Category: Voting rights

  • Homes destroyed in the wake of Hurricane Ida are seen on September 2, 2021, in Grand Isle, Louisiana.

    Organizers and activists in Louisiana and Mississippi are regionally coordinating their relief response in the wake of Hurricane Ida, and linking the immediate survival needs of people with a coherent set of political demands expressed in a petition to lawmakers including President Biden, calling for a humanitarian approach to evacuation and evacuees. Both initiatives draw on lessons learned from past disasters like Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

    Kali Akuno, co-founder of Cooperation Jackson in Jackson, Mississippi, and Stephen Bradberry, executive director at the Alliance Institute in New Orleans, have joined forces to mobilize a political force to anticipate and counter any moves from the Shock Doctrine playbook: the process by which alert capitalists move in on vulnerable communities while they’re still reeling from whatever disaster has hit them, as described by Naomi Klein in her 2007 book.

    Akuno and Bradberry remember the mass firings of 4,300 public school teachers in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which led to an accelerated makeover of New Orleans’s public education system to a for-profit charter school system. They also remember the post-Katrina passage of a voting law that said people couldn’t vote in Louisiana elections without coming back to the state — measures that were enacted without community input, when few were around to fight back.

    They especially want to make sure the resources that flow in are dedicated to supporting the communities most in need, and that funds are not siphoned off to highly compensated consultants and administrators of the resources intended to aid displaced people.

    Crisis as Opportunity to Dialogue With the People

    Ten families from New Orleans evacuated to Cooperation Jackson before Hurricane Ida made landfall in Louisiana on August 29. The next day 20 more also sought temporary refuge there, seeking safety from damaged dwellings, power and water outages not likely to be resolved for weeks, or even longer.

    Akuno says Cooperation Jackson, which is dedicated to expanding democracy via the proliferation of worker-owned-and-run cooperatives, is partially filling the structural breach of “concern, care and preparation that we know is needed at this point — which we should have learned 16 years ago, very clearly.”

    New Orleanians line up for groceries following Hurricane Ida.
    New Orleanians line up for groceries following Hurricane Ida.

    A survivor of Hurricane Katrina who led the Peoples’ Hurricane Relief Fund based in New Orleans after the storm, he knows firsthand the mix of anxiety, distress and frustration weighing on the evacuees. “Nobody wants to leave their community. We wanted to make sure they had a place to rest their heads,” Akuno told Truthout.

    Akuno explained that he advocates for rational and democratic planning, decision making and resource sharing, in opposition to the laissez-faire approach of governments, which basically say, “Y’all have to fend for yourselves and good luck.” Mobilizing people and helping them gain the political confidence to demand better systems takes time and relationship-building, Akuno says, and in his decades-long experience as a community organizer he has come to know of an essential first step: “Its important for people to know that there are other people who actually give a shit. You have to show them that you do.”

    On Thursday, a van full of Cooperation Jackson’s members will embark on a mutual aid effort to distribute generators, solar-powered device chargers, potable water and canned food to people in Biloxi and Gulfport, Mississippi, as well as in New Orleans.

    In addition to meeting people’s immediate needs, the group is delivering a message: It doesn’t have to be this way. Activists are communicating that in order to make sure that the rebuild is controlled on the ground as much as possible, it’s essential to build relationships, stay in touch and let each other know how we can support each other as we move through this crisis. They’re also emphasizing that mutual aid efforts can be paired with fights against the powerful systems that are hard to overcome, but that must be overcome.

    “This is how we’ll forge the good, just and beloved community,” Akuno says. “We’ve got to organize that into existence. [Global] warming is already beating most of the models. We weren’t supposed to be at this point for another 20-25 years, but we’re already here. We have to come up with a survival plan based on what people think it will take, and what they’re willing to do.”

    He recalls that after Katrina there was a policy choice not to provide decent-paying wages for people to return to the city to rebuild, clean up and work on their own homes. The result was the permanent displacement of around 50,000 New Orleanians. “People that could have come back had no viable way to do that,” he says. “We’ve got to create that road this time.”

    He believes that affected communities are going to have to take that work up — and that they will. “One of the things that will help us this go round are the memories of how really bad it was 16 years ago. There’s still enough people … who went through that, and are still on the scene, and who still have those messages and can move on them in their communities. So we’re getting them on tap to mobilize, and that’s already started to take place.”

    Anticipating the Shock Doctrine Playbook

    New Orleans institutions like Tulane University are beginning to bus their people out because of the hazards of living in a debris-filled city without water and power, enduring temperatures in the 90s, isolated thunderstorms in the forecast and Tropical Storm Larry on the radar. As individuals who can continue to leave (an estimated 200,000 residents remained) to avoid the inconveniences and health and safety concerns, Stephen Bradberry, executive director of the Alliance Institute, has been outlining the necessary organizing pieces that in his view have to occur “to make sure that people’s rights are not trampled on, from the evacuation through the recovery.”

    With limited power and intermittent internet access, Bradberry, a former ACORN organizer and recipient of the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award for his work with Katrina survivors, created the petition as an intervention against the “things that I know are going to happen if we don’t get in front of it.” These include communications, supply chain (especially medicines like insulin), rent assistance and insurance issues as well as hiring practices and wages for the recovery effort, and legislative watchdogs.

    “Anti-looting” rhetoric coming out of New Orleans’s city hall — at a time when many people don’t have the basic necessities for survival — makes this project even more urgent. The petitioners are demanding a humanitarian approach to the recovery that does not repeat the militarism on display after Katrina, when people in desperate need had to approach officers toting automatic weapons or soldiers garbed in full military regalia for basic help. The process was intimidating, especially for marginalized communities targeted by police, and help was often denied. “In order to have people safe and taken care of in the most humane way possible, we have to have a large number of people saying, ‘No, that doesn’t go down!’” Bradberry told Truthout.

    To that end, the petition, which integrates the United Nations principles for Internally Displaced People (IDPs), sets forth demands and guiding principles meant to be a moral compass to make sure that sweeping changes aren’t enacted without the people’s voice being central to the process. The petition asks for a plan of return: “If youre going to evacuate people, how are they going to get home?” Bradberry asks. It further demands that any evacuation plan must adhere to the UN’s guidance for IDPs — for example, people must be evacuated as close to home as possible and families must not be separated.

    But in order to get these demands and the other economic and processual ones met, Bradberry advises that the petition will have to be backed up by a focused and consistent “birddogging of the state and federal legislatures and to some extent the city council.” He’s especially concerned about the major city election planned for November. “If people are not able to come back, how are their voting rights going to be upheld?” he asks.

    Bradberry knows a public outcry will be necessary to push the Biden administration to take up the petition, “so that Biden sees that its in his interest to apply these principles.” Whatever the result, Bradberry sees it as “an opportunity to put our policies out in front of people where they can see they make sense and why they make sense.”

    More broadly, Akuno hopes that Ida changes Biden’s orientation about how he’s going to tackle the climate crisis.

    “The same political will that was exhibited in March 2020 when the governments of the world shut the global economy down because they were responding to a global pandemic, demonstrated that the political will to act with expediency can manifest in global change immediately,” Akuno said, emphasizing that this kind of dramatic action is necessary to avert the most catastrophic impacts of global warming.

    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.

    Despite weeks of protest by Democrats in the state, Texas Republicans succeeded this week in passing their sweeping voter suppression law, which will make it harder for voters with disabilities and non-white voters in the state to cast a balllot. It now goes to Gov. Greg Abbott, who has vowed to sign it.

    The bill has long been decried by Democrats and advocates as a push by Republicans after the 2020 election to draw lines between who is and isn’t allowed to vote. It takes aim at measures that have historically driven turnout from Black and Latinx voters and other disenfranchised groups.

    The bill, S.B.1, outlaws drive-through voting, for instance — a method of voting widely used by non-white voters to cast a ballot last year. Drive-through voting, which some counties had rolled out for the 2020 election, was a popular method, with about 1 in 10 early voters in Harris County casting their ballot that way.

    Harris County, the state’s most populous county, had also implemented a 24-hour early voting program that officials offered for one day. Republicans also outlawed 24-hour voting in their bill, taking special issue with Harris county’s methods to increase turnout — perhaps partly because the county voted for President Joe Biden by a margin of nearly 30 points in 2020.

    The Texas GOP is also creating hurdles for disabled people to vote. Some people with disabilities need another person to assist them in filling out a ballot. But the new bill will create an application process for people assisting others in voting and anyone assisting a disabled voter could potentially face criminal penalties if they perform a misstep.

    S.B.1 contains a wide swath of other restrictions as well. For example, it makes it a felony for election officials to send out unsolicited mail-in ballot applications — another direct response to a Harris County initiative — and calls for stricter voter ID requirements for voting by mail. Further, the bill empowers partisan poll watchers who could intimidate voters when they go to cast a ballot and creates a monthly review system to check voter rolls for noncitizens. Though there are few to no documented cases of noncitizens voting in Texas, it did not stop Donald Trump from propagating the lie that it was a widespread problem.

    Democratic lawmakers in Texas had fled the state for over a month to deny the legislature quorum and block the bill. But enough lawmakers returned after Republicans voted to threaten them with arrest warrants for the GOP’s marquee bill to pass.

    Advocates, journalists and Democrats decried the passage of S.B.1. “The Texas legislature just passed its egregious voter suppression bill,” tweeted University of California, Berkeley professor and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. “Meanwhile, voting rights legislation languishes in the Senate because [Senators Joe] Manchin and [Kyrsten] Sinema refuse to work around the filibuster. This is how democracy dies.”

    Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo vowed to fight the legislation. “The voter suppression bill has passed the legislature in Texas. We won’t give up now. We will fight this in court,” she wrote on Twitter. “And we will work relentlessly so voters in Harris County, from both parties, can cast a ballot despite these shameless suppression efforts.”

    Abbott, a Republican, said in a statement shortly after the bill was passed that he is planning to sign S.B.1 into law, citing spurious concerns about so-called election integrity. Republicans have offered a variety of excuses to implement such widespread voting restrictions in what was already one of the hardest states in which to cast a vote.

    But the Texas GOP’s intentions, much like the intentions of Republicans across the country trying to implement similar restrictions, are transparent: They want to make it harder to vote, especially for populations that they perceive to be Democrats, so that they never lose an election again.

    After failing to manipulate and then overturn the 2020 election — including attempting to cover up a violent attempted coup — Republicans have all but outright said that their goal is to ensure Republican wins in presidential and down ballot elections.

    This statement by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) last year is just one example of countless others made by Republicans across the U.S.: “If we don’t do something about voting by mail, we’re going to lose the ability to elect a Republican in this country.”

    It’s not just voter restrictions that Republicans are pushing, however. Texas Republicans are prepared to pull off yet another gerrymandering session that will turn the tides even further in their favor, after having pulled off an extremely bold partisan gerrymandering map 10 years ago.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) listens at a press event following the House of Representatives vote on H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, at the U.S. Capitol on August 24, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

    The House passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act on Tuesday evening. The bill would empower nonwhite voters and enable the federal government to move against racial discrimination in voting.

    The bill, named for the late Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat from Georgia and civil rights advocate who died last year, passed the House 219 to 212 along party lines. It now goes to the Senate, where it stands an exceedingly slim chance of passing.

    Democrats and progressives have been pushing for the bill’s passage for years. If signed into law, it would restore and strengthen a rule shot down by conservative Supreme Court justices in 2013 that weakened protections from the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. Previously, jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting had to gain approval from the Justice Department if they were seeking to change their election rules, a process called preclearance.

    The Supreme Court shot down that part of the Voting Rights Act eight years ago when it ruled that the way that Congress was deciding which jurisdictions had to undergo preclearance was outdated. Law experts like Attorney General Merrick Garland argue that the original preclearance process was “enormously effective,” though the John Lewis Act would create updated rules for preclearance to fit with modern practices of discrimination.

    The bill also addresses another Supreme Court decision from earlier this year, from Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, that also severely weakened the section of the Voting Rights Act that limited states’ abilities to create racist voter suppression laws.

    Voting rights advocates have lauded the bill for its potential to help tamp down racist voter suppression in the election process and stem the tide of voter suppression laws being passed by Republicans across the country.

    But, partially because of that very potential, the bill stands a very low chance of gaining any Republican approval in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster — the outdated practice that progressives have called for abolishing.

    “The House passed the For the People Act AND the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) on Twitter. “We’re tackling the urgent voter suppression crisis happening across our nation. It’s time for the Senate to do the same. End the filibuster.”

    Other lawmakers called for the full passage of the For the People Act, or H.R.1, on top of the John Lewis Act to continue upholding voting rights in the U.S.

    “The House passed HR 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — restoring key voting provisions undone by the Supreme Court,” tweeted Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-New York). “But the work continues. And it must continue in the form of HR 1’s passage to bring about a new era in our multiracial democracy.”

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) echoed that sentiment, saying “The House just passed HR 4, restoring the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But our work isn’t done. The Senate must also pass HR 1, which would enact automatic voter registration, vote-by-mail, and early voting in every state.”

    Both H.R.1 and H.R.4, however, face opposition not only from Republicans but also from Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), who has said that he is in favor of the John Lewis Act, but with caveats, which significantly weaken the bill. Manchin also said he is supportive of some parts of the For the People Act — but the parts he does not support happen to be the most significant ones, such as the campaign finance transparency proposals.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • California Gov. Gavin Newsom meets with Latino leaders and volunteers working to call voters and urge them to vote against the recall at Hecho en Mexico restaurant in East Los Angeles on August 14, 2021.

    There’s a good chance that California — a solidly blue state — will get a right-wing Republican governor as a result of the September 14 recall election. If Gov. Gavin Newsom is recalled, the health, civil rights and future of Californians — and people across the country — will be profoundly threatened. It is also possible that Newsom’s defeat could change the balance of power in the U.S. Senate, since the next California governor may be in a position to appoint a senator.

    In defending his governorship, Newsom emphasizes that a GOP leader would likely roll back progressive reforms.

    “The recall is an attempt by national Republican and Trump supporters to force an election and grab power in California,” Newsom’s ballot statement in the Official Voter Information Guide says. “The leaders of the Republican recall seek to repeal California’s clean air protections, roll back gun safety laws and take away health care from those who need it.”

    Newsom cited his efforts to fight racism and police violence in an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune:

    California has fought systemic racism and fought to infuse our justice system with more safety and equality…. I’ve signed into law the nation’s strongest police use-of-force standard; outlawed private, for-profit prisons and immigration detention centers; banned all chokeholds in California; passed the nation’s first bill requiring independent investigations by the attorney general of all police shootings of unarmed individuals; and passed legislation to reform California’s juvenile justice system, break the school to prison pipeline, and phase out state-operated youth prisons.

    Right-wing forces behind the recall were aided by the pandemic, gaining more time than usual to collect signatures to place the recall election, estimated to cost taxpayers $276 million, on the ballot. Newsom is also suffering from a self-inflicted wound stemming from the pandemic. Although he was the first governor to issue a mask mandate, which was popular with most Californians, he attended a dinner in November at the upscale French Laundry restaurant with no masks or social distancing, giving rise to charges of hypocrisy.

    Although Republicans make up just 24 percent of registered California voters, a CBS News poll released on August 15 indicated that Newsom has only a slim lead, within the margin of error, among likely voters. Republicans will probably vote at a greater rate than Democrats because California Democratic Party leaders didn’t initially take the recall seriously and dragged their feet while Republicans were mobilizing.

    Right-Wing Republican Larry Elder Leads the GOP Pack to Replace Newsom

    Trumpster radio talk-show host Republican Larry Elder is the front-runner among the 46 candidates vying to replace Newsom if the latter is recalled. Elder — who mentored Trump’s anti-immigrant adviser Stephen Miller — denies the existence of systemic racism, inaccurately describes Black people as crime-prone, and opposes sanctuary laws and citizenship for Dreamers. He is against vaccine and mask mandates and doesn’t take the climate crisis seriously. Elder opposes gun control, any minimum wage, paid family leave and has called Roe v. Wade “one of the worst decisions that the Supreme Court ever handed down.”

    California is a national leader in moving away from fossil fuels, which drive global warming and exacerbate wildfires. But Elder said he would end the “war on oil and gas,” reduce regulation of fracking, and de-emphasize solar and wind power.

    Meanwhile, if Elder is elected, “[t]he threat to immigrants in this state and racial justice for all would be catastrophic,” Jean Guerrero wrote in the Los Angeles Times.

    Little-known Democrat Kevin Paffrath is running neck-in-neck with Elder. His “grab bag of ideas includes a few that appeal to Democrats (like marriage equality, higher teacher pay and promotion of solar and wind farms),” according to Norman Solomon. But Paffrath “features a lot of pseudo-populist notions that would do tremendous damage if implemented.” Indeed, Brooke Staggs writes that Paffrath wants “to make all coronavirus safety measures optional, to ditch income tax for anyone making less than $250,000, to use the National Guard to get all unhoused Californians off the streets and to give trained gun owners more rights.”

