Latest news with #AllVotingisLocal
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Commentary: Pennsylvania is in dire need of more in-person early voting options
Georgia is among the battleground states that since the 2020 presidential election has enacted new laws that could restrict voting access. (Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder) Pennsylvania voters have been given a raw deal when it comes to early voting options. As we head into another round of municipal elections, voters across the Commonwealth again face the dilemma of whether or not they should stand in long lines to cast their ballots early. Although the problem is worse in some counties than others, it is unacceptable anywhere. Pennsylvania's current no-excuse mail ballot system is a good idea on paper, but the long lines early voters face are due to the fact that many voters are filling out their mail ballots in person before they turn them in, likely because they want to ensure they are filled out correctly and will, therefore, be counted. Therefore, in a state where nearly half of all counties don't even have a ballot drop box, a strong, well-funded, and complementary-to-no-excuse-mail-ballots system that encourages early voting done in person is an absolute must. Currently, our counties are not equipped to handle the volume of voters trying to cast their ballots before Election Day because our no-excuse mail ballot system isn't designed for accessible in-person voting. We need more. The fact that voters are so eager to vote early is exactly why we need a modernized system that can meet this overwhelming demand. Without the infrastructure in place for true early voting, not only do Pennsylvania voters have to suffer through long lines, but it also causes unnecessary stress on our election workers who already face enormous challenges. Election workers and voters deserve a process that is as efficient, safe, and accessible as possible—one that ensures every voter has a fair chance to have their voice heard. The solution is obvious: Pennsylvania needs to establish an official system for in-person early voting. This would allow voters to vote on machines in the same way they would on election day, but with the flexibility to do so ahead of time. To make this a reality, our election offices need to be fully funded and staffed to meet the demand. It's not just a nice-to-have option; it's a necessity to ensure that Pennsylvania's election system actually works for voters and election workers – and that democracy includes all of us. This is not some far-fetched idea, either. Pennsylvania leaders can look to nearby states that have provided a clear blueprint for success. In Michigan, where in-person early voting was implemented in time for last year's general election, there was a marked increase in voter turnout before Election Day. According to a recent data analysis released by my organization, All Voting is Local, more than 58 percent of Michigan voters cast their ballots before Election Day in 2024. Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, only 27 percent of voters cast their ballots early. This difference is not just a statistic. It's a sign that having a statewide plan works when it comes to early voting. In Michigan, the establishment of early voting polling locations allowed voters to cast their ballots ahead of time and reduced long lines on Election Day itself. This increase in early voting turnout wasn't limited to one political party or one region—it was a broad, statewide trend. When early voting options are made accessible, voters from all walks of life take advantage of them, because let's not mince words: long lines are a form of suppression that can deter voters from casting their ballots. Pennsylvania voters want more voting options, a fact that was made crystal clear in November as they stood in hours-long lines both before and on Election Day. They want to be able to cast their ballots securely without having to wait in line for hours. Most importantly, they want a system that ensures they have a voice in their own democracy. Without in-person early voting, the voters most impacted will be parents, students, and all working-class folks who often don't have time to wait in voting lines. Although the lack of in-person early voting disproportionately affects these voters, it's an issue that impacts all voters. The problem needs to be addressed before voters find themselves standing in long lines again. Fortunately, we know what the solution is to the problem. This is where Pennsylvania legislators have an opportunity. The window to make meaningful changes to our election code is now. By implementing in-person early voting, Pennsylvania can not only ensure greater voter turnout but also ensure that all voters—regardless of their background—have a fair shot at participating in our democracy. We've seen it work elsewhere, and we know it can work here. Without this change, Pennsylvania voters will continue to face long lines and frustration at the polls. Our election officials will continue to struggle with an outdated system that isn't equipped to meet the needs of today's electorate. Without immediate action, we will fail to meet the moment and risk disenfranchising voters in a state that prides itself on being a critical battleground in national elections. In Pennsylvania, we have the power to make our election system better, more inclusive, and more accessible. But this change can only happen if our leaders in the state legislature act now to make real early voting options a reality. Let's ensure that every Pennsylvanian has the opportunity to cast their ballot early without unnecessary hurdles. It's time for Pennsylvania to put in place a system that works for everyone. Deborah Rose Hinchey is the Pennsylvania State Director for All Voting is Local.
Yahoo
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
An effort to block non-citizens from voting could impact married women, too
Millions of American women have a different last name than what's on their birth certificates, and House Republicans have prioritized a bill that voting rights groups say could make it harder for them to vote. Several voting rights groups warn the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act — which purportedly aims is to block non-citizens from voting, something that is already illegal — will pose a barrier for millions of American women and others who have changed their legal name because of marriage or to better align with their gender identity. They also worry it will disenfranchise others from marginalized communities who are less likely to have the necessary documentation readily available. While the SAVE Act faces longer odds in the Senate, it may have a better chance than when it was debated last year. 'It will make it so that people in this country who have every right to vote can't vote, and for no good reason,' said Hannah Fried, co-founder and executive director of All Voting is Local, a voting rights organization. 'We don't need this hurdle. Only citizens are voting in this country. We have other checks and balances, and this is just a demonstrably unnecessary piece of legislation.' Lauren Kunis, the CEO and executive director of VoteRiders, an organization that helps Americans obtain identification, said that getting the underlying documentation needed to register to vote can be a 'bureaucratic nightmare' for many as is. 'We have lots of experience in helping people track down and order vital documents that are increasingly being proposed as required for voter registration,' she said. 'So we're watching with a lot of concern.' A key Republican lawmaker who is sponsoring the bill in the House and the GOP majority on the House committee overseeing election administration dispute that characterization and claim there will be a way for American citizens to address issues they may face with identification. 'The legislation provides a myriad ways for people to prove citizenship and explicitly directs States to establish a process for individuals to register to vote if there are discrepancies in their proof of citizenship documents due to something like a name change,' said Rep. Chip Roy of Texas in a statement. Roy and other Republicans have followed the lead of President Donald Trump in spreading the false narrative that ineligible immigrants vote or could be able to vote in large numbers. States have also attempted legislation to ban something that is already illegal. Laws similar to the SAVE Act in Kansas and Arizona have been struck down by judges who said they were unconstitutional and disenfranchised Americans. 'This is giving oxygen to a misleading narrative, to an outright lie that noncitizens are voting in federal elections,' Kunis said. 'We know that is not happening, and it's really disappointing to see this narrative being given such a prominent spot in the public discourse.' The bill would require an individual to present in person a passport, birth certificate or other citizenship document when registering to vote or updating their voter registration information. Such a requirement could pose barriers for large swaths of Americans: More than 9 percent of citizens of voting age — or 21.3 million people — do not have documents readily available that prove their citizenship, per a study from VoteRiders, Public Wise, the Brennan Center for Justice and the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland. People of color are more likely than White Americans to lack documentary proof of citizenship, the study found. Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America, a voting rights organization, noted the impact of such a bill on rural voters who may not have access to proof of citizenship. 'In pushing this legislation, House Republicans — between poor and rural voters and married women — ironically seem to be attacking the voting rights of many of their own folks who are voting for them in their states,' she said. An estimated 69 million American women and 4 million men do not have a birth certificate that matches their current legal name, according to the liberal Center for American Progress. Roy, a sponsor of the bill, said the legislation directs states to create a process so people can prove their citizenship if their name doesn't match their birth certificate. Roy called questions about the bill's impact on Americans 'absurd armchair speculation.' 'This bill isn't being attacked because it'll exclude citizens from voting — it won't,' Roy said in his statement. 'It's being attacked because the policy is wildly popular with the American people, its opponents want and need illegals to vote, and they'll use anything they can to attack it.' In a statement, a spokesperson for the Republican majority on the House Committee on Administration also called claims that the bill would disenfranchise married women voters 'false.' 'As long as documentation can be provided that shows citizenship and married status, there should not be any issues when registering to vote,' the spokesperson said. 'Providing proof of citizenship is not a new concept.' House Democrats, for their part, are reintroducing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, a bill to restore provisions of the landmark voting rights law that the Supreme Court struck down in 2013. The bill has little to no chance of passing in a Republican-controlled Congress, but Democratic leaders are centering voting rights in their messaging. At a news conference Wednesday, House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark called the SAVE Act an effort to 'trick and mislead' the American people. 'It is built on a false premise that there are noncitizens voting in large numbers that are swaying elections. That is a complete lie, and they know it,' she said. 'And what is the answer to that? Make it harder for women in this country to vote, who changed their names because they got married? That is voter suppression wrapped up in some sort of immigration argument.' Eliza Sweren-Becker, senior counsel for the voting rights program at the Brennan Center for Justice, said that text does not establish clear rules for people who have changed their names, particularly married women. It would eliminate popular methods of voter registration, such as online, mail, and registration drives — forcing people to come into election offices that are already facing staffing shortages, according to Sweren-Becker. 'That would be an extraordinary burden and absolute chaos for election officials,' reshaping who is able to participate in the democratic process, she said. 'It would make new voter registration so difficult, it would make updating your voter registration so difficult — that is why we absolutely need to raise awareness of the disastrous implications of this bill,' Kunis said. Harvey added that the bill includes penalties for election workers — a predominantly women-led workforce that has already experienced years of harassment and threats due in part to election denialism pushed by Trump and others — who must administer and enforce the law and any rules spelled out on discrepancies in paperwork. 'So any thought that, 'Oh, well, my local election workers know me,' or 'If I just go in to change my address, it would be fine because I've been voting in this state or county for years' — that's not going to happen when our election workers are actually facing jail time if they get it wrong and don't impose this law,' she said. Kunis said the discussion over the SAVE Act, and similar bills filed in state legislatures, strikes at the heart of key questions of who belongs in American democracy. 'The 2026 midterms may seem very far away, but these legislative debates taking place right now will shape how and if eligible voters are able to make their voices heard,' Kunis said. 'This is not just moving the goal posts — this is like ripping the goal post out of the field and throwing it to the next town over.' The post An effort to block non-citizens from voting could impact married women, too appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Miami Herald
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
How Florida Legislature could change the rules for petition-led ballot questions
Florida's Legislature is eyeing changes to the ballot initiative process after last year's intense fight over two proposed amendments on abortion access and recreational marijuana. Opponents say the bill would consolidate more power in the hands of Tallahassee and monied special interests. Proponents say the changes ensure the integrity of the process and keep out-of-state special interests out. Florida's ballot initiative process, a right guaranteed in the constitution, has long been used by groups to pass measures that have been otherwise stymied by state lawmakers. It's how Florida got a $15 minimum wage, medical marijuana and felon voter restoration. The process is among the hardest of any of the 24 states that allow citizens to directly amend their laws or constitution. Legislative changes have made the process in Florida harder and costlier in recent years. HB 1205 would continue that trend, about a dozen public commenters warned during the bill's first committee meeting Thursday. They pointed to the bill's requirement that sponsors put up a $1 million bond before collecting any petitions, as well as its proposals to increase fines, add new requirements and tighten the window to return petitions. But Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, R-Fort Myers, the bill sponsor, argued that her proposal was the way to keep the ballot initiative process so that 'only those with a stake in our constitution can change it.' The legislation comes on the heels of two high-profile failed constitutional amendments heavily opposed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and state Republicans: Amendment 3, which would have allowed for recreational marijuana use, and Amendment 4, which would have protected abortion access and undone the state's six-week abortion ban. When talking about her motivations for filing the bill, Persons-Mulicka pointed to a state report that alleged widespread fraud in the abortion amendment campaign. Critics of the state's report accused DeSantis' administration of applying uneven scrutiny toward a campaign he disliked. Her bill changes the law to require that all petition collectors — both paid workers and volunteers — be Florida residents, citizens and not have certain felony convictions. Persons-Mulicka's bill would also require that all petitions collected be turned into a supervisor of elections office within 10 days, down from the current 30-day window. Related fines for being late would be increased. It also would allow fraud related to petitions to be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act. Brad Ashwell, the Florida director of All Voting is Local, said the bill's proposals would have a 'pretty serious chilling effect' on an ordinary campaign's ability to move forward but could be easily overcome by well-off groups. 'It puts the process more firmly in the hands of those who have the resources, who have the wealth,' Ashwell said. Rich Templin, political director for the Florida AFL-CIO, said that over the last two decades, Florida's petition process has become cost-prohibitive for grassroots efforts — which he said was the Legislature's design. 'These bills are only filed after something happens at the ballot box that the majority in the Capitol doesn't like,' he said. Templin said the Legislature began making major changes after a 2004 minimum wage amendment passed. One of those changes required that signatures expire in a shorter time frame. In order to get the nearly 900,000 needed petitions in a tight window, Templin said campaigns need to rely on paid circulators, rather than volunteers. 'If the petition process is broken, it's bills like this that broke it,' Templin said at Tuesday's committee meeting. Changes to the petition process are one of DeSantis' priorities for this session. But his proposal, which would effectively dismantle petition circulation as it exists today, is significantly different from Persons-Mulicka's bill. Persons-Mulicka said that she wanted to balance the integrity of the petition process while still ensuring citizens can petition to amend the constitution. 'That power belongs to the people, and I want to ensure that that power's protected,' she said. Sen. Blaise Ingoglia, R-Spring Hill, has filed a sweeping election bill in the Senate that mirrors DeSantis' proposals, but the Senate's election committee is planning to put its own not-yet-revealed bill forward. It's unclear what that bill will include. House Speaker Danny Perez, R-Miami, said Tuesday that he believed the House, Senate and governor were on different pages about how they should approach changes to the petition process. Perez and Senate President Ben Albritton said they are in support of taking action, though. The Florida Supervisors of Election association is in support of the House bill but wants some changes, said lobbyist David Ramba, including requiring voters themselves to return petitions to elections offices instead of allowing the amendment sponsor to do so. The proposed House bill would require election supervisors to notify a voter once their petition is verified as valid, and tell the voter they can revoke their petition if it was signed fraudulently. Lauren Brenzel, the campaign director for Amendment 4, said there's no state where the petition process operates the way Ramba suggested. Brenzel said that some of the bill's suggested fines, including a $500 fine for petitions sent to a different elections supervisor, could be incurred by a campaign for simple paperwork mistakes. 'I really do think it is so sad to see legislation like this that claims to be for the people that really is further alienating people from the process,' Brenzel said.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Florida bill to change petition process decried as aiding special interests
TALLAHASSEE — Florida's Legislature is eyeing changes to the ballot initiative process after last year's intense fight over two proposed amendments on abortion access and recreational marijuana. Opponents say the bill would consolidate more power in the hands of Tallahassee and monied special interests. Proponents say the changes ensure the integrity of the process and keep out-of-state special interests out. Florida's ballot initiative process, a right guaranteed in the constitution, has long been used by groups to pass measures that have been otherwise stymied by state lawmakers. It's how Florida got a $15 minimum wage, medical marijuana and felon voter restoration. The process is among the hardest of any of the 24 states that allow citizens to directly amend their laws or constitution. Legislative changes have made the process in Florida harder and costlier in recent years. HB 1205 would continue that trend, about a dozen public commenters warned during the bill's first committee meeting Thursday. They pointed to the bill's requirement that sponsors put up a $1 million bond before collecting any petitions, as well as its proposals to increase fines, add new requirements and tighten the window to return petitions. But Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, R-Fort Myers, the bill sponsor, argued that her proposal was the way to keep the ballot initiative process so that 'only those with a stake in our constitution can change it.' The legislation comes on the heels of two high-profile failed constitutional amendments heavily opposed by Gov. Ron DeSantis and state Republicans: Amendment 3, which would have allowed for recreational marijuana use, and Amendment 4, which would have protected abortion access and undone the state's six-week abortion ban. When talking about her motivations for filing the bill, Persons-Mulicka pointed to a state report that alleged widespread fraud in the abortion amendment campaign. Critics of the state's report accused Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration of applying uneven scrutiny toward a campaign he disliked. Her bill changes the law to require that all petition collectors — both paid workers and volunteers — be Florida residents, citizens and not have certain felony convictions. Persons-Mulicka's bill would also require that all petitions collected be turned into a supervisor of elections office within 10 days, down from the current 30-day window. Related fines for being late would be increased. It also would allow fraud related to petitions to be prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act. Brad Ashwell, the Florida director of All Voting is Local, said the bill's proposals would have a 'pretty serious chilling effect' on an ordinary campaign's ability to move forward but could be easily overcome by well-off groups. 'It puts the process more firmly in the hands of those who have the resources, who have the wealth,' Ashwell said. Rich Templin, political director for the Florida AFL-CIO, said that over the last two decades, Florida's petition process has become cost-prohibitive for grassroots efforts — which he said was the Legislature's design. 'These bills are only filed after something happens at the ballot box that the majority in the Capitol doesn't like,' he said. Templin said the Legislature began making major changes after a 2004 minimum wage amendment passed. One of those changes required that signatures expire in a shorter time frame. In order to get the nearly 900,000 needed petitions in a tight window, Templin said campaigns need to rely on paid circulators, rather than volunteers. 'If the petition process is broken, it's bills like this that broke it,' Templin said at Tuesday's committee meeting. Changes to the petition process are one of DeSantis' priorities for this session. But his proposal, which would effectively dismantle petition circulation as it exists today, is significantly different from Persons-Mulicka's bill. Persons-Mulicka said that she wanted to balance the integrity of the petition process while still ensuring citizens can petition to amend the constitution. 'That power belongs to the people, and I want to ensure that that power's protected,' she said. Sen. Blaise Ingoglia, R-Spring Hill, has filed a sweeping election bill in the Senate that mirrors DeSantis' proposals, but the Senate's election committee is planning to put its own not-yet-revealed bill forward. It's unclear what that bill will include. House Speaker Danny Perez, R-Miami, said Tuesday that he believed the House, Senate and governor were on different pages about how they should approach changes to the petition process. Perez and Senate President Ben Albritton said they are in support of taking action, though. The Florida Supervisors of Election association is in support of the House bill but wants some changes, said lobbyist David Ramba, including requiring voters themselves to return petitions to elections offices instead of allowing the amendment sponsor to do so. The proposed House bill would require election supervisors to notify a voter once their petition is verified as valid, and tell the voter they can revoke their petition if it was signed fraudulently. Lauren Brenzel, the campaign director for Amendment 4, said there's no state where the petition process operates the way Ramba suggested. Brenzel said that some of the bill's suggested fines, including a $500 fine for petitions sent to a different elections supervisor, could be incurred by a campaign for simple paperwork mistakes. 'I really do think it is so sad to see legislation like this that claims to be for the people that really is further alienating people from the process,' Brenzel said.
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Former U.S. Capitol officer criticizes Schimel comments on Jan. 6 defendants
Harry Dunn, a former U.S. Capitol Police officer, speaks Tuesday at a press conference about the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. With him are, from left, Sam Liebert of All Voting is Local and Nick Ramos of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner) A former U.S. Capitol Police officer who survived the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack said Tuesday the insurrection must not be forgotten four years later — and candidates running for election now should face up to what happened then. 'This attempt to whitewash, downplay, normalize what happened on Jan. 6 is ongoing and shows no signs of letting up,' said Harry Dunn during a meeting with reporters in Madison. Criticizing Republicans who have urged Democrats and the public 'to move on from Jan. 6,' Dunn said the attack met the definition of an insurrection — 'a violent uprising against the government. Full stop.' 'That's what Jan. 6 was,' he added. 'The police officers just happened to be in the way. But anybody that fails to accept that, acknowledge that for what that was, deserves to be called out, condemned.' Pro-democracy advocates arranged for Dunn to speak to the press in the state Capitol building and deliberately chose one particular meeting room on the third floor — 300 South, the same room used by Republican fake electors in December 2020 who filled out false electoral votes choosing Donald Trump as the Wisconsin winner of an election that he lost. The fake elector scheme 'was hatched in Wisconsin and launched from here to the rest of the United States,' said Scott Thompson, a staff attorney for Law Forward, at Tuesday's press conference. The nonprofit law firm sued Wisconsin's fake electors and won a settlement in which they acknowledged in writing they had tried 'to improperly overturn the 2020 presidential elections results.' The scheme culminated in the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, Thompson said. 'The events of Jan. 6, 2021, were not just an attack on a building or a single moment in time, but they were an attack on our collective voice as voters,' said Sam Liebert, Wisconsin director of the voting rights group All Voting is Local. 'The insurrection was a brazen and egregious attempt to silence millions of Americans nationwide to overturn the results of a free and fair election through violence and intimidation.' Four years later in 2024 Trump won the U.S. popular vote, including a 30,000-vote majority in Wisconsin, returning him to the White House effective Jan. 20. There one of his first acts was to pardon more than 1,500 people charged in the Jan. 6 attack. Dunn's visit to Wisconsin focused on Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel's comments about the Jan. 6 defendants, including during a recent radio interview. Schimel is a Waukesha County circuit court judge and former Wisconsin attorney general. In a Jan. 2 appearance on the Vicki McKenna show, Schimel said that Jan. 6 defendants didn't have 'a fair shot' when they were tried and blamed 'lawfare manipulation' for the conviction of defendants in the attack. Schimel suggested they would have been acquitted had they not been put on trial in 'overwhelmingly liberal' Washington, D.C., and that the prosecutors appointed under the Democratic administration 'would never take their prosecution in a district where you had a fair shot as a defendant.' The federal government prosecuted the rioters in Washington because the city is where the U.S. Capitol is located. Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, mentioned Schimel's radio interview before introducing Dunn. 'Four years ago, far-right mobs swarmed the Capitol, assaulted officers and tried to overturn the will of voters,' said Ramos. 'It's pretty straightforward, and yet Schimel, our former attorney general, still thinks these people weren't given a fair shot and their trials were political gamesmanship.' Dunn said he's taken an interest in Wisconsin's Supreme Court race because of Schimel's comments. 'I've been fighting for accountability from day one,' Dunn said. He holds Donald Trump primarily responsible for the riot. 'That accountability won't happen,' he said. But he added that he also wants to hold accountable 'public officials who believe that Donald Trump's pardoning of these individuals was OK' — including Schimel. 'I don't know Brad Schimel's positions on policy on anything else, except for that he is OK with supporting the rioters who attacked me and my coworkers, period,' Dunn said. 'And that is not OK — and that's what's bringing me here.' During a news conference Monday featuring his endorsement by Wisconsin Republican members of Congress, Schimel accused prosecutors of overcharging some Jan. 6 defendants until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the law under which they were charged didn't apply to them. He also said that 'anyone who engaged in violence and Jan. 6, assaulted a police officer, resisted arrest, those people should have been prosecuted … and judges should impose sentences that are just under the circumstances.' Schimel also defended the president's power to issue pardons: 'It's a power they have. I don't object to them utilizing that.' Dunn was asked Tuesday about Schimel's comments. 'If you believe that the individuals who attacked police officers should serve their sentence, then the only response to Donald Trump's pardons should be that they're wrong,' Dunn replied. 'He should not pardon them — and those words did not come out of [Schimel's] mouth. So he's attempting to play both sides.' In an interview, Dunn said he's kept going despite disappointment at Trump's 2024 victory because 'I believe in doing what's right.' That's what led him to become a police officer, he said, and after the Capitol attack, to mount an unsuccessful campaign for Congress. He also has a political action committee, raising funds to support political candidates who are pro-democracy, he said. Dunn acknowledged that some who opposed the president have given up in despair while others have become embittered toward Trump voters. 'I've seen people say, 'You know what? This is what you all voted for. You get what you deserve,'' he said. 'There are a lot of people who did not vote for this, that are going to be impacted by the things that Donald Trump and this administration are going to do, and I believe they deserve somebody that's going to fight for them.' There will be elections this year, in 2026 and 2028, all opportunities for change, 'so I encourage people,' Dunn said. 'And I think part of my work is to make sure people are educated before Election Day and not outraged after Election Day.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
