Category: Voting rights

  • The Declaration for American Democracy coalition hosts a rally calling on the Senate to pass the For the People Act outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 9, 2021.

    How far will the GOP go to steal the 2022 election?

    The corrupt Republican Party, a wholly-owned division of corporate and billionaire America, has dropped all pretense of having any governing ideas that will help or improve America.

    Instead, they’ve gone all-outrage, all-the-time and believe that getting white people all cranked up about America’s racial history will provide a veneer of “issues” while they work hard in the background to rig and then steal elections.

    This is not new for the GOP.

    Back in the 1960s they were hysterical about young people smoking pot and “open homosexuality.” And they were doing everything they could to block people of color from voting through programs like William Rehnquist’s Operation Eagle Eye that involved standing outside polling places and “challenging” people of color, thus forcing them to go home and get ID before they could vote…on the accurate assumption that most wouldn’t return. (This was before ID laws; you only needed ID to register to vote, and the biometric of your signature was how you verified identity on voting day.)

    In the 1970s they were freaking out about Black people protesting police violence: every single “riot” through the late 60s and early 70s was triggered by an incident of police violence against unarmed Black people. Nixon fed his “Southern Strategy” in 1972 with poisonous rhetoric about “burning cities.”

    Throughout the Reagan 1980s Republicans worked hard to destroy labor unions, cut taxes on the rich while raising taxes on working-class people, and freaked out even more about Black people (see George HW Bush’s infamous 1988 “Willie Horton” ads). And abortion; with Reagan’s 1980 election, the GOP went from pro-choice to pro-forced-pregnancy.

    The 90s saw the GOP hysterical — positively hysterical — that President Clinton might have had sex with a consenting adult in the White House and lied about it. They were also working as hard as they could to ship factory jobs overseas (with, stupidly, help from Clinton) because de-industrializing America would destroy our labor unions, who generally supported Democrats. And, of course, they were getting “tough on crime” with stop-and-frisk and “three strikes” to make life miserable for Black people…who then could no longer vote because they’d been busted for a crime.

    In 2001, Osama bin Laden gave the GOP a huge gift with 9/11, and the Bush administration and Congress reacted exactly as bin Laden had publicly predicted: wasting trillions of dollars, starting unnecessary wars, and dialing back on the civil liberties that have historically been at the core of American values. And, of course, when President Obama was elected in 2008 they went nuts again about Black people.

    The second decade of the 21st-century saw the GOP fully embrace open and naked fascism with the 2016 election of Donald Trump, who then doubled down on his party’s racism with attacks on Muslim Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and, of course, Black people, both in America and in what he called “shithole countries.”

    But where they’re going now to suppress the vote of non-white people is so over the top that even Barry Goldwater or Richard Nixon didn’t dare try it.

    In Arizona they’re in open violation of federal law, “inspecting” actual ballots and voting machines and even hauling some of them off to a “cabin in the woods in Montana” for “more careful examination.” You can safely expect that any day now they’ll tell us that Trump “actually won” Arizona, and then the race will be on to “inspect“ ballots in other swing states.

    Down in Florida Republicans have been putting up “ghost” candidates and it appears they successfully used them to win two or three legislative state elections. This scam involves finding some random person who has the same last name as the Democratic candidate and getting that person on the ballot to confuse voters and split the vote against the actual Democrat.

    Meanwhile, 14 states have now passed laws (with another 30+ pending) to make it harder for young people, older people, Black/non-white people and low-income folks to register, to keep their names on the voter rolls, and to vote. In many of those states they’ve gone so far as to give openly partisan Republican officials the power to decide which votes will be counted and which votes will be discarded based on their own personal “suspicion.”

    Their newest strategy for the 2022 election is to freak out and piss off white people by falsely claiming that progressives, Democrats and Black people want to “teach white kids that they’re racist” and “should be ashamed of being white.” Republicans call this “Critical Race Theory” although it’s not; this “definition” of CRT is entirely manufactured by the GOP, and their faux outrage is pure politics.

    The GOP has been running scam after scam for 70 years now; Dwight Eisenhower was the last legitimately elected Republican president, as I document here. They’re going to try to pull it off again in 2024, but the prize in 2022 is the House and Senate — and state legislatures and governorships.

    In several states, like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, even though the majority of people statewide vote for Democrats, Republicans still control both the state Houses’ and Senates’ as well as a majority of those states’ congressional delegations to DC because of “surgically precise” mostly race-based GOP gerrymandering.

    And lording over the entire enterprise is a network of right-wing billionaires that has more employees, more offices and a larger budget than the GOP itself. The media almost never mentions them and they operate largely invisibly, but they are the dark-matter mass that deforms the orbit of American politics.

    The right-wing billionaires don’t much care about race, but gleefully have their think tanks and media outlets like Fox use lies about CRT and other racial issues (“Replacement Theory”) to get people out to vote for Republicans who will then give the billionaires more tax cuts and deregulation.

    Which brings us back to the question that opens this rant. “How far will the GOP go to steal the 2022 election?”

    All you have to do is look at what they did on January 6, and how seriously they’re now paddling to pin the blame on antifa or the FBI or anybody other than themselves, to know the answer. But it also goes even beyond what the FBI calls open “terrorism.”

    Now the Texas GOP is trying to recruit an army of 10,000 “poll watchers” to show up at polling places in minority and student neighborhoods during the 2022 election; prison tats, baseball bats and bullhorns are optional but no doubt welcome. What’s happening in Texas is being replicated in other states across the nation.

    Election workers and volunteers all across the country, but particularly in swing states, are getting death threats and quitting in droves, to be replaced by GOP and Qanon operatives. One in six election workers has received a threat and one in three is thinking of leaving their job. This is all at the same time 14 GOP states have increased the power of these election workers to turn away voters or simply refuse to count their votes.

    And now the NY Times is reporting that in Georgia and other states, GOP officials are actually firing and removing Black elections officials in largely-Black areas and replacing them with white Republicans. Georgia Republicans are “disappearing” Black election workers.

    Meanwhile, Republican politicians and billionaire-owned right-wing media are doubling down on their lie that Critical Race Theory is “a way to make white people feel bad.” This is just the 2021 version of the “political correctness” (PC) Limbaugh and the right used to complain about in the 1990s when it became unacceptable to use the N-word and other racial slurs in white circles. They’re openly bragging these lies about CRT will mobilize white voters to show up for the GOP.

    Legal or not, moral or not, consistent with American values or not, honestly or blatantly dishonest, they’ll do whatever it takes to seize and hold power.

    The For The People Act will clean up a lot of this, but not the GOP’s resetting how election systems work in the states so GOP officials can simply throw out votes from precincts or areas they simply “believe” (but cannot demonstrate or prove) have “fraud” (also known as “Black voters”). That’s going to require additional federal legislation.

    The next few weeks are critical and we all must contact our members of Congress and raise hell. The Congressional switchboard is 202-224-3121. Americans who care about the fate and future of our republic damn well better get active now.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Joe Manchin departs a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on June 9, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

    With frustration against Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) mounting among a wide swath of the Democratic party and the left, Democratic leadership is evidently asking advocates and fellow lawmakers to lay off the senator.

    Manchin has come under fire over the past months for his opposition to filibuster abolition and, more recently, his opposition to the Democrats’ landmark voting rights bill, the For the People Act. Progressives have had strong words for the senator, calling him “the new [Sen.] Mitch McConnell,” and suggesting that Manchin is “intertwined” with right-wing Koch-funded dark money organizations.

    But Democratic leadership is evidently defending Manchin, despite the fact that he is one of the largest and most stubborn roadblocks to passing their agenda.

    According to Politico, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) is telling advocacy groups to lay off criticism of the senator ahead of a Senate vote on the For the People Act, or S.1. Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) told lawmakers in a meeting on Monday night to not go after individual senators on voting rights legislation — without overtly naming Manchin, though he is the only Democratic senator to publicly announce his opposition to the bill.

    Progressives, increasingly frustrated with congressional Democrats and their failure to pass legislation, have suggested that Democratic leaders are actually using Manchin as a scapegoat for blocking voting rights. Both leaders have been pushing for the legislation, yet are reluctant to whip votes within their own party for it.

    Schumer and Pelosi’s push for Democrats to lay off Manchin, however, may end up working against them. As progressives have pointed out, Manchin is already facing pressure from the right to oppose proposals like S.1 and climate bills.

    Last week, CNBC uncovered campaigns from Koch-affiliated organizations like Americans for Prosperity, a Koch advocacy group, that are aimed at pushing Manchin to continue obstructing the Democratic agenda and upholding right-wing values. Sans pressure from Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), who recently panned Manchin for his ties with “corporate money,” the only pressure left on Manchin would be that from the right.

    Regardless, Manchin already seems ready to ignore the advice of his own party on voting rights.

    On Tuesday, Texas Democrats held a lunch with Senate Democrats to emphasize the importance of passing S.1 to stop the wave of voter suppression bills that Republicans are filing across the country. Last month, Democratic lawmakers in Texas had walked off the State House floor to kill a voter suppression bill their Republican colleagues were trying to jam through.

    Though state Democratic lawmakers are fighting their hardest against these bills, “we need federal intervention,” one Texas representative told reporters. “We came here because the future of Texas voting depends on action from Congress.”

    But Manchin, the person whom Democrats most need to persuade on the issue, didn’t bother to attend the luncheon. Neither did Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona), who like Manchin is also deeply opposed to reforming or abolishing the filibuster.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) speaks during a press conference on June 03, 2021 in New York City.

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) on Tuesday questioned whether Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-West Virginia) stated reasons for opposing voting rights legislation and filibuster abolition are as straightforward as he claims they are.

    Manchin claimed in an op-ed this weekend that he is against Democrats’ marquee voting rights legislation, the For the People Act, also known as H.R.1 or S.1, because Republicans are opposed to it, and therefore, it’s not bipartisan. But Ocasio-Cortez says that she doesn’t believe that that’s the real reason behind Manchin obstructing the legislation.

    H.R.1 stands up against lobbyists and dark money. I would reckon to think that this is probably just as much a part of Joe Manchin’s calculus as anything else,” Ocasio-Cortez told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on Tuesday. “Because when it comes to this bipartisan argument, I gotta tell you, I don’t buy it. Because Joe Manchin has voted for bills that have not been bipartisan before — look at the American Rescue Plan.”

    Instead, Ocasio-Cortez suggests that Manchin may be close with the Koch network.

    “You look at the Koch brothers and you look at organizations like the Heritage Foundation and conservative lobby groups that are doing a victory lap. Claiming victory over the fact that Manchin refuses to change on the filibuster,” she said. “I think these two things are very closely intertwined.”

    Indeed, CNBC reported on Tuesday that Koch-affiliated groups like Americans for Prosperity and Heritage Action, the advocacy arm of the Heritage Foundation, have been praising Manchin for upholding GOP priorities like opposing climate legislation and voting rights. They have launched “grassroots” campaigns to get their supporters to contact Manchin to encourage him to continue obstructing the Democratic agenda.

    Though it’s unclear if there are direct ties between these campaigns and Manchin’s opposition, Ocasio-Cortez suggested that these hyper-conservative dark money groups may be influencing him directly.

    “Protecting our democracy is also about making sure we give lobbyists and dark money groups, which are funding these attacks on the right to vote, the boot,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

    The For the People Act aims to greatly lessen, if not eliminate, the effects of corporate and dark money on politics by exposing dark money pipelines and creating stricter limits on and oversight of campaign finance. It is because of these provisions, which limit that influence and cash flow that politicians funded by corporate money may be opposed to the legislation, the representative said.

    “Corporate money has a very, very tight grip on both parties. And I think that has to do with the calculus in this situation that people aren’t really discussing enough,” she said.

    Manchin has earned the ire of Democrats and progressives in recent months for things like his staunch support of the filibuster, but especially so for his opposition to the Democrats’ voting rights bill.

    Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-New York) on Monday said that Manchin is “the new Mitch McConnell” because he is “doing everything in his power to stop democracy and stop our work for the people.”

    Bowman continued that criticism on Tuesday on MSNBC. “Corporate-backed actors and the wealthy elite are literally controlling Congress. The reason [lawmakers] don’t support H.R.1 is not just the voting rights piece,” he told Joy Reid. “Joe Manchin and many others are no longer beholden to their constituents. They’re beholden to the Koch brothers. They’re beholden to the Chamber of Commerce, and they’re beholden to the wealthy elite overall.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Joe Manchin is interviewed after a news conference at the Marriott Hotel at Waterfront Place on June 3, 2021, in Morgantown, West Virginia.

    Let me see if I have this straight: The very right to vote is being fed into a meat grinder in several of the GOP-controlled states Donald Trump lost, or almost lost, in 2020. For example, it is now illegal in Georgia to bring water and snacks to people forced to wait hours in line to vote, said lines existing thanks to several other new anti-voter rules that have also been enacted… but Congress can’t pass a voter protections bill.

    There is an ongoing political crisis in this country over employment, one that has reached such a pitch that Republican governors are preparing to slash unemployment aid to force people back into low-paying and/or dangerous jobs… but Congress can’t pass an infrastructure bill and help folks get to work putting this crumbling country back together again.

    Six months and one day ago, a raging army of Trump voters steamrolled law enforcement and sacked the U.S. Capitol building seeking to disrupt the certification of the November election. Several in the crowd were vocal about their desire to murder House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence. People died, scores were injured, and human feces got smeared on the walls. Afterward, many of the attackers claimed they had been given permission to act by Trump, who whipped them into a frenzy before turning them loose on the city… but Congress can’t look into the root causes of that mayhem, though it happened in their offices, hallways and voting chambers.

    The Democratic Party holds majority control in the House and Senate by a cat’s slim whisker at present, but they hold it nonetheless. The reason these immediately pressing crises remain unresolved is because Republicans have use of the filibuster, which was never intended to be a bedrock rule of Senate procedure. In fact, the filibuster was born in 1805 when Aaron Burr re-wrote the rules of the Senate without any oversight and accidentally created it. Cloture did not come to exist until 1917, and the filibuster itself wasn’t actually used until 1837.

    In short, the filibuster rules were not handed down by the God of Parliamentary Procedure and chiseled onto stone tablets. There is nothing intrinsic about the filibuster that lends it special or protected status. Quite the opposite, in fact; the main use of the procedure for decades was to stymie civil rights laws and protect Jim Crow in the South. Anything so filthy and wrong should be stuffed into a sack and buried on a moonless night.

    Yet here we sit, watching like helpless puppies as Mitch McConnell and his disciplined GOP minority drop 60-vote roadblocks in front of virtually every piece of legislation proposed by the Biden administration and the majority. They’re not even against all of the stuff they’re thwarting; the point is not progress, but to hobble the administration so they can run on (and fundraise off) those failed endeavors in 2022. The Republican Party appears to have no agenda beyond whatever Trump is on about this week. They are seeking to run out the clock, period.

    Why is this tolerated? Because Joe Manchin, Democratic senator, wants it this way. He is not alone in his devotion to the filibuster rule — Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Jon Tester of Montana and a smattering of other right-leaning Democrats share his profoundly misplaced zeal for it — but Manchin has placed himself foursquare in the middle of the debate, and he ain’t moving.

    “I will not vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster,” Manchin wrote in a goopy weekend op-ed for the Charleston Gazette-Mail. “For as long as I have the privilege of being your U.S. senator, I will fight to represent the people of West Virginia, to seek bipartisan compromise no matter how difficult and to develop the political bonds that end divisions and help unite the country we love.”

    For the record, Manchin also used this op-ed to announce his opposition to the proposed voting rights bill. His reason? Republicans don’t like it enough.

    Manchin’s apparently bottomless desire to screw his own party is so monumental, in fact, that even the folks at Fox News felt compelled to call him out. “The question I have is whether or not you’re doing it exactly the wrong way,” pressed Fox anchor Chris Wallace on Sunday. “If you were to keep the idea that maybe you would vote to kill the filibuster, wouldn’t that give Republicans an incentive to actually negotiate because old Joe Manchin is out there and who knows what he’s going to do? By taking it off the table, haven’t you empowered Republicans to be obstructionists?”

    A sound argument, to which Manchin could only reply with some version of, “Barg barg barg barg brave Republicans barg barg barg good signs barg barg Republican friends barg barg give us time.” That’s the thing, Sunny Joe: There is no time. We are pinwheeling toward the massive August recess, and by the time Congress returns, all they will be thinking about is next year’s elections. This is where the rubber meets the road, right here and now, and possibly for the last time. That’s why they’re running out the clock.

    For his part, Trump thinks Manchin is doing the Lord’s work, and went out of his way to say so. “It’s a very important thing,” the former president told Fox Business this morning. “He’s doing the right thing, and it’s a very important thing.” Of course, Trump was all over McConnell to do away with the filibuster back when Republicans held the majority, but consistency has not been a GOP strong suit for a while now. Besides, the rest of that interview involved Trump howling about “phony lockboxes” on Facebook that accounted for “96 percent Biden votes.” Maybe not so much for listening to that guy anymore, under any circumstances, please?

    This situation has been a ticking time bomb since the returns came in last November and revealed the Democratic Senate majority to be exactly as tall as Vice President Kamala Harris. Progressives in the House are on the verge of a full-scale flip-out, but at present there seems to be no omnibus solution to the Manchin dilemma.

    Someone might ask Chuck Schumer what business an obstructionist right-wing Democrat from a sparsely populated coal state has chairing the Energy Committee, but punish Manchin too severely and he could switch parties. He would pay no price for this — Trump won West Virginia by pretty much all the points, and the GOP would erect statues in honor of him — and McConnell would retain majority control, thus giving vital chairmanships back to luminaries like Lindsey Graham and Chuck Grassley. I believe we all had about a budget of that bad noise the last time around.

    Does Joe Biden have enough Lyndon Johnson in him to get in there and lay about with a rhetorical 2×4 until Manchin sees the error of his ways? Because that seems to be the only way out of this impasse short of a meteor strike or an attack by Ghidorah the Three-Headed Monster. Biden has nothing of substance to threaten Manchin with, and Manchin knows full well he is sitting on an ace-high straight. If the senior senator from West Virginia does not fold, this promises to be another futile, infuriating summer.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-West Virginia) decision to vote against the For the People Act, a bill that would standardize voting and election rules across the country, received sharply negative responses, including from Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-New York), who decried the senator’s actions as being akin to the obstructionist ways of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky).

    In an op-ed explaining his decision to vote against the bill — which would end partisan gerrymandering, restore portions of the Voting Rights Act, and seek to end the influence of dark money in politics by making political donations to political action committees public, among many other items — Manchin complained that the legislation had failed to garner any support among Republicans.

    Because the bill, which is sometimes called H.R.1 or S.1, had zero Republican support, many have suggested that ending the filibuster would be necessary in order to get it passed, a notion that Manchin also rejected in his op-ed.

    “I believe that partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy, and for that reason, I will vote against the For the People Act,” Manchin said of the bill. “Furthermore, I will not vote to weaken or eliminate the filibuster.”

    Bowman, speaking on CNN’s “New Day” program on Monday morning, did not pull his punches in denouncing Manchin’s decision.

    “Joe Manchin has become the new Mitch McConnell,” Bowman said. “Now Joe Manchin is doing everything in his power to stop democracy and stop our work for the people.”

    Rather than create bridges of bipartisanship, Manchin is “doing the work of the Republican Party by being an obstructionist, just like they’ve been since the beginning of Biden’s presidency,” Bowman added.

    Bowman further rejected the notion that the bill was too partisan, noting that polling has shown widespread support across all ideologies.

    “H.R.1 has popularity across the country — in West Virginia, and across the country,” Bowman said. “Well over 65 percent of the American people support H.R.1, and well over 50 percent of Republicans support H.R.1.”

    When shown a clip of Manchin saying he is hopeful that Republicans will support some aspects of election reform, Bowman rejected his sentiments.

    “This is not about hope. It’s easy for us to say what we’re not going to vote for, what we’re not going to do, it’s much harder to build the coalition to meet the needs of our democracy,” Bowman explained. “And I wonder, is Sen. Manchin reaching out to his Republican colleagues, to move them in a direction that we need to go? Is he responding to the polling? Are they responding to the polling?”

    Bowman also rejected Manchin’s adherence to the filibuster.

    “Are we recognizing this moment in history as being essential to overall American history and really building the multiracial democracy that we are, and not upholding a corporate agenda or the Jim Crow white supremacist relic which is the filibuster?” he asked.

    Bowman’s comments echo what a group of more than 100 scholars who specialize in democracy studies said earlier this month, writing in an open letter that calls for bipartisanship on the voting rights legislation should be ignored in order to preserve and enhance democratic rights for all Americans.

    “It is always far better for major democracy reforms to be bipartisan, to give change the broadest possible legitimacy. However, in the current hyper-polarized political context such broad bipartisan support is sadly lacking,” those scholars wrote, adding that Congress should do “whatever is necessary — including suspending the filibuster — in order to pass national voting and election administration standards that both guarantee the vote to all Americans equally, and prevent state legislatures from manipulating the rules in order to manufacture the result they want.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks to reporters in the Senate Subway during a roll call vote on April 13, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

    Applauding Texas Democrats for taking coordinated action to stymie a far-reaching GOP attack on voting rights, Senator Bernie Sanders on Monday said lawmakers in the U.S. Senate must show “the same courage” by passing an election reform bill that has languished in the chamber for weeks.

    “Congratulations to Democrats in Texas for protecting democracy and the right to vote,” Sanders (I-Vt.) tweeted. “We must pass S. 1, the For The People Act. The future of American democracy is at stake.”

    Texas is just one of many Republican-led states across the country pushing sweeping legislation to restrict voting rights in the wake of the 2020 election, with GOP lawmakers frequently parroting former President Donald Trump’s false claims about the integrity of the process and outcome.

    According to a recent analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice, passage of the For the People Act would help neutralize “virtually every single one” of the hundreds of voter suppression bills that Republicans are advancing across the country.

    If approved, the For the People Act (pdf) would increase ballot access nationwide by implementing automatic voter registration and other reforms, limit states’ ability to purge voters from the rolls, set up a publicly financed small-dollar donation matching system for candidates who reject high-dollar contributions, and more.

    Despite the bill’s popularity among voters across the political spectrum, the For the People Act has run up against several obstacles in the U.S. Senate, including the legislative filibuster and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the only Democrat in the chamber who has yet to sign on as a co-sponsor. The legislation, which the House passed in early March without a single GOP vote, is also unanimously opposed by Senate Republicans.

    Shortly after the Senate GOP filibustered a bill that aimed to set up an independent commission to probe the January 6 insurrection, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Friday announced that the chamber will vote on the For the People Act later this month.

    But Schumer did not commit to taking action to reform or scrap the Senate’s legislative filibuster, which effectively requires 60 votes to pass most bills. With the filibuster in place, the For the People Act has no chance of passage.

    “Let’s be clear. If 10 Republican senators cannot even vote for a bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6th insurrection, 10 Republican senators will not vote for anything meaningful to improve the lives of the American people,” Sanders said over the weekend. “We must abolish the filibuster and act now.”

    Following their walkout late Sunday — an action that stopped a Republican-authored voter suppression bill from passing before the legislative session expired — Democratic lawmakers in Texas implored members of Congress to quickly pass a voting rights expansion at the federal level to combat the GOP’s efforts to further restrict the franchise.

    “State lawmakers are holding the line,” Texas state Rep. James Talarico (D-52) said early Monday. “Federal lawmakers need to get their shit together and pass the For The People Act.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Julian Castro speaks during the "Texans Rally For Our Voting Rights" event at the Texas Capitol Building on May 8, 2021 in Austin, Texas.

    Texas Democrats blocked final passage of a Republican-authored voter suppression bill late Sunday by abruptly walking off the state House floor, denying the chamber’s GOP majority the quorum necessary to proceed to a vote.

    The last-ditch move by Democratic lawmakers came hours after Texas Republicans rammed the bill through the state Senate in the dead of night following a marathon session on Saturday, maneuvering around rules that typically bar lawmakers from voting on legislation that has not been public for at least 24 hours.

    S.B. 7 (pdf), which Republican lawmakers crafted and expanded in secret, would impose new voter ID requirements for mail-in ballots, make it easier for judges to overturn election results, limit the use of ballot drop boxes, and restrict early voting hours on Sundays — a provision that civil rights groups said would disproportionately impact Black voters.

    After walking out of the House chamber shortly before the midnight deadline for passage of the bill, Texas Democrats gathered at Mt. Zion Baptist Church late Sunday in what the Texas Tribune described as a “nod at a last-minute addition to the expansive bill that set a new restriction on early voting hours on Sundays, limiting voting from 1 pm to 9 pm.”

    “Over the last two days, Democrats had derided the addition — dropped in during behind-closed-door negotiations — raising concerns that change would hamper ‘souls to the polls’ efforts meant to turn out voters, particularly Black voters, after church services,” the Tribune reported.

    Under Texas law, two-thirds of the 150 House members must be present for the chamber to take a vote — a requirement that went unfulfilled due to the Democrats’ walkout, which came after the minority party’s earlier delay tactics appeared likely to fail.

    “We’ve used all the tools in our toolbox to fight this bill,” state Rep. Nicole Collier (D-95), chair of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus, said in a speech outside Mt. Zion late Sunday. “And tonight we pulled out that last one.”

    Sarah Labowitz, policy and advocacy director at the ACLU of Texas, said in a statement that thanks to Democrats’ walkout, “one of the ugliest anti-voter bills in the country died today in the 2021 Texas Legislature.” But Labowitz emphasized that the fight is far from over and vowed to “remain vigilant against any attempt to bring back this racist bill in a special session.”

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, promised to do just that in a tweet late Sunday after S.B. 7 — one of the governor’s top priorities and part of a wave of GOP-led voter suppression measures nationwide — failed to pass before the legislative session expired at midnight.

    S.B. 7 “will be added to the special session agenda,” Abbott wrote.

    State Rep. Chris Turner (D-101), chair of the House Democratic Caucus, acknowledged that Democrats looking to kill S.B. 7 for good face an uphill battle given the GOP’s dominance of the Texas legislature and control of the governor’s mansion.

    “We’re outnumbered. There’s no doubt about it. Republicans are in the majority,” said Turner. “Democrats are going to continue to use every tool in our toolbox to slow them down, to fight them, to stop them. What that looks like weeks or months down the road, I can’t predict at this point, but we’re going to fight with everything we’ve got.”

    “We did our part to stop S.B. 7,” added state Rep. Erin Zwiener (D-45). “Now we need Congress to do their part by passing H.R. 1 and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • With an hour left to vote, people wait in line at Manor ISD Administration building on November 3, 2020, in Manor, Texas.

    A voter suppression bill currently being considered by the Texas legislature would decrease the number of polling locations in districts that are traditionally Democratic and nonwhite while increasing the locations in Republican and predominantly white districts.

    The state experienced high turnout for the 2020 election, especially in more heavily populated areas like Houston. Now, Republicans are targeting those very places in an elections bill, SB 7, applying a formula to redistribute polling locations in the state’s five most populous counties that the Texas Tribune has found would disproportionately affect voters in Democratic communities.

    In Harris county, which houses Houston, all but two of the area’s 15 Democratic districts would see a decrease in polling locations thanks to the new formula. District 141, which is also home to the largest portion of nonwhite people of voting age of any other district in the county — white people make up only 10.6 percent of the population of voting age there — would be hit the hardest, losing 11 polling places.

    All of the districts in Harris county that would be losing polling places are represented by Democrats. Meanwhile, every district represented by a Republican would either not see a change or would gain polling locations. All of those districts have white voting age populations of 45 percent or more, according to census data.

    The Texas Tribune analysis also finds similar trends in other counties. In Tarrant County’s district 90, which is represented by a Democrat and where 77 percent of the population is either Latino or Black, voters would lose half of the polling locations they had in 2020.

    SB 7 would also implement a number of other voting restrictions, such as limiting the distribution of absentee ballots, allowing for more voter roll purges, and limiting early voting with provisions like banning drive-through voting. The bill, if signed into law, would make Texas one of the hardest states in the country for citizens to exercise their right to vote.

    State lawmakers are currently ironing out the final details of the bill, after which it will have to clear a vote again in the Senate and the House. The GOP controls both chambers of the legislature and the governor, Greg Abbott, is a Republican.

    Though the election bill will affect millions of voters in the state, Republicans have shrouded the process of writing and amending the bill in secrecy. The committee currently making amendments to the bill is doing so behind closed doors, much to the dismay of many voting rights advocates.

    Republican Rep. Briscoe Cain also previously tried to rush the voting restriction bill out of committee without listing it on the committee’s agenda, giving journalists no notice of the bill’s movement and the public no chance to comment on it.

    Cain has said that the bill isn’t about voter suppression in his opinion. “I believe it is voter enhancement,” he said this month of the bill that would make it harder for people of color to vote. The bill, which Cain has sponsored, also has language plucked straight out of Jim Crow, including phrases that suggest it is necessary to “preserve the purity of the ballot box.”

    Republicans have been quite open with their goals in this year’s wave of voter suppression laws: they are trying to engineer situations so that Republicans can’t lose elections again. In March, an Arizona lawmaker said that the GOP is passing such laws because “everybody shouldn’t be voting.”

    The GOP has been passing voter suppression laws at record pace, introducing hundreds over the course of just a few months. Democrats — both at the state and federal level — have been trying to stem the tide, but Republicans are forging ahead, especially in states where they control the governorship and the legislature.

    Before the Texas House passed a version of SB 7 earlier this month, Democrats fought the legislation through the night, introducing 130 amendments to the bill. And, at the federal level, Democrats are trying to pass the For the People Act, which would drastically expand voting access — but the Senate filibuster stands in its way.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • An elderly volunteer holds two signs encouraging people to vote

    Over the past couple months, GOP legislators in several states have passed legislation purportedly intended to protect the integrity of the vote. In reality, these bills — which GOP governors in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Florida, Iowa, and elsewhere, have rushed to sign — contain poison pill provisions that make it harder for residents to vote. Less publicized is that they also contain a number provisions that make poll workers and other election officials legally liable for small, unintentional errors of process that could occur at the polls or in the distribution of ballots.

    The laws are aimed at making the voting process more cumbersome, and at making the election process more manipulable for partisan advantage.

    In Iowa, for example, a new law mandates that polls close at 8pm instead of 9pm, thus reducing the time that many people have to vote after work. There’s no good reason for that; it’s simply intended to make it harder to vote. The law also reduces the number of days for early voting, limits the number of drop-boxes for ballots to one per county, and mandates that counties only send absentee ballots out to voters who explicitly request them. As a part of this package, legislators made it a felony offense for county auditors — the people in charge of the county elections machinery — to violate any of these provisions, even accidentally.

    In Georgia, where legislators attracted national attention after making it a crime to provide water to people waiting in line to vote, new laws allow the partisan State Election Board, controlled by Republicans, to replace county election officials they deem not to be doing a good job, and the law then allows those newly appointed county officials to fire other election workers in their jurisdiction.

    In Florida, Arizona, Texas, and several other states, election officials now face the possibility of fines of up to $25,000 and/or jail time for an array of very minor offenses, such as allowing drop-boxes to be left unsupervised or operable outside of early voting hours, failing to ask for proof of citizenship from would-be-voters who have been flagged as being potentially ineligible to vote, and mailing out absentee ballots to voters who haven’t requested them.

    All told, according to a New York Times analysis, nine states have already increased the penalties against elections workers who intentionally or accidentally get on the wrong side of these new rules. Others are likely to follow suit.

    As the GOP passes ever-more expansive rules aimed at sabotaging the electoral process, democracy advocates are growing increasingly concerned that these laws will scare away not only potential voters but also critical numbers of poll workers, the vast majority of whom are citizen-volunteers, as well as salaried officials who have spent decades building up knowledge of how the often-arcane election machinery in their counties and states works.

    Obviously, says Derek Tisler, a fellow at the New York-based Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, one wants local election officials to follow state law, but, he says, these new laws are being passed in such a clearly partisan context and amid such a flurry of disinformation that he worries they will be used not to promote best practices but instead to simply “chill election officials,” scaring them away from creating the sorts of user-friendly voting systems that were adopted in the face of the pandemic and that resulted in record levels of voter turnout last November. “It’s a really disturbing trend,” Tisler explains.

    In non-pandemic years, state officials know that a majority of their election volunteers will be elderly. When the pandemic hit, finding poll workers became a particular problem, as the elderly are the most vulnerable demographic. In the run-up to last year’s elections, state officials scrambled to convince tens of thousands of volunteers to put aside fears of personal safety about COVID, and to staff polling stations and do other election-related work around the country. Private companies urged their employees to step up. Sports franchises converted their arena into early voting sites and urged fans to volunteer. By the thousands, people responded, many of them far younger than the average age of poll workers in years past. It was an extraordinary outpouring of public service.

    Now, however, that renewed civic engagement is under direct threat. After all, why volunteer to help run an election if you risk huge financial penalties or even jail time if you misinterpret a state election law provision?

    If states end up facing poll worker shortages, at the end of the day voters suffer. There’s a risk, says Tisler, that there will be “fewer polling places, longer wait times, not enough people to assist them or offer guidance.” Paradoxically, he continues, these laws that are ostensibly meant to rein in errors will likely lead to more mistakes being made, as overworked poll workers try to do too much with too few resources.

    Monitors have already noticed a brain drain of election officials leaving their jobs in Pennsylvania, a state where, in the months preceding and following the November 2020 elections, officials were routinely harassed and threatened by political partisans, and accused of putting their fingers on the scales to tip the election against Trump.

    After Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a bill that included $10,000 fines for “technical infractions” such as accidentally opening a poll station a few minutes late, local officials warned that they could see an exodus of election workers as a result.

    Tisler says that he has also encountered stories of officials in Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia deciding to either retire early or to seek other jobs in county departments outside of the field of elections. And he worries that, in the face of harassment, misinformation and now legislation that criminalizes commonplace mistakes, many of the most experienced volunteer poll workers — the ones who can be relied on year in year out to show up for Election Day — will decide it’s no longer worth it in 2022 or 2024.

    “We need to build public awareness — get people to understand the impact these laws could have, and the impact on voters,” Tisler says. “We need to get to a place where public leaders have a commitment to democratic fairness.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Republicans Oppose Kristen Clarke for DOJ Job in Latest Attack on Voting Rights

    Republican senators in Washington are attempting to block Kristen Clarke, a prominent voting rights advocate, from a top Justice Department position. The Senate Judiciary Committee has deadlocked on an 11-11 vote on whether to move Clarke’s nomination for assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to the Senate floor for a full vote. If she wins the vote, Clarke, who has served as the head of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and is a longtime champion of voting rights, a defender against hate and violent extremism, would be the first Black woman to hold the position. Ben Jealous, president of People for the American Way and former president of the NAACP, says the campaign against Clarke’s nomination is based on falsehoods, including baseless claims of anti-Semitism. “The way that they’ve lied about her really is a new low,” Jealous says, who links Republican obstruction to the party’s larger assault on voting rights.

    Please check back later for full transcript.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell testifies during the Senate Rules and Administration Committee markup of the For the People Act in Russell Building on May 11, 2021.

    One Nation PAC, an organization with ties to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), is set to run a series of television and radio ads over the next 10 days against the For the People Act, a bill in Congress that seeks to protect voting rights and make casting a ballot easier for millions of Americans.

    The group, whose president and CEO is Steven Law, an individual who once served as chief of staff to McConnell, is set to spend a seven-figure dollar amount in a number of states with vulnerable or centrist Democratic senators, in hopes of influencing voters there to convince those lawmakers to vote against the bill. The legislation, which has already passed the House, is currently being discussed in a markup session within the Senate Rules Committee.

    “We think this week’s markup in the Senate Rules Committee will be an important inflection point in senators’ understanding of the issue, in public awareness of” the bill, Law said to Politico. This advocacy blitz, which starts on Tuesday, is designed to amplify all points of dissent or contention among senators.

    Ads are set to run in Montana, West Virginia, Arizona, New Hampshire and Nevada — states in which Republicans are either set to challenge Democrats in 2022, or where centrist senators may be more responsive to constituents’ concerns that are based on false or misleading information about the bill.

    The ads do indeed contain deliberately misleading information. One ad, for example, claims that the bill would “enshrine ballot harvesting” because it would allow third party groups or individuals to collect ballots, purportedly making voting more open to fraud.

    The practice of collecting another person’s ballot is not as nefarious as the ad campaign makes it out to be because it is already allowed (with a voter’s permission) in 26 states across the country, while another 10 states allow family members to turn in ballots on someone’s behalf.

    Law has said that One Nation PAC plans to run the ads over the next week or so, with more ads planned for the future.

    “This won’t be our last engagement on this issue,” he said. “I think this is really the beginning of a long march, not a single skirmish on the legislation.”

    Law probably has more than just his political beliefs driving his opposition to the legislation — the bill would also affect how his PAC would receive political donations, as the For the People Act seeks to limit the influence of dark money in politics by requiring public disclosures for third party organizations.

    In the 2020 elections alone, One Nation PAC spent around $75 million without disclosing where any of that money had come from.

    Beyond providing a little sunshine on dark money spending, the For the People Act seeks to make it easier for people to register to vote and to cast ballots. It also calls for congressional maps, drawn every 10 years by state legislatures, to instead be crafted by nonpartisan agencies established by states to ensure the maps are fairly drawn.

    The bill is viewed by several voting rights groups as necessary to stop voter suppression efforts happening right now in a number of Republican-controlled states across the country.

    “These laws affect voters of color, young voters, poor voters,” the Brennan Center’s Michael Waldman said. “Their intent is often unambiguous. One of the sponsors of these bills in Arizona said the purpose was to make sure that only ‘quality’ voters could vote — not that everyone would have the right to vote. That does not strike me as true to our American spirit.”

    Waldman added that the bill would stop the GOP effort at voter suppression “in its tracks.”

    The bill, beyond being a positive force for protecting the right to vote, is also widely popular, with majorities among both Democratic and Republican voters backing its provisions when presented in a way without partisan labeling (i.e. leaving out information about which party supports it and which opposes it).

    A recent Vox/Data for Progress poll asked respondents the following question:

    The For the People Act is a voting reform bill that would make it easier to vote, limit the influence of money in politics, and require congressional districts to be drawn by a non-partisan commission so that no one party has an advantage. Do you support or oppose the For the People Act?

    When asked in that way, 69 percent of respondents said they backed the bill — with 85 percent of Democrats, 70 percent of independents, and 52 percent of Republicans voicing support for the bill and its provisions.

    A majority of independents and Democrats backed most of the reforms included in the bill on an individual basis, too. But Republicans also showed surprising support (given how staunchly opposed GOP lawmakers have been to the legislation) for a number of issues.

    GOP-leaning respondents in the poll were split on the issue of automatic voter registration, with 44 percent in favor of that provision and 46 percent opposed. On the issue of same-day voter registration, a plurality (49 percent) said they backed the idea. A majority, 56 percent of Republican voters, said they supported a guarantee of 15 days of early voting, and an overwhelming 80 percent of Republican respondents said they supported provisions that would limit the influence of money in politics.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senator Rand Paul walks through the Senate subway without a face covering on February 13, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) last month said he has spoken with state legislators through the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) about passing state bills that restrict voting rights and impose greater legislative control over how elections are run.

    In a live-streamed video on April 19, Paul told Kevin Roberts, executive director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, an affiliate of the right-wing State Policy Network, that he has “been speaking to legislators through ALEC” about conservative electoral reform priorities since the November 2020 election.

    Paul’s statement comes on the heels of the revelation that ALEC and the State Policy Network are working with Heritage Action for America on its $24 million plan to push new voting restrictions in eight states.

    While admitting that challenges to the 2020 election results — many filed by former President Donald Trump and his allies — failed to convince courts of voter fraud or unlawful conduct by local or state elections officials, Paul insisted state legislatures must forge ahead with his proposals to curtail mail-in voting and politicize the administration of elections.

    ALEC, registered as a nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization, claimed to have suspended its work on voting and elections in 2012 when it disbanded its Public Safety and Elections Task Force in the wake of public outcry and the departure of corporate members seeking to distance themselves from ALEC’s role in pushing controversial voter ID and “Stand Your Ground” legislation.

    However, ALEC revived a secret Political Process Working Group in 2019, which has actively pushed voter fraud myths and partisan gerrymandering strategies to a receptive audience of GOP lawmakers.

    A Center for Media and Democracy examination of voter suppression bills in six battleground states found more than 100 Republican politicians listed as lead sponsors or co-sponsors of 2021 legislation are connected to ALEC. In the first three months of 2021, lawmakers in 47 states introduced more than 360 bills that would restrict voting access, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

    Rand Paul’s Voter Suppression Checklist

    In addition to repeating lies about “election fraud” in Wisconsin and elsewhere during the 2020 general election, Paul outlined three policy reforms, which have already been introduced in various iterations in state legislatures across the country:

    • Suppressing the vote. “Absentee voting needs to be individualized,” Paul said, repeating Trump’s unfounded claims linking absentee voting to voter fraud to third-party ballot collection of absentee ballots. “Vote harvesting,” or “ballot harvesting,” is a pejorative term for the practice of third parties collecting completed ballots from voters’ homes and delivering them in bulk to polling places or election offices. Paul and other right-wing individuals and groups including the Heritage Foundation claim it is “a recipe for coercion and election fraud,” but election experts say it is good for democracy.
    • Enacting state control over local electoral policy. Local election officials developed a variety of approaches last year for managing a national election in the midst of a sweeping pandemic. Paul and ALEC take the hard line that only legislatures have that authority and are pushing legislation to prevent local and county elections officials from altering election protocols in the future.
    • Giving state legislatures authority over governors and secretaries of state. Paul argued that secretaries of state were “basically soliciting voters” when some chose to send mail-in ballots to all voters for the 2020 general election due to public health and safety concerns during the Covid-19 pandemic. “You may even have to put into law what they can’t do, instead of putting into law what they can do,” Paul said, having seen fellow Republicans repeatedly fail in legal challenges to states’ voting practices.

    Paul recycled falsehoods about voter fraud that Trump and many GOP politicians perpetuated after the 2020 election, alleging that in states where many voters vote by mail, “drip by drip, [Democrats] keep finding votes. They keep harvesting the votes until they get it.”

    The reality is that mail-in ballots take longer to count, and in some GOP-led states, lawmakers prevented election officials from beginning the mail-in vote count until Election Day. Thus, there were huge backlogs of ballots for officials to carefully count, and results trickled in after much of the Election Day votes were already tabulated. Republicans cynically used the vote counting delays to falsely allege the election was rigged against Trump.

    Paul called Travis County, Texas, which is home to the state capital of Austin, “a communist oasis in the middle of conservative Texas.” He said that “rebellious” election officials in Travis County and Harris County, which set records for voter participation by instituting 24-hour voting, should not have the ability to set their own voting practices, claiming they overruled state law. Republican state lawmakers are currently attempting to outlaw some of the voter access methods that Harris County used in its hugely successful elections last year.

    Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Election Protection Project

    The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a member of the State Policy Network, a web of right-wing think tanks and tax-exempt organizations in 50 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and the United Kingdom that works to “defund and defang” unions, oppose climate change regulations, lower wages, cut taxes and business regulations, tighten voter restrictions, privatize education, and hide the identities of political donors.

    Not surprisingly, CMD found one of largest state delegations to ALEC in Texas, with 31 percent of the state’s House and 35 percent of its Senate having documented ties to ALEC.

    During its 2021 Policy Orientation in January, which was scheduled to coincide with the start of the legislative session, Texas Public Policy Foundation announced a national Election Protection Project led by Congressman Michael McCaul (TX-10). In a press release, TPPF said the project would seek to restore “election integrity” by “working with state officials and organizations to propose legislative measures to enhance and bolster the security and integrity of our nation’s election system.” These measures include pursuing voter ID requirements for in-person and mail-in voting and monitoring voter rolls.

    The 2021 Policy Orientation also featured two panels dedicated to voter suppression. ALEC-tied Texas state Reps. Stephanie Klick (R) and Valoree Swanson (R) and voter suppression expert J. Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Foundation participated in the Election Protection: Securing the People’s Voice and Choice at the Ballot Box panel. The panel discussion centered around unfounded fears of voter fraud with mail-in balloting.

    The second panel, Election 2020: What Happened and What Does it Mean for the Future?, included Rachel Bovard, senior policy director with the Trump administration-tied Conservative Partnership Institute; The Federalist’s political editor, John Davidson; and Matt Braynard, executive director of the Trump-tied voter suppression group Look Ahead America.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis responds to a question from the media at a press conference at the Eau Gallie High School aviation hangar in Melbourne, Florida, on March 22, 2021.

    Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law on Thursday imposing new restrictions on voting, such as making it harder to vote by mail and criminalizing the handing out of food and water to people in voting lines.

    The governor made the signing of the bill, which would affect millions of voters in his state, a “Fox exclusive,” as a spokesperson said, according to South Florida Sun-Sentinel columnist Steve Bousquet, allowing only the conservative media outlet to show the signing. DeSantis claimed in an interview with “Fox & Friends” that the bill was about “integrity and transparency” even though voting rights advocates have decried the measures that make it harder to vote, especially for nonwhite voters.

    The bill, SB 90, adds new ID requirements for those requesting an absentee ballot and requires those requesting an absentee ballot to file a request before each election, rather than allowing them to remain on an absentee voter list. It also limits the number of ballot drop boxes, places restrictions on who can drop off ballots and requires drop boxes to be monitored by an election official.

    Democrats and voting advocates have criticized the law, saying that it places undue restrictions on a voting process that had shown no evidence of widespread fraud.

    The League of Women Voters of Florida, Black Voters Matters Fund and Florida Alliance for Retired Americans filed a lawsuit against SB 90 on Thursday, saying that multiple elements of the bill, such as banning the handing out of food and water, are unconstitutional and a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Voters from every county in the state also joined the suit.

    “SB 90 is a bill that purports to solve problems that do not exist, caters to a dangerous lie about the 2020 election that threatens our most basic democratic values, and, in the end, makes it harder to vote without adequate justification for doing so,” reads the groups’ complaint. “SB 90 does not impede all of Florida’s voters equally. It is crafted to and will operate to make it more difficult for certain types of voters to participate in the state’s elections” — especially nonwhite, older and young or first-time voters.

    The bill isn’t about election integrity for Republicans, say the bill’s opponents, but about the continuation of an attack on voting started by former President Donald Trump.

    “We are not here because we have a problem with our elections,” said Democratic State Rep. Omari Hardy. “We are here because the Republican former president lost his re-election in November, and, rather than admitting his defeat, he spun a web of lies, radicalized those lies, in an attempt to explain away the loss.” Hardy also described the bill as “the revival of Jim Crow in this state.”

    The oppressive nature of the bill was underscored by the fact that the governor wouldn’t allow local news outlets to show the bill’s signing.

    “It’s extremely telling that DeSantis claims new Florida voter suppression law intended to boost ‘election integrity’ but barred all media except Fox News from covering bill signing,” wrote Mother Jones reporter Ari Berman on Twitter.

    “This isn’t a story about the press being locked out of an event. It’s about Floridians who had their eyes and ears in that room cut off,” wrote Jay O’Brien, a reporter for CBS 12 in West Palm Beach. “Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a law today that will impact ALL Floridians. And only some viewers were allowed to see it. That’s not normal.”

    Texas is up next for voter suppression bills. The Republican-led HB 6, which would make it a felony for election officials to mail an absentee ballot to a voter who didn’t request one, among other restrictive provisions, advanced to a floor vote on Thursday. Republicans control the House in the state by a wide margin.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A masked dad talks to his masked child during a protest

    Republicans are waging a nationwide attack on voting rights and the right to protest. Kelly Hayes compares these efforts with the laws and conventions that ushered in the Jim Crow era, and talks with voting rights organizer Toni Watkins about how targeted communities are fighting back.

    TRANSCRIPT

    Note: This a rush transcript and has been lightly edited for clarity. Copy may not be in its final form.

    Music by Son Monarcas

    Kelly Hayes: Welcome to “Movement Memos,” a Truthout podcast about things you should know if you want to change the world. I’m your host, Kelly Hayes.

    Since the beginning of the year, Republicans in 47 states have introduced at least 361 bills that would make it harder to vote. Five restrictive bills have already been signed into law and 29 others have passed at least one legislative chamber. These laws are part of a Republican long game to ensure white dominance in the U.S., but they have also been fueled by popular myths about a stolen election, and by a bitter backlash against the accomplishments of Black and brown organizers who scored historic victories in the 2020 elections. One of those organizers is today’s guest, Toni Watkins. Toni is an organizer with the New Georgia Project. She’s also an author, producer, political strategist, and much more. Toni Watkins, welcome to the show.

    Toni Watkins: Thank you. I’m so excited to be here.

    KH: How are you doing today?

    TW: Doing well. It is a beautiful day in Georgia, so it’s awesome.

    KH: Well, I am so glad you could be here today, because the assault on voting rights in the U.S. Is nothing short of horrifying, and I know we all have so much to learn from the work that your community has been doing. As a jumping off point, can you tell our listeners, who may not be familiar with the New Georgia Project, what kind of work you all do?

    TW: Yeah, definitely. So the New Georgia Project, I will probably refer to it after this as NGP, is a 501(C)(3). We have a (C)(4) side, that’s the New Georgia Project Action Fund, but NGP is all about voter engagement and mobilization, so we work really, really hard to educate voters, inform voters, and help bridge gaps that people may have in casting their votes.

    KH: I do want to take a moment to give people just a bit of historical grounding here. Because to a lot of people, the sweeping attacks on voting rights that we’re seeing may feel new or sudden because the media has done a terrible job of covering what Republicans have been up to over the last decade, and our educational system has done a terrible job of breaking down what white people have been up to over the course of this country’s entire history.

    I was fortunate enough to attend a teach-in recently called Voting Rights Under Attack!, hosted by The Frontline, where you were actually a panelist, and Pam Spees, an attorney at The Center for Constitutional Rights, offered some important historical framing that I would like to share with our listeners. Pam explained that we can see parallels to what we’re experiencing now to over a hundred years ago when panicked white men held the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1898, which was basically one of many conventions and meetings of its kind across the South, where some of the architects of Jim Crow were drawing up blueprints for a system of exclusion that would disenfranchise as many Black voters as possible.

    That system of exclusion, violence, and intimidation included poll taxes and literacy tests, various forms of criminalization and other tactics that were of course, accompanied by acts of lynching and other heinous forms of violence. And the success of those measures was overwhelming. In 1888, there were 127,923 Black voters and 126,884 white voters in the state of Louisiana. By 1904, there were 1,342 registered Black voters remaining in the state. In Alabama in 1900, there were 180,000 registered Black voters, but only 3000 by 1903. And in Mississippi in 1955, 10 years before the passage of the Voting Rights Act, only 4.3% of Black people were registered to vote. So we are talking about an incredibly successful political project designed by white men, who much like their contemporary counterparts, recognized that their situation was changing and that they could not maintain white dominance of the political system through free and fair elections.

    In 1965, the Voting Rights Act passed and within the first year of its passage, we saw 250,000 Black people registered to vote. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Black voter turnout has increased incrementally in every presidential election since 1996. In 2012, Black voters showed up at higher rates than white voters. Then in 2013, the Supreme court gutted the Voting Rights Act and immediately we saw a deluge of voter ID laws, poll closures, gerrymandering, and other attacks on the Black vote, including various forms of intimidation. On this show, we have covered a number of the attacks on voting rights that we saw under the Trump administration, including efforts to sabotage the postal system to derail mail-in voting. And we did some episodes on what you all were up against in Georgia specifically.

    I know you all had a very sophisticated voter suppression apparatus working against you as you were registering people to vote and working turnout, but as everyone knows, you made history and defeated that apparatus. But now we’re seeing the backlash and the hastening momentum of what some are calling Jim Crow 2.0. Can you tell us about the passage of SB 202 and how it amplifies what you all were already up against in Georgia?

    TW: Yeah, so Senate Bill 202 is a direct attack, excuse me, in consequence of our success in electing progressive representation in Georgia. So it’s really, really clear to us that voter suppressionists are working to punish Black and brown voters, we’re not voting them into office. Senate Bill 202 is full of things that historically Republicans have enjoyed: Saturday and Sunday voting, early voting. These are things that they created legislation for and passed into law under their majorities. So now that the population of Georgia is shifting, which I will reference a little bit later when I talk about our name, The New Georgia Project, but now that we’re shifting into a majority that is comprised of Black, brown, queer, young people, they want to change the rules because we have figured out how to win the game that they have tried to stack against us.

    So what we see is them trying to eliminate Sunday voting in Georgia, and in the South, a lot of Black churches have something that’s called Souls to the Polls. That’s where churches, that often serve as voting precincts as well, will allow their church members or encourage their church members to vote on a particular Sunday. They take care of events, excuse me. They take care of events on that Sunday together, they have celebrations, they all vote, they do different things, but it’s a large organization that has typically and historically turned out significant numbers of Black people. So forcing counties to choose now between Saturday and Sunday voting is a direct attack. Many people have tried to say that there aren’t a lot of voters that are impacted by the elimination of Sunday voting, but when we look at the numbers, we know that 37% of Black voters voted on Sunday. So additionally, when we look at the criminality of giving people things that just meet their basic human rights needs and necessities, while they’re standing in line, in the rain, or an off year in Georgia, maybe even the snow, but usually, like, sweltering heat during a primary, right? So we’re trying to give people water so that they are well, not because we want someone or we want them to vote for a particular person, but we are making that a crime.

