Politics
Republicans Push Crackdown on Crime Wave That Doesn’t Exist: Voter Fraud
The Florida Legislature final week created a regulation enforcement company — informally referred to as the election police — to deal with what Gov. Ron DeSantis and different Republicans have declared an pressing downside: the roughly 0.000677 % of voters suspected of committing voter fraud.
In Georgia, Republicans within the Home handed a regulation on Tuesday handing new powers to police personnel who examine allegations of election-related crimes.
And in Texas, the Republican legal professional common already has created an “election integrity unit” charged solely with investigating unlawful voting.
Voter fraud is exceedingly uncommon — and infrequently unintended. Nonetheless, formidable Republicans throughout the nation are making a present of cracking down on voter crime this election 12 months. Legislators in a number of states have moved to reorganize and rebrand regulation enforcement businesses whereas stiffening penalties for voting-related crimes. Republican district attorneys and state attorneys common are selling their aggressive prosecutions, in some circumstances making felony circumstances out of conditions that previously might need been categorised as sincere errors.
It’s a new section of the Republican marketing campaign to tighten voting legal guidelines that began after former President Donald J. Trump started making false claims of fraud following the 2020 election. The trouble, which resulted in a wave of recent state legal guidelines final 12 months, has now shifted to courthouses, elevating concern amongst voting rights activists that concern of prosecution might maintain some voters from casting ballots.
“As myths about widespread voter fraud develop into central to political campaigns and discourse, we’re seeing extra of the high-profile makes an attempt to make examples of people,” stated Wendy Weiser, the vp for democracy on the Brennan Heart.
It’s practically unimaginable to evaluate whether or not the discuss of getting powerful on voter crime is leading to a rise in prosecutions. There is no such thing as a nationwide knowledge on how many individuals have been charged with voter fraud in 2020 or in earlier elections, and state knowledge is commonly incomplete. The state numbers which might be accessible present there have been only a few examples of potential circumstances in 2020 and few prosecutions.
Florida election officers made simply 75 referrals to regulation enforcement businesses concerning potential fraud through the 2020 election, out of greater than 11 million votes solid, in accordance with knowledge from the Florida secretary of state’s workplace. Of these investigations, solely 4 circumstances have been prosecuted as voter fraud within the state from the 2020 election.
In Texas, the place Lawyer Common Ken Paxton introduced his new “election integrity unit” in October to research election crimes, The Houston Chronicle reported that the six-prosecutor unit had spent $2.2 million and had closed three circumstances.
And in Wisconsin, the place a swath of Republicans, together with one candidate for governor, are looking for to decertify the state’s 2020 presidential election outcomes on the idea of false claims of fraud, a report launched final week by the Wisconsin Election Fee stated that the state had referred to native prosecutors 95 situations of felons’ voting in 2020 after they weren’t allowed to. From amongst these circumstances, district attorneys have filed fees towards 16 individuals.
“The underlying degree of precise criminality, I don’t suppose that’s modified in any respect,” stated Lorraine Minnite, a Rutgers College political science professor who has collected years of information on election fraud in America. “In an election of 130 million or 140 million individuals, it’s near zero. The reality will not be a precedence; what’s a precedence is the political use of this concern.”
The political incentives to attract consideration to the enforcement of voting legal guidelines are clear. A Monmouth College ballot in January discovered that 62 % of Republicans and simply 19 % of Democrats believed voter fraud was a serious downside.
Which will imply the percentages of being charged with voter fraud may be linked to the political affiliation of the native prosecutor.
In Fond du Lac County, Wis., District Lawyer Eric Toney was in workplace for 9 years with out prosecuting a voter fraud case. However after he began his marketing campaign for legal professional common in 2021, Mr. Toney, a Republican, obtained a letter from a Wisconsin man who had acquired copies of tens of millions of ballots in an try to conduct his personal evaluate of the 2020 election. The letter cited 5 Fond du Lac County voters whose registrations listed their dwelling addresses at a UPS Retailer, a violation of a state regulation that requires voters to register the place they reside.
Mr. Toney charged all 5 with felony voter fraud.
“We get suggestions from group members of individuals breaking the regulation by means of the 12 months, and we take them critically, particularly if it’s an election regulation violation,” Mr. Toney stated in an interview. “Legislation enforcement takes it critically. I take it critically as a district legal professional.”
One of many voters charged, Jamie Wells, instructed investigators that the UPS Retailer was her “dwelling base.” She stated she lived in a cell dwelling and cut up time between a close-by campground and Louisiana. Ms. Wells didn’t reply to telephone or e mail messages. If convicted, she stands to serve as much as three and a half years in jail — although she would probably obtain a a lot shorter sentence.
In La Crosse County, Wis., District Lawyer Tim Gruenke, a Democrat, obtained the same referral: 23 individuals registered to vote with addresses from an area UPS Retailer, and 16 of them voted in 2020. However Mr. Gruenke stated he had concluded that there was no try at fraud. As a substitute of felony fees, the native clerk despatched the voters a letter giving them 30 days to vary their registrations to an deal with the place they lived.
“It didn’t appear to me there was any try to defraud,” Mr. Gruenke stated. “It could be a felony cost, and I believed that might be too heavy for what amounted to a typo or clerical error.”
Mr. Toney linked his choice to his views in regards to the 2020 election in Wisconsin, which the Democratic candidate, Joseph R. Biden Jr., gained by greater than 20,682 votes out of three.3 million solid.
Whereas he had by no means challenged Mr. Biden’s win, he stated he believed that “there isn’t any dispute that Wisconsin election legal guidelines weren’t adopted and fraud occurred.”
“I assist figuring out any fraud or election legal guidelines not adopted to make sure it by no means occurs once more, as a result of elections are the cornerstone of our democracy,” Mr. Toney stated.
(Ms. Wells, one of many voters Mr. Toney has charged, additionally stated she believed one thing was amiss within the 2020 election. “They took it away from Trump,” she instructed investigators.)
Mr. DeSantis in Florida is probably the best-known politician who’s selling efforts to bolster prison enforcement of voting-related legal guidelines. The governor, who’s up for re-election in November, made the brand new police company a prime legislative precedence. .
The unit, referred to as the Workplace of Election Crimes and Safety, takes on work already accomplished by the secretary of state’s workplace, however stories on to the governor.
The Trump Investigations
Quite a few inquiries. Since former President Donald Trump left workplace, there have been many investigations and inquiries into his companies and private affairs. Right here’s a listing of these ongoing:
“Florida goes to be on the reducing fringe of this,” stated Jessica Anderson, the chief director of Heritage Motion, a conservative advocacy group that helps the invoice.
Mr. DeSantis isn’t alone. In Arizona, State Senator Wendy Rodgers, a Republican who’s attempting to overturn the 2020 election, is sponsoring a invoice that might set up an “election bureau” to research fraud with sweeping authority, together with the power to impound election tools and information.
In Georgia, Republicans within the Home handed a voting invoice on Tuesday that might, amongst different modifications, develop the authority of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to establish and examine election violations, together with the power to conduct election audits of any subpoenaed paperwork.
Republican efforts additionally prolong to election directors. Republicans in Texas final 12 months elevated the penalties on election staff who’re accused of influencing a voter’s choice whereas providing help, similar to translations.
However Florida’s laws can be the primary within the nation limiting how election officers can defend themselves in court docket. The invoice bars them from accepting authorized protection offered or funded by a nongovernmental company.
That provision has drawn bipartisan criticism. “The precept {that a} state would deny authorized illustration of an election official’s alternative after they’re being pursued for prison fees is profoundly towards the rule of regulation,” stated Ben Ginsberg, a lawyer for Republican presidential campaigns and nationwide committees earlier than breaking with the celebration through the Trump period.
Mr. Ginsburg and Bob Bauer, a distinguished Democratic lawyer, have began the Election Official Authorized Protection Community, a corporation of attorneys that provides free authorized recommendation and illustration to election directors.
Sentences for these convicted of voter fraud differ broadly. A Minnesota man who was on probation for a felony was ordered to pay a $214 tremendous this week after pleading responsible to mendacity about his voting eligibility on an absentee poll software. He by no means returned the poll.
However in Memphis, Pamela Moses was sentenced to 6 years in jail in January after registering to vote when she had a felony conviction. The voter fraud conviction was thrown out final month and a brand new trial ordered when a choose dominated that the Tennessee Division of Corrections had improperly withheld proof that was later uncovered by The Guardian.
In a press release, the Shelby County district legal professional, Amy Weirich, a Republican who faces re-election this 12 months, blamed Ms. Moses for the lengthy sentence. “I gave her an opportunity to plead to a misdemeanor with no jail time,” Ms. Weirich stated. A spokesman stated Ms. Weirich hadn’t determined whether or not to pursue a brand new trial.
Ms. Moses, a musician and Black Lives Matter activist, stated she hadn’t identified she was ineligible to vote.
“They did make an instance out of me,” she stated in an interview. “They confirmed each Black particular person in Tennessee and whoever else noticed this case, you higher not vote, they’re going to place you in jail.”
Kitty Bennett contributed analysis.
Politics
Trump to be sentenced in New York criminal trial
President-elect Trump is expected to be sentenced Friday after being found guilty on charges of falsifying business records stemming from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s years-long investigation.
The president-elect is expected to attend his sentencing virtually, after fighting to block the process all the way up to the United States Supreme Court this week.
Judge Juan Merchan set Trump’s sentencing for Jan. 10—just ten days before he is set to be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States.
TRUMP FILES MOTION TO STAY ‘UNLAWFUL SENTENCING’ IN NEW YORK CASE
Merchan, though, said he will not sentence the president-elect to prison.
Merchan wrote in his decision that he is not likely to “impose any sentence of incarceration,” but rather a sentence of an “unconditional discharge,” which means there would be no punishment imposed.
Trump filed an appeal to block sentencing from moving forward with the New York State Court of Appeals. That court rejected his request.
Trump also filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that it “immediately order a stay of pending criminal proceedings in the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, pending the final resolution of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising questions of Presidential immunity, including in this Court if necessary.”
“The Court should also enter, if necessary, a temporary administrative stay while it considers this stay application,” Trump’s filing requested.
TRUMP FILES EMERGENCY PETITION TO SUPREME COURT TO PREVENT SENTENCING IN NY V. TRUMP
Trump’s attorneys also argued that New York prosecutors erroneously admitted extensive evidence relating to official presidential acts during trial, ignoring the high court’s ruling on presidential immunity.
The Supreme Court denied Trump’s emergency petition to block his sentencing from taking place on Friday, Jan. 10.
The Supreme Court, earlier this year, ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution related to official presidential acts.
But New York prosecutors argued that the high court “lacks jurisdiction” over the case.
They also argued that the evidence they presented in the trial last year concerned “unofficial conduct that is not subject to any immunity.”
Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty to those charges. After a six-week-long, unprecedented trial for a former president and presidential candidate, a New York jury found the now-president-elect guilty on all counts.
Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of “lawfare” promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his election efforts ahead of November.
Politics
Column: Trump shoots his mouth off as L.A. burns. His claims about fire hydrants don’t hold water
SACRAMENTO — OK, I admit it. I’m biased. I hate it when an opportunistic politician capitalizes on other people’s miseries and tries to score political points.
I’m especially biased when it’s a president-elect who shoots off his mouth without regard for facts and blames a governor for fire hydrants running dry.
Not that Democrat Gavin Newsom is a perfect governor. But his California water policies had no more to do with Pacific Palisades hydrants drying up during a firestorm than did Republican Donald Trump’s turning on sprinklers at his golf course.
News reporters shouldn’t allow personal biases to seep into their stories, as Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong has reminded us. Reporters have long strived to not do so and mostly succeeded. But I’m not a reporter. I’m a columnist who analyzes and opines. And yes, I’m biased — but on issues, not politics.
It has always been my view that liberals, moderates and conservatives all have good and bad ideas. Neither party has a monopoly on truth and justice — except in relating to Trump.
I wanted to give Trump the benefit of the doubt and watch whether he really intended — as promised — to be a president for all Americans. But the guy just can’t help himself.
When Trump blamed Newsom for water hydrants going dry as Pacific Palisades burned, it wasn’t something people should dismiss as just another Trumpism.
Here was a president-elect mouthing off and showing his ignorance in a barrage of vindictiveness and insensitivity as thousands of people fled for their lives and hundreds of homes blazed into ashes.
Yes, I’m biased against anyone who’s that uncivil, especially when he disrespects facts or — worse — is a pathological liar.
So, let’s recap what Trump did.
As scores of hydrants went dry while fire crews battled flames in Pacific Palisades, the president-elect instinctively went on social media to point the finger at his left coast political adversary, the Democrat he tastelessly derides as Gov. “Newscum.”
“Governor Gavin Newscum refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water from excess rain and snow melt from the north to flow daily into many parts of California, including the parts that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way,” Trump asserted.
“He wanted to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt … but didn’t care about the people of California. Now the ultimate price is being paid.
“I will demand that this incompetent governor allow beautiful, clean, fresh water to flow into California. He is the blame for this. On top of it all, no water for fire hydrants, not firefighting planes. A true disaster.”
True drivel, putting it politely.
First, what was this so-called water restoration declaration?
“There’s no such document,” responded Izzy Gardon, Newsom’s communications director. “That is pure fiction.”
Trump probably was referring to his policy differences with Newsom on water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to farmlands in the San Joaquin Valley. In his first presidency, Trump wanted to drain more fresh water from the delta for irrigation in the valley. But both Govs. Jerry Brown and Newsom took a more centrist approach, striving for a balance between farms and fish.
Second, it’s not the demise of the tiny smelt — the Republicans’ favorite target — that’s so concerning to many conservationists. It’s the rapid decline of iconic salmon that previously provided world-class recreational angling in the delta and fed a healthy commercial fishery on the coast. Salmon fishing seasons have been closed recently to save what’s left of the fish.
Third, despite Trump’s claptrap, plenty of fresh delta water is being pumped south to fill fire hydrants and the tanks of firefighting aircraft. Hundreds of millions of gallons of water flow daily down the California Aqueduct. Major Southland reservoirs are at historically high levels. Anyway, much of L.A.’s water doesn’t even come from the Delta. It flows from the Owens Valley and the Colorado River.
Fourth, the hydrants went dry simply because there were too many fires to fight, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power explained. Storage tanks went dry.
“We pushed the system to the extreme,” Janisse Quinones, DWP chief executive and chief engineer, said. “Four times the normal demand was seen for 15 hours straight.”
Yes, I’m biased against politicians who make up stuff.
But you’ve got to listen to Trump because he could follow through on what he’s bellowing about.
For example, Trump vowed during the presidential campaign to deny Newsom federal money to fight wildfires unless the governor diverted more water to farms.
That apparently wasn’t an idle threat.
Trump initially refused to approve federal wildfire aid in 2018 until a staffer pointed out that Orange County, a beneficiary, was home to many voters who supported him, Politico reported. And in 2020, the Federal Emergency Management Agency rejected an aid request during several California wildfires until Republicans appealed to Trump.
So, what’s Trump going to be like when he actually becomes president again and is wielding real power, not just running off at the mouth?
Will he try to annex Greenland? Seize the Panama Canal? When a reporter asked him whether he’d commit to not using “military or economic coercion” to achieve these goals, he immediately answered: “No.”
Will he keep calling Canada our “51st state?”
Yep. I’m biased against such immature and dangerous political leaders.
Politics
How a Phone Call Drew Alito Into a Trump Loyalty Squabble
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. received a call on his cellphone Tuesday. It was President-elect Donald J. Trump, calling from Florida.
Hours later, Mr. Trump’s legal team would ask Justice Alito and his eight colleagues on the Supreme Court to block his sentencing in New York for falsifying business records to cover up a hush-money payment to a pornographic film actress before the 2016 election. And the next day, the existence of the call would leak to ABC News — prompting an uproar about Mr. Trump’s talking to a justice before whom he would have business with substantial political and legal consequences.
Justice Alito said in a statement on Wednesday that the pending filing never came up in his conversation with Mr. Trump and that he was not aware, at the time of the call, that the Trump team planned to file it. People familiar with the call confirmed his account.
But the fact of the call and its timing flouted any regard for even the appearance of a conflict of interest at a time when the Supreme Court has come under intense scrutiny over the justices’ refusal to adopt a more rigorous and enforceable ethics code.
The circumstances were extraordinary for another reason: Justice Alito was being drawn into a highly personalized effort by some Trump aides to blackball Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump from entering the administration, according to six people with knowledge of the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
The phone call centered on William Levi, a former law clerk of Justice Alito’s who seemingly has impeccable conservative legal credentials. But in the eyes of the Trump team, Mr. Levi has a black mark against his name. In the first Trump administration, he served as the chief of staff to Attorney General William P. Barr, who is now viewed as a “traitor” by Mr. Trump for refusing to go along with his efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.
