- President Trump accused Michigan and Nevada of illegally sending voters absentee ballots in the mail and threatened to withhold funding from the two states.
- Michigan’s Secretary of State clarified that she is sending applications for the ballots, not the ballots themselves.
- Nevada is sending actual ballots to active registered voters, but Trump’s attack perplexed many because the policy is spearheaded by Nevada’s Republican Secretary of State.
- Numerous other states are also expanding absentee voting, so it is unclear why Trump chose to go after these Nevada and Michigan. Some speculate it is because the two states are likely to be contested in the 2020 election.
Trump’s Twitter Threats
President Donald Trump threatened to withhold funding from Michigan and Nevada Tuesday over efforts by the two states to expand absentee voting.
“Breaking: Michigan sends absentee ballots to 7.7 million people ahead of Primaries and the General Election,” the president tweeted. “This was done illegally and without authorization by a rogue Secretary of State. I will ask to hold up funding to Michigan if they want to go down this Voter Fraud path!”
“State of Nevada ‘thinks’ that they can send out illegal vote by mail ballots, creating a great Voter Fraud scenario for the State and the U.S. They can’t!” he wrote in another tweet shortly after.
“If they do, ‘I think’ I can hold up funds to the State. Sorry, but you must not cheat in elections.”
However, Trump’s remarks about Michigan are false. On Tuesday, the Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said Tuesday that she plans to mail an absentee ballot application to voters, not an actual ballot.
She noted that in a response to Trump herself, and pointed out that several Republican-led states plan to do the same thing.
Trump later deleted the tweet, then reposted it so it included the word “applications.”
Nevada, on the other hand, will actually send mail-in ballots to active registered voters for the state’s entirely mail-in primary on June 9. Still, many found Trump’s attack confusing because the move to switch to a vote-by-mail election was made by Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, a Republican.
In fact, Cegavske’s policy has faced significant backlash and even lawsuits from Democrats, who do not want all of the in-person polling locations to be closed and are pushing for all registered voters, not just active voters, to be sent ballots.
But that is not the only thing that is perplexing about this situation. Michigan and Nevada are only two of the numerous states that have started to expand vote-by-mail during the pandemic.
States like Georgia and even cities like Milwaulkee have already said they will do the exact same thing that Michigan is doing with sending vote-by-mail applications. A lot of these efforts are supported or even led by Republicans.
Just two days before Trump’s remarks, the chair of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniels, said she is fine with absentee ballot applications being sent to registered voters, though she does not support the actual ballots being sent.
In fact, the CDC specifically recommends that states “encourage mail-in methods of voting if allowed in the jurisdiction” given the coronavirus threat.
Trump and The 2020 Presidential Election
With a wide variety of other states working to make absentee voting easier, it is unclear exactly why Trump is singling out these two right now.
Some speculate that it is because Michigan and Nevada are states likely to be contested in the 2020 election. In 2016, Trump barely won Michigan and he lost Nevada by less than 3 points.
While Trump has said that voting by mail means Republicans would not get elected, a new study by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research found that there is no evidence that vote-by-mail benefits one party over another.
Trump has frequently opposed expanding mail-in voting, often by falsely claiming that the process is riddled with fraud and corruption, but numerous experts and studies say that cases of election fraud in the U.S. are rare.
In fact, a 2017 study by the Brennan Center for Justice said the rate of voter fraud in the U.S. was somewhere between 0.00004% to 0.0009% off all votes. An exhaustive analysis, it conducted of all known voter fraud cases only identified 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud from 2000 to 2012 — billions of votes were cast during that period.
As far as what “funds” Trump is threatening to withhold from Michigan and Nevada, that remains actually unclear. He is likely referring to “Election Security Grants” provided under the CARES Act, which are designed to help states deal with the coronavirus as it relates to the 2020 election cycle.
Michigan received about $11.2 million in funds and plans to use some of that for the absentee ballot applications. Nevada received $4.5 million and wants to use that to transition to a system where registered voters automatically receive a ballot.
In other words, both states are using the money for the purposes laid out by congress, which makes it easier to cast votes during the pandemic.
However, according to the New York Times, election officials said that money is already “out the door” on the way to states, and there is no way for Trump or his administration to stop them.
Accusations of Hypocrisy
While these attacks from Trump may seem of out of left field, it is not the first time in the last few weeks he has lashed out against states expanding mail-in voting.
About a week ago, he slammed California’s decision to send ballots to every voter for November, calling the move “scam.”
But on the same day, he also told California voters to mail-in their ballots and vote for a congressional candidate he supported.
Some have also viewed his comments as hypocritical since Trump himself cast an absentee ballot by mail in Florida’s Republican primary this year and in the 2018 midterms.
When asked about this contradiction in his messaging, he said it was fine “because I’m allowed to” vote by mail while living outside the state of Florida. At the time, he also said, “I think if you vote, you should go.”
Other prominent members of the Trump administration have also repeatedly voted absentee with mail-in ballots, according to Times, including Vice President Mike Pence.
Critics of Trump’s rhetoric have also pointed out that though instances are rare, one of the most serious and credible allegations of absentee ballot fraud in decades was actually designed to help a Republican.
During the 2018 race for North Carolina’s Ninth Congressional District, a Republican operative was charged with election fraud after rounding up absentee ballots for the Republican candidate, Mark Harris.
State election officials refused to certify the results and held a redo election in 2019. However, experts also use this case as an example that fraud big enough to sway an election outcome will likely be detected.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (Politico)
Biden Calls on Congress To Extend Eviction Moratorium
The move comes just two days before the federal ban is set to expire.
Eviction Freeze Set To Expire
President Joe Biden asked Congress on Thursday to extend the federal eviction moratorium for another month just two days before the ban was set to expire.
The request follows a Supreme Court decision last month, where the justices ruled the evictions freeze could stay in place until it expired on July 31. That decision was made after a group of landlords sued, arguing that the moratorium was illegal under the public health law the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had relied on to implement it.
While the court did not provide reasons for its ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a short concurring opinion explaining that although he thought the CDC “exceeded its existing statutory authority,” he voted not to end the program because it was already set to expire in a month.
In a statement Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki cited the Supreme Court decision, as well as the recent surge in COVID cases, as reasons for the decision to call on Congress.
“Given the recent spread of the delta variant, including among those Americans both most likely to face evictions and lacking vaccinations, President Biden would have strongly supported a decision by the CDC to further extend this eviction moratorium to protect renters at this moment of heightened vulnerability,” she said.
“Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has made clear that this option is no longer available.”
Delays in Relief Distribution
The move comes as the administration has struggled to distribute the nearly $47 billion in rental relief funds approved as part of two coronavirus relief packages passed in December and March, respectively.
Nearly seven months after the first round of funding was approved, the Treasury Department has only allocated $3 billion of the reserves, and just 600,000 tenants have been helped under the program.
A total of 7.4 million households are behind on rent according to the most recent data from the Census Bureau. An estimated 3.6 million of those households could face eviction in the next two months if the moratorium expires.
The distribution problems largely stem from the fact that many states and cities tasked with allocating the fund had no infrastructure to do so, causing the aid to be held up by delays, confusion, and red tape.
Some states opened portals that were immediately overwhelmed, prompting them to close off applications, while others have faced technical glitches.
According to The Washington Post, just 36 out of more than 400 states, counties, and cities that reported data to the Treasury Department were able to spend even half of the money allotted them by the end of June. Another 49 — including New York — had not spent any funds at all.
Slim Chances in Congress
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) urged her colleagues to approve an extension for the freeze Thursday night, calling it “a moral imperative” and arguing that “families must not pay the price” for the slow distribution of aid.
However, Biden’s last-minute call for Congress to act before members leave for their August recess is all but ensured to fail.
While the House Rules Committee took up a measure Thursday night that would extend the moratorium until the end of this year, the only way it could pass in the Senate would be through a procedure called unanimous consent, which can be blocked by a single dissenting vote.
Some Senate Republicans have already rejected the idea.
“There’s no way I’m going to support this. It was a bad idea in the first place,” Senator Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.) told reporters. “Owners have the right to action. They need to have recourse for the nonpayment of rent.”
With the hands of the CDC tied and Congressional action seemingly impossible, the U.S. could be facing an unprecedented evictions crisis Saturday, even though millions of Americans who will now risk losing their homes should have already received rental assistance to avert this exact situation.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (The Associated Press)
Mississippi Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Roe v. Wade
The Supreme Court’s decision to consider Mississippi’s restrictive abortion ban already has sweeping implications for the precedents set under the landmark reproductive rights ruling, but now the state is asking the high court to go even further.
Mississippi’s Abortion Case
Mississippi filed a brief Thursday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade when it hears the state’s 15-week abortion ban this fall.
After months of deliberation, the high court agreed in May to hear what will be the first abortion case the 6-to-3 conservative majority will decide.
Both a district judge and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had ruled that Mississippi could not enforce the 2018 law that banned nearly all abortions at 15 weeks with exceptions for only “severe fetal abnormality,” but not rape and incest.
If the Supreme Court upholds the Mississippi law, it would undo decades of precedent set under Roe in 1973 and upheld under Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, where the court respectively ruled and reaffirmed that states could not ban abortion before the fetus is “viable” and can live outside the womb, which is generally around 24 to 28 weeks.
When the justices decided to hear the case, they said they would specifically examine the question of whether “all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”
Depending on the scope of their decision on the Mississippi law, the court’s ruling could allow other states to pass much more restrictive abortion bans without the risk of lower courts striking down those laws.
As a result, legal experts have said the case will represent the most significant ruling on reproductive rights since Casey nearly three decades ago, and the Thursday brief raises the stakes even more.
When Mississippi asked the justices to take up its case last June, the state’s attorney general, Lynn Fitch (R), explicitly stated that the petition’s questions “do not require the Court to overturn Roe or Casey.”
But that was before the court’s conservatives solidified their supermajority with the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett — who personally opposes abortion — following the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
New Filing Takes Aim at Roe
With the new filing, it appears that Fitch views the high court’s altered makeup as an opportunity to undermine the constitutional framework that has been in place for the better part of the last century.
“The Constitution’s text says nothing about abortion,” Fitch wrote in the brief, arguing that American society has changed so much that the previous rulings need to be reheard.
“Today, adoption is accessible and on a wide scale women attain both professional success and a rich family life, contraceptives are more available and effective, and scientific advances show that an unborn child has taken on the human form and features months before viability,” she added, claiming the power should be left to state lawmakers.
“Roe and Casey shackle states to a view of the facts that is decades out of date,” she continued. “The national fever on abortion can break only when this Court returns abortion policy to the states.”
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Mississippi’s sole abortion provider in the suit against the state’s law, painted Fitch’s effort as one that will have a chilling effect on abortion rights nationwide.
“Mississippi has stunningly asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and every other abortion rights decision in the last five decades,” Nancy Northup, the president and CEO of the group said in a statement Thursday. “Today’s brief reveals the extreme and regressive strategy, not just of this law, but of the avalanche of abortion bans and restrictions that are being passed across the country.”
The Supreme Court has not yet said exactly when during its fall term it will hear oral arguments on the Mississippi case, but a decision is expected to come down by next June or July, as is standard.
An anticipated ruling just months before the 2022 midterms will almost certainly position abortion as a top issue at the ballot box.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (Politico)
Republicans Boycott Jan. 6 Committee After Pelosi Rejects Two of McCarthy’s Picks
The House Minority Leader said that unless House Speaker Pelosi reinstated the two members, Republicans will launch their own investigation into the insurrection.
Pelosi Vetoes Republicans
Republicans are boycotting the select committee to investigate the insurrection after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) rejected two of the five GOP members Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) picked to serve on the panel Wednesday.
In a statement, Pelosi cited the “statements and actions” of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Oh.) and Jim Banks (R-In.), whose nominations she said she was opposing “with respect for the integrity of the investigation.”
Jordan and Banks — both staunch allies of former President Donald Trump — have helped propagate the previous leader’s false election claims, opposed efforts to investigate the insurrection, and voted not to certify the election for President Joe Biden.
A senior Democratic aide also specifically told The Washington Post that Democrats did not want Jordan on the panel because he reportedly helped Trump strategized how to overturn the election and due to the fact he spoke to the then-president on Jan. 6, meaning there is a possibility he could be called to testify before the very same committee.
The aide also said that Democrats opposed Banks’ selection because of a statement he issued after McCarthy chose him.
In the statement, the representative compared the insurrection to the racial justice protests last summer, implied that the rioters were just normal American’s expressing their political views, and claimed the committee was a political ploy “to justify the Left’s authoritarian agenda.”
Notably, Pelosi did say she would accept McCarthy’s three other nominees — including Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Wi.), who also voted against certifying Biden’s win.
McCarthy Threatens Separate Investigation
McCarthy, however, refused to select new members, and instead opted to remove all his appointees from the would-be bipartisan committee.
In a statement condemning the move, the minority leader said that Pelosi’s action “represents an egregious abuse of power.”
“Denying the voices of members who have served in the military and law enforcement, as well as leaders of standing committees, has made it undeniable that this panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility and shows the Speaker is more interested in playing politics than seeking the truth,” he said.
“Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts.”
Pelosi defended her decision during a press conference Thursday, where she said that Banks and Jordan were “ridiculous” choices for the panel.
“When statements are ridiculous and fall into the realm of, ‘You must be kidding,’ there’s no way that they’re going to be on the committee,” she added.