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
election 2018
'Watershed Moment in Election Law' as Judge Rules 'Modern Day Poll Tax' in Florida Unconstitutional
Advocates for restoring the voting rights of people with past convictions welcomed the ruling as "a powerful reminder that no one can trump the U.S. Constitution."
May 25, 2020
Civil liberties advocates celebrated after a federal court on Sunday struck down as unconstitutional a Florida law that would have denied the right to vote to nearly a million recently enfranchised state residents with past felony convictions until they paid all outstanding legal fees, fines, and restitution.
After Florida voters in November 2018 overwhelming backed Amendment 4--a ballot initiative that restored the voting rights of Floridians who have fully completed their sentences for felony convictions other than murder or sex crimes--state lawmakers passed legislation that critics condemned as a "modern day poll tax."
U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Hinkle of Tallahassee concluded (pdf) Sunday that making voting rights contingent on payment for criminal justice services that a state must or chooses to provide represented "a tax by any other name" and violated the U.S. Constitution's 24th Amendment and the National Voter Registration Act.
Rights groups that challenged the Florida law--which was pushed through by Republican state lawmakers and signed by GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis in June 2019--welcomed Hinkle's permanent injunction against SB7066 as "a watershed moment in election law" and "a powerful reminder that no one can trump the U.S. Constitution."
Leah C. Aden of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund called the ruling "a monumental win for our democracy" while Julie Ebenstein, senior staff attorney with ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said it was "a tremendous victory for voting rights" that could enable hundreds of thousands of Floridians to participate upcoming elections.
Sean Morales-Doyle, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law, said in a statement that this "historic win" in court "opens the way for hundreds of thousands of Floridians to exercise their fundamental right to vote this November--and our democracy will be stronger for their participation."
Although the state is expected to appeal Hinkle's decision--meaning participation in the upcoming November elections remains uncertain for many--the New York Times noted that "much of Sunday's ruling is built on a previous ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, which would hear any appeal."
Critics of SB7066 vowed to keep up the legal battle as long as is necessary. The case was brought by the national ACLU, the ACLU of Florida, the Brennan Center, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Campaign Legal Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the legal firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.
ACLU of Florida legal director Daniel Tilley said that "our democracy requires that every eligible voter have equitable access to the ballot box. Instead of embracing this founding principle, the Florida Legislature and Gov. DeSantis enacted a modern-day poll tax to keep people from accessing this fundamental right."
"It should alarm Floridians that there are people occupying the highest echelons of political power in our state who fought to keep Florida tied to its racist past and bar people from voting," Tilley added. "While the state is likely to appeal this decision, we're ready to take this fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court."
Tilley and Aden acknowledged the bravery of their clients who participated in the case and spoke out against the law, which they denounced as discriminatory.
"While we're disappointed that the court did not recognize that the legislature's decision to adopt SB7066 was partially motivated by a desire to minimize the political power of black returning citizens, we nonetheless celebrate this important win alongside our brave clients like Raquel Wright, Curtis Bryant, Jr., LaToya Moreland, and the Florida State and Orange County NAACP," said Aden. "Through their compelling testimony and dedicated engagement, they fearlessly stood up against Florida's attempt to put a price tag on voting."
The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (FRRC), a grassroots group run by formerly convicted persons that helped lead the ultimately successful effort to pass Amendment 4, also welcomed Hinkle's decision in a statement (pdf) Sunday and promised to continue fighting for enfranchising Floridians.
"This court decision adds another remarkable chapter in our fight as returning citizens to participate in our democracy," said FRRC executive director Desmond Meade. "We will remain vigilant in our commitment to place people over politics, and ensure that all returning citizens, no matter how they may vote, have an opportunity to possess what we believe to be the most endearing sign of citizenship, the right to vote."
"As the leaders of Amendment 4," Meade added, "we are looking forward to utilizing this court ruling to expand on our registration efforts to create a more inclusive democracy, make voting exciting again, and to coalesce the voices of returning citizens to create a more just and equitable justice system."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Newly-Launched PAC Matriarch Aims to Send Working-Class Women, Often Ignored by Political Establishment, to Congress
"Money should not be a factor for what makes a woman a worthwhile candidate."
Nov 03, 2019
Working and low-income progressive women whose congressional runs go overlooked by establishment political action groups have a new resource for funding their campaigns: the newly-launched organization Matriarch.
The group--whose founding members include board director Nomiki Konst, a former candidate for public advocate in New York City; former Nevada assemblywoman Lucy Flores; and former California state assembly candidate Jovanka Beckles--shared its overarching mission on Twitter:
"Working-class women who beat the odds to run for office and win are rare. We won't rest until the exception is the rule," the group tweeted.
The group details its mission statement on its website.
"Now more than ever, we need strong, progressive working women at the helm of government," the statement reads. "Domestic workers. Teachers. Home health aides. Food-service workers. No one knows better what it feels like to work for less than $15 an hour. What it means to have no healthcare. What it tastes like when your tap water runs brown. No one knows better the human cost of gun violence, police brutality, and family separation."
"For working-class candidates, raising huge sums of money in a short amount of time--while also working one or more jobs--is often unthinkable. These are the candidates who need and deserve early assistance and infrastructure support, because they are personally connected to the issues they are fighting for."
--Matriarch"For working-class candidates, raising huge sums of money in a short amount of time--while also working one or more jobs--is often unthinkable," the group continues. "These are the candidates who need and deserve early assistance and infrastructure support, because they are personally connected to the issues they are fighting for."
With more than three dozen progressive women on its founding board--including many former candidates themselves--Matriarch will offer working-class women's campaigns the support and financial backing that larger organizations, like EMILY's List, frequently withhold from candidates who aren't wealthy or backed by rich donors.
Within just days of announcing its launch on social media late last month, Matriarch has already received 1,500 nominations for working-class women's campaigns, according to The Intercept. The group is taking nominations until December 1 and plans to make its first endorsements by January.
It's a model like the one used by progressive group Justice Democrats, who endorsed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) after receiving her nomination from her brother, when the congresswoman was taking part in protests at Standing Rock Indian Reservation and working as a bartender.
When Ocasio-Cortez challenged former Rep. Joe Crowley in the 2018 Democratic primary for New York's 14th congressional district, the pro-choice PAC EMILY's list declined to endorse her along with a number of other female progressives during that cycle. The group trains, helps fund, and endorses pro-choice women who are running for office, but progressives are critical of the organization for leaving economic justice and working-class women, who generally can't afford to run a campaign full-time and who aren't independently wealthy, out of their mission.
As Konst explained on the podcast "The Majority Report" last month, Matriarch will prioritize financially backing women who run for office with few resources and who make economic justice a central message of their campaigns.
"The goal of the group is to fill a space because we think that economic justice and intersectional issues are not prioritized when supporting women running for office, but also if you're a working woman running for office you most likely don't have access to wealth," Konst said. "So we want to help, really from the ground level, a lot of these candidates."
Some of the women on Matriarch's founding team have had their own experiences being passed over for support from EMILY's List.
In 2016, the group endorsed Susie Lee, a wealthy philanthropist, over Flores in the campaign for Nevada's 4th congressional district, reasoning that Lee had "over half a million dollars more in her campaign account than Lucy."
"They continue to exist as if they're these big champions of women, but really what they are is a champion of rich white women," Flores told Buzzfeed News in 2018.
A number of progressive observers applauded Matriarch for offering support for women whose own struggles with poverty and inequality could help them to give working families unprecedented representation in Congress.
"Our current electoral system works against working people and is biased towards those who are independently wealthy," Beckles told The Intercept. "We need systemic change that recognizes that--as designed--the status quo automatically significantly eliminates those that are most affected by these policies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With 330,000 People on Georgia 'Purge List,' Rights Advocates Warn of Massive Voter Suppression
"Voters should not lose their right to vote simply because they have decided not to express that right in recent elections."
Oct 29, 2019
Voting rights advocates in Georgia vowed to fight for the rights of more than 300,000 people in the state whose registrations may be purged from the rolls in the coming weeks by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp's administration.
