Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON, D.C. With a new year comes change, and voters in states across the country are dealing with laws both expanding and attacking voting and elections after a multitude of previously enacted bills went into effect on Jan. 1.

Lawmakers in Idaho took diverging paths in the fight for youth voting rights from those in Michigan and Illinois. The midwestern states both now allow for certain 16-year-olds to preregister to vote, while students in Idaho are now plagued by photo ID requirements, which are currently being challenged in court, that removed student IDs as an acceptable proof of identity.

Michiganders also now enjoy a flurry of additional expansions, including minimum drop box requirements, more than a week of early voting and the early processing of mail-in ballots. The changes were made possible by a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters that greatly expanded voting rights in the Wolverine State.

Connecticut voters can likewise now enjoy early voting before general elections, for two weeks, thanks to a law enacted in June. Connecticut had been one of only four states along with Alabama, Mississippi and New Hampshire that did not offer in-person early voting options for all voters.

In Washington and New Mexico, state level voting rights acts (VRA) had pro-voting provisions go into effect at the start of the new year. A provision of New Mexicos VRA, which was enacted in March and features a plethora of improvements to voting and elections, now allows for New Mexicans to sign up for a permanent mail-in voting list. The list means that voters who opt in will no longer have to request a mail-in ballot for each election.

Meanwhile, Washington legislators improved on their previously existing VRA by expanding who has the right to challenge discriminatory voting practices under the law to include Native American tribes and coalitions of multiple racial or language groups.

Sections of North Carolinas dangerous and suppressive omnibus election law also went into effect on Jan. 1. Boards of elections in North Carolina are no longer permitted to accept private donations to help fund election administration, which is chronically underfunded. North Carolinians now only have until Election Day to return their mail-in ballots the previous deadline was three days after Election Day and individuals with felony convictions can no longer vote until they not only serve the duration of their prison sentence, but also serve and pay off probation and restitution.

Read about the lawsuit challenging Idahos photo ID law here.

Learn more about North Carolinas voter suppression law here.

See the rest here:
Numerous Voting and Election Changes Take Effect In States Across U.S. - Democracy Docket

Image Credit Hennie Stander

Understanding the essence of truth proves challenging, given its elusive and subjective nature. The pitfalls of politics become starkly evident when those in positions of authority, whether elected or appointed, assert an exclusive hold on what they perceive as the ultimate reality. Democracy thrives on diverse perspectives, creating a robust foundation for decision-making in the best interests of the populace. However, when those in power insist on their version of certainty as absolute, it seriously threatens the democratic fabric and raises concerns about implications for citizens under such governance.

Navigating the subjective nature of what is considered true poses a fundamental political challenge. What one group sees as undeniable, another may vehemently oppose. In a healthy democratic system, the interplay of various perspectives is essential for robust decision-making. Yet, when those in power stifle dissent and diversity of thought by claiming an unquestionable monopoly on their version of reality, it paves the way for an authoritarian mindset that undermines democracys foundations.

Democracy relies on inclusivity, tolerance, and respect for differing opinions. However, when political leaders claim an exclusive hold on their version of the truth, these democratic values are threatened. Dissent, a vital aspect of a thriving representative government, is often suppressed in such an environment. Citizens may fear expressing their views, knowing that deviation from the officially endorsed perspective could lead to marginalization or persecution.

The consequences of this erosion are multifaceted. In suppressing dissent, a government limits its ability to harness the collective wisdom of its people. Innovation, progress, and sustainable policies often arise from synthesizing diverse ideas. When a government restricts itself to a single version of certainty, it risks becoming stagnant and unable to adapt to evolving challenges.

Furthermore, the erosion of democratic values can lead to a breakdown of social cohesion. A society that does not encourage open dialogue and respectful disagreement may witness the rise of polarization and divisiveness. Alienating the populous leads to a fractured society where trust in institutions erodes and social capital dwindles.

In a political landscape where certainty is monopolized, policy-making becomes a tool for advancing a specific agenda rather than addressing the needs of the people. Decisions are made based on a predetermined version of reality, often detached from the complex and nuanced perspectives of the citizenry. This myopic approach to governance can result in policies that are not only ineffective but may also exacerbate existing societal challenges.

When political leaders believe they possess the ultimate certainty, they may resist adapting policies in response to changing circumstances. Flexibility and the ability to course-correct in light of new information are crucial aspects of effective governance. However, a government entrenched in its version of reality may find it challenging to admit mistakes or adjust policies, even when evidence suggests a different course of action.

A monopoly on certainty often manifests through the propagation of propaganda. Governments that perceive themselves as the sole arbiters of reality may manipulate information to control public perception. This can take the form of censorship, the suppression of dissenting voices, and dissemination of misleading narratives.

Propaganda not only undermines the democratic principle of an informed citizenry but also erodes trust in institutions. When a society is bombarded with a singular narrative, skepticism grows, and the credibility of official information diminishes. The long-term consequence is a populace that may become disillusioned, disengaged, and less willing to participate in the democratic process.

A healthy democracy relies on a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power and the monopolization of certainty. Independent institutions, a free press, and an active civil society are crucial in holding those in power accountable. When these mechanisms are weakened or dismantled, the risk of a monopoly on certainty becomes more pronounced.

The detriments of politics intensify when those in government, elected and appointed, believe they have a monopoly on reality. The subjective nature of certainty, coupled with the erosion of democratic values, has profound implications for the citizens governed by such authorities. The impact on policy-making, the dangers of propaganda, and the weakening of checks and balances all contribute to a democratic system at risk.

To safeguard the essence of democracy, fostering an environment where diverse perspectives are tolerated and actively encouraged is crucial. A government that recognizes the limitations of its own perspective and embraces the richness of a pluralistic society is better equipped to address the complex challenges of the modern world.

Here is the original post:
In Pursuit of Truth: Safeguarding Democracy Against Monopolized Realities | TDS NEWS - The Daily Scrum News

After almost two years of a brutal crackdown on pro-democracy protests, the transitional government in Chad will hold a constitutional referendum on December 17.

The referendum seeks to accomplish one main goal: ending a transition that never should have occurred. It also takes place after the government allowed a prominent political opponent back into the country after a year of exile.

According to Chads constitution, adopted in 2018, in the event of the death of a president, the president of the National Assembly should provisionally lead the country for 45 to 90 days before a new election.

When former president Idriss Dby Itno died in April 2021 in still unclear circumstances during clashes in the western Kanem province, the constitution was put aside. Upon Debys death, a military spokesman declared the government and parliament were dissolved, all borders were shut, and a transitional military council headed by Mahamat Idriss Dby Itno, one of Dby's sons, was to take over with a promise to restore civilian rule by October 20, 2022.

Months of pro-democracy demonstrations ensued, and on October 20, 2022, thousands took to the streets in NDjamena, the capital, and several other towns to protest the transitional governments decision to extend the transitional period by two years. Security forces responded to the protests with brutality, killing, injuring, or arresting scores of people. Instead of demanding accountability from the security services, the transitional government issued a general amnesty, denying victims their right to justice and reinforcing impunity.

The lead up to the referendum has been peaceful, albeit in a tightly controlled environment: political debates and talk shows were suspended during the campaign, campaigners calling for a boycott have said they were intimidated, and media outlets were warned with temporary shutdowns.

The upcoming vote is a fait accompli, and the referendum is sure to pass. But as the government moves out of transition and towards elections in late 2024, the question remains: will this new chapter herald real democracy or will it simply solidify one-party rule?

See the original post:
Will Referendum in Chad Lead to Democracy? - Human Rights Watch

Author: Ward Berenschot, University of Amsterdam

Indonesias upcoming presidential elections will be boring, despite plenty of drama on the surface. In October 2023, Indonesias Constitutional Court, headed by President Joko Jokowi Widodos brother-in-law, ruled that Jokowis son Gibran Rakabuming Raka could run for the vice-presidency.

This twist not only undermined trust in the independence of the Court, it also upset the presidential race. Frontrunning candidate Prabowo Subianto was quick to enlist Gibran as his vice-presidential candidate, a savvy move that seems to have succeeded in increasing his lead in the polls over his two rival candidates Ganjar Pranowo and Anies Baswedan. This decision also signalled that Jokowi no longer supports Ganjar, a candidate from his own party. Jokowi has chosen dynasty over party loyalty.

Yet this apparent coalition between Jokowi and Prabowo his rival in the previous two presidential elections suggests a worrisome trend that is making Indonesian politics predictable. Indonesias elections are turning into contests between interconnected elites who have similar visions for the countrys future.

When Jokowi first competed for the presidency against Prabowo in 2014, the elections really seemed to matter. As Indonesians faced a choice between a reformist former furniture salesman and a former military commander-cum-oligarch with a history of human rights offences, the fate of Indonesias democracy hung in the balance. Yet after another polarising election in 2019, Jokowi appointed Prabowo as his minister of defence. This not only boosted Prabowos electoral changes, but also ensured that Jokowi would not face any real opposition during his second term in office.

During his second term, Jokowis dominance deepened the long-standing tendency of Indonesias political parties to avoid oppositional roles. Indonesias political parties prefer the perks and patronage associated with being in power. In 2021, Jokowi had the support of seven out of nine parties represented in parliament, jointly holding 81 per cent of the seats. Jokowi also consolidated the support of Indonesias economic elites by making them ministers in his cabinet. As Indonesias political and economic elites fell in line behind Jokowi, the newspapers and television channels they owned followed suit and adopted a remarkably uncritical stance towards the President.

The consolidation of power by a relatively small and interconnected clique of political and business elites facilitated a gradual yet sustained crackdown on critical civil society voices. This process involved legislative efforts to regulate civil society and disband organisations deemed in opposition with Indonesias state ideology of Pancasila, which sees its citizens equal in rights and duties regardless of ethnicity or religion. These efforts extended to undermining independent checks and balances. In 2019, a law was adopted which placed the corruption eradication commission, the Corruption Eradication Commission, under political tutelage.

This move sparked student protests across the country, leading Jokowis government to extend its use of repressive techniques making arbitrary arrests, intimidating dissidents and threatening university student expulsions. There are also indications that ruling politicians have hired anonymous cyber troops to promote government policies and harass online critics. The suppression of civil society voices has been felt across the country. Police violence and arrests of community leaders are regularly used to suppress protests of rural communities against companies taking their land. According to a recent poll, upwards of 62 per cent of Indonesians say that they are afraid to express their political opinions. As such, observers commonly view Indonesias democracy as regressing.

This consolidation of power is shaping the character of the upcoming presidential elections. Anies Baswedan, who is running an opposition campaign, has regularly called for change. His campaign has been targeted in various ways. Entrepreneurs who donated money to Anies campaign, have had their tax returns especially scrutinised. Politicians associated with Nasdem, a political party supporting Anies, were suspected of corruption.

The main contest in the upcoming elections, then, involves two candidates closely tied to the current government. Ganjar Pranowo is the governor of Central Java and a staunch supporter of Jokowis presidency. His running mate, Mahfud MD, is a minister in Jokowis cabinet. Their opponent, Prabowo, is the Minister of Defence in Jokowis cabinet. His running mate, Gibran Rakabuming, is relatively inexperienced but seems to have been chosen primarily to signal to voters that Prabowo has the support of the current president and Gibrans father.

Both Ganjar and Prabowo have made active efforts to present themselves as Jokowis heir. Prabowo is winning this contest after having made Gibran his vice-presidential candidate. Unsurprisingly, Jokowi tried to broker a coalition between Prabowo and Ganjar. Both candidates originate from the same ruling elite, they offer similar pro-business electoral programs and they both seek to uphold Jokowis policies.

Owing to the dominance of candidates associated with Jokowis government, there has been little critical debate about Jokowis policies. Election campaigns are important occasions to discuss such dilemmas, yet there has been very little debate about whether Indonesias current government has benefited Indonesians. Instead, most reporting on the elections has focused very narrowly on the personal dramas of who gets selected for the vice-presidency and how that affects opinion polls.

The more interesting story is what the presidential race tells us about the evolution of Indonesias democracy. Comparable candidates promising continuity, a weakened civil society and the relative absence of public debate about important dilemmas benefit the political and business elites currently in power. But such elections are unlikely to benefit Indonesian citizens. Without a meaningful choice and a strong opposition, the upcoming elections are unlikely to discipline the elites currently in power.

Ward Berenschot is Professor in Comparative Political Anthropology at the University of Amsterdam and Senior Researcher at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies.

Read more from the original source:
Indonesias increasingly opposition-less democracy - East Asia Forum

WASHINGTON, D.C. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will not rehear a case that could have drastically impacted redistricting and precedent under the Voting Rights Act.

Today, the 5th Circuit denied Louisiana Republicans cynical request for the entire 5th Circuit to reconsider the ability of private parties, such as nonprofit organizations and voters, to bring claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to remedy discriminatory maps and voting practices.

This action is the latest in Ardoin v. Robinson, a lawsuit filed on behalf of Black voters challenging Louisianas congressional map for diluting the voting strength of Black voters under Section 2 of the VRA.

Earlier this month, Louisiana Republicans asked the entire 5th Circuit as opposed to the typical three-judge panel to rehear a decision affirming that Louisiana must draw a new congressional map. Specifically, Republicans challenged part of a November ruling confirming the ability of private litigants (civil right groups, individual voters, etc) to bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA. In legal terms, this concept is known as a private right of action.

Louisiana Republicans asked the 5th Circuit to reconsider its Voting Rights Act precedent after a catastrophic ruling from the 8th Circuit in November that held that private litigants can no longer bring lawsuits under Section 2 of the VRA. Crucially, this ruling only applies to seven states in the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.

Today, the 5th Circuit denied this radical request, meaning that the decision will not be reheard and Louisiana Republicans attempt to block private groups and voters from bringing claims under Section 2 is stalled. This is a victory for voters and private groups in the three states covered by the 5th Circuit: Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. There remains established precedent for a private right of action under Section 2 of the VRA in the 5th, 6th and 11th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.

The timeline for Louisiana to adopt a new congressional map remains the same.

The Legislature now has until Jan. 30 to enact a new map or inform the court that it will not be enacting a new map. At that point, there are three distinct paths forward:

With the 5th Circuit declining to reconsider its prior decision, Louisiana is one step closer to a fair map for 2024.

Read the order here.

Learn more about the case here.

Go here to read the rest:
5th Circuit Will Not Rehear Case Jeopardizing Voting Rights Act Precedent - Democracy Docket