SCOTUS hears Trump immunity arguments.

[link removed]


** 4/26/2024
------------------------------------------------------------

This week, Arizona Republicans who backed the “Big Lie” ([link removed]) of mass voter fraud in the 2020 election were hit with a sweeping indictment in the state. Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two of Arizona’s most fervent election deniers make the case for banning the use of electronic voting machines.

In Washington, D.C., the nation’s highest court weighs whether a former president is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts in what may be Donald Trump’s most ambitious attempt to skirt the criminal charges against him.

In other states, courts sided, at least partially, with challenges to felony disenfranchisement laws that strip voting rights from people with criminal backgrounds.


** Bad News For Election Deniers
------------------------------------------------------------

The legal reckoning over the litany of falsehoods pushed by Trump and his allies has led to an Arizona indictment ([link removed]) charging over a dozen individuals with felonies.

The case ([link removed]) was filed in connection with a scheme in which 11 fake electors named in the indictment, including the then-head of the Arizona Republican Party Kelli Ward and state Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, allegedly tried to cast false electoral votes in order to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.

Seven other unnamed co-defendants also face criminal counts of forgery and tampering with a public record. Other news outlets have identified White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Trump campaign staffer Michael Roman and former Trump campaign lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Boris Ephystein and Christina Bobbs as among the unnamed.

Also in Arizona, prominent election denier and U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake received yet another election-related defeat when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to accept her lawsuit that seeks to ban the use of electronic vote-counting machines in the state.

The decision came two years ([link removed]) after Lake, along with fellow GOP election denier and former Arizona secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem, alleged that Arizona’s use of machines violates their constitutional right to vote because the vote tallies “cannot, without objective evaluation, be trusted to accurately show which candidates actually received the most votes.”

In July, a judge dismissed the case and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. They then appealed to the 9th Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal. Lake then asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, which it denied.

The suit stems from Lake’s failed gubernatorial bid and Finchem’s failed ([link removed]) secretary of state bid in Arizona in 2022. She and Finchem have used demonstrably false claims to undermine the voting process since the 2022 midterm elections.

Both Lake and Finchem unreservedly supported former President Donald Trump’s onslaught of lies about widespread voter fraud occurring during the 2020 presidential election. When asked about the 2020 election in a CNN interview ([link removed]) in March, Lake said the 2020 contest was “a rigged election. I believe it was.”

In March of 2023, an Arizona judge ordered sanctions against Finchem and his attorney in connection with Finchem’s lawsuit ([link removed]) challenging his 2022 loss, stating that Finchem’s claims were “groundless.”Separately, Lake and her attorney were also sanctioned ([link removed]) for making “false factual statements to the court.”

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trump’s Immunity

Trump’s ongoing bid to evade criminal prosecution entered the nation’s highest court this week, when the Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether the former president enjoys absolute immunity ([link removed]) from acts that allegedly occurred while he was in office.

The case centers on a federal indictment ([link removed]) that the U.S. Department of Justice, led by special counsel Jack Smith, filed against Trump in August of 2023 in connection with alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election — a scheme that inspired the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

The justices on Thursday pondered the extent to which immunity covers an official act — with some alarming hypotheticals. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for example, asked about how immunity applies if a president orders the military to assassinate a rival, to which Trump lawyer John Sauer reportedly ([link removed]) responded: "That could well be an official act.”

Notably, Trump was missing in action. He was unable to attend the hearing because he’s required to stand trial in New York for another of the four criminal indictments ([link removed]) he’s facing. In that case, Trump is charged with falsifying business records in connection with a so-called “hush money” payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016.

Legal experts have stressed how crucial the outcome of this ([link removed]) case is on Trump’s legal fights and the future of American democracy. A decision granting Trump absolute immunity would give the presidency unprecedented protection, experts told Democracy Docket this week ([link removed]) , essentially allowing presidents to act without the threat of criminal prosecution during or after their term.

But the more likely outcomes — the Court defining a limited scope of immunity or rejecting Trump’s claims outright— could still work in Trump’s favor by delaying his trial until after the November election. It’s unclear when exactly the Court is expected to rule, but it likely won’t leave enough time for Trump to be tried, potentially convicted and sentenced.

In other SCOTUS news from this week, the court denied a petition ([link removed]) from three Texas voters seeking to challenge the state’s age-based restrictions on mail-in voting. The current law only allows individuals to vote by mail without a qualifying excuse (like an illness) if they are 65 years or older on Election Day.
[link removed]

Democracy is on the docket AND ballot this election year. Help get out the vote by shopping ([link removed]) our union-made t-shirts!


** Felony Disenfranchisement Challenges Pick Up Steam in Court
------------------------------------------------------------

Challenges to felony disenfranchisement laws across the U.S. picked up steam this week after judges issued a series of rulings hampering voter restrictions for individuals with criminal backgrounds.

In Tennessee, a federal judge handed a partial victory ([link removed]) to a nonprofit and a group of individuals who are challenging the state’s process for restoring voting rights to people with felony criminal convictions.

The plaintiffs — the Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP and five individuals who tried to restore their voting rights before the 2020 election but were denied — are suing ([link removed]) over what they describe as an inconsistent and inaccessible process for restoring their right to vote.

Since 2014, the plaintiffs allege ([link removed]) , the state “has implemented a policy of rejecting forms to register to vote in elections for Federal office on which applicants indicate they have a prior felony conviction,” and of “requiring those applicants with a prior felony conviction to provide documentary proof of their eligibility to vote.”

For people with felony convictions, Tennessee’s restoration process requires them to request an application and then submit it to the county election administrator. But, according to the lawsuit, some plaintiffs have requested forms and either not received them or have been in situations where they were unable to obtain one.

As a result, the process creates “an unequal, scattershot system across Tennessee’s ninety-five counties,” the plaintiffs allege, and also violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, according to the complaint, which names Gov. Bill Lee (R) and Secretary of State Tre Hargett (R) as defendants.

This week, a judge determined that state election officials cannot deny residents with past felony convictions their right to vote by improperly rejecting eligible voters’ registration forms. The remaining claims over the restoration process will proceed to trial.

In North Carolina, a felony disenfranchisement law can no longer be enforced after a ruling ([link removed]) was issued earlier this week. A judge sided with two local advocacy groups that challenged a state law that imposes criminal penalties on residents who vote while on parole, probation or post-release supervision for a felony conviction, even if they mistakenly believed or were told that they are eligible to vote.

Action NC and the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute sued ([link removed]) over the law in 2020, alleging that it is intentionally discriminatory towards Black residents in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. This week, a judge granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, meaning the law cannot be enforced (as of April 22).

But that’s only half the battle. North Carolina still has a felony disenfranchisement law on the books that prohibits voting for any person with a felony conviction that is on probation, parole or a suspended sentence. In 2019, various voting and civil rights groups and individuals with felony convictions sued over the law, arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the North Carolina Constitution. In 2022, a state trial court judge agreed and invalidated the law, restoring voting rights to over 56,000 North Carolinians. But the state Supreme Court later upheld ([link removed]) the restrictions in 2023, reversing the lower court decision.

Also, in Nebraska ([link removed]) , a bill that restores voting rights to people with felony convictions after they’ve completed their sentence became law in the state – but without the signature of the governor, who signaled that a legal challenge may be imminent.


** OPINION: Republicans Are Suing for the Right To Harass Election Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
[link removed]

Threats against election workers surged following the 2020 presidential election, fueled by falsehoods ([link removed]) and conspiracy theories that were pushed by Trump and his allies in the wake of the election and long after. The harassment spurred new laws aimed at protecting election workers, but some laws are now facing challenges from Republicans in states like Nevada and Arizona, Marc Elias writes. Read more ([link removed]) . ➡️


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

“Over the past few election cycles,” Democracy Docket’s Matt Cohen writes, “there’s been a steady stream of right-wing groups launching a full-frontal legal assault on voting rights. But PILF is one of the most prolific — and nefarious.”

In his striking analysis, Cohen details how the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) uses the courts to attack voting rights through lawsuits that only serve to perpetuate falsehoods and disinformation about mass election fraud. “And PILF is able to fund such lawsuits,” he writes, “through a myriad of right-wing dark money groups that annually contribute millions of dollars to the group.” Read more ([link removed]) .

Oral argument in Trump’s immunity case concluded on Thursday. Earlier this week, former federal prosecutor Harry Litman joined Marc on a bonus episode of Defending Democracy to discuss the case and the potential outcome. Listen on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts, 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=c7bc964fae-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_03_07_09_02_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-5146e64680-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=c7bc964fae&mc_eid=UNIQID) or unsubscribe from this list ([link removed][UNIQID]&c=b3a650c307&utm_source=Democracy+Docket+Newsletters&utm_campaign=c7bc964fae-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_03_07_09_02_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-5146e64680-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=c7bc964fae&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