Connect with us

Smite The Vote – A Chance For Change?

Published

on

The Republican party of Virginia hid behind a ridiculously tedious law has only permitted two names onto the March Presidential Primary Ballot.
In recent months, America has been kept spellbound by the GOP primary race. With ever changing polls, candidates, scandals and attacks — alongside the emergence of the Super PAC — it is no wonder that many Americans are wondering if they are not being left with the choices of the rich and influential rather than with choices based on a system of democracy.One such example is what happened in Virginia, where arbitrary electoral law saw party heads choose only two candidates to be named on the ballot. In having the party heads ultimately able to decide who is on the ballot with an ever changing process, this leads to a lot of questions as to the fairness that would be shown to minorities, including the LGBT community.

The law of the Commonwealth clearly lay out the requirements and procedures necessary for a presidential candidate to obtain ballot access in the Virginia. Failure to understand, meet or comply with the code is simply poor practice on behalf of a candidate and campaign.

While upholding the current law and maintaining a code of ethics is vitally important, the law does need to be changed.  The responsibility for validating the signatures of the petition signers rests with the state parties and it raises the questions of impartiality and accuracy.

During the 2008 primary, both the Republican and Democratic Parties of Virginia claimed to have validated over 120,000 signatures for the 12 candidates running for office that year. For this election, the Republican Party has admitted to scrutinizing the signatures more closely than they had in past elections. Further the RPV Chairman, Pat Mullins, publicly stated that if any candidate secured 15,000 signatures with 600 from each Congressional district, that he would waive the certification process and automatically validate that candidate and place their name directly on the ballot.  Reliance and understanding of past practices is a terrible precedent, but perhaps the campaigns were prepared for the lack of scrutiny that was used in the past three presidential primary elections. This belief of how the system worked before the implementation of increased scrutiny led to challenges in court by Governor Rick Perry and Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The courts ultimately sided with the law over the plaintiffs and the ballots were left unchanged.

For many in Virginia, this was seen as a final blow to efforts across the state to have a full slate of names included on the ballot and to allow a comprehensive voice of democracy to be heard.

“The Commonwealth of Virginia has imposed one of the greatest injustices American voters have ever seen. The Republican party of Virginia, hid behind a ridiculously tedious law has only permitted two names onto the March Presidential Primary Ballot. The government and party officials in Virginia have failed to adhere to the true meaning of democracy by hiding behind complex and convoluted laws,” said Cameron Sasnett, CEO and founder of Elect-Logic.

Sasnett, who founded Elect-Logic early last year, has worked as a consultant with the Virginia State Board of Elections, is a board member with the Victory Fund and worked with the Stonewall Democrats, has come up with an idea to change the future and hopefully create a conversation in this country. He is calling this effort “Smite the Vote” which was developed in response to a democratic system that has disenfranchised voters through an immense amount of bureaucracy and red-tape created by those who should have been the stewards of an open democracy.

“While it has been demonstrated that the Commonwealth’s government is strong, it has become obvious that the strength has come at the expense of fair and adequate elections for primary voters. This election is the perfect opportunity to take back democracy from the tyrannical clutches of a system that has bypassed what is most important: the voters,” he continued.

With close to 200 “pop-up” locations throughout Virginia on primary day, Smite the Vote will be a way to engage nearly 750,000 voters in Virginia and give them a ballot they’re party and government wouldn’t. Working with nearly 3,000 volunteers dedicated to the cause of re-empowering the true meaning of democracy this action will give voice those who feel tossed aside.

“In the spirit of the principles for which our country was founded and to reinforce the that “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” it is important to ensure that the idea democracy is preserved far above the structures of government for which it is intended,” said a source close to Virginia party politics.

We must keep in mind that this is a unique circumstance.  Clearly the law is the law. However, there is substantial reasoning and evidence that the voters and tax-payers of the Commonwealth would be better served by the inclusion of more than two candidates on their primary ballot in March. If the law is left the way that it is, it ultimately reduces Virginia’s strength in the national political process.  In the future, candidates may not even bother to spend time and money in the Virginia, which will limit voters from a representative standpoint, and in particular LGBT candidates such as Fred Karger who skipped the state altogether.

Virginia has been the home to eight former US Presidents, elected its first gay man to State Senate, has fought to protect core values of American principles and continues to be a voice on the national scene. It is important that Virginia continues to be a pillar of democracy.  To be an advocate of such democracy Virginia must practice the fundamentals of such democracy and shed the onerous rules that prevent anyone from standing up and fighting for such inequalities.

 

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

Published

17 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) is mocking House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer over a CNN report revealing the embattled Kentucky Republican who has been alleging without proof President Joe Biden is the head of a vast multi-million dollar criminal bribery and influence-peddling conspiracy, has given up trying to impeach the leader of the free world.

CNN on Wednesday had reported, “after 15 months of coming up short in proving some of his biggest claims against the president, Comer recently approached one of his Republican colleagues and made a blunt admission: He was ready to be ‘done with’ the impeachment inquiry into Biden.” The news network described Chairman Comer as “frustrated” and his investigation as “at a dead end.”

One GOP lawmaker told CNN, “Comer is hoping Jesus comes so he can get out.”

“He is fed up,” the Republican added.

Despite the Chairman’s alleged remarks, “a House Oversight Committee spokesperson maintains that ‘the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and impeachment is 100% still on the table.'”

RELATED: ‘Used by the Russians’: Moskowitz Mocks Comer’s Biden Impeachment Failure

Last week, Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) got into a shouting match with Chairman Comer, with the Maryland Democrat saying, “You have not identified a single crime – what is the crime that you want to impeach Joe Biden for and keep this nonsense going?” and Comer replying, “You’re about to find out.”

Before those heated remarks, Congressman Raskin chided Comer, humorously threatening to invite Rep. Moskowitz to return to the hearing.

Congressman Moskowitz appears to be the only member of the House Oversight Committee who has ever made a motion to call for a vote on impeaching President Biden, which he did last month, although he did it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

It appears the Moskowitz-Comer “bromance” may be over.

Wednesday afternoon Congressman Moskowitz, whose sarcasm is becoming well-known, used it to ridicule Chairman Comer.

“I was hoping our breakup would never become public,” he declared. “We had such a great thing while it lasted James. I will miss the time we spent together. I will miss our conversations. I will miss the pet names you gave me. I only wish you the best and hope you find happiness.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Published

19 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on the question, can the federal government require states with strict abortion bans to allow physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations, specifically when the woman’s health, but not her life, is in danger?

The 1986 federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan, says it can. The State of Idaho on Wednesday argued it cannot.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, The Washington Post’s Kim Bellware reported, “made a clear delineation between Idaho law and what EMTALA provides.”

“In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death,” Prelogar said, according to Bellware. “Whereas under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like, ‘Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?’ ”

READ MORE: Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Attorney Imani Gandy, an award-winning journalist and Editor-at-Large for Rewire News Group, highlighted an issue central to the case.

“The issue of medical judgment vs. good faith judgment is a huge one because different states have different standards of judgment,” she writes. “If a doctor exercises their judgment, another doctor expert witness at trial could question that. That’s a BIG problem here. That’s why doctors are afraid to provide abortions. They may have an overzealous prosecutor come behind them and disagree.”

Right-wing Justice Samuel Alito appeared to draw the most fire from legal experts, as his questioning suggested “fetal personhood” should be the law, which it is not.

“Justice Alito is trying to import fetal personhood into federal statutory law by suggesting federal law might well prohibit hospitals from providing abortions as emergency stabilizing care,” observed Constitutional law professor Anthony Michael Kreis.

Paraphrasing Justice Alito, Kreis writes: “Alito: How can the federal government restrict what Idaho criminalizes simply because hospitals in Idaho have accepted federal funds?”

Appearing to answer that question, Georgia State University College of Law professor of law and Constitutional scholar Eric Segall wrote: “Our Constitution unequivocally allows the federal gov’t to offer the states money with conditions attached no matter how invasive b/c states can always say no. The conservative justices’ hostility to the spending power is based only on politics and values not text or history.”

Professor Segall also served up some of the strongest criticism of the right-wing justice.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

He wrote that Justice Alito “is basically making it clear he doesn’t care if pregnant women live or die as long as the fetus lives.”

Earlier Wednesday morning Segall had issued a warning: “Trigger alert: In about 20 minutes several of the conservative justices are going to show very clearly that that they care much more about fetuses than women suffering major pregnancy complications which is their way of owning the libs which is grotesque.”

Later, predicting “Alito is going to dissent,” Segall wrote: “Alito is dripping arrogance and condescension…in a case involving life, death, and medical emergencies. He has no bottom.”

Taking a broader view of the case, NYU professor of law Melissa Murray issued a strong warning: “The EMTALA case, Moyle v. US, hasn’t received as much attention as the mifepristone case, but it is huge. Not only implicates access to emergency medical procedures (like abortion in cases of miscarriage), but the broader question of federal law supremacy.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Gag Order Breach? Trump Targeted Cohen in Taped Interview Hours Before Contempt Hearing

Published

21 hours ago

on

April 24, 2024

By

Hours before his attorneys would mount a defense on Tuesday claiming he had not violated his gag order Donald Trump might have done just that in a 12-minute taped interview that morning, which did not air until later that day. It will be up to Judge Juan Merchan to make that decision, if prosecutors add it to their contempt request.

Prosecutors in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office told Judge Juan Merchan that the ex-president violated the gag order ten times, via posts on his Truth Social platform, and are asking he be held in contempt. While the judge has yet to rule, he did not appear moved by their arguments. At one point, Judge Merchan told Trump’s lead lawyer Todd Blanche he was “losing all credibility” with the court.

And while Judge Merchan directed defense attorneys to provide a detailed timeline surrounding Trump’s Truth Social posts to prove he had not violated the gag order, Trump in an interview with a local television station appeared to have done so.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

The gag order bars Trump from “commenting or causing others to comment on potential witnesses in the case, prospective jurors, court staff, lawyers in the district attorney’s office and the relatives of any counsel or court staffer, as CBS News reported.

“The threat is very real,” Judge Merchan wrote when he expanded the gag order. “Admonitions are not enough, nor is reliance on self-restraint. The average observer, must now, after hearing Defendant’s recent attacks, draw the conclusion that if they become involved in these proceedings, even tangentially, they should worry not only for themselves, but for their loved ones as well. Such concerns will undoubtedly interfere with the fair administration of justice and constitutes a direct attack on the Rule of Law itself.”

Tuesday morning, Trump told ABC Philadelphia’s Action News reporter Walter Perez, “Michael Cohen is a convicted liar. He’s got no credibility whatsoever.”

He repeated that Cohen is a “convicted liar,” and insisted he “was a lawyer for many people, not just me.”

READ MORE: ‘Old and Tired and Mad’: Trump’s Demeanor in Court Detailed by Rachel Maddow

Since Cohen is a witness in Trump’s New York criminal case, Judge Merchan might decide Trump’s remarks during that interview violated the gag order, if prosecutors bring the video to his attention.

Enter attorney George Conway, who has been attending Trump’s New York trial.

Conway reposted a clip of the video, tagged Manhattan District Attorney Bragg, writing: “cc: @ManhattanDA, for your proposed order to show cause why the defendant in 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘷. 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 should not spend some quiet time in lockup.”

Trump has been criminally indicted in four separate cases and is facing a total of 88 felony charges, including 34 in this New York criminal trial for alleged falsification of business records to hide payments of “hush money” to an adult film actress and one other woman, in an alleged effort to suppress their stories and protect his 2016 presidential campaign, which experts say is election interference.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.