image of ... [[link removed]]
Dear John,
Our organization, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, exists because we believe in the need to protect democracy, our justice system, and the rule of law. That statement should be seen as nonpartisan, non-controversial, and should not provoke concern. We are living through a time, however, when it sadly can be considered all three, including within components of the legal profession that know better.
Today, Bloomberg Law published an article by our LDAD colleagues, Peggy Quince and Lauren Stiller Rikleen, entitled: Federalist Society’s Influence on Courts is Bad for Democracy [[link removed]] . Any effort to politicize our courts poses a danger to democracy, as does a litmus test requiring adherence to an originalist philosophy, notwithstanding that the Constitution was written when, for example, slavery was legal and women had no rights. We must insist on judicial selection processes that ensure faith in this critical branch of government.
We are pleased to share with you the informative blog postings [[link removed]] from our poll observing colleague, Estelle Rogers – who travelled to Nevada for days of poll observance. We hope they are a harbinger of the days ahead, as she describes a peaceful process where people from all perspectives work together to ensure a free and fair election.
And as Americans go to the polls with so much at stake, we invite you to read this reflective article [[link removed]] from our colleague, Dennis Aftergut, as a reminder of the ties that bind us all.
Lastly, LDAD has recently re-launched its LinkedIn page. We hope you’ll find some time to visit and follow our page, where we’ll share updates on our activities.
Lawyers Defending American Democracy
[[link removed]]
Democracy Heroes and Threats often emerge from the same circumstances. Heroes trying to protect the justice system and the rule of law, too frequently, must endure withering criticism – and far worse – before they are vindicated. Here are two examples.
Pickens County, Georgia
In Pickens County, Georgia, County Attorney Phil Landrum stood up to an orchestrated local effort [[link removed]] seeking to end the electronic counting of ballots and to open all ballots cast topublic scrutiny, thereby ending the secret ballot, a long-time cornerstone of democracy.
The incident arose out of a Republican primary held this past May in which no one challenged the election results, the election had been certified, the election results were audited, and the election ballots sealed. Governor Kemp and Secretary of State Raffensberger were respectively nominated as the Republican candidates for the November General Election.
Pickens County Republican leadership, however, wanted toeliminate the Dominion electronic vote tabulating machines that were used to count the paper ballots, and sought a hand recount. They also sought to make ballots previously cast “open public records” and to empower the local elections board to conduct elections and ballot counting as they saw fit. They then selectedthe Chair of the local GOP to conduct that hand recount.
This effort fits within a nationwide election denial movement [[link removed]] that seeks to return to the days of hand marked ballots where voting only can be done in person on election day and all ballots are hand tabulated and hand recounted.
In Pickens County, dozens of residents packed the local Elections Board meeting to present their demand to unseal the paper ballots that had been cast and conduct a hand recount of the governor and secretary of state races. Phil Landrum, the County Attorney for 21 years, researched the issue and advised the County that sealed election records could not be unsealed except by the order of a judge of the Superior Court, and that sealed ballots were not subject to the Open Records Act.
Orchestrated local fury was generated by the GOP to pressure attorney Landrum to change his position, or in the alternative, to persuade the County to fire him. When the case came to court, the local judges recused [[link removed]] themselves. The Atlanta judge assignedto hear the case ruled that Landrum’s legal advice to the county was correct; sealed ballots were not subject to the state’s Open Records Act. The judge dismissed the petition.
Democracy worked because a County Attorney both read the law and stood by his oath to adhere to it, resisting the intense pressure to ignore his duty to protect rule of law.
Collin County, Texas
In Collin County, Texas, the reign of legal terror led by a District Attorney and a local judge against their political opponents was confronted and ultimately defeated.
The story begins when attorney, Suzanne Wooten, accomplished an unheard-of feat in Collin County’s 163-year history by defeating a sitting judge, Charles Sandoval, with 57% of the vote.
Just a day after her victory, the good-old-boy network struck back when Sandoval approached District Attorney John Roach Sr., a DA with a history of prosecuting political opponents. Sandoval told Roach that Wooten could not have won without cheating, and that the DA needed to find the crime [[link removed]] . The incumbent DA and the defeated judge, with the assistance of the Texas Attorney General’s Office, orchestrated a series of grand jury investigations. After 5 unsuccessful tries, the DA succeeded in having a sixth grand jury finally indict Wooten, her campaign consultant, and a wealthy Dallas couple involved in a custody fight.
Wooten was accused of taking a bribe, in the form of a campaign contribution, from Dallas couple David and Stacy Cary. David Cary was involved in a custody dispute with his ex-wife in a case that was pending in Collin County. The only problem with this prosecution was that 1) Judge Wooten did not know the couple; 2) they did not contribute to her campaign; and 3) when their case appeared before her as a sitting judge, she recused herself because she knew the lawyers on both sides of the case.
When the case came to trial, the trial judge refused to allow evidence about the five previous grand juries that refused to indict, nor consider evidence about the political genesis of the case generated by the defeated judge and his ally, the District Attorney.
After trial, Wooten accepted a sentencing “deal” of 10 years’ probation in exchange for an agreement not to appeal. This allowed her to focus on re-building her and her family’s life, without a threat of a long prison sentence adding to the enormous toll [[link removed]] the relentless prosecution had taken.
David [[link removed]] and Stacy [[link removed]] Cary appealed their convictions and prison sentence and ultimately prevailed before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. After the Cary’s convictions were overturned, Wooten successfully filed a Habeas Corpus [[link removed]] to establish her innocence.
A year later, she filed a lawsuit against Collin County [[link removed]] for its pattern and practice of political prosecutions.
Even then, the County shamefully continued the fight by seeking to strike the expert testimony about their unlawful conduct towards Suzanne Wooten – an effort rejected by the Federal District Court [[link removed]] . The County – dubbed by one publication as the most lawless county in Texas [[link removed]] – then settled [[link removed]] for $600,000.
The system ultimately worked for this Democracy Hero, but the battle she had to fight against officials who ignored [[link removed]] the rule of law and their oath to the Constitution is chilling.
[link removed] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]] [link removed] [[link removed]]

Lawyers Defending American Democracy
303 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02210
United States
If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe: [link removed] .