11/12/2021
John,
Earlier this week, we passed the five-year anniversary of Election Day 2016. Without the 2016 election, there is no Big Lie, no violent insurrection, no unraveling of democracy.
In my latest piece, “Five Years Later,” I reflect on Nov. 8, 2016. I was general counsel to the Hillary for America campaign. By midnight, it was clear that despite a sizable popular vote victory, Secretary Clinton had narrowly lost the Electoral College to Donald Trump.
In Secretary Clinton’s concession speech, she didn’t tell us to fight until Donald Trump was out of office and then stop. She told us “to keep up these fights now and for the rest of your lives.” How did that day shape my fight for voting rights and democracy?
Read “Five Years Later” on Democracy Docket to find out.
Let’s keep up the fight,
Marc
Americans Want Significant Change to the Political System
Last Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a significant infrastructure bill that funds public works projects to update aging infrastructure, expand access to high-speed internet and incentivize clean-energy vehicles and green technology, among other things. While an even larger spending bill that tackles social programs and climate change mitigation awaits further action, the $1 trillion infrastructure bill is considered a cornerstone of President Joe Biden’s economic agenda. In a statement, Biden said that the bill “will create millions of jobs, turn the climate crisis into an opportunity, and put us on a path to win the economic competition for the 21st Century.”
Economic policies, such as the infrastructure bill, have been and will continue to be central to the lives of most Americans. This week, however, we examined citizens' views of democracy in our latest Data Dive, “Americans Want Significant Change to the Political System.” We break down a recent report by Pew Research Center that surveyed citizens in 17 advanced economies, including the United States. As discontent with our democracy, economy and health care system cuts across partisan lines, read our latest Data Dive to learn what percentage of Americans hope to see significant changes to the country’s political system.
Why Is Virginia’s State-level Voting Rights Act So Important?
Last week, all eyes were on Virginia where it was a disappointing Election Day for Democrats. And while we can reflect on a number of progressive policies that were championed during Virginia’s two years with a Democratic trifecta, this week we focused on one key piece of legislation — the Voting Rights Act of Virginia, House Bill 1890. In “Virginia’s Voting Rights Act Unpacked,” we explain how we reached the point where a state may need to enact its own voting rights act and break down how Virginia’s landmark law protects voters — an important lesson for other states in the face of Republican voter suppression efforts across the country.
This is the latest installment of our bill breakdown series where we take a piece of important legislation, dissect the complicated bill text, highlight key points, situate the bill within other key context and, if not yet enacted, outline its path to passage. To catch up on all the crucial laws moving through Congress, check out some of our recent bill breakdowns on:
The GOP’s Favorite Redistricting Activity — Carving up Big Cities
Virginia — On Monday, the Virginia Redistricting Commission failed to meet the final deadline for approving new congressional districts after Democrats and Republicans deadlocked over different proposals. Due to the Commission’s failure to approve any new districts, responsibility for both legislative and congressional redistricting now falls to the Virginia Supreme Court (the Commission missed earlier deadlines to approve state legislative districts). The court will hire two outside experts — one selected by Republicans and one selected by Democrats — to prepare maps for the judges to consider. Democrats have nominated three political science professors with experience assisting courts in redistricting cases. Republicans, on the other hand, nominated partisan political operatives with histories of advancing Republican interests. Democrats are now urging the state Supreme Court to reject all three Republican nominees. Once selected by the court, the two experts will have 30 days to create a proposal for the court’s review.
Utah — On Wednesday, the Utah Legislature approved a new congressional map that now heads to the desk of Gov. Spencer Cox (R), who indicated he would likely sign it into law. In 2018, Utah voters approved Proposition 4, a ballot initiative that created an independent redistricting commission composed of citizens. However, the commission is purely advisory and the Legislature can choose to approve or reject the maps it creates. In October, the commission presented several options for new congressional districts, all of which would create one Democratic-leaning district centered around Salt Lake City (currently, all four of Utah’s congressional districts are represented by Republicans). Yet, the Utah House and Senate ultimately approved a map drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislative Redistricting Committee that creates four safe Republican districts by splitting Salt Lake County among all four of the districts. Eric Holder, Chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, criticized the result: “Instead of listening to the public, Republican legislators hypocritically chose maps that negatively impact the state’s urban communities in order to maintain their political power.”
