*All – Page 9 – * Failed Pols

Voter intimidation and suppression are illegal, as is election tampering. Yet our current president continues to openly support and encourage all three, evidently in fear that those are the only ways to ensure that he wins re-election. In few areas are Trump’s authoritarian ambitions more apparent than in his efforts at voter suppression and intimidation, as well as election tampering; and even if some guns, harassment, or violence happen to be in the mix, so be it.

Donald Trump has insisted that the only way he will lose the 2020 presidential election is if the Democrats cheat. Having already nursed his supporters’ distrust of anyone but himself and those associated with him, Trump has also persuaded his base to believe his narrative about election results. Trump’s desperate crafting of such an outcome expectation has set the stage for his supporters to refuse to accept any election outcome other than Trump’s re-election. This, in itself, is election tampering by Donald Trump. Cheating, even.

When it became clear that the coronavirus pandemic would stretch beyond the summer and into the time of the presidential election, it also became apparent that polling venues would be risky places to be on Election Day. Consequently, many states decided to make it easier for their residents to vote by mail in order to protect them from contracting the virus while voting, as well as make voting generally more accessible for every voter.

Donald Trump has used the situation as another opportunity to meddle with the election by insisting that voting by mail leads to widespread voter fraud. Though it’s true that more Democrats than Republicans vote by mail, both Republican-led and Democrat-led states have successfully carried out past elections that were largely by mail-in ballot, with negligible voter fraud. Trump, however, continues to try to promote mistrust in voting by mail, and his administration has initiated several lawsuits to try to stop voting by mail. If more voters vote (and more mail-in voting ensures that more voters will vote), it is a threat to a Trump victory.

Over the summer, as if to reinforce his scheme to prevent successful mail-in voting, Trump appointed top campaign donor Louis DeJoy as Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service. DeJoy soon issued “cost-savings measures” that included reductions in service; decommissioning of hundreds of mail sorting machines; removal of numerous blue mailboxes across the country; and abolishing the overtime needed to ensure that all of the day’s mail is processed and delivered in a timely manner. DeJoy’s actions brought into question whether he would, intentionally or unintentionally, prevent mail-in ballots from arriving in time to be counted in the election.

Following challenges by Congress and by consumers, DeJoy pulled back on his plan to continue decommissioning postal machines and removing mailboxes. By that time, however, many machines had already been taken out of service, and many mailboxes had already been removed. Further, many Americans’ faith in the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots on time had been eroded.

For those who will not be casting their votes by mail, the polling places have begun to open for early voting. As evidenced by the hours-long lines of voters waiting to cast their votes, Donald Trump’s efforts have not squelched voter enthusiasm, nor have they prevented votes from being cast in any fashion.

As Donald Trump has seen that nothing will deter voters from voting in the 2020 election, he has now called for an army of his supporters to deem themselves “poll watchers,” and go to voting places to “watch very carefully” as voters exercise their right to vote.

“I’m urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully because that’s what has to happen,” Said Trump at his first presidential debate against former Vice President Joe Biden. “I am urging them to do it.”

Sean Morales-Doyle, deputy director of the Brennan Center’s voting rights and elections program, has said that many states have laws that dictate who is allowed to be in a polling place at a given time, including who is permitted to be a poll watcher, and what a poll watcher is allowed to do.

“There are laws like this in many states,” says Morales-Doyle. “Regular citizens can’t just take it upon themselves to engage in this kind of poll watching, and for good reason, because it opens up the possibility of voter intimidation, of vigilantism, which the president is seemingly encouraging. But it is illegal.”

Many Democratic leaders and election officials, including Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, also fear voter intimidation, and particularly, suppression of Black voters and other voters of color. Ford tweeted that Trump wasn’t referring to standard poll watching, but instead was calling for “voter intimidation.”

“Voter intimidation is illegal in Nevada. Believe me when I say it: You do it, and you will be prosecuted,” said Ford.

“The President is openly urging his supporters to congregate at polling places, go inside, and ostensibly harass and intimidate voters,” said Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring. “While there are authorized ‘poll watchers’ who monitor polls on Election Day, their duties are clearly laid out, and they do not include what President Trump has suggested.”

During early voting at one location in Fairfax, Virginia, a group of about 50 Trump supporters gathered, waving Trump 2020 banners, wrapping themselves in American flags, and shouting, “Four more years! Four more years!” Though the group hadn’t violated any election laws, some voters felt threatened, and requested escorts into the building.

In Michigan, fearing that unauthorized “poll watching” by Trump’s supporters could turn violent, the state has banned open carry of guns at polling places on Election Day, as well as at places where absentee ballots are counted.

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said that the Michigan directive prohibits the open carry of firearms “in a polling place, in any hallway used by voters to enter or exit, or within 100 feet of any entrance to a building in which a polling place is located.”

Donald Trump would like to abolish “liberty and justice for all” by using his supporters, the very people who claim to wield their guns in support of “liberty and justice” (at least for some), to help him accomplish his goal. He has shown that he would do anything to prevent an election result that is not in his favor, including stopping the mail, and even postponing the election (which can’t be done without an act of Congress).

Trump may fantasize about winning re-election, no matter what, and he may fantasize even more about being an authoritarian leader, but Americans in large numbers have shown how dogged they are when it comes to the standing up against the attempts by the president and his enablers to prevent them from casting their votes in this election.

After all votes are counted, may the total be against the one who wanted to suppress and intimidate voters, and may it be in favor of the candidate who will work for “liberty and justice,” not just for some, but for all.

Trump’s “poll watcher” comments raise concerns about voter intimidation |
CBS News [2020-10-06]

Trump Supporters Disrupt Early Voting in Virginia | Now This News
[2020-09-22]

Just because Amy Coney Barrett is a woman doesn’t mean she is a champion of women and the laws designed to protect them or their freedoms. Many conservative Republicans, however, take the view that Democrats and feminists should support the Supreme Court justice nomination of judge Amy Coney Barrett, who would fill the vacated seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, simply because she’s a woman.

Donald Trump and the conservatives hold up Amy Coney Barrett, female judge, as if to say, “See? We’re not anti-woman!” similarly to the way they offer up a handful of Black people in a crowd of supporters to say, “See? We’re not racist!” And so, according to some conservatives’ reasoning, If Democrats support women, they have to be behind any woman nominee. Any objection to Barrett is labeled as hypocrisy.

In an opinion piece in The Hill, Katie Pavlich asks, “What Happened to Democrats Supporting Women?”

“After her nomination at the White House over the weekend,” writes Pavlich, “it’s become clearer than ever Democrats are only interested in supporting certain kinds of ambitious and successful women.”

Certain kinds? Well, yes: The kind who stand for the freedom of women to make their own choices and have equal protection under the law. The kind who don’t want to block women’s rights to health care, reproductive freedom, and personal autonomy. The kind who won’t legislate from the bench. And, yes, the kind who wasn’t nominated with the conservatives’ expectation that she will carry out the will of Donald Trump and the Republican lawmakers when it comes to dismantling the Affordable Care Act, overturning Roe v. Wade, and possibly even presiding over a lawsuit to contest the presidential election, should there be a contested election.

“Judge Barrett isn’t the kind of woman the left tolerates. She’s independent, strong and has rejected the notion that women are still victims in American society,” writes Pavlich, insulting the memory of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as well as “the left” and women who continue to be victims in American society.

“She is too religious, too respectful of her husband, has too many children and loves the United States of America. Not to mention her love for the U.S. Constitution. It’s no wonder the left is trying to destroy her. After all, she stands for everything they stand against: the nuclear family, true tolerance, freedom of religion, the principle that each person, no matter how small, has value, and much more,” writes Pavlich, falling back on the frequently used conservative narrative strategy of accusing “the left” of being anti-family, anti-religion, and generally anti-American.

Democrats don’t want to deny Amy Coney Barrett the freedom to practice her religion. They do fear, however, that her religious beliefs may influence the way she interprets the law and how she rules on cases. Will she be able to be unbiased? She is, we need to remember, the darling of the religious right, and of “pro-life” groups.

It’s unclear, for example, how Barrett would rule in cases concerning the rights of the LGBTQ community. And Coney Barrett’s past decisions have indicated that she would rule to overturn Roe v. Wade, thus removing a woman’s right to reproductive freedom. She has, after all, been nominated by Donald Trump to fill one of the seats Trump promised to fill with “pro-life” judges.

And speaking of bias, would she recuse herself from elections-related cases that go before the Supreme Court, should the 2020 presidential election be contested? Donald Trump clearly wants her participation.

Katie Pavlich wants badly to frame Democrats’ concern over Barrett’s nomination as simply an inability to recognize an outstanding woman if she’s not a Democrat. No one can say (and no one is saying) that Amy Coney Barrett isn’t an intelligent, accomplished, admirable woman. She is a judge, a scholar, a law professor, a wife, and the mother of seven. She clerked with the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

“Judge Barrett is a female inspiration,” writes Pavlich. “It’s too bad Democrats only seem to care about women’s achievement when an individual shares their political preferences.”

No, Katie Pavlich, it’s bigger than that. Not only is there concern that Barrett won’t be able to be an unbiased Justice, her past writing indicates that she would likely rule to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In fact, Trump and the GOP lawmakers have already indicated that they would take this opportunity to appoint a judge who would be with them on overturning the ACA.

In 2016, candidate Trump promised, “If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush’s appointee John Roberts on ObamaCare.”

When he announced Barrett’s nomination, he tied repealing the ACA with her nomination, saying that eliminating it would be “a big win for the USA.”

On November 10, the Supreme Court will hear a lawsuit by the Trump Administration to declare the ACA Unconstitutional, and, if confirmed, Barrett would be one of the judges to hear the case. If Trump wins, millions of Americans will lose their health care. Most insured Americans will face the possibility of higher premiums, fewer covered services, and denial of coverage or price-gouging for pre-existing conditions. Services for women that must now be covered under the ACA, such as maternity care, annual well woman visits, birth control, and other services, will no longer be required to be covered, and women will no longer be protected from paying more for health care simply because they are women.

It really doesn’t matter how much of a “female inspiration” Judge Amy Coney Barrett is. And her political and religious preferences are secondary. What matters is whether she is interested in upholding equal protection under the law for all Americans, including women and marginalized communities; whether she would legislate from the bench by ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade; and whether she is ok with eliminating health care for millions of Americans without a replacement plan.

We can only hope that if confirmed, Amy Coney Barrett will not allow bias to influence her decisions as a Supreme Court Justice, and that she will not take us backward. Donald Trump and the Republican lawmakers who are eager to rush through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation are banking that she will do both.

WATCH: Democrats respond to the first day of Supreme Court confirmation hearings | PBS NewsHour [2020-10-12]

Kamala Harris: Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy is in jeopardy | CNN
[2020-10-12]

Category: *All

Editorial: Voter Intimidation and Suppression are Illegal, and Our President Openly Encourages Both

Editorial: Amy Coney Barrett is a Woman but That Doesn’t Mean Feminists Must Support Her