be kind to her if she continues on this path,” Kirkland added. “It is time for her to come to terms with her responsibility to the American people and end the filibuster — now.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have reached an agreement on the debt limit, subverting the economic disaster that would have taken place if the United States government were to default on its debts for the first time.

    The proposed workaround would temporarily bypass Republicans’ ability to filibuster Democrats on the debt ceiling vote — leaving many progressive advocates questioning why the measure can’t be taken for other critical issues, like voting protections and reproductive rights.

    The deal, which both Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) have agreed to, would allow Democrats to pass a bill to raise the debt ceiling with just 50 votes in the Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote.

    McConnell has said that he believes he has the 10 GOP votes that will be necessary to advance the deal. After the proposal is passed, a second bill, which deals with the actual raising of the debt limit, could be advanced in the Senate without any Republican support.

    The proposal will benefit both parties in different ways. Democrats will be able to pass a one-time debt ceiling increase that could go beyond the 2022 midterms, allowing them to put the issue on the backburner between now and November. Meanwhile, Republicans will still have the ability to vote against raising the debt limit — as they promised they would do in October — without fearing that their votes will lead the U.S. to default on its debts.

    The deal comes after the Treasury Department recently estimated that the government would exceed its current debt limit sometime in the second half of December.

    The deal would also be a one-time thing, barring a similar agreement from being passed in the future. After Democrats raise the debt ceiling later this month, neither party will be able to raise the debt ceiling with a simple majority vote again, as they will no longer be able to bypass the filibuster.

    Several progressive advocates have expressed their frustration that a filibuster workaround could be negotiated on this issue but not for similarly high-stakes issues.

    “If we can make a filibuster carve out for the debt ceiling, than [sic] we can do it for voting rights and the right to choose,” said State Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, a Democrat from Pennsylvania.

    Richard Stengel, a political analyst for MSNBC, tweeted about the deal, directing his ire at Democratic lawmakers.

    “That’s great that you figured out a way to raise the debt ceiling with 51 votes. How about using 51 votes to save our democracy by getting rid of the filibuster and passing voting rights?” Stengel wrote.

    “If the Senate is willing to work around filibuster rules to protect the economy, they should be willing to work around it to protect our vote,” read a tweet from Stand Up America, a progressive organization dedicated to combating voter suppression and corruption.

    Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, directed her comments toward Sen. Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat from West Virginia who steadfastly opposed any changes to the filibuster.

    “So a filibuster carve out and the Senate is not destroyed. Sen. Manchin has equated the filibuster with democracy itself,” Ifill wrote. “If you can make an exception for the debt ceiling you can do so to protect voting rights.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Attorney General Merrick B. Garland speaks at a press conference at the Department of Justice on December 06, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

    On Monday, the Department of Justice announced that it is suing Texas over Republicans’ newly-drawn congressional maps, which marginalize Latinx people and other nonwhite communities while giving disproportionate influence to white voters.

    In its lawsuit, the Justice Department says that the Texas legislature “refused to recognize the State’s growing [non-white] electorate” in their new congressional maps, which they drew in an “extraordinarily rapid and opaque legislative process.” The maps, which were signed into law in October, were rammed through the legislature by the state’s Republican majority.

    “This is not the first time Texas has acted to minimize the voting rights of its minority citizens. Decade after decade, Texas has enacted redistricting plans that violate the Voting Rights Act,” the Justice Department wrote. “In enacting its 2021 Congressional and House plans, the State has again diluted the voting strength of minority Texans and continued its refusal to comply with the Voting Rights Act.”

    This is the second time that the Department of Justice has sued Texas over voter suppression in a little over a month. In November, the agency charged that the state Republicans’ marquee voter suppression bill, S.B. 1, limited the voting rights of people with disabilities and elderly people. The bill outlawed drive-through and 24-hour voting, measures that had greatly expanded voting access for marginalized groups.

    The Department of Justice joins voting rights groups that have also sued the state over its new district map. These groups similarly argue that the map violates the Voting Rights Act by diminishing people of color’s voting power in the state.

    The new map creates two additional heavily Republican-leaning congressional districts, meaning that — if the map is upheld by courts — there will be 24 heavily-Republican districts, one competitive district and only 13 Democratic districts in the state.

    Though non-Latinx white people make up only about 41 percent of the state’s population, they are a majority in 60 percent of congressional districts in the new map. Meanwhile, Latinx people are a majority in only 18 percent of districts, despite making up 40 percent of the population. Under the new map, Black, Asian, and other populations don’t represent a majority in any district.

    These maps have also marginalized the state’s new residents, 95 percent of whom are people of color. Although the state will be gaining two seats in the House due to recent population growth, Republicans are giving white voters a majority over both new districts in Houston and Austin — a move that the Department of Justice has rebuked in its lawsuit.

    Republicans “surgically excised minority communities from the core of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex (DFW) by attaching them to heavily Anglo rural counties, some more than a hundred miles away, placing them in a congressional district where they would lack equal electoral opportunity,” the agency wrote.

    The party has marginalized these voters despite the fact that many of the people that politicians would consider Latinx voted for Donald Trump in 2020. (Notably, many of the so-called Latinx people in Texas label themselves as Tejanos.) But despite wins in South Texas, Trump still lost the Latinx vote in the state overall, according to exit polls.

    Regardless of political affiliations, however, it seems Republicans are set on taking extreme measures to suppress nonwhite voters, even when those measures are based on bunk conspiracy theories. For instance, S.B. 1 creates a monthly review for voter rolls to ensure that undocumented immigrants aren’t registered to vote. This rule was made after Trump lied by saying that undocumented people were voting en masse.

    The last time Texas did a sweep of its voter rolls was in 2019, when Secretary of State David Whitley ordered a review of nearly 100,000 voters to check for noncitizens. After voting rights groups sued the state, alleging that the review violated voting rights protections, the state gave up its search.

    Whitley instructed officials not to take action on the list of people that his office had categorized as “possible non-U.S. citizens.” It’s unclear what methodology Whitley’s office used to create that list, but voting rights advocates noted that the very concept behind the project was discriminatory.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Activists take part in a voting rights protest in front of the White House on November 17, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    While building back the nation’s infrastructure remains the focus inside the Capital Beltway, congressional inaction on voting rights has the biggest potential to tear down years of progress for Black people in this country.

    Even though communities of color in cities and rural towns across the United States are organizing to fulfill the promise of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) during the 2021 redistricting cycle, the loss of the VRA’s Section 5 voting protections threatens decades of hard-fought victories for fair representation and equitable resources.

    Voting rights advocates as far north as Wisconsin, and in Southern states like Georgia, Texas and Florida, are sounding the alarm: Without immediate federal action to restore the VRA, even our smallest towns aren’t safe from anti-democratic, racist redistricting that could have devastating impacts on people who simply want their voices heard.

    Recently, in North Carolina, the Republican state legislature approved new maps for the U.S. House that could give white Republicans control of 11 out of 14 of the state’s districts. The erosion of Black votes and representation remains a major concern on the local level, where redistricting often receives less attention and scrutiny.

    North Carolina’s Lee County, currently at the center of a decades-long gerrymandering debate, is just the latest consequence of the 2013 Shelby County decision gutting what’s known as the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act: Last month, Lee County’s commissioners manipulated the county’s only Black voting district and threatened to roll back Black voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice.

    The VRA’s preclearance provision, which prohibits certain jurisdictions from implementing changes affecting voting without preapproval, would have prevented such manipulation by protecting districts that allow voters of color to elect their preferred candidates.

    One of 10 southern counties named for the slaveholding Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, the county has long elected its commissioners in an at-large system — where all the county’s voters can vote for each candidate — which all but guaranteed electoral victories for white majorities.

    With the full protection of the VRA, the Lee County NAACP filed suit in 1989, alleging the at-large system denied Black residents a genuine opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. As a result of the VRA lawsuit, the board increased its size and changed its method of election from completely at-large to a hybrid system with a majority of single-member districts. Moreover, the county commissioners explicitly acknowledged in their 1989 resolution Lee County’s “desir[e] to increase the opportunity for Black voters to elect candidates of their choice.”

    Instead, Lee County’s Republican commissioners rammed through a voting map dramatically decreasing the Black population and shoring up the white population in District 1, the county’s only opportunity district for communities of color. District 1 is currently represented by Commissioner Robert Reives, Sr., the county’s only Black elected commissioner. Lee County exploited the population growth of communities of color by choosing to focus on bolstering the political power of declining white populations.

    This is part of a perverse trend mirrored by states drawing new state and congressional district lines across the South, as well as the rest of the nation. In fact, GOP legislatures will finalize redistricting in 20 states covering 187 congressional districts, compared to Democrats who control the process in eight states with 75 districts.

    Certain commissioners not only ignored warnings against drawing maps for partisan gain, but they also denied the public any chance to comment on changes to districts for communities of color by refusing to hold public hearings that would ensure Lee County residents could ask questions, provide alternatives or hold elected officials accountable.

    Without the VRA’s federal preclearance provisions, discriminatory redistricting plans like those in Lee County cannot be stopped.

    Black voters in Lee County, North Carolina, are not alone in their struggle. In nearby Fayetteville, ousted white politicians, unhappy with a majority-Black city council built from VRA-protected districts, are waging their own dangerous campaign to change election methods in the state’s sixth-largest city, designed to upend majority-minority districts and return the city to a racist at-large system. Pair this trend with local “prison gerrymandering” efforts that purposefully shift political power away from cities where more Black people live to smaller, majority-white prison towns where predominantly Black people are incarcerated, and once again voters of color everywhere from Mobile, Alabama, to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, are paying the political price.

    These efforts to erode local Black voting power are the real-life consequences of congressional inaction. Places like Lee County, Fayetteville and Milwaukee not only risk losing the representation they deserve, but also the resources for housing, jobs, public health and environmental protections they need.

    In 1965, Congress made a promise to hundreds of communities like those in Lee County. In 2021, it’s time they ensured that decades of struggle and sacrifice were not in vain.

    Congress must pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to strengthen the VRA and restore its core protections, and also pass the Freedom to Vote Act as soon as possible. Robust voting rights protections are the only bulwark against racist redistricting that we’ve witnessed across the South and the latest wave of anti-voter legislation happening now across the country.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin board an elevator after a private meeting between the two of them on Capitol Hill on September 30, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Voting rights advocates within and beyond Georgia ramped up calls for congressional action after the Peach State’s Republican lawmakers became the latest to approve a gerrymandered political map intended to give the GOP a political advantage for the next decade.

    Following similar moves by GOP-controlled state legislatures in Ohio and Texas, the Georgia General Assembly sent the new congressional map to the desk of Republican Gov. Brain Kemp, who is expected to sign it into law. These redistricting efforts have come as right-wingers in the evenly split U.S. Senate block various voting rights bills and a few Democrats refuse to support killing the filibuster.

    The Georgia GOP’s map is designed to increase the number of congressional districts the party controls from eight to nine, leaving Democrats with just five. According to an analysis by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Though Georgia’s voters are split between the two political parties, none of the state’s 14 congressional districts would be competitive.”

    It’s not just the new congressional districts that serve Georgia’s GOP. Democracy Docket noted that “the state House and Senate maps… were criticized by Democrats for cementing a Republican advantage in the General Assembly and failing to account for the growth of Georgia’s minority population.”

    Common Cause Georgia executive director Aunna Dennis said in a statement Monday that “when the redistricting process is led by the politicians, the maps will be drawn to benefit the politicians — and that’s exactly what state legislators have done today.”

    “While these maps might be beneficial to the politicians in power, they are a complete disgrace to the voters of Georgia,” Dennis declared. “None of the maps accurately reflect the changing population of our state.”

    “Our preliminary analysis shows that despite population growth in the state being driven largely by Black, Latinx, and Asian populations, and despite the state’s share of the white population decreasing by about 5% from 2010 to 2020, the amount of majority-BIPOC districts in these proposed maps have extremely marginal increases,” she noted. “In fact, the new congressional map decreases the amount of majority-Black districts from the former district map.”

    Dennis said the maps were “intentionally designed to silence” communities of color and accused state leaders of continuing “to ignore the voters throughout the entire process.” She also reiterated her group’s support for independent redistricting commissions, saying that “district lines need to be drawn putting the interests of people, not politicians, first.”

    The Journal-Constitution reports that Georgia Rep. Mariam Paris (D-142) said the new district lines endanger two Democratic Black women in the state’s congressional delegation, Congresswomen Nikema Williams and Lucy McBath.

    “At a time when women are already underrepresented, particularly women of color, we should not be drawing maps that target women incumbents to make it harder for them to run and win in new districts,” Paris said during the House debate. “But the map before us today does exactly that.”

    As the newspaper details:

    The map redraws the Democratic-leaning district held by McBath, making it more Republican by extending north from metro Atlanta into conservative strongholds in Forsyth and Dawson counties. McBath won reelection last year with 55% of the vote, but under the new map, Republican voters would outnumber Democrats by 15 percentage points in next year’s elections, according to the AJC’s analysis.

    McBath flipped the 6th Congressional District in 2018, winning election in an area that was once a Republican bastion represented by Newt Gingrich, who became speaker of the House and led the GOP to take control of the U.S. House in 1994. Now the district is poised to return to Republican representation.

    McBath — whose 17-year-old son was shot and killed in 2012 by a man who confronted him about the volume of his music — said Monday that Kemp, the Republican Party, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) “will not have the final say on when I am done fighting for my son.”

    Voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams — a Democrat who formerly served as minority leader in the Georgia House of Representatives and narrowly lost the gubernatorial race to Kemp in 2018 — suggested in a series of tweets Monday that the new map shows the GOP is struggling to compete in the state.

    “The bill will be eagerly signed by a man who has spent more than a decade using his status to disempower voters of color and intimidate the groups and individuals who organize them,” Abrams said. “But neither Lucy McBath nor Georgia’s organizers and voters of color will give up so easily.”

    President Joe Biden narrowly won Georgia in 2020 — prompting then-President Donald Trump to pressure Kemp to call a special election and to ask Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” over 11,000 votes, moves that led to a criminal probe in Fulton County.

    Mother Jones’ Ari Berman, who wrote the book Give Us the Ballot: The Modern Struggle for Voting Rights in America, noted Monday that the new congressional map gives Republicans “64% of seats in state Biden won with 49.5%.”

    Highlighting that the Georgia map is part of a national trend of GOP state lawmakers trying to give Republican congressional candidates clear advantages, Berman expressed frustration with U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), who refuse to support abolishing the filibuster to pass federal voting rights protections.

    “It’s beyond enraging that Manchin and Sinema continue to say voting rights legislation needs 60 votes when [the] GOP [is] rigging elections and shutting Dems out of power for next decade on simple majority party-line votes,” he said, calling it “total asymmetric warfare.”

    Calls for Senate Democrats to scrap the filibuster have mounted as the chamber’s Republicans have blocked the For the People Act, Freedom to Vote Act, and John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance on Monday even labeled the United States a “backsliding” democracy.

    “Voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around,” tweeted U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.). “Today’s partisan redistricting decision at Georgia’s State Capitol undermines voters’ voices and harms our democracy.”

    “Congress must pass federal voting rights legislation,” he added. “We can’t wait any longer.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Ron Johnson during a Senate hearing

    Wisconsin Republicans, at the urging of Sen. Ron Johnson, are pushing to unilaterally seize control over federal elections in the battleground state, an effort that observers warned is part of the GOP’s multi-pronged assault on democracy in the wake of former President Donald Trump’s defeat last year.

    The New York Times reported Friday that the state Republican Party is taking “direct aim” at the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), an agency that the GOP established six years ago. According to the Times, “The onslaught picked up late last month after a long-awaited report on the 2020 results that was ordered by Republican state legislators found no evidence of fraud but made dozens of suggestions for the election commission and the GOP-led Legislature, fueling Republican demands for more control of elections.”

    “Then the Trump-aligned sheriff of Racine County, the state’s fifth most populous county, recommended felony charges against five of the six members of the election commission for guidance they had given to municipal clerks early in the pandemic,” the Times noted. “The Republican majority leader of the state Senate later seemed to give a green light to that proposal, saying that ‘prosecutors around the state’ should determine whether to bring charges.”

    Meanwhile, Johnson — who repeatedly echoed Trump’s false claims of voter fraud following the 2020 presidential contest — openly called on Wisconsin Republicans to take over the state’s election system in an interview last week with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, arguing that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers would be powerless to stop them.

    “There’s no mention of the governor in the Constitution [regarding election administration],” Johnson, a two-term senator up for reelection next year, told the local newspaper. “It says state legislatures, and so if I were running the joint — and I’m not — I would come out and I would just say, ‘We’re reclaiming our authority. Don’t listen to WEC anymore. Their guidances are null and void.’”

    “I think the state Legislature has to reassert, reclaim this authority over our election system,” Johnson added.

    President Joe Biden defeated Trump in Wisconsin by less than a percentage point in 2020.

    Johnson’s argument that state lawmakers have the legal authority to bypass Evers and take charge of federal elections in Wisconsin was “debunked by a 1932 Supreme Court decision and a 1964 ruling from the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” the Times pointed out Friday.

    “His suggestion was nonetheless echoed by Michael Gableman, a conservative former State Supreme Court justice who is conducting the Legislature’s election inquiry,” added the Times, which reported that Johnson is actively lobbying Wisconsin Republicans to act on his suggestions.

    Ben Wikler, the chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, said the GOP’s latest attacks on the state’s elections show the severity of “what we’re up against here in Wisconsin: Republicans who want to shred the elections administration system (which they set up!) so they can overturn results they don’t like.”

    “Governor Evers is the last line of defense for our democracy — and we have to reelect him in 2022,” Wikler added.

    On Thursday, Evers vetoed Republican legislation that he warned would “solidify existing, gerrymandered voting maps for the next decade in the state of Wisconsin.”

    “As other politicians in this state abuse their power to try and predetermine our elections, as they try to create controversy where there is none, as they try to discredit the hard work of our election administrators and poll workers who helped ensure we had a free, fair, and secure election last November, I will not,” the governor said in a video message.

    Responding to the GOP’s intensifying efforts to take over federal elections in Wisconsin, Evers said that “they’re about making it more difficult for people to participate in the democratic process” and are “nothing more than a partisan power grab.”

    Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) echoed that message in a tweet on Friday.

    “Let me be very clear: This is a blatant partisan power grab, meant to make it more difficult for Wisconsin residents to participate in our democracy,” Baldwin wrote. “Elections in the Badger State are free, fair, and safe — because of our election officials.”

    Like many other states across the country, Wisconsin expanded access to mail-in ballots in 2020 as a safety measure amid the coronavirus pandemic — a decision that state Republicans met with baseless warnings of fraud and abuse.

    In the months since the 2020 presidential election, Wisconsin Republicans have pushed a slew of bills aimed at dramatically curtailing voting rights in the state. Evers has vetoed the GOP-authored measures that have reached his desk.

    The Wisconsin GOP is hardly alone in attempting to gain greater power over elections and roll back ballot access. As the Washington Post’s Philip Bump wrote Friday, “This effort to skew power to Republicans, including in the management of federal elections, has been a response also offered in other states where the right sees its power threatened.”

    “This is a future that Republicans are happy to embrace, one in which they might not get more votes but they get more power,” Bump added.

    Between January 1 and September 27 of this year, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice, at least 19 Republican-led states have “enacted 33 laws that make it harder for Americans to vote”:

    In an emerging trend, restrictive laws in four states—Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, and Texas—impose new or more stringent criminal penalties on election officials or other individuals. These new criminal laws will deter election officials and other people who assist voters from engaging in ordinary, lawful, and often essential tasks. People in Georgia can now be charged with a crime for handing out water or snacks to voters waiting in line at the polls. In Iowa and Kansas, people could face criminal charges for returning ballots on behalf of voters who may need assistance, such as voters with disabilities. And in Texas, election officials could face criminal prosecution if they encourage voters to request mail ballots or regulate poll watchers’ conduct.

    In an appearance on MSNBC Thursday, Mother Jones journalist Ari Berman said that “we need to see action from the federal government” in response to the GOP’s far-reaching assault on voting rights, which has included extreme gerrymandering efforts in states across the country.

    For months, Democrats in Congress have failed to pass sweeping voter protections due to opposition from a small number of right-wing lawmakers as well as the party’s refusal to kill the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, which Republicans have wielded to block debate on voting rights legislation.

    “We’re in a moment where there’s no substitute for federal action on voting rights,” said Berman. “We are in a 1965 moment for democracy. There was no substitute for the Voting Rights Act in 1965 — you weren’t going to out-organize voter suppression, you weren’t going to out-litigate voter suppression. Congress had to step in and act. We’re in a similar situation today.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Ted Cruz departs from the Senate Chamber following a vote on November 3, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Texas may have to consider seceding from the United States if Democrats pass agenda items designed to enfranchise marginalized voters, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said during a public appearance last month.

    Speaking at Texas A&M in mid-October, Cruz, in response to a question from an audience member on the issue of Texas secession, said he’s “not ready to give up on America yet.” But if Democrats end the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, make Washington D.C. a state or pass federal reforms intended to make voting more accessible nationwide, “there may come a point where it’s hopeless,” Cruz added.

    Those types of reforms would “fundamentally destroy the country,” he said.

    Democrats have discussed the possibility of changing filibuster rules in order to pass legislation on voting rights protections, through allowing a simple majority in the Senate to create national standards to be followed in every U.S. state. Meanwhile, making Washington D.C. a state would allow residents of that jurisdiction to have representation in Congress, a goal many have sought for several decades. Polling on the issue of D.C. statehood shows that a majority of Americans back the idea.

    Some polls have also shown that nearly half of the country supports “packing” or increasing the size of the Supreme Court. There is precedent for doing so, as the High Court has changed its size several times in its history, although the last time was in 1869.

    Coincidentally, that was the same year that the Supreme Court ruled that states don’t have the right to secede from the Union, five years after the Confederate States lost the Civil War. In Texas v. White, the court found, by a 5-3 majority, that individual states could not decide to leave the Union, even if they had the support of their residents.

    Recent Supreme Court justices have also weighed in on the issue. The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who was a conservative stalwart of the Supreme Court before he passed away in 2016, responded to a letter from a screenwriter in 2006 about the issue of states seceding.

    “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede,” Scalia said in his reply.

    In his remarks last month, Cruz said that he wasn’t ready to support secession quite yet. But he also said that if the changes he mentioned occurred, Texas should “take” NASA, the military infrastructure located in the state, and the oil that the state produces.

    Whether Cruz is serious about the issue of secession is unclear. Indeed, when asked whether Texas would be willing to take Joe Rogan, a popular Austin-based podcaster who regularly spreads false information about the coronavirus pandemic on his program, the Texas senator responded with enthusiasm.

    “Joe Rogan, he might be president of Texas!” Cruz said.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Terri Sewell holds a photo of the late Rep. John Lewis at a press event outside of the U.S. Capitol on August 24, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Despite pledging that they would fight to protect voting rights, major corporations like Amazon and Facebook have given $164,000 to Senate Republicans in 2021 so far — even though the party has made it a major priority to block voting rights advancement.

    According to a report by the government watchdog Accountable.US, eight major corporations have donated to Senate Republicans, giving tens of thousands of dollars over the course of this year. In July, those same corporations signed a letter pledging to support expanding election access, specifically citing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act that Senate Republicans shot down last week.

    For months, Republicans have vocally opposed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, disingenuously claiming that the expansions to the Voting Rights Act, which are aimed at reducing voter suppression for historically disenfranchised groups, are a violation of states’ rights.

    The bill, which was passed by the House in August, would place restrictions on jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in elections, mandating that they gain approval from the Justice Department if they want to change their election rules.The Senate’s rejection of the bill comes in a contentious year for voting rights, as Republicans across the country have been introducing and passing laws to make it harder to vote as an extreme reaction to the 2020 election.

    The letter, which is dated July 14 and signed by hundreds of businesses, claims to stand against those efforts. “[T]he undersigned group of U.S. employers urges Congress to address these problems through legislation amending the Voting Rights Act of 1965,” the letter reads. “Last Congress, the House of Representatives passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. We support the ongoing work of both the House and the Senate to enact legislation amending the Voting Rights Act this Congress.”

    By donating to Republicans who oppose strengthening voting access, corporations directly undermine the letter’s claims. Target, which signed the letter, has donated $32,000 to Senate Republicans; Dell, also a signatory, has donated $38,500. Meanwhile, Amazon and Facebook both donated over $20,000, and Microsoft and Boston Scientific have donated more than $15,000 each.

    The report found that the most common recipient of donations was Sen. John Thune (R-South Dakota), minority whip for the GOP. Thune received thousands of dollars in donations from Boston Scientific, Dell, Target, Intel, Amazon and Microsoft. It’s unclear what the donations are for, since federal filing guidelines don’t require such information to be divulged, but empowering the prominent Republican stands directly against the companies’ stated goals.

    Thune has consistently fallen in step with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and his opposition to the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Earlier this year, the South Dakota lawmaker delivered a speech claiming that the Democrats’ marquee voting rights bill, then known as the For the People Act or H.R. 1, was a “power-grab” by Democrats. In reality, the bill would massively expand voting access, with the goal of driving out dark money’s influence in politics and making it easier for everyone to cast a ballot.

    Though Republicans have come up with a myriad of excuses for their opposition to voting rights advancement, some lawmakers have made the motivation behind the nationwide push for voter suppression explicitly clear: the party wants less people to vote. Even a so-called compromise bill from right-wing Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin (West Virginia) failed to garner any Republican support; lawmakers have still yet to find any compromise that would please the party’s senators.

    This is not the first time corporations have broken pledges with regard to political donations. After the January 6 attack on the Capitol, 147 Republicans voted against the certification of the election results, and many companies made pledges to stop donating to those Republicans or stop political donations altogether. But so far, four dozen companies that pledged to suspend donations have broken those promises, including major corporations like Facebook and Target, according to Popular Information.

    While making pledges and signing letters is an easy way to receive positive press or praise from the public, companies are ultimately looking out for their bottom line — and as long as Republicans oppose measures like raising corporate income taxes, the GOP and corporations will maintain a mutually beneficial relationship at the cost of the public.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Voting Rights and Economic Justice activists prepare to be arrested on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on October 28, 2021, after they tried to gain access to Hart Senate Office Building while protesting.

    For the past year, since the 2020 presidential election, the Republican Party has waged war on the democratic process. It has initiated phony “audits” of swing-state election results that former President Donald Trump falsely claimed were rigged against him. State GOP parties have purged Trump critics, including fellow Republicans, from positions of power. And in Georgia and elsewhere, state legislators have passed laws that make it easier for the governing party to purge election officials who don’t bend to partisan claims of fraud.

    Ultimately, however, even with laws making it easier to remove low-level election officials, each state’s secretary of state still has the most say over how elections and post-election controversies are conducted in their jurisdiction. This is why the Trumpified GOP has also been steadily ratcheting up pressure on higher-ranking officials.

    Recently, Trump has been throwing his political weight behind a slew of primary challenges designed to weed out all remaining opposition within the Republican party to his claims that he can only lose an election if his opponents rig the vote count. Trump is, for example, pushing to oust Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger, who had the temerity to push back against Trump’s demands that he “find” enough pro-Trump votes to deliver the Peach State to him in 2020.

    And in one state after another, GOP legislators have passed, and governors have signed, laws intended to massively roll back access to the ballot box, and make it ever more difficult for poor and non-white residents to vote. Legislators have proposed draconian restrictions in 43 states this year, in an effort to roll back early voting, to impose onerous voter ID requirements, and to limit actions such as the Black church–led “Souls to the Polls” walks on the Sunday before Election Day in many states throughout the South in particular. As of July at least 17 states had signed such restrictions into law, with more states likely to follow suit.

    This is a meticulous, multipronged and deeply strategic attack on the viability of, and protections underpinning, American democratic institutions.

    In response, Democrats in Congress have pushed two pieces of legislation intended to shore up the Voting Rights Act, which has been largely drained of its force by the Supreme Court over the last decade. The most ambitious of these, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, included a host of provisions that expand automatic voter registration, protect early and mail-in voting systems, and ensure that states are subject to federal review if legislatures begin passing laws that look like they discriminate against voters of color. The second act, known as the Freedom to Vote Act, brokered as an act of compromise by Senators Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), is less far reaching but still critically important. It aims to limit gerrymandering, whereby political parties carve out voting districts that are almost immune to partisan challenges; reforms the campaign finance system; and sets in place a slew of protections for access to the ballot box.

    Yet neither of these bills has garnered significant Republican support in the Senate, although Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) did come out in favor of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. In fact, quite the reverse: To date, every time the Senate votes on these bills, Mitch McConnell orders his people to lockstep filibuster and otherwise frustrate passage of the legislation. The result has been an ongoing stalemate, with McConnell seeking to sustain the state-level stampede toward massive voter suppression in the upcoming elections.

    Given the byzantine rules of the senate, this stalemate is one that Democrats can only break by ditching the filibuster. Scrapping the filibuster has been known as the “nuclear option” since Republican majority leader Trent Lott coined that phrase when musing on what he saw as the dangers of meddling with age-old institutional rules. In 2013, Democratic leader Harry Reid abolished the filibuster for presidential nominees. More recently, McConnell rode roughshod over it when it came specifically to Supreme Court nominees. To date, though, neither party has given the formal nod to entirely abolishing the antiquated process. Yet, given the five-alarm-fire nature of the attack on voting rights, such an option is now more needed than ever before, for without doing so, popular and vital political measures aimed at protecting fundamental parts of the country’s democratic system will continue to be stymied by a determined and anti-democratic minority.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York), who is nowhere near as adept as McConnell in ruthlessly keeping his caucus in line, has, however, failed dismally to move forward on this.

    Ironically, the biggest obstacle to reform is Manchin, who ostensibly supports protecting voting rights, yet has refused to contemplate abolishing or modifying the filibuster. President Joe Biden himself, the senate institutionalist that he is, has also not fully thrown his weight behind the efforts to overturn the filibuster. As a result, the Democrats have, with a lot of grumbling but precious little real bite, stepped back on the issue, and the GOP senators, whose 50 members represent 41 million fewer Americans than do their 50 Democratic colleagues, are being given free rein to run roughshod over the democratic process.

    Time is running out fast for the Democrats on this issue. Failure to protect voting rights federally this year makes it all but certain that in a critical number of closely contested states in 2022 and again in 2024, the full force of the GOP-controlled state political machinery will be brought to bear to limit the franchise and also to make it easier to reject inconvenient political results that don’t go the way the GOP and their marquee candidates want them to.

    Had the Democrats been riding high at this point in the electoral cycle, the failure to protect voting rights might not have been so catastrophic. After all, if the Democrats were to blow the GOP out of the water by huge margins, no amount of shenanigans would alter that outcome. But by no stretch of the imagination is the party faring well with critical parts of the electorate. The Democratic Party is hemorrhaging support in rural America, and it is deeply underwater with suburban independent voters, who have provided the critical margins of victory in the last two elections. The best case scenario in 2022 is that Democrats recover just enough to hold their own; the worst case and more likely scenario is that a combination of voter disillusionment due to legislative letdowns and aggressive GOP-led restrictions on the franchise couple to create a GOP sweep similar to the Tea Party wave of 2010 that overwhelms the Democratic Party and consigns it to minority status in Congress for years.

    In the aftermath of last Tuesday’s election results, the Democrats’ prospects in next year’s midterms look increasingly tenuous; and, in consequence, their failure to forcefully advocate for meaningful voting rights protections looks increasingly self-destructive.

    Biden’s popularity has sunk to dramatically low levels, and even though large majorities of the public support the infrastructure bill that just passed Congress, it seems unlikely that the president or his party will, in the short term, benefit politically from its passage, especially since so much attention has centered on the intraparty warfare within the Democratic caucus process leading up to the bill’s passage rather than the substance of the bill itself.

    This was a self-inflicted wound, as has been the abject failure to tackle McConnell’s shameful obstructionism on voting rights. It will make it that much harder for the Democrats to stand a fighting chance come 2022; and that, in turn, could have huge implications for the 2024 presidential election.

    For if the GOP controls both houses of Congress in 2023 and 2024, and if state parties continue their crusade to undermine ballot box access and to eviscerate vote count protections going into the next presidential election, the stage will have been set for a contest in which the institutional brakes that just about worked in 2020 and early 2021 to stop Trump’s attempted coup no longer hold. And that could, truly, be the death knell of democracy in the U.S.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Texas state capitol building with USA and Texas flags

    The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas over recently-passed legislation that imposes restrictions on voters from marginalized communities.

    The Republican-authored law, known as Senate Bill (SB) 1, passed the legislature late this summer after Democrats unsuccessfully tried to block it by fleeing the state to prevent a quorum on its vote. The law created a number of new restrictions, including outlawing drive-through voting, creating an application process for people with disabilities to have others assist them in voting, implementing strict ID requirements for voting by mail, and making it easier for poll watchers to intimidate voters at the ballot box.

    The DOJ is focusing its lawsuit on two specific provisions of the statute, which it claims are in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Justice Department contends that the law will make it harder for people with disabilities and people who do not speak English to vote. The law also puts undue constraints on mail-in voting through additional ID requirements.

    “The challenged provisions will disenfranchise eligible Texas citizens who seek to exercise their right to vote, including voters with limited English proficiency, voters with disabilities, elderly voters, members of the military deployed away from home, and American citizens residing outside of the country,” the lawsuit states. “These vulnerable voters already confront barriers to the ballot box, and SB 1 will exacerbate the challenges they face in exercising their fundamental right to vote.”

    Gov. Greg Abbott (R-Texas), who signed the law in September, responded to the lawsuit by writing “Bring it” on Twitter and alleging that the statute “is legal.” But Democratic lawmakers in Texas welcomed the lawsuit from the DOJ.

    “Senate Bill 1 is a sweeping piece of legislation that creates unnecessary and deliberate barriers to voting,” read a joint statement from the Democratic chairs of the state House Democratic Caucus, Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Legislative Black Caucus, and Legislative Study Group.

    Leading voices within the DOJ, including Attorney General Merrick Garland, said the lawsuit was necessary in order to preserve Texas voters’ rights.

    “Our democracy depends on the right of eligible voters to cast a ballot and to have that ballot counted. The Justice Department will continue to use all the authorities at its disposal to protect this fundamental pillar of our society,” Garland said in a statement.

    “Texas Senate Bill 1’s restrictions on voter assistance at the polls and on which absentee ballots cast by eligible voters can be accepted by election officials are unlawful and indefensible,” added Kristen Clarke, head of the DOJ’s civil rights division.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer conducts a news conference after the Senate Democrats luncheon in the U.S. Capitol on November 2, 2021.

    For the fourth time this year, Republicans have filibustered to block voting rights protections proposed by Democrats — prompting Senate Majority Chuck Schumer (D-New York) to hint that his party might consider changes to the legislative rule.

    Republicans blocked the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a bill named for the late Democratic lawmaker and civil rights activist who spent much of his career advocating for voting rights. The bill would have enabled the federal government to oversee state voting laws in order to prevent racial discrimination during elections, as well as overturned two Supreme Court rulings over the past decade that loosened regulations in the Voting Rights Act.

    Prior to this week’s filibuster, Republicans have blocked three other attempts by Democrats to pass voting rights legislation.

    Speaking on Wednesday from the Senate floor, Schumer did not directly address the issue of the filibuster. However, he did allude to changing the rule — which many have described as a Jim Crow relic — in order to ensure voting rights reforms could pass.

    “Just because Republicans will not join us doesn’t mean Democrats will stop fighting,” Schumer said. “This is too important. We will continue to fight for voting rights and find an alternative path forward, even if it means going it alone.”

    Schumer added that he and Democrats should “explore whatever paths we have to restore the Senate so it does what the framers intended — debate, deliberate, compromise and vote.”

    Also on Wednesday, Schumer met with Democratic Senate caucus members to “strategize” about having “family discussions” within the party to “restore the Senate” when it comes to passing voting rights, according to a senior Democratic aide who spoke to The Hill.

    This isn’t the first time that Schumer has alluded to reforming the Senate rule. In September, when Republicans threatened to filibuster the Freedom to Vote Act (a watered-down version of the more expansive For the People Act), Schumer warned that he and his party would do whatever was necessary to pass a voting rights bill.

    “We’re going to take action to make sure we protect our democracy and fight against the disease of voter suppression, partisan gerrymandering and election subversion that is metastasizing at the state level,” Schumer said at the time.

    Republicans filibustered the bill anyway, and no immediate action from Schumer followed.

    While many progressives would welcome changes to the filibuster or even the elimination of the practice altogether, Schumer’s threats to reform the filibuster ring somewhat empty, considering the change would require the support of all 50 Democrats in the Senate. Many conservative Democrats have said they oppose filibuster abolition or reform — including one of the filibuster’s most vehement defenders, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia).

    In an op-ed he wrote in April, Manchin said there was “no circumstance” in which he would support weakening the filibuster. Instead, he said, lawmakers should try to reach agreements across the political aisle — despite zero indication from Republicans that they are willing to compromise on voting rights or any other Democratic proposals.

    “Instead of fixating on eliminating the filibuster or shortcutting the legislative process through budget reconciliation, it is time we do our jobs,” Manchin said.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Demonstrators are gathered outside of the Texas State Capitol during a voting rights rally on the first day of the 87th Legislature's special session on July 8, 2021, in Austin, Texas.

    State-level advocates are at the front lines of multiple intersecting battles in the larger quest to protect democracy. Often covered as separate and distinct considerations, the systematic attack on voting rights and abortion access are connected to the ongoing program of eroding constitutionally protected freedom and rights afforded to all individuals.

    “When we think about voting rights and reproductive rights, we have to look no further than Texas,” said Jennifer Driver, senior director of reproductive rights at the State Innovation Exchange (SiX), a national resource center that aims to support state legislators in passing transformative policy.

    Driver added: “It is no mere coincidence that the same week that Texas implemented SB-8 [Senate Bill 8, which bars all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy], they also pass an extremely problematic anti-voter bill. And what we know is that voting is an accountability measure. We vote for politicians who are going to represent our best interests.”

    The intersection of these issues demonstrates the importance of protecting civil liberties and human rights to uphold democracy. Democracy is not a fixed point, but more of a practice that requires deliberate efforts to maintain.

    And part of that practice and effort involves showing up for the people and issues that matter to our communities. Through its Reproductive Freedom Leadership Council, the State Innovation Exchange pulled together hundreds of legislators to join an amicus brief supporting legal abortion in the upcoming Supreme Court Case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

    The State Innovation Exchange “organized the largest state legislator amicus briefs submitted to an abortion case in this country’s history,” Driver told Truthout. “Nearly 900 state legislators sign on to say to the court, ‘We want you to uphold the fundamental rights to abortion’.”

    Driver says working with state legislators is really critical in elevating the connection between voting rights and reproductive rights.

    The State Innovation Exchange “has been working both with legislators who are actively trying to protect abortion rights in their states and also the right to vote and push back against the redistricting that’s happening in states across the country,” Driver said.

    In places like Ohio, partisan gerrymandering has paved the way for aggressive abortion restrictions. The Ohio Capital Journal describes the result of this gerrymandering as changing the landscape to benefit conservatives and pave the way for anti-abortion legislation to pass.

    Aileen Day, communications director for Planned Parenthood of Ohio, described the issue as both simple and complicated at the same time.

    “A majority of Ohioans believe abortion should be legal and accessible,” Day said. “Despite this, the Ohio Legislature is majority anti-abortion. This is possible because we don’t pick our legislatures. Gerrymandering allows our legislatures to pick us and give themselves disproportionate power.”

    Day spoke with Truthout while en route to a protest of an Ohio Senate hearing on a trigger ban, which outlaws abortion in the event Roe v. Wade is struck down. Last month, the Ohio Senate moved forward a bill that does just that.

    An October 2020 poll showed over 50 percent of Ohio voters believe abortion should be legal, while only 38 percent thought it should be illegal all or most of the time. Data published in July 2019 showed strong support for abortion despite the pre-viability ban proposed in the legislature.

    “With more Republicans in our legislatures, that means more bills restricting and banning reproductive health care get signed into law, but with the addition of more extreme conservatives in our legislature, that means extreme bills banning reproductive health care get signed into law,” Day said.

    Day shared that partisan gerrymandering contributed to more Republicans in the legislature and the restrictive approach paved the way for extreme ideologues to join the ranks. According to Day, there have been 30 anti-abortion and anti-reproductive health care bans and restrictions in Ohio in the past 10 years.

    Those restrictions include state-mandated counseling and a 24-hour waiting period, forcing people seeking an abortion travel to a clinic twice. This can be burdensome for those who live in communities without a clinic. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 93 percent of Ohio counties did not have an abortion clinic in 2017, accounting for 55 percent of women age 15-44 in the state.

    Day said the new Ohio district map gives Republicans over two-thirds of the legislative seats despite only winning 55 percent of the vote share in 2020. The ACLU of Ohio, the League of Women Voters of Ohio and the A. Phillip Randolph Institute sued last month challenging the new map.

    “Redistricting should not be a one-sided, rigged political process. Voters should pick their politicians,” Alora Thomas-Lundborg, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. “Politicians should not pick their voters.”

    Litigation is often a last resort in ensuring values of fundamental fairness and constitutional protections are upheld. And as states like Mississippi, Kentucky and Georgia are awaiting the outcome of federal appeals processes, including Supreme Court decisions, organizers continue to move forward.

    In 2019, the Georgia Legislature passed a sweeping elections bill, including an overhaul of the voting machines, and a six-week abortion ban. Both were fiercely fought by reproductive health advocates arguing Georgia’s six-week abortion ban is pending at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and is on hold until Dobbs is decided by the Supreme Court.

    “Conservative Republicans don’t give a sh*t about reproductive choice and reproductive rights,” Nse Ufot, CEO of the New Georgia Project and the New Georgia Project Action Fund said. “It’s a part of the culture wars. And they know that they can use it to drive up turnout among evangelicals who make up a significant portion of their base.”

    Manipulation of maps, and legislators picking their constituencies instead of the other way around keeps states locked in a regressive posture. As both Day and Ufot explained, communities of color are grouped in ways that limit their power and undermines the ability to shift legislative control.

    “The only way for them to hold on to power is to take a sledgehammer to our election,” Ufot told Truthout. “That way they keep people on their toes, keep people fighting for their dignity and their humanity — things that they already have, which are already ensconced and enshrined in the Bill of Rights and in our Constitution.”

    As a part of the Amplify Georgia campaign, which aims to expand and protect abortion access in the Peach State, the New Georgia Project co-produced a Georgia Reproductive Justice Voter Toolkit helping voters find candidates committed to helping communities not only survive but thrive.

    Efforts like voter toolkits are important to cut through the deep misinformation used to whip right-wing voters into a frenzy. From claims of stolen elections to fabrications about gestational staging in abortion and claims of fetal pain with no basis in science, there is no waiting for magical federal or court intervention.

    “We are talking about government and nation destabilizing disinformation campaigns,” Ufot said. “We’re talking about major fundamental, world-changing, world-threatening democracy and attacks on our elections.”

    Paraphrasing the late Toni Morrison, Ufot says that white supremacy functions as a distraction to keep us from doing our work and shifting society forward in a way that uplifts people across the board instead of simply enriching a select few. Policies that permit people to exercise their rights and protect their personal well-being are determined by the people who hold seats of power.

    When focused on maintaining partisan power, instead of fair representation of people and their interests, redistricting can enshrine power and tyranny of the few. Collective organizing of groups like the New Georgia Project, state Planned Parenthood staff and the State Innovation Exchange can provide a stopgap where federal intervention is delayed.

    “We are seeing how conservative legislators at the state level have had this playbook for a very long time,” Driver said. She explained that people have relied on the federal system, whether the courts or Congress, to protect rights, but the worst attacks are happening at the state level. “We are reminding people of the power of the state legislature,” Driver concluded.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Prisoners’ inability to vote means we can’t vote for fair-minded judges who will protect our rights in civil court.

    People in prison often begin their life in marginalized communities where their families’ right to vote has historically been suppressed. Today, voter suppression of those communities is again on the rise. The fact that people are actively trying to legislate additional hindrances to already marginalized communities’ right to vote highlights the need to ensure the right to vote for all of these communities’ members — even if they are in prison.

    This is especially true because, once convicted, their imprisonment further marginalizes them from society. In Illinois, where I’m incarcerated, everyone in prison is completely stripped of their right to vote until release. (For the thousands of people sentenced to die in Illinois prisons, this is a lifetime denial of the right to vote.)

    As someone who has been sitting in prison for the last two decades, I know the full effects of being disenfranchised. It leaves us vulnerable to a voting public that has almost zero concern for our welfare, and deprives us of both a voice in society and what could be a powerful tool to facilitate our return to useful citizenship.

    Fortunately, the organization Chicago Votes has been working to pass Senate Bill 828 in partnership with State Representative Lashawn Ford. If passed, this bill will restore voting rights to the roughly 30,000 individuals incarcerated in Illinois prisons, including me. After nearly passing in the final days of the 2021 regular legislative session with 64 “yes” commitments in the House of Representatives, confusion over the bill’s constitutionality stalled its passage. Since then, Chicago Votes and advocates have worked to address misbeliefs around the bill’s constitutionality. Now, the bill is poised to move during the fall veto session, which would make Illinois the first state in the United States to restore voting rights to people in prison.

    Those of us in prison are severely affected by our inability to vote. First, judges in Illinois are elected. For decades, getting elected required promising to be, or proving they were, “tough-on-crime” — meaning they would, or were, handing out overly harsh prison sentences. Those judges never had to worry about the victims of those harsh sentences voting against them in the next election, because prisoners do not have the right to vote.

    This continues today and affects all of one’s appeals and resentencing hearings. Moreover, the inability to vote means we can’t vote for fair-minded judges who will protect our rights in civil court, nor vote against judges who openly discriminate against petitions filed by people in prison.

    Second, most legislators don’t view anyone in prison as their constituents simply because they can’t vote. This is true whether they were a constituent prior to incarceration or whether the prison is in their district. If legislators don’t need to court the votes of people in prison, it ensures they are unlikely to take their concerns or viewpoints into consideration when passing legislation.

    That simple fact greatly contributed to the passing of tougher and tougher sentencing guidelines, and also ensures that today’s “reforms” of those extreme sentencing laws won’t help the currently incarcerated.

    Thus, for numerous reasons the disenfranchisement of people in prison helps to ensure that they serve more time in prison. This does not serve any true penological or public safety goal. Rather, it largely just serves to benefit the personal political careers of judges and legislators, many of whom have already retired. Therefore, those in prison have a serious liberty interest in obtaining the right to vote.

    The fact that people in prison can’t vote for state legislators also leaves them extremely vulnerable to abuse by the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). Legislators constantly cater to the guards’ union because they are a powerful voting bloc. This allows them to get legislation passed that is beneficial to prison guards, but detrimental to those of us in prison. This has negatively affected everything from our right to access public records, to our ability to peacefully protest inhumane living conditions via hunger strikes.

    We are also captive consumers at the “mercy” of monopolistic companies that routinely engage in price-gouging and other anti-competitive business practices — all to the detriment of the incarcerated. Additionally, the IDOC adds unnecessary, and unjust surcharges, or increases prices by demanding kickbacks or “commissions.” This too is at our expense.

    Without the right to vote, this is effectively “taxation without representation.” Thus, people confined to the IDOC were not only exploited by yesterday’s “tough-on-crime” politicians and ignored by today’s “reformers,” but are continuously exploited financially throughout our incarceration.

    People in prison are also largely prohibited from earning a living wage, and are often forced to work for pennies per day with no days off for months on end in unsafe working conditions.

    Being disenfranchised means we cannot vote for legislators who will look out for our interests — who will pass laws to stop our exploitation, require a living wage for prison labor, ensure we receive adequate medical care, have access to educational programming, and more.

    Society has this misconception that people in prison are “anti-social” or hell-bent on destroying society and should therefore not be allowed to vote so they can’t “poison the system.” Nothing could be further from the truth, though. Don’t get me wrong; society’s constant efforts to marginalize, ostracize, oppress and discriminate against the incarcerated definitely doesn’t help engender strong ties to society; but despite all of that, ties to the community usually remain.

    That’s because no matter how much society dehumanizes us, we remain just that — human. We are human beings with families and friends out in free society that we care deeply about. I myself am a son, father and grandfather. My right to vote, if restored to me, would be exercised primarily in support of my family’s safety and economic well-being.

    My vote for candidates would also probably be much more informed than the average citizen’s, due to the fact that I have the time to research both the candidates and their stances on the issues. Moreover, I have the time to get a real understanding of the issues and not just vote along party lines or for someone who spouts the best misleading rhetoric.

    People in prison also have a ton of experiential knowledge that can be used to help heal societal ills. We not only have firsthand knowledge about injustices embedded in our legal system, but we also have firsthand experience with oppression and being at the “mercy” of unaccountable agents of the state. For many people who come to prison, this makes us acutely aware of the injustices other people suffer and allows us to relate with empathy.

    This is a significant factor not only in why people personally impacted by mass incarceration are at the forefront of the movement to decarcerate, but also why people who leave prison often get involved in working for nonprofits, become “violence interrupters,” fight against racial discrimination, corruption, and more.

    Denying someone the right to vote is an extremely dehumanizing act. Rather than further ostracizing people in prison — the majority of whom will return to their communities someday — society should work to increase people’s attachments to society.

    Restoring people’s right to vote while in prison would go a long way toward engendering feelings of belonging to society. This would both make it more likely that the incarcerated would work towards the betterment of society, and increase the likelihood that they will be “returned to useful citizenship,” as our state constitution insinuates should be the goal.

    The right to vote should be available to everyone, incarcerated or not.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden participates in a CNN town hall at Baltimore Center Stage in Baltimore, Maryland, on October 21, 2021.

    Rights advocates are applauding President Joe Biden’s “long overdue” remarks at a Thursday CNN town hall signaling that he would support significant reforms to the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation and potentially other key pieces of his agenda.

    The president told Anderson Cooper he’d be open to returning to the talking filibuster, which requires senators to speak on the floor of the Senate, to replace the current rules which allow the minority party to block legislation that fails to garner 60 votes rather than enabling the passage of bills with a simple majority. Biden also said the talking filibuster should end after two senators have delivered their speeches.

    “We’re going to have to move to the point where we fundamentally alter the filibuster,” said the president of the procedural rule which this week stood in the way of the passage of the Freedom to Vote Act and which advocates say could stop the Democratic Party from passing legislation to protect women’s healthcare, among other agenda items.

    When Cooper asked the president to clarify whether he would support reforming the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation amid the GOP’s widespread voter suppression efforts, Biden replied, “And maybe more” — suggesting he may support the procedural change to ensure his party can raise the federal debt ceiling and pass far-reaching climate legislation, an immigrants’ rights package, and other bills.

    The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law said the president’s statement represented “good news” for voting rights and other pro-democracy initiatives.

    “As long as this racist relic of the Senate stays in place it will prevent legislation that advances racial justice, both now and in the future,” said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the organization. “It’s a simple choice between a free America or one chained by the past. Our democracy hangs in the balance.”

    Stand Up America, which has long called for filibuster reform, called the president’s comments “a huge step in the right direction,” but emphasized, “It’s not enough.”

    “Now we need action,” said Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the group. “Every week that goes by we’re seeing more rampant Republican voter suppression in the states, more partisan gerrymandering, and more attempts to sabotage and subvert the will of the American people. President Biden must meet this moment and offer his full-throated support for ending the Jim Crow filibuster. We’ll keep up the pressure until he does and the Senate acts to protect our freedom to vote.”

    The president’s remarks came a day after the Republicans voted against bringing to the Senate floor the Freedom to Vote Act, a compromise voting rights package which would prohibit partisan gerrymandering, enact a national automatic voter registration system, and make Election Day a national holiday.

    “Time [is] seriously running out to save democracy and reverse extreme gerrymandering and voter suppression,” said Ari Berman, author of Give Us the Ballot, who said the president’s remarks were “long overdue.”

    Failing to reform or abolish the filibuster, said Fordham law professor Zephyr Teachout on Friday, would be akin to giving up on “absolutely essential voting rights protections” to preserve Senate tradition.

    “Are we going with, ‘The filibuster is more important than democracy?’ Is that the plan?” Teachout asked.

    At the CNN town hall, Biden said pro-democracy advocates “make a very good point” regarding ending the filibuster.

    If the Republicans again use the filibuster to block key Democratic legislation, said the president, “I think you’re going to see an awful lot of Democrats being ready to say, ‘Not me, I’m not doing that again, we’re going to end the filibuster.’”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Vice President Kamala Harris is pictured in the South Court Auditorium at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on June 2, 2021.

    Yesterday Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer held a vote in the Senate to simply open a discussion on the Freedom To Vote Act, authored by Senator Amy Klobuchar and co-authored by Senator Joe Manchin. After the failure of the For The People Act to get even one single vote from any Republican, Manchin told his fellow Democrats that he could tweak the legislation to both protect the vote and get Republican votes. Clearly, he failed.

    But the bill did functionally get 50 votes and, with the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote as President of the Senate, that’s enough to make it into law according to the Constitution.

    But it was stopped by the filibuster.

    The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It’s not part of any law. And it’s damaging America.

    The Founding generation were almost universally opposed to anything resembling the filibuster; James Madison fought against (political) minority rule right up until his death in 1836.

    Today’s filibuster was fine-tuned into its current form by the “Grandfather of the Confederacy” John C. Calhoun, and its only purpose then was to block discussion of legislation that involved slavery in the South. After the Civil War, it was still used to prevent equal rights for African Americans and other minorities…as it was yesterday.

    Historian Adam Jentleson notes, “[F]rom the 87 years between when Reconstruction ended until 1964, the only category of legislation against which the filibuster was deployed to actively stop bills in their tracks was civil rights legislation.”

    The filibuster is just a rule the Senate has decided to impose on itself and that it can change anytime it wants.

    And it’s an unconstitutional rule, although senators have found it such a convenient place to put blame for inaction (rather than on themselves) that nobody has challenged it as such.

    But the Constitution is clear. Each state has two senators who represent it (Article I, Section 3). And, wrote the Framers in Article V of the Constitution, “[N]o state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

    Democrats in the Senate represent 41 million more people than Republicans and hold 51 out of 101 Senate votes (including the VP), yet they’re told that under the senate rules they can’t exercise or adequately represent either of their majorities. Instead, a mere 41 Republican senators can block their actions through the filibuster.

    That is a clear and egregious loss of states’ “equal suffrage” guaranteed in the Constitution. Most Americans know of the principle as “one person, one vote”: the concept that no citizen’s vote has more power than anothers’. Or, in this case, no state has more power in the Senate than any other state.

    But in the Senate right now, 41 Senators have the power to block the votes of 59 others and thus kill any legislation they don’t like — including urgently needed laws like the Freedom To Vote Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act or the For The People Act. That is not “equal suffrage.”

    Back in January of 1957, Vice President Richard Nixon and President Dwight Eisenhower had just been re-elected in the 1956 election. Nixon was presiding, as President of the Senate, over the opening session of the 85th Congress, and an issue of amending the Senate filibuster rule came before him.

    Nixon opined that the supermajority requirement then needed to change the filibuster was unconstitutional under the concept of equal suffrage.

    The Senate should be able to change its rules, he said, by a simple majority vote because the power of the Senate to change its own rules was authorized by the Constitution and the Constitution didn’t specify it was one of the three special issues (impeachment, ratification of Constitutional amendments, and treaties with other countries) that required supermajorities.

    Nixon’s challenge was later cited by both Vice Presidents Humphrey (1967) and Rockefeller (1975) and became the basis by which Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell carved holes into the filibuster (for approving cabinet officers, federal judges and Supreme Court justices) with simple majority votes in 2013 and 2017.

    Challenging the filibuster on a constitutional basis is not a new or unique idea, although it’s gotten far too little coverage in the press (probably because most Americans don’t even understand what the filibuster is). I last ranted here about it in March of this year including a dive into its racist history, as well as in January.

    The Brennan Center for Justice did a deep dive into this topic a full year ago and came to the same conclusion: the filibuster is a relic and almost certainly violates the spirit, if not the text, of the Constitution. As they noted, “[T]he filibuster continues to undermine a real democracy.”

    Constitutional law professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Burt Neuborne similarly proposed in a LA Times op-ed in March of this year that Harris expand on the example of Nixon and simply declare the filibuster unconstitutional, forcing the Senate to deal with the issue on a constitutional rather than a purely political basis.

    The fear cited by Democrats for eliminating or substantially changing the filibuster is that the Senate may end up in Republican hands and then they’d have a hard time blocking legislation to which they object.

    But isn’t majority rule the essence of democracy?

    Instead, since the 1960s, the filibuster has become the favorite anti-democratic tool of well-funded special interests like the American Petroleum Institute, the US Chamber of Commerce, and Big Banking to prevent any sort of meaningful action on climate change, labor rights and consumer protections (among other things).

    For example, after the brutal 2012 slaughter of 20 first-graders and 6 adults at Sandy Hook, Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) put together a modest bill to increase the use of background checks to purchase weapons.

    Fully 55 senators supported the legislation, as did 80–90% of the American public, but Republicans beholden to the gun industry launched a filibuster, killing the legislation by requiring 60 votes for passage.

    Given the demographic and political changes in America today — including the substantial shift in the Overton Window defining what’s politically normal or acceptable to discuss in the media (who could have imagined five years ago that Bernie Sanders would be driving the mainstream of the Democratic Party?) — ending Republican obstruction and doing the people’s business that’s overwhelmingly supported in poll after poll is essential to preserve Americans’ faith in our system.

    In large part because of the filibuster that faith has collapsed in the past few decades; it’s one of the bigger factors that led to Trump, charging that “the system is rigged,” winning the White House in 2016. We have to restore faith in American democracy, or he or someone like him will be back in power in 3 years.

    Democrats must stop being afraid of their own shadow (Carl Jung pun intended) and get things done for the American people.

    The disaster of Democrats being, once again, seen as hapless and impotent will do far more to advance the Republicans’ antidemocratic crusade (by causing Democrats to lose elections in 2022 and 2024) than any rule in the US Senate.

    And wouldn’t it be extraordinary to have our first African American and female Vice President puncture the weapon used by mostly-male white supremacists to fight civil rights in the US Senate for over 200 years?

    Blow up, or at least substantially modify, this unconstitutional filibuster now!

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Chairman Joe Manchin, left, and ranking member Sen. John Barrasso conduct a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee confirmation hearing in Dirksen Building on October 19, 2021.

    Senate Republicans filibustered a voting rights bill that was meant to be a compromised version of previous voting rights legislation proposed by Democrats — and which Sen. Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat from West Virginia, has said would get at least some GOP support.

    All 50 Republicans in the Senate voted to filibuster the bill, effectively ending its prospects of being passed in the “upper chamber” of Congress. In order to get the bill past a Senate filibuster, at least 10 Republican votes are required.

    The bill sought to address the slew of anti-voting rights legislation being passed in Republican-controlled states across the country. Many GOP state lawmakers have been proposing restrictive legislation to address false claims that election fraud affected last year’s presidential race, a lie frequently purported by former President Donald Trump and his allies, in spite of evidence that proves otherwise.

    “Across the country, the big lie — the big lie — has spread like a cancer,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) said before the vote on Wednesday. “The Freedom to Vote Act would provide long overdue remedies for all these concerns.”

    The filibuster has blocked a number of bills that were part of President Joe Biden’s agenda this year, and critics have questioned how Manchin can continue to put his support in the archaic rule. If filibuster rules remain intact without changes of any kind, it’s unlikely that a bill protecting voting rights will be passed by this session of Congress.

    Manchin has previously voiced opposition to the For the People Act, a more expansive voting rights bill which went beyond many of the proposals in the bill voted down on Wednesday. Manchin justified this by saying that promoting a compromise bill would attract bipartisan support.

    “Can someone please ask @Sen_JoeManchin what happened to 10 Republicans he promised would support Freedom to Vote Act & how he plans to pass his voting rights bill without changing filibuster rules?” investigative journalist Ari Berman tweeted after the Senate vote blocking the legislation.

    “Reminder: Manchin had all of September to try and bring Republicans along on this bill,” said Leah Greenberg, co-executive director of the progressive advocacy group Indivisible. “He couldn’t get a single one. That’s because the filibuster doesn’t encourage compromise – it encourages obstruction. And it has to go.”

    Polling shows that a majority of voters support changing filibuster procedures if it means a voting rights bill will be passed. A Vox/Data for Progress poll from March, for instance, found that 52 percent of respondents supported changing filibuster rules to pass the For the People Act, while only 37 percent said they opposed doing so.

    But Manchin is unwavering in his opposition to changing the filibuster; he has said he would “never” agree to eliminate the 60-vote threshold that is currently in place.

    Earlier this year, Manchin discussed the topic of the filibuster with reporters. As Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) stressed the need to end the Senate rule, Manchin yelled at reporters that he would never agree to the change, shouting, “Jesus Christ! What don’t you understand about never?”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Texas State Representatives Mary Ann Perez, center, and Christina Morales, right, attend a news conference with members of the Texas House Democratic Caucus outside the U.S. Capitol on August 6, 2021.

    The Texas legislature passed a new congressional map on Monday that gives disproportionate favor to Republicans and marginalizes the influence of nonwhite voters.

    The map was passed by the Senate and the House largely on party lines, with nearly all Republicans voting in favor. Democrats have condemned the map, saying that the redistricting process was squeezed into the legislature’s special 30 day session, giving little time for discussion or public input. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to sign the map into law, which will give Republicans disproportionate control over the state for the next decade.

    According to the Census Bureau, Texas’s population is about 41 percent white non-Latinx, nearly 40 percent Latinx, approximately 5 percent Asian and nearly 13 percent Black. Under the maps approved by the legislature, however, white people represent a majority in 60 percent of the congressional districts, as Mother Jones’s Ari Berman points out. Meanwhile, Latinx people represent a majority in only 18 percent of districts, and Black and Asian people do not represent a majority in any district.

    Though the Texas GOP’s redistricted maps were already discriminatory in 2010, this round is slated to disenfranchise nonwhite voters even more than before. Whereas Latinx residents represented a majority in eight districts over the past decade, there will only be seven such districts in the new maps, despite Latinx residents making up about half of Texas’s new residents over the last ten years.

    Due to the state’s population growth, Texas will be gaining two additional seats in the House. But, despite nearly all of the new population being people of color, the new map gives both seats to majority-white districts.

    The new maps also consolidate and empower the GOP in particular, in the year after Texas was briefly poised to go blue in the 2020 election. Under the new map, the number of safe Republican seats would double from 11 to 22, with nearly the entire state becoming deep red districts with some Democratic strongholds like Dallas, Houston and Austin.

    Democratic state lawmakers criticized the new map. “What we’re doing in passing this congressional map is a disservice to the people of Texas,” said Rep. Rafael Anchía before the vote. “What we’re doing is hurtful to millions of Texans — it’s shameful.”

    Texas Democrats had fled the state this summer in attempts to block the Republicans’ voter suppression package, but were forced to return and restore quorum in the legislature when Republicans threatened to arrest them.

    Several civil rights groups have sued Texas over the map. The plaintiffs, represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), say that the new maps violate the Voting Rights Act because they disenfranchise Latinx voters.

    “Violation of voting rights is not a partisan issue,” said Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel for MALDEF. “Still, Texas has a uniquely deplorable record in its consistent disregard of Latino population growth over half a century of redistricting.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Voting rights should include the right to vote for someone who represents your views, not just the lesser evil.

    Should a major political party use a voting rights bill to rid itself of minor party competition? That appears to be happening with the recently introduced Freedom to Vote Act (S.2747), now before the Senate.

    A pared-down version of the For the People Act, S.2747 would eliminate public funding for presidential campaigns by terminating the Presidential Election Campaign Fund — a post-Watergate era reform meant to reduce big donor influence in presidential races by providing an alternate public funding source for campaigns.

    For over 30 years, this reform was embraced by major and minor party presidential candidates alike. But in recent cycles, only Green Party nominees qualified for presidential primary matching funds. Major party presidential candidates have eschewed both presidential primary matching funds and general election grants — because these programs limit the amount of private funds candidates can spend if they accept public funding — and because the amount of public funding is not enough for major party candidates who now raise hundreds of millions in private funds.

    These matching funds have been critical in helping Green Party presidential candidates pay for expensive petition drives to meet onerous state ballot qualification requirements established by Democrats and Republicans — a use affirmed by the Federal Election Commission. In many states, being on the ballot and achieving a certain result for president is even required for minor parties to retain ballot status. Without these funds, the Green Party would disappear in many states.

