| From | Michael Waldman, Brennan Center for Justice <[email protected]> |
| Subject | The Briefing: Election deniers on the march in Georgia |
| Date | August 13, 2024 9:17 PM |
Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
A new state rule previews the plan to reverse the 2024 presidential results.
[link removed]
How precisely will election deniers try to undermine the results in 2024? Will we see a rerun of 2020’s parade of falsehoods — rigged voting machines, USB drives masquerading as breath mints
[link removed]
, and bamboo-laced ballots
[link removed]
from China? Or will they premiere some new tricks this election season? One answer has come into sharper focus in recent weeks. Will our system be ready? That remains to be seen.
We all learned in 2020 that we do not have one election, or even 50 state elections. Decisions are made by hundreds of county boards and officials. Usually that is routine. Just after voting takes place, poll workers and local election officials begin a rigorous, multistep process
[link removed]
to accurately determine the results. This is all “ministerial.” Two plus two equals four. We have a winner! The voters vote, the results are tabulated, you affirm the numbers, and you go home.
All of which points to Georgia, where alarms are ringing. Rogue officials there are already preparing the ground to ignore voters in November.
You may remember Donald Trump’s rally at Georgia State University on August 3. That was the speech in which he attacked Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and, for good measure, Kemp’s wife. What was noteworthy, though, was the fellow Republicans he praised. He lauded three newly appointed members of the state election board. “They’re on fire. They are doing a great job,” he declared.
Three days later we learned why he was so effusive. The state officials announced a new rule
[link removed]
to require county officials across Georgia to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” before they can certify results.
That is a permission slip for subversion. In May, a board member who oversees elections in Fulton County — home of Atlanta, the biggest Black-majority city in the state — refused to certify a primary result, and to press her case, she sued
[link removed]
her own election board. It turned out she is an organizer for Cleta Mitchell, a participant in Trump’s notorious “I just want to find 11,780 votes” phone call to Raffensperger in January 2021.
Indeed, election deniers have quietly infiltrated county boards across the country. In Nevada, one official in the state’s second-largest county recently refused to certify her own election. Stop the steal!
Even before the new Georgia rule went into effect, the Brennan Center and other voting rights groups went to court
[link removed]
to support advocates working to protect the vote in Fulton County. We represent the Georgia NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Georgia.
That’s the thing: when a county official refuses to certify the votes because of . . . vibes, it's not just antidemocratic. It’s unlawful. The Georgia Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that local officials don’t have a choice.
And for good reason. In the rough-and-tumble early years of our republic, elections were messy, and it was not uncommon for rogue local officials to interfere with certification to benefit their preferred candidate. Early American state courts and legislatures took notice. As my colleague Lauren Miller Karalunas explains
[link removed]
in a widely cited law review article, they shaped election certification into a mandatory duty precisely so that officials like those in Fulton County couldn’t take election results into their own hands. In the prescient words of the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 1909, allowing local certifying officials to reopen election returns and investigate the election itself “would afford temptation and great opportunity for the commission of fraud.”
It’s bad enough to have kooky conspiracy theorists and amateur detectives counting votes. Feral partisans may have a sneakier goal: delay. In the presidential election, states must award their electoral votes to a candidate by December 11. If election deniers can throw up enough roadblocks and sow enough chaos, the dust they kick up could make it possible to take the election out of the public’s hands and throw it to the House of Representatives, where the GOP has the most states and thus the most votes.
In 2020, the election deniers were improvisational and slapdash. Now they are systematic, organized, and well funded. Trump already falsely claims that millions of noncitizens are preparing to vote. House Speaker Mike Johnson asserts that “we all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections. But,” he admits, “it’s not been something that is easily provable.” The House passed legislation purportedly cracking down on the nonexistent plague of noncitizen voting. All of this creates an atmosphere of suspicion and panic — the very vibes that can be exploited by unscrupulous officials to delay certification and derail the vote.
At his Georgia State rally, Trump praised the election officials as “pit bulls” who sought “victory.” It will be up to courts to stand up for something other than “victory” — democracy, fairness, and the rule of law.
Congress Can Act to Fix the Supreme Court
President Biden recently endorsed major reforms to the Supreme Court, backing a binding ethics code and an 18-year term limit for justices. Despite public support for these changes, some critics have questioned their feasibility and constitutionality. Congress has broad power to regulate the Court, however, either by statute or constitutional amendment. “Done right, term limits and an ethics code are constitutional. And they are urgently needed,” Jennifer Ahearn writes in Newsweek. Read more
[link removed]
Unregulated Money Is Corroding Politics
Fifty years ago, Richard Nixon’s resignation due to the Watergate scandal spurred campaign finance reforms aimed at increasing transparency and reducing the influence of big money in politics. But a series of damaging Supreme Court decisions and underenforced campaign finance laws have created a 2024 landscape that closely resembles pre-Watergate conditions. With ultra-wealthy donors wielding immense power over our elections through super PACs and dark money — and public trust in democratic institutions on the decline — “another round of significant reforms is long overdue,” Daniel Weiner and Owen Bacskai write in the Guardian. READ MORE
[link removed]
Democracy Wins in Michigan
Michigan has emerged as a trailblazer in pro-democracy reforms, enacting transformative measures since 2018 to expand voting access, bolster election security, and ensure fair representation. These advancements include ballot initiatives that established an independent redistricting commission and automatic voter registration, as well as innovative state laws such as a first-of-its-kind policy to automatically restore voting rights for those released from incarceration. “At a moment when other state legislatures, out of step with their own constituents, are making it more difficult for citizens to participate in democracy, Michigan stands out as a model for the rest of the country,” Kendall Karson Verhovek writes. Read more
[link removed]
A Threat to Prosecutorial Independence
The Florida Supreme Court recently upheld Gov. Ron DeSantis’s suspension of an elected prosecutor who made good on her campaign promise to implement criminal justice reforms. State Attorney Monique Worrell did so by avoiding overly punitive prosecutorial practices, and DeSantis accused her of “neglect of duty” and “incompetence.” It’s “one of numerous instances around the country where reformist prosecutors have been targeted by other branches of government who oppose their policies,” Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Ram Subramanian write in State Court Report. READ MORE
[link removed]
Legal Attacks on Voting Rights Protections
The Voting Rights Act, which marked its 59th anniversary last week, remains a vital tool for protecting communities of color from discriminatory voting practices. However, Supreme Court decisions such as 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder have weakened the law. The Court rejected a bid to further hollow out the law in 2023, but it “has failed to deter state and local governments from advancing unprecedented arguments that threaten what remains of the Voting Rights Act,” Leah Tulin and Yurij Rudensky write. The ongoing attacks on the law highlight a pressing need for Congress to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore its full safeguards. READ MORE
[link removed]
Coming Up
VIRTUAL EVENT: The Data Behind Bail Reform
[link removed]
Thursday, August 15, 3–4 p.m. ET
Cities, counties, and states across the nation have curbed the use of money bail. Reformers say that jailing criminal defendants who can’t afford to buy their pretrial freedom punishes poverty and doesn’t make anyone safer. Opponents, however, blamed higher crime during the pandemic on bail reform and pushed to roll back changes.
Join us for a live virtual event in which Brennan Center experts will compare crime rates in cities that enacted bail reform with those that did not. In the broadest and most comprehensive study of this issue to date, they found no evidence that limiting bail and pretrial detention increased crime. Ultimately, there are more promising ways to lower crime than to attack and weaken bail reform. RSVP today
[link removed]
Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.
[link removed]
News
Jennifer Ahearn on judge shopping in Texas // NPR
[link removed]
Alice Clapman on the impact of mass voter challenges // HUFFINGTON POST
[link removed]
Lauren Miller Karalunas on the fight over election certification in Georgia // NPR
[link removed]
Daniel Weiner on campaign fundraising in the 2024 elections // VOX
[link removed]
Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
[link removed]
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271
646-292-8310
tel:646-292-8310
[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
Support Brennan Center
[link removed]
View Online
[link removed]
Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here
[link removed]
to update your preferences.
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
How precisely will election deniers try to undermine the results in 2024? Will we see a rerun of 2020’s parade of falsehoods — rigged voting machines, USB drives masquerading as breath mints
[link removed]
, and bamboo-laced ballots
[link removed]
from China? Or will they premiere some new tricks this election season? One answer has come into sharper focus in recent weeks. Will our system be ready? That remains to be seen.
We all learned in 2020 that we do not have one election, or even 50 state elections. Decisions are made by hundreds of county boards and officials. Usually that is routine. Just after voting takes place, poll workers and local election officials begin a rigorous, multistep process
[link removed]
to accurately determine the results. This is all “ministerial.” Two plus two equals four. We have a winner! The voters vote, the results are tabulated, you affirm the numbers, and you go home.
All of which points to Georgia, where alarms are ringing. Rogue officials there are already preparing the ground to ignore voters in November.
You may remember Donald Trump’s rally at Georgia State University on August 3. That was the speech in which he attacked Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and, for good measure, Kemp’s wife. What was noteworthy, though, was the fellow Republicans he praised. He lauded three newly appointed members of the state election board. “They’re on fire. They are doing a great job,” he declared.
Three days later we learned why he was so effusive. The state officials announced a new rule
[link removed]
to require county officials across Georgia to conduct a “reasonable inquiry” before they can certify results.
That is a permission slip for subversion. In May, a board member who oversees elections in Fulton County — home of Atlanta, the biggest Black-majority city in the state — refused to certify a primary result, and to press her case, she sued
[link removed]
her own election board. It turned out she is an organizer for Cleta Mitchell, a participant in Trump’s notorious “I just want to find 11,780 votes” phone call to Raffensperger in January 2021.
Indeed, election deniers have quietly infiltrated county boards across the country. In Nevada, one official in the state’s second-largest county recently refused to certify her own election. Stop the steal!
Even before the new Georgia rule went into effect, the Brennan Center and other voting rights groups went to court
[link removed]
to support advocates working to protect the vote in Fulton County. We represent the Georgia NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Georgia.
That’s the thing: when a county official refuses to certify the votes because of . . . vibes, it's not just antidemocratic. It’s unlawful. The Georgia Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that local officials don’t have a choice.
And for good reason. In the rough-and-tumble early years of our republic, elections were messy, and it was not uncommon for rogue local officials to interfere with certification to benefit their preferred candidate. Early American state courts and legislatures took notice. As my colleague Lauren Miller Karalunas explains
[link removed]
in a widely cited law review article, they shaped election certification into a mandatory duty precisely so that officials like those in Fulton County couldn’t take election results into their own hands. In the prescient words of the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 1909, allowing local certifying officials to reopen election returns and investigate the election itself “would afford temptation and great opportunity for the commission of fraud.”
It’s bad enough to have kooky conspiracy theorists and amateur detectives counting votes. Feral partisans may have a sneakier goal: delay. In the presidential election, states must award their electoral votes to a candidate by December 11. If election deniers can throw up enough roadblocks and sow enough chaos, the dust they kick up could make it possible to take the election out of the public’s hands and throw it to the House of Representatives, where the GOP has the most states and thus the most votes.
In 2020, the election deniers were improvisational and slapdash. Now they are systematic, organized, and well funded. Trump already falsely claims that millions of noncitizens are preparing to vote. House Speaker Mike Johnson asserts that “we all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections. But,” he admits, “it’s not been something that is easily provable.” The House passed legislation purportedly cracking down on the nonexistent plague of noncitizen voting. All of this creates an atmosphere of suspicion and panic — the very vibes that can be exploited by unscrupulous officials to delay certification and derail the vote.
At his Georgia State rally, Trump praised the election officials as “pit bulls” who sought “victory.” It will be up to courts to stand up for something other than “victory” — democracy, fairness, and the rule of law.
