Rachel Maddow explained what the GOP is doing now-- in Texas, Georgia, Florida, Iowa, Ohio... in virtually every state they control-- to re-institue Jim Crow-era election laws to suppress the black vote. If you missed her show Friday night, you really show watch the video above. It's 2021 and the Republicans are desperate to prevent Democrats-- particularly Blacks, Hispanics, poor people, young people-- from voting. So they're passing votes to circumvent the constitutional protections, just as they did after Reconstruction. Back then, there was no law that said, "Blacks can't vote." Instead their were poll taxes and literacy tests that were devised to prevent Blacks from voting. Racist conservatives across the South-- and everywhere where they control legislatures-- are up to their old tricks.
This morning NY Times reporters Reid Epstein and Nick Corasaniti wrote about what grassroots Democrats-- not political leaders-- are doing to fight the racist conservatives and goad their own leaders into taking action. They are, wrote Epstein and Corasaniti "struggling to build a surefire legal strategy to block new Republican-backed restrictions on voting rights, relying on broadly worded warnings and urgent pleas that are designed, in part, to build political pressure on the White House, Congress and the Justice Department to act, as well as to engage their supporters to mobilize in advance of the 2022 midterm elections. The approach is aimed at persuading recalcitrant Senate Democrats in Washington to pass a sweeping federal elections bill, painting the new Republican laws in the news media as suspect on arrival, and convincing the swing voters who last year helped elect President Biden that the GOP is more interested in fixing elections for itself than in winning those voters back."
Republican laws passed in Georgia and Florida, along with a bill advancing in Texas, have so many new provisions that Democrats find troublesome both politically and legally that it is proving overwhelming to confront the measures one by one in court. Instead, the liberal push has become more focused on political outreach to ensure that progressive voters are sufficiently outraged about the new laws to apply pressure on senators and get out the vote next year.
“No one is going to file a 2,000-page brief,” said Myrna Pérez, the director of the voting rights and elections program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank. “The energy spent educating voters about what’s going on, and then energy spent trying to stop it, is consuming resources from the bread-and-butter work that groups like mine do.”
Many of the voting bills have been able to sail through Republican-controlled legislatures because the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, which hollowed out the “preclearance” provision that required certain states, mostly in the South, to gain federal approval before making changes to voting laws.
With the Voting Rights Act now far weaker, voting rights activists say that litigation is often the only way to fight new restrictions, and an imperfect one at that.
“Case-by-case litigation in the voting context is time-consuming, costly, and ultimately inadequate because even if you win a case, frequently these kinds of laws remain on the books for one or more election cycle before litigation can be complete, and there’s no way to compensate people after the fact,” said Dale Ho, the director of the Voting Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, which litigated several major cases last year.
Beyond lawsuits, Democrats are grappling with the long-term question of how to make crucial gains in GOP-led legislatures where state demographics, years of gerrymandering and the prospect of Republicans mapping themselves into another decade of control when redistricting takes place later this year have given conservatives a nearly unbreakable grip on power.
In Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the state’s new voting law on Thursday, Democrats are reckoning with decades of party disinvestment in down-ballot elections and issuing dire warnings that nothing will improve without wholesale changes in how the party invests in local contests.
Raymond Paultre, the executive director of the Florida Alliance, an often secretive network of progressive donors that has in the past been at odds with the Florida Democratic Party, said on Friday that the new laws in Georgia and Florida and the bill advanced by Texas Republicans illustrated the need for more resources to be directed to state legislative races.
“We are living in and through sort of the remnants and results of a lack of investments in state infrastructure for the last 30 years,” Mr. Paultre said. “We don’t have a clear way of stopping these bills. Let’s use this as a wake-up call. Let’s get as upset with ourselves as we are with the Republicans.”
At the same time, Florida Democrats are already envisioning how they will use the new law as part of their campaigns in the midterm elections to paint Republicans as being opposed to Black and Hispanic people’s right to vote.
“People want us to push back,” said Fentrice Driskell, a state representative from Tampa. “We recognize that the ’22 election cycle will be a great opportunity to try and do that.”
Democrats’ legal case against the Florida law, filed by the party’s top election lawyer, Marc Elias, argues that the legislation violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, and the 14th Amendment on the grounds that it would adversely affect people of color. Another suit, filed on Thursday by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, also argues that the law violates the First and 14th Amendments, as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act-- because many drop boxes are likely to be moved to indoor locations that are inaccessible to people with disabilities.
Sam Spital, the director of litigation for the legal defense fund, said that while he believed the lawsuits would prevail, the only comprehensive solution to Republican efforts to restrict voting would come from the federal government-- both Congress and the Justice Department.
“It is incumbent upon Congress to exercise its authority to make sure that we’re not going to have this kind of voter suppression,” he said.
Mr. Elias said he was seeking to make the legal case that the Florida law violates First Amendment free speech rights because it restricts what voters can be told when they register to vote. The 14th Amendment argument is that the law violates Supreme Court doctrine known as the Anderson-Burdick test, which requires courts to balance new burdens on voters against the benefits that the state claims are being added to its voting system.
Mr. Elias makes his legal case daily on Twitter, where he promotes his Democracy Docket website and, on Friday afternoon, hosted a 40-minute live chat on Twitter Spaces, the site’s live audio chat feature, in which he explained civil rights and election laws to about 170 people who tuned in.
The numerous lawsuits from Mr. Elias and others have not rattled the Republican National Committee’s legal team, which views them as an effort to drum up outrage as much as a legal challenge. And, they argue, the lawsuits will be very hard to prove.
“The state is going to need to basically provide a justification that outweighs any potential burden on the right to vote,” said Justin Riemer, the chief counsel for the R.N.C. “And the fact of the matter is, the Democrats will be unable to provide evidence that shows that these laws actually impair voting rights and make it harder to vote.”
Instead, Mr. Riemer saw the lawsuits as an attempt to force Democrats in Washington to act.
“They’re trying to have Congress solve the problem for them by actually imposing a new legal standard for bringing these claims,” Mr. Riemer said.
This morning stay Florida state Rep Angie Nixon (D-Jacksonville) told me that "The time to agitate and get organized is now. We can no longer participate in respectability politics. It’s gotten our communities nowhere but further in debt, a lack of access to affordable housing and quality healthcare and now voter suppression and damn near the inability to protest. This was strategic and can no longer play nice. We have to fight back and at all costs."
Another prominent Florida political leader, Alan Grayson, a former Orlando congressman currently getting ready to declare his candidacy for the US Senate seat occupied by Marco Rubio, pointed out that the "DOJ’s Civil Rights Division-- the Voting Section, specifically-- should have filed 15 lawsuits against these laws already. This is one reason why we have a federal government: to keep state governments from discriminating. For goodness’s sake, it’s in the Constitution. Article I, Section 4."
In Texas, a flurry of late amendments and procedural moves were still unable to halt the Republican bill from being passed at 3 a.m. on Friday. The bill, which became slightly less restrictive after the late-night adjustments, still greatly empowers partisan poll watchers, bars election officials from proactively mailing out absentee ballots, and sets strict punishments for election officials who run afoul of regulations while helping voters who require assistance.
Hours after the bill passed, Democrats in Texas looked to Congress for help.
“Democrats will continue to work together to quickly pass federal legislation that ensures the rights of the people to vote are protected in all 50 states,” said Gilberto Hinojosa, the chairman of the Texas Democratic Party.
In the hours between Mr. DeSantis’s signing of the Florida law and Texas House Republicans’ passing their voting bill early Friday, progressive groups spoke out about their desire for Congress to pass Democrats’ big election bills, the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
The For the People Act, which is far broader, would mandate national automatic voter registration and no-excuse early voting and mail-in voting; neuter restrictive state voter identification laws; and create independent redistricting commissions for congressional districts and new dark-money transparency measures. The John Lewis act would reinstitute the federal preclearance requirement for changing election laws.
The For the People Act has passed the House and remains stalled in the Senate, where Democrats lack both 60 votes to avoid a filibuster and an agreement among themselves over whether the legislation can proceed with a simple majority vote. The John Lewis bill has not yet passed the House.
Representative John Sarbanes, a Democrat from Maryland who serves as chairman of the party’s Democracy Reform task force, said Friday that congressional Democrats’ voting legislation, if enacted, would carry more weight than any court victory could.
“There will be court decisions and challenges in the future,” he said, “but what we’re really trying to do is reset the table on what our democracy looks like.”