Defend Our Country Weekly:
What to Know for the Weekend
On Thursday, we received startling news: Trump attorney Sidney Powell is pleading guilty in the Georgia election subversion case. As part of her guilty plea, Powell is admitting her role in the January 2021 breach of election systems in rural Coffee County, Georgia. Fulton County prosecutors are recommending a sentence of six years probation. Powell will also be required to testify at future trials, write an apology letter to the citizens of Georgia, pay nearly $9,000 in restitution and fines and turn over documents.
Throughout the week, there was also a continuous flow of information regarding the new gag order imposed on Trump in the federal criminal case related to the 2020 election overturn attempt.
As the ongoing process in Washington to select a new House Speaker remained unresolved, focus shifted toward legislative and legal battles at the state level. Of notable concern was the recurring pattern of Wisconsin’s Republican lawmakers seeking to remove both appointed and elected officials from their positions. Furthermore, a series of reports has shed light on efforts by a Republican supermajority in North Carolina to limit voting rights in the state.
Here’s what you need to know for the weekend:
Main Points for the Weekend:
1. Judge Chutkan Issues Gag Order on Trump in 2020 Election Case
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued a gag order against Trump in the federal criminal case in which he is accused of seeking to overturn the 2020 election. The order bars Trump from making public comments targeting court staff, Special Counsel Jack Smith and any members of his staff, as well as “any reasonably foreseeable witnesses.”
Chutkan published the written version of her order on Tuesday — a day after she held a hearing on the matter and said she would impose the gag. It took three rounds of written filings over the last six weeks, and more than two hours of courtroom arguments this week, to sort through the issues surrounding the order.
It is unclear to what degree, and how, Chutkan will enforce the order. Trump’s lawyers are already appealing, according to court papers filed on Tuesday.
- Top point to make: It is unfortunate that this gag order is necessary, but it’s an essential measure to hold Trump accountable. Trump has repeatedly targeted prosecutors, judges, and court staff with his social media posts and statements. The gag order is a way to support the court staff, special counsel, and any witnesses involved in the case, protecting them from harassment or intimidation.
- If you read one thing: Washington Post, 10/17/23: D.C. judge formally issues gag order against Trump. Here’s what to know: “U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued a limited gag order against Donald Trump that prohibits the former president from disparaging prosecutors, witnesses and court personnel involved in his upcoming election-obstruction trial in federal court in Washington, D.C. Chutkan published the written version of her order on Tuesday — a day after she held a hearing on the matter and said she would impose the gag. A few hours later, Trump and his lawyers filed a notice saying they intended to appeal the ruling to the federal appeals court in D.C. Trump has said the order violates his First Amendment rights as he is running for president.”
2. Republican Legislators in Wisconsin Continue Attempts to Remove Officials, Regardless of the Will of Voters
Wisconsin Republicans signaled at the end of last week that they were retreating from their threats to impeach a recently seated State Supreme Court justice, Janet Protasiewicz. Robin Vos, the Republican speaker of the State Assembly, said that he would not seek to remove Justice Protasiewicz based on the argument he and fellow Republicans had been making for two months — that statements she made calling the maps “rigged” during her campaign for office this year compelled impeachment if she refused to recuse herself from a case challenging them. Vos said, “the focus would be on what Justice Protasiewicz does in office.”
Then, on Tuesday, Republican lawmakers voted to fire former Milwaukee County Clerk Joseph Czarnezki. Czarnezki’s position on the panel provides guidance to clerks throughout the state on how to run elections. This vote was taken after Czarnezki joined Democratic commissioners in abstaining from a vote to reappoint Wisconsin Elections Commission administrator Meagan Wolfe.
Speaking of Wolf, who Republican Wisconsin lawmakers voted to oust last month: this week, lawmakers admitted that a state Senate vote to fire her last month has no legal effect. In a change of course, leaders of the GOP-controlled state legislature said in court documents filed Friday that the vote on Sept. 14 to fire her “was symbolic and meant to signal disapproval of Administrator Wolfe’s performance.”
- Top point to make: On the one hand, it is a positive sign that lawmakers are backing off from threatening Justice Protasiewicz. It is, however, unfortunate that she was made to endure groundless partisan attacks. In general, we are concerned about the removal of election officials, especially those who provide guidance to ensure fair and transparent elections. Removing, or even threatening to remove, election officials is a disruption to the electoral process, which could lead to misinformation or doubts about the fairness of elections. These threats should not be made lightly, and certainly not to further a partisan agenda.
- If you read one thing: Associated Press, 10/16/23: Wisconsin Republicans admit vote to fire elections chief had no legal effect: “Republican Wisconsin lawmakers working to oust the state’s nonpartisan top elections official have admitted that a state Senate vote to fire her last month has no legal effect. In a change of course from recent calls to impeach Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe, leaders of the GOP-controlled Legislature said in court documents filed Friday that the vote on Sept. 14 to fire her ‘was symbolic and meant to signal disapproval of Administrator Wolfe’s performance.’ Wolfe has been lawfully holding office since her term expired on July 1, Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, Senate President Chris Kapenga and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos admitted.”
3. The Spotlight on Voting Rights Shifts to North Carolina
North Carolina dominated voting rights news this week. Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper sued Republican state lawmakers on Tuesday over a measure that would transfer his power over the elections board to legislative leaders. This measure became law last week, when the GOP-controlled General Assembly overrode Cooper’s veto. Cooper said the board changes, which would take effect Jan. 1, run counter to the state constitution and state Supreme Court rulings in the 2010s. State voters have also previously rejected this idea. They voted against a 2018 referendum that would have given lawmakers more say over the composition of the State Board of Elections.
Also on Tuesday, lawyers with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice filed a federal lawsuit challenging a new North Carolina elections law. They say the law discriminates against young voters. This is the third lawsuit challenging the law that, among other things, eliminates the three-day grace period for mail-in ballot returns and allows partisan observers to move more freely around polling locations. Gov. Roy Cooper also vetoed this bill, but the legislature overrode his veto last week.
Finally, on Wednesday, state Republicans pitched new maps for the state’s congressional districts starting in 2024. Senate redistricting committee leaders introduced two proposals that would rework the boundary lines for the state’s 14 U.S. House seats. Critics say both proposals employ gerrymandering. Statewide election data attached to Wednesday’s proposals indicates that one of the Senate’s proposals would create 10 districts that appear to favor a Republican candidate, three that favor a Democrat and one that could be considered competitive. In the other proposal, Republicans appear to be in a good position to win 11 of the 14 seats. The state House and Senate want to enact a final plan by the end of the month.
- Top point to make: Governor Cooper is defending his authority over the elections board, which was confirmed by voters only a few years ago, and working to keep legislators from exerting undue influence over shaping how elections are run in the state. This is essential for maintaining the integrity of North Carolina’s electoral process. The lawsuit by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, meanwhile, is about empowering voters and ensuring fair elections. North Carolina’s elimination of the three-day grace period for mail-in ballot returns and increased observer access will likely suppress voter participation, and the new law deserves to be challenged. Lastly, gerrymandering always undermines fairness and accountability in the electoral process, and therefore, our democracy. North Carolina should employ a transparent and non-partisan redistricting process to maintain trust in our elections. So far, that does not seem to be the case here.
- If you read one thing: Associated Press, 10/17/23: North Carolina’s governor sues lawmakers for a measure that eliminates his elections board authority: “North Carolina Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper sued state Republican lawmakers on Tuesday over a measure that eliminates his authority to pick elections board members, while voting rights groups filed yet another lawsuit challenging provisions of a law that they contend will discourage young people from voting. Both measures became law last week, when the GOP-controlled General Assembly overrode Cooper’s vetoes of them. The governor’s lawsuit, filed in state court against House Speaker Tim Moore, Senate leader Phil Berger and the state, challenges a measure that would transfer his power over the elections board to legislative leaders. Cooper said the board changes, which would take effect Jan. 1, run counter to the state constitution and state Supreme Court rulings in the 2010s that demand a governor have control over executive agencies to carry out laws. State voters also rejected a 2018 referendum that would have given lawmakers more say over the composition of the State Board of Elections.”
Expert Voices
Rachel Selzer, on the Independent State Legislature Theory, for Democracy Docket: “While the desired anti-democratic ends of Republican legislators in Arizona, Michigan and North Carolina are all distinct, their ISL-theory-rooted arguments — both past and present — coalesce around a shared misreading of the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause and a blatant disregard for their own state constitutional requirements.”
Judge Tanya Chutkan in Monday’s hearing: “This is not about whether or not I like the language Mr. Trump uses. This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice.”
NBC reporter Ryan Reilly, on extremism, in a Salon interview: “People have a First Amendment right to believe any sort of crazy conspiracy that they want to. But that leaves us in a situation where we’re vulnerable to these sort of attacks, because you have so many people who can easily justify violent reactions to disinformation.”
Dennis Aftergut and Frederick Baron, on the gag order, for Slate: ”The order is elegant. She grounded the order in long-standing Supreme Court law that a trial court has a duty to ‘protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences’ and that ‘[t]he First Amendment does not override that obligation.’ Then, she carefully focused on conduct by Trump that could reasonably be expected to increase the risk of violence to anyone in his trial process—witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff. That alone raises the guardrail against appellate reversal on First Amendment grounds, even by this Supreme Court.”
Joyce Vance on X (Twitter): “Now that Judge Chutkan has entered a limited restraining order that protects candidate Trump’s 1st Amendment rights but restrains him from impugning prosecutors, court personnel & witnesses & from inciting violence, it’ll be interesting to see if he can comply.”