    A GOP Governor Could Replace Senator Feinstein With a Republican

    The Democrats have a razor-thin majority in the U.S. Senate. There are 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats and two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. If they are split 50-50 on a vote, Vice President Kamala Harris breaks the tie. A simple majority can confirm judicial nominations and enact funding legislation.

    In the event that 88-year-old Sen. Dianne Feinstein dies or cannot continue to serve, the governor of California could replace her with an appointee of their choice for at least 14 months following the certification of the recall election. A new GOP governor could appoint a new senator from California, resulting in a Republican majority in the Senate. Solomon suggests that Feinstein resign to enable Governor Newsom to replace her with a Democrat, but admits that is “highly unlikely.”

    California’s Recall System Is Unfair and Unconstitutional

    California’s recall system is unfair and unconstitutional, as Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Berkeley law and economics professor Aaron S. Edlin explain in a New York Times op-ed on August 11. “Mr. Newsom can receive far more votes than any other candidate but still be removed from office,” they wrote. “Many focus on how unfair this structure is to the governor, but consider instead how unfair it is to the voters who support him.”

    If Newsom doesn’t defeat the recall by a majority, he can be replaced by a candidate who receives only a plurality. For example, if 49 percent of voters vote against the recall, Newsom is out and a candidate such as Elder could win the governorship with just 20 percent of the vote or even less.

    That’s because Article II, Section 15(c) of the California Constitution reads: “If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate.”

    “Based on virtually every opinion poll, Mr. Newsom seems likely to have more votes to keep him in office than any other candidate will receive to replace him,” Chemerinsky and Edlin noted. “But he may well lose the first question on the recall, effectively disenfranchising his supporters on the second question.”

    They wrote, “Every voter should have an equal ability to influence the outcome of the election.” Chemerinsky and Edlin advocate the filing of a state or federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s recall election. They propose, “The court could declare the recall election procedure unconstitutional and leave it to California to devise a constitutional alternative. Or it could simply add Mr. Newsom’s name on the ballot to the list of those running to replace him.”

    Three days after the op-ed was published, on August 14, two California voters filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Central District of California challenging the constitutionality of the recall process. Plaintiffs R.J. Beaber and A.W. Clark are claiming that Article II, Section 15(c) violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution because it does not comply with the federal legal principle of “one person, one vote.”

    The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that Section 15(c) is unconstitutional. They also request a preliminary injunction to either stop the election entirely or suspend it until Newsom’s name is added to the list of candidates who seek to replace him.

    “Undoing an unconstitutional election after the fact would be considerably messier than fixing the process beforehand,” according to Chemerinsky and Edlin.

    In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they will likely suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief, and that the injunction would be in the public interest.

    All three conditions are met in this case. The plaintiffs will likely prevail on the constitutional issues they raise; they would be deprived of their rights to have their votes count and be given equal weight with all of the votes that favor the recall and a candidate other than Newsom; and it is always in the public interest to have constitutional elections.

    The federal court should declare California’s recall system unconstitutional and/or issue a preliminary injunction to stop the election unless and until Newsom is listed as a candidate in part two of the ballot.

    Meanwhile, we must recognize what is at stake if a right-wing minority succeeds in recalling Newsom. He would likely be replaced by someone who would make Californians more vulnerable to the deadly pandemic, violate the rights of immigrants and people of color, and imperil the future of the planet by refusing to take action to combat climate change.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The challenging lesson from our history is that a deep well of strength and resilience are required for the long struggle to make equity and equality under the law a reality in the United States.

    This post was originally published on Real Progressives.

  • If this law were on the books during the summer 2020 uprisings, thousands of people in Florida could have been arrested and fined—and if they were ultimately sentenced for rioting, they could have also lost their right to vote. Pierre calls this law “nasty,” in part, because in addition to vastly increasing law enforcement’s power to crack down on civil unrest, she says it’s an obvious attempt to further strip Floridians of their voting rights, a constitutional right that Florida’s leadership has eroded significantly in recent years.

    The post In Florida, Protesting Can Cost You Your Right To Vote appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On Monday August 2, 2021, Reverend William Barber II walked alongside Jesse Jackson leading several thousand on a revival of that same moral imperative. Their Moral Monday March was to demand that Congress restore the Voting Rights Act, signed by President Johnson on August 8, 1965, by passing the For The People Act, legislation which will strike down at the Federal level, all new voting restrictions passed in States like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Arizona.

    The post Reverend William Barber Leads Moral Monday March For Voting Rights To US Capitol appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Martin Luther King, Jr. and civil rights leaders rally during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom at the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1963.

    The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is 56 years old today, but instead of simply celebrating the historic law that helped combat Jim Crow-era suppression of Black voters, civil rights leaders are busy organizing mass actions to bring a fresh slate of voting rights legislation to President Biden’s desk.

    The nation has reached a tipping point, they say, and the fight to save democracy from modern forms of voter suppression has never been more urgent. An increasingly conservative Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act, allowing states with legacies of discrimination to pass laws restricting access to the ballot. Voting rights advocates say ballot restrictions specifically target lower-income and Black and Brown voters, and voter suppression laws are designed to maintain minority rule for the predominantly white Republican Party.

    August 28 will mark the anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, the mass rally in Washington, D.C. that brought us Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech and set the stage for the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights victories in Congress. King’s family and other civil rights leaders are now calling for another mass march on Washington on August 28 that will turn up the heat on Democrats who have so far failed to pass three voting rights bills languishing in a divided Senate.

    “We find ourselves at a very critical and crucial juncture of our nation, because we are promoting democracy all over the world but we have the audacity to suppress democracy at home,” said Martin Luther King III, King Jr.’s son, during a call with reporters on Thursday.

    Civil rights leaders and activists across the country say Senate Democrats must “carve out” an exception to the filibuster and pass the legislation ahead of the next election to combat a wave of state voter suppression laws fueled by right-wing conspiracy theories and former President Trump’s racist lies about voter fraud.

    Nationwide, 18 states have passed 30 laws that restrict ballot access in one way or another in the months since Trump lost the 2020 election and drummed up conspiracy theories about voter fraud, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. In the same time period, 25 states have enacted 54 laws to expand access to the ballot, partly in reaction to the way in which early and absentee voting ballooned in 2020 due to the COVID pandemic.

    “We cannot let a Jim Crow filibuster — which is what the filibuster has been used for — stand in the way of our voting rights,” said Rev. Al Sharpton, one of several longtime civil rights leaders who has met with Biden and members of Congress about passing voting rights legislation.

    While Biden has made it clear that he supports voting rights legislation, Sharpton said the president would not commit to changing Senate filibuster rules, which require Democrats to find 10 Republican votes to pass certain legislation. Two conservative Democrats — Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — continue to oppose changing the filibuster rule, but organizers hope a historic turnout on August 28 will encourage even these lawmakers to stand on the right side of history.

    “Lyndon Johnson did not lead the Voting Rights Act movement, he signed the bill,” Sharpton said. “Joe Biden will sign this bill, and we are the ones who are going to make sure he has something to sign.”

    A coalition of dozens of civil rights and racial justice groups is also organizing mass rallies in Atlanta, Georgia, and Phoenix, Arizona, two states where Republican-controlled legislatures have passed what advocates say are broad voter suppression laws that restrict access to the ballot. A challenge to the Arizona law citing the Voting Rights Act made its way to the Supreme Court, where conservative and moderate justices recently upheld the state’s restrictions on absentee voting, setting a precedent that effectively pulled the few remaining teeth from the Voting Rights Act.

    In Georgia, Republicans passed sweeping ballot restrictions that sparked national outrage after unprecedented turnout among Black voters helped sway the 2020 elections. Like other southern states, Georgia is a former Jim Crow state with a history of suppressing the Black vote on a large scale, and prior to 2013 Georgia was required by Voting Rights Act to clear significant changes to state and local elections with the federal government. However, the Supreme Court gutted the so-called “pre-clearance” section of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 and removed this requirement, ruling in effect that discrimination is a thing of the past.

    Voting rights and racial justice groups are now focused on the federal legislation S.1, the For the People Act of 2021, an elections reform bill introduced by Democrats that would curb partisan gerrymandering, establish national standards for voter registration, reform campaign finance rules, and expand early and absentee voting, among other measures. They are also pushing Democrats to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore pre-clearance protections of the Voting Rights Act. Activists are also pushing for representation in Congress for voters in Washington, D.C., where many voters are Black and Brown.

    Republicans have panned the For the People Act as an unnecessary partisan power grab that would infringe on the rights of states. (White supremacists have long evoked “state’s rights” to combat federal efforts to end slavery and racial discrimination.) Manchin has also said that he opposes the voting rights legislation, making its passage in the evenly divided Senate virtually impossible unless the latest the mass march on Washington can change a lawmaker’s mind. Republicans blocked the bill from coming up for debate in June, and Manchin said he prefers a bipartisan approach to election reform.

    However, Manchin and at least one moderate Republican have voiced tentative support for the John Lewis legislation that would restore the key pre-clearance protections once provided by the Voting Rights Act. Sharpton has met with Manchin and said the senator is waiting on fellow lawmakers to release the final language of the bill. Still, Democrats would need to overcome a Republican filibuster, and that means finding 10 GOP votes or changing Senate rules, at least temporarily.

    “Every American should recognize this moment for the tipping point that it is,” said Andi Pringle, the political and strategic campaigns director for March On, the coalition planning the voting rights rallies.

    King III said that, back in early 1965, there were not enough votes in Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act. However, the original March on Washington had already made history, and civil rights activists were organizing and marching across the country. They marched in Selma, Alabama, where protesters were infamously attacked by police on “Bloody Sunday,” generating images that changed the conversation and paved the way for the Voting Rights Act to pass.

    Now, civil rights leaders are preparing to march once again, hoping to pull the nation’s attention toward Congress. Organizers said social distancing will be encouraged at the rallies, and free COVID tests and masks will be available.

    “I am confident that we are going to get something … and the fact of the matter is, we’re not giving up,” King III said.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Joseph Robinette Biden

    Civil rights groups have accused President Joe Biden of “empty platitudes” on voting rights after he defended the filibuster as his administration reportedly shifts focus away from passing major legislation and toward a push to “out-organize” new Republican voting laws inspired by former President Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud.

    In unusually forceful rhetoric, Biden has compared new restrictions in Republican-led states to Jim Crow-era racial voter suppression and called the onslaught of legislation to limit ballot access the “most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War.” But in the eyes of many activists, he has refused to follow up those words with actions. Last week, Biden forcefully defended the filibuster, which has prevented any voting legislation from advancing in the Senate.

    Vice President Kamala Harris, who Biden tapped to lead the administration’s voting rights efforts, has increasingly focused on boosting Democratic National Committee funding for voter registration and legal efforts, even as a recent Supreme Court decision has made it less likely that Democrats can sue to overturn new restrictions. White House officials have sent mixed messages, reportedly telling voting rights groups that it is possible to “out-organize voter suppression,” although some Biden advisers have pushed back against that framing while acknowledging that “organizing was integral to the administration’s efforts.”

    Civil rights groups have called Biden’s shift a “slap in the face of Black and brown voters that helped him get elected.”

    “Empty platitudes and statements about the problem [are] no longer sufficient for Black and brown voters who have been organizing on the ground,” Stephany Spaulding, a spokesperson for Just Democracy, a coalition of dozens of civil rights groups, and the founder of Truth & Reconciliation, said in an interview with Salon, calling on Biden to “operate with the full force of his office.”

    Litigation and organizing will be key components in the Democratic strategy to counter the onslaught of new election laws, “but can only go so far,” Aaron Scherb, the director of legislative affairs at the nonpartisan voting group Common Cause, told Salon, calling the White House line about “out-organizing” voter suppression “insulting to the hundreds of thousands of organizers who worked tirelessly to turn out voters.”

    Republicans have passed at least 30 laws in 18 states that nonpartisan voting experts say will make it harder for Americans to vote, especially in areas with high Black and Latino populations. Other states like Texas and Michigan are pushing even more onerous restrictions. Some states, like Georgia, have enacted legislation that would make it easier for Republican officials to take control of local election administration and overturn unfavorable election results.

    Georgia Republicans have wasted no time in using the law to try to overthrow local election officials in Fulton County, a Democratic stronghold that has the highest Black population in the state.

    “We cannot out-organize partisan takeovers of our election systems when they are sanctioned by law, however unjust those laws may be,” Nsé Ufot, chief executive officer of the New Georgia Project, said in a statement to Salon. “We are desperately losing the war on voting rights, and we need the federal government to step in before our democracy is irreparably damaged.”

    Most Democrats have rallied behind the For the People Act, a sweeping voting rights package that includes provisions touching on virtually every part of election administration, and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore a requirement for states with a history of racial discrimination to “pre-clear” election changes with the Justice Department. But all 50 Republicans in the Senate joined in a filibuster of the For the People Act, which the GOP has criticized as a partisan overreach, even after a compromise offer floated by centrist Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.

    Manchin has expressed opposition to the For the People Act and key Senate Democrats are now working with him to craft revised legislation that is expected to retain measures dealing with gerrymandering, mail voting and automatic voter registration as well as a nationwide voter ID requirement. Manchin has said he would support a version of the John Lewis bill but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has already dismissed the need for the bill. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is the lone Republican to say she would support such a compromise plan, leaving Democrats at least nine votes of breaking a filibuster.

    Voting rights advocates remain optimistic that a revised bill could move the needle in the Senate.

    “The first point is getting a package that all 50 Senate Democrats can unify behind” before moving to the next step, which is “how to get it done,” Schreb said. “I think increasingly all Senate Democrats recognize what they have to do. It’s just a matter of trying to figure out how to get from point A to point B.”

    Biden’s team has pushed back against criticism that the White House is backing off its push to advance voting rights legislation. The administration has been reportedly been involved in talks about the compromise bill in the Senate and top Biden adviser Cedric Richmond, formerly a member of Congress, has promised that organizing is only part of the strategy, vowing to “meet this challenge in courts, in the halls of Congress and in the streets.”

    But Sherrilyn Ifill, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, told The New York Times that she has heard an increasing “emphasis on organizing” from the White House. Ifill warned that “we cannot litigate our way out of this and we cannot organize our way out of this.”

    Progressive lawmakers have criticized the administration for putting the onus of combating Republican restrictions on predominantly Black and brown voting rights groups.

    “This takes for granted the black and brown communities that bear the brunt of voter suppression, and who worked to elect leaders who would protect them,” tweeted Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y. “The White House should change its strategy and push for filibuster reform before it’s too late.”

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., warned that “communities cannot ‘out-organize’ voter suppression when those they organize to elect won’t protect the vote.”

    “And even if they DO out-organize, the ground is being set to overturn results,” she tweeted.

    “It will not matter how many people are registered to vote if they do not have access to a ballot,” Spaulding told Salon, calling for the full abolition of the filibuster. “Everything else is just Band-aids on the bullet wound.”

    Biden last week argued that eliminating the filibuster would “throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done,” a comment that, as some observers noted, seems to assume that anything gets done in the Senate now. The president said he wants to “make sure we bring along not just all the Democrats, we bring along Republicans who I know know better.”

    But it’s unclear which Republicans Biden believes he can win over between now and the 2022 midterm elections, since the party has been united in opposition to the Democrats’ voting rights proposals.

    “I don’t think anybody’s operating on the assumption they can get 10 Republican votes,, even for a compromise bill,” Michael Li, senior counsel for the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, said in an interview with Salon. “Maybe Joe Manchin thinks they can try it but I don’t think you can get 10 votes.”

    Last week, 150 civil rights groups led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights signed a letter to Biden calling for him to “support the passage of these bills by whatever means necessary.”

    “While we fully support the ideal of bipartisan cooperation on voting rights, the partisan political agenda of some in the Senate cannot be allowed to block passage of legislation that has broad bipartisan backing,” the letter said, adding that “we cannot and should not have to organize our way out of the attacks and restrictions on voting.”

    White House officials privately told the Times that even if Biden supported ending the filibuster, Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., would still oppose the move. Manchin on Sunday reiterated that he would not support any carveouts in the filibuster rule to advance the voting rights bills.

    Voting rights advocates respond that Biden has publicly pressured senators on his stimulus and infrastructure proposals, but has yet to do so on the issue most central to preserving democracy — not to mention Democrats’ electoral fortunes.

    “Certainly the White House has made the calculation that infrastructure’s extremely important, which it is, but I think all rights are derivative from voting rights, and I think that needs to be a continued priority from the White House,” Schreb said.

    He recalled Lyndon B. Johnson traveling the country during the debate over the Voting Rights Act, seeking to put “pressure on the Senate that this is the issue that must get done.”

    “We really need the president and the administration to use its full power of the bully pulpit,” he said.

    The Biden administration has in fact taken unilateral action to push back on some of the new laws. The Justice Department earlier this year sued Georgia over new voting laws it said had been “passed with a discriminatory purpose” and “adopted with the intent” to restrict Black voters’ rights. Last week, the department warned states that new election laws and dubious so-called election audits, like the seemingly endless one in Arizona’s Maricopa County, must comply with federal law.

