Mediaboss Marketing

Johnson, a Shreveport, Louisiana, native, entered politics after spending more than two decades defending conservative Christian causes as a litigator at the conservative legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, and throughout his career, he has argued in courts and drafted legislation to outlaw same-sex marriage and restrict abortion.

That was one reason I reached out to Du Mez, who combed through his long record of statements about his beliefs and influences to help me understand how his faith drives his politics. As he understands it, this country was founded as a Christian nation, Du Mez told me. So really, Christian supremacy and a particular type of conservative Christianity is at the heart of Johnsons understanding of the Constitution and an understanding of our government.

I talked with Du Mez about Johnsons roots in the Christian right, the figures in that world who have shaped his understanding of American politics, and the anti-democratic turn she has watched the Christian right take in the past several years particularly the striking way it coincided with attempts by former President Donald Trump, and Johnson himself, to overturn the 2020 election.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Katelyn Fossett: I want to talk to you a little about Mike Johnsons worldview and the belief system that has shaped him.

Kristin Kobes Du Mez: He is incredibly standard in terms of being a right-wing, white evangelical Christian nationalist.

Fossett: Tell me a little more about what makes someone a Christian nationalist. Does he use that phrase to describe himself?

Du Mez: I dont know that he uses that. But I feel comfortable applying that; its not in a pejorative way. Its simply descriptive. As he understands it, this country was founded as a Christian nation. And he stands in a long tradition of conservative white evangelicals, particularly inside the Southern Baptist Convention, who have a distinct understanding of what that means. And this is where evangelical author and activist David Barton comes in.

Johnson has said that Bartons ideas and teachings have been extremely influential on him, and that is essentially rooting him in this longer tradition of Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism essentially posits the idea that America is founded on Gods laws, and that the Constitution is a reflection of Gods laws. Therefore, any interpretation of the Constitution must align with Christian nationalists understanding of Gods laws. Freedom for them means freedom to obey Gods law, not freedom to do what you want. So really, Christian supremacy and a particular type of conservative Christianity is at the heart of Johnsons understanding of the Constitution and an understanding of our government.

Youll see this in some of his speeches. In his speech on Wednesday, he incorporated a G.K. Chesterton quote about the U.S. being based on a creed. And he said the American creed is We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.

But he goes much deeper than that, and really roots that in what he would call a biblical worldview: The core principles of our nation reflect these biblical truths and biblical principles. He has gone on record saying things like, for him, this biblical worldview means that all authority comes from God and that there are distinct realms of God-ordained authority, and that is the family, the church and the government.

Now, all this authority, of course, is under this broader understanding of God-given authority. So its not the right of any parents to decide whats best for their kids; its the right of parents to decide whats best for their kids in alignment with his understanding of biblical law. Same thing with the churchs role: It is to spread Christianity but also to care for the poor. Thats not the governments job.

And then the governments job is to support this understanding of authority and to align the country with Gods laws.

Fossett: Tell me more about David Barton.

Du Mez: Barton is a very popular author in conservative evangelical spaces, and he is the founder of an organization called Wallbuilders. It is an organization that for decades has been promoting the idea that the separation of church and state is a myth. He is a self-trained historian. Some would call him a pseudo-historian. Hes not a historian I can say that, as a historian. Hes an apologist. He uses historical evidence, cherry-picked and sometimes entirely fabricated, to make a case that the separation of church and state is a myth, and it was only meant to protect the church from the intrusion of the state but that the church is supposed to influence the government. Hes the author of a number of very popular books.

Back in the early 1990s, Jerry Falwell, Sr., started promoting his teachings. I noticed that Johnson said he was I think about 25 years ago introduced to David Bartons work, and it has really influenced the way he understands America. And that would be around that same time.

Its really hard to overstate the influence that Barton has had in conservative evangelical spaces. For them, he has really defined America as a Christian nation. What that means is that he kind of takes conservative, white evangelical ideals from our current moment, and says that those were all baked into the Constitution, and that God has elected America to be a special nation, and that the nation will be blessed if we respond in obedience and maintain that, and not if we go astray. It really fuels evangelical politics and the idea that evangelicalism has a special role to play to get the country back on track.

I should also add that Bartons Christian publisher back in 2012 actually pulled one of his books on Thomas Jefferson, because it was just riddled with misinformation. But that did not really affect his popularity. And again, these are not historical facts that were dealing with. It really is propaganda, but its incredibly effective propaganda. If you listen to Christian radio, you will hear them echoed. Its just this pervasive understanding of our nations history that is based on fabrication.

Fossett: Ive heard this idea from reporters and analysts that Mike Johnson is sort of a throwback to an earlier era, mostly the George W. Bush era, when there was this split, and alliance, between the business establishment and the social conservatives, which included evangelicals. Im wondering if Johnson is in fact an evangelical like those earlier ones, or if he represents something new in evangelical politics.

Du Mez: First, I would say that any kind of split between the business conservatives and the social conservatives is not so clear-cut. Its important to realize that one of Johnsons core principles of American conservatism as he reiterated them in his speech on Wednesday is free enterprise. For conservative evangelicals, they dont really see much of a tension between these, whereas the pro-business, old-school conservatives certainly would.

So hes very much rooted in this longer history of the Christian right, and his years working with the Alliance Defending Freedom, an American Christian legal advocacy group, certainly has placed him at the center of things. Thats an incredibly important organization and really a hub of the Christian right for decades now; it would have put him in close contact with the movers and the shakers of the Christian right for a long time. So hes rooted there. And he also has this nice-guy persona. That may seem like a bit of a throwback in the era of Trump.

But he is very much of this political moment in terms of his level of commitment to democracy. He spearheaded the congressional efforts to overturn the election. He is on the record as an election denier. Some have suggested thats why he got the votes to be elected speaker. Hes a Trump supporter and Trump supporter in this regard, specifically: election denial.

Ive noticed also in listening to his speeches that he is explicit about describing this country as a republic and not as a democracy. Inside these conservative Christian nationalist spaces, that is par for the course: that this is a republic, and it is a republic, again, founded in this biblical worldview, and that its not a democratic free-for-all. And so again, this is Christian supremacy.

If you align with this value system, then yes, you have the authority to shape our laws. If you do not, you have no business shaping our laws. He once said: We dont live in a democracy, because democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner. Meaning, the country is not just majority rule; its a constitutional republic. And the founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition on what a civil society is supposed to look like.

I think thats really important here: His commitment is not to democracy. Hes not committed to majority rule; he seems to be saying hes committed to minority rule, if thats what it takes to ensure that we stay on the Christian foundation that the founders have set up.

Now, he would say that theres really no tension here that, again, if the Constitution represents this kind of biblical worldview that he suggests the founders embraced, then theres going to really be no conflict. But hes on record repeatedly talking about our nation being a republic, and in one case explicitly saying this isnt a democracy, and that also is a very common theme in Christian nationalist circles and in conservative evangelical circles generally.

Fossett: I want to make sure I understand; how do these Christian nationalists see the distinction between a democracy and a republic?

Du Mez: When you press them on it, youll get different answers. What theyre doing is suggesting that the authority of the people in a popular democracy is constrained by whether or not peoples views align with they would say the Constitution, but what they mean is a particular interpretation of the Constitution one that understands the Constitution as being written to defend a particular Christian understanding of this country.

If you want to see what this means well, one of his core principles is human dignity. Well, does that extend to the dignity of gay citizens or trans citizens? No, absolutely not. His understanding of human dignity is rooted in his understanding of biblical law. One of his core principles is the rule of law. But clearly, hes comfortable with election denialism. So all of these core principles freedom, limited government, human dignity are interpreted through a conservative Christian lens and his understanding of what the Bible says ought to happen and how people ought to behave.

One thing Ive spent a lot of time thinking about is whether weve seen an anti-democratic turn among the Christian right or if it was always at the core of the movement. And certainly if you listen to the kind of rhetoric of what we call Christian nationalism today, its been around a long time; they always understood America to be a Christian republic.

But I think what has escalated things in the last decade or so is a growing alarm among conservative white Christians that they no longer have numbers on their side. So looking at the demographic change in this country, the quote-unquote end of white Christian America and theres where you can see a growing willingness to blatantly abandon any commitment to democracy.

Its really during the Obama presidency that you see the escalation of not just rhetoric, but a kind of desperation, urgency, ruthlessness in pursuing this agenda. Religious freedom was at the center of that. And it was, again, not a religious freedom for all Americans; it was religious freedom to ensure that conservative Christians could live according to their values. Because they could see this kind of sea change on LGBTQ rights, they could see the demographic changes, and inside their spaces, they have really played up this language of fear that liberals are out to get you, and you cannot raise your children anymore.

This kind of radicalizing rhetoric has very much taken root through conservative media echo chambers. So I really see Johnson as very much a part of this moment. But he is also somebody who is offering to rise above it and to stand in and to restore the nation to its Christian principles. When he uses the rhetoric of being anointed by God, for this moment, thats really the context.

Fossett: If the long trend was away from democracy, its kind of an unusual convergence of interests that Trump even though he is not a figure from the Christian right is the one who actually ended up calling an election into question. He seems to represent an opportunity for the part of the movement that would like to water down democracy, even if he isnt the preferred candidate of Christian conservatives in a lot of other ways.

Du Mez: Right. For Christian nationalists, this is Gods country, and all authority comes through God. And the only legitimate use of that authority is to further Gods plan for this country. So what that means is any of their political enemies are illegitimate in a sense, and those enemies power is illegitimate, and they need to be stripped of that power. And its really been kind of shocking for me to have observed these spaces in the last handful of years, where conservative evangelicals are much more comfortable in just making that plain and no longer feeling a need to pay lip service to democracy or voting rights or those sorts of things.

The disturbing thing to me is that Im a Christian myself, and I understand how this language of Gods authority really does resonate with conservative Christians across the board.

When push comes to shove, is your allegiance to God or to democracy? I see people talking about democracy as an idol. Democracy is not biblical, youre not going to find democracy in the Bible. At the end of the day, if you are a Christian, do you want to honor God first? Or some secular system? And the answer is kind of clear.

View original post here:
The Christian Nationalist Ideas That Made Mike Johnson - POLITICO - POLITICO

As a new congressman, Connecticuts Christopher J. Dodd and his then-colleague Elizabeth Holtzman, at the time a fellow freshman from New York traveled with a Congressional subcommittee delegation to explore human rights abuses in the now-former Soviet Union.

During a trip punctuated by arguments with Soviet officials and concerns about recording devices in flower vases, they visited Babyn Yar a ravine outside the Ukrainian capital city of Kyiv and the site of documented Nazi atrocities during World War II.

The experience so many years ago at Babyn Yar was transformative for me, for Liz, and those who were with us, Dodd told a packed audience at the Jorgensen Center for the Performing Arts in Storrs on Wednesday evening. To stand on ground outside of Kyiv where, in September 1941.33,000 people were massacred it was an experience that informed my work over the next 40 years in public service.

We visited Babyn Yar, the Nazi killing field I actually had the feeling that the ground was still moving underneath my feet, shared Holtzman, who grew up in her Jewish family hearing stories of Babyn Yar as a child from her mother, who was from a village near Kyiv.

The bodies never came to rest.

Dodd and Holtzman shared their memories of that trip to Ukraine in 1975 as part of the presentation ceremony of the 10th Thomas J. Dodd Prize in International Justice and Human Rights to the Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center in Kyiv.

The Thomas J. Dodd Prize in International Justice and Human Rights commemorates the distinguished career in public service of Christopher Dodds father, Thomas J. Dodd, who served as Executive Trial Counsel at the Nuremberg Trials, as U.S. Representative from 1953 to 1957, and as Connecticut Senator from 1959 to 1971.

Thomas Dodd continually fought against infringement and suppression of human rights in the United States and abroad during his long public career; the collection of his papers and letters from his time prosecuting Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg are currently housed at The Dodd Center for Human Rights at UConn.

The awarding of the Thomas J. Dodd Prize for International Justice and Human Rights is an opportunity not only to spotlight individuals and organizations at the forefront of human rights work, but to reaffirm our commitment as a University to the ideal of human rights as a goal that transcends national and political boundaries, said UConns President Radenka Maric.

This years recipient of the Dodd Prize embodies the understanding that human rights are a cause that cannot be limited to individual countries. An attack on human dignity and freedom anywhere is an attack on human dignity and freedom everywhere.

In total, between 70,000 and 100,000 people including almost the entire Jewish population of Kyiv were killed at Babyn Yar between 1941 and 1943. The Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center aims to serve as a physical place of memory, a museum, an educational archive, and a center of scientific knowledge about the sites historic atrocities and their modern-day impact.

The centers unwavering commitment to memory especially in the midst of unprovoked and ongoing war in Ukraine today was particularly remarkable to the Dodd Prize Selection Committee, said James Waller, director of Dodd Human Rights Impact and the Christopher J. Dodd Chair in Human Rights Practice at UConn. The Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Centers selection for this years prize was unanimous.

We were struck by their willingness to engage with history in a region that has many contested memories, Waller said. Rather than stand on the sidelines, Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center recognizes the need for public discourse on Babyn Yar and the role that this places construction plays in the social memory of Ukraine.

They know that nations need some kind of agreed-upon past, and that the dark silences that have been imposed on some episodes of history, the pages that have been torn out in history, must be exposed for a nation to develop a true sense of its identity.

The Dodd Prize ceremony was punctuated by memory.

In a recorded video message, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal recalled the story of his father emigrating to the United States to escape persecution in Europe during the Holocaust and commended The Dodd Center for its work to reserve and promote human rights.

This prize for the center to uplift and spotlight people who are fighting for their democratic values is a message to the whole world, Blumenthal said. The Babyn Yar Memorial Center is a vital organization that ensures the world will ever forget one of the most inhuman acts, the senseless slaughter of so many.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont recalled the words of President Joseph Biden when he visited UConn for the rededication of The Dodd Center for Human Rights two years ago.

I can tell you, when it comes to character it sounds like an old-fashioned concept, but I think its more important today than ever, Lamont said. Maybe some of you may have been here when President Biden came two years ago, and he said that character starts off with how you treat the people every day that you pass along on the street folks who cant do anything for you, but just you treat them with respect and dignity. And those who dont do that, you see where that leads.

Past Meets Present

In 1941, Victor Pinchuks parents fled Ukraine, emigrating to the Soviet Union and avoiding their own deaths at Babyn Yar in September of that year.

You, senator, are here tonight because of your father, who prosecuted the Nazi killers at Nuremberg, said the Ukrainian businessman, philanthropist, and Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center Board member, who accepted the Dodd Prize on behalf of the center on Wednesday evening. And Im here because of my father, and because of my parents my parents, a small Jewish boy and girl, went in 1941 from Kyiv to Russia, to protect them from the Nazi killers.

Pinchuk shared his memory of childhood, and his father often reading him, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court, by the author Mark Twain, whose home in Hartford is now a museum, the Mark Twain House.

Pinchuk visited the museum when he arrived in Connecticut this week and sent pictures to his father, which made him very happy, he said.

The first person I met and started talking with was a woman, she was a gardener in the Mark Twain museum, and she had a very big yellow-blue heart [on her clothes], Pinchuk said. And I asked her why. Because Im American Ukrainian. And I have this [flag, on my jacket] she said, I know youre also Ukrainian. And we spoke in the Ukrainian language. It was a great sign how close America and Ukraine are.

In accepting the award on behalf of the Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Center, Pinchuk said Ukraine is a country that wants the truth about Babyn Yar and about the current war in Ukraine to be told.

Since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the centers plans for physical spaces in Kyiv have been suspended in order to support the war effort and to help document destruction, atrocities, and loss in the current conflict.

Using some of the same technologies that the center has employed to map, document, preserve, and identify victims at Babyn Yar, the center has been working to memorialize victims of this war as well. Their team has digitized more than 3.5 million records and documents, according to the Babyn Yar Holocaust Memorial Centers CEO Oleksiy Makukhin, and aims to digitize 16 million documents over the next two years.

The awarding of the 2023 Dodd Prize on Wednesday, Oct. 25 also marked the launch of the inaugural Human Rights Summit at The Dodd Center for Human Rights, which kicked off on Thursday with a packed-house keynote from the Ukrainian human rights lawyer Oleksandra Mativiichuk at The Dodd Centers Konover Auditorium.

Matviichuk leads the nonprofit Center for Civil Liberties and is an advocate for democratic reforms. The Center for Civil Liberties was jointly awarded the 2022 Nobel Peace Prize, the first Nobel Prize in history awarded to a Ukrainian citizen or organization.

In her keynote, she spoke about atrocities committed against Ukrainians in the current war, the need for not just aid but also voices in the U.S. and other countries to help support the Ukraine, and the fragility of freedom in an increasingly interconnected world.

How many people who live in the 21st century will defend a human being, their life, their freedom, and their human dignity? she asked. Can we rely on the law, or does just brutal force matter? The answer to this question will define not just the future of people in Ukraine, Iran, Sudanthe answer to this question will define our common future.

Because the world should respond to the challenges of the present. Its the determination to act that defines a civilization that has a future. Freedom and democracy must be protected.

The Dodd Summit concludes Friday, October 27, with a focus on democracy in the United States, and with a Democracy and Dialogues session with UConn students on voting and voter participation, in the Konover Auditorium at The Dodd Center for Human Rights.

For more information about the inaugural Dodd Summit, visit summit.humanrights.uconn.edu.

Visit link:
Memories of the Past, to Support the Future: UConn Presents 2023 ... - University of Connecticut

LONDON Generative artificial intelligence systems will pose a stark threat to political systems within the next two years, British intelligence agencies have warned.

As Rishi Sunak prepares for a major speech on AI ahead of next week's London-hosted global safety summit on the tech, the U.K. government on Wednesday night unveiled a series of papers laying out the risks and opportunities posed by AI.

The paper focusing on risks was largely informed by British intelligence assessments and examined near-term threats in the run-up to 2025.

It warns that the rise of generative AI systems such as ChatGPT or other input-based content creating AI models will "significantly increase risks to safety and security," with those risks increasing in likelihood as the tech develops.

It points to "Digital Risks," such as cybercrime and hacking, as an area where generative AI models are likely to have the largest negative impact. But it also flags potential threats to the machinery of democracy.

"Risks to political systems and societies will increase in likelihood to 2025, becoming as significant as digital risks as generative AI develops and adoption widens," the report warns. "Threats include manipulation and deception of populations."

The paper comes after a deepfake, AI-generated, video of Labour Leader Keir Starmer swearing at staffers went viral earlier October, alarming a Westminster establishment which is yet to get to grips with the threat posed by fake AI created content. That video was viewed by more than 1.5 million people on X.

"Generative AI tools have already been shown capable of persuading humans on political issues and can be used to increase the scale, persuasiveness and frequency of disinformation and misinformation," the paper adds.

In his London speech Thursday morning, Sunak who has been keen to position the U.K. at the forefront of global AI policymaking will talk up the "new knowledge, new opportunities for economic growth, new advances in human capability, and the chance to solve problems we once thought beyond us," that he believes AI offers, according to lines sent out by his office beforehand.

But the prime minister will also admit that the technology "brings new dangers and new fears."

"So, the responsible thing for me to do is to address those fears head on, giving you the peace of mind that we will keep you safe, while making sure you and your children have all the opportunities for a better future that AI can bring," Sunak will say.

View original post here:
British spy agencies warn of AI threat to democracy - POLITICO Europe

For many who attended Sabatos Live Crystal Ball panel conversation, or any of the dozens of discussions and workshops offered as part of the Karsh Institutes Democracy360 three-day event, the state of affairs is more than just embarrassing. To some, its a sign that domestic and global democracy is in peril.

My concern is that people think our democracy is inevitable, Karsh Institute Executive Director Melody Barnes told UVA Today at the start of the event. Its not. It requires our engagement, our attention and our hard work.

Thats what drew thousands of people to Charlottesville and the University late last week, to understand what challenges democracy is facing, and what to do about it.

The panel discussions and workshops touched on a raft of ways to shore up the nations democratic ideals, including how to hold elected leaders accountable, how to better educate citizens and how to disagree more productively.

Democracy360 allowed me to engage in conversations with peoplewho hold different perspectives and viewpoints from my own and to forge new relationships with others who care deeply about the health and vitality of democracy, Barnes said. Im energized by the ideas that were generated and the steps taken to advance our work immediately and in the future.

UVA President Jim Ryan participated in three panel discussions, including one session focused on the responsibilities UVA has to the community it calls home.

It became really clear to me very early on that UVA and the greater Charlottesville community depend on each other, and vice versa, he said.

Ryan told the audience that he and other University leaders have worked to make the institution more valuable to the region, not just for providing things like health care, but for jobs. That involved knocking down historical barriers that either kept residents from applying to work at UVA or kept UVA from hiring them.

The next step, Ryan told the crowd, was to pay our employees a living wage, which had been an issue people had been talking about from the time I was in law school.

I feel like we have a certain obligation to the community, he continued. We should be an institution that lives our values. If we are preparing students to be ethical leaders, we should demonstrate what ethical leadership looks like.

Thats the reason the Karsh Institute put on Democracy360, to be a leader and to leverage the Universitys vast expertise in promoting and protecting democracy.

Our guests, speakers, and hosting partners share a commitment to a future in whichdemocracys aspirations and reality arealigned, and to working urgently, collaboratively, and creatively to make that happen, Barnes said.I hope everyone who participated in Democracy360 sees UVAs Karsh Institute as a place to do that important work.

All Democracy360 events that took place at the Paramount Theater were recorded and will be available to view on VPMs YouTube channel. VPM served as the Karsh Institutes streaming partner for the event, and The Atlantic served as the official media partner.

Continued here:
UVA's Democracy Gathering Has Wrapped, But Work Remains - UVA Today

From Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro and Jenna Elliss plea deals, John Eastmans possible disbarment and two pending election subversion indictments amounting to 17 counts against former President Donald Trump, courts are slowly starting to hold Republican Big Lie architects accountable for their dangerous attempts to subvert democracy. But there are others who need to be held accountable as well: those who instilled doubt in our electoral process and those who attempted to interfere with voters right to vote.

Tomorrow, there will be a trial in a voter intimidation case that may not receive the fanfare and media attention of the aforementioned cases, but it will be just as important for holding anti-voting organizations and leaders accountable and protecting voters in future elections.

In November 2020, Georgia handed Joe Biden the presidency and paved the way for two Democratic candidates to become the next U.S. senators from the Peach State and give Democrats control of the U.S. Senate. The only thing that stood in the way was a runoff election. With all eyes on Georgia, a right-wing group named True The Vote launched the largest voter challenge effort in Georgia history targeting the eligibility of more than 364,000 Georgians many of whom were Black, brown or first-time voters.

Now, a lawsuit brought by Fair Fight and voters, alleging that True the Vote and its associates violated Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and intimidated voters is going to trial. Here is what you need to know.

True the Vote (TTV) is a Texas-based right-wing group whose self-described mission is to train citizens to protect election integrity at the polls. It was founded by Catherine Engelbrecht who is credited with becoming one of the earliest and most enthusiastic spreaders of ballot conspiracy theories. TTVs research was the basis for the disinformation film 2000 Mules and the groups claims of voter fraud have been causing harm since the early 2010s.

In 2022, Englebrecht and her associate Greg Phillips who has promulgated disinformation about noncitizens voting in the 2016 elections were held in contempt of court due to their noncompliance in a defamation lawsuit about targeting the founder of an election management software company.

After the 2020 election, right-wing groups and prominent Republican leaders worked tirelessly to instill doubt in the validity of Georgias election results and the security of the states elections. As a result, election officials were threatened and voters and poll workers were harassed and wrongly accused of fraud. Tensions came to an all-time high when it was finally time for Georgia to certify its election results. Trump continuously stoked fears by alleging massive fraud in the state.

In December 2020, one prominent Republican election official made a plea to stop Trump and others from continuing to instill doubt in the electoral process and put election officials lives at risk:

Someones going to get hurt, someones going to get shot, someones going to get killed.

Nevertheless, as the plaintiffs put it, TTV continued to feed this frenzy and promulgate false accusations of voter fraud.

According to court filings, the group launched Validate the Vote to overturn the results of the 2020 election. When TTV failed to overturn the presidential election results, Validate the Vote morphed into Validate the Vote Georgia, an operation that offered a $1 million bounty for reports of voter fraudrecruited Navy SEALS to confront voters and poll workers and, with the help of individual Defendants and state Republican Party officials, launched the largest mass challenge effort in Georgia history, targeting hundreds of thousands of voters just two weeks before the January 2021 runoff election.

To challenge hundreds of thousands of voters registrations, TTV assumed that individuals were unlawfully registered if voters had filed a request to forward their mail to a different address in the U.S. Postal Services National Change of Address database. TTV used this information despite it being unreliable to challenge hundreds of thousands of voters registrations. As a result, eligible voters discovered that their voter registrations were at risk due to these challenges, which were made possible due to Georgias lenient voter challenge law and exacerbated by the 2021 omnibus voter suppression law, Senate Bill 202.

In many ways, TTVs blueprint for incentivizing and empowering citizen vigilantes laid the groundwork for the excessive vigilantism we see targeting voters today.

On Dec. 23, 2020, Fair Fight and voters filed a lawsuit against TTV, its founder and other associates alleging that TTVs mass challenge scheme intimidated voters and therefore violated Section 11(b) of the VRA.

Enacted in 1965, Section 11(b) of the VRA outlaws any act that is likely to intimidate voters: No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote. The provision extends the same protections to anyone urging or aiding another individual to vote.

This protection does not require proving intent or racial motivation, making it a useful legal tool in fighting voter intimidation and vigilantism.

The complaint alleges that TTVs mass challenge effort that included a $1 million bounty for evidence of illegal voting was objectively likely to intimidate voters, violating Section 11(b) of the VRA.

Voter challenges are harmful: they encourage citizens to question their neighbors, create distrust in our elections and, most of all, unfairly target eligible voters. Throughout the case, voters whose registrations were challenged have shared heartbreaking testimony:

I am a Black voter and a veteran, and I grew up in an era of segregation when it was common for public officials and certain members of our communities to make it difficult for us to vote. Having to deal with these kinds of obstacles still today is both discouraging and aggravating, and makes it seem like we should just give up.

Another voter explained how her challenged registration made her feel:

When I was challenged, I was the only Hispanic there voting. And I noticed that the only other race besides white who I believed was also challenged she casted a paper ballot was Asian. I connected the two, and I thought that people of color were being challenged. And that made me feel intimidated.

On Jan. 1, 2021 just four days before the runoff a judge denied the plaintiffs request to temporarily halt the defendants voter challenge, poll watching, election observation and other activities that could intimidate voters. In denying the plaintiffs request, the judge wrote that his order in no way ended the case:

While this Court denies Plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief, this case is not yet over. As this Court has expressed clearly, an eleventh-hour challenge to the franchise of more than 360,000 Georgians is suspect. So too is the manner in which Defendants mounted their challenges. The Court will not abide attempts to sidestep federal law to disenfranchise voters. Nor will it tolerate actors brandishing these voter challenges to intimidate and diminish the franchise, for such acts diminish democracy itself. But the Court must rely on proper evidence and facts to determine whether these acts have in fact run afoul of federal law. The Court looks forward to seeing what evidence the Parties bring to bear.

In response to the lawsuit, TTV not only doubled down and defended its actions, but also countersued alleging that Fair Fight, an organization committed to fighting voter suppression and intimidation, was intimidating TTV. Luckily, the court did not buy this bad-faith argument and promptly dismissed TTVs breathtaking counterclaims.

TTV argues that these voter challenges do not intimidate voters, as their actions are protected by the First Amendment and therefore Section 11(b) of the VRA is unconstitutional. The group also argues that if Section 11(b) is applied to their actions, lawful voters votes will be diluted, or worth less. This warped concept of vote dilution is an increasingly common theme in many recent conservative anti-voting lawsuits as a defense against the pro-voting plaintiffs cases.

In October 2022, TTV submitted what is known as a notice of constitutional challenge of statute. When a party challenges the constitutionality of a federal law in this case Section 11(b) of the VRA they must submit a notice to the court stating that they are challenging the constitutionality of the law. At that point, the Department of Justice may choose to get involved.

In December 2022, the DOJ intervened in the case to clarify that in its view, Section 11(b) is absolutely constitutional. In January 2023, the DOJ told the court that it should reject the defendants arguments about 11(b)s constitutionality. The DOJ asserts that TTVs arguments have no basis in its text, history, or precedent and states that TTVs actions are not protected by the First Amendment.

The DOJ contends that 11(b) has an unlimited reach, covering all people who are intimidated, threatened, or coercedregardless of whether they were specifically targeted. The department also refuted TTVs outrageous vote dilution arguments, writing that determining whether someone has intimidated, threatened, or coerced a voter has no relation toanycircumstance that could give rise to an affirmative vote dilution claim.

The plaintiffs also refute TTVs claims about 11(b)s constitutionality. In their January 2023 brief, the plaintiffs echo the DOJs argument that Section 11(b) should be interpreted broadly to cover voter challenges as potentially unlawful voter intimidation. They also agree that vote dilution cannot be used as a defense since any interest individuals maintain in preventing the dilution of their own voting powercannot possibly justify the intimidation of eligible voters whose ballots are entirely lawful.

In March, the judge ruled that most claims would proceed to trial after finding that the facts were disputed by the different sides and summary judgment could not be issued on all of the claims, mainly the Section 11(b) voter intimidation claims. However, the court ultimately rejected TTVs vote dilution claims and its argument that Section 11(b) was unconstitutionally vague.

At trial, the following questions will be addressed:

The trial is expected to last 10 days. After that, it will be up to the judge to determine what, if any, accountability TTV will face.

This case will determine if TTV will have to take any sort of responsibility for putting hundreds of thousands of voters registrations at risk. Fortunately, many of the challenges were not successful, but that does not detract from the harm caused. As the voters testimony illustrates, voter challenges have the impact of intimidating voters and making them question if voting is even worth it.

Some voters may choose to not vote again out of fear of being targeted and some may not even know their registration was challenged. Voter challenges disproportionately target communities of color and are harmful to our social fabric.

Unfortunately in the wake of S.B. 202s passage, Georgias voter challenge problem is only growing. After its passage in 2021, over 89,000 voters registrations have been challenged. With election vigilantism on the rise, Section 11(b) provides a helpful tool in holding those who engage in intimidation accountable. When armed vigilantes showed up to monitor Arizona drop boxes in 2022, 11(b) was used to stop them. When conspiracy theorists sent racist robocalls to voters, a federal judge ruled that the scheme violated 11(b) and other state and federal laws. If this lawsuit is successful, this case can also serve as an example of accountability and deterrence from engaging in voter intimidation in the future.

Follow this link:
True the Vote Voter Intimidation Case Goes to Trial in Georgia - Democracy Docket