SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
September, 09 2024, 03:15pm EDT
Contact:
CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, ihooper@cair.com
CAIR Swing State Data Shows Muslim Voters Hold Diverse Preferences, Still Up for Grabs in 2024
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today released additional results from its August 25-27 presidential election survey of 1,155 American Muslim voters showing Muslim voter preferences varying somewhat based on sex, age, race, party affiliation and location, with Muslim voters favoring Dr. Jill Stein in the swing states of Arizona, Michigan, and Wisconsin while Vice President Kamala Harris leads among Muslim voters in Georgia and Pennsylvania and Donald Trump leads in Nevada.
Conducted in partnership with Molitical Consulting LLC, the additional survey results also show how Muslim voter preferences differ based on gender, race, party affiliation, age and likelihood of voting.
CLICK HERE: READ CAIR NEW SWING STATE ELECTION REPORT
Key Survey Findings:
- Overall: CAIR’s initial August 25-27 survey revealed that 29.4% of American Muslims plan to vote for Kamala Harris of the Democratic Party, virtually tied with Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party, who follows closely with 29.1%. At the same time, Donald Trump of the Republican Party garners 11.2% of the vote, and Dr. Cornel West of the People’s Party receives 4.2%. Chase Oliver of the Libertarian Party has less than 1% support, with 16.5% of respondents remaining undecided.
- Battleground States: Dr. Stein is leading Harris in Arizona (35%) Michigan (40%) and Wisconsin (44%), while Harris leads Stein in Georgia (43%) and Pennsylvania (37%). Trump’s highest support is observed in Nevada (27%), just ahead of Harris (26%).
- Gender: Kamala Harris leads among Muslim male voters with 29%, while Dr. Jill Stein holds a stronger position among Muslim women at 34%. Donald Trump has similar levels of support among men (14%) and women (10%). Additionally, a higher proportion of men (17%) are undecided compared to women (16%).
- Racial Demographics: Kamala Harris is supported by 55.3% of Black Muslim voters, 28% of Asian Muslims, and 25.6% of White, Arab, and Turkic Muslims. Dr. Jill Stein is supported by 32.7% of White, Arab, and Turkic Muslim voters, 25.7% of Asian Muslims, and 11.2% of Black Muslim voters. Donald Trump is supported by 12.8% of White, Arab, and Turkic Muslims, 12.6% of Asian Muslims, and 9.8% of Black Muslim voters.
- Party Affiliation: Harris slightly leads among Democrats (33%) and Independents (30%), while Dr. Stein also garners significant support from these groups (32% and 28% respectively). Donald Trump’s highest support comes from Republicans (48%).
- Likelihood of Voting: Harris attracts a higher proportion of high-likelihood voters (33%), whereas Dr. Stein has a significant share of moderate-likelihood voters (65%). Trump’s support is concentrated among high-likelihood voters (13%).
- Support for Third Parties: Overall, support for third-party candidates (Stein and West) comes from both Muslim Democrats and Republicans, indicating discontent with both parties’ platforms on the issues that Muslim Americans prioritize.
“These new survey findings make it clear that American Muslim voters have the potential to determine the outcomes in several key battleground states and that they are still up for grabs in the 2024 election,” said CAIR Government Affairs Director Robert S. McCaw. “Candidates running for office cannot afford to overlook the issues that matter most to Muslim Americans. Ignoring this community or taking their votes for granted could be a costly mistake, particularly in swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin, where elections are often won by narrow margins. It’s time for candidates at every level of government to invest more time and resources in understanding the concerns of Muslim voters.”
Methodology: Conducted in partnership with Molitical Consulting LLC, the survey was conducted through an SMS text message sent to a proprietary, randomized national list of 40,000 registered Muslim voters from all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and military members serving overseas. The survey was conducted from Sunday, August 25, to Tuesday, August 27, and received 1,478 responses, 1,155 of which were verified and matched to the national voter file. This follow-up report delves into the preferences and trends among Muslim voters following Harris’s entry onto the Democratic ticket. The findings demonstrate significant demographic splits and offer key insights into how Muslim voters are shaping up ahead of the November election.
