Picture by George Frey for Getty Images
- The Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit against California Gov. Gavin Newsom alleging that an executive order he signed expanding mail-in voting is illegal.
- The order would send mail-in ballots to all registered voters in the state ahead of the general election.
- The lawsuit comes as President Trump and other Republican leaders have ramped up their criticisms against the numerous states that have expanded mail-in voting amid the coronavirus pandemic.
RNC Files Lawsuit
The Republican National Committee, along with the other Republican groups, filed a lawsuit Sunday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom, claiming an executive order he passed that sends mail-in ballots to every registered voter in the state ahead of the general election is illegal.
That executive order, signed by Newsom on May 8, does not entirely close down all polling places, but it does strongly encourage everyone who can to vote by mail. It has also been described as the largest expansion of vote-by-mail that any state has put in place as a result of the pandemic.
Now, the lawsuit filed by the RNC, which was also joined by the Republican Congressional Committee and the California Republican Party, says that order goes too far.
According to reports, the lawsuit argues that Newsom’s actions went beyond the scope of his power because he didn’t go through the state Legislature. It also accuses him of making a “brazen power grab” that would “violate eligible citizens’ right to vote.”
The lawsuit claims that the order “invites fraud, coercion, theft, and otherwise illegitimate voting” because it mandates that ballots be sent to all registered voters, including inactive voters.
That sentiment was echoed by RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, who first announced the lawsuit on Twitter, where she referred to the order as Newsom’s “illegal election power grab.”
“His radical plan is a recipe for disaster that would create more opportunities for fraud & destroy the confidence Californians deserve to have in their elections,” she continued. “Make no mistake, Democrats are trying to use this pandemic to redesign our entire election system for political gain, and we will not let their brazen attempts go unchallenged.”
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla responded to the lawsuit in a series of tweets on Sunday night, where he defended the vote by mail measure and accused Republicans and President Donald Trump of using the coronavirus pandemic to engage in voter suppression.
“Expanding vote-by-mail during a pandemic is not a partisan issue — it’s a moral imperative to protect voting rights and public safety,” he wrote. “Vote-by-mail has been used safely and effectively in red, blue, and purple states for years.”
“This lawsuit is just another part of Trump’s political smear campaign against voting by mail,” Padilla continued. “We will not let this virus be exploited for voter suppression.”
Broader Efforts Against Mail-In Voting
Padilla’s last point is important to note here. While the lawsuit was filed in California, this pushback is part of a much broader trend that has become apparent as more and more states expand vote-by-mail during the pandemic.
President Trump himself has been very vocal about his opposition to expanding vote-by-mail in recent weeks. Last week, Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from Michigan and Nevada. Michigan is sending voters mail-in ballot applications while Nevada is mailing active registered voters the ballots themselves.
Trump claimed that the efforts in both states were illegal and accused both Democrat and Republican leaders of engaging in voter fraud and cheating in the elections. On Sunday, Trump doubled down on those attacks again in a tweet.
“The United States cannot have all Mail In Ballots. It will be the greatest Rigged Election in history,” the president wrote. “People grab them from mailboxes, print thousands of forgeries and ‘force’ people to sign. Also, forge names. Some absentee OK, when necessary. Trying to use Covid for this Scam!”
But according to reports, there is no evidence that “thousands” of forgeries have been linked to mail-in voting, and there is not extensive evidence of people being forced to sign absentee ballots.
In fact, numerous studies have found that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the U.S. from either in-person or mail-in voting. Some studies have shown that instances of voter fraud account for just a fraction of a percent of all votes cast.
Still, Trump has not been alone in his attacks of these new proposals. Republican leaders all over the country have joined the president in making the same baseless claims about fraud and election security.
Now, they have the legal backing of the RNC and other major Republican leadership groups. According to CNN, the lawsuit is just one part of a $20 million effort led by the RNC “to combat Democratic-led expansions of vote-by-mail across the country.”
Trump Threatens to Move Convention
The lawsuit against Gov. Newsom is not the only significant piece of RNC-related news coming out of the long holiday weekend.
On Monday, Trump separately threatened to move the Republican National Convention from North Carolina if the state’s governor, Democrat Roy Cooper, did not promise to hold the event at full capacity. Right now, the convention is set for the end of August.
In a series of tweets Trump called on Gov. Cooper to guarantee that the convention can be held without coronavirus restrictions, writing that he loves North Carolina and that he had pushed for the convention to be held there, but adding that Gov. Cooper “is still in Shutdown mood & unable to guarantee that by August we will be allowed full attendance in the Arena.”
“In other words, we would be spending millions of dollars building the Arena to a very high standard without even knowing if the Democrat Governor would allow the Republican Party to fully occupy the space,” he said.
Trump also said that Gov. Cooper must immediately say if the space can be fully occupied.
“If not, we will be reluctantly forced to find, with all of the jobs and economic development it brings, another Republican National Convention site,” he wrote. “This is not something I want to do. Thank you, and I LOVE the people of North Carolina!”
Trump’s announcement comes as North Carolina moved to ease more restrictions on Friday, transitioning to its second phase of reopening. Right now, according to reports, the state allows for the opening of some businesses, and gatherings are limited to no more than ten people inside and 25 people outside.
But coronavirus cases are still on the rise. On Saturday, the state’s Department of Health and Human Services reported the highest number of confirmed cases in a single day since the pandemic started.
As a result, it is currently unclear if the state will be ready to host the convention at the level Trump wants.
According to reports, the convention is set to be held at an arena in Charlotte that can hold as many as 20,000 people. When Trump says “full capacity,” he means 20,000 people in an enclosed space and likely without proper distancing measures.
But, at least for now, it doesn’t seem like Trump is going to get an immediate answer.
“State health officials are working with the RNC and will review its plans as they make decisions about how to hold the convention in Charlotte,” a spokesperson for the governor’s office said in response to Trump’s tweets. “North Carolina is relying on data and science to protect our state’s public health and safety.”
Separately, the Mayor of Charlotte, Vi Lyles, also reportedly said that her primary concern is the city’s “vulnerable populations” who could get sick from the coronavirus.
As for what state the convention would be moved too, Trump did not say, but during an interview with Fox News on Monday, Vice President Mike Pence indicated that Texas, Florida, and Georgia, all of which have enacted the broadest plans to reopen, were on the short list.
See what others are saying: (CNN) (The Los Angeles Times) (The Wall Street Journal)
Supreme Court Begins Contentious New Term as Approval Rating Hits Historic Low
The most volatile cases the court will consider involve affirmative action, voting rights, elections, and civil rights for the LGBTQ+ community.
High Court to Hear Numerous Controversial Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday officially kicked off a new term that will be marked by a number of very contentious cases.
The justices, led by a conservative super-majority, will hear many matters that have enormous implications for the American people.
The first case the court will hear this term involves a major environmental dispute that will determine the scope of government authority under the Clean Water Act — a decision that could have a massive impact on U.S. water quality at a time when water crises’ have been heightened by climate change.
The case also comes amid increasing concerns about federal inaction regarding climate change, especially after the Supreme Court significantly limited the government’s power to act in this area at the end of its last term.
Cases Involving Race
Several of the most anticipated decisions also center around race, including a pair of cases that challenge affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
For over four decades, the high court has repeatedly upheld that race can be a factor in college admissions to ensure a more equitable student body. Despite the fact that multiple challenges have been struck down in the past, the court’s conservative super majority could very well undo 40 years of precedent and undermine essential protections.
The high court will decide a legal battle that could significantly damage key voting protections for minorities set forth under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The case in question stems from a lower court opinion that invalidated Alabama’s congressional map for violating a provision in the VRA prohibiting voting rules that discriminate on the basis of race.
Alabama had drawn its map so only one of its seven congressional districts was majority Black, despite the fact that nearly one in every three voting-age residents in the state are Black.
States’ Power Over Elections
Also on the topic of gerrymandering and elections, the justices will hear a case that could have a profound impact on the very nature of American democracy. The matter centers around a decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court to strike down the Republican-drawn congressional map on the grounds that it amounted to an illegal gerrymander that violated the state’s Constitution.
The North Carolina GOP appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause gives state legislatures almost total control over how federal elections are carried out in their state under a theory called the independent state legislature doctrine.
“That argument, in its most extreme form, would mean that [sic] no state court and no state agency could interfere with the state legislature’s version of election rules, regardless of the rules set down in the state constitution,” NPR explained.
In other words, if the Supreme Court sides with the North Carolina Republicans, they would essentially be giving state legislatures unchecked power over how voting maps are designed and elections are administered.
Another notable decision the justices will make could have huge implications for the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights more broadly. That matter involved a web designer in Colorado named Lori Smith who refused to design websites for same-sex couples because she believed it violates her right to religious freedoms.
That belief, however, goes against a Colorado nondiscrimination law that bans businesses that serve the public from denying their services to customers based on sexual orientation or identity.
As a result, Smith argues that the Colorado law violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment. If the high court rules in her favor, it would undermine protections for the LGBTQ+ community in Colorado and likely other states with similar laws.
Experts also say such a ruling could go far beyond that. As Georgetown University’s Kelsi Corkran told NPR, “if Smith is correct that there’s a free speech right to selectively choose her customers based on the messages she wants to endorse,” the Colorado law would also allow white supremacists to deny services to people of color because that “would be a message of endorsement.”
Record-Low Approval Rating
The court’s high-stakes docket also comes at a time when its reputation has been marred by questions of legitimacy.
A new Gallup poll published last week found that the Supreme Court’s approval rating has sunk to a record low. Specifically, less than half of Americans said they have at least a “fair amount” of trust in the judicial branch — a 20% drop from just two years ago.
Beyond that, a record number of people also now say that the court is too conservative. Experts argue that these numbers are massively consequential, especially as the U.S. heads into yet another highly-contentious court term.
“The Supreme Court is at an important moment,” Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs told The Hill.
“Trust in the institutions has vastly diminished, certainly among Democrats, and many have a close eye on how they rule on other vital matters. If decisions seem to keep coming from a very pointed political direction, frustration and calls for reform will only mount.”
See what others are saying: (The Hill) (CNN) (The Wall Street Journal)
Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event
The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.
Video of President Joe Biden publicly asking if a congresswoman who died last month was present at a White House event went viral Wednesday, giving rise to renewed questions about the leader’s mental acuity.
The remarks were made at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-In.) had helped convene and organize before her sudden death in a car accident.
The president thanked the group of bipartisan lawmakers who helped make the event happen, listing them off one by one, and appearing to look around in search of Rep. Walorski when he reached her name.
“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he called. “I think she wasn’t going to be here to help make this a reality.”
The incident flummoxed many, especially because Biden had even acknowledged her work on the conference in an official White House statement following her death last month.
“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” the statement read.
“I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America.”
The Age Maximum Question
Numerous social media users and news outlets presented the mishap as evidence that Biden, who is 79, does not have the mental capacity to serve as president. Others, meanwhile, raised the possibility of imposing an age maximum for the presidency.
Most of the comments against the president came from the right, which has regularly questioned his mental stability. However, the idea of an age limit goes beyond Biden and touches on concerns about America’s most important leaders being too old.
While Biden is the oldest president in history, former President Donald Trump — who is 76 and has also had his mental state continually questioned — would have likewise held that title if he had won re-election in 2020.
These concerns extend outside the presidency as well: the current session of Congress is the oldest on average of any Congress in recent history, and the median ages are fairly similar among Republicans and Democrats when separated by chambers.
There is also a higher percentage of federal lawmakers who are older than the median age. Nearly 1 out of every 4 members are over the age of 70.
What’s more, some of the people in the highest leadership positions are among the oldest members. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), is the oldest-ever House Speaker at 82, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — the president pro tempore of the Senate and third person in line for the presidency — is the same age, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is 80.
As a result, it is unsurprising that a recent Insider/Morning Consult poll found that 3 in 4 Americans support an age max for members of Congress, and more than 40% say they view the ages of political leaders as a “major” problem.
Those who support the regulations argue that age limits are standard practice in many industries, including for airplane pilots and the military, and thus should be imposed on those who have incredible amounts of power over the country.
However, setting age boundaries on Congress and the President would almost certainly necessitate changes to the Constitution, and because such a move would require federal lawmakers to curtail their own power, there is little political will.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (NBC News)
Churches Protected Loophole in Abuse Reporting for 20 years, Report Finds
In some cases, Clergy members failed to report abuse among their congregation, but state laws protected them from that responsibility.
A Nationwide Campaign to Hide Abuse
More than 130 bills seeking to create or amend child sexual abuse reporting laws have been neutered or killed due to religious opposition over the past two decades, according to a review by the Associated Press.
Many states have laws requiring professionals such as physicians, teachers, and psychotherapists to report any information pertaining to alleged child sexual abuse to authorities. In 33 states, however, clergy are exempt from those requirements if they deem the information privileged.
All of the reform bills reviewed either targeted this loophole and failed or amended the mandatory reporting statute without touching the loophole.
“The Roman Catholic Church has used its well-funded lobbying infrastructure and deep influence among lawmakers in some states to protect the privilege,” the AP stated. “Influential members of the Mormon church and Jehovah’s witnesses have also worked in statehouses and courts to preserve it in areas where their membership is high.”
“This loophole has resulted in an unknown number of predators being allowed to continue abusing children for years despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials,” the report continued.
“They believe they’re on a divine mission that justifies keeping the name and the reputation of their institution pristine,” David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, told the outlet. “So the leadership has a strong disincentive to involve the authorities, police or child protection people.”
Abuses Go Unreported
Last month, another AP investigation discovered that a Mormon bishop acting under the direction of church leaders in Arizona failed to report a church member who had confessed to sexually abusing his five-year-old daughter.
Merrill Nelson, a church lawyer and Republican lawmaker in Utah, reportedly advised the bishop against making the report because of Arizona’s clergy loophole, effectively allowing the father to allegedly rape and abuse three of his children for years.
Democratic State Sen. Victoria Steele proposed three bills in response to the case to close the loophole but told the AP that key Mormon legislators thwarted her efforts.
In Montana, a woman who was abused by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses won a $35 million jury verdict against the church because it failed to report her abuse, but in 2020 the state supreme court reversed the judgment, citing the state’s reporting exemption for clergy.
In 2013, a former Idaho police officer turned himself in for abusing children after having told 15 members of the Mormon church, but prosecutors declined to charge the institution for not reporting him because it was protected under the clergy loophole.
The Mormon church said in a written statement to the AP that a member who confesses child sex abuse “has come seeking an opportunity to reconcile with God and to seek forgiveness for their actions. … That confession is considered sacred, and in most states, is regarded as a protected religious conversation owned by the confessor.”