Category Archives: Republican

PHOENIX After months of delays and blistering criticism, a review of the 2020 election in Arizonas largest county, ordered up and financed by Republicans, has failed to show that former President Donald J. Trump was cheated of victory, according to draft versions of the report.

In fact, the draft report from the company Cyber Ninjas found just the opposite: It tallied 99 additional votes for President Biden and 261 fewer votes for Mr. Trump in Maricopa County, the fast-growing region that includes Phoenix.

The full review is set to be released on Friday, but draft versions circulating through Arizona political circles were obtained by The New York Times from a Republican and a Democrat.

Late on Thursday night, Maricopa County, whose Republican leaders have derided the review, got a jump on the official release by tweeting out its conclusions.

The countys canvass of the 2020 General Election was accurate and the candidates certified as the winners did, in fact, win, the county said on Twitter. It then criticized the review as littered with errors and faulty conclusions.

Mr. Biden won Arizona by roughly 10,500 votes, making his victory of about 45,000 votes in Maricopa County crucial to his win. Under intense pressure from Trump loyalists, the Republican majority in the State Senate had ordered an autopsy of the countys votes for president. The review was financed largely by $5.7 million in donations from far-right groups and Mr. Trumps defenders.

The draft reports implicitly acknowledged Mr. Bidens victory, noting that there were no substantial differences between the new tally of votes and the official count by Maricopa County election officials. But they also claimed that other factors most if not all contested by reputable election experts left the results very close to the margin of error for the election.

Among other alleged discrepancies, the reports claimed that some ballots were cast by people who had moved before the election, that election-related computer files were missing and that some computer images of ballots were missing.

One expert and critic of the review who had seen a draft report of the findings called those red herrings.

The whole report just reflects on the Ninjas lack of understanding of Arizona election law and election administration procedures, said Benny White, a Republican in Tucson who is an adviser on election law and procedures.

It was not possible to determine whether the conclusions in the final version of the report being released on Friday would differ from those in the drafts. Mr. White said he had been told that some Republican Senate officials were unhappy with the findings.

But if those findings stand, they would amount to a devastating disappointment for pro-Trump Republicans nationwide who have hoped the Arizona review would vindicate their belief that the presidency was stolen from him. For many loyalists, the investigation has been seen as the first in a string of state inquiries that would, domino-like, topple claims that Mr. Biden was legitimately in the White House.

State Senator Wendy Rogers, a Republican who is among Arizonas most ardent advocates of the stolen-election canard, posted on Twitter late on Thursday that the 110-page document was simply a draft and is only a partial report, and looked ahead to a hearing on Friday discussing the results. Tomorrow we make history, she wrote.

On Thursday night, without acknowledging the findings of the draft reports that had been rippling across Arizona for half a day, the former president said in a statement, Everybody will be watching Arizona tomorrow to see what the highly respected auditors and Arizona State Senate found out regarding the so-called Election!

Election experts said the inquiry run by Trump partisans with unrestricted access to ballots and election equipment failed to make even a basic case that the November vote was badly flawed, much less rigged.

Critics said that would raise the bar for Republican politicians in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania who, under pressure from Mr. Trump and his supporters, have mounted their own Arizona-style investigations. Under similar pressure, the Texas secretary of states office on Thursday announced a comprehensive forensic audit of the results from four of the states largest counties.

If Trump and his supporters cant prove it here, with a process they designed, they cant prove it anywhere, David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said on Thursday.

In fact, the Republican inquiry may not be completely over. Senate investigators still want to examine Maricopa County computer servers for evidence of tampering, even though county officials insist they have had no connection to election machinery.

In general, however, the report was a cap-gun ending to an inquiry whose backers hinted would turn up a cannonade of fraud.

Republicans in the State Senate pushed for the inquiry in December, spurred in part by a daylong meeting with Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trumps lawyer.

The Republican president of the State Senate, Karen Fann, insisted that the review was a nonpartisan effort to reassure voters that the election had been well run, but faith in that pledge ebbed after she chose Cyber Ninjas, a firm with no prior experience in elections, to oversee the inquiry.

The firms chief executive, Doug Logan, soon was shown to have suggested on Twitter that Mr. Bidens victory in Arizona was illegitimate. Other firms and consultants hired for the inquiry also proved to have pro-Trump ties or were election conspiracy theorists.

While the reports authors declared that their monthslong review of votes in Maricopa County represented the most comprehensive and complex election audit ever conducted, the hand count of 2.1 million ballots and a review of voting machines and systems was plagued from the start by missteps and accusations of incompetence and partisan influence.

Some elections officials said the draft reports offered an unlikely vindication of what they have been insisting for months: that Arizona ran a transparent, credible election in November.

The numbers match up, said Adrian Fontes, who as county recorder oversaw the election in Maricopa County and is now a Democratic candidate for secretary of state.

Mr. Fontes said some critiques and concerns raised in the report, such as the potential for duplicate votes, reflected a lack of knowledge about how the county conducts elections. Mr. Fontes said his office had put systems into place that reconciled in real time voter lists with records of who has voted.

Pressuring state officials to 'find votes.' As the president continued to refuse to concede the election, his most loyal backers proclaimed Jan. 6, when Congress convened to formalize Mr. Biden's electoral victory, as a day of reckoning. On thatday, Mr. Trump delivered an incendiary speech to thousands of his supporters hours before a mob of loyalists violently stormedthe Capitol.

They dont understand the system, Mr. Fontes said. The report reveals to me their purposeful ignorance.

While the top-line results are far from what many conservatives had hoped for, Republicans in the Arizona Legislature could in the next session seize on a host of recommendations in the report based on the same faulty data and methodology as both justification and a road map to enact more laws that restrict voting.

The report suggests, for instance, that the Legislature should consider whether a change of address would suspend a voters enrollment on the widely popular Permanent Early Voting List, which automatically sends ballots to some people who vote by mail. Roughly 75 percent of all voters in Arizona are on the list.

That suggestion follows a law passed in May that removed voters from the list if they do not cast a ballot at least once every two years.

During the most recent legislative session, Republicans in Arizona had been prolific in drafting bills that would affect elections in the state, introducing 57 total bills, 32 of which would have added new restrictions to voting or shifted the balance of power in election administration, according to the Voting Rights Lab, a liberal-leaning voting rights group. Seven of those bills became law.

The report makes further legislative suggestions that would add more restrictions to voting. They include multiple ways to further purge voters from registration rolls, including if entries are not a direct match with government-issued identification.

Further undermining the findings in the report are repeated allusions to common election conspiracy theories that have percolated among right-wing news sites and social media since the election.

The report takes an extended look at marker bleed-through on ballots, which was the source of a debunked conspiracy known as #Sharpiegate that claimed ballots filled out with a felt-tipped pen could not be read by machines in Arizona. It also raises the prospect of fraudulent ballots being created and mailed, similar to a false claim by Mr. Trump that foreign countries would flood the 2020 election with fake ballots.

Election experts pointed to the corrosive effect of the decision to stage a partisan review of the election results, with copycat versions in other states and further eroding trust in democratic institutions.

Those people stormed the Capitol because they believed the election was fraudulent when it was not, said Matt A. Barreto, a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, and faculty director of the Voting Rights Project. And had we had leaders who just accepted the results and encouraged their team to try harder next time, we could have avoided that very ugly fiasco.

Reputable election experts have said for months that the Senate review would be wrong if it concluded that Mr. Trump won the Maricopa County vote. In fact, the explanation for Mr. Trumps loss was available in public records of individual ballots cast in November, Mr. White said.

Mr. White joined last month with two retired executives of Clear Ballot Group, an elections consulting firm, in a point-by-point report explaining what actually happened in November.

Their analysis of the choices on each ballot cast showed that Mr. Trump lost Arizona because 74,822 Republicans, including 59,800 in Maricopa County, were unhappy enough with the former presidents performance in office that they decided not to vote for him. Roughly two-thirds of those voters cast ballots for Mr. Biden, the analysis stated, and the remaining third either voted for another candidate, such as the Libertarian Party nominee, or did not vote for president.

The Republican who is now Maricopa Countys chief election officer, Stephen Richer, published a 38-page broadside last month in which he rebutted fraud claims and excoriated Republican politicians who have remained silent in the face of efforts to undermine the November results.

More than any moral code, philosophical agenda, interest group, or even team red vs. team blue, many politicians will simply do whatever it takes to stay in office, he wrote. Right now, a lot of Republican politicians have their fingers in the wind and think that conforming to Stop the Steal, or at least staying quiet about it, is necessary for re-election in their ruby red districts or a statewide Republican primary. So thats what theyll do.

Its disgusting, he added.

Read the rest here:

Republican Review of Arizona Vote Fails to Show Stolen Election - The New York Times

(AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)In this Jan. 4 photo President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally for Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., and David Perdue at Dalton Regional Airport in Dalton, Ga.

By Kimball Dean Parker | Special to The Tribune

| Sep. 24, 2021, 2:00 p.m.

As a Republican, the last six years have been painful. On June 16, 2015, Donald Trump formally announced his candidacy for president. And I watched in disbelief as he started to gain traction among Republicans. I kept telling myself that the party would correct itself. But it never did.

To my dismay, Trump won the nomination and then the presidency. I kept telling myself that Republicans in Congress and the Senate would act as a check on Trump that they wouldnt let him stray too far from core Republican values. But they never did.

Trump did unspeakable harm to our nation as president. And Republicans backed him at every step. He defiled the Constitution. Trump repeatedly stated that he should be allowed to serve three terms as president, directly contradicting the 22nd Amendment. And he argued that children of immigrants born in the United States should not be considered U.S. citizens, directly contradicting the 14th Amendment. He violently suppressed free speech and trampled on states rights.

Trumps response to COVID-19 was unforgivable. One in 500 people in the United States have now died of COVID. During a two-month span from mid-March to mid-May 2020, over 36 million Americans filed for unemployment, more than the populations of Belgium and the Netherlands combined. It didnt have to be this bad.

Trump told people the disease was a hoax and that it would go away. He sowed distrust in masks, vaccines and the CDC. Republicans backed this message and have continued to amplify it, which has resulted in wave after wave of infection, death and suffering.

Yet, of all the terrible things Trump has done since taking office, the longest-lasting wound will be his attacks on our democracy. In 2016, Trump made clear that he would not accept an election loss. And in 2020, he stayed true to his word. His baseless claims of election fraud have infected the Republican Party and resulted in a blatant attempt to overthrow the government.

And still, despite the parade of horrors that Trump brought upon this nation, and the unwavering Republican support he enjoyed while in office, I kept telling myself that the party would return to normal once Trump left the White House. But it never did.

Trump changed the party forever. And its unrecognizable. Its no longer a party that believes in democracy, or free market economics, or the Constitution, or the truth. Its a party that believes in Trump.

Utah Sen. Mitt Romney is booed at party conventions. Liz Cheney lost her leadership position for acknowledging Trumps role in the insurrection attempt. And there are troubling signs that questioning the validity of elections will be the Partys calling card moving forward.

Fellow Republicans need to ask themselves whether they can continue to associate with an organization that is actively attempting to undermine democracy in our country an organization that is purposefully eroding the trust that weaves our society together. I no longer can.

I should have left the party years ago, but I convinced myself that it would return to normal. But it never did. And it never will. The Republican Party I knew and loved is dead.

Kimball Dean Parker is the founder and CEO of SixFifty, the technology arm of the law firm Wilson Sonsini. He is also the founder and director of LawX, the legal design lab at Brigham Young University Law School. Opinions expressed here are his own and not necessarily those of either organization.

See the rest here:

Kimball Dean Parker: Why I am leaving the Republican Party - Salt Lake Tribune

What if Brad Raffensperger had followed Donald Trumps orders? As his bid to hang onto power following his election loss last year grew desperate, Trump urged the Georgia secretary of state to find enough votes to edge out Joe Biden. Raffensperger, a Republican, refused. Even so, Trump managed to bring democracy to the brink, eroding trust in the process with lies about fraud in Georgia and other swing states and instigating an attack on the United States Capitol. Its hard to say how much worse the crisis may have been had Raffensperger and other election officials gone along with him. But we could soon find out.

On ballots across the country next year, Big Lie proponents are vying to take control of their state election systemsincluding in Arizona, where the GOP-led Senate authorized a bogus audit of the 2020 results that Trump not-so-secretly saw as a springboard for his return to office. In five battleground states where Biden defeated Trump, 15 Republicans have officially declared their candidacy for secretary of state. Of those, according to a Reuters analysis Wednesday, only two acknowledge that Biden won last Novembers election. Ten, meanwhile, have either parroted Trumps claim that Biden stole the election or called for the results in their state to be invalidated. The candidates are not only looking back at the 2020 vote; theyre seeking to build on the lies and conspiracy theories to usher in anti-democratic changes to how their states run elections. In short, theyre using false claims of a rigged election to try to rig elections. That is code red for democracy, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, chair of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State, told Reuters.

Raffensperger, the only incumbent of the bunch, deserves credit for doing his job in spite of pressure from Trump and his allies. His refusal to cave has resulted in death threats to him and his family and political attacks from the MAGA world that once supported him. In the grand scheme of things, however, Raffensperger is more part of the problem than he is part of the solution. Last week, following a derisory written request from Trump that he be declared the true winner of the 2020 election, Raffensperger defended changes to the voting system that Republicans have ushered in on the basis of Trumps conspiracies, telling MSNBCs Chris Hayes that such laws address the lack of confidence that has been sowed in the democratic process. As Hayes replied, though, The confidence was taken away by lies.

You cant point to the misinformation and rebuilding confidence as a justification for substantive changes if those were lies being told that eroded the confidence, Hayes continued.

A quieter, more polite threat to ballot access is still a threat. But most of the other Republicans campaigning for secretary of state posts are even worse. Virtually all of them share the same complaints about mail-in ballots, drop boxes, and other measures that make it easier to vote. Some are more or less running on an anti-democracy platform: Arizona State Representative Shawnna Bolick, a candidate to replace Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, called on Congress to throw out her states election results and award its 11 electoral college votes to Trump; when that failed, she introduced a law that would allow the state legislature to reject election results before an inauguration (that bill also failed). Bolick isnt even the most extreme secretary of state aspirant in Arizona. That title goes to Mark Finchem, who was endorsed by Trump this month. A state representative, Finchem is a QAnon adherent with involvement in several far-right extremist groups, including the Oath Keepers anti-government militia group, and was present at the January 6 storming of the Capitolan attack he later said was the fault of the left. Trump praised the fringe lawmaker for his incredibly powerful stance on the Voter Fraud that took place in the 2020 Presidential Election Scam.

Finchem is not an outlier. In Georgia, Congressman Jody Hice is running a primary campaign for secretary of state against Raffensperger. Hice spoke at the rally that preceded the January 6 riot, voted against certifying the election results following the siege, and continues to promote Trumps baseless conspiracies. Unsurprisingly, Trump has endorsed his bid to replace Raffensperger, calling Hice one of our most outstanding Congressmen. Unlike the current Georgia Secretary of State, Jody leads out front with integrity, Trump said in a statement earlier this year. Jody will stop the Fraud and get honesty into our Elections!

The focus on these positions, particularly in the battlegrounds of Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Michigan, is perhaps the most dangerous of the Trump GOPs various, intersecting election schemes. It may be possible for Democrats to dodge obstacles to the ballot box, but what happens if the person in charge of the process is a hyper-partisan Trump loyalist who has publicly supported efforts to nullify legitimate votes? This is not merely a thought experiment, though the political media has sometimes treated it as such. John Eastman, one of the lawyers who sought to overturn the election for Trump, directly laid out a plan in his January 6 scenario memo to overthrow the democratic process by having seven states toss their results and Mike Pence declare Trump the winner based on the tally of the remaining 43. The idea was apparently taken seriously by some of the most powerful people in the country; perhaps all they needed was more willing participants among those overseeing the process.

View post:

These Republican Candidates Believe Trump Won 2020. Now They Want to Control 2024 - Vanity Fair

John C. Carroll, a steadfast Republican who served four terms in the state House and one in the state Senate, has died at age 91.

In an email statement, the Honolulu County Republican Party said Carroll died Sunday while surrounded by family members, and added, We are forever grateful for Johns service to our country in the U.S. Army and Air Force, and his service to Hawaii as a statesman.

Carroll pursued public office in this heavily Democratic state far more times than he held office, running 15 times and winning five races in a span of 54 years. Most recently, he was an unsuccessful candidate in the nonpartisan 2020 Honolulu mayoral race.

He ran for different offices because he didnt want that office to go unchallenged, former state Sen. Sam Slom said. He wasnt your normal politician. He could be very serious on issues. He wrote a number of papers. But he also had a sense of humor self-deprecating humor. I really appreciated that.

Slom said Carroll also kept his humor in check, had more experience than most people in town and was always willing to share that and his time.

A lot of people took John for granted, how he could work and volunteer, and he didnt always take up popular causes, Slom said. I lost a good friend.

Born Dec. 18, 1929, in St. Marys, Kan., Carroll attended Saint Marys College. On a football scholarship, he transferred in 1949 to the University of Hawaii at Hilo, where he played under coach Tommy Kaulukukui. He obtained a bachelors degree in education at UH Manoa. Carroll served in the Army during the Korean War, and went on to serve in the Air Force Reserve, holding the rank of colonel.

Trained as a combat-ready fighter pilot, after leaving the military, Carroll worked as a pilot for Hawaiian Airlines. He also went on to practice law in Hawaii as an attorney for more than five decades, representing Save Our Surf, the Hawaii Rifle Association and other organizations. Upon retiring from his law practice in 2017, Carroll announced plans to pursue a return to public service.

Carroll first dipped his toes into Hawaiis political waters in 1966 when he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives and lost. He tried again in 1968 and switched to a county race and suffered yet another defeat. The third time was a charm, with Carroll winning a seat in the state House. He served four terms there (1971-79), representing Waikiki, Moiliili and McCully; and one in the state Senate (1979-81), representing Nuuanu to Diamond Head. Also, he chaired the Hawaii Republican Party from 1981 to 1983.

State Rep. Bob McDermott (R, Ewa-Iroquois Point), assistant minority leader, said, In the later years, running for office was more of a hobby than a serious attempt to get elected. He wanted to contribute to the mix of ideas. He wanted to provoke thought. Noting that Carroll was always quick with a smile and a joke, McDermott said, he cared deeply about this country and will be missed.

In 2018 Carroll was a candidate in the Republican primary race for the governorship, losing to Andria Tupola, who now serves on the Honolulu City Council. In launching his 2020 mayoral campaign, he told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that he was running because of the failed leadership in the state.

Among other campaign positions, Carroll said he wanted to halt Honolulus $9.2 billion rail-to-nowhere project until we know what were doing with it to get it finished properly.

Star-Advertiser columnist Richard Borreca, who covered state politics for decades, said Carroll struggled to become a statewide leader and was never able to move up from the state Legislature to a larger position.

His eagerness and ambition were boundless, but he never could click with the voters, Borreca said. During his career he knew some of his political positions would not be popular. He could put up the good fight, but his Republican positions were just not what voters wanted.

In 2002 Carroll ran in the gubernatorial race against Linda Lingle on a platform that featured an anti-abortion stance, no tax increases and a push to repeal the Jones Act, which opponents say overcharges Hawaii residents and raises the cost of living.

The Jones Act, also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, requires all goods transported between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flagged vessels owned by U.S. citizens and crewed by U.S. residents for national security purposes and reliability.

Former Gov. Neal Abercrombie said, We met in the 1970s when we both began our legislative careers.

He said Carroll was a real legislator who was under the view that we were there to legislate not pontificate.

Though they were on opposite sides of the aisle, when the day was done, we were all friends and we were colleagues.

John always did his best for Hawaii, Abercrombie said. He was a good and honorable man. He wanted to serve the people of Hawaii.He was never self serving.

Here is the original post:

John Carroll, longtime Republican leader lauded for his Hawaii and military service dies at 91 - Honolulu Star-Advertiser

In this years NBA playoffs, fans saw the Philadelphia 76ers championship aspirations evaporate in an embarrassing second-round loss in part because their star point guard, Ben Simmons, repeatedly refused to even attempt a shot in the fourth quarter.

Simmons, the first overall pick in the 2016 draft, is a great defensive player and passer and has been a three-time All Star. However his inability to make a jump shot, or even attempt a jump shot, has clearly held his team back.

What makes that maddening, not just for Sixers fans but for NBA observers at large, is that Simmons has always had this weakness in his game. But instead of working on it and developing a shot, Simmons has been stubborn and seems to have decided hed rather pass the blame and fail playing his way, than grow his game so his team can succeed.

Life offers plenty of examples of this kind of thing: people deciding theyd rather refuse to change or hold tightly to ill-advised beliefs than succeed.

Id argue we have a prime example of this currently happening here, with California Republican activists and unfortunately their stubbornness has the potential for far more harm than the dashed aspirations of an NBA team.

After mounting a recall attempt that was handily defeated by Gov. Gavin Newsom and seeing their favorite replacement candidate receive an icy reception from anyone outside of the Republican base, you would think that Republican activists would recognize that their only chance of winning statewide office rests in getting away from Trumpian politics and conspiracy mongering.

That doesnt appear to be their approach, though.

Before ballots were even counted, Republican frontrunner Larry Elder and former President Donald Trump pushed unfounded conspiracies that the gubernatorial recall election was rigged. In fact Elders team promoted a website calling for voters to demand the California legislature investigate the twisted results of the 2021 recall election of Gov. Gavin Newsom all before ballot counts were even being reported.

Days after the recall results were revealed and Newsom clearly won, The Transparency Foundation led by conservative radio host Carl DeMaio quickly joined the fray, pushing the same narrative. They sent an email blast stating the group was looking into an extensive voter fraud effort and asked for tips about potential incidents.

Of course, they also requested donations to support their investigation.

Although there were a few voting issues on Election Day, claims of widespread voter fraud were unfounded.

One polling place was closed because of a threat of wildfire. And there were reports in one Los Angeles neighborhood of some people showing up to vote and being told they had already voted, but that was caused by faulty equipment that made it look as though people who came to vote in-person early had already checked in, according to county registrars. However they were still able to cast a provisional ballot, which the registrar will use until voter eligibility is sorted.

This story is for subscribers

We offer subscribers exclusive access to our best journalism.Thank you for your support.

Agence France-Presse, an international news outlet based in Paris, also did a fact check on many other baseless claims and conspiracies floating around about the recall election and found them all to be false.

A Republican has not won statewide office in California since 2006. And if Republicans continue to lean into the Trump brand of politics, its pretty clear that wont change anytime soon.

So why stick with it and take this conspiracy-mongering approach?

I asked Jack Pitney, professor of political science at Claremont McKenna College, that very question. Pitney is a lifelong conservative who has worked on multiple Republican presidential campaigns but left the party the day Trump was elected.

He noted that Elder, the top Republican candidate, got only 27% of the total California vote if you count the many voters who skipped the second question on the ballot, effectively rejecting all the replacement candidates.

That showing reconfirms that a hard-right candidate has practically no chance of winning statewide in California, Pitney said.

Still, there are some small enclaves where those candidates can win, he added.

Sure, a Trumpian candidate may be able to pick up a congressional seat or legislative district here or there, but they wont be able to actually do much of anything to help their residents or voters statewide, on a large scale.

To me that seems like a bizarre tactic to prioritize hustling for dollars and feeding a vocal minority over actually trying to influence public policy.

Pitney said that approach doesnt have a direct practical impact on public policy, but thats not really the point.

Political activity is a way of affecting emotions, not impacting public policy, he said, adding it also can register with some donors. Proponents would prefer to energize a shrinking base than build a majority coalition.

That somewhat explains the desire of DeMaio and other Republican activists to keep pushing these unfounded narratives and extreme beliefs that ultimately lead to rejection from most California voters.

But its still deeply troubling.

I say that not only because of the potential threat it poses to our democratic institutions and democratic process, but also because, in the long run, it typically hurts states when there is only one competitive political party.

One party control usually ends badly, whether its a Republican or Democrat, Pitney said. That leads the dominant party to be overconfident, sloppy on both ethics and policy.

Visit link:

Column: Republicans have to decide if the hustle is more important than shaping public policy - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Yet in one remarkable text exchange obtained by POLITICO, Gruters and lead House sponsor state Rep. Blaise Ingoglia (R-Spring Hill) went back-and-forth over proposals to shorten how long mail-in ballot requests are valid.

Gruters defended a Senate proposal to cancel all existing mail-in ballot requests, saying that it would be devastating for Republicans to keep them valid heading into the 2022 election when DeSantis and other state GOP officials are up for reelection. More than 2.18 million Democrats used mail-in ballots compared to 1.5 million Republican voters during the 2020 election where Trump easily won Florida. Part of that was due to the ongoing pandemic, as Democrats strongly encouraged voters to change their habits nationwide.

We cannot make up ground. Trump campaign spent 10 million. Could not cut down lead, Gruters wrote to Ingoglia, who had been chair of the Republican Party of Florida before Gruters.

Gruters (R-Sarasota) also said it would hurt the GOP in non-partisan races, noting that our school board member got killed in a local race. Gruters this week filed legislation that would ask voters to make school board races partisan.

The final election bill did not include the Senate proposal to cancel all requests. Instead, lawmakers voted to grandfather in existing requests. But over the protests of Democrats, the Republican lawmakers still shortened the time the requests would remain valid from two election cycles to one.

When asked about his text messages, Gruters said what I said in my text message was accurate. I think the failure to do a reset will have a detrimental impact going forward.

The emails and text messages obtained by POLITICO were handed over as part of an ongoing lawsuit by several groups including the League of Women Voters of Florida challenging the newly-enacted law that put in new restrictions on the collection of mail-in ballots and the use of drop boxes. The groups contend the new law illegally targets elderly and disabled voters, as well as minority voters. The National Republican Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee are helping defend the measure.

The groups challenging the law asked for the records to be turned over as part of their preparation for trial. POLITICO asked for copies of all records turned over by the House, Senate and governors office. These records included legislative drafts that are usually shielded from disclosure.

Included in the records were several emails between Ingoglia and Ben Gibson, an attorney for the firm of Shutts and Bowen who has been chief counsel for the Republican Party of Florida the last two election cycles. Gibson, an ally of DeSantis who the governor appointed to the State Board of Education, has also represented national Republicans in election-related lawsuits including the one challenging the new law.

Gibson recommended several provisions that made their way into the final legislation, although not all the ideas he shared with Ingoglia were included, such as one that would have given additional power to Floridas secretary of state to investigate local election supervisors. At one point he provided a lengthy side-by-side of House and Senate bills that recommended which provisions should be kept and which ones should be jettisoned. Ingoglia downplayed his communications with Gibson.

In a text message to POLITICO, Ingoglia said, I had an open door policy and listened to everyone. Some ideas we took, and many were discarded. The legislature wrote this bill. Any suggestion otherwise is not accurate. Ultimately Im proud of what the Florida Legislature passed.

Ingoglia also brushed aside the back-and-forth with Gruters. He said he was very clear from the beginning that allowing mail-in ballot requests to remain valid for two election cycles was too long.

I was on record for this well before any text message was received, Ingoglia said. This was a policy decision all along and had nothing to do with partisan reasons.

Democrats who sharply criticized the voting legislation said they were not surprised that it was drawn up with the assistance of a top Republican attorney.

Unfortunately, I am not shocked, said state Rep. Evan Jenne (D-Dania Beach). Democracy is just a game to some.

Democrats also made sure to consult outside groups as well while the bill was under debate. During session, Senate Democrats held a caucus meeting where a lobbyist and consultant representing civil rights groups encouraged Democrats to ask questions that could be used in a potential lawsuit.

State Sen. Annette Taddeo (D-Miami) said that if legislators wanted to improve Floridas elections they would have relied more on local supervisors.

If this was truly about democracy and integrity of elections we would be taking the advice of experts, Taddeo said. Clearly this shows this was partisan where they were colluding to undermine democracy.

Read more from the original source:

'Devastating': Florida Republicans worried about 2022 as they crafted election law - Politico

Eric Schneidewind| Detroit Free Press

During my time as volunteer president of AARP in Michigan and nationally, I saw firsthand how passionate older Americans are about voting and preventing identity theft.

Thats why Im so concerned about the Michigan Republican Partys petition drive that would make it harder for all Michiganders to vote, and expose to increased threat of identity theft anyone choosing to vote by maila choice many older voters have found easy, secure and safe, especially in these days of the COVID pandemic.

When it comes to voting, Americans 65-74 years of age had the highest turnout rate in 2020, at 76% (compared to 51.4%for those 18-24), according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Older Americans also led in what the Census calls non-traditional voting absentee and early voting, often by drop box, with 77.7%of voters over age 65 voting non-traditionally, compared to 69.7% ofyounger voters.

More: Michigan Republicans plan to launch petition drive to pursue voting overhaul

More: Sidney Powell, Kraken legal team face sanctions, court costs and potential disbarment over election lawsuit

The Michigan Republican petition takes aim at senior voters when it endeavors tohinder voting by absentee ballot and drop boxes. The manipulative political consultants running this effort to change our election laws claim we need to make it harder to vote to increase election security, even though an extensive examination of the 2020 election by a committee led by state Sen.Edward McBroom (R-Vulcan)showed zero evidence of any widespread security issues in absentee or drop box voting (or any other part of our current election process).

The GOP plan would prevent local and state officials from sending absentee ballot applications to voters unless the voter explicitly requests an application. Instead of government making it easy and just sending all registered voters an application (as they do for driver licenses and the like), you would have to take an explicit action one thats easy to forget.

The GOP petition would also impose a new requirement when you send in your ballot. Right now, you sign it, and the local clerk carefully compares that signature to the one on file to prove you are indeed a registered voter.

The Republican plan, which will certainly be approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature and would not besubject to review by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer if the ballot petition signatures are certified, would force you to put on that application even more personal data driver license and Social Security numbers that could easily be stolen by identity theft professionals from mailboxes or clerks offices. Local clerks would then be required to waste hours on computers looking up those numbers on state databases.

On top of these efforts to undermine senior voting, the Republican proposal would make it harder for local clerks to offer secure the election drop boxesused by many seniors, who might want to avoid the mail for whatever reason, and to pay for extra election officials many communities rely on to speed lines and tally ballots on Election Day.

Today, if you wish, you can make a contribution to your local government for election equipment and to pay for additional staff, just as you can make contributions for bulletproof vests for local police, or special smoke vision goggles for firefighters In 2020, non-profit groups came together to make such donations so that it was easier to vote than ever. Butunder the GOP plan, such contributions to local governments would be banned if they were designed to make voting easier.

There is only one goal here: To make it harder for Michiganders to vote. These new requirements will fall heaviest on senior citizens. They are opposed by local clerks around the state.

In coming weeks, you may see someone with a petition saying they want to make voting more secure or to require ID for voting. We already have one of the strongest voter ID laws in the nation only about 11,400 persons in 2020 voted by signing an affidavit saying they had forgotten their ID and that they were indeed the properly registered voter on the voting rolls. Many were likely seniors, driven to the polls by friends or relatives, who just forgot their driver license. Not one was challenged.

But now you know the truth: The petition will really make it harder for the millions of Michiganders, including seniors, who voted absentee or with drop boxes to cast their ballots, without adding any ballot security to our process that already has been proven secure by legislative investigation.

When you see thosesignature collectors, tell them no thanks. Tell them you like to vote, that dont want to make it harder, andthat you dont want to expose yourself to identify theft. And tell your friends and relatives they shouldnt be supporting the GOP plan to make it harder for seniors and others to vote. You can learn more at http://www.votersnotpoliticians.com/freedom.

Eric Schneidewind is the former president of AARP Michigan.

More:

Real goal of GOP petition drive is to make voting harder | Opinion - Detroit Free Press

On the eve of California's second-ever gubernatorial recall election, pollsshowed dire news for those hoping to bounce Gavin Newsom from office and replace him with someone with a more conservative mindset. Despite my issues with the governor, I was far more disappointed with the statements from recall supporters than from the polling data.

Before voting was even finished, Republican "leaders promoted unsubstantiated claims that the race was rigged or compromised by misconduct," APreported. It noted that leading replacement candidate, Larry Elder, said, "there might very well be shenanigans." And Donald Trump asked, "Does anybody really believe the California Recall Election isn't rigged?"

Apparently, Republicans onlytrust election results when they emerge as winners. That poses a long-term problem for the health of our democratic system, butin California, in particularit poses an existential problem for the GOP. When a party refuses to live in the real world, it's not going to make sensible decisions that help it get back in the political game.

I talked to some conservative activists in the weeks before the vote, and many of them were living in a fantasy world. Some were sure that the polls weren't accurate because of liberal polling bias and the recall really was on track, while others believed the nonsense about fraud. After Newsom scored an impressive 64 percent to 36 percent victory, recall supporters were looking for everyone but themselves to blame.

Let's see, a Democratic governor was victorious in a strongly Democratic state by margins that approximate the usual Democrat v. Republicanbreakdown, and the best people can do is claim voting irregularities. Sorry, but recall advocates ran one of the worst campaigns in memory. They failed to make a compelling case to non-Republicans.

I covered the 2003 recall ofGov. Gray Davis, whose incompetence in the face of rolling electricity blackouts and budget deficits led to widespread voter frustration. The electorate was more Republican 18 years ago than it is today but still was heavily Democratic. I'd argue that the list of Festivus-like grievances against Davis pales in comparison to the ones against Newsom.

The current governor has restricted charter schools, which are an educational bright spot. Violent crime is rising, homelessness is spreading civic disorder, and wildlands are on fire. There's the Employment Development Department scandaland much to critique in Newsom's handling of COVID-19. The budget is in great shape (if we ignore the state's unfunded liabilities), but there are myriad reasons for disgruntlement.

Yet in 2003, recall supporters built a broad-based coalition that focused on the key issues that upset Californians of all political persuasions. They recruited a candidate,Arnold Schwarzenegger, who not only was a popular celebritybut who carefully pitched a moderate, bipartisan, and generally optimistic governmental reform message.

This time around, recall advocates made it perilously easy for Democrats to turn this into a partisan"Republican recall"race. I like Larry Elder and have admired his past years of libertarian-oriented punditry, but he and other GOP replacement candidates campaigned as if they were appealing to a mostly conservative electorate.

In my rural area, pro-Trump signs and those obnoxious blue-stripe flag desecrations accompanied virtually every recall-signature table. Doubling down on stridently conservativemessagingin a state where conservatives are a dwindling and fleeing minority (and having insufficient resources to run compelling ads), doesn't seem like a winning strategy. Maybe that's just me.

The "yes" vote on the recall question received roughly the same percentage as Republicans routinely receive in statewide races. How surprising. Conservatives have long advocated for a take-no-prisoners campaign, but they couldn't even reach John Cox's dismalnumbers. He lost to Newsom in 2018 by 24 percentage points, which is a nail-biter compared to Tuesday's showing.

I've often criticized the largely unprincipled state GOP, but at least the establishment makes an attempt to woo unaffiliated and Democratic voters. The problem started with the recall petition. Instead of focusing on broad concerns, it chided Newsom for favoring "foreign nationals, in our country illegally," as if immigrants rather than homegrown politicians are the problem.

Recallers should have recruited the right candidate before they started collecting signatures. The campaign initially put pressure on Newsom to moderate some of his coronavirus restrictions, but as the race heated up and the GOP ran right, it pushed Newsom further to theleftto shore up his base. The downside always was obvious. If the recall didn't succeed, it would leave Newsom and the supermajority Democrats stronger than ever.

"Democrats have been sharpening their attacks on Republicans over the pandemic, former president Donald Trump and other polarizing topics, and now, emboldened by victory in California's recall election, party leaders are seeking to further escalate hostilities ahead of the midterm elections," The Washington Post concluded. It's hard to disagree.

Go ahead and blame voting issues. As themidtermsapproach, I'm sure that will be a winner.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

Read the original here:

Republicans Got What They Deserved in California Recall - Reason

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

WASHINGTON Lizzie Pannill Fletcher's political career became something of a trophy to Washington Democrats in 2018 after she won the Houston-based 7th Congressional District long a bastion of Texas Republican leadership.

The seat was once held by the late President George H.W. Bush, and one of Fletcher's most prominent constituents is U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz. TX-7 was designed to be a safe Republican stronghold, but the 46-year-old former trial attorney snatched it away three years ago. And while many of her classmates from the 2018 Democratic wave lost reelection in 2020, she held on against a formidable Republican opponent.

Any day now, she'll find out how intent Texas Republicans are on taking the seat back.

The Texas Legislature is poised to unveil its proposed maps for new Texas Congressional districts, and some expect they'll redraw the 7th Congressional District in a way that dooms Fletcher's chances of winning there again.

Fletcher is well aware she is in political purgatory.

Ive always known that this is just part of the process and theres so much happening here, that perhaps its good that its not my focus, she said in an interview. Its on my radar that my job is to represent my constituents and certainly hearing what Ive heard, knowing what I know, I do feel a responsibility to try to protect the district and to protect them.

During two terms in the U.S. House, Fletcher has been a somewhat overshadowed presence, a quietly loyal party member among the boisterous pack of Democrats who took back the chamber in 2018.

She is a strong fundraiser amassing more money this cycle than any other Texas Democratic member. She does not create headaches for party leadership and avoids the bombast of modern social media politicking.

But redistricting is a blood sport, and Republicans this time around have an even freer hand to carve up the state for partisan advantage after the U.S. Supreme Courts 2013 decision gutting key provisions of federal laws that protected voters of color.

No Texas Democrat is more often cited as a likely victim of the redistricting pen than Fletcher. Whether or not Republicans take an aggressive posture toward her could set the stage for the next decade in the Texas congressional delegation.

Much of the animus toward her in the Republican consultant class is rooted in geography: Fletcher represents a seat that was never meant to be competitive, let alone held by a Democrat.

Two of the previous congress members elected there are Republican legends: the elder Bush and former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer. Fletcher does not run from that history.

Shes loosely in touch with the Bush camp, and when she met this week with one of her interns from the University of Texas who is part of a program named for Archer, Fletcher was quick to point out that he once represented the district.

While some Republicans take umbrage with this, she is a creature of her hometown.

Reared in the Afton Oaks neighborhood during the 1980s oil bust, she attended the citys most elite private school. She left the state for her undergraduate degree and law school but returned in 2006 to work for Vinson & Elkins, one of the most politically wired firms in town. Prior to her run, she was a partner at Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing law firm.

Now, as the congresswoman, she has two grown stepchildren and lives with her attorney husband near the area where she grew up.

She came to this political place in early 2017. Fletcher joined the wave of political neophytes who ran for Congress in a backlash to the election of former President Donald Trump. She ultimately defeated U.S. Rep. John Culberson, a longtime Republican who had mostly faced nominal Democratic opponents in the past.

Her first election was so crucial to national Democrats that they sent one of their most effective surrogates the late U.S. Rep. John Lewis to campaign with her at African American worship services the weekend before the election.

That day still imbues her Washington office, where she displays several framed photos of herself with Lewis from that time and another from a pre-pandemic 2020 march on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma where decades earlier the civil rights icon was nearly beaten to death by police.

Houston iconography also abounds coasters with one of the local area codes, 713 and her older sisters art work celebrating the city. There are two framed maps of the 7th Congressional District which includes much of west Houston and its suburbs.

What that district will look like after the Legislature is done drawing new maps is now one of the most debated questions in Texas politics, and the merciful scenarios for Fletcher are limited.

Its an open secret that House GOP leadership wants to elevate her 2020 rival, retired veteran Wesley Hunt. And after Republicans held on to the Legislature last year, speculation began about how to draw maps in a way that would make it impossible for her and U.S. Rep. Colin Allred, a Dallas Democrat also elected in 2018 to win reelection.

Given that House Democrats have only an eight-vote margin, it was easy to see early this year how the road to a majority for Republicans must pass through Texas and through Fletcher's district.

When youre looking at the big picture ... You definitely have heard people saying there is an effort to take back the House through redistricting, she said.

I dont think its a good idea to take back the House by not letting people vote, she said, referencing the recently passed state voter access bill. I also dont think its good to take back the House by dismantling districts that are effectively performing for their constituents.

Theres also a frustration in GOP circles that Fletcher has a Teflon shield. She tends to vote with her party but is perceived locally as a moderate. They argue she is weak on the districts main economic sector fossil fuels. The 7th Congressional District has long been home to many of the great oil barons. Its a charge that can bring flashes of subtle ire to Fletchers normally cheerful disposition.

Already, a Republican group aligned with national GOP leaders called American Action Network has made a small television buy tying her to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The House GOP campaign committee is also keeping an eye on Fletcher.

Texans are paying more for gas and groceries because Lizzie Fletcher keeps supporting Democrats socialist spending sprees, said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Torunn Sinclair. It will cost her reelection.

But eight state and national Republican operatives with direct ties to the Texas delegation warned in interviews that an aggressive effort to unseat Fletcher could endanger the Republican incumbents who surround her district: U.S. Reps. Michael McCaul of Austin, Dan Crenshaw of Houston and Troy Nehls of Richmond.

Historically, the Legislature listens to the sitting Congressional Republicans when they redraw maps, and McCaul, as a senior Republican, is serving as a point person between the state lawmakers and his GOP colleagues.

While early details of the new districts remain closely held, some Republican sources said they sense survival instincts are setting in among the federal Republicans. Meaning, few are excited about the notion of pulling conservative voters from nearby Republican incumbents districts to take out Fletcher.

Instead, the map drawers could decide to leave Fletcher alone and siphon Republicans from her district to bolster the long-term reelection chances of Republicans in neighboring districts.

But that might hurt Fletcher in a different way: Her district could end up including many new Democratic voters unfamiliar with her, leaving her vulnerable to a primary challenge from an established Houston Democrat.

While incumbents across the country carried a bit of anxiety around the Capitol this week, Fletchers fate remains the focus in Texas.

By all appearances, Fletcher likes serving in Congress. She has a coveted seat on the U.S. House and Energy Committee, which has oversight of the oil and gas industry, and shes begun branching out on national television to discuss a key issue she ran on as a candidate: abortion rights.

But if the maps bring bad news her way, she will have some difficult choices to make.

I dont know that Ive thought through my process, she said, describing how she will sort out her political future. But Im generally most concerned about making sure that my constituents get the representation they deserve.

At this point, all options are on the table, she said.

When asked if that included retirement, she laughed: Im too young to retire, right?

But there is another option.

The 2018 wave was consequential in Texas partly because it gave Democrats a farm team for the first time in decades. Fletcher could run for a different office.

If I think I have something to offer, or if I think I can contribute ... I have to kick the tires for a long time before I feel confident that I can do a job here, but I think Ive done a good job here, she said.

As for the psychology of this strange, once-in-a-decade political dance, she said the sheer volume of legislation before the congress this week an abortion bill, a potential government shutdown, House Democratic efforts to convince the Senate to take up a voting bill has kept her too busy to dwell.

I cant control everything, so Im in a pretty good place, and Im going to see what my options are and make my decisions, she said. Its not much of a process.

But you know, Im going to see what my options are, and I tend to be pretty analytical, and so Im sure Ill think for a long time, and well see.

You never know, right?

If you appreciate reporting like this, you need to be at the all-virtual 2021 Texas Tribune Festival happening now through Sept. 25. Join as big names from politics, public policy and the media share whats next for Texas and beyond. Explore live and on-demand programming, including dozens of free events, at tribfest.org.

Read the original here:

Democratic US Rep. Lizzie Pannill Fletcher could be GOP target in Texas redistricting - The Texas Tribune

For decades, Republican state lawmakers have been able to vote for and pass highly restrictive abortion laws without living through the political consequences, because the laws were typically enjoined by the courts before they ever took effect. The politicians got to check the pro-life box important to a segment of their voters without their constituents ever living under those strict laws. This kept the political backlash to their votes to a minimum.

This month, the Supreme Court called these legislators bluff by letting the Texas abortion law stand. Now the most restrictive abortion law in the country is under the political microscope and Republicans in Washington are being uncharacteristically quiet at least in part because they sense that this law will do more to motivate the opposition than it will to rally the faithful.

Already, the Democrats cant stop talking about it. After a brutal August that mired the Biden White House in one bad news cycle after another, the Supreme Courts decision on Texas was like rain breaking a long drought for Democratic operatives. The issue allowed Democrats to unite their warring factions on the Hill, moved the news cycle off wall-to-wall coverage of Bidens botched Afghanistan withdrawal, and raised money for Democratic candidates.

If larger historical trends hold, Republicans would be favored to win back the House in 2022, but the question now is whether anti-abortion advocates just handed a beleaguered White House the key to energizing their pro-abortion rights voters and potentially staving off a GOP landslide. By finding a legal loophole that allowed the Texas law to go into effect, did they win the battle but lose the war?

In answering that question, first, we shouldnt pay too much attention to abortion issue polls. As a general matter, issue polling is deeply flawed in that it asks people to summarize their often complex and contradictory views into answers like agree and strongly agree. And unlike campaign polling plagued by its own inadequacies the results are never verified by an actual election.

Moreover, abortion is uniquely poorly polled. Whether someone identifies as pro-life or pro-choice which are highly correlated with partisanship isnt helpful when debating, for example, whether a woman should be required to have an ultrasound before aborting a pregnancy. Asking respondents whether Roe should be overturned is only useful if the pollster is actually trying to determine whether voters think abortion restrictions should be decided by federal courts or state legislatures. Do you believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases gives us no information on the voter who believes that abortion at eight months should be prohibited and at six weeks should be legal.

So the more relevant question is whether the abortion issue motivates voters in both political camps and which side it motivates more.

Theres some research to show that abortion doesnt motivate Republican voters all that much. As Ryan Burge, an assistant professor of political science at Eastern Illinois University, found based on data from 2018, large numbers of white evangelicals dont place a great deal of importance on abortion and other issues like immigration and issues of race may be even more effective at turning out the base in the future.

The problem with that data, however, is that it was gathered before the confirmation of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, in an era when the court was striking down most abortion restrictions. Not surprisingly, then, those researchers also found that the same voters believed it was very unlikely that the two SCOTUS precedents upholding a constitutional right to an abortion, Roe and Casey, would ever get overturned. In other words, its possible that voters stopped caring about abortion because they knew they couldnt get far on the issue. This could mean that if the new 6-3 Court actually does move the ball down the field so to speak later this year, these voters would be much more motivated to vote on their anti-abortion beliefs.

Meanwhile, abortion is showing signs of being a motivating issue for Democrats, who are fighting to keep control of the House and Senate in 2022. According to a Morning Consult poll from last week, the share of Democratic women who say that issues such as abortion, contraception and equal pay, are their top voting concerns has risen from 8 percent to 14 percent since the Texas law went into effect. That may sound small, but if midterm elections are largely about motivating your own voters, then having an issue that can move turnout by a few percentage points is often the difference between winning and losing a top tier race.

So, both sides have reason to believe this issue can motivate their base under the right circumstances. But only the Democrats have the motivator of fear both in the form of an obviously unconstitutional law that is currently being used to stop abortions in a state that they once again hope to flip in 2022 and the now much more realistic threat of similar laws passing in states with open Senate seats like Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

The second point to consider is that the abortion debate will only gain steam next year, an election year. Because of the bizarre legal quirks of the Texas law, it will continue to wind its way through the courts for months and pop up in the news from time to time. But the true national abortion fight will come when the Supreme Court issues an opinion about Mississippis 15-week abortion ban, mostly likely in next June just four and a half months before the 2022 election. (SCOTUS will hear the case later this year.) This not the Texas case represents the real challenge to Roe and Casey.

If the Supreme Court holds that there is no longer a constitutional right to obtain an abortion or holds that such a right only exists until roughly the end of the first trimester, individual states would be able to pass laws restricting abortion access or Congress would be able to pass a law recodifying a federal right to abortion access. This could make every state legislative race and congressional election a referendum on abortion legislation in a way that the country has never experienced. And the unpredictability of the outcome of such a large-scale fight should worry both sides.

Third, the Texas law is dividing the right. There are two big fault lines within the anti-abortion movement, and the Texas law is exacerbating both of them.

One dividing line is whether the goal of the anti-abortion movement should be to ban abortion or end abortion. The ban abortion crowd wants to pass laws that prohibit abortions. The end abortions folks, however, want to use whatever means are effective to reduce the number of abortions in the country. They are quick to point out that there are fewer abortions today than in 1973, when abortions were banned in large swaths of the country, proving that laws banning abortion will never end the practice by themselves. There are plenty of people in this crowd who think the Texas laws reliance on abortion bounty hunters, as some people are calling them, to report abortions is a gross, counterproductive idea that will do more to turn people away from the movement than win hearts and minds to the cause.

Another fracture within the movement is reflected in almost every political fight the incrementalists vs. the absolutists. The Texas law mandating a 6-week abortion ban and punishing those who aid and abet anyone who gets an abortion after that period is an absolutist one. The absolutists knew it was unconstitutional under current Supreme Court precedent and will likely be overturned, but they think it will have been worth the effort as long as it can save a few lives for the few weeks it is actually in effect. The incrementalists, on the other hand, wrote the law in Mississippi a 15-week ban on abortion that relies on the consensus in Western European countries, which almost all restrict abortions after the first trimester. Most legal scholars believe this law could be the vehicle the conservative court uses to narrow or overturn Roe and Casey. These more incrementalist anti-abortion advocates still want to end abortions in the U.S. but they are willing to play a game of inches to get the ball into the end zone rather than throw a pass that has a high likelihood of getting intercepted by Chief Justice Roberts.

The result is that the anti-abortion movement is divided against itself. Proponents of the Texas law are claiming vindication, but the end abortion crowd is questioning its efficacy. The incrementalists are arguing that its counterproductive, and legal conservatives are pointing out that the same concept could now be used by liberals to create bounties on other constitutional rights like gun ownership and religious exercise. This leaves sizeable portions of the GOPs base divided against themselves heading into a midterm that will require thousands of grassroots staff and volunteers across the country to all row in the same direction.

The Supreme Court in Roe purported to settle the abortion issue nearly 50 years ago, but instead the justices only moved the fight from the ballot box to the courts themselves. As one federal judge put it this month, wrenching responsibility from the hands of state legislatures and giving it to judges has resulted in acrimony and results-oriented decisions. Not coincidentally, judicial confirmation fights have only gotten more contentious since Roe, as the elected branches increasingly bring the courts into their political battles. In the first half of 2021, state legislatures passed more anti-abortion regulations than in any year since the Roe was decided in 1973 all of which will be litigated in the courts.

If the Supreme Court gets out of the abortion business in the lead up to the 2022 elections, it will be up to voters and legislators to decide the issue for themselves. Midterm elections historically favor the party out of power, but Republicans may have just handed Democrats the issue they needed to motivate the Democratic voters that often stay home between presidential elections.

Excerpt from:

Why Republicans Are Scared of Texas New Abortion Ban - POLITICO