Connect with us

Politics

DOJ Sues Arizona for Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote in Presidential Elections or by Mail

Published

on

The law appears to go against a Supreme Court decision made nearly a decade ago.


Arizona Election Law

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Arizona on Tuesday over a recent law that requires voters to provide proof of citizenship to vote in presidential elections or by mail.

The law was passed along party lines in the Republican legislature and was signed by Gov. Doug Ducey (R) in March, though it is not set to take effect until January. In addition to requiring voters to provide documentation like birth certificates, passports, or naturalization papers, it also mandates that voters who are newly registered must provide proof of address.

Republican proponents of the law say it is necessary to prevent voter fraud, which supporters of former President Donald Trump have argued caused him to lose the election by narrow margins in the state. However, numerous investigations into the state’s largest county, Maricopa, have found there were no widespread instances of fraud that would have swayed the election, including a recent probe by the state’s Republican attorney general.

As a result, critics contend there is no reason for the law, which also appears to be blatantly unconstitutional under a previous Supreme Court ruling against a similar policy implemented in Arizona.

For just under two decades, Arizona has mandated voters to provide proof of citizenship to cast ballots in state-wide elections, but in 2013, the high court ruled the state could not enforce the requirement for federal elections.

Despite the clear precedent, Republicans decided to pass the law, even after their own lawyers told them it was largely unconstitutional and would likely be thrown out in court.

Beyond the legal questions, voting rights advocates also say the restrictions could impact hundreds of thousands of people who have not recently updated their voter registration or driver’s license.

Experts argue that, historically, these kinds of requirements have discriminated against voters who lack easy access to the proper documentation, including communities of color and low-income folks, as well as students, the elderly, and Native Americans.

DOJ Lawsuit

The question of voting access was also a point the DOJ made in its lawsuit. 

In a press release, Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division asserted that the “onerous” proof of citizenship requirement amounts to a “textbook violation” of the National Voter Registration Act, which made it easier to register to vote, and also goes against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

“Arizona has passed a law that turns the clock back on progress by imposing unlawful and unnecessary requirements that would block eligible voters from the registration rolls for certain federal elections,” she said. “The Justice Department will continue to use every available tool to protect all Americans’ right to vote and to ensure that their voices are heard.”

In addition to arguing that the Arizona law infringes on the past Supreme Court ruling, the department’s lawsuit noted that the federal voter registration form for voters nationwide “already includes an attestation demonstrating a prospective voter’s citizenship.”

Arizona, the suit pointed out, uses that attestation for in-person voting in federal Congressional elections, so there is no reason it should not be good enough for presidential elections and mail-in ballots.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Guardian) (The Washington Post

Politics

House Report Details Violent Threats Against Election Workers Driven by Misinformation

Published

on

Election administrators specifically flagged election falsehoods promoted by Trump and restrictive election laws that have been put in place by Republican state lawmakers.


Oversight Committee Investigation

The House Oversight Committee published a jarring report Thursday outlining in grisly detail the real-world, lasting effects of the ongoing election misinformation campaign spearheaded by former President Donald Trump and his allies.

The report is part of an investigation into the impact Trump’s lies have had on election administration and American democracy at large. The findings published Thursday draw from comments made by the leaders of election worker organizations in four battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Ohio and Texas.

“The investigation uncovered that coordinated campaigns of election disinformation are disrupting the crucial work of local election officials, subjecting these Americans to violent threats, and overwhelming the limited resources available to provide accurate information to voters and protect the integrity of our democratic system,” the panel wrote.

“The investigation revealed that local election officials were singled out by politicians with a national platform, leading to unprecedented threats and harassment.”

The 21-page report mentions a number of examples, including one election official in Texas whose home address leaked after he was “singled out” by “out-of-state candidates.”

“Social media messages included, ‘hunt him down,’ ‘needs to leave Texas and U.S. as soon as possible,’ and ‘hang him when convicted for fraud and let his lifeless body hang in public until maggots drip out of his mouth,” the official told the members of Congress. “Perhaps most disturbing, messages threatening his children, saying, ‘I think we should end your bloodline.’”

Another instance centered around an election supervisor in Florida who was targeted by many prominent conservative figures, including commentator and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, as well as far-right political operative Roger Stone.

According to the panel, the two men spread outlandish conspiracies about the worker, publicized his office phone number, and encouraged listeners to call the supervisor to tell him “that they are watching him, that he is a piece of crap, and that these are their elections.”

The administrator’s office “was inundated with phone calls from angry conspiracy theorists from across the country,” the report stated.

Ties to Trump and GOP Election Laws

In addition to the Trump allies who targeted election workers simply trying to do their jobs, the committee’s investigation also explicitly drew connections to the former president himself.

“We had many people demanding to know exactly when their ballot was counted because ‘the President told them to,’” an Arizona election official told the representatives.

Election officials also detailed how harmful the restrictive election laws passed by Republican lawmakers have been. These laws, they said, are “impossible to enact,” can be very expensive for taxpayers, and have “magnified the belief” in election disinformation — thus further perpetuating the cycle of violence against election workers.

The report further emphasized how these conditions have pushed many election workers out of their jobs, creating a need for labor in an already meager pool. To address these issues, the panel outlined several executive and legislative steps.

At the executive level, the representatives proposed the creation of a federal agency to support local efforts to combat misinformation. The members also called on the Justice Department to ramp up federal prosecution of the threats and harassment of election administrators.

The committee additionally urged their fellow members of Congress to allocate funding for election offices to increase both physical and cyber security efforts and counter threats against workers.

See what others are saying: (Axios) (UPI) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading

Politics

Rep. Khanna Renews Call for Congress to Impose Supreme Court Term Limits

Published

on

The congressman told Rogue Rocket about his proposal, which would limit justices to 18-year terms and set appointments every two years.


The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act

Congress has faced increased pressure to make reforms to the Supreme Court in the wake of the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Several lawmakers have been pushing for changes, such as imposing term limits on the high court’s justices. Among those leading the efforts are Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who has been working on the issue for several years now, and proposed the Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act in 2020.

Khanna initially introduced the legislation in 2020 and again in 2021, but has since been urging Congress to take up the measure. The proposal would set 18-year term limits for all Supreme Court justices but allow termed-out members to serve on lower courts.

It would also change the appointment process so every president can nominate a new justice during each odd year, giving them the power to nominate two justices per term. If for any reason there are more than nine justices, the nine most recently appointed would serve on the court.

The bill additionally mandates that the Senate must act on a nomination within 120 days or the nominee will automatically be seated, so if one party holds the senate and another holds the presidency, the senate majority could not indefinitely block the president’s nominees.

“The founders never intended for people to be on the Supreme Court for 40, 50 years. The idea was people would go on the court at the end of their legal careers as sort of a final service to the country,” Khanna told Rogue Rocket. “Now, you have people gaming the system. You have Clarence Thomas, for example, appointed in his early forties […] it makes no sense that 50 years after the president who appointed him, he may still be making decisions.

Khanna Outlines Arguments in Favor of Term Limits

“My view is that by having people on the court for so many years, [they] lose touch with what’s going on in modern life,” he continued. “So you have a court packed with people who may not be in touch with what the climate change issues are of this generation, of what the challenges are for getting an abortion in this generation. And having 18 years ensures that justices don’t lose touch with actual life as people live it.”

“You don’t want too much distance between the democratic legitimacy that a Supreme Court justice has, which is that a president elected by the people is appointing them and their decision making,” the Congressman stated. “The longer they’re on the court, the harder it is to argue for that democratic legitimacy. You’re saying, ‘oh, come on, someone appointed them 30 or 40 years ago, and that gives them that legitimacy now from we the people.’ I just think that that’s a harder argument to make than if they were there of up to 12 or 18, 20 years.”

When asked if term limits would be imposed on the current Supreme Court justices should the bill pass, Khanna said that the matter was “open to interpretation.”

“I would want an immediate push out, but you may have people who would argue that you can’t make it retroactive, you have to make it going forward,” he continued. “And that is a legal question that would have to be settled and is not clearly settled. I do think if you made it going forward, you would have a lot of support.” 

