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
u s supreme court
With Project 2025, the State of Future Elections Hangs in the Balance
Given the results of this election, future political contests in our country face heightened threat levels that demand our vigilance and action.
Nov 18, 2024
While votes are still being counted in some states, turnout for the 2024 general election continues to near (although not quite yet reach) 2020 records, despite our country’s incredibly polarized voting landscape. In our current environment, these levels of participation are a testament to the tenacity of organizers to overcome voter suppression and ensure all voters can fully participate in our democracy.
However, this success cannot lull us into a false sense of security in our push to make voting more accessible. The fight to protect unrestricted access to the ballot box is a year-round effort and responsibility. And now, given the results of this election, future political contests in our country face heightened threat levels that demand our vigilance and action.
The fight for voting rights is one of the greatest litmus tests for the health of U.S. democracy.
Over the last four years, anti-voting rights extremists have made their mission clear: to turn back the hands of time and further disenfranchise Black and brown communities and other historically targeted groups to ensure their continued grip on power. In nearly half of the country, it is now harder for people in Black and brown communities to vote compared with the most recent midterm elections. Yet, Black and brown voters persist. However, as the new administration prepares to reenter the White House for a second term, anti-democratic forces are, once more, being given an opportunity to radically dismantle and change election administration in our country.
And Project 2025 is their blueprint to do just that.
Project 2025 is the extremist playbook laying out the tactics to dismantle critical democratic infrastructures and rights, including the right to vote. Among its multi-pronged approach to accomplish this, Project 2025 would criminalize the voting process, shifting the responsibility for prosecuting election-related offenses from the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division to the Criminal Division. This move would allow for ill-intentioned individuals and leaders to intimidate state and local election workers, and cobble up sham investigations that could lead to the prosecution of voters and election officials.
Policing voters to this magnitude would transform our elections into a system of fear and oppression, severely weakening our country’s electoral integrity.
Yet, that’s not all.
Speaking of lowered electoral integrity, another key provision of Project 2025 would end all federal-level measures to combat misinformation and disinformation campaigns online. These toxic narratives, meant to discourage voter participation, are already widespread and known to target Black and Latino communities disproportionately. By choosing to abandon any federal responsibility to protect these groups from falsehoods, extremists are choosing to make the truth an option rather than a right in election cycles so the outcomes can favor their camp.
Lastly, and perhaps most insidiously, Project 2025 would allow the federal government to access voter rolls by creating stipulations of eligibility that would force state and local recipients of Department of Homeland Security funding to turn over DMV and voter registration databases. This tactic would open the door to justifying aggressive voter roll purges that would further target Black and brown communities. Furthermore, based on the Supreme Court’s increasingly conservative and extreme ideology, we cannot rely on the court to hold the line and protect voters from such an egregious move.
In addition to federal rollbacks, we can also anticipate a flood of anti-voter bills to be introduced as soon as legislative cycles commence. Fueled by misinformation and this recent electoral win, these bills will more than likely work to chip away at voter access among the youth, people of color, those in rural areas, and those living with disabilities. These bills, like Project 2025 itself, aim to limit who can cast a ballot to dictate who has a say in the future of this country.
Both State Voices and Common Cause are proud members of the Election Protection Coalition, a national coalition working year-round to ensure that all voters, regardless of their race, sex, and location, have an equal opportunity to vote and their ballots are counted. Our coalition is made up of more than 300 local, state, and national groups united under one profound belief: Democracy requires constant, committed protection. We understand that our democratic systems do not come under attack every four years, but every day there’s an opportunity to weaken them.
Now, with Project 2025, we have an opportunity to not only identify the threats but begin to mobilize against them. It is imperative that we remain vigilant in our fight against anti-voter legislation and work together to combat any proposed administrative changes designed to undermine how elections are conducted and how votes are certified.
The fight for voting rights is one of the greatest litmus tests for the health of U.S. democracy. We are only as strong as our willingness to protect the rights of all people and not just a few. This moment calls us to action—we cannot afford paralysis in any shape or form. We are called to stand on the shoulders of the activists who came before us so that the elections of the future remain fair and free. We know that Black and brown communities will, once again, lead the charge to protect this precious right, but the moment will call for all of us to do our part to push back against anti-democratic extremism. The future and everything we hold dear depends on it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fearing More 'Blatant Corruption' in Second Trump Term, Watchdog Issues Ethics Blueprint
"Should the flagrant disregard of ethics rules return, the political opposition must use all tools at their disposal to advance ethics reforms and neutralize as much harm as possible."
Oct 31, 2024
A leading U.S. watchdog group on Thursday published what it called "a blueprint for strengthening the federal government's ethics programs across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches" amid Democrats' inadequate reforms and the prospect of more "outright scandals and blatant corruption" under a possible second administration of former Republican President Donald Trump.
The Revolving Door Project publication—titled Rebuilding Public Trust: Six Principles to Guide Reform—notes that "Americans' trust in government is near historic lows, a trend that both preceded and continued after the blatant corruption of the Trump administration."
"Democratic administrations, too, made limited progress in curtailing the more routine forms of corruption that combine with dramatic scandals to undercut public trust," the report continues, adding that President Joe Biden's 2021 executive order on ethics "was only a modest step up on what has been standard, failing to take the large strides necessary to close the revolving door between private and public sectors, mandate divestitures, or require compliance with stringent transparency measures."
"The next administration will be a crucial test of ethical management of the federal government."
"Congressional Democrats' reform proposals have also stopped short of addressing mundane corruption, even as many Democrats have been implicated in congressional trading scandals and leaders like Nancy Pelosi have expressed disdain for commonsense measures like banning congressional stock trading," the paper asserts, referring to the House speaker emeritus from California.
"The Supreme Court and federal judiciary have been swamped by ethics scandals, with investigative reporting exposing judges' and justices' failures to disclose lavish trips from wealthy backers and failures to recuse in cases involving their financial interests—yet some mainstream judicial ethics proposals stop short of even holding the judiciary to the same ethics standards as Congress," the report adds.
The publication enumerates "six principles that should guide ethics reform efforts":
- Practices that can be plausibly perceived as corrupt must be outlawed;
- Successful ethics program will consist of bright-line rules that are simple to administer and enforce;
- Ethics rules should be as comprehensive as possible in both who and what they cover;
- Ethics rules should distinguish between corporate lobbying that serves private interests, and lobbying by public interest groups;
- Ethics offices must have the legal authority, independence, and resources to find and investigate breaches and hold powerful actors accountable; and
- The ethics system, no matter how strong, must proactively invite public scrutiny, not cower from it.
"By slowing the turn of the revolving door and banning all political appointees, federal judges, Supreme Court justices, and members of Congress from owning individual stocks, the next administration and Congress could make huge strides in rebuilding Americans' trust that the government works in the public interest, not corporate interests," Revolving Door Project research director and report co-author Andrea Beaty said in a statement Thursday. "And our recommendations to promote transparency and strong enforcement would work to cement such advances."
Trump—whose first term was marred by thousands of conflicts of interest and many other alleged and proven improprieties—is already one of the most conflicted presidents in U.S. history, given his business connections with foreign governments and holdings in industries governed by federal regulators.
Earlier this month, Democrats on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee published a report detailing how, while in office, the former president used his Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. to enrich himself with hundreds of illegal or questionable payments from federal and state officials, job-seekers, and presidential pardon recipients.
"With Trump unabashedly previewing a return to blatant corruption and Americans in a period of near-historically low trust in government, the next administration will be a crucial test of ethical management of the federal government," Revolving Door Project executive director Jeff Hauser said in a statement.
"Unless the next administration prioritizes robust ethics reforms, trust in government institutions will erode further," he added. "And should the flagrant disregard of ethics rules return, the political opposition must use all tools at their disposal to advance ethics reforms and neutralize as much harm as possible."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Self-Serving Supreme Court Is Exonerating Corrupt Officials For Its Own Benefit
The court is letting other government officials off the hook to shelter itself from scrutiny about the justices’ own deep-seated corruption.
Oct 30, 2024
Opinion by opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has moved toward a judicial framework that insulates justices from growing public concern about their own corruption. In a series of cases, the court has overturned corruption convictions of public officials who received substantial gifts and other things of value in exchange for government favors in decisions that detail the officials’ egregious behavior and yet absolve them of it.
In his law review article “Corruption and the Supreme Court,” Georgetown law professor Josh Chafetz exposes the self-serving nature of these decisions: The court is letting other government officials off the hook to shelter itself from scrutiny about the justices’ own deep-seated corruption.
Professor Chafetz’s disturbing theory is borne out by the evidence. In five cases concerning public corruption heard within the past decade, the Supreme Court issued in each one an opinion that diminished anti-corruption statutes by either framing them as too broad and vague, or by recategorizing corrupt behavior as simple acts natural to government life. As Chafetz stated to The New York Times, which recently wrote an article about his work:
In all five of the decisions, the court’s message has been that “federal law must be interpreted so as not to cover behavior that looks, to any reasonable observer, sketchy as hell...” Taken together, he added, the decisions make a basic point and a more subtle one. The basic one, he said, is that “the justices keep letting crooked politicians off the hook.”
From honest services fraud to quid pro quobribery, in case after case in which the Department of Justice, a U.S. district court, a unanimous jury, and a U.S. court of appeals have found the official’s conduct to be egregious enough to warrant a felony conviction, the Supreme Court has thrown out convictions and shielded government officials from accountability. And as Chafetz explained, it has done this to shield its own misconduct from criticism. The justices responsible for weakening our anti-corruption laws include not just Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, whose records of lavish gifts have recently been exposed, but all justices who in at least some cases voted unanimously to throw out the convictions of corrupt government officials.
The Supreme Court’s forgiving rhetoric on corruption is not new. Its recent opinions emerge from dangerous precedent set in campaign finance law cases, like Citizens United. The Supreme Court has overlooked evidence of undue influence in elections by entities capable of vast political spending, and instead informed the federal and state governments that their only legitimate anti-corruption state interest is in blocking quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. That skyscraper bar, which notoriously is difficult to document, has proven deficient and led to unprecedented levels of campaign spending where the risk of corruption can only be higher. The court’s early refusal to enforce a thorough and meaningful framework of corruption created a slippery slope, unraveling corruption law altogether. And now, the Supreme Court is relieving public officials accused of serious misconduct at all levels.
The Supreme Court’s shocking leniency on matters of corruption does not quell growing concerns about public erosion of trust in government systems, but rather pushes to the public a reimagination of its own corruption as being equally ordinary. It is not. The Supreme Court’s tolerance of public corruption is a self-serving feat to insulate the justices from growing reports about the court’s own corruption. It must end now.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular