16 May 21
Very Serious, Immediate Problem With Donations
We are far behind where we normally would be for this point of the month and far behind where we need to be to address our operating costs.
We are getting donations, but they are too few and on average far smaller than we normally see.
Situation very serious.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts, CA 95611
16 May 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Bess Levin | Trump, Who Thinks He's Still President, Is Bringing Back His Rallies Next Month
Bess Levin, Vanity Fair
Levin writes: "You might not know it from the way he spent months trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election, but Donald Trump actually hated being president."
Get ready for unhinged attacks on Biden, Democrats, and the toilets he claims you have to flush 15 times.
ou might not know it from the way he spent months trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election, but Donald Trump actually hated being president. “I loved my previous life. I had so many things going...this is more work than in my previous life,” he told Reuters in 2017. “I thought it would be easier.” Yes, it was an extremely rude awakening for the reality TV show host to learn that being president was an actual job and a pretty difficult one at that. Necessarily, he made some changes to the gig to make it more palatable to him—reportedly watching hours of TV a day, rolling up to the Oval Office at noon, not reading his intelligence briefings—but when it came to the actual work of running the country, he was not a fan. What he did like about being POTUS was the power, and he especially loved holding rallies where his supporters would hang on his every incomprehensible word and aside like he was an authoritarian ruler. So naturally, he’s bringing them back.
The New York Post reports that Trump’s team “is in the process of selecting venues” for a pair of rallies in June, with a third expected to take place around the Fourth of July. While Trump has done interviews since leaving Washington, he’s yet to address his base via the campaign-style rallies he held during his four years in office, as the Post noted, the last one being the “Stop the Steal” speech he gave shortly before his supporters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop Joe Biden from becoming president.
What can one expect from the trio of summer events? Certainly, there will be long, rambling claims about how he won the election and that the Democrats and fake-news media stole it from him. Obviously he’ll also undoubtedly blather on at length about the terrible job Biden is supposedly doing, like he did at some poor couple’s wedding in March:
Elsewhere, odds are high to extremely high he’ll complain about not getting enough credit for the COVID-19 vaccines; attack Liz Cheney and other Republicans who had the audacity to blame him for January 6; mock the lower third of Mitch McConnell’s face; and revive his one-sided feud with showerheads and toilets. He’ll most likely also continue to tease a 2024 run for the White House.
And speaking of Trump and bids for office, Bloomberg reports that as Republicans hope to regain control of Congress in the 2022 midterms, data reveals that an endorsement from the ex-president may be the kiss of death:
The former president is studying races and plans to bestow his superlative-laden endorsements around the country in many 2022 primary or general election contests for the U.S. House, Senate, and governorships, according to a person familiar with his thinking. While those nods can still be the golden ticket in a Republican primary and solidly GOP districts, they also can energize independents and Democrats who don’t like Trump in competitive districts—risking defeat for Republican candidates in the general election and with it possible control of the House, according to studies of the 2018 and 2020 campaigns.
In Colorado, Trump’s endorsement last year of Republican senator Cory Gardner in a race that leaned Democratic helped shore up his standing among Republicans, according to David Flaherty, a Colorado–based Republican–leaning pollster and founder of Magellan Strategies. A Magellan poll in October showed Gardner had 89% support among Republicans. But Flaherty said Trump’s backing alienated unaffiliated voters who turned out in large numbers in the general election, and Gardner lost to Democrat John Hickenlooper by more than 9 percentage points. That dynamic means Trump could swing a close race the wrong way for Republicans in a suburban district by shifting blame for his actions and policies onto the GOP candidate.
Earlier this month, Trump announced his support for Susan Wright, who was running in a special election to replace her late husband, Representative Ron Wright, in a safe Republican district in Texas. He claimed that “Susan surged after I gave her an endorsement last week.” Wright was the top vote-getter but failed to avoid a runoff. In fact, almost 70% of the votes cast for Republicans in the crowded field were for someone besides Wright.
“Certainly on balance, this would suggest that an endorsement from Trump could be hurtful in the general election with independents,” Northeastern University professor David Lazer told Bloomberg. Thus far, Trump has endorsed 22 individuals for House, Senate, and statewide races, per Bloomberg, backing that may turn out to be a death blow for the candidates.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) listens during a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee on 'Domestic Violent Extremism in America' on May 12, 2021, in Washington, DC. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Joe Manchin's Surprisingly Bold Proposal to Fix America's Voting Rights Problem
Ian Millhiser, Vox
Millhiser writes: "Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has been an endless source of frustration for his fellow Democrats. He clings to dreams of bipartisanship that seem like fairy tales in a world where Republicans defrock their own leaders for the sin of acknowledging that President Joe Biden won the 2020 election. And his loyalty to the filibuster may doom most of his party's legislative agenda."
Manchin’s idea won’t fix America’s democracy, but it could solve some pretty significant problems.
en. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has been an endless source of frustration for his fellow Democrats. He clings to dreams of bipartisanship that seem like fairy tales in a world where Republicans defrock their own leaders for the sin of acknowledging that President Joe Biden won the 2020 election. And his loyalty to the filibuster may doom most of his party’s legislative agenda.
Yet on Wednesday, Manchin proposed a solution to the congressional impasse over voting rights legislation that could be even more aggressive than a parallel proposal offered by Democratic leaders.
Under the Voting Rights Act, states and local governments with a history of racist voting practices were required to “preclear” new election rules with officials in Washington, DC. The idea was to catch rules that would disenfranchise voters of color before they go into effect, and block those laws before they could prevent a single voter from casting a ballot. And, while Republican support for preclearance evaporated in recent years, the Voting Rights Act had strong bipartisan support for many decades.
The Supreme Court, in a party-line vote with all of the Court’s Republicans in the majority and all of its Democrats in dissent, effectively neutralized preclearance in Shelby County v. Holder (2013). Shelby County is a major reason why Republicans in states like Arizona, Georgia, and Texas are now able to pass laws that seem to serve no purpose other than making it harder to cast a ballot.
Most congressional Democrats have rallied behind a bill, known as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, that would restore preclearance in a handful of states, while simultaneously making it easier to impose preclearance on new states and local governments that attempt to disenfranchise racial minorities.
But Manchin suggested on Wednesday that Congress should pass a much bolder attempt to roll back Shelby County. In an interview with ABC News, Manchin proposed making the John Lewis Act apply “to all 50 states and territories.” Thus, all states, not just the handful of states with the worst record on race, would be required to submit any new voting rules to federal review in order to make sure that the new rule will not target voters of color.
The John Lewis Act is just one of two major voting rights bills that Democrats hope to enact and that many Democrats view as essential to protecting American democracy. The other bill is the For the People Act, a sweeping bill that would take on campaign finance, expand early voting, implement independent redistricting commissions, and legally force presidents and vice presidents to disclose their tax returns, among other provisions.
Realistically, however, the For the People Act’s path to passage looks increasingly slim. So Manchin’s support for the John Lewis Act suggests that restoring a robust preclearance regime may be Democrats’ best hope of enacting a significant voting rights bill this year.
Though a reinvigorated Voting Rights Act would impose some restrictions on racial gerrymandering, it’s unlikely to prevent state legislatures from drawing legislative maps that benefit their party. As Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a Harvard law professor and a leading expert on gerrymandering, said on Twitter, “almost every southern state” was able to draw gerrymandered maps in the 2010 redistricting cycle, including the ones subject to preclearance.
Preclearance also will not slay the twin dragons of the Electoral College and Senate malapportionment, which often allow Republicans to capture the White House and the Senate, even if most voters prefer to be governed by Democrats.
But Manchin’s proposal would do a great deal to stop the latest round of voter suppression laws in their tracks. And it would make the Voting Rights Act stronger than it has ever been, applying a powerful remedy that was originally applied to just a handful of states to the entire nation.
Preclearance, briefly explained
Before Shelby County, nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia — were subject to preclearance on a statewide basis, as were a smattering of counties and local townships spread across six other states.
These jurisdictions were required to submit any new voting rules to the Justice Department or to a federal court in Washington, DC. The new rule would not take effect until it had been screened either by the DOJ or the appropriate court, and it would be blocked permanently if it had either the “purpose” or the “effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.”
Because preclearance blocked laws that had the “effect” of abridging the right to vote for voters of color, it’s a potentially very potent safeguard against Republican-backed laws that target Democratic voters. In the 2020 election, 90 percent of African Americans and 63 percent of Latinos voted for President Biden, according to the data analysis group Catalist, and both groups preferred Democrats by even larger margins in other recent elections. So laws that seek to disenfranchise Democrats will often have a disproportionate effect on Black and Latino voters.
One of the primary benefits of preclearance is that it blocked racist election rules before they could take effect. Though voting rights plaintiffs can and do attack efforts to disenfranchise voters through ordinary litigation, courts are often very slow-moving institutions. It can take years for a plaintiff to obtain a court order blocking a racist law, and the state may have run several elections under that law before that court order takes effect.
Before Shelby County neutered one of its most effective provisions, the Voting Rights Act was one of the most potent civil rights laws in American history. In 1965, the year that President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law, less than 7 percent of eligible Black voters in Mississippi were registered to vote. Just two years after the law took effect, the Black registration rate in Mississippi was nearly 60 percent.
The leading Democratic proposal to restore preclearance, the John Lewis Act, would immediately impose preclearance on states or local governments that have committed “15 or more voting rights violations occurred in the State during the previous 25 calendar years,” or on jurisdictions with 10 or more violations, “at least one of which was committed by the State itself.”
It also strengthens another provision of the Voting Rights Act which allows new states and localities to be subjected to preclearance. Under current law, courts may order new jurisdictions to submit their election rules to preclearance if the jurisdiction engages in “violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment.” That’s a fairly weak remedy, because a plaintiff typically needs to prove that lawmakers acted with racist intent in order to show a violation of these amendments.
The John Lewis Act, by contrast, allows a court to subject new jurisdictions to preclearance if those jurisdictions engage in “violations of the 14th or 15th Amendment, violations of this Act, or violations of any Federal law that prohibits discrimination in voting on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.” Among other things, this new language means that a jurisdiction could be subjected to preclearance if it enacts a law that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color,” even if the plaintiffs challenging that law cannot prove racist intent.
In any event, Manchin’s proposal would forgo this complicated process of determining which states should and should not be subject to preclearance altogether. He would simply require all states to submit new election rules to federal review.
Manchin’s proposal is more likely to survive the Supreme Court
One problem with the leading version of the John Lewis Act is that it may trigger the same concerns that led the Supreme Court’s conservative majority to strike down preclearance in Shelby County.
Shelby County did not hold that preclearance is absolutely forbidden under the Constitution. Rather, Shelby County rested on the novel proposition that “all States enjoy equal sovereignty” — a proposition that is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Preclearance, as it existed in 2013, applied “to only nine States (and several additional counties).” As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for his Court, that meant that “while one State waits months or years and expends funds to implement a validly enacted law, its neighbor can typically put the same law into effect immediately, through the normal legislative process.”
While the Court concluded that such a departure from its newly invented prohibition on treating different states differently could be justified by “exceptional conditions” — such as the widespread voter disenfranchisement that characterized Jim Crow — Roberts wrote that the kind of “pervasive,” “flagrant,” “widespread,” and “rampant” discrimination that characterized the Jim Crow era no longer existed in 2013. Thus, Congress was not justified in imposing a burdensome regime on some states but not others.
Shelby County is a confusing decision, and it does contain some language suggesting that Congress could create a new preclearance regime that applies to only some states, so long as it decided which states should be subject to preclearance by looking to “current conditions,” rather than by looking to a more dated record of racist practices. The John Lewis Act is an attempt to update the Voting Rights Act by only imposing preclearance on states that engaged in misconduct in the past 25 years.
Maybe the Supreme Court will go for that approach — although it’s risky, considering that the current Court is significantly more conservative than the one that decided Shelby County. Manchin’s approach, by contrast, avoids this problem altogether. If Shelby County was concerned about federal laws that impose burdens on some states but not others, then Manchin would impose the exact same burden on all 50 states.
With six conservative Republicans on the Supreme Court, there’s no guarantee that Manchin’s approach would work. But it has a better shot of prevailing, given Shelby County’s focus on the “equal sovereignty” of the states.
Two big problems with Manchin’s approach
A nationwide preclearance regime would be a very big deal. It wouldn’t simply block many new attempts to disenfranchise voters; it could also weaken several existing laws seeking to prevent people from casting a ballot.
The most troubling provision of a recently enacted Georgia elections law, for example, is a provision allowing the state’s Republican-controlled legislature to effectively take over county election boards — boards that can disqualify voters and close polling places. If Georgia were subject to preclearance, however, then it could have to get federal approval before it could initiate such a takeover. And if a Republican-controlled election board tried to implement a new policy or close a particular precinct, that decision would also be subject to preclearance.
That said, in his interview with ABC News, Manchin appeared to suggest that his 50-state preclearance proposal should be enacted as an alternative to many other Democratic voting rights ideas.
The John Lewis Act is one of two major voting rights bills championed by Democratic leadership. The other is the For the People Act, a nearly 800-page bill that reads like a wish list compiled by voting rights advocates seeking to shut down nearly every single tactic that’s been deployed by state lawmakers who wish to limit the franchise.
Manchin is very cold on the For the People Act. “How in the world could you, with the tension we have right now, allow a voting bill to restructure the voting of America on a partisan line?” he asked at one point, warning that, if Congress passed a comprehensive overhaul of federal election law on a party-line vote, it could lead to more “anarchy” like the January 6 putsch at the US Capitol.
But, while the expansive For the People Act does include a number of provisions that probably aren’t necessary to preserve American democracy — the United States will most likely survive as a democratic republic, for example, if presidential candidates are not required to disclose 10 years’ worth of tax returns — it does include the Democratic Party’s most aggressive proposal to combat partisan gerrymandering. The bill would require all states to use independent redistricting commissions to draw congressional districts.
Democrats spent most of the past decade struggling to gain a foothold in the House of Representatives, in no small part due to gerrymandered congressional maps that attempted to lock them out of power. In 2012, Democratic House candidates received nearly 1.4 million more votes than their Republican counterparts, but Republicans held on to a comfortable majority in the House. In 2020, Democratic House candidates won the national popular vote by 3.1 percentage points, but they barely held on to their House majority.
If Manchin is unwilling to back anti-gerrymandering safeguards, Democrats can look forward to another decade of fighting Republican House candidates with one hand tied behind their backs. (He also shied away from support for other measures that would give more representation to Democrats, such as DC statehood.)
The second problem with Manchin’s approach is even more fundamental. He claimed in his ABC News interview that a nationwide preclearance regime could be enacted on a “bipartisan” basis, and he’s written that there’s “no circumstance” under which he’d be willing to weaken or eliminate the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to pass most legislation.
Manchin may be one of the few people on the planet who actually believe that voting rights legislation of any kind could garner 10 Republican votes in the Senate, which is what would be required to break a filibuster. It was, after all, Republicans on the Supreme Court who neutralized preclearance in Shelby County. And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently admitted that “one hundred percent of my focus is standing up to [the Biden] administration,” which supports the For the People Act and the John Lewis Act.
There was a time when voting rights enjoyed bipartisan support. President Ronald Reagan signed an important expansion of the Voting Rights Act (over the objection of a young Justice Department lawyer named John Roberts), and President George W. Bush signed legislation that was supposed to extend the preclearance regime for another 25 years.
But the era of bipartisan support for voting rights seems to have passed. Just ask the 147 Republicans in Congress who voted to overturn the 2020 election.
In other words, Manchin will likely need to decide whether he cares more about allowing the Republican Senate minority to block legislation or about protecting voting rights.
A baby was pulled alive from under the rubble while seven other family members perished in an Israeli air strike at al-Shati Refugee Camp on 15 May. (photo: Mahmud Hams/AFP/Getty Images)
Israeli Airstrike on Gaza Claims Eight Young Cousins
Hazem Balousha, Emma Graham-Harrison and Oliver Holmes, Guardian UK
Excerpt: "Intense Israeli airstrikes on Gaza on Saturday killed eight young cousins who had gathered to celebrate Eid with their mothers, and destroyed the high-rise tower that housed the Associated Press, the leading news agency of its greatest ally."
Family celebrating Eid killed as building housing the Associated Press and other news agencies is bombed
ntense Israeli airstrikes on Gaza on Saturday killed eight young cousins who had gathered to celebrate Eid with their mothers, and destroyed the high-rise tower that housed the Associated Press, the leading news agency of its greatest ally.
Mohammed Haddidi’s wife and five sons were inside the house when it was bombed, and only five-month-old Omar was pulled from the rubble alive. Rescuers searched for survivors through piles of shattered concrete dotted with toys, a Monopoly boardgame and holiday food prepared for a meal that was never enjoyed.
“My wife had gone to visit her brother, and because the children were enjoying playing with their cousins, they asked to spend the night and she agreed,” he told the Observer. Those childhood games would doom almost all of them.
The airstrike that killed Haddidi’s family came just a few hours before the daytime demolition of al Jalaa tower, which housed media offices including Al Jazeera and AP. AP described the missile strikes, which were broadcast live on TV as “the latest step by the military to silence reporting from the territory”, and warned that “the world will know less about what is happening in Gaza” because of it.
Saturday, the sixth day of fighting between Israel and Hamas militants, was also Nakba (Catastrophe) Day. This commemorates the estimated 700,000 people who were expelled or fled their homes in what is now Israel during the 1948 war surrounding its creation.
Over a week, the conflict has escalated into the most intense exchanges of fire since the 2014 Gaza war, exacerbated by unrest in the occupied West Bank, all amid fears that the situation could spiral further into a new Palestinian intifada, or uprising.
Serious communal violence inside Israel, such as nightly street attacks carried out by far-right Jewish gangs and Arab youths, have inflamed the situation. On Saturday, a 12-year-old Arab boy was in hospital on a ventilator and with facial burns after a molotov cocktail that was thrown into his home.
Diplomatic efforts to broker a ceasefire in Gaza made slow progress, even after US envoy Hady Amr flew into Israel and the UN security council finally confirmed a meeting about the crisis for Sunday.
On Saturday, UN secretary-general António Guterres released a statement saying he was dismayed and disturbed by civilian casualties in Gaza and the destruction of the headquarters of several international media outlets. “The secretary-general reminds all sides that any indiscriminate targeting of civilian and media structures violates international law and must be avoided at all costs,” the statement released by Guterres’ spokesperson said.
Israel turned down an Egyptian proposal for a one-year truce that Hamas rulers had accepted, an Egyptian official told the AP on Friday. Defence minister Benny Gantz has previously said the bombing will continue until Israel achieves “total, long term quiet.”
As officials tried to broker talks, people died from missile and rocket strikes on both sides of the frontier, although casualties were more than ten times higher in the tiny, crowded Gaza Strip, where there are few air raid shelters and residents have nowhere to run to escape Israeli bombardment.
In Gaza at least 139 people have been killed, including 39 children and 22 women, health authorities say. In Israel, ten people have been killed including a five-year-old boy and a soldier.
In a story published only hours before AP staff watched their office reduced to a smoking pile of rubble, correspondent Fares Akram had written that the tower was “the only place in Gaza City I feel somewhat safe”.
“The Israeli military has the coordinates of the high-rise, so it’s less likely a bomb will bring it crashing down,” he wrote. “When the thundering bombs, buzzing drones and pounding artillery refresh the pain and trigger the old fear, I seek refuge in work.”
AP CEO Gary Pruitt said he was “shocked and horrified that the Israeli military would target and destroy the building housing AP’s bureau and other news organisations in Gaza.” Pruitt says AP is seeking information from the Israeli government.
Al Jazeera broadcast the destruction of their building live. The company vowed to “pursue every available route to hold the Israeli government responsible for its actions”. Director General Mostefa Souag described the attack as a war crime that aimed “to silence the media and to hide the untold carnage and suffering of the people of Gaza”.
Media organisations and others in the building were given only an hour’s warning to get people and equipment out of the tower before the strike.
President Joe Biden’s spokesperson, Jen Psaki, said the US had told Israeli authorities “that ensuring the safety and security of journalists and independent media is a paramount responsibility,” but did not condemn the attack.
Israeli’s military, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), said the high rise tower contained “military assets belonging to the intelligence offices of the Hamas terror organisation”. It added later that the building housed a Hamas “Research and Development unit”.
It also said it had attacked “a number of Hamas terror organisation senior officials, in an apartment” in the al Shati refugee camp.
The only building hit overnight by airstrikes in that camp was a three-storey complex with a family home over a grocer and hairdresser, owned by Haddidi’s brother-in-law.
Haddidi heard the bomb land without knowing its target, then he got the call saying his family had been hit. He raced to the ruins of his brother’-in-law’s home but there were no survivors there so he went on to the hospital.
“I was happy that Omar was still alive, but at the same time, I asked what future awaits this infant,” he said. “He has a broken leg, and an eye injury.” One of his cousins, a girl, is in intensive care.
The other eight children and their mothers, have all been buried already. Neighbours and the ministry of health said no adult men were among the dead or the injured.
Neighbours said there was no warning of the attack, the deadliest single strike of this conflict.
Hamas said it fired rockets at southern Israel in response; it has poured over 2,000 across the frontier since Monday according to the Israeli military and although most have been stopped by the “Iron Dome” missile defence system, some have landed, killing people and damaging property.
The Israeli military’s conduct had already caused tensions with international media, even before the Gaza offices were bombed.
There were reports that a military spokesperson had lied to the English-language press as part of an elaborate ruse to lure Hamas militants into a trap, by making them think a ground operation was under way.
The allegations caused anger and fear in regional newsrooms. “It’s a very dangerous place for the I.D.F. to be, to be suspected of misleading the international press, especially when we’re on the verge of an escalation with Hamas,” Amos Harel, a military analyst for Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, told the New York Times.
“It’s risky for journalists, too,” he added. “The Israeli Army may be forgetting that foreign journalists are on both sides of the fence, and it could be dangerous for them if they’re suspected of being used for Israeli psychological operations.”
A contractor working for Cyber Ninjas, who was hired by the Arizona State Senate, transports ballots from the 2020 general election at the Veterans Memorial Coliseum on May 1, 2021 in Phoenix, Arizona. (photo: Courtney Pedroza/Getty Images)
Arizona Audit Funding Cloaked in Secrecy
Bob Ortega, Kyung Lah and Stephanie Becker, CNN
Excerpt: "Three weeks into the Arizona Senate's unorthodox audit of the 2020 presidential election results, one potential winner seems to be emerging, regardless of any count: Cyber Ninjas, the Florida-based consulting firm being paid to lead the analysis of the votes in populous Maricopa County."
A contractor working for Cyber Ninjas, who was hired by the Arizona State Senate, transports ballots from the 2020 general election at the Veterans Memorial Coliseum on May 1, 2021 in Phoenix, Arizona. (photo: Courtney Pedroza/Getty Images)hree weeks into the Arizona Senate's unorthodox audit of the 2020 presidential election results, one potential winner seems to be emerging, regardless of any count: Cyber Ninjas, the Florida-based consulting firm being paid to lead the analysis of the votes in populous Maricopa County.
Private fundraisers have boasted that they're funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the effort led by the security consulting firm, a company not previously known for election auditing. But there's little or no scrutiny on where that money is going or how it's being used.
A CNN review of state records shows no contractual provisions or safeguards controlling how much money Cyber Ninjas can accept from private contributors, how it can be spent, or even whether it needs to account to the Senate for those funds.
In fact, the Senate's spokesman for the audit acknowledged that the Senate isn't exercising any oversight or control over Cyber Ninjas' use of the private funds, which are expected to support the majority of the auditing efforts. The way the funding for the work is structured appears to skirt state transparency laws, CNN's review found.
Meanwhile, with few restrictions on the scope of its work, Cyber Ninjas, which presents itself as primarily focused on application security, has dived into baseless conspiracy theories, such as looking for bamboo traces in ballots to determine whether ballot boxes were stuffed with fraudulent votes from an unknown Asian country.
Along the way, it has made fundamental blunders in the way election audits are traditionally conducted, such as initially providing workers with blue-ink pens that can alter how tabulators read ballots; security lapses that allowed people access to what should have been secure areas before the audit began; allowing a former lawmaker who appeared on the ballot to be involved in verifying them; and planning door-to-door canvassing of voters before the Department of Justice warned such a move could violate federal laws against voter intimidation. Senate President Karen Fann, a Republican, told the DOJ that the Senate would "indefinitely defer" the planned canvass.
A hidden stream of funds
The GOP-controlled Arizona Senate allocated $150,000 to the audit, one third paid up front. But that money was expected to cover just a fraction of the work. Now, as state officials project that the audit will continue into the summer, with just 500,000 of the 2.1 million ballots hand-counted to date, the costs keep climbing.
To fuel that effort, Ken Bennett, the Senate's audit liaison, Fann and others have welcomed private donations. And Trump supporters and conspiracy theorists have jumped in, publicly stumping for funds and claiming to have funneled more than $1.6 million to the audit, while offering scant information about where that money is flowing.
Having the audit funded by "undisclosed private money, especially from people who back conspiracy theories about the conduct of the 2020 election, is extremely worrisome," said Rick Hasen, author of "Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust and the Threat to American Democracy." "It suggests those people are funding this because they want to see a particular result."
Two prior publicly-funded audits of Maricopa County ballots and election machinery used in the November election found no evidence of widespread fraud or voting irregularities. President Joe Biden won Arizona by 10,457 votes, his narrowest margin of the states he won.
Even as Fann and other audit leaders say they're focused on improving future elections, former President Donald Trump and his allies -- including some Arizona legislators -- are treating the audit here as, in effect, the first domino in amplifying claims of electoral fraud in states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, among others.
On a local TV program May 5, Fann said first that the audit is "not about overturning the election;" then, a minute later, added, "I think we're going to find some irregularities, that it's going to say... 'yeah, there's this many dead people that may have voted, or this many people that voted that don't live here anymore.' We're going to find those. We know those exist."
Arizona law covering state bodies that receive public and private funding requires the recipient to report the sources of the private donations and any strings attached; to deposit private funds in a separate account with the State Treasurer; and to account for every expenditure with the state's Department of Administration.
In this case, however, the Senate is arguing that the audit isn't subject to these provisions -- because the donations are being channeled straight to Cyber Ninjas. The Senate's attorney, Greg Jernigan, told CNN in an email that the state's funding law doesn't apply because the Senate, itself, is not accepting the private funds.
Bennett, the state spokesman for the audit and a GOP politician who served as Arizona's secretary of state from 2009 to 2015, said that the release of the total cost "is really not the Senate's responsibility." He said it's up to Cyber Ninjas whether to disclose how much in funds it's receiving and from where. So far, Cyber Ninjas has not done so, nor responded to CNN requests for that information. Bennett did say, "we're working on it."
"They are receiving money from opaque sources, and they are not disclosing that money," David Becker, a former voting-rights attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice and executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said of the Senate. "They can say it isn't coming to the Arizona Senate, but they're facilitating it; this would never have happened but for the Arizona Senate." Becker said it should be concerning that the Senate "handed ballots over to an inexperienced out-of-state firm and then said, 'fundraise off this, get as much money as you can.'"
The people ostensibly fundraising for the audit and/or saying they've made contributions include, at a minimum:
- The America Project, a non-profit run by Overstock founder Patrick Byrne, who met with Trump in the Oval Office in December to discuss tactics for overturning the election results, according to The Washington Post. The America Project claims on its fundraising website to have raised $1.6 million, with a goal of $2.8 million, for the audit. At a press conference on April 28, Bennett called on people to donate to the audit through the America Project's website. Neither Byrne nor the America Project responded to repeated requests for interviews by CNN, nor to questions about whether it has forwarded donations and to whom.
- Voices and Votes, a website established by One America News personality Christina Bobb, who said on Twitter April 15 that she'd received two pledges totaling $150,000 to support the audit. Charles Herring, president of OAN's parent company, told CNN that OAN hasn't contributed to Voices and Votes and isn't soliciting or receiving contributions. "We are aware of efforts by staff members to raise funds for numerous causes from the Girl Scouts to audits," Herring said in an email. Neither Bobb nor Voices and Votes responded to CNN queries about whether it has forwarded donations for the audit, how much or to whom.
- L. Lin Wood, who, along with attorney Sidney Powell, filed numerous failed lawsuits on behalf of Trump baselessly claiming fraud in the 2020 election. In an April 7 post on Telegram, Wood said a nonprofit he leads was donating $50,000 to Bobb's Voices and Votes group for the audit. Wood didn't respond to CNN requests for an interview.
- Mike Lindell, the MyPillow founder and a leading proponent of debunked election conspiracy theories. Lindell, in a phone interview, declined to say whether he's contributed to the Arizona audit, and said he hasn't been in touch with Cyber Ninjas or its CEO, Doug Logan. But asked if he's encouraged others to donate to the audit, he said, "One hundred percent, one thousand percent. I've done events where I spoke via Zoom and stuff, so yeah. I've been very much promoting."
The state Senate could have put up more of its own funds or perhaps paid entirely for the audit. As first reported by the Arizona Mirror, thanks to spending far less during the pandemic, the Senate entered May with $8.1 million in unspent funds for the fiscal year that ends June 30.
Doubts about transparency
In an interview Wednesday, Bennett said the Senate's purpose in relying on private funding for the audit is "to save taxpayer money, not hide where the funding came from, but you and others may assume different."
Bennett said that the sources of the funding don't affect the work of the audit.
By taking itself out of the process of accepting the funds, the Senate has bypassed the transparency requirement in the state's public finance law, ARS Sec. 35-149, which requires it publicly identify the sources of money being used on government-sponsored projects.
"Obviously, the spirit of the statute is being violated," said Jim Barton, general counsel for the Arizona Democratic Party. "The statute is about transparency and making sure that just what is happening right now doesn't happen... when the money isn't actually received by the government entity, but everyone knows, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we're going to give it to Cyber Ninjas to get the work done."
Even before the audit began, critics questioned the choice of Cyber Ninjas, whose CEO, Doug Logan, repeatedly tweeted in support of the Stop the Steal movement and claimed the election had been rigged against Trump. Arizona Democrats sued over whether voter information, machines and ballots were being adequately protected; the news media sued to gain access to the audit, after initially being blocked from observing; Cyber Ninjas fought in court unsuccessfully to keep its audit processes secret.
While Fann said the audit will improve future elections, the GOP-controlled Arizona legislature hasn't waited for its outcome to move forward on bills making it harder to vote, including one signed into law by Gov. Doug Ducey May 11 that purged infrequent voters from permanent early voting lists.
Becker, the voting-rights attorney, called the audit corrosive. "It's fueling the false beliefs of those who don't believe the election was secure, and fueling the idea that elections are never truly over."
On Thursday, Cyber Ninjas paused its review of ballots until May 24, temporarily removing them from the Coliseum at the state fairgrounds to make way for 16 high school graduations, a yearly event at the Coliseum that the Senate somehow overlooked. Bennett said the ballots would be kept under 24-hour guard at the Wesley Bolin Building at the south end of the fairground's premises.
Bennett said that guards would be posted to keep people visiting the fair's Crazy Times Carnival, being held between the Coliseum and the Bolin Building, from accessing the area where the ballots were to be housed. They're needed since the outside section of the building is being used for the carnival's public toilets.
The sisters of Sean Monterrosa, who was killed by the police, hold his portrait by Andrew Durgin-Barne. (photo: Carolyn Drake/Magnum/The New Yorker)
California AG Takes Over Vallejo Police Shooting of Sean Monterrosa
Lisa Fernandez, KTVU
Fernandez writes: "Attorney General Rob Bonta is taking over the review into the Vallejo police shooting of Sean Monterrosa. The 22-year-old was killed almost a year ago in the parking lot of a Walgreens after an officer opened fire through the windshield of a police cruiser because he allegedly thought a hammer in Monterrosa's pants was a gun."
The sisters of Sean Monterrosa, who was killed by the police, hold his portrait by Andrew Durgin-Barne. (photo: Carolyn Drake/Magnum/The New Yorker)What really makes this case stand out is the fact that officer Jarrett Tonn shot Sean Monterrosa from the back seat, through the windshield of an unmarked police pickup truck. The video shows Tonn firing a high-powered assault-style rifle at Monterrosa, while he was reportedly kneeling on the ground, as the truck pulled up. Monterrosa did not have a gun. Police say he did have a hammer tucked into his waistband. Not that it would have mattered, because Tonn would not yet have known that as the truck pulled up. — MA/RSN
ttorney General Rob Bonta is taking over the review into the Vallejo police shooting of Sean Monterrosa.
The 22-year-old was killed almost a year ago in the parking lot of a Walgreens after an officer opened fire through the windshield of a police cruiser because he allegedly thought a hammer in Monterrosa's pants was a gun.
In a press conference on Thursday, Bonta said that the young man's death needs a "fair and impartial review."
He said it was unfortunate that the Solano County District Attorney Krishna Abrams recused herself from the case, saying there was no reason to do so.
Abrams "unilaterally abdicated her responsibility as the elected district attorney and refused to conduct a review of the Vallejo Police Department’s investigation of the incident," Bonta said. "At a moment when building trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve is more important than ever, the District Attorney’s failure to act only serves to create more obfuscation and distrust in our justice system."
But he said his office is tired of "inaction" and that Monterrosa's family and the wider community need answers.
Bonta's predecessor, Xavier Becerra, declined to take the case, also saying at the time that Abrams should take it up.
In return, Abrams slammed Bonta and accused him of "playing politics."
Abrams said she spoke with Bonta just before his announcement Thursday morning.
"Mr. Bonta stated that his department would not be reviewing the case due to funding not being available until July 1st," she said. "Within an hour of my telephone conference this morning with Mr. Bonta, he notified me that his department would be reviewing the case, completely reversing himself, and now suddenly blaming Solano County for failing to do its job by not reviewing the matter."
It was not immediately clear whose version of events was true.
And as of July 1, these DOJ investigations will be mandated.
Historically, officer-involved shootings in California have been primarily handled by the state's 58 district attorneys who are responsible for the jurisdictions where the incidents occurred.
But a new law, AB 1506, requires the California Department of Justice to take over investigations of officer-involved shootings of unarmed civilians across California. Based on historical averages, this will be roughly 40 cases a year.
The Monterrosa investigation is separate from the California Department of Justice’s ongoing civil review of the Vallejo Police Department’s policies and practices.
Monterrosa was fatally shot on June 2, 2020, by Vallejo police officer Jarrett Tonn, an 18-year veteran of the force.
At the time, Vallejo Police Chief Shawny Williams described Monterrosa as a potential looting suspect whom officers believed was carrying a firearm. Williams listed a criminal history that included charges of shoplifting, assault with deadly weapons, shooting into an inhabited dwelling and attempted murder.
However, when Tonn shot at him through the windshield of his unmarked pickup, Monterrosa was on his knees and had his hands above his waist.
The police later said Tonn shot him because he erroneously believed Monterrosa had a gun in his pocket. It turned out to be a hammer.
Monterrosa later died at a local hospital.
A month after the shooting, the Times Herald said Tonn was back at work.
The windshield, considered a key piece of evidence, was destroyed, leading city officials to seek a criminal investigation into how that happened.
Civil rights attorney John Burris, who is representing the Monterrosa family in a wrongful death suit, said in a statement Thursday, "Vallejo police command staff knew or should have known that this was Tonn’s fourth shooting in five years and by failing to discipline officers for misconduct, Vallejo’s police command staff essentially ratified the bad conduct."
The City of Vallejo issued a statement welcoming Bonta's decision.
"We will cooperate with the Attorney General to make sure they have everything they need to conduct a thorough and independent review," Williams said.
The killing of Monterrosa sparked outrage in the Bay Area, particularly in Vallejo, which has a long history of police violence, excessive force complaints, and high-profile killings, including the February 2018 shooting of Ronnell Foster and the February 2019 shooting of Willie McCoy.
Criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Michael Cardoza, a regular KTVU contributor, says the DA's Office, which works with and prosecutes many cases police bring to it was right to recuse because the relationship to police is too close.
"Everybody is going to question that and say, 'You're in bed with these people. How can you prosecute them?'"
Cardoza added that the Attorney General does not have that conflict and has "much more money than the county to investigate this, so, all in all, I think it's a very good thing."
Bonta added that no matter what his office finds, which will be difficult as the investigation is being launched almost a year later, nothing will bring Monterrosa back.
"He is gone forever," Bonta said.
But Bonta said transparency is desperately needed.
"Without accountability, there is no justice," Bonta said. "It’s past time Sean Monterrosa’s family, the community, and the people of Vallejo get some answers. If there has been wrongdoing, we will bring it to light."
Sunday Song: Covered Wagon Musicians | Napalm Sticks to Kids
Covered Wagon Musicians, YouTube
Excerpt: "We shoot the sick, the young, the lame, We do our best to maim, Because the kills all count the same, Napalm sticks to kids."
Another "GI movement" anti-war record (Paredon Records # P-1015), released on the label founded by Barbara Dane and Irwin Silber - all the songs were written and sung by active-duty GIs at the Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. The group, founded in the spring of 1971, started their own publication called "Helping Hand".
The most memorable and startling track is "Napalm Sticks to Kids", a vivid account of US forces indiscriminately dropping bombs on Vietnam, hitting pregnant women, children, and other civilians. The focus of the song is chemical weapon Napalm B - a jellied gasoline mixture, with polystyrene, benzene, and gasoline. Declared a war-crime since 1980, the US government extensively used this weapon during the Vietnam conflict, dropping 388,000 tons on Indochina between 1963 and 1973.
The record booklet credited the song to "Air Force and Army GIs attached to the 1st Air Cavalry in Vietnam. Recited by Sgt. John Boychuk....a group of GIs sat down one night in a hootch in Vietnam to write these words. Each person made a verse about an incident in which he had taken part and the poem expresses their collective bitterness toward the military that had turned them into murderers".
Some have questioned the booklet's claim regarding the origins of this song - in terms of who wrote it and the nature in which it was composed. Several Vietnam veterans have claimed that this song was commonly heard 'in-Country', and used in a "humorous" way. However, this particular record and version of the song were used to present an anti-war perspective about the war in Vietnam, and express opposition to the use of napalm, as seen on the LP cover and in the booklet that came with the record.
The song made a special reference to the company Dow Chemical, which produced napalm and agent orange under a 1965 government contract. Several other suppliers stopped production of these weapons because of protests and bad publicity. But Dow Chemical continued as the sole provider of napalm and agent orange because of its commitment to the government.
"We shoot the sick, the young, the lame
We do our best to kill and maim
Because the kills all count the same, Napalm sticks to kids
Flying low across the trees, pilots doing what they please
Dropping frags on refugees...a group of gooks in the grass
But all the fighting 's long since past
Crispy youngsters in a mass...
Drop some napalm on the barn, it won't do too much harm
Just burn of a leg or an arm...children cowering in a pit
Dow Chemical doesn't give a shit, napalm sticks to kids
They're all VC when the bombs explode...killing gooks is macho fun
If one's pregnant, it's two for one...
What the hell let's drop the bomb"
READ MORE
A service technician in Minnetonka, Minnesota, repairs a laptop motherboard. (photo: Jerry Holt/Star Tribute/Getty Images)
Should Customers Be Able to Repair Their Devices? This Federal Agency Says Yes.
Maddie Stone, Grist
Stone writes: "Last week, the federal consumer protection agency released a long-anticipated report to Congress examining the repair restrictions facing consumers, along with a summary of arguments for and against those restrictions. Its conclusion was stark."
Tech lobbyists say letting people fix their own stuff is too dangerous. The Federal Trade Commission isn't buying it.
or the past several years, as state legislators across the country have held hearings to consider “right-to-repair” bills that would make it easier for consumers to fix their electronic devices, lobbyists representing manufacturers have shown up to repeat the same arguments over and over: Letting people fix their own stuff is too dangerous. It creates cybersecurity risks. It infringes on intellectual property. It won’t help reduce electronic waste.
But while it remains to be seen whether these arguments will win over any of the dozen state legislatures currently considering a right-to-repair bill, one authoritative body isn’t buying them at all: the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC.
Last week, the federal consumer protection agency released a long-anticipated report to Congress examining the repair restrictions facing consumers, along with a summary of arguments for and against those restrictions. Its conclusion was stark: There’s “scant evidence” to support manufacturers’ justifications for restricting repair, while the solutions repair advocates have proposed are “well supported” by their testimonials. Advocates say that compelling companies like Apple and Tesla to release parts, manuals, and diagnostic information needed for repair will make fixing broken devices faster and more affordable. Ultimately, this will encourage us to maintain our stuff instead of replacing it, resulting in less environmental harm and electronic waste.
With the release of the report, the FTC has signaled that it plans to step up its efforts to enforce laws aimed at preventing manufacturers from restricting repair. But the symbolic nature of the report may be more significant than whatever punitive actions the agency takes next.
The right to repair movement — which promotes the idea that everyone should to be able to repair the devices they own however they want, whenever they want — has “just been given a huge shot in the arm,” said Gay Gordon-Byrne, the executive director of The Repair Association, a right-to-repair advocacy group.
Kerry Maeve Sheehan, the U.S. policy lead at the repair guide site iFixit, agreed. “[F]inally a government agency is saying what we’ve said all along — that manufacturers’ justifications for imposing repair restrictions aren’t backed by evidence,” Sheehan wrote in an email.
The report traces its origins back to a July 2019 workshop the FTC held to explore how manufacturers restrict repair of their devices. The workshop brought together right-to-repair advocates, groups representing manufacturers of everything from gaming consoles to home appliances, and independent researchers. It invited everyone to submit empirical research on the repair landscape. A year later, Congress directed the FTC to issue a report summarizing its findings, with a focus on cell phone and automobile markets.
Those findings amount to nothing less than a wholesale rejection of the anti-repair arguments advanced by lobbyists not just for cell phone and car companies, but home appliance industries, medical device makers, and more. In its 56-page report, the FTC lays out common manufacturer arguments in favor of restricting repair. For every single argument, the Commission reaches a similar conclusion: There’s little evidence to support it.
Take safety concerns. Companies will often argue that restricting access to the information and materials needed for repair prevents consumers, or mechanics that lack sufficient training, from hurting themselves. For instance, people attempting to swap the lithium-ion battery inside their phone might accidentally puncture it, causing the battery to experience a “thermal runaway event” — or in layman’s terms, overheat and explode. But aside from a single 2011 incident involving a cell phone that experienced a thermal runaway event on a plane after a faulty unauthorized repair, manufacturers provided the FTC no evidence of injuries tied to independent repair. Nor did they furnish any data demonstrating that their authorized repair shops are more careful. Meanwhile, decades’ worth of evidence from the auto repair industry shows that even the most dangerous consumer products can be safely repaired by an independent professional.
Other arguments followed a similar pattern. Consumer technology manufacturers told the FTC that handing a device that contains sensitive personal data, like a laptop, over to an independent shop can create security risks. But they failed to provide evidence that independent repair businesses are more likely to mishandle that data than the manufacturer. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers told the agency that manufacturer-backed repair providers help uphold the “brand reputation” of companies, but it didn’t demonstrate that consumers were less satisfied with repair jobs conducted by independent mechanics. And while Microsoft argued that design choices that limit device repairability — such as using glue instead of screws to secure batteries and screens in place — are driven by consumer preference, empirical research has shown that consumers also care about the longevity and repairability of their devices.
The FTC was far more sympathetic to repair advocates’ claims that manufacturer barriers make repairs take longer and cost more. It also concurred with advocates that increasing access to repair will have environmental benefits, from reducing the energy use associated with making new devices to slowing the tide of toxic electronic waste. Industry lobbyists say that they have already implemented take-back programs that have driven e-waste levels down, but many experts say this argument is misleading. While the total volume of e-waste is declining in the U.S. as electronics get smaller and lighter, researchers say that the complexity of today’s smartphones, tablets, and flat-screen TVs makes them harder to reuse and recycle. Sheehan of iFixit added that many state electronics recycling laws cover “a limited scope of products,” including old, bulky cathode-ray tube televisions but not newer technologies like smart fridges.
Overall, the FTC concluded that the repair barriers manufacturers create have “steered consumers into manufacturers’ repair networks or to replace products before the end of their useful lives” without any decent justification.
“This is a huge tool for us,” Nathan Proctor, who heads the right-to-repair campaign at the advocacy nonprofit U.S. Public Research Interest Group, said of the new FTC report. “We certainly are going to use this report to advocate for state right to repair laws.”
Indeed, the report comes as dozens of state legislatures have recently considered bills that would make it easier to repair small electronics, home appliances, and farm and medical equipment. The pandemic has helped fuel those bills by spotlighting the “digital divide” between wealthier, whiter, more urban communities, which have more access to the electronic devices they need to work and learn remotely compared with lower income, rural, and communities of color. Advocates argue that making it easier to fix broken devices could narrow that divide, since repairing a phone or laptop tends to be a more affordable option than replacing it. The pandemic has also revealed that letting manufacturers restrict the repair of specialized equipment like ventilators can be a matter of life and death.
While advocates continue to push for the right to repair to be enshrined into law, the FTC may start cracking down on companies that violate existing laws. The Commission’s investigation into repair restrictions came about, in part, due to its concern over companies violating the so-called “anti-tying provision” of the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which makes it illegal for manufacturers to void warranties if consumers go to an independent shop or use an off-brand part to fix their devices. If you’ve ever been told by, say, the company that made your phone or printer that opening it up and fixing it yourself will void your warranty, you know this law is not being aggressively enforced.
“People have this idea in their heads that they’re somehow violating a contract with a manufacturer” if they fix their device, said Proctor. “And this is cultivated consistently and aggressively by manufacturers.”
But the Wild West days of companies making up their own warranty rules may be numbered. The day its report came out, the FTC’s official Twitter account called on members of the public to send in a report if they were told their warranty would be voided by an independent repair.
A spokesperson for the FTC told Grist that in addition to “pursuing appropriate law enforcement options” with respect to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the FTC would be looking into other legal and regulatory avenues to support independent repair “consistent with our statutory authority” and educating consumers about their rights.
“The Commission also stands ready to work with legislators, either at the state or federal level, in order to ensure that consumers have choices when they need to repair products that they purchase and own,” the spokesperson said.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.