Archive for the ‘Eric Holder’ Category

Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, 4/26/21 – MSNBC

Summary

The Texas legislature has introduced legislation that, according to "The New York Times," would make Texas one of the hardest states in the country to cast a ballot in. Republicans want to ban 24-hour voting, in Texas, which is how many working people voted in the last election in Texas. Attorneys for the family of Andrew Brown Jr. described what happened to him as an execution when at least seven police officers approached him in his car, and shot him to death. If a company controlled 90 percent of anything in the United States, it became very likely the federal government was going to break up that company. President Biden will describe the tax increases he wants to use to pay for his $2 trillion infrastructure package, but there`s another way to pay for it, without raising any taxes. The "New York Daily News" has obtained previously unreported documents from a 2015 deposition of Donald Trump`s accountant Allen Weisselberg in a lawsuit over the now defunct Trump University.

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Rachel.

We have Beto O`Rourke tonight as our first guest to talk about those additional House seats that Texas is going to get and --

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Uh-huh.

O`DONNELL: And how they might try to -- Republicans might try to gerrymander those. And also, of course, what "The New York Times" is calling the most-restrictive voter laws in the country now, being pushed through the Texas legislature. Beto O`Rourke is fighting that. He will be joining us to discuss that.

But, Rachel, before you go. I got to tell you about a funny thing happened to me on the way to the TV show today.

MADDOW: Uh-oh.

O`DONNELL: You know how hard it is, these days, for the author of a scholarly book to get on the show like this? Because we have so much breaking news and so many difficult other things of the day we have to cover.

MADDOW: Sure, yeah.

O`DONNELL: I had a guest booked, today. To be a preview guest for the Biden address, Wednesday night.

MADDOW: Okay.

O`DONNELL: But -- but it was one of those things, and this, I`m sure, happens, I`m not sure whether your bookers even tell you this. But, you know, every once in a while, the deal will be, can you just ask one question about the book? Like, just one question about the book. Like, maybe, at the end of the interview.

And -- and I said, yeah, maybe. Thinking I probably wouldn`t. And then, I got my hands on the book, and now I just want to do the whole hour on the book. And it is -- it`s going to get an award tonight on the show. An award I am inventing tonight, which is the -- the Moynihan book award and that is the award for the most scholarly book written this year by a United States senator.

MADDOW: Nice.

O`DONNELL: And I`m giving that award in April. I don`t care because -- I`m -- I`m hiding the author`s name, Rachel, but I want to show you. It couldn`t have a more boring title.

MADDOW: Oh, I know what book that is.

O`DONNELL: Yeah. You just couldn`t have a more boring title, "Antitrust". I hesitate to even say it because it will scare off viewers. But this book is getting the award for most scholarly book by a United States senator and I cannot wait to talk about it with my mystery guest.

MADDOW: And your mystery. I know that book and I know that thesis and I know who the senator is. And that the story of why that senator has these strong feelings, and that level of scholar scholarly depth about that topic is fascinating. So --

O`DONNELL: Yeah, and Rachel, it has -- and you will love this -- 205 -- I counted them -- 205 pages of footnotes, which is a record. It is a record for footnotes in a scholarly work by a United States senator.

MADDOW: Yeah. If that Senate career does not end, in the White House, which is one very significant possibility for that senator, there is a professorship waiting for that senator, whenever that senator wants one, for sure.

Look at me. I am helping you keep a secret.

O`DONNELL: You`re doing great. Thank you, Rachel.

MADDOW: Thank you, Lawrence.

O`DONNELL: Thank you.

Well, when President Joe Biden does address the nation Wednesday night, in a joint session of Congress, he will be the first president of the United States to have two women sitting behind him. Vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris, and the speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

When the president addresses the nation on Wednesday, at the end of the 99th day of his presidency, he will have the approval of a solid majority of Americans, something, that the previous president never had. Joe Biden is running 13 points ahead of the previous president in the latest NBC poll that shows Joe Biden`s approval rating 13 points higher than the previous president`s approval rating, at this exact point four years ago.

The trouble for Republicans is that the most popular person in their party is the person who lost the presidential election to Joe Biden. And that means Republicans, now, believe they simply cannot win. Republicans believe they cannot win presidential elections, if those elections are held fairly. And so, instead of trying to counter Joe Biden`s popular policies with their own policies, Republicans are now lying about Biden policies.