Wisconsin — On Thursday, the GOP-controlled Wisconsin Legislature approved new congressional and legislative maps, although Gov. Tony Evers (D) has promised to not sign them. On Monday, the state Senate approved the Republican-drawn map on a party-line vote and rejected several options proposed by Democrats and the People’s Maps Commission, a nonpartisan redistricting commission created by Evers. Currently, Republicans in Wisconsin hold five of the eight congressional seats, as well as a 21-12 majority in the Senate and a 61-38 majority in the Assembly. The current maps have been criticized for giving Republicans disproportionate control in a state that President Joe Biden won in 2020 and is more narrowly divided in other statewide elections. The approved congressional map is not significantly different from the 2011 gerrymandered map, although more compact. If the Legislature and governor cannot agree on new maps, the map-drawing responsibility shifts to the courts. Anticipating this outcome, several lawsuits have already been filed in both in federal and state court asking the courts to intervene to ensure that new, fair maps are drawn.
AND MORE:
- On Wednesday, the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment approved congressional and state legislative maps. Once the commission files the final report, citizens will have 35 days to file a legal challenge before the Idaho Supreme Court gives the final stamp of approval. This week, Georgia’s state legislative maps passed their respective chambers and proposed congressional map plans were released in California, Florida, Maryland and Nevada.
- We’ve been keeping a close eye on redistricting around the country throughout the fall. With more than half of all states either approving new congressional and legislative districts or actively considering proposals, we’re well underway in this once-a-decade process. Read our latest, “Redistricting Roundup: What’s Happened Across the Country So Far” for a recap.
It’s Just the Beginning of Redistricting Courtroom Battles
North Carolina — Last Friday, the plaintiffs in Harper v. Lewis, a crucial North Carolina redistricting case from 2019, again challenged the state’s congressional map for being a partisan gerrymander that entrenches Republican power across the state. However, given that their case against the congressional map enacted in 2016 remains open and they are raising nearly identical arguments against the newly-passed map, the plaintiffs seek to file a supplemental complaint challenging the new map in the open Harper case in order to efficiently conduct litigation. In their proposed supplemental complaint, the plaintiffs point out that, similar to the 2016 map that was struck down, the new map creates 10 safe Republican districts and three safe Democratic districts (plus one competitive district after the state gained a seat following the 2020 census) despite the fact that the state is closely divided between Republicans and Democrats. The plaintiffs allege that this extreme partisan gerrymandering violates multiple provisions of the North Carolina Constitution. The suit asks the court to expedite consideration of the motion to file a supplemental complaint so that the judicial process can be completed ahead of the 2022 election cycle.
Montana — Yesterday, a state court judge entered an order denying a motion to dismiss claims in Montana Democratic Party v. Jacobsen, a lawsuit brought by the Montana Democratic Party (MDP) challenging three recently-passed voter suppression bills. Senate Bill 176 eliminates Election Day voter registration; Senate Bill 169 narrows eligible voter IDs, particularly limiting the use of student IDs; and House Bill 530 bans certain types of ballot assistance. The defendant in the case, Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R), had sought to throw out claims relating only to S.B. 176 and S.B. 169, arguing that MDP did not have standing because it had not shown it would suffer any injuries from the laws. The court found that MDP had standing to challenge the laws on behalf of itself and affected Montana voters and that MDP had shown it would be negatively affected by the laws. Additionally, the court rejected the secretary’s assertion that Montana’s election laws couldn’t be litigated in court because they were shielded by the Elections Clause, which allows states to set rules regarding federal elections. The case will now move forward in court as to all claims.
AND MORE:
- Last Friday, another lawsuit was filed in federal court against Texas’ new maps. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, specifically challenges the Lone Star State’s new legislative and congressional maps for intentionally diluting the voting strength of voters of color. This is the sixth lawsuit to be filed challenging the results of Texas’ most recent round of redistricting and the fourth filed in federal court.
- The courtroom battles for fair maps are just getting started. Lawsuits have been filed in three states that have not yet approved new maps but have a history of not finishing redistricting in time for elections — Louisiana, Minnesota and Wisconsin (a similar lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania has been dismissed). In these states, which have divided governments or where timely redistricting looks unlikely, the lawsuits challenge the current maps, drawn after the 2010 census, as unconstitutional in light of new census data. The suits ask the courts to intervene to ensure new, fair maps are drawn (for more on this unique type of lawsuit, read our Explainer on impasse litigation). For states with new approved maps, there are currently six lawsuits challenging Texas’ maps, three against Ohio’s state legislative maps and three GOP-led lawsuits in Oregon. Other redistricting litigation is ongoing in Alabama, Illinois, North Carolina and South Carolina. You can follow all of the state legislative and congressional redistricting litigation here.
