Defend Our Country Weekly:
What to Know for the Weekend
This week, the January 6 federal trial against former President Donald Trump has reached new levels of complexity. Trump’s claim of presidential immunity is now being used to delay the trial, as multiple courts consider its legitimacy. In Georgia, Rudy Giuliani is being held accountable for defaming two election workers after the 2020 presidential election, which led to threats and abuse. Lastly, a Supreme Court decision on districts in a Texas county threatens to set a disturbing precedent that could weaken the Voting Rights Act.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. January 6 Trials Entangled in Legal Complexities: Trump Seeks Presidential Immunity, Supreme Court to Review Obstruction Law Amid Fast-Tracked Appeals
Trump claimed last week that he should be immune from prosecution for the January 6 attack on the Capitol because he was the president. Judge Chutkan has put the proceedings on hold until an appeals court considers this. Later on Wednesday evening, the D.C. Circuit responded by saying it would fast-track its review of the district court’s decision and set a schedule for Trump and special counsel Jack Smith to file briefs in the coming weeks.
Legal experts say that the US Supreme Court will be under considerable pressure to reach a rapid decision on this matter, as well. On December 10, Smith asked the Supreme Court to quickly decide on Trump’s presidential immunity to prevent any delays to the trial. The following day, the Supreme Court said it would decide whether to take the case as soon as possible. The Supreme Court’s decision, of course, would overrule a decision made by the Court of Appeals.
In short: the January 6 federal trial is becoming increasingly byzantine.
Meanwhile, the Court indicated Wednesday it will take up a challenge to an obstruction law used against many Jan. 6 rioters this term. Joseph Fischer, a former police officer accused of being a Jan. 6 rioter, petitioned the high court to eliminate obstruction of an official proceeding from his charges. The charge criminalizes “corruptly” obstructing, impeding or interfering with an official government proceeding and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. Fischer’s case is joined with two other rioters’ cases: Edward Lang and Garrett Miller. Trump has been charged with the same offense. The court’s decision to take up the issue, as well as the timing of its ultimate ruling, could affect his case.
- Top point to make: Attempts to delay the court’s decision on Trump’s immunity claim undermine the case’s legitimacy with the public. They represent an effort to circumvent accountability for one of the highest-profile figures in the world, as well as possibly delay justice. Such actions damage confidence in our legal system. If Trump spurred the Capitol riots on January 6, it would not serve the interest of the American people to delay judgment. The Supreme Court’s decisions to discuss Trump’s immunity claims and to rule on the obstruction charge promptly are, however, promising. It is important for the Supreme Court to provide clarity on these matters, and as soon as possible. The public deserves a speedy trial and is entitled to a resolution on these crucial matters.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 12/13/23: Judge Pauses Trump Election Case Amid Appeal of Immunity Issue: “A federal judge on Wednesday put on hold all of the proceedings in former President Donald J. Trump’s trial on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election as an appeals court in Washington agreed to move quickly in considering Mr. Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution in the case. The decision by the appeals court to expedite its hearing of the immunity issue capped an all-day flurry of back-and-forth moves by Mr. Trump’s legal team and prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith, over the critical question of when the election trial will actually be held. It is now set to begin in Washington in March.”
2. Giuliani in Court Over Defamation to Election Workers, Contradicts Earlier Admission with New Claims Outside Courthouse
This week, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has been in court to determine how much money he should have to pay Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. Giuliani has admitted to, and been found legally liable for, defaming these election workers in December of 2020. Giuliani, then the personal lawyer to Trump, directed his millions of social media followers to watch a video of the Fulton County, Georgia election workers and asserted without basis that they were cheating Trump. This led to threats, accusations, and racism.
Giuliani was already found by a civil court to have defamed the women. He then signed a statement indicating he would no longer contest that his statements were false and defamatory. However, this week he contradicted that statement with his remarks outside a Washington, D.C., federal courthouse. “Everything I said about them is true,” Giuliani claimed Monday night. “They were engaged in changing the votes.” The next day, a judge suggested he may be guilty of defaming the election workers again as a result.
- Top point to make: The ordeal of the Fulton County election workers is a stark example of the harm caused by election misinformation. If we do not support our election officials in the face of threats, we may find it difficult to encourage participation in the activities that make our democracy function. As found by the court, Giuliani’s actions have been harmful and demonstrate a disrespect for the rule of law. We can only hope that the potential for substantial damages being awarded might warn others against similar behavior.
- If you read one thing: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 12/12/23: Fulton election worker testifies Giuliani’s ‘crazy lies’ ruined her life: “Moss’ testimony on Tuesday – with Giuliani watching – underscored the toll the false fraud allegations have taken on her life. She described how excited she was when she was first hired in 2012 for a temporary job handling mail at Fulton’s election department testifying she ‘literally dropped to my knees and cried.’ She wanted to make her mother and grandmother proud. Moss said she loved the job. By 2020, she was an interim supervisor in the absentee ballot department. She hoped to get the job permanently. She believed things went so well on election night that she might get it. That changed on Dec. 4, 2020 – the day after Giuliani unveiled his edited security footage. In her supervisor’s office, she learned ‘these crazy lies were spread about me that day everywhere.’ She also started reading the messages strangers were sending via social media – many of them filled with racial slurs and profanity.”
3. Supreme Court Allows Controversial Texas Election Maps, Prompting Concerns Over Nationwide Voting Rights Implications
The Supreme Court has decided that Galveston County, Texas, can use maps for the upcoming 2024 election that lower courts have ruled violate the Voting Rights Act. The court ruling was 6-3. Lower courts claimed the new maps intentionally diluted the votes of Black and Latino residents. While the case involves the boundaries in one locality, it could have broader implications for challenges to election maps and the protection of voting rights nationwide.
There has been a lot of litigation across the South this year alleging that Republican lawmakers illegally drew district lines to limit the power of minority voters. These lines, in theory, would violate the Voting Rights Act: should the Supreme Court agree to enforce it. Passed in 1965, the Voting Rights Act transformed who was eligible to enjoy the full rights of citizenship in the United States. It effectively ended poll taxes and literacy tests. It also gave the Justice Department oversight of state voting laws in jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, most of them in the South.
- Top point to make: The ongoing litigation across the South is part of a critical fight for democratic principles. The rights of minority voters are at stake. These cases will shape the future of fair elections. An erosion of the Voting Rights Act would be devastating. In this light, the Supreme Court decision on the Galveston County maps is a troubling precedent. They are a setback in the long-term and essential efforts to ensure that electoral boundaries are drawn to represent all citizens.
- If you read one thing: Houston Chronicle, 12/12/23: U.S. Supreme Court allows Galveston County to keep new voting maps: “Galveston County will use maps for the upcoming 2024 election that courts have ruled violate the Voting Rights Act, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case. The court issued a 6-3 ruling on Tuesday to grant the county’s request to keep the maps in place ahead of the election, handing a victory to Galveston County officials. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson were opposed. ‘In imposing a different map, acknowledged to violate current law – on the theory that the circuit might someday change that law – the Court of Appeals went far beyond its proper authority,’ wrote in the dissent. The decision cements what had been fluctuating circumstances surrounding the upcoming elections.”
Expert Voices
Paige Anderholm for Democracy Docket: “As of 2016, just 17% of U.S. polling locations were fully accessible. Given this state of inaccessibility, voters with disabilities, particularly those with ambulatory disabilities, are more likely to utilize mail-in ballots than voters without disabilities. The community’s reliance on mail-in voting puts them at a higher risk for disenfranchisement as their ballots are more likely to navigate harmful administrative hurdles like signature matching, shortened mail-in ballot return windows and the lack of accessible electronic ballots. The abundance of obstacles is often a result of the way mail-in voting is treated by state lawmakers and how accessibility within the electoral process is an afterthought at best.”
Tom Joscelyn, Norman L. Eisen and Fred Wertheimer for Just Security: “In his latest filing, Smith argues that Trump’s ‘post-conspiracy embrace of particularly violent and notorious rioters is admissible to establish the defendant’s motive and intent on January 6 – that he sent supporters, including groups like the Proud Boys, whom he knew were angry, and whom he now calls ‘patriots,’ to the Capitol to achieve the criminal objective of obstructing the congressional certification.’”
Heather Williams for Democracy Docket: “For the last two decades, Republicans have been laser-focused and unfortunately wildly successful in seizing power in state legislatures. Following elections in 2010 and 2014, they built red majorities across the country and locked themselves into power with redistricting. The consequences of this takeover still play an oversized role in driving the direction of this country. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, it wasn’t just the conservative justices who were responsible — it was the Republican-controlled legislatures across the country who put the Court’s opinion into action, writing and passing the state laws that stripped rights away from millions of Americans.”
Norm Eisen and Joshua Kolb, On Trump appealing decision on immunity, for CNN: “We think the Supreme Court will agree with Chutkan. In Trump v. Thompson, she authored the now-famous line that ‘Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President,’ referring to Trump. She thereby harkened back to our nation’s origins to reject Trump’s claim that sweeping executive privilege blocked the January 6 Committee from subpoenaing his presidential records. That is a close cousin to Trump’s claim here that sweeping executive immunity blocks the special counsel from prosecuting him.”
Barbara McQuade, Tom Joscelyn, Andrew Warren, and Norm Eisen, on the Michigan false electors court case, for Just Security: “The fake electoral votes for Michigan state that the undersigned are ‘the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Michigan.’ But the fake electors had no basis for making this assertion. (Note: The fake electors in the neighboring state of Wisconsin have recently admitted in a statement submitted to state and federal authorities, ‘we were not the duly elected presidential electors;’ they did so as part of an agreement pursuant to a civil settlement.) Joe Biden won the popular vote in Michigan and, as in other states, the winner of the popular vote receives Michigan’s electors. Biden’s victory was certified by Michigan’s State Board of Canvassers on Nov. 23, 2020. And there was no real dispute about the vote count in the weeks that followed. For example, there were no ongoing recounts. Biden won the state by more than 154,000 votes.”