For example, Republicans are now claiming that Joe Biden wants to ban the consumption of meat, which is a complete-and-total lie. Republicans find it easier to tell that lie, instead of arguing against policies. Like, say, the increase in the corporate-tax rate that Joe Biden will describe Wednesday night, as part of his infrastructure package, which now has the support of 68 percent of Americans.

CNBC reports the stock market is performing the best it has during the first-hundred days of a presidency, going back to at least the 1950s, and the Dwight Eisenhower administration.

But you don`t hear Joe Biden mentioning that stock market stuff the way the previous president would because the previous president was actually our only president, who firmly believed that the stock market was an accurate measure of good government. Republicans no longer believe that they can win elections by turning out voters. And so, now, they are attempting to turn away voters.

Texas is one of the winner states in the census data released today that shows Texas will gain two more members of the House of Representatives to represent the state`s 29 million people, second only to California`s 39 million people. The Republican legislature and the Republican governor in Texas will do anything they can to gerrymander congressional districts so that the two new congressional seats will go to Republicans.

But gerrymandering is no longer enough for Republicans to win elections. And so, the Texas legislature has introduced legislation that, according to "The New York Times," quote, would make Texas one of the hardest states in the country to cast a ballot in. Republicans want to ban 24-hour voting, in Texas, which is how many working people voted in the last election, in Texas. The state`s biggest county used 24-hour voting for a single day, just a single day, on the Thursday before the election.

"The New York Times" described some of the middle-of-the-night voters as fast-food workers, nurses, construction workers, night owls, and other- late-shift workers. Texas Republicans do not want those people to vote, again, because they might vote for Democrats. Some of the restrictions on Texas voting proposed by the legislature would apply only in counties with populations of more than 1 million. That means, of course, the big cities of Texas, the places, where Democrats live.

Texas-based companies, such as American Airlines and Dell Technologies say they are opposed to restrictions on the right to vote, like banning drive- there you drive-through voting, which was used by 127,000 voters in the state`s biggest county.

Texas is the biggest state where the legislature is trying to restrict the right to vote. There is no more forceful opponent of restricting the right to vote in Texas than our first guest tonight.

Leading off our discussion tonight, Beto O`Rourke, former Democratic congressman representing El Paso, Texas. He is the founder of Powered by People, on organization helping elect Democrats in Texas.

Beto O`Rourke, thank you very much for joining us this night. This night became even more important than we thought when Texas today picked up what will be two additional congressional seats starting in the next election.

What do you think that`s going to mean for Texas? And what will the Texas - - the Republican Texas legislature do to try to ensure that those are Republican seats?

BETO O`ROURKE (D-TX), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: It makes the fight to secure voting rights. The ability for any eligible Texan to cast their ballot that much more important because, Lawrence, I`m convinced, with 40 Electoral College votes, Texas now clearly becomes the biggest-swing state in the country. And could, very well, decide the next-presidential election, or perhaps, the next ten presidential elections.

And it`s population growth that has produced these new -- two new congressional seats has been brought about by the young, by the people of color. And by those who have chosen to come to this state. It`s -- it`s the future, knocking on the door of this country. And Republicans in Texas are trying to bar the door shut, before these folks can get in and cast a ballot.

Nearly 7 million Texans in 2020 did not vote because this is the most voter-suppressed state in the union, 750 polling place closures, the racial gerrymandering that you talked about at the top of the show, the most onerous voter ID laws in the country. And now, these proposals that would make it even harder.

O`DONNELL: Let`s listen to what former Attorney General Eric Holder said about these two new congressional seats, today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC HOLDER, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: Going to get additional seats it`s largely because an increase in the Hispanic population, African-American population, suburban population, young people. And yet -- and yet, I suspect they are going to try to draw the lines there. They will draw them to minimize the acquisition of power by -- by those groups.

And so, you know, that -- those additional seats that Texas is going to get, I suspect, will be, you know, they`ll attempt to gerrymander them, which means we`re probably going to end up -- end up in court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Beto O`Rourke, the legislature is completely run by Republicans. You have a Republican governor. So they will -- the only thing they will have to be concerned about, as they try to draw these lines for congressional districts, is how, as Eric -- Eric Holder just put it, how they might end up in court.

O`ROURKE: That`s right. And -- and really, our best hope right now is in United States Senate with the For the People Act. I know, there`s been a lot talk about Senator Manchin`s position on the filibuster and the need to reform that, in order to be able to pass democracy bills like this one.

But -- but really, the future, the fate, the fortune of this country, rests on states like Texas. And not for the Democratic Party, but literally, for democracy. One person, one vote.

If -- if we believe that`s important, we need federal protections, federal safeguards to ensure that we can do that. Absent that, it`s going to be left to Texas. To the Texas voters to -- to do what they can. And -- and they`ve done some pretty impressive things in the past.

Despite these racially gerrymandered district that you have from the 2010 and 2011 redistricting, you had Colin Allred and Lizzie Pannill Fletcher both win important long shot victories in 2018. We can do it again in 2022 and going forward.

But if we really believe in democracy, if we really believe everyone should have a seat at the table, and every vote should be counted, then we have got to stop these voter-suppression efforts in Texas. And we`ve got to pass voter protection reform in Washington, D.C. It`s as simple as that.

The good news is these voter-suppression bills in Texas have not yet passed. They`ve not, yet, been signed into law. As you mentioned, Dell, American Airlines, faith groups, civic organizations, and everyday voters are stepping up and standing out, and speaking up to make sure that we stop this while we still have time.

O`DONNELL: Are Texas Republicans in the legislature listening to those corporate entities in Texas that are -- that are opposing this? It seems as though they have just decided that they`re -- their politics is taking them in a different direction, and they will no longer pay attention to these corporate interests.

O`ROURKE: It`s interesting. They are listening to them but I don`t know if they`re getting the right message. The chairman of the statehouse committee that oversees elections, a guy named Briscoe Cain, who`s just outside of Houston, he was, by the way, after the election in Pennsylvania trying to overturn the presidential election. He is now in charge of the election law reform effort in Texas if that gives you any indication.

He just proposed legislation that would punish these companies that speak out trying to not help Democrats or Republicans but help Texans ensure that they can vote. So, that`s the way that they`re responding to this. I think that`s a good sign. It -- it shows that they`re concerned, that they`re anxious, this they`re defensive. They know they are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of this fight. Now, we just have to win it.

O`DONNELL: How do you -- I mean, you are -- one of your -- one of your roles here, from my distance, is cheerleader. You are in charge of keeping spirits up, and keeping the smile going. As the -- as the -- the -- the struggle gets -- seems to be getting more and more difficult.

O`ROURKE: Well, there`s a lot to be optimistic about. You know, when we went to the state capitol to testify against SB-7, HB-6, there are hundreds of other Texans who have driven from all over the state. And as you know, it`s 254 counties, two time zones. There is a lot of miles, lot of hours to get to the capitol, in the midst of a pandemic, which we`re not through yet.

And yet, people were willing to come out and stand up for democracy. They`d wait 14, 15, 16 hours to get their two minutes to testify. All these great groups like the Texas civil rights project, move, the Texas Democratic party is doing a lot of great work. So, I see a response that meets the moment. And that, I think, is going to be more than a match for these voter suppression efforts in Texas.

And the thing is, Lawrence, if we don`t have hope and if we don`t move and if we don`t take action, then we definitely are going to lose. And the best antidote to despair is action and I want to just make sure we continue to do that here in Texas.

O`DONNELL: There does seem to be a reverse effect phenomenon in this voter suppression field because we see these attempts at voter suppression. That seems to provoke a certain kind of voter turnout, on its own. I mean, that -- that just may be a mirage. But as we watch it, they did everything they could. They were trying in Georgia.

And -- and yet, Georgia got this remarkable turnout in the face of these attempts to suppress it.

O`ROURKE: It`s interesting. We -- we have spent, in our group powered by people, the last couple of months registering voters in the lowest voter turnout counties in Texas. So Webb County, where Laredo is, 50 percent of registered voters. So, El Paso, where I am now, 56 percent of registered voters turned out in 2020.

We are knocking on the doors of unregistered future voters and they are telling us that they want to get registered with our volunteers because of what is happening in the state capitol right now. In the words of one woman, they wouldn`t be trying this hard to take away our vote, if our vote wasn`t this important. So yes, sign me up.

So, I agree with you. I think there is a going to be a response from the Texas voters. They are smart enough to know what`s going on. They realize they hold the future of this country in their hands. They will decide the outcome, not only of Texas-based elections but Texas-based elections, like the next presidential, that will determine who our next president will be. And I think you are going to see Texans show up, in record numbers.

O`DONNELL: Beto O`Rourke, thank you very much for starting off our discussion tonight, we really appreciate it.

O`ROURKE: Thank you.

O`DONNELL: Thanks.

And coming up. Another case of police use of deadly force in North Carolina left lawyers calling that incident, today, an execution after they saw some of the police body-cam video. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: An execution. That`s what attorneys for the family of Andrew Brown described what happened to him, when at least seven police officers approached him in his car, and shot him to death.

Today, members of Andrew Brown`s family and one of the lawyers, local attorney Chantel Lassiter, were allowed to see only-20 seconds of just one of the police bodycam videos.

Here`s what the lawyers for Andrew Brown`s family said after seeing that video.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEN CRUMP, BROWN FAMILY ATTORNEY: We only saw a snippet of the video. When we know that the video started before and after what they showed the family. And they determined what was pertinent.

BAKARI SELLERS, BROWN FAMILY ATTORNEY: One body cam, 20 seconds. An execution.

CHANTEL CHERRY-LASSITER, BROWN FAMILY ATTORNEY: This was an execution. Andrew Brown was in his driveway. The sheriff truck blocked him in his driveway, so he could not exit his driveway.

Andrew had his hands on his steering wheel. He was not reaching for anything. He wasn`t touching anything. He wasn`t throwing anything around.

He had his hands, firmly, on the steering wheel. They run up to his vehicle, shooting.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yep, sure did.

LASSITER: He still stood there, set there, in his vehicle with his hands on the steering wheel, while being shot at.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Joining us now, Kirk Burkhalter, criminal law professor at New York Law School where he is the director of the 21st Century Policing Project. He is a former-NYPD detective.

Professor Burkhalter, we -- we know very little other than what we heard described about that 20 seconds of video. The video has not, yet, been released. There is going to be a court hearing about releasing that, and possibly more video. Based on what we know, so far, what`s your reaction to the evidence as we know it, at this point?

KIRK BURKHALTER, NYU SCHOOL OF LAW CRIMINAL LAW PROFESSOR: Well, Lawrence, my reaction is we actually do not know much. And that is the problem.

The family was shown this 20-second video. We know, the suspect/victim was unarmed. And we`re not sure how many shots were fired, how many police officers were on the scene. We`re not even sure how much video footage was captured.

And this is a tremendous problem, in this era where police have lost the benefit of the doubt. You would think that police officers -- I`m sorry, police departments would err on the side of transparency. And that doesn`t seem to be the case, here.

So, this leaves the door open for speculation from the public. That`s not a good thing, in this day and age. So, unfortunately, we know very little, except that this man was unarmed. And when a person is shot by the police, and particularly a person of color, and they are unarmed in this day and age, the public does deserve some form of information, far beyond we have to wait to complete the investigation.

O`DONNELL: But if these accounts are accurate, that his hands were on the steering wheel the entire time that he`s being fired at. And -- and they also did say that, at the very beginning of the video, there was already an empty shell casing that was visible. So that this video actually is a shooting-by-police, in progress.

So far, there is no evidence that we are seeing in this, so far, that in any way justifies the shooting.

BURKHALTER: Well, that`s correct, Lawrence. Based on what we have heard from the police department, what we have heard from the family. What we have not heard, one allegation that in any way, shape, or form, that this man was attempting to use deadly-physical force against the police officers.

Once again, we don`t know. In most instances, if a gun was found, if someone fired shots at the police, if someone aimed a gun at the police, we would hear it. But we do not hear that here.

In addition to the officers that were placed on administrative leave, we have, I think, it`s a total of three officers that left the department immediately. Two resigned and one retired and that`s a very poor sign as to what is going on here.

