Examples of proposed policies and candidates linked to sham election fraud have spread to Minnesota, new country report It was found that the movement was not slowing down ahead of this fall’s vote.
Three voter rights groups have released findings on how state legislatures are trying to undermine the election, including more leeway to reject results, demand partisan or outside audits, and shift power away from election administrators. Minnesota Republicans have floated some ideas but are unlikely to pass under the current balance of power.
Rachel Homer, an adviser to the nonprofit that protects democracy, said simply bringing them up would be a threat.
“It’s about everybody supporting democracy,” Homer asserted. “Both parties really need to oppose this movement towards authoritarianism.”
Despite the call for unity, Republicans are seeing more statewide office candidates either perpetuate claims of stolen elections or suggest current laws need restrictions, which they say will strengthen election security.
The Minnesota Republican Party recently approved such a candidate for secretary of state, the office that oversees the election. This year, the United States introduced 175 such laws, the report said.
Homer believes that false allegations of election fraud have been formed in the wake of Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election, which has ballooned to alert level five. Even if most bills don’t pass, voters will still be exposed to theories that are outright dismissed by the courts, she noted.
“These bills were introduced by many legislators in many states,” Homer observed. “They obviously thought it had an audience.”
The groups behind the report stress that it’s important to remember that most administrators, staff and volunteers are committed to free and fair elections.
Common Cause’s National Voting and Electoral Director Sylvia Albert said outside the findings that it was worrisome that some candidates who espoused that view could be brought into office. If election results are rejected without valid reasons, she said it could be harder to pursue recourse.
“So, absolutely capable of challenging in court, [but] The courts are increasingly inclined to step back and let the political process run its course,” Albert stressed. “It’s not about protecting people who don’t have power, they’re ordinary Americans.
The Carnegie Corporation of New York provided support for this report.
Get more stories like this by email
The pandemic appears to have increased levels of violence in U.S. cities, and new research Local officials and mayors, especially people of color, were found to bear the brunt.
Heidi Gerblacht, co-founder of the Network of Women Mayors and founder of Equity Agenda, said local government officials have reported death threats, vandalism and anger at public meetings.
“Because of these threats, they had to change their lives to continue serving,” Gebracht noted. “Definitely worried about the escalation. Concerned about their personal safety and the personal safety of their families.”
As the Oklahoma State University study documented, Gerbracht noted, the increased violence requires a response from local governments, which may include the protection services of local police departments. The Mayor’s Innovation Project will provide online safety and sports training for mayors this month.
In interviews with more than 3,000 mayors last fall, 70 percent said people they knew chose not to run for office because of the hostile nature of their jobs.
Rebecca Herrick, a professor of social sciences and humanities at Oklahoma State University who authored the report, said social media is driving an increase in violence.
“94.5 percent of mayors reported what we call psychological violence,” Herrick reports. “Things like social media attacks, verbal attacks in public meetings; 24.2% said they had been threatened at least once.”
Gerbracht added the exposure of an elected leader’s personal information also is becoming more common, a level of harassment causing local leaders to decide against seeking public office.
“As the public, we just expect this to not be a problem for local elected officials,” Gerblacht stressed. “People really need to understand that this is not just politics. It’s not just where you should expect to go into public service. ”
Get more stories like this by email
good government groups are criticizing Supreme Court decision Rules on how much a candidate could spend to repay his or her campaign loans were lifted on Monday.
The justices sided with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who sued over rules that say candidates can only raise $250,000 to pay off personal loans after the election.
Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs for Common Cause, said this means big donors can funnel huge amounts of cash directly to newly elected officials.
“This decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court allowing more big money to participate in politics, and further opens the door to corruption, allowing big money interests to call the shots,” Scherb argued.
The decision spoils the part Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
In a supportive briefing, Chief Justice John Roberts said the rule placed too much of a burden on hard-core political discourse. In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued that the decision “gives the green light to all the dirty deals that Congress believes should be stopped…and will only further discredit this country’s political system.”
Scherb stressed that he hopes this will provide Disclosure Actwhich would require campaigns and groups to spend money to influence politics to report more on their money, but he’s not optimistic.
“We’re not going to hold our breath waiting for 10 Senate Republicans to vote for something like this,” Scherb admitted. “But if more money is to be spent on politics, it absolutely has to be public. The public should see who is trying to influence their voices and votes.”
The Carnegie Corporation of New York provided support for this report.
Get more stories like this by email
The ACLU of Nebraska has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging Nebraska’s Requirements for Voter-Led Initiatives and Referendums Eligible to vote statewide.
Currently, Campaigns must collect at least 5% of voter signatures in 38 of the state’s 93 counties To confirm.
Daniel Gutman – a contract attorney at the ACLU of Nebraska – is leading the lawsuit. He said the requirement was unconstitutional because it would dilute the vote.
“Nebraska is a geographically diverse state,” Gutman said. “When you need 5 percent of registered voters from 38 arbitrary counties, what you’re doing is putting value and power above the votes of some people over others.”
Gutman noted that the campaign had to collect 17,000 signatures in densely populated Douglas County, but the same campaign only needed to collect 17 signatures in Arthur County, with an estimated 337 registered voters.
Courts have struck down similar requirements in other states, arguing that geographic requirements are necessary to ensure rural voters are not overwhelmed by urban populations.
Crista Eggers is the plaintiff in the case and led a polling campaign Medical Marijuana in Nebraska.
Her doctors told her that in order for her 7-year-old son to receive effective epilepsy treatment, she would have to leave the state or persuade lawmakers to legalize medical marijuana. She said after eight years of fighting, she believes bringing the issue to voters is the only way to change the law.
“But it’s also something we’re trying to solve,” Eggers said, “so those who are working on an equally important problem in the future — and that’s something we need to focus on — see if that process hinders and dilutes it. The voice and vote of Nebraska voters.”
Gutman said there are other ways to ensure that rural and urban areas have an equal say on voting measures. For example, other states require the signatures of the same number of eligible voters from federal congressional districts with the same population in that state.
“States do want input from people across the state in order to put an initiative or a referendum on the ballot,” Gutman said. “Actually, that’s not what we’re going to challenge; we don’t necessarily disagree with that.”
Disclosure: The ACLU of Nebraska contributes to our Civil Rights, Criminal Justice, Immigration Issues, Social Justice Reporting Fund. If you would like to help support journalism in the public interest, click here.
Get more stories like this by email