    But “litigation can take a number of years,” Schreb said, and “the clock is certainly a challenge” as the 2022 election approaches. Last month’s Supreme Court decision upholding discriminatory voting laws in Arizona also made it “much more challenging to file legislation under the Voting Rights Act,” he said.

    While the DOJ and voting rights groups may still have valid challenges in court, Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a news conference in June that the DOJ’s best efforts were “not enough” to combat the voting restriction blitz and called on Congress to restore the Voting Rights Act’s pre-clearance requirement, which he said would have prevented laws like Georgia’s from being enacted in the first place.

    The Supreme Court in 2019 ruled that federal courts have no jurisdiction over partisan gerrymanders, a growing concern among Democrats as Republicans, who have control over a majority of states’ congressional maps, reportedly plan to try to use the redistricting process to make it more likely they can win a House majority in 2022. The Supreme Court’s decision kicked oversight of the maps to state courts, but Southern states like Texas and Georgia, where people of color have accounted for most of the population growth over the last decade, have “very few protections” against partisan or racial gerrymanders, said Li. And increasingly conservative state courts in North Carolina and Florida may not be the bulwark Democrats hope for.

    The For the People Act includes a measure that would ban partisan gerrymanders under federal law.

    “It’s a really ominous-looking redistricting cycle unless Congress acts,” Li said, adding that “you can’t out-organize gerrymandering.”

    While most of the focus in the voting rights fight has been on the attacks on voting, the districts drawn in the coming election cycle won’t merely disadvantage Democrats in 2022, but will almost certainly create a built-in Republican edge for the next decade.

    “I don’t think enough people are focusing on what’s coming out in just two weeks,” Li said, referring to the deadline for Census data that will be used to redraw congressional and legislative maps. “The voter suppression laws are making it harder to vote in the midterm,” he said, but gerrymandering effectively renders many people’s votes meaningless by diluting the vote share of Democrats and voters of color.

    Democrats have touted the work of voting rights leaders like Stacey Abrams and groups that helped register and turn out voters in 2020, helping Biden win the White House and giving Democrats control of the Senate. But Biden won the electoral vote by just about 44,000 ballots in three states and the Democrats’ control of Congress is tenuous at best. By anyone’s calculation, it won’t take much to tilt future elections the other way.

    “Voter suppression can have that level of effect — that’s not a huge effect, but it’s enough,” Li said. “Every day that passes, it becomes harder to do something that is robust and meaningful.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Lawmakers from at least 20 different states will take part in a “week of action” in favor of federal voting rights bills, beginning with a rally in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday.

    Throughout the week, these state legislators will meet with federal senators and push them to forego an August recess in order to pass those bills.

    “We came to Washington, D.C. to demand action and draw the nation’s eyes to the fight for the freedom to vote,” Texas state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer said. “Now, we are heartened to welcome over 100 state legislators from across the country to share their stories and call on Congress to save our country by passing the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.”

    Texas state Democratic lawmakers, attempting to stop Republicans from passing restrictive rules on voting rights in the state, prevented a quorum in their state legislature (and thus preventing the bill from getting passed) by fleeing to Washington, D.C., early last month.

    Many of the state lawmakers coming to Washington this week are also from states that are planning to pass or have already passed restrictive voting rights laws of their own. According to the Brennan Law Center, 18 states have passed 30 such laws in the past year alone.

    The efforts to convince federal lawmakers to defend voting rights is being organized by Declaration for American Democracy, a nonprofit described by The Washington Post as “a coalition of activist groups supporting the For the People Act.”

    Although Democrats control both houses of Congress, legislation like the For the People Act has been obstructed by a Senate filibuster. And while many Democrats have called to end this Senate rule, conservative members of their party, such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), have so far refused to alter or end the filibuster in order to protect voters’ rights.

    Manchin said on CNN over the weekend that he supports “open, fair and secure elections.” But he also expressed misgivings over the full text of the For the People Act, arguing it would “divide our country further,” in spite of polls showing that a majority of voters across all political ideologies back its contents.

    Rep. Martinez Fischer rejected Senator Manchin’s refusal to ditch the filibuster in order to protect the right to vote.

    “No Senate rule or tradition should come before our rights,” the Texas state lawmaker said.

    Although Manchin has been a main obstacle in passing a federal voting rights bill, the pressure campaign by Texas Democrats might be having an impact. Last Wednesday, it was reported that Manchin was part of talks inside Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-New York) offices, where he and Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Georgia) were seen working together to craft a compromise bill.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II speaks in Georgetown, Texas, on July 27, 2021.

    In Texas, activists from the Poor People’s Campaign embarked on a four-day, 27-mile “March for Democracy” on Wednesday to demand that Senate Democrats counteract the GOP’s assault on voting rights and the GOP-led assault on low-wage workers by repealing the filibuster and enacting the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, the For the People Act, a $15 federal minimum wage, and protections for undocumented immigrants.

    “Maybe it is a poetic irony that on the… first day of hearings on the violent insurrection of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, we are beginning a march for democracy,” Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, said at a press conference Tuesday. “Ours is not an insurrection, but a moral resurrection.”

    On Wednesday, Barber told KHOU that “the day that the For the People Act is passed is the day everything that the Texas Legislature is doing becomes illegal,” a reference to the ongoing attempt by the state’s Republican lawmakers to pass legislation that would make it even harder to vote.

    After fleeing the state earlier this month in order to deny their Republican colleagues the quorum needed to ram through a sweeping voter suppression bill, Texas Democrats, many of whom traveled to Washington, D.C., implored U.S. Senate Democrats to act immediately to safeguard the franchise from the GOP’s attacks.

    In contrast to the Lone Star State’s Democratic lawmakers who are risking arrest to prevent Texas from becoming the latest jurisdiction to enact voting restrictions this year, Senate Democrats have continued to fail to take meaningful action to protect U.S. democracy.

    In an opinion piece published Tuesday in the Austin American-Statesman, Barber explained that “our moral march to Austin this week is about showing the nation that Black, white, and brown people in Texas are standing together to demand that the Democrats who hold a majority in the U.S. Senate take action to enact the policies they ran on.”

    Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and his Republican colleagues “have been quick to point out that the changes they propose are nothing like the Jim Crow-era poll taxes and literacy tests that were used to prevent poor Black and brown people from voting,” wrote Barber. “But they also know that the surgical removal of a few thousand voters in key districts is enough to maintain control of state government and Texas’ congressional delegation to Washington, D.C.”

    “This targeted voter suppression,” Barber noted, “is what I call ‘James Crow, Esquire.’ It is the 21st-century form of voter suppression that the For the People Act was written to prevent.”

    Barber continued:

    When Republicans in North Carolina employed similar tactics just after the Supreme Court gutted the pre-clearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act in their 2013 Shelby decision, I led the campaign to challenge that law as president of the North Carolina NAACP. We learned that the question should never be whether proposed changes to election laws would make voting as restrictive as it was in a past era when we all agree voter suppression happened. The question we must ask is why anyone wants laws that make it more difficult for some people to vote.

    An overwhelming majority of Americans want living wages, universal access to healthcare, and common-sense immigration reform. But none of these popular policies are embraced by the corporately funded extremists who have taken over the Republican Party. When Senate Republicans locked arms to block debate on federal voting rights protections, they made clear that they are willing to use the filibuster to subvert the will of the majority of Americans…

    So-called moderate Democrats say they do not want to push forward without Republicans because whatever they pass will simply be overturned if the majority changes in 2022. But capitulation to the Republican voter suppression scheme being carried out in plain sight almost guarantees that Democrats will soon find themselves in the minority. This is why we demand action to protect voting rights and action to raise the minimum wage — which the current administration and Democratic majority ran on.

    During Tuesday night’s press conference, Barber stressed that “what we see happening here is happening all over the country. Texas is like the canary in the mine.”

    Although the deadly coup attempt carried out on January 6 by supporters of then-President Donald Trump failed, Trump’s “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was stolen from him has been “weaponized,” in the words of author and voting rights expert Ari Berman, to fuel a nationwide wave of voter suppression bills.

    Between January and mid-July, right-wing lawmakers in 49 states introduced more than 400 bills that would make it harder for millions of Americans, especially people of color and other Democratic-leaning constituencies, to vote, or would empower election officials to overturn the will of voters.

    Since the beginning of this year, Republican-controlled legislatures — invoking the supposed need to shore up so-called “election integrity” — have enacted a combined total of 30 voter suppression laws in 18 states, according to the latest tally from the Brennan Center for Justice.

    Like Barber, the Brennan Center has argued that the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would increase ballot access nationwide and effectively neutralize the state-level onslaught being waged by the increasingly authoritarian GOP.

    In addition to establishing minimum electoral standards and curbing the corrupting influence of big money in politics, the For the People Act would require states to adopt independent redistricting commissions to combat partisan gerrymandering. But the House-passed bill, which is popular among voters across party lines, remains in peril ahead of next month’s congressional recess.

    President Joe Biden, meanwhile, has so far refused to advocate for repealing the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster rule that stands in the way of enacting voter protections at the federal level.

    Although Biden criticized Republican state lawmakers for disenfranchising voters during a speech two weeks ago, he did not mention the filibuster — even after the Senate’s GOP minority deployed the anti-democratic tool last month to block debate on the For the People Act.

    Barber and other religious leaders and activists were arrested during a demonstration outside the U.S. Senate building following the GOP’s filibuster of the bill, as Common Dreams reported.

    This week’s March for Democracy comes amid a monthlong “season of nonviolent direct action” organized by the Poor People’s Campaign to pressure the U.S. Senate to end the filibuster and pass legislation that begins to address the crises of worsening inequality and growing right-wing authoritarianism before August 6, the 56th anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act.

    If all 50 members of the Senate’s Democratic caucus plus Vice President Kamala Harris were on board, they could, with a simple-majority vote, abolish the filibuster or at the very least reform it by, for example, exempting voting rights bills from the 60-vote rule.

    However, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) have continued to insist — despite mounting evidence of legislative gridlock — that preserving the anti-democratic tool fosters bipartisan cooperation and that eliminating it would cause more dysfunction.

    After he and 38 others were arrested on Monday during a sit-in outside Sinema’s Phoenix office, Barber explained that the refusal of conservative Democrats to support filibuster reform is enabling Senate Republicans to obstruct not only the restoration of the gutted Voting Rights Act and passage of the For the People Act, but a whole host of additional measures that are popular with the electorate.

    Other widely supported policies that have been undermined through a combination of Republican intransigence and Democratic acquiescence, noted Barber, include raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, providing undocumented immigrants with a path to citizenship, and confronting the climate crisis.

    “I’m the granddaughter of undocumented immigrants, a proud daughter of social justice warriors, and the mother of two public school children. I have personally experienced poverty, homelessness, and low wages,” Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, said Tuesday.

    “At this time, when our voting rights are being denied and when economic justice is being denied, we must call out the immoral obstructionism of Congress,” Theoharis continued. “We must demand the full protection of rights and dignity of all 11 million undocumented people.”

    “We march for our children,” she added. “We march for our elders. We march for our families and our partners and our communities. We march so that we can move, as we say in our movement, forward together and not one step back.”

    The March for Democracy, which began in Georgetown, will end on Saturday with a rally at the state Capitol in Austin, where a caravan of 151 cars will mark the 151st anniversary of the passage of the U.S. Constitution’s 15th Amendment that prohibited disenfranchisement on the basis of race or previous condition of servitude.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Republican lawmakers are attempting to pass legislation making it harder to vote in the US, forcing Democrats to take extraordinary action to combat it.

    GOP legislators in several states are advancing bills that place more restrictions on voting, prompting Democrats to leave the state to stop the bills from passing. This comes after Donald Trump’s election loss last year, which he falsely claimed was due to voter fraud.

    But it’s not just in the US where voting rights are under threat. In the UK, the Tories also have plans that threaten the franchise.

    Flying out of the state

    In Republican-controlled Texas, lawmakers advanced a bill earlier this month that would stop drive-thru voting, 24-hour polling stations, place new ID requirements on mail-in ballots, and ban drop boxes.

    In response, Democrats flew out of the state – as the Republicans need a two-thirds quorum to go ahead with state business. Quorum refers to the minimum number of members of a legislature that must be present to make the meeting valid.

    Texas Democrats had employed a similar walk-out in May to protest the voting bill at an earlier stage – but the last time they actually left the state to stop the progress of a bill was 2003.

    Texas already has some of the tightest voting laws in the US, with only those meeting specific criteria – such as being disabled or over 65 – able to vote by post. Trump won the state in the 2020 election, but it had some of the lowest turnout figures across the country.

    Country-wide issue

    Texas isn’t the only state where Republicans are trying to curb voting rights – the GOP has also advanced restricting bills in states such as Alabama and Florida.

    President Joe Biden has criticised the attempts, saying:

    There is an unfolding assault taking place in America today, an attempt to suppress and subvert the right to vote in fair and free elections, an assault on democracy, an assault on liberty, an assault on who we are as Americans.

    Biden has asked for reinstatement of some of the parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that the Supreme Court got rid of in 2013.

    However, he did not endorse a change many Democrats are asking for. Voting rights advocates want him to support alterations to the Senate filibuster rule so Democrats need only a simple majority vote to pass legislation.

    Filibustering

    In the meantime, Democrats are also using filibustering as a tactic as they try to resist voting laws. In Alabama, walking out to block the quorum is impossible as Republicans there have a supermajority, meaning a quorum can be formed without Democrats.

    As a result, Democrats in Alabama attempted to launch a filibuster to block Republican voting restrictions in May, but it was unsuccessful.

    And with a Republican majority in the Supreme Court – Democrats have little support there either. At the beginning of July, the Supreme Court decided a big voting rights case. It upheld two restrictive Arizona voting laws that “essentially gutted what’s left of the Voting Rights Act”.

    The scale of the problem

    According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as of 14 July, 18 states across the US have enacted 30 laws that restrict voting access just this year. More than 400 bills intending to make it harder to vote were introduced during the 2021 legislative session, across nearly every state.

    But the Biden administration is fighting back. The ‘For the People Act’ could make state-level laws less effective. It has passed the House, but still needs to pass the Senate to be enacted into law.

    Voting rights advocates Common Cause are calling for US residents to write to their senators and ask them to support the For the People Act:

    We the People deserve a responsive, accountable government that gives us all a stronger voice and puts our needs ahead of special interests.

    Congress must pass the For The People Act (H.R. 1) — a bold, comprehensive package of democracy reforms including independent redistricting commissions, citizen-funded elections, closing the revolving door between government and corporate interests, and protecting voters against discrimination.

    H.R. 1 — is the boldest democracy reform since Watergate. It’s a massive overhaul of money-in-politics, voting, and ethics laws — all to make our democracy more inclusive.

    Voter suppression in the UK

    It’s not just the US enacting laws to disenfranchise voters – the UK government has also set out plans to introduce a mandatory requirement for voters to provide photo ID.

    Opposition MPs and campaigners have slammed the move as one that will decrease turnout, and particularly target minority voters.

    When the plans were announced, Labour MP Nadia Whittome said:

    Requiring photo ID to vote when 1 in 4 don’t have it will stop people from voting. But that’s the point. Because this isn’t about stopping voter fraud – it’s about disenfranchising the young, the poor, and people of colour. People less likely to vote Tory.

    Global voter suppression

    There is no evidence that these restrictions are necessary in either the UK or the US. In the UK voter fraud is such a small problem the reforms are in no way justified, and in the US, new voter restrictions only play into Trump’s false claims that voter fraud led to his loss last year.

    The concurrent attempts to disenfranchise parts of the electorate on both sides of the Atlantic are concerning for the future of democracy – particularly because such laws disproportionately affect those less likely to vote Republican or Conservative.

    Featured image via YouTube/The Telegraph & YouTube/CBS Evening News

    By Jasmine Norden

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • People hold placards with an image of the late Rep. John Lewis during a rally in support of voting rights, at Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, D.C., on July 17, 2021.

    Big brand name companies usually try to create an impression that they stand for something besides simply making money. They often want to be perceived as having a social conscience and sharing the same values as their customers. But when it comes to standing up for their customers’ abilities to participate in the democratic process by easily voting, many companies have failed in recent months to take any action or even speak out.

    As states have begun passing bills that will make it more difficult for people to vote, companies have been under pressure to stake out a position. More than a hundred businesses signed onto a letter endorsing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore parts of the Voting Rights Act that were struck down by the Supreme Court, and others signed a pledge in support of the For the People Act, which would enhance voting access, prevent partisan gerrymandering, and more.

    More than a dozen major brands have not done anything to stand up for voting rights, while in many cases directing PAC money to the state politicians behind the anti-voting bills, according to an analysis and scorecard from Greenpeace.

    Companies that scored ‘Fs’ on the voting rights scorecard include:

    • American Electric Power
    • Altria
    • Anthem Blue Cross
    • AT&T
    • Chevron
    • Coca-Cola
    • Comcast
    • ConocoPhillips
    • Delta
    • Dominion Energy
    • FedEx
    • Home Depot
    • Kaiser Permanente
    • Koch Industries
    • Marathon Petroleum
    • Reynolds American
    • UnitedHealth Group
    • UPS
    • Verizon

    Scoring an ‘F’ on the analysis means the company has not signed statements in support of legislation to protect voting access, opposed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s position against the For the People Act, responded to Greenpeace’s letter of recommendations on how to protect voting rights, or taken any other pro-voting rights action.

    Several of the failing companies have also been top PAC donors to the sponsors of the state anti-voting bills, Greenpeace found by analyzing contributions data from 2019 to the present for state house members and senators elected in 2020 and from 2017 to the present for those elected in 2018. Tobacco company Altria tops the list, having given more than $110,000 to the sponsors via its PAC, while companies in the top 10 include Anthem Blue Cross, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Dominion Energy, UnitedHealth Group, American Electric Power, and Reynolds.

    According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 17 states have enacted 28 new laws that restrict voting access as of June 21, and more anti-voting bills are likely to be enacted this year. Most of the bills could make voting by mail more difficult by shortening the timeframe for voters to request mail ballots, limiting how mail ballots can be delivered, or imposing new ID requirements for mail ballots. Other laws could make in-person voting more difficult by requiring IDs, reducing early voting hours, and limiting the number of polling places.

    The restrictive voting laws are generally believed to provide electoral benefits to Republican politicians, who typically benefit from low voter turnouts. Republicans tend to favor business-friendly policies on taxes and regulatory matters that may help the failing companies collect more profit in the coming years.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden participates in a CNN Town Hall hosted by Don Lemon at Mount St. Joseph University in Cincinnati, Ohio, July 21, 2021.

    President Joe Biden said late Wednesday that he remains opposed to eliminating the legislative filibuster even as the Senate GOP uses the archaic procedural tool to obstruct his agenda, including a popular bill that would shield voting rights from state-level Republicans hellbent on eroding them.

    During a CNN town hall in Cincinnati, Biden reiterated his support for bringing back the so-called talking filibuster, which required senators to hold the floor and speak continuously in order to block legislation.

    But abolishing the filibuster outright — a move supported by a growing coalition of Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate — would “throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done,” the president claimed, even as he agreed that the filibuster is a Jim Crow relic.

    Biden went on to insist, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, that some congressional Republicans “know better” and can be won over to the cause of protecting the right to vote — which the GOP is working aggressively to curtail in dozens of states nationwide.

    “They know better than this,” the president said. “What I don’t want to do is get wrapped up right now in the argument whether or not this is all about the filibuster.”

    While some observers were encouraged by Biden’s support for filibuster reform, others criticized the president for clinging to his hope for a Republican epiphany that did not materialize during his first six months in office.

    “This answer from Biden on the filibuster just doesn’t make sense,” said Sawyer Hackett, executive director of People First Future. “Republicans aren’t going to wake up and ‘know better’ than suppressing the vote. The filibuster encourages them to obstruct and our reluctance to end it emboldens them to do worse.”

    Adam Jentleson, executive director of the Battle Born Collective and a former Senate aide, argued that “sometime soon, it will become clear that there is no voting rights compromise that can get 60 votes” — the number necessary to break a legislative filibuster.

    “At that point, there is no more wiggle room, no more vague talk about bringing Republicans along,” Jentleson said. “The choice will be, reform the filibuster or let voting rights die on your watch.”

    Biden’s remarks came just a month after Senate Republicans wielded the legislative filibuster to block debate on the For the People Act, a sweeping bill that would expand ballot access and undercut voter suppression efforts by Republicans at the state level. Since January, at least 14 Republican-led states have enacted more than 20 laws aimed at restricting voting rights.

    Following the Senate GOP’s obstruction of the For the People Act, Biden delivered a speech in Philadelphia in which he described passage of the bill as “a national imperative” and slammed Republican voter suppression efforts as a “21st century Jim Crow assault.”

    But the president didn’t mention the filibuster, which can be eliminated with a simple-majority vote in the Senate. Such a vote would require the support of the entire Democratic caucus plus Vice President Kamala Harris, who would act as a tie-breaker.

    In an open letter published online Wednesday, more than 30 former chiefs of staff to Democratic senators called for complete repeal — or, at the very least, reform — of the legislative filibuster, which they said “has put a chokehold” on the upper chamber.

    Contrary to Biden’s claim that abolishing the filibuster would throw the Senate into chaos — a claim that Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has also made — the former Senate aides argued that “ending the filibuster will not make the Senate more partisan.”

    “The filibuster has been weaponized by an increasingly partisan Senate,” the former aides wrote. “Removing this weapon would be a step toward — not away from — comity.”

    Eli Zupnick, a spokesperson for the advocacy group Fix Our Senate, said in a statement Wednesday that “few understand and respect the Senate and its members more than the former chiefs of staff who signed onto this letter.”

    “Their strong call for reform,” Zupnick continued, “is the latest in a growing chorus of respected voices making the case that the filibuster is being abused and has become a clear roadblock to progress of any kind.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Gretchen Whitmer is seen at the United Precinct Delegates office in Detroit, Michigan, on December 19, 2017.

    The Republican leader of the Michigan State Senate says the party will try to push through its proposed voting restrictions, using a unique loophole in state law, despite a near-certain veto by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

    Republicans have already introduced 39 voting bills in the State Senate and dozens more in the House, three of which have already passed. Whitmer has vowed to veto the proposed restrictions. Senate Republican Leader Mike Shirkey told local news outlet JTV earlier this month that Republicans do not have the votes to override the veto but would instead pursue a scheme to use the state’s citizen initiative process to circumvent the veto.

    “You heard it here first, keep your eyes and ears open for the potential of a citizen initiative driven by the state party on some of these more important election laws that need to be considered,” Shirkey said.

    But state Sen. Erika Geiss, a Democrat, warned in an interview with Salon that “citizens will never actually see this question on their ballot.”

    Despite the name, Geiss explained, such a “citizen initiative” will never come up for a vote by the full electorate. “So it’s really disingenuous,” she said.

    Michigan’s unique “adopt and amend” procedure allows the state legislature to adopt a citizen initiative and then pass it into law with a simple veto-proof majority. The scheme only requires about 340,000 signatures, or 8% of the total votes cast in the last gubernatorial election, meaning that Michigan’s heavily gerrymandered Republican majority and less than 4% of the state’s population can circumvent the governor’s power without ever putting the question before the public.

    “It is really an abuse of our power as legislators,” Geiss said.

    This process has only been used nine times in the last six decades, according to the state’s Bureau of Elections. Ron Weiser, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, first floated the scheme back in March, before the state GOP forced out its executive director for criticizing former President Donald Trump’s election lies.

    The plot comes just three years after Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved Proposal 3, a ballot initiative that expanded voting rights and absentee ballot access.

    “It’s really unfortunate because it does not reflect the will of the voters,” state Rep. Matt Koleszar, vice-chair of the state House Elections and Ethics Committee, said of the Republican scheme in an interview with Salon. “The other option they have is letting it go to the ballot. I don’t think they would do that, because it would be defeated.”

    In fact, Michigan Republicans have been trying to undo another ballot initiative that overwhelmingly passed in 2018 to create an independent redistricting commission, which threatens the party’s hold over the legislature. Nancy Wang, the executive director of Voters Not Politicians, a campaign launched to pass the redistricting initiative, said that attempt to reverse the will of the voters was a prelude to this year’s Republican power grab.

    “It’s so shocking — the extremes they will go to to legislate and pass laws that only a tiny minority of Michiganders who still believe the Big Lie support, at the expense of the millions of Michiganders that voted for expanded voting rights,” Wang said in an interview with Salon. “It’sshocking because it’s such a small number of people that you need to get to sign on.”

    Koleszar said that Republicans plan to use the citizen initiative process to circumvent Whitmer’s power on other issues as well. “We have already been told they absolutely will do that,” he said.

    Republicans organized a similar citizen initiative scheme to collect enough signatures for the legislature to adopt the Unlock Michigan petition, which would repeal the governor’s emergency powers. That came in opposition to pandemic restrictions imposed by the Whitmer administration

    Shirkey said the voting initiative would be much like Unlock Michigan. The Republican goal is for the legislature to adopt a bill the governor has no power to veto.

    “There’s half a dozen bills I think are pretty important that the governor may have some difficulty signing,” he said. “So that is what will likely happen, is it will be packaged into a citizen’s initiative.”

    Shirkey quietly played a big role in the Unlock Michigan campaign and a dark money group linked to the Senate leader spent nearly $2 million to fund the campaign. Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum said she was “concerned” about Shirkey’s voting initiative scheme, given that recent history.

    “The tactics that that organization used for Unlock Michigan left signers feeling deceived,” Byrum said in an interview with Salon. “What they thought they signed wasn’t actually what they signed. Frankly, it was borderline illegal.”

    Byrum cited a Detroit Free Press report showing that the group’s trainer taught signature collectors “how to illegally collect voter signatures, trespass, encouraging lying under oath if they were ever called into a deposition. So that is the type of organization that Shirkey has been aligned with and I worry that’s going to be the same organization that he is going to use to push [this] new initiative.”

    The State Senate has thus far passed three of the 39 restrictions proposed so far. SB 285 would require voters requesting absentee ballots to provide ID or a photocopy of the ID to their local clerk. SB 303 would require voters without an ID on Election Day to cast a provisional ballot instead of signing an affidavit to affirm their identity. And SB 304 would allow those provisional ballots to be counted only if a voter presents an ID to their local clerk’s office within six days of the election.

    The State House last month inserted another provision into SB 303 allowing provisional ballots to be thrown out if poll workers — who have no training in signature verification — do not match the signature on the ballot to state records.

    “What the House did is to kind of double down on voter suppression,” Wang said. “It passed a version that would be the most restrictive voter ID law in the entire country.”

    Shirkey told JTV that he was “not sure that the signature part will ultimately get to the governor. Several lawmakers told Salon they expect the Senate to remove the House-added portion.

    But Wang warned not to treat Shirkey’s comments as evidence of “what’s actually going to happen.”

    Koleszar said even the original Senate-passed law was “redundant and quite frankly makes no sense at all,” since Michigan already requires voter ID.

    “It would certainly have the potential to increase lines at polling places, create confusion,” he said, adding, “This is a solution in search of a problem and this problem doesn’t exist.”

    Byrum argued that SB 285 amounts to a “poll tax.”

    “I don’t have access to a photocopy machine in my house,” she said. “It costs money to get a photo ID and for many it’s not an easy document to get. Think of how long it takes to get your birth record, your marriage license. … Those are costly documents to get and it’s costly to get a photo ID as well.”

    Though Shirkey has acknowledged that the pace of advancing Republican legislation has been slower than he would like, Democrats in the legislature expect all the bills coming out of the Senate Elections Committee to ultimately pass the Republican-led legislature.

    One bill would require ballot drop boxes to close before polls close. “That is very, very restrictive,” Geiss said. “It creates another barrier to voting and that has been a concern for me.”

    Byrum said she expects the bill “will only lead to frustrated voters, confusion, more time taken away from from the clerk or his or her deputies trying to explain why and how to exercise the right to vote.”

    Another bill would allow partisan poll watchers and challengers to record video inside polling places and counting boards, which Wang warned could result in more scenes like the “madhouse” following the 2020 election, when Republican supporters were “trying to storm absentee counting boards, trying to intimidate poll workers.”

    “These bills would just inject more of this kind of toxicity and partisanship and intimidation into election administration,” she said. “There’s a whole raft of them, though, and all of them are bad.”

    Many of the Michigan bills mirror those proposed or enacted in other states. In fact, the head of Heritage Action, the sister organization of the conservative Heritage Foundation, was recently caught on video bragging that the dark money group had literally drafted model legislation for state lawmakers to adopt.

    “They all concern me because they all impact access to the ballot,” Byrum said. “It is quite unfortunate that the Michigan Republicans have taken a page out of the Heritage Action Fund and introduced these bills. These are the same bills that are being introduced around our country. It’s really unfortunate that the Republicans have chosen to put their party over our country and our democracy.”

    The Michigan Association of County Clerks and the Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks both oppose the majority of the Republican proposals.

    “This legislation was not drafted in consultation with election administrators,” Byrum said. “If they truly wanted to make our elections safer and more secure, they would have involved professional election administrators from the beginning, and they certainly did not.”

    “This package of bills is nothing short of an attempt to hamper the ability of citizens to exercise the right to vote and election officials from doing our jobs any more efficiently or safely,” she added. “This legislation was introduced with one intent, and that is to make it more difficult to exercise the right to vote.”

    Republicans have justified their voting restriction push by arguing that reforms are necessary to ensure “election integrity,” claiming they are responding to concerns raised by their constituents.

    “They call them election reforms, I call them voter suppression,” Byrum said. “Their current claim is that people are asking for more restrictions and more safeguards. Well, the only reason people are asking for more safeguards is because they believe the lies that the same Republicans have been telling them since November.”

    A report by the Republican-led state Senate Oversight Committee last month found “no evidence of widespread or systemic fraud” and rejected other Trump-backed conspiracy theories, calling out his allies for “profiting by making false claims.”

    Geiss said that report “proves that these bills are unnecessary.”

    “They’re just so attached to the Big Lie and carrying the water of the former occupant of the White House that they can’t see reality,” she said. “They’re becoming incredibly divorced from reality even when the evidence is clear before them. They’re just caught up in the wave of trying to prevent people from voting and making it harder for people to exercise their right to vote because they’re upset that their candidate didn’t win.

    “If your own reports show that there was no widespread voter fraud, what are you trying to accomplish?” she asked.

    That State Senate report, however, has not dimmed Republican aspirations to restrict ballot access and Trump has continued to push the Big Lie, which has resulted in a flood of attacks and threats targeting election administrators.

    “These attacks are the result of former President Trump providing the kindling, and others like Shirkey and some attorneys here in Michigan have been adding the lighter fluid and stoking the flames,” Byrum said. “We’re being threatened on a regular basis. We’re getting emails from people accusing us of malfeasance. It’s making people want to leave. … Professional election administrators are going to get out, they’re going to leave. Some already have — and my huge concern is that they’re going to be replaced with these conspiracy believers.”

    Without safeguards in place in place to protect ballot access or election administrators in Republican-led states, and apparently some Democratic-led states with Republican legislatures, Democrats have rallied behind federal voting rights legislation and a recent proposal that would protect election officials from unjust removal and intimidation.

    Democrats in the Texas House fled the state this week to block the passage of another Republican voting package, traveling to Washington to pressure Democrats in the U.S. Senate to pass the For the People Act, which has languished in the chamber, frozen by a Republican filibuster and the reluctance of “centrist” Democrats like Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona to consider filibuster reform.

    “The For the People Act would absolutely cement that freedom to vote,” Koleszar said, adding that it would frustrate Republicans’ desire to create more barriers to voting.

    There appears to be little lawmakers can do to prevent the Republican end-around on voting restrictions in Michigan, but activists plan to take to the streets to do everything they can.

    “We’ve activated our entire infrastructure. We’ve gone door-to-door. We’ve dropped, I think, 10,000 pieces of literature. We’ve submitted more than 1,000 comments to legislators,” Wang said.

    “If they do start that petition process to collect those signatures, then we’re going to be out on the streets telling people are exactly what is happening, because we think that [Republicans are] going to lie and say this is about election security. We’re going to be like, actually this is to prevent you from voting.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Raphael Warnock walks in the Capitol on July 13, 2021.

    Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia applauded Texas Democrats on Wednesday for leaving their state in an effort to thwart a GOP attack on the franchise and said federal lawmakers must make the exodus worthwhile by passing robust voting rights legislation — even if it means overhauling Senate rules to do so.

    “Voting rights is not just a political issue, this is a moral issue. Because the vote, in essence, is really about your voice — and your voice is about your humanity,” Warnock told reporters after meeting with Texas state Democrats who traveled to D.C. to demand action from members of Congress.

    “I want to thank these Texas legislators for coming up, because in a real sense they are fighting for our humanity,” continued the Democrat from Georgia, where Republicans recently passed a sweeping voter suppression bill. “They’re trying to make sure that the voices of the people are not squeezed out of their own democracy… So I submit that failure is not an option. We have to pass voting rights no matter what. We have to pass voting rights this Congress. No Senate rule supersedes people’s constitutional rights.”

    Last month, Senate Republicans deployed the chamber’s archaic filibuster rule to block debate on the For the People Act, a sweeping and popular bill that would expand ballot access and stymie the hundreds of Republican-authored voter suppression bills advancing in state legislatures across the country. In its current form, the filibuster effectively requires 60 votes for most bills to pass the Senate.

    In an interview with Axios on Wednesday, Warnock said that “voting rights is bigger than the filibuster.”

    “And shame on us if we’re more committed to a Senate rule than we are to the principles of democracy,” he added.

    On Monday, Democrats in the Texas state House left town in a coordinated attempt to stop their Republican counterparts from passing legislation that would further restrict ballot access by imposing new voter ID requirements and banning drive-through voting sites, among a slew of other changes.

    The Democratic lawmakers hope to remain out of Texas until the state’s special legislative session expires in less than a month, which would further delay passage of the GOP’s voter suppression bill.

    In an effort to call attention to the importance of national election reforms to counter GOP attacks on voting rights at the state level, many of the Texas Democrats traveled to the nation’s capital to hold public events and meet with key senators to discuss the issue.

    “Our commitment in the House Democratic Caucus is that we’re going to stay out [of Texas] until the session is over to kill this bill,” Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Chris Turner (D-101) said during a press conference Wednesday. “And we’re going to use the intervening time to shine a harsh national spotlight on the Republicans’ voter suppression efforts, and use that pressure to encourage and urge and implore Congress, and specifically the U.S. Senate, to pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.”

    But as the Washington Post reported, a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) earlier this week left some of the Texas Democrats “pessimistic about whether their foray to Washington will make a difference.”

    Texas state Rep. Senfronia Thompson (D-141) told the Post that neither Schumer nor other members of Congress made any new promises to overcome Republican obstruction and advance a federal voting rights bill.

    “Not a one,” Thompson said. “I wish they had.”

    Earlier this week, President Joe Biden delivered a speech pillorying state-level Republicans for their assault on the right to vote — “Have you no shame?” he asked — and promising to fight “vigorously” to protect ballot access nationwide.

    But Biden did not mention the legislative filibuster, which can be weakened or repealed with a simple-majority vote. Several Democratic senators, most prominently Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), have said they would not vote to change the filibuster rule, and Biden has not publicly pressured them to reverse their position for the sake of approving voting rights legislation.

    With state-level redistricting set to get underway throughout the country, progressive advocacy groups are warning that the window for federal action on voting rights is rapidly closing. As The Intercept reported earlier this year, Republicans are looking to “gerrymander their way back to the majority,” a ploy that could succeed without Senate passage of the For the People Act, which would curtail partisan gerrymandering. The U.S. House passed the bill in March without a single Republican vote.

    “The time to act is now — before gerrymandered congressional districts are drawn, effectively disenfranchising millions of Americans,” Progressive Democrats of America said in a statement on Tuesday. “With bold decisive action, we can defeat the right-wing assault on democracy.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Progressive voting rights advocates and union members rally outside the Texas State Capitol on July 13, 2021, in support of more than 50 Democratic lawmakers who left the state in order to break quorum.

    Austin, Texas—Texas Democrats and progressive voting rights advocates at the state capitol expressed disappointment Tuesday after President Joe Biden’s speech on voting rights at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia failed to mention the Senate filibuster. The president remained silent on the issue even as he framed this year’s wave of state-level voter suppression laws as “the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War.”

    Voting rights defenders rallied at the state capitol Tuesday to support more than 50 Texas House Democrats who left for Washington, D.C., Monday to deny the state chamber a quorum as it takes up some of the country’s most restrictive voter suppression bills during a special legislative session. Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to arrest the legislators upon their return to the state.

    Texas Republicans attempted to push ahead with their voter suppression effort in Austin Tuesday, with the Texas Senate approving Senate Bill 1 along a party-line vote of 18-4. At least 4 of 13 Democrats in the State Senate remained in Austin on Tuesday morning, failing to deny that chamber a quorum. The Senate’s passage of the bill, however, remains largely symbolic since the legislation can’t move forward in the House as long as at least 51 Democrats remain absent.

    In the Texas House, Republicans tried to regain the quorum they lost with a “call of House.” Under this order, all entrances or doors leading out of the chamber are locked, and members are not permitted to leave without permission in writing from the speaker. The House then voted overwhelmingly to send law enforcement after the missing Democrats, asking that “the sergeant at arms, or officers appointed by him, send for all absentees … under warrant of arrest if necessary.”

    Texas law enforcement, however, lacks jurisdiction in Washington, D.C., and Texas GOP lawmakers acknowledged that state authorities can’t force Democrats’ return. Governor Abbott, however, has vowed to call “special session after special session after special session” until the voter suppression bills are passed. Other Republican lawmakers have threatened to remove Democrats from leadership positions in the state legislature.

    Meanwhile, voting rights advocates in Texas hope Biden will take a cue from the state’s Democratic lawmakers and escalate his actions against the Senate’s 60-vote rule that blocks federal voting rights legislation.

    On Tuesday in front of the Texas state capitol, Texas Civil Rights Project Senior Staff Attorney James Slattery called on President Biden and Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to use their power and leverage more forcefully to pass the For the People and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Acts.

    “Your colleagues down here in this building were willing to risk arrest and leave their homes for months to save democracy in Texas,” Slattery said. “Isn’t it the least you can do to vote to end the filibuster and pass voting rights legislation?”

    Senator Manchin said he will meet with the Texas Democratic lawmakers later this week, reported NBC News White House Correspondent Geoff Bennett. Manchin, however, didn’t respond when asked if he would support a special carveout in the filibuster for voting rights legislation, saying only that he’s “anxious to meet with” the legislators.

    Outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington Tuesday, 47 of the missing Texas Democratic lawmakers urged passage of the For the People Act ahead of a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. The federal legislation would restore parts of the Voting Rights Act that were gutted by the Supreme Court and rein in state-level restrictions on voting like those now being proposed in Austin. Texas’s Senate Bill 1 and House Bill 3 would ban drive-through and 24-hour voting, prevent election officials from sending out unsolicited absentee ballot applications to voters, empower partisan poll workers, and further restrict voting by mail.

    The group later met with Vice President Kamala Harris, who was joined by Emmy Ruiz, a senior Biden administration staffer and Texan. “I know what you have done comes with great sacrifice, both personal and political,” Harris reportedly told the lawmakers. The delegation, however, is still working to secure a meeting with Senator Sinema, who alongside Senator Manchin, remains the other key Democratic defender of the Senate filibuster.

    Back in Austin, Jamarr Brown, who began his tenure as the Texas Democratic Party’s first Black co-executive director on Monday, told Truthout outside the state capitol that he remains more cautiously optimistic as the Texas lawmakers meet with key Democratic leaders, despite Biden’s silence on the filibuster in Philadelphia. So far, he says, members seem satisfied with their meetings.

    “I am trusting that they have figured out, both with White House staff but also the vice president, more direct strategy of how to navigate the parliamentary procedure,” Brown said. “I think that the president is committed to voting rights. I think he is committed to getting this passed, but I do think he held his cards close [during his speech], and that’s the direction he chose. I know it’s disappointing, but I do believe this will happen in the end.”

    Texas Democratic Party Co-Executive Director Jamarr Brown speaks outside the Texas State Capitol on July 13, 2021, in support of more than 50 Democratic lawmakers who left the state in order to break quorum.
    Texas Democratic Party Co-Executive Director Jamarr Brown speaks outside the Texas state capitol on July 13, 2021, in support of more than 50 Democratic lawmakers who left the state in order to break quorum.

    Biden is facing rising pressure to throw his full political weight behind ending the filibuster and protecting voting rights. Civil rights activists emphasize Biden couldn’t have been elected without broad support from Black people, whose votes are being disproportionately being suppressed. House Majority Whip and longtime Biden ally Jim Clyburn pushed this week for a filibuster carveout for voting rights legislation.

    During his 23-minute speech Tuesday, Biden called state-level voter suppression efforts “un-American” and “un-democratic,” and called passage of the federal voting rights proposals “a national imperative.” Without offering any specifics on how Democrats might pass the voting bills through a narrowly divided Congress, he seemed to acknowledge the bills’ slim chances, saying he would launch a national campaign to inform voters on new restrictions ahead of midterm elections.

    The speech furthers the White House’s shift toward focusing on other measures to protect voting, including Justice Department-led legal action in states and boosting voter turnout.

    Texas State Rep. Chris Turner, who chairs the House Democratic Caucus, predicted during the members’ D.C. press conference that their efforts would go in vain unless congressional Democrats take bold action to overcome Senate Republican opposition to the federal voting bills. “We can’t hold this tide back forever. We’re buying some time. We need Congress and all of our federal leaders to use that time wisely,” he said.

    Turner said that any negotiations about Democrats returning to Austin would have to start with Governor Abbott reversing his veto of funding for the legislative branch. Democrats are taking the governor to court over the veto, which he issued after House Democrats walked out of the chamber in the final hours of the regular session, breaking quorum. The funding is set to run out August 31.

    “The majority on the committee in the House made it clear that this so-called legislative process was a complete sham,” said Texas Civil Rights Project’s Slattery outside the state capitol. He was among hundreds of Texans who stayed up 24 hours over the weekend to testify against the bills before they were advanced out of House and Senate committees. “This was not a real legislative process; this is just a raw, naked grab for power to pass this bill as fast as possible no matter how many voters it hurts. The Democrats had no choice but to bring these sham proceedings to a halt.”

    As doors to the Texas House remained locked Tuesday, the four Democratic senators who remained in the state capitol interrogated Republican State Sen. Bryan Hughes, Senate Bill 1’s author. They took him to task for previously defending now-removed provisions seemingly designed to hinder efforts by Black churches to turn out voters and that would have made it easier for judges to overturn elections. Asking how they could possibly trust Hughes’s intentions, the senators accused him of “putting lipstick on a pig” and questioned what other “unintended” provisions could be included, after the bill’s latest version was passed so quickly out of committee.

    Meanwhile, with the call of House still in effect, Texas Democrats appear likely to be able to hold off the Republican suppression effort as long as they remain in D.C., which they have committed to for at least another three weeks — the duration of the current special session. After that, the governor will likely call a new special session, forcing the lawmakers to make a decision on whether to extend their stay.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee Chairman James Clyburn speaks at a hearing on September 1, 2020, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

    House leaders led by Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) are launching a campaign to urge the Senate and President Joe Biden to support carving out an exception to the filibuster rule in order to pass legislation protecting voting rights and other measures related to the Constitution.

    As Republicans in state legislatures are slowly chipping away at voting rights across the country, many Democrats and progressives have grown frustrated that the Senate filibuster and its 60-vote rule to advance legislation has been holding up nearly the entirety of the Democratic agenda.

    The For the People Act, the first bill filed this session in the House and the Senate, is one of the top priorities for the party, and Democrats are desperately searching for any avenue to get filibuster holdouts on board to pass the legislation. The latest push spearheaded by Clyburn, notably, wouldn’t get rid of the filibuster completely, but would be able to help Democrats on this one issue.

    Sources familiar with the matter told The Guardian that Clyburn’s effort is backed by the rest of House leadership, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California). Several Democratic senators, most vocally Senators Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona), are still adamantly against abolishing the filibuster. This version of filibuster reform, then, is considered by leadership to be the only way to advance the issue.

    Clyburn was chosen to lead the effort, sources said, because of his close personal relationship with the president. Indeed, Politico reports that Clyburn is targeting Biden and various other people in the White House like Vice President Kamala Harris with his push.

    If they don’t make a rule-changing push to pass voting rights, “Democrats can kiss the majority goodbye,” Clyburn told Politico. He also said that the president should call Manchin to urge him to support the filibuster reform proposal.

    Biden hasn’t come out in support of filibuster abolition, much to the chagrin of progressives and Democrats who are eager to pass vital measures on climate, labor, and more. In March, he said he was in favor of filibuster reform, but Press Secretary Jen Psaki indicated on Monday that Biden wouldn’t be weighing in on Clyburn’s proposal.

    The holdout over reforming or getting rid of the filibuster has been a subject of increasing frustration for Democratic and progressive lawmakers, who warn of dire consequences if they aren’t able to pass their agenda.

    The president is set to speak on voting rights on Tuesday as part of the White House’s push to promote the subject. He is expected to tie Republicans’ sweeping efforts to suppress voting to Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” about nonexistent election fraud. Biden will also make “the moral case” for supporting voting rights, Psaki said Monday, and emphasize the importance of combating Republican proposals like allowing partisan efforts more control over election results.

    But without filibuster reform, as many political commentators have pointed out time and again, it will be impossible for Democrats to implement sweeping voting rights legislation. After all, it’s not just Republican lawmakers at the state level who are opposing voting access; the alarming ideology has engulfed the entire party, top to bottom.

    Meanwhile, Democratic state representatives have grown increasingly desperate for help from Washington in blocking state-level voter suppression legislation.

    In a bold move, Texas Democrats have fled the state to block Republicans’ voter suppression measure there. They’ve headed to D.C., instead, to plead with Democrats there to pass legislation like the For the People Act to block the GOP’s sweeping and alarming voting restrictions measures once and for all.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Texas Gov. Greg Abbott speaks during a border security briefing at the Texas State Capitol on July 10, 2021, in Austin, Texas.

    Gov. Greg Abbott, the Republican governor of Texas, threatened to arrest Democratic legislators who have left the state to prevent quorum on a bill that would restrict voting rights.

    Appearing on Fox News’s “The Ingraham Angle,” Abbott said he would arrest the lawmakers and force them to vote on the legislation he and Republican legislators have proposed.

    The bill includes provisions that would ban drive-through voting, ban 24-hour voting, prevent election officials from sending out unsolicited absentee ballot applications to voters, empower partisan poll workers, and add additional and unnecessary restrictions to voting by mail.

    Democratic lawmakers left Texas earlier in the day on Monday. In a statement from legislative party leaders, they explained that they did so in order to “refuse to let the Republican-led legislature force through dangerous legislation that would trample on Texans’ freedom to vote.” It is the second time this year that Democratic lawmakers in Texas have left the state in order to block restrictive voting rules changes.

    Abbott admitted he couldn’t actually force Democrats to vote on the bill by arresting them until they returned to Texas. “Once they step back into the state,” he said, “they will be arrested and brought back to the Capitol and we will be conducting business.”

    Abbott also said that he would keep calling 30-day special sessions until the Democratic lawmakers return to vote on the restrictive bill.

    “We have special sessions that last 30 days,” Abbott explained on the Fox News program. “And the governor calls them, and I will continue calling special session after special session because over time it is going to continue until they step up to vote.”

    Texas state Rep. Jasmine Crockett, one of the Democrats who left the state to block quorum on the bill, said she’s not concerned about Abbott’s threats because he can’t actually arrest her or other lawmakers.

    “The most that can happen,” Crockett said on CNN’s “New Day” program on Tuesday, “is that I can be detained” to be forced to vote.

    The governor’s threat to continue issuing special sessions is also an empty one, Crockett added, since he vetoed funding to keep the legislature open through the summer.

    “The governor got so frustrated that he vetoed the legislative branch,” Crockett said. “… that means that we can’t function anyway. There is no money after September 1 [to run the legislature]. So he can call as many special sessions as he wants to, but there’s no funding” to hold a vote after that date.

    Texas Democrats are now in Washington, D.C. where they plan to encourage lawmakers there to pass the For the People Act, legislation that would address and supersede many of the restrictive provisions being sought in the Texas Republicans’ bill. But the federal voting rights bill faces its own challenges as Republicans in the Senate have already filibustered it once, preventing a vote on the bill.

    Several Democratic lawmakers have called for changes to the filibuster rules, or for ending the filibuster altogether, in order to protect voting rights for all Americans, particularly those in states where Republicans are putting up additional barriers to voting in the wake of their 2020 election losses.

    “Call me radical, but I do not believe a minority of Senators should be able to block voting rights for millions of people,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) said following the filibuster last month. “But I guess I’m just from that far-left school of thought that legislation should pass when a majority of legislators vote for it.”

    President Joe Biden plans to deliver a speech in Philadelphia later on Tuesday to discuss the “moral case” for protecting voting rights across the U.S. Biden “will redouble his commitment to using every tool at his disposal to continue to fight to protect the fundamental right of Americans to vote against the onslaught of voter suppression laws,” White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said on Monday.

    But Biden has not yet called for changes to the filibuster, nor is he likely to do so in his speech on Tuesday, rendering the prospects of the For the People Act being passed as slim as they stood prior to this week.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • House Majority Whip James Clyburn speaks during a news conference to introduce H.R. 4, Voting Rights Advancement Act, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C, on February 26, 2019.

    The U.S. Senate is back in session today, as Texas Republicans prepare to pass another massive voter suppression bill. The only remedy available to the American people is for the federal government to use its constitutional authority to regulate federal elections to block what President Biden has referred to as the GOP’s “Jim Crow in the 21st century.”

    The House of Representatives passed a law that would block much of the damage done by Texas’ and other Red states’ laws — the For The People Act (HR1 and SB1). But Republicans in the Senate are blocking it with a filibuster.

    But the filibuster is not inviolable.

    The Senate has drilled three major holes in the filibuster since 1917, each time citing the Constitution as their rationale, and if they’re not able to end this arcane, historically racist device then it’s time to drill a fourth “constitutional” hole in it for voting rights.

    About those already-passed “constitutional” holes:

    The filibuster was made possible by a senate rule change in 1806, but didn’t actually get used as a serious way to block debate on legislation until the arrival of “Father of the Confederacy” John C. Calhoun in the Senate; he began using it aggressively in 1837 to block any discussion of the abolition of slavery. (The year before, in 1836, the House had banned any discussion of slavery at all, a law John Quincy Adams delighted in breaking every day the House was in session.)

    When a senator invoked a filibuster, it ground the entire senate to a halt until the original proposed legislation was withdrawn, causing the near-instant death of numerous attempts by Northern senators to weaken or cripple laws relating to slavery in the South. There was quite literally no way around it, or to continue Senate business, other than to withdraw the proposed legislation.

    By 1917, it had mostly been used to block discussion (post-Civil War) of Civil Rights legislation, although with World War I looming and German submarines regularly torpedoing U.S. commercial ships, President Woodrow Wilson wanted Congress to appropriate money to arm some of those Merchant Marine ships with anti-submarine depth charges.

    Southern members of Congress, led by House Majority Leader and notorious white supremacist Claude Kitchin (D-NC), opposed the measure because he and his southern buddies were still essentially fighting the Civil War and didn’t want to “further enrich Wall Street.”

    Over a dozen of Kitchin’s allies in the Senate declared a filibuster and President Wilson, furious, went to the public.

    The March 5, 1917 New York Times front page was filled all the way across the top with the screaming headline: ARMED SHIP BILL BEATEN; PRESIDENT ISSUES A STATEMENT SAYING WE ARE MADE ‘HELPLESS AND CONTEMPTIBLE,’ WITHOUT REMEDY UNTIL THE SENATE AMENDS ITS RULES; 33 SENATORS ALREADY PLEDGED TO END OBSTRUCTION.

    “The Senate of the United States is the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action,” stormed President Wilson. “A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible.”

    The nation erupted.

    Filibustering senators were burned in effigy in multiple states and newspapers across the nation called for their defeat in the next election. People were outraged. It was the talk of barbershops and Grange halls and the VFW.

    President Wilson demanded action, saying, “The remedy? There is but one remedy. The only remedy is that the rules of the Senate should be so altered that it can act…and save the country from disaster.”

    To resolve the crisis, Senator Thomas Walsh (D-MT) proposed what he called a “Constitutional Option.” His logic was straightforward.

    The Constitution:

    • Requires each body of Congress to reset or re-ratify its rules at the beginning of every Congress (every 2 years)
    • Requires Congress to conduct the people’s business in a republican fashion (by vote)
    • Requires elections every two years for 1/3 of the Senate, and the newer senators are freshly representing the most recent “will of the people”
    • Therefore anything that can permanently block the Senate from doing any constitutionally-mandated business is blocking republican democracy and thus the will of the people in violation of the spirit, if not the text, of the Constitution itself

    Walsh laid it out clearly: “It is because the new members, coming fresh from the people, ought to have the right to be heard and be accorded the opportunity to vote in the light of information gleaned at every stage of the passage of a bill or resolution.”

    A filibuster that couldn’t be overcome, Walsh said, effectively blocked “[t]he sense of the people … concerning measures passed as well as those proposed.”

    The Senate re-convened and passed Walsh’s “Constitutional Option,” putting it into the Senate’s rules later that week so, going forward, a 2/3rds supermajority of senators could overcome a filibuster so the Senate could resume business.

    In response, Americans stopped burning senators in effigy and America entered World War I the following month.

    Over the years since, the 2/3rds requirement was reduced to 3/5ths, senators can now invoke a filibuster with an email, and “two-track” was introduced so filibusters don’t slow down other senate business, but the filibuster remained.

    In 1980, Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker (R-TN) amended the “Constitutional Option” to exclude taxing and spending legislation from being filibustered.

    His rationale was that, because spending money to do the nation’s business is a defined responsibility of Congress in Article I of the Constitution, taxing and spending legislation (within limits) could ignore the filibuster and be passed with a simple majority vote.

    Today we call this “Budget Reconciliation” or just “reconciliation” and it’s been used over 25 times.

    The 1917 “Constitutional Option” — that a filibuster could be overcome with a supermajority vote — stands to this day, but using the Constitution as a rationale for blowing holes in the filibuster like the Senate did in 1917 and 1980 got a name change more recently.

    Seventeen years ago, in 2003 when Democrats were filibustering one of George W. Bush’s judges, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott renamed the Constitutional Option as the “Nuclear Option” and suggested it should be expanded from just Article I work (taxing and spending) to include Article III types of work (approving judges).

    Senator Lott didn’t get his way; it took Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to include approving federal judges (with the exception of the Supreme Court) under the Constitutional Option/Nuclear Option. On November 21, 2013, after years of Obama’s judicial nominations being routinely blocked by Republican filibusters, Reid pushed through a new set of Senate rules that exempted judges from the filibuster.

    Approving judges, after all, is also an explicit duty of the United States Senate found in the Constitution.

    Mitch McConnell expanded the Constitutional Option/Nuclear Option in April of 2017 when Democrats declared an intent to filibuster Trump’s first SCOTUS nominee, Neal Gorsuch, who replaced Merrick Garland as the nominee-in-waiting when President Obama’s term in office expired.

    Thus, today the Senate has an exclusion to the filibuster so that all the Senate’s advise and consent obligations can be performed with regard to judges with a simple majority vote.

    Thus, two of the duties of the Senate listed in the Constitution — appropriating and spending money, and ratifying the President’s judicial nominees — are today exempt from the filibuster.

    It’s time to add a third.

    The Elections Clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to “make or alter” state regulations with regard to elections.

    If the filibuster itself can’t be done away with or turned into a “Jimmy Stewart filibuster,” then — argues Congressman Jim Clyburn — another constitutional obligation of Congress should be included in the “Constitutional/Nuclear Option”: laws, this one to protect citizens’ constitutional right to vote.

    “We need to get rid of the filibuster for constitutional issues,” Clyburn said, “just as we have done for budget issues. If you want to argue about how high a wall ought to be, whether or not you ought to build a wall, those are issues that are political… but you ought not be filibustering — nobody should filibuster anybody’s constitutional rights. We have done it for the budget under reconciliation. And reconciliation is a much better word to apply to constitutional issues than it is to the budget.”

    Clyburn is right. As Thomas Paine pointed out, the right to vote is foundational to all other rights and is what gives legitimacy to our government itself. In 1795, in his Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, Paine wrote:

    “The true and only true basis of representative government is equality of rights. Every man has a right to one vote, and no more in the choice of representatives. … To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case. The proposal therefore to disfranchise any class of men is as criminal as the proposal to take away property.”

    Paine was right, as is Clyburn. Senator Schumer, if he can’t get his caucus to go along with more forceful actions like eliminating the filibuster altogether, should do what his predecessors Senators Baker (1980), Reid (2013) and McConnell (2017) did: drill another “Constitutional” hole in the filibuster.

    The right to vote is far more important than Congress spending money or approving judges. It deserves at least equal treatment, and, like in 1917, the crisis is upon us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Residents of Baltimore City line up to cast their votes in the U.S. Presidential and local congressional elections at Carver Vocational Technical School on November 3, 2020, in Baltimore, Maryland.

    A new poll suggests that most voters in the U.S. think democracy is under threat, with a majority also stating that they are more concerned about making voting easier than rooting out supposed fraud in elections.

    An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, conducted June 22 to 29, asked voters which attitudes aligned more with their own line of thinking: whether democracy is alive and well in the U.S., or under threat. A troublingly-small 27 percent felt democracy was thriving, while 69 percent expressed fears about its preservation.

    Respondents were also asked about their views regarding election fraud and access to voting. A majority, 56 percent, said they were more worried about access to voting, versus just 41 percent that said voter fraud troubled them more.

    There were considerable partisan differences on the question. While a majority of Democratic-leaning respondents (85 percent) and independents (52 percent) said they were more concerned about access to voting, most Republican-leaning voters (72 percent) said that preventing fraud was more important. Among those that voted for President Joe Biden in last year’s election, 82 percent said access to voting was the most important among the two items, while 79 percent of Trump voters said making sure ineligible voters don’t cast a ballot was the more urgent issue.

    Despite polls showing majority support for making it easier to vote, Republican-led state houses across the country, reacting to former President Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud, have pushed for unnecessary and restrictive changes to voting laws that diminish voters’ access to the polls, particularly for communities of color. In the first half of 2021 alone, 14 states have passed into law at least 22 acts that make it harder to vote.

    Some Republican lawmakers in several states are also pushing for so-called election audits, which are likely to create greater barriers to voting. Most voters, however, view these audits in a negative light, with 57 percent of Americans in a recent Monmouth University poll saying they are “partisan efforts to undermine valid election results.” Conversely, only a third of respondents in that poll (33 percent) said they viewed such audits as “legitimate efforts to identify potential voting irregularities.”

    While the Biden administration’s Department of Justice has said it would challenge these state voter suppression laws in courts as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court delivered a devastating blow to such a move, ruling along partisan lines on Thursday that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 could not be used to challenge voting rules changes in Arizona made a few years ago.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Supreme Court building is seen on January 27, 2017.

    Divided strictly along ideological lines, the Supreme Court construed what was left of the historic Voting Rights Act (VRA) to uphold two Arizona voter suppression laws that civil rights organizations had challenged for disproportionately burdening voters of color. This decision sends a dangerous signal to states that the courts are likely to uphold their voter suppression laws that make it harder for people of color to vote.

    In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Court’s six right-wingers ruled, over the dissent of the three liberals, that Arizona’s “out of precinct policy” and “ballot harvesting” provision did not violate Section 2 of the VRA. Section 2 forbids any voting procedure that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race.”

    Samuel Alito, who authored the majority opinion, wrote that voting restrictions should be struck down only if they impose substantial burdens on voters of color that prevent them from voting. He said, “where a State provides multiple ways to vote, any burden imposed on voters who choose one of the available options cannot be evaluated without also taking into account the other available means.”

    Alarmingly, the majority says the prevention of “voter fraud” — that bogus mantra of Republicans and Donald Trump during the election — is a legitimate state interest that can overcome proof of a burden on voters and uphold a voting restriction.

    In her dissent, Elena Kagan lambastes the majority for writing “its own set of rules” and “limiting Section 2 from multiple directions.” The majority, Kagan charges, rests its decision “on a list of mostly made-up factors, at odds with Section 2 itself.” She says the “important circumstances” that the Court invents “all cut in one direction — toward limiting liability for race-based voting inequities.”

    The “out of precinct policy” requires election officials to discard a ballot that was cast at the wrong precinct. If a voter’s name does not appear on the voting rolls in a certain precinct, she can cast a provisional ballot, but if it is later determined that she voted at the wrong precinct, her ballot will be thrown out.

    The other voting restriction, known as “ballot harvesting,” makes it a felony for an individual to collect and deliver another person’s ballot. Although the provision contains exceptions for family members, caregivers, election officials and letter carriers, it criminalizes the assistance of community organizers, campaign workers, and others who help deliver ballots for people.

    Last year, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stuck down both provisions as violative of Section 2 because they disproportionately disadvantage voters of color.

    Section 2 provides:

    (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color….

    (b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.

    The Majority’s New Rules Would Support Voter Suppression Measures

    Alito wrote that “any circumstance that has a logical bearing on whether voting is ‘equally open’ and affords equal ‘opportunity’ may be considered” in the calculation of “the totality of circumstances.” Although he said this is not an exhaustive list, Alito cited five “important circumstances” that “should be mentioned.” When these circumstances are taken together, it would be difficult to prove a Section 2 violation in the future. They are:

    1. The “highly relevant” size of the burden. “After all, every voting rule imposes a burden of some sort” and people “must tolerate the ‘usual burdens of voting,’” Alito wrote. He said that “mere inconvenience cannot be enough to demonstrate a violation of section 2.”
    2. How much the voting rule departs from the standard practice when Section 2 was amended in 1982. “It is relevant that in 1982 States typically required nearly all voters to cast their ballots in person on election day and allowed only narrow and tightly defined categories of voters to cast absentee ballots,” Alito wrote.
    3. The size of any disparities in the impact a rule has on members of different racial or ethnic groups. “Small disparities are less likely than large ones to indicate that a system is not equally open,” Alito said. “But the mere fact there is some disparity in impact does not necessarily mean that a system is not equally open or that it does not give everyone an equal opportunity to vote.”
    4. Other available voting opportunities provided by the state’s entire voting system.
    5. “The strength of the state’s interest served by a challenged voting rule.” For example, Alito wrote, “[o]ne strong and entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud,” which, he said, could “undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome.” Alito stated that even in the absence of evidence of fraud, “it should go without saying that a State may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur and be detected within its own borders.”

    The majority held, “In light of the modest burdens allegedly imposed by Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy, the small size of its disparate impact, and the State’s justifications,” the rule did not violate Section 2 of the VRA.

    But Kagan pointed out that in 2012, about 35,000 ballots throughout the country were thrown out for being cast at the wrong precinct, and nearly one-third of them — 10,979 — were cast in Arizona. She noted, “Elections are often fought and won at the margins — certainly in Arizona,” adding that Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by just 10,457 votes last year.

    The Court also held that the ballot harvesting provision did not create a disparate burden on the voter. The “modest evidence of racially disparate burden,” Alito wrote, was overcome by the State’s justification, which was fraud prevention.

    Kagan retorted that this provision disproportionately impacted Native American communities without regular access to mail service.

    Majority Creates Exceptions to Save Laws Like Arizona’s, Kagan Writes

    “If a single statute represents the best of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. It marries two great ideals: democracy and racial equality,” Kagan begins her passionate dissent. But, she continues, “If a single statute reminds us of the worst of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. Because it was — and remains — so necessary.”

    Kagan notes, “Rarely has a statute required so much sacrifice to ensure its passage. Never has a statute done more to advance the Nation’s highest ideals. And few laws are more vital in the current moment. Yet in the last decade, this Court has treated no statute worse.”

    Indeed, the Court dealt a major blow to the Voting Rights Act in the 2013 case of Shelby County v. Holder, when it struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that had required preclearance of new voting rules in jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent, “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” In his majority opinion in Shelby, John Roberts provided assurances that Section 2 was still available to protect voting rights because those aggrieved could litigate after their injuries. But in Brnovich, the Court eviscerates Section 2 as well.

    Kagan takes aim at the majority’s deference to standard practice in election rules in 1982. She cites the use of fraud allegations as pretexts to defend voter suppression laws, and notes that there has never been evidence of fraud or threats of fraud involving ballot collection in Arizona.

    Kagan’s dissent accuses the majority of creating “a set of extra-textual exceptions and considerations to sap the [Voting Rights] Act’s strength, and to save laws like Arizona’s.” Charging that the Court is usurping Congress’s role, Kagan adds, “No matter what Congress wanted, the majority has other ideas.”

    Referring to Section 2, Kagan concludes, “That law, of all laws, should not be diminished by this Court.”

    Since Shelby was decided — and exacerbated by Trump’s spurious claims of fraud — voter suppression legislation has proliferated. A least 880 bills proposing major changes are pending in 49 states. Of those, at least 28 major bills have been enacted in 14 states.

    “In recent months, State after State has taken up or enacted legislation erecting new barriers to voting,” Kagan wrote. “Those laws shorten the time polls are open, both on Election Day and before. They impose new prerequisites to voting by mail, and shorten the windows to apply for and return mail ballots. They make it harder to register to vote, and easier to purge voters from the rolls. Two laws even ban handing out food or water to voters standing in line.”

    The ball is in Congress’s court. Two voter federal protection bills are pending, the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. In addition, the Judiciary Act of 2021 would increase the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to 13. That could provide an opportunity to dilute the right-wing agenda of the current six members of the Court who voted to open the floodgates of voter suppression legislation.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • People arrive either to drop off mail-in ballots or vote in person in the U.S. presidential election at an early voting location in Phoenix, Arizona, on October 16, 2020.

    The United States Supreme Court has upheld two controversial election laws in Arizona that voting rights advocates say will hurt the ability of voters in marginalized communities to cast their ballots.

    Beyond its impact on Arizona voting laws, however, the case was also seen by many as a test of the remaining powers of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and whether the Court would uphold one of its provisions to protect voters of color in that state and elsewhere in the future.

    The 6-3 decision, voted along partisan lines, in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee examined two types of voting restrictions: the first requiring election officials to discard ballots cast by voters who showed up at the wrong precincts; and the second making it a crime for anyone other than family members, caregivers or election officials to turn in a person’s absentee ballot to polling places.

    The two changes to voting rules were initially challenged in 2016. Last year, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the law was unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court, in its ruling today, overturned that decision, and found that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — which forbids changes to state’s election laws if they result in “a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race” — could not be applied to this case.

    The decision could make it more difficult for challenges to restrictive voting laws in the future. Last week, the Department of Justice announced it would challenge state laws that create additional burdens to voting, but the ruling on Thursday will undoubtedly narrow to what extent the Voting Rights Act can be used for such challenges.

    “Today, the Court undermines Section 2 and the right it provides,” Justice Elena Kagan said in her dissent to the majority opinion. “The majority fears that the statute Congress wrote is too ‘radical’ — that it will invalidate too many state voting laws.”

    Recalling how the conservative bloc of justices had gutted a different provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, Kagan added:

    What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten — in order to weaken — a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses. What is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about ‘the end of discrimination in voting.’

    Voting rights advocates were similarly critical of the court’s majority opinion.

    “We are fighting against the most concerted state-based effort to undermine Black voting strength since the Civil Rights Mvmt,” tweeted Sherrilyn Ifill, president and CEO of the Legal Defense and Educational Fund at the NAACP. “And in that context, the Supreme Court has again, & w/abandon, shredded a core provision of the Voting Rights Act.”

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) also decried the Supreme Court’s majority opinion. “If you believe in open and fair democracy and the principle of one person, one vote, today is one of the darkest days in all of the Supreme Court’s history,” he said.

    The ruling by the Court will add urgency to the Democrats’ push to pass the For the People Act, a bill that would enact many voting rights and elections reforms. However, a Senate filibuster by Republicans would likely block passage of the bill, and centrist Democrats have signaled they are unwilling to change filibuster rules in order to pass it, in spite of the fact that a majority of American voters favor doing so.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • New Yorkers cast their votes for the June 22 Mayoral Primary Election in New York City on June 22, 2021.

    New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary — which was already unlikely to be resolved for weeks —moved from chaotic to disastrous on Tuesday when the city’s Board of Elections released early results that mistakenly included 135,000 test ballots in the ranked-choice tally. But while some conservatives used the incident to malign the new ranked-choice system, it’s the notoriously inept partisan BOE that shoulders the blame for the fiasco.

    Tuesday marked the first time the city counted its ranked-choice selections, which allow voters to rank up to five candidates in order of preference. The preliminary results released by the BOE showed Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams’ lead shrink from double digits on election night to just a two-point lead over former sanitation chief Kathryn Garcia as lower-place finishers were eliminated and the next choices were reallocated. Progressive lawyer and activist Maya Wiley is just behind Garcia, and still has a chance if she does well among outstanding absentee votes. The winner will certainly be one of those three; former presidential candidate Andrew Yang, City Comptroller Scott Stringer and activist Dianne Morales have been eliminated.

    But after those results were released, Adams’ campaign cried foul over some 135,000 votes that had been inexplicably added to the election night total. The BOE was soon forced to admit it had screwed up.

    In an explanation posted on Twitter, the board explained that it failed to remove sample ballot images used to test the ranked-choice voting software and the program counted “both test and election night results, producing approximately 135,000 additional records.” Updated results with the test ballots removed were posted Wednesday night, which to election officials’ immense relief showed no significant changes from Tuesday’s data. Still, the PR damage had clearly been done.

    “Let us be clear: RCV was not the problem, rather a human error that could have been avoided,” the BOE said in a statement. “We have implemented another layer of review and quality control before publishing information going forward. We can say with certainty that the election night vote counts were and are accurate and the RCV data put out today is correct as well.”

    Some conservatives who have long opposed ranked-choice voting seized on the debacle to blame the new voting system, rather than the famously dysfunctional BOE, to score points against congressional Democrats who hope to expand ranked-choice voting in their voting rights push.

    “Ranked-choice voting is a corrupt scam,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said on Twitter, baselessly claiming that it is “ripe for fraud.”

    Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-N.Y., claimed, also without evidence, that “ranked choice voting disenfranchises voters.” (Arguably it does exactly the opposite.) Right-wing pundit Erick Erickson said he hopes the New York election “kills off national demand for ranked choice voting.” Conservative author Rich Lowry said the “ridiculously complex, drawn-out system of vote-counting is a terrible way to determine a major election and should be scrapped as soon as possible.”

    It wasn’t just conservatives sounding a death knell for RCV. Rachel Bitecofer, the political scientist who runs the anti-GOP Strike PAC, said that the “RCV fiasco in NYC” should indicate to voting reformers that it is “not the end-all, be-all reform option.”

    But New York’s delays in ballot counting are the result of extended absentee ballot deadlines, and have nothing to do with the ranked-choice system itself. And the system is hardly complex, Rob Richie, the CEO of Fair Vote, which advocates for ranked-choice voting, told Salon. When human error doesn’t intervene, as it did in New York, RCV software can tabulate the results with just the press of a button. And the error that caused the issue is in no way unique to ranked-choice systems.

    “This particular problem of not clearing the cache effectively could happen and actually does happen with plurality contests too,” he said. Concerns about voter disenfranchisement, turnout or ballot exhaustion, documented previously by Salon, certainly played a role. “The biggest sort of challenge is correctable,” Richie said. “They can be more transparent in their planning and more consultative.”

    In fact, ranked-choice software veterans who offered to help with New York’s election count say they were ignored by the BOE. The “most troubling” aspect, Richie said, is that they specifically offered to address running voting tallies and to create redundancy, in order to make sure that exactly what happened would not happen.

    There were certainly doubts about introducing a complex and unfamiliar voting system in a large city, but voters passed an ordinance to implement ranked-choice in the first place, and overwhelmingly seem to favor it. More than 75% of the city’s voters said they want to use ranked-choice voting in future elections, according to a poll released this week.

    “RCV is already paying immediate dividends,” argued New York Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, because “we’re now immediately spared several low-turnout runoff elections and long recounts in too-close-to-call races saving millions of dollars.”

    Other New York lawmakers pointed to the makeup of the BOE as the real cause for outrage. The board’s “failures stem from corrupt political party leaders who make their incompetent pals election officials,” tweeted state Sen. Alessandra Biaggi, criticizing officials for “gaslighting” New Yorkers by blaming ranked-choice voting for the BOE’s failures.

    Last year the city’s BOE failed to mail out many absentee ballots until the day before the 2020 primary, threw out about 20% of absentee primary ballots, and sent nearly 100,000 defective absentee ballots in the general election.

    The main issue is likely the basic structure of New York’s election system. It is the only state with local election boards whose workers are entirely selected by Democratic and Republican Party bosses in the district. As a result, many appointees are inexperienced and have few qualifications beyond their ties to party leaders. The official who oversees voter registration in the city is the 80-year-old mother of a former congressman, The New York Times reported in an investigation last year. The director of Election Day operations is a close friend of the chairwoman of the Manhattan Republican Party. Other top officials include the children and spouses of current and former lawmakers.

    “The agency has a culture where ineptitude is common and accountability is rare,” the Times reported. “Some staffers read or watch Netflix at the office, the employees said. Others regularly fail to show up for work, with no fear of discipline. Several employees said some staffers punch in and then leave to go shopping or to the gym.”

    After Tuesday’s blunder, The Times’ editorial board said the ballot mess should be the “last straw” for the “incompetence” at the BOE.

    “Some have jumped to blame the new voting method for Tuesday’s mess, but the real culprit is the same old one: a decrepit, self-dealing political machine that refuses to release its stranglehold on the city’s elections,” the board said, adding that a “functioning board would have eased voters’ concerns about the new system; this one exacerbated them, and the damage could take years to repair.”

    Richie told Salon he also hopes that the screw-up will inspire “institutional changes,” which New York lawmakers and activists have demanded for decades.

    Richie added that he isn’t worried that criticism of the city’s botched entry into ranked-choice voting will undermine efforts to expand RCV to other parts of the country. San Francisco also experienced growing pains when it rolled out RCV in 2004, but it has been a core component of the city’s elections ever since. Maine adopted ranked-choice voting statewide in 2018 and more than 50 cities across the country will use the system in their next elections. Even some conservatives have come around, Richie said, noting that the Virginia Republican Party used ranked-choice voting for its gubernatorial primary this year and “are quite pleased with how it went.”

    The backlash over this week’s blunder error will soon fade once the BOE releases the correct results, Richie predicted, adding that the new system has already helped women and candidates of color significantly expand the number of seats they hold on the City Council.

    If voters are “accepting of a reality where elections never have more than two candidates, then they should be happy to keep our single-choice system,” Richie said. “But if they ever want to participate in an election with more than two choices, ranked-choice voting is an excellent way to do it. … What we’re seeing in a positive way in New York is having more candidates, having more choice, ultimately is more engaging to voters and brings some people in to participate who otherwise wouldn’t.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Supporters of the Freedom Ride for Voting Rights chant on the National Mall during a rally near the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on June 26, 2021.

    On Tuesday, Senate Republicans voted against the For the People Act, which would have strengthened access to the ballot. If we take this vote at face value, we must acknowledge that Joe Biden’s 47 years in the Senate, Kamala Harris’s time in the Senate and her presiding over this process, and Chuck Schumer’s experience and leadership means nothing because they couldn’t ensure passage of this bill. This means that Mitch McConnell is still the majority leader setting the agenda for the Senate. The right to vote is that important, and Tuesday’s failed vote is an indication that we need to escalate. Unless we are prepared to concede those points, then we must escalate our fight for voting rights protection. We need to act like this is the urgent and existential threat to our democracy that it is.

    In the November 2020 election, voters turned out in massive numbers. Americans expressed their desire for a country that works for and includes all. Many of us felt we turned a corner in terms of registering and turning out voters. But progress wasn’t pleasing to all. In an unprecedented attempt to stifle electoral participation, Republican legislatures across the country responded to the November election by enacting a wave of measures that will make it harder for communities of color to vote.

    According to the Brennan Center for Justice, between January 1 and May 14, 2021, 14 states have passed 22 laws making it harder for Americans to vote. Considering many legislatures are still in session and at least one chamber of many legislatures has passed measures making it harder to vote, there is good reason to expect additional barriers to the ballot box. Given this unprecedented political engineering and gamesmanship, the greatest threat to U.S. democracy is proving to be voter suppression.

    If Republicans can control who votes and when they vote, they can pass any number of laws without consequence or fear of losing their seats. They can hold a fierce grip on power, no matter what they do.

    Right now, every state has different laws governing who can vote, how they vote and when they vote. This patchwork of policies makes it difficult for voters, let alone voting rights advocates, to navigate or push back on voting restrictions and protect their constitutional right to vote. It also increases the likelihood of voters being unfairly criminalized for not knowing the ever-changing rules in their respective jurisdictions. This newest crop of voting restrictions is not about election integrity, as Republicans claim. It is part of a broader attempt to hold onto power.

    For Republicans, nothing is more urgent. Even in the U.S. Congress, where there has been record in-fighting between the Never Trumpers and Trump 2024 camps, Republicans have unified around the goal of restricting the franchise. For this batch of legislators, no other policy proposals appear to matter. One of their main points of agreement is a mission to make it harder for people of color to vote.

    Democrats, on the other hand, have yet to discern how to lead with the authority granted them in 2020, in defense of the right to vote. They are still expending too much effort trying to get a recalcitrant party to agree to ensure Americans’ fundamental rights.

    Democracy advocates must be laser-focused because we are at ground zero. Many of us have spent our lives working for access to the ballot. When we organize and turn people out to vote; we are not interested in the personality of the person they are voting for, we are interested in what each candidate will do to make life better for marginalized people. We are tired of living in a nation that refuses to accept our full participation, and we need leaders who appreciate our concerns and desire to have agency over our lives, schools and communities.

    That means we will evaluate elected leaders not by whether they show up but by what they do when they show up. We are not interested in campaign pledges; we are interested in action.

    It is nice that Vice President Harris has been appointed by the White House to lead this charge, but we must be clear that nothing short of progress will appease us. We are not interested in historic appointments if those appointments don’t deliver on the very thing the American people have been demanding: agency over their communities, resources for their communities, a chance to live free from fear and with full participation in our nation’s democracy.

    We need federal legislation to govern how elections are run across the country and prevent state legislatures from restricting the franchise for political gain. The late Rep. John Lewis spent his life fighting for the right to vote, and such legislation was the last political battle he took on before his death. He understood what too many of us take for granted: Instead of trying to beat the hundreds of voter suppression bills one by one, we need federal legislation to preempt voting restrictions at the national level.

    Senator Schumer must now determine how to protect the right to vote. But I will caution our leaders that pivoting to the John Lewis Voting Rights Act is an attempt to kick the can down the road; it is a rhetorical red-herring. Even suggesting this pivot tells me Republican and conservative Democrats think that we’re incompetent. Just because it carries John Lewis’s name doesn’t mean it does the same things that the For the People Act does. We need both. Going back to square one is going backwards. It is not moving us forward. Furthermore, there is nothing that precludes Congress from doing both. Framing this issue as an either/or is a false choice.

    The For the People Act would have set a federal standard for elections and prevent states from developing policies that would make it harder to vote. States would no longer be able to limit early voting, because it is proven to help people vote. They would not be able to restrict and consolidate drop boxes, because doing so makes it more difficult for voters to cast a ballot.

    Democrats have a slim majority in Congress. They cannot risk that majority by moving slowly, cautiously, carefully. They must match Republicans’ intensity and treat attacks on voting rights as existential threats.

    Advocates will not be pacified by symbolic measures that fail to yield change. We do not want to be placated. We want the job done. We are also not interested in being patronized by congressional leaders whose interest is merely maintaining safe legislative districts at all costs, especially when we know exactly which communities will be disproportionately shouldered with that cost: marginalized communities.

    We are at ground zero. Elected officials must act like it.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Protestors in support of former President Donald Trump gather outside Veterans Memorial Coliseum where Ballots from the 2020 general election wait to be counted on May 1, 2021, in Phoenix, Arizona.

    In state after Republican state around the country, a push is underway to create legal pathways to subvert election results. This effort is buoyed by the fact that well over half of Republican voters believe that Donald Trump is the “true president.” And it will be further bolstered by Trump’s summer-of-hate tour, during which he plans to traverse the country to give stump speeches aimed at keeping himself in the political spotlight, putting pressure on any and all GOP officials and political leaders to continue to hew to his lies. Trump appears ready to actively campaign against any GOP political figure who supported his impeachment and opposes his ongoing claims to having won the election.

    From the beginning of his presidency, Trump and Trumpism both appeared to be a cult and a deeply authoritarian political movement, one that tapped into some of the most violent impulses in U.S. political history. It was a combination of the demagoguery of McCarthyism and the conspiracism of the John Birch Society. It valued absolute loyalty tests — not to country or to the Constitution, but to the person of Donald J. Trump. And in demanding loyalty, it brooked no dissent, insisting that individuals and institutions bend repeatedly to its will.

    In the weeks after the November election, when it was clear that Trump had massively lost the popular vote and had also lost the Electoral College vote, it was increasingly clear that Trump would attempt to hold onto power by any means necessary. Sure enough, there he was on January 6, goading on an enraged mob of Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, neo-Nazis, and other violent extremists whom he had invited to D.C. with the express purpose of making it impossible for Congress to certify the election result. The resulting bloodshed, as horrific as it was, ought to have surprised no one. Trump had, after all, been encouraging armed assaults against institutions of power for the better part of a year, calling on militias to “liberate” Michigan and other states from COVID-related public health restrictions and for his supporters to monitor the November 2020 polls. And GOP leaders, instead of distancing themselves from him, had essentially given him a free pass.

    That the January 6 insurrection did not lead to greater bloodshed than it did was due more to luck than to lack of will. In the months since then, it’s become clear that the Capitol Police and National Guard were essentially, for many hours, ordered to stand down in the face of the far right attack. It has also become clear just how far Trump’s team was willing to go to basically order Department of Justice personnel into the fray to further their election fraud claims and attempt to overturn a democratic election result. And, in the ongoing seditionist language of Michael Flynn and other acolytes, it’s become clear just how comfortable these right-wing extremists were in utilizing military force to cling to power, and how, nearly half a year into the Biden presidency, they cling to the hope that an armed uprising, involving elements of the military and others, will somehow return their Great Leader to the White House.

    The failed mob attack of January 6 ought to have been the event that lanced this toxic, poison-filled boil. In its wake, the GOP leadership, at a congressional and a state level, has had ample opportunity to cauterize the wound and sever their never-particularly-stable alliance with Trump.

    At the federal level, had a handful more GOP senators found the courage to vote to convict the disgraced ex-president following his second impeachment, he would have been destroyed as a viable political figure and possible future candidate. More recently, had Sen. Mitch McConnell not rallied his senators to vote against the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate January 6, Congress could have thrown its full investigative muscle into unraveling the extent of Trump’s anti-democratic plans.

    At the state level, state GOPs could have supported the congressmembers, including Liz Cheney, who had the moral courage to vote to impeach Trump for his actions (though not the courage to oppose his agenda while in office). Instead, those state parties have taken vote after vote to censor the pro-impeachment figures; activists have heckled and booed senators who voted to convict; and state lawmakers in one state after the next have moved to embrace Trump’s fantasies about rigged elections and massive fraudulent voting.

    In Arizona, they have set in motion an utterly disreputable “audit” of election results that is being carried out with no transparency by a cohort of avowedly pro-Trump, and conspiracist individuals and organizations.

    In Georgia, they have voted to constrict the franchise and to undermine the role of elections officials, from the Secretary of State on down, by allowing GOP elected officials to replace officials they deem a threat to the electoral process. Recall that, in 2020, the secretary of state stood firm in the face of extraordinary intimidation tactics from Trump, from his lawyers, and from his trolls who unleashed volleys of death threats and other threatening behavior against him. Come 2022 or 2024, that official, and county-level officials, might not have the ability to both withstand such pressure and to continue to hold their jobs.

    In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott, who is running for reelection and needs to keep Trump on board, has called a special legislative session this summer that most commentators assume comes with the specific intent of dramatically tightening voting requirements, and constricting both absentee voting and early voting.

    Around the country, state officials are buying into Trump’s rhetoric about a stolen election, and are putting in place rules designed to make it easier for the governing party and election officials to reject votes that don’t go their way. And around the country, too, as the media continues to give Trump a vast amount of free publicity by covering his each and every utterance, it is fast becoming a litmus test for GOP primary voters as to whether or not candidates support the most outlandish and far right of conspiracy claims and worldviews. As a result, the last vestiges of moderation and of rationalist politics are now being driven from the GOP. The GOP is now, the better part of a year after Trump’s thumping election defeat, on the verge of becoming more like a full-fledged far right party as seen in Europe than a mainstream conservative party.

    Addressing a QAnon event, Trump’s disgraced national security advisor Michael Flynn argued that the U.S. military should intervene in domestic politics in much the same way as did the Myanmar military earlier this year. The most shocking thing about Flynn’s speech wasn’t his words — after all, Flynn by now has a long history of saying entirely despicable, fascistic things in public settings; it all was in the crowd’s reaction: he was wildly cheered rather than booed off the stage.

    Trump was an entirely malignant, destructive president. Now, from his post-presidential gilded exile in Mar-a-Lago he is setting the stage for future waves of extremism and violence, and his henchmen are, increasingly, flirting with the language of paramilitarism and coups. Trump is demanding that state parties and federal political figures toe his line, and he is using his popularity among the GOP base to take down establishment Republican figures and to replace them with unbending loyalists and sycophants. His reactionary followers, led by the likes of Steve Bannon, are pushing a “domino theory,” arguing that a series of state audits of elections results will ultimately lead to Biden’s demise and to Trump rising, phoenix-like from the political ashes.

    Goaded on by this tsunami of disinformation, 30 percent of Republicans now believe that Trump will magically be “reinstated” as president by August, or shortly thereafter — a stunning number and one that should cause grave concern. Never before in U.S. history has a defeated president spent the year after he left office trying to undermine the election result, attempting to seize control over all the state levers of power within his party so as to further his personal political ambitions, and using his proxies to gin up the notion of violence against his successor.

    Trump was in the gutter as a president, and there he remains. As Trumpists take over political apparatuses around the country, he is becoming even more of a threat and a havoc-maker. I do not doubt that Trump would, if he ran for president again, be thoroughly defeated in any even remotely free-and-fair election. But, as Trump loyalists seize control in more GOP-led states, and as election law changes are implemented that make it easier for governing Republicans to undermine unfavorable election results in their states, I have every doubt that upcoming elections and the vote counts that follow can be guaranteed as free-and-fair in the first place.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders gives an opening statement during a hearing on June 8, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

    Sen. Bernie Sander (I-Vermont) said on Wednesday that he’s “tired” of discussing fellow Senators Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) because Democrats must act now to save democracy — or face the public, come reelection time.

    “I’m tired of talking about Mr. Manchin and Miss Sinema. We have got to do what we can to bring people together. The American people, I think, all over this country understand that now is the time to act,” Sanders told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

    “I will also tell you, clearly, we are constrained by the fact that we only have 50 Democrats,” he continued. “To my mind, what this next election is going to be about is whether the American people want us to have a government that represents all people, that believes in democracy or not. And we need a hell of a lot more Democrats in the Senate than we have right now.”

    Sanders has, indeed, spent the last few months warning that if Democrats continue delaying action on vital issues like infrastructure or voting rights, they may end up losing Congress in 2022. Democrats are already likely to suffer losses in the midterm elections because the party that holds the presidency typically has a disadvantage.

    Manchin and Sinema have especially come under scrutiny because of their stubborn and seemingly unending support of the Senate filibuster, even when it comes to vital issues like stopping Republicans from openly trying to steal elections across the country. Despite an abundance of negative news stories and mounting pressure from fellow Democrats, however, the two senators have only doubled down on their support of the practice.

    Instead, the two senators have insisted upon passing legislation using bipartisanship, which Republicans have shown time and again that they are not amenable to doing. On Monday, Senator Sinema, in a much-criticized op-ed, repeated the flawed assertion that bipartisanship is the way forward for the country — and the very next day, Republicans blocked the Democrats’ landmark voting rights bill, the For the People Act.

    “If you know of any Republican who’s prepared to vote to support democracy and voting rights, I’d love to see them,” Sanders said. “There aren’t any. That’s the sad reality.” The GOP instead is focused on perpetuating Donald Trump’s big lie about election fraud, he added.

    “You do not have one Republican in the United States Senate who is prepared to vote to preserve American democracy and prevent these states from doing the terrible, undemocratic things that they are doing,” continued Sanders, in response to a question about whether or not there could be a bipartisan compromise on voting rights. “I say this with great sadness — this is not going to be bipartisan. Unfortunately, Democrats are going to have to do this by themselves.”

    Recent research has shown that Democrats may be better off if they go it alone on important issues, as Sanders has suggested. An analysis of the 2020 election from Way to Win released last month found that Democrats didn’t get the landslide congressional wins they expected at least partly because candidates focused their messaging on their ability to reach across the aisle. In so doing, they missed an opportunity to expose the GOP as the dangerously right-wing party that it has become.

    In recent years, the GOP has indeed become more radical than it has been in modern times. After Republicans blocked debate on voting rights in the Senate on Tuesday, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in elections. “This is not a federal issue,” he said.

    As The Intercept pointed out, McConnell has previously been in favor of voting rights. But now that Trump and his party are uniting against voting, McConnell is falling in line behind the same tired GOP line about federal oversight — although Republicans don’t seem to care about big government when it benefits them.

    If Republicans use minority rule to block the For the People Act while they pass voter suppression bills at the state level across the country, it could spell certain doom for Democrats and democracy.

    “We can disagree on education, on health care, on any other damn thing you want to disagree with. But you cannot disagree about whether or not all Americans have the right to vote. And that right is being taken away from them,” said Sanders. “In my view, should we end the filibuster on this issue? Absolutely. This is an enormously important issue. Democracy is at stake.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Mitch Mcconnell

    Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell issued what surely must rank among the most hypocritical statements ever uttered by a senior senator. Were he to become majority leader again after the 2022 midterms he would, the Kentuckian stated, be “highly unlikely” to preside over a confirmation of a Biden-nominated Supreme Court justice.

    McConnell is no stranger to hypocrisy. Remember, he was the Senate leader who conjured a precedent out of his nether regions in 2016 in refusing to hold confirmation hearings for President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland, and in claiming it was too close to an election and that the voters should have a say. And he was also the Senate leader who, a presidential election cycle later, then did a spectacular U-turn and rammed through Amy Coney Barrett’s hearings and confirmation vote just days before last year’s Election Day, when more than half the country had already cast early votes.

    McConnell was also the leader who twice marshaled his caucus to oppose voting to convict Donald Trump, after the House had impeached him. The second time around, he did so despite publicly averring that Trump did, indeed, bear moral responsibility for instigating the January 6 insurrection. And he’s the same leader who, after acknowledging that the ex-president bore blame for the most dangerous insurrection in modern U.S. history, then promptly turned around and appeased his base by saying that he would “absolutely” support Trump in 2024 if he were the party’s presidential nominee, and that he would oppose a bipartisan commission to investigate the insurrection.

    In other words, McConnell is no stranger to the art of shameless double-talk. He has spent years consolidating his power at the expense of the integrity of basic civic institutions, and he has thought nothing of undermining the country’s democratic culture to appease his increasingly extreme base. Where Trump was bluster and bombast, McConnell is a political beast of a different species, a wily, deeply cynical operator who uses the levers of power in as ruthless a manner as any Senate leader in modern history.

    So, why is his statement on a potential Biden Supreme Court nominee any different from his past statements and actions? On one level, it’s not; it’s simply more of the same amoral politicking. But on another level, it’s exponentially worse than what has come before. If McConnell in 2016 was a caterpillar feeling his way toward a new, anti-democratic, ruling philosophy, McConnell in 2021 has completed his metamorphosis into a malignant moth. In that, he is marching lockstep with the ever more anti-democratic trajectory that the GOP — the party of mob attackers, conspiracists, QAnon adherents, white supremacists and voter suppression advocates — as a whole has now embarked upon.

    What the Senate minority leader — whose 50 senators represent 43.5 percent of Americans, and whose Senate caucus hasn’t represented a majority of the country’s population in a quarter century — is basically saying is that a minoritarian political party has an absolute right to stymie the political majority. He is averring that the GOP has a God-given free pass to impose on the entire country ever more extreme legal interpretations of everything from abortion access to environmental regulations to voting rights, no matter where the voting public stands on these issues.

    McConnell seems to have long viewed his legacy as being about securing a conservative hold on the judiciary for decades to come. Now that he has a 6-3 Supreme Court majority and has planted conservative flags up and down the federal judiciary, he is getting more audacious still, looking to use the wave of GOP-passed voter suppression laws to secure a congressional majority again and then to basically neutralize the ability of Democrats to have any say in who presides over the country’s powerful court system. After all, a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court still occasionally pushes back against GOP excesses; witness the recent refusal to overturn the Affordable Care Act and its unwillingness to entertain Trump’s challenges to state election results in 2020. But if the Republicans could move toward a 100 percent conservative court, well, at that point nearly anything would be possible for GOP operatives. The courts would, at that point, simply be both a rubber-stamp for Republican social and economic priorities, and a reliable blocking mechanism for any and all progressive policies pushed at a city, state and federal level by Democrats, centrists and left-of-center groupings.

    In the sort of fractured, frequently stalemated and increasingly antagonistic political environment that has come to be the default in the U.S., the courts occupy a central role in the political process. They shape cultural norms, economic relationships, access to the ballot, and more. They determine what rights vulnerable, marginalized groups have or don’t have. And they set limits on what government can and can’t do on big-picture issues, such as immigration, health care provision, gun control and efforts to tackle climate change.

    McConnell’s shot across the bows on future Supreme Court nominees is the action of a man increasingly comfortable with the idea that howsoever a party rigs the game is legitimized simply in pursuit of power. If you can’t win free and fair at the ballot box, modern GOP thinking goes, then limit access to voting. And if even that fails and the GOP doesn’t win power despite a constricted voting environment, then Republicans seem intent on doing an end-run around the electorate and its priorities by stacking the courts with uber-conservatives.

    As the ultimate player of this toxic game, Mitch McConnell is now, in his own anti-charismatic way, the U.S.’s most dangerous practitioner of might-is-right politics. His legacy may well be the conservative judges whom he has helped elevate to positions of power around the country and all the way up to the Supreme Court. But, if he succeeds in regaining Senate control in 2022, he may also leave a legacy of the thorough destruction of democratic norms in a country that, rightly or wrongly, likes to consider itself the world’s most durable democracy.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • An election worker tries to explain to election challengers that the Detroit Department of Elections Central Counting Board Voting at TCF Center is at capacity for challengers on November 4, 2020, in Detroit, Michigan.

    As part of their push to combat Republican voter suppression efforts sweeping the country, Democrats introduced bicameral legislation on Tuesday aimed at preventing Republicans from allowing local election officials to be removed or appointed through partisan efforts.

    In states like Georgia, Republican state lawmakers have proposed and passed legislation that reforms state election boards to be more partisan and allow for officials in charge of administering elections to be removed by partisan interests in the state legislature. Because Republicans control the majority of state legislative chambers across the country, such bills could help the GOP have absolute control over election results, too.

    The Democrats’ Preventing Election Subversion Act of 2021, introduced by Senators Raphael Warnock (D-Georgia), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) and Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) and Representatives John Sarbanes (D-Maryland) and Zoe Lofgren (D-California), among others, is aimed at combating the GOP attempts to control election results. It proposes protections for local elections officials who may be subject to removal for any reason — or no reason at all.

    The Democrats’ bill would require that elections officials could only be removed if they are found to be inefficient or neglectful of their duties, or if they have committed a malfeasance. The official subject to removal would also have the option of appealing to a federal court, where the court would be required to expedite their hearing.

    Further, the bill seeks to protect election workers by making it a federal crime to harass or harm an election worker.

    The Democratic legislators have also proposed protections aimed at preventing Republicans from launching widespread campaigns to invalidate peoples’ votes, which the GOP has attempted to do with the introduction of “challenger laws” in their voter suppression bills.

    GOP legislators in several states have proposed allowing groups or individuals to challenge an unlimited number of voter registration qualifications, which experts say could lead to votes being hastily thrown away, especially in conjunction with Republican takeovers of election boards. Republicans had tried to get hundreds of thousands of votes questioned and thrown out last year, but largely failed in their mission because of existing state guidelines.

    The Preventing Election Subversion Act is aimed at preventing Republicans from being able to challenge and throw out votes en masse and requires any challenges to an individual’s voter registration be backed up with personal knowledge of the voter and the action defended under penalty of perjury.

    This push comes as the Senate is considering a debate over the For the People Act, or S.1, on Tuesday. The sweeping bill to protect elections and help remove corruption is slated to be blocked by a Republican filibuster. When the bill comes to the Senate again, the lawmakers plan to add the Preventing Election Subversion Act as an amendment.

    The push also comes as Republicans are already in the process of removing election officials from their posts in Georgia, where the GOP rushed an omnibus voter suppression package into law earlier this year. Georgia Republicans have already removed many Democrats from their positions and even replaced a Republican who had opposed their voter suppression bill with someone more amenable to their agenda.

    “The dangers of the voter suppression efforts we’re seeing in Georgia and across the nation are not theoretical, and we can’t allow power-hungry state actors to squeeze the people out of their own democracy by overruling the decisions of local election officials,” Warnock said in a statement. “This legislation is critical to ensuring the federal government has the tools to make sure every eligible voter’s voice is heard and their ballot is counted to help decide the direction of our country.”

    Rep. Nikema Williams (D-Georgia), one of the legislators introducing the bill in the House, reiterated the danger of the GOP’s efforts to suppress voters in a statement, according to HuffPost.

    “Republicans across the country continue to invent new tricks to give themselves control over our elections,” Williams said. “Their latest efforts seek to remove protections for the non-partisan election officials who ensure the integrity of our democracy. Protecting election officials from partisan interference is one way Congress can secure free and fair elections for everyone, no matter their zip code.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • White House Press secretary Jen Psaki holds a press briefing at the White House on June 21, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Responding to questions about an upcoming vote on voting rights and election reforms in the Senate, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki suggested on Monday that Democratic lawmakers may reexamine rules on the Senate filibuster if Republicans block any bill from even being considered or debated upon this week.

    “As it relates to the filibuster, I don’t think you have to take it from us, that would be Congress moving forward — or making a decision,” Psaki said.

    An unsuccessful vote to begin debating a voting rights bill, she added, will likely “prompt a new conversation about the path forward.”

    “And we’ll see where that goes,” Psaki said.

    The ambiguous message from Psaki is that the White House is not taking a formal stance on whether the filibuster should remain, be changed, or be thrown out completely, but that Democrats within that legislative chamber need to decide what to do. Democrats are frustrated by the fact that a slew of their legislative priorities — including the For the People Act, a bill that would expand voting rights and reform a number of election rules — are likely to be blocked by filibusters from Republicans.

    The Senate is set to vote on Tuesday over starting a debate on the For the People Act, as well as amendments to that bill that may draw support from centrists like Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia). Although Manchin has voiced opposition to the bill, he has also said he likes certain aspects of it, and offered a compromise version this week that would include reforms, such as banning partisan gerrymandering in the states, requiring at least 15 days of early voting in federal elections throughout the U.S., and tightening ethics and campaign finance rules.

    Progressives who have pushed for the For the People Act appeared open to those changes Manchin said he wanted to see.

    “What Senator Manchin is putting forward are some basic building blocks that we need to ensure that democracy is accessible, no matter your geography,” said Stacey Abrams, a former Georgia candidate for governor and voting rights advocate.

    The vote set to happen on Tuesday is a procedural one, as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer noted.

    “It’s not a vote on any particular policy,” he said. “It’s not a vote on this bill or that bill. It’s a vote on whether the Senate should simply debate the issue about voting rights, the crucial issue of voting rights in this country.”

    But that procedural hurdle seems doomed to fail, as no member of the Republican Senate caucus appears open to these reforms, or receptive to the compromise version being offered by Manchin. The GOP is expected to block the procedural vote using the filibuster.

    The 50-50 split within the Senate chamber between the two parties means that at least 10 Republicans would have to vote in favor of cloture (the formal ending of a filibuster) in order to allow any version of an elections reform bill to be considered.

    Although Manchin and a handful of other centrist Democrats in the Senate oppose doing so, many lawmakers have called for changes to the filibuster rule or tossing out the rule entirely in order to pass much of the legislation that the American people voted in favor of in the November elections. Indeed, most Americans themselves seem open to amending or ending the filibuster rule, as a Vox/Data for Progress poll in March demonstrated.

    Within that survey, 52 percent of respondents said that they would support changes to the filibuster if it meant that the For the People Act would get passed. Just 37 percent of those taking part in the poll said they’d oppose changing rules for that purpose.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.