A history-making lawsuit could upend New Jersey elections

[link removed]


** 3/22/2024
------------------------------------------------------------

A lawsuit in New Jersey over the design of county primary ballots could make history — and send the state’s upcoming primary election into chaos after this week’s nine-hour hearing in federal court.

There’s been some developments in the ongoing legal sagas in the U.S. Supreme Court and in Georgia over former President Donald Trump’s various efforts to overturn the 2020 election. And two new lawsuits targeting voter rolls in Nevada and South Carolina highlight a growing new anti-voting tactic for Republicans.


** A Lawsuit Over New Jersey’s County Primary Ballots Could Make History
------------------------------------------------------------

On Sunday — the day before a hearing in the ongoing lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s controversial design for county primary ballots — state Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D) filed ([link removed]) a bombshell letter, calling the ballot design “unconstitutional.”

It’s the latest development in the legal saga ([link removed]) that is drawing national attention ([link removed]) as it could completely upend a contentious primary race for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by embattled Sen. Bob Menendez (D).

At the heart of the issue is an 80-year-old ballot design law that allows counties to design their primary election ballots in such a way that groups together candidates who were endorsed by party leadership in the same column, known as the “county line.” The candidates who weren’t endorsed by the county party leadership are then grouped together in a different, less prominent part of the ballot. Effectively, if you don’t rack up party endorsements to get on the “line” in enough counties, you probably won’t win the primary election.

New Jersey is the only state in the country that uses such a system, which is one of several reasons why U.S. Senate candidate and current Rep. Andy Kim (D) sued to overturn the law. Kim is locked in a competitive primary race with Tammy Murphy, the wife of Gov. Phil Murphy (D), whose potential victory hinges the most on the “broken ballot design,” as it’s sometimes known. In response to Platkin’s announcement, a spokesperson for Gov. Murphy said in a statement to Politico that “the Governor believes that a legal defense of the statute permitting bracketing would have been appropriate and consistent with the actions of prior Attorneys General.”

All of that context probably explains why a hearing for the lawsuit on Monday was packed to capacity. As the New York Times reported ([link removed]) , the courtroom was “filled beyond capacity” with everyone from lawyers and county clerks to college students and their professors, who canceled class to attend what they believe to be history in the making.

By the end of the nine-hour hearing, in which numerous witnesses testified — including Kim — the presiding judge indicated that he wanted to move quickly on a ruling. He set a Monday deadline for legal responses from both parties and warned everybody to “not file 19 letters” to support either side’s arguments.


** Trump Wants “Absolute Immunity” From All Criminal Charges
------------------------------------------------------------

Trump wants the U.S. Supreme Court to grant him “absolute immunity” from any potential criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, in a brief ([link removed]) submitted to the nation’s highest court on Tuesday. “The president cannot function, and the presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence if the president faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office,” the brief said.

This week, Trump submitted his brief on the merits — the main argument his lawyers will make — for when the Court hears oral argument ([link removed]) on April 25 to decide if the former president is immune from criminal prosecution for his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump was indicted ([link removed]) on four counts in Washington, D.C. in August of 2023 for his actions, which he appealed to the Supreme Court.

The brief hinges on the argument that prosecuting former presidents poses a “mortal threat” to the independence of the nation’s highest office, singling out President Joe Biden as an example. “Is President Biden destroying our southern border and undermining our national security abroad for unlawful electoral purposes?” Trump’s lawyers asked ([link removed]) in the brief.

Trump was also indicted in Georgia ([link removed]) for his actions after the 2020 election and, though that case isn’t in a federal court, it still has huge implications for his 2024 campaign. He’s also been indicted in New York ([link removed]) and Florida ([link removed]) — the former, for falsifying business records to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels to keep an alleged affair quiet, and the latter for mishandling of classified documents. In both cases Trump’s defense has claimed ([link removed]) presidential immunity ([link removed]) , signaling that they hope the Supreme Court’s
ruling on the matter will settle both of those cases.

It’s why Trump’s legal team is trying so hard to remove Georgia’s top prosecutor, Fani Willis, from the case. Trump’s lawyers are trying to get Willis disqualified ([link removed]) from prosecuting Trump after it was revealed that she allegedly had an affair with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she hired to lead the state’s case against Trump. A judge ruled ([link removed]) last week that Willis could remain as prosecutor so long as Wade steps down, and he promptly resigned ([link removed]) .

But now that same judge ruled ([link removed]) on Wednesday that Trump’s legal team can appeal the decision to allow prosecutor Fani Willis to remain on the case. Trump has 10 days to file an appeal.
Want even more of the week’s top stories?

Upgrade to our premium membership to receive an email tomorrow morning from Marc on the the five democracy stories you probably missed. Plus, unlock exclusive insights, breaking news updates and more for only $10/month.
UPGRADE NOW ([link removed])


** Republicans’ Latest Legal Target: Voter Rolls
------------------------------------------------------------

The Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit on Monday targeting voter rolls in Nevada ([link removed]) . It’s the fourth anti-voting lawsuit filed by the RNC thus far this year, and the second targeting voter rolls. Last week, the RNC filed a similar lawsuit in Michigan ([link removed]) and a right-wing legal group led by conservative election lawyer Cleta Mitchell filed one in South Carolina ([link removed]) .

At the heart of each lawsuit are allegations that the voter registration records in each state are somehow inaccurate, corrupted or mismanaged. And the plaintiffs in each one are asking the court to force election officials to purge each state’s records of ineligible voters and come up with new mechanisms for maintaining voter rolls.

One can’t help but wonder: what’s the deal with voter rolls and why are Republicans so eager to gain access to and purge voter registration records?

As Marc argues in his latest piece, it’s part of a larger trend of right-wing legal attacks on elections. As chair of the RNC over the past seven years, Ronna McDaniel did not execute an effective legal strategy in the GOP’s anti-voting efforts. So it makes sense that since attorney Michael Whatley ([link removed]) took over as the new RNC chair late last month his first moves have been to beef up the RNC’s legal team.

Despite mass layoffs, Whatley moved forward with three high profile legal additions and promised ([link removed]) to “work around the clock to file aggressive litigation where needed.” In a letter to RNC staff, he affirmed ([link removed]) that “[t]he RNC’s new posture as it relates to this litigation will be an aggressive, proactive effort.”


** OPINION: A Strong Democracy Requires True Representation
------------------------------------------------------------
[link removed]

Diversity is crucial for the integrity of our democracy. We need diverse representation where decisions are made to equalize opportunities denied to Black and other marginalized communities for far too long, writes NAACP Legal Defense Fund President Janai Nelson. Read it here. ([link removed]) ➡️


** What We’re Doing
------------------------------------------------------------

There’s no person more knowledgeable about the politics and impact of sheriffs than Democracy Docket contributor Jessica Pishko ([link removed]) . So color us excited to read her new book on the subject. “The Highest Law in the Land,” which is now available to preorder ([link removed]) , investigates modern-day sheriffs, the troubling role they play in their communities, national politics and American life. But don’t just take our word for it, here’s what her publisher, Penguin Random House, has to say about the book:

Journalist Jessica Pishko deploys a real gumshoe reporting style and prefers to be in the room to get her story. She’s spent hours with the sheriffs she reports on. She’s attended far-right rallies where prominent sheriffs blast their rallying cries in order to get a sense of the audiences they’re reaching. She has signed up for Constitutional Sheriff training programs to immerse herself in the rhetoric.

The result is a ground-shaking revelation about how this militant and unchecked law enforcement contingent sees itself and sees the rest of us.

The book comes out Sept. 17 and you can preorder a copy here ([link removed]) .

Republican and conservative groups are filing lawsuits targeting states' voter info under the guise of "cleaning the rolls." But the real motivations behind the lawsuits are to purge voters and facilitate mass voter challenges. Marc and Paige break down what's happening in the latest episode of Defending Democracy. Listen on Apple ([link removed]) , Spotify ([link removed]) or wherever you get your podcasts ([link removed]) , or watch it on YouTube ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed]

This is our free daily newsletter — help keep it that way and support ([link removed]) our work. You can upgrade ([link removed]) to our premium subscription to unlock exclusive insights, news and more. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences ([link removed][UNIQID]&c=b3a650c307&utm_source=Democracy+Docket+Newsletters&utm_campaign=5ab7a41876-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_03_07_09_02_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-5146e64680-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=5ab7a41876&mc_eid=UNIQID) or unsubscribe from this list ([link removed][UNIQID]&c=b3a650c307&utm_source=Democracy+Docket+Newsletters&utm_campaign=5ab7a41876-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_03_07_09_02_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-5146e64680-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=5ab7a41876&mc_eid=UNIQID) .

This email was sent to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])
why did I get this? ([link removed]) unsubscribe from this list ([link removed]) update subscription preferences ([link removed])
Democracy Docket LLC . 250 Massachusetts Ave NW Ste 400 . Washington, DC 20001-5825 . USA