Barbara Rodriguez, The 19th

Originally published by The 19th

We're answering the "how" and "why" of politics news. Sign up for our daily newsletter.

Lisa Deeley did not watch the CNN town hall this week where Donald Trump repeated several debunked conspiracy theories about America’s elections.

But as an election administrator — Deely is chair of the Philadelphia City Commissioners, which helps oversee elections in the city — she soon learned all about it as peers shared clips that showed the barrage of falsehoods the former president spread to millions of viewers.

Deeley said she quickly thought about the ramifications for her fellow election workers: the potential for new forms of harassment and threats toward them, new considerations for their safety.

“It’s really a remarkable situation that we’re in, where some person can just keep lying and people choose to believe those lies,” she told The 19th. “Therein lies the biggest hurdle for election workers and for democracy.”

A predominantly women-led workforce, election workers in America have had little respite from the effects of conspiracy theories that permeated after the 2020 election. Trump, who is the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president, made clear during the town hall that he intends to amplify that very messaging as he seeks another term. Despite real-time fact checking by the CNN moderator, the former president would not acknowledge his loss to President Joe Biden in 2020 and left open the possibility of accepting a defeat in 2024 only if he decides it’s “an honest election.”

The doubt spread by Trump and his allies has led to threats to election workers’ safety and added to the demands of their job as they have had to prove the legitimacy of past elections, leaving less time to prepare for the next ones. The ongoing doubt over widespread election fraud — which is not based in fact — has in some cases contributed to Republican-led statehouses limiting outside funding for elections. Adequate state and federal funding, for both safety and other forms of election infrastructure, continue to be a concern for election workers, and election administrators warn the ramifications could further harm morale in the workforce while creating more distrust in the process.

“Trump's election lies and conspiracies have fueled unprecedented voter suppression and political violence,” said Jena Griswold, Colorado’s secretary of state and chair of the Democratic Association of Secretaries of State. “I think it's very unfortunate that he was given that type of format and platform, because we all know he tried to steal the presidency from the American people.”

Jocelyn Benson, the Democratic secretary of state in Michigan, tweeted during the town hall that she considered fact-checking the election lies, “but I’m too busy worrying about all the election administrators who are going to be subject to a new wave of threats & harassment because of the amplification of this nonsense.”

It’s difficult to measure the full effect of election denialism on election workers. But a recent survey by the Brennan Center for Justice shows the ongoing strain on a decentralized system that administrators say was mostly behind-the-scenes until the emergence of election conspiracies: Nearly 1 in 3 election officials say they have been harassed, abused or threatened because of their work. One in 5 say they are concerned about being physically assaulted on the job.

Separately, 45 percent of election officials say they’re concerned for the safety of their colleagues and other election officials in future elections.

It’s part of the reason Jackie Wu is no longer an election administrator in Orange County, California, one of the largest voting jurisdictions in the United States. She said after the January 6, 2021, insurrection — which was triggered in part by Trump’s false insistence that the 2020 election was rigged — she decided to leave the job for her own well-being. She now does election-related consulting.

“Election workers are the last line of defense for democracy,” she said. “We’re seeing scores of election workers who, like myself, have already left or plan on leaving before 2024. And I think that needs to be a bigger issue.”

In recent months, some legislatures have considered bills that would add protections for election workers, including new penalties for people accused of threatening them. Some provisions include keeping election workers’ home addresses private.

But they also come as other policies might complicate the work of election workers. Republican-controlled legislatures have considered adding criminal penalties for election workers. Separately, some Republican secretaries of state have announced plans to withdraw their states from a bipartisan interstate program that helps to ensure accurate voter lists.

Kathy Boockvar is a senior adviser at the Institute for Responsive Government and currently advises organizations, schools and election officials on election security and democracy issues. She said disinformation continues to be a prevalent dynamic in elections administration.

“The louder the voice, the more it's going to reach people who then feel empowered to threaten their election officials,” said Boocker, a former Pennsylvania secretary of state who has experienced threats of violence in her work. “And if you ask most election officials, they could show you how often, if there’s a prominent speaker who spreads a lie, that some pieces of that language then finds its way into the threat.”

Griswold said the fact that most election workers are women means there is an added layer to the threats being inspired by Trump, who has been accused of sexual misconduct several times over the years.

“His contempt for women and free and fair elections is a toxic and dangerous combination for election workers,” she said.

Wu said election workers have long prided themselves in making any election budget work. But that is increasingly getting more complicated with risks of burnout and other challenges.

“I think that we’re really seeing a breaking point for some of the most dedicated individuals who care about democracy,” she said. “It's really hard.”

Deeley said she is committed to her job as long as people continue to elect her to the post. She said watching election workers count ballots during the 2020 primary amid a global pandemic is a core memory for her, and she wants to remind the public about the people behind the titles.

“These people that do this work are your neighbors, your family members in some cases — you might go to church with them. They’re just ordinary people,” she said. “This is their job. They're not part of any conspiracy. They are just ordinary people that are doing the work that they've done in some cases, for decades.”

Boockvar said legal accountability will be an important step toward addressing election denialism. She noted Fox News’ recent settlement of a defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems over false election claims. Separately, prosecutors in Georgia are investigating Trump’s role in trying to overturn the 2020 election in the state.

She said another component is public education of America’s election system, as well as supporting election workers through adequate financial support.

“Election officials are overworked, underpaid and understaffed, so the more we fund them, the more we enable them to help get out accurate information about elections, and help combat disinformation as it happens,” she said.

Originally published by The 19th

We’re answering the “how” and “why” of abortion and politics news. Subscribe to our daily newsletter.

Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds has backed a plan to allow residents who are 18 and older to receive birth control from a pharmacist without a prescription. The Republican-controlled Senate last month approved legislation to permit it.

But the bill is moving through the statehouse as a rift is growing in the Republican Party over birth control, with some anti-abortion groups opposing access. Similar legislation, to expand or protect birth control access, has passed in both liberal and conservative states in recent years. But with the Supreme Court’s June decision ending a federal right to abortion, states have taken on reproductive health care, and some conservatives are increasingly tying abortion and birth control.

Mary Ziegler, an abortion law historian, said Republicans used to be able to take a stance on either abortion policy or contraception policy without the issues intersecting.

“My sense in general within the anti-abortion movement — and I think to some degree within the GOP, too — there’s been a shift to the right on all of that, and more open opposition to contraception than we’ve seen in years past,” she said. “To me it’s much more eye-catching to see a Republican governor actually being this supportive of contraception, than it would have been a few years ago, just because I think there's been a general shift toward saying, ‘Contraception is bad, too.’”

Some Republicans are working to clarify that they are not opposed to contraception. In Oklahoma, a pair of anti-abortion Republican lawmakers introduced a bill earlier this year that clarifies that state laws on abortion shall not prohibit or restrict contraceptive drugs, surgeries or other treatments by authorized health care providers. Lawmakers in the Republican-led state Senate overwhelmingly passed the measure last month.

“Being pro-family also means allowing Oklahomans the freedom to plan when to start or grow their family,” sponsor Sen. Jessica Garvin said in a statement at the time of the bill’s passage. “When people have access to contraception, they can pursue their goals and build healthy families. It’s a right we all deserve.”

Ziegler said opposition by anti-abortion groups toward birth control has become more pronounced in recent election cycles, especially after former President Barack Obama included contraception mandates in the Affordable Care Act that spurred legal action. She noted as more Christian right groups and anti-abortion organizers strengthened their financial resources and strategy, there was more invested in claims about religious liberty and its connection to birth control.

“That was when you began to see more of a tendency to say, ‘We’re OK opposing contraception, because people of faith have these religious objections to it, because they believe it’s an abortifacient,’” she said.

A spokesperson for Students for Life of America told The 19th that the organization does not take a position against or for birth control, but it opposes federal funding to abortion providers “who use birth control programs to market life-ending drugs, devices, and procedures.”

“Title X funds should be invested in family care, not family-ending vendors who misuse federal funds to support their abortion businesses,” Kristi Hamrick, vice president of media and policy, said in an email.

Ziegler said it all indicates a divide among some GOP lawmakers and some anti-abortion groups on contraception, and it’s still unclear where it’s heading.

“This is kind of a fork in the road for the movement, and I think, for the GOP,” she said.

At least 17 states and the District of Columbia allow pharmacists to provide contraceptive care, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan research and policy organization focused on reproductive and sexual health. Many of these laws have been passed since 2016, according to Elizabeth Nash, who recently tracked state policy for Guttmacher and now works for the federal government on contraceptive access. The details vary, though, and there are practical questions now about access and education to the public.

“It’s one thing to pass the policy and say you’ve passed the policy,” she said. “The other piece is the implementation part.”

The Iowa bill to expand birth control has been years in the making. Reynolds first introduced the measure in 2019, but it did not have enough support amid opposition from local anti-abortion groups.

The proposal this year was added at the last minute to an unrelated bill about EpiPens. The provision noted that self-administered hormonal contraceptives include an oral hormonal contraceptive, a hormonal vaginal ring and a hormonal contraceptive patch. It specifies that it does not include any drug intended to induce an abortion.

Before a 45-3 vote, there was no debate on the bill. Iowa Sen. Jeff Edler, the Republican managing the bill’s passage, briefly said on the chamber floor that it was “another bill that continues to expand the access of health care to Iowans.”

But once again, it’s unclear if the bill will pass. Since advancing out of the state Senate, Republicans in the House have proposed amendments to the legislation that might complicate its chances of getting signed into law, including one that requires pharmacists who dispense birth control to share misinformation about abortion.

And once again, local anti-abortion groups have registered opposition to the bill, including the Family Leader, a politically powerful conservative group, and Pulse Life Advocates, previously known as the anti-abortion group Iowans for Life.

A spokesperson for Reynolds did not respond to a request for an interview about the bill.

The bill’s progression since leaving the Senate last month has been discouraging to Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott, a Democrat.

“It really seemed like, ‘Hey, we’re maybe going to do something that the people have been asking for and isn’t that great? A nice change of pace,’” she said. “And it's really disappointing to hear about all these things the House is attaching to this legislation.”

Iowa has also shifted more conservative in recent election cycles, including under the leadership of Reynolds. She has asked a more conservative state Supreme Court to reconsider a six-week abortion ban that she first signed in 2018 but has been on hold.

Separately, newly elected Republican Attorney General Brenna Bird confirmed to The Des Moines Register that her office recently put on hold a long-standing practice under the previous Democratic AG to pay for emergency contraception for victims of sexual assault. In rare cases, that also included abortions.

Trone Garriott said if Republicans reduce reproductive health through other forms of policy, it’s hard to balance that out with their efforts on birth control.

“Overall, the landscape in Iowa is pretty bleak right now when it comes to reproductive care, and there’s all kinds of things that are being passed that are discouraging people from moving to our state, discouraging young people from building their lives here and discouraging health care practitioners from coming here,” she said. “So it's a small thing that's helpful, but overall, we're just seeing a lot of bad policy that's having a negative impact.”

“That wouldn’t be the one!” he told the crowd gathered in Waco, Texas, in late March, shortly before he was indicted. “There is no one. We have a great first lady.” In the background, supporters held up signs reading, “Witch Hunt.”

On Tuesday, as Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in New York, his campaign sold “NOT GUILTY” T-shirts online with a fake mug shot for $47. They claimed to have raised millions in the days following his indictment.

The charges against Trump aren’t about whether he had an affair with Daniels, but whether he falsified records to conceal criminal conduct, hiding damaging information ahead of the 2016 presidential election. But the investigation, and Trump’s reaction, has put a spotlight on his history with women, one that sparked protests around the country after his 2017 inauguration and helped set the stage for the explosion of the #MeToo movement.

Trump has regularly spoken about women in crude terms — consistently deriding Hillary Clinton and calling her a “nasty woman,” repeatedly calling women dogs, saying former Fox News host Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her wherever” after she moderated a debate, and attacking the looks of a woman GOP primary opponent. A month before the 2016 election, a tape surfaced in which Trump described grabbing women by their genitals. Days later, two women spoke out about Trump’s alleged sexual misconduct. More followed, with accounts in multiple news outlets describing misconduct spanning decades. Trump has denied many of these allegations.

Trump’s response to his recent charges mirrors his reaction to a long list of past instances of legal scrutiny, which gender experts say is not surprising — and shows how the former president’s history of toxic masculinity might continue to play a role in his campaign for president.

“It's so ironic that he’s using the gendered language of a ‘witch hunt,’” said Juliet A. Williams, a professor of gender studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. “His point is to say, ‘Obviously, it would be beyond straining credulity to think anyone would really care about my dalliance with a porn star, about the beliefs or views of the porn star … so this must be a partisan witch hunt.’”

Supporters wait before Trump takes the stage at a campaign rally at Waco Regional Airport Saturday in Waco, Texas on March 25, 2023.

(Nathan Howard/AP)

It’s unclear whether such behavior will negatively impact this latest run, but past controversies have not rocked his standing among many of his supporters.

The case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg isn’t Trump’s only legal peril. He faces investigations tied to accusations of election interference in Georgia during the 2020 election and mishandling of classified documents. Separately, the first of two civil defamation lawsuits filed by author E. Jean Carroll is scheduled to go to trial this month. Carroll claims Trump raped her in the mid-1990s. Trump has denied the allegation, and both Carroll and Trump are expected to testify in the trial.

Melissa Deckman, a political scientist and CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, said any impact from the indictment will be the result of fatigue around his legal troubles — not because Republican primary voters perceive wrongdoing.

Among the Americans most likely to support Trump, views on morality and public figures have shifted in recent years. In 2011, 30 percent of White evangelicals said that "an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life." In 2020, the most recent year for which there is available data, 68 percent of White evangelicals agreed with the statement. A similar trend has played out among Republicans — the survey showed a shift from 36 percent in 2011 to 72 percent in 2020.

Deckman said many in his party ignored Trump’s personal life and many controversies.

“Republicans coalesced around Trump, irrespective of the personal and morality issues, because the policies were more important,” she said. “For many evangelicals it became a far more transactional relationship — ‘we might essentially be willing to overlook those things about his past because when it comes to policies, he's going to fight on our behalf.”'

Kelly Dittmar, director of research at the Center for American Women and Politics, said it’s possible that some of Trump’s supporters are sympathetic toward the former president because he has primed them to believe he is a victim of unfair attacks. Dittmar pointed to PRRI data that showed 34 percent of Americans agreed that “these days, society seems to punish men just for acting like men.”

“It’s this idea that you're just trying to take this privileged White man down,” she said. “Underlying that are feelings among many in his base that they are under attack in this ‘woke’ era — because they’re White, because they’re male, because they’re privileged.”

Still, Trump remains a unique candidate for the ways in which his history of controversies have not sunk his popularity. While the #MeToo movement helped lead Democrats to wins in the 2018 midterms, Trump’s own behavior with women didn’t play a huge part in his 2020 reelection bid, which was dominated by the pandemic and economy. Whether that’s repeated in next year’s primaries or a potential 2024 rematch with President Joe Biden remains to be seen.

Trump’s trial on the New York charges may not start for a year, and could coincide with the start of Republican primary elections. The charges focus on his alleged payments to Daniels, but prosecutors also described hush-money payments to a former Playboy model and a doorman. It marks the first time a former president has ever been criminally charged.

Former President Trump appears in court for his arraignment on April 4, 2023, in New York City.

(Andrew Kelly/AP)

"These are felony crimes in New York state, no matter who you are,” Bragg said of the charges Tuesday. “We cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct."

Williams drew a connection to the conduct of former Democratic President Bill Clinton, who had an extramarital relationship in the 1990s with then-White House intern Monica Lewinsky that he tried to cover up. He also paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee. Clinton denied wrongdoing and his legal settlement did not include an admission of guilt.

“It's remarkable that in decades of U.S. history, with all the complexities of governance and the law and cultural change, that these two presidents are likely to face their most long standing and possibly most trenchant legal challenges having to do with sexual misbehavior,” she said. “It just can't be a coincidence.”

It’s a connection Trump supporters are drawing, too.

“Some people are already saying, ‘Yeah, the Clinton-Lewinsky affair is the relevant implicit reference point, and if Clinton could get away with it, then it would be unfair partisanship if Trump did not get away with it now,” she said.

Deckman noted the irony in such comparisons.

“A lot of these evangelical leaders in the late 1990s lambasted Bill Clinton for having an affair in the White House. And so I think that's why many people took note of the sudden and drastic change [in polling],” Deckman said.

She added: “I think more Americans in general have been increasingly willing to disregard some immoral actions and overlook that sort of thing. But really, among White evangelicals and Trump, it seems to be that all has been forgiven in lots of ways as long as you're standing with them in terms of the policy.”

There’s not a lot of legal precedent for the charges brought against Trump. Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, a Democrat who ran for president in 2008, was indicted by a federal grand jury in 2011 on charges of violating campaign finance laws tied to an extramarital affair. Edwards was ultimately acquitted on one count and a jury could not reach a verdict on other charges. The federal government declined to retry Edwards.

Williams said these cases involve powerful men who somehow let their guard down when it came to women and sex. It’s a level of confidence that is more prevalent in men.

“They think there’s an invincibility or a cloak of entitlement,” she said.

Donald Trump boards his airplane at Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida in March 2023.

(Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images)

Dittmar pointed out that in the media, Daniels is usually identified with her work as an adult film star, which may delegitimize her experiences to the public.

“There's a discounting of her and a disbelief of her, because of how we characterize women who engage in that work,” she said.

Williams said Trump’s efforts to get back into the White House come as issues involving sexual harassment, abortion access and gender identity are boiling to the surface. Several popular Republicans who are considering a bid for president have emphasized policy priorities like restricting transgender people’s rights and banning teachings about sexual identity and orientation in schools.

“He represents the culture wars and a simmering resentment, if not contempt, for women, that's very much in the shadow of the activism that began in the 1960s and continues to this day,” she said.

Williams said Trump’s attitudes toward women and feminism are a central aspect of what he’s selling to voters. It’s a dynamic that was key to his 2016 campaign, as he encouraged his supporters to chant “lock her up” about Hillary Clinton.

“That is very, very much part of his brand and has to be accounted for in the reception of news that he has these involvements with women in various ways,” she said. “The racism and the sexism — that's part of the public messaging. That's not a revelation that undermines the portrait of his character.”

Originally published by The 19th

We’re making sense of the midterms. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for election context and analysis.

Many of the Republican candidates who staked their campaigns this midterm year on questioning the integrity of U.S. elections have lost and conceded — a low bar for democratic norms but one that political observers weren’t certain would be cleared. But Kari Lake, one of the most prominent election deniers of the cycle, has so far shown little sign of acknowledging her own loss in the Arizona governor’s race.

Instead, she has mirrored tactics used by former President Donald Trump, turning to social media to sow doubts about her loss. The Wall Street Journal reported that Lake was at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Thursday, the same day she released a video in which she questioned how elections were run in Arizona.

“I am busy here collecting evidence and data. Rest assured I have assembled the best and brightest legal team, and we are exploring every avenue to correct the many wrongs that have been done this past week,” she said.

Her refusal to concede came in the same week that Trump, who is under several criminal investigations, appeared at his Mar-a-Lago resort to announce his next bid for president. His remarks included casting doubts about elections.

The insistence by both Trump and Lake without proof that their losses may have been caused by nefarious actions are signs that the danger of election denialism has not passed even as so many election deniers bowed out in the end, according to experts.

Democrat Katie Hobbs defeated Lake by roughly 17,000 votes out of more than 2.5 million cast, according to Decision Desk HQ, which reports nearly all ballots have been counted. Other news outlets have also called the close race for Hobbs.

“Arizonans know BS when they see it,” Lake, 53, tweeted Monday night to more than 700,000 followers after Hobbs, 52, was declared the winner.

Since then, Lake has highlighted claims that some voters in Maricopa County, Arizona’s most populous, were disenfranchised because of technical issues with ballot tabulation machines and long lines. Election officials tried to address reported issues in real time and fact-check claims about the vote counting. Officials had warned the public that posting election results can take days after Election Day. Lake has also been critical of Hobbs, who is the current secretary of state, for not recusing herself. Election officials have noted that votes are counted and tabulated by local administrators.

While Lake encouraged people to “cure” or fix issues with rejected ballots, not an unusual step for a candidate in a close race, she has largely focused on questioning the process of counting ballots.

Her official campaign account, the “Kari Lake War Room,” has tweeted unfounded claims that voting was “flawed.” Lake has also retweeted people’s messages about her, including: “She will not go quietly into the night. She intends to stand and fight.”

Trump’s challenges against his loss in 2020 went much further, and included an attempt to overturn the election. He encouraged a violent mob to storm the Capitol — and when news outlets reported Tuesday that he would seek another presidential bid, Lake offered an endorsement.

On Monday, Trump posted about the Arizona governor’s race on his Truth Social account and claimed the voting process was rigged.

“I assume everyone is watching Arizona as the great Kari Lake’s easy election win is slowly, yet systematically, being drained away from her, and from the American people,” he wrote. “This is a very sad thing to watch.”

While Lake’s denial of the results doesn’t change them, it does chip away at foundations of American democracy. Erica Frantz, an expert on authoritarianism who is an associate professor of political science at Michigan State University, said Lake’s insistence that there was nefarious activity attempts to challenge the public understanding that U.S. elections are secure.

“It's very important that we recognize when elections are free and fair and when they aren't, because that's the backbone of any democracy,” she said. “So to the extent that politicians create lies about the integrity of the process, that's very much troubling. It sets the stage for future intervention in democratic elections that aren't helpful.”

Carah Ong Whaley, academic program officer at the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, whose research centers on political learning and participation for democracy, said the attention Lake drew before the election makes her latest denials even more serious.

“Kari Lake, she is a populist candidate and she has a huge base,” Ong Whaley said. “That's why Trump ended up endorsing her. He saw that she could draw a crowd and that she has that media savvy.”

Lake had no experience in elected office when she launched her bid for governor in a crowded primary, and she — like Trump — had presented herself as a political outsider. But the former television anchor propelled her campaign in part through unfounded suspicions about elections and public ridicule of the press — all while in soft-focused lightning. Lake’s husband was often spotted filming her when she spoke to reporters. She often had a mic at the ready, and was a fixture on conservative media.

Ahead of the election, Lake avoided answering whether she would accept any result, including a potential loss.

“I’m going to win the election, and I will accept that result,” she told CNN’s Dana Bash.

The race between her and Hobbs took place in a state that will be a battleground for the 2024 presidential election. A governor here helps certify the elections and is able to push for policy that could change the voting system, something that Lake committed she would do. Lake has called Biden “an illegitimate president.”

While election deniers lost in several statewide races in key battleground states, they won in more solid red states: Secretary of state candidates who embraced the lies about 2020 won in the Republican strongholds of Alabama, Indiana, South Dakota and Wyoming. And some incumbent politicians who cast doubt about the 2020 elections also won reelection.

“There’s a serious division between the parties and then within the Republican Party,” said Ong Whaley. “I'm glad that some people are breathing a sigh of relief, but I’m more in the category of, we need to continue to watch this, this is going to be problematic.”

Jordan Wood, executive director of democracyFIRST, a political action committee that challenges election deniers, said the concession of other election deniers may shift how people perceive Lake’s claims.

“We’re not dealing with a big group of candidates in high-profile races that are going to refuse to accept these losses and try to fight them,” he said. “I think that really weakens Kari Lake’s position if she decides to do that. Because she’s in many ways out on her own.”

Ong Whaley said it’s worth noting that the Arizona governor’s race was close enough that it may signal to Lake that her focus on election denialism could propel supporters in the future.

“She has put herself into politics,” Ong Whaley said of Lake, who quit her job in journalism. “I don’t see her going away anytime soon.”

Frantz said the dynamics of Trump’s third bid for president are also different than the last time — in part because election deniers did lose in key races this year. If top officials within the Republican Party distance themselves from lies about election integrity that could diminish it as a platform for not just Trump but others.

“There’s often a tendency to look to ordinary voters as, ‘Why are they supporting these things? What could have happened in the U.S. that they feel this way?’ But oftentimes, these processes are being driven from above,” Franz said. “So what is critical is that elites in the Republican Party see it is in their career interests to move away from narratives that endorse violence and that question the integrity of the elections.”

Melissa Ryan, editor of the Ctrl Alt-Right Delete newsletter who tracks the extreme right, said it’s important to acknowledge that democracy was upheld last week because people warned about the stakes.

“I think one of my biggest concerns coming out of how well Democrats unexpectedly did is, I'm already seeing some, ‘Oh, maybe democracy wasn't in danger after all, and people were exaggerating the threat.’ And it seems to me what happened is enough people were freaked out about the potential loss of democracy, the loss of rights — that they made a point to go out and vote.”

But Ryan said people must stay vigilant as new voting restrictions are proposed, gerrymandered districts remain a reality and candidates who promote extremist policies lose elections.

“This is a faction that really doesn't want to have elections anymore. They want to seize power. So it's also important to keep an eye on, as they realize that it's going to be harder and harder to win free and fair elections in most places … what are they going to turn to next? Because it's not like they're just going to be like, ‘Oh, well, we lost the election, next time.’ I don't think that's going to be the way that they keep progressing.”

Originally published by The 19th

The man charged with breaking into the home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and assaulting her husband was reportedly yelling, “Where is Nancy?” echoing some of those who attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

That question — and the suspected targeting of one of the most powerful women in American politics — points to a form of violent misogyny that is part and parcel of larger threats to American democracy, say experts who study and track gendered political violence.

Pelosi, who is second in line to the presidency, has long been the focus of negative political ads and campaign rhetoric. But the attacks have become more layered with threats of violence and misogyny, and social media has allowed them to spread more easily. It’s both dangerous to Pelosi and other women in positions of power and discouraging to women who might otherwise run for office, experts say.

“Certainly Nancy Pelosi has long been a very obvious public figure and has long been a target for those on the right — partly because of her positions, but certainly because of her gender, which has played a role in the way she is talked about and how much vitriol is directed her way,” Jean Sinzdak, an associate director of the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) told The 19th.

“It’s easy to be dismissive and say, ‘Oh well of course you get animosity directed your way because you’re in a leadership role.’ But there is a gender-based element that goes way further than that in someone breaking into her personal space and feeling entitled to be violent against her,” Sinzdak said.

While physical violence and the threat of it have long impacted people in power, it’s often heightened when it comes to women in office. In 2011, a man shot then-Rep. Gabby Giffords while she met with constituents at a grocery store; the Arizona Democrat survived the attack, but several people were killed and injured.

In 2020, several men were arrested on suspicion of plotting to kidnap Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Three men were convicted in the case last week.

In 2021, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — one of several Democratic women of color in Congress who have spoken out about threats of violence — was the focus of vitriol after Republican Rep. Paul Gosar shared an anime-style video that depicted the congressman killing her.

“What we’re seeing in the tenor of some of the attacks against not just Pelosi but other women in public positions is this idea of, ‘Who are you that you think you can be in charge’ and ‘I will do what I can to undermine this,’” Sinzdak said.

Sarah Sobieraj, a sociology professor at Tufts University and author of “Credible Threat: Attacks Against Women Online and the Future of Democracy,” pointed to how extreme rhetoric has evolved over time and can surface as real-life attacks.

Sobieraj has studied the creation and rise of the “outrage industry” — a genre of political opinion content that spans cable news analysis, talk radio, podcasts, blogs and op-ed pieces, where people use extreme rhetoric as a dominant form of discourse to generate feelings like anger, moral indignation and disgust. Over the years, that industry has expanded to include politicians of all affiliations using the targeted outrage.

Sobieraj added that one of the core elements of outrage discourse involves an insistence that those with different political beliefs are not people with different interests or priorities, but fundamentally bad people. As she explained it, they are framed as inept, disingenuous, or evil. She called it a recipe for mistreatment of others, whether through online attacks, defamation or physical violence.

“This is a form of speech and rhetoric that is effective in producing ratings and dollars,” she said. “So people are using this rhetoric intentionally for political gain to change people's thoughts and behaviors.”

Social media has allowed for the rampant amplification of this rhetoric, as well, Sinzdak notes.

“You can spread something so much faster with a crowd online than in person,” she said. “You can find out where a public figure lives; there’s no distance there. Misogyny against women and sexism and violence are not a new phenomenon, but we’re seeing it all heightened so much because of the ability of people to interact on social media.”

Details are still emerging about the attack against the speaker’s 82-year-old husband, Paul Pelosi. The speaker’s office said he was “violently assaulted” Friday at a San Francisco home he shares with his wife, who was not at home during the attack. The office said Paul Pelosi has undergone “successful” surgery to repair a skull fracture and “serious” injuries to his right arm and hands. His doctors expect a “full recovery,” a statement added.

Police have arrested David DePape in connection with the attack. DePape, 42, faces charges that include attempted homicide, assault with a deadly weapon, elder abuse and burglary. On Monday, the Department of Justice added charges of assault and attempted kidnapping.

Federal authorities say DePape struck Paul Pelosi with a hammer following a struggle in the home. Authorities say they observed a broken glass door to the home’s back porch. Among the items removed from the scene were tape, rope, an additional hammer, rubber and cloth gloves and zip ties.

The Los Angeles Times reported that DePape shared conspiracy theories online, including about QAnon and COVID-19.

Some Republicans condemned the attack within hours of initial reports. But other Republicans and right-wing media personalities mocked it over the weekend, sharing disinformation about the circumstances surrounding Pelosi’s injuries.

Mona Lena Krook is a political science professor at Rutgers University and the author of “Violence against Women in Politics.” She said she was alarmed by some commentators using forms of victim-blaming to imply that the speaker should have had more security at her home.

“The idea that you should just expect to receive this kind of violence. If you receive it, it's your own fault, right? So I think that that’s a really troubling part of the response,” Krook said.

Sobieraj said the attack on Pelosi’s spouse may have a ripple effect on the future participation of people who are willing to enter careers in elected office.

“Whether you are a left or right, it is a mistake not to take an attack like this seriously — not only because of the danger to the person attacked, but because of the danger to the health of our elections and our democracy more generally,” she said. “We absolutely need civil service to be a career that people can enter and engage in. You should not have to fear for your life to serve in public office.”

Krook said it’s important that people in positions of political power and others publicly call out threats of gendered violence to combat it. She said otherwise, its normalization will only worsen conditions for people who aren’t at the highest level of government.

“It’s women at all levels of American politics — governors, women in statehouses, women in local politics, mayors. We are seeing it with election administrators,” she said. “It’s really about women playing a whole wide range of political roles. We just see it more when it's somebody like Nancy Pelosi.”

Sinzdak said the violence should be seen in the context of challenges to democratic institutions, which have grown in tandem with representation of women and people of color.

“It’s not a coincidence that we’re seeing the rise of some of these antidemocratic movements at the same time as the rise of women in leadership and the rise of people of color in leadership. We’re seeing diversification of our government in more recent years,” Sinzdak said.

Though Pelosi isn’t a new face in American politics, she’s a face that, for many, represents the effort to make American politics more diverse. “This is about gender and race and seeing those groups who weren’t allowed to participate in our system in the earliest days in the same ways they are now facing a backlash to that participation happening,” Sinzdak said.

Sinzdak also tied the attack on Pelosi’s husband to broader efforts to curtail or question rights, including the Supreme Court’s June decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that ended a federal right to abortion.

“It’s part of the same concerted attacks on women’s rights that we’re seeing with Dobbs and so many other things,” Sinzdak concludes. “There are all of these efforts to curtail women’s rights and that is why we’re also seeing a rise in misogynistic attacks on women candidates and officeholders and why this is so deeply worrisome. It’s about people saying, ‘We want to keep women from getting to a position of power.’ And in the long term, it will have a deeply chilling effect.”

One by one, the speakers approached the podium at the elections meeting to air their grievances.

One person asked about alleged “phantom” voters who may be registered in Gwinnett County, their community just northwest of Atlanta. Another suggested officials count ballots by hand to avoid fraud. And yet another questioned whether the results of the 2020 election, the most secure in history, should have been certified in Georgia — and then cited the penalties for treason.

“I highly recommend that each of you take your responsibility very seriously, because that time is quickly approaching,” that person said.

The dozen or so speakers were gathered Wednesday night to watch local election officials discuss the fate of more than 37,000 voter registrations in the county after a group of election deniers challenged them last month. Similar challenges have arisen in counties across Georgia, as people who have embraced debunked conspiracy theories about the security of elections deluge officials with questions. They are eating up time and resources as election officials — a workforce predominately run by women — are finalizing the logistics for November’s midterms in a state that is in many ways the center of the country’s political universe. The elections they are running here could determine party control of the U.S. Senate, and include a historic governor’s race and other key statewide and legislative races.

Most states allow private citizens to challenge someone else’s eligibility to vote, though the rules vary by state. In many instances, such challenges are related to claims that someone has moved from a county or state and so is no longer eligible to vote there.

Until recently, these challenges had been relatively limited. Now there has been a surge in some pockets of the country, fueled by conspiracy theories about the 2020 election perpetuated by former President Donald Trump. They’re brought by people who believe the lie that Democrats stole the last election, whether by having people vote places they shouldn’t or otherwise fixing the results. Multiple audits, investigations and litigation have found no proof of widespread voter fraud of the 2020 election.

“It's all born out of the Big Lie,” said Vasu Abhiraman, senior policy counsel at the ACLU of Georgia. “It's all born out of this idea that there's something really inefficient about our election system that needs private actors doing this kind of stuff to fix. It’s born out of misinformation.”

Georgia has the potential to be particularly chaotic with its public challenges to voter rolls, according to voting rights groups in the state. A 2021 law, known as SB202, has a unique provision that now allows people and groups to submit an unlimited number of challenges to the eligibility of voters. The ripple effect of that on the state’s 159 counties, each of which has its own board of elections, is still being sorted out.

Dele Lowman Smith, chair of the DeKalb Board of Registration and Elections, said the increase in challenges to voter registrations has been “a huge headache” for the volunteer board and its limited staff. They have to review the challenges, consult attorneys and schedule hearings for the public.

“It’s been a burden to have all these unexpected and unpredictable meetings,” she said.

Smith said there has been no formal guidance from the state — either the secretary of state’s office or the state board of elections — on how to handle the challenges. She said election officials in other counties have reached out seeking help.

“Everybody has had to figure this out on their own,” she said.

Mike Hassinger, a spokesperson for the office of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who is also running for reelection this year, acknowledged some of the realities that officials are facing.

“The challenge review and hearing process can put a burden on county election officials, especially if there are a large number of them,” Hassinger said in an email. “However, county election officials need to continue to follow both Georgia and federal law regarding registration challenges based on individualized research.”

William Duffey, chairman of the Georgia State Board of Elections, echoed that the board is aware of the large number of recent challenges and noted they must be done in accordance with the law. He said the board may evaluate the process and basis for considering challenges “if circumstances dictate.” He did not specify how, but said it would include “input from all interested parties and the public to guide counties in considering proper challenges.”

This year, at least 64,000 voters have had their eligibility to vote challenged in the state, according to an estimate by New Georgia Project, a voting rights organization. As of late July, at least 1,800 voters have been removed from the rolls in Chatham, Cobb, Dekalb, Fayette, Fulton, Gwinnett and Spalding counties.

Aklima Khondoker, chief legal officer for the New Georgia Project, said most of these counties are in the metro Atlanta area, which are home to many people of color and helped boost President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to the White House in 2020.

Voting rights groups worry these challenges will disenfranchise voters in communities with large populations of Black, Latinx and Asian American residents. Gwinnett County is considered one of the most diverse counties in the United States.

“Unlimited challenges is a huge power to give people,” said Lana Goitia Paz, state campaign manager for the Georgia chapter of the national group Voting is Local, an organization that advocates for removing barriers to voting. “Without providing any guardrails or guidance on that process, it sows a lot of chaos into our very overburdened system.”

The bulk of the challenges have been in Gwinnett County, where a group called VoterGA with ties to Trump allies submitted challenges in late August to more than 37,000 voter registrations. The group has denied allegations that it’s targeting people of color.

Garland Favorito, who leads VoterGA, held a news conference a few weeks ago at which he encouraged people to look into alleged voter registration discrepancies in other Georgia counties.

“Let us know, we’ll get you hooked up. … This is going on in other counties,” he said at the event.

On Wednesday, Gwinnett County elections supervisor Zach Manifold told the local board of elections that 15,000 to 20,000 challenges tied to the 2020 election are not expected to proceed because the registrations had been validated by statistical analysis.

Manifold said an additional 6,000 challenges had also been withdrawn. Election staff were still sorting the remaining challenges into various categories for further review. As election officials tried to determine when to hold a potential public hearing for people to defend their voter registration, they noted the time crunch: The deadline to register to vote for the upcoming election is October 11. They want people to have a chance to register if they’re kicked off the rolls.

Alice O’Lenick, chair of the Gwinnett Board of Registrations and Elections, was at the head of the dais in Lawrenceville on Wednesday. She told The 19th after the meeting that the challenges had been unexpected for the staff. But she believes staff could get through the work.

“It will be time-consuming, but we’ll handle it as best we can,” she said.

Khondoker called the debate Wednesday over the challenges a “zoo.” SB202 requires local boards of elections to hold hearings within 10 days of a challenge or face sanctions.

“What I heard was a very cautious board trying to navigate what it means to go through 30,000-plus challenges and figure out what each of them mean while they are trying to apply the correct code section of Georgia law,” she said.

The challenges are being challenged themselves. The ACLU of Georgia submitted a letter this month asking Forsyth County to restore the eligibility of the 300 voters that it removed or flagged from its rolls. Abhiraman said the ACLU is monitoring what happens next in Gwinnett County and how election officials apply the law.

Smith said she had big plans for the board as chair. She wanted to update internal systems to ensure elections in the county could run more smoothly. The voter roll challenges have made that aspiration more difficult.

Smith also worries what this law will mean for the sustainability of committed election administrators.

“It’s going to make it harder to fill these positions in the future,” she said.

Voting rights groups say it’s also unclear what will happen if private citizens continue to challenge voter registrations up until Election Day. Some impacted voters may be able to cast a “challenge ballot” that is then separated for review. The voter would need to return before officials certify the elections a few days later.

Khondoker said she worries others may fall through the cracks and be unable to register to vote if they’re kicked off the rolls. She urged election board officials not to remove voters from the rolls based on flawed data or speculation and to allow voters to at least cast challenge ballots.

“Bringing all of these layers of confusion to the system puts enormous burden on the voters and on the counties who are responsible for election administration,” she said. “And really, the entire nation at large is looking at Georgia and how they're handling their elections as a battleground state.”

Originally published by The 19th

Originally published by The 19th

ATLANTA — Stacey Abrams on Monday cautioned against conflating her refusal to concede in the 2018 Georgia governor’s race with former President Donald Trump’s false claims of a stolen election, calling the latter wrong and dangerous for democracy.

“I will never ever say that it is OK to claim fraudulent outcomes as a way to give yourself power,” Abrams said. “That is wrong. I reject it and will never engage in it. But I do believe that it is imperative, especially those who have the platform and the microphone, to talk about the access.”

Abrams acknowledged her loss to Kemp days after the 2018 election. But she attributed that defeat — by less than 1.4 percentage points — to efforts by Kemp, then the secretary of state, to suppress voter turnout. Kemp denied the allegations.

“The issues that I raised in 2018 were not grounded in making me the governor,” Abrams told The 19th’s Editor-at-Large Errin Haines at a Monday event. “Not a single lawsuit filed would have reversed or changed the outcome of the election. My point was that the access to the election was flawed, and I refuse to concede a system that permits citizens to be denied access. That is very different than someone claiming fraudulent outcome.”

Abrams, who will face Kemp in the November midterm elections, has made voting rights a cornerstone of her priorities as an elected official, first as a legislative leader in the Georgia legislature and as the now two-time Democratic nominee for governor. She has also highlighted health care needs and economic issues as she seeks a rematch against Kemp.

But in the years since her first bid for the highest office in the state, Republicans have repeatedly pointed to her actions in 2018 as the original “Big Lie.”

Abrams emphasized in her remarks Monday that words matter, and her 2018 speech was carefully planned.

“The challenge is that people are always going to cherry pick the language that they want to make the points that they need,” Abrams told Haines. “... And I apologize that people can only listen to four seconds of a speech and not the whole 15 seconds. But what I think is absolutely critical is that we not allow ourselves to conflate access and outcome.”

Recent polling shows Kemp with a slight lead over Abrams. Abrams emphasized that if potential voters like Black men turn out, she can win. She also indicated that she would welcome key Democrats to stump for her, such as President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, who Abrams campaigned for in 2020.

“There is no reticence on my part,” Abrams said. “I know people will try to spin up stories where they don't exist. I welcome President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to come to Georgia because that’s one of the ways we show Georgia what the Democrats have delivered for our state.”

With 50 days to go until Election Day and less than a month to go until the start of early voting in Georgia, Abrams said her goal is to win the election outright and avoid a runoff. In some ways, Abrams said the election feels familiar to 2018, but 2022 also feels different.

“This is an evenly divided state,” Abrams told The 19th in an interview ahead of the event, noting that 1.6 million voters have been added to the rolls since 2018, more than half of them Democratic leaning. “Victory is completely contingent on turning out voters, especially those who feel marginalized or distrustful of the system. And it also requires navigating voter suppression that’s been architected by former secretary of state, now Gov. Kemp.”

Kemp signed a bill into law in 2021 that made sweeping changes to Georgia’s voting rules, including new requirements for absentee voting, reduced drop boxes in the state and statewide oversight of local election boards. Kemp, whose campaign did not respond to a request for an interview, has defended the law and his general approach to voting policy. In recent weeks, he has pointed to rising inflation and its effect on the economy to tie Abrams to national Democrats.

Abrams said her candidacy is complicated by her parallel efforts to ensure that voters are able to cast their ballots safely and securely in November. That work has been made harder, she said, by her opponent and Georgia Republicans, who have passed voter restrictions in the wake of the 2020 election.

“My job is to protect democracy, regardless of whether my name is on the ballot,” Abrams said. “That said, I also want to be governor so that we don’t have to keep litigating and relieving this problematic behavior.”

Key to Abrams’ strategy is targeting what she calls “persuasion voters,” people who need to be convinced to show up, not of who to vote for. She credits these voters with delivering for Democrats in 2020 and 2021.

“We are leaning in and saying that our path to victory, our playbook, works, but we can’t believe it will just magically happen,” Abrams said. “These voters deserve the same assiduous attention, the same investment, and the same support as any other voting bloc.”

Abrams said her campaign will focus on turnout and encouraging people to vote early, but added that she is concerned about the potential impact of the state’s new voting laws.

“The people who are supposed to be responsible for protecting the right to vote are manipulating that right,” Abrams said. “The failure to commit treason does not mitigate their active engagement in denying democracy. When it becomes a partisan issue, what gets lost are the people who get hurt.”

Originally published by The 19th

The suffragists of the early 20th century famously wore white as they fought for the right for women to vote. On Thursday night, Rep. Liz Cheney also wore white as she centered the role of women in defending democracy once again.

Cheney, a Republican and the vice chair of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, invoked history as she asked viewers to seek accountability for the actions of a former president who sought to overturn an election. In her closing remarks, Cheney mentioned the 1918 congressional hearings that led to women’s right to vote and paid tribute to the witnesses who have come forward for their “bravery and honor” as an “inspiration to American women and to American girls.”

“We owe a debt to all of those who have and will appear here,” Cheney said.

Following a line of witnesses before her in previous weeks, Sarah Matthews, the former deputy White House press secretary, testified on Thursday that the attack on the Capitol was the “darkest day in our country’s history” and said Trump’s actions that day cemented her decision to resign that day.

Cheney specifically highlighted the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, the former aide to the White House chief of staff, who last month provided a moment-by-moment breakdown of January 6 from her unique vantage point within the former president’s inner circle. Hutchinson described several instances that day where men decades her senior and with far more power called on her to help manage the president’s pronouncements and transport.

“She sat here alone, took the oath and testified before millions of Americans,” Cheney said in reference to Hutchinson, who was 25 when she testified. “She knew all along that she would be attacked by President Trump and by the 50-, 60- and 70-year-old men who hide themselves behind executive privilege. But like our witnesses today, she has courage and she did it anyway. Cassidy, Sarah and our other witnesses, including Officer Caroline Edwards, Shaye Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, are an inspiration to American women and to American girls.”

During the panel’s first hearing, Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards, who was tear-gassed and knocked unconscious on the steps of the Capitol, recalled that January 6 was a “war scene” with officers on the ground, throwing up and bleeding. In another hearing, Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Shaye Moss, both election workers in Georgia, described in detail what it felt like to be singled out by former President Donald Trump and his advisors. Freeman and Moss faced sexualized threats, home break-ins and death threats after officials made baseless claims into the integrity of their work counting votes.

Kristin Olbertson, an associate professor at Alma College in Michigan, said Cheney’s choice of language in highlighting the women witnesses was intentional, especially since she noted that some older men in Trump’s orbit pointed to executive privilege in refusing to fully testify. Separately, the panel showed video footage of Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri running from the Capitol, avoiding the same people he had seemingly encouraged hours before.

“Women are appearing in all of her comments as active, as courageous, as being actors for democracy,” she said.

Cheney’s closing remarks included a summary of Trump’s actions on January 6 and how his public rhetoric was tied to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Cheney asked viewers whether Trump, who is considering another run for president, should ever be trusted again with any position of power.

“I read them as really pitched toward, or oriented toward, the importance of voting and voters in a democratic system of government,” Olbertson said. “Reminding us that ultimately, the authority lies with voters, that we delegate our authority to our representatives and government by exercising our right to vote, that that right has been hard fought for the majority in fact of the population and we ought not take it for granted. And it really stands in contrast with the violent mob actions on January 6 at the Capitol, that that was profoundly undemocratic.”

Cheney also noted the significance of the room as a convening place in 1918 for members of Congress to discuss women’s suffrage.

“This room is full of history, and we on this committee know we have a solemn obligation not to idly squander what so many Americans have fought and died for,” she said.

Rachel Gunter is a Texas-based historian who studies women’s suffrage and married women’s citizenship, which was based on their husband’s citizenship status in the Progressive Era. She said there’s significance in Cheney highlighting the year 1918 instead of the 1920 ratification of the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote based on sex — a right primarily granted to White women — and connecting it to the hearings happening now.

“I think she’s trying to make the point that hearings have done things for democracy in our past,” she said. “We need to not underestimate what hearings can do. Because 1918 — nobody really knew if that thing was gonna pass. It’d been blocked several times. They weren’t sure. … We look back at 1918 going, ‘Well, of course two years before suffrage.’ But in 1918, they had no idea if they would win or not.”

Joanna Lydgate, CEO of the States United Democracy Center, tied the committee’s work to a history of women working to defend elections and democracy, citing Cheney and Rep. Elaine Luria of Virginia, the only Democrat on the panel whose seat is in a swing district.

“The political courage of women from both parties has been front and center in the January 6 Select Committee hearings,” Lydgate said in a statement. “Just last night, we saw both Rep. Liz Cheney and Rep. Elaine Luria put the country above politics, at risk to their careers, to bring accountability for the January 6 insurrection. Despite threats to their safety, Republican staffers have bravely testified about their experiences.”

Cheney is one of just two Republicans on the committee. House Republican leadership said they would not participate in an investigation after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected two of their five appointees to the committee. Pelosi later appointed two Republicans, Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois.

One of only a few Republicans to publicly oppose Trump, Cheney faces a primary challenge next month from a candidate backed by the former president. But while her place in Trump’s Republican Party may not be clear, she holds many conservative views. She opposes abortion and celebrated the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

“I think she’s trying to find a vision of women’s empowerment that works for conservative voters, for her views, and possibly for the Republican Party going forward … and trying to find a path forward that doesn’t paint them as anti-woman for doing that,” Gunter said.

Cheney on Thursday night quoted Margaret Thatcher, a conservative and the first woman prime minister of the United Kingdom, saying: “Let it never be said that the dedication of those who love freedom is less than the determination of those who would destroy it.”

Jean Sinzdak, associate director of the Center for American Women and Politics, believes Cheney’s wardrobe was also aimed at sending a message, especially as she weighs her political future. She is currently seeking reelection in the House, but her supporters have floated her name as a future presidential candidate.

“It wasn’t accidental that she was wearing a white jacket, which is a symbol of the suffrage movement. Or that she invoked that particular moment in history in this closing speech. She doesn’t strike me as somebody who does things accidentally and so I have to believe there’s a strategy behind it.”

She added: “Let me assure every one of you this: Our committee understands the gravity of this moment, the consequences for our nation. We have much work yet to do.”

The panel, which was formed on July 1, 2021, held its first hearing on June 9. At the time, there were six hearings tentatively scheduled. In total, they’ve amassed evidence through interviews with more than 1,000 people, more than 100 issued subpoenas and dozens of recorded depositions. Still, the panel said new information continues to flood in and the investigation is ongoing.

Hearings will resume in September after Congress returns from a lengthy recess. It’s not clear how many more hearings will be scheduled before the committee is set to dissolve in January 2023, the start of a new Congress.

“Let me assure every one of you this,” Cheney said Thursday night. “Our committee understands the gravity of this moment, the consequences for our nation. We have much work yet to do.”

Originally published by The 19th

In 2019, just months into her job as Idaho’s lieutenant governor, Janice McGeachin posted a photo of herself outside her statehouse office with two men linked to a militia group. Weeks later, she delivered an oath to militia members that is often reserved for state military.

McGeachin’s embrace of extremism would continue: In October 2020, she appeared in a libertarian group’s video against state COVID-19 restrictions, placing a gun on top of a bible. In February, she agreed to a pretaped speech at a conference hosted by the white nationalist Nick Fuentes. This month, McGeachin told an anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist that “God calls us to pick up the sword and fight, and Christ will reign in the state of Idaho.”

McGeachin is challenging Gov. Brad Little in Tuesday’s primary for governor, arguing her candidacy better reflects the values of a state where former President Donald Trump received more than 60 percent of the vote in 2020. Idaho has a history of anti-government sentiment, which has gradually created factions within its Republican Party between far-right populists like McGeachin and more traditional conservatives like Little.

Like many GOP candidates across the country, McGeachin has highlighted her opposition to COVID-19 mitigation efforts as well as teachings about racism in schools. But McGeachin has taken these issues further than many in the Republican Party by not only sowing doubt about the 2020 election results but also supporting “state sovereignty” that actively rejects areas of federal government oversight.

Whether McGeachin’s long-shot bid in a crowded primary is successful or not, her attempt to unseat Little has become a flashpoint in the discussion of extremism in state politics — and White women’s role in it.

“What happens on the far right is that there’s a way in which White women are kind of the velvet glove on the iron fist,” said Jessie Daniels, a researcher on extremism and author of “Nice White Ladies.” “They soften in some ways the real brutality of these policies.”

McGeachin, a business owner who was elected lieutenant governor in 2018 after a brief stint away from serving in the statehouse, has campaigned on a platform of challenging the 2020 election. At a campaign rally this month, the 59-year-old described her vision as “protecting individual liberty, defending your health freedom and upholding your constitutional rights.”

“It includes defending Idaho’s state sovereignty, reducing Idaho’s financial dependence on federal dollars and strengthening our economy through the development of our state’s many resources,” she said.

She has also embraced many of the issues propelling the right. At the same campaign rally, McGeachin committed to “fixing” Idaho’s education system, “eradicating” critical race theory — a catch-all phrase used by some Republicans to describe certain lessons about race — and what she calls “other forms of Marxist indoctrination.” Last year, McGeachin announced a task force that would target “indoctrination” in schools. And after a leaked U.S. Supreme Court draft indicated Roe v. Wade will be overturned, McGeachin called for a special legislative session to end exemptions to abortion that include cases of rape and incest. Such exemptions have been widely supported by conservatives who oppose abortion.

Little, a sheep and cattle rancher, has tried to frame his campaign around cutting taxes and state regulations. But he also signed into law a ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy this year. In 2020 he signed anti-trans legislation into law.

However McGeachin has also chosen to publicly associate with media personalities who hold views about the pandemic, immigration, elections and race that are outside mainstream conservatism. McGeachin defended her speech at the America First Political Action Conference — hosted by Fuentes, who participated in the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville and has denied the Holocaust — by claiming she didn’t know who he is. McGeachin also said she wanted to reach young conservative people.

“There’s a growing number of conservatives, young conservatives all across the country, that are really concerned about the direction that our country is headed,” she told television station KTVB in February.

McGeachin, whose campaign did not return a request for an interview, has also not shied away from other far-right figures. Her May 4 rally was attended by Stew Peters, who has pushed anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, and Michelle Malkin, who has been described by the ADL as supportive of white supremacists. Wendy Rogers, an Arizona senator who was censured by fellow state lawmakers in part because she, too, recorded a message for Fuentes’ conference and suggested the hangings of unspecified “traitors,” was also in attendance.

Kelly J. Baker is an author who has studied religion and white supremacist movements. She noted that McGeachin sometimes echoes language used by far-right personalities but can also be ambiguous about it. Trump, who has endorsed McGeachin, took a similar tactic, refusing at times to denounce white supremacists who supported him.

“When she’s speaking at something organized by white nationalists or participating in events with far-right figures, she isn’t disavowing them,” Baker said. “But that kind of ‘winking in that direction’ is a strategy that I think works to get voters who are sympathetic.”

Baker added that McGeachin’s self-described identity as a mother, coupled with being a White woman, may be advantageous to her campaign and has echoes of politicians like Sarah Palin and her bid for vice president more than a decade ago.

“Their rhetoric is still rough, right? And the things they are saying are pretty bombastic and controversial,” Baker said. “But I do wonder if there’s something about gender roles that are working for them — that they’re able to play into this somewhat in a way that White men don’t have the option to.”

Heath Druzin is an Idaho-based journalist who hosts the “Extremely American” podcast covering militia groups and politics. He has reported on McGeachin for years and noted that other far-right women candidates are running campaigns in Idaho, including for lieutenant governor and secretary of state. Many of them have been elected to office before their current bids.

“It’s not that they appeared out of nowhere,” Druzin said. “They have been leaders in the far-right movement in Idaho for a while. But it’s more that the far right just gained a lot more prominence recently, especially with the pandemic. And they were sort of there ready to step into the spotlight.”

In Idaho, candidates for governor and lieutenant governor run on separate tickets in both the primary and general election. The fissures between McGeachin and Little started soon after the two were elected. McGeachin would gain acting governor status when Little was out of the state, and several times she used that authority to try to change state policies. Her informal oath to two members of a militia group happened during one such stint.

Some of her administrative actions focused on pandemic measures: In May 2021, McGeachin signed an executive order banning mask mandates. Little rescinded the order and called it an “irresponsible, self-serving political stunt.” Then in October, she signed an executive order banning COVID-19 vaccine mandates and testing. Little again quickly rescinded the order.

Druzin said his reporting indicates the effects of COVID-19 restrictions gave far-right movements and its supporters new talking points.

“Without the pandemic, Janice McGeachin might still be running,” he said. “But I think she would be getting a lot less oxygen.”

McGeachin’s campaign is being tracked as one indicator of Trump’s ongoing political power as he eyes a 2024 presidential run. He endorsed her in November, something McGeachin has featured heavily in her promotional materials, including on social media. Trump’s snub of Little has not weakened the incumbent’s public support for the former president — and it may not be hurting him either. Little has a substantial lead over McGeachin in both polling and fundraising.

Jaclyn Kettler, an associate professor of political science at Boise State University, said that while McGeachin’s pandemic-related actions appears to have boosted her popularity, it still may not be enough to best an incumbent.

“She clearly had some strong support, but whether or not that’s enough to mobilize against the incumbent governor, was probably going to be a fairly large task,” Kettler said.

Robert Boatright, a political science professor at Clark University in Massachusetts, has studied the intersectionality between primaries and extremism. He cautioned against making too many assumptions about what a primary outcome in a state with a history of conservative infighting means for other areas of the country.

“It’s important to put these things in context so that we don’t draw these giant lessons from it,” he said. “We can make an idiosyncratic race this giant national narrative about what is happening in our politics, and sometimes, that’s a little bit of an over interpretation.”

Others see McGeachin’s bid as a possible preview of future election dynamics elsewhere. Melissa Ryan, a consultant who works to combat disinformation and extremism and writes a newsletter on the subject, said gerrymandering, as politicians draw more safe seats for both major parties, could lead to more extreme views from candidates as they don’t have to court voters with as many perspectives. She specified the Republican Party’s gerrymandering tactics.

“I think it’s really important to point out that what’s happening in Idaho is happening in races all across the country, everywhere from city council to U.S. Senate,” she said. “The trend is going to get worse before it gets better.”

And it’s not just American politics. Daniels noted the gradual political rise of other far-right women in countries like France, where the far-right candidate Marine Le Pen lost against President Emmanuel Macron in April but by a smaller margin than her previous attempt in 2017. Le Pen took a more moderate approach this time, focusing on economic issues. It’s possible more women with extreme views outside of mainstream conservatism will pick up the mantle. Daniels recommended people hold their elected officials accountable when that happens.

“I think that the Idaho governor’s race is really going to be a harbinger of what comes next on the national and international stage,” she said.

Originally published by The 19th

Tina Peters says she was just looking into potential election fraud. Prosecutors say the county election official in western Colorado was involved in an illegal election security breach.

Even as she faces criminal charges, Peters is continuing to spread falsehoods about the integrity of the 2020 election, which experts have said was the most secure in U.S. history. She’s doing so as she runs for the Republican nomination for Colorado secretary of state. Peters is among candidates in more than a dozen states, overwhelmingly Republicans, who are running for top election posts and also have shared baseless skepticism about the accuracy of America’s election system.

These candidates and current elected officials who have embraced debunked myths about the 2020 election raise concerns about the potential for future insider threats to election integrity. While this type of threat is still rare, it’s particularly troubling when local election officials like Peters take up these false ideas because they have power over day-to-day election operations and how ballots are counted, according to one author of a report released Wednesday on partisanship and election officials.

“Those are the individuals that actually have the kind of proverbial keys to the kingdom,” said Matt Weil with the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that advocates around several issues including bipartisan policy solutions for elections administration. “They’re overseeing the actual voting apparatus. They touch the ballots. They count the ballots.”

For now, insider threats from election officials are very uncommon, said David J. Becker, executive director and founder of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, a nonpartisan nonprofit that works with election officials from both major parties to ensure elections run smoothly. Only a handful of cases involving election workers have emerged, including in a different Colorado county and one in Michigan.

“It’s not so much that we’ve just put our faith and trust in people to do the right thing. It’s that that faith and trust has been well earned,” he said. “And as it turns out, nearly 100 percent of them are incredibly noble and dedicated public officials. We can literally name the people who aren’t.”

Wednesday’s report by the Bipartisan Policy Center and the group Election Reformers Network examines how most of America’s election officials are chosen through partisan elections or picked by members of political parties — a system that has traditionally relied on people to run elections ethically and without favoring party affiliation. That setup is now ripe for future problems if more people who believe the country’s elections aren’t free and fair win local and state election positions or are appointed to related roles.

Already, some local election boards tasked with double-checking voting results are being filled with people who are expressing partisan views about elections. Elsewhere, local boards of elections are being replaced with conspiracy theorists and Republican-led legislatures are attempting to appoint themselves to help oversee elections.

Among the Bipartisan Policy Center’s recommendations:

• Codifying ethical norms that would prohibit activities like election officials openly endorsing or campaigning for candidates. More standardized policies could also set expectations for election offices, such as election experience or certification.
• Reconsidering the use of elections to select election officials. One idea is nominating commissions sometimes used to select judges.
• Reducing the “privileged status” of the Democratic and Republican Parties by incorporating other stakeholders in the election process; codifying bipartisan collaboration between parties at all levels of election administration; and implementing neutral tiebreakers in evenly split bodies to ensure no advantages in the system.

Weil said the recommendations are intentionally broad.

“There’s no one-size-fits-all solution for every state,” he said.

The recommendations come as money pours into Democratic and Republican secretary of state races that were once considered low-key administrative offices but are now at the center of the fight over voting rights.

Trump, who attempted to overturn election results that showed President Joe Biden defeated him in 2020 and who is weighing another bid for office, has also drawn attention to some of these races. He has endorsed several candidates for attorney general and secretary of state — key positions that may be involved in addressing disputed election results around the country in the 2024 presidential election.

In Colorado, the Democratic-led statehouse is advancing legislation that aims to more immediately address the issues raised by Peters’ alleged security breach — which state officials say included accessing hard drive images of equipment. The bill would add security requirements for voting equipment and require that county clerks and other staff receive training.

A provision that would have banned election workers from “knowingly or recklessly” making false statements about elections was removed.

Democrat Jena Griswold, Colorado’s current secretary of state who is seeking reelection, has been vocal in fact-checking election misinformation and disinformation that continues to stem from the 2020 election. She has highlighted Peters’ case in campaign materials and is advocating a package of election security bills.

“The big lie has morphed into a big threat to our democracy,” Griswold said. “Whether it’s what happened in Mesa County, fake audits, insurrectionists and conspiracy theorists running to be chief election officers, we are seeing a coordinated attack on democracy which has been fueled by the extreme right insiders trying to tilt future elections in their favor.”

A judge last year removed Peters’ authority to oversee the 2021 elections. Last month, Peters was indicted on seven felony charges and three misdemeanor charges related to the alleged security breach. The felony charges include attempting to influence a public servant and conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation. She has denied all wrongdoing. A co-worker, Belinda Knisley, has pleaded not guilty to six charges. Both are expected back in court in late May.

Peters appeared Tuesday at a rally outside of the state Capitol where she continued to push debunked conspiracy theories about elections. In a statement, she doubled down on her claims.

“I am running for Colorado Secretary of State to restore trust and confidence in the people’s vote,” she told The 19th.

Becker said Peters’ case shows the current checks and balances worked because her alleged actions triggered charges. While he understands why Colorado might consider adding additional security protocols, he also hopes more states consider comprehensive protections for workers who have reported increasing instances of harassment and threats of violence. His group has established a legal defense network that has been helping election workers seeking legal advice and representation. Some states are considering new protections to ensure the safety of election workers, many of whom are women and make up a mix of full-time and part-time workers.

“That is another area — protection of election officials — where we might want to consider additional policies,” he said. “Because it looks like law enforcement doesn’t have the tools it needs.”

Weil with the Bipartisan Policy Center said policymakers and the public have relied on most people acting in good faith and respecting democratic norms. He worries that is not guaranteed going forward.

“The risk is now real,” he said. “And it’s not going to go away on its own.”

Originally published by The 19th

At city hall in Las Cruces, New Mexico, a wall of photographs displays the faces of elected city council members. Come January, the photos will all be of women.

Becky Corran’s face will be new on the wall, as will that of Becki Graham. They’ll join Yvonne Flores, who won reelection in November, and three other women who were not up for election this year. The Las Cruces City Council, for the first time ever, will be all women.

Technically the chair of the council is the mayor, and opposite the wall of city council members is another wall of photographs revealing that only men have served as mayors in Las Cruces.

“It makes me think about how representation matters, and if there were one woman on that wall, what would it mean,” said Corran, who will be sworn in Monday along with the members starting new four-year terms. “That there will be all women on the wall on the other side — it’s going to be really exciting.”

Las Cruces, a city of roughly 100,000 people in the southern part of the state, has a long to-do list of policy issues around the pandemic, the economy and general equity. How an all-women city council might address them is yet to be determined. But the fact that it joins a short list of all-women or nearly all-women governing bodies is a sign of how underrepresented women remain at all levels of government.

“I think that I’m coming into it with this idea that, as cliche as it may sound, maybe this is going to be a space where leaders are more willing to listen to one another,” said Becki Graham, the other newly elected councilor. “To take the time to consider things outside of the traditional power hierarchy, if that makes sense.”

Councilor Johana Bencomo agreed that they will have the power to do things in new and distinct ways.

“I just think that our approach to some of the things that really matter to Las Cruces will be inherently different, and honestly, I think more compassionate,” she said.

The Las Cruces council seats are nonpartisan, but councilors lean Democrat. The new councilors will replace people from similar ideological backgrounds. Before the November election, women and people of color already made up the majority of the council.

Research on women-led governments shows that party affiliation instead of gender is a greater indicator of policy action. But on the local level, it’s more of a mixed bag.

Mirya Holman, an associate professor of political science at Tulane University who has written extensively about women in municipal government, said a “critical mass” of women’s representation on a council is among the key indicators for policy change that centers on what she described as “urban women’s issues” — children, education, affordable housing, social welfare and domestic violence. She said early women’s community activism can be traced back to these policy areas, and many of these issues are still intertwined with local government intervention. The presence of more women on a council can also be motivating to the public.

“You have the potential for members of the community to perceive the council as different, and thus be more willing to approach council members about their problems,” she said. “So there’s tons of ways where you might have the potential for some changes to occur.”

But Holman cautioned that existing power structures in local governments, which vary depending on the city or county, can impact what local officials are able to get done. She noted that cities tend to give preference to economic development issues, which can then affect other policy priorities.

Women hold 30.5 percent of municipal offices nationwide, including mayoral offices, city councils and other similar bodies, according to data released earlier this year that shows similar representation limitations in state and federal offices. It makes all-women or nearly all-women governing bodies — and the sexism they face — all the more noteworthy.

Becky Corran

(Courtesy of CTE Becky Corran)

In 2015, after women won a majority on city council in Austin, Texas, officials at the time approved training for city staff on how to respond to a more gender-diverse council. The training warned city staff that women do not like math and ask a lot of questions. Women council members later held a news conference to call out the sexist training.

Holman said Austin’s training fiasco, which led to apologies from city officials, was flawed from the beginning because it implied that such training to address more women on a council was even needed.

“There’s never, ‘Oh, how do we deal with all of these men?’” she said. “Instead, it’s always like, ‘Oh, this strange set of women, we don’t know what to do with this.’”

The earliest known example of an all-women governing body in America was recorded in 1887 in the city of Syracuse, Kansas, when an all-woman city council was elected to serve with a man mayor. One year later, residents in the city of Oskaloosa, Kansas, elected an all-woman city council who served with a woman mayor.

In 1920, the city of Yoncalla on the western side of Oregon voted in an all-woman city council, including a woman leading it. The mayor-elect reportedly promised: “We intend to study conditions and do all in our power to give Yoncalla a good, efficient government. At the worst, we can’t do much worse than the men.”

A handful of other all-women governing bodies have popped up from time to time since then. One of the latest examples is in Asheville, North Carolina, where six women and a woman mayor have served on the city council since late 2020.

Esther Manheimer, the mayor of Asheville, told The 19th that it’s hard to definitively measure how the gender makeup of the council has impacted their work. The council this year approved a budget that included eight weeks of paid parental leave and six weeks of paid family leave for city employees, but Manheimer noted that North Carolina gives its city councils limited jurisdiction on policy decisions about health, education and child care.

Manheimer said while she’s not close to everyone serving on the council, some members share personal details about their lives in the course of their work. She thinks that brings them closer together, and in turn has an effect on their policymaking.

“When you have those closer relationships, it’s easier to talk to one another,” she said. “It’s easier to work through challenging situations and tough decisions.”

Organizers in New Mexico politics said that the state has been gradually investing in women candidates and that it has had a direct impact on representation on the local level. Women make up the state’s entire congressional delegation, and they have majority representation in the House chamber of the state legislature. Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is one of only nine women governors in the country.

Johana Bencomo

(Courtesy of Johana Bencomo)

Jessica Velasquez, chairwoman of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, said local government, including city councils and county commissions, have a very immediate impact on people’s day-to-day lives and serve as a pipeline for higher office. She watched November election returns alongside her 12-year-old.

“Watching my daughter’s face light up when she heard that Las Cruces had elected an all-woman city council for the first time in history … the look of inspiration and happiness on her face said it all for me,” she said.

Las Cruces has used ranked-choice voting since the city council approved an ordinance in 2018. The system — which allows residents to pick multiple candidates by preference — has been credited with helping women and people of color candidates because it’s less likely to create false choices amongst diverse candidates. Preliminary research shows women and people of color candidates win in higher numbers under a ranked-choice voting system.

At least three women on the Las Cruces city council are alums of the New Mexico chapter of Emerge, a national organization that recruits Democratic women to run for office and has been attributed with pipeline candidates building in communities including Boston. Sondra Roeuny, executive director of Emerge New Mexico, said she doesn’t think these things happen by accident.

“The work that we do to help recruit, train and continue to support women and nonbinary individuals run for office — and when — really matters for what comes down the pipeline,” she said. “It matters for the policies. It matters for what gets discussed.”

Corran, the first out queer person to be elected to the council, said it was incredibly important that Emerge encouraged her to run for public office.

“I never really pictured myself as someone in politics. I think being a queer woman, being a woman, that meant a lot of barriers that I had constructed. Like, ‘Oh, people are going to look at me and see me and it will hurt,’ basically,” she said. “I think I had constructed a lot of those things in my mind.”

That fact that all-women governing bodies aren’t more common is a result of the realities of running for office, Holman said.

“Networks of power are self-reproducing, and generally exclude anybody that’s not a White man. That applies at the national level, that applies in state politics, and that applies at the local level,” she said. “It’s not that nobody can get into those networks of power — women frequently do, people of color do, women of color do — but we haven’t seen this sort of whole-scale transformation of what those networks of power might look like.”

Still, Bencomo is hopeful about what Las Cruces’ nearly all-women city council signifies. She said women, particularly women of color, have been key political organizers in the state, and she attributes it to more public support for issues like increasing the minimum wage.

“I really do feel like it’s been a lot of grassroots power-building that has allowed for people who never traditionally saw themselves in leadership positions to take ownership of it and represent their communities,” she said.