    Exit polls in 2016 showed that 61 percent of those voting for Green presidential nominee Jill Stein would have stayed home if she was not on the ballot. Green and other minor party candidates bring more voters to the polls. Party suppression is a form of voter suppression. It is what authoritarian governments do. It is what the Democratic Party is subtly proposing to do via this bill.

    We support S.2747’s provisions that would preempt the new anti-democratic Republican state laws promoting partisan gerrymandering, voter suppression, partisan election certification, and intimidation of voters and election administrators. We support the bill’s provisions that make voting easier, including automatic voter registration, vote by mail, 15 consecutive days of early voting and Election Day as a national holiday. We support its requirements to disclose dark money.

    But lamentably, S.2747 fails to address two primary anti-democratic elements of our electoral system. Voting rights should include the right to vote for someone who represents your views, not just the lesser evil. But ballot access for minor parties and independents in the United States is far more onerous than in other electoral democracies. The U.S. needs a “right to the ballot law” establishing reasonable ballot access requirements in state and federal elections.

    Then there is our outdated single-member district, winner-take-all plurality voting system that systematically excludes diverse voices and political minorities from their fair share of representation, and leaves large number of voters in each legislative district without anyone representing their views. The Fair Representation Act would create multi-party democracy based on proportional representation in the House through ranked-choice voting from multi-member districts, and would eliminate gerrymandering and “the spoiler” dynamics in the process.

    But we must protest the public finance provisions of the Freedom to Vote Act — which in knocking minor parties like the Greens off the ballot, would transfer the money now in the Presidential Election Campaign Fund into a public funding program for the House reachable almost exclusively by only upper-echelon major party candidates.

    Greens vigorously support public funding of elections. But this voting rights bill should focus on voting rights. Public funding should be addressed in separate legislation with a full airing of all the implications for minor as well major parties and voter choice. Therefore, we urge the Senate to eliminate S.2747’s public financing section. Not only is it unfair to minor party and independent candidates — and the voters who support them — but the bill will be harder to pass because no Republican will vote for public funding. And if not enough Republicans support the bill, it would be hypocritical for Democrats to seek a filibuster carve-out for voting rights, when the bill contains such blatant partisan self-interest.

    Millions of Americans are under-represented under our current system. Let’s pass the Freedom to Vote Act without its flawed public campaign funding section, then enact needed electoral reforms that will make the U.S a more representative and inclusive multi-party democracy, including public campaign funding, fair ballot access and proportional representation.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A poll worker puts a mail-in ballot in a security box in the recall election of Gov. Gavin Newsom at a center in San Clemente, California, on September 7, 2021.

    On Monday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill into law that will ensure registered voters are automatically mailed a ballot whether they request one or not, legislation that will make voting in the state far more accessible.

    The law codifies and makes permanent a policy that was implemented in order to address voting complications during the coronavirus pandemic. California voters were sent their ballots automatically in the 2020 general election, as well as in the recent 2021 gubernatorial recall race.

    “California is now PERMANENTLY a vote-by-mail state,” Newsom wrote in a tweet celebrating the development. “Because we believe in making voting EASIER and for every voice to be heard.”

    California now joins a small handful of states, including Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah, that send ballots to voters automatically. However, if Golden State voters wish to cast their vote in person, they’re still able to do so under the new law.

    Voting by mail has been linked to increases in voter participation in places where the option is available. During the 2020 election alone, California saw its voter turnout increase to around 70 percent, the highest rate the state has seen in more than six decades of voting, no doubt due in part to mailing ballots to every eligible voter. Automatically sending ballots out to voters has been particularly beneficial to historically disenfranchised communities.

    Some lauded the policy change as one that should be implemented in other parts of the country as well.

    “Vote by mail allows everyone equal access to our democracy,” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California) wrote on Twitter. “Time to take it nationwide!”

    The chances of a similar policy being implemented in other states are low, however — Republicans have generally been against such moves, falsely claiming that the practice is linked to higher instances of voter fraud, and that expanding access to voting by mail only benefits Democrats.

    Both ideas have been refuted by several studies.

    “There is no evidence that mail balloting increases electoral fraud as there are several anti-fraud protections built into the process designed to make it difficult to impersonate voters or steal ballots,” the Brookings Institute noted last summer, citing research from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

    A Stanford University study also looked at the impact of universal voting by mail procedures and found that the policy doesn’t give an advantage to either party — in fact, such voting methods produce partisan outcomes that “closely resemble in-person elections,” the study’s authors concluded.

    Polling also reveals that the American people want voting by mail expanded, not limited. A Monmouth University poll from June of this year found that 69 percent of voters across the country supported “establishing national guidelines to allow vote by mail and in-person early voting in federal elections in every state,” while just 25 percent opposed the idea. Half of the respondents in the poll (50 percent) also expressed an eagerness to make voting by mail easier, while only 39 percent said it should be harder to do.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Kyrsten Sinema heads back to a bipartisan meeting on infrastructure in the basement of the U.S. Capitol building on June 8, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Democrats in the state of Arizona are threatening to hold a vote of “no confidence” against Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) over her steadfast support for the filibuster rule in the United States Senate. The filibuster has been used by Republicans to block a number of key policies this year, which will likely continue unless it is reformed or abolished.

    A resolution from the Arizona Democratic Party (ADP) State Committee also warned that it would hold a no-confidence vote on Sinema if she continues to obstruct a number of bills being pushed by party leaders in Congress, including legislation on voting rights, workers’ rights, health care and infrastructure.

    “The Arizona Democratic Party State Committee will go officially on record and will give Senate [sic] Sinema a vote of NO CONFIDENCE” if she doesn’t back these bills, the resolution read.

    The party is at a “critical crossroads,” the ADP noted. Both houses of Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives) could be lost in the 2022 midterms — and with that possible outcome, the ability to make laws meant to benefit the American people could also be lost.

    If the filibuster has to end in order to expand rights, so be it, the party said, calling the legislative rule a “Jim Crow relic” and noting that the vast majority of ADP members have long been in support of ending it outright. The state party also decried Sinema’s attempts to keep it in place, ostensibly to preserve some fictional semblance of bipartisanship with Republicans, who are pledging to block a number of legislative items offered up by Democrats.

    “While we want Senator Sinema to be SUCCESSFUL, her argument that the filibuster protects the rights of minorities has become laughable in the face of Republican state legislators’ actions on voting rights, public health during the pandemic, and abortion rights,” the resolution added.

    Beyond the ADP, most of Sinema’s constituents (including a plurality of Republicans in the state) are fine with ending the Senate rule. In a Data for Progress poll conducted earlier this year, 61 percent of Arizona voters said they were in favor of ending the filibuster if it meant major legislation could be passed.

    Democratic criticism toward Sinema for defending the filibuster goes beyond her own state. In June, after the senator wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post defending the legislative rule by arguing that its abolition could lead to Republicans simply undoing any new laws that are passed, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) blasted Sinema, characterizing her argument as defeatist.

    “It’s essentially an argument of saying, ‘Well, why do anything at all, in case something in the future may change it,’” Ocasio-Cortez said.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Over a hundred people joined Ramarley Graham's family and other organizations and groups for a public action and vigil in conjunction with Beyond The Moments National Day of Action on April 4, 2017.

    This Yom Kippur, a sacred refrain is running back and forth through my head: Texas, what the hell?

    That’s right Texas, what the hell? In just one day, on September 1, the Texas state legislature all but banned abortions statewide, passed the most restrictive voting laws in the U.S., and allowed Texans to carry handguns openly without a license. And if that were not nearly enough, this past June, Texas’s governor signed a bill limiting the teaching of the New York Times’s “1619 Project” and other content deemed by conservatives to be “critical race theory” in public schools.

    Yet, we must also refrain from demonizing Texas as some wholly disconnected outlier. These trends are not at all unique to that state. Indeed Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina and South Dakota are currently preparing abortion bills that mimic the Texas legislation. Meanwhile, there are 20 other states besides Texas that allow permitless handgun carrying. And as of August 26, 27 states have introduced bills or have otherwise taken steps to restrict the teaching of what conservatives see as critical race theory.

    So, while it might feel satisfying for progressives to pile on Texas, it’s probably more accurate to say that this particular state represents a larger phenomenon that has been part of our national culture for some time. For lack of a better term, let’s call it the rage of the white American man.

    White rage is, of course, nothing new, it might be argued that it’s currently entering an era of renewed ferocity. Last month we learned from the Census Bureau that the percentage of white people in the U.S. has actually decreased for the very first time. Since the last report 10 years ago, the overall white population in the U.S. has declined by almost 10 percent. In that same amount of time, the Latinx population grew by 23 percent, the Asian population increased by over 35 percent and the Black population grew by almost 6 percent.

    When you consider that the United States was built on a foundation of white supremacy — that is, by white men, for white men — it’s not difficult to grasp the impact of news such as this. While the country’s percentage of white people may be declining, white supremacists surely won’t go away quietly. We know from history that a dying beast can still do a considerable amount of damage on the way down. Indeed, this is precisely what we’re seeing unfold in Texas and around the country: the anger of white supremacist, misogynist Americans who are increasingly galled by what their country is becoming.

    And they are galled. They’re galled by the fact that the U.S. actually had a Black president for eight years. They’re galled that there’s a new national reckoning going on over the legacy of slavery and structural racism in our country. They’re galled by the increased national attention being paid to police violence against Black people and by a Black Lives Matter movement that mobilized the largest mass protests in U.S. history last summer. They are galled every time another statue of a Confederate is toppled in a Southern state, as was the case at the Virginia statehouse last week.

    And it doesn’t stop there. They’re also galled when women, nonbinary and trans people seek power over their own bodies — and really, whenever they seek more power in general. They’re galled by the rising movement for reproductive justice. They’re galled that there are now a record number of women serving in Congress, including a Palestinian American and a hijab-wearing former refugee from Somalia. They’re galled by the #MeToo movement, which is removing sexually violent men from positions of power. Last November, they were particularly galled when a powerful voting rights organizing effort largely led by Black women helped turn Georgia blue in both the presidential and congressional elections.

    Of course, white and misogynist anger over voting rights in this country didn’t begin last year. It surged in 1870, when the 15th Amendment technically gave Black men the right to vote. It surged in 1920, when the 19th Amendment technically gave women the right to vote. And it surged again in 1965, when the Voting Rights Act went into effect. Even as we celebrate these landmark legislative events, we can’t look away from the immense backlash and rage they engendered — and continue to engender — throughout the U.S., which makes it all the more crucial that we keep fighting for real universal enfranchisement. (It’s worth noting that truly universal enfranchisement would also include populations that don’t yet have the vote, such as undocumented people and most people who are incarcerated in prisons.)

    As we contemplate how to respond to the events transpiring in Texas and around the country, it’s immensely important for us to understand the historical power of white rage. This phenomenon has been part of U.S. national culture since this country’s founding on stolen land, and the colonial mass murder of Indigenous people. The current brand of self-righteous white rage is reminiscent of the racist backlash that played out during Reconstruction. We shouldn’t be surprised by the current devastating setbacks to public policy; on the contrary, we should expect them.

    The staying power of white supremacist anger in this country sometimes reminds me of a certain Biblical trope. Readers of the Hebrew Bible are, of course, familiar with the story of creation in Genesis 1, in which an omnipotent God creates light out of darkness and separates the primordial waters of chaos. It’s a satisfying, deeply aspirational myth that expresses a certain vision of the world as it should be: a neat and tidy process by which the world moves from chaos to greater order and progress.

    However, scholars have pointed out that there is another creation story embedded in the Bible, influenced by epic stories from the Ancient Near East that portray a battle between the gods and powerful sea monsters that represent the primordial forces of chaos. Biblical books, such as the Psalms, Job and Isaiah describe God’s battle with a mighty sea monster named Leviathan, among others. Unlike the orderly movement toward progress that we read about in Genesis 1, this other narrative portrays creation as an ongoing and even desperate struggle. And while God generally gets the upper hand, it’s not at all clear in the Bible that the primordial sea monster is ever completely vanquished.

    It sometimes occurs to me that our conventional, liberal view of history reflects a “Genesis 1 mindset,” i.e., an orderly movement toward greater progress, proceeding neatly from victory to victory. And while these landmark moments certainly represent political progress, they do not fundamentally change the foundational truth of this country. To put it differently, we too often forget that the sea monster is never fully vanquished. Yes, victories should be celebrated. But even more than that, they must also be protected.

    If we were ever sanguine about the threat of white supremacist resentment in this country, we should now have no doubt that it still exists, after the past four years of Trump (which literally culminated in an armed insurrection on the U.S. Capitol). This rage is real and it is mobilizing in truly frightening ways. It’s no coincidence that among the bills passed in Texas earlier this month was legislation loosening restrictions on gun carry laws. Indeed, the dramatic spike in gun ownership and the erosion of gun control measures around the country should make it clear to us that the threat of white nationalism is deadly serious.

    So where do we go from here? How do we resist such fierce and unrelenting rage? Perhaps the first step is to remember that white resentment is fueled by fear — and in truth, white supremacists have genuine cause to be fearful. They are afraid because they know full well that there are more of us than there are of them — and our numbers are growing. We should never forget that while fear may be one of their primary motivations, it’s also a sign of their fundamental weakness.

    White nationalism is essentially a reactionary movement; that is to say, it has historically reacted to changes that genuinely threaten its power and hegemony in this country. But even though by definition, these reactionaries have been playing defense throughout American history, the liberal response to white supremacy has been to resist the prospect of a strong offense as “too much,” “too radical,” or “too extreme.” White liberals often distance themselves from revolutionary people-of-color-led movements in this way, and those of us who are white must consciously resist this form of distancing, because this phenomenon is itself a form of white supremacy preservation. During the years of the civil rights movement — just as we’re seeing today — many white liberal leaders would publicly criticize movement tactics they felt were too radical or extreme.

    This is precisely what Martin Luther King Jr. was addressing when he so memorably wrote from a Birmingham jail, “the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?” The Black playwright Lorraine Hansberry put it succinctly in a 1964 speech entitled “The Black Revolution and the White Backlash,” saying, “We have to find some way to encourage the white liberal to stop being a liberal and become an American radical.”

    In other words, as long as white supremacy is baked into the very systems that govern our country, we can ill afford to play defense. If anyone has any doubts, consider this: Two months before the census reported the decrease in the white population in this country, the Reflective Democracy Campaign released a report that demonstrated how radically white minority rule pervades politics across the U.S. Despite the recent electoral gains for women and people of color, white men represent 30 percent of the population but 62 percent of state and national officeholders. By contrast, women and people of color constitute 51 percent and 40 percent of the U.S. population respectively, but represent just 31 percent and 13 percent of officeholders.

    When the Reflective Democracy Campaign released these findings, its director, Brenda Choresi Carter, put it very well: We have “a political system in general that is not built to include new voices and perspectives. It’s a system built to protect the people and the interests already represented in it. It’s like all systems. It’s built to protect the status quo.”

    As I read those words, I can’t help but ask: Isn’t challenging status-quo systems what Yom Kippur is ultimately all about? Every year at this season, those of us who observe this holiday are commanded to take a hard, unflinching look at the status quo, openly admit what needs changing, and commit to the hard work it will take to transform it. It’s an inherently radical concept: to proclaim every year that the status quo is unacceptable and that nothing short of genuine intervention will do. If our Yom Kippur prayers are to mean anything at all, we must be prepared to act upon this radical idea.

    Organizers and activists working to intervene in our racist, inequitable systems are already lighting a path toward a transformed world. We must take our cue from them. Because in the end, when we fight for voting rights, reproductive justice, racial justice, economic equity, or any other issue, we’re not only advocating for specific causes that have suffered setbacks — we’re fighting to transform systems that are fundamentally unjust.

    So when we sound the shofar with a long blast at the end of Yom Kippur, let’s not only regard it as the conclusion to this season. Let’s consider it a call to action for transformation in the year ahead. And when the inevitable setbacks occur, let us not respond with surprise or dismay; rather, let’s remind each other that setbacks and backlashes are a sign of their fear, not their strength. Let us never forget that there are more of us than there are of them — and if we see fit to summon our strength, we can indeed create the world we know is possible.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • People cast their votes at a voting machine

    A group of Senate Democrats has unveiled compromise legislation intended to strengthen voting rights throughout the U.S. while appealing to centrists in the party — but which includes a voter identification provision that has the potential to restrict those voting rights for millions.

    Earlier this year, the For the People Act, an expansive voting rights bill that was proposed by Democrats, failed to garner support from centrists like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia). However, he and other Democrats sought to find common ground on the issue, agreeing on principle that voting restrictions being proposed and passed by Republican state legislatures across the country needed to be addressed.

    On Tuesday, that group of senators, led by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) and a number of cosponsors, including Manchin, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia), Sen. Jon Tester (D-Montana) and Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Georgia), introduced their compromise bill, dubbed the Freedom to Vote Act.

    The bill includes a number of provisions that were part of the For the People Act. It would, for example, make Election Day a federal holiday, require states to implement automatic voter registration systems, have each state offer same-day voter registration by the 2024 presidential election, and would force the disclosure of donations to dark money groups.

    The bill would also set federal minimum standards for mail-in voting, and would seek to ban partisan gerrymandering by restricting political parties from drawing congressional district maps on their own. Voters would be guaranteed at least 15 consecutive days of early voting before Election Day, including two weekends preceding election day.

    But notably, the bill would include a provision requiring voters in all states to present a photo ID in order to vote. This would expand the types of identification allowed for voting purposes and would give voters the opportunity to present both hard copy and digital versions of their IDs in order to receive a ballot — a move that would reduce the burden in some states that already have such restrictions, but would increase disenfranchisement in others where it’s not yet required.

    In a statement on Tuesday, Manchin defended the need for the bill to include an ID requirement.

    “As elected officials, we also have an obligation to restore [people’s] faith in our Democracy, and I believe that the commonsense provisions in this bill — like flexible voter ID requirements — will do just that,” he said.

    Thirty-five states currently require identification in order to vote, with few, if any, alternatives for those who don’t have IDs to still partake in the democratic process. Right now, more than 21 million individuals who would otherwise be eligible voters do not have access to the type of IDs required to vote — and that number could rise if more states are forced to require identification prior to voting. Marginalized communities are hit hardest by the requirements, particularly people of color.

    What’s more, such requirements are a solution in search of a problem. Various studies have demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is rare, and this one from 2014 showcases how, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast over a 15-year period, there have only been 31 cases of fraud that could have been prevented with an ID.

    Beyond the disagreements surrounding the bill’s voter ID requirements, its chances of passing in the Senate are still slim-to-none. Republican senators are likely to filibuster the bill — and as Manchin is steadfast in his opposition to filibuster reform, this is an outcome that would effectively destroy the chance of a voting rights bill of any kind being passed by the current Congress.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Joe Biden points while glaring through his aviator sunglasses

    In a push to protect voting rights, President Joe Biden is planning to pressure conservative Democrats in the Senate to support filibuster reform in order to pass voting rights legislation.

    According to three people briefed on the situation, per Rolling Stone, Biden has told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) that he will speak to holdouts in the Senate, hoping to carve out a filibuster exception for voting rights.

    “Chuck, you tell me when you need me to start making phone calls,” Biden reportedly told Senator Schumer.

    The White House has been campaigning for voting rights legislation to stem the Republican-led, conspiracy-theory-laden tide of voter suppression laws sweeping the country. “The president and vice president have been very clear that this is a crucial priority and senior White House staff across many departments are constantly working on it,” a White House official told Rolling Stone.

    Up until now, Biden has not supported efforts to reform or eliminate the filibuster, which are Democrats’ only options to pass legislation like the John Lewis Voting Rights Act or the For the People Act.

    In fact, Biden has opposed filibuster abolition for months, despite the fact that it stands in the way of nearly his entire agenda. He said in July that ending the filibuster would “throw the entire Congress into chaos,” leading to gridlock.

    But the Senate is already gridlocked. It has taken months for the legislature to negotiate the infrastructure bill, a previously bipartisan proposal that’s now been split into two highly politicized bills that have fractured support within Biden’s own party.

    Biden’s delay in supporting filibuster reform has frustrated Democrats and progressives alike. Even moderate Democrats like House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) have been pushing for a filibuster exception when it comes to voting rights, illustrating the urgency felt within much of the Democratic Party to pass such legislation.

    The voter suppression situation in particular is increasingly dire. As of July, 18 states have passed 30 laws to restrict the right to vote, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Even more voter suppression bills have passed since then, with Texas Republicans jamming through their voter suppression package earlier this month, even after Democrats desperately pulled out all stops to block it.

    With much of the Democratic party supporting filibuster abolition or reform, Democrats hope Biden’s support will, at the very least, help unite the party in recognizing the importance of passing voting rights legislation.

    “I think there’s a clear recognition the president will have a role to play in bringing this over the finish line, and if in order to do that, we need [filibuster] rules reform, then so be it,” Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Maryland), an original co-author of the For the People Act, told Rolling Stone. “I think Joe Biden with his long history and experience in the Senate can see that.”

    Biden is likely to face resistance from the filibuster holdouts, however. Senators Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) have been firm in their opposition to any filibuster reform, even though the controversial Senate rule is blocking much of the Democratic agenda — and Republicans could very easily retake the majority in Congress in 2022 without adequate checks on the rampant voter suppression and partisan gerrymandering occurring at the state level.

    Though Sinema and Manchin are the most vocal opponents of filibuster abolition or reform, their views reflect those of a small group of Democratic senators. And with conservative Democrats in both chambers of Congress ready to block Biden’s agenda, the president has his work cut out for him.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.