Latest news with #VetVoiceFoundation
The Independent
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Veterans slam Trump's ‘political' deployment of Marines and National Guard to LA: ‘Citizens are not enemy combatants'
Donald Trump 's deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles is a thinly veiled 'authoritarian' and politically motivated attempt to inflame protests and crush dissent, veterans and legal experts warn. Trump is relying on federal law that allows the president to call up the National Guard to respond to domestic unrest, an action known commonly as federalizing the normally state-authorized Guard. Even then, those troops have only a limited mission in supporting federal law enforcement agents and federal buildings at the center of protests against the administration's mass deportation agenda. But now, with his National Guard deployment combined with sending some 700 Marines to L.A., veterans groups, military law experts and Democratic officials fear the president is testing the limits of his authority to send active-duty military into American streets — and violating service members' commitments to stay out of domestic politics. 'When I joined the Marine Corps, I swore an oath — not to a person, not to a party, but to the Constitution,' said Marine veteran Janessa Goldbeck, CEO of the Vet Voice Foundation, a national nonpartisan advocacy group. 'What we're seeing now is a deliberate effort to turn the military into a political prop,' she told The Independent. Trump is not deploying troops for national defense but 'domestic intimidation,' she added. 'That's not just just politicizing the military — it's crossing a dangerous line,' Goldbeck told The Independent. Trump's military threats are 'how authoritarian regimes take power' and signal the president's wider ambitions for 'the weaponization of the military for political gain,' according to veterans advocacy group Common Defense. 'The militarized response to protests in Los Angeles is a dangerous escalation that undermines civil rights and betrays the principles we swore to uphold,' Army veteran and Common Defense political director Naveed Shah said. 'The idea that Marines would be deployed to suppress the very people we're meant to protect is a disgrace. It's un-American,' Marine Corps veteran and Common Defense organizer Jojo Sweatt added. The last time a president federalized the National Guard against the will of a state governor was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon Johnson deployed troops to protect civil rights advocates marching from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery — two weeks after the violence of 'Bloody Sunday' on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Johnson did so after Alabama's segregationist Gov. George Wallace told the president that his state 'refuses to provide for the safety and welfare' of the marchers, according to Johnson's proclamation. But 60 years later, Trump is deploying troops not to defend civil rights activists but to protect law enforcement and federal property. Activating troops against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom 'is bad for all Americans concerned about freedom of speech and states' rights,' retired Major Gen. Randy Manner said in a statement to Fox News. 'There are over a million badged and trained members of law enforcement in this country for the governor to ask for help if he needs it,' he added. 'While this is presently a legal order, it tramples the governor's rights and obligations to protect his people. This is an inappropriate use of the National Guard and is not warranted.' Trump's open-ended memo invoking military deployment does not single out Los Angeles or even California. It empowers the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth 'to employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary.' Carrie A. Lee, a former associate professor at the U.S. Army War College, called Trump's actions 'massive overreach' and 'crazy broad,' seemingly paving the way for the administration 'to use military force against protestors on American soil anywhere they want.' Invoking 'protective power' authority without any geographical limits effectively creates an unprecedented and 'dangerous' nationwide order, according to Lee. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, though the president and administration officials have repeatedly labeled protesters 'insurrectionists' and 'seditionists' — sparking fears that the president is laying the groundwork for mass deployment of military assets across the country. Instead, Trump is currently relying on a far more limited statute that taps his 'protective power' authority, which does not allow the military to conduct law enforcement activities — unlike the Insurrection Act, which is excluded from federal statute that bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. 'The public must be laser focused on seeing the extent to which Secretary Hegseth adheres to these historically recognized limitations,' according to University of Houston Law Center professor Chris Mirasola, a former attorney-advisor at the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel. If troops are pulled into violent confrontations, Trump could use those incidents to justify invoking the Insurrection Act, opening the door for active-duty military to face off against Americans not just in the streets of Los Angeles but across the country. 'This is an unnecessary, unprecedented and predictable misuse of military power against American citizens,' according to Army veteran Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. 'And Trump has now thrust our troops into the middle of the most explosive issue in America,' he added. 'And this is likely just the start. We could see a clash and crisis between Trump and governors and mayors across America like we've never seen.' A lawsuit from watchdog group American Oversight called the deployment 'an opening salvo in a coordinated national strategy and not simply an isolated incident.' The lawsuit is seeking records from the Trump administration regarding the use of military assets in immigration enforcement and 'potential authorities his administration would invoke to authorize federalizing law enforcement.' 'Deploying the military to quash protests over the administration's inhumane and legally dubious immigration policies — especially over the objection of elected state leaders — is a dangerous, though unfortunately predictable, escalation by the Trump administration,' according to American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. 'If left unchecked, this abuse of power under thin legal pretense can be readily replicated across other states in the future,' he said in a statement. 'Americans have a right to know who authorized it, what rationale was offered, and not just whether the government crossed a line — but by how much that line has been obliterated.'
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
WA Supreme Court affirms constitutionality of vote-by-mail signature verification process
Washington state's high court issued a ruling Thursday upholding the signature-verification process used on mail-in ballots. State Supreme Court justices unanimously affirmed that the procedure is constitutional. Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, a Democrat, was named as a defendant in the 2022 case, Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs. 'We are pleased with the court's ruling, which affirms our commitment to secure, accessible, and transparent elections in Washington,' Hobbs said in a statement. 'Signature verification has been a fundamental part of our state's vote-by-mail system for decades, helping to protect against fraud while ensuring that every eligible voter's ballot is counted.' Vet Voice Foundation, a nonprofit that aims to empower veterans, and two other civic organizations argued that the state's way of verifying such signatures has disenfranchised tens of thousands of lawful voters. McClatchy emailed Vet Voice Foundation seeking comment on the ruling, but did not immediately hear back. The foundation was joined in the lawsuit by The Washington Bus, El Centro de la Raza and four individual plaintiffs. Aside from Hobbs, other defendants included the King County elections director and two members of that county's canvassing board. Washington is one of eight states that hold 'universal vote by mail' or 'all-mail' elections in which registered voters are sent mail-in ballots automatically, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute. One of the election-security methods that the state uses to confirm someone's identity is signature verification. Plaintiffs in the case claimed that signature verification is an 'unconstitutional burden' falling disproportionately on the shoulders of voters of color, non-English speakers, young voters, uniformed service members and others. They argued that voting fraud is quite rare, and that roughly 40 possible cases of such fraud had happened statewide in recent years — none of which involved mail-ballot signatures. Defendants, meanwhile, countered that signature verification is necessary amid threats to the state's election security. Hobbs has previously warned that hostile foreign actors aim to compromise trust in Washington's election system. In addition, defendants contended that in a vote-by-mail system such as Washington's, officials must have a solid way of verifying voter identity and preventing people from casting ballots multiple times. The signature verification system, they said, is a reasonable way to accomplish that — more so than other identification methods that could possibly squelch turnout. In a 2022 nonpartisan study, Washington ranked second in the nation for voting accessibility. Oregon came in first place. The Washington Supreme Court's March 6 ruling ensures that counties can continue using signature verification to confirm ballots. Voters can also still correct any signature problems so that their ballot will count. Justice Steven C. González noted in the court's ruling that 'all too many ballots are not counted because election workers cannot verify the voter's signatures and the voter does not or cannot cure their ballot in time.' Plaintiffs argued that this infringes on the state Constitution's due process, freedom of elections and privileges and immunities clauses. But the court ultimately sided with Hobbs. 'We conclude that the defendants have shown that signature verification is narrowly tailored and designed to promote the compelling purposes of election security and integrity,' González wrote. Other critics have taken issue with Washington's vote-by-mail system, albeit for different reasons. Washington Republican Party Chair Jim Walsh, for instance, has cast doubt on the efficacy of the process and advocated for returning to same-day, in-person voting.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Washington Supreme Court upholds ballot signature verification system
The Temple of Justice in Washington state. (Jerry Cornfield/Washington State Standard) Washington's ballot signature verification system is constitutional, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday, despite a challenge arguing the process has disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters in the past decade. In a unanimous ruling, the justices determined steps taken in recent years have improved the system to help voters fix, or 'cure,' signature problems on their ballots. Signature verification is a central piece of Washington's vote-by-mail elections. 'All too many ballots are not counted because election workers cannot verify the voter's signatures and the voter does not or cannot cure their ballot in time,' Justice Steven Gonzalez acknowledged in the opinion. 'But signature verification is only a part of the election system established by our legislature,' Gonzalez continued. He notes, for example, direction to local election workers to go further in trying to reach voters whose ballots may not be counted and an expansion of the ways voters can cure their ballots. In the opinion, the justices still leave the door open to challenges in specific instances where election workers rejected ballots. A trio of civic-minded organizations — Vet Voice Foundation, The Washington Bus and El Centro de la Raza — and four individual plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and King County election staff in 2022 over the signature verification process. They alleged the system disenfranchised voters while doing little to further secure elections. After a King County judge denied summary judgment motions from both sides, the Supreme Court took up the case. Washington was one of the first states to adopt universal vote-by-mail. Part of securing those votes is signature verification. Election workers have to verify the signature on each mail-in ballot matches the signature a voter has on file. They do not have to be identical. If there are multiple discrepancies, staff can set the ballot aside as challenged, and allow the voter to verify the ballot is theirs. Between 2016 and 2022, of over 37 million ballots cast, more than 170,000 were disqualified through this verification process, Gonzalez writes in the opinion. The plaintiffs alleged younger voters and voters of color were more likely to see their ballots rejected. In the 2020 general election, for example, 2.68% of voters ages 18 to 21 saw their ballots rejected, while the number was 0.38% for those between 45 and 65. The same was true for only 0.63% of white voters, compared to 2.49% of Black voters, Gonzalez notes. A state audit found no evidence of bias, but was unable to explain the discrepancy. The plaintiffs argued there is little proof the system has caught potential voter fraud. 'While ostensibly deployed to 'verify' a voter's identity, signature verification is election integrity theater,' the plaintiffs' attorney, Kevin Hamilton, wrote in court documents. 'And it is subjective and error-ridden at that — unsurprising, given all the reasons why a voter's signature could vary, including age, disease, type of pen used, and writing surface.' In recent years, lawmakers have required election staff to contact voters by email, phone and text if their ballot needs to be cured. The Legislature last year directed the secretary of state to launch a pilot project to test other verification methods than signatures. 'Secretary of State Hobbs recognizes that there is important work to do to improve the implementation of signature verification, and the Secretary is doing that work,' Karl Smith from the state attorney general's office wrote in a court brief. The defendants argued that other verification methods, like voters including a copy of their ID with their ballot, writing their driver's license number on their ballot or fingerprints, have drawbacks. 'Signature verification, as part of a robust system of checks, provides both security and ease of voting,' Gonzalez wrote. The plaintiff organizations and the King County elections office didn't immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday morning.
