DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Report The Case for Restoring and Updating the Voting Rights Act A Report of the American Civil Liberties Union 2021 Submitted for the Record in Support of Legislation to Enhance the Voting Rights Act July 14, 2021 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sophia L. Lakin, Deputy Director, Voting Rights Project William Hughes, Legal Fellow, Voting Rights Project Kristen Lee, Policy Analyst, National Political Advocacy Department Alton Wang, Legal Intern, Voting Rights Project The authors thank the ACLU attorneys and staff who contributed to this report and prior reports upon which this one is based: Laughlin McDonald, Dale Ho, Katherine Palm, Alora Thomas-Lundborg, Theresa J. Lee, Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, Lila Carpenter, Madison Perez, Brett Schratz, Amanda L. Scott, Juan Diaz, Kelly M. Hernández, and Marc Alexander Ault. The ACLU also extends special thanks to the law firm Sidley Austin, LLP, for the assistance provided in drafting the version of this report submitted in 2019. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ………………………………………………………..…………………………………… 1 I. Historical overview ....................................................................................................... 5 a. Reconstruction and post-Reconstruction b. Congressional efforts to address voting discrimination prior to 1965 c. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 d. Voting Rights Act amendments and reauthorizations: 1970-1982 e. The 2006 reauthorization II. Congressional authority to remedy racial discrimination in voting after Shelby County ........................................................................................................................... 18 a. Supreme Court review of the Voting Rights Act prior to Shelby County b. Current burdens, current needs, and the equal sovereignty principle announced in Northwest Austin and Shelby County c. Reconciling Shelby County with existing Supreme Court precedent upholding the Voting Rights Act d. Congressional power under the Elections Clause III. Hostility to minority political participation persists at levels that justify a restored and updated Voting Rights Act ..................................................................... 29 a. Current indicia of discrimination b. The public lacks effective tools to enforce their rights under the Constitution and federal law IV. Solutions in the Voting Rights Advancement Act: blocking discriminatory voting changes before they impact voters .............................................................................. 44 a. Preclearance for risky actors and risky behavior b. Congress should enact a more protective preliminary injunction standard c. Notice and transparency provisions Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 51 Appendix A: Summary of ACLU-related cases since 2006 ................................................... 52 Appendix B: Written testimony of Sophia L. Lakin, June 27, 2021 ................................... 229 Introduction With approximately eight million members, activists, and supporters, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a nationwide organization that advances its mission of defending the principles of liberty and equality embodied in our Constitution and civil rights laws. For nearly 100 years, the ACLU has been our nation’s guardian of liberty, working in the courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the Constitution and laws of the United States. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, established in 1965, the same year the Voting Rights Act was enacted, has filed more than 300 lawsuits to enforce the provisions of our country’s voting laws and Constitution. The goal of the Voting Rights Project is to ensure that all Americans have access to the franchise and can participate in the political process on an equal basis. The Voting Rights Project has historically focused much of its work on combating efforts targeting the political rights of minority voters, who continue to face grave threats to their voting rights. In addition to our work in the courts, the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office has led the ACLU’s efforts to develop and strengthen federal laws protecting the right to vote for decades. In 2015, the ACLU launched its National Political Advocacy Department, and, through our work so far, has launched a 50-state campaign to protect and expand access to the ballot nationwide. More than a century ago, the Supreme Court famously described the right to vote as the right that is preservative of all others.1 We are not truly free without self-government, which requires a vibrant participatory democracy where there is fair and equal representation for everyone. The right to vote is an essential act of self-determination— indispensable to the promise of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Yet since our nation’s founding, racial and ethnic minorities have fought pernicious efforts to block them from political representation. After the Civil War and Reconstruction period—when newly emancipated Black men were, for a brief period, able to exercise their political rights and hold elected office—more than a hundred years of state-sanctioned voting discrimination followed, which prohibited Blacks and other minority groups from political participation.2 By the turn of the twentieth century, official and systematic 1 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886). 2 African Americans did not possess the right to vote prior to the Civil War. With the ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments in 1868 and 1870, African Americans and others were granted the right to vote free from racial discrimination, U.S. CONST. amend XV, § 1; see U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1, and both amendments gave Congress express power to enforce the amendments with appropriate legislation. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 5; U.S. CONST. amend XV, § 2. But after a brief period of federal enforcement action following the Civil War, Congress and the executive branch abandoned those efforts. For the next hundred years, Southern states undertook sweeping efforts to disenfranchise African Americans and other minority voters by continuing to enact procedural barriers and discriminatory prerequisites to voting, such as literary tests, and through state- sanctioned violence. See ALEXANDER KEYSSAR, THE RIGHT TO VOTE: THE CONTESTED HISTORY OF DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES 69-93 (Basic Books 2000); see also Section I infra for more on the historical background leading up to the ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and adoption of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 1 attempts to block people from voting based on their race or ethnicity had greatly intensified. Many whites feared the exercise of political power by minority voters, and ideologies of racial hierarchy were popular concepts undergirding the structure of numerous state constitutions and for entrenching white supremacy.3 Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act in 1965 after trying and failing for almost a century to remedy the affliction of racial discrimination in the voting process and the failure to dismantle state-sanctioned disenfranchisement of African Americans in particular.4 The most powerful enforcement tool in the Voting Rights Act is the federal preclearance process, established by Section 5. It requires states and political subdivisions with the worst records of voting discrimination to federally “preclear” voting changes, either administratively with the Attorney General or through a declaratory judgment action in federal court. Section 4(b) of the Act established the criteria identifying jurisdictions that would be subject to preclearance, i.e. the “coverage formula.” Section 5 requires covered jurisdictions to demonstrate that a proposed voting change does not have a discriminatory purpose or effect before the change can be enforced. Since its enactment in 1965, Section 5 has had the greatest impact in dismantling voting discrimination of any congressional action, successfully blocking more than 1,000 instances of discriminatory election rules advanced by state and local officials that would have weakened minority voting power or blocked minority voters from casting a ballot altogether.5 Section 5 also served as a strong deterrent against countless discriminatory voting changes from going forward.6 Because of its effectiveness, Congress reauthorized Section 5 four times, most recently in 2006.7 At the time, Congress concluded that although there was significant progress in reducing barriers to voting, there was continued evidence of a pattern of racial discrimination in the covered jurisdictions that justified reauthorization of Section 5’s protections.8 3 Many of these state constitutional provisions remain today and continue to lock in unequal representation and political conditions. See, e.g., Evidence of Current and Ongoing Voting Discrimination: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (2019) (testimony of Derrick Johnson, President, NAACP, discussing historical context of provision in the Mississippi Constitution requiring majority vote requirement for both the state’s popular vote and state House districts for any statewide office and resulting exclusion of successful Black candidates for statewide office); JEFF MANZA AND CHRISTOPHER UGGEN, LOCKED OUT: FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY 59-66 (Oxford Univ. Press 2008) (discussing racial origins of felon disenfranchisement
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
    Case 1:20-cv-01289-MV-JHR Document 12 Filed 12/22/20 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., Plaintiff, Case No. 1:20-cv-01289-MV v. MAGGIE TOULOUSE OLIVER, in her official capacity as Secretary of State of New Mexico, the ELECTORS of NEW MEXICO and the STATE CANVASSING BOARD OF NEW MEXICO, Defendants. THE DNC’S MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, the DNC Services Corporation/Democratic National Committee (the “DNC”) files this Motion to Intervene in this action as a matter of right or, alternatively, to permissively intervene. The DNC has conferred with counsel for Defendants, who have no objection to this Motion. The DNC has also conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has not yet taken a position on this Motion. In support of its Motion to Intervene, the DNC respectfully submits the following: Case 1:20-cv-01289-MV-JHR Document 12 Filed 12/22/20 Page 2 of 17 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2 III. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4 A. The DNC is entitled to intervene as of right. .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • G Reen Pa G Es
    Save Our Democracy: Support the Green Party! The Green Party is unique because we reject corporate money. We believe that our values — your values — of peace, GREEN PAGES ecological wisdom, democracy and social justice should be The Newspaper of the Green Party of the United States guiding public policy. We are fully funded by real people (not corporations) like you. The Green Party’s success also serves the larger cause Vol. 19, No. 2 • Fall 2017 of multi-party democracy and independent politics in s e t the United States. I strongly believe in citizen lobbying a t and activism, but it must be coupled with electoral S d strategies and strong candidates. Com pared to other e Utah Greens t i organizations, the Green Party is relatively small, and n U so I know that every dollar I contribute has an enor - e S h t mous impact. I always give to the Green Party first and then to other wor - f E o Reboot, Make thy causes. — John Andrews y t r G 3 a 1 I can’t sit by and see wrongs and not do P 0 A n anything. I couldn’t justify having a kid if I e 0 e 2 P r wasn’t going to try and fix the world. When Ballot G C I’m around my Green friends, I feel like e 5 D h N 7 t there’s hope. Green values encompass n f 0 o o 5 E everything that’s important, and give us t n See story page 4 7 g o i an avenue to fix the problems in our soci - x E n t i a o h ety.
    [Show full text]
  • Aow 2021 14 No Voter Fraud
    1. Mark your confusion. 2. Show evidence of a close reading. 3. Write a 1+ page reflection. The Times Called Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud The president and his allies have baselessly claimed that rampant voter fraud stole victory from him. Officials contacted by The Times said that there were no irregularities that affected the outcome. Source: Nick Corasanti, Reid J. Epstein and Jim Rutenberg, New York Times, November 12, 2020 PHILADELPHIA — Election officials in dozens of states representing both political parties said that there was no evidence that fraud or other irregularities played a role in the outcome of the presidential race, amounting to a forceful rebuke of President Trump’s portrait of a fraudulent election. Over the last several days, the president, members of his administration, congressional Republicans and right wing allies have put forth the false claim that the election was stolen from Mr. Trump and have refused to accept results that showed Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the winner. But top election officials across the country said in interviews and statements that the process had been a remarkable success despite record turnout and the complications of a dangerous pandemic. “There’s a great human capacity for inventing things that aren’t true about elections,” said Frank LaRose, a Republican who serves as Ohio’s secretary of state. “The conspiracy theories and rumors and all those things run rampant. For some reason, elections breed that type of mythology.” “Kansas did not experience any widespread, systematic issues with voter fraud, intimidation, irregularities or voting problems,” a spokeswoman for Scott Schwab, the Republican secretary of state in Kansas, said in an email Tuesday.
    [Show full text]
  • National Convention
    How to Become a State & National Delegate Presented by Adi Ben-Yehoshua Indiana Democratic Party Data Director What this training will cover State Convention National Convention Representation and Next Steps What happens at State Who makes up our delegation Diversity Goals What you should be doing now What our delegation will strive Convention and how to become and how to become a National to prepare to run to be a to look like a State Delegate Delegate delegate Helpful Information National Convention 2020 Page indems.org -> Events -> National Convention 2020 State Convention 2020 Page indems.org -> Events -> State Convention Adi Ben-Yehoshua [email protected] State Convention 2020 Indiana Democratic State Convention June 13, 2020 Indiana Convention Center What Happens at State Convention Congressional District Constituency Caucus Convention General Session Meetings Meetings Committee Meetings Voting, speeches by Contact IDP to have Credentials Adoption of candidates, official caucus meeting Rules Platform and district business scheduled Resolutions Resolutions Where voting on Nomination of district-level Lieutenant National Delegates Governor and takes place Attorney General Other Things at State Convention Hoosier Hospitality Dinner IYD After Party Speeches Vendors Current Night before Right after HH Will have area for officeholders, convention, highly Dinner, highly vendors for candidates for recommend recommend campaigns office, special guests Becoming a State Convention Delegate What does a State Delegate do? Vote on Vote on Vote on
    [Show full text]
  • Precinct Committeeperson and Activist Handbook & Resource Guide
    Precinct Committeeperson and Activist Handbook & Resource Guide Precinct Committeeperson /Volunteer: County and Precinct: 110 W Washington St. Suite 1110 East Indianapolis, IN 46204 Ph: (317) 231-7100 Fax: (317) 231-7129 www.indems.org [email protected] Paid for by the Indiana Democratic Party, www.indems.org, John Zody, Chair. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Table of Contents Chapters 1. This Handbook & Resource Guide: General Overview of the Handbook 2. What It Means To Be A Democrat: Party Values and Space for Candidate Materials 3. The Basics: The Precinct, Party Organization, Job Description, Essential Functions, Election Year Responsibilities, Qualifications, Becoming a Precinct Committeeperson, Term of Office and Privileges 4. Getting Started: Know Your Precinct, Know Your Precinct Demographics, Know Your Neighbors, Know Your Local Election Laws, Know the Issues and Know the Party Organization 5. Effective Canvassing: Canvassing, The Importance of Canvassing, Recruiting Volunteers, Neighborhood / Block Captains, Providing Service, Canvassing Tools and Tips, Canvassing Techniques: Walking, Calling and House Parties and Reading the Voters 6. Registering Voters: Voter Registration Tips, Frequently Asked Questions: Voter Registration, Increasing Democratic Registration and Voting Information 7. Candidate Support: Supporting Candidates, Qualifying, Campaigning: Walking, Calling, Emailing, House Parties, Fundraising, Publicity, Other Ways You Can Help, Ballot Issues and Non-Partisan Races 8. Winning Elections: Field Efforts and Teamwork, Absentee Voting, Get Out The Vote and Frequently Asked Questions: Voting 9. Recruiting Volunteers: The Importance of Volunteers, Phone Other Democrats, Approaching Volunteers, Handling Volunteers and Recruiting Tips 10. Other Opportunities for Involvement: List of Other Opportunities, Overall Precinct Committeeperson Duties 11. Important Contact Information: State Party Headquarters, Your County Party, Your District Party, State Elected Officials, District, County, City Elected Officials 12.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Rules of the Indiana Democratic Party
    February 2021 Rules of the Indiana Democratic Party PLEASE NOTE: In December 2020, the State Central Committee passed two supplemental rules regarding reorganization that can be found in the accompanying 2021 Reorganization Guide on the IDP website where these rules are found. Those should be viewed in conjunction with these rules when planning for 2021 Reorganization meetings. These supplemental rules relate (generally) to timing of county reorganization meetings and proxies at county reorganization meetings. 1 February 2021 Table of Contents Page Rules 3 I. Party Structure 3 Rule 1. Party Composition 3 II. Party Governance 3 Rule 2. Applicability of Rules 3 Rule 3. State Committee Authority Over Rules 3 Rule 4. Adoption of Supplemental Rules 3 Rule 5. Rule Conflicts Between Committees 3 Rule 6. Rules of Order 3 Rule 7. Acceptance of Rules 4 III. Membership & Party office 4 Rule 8. Eligibility for Membership & Party offices 4 IV. Statements of Principle 4 Rule 9. Gender Equality 4 Rule 10. Party Access 5 V. Party Committees 5 Rule 11. Precinct Committees 7 Rule 12. Town or city committees 8 Rule 13. County Committees 13 Rule 14. District Committees 15 Rule 15. State Committee 19 Rule 16. National Committee 20 VI. The State Convention 20 Rule 17. State Convention 23 VII. Vacancies 23 Rule 18. Candidate and Elected Officeholder Vacancies 30 VIII. Removal 30 Rule 19. Removal of Party Officers 34 IX. Controversies 34 Rule 20. Controversies 35 X. Miscellaneous Provisions 35 Rule 21. Proxies 36 Rule 22. Quorum and Voting 36 Rule 23. Secret Ballots 36 Rule 24. Changes of office Provided in writing 36 Rule 25.
    [Show full text]
  • Mail Voting Litigation During the Coronavirus Pandemic
    Mail Voting Litigation During the Coronavirus Pandemic October 29, 2020 Abstract: With approximately 8 0 million Americans projected to vote by mail in November, parties have turned to the courts to clarify the appropriate ways to adapt, apply, and administer the rules of mail voting for pandemic elections. P laintis across the country have led more than 200 cases and appeals challenging nearly every aspect of the absentee balloting process, asserting claims under a variety of state and federal laws. This report outlines the many legal challenges to absentee and mail voting systems brought since March, largely in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Authors: Connor Clerkin, Lane Corrigan, Zahavah Levine, Aviel Menter, Christopher Meyer, Alexander Perry, and Theodora Raymond-Sidel HealthyElections.org: Mail Voting Litigation During the Coronavirus Pandemic 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Part I: Application and Eligibility to Vote By Mail 7 Applying to Vote by Mail 8 Absentee Balloting Without an Excuse 9 Fear of Contracting COVID-19 as an Excuse 11 Age Limits 14 Ensuring Receipt of Mail-In Ballots 15 Part II: Submission of Mail-In Ballots 16 Ballot Receipt Deadlines 16 Ballot Secrecy Sleeve Requirements 24 Cost of Postage for Mailing Ballots 25 Failure to Provide Accommodations for Voters with Disabilities 27 Part II Conclusion 28 Part III: Challenges Seeking to Expand Delivery Options 30 Bans on Absentee Voter Assistance 31 Limits on Absentee Ballot Drop-O Locations 33 USPS Operational Changes 35 Part III Conclusion
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Rights and the Primary Election of 1964 in Indiana: the Wallace Challenge* Matthew E
    Civil Rights and the Primary Election of 1964 in Indiana: The Wallace Challenge* Matthew E. Welsh** In the spring of 1964 Democratic Governor George Corley Wallace of Alabama announced that he was going to campaign for the presidency of the United States, opposing President Lyndon B. Johnson, also a Democrat. Wallace had become a national figure by defying the United States Supreme Court in refusing admission of Negro students to the University of Ala- bama, and his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomi- nation had obvious overtones of racial intolerance which I found most disturbing. Indiana had come a long way since the adoption of its Constitution of 1851, Article XI11 of which barred Negroes and mulattoes from entering the state. At that time blacks already living in the state, many of whom had been born here, were not regarded as citizens. They could neither vote nor hold public office. They could not serve on juries or in the militia, and they were barred from public schools.' Article XI11 was voided by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1866. The General Assembly authorized school integration in 1877, prohibited discrimination in enjoyment of public accommodations in 1885, and in 1963 created the Indiana Civil Rights Commission with broad pow- ers and an adequate budget.2 The record also disclosed, how- ever, that the statewide referendum in 1936 approving amend- ment of the Constitution to permit Negroes to be members of * This article is an account of the 1964 primary election in Indiana as experienced and remembered by one of the major participants in the campaign.
    [Show full text]
  • Jena M. Griswold Colorado Secretary of State
    Jena M. Griswold Colorado Secretary of State July 28, 2020 Senator Mitch McConnell Senator Charles E. Schumer Senator Richard C. Shelby Senator Patrick J. Leahy Senator Roy Blunt Senator Amy Klobuchar Dear Senators: As Secretaries of State of both major political parties who oversee the election systems of our respective states, we write in strong support of additional federal funding to enable the smooth and safe administration of elections in 2020. The stakes are high. And time is short. The COVID-19 pandemic is testing our democracy. A number of states have faced challenges during recent primary elections. Local administrators were sometimes overwhelmed by logistical problems such as huge volumes of last-minute absentee ballot applications, unexpected shortages of poll workers, and difficulty of procuring and distributing supplies. As we anticipate significantly higher voter turnout in the November General Election, we believe those kinds of problems could be even larger. The challenge we face is to ensure that voters and our election workers can safely participate in the election process. While none of us knows what the world will look like on November 3rd, the most responsible posture is to hope for the best and plan for the worst. The plans in each of our states depend on adequate resources. While we are truly grateful for the resources that Congress made available in the CARES Act for election administration, more funding is critical. Current funding levels help to offset, but do not cover, the unexpectedly high costs that state and local governments face in trying to administer safe and secure elections this year.
    [Show full text]
  • General Election TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3 7Am – 8Pm
    General Election TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3 7am – 8pm 2020 Nonpartisan Voter INDEX Congressional District Map .......... 2 General Information ...........3, 35-38 U.S. Senate ..................................4-5 Guide The League of Women Voters of Michigan would like to U.S. Representative thank the following organizations for their financial (Dist. 1-14) .................................6-23 support to enable production of this Voter Guide: State Board of Education ........24-25 University of Michigan ...........26-27 Contributors to the League of Women Voters® Michigan State University .......28-29 of Michigan Education Fund Wayne State University ...........30-31 Supreme Court ........................32-33 Court of Appeals ..........................33 Ballot Proposals ...........................34 Clip & Take to the Polls ...............40 Celebrating Updated Candidate Information - Plus 100 Years Michigan State Legislative Candidates, Local Races, Ballot Proposals of Women’s is available online at VOTE411.org. Suffrage Also see www.LWVMI.ORG for additional election information. for most women 2 H LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN 2020 NONPARTISAN VOTER GUIDE ® 1 4 2 5 10 3 8 6 7 11 9 14 Congressional 13 District Map 12 LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MICHIGAN 2020 NONPARTISAN VOTER GUIDE ® H 3 About This Guide Voting The League of Women Voters of Michigan contacted candidates for biographi- Voting in Michigan has never been easier. Voters have options. For more cal information and answers to questions on issues. The answers are printed as submitted and have not been edited, except for necessary cutting when replies information, see page 37. exceed the stated character limitations or violated content guidelines. Spelling and grammar were not corrected. If the candidate did not reply by the required Voting Early by Absentee Ballot date for publication, the words “Did not respond in time for inclusion” appear No excuse is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
    Case 1:20-cv-03747-NRN Document 92 Filed 04/28/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 20-cv-03747-NRN KEVIN O’ROURKE, NATHANIEL L. CARTER, LORI CUTUNILLI, LARRY D. COOK, ALVIN CRISWELL, KESHA CRENSHAW, NEIL YARBROUGH, and AMIE TRAPP, Plaintiffs, v. DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS INC., a Delaware corporation, FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation, CENTER FOR TECH AND CIVIC LIFE, an Illinois non-profit organization, MARK E. ZUCKERBERG, individually, PRISCILLA CHAN, individually, BRIAN KEMP, individually, BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, individually, GRETCHEN WHITMER, individually, JOCELYN BENSON, individually, TOM WOLF, individually, KATHY BOOCKVAR, individually, TONY EVERS, individually, ANN S. JACOBS, individually, MARK L. THOMSEN, individually, MARGE BOSTELMAN, individually, JULIE M. GLANCEY, DEAN KNUDSON, individually, ROBERT F. SPINDELL, JR, individually, and DOES 1-10,000, Defendants. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (Dkt. ##22, 23, & 41) & PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND (Dkt. #48) N. REID NEUREITER United States Magistrate Judge 1 Case 1:20-cv-03747-NRN Document 92 Filed 04/28/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 29 This matter is before the Court with the consent of the Parties, referred for all purposes by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). This lawsuit arises out of the 2020 election for President of the United States. The original Complaint, filed December 22, 2020 (Dkt. #1) and which purports to be a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of 160 million registered voters, alleges a vast conspiracy between four state governors; secretaries of state; and various election officials of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia; along with Dominion Voting Systems, Inc.—a private supplier of election and voting technology; the social media company Facebook, Inc.; the Center for Tech and Civic Life (“CTCL”)—a non-profit organization dedicated to making elections more secure and inclusive; as well as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan.
    [Show full text]
  • We Call Upon All Elected Leaders And
    “We call upon all elected leaders and elections officials at every level of government to recommit to our core democratic principles, to look within and consider what they themselves can do in this critical hour to uphold the best in our nation’s values.” – Faith leaders’ statement on integrity, safety and fairness in the 2020 U.S Election, Oct. 12, 2020 Send Faith Leaders' Letter on Elections to Secretary of State Please contact your secretary of state and urge her/him to ensure the integrity of the upcoming elections. The Lawyers and Collars voting rights education and protection program has prioritized this messaging for nine states: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin. You may find a sample message and contact information below. Background As Election Day 2020 approaches, the country is facing many challenges and with it growing stress on state and county election officials. Boards of Elections will have to process many more absentee ballots than in past elections because of the pandemic. Older persons who usually make up a significant percentage of poll workers may not be working this year because they are more susceptible to the virus, leading to thinner staffing. A contentious election may also lead to a record turnout. Add to those factors: calls for people to ”protect” election sites with a show of force and persistent disinformation about election “fraud” and a “rigged election.” The Sisters of Mercy signed onto a faith leaders’ statement on integrity, safety and fairness in the 2020 U.S Election that calls “for integrity in the processes that shape our systems of governance and form the basis of our shared wellbeing.” It is important to let your secretary of state know that you expect her/him to adhere to the highest standards to ensure that voters have correct information, that there is no intimidation of voters outside polling places and that all valid ballots are counted, no matter how long it takes.
    [Show full text]