Three things to do today to stay engaged in the fight!
We’re taking action: While the results in Virginia’s gubernatorial race last week were disheartening, there are 13 incumbent Democratic governors up for reelection next November. Find the full list here and give them a follow to find out how you can best contribute to their campaigns.
We’re reading: Have you heard the phrase Critical Race Theory thrown around in political discourse? The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund recently compiled a useful FAQ page to understand where this academic term comes from, what it actually means and how recent bans on racial justice discourse in schools “fit into a larger effort to suppress the voice, history, and political participation of Black Americans.”
We're watching: Thursday night, Marc talked about the Republican Party’s unwillingness to accept election results — “All of the pressure in the Republican party is on their candidates to never concede, never accept the results when they lose… that will lead to trouble in 2022 and 2024.” Watch the full clip from All In with Chris Hayes here.
We're wearing: There’s never been a better time to wear the fight for voting rights on your sleeve. New Democracy Docket merch just dropped, right in time for chilly temperatures. Find new items and other DD classics here. Beat the holiday rush and shop now!
Oregon's Universal Mail-In Voting Transformed Civic Participation. Here's How:
In this week's Spotlight, Oregon Governor Kate Brown talks about what she’s learned about mail-in voting from her home state, as Oregon has been conducting all-mail elections since 2000. Brown highlights the indisputable benefits of mail-in voting — it lowers the barrier to casting a ballot for all voters, regardless of party, and boosts turnout in primaries and other low profile elections. Despite the convenience and accessibility of mail-in voting, Brown explains how “Trump and Republicans made it the punching bag of 2020, literally blaming his loss on mail ballots. Now, trusted election officials and leaders on both sides of the aisle must pick up the pieces left by this partisan bickering to recover vote by mail’s reputation.” Read “Oregon's Universal Mail-In Voting Transformed Civic Participation. Here's How:” to hear directly from a leader working to cut through the partisan noise to argue for the importance of more states adopting universal mail-in voting.
Each week, we pick a few reader questions about all things elections and share Marc’s answers. Got a question? Submit it here!
Bryan asks: What’s your response to Republicans in North Carolina who say that the criteria they used to draw their new maps was similar to that used in 2019, and that racial and partisan data was not involved?
Marc: It is no surprise that the Republicans in North Carolina are proclaiming their innocence. They proclaimed innocence when they “target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision” with a strict voter ID law in 2013. They proclaimed innocence when they racially gerrymandered the map that was struck down by the U.S Supreme Court in Cooper v. Harris. I don't take what Republicans in North Carolina say at face value, and I think that the proof is in the map. If you look at the partisan performance of the map, it is virtually impossible to conclude that the map was the product of good intentions and good process.
Roma asks: My two senators support reforming the filibuster for voting rights. What can I do to convince the ones who don’t, as I’m not their constituent?
Marc: First, I would not let up on calling your Senators and members of Congress. Even if they support voting rights, it is important that they continue to hear how important it is to you that laws be enacted as soon as possible. In addition, I suggest that you reach out to others in your social circle and ask them to call their own Senators, some of whom may not be as committed to passing voting rights legislation as you own.
“‘Not to be melodramatic, but the South is burning,’ says Allison Riggs, co-executive director of the North Carolina-based Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which is heavily involved with redistricting and voting rights in the South. ‘What we’re seeing is beyond our worst nightmares in terms of how bad these processes and outcomes are for voters of color.’” Mother Jones
“McAuliffe conceded Wednesday morning, when it became clear he had no realistic path to victory. The same has not happened in New Jersey, where the Democratic incumbent, Phil Murphy, defeated Republican State Senator Jack Ciattarelli… This points to a dangerous new dynamic now emerging, in which losing Democrats at the top of a ticket follow one set of rules and losing Republicans follow another. That double standard could put our democracy—and American lives—at risk.” The Atlantic
“They were among nine people who told Reuters in interviews that they made threats or left other hostile messages to election workers… These cases provide a unique perspective into how people with everyday jobs and lives have become radicalized to the point of terrorizing public officials.” Reuters
