Mediaboss Marketing

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

Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?

John Milton, Areopagitica (1644)

The Voice referendum was the first constitutional referendum to be held since 1999. No Australian under the age of 42 had ever voted in one. In that 24-year period, the world has changed beyond recognition.

In November 1999, Australians voted in two simultaneous referendums, one on becoming a republic and the second on inserting a preamble into the Constitution.

The preamble proposition was vague and inoffensive in wording. It acknowledged God, democracy, tolerance and honoured Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nations first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country.

The preamble was proposed by then prime minister John Howard and drafted with the assistance of the poet Les Murray. Labor supported it and there was no formal No campaign or media attack. Nevertheless, the preamble referendum lost more decisively than the bitterly contested one on a republic.

Weirdly, final figures for the preamble in 1999 were almost identical to the result of the Voice referendum in 2023: 39.3 per cent voted Yes and 60.7 per cent voted No.

In 2007, Howard promised that if re-elected he would initiate a referendum to recognise First Nations people in the Constitution. He lost and the referendum never happened. In the 2023 referendum campaign he encouraged No supporters to maintain the rage. What rage would that be? About what?

In the 21st century there has been a paralysis of will. We have seen decades of delay and obfuscation on major global issues.

Since 2016, Donald Trump has changed the nature of political discourse beyond recognition. With Trump, the concept of truth is irrelevant. Assertions are completely transactional. Evidence is discounted or dismissed as fake news and gut reactions and instinct override analysis and the need to take account of contrary views. There were Trumpian elements in the 2019 and 2022 federal elections but the referendum on the Voice in 2023 took it to another level.

In 1687, Isaac Newton published his Laws of Motion in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. The third law Every action has an equal and opposite reaction seems curiously applicable, not only to physics but to history and the social sciences.

Everything is in motion. The tide retreats, then comes surging back.

We have lived through attempts to break down misogyny, hierarchy, racism and fundamentalism, to end censorship and free up religious debate, to promote and foster multiculturalism. Now we are living through the inverse, the hostile reaction: revival of white supremacy, justification of hate speech and trolling as essential elements of freedom, the demonisation of minorities, sharp attacks on expertise, the denouncing of evidence or reasoned argument.

The Yes case was well intentioned and hardworking, but the No case was masterful and far more strategic. Dishonest, too.

Yes argued passionately, supported by at least 30 outstanding new books on history, anthropology, archaeology and culture, which sold in their thousands. Yet the books were no match for the dark messages sent to individuals in their millions on social media.

There were six principal reasons why the No campaign triumphed. The first was its shameful, morally bankrupt slogan: If you dont know, vote No. The No campaign essentially argued Why bother? Nothing to do with you. Dont bother to find out. If you know nothing, welcome aboard the No campaign. Many No voters never understood what the referendum was about, and there was no imagination, sympathy or understanding.

The second boon for the No campaign was its public faces: Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Nyunggai Warren Mundine to the right, Lidia Thorpe to the left. They gave a leave pass to the unsure and disengaged, promoting uncertainty and confusion. The argument for these people was: If the Aboriginal community isdivided about the Voice, how can I make ajudgement?

The third key point for No was its exploitation of the idea of division. This masterstroke was Trumpian. Words were taken and turned to mean their opposite. Yes became characterised as a vote for division and No was a vote for unity. It did not matter that the inverse was true.

Price and Mundine argued the Voice would entrench division along racial lines, giving privileges to First Nations people that would be denied to other Australians. Division became the central theme of the No case and proved to be a winner.

Price exploited the unity issue relentlessly. If she saw a conflagration in the distance, she was eager to help by bringing more petrol. She said the Australian Electoral Commission had interfered with the referendum process and insisted most First Nations people in the Northern Territory were opposed to the Voice. Many believed her, but polling on October 14 indicated remote communities voted Yes at a rate of more than 70 per cent.

Fourth among the factors that favoured No was Australias curious relationship with the Constitution. This document, unread and unrecognisable in the context of constitutional practice as it has evolved, was invoked during the campaign as a Holy Grail revered, unknowable, untouchable. Each assertion by the No campaign that the Voice would be risky was demonstrably false, but the countrys worship of its ill-understood Constitution was enough to scare people away from change.

Fifth, the government and Yes23 were very vague about the structure and powers of the Voice itself, even in broad outline, and that looked shifty, although it followed normal practice in referendums.

Finally, the media overall played a shameful role. This was a campaign defined by Murdoch and Musk. The lies circulated on social media were strategically targeted: First Nations people would be given free houses, free cars, free education at private schools. The Yes campaign was allegedly being run by the United Nations, or by Jews, or by condescending urban elites. The Voice would apparently push millions of people off their land. Taxes would rise exponentially to pay for Aboriginal welfare and the country itself would be forced to adopt an Indigenous name.

The government and the Yes campaign failed to attack these lies head on. The ABC was overly cautious and News Corp was brutal.

Elon Musk, the worlds most powerful individual, has created shadow rule. His algorithms determined our choices in ways we were not even aware of. He is already more powerful than Rupert Murdoch ever was with print media and television.

In the end, the No vote had many components. There were citizens with a sketchy grasp of Australian history, who knew even less about colonial and First Nations history, and less still about the Constitution. There were people disillusioned about government institutions and processes, reacting against decisions on which they already had negative views.

Many of these voters have no experience of First Nations people. They do not know them as friends, they do not meet them in their communities. Some of these were Coalition loyalists who stuck with their leaders. Some were economically stressed voters who saw the referendum as a distraction from mortgage rates and rising costs of living.

There were those seduced by conspiracy theories on social media, there were Christian fundamentalists, there were parts of the mining lobby and many mine workers. Supporters of overtly racist parties and advocacy groups probably comprised about 12 per cent of voters; the messages of these groups resonated with many more.

There was also the impact of progressive opponents of the Voice, notably Senator Lidia Thorpe, who insisted it compromised too much with colonial structures. She is part of the Blak Sovereign Movement and argued a treaty and truth-telling had to come before a Voice.

Thirty safe Labor federal electorates voted No. In the aggregate, about 30 per cent of Labor voters were against the Voice. Probably most will return in a general election but heroic leadership will be required.

There was no distinction between aprincipled No, a racist No, an irritated No and an unengaged No. People who voted Yes generally understood the issue and welcomed the chance to close the gap and bring the country together.

Liberal democracy depends on rational debate, where evidence is testable, both sides use a common language and accept accountability for misleading.

If democracy is to survive, it will require each of us to commit to hard knowledge, rational calculation, basic values and an obstinate will to end avoidable suffering, toparaphrase Leszek Koakowski.

The question Im left with is: are we up to it?

This article was first published in the print edition of The Saturday Paper on October 28, 2023 as "The paralysis of will".

For almost a decade, The Saturday Paper has published Australias leading writers and thinkers. We have pursued stories that are ignored elsewhere, covering them with sensitivity and depth. We have done this on refugee policy, on government integrity, on robo-debt, on aged care, on climate change, on the pandemic.

All our journalism is fiercely independent. It relies on the support of readers. By subscribing to The Saturday Paper, you are ensuring that we can continue to produce essential, issue-defining coverage, to dig out stories that take time, to doggedly hold to account politicians and the political class.

There are very few titles that have the freedom and the space to produce journalism like this. In a country with a concentration of media ownership unlike anything else in the world, it is vitally important. Your subscription helps make it possible.

News

The Yes case responds: Its a white flag from Labor

Daniel James After a week of silence, leading Yes campaigners have begun to detail three ways forward for the movement including fighting to keep Peter Dutton out of office.

Link:
Barry Jones Truth and the threats to liberal democracy - The Saturday Paper

Opposition leader Yair Lapid said in an interview with NY92 community center in New York Thursday that the government's proposed plan to shake up the judiciary and the subsequent protests weakened Israel in the days leading up to Hamas's surprise deadly attack on October 7. "I understand the people who said 'okay, we weakened ourselves in this fight. We took it one step further'," he said.

However, he clarified that the blame for "weakening the country," in his words, primarily falls on those who promoted the laws. "I think when you are threatening Israel's democracy you're weakening the country. Democracy is the reason we have the inner strength we need to fight what we're facing."

Lapid qualified his statement after being asked whether he thought the protest was to blame for the disaster. "I met today with the protesters. What they have built here in Expo Tel Aviv is an unbelievable operation helping everybody who was forced out of his home and the victims and the families of the victims. These are great Israeli patriots. They didn't weaken this country, they have strengthened this country."

Lapid explained his decision not to join the emergency government as National Unity Chairman Benny Gantz did stemmed from "technical reasons." "I was the first person to say we need the unity government. But I told Netanyahu, "again, I'm not going to be a cheerleader.' I mean, I want to know what is it that I do, what kind of authority am I going to have? And it turned out I didn't want this to work this way. So fine. I have so many ways to work for my country in a time of need and unity is not only about the government unitu is about the people to begin with."

"we have suffered the consequences of a false sense of safety. And therefore we allow ourselves to dive into the polarization of modern-day politics," Lapid added. "So we dive directly into the festival of diversity. And now we were reminded in a painful way that the real risks we have from the outside."

He also argued that there is no alternative other than a ground offensive to topple Hamas' rule, and afterward, the Palestinian Authority will govern Gaza with a very strong support system of the international community and the moderate Arab world. However, according to him, to reach this situation, one must first cross a river of war and pain."

Lapid also reiterated that he would support the government's decisions or any agreement presented to him. Lapid's remarks came hours after he was asked if he, as a former prime minister, also bears responsibility for any oversight - to which he responded: "If everyone is responsible, no one is accountable."

Link:
Lapid: Threat to democracy weakened the country - Ynetnews

The Ellsberg Initiative for Peace and Democracy (EIPAD) invites the UMass Amherst community to an in-person film screening and virtual discussion with whistleblower advocates involved in the making of the 2016 documentary on drone warfare, National Bird, on Wednesday, Nov. 1.

The two-part event begins with the screening of the documentary, which details the story about three Americans who turned against the drone warfare they once supported, from 3-5 p.m. in the Student Union Cape Cod Lounge.

A virtual discussion webinar will take place via Zoom from 7-8:30 p.m., following the in-person screening. The discussion will feature filmmaker and investigative journalist Sonia Kennebeck, veteran, whistleblower and researcher Lisa Ling and writer and attorney Jesselyn Radack.

To register for the virtual discussion, visit the Blowing the Whistle on Drone Warfare webinar registration form.

EIPAD was created in dedication to the stewardship of whistleblower Daniel Ellsbergs legacy and the commitment to put the overlapping causes that defined his activism into action. The screening and virtual discussion is sponsored by EIPAD with assistance from the UMass Graduate History Association.

View post:
Ellsberg Initiative for Peace and Democracy to Host Documentary ... - UMass News and Media Relations

BAY VILLAGE, Ohio A new generation of poll workers is here with Bay High School students gearing up to help at the polls this November. And theyre official with training from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections through a new program called, The Future of our Democracy.

As the political science teacher and Bay High Schools social studies department chair, Robert Grossman explained, these teens are learning about the electoral process, while gaining confidence and belief in the importance of exercising their right to vote.

If you're 17,18 and you had a good experience working the polls, I think the opportunity to continue to be involved dramatically increases, Grossman said.

Immediately after receiving an invite from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, Grossman says his students were all in. Eleven of them eagerly signed up for training, which he admits surprised him.

Theyre pretty much working a 14, 15-hour day after working two hours the night before after going to school that whole day, he said. Once I explained to them all this is what the expectation is, not a single one of them backed out.

As part of the countys commitment to ramping up voter participation, students are met with the commitment to their civic duty. Grossman explained that those who are 17 leading into an election, must sign a waiver promising they will register to vote. However, those who are 18, must already be registered to vote to move forward with poll training.

Senior Maggie Buttrick says the responsibility is one she does not plan on taking for granted. Buttrick says she has watched her father exercise his right and volunteer for years growing up; its what inspired her to get involved.

The people that are actually working really seem to care, she said. As someone whos not 18 yet and cant vote, I wish I could vote.

The behind-the-scenes training opportunity also restored faith in the system for this group, including Mallory Kaminski. As Kaminski shared, she is aware of the intense scrutiny over the security and fairness of the electoral process nationwide.

Theres not really much education on the system itself after you vote [and] theres just a lot of harsh language towards the poll workers, she said. With what I know from my training I feel confident that my vote will be counted and preserved.

Principal Jason Martin says the refreshing perspective, awareness, and responsibility shown by this group of students is reassuring as he believes they are the voices of our future.

To see them being willing to carry forward the democratic process to learn more, to inspire others to become involved, to make sure that this opportunity continues to exist for generations to come its a great opportunity.

View original post here:
These high school students are doing their part for democracy - News 5 Cleveland WEWS