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
voting rights
How Years of GOP Voter Suppression Helped Trump Win in 2024
Numerous efforts over the years, at numerous governmental levels, have worked to play games with the electoral process and interfere with—and outright eliminate—certain voters’ right to vote.
Feb 01, 2025
As the Trump presidency digs its claws into the country—winner take all!—I look on in terrified amazement as he begins arrogantly instituting what can only be called his plan to devolve America back to the good old days: back to the era of Jim Crow certainty and whatever that might mean.
We’re white, we’re Christian, and we’re the best! Just ask Pete Hegseth.
This is the “Gulf of America”! It’s not President Donald Trump’s smugly renamed Gulf of Mexico; it’s the hole in the country’s collective consciousness, which Mr. President is hellbent on expanding. His plan is to make America safe for what it used to be and allow our old, beloved prejudices to return. Deport the illegals! Kill wokeness! Kill understanding and awareness!
All of which leaves a few glaring questions hovering over the daily news: How the hell did this guy win a majority of votes? Is he really aligned with the nation’s primary beliefs? And if he isn’t... uh, what happened last November? Was the election rigged? Was it stolen? And if so, how? Do we live in a publicly proclaimed—yet fake—democracy?
This is a fascinatingly awkward question to ask, considering what happened on Jan. 6, 2021. A portion of the MAGA base—spurred on by their leader, who instantly proclaimed “fraud!”—stormed the capital, busted its windows, tasered the police, clomped through the halls, left a gift of excrement on then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s desk, and politely asked that then-Vice President Mike Pence be hanged.
This time around, the Democrats had tea with the guy who beat them. They respected the transfer of power. They upheld our alleged democracy. But let’s be clear: There are questions that must be asked. Our system of government has serious flaws—it always has! And let’s be clear: When you’re in power–and want to stay in power—democracy, “the will of he people,” can be an enormous inconvenience.
All of which leads me to the amazing work of Greg Palast, who has been investigating the electoral process—tracking its flaws and lies–ever since the George W. Bush era. This time around, the essence of his analysis is this:
Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the presidency with 286 electoral votes.
And, if not for the mass purge of voters of color, if not for the mass disqualification of provisional and mail-in ballots, if not for the new mass “vigilante” challenges in swing states, Harris would have gained at least another 3,565,000 votes, topping Trump’s official popular vote tally by 1.2 million.
This wasn’t done with the simple snap of a powerful finger. Palast outlines numerous efforts over the years, at numerous governmental levels (in particular, Republican Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia), to play games with the electoral process and interfere with—and outright eliminate—certain voters’ right to vote. These efforts include such tactics as rejecting mail-in ballots without valid reason, failing to enter newly registered voters in the voting rolls in time for them to vote in the presidential election, failing to count “provisional” ballots, and allowing registered voters to be challenged by ordinary citizens for extremely spurious reasons (e.g., their names match other names, such as a name in an obituary).
And who are these “certain voters” who are targeted? In essence, they’re voters of color: Black, Hispanic, Muslim or whatever, often identifiable as such by their names. And powerful Republicans target them because they’re statistically likely to vote Democratic.
And this brings up Palast’s recently released documentary: Vigilantes Inc.: America’s New Vote Suppression Hitmen, which is available for view online. The term “vigilante,” with all its violent, KKK-esque implications, refers to those ordinary (white) citizens who have volunteered to be Republican name-checkers, looking for any and all possible reasons to challenge... oh, let us say, people with names such as Jose Garcia or James Brown. Challenge them bureaucratically, so their legitimacy as voters may be rescinded.
What I found utterly compelling about Vigilantes Inc. is the race-based—and historical—context in which the vigilantism is carried out. This documentary is about far more than the 2024 election. America’s present-moment racism is put under the harsh, glaring light of its own past—its post-Reconstruction, Jim Crow-era past, when efforts to “get around the 15th Amendment” included not only poll taxes (for Blacks only) and spurious questions (“how many jellybeans in the jar?”), but also outright intimidation and vicious violence.
In the documentary, Palast interviews Black voters who were “disappeared” from the voting rolls, intimidated, threatened, arrested—and enwraps such actions in the country’s past. For instance, the story is told of 10 Black women who were elected to the school board in Quitman, Georgia, in the early 2000s, shortly after Brian Kemp became Georgia’s secretary of state. He accused them of stuffing tampered ballots into mailboxes. The women faced multi-year prison sentences. They were ultimately acquitted, but one of the women had considered suicide and another, who suffered from lupus, died in the midst of the ordeal.
The hell the women endured brought up memories for people in the area of the horrific lynching of 13 Blacks in southern Georgia nearly a century earlier. One of them was a woman, Mary Turner, who happened to be in her eighth month of pregnancy. A mob surrounded her, hung her from a tree—upside down–by her ankles, then cut open her abdomen, while she was still alive. The unborn child fell to the ground, where the mobbed killed it.
This documentary opens our souls. Oh my God, the past is still alive, but the film’s primary vision is transcendent. This is not a film of us vs. them, but of love and extraordinary courage: the courage—of so many people—to create the democracy the country has not yet become,
As the film ends, the narrator says: “But spirits drowned will rise. America is a haunted house and our ruling dynasties have gone to war with our ghosts—the ghosts of our history. Until America hears those spirits, neither they, nor we, will be set free.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Urgency of Interracial Solidarity in a Divided Nation
By pitting Black and Brown communities against each other, shadow actors promote the false notion that democracy and equality are in competition with each other, rather than shared objectives.
Jan 18, 2025
In this polarized moment in America, where disinformation fuels division and mistrust, the stakes for our communities could not be higher. Systemic inequalities continue to affect Black and Brown populations disproportionately, yet harmful narratives often pit our growing communities against one another, diverting attention from shared struggles.
The need for unity is not new, but today it is especially urgent. Politicians and pundits have long exploited tensions between Black and Brown communities, often framing them as competitors in a zero-sum game for resources, jobs, and political influence. During the 2024 election cycle, it became nearly impossible to turn on the television or scroll through social media without encountering rampant information fraud. Led by the far right and bolstered by political allies, shadow actors, and extremist groups, this movement gained national momentum with the “birther” conspiracy targeting former U.S. President Barack Obama. That was only the beginning.
Over time, the lies grew more bizarre and targeted—accusing Haitian immigrants of eating pets—or even infiltrating weather reports, with claims that the government was creating hurricanes to target Republican voters. These lies were not only absurd but also devastatingly effective in fostering a culture of division, racism, and violent rhetoric that harmed marginalized communities across the country.
In response to the ongoing threat of information fraud and a lack of information education, our organizations have called on Black and Brown communities to embrace intersectionality and cross-racial solidarity as tools to combat deception.
Black and Brown communities are particularly vulnerable to targeted information fraud campaigns, especially on social media. Despite being factually unfounded and blatantly racist, these tactics have shown their effectiveness. Recent polls indicate that extremist ideologies gained traction among Black and Latino voters. By pitting these groups against each other, shadow actors promote the false notion that democracy and equality are in competition with each other, rather than shared objectives.
The high stakes for failing to unite are as much political as they are cultural. Both Black and Latino communities are growing forces in American politics, with immense potential to shape elections, policy, and public discourse. In recent years, we have seen how both groups mobilize to demand justice—from the Black Lives Matter movement to advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform. Yet without solidarity, the potential for meaningful change is significantly diminished.
Consider the fight for voting rights. Restrictions on voting access disproportionately impact both Black Americans and Latinos, yet efforts to combat these injustices often occur in silos. Similarly, debates over resources for schools, affordable housing, or healthcare too often devolve into blame games rather than coordinated demands for systemic reform. The far-right has skillfully exploited these fissures, promoting narratives that suggest Black and Brown communities are at odds over issues like affirmative action, policing, or economic opportunities.
Now, in a post-election United States, we know building stronger coalitions requires a commitment to equity, truth, and intentional dialogue. We must create spaces to address historic grievances, foster mutual understanding, and work toward collective goals.
To get there, we need to understand that the media also plays a critical role. Too often, stories about Black and Latino communities focus on conflict rather than collaboration. These skewed narratives reinforce stereotypes and undermine efforts at solidarity. Highlighting shared struggles and successes instead of conflicts can help bridge divides and foster unity.
Solidarity does not come easy. Centuries of systemic oppression and cultural erasure have left deep scars that cannot be healed overnight. But solidarity does not require erasing differences; it requires acknowledging them and finding common ground in the pursuit of justice.
In response to the ongoing threat of information fraud and a lack of information education, our organizations have called on Black and Brown communities to embrace intersectionality and cross-racial solidarity as tools to combat deception.
Solidarity, collaboration, and diversity are at the heart of every successful social justice movement. Like a New Orleans gumbo or a Mexican pozole, collaborative efforts are stronger and more innovative than the sum of their parts. By rallying around a shared message that rejects deception at its source, we can safeguard both the integrity of our democracy and the future of our country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Should Make Your Blood Boil': Top NC Court Blocks Certification of Democratic Justice's Win
One journalist warned that the state court "laid the groundwork for potentially overturning the election" in favor of Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs' GOP challenger, Jefferson Griffin.
Jan 07, 2025
Democracy defenders across the United States on Tuesday responded with alarm to Republicans on the North Carolina Supreme Court blocking certification of incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs' November victory to review GOP challenger Jefferson Griffin's attempt to toss out over 60,000 votes.
Over 5.5 million people voted in the election, and after two recounts, Riggs is ahead by just 734 votes. Griffin, a judge on the state Court of Appeals, has been contesting the results for weeks. The North Carolina State Board of Elections moved the case to federal court, but U.S. District Judge Richard E. Myers II—an appointee of Republican U.S. President-elect Donald Trump—sent it back to the state judicial system on Monday.
Although the board notified the North Carolina Supreme Court that it intended to appeal Myers' decision—and it did so later Tuesday—four of the five Republican justices still granted the temporary stay and wrote in their order that "in the absence of a stay from federal court, this matter should be addressed expeditiously because it concerns certification of an election."
"The Republican-led North Carolina Supreme Court is now attempting to give itself sole power to decide its next member rather than the North Carolina voters who unquestionably elected Justice Riggs."
Riggs did not participate in the Tuesday decision due to her involvement with the case. The court's only other Democrat, Justice Anita Earls, dissented—arguing that Griffin's motion is "procedurally improper," and even if it were not, his request "should be denied because he has failed to meet the standard for granting preliminary relief."
"Griffin seeks to retroactively rewrite the rules of the election to tilt the playing field in his favor. His filings amount to a broadside legal attack, raising a laundry list of statutory and constitutional objections to long-established election laws," Earls wrote, calling out the high court's "indulgence of this sort of fact-free post-election gamesmanship."
Republican Justice Richard Dietz also dissented, citing "our state's corollary to a federal election doctrine known as the 'Purcell principle'" and warning that "permitting post-election litigation that seeks to rewrite our state's election rules—and, as a result, remove the right to vote in an election from people who already lawfully voted under the existing rules—invites incredible mischief."
Attorneys, journalists, Democratic leaders, and political observers in North Carolina and across the country were similarly critical.
With its stay and schedule for filings over the next few weeks, "the state's highest court laid the groundwork for potentially overturning the election and handing the seat to Riggs' GOP challenger," wrote Ari Berman, Mother Jones' national voting rights correspondent.
Berman also laid out some long-term and national impacts of this battle:
Riggs' victory would give Democrats a shot at retaking the court's majority after 2028. That would allow them to oversee the state's redistricting process in 2031. That is particularly consequential because the current majority on the court upheld heavily gerrymandered maps drawn by the Republican-controlled state Legislature that allowed Republicans to pick up three U.S. House seats in November—just enough to maintain control of the chamber and ensure one-party rule in D.C.
Democratic elections lawyer Marc Elias declared on social media Tuesday that "the GOP is mounting the largest, most brazen post-election disenfranchisement effort since Trump's frivolous litigation in 2020. This time, however, they may get away with it and the legacy media is largely asleep."
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who is now chair of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, called the state court's actions "alarming" and stressed that "the vote is the voice and the power of the people. It is not for a court to decide the outcome of an election. In a functioning democracy the will of the people—as expressed in an election—prevails."
"Should the North Carolina Supreme Court throw out lawful ballots, it could potentially overturn the results of a free and fair election—achieving the same goal as those who perpetuated a violent coup attempt on our nation's capitol just four years ago," he said, referring to the January 6, 2021 insurrection. "This must not be tolerated."
"I am concerned that the very recent actions of the court presage a continued diminution of a democracy already under attack in North Carolina," he added. "The arrogant, anti-democracy move to stop the certification of a free and fair election while this court considers whether or not to throw out 60,000 lawfully cast ballots underscores that."
The News & Observer reported Tuesday that "the vast list of challenged voters ensnared people from assistants to state lawmakers to Riggs' own parents."
According to the North Carolina newspaper:
A News & Observer analysis of the challenges found that Black voters were twice as likely to have their votes challenged as white voters.
The challenge that affected the largest number of voters was Griffin's argument that voters who did not have a driver's license number or Social Security number on file should not have been allowed to vote.
State election officials say there are myriad reasons a voter may not have those numbers in the database—many of which are no fault of their own. But Griffin argued it could lead to ineligible voters being able to cast a ballot.
Former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, who left office earlier this month after two terms, said Tuesday that "Riggs won and the recount confirmed it. Republicans want to toss thousands of legal votes in the trash because they don't like the outcome. This shouldn't be about party politics—this should be about making sure every vote counts and that our elections still mean something."
The battle over the North Carolina Supreme Court is part of what The New York Timesdescribed as "the bar-fight nature of politics in the state," where voters in November also elected Democratic Gov. Josh Stein to succeed term-limited Cooper and ended the GOP supermajority in the General Assembly—leading to last-minute attempts by Republican lawmakers to limit Stein's power.
Vowing that the North Carolina Democratic Party "will continue to fight for justice," its chair, Anderson Clayton, said in a Tuesday statement that Riggs "won her seat fair and square" and "deserves her certificate of election."
"We are only in this position due to Jefferson Griffin refusing to accept the will of the people," Clayton added. "He is hell-bent on finding new ways to overthrow this election but we are confident that the evidence will show, like they did throughout multiple recounts, that she is the rightful winner in this race."
The outgoing Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, Jaime Harrison, also weighed in, blasting "what has become a monthslong, anti-democratic campaign at taxpayers' expense against Justice Allison Riggs."
"The Republican-led North Carolina Supreme Court is now attempting to give itself sole power to decide its next member rather than the North Carolina voters who unquestionably elected Justice Riggs," he said. "Make no mistake—these craven attacks on North Carolina voters are an affront to this country's foundational values of democracy and the rule of law."
Harrison also pointed to Trump supporters' deadly invasion of the U.S. Capitol in 2021, saying that "one day after the four-year anniversary of January 6, Republicans are once again attempting to overturn an election in plain sight."
Ben Wikler, who is running to be the next DNC chair, said Tuesday that "the crisis of democracy didn't end with Trump's victory—it got worse. When North Carolina's state Supreme Court is blocking certification of a state Supreme Court election, the house is on fire."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular