Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON, D.C. The same federal court that struck down South Carolinas congressional map for being an unconstitutional racial gerrymander ruled today that the state can use the map in the upcoming 2024 elections.

This decision comes after Republican officials asked the court to pause its January 2023 decision that blocked the map and ordered a new one for 2024. Todays order states that because the June 11 primary is rapidly approaching and a new map is not in place, the ideal must bend to the practical.

South Carolina voters have gone over a year without a fair congressional map. With todays order, justice is delayed once again to Black voters in the state. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to issue its opinion on the merits, which the court cites as a reason for this delay.

In January 2022, the Republican-controlled South Carolina Legislature passed a congressional map that drastically changed the composition of the states 1st and 6th congressional districts. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a voter filed a lawsuit challenging the congressional map, alleging that the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

The South Carolina branch of the nations oldest civil rights organization argued that the Legislatures action was the latest example of a decades-long pattern by the Legislature of proposing or enacting congressional districts that discriminate against Black South Carolinian voters to limit their electoral opportunity.

The case went to trial in fall of 2022 and soon after the district court sided with the plaintiffs and struck down the map.

The three-judge panel that heard the case struck down the map after finding that race was the predominant motivating factor in the General Assemblys design of Congressional District No. 1 and that traditional districting principles were subordinated to race.

The court held that creating South Carolinas 1st Congressional District, currently held by Rep. Nancy Mace (R), would have been effectively impossible without the gerrymandering of the African American population of Charleston County and that the movement of over 30,000 African Americans in a single county from Congressional District No. 1 to Congressional District No. 6 created a stark racial gerrymander of Charleston County.

The court ordered the Legislature to present a remedial map, but Republicans appealed the entire decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has issued 11 opinions so far this year but continues to stall the process by refusing to issue its decision in this case.

Since the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the South Carolina congressional map under the 14th and 15th Amendments this case was directly appealable to the Supreme Court, which had to accept the appeal and rule on the merits of the case.

Republican legislators appealed the panels January decision to the Supreme Court and asked the nations high court to reverse the decision and reinstate the gerrymandered map.

In May 2023, the Supreme Court announced that it would review the case on its full merits docket next term, with full briefing and oral argument. All the while, voters in the Palmetto State still did not have a fair congressional map.

The Court heard oral argument in mid-October of last year when the parties asked the Supreme Court for a decision by Jan. 1, 2024. Nearly three months later, the Court still hasnt ruled on the case, creating a dire situation for congressional candidates as the candidate filing period started on March 16 and will end on Monday.

In the U.S. Supreme Court, citing the Purcell principle, Republicans argued in a brief to the Supreme Court that implementing a new map so close to the 2024 elections would bring about confusion and disorder, despite having ample time to produce a remedial plan. In response, the South Carolina NAACP, which brought the case, pointed to the thirteen months of legislative inaction.

The Legislature could have implemented a new congressional plan, the NAACP noted, without disturbing the June 11 primary and November 5 elections and argued that the states arguments against adopting a new map were overblown, contrary to the trial record, and inconsistent with their prior request that this Court issue a decision by January 1, 2024. There is still plenty of time to draft and enact a new map, the plaintiffs concluded.

The two plaintiffs went beyond court filings to voice their discontent with the latest development in the case. In a press release issued on Monday, Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina NAACP, urged the Legislature to prioritize the integrity of our democracy by enacting a new map created in fairness for all voters and Taiwan Scott, a longtime South Carolina voter, added, We cannot allow delay tactics to impede progress towards fair and equitable representation in our democracy.

While the nations high court has yet to respond to the Republicans request and rule on the merits of the case, todays order from the district court means South Carolina voters will not have a fair map before 2024.

The order concludes: The present circumstances make it plainly impractical for the Court to adopt a remedial plan for Congressional District No. 1 in advance of the military and overseas absentee ballot deadline of April 27, 2024 mandated under federal law and the party primaries scheduled for June 11, 2024.

The district court itself acknowledges that it is the same court that struck down the map for being an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, but still ruled today that voters will have to be subject to this unconstitutional map for 2024.

The U.S. Supreme Court will still have the final say on the merits of this case and could block the map for 2026 and future elections.

Read the order here.

Learn more about the case here.

Link:
South Carolina Will Use Gerrymandered Congressional Map in 2024, District Court Rules - Democracy Docket

Editors note: While the Stimson Center rarely publishes anonymous work, the author of this issue brief is an analyst who has requested anonymity out of legitimate concern for their personal safety. The writer is known to appropriate staff, has a track record of reliable analysis, and is in a position to provide an otherwise unavailable perspective.

February 1, 2024, marked the third anniversary of the military coup in Myanmar. During the past three years, Myanmar has experienced major conflict nationwide, and the social, economic, and political situations in the country have worsened each year. The World Bank reports that nearly 60 percent of the population is now living below the poverty line, and has issued warnings about food security across the country. In addition, the black-market rate for the U.S. dollar is 3,900 Myanmar kyats, a 300 percent decline in currency value since the coup.

The conflict has intensified since October 2023, when the Three Brotherhood Alliance launched Operation 1027 to end the military regime. Operation 1027 was supported by ethnic armed organizations and others among the National Unity Governments allied ethnic resistance organizations. In December 2023, U Myint Shwe of the military regime, the acting president of Myanmar, even stressed his concern that the country could fall apart if conflicts nationwide continued. As of January 22, 2024, the United Nations was reporting that there were 2,587,100 internally displaced people within Myanmar since the coup began.

The militarys main reason for the coup was the accusation of fraud in the 2020 election. As the military states in its road map to restore democracy, the first priority of the regime is to hold a free and fair election. Therefore, it is crucial to look at how far the military regime has progressed toward the likelihood of holding a free and fair election amid extreme conflicts in different parts of Myanmar between the regime and the Peoples Defense Forces and ethnic armed organizations. Further, it is crucial to understand and analyze the views of various political parties on their perspectives about and hopes for a general election.

The author of this paper, who writes under a pseudonym to protect their identity, explores and studies the existing political and conflict situations in Myanmar. The author has consulted with three different groups of political parties: registered parties, parties in the process of registration, and unregistered parties or those which refuse to be registered. All representatives of the political parties consulted decided to remain unidentified.

Despite many challenges and extreme conflicts occurring across the nation, the junta, the State Administration Council (SAC), still has a plan regarding an election. Although it has not announced an election date, the SAC sent officials from the Union Election Commission (UEC) to India in December 2023 to study the election management and digital voting system there.

Since January 26, 2023, however, divisions increased both within and between political parties over whether to register or be dissolved as a result of a new Political Party Registration Law announced by the UEC. According to the new law, union-level parties (i.e., parties that would compete in a nationwide election) were required to have at least 100,000 party members within 90 days of registration and to open offices in half of the 330 townships in Myanmar within six months. In addition, the law required union-level political parties to possess a party fund of at minimum 100 million kyat (USD 47,000) and at least 10 million kyat (USD 4,700) for smaller state- and regional-level parties.

Leaders of political parties raised concerns and challenges regarding restrictions imposed in the law to the chairman of the SAC in October 2023, and in response, the SAC relaxed three major clauses in the party registration law on January 30, 2024. These included decreasing the membership requirement of union-level parties to 50,000 party members within three months prior to the election or a notification date from the UEC, and reducing the number of offices required for union-level parties to open to one-third of the nations 330 townships. However, a number of party leaders claim that the changes were made as a result of the regimes inability to control and stabilize the conflict situation in many townships across the country rather than as a genuine show of goodwill through leniency.

Despite the restrictive legal requirements for party registration under the new law, 50 political parties applied for the right to continue to exist during the two-month application window. Of the 50 applicants, 47 parties had been granted registration as of January 2024. Among them, 24 registered political parties are from ethnic regions, and the other 23 are from lowland Burman areas. Apart from the military proxy Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), a couple of other lowland Burman parties, and a few ethnic parties that have previous track records of successfully elected candidates, the rest of the registered parties are weak or small and do not have track records of any election victories for members of Parliament (MP) candidates.

The UEC announced that another 40 existing political parties did not apply for registration within the specified time frame, which means the UEC considers them automatically dissolved; among these is the National League for Democracy (NLD), the ruling party prior to the coup. As of January 2024, according to the UECs announcement, there were 80 political parties regarded as disqualified for registration under the SACs new law. A list of registered and unregistered political parties can be seen on the UEC website. The majority of unregistered parties (53) are from ethnic groups, and the rest are from lowland Burman regions. Many of the unregistered parties include those that have strong support from their constituents and have successfully elected MPs in previous elections.

The 40 political parties that chose not to register claim a lack of trust in the de facto authorities to conduct a free and fair election. Of the parties that have registered, some contend that elections are the only credible solution to a political and security crisis in which three years of armed revolution have not succeeded in forcing the military out of power.

In this context, some parties see elections as a way to de-escalate the current crisis, and also as a potential way to make gains under a system of proportional representation that would enable them to demand political concessions from the military on behalf of their constituents. Others have registered out of fear of reprisals by the military, or out of pressure to avoid being dissolved from their own constituencies, where they have spent years building the ability to advocate on behalf of their communities.

A few leaders of parties have revealed that many of the registered parties are pro-military. In addition, many received either financial support for their registration, or other incentives such as land, both provided by the SAC. One party leader stressed that he does not believe an election would be fair since many parties registered with the support of the government, and thus their interests are not in supporting the people but rather the regime. He added that his party would not be working with those kinds of political parties as they would never work for the interests of the people.

Apart from the Mon and Rakhine political parties, the registered political parties do not include many elected MPs from their constituents in the 2020 election. That suggests that these parties are not being supported by people in their respective areas, and likely lack influence. Another implication is that these parties are not in a position to compete at any level with the military proxy USDP.

The SAC imposed additional restrictions on some strong and influential political parties that had firm support from their constituents when they applied for registration. These include making serious inquiries into the history and business of each party committee member, including their families. A leader from a political party that elected an MP in the 2015 and 2020 elections stressed that this is one way the SAC made registering more difficult for such parties. Many small and new parties received their registrations quickly, as they support the military and have no restrictions. The implication is that there is no equal treatment of political parties in relation to party registration.

Some leaders from unregistered political parties also do not accept the SAC as a legitimate government, meaning any actions the regime has taken are not official in their view. For example, these leaders perspective is that their parties do not need to be registered under the military regimes governance. They added, We initially did not trust or believe that the SAC can do a better or fairer election since they took power in early 2021. The party leaders added that their parties are still genuinely supported by the general public, without any registration under the regime. Many of their parties MPs won several seats in the 2015 and 2020 elections.

One ethnic party leader further objected to the process, saying the majority of the politicalparties who have registered, apart from a few ethnic political parties, are the ones who tend to be opportunists who reluctantly believe that the SAC would win the game at the end of the day, or the ones who choose to be silent and follow the path that the SAC created.

Interestingly, most of the political parties consulted see no major conflicts between the registered and unregistered political parties on the matter of registration. Although unregistered parties generally do not want any parties to be registered under the SACs new law, representatives stated they also think that the choice is the decision of each party and that neither choice should be condemned. Similarly, a member from a registered party stressed that parties that do not want to be registered are also making a free political choice.

The SACs actions have imposed unfair burdens on political parties to move toward the election process, limited the ability to express alternatives to the SACs agenda, disregarded their own constitution, and installed a system of governance that further weakens democracy in Myanmar.

Regarding the election process, the SACs party registration law created challenges and burdens for many political parties through requirements of party size and member mobilization, number of offices, safety and security, and the registration fee. Furthermore, the process was not fair to many political parties as the SAC easily granted registration to its supporters, whereas some stronger or more influential political parties were given much narrower pathways to registration.

Interestingly, both the registered and unregistered parties believe that the regime will not be in a position to hold an election anytime soon. Some of the challenges include the safety and security issues of holding an election during extreme conflict. Many townships are controlled by resistance groups, and many are regarded as active conflict zones. It is a difficult time to gain party members through mobilization across the country, as well as to manage an election with a shortage of staff members (a large number of government staff have joined the civil disobedience movement). Furthermore, the attention of the public at the moment is less on politics than on their safety and livelihoods.

Recently, spokesperson of the National Unity Government (NUG) Kyaw Zaw claimed that the NUG has established interim administration in more than 170 townships across the country and is working to enhance the rule of law, development, education, health care, and the economy. Some party leaders have indicated that registered parties will be hindered in mobilizing people from these 170 townships and opening their required offices in different states and regions. Moreover, leaders of many parties believe that even if the SAC holds an election, it will be neither free nor fair.

Regarding civil liberties, the SAC has strictly prohibited any form of freedom of expression, including media, religion, and assembly. According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), as of February 2024, there were 25,940 political prisoners arrested, 4,474 killed, and 20,002 people still detained, including those sentenced by the SAC.

One party leader mentioned that apart from pro-SAC media and groups such as Ma-Ba-Ta, the Buddhist extremists, and pro-military groups, none of the democratic media and groups are able to function or express their views. Whereas the military scrutinizes, captures, and tortures any media groups and individuals who oppose them or support democratic values, the Ma-Ba-Ta launched the pro-military campaign in Pin Oo Lwin in late December and even criticized Min Aung Hlaing, but the SAC has taken no action against them. Other civil movements and campaigns are only possible in the so-called liberated areas, where the ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) or Peoples Defense Forces (PDF) are in control in central Myanmar and various ethnic areas. According to a Christian leader based in Yangon, other religious institutions such as Christian communities are forced to attend meetings with SAC officials, receive Min Aung Hlaing at religious events, and release statements in support of the work of the SAC. These actions clearly illustrate the SACs repressive treatment of other religions, freedom of expression and media, and freedom of assembly. In addition, the SAC has also targeted civilians and their property, based on the data collected by Data for Myanmar and Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, with more than 4,197 people killed, including 200 children and more than 76,932 homes nationwide burned and razed by the military from May 2021 to October 2023.

In relation to judicial independence and equality before the law, the SAC does not respect the 2008 constitution that the military itself established. According to views expressed by some party leaders, the SAC will play with the law based on its own interest to stay in power, overriding the constitution to extend the coup period. In addition, one party leader mentioned that the military is now forcing recruitment from villages in the Bago and Ayeyarwaddy regions; failure to comply with the militarys order results in a fine of 2 million kyats (about USD 950). A media source also confirmed that at least 50 people per village have been forced to form militias in the Bago region. The junta announced the recruitment drive after reportedly losing more than 600 bases in northern Shan and Rakhine states to the Three Brotherhood Alliances Operation 1027 offensive since the end of October. A party leader stressed that this act of forced recruitment is a complete disorder of the law.

Quite a number of political parties consulted for this paper expressed their concerns with the SACs approach to peace and dealing with the resistance and the current conflict. In particular, the regimes response to the resistance with violence and torture has been interpreted by political parties, the public, and the majority of the EAOs as leaving no other options for moving toward peace.

In addition, the decision to conduct the coup in response to claims of election fraud was an unconstitutional act for the military. For the past 70 years in Myanmar, the militarys mindset is that they may steer and shape the countrys political situation based on their own interests. As the strongest institution in Myanmar during this period, military officials see themselves as safeguarding Myanmars political space.

Yet the majority of the political parties consulted concluded that they do not believe in any plans that the military has initiated. The military coup and the actions of the SAC for the past three years can be clearly interpreted as an indication that the military would only understand and listen to absolute armed resistance. Although many unregistered political parties believe that armed resistance is not and should not be a political solution for the people of Myanmar, resistance is one option that could drive a bargain with the regime for future political dialogue and resolution.

Therefore, some party leaders stressed that the SAC itself is not a legitimate government, that it is not in a position to hold any elections, and that its capacity to hold a free and fair election is limited. Since the coup, the military does not appear to have made any progress toward an election.

Nevertheless, political parties have been a source of organized pluralism and debate as units of political representation in Myanmar. The coup has had an alarming effect on the political space, leaving parties with almost no room for opposition. Political parties interviewed for this research grieved the absence of a space for debate. Some parties had largely turned their organizational work into the provision of services, including health care, education, and humanitarian assistance for those displaced by conflict. Many unregistered political parties inside the country in areas controlled by the SAC provide humanitarian services to internally displaced internally displaced people (IDPs). Many of the unregistered parties inside resistance-controlled areas or liberated areas, or outside of the country, are working either with the resistance armed groups or with the NUG, and also help IDP issues in many ways, though this is not their main work. With additional restrictions from the SAC on their ability to organize, the space for political operation in Myanmar has dwindled drastically and threatens the operation of democracy both now and into the future.

Based on perspectives and views expressed by various political parties, the SAC has completely failed to hold a free and fair election, leading the country nearer to a failed state. Since the coup, the SACs actions have made the countrys situation worse, and the SAC has continued to oppress freedom of media, religion, and assembly, overriding the 2008 constitution to prolong the coup period. The regime has targeted and tortured the public, and there is, at best, extremely limited political space for political parties and the public to debate.

The SACs election plan, ongoing arrangements, and policy in preparation for the election will remain a major challenge even for registered political parties as a result of requirements for party members, opening offices, ensuring the safety and security of candidates and voters, and mobilizing party members amid intensified conflict on the ground. In addition, these results indicate the SACs inability to control the conflict situation around the country, as well as the strengthened movement of the resistance from various armed organizations, including Operation 1027, that control 35 towns and populations of the country. According to the U.S. Institute of Peace, starting from October 2023 through February 1, 2024, more than 5,500 junta troops had been killed or captured, including 10 brigadier generals, and more than 30 towns had been taken by the resistance; overall, the junta had lost no less than 30,000 soldiers since the coup, a major blow toa military of 150,000 troops.

In addition, the SACs plan to hold a future election will not be a political solution for the people in Myanmar. Although armed resistance is not the desired political solution for many ethnic armed groups, political parties, and PDFs on the ground, there are no other feasible options that armed organizations can agree to choose. For the EAOs and other PDF wings, armed resistance remains the only option to deal with the current regime.

The hope and prospect of a majority of the registered political parties solely relies on the regimes capacity to handle the ongoing conflict across the country, whereas unregistered political parties have sided strongly with other revolutionary forces to end the military dictatorship and restore peace and democracy in the country.

Last but not least, for many unregistered political parties, an election is no longer an absolute political solution to address the current conflict in Myanmar. For these parties, instead, their ultimate goal is the elimination of the 2008 constitution and the rebuilding of a concrete and genuine federal democratic union without the involvement of the military.

The anonymous writer is a researcher based in Singapore.

View original post here:
Challenges and Perspectives of Political Parties on Democracy and Elections in Myanmar Stimson Center - Stimson Center

Never before would so many people worldwide heed Bob Marley’s rousing anthem to “Stand up for your rights” — particularly the most basic, central right in a democracy — the right to vote.  

With half the world voting in over 80 national elections, 2024 will be the biggest election year in history. While some elections may not be fully free and fair, the voices of over half the populace — the voices of women — might be severely constrained.     

Women face barriers to equal and active political participation at every stage of the electoral cycle. Some countries bar women from voting or serving in office altogether. Others curtail women’s access to register to vote for lacking identity documents. 

While one billion people worldwide cannot vote because they lack official identity documents, the World Bank estimates that 1 in 2 women in low-income countries does not have an official ID, limiting their access to participate in political life. Married women often face more identity proof requirements than married men when applying for a national ID card. Further, women engaged in unpaid care work — a staggering total of 12.5 billion hours a year — are turned away for inability to pay fees. 

Despite these hurdles, in dozens of countries, more women than men tend to turn out to vote. 

Denigration and defamation of women, amplified by social media and tech platforms, are perils that carry exponential harm during elections. Women voters encounter violence during elections and political processes. Frequently such violence intends to deter women from civic participation, but there are ways to forecast, monitor and mitigate its impact.  

Alarmingly, attacks against citizen observers and electoral officials have been on the rise. In the U.S., women make up nearly 80 percent of election administrators and are at greater risk of gender-based harassment and threats forcing their departure; a liability of serious consequence in a major election year.

Perhaps the top reason women cite for exiting and increasingly never even entering politics is the virulent harassment and vitriol thrown at them. Not for their policies, perspectives or platforms, but for being women, their appearances, their sexuality, their intimate lives and the quality of their parenting. This is a level of abuse their political male peers are mostly shielded from. 

While a global phenomenon, these gendered attacks are often local, and frequently from women candidates’ own political party. The ripple effects are undeniable: from impact on women politicians’ mental health struggles to countless young women worldwide watching and internalizing the cycle of women in politics being shamed and discredited.  

State-based and affiliated actors join forces with opportunistic trolls to flood communication channels with misogyny and gendered threats (rape is particularly popular) to drown out and delegitimize the voices and votes of women. Whether as voters, election observers, electoral body officials, civic leaders or candidates, women’s participation provokes targeted hostilities designed to chill their participation, curtail their influence and eliminate them from seeking power. After all, nothing seems to scare authoritarians more than women’s equality.

But this pernicious toll, borne by women leaders personally, erodes democracy as a whole. 

Despite these challenges, initiatives to fight violence against women in politics by the National Democratic Institute (where I am a senior advisor for gender and democracy) such as the #NotTheCost campaign are gaining traction, as well as promising interventions to combat online violence.  

National government-led multi-stakeholder initiatives like the Global Partnership for Action Against Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse are focused on key principles such as safety by design, establishing response mechanisms and identifying effective tools and approaches to combat gendered disinformation.  

Moreover, activists, especially young women, are ground-truthing progressive democratic values, leading protests and calls for transformative change. This growing trend of young women turning to progressive priorities by emphasizing inclusive, equitable approaches is undercut by their male peers’ views hostile to gender equality.  

As the world views of young men and women seem to drift apart, a 2023 United Nations Development Program gender social norms survey found that almost 9 out of 10 men and women worldwide still hold gender biases today, with half of people worldwide believing men make better political leaders than women. These attitudes are reflected in the stagnated 26 percent world average of women members of parliament. 

Political parties continue to act as gatekeepers to women’s political leadership. Countries with parliamentary quotas often comply with requirements in ways that do not ensure women will win seats. This does not bode well for enshrining women’s political participation and leadership as a prerequisite for democracy.  

Why is this important? Having studied several hundred political revolutions since 1945, Harvard professors Erica Chenoweth and Zoe Marks found that though revolutionary male leaders are lionized, women’s work undergirds more effective political movement strategies and their inclusion predicts the subsequent success and sustainability of hard-fought democracies. 

While women leaders consistently display more effective leadership skills, they are in danger of disproportionately shouldering the burden of crisis management and democratic turnarounds. The glass ceiling must not become a glass cliff, setting up newly minted women leaders for failure. 

“We will know whether democracy lives or dies by the end of 2024,” warns Nobel Prize laureate journalist Maria Ressa, herself the target of online violence. Accelerating support for women’s full, meaningful and equal electoral and political participation is essential to ensuring that it lives and renews.

Tzili Mor is a senior advisor for gender and democracy at the National Democratic Institute. 

Link:
In a historic election year, women are the force for democratic renewal - The Hill

The owner of a Kansas newspaper outlines a litany of violations in a 100-plus page federal lawsuit claiming a police raid at the newsroom was an intolerable violation of their constitutional rights.

Its the fourth legal action taken in the wake of the Aug. 11 raid at The Marion County Record, which drew condemnation from around the world.

Police also executed search warrants at the home of Joan Meyer and her son Eric Meyer, who own the newspaper, and former City Councilwoman Ruth Herbel.

The suit was brought to deter the next crazed cop from threatening democracy the way Chief (Gideon) Cody did when he hauled away the newspapers computers and its reporters cell phones in an ill-fated attempt to silence the press.

The Record had been investigating Codys previous tenure with the Kansas City Police Department. He resigned from the agency while under investigation for allegedly making sexist comments to a female officer.

Cody, the City of Marion, former Mayor David Mayfield, Acting Police Chief Zach Hudlin, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Marion, Sheriff Jeff Soyez and detective Aaron Christner are listed as defendants in the lawsuit.

They did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The raids were carried out under the pretense that a reporter had illegally obtained information about the DUI conviction of local restaurateur Kari Newell. That information was later confirmed by the Kansas Department of Revenue to be open to the public.

According to Eric Meyer, the raid was also conducted to settle personal scores. The newspaper had a turbulent relationship with Cody as well as Mayfield and Soyez, he said.

In a statement Meyer said, the true plaintiff is American democracy.

The last thing we want is to bankrupt the city or county, but we have a duty to democracy and to countless news organizations and citizens nationwide to challenge such malicious and wanton violations of the First and Fourth Amendments and federal laws limiting newsroom searches.

The 127-page lawsuit was filed by attorney Bernie Rhodes, who has represented The Star in past litigation.

Rhodes said he expected additional claims, including wrongful death, to be added to the lawsuit.

During the raid, Joan Meyer told the police officers at her home, Whats going on is illegal as hell.

She also told them, Boy, are you going to be in trouble.

The 98 year old died the next day after suffering a heart attack.

My job is to make sure Joans promise is kept, Rhodes said.

The lawsuit seeks more than $10 million in damages. Eric Meyer said any punitive damages will be donated to community projects and causes that support freedom.

In early August, Eric Meyer notified police that he was concerned information reporter Phyllis Zorn had received from a source about Newells DUI conviction had been obtained illegally. He also wanted to know why authorities allowed Newell to drive even though she did not have a valid license.

Cody told Newell that a reporter had stolen her identity in order to access her drivers license record, the lawsuit said.

Police began investigating The Record.

Christner drafted the search warrant application for the newsroom and Cody submitted it to Judge Laura Viar. The documents contained false statements, the lawsuit said, about the Kansas Drivers License Status Check tool, which is a public website.

Had Chief Cody been truthful, the affidavits would have failed to state even arguable probable cause, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit also said Soyez reminded Cody that Eric Meyer worked from home and a search warrant for the residence was added.

During the raid, the lawsuit alleges Cody yanked a reporters cell phone from her hand, injuring her. The officers were also supposed to conduct a preview search on electronic devices to identify information related to the alleged identity theft.

But the lawsuit alleges officers conducted a sham search with overly broad keyword searches that turned up irrelevant hits, including information about a haunted hotel in Arkansas and a drive-in showing of the movie Finding Dory. Then the officers abandoned the preview searches because they were taking too long.

During the search, Cody called Soyez and is heard saying, Alright, well just take them all.

According to the lawsuit, police seized cell phones from reporters even though preview searches were not carried out.

Also during the search, Hudlin located a file in a reporters desk and alerted Cody.

On a body camera recording, Cody said, Hmm ... keeping a personal file on me.

Later, the lawsuit said, Cody could not recall the wording when he attempted to give Zorn her Miranda warning.

During the search at the Meyers home, Joan Meyers was visibly upset and told officers, If I have a heart attack and die, its going to be your fault.

Hudlin thought about arresting her for interference, but didnt.

The lawsuit also said Cody and Christner drafted probable cause affidavits to arrest Eric Meyer, Zorn and Herbel four days after the raid.

The search warrants were withdrawn the next day by the county attorney.

The lawsuit goes on to allege that Cody asked Newell to delete text messages with him.

If attorneys or kbi go digging and see I deleted the texts as you asked me to, will I get in trouble? the lawsuit said Newell asked Cody.

The lawsuit lists violations against the First and Fourth Amendments in addition to the Privacy Protection Act, which protects reporters materials from seizure; the Kansas Open Records Act; and alleges the city and county failed to train, supervise and have proper policies.

Cody resigned in October. Hudlin was then named interim police chief.

The Kansas Bureau of Investigation launched an investigation. Documents showed that the KBI had knowledge of Codys investigation of The Record prior to the search warrants. The investigation was later handed over to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

Two of The Records reporters and the papers office manager have also filed lawsuits.

View original post here:
'Duty to democracy': Kansas newspaper files lawsuit after police raided the newsroom - Today's News-Herald

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

n the afternoon of January 6, 2021, as election deniers armed with Tasers and tomahawks overran the US Capitol, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) handed his colleague and close friend Eric Swalwell a pen. Here, he said to the California Democrat. Stick this in their neck if they get close to you.

The Marine veteran, whod seen combat in Iraq, leaped on a table and began issuing instructions to other panicked lawmakers, showing them how to don the gas masks secured under their chairs: Tear gas will not kill you. But its important to remain calm. If you hyperventilate, you may pass out. If necessary, Gallego told himself, he could use his own pen as a weapon to take a more lethal one from a rioter.

Three years later, the battle for American democracy continues, and Gallego, locked in one of the most pivotal contests of the 2024 election, is again attempting to hold the line. Along with close matchups in Ohio and Montana, his Senate race in Arizona for the seat Kyrsten Sinema is vacating could be one of a handful that decide control of the upper chamber and, with it, the future of our republic. Donald Trump, facing 88 criminal counts, has promised to usher in MAGA on steroids if reelected, including mass deportation and sweeping bans on gender-affirming care. A Democratic-led Senate would be one of the last fortifications against his agenda.

As if to further underscore the stakes, Gallegos opponent is the former TV news anchor turned Trump sycophant Kari Lake. A prolific purveyor of conspiracy theories, Lake claims not only that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump but also that she was robbed of the Arizona governorship in her 2022 race. If Trumpism is akin to a religion, Lake views herself as one of its martyrs. You can call us extremists. You can call us domestic terrorists, she declared during one campaign event in 2022. You know who else was called a lot of names his whole life? Jesus.

Lakes loss two years ago is just one indicator that Arizona is turning away from Trump-style conservatism. Though Trump won the state by 3.6 percent in 2016, he lost it in 2020 by about half of a percent. In 2022, all of the major statewide candidates Trump endorsed were defeated. But the state is certainly not a Democratic stronghold, either. Of roughly 4.1 million registered voters, there are some 236,000 more Republicans and 197,000 more independents than there are Democrats. To win, Gallego has to appeal to a cross section of voters, says former Arizona Democratic Party Chair Jim Pederson, particularly moderate Republicans.

Doing so will require Gallego to walk a nuanced line on the border crisis; the crisis raises drug and crime concerns for many Republican voters, but migrants also fuel the states economy. The high-profile race will also force Gallego to confront controversies from his past. The same wartime experiences that prepared him for January 6 left him with PTSD that has led to angry outbursts and the collapse of his first marriage while his then-wife was pregnant with their child.

Gallegos mental health struggles may be good fodder for his opponent to leverage against him, but his allies counter that his history of hardships is not a liabilityit may even be an asset.

I was on the floor with him on January 6. I was sitting right next to him, Swalwell says. And I saw, actually, not somebody with a temper, but somebody very much in control.

Gallego never had it easy. Both of his parents immigrated to the United States as teens, his father from Mexico and his mom from Colombia. His parents divorced around the time Gallego was in junior high. His now-estranged dad, who worked in construction, would eventually be convicted on felony drug charges. His mom raised Gallego and his three sisters in a small apartment outside of Chicago, where Gallego slept on the living room floor and helped the family make ends meet through odd jobs as a line cook, a janitor, and a cashier. From his makeshift bedroom, he plotted an escape route out of poverty by way of a college education. His dream school, Harvard, ultimately offered him a scholarship.

In Cambridge, Gallego had a dorm room with a bedsomething he hadnt had in six years. He majored in international relations, thinking he might work for the State Department one day, and experienced some culture shock. We both were finding our way in this new environment, says Shailesh Sahay, Gallegos fraternity brother and future best man, who is also the son of immigrants. We both went to public high schools and kind of socialized in a normal public school way. To contrast that, there were kids like Jared Kushner in school with us. His budget for going out on Saturday night was significantly higher than our budget was.

But Gallego could hobnob with anyone, friends say. Was he absolutely the coolest kid in class? No, but he definitely knew a lot of people, says Jean-Pierre Jacquet, another Harvard classmate and fraternity brother in Sigma Chi. He had a lot of self-confidence, which is, you know, not unusual in Cambridge.

During his sophomore year Gallegos college career was nearly derailed after his grades declined and he broke some campus rules. (Underage drinking was involved, he told the Boston Globe.) Harvard administrators kicked him out of school, saying he could reapply in a year. A few months later, Gallego enlisted as a Marine reservist and completed basic training in South Carolina. He was readmitted to Harvard for the winter 2001 semester.

That fall, Gallego watched on a laptop screen as two hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center towers, changing the countrys futureand his.

In 2003, during what would have been Gallegos final semester at Harvard, his unit was sent to Okinawa, Japan, for an uneventful deployment. But the next one wouldnt be. After graduating from Harvard in 2004, Gallego followed his college girlfriend, Kate Widland, to New Mexico. He did fieldwork for John Kerrys presidential bid until he was called up again, this time to Iraq with a battalion that would send home 48 flag-draped caskets, more than any other since 1983s Beirut bombing.

After six bloody months in Iraq, Gallego settled in Phoenix, where Kate had moved to work in Democratic politics. Coming back to normal life was disorienting. The goals were nebulous, the relationships far less intense, and therefore less meaningful, he writes in his 2021 memoir, They Called Us Lucky.

Not long after his homecoming, Gallego landed a job at a public relations firm, and work became a soothing distraction. I was immediately impressed, especially when I heard his story, says Joe Yuhas, the firms managing partner who remembers meeting Gallego while in line for the bar at a charity event. Hes energetic and tenacious and he listens. Those were important features in the work that we did.

One of Gallegos first projects was battling a state ballot proposition banning gay marriage. During this campaign, Gallego clashed with one of the local politicians leading it, thenstate Rep. Sinema.

Gallegos role included recruiting volunteers, many of them members of the same LGBTQ community as Sinema, who is bisexual. Even so, she considered it a mistake to place queer people at the center of the campaignshe wanted to focus on how the proposition would also make it more difficult for straight and unmarried couples to access insurance and legal protections. After Gallego argued she was alienating their most effective advocates, Sinema eventually requested his removal from the campaign. Yuhas chalks it up to a personality conflict, adding that neither one of them lacks in personality.

Sinemas strategy was necessarythey won by a 4-point margingiven the states conservative politics at the time, Yuhas says. And he notes that Gallego thrived working on other projects, including the successful campaign of Phoenix City Council Member Michael Nowakowski, who poached Gallego as his chief of staff.

Nowakowski and Gallego had an odd-couple relationshipNowakowski a soft-spoken manager of a Spanish-language radio station who once dreamed of becoming a priest, and Gallego a hard-charging war veteran. I want to throw down some hail and brimstone, and this guys like, Its not how I operate, Gallego told the Arizona Republic in 2008.

Gallegos fiery temperament caused a local scandal the following year when he sharply upbraided a council intern, yelling and pounding his desk, according to the Republic. Less than an hour after the incident, Gallego emailed two city council staffers: When you have a chance I would like to talk to you about [the aide], he wrote. Her time as an intern is up.

The intern claimed Gallego was aggressive towards me and filed two complaints with the city. She was let go shortly after. The city ultimately cleared Gallego of the harassment accusations and noted that the intern was previously slated to be dismissed due to budget cuts. Gallego touches on the episode in his memoir, attributing his behavior to trauma from his military service. Id never lost my cool before the war, he writes. Now I did, snapping and yelling at people for little reason.

Gallego resigned from Nowakowskis office in late 2009 to run for a state House seat representing a liberal portion of Phoenix. In this new role, he prioritized legislation that benefited fellow military service members, specifically a bipartisan bill granting veterans in-state tuition in Arizona. But soon he was looking for his next break, and after the US House member who represented his district announced his retirement, Gallego jumped into the race. After a competitive primary, Gallego handily won the general election.

Gallegos demons persisted as he climbed the political ladder in DC. I still drank more than I should. Smoked more than I should. Lost my temper more than I should, he writes in his book. I had nightmares. I thought about my dead friends. I wondered why I was alive. I couldnt seem to find anything to cheer me up.

The Department of Veterans Affairs lists many of these symptoms in its criteria for PTSD, a diagnosis Gallego received after three years of medical evaluations. Yet by then, his relationship with Kate, whom he married in 2010, had unraveled; they announced their separation in 2016 when she was in the third trimester of her pregnancy with their son. Now the mayor of Phoenix, she and Gallego co-parent their 7-year-old, who often joins his dad on the campaign trail. Kate also endorsed her ex-husbands Senate bid in December, though Gallegos critics have seized on the timing of their split. (Kate Gallego declined an interview with Mother Jones.) The Washington Free Beacon has filed a motion to unseal Gallegos divorce records, and Lake has attacked him over the issue. Referring to Gallegos pro-choice views, she said she would not be lectured on motherhood by someone who left his wife when she was nine months pregnant.

Gallegos mental health struggles have also bled into his congressional life. A former Arizona state lawmaker describes a meeting, not long after Gallego first came to Capitol Hill, in which a veteran who had been injured by an IED lobbied Gallego to oppose the Iran nuclear deal. When this guy came in and told Ruben, If you dont vote against the bill, youre gonna have the blood of American servicemen and women on your hands, [Gallego] blew up and he started screaming, the former lawmaker, who was present, recalls. (A congressional aide who was also in the room disputes that Gallego yelled.) He took a stern tone, says the aide, who adds Gallegos frustration was in response to how aggressive and confrontational the veteran was.

Gallegos sometimes-salty disposition, the former lawmaker points out, might contrast sharply with the camera-ready persona of his opponent, especially if they square off in a debate. Lake has had 30 years of television experience and can be very poised, the former lawmaker says. And he could come off as an angry short man yelling at the woman who might be saying outrageous and insane things but is looking composed.

With Lake, political disinformation and deceit are masked by a perfect pixie cut and gleaming white smile. With Gallego, his allies say, what you see is what you get. Sometimes Im out with him, and hell meet somebody new. And I expect politician Ruben to come out. And it doesnt, says Swalwell. Ive seen people tell him theyre in Washington working on whatever issue. And hell say, Well, thats a bad idea. Hes not afraid to tell people how he feelsnot in a rude way. But if youre expecting a polished politician, thats not Ruben, and thats refreshing.

In mid-December, Gallegos forthright nature is on display during a visit to Yuma County to judge Somertons 16th annual Tamale Festival.

Good spice, he writes on a blue scorecard next to a four-star entry.

Entry number 24 is too dry, but the tamale from contestant 25 is amazing.

I dont know about this, yall, Gallego says as he bites into a spinach one. No, no, no, no. He shakes his head as he pushes the green mush to the side of his plate.

He jokes that after sampling two dozen contenders, he may have to cross the border to sample something else: Ozempic.

As we walk by various food vendors, Gallego is approached by at least a dozen festival attendees, including a squad of young cheerleaders seeking a group picture and a woman from the Cocopah Indian Tribe, who has Gallegos ear on and off throughout the day. Youll never see Sinema or Kari Lake doing any of this, like talking to people, trying to actually understand whats going on with their lives, he says.

In addition to festivals, parades, and ralliesthe meat-and-potatoes campaign schedule for any conventional candidateGallego is also on a mission to visit all 22 federally recognized Native tribes in Arizona. Part of this is personal. Gallego says two of his closest friends are Navajo brothers with whom he served in Iraq. And one of the few bills hes successfully navigated to passage in the House provides resources to Native tribes to help them prevent and investigate child abuse. Gallegos strategy is also politically astute. The massive turnout of Native people, who make up roughly 5 percent of the state population, proved critical for Democrats in 2020, when Biden won the state by fewer than 12,000 votes.

While Lake already boasts national name recognition, experts say Gallegos go-everywhere-talk-to-everyone approach is critical to broadening his appeal outside of Phoenix. If the Republicans or Democrats were winning by a huge landslide, then maybe its not necessarily going to make much of a difference to try to engage with all these low-population counties, says Samara Klar, a political science professor at the University of Arizona and an expert on independent voters. But thats not the way in Arizona. We have extremely razor-thin margins of victory.

The thin margins have something to do with the unique politics of Arizona, where a third of registered voters claim no political party. One of the states most revered politicians was the late John McCain, the Republican elder statesman of the Senate known as a partisanship-bucking maverick. A year before his death, McCain famously gave a forceful thumbs-down as he cast the deciding vote against a GOP-led attempt to repeal part of the Affordable Care Act. Sinema, who was elected to the Senate shortly after McCains death, also rejected a pivotal measure with the same hand gesture. In her case, she was one of a handful of Democrats blocking an increase of the federal minimum wage.

Sinemas obstructionism, especially her refusal in 2022 to support reforming the filibuster to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act by a simple majority, convinced Gallego to run for her seat. The filibuster isnt a tool to encourage sophisticated debate, its a tool to kill legislation that the vast majority of Americans support, Gallego said at the time. Later that year, Sinema became an independent and filed initial paperwork to run for reelection as such. Gallegos announcement that he would challenge Sinema from the left both elated and alarmed liberals who worried they would divide the moderate-to-liberal vote and tip the scales toward a Lake victoryand perhaps a GOP-led Senate.

Sinemas March announcement that she would instead retire at the end of her term relieved Democrats, taking a messy three-way race off the table. Arizona Democrats won big in 2022, electing a Democratic governor, secretary of state, and attorney general. But if the results suggest a repudiation of Trumpism, mounting concerns over immigration could hamper Gallegos chances. An October survey of registered Arizona voters, for example, found they trusted Trump more than Biden on immigration by a margin of 54 to 41 percent.

The issue is personal to Gallego. His parents immigrated through family reunification and worker visas, he says. He supports increasing funding for both humanitarian aid and Border Patrol personnel. But he also argues that todays crisis stems largely from the dismantling of the pathways his parents took to enter the country legally.

Its not simply that migrants need us, he argues, but that we need them. Just 12 miles from Somerton is the Mexican border, which tens of thousands of migrants cross during peak season to work the Yuma County fields that produce about 90 percent of the countrys lettuce every winter. Throngs more opt for less safe and less legalbut more permanentsolutions.

They are doing all these illegal or abusive things because they want to get here and were not making it easier, he says, and we do need people to come work.

Two months after the tamale festival, I catch up with Gallego on Capitol Hill. While he waits to vote on some procedural measures, we take brisk laps between the entrance to the House chamber and Statuary Hall. These days, this is how Gallego gets in his steps, as he juggles legislative and child-rearing duties. Last summer, Gallego and his second wife, Sydney, a Democratic lobbyist whom he met at the 2018 annual congressional baseball game, welcomed a baby girl. A member of the Congressional Dads Caucus, Gallego took a few weeks of parental leave over the summer.

On our walk, we talk about television shows (he is hooked on Netflixs Griselda), Mexican food (dont make him pick a favorite dish), and which chores he contributes to his household. (The real answer is I dont do enough, he admits.)

We also discuss the days legislative agendanamely, what wasnt on it. Earlier that week, Democrats and Republicans seemed close to consensus on a border bill. The deal, initially backed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, would have barred migrants with criminal histories from applying for asylum, quickened hearing timelines, and more. Then Trump weighed in. Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill, he posted to Truth Social. Dont be STUPID!!!

That was that. The bill was dead.

Republicans really had nothing else to run on, and it was going to be taken away, and thats when Donald Trump and his minions called it in and sunk it, says Gallego. It was one of the most cynical political moves Ive seen since Ive been in Washington, DC.

There is some competition for that distinction of coursenotably Trumps effort to overturn the election, which culminated in the insurrection that sent Gallego into combat mode three years earlier not far from where we stand. That Gallego is now facing Lake, one of the biggest promoters of the Big Lie, in this pivotal Senate race is oddly fitting, and its outcome will say much about where the nation may be headed.

One candidate amplified the election lies that motivated thousands of Trump zealots to ransack the citadel of American democracy. The other prepared to repel this onslaughtand preserve the sanctity of the democratic processwith a ballpoint pen. In November, democracy is again on the line. And Gallego is up for the fight.

Read the original:
Ruben Gallego's Battle Against Kari Lake Could Decide the Fate of the SenateAnd Our Democracy Mother Jones - Mother Jones