Mediaboss Marketing

El Salvador will hold presidential elections this Sunday. If the polls are to be believed, the outcome is a foregone conclusion: President Nayib Bukele will win in a landslide. Recent polling shows the president with over 70% support.

His rivals from the traditional parties, the right-wing ARENA and left-wing FMLN, trail far behind in single digits. In fact, some polls predict that Bukeles New Ideas Party could win 57 out of 60 seats in the National Congress. The bigger issue is the impact Bukeles reelection will have on the future of democracy.

Para leer en espaol

Democracy demands free, fair and competitive elections. This means that electoral rules must be clear and fairly applied, competitors must have equal access to the media, and state resources should not be used to favor one candidate over others.

Opinion

Get smart opinions on the topics North Texans care about.

In Central America, the legacy of authoritarianism and military governments led nearly every country to constitutionally restrict reelection as a bulwark against presidential abuse of power. In the past decade, however, presidents have sought to use control of the judiciary to loosen the restrictions on reelection. Both Juan Orlando Hernndez in Honduras and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua were allowed to seek and win reelection through questionable legal maneuvering by compliant supreme courts.

The same has now happened in El Salvador. Bukeles re-election was permitted in September 2021 after a constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court. Faithful to the president who appointed them, the justices reinterpreted the Salvadoran constitution, which explicitly prohibits, in at least five articles, the immediate re-election of the president. According to the courts ruling a sitting president can seek re-election if he or she leaves office at least six months before the election.

In November 2023, the legislature dominated by Bukeles party dutifully gave the president the green light to take a leave of office for six months. The legislature installed Claudia Rodrguez de Guevara, Bukeles private secretary, and longtime employee, as the acting president. Interestingly, the leave did not remove Bukeles presidential immunity, thus shielding the president from any legal liability while he is out of office.

Bukele rose to power by challenging a system that, he argued, was based on obsolete ideological frameworks, and rooted in the dominance of corrupt elites. His approach has been characterized as personalist, populist, and autocratic. He has skillfully used social media, particularly X (formerly Twitter), to disseminate his message. His X handle has gone from the coolest dictator in the world to Philosopher King. As a former public relations executive, Bukele and his team are well versed in setting the agenda, nurturing a favorable image and neutralizing opponents.

Bukeles popularity can also be explained by his tough security policies. For decades prior to Bukeles rise to power in 2019 El Salvador was among the most violent countries in the world. The legacy of a brutal civil war and the consequences of U.S. deportation policies led to the rise of violent gangs such as the Mara Salvatrucha and Barrio 18. As a result, the homicide rate rose to 70 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2005, and 103 in 2015 the highest in Latin America.

Bukeles signature security policy is based on a state of exception in force since March 2022 that cracked down on the gangs but also suspended certain civil liberties, including due process. The policy has resulted in more than 74,000 people, suspected of being gang members, arrested and imprisoned. On Bukeles watch, El Salvador has claimed the highest rate of incarceration in the world, around 2% of its adult population.

El Salvadors prison system was already notorious for overcrowding, violence and a breeding ground for gang members. There is little evidence that Bukele has made any progress in improving those conditions. In fact, he has boasted of making prisons an even worse experience in an apparent attempt to deter criminal activity.

While the government claims all those arrested are gang members, recent police reports indicate that at least 40,000 gang members still remain at large. If true, it means that thousands of those arrested have little to no connection with gangs and the strategy, while partially successful in reducing violence has come at a high price in civil and human rights.

While the mass incarceration has coincided with a significant drop in homicides, theres evidence that the spikes and drops in violence are also the results of negotiations with the gangs, rather than directly connected to Bukeles Territorial Control Plan. For example, as a result of these negotiations the Salvadoran government apparently allowed Elmer Canales Rivera, alias Crook, a top leader in the Mara Salvatrucha, to escape the country. U.S. court documents revealed that gang members were routinely allowed in and out of prison with impunity, and press reports claimed that Canales Rivera lived in luxury in one of the most exclusive areas of the capital, despite the fact that Washington had requested his extradition on multiple occasions and that an Interpol red notice was in force.

Canales Rivera was arrested by FBI agents in November 2023 in Mexico and extradited to the United States. In a revealing twist to this saga, investigative news outlet El Faro published evidence that the government of El Salvador had actually negotiated with Mexican cartels to recapture Crook before he could be extradited to the United States. The Salvadoran government has repeatedly denied negotiating with the gangs.

What happens in El Salvador has direct consequences in the United States, both because of a large diaspora and continued migration pressures. The Biden administration seems to be pursuing a middle road between condemning some of the populist and authoritarian behavior, such as the lack of independence of the judiciary and the attacks on NGOs and the press, but has also dispatched high-level emissaries to negotiate with Bukele on economic assistance and migration policy. The United States is gambling that El Salvador will still have a democracy after Bukele is done consolidating power.

Bukele is not the first leader to manipulate popular support and a strong electoral mandate to undermine democracy. From Venezuelas Hugo Chvez to Hungarys Viktor Orbn and Nicaraguas Daniel Ortega, the playbook is familiar: win the election, use the levers of power to manipulate the media, exacerbate social and political divisions, use state resources to win further elections, and then seek to remake the political system by changing the constitution and subordinating independent agencies, and politicizing security forces. Finally, use the new rules to maintain and extend power. Nearby Nicaragua is a clear example of what happens when a leader is allowed to manipulate the political system to consolidate power and create a one-party state. I hope for the sake of El Salvadors citizens that this is not where Bukele is headed.

Orlando J. Prez is a professor of political science in the University of North Texas at Dallas

Part of our series The Unraveling of Latin America. This essay discusses the Salvadoran elections and the autocratic traits of its president running for reelection.

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com

Follow this link:
Why Bukeles reelection is a threat to democracy in El Salvador - The Dallas Morning News

As mail-in ballots begin to arrive for voters across California for the March 5 presidential primary, election officials in both Yuba and Sutter counties shared with the Appeal the safeguards and processes in place to ensure our democratic system remains intact.

Allegations of widespread voter fraud and unfounded conspiracy theories have plagued the U.S. electoral process in recent years thanks to rhetoric from prominent politicians and media personalities seeking to take advantage of a skeptical public. False claims of interference have caused some to lose faith with the entire system of checks and balances put in place.

Some major media outlets have pushed these conspiracy theories and have had to pay the price. In 2021, Dominion Voting Systems filed a lawsuit against Fox News Network alleging that several shows on the cable news network had aired false statements that Dominions voting machines were rigged to change the results of the 2020 presidential election.

In March of 2023, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis ruled that the disputed statements Fox News made about Dominion were not true and subsequently ordered a trial to determine if Fox News acted with malice. Weeks later, Fox News agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems nearly $800 million to avert a trial, the Associated Press reported. Dominion had sued Fox for $1.6 billion.

Dominion set out to prove in the lawsuit that Fox acted with malice in airing allegations that it knew to be false, or with reckless disregard for the truth. It presented volumes of internal emails and text messages that showed Fox executives and personalities saying they knew the accusations were untrue, even as the falsehoods were aired on programs hosted by Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs and Jeannine Pirro, the Associated Press reported. Records released as part of the lawsuit showed that Fox aired the claims in part to win back viewers who were fleeing the network after it correctly called hotly contested Arizona for Democrat Joe Biden on election night. One Fox Corp. vice president called them MIND BLOWINGLY NUTS.

While the Yuba-Sutter area hasnt seen quite the uprising of election denial that has been on display in other parts of the country, there are some who still doubt the process. The Appeal reached out to both Sutter County Clerk-Recorder Donna Johnston and Yuba County Clerk-Recorder Donna Hillegass to get answers on just what the election process entails and how it is safeguarded from widespread fraud or interference.

Preventing voters from casting multiple ballots

The entire voting process, especially in California, is filled with checks and balances and this is no different when submitting a vote by way of a mail-in ballot.

Each voter has a verified record in the statewide voter registration database, Hillegass said of the mail-in process. When a voter returns a vote-by-mail ballot, elections staff verify that the signature on the envelope matches the voters record and that the voter has not already submitted a ballot to be counted. Once a ballot is accepted for counting, the registration system marks their record in such a way that no additional ballot will be accepted for counting from that voter.

A similar process also is in place at the polls for in-person voting.

On Election Day the electronic poll books have near real-time voter registration data, Hillegass said. When a voter checks in with the poll worker, before being issued a ballot, the poll worker can verify that the individual is properly registered and that they have not already submitted a ballot to be counted. Voters will only be issued a ballot after their eligibility to vote has been verified.

Johnston shared that similar measures are in place in Sutter County.

We have safeguards in place to prevent a person voting more than once in an election. In our election management system, when a ballot is issued to a voter, it is noted in our system, Johnston said. When the voter returns their ballot, it is updated in our system. If the voter attempts to vote (with) a second ballot, it would be stopped by the system. For example, if a voter mailed in their ballot, then attempted to vote at the polls, the ballot that we received first would be counted. The second ballot would not be counted, and the voter would be turned over to the District Attorney.

A typical gotcha moment for those skeptical of the election process can be found in the upkeep of voter rolls. While there have been circumstances where data may not be correct or up-to-date for everyone listed at any given time, it is a process that is constantly evolving and improving.

Maintaining voter registration information happens on a daily basis throughout the year, Hillegass said. The rules about how and when voter registration records are created, updated and canceled are governed by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and California Elections Code.

Johnston also said Sutter Countys voter rolls are updated daily.

Hillegass said update sources include registered voters themselves, the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the California Department of Public Health, the California Department of Corrections, the California Secretary of State, Yuba County Superior Court, the U.S. Postal Service and a statewide database called VoteCal.

According to the California Secretary of State, VoteCal is Californias centralized voter registration database that provides benefits to voters and election officials. Hillegass said it cross references registration and voter participation across all 58 counties in the state in near real time. On Election Day, VoteCal allows counties to instantly see if a voter has already cast a ballot in another county.

Johnston said when a person updates their drivers license, that information is forwarded to the county. She warned the public to be careful when making a party selection when updating their voter registration while at the DMV.

If they leave this blank, the DMV system defaults to No Party Preference, Johnston said.

Logic and accuracy testing

Hillegass said that prior to every election, logic and accuracy testing of the voting system is conducted.

Pre-marked ballots are processed by each tally scanner, Hillegass said. After the ballots have been processed, the results are compared against the pre-determined results to ensure the system is tallying correctly.

According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, documenting this testing is critical as this is the point where most voting equipment transitions into election mode. Testing cannot start until ballots are proofed and finalized but should be completed before voting begins.

Hillegass said a Test Deck is used, a collection of ballots that are clearly marked Test Ballot, that already have been marked with votes. The ballots are marked in a distinct pattern in order to test the system.

We then run these ballots through the tally program. Because the contests were marked in advance, we already know what results should be reported. This pre-determined result is called our Expected Outcome, Hillegass said. After running the ballots we compare what the tally program reported for results and what we expected it to report. They should match.

Along with a pre-marked test deck, Hillegass said staff also cast test ballots using ballot-marking devices used in the election.

Testing staff vote these ballots in a pre-determined manner. We determine which votes will be cast to ensure we cover the appropriate data, Hillegass said. Our in-house test results are added to the Test Deck pattern results and that makes up our total Expected Outcome. After running the test deck and our in-house test ballots, the end result should be exactly what we have already determined it will be. A perfect match is a successful logic and accuracy test.

To promote transparency of the voting process, Hillegass said any member of the public can observe the election process. That includes vote-by-mail ballot processing, logic and accuracy testing, poll worker training and the vote tally.

The public is also encouraged to participate in the process as a poll worker, Hillegass said. Poll workers are responsible for processing voters on Election Day in the manner prescribed by law, ensuring the integrity of the process and maintaining the security of all supplies and equipment.

Johnston also said Sutter County voters are invited to see how the process works.

People are welcome to observe any process that occurs during the election cycle, from the pre-logic and accuracy testing of the voting equipment, processing of vote by mail ballots, election day activities, visiting polling places, central counting/tabulation, and the canvass process. If a voter is dropping off their ballot and would like a tour, we bring them back to the secured area to view what is happening at that time, Johnston said. If anyone would like to view a process, they can coordinate with us to view what they are most interested in, or watch what is happening when they stop by the office. We are currently full with poll workers, however we will still accept and train additional people in case of any poll workers who need to cancel. The application form is available on our website, or they can drop by to fill one out.

In Yuba County, every ballot cast in the election is a paper ballot.

At polling sites voters may choose to use an electronic ballot marking device, but this device is only used to mark their paper ballot, Hillegass said. It does not produce any electronic record of the vote. The electronic ballot marking device is required by the Help America Vote Act and provides accessibility options to assist those voters who may require assistance or who just choose to use it.

Hillegass said a paper record is maintained under strict security measures and through a chain of custody. Tally scanners also retain an image of the ballot when it is scanned.

Yuba County currently uses a Dominion Voting Systems optical scanner that has no Wi-Fi capability or hardware and is never connected to the internet, Hillegass said.

Hillegass said there are physical, technical and procedural safeguards in place to protect the security of the election process.

Physical safeguards include the following:

Voted ballot and voting system secure storage: Motion detector alarm and security badge access.

Election office: Secure election work areas with restricted access and observers require a security escort.

Tamper evident seals: Tamper evident security seals are used to validate the chain of custody.

Technical safeguards include the following:

Trusted build firmware/software: Upon certification of a voting system by the California Secretary of State, the trusted build is held in a secure location until a copy is hand-delivered to an authorized county official.

Controlled password access of systems and data: All account passwords are generated by the Registrar of Voters and the System Administrator. All passwords are shared with the Elections Manager and then with added staff only as necessary.

Closed and air-gapped system network (Dominion): The system is air-gapped to separate all devices from external networks. No part of the system is connected to the internet at any time. There is no Wi-Fi capability or hardware on the voting units. No part of the system receives or transmits wireless communication or wireless data transfers.

Procedural safeguards include the following:

Chain of custody (hardware, software, ballots)

Logic and accuracy testing

Vote-by-mail signature verification

Voting systems reformatted and software re-installed every election

Ballot tracking allows the public to verify their ballot status

Preparing ballots to be counted

Hillegass said that every ballot received is checked by election staff to verify the signature on the envelope matches the voters record.

For those with unsigned envelopes, voter outreach is conducted to provide the voter an opportunity to fix the issue. For an unmatched signature, following a review, if it is determined the signature does not match, then the voter is contacted to provide them an opportunity to fix that issue as well, Hillegass said.

Before they are counted, all ballot envelopes remain sealed.

Prior to envelopes being opened, a final precinct balance is conducted to validate the number of envelopes balances to the number of good ballots reported by the Election Management

System, according to Hillegass. Initial ballot processing (inspection and tally) takes place on the Saturday before Election Day. Ballots processed on this Saturday become the results released at 8 p.m. on Election Day.

Hillegass said efforts are made to include all ballots received and verified by noon on the Friday before Election Day.

The following is the inspection process used to ensure integrity:

Ballot envelopes are opened and assigned to a two-member Ballot Inspection Team.

The team separates ballots from envelopes while protecting the voters privacy.

The team inspects the ballots: Damaged ballots (tears, stains, unknown substances, marked with red pen) are pulled to be duplicated during canvass. The law requires ballots with personally identifiable information to be duplicated.

Audit tracking information is completed and ballots are submitted to be tallied.

Tally and adjudicating ballots

The following is the continued election process once votes are inspected, verified and ready to be counted:

Tally: As inspection teams complete a batch, it is staged, with the appropriate audit tracking forms, to be tallied. Each batch is then scanned, the audit tracking forms are completed and the scanned ballots are placed in a plastic bag with the completed audit form and sealed for storage.

Adjudicating ballots: As ballots are scanned, the system identifies ballots with over-voted contests, marginal marks and write-in votes and directs those ballot images to the adjudication workstation. An adjudication team reviews these images and using a predetermined set of standards, marks the ballot as necessary. An adjudication audit mark is added to the record and the ballot is released for results reporting.

After ballots are tallied, the audit, called canvass, takes place, Johnston said. Verification that the number of voter signatures matches the number of ballots in the ballot box is usually done first. Random precincts are chosen and contests are then hand-counted and compared against the machine tally. Any discrepancy is investigated and is noted on the final statement of vote that is sent to the Secretary of State.

Visit link:
Protecting our democracy: Officials share steps taken to keep our elections safe and secure - Appeal-Democrat

It will be hard to top the absolute banner year for democracy Ohio had last year, but were keeping our eyes on the prize in 2024 to wrestle even more power back into the hands of the people where it belongs.

While most folks will understandably center their attention for this years election cycle on top-of-the-ticket races, mine will be fixated on two potential constitutional ballot measures aimed at tilting the scales of power away from politicians in Ohio. Those two proposed measures are one to create a citizen-led, independent redistricting commission the third redistricting ballot measure that Ohio voters would decide on in a decade and the other an Ohio voters bill of rights that would enshrine our right to vote in the state constitution and expand access to our democracy.

To me, these reforms are two sides of the same coin one is about who we can elect and the other is about whether we can vote. Both are necessary for Ohios voters, particularly given that Republicans in my state have spent the last decade and a half undermining the power of our votes and gerrymandering our state and congressional maps to hell.

And while much attention has already rightfully been paid to the need for redistricting reform, I want to dig a little deeper into why voting rights reform is also so essential for our state.

Ohio is a state too often overlooked in conversations about voter suppression and attacks on the power of our vote despite the fact that we are home to some of the worst of each of those tactics. No matter the tactic to block people from exercising their most fundamental American right, Ohios got it. Strict voter ID rules? Weve got the strictest. Cuts to early voting? You bet. Voter purges? Ohios never met one it doesnt like. Systemic suppression? Top to bottom.

I want to be clear that Ohio is not so different from our midwestern neighbors like Michigan or Minnesota that the electoral results and, more importantly, civic engagement levels seen there are impossible here. Rampant voter suppression efforts and gerrymandering, though, lead to election outcomes and lower civic engagement rates that belie the real political nature of our state.

In just the last five years, Republican secretaries of state have purged more than 700,000 voters from the rolls, unjustly making our most fundamental American right a use it or lose it one. The most recent purge came in October of last year after the voter registration deadline had passed and early voting had begun for the November election. Again, Ohio Republicans have really never met a purge they didnt like. They even went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect their aggressive supplemental style of purges that outpaces most other states in the country.

And rather than working on bringing our election system into the 21st century to make it more accessible to all of us, like so many of our other midwestern neighbors have done especially in recent years, Ohio voters are tripped up by unnecessary, outdated procedures that create a complicated, if not entirely prohibitive, path to the ballot box.

To fight against these efforts, for nearly a decade, Black civil rights leaders, including the Ohio chapter of the NAACP, the Ohio Unity Coalition (the state chapter of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation), the A. Philip Randolph Institute and the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, have worked to qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot that would bring much-needed change to how we run elections in Ohio.

Their first try was in 2014 with an amendment carrying the same name as the current one the Ohio Voters Bill of Rights and another came in 2020. Both were hobbled by rampant opposition from especially in-state Republicans, but also (in the case of the 2020 effort) by the early days of the pandemic, which stymied signature collection efforts.

In the meantime, voter suppression efforts havent slowed; if anything theyve become even more urgent. The worst of those tactics came in the form of a sweeping anti-voter bill, House Bill 458, that was enacted at the start of 2023 and includes the countrys strictest voter ID law and various other provisions that further limit Ohioans access to the ballot box. And, of course, theres always our illegally gerrymandered maps that deny us the full power of our votes.

The time has come again for these same organizations to lead the righteous fight to protect our most precious freedom to vote.

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said back in 1957, The hour is late. The clock of destiny is ticking out. We must act now, before it is too late. Its time to modernize our election system and to bring more Ohio voters into the fold by protecting the full power of their votes. And the current version of the Ohio Voters Bill of Rights offers us an important opportunity to do just that.

It eases the current photo ID rules, ensures that only eligible citizens can vote, protects military and overseas voters ability to have their votes counted and makes sure all Ohioans can vote when, how and wherever they want. It also provides the opportunity to people to vote even if they dont have access to the amendments expanded list of photo IDs, bringing Ohio in line with the vast majority of states in this country that dont exclusively require a photo ID to vote.

It empowers local boards of election to institute policies that make the most sense for their communities, like setting up more drop boxes across their counties and expanding the number of early vote centers so voting is more convenient and accessible. Rather than the current system where each county in Ohio may have just one early vote center, the amendment would allow counties to meet their voters where they are to ensure the path to the ballot box is actually accessible to everyone. If states like Georgia, North Carolina and Texas can provide dozens of early vote locations, surely Ohio can, too.

Give us the ballot and put the people of my Ohio back into the drivers seat of our democracy.

And it makes sure our elections work for all of us by requiring prepaid postage on all election mail, protecting no-excuse absentee voting, streamlining the voter registration and updating process (through automatic and same-day registration systems) and requires the state to fund all the necessary policies to make this amendment a reality.

The amendment is a sweeping reimagining of what might be possible in this heart-shaped state of mine if our state government bent over backwards to clear the path to democracy rather than working in overdrive to ensure certain voters cant access the voting booth.

To my mind, there is no other fight worth waging in Ohio than the one to enshrine the full power of our votes into the state constitution. The right to vote, after all, is our most fundamental because it is preservative of all other rights we enjoy. Without our votes, we have nothing. Republicans in this state certainly understand that; its why they work so damned hard to attack it and to kneecap our voices and our votes at every opportunity they get.

Now, to be clear, I am equally as passionate about ensuring that the redistricting reform qualifies for this years ballot and that it passes clearing the path for actually fair maps drawn without politicians, Democratic or Republican, tipping the scales in their favor rather than in favor of the people theyre sworn to represent.

But the reality is that redistricting reform will only take us so far; it alone is not enough to shift long-term power in this state. After all, what good are fair maps if all eligible Ohioans cant reach the ballot box to vote under them? Ohio needs both redistricting reform and a massive overhaul to our voting rights and election system in this state to really move the needle. We need the ability to both dictate our political futures under maps that reflect our communities and also to harness the full power of our votes to steer our state forward.

In 2023, Ohioans overwhelmingly stood up for our democracy and for the power of the people. In 2024, were going to carry that trend forward by advancing two essential ballot measures unified by a single motto: give us the ballot.

Give us the ballot and we will elect leaders who reflect our values under maps that meet the needs of our communities. Give us the ballot and we will chart a course for our beloved Ohio that aligns with the peoples vision, not that of out-of-touch extremist politicians. Give us the ballot and put the people of my Ohio back into the drivers seat of our democracy.

For so many reasons this year, democracy is again on the ballot in Ohio. If we can manage it, these two essential reforms will qualify for the November election and Ohioans will have a direct opportunity to weigh in on the full range of our voting power. I look forward to working with incredible leaders from across the state to make that a reality.

Katy Shanahan is an attorney and activist in her home state of Ohio where she continues to fight for fair maps and expansive voting laws in the Buckeye State. As a contributor to Democracy Docket, Shanahan writes about the state of voting rights in Ohio as well as redistricting both in Ohio and across the country.

Originally posted here:
Ohio's New Motto: Give Us The Ballot - Democracy Docket

Many American liberals obsess about a possible Trump dictatorship should the former President return to the White House this fall. In Europe, the mainstream media have long been haunted by the specter of right-wing politicians like Hungarys Viktor Orbn, whom they claim are undermining democracy and the rule of law. But, at present, it is in Germany where democracy is really under threat.

This is not because of the rise of the right-wing populist party Alternative fr Deutschland (AfD), as many media commentators and politicians would have you believe. It is rather because of the undemocratic reaction of Chancellor Olaf Scholzs embattled coalition, some fake conservatives, and the corporate media, to the AfDs emergence as a powerful challenge to their left-liberal consensus. Under the leadership of Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla, the party has surged to more than 20 percent in national polls, second place and well ahead of Scholzs Social Democrats with just 15 percent. In recent weeks, the establishment has moved towards hysteria. The welcome trigger was a dubious report by a left-wing organization about the AfDs alleged plans to deport millions of migrants. They are crying for drastic measures against the partymeasures that could upend German democracy.

Some politicians and media are calling for an outright ban on the AfD, whom they present as enemies of democracy. More than one and a half million people have signed a petition to strip Bjrn Hcke, one of the AfDs more hardline regional leaders, of his basic constitutional rightslike freedom of speech, the right to teach or protest, or to vote or run for office. And there are many other ways the legacy parties try to, or really do, restrict the AfDs constitutional rights.

For example, they deny them the right to nominate a vice-president position in Parliament, as any other opposition faction can do. Furthermore, the Greens, and the leader of the center-right Christian Social Union (CSU), Markus Sder, are trying to find ways to exclude the opposition party from the state system of public financing of all parties that have attained a certain level of electoral support. This would deprive the AfD of dozens of millions of euros every year, and would significantly damage electoral fairness.

Can a country where the ruling class attempts to ban or suppress their fiercest opposition really be called a democracy? No other European country has ever banned a large opposition party, however much it may be disliked by the ruling class. Any ban on the AfD would be an affront to freedom, and a declaration of moral bankruptcy on the part of German democracy.

AfD is the second strongest party at national level. In eastern German Lnder (states) like Saxony or Thuringia, it is by far the strongest party and has the chance of winning state elections in September. This prospect petrifies the establishment, which is trying to isolate the party and keep it behind a firewall. Millions of voters are deeply disenchanted with Scholzs Ampelkoalition (traffic light coalition, so called because of the party colors of the three parties involvedthe Social Democrats, the Greens and the Free Democrats). Around 80 percent of voters say they have lost all confidence in the government, which has consequently gone into panic mode.

Uncontrolled mass immigration, the cost of living and economic recession in Germany, also due to deeply controversial energy and climate policies, not to mention the general disdain of the condescending political class, are all fueling anger. AfDs rise is part of a larger picture in Europe, with similar parties on the rise in many countries in the run up to Junes elections to the European Parliament. The European Council on Foreign Relations, a liberal think-tank, last week published a forecast warning that right-wing and Eurosceptic parties (anti-European populists) could become the largest or dominant party in 18 of 27 of the blocs member states. In France, Marine Le Pens Rassemblement National is leading the polls, in Italy the right-wing Fratelli dItalia, in the Netherlands Geert Wilders, and in Austria the Freedom Party, to name just a fewall of them promising to end the influx of illegal aliens and proposing much tougher policies on immigration and crime.

The Ampelkoalitions utter incompetence has propelled the Christian Democrats (CDU) and their Bavarian sister party, the CSU, to a combined 30 percent in polls, but many voterstraditional conservatives, as well as blue collar workerswho still remember the CDU Chancellor Angela Merkels disastrous immigration policies, have steered increasingly towards the populist alternative. Although it was established only in 2013, the AfD has become the real rallying point of right-wing opposition. Even official accusations of extremism by the domestic spy agency Verfassungsschutz (Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution) have not dented the AfDs electoral support. People often ignore those warnings, because they understand that the agency has been politicized by the ruling parties and is used as a weapon to attack opposition groups they dislike. Meanwhile, the AfDs membership has climbed by more than a third to over 40,000, and is still growing fast.

In the last two weeks, however, the establishment has almost lost its mind completely, following the report by a left-wing investigative and activist organization named Correctiv, which spied on a private meeting that took place at Potsdam, near Berlin, in November. Among the 20 or so attendees were a handful of mid-ranking AfD functionaries, a couple of CDU members, and some wealthy entrepreneurs. At this small private conference, which Correctiv hysterically dubbed a secret meeting, a political activist from Vienna presented his ideas for a remigration plan to move migrants who have no legal right to stay in Germany or who have committed severe crimes back to their home countries. Correctivs journalist-activists, sensing the potential for a report that would make their names, cunningly likened this master plan to a notorious Nazi scheme.

Ludicrously, and tastelessly, this little meeting with its vague talk about repatriation of illegal foreigners was dubbed Wannsee Conference 2.0 (the Wannsee Lake, where Nazi officials agreed on the final solution to murder the Jews in January 1942, is a half-hour drive away). This grotesque and unhistorical equation of a small private talk among people without any real power with the 1942 event arguably downplays the monstrous crimes of the Holocaustbut it worked wonders, creating a perfect scandal for the system. (This weekend, the Correctiv deputy did declare on public TV that they have in fact never used the word deportation and this was an interpretationbut the perfect storm is underway anyway.)

The left is gleefully exploiting the affair with lies and distortions about the Potsdam gathering which mainstream media, spearheaded by the public broadcasting corporations, are happy to parrot. The last two weekends, the SPD, the Greens, die Linke (the Left, the successor party of East Germanys Socialist Unity Party), and mass organizations like trade unions, liberal churches, the Council of Muslims, migrant associations, and Antifa groups have called for public demonstrations.

Almost a million people obediently took to the streets to protest against the right. (In Germany, the right is lazily used as a synonym for right-wing extremism). Not all the marchers were peaceful or liberal; in Aachen, some protesters flew a banner reading Kill AfD. Ignoring such banners, President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, a Social Democrat, thanked the demonstrators and praised their courage. Scholz rejoiced that we are morethat in Germany democrats are more numerous than anti-democrats, which in the circumstances is an ironic reversal of reality.

It is hard to tell where these debates will lead. The political climate is extremely heated. Robust debates are always welcome, and the AfD is no stranger to polemics. Yet even contemplating the idea of suppressing a party with several million voters is fundamentally anti-democratic. This is why my newspaper, Junge Freiheit, has launched a petition against a ban, which so far 120,000 people have signed. Leading Social Democrats, like party leader Saskia Esken, want to start the process by submitting a request to the Constitutional Court, but cooler headseven within the SPDsuspect the move might backfire, just as the lawfare against Trump seems to be only increasing his support.

Vera Lengsfeld, a former dissident in the communist German Democratic Republic (GDR) who fought against political oppression before 1989 and later became a respected CDU Member of Parliament, has spoken passionately about how Germany is turning into a soft-totalitarian state where the ruling class tries to control and suppress dissent. In the GDR, she points out, there were also mass demonstrations organized by the government to solidify support for the regime, and stir up passions against supposed enemies of the state. An internal spy-organization infiltrated and denounced dissident groups. She writes, The state of affairs, which became clear during the demonstrations against the Right, are fatally reminiscent of the GDR. It is hard to disagree.

For now, in Germany as much as the United States, many establishment figures have a dream to rid the country of those opposition groups who threaten their positions and ideologies by turning them into moral pariahs. One can only hope that their undemocratic dreams fail.

See the original post:
Inside the German War on Democracy - The American Conservative

We are the party of democracy!

Thats the asinine campaign message Democrats are using heading into the 2024 election to convince voters that Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican supporters are an existential threat to the republic. Because as everyone knows, the political party that attempts to throw its primary political opponent off the ballot and into prison; prosecutes praying pro-lifers; targets practicing Catholics; interferes in elections to its candidates benefit; and coordinates with Big Tech to silence dissent online is the standard-bearer of democracy.

For all their disingenuous rhetoric about upholding the will of the people, Democrats are actively fighting against Americans wishes especially when it comes to the integrity of U.S. elections.

Last week, the Honest Elections Project (HEP) released a report recommending 14 policies for states to implement to ensure an electoral process thats fair and accountable to the people. Democrats are actively fighting against many of the commonsense practices outlined in the analysis despite their popularity amongst the American electorate.

Take, for instance, voter ID requirements. In July, the HEP released survey data showing that a whopping 88 percent of U.S. voters back laws requiring eligible citizens to show a form of identification in order to cast their ballot. Polling by Gallup in 2022 produced similar results, with 79 percent of respondents in favor of a photo ID requirement. But that doesnt seem to matter to Democrats, whose acolytes have spent years ignoring voters wishes and engaging in dishonest lawfare to dismantle states existing voter ID requirements.

From Ohio to New Hampshire, leftist lawyers and groups have filed frivolous lawsuits aimed at gutting voter ID statutes. Many of these suits are based on unsubstantiated claims that such laws disenfranchise nonwhite voters.

While courts across the country have repeatedly determined their voter suppression arguments to be bogus, Democrats continuous use of nonwhite voters as a crutch to smear popular voter ID laws shows how little respect they have for democracy. The aforementioned HEP poll also showed the vast majority of black (82 percent) and Hispanic (83 percent) voters support such requirements in order to vote. Gallup found that 77 percent of nonwhite respondents supported photo ID laws. If Democrats truly respected the will of the American voter, as they regularly claim to do, why are they trying to undercut a policy most of them support?

But its not just voter ID requirements. Democrats are actively waging a nationwide campaign to demolish numerous policies recommended by the HEP that ensure secure elections and are supported by the majority of U.S. voters.

While most of the electorate (89 percent) believes American elections should only be for American citizens, that hasnt stopped Democrats from attempting to authorize noncitizen voting throughout the country. Last year, for example, Rhode Island Democrats introduced legislation to authorize localities to allow illegal aliens to vote in their municipal elections. Some cities, such San Francisco, New York City, andWashington, D.C, have already passed measures permitting certain noncitizen voting.

In response to left-wing nonprofits dumping hundreds of millions of Zuckbucks into local election offices during the 2020 election to benefit Joe Biden, elected officials and voters in 27 states enacted measures restricting election offices ability to accept and use private monies to administer elections. In response, several of those same Democrat-aligned groups formalized the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence as a way of circumventing these Zuckbucks bans and therefore violating the will of the people in the aforementioned states.

The same dynamic can also be seen regarding mail-in voting. Most voters (66 percent) support terminating no-excuse mail voting as long as states offer two weeks of early in-person voting, including weekends. Meanwhile, Democrats who used the Covid lockdowns as a pretext forexpandingthe use of vote-by-mail and other insecure election practices have continued to push unsupervised mail balloting across the country. Some states, such as Nevada, automatically mail individuals listed on the states voter rolls a ballot ahead of elections.

Whether its banning foreign money in elections, ensuring transparency in the elections process, or backing election audits, the story remains the same: Democrats actively oppose policies supported by voters that bring accountability and security to the U.S. elections system. Their screeds about being the party of democracy are a dishonest talking point designed to obfuscate their contradictory actions and smear their political opponents as extremists.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

Follow this link:
If Dems Love 'Democracy,' Why Do They Attack Election Laws Voters Want? - The Federalist