×

We use cookies to help make LingQ better. By visiting the site, you agree to our cookie policy.


image

Moyers on Democracy podcast, Fighting for Voting Rights, Again (1)

Fighting for Voting Rights, Again (1)

ANNOUNCER: Welcome to Moyers on Democracy.

This election season is being waged in the middle of a pandemic of Covid-19 and an epidemic of voter suppression. The first kills people. The second kills democracy. We have seen the courage of front-line workers confronting the virus. But we have heard too little of the front-line fighters for voting rights. You'll hear two in this episode as Bill Moyers talks with John Bonifaz and Ben Clements. They lead the non-profit organization Free Speech for People whose mission includes defending the integrity of our elections. John Bonifaz has been on the frontlines of key voting rights battles for more than 20 years. He co-founded Free Speech for People and serves as its President. Ben Clements chairs the Board of Directors as well as its legal committee. A former prosecutor, he served as Chief Legal Counsel to the governor of Massachusetts and is a founding partner of the law firm, Clements Law in Boston. Here to talk with John Bonifaz and Ben Clements is Bill Moyers.

BILL MOYERS: Hi Ben. Hi John. It's good to be with both of you. Thank you so much for coming. Where is our right to vote most seriously threatened right now? Ben?

BEN CLEMENTS: Well, at this point, a perfect storm of threats. We have a Republican Party that has been engaged in a decades-long campaign of voter suppression. And attempting to essentially disenfranchise certain groups in society that they view as their political opponents. We've had a consent decree that was holding back the Republican Party from some of those tactics for a couple of decades that expired just in time for the 2020 election. And we have an out-of-control president and presidential candidate who has no limit to what he is willing to do to interfere with the vote from threatening public violence, from federal armed forces, to encouraging vigilante violence. The pandemic has added a whole new layer of threats that Donald Trump has taken advantage of by interfering with vote by mail. So I think it's that storm of pressures and interferences that undermines and threatens the right to vote and threatens our democracy all across the country.

BILL MOYERS: John, how do you fight on so many fronts at once?

JOHN BONIFAZ: Well, we do it with a dedicated team, as well as those who we reach out to in the law-firm community who are ready to help us on these litigation battles. We see people all over the country who are vigilant in standing up for the right to vote and for our democracy. It's not solely a fight for lawyers, it's a fight for all of us as people who care about the promise of democracy and the promise of free and fair elections for all. The right to vote is a fight that the engaged citizenry is focused on. Democracy is on the line with this election. The right to vote is on the ballot. And they're ready to ensure that democracy is protected in all the ways that we need to do that, including public protests that may take place if this president is declared the loser but refuses to accept the results.

BILL MOYERS: Just this week, on Monday night the Supreme Court ruled five to three for Wisconsin Republicans who want to block the counting of votes postmarked before Election Day but received up to six days after it. Democrats and civil rights groups wanted the extension because of the pandemic. They wanted to vote under safer conditions. Wisconsin's a hot spot. Earlier this year, during the primary in Wisconsin, 80,000 votes postmarked in time, after the election, these votes were counted. For next weeks' election, now such late ballots will be rejected. What does this portend for voting rights that the court took the side of the Republican legislature in Wisconsin?

JOHN BONIFAZ: Well, it certainly says we have a broken election system, where we have such a decentralized way in which we run our elections. Where it's really up to where you live and whether your vote is going to be protected. It makes no sense, Bill, to have this state by state or even locality-by-locality-jurisdiction decision making over how votes are counted, whether they're going to be counted in a way that ensures that everyone's franchise is protected. And really what this show is that unfortunately, until we have a uniform, standard, all across the country in how we count our votes, until we have a constitutional amendment affirming the right to vote, these battles are going to be state by state and locality by locality. And the courts are going to be engaged. And this Supreme Court is in the way in many of these cases. They're interfering with ensuring that everyone's votes are going to be properly counted.

BILL MOYERS: And all five conservatives on the court say they're obliged to defer to state officials on election decisions. Justice Kavanaugh, for example, said, federal judges don't know better than state legislators about how to run elections during a pandemic. That didn't stop them in 2000, of course, when they stopped the counting in Florida and put George Bush in the White House. He also argued that “States need to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and potentially flip the results of the election.” An election can't be flipped until the last vote is counted.

BEN CLEMENTS: And you're exactly right to tie it back to Bush v. Gore. Because I mentioned earlier the decades' long history of voter suppression by the Republican Party. Unfortunately, we have a long history going back at least to Bush v. Gore and earlier of a Supreme Court controlled by Republican appointees who appear equally loyal to the Republican Party's agenda with voting as are elected Republicans. And that's exactly what Kavanaugh is voicing there. He's not talking about flipping elections, that's how he says it. But what he's talking about is discounting certain votes. And those votes, we all know, are the votes that are mailed in and not received by the deadline. And Donald Trump has made a calculation that Brett Kavanaugh fully gets, that those are more likely to be Democratic votes than Republican votes. In fact, it's more than just a calculation. Trump has assured that to be the case by essentially discouraging his own supporters to use vote by mail and discrediting vote by mail. This is a really dangerous situation where you have a Supreme Court pretending to be deferring to state legislatures, and actually engaging in aggressive activism to influence the election by giving less weight to certain types of votes. And that's exactly what they're doing in that Wisconsin case and in a lot of these cases where they've struck down efforts of lower courts to preserve the franchise in spite of the obstacles faced by voters in the pandemic and in this situation of Donald Trump undermining the United States Mail.

JOHN BONIFAZ: There's also a problem, Bill, underlying that ruling and some other rulings that court has issued on this matter with respect to vote by mail, which is this idea that we need to have the results on election night after the votes are cast on Election Day in person.

BILL MOYERS: Let me interrupt you to read from the decision. Those states, says Kavanaugh, also want to be able to definitely announce the results of the election on election night or as soon as possible thereafter, as if that's a constitutional mandate.

JOHN BONIFAZ: There's nothing in the constitution that requires that. In fact, the constitution would say very clearly that the right to vote needs to be protected, and all votes need to be properly counted. So really, what we're dealing here with is a complete misunderstanding with respect to how we should be conducting our elections today. It's not about Election Day, it's about election season. And the votes that are going to come in in this process are going to have to be counted regardless of whether that counting process goes beyond election night.

BILL MOYERS: I like that term, “election season,” because the very idea of calling an election on the night it's held is absurd if all the votes aren't counted. An election is a process of casting and then counting votes. And it's not over until the last vote is counted, even if that's days after voting day. Isn't it absurd to say this has to be announced on election night?

BEN CLEMENTS: It underscores, yet again, the hypocrisy and the disingenuousness of Brett Kavanaugh's claim that he's deferring to the states. The states aren't the ones that say, “we need to have a count completed by Election Day.” In fact, many states don't allow the absentee ballots and the mailed-in ballots to be counted until Election Day. So it's the states that actually need the time to complete those counts. It's not the states calling for a clear answer on Election Day. It's Donald Trump calling for that. And Brett Kavanaugh echoing that call in his judicial decisions.

BILL MOYERS: Justice Kagan, in her dissent pointed out that COVID is not over in Wisconsin. Yet, the state legislature, according to Kagan, has not, for a moment, direct quote, “considered how to ensure voters can cast ballots safely.” She also said that the majority on the court did not dispute the lower court's finding, that as many as 100,000 ballots might arrive too late to be counted. Trump only won Wisconsin by something, like, 27,000 votes. So those 100,000 uncounted ballots this time could decide the election.

JOHN BONIFAZ: This is exactly why I think that the public needs to be vigilant in protecting the right to vote. It cannot only be about the court fights. It also needs to be about public pressure and activism on the part of ordinary citizens all over the country. I don't think the people are going to accept the idea that hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes are not going to be counted before we declare who won this election.

BILL MOYERS: The historian Heather Cox Richardson, who follows these things very closely, says this decision of Monday night is an example of originalist ideology. It says states get to run elections however its legislators wish. And that that notion trumps the right to vote. So here we got Amy Coney Barrett, going on the courts proudly saying I'm going to find the original meaning of every word in the constitution, including, now that she's on the court, this decision. What do you think about that?

BEN CLEMENTS: You know, Bill, particularly with the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, the issue of originalism is going to be with us for some time. Originalism throughout its history has been a tool for conservative justices to reach conservative results under the veneer of a very intellectual, restrained approach. It's not a restrained approach. Those conservatives justices have no problem aggressively using the constitution to strike down laws that they don't like. That don't accord with their political beliefs. She has indicated that she may strike down the Affordable Care Act. But when it comes to protecting constitutional rights of regular people, of voters, suddenly they see something in the original intent of the constitution that certainly the framers of the constitution didn't give a lot of thought to what role would the courts have in protecting the right to vote during a pandemic. This is a question that comes up that judges have to deal with applying broad, broad concepts in the constitution to very detailed situations that certainly weren't considered by the framers when they wrote that detailed document. So really what you're seeing here is a conservative court using that as an excuse to disenfranchise people.


Fighting for Voting Rights, Again (1) Erneut für das Wahlrecht kämpfen (1) Luchar de nuevo por el derecho de voto (1) 投票権のために再び闘う (1) 투표권을 위한 투쟁, 다시 시작하다 (1) Vėl kova už balsavimo teises (1) Mais uma vez a lutar pelo direito de voto (1) Снова борьба за избирательные права (1) Oy Hakkı İçin Yeniden Mücadele (1) Знову боротьба за виборчі права (1) 再次争取投票权 (1)

ANNOUNCER: Welcome to Moyers on Democracy.

This election season is being waged in the middle of a pandemic of Covid-19 and an epidemic of voter suppression. Cette saison électorale se déroule au milieu d'une pandémie de Covid-19 et d'une épidémie de suppression des électeurs. The first kills people. The second kills democracy. We have seen the courage of front-line workers confronting the virus. But we have heard too little of the front-line fighters for voting rights. Mais nous avons trop peu entendu parler des combattants de première ligne pour le droit de vote. You'll hear two in this episode as Bill Moyers talks with John Bonifaz and Ben Clements. They lead the non-profit organization Free Speech for People whose mission includes defending the integrity of our elections. John Bonifaz has been on the frontlines of key voting rights battles for more than 20 years. He co-founded Free Speech for People and serves as its President. Ben Clements chairs the Board of Directors as well as its legal committee. A former prosecutor, he served as Chief Legal Counsel to the governor of Massachusetts and is a founding partner of the law firm, Clements Law in Boston. Als ehemaliger Staatsanwalt war er Chief Legal Counsel des Gouverneurs von Massachusetts und Gründungspartner der Anwaltskanzlei Clements Law in Boston. Here to talk with John Bonifaz and Ben Clements is Bill Moyers.

BILL MOYERS: Hi Ben. Hi John. It's good to be with both of you. Thank you so much for coming. Where is our right to vote most seriously threatened right now? Ben?

BEN CLEMENTS: Well, at this point, a perfect storm of threats. We have a Republican Party that has been engaged in a decades-long campaign of voter suppression. Nous avons un parti républicain qui s'est engagé dans une campagne de suppression des électeurs qui dure depuis des décennies. У нас есть Республиканская партия, которая десятилетиями ведет кампанию подавления избирателей. And attempting to essentially disenfranchise certain groups in society that they view as their political opponents. Und der Versuch, bestimmte Gruppen in der Gesellschaft, die sie als ihre politischen Gegner betrachten, im Wesentlichen zu entrechten. Et tenter de priver essentiellement de leurs droits certains groupes de la société qu'ils considèrent comme leurs adversaires politiques. И попытки по существу лишить избирательных прав определенные группы в обществе, которые они считают своими политическими оппонентами. We've had a consent decree that was holding back the Republican Party from some of those tactics for a couple of decades that expired just in time for the 2020 election. Wir hatten eine Vereinbarung, die die Republikanische Partei seit einigen Jahrzehnten von einigen dieser Taktiken abhielt und die gerade rechtzeitig vor den Wahlen 2020 auslief. Nous avons eu un décret de consentement qui empêchait le Parti républicain de certaines de ces tactiques pendant quelques décennies et qui a expiré juste à temps pour les élections de 2020. У нас есть указ о согласии, который удерживал Республиканскую партию от некоторых из этих тактик в течение нескольких десятилетий, срок действия которого истек как раз к выборам 2020 года. And we have an out-of-control president and presidential candidate who has no limit to what he is willing to do to interfere with the vote from threatening public violence, from federal armed forces, to encouraging vigilante violence. Und wir haben einen außer Kontrolle geratenen Präsidenten und Präsidentschaftskandidaten, der keine Grenzen kennt, was er zu tun bereit ist, um die Abstimmung zu stören - von der Androhung öffentlicher Gewalt über die Streitkräfte des Bundes bis hin zur Aufforderung zur Selbstjustiz. Et nous avons un président et un candidat présidentiel incontrôlables qui n'ont aucune limite à ce qu'il est prêt à faire pour interférer avec le vote, depuis la menace de violence publique, des forces armées fédérales, jusqu'à l'encouragement de la violence d'autodéfense. И у нас есть неконтролируемый президент и кандидат в президенты, у которого нет предела тому, что он готов сделать, чтобы помешать голосованию, от угроз публичного насилия со стороны федеральных вооруженных сил до поощрения насилия со стороны линчевателей. The pandemic has added a whole new layer of threats that Donald Trump has taken advantage of by interfering with vote by mail. La pandémie a ajouté une toute nouvelle couche de menaces dont Donald Trump a profité en interférant avec le vote par correspondance. So I think it's that storm of pressures and interferences that undermines and threatens the right to vote and threatens our democracy all across the country.

BILL MOYERS: John, how do you fight on so many fronts at once?

JOHN BONIFAZ: Well, we do it with a dedicated team, as well as those who we reach out to in the law-firm community who are ready to help us on these litigation battles. JOHN BONIFAZ : Eh bien, nous le faisons avec une équipe dédiée, ainsi qu'avec ceux que nous contactons dans la communauté des cabinets d'avocats qui sont prêts à nous aider dans ces batailles judiciaires. We see people all over the country who are vigilant in standing up for the right to vote and for our democracy. Мы видим людей по всей стране, которые бдительно отстаивают право голоса и нашу демократию. It's not solely a fight for lawyers, it's a fight for all of us as people who care about the promise of democracy and the promise of free and fair elections for all. Ce n'est pas seulement un combat pour les avocats, c'est un combat pour nous tous en tant que personnes qui se soucient de la promesse de la démocratie et de la promesse d'élections libres et équitables pour tous. Это борьба не только за юристов, это борьба за всех нас, как людей, которым небезразлична перспектива демократии и обещание свободных и справедливых выборов для всех. The right to vote is a fight that the engaged citizenry is focused on. Le droit de vote est un combat sur lequel se concentrent les citoyens engagés. Democracy is on the line with this election. La démocratie est en jeu avec cette élection. The right to vote is on the ballot. Le droit de vote est inscrit sur le bulletin de vote. And they're ready to ensure that democracy is protected in all the ways that we need to do that, including public protests that may take place if this president is declared the loser but refuses to accept the results. Et ils sont prêts à veiller à ce que la démocratie soit protégée de toutes les manières dont nous avons besoin pour le faire, y compris les manifestations publiques qui pourraient avoir lieu si ce président est déclaré perdant mais refuse d'accepter les résultats.

BILL MOYERS: Just this week, on Monday night the Supreme Court ruled five to three for Wisconsin Republicans who want to block the counting of votes postmarked before Election Day but received up to six days after it. BILL MOYERS: Juste cette semaine, lundi soir, la Cour suprême a statué cinq contre trois pour les républicains du Wisconsin qui veulent bloquer le décompte des votes timbrés avant le jour du scrutin mais reçus jusqu'à six jours après. БИЛЛ МОЙЕРС: Буквально на этой неделе, в понедельник вечером, Верховный суд постановил пять против трех в пользу республиканцев Висконсина, которые хотели заблокировать подсчет голосов по почтовым штемпелям до дня выборов, но полученных в течение шести дней после него. Democrats and civil rights groups wanted the extension because of the pandemic. Les démocrates et les groupes de défense des droits civiques voulaient la prolongation en raison de la pandémie. They wanted to vote under safer conditions. Wisconsin's a hot spot. Earlier this year, during the primary in Wisconsin, 80,000 votes postmarked in time, after the election, these votes were counted. For next weeks' election, now such late ballots will be rejected. What does this portend for voting rights that the court took the side of the Republican legislature in Wisconsin? Qu'est-ce que cela laisse présager pour les droits de vote que le tribunal a pris du côté de la législature républicaine du Wisconsin?

JOHN BONIFAZ: Well, it certainly says we have a broken election system, where we have such a decentralized way in which we run our elections. JOHN BONIFAZ : Eh bien, cela indique certainement que nous avons un système électoral défectueux, où nous avons une manière tellement décentralisée de gérer nos élections. Where it's really up to where you live and whether your vote is going to be protected. Cela dépend vraiment de l'endroit où vous vivez et de la protection de votre vote. It makes no sense, Bill, to have this state by state or even locality-by-locality-jurisdiction decision making over how votes are counted, whether they're going to be counted in a way that ensures that everyone's franchise is protected. Cela n'a aucun sens, Bill, d'avoir cette décision État par État ou même localité par localité sur la façon dont les votes sont comptés, s'ils vont être comptés d'une manière qui garantit que la franchise de chacun est protégée. And really what this show is that unfortunately, until we have a uniform, standard, all across the country in how we count our votes, until we have a constitutional amendment affirming the right to vote, these battles are going to be state by state and locality by locality. Et vraiment ce que ce spectacle est que, malheureusement, jusqu'à ce que nous ayons une norme uniforme, dans tout le pays dans la façon dont nous comptons nos votes, jusqu'à ce que nous ayons un amendement constitutionnel affirmant le droit de vote, ces batailles vont être État par État et localité par localité. And the courts are going to be engaged. And this Supreme Court is in the way in many of these cases. Et cette Cour suprême fait obstacle à bon nombre de ces affaires. They're interfering with ensuring that everyone's votes are going to be properly counted. Ils interfèrent pour s'assurer que les votes de chacun seront correctement comptés.

BILL MOYERS: And all five conservatives on the court say they're obliged to defer to state officials on election decisions. BILL MOYERS: Et les cinq conservateurs du tribunal disent qu'ils sont obligés de s'en remettre aux responsables de l'État pour les décisions électorales. БИЛЛ МОЙЕРС: И все пять консерваторов в суде говорят, что они обязаны подчиняться государственным чиновникам при принятии решений о выборах. Justice Kavanaugh, for example, said, federal judges don't know better than state legislators about how to run elections during a pandemic. Le juge Kavanaugh, par exemple, a déclaré que les juges fédéraux ne savent pas mieux que les législateurs des États comment organiser des élections pendant une pandémie. That didn't stop them in 2000, of course, when they stopped the counting in Florida and put George Bush in the White House. Конечно, это не остановило их в 2000 году, когда они прекратили подсчет голосов во Флориде и поместили Джорджа Буша в Белый дом. He also argued that “States need to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and potentially flip the results of the election.” An election can't be flipped until the last vote is counted. Он также утверждал, что «Штатам необходимо избегать хаоса и подозрений в нарушении правил, которые могут возникнуть, если после дня выборов поступят тысячи открепительных удостоверений, которые потенциально могут перевернуть результаты выборов». Выборы не могут быть отменены, пока не будет подсчитан последний голос.

BEN CLEMENTS: And you're exactly right to tie it back to Bush v. Gore. Because I mentioned earlier the decades' long history of voter suppression by the Republican Party. Unfortunately, we have a long history going back at least to Bush v. Gore and earlier of a Supreme Court controlled by Republican appointees who appear equally loyal to the Republican Party's agenda with voting as are elected Republicans. And that's exactly what Kavanaugh is voicing there. He's not talking about flipping elections, that's how he says it. But what he's talking about is discounting certain votes. And those votes, we all know, are the votes that are mailed in and not received by the deadline. And Donald Trump has made a calculation that Brett Kavanaugh fully gets, that those are more likely to be Democratic votes than Republican votes. In fact, it's more than just a calculation. Trump has assured that to be the case by essentially discouraging his own supporters to use vote by mail and discrediting vote by mail. Трамп заверил, что это так, по сути, отговаривая своих сторонников использовать голосование по почте и дискредитируя голосование по почте. This is a really dangerous situation where you have a Supreme Court pretending to be deferring to state legislatures, and actually engaging in aggressive activism to influence the election by giving less weight to certain types of votes. And that's exactly what they're doing in that Wisconsin case and in a lot of these cases where they've struck down efforts of lower courts to preserve the franchise in spite of the obstacles faced by voters in the pandemic and in this situation of Donald Trump undermining the United States Mail.

JOHN BONIFAZ: There's also a problem, Bill, underlying that ruling and some other rulings that court has issued on this matter with respect to vote by mail, which is this idea that we need to have the results on election night after the votes are cast on Election Day in person.

BILL MOYERS: Let me interrupt you to read from the decision. Those states, says Kavanaugh, also want to be able to definitely announce the results of the election on election night or as soon as possible thereafter, as if that's a constitutional mandate.

JOHN BONIFAZ: There's nothing in the constitution that requires that. In fact, the constitution would say very clearly that the right to vote needs to be protected, and all votes need to be properly counted. So really, what we're dealing here with is a complete misunderstanding with respect to how we should be conducting our elections today. It's not about Election Day, it's about election season. And the votes that are going to come in in this process are going to have to be counted regardless of whether that counting process goes beyond election night.

BILL MOYERS: I like that term, “election season,” because the very idea of calling an election on the night it's held is absurd if all the votes aren't counted. An election is a process of casting and then counting votes. Выборы - это процесс подачи и последующего подсчета голосов. And it's not over until the last vote is counted, even if that's days after voting day. Isn't it absurd to say this has to be announced on election night?

BEN CLEMENTS: It underscores, yet again, the hypocrisy and the disingenuousness of Brett Kavanaugh's claim that he's deferring to the states. The states aren't the ones that say, “we need to have a count completed by Election Day.” In fact, many states don't allow the absentee ballots and the mailed-in ballots to be counted until Election Day. Не штаты говорят: «Нам нужно завершить подсчет голосов до дня выборов». Фактически, многие штаты не разрешают подсчет открепительных и отправленных по почте бюллетеней до дня выборов. So it's the states that actually need the time to complete those counts. It's not the states calling for a clear answer on Election Day. It's Donald Trump calling for that. And Brett Kavanaugh echoing that call in his judicial decisions.

BILL MOYERS: Justice Kagan, in her dissent pointed out that COVID is not over in Wisconsin. Yet, the state legislature, according to Kagan, has not, for a moment, direct quote, “considered how to ensure voters can cast ballots safely.” She also said that the majority on the court did not dispute the lower court's finding, that as many as 100,000 ballots might arrive too late to be counted. Trump only won Wisconsin by something, like, 27,000 votes. So those 100,000 uncounted ballots this time could decide the election.

JOHN BONIFAZ: This is exactly why I think that the public needs to be vigilant in protecting the right to vote. It cannot only be about the court fights. It also needs to be about public pressure and activism on the part of ordinary citizens all over the country. I don't think the people are going to accept the idea that hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes are not going to be counted before we declare who won this election.

BILL MOYERS: The historian Heather Cox Richardson, who follows these things very closely, says this decision of Monday night is an example of originalist ideology. It says states get to run elections however its legislators wish. And that that notion trumps the right to vote. И это понятие превосходит право голоса. So here we got Amy Coney Barrett, going on the courts proudly saying I'm going to find the original meaning of every word in the constitution, including, now that she's on the court, this decision. What do you think about that?

BEN CLEMENTS: You know, Bill, particularly with the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, the issue of originalism is going to be with us for some time. Originalism throughout its history has been a tool for conservative justices to reach conservative results under the veneer of a very intellectual, restrained approach. It's not a restrained approach. Those conservatives justices have no problem aggressively using the constitution to strike down laws that they don't like. That don't accord with their political beliefs. She has indicated that she may strike down the Affordable Care Act. Она указала, что может отменить Закон о доступном медицинском обслуживании. But when it comes to protecting constitutional rights of regular people, of voters, suddenly they see something in the original intent of the constitution that certainly the framers of the constitution didn't give a lot of thought to what role would the courts have in protecting the right to vote during a pandemic. This is a question that comes up that judges have to deal with applying broad, broad concepts in the constitution to very detailed situations that certainly weren't considered by the framers when they wrote that detailed document. Это вопрос, который возникает в связи с тем, что судьям приходится иметь дело с применением широких, широких концепций конституции к очень подробным ситуациям, которые определенно не были учтены создателями, когда они писали этот подробный документ. So really what you're seeing here is a conservative court using that as an excuse to disenfranchise people.