Defend Our Country Weekly:
What to Know for the Weekend
This week, we examine the latest strategies deployed by former President Donald Trump’s legal team. Recent filings signal a disturbing emphasis on their intention to continue challenging the integrity of the 2020 election. While Trump and his lawyers maintain that the election was illegitimate, testimony from former Vice President Mike Pence and others, much of it revealed this week, lends further credence to the notion that these claims are not genuine.
True believers of Trump’s election denialism are paying the price for acting on their misplaced trust. In Arizona, two county commissioners attempted to illegally delay certification of the vote in 2022. A judge indicted them this week — the first time anyone has been indicted for failing to certify an election.
A flurry of court challenges in states like Georgia, Ohio, and Tennessee, meanwhile, highlight how contentious the redistricting process has become. While there are encouraging examples of organizations fighting back against gerrymandering, there are also signs that some state courts are all too willing to challenge foundational elements of our process such as the Voting Rights Act.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Trump’s Legal Team Demands Extensive List of Documents on 2020 Election, Capitol Attack in Preparation for a Defense Relying on Distractions
Trump’s legal team filed new court papers in the D.C. federal case on Monday. They revealed that Trump’s lawyers are seeking to compel prosecutors to turn over information about the 2020 election and Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol. Trump’s lawyers are asking for documents from many, many sources. These include the FBI, national security and election integrity units of the Justice Department, the Defense Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Capitol Police, the D.C. police department, the National Guard, and members of Congress. This is a sign that the former president’s defense will rely on unfounded allegations that President Biden’s victory was “stolen.” The papers also suggested that Trump’s lawyers intend to raise other distractions as part of their defense.
In related Mike Pence news, ABC revealed information about his testimony to Special Counsel Jack Smith earlier this year. Pence apparently explained how, in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, Trump surrounded himself with “crank” attorneys, espoused “un-American” legal theories, and almost pushed the country toward a “constitutional crisis.” Pence also told investigators he’s “sure” that he informed Trump after the 2020 election that he still hadn’t seen evidence of significant election fraud. Trump, however, was unmoved and continued to claim the election was stolen anyway.
- Top point to make: Trump’s filings suggest we could have a difficult road in front of us. They indicate that his attorneys are intending to question the findings of government agencies about the fairness of the 2020 election. This could end up perpetuating misinformation about election integrity, something our nation surely does not need more of. The attempt to involve unrelated matters in the defense also potentially will fuel extremist narratives. Pence’s testimony, meanwhile, offers important insights into the threats our democratic institutions faced in 2020 and 2021 and undermines the former president’s claims that he genuinely thought the 2020 election was unjust. According to Pence, Trump was given every reason to conclude it was fair.
- If you read one thing: New York Times, 11/28/23: Trump Seeks to Use Trial to Challenge Findings That 2020 Election Was Fair: “Lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump said in court papers that they planned to question the findings of several government agencies that the 2020 election was conducted fairly as part of their efforts to defend Mr. Trump against federal charges that he sought to overturn the results of the race. The lawyers also suggested in the papers that they intended to raise a host of distractions as part of their defense, indicating that they want to drag unrelated matters like Hunter Biden’s criminal prosecution and the investigation into former Vice President Mike Pence’s handling of classified documents into the election interference case.”
2. Cochise County Supervisors Indicted on Felony Charges for Delaying 2022 Election Certification in Arizona
This week, two Republican county supervisors in Arizona, Peggy Judd, and Tom Crosby, were indicted on felony charges related to delaying the certification of the 2022 election results. The indictments have been a long time coming. Last year, Judd and Crosby attempted to order a hand count of Cochise County’s ballots. This demand was influenced by local right-wing conspiracy theories. A judge ruled against the hand count request. Judd and Crosby still delayed election certification, before ultimately complying under court order pressure. Arizona’s then-Secretary of State, Katie Hobbs, sued the supervisors. She argued their actions threatened to disenfranchise Cochise County voters.
In an interview, Judd admitted she did not suspect voting irregularities. She said she and Crosby viewed their actions as a protest. These indictments are the first criminal charges filed over a refusal to certify an election.
- Top point to make: The supervisors’ refusal to certify the election results, despite acknowledging there were no legitimate issues, contributed to spreading dangerous false narratives that undermined trust in the electoral process. There is no ambiguity here: The supervisors’ actions are both harmful to our democracy and against state law. The indictments are a necessary step in holding these individuals accountable.
- If you read one thing: KJZZ Arizona, 11/29/23: Cochise County supervisors indicted for conspiracy, interference in 2022 election: “An Arizona state grand jury indicted two Republican supervisors in rural Cochise County for refusing to meet a state deadline to certify the county’s 2022 election results. Supervisors Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd tried to prevent the certification of votes despite finding no legitimate issues with the election and repeated warnings that their actions were against state law. The board only made the county’s results official after a judge ordered them to hold an emergency meeting three days past the state deadline for certification. Now, both Crosby and Judd are charged with felony offenses of conspiring to delay the canvass of votes and interfering with the Secretary of State’s duty to complete a statewide count of votes.”
3. Redistricting Controversies Continue in Many States
The most substantial redistricting dispute right now is in Georgia. Georgia legislators started a special session on Wednesday because a federal judge ruled that the redistricting maps they produced in 2021 did not protect the rights of Black voters. Lawmakers must try to create new voter maps for Georgia’s 14 Congressional seats, 180 state representatives, and 56 senators. This will determine the state’s political balance until the next redistricting session after the 2030 U.S. Census. Lawmakers have until Dec. 8 to redraw the state’s district lines.
In Ohio, the state Supreme Court chose to leave the state’s redistricting maps in place for 2024 and beyond. In a 4-3 ruling, the court dismissed challenges filed by the ACLU and anti-gerrymandering groups. In Texas, meanwhile, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to consider an electoral redistricting case from Galveston County. The court’s 17 active judges are considering a challenge to the way the Voting Rights Act is used to protect the voting rights of citizens of color. Six of the judges were appointed by Donald Trump.
Yet another challenge is taking place in Tennessee. A three-judge panel found state Senate districts unconstitutional. The Tennessee General Assembly must redraw its state Senate map by January following a Tuesday ruling. Three voters, backed by the state Democratic party, sued Tennessee in 2022 over allegations that legislative Republicans unconstitutionally drew unfair House and Senate maps.
- Top point to make: The efforts in Georgia to comply with the Voting Rights Act, and the ruling in Tennessee, are steps in the right direction. Voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. The effort to redraw maps in a way that protects the rights of Black voters protects democratic institutions and moves us closer to equitable representation. However, the developments in Ohio and Texas are concerning. The dismissal of challenges by the ACLU and anti-gerrymandering groups is a setback for transparency and fairness in electoral processes. The Voting Rights Act is a foundational part of our 21st-century democracy—and conservative judges legislating from the bench to dismantle it is unacceptable.
- If you read one thing: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/27/23: Take two: Georgia lawmakers make another attempt at redistricting: “Georgia’s lawmakers return to Atlanta on Wednesday for a special legislative session with one major task: redraw the state’s political districts in a way that a federal judge says complies with the law. The stakes are high, with Democrats hoping to make inroads into Georgia’s Republican majority in Congress and the General Assembly. U.S. District Judge Steve Jones last month threw out the state’s congressional and legislative maps, saying they violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by illegally diluting Black voting power.”
Expert Voices
Chauncey Devega, on Trump’s rhetoric, for Salon: “In a new essay in the New York Times, Thomas Edsall consulted with mental health professionals from some of America’s most prestigious institutions about this emergency. Their conclusion: Donald Trump’s aberrant behavior is getting worse…I have been very vocal in my criticism of the New York Times and other agenda-setting media about their failures to consistently engage in pro-democracy journalism — a type of journalistic practice that requires that the abnormal is not normalized and that the American people are repeatedly warned about Trumpism, neofascism, and the dangers embodied by other types of anti-democratic politics.”
Ruth Marcus, on conservative judges and the Voting Rights Act, for The Washington Post: “The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, and throughout the subsequent decades, the universal assumption has been that private parties — voters who claim their rights were infringed, or interest groups representing them — could go to court to invoke the law’s protections…Voting cases are complex and time-intensive. There’s only so much the Justice Department can do — even in administrations that are inclined to enforce the law. Smith noted that of at least 182 successful Section 2 cases in the past 40 years, only 15 were brought solely by the attorney general…So, ending suits by private parties would drastically undermine the law’s effectiveness at a time when other provisions have already been neutered…The justices are going to have to decide this question.”
Marc Elias, on voting rights, for Democracy Docket: “There are reasons for those of us in the pro-democracy movement to give thanks. After years of attacks, the crown jewel of American democracy — Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) — shined bright this year. After the Supreme Court gutted Section 5 of the VRA in 2013, the importance of Section 2 — which prohibits any voting law, practice or map that results in the ‘denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color’ — has risen in the last 10 years, allowing voters and groups to challenge discriminatory maps and voting rules.”
Sarah Haake, on the Supreme Court’s new code of conduct, for Salon: “Despite the historical imperative of assuring that all free governments answer to one rule of law, the U.S. Supreme Court recently announced, with its empty code of ethics, that it answers to no one…The opening statement of the ‘Code of Conduct’ drips with hubris: ‘The absence of a Code has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules.’ Do they really need to be handed the memo? America’s ‘misunderstanding’ didn’t form in a vacuum. Justices Alito and Thomas don’t just ‘regard themselves’ as unrestricted by ethics, they have so egregiously violated the rules of fair play that they shouldn’t be allowed to serve. They certainly shouldn’t be allowed to impose their 18th-century religious views on the nation.”
Tom Joscelyn and Norm Eisen for Just Security, on Chesebro’s leaked proffer statement in Fulton County, GA election subversion case: “Last week, the Washington Post reported on parts of Chesebro’s statement, as well as excerpts of the proffers recorded for three of his co-defendants – Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell, and Scott Hall – all of whom pleaded guilty to charges in Fulton County as well. The Post’s account is based on leaked ‘portions’ of their statements – not their full proffers, which haven’t been released to the public. A lawyer for a fifth defendant in the Fulton County case admitted that he gave the video evidence to the media…The Post’s reporting on portions of Chesebro’s proffer raises a series of questions. Chesebro provided Fulton County prosecutors with some intriguing new details. He revealed, for example, that he personally met with then-President Trump in the White House on Dec. 16, 2020. But based on what was reported in the Post, Chesebro’s description of that meeting, as well as other details, may have downplayed some important aspects of his role in the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election.”
