Datasets:

happybusinessperson

/

leftarticles

like 0

The most significant long-term story in American politics these days is the realignment that is occurring in a few traditionally red states in the South like Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and possibly even Texas. One state at the heart of the Confederacy that isn’t feeling that transition is South Carolina. No one doubts that Donald Trump will win there in 2020, even if his margin is lower than his 14 point win against Clinton in 2016. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has a race on his hands for re-election in South Carolina. The most recent poll has him beating Democrat Jaime Harrison by only four points. Perhaps more significantly, prognosticators at both the Cook Political Report and Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball downgraded the race from “solid” Republican to “likely” Republican. That is a bit of a sea change from Graham’s 15-point victory in 2014. The Lindsey Must Go super PAC has captured what could make Graham vulnerable in the Trump era by almost exclusively using the senator’s own words. Anyone who watches politics closely has noticed the dramatic change in Graham over the last three years. He went from calling out Trump’s unfitness for office and palling around with “maverick” John McCain, to being one of the president’s chief enablers. There has been a lot of chatter about what caused that transformation, but we’ll probably never know what really happened. The important thing is to notice “the two faces of Lindsey Graham.” That represents a cause for concern among both Trump defenders and opponents, which is why this ad is so powerful. Over the last couple of weeks, Graham has been on a bit of a roller coaster when it comes to his relationship with the president. Initially, Trump pressed him to subpoena Barack Obama to testify about whatever it is that the president defines as “Obamagate.” Graham responded by saying that would be a bad idea and could open up a can of worms (hint: Trump could be subpoenaed after he leaves office). Gabriel Sherman reported that the president wasn’t happy with that. “Trump thinks Lindsey isn’t doing anything on Flynn,” a former White House official said. According to the former official, Trump recently asked prominent allies to tweet negative things about Graham, and he has been complaining that Graham is a hanger-on. “Trump has said, ‘Since [John] McCain died, Lindsey follows me around and shows up to play golf and I don’t even invite him,’” according to the source briefed on the conversation. Graham snapped back with a compromise offer. Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham is preparing to ask his colleagues on the panel for blanket permission to subpoena dozens of Obama and Trump administration officials connected to the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election — and contacts between President Donald Trump’s team and Russians. His proposal would permit the South Carolina Republican to demand testimony and documents from figures involved in the intelligence associated with the launch of the Russia investigation, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former national intelligence director James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey. We’ll have to wait and see if that move by the senator appeases the president. Graham’s situation captures exactly what Trump has done to the Republican Party. The president is running for re-election on a strategy to mobilize the haters. Graham stands no chance of winning without them. But Trump’s strategy is offensive not only to Democrats, but also to the Never Trumpers. There just might not be enough of them in South Carolina to defeat Graham. But they could make this race competitive.

More than 2,000 attorneys across the United States are pushing back against President Donald Trump and his repeated assault United States' democracy. In an open, collective letter released on Wednesday, the Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) highlighted various "fundamental democratic principles" that have been trampled on by Trump and his Republican colleagues, whom they described as "enablers" throughout his presidency. They also stressed the importance of America's lawyers to uphold and protect America's democracy regardless of political views. "As the November 3 election draws near, it is important for all lawyers in this great country – Republicans, Democrats and independents alike – who have a deep and abiding belief in the basic principles that have guided this nation since its founding to consider the impact of what the president has done on the future of our democracy," the letter says. "That democracy is a delicate arrangement and depends for its survival on widespread and largely voluntary adherence to established rules and norms and on leaders who support them," the letter continues. "Time and time again, this president has ignored those rules, ignored those norms and has urged others to do so. If continued, behavior of that kind has ruinous potential for us all." The attorneys also released a detailed chart outlining the violations against democracy that Trump has trampled on. Former Massachusetts attorney general and LDAD leader Scott Harshbarger described their layout as "a visual roadmap addressing the violations Donald Trump has scorched in the earth." LDAD also included an itemized list of principles at the center of their concerns as follows: These principles, per the compendium, include: (1) the separation of powers; (2) the impartiality of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ); (3) the impartiality of other government agencies and officials; (4) avoiding corruption and the appearance of corruption; (5) the integrity of the voting process; (6) the truthfulness of public officials; and (7) respect for the rights and dignity of all individuals, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin or religion. They also urged other lawyers to review the principles and Trump's disregard for them and consider how they can make changes to move the country in the right direction. The letter said, "After considering those principles and the degradation of them the president has attempted, we ask you to think about what you can do, and what you can urge others to do, through advocacy, litigation, voting and the other activities in which lawyers have historically engaged in troubled times to stop what in the last analysis has all of the earmarks of a coup in slow motion."

On Tuesday, both the pro- and anti-choice world were rocked by a revelation that undermines literal decades of religious right nonsense. Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, claimed before her 2017 death that her famous "conversion" to anti-abortion activism was a con job. McCorvey told filmmaker Nick Sweeney during the taping of his new FX documentary, "AKA Jane Roe," "I took their money, and they took me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say." For pro-choice activists, the revelation was less exciting than frustrating. For decades, the anti-abortion movement has held out McCorvey's "conversion" as a morality tale about how women, deep down inside, really don't want access to abortion, but instead are being deceived by a supposedly ruthless "abortion industry." McCorvey was a prop in service of this argument, which depends on sexist stereotypes painting women as too feeble-minded and gullible to be the proper stewards of their own lives. Her tale of woe, where she was fooled into thinking abortion was a right, until she was "saved" by anti-choice ministers like Flip Benham, was all about serving this narrative: Women can't be trusted with autonomy, and need "godly" men to guide them. (Benham, a supposedly wise and "pro-life" guidance-giver to women, has been seen in recent months violating coronavirus restrictions in order to harass patients and staff at a North Carolina clinic, even though doing so directly threatens to spread a deadly disease among the protesters, clinic staff and the pregnant people seeking care.) Having spent years covering the pro-choice movement, I can safely say that the widespread view in pro-choice circles of McCorvey's "conversion" was one of skepticism. Frankly, she was a sketchy character and that was no secret. She admitted to lying about being raped, even though the pro-choice lawyers who argued Roe had no interest in making the case about rape. McCorvey publicly waged war on Sarah Weddington, the pro-choice lawyer who argued the Roe case before the Supreme Court, apparently furious that Weddington didn't try to help her get an illegal abortion during the run-up to Roe. McCorvey didn't seem to care that if Weddington had committed a crime on her behalf, it could have ended a case that granted millions of women the right to an abortion without the threat of jail. So yeah, pro-choicers always suspected McCorvey was getting paid off somehow, and the number that Sweeney uncovers — nearly half a million dollars over the years — sounds about right. But the main reason pro-choicers suspected the McCorvey conversion was a sham wasn't about McCorvey's character, but about the dynamics of the anti-choice movement in general. It's no exaggeration to say that the anti-choice movement, from tip to toe, is stuffed with liars and grifters. Their entire raison d'être is telling lies — often over-the-top, melodramatic lies — in service of sticking it to women, LGBT people and liberals in general for not respecting the "right" of the religious right to dominate the rest of us. The anti-choice movement has always been run by lying trolls, and always will be. They set the template for the rest of the conservative movement, and paved the way for the rise of Donald Trump, whose presidential victory was a perfect summary of the fact that right-wing American politics has become one big, long con. The over-the-top, theatrical lies of the anti-choice movement are so comical that the mainstream media, for decades, has shied away from covering them too closely, likely out of fear that they're actually too ridiculous to be believed. For instance, over the past few years anti-choice activists have begun to claim that doctors deliver viable infants alive and let them die. Trump likes to tell this story with vivid and completely made-up details about swaddling a baby in blankets before murdering it. The Senate held hearings in which anti-choice activist Jill Stanek — a crazed, racist liar who also claims Chinese people think aborted fetuses are a "delicacy" — claimed, almost certainly falsely, that she once witnessed a baby being killed this way. (Stanek has also argued that contraception bans are necessary to force people to have sex only within marriage.) To bolster this argument, the anti-choice movement also trots out a series of people who claim to have "survived" abortion. Did they? Probably not! The procedures they describe have no relationship to actual methods used to terminate pregnancies in the real world. Anti-choice "testimony" is all to often as McCorvey described it: "[T]hey took me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say." But this "born alive" mania has mostly been ignored by the mainstream media, except for occasional gawking at Trump's weird rally stories. I suspect that happens because these tales are so grotesque and improbable that journalists fear their audiences will think they made it all up. Instead, anti-choice activists get a glow-up in mainstream coverage, presented as less hysterical and less prone to lies and bizarre flights of fancy than they actually are. The "baby parts" debacle from a few years ago is another example of how the anti-choice movement is not a group sober-minded devout Christians who just love "life," but in fact a bunch of fanatics who have contempt for the truth and think nothing of spinning wild stories and engaging in implausible thought-experiments in their efforts to smear feminists. A series of "undercover" videos purporting to "prove" that clinics like Planned Parenthood were secretly selling "baby parts" out the back door were released by an anti-choice activist named David Daleiden in 2015. To anyone familiar with the anti-choice movement and their reliance on fantastical stories, it was obvious this would turn out to be bullshit, but too many mainstream media organizations ran credulous stories, bamboozled by their own decades of coverage falsely painting anti-choicers as serious-minded people instead of fundamentalist whackadoodles. Sure enough, after the first round of credulous coverage, the facts started to emerge: Planned Parenthood doesn't sell baby parts." They donate fetal tissue to clinics that use it for medical research — research that saves far more lives than any nut waving a bloody fetus poster board has ever saved. The videos had been altered to make innocent people look guilty. Eventually, Planned Parenthood won a lawsuit against Daleiden and he was arrested for counterfeiting government documents. This myth of the humble, righteous anti-choice activist works its way not just into the media but into Supreme Court cases, such as one in 2014 case, when anti-choice activists argued against an anti-protest buffer zone around clinics by claiming they were merely "sidewalk counselors" trying to "help" women. An investigation by Jill Filipovic at Cosmopolitan exposed the truth: They're a bunch of bullies who are angry at women for having sex and show up at clinics to harass them. "If women want careers and education and everything and they don't want children," one protester complained to Filipovic, "what are they doing having sex?" Another complained that "there were no problems" back when women "had to be obedient to their husbands." Instead of contraception, a protester argued, "the way to control [pregnancy] is not to hop into bed with every Tom, Dick, and Harry." The court sided with the bullies, unsurprisingly, elevating the myth that these belligerent protesters merely wished to "counsel" women. Anti-choicers have long pushed this myth that they're righteous warriors going up against a sleazy "abortion industry" and trying to "save" women. This is pure projection on their part, and a complete inversion of reality. In truth, the pro-choice movement exists to help women, and the anti-choice movement exists to strip them of their rights and subjugate them both legally and socially. The pro-choice movement stands with science and medical facts, while the anti-choice movement is rife with liars and grifters, and spews a dizzying amount of propaganda based on nothing but misogyny and lurid fantasy. The press should stop being fooled by the way anti-choicers hide behind the Bible and the cross and see them for who they are: Bullies who are trying to take important medical care away from women at a vulnerable moment in their lives. Perhaps the revelation that anti-choicers literally bought off Norma McCorvey and paid her to lie will help open up some eyes. But it's also important to step back and take a look at the bigger picture. Roe v. Wade was never about Norma McCorvey. She was simply the plaintiff recruited for a case that was actually about the rights of millions of people who have faced or will face a pregnancy they don't want or can't bring to term, for whatever reason. By recruiting McCorvey to their side, anti-choice activists sought to erase the existence of these millions of people who have been saved by access to safe, legal abortion. It's a shame that McCorvey betrayed all those people for so long. But at least before she died, she told the truth.

Norma McCorvey — better known as the plaintiff "Jane Roe" from the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion – who then later famously converted and became outspoken against abortion, has admitted that her about-face was a lie. It was all an act that was orchestrated and paid for by the anti-abortion movement. In FX's first documentary "AKA Jane Roe," which premieres on Friday, May 22, McCorvey tells filmmaker Nick Sweeney in a shocking "deathbed confession" filmed before her death in 2017, about her deception. Advertisement: The documentary digs into the life of one of the most complex and impactful women of the 20th century, and in the last 20 minutes of the film, Sweeney asks McCorvey: "Did [the evangelicals] use you as a trophy?" "Of course," she replies. "I was the 'big fish.'" "Do you think you would say that you used them?" Advertisement: "I think it was a mutual thing," McCorvey says. "I took their money, and they took me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say. That's what I'd say." In a phone interview with Salon, the "AKA Jane Roe" director expressed his shock and surprise at McCorvey's confession in that scene. "Honestly, I did not think that the film would go in the direction that it went," Sweeney said. "The things that Norma would say to me really, I just never thought that she would be saying. I did set out to try to understand all the complexities of her life — who she was and what she believed — but I just never thought she would admit these things. Advertisement: "Whenever we were together, Norma was determined to film all the time and whenever I was not there, she would want to know when I was coming back to film," he continued. "She liked being able to share her story and be her unvarnished self. And I think knowing she was running out time, it was a motivating factor for her." The film examines how McCorvey became "Jane Roe" after she failed to receive access to a safe and legal abortion in the state of Texas. She was young and homeless with a history of being the victim of physical and sexual abuse. She claimed her pregnancy was a result of being raped and had offered her voice for the legal case for abortion, which led to the passage of Roe v. Wade, legalizing abortions in all 50 states. Advertisement: A decade later, McCorvey shed the pseudonym of "Jane Roe" and began working a circuit of protests and media events centered around abortion access and women's health issues. But, as Sweeney's film lays out, after McCorvey revealed in an interview in the 1980s that she had lied about being raped during the Roe v. Wade hearings, the pro-choice community turned away from using Norma as a vocal, public proponent of abortion access. This left McCorvey adrift, and ultimately in the mid-'90s, she converted to Roman Catholicism and — with the aid of leaders from the evangelical Christian right, including Operation Rescue leaders Reverends "Flip" Benham and Rob Schneck — she renounced her background as an abortion access activist, as well as her relationship with her longtime girlfriend, Connie Gonzalez. This dramatic shift in purported values is what drew Sweeney to profiling McCorvey in the final years of her life, but he did not expect such a dramatic revelation from his subject. Advertisement: "I think she certainly subverted expectations, but I guess what's interesting is that she did that throughout her life, right?" said Sweeney. "It wasn't the first time. This confession she gives in the film is not the first time she has completely subverted people's expectations of Jane Roe." As a result of that confession, Sweeney went on to find documents showing at least $456,911 in "benevolent gifts" from the anti-abortion movement to McCorvey. As Schneck put it, "At a few points, she was actually on the payroll, as it were," while Benham staunchly denies that she was paid in any formal capacity. Schneck has undergone a conversion of his own, in a way. He still identifies as a Christian, but wishes to undo the damage he inflicted on women through his work with Operation Rescue. Advertisement: "I used to think that Roe v. Wade would never be overturned," he said. "I think Roe v. Wade could be overturned now. And I think the result of that would be chaos and pain. And to impose that kind of crisis on a woman is unthinkable." Per Sweeney, Benham is still an outspoken member of the anti-choice movement. He still pickets and protests outside of clinics at least five days a week. As for McCorvey's legacy, Sweeney observed, "I think that on all sides of the debate, people wanted to say they knew who Norma McCorvey is or was. And they don't. We wanted Norma to — as a society — wanted her to fit with who we want Jane Roe to be." In the closing minutes of the film, McCorvey shares her final thoughts on abortion: "If a young woman wants to have an abortion — fine. That's no skin off my ass. You know, that's why they call it 'choice.' It's your choice." Advertisement: Check back on Friday, May 22 for Salon's full interview with Sweeney about making "AKA Jane Roe," including how he gained McCorvey's trust. The film will premiere at 9 p.m. that night on FX and next day on Hulu.

With everything going on in the news these days, most Americans have no idea that the religious right is, after over four decades of trying, quietly on the verge of ending Roe v. Wade as we know it. The case is being heard March 4, and is called June Medical Services vs. Russo. Even though the Supreme Court ruled, a mere four years ago, that the state of Texas couldn't use medically unnecessary regulations on abortion clinics as a backdoor way of banning abortion, Louisiana thought they'd take another go at it. What changed? Not the medical science or rationale for these backdoor bans. No, it was the makeup of the court. With Donald Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh on the bench instead of Justice Anthony Kennedy, anti-choice activists believe they have just enough votes to end Roe in all but name — precedent be damned. Advertisement: But, as reproductive health researchers Carole Joffe and David Cohen argue in their new book, "Obstacle Course: The Everyday Struggle To Get An Abortion in America," for many women in America, it's already a post-Roe world. Years of state Republican legislators passing restrictions on abortion in a piecemeal fashion has created a situation where the procedure may be legal, but out of reach for millions of women. The court's expected ruling this year will simply make this already terrible problem much worse. Joffe spoke with Salon about what life looks like when legal abortion access is denied to so many. On March 4th the Supreme court will be hearing a case called June Medical Services vs Russo. It's about Louisiana state regulations that threatened to shut down abortion clinics in that state. So what's this case about and how worried should we be about it affecting access to abortion in the U S? Advertisement: Well, I think we should be very worried on two counts. One, the case ignores Supreme Court precedent, in the 2016 case Whole Women's Health vs. Hellerstedt. The court decided, that if you're going to impose restrictions, there had to be evidence and the benefits to women had to outweigh the cost. Put more colloquially, the courts said to state legislators, you can't make s**t up. Scientific experts, both medical and social science, showed that these restrictions would impose hardships, and that there was no medical benefit. So, reasonably enough, people in the pro-choice movement thought this was settled. And now just a few years later, here comes the state of Louisiana totally ignoring it. Advertisement: There's another, less noticed, aspect of this case that in some ways is even more troubling. And that is the issue of whether or not abortion providers have standing to bring cases on behalf of their patients. The overwhelming amount of abortion litigation are brought by providers. Pregnant women have very little incentive to go before a court. Court cases take a long time. By then they will lose their window to have for the case to be resolved in their favor. A lot of pregnant people simply don't want to come forward and be in the headlines and subject themselves to all kinds of trolling and attacks. So if the idea that abortion providers can no longer bring suit on behalf of their patients is very, very troubling. Advertisement: The state of Louisiana is claiming that all providers really care about "is providing as many abortions as possible" and being "free from government oversight." And that's absolutely not true. Abortion providers don't care about doing as many abortions as possible. Over the years studying this field, I found numerous examples of when patients are ambivalent, the providers will encourage women to take their time, to go home, think about it. One provider we quote in the book told us she has nightmares on doing an abortion on someone who didn't want it. Advertisement: It's such a weird stereotype. I recently visited an abortion clinic in Philadelphia and was talking to the workers and all they were talking to me about was how, after they do abortions, they really try to get the women to have a conversation with them about contraception. Which strikes me as not the conversation you'd be having, if you were trying to do more abortions, right? It's the standard of care, that you should initiate conversations about contraception if the patient is open to that. Currently abortion is harder to get than it ever has been since it was illegal. Why is it so hard to get, despite Whole Women's Health? Advertisement: The number of abortions before Roe, I mean no one knew exactly how many, but there were reasonable estimates, and some people put it as high as a million, which is more than we have today. A lot of that is better contraceptive methods available. But some of the decline in abortions has to do with self-managed abortions. People are ordering drugs used in medication abortion off the internet. No one's officially counting them. The reason it's so hard to get an abortion is a decline in the number of abortion facilities. We have six states with only one clinic. If Louisiana wins its case, there will be only one facility left in Louisiana. The key point is that so many abortion patients now are poor. The Guttmacher estimates are that 50% of abortion patients live below the poverty line. Another 25% are classified as working poor. So for these people not having enough money to pay for abortion is only the beginning. Thirty-three states now do not use Medicaid dollars for abortion. Here you're talking about very poor women, who very likely don't have cars, have to depend on somebody else to drive them. Many of these women are in rural states where there's not good public transportation. Add to that the factor of a waiting period some states impose. Advertisement: Sixty percent of abortion patients are parents. You're poor. You have children. You need to go away from your home. You need to figure out someone who will drive you. And we heard heartbreaking stories of people who have boyfriends or family members will say, yeah, I'll drive you and then literally don't show up. If you're working, you're losing wages. You have to pay for childcare. Plus, you get to the city where your abortion will take place and they tell you, we'll counsel you today, but you can't have the procedure till tomorrow or the day after. Or, if you're in the state of Utah three days from now. All these things cost money. That's part of the reason it's so hard to get an abortion. This gives you a sense of just the obstacle course that women have to go through. It's unconscionable. I mean, no other part of the healthcare system is like this. Advertisement: We're looking at June Medical Service as this turning point where the Supreme Court might functionally ban or reverse Roe vs. Wade. If they won't ban abortion outright, they will allow states to use red tape to get rid of legal abortion services within their borders. But it sounds like functionally for a lot of women, abortion is all basically banned already. Yes. You mentioned women using pills online. They're obviously not getting those directly from doctors, right? They're buying them from India or Mexico or someplace like that. Does this concern you? Here's what bothers me, is that abortion is healthcare. It is a medical procedure, but for various reasons, has never been integrated into mainstream healthcare. And I could go on a great length why that's the case, but let's just say issues of stigma, controversy, and so forth have kept abortion provision separate from mainstream healthcare. Advertisement: Now what do I think of self-managed abortion from getting the medications online through the mail? The good news here is that this is actually quite safe. People have actually tested the quality of the drugs that are available online. Many people in the pro-choice movement were afraid that people, desperate women, would send in money and then just get sugar pills or aspirin. It turns out that the stuff that's being sent, by and large, is of good quality. So that's very reassuring. If you compare self-managed abortion now using these pills with what happened before Roe, it's night and day. Your readers presumably have all heard the tales of the "back-alley butchers." I mean they weren't the only people doing illegal abortions, but that was a big part of it. Many women died, many more women were injured. The relatively speaking good news is that people using these pills will not have the same level of injury. The bad news potentially is that I believe there'll be much more legal surveillance of this practice. In 1962, when you attempted to do your own abortion, that was very dangerous medically. But there were very few prosecutions. We don't know how much legal prosecution there would be if you go to an ER and you're bleeding too much. Will the doctor be forced to report you? If he or she advises you, will they be seen as accomplices in abortion, in those states that have banned it? We face a very uncertain legal environment, both for women and for providers.

It has been a long held tradition in American politics that every 10 years, the party in control of state houses would use gerrymandering to redraw districts in their favor for the next election. But in 2010, something different happened. How Gerrymandering 'Got Out of Control' in 2010 and Why It Matters Today In this clip from the new documentary film, Slay the Dragon, journalists Dave Daley and Ari Berman explain how legislators use gerrymandering to draw districts that are favorable for their party’s candidates. Former Wisconsin State Senator Dale Schultz (R) explains, “It really represents legislators picking voters rather than voters picking legislators.” Bill Moyers talked with Dave Daley earlier this year about gerrymandering, recent elections and the 2020 election. Congressional districts are redrawn every 10 years after the US Census (which is another reason why it’s important that everyone fill out their Census forms). But in 2010, something different happened. BILL MOYERS: This was the subject of your first book, of course. You took on gerrymandering, which as most of us realize, is a very old feature of democracy in America that allowed partisan state legislatures to draw congressional districts to their advantage. Both parties did it. Then [in 2010] it got out of control. This is stunningly clear in your book. You showed the country how Republicans had weaponized gerrymandering. Just briefly summarize the story you told for our listeners and our readers. You know, what The New York Times review called the “true story behind the secret plan to steal America’s democracy.” DAVID DALEY: Republicans after the 2008 election needed to find themselves a pathway back to power. In 2008, you not only had the election of Barack Obama, our first black president, but you had a Democratic supermajority in the Senate and a renewed Democratic majority in the House. You had these changing American demographics that many observers, both Democrats and Republicans, looked at and thought that it meant that the Democrats were going to be the majority party in this nation for a generation. And as we know, it didn’t exactly work out that way. Right? And I think the most important reason for that is because these Republican strategists recognized that as historic as 2008 was, 2010 had the ability to be much more of a consequential election. Because 2010 is a Census year, which means it’s a redistricting year. Because we would redraw every congressional and state legislative seat in the country in the year following the US Census. Elections ending in zero are just much more consequential. Because you can win back the power to draw all of these districts. [In 2010,] Republicans recognized the opportunity in this. It’s state legislatures that have the ability to draw most of these lines, both for themselves and also for Congress. So a handful of Republican operatives launch a plan called The REDMAP, which is short for the Redistricting Majority Project. It’s a $30 million strategy, centered around flipping and winning state legislative chambers control in swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida. And by winning 117 state legislative races in 2010 across these states, they are able to lock in the power, not only to redraw all of their own maps, but to redraw Congress. And so in 2012, Democrats win 1.4 million more votes for the U.S. House than Republicans. But Republicans hold onto the chamber, 234-201. Barack Obama’s second-term agenda is dead in the House before his second term even begins. And it lays the groundwork in all of these states for the same sort of deeply anti-majoritarian decade that we have seen. BILL MOYERS: When I read your book, I agreed with the Republican strategist, Ben Ginsberg, who said that David Daley has exposed, “The strategy of shadowy, but thus far, legal hacking, splicing, and dicing of congressional districts to secure Republican domination, and in turn, subvert the will of the American voter.” That’s a Republican saying that. Admitting that gerrymandering was crucial to the Republican party’s strategy of undermining democracy. Some people were shocked, David. But I wasn’t. Get Involved 1. Learn More Listen to Bill’s entire conversation with Dave Daley about gerrymandering, voter suppression and what to expect in the 2020 election. (Download | Read) Watch Slay the Dragon: The video above is a clip from the excellent new documentary Slay the Dragon (Participant Films, 2020) which is available to watch from home on a number of platforms. 2. Take Action There are many organizations working on voting rights issues and you can join them in their efforts to make democracy work for all of us.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) has a new deranged conspiracy theory about the upcoming 2022 primary election and Twitter users are convinced the newly-elected lawmaker has lost her mind. According to the Colorado Times Recorder, Boebert participated in a recent town hall in Montrose, Colo. where she was asked about Democratic figures at the center of the "Deep State" myth—including a number of former directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and Hillary Clinton—and whether or not they would be held accountable for their unspecified crimes connected to the QAnon conspiracy. Before hearing the rest of the question, Boebert spiraled into a frenzy with a bizarre theory about the upcoming primary. "I'm going to answer part of this," she said, interrupting the man as he demanded Democratic leaders be held accountable for their so-called crimes. "Yes…I sure hope so." "So we are seeing a lot of ugliness uncovered, a lot of corruption exposed," Boebert then said as she expounded on the man's frivolous claims. "But I believe that we are going to start seeing gifts and callings of righteous men and women exposed to counter all of this. Gifts that have remained dormant on the inside of people are going to start rising up. People are going to start filling these positions that they never saw themselves in, doing their part to serve their country." Boebert went on to insist that she has "good sources" who are allegedly "in very close contact with President [Donald] Trump" confirmed that what she is saying is "really good information." She added, "So anyone who tries to tell you that this is a fringe newspaper/media don't listen to them. I have very good sources to say this is really good information. Is it a hundred percent? I don't know. But it's really good information." She also claimed there will be mass Democratic resignations ahead of the 2022 primary which could lead to Republican lawmakers regaining control of the Senate and House. However, she offered no details about why or how this what happen or what alleged crimes could lead to such a political shakeup. "We all know that there was information that was declassified just a few days before President Trump left office," she added. "And I know someone who is involved in declassifying that. And this person is getting very tired of waiting on the DOJ to do something about it. And we will be hearing about it very, very soon. And this is my opinion with that information that I have, I believe we will see resignations begin to take place. And I think we can take back the majority in the House and the Senate before 2022 when all of this is ended." It did not take long for social media users to weigh in on Boebert's latest conspiracy. The Colorado lawmaker's name is now circulating on Twitter as users express concern about her seemingly delusional claims. Some Twitter users even urged Boebert to kick off the so-called mass resignation by submitting her own letter of resignation. Boebert is still standing by her claims despite the concerns about her mental health and the calls for her own resignation.

I was raised by a pair of wild hippies, so my heart has always been committed to liberal ideology. As a Bible-believing Christian, however, I was surrounded by evangelical theology throughout my youth, in various churches, Bible camps and so on. When I decided to enter the ministry to attempt to change that conservative theology, I attended an evangelical seminary. It was clear on my first day on campus that no reform was going to occur. If I happened to mention voting for Al Gore, I was told by my classmates that God keeps a record of my voting history and that I had voted for a man who endorses baby-killing and tearing down the American family. Honestly, I was just hoping that President Gore might help save the planet and not make up a reason to go to war in Iraq. Anyway, in my 10 years in ministry, I had even less luck making any changes, which is why I left the formal ministry a couple of years ago. The truth then, and even more so now, is that we cannot separate Republicans, and now the Trumpists, from the evangelicals. I have seen my fellow "Christian left" types attempting to reform the God vote — in fact, I've done it myself — but I feel we have been too timid in our approach. Stronger language and a pure rejection of evangelical theology is needed. From a purely Christian point of view, the evangelical leadership are false teachers teaching a false doctrine. Trumpism cannot be defeated without first facing down evangelicalism. Jesus Christ, who these people claim as their savior, himself provided a warning against these religious hypocrites in Matthew 23: Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. The only real threat to Christianity is Christianity itself. Leading evangelical pastors like Franklin Graham and Robert Jeffress made a passionate plea for Christian voters to ignore Trump's shortcomings as a man because he stands with the Christian church on all things that are right and true. Apparently, that means Christians must shut the door to all LGBTQ people, abortion providers, liberals, immigrants, Muslims and anyone who happens to mention taxing the wealthy. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are. Many of the false American evangelical teachers demonize and look down upon the people in poorer countries. I have seen these "missionaries" in places like Haiti building their churches and making sure "proper doctrine" is followed. It is this type of modern-day colonialism that has provided foreign governments the religious authority to enact terrible anti-LGBTQ laws and restrictions on reproductive rights for women. Woe to you, blind guides! You say, "If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath." You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? False teachers have always believed that their financial wealth means favor with God. I have seen many Christian leaders give praise to God for their big homes, nice cars, and million-dollar sanctuaries. This belief that God has blessed them with great stuff prevents them from ever understanding the need to fund programs that provide equality in the education, health care, justice and economic systems. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices — mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. These false evangelical leaders may have stayed within the law, but they know nothing about being merciful. They could never understand the message to reach out to undocumented immigrants because of God's call to treat the foreigner as native born — because we were once foreigners ourselves. They only understand the language of rules and law without mercy and grace. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Many of these false evangelical leaders have spent a lot of time and money making sure their public image is clean. Ideal marriages, wonderful children, kind and loving people who are financially affluent and pay their taxes. Christ reminded his followers to be careful of such a well-crafted persona. Behind the curtain there are many filled with hypocrisy and wickedness. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, "If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets." So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started! Many of these current evangelical leaders love to quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his message of love and forgiveness. Many would like to forget that most conservative Christian leaders rejected Dr. King's message while he was alive, and some believed he was a communist. It is no mystery to me why there is no picture of the great Rev. Billy Graham marching with Dr. King. These false evangelical leaders expose themselves again as they reject the Rev. William J. Barber II's message about honoring and uplifting the poor, which is far more clearly based in Christian doctrine than anything they preach. These false evangelical Christian leaders never understood Dr. King's message to follow Jesus into those places in America where poor people struggle and suffer and too often die, and they never will.

Long before the insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, Charles Donohoe, leader of the Proud Boys' North Carolina chapter, was sharing posts via Telegram about the need to push back against Telegram. "We need to stop fighting Antifa in the streets where the cops are and start fighting them in bars and alleys," Donohoe wrote back in 2019. "We need to stomp them. We need to ruin their lives physically like they have ruined ours financially with doxxing. We need to rack up their hospital bills. We need to use special operations tactics and lightning strike them." According to The Daily Beast, his previous profile photo on the encrypted social network featured him shaking hands with a member of the D.C. Metropolitan Police, later identified as Collin Cole, a Black police officer who served in the Marines with Donohoe. In a Facebook post around that time, Donohoe spoke of counterprotests scheduled to take place in Downtown D.C. He tagged Cole, who responded to the post by saying, "I'll be working downtown today for the protests." Donohoe replied to the officer saying, "You'll see me me [sic] I'm with the proud boys. Don't publicly announce this please Antifa is trying to ruin our weekend." To which, Cole responded: "Of course not! I'll keep an eye out." In the wake of Donohoe's recent arrest for his alleged participation in the Capitol riots, the New York Times did a bit of research to learn more about the Proud Boys leader. The publication reported that he and quite a few others have ties to law enforcement. When the Daily Beast reached out to Cole for comment, he claimed that he was not aware of Donohoe's arrest only saying, "Wow. Wow. Wow. I do not want to be associated with that." He also claimed he had no knowledge of the far-right groups Donohoe spoke of when he'd tagged him to his previous posts. "I guess he was just warning me like, 'Be careful, Antifa's attacking,' but it wasn't anything past that," Cole said. Further research also revealed Donohoe is not the only member of the Proud Boys with ties to law enforcement. The publication reports that Zach Rehl, identified as a Marine veteran who serves as the president of the Proud Boys' Philadelphia chapter, also has deep ties to law enforcement. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Rehl—described as one of the far-right organization's "most visible representatives on the East Coast"— has family ties to the police department. Last summer, Rehl was also seen "mingling with officers at the Philadelphia police union hall." Previous reports also suggest Rehl has strong ties to the police department. Following a rally back in September, the Daily Beast noted that the "Philadelphia Proud Boys were accompanied back to their cars by a police caravan. A Philadelphia Police officer was filmed talking to and shaking hands with the group in what the city's district attorney described to The Daily Beast as an "extra-friendly" interaction." The group's connections with law enforcement raise a number of questions about their ties. Currently, Philadelphia Police detective Jennifer Gugger is also at the center of an internal department investigation for her alleged attendance of former President Donald Trump's rally that preceded the deadly Capitol riots. The latest reports come as Donohoe, Rhel, and a number of other Proud Boys members face charges for the insurrection on the U.S. Capitol. On Wednesday, March 17, Donohoe was arrested and charged with conspiracy for his alleged involvement in the U.S. Capitol riots.

Jessica Cino, a law professor at Georgia State University, said that “deep dive” into Long’s background will determine whether the shootings meet the criteria to charge him under the state law. However, Cino said the state hate crime law, which became law last summer, is broadly constructed. “His statement (about sex addiction) doesn’t prevent the prosecution prosecuting this as a hate crime based on gender or race,” she said. The state statute does rely on local law enforcement to submit what is called a “bias crime report” as part of the investigation. Some authorities involved in the investigation have signaled there’s not enough evidence yet to make that call. “During his interview, he gave no indicators that this was racially motivated,” Cherokee Sheriff Frank Reynolds said Wednesday. “We asked him that specifically and the answer was no.” Cino said the bias report could come from any of the multiple jurisdictions involved in the shooting spree, which include Cherokee County and the city of Atlanta. “You may have a little bit more progressive view of the application of hate crime law for the ones that were in Atlanta city limits,” she said. “There is more a historical underpinning within the city limits of Atlanta to investigate it as a hate crime.” 03/17/2021 —Atlanta, Georgia — Flowers and signs are displayed at a makeshift memorial outside of the Gold Spa in Atlanta, Wednesday, March 17, 2021. (Alyssa Pointer / [email protected]) Credit: Alyssa Pointer / [email protected] Credit: Alyssa Pointer / [email protected] Case being watched closely Pressure already is mounting to determine whether Long will be charged with a hate crime. “We’re not sure of his real motives, but it sounds like a hate crime,” said Sunny Park, an Atlanta businessman and president of the American Korean Friendship Society. “There were lots of places he could go and kill other people, but he chose to go where there were Asian women.” Deputy Korean Consulate General Kwangsuk Lee said at least four of the women killed were of Korean descent. The consulate was aware of the increased threat of hate crimes nationally against Americans of Asian and Pacific Islander heritage and met with Gwinnett County Police virtually during the first week of March “to ask for cooperation to prevent any kind of hate crime incidents,” Lee said. The consulate was still waiting to hear from police if the shootings are considered hate crimes, he said. BJay Pak, a Korean American lawyer and politician who stepped down as U.S. Attorney in Atlanta in January, said the primary focus should be on the victims. “But let’s not forget about the context in which the shooting occurred and why it will have such a big impact on Asian Americans in Georgia and nationwide,” Pak said. “This shakes us to the core.” He said “perpetual stereotypes of Asian-Americans make us vulnerable to being victimized” and praised the state’s hate crimes law, adopted by Georgia lawmakers last year after about two decades of debate. As a Republican state legislator, Pak sponsored a version of the proposal. “The federal version makes it difficult to get a conviction on the hate crimes law. The state version is stronger, and gives law enforcement officials another tool,” he said. Pak said prosecutors absolutely should charge Long with a hate crime if the evidence is there. BJay Pak is the former U.S. Attorney for Northern District of Georgia (NDOGA) and a former Georgia legislator of Korean descent. Curtis Compton [email protected] Credit: Curtis Compton Credit: Curtis Compton Expert: ‘classic misogyny’ Mia Bloom, an expert of terrorism and extremism at Georgia State University, said the shooting spree is similar to last year’s deadly attack against an erotic spa in Toronto by a 17-year-old “incel,” shorthand for the violently misogynistic subculture of “involuntary celibates.” Incels blame woman for perceived sexual rejection and the ideology has been behind a number of violent attacks against women. Bloom said the details of Long’s motivations are not entirely clear, but targeting women because of a man’s uncontrolled sexual impulses is “classic misogyny.” “He had to shoot these women because, of course, he is not responsible for his own addiction,” she said. The picture might be even more complex, Bloom said. There is overlap among incels with white supremacy and conspiracy theories like QAnon, she said. “The larger part of the (incel) community is diverse and people move from ideology to ideology,” she said. Within hours, news of the shooting spree had become fodder on fringe white supremacist forums, with some cheering the slayings in stark racial terms. Under state law, Long could face the death penalty regardless of whether the killings are regarded as hate crimes. But ADL attorney Barkley said applying the hate crime statute on top of other charges sends an important signal. “The fact that you are charging the hate crime ... gives a sense of closure to the victim, the victim’s community and a strong message from the government that targeting people due to their community is unacceptable,” he said. “We would urge the local prosecutor to bring hate crime charges along with the other charges.” Staff writers Shelia Poole, Adrianne Murchison and Greg Bluestein contributed to this report.

March 10, 2021 By Nse Ufot This year alone, Republican lawmakers have introduced at least 253 bills across 43 states working to restrict voting access. This is more than four times the number of similar bills from just last year, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The bills reach far and wide—limiting absentee ballots, implementing restrictive voter ID requirements, and reducing voter registration options are just a few of the measures these bills implement, straight out of the voter suppression playbook. Nowhere is this battle as vicious or consequential as in Georgia, the country’s newest battleground state in the heart of the deep South. The historic Democratic wins in Georgia, secured by the relentless turnout of communities of color, left old guard Republicans shocked by their losses in a state they considered a sure win. In the wake of their loss, Republicans will now stop at nothing to stack the odds in their favor for next time—even if that means tearing down our entire voting system to silence our voices. And their motivations are clear: unless they continue to suppress votes, they will continue to lose the state to candidates who are ready to push for progress. After two historic elections with record-breaking voter turnout that turned Georgia and the U.S Senate blue, Georgia Republicans openly admit they will do everything in their power to stop it from happening again. Republican State Senator Jeff Mullis waxed nostalgic for the days when voting was harder for historically underrepresented and excluded Georgians, sharing with the Atlanta Journal Constitution, “I wouldn’t call it going backward. I would call it going back to a more manageable, more respectable form of voting.” The New Georgia Project Action Fund and our many hardworking allies are continuing the fight against these deliberate attempts to destroy our democracy. There were at least 50 bills proposed in the Georgia state legislature to restrict voter access at various stages of the voting process, and 11 actually made it through on Crossover Day, when bills advance to the next chamber. The most egregious of the bills, HB 531, filed by Rep. Barry Fleming (R-Harlem), passed the Georgia House on March 1. The 48-page bill was made available a little more than an hour before a hearing the day it passed a key committee—denying legislators, the media, advocates and Georgia voters the time to read, digest, and respond to its contents. Similarly, SB 241, a bill that will gut access to no-excuse absentee voting, which Georgians have exercised without incident for 16 years, passed the state senate on March 8. What’s more: the sponsors of these bills are backed by leading companies we buy from every day: AT&T, Aetna/CVS/Caremark, Delta, Comcast, Southern Company, Coca-Cola, UPS, Home Depot, and General Motors. Together, these and other companies have donated $7.4 million since 2018 to the lawmakers pushing egregious voter suppression bills forward. It’s time we have all voices on deck speaking loud and clear in opposition to this legislation, including the companies that claim they have our backs. We all know the real meaning of reforms for “more manageable, more respectable” voting: make it harder for Black, Latinx, Asian American, and young voters—the New Georgia Majority—to vote. HB 531 and its Senate counterpart would take a sledgehammer to Georgia’s already-fragile election infrastructure, including hard-fought wins that have expanded voting rights despite Georgia’s long and racist history of voter suppression. If these bills become law, they would create a web of obstacles that would silence thousands of Georgia voters by: Requiring an excuse for absentee voting, which would end 15 years of Georgia’s no-excuse absentee voting. Requiring a photocopy of your ID when applying for an absentee ballot and when voting absentee. Banning ballot drop boxes. Banning government officials from proactively sending voters absentee ballot applications. Banning line warming activities (handing out water, snacks, ponchos, PPE to folks in line to vote) by community organizations. With less than a month left in the legislative session, we must hold lawmakers accountable for their constant attacks on the vote. If these bills, even one of them, become law, Georgia will disenfranchise millions of voters and regain its place as the standard-bearer for voter suppression. The bills are antidemocratic, and with every word seek to negate Georgia’s voter participation gains in 2020 and early 2021. So how do we continue to fight? Republican lawmakers have always discounted the power of the New Georgia Majority. They think we will sit back and assume our voting rights work is done. Well, they don’t know us. We continue to show up to protect our state, our country, and our democracy—no matter the obstacles they put in front of us. Paying attention will be the easiest check ever written to save our democracy. Georgia’s legislative session is short, but, when passed, the impact of these voter suppression laws will be felt for a long time, setting back Georgians for generations. As Georgia’s own Congressman John Lewis shared at the 50th-anniversary celebration of the 1963 March on Washington, “you must get out there and push and pull and make America what America should be for all of us.” At the federal level, we’re confident that our two newly elected Senators, who deem voting rights sacred, will fight for the passage of the “For the People Act,” which would restore the Voting Rights Act to ensure a just democracy for all. This important legislation, which just recently passed the House, will guarantee many necessary protections and guidelines, including thwarting gerrymandering by ensuring bipartisan, independent commissions are charged with redrawing voting lines, restricting voter purges and providing much-needed federal election oversight in states like Georgia that have a history of voter suppression. And here’s what voters can do: sign our petition calling for Georgia companies who back the sponsors of harmful legislation in Georgia to immediately halt all donations and publicly oppose these bills. The New Georgia Project Action Fund is out here, pushing and pulling for the Georgia we deserve. Join us, donate and share with your networks. Let’s make sure that the Republicans responsible are held accountable for what they have done. We will not allow democracy to be for the few; we all get to participate. As the battle for democracy wages on, the New Georgia is ready. Nse Ufot is the CEO of the New Georgia Project Action Fund.

Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams waits to speak at a Democratic canvass kickoff as she campaigns for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris at Bruce Trent Park on October 24, 2020 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Civil rights and activist groups are turning up the pressure on large Georgia companies like Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines to oppose sweeping voting restrictions proposed by Republican state legislators. "We've got the power of organized people. They've got the power of organized money. And between us and them, we could put pressure on these legislators or, worst case scenario, the governor to kill these bills," Cliff Albright, co-founder of Black Voters Matter, told CNBC. Groups including Black Voters Matter, the New Georgia Project Action Fund and the Georgia NAACP on Friday launched the next phase of their campaign in local press and on social media asking supporters to directly contact CEOs, presidents and headquarters of major Georgia-based corporations. They're urging them to speak out publicly against the proposed voting restrictions and to stop donating money to the Republican legislators sponsoring the bills. The voter restriction bills come after historic turnout from Georgia voters — particularly from Black voters and voters of color — during the November general and January runoff elections, where Republicans lost the presidential and U.S. Senate races for the first time in decades. "It's very, very disappointing after the outpouring of civic engagement all across the state that the legislature would then seek to make it more difficult for Georgia citizens to participate in choosing their elected officials," Andrea Young, executive director of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in an interview. Republican lawmakers in March passed a bill in the state Senate that would eliminate no-excuse absentee voting, and in the House that would limit weekend early voting, increase ID requirements for absentee voting and restrict ballot drop boxes: SB 241 and HB 531. These proposed restrictions would disproportionately harm Black voters, an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice found. Advocacy groups are turning to Georgia's powerful business community because they say trying to sway GOP lawmakers alone has little effect. "These companies employ hundreds of thousands of Georgia voters who are going to directly be impacted by these laws," Nse Ufot, CEO of the New Georgia Project, told CNBC. "Voter suppression is not good for business." The coalition is focusing on six of the biggest companies in Georgia — Aflac, Coca-Cola, Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Southern Company and UPS — with full-page ads, demonstrations and text banks. A March 3 investigation by Popular Information found the six corporations gave a combined $190,800 to co-sponsors of HB 531 and SB 241 since 2018. The activists' work seems to be seeing some results. Business boosters have come out against certain provisions in the proposed voter restrictions since advocates started their pressure campaign. The Georgia Chamber of Commerce previously reiterated the importance of voting rights without voicing opposition against any specific legislation. In a new statement to CNBC, the Georgia Chamber said it has "expressed concern and opposition to provisions found in both HB 531 and SB 241 that restrict or diminish voter access" and "continues to engage in a bipartisan manner with leaders of the General Assembly on bills that would impact voting rights in our state." Dave Williams, SVP of public policy of the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement Monday: "Repealing no-excuse absentee voting does little to make the process more secure, and does so at great risk to participation." The Georgia Greater Black Chamber of Commerce told CNBC in a statement: "As for HB 531 and SB 241 Legislators should not rely on the 'Urgency' to get these bills signed, take a step back, be open to views that are different and do what is 'RIGHT'; the Black Business and Community Leaders have expressed they are 'OPPOSED'. And GGBCC represents them." Most of the corporations have not taken a stance in the voting rights debate, instead offering broad stances on voting and elections. All six companies belong to the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, and all but Aflac belong to the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce. Aflac, Coca-Cola, Delta, Home Depot and UPS reiterated their support for fair and secure elections and equal voter participation in statements to CNBC. Southern Company did not respond to CNBC's request for comment. Georgia corporations have come out strongly against legislation in the past, like a "religious liberty" bill in 2016 that would have allowed discrimination against same-sex couples. They've also mostly stood silent in other debates, like a "heartbeat" anti-abortion bill in 2019 that was ruled unconstitutional in 2020. Conservative Georgia lawmakers in the past have punished Georgia corporations for certain political moves. Republican legislators killed a major airline tax break after Delta pulled discounts for a National Rifle Association members. CNBC has reached out to the Georgia Senate and House Republican Caucuses for comment on the corporate accountability campaigns. Voting rights activists are not impressed with the statements companies have offered so far on the voting rights debate. "We need a full throated repudiation of these bills," New Georgia Project's Ufot said. "What is your affirmation of how important democracy is when you are witnessing democracy being attacked and you're silent about it?" Jerry Gonzalez, chief executive of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, compared the bills to the notorious voting restrictions that kept people of color from casting ballots in the South before the civil rights movement ushered in the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s. "We have been talking to business partners and chambers of commerce to get them to step up," Gonzalez told CNBC. "Many of them have taken a strong stand on racial justice issues. Well, this is a Jim Crow voting rights attack that is happening right now." Former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams said business leaders should take an unequivocal stance against the proposed voting restrictions in Georgia and other states on a Tuesday call with voting rights organizations Fair Fight Action, which she founded, and More Than A Vote, founded by NBA superstar LeBron James, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. "There should be no silence from the business community when anyone in power is trying to strip away the right to vote from the people," Abrams said on the call. "There should be a hue and cry." Bernice King, the daughter of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., said Wednesday she wrote a letter urging CEOs of Georgia-based corporations to oppose the bills and to use their influence with Georgia state legislators to block restrictive legislation. "It's not going to be business as usual," Black Voters Matter's Albright said. "If you can't get involved in the business of fighting for democracy, then we're going to have to get involved in your business." Read the statements from companies and business groups below: Aflac The right to vote in national, state and local elections is the cornerstone of democracy. We need to join together to ensure accessible and secure voting while preserving election integrity and transparency. As this important issue is debated in Georgia and statehouses across the nation, we expect that fairness and integrity will be the ongoing basis for discussion. Coca-Cola Voting is a foundational right in America, and we will continue to work to advance voting rights and access in Georgia and across the country. We support efforts by the Metro Atlanta Chamber and the Georgia Chamber of Commerce to help facilitate a balanced approach to the elections bills that have been introduced in the Georgia Legislature this session. The ultimate goal should be fair, secure elections where access to voting is broad-based and inclusive. Delta Delta is more than 75,000 strong - and our shared values call on us to make our voices heard and be engaged members of our communities, of which voting is a vital part of that responsibility. Ensuring an election system that promotes broad voter participation, equal access to the polls, and fair, secure elections processes are critical to voter confidence and creates an environment that ensures everyone's vote is counted. Home Depot We believe 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. UPS UPS believes in the importance of the democratic process and supports facilitating the ability of all eligible voters to exercise their civic duty. We are committed to voter awareness and engagement. In the last election, UPS ran an education campaign for our employees called "Drive the Vote" to encourage employees to vote. The Drive the Vote campaign was nonpartisan and endorsed no specific candidate or party. Like other businesses in the community, we are working with the Metro Atlanta Chamber and the Georgia Chamber to ensure equitable access to the polls and the integrity of the election process across the state. Dave Williams, SVP Public Policy of the Metro Atlanta Chamber: Broad voter participation, equal access to the polls, and fair, secure elections processes are critical to voter confidence and contribute to a business environment that fosters growth and vitality. We continue to work closely with members of the Georgia General Assembly to help facilitate a balanced approach to the elections bills that have been introduced this session. We are carefully evaluating the impact the bills would have on equitable access to the polls and elections integrity in our state. As we assess specific elections legislation, we will continue to rely on our core values related to elections: We believe Georgia's elections process should be fair, secure, accurate, and equally accessible to all eligible Georgia voters. We believe our state and local governments should do everything possible to maximize voter participation and minimize unnecessary obstacles in our elections, while working to ensure election integrity. We are committed to voter education and broad engagement in the electoral process. Our past actions have demonstrated this commitment; our future actions will do the same. We continue to advocate for balanced legislation that makes voting more accessible and more secure. Repealing no-excuse absentee voting does little to make the process more secure, and does so at great risk to participation. Georgia Chamber of Commerce The Georgia Chamber continues to engage in a bipartisan manner with leaders of the General Assembly on bills that would impact voting rights in our state. We have expressed concern and opposition to provisions found in both HB 531 and SB 241 that restrict or diminish voter access. As these two omnibus bills move through the legislative process, we will continue to work on ensuring both accessibility and security within our voting system. Georgia Greater Black Chamber of Commerce GGBCC affirms, "All Eligible voters should be able to vote in Georgia." As for HB 531 and SB 241 Legislators should not rely on the "Urgency" to get these bills signed, take a step back, be open to views that are different and do what is "RIGHT"; the Black Business and Community Leaders have expressed they are "OPPOSED". And GGBCC represents them. "Our organization plays a very vital role in contributing to the economic growth in Georgia," states GGBCC's CEO Melinda Sylvester. "Accordingly, we believe it is our civic duty to stand with all voters in our great state. In so doing, we are exhibiting our collective strength to assure that the efforts of our Bridge Builder Initiative can continue to be building blocks for continued and future success for all Georgians." The organization is, further, encouraging all GGBCC, business owners and aspiring business owners to get engaged and stay in contact with their respective legislators.

Close Get email notifications on {{subject}} daily! Your notification has been saved. There was a problem saving your notification. {{description}} Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.

The Georgia Chamber of Commerce believes the right to vote is one of the most sacred rights of a U.S. Citizen. We also believe that free enterprise thrives when democracy is secured, and civility is embraced. By upholding the American ideal of free and fair elections, we demonstrate our commitment to protect the votes and rights of all Georgians and the growth of free enterprise. In 2020, Georgia voting laws were in line with 33 other states for absentee, early, and day-of voting. To that end, the Georgia Chamber supports accessible and secure voting while upholding election integrity and transparency. Simply put, we believe that it should be easy to vote, hard to commit fraud and that Georgians should have faith and confidence in secure, accessible, and fair elections. (Visited 733 times, 1 visits today)

Georgia Senate Majority Leader Mike Dugan said Monday that it’s unlikely he has enough support from top Republican leaders to repeal the state’s no-excuse absentee voting law. It is one component of his expansive voting bill that the state’s top GOP leaders have publicly opposed. Dugan serves on the Georgia Ethics Committee which heard passionate objections to a House counterpart to his voting legislation that would set statewide standards for early voting, restrict absentee drop boxes and add an ID requirement to vote by mail. Lawmakers are closing in on the final eight days of the 2021 legislative session with plans that reshape how Georgians vote hanging in the balance. Narrower proposals focus on single issues, like requiring voter ID to vote absentee which enjoys support from the state’s top Republicans. Public uproar over Republican voting bills reached new peaks in recent days, as did demands for the business community to join Democratic legislators and voting rights organizations in calling for a halt to efforts to impose voting restrictions. Dugan, a Carrollton Republican, said he will wait to see what the House Special Committee on Election Integrity does with his wide-ranging Senate Bill 241. But he said it’s unlikely the final version would ban no-excuse voting created by a GOP-controlled Legislature in 2005. Gov. Brian Kemp and House Speaker David Ralston favor keeping no-excuse absentee voting, used often by Republicans to cast ballots in recent elections. A record 1.3 million people chose to vote absentee in the Nov. 3 general election, as the pandemic shifted how people voted in 2020 and Georgia elected a Democrat for president for the first time in decades. In December, GOP lawmakers signaled they’d make changes to absentee voting rules. “I look at all the people that are sitting there going, ‘We don’t want this part,'” Dugan said following Monday’s committee meeting. “I’m going to give you an honest answer. I don’t think it would survive.” Rep. Barry Fleming argued for his own package of voting restrictions to the Senate Ethics Committee Monday. The Harlem Republican says it creates a more uniform way for voting and restores confidence in the state’s election system, while Democrats on the committee challenged his plan to criminalize distributing water and snacks to voters waiting in lines and over whether provisions in his bill would make it harder to cast ballots on weekends during the early voting period. Democrats said Fleming’s plan would restrict voting access in Georgia’s larger metropolitan counties that accommodate voters with busy work weeks. “Don’t you think it’s possible that the needs of a larger county are different than a small county, and therefore, you should keep some local control over those hours,” said Sen. Sally Harrell, an Atlanta Democrat. Fleming also says his proposed ban on handing out food or drinks to voters within 150 feet of a polling place is to make sure people aren’t trying to influence how people vote. Fleming’s and Dugan’s measures are among a dozen voting bills that remain alive after last week’s Crossover Day, the deadline for bills to pass from one chamber to the other without complicated legislative maneuvering. Meanwhile, other smaller bills would provide more access to poll watchers, give the state election board the authority to fine third party organizations who send absentee applications to ineligible voters, and require more notice to voters when their polling place is changed. Georgia’s 2020 election cycle was the most secure in the state’s history, according to GOP Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. President Joe Biden’s victory was confirmed by machine and hand recounts while an audit of thousands of absentee ballot signatures in Cobb County uncovered no fraud. Still, Republican lawmakers pushing voting restrictions say many supporters of former President Donald Trump believe the election was “rigged” as the president repeatedly claimed. Proposals this session requiring Georgians to have a government ID to vote absentee have a good chance of becoming law. Both Dugan and Fleming bills and the first election bill to advance through a chamber this session propose to require a state-issued ID to cast an absentee ballot. Election officials used signatures to verify the identity of absentee voters during 2020 elections, a process that was audited after the Nov. 3 contest. “You’re eliminating probably one of the most chaotic portions of our recent election by eliminating the signatures that currently are used, and replacing that with either a driver’s license or state identification card or the last four digits of the social security number,” Sen. Randy Robertson, a Cataula Republican, said at Monday’s committee meeting.

March 16, 2021 Advancement Project National Office Celebrates Expansion of Voting Rights to Virginians on Probation and Parole SHARE CONTACT Jeralyn Cave [email protected] 202-921-7321 RICHMOND, Va. – Today, Governor Ralph Northam announced that the Commonwealth of Virginia will restore the voting rights of Virginians on probation and parole automatically upon the completion of their sentence of incarceration. The move restores the voting rights of 69,000 Virginians previously disenfranchised by a criminal conviction. Advancement Project National Office, a national racial justice organization released the following statement. “We applaud the move in Virginia to expand access to the ballot box and ensure that the voices of returning citizens are no longer silenced. This is another step forward in ensuring that all Virginians have the fundamental right to vote,” said Judith Browne Dianis, Executive Director of Advancement Project National Office. “Extending the franchise to residents on parole and probation helps to unravel the Jim Crow legacy of felony disenfranchisement that disproportionately harms Black and Brown communities in Virginia. This step will now give voice and power to thousands of Virginians previously silenced by a criminal legal system aimed at limiting the political power of Black and Brown communities. “We know that this progress is the result of the year-round work of voting rights advocates on the ground who have pushed for change. These same organizers were instrumental in engaging and assisting Virginia voters during an unprecedented global health pandemic during the 2020 election cycle. They also successfully advocated for historic voting rights legislation and are pushing for an affirmative right to vote to be included the state’s constitution. We recognize the work of our partners like New Virginia Majority in making this moment possible and persistently working to expand voting rights to the entire commonwealth.” “Virginia’s work in 2021 is a model of voting rights expansion for states across the country,” said Jorge Vasquez, Power and Democracy Director for Advancement Project National Office. “Governor Ralph Northam’s announcement is the capstone of a successful legislative session in which advocates successfully passed the Voting Rights Act of Virginia, the most expansive piece of voting rights legislation in the South.” “We know that the fight to ensure every resident has equal access to the ballot box continues,” said Dianis. “We urge the state of Virginia to take swift steps to ensure residents on probation and parole are registered ahead of Virginia’s statewide elections and educate those currently incarcerated who will be eligible to vote in 2021. We encourage other states to take similar steps to clear reentry barriers to voting and civic participation for those disenfranchised by criminal convictions.” ### Advancement Project National Office is a next-generation, multi-racial civil rights organization. Rooted in the great human rights struggles for equality and justice, we exist to fulfill America’s promise of a caring, inclusive and just democracy. We use innovative tools and strategies to strengthen social movements and achieve high impact policy change. Visit www.advancementproject.org

Governor Northam Restores Civil Rights to Over 69,000 Virginians, Reforms Restoration of Rights Process New eligibility criteria mirror proposed Constitutional amendment RICHMOND—Governor Ralph Northam today restored the civil rights of more than 69,000 Virginians using new eligibility criteria that mirror a proposed change to the Constitution of Virginia that would automatically restore voting rights to individuals upon completion of their sentence of incarceration. Governor Northam announced that going forward, any Virginian released from incarceration will qualify to have their rights restored, even if they remain on community supervision. This change builds on a number of bipartisan reforms that have been made to the restoration of rights process over the last decade, including streamlining the application and eliminating the waiting period and the prerequisite that court costs and fees be paid prior to having one’s rights restored. With today’s announcement, Governor Northam has restored civil rights to more than 111,000 people since he took office. “Too many of our laws were written during a time of open racism and discrimination, and they still bear the traces of inequity,” said Governor Northam. “We are a Commonwealth that believes in moving forward, not being tied down by the mistakes of our past. If we want people to return to our communities and participate in society, we must welcome them back fully—and this policy does just that.” Under current law, anyone convicted of a felony in Virginia loses their civil rights, including the right to vote, serve on a jury, run for office, become a public notary, and carry a firearm. Virginia remains one of the three states in the nation whose constitution permanently disenfranchises citizens with past felony convictions, but gives the governor the sole discretion to restore civil rights, excluding firearm rights. “Restoring the rights of Virginians who have served their time makes it easier for these men and women to move forward with their lives,” said Secretary of the Commonwealth Kelly Thomasson. “I am proud of Governor Northam’s initiative to welcome these individuals back into society. All Virginians deserve to have their voices heard, and these changes demonstrate the Northam Administration’s continued commitment to second chances, rehabilitation, and restorative justice.” During the 2021 General Assembly session, legislators approved a constitutional amendment that affirms the fundamental right to vote and automatically restores the civil rights of any individual, upon completion of their sentence of incarceration. The constitutional amendment has to be passed again by the General Assembly in 2022 before going to a voter referendum. Governor Northam spoke at OAR of Richmond, a community leader in reentry services. In the coming days, he will visit other reentry service providers around Virginia to hear from returning citizens about their experiences, present them with their rights restoration documentation, and discuss the importance of the constitutional amendment that was passed by the General Assembly. “This change will have a tremendous impact on the people we serve, enabling more Virginians to have their rights restored sooner,” said Sara Dimick, Executive Director of OAR of Richmond. “OAR is committed to removing barriers for those who seek to be contributing members of their communities, and we look forward to working with newly eligible individuals to ensure they can exercise their civil rights.” For more information on restoration of rights, visit restore.virginia.gov. # # #

Last month, Virginia completed its most progressive General Assembly session in history, with legislation setting a path for legalizing marijuana, abolishing the death penalty, expanding voting access and allowing state health care plans to cover abortion. In the state’s gubernatorial election this fall — the first major election in the Biden era — Virginians will decide whether they want to continue riding the “blue wave” that has defined the state’s politics since 2017 — or whether Democratic gains in the state might have a short shelf life. The state’s Democratic gubernatorial primary, taking place in June, features the most diverse set of candidates in Virginia’s history. There’s Jennifer Carroll Foy, one of the first Black women to graduate from the esteemed Virginia Military Institute; Jennifer McClellan, a corporate attorney and vice chair of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus; Justin Fairfax, the current lieutenant governor and just the second Black politician ever elected to statewide office; Lee Carter, a 33-year-old self-proclaimed socialist in the House of Delegates; and Terry McAuliffe, who served as governor once before and has been a Democratic Party fixture since the Clinton administration. In an interview with Jewish Insider, McAuliffe — who ran unopposed in the 2013 Democratic primary — sought to make the case that he’s Virginia’s best bet. (McAuliffe previously served one term, and Virginia law allows governors to serve multiple terms, but not consecutively.) The relatively moderate McAuliffe, who has been given the Yiddish nickname “The Macher” for his loaded political rolodex, is likely to face pushback in the historic field amid some Democrats’ appetite for candidates who reflect the party’s diverse base. “We have the biggest, broadest coalition of anybody,” McAuliffe told JI. “So I would say, yeah, we’re getting people who are actually excited.” He cited the progressive priorities that he backed during his previous term as governor from 2014 to 2018, including his support for criminal justice reforms and reproductive rights. But perhaps McAuliffe’s strongest case is pure electoral math: “I’m the only person in 44 years who’s broken the horrible curse [that] whoever wins the White House, the other party wins the governor’s mansion,” he said. Democratic gains in the state’s 2017 and 2019 legislature elections, which led to the party taking control of the General Assembly in 2020 for the first time in more than two decades, reflect demographic shifts in the state that are certainly here to stay. But Jewish Democrats and political experts from across the state hint that another Democratic victory in the state is not guaranteed. “Anyone who thinks the Virginia governor’s race will be easy for Democrats hasn’t studied their history,” said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist who grew up in Richmond’s Jewish community and began his career in Virginia politics. Put another way: “It looks like it’s McAuliffe’s race to lose right now,” said Quentin Kidd, dean of the College of Social Sciences at Christopher Newport University in Newport News, Va. One of McAuliffe’s closest allies in the Jewish community is Jack Moline, rabbi emeritus at Alexandria’s Agudas Achim Congregation and president of the Interfaith Alliance. Moline told JI that “it isn’t so much that minds are changing, but concentrations of voters are.” He pointed out that “one of the reasons that Virginia is bluer and bluer is that the population of the Commonwealth is growing at the north end” — the suburbs of Washington — “and the east parts of the state, which are historically Democratic, and the more rural areas are diminishing in their in their population.” Still, Moline said, “There’s no such thing as a lock on elections for one party or the other.” One piece of that demographic change has been a recent increase in Virginia’s Jewish population, although the state has a historic Jewish community whose presence in the state dates back to the late 18th century. In 2019, there were approximately 150,000 Jews in the Old Dominion, up from 98,000 in 2010. In conversation with JI, McAuliffe touted his pro-Israel bona fides: “I tried to foster that as governor, a strong relationship between Israel and Virginia,” he said. McAuliffe, who is not Jewish, has a daughter who lives in Israel and works for the Israeli news company i24. Virginia and Israel “did a lot of economic projects together,” he said, mentioning a trade mission he took to Israel while in office. “I went over and spent an hour alone with Bibi [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu]. I’ve met [Ehud] Olmert. I’ve met with [Ariel] Sharon, [Ehud] Barak, and [Shimon] Peres,” McAuliffe said, listing several of Israel’s past prime ministers. At a Virginia gubernatorial debate on Tuesday night, the four other Democrats running for Virginia’s top office said they would not take any government action against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement that targets Israel, which many members of the Jewish community believe unfairly singles out the country and seeks its destruction as a Jewish state. Only Carter expressed outright support for the movement. McAuliffe did not attend the debate. Virginia’s General Assembly passed legislation condemning the BDS movement in 2016, though the resolution did not criminalize the movement or its supporters. McAuliffe told JI he has not yet met specifically with members of Virginia’s Jewish community during his campaign, citing the COVID-19 pandemic. But he noted that many prominent Jewish Democrats have come out in support of his campaign. “My top supporter, of course, is Eileen Filler-Corn, who is speaker [of the House] and a leader in the Jewish community,” McAuliffe said. “I want Virginia to be open and welcoming. I do not tolerate any, any type of racism [or] antisemitism.” In a statement to Jewish Insider, Filler-Corn reiterated her support for McAuliffe: “I know Terry has the experience and determination we need to move Virginia forward into a stronger, more equitable future,” she said. Born and raised in Syracuse, N.Y., McAuliffe found success as an entrepreneur, at various points working in real estate, telecommunications and banking. His political career began in fundraising, and he brought in hundreds of millions of dollars for former President Bill Clinton as chairman of Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign. McAuliffe’s first foray into electoral politics was an unsuccessful run for governor in 2009. The Democratic candidate ultimately lost in a landslide in what was later seen as a precursor to the Tea Party wave that swept congressional Democrats out of power the next year. McAuliffe was elected governor in 2013, a year that Republicans in Virginia’s House of Delegates did not give up a single seat. The GOP retained control of Virginia’s General Assembly through McAuliffe’s entire term. “Democrats generally recognize that he sort of tilled the ground for a lot of things that happened immediately when he left office, because Republicans simply didn’t want to give him a win,” said Kidd. McAuliffe spent his term trying to expand Medicaid in the state, which Republicans opposed. His successor, Ralph Northam, signed a Medicaid expansion into law in 2018, less than three months after McAuliffe left office. “It’s just my impression that Terry’s success, when he had a majority in neither house of the Virginia state legislature, was remarkable,” said Moline, who served as co-chair of the Commonwealth Commission on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion that McAuliffe formed after the white supremacist violence in Charlottesville in August 2017. Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe. (U.S. Air Force) Still, some Democrats from more conservative parts of the state are concerned that McAuliffe’s policy positions have moved too far to the left in an effort to satisfy the party’s progressive base at the expense of winning over moderate Republicans. “They’re all trying to be as progressive as they can,” said Jody Wagner, who served as state treasurer of Virginia in the early 2000s and later served in the cabinet of now-Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) when he was governor. “I’m a little concerned about that, because I think when it comes to the general election, we’re going to need to be more moderate and more business-friendly,” said Wagner, a small business owner who ran unsuccessfully for Virginia Beach mayor as a Democrat in 2020. Wagner mentioned her support for right-to-work, the law that prevents unions from forcing employees to pay dues — a policy that has often been seen as hurting organized labor. Carter, the socialist candidate for governor, introduced a bill to overturn right-to-work that was blocked by Democratic House leadership earlier this year. But Kidd told JI that McAuliffe was always seen as a progressive — or at the very least, a major departure from previous Virginia Democrats. “McAuliffe’s victory in Virginia was kind of a watershed for Democrats, in the sense that McAuliffe was the first guy to run for governor, the first person ever probably in Virginia to run for governor, who essentially ran on a pro-gun control platform,” Kidd said. (Gov. Doug Wilder signed a gun control measure in 1993, limiting Virginians to one handgun purchase per month.) Even if Democrats nationwide have strongly supported gun reform for a long time, the issue took longer to resonate in Virginia, which has a strong Second Amendment culture and is home to the headquarters of the National Rifle Association. “People thought, ‘Oh, my gosh, there’s no way that you can win Virginia if you’re going to run on a pro-gun control platform, and you’re going to tout your F-rating from the NRA.’ Lo and behold, he won,” Kidd said. Early polling shows McAuliffe running ahead of the Democratic pack, though nearly half of surveyed Democratic voters remain undecided, according to a poll released by Christopher Newport University last month. McAuliffe earned 26% to 12% for Fairfax, and 4% each for Foy and McClellan. Carter was polling at 1%. Aside from McAuliffe’s strong name recognition with voters, Kidd said he has another advantage: the fact that he served as something of a “surrogate governor” for Virginia Democrats on the 2019 campaign trail, when candidates wanted to steer clear of Northam, who at the time was dealing with a blackface scandal. “McAuliffe has a reservoir of good feelings among the Democratic base,” Kidd explained, because of the work he put in that year when Democrats took the Senate and ultimately regained control of the General Assembly. One of the key issues for McAuliffe’s campaign is education — specifically, increasing teacher pay, expanding STEM instruction, and ensuring that children have equal access to education. But an issue that has dogged Virginia Democrats is the question of reopening schools that have remained shuttered during the COVID-19 crisis. Teachers unions have urged Democrats not to rush on reopening, and legislators passed a bill mandating that schools open by July 1, after this school year ends. Northam urged schools to reopen this week, but many opted to do so for just a couple days a week. Republicans running for governor have touted their support for reopening schools as early as last summer, and they have criticized McAuliffe and the other Democratic candidates for not demanding an immediate reopening of schools. “We need to open the schools as quickly as possible, and as safely as possible,” McAuliffe told JI. When pressed for details about what that timeline should look like, he said the decision is in Northam’s hands: “Governor Ralph Northam — he’s looking at all the data. I’m not sitting here with the data,” McAuliffe said, adding that when he takes office, the schools will already be open. “Next year, I think schools will all be open. I think they’ll be open this September.” Ultimately, despite the Democratic field’s historic diversity, Kidd predicts that the race will come down to “two white guys running — and not only that, too, all things being equal, kind of moderate- to pro-business white guys.” The Republican field is currently being led by State Sen. Amanda Chase, a self-described “Trump in heels,” with former Virginia House Speaker Kirk Cox and businessmen Pete Snyder and Glenn Youngkin running behind. But because Republicans are using ranked-choice balloting, the candidate who wins the plurality of votes doesn’t become the nominee. “It’s pretty clear that Amanda Chase has a solid 20, 25% support,” Kidd said. “But it isn’t clear that she’s a lot of people’s second choice.” McAuliffe is attempting to appeal to a range of voters: “I have a very progressive record. I have a very pro-jobs record,” he told JI. Even if his strategy works in June, the question is whether it will work in November.

March 17, 2021 By Rev. William J. Barber and Penda Hair Attorney Michael Carvin, representing the Arizona Republican Party, had almost finished his argument to the U.S. Supreme Court when the newest Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, asked him why Republicans have an interest in stopping Arizona from counting otherwise valid votes when the voter mistakenly cast her ballot in the wrong precinct. The pair of consolidated voting rights cases were brought on behalf of Latinx, Native American and African-American voters because the refusal to count wrong precinct ballots unequally affected people of color. Carvin’s answer was jaw-droppingly shocking, not because it was untrue, but because he let the cat out of the bag, admitting the widely known truth about voter suppression that Republicans have denied for decades. Carvin responded: “Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game…It’s the difference between winning an election 50 to 49 and losing an election.” For decades, the Republican Party has been trying to win elections by making voting difficult for racial groups likely to vote for its opponents. We are intimately familiar with the modern Republican Party’s voter suppression playbook, which creates rules and requirements that seem neutral but make it harder for people of color to vote and have their votes counted. As President of the North Carolina NAACP, Dr. Barber filed a federal lawsuit, for which Ms. Hair served as lead counsel, challenging the Republican majority’s passage of a 2013 North Carolina “monster” voter suppression law that added numerous obstacles more harshly impacting African American and Latinx voters. Like the Arizona case, the North Carolina law banned the partial counting of valid votes cast out-of-precinct in federal races such as for President, Senator and Governor that are not tied to living in a particular precinct. It also adopted the nation’s strictest photo voter ID requirement, cut early voting, and eliminated same day registration, among other suppression measures. We proved racial motive using the Supreme Court’s framework to analyze direct and circumstantial evidence to determine whether the Defendants’ stated motive—preventing voter fraud—was actually a pretext for partisan-inspired racial targeting. After years of painstaking investigation and weeks of trials, we were able to prove, as the Court of Appeals found, that the North Carolina General Assembly had targeted African American voters “with almost surgical precision.” Years later, Carvin’s candid response confirmed the real reason for Republican-led campaigns across the country to make voting harder based on race, ethnicity, gender and class status: to gain a “competitive advantage relative to Democrats.” That is exactly what the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found in our North Carolina case. Refreshingly, Carvin did not trot out the usual playbook used to defend voter suppression—that it is needed to address voter fraud. Until Carvin’s admission, Republicans routinely cited voter fraud, almost with a wink and smile, as the justification for erecting barriers to voting. Study after study has found that no election fraud of the type that these barriers could impact exists. In 2020, Donald Trump took this disinformation to a new level, claiming without any proof that the election was stolen due to voter fraud by people of color, while in the same year opposing improvements that would make voting safer and more accessible during the pandemic because “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.” Trump’s own Attorney General, as well as Republican Governors and election officials, conclusively rebutted this outrageous “Big Lie” about voter fraud. In more than sixty lawsuits brought across the country by Trump and his supporters, courts consistently rejected claims of voter fraud, the most definitive refutation of the voter fraud fig leaf to date. Yet the false drumbeat of voter fraud propaganda led to an armed insurrection on January 6th aimed at overturning our democratically elected government. The myth of voter fraud placed our democracy at risk of armed insurrection, and the more than 250 voter suppression proposals already advanced in statehouses this year place our democracy at risk of overthrow by voter suppression. It is time to put an end to this reign of voter suppression. Democracy should not be “zero sum.” Congress must immediately enact legislation to restore the Voting Rights Act and to set minimum federal requirements for practices that encourage and facilitate voting, taking into account the history of racial subjugation in America and the real-life circumstances of voters whose economic and family situations make it difficult or impossible for them to succeed in the obstacle course states continue to erect at the ballot box. Designing a voting system to exclude voters because of their race or the political party they tend to support is illegal under the Constitution. Carvin stripped away the fig leaf Republicans have used for decades to disguise their true motive in erecting obstacles for voters of color. This latest confession of true motive, combined with numerous court rulings documenting the unravelling of the lie, reinforces the undeniable truth revealed by this perilous period in the history of our democracy: it is time for the entire system of voter suppression measures nationwide to crumble. Given the Supreme Court’s recent weakening of the Voting Rights Act and the rush to enact voter suppression legislation in the states, only Congress can save our Democracy by honoring the will of the people and passing legislation that will restore the preclearance protections of the Voting Rights Act, set minimum federal standards for voting, and correct historic categories of exclusion from the ballot based on racial discrimination. Congress should lose no time in enacting restorative and forward-looking voting legislation that protects the heart of our democracy for the next generation. Rev. William J. Barber is President of Repairers of the Breach and co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign. Penda Hair is Senior Counsel at Forward Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy group working for racial and economic justice in the South.

The winner of a crucial Virginia House of Delegates race was decided for the GOP candidate by lot Thursday after judges rejected a Democratic challenge of one vote that could have broken a tie. Republican incumbent David Yancey was the victor after a small canister holding a slip of paper with his name was drawn from a ceramic bowl. Yancey claims the 94th district seat in Newport News, and the GOP will retain its majority by 51-49. A victory for Democratic challenger Shelly Simonds would have split the House 50-50. "This election has certainly shown the importance of every vote and the power of one single vote," said James Alcorn, chairman of the State Board of Elections. Then, after drawing a canister, he announced: "The winner of House District 94 is David Yancey." But the drawing may not be the end of it. On Wednesday, Yancey declined an offer from Simonds to make the drawing final, so Simonds had promised that "all options are on the table" if she lost. Simonds, who attended the drawing, did not say whether she would seek a recount or court challenge. "At this moment I am not conceding," a solemn Simonds said after the drawing. "I am reflecting on a very interesting campaign and a very hard-fought campaign." More:Drawing for tied Virginia race postponed; Democrat to fight contested ballot More:Virginia Democrat Shelly Simonds wins race by one vote More:Coin tosses, picking names in a hat? Yep, that's how some races are decided Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, told USA TODAY that Simonds may have grounds to keep her challenge alive. But Republicans, armed with the victory by lot, "will organize the House and set the rules for the next two years" before any recounts or appeals can be completed, he said. Yancey is a three-term delegate trying to avoid the fate of more than a dozen of his House colleagues swept away on an Election Day tidal wave that obliterated the two-thirds Republican majority. Democrat Ralph Northam also won the governor's race. The bitter battle for a job that pays less than $18,000 per year thus drew national attention as it swung back and forth between the candidates amid recounts and court battles. On election night, Yancey appeared to have won the race by several votes. A recount last month put Simonds on top by one vote, but the victory was short-lived. The next day a three-judge panel ruled the race a tie, thanks to a ballot that marked circles next to both Simonds' and Yancey's names. The ballot had been thrown out, but the judges determined it should be counted because Simonds' circle had a slash through it. The judges on Wednesday rejected a request from Simonds to reconsider their decision. Tobias said the recount "may not have been too rigorous," and Simonds could seek a more thorough one. He also said the court's decision on the disputed ballot "was not persuasive" — but that Simonds was unlikely to win a challenge in state court. However the race is ultimately decided, it may not determine the balance of power in the House after all. Democrats have raised a challenge in another district, won by the GOP candidate, in which some voters were provided an incorrect ballot. A court hearing on that race is set for Friday. Clara Belle Wheeler, the Election Board's vice chair, said a drawing to decide a House race was last held in 1971. The drawing Thursday, however, was "unprecedented" because it dictated which party will control the House, she said. "This has never been done before for the longest-running, oldest legislative body, if you will, in the New World," Wheeler said.

Virginia does not register voters by party. If the court’s map selection stands, it would create a favorable environment for Democrats seeking to take control of the House of Delegates in elections this fall, according to the analysis. All 100 seats in the House are on the ballot, and Republicans hold a 51-to-48 majority. AD AD One seat is open because former delegate Jennifer B. Boysko (D-Fairfax County) recently won election to the state Senate. Several efforts to amend the state’s constitution to create independent or bipartisan redistricting commissions for future redistricting efforts are percolating in this year’s General Assembly. Those efforts would not impact the November elections. A panel of judges from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled last June that 11 districts had been racially gerrymandered to concentrate black voters and ordered a new map. Most of the affected districts are in the Hampton Roads and Richmond areas; redrawing those lines alters several surrounding districts. AD Because the Republican-controlled General Assembly and Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam couldn’t agree last fall on how to redraw the lines, the judges selected a California professor as “special master” to devise a plan. Late Tuesday, the judges said they had chosen a combination of maps from the special master’s plan. AD The court ordered the special master to complete a final plan by Tuesday and said either side could submit objections by Feb. 1. The judges will implement the new map soon after. The maps chosen by the judges would more evenly distribute black voters and put more Democratic-leaning voters into districts held by Republicans. House Speaker Kirk Cox (R-Colonial Heights) would see his district tilt Democratic, shifting 32 percentage points to the left, according to the VPAP analysis of the 2012 results. AD Del. Chris Jones (R-Suffolk), the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, would also wind up in a majority-Democratic district, shifting more than 27 points to the left, according to VPAP. A handful of Democrats who won in 2017 in red or closely divided districts would see their bases get more blue. While many Democratic districts would pick up voters who tend to cast ballots for Republicans, none would become majority Republican, VPAP predicted. AD “The Eastern District Court selected a series of legally indefensible redistricting modules that attempts to give Democrats an advantage at every turn,” Cox said Tuesday night via email. “The modules selected by the Court target senior Republicans, myself included, without a substantive basis in the law.” The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the case, though it refused to delay the redistricting effort as it weighs the appeal. Part of what the high court is considering is whether the House Republicans have standing to bring the case. AD “We are confident that the Supreme Court will not allow the remedial map the court appears to be on its way to adopting to stand,” Cox said, noting that Northam had voted for the 2011 redistricting plan when he was in the state Senate and that it was approved by the Obama-era Justice Department. “We will continue to fight for the 2011 redistricting plan.” AD Marc E. Elias, a Democratic election lawyer representing those who challenged the design of the districts, tweeted late Tuesday that the court “has ordered the special master to adopt the alternative-map configuration we advocated. We are one important step closer to the end of the GOP’s racial gerrymander.” Northam has said he supports establishing a nonpartisan effort to draw future political boundaries, and several proposals to create a new process are alive in the General Assembly. AD A Senate committee on Tuesday defeated a measure seeking to amend the state constitution to set up an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. But the same committee approved a resolution calling for an amendment to establish a bipartisan panel made up of citizens and legislators. On the House side, a host of related bills are parked in a subcommittee, awaiting action. Several have bipartisan support, but it’s unclear if any will advance. “The governor is a longtime advocate of nonpartisan redistricting reform and looks forward to seeing what progress the General Assembly makes on that front this session,” Northam spokeswoman Ofirah Yheskel said.

With Democrats now in control of the White House as well as the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, Republicans are hoping to regain their majority in either or both Houses of Congress in the 2022 midterms. When Republicans cannot win on the issues, they resort to voter suppression and, in House districts, gerrymandering — and articles by Mother Jones' Ari Berman and the Washington Post's Paul Waldman outline the voter suppression extremes that Republicans are resorting to. "After record turnout in 2020, Republican-controlled states appear to be in a race to the bottom to see who can pass the most egregious new barriers to voting," Berman reports. "Georgia is Ground Zero for the party's escalating war on voting, targeting the voting methods that were used most by Democratic voters in 2020 and which contributed to flipping the state blue and electing two Democratic senators." Berman notes that Republican Mike Dugan, majority leader in the Georgia Senate, has introduced a bill that, if passed, would repeal no-excuse absentee voting in the Peach State. "Under his proposal, only a small subset of voters, such as those who are out of town, disabled, or over 65 — a demographic that leans strongly Republican — will be eligible to vote by mail," Berman explains. "The small percentage of Georgians who can still cast ballots by mail will have to get a witness signature on their ballot and attach a copy of photo identification, which requires access to a copier or printer. The new law would make Georgia one of the most restrictive states in the country for mail voting." Meanwhile, in the Georgia House of Representatives, Republicans have introduced a bill that would eliminate voting on Sunday. In other words, Georgia Republicans in both houses of the state legislature are going out of their way to make voting as difficult as possible. In Iowa, Republicans have introduced a bill that would greatly reduce early voting and voting by mail. County officials would be forbidden to send absentee ballot request forms to voters. Waldman, in his Washington Post column, notes that Republicans are "starting entire organizations dedicated to finding ways to keep Democrats from the polls" — for example, former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has started an organization called the Election Transparency Initiative, whose goal, according to Waldman, is "to make sure election laws aren't changed to make it easier for people to vote, especially people who might vote for Democrats." And Waldman adds that former Sen. Kelly Loeffler, a far-right Republican, has a voter suppression campaign of her own. "Something tells me these aren't the last conservative organizations we'll see devoting themselves to fighting the expansion of voting rights and promoting voter suppression," Waldman warns. "The GOP's policy priorities are widely unpopular, and its most well-known elected officials are the targets of revulsion and ridicule. The Republican Party knows that it cannot win a national majority if voting is easy and smooth for everyone. So, election laws must be shaped to make it harder for some people than others. It's about the most important political project Republicans have."

The Democratic Party managed to prevail in the 2020 presidential election, but the massive voter fraud lies perpetrated by former President Donald Trump and the Republican Party will likely linger for years to come. However, now those lies are taking on a different form. According to a new analysis published by CNN, Republican lawmakers have already waged war on voting systems with newly proposed bills to make it far more difficult for American citizens to vote, an initiative described as a "'direct attack on democracy' and on Black voters." The reason behind this initiative? Trump's unfounded claims of voter fraud that he started circulating after he launched massive misinformation campaigns and voter fraud conspiracies following his election loss to President Joe Biden. Although he is no longer in the White House, Republican lawmakers are standing on that big lie with the hope of silencing voters. With demographics changing in many states that are notably red, Republicans could be facing election nightmares in the upcoming primary and 2024 elections. So, Trump's big lie is a way to justify their push for changes in election laws. "We need to make sure that our citizens have confidence in the elections, that they have the ability to vote," said Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R). "We want, obviously, everyone to vote. But we don't want anyone to cheat. And we want to make sure that we strike that appropriate balance." Georgia voting rights advocacy groups are already pushing back against a bill that has been proposed in the southern state. Amid the presidential election, the state of Georgia became a key focal point that led to Biden's victory. It also became an area of contention for Republican lawmakers and voters who attempted to delegitimize the state's election results. Despite multiple recounts and election results being certified by the state's Republican elected officials, Trump and his allies repeatedly insisted the election was rigged. The latest bill in Georgia underscores Republicans' latest strategy to "curb, restrict and more closely monitor voting practices like mail-in ballots that, along with distaste for now-former President Donald Trump and frustration with his policies, fueled record turnout in 2020." A group, comprised of Georgia's Republican state legislators and state secretaries, has also unveiled their new commission to examine election laws. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a group that maintains records of voting-related legislation has noted an influx in proposed bills across 33 states. Those bills aim to:

To succeed, Democrats will have to convince a handful of moderate holdouts to change the rules, at least for this legislation, with the likelihood that a single defection in their own party would doom their efforts. It is a daunting path with no margin for error, but activists believe the costs for failure, given the Republican limits on voting, would be so high that some accommodation on the filibuster could become inevitable. Two left-leaning elections groups, the advocacy arm of End Citizens United and Let America Vote along with the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, plan this week to announce an infusion of $30 million to try to hasten the groundswell. The money will fund paid advertising in at least a dozen states and finance organizers to target Democratic and Republican swing senators in six of them. “We are at a once-in-a-generation moment,” said Tiffany Muller, president of End Citizens United and Let America Vote. “We either are going to see one of the most massive rollbacks of our democracy in generations, or we have an opportunity to say: ‘No, that is not what America stands for. We are going to strengthen democracy and make sure everyone has an equal voice.’” The sense of a pivotal moment is the one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on. Republicans are still inflamed by Mr. Trump’s false claims of a stolen election and the party’s unified message that voting restrictions, many of which fall most heavily on minorities and Democratic-leaning voters, are needed to prevent fraud, which studies have repeatedly shown to barely exist. “This bill is the opposite of good governance — it’s a cynical attempt by the left to put their thumb on the scales of democracy and engineer our laws to help them win elections,” said Dan Conston, president of the Republican-aligned American Action Network. “They want to limit free speech, funnel public funds into their campaign accounts, seize from states the ability to run their own free and fair elections, and then spin it like this is really all about protecting voting rights.”

Nearly eight years after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, Democrats in Virginia are poised to enact state-level legislation they say would boost voter protections. Backers of the Virginia Voting Rights Act say it's the most comprehensive bill of its kind — and the first in the South. The legislation cleared a final vote on Thursday and now goes to Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam. "As we've seen on other issues, we can't rely on the Supreme Court or the federal level always, and so states have to protect themselves," said Democratic state Del. Cia Price, one of two sponsors of the legislation. Price's bill was inspired by portions of the federal Voting Rights Act that were altered by a 2013 high court ruling. Until that decision, the federal government scrutinized proposed changes to voting across nine mostly Southern states, including Virginia, and a handful of other cities and counties with a history of racial discrimination. The Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for election law changes across the South. Republican-led legislatures rushed to pass restrictions that no longer required federal approval. States purged voter rolls, added photo ID requirements, and cut nearly 1,700 polling locations, per one tally. Many states have sought to double-down on restrictive voting rules in the aftermath of the November 2020 election. Price's bill builds on the old federal process. It would require local election officials to get public feedback — or permission from Virginia's attorney general — before they change voting rules. Voters or the attorney general could sue if they believe the change disproportionately affects a voter "based on his race or color or membership in a language minority group." Any proceeds from the legal actions would go toward a voter education fund. The legislation would require election officials to provide voting materials in foreign languages in districts with substantial populations of people whose primary language is not English. It also would prohibit at-large municipal elections if they have the effect of diluting the voting power of racial minorities. Virginia Republicans have consistently voted against the bill in the state legislature. They've echoed complaints by representatives of local governments who are concerned about the potential costs of litigation and extra workload. "It is going to make it an unwieldy, incredibly complicated process," warned state Sen. Jill Vogel, who's also a GOP election attorney. "It is a full employment act for lawyers." Some local officials — particularly Democrats — have dismissed those concerns. "It's not like we're changing elections all the time," said Justin Wilson, the Democratic mayor of the city of Alexandria. "Protecting the franchise is probably the most important thing we can do." There has been some movement on Capitol Hill in the wake of the 2013 Shelby v. Holder case. Democrats in the House passed legislation in 2019 that would address issues raised by the Supreme Court. It would update the formula used to determine which areas should be covered by so-called "preclearance." But the bill — now named after the late Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga. — went untouched in what was then a Republican-controlled Senate. It remains unclear if any Republicans, who almost universally opposed the House measure, would join Democrats to clear the 60-vote filibuster now that Democrats hold a narrow majority. Republicans in many state legislatures have pushed to tighten voting rules in the wake of an election that saw the highest voter turnout in 120 years. Democrats in Virginia have moved the opposition direction, adding optional Sunday voting and making ballot drop boxes permanent. The commonwealth has gone from one of the hardest states to vote in to one of the easiest, after Democrats flipped the legislature in 2019, according to a ranking from researchers at Northern Illinois University. "I think it's obvious that Democrats want to loosen the rules that assisted them in the last election and that so greatly contributed to undermining confidence in the election," Republican Todd Gilbert, the minority leader in Virginia's House, said in a press conference last month. Voting rights advocates say Republicans are harnessing their own false claims about voter fraud to advance restricting voting policies. Judith Browne Dianis — executive director of the Advancement Project, a national civil rights group that helped craft the Virginia VRA — said the GOP's push reflects a broader anxiety about the growing clout of nonwhite voters. "We need every state to pass its own voting rights law," Dianis said. California, Washington and Oregon have passed narrower state-level voting rights acts focused on local elections. Virginia had some of the tightest Jim Crow-era voting restrictions in the U.S. State Sen. Jennifer McClellan, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate who also sponsored the Virginia Voting Rights Act, said the effort reflected broader shifts in what has become a reliably blue state. "It's poetic justice that we'd be the first state in the South to pass a bill," McClellan said. Copyright 2021 VPM. To see more, visit VPM.

J.M. Opal, McGill University Growing up in the United States, I was not a big fan of Joe Biden. I remember Biden at the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in 1991, looking out-of-depth as his colleagues berated and belittled Anita Hill. I recall him during the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush years, holding forth in Senate hearings and casting about for middle ground that no one really wanted. Biden was the face of establishment “meh," the epitome of could-be-worse complacency. He vaguely sympathized with working people but went along with the neoliberal mania for lower taxes, fewer regulations and “freer" markets. He assumed the Civil Rights era had put America's demons to rest, and he never saw the dark forces gathering behind his predecessor, Donald Trump, until it was too late. One year ago, during a bruising primary against more progressive rivals, Biden looked like a man history had left behind. Recently, however, Biden has shown that he understands how the modern U.S. presidency works, both in terms of policy and the nation's psyche. First among equals Early U.S. presidents mostly focused on America's relations with non-Americans. The Constitution of 1787 assigned domestic policy to Congress, not to the president. Besides, the early United States was a chaotic and ill-defined country, requiring most presidents to focus on enforcing federal law as best they could. This changed for good under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who held the office between 1933 and 1945. In the face of the Great Depression and fascism, FDR moved away from his centrist impulses and shifted U.S. social and economic policy well to the left. His New Deal vastly expanded the executive branch of the U.S. government and made it far more relevant to most Americans. To be sure, congressmen resisted, not just as rival Republicans but also as members of a separate and equal branch of government. So did governors who embraced the American tradition of local self-government over centralized rule. The modern-day president lives with these duelling legacies. On one hand, he now sets the priorities for domestic as well as foreign affairs and wields enormous discretionary power over a sprawling federal government. On the other hand, he must work with allies in the House and Senate and respect the stubborn independence of each of the 50 states. Biden gets this. He knows how and when to propose a bill and how and when to let others fight out the details. He understands how and when to frame an issue and how and when to let the arguments unfold on MSNBC and Fox News. Most importantly, he understands that the dominant ideologies of the past 50 years, especially the neoliberal dictum that markets know better than nations, simply won't do in the face of a pitiless virus and the human wreckage it has left behind. This is why Biden, the ultimate moderate, was able to pass the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, arguably the biggest decision made by the U.S. government since the the FDR era. Consoler-in-chief Besides making policy, the modern American president must console the people in times of trauma. This, too, traces back to FDR, who was the first president to address the people by radio. During his “fireside chats," FDR spoke directly to a mass audience, trying to preserve some kind of emotional unity among the American people. Canadians may well pause here to ask why such unity is necessary. Why does America require such emotional togetherness? Why can't its 330 million people just feel what they feel and still agree to get along? Why can't they live together as a big and complex society, different but not divided? It's complicated. But after studying American nationalism for many years, I think the reason is that Americans aren't nearly as nation-minded as we long to be. Our nationalism isn't obvious or intuitive. We don't have a distinctive language or ancient culture. We don't even have a clear or stable sense of any homeland, a common patrie to which we can feel attached. Much of American history and culture is about moving away from wherever we're from to settle in the U.S., usually at the expense of Indigenous populations. (This is especially true for white settlers, although Black Americans also sought freedom by heading west or north.) Our cherished individualism and mythic frontier spirit makes us isolated and alienated, even — or especially — from other Americans. That's why someone needs to address us when something terrible happens. They need to look us in the eye and share our distress, in effect telling us that we're not as alone as we feel. Here again, Biden understands his job. Presidential behaviour In many ways, he became president the day before his inauguration, when he led a memorial for those lost to the virus. He did the same thing when the death toll passed 500,000. And after recently signing the Rescue Plan into law, he talked about our shared hardships and common sadness. “I carry a card in my pocket with the number of Americans who have died from COVID to date," he said. He's not the most eloquent man. But over his long career, Biden learned a thing or two about making policy. And at some point over his long life, he found the strength to carry on through tragedy, to walk through dark canyons in hope of dawn. All of this makes him the right person to steer America out of its recent calamities and towards a better version of itself. J.M. Opal, Associate Professor of History and Chair, History and Classical Studies, McGill University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Whether Joe Biden’s treatment of Anita Hill, nearly three decades ago, will continue to cloud his Presidential campaign likely depends on how contrite he is. So far, the signs are not encouraging. As the Times reported this week, shortly before Biden announced his candidacy, on Thursday, he called Hill and, according to a statement from his campaign, conveyed “his regret for what she endured.” Biden evidently hoped to neutralize any lingering political damage from his chairing of the 1991 Senate confirmation hearings where Hill accused Clarence Thomas, then a Supreme Court nominee, of sexually harassing her. Thomas forcefully denied her account. As Biden presided, the hearings devolved into a shocking showdown in which Thomas and his defenders did all they could to degrade Hill’s character and destroy her credibility, accusing her, with no real evidence, of being a liar, a fantasist, and an erotomaniac. The hearings uprooted the rest of her life. A cautious law professor who had initially declined to testify when first contacted by the Senate, Hill was transformed into a symbol and catalyst for the #MeToo movement in support of sexual-harassment victims, decades before it had a name. Biden’s recent, half-hearted condolence call to Hill, and his subsequent statements, however, have reignited rather than quelled the controversy. Hill told the Times that she believed the issue isn’t politically disqualifying for Biden but that he needs to take more responsibility for the damage done not only to her but to other sexual-harassment victims. She drew a connection between her experience and that of Christine Blasey Ford, whose credibility was similarly assailed when, during the Senate confirmation hearings of another Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, Ford was impugned as she testified that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when the two were in high school. In Hill’s view, Biden had “set the stage” for the hearings in which Kavanaugh, like Thomas, was narrowly confirmed after his defenders trashed his accuser’s credibility and dismissed her allegations without a thorough investigation. Rather than heeding Hill’s call for a fuller mea culpa, Biden instead dug himself in deeper during a visit to ABC’s morning show “The View,” on Friday. Predictably, Biden was asked if he should have given Hill a fuller and more personal apology. Biden again stopped short of blaming himself, saying, “I did everything in my power to do what I thought was within the rules.” He then added, “I don’t think I treated her badly.” Biden failed to acknowledge that, as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1991, he set many of “the rules” that damaged Hill and determined the over-all fairness of the process. As Jill Abramson and I reported in our 1994 book about the Thomas confirmation fight, “Strange Justice,” several of Biden’s Democratic colleagues in the Senate later acknowledged that, in his eagerness to be impeccably fair to all sides, Biden got outmaneuvered by the Republicans. That left Hill and, ultimately, the truth undefended. As Howard Metzenbaum, a crusty Democrat from Ohio, later admitted, “Joe bent over too far backwards to accommodate the Republicans, who were going to get Thomas on the Court come hell or high water.” An adviser to Ted Kennedy, the Massachusetts liberal whose own womanizing eroded his credibility, was more critical still, saying, “Biden agreed to the terms of the people who were out to disembowel Hill.” Even one of the top lawyers on Biden’s Senate staff at the time, Cynthia Hogan, now faults their handling of the hearings. As she admitted this week to the Washington Post, “What happened is we got really politically outplayed by the Republicans.” Hogan, now the vice-president for public policy for the Americas at Apple, explained that Biden had wanted to be seen as a neutral arbiter, while the Republicans instead wanted to win. “They came with a purpose, and that purpose was to destroy Anita Hill. Democrats did not coordinate and they did not prepare for battle. I think he would say that that’s what should be done differently.” This meant that from the moment rumors first reached the Senate, in the summer of 1991, that Thomas had sexually harassed Hill when he was her supervisor at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, she was left open to political attack. In contrast, Thomas had the full-throated defense of George H. W. Bush’s White House and Republican members of the Senate, and an array of conservative political groups also rallied to the nominee’s defense. Thomas’s defenders portrayed Hill as having carefully plotted to bring him down, but, in fact, she twice declined to discuss her allegations with Senate staffers when they contacted her. Eventually, she agreed to do so out of a sense of “duty” to tell the government the truth. She also agreed to share her story only if her name was kept confidential, and with the understanding—which proved false—that her account was one of several such allegations the Senate was investigating. Biden wasn’t alone in the Senate in underestimating the seriousness of Hill’s charges. When Metzenbaum first heard Hill’s account that Thomas, as her boss, pressured her for dates and subjected her to graphic sexual conversations, he told a reporter that half the Senate also was guilty of sexual harassment. The staffers working for Metzenbaum and Kennedy, however, took Hill’s allegations more seriously and were the first to reach out to her. They urged Biden’s staff to talk to Hill as well. But the effort languished in Biden’s office, where his staff followed his personal rules, which went beyond those of the Senate. The aide who investigated the claim, for instance, declined to call Hill, requiring that Hill instead initiate contact. Once they spoke, the aide declined to act on Hill’s allegation unless Hill consented to Biden’s office confronting Thomas directly and disclosing Hill’s name to him. Hill, who hadn’t asked for any of this, demurred. Biden’s aide concluded that Hill had merely wanted to “get it off her chest.” The public, meanwhile, heard nothing about it. Talk of Hill’s allegations spread on the committee, however, and as it reached other Democratic senators, they worried they would be accused of a coverup. Democrats then pressed Biden to take action, which he did, asking the F.B.I. to get statements from Hill and Thomas. The statement from Thomas was a surprise. Biden’s office expected him to say that there had been a misunderstanding between the two. Instead, Thomas categorically denied Hill’s accusations, leaving Biden in the uncomfortable position of having to take sides. Clearly, either Thomas or Hill was lying. Meanwhile, Hill sent a statement describing Thomas’s sexual harassment of her to Biden’s staff. On September 27, 1991, the Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote on Thomas’s confirmation, sending it to the rest of the Senate for final approval. Unexpectedly, the committee split evenly, showing more opposition to Thomas than expected. The public still knew nothing. But when Biden himself voted against Thomas in committee, he made a cryptic public statement warning against the idea that Thomas’s character should be an issue. “I believe there are certain things that are not at issue at all,” Biden said, “and that is his character. This is about what he believes.” Further, Biden admonished, “I know my colleagues will refrain, and I urge everyone else to refrain from personalizing this battle.” Biden said in a later interview that he believed Hill from the start, but Thomas and his wife have said that Biden called them after reading the F.B.I. reports and assured them that there was “no merit” to Hill’s accusations. Further, Senator John Danforth, a Republican from Missouri who was Thomas’s primary sponsor, later said that Biden promised Thomas and his wife that, if Hill’s allegations leaked, he would be Thomas’s “most adamant and vigorous defender.”

Joe Biden has signed the $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief package after weeks of back-and-forth debate in Congress, and one year to the day after the World Health Organization declared a pandemic. The American Rescue Plan, which Biden first unveiled in January, will deliver aid to millions of Americans and inject funds across the economy as the country continues to steer its way out of the pandemic. “I believe this is — and most people I think do as well — this historic legislation is about rebuilding the backbone of this country and giving people in this nation, working people, the middle-class folks, people who built the country, a fighting chance,” Biden said while signing the bill Thursday. “That’s what the essence of it is.” The legislation passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday by 220-211 vote after the Senate approved it over the weekend. No Republicans in the House or the Senate supported the package. To get a sense of how massive the bill is: The recovery package Democrats passed during the Great Recession in 2009 was about 5.5 percent of 2008’s GDP; the American Rescue Plan is 9 percent of 2020’s GDP. And much of the money is going to those who need it most. The bill includes $1,400 stimulus checks to most Americans. The full checks will go out to single people making up to $75,000 and couples making up to $150,000, and phase out at $80,000 and $160,000, based on 2019 or 2020 tax returns, depending on when people last filed their taxes. Previous checks phased out at higher income levels, meaning some people who got checks in previous rounds won’t get them this time. However, the legislation includes checks for adult dependents, such as college students and people with disabilities, for the first time. Expanded and extended unemployment insurance under the legislation will last through September 6, with unemployed workers receiving an extra $300 a week in federal benefits. Importantly, the bill includes a provision that makes the first $10,200 in unemployment benefits nontaxable for households making up to $150,000. Also on the tax front, the legislation makes student loan forgiveness tax-free through 2025 — a way for Democrats to nudge the president on student debt cancellation and a policy change experts hope will stick regardless. The White House estimates that the legislation, which includes an expanded child tax credit, will cut child poverty in half. The bill includes $170 billion for schools, $100 billion for public health, and $350 billion for state and local government aid — an issue that has been a major sticking point for Republicans. It increases Affordable Care Act subsidies and COBRA subsidies for people who have lost their jobs, contains funds for restaurants, and has all sorts of funds aimed at helping people get by, such as rental assistance and help paying for water and energy bills. Some portions of the bill didn’t end up being as generous as they were when it was first proposed after push-and-pull with moderate Democrats. Biden initially wanted $400 in extra unemployment through September. However, the unemployment tax provision was only added in the Senate legislation, saving people from getting a surprise tax bill they might not be able to pay for. A $15 federal minimum wage was also struck from the legislation. The Senate parliamentarian ruled it could not be done through budget reconciliation — the process Democrats used to pass the bill — and the Senate voted down an amendment to put a $15 minimum wage back into the bill. Democrats don’t want a repeat of 2009 The US has been in the midst of the pandemic for about a year, and the federal government has passed multiple pieces of legislation aimed at helping soften the blow to the economy, including businesses, families, and workers. The mantra among many economists — and one adopted by Biden — is that the risk is really doing too little, not too much, in response to the pandemic. Sign up for The Weeds newsletter Vox’s German Lopez is here to guide you through the Biden administration’s unprecedented burst of policymaking. Sign up to receive our newsletter each Friday. Democrats and Biden also remember the bill they passed to help the country out of the Great Recession. They thought they’d get to take a swing at follow-up stimulus legislation and then didn’t, so the impetus was to do as much as they could this time around. There have been some naysayers about the size of the legislation, even among Democrats, but the White House has largely ignored them. “One thing we learned is, you know, we can’t do too much here,” the president said while speaking to reporters in the Oval Office in February. “We can do too little. We can do too little and sputter.” The package is really aimed at providing assistance to people at lower income levels and takes a bottom-up approach. According to an estimate from the Tax Policy Center, the poorest 20 percent of Americans will see a 20 percent boost to their after-tax income, and the second quintile of earners will see their income go up by nearly 10 percent. Meanwhile, the highest earners — many of whom are doing financially better during the pandemic — won’t see much, if any, change. It’s quite a contrast to the tax cut bill Republicans passed through budget reconciliation in 2017, the benefits of which went disproportionately to corporations and the rich. The top 20% of households reaped 65% of benefit from Trump’s tax cuts. The bottom 20% got 1%. The American Rescue Plan gives aid to those who actually need it. My @Morning_Joe chart: pic.twitter.com/Ptq9Hpu3KA — Steven Rattner (@SteveRattner) March 8, 2021 Now that Biden has signed the legislation, it will take some time to get the money out the door and programs put in place. But for millions of people, more help is on the way.

Econometrica: Nov 2020, Volume 88, Issue 6 Frontier Culture: The Roots and Persistence of “Rugged Individualism” in the United States Samuel Bazzi, Martin Fiszbein, Mesay Gebresilasse The presence of a westward‐moving frontier of settlement shaped early U.S. history. In 1893, the historian Frederick Jackson Turner famously argued that the American frontier fostered individualism. We investigate the “frontier thesis” and identify its long‐run implications for culture and politics. We track the frontier throughout the 1790–1890 period and construct a novel, county‐level measure of total frontier experience (TFE). Historically, frontier locations had distinctive demographics and greater individualism. Long after the closing of the frontier, counties with greater TFE exhibit more pervasive individualism and opposition to redistribution. This pattern cuts across known divides in the United States, including urban–rural and north–south. We provide evidence on the roots of frontier culture, identifying both selective migration and a causal effect of frontier exposure on individualism. Overall, our findings shed new light on the frontier's persistent legacy of rugged individualism. Supplemental Material Supplement to "Frontier Culture: The Roots and Persistence of “Rugged Individualism” in the United States" This zip file contains the replication files for the manuscript. Read More View ZIP Supplement to "Frontier Culture: The Roots and Persistence of “Rugged Individualism” in the United States" This appendix includes the following material: Appendix A details the procedure for mapping the frontier; Appendix B presents robustness checks for Sections 3 and 4; Appendix C presents additional results on partisanship; Appendix D describes our instrumental variables results; and Appendix E provides robustness checks for Section 5.2. Additional supplemental material can be found in the replication files and on the authors’ websites: Appendix F presents alternative approaches to inference; Appendix G provides further results characterizing historical frontier demographics and institutions; Appendix H presents a case study to illustrate the long-run effects; Appendix I presents an alternative estimate of selective migration; Appendix J presents additional results; and Appendix K describes data sources and construction. Read More View PDF Back

Michael Kruse is a senior staff writer for Politico. Days after his 7-year-old son was murdered inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the phone rang at Mark Barden’s house. “The vice president,” his sister-in-law whispered. He held the phone up to his ear and heard the voice of Joe Biden. It cut through the fog of sorrow and shock. “I felt,” Barden told me recently, “immediately connected to him.” They talked for more than an hour—about shared priorities, about their families. “Lean on that,” Barden said Biden told him. “Tap into that.” And he gave him some practical advice, too: Keep a pad by your bed and rate each day, 1 being the worst, 10 being the best. Biden granted he wouldn’t see a 10 for quite some time, Barden recalled, but he also offered a kernel of hope. “He said, ‘I think what you’ll find is the lows will always be just as low—but they’ll start to get farther apart.’” Barden knew enough of Biden’s backstory to know that Biden knew how he felt, and knew how to get through it, because otherwise he couldn’t have been a senator for 3½ decades, couldn’t have been the 47th vice president, and wouldn’t have been on the other end of the line, making this call. “You know that he’s speaking from life experience, you know he’s drawing from his emotional bank, and so it’s pretty real and pretty raw,” Barden said. Biden, he believed, talked with “total credibility.” There is no person in American politics today whose life has been so shaped by loss and grief. The long arc of Biden’s career is all but bracketed by tragedy. In 1972, his wife and baby daughter were killed in a car accident; in 2015, one of his two sons who had survived the crash died of a rare strain of brain cancer. These wretched tentpoles are not only tragedies the 76-year-old Biden has had to endure. They influenced major decisions he made about his political career—first, his priorities in the Senate; later, his decision to opt out of the presidential election of 2016. And they defined him as a person as well, according to longtime friends, former aides and veteran politicos in his home state of Delaware. They made him more relatable, more authentic, more empathetic. These traits, they say, were there already, instilled by his working-class roots and the teachings of the Catholic church, his mother’s tenets of social justice and his father’s mantra to get up, get up, after getting knocked down—but they were amplified by what Biden was made to learn about himself, and about life, as he fought through these ordeals. It’s also possible, some of the same confidants acknowledge, that Biden’s grief contributed to his propensity for impolitic, loose-lipped gaffes—life is short, let it rip—including two public instances in which he altered the narrative of the deadly wreck by suggesting inaccurately the other driver was drunk. Overall, though, and over time, Biden has managed to turn his grief into a sort of interpersonal gift. “Joe Biden,” Delaware Senator Chris Coons told me earlier this week, “has almost a superpower in his ability to comfort and listen and connect with people who have just suffered the greatest loss of their lives.” “He does use his knowledge of the process of going through these things no one should really have to go through to try to help others do the same,” said Jeff Nussbaum, one of his former speechwriters. “That tragedy of losing someone, especially a child—if you haven’t had that happen to you, as much as you can feel sympathy, you can’t begin to put yourself in their place unless you actually have been there,” said Fred Sears, who’s been friends with Biden since high school. “And he was. And has been.” The Friday Cover Sign up for POLITICO Magazine’s email of the week’s best, delivered to your inbox every Friday morning. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or updates from POLITICO and you agree to our privacy policy and terms of service. You can unsubscribe at any time and you can contact us here. This sign-up form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Now, as Biden gets closer to a decision on whether to run in 2020, people who know him well, plus consultants and strategists, say this unique combination of political preeminence and lived experience would make Biden stand out in the disparate, growing field of Democrats who are or are about to be candidates. And at this moment, in a riven nation mired by tribal grievance, and with a president like Donald Trump, who has struggled in the role of consoler-in-chief, it’s difficult not to consider that Biden’s empathy could be an X-factor as much as any specific policies. His most extraordinary ability came at a profoundly high price—could it also help elect him president? Regardless of what Biden chooses to do, people who know him well say the two most wrenching, most salient experiences of his life have steeled him for what would be his third presidential bid. And grief experts agree. “Absolutely,” said David Kessler, who told me Biden reached out to him by phone after his son’s death. “This is a man who like many other people in the world stopped and gave his grief its due. He stopped what he was doing and put his family and his grief first. And that can only strengthen him in whatever he does next.” The Family He Lost | Then-Senator-elect Joe Biden’s wife, Nealia, and infant daughter, Amy, (top left with Biden and top right, respectively) were both killed in a traffic accident in Hockessin, Delaware, on Dec. 18, 1972. His two sons, Hunter and Beau (seen at bottom celebrating Biden’s 30th birthday less than a month earlier), were seriously injured in the wreck but later made full recoveries. | Getty Images I wanted to talk to Biden about all this, of course, but he declined. Those close to him say he’s wary of feeding the perception he’s in any way using the death of his son to advance his career. But he has talked about his grief in speeches. He’s talked about it with Stephen Colbert. He talked about it in his eulogy for John McCain. And he wrote about it in his 2017 book, Promise Me, Dad. “The pain,” he said, “had seemed unbearable in the beginning, and it took me a long time to heal, but I did survive the punishing ordeal. I made it through, with a lot support, and reconstructed my life and my family. When I talk to people in mourning, they know I speak from experience. They know I have a sense of the depth of their pain.” It’s an open question whether the electorate at large wants this from the person in the Oval Office—as evidenced by the current occupant. And Biden, whose previous presidential bids were brief and unsuccessful, brings his own baggage. But a case for his candidacy now incorporates history (no modern vice president has been denied his party’s nomination if he sought it), geography (the Scranton native would play well in battleground Pennsylvania), unmatched longevity (he’s been in the public eye for nearly half a century) and even simple name recognition. “There’s a real shot,” Democratic strategist Joe Trippi told me, “if he wants to take it.” “He knows what it means to go through loss,” Coons said. “But he also knows what it means to get up off your knees and to move forward—and I think what exactly makes him the right candidate for the Democratic Party at this moment, and for the country, not just the Democratic Party, is he can heal our relationships, with the world, with our allies, that are badly frayed right now. He can restore our position of strength and leadership in the world. But he can also restore a sense of optimism about the American people and heal the incredibly deep divisions that were already there but that Trump has exploited and widened.” *** Biden’s life was so storybook he was worried. He was married to a woman he had met and instantly fallen for on a beach on spring break in the Bahamas, a homecoming queen and a dean’s-list student. They quickly had three healthy children, two little boys and a baby girl. And on November 7, 1972, after just two years on a county council, after a race in which his sister was his campaign manager, one of his brothers was his chief fundraiser and his wife was “the brains” as well as his top “adviser,” as he told a local reporter, Biden won a seat in the United States Senate—besting a Republican icon in the same year Richard Nixon trounced George McGovern. He was two weeks shy of 30 years old. “Sounds preposterous,” he said at the time, “me a member of the Senate.” The day, though, after his election, he voiced to his wife a sinking feeling. “It’s too perfect. Can’t be like this,” he said, according to the reporting of Richard Ben Cramer in his classic tome, What It Takes. “Something’s gonna happen.” The truck carrying corncobs broadsided the Bidens’ white Chevrolet station wagon returning from a trip to pick the family Christmas tree. It sheared off the left rear wheel and drove the back door into the back seat and pushed the car some 150 feet into a thicket of evergreens. Neilia Biden, 30, and Naomi “Amy” Biden, 13 months, were dead on arrival at the hospital. Joseph “Beau” Biden III, 3, had a slew of broken bones, and Robert Hunter “Hunt” Biden, 2, had head injuries that doctors feared might be permanent. Joe Biden rushed from Washington where he had been interviewing prospective staff. Today, going on half a century later, the intersection of Valley and Limestone roads in Hockessin, Delaware, has a Starbucks, a Great Clips and a Walgreens, and traffic lights for every direction. On the afternoon of December 18, 1972, it was a rural crossroads, surrounded by mushroom farms and a liquor store. The sun set on a crash site littered with broken glass and index cards with phone numbers of voters and paraphernalia touting Biden for Senate. “Joe had it all,” his sister would say. “We were all just, like, ‘Nothing could stop us,’” said Sears, Biden’s friend from high school, “if you know what I mean—and yet suddenly … ” “The first few days,” Biden would write, “I felt trapped in a constant twilight of vertigo, like in the dream where you’re suddenly falling … only I was constantly falling.” He wondered how he could go on. “I began to understand how despair led people to just cash it in; how suicide wasn’t just an option but a rational option. But I’d look at Beau and Hunter asleep and wonder what new terrors their own dreams held, and wonder who would explain to my sons my being gone, too. And I knew had no choice but to fight to stay alive.” After the Accident | Top left: Joe Biden is sworn in as the U.S. senator from Delaware on Jan. 5, 1973, in his four-year-old son Beau’s Wilmington hospital room, just weeks after the car wreck that took the lives of Biden’s wife and daughter. Biden’s father-in-law, Robert Hunter, held the Bible. Top right: Biden would make it a habit to commute between Washington and Wilmington to spend more time with his sons Beau and Hunter, bottom, who survived the accident. | AP/Getty Images/The News Journal He didn’t want to go, though, to Washington. He didn’t want to be in the Senate. Not anymore. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield persuaded him to give it six months. He got sworn in in his boys’ hospital room. He fielded a condolence call from President Nixon. He felt such rage he stalked seedy streets looking for trouble. Senator John McClellan from Arkansas had had a wife and a son die of spinal meningitis and another son die in a car accident and yet another in a plane crash, and he tersely counseled Biden to “bury” himself in work. “Work,” he said. “Work. Work. Work.” But Biden didn’t want to work. He wanted to be with his boys. He took the train every day from Delaware to D.C. and back. He felt like he could barely breathe. He thought about moving to Vermont. The six months became a year. The second year was worse than the first. “Neilia was my very best friend, my greatest ally, my sensuous lover,” he told Kitty Kelley in 1974 for a profile in the Washingtonian. “The longer we lived together the more we enjoyed everything from sex to sports. Most guys don’t really know what I lost because they never knew what I had. … When you lose something like that, you lose a part of yourself that you never get back again.” Kelley counted 35 pictures of her in his office. “Let me show you my favorite picture of her,” Biden offered. His wife in a bikini. “She had the best body of any woman I ever saw,” he said. “Death and the All-American Boy,” the headline read. Biden recoiled. He thought it made him look “slightly unhinged.” It’s one interpretation, certainly. But read now, this signal piece of early Biden reportage seems to me to show a man still in visceral torment—hardened but to-the-core wounded, durably ambitious but still so lost, searching, struggling. “I want,” he said, “to find a woman to adore me again.” *** Grief of this kind, according to people who study it, isn’t the kind of thing that gets better and gets better and then one day is all gone. It ebbs and flows but never wholly subsides. “Sometimes,” Biden said, nearly 30 years after the accident, “it just overwhelms me.” “The hurt,” he said, another 15 years after that, in Promise Me, Dad, “is a physical presence, and it never leaves.” “It’s a process,” said psychologist Richard Tedeschi, retired from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. “And this is no easy matter. There’s a lot of distress, a lot of struggle.” Biden was remarried in 1977, to Jill Tracy Jacobs, an English teacher who met Biden on a blind date arranged by his brother. Their relationship made him whole enough again that he could think about more than just surviving. He was reelected in 1978, and again in 1984. In 1987, he ran for president, a bid halted after he incorporated into a speech of his parts of a speech by a British Labour Party leader, which coincided with reports about an insufficiently footnoted paper in law school, all of which congealed into a new and unflattering narrative about Biden as a cheater or plagiarist, or at least far too careless. Still, his seniority in the Senate put him in positions to shape history. As the chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary he led the confirmation hearings at the end of which the conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork was spurned. His staff had champagne ready. Biden said no. “There’s nothing here to celebrate,” he said. “Imagine how he feels.” He endured crippling headaches, which led to the discovery of aneurysms in his brain, which led to two surgeries that could have killed him or left him unable to speak or otherwise infirm. In the ‘90s, he authored the Violence Against Women Act and helped pass the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the second of which he would come to consider a “big mistake.” But his almost daily trips on the train became a part of his brand. “Amtrak Joe.” For his staff, family first was always “an unwritten rule.” The second-youngest senator in the history of the country became one of the body’s elders. Biden for President | Sen. Joe Biden walks with his wife, Jill, on June 9, 1987, after announcing in Wilmington what would be his first unsuccessful run for president. | AP In 2001, the week following the September 11 attacks, Biden gave a speech at the University of Delaware to a crowd of more than 2,700. He told them to not be afraid. He told the students their generation was up to the task to fight this fight. And he grieved for the people who had gotten a call saying their loved ones were dead, just like that, there in the morning, now gone forever. Once, he said, he had gotten that call. “It was an errant driver who stopped to drink instead of drive and hit—a tractor-trailer—hit my children and my wife and killed them,” he said. Six years later, in a very different context, in Iowa for a second attempt at running for president, he relayed a similar rendering of the accident. “Let me tell you a little story,” he said to a quiet crowd in Iowa City. “ … a guy who allegedly—and I never pursued it—drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family … ” The problem was it wasn’t true. The driver of the truck, Curtis C. Dunn of Pennsylvania, was not charged with drunk driving. He wasn’t charged with anything. The accident was an accident, and though the police file no longer exists, coverage in the newspapers at the time made it clear that fault was not in question. For whatever reason, Neilia Biden, who was holding the baby, ended up in the right of way of Dunn’s truck coming down a long hill. Getty Images Biden’s first campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination was derailed by accusations of plagiarism in college and reporting that he had lifted not only the words of a British politician in his stump speech but also the backstory of being a first-generation college student that went with the lifted section but did not actually hold true for Biden. He would withdraw from the race in Sept. 1987, admitting his “mistakes” but lamenting the “exaggerated shadow” they cast on his aspirations for the presidency. Getty Images Twenty years later, Biden would run again, but he suffered from a series of political gaffes and low polling numbers. After finishing fifth in the Iowa caucuses, he withdrew from the Democratic primary race on Jan. 3, 2008, only to be announced in late August as then-Sen. Barack Obama’s running mate. An experienced foreign-policy hand, Biden was speculated to have been picked to balance the ticket after having previously called Obama “not yet ready” for the presidency when he was still vying for the party’s nomination the year before. “She had a stop sign. The truck driver did not,” Jerome Herlihy told me. He’s a retired judge who then was a deputy attorney general and once was a neighbor to Biden and remains friendly. A pal of Biden at the time asked Herlihy “to go out to the state police troop where the driver of the other vehicle was to make sure everything was going all right,” and so he did. “In the end,” Herlihy said, “I concurred in their decision that there was no fault on his part.” In late August of 2008, during the presidential campaign in which Biden was now Barack Obama’s running mate, Inside Edition aired a clip of him talking about the “errant driver who stopped to drink.” The daughter of Dunn, who died in 1999, was distraught. “The family feels these statements are both hurtful and untrue and we didn’t know where they originated from,” the daughter, Pamela Hamill, told a reporter from the News Journal in Delaware. Her father had mourned the accident, she said, and always was solemn around the holidays because of it. In 2009, CBS News rehashed the debunking. “He was a good, hardworking man, and wonderful father,” Hamill said. Biden called her after the CBS report, she told me. “He apologized for hurting my family in any way,” she said. “So we accepted that—and kind of end of story from there.” She sounded tired, and tired of talking about this. Maybe the two cases of Biden embellishing the accident stemmed from the same part of him that neglected to credit the source of the most rousing pieces of that speech in Iowa in ’87. “Biden,” as Mark Bowden would put it in 2010 in The Atlantic, “has the limber storyteller’s tendency to stretch.” Maybe he was merely passing along rumors he had heard from investigators and others. A now-dead emergency worker who was on the scene that day suggested as much after seeing the CBS report. Or maybe Biden was engaging in what grief expert Rob Zucker described to me as “a retelling of the horror.” It’s something people sometimes do, he said, tweaking facts, shifting blame, if nothing else to make the grief more “palatable.” “It’s a common challenge bereaved parents in particular struggle with after a sudden, violent death. I think the fact that he has this way of sometimes understanding the story is really an expression of the challenge for any person to go forward in their lives,” Zucker added. “So maybe,” he said, “this other story creeps up sometimes because … ” He paused to think about how he wanted to finish this thought. “ … because he needed it.” *** Lisa Blunt Rochester’s husband hadn’t been dead for but a few hours. She hadn’t even left the hospital. Her phone rang. Joe Biden. “I’ll never forget,” the Delaware congresswoman told me earlier this month. “He says this thing that I’ve kept in my mind—and he says it many times—that there will come a day when the thought of your loved one will bring a smile to your face before it brings a tear to your eye.” He gave her his word. “He said, ‘I promise you, I promise you, that day will come,’” she said. She also heard, she said, from his son, then nearing the end of his second term as the attorney general in Delaware. She hardly recognized Beau Biden’s voice, he was so weak. He would be dead in eight months. Joe Biden’s entry in his diary: May 30. 7:51 p.m. It happened. My God, my boy. My beautiful boy. Illustration by Cristiana Couceiro What struck so many who attended the memorial services in Delaware was the extent to which Biden tried to comfort those who had come to comfort him. “Joe stood there and talked to every single person that came through,” Delaware lobbyist Rhett Ruggerio told me. “Never left, never left, never left—thousands of people—he never left,” marveled Sam Lathem, the retired president of the Delaware AFL-CIO, who has known him for decades. “He was consoling more people than were consoling him,” said his friend Fred Sears. “People were just coming up and bawling in his arms, and I can hear him saying, ‘Yes, it’s going to be all right, it’s going to be all right … ’” “The suffering he went through over losing Beau was just unspeakable. The depth of his grief over Beau’s passing was just beyond imagining,” Coons told me. And yet … “His strength at Beau’s viewing and funeral was superhuman. I mean, I was there, watching. I mean, he was on his feet, greeting and encouraging and comforting mourners, coming to his son’s viewing, and then his son’s funeral, for hours. I mean, just hours.” Mark Barden wasn’t there but noted similarities in his conversations with Biden after the death of Beau. “I would find ourselves where he was consoling me again, you know?” he told me. “It’s like, ‘No, no.’ I felt like he’s always been strong for me—even when he was suffering this again.” At the time of the funeral, the 2016 election cycle was well underway. One of the persistent questions was whether Biden would run for president. He agonized through the summer and into the fall. Nussbaum, the former speechwriter, sent a memo to Biden four months after Beau’s death. He shared it with me. “As you think about your next steps,” Nussbaum wrote, “one of the things I’ve been thinking about is how you can tell the story of the real Joe Biden, either within the context of a presidential campaign, or upon leaving office. As part of that, I wanted to help you think about a different type of book you could write … ” He continued: “ … there is a part of your story that hasn’t been fully told, one that could resonate far beyond political-book buyers, one that could perhaps be cathartic to write, and could provide inspiration and comfort to others in the process. This book would be on the theme of, perhaps even with the title of: Resilience.” Lessons from loss, he suggested: “Should you choose to run for president, it could also inform a powerful, differentiated message.” “He wasn’t interested in it,” Nussbaum told me. Not then. Not yet. Biden would have run if not for his son’s illness and death. “No question,” he has said. Both his sons wanted him to run. But in October 2015, he announced he would not. “I wanted to be able to summon the courage to live up to Beau’s example,” he wrote in 2017. “But I wasn’t sure if I would be able to find the emotional energy, and I knew from previous experience that grief is a process that respects no schedule and no timetable.” Tragedy Strikes a Second Time | On May 30, 2015, Joseph ‘Beau’ Biden III died of brain cancer. Beau, a former Delaware Attorney General, had been by his father’s side throughout his career. Top left: The two at the Iowa State Fair in August 1987, as the elder Biden campaigns for president. Top right: They embrace at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August 2008. Bottom: In June 2015, Biden watches an honor guard carry a casket containing Beau’s remains into St. Anthony of Padua Roman Catholic Church in Wilmington for funeral services. | AP/Getty Images It’s easy to read books by politicians—and there are so many that are so bad—and just churn through them, practically robotically, plucking buzzy crumbs or bullet-point bio bits. Never once while reading one of these books had I been forced to put down my red pen, to wipe my eyes and catch my breath—until I got to the bottom half of the 191st page of Promise Me, Dad. “I miss him so terribly—already,” wrote Biden. “Beau could always chase my fears away. He saved my life, along with Hunter, 40 years ago, after Neilia and Naomi died in the car accident, and now what was I supposed to do? I had looked to Beau, as I looked to Hunt, from the time he was a child, as a source of confidence, and courage. ‘It’s going to be okay, Daddy,’ he would say. ‘I’m not going away.’” Working on the book, Hunter Biden periodically would have to fact-check his father, who recalled conversations with Beau when he was sick—conversations that didn’t happen, and couldn’t have, because of a feeding tube in his throat. The explanation for this, Biden thought, was easy enough to decipher. “I found my mind playing tricks on me. You don’t want to see it.” *** The grief experts I talked to nonetheless called Biden a stalwart example of something they call “post-traumatic growth.” “What post-traumatic growth becomes over time is a pathway to resilience,” said Tedeschi, the UNCC psychologist. “That’s what post-traumatic growth does for people. It allows them to have a system of belief and understanding of living life that equips them for the traumas that may lie ahead.” Ultimately, grief experts explain, it even can be fortifying. Even liberating. Katherine Shear from Columbia University’s Center for Complicated Grief, for instance, cited to me an example of a woman she worked with. Her entire life, she had been anxious, practically to the point of agoraphobic. After her son died, though, she started skydiving. “All of a sudden,” said Shear, “things that scared her didn’t scare her anymore—because the worst had already happened.” Blunt Rochester described a similar sentiment. She announced she was running for Congress a year after her husband’s death—on purpose. “I actually said, ‘I have nothing to lose and everything to give.’ That’s how I felt,” she said. Fear? Doubt? “We have but a moment on this planet. And what are you going to do with it?” Ditto for Barden. “I will tell you,” he said, “that one of the things that comes from navigating this horrible tragedy and being on this journey is it really kind of shakes things out into perspective. Like, so many things that you look back on, you’re like, ‘What was I so worried about? That’s nothing.’” He said he was warned in Washington about the array of politicians and lobbyists who would fight them on their efforts for gun control. “They were like, ‘Don’t let them bother you,’ and I was like, ‘They’re not. I’ve already lived through worse than my own death … ” Grieving always. But emboldened. Biden has wanted to be the president for what feels like forever. He was talking about it before he became a senator. He was talking about it in college. He was talking about it in high school. He’s been talked about as a potential president for something approaching 50 years. “I want you to run,” Beau told him in November 2014. “We want you to run,” Hunter said. Just about everybody in Delaware seems to think he will. And they think he’ll win. Along with consultants and strategists—and with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and California Senator Dianne Feinstein already publicly backing him—they point to his common touch, his blue-collar bona fides and polls that suggest that Democrats want new, fresh faces … or him. “I don’t think there’s any question that if he’s the candidate in November of 2020 he will be the next president,” said Bob Gilligan, the former speaker of the Delaware House of Representatives and a longtime Biden friend. “He will not lose Pennsylvania, he will not lose Michigan, and he will not lose Wisconsin.” There is no shortage of sensible reasons Biden might not run. His age. His prior presidential flameouts. His brushes with scandal and embarrassment that undoubtedly will be recycled. Fodder available to his opponents that could be hurtful to his family. The long record that means lots of experience—and a litany of lines of attack. An indelibly moderate persona at a juncture when many Democrats seem to want bold attacks from the left. The circular firing squad of the primary taking shape—on the other side of which looms a matchup with a president fighting for his survival without shame. The utter, abject ugliness, guaranteed, of these next two years. But Gilligan and others also think he’ll do it—they think he’ll run—not in spite of what he’s been through but because of it. His grief, they say, kept him out of 2016, but it’s made him stronger for 2020. “Yes,” Coons said when I asked him about this. “It just adds,” Gilligan said, “to his ability to be understanding and empathetic.” “My guess,” veteran Democratic strategist Bob Shrum told me, “is having had time to recover from what happened to Beau that he may even have a stronger sense of wanting to run than he otherwise would have.” “Is he more prepared now than he would have been? Yes. The answer is yes,” Moe Vela, a senior adviser to Biden when he was the vice president, told me. “And I’ll tell you why. Because our life experiences—and that’s what those were for him—those were life experiences—deeply painful, deeply horrific, right?—but life experiences—that’s what shapes us. Think about it. So yes. Of course the answer is yes.”

Growing up in the United States, I was not a big fan of Joe Biden. I remember Biden at the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in 1991, looking out-of-depth as his colleagues berated and belittled Anita Hill. I recall him during the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush years, holding forth in Senate hearings and casting about for middle ground that no one really wanted. Biden was the face of establishment “meh,” the epitome of could-be-worse complacency. He vaguely sympathized with working people but went along with the neoliberal mania for lower taxes, fewer regulations and “freer” markets. He assumed the Civil Rights era had put America’s demons to rest, and he never saw the dark forces gathering behind his predecessor, Donald Trump, until it was too late. One year ago, during a bruising primary against more progressive rivals, Biden looked like a man history had left behind. Recently, however, Biden has shown that he understands how the modern U.S. presidency works, both in terms of policy and the nation’s psyche. First among equals Early U.S. presidents mostly focused on America’s relations with non-Americans. The Constitution of 1787 assigned domestic policy to Congress, not to the president. Besides, the early United States was a chaotic and ill-defined country, requiring most presidents to focus on enforcing federal law as best they could. This changed for good under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who held the office between 1933 and 1945. In the face of the Great Depression and fascism, FDR moved away from his centrist impulses and shifted U.S. social and economic policy well to the left. His New Deal vastly expanded the executive branch of the U.S. government and made it far more relevant to most Americans. To be sure, congressmen resisted, not just as rival Republicans but also as members of a separate and equal branch of government. So did governors who embraced the American tradition of local self-government over centralized rule. The modern-day president lives with these duelling legacies. On one hand, he now sets the priorities for domestic as well as foreign affairs and wields enormous discretionary power over a sprawling federal government. On the other hand, he must work with allies in the House and Senate and respect the stubborn independence of each of the 50 states. Biden gets this. He knows how and when to propose a bill and how and when to let others fight out the details. He understands how and when to frame an issue and how and when to let the arguments unfold on MSNBC and Fox News. Most importantly, he understands that the dominant ideologies of the past 50 years, especially the neoliberal dictum that markets know better than nations, simply won’t do in the face of a pitiless virus and the human wreckage it has left behind. This is why Biden, the ultimate moderate, was able to pass the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, arguably the biggest decision made by the U.S. government since the the FDR era. Consoler-in-chief Besides making policy, the modern American president must console the people in times of trauma. This, too, traces back to FDR, who was the first president to address the people by radio. During his “fireside chats,” FDR spoke directly to a mass audience, trying to preserve some kind of emotional unity among the American people. (AP Photo/Robert Clover) Canadians may well pause here to ask why such unity is necessary. Why does America require such emotional togetherness? Why can’t its 330 million people just feel what they feel and still agree to get along? Why can’t they live together as a big and complex society, different but not divided? It’s complicated. But after studying American nationalism for many years, I think the reason is that Americans aren’t nearly as nation-minded as we long to be. Our nationalism isn’t obvious or intuitive. We don’t have a distinctive language or ancient culture. We don’t even have a clear or stable sense of any homeland, a common patrie to which we can feel attached. Much of American history and culture is about moving away from wherever we’re from to settle in the U.S., usually at the expense of Indigenous populations. (This is especially true for white settlers, although Black Americans also sought freedom by heading west or north.) Our cherished individualism and mythic frontier spirit makes us isolated and alienated, even — or especially — from other Americans. That’s why someone needs to address us when something terrible happens. They need to look us in the eye and share our distress, in effect telling us that we’re not as alone as we feel. Here again, Biden understands his job. Read more: When 'hope and history rhyme': Joe Biden quotes an Irish poet to inspire healing in America Presidential behaviour In many ways, he became president the day before his inauguration, when he led a memorial for those lost to the virus. He did the same thing when the death toll passed 500,000. And after recently signing the Rescue Plan into law, he talked about our shared hardships and common sadness. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) “I carry a card in my pocket with the number of Americans who have died from COVID to date,” he said. He’s not the most eloquent man. But over his long career, Biden learned a thing or two about making policy. And at some point over his long life, he found the strength to carry on through tragedy, to walk through dark canyons in hope of dawn. All of this makes him the right person to steer America out of its recent calamities and towards a better version of itself.

Max Boot, a Russian-American author and historian and a fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations, says the U.S. Intel Community's just-released report on Russia's attack on the 2020 presidential election is "evidence of cooperation" – at least – between the Trump campaign and Moscow. The report details that Russian President Vladimir Putin once again interfered in the election, again to help President Donald Trump, and to hurt now-President Joe Biden. "I would say this is certainly evidence," Boot says, "it may be evidence of collusion, but it's definitely evidence of cooperation and congruence between the Russians and the Trump campaign." Boot praised the Biden administration for authorizing the release of the report, which he says Americans would not have seen under the Trump administration, while singling out Acting Trump DNI and DNI Rick Grinnell and John Ratcliffe, who "consistently tried to minimize and downplay Russian election interference." Importantly, Boot notes the report shows "just how closely the Russian messaging during the election echoed the messaging of the Trump campaign of Fox News and this kind of whole right wing media industrial complex." "It's fascinating to see the extent to which the Russians were pushing the same messages about alleged Biden corruption, about his supposedly corrupt son, about you can't trust mail-in ballots, that the Democratic Party is trying to interfere with the election. These were the things that Trump was saying, but these were also the things that the Russians were saying, and in fact, the report highlights the close ties between Russian agents of influence like Andrii Derkach from Ukraine. Ukraine and Rudy Giuliani the president's lawyer, Konstantin Kilimnik is another one, who is a former business partner of Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, so these ties are a copious and disturbing and to use a word we haven't heard in a few years, I would say this is certainly evidence. If not, it may be evidence of collusion, but it's definitely evidence of cooperation and and congruence between the Russians and the Trump campaign." Watch:

As articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump move forward in the U.S. House of Representatives, pro-Trump Republicans continue to insist that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 presidential election — a claim that foreign affairs expert Fiona Hill described as total nonsense during her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee last month. Regardless, Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina recently told an NBC News reporter that in 2016, “Every elected official in the Ukraine was for Hillary Clinton. Is that very different than the Russians being for Donald Trump?” And former CIA officer Alex Finley, in a December 10 article for Just Security, explains why Burr’s assertion is a “false equivalence” that “completely and dangerously mischaracterizes the threat we are facing” from Russian President Vladimir Putin. In 2016, Finley explains, some “Ukrainian officials publicly expressed a dislike for candidate Trump” and “looked to hold” some “corrupt” associates of former President Viktor Yanukovych “accountable” — and one of those associates “happened to be Trump’s campaign chairman” (Paul Manafort). But, Finley quickly adds, “Russian President Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, is aiming to destroy western democracies.” Those who think that statement about Putin sounds “overblown,” Finley asserts, should consider what Putin told the Financial Times: “The liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population.” Putin, Finley stresses, is opposed to the very ideal of liberal democracy. “Russia has been running, and continues to run, a covert intelligence operation aimed at duping westerners and inflaming internal divisions, in order to break down our democratic institutions,” Finley observes. “Putin aims to bring down the western liberal order, which — with the United States at the helm — has generally brought peace and stability to the west for 70 years.” Republicans, Finley warns, “should ask themselves why Putin sees them as a good partner” in his anti-U.S. goals. Finley goes on to list some things that the Russian government under Putin’s leadership did in 2016, from hacking Democratic e-mails to running an “influence campaign” through websites like WikiLeaks to infiltrating “the NRA and GOP circles with Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin.” Moreover, Finley writes, Putin’s government is not only trying to undermine western liberal democracy in the United States, but also, in Italy, France, Germany and other countries that have long been U.S. allies. “Congressional Republicans have become pansies of Putin in a much larger game,” Finley warns. “This is not about one election or even two elections. Putin is playing a long game aimed at changing the international system in his favor, and Republicans are aiding and abetting him. Does the party of Ronald Reagan really want to be an accomplice to the destruction of the U.S.-led liberal world order?”

Lost in the news on the day of Trump's Insurrection was a devastating new watchdog report to Congress on the politicizing and distorting of intelligence during Donald Trump's time in office. The analytic ombudsman, career intelligence community veteran Barry A. Zulauf, determined that under Trump national intelligence reports had become highly politicized. Important findings were suppressed to appease Trump's refusal to acknowledge Russian interference in American elections. Zulauf's unclassified report paints a frightening picture of just how much the Trump administration skewed intelligence to suppress knowledge of interference by Russia in our 2020 elections. From March 2020, in the critical months leading up to the elections, Zulauf "identified a long story arc of—at the very least—perceived politicization of intelligence." Zulauf works in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), a Cabinet-level position created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to oversee all U.S. intelligence operations. Zulauf's job within the ODNI was created by Congress to assist analysts throughout the intelligence community with complaints and concerns about politicization, biased reporting or lack of objectivity in intelligence analysis. This is the first of a two-part series. Coming in Part 2: The intelligence community under Trump was not alone in diverting focus from Russian interference. Zulauf determined that Trump's ODNI took "willful actions that… had the effect of politicizing intelligence, hindering objective analysis or injecting bias into the intelligence process." While Zulauf tried to avoid specifically naming individuals responsible for much of the political heavy-handed rewriting, he repeatedly calls out actions taken by two recent Trump appointees, neither of whom had any chops as intelligence experts. One is former an acting director, Richard Grenell. He had been a Fox News commentator and Trump-appointed ambassador to Germany, and took over the ODNI in February 2020 then relinquished the post the following May. The second was the Texas congressman Trump appointed to replace Grenell, John Ratcliffe, best known as a fervent defender of the ex-president in his first impeachment. In one particularly egregious example, Zulauf wrote, Ratcliffe insisted on highlighting Chinese election interference while downplaying Russian efforts. "Ratcliffe just disagreed with the established analytic line on China, insisting 'we are missing' China's influence in the US and that Chinese actions ARE intended to affect the election," Zulauf wrote. "Ultimately the DNI insisted on putting material on China in…. As a result, the final published [assessment], analysts felt, was an outrageous misrepresentation of their analysis." The intelligence community has procedures to make sure assessments are based on sound judgment by seasoned analysts, not rogue points of view especially when they are not supported by facts. The Senate Intelligence Committee requested the ombudsman review possible politicization of intelligence. Interestingly, Zulauf notes, he had his own review under way when the Senate Intelligence Committee request arrived. The ombudsman started his own investigation after he was approached by ombudsmen at three other agencies within the intelligence community. They acted because intelligence agency professionals and managers perceived problems and were getting internal complaints about the politicization of intelligence. Helsinki Betrayal The findings come 29 months after Trump declared in Helsinki, standing next to Vladimir Putin, that he trusted the Russian leader, but not the American intelligence services. By putting his trust in Putin, a former KGB colonel, saying that he took him at his word when he denied interfering in the 2016 presidential election, Trump reiterated his denunciations of American intelligence services. Trump refused on most days to sit for his intelligence briefing, a closely guarded summary of worldwide threats to America and its allies. The report is prepared by experienced analysts based on reports from 17 American intelligence agencies, which feed material to Central Intelligence Agency for consideration. The Presidential Daily Brief is tailored to each sitting president's style. Trump's brief was reduced to simplistic points, often illustrated with graphics. Russian actions against the United States were often left out or described obliquely to avoid provoking Trump. Trump would have found even simplified daily briefings difficult to grasp given his ignorance about geopolitical affairs and history. For example, he once asked aides if Finland was part of Russia. He met with the Baltic presidents and confused their countries with the Balkans. Mueller's Warning While Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III was barred from investigating Trump's conduct as a counterintelligence matter, his office did look into Russian interference in the 2016 election. On July 24, 2019, Mueller told the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees that Russia would continue interfering in our elections. "It was not a single attempt, [Russia's] doing it as we sit here," he testified. "And they expect to do it during the next campaign." Yet eight months later, on March 10, 2020, in presenting the views of the intelligence community, Bill Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC), briefing members of Congress on election interference, said the opposite. He told lawmakers in a closed-door session for which summaries were released that there was no evidence that Russia had taken steps to help any candidate in the 2020 elections. Analysts refer to talking points in these March statements, as well as subsequent statements in July, August and October of last year, as examples of "gross misrepresentation" of established intelligence community views. The ombudsman's report attributes the rationale for these distortions and lies to the opposition they faced "getting their views on election interference across…in a confrontational environment." But it does not assert that Trump directly ordered them. Several House managers noted during impeachment and Trump's better biographers have long noted, Trump gives direction the way mob bosses do, not by direct order but by relying on people to interpret a wink and a nod or even just tone of voice. Misleading Congress The March assessment delivered to a House and Senate all-members meeting was delivered by Evanina. Zulauf called this "the most egregious example" he uncovered of distorted intelligence. When interviewed by the ombudsman, Evanina said he received his talking points from ODNI and National Intelligence Council (NIC) officials. He said that since they were directly from the ODNI and NIC he assumed the talking points represented the coordinated views of the intelligence community. Zulauf could not find anyone at ODNI who wrote or contributed to the talking points Evanina used. The various individuals laid the distortions off on various excuses and reasons. Zulauf did not accuse them directly of lying and denying. However, Zulauf said "red flags" were ignored. He took note of "widespread reluctance among intelligence professionals to deliver" assessments. "This reluctance on the part of seasoned IC [intelligence community] officers should have been a red flag but did not stop the statement from being issued." Despite leadership's efforts to downplay any threat of Russian interference, the report was unequivocal on what U.S. intelligence analysts who specialized in Russia were seeing: "Russia analysts assessed that there was clear and credible evidence of Russian election influence activities." Analysts expressed frustration that political appointees were suppressing the actual intelligence because it was not well received at the Trump White House. The analysts told the ombudsman that their intelligence was being suppressed and politicized as the ODNI leaders cherry-picked intelligence supporting a narrative that Trump wanted rather than presenting facts. Mulvaney's Warning The information contained in the report further supports reporting in April 2019 by The New York Times about what Mick Mulvaney, then-White House chief of staff, told Kirstjen Nielsen during her stint as head of the Department of Homeland Security. Mulvaney warned Nielsen not to speak with Trump about Russian attempts to interfere in future U.S. elections. That revelation by journalists, now buttressed by Zulauf's report, illustrates how Trump's disregard for and suppression of intelligence assessments about Russian interference consistently made its way from the White House to his cabinet and the highest levels of the intelligence community where it had a clear impact of how intelligence was written up and disseminated. Zulauf wrote that in May 2020, the acting director of National Intelligence, Grenell, delayed the release of a memo for "politically motivated editing." The changes "buried the lead," Zulauf wrote, regarding known election security threats. Analysts found intelligence community leadership consistently "watered down conclusions" and were "boosting the threat from China." Overstating the threat from China also minimized, and distracted from, actual threats from Russia. Instead of speaking on Russia, leaders regularly pivoted instead to China. In an interview on Oct. 6, 2020, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who heads the House Intelligence Committee, addressed similar statements by then Attorney General William P. Barr. Schiff is one of the "Gang of Eight," the bipartisan leaders in Congress who are regularly copied into the highest levels of intelligence. The attorney general had just asserted that China posed the greatest threat to U.S. elections based on intelligence he had seen. Barr Called a Liar "That's just a plain false statement by the attorney general, a flat-out false statement," Schiff said. "You can tell that Bill Barr is just flat-out lying to the American people, and it's tragic but it's as simple as that." The United Statesm spends hundreds of millions of dollars each day to monitor activities around the world, including efforts by China, Iran, Russia and other countries to probe government and business computer networks. The Russians are known to have the ability to open and close floodgates on American hydroelectric dams. That prompted us to quietly take actions against the Russian electric grids to make clear that any disruption of the dams would come with consequences. Decades-Long Seduction For decades,, the Russians courted Trump, one of many prominent people around the globe sought by intelligence services as potential assets. A former KGB spy who had a cover working in Washington for the Russian government-controlled news agency TASS, recently told The Guardian that Trump was cultivated as a Russian asset during 40 years. When Trump became president, the Kremlin hit the biggest intelligence jackpot imaginable. The first known payoff came in May 2017, just weeks after Trump took his oath to defend America against foreign enemies. Trump held an unannounced meeting in the Oval Office with the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador. In that meeting Trump revealed the most sensitive intelligence material, known as sources and methods. Disclosing sources and methods would naturally discourage friendly governments from sharing many of their own intelligence findings since their spies and ways of uncovering information could be compromised, even ruined, with the potential that the spies would be assassinated by the Russian government. We know this because the Russians announced what Trump had done. The same government-controlled TASS news agency released photos of a smiling Trump with the two grinning Russian officials taken by a Russian photographer who was let into the Oval. The Russian officials, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, are, like Putin, trained spies. President Joe Biden's announcement on Feb. 5 that he will not grant Trump the courtesy of intelligence briefings was summarized by Schiff as an important move to protect America's national security. Schiff tweeted: "Donald Trump politicized and abused intelligence while he was in office. Donald Trump cannot be trusted with America's secrets. Not then, and certainly not now. Americans can sleep better at night knowing he will not receive classified briefings as an ex-president."

Senate Report: Former Trump Aide Paul Manafort Shared Campaign Info With Russia Enlarge this image toggle caption Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort passed internal Trump campaign information to a Russian intelligence officer during the 2016 election, a new bipartisan Senate report concludes. The findings draw a direct line between the president's former campaign chairman and Russian intelligence during the 2016 campaign. Manafort, who was later convicted for financial fraud crimes, briefed Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik on the campaign's polling data and how the Trump campaign sought to beat Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. Manafort's connection with Kilimnik was a "grave counterintelligence threat," the report reads, adding that it found evidence the Russian intelligence officer may have been linked to the Russian government's efforts to hack and leak Democratic Party emails. The findings are part of the Senate Intelligence Committee's fifth and final bipartisan report investigating Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. This volume is primarily focused on counterintelligence threats and the wide range of Russian attempts to influence both the Trump campaign and the election. The report builds on special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation — and while it was consistent with the Mueller Report, it in fact goes further. The committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin was personally behind the hack and leak operation that published stolen Democratic Party emails, and that WikiLeaks — the website that published them — played a key role and "very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort." The Trump campaign sought to take advantage of those leaks by asking for advance notice of the WikiLeaks disclosures, crafting public relations strategies around them, and even encouraging "further theft of information and continued leaks." This took place at critical moments of the 2016 campaign, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded. For example, when the Trump campaign was made aware that The Washington Post would be publishing a copy of the now-infamous Access Hollywood tape, word got to Trump confidant Roger Stone — who tried to get a message to WikiLeaks through an intermediary so that it would publish hacked Democratic Party emails immediately. WikiLeaks ultimately published stolen emails approximately 30 minutes after the Access Hollywood story was put online. The Trump campaign responded to the report by saying it was evidence that "there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign," adding its contention that the "Russia Collusion Hoax is the greatest political scandal in the history of this country." The report also found fault with the FBI: With regard to the hacking of Democratic Party emails, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the bureau did not act aggressively enough to warn the Democratic National Committee about the hacking operation. But it also said that the DNC did not take these warnings seriously enough, and that there was poor communication on both sides. The report also faulted the FBI for giving "unjustified credence" to the information in Christopher Steele's dossier, a compendium of reporting from a former British intelligence officer. The dossier, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded, "lacked rigor and transparency about the quality of the sourcing." Following the Mueller Report, the fifth and final volume of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russian interference puts something of a lid on years of probes into the issue. From this, there is a bipartisan consensus about the nature of the Russian threat. Both sides agree that the Russian government meddled in the 2016 election — and are calling for action to protect campaigns from foreign interference in future campaigns.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a joint statement addressing right-wing claims of foreign interference in the 2020 elections — and found that according to an investigation, there is no evidence that such interference occurred in the ways that were alleged. DOJ and DHS, in their statement, explained, "The Departments investigated multiple public claims that one or more foreign governments owned, directed, or controlled election infrastructure used in the 2020 federal elections; implemented a scheme to manipulate election infrastructure; or tallied, changed, or otherwise manipulated vote counts. The Departments found that those claims were not credible." The foreign governments mentioned in the press release include those of China and Iran. DOJ and DHS note, "The Departments found no evidence that any foreign government-affiliated actor manipulated election results or otherwise compromised the integrity of the 2020 federal elections." Following the 2020 presidential election, then-President Donald Trump and attorneys who supported him — including Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis — claimed that Trump had been the victim of widespread voter fraud. But that claim was totally debunked, and according to former DHS cybersecurity official Christopher Krebs, the election was quite secure. Trump fired Krebs for debunking his own conspiracy theories. Powell and other pro-Trump attorneys baselessly claimed that the voting technology of Dominion Voting Systems was used to help Joe Biden steal the 2020 U.S. presidential election, suggesting it had nefarious ties to the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Dominion, debunking Powell's false claims, responded that its voting technology had never even been used in Venezuela, and brought a wave of defamation lawsuits against those falsely making such claims. Politico reporter Kyle Cheney notes that DOJ and DHS have investigated "Sidney Powell-fueled claims that Venezuela, China and Iran had some sort of control over U.S. election infrastructure" and found no evidence to support such claims. The DOJ/DHS statement released on Tuesday notes that in 2020, election officials went to great lengths to maintain election security. "During the 2020 election cycle, federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, non-governmental, and private sector partners nationwide worked together in unprecedented ways to combat foreign interference efforts and support election officials, political organizations, campaigns, and candidates in safeguarding their infrastructure," the DOJ/DHS release states. "The Departments remain committed to continuously strengthening the nation's cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, supply chain risk management, public-private partnerships, and public messaging to enhance the resiliency of our democratic institutions."

"There were massive improprieties and fraud — including dead people voting, Poll Watchers not allowed into polling locations, 'glitches' in the voting machines which changed ... votes from Trump to Biden, late voting, and many more," Trump tweeted, though those claims are false. "Therefore, effective immediately, Chris Krebs has been terminated." Krebs, one of the few Trump appointees with nearly universal bipartisan support, spent years navigating his new agency through DHS’s leadership turmoil and the administration’s political controversies. At the same time, he built relationships with fellow officials and private security experts to reform and promote the government’s cyber mission. After rising to become the United States' de-facto cyber czar in 2018, he became a familiar presence at security conferences, where he discussed threats such as the ransomware epidemic and the risks of Chinese telecom companies such as Huawei. In an administration that constantly defied democratic norms, Krebs became the public face of the government’s election security efforts, highlighting the collaboration between national security officials and election supervisors. But Krebs’ commitment to debunking misinformation about the presidential election finally proved too much for the White House , which pushed him out as part of a government-wide purge that has also hit the top ranks of the Pentagon . Democratic lawmakers, election supervisors, former officials and cybersecurity professionals reacted with dismay to news of Krebs' firing, as did Nebraska Republican Sen. Ben Sasse. “President Trump is retaliating against Director Krebs and other officials who did their duty,” House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in a statement. “It’s pathetic, but sadly predictable that upholding and protecting our democratic processes would be cause for firing.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi commended Krebs for "speaking truth to power and rejecting Trump’s constant campaign of election falsehoods." She said his firing was part of Trump's "dangerous and shameful charade." Sasse offered one of the few statements from a Republican lawmaker or election supervisor that explicitly criticized Trump. “Chris Krebs did a really good job — as state election officials all across the nation will tell you — and he obviously should not be fired," he said. Krebs “is the only person I can think of who is leaving this administration with his reputation not just intact but, appropriately, burnished,” tweeted Suzanne Spaulding , who preceded Krebs as head of DHS’s cybersecurity mission during the Obama administration. “Thank you for picking up the baton 4 yrs ago and achieving so much progress for the org and mission!” Former Senate Intelligence Chair Richard Burr (R-N.C.) praised Krebs as "a dedicated public servant who has done a remarkable job during a challenging time," but he did not criticize Trump for firing Krebs. The Biden campaign also praised Krebs, linking his firing to Trump's refusal to accept the president-elect's victory. "Chris Krebs should be commended for his service in protecting our elections, not fired for telling the truth," said Biden spokesperson Michael Gwin, who added that "Trump's embarrassing refusal to accept [his loss] lays bare how baseless and desperate his flailing is." Shortly after Trump fired him, Krebs championed his former agency's work on his personal Twitter account. "Honored to serve," he said. "We did it right." CISA Deputy Director Matthew Travis was next in line to lead the agency, but Travis is resigning soon, a person familiar with the matter told POLITICO late Tuesday. Leadership of CISA would fall to its executive director, Brandon Wales, a career employee whom Trump cannot fire. Days before Trump fired Krebs, White House officials vented their displeasure with Krebs to the New York Post, claiming CISA was a haven for Trump critics and a wellspring of resistance to his administration. The Post reported that acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf was resisting Trump's instructions to fire Krebs, even though only Trump, not Wolf, had the power to do so. Wolf publicly praised Krebs on Election Day and thanked him for his efforts to protect U.S. elections. He refrained from antagonizing Krebs because he wanted the Senate to confirm him to the secretary post, but he still encouraged Krebs to tone down his debunkings of election misinformation to avoid angering Trump, according to a person familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity to discuss private conversations. Krebs said that he wouldn't be doing his job if he did that, according to this person. The White House did not give CISA any warning before Trump fired Krebs, according to one agency official, who requested anonymity given the sensitivity of the matter. Even so, said the CISA official, Krebs' departure won't deter the agency from its mission. “It’s unfortunate, but we’re going to keep going," the official said. “We’re going to go to work tomorrow. We’re going to keep doing the same things.” A focus on election security Krebs’ most significant legacy is the nation’s increasingly robust election infrastructure. The technology and processes that power U.S. elections are far more secure than they were in 2016, when Russian hackers thrust the creaking machinery of American democracy into the spotlight. But getting to this point was an uphill battle at times. “The success of the 2020 General Election — in the face of disinformation campaigns and cyber threats from foreign adversaries — is owed in large part to CISA under Chris Krebs’ leadership,” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla said in a statement. He called Krebs “an accessible, reliable partner for elections officials across the country, and across party lines." The Obama administration’s belated approach to engaging election supervisors in 2016 left state and local officials skeptical of, or even hostile to, help from Washington. Improving this relationship couldn’t have been more important, as many states maintained insecure voter registration databases and many counties used electronic voting machines that lacked the paper trails necessary for reliable audits. Krebs and his team launched a charm offensive to dispel rumors about federal takeovers. They pushed states to adopt paper ballots and post-election audits , which many began doing after Congress approved hundreds of millions of dollars in election security grants. CISA also offered states free cybersecurity services , including penetration testing, phishing simulations, vulnerability scanning and resilience assessments. All 50 states and many local jurisdictions joined a CISA-funded information sharing group and installed intrusion-detection sensors that help the agency analyze hackers’ activities. Under Krebs, CISA paid particular attention to small local jurisdictions that often lacked any dedicated IT staff, launching a “Last Mile Initiative” in 2018 that helped states furnish custom cheat sheets for their county supervisors. Krebs also launched a Voter Registration Database Ransomware Initiative to help officials protect these key systems from extortion-focused malware. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who worked with Krebs as the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, which oversees federal elections, called his firing "a gut punch to our democracy." "He has been truthful and straightforward with the American people about the threats to our democracy," she said in a statement. "We need more people like Director Krebs working in government, and it is wrong that he was fired." Krebs also worked to improve relationships with the companies that sell election technology such as voting machines, electronic poll books and results-reporting websites. For years, these largely unregulated vendors have scorned security researchers’ attempts to study their products, used lawsuits to maintain quasi-monopolies and in some cases misled customers about the security of their products . Krebs encouraged the companies to mend fences with researchers and improve security practices. Over time, these efforts paid off. CISA persuaded several voting-machine manufacturers to let the Energy Department’s Idaho National Laboratory test their products for vulnerabilities. In 2019, Krebs said such cooperation would have been “unheard of” two years earlier. In addition, all three major voting machine makers now operate vulnerability disclosure programs. While researchers and activists still have complaints, many of them acknowledge that the industry is trying to improve. Kreb also encouraged companies such as Google and Microsoft to offer free support to campaigns and election officials, resulting in the increased adoption of techniques such as multi-factor authentication. In the final phase of the 2020 election, CISA launched a “Rumor Control” website to debunk election-related misinformation and partnered with other agencies to encourage trust in the system and correct viral falsehoods . Krebs argued that false alarms and reduced voter confidence could do far more damage than an actual cyberattack. Full plate of other threats The coronavirus pandemic offered another stress test of CISA’s partnerships with other agencies and the private sector. CISA offered cybersecurity help to health-care organizations developing vaccines as part of the Trump administration’s “Operation Warp Speed” initiative. The agency also worked with its British counterpart to warn about hackers exploiting the pandemic , and it partnered with the FBI to warn that Chinese hackers were targeting virus researchers . Krebs also had to deal with the threat of ransomware, which mushroomed to become one of the biggest problems facing businesses, healthcare systems and local governments . In October, CISA, along with the FBI and the Department of Health and Human Services, began assisting hospitals in defending themselves against a massive ransomware campaign that one researcher described as “probably the most dangerous cyberattacks in the US to date.” CISA also tackled problems including 5G security and threats to the industrial control systems found in facilities such as power plants. The agency launched a supply chain risk management task force to help companies protect the sprawling global web of producers and suppliers, and it produced a “National Critical Functions” list to help clarify policymakers’ thinking about the country’s biggest systemic weak points. To help CISA identify the operators of vulnerable infrastructure, Krebs pushed Congress to grant him the power to issue administrative subpoenas to internet service providers for basic customer data. "Chris Krebs is a public servant of impeccable integrity," Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), the co-chairman of the Congressional Cybersecurity Caucus, said in a statement. Krebs also leaned into CISA’s role as the cyber overseer for federal civilian agencies. Using CISA’s authority to issue “ binding operational directives ,” he ordered agencies to launch vulnerability disclosure programs, protect their most valuable digital assets and implement basic email and web security defenses. He also issued emergency orders requiring agencies to remedy emerging flaws. Krebs also worked closely with his counterparts in the governments of close U.S. allies. “He’s been the best partner an ally could hope for,” tweeted Ciaran Martin , who worked with Krebs as the head of Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre. "People in [the U.S., the U.K.] and beyond are safer online because of his work and leadership.” Cybersecurity is ‘where it’s at’ Krebs joined the Trump administration in March 2017 after spending three years as a Microsoft lobbyist on cyber issues. He first served as a senior counselor to then-DHS Secretary John Kelly before becoming the assistant secretary for infrastructure protection. He concurrently served as the acting under secretary in charge of DHS’s cyber wing, the National Protection and Programs Directorate, until the Senate confirmed him to that job in June 2018. Krebs’ position gained new importance in May 2018, when the White House eliminated the cybersecurity coordinator position inside the National Security Council, leaving the government without an official “cyber czar” and functionally throwing Krebs into that role. He embraced the responsibility, becoming a constant presence at cybersecurity conferences. He hobnobbed with tech executives on the sidelines of industry events, bantered with reporters after keynote speeches and inspired memes on social media about his socks and ties . Two weeks after the 2018 midterms, Trump signed a bill that reorganized Krebs’ DHS division into CISA, handing the new agency director a major win and fulfilling a long-term goal of many cyber policy specialists. “This will make us, I think, much more effective,” Trump said as he signed the bill. “Cyber is, to a large extent, where it’s at nowadays.” The new agency made Krebs’ team more approachable to the private sector — he often joked about never again having to say NPPD’s clunky full name — and it quickly became a partner for companies that were hesitant to engage with other agencies but trusted Krebs. As the de-facto cyber chief, Krebs had to manage relationships with an often fractious community of federal agencies, state and local partners, activist groups, independent researchers and security companies. One of Krebs’ main tasks was to cut through years of mistrust between the hacker community and the government. At events such as the annual DEF CON conference in Las Vegas, Krebs urged public-spirited hackers to help the government find and fix flaws in U.S. computer systems. He acknowledged their skepticism but insisted that he was advocating for them inside the government. To promote CISA’s work and demonstrate to outsiders that it wasn’t your average government agency, Krebs embraced humor and whimsy, running a “Star Wars”-themed recruiting campaign and explaining the threat of disinformation with a campaign about the controversial practice of putting pineapple on pizza . As CISA grew, other agencies were also reorganizing their cyber missions. Krebs had to build ties with the Pentagon’s newly elevated U.S. Cyber Command and the NSA’s new Cybersecurity Directorate, the secretive spy agency’s first major attempt at public engagement. Cyber Command’s newly aggressive posture and the NSA’s insular culture were fundamentally at odds with CISA, which prioritized collaboration and information sharing. Krebs also had to coordinate with the FBI’s Cyber Division, which began trying to play a larger role in deterring hackers. Leading amid the chaos Looming over all of this was the leadership turmoil atop DHS, which experienced a succession of permanent and acting secretaries as the White House pushed the department to pursue harsher immigration policies. Krebs steered CISA away from the political controversies, but policy specialists wondered how the agency was suffering from a lack of stable DHS leadership. A reminder of Krebs’ precarious position arrived in August, when the Government Accountability Office declared acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf’s appointment to be invalid and determined that, under the department’s succession plan, Krebs should have become the acting secretary when Kirstjen Nielsen resigned in April 2019. The crisis illustrated the peculiar situation in which the scrupulously apolitical Krebs found himself. Through it all, Krebs garnered rare bipartisan acclaim. In an administration that was almost singularly focused on catering to Trump’s whims and implementing a right-wing agenda, Krebs was one of the few agency chiefs whom Democrats and Republicans alike regarded as a nonpartisan figure just trying to do good work. Langevin recently told POLITICO that he wanted Biden to keep Krebs in place after he took office. When news broke last week of Krebs’ likely ouster, he received support and praise from many Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee; Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, a member of the Homeland Security Committee; and Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Krebs deflected questions about the tensions between his and Trump’s comments about election security, saying he was focused on his technical mission. Distancing himself from Trump’s remarks protected Krebs for more than three years, but the presidential election pushed the CISA director’s relationship with the White House to the breaking point. As Election Day neared, CISA launched the “Rumor Control” website to collect fact checks about common election misinformation. Krebs, who told reporters he wouldn’t directly correct Trump’s falsehoods, nonetheless stocked the page with information that debunked right-wing conspiracy theories. That continued after the election, as Trump and his allies — including several of Krebs’ fellow agency leaders — falsely alleged mass voter fraud to deny the legitimacy of Biden’s victory. “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history,” CISA and its election security partners said in a statement on Nov. 12, as rumors about Krebs’ fate swirled. “While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.” Krebs’ insistence on the sanctity of the process angered White House officials, who took particular umbrage when he dismissed a Republican conspiracy theory about a vote-flipping supercomputer as “nonsense.” Several government officials expected Krebs to be fired after a POLITICO story published on Tuesday highlighted his pushback against conservatives’ election misinformation, a former U.S. official said. As it turned out, Rumor Control was only the final straw. The White House’s personnel office “has wanted to fire Krebs for a while,” said a current U.S. official. Even if he can no longer lead CISA, Krebs could be seen as a resource for the Biden administration. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) said in a statement that President-elect Biden should "recognize Chris’s contributions" and "consult with him as the Biden administration charts the future of this critically important agency." Natasha Bertrand contributed to this report.

On Thursday, the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee released a report outlining steps that should be taken to prevent “foreign influence campaigns” from interfering in the 2020 presidential election. One of the key recommendations was that President Donald Trump stop asking for political help from such schemes — despite the fact that less than 24 hours before, a majority of the committee’s members voted to acquit Trump of abuse of power for trying to do precisely that. “The President of the United States should take steps to separate himself … from political considerations when handling issues related to foreign intelligence operations,” stated the report. “These steps should explicitly include putting aside politics when addressing the American people on election threats and marshalling all the resources of the U.S. Government to effectively confront the threat.” Trump has famously shifted between downplaying election security threats from Russia, and openly inviting foreign powers to attack his opponents. In 2016, he urged Russia to find and release Hillary Clinton’s “missing” emails — which was shortly followed by a series of leaks of stolen communications from Democrats that were ultimately found to have originated from Russian military operatives. More recently, the president pressured the president of Ukraine to announce an “investigation” into former Vice President Joe Biden’s family, which led to his impeachment for abuse of power.

Chris Krebs, the former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the United States Department of Homeland Security, has once again affirmed the integrity of the 2020 election. Despite backlash from President Donald Trump, along with his campaign, legal team, and allies, Krebs defended his work within the federal agency in an editorial published Tuesday by the Washington Post. According to Krebs, the U.S. national security agencies had a very clear mission during the 2020 election: protect America's democracy. "Across the nation's security agencies, there was universal acknowledgment that such foreign election interference could not be allowed to happen again. The mission was clear: Defend democracy and protect U.S. elections from threats foreign and domestic." Pushing back against Trump's widespread voter fraud claims, Krebs made it clear that election security was unprecedented for the 2020 election. "The 2020 election was the most secure in U.S. history," Krebs said. "This success should be celebrated by all Americans, not undermined in the service of a profoundly un-American goal." He also outlined how the federal agency prepared for the election. With heightened concerns about the possibility of domestic and international election interference, national security agencies went above and beyond the call of duty to ensure the country's election systems and integrity were secured. "With the advantage of time to prepare for the 2020 election, we got to work," Krebs said, adding, "My team at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA, had primary responsibility for working with state and local election officials and the private sector to secure their election infrastructure — including the machines, equipment and systems supporting elections — from hacking. (Other agencies handle fraud or other criminal election-related activity.) The Russian assault in 2016 had not included hacking voting machines, but we couldn't be sure that Moscow or some other bad actor wouldn't try it in 2020." Krebs also touched on the dangerous remarks made by Trump campaign attorney Joseph DiGenova as he made it clear he is not deterred by threats. He wrote, "On Monday, a lawyer for the president's campaign plainly stated that I should be executed. I am not going to be intimidated by these threats from telling the truth to the American people."

Before Merrick Garland took office last week, the new attorney general surely understood that he would face a difficult and almost-overwhelming set of problems — including reconstruction of the Justice Department after the ruinously partisan rule of his predecessor William Barr; overseeing hundreds of federal prosecutions of Jan. 6 insurrectionists; and dealing with the scandal detritus of the Trump regime, which may eventually involve indictments of the former president, his associates and even members of his family. But this week, we learned of still more troubling issues that may require Garland's attention, when the department of homeland security and the director of national intelligence released declassified reports on foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election. The classified versions of those reports were on the attorney general's desk when he arrived for his first day of work, and what they indicate is the worst U.S. intelligence scandal since the fabricated reports that justified the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence summarized the views of the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies concerning foreign interference in the 2020 election. They found that yet again, Russia undertook strenuous measures to assist Donald Trump and his campaign, with the express purpose of keeping him in power. Law enforcement officials and counterintelligence analysts gathered substantial evidence showing that the Kremlin's spy apparatus, both military and civilian, used Trump's network of associates — including Republicans in both the House and Senate — to spread false stories about Ukraine, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. And as the report stated, the directive came from the top: "We assess that President Putin and the Russian state authorized and conducted influence operations against the 2020 US presidential election aimed at denigrating President Biden and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US." As might be expected, the report dismissed the fantasy propaganda spread by Trump's attorneys in the election's aftermath about mysterious communist entities that somehow controlled voting machines — and padded Joe Biden's vote totals from abroad. "We are aware of multiple public claims that one or more foreign governments — including Venezuela, Cuba, or China — owned, directed, or controlled election infrastructure used in the 2020 federal elections; implemented a scheme to manipulate election infrastructure; or tallied, changed, or otherwise manipulated vote counts," it noted, adding that investigations by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security found no evidence whatsoever to bolster those claims. It doesn't name Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani or any of the other legal and media figures who trumpeted those lies, but it doesn't need to. Debunking those ridiculous characters is amusing and may prove interesting to state bar authorities with ethical jurisdiction over them. But the report's most disturbing implication concerns the behavior of government officials who misled the public and Congress about the role of China — and Russia. Last summer, as Election Day drew near, the Trump administration's top officials, including the president himself and then-Attorney General William Barr, then-director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe and then-national security adviser Robert O'Brien, publicly misled the nation with false claims about alleged Chinese interference. On two occasions, O'Brien asserted that Beijing's intelligence agencies were seeking to influence voters, even more than the Russians. "(T)he Chinese have taken the most active role," he claimed. Barr said the same thing, citing "intelligence" sources that showed China was superseding Russian as an electoral threat. And so did Ratcliffe, who proved himself to be a partisan Trump crony when he insisted on national television that "China is using a massive and sophisticated influence campaign that dwarfs anything that any other country is doing." Yet according to the declassified report, there was no Chinese effort that came close to the scale or intention of the Russian campaign for Trump. "We assess that China did not deploy interference efforts and considered but did not deploy intelligence efforts intended to change the outcome of the US presidential election," the report concluded. So those loud warnings from Barr, Ratcliffe and O'Brien — as well as Trump — were knowing falsehoods. The lies about China were part of a much broader scheme by Trump administration officials and cronies to rig the election, which can be traced back to the Ukraine blackmail scheme that led to the president's first impeachment. But the attempt by the nation's highest law enforcement and intelligence officials to minimize an actual foreign-influence campaign by fabricating a false one steers perilously close to aiding a hostile power. Was the falsification coordinated by those officials and others? Were they ordered to disseminate the lies by the president? What statutes, if any, are implicated by their misconduct? What sanctions, if any, should be brought against them? Attorney General Garland needs to learn the answers to those questions if he means to restore integrity to America's law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies — which, in this era, remain vital to our democracy.

What You Need To Know About Foreign Interference And The 2020 Election Enlarge this image toggle caption Marcus Marritt for NPR Marcus Marritt for NPR Foreign interference didn't begin in 2016. It didn't end with that election. And U.S. officials expect it to remain an issue through the 2020 elections as well. Here's what you need to know. What is it? Governments always have sought to shape political and other conditions around the world to their own benefit. Most recently, foreign governments have used cyberattacks and agitation on social media to influence the information environment in the United States and Europe. For Americans, the best-known case is that of Russia in 2016, which sought to keep Hillary Clinton from being elected and to help Donald Trump win. Other governments also have been detected in clandestine attempts to influence opinion in the U.S., including those of Iran and China. How does it work? Several ways: Cyberattacks In 2016, Russian intelligence officers launched a wave of cyberattacks against a number of political targets inside the United States. They stole huge amounts of data they knew would embarrass those involved and released it via WikiLeaks and other ways. Meanwhile, other cyberattacks targeted state election infrastructure around the U.S., including the state-level governments and their vendors responsible for conducting elections. Although there were a number of compromises of various kinds, U.S. officials do not believe anyone's vote was changed — that is, no one who cast a ballot for Clinton, they say, had it later changed electronically to one for Trump. But revelations about this keep trickling out, and they have sparked a national conversation about confidence in elections. Social media agitation Another ongoing strain of interference involves agitation on social networks whipped up by specialists who pose as American users on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms. In 2016, this work crossed over from the digital realm into the real world many times, including when Russian influence specialists, for example, scheduled pro- and anti-Muslim rallies for the same place and time, directly across from each other. The office of former Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller identified what it called "dozens" of such rallies around the United States, starting in November of 2015 and continuing after Election Day. Social media agitation continues by Russia and other foreign powers on big social network platforms; Facebook and Twitter, for example, have said since the 2016 election that they've continued purging bots and fake accounts linked to attempts to influence Americans. Other techniques There may be other types of influence that aren't publicly known. There also are overt avenues by which foreign governments spread their messages, including state-controlled TV, radio and online outlets. These don't only have to originate in their home countries. The Russian and Chinese governments, for example, sponsor broadcasts on radio networks that can reach many Americans inside the United States. Key questions to understand So foreign interference is mostly about information — or disinformation? So far, yes. The worry expressed by U.S. officials and outside experts is that weak cybersecurity somewhere could open up the workings of an election to further mischief. Imagine precinct officials on Election Day losing access to their voter rolls, or, in places where there is no paper record of a person's vote, a ballot actually being changed after the fact from Candidate X to Candidate Y. Federal officials say the disparate variety of systems and procedures across the country mean that a U.S. election as a whole is almost impossible to hack — but an adversary doesn't need to affect the whole country. All it needs to do is affect small numbers of people in key places; the 2020 election is expected to turn on three or four key swing states. Plus the discovery of that interference anywhere could have a corrosive effect on Americans' faith in their elections everywhere. What is the government doing to safeguard elections? President Trump goes back and forth about what he accepts about foreign interference and how seriously he treats the issue. Sometimes he scoffs; sometimes he vows that interference will be counteracted very strongly. Leaders of the U.S. intelligence community and law enforcement say they're working on making sure that elections are secure. The FBI has vowed to call out interference. The Department of Homeland Security is extending help to state and other elections officials. U.S. intelligence and military agencies also are reportedly doing more work behind the scenes. Congress has provided more funding for election systems upgrades, but there are some jurisdictions that don't have paper backups for voters' ballots. At the same time, members of Congress haven't been able to agree on legislation proposed since 2016 based on the discoveries about what took place then. Proposals have included mandating more reporting about political spending on social media; requiring paper ballot backups everywhere; and requiring that campaigns report contacts with foreigners to the FBI. Members of Congress are likely to continue debating these and other proposal through the 2020 election, but they don't appear on track to become law by Election Day. Will 2020 be a repeat of 2016? Probably not. For one thing, Americans are on their guard about foreign interference in a way they weren't before. For another, the tactics and techniques are evolving. Although cyberattacks and social media agitation may return, security officials' new concerns involve high-quality fake video or audio, which didn't play a big role in the stories from earlier elections. There's also no way to know in advance whether the Russian government in particular, which wanted to put Trump into office because it liked his support for an improved relationship, would continue to support him for a second term in the same way.

Former President Donald Trump and his allies tried to use a new correction in the Washington Post on Monday to paper over some of his most egregious conduct after the 2020 election. Here's what happened. Back in January, the Post reported on a call Trump had with elections investigator Frances Watson in Georgia. Trump had been openly trying to discredit the results of the election and enlist other officials to help him overturn his loss to Joe Biden in key states, including Georgia. The Post reported that when he spoke to the investigator, he told her to "find the fraud" in the Georgia ballots and that it would make her "a national hero." We now know that's not precisely true — Trump didn't use the words in that quotation, based on a new recording of the call published by the Wall Street Journal. The Post updated the original story with a lengthy correction on Monday, noting that instead Trump told Watson she'd find "dishonesty" in her investigation and that she had "the most important job in the country right now." He also said: "When the right answer comes out, you'll be praised." It's a good thing the Post and reporter Amy Gardner issued a correction. The recording indicates that Trump did not use the exact quotes the outlet attributed to him. As far as I can tell, no one was demanding the Post issue this correction, and doing it has drawn fire to the outlet, so it wasn't an easy decision to make — but clearly the ethical and responsible one. In the end, though, the errors don't affect the substance of the original story. Trump's overall message to Watson was the same, even if the precise wording differed from what was reported. He told the investigator what he wants her to find (something he'd already made clear publicly) and suggested she'll be rewarded, at least by the public, if she does so, as a part of his effort to undo a legitimate election. This is corruption, plain and simple. The mistake the Post and Gardner made was taking the source — described as "an individual briefed on the call" — too literally when describing Trump's words, and using the source to put words directly in Trump's mouth. This is incredibly common in journalism but should probably be avoided in most instances. Recalling exact wording of conversations is surprisingly difficult, as anyone who transcribes recordings knows, and reporters shouldn't rely on sources for verbatim recounts of others' words unless there's corroborating evidence or the uncertainty is made clear. Trump and his allies have seized on this mistake by the Post and blown it entirely out of proportion, using it to rewrite the history of a saga that is undeniably damning for the president. In a statement, the former president said: The Washington Post just issued a correction as to the contents of the incorrectly reported phone call I had with respect to voter fraud in the Great State of Georgia. While I appreciate the Washington Post's correction, which immediately makes the Georgia Witch Hunt a nonstory, the original story was a Hoax, right from the very beginning. I would further appreciate a strong investigation into Fulton County, Georgia, and the Stacey Abrams political machine which, I believe, would totally change the course of the presidential election in Georgia. North Carolina Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn, a freshman member of Congress and staunch supporter of the former president, pushed a similar line on Twitter: Both of these statements are wrong — Cawthorn's even more so than Trump's. With somewhat more subtlety, Trump elided the difference between two record phone calls he had with Georgia officials. By referring to a "reported phone call I had with respect to voter fraud in the Great State of Georgia," he conflates the call with Watson with a separate call he with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. That call was reported prior to the Watson call, on Jan. 3, by the Post. And the Post had the full recording when it published that call, so it didn't suffer from any of the inaccuracies described in the report on the second call (which were, nevertheless, not sufficient to alter the substance or meaning of the call). Trump's claim, therefore, that the Georgia investigations into his efforts to influence elections officials are a "Witch Hunt" and a "Hoax" is false. Many legal commentators have said there is more than enough evidence for investigators to justify launching a criminal investigation into his conduct. The former president is almost certainly creating this confusion on purpose to discredit any potential charges or allegations that may arise out of the Georgia case. Cawthorn, on the other hand, just seemed uninformed and confused as he incorrectly identified the person who Trump was talking to on the call in question. He also falsely claimed that the Post "admits that they LIED" — which is not trued, since a mistaken claim is not the same as a lie. Trump, at least, acknowledged that the Post did the right thing in issuing the correction. Cawthorn, on the other hand, didn't seem to realize that the fact of the correction undercuts the idea that the press is working with Democrats to lie. Instead, the most reasonable interpretation is that reporters like Gardner are doing a complicated job, and sometimes they make mistakes. But they're trying to get the facts right — unlike the congressman from Norht Carolina.

President Donald Trump's phone call Saturday urging Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn the state's election results might have violated federal and state election laws, but it would be difficult to prosecute, legal experts said Monday. The potential violation of federal election law centers on a provision that says it is a crime for a person "who in any election for federal office knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a state of a fair and impartially conducted election process." Trump's conversation with Raffensperger prompted a pair of House Democrats to send a letter Monday urging FBI Director Christopher Wray to open a criminal investigation, saying they "believe the president engaged in solicitation of, or conspiracy to commit, a number of election crimes." And Democratic legislators in Georgia, meanwhile, are urging the state attorney general and Fulton County's district attorney to open inquiries, as well. But while some former prosecutors said that they believed the call should be investigated and that it is prosecutable, Matthew Sanderson, an election lawyer in Washington, D.C., said the criminal intent requirements would make a case difficult to prosecute. "Another 'perfect phone call' from President Trump. We started 2020 talking about a phone call, and now we're beginning 2021 the same way," said Sanderson, a Republican, referring to the call Trump had with Ukraine's president in 2019, which led to his impeachment. Prosecutors, however, "would need to demonstrate he knows he lost the election," Sanderson said, adding, "I think that's a tough case to bring against an individual who seems pathologically unable to recognize his own loss." The criminal statutes are meant to address things like shredding ballots and making payoffs, not conversations a candidate has with election officials, Sanderson said. An unsuccessful prosecution, meanwhile, could be some "vindication for the president," he said. Trump "committed an act against the public trust" that was "egregious," but "it doesn't fit the structure" of the criminal laws, Sanderson said. While the state statute "offers prosecutors a little more flexibility," he said, "I highly doubt this has legs on that front." Guidance from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel offered Trump sweeping protections while in office, including shielding him from allegations that he obstructed the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump will lose those protections on Jan. 20, but no former president has been indicted on criminal charges after leaving office. President Richard Nixon likely would have faced criminal charges stemming from the Watergate investigation, but he was pardoned by his successor, Gerald Ford. Trump, meanwhile, is already being investigated by the Manhattan district attorney's office over allegations of financial improprieties from before he took office. During Trump's phone call, a full recording of which was obtained by NBC News, Trump asked Raffensperger "to find" enough votes to erase President-elect Joe Biden's margin of victory in the state. "So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have," Trump said in the call, which was first reported by The Washington Post. "Because we won the state." Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said in a statement Monday that the call was "disturbing," and she left the door open to an investigation. "It is my understanding from news reports that a member of the State Election Board has requested that the Secretary's elections division investigate the call, after which the board can refer the case to my office and the state attorney general," Willis said, adding: "Anyone who commits a felony violation of Georgia law in my jurisdiction will be held accountable. Once the investigation is complete, this matter, like all matters, will be handled by our office based on the facts and the law." Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics Other legal experts said they thought an investigation and prosecution could move forward. "There's a lot of possible crimes," former prosecutor Joyce Vance said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," adding that to her, a criminal case based on Georgia law "looks like a slam dunk." Vance acknowledged that "these crimes all come down to the president's state of mind." "Did he really believe he'd won the election and he was just seeking a fair count, or did he know what was really going on here?" she said. But she added: "There's also this concept in the law of willful blindness, of someone who ignores the truth. So when the president repeatedly asks on this call for the specific number of votes he needs to win, [saying] I just need you to find me 11,780 votes, that's an indication that he's not seeking an election recount, that he's trying to steal an election. "We need to have an investigation conducted by career officials at the Justice Department who know how to do this right," Vance said. Former acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal echoed her. "I think a criminal investigation here is absolutely warranted," Katyal told MSNBC. The entirety of the call shows that Trump doesn't really believe there was fraud, because he pressured Raffensperger to "find" a certain number of votes, he said. "Someone who's committed to seeking the truth goes and wants to seek the truth," he said. "They don't seek a certain specific number of votes and threaten Georgia officials with criminal prosecution if they don't comply."

Cleta Mitchell, a conservative attorney and activist who assisted President Donald Trump during his call to the Georgia Secretary of State during which he tried to overturn the results of the election has resigned from Foley & Lardner, the prestigious "white shoe" law firm at which she was a partner. In a letter to clients Mitchell claimed there had been "a massive pressure campaign in the last several days mounted by leftist groups via social media and other means against me, my law firm, and clients of the law firm, because of my personal involvement with President Trump, his campaign and the White House," the Washington Examiner reports. Mitchell has a long history of working against LGBTQ people, Democrats, and of working to gin up false claims of voter fraud, which often are attempts to disenfranchise minority groups. Ironically, Mitchell appeared at the White House alongside President Trump (photo) last August to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment which gave women the right to vote – something her activism works to block. She is the Chairperson of the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), which Reuters reports said was part of a group "determined to push back on what she called a 'very well-planned-out assault' by Democrats and progressives to manipulate the system by attempting to change the rules on counting ballots after Election Day," which is false. Foley & Lardner, ranked 59th among U.S. law firms, distanced itself from Mitchell after news broke of her involvement with Trump's possibly illegal phone call. "We are aware of, and are concerned by, Ms. Mitchell's participation in the January 2 conference call and are working to understand her involvement more thoroughly," the firm said in a statement Monday. By Tuesday she was gone from Foley & Lardner, which even scrubbed her bio from its online directory.

In the wake of last Wednesday's attack on the Capitol, President Trump is reported to have compiled a lengthy list of potential subjects of presidential pardons, including top aides, outside advisers, family members, rappers and other celebrities, and himself. Among those on the list is current White House Chief of Staff and former North Carolina congressman Mark Meadows, who has so far not been accused of a crime, but could be in jeopardy for his role in the now-infamous phone call during which Trump pressured Georgia's secretary of state to "find" votes for him, an apparent solicitation of fraud. In addition to potential criminal exposure, Meadows identified himself in his White House capacity during an overtly political conversation and would appear to have violated the Hatch Act, a federal statute that the Trump administration has rendered virtually meaningless. Trump's pardon power would not affect any possible civil action on campaign finance violations that might result from a complaint that a watchdog group filed against Meadows with the Federal Election Commission this fall, based on Salon's reporting. On the Jan. 2 call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a tape of which was leaked the next day to the Washington Post, Meadows played a dual role as emcee and translator for Trump's possibly criminal demands. At the top of the conversation, he identifies himself as "the chief of staff," then lists the participants, including the mysterious role of lawyer Cleta Mitchell, who Meadows said "is not the attorney of record but has been involved." Later, Trump asked Raffensperger to "find" enough votes for him to win the state. "All I want to do is this," Trump says. "I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state." The president also warned Raffensperger that both the secretary of state and his general counsel, Ryan Germany — who was also on the call — were taking a "big risk" by not complying with Trump's demands, suggesting they might be opening themselves up to criminal liability. "It is more illegal for you than it is for them," Trump said, apparently referring to unnamed others he believed had committed election fraud, "because you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer." The tape's publication prompted two House Democrats to ask FBI Director Christopher Wray to open a criminal probe, saying that they "believe the president engaged in solicitation of, or conspiracy to commit, a number of election crimes." Former attorney general Eric Holder tweeted that it is a federal crime for a person "who in any election for federal office knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a state of a fair and impartially conducted election process." Election lawyer Matthew Sanderson told NBC News, however, that it would be difficult to meet the bar of criminal intent "against an individual who seems pathologically unable to recognize his own loss." That may be true, other experts say, but in legal terms would not matter: Trump had been repeatedly informed of the reality of the situation for nearly two months, including during the phone call in question. Meadows, who pushed Raffensperger for cooperation up until the final call's moments, does not have that same exit ramp available. However, he may be able to avail himself of another ignorance plea. "It is possible that Meadows could be involved in a conspiracy to defraud Georgia electors of their rightful electoral votes," election law expert Rick Hasen told Salon. "The problem is that we don't know that Meadows had any idea that Trump was going to engage in potentially criminal activity on the call." Mitchell, the veteran attorney on the call, resigned from her senior position at the prominent Washington== firm Foley Lardner when the tape became public. She had previously done legal work for Meadows' congressional campaign, and it seems likely that the chief of staff asked her to join the call and help steer the legal discussion. Such a move — adding an election law expert unaffiliated with Trump's campaign or fringe groups — could indicate that Meadows did anticipate illegal activity from the president, who one year earlier had been impeached for blatant extortion during a political phone call.'' On Jan. 4, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), an accountability watchdog organization, filed a criminal complaint against the president that referred Meadows' role to the Justice Department: "While this complaint focuses on President Trump's conduct, we believe that your offices should also review the conduct of Mr. Meadows, Ms. Mitchell, and any other individuals who aided the President's likely illegal activity." The document also points out that Meadows sought during the call to access voter data that was protected by law. As for the other possible liabilities facing Meadows, Hatch Act violations are administrative and do not carry criminal charges — but the alleged FEC violations could. In October, Salon reported that the Meadows campaign reported spending thousands of dollars on what appear to be personal expenses, including for gourmet cupcakes, private clubs, a Washington jeweler and lodging at the president's hotel. CREW later filed a complaint urging the FEC to administer any and all appropriate fines and to take further action, "including, but not limited to, referring this case to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution." The complaint cites suspicious transactions among nearly $75,000 in campaign expenditures after Meadows announced his retirement from Congress in December 2019, payments that extended well past his resignation from the House when he joined the White House on March 30. "One of the clearest rules in campaign finance is you can't spend your campaign's finances on yourself," Noah Bookbinder, director of CREW, said in a statement accompanying the complaint. Meadows' campaign committee kept on racking up expenses throughout 2020, including more than $6,500 in spending at numerous clubs and high-end restaurants. Other charges included grocery stores and the Lavender Moon cupcake bakery in Washington. FEC records also show that the campaign dropped $2,650 on "printed materials" from Washington custom jeweler Ann Hand on the day Meadows resigned from Congress. Brett Kappel, a campaign finance expert at the firm Harmon Curran, previously told Salon he could see "no legitimate explanation for that one." The purchase, he said, was strongly suggestive of a personal use violation, and could indicate that Meadows had made false statements to the FEC, another crime. Hand, 87, told Salon in a phone interview that her custom work for private clients can run well above $10,000, and her website showcases a number of individualized pieces, some fashioned for members of Congress and the White House. Photos show that Meadows' wife, Debbie, wore a necklace to the Republican National Convention event on the White House lawn that matches one of Hand's designs. "Mark and Debbie are wonderful clients," Hand said. She said she could not remember any specific purchases that the former congressman made at the time, adding that even if she could, she would not discuss them.

President Donald Trump infamously called state Attorney General Brad Raffensperger, berating him for his loss of Georgia and demanding he "find" him 11,000 more votes in what some legal experts say was a criminal act. But less known until now is that Trump also called the chief investigator of the Georgia Secretary of State's office in his attempt to overturn the results of the election. In that call he blamed Stacey Abrams and "dishonest" Fulton County, which is home to Atlanta, for the loss – which he also insists was not real, saying that he won the state by "hundreds of thousands" of votes. The Wall Street Journal Wednesday evening reported on the call, and published the audio. "Something bad happened," Trump told the investigator, Frances Watson. "When the right answer comes out, you'll be praised." Watson was not about to be intimidated. "I can assure you that our team and the [Georgia Bureau of Investigation], that we are only interested in the truth and finding the information that is based on the facts." In the recording of the call, which has never been released before, Trump and pressures Watson repeatedly to help him out. "This country is counting on it," Trump tells her, meaning him winning Georgia. "You have the most important job in the country," he also tells her. Trump also falsely claims he won other states, like Texas, by the biggest margin ever: "we won Texas by a record, Texas was won by the biggest, biggest number ever," which is false. (For the record, George W. Bush, along with Mitt Romney, John McCain, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon all won Texas by more votes than Trump did in both 2020 and 2016. In fact, Trump won Texas in 2016 by more votes than he did in 2020.) "I won Georgia by a lot," Trump proceeds to tell Watson, "and the people know it, and, you know, something happened. Something bad happened." "The people of Georgia are so angry at what happened," he says, seemingly that Biden was declared the winner. "They know I won, won by hundreds of thousands of votes." "I hope you're going back two years as opposed to just checking, you know, one against the other because that would just be sort of a signature check that didn't mean anything but if you go back two years. And if you can get to Fulton [County}, you're going to find things that are going to be unbelievable. The dishonesty, that we've heard from … good sources, really good sources, but Fulton, Fulton is the mother lode you know as the expression goes, Fulton County." At one point Watson appears to try to get Trump off the phone but he keeps talking. She says she knows how busy he is and she is "shocked that you would take time" to call her. "You know, they dropped the ballots they dropped all these ballots. Stacey Abrams, really, really terrible. I mean just a terrible thing. And I will say this. If it went, I mean hopefully this will show because if you go back two years or four years, you're gonna see it's a totally different signature but. But hopefully, you know I will. When, when the right answer comes out you'll be praised. I don't know why they made it so hard. They will be praised, to people will say, 'great,' because that's what it's about that ability to check, and to make it right." The Journal adds that "Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has launched a criminal investigation into alleged efforts to have officials in Georgia overturn the state's results of November's presidential election. In a February letter to officials, Ms. Willis said a grand jury would convene this month."

After winning a lawsuit to take possession of all of the 2020 presidential ballots and election equipment in Arizona's most populous county, Arizona's Republican-led Senate is poised to take 2020's post-election brawls into new territory where investigating unproven claims of electronically stolen votes, not widespread illegal voting, will be center stage. Many Republicans, including Arizona legislators, have voiced their belief that former President Trump was unfairly denied a second term, citing various vote-centered conspiracies. In 61 out of 62 post-election lawsuits filed by Trump's allies across the country, scores of federal and state judges rejected those assertions as groundless and lacking proof. But now that Arizona's Senate has affirmed its authority to investigate the accuracy of 2020's presidential vote count in America's second-largest election jurisdiction—Maricopa County, where Phoenix is located—the focus has shifted from legislators fanning unproven claims of stolen votes to whether Republican lawmakers will conduct a credible evidence-centered inquiry. "The Senate has and is doing a 100 percent audit, which is why we fought so hard to have access to all the data and documents," Arizona Senate President Karen Fann wrote on Facebook on March 2. "We are doing extensive research, interviewing, and background checks to make sure we find the best team available… This is and has always been about election integrity and getting answers to our constituents' questions and concerns." The exercise will not change the election results, which have been certified. Trump lost Arizona by 10,457 votes, a closer margin than in Georgia, where that GOP-led state conducted a manual hand count of all of its presidential election ballots, and then electronically recounted those same paper ballots. It twice confirmed Joe Biden's victory over Trump before certifying the result. The investigation that is taking shape in Arizona could be as thorough as what was undertaken in Georgia, or it could descend into political theater to placate Trump's base. "As you know, there is no credible evidence for any of the conspiracy theories that have abounded about the 2020 General Election," wrote Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, to Fann and Sen. Warren Petersen on March 3. "If your goal is truly to rebuild public confidence in our democracy, it is imperative that you establish and abide by clear procedures and parameters for the security and confidentiality of the ballots and election equipment while in your custody and ensure independence and transparency should you proceed with any further audit." A Closer Look at 2020's Closest Swing State? Immediately after Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Timothy Thomason's February 25 ruling authorizing the state Senate's subpoenas, the county's supervisors—where four out of five are Republicans—said that they would not appeal. Its election staff began transferring the election materials, starting with 11 gigabytes of activity logs from its hundreds of voting machines. What soon became apparent was that the senators had been more focused on winning in court than on planning the investigation that they hoped to take on. For example, the Senate had not yet secured a site for truckloads of materials, starting with 2.1 million paper ballots in sealed boxes on 70 pallets, hundreds of voting machines and tabulators, vote count management systems and the related data—digital images of every ballot cast, machine activity logs, and more. As the first week of March began, election experts in Arizona were skeptical that the exercise would be a serious effort to examine the accuracy of Maricopa County's 2020 results. "In this case, Sen. Fann and House members are chasing down a rabbit hole that was proposed by Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell back in November. Now they're trying to find the evidence," said Benny White, a longtime Republican Party election observer in Pima County, which is not far from Phoenix. "I don't want to talk poorly about my legislators, but I don't know what the hell they are doing. They don't understand election administration at all. They don't understand how these machines work. They don't understand how votes are calculated and aggregated. They are in a political position where they think they have to do something [to respond to Trump supporters]. So they're trying to do something." Some of White's skepticism came from Fann's prior endorsement of a proposal by a Texas firm, Allied Security Operations Group (ASOG), that had made unfounded claims about the process in Michigan and Arizona. ASOG's "scope of work" said it would "hand count approximately 550,000 of the following paper ballots and scan approximately 55,000 of the following paper ballots… over a 7-10 day period on site in Arizona for a firm, fixed price fee of $10,000." White and others said that proposal was not serious. A precise audit does not cherry-pick what ballots to examine, he said, and its fee was unrealistically low. Fann later distanced herself from ASOG. While neither Fann nor other Senate Republican spokespeople would speak on the record to Voting Booth, several background interviews suggested that the enormity of the actual task before the Republicans was dawning on them. "My concern is I'm not sure if they know what they're looking for—or looking at," said Tammy Patrick, who, for 11 years, was the federal compliance officer for Maricopa County's elections department, has served on a presidential commission for election reform, and now is the senior adviser for elections at the Democracy Fund, a philanthropic organization. "I also don't think they understand the volume of materials they are talking about. You're talking about at least one semitractor load for the ballots alone. What are their security protocols going to be?" Most of Hobbs' letter to the Senate Republican leaders concerned maintaining a catalog of security and inventory controls for the ballots and machinery, as well as urging the Senate to plan for bipartisan teams to count ballots and be as transparent as possible as it proceeded. "I implore you to treat your responsibility for the custody, security, and integrity of those items with the same level of vigilance that election officials across this State treat that responsibility," the secretary of state wrote. "I again urge you not to waste taxpayer resources chasing false claims of fraud that will only further erode public confidence in our election processes and elected officials." What Will They Do? Who Will Do It? Maricopa County, and Arizona as a state, both have reputations for well-run elections. While no election is error-free, election officials have extensive protocols that test their voting system hardware and software, their voting machine performance, and the vote count's accuracy before and after Election Day—before results are certified. While vote count audits don't review every vote cast, the process includes political parties choosing samples of ballots that are examined by hand, which was done following November's election. In response to Trump supporters' claims of secret manipulation of vote counts—and GOP legislators encouraging those claims—the county hired two national voting system testing laboratories to examine whether their hardware or software had been hacked or hijacked. They found no breaches. "What's wild in all of this is that all of the voting equipment had logic and accuracy tests, and those logic and accuracy test reports could be reviewed," Patrick said. "The machinery has also undergone the [post-election] forensic test that was done by two federal testing labs. The challenge that I've had with some of this is that voting systems are not just like every other electronic device that's out there. There are some very specific things that you need to understand about voting systems in order to know what you're looking at and what it means." "There's not a lot of point to what they're proposing," she said, assessing the Senate's probe. "They wanted a forensic report, and they got one. And now that's not enough. Even if they bring in their own specialists, they're not going to find anything, because there is no 'there' there." As the week progressed, background interviews with reputable experts advising the Republicans said that the Senate investigation, ideally, would have three focal points. Like Georgia, there would be a full manual hand count of every paper ballot—a massive operation involving potentially hundreds of workers in a giant warehouse. Unlike Georgia, but like the state of Maryland—whose electorate is larger than Maricopa County's—there would be an independent audit of all of the digital ballot images created by scanners. Even though voters cast paper ballots, digital images of every ballot card are what is counted by Maricopa's voting system. Third, there would be an analysis of the system's software and activity logs—detailing every operation by each voting machine—to ensure that the ballot images were correctly read and counted. These steps, if all undertaken and not marred by predetermined conclusions, would arguably be more comprehensive than what Georgia did to verify its 2020 presidential vote. Where politics would re-enter is when Arizona's Republican legislators have to stand by the results of their process that, in all likelihood, will affirm Trump's loss. Thus, in 2020's two presidential swing states with the closest 2020 margins and histories of electing Republicans for president, the evidence would show that Biden won. But before that assessment can occur, the Senate has to hire credible contractors and a reputable audit manager—possibly a former state election director like Detroit did before its 2020 general election. Additionally, the legislature's investigation will have to demonstrate the same level of security and inventory controls that are required of local election officials—a point underscored by Hobbs in her letter to the Senate Republican leaders. "You have stated previously that you believe a further audit by the Senate is critical for the people of Arizona to be able to move forward and trust the 2020 General Election results. I respectfully disagree," she wrote. "But I believe we can agree that proceeding without clear procedures for the security of the ballots and election equipment when they are in your custody, and clear procedures to ensure the integrity, independence, and transparency of the audit itself and the auditors selected, will only open the door to more conspiracy theories and further erosion of voters' confidence in Arizona's elections processes." Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others. This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Candidate Absentee/early votes Votes Pct. Biden 1,540,981 51.6 % Trump 1,402,572 47.0 % Jorgensen 43,743 1.5 % Write-ins 0 0.0 % 100% of counties (15 of 15) have reported absentee votes. Data for absentee votes may not be available in some places.

Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory was reaffirmed after Georgia election officials recertified the state’s presidential election results in another recount. Just weeks prior, officials finalized a hand recount in Georgia’s 159 counties that showed Mr. Biden with a lead of about 12,000 votes.

Senate Republicans are not ready for ballot delivery after their 3-month court fight. We answer viewers' top questions about expected audit of presidential vote. PHOENIX — Arizona’s Senate Republicans finally got what they wanted: Access to the 2.1 million ballots cast in Maricopa County last November and the machines used to count those ballots. But now it appears Republicans weren’t prepared for their court victory last week. County Board Chairman Jack Sellers sent a letter Wednesday to all 30 state Senators, accompanied by a photo of a truck loaded with some of the 2,800 boxes of ballots. Sellers’ message: The county was ready to deliver the ballots Monday, but Senate Republicans’ lawyer said there was nowhere to put them. Let us know if you still want them. An email from the Senate lawyer confirms the exchange. A spokesman for Senate Republicans told 12 News Tuesday: “I’m not sure why the county is not treating this third audit like the previous two, when they invited the auditors to the county facilities. The Senate made it clear that was its intention for this audit.” But the county says that’s a non-starter. It’s in the midst of handling other elections. So it appears that while Senate GOP leaders were focused on their three-month court fight, they never lined up a secure place to store the ballots. Nor have they lined up an auditor to review the ballots and equipment. Meanwhile, voters have questions about what Republican Senators would do with their ballots if there is an audit. Senate Republicans’ demand for their own audit grew out of some members’ mission last November to overturn Arizona’s vote for Democrat Joe Biden. Biden was the first Democratic presidential candidate to win the county in 72 years. Questions about Republicans’ goals for the audit were heightened when documents revealed the Senate was prepared to hire an auditor that has spread baseless conspiracy theories about the election. A review by two independent auditors hired by Maricopa County found no problems with its ballot-counting equipment. Here are the top three questions from viewers about Senate Republicans’ audit, keeping in mind that it’s still not clear what the audit would involve: The answers are from the Maricopa County Elections Department and 12 News research. Q: Will the Arizona state senators overseeing the 2020 election audit find out how you voted? A: The answer is no. There is no personal information on your ballot that connects you to the votes you cast. Some voters do like to sign their ballot or initial it. Q: Does the envelope for my mail-in ballot reveal any of my personal information? A: We verified there are two pieces of personal information on the envelope that are not public records: your signature and your phone number. The Senate Republicans have already received computer files with publicly available voter registration data that the political parties download every month. That data is considered a public record. Voter signatures and phone numbers are captured on computer screenshots of every mail-in envelope and are retained by the county Elections Department. But that information is not made available through public records requests. Q: How can we trust the Senate not to mess with the ballots? A: We verified the county is preparing the ballots for review them in an orderly way. Senate Republicans still haven’t explained how or where the audit will be done or who will do it. The boxes are sealed. Each box has a log that’s signed by whoever takes custody. That chain of custody should let us know who reviewed the ballots in the boxes.

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors must turn over ballots and tabulation machines to Senate Republican leaders so they can conduct an audit of the 2020 general election, a judge ruled. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Timothy Thomason ruled on Friday that it was within the Senate’s authority to subpoena the materials and equipment so it can audit the election. The ruling brings a potential conclusion to the months-long battle between the supervisors and the Senate. “The Court finds that the Subpoenas are legal and enforceable,” Thomason wrote in his ruling. After meeting with their attorneys, the supervisors decided to not appeal the ruling. Supervisor Jack Sellers, the board’s chairman, said the ruling “brings clarity to whether Senate subpoenas apply to ballots that, per state law, must be kept private following an election.” “We respect his legal opinion and will immediately start working to provide the Arizona Senate with the ballots and other materials,” Sellers said in a press statement. “We hope senators will show the same respect and care we have for the 2.1 million private ballots and use them in service of their legislative duties.” Senate President Karen Fann and two successive Senate Judiciary Committee chairmen issued subpoenas for nearly 2.1 million ballots, around 300 tabulation machines and a trove of other data and materials. They sought to conduct an audit of the election in response to the baseless fraud allegations and conspiracy theories espoused by former President Donald Trump and many of his supporters, including some Senate Republicans, after President Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. “We are very, very thrilled and grateful for the judge to look at the big picture and recognize that this was never about overturning any election. This was always about voter integrity and the integrity of the voting system itself,” Fann, a Prescott Republican, told the Arizona Mirror. The dispute began in December, when then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Eddie Farnsworth held a six-hour hearing to question county officials about the conduct of the election. Even though the hearing turned up no evidence of any fraud, malfeasance or misconduct in the way Maricopa County conducted the election, Farnsworth and Fann issued the first round of subpoenas, prompting a lawsuit from the supervisors. Sen. Warren Petersen re-issued the subpoenas in January after he succeeded Farnsworth as the committee’s chairman. Maricopa County challenged the subpoenas in court, arguing that it would be illegal to turn over the ballots to anyone, citing state laws requiring ballots to go under lock and key for two years once an election is canvassed. And the supervisors said it would jeopardize the certification of its ballot tabulation machines to allow an unaccredited or unqualified auditor to examine them. Thomason rejected the county’s arguments that the ballots must be kept secured after the election and cannot be released, and said confidentiality laws clearly weren’t intended to prevent government officials from doing their jobs. The fact that state law requires the county treasurer to keep the ballots for 24 months suggests that they may be subject to subpoenas or investigations, the judge wrote. Thomason also noted that, under the county’s logic, it would be violating the law because the Board of Supervisors is holding onto the ballots rather than turning them over to the county treasurer while the litigation proceeds. And the judge said the right to a secret ballot, enshrined in the Arizona Constitution, isn’t jeopardized by the subpoenas because there is no way to determine which voter is tied to any given ballot. As for the tabulation machines, Thomas said confidentiality laws don’t apply to them and provide no justification for withholding the equipment and machinery. Thomason also found that the Senate had a valid legislative purpose in demanding the ballots. The Arizona Constitution empowers the legislature to pass “laws to secure the purity of elections and guard against abuses of the elective franchise,” and it’s a valid legislative purpose for lawmakers to issue the subpoenas to gauge the “accuracy and efficacy of existing vote tabulation systems and competence of county officials in performing their election duties, with an eye to introducing possible reform proposals,” the judge wrote. Even if one of the initial purposes of the subpoenas was to determine whether the results of the election could be challenged, as the county alleged, other legitimate purposes exist, Thomason ruled. And because Biden has already been sworn into office, the results of the election cannot be overturned. All 16 Senate Republicans co-sponsored a resolution to find the supervisors in contempt for defying the subpoenas, which authorized Fann to have all five of them arrested and could have potentially led to misdemeanor charges. But the resolution fell one vote short when Sen. Paul Boyer, R-Glendale, opposed it, saying he wanted to give the county more time to sort out the legal issues. Petersen, a Gilbert Republican, later introduced legislation that would expressly authorize legislative chambers and committees to subpoena ballots and other election equipment and materials, and specifies that the legislature has the right to investigate any matter it wants. The Senate has approved the legislation, which now awaits action in the House of Representatives. While the legal battle ensued, the Board of Supervisors conducted its own audits of the election machines. Maricopa County’s ballot tabulation machines are provided by Dominion Voting Systems, the nation’s second largest provider of such equipment, which has been the subject of many conspiracy theories and false allegations since Trump lost the election. The audits gave the machines and their software a clean bill of health, finding that they weren’t connected to the internet during the election, weren’t hacked or infected with any malicious software, and hadn’t switched any votes during the counting of ballots. The audits were conducted by SLI Compliance and Pro V&V Laboratories, the only two companies accredited by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to certify and examine tabulation machines. Fann has taken issue with the two companies because they had previously certified Dominion’s machines and software. She had looked to hire Allied Systems Operations Group, a Texas company whose employees had served as witnesses for the Trump campaign during various legislative hearings about the election and have a well-documented history of spreading false claims about election fraud in Arizona and other swing states that voted for Biden. The Senate’s legal counsel told attorneys for Maricopa County that ASOG would serve under another auditor. The Senate drafted a proposed scope of work for ASOG, a step it has not taken for any other prospective auditors. Fann told the Mirror that she is considering several potential auditors, though she said ASOG likely will not be one of them because some people believe it would not be independent. “I think that would be difficult for anyone to select them at that point, just because of the perception out there. However, I do believe they’re fully qualified. However, there’s a perception that they would not be fully independent,” Fann said. Phil Waldron, an ASOG employee and member of its proposed auditing team in Arizona, falsely alleged during a November meeting in Phoenix that Maricopa County election workers don’t verify the signatures on early ballot envelopes, and claimed, without evidence and despite not having inspected the tabulation machines, that the machines were connected to the internet during the vote count. Waldron claimed, without evidence, during a recent report by right-wing cable channel One America News Network that hundreds of thousands of ballots cast in-person in Maricopa County on Election Day were “shifted” to become “absentee ballots” as ballots were counted in the days after the election. During a legislative hearing in Georgia, Waldron claimed fraudulent ballots were trucked into the state to rig the vote for Biden, though he was unable to provide any evidence under questioning to back up his assertion. ***UPDATED: This story has been updated with additional information and comments.

In a clear and methodical tone, a longtime Michigan elections expert refuted a litany of fraud and misconduct allegations focused on absentee ballots in Detroit during a legislative hearing on Tuesday. Chris Thomas served roughly 37 years as the state elections administrator, working under Republican and Democratic secretaries of state. This year, he worked as a senior adviser for Detroit, spending time at TCF Center, where the city counted absentee ballots. His testimony was clear: Thousands of absentee ballots in Detroit were not counted multiple times. Dead people did not vote. Mysterious ballots did not turn up at TCF in the middle of the night. "I'm not here to tell you it was perfect but it was a damn good election," Thomas testified. More:State elections director knocks down Trump claims about TCF, fraudulent vote count More:Michigan Senate hears from GOP, no Democrats or Detroit staff, on allegations at TCF Center There was human error, but this is typical and was corrected in accordance with the law, Thomas said. He also said lawmakers could help improve operations ahead of the next election, specifically by giving local clerks more time to process absentee ballots ahead of Election Day. "These folks were not necessarily attuned to what they were looking at," Thomas said, summarizing allegations of misconduct made by Republicans and others at TCF. Thomas was the first elections official with Detroit to testify before the Senate Oversight Committee since the Nov. 3 election. He has provided similar information in the form of affidavits, submitted to refute lawsuits alleging misconduct filed in Detroit. Last week, the committee heard more than seven hours of testimony from people making a series of allegations. Most of those people were self-described Republicans who said they saw misconduct and were treated unfairly. On Tuesday, several poll workers and volunteers at TCF testified differently during the roughly six-hour hearing. They argued Republican poll challengers were racist and inappropriately trying to challenge every vote in Detroit. The committee did not swear in those who testified last week. The House Oversight Committee also did not swear in Rudy Giuliani or other witnesses who testified at a hearing last week, despite the request from a lawmaker. More:Fiery Giuliani tells Michigan lawmakers election stolen, offers no credible evidence More:Trump, Giuliani continue to peddle baseless election conspiracies about Michigan However, Senate committee Chairman Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, required those who testified this week to swear an oath before testifying. He said he wished he'd done the same last week and would seek to do so in the future. No one has presented evidence of widespread election fraud in Michigan, despite claims from President Donald Trump and others that the election was rigged. All 83 Michigan counties and the state board of canvassers certified results showing President-elect Joe Biden won the election. After problems with the administration of the election in Detroit during the August primary, the Board of State Canvassers called on the Michigan Secretary of State to take a larger role in the administration of the city's election in November. Bringing Thomas on as a senior adviser was one of a series of steps taken by both the state and city to address election administration problems. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has already pledged to conduct a post-election performance audit in Wayne County. Thomas walked through his role with Detroit and how absentee ballots are counted before refuting a series of allegations made during previous legislative hearings. Last week, a woman named Jessy Jacob testified that ballots were inappropriately backdated. In Michigan, only those absentee ballots received by 8 p.m. Election Day are valid. Thomas noted the ballots were not correctly processed at a satellite center, but they were stamped with the correct date they were received. None were received after the deadline, he said. Melissa Carone testified last week that as many as 100,000 ballots were counted twice. Her testimony received considerable national attention, including a skit on "Saturday Night Live." Thomas noted she is not an elections expert, saying it is his understanding she was hired to clean tabulating machines. He said Carone may have confused a different number shown on ballot machines, but any mass error of double counting ballots would be reflected in poll books for any precinct. None of the books showed a substantial issue, he said. Thomas said roughly 140,000 ballots were transported to TCF on Monday for pre-processing. He said only 15,000 to 16,000 were brought to TCF very early Wednesday morning, refuting testimony that as many as 50,000 ballots arrived very late at TCF. Approximately 174,000 total absentee ballots were cast in Detroit. Some alleged dead people voted, pointing to challengers observing a Jan. 1, 1900 birth date entered for some voters. Thomas notes for years, the state has used that birt hdate as a placeholder. It's a "ridiculous" birth date that's intended to flag when a voter's birthdate isn't available at the processing site, but in no way indicates fraud. Almost no computers at TCF were connected to the internet. Thomas said a select few, away from tabulation machines, were connected. But he said those near tabulators did not have the capacity to connect to the internet remotely, refuting testimony from former Sen. Pat Colbeck, a Canton Republican, and others alleging conspiracies involving computers connected to the internet. Lawmakers questioned Thomas about the elections process and his understanding about what the law requires when it comes to election challengers. Many people who testified previously argued there were not enough Republican challengers allowed at TCF. Thomas said there could have been more Republicans, while at times stating there were many Republican challengers at TCF. It's hard to recruit Republicans to work in Detroit, he said, noting it can be difficult to recruit Democratic workers elsewhere in the state. He argued throughout the state's history, it's rare for many jurisdictions to have challengers at all, let along to field many election challenges. More:Michigan AG investigating threats made against Wayne County canvassers More:'Get to TCF': What really happened inside Detroit's ballot counting center Sen. Peter Lucido, R- Shelby Township, pressed Thomas repeatedly about his contract with the city. He also argued with Thomas' interpretation of election law, disputing Thomas' statements about how ballots needed to be stored and what he called a "chain of custody" for ballots. In addition to Thomas, lawmakers heard from a series of speakers, most of whom refuted allegations previously made by Republican challengers. Sofia Nelson, a Detroit attorney who served as an elections worker at TCF, said her colleagues worked hard and followed their training to appropriately count ballots. "I experienced people doing their best. At no point did I experience any form of fraud or manipulation or nefariousness," Nelson said. Edith Lee-Payne testified she worked as a supervisor at TCF. She walked through what she did, the training she received and how elections officials prevented misconduct. "Everything was done by the book," Lee-Payne testified. Phil Mayor, an attorney with the Michigan American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said his organization compiled 30 affidavits from people who worked at TCF. Cumulatively, he said they did not see fraud or misconduct but did allege Republican poll challengers were both offensive and trying to systematically challenge ballots without legitimate cause. Testimony at previous hearings alleged GOP challengers were inappropriately targeted for harassment and mistreatment at TCF. This was largely refuted in testimony offered Tuesday. The committee did not take up any legislation, and has no authority to mandate any audit, recount or review of elections operations anywhere in the state. It's anticipated the Senate and House oversight committees will at some point take up elections-related legislation. Contact Dave Boucher: [email protected] or 313-938-4591. Follow him on Twitter @Dave_Boucher1.

Arizona Republican Kelli Ward was blistered on Twitter on Sunday morning after it was revealed she and one of her staffers accused Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) of announcing that he was about to die at a time that would harm their campaign. Late Saturday, following the announcement that McCain had succumbed to brain cancer at his home, Arizona TV reporter Brahm Resnik shared tweets between the staffer and Ward herself, in which they complained about the timing of McCain’s announcement that he was dying. “I wonder if John McCain’s trying to steal attention from Ward’s bus tour by announcing his life is coming to an end,” the staffer wrote, with Ward replying, “I think they wanted to have a particular narrative that was negative to me.” Needless to say, Ward’s online comments about the Vietnam war hero choosing how he would die while surrounded by his family was harshly criticized on Twitter, with one commenter calling her “narcissistic, selfish, idiotic, disgusting, horrible, rude, and moronic.” You can read a sampling below:

According to a report from USA Today, the Republican majority in the State Senate is threatening to arrest members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors if they don't turn over copies of mail-in ballots and voting machines so they can conduct another vote count of the 2020 presidential election results that led to Doinald Trump losing. The report notes that the Maricopa board is also predominately Republican but that hasn't stopped state senators from going after them. "The Arizona Senate, controlled by Republicans, has threatened to hold the supervisors, nearly all Republicans, in contempt for not responding to subpoenas asking for copies of all the county's mail-in ballots and access to voting machines. The Senate wants to perform its own audit," the report states. "Some senators have even threatened to arrest the supervisors over the matter, and the body could vote on the contempt resolution as early as Monday." The report notes that "For the hand count, the county examined ballots from 2% of vote centers, as well as 5,000 early ballots, and found that the county's voting machines counted the ballots with 100% accuracy. Political parties appointed representatives to select which vote centers to audit, and they helped perform the hand count," and that tests showed that, " machines operated without error." According to USA Today, "The Senate wants a more thorough hand count of ballots. And they want to do it themselves – or to choose who will."

Since its devastating loss in 2020, the Republican Party has been committed to overhauling voting rights in the United States to ensure restrictive practices limit voting capabilities. Now, Arizona Republicans' latest actions show they are leading the way. According to CNN, Republican lawmakers in Arizona's state legislature have unveiled more than two dozen proposed voting laws to make it more difficult for residents to vote. The various proposed laws are geared toward targeting certain aspects of the state's voting systems, namely its vote-by-mail system that contributed to Arizona residents' turning the state blue during the last presidential election. The publication reports that: "A handful of the bills -- including two that would impose new restrictions on Arizona's popular vote-by-mail system and one that would limit its narrow voting window -- have gained momentum and could pass." The flurry of proposed pieces of legislation has led to opposition from Democratic lawmakers. Arizona state Rep. Athena Salman (D-Tempe) offered her observation of the bills, what they signify, and who they are targeting, specifically. "They are trying to make it harder for everyone to vote based on the hope and desire that the people who it harms more and who it disenfranchises more are the people less likely to vote Republican," said Salman. On social media, Rep. John Kavanaugh (R-Ariz.), who also chairs Arizona's Government and Elections Committee is also facing backlash for his remarks about voting as he insisted that "everybody" should not be voting. "There's a fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans," Kavanagh said. "Democrats value as many people as possible voting and they're willing to risk fraud. Republicans are more concerned about fraud, so we don't mind putting security measures in that won't let everybody vote -- but everybody shouldn't be voting." Kavanaugh added, "Not everybody wants to vote, and if somebody is uninterested in voting, that probably means that they're totally uninformed on the issues. Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well." One Twitter user referred to Kavanaugh's remarks as "saying the quiet part loud." Some Twitter users even noted that Kavanaugh's remarks about the "quality of votes" are dangerously close to the context of the long-controversial three-fifths compromise which was "an agreement between delegates from the Northern and the Southern states at the United States Constitutional Convention (1787) that three-fifths of the slave population would be counted for determining direct taxation and representation in the House of Representatives." Although the law was axed back in 1865, Kavanaugh's remarks tread dangerously close to the line. The avalanche of proposed voting rights bills in Arizona comes as Republicans across the nation have introduced more than 250 new pieces of legislation in 43 states. Georgia and Arizona are among the top two states to roll out highly restrictive voting rights bills.

Wikipedia list article Arizona was admitted to the Union on February 14, 1912. U.S. senators from Arizona belong to Class 1 and Class 3 and are popularly elected for a six-year term beginning January 3. Elections are held the first Tuesday after November 1. The state's current U.S. senators are Democrats Kyrsten Sinema, serving since 2019, and Mark Kelly, serving since 2020. List of senators [ edit ] Superlatives (top 5) [ edit ] Longest service [ edit ] Senator First served Last served Length of service Carl Hayden March 4, 1927 January 3, 1969 41 years, 9 months and 30 days ( 15,281 days) John McCain January 3, 1987 August 25, 2018 31 years, 7 months and 22 days ( 11,557 days) Barry Goldwater January 3, 1953 January 3, 1987 30 years ( 10,957 days)[a] Henry F. Ashurst March 27, 1912 January 3, 1941 28 years, 9 months and 7 days ( 10,509 days) Jon Kyl January 3, 1995 December 31, 2018 18 years, 4 months and 1 day ( 6,693 days)[b] Shortest service [ edit ] Does not include incumbents Senator First served Last served Length of service Martha McSally January 3, 2019 December 2, 2020 1 year, 10 months, 4 weeks and 1 day (699 days) Ralph H. Cameron March 4, 1921 March 3, 1927 5 years, 11 months, 3 weeks and 6 days ( 2,190 days) Jeff Flake January 3, 2013 January 3, 2019 6 years ( 2,191 days) Marcus A. Smith March 27, 1912 March 3, 1921 8 years, 11 months and 4 days ( 3,263 days) Ernest McFarland January 3, 1941 January 3, 1953 12 years ( 4,383 days) Paul Fannin January 3, 1965 January 3, 1977 Youngest at beginning of service [ edit ] Senator Date of birth First served Age Henry F. Ashurst September 13, 1874 March 27, 1912 37 years, 6 months and 14 days Dennis DeConcini May 8, 1937 January 3, 1977 39 years, 7 months and 26 days Kyrsten Sinema July 12, 1976 January 3, 2019 42 years, 5 months and 22 days Ernest McFarland October 9, 1894 January 3, 1941 46 years, 2 months and 25 days Carl Hayden October 2, 1877 March 4, 1927 49 years, 5 months and 2 days Oldest at end of service [ edit ] Senator Date of birth Last served Age Carl Hayden October 2, 1877 January 3, 1969 91 years, 3 months and 1 day John McCain August 29, 1936 August 25, 2018 81 years, 11 months and 27 days Barry Goldwater January 2, 1909 January 3, 1987 78 years and 1 day Jon Kyl April 25, 1942 December 31, 2018 76 years, 8 months and 6 days Marcus A. Smith January 24, 1851 March 4, 1921 70 years, 1 month and 8 days Living former senators [ edit ] As of March 2021 , there are four living former U.S. senators from Arizona. The most recent and most recently serving senator to die was John McCain (served 1987–2018), who died in office on August 25, 2018. Senator Term of office Date of birth (and age) Dennis DeConcini January 3, 1977 – January 3, 1995 ( 1937-05-08 ) May 8, 1937 (age 83) Jon Kyl January 3, 1995 – January 3, 2013 September 4, 2018 – December 31, 2018 ( 1942-04-25 ) April 25, 1942 (age 78) Jeff Flake January 3, 2013 – January 3, 2019 ( 1962-12-31 ) December 31, 1962 (age 58) Martha McSally January 3, 2019 – December 2, 2020 ( 1966-03-22 ) March 22, 1966 (age 54) References [ edit ] ^ Goldwater declined to run for re-election in the Class 1 seat in 1964, choosing instead to run for President . After losing the presidential race, he was once again elected to the Senate in 1968, thus creating a four year gap in service. His length of service pauses on January 3, 1965, and resumes January 3, 1969. Thus, he served only 30 years in the Senate, despite finally leaving 34 years after first assumed office. ^ Kyl retired from the Senate on January 3, 2013, after declining to run for re-election in 2012. Following the death of John McCain, Kyl was nominated by governor Doug Ducey to the vacant seat previously held by McCain on September 4, 2018, 10 days after McCain passed away. Kyl resigned from that seat on December 31, 2018. His length of services pauses on January 3, 2013 and resumes September 4, 2018. Thus, he served only 18 years, 4 months and 1 day in the Senate, despite finally leaving the Senate almost 25 years after he first assumed office.

In November 2020, Democrats were disappointed that now-President Joe Biden lost Florida's 29 electoral votes to then-President Donald Trump but applauded its elections officials for their efficient vote-counting operation, commenting that they obviously learned their lessons from Bush v. Gore and 2000's vote-counting debacle in the Sunshine State. But despite that efficiency, Florida Republicans haven't abandoned voter suppression — and Miami-based Washington Post opinion writer Lizette Alvarez takes them to task for it in an op-ed published on March 2. "Something remarkable happened in Florida this past Election Day: A state long lampooned for its ballot bumbling simply added up its votes and secured a winner, Donald Trump, not long after the polls closed," Alvarez comments. "The election efficiency felt like a miracle." After the election, Gov. Ron DeSantis, a far-right Republican and Trump sycophant, tweeted, "Florida is a model for the rest of the nation to follow." "For DeSantis, the state's 2020 performance was a double-barreled victory — a smooth election and a major swing-state win for Trump, even though the president ultimately lost the election," Alvarez explains. "But that apparently wasn't good enough for the governor and Florida's Republican statehouse leadership. They now want to 'reform' the state's electoral system, particularly mail-in balloting." Alvarez continues, "An election reform bill, which has already cleared its first committee, and a plan promoted by DeSantis would make it harder, not easier, for voters to obtain ballots and then drop off or mail them. Turns out, suppressing the vote in Florida is still more tantalizing to Republicans than facilitating the vote." Florida, of course, is hardly the only state where Republicans are pushing voter suppression bills. Everywhere from Georgia to Iowa, Republicans are ramping up efforts to make it harder to vote. "Why weren't DeSantis and his GOP allies satisfied with the state's 2020 election performance?," Alvarez writes. "For one thing, the national Republican Party, which continues to indulge Trump's vote-fraud fantasy, issued marching orders — and Florida quickly fell into lockstep. Thirty-two other states, including Georgia — which voted for Joe Biden and elected two Democratic U.S. senators — are pushing election overhauls this year that would make it harder to vote, according to the Brennan Center for Justice." Alvarez notes that Florida State Sen. Dennis Baxley, a Republican, introduced a bill that "would force voters to request a ballot every calendar year if they want to vote by mail" — and this is the same Dennis Baxley who, in 2007, sponsored a bill that expanded mail-in ballots in Florida. Alvarez points out that historically, more Republicans than Democrats "embraced the convenience of mail-in ballots" — and African-American Democrats preferred to vote in person. "Last year, the preference flip-flopped, likely because of the pandemic, but also, because of Trump's ceaseless proclamations that mail-in ballots would be stolen, lost or destroyed," Alvarez observes. "Florida Republicans, though, just can't resist dreaming up new ways to suppress the vote."

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters. After record turnout in 2020, Republican-controlled states appear to be in a race to the bottom to see who can pass the most egregious new barriers to voting. According to a new analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice, 253 bills to restrict voting access have been introduced in 43 states already this year. Georgia is ground zero for the GOP’s escalating war on voting, targeting the voting methods that were used most by Democratic voters in 2020 and which contributed to flipping the state blue and electing two Democratic senators. On Tuesday, Georgia’s Republican Senate Majority Leader Mike Dugan introduced a bill repealing no-excuse absentee voting, which 1.3 million Georgians used in 2020, including 450,000 Republicans. Under his proposal, only a small subset of voters, such as those who are out of town, disabled, or over 65 (a demographic that leans strongly Republican), will be eligible to vote by mail. The small percentage of Georgians who can still cast ballots by mail will have to get a witness signature on their ballot and attach a copy of photo identification, which requires access to a copier or printer. The new law would make Georgia one of the most restrictive states in the country for mail voting. Georgia Senate Republicans just introduced sweeping new voter suppression bill that repeals no-excuse absentee voting & requires witness signature + photocopy of voter ID for mail ballots. This is really ugly — Ari Berman (@AriBerman) February 23, 2021 Georgia Republicans wrote every aspect of the state’s already stringent voting laws and for many years promoted mail voting, specifically exempting mail ballots from voter ID requirements because they didn’t want their own voters, who are older and more rural, to be disenfranchised. They abruptly had a change of heart in November, when more Democrats than Republicans voted by mail for the first time. The state Senate bill comes on the heels of legislation introduced by Georgia House Republicans last week that would eliminate voting on Sunday, a measure seemingly designed to suppress Black turnout by targeting the Souls to the Polls get-out-the-vote drives organized by Black churches. The bill has been dubbed “Jim Crow with a suit and tie.” Black voters make up roughly 30 percent of Georgia’s electorate but compromised 37 percent of Sunday voters in 2020. The bill also takes aim at mail voting by restricting the use of mail ballot drop boxes and gives election officials less time to send out mail ballots and voters less time to return them. “If this bill is [passed],” April Albright of Black Voters Matter testified before the committee on Tuesday, “it will become part of the long history of voter suppression tactics that are used to disproportionately make it harder for Black and marginalized voters in Georgia to vote.” Georgia House Republicans just introduced a bill to ban early voting on Sundays prior to election, when Black churches do Souls to the Polls get out the vote drives — Ari Berman (@AriBerman) February 18, 2021 The House bill also radically changes the rules of runoff elections after Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock won their January 5 runoff races. It shortens the runoff period from nine weeks to four weeks, cuts early voting to just five days, and prohibits new voters from registering for the runoffs after November, all of which will make it harder for Democratic candidates to mobilize voters. The changes in the House bill would have impacted 2.2 million voters in 2020, according to an analysis by the Georgia Democratic Party. The bill is expected to be approved by the House Special Committee on Election Integrity on Wednesday, and then will go to a full vote in the House. Some high-profile Republicans in Georgia, including Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, have repeatedly defended the integrity of their state’s voting system, holding three recounts in the presidential election that found no evidence of fraud. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans in the legislature from amplifying Donald Trump’s Big Lie to build support for new restrictions on voting. “Many of these bills are reactionary to a three month disinformation campaign that could have been prevented,” Raffensperger said on Tuesday. “The reason some people have lost faith or are losing faith in our elections, it’s that Republicans have manufactured, fostered and encouraged [it] through silence and conspiracy theories and cult behavior.” A case in point was the statement released Tuesday by the Georgia Senate GOP caucus: “Many of our citizens have expressed a lack of faith and integrity in our current election systems. We have heard these concerns voiced by many, and addressing these concerns has been at the forefront of our legislative efforts this year to promote the good of this state.” This has become the standard line for Republicans, who peddled a bogus stolen election narrative to their constituents, then used that as a pretext to make it more difficult to vote. The Senate bill is sponsored by all but three Republicans in the chamber, making it likely it will pass after it clears the Senate Ethics Committee and goes to the Senate floor. On Tuesday morning, Georgia Democratic Senator David Lucas from Macon, who grew up in the Jim Crow-era and was one of the first Black lawmakers elected to the Georgia legislature since Reconstruction, gave an impassioned speech denouncing these efforts. “Every last one of these elections bills are about the election didn’t turn out the way you wanted and you want to perpetuate the lie that Trump told you,” Lucas said on the Senate floor, wiping away tears. Thank you @SenDavidLucas for your speech today against SB67. It's shameful that @GeoffDuncanGA and @BillCowsert allow racist bills and belittle those who raise concerns. It shows the urgent need for HR 1 and HR 4, to protect voters from racist laws. #gapolhttps://t.co/GiegKffVc0 — Fair Fight (@fairfightaction) February 23, 2021 Indeed, one recent poll found that three-fourths of Republicans believe Joe Biden didn’t legitimately win the election and Republicans around the country are seizing on Trump’s lies to restrict voting even in states he won. Iowa Republicans are on the verge of enacting a new bill that would cut nine days of early voting and severely restrict mail voting by limiting ballot drop boxes to one per county and preventing county officials from sending absentee ballot request forms to voters. “Most of us in my caucus and the Republican caucus believe the election was stolen,” said Republican state senator Jim Carlin when the Iowa state senate approved the bill on a party-line vote on Tuesday. “Give me a break,” responded Democratic state Senator Joe Bolkcom. “The reason some people have lost faith or are losing faith in our elections, it’s that Republicans have manufactured, fostered and encouraged [it] through silence and conspiracy theories and cult behavior.” Though Trump won Iowa by eight points, GOP state Senator Jason Schultz said, without evidence, that “Iowans’ votes were disenfranchised by some shady dealings in five cities around the country.” The same thing is happening in Florida, which Trump pointed to as a model for secure mail voting and where Trump himself voted absentee. But now Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has called for restricting mail voting by blocking election officials from automatically mailing ballots to voters who’ve cast absentee ballots in the past and making it easier to throw those ballots out for minor errors. The explosion of new GOP bills making it harder to vote is increasing pressure on Democrats in Washington to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the For the People Act to stop new voter suppression efforts. As one Georgia Republican told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “If Democrats were looking for a reason to pass a new federal voting rights law, this is example 1A.” The passage of new voting rights legislation will likely require eliminating the filibuster, which Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have said they will not do. If Democrats fail to act, the consequences for democracy will be felt for many years to come.

Its initial focus is on defeating H.R. 1, the voting rights bill Democrats hope to pass through Congress. Here’s how one article described the need that gave rise to Cuccinelli’s effort: AD AD The legislation they oppose would create automatic voter registration nationwide, expand early voting, and make it easier to vote by mail. It is the exact opposite of what conservatives want, and it is coming at a moment when conservative faith in the integrity of elections has never been lower. None of that has anything to do with “transparency,” but it’s an accurate description of the problem as Republicans see it. Conservative faith in the integrity of elections has indeed never been lower, because conservatives have come to believe that elections Democrats win are fraudulent by definition, and since Democrats recently won key elections, the system must therefore be lacking in integrity. This belief is not just the province of gullible retirees watching hour upon hour of Fox News and Newsmax every night. It extends all the way up to the Supreme Court, where Justice Clarence Thomas just wrote a dissent recycling inaccurate claims about mail ballots being rife with fraud. It goes to Republican congressional leaders who won’t admit that President Biden won the 2020 election fair and square. Cuccinelli is being joined by former Georgia senator Kelly Loeffler, who apparently took two lessons from her defeat in the recent runoff election: Too few Republicans turned out to vote, and too many Democrats did. AD AD So Loeffler has launched her own organization in the state, committed to registering Republican voters and seeking “transparency and uniformity in our election process.” “We had unprecedented changes to our election laws in 2020 because of the pandemic,” Loeffler told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “And we need to take a really hard look at the impact of those changes and why it drove trust in our elections so far down.” Of course, it wasn’t changes to the election laws that led Republicans to believe the election was stolen from them, and in Georgia the only relevant change was a consent decree made by the state’s Republican leadership that reduced the number of legitimate absentee ballots being thrown out. What drove down “trust” was the relentless lies and propagandizing of Trump, aided by people like Loeffler. But her fellow Georgia Republicans saw Biden win the state and then watched as Democrats won two Senate seats there, and they have now sprung into action. Republicans in the state legislature have introduced a sweeping series of voter suppression measures, including eliminating early voting on Sundays (when Black churches often mount “Souls to the Polls” voting drives), requiring photo ID to both request and return absentee ballots, and limiting the use of drop boxes. AD AD Drop boxes are probably of no particular benefit to Democrats. But Trump somehow got it into his head that they were the locus of conspiracies of fraud, so now all Republicans have to pretend they’re a terrible threat to democracy. If you can explain why it’s “transparent” to allow early voting on Monday through Saturday but not “transparent” to allow it on Sunday as well, you have a future as a Republican legislator. But this has long been the pattern of Republican voter suppression: Take an example of fraud — vanishingly rare, or even nonexistent but hypothetically possible — then use it as justification to make voting more difficult for huge swaths of the population, so long as those affected will be more likely to be minorities, young people, urban dwellers and anyone else who might vote for Democrats. The operating philosophy is that if we must disenfranchise 100,000 people to keep one guy from filling out the absentee ballot of his mother who died before Election Day, then we ought to do it. So long as most of the disenfranchised are, you know, the kind of people we’d rather not have voting in the first place. AD AD Something tells me these aren’t the last conservative organizations we’ll see devoting themselves to fighting the expansion of voting rights and promoting voter suppression. The GOP’s policy priorities are widely unpopular, and its most well-known elected officials are the targets of revulsion and ridicule. The Republican Party knows that it cannot win a national majority if voting is easy and smooth for everyone. So election laws must be shaped to make it harder for some people than others. It’s about the most important political project Republicans have.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, promoting his decision to reopen public schools for in-person classes, has claimed that the COVID-19 infection rates among Florida schoolchildren are impressively low. But according to WTJV Channel 6, the NBC television affiliate in Miami, DeSantis has neglected to mention how those infection rates actually compare to other states. NBC 6 reporter Tony Pipitone explains, "This week, the NBC 6 Investigators found, he twice misled the public about how Florida stacks up to other states when it comes to infection rates among school-age children. During comments Monday lambasting Democrats for, he claimed, putting teachers' unions 'ahead of the well-being of our children,' he touted how well Florida protected school children from the virus, compared to other states." DeSantis bragged, "We've been in-person (learning) as much as anybody in the country. And yet, we're 34th out of 50 states and (Washington) D.C. for COVID-19 cases on a per capita basis for children." But according to Pipitone, that statement fails to take into account "more than 50,000 children over the age of 14 who contracted the virus." "By using a statistic for children under 15, he effectively removed high school students from the data he cited twice this week to validate his decision to offer in-person classes to all public schools students," Pipitone notes. "The states DeSantis was comparing Florida to do, in fact, include those older students." NBC 6, according to Pipitone, analyzed Florida Department of Health and U.S. Census Bureau data and concluded that "when states reporting cases among children under 18 are compared to Florida's rate for the same age group, Florida ranks ninth, not 34th." DeSantis tweeted: Pipitone notes, "To emphasize the point, he attached a graph purporting to show Florida's 'rate of pediatric cases' to those of Ohio, Illinois and California, which has nearly twice the population of Florida. But the rate he assigned to Florida — 3794 cases per 100,000 — excluded anyone over 14. The numbers for Ohio and Illinois included anyone under 20, and California's anyone under 18." NBC 6's analysis, according to Pipitone, shows that "Illinois' rate was not 42% higher than Florida's; it was about the same" and that "Ohio's rate was not 4% higher than Florida's; it was 25% lower." And Pipitone adds that "California's rate was not 25% higher than Florida's; it was less than a third of that, around 7% higher."

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on Sunday dismissed the growing number of COVID-19 cases in his state that have been attributed to a highly-infectious new mutation. Fox News host Maria Bartiromo asked the governor about prominence of new COVID-19 strains in Florida. "Nearly 350 cases of the dangerous COVID variant have been reported in Florida," Bartiromo pointed out. "Is there a reason for concern here?" "So first off, we obviously look at all the data that comes in," DeSantis replied. "But this strain is in blue states and they don't talk about doing anything with blue states." The governor attributed the rising number of cases to "a lot of analysis" in his state. "So we find more than probably some other states do," he admitted. "It would be very odd to do a draconian travel restriction, which had no basis in the Constitution, at a time when all of these indicators are going down." Florida's Department of Health has reportedly refused to share data about the number of COVID variants found in the state. Watch the video below from Fox News.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis may have scored big in the CPAC Straw Poll last weekend, but his citizens aren't likely to appreciate wealthy communities being able to jump the line for the COVID-19 vaccine. The Miami Herald reported Wednesday that Florida's elderly are still struggling to sign up to get their first dose of the vaccine, but in a wealthy gated enclave in the Florida Keys, everyone was vaccinated in January. A Jan. 22 newsletter sent to the Herald revealed that the Ocean Reef Club in north Key Largo despite the rest of the state struggling to get the vaccine, "Over the course of the last two weeks, the Medical Center has vaccinated over 1,200 homeowners who qualify under the State of Florida's Governor's current Order for those individuals who are 65 years of age or older." "We are fortunate to have received enough vaccines to ensure both the first and second for those vaccinated," the newsletter message continued. "At this time, however, the majority of the State has not received an allocation of first doses of vaccines for this week and beyond, and the timing of any subsequent deliveries remains unclear." The Herald questioned whether the Republican donors who live in the area are behind the decision to give quick and easy access. "In fact, the only people from Key Largo who gave to DeSantis' political committee live in Ocean Reef," said the report. "All 17 of them had given the governor contributions of $5,000 each through December 2020, according to the Florida Division of Elections. One donor, in particular, gave Gov. DeSantis an extra $250,000 after the area got their vaccines in mid-January. Read the full report at the Miami Herald.

Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried on Thursday accused the state's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of staging "red carpet vaccine distribution for donors" and called for the FBI to investigate the matter. Citing her experience as a public defender, Fried, the state's highest-ranking elected Democrat, said, "The fact pattern is simply just to clear to avoid: give campaign contribution, big dollars, get special access to vaccines—ahead of seniors, ahead of our teachers, ahead of our farmworkers, and so many of our residents here in the state of Florida." "If this isn't public corruption, I don't know what is," said Fried, whose office is also the state's consumer watchdog. "I will not stand by and let our vaccines be used as political gain... to be auctioned to the highest bidder," she said. Fried's call for an FBI probe followed reporting by the Miami Herald that nearly all those over 65 in the wealthy Key Largo community Ocean Reef Club received vaccines by mid-January. The Herald noted Wednesday that Ocean Reef is "home to many wealthy donors to the Florida Republican Party and GOP candidates, including Gov. Ron DeSantis" and the "the only people from Key Largo who gave to DeSantis' political committee live in Ocean Reef," the outlet added. Citing the Florida Division of Elections, the newspaper reported that 17 residents of the community had given DeSantis contributions of $5,000 each through December of 2020. One of the Ocean Reef residents is former Republican Gov. of Illinois Bruce Rauner, who on Feb. 25 "increased his contribution and wrote a $250,000 check," according to the Herald. In fact, "Since DeSantis started using the state's vaccine initiative to steer special pop-up vaccinations to select communities," the Herald reported, "his political committee has raised $2.7 million in the month of February alone, more than any other month since he first ran for governor in 2018, records show." More evidence of DeSantis is playing politics with vaccine distribution came weeks earlier. As the Orlando Sentinel reported Thursday: The Herald report comes after weeks of controversy over whether the wealthy communities targeted by the DeSantis' vaccine "pods" were influenced by political considerations. Three communities in Charlotte, Manatee, and Sarasota counties developed by Republican fundraiser Pat Neal were chosen by DeSantis for pop-up sites. Neal contributed $125,000 to DeSantis in 2018 and 2019. Only two ZIP codes were eligible at the Manatee site, and County Commissioner Vanessa Baugh included herself and the development's CEO on a VIP list. Those events prompted U.S. Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.) to call for a Justice Department investigation. In a letter to Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson dated Feb. 21, Crist expressed concern about DeSantis "setting up 'pop-up' vaccination sites to deliver doses to select communities" and wrote that in "several cases, these sites seem to be targeted to wealthy communities with whom Governor DeSantis has clear political connections, allowing some to skip to the front of the line in counties with existing waitlists." "I request that the Department of Justice determine if the governor's blatantly political vaccine distribution decisions, which do not seem to be in the public's best interest, violate federal law, and merit a full federal investigation," he wrote. DeSantis, for his part, is rejecting the accusations of wrongdoing, saying at a press conference Thursday, "I'm not worried about your income bracket, I'm worried about your age bracket." He further asserted that the the state "wasn't involved in [the Ocean Reef distribution] in any shape or form." Fried, in her remarks Thursday, put the access to vaccines in a global context. "This is an international healthcare pandemic and we're supposed to all be in this together," she said, "and so getting to the front of the line because you have access and you have the financial ability is just unacceptable."

Like endless candidate fundraising, partisan battles over accessing a ballot and voting have become akin to a "permanent campaign" in America's battleground states—where voters often decide which party holds national power. This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. Not every state's voters determine which party wins congressional majorities and the presidency. But among the states that tip these outcomes, partisan battles over the ease or difficulty of voting have become ongoing features of their political life—bleeding over from completed elections into state legislative sessions and forcing voters and local election officials to pivot as the cycle continues. In America's 2020 general election, voters had more options than ever to vote—due to state responses to the pandemic. They set turnout records. But partisan fights over voting rules did not stop after Election Day, nor after the Electoral College met, nor after Donald Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. In January, as lawmakers convened in the battleground states with Republican governors and GOP-majority statehouses, Republicans introduced a wave of restrictive voting legislation. Not every bill had traction, but bills rolling back access to a ballot and options to return it moved in Iowa, New Hampshire, Georgia, Arizona, Florida and Texas. In March, Iowa became the first state to enact rollbacks into laws, immediately triggering a lawsuit claiming that the restrictions violated its state constitution's right of equal access to a ballot. Advocates for Latino voters and the Democratic Party filed the lawsuit. Republicans introduced similar bills in other battleground states with Democratic governors, such as in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin. But unlike in the red-led states where some of the bills may yet become law, these states lack sufficient numbers of Republican legislators to override gubernatorial vetoes. In other words, their efforts attacking voting and undermining confidence in the most democratic of public institutions are posturing mostly intended to placate their base after Democrats swept control of Congress and the White House. Either way, partisan fights over the options to access and cast a ballot appear to have become an ongoing feature in battleground states. This development is akin to what campaign consultants first coined as a "permanent campaign" during the 1970s, referring to nonstop "image making and strategic calculation." The most disturbing aspects of permanent campaigns, according to scholars, are how they disrupt and distort political representation, governing and now, voting. "No one planned such an emergent pattern in the general management of our public affairs, yet it now seems to lie at the heart of the way Americans do politics—or more accurately—the way politics is done to Americans," wrote Hugh Heclo, for the joint publication in 2000 from the Brookings Institution and American Enterprise Institute on permanent campaigns. With fundraising, the endless drive to raise big money skews a candidate's time and attention. With voting, many lawmakers are driven to revise the rules to benefit their party. After 2020, some Democrat-led states, like Virginia, passed several laws expanding ballot access. But many more Republican-led states have sought to make voting harder. These power grabs often ignore warnings from election officials about deliberately complicating the process for voters and election administrators, which is what has been unfolding in Florida over a Republican proposal to ban absentee ballot drop boxes. Another feature of the permanent voting wars is the nonstop campaigning that now surrounds the rules for casting ballots. In Georgia, for example, which arguably has the nation's most intense post-election battles—after ex-President Trump lost its 2020 general election and its two GOP senators lost in January's runoffs—Democrats and their allies have responded to restrictive GOP bills with lobbying, media and calls to boycott Republicans' corporate donors. Ahead of the early March NBA all-star game, superstar LeBron James' and his More Than a Vote group created a TV ad criticizing the Georgia rollbacks and emphasizing that this is a long-term struggle for representative government. The GOP efforts in red-led swing states are also striking. Notably, Republican lawmakers are justifying their proposed rollbacks by citing falsehoods about voters and voting. The most activist Republican lawmakers continue to cast doubts about the legitimacy of 2020's presidential results, even after ex-Trump administration officials—starting with former Attorney General William Barr—stated there was no widespread election fraud. The professional organizations for top state election officials have repeatedly said that 2020's general election was the most transparent, secure and problem-free exercise in decades—from a voting and vote counting perspective. But that hasn't stopped GOP attacks. Some of these lies have been around for years, such as falsely claiming that the country is plagued by massive illegal voting—voter fraud by Democrats. Other lies are newer, such as Trump's evidence-free claim of millions of stolen votes. While what unfolds inside statehouses may appear to be inside local political ecosystems, some of the falsity-filled messaging and strategic calculations are coming from the Republican National Committee and its top partisan allies. As Mandi Merritt, an RNC spokeswoman, recently told the Washington Post, the national party "remains laser focused on protecting election integrity, and that includes aggressively engaging at the state level on voting laws and litigating as necessary." She continued, "Democrats have abandoned any pretense that they still care about election issues." On March 8, Fox News reported that Heritage Action, the grassroots front of the right-wing Heritage Foundation—which has, for years, perpetuated a myth that illegal voting is widespread and a blight—"plan[ned] to spend at least $10 million on efforts [media and ads] to tighten election security laws in eight key swing states." "Fair elections are essential," said Heritage Action Executive Director Jessica Anderson. The group's website had links to a February 1 "factsheet" that listed purported problems that largely do not exist—such as failures to update voter rolls. (More than half the states cooperate on this task, including sharing more reliable data than these partisans advocate.) While Heritage Action's swing-state ads will seek to sound authoritative as they fan fears about voting, its much-hyped "Election Fraud Database" bears scrutiny. Nationally, in 2020's election cycle, where more than 155 million people voted for president—and tens of millions more voted in primaries—Heritage's database only cited five examples of illegal voting by individuals. It cited examples of people illegally signing qualifying petitions for candidates and ballot measures, and also falsifying absentee ballot applications in 2020. But these latter illegal activities were detected by officials and prosecuted, meaning, among other things, that this handful of potentially illegal ballots were caught, not cast. More importantly, Heritage's numbers attest to the fact that illegal voting is very rare and almost always detected before it counts. But such facts are often lost when more simplistic partisan disinformation and smears race ahead, often amplified by social media sites that elevate incendiary content that attracts readers, which is what advertisers seek. Such propaganda perpetuates fake narratives that mask the real agenda: gaming election results. "The right-wing is organizing and spending millions to enact voter suppression laws," tweeted Marc Elias, who leads the national Democratic Party's legal team, in response to the Fox News report on Heritage Action's propaganda campaign. The reality of permanent campaigns to reshuffle voting options and rules in battleground states is yet another sign that an even-handed federal response is called for. Whether the remedy is the Democrats' omnibus election reform bill, H.R. 1, or the narrower restoration of the Voting Rights Act's enforcement provisions, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, remains to be seen. But as Brooking and AEI scholar Hugh Heclo noted a generation ago, the "permanent campaign" was eroding foundational features of representative government. "[B]y the beginning of the twenty-first century, American national politics had gone past a mentality of campaigning to govern. It had reached the more truly corrupted condition of governing to campaign," he wrote. "It is no exaggeration to use the imagery of true 'corruption' in its classic sense—something much darker than money or sex scandals." "We can know quite well from history when democratic politics is passing from degradation to debauchery. That happens when leaders teach a willing people to love illusions—to like nonsense because it sounds good. That happens when a free people eventually come to believe that whatever pleases them is what is true."

Tallahassee, Fla. – Today, Governor Ron DeSantis announced the State of Florida’s initial distribution plan for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. Florida is preparing to receive 367,000 doses of the Moderna vaccine next week, pending Emergency Use Authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Doses of the Moderna vaccine will be distributed to 173 hospital locations that did not receive doses in the first allocation of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. These hospital locations span 43 counties. Find the full list HERE. The state is able to distribute this vaccine to a large number of hospitals as the Moderna vaccine does not require ultra-cold storage. Governor DeSantis has issued regular video updates on vaccine distribution in Florida, which can be found HERE. Floridians are also encouraged to opt-in to receive updates about the COVID-19 vaccine via text. Floridians can receive these text updates by texting FLCOVID19 to 888777. ###

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to proceed with legal challenges to the 2020 election in Pennsylvania that loomed over the end of the presidential campaign. The state's supreme court had extended the deadline for receiving mail-in votes by a few days, a move opposed by Republicans who correctly feared these ballots would favor Joe Biden over Donald Trump. In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene, and the question became moot after Nov. 3 when it became clear Biden would win the state whether the late-arriving ballots were counted or not. But Rick Hasen, a top election law expert, noted that the theory that motivated the challenge to the late-arriving ballots remains a live threat at the highest court in the land, describing it as a "ticking time bomb" in a recent blog post. The theory in question is called the "independent state legislature doctrine", which relies on a severely constrained reading of the Constitution to conclude only state legislatures themselves have the authority to determine how elections work in their states. "[T]he court's conservative majority could soon embrace a strong version of the independent state legislature doctrine. This could take state courts out of their essential role in protecting voting rights," Hasen explained in a New York Times op-ed. "It could potentially eliminate the ability of voters to use ballot measures to enact nonpartisan redistricting reform and other measures that apply to federal elections. It could give conservative courts looking for an excuse a reason to scuttle voter-protective rules enacted by state election boards." Many feared that, had the 2020 presidential election come down to a small margin in Pennsylvania — a result that, in retrospect, was quite plausible — the Supreme Court's embrace of the doctrine could have thrown American democracy into chaos. We hardly avoided that, anyway, and it could have been even worse. Hasen pointed out in his blog that three of the conservative members of the court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and Neil Gorsuch — dissented from the decision not to proceed with the Pennsylvania challenges this week. He explained: None of the dissenting Justices believed that these cases could somehow retroactively affect the outcome of the 2020 election. Indeed, they say it would not, but that the cases, while moot, should still have been heard because they present issues that will return to the federal courts. The main issue is the extent to which state courts, relying on state constitutions, may change rules for federal elections put in place by state legislatures. In the run-up to the 2020 elections, these three Justices, along with Justice Kavanaugh (who did not note a dissent in any of these cases today) expressed the view that the Constitution constrains the actions of state courts in such circumstances (viewing the legislature's power as very broad). It's not clear yet how committed Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts are to the independent state legislature doctrine, though Roberts has previously signaled support for it. But they decided not to hear the cases at this point in time, likely because they view the issue as moot. But what will it mean if they adopt the doctrine in future cases? Even more power to state legislatures. State legislatures in several key swing states are heavily gerrymandered and biased in favor of Republicans. If the Supreme Court establishes a strong version of the independent state legislature doctrine as the law of the land, the GOP will have even fewer constraints to manipulate election laws in their favor. "So the bottom line is that the independent state legislature doctrine hangs out there, as a ticking time bomb, waiting to go off in a future case," Hasen concluded.

Vice President Mike Pence told President Donald Trump on Tuesday that he has no power to overturn the 2020 presidential election on Jan.6, according to a New York Times report citing "people briefed on the conversation." Pence hasn't been so explicit in public and has, in fact, egged on the idea that he could somehow affect the outcome when Congress meets on Wednesday to count the votes of the Electoral College. Joe Biden won the Electoral College 306-232. "I promise you, come this Wednesday, we'll have our day in Congress," Pence said Monday. "We'll hear the objections. We'll hear the evidence." VP Mike Pence: "Come this Wednesday, we will have our day in Congress." www.youtube.com But some observers noted that Pence's words seemed purposefully measured. He said only that the objections to the votes will be heard. That doesn't mean they'll decisive, or that he specifically will play a meaningful role. Some, including the president, have suggested that Pence could unilaterally reject Biden's win: But this is false, legal scholars agree in virtual unanimity. The Constitution's role for the vice president in counting the votes is interpreted to be ministerial in their role as president of the Senate. He simply counts the votes and presides over the session. It's also clear that the framers never intended the vice president to play a decisive role since it would essentially leave the power to pick the next president up to the vice president. This is a recipe for one-party rule, not democracy. According to the Times, Pence has spent time meeting with advisers about the nature of his role. And he has informed the president that he does not have the power to change the result of the vote. In a mildly amusing paragraph, the report suggests, however, that Pence is still humoring Trump a bit to let him keep a glimmer of hope alive: Even as he sought to make clear that he does not have the power Mr. Trump seems to think he has, Mr. Pence also indicated to the president that he would keep studying the issue up until the final hours before the joint session of Congress begins at 1 p.m. Wednesday, according to the people briefed on their conversation. It also says that Pence may try to use his position to give voice to the president's grievances about the election. But many Republican members of Congress are already expected to force the lawmakers into debate about the validity of votes from key swing states in furtherance of Trump's disinformation campaign about the election. Nevertheless, Democrats have majority control of the House, and a majority of the Senate has recognized Joe Biden as president-elect, so there's essentially no chance the formality of the vote-counting will change the result.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) on Wednesday delivered a searing response when asked about talk she'd make the perfect candidate for vice president, noting that one member of the 2020 Democratic field has already proven they know how to do the job: former Vice President Joe Biden. Harris’ response comes after Politico on Monday reported senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus view a Biden-Harris matchup as “a dream ticket.” Speaking with reporters in Nashua, New Hampshire, Harris also hit Biden for his support of the 1994 crime bill, which the California Democrat said contributed “to mass incarceration in our country.” “It encourages and was the first time that we had a federal three strikes law,” Harris noted, adding that she “sadly” disagrees with the former vice president over his support of the bill.

The person who wins the presidential election in 2020 will replace Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If it’s Joe Biden, we will hold our ground with a 5-4 conservative majority, and the occasional victory from a wayward conservative (like Chief Justice John Roberts on the Affordable Care Act decision). Also, there’s a decent chance that one of the conservative justices will exit the court at some point in the next four years. A liberal majority could be in reach. If it’s Donald Trump, we’ll have a 6-3 conservative majority and the end of pretty much anything liberals value in America. Religious conservatives held their noses after their party nominated the most morally bankrupt man in America, all because of the Supreme Court. They get it. Too many “progressives” don’t, hence the simple equation: a vote against Joe Biden, or simply staying home, is a vote for Donald Trump to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Pretty cut-and-dry and simple, right? Biden wasn’t my guy. He was like 10th on my list. But my candidate lost, and it’s time to move on to the even bigger battle. Most people get this. Some people don’t. Apparently, being Green means allowing Trump to replace RBG, because nothing says “green” and “environmental” like a Supreme Court full of even more conservative judges. Climate change, fracking, environmental justice, handouts to the fossil fuel industry, kneecapping of the green energy economy … how can we handle all those issues with a 6-3 conservative court? The Green Party doesn’t care. Nor does Jill Stein. If you read that tweet literally, she’s saying that Black voters were the “establishment” and did all the “sabotaging” of “progressives”—which apparently doesn’t include the Black community. But hey, she’s clearly all psyched about Trump replacing RBG. Now there’s a #demexit hashtag on Twitter for all the people and Russian bots that want Trump to replace RBG to come together. We get gems like this: You see, everyone should have served Sanders. He shouldn’t have to, you know, win more votes than the alternatives. Also, the DNC is all-powerful and mighty and controls all levers of power. (Reality: quite the opposite ...) How ridiculous a human do you need to be to still claim there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans? We heard it in 2000: “There is no difference between George W. Bush an Al Gore.” Then we heard it in 2004, with John Kerry. 2008 was a respite, but funny enough, not because Barack Obama was a liberal champion. And then, of course, came 2016. And still, people are going to claim “no difference”? I have one difference: Joe Biden won’t put another Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh on the court. There are others, too, amazingly. This notion that the DNC is this all-powerful being that decides these things is Trumpian/QAnon-level conspiracy theory mongering. They did nothing except organize the presidential debates. And nothing in those debates disadvantaged Sanders. Heck, Biden couldn’t even raise money! His campaign was perpetually broke, it had no field organization! And yet he won because Black voters rewarded him for his service to the first Black president. Right or wrong, that’s what happened, and the DNC literally had zero impact on that choice. I’ve written about a dozen pieces on Sanders’ 30% campaign, how it never worked to build a majority coalition, and thus how it was destined to lose. That wasn't imposed on Sanders by the DNC. But even more broadly speaking, Sanders won the ideological debate, and Biden is running a far more progressive campaign as a result—even endorsing key Sanders and Elizabeth Warren plans. The key in the future is to look at progressives who are working toward building a majority coalition, like Reps. Ayanna Pressley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The party has moved dramatically leftward since the days of Howard Dean in the early-to-mid-2000s, when civil unions between gay couples were considered crazy, abortion rights were negotiable, and every Democrat was talking about how deeply to cut Social Security. Now, how seriously should we take these people who would rather Trump pick RBG’s replacement and give conservatives a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court? Let’s turn to Civiqs and look at Democratic numbers in Trump’s reelects: Do you want President Trump to be re-elected in 2020? PARTY ID BIDEN TRUMP OTHER DEMOCRATS 91 4 4 REPUBLICANS 3 91 6 INDEPENDENTS 41 43 16 For context, here are the exit poll results in 2016: PARTY ID CLINTON TRUMP OTHER DEMOCRATS 89 8 3 REPUBLICANS 8 88 4 INDEPENDENTS 42 46 12 So Biden is already running ahead of Hillary Clinton among Democrats. And even assuming that some of those never-Biden a-holes now call themselves “independent,” Biden is still running slightly ahead there too. Even if you throw in margin-of-error float between two different polls (making apples-to-apples comparisons impossible), that still means that on balance, little has changed since 2016. Does that mean that Biden is clear to go? Nope. He needs to make clear, in how he picks his VP (and maybe even early cabinet announcements) that he values and invites the party’s progressive wing to join his campaign. Even grabbing a few extra points among those Democrats and Independents in the “other” category could mean the different between victory and defeat. But no matter what Biden does, the Democratic electorate spoke: Biden is the nominee, and the victor gets to write his own script. There is only so much we can do to influence his decisions moving forward. What we can do is acknowledge that politics aren’t about what is ideal, but what is possible. And right now, protecting the liberal minority (and maybe even getting a majority!) is of utmost importance—perhaps the single most important thing we can do this election. P.S. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is 81. So perhaps we should be talking about Trump’s potential 7-2 majority.

One of the more revealing political moments of recent times was when the Republican Party decided they weren't going to bother writing a platform for the national convention in 2020. They simply announced that they supported President Trump and pretty much left it at that. It's not that platforms necessarily guide the party's agenda, but they are an indicator of its priorities, philosophy, ideology, etc. Yet the erstwhile "party of ideas" didn't think it was important enough to even make a half-baked stab at writing them down ahead of the last election. That's because they don't have ideas anymore, at least any that could possibly be translated into a legislative program. Maybe it's the influence of Donald Trump or the fact that the right-wing media's culture war machine is permanently turned up to 11, 24 hours a day, but the right has clearly decided that turning politics into a non-stop circus is all they need to do. That's why we have Republicans in Congress refusing to negotiate in good faith on the COVID relief bill and pulling stunts like forcing the clerk of the Senate to read the bill aloud for no good reason other than to delay the process. And that's just Congress. Out in the states, Republicans are a beehive of activity, putting all of their energy wherever they have any power to roll back voting rights. This isn't new, of course. Conservatives have been trying to suppress the vote of their political opponents and racial minorities literally for centuries. But we had made some progress in the latter half of the 20th century with the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court recently ruled meant that we no longer needed the federal government to protect the right of those who've traditionally been disenfranchised. Democrats knew that would unleash a wave of voter suppression and in the last Congress, the House passed H.R.1, the For The People Act, which would expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, limit partisan gerrymandering, and create new ethics rules for federal officeholders. Needless to say, the Senate under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., never took it up because they weren't in the business of doing anything but confirming judges, appearing on Fox News and golfing with the president if they were lucky. Trump's Big Lie that the election was stolen has now allowed Republicans across the board to go into overdrive, fatuously insisting that they must pass hundreds of laws all over the country making voting as difficult as possible for poor and working people, students, racial and ethnic minorities and people who live in dense population areas, in order to "restore faith" in our elections. Lie blatantly about a stolen election and then use that as an excuse to steal future elections. You have to admire the chutzpah. H.R.1 once again passed the House this week on a party-line vote and the Senate will take it up once the Republicans get tired of putting on a sideshow and the COVID relief package is finally finished. This bill cannot be dealt with through the reconciliation process that allows for only a simple majority to pass so it is subject to the filibuster and the Democrats are going to have to do a very serious gut check. This is an existential battle for the party and for American democracy. The Atlantic's Ron Brownstein puts it this way. If Democrats lose their slim majority in either congressional chamber next year, they will lose their ability to pass voting-rights reform. After that, the party could face a debilitating dynamic: Republicans could use their state-level power to continue limiting ballot access, which would make regaining control of the House or the Senate more difficult for Democrats—and thus prevent them from passing future national voting rules that override the exclusionary state laws. Perhaps that's why former Vice President Mike Pence popped his head up for the first time since he was evacuated from the U.S. Capitol on January 6th to argue against this bill, accusing Democrats of trying to "give leftists a permanent, unfair, and unconstitutional advantage in our political system," which is laughable considering the state of our tattered democracy. The Democrats currently hold 50 Senate seats but represent 41,549,808 more people than the 50 Senate Republicans. GOP presidents appointed six of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court while winning the popular vote only once in the past seven elections. Of course, the anachronistic Electoral College can grant a Republican president the White House even though he or she might actually lose by millions of votes, and partisan gerrymandering in red states consistently benefits Republicans. Unless Democrats can persuade centrist Sens. Joe Manchin, D-WV, Kyrsten Sinema, D-Az, and institutionalists like Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that U.S. democracy is in dire straits and the filibuster has to either be eliminated or "reformed" in some way, H.R.1 and the upcoming John Lewis Voting Rights Act will not pass and this barrage of voting restrictions and gerrymandering may very well cement GOP minoritarian rule permanently. Not passing these bills really isn't optional. The U.S.-funded NGO Freedom House, which has been around since 1941, recently released its annual report on democracy around the world. The outlook is not good. Democratic governments have been on the decline for 15 years and it's not getting any better. But the most startling finding is that the U.S., once the exemplar of modern democracy, has declined by 11 points on Freedom House's aggregate Freedom In The World score, placing it among the 25 countries that have suffered the steepest declines over the past 10 years. The report discusses the long term degradation of America's democratic norms but focuses on the accelerating decline in U.S. freedom scores during the Trump years, "driven in part by corruption and conflicts of interest in the administration, resistance to transparency efforts, and harsh and haphazard policies on immigration and asylum that made the country an outlier among its Group of Seven peers." But it reserves its harshest criticism for Trump's attempt to overturn the election which it rightly characterizes as his most destructive act. And even more concerning was the fact that "nationally elected officials from his party backed these claims, striking at the foundations of democracy and threatening the orderly transfer of power." That is not something any of us would have expected to read in a Freedom House report. The Democrats have a small window of opportunity to prevent this undemocratic movement from gaining steam and securing minority rule for the foreseeable future. Trump himself is not out of the picture and his party is single-mindedly focused on attaining power by any means necessary. Democrats must act decisively now and make sure that all 50 Senators understand the stakes and do what is necessary to pass H.R.1. I would hope that neither Kyrsten Sinema or Joe Manchin want to be remembered as the Strom Thurmond of their time, but that's exactly who they will be if they allow the filibuster to once more stand in the way of ensuring voting rights for all Americans.

Dilatory tactics like delaying certification or recounts will be rejected by courts or governors, and not even a single state legislature (much less three) seems eager to incur the wrath of the American people through a power grab that would violate the rule of law, trigger massive street protests and call the legislators’ own elections into question. Most state legislators appropriately defer to the will of their own voters despite pressure from the president. And even if three state legislatures engaged in broadly antidemocratic action by purporting to appoint their own slates of electors, federal law favors Electoral College slates sent in by governors, and we can expect Democratic governors in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to submit slates reflecting their voters’ choice of Mr. Biden. On top of that, Democrats will control the House, which will not accept rogue alternative electors. If Congress stalemates, Mr. Trump is out of office on Jan. 20 under the Constitution’s 20th Amendment. All of that is indeed good news, but I am quite concerned about what comes next. By the time President-elect Biden takes the oath of office, millions of people will wrongly believe he stole the election. At least 300 times since Election Day, Mr. Trump has gone straight to his followers on social media to declare the election rigged or stolen and to claim, despite all evidence to the contrary, himself as the real victor. Mr. Trump’s false claims will delegitimize a Biden presidency among his supporters. It should go without saying that a democracy requires the losers of an election to accept the results as legitimate and agree to fight another day; Republican leaders echoing Mr. Trump’s failure to support a peaceful transition of power undermine the foundation of our democracy. It’s not only the fact that we have had to say this, but that we keep having to repeat it, that shows the depths that we have reached. Mr. Trump’s litigation strategy also will make things worse when it comes to voting rights. The common thread in his campaign’s postelection litigation connecting Trump allegations of people of color illegally voting in Democratic cities in swing states and corrupted voting machines is a lack of any evidence to support the claims. Many of the lawsuits have been laughed out of court for lack of evidence, voluntarily dismissed, or involve so few votes that they could not plausibly change the outcome. These unsuccessful lawsuits will nonetheless provide a false narrative to explain how it is that Mr. Biden declared victory and serve as a predicate for new restrictive voting laws in Republican states. They already provided a basis for the now-aborted attempt of Republican canvassing board members in Wayne County, Mich., to reject votes from Democratic-leaning Detroit, and could be the basis for a similar move by Republicans when the Michigan state canvassing board meets Monday. And even as Mr. Trump has lost most of his postelection lawsuits, he and his allies had a good bit of success before the election in cases that will stymie voting rights going forward. Following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts now routinely say that federal courts should be deferential when states engage in balancing voting rights — even during a pandemic — against a state’s interests in election administration and avoiding fraud, even when states come forward with no evidence of fraud. Under the so-called “Purcell principle,” courts increasingly allow states to make voting harder. They can do this whenever states are able to stall judicial proceedings long enough that they can claim a voting change comes too close to the election and will confuse voters and election administrators. Courts have issued other disturbing opinions, including allowing for age discrimination in the availability of mail-in ballots only for those older than 60 or 65, essentially short-circuiting litigation under the 26th Amendment, which bars discrimination in voting on the basis of age.

This week, voters in Georgia were going to determine whether a seat on the state’s supreme court would be held by a Republican or a Democrat. But Gov. Brian Kemp and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in a blatant power grab, have canceled the election — and Kemp will, according to Vox, be appointing someone to the seat. On the U.S. Supreme Court, justices enjoy lifetime appointments. In Georgia, however, there are six-year terms for state supreme court justices. Justice Keith Blackwell, a Republican, decided not to seek reelection this year, and Tuesday, May 19 would have been the day in which Georgia voters decided between Democrat John Barrow and Republican Beth Beskin. But with Kemp having canceled the election, the far-right Republican will be able to pick someone to replace Blackwell — and it’s safe to assume that Kemp won’t be picking a Democrat. On May 14, the Georgia Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case Barrow v. Raffensperger that paved the way for the election’s cancelation. Blackwell, Vox’s Ian Millhiser notes, announced that he would be retiring, effective November 18 — which is before his term expires on December 31. And because Blackwell was leaving before his term expired, Kemp was able to appoint someone to the seat — and not just for the November 19-December 31, 2020 period. Millhiser explains, “Shortly after receiving this letter, Kemp formally accepted Blackwell’s future resignation. The governor then informed Raffensperger, the state’s chief elections officer, that he intended to fill Blackwell’s seat by gubernatorial appointment. In response, Raffensperger canceled the election to fill Blackwell’s seat, which was scheduled for May 19.” Discussing provisions in the Georgia State Constitution and the Barrow v. Raffensperger case, Millhiser notes, “While the first provision suggests that an election must be held to fill Blackwell’s seat — with the winner taking office on January 1, 2021 — the second provision indicates that an appointed justice may serve much longer. When Blackwell resigns on November 18, the ‘next general election which is more than six months’ after that date won’t occur until 2022.” So even though Kemp and Raffensperger’s actions are sleazy, they appear to be technically legal under the Georgia State Constitution and according to the Barrow v. Raffensperger ruling. According to Millhiser, “The upshot of Barrow is likely to be that when a justice who belongs to the same party as the governor wishes to retire, they will submit a post-dated resignation similar to the one Blackwell submitted to

At the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday an attorney for the Republican National Committee admitted GOP candidates need voter suppression laws, especially those that target minority voters, to win. The high court was hearing arguments related to the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965, which under Chief Justice John Roberts was gutted to be almost useless in 2013 when he infamously announced, "Our country has changed." The Guardian and HuffPost have written he was suggesting that racism is pretty much over. It is not. Tuesday's arguments discussed the landmark Voting Rights Act and "an Arizona law that disqualified ballots cast in the wrong precinct," as Mother Jones reports. The Brennan Center, as The Washington Post, reporting on today's Supreme Court hearing notes, is tracking over 250 bills Republicans are pushing in more than half the states across the country that are designed to take the "voter fraud" lies Donald Trump and his supporters have been pushing for nearly a year and turn them into "legal" voter suppression. The Supreme Court has changed dramatically in the nearly eight years since it suggested racism isn't a big deal anymore – and not for the better. But it was the court's newest member, and one of the most right-wing yet, who asked a revealing question. "What's the interest of the Arizona RNC here in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" That law forces the state to throw out voter ballots if cast in the wrong precinct. The question was asked by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The answer stunned many. "Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats," the lawyer, Michael Carvin, responded, as Mother Jones reports. "Politics is a zero-sum game," he added. "It's the difference between winning an election 50-49 and –" he continued, but Justice Barrett wouldn't even let him finish his sentence, perhaps for fear of what else he would say. "Republicans' intentions couldn't be any clearer," writes Mother Jones' Abigail Weinberg. "It's not about reducing fraud. It's about keeping minorities from voting for Democrats." Listen as Carvin, a Federalist Society lawyer, very matter-of-factly, and almost condescendingly, admit what Republicans need to do to win:

The Supreme Court expressed skepticism on Tuesday about a voting rights case pushing for the prohibition of two restrictions on voting in Arizona, an important test case for the fate of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. One restriction requires that ballot officials throw out votes cast in the wrong precinct. The other prohibits the practice of "ballot harvesting," which allows third parties, such as organizers, community activists, or even family members, to deliver ballots on voters' behalf. After a two-hour-long teleconference between justices delivering oral arguments for and against the restrictions, the conservative-majority court appeared poised to let the restrictions be, struggling to develop a legal standard that validates some restrictions over others. The meeting was held amid a tidal wave of over 250 Republican-backed bills in over half of the states across the country aimed at tightening voting restrictions––a sure response to former President Trump's baseless allegations of widespread voter fraud. Democrats have claimed that the Republican state-level effort is an attempt to suppress minority votes and prevent the public from being widely represented in the polls. Tuesday's case specifically centered on how Arizona's voting restrictions may contradict Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits any voting procedure that "results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race." Section 2 effectively allows post facto challenges to laws that impose disproportionate voting limitations. The provision was put in place because racial minorities "have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." However, Section 2 has mostly been discussed with respect to gerrymandering and redistricting––not with respect to the practice of voting in itself. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett repeatedly questioned lawyers on both sides of the argument. Roberts pressed the Democrats' lawyers on what degree of influence would be intolerable. "What if the provision results in a 1 percent decline in participation by minority voters," Roberts asked , "is that substantial enough?" Justice Barrett pointed out the difficulty in distinguishing an "inconvenience" from a "burden." Said Barrett, "There's a difficulty that the statutory language and its lack of clarity presents in trying to figure out when something crosses from an inconvenience to a burden." Asked what the Republican Party's investment in the case, GOP lawyer Michael Carvin suggested that a change in the status quo might hamper Republicans' chances of winning future elections. Lifting the restrictions, Carvin said, would put Republicans "at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats, Politics is a zero sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretations of Section 2 hurts us. It's the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election."

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday brought a formal end to eight lingering disputes pursued by former President Donald Trump and his allies related to the Nov. 3 presidential election including a Republican challenge to the extension of Pennsylvania’s deadline to receive mail-in ballots. FILE PHOTO: The female figure called the Contemplation of Justice is seen in a general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, U.S. July 2, 2020. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo The justices turned away appeals by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania and Republican members of the state legislature of a ruling by Pennsylvania’s top court ordering officials to count mail-in ballots that were postmarked by Election Day and received up to three days later. Three of the nine-member court’s six conservative justices - Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - dissented from the decision not to hear the Pennsylvania case. Trump, a Republican, lost his re-election bid to Democrat Joe Biden, who took office on Jan. 20. Biden defeated Trump by more than 80,000 votes in Pennsylvania and the legal case focused on fewer than 10,000 ballots. The high court, as expected, also rejected two Trump appeals challenging Biden’s victories in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin based on claims that the rules for mail-in ballots in the two election battleground states were invalid. The court also turned away separate cases brought by Trump allies in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Arizona - all states won by Biden. It already was clear that the high court had no intention to intervene in the cases because it did not act before Congress on Jan. 6 certified Biden’s victory. That formal certification was interrupted when a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol. The court also turned down motions to expedite the election cases. Trump made false claims that the presidential election was stolen from him through widespread voting fraud and irregularities. The case brought by Pennsylvania Republicans concerned 9,428 ballots out of 6.9 million cast in the state. The Supreme Court previously rejected a Republican request to block the lower court ruling allowing the ballots to be counted. In his dissent, Thomas said the Supreme Court should resolve whether non-legislators, including elections officials and courts, have any power to set election rules. Thomas said it was fortunate that the state high court’s ruling did not involve enough ballots to affect the election’s outcome. “But we may not be so lucky in the future,” Thomas wrote. The election dispute in Pennsylvania, like in several other states, involved changes implemented to facilitate voting during the coronavirus pandemic, a public health crisis that prompted a surge in mail-in ballots as voters sought to avoid crowded polling places. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sided with the state’s Democratic Party and various Democratic officials and candidates who argued that an Election Day mail-in ballot receipt deadline would violate the state constitution’s guarantee of “free and equal” elections given the pandemic and warnings by the U.S. Postal Service over its ability to deliver ballots in time. The state Republican Party intervened in the case to oppose the deadline extension. It argued that the state court usurped the Republican-controlled legislature’s authority in ordering the extension. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, told the justices in a filing that particularly given Trump’s repeated attempts to overturn the election result based on unfounded claims of voting fraud, “the court should not plunge itself into the political thicket by granting a case that will not affect the outcome of any election.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would not hear an appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans who sought to disqualify mailed ballots in the 2020 presidential election that arrived after Election Day. The court’s brief order gave no reasons for turning down the case, which as a practical matter marked the end of Supreme Court litigation over the election. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented, saying the court should have used it to provide guidance in future elections. The dissenting justices acknowledged that the number of ballots at issue in the case was too small to affect President Biden’s victory in the state. But the legal question the case presented — about the power of state courts to revise election laws — was, they said, a significant one that should be resolved without the pressure of an impending election. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in September that ballots sent before Election Day could be counted if they arrived up to three days after. On two occasions before the election, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case, though several justices expressed doubts about the state court’s power to override the State Legislature, which had set an Election Day deadline for receiving mailed ballots.

In Michigan — which saw more than its share of political extremism in recent months — state Attorney General Dana Nessel has announced criminal charges against two men accused of threatening officials on Tuesday. The men are 62-year-old Daniel Thompson, who is from Clare County, Michigan, and 43-year-old Douglas, Georgia resident Clinton Stewart. Thompson, Nessel's office alleges, made threats against Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Rep. Elisse Slotkin, both Democrats. Those threats, according to Nessel, include threats against Stabenow in a message left on Jan. 5 and threatening remarks during a Jan. 19 conversation with one of Slotkin's employees. In addition, Nessel's office alleges that Thompson made a threatening phone call to Slotkin on April 30, 2020. According to Nessel's office, "The voicemail message for Sen. Stabenow left by Thompson, who identified himself as a Republican, contained vulgar language and threatened violence meant to intimidate the public officials. Thompson stated he was angry about the results of the November election, that he joined a Michigan militia and that there would be violence if the election results were not changed. In an e-mail to Stabenow's office, he reiterated the threatening remarks and used vulgar language." Stewart, meanwhile, is accused of leaving a threatening voice mail for Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens in September and describing her as an "activist judge" whose rulings were favorable to then-candidate Joe Biden. Stewart, allegedly, believed that Stephens was making decisions in favor of mail-in ballots in the hoping of swinging the 2020 presidential election to Biden in Michigan. The charge against Stewart was filed in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, while the charge against Thompson was filed in Livingston County, Michigan. These indictments follow a great deal of unrest in Michigan in 2020, when Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer became the target of kidnapping plot by far-right extremists who were angry over COVID-19 restrictions and social distancing measures in her state. In an official statement on the Thompson and Stewart indictments, Nessel said, "It is unacceptable and illegal to intimidate or threaten public officials. To those who think they can do so by hiding behind a keyboard or phone, we will find you and we will prosecute you, to the fullest extent of the law. No elected official should have to choose between doing their job and staying safe."

DETROIT – One caller told Michigan state Rep. Cynthia A. Johnson, D-Detroit, that she should be "swinging from a … rope." That echoed another call received by Johnson, who is Black, that predicted the lawmaker would be lynched, according to multiple voicemails Johnson posted on her Facebook page. The calls are some of many threats received by Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Michigan, as President Donald Trump and his allies continue to rely on conspiracy theories – not credible evidence – to argue widespread fraud led to a stolen election. Supporters want lawmakers to step in and award Michigan's electoral votes to Trump, although President-elect Joe Biden earned 154,000 more votes than the president. Legislative leaders have already said they have no role in intervening in the election, but that didn't stop Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis from asking lawmakers to take some action when they appeared at a House Oversight Committee meeting last week. Johnson is the Democratic minority vice chairwoman of the committee. During the hearing, Giuliani spent hours interviewing his own witnesses, who provided largely uncontested inaccuracies and misinformation about the election. Live politics updates:Biden unveils health team; Clyburn, Whitmer tapped for inaugural committee Johnson asked only a handful of questions during the hearing – Committee Chairman Matt Hall, R-Emmett Township, limited lawmakers to one question per witness. One question included asking a witness to spell her name, a request some Trump supporters saw as an attempt to "dox" the witness, or publicly reveal information about someone with malicious intent. Johnson did not ask the witness, Jessy Jacob, to provide contact information. Jacob had already publicly identified herself in an affidavit filed with a lawsuit where she also alleged electoral misconduct. Many of the allegations presented during the hearing dealt with Detroit; at one point, Giuliani called Detroit one of the most corrupt cities in the country. When Johnson tried to make a statement refuting testimony offered, Hall determined she was out of order and turned off her microphone. Johnson, the only lawmaker who is Black or representing Detroit on the committee, at times yelled after her microphone was turned off. The hearing garnered national attention, including Saturday Night Live lampooning the hearing to open this weekend's show. Locally, the vast amount of attention is leading to threats. More:‘SNL’ parodies Rudy Giuliani and Melissa Carone's viral Michigan hearing Johnson did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. In other Facebook posts, she's noted she's received many calls since the hearing. Sunday morning, state Rep. Laurie Pohutsky, D-Livonia, tweeted about the threats. Michigan lawmakers: The threats must stop There have also been threats made against Republicans, confirmed state House Speaker Lee Chatfield, R-Levering. "Violent threats against anyone are a stain on our society and unacceptable, especially when that person is just trying to do their job and help people. I and my family have received numerous threats, along with members on both sides of the aisle," Chatfield said Sunday in an emailed statement. "Whenever a threat is made against a representative and we are made aware, we contact our House sergeants and the Michigan State Police so they can look into its credibility, stay alert and prepare for any possible situation.” Trump asked Chatfield and state Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, to attend a White House meeting after the election in November. While many feared the president would try to strongarm the legislative leaders into taking legislative action to undermine the will of Michigan voters, the legislators have repeatedly said they will respect the current process set out in Michigan law. Southern schools' history textbooks:A long history of deception, and what the future holds The president undermined the lawmakers' statements after the meeting though, saying and tweeting many times after the meeting that fraud would be found in Michigan. Neither his legal team nor anyone else has presented any evidence of widespread elections fraud in the state. Other elections officials in other states have also received threats. A Georgia elections official, a Republican, recently called on Trump to stop spreading misinformation and to condemn attacks made on elections workers. During a visit to Georgia Saturday, Trump blasted elected leaders in the state for not bending to his will. The threats and attacks must stop, said Michigan House Minority Leader Christine Greig, D-Farmington Hills. “There is no place in our political process for intimidation or threats of violence against elected officials, our families and loved ones. Following this hard fought election, we must lower temperature and return civility to our political discourse," Greig said in a statement emailed Sunday. “With the increasing severity of the most recent threats of violence and intimidation, our caucus will be working in concert with law enforcement authorities to address our security throughout the lame duck session.” Michigan lawmakers are set to meet in session for two more weeks this month. The Capitol has seen its fair share of protests this year, including several rallies where some people brought guns inside the statehouse. The threats come two months after state and federal law enforcement revealed an alleged plot to kidnap and kill Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. On Dec. 14, Democratic delegates to the Electoral College will cast Michigan's 16 votes for Biden. He will assume the presidency in January. Follow reporter Dave Boucher on Twitter @Dave_Boucher1. 'Organized chaos':Inauguration Day move into the White House for Bidens complicated by COVID Coronavirus updates:UK hospitals to receive first batch of Pfizer COVID vaccine; NYC elementary students return to class; 282K US deaths

A woman has been charged with making threats against a Detroit-area Republican election official DETROIT -- A woman angry with a Detroit-area election official sent photos of a dead body and threatened her family, a day after a clamorous meeting at which Republican board members initially refused to certify local results in favor of Joe Biden, authorities said Wednesday. Katelyn Jones, 23, was charged with making a threat of violence. She sent a series of disturbing messages by phone and on social media that referred to Monica Palmer of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers as a terrorist and racist, the FBI said in a court filing. Jones has ties to Olivet, Michigan, according to her driver’s license, but the FBI said she sent the threats from Epping, New Hampshire, where she was staying with her mother, and she was arrested there. “The allegations in this case should make all of us disgusted,” U.S. Attorney Matthew Schneider said. “There is simply no place in Michigan, or in the United States, for chilling threats like this to people who are simply doing what they believe is correct. ... This is not the only threat case related to the election that we are investigating." Jones appeared in federal court in Concord, New Hampshire, and was told to report to court in Detroit on Jan. 13. She must participate in a mental health program. Her attorney declined to comment. A message seeking comment from Palmer wasn't immediately returned. Palmer chaired a raucous meeting of the Board of Canvassers on Nov. 17. She and a fellow Republican on the four-member board initially refused to certify Wayne County’s election results, typically a routine step on the way to statewide certification. They cited problems with absentee ballots in Detroit. When the meeting turned to public comment, Palmer and William Hartmann were criticized for hours by people watching on video conference. They subsequently changed their votes and certified the election totals, saying they were assured by the board’s two Democrats that a post-election audit would be performed. Biden won the county on Nov. 3 with 68% of the vote. “You have made a grave mistake. I hope you realize that now,” Jones told Palmer a day after the meeting, according to the FBI. The threats included photos of a woman’s nude, bloody body and references to Palmer’s daughter, the FBI said. “I’d be a shame if something happened to your daughter at school,” Jones said, according to investigators. Jones admitted making the threats when interviewed by agents Tuesday because she felt Palmer was “interfering with the election,” the FBI said in a court filing. Palmer and Hartmann said they voted to certify the results after “hours of sustained pressure” and after getting promises that their concerns about the election would be investigated. They said President Donald Trump reached out to them in support immediately after the November meeting. There was no evidence of widespread voting fraud in Michigan or any other state, experts said. ——— Follow Ed White at http://twitter.com/edwritez

“I’m in for 2,” he told the president of True the Vote, according to court documents and interviews with Eshelman and others. “$200,000?” one of his advisers on the call asked. AD “$2 million,” Eshelman responded. Over the next 12 days, Eshelman came to regret his donation and to doubt conspiracy theories of rampant illegal voting, according to court records and interviews. AD Now, he wants his money back. The story behind the Eshelman donation — detailed in previously unreported court filings and exclusive interviews with those involved — provides new insights into the frenetic days after the election, when baseless claims led donors to give hundreds of millions of dollars to reverse President Biden’s victory. Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party collected $255 million in two months, saying the money would support legal challenges to an election marred by fraud. Trump’s staunchest allies in Congress also raised money off those false allegations, as did pro-Trump lawyers seeking to overturn the election results — and even some of their witnesses. AD True the Vote was one of several conservative “election integrity” groups that sought to press the case in court. Though its lawsuits drew less attention than those brought by the Trump campaign, True the Vote nonetheless sought to raise more than $7 million for its investigation of the 2020 election. AD Documents that have surfaced in Eshelman’s litigation, along with interviews, show how True the Vote’s private assurances that it was on the cusp of revealing illegal election schemes repeatedly fizzled as the group’s focus shifted from one allegation to the next. The nonprofit sought to coordinate its efforts with a coalition of Trump’s allies, including Trump attorney Jay Sekulow and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), the documents show. Since Nov. 4, President Trump has repeatedly claimed his election loss as a result of massive fraud. The following is a roundup of his claims. (Adriana Usero/The Washington Post) Eshelman has alleged in two lawsuits — one in federal court has been withdrawn and the other is ongoing in a Texas state court — that True the Vote did not spend his $2 million gift and a subsequent $500,000 donation as it said it would. Eshelman also alleges that True the Vote directed much of his money to people or businesses connected to the group’s president, Catherine Engelbrecht. AD Asked about the shifting focus from allegation to allegation, Engelbrecht said, “A good thorough investigation takes the course it takes, and we were not going to expose whistleblowers to make a quick headline.” She said that the group’s investigation “is ongoing even now.” In court documents, True the Vote says Eshelman’s money was spent properly. AD True the Vote’s lawyer, James Bopp, said that no conditions were attached to Eshelman’s donations and he is not entitled to the return of his money just because he didn’t like the outcome. The court documents and interviews show how quickly Eshelman and his allies became disillusioned with True the Vote. AD “We were just not getting any data or proof,” said Tom Crawford, who had worked for Eshelman as a lobbyist and served as his representative on the True the Vote effort. “We were looking at this and saying to ourselves, ‘This just is not adding up.’ ” Search for a 'smoking gun' True the Vote was formed in 2010 by Engelbrecht, a Texas-based tea party activist. Engelbrecht, 51, came to prominence during the Obama administration partly for accusing the Internal Revenue Service of improperly targeting True the Vote and other conservative nonprofit groups. AD True the Vote has spent the past decade aggressively promoting claims of voter fraud and pushing for voter-identification laws. The group has established itself as a hub for training volunteer poll watchers to monitor voters for their eligibility. Democrats have accused it of trying to intimidate minorities and other low-participation voters. AD As a nonprofit, True The Vote is required to be nonpartisan, and Engelbrecht has said that its mission has nothing to do with party politics. But it has worked with Republicans on other campaigns — for instance, partnering with the Georgia GOP on a “voter integrity” effort for last month’s Senate runoffs in that state. Eshelman, 72, was not familiar with True the Vote before Election Day. A drug company founder turned financier whose Wilmington, N.C.-based firm invests in health-care companies, he had previously donated largely to initiatives and groups that championed free-market principles and attacked Democratic candidates. AD But after Biden jumped ahead — a shift election experts had expected as mail-in ballots were tallied — Eshelman asked Crawford for advice on funding an operation to determine if widespread fraud existed. Crawford agreed to help as an unpaid, informal adviser. AD “I thought about the range of possibilities around vote fraud,” Eshelman said in an interview with The Washington Post. “There was already noise around cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta and Philadelphia.” He added: “I wanted to determine if this was legit. Can we find a real smoking gun?” Eshelman’s Nov. 5 donation was easily the biggest gift True the Vote had ever received, according to a person familiar with its operations, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss matters in litigation. True the Vote had never raised more than $1.8 million in a single year, its tax returns show. AD The windfall propelled the nonprofit into action. That evening, Engelbrecht sent Crawford a one-page summary of the group’s ambitious new “Validate the Vote 2020” campaign. It included a budget of $7.3 million and envisioned plans to set up cash rewards for whistleblowers, analyze voter data to identify “patterns of election subversion” and file lawsuits to “nullify the results” in seven battleground states. AD In a news release announcing the whistleblower program the next morning, Engelbrecht said: “Unfortunately, there is significant tangible evidence that numerous illegal ballots have been cast and counted in the 2020 general election, potentially enough to sway the legitimate results of the election in some of the currently contested states.” But over the following days, in federal lawsuits True the Vote filed in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the group said the evidence for its claims was still being developed. AD The suits, filed by Bopp, said True the Vote would use “sophisticated and groundbreaking programs” to show that enough illegal votes had been cast — by noncitizens, felons, fake voters and others — to swing the election to Biden. “This evidence will be shortly forthcoming,” each complaint said. AD Bopp, whose firm received a retainer of $500,000 for its work on the lawsuits, told The Post that there was “tons of evidence” of voter fraud but that it was “anecdotal, circumstantial.” Drawn in deeper True the Vote and Eshelman believed that finding people in swing states with vivid tales of voter fraud would be a crucial part of the project’s success, according to emails. Crawford gave Eshelman regular updates about True the Vote’s progress on that front. “We need [True the Vote] to get whistleblowers vetted and ready and to get their data teams beefed up,” Crawford told Eshelman in a Nov. 10 email. AD Later that day, Crawford reported to the financier that a man in Yuma, Ariz., had come to True the Vote with allegations of large-scale “ballot harvesting” by Democrats in the region. “Please God let his story pan out,” Crawford wrote. “Sensational,” Eshelman replied, adding that he was “still committed to putting in big money” if progress was made. While it scrutinized the accounts of purported whistleblowers, True the Vote also sought to prove fraud through data analysis. Bopp’s lawsuits promised “expert reports” comparing vote tallies with registration databases and other records. True the Vote, he wrote, had “persons with such expertise and data-analysis software already in place.” Engelbrecht’s Validate the Vote plan, an exhibit in the lawsuit, budgeted $1.75 million for “data and research” work. It was to be led by a company whose name evoked the shadowy world of intelligence operations: OPSEC Group LLC. Records show that OPSEC had been formed less than two months earlier in Alabama by Gregg Phillips, a former True the Vote board member whose 2016 tweet was the source of the false claim that Trump would have won the popular vote that year but for millions of fraudulent votes by undocumented immigrants. Phillips, 60, and Engelbrecht are business partners in a health-care company. Eshelman alleges in a legal filing — without providing evidence — that the two are also lovers. In an interview, Phillips denied any such romantic relationship. Engelbrecht declined to comment on the allegation, which was first reported by the Intercept in partnership with the website Type Investigations. On Nov. 12, Eshelman and Crawford joined a conference call with Engelbrecht and Bopp to hear an update on the data analysis and other aspects of the legal plan. “I was encouraged,” Eshelman wrote in an email to Crawford a couple of hours later, but noted: “You did not really give details on whistleblowers. Where are we on that?” Crawford replied that three whistleblower complaints, including the Yuma allegation, had survived initial screening. The following day, Eshelman wired another $500,000 to True the Vote. 'We cannot get ANY information' On that day, Nov. 13, Engelbrecht received a bill for a $1 million publicity campaign from Old Town Digital Agency, an online advertising firm whose founder, Dikran Yacoubian, has worked in Republican politics on and off since the 1990s. Yacoubian had worked with Eshelman and helped introduce him to True the Vote. Eshelman and Crawford then brought Yacoubian on to help plan a publicity campaign. Most of the money was to cover the upfront costs of online ads to trumpet True the Vote’s fraud findings, according to Yacoubian. The rest, he said, was to be spent on retainers for Republican consultants who would push the project’s findings through political and media channels. Yacoubian said he had already begun securing the services of these consultants, including Robert Heckman, a longtime strategist for Graham. Yacoubian hoped Heckman would pass the group’s findings on to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Graham then chaired. But Engelbrecht didn’t pay the $1 million bill, saying later in an email to Eshelman’s handpicked firm that it had no contractual agreement with True the Vote and had not provided “any services.” Her refusal to pay contributed to an emerging rift between Engelbrecht and Crawford, who at the same time was growing frustrated by what he described as the group’s vague and ever-shifting leads. “There was a guy in Georgia who claimed to be the bagman for Stacey Abrams,” Crawford told The Post. “It was, ‘We’re getting an affidavit,’ and then it was, ‘He ran away and we can’t find him.’ ” The “ballot harvesting” whistleblower in Yuma turned out to have already contacted law enforcement, according to the person familiar with the group’s operations. Two people were later indicted on a charge of submitting votes for other people — but during August’s primary, not the general election. Yacoubian, too, was frustrated that True the Vote’s whistleblowers were not materializing. “I really didn’t get to do, on the promotion side, anything — because there wasn’t anything to promote,” he said in an interview. At one point, a publicist working for Engelbrecht instead sent Yacoubian an eight-minute video titled “Who Is Catherine Engelbrecht?” that she wanted posted online. Engelbrecht continued to make promises about whistleblowers, claiming in a Nov. 14 email to Eshelman: “We are writing up the briefs on these individuals now to give Senator Graham and Cruz.” Heckman, the veteran Graham consultant, said he listened to a pair of conference-call presentations from Engelbrecht and Phillips but came away so unimpressed that he never even mentioned the effort to Graham. “I was asked to determine whether there was any legitimate evidence there,” he told The Post. “My conclusion was there wasn’t.” In an email, Engelbrecht said the group shared promising early leads with Heckman while it continued to gather information. She acknowledged that her publicist sought help in posting the video. She denied that True the Vote gave Yacoubian and Crawford nothing to work with, saying that the group’s own publicists were “working non-stop” at the time to issue news releases on its activities. “The fact is that [neither] Dikran nor Tom seemed interested in actually doing anything,” she wrote. In any case, Crawford’s exasperation was growing. “We cannot get ANY information from her or her team,” he wrote in a Nov. 15 email to Eshelman. “It goes on and on like this.” Abandoned efforts As True the Vote struggled to produce solid whistleblower accounts, its lawsuits also failed to gain traction. Bopp, who serves as the group’s general counsel, told The Post that he reached out to Trump and his legal team with a proposal: that they join forces. In phone conversations with Sekulow and Rudolph W. Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorneys, Bopp said he urged the Trump legal team to adopt True the Vote’s legal strategy, which hinged on persuading a federal judge to open up access to voter rolls. “It was becoming clear to me that the lawsuits we filed were not getting the attention they needed” from judges, Bopp said in an interview. “And the Trump legal effort was a disaster, both their strategy and the tactics.” Bopp said Sekulow and Giuliani supported the proposal and told him they would recommend it to Trump. Bopp said that, at Sekulow’s request, he briefed a group of Trump allies in a phone call that included Sekulow, Graham and Fox News host Sean Hannity. Giuliani did not respond to requests for comment. Representatives for Graham and Hannity declined to comment. Sekulow wrote in a text message: “I do not disclose discussions that I may have had on legal matters on behalf of a client.” Bopp said that on the morning of Nov. 15 he spoke to Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, and sent him a written proposal about True the Vote’s legal approach. A spokesman for Meadows declined to comment. According to Bopp, Meadows said he would speak to Trump and get back to Bopp by 3 p.m. that day. But the call never came. The following day, Bopp decided to abandon all four of True the Vote’s lawsuits, concluding that without the campaign’s involvement the suits had little chance of advancing before the election was to be certified in December. The lawsuits were just one component of the operation Eshelman was funding, but True the Vote had pitched them as critical to overturning the election results. Bopp told Eshelman about the decision that day, during a tense phone call. Eshelman was furious, according to court documents and interviews. On Nov. 17, he sent Engelbrecht an email demanding the return of his money. True the Vote offered on Nov. 23 to return $1 million to settle the matter. Eshelman filed his first lawsuit two days later, saying the group had failed to provide an accounting of how the remainder of his money had been spent. He withdrew the federal lawsuit on Feb. 1 and filed the suit in Texas state court. None of Eshelman’s money has been returned, court documents show. Bopp told The Post his firm ultimately billed True the Vote roughly $300,000 — more than half its retainer — for its work on the four lawsuits. He said he withdrew them because he “could see they were not going to accomplish anything.” Overall, the experience left several people who were involved in the effort unconvinced that there ever was evidence of voter fraud to be discovered. Even Phillips, the former True the Vote board member, said he has doubts about the impact of any irregularities. “I don’t know if there was enough to make a difference in the presidential election,” he said. Crawford said: “I believe very much that Biden won and that anything we saw in terms of irregularities was not widespread enough to have changed the outcome.”

A Maryland congressman has opened an investigation of a group that has tried to remove thousands of voters from registration rolls across the nation in advance of the presidential election. The inquiry by Rep. Elijah E. Cummings , a Democrat, is being started a week after Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) urged the Justice Department to enforce voting rights laws, citing a Los Angeles Times article detailing attempts by an Ohio offshoot of the group, True the Vote, to strike hundreds of students and others from voting rolls. “At some point, an effort to challenge voter registrations by the thousands without any legitimate basis may be evidence of illegal voter suppression,” Cummings told True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht in a letter on Thursday. “If these efforts are intentional, politically motivated and widespread across multiple states, they could amount to a criminal conspiracy to deny legitimate voters their constitutional rights.” Cummings is the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Advertisement Engelbrecht, a Texas tea party leader, has described True the Vote as an effort to prevent election fraud and clean up voter registration rolls. The group recruits volunteers, largely through tea party networks, to scour voter lists, challenge the registration of those they believe are dead or do not live at their listed address, and monitor the polls on election day. “True The Vote has forwarded Congressman Cummings’ letter to its legal team and is more than happy to avail itself” to the congressional committee, the group’s spokesman, Logan Churchwell, said by email. “In the interim, True The Vote invites Congressman Cummings, or any other interested parties, to participate in any training sessions in the weeks ahead.” The Times article described efforts by the Ohio Voter Integrity Project, a spinoff of True the Vote, to remove more than 2,100 names from voter rolls. Hundreds of them were college students the group tried to strike from the rolls for failure to specify their dorm room numbers. Local election boards declined to remove any of them. The Ohio group also challenged the rights of eight members of an African American family to vote from an address it identified as a vacant lot outside Cincinnati. But the address was actually the house where the family had lived for nearly three decades. The family suspected race was the group’s motive. The white tea party activist who challenged the family said she had made a mistake and apologized. Advertisement In a statement dated Monday on True the Vote’s website, Engelbrecht said the group’s Ohio volunteers had no intention of challenging properly registered voters and were “completely unprepared for the partisan gamesmanship and media spectacle they were subjected to.” “They trusted in the system and were betrayed at every turn,” Engelbrecht said. “True the Vote stands by the well-intentioned efforts of these citizens and is disgusted by the attempts of some within government and media to warp what should have been a simple, legal process into a calculated partisan charade.” In his letter, Cummings expressed concerns about the Ohio voter challenges, as well as others reported in North Carolina, Wisconsin and Maryland. He asked True the Vote to provide information “about the data you have been using to challenge voter registrations, the training you have been providing volunteers to conduct these activities, and the manner in which you have been determining where to deploy your resources in select jurisdictions.” [email protected]

Donald Trump and his enablers have been making claims of widespread voter fraud, alleging millions of people are voting illegally in order to rig our elections. Baloney. Let’s look at the facts and debunk their myths once and for all. They claim millions of Americans are voting twice, using multiple registrations in different districts. So how often does double voting really occur? An analysis of the 2012 presidential election found that out of 129 million votes cast, 0.02% – that’s two one hundredths of one percent – were double votes – which were likely the result of measurement error. This is a far cry from Donald Trump’s claims that millions of people were registered in two different states in the 2016 presidential election. Trump and his enablers claim non-citizens are voting in droves. Trump himself said that thousands of undocumented immigrants voted in 2016. Another lie. According to the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice, of 23.5 million votes cast in districts with high populations of non-citizens only 30 – I repeat, thirty – possible incidents of improper non-citizen voting were referred for further investigation. They claim voter impersonation is rampant at the polls. False. A 12-year study of election data found only 10 cases of voter impersonation out of 146 million registered voters. Ten. So if voter fraud really isn’t a problem, why do Trump, Republicans in Congress, and their allies at Fox News keep perpetuating this myth? For one simple reason: To enact restrictive voting laws intended to keep voters from the polls. Policies established in the name of election security – including voter ID laws, needless registration deadlines, limited access to polling places, and purges of the voter rolls – make it harder for Americans to vote. It is the same tactic that has been used throughout our history to disenfranchise low-income Americans and people of color. Luckily, many of these laws have been struck down in the courts. In 2016, a district judge in Wisconsin found “utterly no evidence” of widespread voter fraud justifying its voter ID law. In Texas, another judge found their voter ID law violated the Voting Rights Act, making it harder for African-Americans and Latinos to vote. But many of these laws are still on the books because in 2013 the Supreme Court gutted crucial aspects of the Voting Rights Act. Congress needs to update the Act to prevent states from suppressing votes. Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans in Congress are turning a blind eye to the real threats facing our democracy: election fraud, and foreign interference. In 2018, a Republican operative stole votes from Democrats in a North Carolina congressional race with a quote, “coordinated, unlawful, and substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme.” After the ballots were counted, the Republican candidate appeared to have won by about 900 votes. But the fraud was so glaring that the state board of elections refused to certify the results and called for a special election. The other real threat is foreign interference in our elections, as Russia did in 2016. We now know for a fact that Trump is encouraging foreign leaders to interfere in our elections — asking the President of Ukraine to investigate his political opponents in exchange for military aid and publicly calling on Russia and China to also interfere. In the Senate, Mitch McConnell continues to block common-sense legislation to protect our elections against future foreign interference, such as requiring all voting machines to have backup paper ballots and imposing automatic sanctions for nations that interfere in elections. To have safe and secure elections in 2020 and beyond, we need to pass this legislation. The next time you hear Trump and his enablers claim widespread voter fraud, know the truth. Their lies are intended to make it harder for millions of Americans to vote, while they ignore the real threats to our democracy.

Ah, therein lies the quandary: At the time of purchasing Mar-a-Largo in 1993, Trump signed agreements with the town of 8,000 that he was opening a club, not a residence. The town wary about new water traffic in converting Mar-a-Lago from a single-family residence to a private club owned by a corporation that Trump controls. The agreement also bans members from using the club’s guest rooms for longer than seven days at a time three times a year. Trump’s attorney at the time, Paul Rampell, assured town council members that he would not live at the club. So, he owns a club, not private residence, which means that in registering to vote, just maybe Trump has made his voting address moot. Indeed, he has created, you know, just the kind of mail ballot fraud he bleats about, since he voted by mail in Florida’s Republican presidential primary. Having it Both Ways It turns out that the West Palm Beach town council has been staying at home. Expecting bad news, Trump’s lawyers who withdrew this dock request by mail and promised to revisit it when the council is meeting physically again, but without mentioning coronavirus. Trump’s Palm Beach neighbors and their attorneys who accused him and his legal team of trying to jam through the dock request while attention is focused on the unnamed pandemic. But we’re skipping the good part beyond the dock. If it’s a club and not a residence, Trump can’t legally use it as a residence. Doing so is, how-you-say, illegal. Reginald Stambaugh, lawyer for one of Mar-a-Lago’s neighbors, notes that besides the dock, “One prevalent issue remains lingering, whether President Trump still considers Mar-a-Lago Club his residence. He still can’t have it both ways. It’s either a club or a residence — not both. Florida’s voting laws apply to citizen Trump. If he resides there, he will have to close the club.” The 1993 agreement also banned construction of a dock, but Trump was asking for that condition to be waived. Trump’s lawyer originally argued that the dock was necessary for the president’s protection, an assertion in the dock application that made no mention of Mar-a-Lago being the president’s home. In a later application, the rationale was changed, with Trump asserting that the club is his “personal residence.” “The request is simply to add an accessory structure,” his attorney wrote. “A dock for private family use only.” Hypocrisy Reigns As a fable, it may be like learning not to throw rocks at mail-in ballot windows if you live in a glass house. Or maybe it is like the fisherman who wanted a larger and more golden palace before the dream disappeared. Or wanting too many grapes from the ground. But old Aesop would have had a ball with this one. Poor little rich boy gets dream house that he cloaks in corporate clothes and more riches, only to get tripped up by the mundane tasks of registering to vote. You call it home, I call it club. Let’s call the whole thing off. Or how about just stop complaining about non-existent fraud in mail-in ballots.

A US evangelical leader says President Donald Trump is not a model Christian, but he is "defending Christians from secularists". Franklin Graham expressed his reservations about Donald Trump's behaviour to religion editor Martin Bashir.

Daniel Deitrich is a Christian worship leader in South Bend, Indiana. As discussed in this article for Religious News Service, such worship leaders are among the 81% of evangelical Christians who voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Four years ago Dietrich formed the South Bend City Church, which he describes as “[A] Jesus-centered community for believers and doubters and everyone in between. It’s a place where spiritual exiles have found a home, a place where you don’t have to check your brain at the door, and it’s been so beautiful to see people who have been excluded from or wounded by the church feel safe and seen and loved.” Deitrich has written a song, titled “Hymn for the 81%” that is going viral across the Interwebs. Addressed to the evangelical churches which formed his religious upbringing, the song has been described as “a love song to the church and a call to repentance.” It directly addresses the hypocrisy of the white evangelical church’s support of Donald Trump in the face of Biblical teaching. It makes quite an impression, not heavy handed or too accusatory, but it gets the point across very well. The reactions to the video, which has been viewed about 100,000 times thus far, suggest it is striking a rare chord: Daniel Deitrich's hymn is both a love song to the church and a call to repentance, which castigates the Trump administration for "putting kids in cages, ripping mothers from their babies," but blames the church for failing to rein them in: "I looked to you to speak on their behalf/But all I heard was silence/Or worse you justify it." It is also a warning to the church: "You weaponized religion and you wonder why I’m leaving to find Jesus on the wrong side of your walls … ”  Bill Tammeus is the former Faith columnist for the Kansas City Star. He writes: Whew. It is a powerful example of what religion calls a prophetic voice, which is to say a voice that calls out what's gone wrong and urges attention to the right path. I hope you'll give it a listen, remembering that he's not telling people they should have voted for Clinton and not offering a damning critique of Trump's various political policies. Rather, Deitrich asking the people who raised him as a Christian why they no longer seem to believe what they taught him. More of this, please.

Many Americans were shocked to wake up Wednesday to see former Trump National Security Adviser Mike Flynn calling for martial law so the U.S. military can hold a "do-over" election. Flynn is not alone, there is a large number of people promoting this lawless and unconstitutional behavior, all in service to Donald Trump. Flynn and other far right wing "leaders," including pro-Trump attorney Lin Wood, are pushing a Tea Party group's statement "demanding that President Trump Invoke limited Martial law in order to allow the U.S. Military to oversee a new free and fair federal election if Legislators, Courts and the Congress do not follow the Constitution." To be clear, there was no significant election fraud or voter fraud. Even Trump's own Attorney General Bill Barr made that declaration on Tuesday. The far right has taken over the main Republican Party, and this is a direct result. Many on social media are furious, especially since no Republican, especially President Trump, has called to put a stop to this dangerous incitement. Many are rightly criticizing these self-declared "patriots" – many of whom are coming close to appearing to embrace sedition – as astonishingly hypocritical. Why? They are 100 percent OK with suspending the U.S. Constitution because Trump legitimately lost, holding a military-overseen election "do-over" because Trump lost (by nearly 7 million votes), but wearing a face mask to prevent the spread of a deadly virus violates their "rights" and is "fascism." Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell is challenging his GOP peers to denounce the hypocrisy: Here's what others are saying. Take a look:

Now think about what the cost has been of the uncritical support given to Trump by evangelical Christians. For now, focus just on this: Christians who are supporters of the president have braided themselves to a man who in just the past few days and weeks tweeted a video of a supporter shouting “white power” (he later deleted it but has yet to denounce it); attacked NASCAR’s only Black driver, Bubba Wallace, while also criticizing the decision by NASCAR to ban Confederate flags from its races; threatened to veto this year’s annual defense bill if an amendment is included that would require the Pentagon to change the names of bases honoring Confederate military leaders; referred to COVID-19 as “kung flu” during a speech at a church in Phoenix; and blasted two sports teams, the Washington Redskins and the Cleveland Indians, for considering name changes because of concerns by supporters of those franchises that those team names give undue offense. These provocations by the president aren’t anomalous; he’s a man who vaulted to political prominence by peddling a racist conspiracy theory that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States—he later implied that Obama was a secret Muslim and dubbed him the “founder of ISIS”—and whose remarks about an Indiana-born judge with Mexican heritage were described by former House Speaker Paul Ryan as “the textbook definition of a racist comment.” Read: The unofficial racism consultants to the white evangelical world The white supremacist Richard Spencer, describing the neo-Nazi and white-supremacist march in Charlottesville, Virginia, told The Atlantic, “There is no question that Charlottesville wouldn’t have occurred without Trump. It really was because of his campaign and this new potential for a nationalist candidate who was resonating with the public in a very intense way. The alt-right found something in Trump. He changed the paradigm and made this kind of public presence of the alt-right possible.” And David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader, called the march a “turning point” for his own movement, which seeks to “fulfill the promises of Donald Trump.” For his whole life, before and since becoming president, Trump has exploited racial divisions and appealed to racial resentments. The president is now doing so more, not less, than in the past, despite the fact—and probably because of the fact—that America is in the grips of a pandemic that he and his administration have badly bungled and that has claimed more than 130,000 American lives. As The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman pointed out on July 6, “Almost every day in the last two weeks, Mr. Trump has sought to stoke white fear and resentment.” White evangelicals are the core of Trump’s political support, and while the overwhelming number of the president’s evangelical supporters may not be racist, they are willing to back a man who openly attempts to divide people by race. That would be enough of an indictment, but the situation is actually a good deal worse than that, since Trump’s eagerness to inflame ugly passions is only one thread in his depraved moral tapestry.

When Clinton was president, Sen. Lindsey Graham stated, “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job as president in this constitutional republic if this body determines your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role” and, “Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.” Back then, Republicans believed that immoral behavior by the president was a standard for impeachment. Today, with Trump as their savior, adjustments in moral convictions have become necessary.

Evangelical Leaders Condemn 'Radicalized Christian Nationalism' Enlarge this image toggle caption Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images A coalition of evangelical Christian leaders is condemning the role of "radicalized Christian nationalism" in feeding the political extremism that led to the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 by supporters of former President Donald Trump. In an open letter, more than 100 pastors, ministry and seminary leaders, and other prominent evangelicals express concern about the growing "radicalization" they're seeing, particularly among white evangelicals. The letter notes that some members of the mob that stormed the Capitol carried Christian symbols and signs that read, "Jesus Saves," and that one of the rioters stood on the Senate rostrum and led a Christian prayer. The letter calls on other Christian leaders to take a public stand against racism, Christian nationalism, conspiracy theories and political extremism. The letter reads, in part: "We recognize that evangelicalism, and white evangelicalism in particular, has been susceptible to the heresy of Christian nationalism because of a long history of faith leaders accommodating white supremacy. We choose to speak out now because we do not want to be quiet accomplices in this on-going sin." "Baptizing" extremism with religion "I am not trying to assign to people something that they didn't want assigned to them — that they were moving and marching in Christ's name," organizer Doug Pagitt said during a recent Zoom call with other signers of the letter. Pagitt, who leads the progressive evangelical group Vote Common Good, highlighted the prayer shouted from the Senate rostrum, which was conducted in a style typical of many charismatic and evangelical churches. "People from our very communities called people to this action in the days before, unleashed them into the Capitol, and then chose to baptize that action in the name of Christ," Pagitt said. "And this is our time where we need to stand up." White evangelical Christians made up a critical part of Trump's base, and a majority supported him in both 2016 and 2020. A recent survey by the American Enterprise Institute found that 3 in 5 white evangelicals believe — falsely — that President Biden was not legitimately elected. Prominent white evangelical leaders have been among Trump's most vocal supporters. Several, including Ralph Reed of the Faith & Freedom Coalition and Dallas-based pastor Robert Jeffress, have condemned the insurrection but remained steadfast in their support for Trump. Signers of the open letter calling out Christian nationalism include Jerushah Duford, a granddaughter of the evangelical preacher, the late Rev. Billy Graham. In an interview with NPR, Duford said she was "heartbroken" by the events of Jan. 6, a feeling she said she experienced throughout the Trump years as she watched many white evangelical leaders align themselves with him. "It felt like this was a symptom of what has been happening for a long time," she said. "White evangelical brothers and sisters, where are you?" During last week's Zoom call, Mae Elise Cannon, of the ecumenical group Churches for Middle East Peace, called out unnamed evangelical leaders who she said have declined to sign, citing concerns including how it would go over with their churches or religious organizations. "White evangelical brothers and sisters, where are you?" Cannon said. "There's a few of us on this call today, but let me tell you how many people said 'no.' " Another signer, Kevin Riggs, pastors a small church near Nashville affiliated with the Free Will Baptist denomination, which he describes as "to the right of everybody." Riggs said in an interview with NPR that he may receive pushback from other pastors for signing the statement, but he expects his congregation, which devotes much of its time to working with people facing homelessness, incarceration and addiction, to support him. "I wanted to sign this statement just to say that Christian nationalism is not only wrong, but it's heretical," Riggs told other leaders on the Zoom call, adding that evangelical leaders must take responsibility for "rooting out this evil in our churches."

EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS have long been involved in American politics, but they gained national prominence in 1976. Newsweek declared it “the year of the evangelical” in a cover story; the group threw their support behind the conspicuously pious, Democratic candidate, Jimmy Carter, who described himself as a “born-again Christian” and was then the governor of Georgia. Four years later, evangelicals switched parties to back his Republican opponent, Ronald Reagan, preferring the former governor of California’s political conservatism to Mr Carter’s religious bona fides. Since then, white evangelicals have established themselves as America’s most cohesive and influential religious voting bloc. While mainline Protestant denominations have declined in both influence and numbers, and Catholics have split their vote between the two parties, white evangelicals have become the bedrock of the Republican Party. After insisting throughout the 1990s that character mattered, and that Bill Clinton was morally unfit for the presidency, they threw their support behind Donald Trump, a thrice-married rake. So what do evangelical Christians really believe? That question has been debated for decades. According to David Bebbington, a British historian, an evangelical Christian believes in four essential doctrines: to be saved a person must have a “born again” conversion experience—hence evangelicals are also known as “born-again Christians”; Jesus’s death on the cross atones for mankind’s sins; the Bible is the ultimate spiritual authority; and Christians ought to actively share their faith through witnessing and good works. Mr Bebbington’s definition, which he codified in the late 1980s, is perhaps the most widely accepted among evangelicals. But George Marsden, a historian of American Christianity, once quipped that an evangelical was “someone who likes Billy Graham”, perhaps the 20th century’s most renowned Christian preacher. Asked the same thing, Graham said, “Actually, that’s a question I’d like to ask somebody, too.” One reason why even Graham struggled to define evangelicalism is its decentralised structure. Unlike Catholics, evangelicals do not have a pope. They can belong to almost any denomination. What unites them is a shared theology of salvation through faith in Christ alone (their name comes from the Greek word “euangelion”, which means good news or gospel). Doctrinal beliefs can range widely depending on how they interpret Scripture. Not all of them are politically conservative. According to the Centre for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are almost 400m evangelicals worldwide. In Latin America, evangelicals have championed progressive political agendas that tackle issues such as poverty. In a 2020 Gallup poll, 34% of American respondents described themselves as “born-again or evangelical”. About one in four American evangelicals is non-white, and they are more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans. But an overwhelming majority of white evangelicals lean right (about 80% voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020). Some argue that what used to be a theological term has now become a sociological and political one. “When we look at people who call themselves evangelical, they look really different from people who go to what we would call an evangelical church,” says Brooke Hempell, head of research at Barna Group, a Christian polling firm. According to an analysis from Ryan Burge, who teaches political science at Eastern Illinois University, over one-third of self-identified evangelicals who lean conservative attend church just once a year at most. Even some Catholics have adopted the label because to them it connotes religious devotion and political conservatism. This definitional shift is opening a rift within the movement. Some evangelicals, such as Ed Stetzer, a dean at Wheaton College, believe that evangelicals need to get back to their theological roots, and not let their politics define them. “Evangelicals rightfully need to ask, ‘Who are we?’ and ‘Who do we want to be?’” Young evangelicals, who increasingly identify as liberal and look more favourably at issues such as same-sex marriage, immigration and climate change, eschew the label because of its association with militant, right-wing politics. White evangelicals also are becoming a smaller proportion of the national total, as the share of non-white Americans grows. But the movement has become so intimately entangled with Mr Trump and the Republican Party that reclaiming evangelicalism as a religious identity rather than a political one will not be easy. “I think the term itself—evangelical—is going to be very hard...to be redeemed at this point,” says Ms Hempell.

Sections of the ancient Dead Sea scrolls are seen on display at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, May 14, 2008. The Museum of the Bible in Washington, DC, has removed five Dead Sea Scrolls from exhibits after tests confirmed these fragments were not from ancient biblical scrolls but forgeries. Over the last decade, the Green family, owners of the craft-supply chain Hobby Lobby, has paid millions of dollars for fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be the crown jewels in the museum’s exhibition showcasing the history and heritage of the Bible. Why would the Green family spend so much on small scraps of parchment? Related: American evangelical collectors buy up Dead Sea Scroll fragments Dead Sea Scrolls’ discovery From the first accidental discovery, the story of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a dramatic one. In 1947, Bedouin men herding goats in the hills to the west of the Dead Sea entered a cave near Wadi Qumran in the West Bank and stumbled on clay jars filled with leather scrolls. Ten more caves were discovered over the next decade that contained tens of thousands of fragments belonging to over 900 scrolls. Most of the finds were made by the Bedouin. Some of these scrolls were later acquired by the Jordanian Department of Antiquities through complicated transactions and a few by the state of Israel. The bulk of the scrolls came under the control of the Israel Antiquities Authority in 1967. Included among the scrolls are the oldest copies of books in the Hebrew Bible and many other ancient Jewish writings: prayers, commentaries, religious laws, magical and mystical texts. They have shed much new light on the origins of the Bible, Judaism and even Christianity. Related: Archaeologists in Israel discover synagogue dating from time of Jesus The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest known manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible dated to the 10th century AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls include over 225 copies of biblical books that date up to 1,200 years earlier. These range from small fragments to a complete scroll of the Prophet Isaiah, and every book of the Hebrew Bible except Esther and Nehemiah. They show that the books of the Jewish Bible were known and treated as sacred writings before the time of Jesus, with essentially the same content. On the other hand, there was no “Bible” as such but a loose assortment of writings sacred to various Jews including numerous books not in the modern Jewish Bible. Moreover, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that in the first century BC there were different versions of books that became part of the Hebrew canon, especially Exodus, Samuel, Jeremiah, Psalms and Daniel. This evidence has helped scholars understand how the Bible came to be, but it neither proves nor disproves its religious message. Judaism and Christianity The Dead Sea Scrolls are unique in representing a sort of library of a particular Jewish group that lived at Qumran in the first century BC to about 68 AD. They probably belonged to the Essenes, a strict Jewish movement described by several writers from the first century AD. The scrolls provide a rich trove of Jewish religious texts previously unknown. Some of these were written by Essenes and give insights into their views, as well as their conflict with other Jews including the Pharisees. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain nothing about Jesus or the early Christians, but indirectly they help to understand the Jewish world in which Jesus lived and why his message drew followers and opponents. Both the Essenes and the early Christians believed they were living at the time foretold by prophets when God would establish a kingdom of peace and that their teacher revealed the true meaning of Scripture. Fame and forgeries The fame of the Dead Sea Scrolls is what has encouraged both forgeries and the shadow market in antiquities. They are often called the greatest archaeological discovery of the 20th century because of their importance to understanding the Bible and the Jewish world at the time of Jesus. Religious artifacts especially attract forgeries, because people want a physical connection to their faith. The so-called James Ossuary, a limestone box, that was claimed to be the burial box of the brother of Jesus, attracted much attention in 2002. A few years later, it was found that it was indeed an authentic burial box for a person named James from the first century AD, but by adding “brother of Jesus” the forger made it seem priceless. Scholars eager to publish and discuss new texts are partly responsible for this shady market. The recent confirmation of forged scrolls at the Museum of the Bible only confirms that artifacts should be viewed with the highest suspicion unless the source is fully known. Daniel Falk is a professor of classics and ancient Mediterranean studies and Chaiken family chair in Jewish studies at Pennsylvania State University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Shrine of the Book - Israel Museum, Jerusalem The Dead Sea Scrolls refer to ancient Hebrew scrolls that were accidentally discovered in 1947 by a Bedouin boy in the Judean Desert. On display today in the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, the scrolls have kindled popular enthusiasm as well as serious scholarly interest over the past half century as they reveal exciting history from the Second Temple period (520 B.C.E.-70 C.E.) – a time of crucial developments in the crystallization of the monotheistic religions. Introduction Archaeological Investigations Dating of the Scrolls The Essenes The Qumran Library A New Discovery Introduction The Judean Desert, a region reputedly barren, defied preconceptions and yielded an unprecedented treasure. The young Ta’amireh shepherd was certainly unaware of destiny when his innocent search for a stray goat led to the fateful discovery of Hebrew scrolls preserved in jars in a long-untouched cave. One discovery led to another, and eleven scroll-yielding caves and a habitation site eventually were uncovered. Since 1947, the site of these discoveries-the Qumran region (the desert plain and the adjoining mountainous ridge) and the Qumran site have been subjected to countless probes; not a stone has remained unturned in the desert, not an aperture unprobed. The Qumran settlement has been exhaustively excavated. The first trove found by the Bedouins in the Judean Desert consisted of seven large scrolls from Cave I. The unusual circumstances of the find, on the eve of Israel’s war of independence, obstructed the initial negotiations for the purchase of all the scrolls. Shortly before the establishment of the state of Israel, Professor E. L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University clandestinely acquired three of the scrolls from a Christian Arab antiquities dealer in Bethlehem. The remaining four scrolls reached the hands of Mar Athanasius Yeshua Samuel, Metropolitan of the Syrian Jacobite Monastery of St. Mark in Jerusalem. In 194-9 he traveled to the United States with the scrolls, but five years went by before the prelate found a purchaser. On June 1, 1954, Mar Samuel placed an advertisement in the Wall Street Journal offering “The Four Dead Sea Scrolls” for sale. The advertisement was brought to the attention of Yigael Yadin, Professor Sukenik’s son, who had just retired as chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces and had reverted to his primary vocation, archeology. With the aid of intermediaries, the four scrolls were purchased from Mar Samuel for $250,000 Thus, the scrolls that had eluded Yadin’s father because of the war were now at his disposal. Part of the purchase price was contributed by D. S. Gottesman, a New York philanthropist. His heirs sponsored construction of the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem’s Israel Museum, in which these unique manuscripts are exhibited to the public. The seven scrolls from Cave I, now housed together in the Shrine of the Book, are Isaiah A, Isaiah B, the Habakkuk Commentary, the Thanksgiving Scroll, the Community Rule (or the Manual of Discipline), the War Rule (or the War of Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness), and the Genesis Apocryphon, the last being in Aramaic. All the large scrolls have been published. Great Isaiah Scroll Thanks to modern technological advances, scientists and archaeologists have been able to piece together tiny separate fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls and reconstruct damaged parts via computer imaging. Scientists in September 2016 completed the virtual unwrapping of a badly damaged ancient piece of parchment and found it to contain parts of the book of Leviticus. To read more about the virtual unwrapping of this scroll, please click here. In January 2018, researchers announced that they had completed piecing together sixty parchment fragments and deciphered one of the last remaining and most obscure portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The tiny fragments, once pieced together and translated, revealed the word Tekufah, or a festival marking a change in seasons. The same word in modern-day Hebrew means period. Archaeological Investigations The Caves. At least a year elapsed between the discovery of the scrolls in 1947 and the initiation of a systematic archeological investigation of the Qumran site. The northern Dead Sea area, the location of Qumran, became and remained part of Jordan until 1967. The search for scroll material rested in the hands of the Bedouins, who ravaged the Cave I site, no doubt losing precious material in the process. Early in 1949 the cave site was finally identified by the archeological authorities of Jordan. G. Lankester Harding, director of the Jordanian Antiquities Department, undertook to excavate Cave I with Père Roland de Vaux, a French Dominican priest who headed the École Biblique in Jerusalem. Exploration of the cave, which lay one kilometer north of Wadi Qumran, yielded at least seventy fragments, including bits of the original seven scrolls. This discovery established the provenance of the purchased scrolls. Also recovered were archeological artifacts that confirmed the scroll dates suggested by paleographic study. The Bedouins continued to search for scrolls, as these scraps of leather proved to be a fine source of income. Because Cave I had been exhausted by archeological excavation, the fresh material that the Bedouins were offering proved that Cave I was not an isolated phenomenon in the desert and that other caves with manuscripts also existed. Temple Scroll The years between 1951 and 1956 were marked by accelerated activity in both the search for caves and the archeological excavation of sites related to tile manuscripts. An eight-kilometer-long strip of cliffs was thoroughly investigated. Of the eleven caves that yieldedhj manuscripts, five were discovered by the Bedouins and six by archeologists. Some of the caves were particularly rich in material. Cave 3 preserved two oxidized rolls of beaten copper (the Copper Scroll), containing a lengthy roster of real or imaginary hidden treasures-a tantalizing enigma to this day. Cave 4. was particularly rich in material: 15,000 fragments from at least six hundred composite texts were found there. The last manuscript cave discovered, Cave II, was located in 1956, providing extensive documents, including the Psalms Scroll, an Aramaic targum of Job, and the Temple Scroll, the longest (about twenty-nine feet) of the Qumran manuscripts. The Temple Scroll was acquired by Yigael Yadin in 1967 and is now housed alongside the first seven scrolls in the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. All the remaining manuscripts, sizable texts as well as minute fragments, are stored in the Rockefeller Museum building in Jerusalem, the premises of the Israel Antiquities Authority Khirbet Qumran (The Qumran Ruin). Père de Vaux gradually realized the need to identify a habitation site close to the caves. Excavating such a site could provide clues that would help identify the people who deposited the scrolls. The ruins of Qumran lie on a barren terrace between the limestone cliffs of the Judean Desert and the maritime bed along the Dead Sea. The excavations uncovered a complex of structures, 262 by 328 feet (80 by 100 meters), preserved to a considerable height. The structures were neither military nor private but rather communal in character. Nearby were remains of burials. Pottery uncovered was identical with that of Cave I and confirmed the link with the nearby caves. Following the initial excavations, de Vaux suggested that this site was the wilderness retreat established by the Essene sect, which was alluded to by ancient historians. The sectarians inhabited neighboring locations, most likely caves, tents, anisd solid structures, but depended on the center for communal facilities such as stores of food and water. Excavations conducted in 1956 and 1958 at the neighboring site of ‘En Feshkha proved it to be the agricultural adjunct of Qumran. The final report on the Qumran settlement excavations is pending, but the results are known through preliminary publications. Dating of the Scrolls The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls caused heated controversy in scholarly circles over their date and the identity of the community they represented. Professor Sukenik, after initially defining the time span of the scrolls as the Second Temple period, recognized their special significance and advocated the now widely accepted theory that they were remnants of the library of the Essenes. At the time, however, he was vociferously opposed by several scholars who doubted the antiquity as well as the authenticity of the texts. Lingering in the memory of learned circles was the notorious Shapira affair of 1883. M. Shapira, a Jerusalem antiquities dealer, announced the discovery of an ancient text of Deuteronomy. His texts, allegedly inscribed on fifteen leather strips, caused a huge stir in Europe, and were even exhibited at the British Museum. Shortly thereafter, the leading European scholars of the day denounced the writings as rank forgeries. Today scholarly opinion regarding the time span and background of the Dead Sea Scrolls is anchored in historical, paleographic, and linguistic evidence, corroborated firmly by carbon 14-datings. Some manuscripts were written and copied in the third century B.C.E., but the bulk of the material, particularly the texts that reflect on a sectarian community, are originals or copies from the first century B.C.E.; a number of texts date from as late as the years preceding the destruction of the site in 68 C.E. at the hands of the Roman legions. The Essenes The Qumran sect’s origins are postulated by some scholars to be in the communities of the Hasidim, the pious anti-Hellenistic circles formed in the early days of the Maccabees. The Hasidim may have been the precursors of the Essenes, who were concerned about growing Hellenization and strove to abide by the Torah. Archeological and historical evidence indicates that Qumran was founded in the second half of the second century B.C.E., during the time of the Maccabean dynasty. A hiatus in the occupation of the site is linked to evidence of a huge earthquake. Qumran was abandoned about the time of the Roman incursion of 68 C.E., two years before the collapse of Jewish self-government in Judea and the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E. The chief sources of information for the history of this fateful time span are the Qumran scrolls and the excavations, but earlier information on the Essenes was provided by their contemporaries: Josephus Flavius, Philo of Alexandria, and Pliny the Elder. Their accounts arc continuously being borne out by the site excavations and study of the writings. The historian Josephus relates the division of the Jews of the Second Temple period into three orders: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes. The Sadducees included mainly the priestly and aristocratic families; the Pharisees constituted the Jay circles; and the Essenes were a separatist group, part of which formed an ascetic monastic community that retreated to the wilderness. The exact political and religious affinities of each of these groups, as well as their development and interrelationships, are still relatively obscure and arc the source of widely disparate scholarly views. The crisis that brought about the secession of the Essenes from mainstream Judaism is thought to have occurred when the Maccabean ruling princes Jonathan (160-142 B.C.E.) and Simeon (142-134 B.C.E.) usurped the office of high priest (which included secular duties), much to the consternation of conservative Jews; some of them could not tolerate the situation and denounced the new rulers. The persecution of the Essenes and their leader, the teacher of righteousness probably elicited the sect’s apocalyptic visions. These included the overthrow of “the wicked priest” of Jerusalem and of the evil people and, in the dawn of the Messianic Age, the recognition of their community as the true Israel. The retreat of these Jews into the desert would enable them “to separate themselves from the congregation of perverse men (IQ Serekh 5:2). A significant feature of the Essene sect is its calendar, which was based on a solar system of 364 days, unlike the common Jewish calendar, which was lunar and consisted of 354-days. It is not clear how the sectarian calendar was reconciled, as was the normative Jewish calendar, with the astronomical time system. The sectarian calendar was always reckoned from a Wednesday, the day on which God created the luminaries. The year consisted of fifty-two weeks, divided into four seasons of thirteen weeks each, and the festivals consistently fell on the same days of the week. A similar solar system was long familiar from pseudepigraphic works. The sectarian calendar played a weighty, role in the schism of the community from the rest of Judaism, as the festivals and fast days of the sect were ordinary workdays for the mainstream community and vice versa. The author of the Book of Jubilees accuses the followers of the lunar calendar of turning secular “days of impurity” into “festivals and holy days” (Jubilees 6:36-37). The Essenes persisted in a separatist existence through two centuries, occupying themselves with study and a communal way of life that included worship, prayer, and work. It is clear, however, that large groups of adherents also lived in towns and villages outside the Qumran area. The word Essene is never distinctly mentioned in the scrolls. How then can we attribute either the writings or the sites of the Judean Desert to the Essenes? The argument in favor of this ascription is supported by the tripartite division of Judaism referred to in Qumran writings (for example, in the Nahum Commentary) into Ephraim, Menasseh, and Judah, corresponding to the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. As the Essenes refer to themselves in the scrolls as Judah, it is quite clear whom they regarded themselves to be. Moreover, their religious concepts and beliefs as attested in the scrolls conform to those recorded by contemporary writers and stand in sharp contrast to those of the other known Jewish groups. In most cases the principles of the Essene way of life and beliefs are described by contemporaneous writers in language similar to the self-descriptions found in the scrolls. Customs described in ancient sources as Essene-such as the probationary period for new members, the strict hierarchy practiced in the organization of the sect, their frequent ablutions, and communal meals-are all echoed in the scrolls. From the Community Rule: “Communally they shall cat and communally they shall bless and communally they shall take counsel” (IQ Serekh 6:1). Finally, the location of the sect is assigned to the Dead Sea area by the Roman historian Pliny the Elder. Although this evidence is accepted by most scholars as conclusive in identifying the Essenes with the Qumran settlement and the manuscripts found in the surrounding caves, a number of scholars remain vehemently opposed. Some propose that the site was a military garrison or even a winter villa. The scrolls are viewed as an eclectic collection, neither necessarily inscribed in the Dead Sea area nor sectarian in nature, perhaps even remains of the library of the Temple in Jerusalem. Other scholars view the texts as the writings of forerunners or even followers of Jesus--Jewish Christians--who still observed Jewish law. The Qumran Library The collection of writing recovered in the Qumran environs has restored to us a voluminous corpus of Jewish documents dating from the third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E., demonstrating the rich literary activity of Second Temple-period Jewry. The collection comprises documents of a varied nature, most of them of a distinct religious bent. The chief categories represented are biblical, apocryphal or pseudepigraphical, and sectarian writings. The study of this original library has demonstrated that the boundaries between these categories is far from clear-cut. The biblical manuscripts include what are probably the earliest copies of these texts to have come down to us. Most of the books of the Bible are represented in the collection. Some books are extant in large number of copies; others are represented only fragmentarily on mere scraps of parchment. The biblical texts display considerable similarity to the standard Masoretic (received) text. This, however, is not always the rule, and many texts diverge from the Masoretic. For example, some of the texts of Samuel from Cave 4 follow the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible translated in the third to second centuries B.C.E. Indeed. Qumran has yielded copies of the Septuagint in Greek. The biblical scrolls in general have provided many new readings that facilitate the reconstruction of the textual history of the Old Testament. It is also significant that several manuscripts of the Bible, including the Leviticus Scroll are inscribed not in the Jewish script dominant at the time but rather in the ancient paleo-Hebrew script. A considerable number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts are preserved at Qumran, where original Hebrew and Aramaic versions of these Jewish compositions of the Second Temple period were first encountered. These writings, which are not included in the canonical Jewish scriptures, were preserved by different Christian churches, and were transmitted in Greek, Ethiopic, Syriac, Armenian, and other translations. Some of these are narrative texts closely related to biblical compositions, such as the Book of Jubilees and Enoch, whereas others arc independent works-for example, Tobit and Ben Sira. Apparently, some of these compositions were treated by the Qumran community as canonical and were studied by them. The most original and unique group of writings from Qumran are the sectarian Ones, which were practically unknown until their discovery in 1947. An exception is the Damascus Document (or Damascus Covenant), which lacked a definite identification before the discoveries of the Dead Sea area. This widely varied literature reveals the beliefs and customs of a pietistic commune, probably centered at Qumran, and includes rules and ordinances, biblical commentaries, apocalyptic visions, and liturgical works, generally attributed to the last quarter of the second century B.C.E. and onward. The “rules,” the collections of rules and instructions reflecting the practices of the commune, arc exemplified by the Damascus Document, the Community Rule, and Some Torah Precepts. Here we witness a considerable corpus of legal material (Halakhah) that has Much in common with the rabbinic tradition preserved at a later date in the Mishnah. The Halakhah emerging from the sectarian writings seems to be corroborated by the sectarian Halakhah referred to in rabbinic sources. The biblical commentaries (pesharim), such as the Habakkuk Commentary, the Nahum Commentary, and the Hosea Commentary, are attested solely at Qumran and grew out of the sect’s eschatological presuppositions. The Scriptures were scanned by the sect for allusions to current and future events. These allusions could be understood only by the sectarians themselves, because only they possessed “eyes to see”-their distinct eschatological vision. Liturgical works figure prominently among the sectarian manuscripts at Qumran because of the centrality of prayer in this period. The Thanksgiving Psalms (Hodayot) are of two types: those characterized by a personal tone, attributed by some to the “teacher of righteousness,” and the communal type, referring to a group. Many more compositions deserve mention, but this brief survey demonstrates the major role played by the Dead Sea Scrolls in improving our comprehension of this pivotal moment in Jewish history. A New Discovery In March 2021, for the first time in nearly 60 years, fragments from a Dead Sea scroll were found in a cave in the Judean Desert. Nearly 2,000 year old parchment fragments ranging from a few millimeters to a thumbnail in size are from the book of the 12 minor prophets, including Zechariah and Nahum. Though written mainly in Greek, the scroll has the name of god, Yahweh, written in Hebrew letters typical of the First Temple period. The fragments may be from a Minor Prophets scroll discovered in 1952, which includes Micah’s prophecy about the End of Days and the rise of a ruler out of Bethlehem. Part of the text from Zechariah was translated from the fragments: “These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to one another, render true and perfect justice in your gates. And do not contrive evil against one another, and do not love perjury, because all those are things that I hate — declares the Lord.” The fragments were found in the “Cave of Horrors,” so-called because archaeologists in the 1950s found the skeletons of 40 men, women, and children who had hidden there during the Bar Kochba revolt and apparently starved to death when the Romans besieged the area. The discovery was made during a national project initiated in 2017 to explore all caves and ravines of the Judean Desert in a hunt for relics from prehistoric and biblical times. Authorities are racing to find whatever relics may be in the area before they are taken by looters who sell them on the black market. Sources: Ayala Sussman and Ruth Peled, Scrolls From the Dead Sea, (DC: Library of Congress, 1993); Mysterious Dead Sea Scroll deciphered in Israel, BBC News, (January 22, 2018). Ruth Schuster and Ariel David, “Israel Finds New Dead Sea Scrolls, First Such Discovery in 60 Years,” Haaretz, (March 16, 2021). Isabel Kershner, “Israel Reveals Newly Discovered Fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls,” New York Times, (March 16, 2021). Photos: Shrine of the Book By Xavier Gillet, Bordeaux, France (xavier33300 on flickr) – Israel Museum, Jerusalem, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Qumran Caves By Tamarah - Own work, CC BY-SA 2.5, via Wikimedia Commons. Isaiah Scroll by Ardon Bar Hama, author of original document is unknown. - Website of The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons. Temple Scroll Israel Museum, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. Dead Sea Scroll Jar By Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg) - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Declaring that the Vatican "cannot bless sin," the Roman Catholic Church on Monday launched an unprovoked attack on the marriages of same-sex couples and on LGBTQ people in general, issuing a very public response to a question no one except the Vatican's had been asking. "Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex?" the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asked, as the Catholic News Agency reports. "Negative," was the answer from the Congregation, also known as the Vatican's "Holy Office." What followed was a nearly 1000-word explanation to a question no LGBTQ or other civil rights group had posed. It includes the claim: "'God loves every person and the Church does the same,'" rejecting all unjust discrimination." The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also known as the "Holy Office," is one of the oldest congregations and was founded to protect the Church from "heresy." It is notable this is the vessel the Vatican chose to issued a doctrinal rebuke of same-sex marriage. Late last year, saying gay peoplke have a "right to a family," Pope Frances made headlines when he insisted governments should "legally" protect same-sex couples via civil unions. The Vatican quickly walked that statement back and insisted that LGBTQ people having a "right to a family" only meant acceptance by their own families – not a right to form families, and not a right to marriage. UPDATE: The Associated Press updates its reporting to note the statement attacking same-sex marriage was "approved by Pope Francis."

Pope Francis celebrates mass on the occasion of 500 years of Christianity in the Philippines, in St. Peter's Basilica, at the Vatican, Sunday, March 14, 2021. (Tiziana Fabi/Pool photo via AP) Pope Francis celebrates mass on the occasion of 500 years of Christianity in the Philippines, in St. Peter's Basilica, at the Vatican, Sunday, March 14, 2021. (Tiziana Fabi/Pool photo via AP) ROME (AP) — The Vatican declared Monday that the Catholic Church won’t bless same-sex unions since God “cannot bless sin.” The Vatican’s orthodoxy office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a formal response to a question about whether Catholic clergy have the authority to bless gay unions. The answer, contained in a two-page explanation published in seven languages and approved by Pope Francis, was “negative.” The note distinguished between the church’s welcoming and blessing of gay people, which it upheld, but not their unions. It argued that such unions are not part of God’s plan and that any sacramental recognition of them could be confused with marriage. The note immediately pleased conservatives, disheartened advocates for LGBT Catholics and threw a wrench in the debate within the German church, which has been at the forefront of opening discussion on hot-button issues such the church’s teaching on homosexuality. Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, which advocates for greater acceptance of gays in the church, predicted the Vatican position would be ignored, including by some Catholic clergy. “Catholic people recognize the holiness of the love between committed same-sex couples and recognize this love as divinely inspired and divinely supported and thus meets the standard to be blessed,” he said in a statement. The Vatican holds that gay people must be treated with dignity and respect, but that gay sex is “intrinsically disordered.” Catholic teaching says that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and woman, is part of God’s plan and is intended for the sake of creating new life. ADVERTISEMENT Since gay unions aren’t intended to be part of that plan, they can’t be blessed by the church, the document said. “The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan,” the response said. God “does not and cannot bless sin: He blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him,” it said. Francis has endorsed providing gay couples with legal protections in same-sex unions, but that was in reference to the civil sphere, not within the church. Those comments were made during a 2019 interview with a Mexican broadcaster, Televisa, but were censored by the Vatican until they appeared in a documentary last year. While the documentary fudged the context, Francis was referring to the position he took when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires. At the time, Argentine lawmakers were considering approving gay marriage, which the Catholic Church opposes. Then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio instead supported providing legal protections for gays in stable unions through a so-called “law of civil cohabitation.” Francis told Televisa: “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God.” Speaking of families with gay children, he said: “You can’t kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.” In the new document and an accompanying unsigned article, the Vatican said questions had been raised about whether the church should bless same-sex unions in a sacramental way in recent years, and after Francis had insisted on the need to better welcome gays in the church. It was an apparent reference to the German church, where some bishops have been pushing the envelope on issues such as priestly celibacy, contraception and the church’s outreach to gay Catholics after coming under pressure by powerful lay Catholic groups demanding change. In a statement, the head of the German bishops’ conference, Bishop Georg Bätzing, said the new document would be incorporated into the German discussion, but he suggested that the case was by no means closed. “There are no easy answers to questions like these,” he said, adding that the German church wasn’t only looking at the church’s current moral teaching, but also the development of doctrine and the actual reality of Catholics today. Bill Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League, praised the decision as a decisive, non-negotiable “end of story” declaration by the Vatican. “The Vatican left nothing on the table. The door has been slammed shut on the gay agenda,” Donohue wrote on the League’s website, calling the document “the most decisive rejection of those efforts ever written.” In the article, the Vatican stressed the “fundamental and decisive distinction” between gay individuals and gay unions, noting that “the negative judgment on the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex does not imply a judgment on persons.” But it explained the rationale for forbidding a blessing of such unions, noting that any union that involves sexual activity outside of marriage cannot be blessed because it is not in a state of grace, or “ordered to both receive and express the good that is pronounced and given by the blessing.” Full Coverage: Religion And it added that blessing a same-sex union could give the impression of a sort of sacramental equivalence to marriage. “This would be erroneous and misleading,” the article said. Esteban Paulon, president of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals, said the document was proof that for all of Francis’ words and gestures expressing outreach to gays, the institutional church wouldn’t change. “Saying that homosexual practice — openly living sexuality — is a sin takes us back 200 years and promotes hate speech that unfortunately in Latin America and Europe is on the rise,” Paulon said. “That transforms into injuries and even deaths, or policies which promote discrimination.” A similar note of exasperation was echoed in the Philippines, Asia’s largest Roman Catholic nation, where gay rights leader Danton Remoto said it simply wasn’t worth it to fight an old institution. “I keep on telling LGBTQIs to just have their civil unions done,” Remoto said. “We do not need any stress anymore from this church.” Other critical commentators noted the Catholic Book of Blessings contains blessings that can be bestowed on everything from new homes and factories to animals, sporting events, seeds before planting and farm tools. Juan Carlos Cruz, a Chilean survivor of sexual abuse who is gay and close to Francis, said the document was out of step with Francis’ pastoral approach and was tone deaf to the needs and rights of LGBT Catholics. “If the Church and the CDF do not advance with the world ... constantly rejecting and speaking negatively and not putting priorities where they should be, Catholics will continue to flee,” he warned. In 2003, the same Vatican office issued a similar decree saying that the church’s respect for gay people “cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.” Doing so, the Vatican reasoned then, would not only condone “deviant behavior,” but create an equivalence to marriage, which the church holds is an indissoluble union between man and woman. Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of the U.S.-based NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice and an advocate for greater LGBTQ inclusion in the church, said she was relieved the Vatican statement wasn’t worse. She said she interpreted the statement as saying, “You can bless the individuals (in a same-sex union), you just can’t bless the contract.” “So it’s possible you could have a ritual where the individuals get blessed to be their committed selves.” ___ AP writers David Crary in New York, Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin, Almudena Calatrava in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Jim Gomez in Manila, Philippines, contributed to this report.

[ DE - EN - ES - FR - IT - PL - PT] Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex TO THE QUESTION PROPOSED: Does the Church have the power to give the blessing to unions of persons of the same sex? RESPONSE: Negative. Explanatory Note In some ecclesial contexts, plans and proposals for blessings of unions of persons of the same sex are being advanced. Such projects are not infrequently motivated by a sincere desire to welcome and accompany homosexual persons, to whom are proposed paths of growth in faith, “so that those who manifest a homosexual orientation can receive the assistance they need to understand and fully carry out God’s will in their lives”[1]. On such paths, listening to the word of God, prayer, participation in ecclesial liturgical actions and the exercise of charity can play an important role in sustaining the commitment to read one's own history and to adhere with freedom and responsibility to one's baptismal call, because “God loves every person and the Church does the same”[2], rejecting all unjust discrimination. Among the liturgical actions of the Church, the sacramentals have a singular importance: “These are sacred signs that resemble the sacraments: they signify effects, particularly of a spiritual kind, which are obtained through the Church’s intercession. By them men are disposed to receive the chief effect of the sacraments, and various occasions of life are sanctified”[3]. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies, then, that “sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church’s prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it” (#1670). Blessings belong to the category of the sacramentals, whereby the Church “calls us to praise God, encourages us to implore his protection, and exhorts us to seek his mercy by our holiness of life”[4]. In addition, they “have been established as a kind of imitation of the sacraments, blessings are signs above all of spiritual effects that are achieved through the Church’s intercession”[5]. Consequently, in order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church. For this reason, it is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex[6]. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan. Furthermore, since blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit. This is because they would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing[7] invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family”[8]. The declaration of the unlawfulness of blessings of unions between persons of the same sex is not therefore, and is not intended to be, a form of unjust discrimination, but rather a reminder of the truth of the liturgical rite and of the very nature of the sacramentals, as the Church understands them. The Christian community and its Pastors are called to welcome with respect and sensitivity persons with homosexual inclinations, and will know how to find the most appropriate ways, consistent with Church teaching, to proclaim to them the Gospel in its fullness. At the same time, they should recognize the genuine nearness of the Church – which prays for them, accompanies them and shares their journey of Christian faith[9] – and receive the teachings with sincere openness. The answer to the proposed dubium does not preclude the blessings given to individual persons with homosexual inclinations[10], who manifest the will to live in fidelity to the revealed plans of God as proposed by Church teaching. Rather, it declares illicit any form of blessing that tends to acknowledge their unions as such. In this case, in fact, the blessing would manifest not the intention to entrust such individual persons to the protection and help of God, in the sense mentioned above, but to approve and encourage a choice and a way of life that cannot be recognized as objectively ordered to the revealed plans of God[11]. At the same time, the Church recalls that God Himself never ceases to bless each of His pilgrim children in this world, because for Him “we are more important to God than all of the sins that we can commit”[12]. But he does not and cannot bless sin: he blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him. He in fact “takes us as we are, but never leaves us as we are”[13]. For the above mentioned reasons, the Church does not have, and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex in the sense intended above. The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of this Congregation, was informed and gave his assent to the publication of the above-mentioned Responsum ad dubium, with the annexed Explanatory Note. Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the 22nd of February 2021, Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter, Apostle. Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I. Prefect ✠ Giacomo Morandi Archbishop tit. of Cerveteri Secretary

Pope Francis is calling for same-sex couples to be “legally” protected by civil union laws. “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family,” the Pope says in a new documentary, Catholic News Agency reports. “They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.” Later, Pope Francis defended his remarks in the film, saying, “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.” “I stood up for that,” he added. The Pope said nothing about the morality of same-sex relationships, which the Catholic Church still vehemently opposes. The Vatican leader’s remarks, while a step forward, show the Roman Catholic Church continues to treat LGBTQ people unequally. Some are calling the Pope’s remarks a “major shift,” and a “long overdue moment.” Others have noted to Catholics in countries where same-sex relationships or marriages are banned it is a welcome sign. Pope Francis continues to oppose marriage for same-sex couples. He has a lengthy record of vacillating between making compassionate statements about same-sex couples and gay people, while denouncing in the strongest possible terms affording them the same rights and responsibilities as those in different-sex marriages. In 2014, for example, Pope Francis called same-sex marriage “anthropological regression.” One year later he said same-sex marriage threatened to “disfigure God’s plan.” He later called marriages of same-sex couples “disfigured.” Also in 2015 he announced support for constitutional bans on marriage and adoption by same-sex couples. The following year Francis said the Catholic Church and Christians “must ask forgiveness” and “apologize” to gay people. In 2018 the Pope reportedly told a gay man, “God made you like this. God loves you like this. The Pope loves you like this and you should love yourself and not worry about what people say.” Image by Long Thiên via Flickr and a CC license

The Vatican is walking back remarks made by Pope Francis in a documentary where he called for civil union laws to protect same-sex couples. Claiming the Pope’s remarks were taken out of context and edited inaccurately, the Vatican says the Pope’s remarks about gay people having a “right to a family” only meant acceptance by their own families, The Hill reports, not a right to form families, and not a right to marriage. Archbishop Franco Coppolo offered “some helpful points” to religious leaders. In an explanatory note posted to Facebook he insists the Pope was not calling for change within the Catholic Church, the Catholic News Agency (CNA) reports. “The note said that in the first quote, the pope was referring to the right of homosexuals to be accepted by their own families as children and siblings,” Reuters adds. “Some saw the comments as homosexuals having a right to form families.” In a new documentary released late last month the Pope can be seen saying, “Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family.” “They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.” “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” he also said. The Vatican has been hostile to LGBTQ people for centuries. And while Pope Francis at times has appeared to be supportive, he too has a long history of attacking the community. In 2014, for example, Pope Francis called same-sex marriage “anthropological regression,” as NCRM noted last month in our report on Francis’s latest remarks. He’s said same-sex marriage threatened to “disfigure God’s plan,” called marriages of same-sex couples “disfigured,” and announced support for constitutional bans on marriage and adoption by same-sex couples.

When the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges — which in effect, legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states — was handed down in 2015, Christian fundamentalists who opposed the ruling sounded a lot like the segregationists of the 1950s and 1960s who argued that if certain states wanted to discriminate along racial lines, they should be allowed to rather than having to adhere to a national standard. Some white Christian fundamentalists oppose both same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, and in Booneville, Mississippi, one such business appears to be Boone Camp Event Hall. When an interracial couple wanted to use Boone Camp, according to Deep South Voice’s Ashton Pittman, they were told that the event hall doesn’t accommodate either interracial marriage or same-sex marriage. LaKambria Welch, Pittman reports, was hoping that her brother (who is black) and his fiancée (who is white) would be able to rent the hall for their wedding. But Welch was told by a female employee that because of Boone’s Christian beliefs, the venue had a policy against interracial marriages — and noted that it had a policy against same-sex marriages as well. The employee, according to Pittman, told Welch, “First of all, we don’t do gay weddings or mixed race, because of our Christian race — I mean, our Christian belief.” Welch replied, “OK, we’re Christians as well” — and when Welch went on to ask what in the Bible prohibits interracial marriages, the woman responded, “Well, I don’t want to argue my faith.” Welch told Deep South Voice, “The owner took a look at my brother’s fiancée’s page and wrote her back to say they won’t be able to get married there because of her beliefs. He told my mom, and she contacted the owner through messenger to only get a ‘seen’ with no reply. That’s when I took it upon myself to go get clarification on her beliefs.” According to another woman in Mississippi, Katelynn Springsteen, Boone Camp has refused to serve same-sex couples as well. Deep South Voice quotes Springsteen as saying that in 2018, “I was trying to find my best friend, who is lesbian, a wedding venue. I was immediately shot down when I was asked if they were OK with a gay wedding.” Springsteen, according to Pittman, said she received a message saying, “Thanks for checking with us, Katelynn, but due to our Christian faith, we would not be able to accommodate you.” Mississippi is among the red states that has passed some so-called “religious freedom” bills that allow businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples. The first was Mississippi Senate Bill 2681, a.k.a. the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2014; the next was the more explicit Mississippi House Bill 1523, which was passed in 2016 and says it protects “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions” that “marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.” However, 1523 (which was passed the year after the Obergefell v. Hodges decision was handed down) does not mention race.

Obergefell v. Hodges was the landmark 2015 ruling in which the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Two of the dissenters in that ruling were Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito — and now, Thomas and Alito are calling for that decision to be overturned. This comes at a time when there is a very real possibility that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a far-right social conservative nominated by President Donald Trump, will be replacing the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In a petition, Thomas and Alito argue that Obergefell was an attack on religious freedom, saying, "The Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'" Half a decade ago, the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges came from both the left and the right. Justice Anthony Kennedy, nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, sided with Ginsburg in that decision. Kennedy was fiscally conservative, yet his libertarian streak showed itself when he agreed with Ginsburg on social issues like gay rights, same-sex marriage and abortion. But the makeup of the Supreme Court has changed a lot since Obergefell. The late Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the dissenters in Obergefell, died in 2016 and was replaced by Justice Neal Gorsuch — another social conservative — in 2017. Replacing Scalia with Gorsuch wasn't a game-changer for the High Court, but when Kennedy announced his retirement in 2018 and was replaced by the more socially conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that was a game-changer. And now, with Barrett likely to replace Ginsburg, the Supreme Court is facing the possibility of an even greater game-changer — one in which Obergefell could be in danger along with Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas and many other right-to-privacy decisions.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that granted same-sex couples a constitutional right to marry. The 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized gay marriage nationwide, including in the 14 states that did not previously allow gays and lesbians to wed. The decision rested in part on the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment; the justices ruled that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. As we approach the fourth anniversary of the ruling, here are five key facts about same-sex marriage: 1 The share of Americans who favor same sex-marriage grew steadily for most of the last decade, but public support has leveled off in the last few years. Around four-in-ten U.S. adults (37%) favored allowing gays and lesbians to wed in 2009, a share that rose to 62% in 2017. But views are largely unchanged over the last few years. About six-in-ten Americans (61%) support same-sex marriage in the most recent Pew Research Center survey on the issue, conducted in March 2019. 2Although support in the U.S. for same-sex marriage has increased among nearly all demographic groups, there are still sizable demographic and partisan divides. For example, today, 79% of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated favor same-sex marriage, as do 66% of white mainline Protestants and 61% of Catholics. Among white evangelical Protestants, however, only 29% favor same-sex marriage. Still, this is roughly double the level (15%) in 2009. While support for same-sex marriage has grown steadily across generational cohorts in the last 15 years, there are still sizable age gaps. For instance, 45% of adults in the Silent Generation (those born between 1928 and 1945) favor allowing gays and lesbians to wed, compared with 74% of Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996). There also is a sizable political divide: Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are much less likely to favor same sex marriage than Democrats and Democratic leaners (44% vs. 75%). 3Same-sex marriages are on the rise. Surveys conducted by Gallup in 2017 find that about one-in-ten LGBT Americans (10.2%) are married to a same-sex partner, up from the months before the high court decision (7.9%). As a result, a majority (61%) of same-sex cohabiting couples were married as of 2017, up from 38% before the ruling. 4 As with the general public, Americans who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) are most likely to cite love as a very important reason for getting married. In a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, 84% of LGBT adults and 88% of the general public cited love as a very important reason for getting married, and at least seven-in-ten in both groups cited companionship (71% and 76%, respectively). But there were some differences, too. LGBT Americans, for instance, were twice as likely as those in the general public to cite legal rights and benefits as a very important reason for getting married (46% versus 23%), while those in the general public were nearly twice as likely as LGBT Americans to cite having children (49% versus 28%). 5The U.S. is among 29 countries and jurisdictions that allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. The first nation to legalize gay marriage was the Netherlands, which did so in 2000. Since then, several other European countries – including England and Wales, France, Ireland, all of Scandinavia, Spain and, most recently, Austria, Germany and Malta – have legalized gay marriage. Outside of Europe, same-sex marriage is now legal in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, New Zealand, South Africa and Uruguay, as well as in parts of Mexico. And in May 2019, Taiwan became the first country in Asia to allow gays and lesbians to legally wed. Note: This is an update to a post originally published April 27, 2015. It was originally co-authored by Seth Motel, a former research analyst at Pew Research Center. Related posts: A global snapshot of same-sex marriage 5 key findings about LGBT Americans