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced Monday that about 330,000 voter registrations may be canceled in early December if the voters do not confirm that they still live in the state. The purge is targeting people who have not voted in the last five years and could affect about four percent of the state's eligible voters.
"Having a long history of voter suppression, the Georgia secretary of state's office has a responsibility to guarantee that not a single voter is wrongly included on the purge list."
--Lauren Groh-Wargo, Fair Fight Action
"Voters should not lose their right to vote simply because they have decided not to express that right in recent elections," Fair Fight Action's Lauren Groh-Wargo told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The group was founded by Stacey Abrams, the 2018 Democratic gubernatorial candidate in the state.
While Kemp was serving as secretary of state in 2017, his office oversaw the largest purge of voter registrations in U.S. history, kicking more than 534,000 people off the rolls. Voting rights groups condemned Georgia's Republican leaders for what they saw as massive voter suppression effort--especially after Kemp went on to win the 2018 election by 1.4 percentage points.
"Having a long history of voter suppression, the Georgia secretary of state's office has a responsibility to guarantee that not a single voter is wrongly included on the purge list," Groh-Wargo told the Journal-Constitution.
This year, election officials will have to notify voters before their registrations are purged--a requirement that wasn't in effect in 2018. Notifications warning of the purge will be sent out to voters' last known addresses in early November and recipients will have 30 days to respond before their names are removed from state records.
The nonpartisan group Georgia Voter Guide posted an image of the form on social media and warned voters to respond if they receive the notification.
Fair Fight also tweeted that it plans to organize volunteer phone banks and other efforts to contact voters who will be receiving the forms.
The group filed a lawsuit against the state earlier this year alleging that during the 2018 election Kemp's former office kept voters from the polls by canceling registrations and well as closing hundreds of precincts in rural areas that were largely populated by low-income and black residents.
On Monday, American Public Media (APM) reported that Georgia's voter registration deadline--one of the strictest in the country, requiring voters to register at least 29 days before an election--kept 87,000 people from voting in 2018.
"This is why every state should have Election Day registration," tweeted journalist Ari Berman.
Voting experts say deadlines and confirmation forms like those Georgia is requiring don't reflect the reality of how many Americans vote.
"A significant part of the electorate makes up its mind on the day of the election," political science professor Robert Alexander told APM. "What's important is that people who want to go to the polls should be able to."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Knock Down the House': Netflix Drops Trailer Featuring Rise of Ocasio-Cortez
"The film does an amazing job portraying the blood, sweat, and tears involved in running a grassroots primary challenge when all the odds are stacked against you."
Apr 22, 2019
An "inspiring" new documentary offers an inside look into the grassroots congressional campaigns of four progressive women who attempted to topple corporate-friendly Democrats in the 2018 primary elections.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was the only candidate featured in "Knock Down the House" who won her race despite long odds, defeating Wall Street favorite Joe Crowley in a landslide.
Amy Vilela of Nevada, Cori Bush of Missouri, and Paula Jean Swearengin of West Virginia each came up short, but their campaigns offer compelling examples of working-class women taking on the status quo and fighting for progressive change, said Alexandra Rojas, executive director of advocacy group Justice Democrats.
"The film does an amazing job portraying the blood, sweat, and tears involved in running a grassroots primary challenge when all the odds are stacked against you," added Rojas. "I hope the footage from the early days of these campaigns encourages other leaders, especially progressive working-class women and women of color, to consider running for Congress. Even if it means taking on the machine."
"Knock Down the House" premiers on Netflix May 1.
Watch the trailer:
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Poll Tax By Any Other Name': Florida GOP Undermines Newly-Restored Voting Rights For 1.4 Million People
"The Constitution can't operate as the supreme law of our nation if it's consistently subverted."
Mar 19, 2019
Civil rights advocates Tuesday slammed Republicans in Florida for passing a bill that would severely undermine a law approved by voters last year that restored voting rights to residents with felony convictions.
Four months ago, Florida voters passed Amendment 4 in a state referendum to allow many of the state's former felons to vote. But on Tuesday, the Republican-controlled House Criminal Justice Subcommittee passed CRJ 3 in a party-line vote.
While the passage of Amendment 4 was celebrated by voting rights advocates nationwide, the new GOP measure would undermine the hard won victory by requiring former felons to pay all court fees in order to have their right to vote granted.
Critics including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Public Citizen denounced CRJ 3 as a poll tax.
More than 64 percent of Florida voters approved Amendment 4 in November, restoring voting rights to about 1.4 million former felons. Convicted murderers and felony sex offenders are excluded under the amendment, and felons must complete all terms of their sentence including parole and probation to be permitted to vote.
The ACLU of Florida said Tuesday that by forcing Floridians with felony convictions to pay courts as well, CRJ 3 "would effectively disenfranchise two categories of returning citizens for life: those with very small financial obligations that they will never be able to pay due to poverty and those with financial obligations for non-violent property crimes."
The group's political director, Kirk Bailey, called the bill "an affront to Florida voters" which "will inevitably prevent individuals from voting based on the size of one's bank account."
"If this bill passes, it will undoubtedly continue to disenfranchise those who have already served their time and paid their debt to society," Bailey said in a statement. "This is exactly what we were worried about from the beginning - legislative attempts to undermine the will of the people who voted for second chances and to rid Florida of the last vestiges of its Jim Crow era past."
"The House bill raises serious constitutional concerns," he added. "We urge lawmakers to uphold the will of Florida voters and withdraw this deficient bill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Election Ordered in North Carolina Over Actual Real-Life "Voter Fraud" Allegedly Carried Out by GOP Campaign
"Kind of seems important that the only large-scale voter fraud in recent years was committed by Republicans in North Carolina. When is Donald Trump going to tweet about it?"
Feb 21, 2019
Further proving that the real "voter fraud" that exists is voter suppression, North Carolina was forced to call for a new election after facing evidence that the 9th congressional district's 2018 Republican candidate had paid a political operative to commit fraud on his behalf.
As of Friday, President Donald Trump and others who have spent years decrying so-called "voter fraud" were silent on the development.
Mark Harris, who ran in November against Democrat Dan McCready, announced at a hearing before the Board of Elections that he believed public confidence in the election results, which had him leading McCready by 905 votes, had been "undermined" so severely that a new election was necessary.
The five-member board unanimously agreed with Harris as they voted Thursday evening and ordered a new election be held. The move comes as a major development in what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called "one of the most egregious cases of GOP election fraud in recent memory."
Critics noted that the president, despite having assembled a now-defunct panel to oversee "election integrity" as one of his first orders of business when he entered office in 2017 and making frequent statements about supposed illegal voting by undocumented immigrants, has had nothing to say about Harris's participation in a fraudulent absentee ballot scheme which swayed the election in his favor.
"Here's my question: Where is the voter fraud crowd?" asked Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap, who served on Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, in a column earlier this week. Dunlap said he initially served on the panel in hopes of being a "voice of reason."
"You know, the folks who cry 'crime' when two people named John Smith vote in the same state? Their silence in the face of seemingly serious election fraud reveals their fundamental bad faith and hucksterism," Dunlap wrote in the Washington Post.
During the hearing before election officials, witnesses described Harris's association with L. McCrae Dowless Jr., a political operative who ahead of the 2018 election told Harris he could assist his campaign by distributing absentee ballots in the 9th district and then not collect them.
The race between Harris and McCready was never called after the election in November, as officials raised alarm over suspicious results in Bladen County. Although Republican votes only accounted for 19 percent of the absentee ballots in the county, Harris had won nearly two-thirds of the absentee votes.
Election board chairman Robert Cordle called for a new election Thursday, decrying "the corruption, the absolute mess with the absentee ballots" and saying, "It was certainly a tainted election."
McCready called the board's decision a "great step forward for democracy."
"The truth is, the myth of voter fraud is nothing more than a ploy to justify laws that make it significantly harder for racial minorities and the poor, constituencies that often lean toward Democrats, to exercise their constitutional right to vote," wrote Dunlap. "The commitment to this fiction, rather than to the facts and the evidence, has left them blind to and uninterested in confronting the real fraud occurring right before our eyes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
One Year After Parkland Massacre, Student-Led Movement Celebrated for Renewed Progress on Gun Control Legislation
"Elections have consequences."
Feb 13, 2019
Hours before Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida was to mark the one-year anniversary of its deadly shooting, gun control groups applauded as major gun control legislation was advanced to the House floor for the first time in years--the latest stride in a renewed push for meaningful reform which has been led largely by Parkland survivors.
The House Judiciary Committee voted 21 to 14, along party lines, to send the Bipartisan Background Checks Act (H.R. 8) to the House Wednesday night after nine hours of debate. The bill would require background checks for all gun sales in the U.S. The committee also passed a bill to close a loophole in the current, weaker background checks law that allows a gun purchase to move ahead if the check is not conducted within three days.
Along with the Judiciary Committee's hearing last week--the first on gun control in more than a decade--the votes were the first significant anti-gun actions taken by the Democratic Party since it won control of the House in November.
Members of the national gun control group Moms Demand Action looked on as the committee debated the bill, with Democrats shooting down Republican attempts to amend the legislation and adjourn the debate.
The bill is expected to pass in the House, with at least five Republicans expected to vote with Democrats in favor of the legislation. It has virtually no chance of passing in the GOP-controlled Senate, but advocates celebrated its advancement to the House as the latest sign that students who turned to activism after surviving the Parkland shooting, which killed 17 people and injured 17 more, have made a difference in the United States' gun control debate.
The aftermath of the Parkland shooting was marked by the immediate activism of students including David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez, who set to work directly confronting members of Congress to demand that they stop taking donations from the NRA and other pro-gun groups; organizing nationwide student walkouts and the largest single-day protest in Washington, D.C. history, with an estimated 800,000 people joining the March for Our Lives; and organizing a nationwide push to register young people to vote--helping to bring about a historic surge in youth voter turnout and the election of vocally pro-gun control Democrats across the country.
"It remains to be seen whether the shift on guns will hold in the coming years. But if it does, it would amount to a significant change in America's politics--one that can be pinpointed back to Parkland." --German Lopez, Vox.comThe momentum the students caused also helped push gun control reforms at the state level, with 26 states passing a total of 67 gun control measures.
Eight states and Washington, D.C. passed red flag laws over the past year, enabling law enforcement agencies to take firearms away from those who pose a threat to themselves or others, while nine states passed funding for gun violence prevention programs to help prevent shootings that take place every day in U.S. cities.
"Beyond 2019, the midterm elections showed that candidates can support stronger gun laws--and even focus a campaign on the issue--and still win elections, even in states that have been resistant to stronger gun laws in the past," wrote German Lopez at Vox.com in December. "This is a shift: Since 1994, when stricter gun laws were partly blamed for electoral losses, Democrats have often shied away from the issue."
"It remains to be seen whether the shift on guns will hold in the coming years," he added. "But if it does, it would amount to a significant change in America's politics--one that can be pinpointed back to Parkland."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Standing Ovation at Sundance, Ocasio-Cortez Says 'All Hands on Deck' Against 'Systemic Injustices' That Led to Trump
"We need to realize that our democracy does belong to us, and when we don't participate in it, when we don't invest in it, when we don't put our own energy into it, what we are doing is we are giving it away to somebody else."
Jan 27, 2019
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who told the audience that just getting rid of President Donald Trump will not be enough to repair the nation's ills, received a standing ovation at the Sundance Film Festival as she appeared via Skype at the Sunday premiere of a documentary featuring her grassroots campaign and stunning primary upset last year.
"I think overall, we need to realize that our democracy does belong to us, and when we don't participate in it, when we don't invest in it, when we don't put our own energy into it, what we are doing is we are giving it away to somebody else, and we give it away usually to a very small group of people," Ocasio-Cortez said.
While the freshman congresswoman is a longtime critic of Trump, she framed his election as the consequence of a degraded democratic system that requires reforms and greater public engagement. According to the Daily Beast, following the debut of Knock Down the House, she said:
I hope everyone walks away knowing that we are still in a mode where it's all hands on deck for our democracy. This is not just about the president of the United States. He could be gone tomorrow and that will not change the systemic injustices that led to his election, so it's important that we continue to be all hands on deck in this fight. We are so early on. We can do 2018 again better in 2020, so when someone tells you that they're going to run for office, believe in them early, don't dismiss them, and know that when we all participate, and when we all know what we have to give, and when we choose to give it, our nation will be better. We have no other choice.
Agreeing with her remarks, the group Public Citizen tweeted, "So long as a handful of rich donors have outsized influence over who's elected and what's debated in Congress, our democracy will remain broken."
Knock Down the House was directed by Rachel Lears, known for the Emmy-nominated The Hand That Feeds. Her latest documentary is set to be screened at the festival in Park City, Utah throughout the week, followed by New York City's Athena Festival in March.
The film, as Sundance describes it,
follows four women--Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Amy Vilela, Cori Bush, and Paula Jean Swearengin--who join a movement of insurgent candidates to topple incumbents in an electric primary race for Congress. At a moment of historic volatility in American politics, these four women--all political outsiders--unite to do what many consider impossible. Their efforts result in a legendary upset.
Ocasio-Cortez was the only one of the four who was ultimately elected to Congress, but her primary victory in June, followed by a widely expected win in November, shook the entire Democratic Party establishment.
Since taking office, she has stuck to the positions that earned her a national spotlight after her primary--from demanding that the Trump administration promote peace in the Middle East and calling for a 70 percent marginal tax rate for the ultra wealthy to securing seats on the House Oversight as well as Financial Services committees.
Watch the trailer for Knock Down the House:
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Historic Moment': After Ballot Measure Victory Repeals Jim Crow Law, Voting Rights Restored for 1.4M Ex-Felons in Florida
Despite fears of delays stoked by the incoming Republican governor, "the single-biggest enfranchisement of voting rights since passage of the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" took effect Tuesday
Jan 07, 2019
Voting rights activists on Tuesday celebrated what the ACLU of Florida called "the single-biggest enfranchisement of voting rights since passage of the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" as an estimated 1.4 million people who completed felony sentences regained the right to vote--the result of a ballot measure victory in November that repealed "one of the country's worst Jim Crow laws."
Under the voter-approved amendment to the Florida constitution, ex-felons--or returning citizens, a term that some prefer--who reside in the state and have completed their sentence, including parole and probation, can register to vote either at their county's elections office or online at RegisterToVoteFlorida.gov. The restoration of voting rights does not extend to those convicted of murder or felony sex crimes.
In an op-ed for the Orlando Sentinel on Monday, Desmond Meade, president of the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, which led the grassroots movement to get Amendment 4 on the ballot, reflected on his "front-row seat to witness a great moment in Florida's and America's history; a moment that everyone should reflect on and appreciate," and detailed plans to be "one of the first people at my local supervisor of elections office when their doors open in the morning," accompanied by his family.
Meade acknowledged his "joy and reverence" over his restored rights but also noted frustration that has followed the November victory, due largely to commentary by right-wing state officials, writing:
This is an historic moment so it is understandable that, along with great excitement, there has been a little confusion. However, when I register to vote, I will be doing so fully expecting every state officer, public servant, and citizen of Florida to abide by the rule of law and ensure that this new constitutional right is not infringed upon, and that the process of issuing my voter information card will not be hindered nor delayed.
Sharing Meade's piece on Twitter, Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, called Amendment 4 "a victory for democracy, one where all citizens deserve second chances and the right to vote."
Meade's op-ed came as organizers encouraged felons who are eligible to register as soon as they can, especially considering that last month, as Washington Post explained,
Gov.-elect Ron DeSantis (R) backed a delay so that lawmakers could consider how ex-felons' registration should be implemented. To many, the timing is suspect: The legislature does not convene until March, but municipal elections in Florida begin in February. All Democratic candidates running for statewide office in November endorsed the amendment. Republican candidates largely did not, including DeSantis and Gov. Rick Scott (R), who beat incumbent Bill Nelson (D) in the U.S. Senate race.
While no such delay has materialized yet, those who fought for Amendment 4--which was approved by nearly 65 percent of voters--insist that "the amendment was written to be self-executing," as Neil Volz, political director of the bipartisan Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, told the Post. Volz, who is now eligible to register in Florida's Lee County, added, "My supervisor of elections assured me that my registration form will be accepted."
As returning citizens fill out registrations, though, a report from The Intercept on Tuesday suggests the fight may not be over just yet.
Responding to a request for comment on confusion over Amendment 4's implementation in light of DeSantis' support for a delay, the Florida Department of State said in a statement that the amendment takes effect Tuesday, but that the department "will abide by any future direction from the Executive Clemency Board or the Florida Legislature regarding necessary action or implementing legislation to ensure full compliance with the law."
"They're trying to circumvent the will of the voter by put up all these roadblocks," Melba Pearson, deputy director of the ACLU of Florida, told the Wall Street Journal of Republican opposition to allowing the amendment to be implemented on Tuesday without additional legislation. Pearson also promised the legal advocacy group is prepared to go to court if election officials fail to comply with the measure.
Keep ReadingShow Less
With Mueller Report Expected Soon, Trump Team May Claim Executive Privilege to Block Public Release
While critics called such a move "absurd," they also warned it could tie up the special counsel's report in court for months or even years
Jan 06, 2019
With Special Counsel Robert Mueller expected to put out a report detailing his findings from the ongoing probe into alleged Russian election interference and any collusion or obstruction of justice by President Donald Trump's campaign or administration as early as next month, the president's legal team may move to block parts of it from Congress and the public on the grounds of executive privilege.
In a report published Monday by Bloomberg News, Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani said that in terms of asserting executive privilege, "We will look at it and see if the president thinks there is a valid claim and if there is, do we want to make it." He added: "We reserve the right. We don't know if we have to, but we haven't waived it."
Giuliani also confirmed that the president's legal team is willing to go to court over any parts of the report Trump believes should be withheld. Such a battle, should one occur, is expected to advance all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"This is a real threat," responded Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent. "It's another reason Dems taking the House was so important," given that they "can subpoena the findings, and they'd probably prevail in court."
While the Democrats who took control of the U.S. House last week plan to demand access to the report and fight to publicly release it, the regulation authorizing a special counsel does not require that Mueller disclose his findings to federal lawmakers or the public.
However, in the event of Trump trying to use executive privilege, former President Richard Nixon's White House counsel John Dean noted that federal lawmakers could call Mueller to testify on Capitol Hill, and "Trump can't stop Mueller from going to Congress and talking about everything that's in his report."
Although Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, posited that any effort by Trump's team to block the disclosure of Mueller's findings "will not hold up in court" because "executive privilege can always be pierced by a specific and legitimate criminal or congressional inquiry," as Bloomberg explained:
The White House voluntarily turned over tens of thousands of pages of records to Mueller's investigators, avoiding a subpoena fight with the special prosecutor.
The lawyers believe that preserved the president's option to assert later that the information can't be shared outside of the executive branch. Had Mueller subpoenaed the documents and won, the White House would have lost the ability to block their public release.
Dean called claiming executive privilege after turning over documents "absurd," but he also warned that the "stalling tactic" could "tie it up in the lower courts for a couple of years."
Trump and his attorneys aren't the only barriers to publicly revealing Mueller's findings though. Intelligence agencies will likely move to redact certain classified information included in it, Bloomberg pointed out, and "Justice Department lawyers also are required to withhold information that pertains to grand jury proceedings or ongoing sensitive law enforcement operations."
The president's legal team, meanwhile, is supposedly working on its own report "to counter any findings that paint Trump in a negative light."
Mueller, for his part, is still receiving information regarding the probe. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the new House Intelligence Committee chairman, told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" on Sunday that he hopes to turn over the panel's interviews quickly, pointing to concerns about potential perjury for "multiple witnesses," whom he declined to name.
"We hope, as one of our first acts, to make the transcripts of our witnesses fully available to special counsel for any purpose, including the bringing of perjury charges if necessary against any of the witnesses," Schiff said. "I think Bob Mueller, by virtue of the fact that he has been able to conduct this investigation using tools that we didn't have in our committee, meaning compulsion, is in a better position to determine, OK, who was telling the truth, who wasn't, and who could I make a case against in terms of perjury?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy