DOCSLIB.ORG

20190621 CGG 913 PM Draft Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
20190621 CGG 913 PM Draft Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 419-1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 1 of 506 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. ) COALITION PLAINTIFFS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION June 21, 2019 Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 419-1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 2 of 506 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF RELIEF SOUGHT 1 II. FEASIBILITY OF THE RELIEF 6 A. “Most Widely Accepted Voting Method in the Nation” 6 B. Logistics 7 1. Sensible Timing 7 2. Availability of Printed Ballots 7 3. Training 8 4. Early Voting and Number of Ballot Styles 8 5. Long lines 9 C. Particular Issues with Counties and Municipalities 10 III. SUCCESS ON THE MERITS 12 A. Numerous Voters Experienced Problems in the 2018 Election 13 B. Voting System Reporting Issues and Discrepancies 20 1. Irregular DRE machine tape totals 20 2. DRE discrepancies 21 C. Extreme Undervote in Lieutenant Governor’s Race 21 D. DREs Violate Ballot Secrecy 25 1. Background 25 2. Plaintiffs Likelihood of Success on the Merits 30 i Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 419-1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 3 of 506 3. Strong Public Interest in Protecting Ballot Secrecy 32 IV. ELECTRONIC POLLBOOK ACCURACY 34 A. Relief Initially Sought and Court’s Disposition 34 B. Vulnerability and Corruption of Electronic Pollbooks 34 1. Electronic Pollbook Problems in 2018 Primaries 35 2. Electronic Pollbook Problems in 2018 General 36 C. Disenfranchisement 36 D. Provisional ballot problems 37 E. Relief sought 37 V. AUDIT REQUIREMENTS 40 VI. DEFENDANTS HAVE NO EQUITIES 42 VII. CONCLUSION 46 ii Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 419-1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 4 of 506 The Coalition Plaintiffs file this Brief in Support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction. I. INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF RELIEF SOUGHT This Motion seeks to protect the constitutional rights of Georgia citizens to vote and have their ballots counted in the 2020 elections, including the March Presidential primary, and the remaining 2019 elections. The Coalition Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief that will ensure that voters’ rights to a secret ballot will be protected immediately; that hand-market paper ballots with Accu-Vote scanners will replace DRE voting machines no later than October 1, 2019; that election results will be audited; and that the problems with the electronic pollbooks are promptly remedied and paper back-ups provided at polling locations. Unless injunctive relief is granted, the State will have no constitutionally acceptable voting system for the foreseeable future. The State’s new ballot marketing device (“BMD”) system, if ever deployed, will not be operational until, at the very earliest, the late March 2020 Presidential primaries, and will not address the constitutional violations at issue in this case. It is therefore imperative that the State be enjoined to replace the unconstitutionally defective DRE voting machines with hand-marked paper ballots so that Georgia voters have a constitutional voting Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 419-1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 5 of 506 system for the balance of 2019 and for the 2020 Presidential primary, other primaries, and the general election. Coalition Plaintiffs continue to seek relief in this case relating to the DRE voting system and the electronic pollbooks, as sought in two prior Motions for Preliminary Injunction. (Docs. 258, 327). With respect to the DREs, the relief that the Coalition Plaintiffs seek is to replace only the DRE electronic voting machines, not the entire Deibold Accu-vote DRE certified election system. If this Motion is granted, the DRE voting machines would be sidelined,1 but the State would continue to use the Diebold/GEMS election management system, and the Diebold optical scanners until Georgia implements an another accountable voting system. If the Coalition Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted, the voter’s selection will no longer be made on unauditable DRE touchscreen machines and instead will be marked directly on a paper ballot and then scanned by the Diebold Accu-Vote optical scanners.2 The selections will be recorded on the scanner’s removable 1 The Coalition Plaintiffs’ Motion, by its terms, does not prohibit the use of electronic or other appropriate units for persons with disabilities. 2 Georgia law permits the paper ballot scanning to take place either at each polling location or centrally at the election office at the option of the county election board. O.C.G.A. § 221-2-483(a). As reflected in their Motion, Coalition Plaintiffs recommend leaving this choice to each county superintendent’s discretion based on local logistics, personnel and training considerations. 2 Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 419-1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 6 of 506 memory card for transfer to the GEMS server for consolidation and tabulation of vote totals, as mail and provisional ballots are processed today. Though modest in scope, the relief sought by the Coalition Plaintiffs remedies the core defect in Georgia’s current system configuration for in-person voters: the absence of “a paper trail or any other means by which to independently verify or audit the recording of each elector’s vote, i.e., the actual ballot selections made by the elector for either the elector’s review or for audit purposes.” (May 21, 2019 Order, Doc. 375, at 4). If the motion is granted, there is an independent record of voters’ selection in the form of the voter-marked paper ballots. See Curling v. Kemp, 334 F. Supp. 3d 1303 , at 1328 (N.D. Ga. 2018) (a new balloting system in Georgia “should address democracy’s critical need for transparent, fair, accurate, and verifiable election processes”). The key to the feasibility of this remedy is that Georgia has long used this system for processing paper ballots. In the November 2018 elections, the State processed over 250,000 hand-market paper ballots using the same certified Diebold components and processes that it would use to count virtually all the votes if Coaltion Plaintiffs’ injunctive relief were granted. In fact, if Coalition Plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief is granted, the State would need to make only minimal if any changes to procedures for ballot layout, paper ballot procurement, counting, 3 Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 419-1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 7 of 506 and reporting paper ballots; the counties would merely order more paper ballots from printers and, instead of giving voters a voter access card to enable the DRE voting machines, pollworkers will issue paper ballots. In contrast to the relief sought by the Coalition Plaintiffs, the Curling Plaintiffs seek relief in their Proposed Order that would immediately replace not only the DRE touchscreen voting machines, but the entire “Diebold AccuVote DRE voting system.” (Doc. 387-8 at 2). While the Coalition Plaintiffs agree that the entire system should be replaced over the next few years, the State does not have the resources or the equipment necessary to purchase and mobilize new machines in time for the November 2019 elections, or the 2020 elections. Under the current circumstances, the only feasible relief is the relief proposed by the Coalition Plaintiffs, using the hand marked paper ballot system already in place in Georgia augmented by robust post-election audits. Even with the change to hand-marked paper ballots, rigorous post-election audits are essential. “Thorough post-election auditing is essential and must be taken seriously in all elections, but this is especially true when using an outdated and vulnerable Diebold system.” (A. McReynolds Supp. Decl. ¶ 28 (Doc. 413 at 229-30)). For this reason, the Coalition Plaintiffs in their Motion seek an order requiring Defendant State Election Board and Plaintiffs to confer and file with this 4 Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 419-1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 8 of 506 Court a proposed plan for a pre-certification audits of the paper ballot tabulations, and to apply applicable audit techniques to DRE components until paper ballot elections are fully implemented. As the Coalition Plaintiffs have documented in prior filings and with this Motion, Georgia voters continue to be subjected to disenfranchisement because of malfunctioning electronic pollbooks. The Coalition Plaintiffs therefore also seek relief relating to the remediation of the electronic pollbooks. In this Brief, the Coalition Plaintiffs will focus primarily on new evidence. Part II will address the feasibility of the relief sought: cost, training, provisioning equipment, management of early voting, and particular issues relating to counties and municipalities. In Part III, the Coaltion Plaintiffs will address new evidence substantially strengthening the likelihood of success on the merits, including scores of first-hand accounts of the malfunctioning DREs in the November 2018 elections, the discrepancies in vote totals, the extreme undervote in race for Lieutenant Governer, and the new evidence confirming that the DREs violate ballot secrecy. In Part IV, the Coalition Plaintiffs will address the additional evidence establishing the immediate need for relief relating to electronic pollbooks. In Part V, the requirement for post-election audits is explained. In Part VI, the Coalition Plaintiffs will show that the Defendants have no equities whatsoever: 5 Case 1:17-cv-02989-AT Document 419-1 Filed 06/21/19 Page 9 of 506 even after this Court’s September 2018 order, Defendants have taken no discernable action to address the constitutional infirmitiues of the State’s DRE voting system. Finally, in Part VII, the Coalition Plaintiffs will explain that granting injunctive relief now will provide a safe, sensible, constitutional alternative to, and contingency for, the State’s planned deployment of the BMD system in 2020.
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]
  • Cartersville, GA 30120 the State of Georgia After Twenty- the Arrangements
    THURSDAY May 17, 2018 BARTOW COUNTY’S ONLY DAILY NEWSPAPER 75 CENTS Lieutenant governor hopeful makes pitch in Cartersville BY JAMES SWIFT the number of people I struck out every “It takes a competitive heart and that is mies to prepare students for the 21st cen- [email protected] night,” he said at a meet and greet at Jef- something that has served me well in pol- tury labor market. ferson’s Restaurant. “I’m perfectly fine itics,” Duncan said. “I just felt like that He said he is also a proponent of school Former state representative Geoff Dun- with competition.” the process needed to change and I felt choice, adding that he would like to mod- can swung by Downtown Cartersville In the 1996 draft, the Florida Marlins like to do that you needed to be in a lead- ernize funding strategies for education. Wednesday as part of his campaign for selected Geoff Duncan, then a pitcher at ership role. I think I can do it better, “Those dollars ought to follow the child,” Georgia’s Lieutenant Governor seat. Georgia Tech, in the 69th round. After bolder and I want to create a culture that Duncan said. The 43-year-old Forsyth County resident about five years in the minor leagues, rewards policy over politics. I, essentially, Duncan also bemoaned the lack of joins a crowded field of Republican chal- Duncan decided to hang up his glove and either wanted to be in charge or go home parental and guardian involvement in ed- lengers, including former state representa- become an entrepreneur in Forsyth back to my family.” ucation in some communities.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Political Activities Report
    MetLife, Inc. Political Activity MetLife, Inc. (together with its affiliates, “MetLife” or the “Company”) believes that its participation in the political process is an important and essential means of achieving its goals of enhancing shareholder value and of providing people with the financial and insurance products and services they need through various life stages and economic cycles. Legislative and regulatory initiatives and priorities at the United States federal and state levels, including appropriate regulation of the financial and insurance industries, have a profound impact on MetLife and its businesses’ ability to achieve these goals. MetLife participates in the political process by helping to elect candidates whose views on important issues are good for the nation as well as MetLife and its businesses. MetLife also engages with policymakers on a wide range of public policy matters to advance the issues of importance to its shareholders and policyholders. MetLife participates in the political process through a variety of means, including several political action committees (“PACs”) and, where permissible, limited direct corporate political contributions to state candidates, committees or ballot issues. MetLife maintains appropriate policies and procedures and ensures that its political activities are conducted in accordance with all applicable laws governing political contributions and lobbying activities. MetLife solicits contributions to the MetLife PACs only from associates who are eligible to participate under the terms of the PAC and applicable law. Contributions to MetLife PACs are voluntary; MetLife does not favor or disfavor associates on the basis of their participation. Senior management reviews and approves decisions regarding all corporate political contributions, including in‐kind contributions, pursuant to the Company’s policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Teaming the Red Team: Utilizing Cyber Espionage to Combat Terrorism
    Journal of Strategic Security Volume 6 Number 5 Volume 6, No. 3, Fall 2013 Supplement: Ninth Annual IAFIE Article 3 Conference: Expanding the Frontiers of Intelligence Education Red Teaming the Red Team: Utilizing Cyber Espionage to Combat Terrorism Gary Adkins The University of Texas at El Paso Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss pp. 1-9 Recommended Citation Adkins, Gary. "Red Teaming the Red Team: Utilizing Cyber Espionage to Combat Terrorism." Journal of Strategic Security 6, no. 3 Suppl. (2013): 1-9. This Papers is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Access Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Strategic Security by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Red Teaming the Red Team: Utilizing Cyber Espionage to Combat Terrorism This papers is available in Journal of Strategic Security: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol6/iss5/ 3 Adkins: Red Teaming the Red Team: Utilizing Cyber Espionage to Combat Terrorism Red Teaming the Red Team: Utilizing Cyber Espionage to Combat Terrorism Gary Adkins Introduction The world has effectively exited the Industrial Age and is firmly planted in the Information Age. Global communication at the speed of light has become a great asset to both businesses and private citizens. However, there is a dark side to the age we live in as it allows terrorist groups to communicate, plan, fund, recruit, and spread their message to the world. Given the relative anonymity the Internet provides, many law enforcement and security agencies investigations are hindered in not only locating would be terrorists but also in disrupting their operations.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Lilly Report of Political Financial Support
    16 2016 Lilly Report of Political Financial Support 1 16 2016 Lilly Report of Political Financial Support Lilly employees are dedicated to innovation and the discovery of medicines to help people live longer, healthier and more active lives, and more importantly, doing their work with integrity. LillyPAC was established to work to ensure that this vision is also shared by lawmakers, who make policy decisions that impact our company and the patients we serve. In a new political environment where policies can change with a “tweet,” we must be even more vigilant about supporting those who believe in our story, and our PAC is an effective way to support those who share our views. We also want to ensure that you know the story of LillyPAC. Transparency is an important element of our integrity promise, and so we are pleased to share this 2016 LillyPAC annual report with you. LillyPAC raised $949,267 through the generous, voluntary contributions of 3,682 Lilly employees in 2016. Those contributions allowed LillyPAC to invest in 187 federal candidates and more than 500 state candidates who understand the importance of what we do. You will find a full financial accounting in the following pages, as well as complete lists of candidates and political committees that received LillyPAC support and the permissible corporate contributions made by the company. In addition, this report is a helpful guide to understanding how our PAC operates and makes its contribution decisions. On behalf of the LillyPAC Governing Board, I want to thank everyone who has made the decision to support this vital program.
    [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]
  • Sam Harris Interview Part Four
    SAM HARRIS INTERVIEW PART FOUR NOTE: This transcript was generated by the service Rev.com, and though it’s quite good, it is imperfect. If you would like to quote anything from this episode you are welcome to! But please find the point in the audio where the quote originates, and verify that the transcript is accurate. If Rev’s transcript is inaccurate, we ask that you only post or publish a version of the quote that you deem correct (because your ears are awesome!). Hello again, Ars Technica listeners. This is the fourth and final installment of a four-part interview with neuroscientist, New York Times bestselling author, podcaster, and controversial public intellectual, Sam Harris. We’ll pick up with the uplifting theme we left off on yesterday. Which is to say, high tech weaponry that tomorrow’s nihilistic, suicidal mass murderers might just use to kill very large numbers of us. Before we get started though, a quick note of orientation. As those of you who listened to last week’s interview with UCSF neuroscientist Adam Gazzaley know, I originally thought this podcast series would be a limited set of just eight episodes connected to my latest science fiction novel, which is also called After On, and which came out last summer. But the podcast acquired a life of its own, and I’m about to publish episode #38 in the series of eight. As you’re about to find out, these first eight episodes have a distinctive format, in that each of them ends with a conversation between me at Tom Merritt - who you might may from CNET, from TechTV, then later from Leo Laporte’s network, and now from Tom’s own videocast, Daily Tech News Show.
    [Show full text]