Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Conservative group's new TV ads press 10 key GOP senators to pay for vote-by-mail

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is one of 10 Republican Senators targeted in a series of ads from a conservative group supporting efforts to ease voting in November.

The most prominent conservative group pushing to overhaul election procedures during the coronavirus pandemic has expanded and refocused its campaign.

The targets of a new, $750,000 advertising blitz are 10 GOP senators. The group controls the fate of a proposed infusion of cash to pay for diversified voting options this year, mainly by accommodating an expected surge of absentee balloting.

Republicans for the Rule of Law has purchased three weeks of airtime on Fox News affiliates in their states and on Facebook, starting Wednesday, urging them by name to support funding in the next economic stimulus package.


At this point the GOP-led Senate has signaled it's not in any rush to respond quickly to the sprawling, $3 trillion measure House Democrats appear on course to pass within the week. It includes all $3.6 billion in election aid that good-government groups say is necessary to assure a safe and comprehensive presidential election — and that state election officials, from both parties, say must be provided relatively quickly if it's to get productively spent on time.

The group is an arm of an organization created by many of President Trump's most powerful critics on the right, dubbed Defending Democracy Together, which ran another wave of TV spots last week that targeted a more general audience.

The ad focused on Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is airing nationally on Fox, MSNBC, CNN and several stations owned by the conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcasting in addition to statewide in Kentucky, where McConnell faces a well-financed challenge to his bid for a seventh term this fall.

The new 60-second ads are identical, except for the call to action for the 10 senators, who are evenly divided in two camps.

Five are members of the committee that will write the Senate's counter-proposal to whatever the House passes, and will then be central to the negotiations over compromise spending levels: McConnell, Richard Shelby of Alabama, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Roy Blunt of Missouri and James Lankford of Oklahoma.

Blunt and Lankford were also central to getting an initial $400 million in election aid approved as part of the recovery package enacted in March. Blunt, who's also No. 4 in the GOP leadership, is a former chief elections official in Missouri, which has one of the strictest restrictions in the country on who may vote absentee — and where the state's conservative government has shown no interest in altering them.

The other senators are all in highly competitive races for re-election this fall, and polling in their states has shown lopsided and bipartisan support for expanded voting by mail: Martha McSally of Arizona, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

That public sentiment would seem to give GOP senators a solid rationale for backing the money. But they are being urged to resist it — at least in public — by the president, who on Twitter and at several coronavirus press briefings has alleged without evidence that widespread voting from home leads to widespread cheating and incubates organized fraud.

With or without the money, however, states are expecting a record use of absentee ballots this fall — because, even if stay-at-home orders are lifted, millions will conclude that avoiding local polling places is an easy call in a season when another wave of the Covid-19 outbreak is expected.

Just this week, for example, officials in Iowa announced that 356,000 people had requested and been sent absentee ballots for the June 2 congressional and legislative primaries. That is seven times the number that voted by mail in those primaries two years ago, and nine times the number from 2016 — even though the state was largely reopened for business two weeks ago.


Senator Ernst: Keep Our Elections Safewww.youtube.com


Read More

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less