I think that this was handled -- it`s been ill handled and this is a textbook example of where, perhaps, an independent investigative body needs to step in and take charge of this investigation. The public does not have much faith in what will come out of this investigation, if handled by the local authorities.

O`DONNELL: Let`s take a look back at one of the expert witnesses in the Chauvin trial. That we analyzed, as it was under way. Last week, 400 doctors signed a letter calling for a review of every one who died in police custody, in Maryland, during Dr. David Fowler`s 17 years as Maryland`s chief-medical examiner. After Dr. Fowler delivered testimony in Derek Chauvin`s defense, that was contradicted by every-other medical expert in the case.

The letter from 400 doctors said, quote, Dr. Fowler`s stated opinion that George Floyd`s death during active-police restraint should be certified with an undetermined manner is outside the standard practice and conventions for investigating and certification of in-custody deaths. This stated opinion raises significant concerns for his previous practice and management. If forensic pathologists can offer such baseless opinions, without penalty, then the entire criminal-justice system is at risk. And on Friday, Maryland`s attorney general began investigating deaths in police custody during Dr. Fowler`s tenure as medical examiner.

Joining us now is Phillip Jackson, criminal justice reporter for "The Baltimore Sun" covering this story.

Phillip Jackson, what else can you tell us about the attorney general`s review of these cases?

PHILLIP JACKSON, CRIMINAL JUSTICE REPORTER, BALTIMORE SUN: Well, what we can tell you right now is that this is in the preliminary stages. But mostly, with Dr. David Fowler, it`s the families that have been affected. Which they have expressed a lot of concern about a lot of his rulings and the reason why the attorney general`s looking at that 17-year tenure is because there is a lot of cases, specifically the case of Anton Black, a 19-year-old, black teenager, who died while in police custody on Maryland`s eastern shore.

Continued here:
Transcript: The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, 4/26/21 - MSNBC

Redistricting kicks off ruthless year of House infighting – POLITICO

Even without the available data, both parties are quietly anxious about the fate of some members in the yet-to-be-drawn new maps.

In Georgia, Democrats are already bracing for the prospect that they will be left with only one winnable seat in the suburbs north of Atlanta, where Reps. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.) and Carolyn Bourdeaux (D-Ga.) live. Republicans have trifecta control in Georgia and could create a deep blue seat based in Gwinnett County, leaving the other seat skewed heavily Republican.

In Illinois, GOP Rep. Rodney Davis could be left without a friendly district if Democrats unite Springfield with the bluer parts of Republican Rep. Mike Bost's district to the South. Meanwhile, Bost could be jostling with freshman Republican Rep. Mary Miller for congressional survival.

Still, the intra-congressional fighting for seats might not be as bad as many expected.

Alabama Republicans and the entire Minnesota delegation got a break when their states held steady at seven and eight seats, respectively. Some of Minnesotas eight incumbents were already preparing for member-versus-member fights. Instead, Democratic Reps. Dean Phillips and Angie Craig can now each have a seat in the Twin Cities suburbs, and Republican Reps. Michelle Fischbach, Tom Emmer and Pete Stauber won't have to play musical chairs to the north, west and south.

I wouldn't want to run against one of my colleagues like Angie, but I would love to run against Tom Emmer, Phillips joked in an interview.

The Democratic and Republican congressional campaign arms typically each appoint a designated redistricting chairman, who has the unenviable job of making sure delegations keep open lines of conversation among themselves as maps are drawn.

Republicans tapped Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) for the job, but Democrats are relying heavily an outside group, the Eric Holder-led National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

The redistricting process will be foreign to most of the current Congress. Of the 435 members, roughly 160 were in the House ten years ago. But as political survival instincts kick in, they'll learn how quickly old friendships sour.

If 2011 is any indication, Congress is about to turn into a soap opera.

It was spring of that year when former Democratic Rep. Russ Carnahan lashed out at fellow Missouri Democratic Reps. Lacy Clay and Emmanuel Cleaver, who declined to oppose a GOP-led redistricting plan that placed Carnahan in the same district as Clay. F--- you. Thanks for your help, he reportedly told Cleaver on the House floor.

In Pennsylvania, former Democratic Rep. Jason Altmire recalled taking then-candidate Mark Critz around his hometown and holding D.C. fundraisers for him when Critz ran in a 2010 special election. Two years later, they were running against each other and Critz tried to get Altmire booted off the ballot.

"You see each other in the hall in the Capitol, and you're sitting there on the floor and different conversations get overheard," Altmire said. "And just it's a very difficult work environment to be able to keep those friendships."

Perhaps the most notable redistricting spat came in the Los Angeles area between Sherman and Berman, two veteran Democrats. Sherman, who trounced Berman by 20 points, said they both tried to convince the other to run in a brand-new seat with no incumbent in Ventura County but neither had deep roots there.

In the heat of the campaign, a uniformed security guard stepped between them at a debate after Berman suggested Sherman was delusional."

"We're both very, very polite people, with the possible exception of one minute," Sherman recollected.

See the rest here:
Redistricting kicks off ruthless year of House infighting - POLITICO

Parties Set for Election Law Clash as Senate Bill Heads to Floor – Bloomberg Government

Democrats in Congress and Republicans in many statehouses are on a collision course over elections laws, with both sides racing to get their preferred rules in place before the 2022 elections.

The Senate is set to kick off consideration of a Democratic-backed election bill (S. 1) with a hearing next week, coinciding with a $30 million advertising and mobilization campaign to push for passage of the measure. A House-passed version (H.R. 1) would outlaw restrictions on voting by mail and partisan gerrymandering, among scores of other provisions that also would change campaign finance and ethics rules.

At the same time, Republicans are teeing up bills in state legislatures they control that would tighten voting restrictions, such as by limiting options for mail-in ballots and early voting for many voters. Theyre also getting set for a new round of redistricting likely to favor GOP lawmakers, especially in southern states set to gain House seats.

Which side prevails could determine how elections are conducted and who wins for years to come, both parties say.

By designating the legislation as S.1, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday, Senate Democrats made clear we are committed to standing up to the voter suppression efforts that are threatening the core tenets of our democracy, to ending dark money in politics, and to ensuring public officials work for those they represent and not the special interests.

Schumer has indicated hes considering changing Senate rules to overcome a certain Republican filibuster to get it passed. Failure is not an option, he said.

Photo by Samuel Corum/Bloomberg

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks during a news conference Wednesday.

The Senate Rules and Administration Committee will hold a hearing on the bill March 24 and schedule a markup to advance it to the floor soon after, Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said in a statement Wednesday.

She said Congress has clear power under the Constitution to set rules for federal elections and override state rule changes. And in announcing the bill, Klobuchar called it essential to protecting every Americans right to vote.

The bill faces long odds in the Senate, where Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) promised Tuesday a scorched-earth response if they try to change filibuster rules to pass the election bill and other liberal measures on a party-line vote. Democrats and Republicans are divided 50-50 in the Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris holding the deciding vote to give Democrats the majority.

McConnell, the Senates strongest opponent of changes in federal election and campaign finance laws, said earlier this year that the Democratic bill the House recently passed was an effort to grab unprecedented power over how America conducts its elections and how American citizens can engage in political speech.

But Republicans also are facing a backlash over their election proposals in states including Georgia, where legislation that would roll back voting by mail and early voting are seen by critics as aimed at restricting minority voting.

Rather than change their message, theyre busy trying to change the rules, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) said of Republican legislators on Wednesday in his first floor speech since being elected in January.

Tying that effort to his election as the states first Black senator, he said, We are witnessing right now a massive and unabashed assault on voting rights unlike anything weve ever seen since the Jim Crow era.

Republican lawmakers say theyre reacting to widespread concerns about election integrity. The Republican State Leadership Committee launched a commission last month for state leaders to share ideas on overhauling voting laws.

Restoring confidence in our nations elections wont happen overnight, but the RSLCs Commission on Election Integrity has served as a fantastic hub of ideas for beginning the process, RSLC President Dee Duncan said in a statement.

Recent GOP polling has shown a steep dropoff in Republican election confidence after Donald Trumps claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

A poll sponsored by the conservative nonprofit R. Street found less than a quarter of Republicans believed the presidential election results were valid, even though about half GOP voters took advantage of mail-in ballots or early voting and nearly 90% said they were personally satisfied with the process they used to cast ballots.

Supporters of the Democratic election bill say their polling shows support for the voting rights and anti-corruption measures it contains. The campaign to pass the bill is being supported by the National Democratic Redistricting Council, whose chair is former Attorney General Eric Holder, along with liberal groups that have long supported revamping election and campaign finance laws.

Digital ads are already running. TV ads will start next week as Senate hearings on the bill get under way, with messages aimed at supporting Democrats who back it and at persuading Republicans. The first round of ads is set to target Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Maine, and Pennsylvania.

Democrats have used reform messages successfully to elect candidates in recent elections, according to Tiffany Muller, head of the nonprofit End Citizens United/Let America Vote, which is spearheading the latest ad effort. But this effort is aimed at getting a bill passed, not election messaging, she insisted.

Theres a new urgency to getting that done as we see voting rights attacked across the country, Muller said on a call with reporters Wednesday. If Republicans are allowed to set the rules for the 2022 elections it makes the ability to just have the same debate in 2023 much more difficult, she said. And theres no doubt thats what Republicans are counting on.

Theres no similar ad campaign among opponents of the election bill, David Keating, president of the nonprofit Institute for Free Speech, said in an email, but he pointed to widespread opposition from Republican officials, conservative organizations, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kenneth P. Doyle in Washington at kdoyle@bgov.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Kyle Trygstad at ktrygstad@bgov.com; Bennett Roth at broth@bgov.com

Continued here:
Parties Set for Election Law Clash as Senate Bill Heads to Floor - Bloomberg Government

Hear from Uber, Facebook and Netflix about diversity, equity and inclusion at TC Sessions: Justice – TechCrunch

Tech companies are no stranger to controversy and workplace issues. Over the years, its become clear that no company is immune from diversity issues. But its the job of those in the diversity, equity and inclusion departments to create and foster environments that are welcoming to all.

Last year, in the wake of the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and others, many companies spoke out in support of Black lives and the Black Lives Matter movement. At TechCrunch Sessions: Justice, well examine what some companies said at the time and how those statements align with where they are today.

Well also dive in to the myth of the pipeline problem, as well as the idea of imposter syndrome and how companies can help to shift the onus from the person experiencing feelings of doubt to the systems and cultures that perpetuate biases, sexism and racism. Well also, of course, talk about each companys DEI efforts over the years, where progress has been made and where theres still room for improvement.

To have this conversation, weve called on three DEI leaders from Uber, Facebook and Netflix to share their experiences, struggles and wins leading the charge for genuine inclusivity in tech.

Heres a bit about the three of them:

Bo Young Lee, Uber Chief Diversity Officer

Image Credits: Photo by Kimberly White/Getty Images for TechCrunch / Getty Images

Lee became Ubers first-ever chief diversity officer in early 2018. Lee joined about one year after former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and his law firm recommended Uber have a chief diversity officer. Holder and his firm were tapped in the aftermath of former Uber engineer Susan Fowlers allegations of sexual harassment at the company.

At TC Sessions: Justice, Ill chat with Lee about where Uber is today, as well as how it is doing in its mission to double Black representation in leadership by 2025.

Sandra Altine, VP of Workforce Diversity and Inclusion

(Photo courtesy of Facebook)

Altine joined Facebook last April after previously serving as the managing director of global diversity and inclusion for investor service Moodys.

Last year, Facebook committed to having 50% of its workforce be members of underrepresented groups, which includes BIPOC, women, disabled people and veterans. Over the next five years, Facebook also said its committed to increasing its Black employee base by 30%; currently 3.8% of its U.S.-based employees are Black.

Wade Davis, VP of Inclusion Strategy for Product

Photo courtesy of Netflix

Davis, who joined Netflix in this role in September 2019, works directly with product leaders at the company to implement inclusive policies and practices into the workplaces. He also works alongside other VPs at Netflix to improve upon diversity and inclusion within the workforce. Prior to joining Netflix, Davis consulted for Google, P&G and others.

Netflix released its first-ever diversity report just this year. Netflix had previously disclosed its data but had yet to make a full report out of it. Netflix did not lay out any concrete goals, but said its generally wanting to increase representation by hiring more inclusively and building out its recruiting networks.

Be sure to snag your tickets to TC Sessions: Justice here for just $5 here.

Read the rest here:
Hear from Uber, Facebook and Netflix about diversity, equity and inclusion at TC Sessions: Justice - TechCrunch

OP ED: Collins, Nossel part of problem, not solution The Bowdoin Orient – The Bowdoin Orient

Kyra Tan

Two weeks ago, President Rose announced a series of speakers who will each discuss an aspect of American democracy in light of the January 6 Capitol insurrection. While the series is laudable, Bowdoin has invited two figures who offer right-of-center opinions or votes that most Bowdoin students should consider problematic. In particular, the College has invited senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), but no corresponding Democratic-leaning politician (senator Angus King (I-Maine), again?) to discuss these recent events. In addition, the series next speaker, Suzanne Nossel, is a staunch opponent of what is often called cancel culture and has misconstrued the intentions and actions of its proponents, who are simply holding individuals responsible for their words, opinions and actions. The College has brought in some fantastic speakers this year, particularly Senator King, Eric Holder and DeRay McKesson 07, but I am disappointed by the invitation of these specific individuals for this series.

Collins, who said we need to get to know people who arent just like us and called for hearing opposing ideas at a 2016 talk at Bowdoin, has herself been avoiding voters who disagree with her, as she has not held a town hall in over 20 years. Collins, despite being the Republican senator who broke with Trump most often, has received significant criticism for her votes on federal justices and the Trump tax cuts and exhibits a level of hypocrisy that exemplifies the poor state of our political system, the subject of her talk.

Collins called the FBI investigation on the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh very thorough, despite the failure to interview key witnesses and indications that the White House prevented a further investigation of perjury by Kavanaugh. She refused to support impeachment after President Trump asked for a Ukranian investigation of the Bidens and opposes the use of reconciliation for a new stimulus package despite voting for the Bush tax cuts, passed through reconciliation, after the Bush administration fired the Senate parliamentarian for his rulings on reconciliation. Still, as long as the often-evasive Collins is willing to take questions from students, this talk is a fantastic opportunity to hold her accountable for her past votes and statements, even if that is not Bowdoins intended purpose.

Nossel, meanwhile, is a Federalist Society (best known as a breeding ground for conservative justices) contributor who has criticized what she labels as cancel culture in op-eds and her recent book, Dare to Speak: Defining Free Speech for All. Nossel claims that cancel culture causes individuals to fear anything they say can and will be used against them by the places they depend on for education, employment and political representation. Nossel admits there are times when content is too vitriolic, bigoted, deceitful or misleading to be shared online, but seems to misunderstand, or willfully ignore, the part of cancel culture in which individuals face consequences for actions or speech that may be discriminatory or downright hurtful to certain groups of people.

The idea that individuals should not face consequences for their speech or opinions is laughably absurd. Newspapers, like the Bowdoin Orient itself, have the right to hire and fire journalists and columnists as they see fit and to publish other submissions in the same manner. In her 2020 resignation letter to the New York Times, former op-ed staff editor Bari Weiss described constant bullying by colleagues who pushed for her removal, but has since appeared on The View, published an op-ed on fighting back against woke culture in the New York Post, one of the most-read papers in the country, and operates a Substack titled common sense. Weiss, for all her talk about this New McCarthyism, is doing just fine.

There is also the question of community association in addition to perceived restrictions on speech. Workplaces and campus communities, as two examples, are ultimately collectives of individuals who make their own decisions about who they want to engage with. Interviewers consider the cultural fit of job applicants, so surely employers should care about the impact of a persons beliefs on their colleagues and customers. These groups are not some oppressive power about to crush vocal dissidents, but communities that care about the wellbeing of their members. Individuals who refuse to respect and validate their peers and colleagues, and who refuse to learn from those experiences, are capable of creating much more damage than any benefits from diversity of thought. Nobody should be cancelled for anything less extreme, but to suggest that we must engage with hostile and malicious people is just as constraining as any perceived censorship. I look forward to Collins and Nossels talks, but they are part of the problem, not the solution.

Michael Borecki is a member of the Class of 2021.

Original post:
OP ED: Collins, Nossel part of problem, not solution The Bowdoin Orient - The Bowdoin Orient