Mr. Levi has been under consideration for several jobs in the new administration, including Pentagon general counsel. He has also been working for the Trump transition on issues related to the Justice Department. But his bid for a permanent position has been stymied by Mr. Trump’s advisers who are vetting personnel for loyalty, according to three of the people with knowledge of the situation.
As Mr. Trump puts together his second administration, Mr. Barr is among a handful of prominent Republicans who are viewed with such suspicion that others associated with them are presumptively not to be given jobs in the administration, according to people familiar with the dynamic. Republicans in that category include Mr. Trump’s former secretary of state Mike Pompeo and his former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley. To be called a “Pompeo guy” or a “Haley person” is considered a kiss of death in Mr. Trump’s inner circle. Resistance to such people can usually be overcome only if Mr. Trump himself signs off on their hiring.
Tuesday’s phone call took place against that backdrop. Several people close to the Trump transition team on Thursday said their understanding was that Justice Alito had requested the call. But a statement from Justice Alito framed the matter as the justice passively agreeing to take a call at the behest of his former clerk.
The disconnect appeared to stem from Mr. Levi’s role in laying the groundwork for the call in both directions. It was not clear whether someone on the transition team had suggested he propose the call.
Mr. Levi did not respond to a request for comment. The Supreme Court press office said it had nothing to add to the statement it put out from Justice Alito on Wednesday. In that statement, Justice Alito said that Mr. Levi “asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position. I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon.”
He added: “We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed. We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the president-elect.”
During the call, according to multiple people briefed on it, Mr. Trump initially seemed confused about why he was talking to Justice Alito, seemingly thinking that he was returning Justice Alito’s call. The justice, two of the people said, told the president-elect that he understood that Mr. Trump wanted to talk about Mr. Levi, and Mr. Trump then got on track and the two discussed him.
A spokesman for Mr. Trump did not respond to an email seeking comment.
While it is unusual for an incoming president to speak with a Supreme Court justice about a job reference, it is routine for justices to serve as references for their former clerks. Justices traditionally treat their clerks as a network of protégés whose continued success they seek to foster as part of their own legacies.
Seemly or not, there is a long history of interactions between presidents and other senior executive branch officials and Supreme Court justices who sometimes will have a say over the fate of administration policies.
In 2004, a controversy arose when there was a lawsuit seeking disclosure of records about Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force meetings. One of the litigants, the Sierra Club, asked Justice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from participation in the case because he had recently gone duck hunting with Mr. Cheney. Justice Scalia declined, issuing a 21-page memorandum that explained why he believed stepping aside was unjustified.
Part of Justice Scalia’s argument was that Mr. Cheney was being sued over an official action. That makes Mr. Trump’s pending attempt to block his sentencing for crimes that he was convicted of committing in his private capacity somewhat different, although the basis of Mr. Trump’s argument is that being sentenced and then fighting an appeal would interfere with his ability to carry out his official duties.
In trying to justify his decision not to recuse, Justice Scalia noted that justices have had personal friendships with presidents going back years, including some who played poker with Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman but did not recuse themselves from cases challenging their administrations’ policies and actions.
Mr. Trump has long sought to pressure the Supreme Court, in some cases by publicly hectoring the justices on social media for decisions he disagrees with. Mr. Trump has often privately complained that the three justices he appointed in his first term — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — had “done nothing” for him, according to a person who has discussed the matter with Mr. Trump.
One week after the 2018 midterm elections, Mr. Trump and the first lady, Melania Trump, had lunch with Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Virginia Thomas. Ms. Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, made suggestions about personnel shake-ups to Mr. Trump and later supported his efforts to try to overturn the 2020 election results.
In December 2020, Mr. Trump attacked the Supreme Court as “incompetent and weak” for refusing to address his legal team’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election. Two years later, he attacked the court again for giving Congress access to his tax returns.
The Supreme Court redeemed itself in Mr. Trump’s eyes last summer when the six Republican-appointed justices ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from being prosecuted over actions they took in their official capacity. That ruling threw into doubt how much of the indictment brought against Mr. Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election could actually survive to go to trial — even after prosecutors filed a revised version trying to account for the court’s decision.
The Supreme Court’s intervention also seriously delayed the case’s progress, effectively making it impossible to get the charges to a jury before the election. And once Trump won the 2024 race, he could no longer face prosecution under Justice Department policy.
Kirsten Noyes contributed research from New York.
-
Business1 week ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics1 week ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics1 week ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics6 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health5 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
Ivory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades