News Release Archive - US Elections

ANDREW COCKBURN, amcockburn@gmail.com, @andrewmcockburn
Washington editor of Harper’s Magazine, Cockburn wrote the cover article “No Joe! Joe Biden’s disastrous legislative legacy” in March 2019.

Cockburn said today: “Obviously the final result isn’t known and the voting should proceed in an orderly manner, but one thing that is clear is that Biden’s nomination, like that of Hillary Clinton four years ago, has failed to deliver a resounding rejection of Trump.

“This is largely because of Biden’s inability to provide a positive message. This isn’t a tactical failure. It’s a result of his record, and the ongoing, desperate yearning of the Democratic establishment he represents to recreate the Democratic coalition that started to vanish with Reagan. He may eke out a threadbare victory in Wisconsin and Michigan, but this does not excuse his failure to mobilise the growing minority electorate — most obviously Hispanic voters. He will be easy meat for Mitch McConnell.”

Also, see: “Biden: A War Cabinet?” by Mariamne Everett.

Washington Monthly magazine reports in “Louis DeJoy’s October Surprise” that: “A ban on postal workers’ ability to co-sign absentee ballots could determine the election.”

CHRISTOPHER W. SHAW, christophershaw.ca@gmail.com, @chris_w_shaw
Shaw is author of the book Preserving the People’s Post Office and recently wrote the piece “The U.S. Postal Service Was Designed to Serve Democracy” for Foreign Affairs.

He said today: “In an unprecedented move, this summer the U.S. Postal Service forbade on-duty postal workers from acting as witnesses for mail-in ballots. A number of states — including the important swing states North Carolina and Wisconsin — require that mail-in ballots be co-signed. Enforcement of this policy began during the same period that Postmaster General Louis DeJoy implemented a series of changes that disrupted mail collection, processing, and delivery. Tens of millions of Americans are voting by mail due to COVID-19, and forbidding postal workers from co-signing ballots only hinders the democratic process. Although the American Postal Workers Union, National Association of Letter Carriers, National Rural Letter Carriers Association, and National Postal Mail Handlers Union have protested directly to senior postal management, this ill-advised policy remains in place. Promotion of democracy has been a central role of the Postal Service since the eighteenth century. This irresponsible policy conflicts with the historic mission of the Postal Service and further reveals a disturbing unwillingness among its current leadership to serve the public interest.”

Shaw recently had an op-ed in the Washington Post: “Postal banking is making a comeback. Here’s how to ensure it becomes a reality.”

BRUCE GAGNON, globalnet@mindspring.com
Gagnon is an activist based in Maine. He said today: “Lisa Savage, an Independent candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in Maine, is a 25-year retired public school teacher, climate change and peace activist in a Ranked Choice Voting election.

“She is the only non-millionaire in the race. Democrat Sara Gideon has raised $69.5 million and incumbent Republican Susan Collins more than $30 million.

“Savage has been in all four of the previous debates (many believe she won each of those debates) but WMTW in Portland has decided to deny her and another Independent the right to be in the final debate Wednesday night, though Savage attempted to attend, see video. The Hearst corporation (which owns WMTW) had their lawyer in North Carolina issue a statement saying the two Independent candidates were not ‘newsworthy.’

“Among Savage’s policy positions are Medicare for All, a demilitarized Green New Deal, serious cuts in Pentagon spending, free public higher education, and much more. … Even by the polling done by the major media, which seems to be seriously undercounting younger people, the most recent poll had Lisa Savage with a plurality of second round votes.”

See piece by the activist Kathy Kelly on the race: “Battleground States.”

Monday night, Supreme Court member Clarence Thomas swore in Amy Coney Barrett to the court at the White House.

ReformSCOTUS.org has produced two videos, “Time to Talk about Court Reform” and “Our Democracy Has Been Put to the Test.” 

MARJORIE COHN, marjorielegal@gmail.com, @marjoriecohn
Cohn, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild, recently wrote, “Ginsburg’s Legacy Is Vast, But a Trump Appointee Could Overturn Her Best Rulings.” She wrote last month: “Democrats must play hard ball. They should pledge that if Joe Biden wins the election and the Democrats assume control of the Senate, they will raise the number of members on the Supreme Court from 9 to 13. The Constitution does not prescribe how many members will sit on the high court so Congress can raise the number.” Cohn also wrote the piece “From a Justice for Gender Equality to a ‘Justice’ for Gender Oppression.”

FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle@illinois.edu

    Boyle is law professor at the University of Illinois. In September, he was quoted in the Guardian: “From [Republicans’] perspective, this is the chance of a lifetime to turn the court to the right.”

   Boyle has been advocating that the Democrats embrace expanding the court since the Brett Kavanaugh hearing. He said today: “The Federalist Society, with its complete distortion of the Constitution and phony concept of ‘Originalism,’ has been packing the courts since the Reagan administration. The Democratic Party should embrace counterpacking the courts.

    “Contrary to what many claim, FDR’s plan to expand the Supreme Court was a great  success. The court got the message and began to uphold his New Deal legislation after previously striking it down, which prompted his scheme in the first place. So he did not have to pack the court. But these Federalist Society justices are so hard core, it will be needed now.

    “Eliminating life tenure would require a Constitutional amendment, which is a non-starter to begin with and even a waste of time, efforts and money to try. Counterpacking is the best way to deal with this.”

NANCY ALTMAN, via Linda Benesch, lbenesch@socialsecurityworks.org, @ssworks
President of Social Security Works, Altman is author of The Battle for Social Security and The Truth About Social Security: Exploding Five Destructive Myths.

She just wrote the piece “Is Social Security Safe from the Courts?” which states: “Because of Social Security’s overwhelming popularity among even self-described Tea Partiers, conservative politicians generally say that they love Social Security. But at candid moments, they make clear that they would like the courts to do what they have been seeking (so far unsuccessfully) to do sneakily, behind closed doors and by ‘starving the beast’: End Social Security.

“Former Republican presidential candidate and former Trump Secretary of Energy Rick Perry has said and written that he believes Social Security is unconstitutional. Former Trump Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney even voted, when serving in the South Carolina General Assembly, in favor of an amendment, which declared Social Security unconstitutional. …

“Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have been systematically stacking the courts with young, extremist judges” and Supreme Court members for the last four years. “The courts on which they likely will sit for decades have the power to end Social Security.”

“It is important to remember that when Social Security became law, most thought it would be struck down as unconstitutional. There was good reason for their concern. At the start of President Franklin Roosevelt’s first term, the Supreme Court,” led by four conservatives “colloquially known as the ‘Four Horsemen of Reaction,’ systematically struck down New Deal laws. …

“Out of concern for Social Security as well as other key legislation pending before the court, Roosevelt put forward his so-called court packing plan. Though the plan failed, the court held Social Security constitutional in what was coined ‘the switch in time that saved the nine.’ [The Supreme Court largely reoriented when faced with Roosevelt’s threat of court packing.]

“Today’s court is more conservative than any court since 1937.” Judge Amy Coney Barrett, “who is just 48 years old, shares the same conservative views as the Four Horsemen of Reaction. If it were 1937 and Social Security were a new question in front of the Supreme Court, how would she have ruled? How would she rule if the issue were before her at some point in the future, once she has a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court?

“Revealingly, when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Barrett to comment on the constitutionality of Social Security and Medicare during her confirmation hearings, Barrett refused to answer.”

ROB RICHIE, rr@fairvote.org and via Ashley Houghton, ahoughton@fairvote.org, @fairvote
Richie is president and CEO of FairVote, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for electoral reform. Houghton is communications director for the group. He said today: “Barring unlikely legal outcomes, for the first time in U.S. history, voters will consider a field of more than two presidential candidates without any finger pointing about ‘spoilers.’ Every voter in Maine will be able to vote for the candidate they like the most without fear of helping electing the candidate they like the least. And Mainers will be sure their electoral votes go to candidates who have truly earned them.”

“Opponents of ranked choice voting have tried to roll back progress again and again, but this battle is over. Mainers stand by this reform: we’ve voted for it, we’ve fought for it, and we’re ready for it,” shared Anna Kellar, executive director for The League of Women Voters. “Finally, Mainers will have greater choices and stronger voices this November.”

Ritchie added: “Maine has undergone a multi-year legislative and legal battle to allow Mainers to rank candidates in elections. Maine first passed a state-wide ranked choice voting ballot measure in 2016, allowing voters to rank candidates in federal and state elections. Mainers then successfully used ranked choice voting to vote for statewide and federal offices in 2018 and legislation expanding the system to presidential primary and general elections passed August 30, 2019.

“In Maine, electoral votes are decided based on the votes cast in each congressional district as well as statewide. Recent polls suggest that the presidential vote in the second congressional districts may result in an instant runoff tabulation to determine that electoral vote; in 2016, Maine was won statewide by Hillary Clinton with less than half the vote.”

See: “Ranked Choice Voting 101” and  “Ranked Choice Voting In Use Across America.”

Hearings for the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett are scheduled to begin Monday. (See IPA news release of exactly a week ago: “Will Schumer Try to Stop Trump SCOTUS Pick?“)

MARJORIE COHN, marjorielegal@gmail.com, @marjoriecohn
Cohn, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and former president of the National Lawyers Guild, recently wrote, “From a Justice for Gender Equality to a ‘Justice’ for Gender Oppression.”

She writes: “Donald Trump rushed to nominate Barrett and enlisted his consigliere, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), to ram her nomination through the Senate so she can support Trump’s legal challenges to any election results that favor Joe Biden. Trump, who refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, has been conducting a misinformation campaign about (non-existent) voter fraud and signaling that he will lose only if the election is ‘rigged’ against him with expanded mail-in voting.

“During her three years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Barrett demonstrated her racist bona fides when she countenanced what her fellow judge called a ‘separate-but-equal arrangement’ in which a Black American was transferred in order to segregate a workplace. In EEOC v. Autozone, the EEOC claimed Autozone segregated employees based on race by assigning Black employees to work in Latinx neighborhoods. After a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit denied the EEOC’s claim, Barrett voted against the entire 7th Circuit rehearing the case.

“Barrett criticized Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act. She wrote in a 2017 law review article that the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the law ‘pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.’

“An avowed opponent of reproductive rights, Barrett called Roe v. Wade a ‘judicial fiat,’ stating, ‘The framework of Roe essentially permitted abortion on demand, and Roe recognizes no state interest in the life of a fetus.’ As a judge on the Court of Appeals, she wanted to rehear a case that could limit the right to a pre-viability abortion, sought to overturn Supreme Court precedent allowing states to regulate protestors who block abortion access, and voted to require that parents of girls under 18 be notified before abortions are performed. She has also opposed access to contraception under the Affordable Care Act as ‘an assault on religious liberty.’

“Barrett has consistently sided with corporations over workers. She voted to restrict enforcement of laws against age discrimination, sought to limit the power of federal agencies to hold accountable companies that lie to consumers, and cut back on the rights of consumers against predatory debt collectors.” Cohn also wrote the piece “Ginsburg’s Legacy Is Vast, But a Trump Appointee Could Overturn Her Best Rulings.”