- The California GOP has installed multiple, unofficial ballot drop-off boxes in Southern California, but Secretary of State Alex Padilla says those boxes are illegal and could result in felonies.
- Padilla has also argued the existence of such boxes could lead to confusion for absentee voters.
- The GOP, citing a 2016 law allowing third parties to collect and deliver ballots, argued that the boxes are legal. The GOP has repeatedly condemned this law before now.
- Padilla has said the 2016 law referenced by the GOP requires voters to designate a specific person to collect their ballot, something a drop box cannot do.
California GOP Sets Unofficial Drop Boxes
Republicans in California have illegally set up multiple, unofficial absentee ballot drop boxes in at least three counties, according to Secretary of State Alex Padilla.
Despite those drop boxes not being official locations established by local election offices, the GOP has listed them as such, reportedly setting them up outside of churches, gyms, gun stores, and gas stations.
On Sunday, Padilla said these drop boxes — which have been found in Los Angeles, Orange, and Fresno Counties — mislead voters and violate state law.
“My office is coordinating with local officials to address the multiple reports of unauthorized ballot drop boxes,” he told the Orange County Register. “Californians should only use official ballot drop boxes that have been deployed and secured by their county elections office.”
According to Padilla, it’s even possible that these drop boxes could result in felony charges, with his office noting that criminal charges for erecting or advertising unofficial ballot boxes could result in a two to four-year prison sentence.
GOP Defends Putting Up Ballot Boxes
The California GOP has defended setting up the drop boxes. It has argued that it is operating under a law that allows third parties to collect and deliver ballots to election officials.
For example, in California, the law allows volunteers and campaign workers to go directly to the homes of voters to collect completed ballots. State Democrats have even held “ballot parties” where attendees fill out their ballots before leaving them with volunteers who later return them to election officials.
Because that law was written by state Democrats and later signed into law by then-Governor Jerry Brown in 2016, the GOP said on Twitter that it was “not sure why people are all of a sudden surprised.”
“If a congregation/business or other group provides the option to its parishioners/associates/ or colleagues to drop off their ballot in a safe location, with people they trust, rather than handing it over to a stranger who knocks on their door – what is wrong with that?” it added.
California Democrats wrote the law (Assembly Bill 1921). Democrats voted for the legislation and Governor Jerry Brown signed it into law. This procedure has been in place since 2016 – not sure why people are all of a sudden surprised. https://t.co/2EB1PLuZCt— CAGOP (@CAGOP) October 11, 2020
The National Republican Congressional Committee also suggested that Democrats are “only ok with ballot harvesting” when they’re the ones doing it.
Since the introduction of this law, the GOP has criticized it extensively. In May, the GOP sued Governor Gavin Newsom over the practice ahead of a special election.
Democrats have justified the law by saying that it can increase voter turnout for people living with disabilities, as well as for other people who might not be able to make it to the polls.
Still, there is a key difference between how that 2016 law works and how the California GOP is using it. Specifically, Padilla said these drop boxes are illegal because that law requires a voter to designate a person to return their ballot; however, no one is present at these drop boxes.
On top of that, Padilla said the unofficial drop boxes don’t meet security requirements.
Now, Padilla’s office has said that it will be sending updated guidance to both Democrats and Republicans, warning them that they could face criminal charges if they use unsanctioned drop boxes.
If you’re a California voter, you can go to the secretary of state’s website to find official drop-off locations.
Confusion in Other States Over Absentee Voting Rules
COVID-19 has brought about unprecedented change to the American voter system. In return, that has brought with it confusion over how voters in each state are allowed to cast ballots.
In North Carolina, at least 6,800 ballots are in limbo because of errors voters made while filling out those ballots. Notably, almost half are from people of color.
While the state’s Board of Elections said last month that it would allow voters to fix those errors, a federal judge halted the plan on Oct. 3, arguing that it changed the rules too close to Election Day.
North Carolina is a key swing state where both President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Joe Biden are running a tight race. In fact, in 2008, Barack Obama only won it by 14,000 votes.
In Pennsylvania, a federal judge has now denied the Trump campaign and the Republican Party’s attempts to make drop boxes in Pennsylvania unconstitutional.
In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott issued a proclamation at the beginning of the month that blocked Texas counties from setting up more than one absentee ballot drop box location during the early election period.
That order was overturned on Friday by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, who called the order “perplexing” since it didn’t affect counties’ abilities to set up multiple drop-off locations on Election Day and since multiple drop-off locations had already been set up.
Pitman also argued that Abbott’s proclamation created confusion among voters and disproportionately affected elderly voters, voters living with disabilities, and voters in populous counties.
On Saturday, Pitman’s injunction on the proclamation was temporarily halted by an appeals court judge. The order will now stay in effect until the court rules on the matter.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Newsweek) (The Hill)
Supreme Court Rules High School Football Coach Can Pray on Field
All of our rights are “hanging in the balance,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a dissenting opinion.
Court’s Conservatives Break With 60 Years of History
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a former high school football coach who lost his job after he refused to stop praying on the field at the end of games.
Joseph Kennedy, who was hired at Bremerton High School in Washington State in 2008, kneeled at the 50-yard line after games for years and prayed. He was often joined by some of his players, as well as others from the opposing team.
In 2015, the school asked him not to pray if it interfered with his duties or involved students.
Shortly after, Kennedy was placed on paid administrative leave, and after a school official recommended that his contract not be renewed for the 2016 season he did not reapply for the position.
Kennedy sued the school, eventually appealing the case to the Supreme Court.
The justices voted 6 to 3, with the liberal justices dissenting.
“Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse republic — whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.
“Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance,” he added.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion.
“Today’s decision is particularly misguided because it elevates the religious rights of a school official, who voluntarily accepted public employment and the limits that public employment entails, over those of his students, who are required to attend school and who this court has long recognized are particularly vulnerable and deserving of protection,” she said.
“In doing so, the court sets us further down a perilous path in forcing states to entangle themselves with religion, with all of our rights hanging in the balance.”
The defense in the case argued that the public nature of Kennedy’s prayers put pressure on students to join him, and that he was acting in his capacity as a public employee, not a private citizen.
Kennedy’s lawyers contended that such an all-encompassing definition of his job duties denied him his right to self-expression on school grounds.
“This is just so awesome,” Kennedy said in a statement following the decision. “All I’ve ever wanted was to be back on the field with my guys … I thank God for answering our prayers and sustaining my family through this long battle.”
Religious Liberty or Separation of Church and State?
Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court decided that the government cannot organize or promote prayer in public schools, and it has since generally abided by that jurisprudence.
But the court led by Chief Justice John Roberts has been increasingly protective of religious expression, especially after the confirmation of three conservative Trump-appointed judges.
Reactions to the ruling were mostly split between liberals who saw the separation of church and state being dissolved and conservatives who hailed it as a victory for religious liberty.
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which represented the Bremerton school district, said in a statement that the ruling “gutted decades of established law that protected students’ religious freedom.”
“If Coach Kennedy were named Coach Akbar and he had brought a prayer blanket to the 50 yard line to pray after a game,” one Twitter user said, “I’ve got a 401(k) that says this illegitimate, Christofascist SCOTUS rules 6-3 against him.”
“The people defending former Coach Kennedy’s right to kneel on the field after the game to pray – are the ones condemning Colin Kaepernick’s right to kneel on the field to protest police brutality against Black Americans,” another user wrote.
Others, like Republican Congressmember Ronny Jackson and former Secretary of State for the Trump administration Mike Pompeo, celebrated the ruling for protecting religious freedom and upholding what they called the right to pray.
“I am excited to build on this victory and continue securing our inalienable right to religious freedom,” Pompeo wrote.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (Fox News)
Rep. Schiff Urges DOJ to Investigate Trump for Election Crimes: “There’s Enough Evidence”
“When the Justice Department finds evidence of criminal potential criminal wrongdoing, they need to investigate,” the congressman said.
Schiff Says DOJ Should Launch Inquiry
Rep. Adam Schiff (R-Ca.) told Rogue Rocket that he believes there is “certainly […] enough evidence for the Justice Department to open an investigation” into possible election crimes committed by former President Donald Trump.
Schiff, who took the lead in questioning witnesses testifying before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection on Tuesday, said that it will be up to the DOJ to determine whether “they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of criminal activity, but added that an investigation must first be launched.
“Donald Trump should be treated like any other citizen,” the congressman said, noting that a federal judge in California has already ruled that Trump and his allies “likely” engaged in multiple federal criminal acts. “When the Justice Department finds evidence of criminal potential criminal wrongdoing, they need to investigate.”
“One of the concerns I have is it’s a year and a half since these events. And while […] there’s an investigation going on in Fulton County by the district attorney, I don’t see a federal grand jury convened in Atlanta looking into this, and I think it’s fair to ask why,” Schiff continued, referencing the ongoing inquiry into Trump’s attempts to overturn the election in Georgia.
“Normally, the Justice Department doesn’t wait for Congress to go first. They pursue evidence and they have the subpoena power. They’re often much more agile than the Congress. And I think it’s important that it not just be the lower-level people who broke into the Capitol that day and committed those acts of violence who are under the microscope,” he continued. “I think anyone who engaged in criminal activity trying to overturn the election where there’s evidence that they may have engaged in criminal acts should be investigated.”
Schiff Takes Aim at DOJ’s Handling of Committee Subpoenas
Schiff also expressed frustration with how the DOJ has handled referrals the committee has made for former Trump officials who have refused to comply with subpoenas to testify before the panel.
“We have referred four people for criminal prosecution who have obstructed our investigation. The Justice Department has only moved forward with two of them,” he stated. “That’s not as powerful an incentive as we would like. The law requires the Justice Department to present these cases to the grand jury when we refer them, and by only referring half of them, it sends a very mixed message about whether congressional subpoenas need to be complied with.”
As far as why the congressman thought the DOJ has chosen to operate in this manner in regards to the Jan. 6 panel’s investigation, he said he believes “the leadership of the department is being very cautious.”
“I think that they want to make sure that the department avoids controversy if possible, doesn’t do anything that could even be perceived as being political,” Schiff continued. “And while I appreciate that sentiment […] at the same time, the rule of law has to be applied equally to everyone. If you’re so averse, […] it means that you’re giving effectively a pass or immunity to people who may have broken the law. That, too, is a political decision, and I think it’s the wrong decision.”
On the Note of Democracy
Schiff emphasized the importance of the American people working together to protect democracy in the fallout of the insurrection.
“I really think it’s going to require a national movement of people to step up to preserve our democracy. This is not something that I think Congress can do alone. We’re going to try to protect those institutions, but Republicans are fighting this tooth and nail,” he asserted. “It’s difficult to get through a Senate where Mitch McConnell can filibuster things.”
“We don’t have the luxury of despair when it comes to what we’re seeing around us. We have the obligation to do what generations did before us, and that is defend our democracy,” the congressman continued. “We had to go to war in World War II to defend our democracy from the threat of fascism. You know, we’re not called upon to make those kinds of sacrifices. We see the bravery of people in Ukraine putting their lives on the line to defend their country, their sovereignty, their democracy. Thank God we’re not asked to do that.”
“So what we have to do is, by comparison, so much easier. But it does require us to step up, to be involved, to rally around local elections officials who are doing their jobs, who are facing death threats, and to protect them and to push back against efforts around the country to pass laws to make it easier for big liars to overturn future elections.”
“We are not passengers in all of this, unable to affect the course of our country. We can, you know, grab the rudder and steer this country in the direction that we want.”
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (CNN)
Senate Passes Bill to Help Veterans Suffering From Burn Pit Exposure
For Biden, who believes his son Beau may have died from brain cancer caused by burn pits, the issue is personal.
Veterans to Get Better Healthcare
The Senate voted 84-14 Thursday to pass a bill that would widely expand healthcare resources and benefits to veterans who were exposed to burn pits while deployed overseas.
Until about 2010, the Defense Department used burn pits to dispose of trash from military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations, dumping things like plastics, rubber, chemical mixtures, and medical waste into pits and burning them with jet fuel.
Numerous studies and reports have demonstrated a link between exposure to the toxic fumes emitted by the pits and health problems such as respiratory ailments and rare cancers. The DoD has estimated that nearly 3.5 million veterans may have inhaled enough smoke to suffer from related health problems.
For years, the Department of Veterans Affairs resisted calls to recognize the link between exposure and illness, arguing it had not been scientifically proven and depriving many veterans of disability benefits and medical reimbursements.
Over the past year, however, the VA relented, awarding presumptive benefit status to veterans exposed to burn pits, but it only applied to those who were diagnosed with asthma, rhinitis, and sinusitis within 10 years of their service.
The latest bill would add 23 conditions to the list of what the VA covers, including hypertension. It also calls for investments in VA health care facilities, claims processing, and the VA workforce, while strengthening federal research on toxic exposure.
The bill will travel to the House of Representatives next, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged to push it through quickly. Then it will arrive at the White House for final approval.
An Emotional Cause for Many
Ahead of a House vote on an earlier version of the bill in March, comedian John Stewart publically slammed Congress for taking so long to act.
“They’re all going to say the same thing. ‘We want to do it. We want to support the veterans. But we want to do it the right way. We want to be responsible,’” he said. “You know what would have been nice? If they had been responsible 20 years ago and hadn’t spent trillions of dollars on overseas adventures.”
“They could have been responsible in the seventies when they banned this kind of thing in the United States,” he continued. “You want to do it here? Let’s dig a giant fucking pit, 10 acres long, and burn everything in Washington with jet fuel. And then let me know how long they want to wait before they think it’s going to cause some health problems.”
For President Biden, the issue is personal. He has said he believes burn pits may have caused the brain cancer that killed his son Beau in 2015.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer applauded the fact the long-awaited benefits could soon arrive for those impacted.
“The callousness of forcing veterans who got sick as they were fighting for us because of exposure to these toxins to have to fight for years in the VA to get the benefits they deserved — Well, that will soon be over. Praise God,” he said during a speech on Thursday.
A 2020 member survey by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America found that 86% of respondents were exposed to burn pits or other toxins.
Although burn pits have largely been scaled down, the DoD has not officially banned them, and at least nine were still in operation in April 2019.