There are no two sides to a confession, Marc Elias

 https://newsletters.democracydocket.com/member-note-tuesday

~~ recommended by newestbeginning ~~

In my darkest moments, I fear that this is how democracy dies. Not with a secret conspiracy conducted in the middle of the night. But with a brazen confession made public in the light of day.   Last night, after a long day, I sat down to reflect on Watson v. RNC — the Supreme Court case that could decide the results of the midterm elections. I have poured years into the case and others like it, trying to ensure voters are not disenfranchised by delays caused by the U.S. postal system.    As counsel to the private party defendants, I had hoped to argue the case, but the conservative Supreme Court had other plans. Prompted by the state of Mississippi, the Court denied my option to have time to argue.    So, as the RNC presented its case for why mail ballots should not be counted if received after Election Day — even if postmarked in time — all I could do was listen.   After rereading the transcript, I turned to the media’s coverage of the day. Some thought we would win, others predicted a loss. All, however, treated the RNC’s position as normal and legally reasonable.   I have been doing this work for over 30 years. From my early days as a young lawyer looking to make a difference to running my own pro-democracy law firm, I have dedicated my career to free and fair elections.

Over the years, I have watched the Republican Party morph into a crime family that boasts about rigging elections. They have told us, in courtrooms and legislative chambers and at campaign rallies, exactly what they are doing and exactly why.   They want to limit the right to vote of minorities and others who oppose them. They seek to use technology to gerrymander themselves into permanent majorities. And, if all else fails, they want election deniers in a position to seize ballots or refuse to certify results.   Despite the proof before their eyes, too many are unable to accept the confession.    For example, in their complaint in Watson, the RNC cited data showing that Democratic voters disproportionately utilize vote by mail and mail their ballots late. Then they went a step further. In a federal court filing, the RNC had the audacity to write that counting these ballots "specifically and disproportionately harms Republican candidates and voters.".   In 2013, well before Donald Trump became the dominant force in the GOP, North Carolina Republicans were enacting laws to disenfranchise Black voters "with near surgical precision." The federal court of appeals found that the party had requested data on which voting methods were disproportionately used by Black voters and then eliminated them. The GOP learned from it, refined its methods and kept going.   By 2021, Republican lawyers felt secure enough to say the quiet part out loud before the Supreme Court. In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked the Republican lawyer why the GOP had an interest in keeping restrictive Arizona voting laws on the books. He did not lean on false claims of fraud or election integrity. He said bluntly, "Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats. Politics is a zero-sum game."   That statement should have ended the debate about Republican motives once and for all. Instead, it was noted, contextualized and largely forgotten.   Even when Republicans admit exactly what they are doing, too many people who know better find a way to excuse it.   In 2016, a North Carolina Republican legislator announced his party would draw congressional maps giving Republicans a 10-3 advantage because, as he put it, "electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats." He added, with breathtaking candor, that he would have preferred an 11-2 map but didn't think it was geometrically possible.   When Trump pressured Texas to redraw its congressional maps mid-decade — explicitly to gain five additional Republican House seats — the media could not pretend the motive was unclear. In allowing the map to take effect, Justice Alito declared it "indisputable" that Texas had acted for "partisan advantage pure and simple."   Many in the media and chattering class responded by treating both parties as equally guilty — never mind that one party has spent decades in court fighting to remove partisan considerations from the process while the other has resisted even incremental reforms.   Our country has spent decades treating politics as a game between two teams, each with legitimate grievances. That framework may have made sense when both parties operated within the democratic rules of the road. But that hasn't been true for more than a decade — and it is getting worse.   Trump has now made the SAVE America Act his top legislative priority, threatening to refuse to sign any legislation until it passes. His explanation for why Republicans need it was, as usual, unambiguous. "We'll never lose a race. For 50 years, we won't lose a race."   Rather than examining why the GOP is investing such enormous political capital in a bill that strips voting rights from millions of Americans, the media focuses on whether it might backfire politically.   I am writing this because I want to warn you and because I want there to be a record.   The Republican Party is telling us, with brimming confidence and zero shame, that it intends to make it harder for its opponents to vote and easier to control the outcome of elections. They are prepared to use every tool available to them — legal or not — to stay in power.   There are no two sides to a confession. There is only the confession — and the choice of whether to take it seriously.   I have given up on legacy media taking it seriously. My question is: Will you?