    So to make that a crime is so incredibly egregious because especially many of the things that are included in SB 202 that will definitely increase the likelihood of the long lines, we’re certainly working against each other, right? So we’re eliminating two weeks of early voting, we’re forcing people to choose between Saturday and Sunday, we’re minimizing ballot boxes, reducing early voting locations, and all of these things. And Republican voter suppressionists have the nerve to say that this is actually expanding access to voting. There is no logic to that. So, like I said, it’s a very clear attack and it tends to punish Black and brown voters, especially Black voters in Georgia for voting for people that they actually want to represent them.

    KH: The provision about preventing people from offering food or water to people in the line has gotten a lot of attention. It’s always disturbing anytime the government tries to make basic acts of human decency illegal. It should never be illegal to give someone food or water. But in this case, this criminalization of solidarity and regard for our fellow human beings is clearly about trying to make an already difficult situation feel even more arduous or even hopeless in order to suppress votes. The idea that people should have to go hungry or thirsty for hours into hours to vote is just so impressively hostile.

    TW: Yeah, it’s really offensive and even before these things passed, I remember myself being in Bibb County, in Macon Georgia during the primary elections during the summer, when we were still seeing those really, really, really long lines. And, of course that’s also what we now know was the beginning of COVID here in Georgia. So I personally had an experience where an officer blocked my car and they said there was a report of someone that I happened to fit the description of, that was hollering and threatening someone in the parking lot.

    There was no such instance occurring in the parking lot. I know that because I was standing in the parking lot. They’re harassing us for talking to voters. Important to note when I say us, I actually mean my organization, not even me. We’re standing 300 feet away, way more than the required 150. So understanding that people will now try and use the law as a tool of intimidation that they were already utilizing before it was even illegal to do those things, is very terrifying, right? We can only imagine what they’re going to try and do when we approach into this upcoming November election, if House [Resolution] 1 and House [Resolution] 4 aren’t passed, or there’s no judicial injunction to stop the implementation of SB 202.

    KH: So I know that now that 202 has passed, you all have been organizing fiercely for the passage of Federal Voting Rights Legislation HR 1 For The People Act, which would expand early in mail-in voting and implement automatic voter registration among other provisions that terrify Republicans. That legislation would not, sadly, re-enfranchise 5 million people, including one in six Black people, who are currently denied the right to vote due to criminal laws. But amid this five alarm fire that we’re experiencing passing this bill or one like it does seem essential. I personally hate electoral politics and I know some of my listeners feel the same but I am passionate about people having access to the ballot because while I do think the system must ultimately come undone, I am not in favor of surrendering our fate to the Republican party and Jim Crow 2.0. So can you tell us a bit about what the struggle looks like right now, both in terms of the fight for federal legislation and taking on corporations?

    TW: Yeah. So this fight right now is really multifaceted in some of the ways that you’ve just mentioned, but even just some bifurcation, or additional levels, even on both sides of corporate and federal. So we are lucky to be in a state like Georgia that does have representation in our Senate, that supports House [Resolution] 1 and House [Resolution] 4. However, we are home to several corporations that fund opposition or people that oppose, excuse me, House [Resolution] 1 and House [Resolution] 4. We have done work to encourage senators from other states, using text banks to reach out to constituents in those states, like Arizona or Texas, to make sure that they’re putting the pressure on their federal legislators as well, but also utilizing our collective power in organizing against the corporations. So speaking out against them, having those same texts and phone banks, or in-person protests against these corporations, because the people that they are supporting the vote to be suppressed, those are their clients and those are their employees.

    So there are definitely elected officials that help them, that perhaps create loopholes that are beneficial for their line of business, whatever that may be, but there is no business, there is none of that line of business if they don’t have clients and they don’t have employees that support them. So of course we are not necessarily in a stage where we’re calling for a boycott, we recognize the potential power to do that, but we understand that again, the people that we would be asking folks to boycott, the folks that would be impacted are the same people whose vote we’re trying to protect, so it’s a really interesting dance to dance I think, in trying to be respectful and protective of your community, while trying to force the hand of people that can make the decisions.

    Because if we allow for House [Resolution] 1 and House [Resolution] 4 to die, or to not pass before we see local elections in a state like Georgia, the damage will be in some ways irreversible. We can always win again later, but we can’t afford to lose the momentum that we’ve started building now, especially when we get ready to have conversations about things like gerrymandering. We’re looking not very much forward to a lot of cracking and packing, that’s probably going to come from the same Republican party that created SB 202, right? So we have a lot of work to do, and we have to put the pressure on everyone before it’s too late.

    KH: Can you explain what you mean by cracking and packing?

    TW: Definitely. So cracking and packing is a term some people maybe say, packing and cracking. But those terms are talking district lines and the lines that legislators will draw when we look at our house districts, whatever districts, right, that you vote in, but specifically in the state of Georgia right now looking at the state house and state Senate districts. So what we will often see is whatever party is in power, I’m not going to say that this is something only Republicans do, but when we see parties in power, they will try and consolidate votes of people that do not likely want to vote for them, so that they can increase the political power of those that do, by expanding their territory, like the geographical territory, so that they have more physical representation.

    So you can take a few city blocks that have 100,000 people, and put them all together and give them one legislator. And then you can take a part of the state that maybe looks a little bit more like you, and you disperse them a little bit differently so that they have maybe five representatives for that same 100,000 people. So now those people, that happen to look like the people who drew the district lines, have five times the electoral power of the people who didn’t. I hope that was a decent on the fly description.

    KH: Yes, that was. Thank you. So I talked a bit at the top of the show about those constitutional conventions that helped usher in Jim Crow. Most people have never learned about those histories with any specificity. Just as most people don’t know who is doing that kind of design work today. But much of that work is a matter of public record, and while Republican officials we are up against today, don’t say out loud that they are trying to eliminate Black votes, they will state plainly that they want fewer voters. And we know that these maneuvers have followed increases in Black voter turnout, over a period of years, that led to Black voter turnout surpassing white voter turnout in the 2012 presidential election. In March, an attorney representing the Arizona Republican Party told the Supreme Court that striking down voting restrictions would put “us at a competitive disadvantage relative to the Democrats.” They don’t say words like Black or Native, they just talk about volume but it’s clear who’s being targeted. History doesn’t repeat itself but it’s full of reformulations. And in my mind, members of ALEC and the officials crafting today’s voting restrictions are clearly the historical counterparts of the architects of Jim Crow.

    TW: I totally agree with that. This is why it’s so important to understand what these tactics look like and when you see it, you can call it by name and you can fight it, and that’s exactly what we intend to do. And we have been calling these people out. We work really hard to force people to be honest about the fact that they don’t want us to vote. Many times they don’t mind suppressing our vote even at the expense of their own voters.

    We understand that our vote is our access to democracy and it’s our seat at the table so how dare someone suggest that we should not be a part of that? Let alone people that just happen to not like [our] politics. When in reality, if they really, really wanted to win, they could just run better candidates. They can run [on] policies that are not oppressive and suppressive. I read a headline recently that said that a Republican lawmaker stated they did not want ignorant people voting; that’s very terribly coded language. We know exactly what you’re saying, to your earlier point, of people making statements and it being implied that those are Democratic Voters, Black voters, Native voters — the reality is we are all of those things and ignorant is not one of them. We know exactly what we’re voting for, which is why we’re not interested in voting against our best interests. By the year 2024 Georgia’s majority will be made up of Black, Brown, queer, young people. It will no longer be a majority of white men, and that’s what people are terrified of.

    They are afraid of us reclaiming that power, which is why we see the attacks on voting. That would be impactful even in our local elections, as soon as November, as well as the impending attack that we see from the Republicans, when they will go into the redistricting lines that I just mentioned. So these are all of the reasons that we have to go really, really, really hard and work extremely, extremely tirelessly almost, it feels, right, to get HR 1 and HR [4] passed on the federal levels because they protect States like Georgia. Unfortunately, Georgia is not alone, Texas is right on the cusp, hopefully not, of experiencing exactly what we’re experiencing in Georgia. Some things that may be even worse. All of these things I’ve said are exactly why we can’t afford to let people hold onto power by malicious and egregious tactics of cheating.

    KH: Absolutely. I was just talking to folks in Arizona about what’s happening there. And the Native vote is very obviously being targeted because the Native vote played a clearly crucial role in the last election. And so now they’re coming up with these signature rules and these various bills they’re trying to pass that would make it harder for Native people to vote by mail.

    Another thing I find concerning is how dismissive many people have been of anti-protest laws that Republicans have been proposing and enacting at the state level. I had someone tell me the other day, “That’s all chest puffing, they’ll never pass any of those and if they do, they’ll all be struck down.” When we have already seen the passage of some of those laws and I don’t know what Supreme Court those folks are thinking about, but I would not count on this one to halt any attacks on protestors.

    According to the New York Times, GOP lawmakers in 34 States have introduced 81 anti-protest bills during the 2021 legislative session, more than twice as many proposals, as in any other year. Under Jim Crow, the Black vote was subverted by the letter of the law and vigilante violence and I think we should expect the same here. I think a lot of people think we escaped all of that when we removed Trump, but white supremacist authoritarianism is still very much a threat. We are witnessing efforts to explicitly legalize vehicular attacks on protesters. After what happened in Charlottesville, and the way the right-wing has echoed that tactic in memes, in calls to action, and with actual vehicular assaults, I see these laws as a not-so-coded call to action. White vigilantes are being called upon to play their role in the subversion of Black votes and the suppression of movements, just as they have in years past. Even in places where these laws don’t pass, legislators are sending a message of support and solidarity to anyone who might be contemplating these attacks, and sending a not-so-coded message that tells them, you are part of our vision.

    And really, if Trump hadn’t convinced his people that they had the last election in the bag, I think we might’ve seen a lot more scary behavior or even militant action at polling places that could have had a chilling impact on the election. I don’t even like saying that out loud, but I feel like there’s a national state of denial around this, that needs to be interrupted because what looks like failure or even folly is sometimes rehearsal and people who feel cheated or unheard tend to escalate over time. So as someone who has been on the front lines of these efforts of mass disenfranchisement and Republican efforts to steal the election, can you say a bit about the stakes for protesters?

    TW: Yeah. I mean, we are under significant attack as protestors. We’re under significant attack both from counter protesters, just oppositional people, but also from our government. They are making laws that make it a felony to obstruct the street while protesting. That is our right, they’re working actively against us. Even here, in the city of Atlanta that’s run by a Black woman named Keisha, we saw the escalation of military tanks when people were protesting over the murder of Rayshard Brooks, completely unnecessary. They were meeting water bottles and people who were screaming, who were in mourning with military tanks. So we know that even our local governments that we think are going to support us, are not likely to. We know that our government, our State government is passing laws to make our protest felonious when it’s one of our most inherent rights as a person, but also as a citizen. So we know that protesters are under attack from local governments, we know that they’re under attack from state governments that are passing laws to criminalize our inherent right to protest. And lastly, obviously we have the issue of counter protestors who show up to voting precincts, who show up to protest, who even show up to the Capitol to protest. However, they show up in arms when they do, they’re protesting, they still present differently than we do. However, we are the people that are identified as threats, so it’s really scary. We go through trainings to try and protect ourselves from counter protesters, from law enforcement but the reality is, when you’re out there, you are always taking a risk.

    When we do major protests, we do things like write the name of our attorney’s phone number or our safety contact on our arms. We don’t wear contacts, we wear our glasses. Sometimes when we go to poll monitor or even to vote, now, those are the same things that we have started to do and recommend for other people to do, so I think that, unfortunately, we really, really have to take the threat of fighting the establishment on issues that pertain to voting, but also while we are exercising our right to vote, we have to take those threats really seriously.

    KH: Absolutely, and listening to you talk about what it’s like in Atlanta really resonates. Because here in Chicago we have a Black woman mayor, Lori Lightfoot, and people made a very big deal about the fact that a gay Black woman was elevated to that office, but we have now seen a level of repression under this mayor that, in my experience, surpasses anything we saw under Rahm Emanuel. And we all know that protesters were viciously brutalized under Emanuel in this city, but this last year has been uglier than anything I have witnessed prior. And there’s also a national angle to that, which is why people in blue states should not feel safe and secure, and consider these anti-protest laws to be some kind of red state problem. Because when norms erode and shift around the treatment of protesters, Democratic neoliberal mayors take advantage of that as well. Sometimes, those actions are coordinated among big city mayors, as we saw with Occupy. So I hope people understand that what we tolerate, in terms of what’s inflicted on others, will not remain at a distance. In various ways, it will come back to us. Because the agenda of maintaining order under late capitalism exists in every city and state, and these mayors will take advantage of any shifting norms that they can.

    But circling back to voter suppression and what we can do about it, a lot of people will agree that it’s important, but really don’t have any idea what to do about it, especially if they live in a blue state. So what should people do, and maybe not do, to help support this fight?

    TW: I think that’s a great question because I think there’s a really large amount of people who just sometimes feel paralyzed by how much trauma they have to fight every day and how many enemies we see as suppressionists as an oppressionist. I think that the first thing I recommend for people to do is find their political home in their community or in their state. If you’re in Georgia obviously we invite you to be a part of the New Georgia Project or The New Georgia Project Action Fund. But there are things that everyone can do, right?

    You can talk to your local communities about the elections that are happening, even giving rides to your neighbors to polling locations is an option. We know in the State of Georgia, having copies of your ID is going to be a serious challenge for people. Helping people access their copies, which by the way creates a poll tax, but that’s a whole different discussion, but helping people access some of those things if you have the means, right? Maybe they’re bedridden, or home bound, and just physically don’t have the access to obtain or financially don’t have the access to obtain.

    There are small things that we can do just as individual people. I can’t believe I didn’t say this first, but also, register to vote. That’s a really, really important part of all of this, right? Our collective power is super important and a lot of us are frustrated and we don’t have a lot of faith in the voting system and in our elections.

    And that lack of trust is very well-deserved. However, it only can maybe get better if we all continue to engage in it. And lastly, I really think that more people should consider actually running for some of the offices. If you have qualifications for some office in your local community, or even your larger statewide county, whatever community, please consider doing that, we don’t have enough good representation that’s why we are in some of the situations that we are in, and we deserve much better from all people, regardless of the party that they’re in. So I definitely want to start making sure to encourage more people to consider running for office as well.

    KH: Well, thank you for that. And how can people connect with your group specifically?

    TW: We have a few different ways that you can connect with us. Obviously, our website is newgeorgiaproject.org or for the Action Fund, ngpaf.org. We also have our Instagram pages, New Georgia Project, it’s very easy to find. And also I’m happy to allow people to connect with me, so my email address is Toni toni@newgeorgiaproject.org. As we are moving into November, I think a lot of people that are listening probably have elections coming up, so start thinking about those voting plans. We have toolkits that we are happy to share with folks on how to create voting plans, and unfortunately those are things that people need to start thinking about now so check us out on our website and definitely on our social media, Instagram and Facebook are both New Georgia Project as well as Twitter.

    KH: And we will indeed include in all of that information, as well as some other information about how you can get involved with the fight against voter suppression, in the show notes on our website. Well, Toni, I want to thank you so much for joining us today and for all of the important work that you’re doing.

    TW: Not a problem. Thank you so much for having me, I really enjoyed it here.

    KH: I also want to thank our listeners for joining us today, and remember our best defense against cynicism is to do good and to remember that the good we do matters. Until next time, I’ll see you in the streets.

    Show Notes:

    Organizations to check out:

    You can learn more about Toni’s group, The New Georgia Project, by checking out their website, or by following the group on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram.

    The Frontline is a coalition of people and groups that aim “to defeat white nationalism, protect our democracy, and demand that those in power advance a people’s agenda. They hosted the teach-in Voting Rights Under Attack! that was mentioned at the top of the show.

    If you want to support Native voting rights, Four Directions is a Native organization that aims to “protect our communities and our rights by going to the polls to vote.” They are currently taking action against Native voter suppression in Arizona.

    Further reading:

    House Rejects Cori Bush’s Amendment on Voting Rights for Incarcerated People by Mike Ludwig

    Texas House committee advances bill that would make it a crime for election officials to send unsolicited vote-by-mail applications by Alexa Ura

    Arizona Is on the Verge of Adopting Voter Suppression Laws by Marian K. Schneider

    Georgia’s New Voting Law Is Rife With Hidden Horrors by Greg Palast

    13 States Set to Copy Georgia Law Restricting Independence of Election Officials by Sharon Zhang

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear signs a bill

    Republican lawmakers nationwide have introduced a record number of bills this year to limit access to the ballot and give the GOP an advantage in future elections — 361 voter suppression bills in all, according to data from the Brennan Center for Justice. Many of these bills have been introduced in Southern states including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The proposals would among other things implement stricter voter ID requirements, limit absentee voting, make voter registration more difficult, and allow aggressive voter roll purges.

    Some of these measures have already become law. In Georgia, for example, Gov. Brian Kemp (R) last month signed into law a bill that erects new barriers to voting, including a photo ID requirement to vote absentee by mail, a narrower window of time for people to request an absentee ballot, and limits on the number of ballot drop-off boxes. The Georgia law even goes so far as to make it illegal for advocacy groups to give water or food to people waiting in long lines to vote.

    But at the same time, Democratic state lawmakers are working to expand democracy through legislation. Lawmakers in 47 states have introduced, prefiled, or carried over 843 bills to expand voting access, including in the same 10 Southern states where restrictive voting bills were introduced.

    “More than a third of the expansive bills address absentee voting, while more than a fifth seek to ease voter registration,” according to a Brennan Center analysis. “State lawmakers are also focusing on expanding access to early voting and restoring voting rights to people with past convictions.”

    Some of the pro-democracy proposals are coming out of states with a long history of voter suppression. In deep red Mississippi, for example, Democratic lawmakers have introduced 12 bills to expand or restore voting rights. In Texas, also under GOP control, they’ve introduced 67.

    And in Virginia, the Democratic-controlled legislature recently passed House Bill 1890, the Voting Rights Act of Virginia. The measure is modeled on the groundbreaking federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required Justice Department preclearance of voting changes in states with a history of voter discrimination until the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the law in its 2013 Shelby County v. Holder ruling.

    “Passing the Voting Rights Act of Virginia — being the first state in the South, the first state that was covered under Section 5 of preclearance to do it — signals to the country that here’s a state that has this dark history. And we are trying to get beyond that,” Tram Nguyen, co-executive director of the progressive New Virginia Majority, told The New York Times.

    The new law requires local elections administrators to receive approval from the state attorney general for changes like moving voting precincts or elections registrars’ offices, and it allows voters and the attorney general to sue over claims of voter suppression. It also explicitly prohibits any racial discrimination or intimidation related to voting.

    “Voting is fundamental to our democracy,” said Gov. Ralph Northam (D), “and this legislation is a model for how states can ensure the integrity of elections and protect the sacred right to vote.”

    Since Democrats won control of its legislature in 2019, Virginia has gone from one of the hardest states for voting to one of the easiest, according to a ranking by researchers at Northern Illinois University.

    Next door in Kentucky, the Republican-controlled legislature passed a bipartisan measure that mandates three days of no-excuse early voting, ballot drop boxes in every county, and an online portal to register for absentee voting, among other changes aimed at expanding voting. Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear signed it into law earlier this month.

    “When much of the country has put in more restrictive laws, Kentucky legislators, Kentucky leaders were able to come together to stand up for democracy and to expand the opportunity for people to vote,” Beshear said at the signing ceremony. Republican lawmakers endorsed the new law, bucking the trend of GOP-led legislatures working to undermine voting access. Jennifer Decker, a first-term Republican legislator who sponsored the new law, has said that changes made to Kentucky’s elections in response to the COVID-19 pandemic helped build bipartisan support for her proposal.

    And in North Carolina, a state that has been at the center of struggles over voting rights in recent years, Democratic lawmakers in the Republican-controlled General Assembly have introduced a sweeping package of election reform proposals titled the Fix Our Democracy Act to expand and protect voting rights for all, end partisan and racial gerrymandering, reduce the influence of big money in politics, increase transparency and accountability in state government, and ensure fair and impartial courts. It was inspired by the far-reaching H.R. 1 federal election reform proposal titled the “For the People Act,” which has passed the Democratic-controlled House and now awaits action in the evenly divided Senate. The North Carolina measure has been referred to the Committee on Rules and Operations of the Senate.

    “It’s about time we make the promise of democracy real for all North Carolinians and restore trust in our elections,” wrote Melissa Price Kromm, director of North Carolina Voters for Clean Elections Coalition, in an op-ed for The News & Observer of Raleigh. “North Carolinians won’t always see eye-to-eye on politics, but we can all agree that it should be us choosing our government, not anonymous donors or powerful corporate interests.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp puts on a mask after speaking at a press conference on August 10, 2020, in Atlanta, Georgia.

    Republicans in at least 14 states have introduced legislation that would seize power from election officials or limit their authority, apparently in response to unfounded attacks from former President Donald Trump and allies who sought to overturn his election loss.

    Republican state legislators across the country have responded to Trump’s baseless election challenges, which were roundly rejected by dozens of judges, by rolling out more than 360 bills aimed at restricting voting access in nearly every state. But while much of the attention has focused on measures that would limit ballot access, like Georgia’s sweeping election bill, which Democrats have compared to Jim Crow-era restrictions, some of the proposals include provisions that would strip election officials of power and even impose criminal penalties for officials who defy the new restrictions.

    Coverage of Georgia’s massive bill has largely focused on provisions that would restrict absentee ballot access and make it a crime to provide water or food to voters in long lines. But the bill also includes more insidious measures that could allow Republicans to give “themselves power to overturn election results,” Sylvia Albert, director of the voting and elections program at the nonpartisan voter advocacy group Common Cause, said in an interview with Salon.

    For instance, the new law would allows the Republican-led state legislature to replace Georgia’s secretary of state — currently Brad Raffensperger, who pushed back on Trump’s efforts to overturn his defeat — as chair of the state elections board, and then fill a majority of the panel with their own appointees. The bill further allows the newly-appointed election board majority to suspend and temporarily replace local election officials and take over county election offices. County boards determine voter eligibility and certify election results, meaning the state board appointee would theoretically have the power to disqualify certain voters or to refuse to certify the results, according to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The law also bars local election officials from sending unsolicited absentee ballot applications or accepting grant money that is used by some cash-strapped counties to run elections. Voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams decried the provision as an “unprecedented power grab” intended to “alter election outcomes.”

    “This bill is a tragedy for democracy, and it is built on the lie of voter fraud,” Lauren Groh Wargo, who heads the Abrams-founded voter advocacy group Fair Fight Action, said in a press call last month. “It means that radical, right-wing legislators, if they don’t like how elections are being run … can wholesale replace those election administrators and put folks from the other side of the state in charge.”

    It remains to be seen how this would work in practice. Some election experts have noted that there are guardrails that could prevent officials from overturning election results. The law limits such takeovers to four counties at a time and includes measures requiring the board to show multiple violations in at least two election cycles and a process that would drag out for at least 30 days. But it would be easy for the board to find multiple violations in “any county,” argued Marilyn Marks, the executive director of the nonpartisan Coalition for Good Governance.

    The law could “absolutely” be used to overturn election results, Albert said, given the repeated attempts by Trump supporters, including many Georgia Republicans and even Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, to overturn the state’s results last year. “Politicians will look to use any avenue available to them to maintain power. Just because it might have a few steps doesn’t mean that they won’t do it or figure out ways to get around those steps.”

    But it’s more likely this law would be used to “ensure that their suppression measures are successful,” Albert added. “What this is doing is saying, ‘Hey, we enacted suppressive state laws and we want to make sure no local election official actually attempts to help people overcome the burdens of those state laws.’”

    Some of the provisions in the Georgia law appear directly aimed at heavily Black and Democratic Atlanta-area Fulton and DeKalb counties. Texas lawmakers have introduced their own sweeping set of proposed voting restrictions that similarly target Harris County, the state’s most populous, including the city of Houston, where Democratic officials expanded ballot access last year.

    Texas Senate Bill 7 explicitly bans 24-hour early voting, drive-through voting, and the mailing of unsolicited absentee ballot applications, all of which were measures taken or attempted by Harris County officials last year. Texas House Bill 6 would make it a felony for election officials to mail pre-filled absentee ballot applications or even encourage eligible voters to cast ballots by mail or take any action to change election rules without the consent of the state’s Republican secretary of state.

    While those two bills have already advanced in their respective chambers, a third proposal that is still pending would shift all power over voter registration and voter roll maintenance from county officials to the Republican secretary of state.

    Republicans in Arizona also pushed a proposal that would have allowed the GOP-led legislature to overturn election results and appoint their own electors, though that effort was ultimately quashed. But the state legislature, which has introduced two dozen restrictive bills, is still looking at bills that would bar the secretary of state from sending unsolicited mail-in ballots and another proposal that would shift approval of the state’s election manual to the legislature.

    “They don’t serve any purpose, except for the Legislature just trying to insert themselves into the process, create obstruction, and say that they did something in the name of election integrity without actually doing anything that does that,” Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, told The New York Times. “The Legislature wasn’t interested in control over elections until I got here and happened to have a ‘D’ by my name.”

    Iowa Republicans have already passed a package of voting restrictions that include measures making it a felony for election officials to disobey any guidance from the Republican secretary of state and imposing $10,000 fines for any “technical infractions” of the state’s election laws. It also bars county officials from sending unsolicited absentee-ballot applications and restricts their ability to open satellite early-voting sites.

    “This is a total takeover of elections by the state,” Linn County Auditor Joel Miller, who was among several local election officials in Iowa targeted by Trump and Republicans, told the Associated Press. “We did everything we could to increase participation and engagement in the democratic process, and evidently some people thought that more people participated than they wanted and they decided to put limitations on it.”

    Arkansas Republicans have advanced bills that would give partisan county election boards total power over local election officials, move oversight of election law violations from county officials to the state election board, and ban officials from mailing unsolicited absentee-ballot applications. A pending proposal would also allow the state election board to take over local election offices.

    Missouri lawmakers recently advanced a bill that would allow the secretary of state to audit and purge voters from any local election office’s voter rolls. The bill threatens to cut funding to noncompliant offices and restricts mail-in voting. Another pending proposal would impose misdemeanor penalties on election officials who failed to purge voters within 10 days of their death.

    South Carolina Republicans have rolled out a bill that would give the state legislature more oversight over the members appointed to the state’s independent election commission.

    An analysis by FiveThirtyEight identified 14 states with bills aimed at undermining election officials, including proposals to ban the mailing of unsolicited absentee-ballot applications in Michigan, Tennessee, Connecticut and South Dakota and bills restricting the mailing of absentee ballots in New Jersey, New York, Illinois and Wisconsin.

    While the measures are not expected to get far in Democratic-led states — except in Michigan where Republican state lawmakers are plotting to subvert Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s vow to veto any voting restrictions — they are likely to advance in states where the GOP has attacked “election officials who did not support Trump’s lies,” Albert said.

    Republicans have justified the proposals by arguing that election officials overreached in their efforts to expand mail-in voting amid the coronavirus pandemic and took “the law into their own hands” against the wishes of elected state lawmakers.

    “It’s a bunch of BS,” Albert said in response to the Republican argument. “It is clearly an attempt to take power away not just from local election officials, but from Americans.” Republicans, she added, are effectively giving themselves “the power to eliminate democracy in elections … what they’re saying they want to do is take away the rights of Americans to elect their representatives.”

    Some advocates have also warned that many of these measures are aimed at counties with quickly changing demographics after record turnout among voters of color in 2020.

    “The part that I think is so concerning is the retaliation,” Myrna Pérez, director of the Voting Rights and Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told FiveThirtyEight. “Look at who on the ground would actually be impeded [by these laws]. That suggests to me a real opposition to an expanded electorate.”

    Democrats have responded to the voting restrictions proposed in dozens of states by championing the For the People Act, also known as H.R. 1 and S. 1, a massive legislative package including voter protections, anti-corruption measures and other provisions. It is unlikely to pass in its current form unless Democrats can reform the filibuster and convince conservative Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., to back it. But while the bill could protect voters from some restrictions, it would do little to prevent partisan power grabs of local election powers.

    That issue has been raised as the bill goes through the Senate, but “off the top of my head, I honestly don’t know what type of provision one would add to H.R. 1 that would address this,” Albert said.

    Some members of the Congressional Black Caucus have urged Democrats to focus instead on passing the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore the Voting Rights Act requirement for states with a history of racial discrimination to pre-clear any electoral changes with the Justice Department, which was scrapped by the Supreme Court in 2013.

    Albert argued that there may be a legitimate way to address these attacks on local authorities through pre-clearance. “A strong argument could be made that changing the power of local election officials is definitely a change to election law that would have an effect on Black and brown communities,” she said.

    Albert compared the Republican push to take over local election powers to authoritarian regimes in Russia and North Korea.

    “America is one of the only democracies that does not have elections run by a nonpartisan government entity,” she said. “What you’re seeing right now is the danger of politicians running elections. We should all be very much on guard.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton holds a card on the House steps with the final vote count after the House passed HR 51 with a 216-208 vote at the Capitol on Thursday, April 22, 2021. The legislation would create the new state of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth, with one representative and two senators.

    On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would make Washington, D.C., the 51st state. This is the second time in history that the House has passed D.C. statehood, and the passage grants momentum to Democrats who hope for representation and justice for the area with a large proportion of Black residents.

    The Washington, D.C. Admission Act, or H.R. 51, passed 216 to 208 on a party-line vote. Everything except the strip of land including the national mall, White House, Capitol and Supreme Court would be included in the new state.

    The bill faces long odds of passing the Senate, where the filibuster quashes Democrats’ majority rule and any hopes that the region might become a state, for now. Republicans are staunchly opposed to granting D.C. statehood, fearing that the Democratic-leaning area would give Democrats more votes in Congress.

    The district is home to over 700,000 people, making it more populous than Wyoming or Vermont. If it were granted statehood, D.C. would be the state with the highest proportion of Black residents, with a 46 percent Black population.

    The bill’s passage comes after the White House officially logged its endorsement of granting statehood to the region on Tuesday. “The Administration strongly supports H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act,” read a statement from the Office of Management and Budget. “For far too long, the more than 700,000 people of Washington, D.C. have been deprived of full representation in the U.S. Congress.”

    The region’s slogan has long been “taxation without representation” — it’s been on the region’s license plates since 2000 — as the residents don’t have voting representation in Congress, despite paying the highest per capita federal income taxes.

    Despite Senate Republicans’ opposition, the proposal is now closer to passing than ever. If the filibuster is abolished, as progressive activists, Senate Democrats and House Democrats are pushing for, statehood for D.C. could very well become a reality.

    The region’s non-voting congressional delegate, Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton, has been trying to get statehood for the region passed for the last 30 years.

    “My service in Congress has been dedicated to achieving equality for the people I represent, which only statehood can provide,” Norton said in a press conference on the bill on Wednesday. “My life as a third-generation Washingtonian has marched toward this milestone mindful that my own family has never known equality in our country,” said Norton, who is Black.

    Advocates of statehood say that the issue is about racial justice. The battle against statehood for D.C., which was majority Black until 10 years ago, has been fraught with anti-Black racism.

    “In the Senate today, there are only three Black senators and not a single Black woman in the entire body. The structure of the Senate gives disproportionate power to small, predominantly white states,” said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) during a hearing last month. “In the midst of our national reckoning on racism … uplifting Black political power must be a part of the conversation. We cannot allow electoral justice for the people of Washington DC to be denied any longer.”

    D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser celebrated the bill’s passage on Thursday. “We know well the grave injustices our nation was built on. We also know that progress has been made time and again because elected leaders and everyday citizens had the courage and vision to demand a more inclusive democracy,” said Bowser in a statement. “Today, every member of the House of Representatives who voted in favor of DC statehood made the decision to believe in a stronger, more inclusive Democracy.”

    The last time the House passed a bill granting D.C. statehood was in 2020 when it also passed along party-line votes with no Republicans in favor. Some Democrats, in the face of Republican opposition and the roadblock of the filibuster in the Senate, have called for an end to the filibuster so that D.C. can become a state.

    “The House just passed D.C. statehood. Republicans will block it in the Senate. In order for D.C. to become the 51st state, we need to end the filibuster,” wrote Rep. Cori Bush (D-Missouri) on Twitter.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Mitch McConnell

    Mitch McConnell doesn’t seem to be adjusting well to the new limits of his power, following his ouster from the majority leader seat last November. A once nigh-omnipotent power broker, McConnell has now found his influence diminished to the point that he’s yelling strange things at stranger targets. He spent a chunk of last week unspooling some doozies directed at corporate America, which has long been a close ally of the Republican Party.

    The trouble began in Georgia, a state whose GOP officials were still reeling from the triple disaster (for them) of losing the presidential election along with two senate seats. That debacle handed full control of Congress and the White House to President Biden and the Democrats.

    Georgia Republicans, along with GOP officials in several other states, responded by passing a slate of laws aimed at attacking Black people’s ability to vote. Backlash from the rest of the country was swift, but it got real for Mitch and the GOP when big business stepped in and started laying about with a rhetorical baseball bat.

    Granted, these corporate complaints about Georgia’s and the other states’ vicious voting restrictions registered about a “2” on the Serious-o-Meter. Even in what passes for high dudgeon, corporations are what they are, and any statement is going to pass through the leavening hands of marketing and the legal department before seeing the light of day.

    Also, and to be duly noted, is this: “According to a report by nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, since 2015, corporations have contributed $50 million to state legislators who support bills that appear to be suppressive,” reports Jameelah Nasheed for Teen Vogue. “Of this amount, $22 million was donated during the 2020 election cycle. The report also says that 81 of the Fortune 100’s companies have given a combined total of $7.7 million to these lawmakers.”

    For this largesse, McConnell has served as perhaps the best friend corporate America has had in politics for generations. In fact, McConnell has labored mightily to get corporations and their money as far into politics as can be managed. He was the plaintiff in McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court case attacking the McCain-Feingold campaign reforms. McConnell was a champion for Citizens United v. FEC, the case that all but legalized political bribery via dark money.

    Corporate America is quitting the GOP, right, OK, sure thing… but then Major League Baseball (MLB) swooped down from a clear blue sky and snatched the All-Star Game out of Atlanta. Suddenly this rift had become much more real, motivating Mitch to swing into action and offer this salvo:

    My warning, if you will, to corporate America is to stay out of politics. It’s not what you’re designed for. And don’t be intimidated by the left into taking up causes that put you right in the middle of one of America’s greatest political debates. So, that’s my admonition, and Delta, Coca-Cola and the other companies that basically responded to this partisan appeal are doing the same thing.

    You know, Republicans drink Coca-Cola, too, and we fly, and we like baseball. This is a pretty competitive political environment in America, as I just pointed out, a 50-50 senate. If I were running a major corporation, I’d stay out of politics.

    I’m not talking about political contributions. Most of them contribute to both sides, they have political action committees, that’s fine, it’s legal, appropriate, I support that. I’m talking about taking a position on a highly incendiary issue like this, and punishing a community or a state because you don’t like a particular law they passed. I just think it’s stupid.

    A day later, McConnell was moonwalking those comments back at flank speed. “I didn’t say that very artfully yesterday,” he said about calling corporate America “stupid” while telling them to keep contributing. “My principal complaint is, they didn’t read the darn bill.” Did you?

    A week later, and the scab got ripped off again. Republican Chuck Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking member, popped his cork over the MLB decision to move the game. “When partisans and companies collude to ruin the livelihoods of their opponents, there’s a term for that: it’s economic terrorism,” Grassley barked. He went on to claim that “cancel culture” was responsible for this, and because of it, Georgia would lose “100 million jobs.”

    I don’t know, man. They seem spooked to me, and perhaps for good reason. “Conservative lawmakers concerned by the growing list of major corporations taking progressive stances on hot-button political issues should expect more of the same for the foreseeable future,” reports CNN. “So says Lisa Osborne Ross, who next month will become the first Black person to serve as chief executive officer for the US division of Edelman, one of the world’s largest and most influential public relations firms.”

    There are a number of fascinating reasons for this. The Cook Political Report did a comprehensive analysis of this seeming rift between the GOP and corporate America and came up with a core motivator: “geographic polarization.” A majority of the population and money in the country has flowed into solid Democratic districts on both coasts, as well as in and around major cities within the core of the continent.

    This speaks to more than policy or demographics. For the corporations, it’s much simpler: They go where the money is, and at present, the money lives in places where potential customers believe in fair voting laws, among a broad array of other progressive positions. If the corporations do not respond to that, they risk losing the largest markets the country has to offer.

    The moment is reminiscent of the events described in Ronald Brownstein’s new book, Rock Me on the Water: 1974, The Year Los Angeles Transformed Music, Movies, Television and Politics. The book describes a torpid entertainment media stuck in a “Hee-Haw!” content rut because their most loyal consumers were rural conservatives. In 1974, networks like CBS chose to push the boundaries and reach for more sophisticated urban viewers with edgier programming. Thus, game-changing programming like “All in the Family” was born, and the television experience changed forever.

    This could be said to be one of the seedcorn moments of what we now call the “culture war.” The rural conservatives lost that round, and it has been back and forth over the last half century. Today, with geographic polarization placing a majority of the country’s money in places dominated by progressive ideals, some corporations are being forced by their customer base to get more active in the kind of politics they’ve never been involved with before. If the GOP loses that money spigot because they continue tacking to the hard right, they will be hard pressed to make up for it elsewhere.

    Is there any real fire behind this smoke, however? Is there any scenario that could ever bring about a schism between corporate America and the Republican Party? After the attack on the Capitol by Trump supporters, a number of major corporations vowed to curtail political donations to anyone even vaguely involved in that calamity. By the end of March, however, it was business as usual again. More recently, Coca-Cola and Delta skulked back from their tepid support for voting rights.

    No one can really say for sure what all this means at this juncture. The very idea that major corporations would break with the GOP in even a symbolic way would have been laughed out of the room and down the block a year ago… yet here we stand, with more than a few of those corporations furrowing Republican brows at a moment when that party is already deeply in disarray. If you think more corporations should follow suit, maybe you should let them know. They are, after all, “people.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A woman casts her ballot in the 2020 general election inside the Basset Place Mall in El Paso, Texas, on November 3, 2020.

    At least 13 other states are looking into implementing laws similar to a provision in the voter suppression package recently passed in Georgia that severely restricts local election officials’ authority over how elections are conducted.

    The law passed last month by Republicans in Georgia opens floodgates where there were previously checks and balances in the state’s election system. It removes the secretary of state as the head of elections, allows the Republican-controlled legislature to fill the election board with handpicked officials, and then gives the board sweeping powers to replace local election officials with their own chosen superintendents.

    It also grants Georgians unlimited challenges to any voters’ eligibility — something that right-wing groups tried and failed to do to voters of color in the state in 2020 in an attempt to get hundreds of thousands of ballots thrown out. Under the new law, it’s easier for those sorts of challenges to succeed as they would be considered by the very county boards whose members are appointed by the Republican legislature.

    Now over a dozen states are considering similar bills, FiveThirtyEight reports, some of which criminalize local election officials for stepping out of line. Local election officials were “one of the last lines of defense,” The New York Times wrote, against former President Donald Trump’s unfounded challenges to the results of the 2020 election.

    In Iowa, Republicans passed a voter suppression package making it a felony for election officials to fail to perform their duties or follow orders from the secretary of state. It also imposes a $10,000 fine on officials for “technical infractions.”

    In Arkansas, a bill in committee allows the state’s election board to take over the administration of local elections, similar to the Georgia bill. Another four bills have passed through one chamber of the legislature that give state politicians more control over how elections are run. The laws allow partisan county election boards to dictate how elections are run and bans the mailing of unsolicited absentee ballot applications, among other things.

    States like Tennessee, Connecticut, New York, Arizona, New Jersey, and more are all considering measures to prohibit election officials from sending unsolicited applications for mail-in ballots, unsolicited ballots or both.

    The Texas House recently passed a bill through committee that makes it a felony for election officials to send unsolicited applications to vote by mail or even encourage people to file an application to vote by mail. A separate bill that passed the State Senate would also bar local election officials from encouraging people to vote by mail and would implement fines on election officials who fail to remove a voter from the voter rolls within a month.

    Something of particular concern in Texas is that the legislature has also kept major election bills under wraps by not posting them online for a reasonable amount of time for public review. Houston Chronicle’s Jeremy Wallace wrote on Twitter that Texas state legislators are making a habit of heavily amending election bills and passing them without posting the final bills for the public to view.

    This makes it harder for Wallace to report on what’s in the bills, he explained. “But the real problem is everyday Texans have no way to read what is being voted out of committees and voted off the floor when this happens,” Wallace wrote. “This is not normal. In other State Legislatures I’ve covered over the years, there can be a printing delay. But I’ve never had to wait 5 days to see what a committee passed out.”

    These bills are all part of a wave of bills targeting elections that have been filed across the country. The Brennan Center reported at the beginning of this month that 361 bills have been filed just since the beginning of this year. Many of the bills are Republican led and are targeted at restricting voting for Black voters and other nonwhite communities.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp speaks at a news conference about the state's new Election Integrity Law at AJ’s Famous Seafood and Poboys on April 10, 2021, in Marietta, Georgia.

    On March 25, the Georgia state legislature passed a now-infamous Republican-backed bill that introduced a series of stringent voter restrictions under the auspices of “election integrity.” The bill (SB 202), which Democrats across the board have described as a grievous violation of voting rights, limits the number of drop boxes, reduces the time allowed to request a ballot, bars election officials from sending out mass absentee ballot applications, and criminalizes the practice of handing out food or water to voters waiting in line, as PolitiFact reported this week.

    Democrats raged against both the state’s legislature, as well as against Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican apparently trying to rebuild his reputation in his own party after resisting former President Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election results while the bill was in transit. But just as much ire was directed at corporate America, which appeared to stand on the sidelines as Peach State lawmakers propelled the bill forward. Among those most criticized were big Georgia-based companies like Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines, AT&T and Home Depot.

    Facing enormous pressure to take a stand against the bill, two of these institutions (Coke and Delta) have recently spoken out against SB 202, while another of them spoke about the importance of voting rights more broadly. Reports show that over the past several years, however, every single one of those spoke very differently with their political donations.

    According to CNBC’s Brian Schwartz, since 2018 Coca-Cola has contributed more than $25,000 to Kemp, as well as to the bill’s state Senate backers. Salon found in company filings, for instance, that thousands of dollars in 2020 were donated via Coke’s Georgia PAC to state Sens. Michael Dugan, Frank Ginn, Chuck Hufstetler, John Kennedy, Jeff Mullis and Blake Tillery, along with state Rep. Barry Fleming, all of whom sponsored the widely-criticized bill to clamp down on voting access.

    Coke also made a corporate donation of $172,000 to the Georgia Political Action Fund. According to Georgia state campaign reports, the “The Coca-Cola Company Georgia Political Action [sic] Fund” — almost certainly the same entity — gave $4,000 last year to Kemp’s 2024 primary campaign. It also gave thousands to the aforementioned Hufstetler and Mullis, along with Sens. Dean Burke and Butch Miller.

    Asked to comment on its relationships with these lawmakers, a Coca-Cola representative directed Salon to CEO James Quincey’s official statement on the bill, which states that “throughout Georgia’s legislative session, [Coke] provided feedback to members of both legislative chambers and political parties, opposing measures in the bills that would diminish or deter access to voting.” So while the company claims it worked behind the legislative scenes to remove the most objectionable provisions of SB 202, Coke concurrently bankrolled sponsors who were probably responsible for those very provisions.

    Asked whether the bill’s passage will inform the company’s future political giving, a Coca-Cola spokesperson emphasized that it had “suspended all political contributions in January after the incident at the U.S. Capitol.”

    That “pause” is still in place, the spokesperson added, declining to provide a timeline for the potential resumption of political donations.

    Delta Airlines, another Georgia-based company that has spoken out against the bill, has a similarly deep history of backing the bill’s most ardent supporters. According to CNBC, Delta has given more than $25,000 to Kemp and the bill’s sponsors. Slate estimated that this number may in fact be north of $41,600.

    According to Georgia state filings reviewed by Salon, in 2020, Delta gave thousands to Dugan, Miller and Mullis through its corporate PAC. It also donated $15,000 to the Georgia House Republican Trust, a fund run by the Georgia House Republican Caucus, which has routinely counterattacked Democratic criticism of SB 202. As one of its Facebook posts claimed on Tuesday: “The attack on Georgia’s SB 202 Election Law and the Senate Filibuster are just ways for the Liberals to use the rhetoric of ‘racist’ and ‘Jim Crow’ to justify the federal election takeover of HR 1 to pass through Congress.” Delta also gave $15,000 to the Georgia Republican Senatorial Committee, which, according to its annual registration from 2015, is run by state Sens. Steve Gooch and John Wilkinson, both of whom voted yes on the voting-restriction bill.

    Salon was referred by a Delta spokesperson to CEO Ed Bastian’s March 31 statement expressing his dissatisfaction with the final legislative product. “Delta joined other major Atlanta corporations to work closely with elected officials from both parties, to try and remove some of the most egregious measures from the bill,” he said. “We had some success in eliminating the most suppressive tactics that some had proposed. However, I need to make it crystal clear that the final bill is unacceptable and does not match Delta’s values.”

    But according to a tip from a purported Delta insider to MeidasTouch’s Ben Meiselas, the airline previously praised SB 202 and released an internal statement on March 26 saying that Delta’s “voice was well represented and well heard.” A quote from Bastian in the memo explained that the legislation had “considerably improved” because of Delta’s intervention. Kemp said later that Bastian’s follow-up statement on March 31 stood “in stark contrast to our conversations with the company.” He said, “At no point did Delta share any opposition to expanding early voting, strengthening voter ID measures, increasing the use of secure drop boxes statewide, and making it easier for local election officials to administer elections — which is exactly what this bill does.”

    Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability, told Salon that companies like Coca-Cola and Delta are reckoning with a “new world” of public scrutiny when it comes to political spending. “The murder of George Floyd; the insurrectionary attack on the Capitol; the refusal of 147 senators and House members to accept the outcome of the presidential election: All of these things have made political spending a major hot button issue that people react to viscerally,” he said. Major companies like these with powerful competitors, he noted, are growing increasingly wary over their political spending, since it has the potential to sway loyal customers.

    AT&T, another Georgia-based company in fierce competition for cell-phone users with Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint, also issued a statement following SB 202’s passage, this one released April 1 and attributed to CEO John Stankey:

    We believe the right to vote is sacred and we support voting laws that make it easier for more Americans to vote in free, fair and secure elections. We understand that election laws are complicated, not our company’s expertise and ultimately the responsibility of elected officials. But, as a company, we have a responsibility to engage. For this reason, we are working together with other businesses through groups like the Business Roundtable to support efforts to enhance every person’s ability to vote. In this way, the right knowledge and expertise can be applied to make a difference on this fundamental and critical issue.

    It’s fair to say that statement does not make clear where AT&T actually stands on SB 202. Although the company noted that elections should be “free, fair, and secure,” those qualities were never clearly defined relative to Georgia’s election laws, either now or previously.

    As with Coca-Cola and Delta, AT&T’s press statement may be meant to distract public attention from less overt ways the company has spoken with its wallet. According to a report recently published by progressive think tank Public Citizen, from 2015 to 2020 AT&T poured $259,950 into 26 voter suppression bills proposed by the Georgia state legislature, including SB 202. The company has donated generously to SB 202 sponsors Mullis ($15,900) and Miller ($13,600) as well as various legislators who supported the bill’s ratification, such as Sens. Stephen Gooch ($10,900) and William Cowsert ($14,200) and Rep. Jan Jones ($14,200). A CNBC report found that the company has also donated to Kemp’s campaign.

    More recently, AT&T’s disclosures show that through its Georgia PAC and direct donations, the company gave thousands in 2020 to at least three SB 202 sponsors, as well as giving $15,000 to the Georgia Republican Party, $30,000 to the Georgia House Republican Trust and $18,500 to Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan ($18,500), who is said to have “paved the way for SB 202,” according to Fair Fight Action, a nonprofit voting rights advocacy group founded by Stacey Abrams.

    AT&T did not respond to Salon’s request for comment.

    Home Depot, another Georgia-based company, has spent tens of thousands of dollars to support Kemp, along with many of the aforementioned lawmakers. A spokesperson for the company told Salon that it “believe[s] that all elections should be accessible, fair and secure and support broad voter participation. We’ll continue to work to ensure our associates, both in Georgia and across the country, have the information and resources to vote.”

    Home Depot declined to acknowledge its relationship with any Georgia GOP lawmakers who supported the bill, however, and declined to comment on whether the passage of SB 202 will affect the company’s future political spending, instead saying that its donations do not reflect a partisan bias. “Our associate-funded PAC supports candidates on both sides of the aisle who champion pro-business, pro-retail positions that create jobs and economic growth,” a company spokesperson claimed. “As always, it will evaluate future donations against a number of factors.”

    Other firms that donated to supporters and sponsors of the bill include UnitedHealth Group, Southern Gas Company, Comcast, Walmart, General Motors and Pfizer.

    Daniel Weiner, deputy director of the Brennan Center for Justice told Salon that corporations must be held responsible for every political donation they make, even when they give to both parties. “Making a political contribution is a public political act,” said Weiner. “When you do that, you’re saying broadly that you want the recipient in office. You can’t really then turn around when they do something you don’t like, and say, ‘We have no responsibility for that whatsoever.’”

    There is no evidence that any of the corporations discussed here directly advocated for SB 202’s passage. But “if [companies] want to spend money on politics,” Weiner explained, “they have to accept that they’re going to be judged on the outcomes they make possible — not their intent.”

    Various reports have suggested recently that the heightened scrutiny directed to corporate donations may lead more firms to dark money channels, which can render anonymous effectively unlimited amounts of money spent on politics. While most dark money spending is dedicated to federal candidates and campaigns, there is nothing stopping corporations from employing it at the state level.

    In late March, for instance, it was reported that an Atlanta-based dark money group called Proclivity paid $550,000 to committees that bolstered the campaigns of several sham candidates in three Florida Senate races. As Politico reported, these candidates appeared to be on the ballot entirely to siphon off votes from Democrats.

    In West Virginia, dark money groups contributed millions of dollars to the state’s Supreme Court of Appeals races in 2020. A report by Sludge found that a sizable chunk of these contributions originally stemmed from corporate donations by companies like Marathon Petroleum and Koch Industries looking to prop up Republican candidates.

    Dark money also abounds in Oklahoma. According to KGOU, between Aug. 25 and Nov. 3 of 2020, about $961,400 was spent by dark money groups on 101 seats in the Oklahoma House of Representatives and 24 seats in the state Senate. Much of this money was spent by Oklahoma MAGA, a dark money group that pumped $292,950 into pro-GOP and anti-Democratic campaigns in two Tulsa-area races. Dark money groups like the Advance Oklahoma PAC, Advance Oklahoma Fund, Americans United For Values and A Public Voice also spent thousands of dollars in the Sooner State.

    The influence of dark money on state races is not purely anecdotal; the data supports it as well. According to a 2016 report by the Brennan Center analyzing Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Maine, and Massachusetts, “On average, only 29 percent of outside spending was fully transparent in 2014 in the states we examined, sharply down from 76 percent in 2006.”

    While dark money in state races abounds, the traditional PAC model of political spending still reigns supreme in the world of corporate campaign finance and this this was especially true in the case of the Georgia legislature.

    Corporate America’s role in shaping Georgia’s legislature goes far beyond the relatively visible question of direct donations to candidates. For instance, according to a report given to Salon by the CPA, in 2020 46 major corporations donated nearly $17 million to the Republican State Leadership Committee, which works to elect GOP candidates to state offices throughout the nation. The RSLC directed $144,700 of that funding — through its PAC and the Georgia House Republican Trust — to 47 GOP Georgia state legislators elected in 2020. One of them sponsored SB 202, and effectively all of them voted for it.

    The CPA also detailed that many large corporations donated in support of voting-restriction bills that preceded SB 202 and likely paved the way for its passage. For instance, $26,050 worth of corporate donations were raised in 2020 for state Sen. Larry Walker, who introduced SB 67, which would have made it harder for voters to access absentee ballots, according the Brennan Center. Another $17,800 of corporate cash was raised for state Rep. Barry Fleming, who introduced HB 270, a bill molded in the same spirit.

    Exactly how much the national furor surrounding the passage of SB 202 will prompt corporate America to distance itself from the Republican Party in Georgia and elsewhere remains to be seen. This week, 100 corporate executives reportedly convened to discuss halting donations to lawmakers who support any anti-voting measures. Many GOP lawmakers, however, have rebuked corporations for taking sides on the issue. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., urged them to “stay out of politics.” Whether “politics” includes campaign donations to lawmakers like McConnell — who has long relied on corporate support — has the potential to radically change the future of campaign finance.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • An advocacy group for Native Americans is putting up billboards in various states to oppose measures that it says would increase voting restrictions.

    The campaign launched by the Global Indigenous Council comes as more state legislatures are considering voting laws like the one in Georgia that sparked corporate backlash.

    Tom Rodgers, president of the Global Indigenous Council and an enrolled Blackfeet tribal member, said the goal of the campaign is to draw attention to bills that would limit the number of available polling stations and ballot drop-off spots, calling the measures especially harmful to Native Americans who may not have access to the remaining voting locations.

    The post Indigenous Group Launches Campaign Against New Voting Bills appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Dontaye Carter and daughter Kyleigh Carter look around the capitol building as demonstrators hold a sit-in inside of the capitol building in opposition of House Bill 531 on March 8, 2021, in Atlanta, Georgia.

    Georgia’s new voting law, signed by Gov. Brian Kemp on March 25, is part of a nationwide voter suppression effort involving hundreds of bills. No serious analyst buys the Republican claim that voter fraud is widespread: it’s virtually nonexistent. The real rationale for these bills is occasionally admitted, as when North Carolina Republicans said they outlawed Sunday voting because Sunday voters were “disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.”

    Evidence is not enough to stop malevolent policies, though. If Republicans can suppress votes based on false claims, they will. Only occasionally do the courts step in, especially now that the federal bench is packed with Trump judges. What, then, can stop the assault on voting rights?

    Activists in Georgia suggest an answer. In response to the new law, anti-racist organizations have been pushing corporations to demand repeal and to “put their full weight behind” voting rights legislation at the federal level. Some Black clergy leaders called for a boycott of Coca-Cola, Delta and other Georgia-based corporations that had not publicly opposed the law. Within two days of that call, many companies broke their silence and condemned it.

    Many organizers are demanding they do more. The Black Voters Matter coalition began lobbying sports and professional associations to relocate events scheduled in Georgia. Activists within those associations also mobilized. The Major League Baseball (MLB) Players Alliance (composed of Black players and retirees) and the MLB Players Association pressured the league to reconsider its decision to hold the 2021 All-Star Game in Atlanta. MLB Commissioner Robert Manfred knew that some All-Star players and coaches might “stay away to protest the voting law” — not an abstract prospect given last year’s athlete strikes against racism.

    The pressure campaign began to bear fruit on April 2 when Manfred announced he would relocate the game to another state. Governor Kemp fumed that Manfred had “caved” to “cancel culture” and “lies from liberal activists,” and vowed that corporate opposition would not deter his commitment to voter suppression. “For anybody that’s out there thinking that any kind of snowball effect is going to have an effect on me, it will not.”

    Kemp is correct that we could see a “snowball effect”: the MLB decision could inspire more anti-racist activists to demand a boycott of Georgia, and could in turn lead more companies and professional associations to steer clear of the state. Faced with this cascade, Kemp may prove more vulnerable to pressure than his bravado suggests.

    The success of other state-level boycotts reveals a promising pathway for reversing the Georgia law and blocking similar laws in other states. Recent boycotts have helped restrain the flood of racist and anti-LGBT legislation. These boycotts have succeeded by imposing direct costs on corporations, which have then intervened to demand that state politicians accede to movement demands. Even unreconstructed reactionaries like Brian Kemp are not immune to those pressures.

    Making Business Pay the Price for Racism

    Boycotts have historically been a vital weapon against white supremacy. They were central to the civil rights campaigns across the U.S. South in the 1950s and 1960s. In Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, the movement succeeded because it inflicted millions of dollars in losses on downtown retailers, who then urged the police and city government to agree to desegregation. Less known is Black organizers’ proposal for a total boycott of Alabama in 1965 over the state’s refusal to crack down on white terrorism. Martin Luther King Jr. argued that “a campaign of economic withdrawal” would be “the most immediate and effective means of calling responsible people to the fore.”

    King’s logic was based on a commonsense reading of power: most politicians take their marching orders from capitalists. In his words, “the political power structure listens to the economic power structure.” This same understanding guided many of the movement’s organizers. The Birmingham chapter of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee argued in 1963 that if capitalists “chose to act to change things in Birmingham, things would change.” The same understanding is apparent in an April 2 statement by Cliff Albright of Black Voters Matter, who says that if corporations in Georgia had “wanted to squash this legislation, it would have been squashed.”

    We need not go back to the 1960s to find effective boycotts against racism. The defeat of Arizona’s anti-immigrant legislation provides a more recent model.

    In 2010 the state legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 1070, an omnibus anti-immigrant bill whose most infamous provision legalized racial profiling by police, in fact requiring them to demand papers from all suspected immigrants. Emboldened racists introduced similar bills in 31 states. Lawsuits against SB1070 and copycat bills were able to block some provisions, but SB1070 itself survived. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court even upheld the law’s requirement that police racially profile.

    Yet by 2016, the law had effectively been gutted. That year, Arizona announced it would no longer require police to racially profile, “a move that pulls the last set of teeth from what was once the nation’s most fearsome immigration law,” as one reporter noted. In the meantime, the same Arizona state legislature that had passed SB1070 by a wide margin rejected multiple new bills that would have further criminalized immigrants.

    What changed? Lawyers and lawsuits played a role, tying up SB1070 and other bills in court. More important than deft legal arguments, however, was the boycott of Arizona.

    After SB1070 was signed in April 2010, the National Council of La Raza called for a boycott of the state. Dozens of cities, counties and educational institutions outside Arizona joined the boycott. Revenue from tourism and convention hosting declined, Arizona businesses lost contracts with outside municipalities and many Mexican companies stopped doing business with Arizona companies.

    In March 2011, dozens of corporate leaders in Arizona publicly demanded an end to anti-immigrant laws. They were not moved by moral indignation. They wrote that the boycott had been so “harmful to our image” that “Arizona-based businesses saw contracts cancelled or were turned away from bidding,” and “[s]ales outside of the state declined.” A week after their letter, the Republican-dominated legislature voted down five new anti-immigrant bills.

    The direct economic impact of the boycott was relatively small — millions of dollars, not billions. But the prospect of continued losses in sales, and of the emigration of undocumented workers to neighboring states, scared businesses enough to change their posture. “Any time I turn on a national news program and hear the words ‘In Arizona today,’ it strikes fear in all of us,” said the director of a Scottsdale resort in 2011. The Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, which had remained “neutral” on SB1070 at the time of passage, became a strong opponent of future bills that could ostracize Arizona. In 2020, the Republican governor of Arizona abandoned his legislative attack on sanctuary cities after the Chamber and other business interests “acted rapidly” to express their displeasure, according to the Chamber’s president.

    Outside observers drew important lessons from this battle. For capitalists in other states, it was a warning. “Arizona’s experience served as a cautionary tale for other states that were considering similar measures,” noted the Phoenix newspaper The Arizona Republic in 2020. Activists learned a slightly different lesson: by inflicting costs on business, they could reverse oppressive policies. Even when businesses are not the driving force behind those policies, their economic power gives them the political leverage to block (or at least greatly hinder) the schemes of reactionary politicians.

    Making Anti-LGBT Laws Untenable

    The Republican assault on LGBT rights has also been countered, and partly beaten back, by state-level boycotts. In Arkansas, the recent legislative attacks on transgender rights have led many activists to discuss the boycott option. A possible boycott of cycling championships held in the state could have a significant economic impact and could be imitated in other industries.

    However the Arkansas battle plays out, the defeat of anti-LGBT laws in other states offers a model for activists. In 2016, North Carolina became notorious for passing a law, House Bill (HB) 2, that stripped protections for LGBT workers and forced transgender people to use public bathrooms corresponding to the sex listed on their birth certificates. Over 120 corporate executives signed a public letter to Gov. Pat McCrory protesting the law. Major corporations and banks also withdrew investments from the state or vowed to avoid doing business there in the future. College and professional basketball associations joined the boycott.

    Like Governor Kemp in Georgia, Republican politicians in North Carolina initially insisted that the boycott wasn’t having much impact. They vowed to defend the law and continued their anti-LGBT rhetoric. Yet the economic costs mounted, prompting worried business leaders to lean harder on the politicians. When a major real estate firm pulled out of a new investment in Charlotte later that year, an official from the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce privately warned that, “I fear this will be an epidemic outcome for many projects we are still in the running for at this time.” In March 2017, an Associated Press analysis conservatively estimated that the boycott would cost North Carolina $3.76 billion.

    Three days after the AP report, the politicians caved. The state legislature approved, and Governor McCrory signed, a replacement bill that rescinded the anti-trans provisions of HB2 (though they also slipped in a poison pill, prohibiting local anti-discrimination laws for the next three years).

    The lesson of North Carolina was clear to many business executives in other states. In 2016 the Republican governor of Georgia (Kemp’s predecessor), “under pressure from business interests,” vetoed a bill that would have allowed private entities to deny services to LGBT customers. In 2019, the business press reported that corporate leaders “have held off a slew of anti-LGBT bills” across the United States due to fear of similar boycotts.

    As in Arizona, corporations’ protests were based not on morality but on their bottom lines. Capitalists feared that ties to the pariah states would cost them individual customers as well as the businesses, professional associations, and state and local governments with whom they had contracts. Large companies also worried about disruption of their labor force. When PayPal canceled a $3.6 million investment in Charlotte, it said that “becoming an employer in North Carolina, where members of our teams will not have equal rights under the law, is simply untenable.” The company feared it would be unable to attract top talent to its North Carolina facility, including LGBT recruits and their supporters.

    It was the growing pressure from customers, and the fear of desertion by workers, that led businesses to protest against oppressive state legislation. When the status quo became “untenable” for companies like PayPal, they used their economic leverage to demand change from the politicians.

    The Companies (and We) Hold the Cards

    These anecdotes show that even hard-right Republicans can be brought to heel by economic disruption. One leading business analyst predicts that if corporate opposition intensifies, “Georgia is likely to back down” and repeal its voter suppression law. Though Governor Kemp insists he’s impervious to pressure, he may be no match for concerted business power. “The truth is, the companies hold the cards,” says the analyst, citing the fate of North Carolina’s anti-trans law.

    We hold some cards too. The ultimate reason for corporate protests against the Georgia law is the fear of losing customers and workers. That gives all of us power to influence the outcome. If the movement can make the situation “untenable” for business, business will make it untenable for Kemp and his ilk. We don’t necessarily need to inflict billions in direct losses: a credible threat of disruption to their profits is often enough to activate capitalists. This lesson may prove useful for confronting the current surge of voter suppression bills, anti-trans legislation and other right-wing initiatives across the United States.

    Successful boycotts aren’t easy. They require broad public awareness and indignation, good organizing and alternative options for customers. Organizers must convince people that some short-term “sacrifice” is preferable to the suffering they’re “already experiencing,” as Cliff Albright says about the current battle in Georgia. Organizers must also overcome the resistance of colleagues who oppose confrontation for fear of alienating “moderate” constituencies, as MLK understood when he proposed his boycott of Alabama in 1965. All these ingredients were present in Arizona, North Carolina, the victorious boycotts of the Civil Rights era, and perhaps in Georgia today.

    The factors that make boycotts successful are also their weakness. Some targets are more vulnerable to boycotts than others. For problems that are out of sight to most of the public, it can be difficult to rally support. And the fact that capitalists “hold the cards” in our economy and government is antithetical to democracy. But given the built-in depravities of our capitalist system, we must leverage corporate power whenever we can. The boycott is among our most effective weapons against injustice.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp speaks during a run-off election night party at Grand Hyatt Hotel in Buckhead on January 5, 2021, in Atlanta, Georgia.

    After Major League Baseball (MLB) announced it would be moving its All-Star Game away from Georgia because of the state’s recently passed voter suppression law, Republicans began downplaying the law that many critics have called a rehash of “Jim Crow.”

    When MLB announced that the game would now be in Denver, Colorado, Republicans scrambled to compare the two locations, arguing that Colorado’s voting laws are just as bad as Georgia’s. Republicans like Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp said on Fox that MLB’s decision is “so hypocritical” because Colorado has fewer early voting days and also has voter ID requirements. That argument has also been echoed by many other Republicans like National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson Matt Whitlock.

    As many have pointed out, however, these comparisons are superficial at best. Colorado has fewer early voting days because the state mails ballots to every registered voter before an election, which voters can then mail back or drop off at a drop box.

    While Colorado does have voter ID requirements — which are historically discriminatory — for those who vote in person, it accepts 10 more forms of identification than Georgia’s six; additionally, voters without an ID can vote via a provisional ballot or simply vote by mail if they’ve voted before. Colorado’s elections are so open that the state consistently has some of the highest voter turnout, including in 2020, when the state ranked second.

    Pointing out Colorado’s ID laws is also a sidestep from what critics were truly concerned about regarding Georgia’s voter ID law: unnecessarily strict ID requirements for absentee ballots on top of already strict photo ID requirements in the state for in-person voting.

    With these comparisons between the two states, Republicans are also attempting to flatten the Georgia bill to imply that any sort of voter ID requirements — which are to be found in most states — are just as bad as the requirements Georgia just imposed. But many of the provisions in Georgia’s law are being characterized as unprecedented and provisions handing Republicans control over elections are seriously alarming.

    The bill itself limits access to voting in at least 16 different ways and, most alarming, gives Republican lawmakers in the state extremely deep and wide control over how elections are run and who is allowed to vote.

    In claiming that, for instance, the bill expands access, Republicans like Kemp are trying to pull the wool over the public’s eyes. They appear to be attempting to hide the fact that the bill and hundreds of others across the country seek to limit voting access.

    And while Republicans attempt to obscure the truth about the voting bills, Donald Trump, who is still in some ways the de facto leader of the party, said on Tuesday that the voter suppression bill doesn’t go far enough.

    Trump’s influence still does, indeed, underlie the whole operation. Political observers have noted that the very fact that the racist vote-suppressing lines in the bill are debated is a concession to Trump’s lies about election fraud. “The conversation is something like the mid-2000s debate over whether torture works,” wrote University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket on Twitter. “It basically doesn’t, but to even have that debate is to have surrendered something.”

    To some extent, the bill has achieved part of what Trump and the Republicans have set out to do, which is not just to control elections and skew their results more toward Republicans, but also to control the narrative on elections themselves. For instance, those in the center and on the left are debating how elections in Georgia will be affected by a law that makes handing out food and water to people waiting in line to vote illegal.

    Meanwhile, the right gets to perpetuate the myth that they are the party concerned about election fraud, which is close to nonexistent, while getting everyone to implicitly acknowledge the big lie about a stolen election that compelled thousands of people to join an attack on the Capitol building in January.

    Kemp had stood up to Trump during the 2020 election, refusing to bow to Trump’s attempts to get the results of the election overturned. But after months of relentless attacks from the right after Georgia voted for Joe Biden, Kemp is now defending his party’s law to suppress voting. Still, Trump singled out Kemp in his statement on Tuesday claiming that the law didn’t go far enough in suppressing the vote.

    The larger right-wing strategy that underlies even Trump’s lies about election fraud, however, is their long-running attempt to rig elections in their own favor. Trump was just incendiary enough to give them the freedom to say it out loud.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Slavery is our nation’s original sin; the treatment of people of color a blot on the history of a country “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Those who might have thought that … Continue reading

    The post Our Racist Past appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

    This post was originally published on BillMoyers.com.

  • Delta CEO Ed Bastian speaks during a news conference at Logan International Airport on September 23, 2019, in Boston, Massachusetts.

    This week, both Coca-Cola and Delta Air Lines released statements condemning the recently passed Georgia law that makes it harder to vote and potentially suppresses votes that are cast. The strongly worded statements released by the companies gained them headline after headline about their supposed opposition to the bill.

    But the opposition comes too late: Though the bills were discussed, reworked and condemned by voting rights activists for months, the Georgia-based companies only came out with statements opposing them after the omnibus bill was signed into law. What’s more, both companies also had a hand in helping the bills get passed.

    While Coca-Cola was running ads last year through Sprite to encourage people, especially Black people, to vote, they were also covertly donating to the Republicans responsible for the recent Georgia bill, reports Popular Information. Since 2018, the company has donated $34,750 to the sponsors of the two large voter suppression bills in the state, provisions of which are now law, and told Popular Information that it believed the bills took a “balanced approach.”

    Over the past week, Coca-Cola has faced boycott threats over its failure to stand against the laws. Faced with boycott threats and the backlash from the community, the company quickly changed course.

    “This legislation is unacceptable. It is a step backwards, and it does not promote principles we have stood for in Georgia around broad access to voting,” said Coca-Cola CEO James Quincey on CNBC on Wednesday. “We always opposed this legislation.” That claim, of course, is demonstrably untrue.

    Delta has done an even more drastic about face on the legislation over the past weeks. The company released a statement the day after the legislation was signed praising the bill and even claiming credit for helping to shape the bill into its final form.

    “Delta engaged extensively with state elected officials in both parties to express our strong view that Georgia must have a fair and secure election process, with broad voter participation and equal access to the polls. The legislation signed this week improved considerably during the legislative process,” the company’s CEO, Ed Bastian, wrote. Since 2018, Delta has donated at least $41,600 to the lawmakers who sponsored the voter suppression bills in the legislature, Popular Information reports.

    After that statement elicited backlash and a call for a boycott of the airline, Bastian issued a new statement on Wednesday touting the company’s commitment to civil rights and implying that he needed time to understand the full extent of the bill. “I need to make it crystal clear that the final bill is unacceptable and does not match Delta’s values,” Bastian wrote.

    These statements will do nothing to change the law or the fact that the companies had had a hand in helping them get passed. The statements will, however, likely ease the minds of some of the people calling for or participating in the boycott — which is almost certainly what the companies are hoping for.

    Popular Information found last month that corporations like Walmart, T-Mobile, UPS, AT&T and many others have in all donated $7.4 million to the legislators who sponsored the voter suppression bills in Georgia’s House and Senate since 2018. Some of these companies, like Lyft, pledged to no longer support federal members of Congress who voted to overturn the results of the presidential election, but several companies have already reneged on that promise.

    Voting rights activists say that if these companies had come out against the legislation before it was passed, they could have stopped it in its tracks. “Conversations with Black and Brown leaders must happen at all stages and all areas of decision-making, not after the damage is done,” Nse Ufot, CEO of the New Georgia Project, said in a statement.

    A group of 72 Black executives released a letter on Wednesday calling on fellow corporate leaders to fight the legislation. “There is no middle ground here,” Kenneth Chenault, former CEO of American Express who led the letter effort, told The New York Times. “You either are for more people voting, or you want to suppress the vote.”

    Groups like Major League Baseball (MLB) have threatened boycotts of the state in general, saying that they might pull major events like the 2021 All-Star Game from the state. The MLB recently got President Joe Biden’s support to do so.

    But voting rights activist and former Georgia State Rep. Stacey Abrams has said that the companies shouldn’t leave — they should “stay and fight,” she wrote in an op-ed for USA Today. “Georgia corporations should leave behind tepid statements of self-congratulations for turning horrific intent into terrible reality,” Abrams wrote. “Corporations eager to prove their good faith can do so by putting their resources to good use.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Demonstrators protest outside of the state capitol building in opposition of House Bill 531 on March 8, 2021, in Atlanta, Georgia.

    When we first reported that handing a slice of pizza to a voter waiting three hours in a line is now a felony in Georgia, other media quickly picked up the story, highlighting the cruelty of Georgia Republicans making predominantly Black voters suffer from hunger and thirst in lines the GOP deliberately made long by closing polling stations in majority-Black precincts.

    But the food-in-line prohibition is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to horrific provisions hidden in the 95 pages of Georgia’s new anti-voting law.

    Donald Trump infamously demanded the Georgia secretary of state “find 11,780” votes. The MAGA crowd in the Georgia legislature found 364,541 votes to cancel, that is, voters whose ballots would be blocked from the count in the next election.

    To understand how this mass attack on citizens will work, we have to go back to December 21, 2020, just before the Georgia Senate runoffs, when True the Vote, a Texas group founded by Tea Party crusader Catherine Engelbrecht, challenged the right of 364,541 Georgians to cast ballots. You read that number right: More than a third of a million voters almost lost their vote.

    Almost. County elections boards, facing threats by the ACLU and Stacey Abrams’s Fair Fight, rejected the challenges, noting that the numbers were too huge to be credible. One voter can challenge another if they have personal knowledge that the other voter is a fraud. The local shills used by the Texas group knew nothing of those they challenged.

    However, the new Georgia law specifically authorizes unlimited challenges. And Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State has gleefully invited True the Vote to attack voter rolls. (For more on Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, whom voting rights lawyer Gerald Griggs calls the “Vote Suppressor in Chief,” see my report for Democracy Now!)

    But won’t those same county boards kick out any new absurd challenges? The MAGA mob in the legislature has got that covered. Under the new law, the State Board of Elections can remove a county board if it doesn’t, in the state’s opinion, rule properly on these challenges.

    And who will make up the state board? The new law hands over the board to the GOP leaders of the legislature plus a representative of Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who is infamous for his own manipulations of the voter rolls which gave him the gubernatorial race against Stacey Abrams.

    The True the Vote challenges, officially backed by the Republican Party, centered on Atlanta counties with mostly voters of color. Voting rights attorney Barbara Arnwine, founder of Transformative Justice Coalition and co-plaintiff with Black Voters Matter, warns that the new state board will have the authority to remove the local board and override local decisions.

    Follow the Money

    Where the heck did True the Vote’s Engelbrecht get the dollars to mount this multi-county attack on Georgians?

    In 2016, our investigator Zach D. Roberts confronted Engelbrecht about her funding by the Koch Brothers, which she didn’t deny. ProPublica also traced True the Vote’s lucre to the Bradley Foundation, which our team exposed as the funders of attempts to wrongly purge Black voters in Milwaukee.

    Don’t discount True the Vote. The lawyer who is leading their attack in Georgia is James Bopp Jr., who argued for Citizens United in the Supreme Court case that opened the door to corporate money poisoning our elections.

    Follow the List

    That’s the money. But True the Vote’s list of challenge-worthy votes supposedly came from the U.S. Post Office’s National Change of Address registry.

    Sounds official. Sounds legit. It isn’t. In 2017 and 2018, Brian Kemp, then both Secretary of State and candidate for governor, used a similar list to remove hundreds of thousands of voters on the grounds they had moved out of Georgia.

    The Palast Investigative Fund, working for Salon, hired the nation’s top experts in the use of postal files and found that Kemp’s list was as phony as a three-dollar bill. Kemp also claimed he relied on the Post Office, but the experts found Kemp had wrongly barred 340,355 from the polls.

    We located one of the voters who was wrongly accused of illegally registering from a former address: 92-year-old Christine Jordan, a cousin of the late Dr. Martin Luther King. I was with her when she was bounced from the polls.

    Stacey Abrams cited our story in declaring she’d been cheated out of victory. And cheated she was.

    In 2020, the ACLU released a new report by the Palast Investigative Fund in which we identified, by name and address, another 198,351 Georgians who were wrongly removed. Black Voters Matter sued in federal court to reverse the removals.

    Crucially, Black Voters Matter — working with the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, which seeks to empower Latino and Latina communities to register to vote — used postcards, billboards, phone calls and publicity to re-register the victims we identified.

    The result: Georgia’s voters, not the purge, chose the president and senators.

    That didn’t make Trump or his MAGA loyalists in the legislature happy.

    And the federal case (in which I testified for Black Voters Matter) has won a grudging agreement from the state that Georgia must follow the complex process in federal law meant to stop the removal of innocent voters.

    But now, innocent voters beware.

    Avoiding Federal Law — or Breaking It?

    True the Vote is crowing that Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger has virtually invited it to challenge more voters.

    While the press has made much of his war with Trump, Raffensperger is very much a partisan Republican hack — one of the most vicious suppression experts I’ve encountered in my long career.

    Now he has openly stated that he can use True the Vote’s challenge trickery to avoid the strictures of federal law. True the Vote’s press release quotes Raffensperger:

    “I’ve said since Election Day that I must follow the law in the execution of our elections, and I’ve also encouraged Georgians to report any suspected problems for my office to investigate,” said Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. “Though federal law restricts our ability to update our voter registration lists, the Elector Challenge is a vehicle under our law to ensure voter integrity.”

    In other words, while Raffensperger must follow federal law, he claims that True the Vote doesn’t have to, and he can merrily accept True the Vote’s challenges.

    Federal law prohibits states from removing voters within 90 days of a federal election. It requires that voters challenged for supposedly living out of state must be sent a postcard, months before an election, allowing the voter to halt their removal. And it requires the postal change-of-address information come from a post office licensed source, not “Joe’s Purges-R-Us.”

    But Raffensperger is saying that if True the Vote gives voters no notice, uses a bogus unlicensed list and demands that voters be removed without notice just days before the election, that’s a perfectly fine way to sidestep federal protection.

    And if a county elections board finds True the Vote’s methods biased, wrong and illegal, as they have so far, the new partisan state board can simply overrule the county.

    In other words, to hell with federal law. The state can’t commit the crime, but the state can simply adopt the illegal process used by this Koch-moneyed operation.

    True the Vote claims its purge operation doesn’t threaten rights because the counties will have to send each challenged voter a letter allowing them to show up to a hearing to defend their registration or ballot.

    True the Vote, a Texas group founded by Tea Party crusader Catherine Engelbrecht (pictured here), challenged the right of 364,541 Georgians to cast ballots.
    True the Vote, a Texas group founded by Tea Party crusader Catherine Engelbrecht, challenged the right of 364,541 Georgians to cast ballots.

    But, as Arnwine told me, almost no one will take a day off from work to show up to a courtroom-style hearing to prove they are who they are. And some challenges can occur after a voter has cast a mail-in ballot.

    Sen. Raphael Warnock is already campaigning to hold his seat in 2022. He is expected to be on the ballot with Stacey Abrams running for “reelection” as governor. Clearly, the GOP believes Georgia’s voters can’t be trusted to choose their senators and governor. Rather, Republicans are counting on Jim Crow to “true the vote.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • America has the highest incarceration rate of any nation, with almost 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. Statistically, nearly one in 100 Americans is doing time, and, according to the prison reform group, The Sentencing Project, “More than 60% of … Continue reading

    The post Prison, Inc. appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

    This post was originally published on BillMoyers.com.

  • Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp speaks to the media on December 15, 2020, in Savannah, Georgia.

    Some Georgia Republicans who promoted Fulton County’s mobile voting buses last year voted to restrict them after the party lost the state’s presidential and Senate races.

    The Election Integrity Act of 2021, Georgia’s sweeping election reform law, has widely been described as a “voter suppression” effort, largely prompted by baseless allegations of election fraud spread by former President Trump and his allies. President Joe Biden and other Democrats have compared the law to those of the Jim Crow era, and numerous voting rights groups have already sued to strike down key measures they argue will disproportionately impact voters of color. The law bans the use of Fulton County’s mobile voting buses and restricts the use of absentee ballot drop boxes, among many other measures that affect virtually every aspect of the state’s election laws.

    Some Republican legislators who voted in favor of the bill promoted the use of voting buses and drop boxes in 2020 — before abruptly deciding to oppose them after Donald Trump became the first Republican to lose Georgia since 1992 and the party lost both Senate seats for the first time in more than two decades amid record voter turnout. Many of them cited voter concerns about election integrity — a common GOP talking point as the party pushes hundreds of new voting restrictions across the country — even though those concerns are the result of the party’s own fear-mongering about unfounded voter fraud claims.

    “Last year Georgia Republicans promoted the very same early voting practices that they are now decrying as voter fraud,” Jessica Floyd, president of the Democratic American Bridge PAC, said in a statement to Salon. “Republicans had no concerns about mobile voting and ballot drop boxes when they were encouraging their own supporters to use them. But when Black voters use the exact same early voting practices, Republicans consider it fraud. Let’s be clear, Republicans are doing this because they know they can’t win if they don’t rig the game. Georgia voters will hold these hypocritical politicians accountable for their blatantly racist attempt to rig future elections.”

    Fulton County, a heavily Black Democratic stronghold targeted by Trump and his allies with spurious allegations of irregularities, bought the mobile voting buses last year in response to long lines at polling places, which are partly the result of the state closing hundreds of polling places since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013. But the new law bars the county from using them unless the governor declares an emergency.

    State Rep. Jan Jones, the speaker pro tem of the state House, joined fellow Republicans in stoking groundless concerns about absentee voting when she signed onto House Majority Leader Jon Burns’ letter raising doubts about the state’s signature verification process, even though Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s has said there was “no evidence presented of any issues” with the process. Jones urged voters to use the Fulton County mobile buses in October, before voting to ban them after her party lost the three major statewide elections.

    Fulton County’s mobile voter bus will be in Milton today. ALL Fulton County voters can go and vote early. The mobile voter bus will be at Hopewell Baptist Church until 6:00PM. Go Vote! #VoteEarly #gapol

    Posted by Jan Jones on Wednesday, October 14, 2020

    State Rep. Chuck Martin, another signatory, promoted the buses on two separate occasions in October, touting that they work just like “other early voting sites.”

    Fulton County Mobile Voter Bus is at Hopewell Baptist Church today from 8:00am – 6:00pm, today, October 14th! Working…

    Posted by Chuck Martin on Wednesday, October 14, 2020

    Aklima Khondoker, Georgia state director of the voting rights group All Voting Is Local, said the mobile voting ban “reeks of discrimination” against the “most ethnically diverse county in the state.”

    The law “bans buses for early voting,” she tweeted. “Only Fulton County used buses in 2020. This helped thousands of voters cast their ballots, when lines were too long, and county staff were strained for resources. Disallowing them would disenfranchise thousands of black and brown voters.”

    Other Republican lawmakers promoted absentee ballot drop boxes, which were installed for the first time amid the coronavirus pandemic, before voting to allow them in future elections while restricting their use. The law limits ballot drop boxes to one per every 100,000 active voters or one for every early voting site, whichever is smaller, and requires the boxes to be set up inside early voting sites accessible only during early voting days and hours instead of round-the-clock outside government property.

    State Rep. Bonnie Rich, who questioned the integrity of absentee ballots despite no evidence of fraud, promoted the drop boxes on Facebook before voting to restrict them.

    State Rep. Don Parsons, who signed onto Burns’ letter, promoted ballot drop boxes on Facebook and said he used one himself before voting to restrict them.

    “It works great, and we even received notification that the ballots were received and processed,” he wrote.

    Jo and I requested our absentee ballots thru the SOS web portal, received them, marked, them, and deposited them in a…

    Posted by Don Parsons on Saturday, December 19, 2020

    Parsons disputed that the law restricts the use of drop boxes but rather “provides for them to be used.”

    “I do believe the drop boxes worked great,” he said in an email to Salon. “However, the use of drop boxes were not provided for and were not allowed in Georgia law” until last week’s bill was signed, he added.

    “The use of drop boxes in 2020 was made possible by the Governor’s Emergency Declaration which provided leeway for the county elections offices to take measures, due to COVID, to encourage voters to use absentee voting in order to limit the number of voters in close proximity in the physical polling places,” Parsons wrote. “The Governor’s Emergency Declaration is no longer in effect. I am happy to report that with enactment of the [Election Integrity Act], the use of drop boxes are allowed by law, with rules and standardization for their use and deployment. The statute also provides for flexibility in the event of any future emergency events.”

    Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who signed the bill into law last week, used a ballot drop box that would be restricted under current rules in November.

    A lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Marc Elias on behalf of the New Georgia Project, Black Voters Matter and Rice Inc. on Thursday argued that the restrictions on drop boxes as well as the voter ID requirement, ban on mobile voting buses and other provisions violate the First and 14th amendments.

    “These provisions lack any justification for their burdensome and discriminatory effects on voting,” the lawsuit argues. “Instead, they represent a hodgepodge of unnecessary restrictions that target almost every aspect of the voting process but serve no legitimate purpose or compelling state interest other than to make absentee, early, and election-day voting more difficult — especially for minority voters.”

    Numerous other lawmakers who signed Burns’ letter stoking unfounded fears about the signature verification process voted in favor of the sweeping bill that Republicans justified by citing voter concerns, including state Reps. Sharon Cooper, Matt Dollar, Karen Mathiak, Chuck Efstration, Houston Gaines, Marcus Wiedower, Mike Cheokas, Gerald Greene, Ron Stephens and Darlene Taylor. Mathiak has even falsely claimed that the state found “illegal votes.”

    All those lawmakers voted to pass the bill despite repeated reviews of the signature verification process that prompted Trump and his allies to pressure Raffensperger to throw out legal votes. The Republican-led legislature introduced dozens of proposed restrictions in response to the specious concerns and ultimately adopted a revised version of its omnibus reform bill, while excluding even more controversial provisions that sought to ban no-excuse absentee voting entirely and restrict Sunday voting, which is disproportionately used by Black churchgoers.

    The law strips Raffensperger of some of his authority after he pushed back against the fictitious fraud claims, which were repeatedly discredited by multiple audits, recounts and law enforcement investigations. Many Republicans specifically raised concerns about Cobb County, another Atlanta-area Democratic stronghold. An audit of 10% of the ballots cast in the county found just two ballots with mistakes. The law removes Raffensperger as the chair of the State Election Board and replaces him with an appointee selected by the Republican-led legislature and gives the board the power to take over local election offices, in a move understood as targeting predominantly Black and Democratic Atlanta-area counties.

    The new law will require voters to include their state ID number or a copy of their ID to cast absentee ballots. The law restricts the amount of time voters have to request absentee ballots from 180 days to 11 weeks and bans state and local governments from sending absentee ballot applications to voters that did not request them. The law also requires voters to return their absentee ballots two weeks before Election Day instead of by the Friday before Election Day. Counties will also begin mailing absentee ballots three weeks later, beginning four weeks before the election.

    The law expands early in-person voting access in most rural counties while leaving metropolitan counties largely unaffected. But the law also shortens the interval for mandated runoff elections from nine weeks to four weeks after Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff both defeated Republican incumbents in January runoff elections for Georgia’s two U.S. Senate seats.

    The New Georgia Project lawsuit argues that Raffensperger praised the state’s existing laws allowing no-excuse absentee voting, at least three weeks of in-person voting, and automatic voter registration as the “gold standard” last year. “But now that that system facilitated record turnout in the 2020 general election and the 2021 U.S. Senate runoff elections, the General Assembly has acted to radically and unjustifiably punish the electorate, by dramatically curtailing it,” the lawsuit says.

    The complaint goes on to cite racial disparities in socioeconomic status, housing and employment, arguing that “the Voter Suppression Bill disproportionately impacts Black voters, and interacts with these vestiges of discrimination in Georgia to deny Black voters (an) equal opportunity to participate in the political process and/or elect a candidate of their choice.”

    A separate lawsuit filed by the Georgia NAACP, Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, League of Women Voters of Georgia, GALEO Latino Community Development Fund, Common Cause and the Lower Muskogee Creek Tribe similarly argues that the law is the “culmination of a concerted effort to suppress the participation of Black voters and other voters of color by the Republican State Senate, State House, and Governor.”

    “Unable to stem the tide of these demographic changes or change the voting patterns of voters of color, these officials have resorted to attempting to suppress the vote of Black voters and other voters of color in order to maintain the tenuous hold that the Republican Party has in Georgia,” the lawsuit says. “In other words, these officials are using racial discrimination as a means of achieving a partisan end. These efforts constitute intentional discrimination in violation of the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Bill Moyers is back with a new podcast that cuts through all the noise to get at the heart of what we need to be discussing as a country. “On Democracy” will take a look at all the threats our democracy is facing and talk to the people with the best ideas for saving it. Subscribe at iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts! Continue reading

    The post Bill Moyers On Democracy Podcast appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

    This post was originally published on BillMoyers.com.

  • March 26, 2021 Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed his state’s new voter suppression law last night in a carefully staged photo op. As journalist Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer pointed out, Kemp sat at a polished table, with six white … Continue reading

    The post The Southern System appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

    This post was originally published on BillMoyers.com.