Latest news with #DemocracyDocket
Yahoo
2 days ago
- 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
5 days ago
- 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.
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Signs Executive Order To Overhaul Federal Elections And Voter Registration
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday outlining sweeping changes to the way federal elections are carried out nationwide, a responsibility the Constitution explicitly assigns to the states and Congress. During a White House signing ceremony, staff secretary Will Scharf called the order 'the farthest reaching executive action taken' in U.S. history. It is very likely to face legal challenges. If implemented, however, it would dramatically increase Trump's influence over the way Americans exercise their most fundamental civic right. The order reflects many of the falsehoods and conspiracy theories Trump has spread about federal election security. It directs federal agencies and officials to change the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship, such as a passport or Real ID. It aims to bar states from counting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, regardless of state laws on postmarking, and it directs the Justice Department to track and prosecute what the Trump administration considers election crimes. The text of the order points out that the Department of Homeland Security is tasked with protecting critical infrastructure and argues that election infrastructure fits that description. It instructs the secretary of Homeland Security, alongside the attorney general, to 'review and report on the security of all electronic systems used in the voter registration and voting process.' Trump has long championed paper ballots, falsely suggesting digital voting machines provide opportunity for fraud. States that do not comply with Trump's order face the threat of having federal funds cut off. Election fraud is very rare. After the 2020 presidential election, dozens of lawsuits failed to surface evidence of widespread illegal ballots or other meddling. Attorney Marc Elias, founder of the voting rights advocacy group Democracy Docket, said his organization planned to sue the Trump administration over the order. 'This will not stand,' he wrote on social media. Democracy Docket pointed out in a statement that an agency Trump directed to help carry out the changes, the Election Assistance Commission, was 'created by Congress to operate without direct control from the White House,' in a possible preview of its arguments. On its website, the EAC states that its mission is 'to help election officials improve the administration of elections and help Americans participate in the voting process.' It was established under a 2002 law passed after the turmoil of the 2000 election. Democrats Press Trump Intel Officials Over Leak Of Attack Plans He Served His Country And Voted For Trump. Now He Has Regrets. Ron Wyden Accuses Trump Social Security Nominee Of Lying About DOGE Contacts
Yahoo
09-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump confirms retribution campaign against law firms that clash with his agenda
Donald Trump is punishing law firms that have represented what he perceives as his political enemies by stripping their security clearances and access to government buildings, delivering severe legal retribution against people he believes are threatening his agenda. 'We have a lot of law firms that we're going to be going after, because they were very dishonest people,' the president told Fox News host Maria Bartiromo in an interview that aired on Sunday Morning Features on Sunday. 'They were very, very dishonest. I could go point after point after point. And it was so bad for our country. And we have a lot of law firms we're going after,' Trump said. The interview aired days after he signed another executive order targeting a prominent law firm, which opponents fear is designed to cast a chilling effect that threatens representation for groups and individuals who are challenging the administration's agenda in court. Last month, Trump signed a similar measure attacking the firm Covington & Burling, which provided pro bono assistance to special counsel Jack Smith in his personal capacity as he handled federal criminal investigations into the president's alleged election interference and unlawful retention of classified documents. This time, the president went further by blocking lawyers with the firm Perkins Coie from federal buildings entirely and barring federal agencies and contractors from working with it. His apparent beef with Perkins Coie dates back to a federal investigation into connections between Trump's 2016 campaign and Russian agents to determine whether aides and officials had conspired to influence the outcome of that election. The firm represented Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee and worked with a research firm that produced the now-discredited dossier that alleged contacts between Trump and Russia. Perkins Coie contracted Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research, which Fusion enlisted former British spy Christopher Steele to perform. Steele's dossier, which was later turned over to the FBI, alleged Russia's years-long campaign to compile compromising information against then-candidate Trump. Now-former Perkins lawyers Marc Elias and Michael Sussman were both named in Trump's order. Neither have worked for the firm in years. Since 2020, Elias has led the voting rights and civil rights litigation-tracking platform Democracy Docket, which has tracked hundreds of Trump-related cases. 'This is an absolute honor to sign,' Trump said during a signing ceremony at the White House on Thursday. 'What they've done is just terrible. It's weaponization, you could say weaponization against a political opponent, and it should never be allowed to happen again.' A spokesperson for the firm called the order 'patently unlawful' and said it intends to challenge it. Last month, Trump signed a similar measure suspending security clearances for outside lawyers who supported Smith in his personal capacity. The memo suspends 'any active security clearances held by Peter Koski and all members, partners, and employees of Covington & Burling LLP who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith during his time as Special Counsel.' During a signing ceremony, Trump called the memo the 'deranged Jack Smith signing.' Trump's targeting of lawyers follows his administration's threats to members of the judiciary, with Elon Musk and Republican members of Congress repeatedly threatening to impeach or punish judges who issue decisions that brush against their agenda, which judges across the country and ideological spectrum are condemning as unconstitutional, discriminatory and illegal. After a string of legal blows against his orders and policy maneuvers, Trump issued an executive order this week that calls on agency and department heads to press for monetary 'security' payments from plaintiffs if an injunction against the administration is issued. That would mean plaintiffs – which have included civil rights groups, pregnant immigrants, trans teenagers and aid workers — would be required to pay the government's legal fees, upfront, if a judge issues an injunction. The American Bar Association has warned against the 'escalating governmental efforts to interfere with fair and impartial courts, the right to counsel and due process, and the freedoms of speech and association in our country.' 'We reject the notion that the government can punish lawyers who represent certain clients or punish judges who rule certain ways,' American Bar Association president Wiliam R. Bay said in a statement this week. 'We cannot accept government actions that seek to tip the scales of justice in this manner.'