Why Muslim Votes Matter: As the 2024 national general election approaches, America’s estimated 2.5 million Muslim voters are positioned to once again play a crucial role in shaping the political landscape. With their significant presence in key swing states, Muslim voters have the potential to influence the outcomes of not only the presidential race but also numerous congressional, state, and local elections. This report aims to provide a comprehensive overview of Muslim voters’ political inclinations and voting intentions in this pivotal election year.
Muslims.Vote: As the November election approaches, CAIR plans continue to provide updates on Muslim voter preferences and trends on Muslims.Vote, CAIR’s voter empowerment website.
NOTE: As a 501(c)3 nonprofit, CAIR does not endorse or oppose candidates for office, and makes no claims as to the favorability of one candidate being elected over another.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations is America’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a grassroots civil rights and advocacy group. CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.
(202) 488-8787LATEST NEWS
Israel Lobbies US Congress to Pressure South Africa to Drop ICJ Genocide Case
One human rights expert said Israel's effort to bully South Africa is born from "obviously fearing it will lose" its World Court trial.
Sep 09, 2024
Israeli officials are lobbying U.S. lawmakers to pressure South Africa into dropping its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, according to a report published Monday.
Axiossaid it obtained a classified Israeli Foreign Ministry cable sent Monday to the country's embassy in Washington, D.C. and all its U.S. consulates threatening consequences if South Africa proceeds with its case in The Hague—which is backed by dozens of nations and regional blocs, as well as countless legal and genocide experts.
"We are asking you to immediately work with lawmakers on the federal and state level, with governors and Jewish organizations to put pressure on South Africa to change its policy towards Israel and to make clear that continuing their current actions like supporting Hamas and pushing anti-Israeli moves in international courts will come with a heavy price," the cable states.
As Axios reported:
The Israeli diplomats were instructed to ask members of Congress to issue public statements condemning South Africa's actions against Israel and threaten that it could lead tosuspending U.S. trade relations with South Africa. That's unlikely to happen because the U.S. wants to maintain its relationship with South Africa in order to counter the influence of Russia and China.
According to the report, Israeli officials are hoping that South Africa's new coalition government—the country's first to not be led by the leftist African National Congress since the beginning of post-apartheid majority rule—will eschew "boycotts and punishments" and prove more malleable.
This isn't the first time that Israel has been accused of trying to intimidate those who seek to hold it accountable for its obliteration of Gaza. Earlier this year, its government launched a pressure campaign urging world governments to condemn the ICJ trial.
South Africa filed its genocide case against Israel in December, alleging that statements and actions by Israeli government officials and armed forces "are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part" of the Palestinian population in violation of Article II of the Genocide Convention.
A final ICJ ruling is not expected for years. Israel says the case is "baseless" and has accused South Africa of "functioning as the legal arm of Hamas," which led the attacks in which more than 1,100 Israelis and others were killed—at least some by so-called "friendly fire"—last October 7. More than 240 other people were kidnapped and taken to Gaza.
Since October, Israeli forces have killed or maimed at least 145,000 Palestinians in Gaza, most of them women and children, while forcibly displacing almost all of the embattled strip's 2.3 million people. Israel's " complete siege" of Gaza has caused widespread starvation and disease. Eliminationist rhetoric by Israeli politicians, military officials, journalists, entertainers, and others started shortly after the Hamas-led attack of October 7 and continues to this day.
In January, the ICJ ordered Israel to "take all measures within its power" to uphold its obligations under Article II of the Genocide Convention. Israel's far-right government and military have been accused by human rights groups of ignoring the order.
As Israeli forces launched a major ground invasion of Rafah four months later, the ICJ issued another order for Israel to "immediately halt its military offensive" in the city, where around 1.5 million forcibly displaced and local Palestinian residents were sheltering. Instead of heeding the order, Israel ramped up its assault on Rafah.
At the International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan is urging the tribunal to promptly act upon his May application for warrants to arrest Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders—at least one of whom, political chief Ismail Haniyeh, was subsequently assassinated by Israel.
Israeli and U.S. officials have threatened ICC members with retaliation if the tribunal issues arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. In June, 42 House Democrats joined Republican lawmakers in passing legislation to sanction ICC jurists in the event they authorize the Israeli leaders' arrest.
The U.S. is by far Israel's biggest benefactor, providing billions of dollars worth of weapons and invaluable diplomatic cover including United Nations Security Council cease-fire resolution vetoes.
Many experts say the U.S. is complicit in Israel's genocide. A group of Palestinians, Palestinian Americans, and rights groups is seeking to hold President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin criminally accountable for supporting Israel's Gaza slaughter at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Racist Piece of Sh*t' JD Vance Spreads False Rumors of Pet-Eating Haitian Immigrants
"White supremacist and antidemocratic movements have always used the claim that so-called Black savages are coming to destroy, especially when political power is up for grabs," said one critic. "This is no different."
Sep 09, 2024
U.S. vice presidential candidate JD Vance and other Republicans including congressional lawmakers and Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of the X social media platform, were excoriated Monday for spreading unsubstantiated rumors that Haitian immigrants are killing and eating pets and park wildlife in an Ohio town.
Vance, who is also the junior U.S. senator from Ohio,
wrote Monday on X—formerly known as Twitter—that "months ago, I raised the issue of Haitian illegal immigrants draining social services and generally causing chaos all over Springfield, Ohio."
"Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn't be in this country," he added. "Where is our border czar?"
Haitians were also accused of killing and eating ducks and geese in the city's Snyder Park. However, a photo
purportedly showing a Haitian immigrant walking down a Springfield street carrying a dead bird was actually of an American and was taken in Columbus, Ohio—nearly 50 miles away.
The cat rumor originated nearly 100 miles away in Canton, Ohio, where a mentally ill woman—also an American—was
arrested last month for allegedly killing and eating a cat.
During a July Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing, Vance read a letter from Springfield City Manager Bryan Heck, a Republican, highlighting some of the challenges faced by municipal officials struggling to accommodate thousands of Haitian immigrants.
Nowhere in the letter are pet-eating Haitians mentioned. Both Heck and Springfield police officials have
refuted the rumor.
"We wish to clarify that there have been no credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured, or abused by individuals within the immigrant community," Heck
toldThe Hill. "Additionally, there have been no verified instances of immigrants engaging in illegal activities such as squatting or littering in front of residents' homes."
By the time mainstream media outlets began debunking the rumor, it had already gone viral. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
posted a meme showing two scared kittens with the caption, "Pease vote for Trump so Haitian immigrants don't eat us."
Musk, meanwhile,
reposted an AI-generated meme published by House Judiciary Committee Republicans showing Trump hugging animals with the caption, "Protect our ducks and kittens in Ohio!"
Many observers reacted with disgust to the rumor-spreading Republicans.
"In MAGA world, the alleged pet-eating is already a matter of fact, and Republican elected officials, including Vance, are hurrying to join the clout rush, the scramble to get attention and likes and followers by treating it as a serious issue," wroteWashington Post columnist Philip Bump.
"This is a central reason that Vance and others on the right are susceptible to being described as 'weird,'" Bump added. "There's an online world in which things get taken to the nth-degree because its economy rewards that sort of hyperbole. But then these obsessions and claims are taken out of that bubble and presented to everyone else and they don't hold up. What else can you do but marvel at how strange it all is?"
Erik Crew, staff attorney at the Haitian Bridge Alliance, an advocacy group,
toldThe Hill that "this is the same old anti-Black playbook that we've seen for hundreds of years in Ohio being rolled out to divide and create hate, especially around election times."
Crew continued:
White supremacist and antidemocratic movements have always used the claim that so-called Black savages are coming to destroy, especially when political power is up for grabs. This is no different. This time they are saying it is Haitians, and this time it is being used to try to score political points around immigration as well.
The fact is Haitian immigrants have been coming to Springfield seeking to come and contribute to U.S. democracy and the economy, and Springfield and Ohio will benefit from that like U.S. communities have benefited in the past from Black immigrants' contributions.
"The fact is the rumors about Haitians in Springfield and pets have already been debunked, but we won't stop hearing them because certain people will want to keep spreading them as the election nears," he added.
Dave Zirin, sports editor at
The Nation, was more blunt in his reaction.
"You are a racist piece of shit," he
wrote to Vance on X. "You lie like Trump without an inkling of his twisted charisma."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pro-Palestine Students, Faculty Sue UC Santa Cruz Over 'Unconstitutional' Ban
The lawsuit was filed "to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and due process against overreach by university authorities," the text said.
Sep 09, 2024
Students and staff at the University of California, Santa Cruz launched a lawsuit against the school on Monday for barring them from campus without due process after they were arrested at a pro-Palestinian protest in the spring.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Northern California, the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, and civil rights attorney Thomas Seabaugh, is demanding that the University "cease summarily banishing" people who exerciser their First Amendment rights as the new academic year beings.
"The bans were incredibly punitive and profoundly unfair," Rachel Lederman, senior counsel with the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, said in a statement. "They went into effect on the spot, instantly cutting students and faculty off from classes, jobs, and other school resources, such as meal plans and healthcare. On-campus residents were rendered homeless. Academic performance suffered."
"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship."
One impacted student was Elio Ellutzi, a plaintiff and undergraduate who was not only made homeless and cut off from their campus job, they were forced to the miss a pre-scheduled doctor's appointment and delay treatment until the fall.
"It was terrible to miss that appointment and be cut off from my home, the library, and my notes," Ellutzi said. "This all happened during final exams and, even though I had been on the honor roll for the last two quarters, I struggled to complete my coursework and my grades really suffered."
Fellow plaintiff and UCSC undergraduate Laaila Irshad also suffered academically.
"I was a resident assistant living and working in campus housing, so the ban was devastating," Laaila said. "I failed my school courses as I could not access my computer, attend classes, or complete assignments."
The bans were issued to more than 100 students and faculty members who were arrested on the night of May 30, when the university called in more than 100 police officers to clear the school's Palestine solidarity encampment.
Everyone arrested that night was banned from campus under section 626.4 of California's Penal Code, which allows a university to withdraw its consent for an individual's presence on campus for up to two weeks. However, in order for a university to make use of the code, it must first either hold a hearing or decide that an individual poses "a substantial and material threat." Neither criteria were met in the case of those arrested in May, in violation of both state and federal law.
Chessie Thacher, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said the bans were "unconstitutional and overbroad, depriving students and faculty of their due process rights."
The lawsuit explained further:
The campus police, acting under defendants' direction, handed out identical one-page Section 626.4 notices to arrestees. The officers handed out so many of these form notices en masse that they eventually ran out of paper and resorted to verbally informing students and faculty of the ban. Some people were also purportedly banned without getting either written or verbal notice. No hearing or opportunity to be heard was provided before any of these bans went into effect. No individualized findings were made about how, post-arrest, "the continued presence" on campus of each summarily banned person presented "a substantial and material threat of significant injury to persons or property."
The notices were also handed out after an arrest experience that was harrowing in and of itself, according to first-hand testimony from plaintiffs.
Christine Hong, a professor of critical race and ethnic studies, said she had gone to the encampment on May 30 to support her students:
When I arrived, I saw a line of officers advancing in militarized formation, moving forward, then stopping, and waiting before continuing their slow march down to the base of campus until they were just two to three feet in front of the line of students. From that point forward, they repeatedly attacked us in waves of violence. The police used their batons to force us so tightly into each other that some protesters were dry heaving from the batons being thrust violently into their organs. When students tried to move the batons away from their stomachs, they were ordered to stay still and bear the pain. The person next to me was later hospitalized for their injuries. In what appeared to be their efforts to pluck off protesters for arrest, officers in full riot gear were unrestrained in their violence, including grabbing people by the neck. One person sustained injuries so severe that they suffered neurological damage and now walks using a cane.
Once arrested, both Hong and Irshad described spending time in police vans with their hands tightly zip-tied and no chance to access facilities.
Irshad recalled:
I was arrested at 6:00 am, while other protesters remained on-site into the morning, still without basic necessities. We were then handcuffed tightly with zip ties and loaded into vans, where static radio blared at deafening volumes. When we pleaded for relief, the volume was increased, and when I asked to use the restroom, I was met with scorn and laughter. It was a shock to be treated so cruelly simply for exercising my right to protest.
The lawsuit stated that it was filed "to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and due process against overreach by university authorities."
"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship," Seabaugh said in a statement. "Our clients did not engage in conduct that posed a threat of significant injury to anyone or anything. Banning them on the spot was not just heavy-handed, it was unconstitutional and a violation of basic democratic rights and academic freedoms. We're suing to ensure that in the coming school year, UCSC officials comply with the law and respect the constitutional limits on their power to ban students and faculty from campus."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular