Federal judge blocks Texas’ elimination of straight-ticket voting
Democrats sued the state in March to overturn the Texas Legislature’s removal of straight-ticket voting.
BY ALEX SAMUELS SEPT. 25, 2020UPDATED: 4 HOURS AGO
The Texas Legislature eliminated straight-ticket voting in 2017. Credit: Michael Stravato for The Texas Tribune
Less than three weeks before early voting begins in Texas, a U.S. district judge has blocked the state from eliminating straight-ticket voting as an option for people who go to the polls this November.
In a ruling issued late Friday, U.S. District Judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo cited the coronavirus pandemic, saying the elimination of the voting practice would “cause irreparable injury” to voters “by creating mass lines at the polls and increasing the amount of time voters are exposed to COVID-19.”
She acknowledged the burden the decision could put on local and state election officials, who will have to recalibrate voting machines or reprint ballots. But she reasoned that the potential harm for those suing, including the Texas Association for Retired Americans, was “outweighed by the inconveniences resulting.”
So. I’ve hit a mental wall. And in the interests of not wasting any more time, I think I’d better admit that I don’t currently have the bandwidth to read/write something highly technical and narrowly targeted. If someone else is up for writing something from that approach, I’d certainly support it, but I don’t think that’s realistically going to be me.
However.
As I’ve been processing, I’m not certain that’s necessarily even the most important thing right now.
Each individual person in office, at any level, has a greater handle than I do on precisely what power they have and what tools are at their disposal. The greater struggle, right now, is to be psychologically prepared to use them. It’s not about telling them what to do. It’s about pushing, and hopefully inspiring in them, who we want them to be.
That’s something I can write. So… I’ll be drafting a script from that angle.
We’ve been playing whack-a-mole at all incoming distracting and malevolent intentions of those who want the vote to go a certain way. Hard to get our head around any of it, except to get yourself a volunteer position (virtual or otherwise) to help.
There are many ways to support the election…and I have learned a bit more on what’s out there.
I just got trained for the National Voter Assistance Hotline. They explain it as "As a hotline volunteer, you’ll be answering voters’ questions about voting, helping them make a plan to vote early and helping ensure that every eligible voter is able to exercise their right to vote.
At this training, you’ll learn: (1) What to expect as a hotline volunteer and (2) How to answer the most common questions voters will ask."
Victory2020 Voter Assistance Program is a Democratic sponsored voter assistance call-in line, and open to ALL voters wanting to know the where, when and what to do when problems arise. It has volunteers manning phones (your home computer) and fielding questions and incidents, which are recorded (you write up the report) and sent onto another information ‘bank’ - called LBJ - Lawyer-based tracking voter’s issues as the occur, and set up polling place monitoring for incidents. The training explains how to handle any incidents, alerting ‘phone captains,’ and passing an instant report over to monitoring groups.
Sign on here for traininghttps://mblz.io/oMrus1 (you will only be required to do 1- 3 hour shift but of course you can do more)
During the training, and at your ‘call in’ session, they are providing us with a huge statewide voter manual, where we can find out times, locations and give out that kind of information. They also suggest for every voter, give out the www.iwillvote.com web address, which checks all registration information etc.
And I know the Victory 2020 group is hoping to mobilize a lot of volunteers, so sign on and do a bit of something.
Oh, and I discovered this legal center which is monitoring voting…you know lawyers are standing by wanting to protect the vote.
I’ve been working with DemCast and a number of other groups for a while now, creating graphics and doing other odds and ends as needed. I actually designed some things for the Portland protesters at the request of some folks involved with them also. And I am getting involved with my local candidates here.
Mobilizing efforts -
We have the resources lists…can you list a few within your twitter link…and
1)we can make the ‘resource guide’ very easy to link to
What the Fuck have you done for Democracy Today?
(list a variety of them)
Have you sent money to a candidate?
Have you made calls?
Have you written letters?
Have you volunteered anywhere for democracy - made calls to Congress, protest, made a video,
send letters to Congress, worked for social justice, call out the conspiracy theories,?
Democracy is an ACTION…Tell us what you did.
Incentivize - please comment what you’ve done (twitter responses and within THIS community) - reward - WTF Stickers, Democracy Karma points? who knows?
I have listed what I know…shared information, and volunteered.
(Responding to my own root post - that seems the easiest way to keep this readable? shrug)
Something else I am paying attention to is the resources here. Personally, I believe we are at a crucial and delicate turning point in American history, and that much of what happens between now and inauguration will be determined by the strength and direction of our public outcry. How can we use various forms of protest to protect democracy and ensure we are impossible for those in power to ignore?
Matt, you asked how you can best use your audience. It’s a really, really hard question. You know the character of your audience best and what sort of content they engage with, not to mention your own capacities. So with that said, here are my current thoughts…
Dragonfly has been fantastic with providing a list of actions we can do for election support right now. That’s awesome. Where my own thoughts focus, is on what happens between election night and the inauguration, and how we can prepare ourselves to protect the work so many are doing now. Imo, both are necessary tactics as part of a cohesive strategy.
What if, during the daily emails between now and the election/inauguration, there was a new subsection asking everyone to get involved in making history themselves.
The first part could be a link to the pinned forum page by Dragonfly with a comprehensive list of actions. Perhaps Dragonfly would be interested in fleshing out their (excellent) post, since it would be getting a broader call out?
The second part could ask viewers to read Choose Democracy’s handbook Hold The Line: A Guide to Defending Democracy and the Transition Integrity Project’s report Preventing a Disrupted Presidential Election on their war gaming session modeling what could happen with a variety of different election results, and then to get involved personally by signing up for the next 2 hr training session with ChooseDemocracy.
When you sign the pledge page above AND ask to receive updates, you’ll be notified by email when the next sessions are available.
I like this idea, but it’s asking too much of people as currently constructed. Can we get more specific with the “ask” and provide an easier on-ramp for non-activists to simply get started and do something?
For example, a comprehensive list of actions is a good database tool, but what people need is to be encouraged to do just one or two things (i.e. write this; text this; email this).
I’m more than happy to amplify what comes out of this discussion. I just need it to be specific and well-defined.
Alright. What do you think of the construction of this? Heads up that my preview makes both links look the same, but they do direct to different parts of the same landing page.
Had difficulty pulling myself together the last while (I have inattentive type ADHD, it’s difficult for me to sustain certain kinds of mental work), but fyi I DID find more information and I’ll post when I have the energy to write more and compile my findings. Seems like it’s legit, from what I can tell? But I’ve at least got you some people & organization names with contact info, where you can ask questions about financing and such.
This talks about the angle that DOJ is coming after the Mail-in ballots…
The Washington Post: Top Stories | Justice Dept. change could enable election interference, observers say
Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr have repeatedly attacked mass mail-in balloting as being susceptible to fraud, though the evidence does not support their claims. Critics say the two seem to be working in concert to undermine public confidence in the election result, and the newly issued guidance could aid in that effort — allowing prosecutors to publicize cases of suspected fraud that they previously would have been barred from discussing.
“It’s not good to have an exemption from a noninterference in elections policy. That means, ‘here are the ways we are allowed to interfere in elections,’ ” said Justin Levitt, a former official in the Justice Department’s civil rights division who worked on voting issues. “I worry that this policy is a green light to use federal law enforcement investigations for partisan political purposes.”
Matt Lloyd, a spokesman for the Justice Department’s criminal division, said in a statement, “No political appointee had any role in directing, preparing or sending this email.”
“Career prosecutors in the Public Integrity Section of the Department’s Criminal Division routinely send out guidance to the field during election season,” he said. “This email was simply part of that ongoing process of providing routine guidance regarding election-related matters.”
…
The email was first reported by ProPublica.
Critics say Barr has repeatedly shown a willingness to use the Justice Department to help Trump win the election.
The attorney general, for example, has said he would not hold back any findings from U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom he tapped to investigate the FBI’s 2016 investigation into Trump’s campaign, if they come before Election Day. Conservatives are hopeful that the Durham probe could produce findings damaging to Trump’s critics and bolster his assertion that he was investigated wrongly.
Last month, in a move that was widely criticized by voting-law experts, the Justice Department publicly announced an investigation into nine discarded ballots found in northeastern Pennsylvania, and Trump immediately seized on the case to support his claims of a conspiracy to undermine his election. Barr had personally talked to the president about the matter, according to a person familiar with the situation.
Justice Department policies and tradition call for prosecutors not to take steps that might impact an election. As his predecessors have done, Barr issued guidance in May saying prosecutors “may never select the timing of public statements (attributed or not), investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”
Barr also tightened the rules on investigations involving those running for office, making it so law enforcement must get his written approval before initiating even a preliminary investigation of a candidate for president or vice president, or their campaigns, senior staff members or advisers.
Justice Department policies call for particularly sensitive treatment of alleged election fraud. A 2017 manual noted that “overt criminal investigative measures should not ordinarily be taken in matters involving alleged fraud in the manner in which votes were cast or counted until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified, and all recounts and election contests concluded.” The manual noted, however, that there could be exceptions, such as “when it is possible to both complete an investigation and file criminal charges against an offender prior to the period immediately before an election
In an August 2020 memo, the head of the Justice Department’s public integrity section also wrote that an exception to the rules “may also be appropriate where a federal official entrusted to facilitate the voting process, such as a postal carrier, allegedly engages in election fraud using his or her official position.”
Vanita Gupta, a former head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division who is now president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said the Justice Department’s latest guidance was “not normal” and could serve as a “predicate” for announcements like that in Pennsylvania.
“It’s really important for people to understand that they should actually be paying attention to what local and state election officials are saying, rather than what Bill Barr is saying,” Gupta said. “He has shown himself to be a partisan, and state and local election officials are overseeing the counting of their ballots.”
Levitt said the highlighting of postal workers was notable.
“It makes me think that what’s coming is a series of announced investigations or partial theories of incomplete facts, pertaining to the mail-in voting process, that are further designed to undermine the integrity of an election process that is actually quite secure,” he said.
A Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the email was not intended to reflect a policy change, but rather to highlight particular scenarios in which federal employees become involved in the voting process.
“In that circumstance, corruption by federal personnel is already an interference in the State and local election process, and necessarily requires a federal overt remedy because it occurs outside most State and federal jurisdiction,” the official said.
Okay. Apologies for the long wait. It’s not that this information was THAT hidden or anything, I just didn’t get my shit together.
Where I was able to get results by looking at the co-authors of the pdf handbook on ChooseDemocracy.us:
*Hold the Line: A Guide to Defending Democracy
By Hardy Merriman, Ankur Asthana, Marium Navid, & Kifah Shah*
I was originally gonna go person by person, but to be honest, I got tired, and just got through searching for information on the first two people. But, that seems like it got me the structural information I needed.
So, here’s the first person:
Hardy Merriman, President and CEO of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC).
His personal site linking him to both the guidebook and the ICNC:
ICNC announcement that he’s the new President as of 2015:
The ICNC’s about page. This does sound in line with what the Choose Democracy site functionally does.
Here’s the Wikipedia page about the org.
And I found a Propublica page with financial information on it. I don’t know enough about how these things work to be able to look at it and tell whether this all looks legit, but I assume this is valuable information, so here you go?
Sooooo that’s what I have on them. Here’s their contact information.
The second person is Ankur Asthana, and he has been working with M+R for the past 3 years (I’ll get to M+R bit later).
He has a profile on this site which appears to be a platform for startups to find funding. He tells the story of helping to establish solar power for a town in Panama, in collaboration with a local government.
That’s backed up by this EPA entry with his name attached to a project called “Solar Photovoltaic System Design for a Remote Community in Panama.” It also uses a Northwestern University email address, which matches up with his Linked-In which says he graduated from Northwestern.
Okay, M+R.
This is M+R’s actual website, with a list of leaders from various cities, and links to all their Linked-In profiles (scroll up). The contact information is by city, so… maybe their Washington DC branch would be the best place to try and get information?
Then there’s this site, which makes it sound like what they do is help organize fundraising for nonprofits. It’s all about analyzing their 2020 data for where they got donations and how. Sounds like their audience is the smaller nonprofits that they help, so that those nonprofits can better direct their fundraising efforts.
The most immediately relevant thing I found is that M+R hosted a roundtable with all four co-authors of the Hold the Line guide. This post links to the recording (channel’s new, looks like they created it so they had somewhere to upload this video).
And here is the video itself. I haven’t finished watching it, just got through the introductions. But I recognized names from the pdf handbook author list. And I have to admit, as a kind-of-nonbinary woman with a ton on trans friends, it made a good impression on me that they all introduced themselves with their pronouns.
Finally, at the end of the pdf itself there’s some more contact information. Though I imagine talking directly to M+R or ICNC will get you better information. This contact info is surely intended for a general audience.
“Questions or comments about this guide? Email us at: [email protected]. Or DM us on Instagram @theredlineguide and Twitter @TheRedLineGuide. And please help spread the word by sharing this guide! We need as many people as possible to join this effort! #HoldTheLine2020”
I don’t know the world of nonprofits very well, unfortunately. But personally, the resources seem good quality and safe to share? I see nothing illegal or immoral advocated in any of the material on the Choose Democracy site. There is a donate button at the top right of the screen, but the message to donate isn’t pushed anywhere in the body of the material. The handbook pdf doesn’t have a plea for donations - I did a search for the terms donate, money, fund, etc, and nothing those terms brought up was in the context of asking for money for themselves. And, none of the material does anything to bring glory to a particular person or organization.
These guys are looking for volunteers. It is a swing state, and T won by a small amount in 2016.
I am doing a shift, and there’s a lot of need for participation.
You can do call outs for them. Sign up here.
Barriers for voters
Four years ago, lower turnout among Black voters in Milwaukee was named as a factor in President Donald Trump’s narrow 22,748-vote win over Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin. McCurtis and Cross are working to ensure that what happened to Milwaukee’s Black voters in the 2016 election does not get repeated.
An investigation based on leaked documents from the Trump campaign shows it used demographic data to systematically dissuade voters in Milwaukee’s primarily Black neighborhoods from participating in the election. The Channel 4 News analysis of the data found that Black voters made up a disproportionate share of the group identified as “deterrence” voters, or voters they sought to dissuade through Facebook ads.
In one Milwaukee voting ward, where 80% of the inhabitants are Black, 44% were marked for deterrence, the British news outlet found. Of that group, only 36% turned out to vote, according to the Channel 4 News analysis.
Brad Parscale, former senior advisor to the Trump campaign, denied in a 2018 PBS FRONTLINE interview that the campaign ever targeted the Black community.
If you’re still trying to figure out your time and headspace over the next 48 hours and need some ideas, here are mine:
Prepare yourself for an extended period of ambiguity. Check out FiveThirtyEight’s When to Expect Election Results in Every State to manage your expectations, and this article from CNN on Election Night “mirages” and how the early returns may change over time (remember: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are likely to become more blue as mail-in ballots are counted). Basically: if we need to know the winner of Pennsylvania to know the winner of the Electoral College, we’re going to be in this a while.
Make sure Pennsylvanian voters are having their ballots counted. First, sign up for Ballot Cure Training (ideally today, Monday), and then sign up for the Pennsylvania Ballot Cure Phone Bank on Election Day. You will be contacting people who voted by mail, but whose ballots have not been accepted by their local boards of elections. You will be calling and texting these voters to encourage them to vote provisionally at their local polling place.
Check out the Emerge America YouTube channel for content throughout the day, featuring speakers such as Amanda Litman (Run for Something), Maria Teresa Kumar (Voto Latino), Genny Castillo (Blue Institute), and many more.
This comes from a newsletter I subscribe to…so thought I’d post it here.
