Some history on GOP’s deep commitment to election security. “Senate GOP Coronavirus Package Omits Additional Elections Funding;
House Democrats in May proposed sending $3.6 billion to state & local officials to help them hold elections during the pandemic.”

WSJ, 7/29 (1 of 19)
From @AlexaCorse & @lindsaywise.

Senate Republicans didn’t include any new funding to help states and local governments to administer elections in their latest coronavirus aid package, setting up a fight over the issue in coming negotiations with Democrats.
House Democrats in May proposed sending $3.6 billion to state and local officials to help them hold elections during the pandemic, which has prompted many areas to expand vote-by-mail options and invest in protective equipment for poll workers.
Democrats also called for a nationwide vote-by-mail option and a guarantee of 15 days of early voting, among other requirements.
Republicans point out that they have already given $400 million to help overcome coronavirus-related election challenges in the Cares Act,
which passed in March, and that they are opposed to mandating new voting procedures.
“We’ve already appropriated an awful lot of money for election assistance,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday.
“What we’re not going to do is federalize the American election system, which is basically conducted in every single state in very different ways.” ...
Congress has given states more than $1.2 billion to improve election security and respond to coronavirus-related voting challenges since 2016, after U.S. investigators found that Russian hackers probed state election systems as part of Moscow’s multipronged efforts to interfere
in that year’s U.S. presidential election.
But states face unexpected costs to run the November election in the social-distancing era, such as for postal supplies, additional staff to handle an anticipated surge in mail ballots and personal protective equipment for workers
at in-person voting locations. Meanwhile, state and local government budgets have been hit by a decline in tax revenue and other pandemic-related costs. “The safety of our democracy shouldn’t be a political bargaining chip,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) said about the Republicans’
proposal on Monday. “Mitch McConnell should stop messing around and put real funding and election safeguards on the table.”
Some election experts are warning that, without additional funding to help states run voter-education campaigns about mail ballots,
hire additional election workers and make other changes, logistical snags and confusion are likely in November. Some states, notably Wisconsin and Georgia, saw chaotic primaries earlier in the pandemic, underscoring the challenges.
Some election offices didn’t have enough administrative staff or adequate technology to manage a surge in mail ballots smoothly, and some areas reported long lines to vote after officials struggled to find enough poll workers and closed some in-person polling locations.
“I think it’s a negotiating strategy, but it’s putting the American voter in the middle,” Richard L. Hasen, an election-law expert at the University of California, Irvine, said of the Republicans’ decision to leave election funds out of their most recent proposal.
“That’s really unfortunate.”
Prof. Hasen added: “If Congress doesn’t fund it, it means it’s more likely that election administrators will be sloppy because they’ll lack resources. People will be disenfranchised, and it could affect the public’s confidence in the process.”
Ohio Secty of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, said Monday that his state would be ready to hold elections in November w/o more federal funds, but “the message I’ve heard from our 88 bipartisan county boards of elections is that they could certainly use additional resources.”
Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin, a Republican, said that he opposes Democrats’ proposals to attach requirements to the funding such as mandating the option to vote by mail. But, he added, “I am disappointed that much-needed federal funding will not be included
in the Senate’s coronavirus bill to help stem the rising tide of pandemic costs along with increased ballot security costs.”Some Republicans, including Sen. Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), have said they were open to more funding for election officials if it didn’t include the vote-by-mail
and other mandates Democrats prefer. “I’m certainly in favor of adding some money,” Mr. Blunt said Tuesday, adding that he thought the $3.6 billion Democrats have proposed “is a totally indefensible number.”
Democrats cited work by researchers at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, who recommended the additional $3.6 billion to ensure a safe and fair election.


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Anti-Discrimination Center (Craig Gurian, ED)

Anti-Discrimination Center (Craig Gurian, ED) Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @antibiaslaw

19 Nov
A little history lesson. 42 USC 1985 prohibits civil rights conspiracies and is derived from Section 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1870 and Section 2 of the Enforcement Act of 1871.

Section 3 is particularly timely.

Text follows in thread.
(3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges. If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons
of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory
Read 7 tweets
16 Oct
Lead story this am (behind @politicony's pay wall) from @JanakiChadha. Excerpts:

A recently-announced de Blasio administration proposal to rezone SoHo and NoHo for new housing was
billed as a step to advance residential integration in the largely white, high-income area.
But a city policy that gives preference to local residents for new affordable housing units will likely limit the
fair housing potential of the rezoning. the city now looks towards SoHo and NoHo, and
moves toward rezoning the majority-white Gowanus section of Brooklyn, the local set-aside brings up
thornier questions about retaining a neighborhood’s existing make-up.
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!