Congress Can Act to Fix the Supreme Court
President Biden recently endorsed major reforms to the Supreme Court, backing a binding ethics code and an 18-year term limit for justices. Despite public support for these changes, some critics have questioned their feasibility and constitutionality. Congress has broad power to regulate the Court, however, either by statute or constitutional amendment. “Done right, term limits and an ethics code are constitutional. And they are urgently needed,” Jennifer Ahearn writes in Newsweek. Read more
[link removed]
Unregulated Money Is Corroding Politics
Fifty years ago, Richard Nixon’s resignation due to the Watergate scandal spurred campaign finance reforms aimed at increasing transparency and reducing the influence of big money in politics. But a series of damaging Supreme Court decisions and underenforced campaign finance laws have created a 2024 landscape that closely resembles pre-Watergate conditions. With ultra-wealthy donors wielding immense power over our elections through super PACs and dark money — and public trust in democratic institutions on the decline — “another round of significant reforms is long overdue,” Daniel Weiner and Owen Bacskai write in the Guardian. READ MORE
[link removed]
Democracy Wins in Michigan
Michigan has emerged as a trailblazer in pro-democracy reforms, enacting transformative measures since 2018 to expand voting access, bolster election security, and ensure fair representation. These advancements include ballot initiatives that established an independent redistricting commission and automatic voter registration, as well as innovative state laws such as a first-of-its-kind policy to automatically restore voting rights for those released from incarceration. “At a moment when other state legislatures, out of step with their own constituents, are making it more difficult for citizens to participate in democracy, Michigan stands out as a model for the rest of the country,” Kendall Karson Verhovek writes. Read more
[link removed]
A Threat to Prosecutorial Independence
The Florida Supreme Court recently upheld Gov. Ron DeSantis’s suspension of an elected prosecutor who made good on her campaign promise to implement criminal justice reforms. State Attorney Monique Worrell did so by avoiding overly punitive prosecutorial practices, and DeSantis accused her of “neglect of duty” and “incompetence.” It’s “one of numerous instances around the country where reformist prosecutors have been targeted by other branches of government who oppose their policies,” Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Ram Subramanian write in State Court Report. READ MORE
[link removed]
Legal Attacks on Voting Rights Protections
The Voting Rights Act, which marked its 59th anniversary last week, remains a vital tool for protecting communities of color from discriminatory voting practices. However, Supreme Court decisions such as 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder have weakened the law. The Court rejected a bid to further hollow out the law in 2023, but it “has failed to deter state and local governments from advancing unprecedented arguments that threaten what remains of the Voting Rights Act,” Leah Tulin and Yurij Rudensky write. The ongoing attacks on the law highlight a pressing need for Congress to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore its full safeguards. READ MORE
[link removed]
Coming Up
VIRTUAL EVENT: The Data Behind Bail Reform
[link removed]
Thursday, August 15, 3–4 p.m. ET
Cities, counties, and states across the nation have curbed the use of money bail. Reformers say that jailing criminal defendants who can’t afford to buy their pretrial freedom punishes poverty and doesn’t make anyone safer. Opponents, however, blamed higher crime during the pandemic on bail reform and pushed to roll back changes.
Join us for a live virtual event in which Brennan Center experts will compare crime rates in cities that enacted bail reform with those that did not. In the broadest and most comprehensive study of this issue to date, they found no evidence that limiting bail and pretrial detention increased crime. Ultimately, there are more promising ways to lower crime than to attack and weaken bail reform. RSVP today
[link removed]
Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.
[link removed]
News
Jennifer Ahearn on judge shopping in Texas // NPR
[link removed]
Alice Clapman on the impact of mass voter challenges // HUFFINGTON POST
[link removed]
Lauren Miller Karalunas on the fight over election certification in Georgia // NPR
[link removed]
Daniel Weiner on campaign fundraising in the 2024 elections // VOX
[link removed]
Feedback on this newsletter? Email us at [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
[link removed]
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271
646-292-8310
tel:646-292-8310
[email protected]
mailto:[email protected]
Support Brennan Center
[link removed]
View Online
[link removed]
Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here
[link removed]
to update your preferences.
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
Message Analysis
- Sender: Brennan Center for Justice
- Political Party: n/a
- Country: United States
- State/Locality: n/a
- Office: n/a
-
Email Providers:
- Litmus