“I think even people like Justice Roberts or others, if it goes up to the Supreme Court, would likely support it because they much prefer term limits to the expansion of the court. And I think if that court strikes down something like term limits, they know that the next measure would be expansion.”

On the topic of support for the bill, Khanna said there is growing momentum both among the public and within the federal government, noting that the commission President Joe Biden assembled to look into Supreme Court reforms has expressed interest in term limits.

“The commission, while they haven’t formally recommended the term limits, has said that that is the one that’s most plausible. That’s what a lot of the experts agreed on is a likely path,” he said. “Term limits is something that even Republican voters agree on, Independents agree on. So when you poll, a lot of people say, ‘yeah, that intuitively makes sense,’ and it’s not political.”

Khanna also echoed that comment when asked about whether his proposal would require a Constitutional amendment. 

“The president’s own Supreme Court commission recommended this as the most plausible path,” he asserted. “Now, you can’t strip the justice of being a judge […] but you can say that people should be limited in the amount of years on the Supreme Court and many legal professors and experts have looked at it and said that is constitutional.”

“I think we have too much deference for people who are Supreme Court justices, are somehow almost philosopher kings, and that they’re coming on as independent and they’re going to make these decisions. Really, they are political actors,” Khanna concluded. 

“Obviously, we have to abide by Supreme Court decisions because we are a nation of rule of law, but we shouldn’t afford them this sense [that they’re] sort of holier than thou. And term limits, I think, helps remind people that this is a political process and these are political actors making those decisions.”

See what others are saying: (Axios) (The Hill) (Forbes)

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Refuses to Answer Questions in New York AG Probe

Published

on

Although he wouldn’t speak under oath, Trump called James “racist” on Truth Social and labeled her investigation a “radical witch hunt.”


“I Plead the Fifth”

Former President Donald Trump testified in front of New York Attorney General Letitia James and her team of lawyers Wednesday morning but said in a statement he refused to answer any of their questions.

“Under the advice of my counsel and for all of the above reasons, I declined to answer the questions under the rights and privileges afforded to every citizen under the United States Constitution,” Trump said, referring to his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

He was seen leaving Trump Tower for a scheduled deposition with the investigators, who have said they possess significant evidence that the Trump Organization illegally inflated and deflated the value of its real estate assets on paper to obtain better terms from lenders, insurance companies, and tax authorities.

In the past, Trump has criticized his political adversaries for pleading the fifth, suggesting that doing so is a sign of guilt.

“The mob takes the fifth,” he previously said. “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”

“I once asked, ‘If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?’” Trump acknowledged in a Wednesday statement. “Now I know the answer to that question.”

“When your family, your company, and all the people in your orbit have become the targets of an unfounded, politically motivated Witch Hunt supported by lawyers, prosecutors, and the Fake News Media, you have no choice,” he continued.

Trump Attacks Letitia James

On Tuesday night, Trump announced his arrival in New York City via Truth Social.

“Seeing racist N.Y.S. Attorney General tomorrow, for a continuation of the greatest Witch Hunt in U.S. history!” he wrote. “My great company, and myself, are being attacked from all sides. Banana Republic!”

On Wednesday morning, Trump used the taxpayer-funded Office of Donald J. Trump to release four videos in emails with the subject line “ICYMI: Letitia James’ Radical Witch Hunt.”

They showcased past quotations from James in which she expressed her desire to take down Trump and called him an illegitimate president.

Trump also ripped into James on Truth Social from inside her office Wednesday.

“At the very plush, beautiful, and expensive A.G.’s office,” he wrote. “Nice working conditions, as people are being murdered all over New York – and she spends her time and effort on trying to ‘get Trump.’”

The drama in New York came just two days after the FBI executed a search warrant on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida Monday, reportedly to investigate claims that he mishandled White House documents.

The following day, a federal appeals court rejected his attempt to block a House committee from obtaining his tax returns.

See what others are saying: (CNN) (Newsweek) (CNBC)

Continue Reading