Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
A few dozen people have been charged with voting crimes that occurred in North Carolina in 2016, when Donald Trump won the presidency and Richard Burr was reelected to the Senate.
Broad search for N.C. vote cheaters finds a couple dozen — from five years ago
Foraging for voter fraud has found scattered crimes across North Carolina — but they occurred five years ago, when Donald Trump won the presidency, not when he says he was cheated out of re-election last fall.
Federal prosecutors in Raleigh have announced charges against 24 more non-citizens since last year, with several new cases brought last week. But only two have recently been accused of voting illegally, bringing to 21 the number of foreigners who appear to have wrongly cast ballots in 2016 in one of the premier battleground states. All the others were charged with falsely claiming citizenship, or falsifying immigration papers, in order to register to vote.
But the Justice Department has made no allegations of a conspiracy to tilt the outcome. And given the minuscule numbers involved, such a scheme would not have been worth the effort, no matter the purported beneficiary.
Trump bested Hillary Clinton by 174,000 votes in North Carolina in 2016, while fellow Republican Richard Burr won reelection to the Senate by 267,000 votes. Last year, Trump took the state's 15 electoral votes by a smaller but still decisive 75,000 votes.
The state GOP went on an extensive social media campaign after the election in support of Trump's wholly unsubstantiated allegations of fraud in states he lost. In fact, one of the most palpably improper actions of the campaign took place when the president encouraged North Carolinians to vote twice, once by mail and once in person — to test the resilience of the state's election system, he asserted.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The 43 people who have been charged — after a highly publicized and aggressive investigation — are listed as being from Mexico and several Central American countries as well as France, Yemen, Iraq and Nigeria.
Between his appointment by Trump and the 2018 midterm election, U.S. Attorney Bobby Higdon used subpoenas, issued on behalf of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in an effort to obtain millions of voting records from the state Board of Elections and more than 40 counties in the half of the state under his jurisdiction.
The state board rebuffed the demand, labeling it overly broad and unreasonable, while voting rights activists said they suspected a partisan fishing expedition. After extensive negotiations, two years ago the state agreed to turn over its records for about 800 people.
The federal prosecutor's office, under new management since the start of the Biden administration, did not connect the charges to the documents they received.
- Marion Republicans hit with election fraud charges - The Fulcrum ›
- Group sues Detroit for dead people on voter rolls - The Fulcrum ›
- Iowa elections official becomes latest Republican to claim voter fraud ›
- Text-to-vote scam from 2016 brings fraud charges - The Fulcrum ›
Donald Trump's hotel in Washington, D.C., is at the heart of the argument for legislation that would give teeth to the Constitution's emoluments clauses.
After four years of abuse, tangible fixes abound for restoring the rule of law
Kinsella is counsel and Weiner the deputy director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive think tank at New York University Law School.
This is part of a series advocating for legislation soon to be proposed in the House, dubbed the Protecting Our Democracy Act, designed to improve democracy's checks and balances by curbing presidential power.
From inappropriate contacts with the Department of Justice to politically motivated pardons to the president's refusal to separate himself from his businesses, one of the most troubling hallmarks of the Trump administration was disregard for long-established guardrails designed to ensure that the government serves the public interest in an even-handed manner.
And while Trump-era excesses were unique, it must be acknowledged that prior administrations also committed serious abuses. Given what our nation has just experienced, shoring up safeguards for the rule of law and ethical government are a critical priority.
Legislation that we expect will soon start moving through the House, known as the Protecting Our Democracy Act, is an important first step in this regard. Among its most important provisions, the bill would improve enforcement of the emoluments clauses of the Constitution, prevent abuse of the president's pardon powers, insulate the Justice Department from political interference and protect the independence of inspectors general.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Donald Trump refused to divest from his businesses after becoming president. And several, like his Washington hotel, became ready-made avenues for both foreign governments and domestic political allies to curry favor with his administration.
While this did not violate federal conflict of interest rules, which exempt the president, it arguably did violate both the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses, constitutional provisions that bar the president — and in the case of foreign emoluments, all federal officials — from accepting benefits from foreign governments and individual U.S. states.
The president was sued repeatedly to enforce these safeguards, but these suits faced significant procedural hurdles. This is because the Constitution is silent about how to enforce these clauses and, except in limited circumstances, Congress has not enacted legislation to implement or interpret them.
The legislation would define what constitute unlawful benefits under the emoluments clauses and lay out the process for Congress to pursue violations. It would also require disclosure of emoluments and give the Office of Government Ethics and the Office of Special Counsel power to enforce this legislation.
Trump routinely used the president's pardon power to subvert the rule of law, granting clemency to personal and political cronies, war criminals, corrupt politicians and a repeat civil rights violator. Other presidents also abused the pardon power, notably the first President George Bush, who pardoned members of the Reagan administration for their involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal, and President Bill Clinton, who pardoned his own brother and one of his big political donors.
The bill begins to address this problem by requiring transparency for pardons of family members — although Jared Kushner's father, whom Trump pardoned, would not meet the statutory definition employed here — and for others who commit certain offenses related to obstruction of justice. It would also extend criminal liability, including to the president and vice president, for bribery associated with acts of clemency. Finally, it would invalidate self-pardons.
But the bill should go further to deter and expose controversial acts of clemency beyond those involving just the president or their family members. At a minimum, Congress should require transparency for acts of clemency where the recipient has a close relationship to the president, the president's family members or close associates.
Like its predecessors, the Trump White House purported to limit who could communicate with the Department of Justice about specific law enforcement matters — a practice first adopted by the Ford administration in the wake of Watergate. (Some administrations extended this policy to other law enforcement agencies, as well.) But the previous administration policy appears to have been primarily honored in the breach. For instance, Trump and other White House officials repeatedly violated the administration's contacts policy, exerting improper political pressure on Department of Justice officials — such as when Trump contacted Jeffrey Clark, the acting head of the Civil Division, in order to push the department to pursue claims of voter fraud.
The legislation proposes a simple solution to this problem: It would require the attorney general to submit a log of all covered communications with the White House to Justice's inspector general, who would forward any inappropriate communications to Congress. This provision could be made even stronger by narrowing the scope of its exemptions and applying it to other enforcement agencies, such as the departments of Labor and State, which also face the risk of improper politicization.
In the wake of the controversial removal of several inspectors general during the Trump administration, the legislation seeks to safeguard these independent watchdogs by granting them for-cause removal protection. Another bill, which passed the House in the last Congress, would expand the Justice inspector general's jurisdiction to include allegations relating to a department attorney's authority to investigate, litigate or provide legal advice. This would be an important addition to the Protecting Our Democracy Act. Inspectors general at other law enforcement agencies should also have the express statutory authority to investigate improper political interference.
These are among a number of provisions in the measure that aim to safeguard the rule of law and promote the ideal of public service as a public trust. The bill is an important first step to revitalize important guardrails for the rule of law. These reforms represent the codification of many practices and norms to which administrations of both parties long adhered — and which administrations of both parties have broken.
Many of the measures in the bill, which has support from organizations across the ideological spectrum, have had bipartisan support in Congress. Now is the time for Congress to ensure that our government has a strong foundation.
Ken Cuccinelli, a former deputy secretary of Homeland Security, is spearheading the campaign on behalf of anti-abortion groups.
Ex-Trump official to lead $5 million effort to stop HR 1
Two anti-abortion groups have launched a $5 million campaign to block the passage of the sweeping democracy reform bill known as HR 1, which will be brought to the House floor next week.
Former Trump administration official Ken Cuccinelli is at the helm of the Election Transparency Initiative, a program announced Tuesday by the Susan B. Anthony List and American Principles Project.
With every House Democrat already signed onto the legislation, HR 1 will likely pass through the House in early March. But getting enough "yes" votes in the 50-50 Senate will be much more challenging, if not impossible, especially with the filibuster still intact.
The wide-ranging reform package would ease access to the ballot box, curb the influence of money in politics, end partisan gerrymandering and strengthen government ethics. Democrats first introduced the legislation in 2019, but were stymied by GOP opposition. In this Congress, HR 1 looks doomed to a similar fate.
The conservative groups, led by Cuccinelli, will seek to capitalize on the evenly split Senate by rallying opposition to HR 1, particularly in three states — Arizona, Montana and West Virginia — where moderate senators are most likely to break from the Democratic majority on big issues. Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin and Jon Tester have all vocally opposed nixing the filibuster, making their support all the more crucial in achieving the 60 votes needed to pass legislation.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
While managing the defense in Washington, Susan B. Anthony List and American Principles Project will simultaneously go on offense at the state level to bolster grassroots support for "meaningful reforms," said Cuccinelli, who served as deputy secretary of Homeland Security in the Trump administration.
"The pro-life movement must engage in election transparency and integrity reform or their ability to elect pro-life, pro-family lawmakers — and pass laws that save lives — will be greatly diminished, if not extinguished," he said.
In the campaign announcement, Cuccinelli and the two organizations did not outline what election reforms they do support, but they strongly oppose the federalization of election laws through HR 1 and claimed that legislation would ensure "pro-abortion Democrats" had permanent control over the federal government.
"The integrity of our electoral system was severely compromised in 2020 when pro-abortion Democrats — utilizing the Covid-19 pandemic as an excuse — weakened state laws that ensure free and fair elections," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List.
Nearly every state offered no-excuse absentee voting in the 2020 election due to the coronavirus pandemic, leading to historically high voter turnout. But now, GOP lawmakers across the country are looking to roll back mail voting access, falsely claiming such moves are necessary to combat fraud. Experts have repeatedly found no evidence of such fraud or misconduct with any method of voting in last year's election.
- Senate Democrats unite behind their version of HR 1 - The Fulcrum ›
- Democrats renew efforts to pass HR1 - The Fulcrum ›
- March vote set for HR 1 as parties harden reform postures - The ... ›
- Republicans introduce their own election reform legislation - The Fulcrum ›
- Late tweaks keep HR 1 on track for House passage - The Fulcrum ›
- Late tweaks keep HR 1 on track for House passage - The Fulcrum ›
- Progressive campaign aims to weaken filibuster to pass HR 1 - The Fulcrum ›
- Progressive campaign aims to weaken filibuster to pass HR 1 - The Fulcrum ›
- Partisan standoff at Senate's first hearing on HR 1 - The Fulcrum ›
- Partisan standoff at Senate's first hearing on HR 1 - The Fulcrum ›
GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell said DonaldTrump was responsible for what happened Jan. 6, but voted to acquit the former president.
One vote both squandered and sullied the ultimate congressional check on a president
Marcuss is a retired partner at the law firm Bryan Cave and on the steering committee of Lawyers Defending American Democracy.
Donald Trump tried to steal the election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power. And 43 Republican senators said that's OK when they voted to acquit him in the impeachment trial. It was time to "stop the steal," as the former president's allies so often shout. But it was the Senate that refused.
Trump's militias attacked the Capitol, tried to stop Congress from counting the electoral votes that confirmed his defeat, called for hanging the vice president and threatened to assassinate the speaker of the House. And 43 Republican senators said that's OK.
The melee created by Trump's militias led to the deaths of at least five people, including a Capitol Police officer, and more than 100 of his colleagues were injured. Now the Capitol is an armed camp, surrounded by barbed wire and thousands from the National Guard. And 43 Republican senators said that's OK.
Americans might be forgiven for thinking the impeachment process is what protects the country from leaders like Trump, bent on destroying American democracy and the rule of law. Saturday's acquittal vote has proved this view to be dangerously wrong.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The Constitution provides that a president who commits "high crimes and misdemeanors" may be removed and disqualified from holding elective office. A president who incites a mob to seek to prevent Congress from certifying the results of an election he lost has unquestionably committed a high crime and misdemeanor.
Senators take an oath to "do impartial justice" before sitting in an impeachment trial. It was clear from the outset, however, that most GOP senators decided to ignore evidence of Trump's guilt even before the trial began. It's fiction that there was ever a chance for a real trial and the impartial administration of justice.
The undisputed evidence presented to the Senate demonstrated beyond a doubt that Trump started his effort to invalidate the 2020 election long before the first votes were cast, spreading the fiction that the only way he could lose was if the vote was rigged. After he actually lost, he kept spreading the lie that he'd been denied a second term by election thieves. Sixty or so courts across the land, including the Supreme Court, roundly disagreed.
In rally after rally, Trump nonetheless encouraged followers to believe his lies and urged them to come to Washington on Jan 6. Trump promised the day would be "wild."
And then, just before the start of the Electoral College tabulation ceremony, Trump repeated his Big Lie once more. He told a raucous rally that Joe Biden's victory "could not stand" and that Vice President Mike Pence had a duty to overturn the election. The mob then marched on the Capitol, ransacked the building, hunted for Pence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi and stopped the certification process for several hours. Trump, meanwhile, remained ensconced in the White House, did nothing to protect the Capitol, declared that his vice president had failed in his duty and embraced the mob.
"We love you; you're very special," he said as their insurrection continued, urging them once it was over to "Remember this day forever."
None of this was disputed. Even GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell said afterward that Trump was responsible for what happened and intended by his actions "to torch our institutions on the way out."
Yet, minutes earlier, McConnell and 42 other Republicans effectively did no more than shrug and say, "So what?"
McConnell shamelessly cloaked his vote with a laughable argument, that a former president was not constitutionally subject to an impeachment trial. But it was McConnell himself who prevented the trial from starting while Trump was still in office.
Nothing explains the acquittal, and McConnell's cynical contortions, except a craven surrender to political self-interest. A violent threat to our country be damned, said those who found Trump guiltless; for them, impartial justice meant nothing more than indifference to justice.
Impeachment is intended to protect the country from presidents who threaten the country's most sacred institutions, including the peaceful transfer of power. The process is meaningful, however, only if senators obey their oath to do "impartial justice." The Senate minority leader, and the other 42 Republicans who voted "not guilty," refused to do so despite knowing the charges were true.
The impeachment process can never be stripped entirely of political considerations. A politician not affected by politics, after all, is a dead politician. Senators are not like jurors in a regular court. They are not disqualified from voting because they know a lot about the case before the trial begins, or even if they have opinions about the merits of the case before seeing the evidence.
Like most things in life, however, conflicting pressures and obligations have to be balanced. There is an obvious conflict between the duty of impartiality, on the one hand, and the impossibility of expunging acquired biases and insulating politicians from political realities, on the other. Reconciling the two is not easy. What is inexcusable, however, is not even to try.
Those who voted not guilty did not try. They entered the Senate chamber determined to acquit and refused to be deterred. Some even openly collaborated with Trump's lawyers as the trial proceeded.
Those 43 senators have impeached the impeachment process. They have stolen from the Constitution a bulwark against tyranny and impeached themselves in the process.
But the other seven Republicans, and the 50 Democrats, knew the difference between commitment and capitulation on Saturday. They acquitted themselves by discharging their duty to act on the difference. Voters should remember this day forever.
- Precedent? Nah, the Senate gets to reinvent its rules in every ... ›
- Georgia opens inquiry into Trump's infamous call - The Fulcrum ›
- The threat to democracy has only just begun - The Fulcrum ›
- Witnesses at Trump's trial would be good for the system - The Fulcrum ›
