SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Edward Erikson, 202-420-9947, press@freespeechforpeople.org
Latino civic engagement organization Mi Familia Vota Education Fund and several voters today filed a lawsuit against President Trump and members of the administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit, which names President Trump, Attorney General Bill Barr, and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf, is based on the defendants' violent suppression of public protests opposing police brutality, the encouragement of white supremacist "vigilantes," threats to send "sheriffs" and other law enforcement to the polls, the undermining of mail-in voting, and the rejection of the peaceful transfer of power, which, the complaint alleges, constitute illegal voter intimidation under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and unconstitutional suppression of speech and votes under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. The complaint and a motion simultaneously filed with the court seek a preliminary injunction restraining Trump and the other defendants from continuing to engage in this unconstitutional and illegal intimidation.
"Donald Trump is a clear threat to our democracy. He has terrorized the Latino community, and has brought our country to the brink of ruin. Now in an outrageous turn of events, he and his senior officials are intimidating voters," says Hector Sanchez Barba, the Executive Director of Mi Familia Vota Education Fund. "Court intervention is now critical to stop this illegal voter intimidation and to protect the fundamental right to vote."
According to the complaint:
"This pattern of violently suppressing opposition, sabotaging a free and fair election, and rejecting a peaceful transfer of power has the purpose and effect of intimidating Americans from voting, trying to vote, helping others to vote, supporting or advocating for the election of Defendant Trump's opponent, or exercising the right to speak, peaceably assemble, or petition the government for redress of grievances, in violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. SS 10307(b); Section 2 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. SS 1985(3); and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."
Nationwide protests against police brutality began in late May after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. While these demonstrations have remained overwhelmingly peaceful, President Trump has repeatedly referred to participants as "looters" and "anarchists," and, along with plaintiffs Barr and Wolf, has falsely referred to the decentralized "Antifa" (anti-fascist) movement as a domestic terrorist organization. The complaint argues that the administration's response, which has included the deployment of unidentified DHS agents illegally detaining protesters and passersby in Portland, Oregon and questioning organizers of other assemblies about their political beliefs, has intimidated activists from attempting to organize additional peaceful demonstrations. Armed vigilantes, many of whom have shown public support for President Trump, have regularly appeared at protests around the country. In some instances, including that of Kyle Rittenhouse in August, their presence has resulted in violent clashes and deaths.
"President Trump and his administration have intimidated voters by violently suppressing peaceful protests, encouraging vigilante violence, discrediting voting by mail, sabotaging mail delivery to undermine voting, threatening to send law enforcement to polling places, and refusing to recognize the legitimacy of election results if Trump is not declared the winner," says Ron Fein, Legal Director at Free Speech For People, which serves as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "The court should protect the fundamental right to vote by blocking President Trump's attempts to prevent a free and fair election."
The complaint alleges:
"Trump's deployment of federal law enforcement against assemblies of individuals perceived to be in opposition to him, coupled with his decision not to deploy federal law enforcement officials against assemblies of individuals perceived to support him, intimidates individuals who plan to express political opposition to Trump or vote against him, by communicating that Trump endorses physical violence against his political detractors."
Meanwhile, as many states have expanded access to voting-by-mail in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump has repeatedly attacked and attempted to delegitimize the practice. He has publicly confirmed that his efforts to intimidate and coerce people not to vote by mail are subjectively motivated by the intent to harm his political opponents in the 2020 presidential election. And he directed or ratified Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, confirmed in June, who initiated or oversaw drastic reductions to USPS staffing and service, limited the use of mail trucks, and removed hundreds of public mailboxes and postal facility sorting machines to undermine the United States Postal Service.
Those seeking to vote in person also face intimidation from President Trump and his allies. Trump has called for armed military and law enforcement presence at polling stations in the name of preventing fraud, and encouraged supporters to serve as poll watchers for the campaign. These supporters have included the Proud Boys, a white supremacist organization whom Trump publicly ordered to "stand by" when asked about them at the September 29 presidential debate. On several occasions, Trump has also refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election.
The complaint further alleges:
"The pattern of conduct described above has had, as a foreseeable impact, an objective intimidating effect on eligible voters. Many Americans have been intimidated by this conduct...to the extent that it has discouraged their plans to register to vote, to vote, or to conduct voter registration, persuasion, or mobilization activities at public assemblies."
The plaintiffs are represented by Free Speech For People, a nonpartisan nonprofit legal advocacy organization, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP, and Mehri and Skalet PLLC. They are seeking court orders to cease the defendants' unlawful conduct and to prevent further attempts at voter intimidation leading into the November 3, 2020 election, and the ballot-counting process following the election.
Read the full complaint here.
Free Speech For People is a national non-partisan non-profit organization founded on the day of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC that works to defend our democracy and our Constitution.
"Our fight to ensure that voters—not politicians—have the final say is far from over," said one organizer.
Campaigners who last month celebrated the success of their effort to place an abortion rights referendum on November ballots in Missouri faced uncertainty about the ballot initiative Friday night, after a judge ruled that organizers had made an error on their petitions that rendered the measure invalid.
Judge Christopher Limbaugh of Cole County Circuit Court sided with pro-forced pregnancy lawmakers and activists who had argued that Missourians for Constitutional Freedom had not sufficiently explained the ramifications of the Right to Reproductive Freedom initiative, or Amendment 3, which would overturn the state's near-total abortion ban.
The state constitution has a requirement that initiative petitions include "an enacting clause and the full text of the measure," and clarify the laws or sections of the constitution that would be repealed if the amendment were passed.
Missourians for Constitutional Freedom included the full text of the measure on their petitions, which were signed by more than 380,000 residents—more than twice the number of signatures needed to place the question on ballots.
Opponents claimed, though, that organizers did not explain to signatories the meaning of "a person's fundamental right to reproductive freedom."
Limbaugh accused the group of a "blatant violation" of the constitution.
Rachel Sweet, campaign manager for the group, said it "remains unwavering in [its] mission to ensure Missourians have the right to vote on reproductive freedom on November 5."
"The court's decision to block Amendment 3 from appearing on the ballot is a profound injustice to the initiative petition process and undermines the rights of the... 380,000 Missourians who signed our petition," said Sweet. "Our fight to ensure that voters—not politicians—have the final say is far from over."
Limbaugh said he would wait until Tuesday, when the state is set to print ballots, to formally issue an injunction instructing the secretary of state to remove the question.
Missourians for Constitutional Freedom said it plans to appeal to a higher court, but if the court declines to act, the question would be struck from ballots.
As the case plays out in the coming days, said Missouri state Rep. Eric Woods (D-18), "it's a good time for a reminder that Missouri's current extreme abortion ban has ZERO exceptions for rape or incest. And Missouri Republicans are hell bent on keeping it that way."
The ruling came weeks after the Arkansas Supreme Court disqualified an abortion rights amendment from appearing on November ballots, saying organizers had failed to correctly submit paperwork verifying that paid canvassers had been properly trained.
"We demand our government completely stop arming Israel and push for a cease-fire now," said the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Thousands of people gathered at London's Picadilly Circus Saturday for the city's latest march against Israel's bombardment of Gaza and the United Kingdom's continued support for the Israel Defense Forces, following what organizers called "a major victory in defense of the democratic right to protest."
The Metropolitan Police on Friday dropped its restrictions on the march, which was the first pro-Palestinian protest since last October to proceed to the Israeli embassy in London.
The police had attempted to stop campaigners from gathering before 2:30 pm, conflicting with plans to begin the rally preceding the march at noon.
"They never provided any convincing explanation or evidence for this delay, and it has caused enormous, unnecessary difficulty to the organization of a large-scale demonstration," Ben Jamal, who leads the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, one of the groups organizing the march, toldMiddle East Eye on Friday.
"It has unfortunately been part of a pattern of obstruction, delay, and lack of communication on the part of the Met which we will press them to review and reflect on for future demonstrations," he added. "For tomorrow, we call on our supporters to turn out in their hundreds of thousands to show we will not be deterred from seeking an end to Israel's genocide and justice for Palestine!"
Jamal said the police "saw sense and abandoned their unjustified and impractical attempt to delay the start of the march by two hours on Saturday," allowing the march to begin at 1:30 pm.
During previous marches in which hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated in solidarity with Palestinians since last October, police have blocked off the area surrounding the Israeli embassy in Kensington, threatening anyone who protested in the vicinity with arrest.
Marching to the embassy, demonstrators made a "renewed call to end the ongoing genocide in Gaza" and demanded an "immediate and full cessation of arms supplies to Israel."
Earlier this week, the U.K. government announced it was suspending approximately 30 of its 350 arms export licenses for Israel, saying that "there does exist a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law."
Human rights advocates, medical professionals working in Gaza, and legal experts have for months demanded that Israel's top international funders, including the U.S. and U.K., stop providing military aid as Israel has blocked humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza and waged attacks on civilian infrastructure, killing more than 40,000 people.
The country has also been accused of carrying out genocide in a case led by South Africa at the International Court of Justice; the court has ordered Israel to end its blockade on humanitarian aid and to prevent genocide in Gaza.
"We demand our government completely stop arming Israel and push for a cease-fire now," said the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
As Londoners marched on Saturday, the Gaza Health Ministry announced that at least 61 Palestinians had been killed by Israeli forces in the last two days. Four people were killed in a strike on Halimah al-Saadiyah school in Jabaliya, where displaced Palestinians have been sheltering, and three were killed in a bombing at Amr Ibn al-As school in Gaza City.
Media outlets in Palestine reported that a baby named Yaqeen al-Astal had become the 37th child in Gaza to die of malnutrition since Israel began its near-total aid blockade.
International outrage also grew on Saturday regarding the killing of a Turkish American activist, Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, in the West Bank on Friday. Local media and eyewitnesses said Eygi had been deliberately shot in the head by Israeli forces at a protest over the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements.
The U.S. called on Israel to investigate the killing on Friday, but Eygi's family said in a statement that such a probe would not be "adequate."
"We call on President [Joe] Biden, Vice President [Kamala] Harris, and Secretary of State [Antony] Blinken to order an independent investigation into the unlawful killing of a U.S. citizen and to ensure full accountability for the guilty parties," said the family.
Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for the United Nations, called for "a full investigation of the circumstances" and said that "people should be held accountable. And again, civilians must be protected at all times."
“If Speaker Johnson drives House Republicans down this highly partisan path," said Democratic leaders, "the odds of a shutdown go way up."
Leading U.S. Senate Democrats on Friday accused House Republicans of "wasting precious time catering to the hard MAGA right" as House Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled a stopgap funding bill tied to a proposal that would require proof of citizenship in order to vote in federal elections.
The proposal—the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act—has been pushed by Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump and was passed by the House in July, with five Democrats joining the GOP in supporting the bill.
Non-citizens are already barred from voting in federal elections. With about 21.3 million eligible voters reporting in a recent survey that they would not be able to quickly access their birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or certificate of citizenship in order to prove their status, critics say the proposal is a clear attempt to stop people of color and young Americans from taking part in elections.
Johnson proposed including the legislation in a stopgap bill, or a continuing resolution, that would keep the government running roughly at current spending levels through March 28—a move that would postpone major spending negotiations until after the next president takes office.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said that "avoiding a government shutdown requires bipartisanship, not a bill drawn up by one party," and alluded to former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's (R-Calif.) attempt last September to ram a spending bill through with immigration and border policy changes in order to avert a government shutdown.
"Speaker Johnson is making the same mistake as former Speaker McCarthy did a year ago," said Schumer and Murray in a statement. "The House Republican funding proposal is an ominous case of déjà vu."
“If Speaker Johnson drives House Republicans down this highly partisan path," they added, "the odds of a shutdown go way up, and Americans will know that the responsibility of a shutdown will be on the House Republicans' hands."
Johnson is expected to bring the bill to the House floor on Wednesday after lawmakers return from summer recess. Congress has a September 30 deadline to make changes to the spending bill in order to avoid a partial government shutdown on October 1.
The House speaker called the proposal "a critically important step" toward funding the government and ensuring "that only American citizens can decide American elections"—prompting one critic to accuse Johnson of pushing a "manufactured" issue.
"Anyone who reads the SAVE Act understands it is a bad bill," said attorney Heath Hixson, "a poorly worded unfunded mandate that'll lead to voter suppression and racist outcomes."