GOP election denialism rears its ugly head

[link removed]


** 05/24/2024
------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. Supreme Court determines that South Carolina’s congressional map is not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. GOP election denialism enters the mainstream again as 2024 gears up. And, in Arizona, nearly a dozen prominent Republicans appear in court for their 2020 election subversion misdeeds.


** U.S. Supreme Court: South Carolina congressional map is not an unconstitutional racial gerrymander
------------------------------------------------------------

After over seven months of inaction from the nation’s highest court, the U.S. Supreme Court finally issued a decision ([link removed]) in a lawsuit challenging South Carolina’s congressional map.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed the federal district court’s finding that the state’s map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Justice Samuel Alito, who was engulfed in Jan. 6-related controversy this week, authored an opinion ([link removed]) that was highly critical of the lower court’s decision.

In his opinion, Alito chastised the lower court for not requiring an alternative map from the plaintiffs, stating that without one “it is difficult for plaintiffs to defeat our starting presumption that the legislature acted in good faith.” The Court’s conclusion changes previous Court precedent that did not require parties to present an alternative map.

“The alternative map is a means to an end,” Allen Chaney, legal director at the ACLU of South Carolina, said at a press conference in response to a question from Democracy Docket. “It’s a way to show that voters were moved because of their race and not because of their political affiliation. We chose to meet that same evidentiary burden through different means, ones that we believe were more persuasive.”

Notably, Chaney said this new standard “makes it more difficult moving forward for folks to meet [the Court’s] newly heightened evidentiary burden under a racial gerrymandering claim.”

The Court also found that the lower court wrongly conflated the plaintiffs’ racial gerrymander and vote-dilution claims, and sent the latter claims back to the district court.

The Court’s ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a voter that alleged that the state’s congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that intentionally discriminates against Black voters.

The complaint centers on lawmakers’ decision to move over 30,000 Black voters from Charleston County out of the state’s 1st Congressional District and into the 6th Congressional District in Senate Bill 865, which the GOP-controlled Legislature passed in January 2022, over eight months after the 2020 census results were released.

The move effectively packs Black voters in the 6th Congressional District, while diluting Black voter strength in the 1st, 2nd and 5th Congressional Districts, the plaintiffs allege. A federal district judge agreed in part, striking down the 1st Congressional District for an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

South Carolina Republicans argued that they were motivated by political objectives, which Court precedent allows, and appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices heard oral argument on Oct. 11, 2023. But the Court didn’t issue a ruling until seven months later, despite both sides asking the Court to issue a decision by January of this year.

In his opinion, Alito wrote that there is “no direct evidence” that the Legislature relied on race when it drew District 1, and that the evidence provided to support that conclusion fell “far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process.”

As 2024 approaches, GOP election denialism rears its ugly head

Election denialism was once reserved for the fringes of the Republican Party. But that changed when former President Donald Trump vehemently denied the results of the 2020 election, launching a campaign of disinformation and frivolous lawsuits in order to thwart his defeat.

His lies spurred a group of supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol in an attack that led to Trump’s second impeachment by the House (he was acquitted by the Senate). Now, not only has denying election results after races become more commonplace in the GOP, the preemptive denial of election results is also catching fire among Republicans who voted to certify the 2020 election.

“In the last few weeks,” Marc Elias writes this week, “a parade of prominent Republicans has refused to commit to accepting the results of this year’s elections. This includes not only Trump sycophants like J.D. Vance and Kristi Noem, but so-called moderates as well.”

On Sunday, when asked if he’d accept the results of the Nov. 5 election, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio provided a complicated answer ([link removed]) to a fairly simple question.

"No matter what happens? No," Rubio told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker. "If it's an unfair election, I think it's going to be contested by either side.”

In January, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) appeared ([link removed]) on the same show and was evasive, saying, “We will see if this is a legal and valid election,” she said.

The Trump loyalist also said in February that she wouldn’t have certified votes on Jan. 6, 2021, if she were in then-Vice President Mike Pence’s position. Pence faced immense pressure from Trump and his allies — and mortal danger ([link removed]) from Trump supporters — to block the certification.

“I don’t think that was the right approach,” Stefanik said of Pence’s actions, in a CNN interview. “I think it is very important that we continue to stand up for the Constitution and have legal and secure elections, which we did not have in 2020.”

Separately, Welker also asked Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) about whether he’d accept the 2024 election results. "At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump," Scott said during the May interview. When asked for a “yes or no” answer, Scott said, "That is my statement."

Given that Scott, Rubio and others will once again be tasked with certifying the results of the 2024 election, their obfuscation is alarming. Trump trafficked in election falsehoods ([link removed]) long before 2020, but he was especially pointed with his remarks in the months leading up to the election.

“Go out and vote. Do those beautiful absentee ballots, or just make sure your vote gets counted. Make sure because the only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged,” Trump said at a campaign event in August 2020. “Remember that. It’s the only way we’re going to lose this election, so we have to be very careful.”

Trump and Republicans have yet to produce concrete evidence of widespread voter fraud, and even Trump’s attorney general poured cold water on his fraud claims in 2022.
[link removed]

Our bestselling tie-dye tee is back! Now in two colors, you can show your love for democracy and support for our work all summer long. Shop now! ([link removed])


** Arizona Republicans charged in 2020 election indictment appear in court
------------------------------------------------------------

Some of the fiercest proponents of the “Big Lie” ([link removed]) were arraigned in an Arizona court this week in connection with the Trump-backed scheme to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Eleven defendants in an indictment charging over a dozen prominent Republicans and allies of the former president with felonies were arraigned on Tuesday ([link removed]) . The group pleaded not guilty to charges including conspiracy and forgery in connection with a plot to overturn the state’s presidential election results and falsely declare Trump the winner of the key battleground state.

All 11 of the fake electors were indicted along with a number of top Trump officials, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former campaign lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman and Jenna Ellis.

While Giuliani is a defendant in the case, he was one of several people unnamed in the original indictment because he had not yet been served a notice of indictment. After seemingly eluding authorities for nearly a month, authorities found Giuliani in Palm Beach, Florida, where he was celebrating his 80th birthday, and served him his notice of indictment.

Eastman pleaded not guilty last week in the case. The Jan. 6 architect is paying a high price for aiding Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election result. He’s facing disbarment in California, which he tried to contest, had his law license suspended in Washington, D.C. and is charged — along with Trump — in a similar 2020 election subversion case in Georgia.

Trump is not charged in the Arizona case but faces four total indictments, one of which he’s currently on trial for in New York and two others that stem from alleged crimes related to 2020.

Eastman is far from the only one facing consequences. Another ally, Christina Bobb, whose mugshot circulated ([link removed]) the internet Tuesday, also pleaded not guilty in the Arizona case and serves as senior counsel on the Republican National Committee’s election integrity team.


** OPINION: The Dangerous Asymmetry of Election Denialism
------------------------------------------------------------
[link removed]

As we noted above, prominent national Republicans are already casting doubt on the upcoming election through their refusal to confirm whether they would accept the results. “Republicans have spent the last two years denying the outcome of the 2020 election,” Marc Elias writes. “Now, months before a single vote is cast, they are already preparing to contest the outcome in 2024.” Read more here. ([link removed])
We now offer an annual option for our premium subscription!
BECOME A MEMBER ([link removed])

Our premium subscription ensures that our team of 14 can do the hard work of keeping you informed and up to date on what is happening to our democracy in courtrooms across the country. Consider joining today for $120/year ([link removed]) ($10/month) to receive our premium content directly in your inbox, starting tomorrow morning with Marc's weekend reading list.
** What We’re Doing
------------------------------------------------------------

Last month, Democracy Docket’s Matt Cohen sounded the alarm ([link removed]) about the “steady stream of right-wing groups launching a full-frontal legal assault on voting rights.” The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), he wrote, is one of the worst offenders.

This week, Courtney Cohn details the group’s latest endeavor — filing lawsuits in numerous states to try to gain access to their voter registration records ahead of the 2024 election.

“Recently,” Cohn writes, “the organization has focused on targeting the states that are exempt from the National Voter Registration Act’s (NVRA) provision requiring states to disclose their voter rolls. PILF has started with Minnesota and Wisconsin, but there are four other exempt states that the legal group could sink its teeth into next — Idaho, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Wyoming.” Read more here. ([link removed])
[link removed]

Republicans are claiming that noncitizens are voting in federal elections and causing massive voter fraud. The only issue with their statements is that they’re not true. Noncitizens cannot vote in federal elections, states have safeguards in place to ensure only eligible voters cast ballots and there is little evidence noncitizens are voting. Marc Elias explains why the GOP has latched onto this lie. Watch the YouTube video here ([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=eeb2184d6f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_03_07_09_02_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-5146e64680-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=eeb2184d6f&mc_eid=UNIQID) or unsubscribe from this list ([link removed][UNIQID]&c=b3a650c307&utm_source=Democracy+Docket+Newsletters&utm_campaign=eeb2184d6f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_03_07_09_02_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-5146e64680-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&mc_cid=eeb2184d6f&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