DOCSLIB.ORG

20190701 Plaintiffs Joint GEMS Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
20190701 Plaintiffs Joint GEMS Brief Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 441 Filed 07/01/19 Page 1 of 443 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION DONNA CURLING, ET AL., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION vs. ) ) FILE NO. 1:17-cv-2989-AT BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, ) ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF ON GEMS DATABASE DISCOVERY Plaintiffs jointly submit this brief in response to the questions raised in the June 28, 2019 telephone conference relating to the joint discovery dispute initiated by the Coalition Plaintiffs (Doc. 416) relating to the production of GEMS databases. As explained below in Part I, the GEMS databases should be produced immediately without restriction because they are highly relevant and not confidential. State Defendants’ counsel conceded this point during the June 28 teleconference, emphasizing that the GEMS databases themselves provide the “roadmap” that needs to be analyzed to identify flaws or vulnerabilities in the GEMS system. (June 28, 2019 Hearing Tr. 23:4-9, attached as Exhibit A.) As Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 441 Filed 07/01/19 Page 2 of 443 explained in Part II, production of reports generated from the GEMS databases, without the GEMS databases themselves, would be insufficient because reports will not disclose defects in the underlying database configurations. As explained in Part III, the production of the GEMS databases is separate and distinct from the more complex production of images of the GEMS servers and should precede that production. The GEMS databases do not implicate the security concerns Defendants have raised regarding the GEMS servers and thus do not warrant the sort of security measures discussed for the servers. Neither does production of the databases involve anything like the process for producing images of the severs. The GEMS databases can—and should—be produced immediately on discs or hard drives.1 There is no cause for further delay, which already has prejudiced Plaintiffs’ ability to prepare for the July 25-26 hearing. 1 To expedite the production of the GEMS databases as a critical first step in the analyses needed here, Plaintiffs focus here on the production of those databases rather than the forensic images of the GEMS servers. Plaintiffs are prepared to meet and confer further with Defendants further regarding the process and reasonable security measures for production of the images. If the parties cannot resolve that dispute, they will return to the Court for resolution. Obtaining the GEMS databases now likely will help resolve or at least narrow that dispute and make the issues regarding that production less abstract. 2 Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 441 Filed 07/01/19 Page 3 of 443 I. THE GEMS DATABASES SHOULD BE PRODUCED WITHOUT RESTRICTION Plaintiffs seek immediate production of electronic copies of the GEMS databases for the November 6, 2018 election that the Secretary prepared for and transmitted to each Georgia county, and the corresponding GEMS databases that the Secretary received from each county after the election. (Doc. 416-1 at page 6).2 This production should be prior to, and separate from, the more complicated and sensitive production of the forensic images of GEMS servers. Production of the GEMS databases first—while incomplete for the analyses needed in this case— will allow valuable (but far less expensive and time consuming) discovery to 2 Plaintiffs seek pairs of GEMS databases in the Secretary possession for each of the 159 Georgia counties: the Secretary’s copies of the databases that the Secretary sent to the counties, and the Secretary’s copies of the databases that the counties returned. In discussions with the Secretary’s counsel during the June 28, 2019 telephone conference, Plaintiffs suggested reducing the number of counties to 25. The Secretary, however, explained that their objection to producing the databases is confidentiality regarding their structure, not burden, and thus there is no distinction between producing the database for one county versus all 159. June 28, 2019 Hearing Tr. 28:8-15 (“I think the important piece is we don't see a distinction between 25 and the entire database because our concern is not the amount”). Plaintiffs also seek from defendant Fulton County and, currently, from three third- party counties copies of their databases. These requests are in addition to the requests directed at the Secretary. These databases should be the same as the databases in the Secretary’s possession, and examining the extent to which they differ is a critical part of the analyses needed to evaluate security vulnerabilities and flaws in the GEMS system in this case. 3 Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 441 Filed 07/01/19 Page 4 of 443 proceed immediately and will allow a more efficient sequence of gathering information. Defendants bear the burden to support their confidentiality claims regarding the GEMS databases. In re Mentor Corp. ObTape Transobturator Sling Prod. Liab. Litig., 632 F.Supp. 2d 1370, 1375-76 (M.D.Ga. 2009) (citing In re Grand Jury Investigation, 842 F.2d 1223, 1225 (11th Cir.1987)). Plaintiffs bear no burden to prove otherwise. But Defendants have offered only vague, conclusory claims about the “structure” of the GEMS databases, without any evidentiary support. In fact, during the Court-Ordered meet-and-confer on June 28, State Defendants’ counsel questioned Plaintiffs’ experts at length—without interruption from Plaintiffs’ counsel—about their need for the GEMS databases; but State Defendants’ counsel abruptly interrupted when Dr. Halderman asked Merrit Beaver, Chief Information Officer of the Secretary of State, a simple and direct question concerning the GEMS databases and refused to allow Mr. Beaver to answer the question. Throughout the call, Mr. Beaver merely parroted counsel’s conclusory claim that the “structure” of the GEMS databases is somehow confidential. He never explained how or why this is so or provided any details to support the claim. When Dr. Halderman asked him what aspects of the GEMS system he would examine were he to analyze the security of the system as 4 Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 441 Filed 07/01/19 Page 5 of 443 Plaintiffs’ experts seek to do and whether he would rely only on what State Defendants have offered to produce, that’s when State Defendants’ counsel immediately shut down the discussion and refused to allow him to answer.3 State Defendants’ counsel evidently feared what he would have to admit (without having been prepped for the question): no reliable or reasonable analyses of vulnerabilities or flaws in the GEMS system could be performed with the paltry reports State Defendants have offered or without the GEMS databases Plaintiffs seek. The fact is that the GEMS databases should be produced without any “confidentiality” designation because the State Defendants have not identified any confidential information that is contained in the GEMS databases.4 Indeed, the 3 During the June 28, 2015 conference with the Court, State Defendants’ counsel claimed that “the questions were turning into a cross-examination and a deposition of whether Mr. Beaver would concede certain points.” Hearing Tr. 22:6-9. This was surprisingly and disappointingly untrue. Dr. Halderman—rather than Plaintiffs’ counsel—asked Mr. Beaver a single, direct question aimed at understanding what Mr. Beaver would examine for the sort of security analyses Plaintiffs’ experts seek to do regarding the GEMS system. The only “cross- examination” that occurred was by Mr. Tyson of Plaintiffs’ experts, which proceeded uninterrupted. Plaintiffs’ experts have nothing to hide. 4 The GEMS databases that Plaintiffs seek in discovery should not contain passwords, encryption codes, or other security information, but, if they do, that information can be redacted before production. 5 Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 441 Filed 07/01/19 Page 6 of 443 State Defendants concede that there is no confidential data contained in GEMS databases, and instead vaguely insist that the “structure” or “archecture” of the GEMS databases is somehow confidential because it is unique to Georgia and that disclosure of the GEMS databases will somehow threaten election security. Yet the State Defendants do not explain even generally what is unique about the “structure” of Georgia’s GEMS databases (or what that even means) and do not provide any evidence or expert testimony supporting that naked assertion.5 In fact, the Secretary of State’s current position is directly contradicted by the sworn testimony of Merle King, the former Executive Director of Georgia’s CES. Mr. King was an expert for the government in the Pima County case, and testified that the “structure” of the GEMS databases in Georgia is consistent with that of GEMS databases all over the country: The structure of the database is consistent through all jurisdictions that use GEMS, so the revelation of one jurisdiction's database structure reveals information -- potentially reveals information about other jurisdictions. (Deposition of Merle King, at 11:17-21, attached as Exhibit B). 5 For testimony explaining the GEMS databases generally, and the issues outlined in this Brief, see the Declaration of Dr. Alex Halderman, attached hereto as Exhibit G. 6 Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 441 Filed 07/01/19 Page 7 of 443 In addition, Coalition Plaintiffs’ expert has reviewed GEMS databases from other jurisdictions (which are public records) and has found “no data” that “poses a privacy threat to voters or exploitation of the voting system by being disclosed.” (Bernhard Decl., July 1, 2019, attached as Exhibit C). In addition, Mr. Bernhard states: “The structure of the database is disclosed in GEMS manuals that have been publicly available since the system was first put in service.” (Id.). While the GEMS servers—containing the GEMS software—may contain source code and sensitive information that needs reasonable security protection, the GEMS databases do not.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 418GBJ Web.Pdf
    April 2018 Volume 23, Number 6 From the Executive GEORGIA BAR Director: Website and Directory Enhancements to Benefit Bar Members and the Public Financial Institutions: JOURNAL Protecting Elderly Clients From Financial Exploitation Bending the Arc: Georgia Lawyers in the Pursuit of Social Justice Writing Matters: What e-Filing May Mean to Your Writing 2018 ANNUAL MEETING Amelia Island, Fla. | June 7-10 GEORGIA LAWYERS HELPING LAWYERS Georgia Lawyers Helping Lawyers (LHL) is a new confidential peer-to-peer program that will provide u colleagues who are suffering from stress, depression, addiction or other personal issues in their lives, with a fellow Bar member to be there, listen and help. The program is seeking not only peer volunteers who have experienced particular mental health or substance use u issues, but also those who have experience helping others or just have an interest in extending a helping hand. For more information, visit: www.GeorgiaLHL.org ADMINISTERED BY: DO YOUR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS ADD UP? Finding the right benets provider doesn’t have to be a calculated risk. Our oerings range from Health Coverage to Disability and everything in between. Through us, your rm will have access to unique cost savings opportunities, enrollment technology, HR Tools, and more! The Private Insurance Exchange + Your Firm = Success START SHOPPING THE PRIVATE INSURANCE EXCHANGE TODAY! www.memberbenets.com/gabar OR CALL (800) 282-8626 APRIL 2018 HEADQUARTERS COASTAL GEORGIA OFFICE SOUTH GEORGIA OFFICE 104 Marietta St. NW, Suite 100 18 E. Bay St. 244 E. Second St. (31794) Atlanta, GA 30303 Savannah, GA 31401-1225 P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Impact of New Obstacles on Minority Voter Registration
    Legal Dodges and Subterfuges: Measuring Impact of New Obstacles on Minority Voter Registration Jennifer Ann Hitchcock Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts In Political Science Nicholas Goedert, Chair Caitlin E. Jewitt Karin Kitchens December 12, 2019 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: (voter registration, Shelby County v Holder, representation, migration) Legal Dodges and Subterfuges: Measuring Impact of New Obstacles on Minority Voter Registration Jennifer Ann Hitchcock ACADEMIC ABSTRACT Nearly 350 years of politically sanctioned domination over Blacks ended with the passage of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 1965. The federal regulation of voter and election law sought to end retrogressions in representation by intentional or effectual laws. In the VRA’s wake, race based politics and policy rooted in White supremacy were curtailed with the gradual representation of communities of color in all levels of government. Shelby County v Holder (2013) obstructed progress by effectively terminating preclearance of legal changes by the federal government. Since Shelby, retrogression of voter registration is once again on the rise. Remedies for retrogression require litigation and matriculation through the courts. This process is time consuming and allows states to conduct election law with minimal interruption until decisions are rendered. Research predating the passage of the Voting Rights Act by Matthews and Prothro indicated that there was a significant correlation between growing minority populations and the severity of election and voter laws. This paper seeks to determine if growing minority populations, in part due to disproportionately large in-migration, correlates with declining voter registration rates.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Redistricting in Georgia
    GEORGIA LAW REVIEW(DO NOT DELETE) 11/6/2018 8:33 PM THE HISTORY OF REDISTRICTING IN GEORGIA Charles S. Bullock III* In his memoirs, Chief Justice Earl Warren singled out the redistricting cases as the most significant decisions of his tenure on the Court.1 A review of the changes redistricting introduced in Georgia supports Warren’s assessment. Not only have the obligations to equalize populations across districts and to do so in a racially fair manner transformed the makeup of the state’s collegial bodies, Georgia has provided the setting for multiple cases that have defined the requirements to be met when designing districts. Other than the very first adjustments that occurred in the 1960s, changes in Georgia plans had to secure approval from the federal government pursuant to the Voting Rights Act. Also, the first four decades of the Redistricting Revolution occurred with a Democratic legislature and governor in place. Not surprisingly, the partisans in control of redistricting sought to protect their own and as that became difficult they employed more extreme measures. When in the minority, Republicans had no chance to enact plans on their own. Beginning in the 1980s and peaking a decade later, Republicans joined forces with black Democrats to devise alternatives to the proposals of white Democrats. The biracial, bipartisan coalition never had sufficient numbers to enact its ideas. After striking out in the legislature, African-Americans appealed to the U.S. Attorney General alleging that the plans enacted were less favorable to black interests than alternatives * Charles S. Bullock, III is a University Professor of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia where he holds the Richard B.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the Public Meeting
    Meeting Minutes United States Election Assistance Commission STANDARDS BOARD MEETING April 11-12, 2019 149 Union Avenue Continental Ballroom (Mezzanine Level) Memphis, Tennessee 38103 The following are the Minutes of the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC) Standards Board held April 11-12, 2019. The meeting convened at 9:05 a.m. on Thursday, April 11, 2019, in Memphis, Tennessee, at The Peabody Memphis and adjourned on Friday, April 12, 2019, at 1:15 p.m. Thursday, April 11 Call to Order Greg Riddlemoser, Chairman of the Standards Board, called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Welcome to Memphis! Commissioner Donald Palmer welcomed the Standards Board members to Memphis and detailed some of Memphis' historical importance to the Nation, as well as expressed his appreciation to the EAC, the Standards Board Executive Committee and staff, and Cliff Tatum for their dedication and hard work, and outlined the important topics to be addressed in the agenda such as an intelligence briefing on the potential threat to elections, an update on the voting system certification program, information on election data improvements, civil rights and voting rights issues, election security, disaster management and recovery when elections are disrupted, and the ongoing process to develop VVSG 2.0. Welcome Video from Tennessee Secretary of State Tre Hargett to the Standards Board of the United States Elections Assistance Commission Welcome Video from Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn to the Standards Board of the United States Elections Assistance Commission Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner Donald Palmer, Designated Federal Officer of the EAC Standards Board, led all present in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
    [Show full text]
  • James.Qxp March Apri
    COBB COUNTY A BUSTLING MARCH/APRIL 2017 PAGE 26 AN INSIDE VIEW INTO GEORGIA’S NEWS, POLITICS & CULTURE THE 2017 MOST INFLUENTIAL GEORGIA LOTTERY CORP. CEO ISSUE DEBBIE ALFORD COLUMNS BY KADE CULLEFER KAREN BREMER MAC McGREW CINDY MORLEY GARY REESE DANA RICKMAN LARRY WALKER The hallmark of the GWCCA Campus is CONNEE CTIVITY DEPARTMENTS Publisher’s Message 4 Floating Boats 6 FEATURES James’ 2017 Most Influential 8 JAMES 18 Saluting the James 2016 “Influentials” P.O. BOX 724787 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 31139 24 678 • 460 • 5410 Georgian of the Year, Debbie Alford Building A Proposed Contiguous Exhibition Facilityc Development on the Rise in Cobb County 26 PUBLISHED BY by Cindy Morley INTERNET NEWS AGENCY LLC 2017 Legislators of the Year 29 Building B CHAIRMAN MATTHEW TOWERY COLUMNS CEO & PUBLISHER PHIL KENT Future Conventtion Hotel [email protected] Language Matters: Building C How We Talk About Georgia Schools 21 CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER LOUIE HUNTER by Dr. Dana Rickman ASSOCIATE EDITOR GARY REESE ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES Georgia’s Legal Environment on a PATTI PEACH [email protected] Consistent Downward Trend 23 by Kade Cullefer The connections between Georggia World Congress Center venues, the hotel MARKETING DIRECTOR MELANIE DOBBINS district, and the world’world s busiest aairporirport are key differentiaferentiatorsators in Atlanta’Atlanta’s ability to [email protected] Georgia Restaurants Deliver compete for in-demand conventions and tradeshows. CIRCULATION PATRICK HICKEY [email protected] Significant Economic Impact 31 by Karen Bremer CONTRIBUTING WRITERS A fixed gateway between the exhibit halls in Buildings B & C would solidify KADE CULLEFER 33 Atlanta’s place as the world’s premier convention destination.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 2020 Annual Report
    U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 2020 Annual Report GCC ZOOM CONGRESSINAL HEARING TYEuL EEC T IONS CEYcBuERRITY s1GNATURE ~~~LJs SEC U RI 5 VERIFICATION NEW HIRES VOTERS CONTINGENCY RUTGERS EARLY BALLOT GUIDANCE CTCL 2 0 0 INNOVA!J~EPLANNING 0IsINF0RMATI0N~¼~~i1~~T~a.~. - DEM1~r~ 8 ~ s EXECUTIVE i:2 w<( ASSISTANCEACC Es s I B I LI TY CIS FEEDBACK c~~~~l~:1~~0CRITICAL 400 M TESTING AND COVI D wow INF RASTR uCTU RE NATIONAL POLL WORKER RECRUITMENT DAY GRANTS KEY CERTIFICATION 80 WORKING~ GUIDELINES SECRETARY COVI D-19Aot1RSDOORSF ~iNt&R voi E~REt~rA~l~¼LABS GROUPR~~fJRB MAIL~!ti~:;~:: IT BACK2Q20 OF STATE ELECTIONRECOUNTSoELA~~t9vN OUTREACH REGISTRATION , 1 MOVE ACCURATE CARES GRANTZ POLL NVRD EAC ~~!i~~~ STATE AND LOCALPPE l~Fit{;f~~ ~~~ERSARY OF WOMEN VOTERS ~ WORKERS EAVS MASKS EL~~~~?~L~>ft~~~~~ ~~MA E-BALL0T SAFEGUARD PANDEMIC <! VOTING IN PERSO~~VOTER EDUCATIONREOUIREMENTS DELIVERY VOTING BY S0 LARWINDS c::::: - N BALLOTS SITUATION ROOM HEARINGS MAIL VOTING MACHINES 02 VOTE R PANDEMIC BEST RESOURCES 1 PHISHING CLEARINGHOUSE O R E SPONSE t~1~T~~8ii ~~T DISBURSEMENT RISK LL ELECTION NIGHT REPORTING MAIL MANA GEMt ~N~ RN r ~~J~ti;.NCENPWRD ~ ~ ~ ~c::::: Tu u LESSONS LEARNED w a:: ~ ..::::; O RESOURCES u.~ ~ NEWSLETTERWEBINARS PATCHING SECURE sec HEALTH 1 SAFE ~~~ C~UD ~00 Dill SERVICES STANDARDS HAVA BOARD MANUFACTURERS NIST TGDC BMDs Serving America•s Election Officials and Voters During the COVID-19 Pandemic 2020 EAC Annual Report: Serving America’s Election Officials and Voters Table of Contents Chairman’s Message 4 Meet the Commissioners 6 Executive Director’s Letter 11 General Counsel’s Update 14 Executive Summary 15 Administering HAVA Funds 24 Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic 28 The 2020 Election: Assisting Election Officials and Voters 35 Enhancing Election Security 46 Setting New National Standards for Voting Systems 48 Leveraging Data 52 Promoting Accessibility 55 Highlighting Best Practices 59 EAC Agency Development 61 EAC Advisory & Oversight Boards 65 Appendix 78 4 CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE When the year began, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • John H. Merrill Secretary of State
    ALABAMA STATE CAPITOL (334) 242-7200 600 DEXTER AVENUE FAX (334) 242-4993 SUITE S-105 WWW.SOS.ALABAMA.GOV MONTGOMERY, AL 36130 [email protected] JOHN H. MERRILL SECRETARY OF STATE October 2, 2020 Senator Mitch McConnell 317 Russell S.O.B. Washington, DC 20510 Dear Majority Leader McConnell: Thank you for your swift action to hold hearings and to make certain that each Senator has the opportunity to consider the President’s nomination to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. It is of utmost importance that the Supreme Court has a full nine-member court before Election Day on November 3, 2020. Maintaining the integrity and credibility of our elections is of paramount significance to each of us as our state’s respective chief election official. Americans must be able to exercise their constitutional right to vote with confidence, knowing their ballot will be counted for the candidate of their choice. In the case an election issue is challenged in court, America cannot afford a tie vote. We must be able to report election results in a timely, secure, and efficient manner as we have done before. The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett is an outstanding nominee for consideration for a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States. She brings with her an unblemished record and extensive experience as a litigator and distinguished professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. Her philosophy and tried and true beliefs of upholding the constitution and the laws of our nation as written make her an excellent choice for our nation’s highest court.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Likely General Election Voters Georgia Statewide
    Survey of Likely General Election Voters Georgia Statewide Conducted October 27-30, 2018 n=504 | ±4.36 A. How likely are you to vote – or have you already voted – in the November 6th General election for Governor and Congress out of the following options? Freq. % Already voted 194 38.5% Definitely voting 289 57.4% Probably voting 21 4.1% Total 504 100.0% 2. On a scale of 0 to 10, how would you rate your interest in the November 6th general election, with 0 meaning not interested at all and 10 meaning extremely interested? Freq. % Lower MoE % Upper MoE % 9 - 10 423 83.8% 80.4% 87.3% 6 - 8 62 12.4% 9.3% 15.5% 0 - 5 19 3.8% 1.9% 5.6% Total 504 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 3. If the elections were held today, and you had to make a decision, would you be voting mostly for Republican or Democratic candidates? Freq. % D+2% D+4% Republican Total 251 49.7% 48.5% 46.9% Republican 249 49.4% 48.2% 46.6% Lean Republican 2 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% DeMocratic Total 241 47.7% 48.8% 50.4% Lean Democratic 6 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% Democratic 235 46.7% 47.7% 49.3% Don’t know / Refused 13 2.5% 2.7% 2.7% Total 504 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 4. - 6. Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of: Very No Never Favorable Very fav Unfavorable Total unfav opinion heard of 51.9% 42.2% 45.5% 39.9% 1.6% 1.0% 100.0% Donald Trump 262 213 229 201 8 5 504 53.0% 37.8% 41.3% 32.5% 3.2% 2.5% 100.0% Brian Kemp 267 190 208 164 16 12 504 50.4% 36.1% 45.7% 38.5% 1.1% 2.8% 100.0% Stacey Abrams 254 182 230 194 6 14 504 Page 2 of 9 Thinking again about the upcoming general elections… 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Working the Democracy: the Long Fight for the Ballot from Ida to Stacey
    Social Education 84(4), p. 214–218 ©2020 National Council for the Social Studies Working the Democracy: The Long Fight for the Ballot from Ida to Stacey Jennifer Sdunzik and Chrystal S. Johnson After a 72-year struggle, the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted whose interests should be represented, American women the right to vote in 1920. Coupled with the Fifteenth Amendment, and ultimately what policies will be which extended voting rights to African American men, the ratification of the implemented at the local and national Nineteenth Amendment transformed the power and potency of the American electorate. levels. At a quick glance, childhoods par- Yet for those on the periphery—be Given the dearth of Black women’s tially spent in Mississippi might be the they people of color, women, the poor, voices in the historical memory of the only common denominator of these two and working class—the quest to exer- long civil rights struggle, we explore the women, as they were born in drastically cise civic rights through the ballot box stories of two African American women different times and seemed to fight dras- has remained contested to this day. In who harnessed the discourse of democ- tically different battles. Whereas Wells- the late nineteenth century and into the racy and patriotism to argue for equality Barnett is best known for her crusade twentieth, white fear of a new electorate and justice. Both women formed coali- against lynchings in the South and her of formerly enslaved Black men spurred tions that challenged the patriarchal work in documenting the racial vio- public officials to implement policies boundaries limiting who can be elected, lence of the 1890s in publications such that essentially nullified the Fifteenth as Southern Horrors and A Red Record,1 Amendment for African Americans in she was also instrumental in paving the the South.
    [Show full text]
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb 2013 State and Other Corporate Political
    2013 State Corporate Contributions State Candidate Contribution Amount Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange $500 Representative Donnie Chesteen $500 Representative Elaine Beech $500 Representative James Barton $500 Representative Jim Patterson $500 Representative Steve Clouse $500 Senator Arthur Orr $500 Senator Greg Reed $500 California Assembly Member Anthony Rendon $1,500 Assembly Member Bill Quirk $1,000 Assembly Member Brian Maienschein $1,500 Assembly Member Dan Logue $1,000 Assembly Member Henry Perea $2,000 Assembly Member Jim Frazier $1,000 Assembly Member Mike Gatto $1,000 Assembly Member Phil Ting $1,300 Assembly Member Raul Bocanegra $1,000 Assembly Member Richard Pan $1,500 Assembly Member Susan Eggman-Talamantes $1,000 Assembly Member Toni Atkins $1,500 Assembly Member. Kevin Mullin $1,000 Assembly MemberJimmy Gomez $1,000 Assemblyman Richard Gordon $1,000 Assemblymember Adrin Nazarian $1,500 Bldg California's Future: John A Perez Ballot Measure Cmte $1,500 California Republican Party $5,000 California Republican Party $2,500 Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones $2,000 Moderate Democrats $5,000 PhRMA PAC $6,000 Senator Cathleen Galgiani $1,000 Senator Jerry Hill $1,500 Senator Joel Anderson $1,500 Senator Kevin DeLeon $1,000 Senator Norma Torres $1,000 Senator Ricardo Lara $1,500 Senator Ted Lieu $1,500 Florida House Majority $2,500 House Majority $5,000 House Majority $2,500 House Victory $1,000 House Victory $1,000 Representative Cary Pigman $500 Representative Daniel Raulerson $500 Representative Jason Brodeur $500 Representative
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Rural Communities of Color in the 2020 Election by Olugbenga Ajilore December 22, 2020
    The Role of Rural Communities of Color in the 2020 Election By Olugbenga Ajilore December 22, 2020 Vast swaths of the media have a limited view of what constitutes rural America. There is a general stereotype of these regions—households who are white, low income, and employed in the agricultural industry.1 This perception was evident in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s surprise win in the 2016 election, when journalists went to places to speak with whom they believed were rural residents.2 The stories were so prevalent that many were given the term “Rust Belt Diner” journalism.3 This miscon- ception was also evident in the coverage of the coronavirus pandemic in rural com- munities, where headlines did not include in their descriptions of rural America the various rural communities of color who have been harmed.4 Many rural communities of color were hit hard in the initial wave of the pandemic, and while these areas repre- sent rural America, they were not described as such in most reporting. A story on an outbreak in Navajo Nation5 in April, for example, did not link the issues plaguing this community to issues in other rural areas, even though the problems were very similar.6 The same was true when the media discussed the 2020 election. Some rural commu- nities of color played a role in Joe Biden capturing the White House, but this was not evident from the coverage. (see text box) Several stories depicted Biden’s victory as occurring despite the voting trends among rural voters, without acknowledging the vot- ing patterns of regions with larger communities of color.7 Rural communities of color are not a monolith, and their voting patterns shifted for both candidates between the past two presidential elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Description: All in - Final Picture Lock – Full Film - 200726
    DESCRIPTION: ALL IN - FINAL PICTURE LOCK – FULL FILM - 200726 [01:00:31:00] [TITLE: November 6, 2018] ANCHORWOMAN: It might be a race for the governor’s mansion in Georgia, but this is one that the entire country is watching. ANCHORWOMAN: And if ever one vote counted it certainly is going to count in this particular race. [01:00:46:00] [TITLE: The race for Georgia governor is between Democrat Stacey Abrams and Republican Brian Kemp.] [If elected, Abrams would become the nation’s first female African American governor.] CROWD: Stacey! Stacey! Stacey! Stacey! Stacey! ANCHORWOMAN: The controversy surrounding Georgia’s governor race is not dying down. Both candidates dug in today. ANCHORWOMAN: Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams are locked in a virtual dead heat. ANCHORWOMAN: Everybody wants to know what’s happening in Georgia, still a toss up there, as we’re waiting for a number of votes to come in. They believe there are tens of thousands of absentee ballots that have not yet been counted. ANCHORWOMAN: Voter suppression has become a national talking point and Brian Kemp has become a focal point. [01:01:27:00] LAUREN: All of the votes in this race have not been counted. 1 BRIAN KEMP: On Tuesday, as you know, we earned a clear and convincing, uh, victory at the ballot box and today we’re beginning the transition process. ANCHORMAN: Kemp was leading Democratic opponent Stacey Abrams by a narrow margin and it grew more and more narrow in the days following the election. Abrams filed multiple lawsuits, but ultimately dropped out of the race.
    [Show full text]