TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
welcome to reality ~ triva
election news and items of interest
apr 21, 2018
|
|
Noam chomsky: “Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites,”
what kind of democracy condones vote suppression?
headlines
*Republicans use missing hyphens in last names to steal voting rights
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*ARIZONA VOTER DATABASE TARGETED BY CRIMINALS, NOT RUSSIA, SOURCE TELLS REUTERS
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Surge In Millennial Voters Could Upend U.S. Politics
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Idaho candidate says people who get abortions should be punished
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*It looks like the Supreme Court isn’t going to intervene in gerrymandering cases this election year(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Record number of black women are candidates in Alabama
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Donors Trust, the Right-Wing Secret Money Machine, Doled Out $66.7 Million in 2016
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Cambridge Analytica helped Republicans in Colorado win key political races
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Georgia GOP pushes elimination of Sunday voting to suppress black turnout
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Montana Green Party senate candidate was on GOP payroll — and runs an nativist anti-college group(ARTICLE BELOW)
*These 3 Women Could Change the California Justice System for Good
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Record number of Native American women to run in 2018 midterm polls
(ARTICLE BELOW)
funnies(at the end)
*MAP PORN: IF "DID NOT VOTE" WAS A CANDIDATE...( article below)
The Political Punchline
Putting the Mock in Democracy
Republicans use missing hyphens in last names to steal voting rights
THU, APR 12TH, 2018
By Tim Reid and Grant Smith - politicus usa
BY REUTERS
ATLANTA/NEW YORK (Reuters) – Fabiola Diaz, 18, sits in the food court of her Georgia high school and meticulously fills out a voter registration form.
Driver’s license in one hand, she carefully writes her license number in the box provided, her first name, last name, address, her eyes switching from license to the paper form and back again to ensure every last detail, down to hyphens and suffixes, is absolutely correct.
Diaz, and the voting rights activists holding a voter registration drive at South Cobb High School in northern Atlanta, know why it is so important not to make an error.
A law passed by the Republican-controlled Georgia state legislature last year requires that all of the letters and numbers of the applicant’s name, date of birth, driver’s license number and last four digits of their Social Security number exactly match the same letters and numbers in the motor vehicle department or Social Security databases.
The tiniest discrepancy on a registration form places them on a “pending” voter list. A Reuters analysis of Georgia’s pending voter list, obtained through a public records request, found that black voters landed on the list at a far higher rate than white voters even though a majority of Georgia’s voters are white.
Both voting rights activists and Georgia’s state government say the reason for this is that blacks more frequently fill out paper ballots than whites, who are more likely to do them online. Paper ballots are more prone to human error, both sides agree. But they disagree on whether the errors are made by those filling out the forms or officials processing the forms.
Democrats and voting rights groups say the “exact match” law could make the difference in a tight congressional election, like the one in Georgia’s 6th congressional district in November, as blacks tend to vote for the Democratic Party. If Democrats can gain 24 seats they will be able to win control of the U.S. House of Representatives and block President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda.
A few thousand votes could decide the race in the 6th district. In a special election there last year, Republican Karen Handel defeated Democrat Jon Ossoff by just over 9,000 votes, out of about 260,000 cast. Trump won the northern Atlanta district by 1 percent of the vote in 2016.
DISPARITY
The Democratic Party has said that changes to voting laws in Republican-controlled states are part of a concerted effort to reduce turnout among particular groups of voters on election day. Republicans deny that the voting laws are discriminatory and say they are intended to reduce fraudulent votes.
In Georgia, exact match was state policy for several years. The state was sued over the policy and settled the case in February 2017. Later in the year the Republican-controlled statehouse made it law, with some changes. That new law will be in effect for the first time in statewide elections this November.
Ohio and Florida are the only other states to implement exact match provisions since 2008, according to the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, which advocates for voting rights and fair elections.
More than 82 percent of the roughly 56,000 voter registrants given “pending” voter status in Georgia between August 2013 and February 2018 were there because they had fallen foul of the exact match policy, according to state data reviewed by Reuters. (Graphic https://tmsnrt.rs/2H9ZFZ7)
In a state where roughly 31 percent of residents are African American, nearly 72 percent of those on that list were African American. Just under 10 percent of the people on the list were white although, according to 2016 U.S. Census data, 54 percent of Georgia’s population are white non-Hispanics.
Voting rights groups say based on their experience of previous elections, the practice of exact match sows confusion, suppressing turnout, and that overstretched county workers are more likely to add a voter to a pending list to save time and meet deadlines.
Brian Kemp, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, manages the state’s elections. He argues the state’s exact-match law is fair. Candice Broce, a spokesperson for Kemp, said more blacks end up on the pending voter list than whites because black voters used paper registrations more often than white voters.
Georgia contends that more than twice as many black residents registered to vote by paper than did white residents, and that substantially all of the pending voters came from paper registrations.
Broce blamed voter registration groups such as the New Georgia Project, which held the registration drive at Diaz’s high school, for registering voters predominately with paper forms, and then turning in “incomplete, illegible, or fraudulent forms,” which skews the data.
Broce added there was no significant racial disparity in voters landing on the pending list when they registered online. She said the issue “is limited to paper applications.”
Nse Ufot, executive director of New Georgia Project, called Broce’s comments “ridiculous” and said the problem was most likely caused by human error during the state’s transcription of the data on the paper forms to a computer. Errors occur because the counties, who record registrations, are short-staffed, workers are improperly trained, and often in a hurry to make election deadlines, she said.
FIXING ERRORS
Under the new law, voters placed on the list do have 26 months to rectify any error, and if they present a valid ID card at a polling place, they can vote. But voting activists like those at the Brennan Center say many people may not realize they are on the pending list in the first place.
When a voter on a pending list checks their personal voter page on the Georgia Secretary of State’s website, it tells them to check their status with county officials. Nowhere does it inform the voter that they have been placed in pending status.
Voting groups say some minority voters don’t have access to the state’s website as they do not own computers. Additionally, based on past experiences with exact match, they say temporary poll workers sometimes do not know how to fix errors or what pending status actually means.
Voting rights could become a flashpoint in this November’s race for governor in Georgia.
Kemp, the secretary of state, is running for office, as is Stacey Abrams, the former Democratic House minority leader in Georgia’s state assembly and the founder of the New Georgia Project. The two have clashed in the past, with Kemp accusing the group of voter fraud, and Abrams accusing Kemp of voter suppression.
Driver’s license in one hand, she carefully writes her license number in the box provided, her first name, last name, address, her eyes switching from license to the paper form and back again to ensure every last detail, down to hyphens and suffixes, is absolutely correct.
Diaz, and the voting rights activists holding a voter registration drive at South Cobb High School in northern Atlanta, know why it is so important not to make an error.
A law passed by the Republican-controlled Georgia state legislature last year requires that all of the letters and numbers of the applicant’s name, date of birth, driver’s license number and last four digits of their Social Security number exactly match the same letters and numbers in the motor vehicle department or Social Security databases.
The tiniest discrepancy on a registration form places them on a “pending” voter list. A Reuters analysis of Georgia’s pending voter list, obtained through a public records request, found that black voters landed on the list at a far higher rate than white voters even though a majority of Georgia’s voters are white.
Both voting rights activists and Georgia’s state government say the reason for this is that blacks more frequently fill out paper ballots than whites, who are more likely to do them online. Paper ballots are more prone to human error, both sides agree. But they disagree on whether the errors are made by those filling out the forms or officials processing the forms.
Democrats and voting rights groups say the “exact match” law could make the difference in a tight congressional election, like the one in Georgia’s 6th congressional district in November, as blacks tend to vote for the Democratic Party. If Democrats can gain 24 seats they will be able to win control of the U.S. House of Representatives and block President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda.
A few thousand votes could decide the race in the 6th district. In a special election there last year, Republican Karen Handel defeated Democrat Jon Ossoff by just over 9,000 votes, out of about 260,000 cast. Trump won the northern Atlanta district by 1 percent of the vote in 2016.
DISPARITY
The Democratic Party has said that changes to voting laws in Republican-controlled states are part of a concerted effort to reduce turnout among particular groups of voters on election day. Republicans deny that the voting laws are discriminatory and say they are intended to reduce fraudulent votes.
In Georgia, exact match was state policy for several years. The state was sued over the policy and settled the case in February 2017. Later in the year the Republican-controlled statehouse made it law, with some changes. That new law will be in effect for the first time in statewide elections this November.
Ohio and Florida are the only other states to implement exact match provisions since 2008, according to the non-partisan Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, which advocates for voting rights and fair elections.
More than 82 percent of the roughly 56,000 voter registrants given “pending” voter status in Georgia between August 2013 and February 2018 were there because they had fallen foul of the exact match policy, according to state data reviewed by Reuters. (Graphic https://tmsnrt.rs/2H9ZFZ7)
In a state where roughly 31 percent of residents are African American, nearly 72 percent of those on that list were African American. Just under 10 percent of the people on the list were white although, according to 2016 U.S. Census data, 54 percent of Georgia’s population are white non-Hispanics.
Voting rights groups say based on their experience of previous elections, the practice of exact match sows confusion, suppressing turnout, and that overstretched county workers are more likely to add a voter to a pending list to save time and meet deadlines.
Brian Kemp, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, manages the state’s elections. He argues the state’s exact-match law is fair. Candice Broce, a spokesperson for Kemp, said more blacks end up on the pending voter list than whites because black voters used paper registrations more often than white voters.
Georgia contends that more than twice as many black residents registered to vote by paper than did white residents, and that substantially all of the pending voters came from paper registrations.
Broce blamed voter registration groups such as the New Georgia Project, which held the registration drive at Diaz’s high school, for registering voters predominately with paper forms, and then turning in “incomplete, illegible, or fraudulent forms,” which skews the data.
Broce added there was no significant racial disparity in voters landing on the pending list when they registered online. She said the issue “is limited to paper applications.”
Nse Ufot, executive director of New Georgia Project, called Broce’s comments “ridiculous” and said the problem was most likely caused by human error during the state’s transcription of the data on the paper forms to a computer. Errors occur because the counties, who record registrations, are short-staffed, workers are improperly trained, and often in a hurry to make election deadlines, she said.
FIXING ERRORS
Under the new law, voters placed on the list do have 26 months to rectify any error, and if they present a valid ID card at a polling place, they can vote. But voting activists like those at the Brennan Center say many people may not realize they are on the pending list in the first place.
When a voter on a pending list checks their personal voter page on the Georgia Secretary of State’s website, it tells them to check their status with county officials. Nowhere does it inform the voter that they have been placed in pending status.
Voting groups say some minority voters don’t have access to the state’s website as they do not own computers. Additionally, based on past experiences with exact match, they say temporary poll workers sometimes do not know how to fix errors or what pending status actually means.
Voting rights could become a flashpoint in this November’s race for governor in Georgia.
Kemp, the secretary of state, is running for office, as is Stacey Abrams, the former Democratic House minority leader in Georgia’s state assembly and the founder of the New Georgia Project. The two have clashed in the past, with Kemp accusing the group of voter fraud, and Abrams accusing Kemp of voter suppression.
Arizona voter database targeted by criminals, not Russia, source tells Reuters
BY MALLORY SHELBOURNE - the hill
04/09/18 09:13 AM EDT
A source in the Trump administration said Russia did not carry out a hack on an Arizona county’s election system during the 2016 campaign, Reuters reported Sunday.
The administration official told the news outlet that criminals conducted the attack ahead of the 2016 election. That official’s comment was in response to a CBS News “60 Minutes” story on Russia’s computer hacking before the 2016 presidential election, Reuters said.
The Department of Homeland Security in a prior analysis concluded that Russia had hacked several election systems, including the one in Arizona.
Reuters noted that in 2016 it reported on the FBI identifying Russian hacks of systems in Illinois and Arizona.
U.S. officials have publicly said that Russian hackers had probed at least 21 state election systems and that a few networks may have been compromised, but the administration official said media reports were relying on outdated information and the hack on the Arizona system was not done by the Russian government, according to Reuters.
The news comes as special counsel Robert Mueller continues the probe into Russia’s election interference and any potential ties between Trump campaign staff members and Moscow.
The intelligence community in a declassified report released in January of 2017 concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin called for an influence campaign aimed at helping President Trump win the White House.
Trump has denied any collusion between his campaign and the Kremlin. He has also repeatedly slammed the conclusion of Russian meddling as an excuse used by Democrats to justify their loss in the 2016 election.
The administration official told the news outlet that criminals conducted the attack ahead of the 2016 election. That official’s comment was in response to a CBS News “60 Minutes” story on Russia’s computer hacking before the 2016 presidential election, Reuters said.
The Department of Homeland Security in a prior analysis concluded that Russia had hacked several election systems, including the one in Arizona.
Reuters noted that in 2016 it reported on the FBI identifying Russian hacks of systems in Illinois and Arizona.
U.S. officials have publicly said that Russian hackers had probed at least 21 state election systems and that a few networks may have been compromised, but the administration official said media reports were relying on outdated information and the hack on the Arizona system was not done by the Russian government, according to Reuters.
The news comes as special counsel Robert Mueller continues the probe into Russia’s election interference and any potential ties between Trump campaign staff members and Moscow.
The intelligence community in a declassified report released in January of 2017 concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin called for an influence campaign aimed at helping President Trump win the White House.
Trump has denied any collusion between his campaign and the Kremlin. He has also repeatedly slammed the conclusion of Russian meddling as an excuse used by Democrats to justify their loss in the 2016 election.
Surge In Millennial Voters Could Upend U.S. Politics.
And a Record Number of Women Running for Congress
By Jillian S. Ambroz - dc report
4/9/18
Millennial voters are on everyone’s radar thanks to the politically savvy Parkland, Fla., high school students who have tied their messages and the March for Our Lives movement to electoral politics, marking a departure from other recent cultural movements.
Youth voters represent great untapped potential. Though voters between the age of 18 to 24 tend to vote in small numbers – the voter turnout in the 2014 elections was 15% – if millennials can keep their current momentum, and get out the vote, they could make a difference in the midterm elections. According to a recent poll by Pew Research Center, about 59% of millennials are Democrats or lean Democratic. That should be a wake-up call to Republicans. A surge of young voters would pose the most significant threat to Republicans in suburban swing districts, according to an article by the Los Angeles Times.
Though 18- to 24-year-olds represented roughly 12% of the voting population in 2014, according to the U.S. census, 4 million Americans turn 18 this year. And in 2019, millennials born between 1981 and 1996 are projected to outnumber baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964.
As the Los Angeles Times article said, if these young activists can drive fellow millennials to the polls, it could signal a significant shift in American politics.
Record Number of Women Running for Congress
Women, disgusted by Trump, his administration and the moves of the 115th Congress, are running for House seats in record numbers in the mid-term elections. As of April 5th, 309 women had declared candidacies for U.S. House seats, a number which is expected to swell as the candidate-filing periods are still open in more than half of the states. The previous record was set in 2012 with 298 candidates.
There are 29 women on ballots for U.S. Senate races, which is also expected to grow as more filing deadlines approach. The record for female Senate candidates is 40, set in 2016.
Women are still outnumbered by male candidates, and face an uphill battle, but considering all of the open seats, the current climate represents a great opportunity for women to make real gains in representation and a change in priorities, according to the article by the Associated Press.
Today’s full Congress, which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate, totals 535 members, of which 105 – or just 15% – are female.
Women are also getting in on gubernatorial races in November. So far, 40 women have announced candidacies in governor’s races, which surpasses the record from 1994 of 34 women.
No GOP Candidates for Many House Races
If you don’t believe there’s momentum behind the Democrats this year ahead of the mid-term elections, consider these numbers: To date, there are six U.S. House races with no Democratic candidates. That compares to 53 House races with no Republican candidates, according to data compiled by Ballotpedia.
The Congressional seats without Democratic candidates are in Georgia, Kansas, two districts in Louisiana, North Carolina and Wyoming. The seats with no Republican candidates run from Alabama to Wisconsin. Several states have more than one Congressional district without candidates. States with the most open seats include New York with 11; California with nine and Washington with six.
The numbers are expected to change as candidate-filing periods are still open in more than half the states.
$380 Million to Safeguard Voting Systems
Congress set aside $380 million to safeguard the American voting and voter registration systems and now the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is preparing to distribute the monies to the states to prevent future cyberattacks. To receive the funds, each state must submit a two- to three-page summary detailing how it would use the funds. In addition, states are expected to pony up $5 from their own budgets for each $100 given in federal assistance. And by December, states must furnish reports on how the money was spent.
The money will be distributed as part of a longstanding formula from the Help America Vote Act, which means that payment will be based on the amount of the voting age population per state, plus a described minimum payment amount. California and Texas stand to receive the most aid, followed by New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
Paperless voting systems are most vulnerable to attacks, according to election security experts, and are still in use in all or part of more than a dozen states. Congress wants the money spent on bolstering the security for at-risk computer systems, cybersecurity training for election officials, providing a paper record for every vote cast and providing for post-election audits.
Florida Judge Orders New Voting Restoration Process for Ex-Cons
A federal judge in Florida has ordered Gov. Rick Scott and his cabinet to overhaul the voting rights restoration process for prisoners who have completed their sentences.
Ex-offenders must wait a seven-year period after release from jail before they can apply for restoration of voting rights. Applications go to a board that includes the governor and his cabinet. The board, which only handles about 100 applications a year, currently has a backlog of about 10,000 applications. Florida, among the toughest states when it comes to restoring the voting rights of ex-convicts, has an estimated 1.5 million disenfranchised voters because of past felony convictions.
U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker has given Gov. Scott until April 26 to come up with a better solution. Scott filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
Youth voters represent great untapped potential. Though voters between the age of 18 to 24 tend to vote in small numbers – the voter turnout in the 2014 elections was 15% – if millennials can keep their current momentum, and get out the vote, they could make a difference in the midterm elections. According to a recent poll by Pew Research Center, about 59% of millennials are Democrats or lean Democratic. That should be a wake-up call to Republicans. A surge of young voters would pose the most significant threat to Republicans in suburban swing districts, according to an article by the Los Angeles Times.
Though 18- to 24-year-olds represented roughly 12% of the voting population in 2014, according to the U.S. census, 4 million Americans turn 18 this year. And in 2019, millennials born between 1981 and 1996 are projected to outnumber baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964.
As the Los Angeles Times article said, if these young activists can drive fellow millennials to the polls, it could signal a significant shift in American politics.
Record Number of Women Running for Congress
Women, disgusted by Trump, his administration and the moves of the 115th Congress, are running for House seats in record numbers in the mid-term elections. As of April 5th, 309 women had declared candidacies for U.S. House seats, a number which is expected to swell as the candidate-filing periods are still open in more than half of the states. The previous record was set in 2012 with 298 candidates.
There are 29 women on ballots for U.S. Senate races, which is also expected to grow as more filing deadlines approach. The record for female Senate candidates is 40, set in 2016.
Women are still outnumbered by male candidates, and face an uphill battle, but considering all of the open seats, the current climate represents a great opportunity for women to make real gains in representation and a change in priorities, according to the article by the Associated Press.
Today’s full Congress, which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate, totals 535 members, of which 105 – or just 15% – are female.
Women are also getting in on gubernatorial races in November. So far, 40 women have announced candidacies in governor’s races, which surpasses the record from 1994 of 34 women.
No GOP Candidates for Many House Races
If you don’t believe there’s momentum behind the Democrats this year ahead of the mid-term elections, consider these numbers: To date, there are six U.S. House races with no Democratic candidates. That compares to 53 House races with no Republican candidates, according to data compiled by Ballotpedia.
The Congressional seats without Democratic candidates are in Georgia, Kansas, two districts in Louisiana, North Carolina and Wyoming. The seats with no Republican candidates run from Alabama to Wisconsin. Several states have more than one Congressional district without candidates. States with the most open seats include New York with 11; California with nine and Washington with six.
The numbers are expected to change as candidate-filing periods are still open in more than half the states.
$380 Million to Safeguard Voting Systems
Congress set aside $380 million to safeguard the American voting and voter registration systems and now the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is preparing to distribute the monies to the states to prevent future cyberattacks. To receive the funds, each state must submit a two- to three-page summary detailing how it would use the funds. In addition, states are expected to pony up $5 from their own budgets for each $100 given in federal assistance. And by December, states must furnish reports on how the money was spent.
The money will be distributed as part of a longstanding formula from the Help America Vote Act, which means that payment will be based on the amount of the voting age population per state, plus a described minimum payment amount. California and Texas stand to receive the most aid, followed by New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
Paperless voting systems are most vulnerable to attacks, according to election security experts, and are still in use in all or part of more than a dozen states. Congress wants the money spent on bolstering the security for at-risk computer systems, cybersecurity training for election officials, providing a paper record for every vote cast and providing for post-election audits.
Florida Judge Orders New Voting Restoration Process for Ex-Cons
A federal judge in Florida has ordered Gov. Rick Scott and his cabinet to overhaul the voting rights restoration process for prisoners who have completed their sentences.
Ex-offenders must wait a seven-year period after release from jail before they can apply for restoration of voting rights. Applications go to a board that includes the governor and his cabinet. The board, which only handles about 100 applications a year, currently has a backlog of about 10,000 applications. Florida, among the toughest states when it comes to restoring the voting rights of ex-convicts, has an estimated 1.5 million disenfranchised voters because of past felony convictions.
U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker has given Gov. Scott until April 26 to come up with a better solution. Scott filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
a shithole candidate for ignorant people!!!
Idaho candidate says people who get abortions should be punished
"The statute alone, the threat of prosecution, would dramatically reduce abortion. That is my goal.”
AMANDA MICHELLE GOMEZ - think progress
APR 4, 2018, 11:14 AM
An Idaho Republican lieutenant governor candidate says people who get abortions should be punished if Idaho ever makes the procedure illegal.
“I have always been a pro-life supporter. That means classifying abortion as murder. Since abortion is murder, I believe we should consider penalties for individuals involved in these procedures,” said Bob Nonini, a current state senator, in a statement on Facebook. “There is no way a woman would go to jail let alone face the death penalty. The statute alone, the threat of prosecution, would dramatically reduce abortion. That is my goal.”
He wrote the post after backlash about comments he made supporting the death penalty for people seeking abortions. During a candidate forum hosted by the conservative Christian podcast CrossPolitic on Monday, Nonini said that “anyone who has an abortion should pay,” according to the Associated Press, and then nodded in agreement when moderators asked if he supported the death penalty as punishment. The Associated Press then confirmed the position with him in a phone interview.
Nonini is now arguing that no one in Idaho will be prosecuted for undergoing an abortion and that the primary goal of re-criminalizing the medical procedure is simply to deter people. But this likely won’t work. Abortion rates are similar in countries where the procedure is outlawed and where it is not, according to a comprehensive global report from the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute.
“It is my understanding that in the history of the United States, long before [Roe v. Wade] was foisted upon this country; no woman has ever been prosecuted for undergoing abortion,” Nonini wrote in an attempt to clarify his views. “That is for practical reasons, as well as for reasons of compassion.”
But that’s also not true. People have been arrested or criminally charged both before and after Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973.
Conservatives in Idaho have tried to criminalize the procedure. A 2011 ban tried to make abortion after 20 weeks a felony, but a federal court permanently blocked it. And Abolish Abortion Idaho is trying to gather enough signatures to add a ballot initiative in November that would charge abortion providers and pregnant persons with first-degree murder.
If calls for punishing people that get abortions sounds familiar it’s because the president made similar comments during the campaign. At a town-hall-style forum with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in March 2016, Donald Trump said people who get abortion should be subject to “some form of punishment.” He later walked back the comments in a statement. If abortion was outlawed, Trump said in a statement, “the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman.”
Five Republicans in Idaho are running in the May primary election after the incumbent-lieutenant governor announced he was running for governor.
“I have always been a pro-life supporter. That means classifying abortion as murder. Since abortion is murder, I believe we should consider penalties for individuals involved in these procedures,” said Bob Nonini, a current state senator, in a statement on Facebook. “There is no way a woman would go to jail let alone face the death penalty. The statute alone, the threat of prosecution, would dramatically reduce abortion. That is my goal.”
He wrote the post after backlash about comments he made supporting the death penalty for people seeking abortions. During a candidate forum hosted by the conservative Christian podcast CrossPolitic on Monday, Nonini said that “anyone who has an abortion should pay,” according to the Associated Press, and then nodded in agreement when moderators asked if he supported the death penalty as punishment. The Associated Press then confirmed the position with him in a phone interview.
Nonini is now arguing that no one in Idaho will be prosecuted for undergoing an abortion and that the primary goal of re-criminalizing the medical procedure is simply to deter people. But this likely won’t work. Abortion rates are similar in countries where the procedure is outlawed and where it is not, according to a comprehensive global report from the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute.
“It is my understanding that in the history of the United States, long before [Roe v. Wade] was foisted upon this country; no woman has ever been prosecuted for undergoing abortion,” Nonini wrote in an attempt to clarify his views. “That is for practical reasons, as well as for reasons of compassion.”
But that’s also not true. People have been arrested or criminally charged both before and after Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973.
Conservatives in Idaho have tried to criminalize the procedure. A 2011 ban tried to make abortion after 20 weeks a felony, but a federal court permanently blocked it. And Abolish Abortion Idaho is trying to gather enough signatures to add a ballot initiative in November that would charge abortion providers and pregnant persons with first-degree murder.
If calls for punishing people that get abortions sounds familiar it’s because the president made similar comments during the campaign. At a town-hall-style forum with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in March 2016, Donald Trump said people who get abortion should be subject to “some form of punishment.” He later walked back the comments in a statement. If abortion was outlawed, Trump said in a statement, “the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman.”
Five Republicans in Idaho are running in the May primary election after the incumbent-lieutenant governor announced he was running for governor.
gerrymandering only works because of stupid voters!!!!
It looks like the Supreme Court isn’t going to intervene in gerrymandering cases this election year
Justice Breyer even suggested all sides weigh in once again, and for another hearing be held
STEVEN ROSENFELD, ALTERNET
04.02.2018•4:00 AM
One of the most anti-democratic features of the political landscape does not appear destined to change before 2018's midterm elections, even though extreme gerrymanders this week returned to the Supreme Court for the second time this term.
On Wednesday, liberal and conservative justices visibly struggled with how to rein in partisan gerrymanders in a Maryland case. But because the 2018 election is underway — and judges are hesitant to disrupt elections — and the earliest ruling is months away, it appears congressional maps in the most gerrymandered states will remain for 2018’s midterms.
The only exception appears to be Pennsylvania, whose state Supreme Court earlier this year threw out a Republican-authored map for its House districts for violating the state constitution. The court's expert created a new statewide map, giving Democrats chances to pick up several seats. (Top Republicans have called for impeaching the justices who ruled against them.)But from a national perspective, Democrats seeking to regain a House majority will likely face the same anti-competitive districts that they have seen since 2012. Despite close statewide popular vote results, the GOP typically wins more seats.
“Because of maps designed to favor Republicans, Democrats would need to win by a nearly unprecedented nationwide margin in 2018 to gain control of the House of Representatives,” the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School said in an analysis released before the Court’s hearing. “To attain a bare majority, Democrats would likely have to win the national popular vote by nearly 11 points. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have won by such an overwhelming margin in decades. Even a strong blue wave would crash against a wall of gerrymandered maps.”
Maryland's democratic gerrymander
This week’s partisan gerrymandering case is from Maryland, where in 2011, top Democrats bragged about creating an additional House seat. The party drew district lines that deliberately included more Democrats and excluded Republicans. (That's a rare example of a Democratic gerrymander. In contrast, Republicans in 2011 targeted 16 states with 190 House seats for partisan gerrymanders, creating a House majority that has held ever since.)
The Maryland gerrymander was a clear abuse of power, the court’s liberal justices said Wednesday. Elena Kagan said, “How much more evidence of political intent do we need?” Sonia Sotomayor said the state’s Democratic leaders “were very upfront.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that the court has rejected race-based gerrymanders targeting blacks, so “if ‘max-black’ [districts] was no good, why should ‘max-Democratic’ be okay?”
But the problem, as the court’s swing vote, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, alluded to, was figuring out the standard for determining when partisanship crosses a line and becomes an unconstitutional abuse. In another case also before the court, lawyers for the political losing side have argued that it’s possible to measure how extreme gerrymanders waste votes. In Maryland, the issue was whether the voters’ constitutional rights were harmed.
“Suppose the Maryland constitution had a provision that required that partisan advantage for one party be the predominant consideration in any districting. Lawful or not?” Kennedy asked Maryland’s solicitor general Steven Sullivan, who replied that it would be illegal. Kennedy then asked, “How is this case any different?”
Maryland’s constitution has no such gerrymandering clause. But Democrats who segregated its voters to gain an additional congressional seat acted like it did. That move, of course, prompted the state’s Republicans to sue to get back that House seat.
The opposite partisan scenario, in which the GOP used redistricting in 2011 to create a supermajority House delegation and state legislature, was the focus of the court’s other big gerrymandering case in Wisconsin, where the Democrats sued over the congressional map.
How to measure extreme partisanship?
In both cases, the court was presented with different legal theories and ways to measure excessive partisanship. In both cases, questions and comments from the justices did not suggest they were anywhere near a legal standard — or a mathematical analysis — that could be issued as the new law of the land. That absence of a clear remedy, or test, prompted Justice Stephen Breyer to suggest that the court ask all parties in these appeals — and another case from North Carolina — to submit another round of briefs, or analyses and arguments, and then hold another hearing to debate the “pros and cons.”
“The people who do the gerrymandering are not stupid,” Breyer said, noting that the problem is much bigger than a single House seat in Maryland.
“So what do we do? Just say good-bye? Forget it?” Breyer said, in remarks addressed to the most conservative justices, who have previously said that excessive partisanship is part of human nature and politics and shouldn’t be regulated. “You’ve read these briefs [showing gerrymanders defy or overturn statewide popular votes]. If you think what’s happened now is something, wait until you see those [map-making] computers really working.”
Because the answer was not obvious, it’s unlikely the Supreme Court will make a ruling later this spring that will affect 2018’s congressional races. And it’s not clear that the Supreme Court will issue any decision creating political fairness standards before the 2020 election cycle or 2021, when the next round of once-a-decade redistricting begins.
Why? If the Democrats retake the House this fall, it'll be the biggest midterm landslide since the 1974 elections, according to the Brennan Center. However, the court’s conservative majority could say that epic turnaround was part of the "normal" pendulum swing of politics, even if that’s not so. As the Brennan Center noted, Democrats face a very steep climb to retake the House.
“As of mid-March, Democrats held an average [popular vote] lead of nearly eight percentage points, 48-40,” Brennan’s extreme gerrymandering analysis said. “Based on historical election results, a lead of this magnitude should net Democrats around 30 additional seats — comfortably more than the 24 they need to retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Because of gerrymandering, however, that is no longer the case. Even the court-ordered redrawing of Pennsylvania’s congressional map will only improve Democrats’ chances slightly.”
On Wednesday, liberal and conservative justices visibly struggled with how to rein in partisan gerrymanders in a Maryland case. But because the 2018 election is underway — and judges are hesitant to disrupt elections — and the earliest ruling is months away, it appears congressional maps in the most gerrymandered states will remain for 2018’s midterms.
The only exception appears to be Pennsylvania, whose state Supreme Court earlier this year threw out a Republican-authored map for its House districts for violating the state constitution. The court's expert created a new statewide map, giving Democrats chances to pick up several seats. (Top Republicans have called for impeaching the justices who ruled against them.)But from a national perspective, Democrats seeking to regain a House majority will likely face the same anti-competitive districts that they have seen since 2012. Despite close statewide popular vote results, the GOP typically wins more seats.
“Because of maps designed to favor Republicans, Democrats would need to win by a nearly unprecedented nationwide margin in 2018 to gain control of the House of Representatives,” the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School said in an analysis released before the Court’s hearing. “To attain a bare majority, Democrats would likely have to win the national popular vote by nearly 11 points. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have won by such an overwhelming margin in decades. Even a strong blue wave would crash against a wall of gerrymandered maps.”
Maryland's democratic gerrymander
This week’s partisan gerrymandering case is from Maryland, where in 2011, top Democrats bragged about creating an additional House seat. The party drew district lines that deliberately included more Democrats and excluded Republicans. (That's a rare example of a Democratic gerrymander. In contrast, Republicans in 2011 targeted 16 states with 190 House seats for partisan gerrymanders, creating a House majority that has held ever since.)
The Maryland gerrymander was a clear abuse of power, the court’s liberal justices said Wednesday. Elena Kagan said, “How much more evidence of political intent do we need?” Sonia Sotomayor said the state’s Democratic leaders “were very upfront.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that the court has rejected race-based gerrymanders targeting blacks, so “if ‘max-black’ [districts] was no good, why should ‘max-Democratic’ be okay?”
But the problem, as the court’s swing vote, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, alluded to, was figuring out the standard for determining when partisanship crosses a line and becomes an unconstitutional abuse. In another case also before the court, lawyers for the political losing side have argued that it’s possible to measure how extreme gerrymanders waste votes. In Maryland, the issue was whether the voters’ constitutional rights were harmed.
“Suppose the Maryland constitution had a provision that required that partisan advantage for one party be the predominant consideration in any districting. Lawful or not?” Kennedy asked Maryland’s solicitor general Steven Sullivan, who replied that it would be illegal. Kennedy then asked, “How is this case any different?”
Maryland’s constitution has no such gerrymandering clause. But Democrats who segregated its voters to gain an additional congressional seat acted like it did. That move, of course, prompted the state’s Republicans to sue to get back that House seat.
The opposite partisan scenario, in which the GOP used redistricting in 2011 to create a supermajority House delegation and state legislature, was the focus of the court’s other big gerrymandering case in Wisconsin, where the Democrats sued over the congressional map.
How to measure extreme partisanship?
In both cases, the court was presented with different legal theories and ways to measure excessive partisanship. In both cases, questions and comments from the justices did not suggest they were anywhere near a legal standard — or a mathematical analysis — that could be issued as the new law of the land. That absence of a clear remedy, or test, prompted Justice Stephen Breyer to suggest that the court ask all parties in these appeals — and another case from North Carolina — to submit another round of briefs, or analyses and arguments, and then hold another hearing to debate the “pros and cons.”
“The people who do the gerrymandering are not stupid,” Breyer said, noting that the problem is much bigger than a single House seat in Maryland.
“So what do we do? Just say good-bye? Forget it?” Breyer said, in remarks addressed to the most conservative justices, who have previously said that excessive partisanship is part of human nature and politics and shouldn’t be regulated. “You’ve read these briefs [showing gerrymanders defy or overturn statewide popular votes]. If you think what’s happened now is something, wait until you see those [map-making] computers really working.”
Because the answer was not obvious, it’s unlikely the Supreme Court will make a ruling later this spring that will affect 2018’s congressional races. And it’s not clear that the Supreme Court will issue any decision creating political fairness standards before the 2020 election cycle or 2021, when the next round of once-a-decade redistricting begins.
Why? If the Democrats retake the House this fall, it'll be the biggest midterm landslide since the 1974 elections, according to the Brennan Center. However, the court’s conservative majority could say that epic turnaround was part of the "normal" pendulum swing of politics, even if that’s not so. As the Brennan Center noted, Democrats face a very steep climb to retake the House.
“As of mid-March, Democrats held an average [popular vote] lead of nearly eight percentage points, 48-40,” Brennan’s extreme gerrymandering analysis said. “Based on historical election results, a lead of this magnitude should net Democrats around 30 additional seats — comfortably more than the 24 they need to retake control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Because of gerrymandering, however, that is no longer the case. Even the court-ordered redrawing of Pennsylvania’s congressional map will only improve Democrats’ chances slightly.”
A surge of LGBTQ candidates are running for political office in 2018
2018 may see more than 150 LGBTQ candidates vying for office in national, state and local elections
SHIRA TARLO
03.25.2018•8:02 AM
There is a surge of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer candidates vying for political office in 2018.
Early last week, Fort Lauderdale voters gave a sweeping victory to attorney Dean Trantalis, 64, to succeed Mayor Jack Seiler. He led the vote with about 65 percent of the vote, The Sun-Sentinel reported.
The attorney’s win makes him as the city's first openly gay mayor, following mayors who at times collided with the community’s LGBTQ groups and residents.
The city’s former mayor, Jack Seiler, had a relatively positive relationship with the LGBTQ community, but he came under scrutiny in 2014 when he voted against a symbolic resolution supporting marriage equality, and again last year when he hosted a prayer breakfast featuring an organization known for opposing LGBTQ rights. Seiler’s predecessor, Jim Naugle, has been blasted as a “homophobe” for his infamous anti-gay message and fervent attacks on the LGBTQ community.
Mayor-elect Trantalis told Salon that his election victory indicates a shift in the city’s attitudes. "I think Florida has already changed, and I'm just a reflection of that change," he said. "The city of Fort Lauderdale has always needed time to evolve on that issue, and I think we've now been able to do that."
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) congratulated Trantalis, tweeting, “Mayor-Elect Trantalis has a true passion for public service and fighting for civil rights. This is a massive victory for Broward County and the LGBT community nationwide."
Trantalis is the latest openly-out individual to ascend to political office – and given the number of LGBTQ candidates who are seeking local, state and national office this year, he likely won’t be the last.
National, State and Local Races
In January, Chelsea Manning, the transgender former Army intelligence analyst who was found guilty of leaking classified military documents, announced she would run for a U.S. Senate seat in Maryland. She is running as a Democrat and will likely face off against two-term Senator Ben Cardin, who elevated his profile this year by investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election on the chamber’s foreign affairs committee.
Annise Parker – the CEO of Victory fund, a political action committee dedicated to increasing the number of LGBTQ officials in the U.S., and Houston’s first gay mayor – told Salon that the growing number of LGBTQ candidates is “a natural progression.”
“LGBTQ candidates are running for the same reason so many women are running,” Parker said, referring the surge of female candidates running for office in 2018. “They are frustrated or concerned. They see hard won rights being under attack at the federal level and in many of the states, and they want to do something about it.”
While Victory Fund has endorsed more than 70 openly gay candidates across various office levels so far this election cycle, the organization expects that number to grow to more than 150 before Election Day. And the group’s endorsement slate does not include the total number of LGBTQ candidates who will be on ballots this year.
The Connection Between the Rise in LGBTQ and Female Candidates
Donald Haider-Markel, a political science professor at the University of Kansas and author of “Out and Running: Gay and Lesbian Candidates, Elections and Policy Representation,” told Salon that the rise of LGBTQ candidates for national office can be traced back to the earlier successes of out candidates in state and local elections.
“The [LGBTQ] community is finally sort of reaching a level where they’re been really successful with local level offices, with state level offices,” he said. “They’ve created a deep bench of potential candidates for national office, and you’re seeing now more national candidates than ever before for the House and for the Senate than there has ever been in any election cycle.”
Like Mayor Parker, Haider-Markel also sees a connection between the increase in the number of women running for office and the rise of LGBTQ candidates.
“I think what you’re seeing in the LGBT community is similar to what you’re seeing with other minority communities and with women,” he explained. “In that their reaction to this administration is basically to get off the couch and run for office.”
Despite the possible connection between the rise in LGBTQ and female candidates, Haider-Markel acknowledged that LGBTQ representation is still male heavy – but added that could change this election year.
Haider-Markel pointed to Tammy Baldwin, the first openly-gay candidate elected to the U.S. Senate, as a testament to that fact. He said, Baldwin “tells the story right there, in the sense that there haven’t been as many women running for office overall, so it makes sense there would be fewer LGBT women running for office as well.”
Electoral data reviewed by the Victory Fund reveals that LGBTQ women running for office win their elections at a higher rate than LGBTQ men, suggesting the political landscape could look a lot different – and a lot more representative for women – in 2018.
LGBTQ Candidates and The Blue Wave: Will it help?
Why now? Haider-Markel pointed to the outcome of the 2016 election and to the number of anti-LGBTQ bills introduced over the last two years, including HB 2 in North Carolina. Ofter referred to as the “bathroom bill,” it sought to restrict transgender people from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity. HB2 is included in the more than 100 anti-LGBTQ bills that were introduced across 29 states in 2017, according to a report published by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). In addition, FBI hate crime statistics from 2016 show an increase in the number of reported anti-LGBTQ hate crimes.
Late Friday night, President Trump announced a new policy for the military that would ban most transgender people from serving in the armed forces.
Haider-Markel pointed out that LGBTQ candidates are energized, and his findings show that their prospects look promising.
“These candidates that run, they’re not Donald Trump candidates,” he said. “These are people that are connected politically. They have experience in politics, either through interest groups or working on campaigns, and they’re better than the average candidate running for the offices they’re running for. The evidence I have suggests the candidates do better than a comparable heterosexual candidate.”
However, Haider-Markel notes that “saying that an LGBTQ candidate can win in any district in the country would be a fairly strict statement,” and that it’s important to acknowledge “the vast majority of [LGBTQ candidates] are running as Democrats. It’s going to be to their advantage.”
He also stressed that candidates “have to be strategic about when and where they run,” and that “they have to run in districts that are going to tend to lean more liberal, be better educated and more urban,” but that “even in a red state [a victory for an out candidate] is possible.”
And given Democrats are winning in unlikely places, including Kentucky, Wisconsin and Florida, it’s possible that a blue wave is forming ahead of the midterm elections – and LGBTQ candidates could ride it to victory.
Nevertheless, Haider-Markel referenced his findings and said, “Sexual orientation and LGBT status is not a major hurdle for them to cross. Candidates who are open about who they are, are going to be more successful, whether they’re LGBT or not.”
The trend of LGBTQ candidates has come to New York, too. Cynthia Nixon, the bisexual activist and Emmy Award winning actress, perhaps best known as "Miranda" from "Sex and the City," recently announced she would be challenging New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2018 – and New Yorkers can’t help but wonder, "Does Nixon have a shot?" Only time will tell.
Early last week, Fort Lauderdale voters gave a sweeping victory to attorney Dean Trantalis, 64, to succeed Mayor Jack Seiler. He led the vote with about 65 percent of the vote, The Sun-Sentinel reported.
The attorney’s win makes him as the city's first openly gay mayor, following mayors who at times collided with the community’s LGBTQ groups and residents.
The city’s former mayor, Jack Seiler, had a relatively positive relationship with the LGBTQ community, but he came under scrutiny in 2014 when he voted against a symbolic resolution supporting marriage equality, and again last year when he hosted a prayer breakfast featuring an organization known for opposing LGBTQ rights. Seiler’s predecessor, Jim Naugle, has been blasted as a “homophobe” for his infamous anti-gay message and fervent attacks on the LGBTQ community.
Mayor-elect Trantalis told Salon that his election victory indicates a shift in the city’s attitudes. "I think Florida has already changed, and I'm just a reflection of that change," he said. "The city of Fort Lauderdale has always needed time to evolve on that issue, and I think we've now been able to do that."
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) congratulated Trantalis, tweeting, “Mayor-Elect Trantalis has a true passion for public service and fighting for civil rights. This is a massive victory for Broward County and the LGBT community nationwide."
Trantalis is the latest openly-out individual to ascend to political office – and given the number of LGBTQ candidates who are seeking local, state and national office this year, he likely won’t be the last.
National, State and Local Races
In January, Chelsea Manning, the transgender former Army intelligence analyst who was found guilty of leaking classified military documents, announced she would run for a U.S. Senate seat in Maryland. She is running as a Democrat and will likely face off against two-term Senator Ben Cardin, who elevated his profile this year by investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election on the chamber’s foreign affairs committee.
Annise Parker – the CEO of Victory fund, a political action committee dedicated to increasing the number of LGBTQ officials in the U.S., and Houston’s first gay mayor – told Salon that the growing number of LGBTQ candidates is “a natural progression.”
“LGBTQ candidates are running for the same reason so many women are running,” Parker said, referring the surge of female candidates running for office in 2018. “They are frustrated or concerned. They see hard won rights being under attack at the federal level and in many of the states, and they want to do something about it.”
While Victory Fund has endorsed more than 70 openly gay candidates across various office levels so far this election cycle, the organization expects that number to grow to more than 150 before Election Day. And the group’s endorsement slate does not include the total number of LGBTQ candidates who will be on ballots this year.
The Connection Between the Rise in LGBTQ and Female Candidates
Donald Haider-Markel, a political science professor at the University of Kansas and author of “Out and Running: Gay and Lesbian Candidates, Elections and Policy Representation,” told Salon that the rise of LGBTQ candidates for national office can be traced back to the earlier successes of out candidates in state and local elections.
“The [LGBTQ] community is finally sort of reaching a level where they’re been really successful with local level offices, with state level offices,” he said. “They’ve created a deep bench of potential candidates for national office, and you’re seeing now more national candidates than ever before for the House and for the Senate than there has ever been in any election cycle.”
Like Mayor Parker, Haider-Markel also sees a connection between the increase in the number of women running for office and the rise of LGBTQ candidates.
“I think what you’re seeing in the LGBT community is similar to what you’re seeing with other minority communities and with women,” he explained. “In that their reaction to this administration is basically to get off the couch and run for office.”
Despite the possible connection between the rise in LGBTQ and female candidates, Haider-Markel acknowledged that LGBTQ representation is still male heavy – but added that could change this election year.
Haider-Markel pointed to Tammy Baldwin, the first openly-gay candidate elected to the U.S. Senate, as a testament to that fact. He said, Baldwin “tells the story right there, in the sense that there haven’t been as many women running for office overall, so it makes sense there would be fewer LGBT women running for office as well.”
Electoral data reviewed by the Victory Fund reveals that LGBTQ women running for office win their elections at a higher rate than LGBTQ men, suggesting the political landscape could look a lot different – and a lot more representative for women – in 2018.
LGBTQ Candidates and The Blue Wave: Will it help?
Why now? Haider-Markel pointed to the outcome of the 2016 election and to the number of anti-LGBTQ bills introduced over the last two years, including HB 2 in North Carolina. Ofter referred to as the “bathroom bill,” it sought to restrict transgender people from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity. HB2 is included in the more than 100 anti-LGBTQ bills that were introduced across 29 states in 2017, according to a report published by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). In addition, FBI hate crime statistics from 2016 show an increase in the number of reported anti-LGBTQ hate crimes.
Late Friday night, President Trump announced a new policy for the military that would ban most transgender people from serving in the armed forces.
Haider-Markel pointed out that LGBTQ candidates are energized, and his findings show that their prospects look promising.
“These candidates that run, they’re not Donald Trump candidates,” he said. “These are people that are connected politically. They have experience in politics, either through interest groups or working on campaigns, and they’re better than the average candidate running for the offices they’re running for. The evidence I have suggests the candidates do better than a comparable heterosexual candidate.”
However, Haider-Markel notes that “saying that an LGBTQ candidate can win in any district in the country would be a fairly strict statement,” and that it’s important to acknowledge “the vast majority of [LGBTQ candidates] are running as Democrats. It’s going to be to their advantage.”
He also stressed that candidates “have to be strategic about when and where they run,” and that “they have to run in districts that are going to tend to lean more liberal, be better educated and more urban,” but that “even in a red state [a victory for an out candidate] is possible.”
And given Democrats are winning in unlikely places, including Kentucky, Wisconsin and Florida, it’s possible that a blue wave is forming ahead of the midterm elections – and LGBTQ candidates could ride it to victory.
Nevertheless, Haider-Markel referenced his findings and said, “Sexual orientation and LGBT status is not a major hurdle for them to cross. Candidates who are open about who they are, are going to be more successful, whether they’re LGBT or not.”
The trend of LGBTQ candidates has come to New York, too. Cynthia Nixon, the bisexual activist and Emmy Award winning actress, perhaps best known as "Miranda" from "Sex and the City," recently announced she would be challenging New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2018 – and New Yorkers can’t help but wonder, "Does Nixon have a shot?" Only time will tell.
Record number of black women are candidates in Alabama
They're fueled by Democrat Doug Jones' stunning upset Senate win, the #MeToo movement, opposition to Trump and a desire to carry on Obama's legacy.
by Adam Edelman - nbc news
Mar.23.2018 / 1:36 AM ET
Jameria Moore at campaign headquarters in a back room at her law office.Andrea Morales / for NBC News
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — It's an unlikely location for a political uprising: A onetime drug rehab center in an office park, where metal bars still line the windows and the hum from the nearby I-20/I-59 overpass is constant.
But it is here that Jameria Moore, a 49-year-old attorney, launched her campaign for a judgeship on the Jefferson County Probate Court. She is one of about three dozen African-American women who are running for office as Democrats across deep-red Alabama.
It's an unprecedented number, according to party officials. Many, like Moore, are running for the first time. And many, like Moore, say Democrat Doug Jones' unexpected Senate victory in December inspired them to take a chance.
But there's more to this wave of black women candidates than that.
"It's so important that we step up, that we show the nation that we can lead," Moore told NBC News in a recent interview, as a small team of volunteers bustled about her law office and prepared for the campaign ahead. "That, here in Alabama, we're ready to lead our state into the future."
Her campaign is mounting a robust effort in a local race with a crowded Democratic primary field — all in an intensely conservative state with a history of racial division.
"I have friends in other states who say, 'I don't know how you live in Alabama,' and I tell them, 'Why wouldn't I live in Alabama?'" she said. "This is an opportunity, that's how I look at it."
In the heady months after Jones' win — an upset fueled in part by exceptionally high turnout by African-American women — a new energy has fueled Jefferson County Democrats.
Ninety-eight percent of black women voted for Jones, according to an NBC News exit poll — a decisive factor in the former federal prosecutor becoming the first Democrat in 25 years to be elected to the Senate from Alabama. Now, just three months later, an unprecedented number of African-American women are taking the next step in building on that momentum by running for local and statewide office.
More than 35 black women have launched campaigns or re-election efforts, and more than three-quarters of them are running here in Birmingham, in state and county judicial races, or for seats in the state legislature. Organizers and local officials say it's evidence of a small but significant Democratic burst of political activism that could put a blue-hued dent in a deep-Trump state.
"Alabama is not a state that is known for electing women to office, so, in some sense, this is surprising, historic and much needed," said Richard Fording, a professor of public policy at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.
The effort has been partly driven by national groups, which hit the ground during Jones' campaign and, after his win, stuck around, sensing further progress could be made.
"This place that was so resistant to change, where, now, a group of women who were looked down upon and dealt first-hand with the vestiges of slavery and segregation are the ones who can lead us forward — it's monumental," said Quentin James, founder and director of the Collective PAC, a two-year-old group focusing on recruiting African-American candidates in statewide and local races across the U.S.
"Where better to demonstrate the progress being made than in Alabama," he added.
'A LARGER TREND'
The new wave of candidates, as well as the voters who have empowered them, say their efforts and progress are driven not only by the encouragement they felt after Jones' win, but the wide-ranging impact of the #MeToo movement, Barack Obama's presidency and Trump's divisiveness and perceived animosity toward minorities.
A half-dozen African-American women now running for office said in recent interviews that the gains made in local races in 2016 — when nine African-American women were elected as judges in Jefferson County — helped light the fuse.
As anti-Trump fervor rose, so, too, did the desire of black women to enter politics. And by fall 2017, as the #MeToo movement swept the country in October, and Jones won in December, it erupted into a full-blown fire.
Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., a four-term congresswoman running for re-election this fall who was cited as a trailblazer by many of the black women now running for office, said it's vital that women of all races be a part of the policy-making process "as the nation grapples with the realities of sexual harassment and assault."
Richard Mauk, chairman of the Jefferson County Democratic Party, said he first felt inklings of change in the majority-Democratic county about 10 years ago when Obama came to power.
"It showed that black people can be elected," he said. "While it took a few years to trickle down, he, along with Michelle Obama, gave a lot of black women the idea that, yes, this is possible."
Mauk said the party does't have reliable records of candidate demographics, but said he'd never seen anything like this year's large number of black women running.
Jones, for his part, pointed out that African-American women have long been part of the political process in Alabama, even though they are significantly underrepresented in the state legislature.
"The difference now is simply the fact that you have more voices rising up," said Jones, who added that he recognized his own election as something that empowered this new wave of African-American women to seek office.
Meanwhile, James, of Collective PAC, singled out Trump as the main motivator.
"You have a president who attacks black women," James said, pointing to recent criticism out of the White House of two Democratic congresswomen, Maxine Waters of California and Frederica Wilson of Florida. "They're fed up, we're fed up, and … it's crucial we have more voices on the public stage to fight back."
'A NEW SENSE OF EMPOWERMENT'
Cheri Gardner, a Democratic candidate for Jefferson County circuit clerk, says she felt "electrified" when Jones won. And while she entered her race before Jones' victory — as Jameria Moore did — she feels more motivated by the fact that Roy Moore, the Republican who lost to Jones and was accused of improper conduct with teenage girls, got as far as he did.
"I don't know if it was Doug Jones as much it was Roy Moore himself lighting the fire under African Americans and African-American women," she said in an interview at her sprawling two-story house in the city's Woodland Park neighborhood.
Gardner agreed that Trump, too, has been a major factor in the recent political mobilization of African-American women. "We are the rare group that feels his insults two times over," she said.
Gardner, Moore and other candidates noted that their activism and political participation are nothing new. "We didn't just become part of the political process," Moore said. "We've always played a part in the process even before we had the right to vote."
For Audri Scott Williams, 62, a former Army reservist and activist, running for Congress in Alabama's 2nd District, which includes most of Montgomery, is realizing a lifelong dream. She cited "a new sense of empowerment" as motivating her to enter the Democratic primary for the right to challenge the four-term GOP incumbent, Rep. Martha Roby.
"The tinder was laid down, but Doug Jones was the spark that started a fire in black women knowing they have a lot of power," Williams said.
Pamela Wilson Cousins, a candidate for a judgeship on the Jefferson County District Court, also pointed to the Jones-stoked momentum as the reason behind her run. "If I ever thought there was a time for me to run, this was it," she said.
Meanwhile, Republicans dismiss the gender and race of the Democratic candidates, saying the GOP is focused on issues.
"We are excited to showcase our winning policies as opposed to the failed ones of the liberal Democrats regardless of who is on their ballot," Alabama GOP chair Terry Lathan said.
GETTING ORGANIZED
The raft of black women running, however, didn't happen on its own.
Progressive groups and political strategists that had flocked to the area for the Jones race quickly realized how much untapped energy existed among Democrats who were women, African-American or both.
Several organizations remained in the state after Jones' win to build out their infrastructure, with some expanding existing operations in other states into Alabama. They concluded that there was a genuine appetite for a fresh crop of diverse Democratic candidates and for a Democratic Party in the state broadly different from the one that had been stained for generations by Dixiecrats.
One group, Emerge Alabama, arrived in mid-2017 with the sole focus of recruiting female candidates in local races to beef up the party's long-term presence in the state.
"The idea was to address the very low representation of women in leadership, here and across the U.S., from top to bottom," explained Stacie Propst, the executive director of Emerge Alabama.
Her group, which is active in 22 other states, recruits female candidates to run for local office and offers a 70-hour training curriculum for new candidates, including tutorials on fundraising, cultural diversity training, messaging and how to get on the ballot.
Alabama's first class — 26 women, including 16 who are now running (including Jameria Moore) — "graduated" this month, said Propst, 51, a Tuscaloosa native who spent decades of her career in Washington before returning to Alabama. She said she also had never seen so many African-American women running for office in Alabama than she has this year.
Another group, Woke Vote, an Alabama-based grass-roots campaign that focused on turning out young, black voters for Jones, doubled down on its efforts after December.
"What we're doing isn't revolutionary in a lot of places, but is revolutionary for Democrats in Alabama," said Dejuana Thompson, the group's founder. "We find the faith community, the students, the young people, we have a frank conversation with them about what's at stake and we ask them to turn around and do it themselves."
Thompson, a native of Birmingham who worked in Obama's Small Business Administration, said she's seen the group's efforts bear fruit now that so many women of color are on local ballots.
"Black women have been leading this party for years and showing up for Democratic issues for years," said Thompson, whose group relies on funding from liberal PACs like Priorities USA and New Nation Rising. "And the community follows their lead. So when we have any opportunity to engage people of color, it creates a space for the student, the teacher, the mom to find their purpose. … We can leverage that into motivation to turn out for elections."
The efforts appear to be working among voters, too. Many communities are buzzing.
THE TALK OF THE TOWN
Inside Niki’s West, a popular cafeteria-style restaurant hidden amid an industrial park on this city's north side, diners can't usually put down their forks during the busy lunch hour. But on a recent weekday, workers from nearby plants, factories, churches and businesses who'd come to wash down their "meat-and-three" meals with glasses of sweet tea couldn't hold back their enthusiasm.
"To see African-American women step up like this, I mean for so long it's felt hidden, but now we're really getting into the political fold," said Cassandra Gooley, 50, who works at Birmingham's VA Medical Center. "It's wonderful that they’re taking a stand like this."
Her friend Cynthia Ray, 58, who works with homeless vets at the VA, said: "Women, and certainly black women, have been looked over in every arena. It’s our time."
But it is here that Jameria Moore, a 49-year-old attorney, launched her campaign for a judgeship on the Jefferson County Probate Court. She is one of about three dozen African-American women who are running for office as Democrats across deep-red Alabama.
It's an unprecedented number, according to party officials. Many, like Moore, are running for the first time. And many, like Moore, say Democrat Doug Jones' unexpected Senate victory in December inspired them to take a chance.
But there's more to this wave of black women candidates than that.
"It's so important that we step up, that we show the nation that we can lead," Moore told NBC News in a recent interview, as a small team of volunteers bustled about her law office and prepared for the campaign ahead. "That, here in Alabama, we're ready to lead our state into the future."
Her campaign is mounting a robust effort in a local race with a crowded Democratic primary field — all in an intensely conservative state with a history of racial division.
"I have friends in other states who say, 'I don't know how you live in Alabama,' and I tell them, 'Why wouldn't I live in Alabama?'" she said. "This is an opportunity, that's how I look at it."
In the heady months after Jones' win — an upset fueled in part by exceptionally high turnout by African-American women — a new energy has fueled Jefferson County Democrats.
Ninety-eight percent of black women voted for Jones, according to an NBC News exit poll — a decisive factor in the former federal prosecutor becoming the first Democrat in 25 years to be elected to the Senate from Alabama. Now, just three months later, an unprecedented number of African-American women are taking the next step in building on that momentum by running for local and statewide office.
More than 35 black women have launched campaigns or re-election efforts, and more than three-quarters of them are running here in Birmingham, in state and county judicial races, or for seats in the state legislature. Organizers and local officials say it's evidence of a small but significant Democratic burst of political activism that could put a blue-hued dent in a deep-Trump state.
"Alabama is not a state that is known for electing women to office, so, in some sense, this is surprising, historic and much needed," said Richard Fording, a professor of public policy at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.
The effort has been partly driven by national groups, which hit the ground during Jones' campaign and, after his win, stuck around, sensing further progress could be made.
"This place that was so resistant to change, where, now, a group of women who were looked down upon and dealt first-hand with the vestiges of slavery and segregation are the ones who can lead us forward — it's monumental," said Quentin James, founder and director of the Collective PAC, a two-year-old group focusing on recruiting African-American candidates in statewide and local races across the U.S.
"Where better to demonstrate the progress being made than in Alabama," he added.
'A LARGER TREND'
The new wave of candidates, as well as the voters who have empowered them, say their efforts and progress are driven not only by the encouragement they felt after Jones' win, but the wide-ranging impact of the #MeToo movement, Barack Obama's presidency and Trump's divisiveness and perceived animosity toward minorities.
A half-dozen African-American women now running for office said in recent interviews that the gains made in local races in 2016 — when nine African-American women were elected as judges in Jefferson County — helped light the fuse.
As anti-Trump fervor rose, so, too, did the desire of black women to enter politics. And by fall 2017, as the #MeToo movement swept the country in October, and Jones won in December, it erupted into a full-blown fire.
Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., a four-term congresswoman running for re-election this fall who was cited as a trailblazer by many of the black women now running for office, said it's vital that women of all races be a part of the policy-making process "as the nation grapples with the realities of sexual harassment and assault."
Richard Mauk, chairman of the Jefferson County Democratic Party, said he first felt inklings of change in the majority-Democratic county about 10 years ago when Obama came to power.
"It showed that black people can be elected," he said. "While it took a few years to trickle down, he, along with Michelle Obama, gave a lot of black women the idea that, yes, this is possible."
Mauk said the party does't have reliable records of candidate demographics, but said he'd never seen anything like this year's large number of black women running.
Jones, for his part, pointed out that African-American women have long been part of the political process in Alabama, even though they are significantly underrepresented in the state legislature.
"The difference now is simply the fact that you have more voices rising up," said Jones, who added that he recognized his own election as something that empowered this new wave of African-American women to seek office.
Meanwhile, James, of Collective PAC, singled out Trump as the main motivator.
"You have a president who attacks black women," James said, pointing to recent criticism out of the White House of two Democratic congresswomen, Maxine Waters of California and Frederica Wilson of Florida. "They're fed up, we're fed up, and … it's crucial we have more voices on the public stage to fight back."
'A NEW SENSE OF EMPOWERMENT'
Cheri Gardner, a Democratic candidate for Jefferson County circuit clerk, says she felt "electrified" when Jones won. And while she entered her race before Jones' victory — as Jameria Moore did — she feels more motivated by the fact that Roy Moore, the Republican who lost to Jones and was accused of improper conduct with teenage girls, got as far as he did.
"I don't know if it was Doug Jones as much it was Roy Moore himself lighting the fire under African Americans and African-American women," she said in an interview at her sprawling two-story house in the city's Woodland Park neighborhood.
Gardner agreed that Trump, too, has been a major factor in the recent political mobilization of African-American women. "We are the rare group that feels his insults two times over," she said.
Gardner, Moore and other candidates noted that their activism and political participation are nothing new. "We didn't just become part of the political process," Moore said. "We've always played a part in the process even before we had the right to vote."
For Audri Scott Williams, 62, a former Army reservist and activist, running for Congress in Alabama's 2nd District, which includes most of Montgomery, is realizing a lifelong dream. She cited "a new sense of empowerment" as motivating her to enter the Democratic primary for the right to challenge the four-term GOP incumbent, Rep. Martha Roby.
"The tinder was laid down, but Doug Jones was the spark that started a fire in black women knowing they have a lot of power," Williams said.
Pamela Wilson Cousins, a candidate for a judgeship on the Jefferson County District Court, also pointed to the Jones-stoked momentum as the reason behind her run. "If I ever thought there was a time for me to run, this was it," she said.
Meanwhile, Republicans dismiss the gender and race of the Democratic candidates, saying the GOP is focused on issues.
"We are excited to showcase our winning policies as opposed to the failed ones of the liberal Democrats regardless of who is on their ballot," Alabama GOP chair Terry Lathan said.
GETTING ORGANIZED
The raft of black women running, however, didn't happen on its own.
Progressive groups and political strategists that had flocked to the area for the Jones race quickly realized how much untapped energy existed among Democrats who were women, African-American or both.
Several organizations remained in the state after Jones' win to build out their infrastructure, with some expanding existing operations in other states into Alabama. They concluded that there was a genuine appetite for a fresh crop of diverse Democratic candidates and for a Democratic Party in the state broadly different from the one that had been stained for generations by Dixiecrats.
One group, Emerge Alabama, arrived in mid-2017 with the sole focus of recruiting female candidates in local races to beef up the party's long-term presence in the state.
"The idea was to address the very low representation of women in leadership, here and across the U.S., from top to bottom," explained Stacie Propst, the executive director of Emerge Alabama.
Her group, which is active in 22 other states, recruits female candidates to run for local office and offers a 70-hour training curriculum for new candidates, including tutorials on fundraising, cultural diversity training, messaging and how to get on the ballot.
Alabama's first class — 26 women, including 16 who are now running (including Jameria Moore) — "graduated" this month, said Propst, 51, a Tuscaloosa native who spent decades of her career in Washington before returning to Alabama. She said she also had never seen so many African-American women running for office in Alabama than she has this year.
Another group, Woke Vote, an Alabama-based grass-roots campaign that focused on turning out young, black voters for Jones, doubled down on its efforts after December.
"What we're doing isn't revolutionary in a lot of places, but is revolutionary for Democrats in Alabama," said Dejuana Thompson, the group's founder. "We find the faith community, the students, the young people, we have a frank conversation with them about what's at stake and we ask them to turn around and do it themselves."
Thompson, a native of Birmingham who worked in Obama's Small Business Administration, said she's seen the group's efforts bear fruit now that so many women of color are on local ballots.
"Black women have been leading this party for years and showing up for Democratic issues for years," said Thompson, whose group relies on funding from liberal PACs like Priorities USA and New Nation Rising. "And the community follows their lead. So when we have any opportunity to engage people of color, it creates a space for the student, the teacher, the mom to find their purpose. … We can leverage that into motivation to turn out for elections."
The efforts appear to be working among voters, too. Many communities are buzzing.
THE TALK OF THE TOWN
Inside Niki’s West, a popular cafeteria-style restaurant hidden amid an industrial park on this city's north side, diners can't usually put down their forks during the busy lunch hour. But on a recent weekday, workers from nearby plants, factories, churches and businesses who'd come to wash down their "meat-and-three" meals with glasses of sweet tea couldn't hold back their enthusiasm.
"To see African-American women step up like this, I mean for so long it's felt hidden, but now we're really getting into the political fold," said Cassandra Gooley, 50, who works at Birmingham's VA Medical Center. "It's wonderful that they’re taking a stand like this."
Her friend Cynthia Ray, 58, who works with homeless vets at the VA, said: "Women, and certainly black women, have been looked over in every arena. It’s our time."
Donors Trust, the Right-Wing Secret Money Machine, Doled Out $66.7 Million in 2016
Submitted by David Armiak - pr watch
on March 22, 2018 - 11:18am
Donors Trust is a little-known investment vehicle that allows right-wing millionaires, billionaires, and foundations to funnel millions of dollars to controversial causes anonymously. IRS filings submitted by Donors Trust and obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy, show that the fund distributed $66.7 million in grants in 2016, the most recent year for which information is available.
Donors Trust appears to be a preferred investment vehicle of the Koch network of funders. In the past, the Koch’s Knowledge and Progress Fund was a key donor to Donors Trust. Today, Donors Trust bankrolls a raft of Koch groups including, $2.6 million to the Koch’s astroturf group the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, $750,000 to Freedom Partners Institute, $150,000 to the Koch Hispanic operation the Libre Initiative Institute, and $200,000 to Stand Together, a new Koch “venture philanthropy,” bringing the total to $3.7 million for Koch groups.
Donors Trust was founded in 1999 by Whitney Ball described as an “ardent libertarian” who was instrumental in raising funds for the Koch-founded Cato Institute by Jane Mayer in her book “Dark Money.” Mayer explains that the investment vehicle was set up explicitly to allow investors to strategically fund institutions and activities while hiding the money trail. “You wish to keep your charitable giving private, especially gifts funding sensitive or controversial issues,” the Donors Trust website explained. Researchers contend that the money flowing to climate denial groups switched from more transparent outlets to Donors Trust and it’s partner group Donors Capital Fund.
The tens of millions in grants in 2016 show that the Donors Trust conduit is still a favored vehicle for right-wing individuals and institutions who are funding an array of “think tanks,” union-busting shops, climate change deniers, and right-wing attack dogs.
Major Funder of ALEC, State Policy Network, Federalist Society, and More
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the corporate bill mill that brings state legislators and lobbyists behind closed doors to promulgate bills on a wide array of topics received $315,000 from Donors Trust in 2016.
Donors Trust’s 2016 list of grants shows that ALEC’s sister group the State Policy Network (SPN), a web of right-wing “think tanks” and tax-exempt organizations in 49 states, Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., also relies heavily on funds from Donors Trust. Donors Trust is an “associate member” of SPN.
Out of the 153 SPN members, 64 received grants from Donors Trust totaling $20.3 million in 2016. This is almost a third of the total grants distributed. $2.1 million went to Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Foundation, one of the largest grantees, which has been working in the state to expand ALEC-style educational vouchers, privatize the public pension system, and to fight unions.
SPN priorities in recent years have been dismantling public sector unions and fighting to keep donors to 501(c) (3) charitable organizations and 501(c) (4) dark money non-profits a secret. In 2016, SPN launched the “People United for Privacy” campaign to shift the public narrative on this issue from a debate on hiding donors to a debate on “protecting privacy.”
For this reason it is not surprising that the largest increase in Donors Trust funding out of the SPN groups went to the little known Wyoming Liberty Group (WLG), which received $1.63 million in 2016 after receiving $25,000 in 2015.
In April of 2015, WLG launched the Pillar of Law Institute, a litigation center based in Washington, D.C. and a member of the Goldwater Institute’s litigation alliance. Pillar of Law was set up to fight restrictions on campaign financing in the name of “free speech.” In 2017, it spun off and became an independent non-profit legal center.
An additional $3.4 million in Donors Trust funds went to the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society is a powerful professional association of 60,000 right-wing lawyers, law students, and scholars with chapters in some 200 law schools. The Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo is a major dark money player in campaigns and elections and played a significant role in getting the last three conservative Supreme Court justices, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito, and countless other judges and state Supreme Court justices on the bench. The Federalist Society is a member of SPN and also active in ALEC.
Funding Attack Dog James O’Keefe, Anti-Union Shops, Climate Denial, and Anti-Muslim Hate Groups
Donors Trust is also being used to fund controversial media attack dog James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas sting operation. Close to $1.7 million was donated to Project Veritas from individuals or groups who wanted to keep their identities secret.
The group has garnered attention in recent years for multiple botched “sting operations.” In 2017, O’Keefe attempted a sting on the Washington Post after the paper’s meticulous reporting on Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore’s sexual escapades with teenagers helped sink his campaign. A woman tied to O’Keefe claimed to have been impregnated by Moore in an attempt to entrap the Washington Post into reporting her story, but the paper turned the tables on her. The Center for Media and Democracy was the subject of another botched sting attempt by O’Keefe associates in 2014.
Another $850,000 was contributed to the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), a right-wing legal outfit known for its opposition to affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act, and unions. CIR argued the 2016 anti-union Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association case in the U.S. Supreme Court. Coincidently, CIR has also defended O’Keefe when he was sued in 2009 for secretly recording a community organizer in California. O’Keefe eventually agreed to settle the suit and pay $100,000 in damages. Later he would be charged with trespassing on federal property and fined for a botched break-in and sting operation involving former U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the Washington DC based advocacy group with historic ties to tobacco disinformation campaigns and more recently to climate change denial got $1,096,000. CEI’s Myron Ebell hand-picked Scott Pruitt to head the EPA under Trump and worked with Pruitt to repeal the Clean Power Plan and other Obama era policies. The Sutherland Institute, the Utah-based group that wrote the resolution that Utah lawmakers approved urging President Trump to rescind the Bears Ears National Monument, received $277,000.
Donors Trust continued to bank the Atlas Network with $1.3 million in grants in 2016. The Intercept exposed last year that Atlas was part of a libertarian network of 450 “think tanks” across the globe has operated as a “quiet extension of U.S. foreign policy,” including “supporting right-wing forces behind the unfolding anti-government movement in Venezuela and the campaign of Sebastián Piñera, the right-of-center candidate leading the polls for this year’s presidential election in Chile.”
Other right-wing extremists funded by Donors Trust in 2016 include David Horowitz’s Freedom Center, labeled an anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Employment Policies Institute Foundation (EPIF). EPIF is one of Richard Berman’s anti-union groups. Berman is a PR flak working for alcohol and restaurant interests who has made a living propping up a huge number of front groups to push for lower wages in the restaurant industry. Since 2013, Berman and his Employment Policy Institute “think tank” have led a national fight against raising the minimum wage and providing paid sick leave for workers with attacks on proponents, including the Center for Media and Democracy.
Also of interest, Talent Market, a little known right-wing head hunting operation led by former Charles G. Koch Foundation program officer Claire Kittle Dixon and attached to Donors Trust, received some $202,000. Talent Market’s clients include many of the Koch operations, the Bradley Foundation, and many SPN members as CMD detailed in 2017.
RELATED: Chinese Corporation Alibaba Joins Group Ghostwriting American Laws
Donors Trust appears to be a preferred investment vehicle of the Koch network of funders. In the past, the Koch’s Knowledge and Progress Fund was a key donor to Donors Trust. Today, Donors Trust bankrolls a raft of Koch groups including, $2.6 million to the Koch’s astroturf group the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, $750,000 to Freedom Partners Institute, $150,000 to the Koch Hispanic operation the Libre Initiative Institute, and $200,000 to Stand Together, a new Koch “venture philanthropy,” bringing the total to $3.7 million for Koch groups.
Donors Trust was founded in 1999 by Whitney Ball described as an “ardent libertarian” who was instrumental in raising funds for the Koch-founded Cato Institute by Jane Mayer in her book “Dark Money.” Mayer explains that the investment vehicle was set up explicitly to allow investors to strategically fund institutions and activities while hiding the money trail. “You wish to keep your charitable giving private, especially gifts funding sensitive or controversial issues,” the Donors Trust website explained. Researchers contend that the money flowing to climate denial groups switched from more transparent outlets to Donors Trust and it’s partner group Donors Capital Fund.
The tens of millions in grants in 2016 show that the Donors Trust conduit is still a favored vehicle for right-wing individuals and institutions who are funding an array of “think tanks,” union-busting shops, climate change deniers, and right-wing attack dogs.
Major Funder of ALEC, State Policy Network, Federalist Society, and More
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the corporate bill mill that brings state legislators and lobbyists behind closed doors to promulgate bills on a wide array of topics received $315,000 from Donors Trust in 2016.
Donors Trust’s 2016 list of grants shows that ALEC’s sister group the State Policy Network (SPN), a web of right-wing “think tanks” and tax-exempt organizations in 49 states, Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., also relies heavily on funds from Donors Trust. Donors Trust is an “associate member” of SPN.
Out of the 153 SPN members, 64 received grants from Donors Trust totaling $20.3 million in 2016. This is almost a third of the total grants distributed. $2.1 million went to Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Foundation, one of the largest grantees, which has been working in the state to expand ALEC-style educational vouchers, privatize the public pension system, and to fight unions.
SPN priorities in recent years have been dismantling public sector unions and fighting to keep donors to 501(c) (3) charitable organizations and 501(c) (4) dark money non-profits a secret. In 2016, SPN launched the “People United for Privacy” campaign to shift the public narrative on this issue from a debate on hiding donors to a debate on “protecting privacy.”
For this reason it is not surprising that the largest increase in Donors Trust funding out of the SPN groups went to the little known Wyoming Liberty Group (WLG), which received $1.63 million in 2016 after receiving $25,000 in 2015.
In April of 2015, WLG launched the Pillar of Law Institute, a litigation center based in Washington, D.C. and a member of the Goldwater Institute’s litigation alliance. Pillar of Law was set up to fight restrictions on campaign financing in the name of “free speech.” In 2017, it spun off and became an independent non-profit legal center.
An additional $3.4 million in Donors Trust funds went to the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society is a powerful professional association of 60,000 right-wing lawyers, law students, and scholars with chapters in some 200 law schools. The Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo is a major dark money player in campaigns and elections and played a significant role in getting the last three conservative Supreme Court justices, Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito, and countless other judges and state Supreme Court justices on the bench. The Federalist Society is a member of SPN and also active in ALEC.
Funding Attack Dog James O’Keefe, Anti-Union Shops, Climate Denial, and Anti-Muslim Hate Groups
Donors Trust is also being used to fund controversial media attack dog James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas sting operation. Close to $1.7 million was donated to Project Veritas from individuals or groups who wanted to keep their identities secret.
The group has garnered attention in recent years for multiple botched “sting operations.” In 2017, O’Keefe attempted a sting on the Washington Post after the paper’s meticulous reporting on Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore’s sexual escapades with teenagers helped sink his campaign. A woman tied to O’Keefe claimed to have been impregnated by Moore in an attempt to entrap the Washington Post into reporting her story, but the paper turned the tables on her. The Center for Media and Democracy was the subject of another botched sting attempt by O’Keefe associates in 2014.
Another $850,000 was contributed to the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), a right-wing legal outfit known for its opposition to affirmative action, the Voting Rights Act, and unions. CIR argued the 2016 anti-union Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association case in the U.S. Supreme Court. Coincidently, CIR has also defended O’Keefe when he was sued in 2009 for secretly recording a community organizer in California. O’Keefe eventually agreed to settle the suit and pay $100,000 in damages. Later he would be charged with trespassing on federal property and fined for a botched break-in and sting operation involving former U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the Washington DC based advocacy group with historic ties to tobacco disinformation campaigns and more recently to climate change denial got $1,096,000. CEI’s Myron Ebell hand-picked Scott Pruitt to head the EPA under Trump and worked with Pruitt to repeal the Clean Power Plan and other Obama era policies. The Sutherland Institute, the Utah-based group that wrote the resolution that Utah lawmakers approved urging President Trump to rescind the Bears Ears National Monument, received $277,000.
Donors Trust continued to bank the Atlas Network with $1.3 million in grants in 2016. The Intercept exposed last year that Atlas was part of a libertarian network of 450 “think tanks” across the globe has operated as a “quiet extension of U.S. foreign policy,” including “supporting right-wing forces behind the unfolding anti-government movement in Venezuela and the campaign of Sebastián Piñera, the right-of-center candidate leading the polls for this year’s presidential election in Chile.”
Other right-wing extremists funded by Donors Trust in 2016 include David Horowitz’s Freedom Center, labeled an anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Employment Policies Institute Foundation (EPIF). EPIF is one of Richard Berman’s anti-union groups. Berman is a PR flak working for alcohol and restaurant interests who has made a living propping up a huge number of front groups to push for lower wages in the restaurant industry. Since 2013, Berman and his Employment Policy Institute “think tank” have led a national fight against raising the minimum wage and providing paid sick leave for workers with attacks on proponents, including the Center for Media and Democracy.
Also of interest, Talent Market, a little known right-wing head hunting operation led by former Charles G. Koch Foundation program officer Claire Kittle Dixon and attached to Donors Trust, received some $202,000. Talent Market’s clients include many of the Koch operations, the Bradley Foundation, and many SPN members as CMD detailed in 2017.
RELATED: Chinese Corporation Alibaba Joins Group Ghostwriting American Laws
Cambridge Analytica helped Republicans in Colorado win key political races
The company under investigation in two countries helped to target voters in key Colorado Senate districts in 2014
By JOHN FRANK and MARK K. MATTHEWS - denver post.com
PUBLISHED: March 20, 2018 at 2:30 pm
The political firm that obtained private data on millions of Facebook usersworked in Colorado to help Republicans win a crucial majority in the state Senate.
Cambridge Analytica used its data to create “psychographic” profiles that allowed Republican operatives to target specific Colorado voters in battleground state Senate districts in 2014.
The company — now under investigation in two countries — touted its work with the Senate Majority Fund in 2014 as key to Republicans winning a one-vote majority in the state chamber for the first time in a decade. “These victories ultimately gave the GOP control over the Colorado state Senate,” the Cambridge Analytica website once touted.
The top strategist for the Senate Majority Fund confirmed it hired Cambridge Analytica, operating as a company named SCL, but downplayed the importance of its involvement.
“Their pitch was better than their performance,” said Andy George, a Republican consultant who coordinated with the London-based company, who called the website language “an exaggeration.”
In terms of the data, George said he was not aware the company improperly obtained users’ Facebook data — including information from profiles, personality surveys, “likes” and friend networks — to compile its tailored messages to voters.
“I was aware they were selling a comprehensive voter profile but not necessarily where they get the information,” said George. “They presented themselves to us as this data analytics company, not this secretive whatever.”
Senate Majority Fund used the data to craft six mailers in 2014, but it’s not clear how much the fund paid the firm. Cambridge Analytica is not listed in the Colorado political committee’s state campaign finance records or in federal nonprofit filings.
The company — backed by Robert Mercer, a wealthy Republican donor, and tied to Donald Trump’s political adviser Steve Bannon — is facing investigations in the United Kingdom and United States after it obtained the information from a Russian-American academic researcher.
Cambridge Analytica used its data to create “psychographic” profiles that allowed Republican operatives to target specific Colorado voters in battleground state Senate districts in 2014.
The company — now under investigation in two countries — touted its work with the Senate Majority Fund in 2014 as key to Republicans winning a one-vote majority in the state chamber for the first time in a decade. “These victories ultimately gave the GOP control over the Colorado state Senate,” the Cambridge Analytica website once touted.
The top strategist for the Senate Majority Fund confirmed it hired Cambridge Analytica, operating as a company named SCL, but downplayed the importance of its involvement.
“Their pitch was better than their performance,” said Andy George, a Republican consultant who coordinated with the London-based company, who called the website language “an exaggeration.”
In terms of the data, George said he was not aware the company improperly obtained users’ Facebook data — including information from profiles, personality surveys, “likes” and friend networks — to compile its tailored messages to voters.
“I was aware they were selling a comprehensive voter profile but not necessarily where they get the information,” said George. “They presented themselves to us as this data analytics company, not this secretive whatever.”
Senate Majority Fund used the data to craft six mailers in 2014, but it’s not clear how much the fund paid the firm. Cambridge Analytica is not listed in the Colorado political committee’s state campaign finance records or in federal nonprofit filings.
The company — backed by Robert Mercer, a wealthy Republican donor, and tied to Donald Trump’s political adviser Steve Bannon — is facing investigations in the United Kingdom and United States after it obtained the information from a Russian-American academic researcher.
Georgia GOP pushes elimination of Sunday voting to suppress black turnout
The proposal would also shorten voting hours in Atlanta.
KIRA LERNER - think progress
MAR 16, 2018, 1:56 PM
Georgia Republicans are advancing a bill through the state legislature that would suppress African-American turnout by eliminating Sunday voting and cutting the hours that polls are open in Atlanta.
The bill, SB 363, would force polls in the majority African American city of Atlanta to close an hour earlier — 7 p.m. instead of 8 p.m. — and would eliminate early voting on the Sunday before Election Day. That Sunday is often a high-turnout day for African American voters because of Souls to the Polls events that encourage people to cast ballots early after attending church.
The proposal passed the state House Governmental Affairs Committee Wednesday with the majority Republicans voting in favor and all five Democrats, who have said the legislation is designed to suppress voter turnout, in opposition.
The text of the bill limits voting to just one weekend day before an election, but under current state law, any election with state or federal candidates must allow voting on a Saturday, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
Georgia Republicans have opposed Sunday voting since at least 2014, when DeKalb County (home to Atlanta) extended early voting to include the Sunday before Election Day. One polling location that year was at a popular local shopping mall.
“This location is dominated by African-American shoppers and it is near several large African-American mega churches such as New Birth Missionary Baptist, ” state Sen. Fran Millar (R) wrote candidly at the time, denigrating the relative ease of voting on Sundays as “Chicago politics” in DeKalb County. “Is it possible church buses will be used to transport people directly to the mall since the poll will open when the mall opens? If this happens, so much for the accepted principle of separation of church and state.”
After pushback, Millar didn’t back away from his comments, instead writing on his Facebook page that Sunday voting “is a partisan stunt and I hope it can be stopped.”
But it wasn’t until this year, after the GOP lost a special election in Atlanta, that the party decided to take action to limit Sunday voting — and by extension, African-American turnout. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, State Sen. Matt Brass (R) filed the bill after Sen. Jen Jordan (D) won a special election in a district that covers both Atlanta and Cobb County. Republicans claimed it was unfair that some voters had an hour longer to vote than others. Under a current state lawpassed in the 1970s, Atlanta is required to keep its polls open until 8 p.m. for city elections.
But instead of attempting to extend voting hours in counties that close at 7 p.m., GOP lawmakers decided to target Atlanta.
“One person should not be allowed to vote one hour longer than another person,” Brass said.
The House Governmental Affairs Committee added the provision to eliminate Sunday voting to the same bill after it passed the Senate last month. State Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver (D), one of five Democrats on the committee, called the bill “anti-voting rights.”
If this legislation does pass and Republicans continue to be overt about their intention to suppress black voters, the bill would violate the U.S. Constitution. Democrats and voting advocates are also likely to raise objections under the Voting Rights Act, although the U.S. Supreme Court significantly weakened the power of that landmark legislation in 2013 when it ruled that states and jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination, like Georgia, no longer need to preclear changes to their voting law with the Department of Justice.
Georgia isn’t the only state in which Republicans have made efforts to curb black voting. While voter ID laws, cuts to early voting, and the elimination of same-day registration all have disproportionate impacts on voters of color, GOP lawmakers have gotten even more creative in recent years. In 2015, Alabama announced a plan to close 31 driver’s license offices mostly in rural, poor, and majority-black counties, making it more difficult for voters to obtain the ID necessary to cast a ballot under state law. But after that proposal drew controversy, then-Gov. Robert Bentley (R) reversed course and decided to reopen the DMVs in all 31 counties.
The bill, SB 363, would force polls in the majority African American city of Atlanta to close an hour earlier — 7 p.m. instead of 8 p.m. — and would eliminate early voting on the Sunday before Election Day. That Sunday is often a high-turnout day for African American voters because of Souls to the Polls events that encourage people to cast ballots early after attending church.
The proposal passed the state House Governmental Affairs Committee Wednesday with the majority Republicans voting in favor and all five Democrats, who have said the legislation is designed to suppress voter turnout, in opposition.
The text of the bill limits voting to just one weekend day before an election, but under current state law, any election with state or federal candidates must allow voting on a Saturday, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
Georgia Republicans have opposed Sunday voting since at least 2014, when DeKalb County (home to Atlanta) extended early voting to include the Sunday before Election Day. One polling location that year was at a popular local shopping mall.
“This location is dominated by African-American shoppers and it is near several large African-American mega churches such as New Birth Missionary Baptist, ” state Sen. Fran Millar (R) wrote candidly at the time, denigrating the relative ease of voting on Sundays as “Chicago politics” in DeKalb County. “Is it possible church buses will be used to transport people directly to the mall since the poll will open when the mall opens? If this happens, so much for the accepted principle of separation of church and state.”
After pushback, Millar didn’t back away from his comments, instead writing on his Facebook page that Sunday voting “is a partisan stunt and I hope it can be stopped.”
But it wasn’t until this year, after the GOP lost a special election in Atlanta, that the party decided to take action to limit Sunday voting — and by extension, African-American turnout. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, State Sen. Matt Brass (R) filed the bill after Sen. Jen Jordan (D) won a special election in a district that covers both Atlanta and Cobb County. Republicans claimed it was unfair that some voters had an hour longer to vote than others. Under a current state lawpassed in the 1970s, Atlanta is required to keep its polls open until 8 p.m. for city elections.
But instead of attempting to extend voting hours in counties that close at 7 p.m., GOP lawmakers decided to target Atlanta.
“One person should not be allowed to vote one hour longer than another person,” Brass said.
The House Governmental Affairs Committee added the provision to eliminate Sunday voting to the same bill after it passed the Senate last month. State Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver (D), one of five Democrats on the committee, called the bill “anti-voting rights.”
If this legislation does pass and Republicans continue to be overt about their intention to suppress black voters, the bill would violate the U.S. Constitution. Democrats and voting advocates are also likely to raise objections under the Voting Rights Act, although the U.S. Supreme Court significantly weakened the power of that landmark legislation in 2013 when it ruled that states and jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination, like Georgia, no longer need to preclear changes to their voting law with the Department of Justice.
Georgia isn’t the only state in which Republicans have made efforts to curb black voting. While voter ID laws, cuts to early voting, and the elimination of same-day registration all have disproportionate impacts on voters of color, GOP lawmakers have gotten even more creative in recent years. In 2015, Alabama announced a plan to close 31 driver’s license offices mostly in rural, poor, and majority-black counties, making it more difficult for voters to obtain the ID necessary to cast a ballot under state law. But after that proposal drew controversy, then-Gov. Robert Bentley (R) reversed course and decided to reopen the DMVs in all 31 counties.
Montana Green Party senate candidate was on GOP payroll — and runs an nativist anti-college group
Martin Cizmar - raw story
15 MAR 2018 AT 10:18 ET
Depending on who you ask, the Green Party is either the one unsullied edifice of progressivism or a useful tool in Conservative conspiracies to sow division on the left and undermine Democrats.
Historians will be arguing about Jill Stein’s 2016 presidential run a century from now. But when it comes to Montana’s Timothy Adams, who is running on the newly certified Green Party ticket, there is no question. Adams is not only a conservative who heads an anti-tax group, the Associated Press reports, he’s also a recent former employee of the state Republican party. Adams has previously made headlines by filing elections complaints against Democrats.
Adams is running to siphon votes off centrist Democrat Sen. Jon Tester. So far, top Republicans in that state have stayed out of the race.
The state’s Green Party officials signed off on this. Green Party boss Danielle Breck told the AP that she “spoke to all of the candidates who filed under the party’s name” and “reviewed with the candidates the Green Party’s four pillars and 10 key points.”
“We don’t actually have any ability to deny candidates to file under our name,” Breck said.
Adams is also a leader at Montanans Against Higher Taxes, which is ostensibly an anti-tax group, but which is mostly focused on railing against the state’s higher education system which these free-market enthusiasts complain drive up costs for locals because it draws “students from out-of-state with trust funds and blank checks from student loans” who want a new dorm with “a ski-tuning room.” The group is especially angry about Californians coming to the state for an education. The group also alleges that the students party too hard. In other posts, the group also claims that CNN colluded with Hillary Clinton.
Timothy Adams filed as a challenger Monday against Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, who faces a tough re-election campaign, in a race where a Green Party candidate could siphon votes from the Democrat.
Historians will be arguing about Jill Stein’s 2016 presidential run a century from now. But when it comes to Montana’s Timothy Adams, who is running on the newly certified Green Party ticket, there is no question. Adams is not only a conservative who heads an anti-tax group, the Associated Press reports, he’s also a recent former employee of the state Republican party. Adams has previously made headlines by filing elections complaints against Democrats.
Adams is running to siphon votes off centrist Democrat Sen. Jon Tester. So far, top Republicans in that state have stayed out of the race.
The state’s Green Party officials signed off on this. Green Party boss Danielle Breck told the AP that she “spoke to all of the candidates who filed under the party’s name” and “reviewed with the candidates the Green Party’s four pillars and 10 key points.”
“We don’t actually have any ability to deny candidates to file under our name,” Breck said.
Adams is also a leader at Montanans Against Higher Taxes, which is ostensibly an anti-tax group, but which is mostly focused on railing against the state’s higher education system which these free-market enthusiasts complain drive up costs for locals because it draws “students from out-of-state with trust funds and blank checks from student loans” who want a new dorm with “a ski-tuning room.” The group is especially angry about Californians coming to the state for an education. The group also alleges that the students party too hard. In other posts, the group also claims that CNN colluded with Hillary Clinton.
Timothy Adams filed as a challenger Monday against Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, who faces a tough re-election campaign, in a race where a Green Party candidate could siphon votes from the Democrat.
These 3 Women Could Change the California Justice System for Good
These candidates are part of a wave of progressive district attorney hopefuls.
By Liz Posner / AlterNet
March 9, 2018, 2:51 PM GMT
Diana Becton
|
Geneviéve Jones-Wright
|
Pamela Price
|
District attorneys can play a major rolein reducing (or amplifying) race-based incarceration in America’s largest cities. Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King announced in February that he is launching a political action committee to help elect reform-minded DA candidates and draw national attention to the issue. “No position in America, no single individual has a bigger impact on the criminal justice system—including police brutality, but the whole crisis of mass incarceration in general—than your local district attorney,” King said. “They are the gatekeepers of America’s justice system.”
In the past several years, progressive newcomers have unseated conservative old-guard incumbents in places like Caddo Parish, Louisiana, Philadelphia, Houston, Denver and Jacksonville, to great effect.
The importance of diversifying the office of district attorney cannot be overstated. Across the country, 95 percent of district attorneys are white, and only 1 percent are women of color. Justice reform experts argue that the lack of representation for communities that are overpoliced, over-arrested and over-charged is a major factor in the mass incarceration of people of color. Across the U.S., grassroots efforts are underway to reshape the justice system by choosing new progressive leaders who reflect the communities they serve.
Women of color recently elected to the DA's office have already made huge strides in ending mass incarceration in their cities. “Aramis Ayala, the state’s attorney in Orlando, has implemented policies that reduced the number of children tried in adult court,” said Jessica Brand, legal director of the Fair Punishment Project. “Kim Foxx, Cook County’s first African-American female prosecutor, has implemented major changes to her county’s bail practices.”
2018 could bring a handful of progressive black women to the DA's office in California alone. Here are three of the most promising candidates.
1. Diana Becton
Former judge Diana Becton made history in the Bay Area last fall when she became the first African American and the first female DA in Contra Costa County, California, just north of San Francisco. Becton was appointed to the position as interim after her predecessor was ousted for illegally spending $66,000 in campaign finance money on personal expenses. She has since launched her campaign to hold the position permanently. In January, one of her rivals pulled out of the race and threw his support behind Becton.
As interim DA, Becton has show dedication to progressive goals like reforming the broken bail system, deprioritizing low-level offenses, and pursuing alternatives to juvenile lockup. “Mass incarceration is expensive, and has proven ineffective for achieving the most important goal, which is public safety,” she has said.
2. Geneviéve Jones-Wright
In San Diego County, in Southern California, Geneviéve Jones-Wright runs to outseat current DA Summer Stephan, whose politics the San Diego Free Press has said “enable a broken police culture placing the police first, not the victims, the defendants or justice.” The city has recently seen a rapid growth in its homeless population, many of whom have been targeted by police. In one highly publicized case, a police officer lied under oath about his reasons for arresting a homeless man last summer. Stephan’s critics say she has been reluctant to remove such officers.
Progressives in San Diego see Jones-Wright's candidacy as a significant departure from the city’s current system of back-door dealing. She told the Times of San Diego that her supporters are, “People who see the need for a criminal justice system that is informed by scientific research into the human condition, people who understand that mass incarceration is as expensive as it is inhumane."
“We cannot incarcerate our way out of crime,” Jones-Wright says on her campaign website. “We must reduce incarceration and reallocate the resources spent on our prisons to our schools, treatment, and victim services.”
3. Pamela Price
Pamela Price, a career civil rights attorney in Oakland's Alameda County, is challenging current district attorney Nancy O’Malley. A self-described survivor of foster care, Price is a Yale and Berkeley Law graduate with a record of advocating on behalf of communities of color and women. In 2002, she successfully argued a racial discrimination case against Amtrak before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Her 10-Point Platform includes progressive stances like opposition to the death penalty, support of immigrant communities facing persecution by ICE, and ending stop-and-frisk practices.
Price supports eliminating the cash bail system, which she says “criminalizes poverty and disproportionately hurts communities of color.” If elected DA, she says she would expand alternatives to prosecution and access to probation programs, rather than incarceration for low-level crimes. She has also vowed to “implement policies to break the school-to-prison pipeline and will end the practice of prosecuting children as adults,” her campaign website says. As the Oakland Post explains, Price believes a young person who vandalizes a bus should have an opportunity to clean buses rather than go to jail. “My thing is put a kid to work,” she told the outlet.
In the past several years, progressive newcomers have unseated conservative old-guard incumbents in places like Caddo Parish, Louisiana, Philadelphia, Houston, Denver and Jacksonville, to great effect.
The importance of diversifying the office of district attorney cannot be overstated. Across the country, 95 percent of district attorneys are white, and only 1 percent are women of color. Justice reform experts argue that the lack of representation for communities that are overpoliced, over-arrested and over-charged is a major factor in the mass incarceration of people of color. Across the U.S., grassroots efforts are underway to reshape the justice system by choosing new progressive leaders who reflect the communities they serve.
Women of color recently elected to the DA's office have already made huge strides in ending mass incarceration in their cities. “Aramis Ayala, the state’s attorney in Orlando, has implemented policies that reduced the number of children tried in adult court,” said Jessica Brand, legal director of the Fair Punishment Project. “Kim Foxx, Cook County’s first African-American female prosecutor, has implemented major changes to her county’s bail practices.”
2018 could bring a handful of progressive black women to the DA's office in California alone. Here are three of the most promising candidates.
1. Diana Becton
Former judge Diana Becton made history in the Bay Area last fall when she became the first African American and the first female DA in Contra Costa County, California, just north of San Francisco. Becton was appointed to the position as interim after her predecessor was ousted for illegally spending $66,000 in campaign finance money on personal expenses. She has since launched her campaign to hold the position permanently. In January, one of her rivals pulled out of the race and threw his support behind Becton.
As interim DA, Becton has show dedication to progressive goals like reforming the broken bail system, deprioritizing low-level offenses, and pursuing alternatives to juvenile lockup. “Mass incarceration is expensive, and has proven ineffective for achieving the most important goal, which is public safety,” she has said.
2. Geneviéve Jones-Wright
In San Diego County, in Southern California, Geneviéve Jones-Wright runs to outseat current DA Summer Stephan, whose politics the San Diego Free Press has said “enable a broken police culture placing the police first, not the victims, the defendants or justice.” The city has recently seen a rapid growth in its homeless population, many of whom have been targeted by police. In one highly publicized case, a police officer lied under oath about his reasons for arresting a homeless man last summer. Stephan’s critics say she has been reluctant to remove such officers.
Progressives in San Diego see Jones-Wright's candidacy as a significant departure from the city’s current system of back-door dealing. She told the Times of San Diego that her supporters are, “People who see the need for a criminal justice system that is informed by scientific research into the human condition, people who understand that mass incarceration is as expensive as it is inhumane."
“We cannot incarcerate our way out of crime,” Jones-Wright says on her campaign website. “We must reduce incarceration and reallocate the resources spent on our prisons to our schools, treatment, and victim services.”
3. Pamela Price
Pamela Price, a career civil rights attorney in Oakland's Alameda County, is challenging current district attorney Nancy O’Malley. A self-described survivor of foster care, Price is a Yale and Berkeley Law graduate with a record of advocating on behalf of communities of color and women. In 2002, she successfully argued a racial discrimination case against Amtrak before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Her 10-Point Platform includes progressive stances like opposition to the death penalty, support of immigrant communities facing persecution by ICE, and ending stop-and-frisk practices.
Price supports eliminating the cash bail system, which she says “criminalizes poverty and disproportionately hurts communities of color.” If elected DA, she says she would expand alternatives to prosecution and access to probation programs, rather than incarceration for low-level crimes. She has also vowed to “implement policies to break the school-to-prison pipeline and will end the practice of prosecuting children as adults,” her campaign website says. As the Oakland Post explains, Price believes a young person who vandalizes a bus should have an opportunity to clean buses rather than go to jail. “My thing is put a kid to work,” she told the outlet.
|
|
Record number of Native American women to run in 2018 midterm polls
Voice of America - raw story
01 MAR 2018 AT 07:21 ET
Native Americans are underrepresented in Washington's corridors of power. Three known Native Americans have served in the Senate and fewer than 20 in the House of Representatives. But three Native American women are running in 2018 midterm elections, widely viewed as a pivotal vote that could not only tip the balance of power but strengthen Native American voices in lawmaking.
Debra Haaland
Debra Haaland, 57, a Democrat and member of the San Felipe Pueblo, hopes to represent New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District in Congress.
Haaland served as the state’s Native American vote director during then-President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign. She is credited with getting a 60 percent voter turnout from Native American precincts, nearly 90 percent of which voted for Obama.
Haaland went on to become the first Native American woman to chair the Democratic Party of New Mexico. In 2014, she failed in a bid to become New Mexico’s lieutenant governor, losing to the Republican incumbent.
Haaland has served as the San Felipe Pueblo’s tribal administrator and was the first woman on the Laguna Development Corporation's board of directors in Albuquerque.
Haaland is an outspoken critic of U.S. President Donald Trump.
“The Trump administration is the worst nightmare to happen to the environment in decades,” she said. “And then we’ve got the Bureau of Land Management working overtime to sell off leases to lands so that people can frack. And they’re doing that near Chaco Canyon, my ancestral homeland and a treasure to every single New Mexican and every single American.”
This University of New Mexico law school graduate is also critical of Trump’s immigration policy.
“I’m ready to go to bat for any immigrant in my community who is in fear of being deported,” she said. “The worst thing about this whole turning ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] on communities is that it splits up families. And I come from a community of people whose families have been split up enough by governmental policies, and that should never happen.”
Sharice Davids
Sharice Davids, 37, is a member of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and a Democrat. She is among seven candidates looking to represent Kansas’ Third Congressional District in Washington. A graduate of Cornell Law school, she began her career as a corporate transactional attorney and later moved to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, where she developed an entrepreneurship curriculum for the Red Cloud Indian School and served as deputy director of the Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation. She also started a Native American-owned and operated coffee company.
“We found a way to source the coffee from small farms that were co-oped and from indigenous coffee growers,” she said. “And we also focused on teaching women entrepreneurial and leadership skills.”
In 2016, Davids served as a White House Fellow, assigned to the Department of Transportation.
“I worked on a number of community engagement, transparency and community education initiatives aimed at helping inform people on how decisions are made, who makes the decisions, how can they get involved in the decision making process.” She said the knowledge will serve her well in Congress.
In Washington, Davids said she would work to protect undocumented immigrants who have worked and contributed to U.S. communities. She would also focus on protecting natural resources and implementing gun safety laws to avoid tragedies such as the recent school shooting in Florida.
Eve Reyes-Aguirre
Eve Reyes-Aguirre, 42, an Izkaloteka Mexican Native from Phoenix, is the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate. She calls herself an “unconventional politician,” and refuses to accept funding from corporate giants or special interest groups.
“It’s not about me as an individual or even as a candidate. It’s about the issues that are affecting our communities, our families, everyday citizens and even non-citizens alike,” she said.
The environment figures heavily in her platform.
“I think people don’t grasp the gravity of deregulating and opening up areas to mining and fossil fuel extraction. As an indigenous woman, that’s been something that we have been fighting against for many generations.”
But this isn’t just an indigenous issue, she said.
“We are seeing how corporations and the lack of regulation are affecting the drinking water for everybody. These are human issues. And they are issues that are going to affect our children and their children if we don’t do something about it,” she said.
Reyes-Aguirre said she believes that in tackling immigration, the U.S. government should look at some of its own policies.
“We’ve noticed an influx of migration, particularly from Mexico and the South. I think that we need to start looking at the root problems and not just try to fix those issues with band aids, like the wall,” she said. “Those folks who are fleeing from violence, I call them economic refugees because of trade agreements that U.S. corporations are benefiting from.”
Reyes-Aguirre has never held political office, but represented the women of her community at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues from 2009 to 2017 and co-chaired the Global Indigenous Women’s Caucus until last year.
The 2018 midterm election will decide all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 34 of 100 U.S. Senate seats. It is widely viewed as a critical test of Trump and the conservative legislative agenda.
Debra Haaland
Debra Haaland, 57, a Democrat and member of the San Felipe Pueblo, hopes to represent New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District in Congress.
Haaland served as the state’s Native American vote director during then-President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign. She is credited with getting a 60 percent voter turnout from Native American precincts, nearly 90 percent of which voted for Obama.
Haaland went on to become the first Native American woman to chair the Democratic Party of New Mexico. In 2014, she failed in a bid to become New Mexico’s lieutenant governor, losing to the Republican incumbent.
Haaland has served as the San Felipe Pueblo’s tribal administrator and was the first woman on the Laguna Development Corporation's board of directors in Albuquerque.
Haaland is an outspoken critic of U.S. President Donald Trump.
“The Trump administration is the worst nightmare to happen to the environment in decades,” she said. “And then we’ve got the Bureau of Land Management working overtime to sell off leases to lands so that people can frack. And they’re doing that near Chaco Canyon, my ancestral homeland and a treasure to every single New Mexican and every single American.”
This University of New Mexico law school graduate is also critical of Trump’s immigration policy.
“I’m ready to go to bat for any immigrant in my community who is in fear of being deported,” she said. “The worst thing about this whole turning ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] on communities is that it splits up families. And I come from a community of people whose families have been split up enough by governmental policies, and that should never happen.”
Sharice Davids
Sharice Davids, 37, is a member of the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin and a Democrat. She is among seven candidates looking to represent Kansas’ Third Congressional District in Washington. A graduate of Cornell Law school, she began her career as a corporate transactional attorney and later moved to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, where she developed an entrepreneurship curriculum for the Red Cloud Indian School and served as deputy director of the Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation. She also started a Native American-owned and operated coffee company.
“We found a way to source the coffee from small farms that were co-oped and from indigenous coffee growers,” she said. “And we also focused on teaching women entrepreneurial and leadership skills.”
In 2016, Davids served as a White House Fellow, assigned to the Department of Transportation.
“I worked on a number of community engagement, transparency and community education initiatives aimed at helping inform people on how decisions are made, who makes the decisions, how can they get involved in the decision making process.” She said the knowledge will serve her well in Congress.
In Washington, Davids said she would work to protect undocumented immigrants who have worked and contributed to U.S. communities. She would also focus on protecting natural resources and implementing gun safety laws to avoid tragedies such as the recent school shooting in Florida.
Eve Reyes-Aguirre
Eve Reyes-Aguirre, 42, an Izkaloteka Mexican Native from Phoenix, is the Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate. She calls herself an “unconventional politician,” and refuses to accept funding from corporate giants or special interest groups.
“It’s not about me as an individual or even as a candidate. It’s about the issues that are affecting our communities, our families, everyday citizens and even non-citizens alike,” she said.
The environment figures heavily in her platform.
“I think people don’t grasp the gravity of deregulating and opening up areas to mining and fossil fuel extraction. As an indigenous woman, that’s been something that we have been fighting against for many generations.”
But this isn’t just an indigenous issue, she said.
“We are seeing how corporations and the lack of regulation are affecting the drinking water for everybody. These are human issues. And they are issues that are going to affect our children and their children if we don’t do something about it,” she said.
Reyes-Aguirre said she believes that in tackling immigration, the U.S. government should look at some of its own policies.
“We’ve noticed an influx of migration, particularly from Mexico and the South. I think that we need to start looking at the root problems and not just try to fix those issues with band aids, like the wall,” she said. “Those folks who are fleeing from violence, I call them economic refugees because of trade agreements that U.S. corporations are benefiting from.”
Reyes-Aguirre has never held political office, but represented the women of her community at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues from 2009 to 2017 and co-chaired the Global Indigenous Women’s Caucus until last year.
The 2018 midterm election will decide all 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 34 of 100 U.S. Senate seats. It is widely viewed as a critical test of Trump and the conservative legislative agenda.
election funnies, etc
|
|
map of the hypocrites!!!
The Daily Kos Elections guide to the nation's religious populations, by congressional district
By David Jarman
Sunday Jan 07, 2018 · 5:15 PM PST
Religion is one of the driving forces in American culture; it always has been, and continues to do so even as American religiosity, in general, has declined. It tends not to loom as large as race in the American consciousness, but it’s still one of the main ways that Americans tend to identify themselves, and to divide themselves along “us” and “them” boundaries.
More specifically, religion is something that tends to correlate with, and be predictive of, one’s politics. This is especially the case in an era where cultural issues supplant economic issues in many people’s ideological framework. If you genuinely believe, for instance, that abortion means killing people, that often creates a moral imperative against which, say, your marginal tax rate pales in comparison.
You probably have a vague idea of which parts of the country are more religiously active, and where religion is more suffused into local politics (usually taking it in a more conservative direction), versus which parts of the country are more laissez-faire about religion and about social issues in general. You may also have a general sense of, say, which parts of the country are more likely to be Southern Baptist or Catholic or Lutheran; you may have even seen state or even county-level maps that depict this. What I’m doing in this article that hasn’t been done before, though, is to quantitatively show those differences at the level of congressional districts, where much of our politics actually happens, so we can get a better sense of how religiosity corresponds with people’s electoral choices.
I’ve put together a spreadsheet that covers every CD, and what percentage of each CD’s residents belong to which religious tradition and denomination. One additional advantage of using district-level data is that it, as seen above, it lets us use the Daily Kos Elections 435-CD cartogram map, which breaks out the nation’s metropolitan areas into proper focus, and de-emphasizes the nation’s empty spaces (which has the effect of not making the country seem more evangelical, or more Mormon, than it actually is). As we continue, we’ll talk more about the methods and limitations behind these maps, and then zoom in on some additional data for certain denominations. Read More
More specifically, religion is something that tends to correlate with, and be predictive of, one’s politics. This is especially the case in an era where cultural issues supplant economic issues in many people’s ideological framework. If you genuinely believe, for instance, that abortion means killing people, that often creates a moral imperative against which, say, your marginal tax rate pales in comparison.
You probably have a vague idea of which parts of the country are more religiously active, and where religion is more suffused into local politics (usually taking it in a more conservative direction), versus which parts of the country are more laissez-faire about religion and about social issues in general. You may also have a general sense of, say, which parts of the country are more likely to be Southern Baptist or Catholic or Lutheran; you may have even seen state or even county-level maps that depict this. What I’m doing in this article that hasn’t been done before, though, is to quantitatively show those differences at the level of congressional districts, where much of our politics actually happens, so we can get a better sense of how religiosity corresponds with people’s electoral choices.
I’ve put together a spreadsheet that covers every CD, and what percentage of each CD’s residents belong to which religious tradition and denomination. One additional advantage of using district-level data is that it, as seen above, it lets us use the Daily Kos Elections 435-CD cartogram map, which breaks out the nation’s metropolitan areas into proper focus, and de-emphasizes the nation’s empty spaces (which has the effect of not making the country seem more evangelical, or more Mormon, than it actually is). As we continue, we’ll talk more about the methods and limitations behind these maps, and then zoom in on some additional data for certain denominations. Read More
Map Porn: If "Did Not Vote" Was a Candidate...
NeoGreen
From Demo. Underground: ... posted in response to all those who want to blame their friends and neighbors who did their civic duty and opted to vote:
what stupid americans voted for
*destruction of medicare, social security, obamacare, abolition of women's rights
*keystone pipeline renewed
*dapl will be finished and destroy indian burial grounds and missouri river
*lower taxes for rich, death of social safety net
*destruction of public schools
*high probability of middle east war
*more racism, discrimination, and injustice
*thieves and conmen running the federal government
*no minimum wage hikes
*cut in food stamps, more starving poor children and families
elections do matter
when you allow a piece of shit to win office, don't be surprised when your state starts to smell
*gop plans in the house: The entire rest of the party is committed to gigantic cuts to welfare, as shown by the budget formulated by House Republicans. Their most recent plan would slash $5.3 trillion in spending over a decade, 69 percent of which would come from programs for the needy.
"THE ARKANSAS TRAVELLER" 1840
AN ELITE POLITICIAN CANVASSING IN THE BACKCOUNTRY ASKS A SQUATTER FOR REFRESHMENTS. THE SQUATTER, SEATED ON A WHISKEY BARREL BEFORE HIS RUN-DOWN CABIN, IGNORES THE MAN'S REQUEST. FOR A BRIEF INTERLUDE(BECAUSE IT WAS ELECTION SEASON), THE POLITICIAN WAS OBLIGED TO BRING HIMSELF DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF THE COMMON MAN. TO GET HIS DRINK AND THE SQUATTER'S VOTE, THE POLITICIAN, HAD TO DISMOUNT HIS HORSE, GRAB THE SQUATTER'S FIDDLE, AND SHOW THAT HE COULD PLAY HIS KIND OF MUSIC. ONCE THE POLITICIAN RETURNED TO HIS MANSION, HOWEVER, NOTHING CHANGED IN THE LIFE OF THE SQUATTER, NOR FOR HIS DRUDGE OF A WIFE AND HIS BROOD OF DIRTY, SHOELESS BRATS.
Henry A. Giroux
Trump is simply the most visible and vocal member of a fractured party made up of frightened Americans, religious fundamentalists, and self-serving economic extremists who believe that the market should arbitrate and dominate all aspects of government and society. Trump represents a new form of social disorder -- intolerant, authoritarian, and violent -- that sees preventable inequality as part of the natural order of things. Guns, walls, laws, surveillance, prisons, media, and wars are there to serve the interest of the wealthy winners, and to keep the rest of the population in check. Bankers who commit theft, fraud, and acts of economic mass destruction never feel the cold steel of handcuffs tighten on their wrists. Corporate suspects never get shot down accidently in the streets, as do unarmed Blacks, by white cops who feel threatened by skin color. Trump's rise reinforces these injustices and gives anxious whites a boastful businessman and TV celebrity to rule as their strongman.
The State Of America’s Voting Rights, In One Map
Power has shifted.
by Ian Millhiserby
From Think Progress: The Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that it would not reinstate North Carolina’s comprehensive voter suppression law, and the big headlines out of this announcement rightly touted this decision as good news for voting rights. Just below the surface, however, this order has ominous news for many Americans.
In 2016, a voter’s right to the franchise — even when that right is protected by the Constitution itself — may not amount to much if they do not live in the right state...
...Below is a map of the federal appellate circuits, the level of federal court below the Supreme Court, which predicts how these courts are likely to vote in voting rights cases. Dark blue circuits are dominated by left-of-center judges and are likely to be strong supporters of voting rights, while dark red circuits are the opposite. Lighter colored circuits still lean to the left or to the right on voting rights, but are more ideologically mixed.
In 2016, a voter’s right to the franchise — even when that right is protected by the Constitution itself — may not amount to much if they do not live in the right state...
...Below is a map of the federal appellate circuits, the level of federal court below the Supreme Court, which predicts how these courts are likely to vote in voting rights cases. Dark blue circuits are dominated by left-of-center judges and are likely to be strong supporters of voting rights, while dark red circuits are the opposite. Lighter colored circuits still lean to the left or to the right on voting rights, but are more ideologically mixed.
In coloring this map, I made several judgment calls. The Seventh Circuit, for example, is colored white because, although a majority of its judges were appointed by Republicans, two of its GOP-appointed members have broken with their more conservative colleagues in at least one major voting rights case. The Eleventh Circuit is colored light blue, despite the fact that Democratic appointees enjoy a significant advantage, because several of the judges on this court were appointed due to a compromise between a Democratic president and Republican senators — and at least one of these appointees is very conservative. The Fifth Circuit is coded light red because, although Republican appointees dominate this court, the full court recently held that Texas’s voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act.[...]
