Latest news with #DemocracyDocket
Black America Web
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Black America Web
Florida Supreme Court Backs DeSantis In Diluting Black Voter Power
Source: ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Getty Long before Texas officials scrambled for a special session to attack Black voter power in the Lone Star state, Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis was already stacking the deck in his party's favor. Now, four years after redistricting began, the Florida Supreme Court upheld maps backed by DeSantis diluting Black voter power. Embracing a reverse racism style argument, the Florida Supreme Court claimed that allowing a majority Black district to remain would violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Led by Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute and the League of Women Voters of Florida, voting rights groups maintain the maps violated the 2010 Fair Districts Amendment. They further argue that the maps diluted Black voter power and were an assault on Black representation. According to Democracy Docket, the maps commissioned by DeSantis split Black voters formerly in the state's 5th Congressional district 'across four separate districts, reducing their ability to choose a candidate that best represents them in North Florida.' DeSantis pointing to multiple courts upholding his allegedly 'constitutionally correct map' does not mean the maps are accurate or fair. It only means that the courts have swung far enough to the right that the interpretation of accuracy and fairness is willing to overlook the true meaning of equal protection and fair representation. The Democracy Docket specifically called attention to the 'non-diminishment' clause in Florida's Fair Districts Amendment, which prohibits the state from creating districts that prevent racial or language minorities from having 'equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.' It's all states' rights, and states can decide until a state law actually benefits Black people. As reported by the Tallahassee Democrat, there is still a challenge pending regarding Congressional District 26. This case is also separate from a challenge to Florida Senate District 16 involving Black voters in Tampa and St. Petersburg. But the 5th Congressional District case underscores the importance of federal oversight and protection to ensure that states do not disenfranchise or disempower Black voters. As outlined by the Legal Defense Fund, Florida has passed several anti-voter laws and targeted fairness and transparency in the democratic process. DeSantis and his cronies have no interest in upholding equal protection or ensuring free and fair elections. Retaining power by any and all means is the name of their game. Source: ninitta / Getty 'Conditions that can foster voting discrimination — such as unfairly drawn districts that weaken the voting power of Black voters and other voters of color, inaccessible polling locations, insufficient language assistance for voters who don't speak English comfortably, and outright voter intimidation — endure throughout Florida,' wrote the LDF. 'And many of Florida's counties and cities use at-large election structures or district maps that impair the ability of voters of color to elect candidates of their choice or influence the outcome of elections.' Despite claims that the DeSantis maps are racially neutral and did not intentionally discriminate against Black voters, modern era segregationists know they need to make it look accidental to pass judicial scrutiny. Trying to prove racist intent is no longer as simple as it was 60 years ago. The battle over maps in Florida is one of many ongoing challenges to Black voter power. But limiting Black political power and, in turn, full political participation is not new. Even before the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments, the powers that be fought hard to minimize Black voting rights. And now, their descendants are colonizing the same laws passed to protect Black voters against us. Despite the extensive legislative history and record around the Reconstruction Era Amendments and numerous civil rights laws, including the Voting Rights Act, these people follow the far-right SCOTUS majority's intellectual dishonesty. There is nothing fair in what DeSantis and his cronies are doing. And yet, Black voters and the candidates who seek to represent their interests are left scrambling to out organize an increasingly hostile state and federal government. These contemporary voting rights challenges also show the enduring importance and need for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder eroded key sections of the Voting Rights Act, voting rights advocates have pushed for legislation to restore and strengthen voting rights protections. Choosing our representatives and free access to the ballot are two of the most significant pathways to improving conditions for our families and communities. Protecting and expanding voting rights requires sustained organizing and lobbying leading to new safeguards at the state level like state voting acts and other pro-democracy legislation. SEE ALSO: Federal Judges Rule Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' 'Race-Neutral' Congressional Map Is Constitutional Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana SEE ALSO Florida Supreme Court Backs DeSantis In Diluting Black Voter Power was originally published on
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why Nicolle Wallace says 'this week is officially the F-U week of Trump's second presidency'
One-time Donald Trump criminal lawyer and now Trump's choice for a lifetime seat on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Emil Bove faced tough questions from Democrats during his confirmation hearing. Founder of Democracy Docket, Marc Elias and former Criminal Division Deputy Chief at SDNY Kristy Greenberg join Nicolle Wallace to discuss.
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Democrats' 2024 postmortems keep neglecting the effects of voter suppression
The hottest topic in the mainstream political press these days seems to revolve around theories of what Democrats must do to 'win back' voters they 'lost' during the 2024 presidential race. And yet, it's odd that few, if any, of these takes refer to what was arguably the biggest impediment to Democrats last year and what could arguably be the biggest roadblock to Democratic victories in the years ahead: voter suppression. Politicians and pundits haven't exactly been shy about offering up their diagnoses for what truly ailed Democrats last year. The list includes those who think Democrats didn't go hard enough in their efforts to woo young men along with those — like attendees at Wednesday's so-called WelcomeFest for Democratic centrists — who would like to argue that Democrats placated progressives too much. Some of these arguments are very reductive, and some of them are downright ridiculous. Given the premise that Democrats should try to win as many voters as possible, I don't think we have to dismiss all of these theories out of hand. But at the same time, these discussions feel a bit like rearranging deck chairs on the proverbial Titanic, because it's hard for me to foresee a scenario in which Democrats achieve lasting victories in an environment of widespread voter suppression, no matter how many hypermasculine podcasts they visit or rhetorical punches they throw at progressives. And make no mistake: We are in an environment of widespread voter suppression, as evidenced by this Democracy Docket report from last summer that highlights the various laws nationwide that made it harder to vote in 2024 than it was in 2020. At times, it seems like liberals are overcomplicating things with these postmortems, but I think mapping out a rather simple sequence of events can help explain how last year played out: Democrats win the presidency in 2020 with help from some states' expanding ballot access and contributing to the largest pool of voters in U.S. history. (Note that Joe Biden won without cozying up to 'manosphere' podcasters or abandoning progressive principles like racial justice to win.) Republicans introduce hundreds of voter suppression measures, many of which are enacted and make it harder for Americans to vote. With fewer people voting in 2024 than voted in 2020, Donald Trump wins. So it seems logical to look to Trump's efforts to leverage the executive branch to suppress the vote and to House Republicans' legislating to similar ends for obvious clues as to the biggest threats to future Democratic electoral victories. I've seen no evidence to suggest that the number of people who sat out in 2024 or who voted for Trump because of anti-liberal sentiment exceeds the number of people who were dissuaded from voting by newly enacted restrictions. And without that evidence, Democrats may be overlooking a critical element for future electoral failure by accepting the narrative that it was their own campaign rhetoric or bullying by online leftists that cost them the election. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Law firms that made deal with Trump, see major clients abandon them for firms that stood up to him
Marc Elias, Voting Rights Attorney and Founder of the Democracy Docket and Michael Schmidt, New York Times Investigative Reporter join Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House with reaction to new reporting in the Wall Street Journal which details how many of the same major law firms that made deals with the Trump Administration for pro bono work are now seeing major clients abandon them for firms that stood up to Donald Trump.
Newsweek
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Legal Nemesis Makes Vow After '60 Minutes' Segment
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Lawyer Marc Elias, a longtime opponent of President Donald Trump, says he will "not stop fighting" following an appearance on 60 Minutes about the president's executive orders targeting law firms. "I have no doubt that Trump's hateful words are not behind me," Elias, who has represented Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris' presidential campaigns, wrote in an op-ed for Democracy Docket, which he founded, on Monday. "I am certain he will escalate his campaign of political retribution. But, for my part, I will not stop fighting. I will never back down. And I will always speak out." Elias has been contacted for further comment via an email to Democracy Docket. The White House has been contacted for comment via email. Attorney Marc Elias stands on the plaza of the Supreme Court in Washington, March 21, 2016. Attorney Marc Elias stands on the plaza of the Supreme Court in Washington, March 21, 2016. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo Why It Matters In recent weeks, Trump has signed executive orders targeting some of the country's most elite law firms. Several of the firms have either done legal work Trump has opposed or have links to prosecutors who at one point investigated the president. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell blocked an order against the firm Perkins Coie, saying it amounted to "unconstitutional retaliation." Trump's order revoked federal clearance for the firm's employees and instructed federal agencies to terminate contracts with the firm. The White House cited the firm's representation of Hillary Clinton's campaign during the 2016 presidential race. Trump has also railed against Elias, one of the firm's former lawyers who hired an opposition research firm that in turn commissioned former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to produce a dossier examining ties between Trump and Russia. Elias left Perkins Coie in 2021. What To Know "Donald Trump hates me because I fight hard and I fight for free and fair elections," Elias told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley, who recently called out parent company Paramount for supervising content. "I insist on fighting for democracy in court, fighting for voting rights in court, and insist on telling the truth about what the outcome of the 2020 election was." He said Trump was trying to "intimidate" law firms the way "a mob boss intimidates people in the neighborhood." In the op-ed, Elias wrote that from the "opening words of Judge Beryl Howell's opinion — 'No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit' — to the 60 Minutes closing credits, this has been an emotional weekend for me personally." He wrote that when a producer from 60 Minutes first reached out to him to see if he would agree to be interviewed on camera for the segment that aired on Sunday night, he was "unsure." "I knew the drill — lots of time talking, for a clip or two in the final cut," he wrote. "Besides, I felt like a bit player in this instance. Yes, I had been targeted by Trump, but that was old news. I am no longer in Big Law, and my current firm is well known for representing Democrats, progressives and pro-voting organizations." Elias said he changed his mind after learning that "few other lawyers—particularly partners at large law firms— were willing to speak on television. The same fear that had prevented Big Law firms from standing up to Trump was now making their partners unwilling to speak out publicly. Even the targeted firms remained quiet." He wrote that through interviews, Pelley had "painted a damning picture of a president out for retribution and a legal industry too cowardly to stand up to him. I am featured—along with others braver than I—including an associate who quit her job rather than be complicit in the deal her law firm had cut." Several law firms have reached deals with the Trump administration to avoid being targeted by executive orders and have committed to provide hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of free legal services for causes the president supports. What People Are Saying Pelley said as he opened the segment on Sunday's broadcast: "It was nearly impossible to get anyone on camera for this story because of the fear now running through our system of justice. In recent weeks, President Trump has signed orders against several law firms—orders with the power to destroy them. That matters because lawsuits have been a check on the president's power." Elias told 60 Minutes: "It is trying to intimidate them the way in which a mob boss intimidates people in the neighborhood that he is seeking to either exact protection money from or engage in other nefarious conduct. I mean, the fact is that these law firms are being told, "If you don't play ball with us, maybe somethin' really bad will happen to you." Trump said during a speech at the Department of Justice on March 14: "In recent years, a corrupt group of hacks and radicals within the ranks of the American government obliterated the trust and goodwill built up over generations. They weaponized the vast powers of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try and thwart the will of the American people.... They spied on my campaign, launched one hoax and disinformation operation after another, broke the law on a colossal scale, persecuted my family, staff, and supporters. Raided my home, Mar-a-Lago, and did everything within their power to prevent me from becoming the President of the United States. With the help of radicals like Marc Elias, Mark Pomerantz." What Happens Next Howell's ruling permanently bars enforcement of the executive order against Perkins Coie. Other law firms that have challenged executive orders against have succeeded in at least temporarily blocking them. This story features reporting from The Associated Press.
