Stephen Miller and co. come after Maricopa County.

[link removed]
2/9/2024

============================================================

Former President Donald Trump has found himself in legal hot water for years now, but his position has perhaps never been more perilous than it is right now. This week alone, the four-time indicted ex-president saw his presidential immunity argument go up in flames in the D.C. Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that could bar Trump from ever holding presidential office again.

A close ally to Trump also made legal waves — America First Legal Foundation, led by former Trump advisor Stephen Miller, filed a wide-ranging lawsuit challenging Maricopa County, Arizona’s election policies.

D.C. Circuit Rules Trump Is Not Immune From Election Subversion Charges

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ** affirmed ([link removed])
a lower court ** ruling ([link removed])
that Trump is not absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for “official acts” he undertook while serving as president, including his role in his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

In a unanimous ruling, the panel — consisting of an H.W. Bush appointee and two Biden appointees — agreed with district court Judge Tanya Chutkan’s December 2023 ** decision ([link removed])
that declined to ** dismiss ([link removed])
Trump’s federal election subversion ** indictment ([link removed])
on presidential immunity grounds.

“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” the opinion reads.

Three core arguments presented by Trump’s legal team were rejected including:
* That the court lacked the power to review his official actions under the separation of powers doctrine,
* That policy considerations grounded in separation of powers require immunity to avoid an intrusion on the executive branch and
* That the U.S. Constitution’s Impeachment Judgment Clause forbids criminal prosecution of a former president absent an impeachment and conviction by Congress.

The panel added that it could not “sanction [Trump’s] apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.”

Trump’s lawyers have, for months, ** fought ([link removed])
against and sought to delay the trial as much as possible, but Tuesday’s decision marks a significant loss for the former president in those efforts. The decision greenlights Smith’s case against Trump to proceed to the trial stage for now, however Trump’s campaign has ** said ([link removed].)
he will appeal, which could further delay proceedings. Trump has until Feb. 12 to appeal.

Just last week, Chutkan ** canceled ([link removed])
the previously scheduled March 4 trial start date while the courts hammer out Trump’s immunity claim. A new trial is not expected to be set until the nation’s high court weighs in.
** ([link removed])

** The Justices Must Choose: Trump or the Constitution ([link removed])

By Rakim Brooks

Supreme Court Skeptical of Kicking Trump off the Ballot

On Thursday, in what could shape up to be a historic and landmark case for democracy, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a Colorado lawsuit that seeks to keep Trump off of the primary ballot due to his alleged incitement of the Jan 6. 2021 insurrection, in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

The ** lawsuit ([link removed])
, filed in September by Republican and affiliated voters, alleges that Trump attempted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power on Jan. 6, 2021 in what amounted to engaging in insurrection. In the last days of 2023, in a decision that sent shock waves through the political world, the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the voters, kicking Trump off the ballot.

The court paused the decision until Jan. 4 pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which both Trump and the Colorado Republican Party did. The Supreme Court granted Trump’s appeal on Jan. 5, which led to Thursday’s oral argument.

During the argument, Trump’s lawyer focused on three main claims:
* Section 3 requires enacting legislation from Congress
* The attack on the Capitol was not an insurrection but rather a riot and
* The president is not an officer of the United States.

Colorado voters’ lawyer, meanwhile, contended the exact opposite on all three fronts.

The nine justices, liberal and conservative alike, seemed unpersuaded by Colorado voters’ arguments, with many prognosticators and legal experts ** predicting ([link removed])
an ** overwhelming ([link removed])
, and perhaps even ** unanimous ([link removed])
, decision in favor of Trump.

Marc and Paige breakdown the five big takeaways from oral argument and offer insight into how the justices might rule in the latest episode of Defending Democracy. Want the full play-by-play? Check out our live coverage on ** X ()
and ** Threads ([link removed])
.
** ([link removed])

Stephen Miller's Legal Group Launches Full-Fledged Legal Attack on Maricopa County Voters

Another Trump-world figure made news on the democracy front Tuesday night. The America First Legal Foundation, a far-right legal group led by former Trump advisor Stephen Miller, ** filed ([link removed])
an exhaustive ** lawsuit ([link removed])
against Maricopa County, Arizona, challenging a laundry list of its election procedures. The complaint claims that Maricopa County has failed to properly administer elections “for years” and challenges provisions relating to signature verification, vote centers, ballot cure and chain of custody policies and more.

Regarding signature verification, the lawsuit alleges the county improperly carries out signature verification because it uses software to aid in the verification process. "Human beings — and only human beings — may perform signature verification,” according to the conservative group. The lawsuit also takes issue with the county's practice of calling voters in order to resolve questionable signatures.

The complaint also alleges that Maricopa County’s practice of estimating ballot counts at one facility and then securely counting them at another violates required chain-of-custody procedures — a longtime right-wing gripe. The plaintiffs also argue Maricopa County’s utilization of “unstaffed” drop boxes is also illegal and “creates a significant and unreasonable risk” of “unlawful ballot harvesting or other fraud.”

Voting centers used by counties, which allow for all county residents to vote in a multitude of locations within that same county, not only violate Arizona law but discriminate against white voters, according to the complaint.
* Voting centers have also come under attack from Arizona’s Republican-controlled House, which passed ** legislation ([link removed])
just last week in a party-line vote that would ban voting centers in the state entirely. Currently 12 of the state’s 15 counties make use of the convenient practice.
* The legislation would additionally bar county recorders from establishing on-site early voting locations. Democrats have been working on “exposing” the restrictive legislation, which they argue would pose an exceptionally difficult burden on the state’s more populous counties, including Maricopa.

Maricopa County has long been a right-wing ** target ([link removed])
, which is not a coincidence as the county is home to the ** highest number ([link removed])
of registered Democrats and is the most populous county in the state. Much of the complaint is devoted to lamenting the perceived failures of the county’s election administration.

The lawsuit is the second in as many weeks filed by Republicans challenging expansive voting policies in the state. Last week, Republican legislative leaders ** filed ([link removed])
a ** lawsuit ([link removed])
against multiple provisions of the state’s Elections Procedures Manual.

OPINION: The 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Clause Was Made for This Moment
** ([link removed])

Some find the idea of barring Trump from the ballot worrisome. It shouldn’t be. Noah Bookbinder, the president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) — which brought the 14th Amendment case — argues why. ** Read more ([link removed])
. ➡️

What We’re Doing

We love democracy and we love that you do, too! That's why we have two special Valentines Day bundles just for you. Shop our ** Opposites Attract Bundle ([link removed])
and save $3 or shop our ** Paw-lentine's Day Bundle ([link removed])
and save $5. Shop before they are gone!

We are also listening to part one of 5-4’s new four-part series discussing the origin and rise of the Federalist Society.
** Check it out here ([link removed])
.
** Democracy Docket Twitter ([link removed])
** Democracy Docket Website (democracydocket.com)
** Democracy Docket Instagram ([link removed])
** Democracy Docket Facebook ([link removed])
** Defending Democracy Podcast ([link removed])
We depend on the support of our readers to keep bringing you the latest on the fight for democracy. You can help ** keep our content free ([link removed])
and available for all today. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.

Copyright © 2023 Democracy Docket, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
250 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20001