Who Votes Against The Voting Rights Act? Racists And Only Racists

On Friday, the House passed another crucial piece of legislation, H.R.4-- the Voting Rights Advancement Act-- 4 that MoscowMitch intends to bury in his fetid Senate crypt. In the end, every Democrat (+ one Republican, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania) voted for it and every Republican but Fitzpatrick voted against it.) The bill is meant to restore and modernize the Voting Rights Act to guarantee local bigots can't prevent groups from exercising their right to vote, creating a new coverage formula that hinges on a finding of repeated voting rights violations in the preceding 25 years. Pramila Jayapal was up on the floor of the House before the vote yesterday, telling her colleagues that "When Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it was a recognition that systemic discrimination based on race continued to deny people the right to vote. As an organizer, I understand the VRA as a victory hard fought by Black activists like Fannie Lou Hamer, Ella Baker, and of course our esteemed colleague, Representative John Lewis, who devoted their lives to fighting for the right to vote; by a movement that recognized that this right to vote is absolutely fundamental to our concept of and our actualization of democracy. But unfortunately, we have not followed with the same courage. Instead, since 2013, states have enacted laws that are suppressing voting rights across the country. And today, half the country faces stricter voting rights as a result. If we want a true democracy, we must protect the right to vote for all. This is bill is critical to getting there."

Before it passed, however, the Republicans tried pulling a little fast one to kill it with a motion to recommit. That failed, but by only 15 votes. Why so close? Can you say "Blue Dogs and their fellow travelers are racists?" 11 conservative Democrats crossed the aisle and voted with the KKK to kill H.R. 4. And here they are, hoping no one noticed when their hoods slipped off:

• Cindy Axne (New Dem-IA)
• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Abby Finkenauer (IA)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Ben McAdams (Blue Dog-UT)
• Elisa Slotkin (New Dem-MI)
• Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA)
• Xochitl Torres Small (Blue Dog-NM)
• Jefferson Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)

After passage, Derrick Johnson, President and CEO of the NAACP remarked that "This crucial piece of legislation modernizes the Voting Rights Act, protecting voters from the types of voting changes most likely to discriminate against people of color. Passage of this bill in the House today is an important first step to ensuring equal participation for all in our democracy. We call upon the Senate to immediately take up this legislation. The NAACP will keep fighting until this bill is signed into law."

Liam O'Mara is the progressive Democrat taking on corrupt Riverside County Trumpist, Ken Calvert, a notorious racist who voted against the Voting Rights Act yesterday "Let's not mince words," said O'Mara, "The Republicans just voted to back voter-suppression on the basis of race and class. They will call it a principled defence of states rights, and conveniently leave out that the right they're defending is to systemic racism and classism. Courts have repeatedly shown that GOP gerrymandering is done with partisan and racist intent, but since a Republican-dominated SCOTUS thinks that's a-okay, it falls to Congress to defend the very foundation of democracy: the franchise. It seems our incumbent, and all but one Republican House member, think that it's perfectly okay for states flagrantly to deny voting rights to lawful citizens. The House bill impacts only states with many proven instances of voting-rights violations, but as that's a problem almost unique to red states, we know where the GOP's priorities lie. Big hint: it's not defending the Constitution or the rights of the people."

Kathy Ellis and Kara Eastman are both progressives running for Congress Republican-held districts-- and both of their opponents, respectively Jason Smith (R-MO) and Donald Bacon (R-NE), voted against the Voting Rights Act. After the vote yesterday Ellis told us that "The right to vote is the most fundamental right of our Democracy. All Americans, regardless of Party, should do whatever they can to protect this right. Representative Smith should be ashamed of himself. It’s clear that it’s time for new leadership in Missouri’s 8th." Eastman was also disturbed that Bacon voted against H.R.4. "The fact is," she told us, "Republicans like Don Bacon benefit when fewer people vote. HR 4 would turn the tide back to a full and fair democracy, so it’s no surprise he voted no."

Ron DeSantis, Like Many Republican Officials, Doesn't Seem To Understand What Democracy Means

The Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (Amendment 4 to the Florida constitution) passed overwhelmingly on November 6, 2018, 5,148,926 (64.55%) to 2,828,339 (35.45%). The amendment was sponsored by a wide coalition including the ACLU, the Christian Coalition and the Koch Brothers' Freedom Partners. It was generally supported by Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans. Far right and extremist Republicans like Ron DeSantis opposed it. DeSantis, an anti-democracy Trumpist was on the ballot the same day. DeSantis had a close call that day, somehow narrowly triumphing over Democrat Andrew Gillum, 4,076,186 (49.6%) to 4,043,723 (49.2%). There are several ways to look at these numbers. You may note that that while Amendment 4 won by 2,320,587 votes and over 29 points, DeSantis only win by 32,463 votes and less than half a point. You could also point out that Bill Nelson lost his senate reelection campaign that day with 4,089,472 votes, 13,236 more votes than DeSantis got. Just over 23,000 voters who cast their ballots for Republican Rick Scott-- who did not oppose Amendment 4-- to replace Nelson, refused to vote for DeSantis.

DeSantis, a notorious racist who would like nothing better than to reinstate Jim Crow in Florida, has been working to undermine Amendment 4-- and the expressed will of the Florida electorate-- ever since taking office. Yesterday, Tampa Bay Times reporter Dara Kam discussed how he's still doing so., noting that "A federal judge on Tuesday excoriated lawyers representing Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration, accusing the state of trying to 'run out the clock' to keep felons from voting in next year’s elections." No beating around the bush there.

Yesterday, I discussed this development with Alan Grayson, one of the foremost proponents of Amendment 4. He pointed out that "If there is one thing that the GOP is consistent about, it’s about preventing voting, whenever, wherever and however it can. A very strange approach for a political party in a democracy, but there it is."

Republicans fear that Florida's 29 electoral votes are at stake if Amendment 4 stands

The acrimony between U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle and the state’s attorneys came during a hearing in a legal battle over a constitutional amendment designed to restore voting rights to felons who have completed terms of their sentences.

The controversy is centered on whether felons have to pay legal financial obligations, such as restitution, fines and fees, to be able to vote. The Republican-dominated Legislature approved a law this spring that required payment of such obligations, drawing a legal challenge from civil-rights and voting-rights groups.

Hinkle ruled in October that it is unconstitutional to deny the right to vote to felons who are “genuinely unable” to pay financial obligations. In a preliminary injunction, Hinkle said state officials need to come up with an administrative process in which felons could try to prove that they are unable to pay financial obligations and should be able to vote.

The state appealed Hinkle’s ruling to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a subsequent motion asking Hinkle to put the case on hold amid the appeal, lawyers for DeSantis and Secretary of State Laurel Lee argued that a decision upholding the federal judge’s ruling could render the entire constitutional amendment void because of a lack of “severability.” Under the legal concept of severability, an unconstitutional portion of a law can be eliminated while the rest of the law remains intact. The state maintains that if any part of the felons’ rights amendment is struck down, the entire amendment is void.

Only the Florida Supreme Court can decide whether Hinkle’s ruling would change the amendment so much that Floridians would not have supported the proposal, the state’s lawyers argued in the motion filed Nov. 18. The Florida justices are poised to issue an advisory opinion requested by DeSantis on whether the amendment requires payment of legal financial obligations.

“It is unlikely that Florida voters would have permitted felons to recapture their voting rights without fully repaying their debt to society,” the state’s lawyers wrote in the federal court motion.

But Hinkle, who repeatedly raised his voice while questioning the state’s lawyers, grew increasingly incensed as he spent two hours Tuesday attempting to ascertain whether the papers filed on the governor’s behalf accurately reflected a statement issued by DeSantis’ office in response to the judge’s October ruling.

In the statement, DeSantis spokeswoman Helen Ferré wrote that Hinkle’s decision affirmed the governor’s position that convicted felons be held responsible for paying restitution, fees and fines while also recognizing “the need to provide an avenue for individuals unable to pay back their debts as a result of true financial hardship.”

The discrepancy between the court filings and Ferré’s statement prompted Hinkle to ask, “Is it the governor’s position that Amendment 4 is a complete nullity,” even if a person is unable to pay legal financial obligations.

“I want to be sure that you don’t just bury it in your papers, that you say it here in public,” the judge asked Nicholas Primrose, deputy general counsel for DeSantis.

Primrose said “what voters thought” they were voting on is a “question that has to be addressed.”

The “indigency exception” created by Hinkle in his ruling would “broaden” what some voters believed they passed, he argued.

But Hinkle wasn’t satisfied, asking Primrose to answer whether it was a nullity or not.

“I’m not sure I can accurately express the governor’s position,” Primrose said, reiterating that the “very critical question of severability” needs to be addressed.

“I’m not accustomed to people coming and saying, ‘Here’s a critical question but I’m not going to tell you my position on it,’” Hinkle responded.

Hinkle pressed Lee’s lawyer, Mohammad Jazil, on the same issue.

“Our fear is that... the severability analysis... would suggest that Amendment 4 cannot be severed,” Jazil began.

But Hinkle interrupted him.

“I really don’t want the lawyers’ analysis,” the judge said. “This is a question that the secretary is going to have to take a position and the governor’s going to have to take a position.”

Jazil said the state disagrees with Hinkle’s interpretation requiring an exemption for felons who cannot pay their legal financial obligations. Because the state does not believe the amendment can be severed, it would be void if Hinkle’s ruling is upheld, Jazil said.

“That, we believe, is an absurd outcome,” he added.

The judge continued to tangle with Primrose and Jazil until the state’s lawyers finally conceded the court filings reflected their bosses’ positions.

“We stand by our papers,” Jazil said.

Primrose said DeSantis had approved everything that had been filed on his behalf, and that the amendment would be null if Hinkle’s analysis of the amendment was correct.

“We don’t believe your analysis is correct,” which is why the state appealed, he added.

Hinkle scolded the state on other matters, as well.

Chiding the state for failing to move forward with a process to allow felons who can’t afford to pay their financial obligations to register to vote, Hinkle asked the state what the “irreparable harm” would be in proceeding with the process while the appeal plays out.

Primrose said the state did not want to begin the process until the appellate court had ruled because of the amount of work involved.

“The possibility of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals” registering to vote create a heavy workload for state and local elections officials, Primrose argued. And, if the state wins the appeal, those people would have to be removed from the voting rolls, he said.

“So the irreparable harm’s the administrative burden,” Hinkle asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Primrose said.

Hinkle appeared troubled that the time it will take before the appellate court rules will interfere with people’s ability to register to vote in time for the March presidential primary elections.

Leah Aden, a lawyer who represents the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, told Hinkle the state is “going mute” and leaving voter-registration groups “at a loss for what to do.”

It’s “chilling people” because “the state is unwilling to say” what the process is, Aden argued.

Hinkle said the court system determines whether defendants are indigent before their cases are resolved.

The state could establish that defendants who were deemed indigent at the time of their last felony conviction are currently unable to pay their court-ordered fees and fines and allow them to register and vote, Hinkle suggested.

Primrose said “there’s a lot of disagreement” between the plaintiffs and the state on a process to move forward, drawing another rebuke from Hinkle.

“If you really want to comply with the Constitution and let everyone who’s eligible to vote vote, pretty easy,” the judge said. “You put in place a constitutional system, it won’t matter if they (plaintiffs) like it or not. What you can’t do is to run out the clock so that people who are eligible to vote don’t get to vote in the March primary or, more importantly, in the presidential election.”

New Candidate Alert: Meet Marqus Cole (GA-07)

Georgia's 7th congressional district-- small towns and suburbs in Gwinnett and Forsyth counties northwest of Atlanta-- is going to be an election hot house next year. It's been a red district for a long time that's turning purple. McCain won it with about 60% and so did Romney. Trump won it as well, but his margin was narrower: 51.1% to 44.8%. Then last year, Stacey Abrams won the district by just over 1,700 votes. A weaker Democratic congressional challenger, Carolyn Bourdeaux, did well too-- but not well enough to win the seat. Well, enough, though, to scare the Republican incumbent out of the 2020 race. Rob Woodall announced he's retiring at the end of the current term, creating an open seat. It's now a top tier target for both parties.

Carolyn Bourdeaux didn't impress us as a candidate last cycle and we were really happy to see that there are 3 other Democrats in the primary besides her this cycle. Marqus Cole is the progressive in the race. The other two are establishment candidates much like Bourdeaux-- a wealthy Hillary Clinton fundraiser, Nabilah Islam, and John Eaves, a Fulton County Commissioner from another district, who ran for mayor of Atlanta last year (coming in 8th with 1.2% of the vote).

When I spoke with Marqus the first political topics he brought up were voting rights, a fair tax code and healthcare. Short version of how he sees healthcare: he backs a similar approach to the one Bernie and Pramila have introduced-- a much-improved single-payer system for all Americans, Medicare which fixes the high priced pharmaceuticals problem the GOP built into it with Part D and Medicare which includes care for teeth, ears and eyes. So not just "Medicare-For-All" as much as a new and improved Medicare-For-All. An even shorter version of his thoughts on fair taxation: "eliminating loopholes in the tax code so that millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share." (Remember what Chris Hayes said on MSNBC: when looking at candidates, figure out what they'll fight for and who they'll fight for-- and don't spend too much time on the noise. That said, I asked Marqus to introduce himself with a guest post explaining why basic democracy is so important for him in this campaign. Please give it a careful read and if you like it-- and I think you will-- please consider contributing what you can to his campaign by clicking on the Blue America 2020 thermometer on the right.

Guest Post: Protecting Ballot Access For All Georgians
-by Marqus Cole

"Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions." Chief Justice John Roberts, Shelby County v. Holder. 2013

Chief Justice Roberts, I’m here to take you up on your challenge. It is time for Congress to remedy the problem of racial discrimination in voting rights. And as the U.S. Representative for the Georgia 7th Congressional District, I am going to fight to do just that.

You want to talk about “current conditions,” Chief Justice Roberts? I can tell you about current voting conditions. People around the country, because of their race or income level, are facing barriers to exercising their Constitutionally protected right to vote.

My forefathers were beaten, bullied, and bloodied to keep them away from the ballot box in the Jim Crow era south. My Grandfather and my wife’s Grandfather served the country in the Army to defend the principles and values of democracy abroad and returned to a country where their own votes were not protected. Our ancestors suffered and fought to protect voting rights. I will not sit idly by as the U.S. Supreme Court destroys our voting rights and Congress sits impotent, refusing to to do anything about it.

When the John Roberts Court in Shelby County gutted the crown jewel of the Civil Rights Movement by finding section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, it simultaneously threw down a challenge for Congress: Ensure that new legislation is more appropriately responsive to “current conditions” or continue to let the voice of the people be suppressed. And to no one’s surprise, Congress has not acted. Voters in my community and across the country continue to be disenfranchised.

It reminds me of that bloody Sunday in 1965 when my fraternity brother, Congressman John Lewis, stood as a symbol of the then “current conditions.” He stood in the face of incivility, injustice, and immorality, demanding rights at the cost of much blood and many tears.

It was on that day that America watched its dark twisted soul bared and broadcast on national television. And it was in that context that the United States Congress found its conscience and its voice and united to pass the very same Voting Rights Act that Chief Justice Roberts summarily tossed aside as if it was yesterday’s news in Shelby County.

What is our “current condition,” Chief Justice Roberts?

Our “current condition” is rife with voter fraud and discrimination.

Our “current condition” is one where all too often marginalized minority voters find themselves in unreasonably long lines with unreliable voting machines.

Our “current condition” is one where in some places you need more identification to cast your vote than to buy a gun.

Our “current condition” is one where local officials reject, deny, and outright forge ballots of voters from communities of color.

Our “current condition” is one where the elected official in charge of maintaining a fair election purged more than 500,000 voters in the year preceding his run for Governor of Georgia.

Our “current condition” is one where foreign influence interferes on behalf of a candidate who openly states, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”

The time is now. We must take up the baton of the great cause of the generations before.

We must re-instill faith into the ballot booth.

We must reinvigorate our calls for action.

We must recommit to what was once a great shared value by all Americans: the VOTE is the bedrock of our government.

It is this current condition that cries out for action now.

I propose we take this opportunity to act boldly by passing the Voting Rights Advancement Act bill proposed by Congresswoman Terri Sewell.

I propose we redouble our commitment to fully funding and staffing the Department of Justice’s Office of Civil Rights so they can pursue and prosecute bad faith actors.

I propose that we provide real federal dollars to enhance and protect our ballot boxes and voting machines from unscrupulous actors and errant mistakes by ensuring every voter gets a paper receipt.

And finally, I propose that we place the highest value on ensuring fair and free elections by enshrining our commitment to the opportunity to vote with a National Voting Day in November replacing Columbus Day as a federal holiday.

Chief Justice Roberts, I’m here to solve the problem you created.

House Dems First Actual Accomplishment

Republicans scare right-wing Democrats into vote conservatively with idiotic ads like this

Yesterday, the House passed HR-1, one of the Democrats' top priorities, in a strictly party-line vote. Every Democrat voted for it and every Republican voted against it. Ari Berman, reporting for Mother Jones, called it "the most significant democracy reform bill introduced in Congress since the Watergate era." What the Democrats were so enthusiastic about and what the GOP was so uniformly opposed to is a bill that "would massively expand voting rights, crack down on gerrymandering, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and require sitting presidents and presidential candidates to release 10 years of tax returns."

Trump and McTurtle are both opposed so it won't become law until the Democrats retake the Senate-- McConnell said he won't even allow a vote-- and the White House. They especially oppose the part of the bill that makes Election Day a national holiday since that will encourage more people to vote-- and more people voting is always a bad thing for conservatives. Although the Republicans are not talking about it, another part of the bill they hated-- public financing of elections-- changed from being financed by taxes to being financed through fees generated by fines for corporate malfeasance.

The last desperate attempt of McCarthy and the Republicans to stop the bill in the House was a parliamentary procedural proposal-- a motion to recommit with instructions to have hearings with the intention "recognizing that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues and diminishes the voting power of American citizens." It wasn't germane and normal Democrats don't fall for these Republican maneuvers to gum up the works. In 1974 Joe Biden told a reporter from The Washingtonian that "A lot of us sit around thinking up ways to vote conservative just so we don’t come out with a liberal rating. When it comes to civil rights and civil liberties, I’m a liberal but that’s it. I’m really quite conservative on most other issues." That was 45 years ago. These Democrats are still operating the same way today! They voted with the Republicans to sabotage HR-1. (McBath doesn't really belong with these 5 Blue Dogs; maybe she pushed the wrong button.):

• Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY)
• Joe Cunningham (Blue Dog-SC)
• Kendra Horn (Blue Dog-OK)
• Lucy McBath (New Dem-GA)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)
• Jeff Van Drew (Blue Dog-NJ)

In the end McCarthy's childish scheme failed 197-228.

The non-partisan League of Women voters urged support for HR-1 with this note to its members in nearly 1,000 local chapters across the country:

The League of Women Voters urges you to vote YES for final passage of HR1, the For the People Act. The League will be paying close attention to debate on this bill and the final vote on the House floor. We implore you to reject any amendments to this legislation that would weaken our democracy.

Throughout our nearly 100-year history, the League of Women Voters has worked to "level the playing field" of our election system by registering new citizens to vote, fighting unfair district maps in court, and advocating in Congress for fair election processes. Key provision in HR1 that should be maintained include:

1.      Break down barriers that prevent Americans from registering to vote. The Act requires states to allow same-day registration, establishes an opt-out system of automatic registration, and includes the establishment of an online voter registration for all eligible voters.
2.      Restore the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and strengthen our elections by cutting back the obstructive laws that have kept eligible voters from exercising their right at the ballot box.
3.      Establish independent, citizen redistricting commissions at the state level to draw congressional districts allowing voters to pick their politicians not the other way around.
4.      Empower small donors by creating a public financing system to match small contributions to presidential and congressional candidates. It will also close disclosure loopholes that allow outside groups to flood elections with millions of dollars of secret money.

HR1 is an historic opportunity to put power back into the hands of the people. The League has worked tirelessly over the last few months to support and promote this legislation to all members of Congress.

Vote YES on final passage of HR1.

Vote NO on weakening amendments and the motion to recommit.

Meanwhile, Swampy K. McCarthy made the anti-democracy case for the suckers who believe Republican politicians.

The GOP Is Looking More And More Like An Anti-Democracy Party-- Conservatives, Though Have Always Opposed Voting

McConnell may look like a turtle but he's a lot smarter than one-- albeit, smart in the service of Evil. He realizes that reform is his-- and his party's-- implacable enemy. He is very aware, painfully so, that when more people vote, more Republicans lose. H.R. 1, the For the People Act, is the pro-democracy legislation currently being debated in the House Judiciary Committee. Many Republicans are panic-stricken over it. The very first sentence, introducing the proposed package of laws, strikes fear into their... hearts: "A bill to expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants." Expanding access to the ballot box is the polar opposite of GOP policy for the last half century. Voting rights expert Ari Berman was on the case for Mother Jones Tuesday and again on Wednesday.

Tuesday, Berman wrote that "while voting rights lawyers are testifying in favor of the bill, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who oppose the legislation have recruited two of the biggest vote suppressors in their party to testify against it: Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation and J. Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Foundation." Both were members of Trump's discredited and now-abandoned election integrity commission, and both have been part of the GOP voter suppression movement for over a decade.

Yesterday, McConnell was on the House floor trying to discredit the bill, particularly the part that would make Election Day a national holiday the way it is in democracies that want to encourage voting, calling it a Democratic Party "power grab." This is turtle-talk: "Just what America needs, another paid holiday and a bunch of government workers being paid to go out and work for I assume our folks-- our colleagues on the other side, on their campaigns. This is the Democrat plan to restore democracy? A brand-new week of paid vacation for every federal employee who would like to hover around while you cast your ballot?" What a clown-- an evil clown.

Ted Lieu is a very active member on the Judiciary Committee-- and extremely serious about protecting the right to vote. "The statement by Sen McConnell," he told us today, "is a surprisingly frank admission that the overwhelming majority of the American people support Democrats. In a democracy, any party that fears democracy will eventually shrink so much that it will drown in a bathtub. The right to vote is a constitutional right. The Republicans can't stop it, and are doomed as a party unless they expand their narrow base."

One of the most extreme right members of the House GOP, Jim Jordan (OH), serves on the House Judiciary Committee, along with other anti-democracy fanatics like Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), Ken Buck (R-CO), John Ratcliffe (R-TX). Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Mike Johnson (R-LA), Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and 4 crazy new members: Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), Ben Cline (R-VA), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) and Greg Steube (R-FL). Jordan had a meltdown on the House floor, outraged that Democrats want to make Election Day a federal holiday-- something 65% of Americans support.

In your face, McConnell

Blue America's First Texas 2020 Endorsement-- Mike Siegel Declares His Candidacy Today

Mike Siegel ran in 2018 in Texas' 10th district-- and he just announced he's running again... starting now. Last time he held entrenched Republican multimillionaire Michael McCaul down to a 51.1% win in a district with an R+9 PVI and where Trump beat Hillary 52-43%. The shift towards Mike Siegel in 2018 was 15 points, one of the strongest in Texas. In 2020 he plans to complete what he started in one of the country's most compelling, high-profile re-matches.

This afternoon his campaign is hosting a celebratory "Appreciation and Action" event to honor the volunteers, supporters, and donors who were the backbone of his 2018 efforts, at his campaign headquarters at 5460 Guadalupe St., Austin (2:00 pm). In his invitation, Mike reminded his team that they had "made history in the last election by closing a 19-point gap to just 4 points against a seven-time incumbent who thought was 'safe' in his seat. I am running again because the people of this district need real representation: someone who will fight for healthcare for all and good jobs, someone who will hold the president accountable and work to end the dysfunction in DC. I have a history of advocacy-- for working people and families, students and seniors, disadvantaged populations-- and I will bring that same spirit to the position of Representative for the 10th Congressional District of Texas... [A]s optimistic as we were during the 2018 election, we were never going to flip the state in one election cycle. To build a political infrastructure, to turn non-voters into frequent voters, to make the case that the Democratic Party will make a real difference in people's lives: this is something we need to be doing every day, every month, every year, not just on the eve of an election. With that in mind, even though the 2020 elections are a long way off, we are launching a program of 'Appreciation and Action.' Kicking off this Sunday in Austin, we will spend the weeks and months ahead traveling the Texas 10th Congressional District: to honor the individuals and organizations who dedicated themselves to political change during the 2018 election, and to launch a campaign of political action that will unite Democrats across our nine counties." He had more to say:

Appreciation comes first, because so many of you took extraordinary action last year, efforts we cannot take for granted. From super volunteers to national organizations, from Democratic clubs to activist groups and labor unions, I am personally indebted to so many of you, and I know that countless Texans send their thanks. In 2018 we built a strong foundation for the work to come.

And yet, every time we come together, we need to advance the movement for progressive change. In many parts of the Texas 10th, there is very little political organizing outside of the electoral cycle. But this month the Texas Legislature begins its five-month session, and major policies are at stake including public education, voting rights, and healthcare. Within TX-10 we have five Democrats in the Texas House, and all five are strong women leaders pushing important legislative initiatives. We plan to use our resources and network to support our state representatives. And through this process we will strengthen our habits of political organizing.

Mike has been running on 4 key issues as the foundation of his campaign: Medicare-for-All, Green New Deal (including Job Guarantee), an end to the War on Drugs, and Voting Rights. Yesterday he and I talked about the Voting Rights piece and why it was and is so important for him and for people in TX-10. Remember this video on Rachel Maddow's show last October?



This was the follow-up Rachel did highlighting Mike's victory in Waller County. Yesterday he told me that "The right to vote is the most fundamental right in a democracy, and here in TX-10 the issue highlights the intersection of racial discrimination and voter suppression. Prairie View A&M University is an historically-black college located on a former slave plantation in Waller County. In granting its charter, the Texas Legislature promised to place it on an equal footing with Texas A&M University, but that promise has never been fulfilled. Racist local officials have persistently used their authority to prevent Black students from voting, and unfortunately the 2018 election cycle was no exception. Luckily, our campaign was able to use our spotlight to draw attention to and defeat the latest cynical ploy to discourage the student vote. In 2019 and 2020, we have much more to do.

"One of the deficits for Texas Democrats is that we don't have a strong statewide infrastructure, which makes it difficult to keep local communities engaged outside of an election cycle. In 2019, my campaign will begin by working with folks in Waller County and other communities to fight for issues of local concern. Several Texas House members are pushing voting rights bills during 2009 Texas legislative session, and I will dedicate some of our campaign resources to engaging Prairie View students and other affected communities in the legislative process. We will look to testify at state hearings, and even federal hearings, to draw highlight the work that needs to be done to strengthen the democratic process.

"I believe that this is how we flip Texas-- not just by running strong campaigns to elect specific candidates, but by taking action year-round to fight on issues of local concern. Only by proving ourselves on a consistent basis can we show why the Democratic Party is worthy of the people's support."

Blue America is proud to stand with Mike again and we have every reason to believe that, based on his strong 2018 performance, the Democratic Party institutions that ignored his race last time, will be there to help this time. Please consider clicking on the Blue America 2020 campaign thermometer on the right and chipping him what you can-- or even signing up for a monthly contribution. The Democrats won the low-hanging fruit in 2018. Much of the party's efforts are going to go into protecting their new freshmen incumbents. 2020's congressional campaign-- with the discredited Trump on the top of the ticket-- will mean a tough slog by experienced teams like Mike's, who know what they're doing and have a precise game-plan to build on what has been accomplished take it over the finish line. Please follow Mike's campaign on Facebook and Twitter. And let's remember that if we're not safe, why should entrenched congressional Republicans in gerrymandered districts be? We can do this.

Jeff Sessions And Steve Bannon Share A Vision For America-- And For Texas

Americans have gotten a look at Trump's new Attorney General, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, and they don't like what they see. A new Quinnipiac poll included a question about him for the first time. By a 52-40% margin, voters say Sessions lied under oath during his confirmation hearings and by a 51-42% say he should resign from office. Most American voters-- 66%-- support the establishment of an "independent commission investigating potential links between some of Donald Trump's campaign advisors and the Russian government." Only 30% disagree.

Sessions has no intention of resigning. He has an ugly, reactionary agenda he's been waiting his whole miserable life to implement. His "recusal" on Putin-Gate investigations is hollow and ineffectual. And his recusal on that case doesn't mean he won't be putting his energy into other ways to prove he truly is-- in Trump's own words (as well as Stalin's)-- "an enemy of the people." Take voting rights, for example. Sessions moved quickly to withdraw the government from the Texas case alleging racial discrimination in a Texas voter ID suit.



A bigger worry, was highlighted last week on NPR's Fresh Air when Terry Gross interviewed journalist Emily Bazelon about the longstanding relationship between Sessions and Trump's in-house neo-Nazi, Steve Bannon and how they plan to use the Justice Department to further their goals. Bazelon makes the point that Sessions nd Bannon have been working together even before either of them became part of Team Trump and she contends that "they took a long-shot bet on Trump that just happened to pay off." Now they can deal with a shared "deeper cultural discomfort with the growing population of people who are not white in this country, coming from a kind of traditional white sense of propriety of what America is about. That is what's motivating Sessions and Bannon, and that it's part of what's driving the more extreme elements of this presidency."

[B]efore Trump's candidacy, these were marginal fringe figures, Sessions and Bannon. They did not have anything like a central role in Washington. They didn't have a whole lot of power. But they had really strong ideas. And they had, I think, a very well developed sense about messaging. So then Donald Trump comes along. And he begins his campaign by, you know, in this broad brush way accusing Mexicans of being rapists. He gets a lot of attention. Nobody really takes him that seriously.

But Sessions and Bannon could see a willingness to kind of sign on to this anti-immigrant, divisive, nationalist agenda that they had been pushing for a few years. And so that's what I mean by vessel. In a sense, like, Donald Trump from their point of view was this happy coincidence that came along. What we do know is that, as you said, Sessions endorsed Trump pretty early on. And then Bannon wrote with some excitement to a friend of his to say that while he liked some of the other Republican candidates like Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina, he was ready to sign up for Trump because Trump had endorsed the nationalist anti-immigration plan that Sessions was working on.

So you can see the way in which they really found a kind of common ground here. By signing on to Trump, Sessions gave Bannon a reason to get on board. And then a few months after that, you see Sessions actually crafting or helping to craft an immigration policy for Trump.

...Sessions made it clear early on that [Justice] was the Cabinet position that he was interested in. And it's not a coincidence. First of all the, Justice Department is just one of the most powerful agencies in our country. And also, Sessions had a background as a U.S. attorney in the 1980s. So he had actually worked for the Justice Department in that capacity before. And so I think you see a kind of perfect synergy here. Sessions is exactly the right person for Donald Trump in this attorney general position given his larger agenda, the one that he shares with Sessions and Bannon. And for Sessions, it's a very powerful post that he is well qualified for.

...[B]roadly speaking, there are a couple of different approaches to voting law. You can talk about how to make voting easier for people or you can talk about making it harder. President Obama wanted to make voting easier. And so his Justice Department looked at the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which protects the rights of minority voters, and tried to use that to prevent states from unnecessarily restricting people's voting rights.

So for example, Texas and North Carolina passed laws with strict voter ID and then other kinds of limitations, like taking away same-day voting registration. And the Justice Department sued those states and tried to make sure that the people who were going to be prevented from voting or for whom voting would be more difficult were being protected. And we know that in both states people who tend to lack the required forms of ID are more likely to be black and Latino. So we're talking about hundreds of thousands of minority voters for whom access to the polls becomes more difficult.

The Republican Party has had a different set of priorities. They have really pushed the idea that what's really important is to use the law to prevent voting fraud. Now, they've been doing this without evidence that in-person voter fraud is anything like widespread. But Donald Trump we know has really picked up on this theme. I mean, he made this unproven - wholly unproven allegation that millions of people had voted illegally in the election. And Sessions also has a history from when he was a prosecutor in the '80s of prosecuting African-American civil rights activists for voter fraud.

So there's again a kind of commonality here. And when you push the idea that what the Justice Department should be doing is preventing voter fraud, you've really made a case for using the law in a way that, as I said earlier, makes it harder to vote. And so I think what we're going to see and already seeing is the Justice Department shift from opening up access to the ballot to trying to restrict it. And in the Texas case, the Justice Department under Jeff Sessions has essentially switched sides. So instead of suing Texas, they're now saying they don't think that Texas intentionally discriminated against minority voters.

And there's more happening in Texas where Sessions has an agenda in direct opposition to democracy. First a little background. There has been no gerrymander in history as lethal and toxic to the Tom DeLay mid-decade takeover of the state's districts in 2003, which resulted in the GOP taking over a majority of Texas congressional seats just one year later-- for the first time since Reconstruction. Texas is a pretty red state but there are still millions of Democrats there. In 2012 Romney won the state 4,569,843 (57%) to 3,308,124 (41%). Last year Rump won the state 4,681,590 (52.6%) to 3,867,816 (43.4%). Let's split the difference and say 42% of Texas voters are Democrats. Texas has 36 congressional districts-- the most of any state other than California. All things being equal if there was no gerrymandering, Texas would be sending 21 Republicans and 15 Democrats to Congress. Instead, because of the way DeLay and his successors have drawn the districts, Texas sends 25 Republicans and just 11 Democrats to Congress.

Friday, a panel of 3 federal judges handed down a ruling that the Republicans in the legislature used racial gerrymandering to weaken the growing electoral power of minorities, particularly Hispanics. Texas is likely to appeal the case to the Supreme Court-- with the backing of... you guessed it, Beauregard Jefferson Sessions III.

In their opinion, 2 of the 3 judges wrote that "The record indicates not just a hostility toward Democrat districts, but a hostility to minority districts, and a willingness to use race for partisan advantage. The two Republicans directly impacted are Blake Farenthold (TX-27) and Will Hurd (TX-23), although redrawing their districts-- as well as Democrat Lloyd Doggett's 35th district-- would instantly spill over into bordering districts, threatening gerrymander-protected Republicans Lamar Smith, Pete Olson and Mike McCaul. Even if Sessions is impeached or forced to resign, it's unlikely that whomever Trump picks to replace him would be less... an enemy of the people.

The Big Question: Will The Democrats Stand Up To Trumpism?

The fascist cadres surrounding Trump-- from politicians like Mike Pence, Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions to predatory billionaires like Betsy DeVos, Steve Mnuchin, Robert Mercer, the Kochs and Wilbur Ross-- are attacking the American core on so many fronts that its unimaginable that congressional Democrats-- led in the Senate by a severely compromised Chuck Schumer and in the House by a gaggle of feeble, tired, sclerotic hacks-- will even begin to know how to resist. Can they filibuster the worst of his appointees? Would that lead to the Republicans doing away with the filibuster, their last line of defense, altogether? Should they keep their power dry for the essential battles-- like saving Medicare from a depraved team of Ryan and Health and Human Services Department head Tom Price? In fact Price and Ryan have been plotting since Trump was elected to start the process of dismantling Medicare in a way that skirts the filibuster-- budget reconciliation. Or is there even worse and more fundamental harm that Trump and the team united around him can do? Ari Berman, in a post at The Nation this week that tags Trump as the greatest threat to American democracy in our lifetime makes the case that massive voter suppression is in the works. Dismantling democracy... even worse than dismantling Medicare-- and more permanent.

"Unlike his Democratic and Republican predecessors," wrote Berman, "Trump has little respect for the institutions that preserve American democracy, whether it’s freedom of the press or the right to vote. We can already glimpse how a Trump administration will undermine voting rights, based on the people he nominated to top positions, those he has advising him, and his own statements. His pick for attorney general, Jeff Sessions, wrongly prosecuted black civil-rights activists for voter fraud in Alabama in the 1980s, called the Voting Rights Act 'a piece of intrusive legislation,' and praised the Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, saying that 'if you go to Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, people aren’t being denied the vote because of the color of their skin.'... Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a front-runner to head Trump’s Department of Homeland Security, has called for precisely this. During a meeting with Trump last week, Kobach brought a 'strategic plan' for DHS that advocated purging voter rolls and drafting amendments to the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, presumably to require proof of citizenship, like a passport or birth certificate, to register to vote, which prevented tens of thousands of eligible voters from being able to register in Kansas. It’s chilling that a top Trump adviser like Kobach views voting rights as a threat to homeland security."

And then there's Bannon... Trump's brain, in the same way that Karl Rove was George W. Bush's brain. Bannon has actually said-- aloud-- that only property owners should be allowed to vote and, another time, that excluding African-Americans from voting is "not such a bad thing." Does Trump understand? Can he put it into historical context in terms of where he, unexpectedly, is? Does he even care or even think about this kind of thing? Does it matter?

Trump himself said, after courts struck down voter-ID laws in states like North Carolina, that “the voter-ID situation has turned out to be a very unfair development. We may have people vote 10 times.” Ironically, one of the only documented instances of voter fraud in 2016 was committed by a Trump supporter who voted twice in Iowa-- and was caught in a state without a voter-ID law.

If you want a better idea of the lengths a Trump administration might go to suppress voting rights, take a look at what Republicans are doing in North Carolina right now. A month after the Supreme Court ruled that states with a long history of discrimination no longer had to approve their voting changes with the federal government, North Carolina Republicans passed a “monster” voter-suppression law that required strict photo ID, cut early voting, and eliminated same-day registration and pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds.

Like in so many-GOP controlled states, Republicans in North Carolina justified the voting restrictions by spreading false claims about voter fraud. (Such fraud was in fact exceedingly rare: There were only two cases of voter impersonation in North Carolina from 2002 to 2012 out of 35 million votes cast.)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that North Carolina’s law targeted African Americans “with almost surgical precision.” But even after the court restored a week of early voting, GOP-controlled county election boards limited early voting hours and polling locations. The executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party called on Republicans to make “party line changes to early voting” that included opposing polling sites on college campuses and prohibiting early voting on Sundays, when black churches held “Souls to the Polls” voter-mobilization drives. The North Carolina GOP bragged before Election Day that “African American Early Voting is down 8.5% from this time in 2012. Caucasian voters early voting is up 22.5% from this time in 2012.”

Things got even crazier after the election. After Republican Pat McCrory lost the governor’s race to Democrat Roy Cooper by 9,000 votes, his campaign began filing bogus complaints about voter fraud in an attempt to overturn the election result or have the North Carolina legislature reinstall him as governor. Those challenged by the McCrory campaign include a 101-year-old World War II veteran in Greensboro wrongly accused of double voting.

That wasn’t all. After a black Democrat, Mike Morgan, won a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, giving Democrats a 4-3 majority, Republicans have proposed expanding the size of the court by two justices, who could be appointed by McCrory in his last weeks in office, allowing Republicans to retain control. This would be an outrageous rebuke to the will of the voters and the rule of law, but you can’t put anything past the North Carolina GOP these days.

North Carolina is a case study for how Republicans have institutionalized voter suppression at every level of government and made it the new normal within the GOP. The same thing could soon happen in Washington when Trump takes power.

Yesterday David Dayen, in a post for the Fiscal Times went in the opposite-- as in small bore-- direction when he asked if the Democrats will stand up to Trump, reminding them that their first test is coming right up... even before Trump moves to Washington. House Republicans-- along with some corrupt Wall Street-owned Dems-- are looking to "lift mandatory Dodd-Frank regulatory supervision for all banks with more than $50 billion in assets, meaning those financial giants would no longer be subject to blanket requirements regarding capital and leverage, public disclosures and the production of 'living wills' to map out how to unwind during a crisis" (Wall Street whore Blaine Luetkemeyer's H.R. 6392).

You can see with this bill’s framework how financial regulation in the Trump era will be relaxed, not by outright repeal but through deliberate atrophy. Republicans want to replace any mandatory rules for regulation with discretionary ones. That way they can claim that they’re merely improving the system by putting the decisions in the hands of the experts instead of members of Congress.

The second step in that process, of course, would be to hire regulators dedicated to not paying attention to anything the financial industry does. In this case, the chair of FSOC is the Treasury Secretary. Two of the rumored selections for that position in the Trump administration have current or former allegiances to banks that would be subject to an FSOC determination on enhanced supervision.

...President Obama would almost certainly veto this bill, even if it miraculously passed the Senate. But there’s a reason Republicans plan to roll it out this week instead of waiting for Trump to enter the Oval Office. They want to gauge just how much Democrats have been cowed by the election loss.

In fact, the phrase “regional banks” has a totemic power to turn Democrats’ resolve to jelly. Wall Street-friendly caucus members have already endorsed tailoring Dodd-Frank rules away from the regionals, even though that phrase minimizes the sheer size of banks with $250 billion in assets. Because Democrats can say that JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs are unaffected by this change, you might see them support it. Indeed, in the Financial Services Committee, eight Democrats voted for the bill.

Below are the 8 crooked Democrats who voted with the Republicans November 4, 2015. The dollar amounts next to their names are the amounts they've taken from the banksters-- the very banksters they're supposed to be overseeing. Basically, all of these people should be in prison:

• Rob Delaney (New Dem-MD)- $1,947,102
• David Scott (New Dem-GA)- $2,813,894
• Emanuel Cleaver (MO)- $1,442,924
• Gwen Moore (WI)- $1,710,912
• Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL)- $1,580,970
• Brad Sherman (CA)- $3,390,648
• Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ)- $1,683,407
• Joyce Beatty (OH)- $886,100

Back to Dayan; he asked the right question: "This is really a moment of truth for those Democrats. If Republicans put up a big bipartisan vote in the House for this, the Senate will be more inclined to try to pass it down the road. And it will serve as a test case for Democratic resolve more generally. Will they submit to donors and lobbyists and play ball with the Trump deregulatory agenda, or will they recognize the harms that would cause?"

Deregulation historically has never been a partisan game. Democrats and Republicans have typically worked together to roll back rules and open up the Wall Street casino for business. H.R. 6392 could represent a return to those times, or the moment when Democrats join together and say no, forcing Republicans to funnel victories to the banking industry on their own. If I were a Democratic member of Congress, I know what I’d rather have on my conscience.

Dayan was polite enough to describe it in bipartisan terms without mentioning that the Democrats who work with the Republicans on rolling back rules and opening up Wall Street to predators are, first and foremost, corrupt and second, conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the Kyrsten Sinemas, David Scotts, Terri Sewells and John Delaneys. And, like I said, these people don't belong in the House... they belong in the Big House. I doubt Trump would pardon them either.

Only One Party Supports Voting, Jobs And Helping ALL People

-by Tracy B Ann

When I was diagnosed with breast cancer I chose the treatment I felt had the least side effects. I declined Chemo, Radiation and a nasty drug called Tamoxofin. It may indeed help with breast cancer but it’s been proven to cause other types of cancer. Umm..., no thanks.

I did consent to two surgeries though, I mean, I had a malignant tumour in my body, of course I wanted it out. During surgery blue dye was injected into me to trace the cancer. Had it spread anywhere? Particularly lymph nodes?

Turns out it had, so 2 lymph nodes were removed and sent to pathology. They came back 95% and 98% cancerous which led to my having another surgery so more lymph nodes could be removed to be tested. Of these, only one had a tiny % of cancer. That was good.

The Lymphatic System seems to me to be a pretty fragile system and one that defies the laws of gravity. It flows from the bottom up and is sensitive to any blockage in it’s path. Missing nodes create a huge problem and sometimes major blockage. When that occurs, as it did in my case, the arm that had the nodes removed begins to swell, and swell, and swell. This is a condition called Lymphedema.

There aren’t a whole lot of ways to treat it so it’s best just to prevent it. As I studied everything I could about it, I was advised to call the American Cancer Society for suggestions. Seriously, I should have just discussed the matter with my cats.

Some of the suggestions were fine; never sleep on that side again, always wear gloves when gardening, avoid any cuts or scrapes, always wear a compression sleeve, avoid heavy lifting or repetitive movements. Okay, maybe I could do some of that. Then I described my jobs. The things I do for a living. Neither of which I can wear a compression sleeve while doing, both which require heavy lifting and repetitive movements.

The American Cancer Society’s advice? Oh, I’d just need to get a different job. Well, all righty then. Sounds easy enough. Except, I’ve spent over 20 years building a great clientele, and I don’t really know how to do much else that pays a decent wage. Yet, my job is becoming increasingly difficult for me to perform well.

Which makes me think of voting in an odd parallel sort of way. It can be very hard to vote and that’s on purpose. Take an absentee ballot for example. In the old days you just asked for one to be mailed to you and it was. Today in some states, you have to prove you won’t be home to vote and have your ballot sent to an address far, far, from your polling station. Otherwise you’d better show up in person.

In North Carolina if you want to vote by absentee ballot you have to have it notarized or signed by 2 registered voters. WTF? But ok, say you want to vote in person but are disabled. How easy is that going to be? Depends on where you live.

In Tennessee we vote on computers that are one height fits all. So if you are in a wheelchair and can’t see that high, tough. If you don't have the use of your hands but can read a ballot and then tell someone who you want to vote for, too bad, no one can go in the booth with you to help. If you are nonverbal but have other ways to communicate? Sorry, there’s no ballot for you.

Who do you think cares? I know one group that does not give a fuck and that would be the Republican Party. It’s possible that they are delighted that large groups of people are prevented from voting, from registering to vote and from finding well paid jobs. I don’t know that for a fact but I do know that only the Democratic Party, the progressive side of it, is doing anything about making voter registration easier, accommodating disabled voters, or creating a living wage for folks without them having to work their asses (or in my case, arms) off.

That’s the party I’m voting for. I find my Democratic candidates by going to the website 90for90, started to honor Dr. Fergie Reid, an old black dude who was advocating for fair voting and equal rights for all back in the Jim Crow days. He’s still doing it too. I pick my candidates from the 90for90 Face Book page or website because these are the folks that support Voting for ALL. I’m convinced that’s the only thing that’s going to make the world a better place, make my life a little easier, and maybe even help me find a job that accommodates my disability and pays the mortgage.

It’s not just political candidates I find on 90for90 either. There are unions, organizations and business that I want to support because they support voting. This guy, Jeffrey Joseph is a 90for90 supporter, which would be enough right there for me to support him. I also totally relate to his view of the big job search. Life just shouldn’t be this hard and I think with progressive Democrats in charge of government at every level, life will get easier for ALL.