This man who authored the bill felt his religion and his opinion was more valid than all the science and medical data that shows he is wrong.Β Β He claims that identifying as a different gender than assigned at birth is a temporary problem, giving the idea it is a phase people go through like adolescence or acme.Β Β That was what people tried to claim about gay people in the past, that it was a phase young adults would grow out of, or it was done as rebellion against parents.Β Β That was wrong then and it is wrong about trans people now.Β Β These right wing people are just recycling all the old tropes against gay people to use against trans people.Β The goal is to destroy all the social advances in the US society and return to a past that was regressive and oppressive before equality and civil rights for minorities.Β Β Please understand that for trans people to wait that late in life until 26 means not only living as the wrong gender all that time but also the human body has by then been set into the mold of the wrong gender for the person.Β Β During puberty so many changes happen to create a male or female body that simply by looks is a lifetime sentence of being in the wrong body.Β If you are one gender imagine looking like the other all your life because someone said you couldn’t have the medical treatment needed to help you live as you really are.Β Β Hugs
The bill’s author said he did not speak to a single transgender person before writing it.
Oklahoma State Sen. David Bullard (R)Photo: Oklahoma Senate
In Oklahoma,Β a new billΒ called the βMillstone Act of 2023β has been proposed that would ban gender-affirming care in all forms for anyone under 26 years old. The bill targets healthcare providers and says anyone who violates the rule could face felony charges and have their medical license revoked.
The billβs nameΒ reportedly refersΒ to a passage in the Bible that says it is better to tie a large stone to your neck and drown than to cause harm to a child. It was introduced by state Sen. David Bullard (R), who was alsoΒ behind a state lawΒ that passed last year banning trans youth from using school bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity.
InΒ a statementΒ toΒ The Oklahoman, Bullard said gender-affirming surgery is βa permanent solution to a temporary problemβ and called it a violation of doctorsβ Hippocratic Oath to do no harm.
βWe want to make sure that if weβre going to do a procedure like this that is irreversible, then we want to make sure an individual is at their full maturity when it comes to cognitive development,β he said.
He also explained why he wanted to restrict gender-affirming care to such a late age.
βAt the age of 18, you can vote, but a vote is not a permanent change in your body that cannot be reversed. At the age of 21 you can drink, but at the end of the day if you decide to put the alcohol down, you can put the alcohol down. But with this surgery, there is no going back. We just want to make sure that the brain is fully developed before we allow this kind of surgery, permanent thing to happen.β
He also said he did not speak to a single transgender person before writing the bill.
Oklahoma has passed a slew of anti-trans legislation as of late.
The Millstone Act is also one of multiple bills that have been proposed targeting gender-affirming care for trans adults as Republicans continue to expand their crusade against trans people. Bills targeting medical care for trans adults have recently been proposed in South Carolina and New Hampshire as well.
βWe have been saying a slow moving genocide targeted at eliminating transgender people through eliminating gender affirming care is happening,βΒ wrote activist Erin ReedΒ in December. βIt continues.β
DeathSantis spokesperson says that they want to eliminate βpolitical ideologyβ from public higher education.Β Β Yet Rufo is one of the most ideology driven people I have ever seen.Β Β He is a die hard far right to the point of being racist and virulently anti-LGBTQ+.Β Β Seriously he wants to roll back every social advance since 1855.Β Β Look at what DeathSantis says is a bad thing in education, he DeSantis admin plans to weed out concepts like diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and critical race theory (CRT).Β Β Hugs
Gov.Β Ron DeSantis has appointed conservative activistΒ Christopher Rufo and five others to the New College of Florida Board of Trustees in his continuing move to eliminate βpolitical ideologyβ from public higher education.
With the six new members of the schoolβs Board of Trustees, the DeSantis admin plans to weed out concepts like diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and critical race theory (CRT). The move comes amid low student enrollment at the New College of Florida and as DeSantis ramps up his second term.
In a statement Friday, DeSantis Communications Director Taryn FenskeΒ said New College has been βcompletely captured by a political ideology that puts trendy, truth-relative concepts above learning.β
— Christopher F. Rufo βοΈ (@realchrisrufo) January 6, 2023
DeSantis appoints anti-civil rights activist Chris Rufo to New College of Florida Board of Trustees; Rufo is known for his attacks on CRT and spreading the βgroomerβ slur against gay and trans people https://t.co/cqz6BCnYtC
Rufo to the NY Times: βItβs wrong, factually and morally, to accuse someone of being a groomer with no basis and evidence. Itβs become a powerful word that should be used with great responsibility." https://t.co/1Mpv5T72Lj Rufo in real life: pic.twitter.com/z9oLcXYyGk
As I noted to the NY Times, it's the same Rufo strategy between the CRT and groomer labels: take down policies or institutions that have popular support by rebranding them in a negative and misleading way. https://t.co/KxhCqoskLNpic.twitter.com/gYBfCcakdb
The same person who started the CRT panic also created the groomer lie. Christopher Rufo is nothing short of evil. βWe are building a new model of conservative activismβ with the grooming messaging, argues Christopher Rufo, a leading anti-critical race theory activist.β ~ Rufo
Christopher Rufo bitching about fact checking after he lied about CRT and groomer theory is just… So quintessentially 2022 it hurts. https://t.co/vEVFn5INEB
— Unironic Lesbian Dance Theorist, Doer of Jew Magic (@hamilcarenina) May 5, 2022
So Chris Rufo deceptively said the exec "wants a minimum of 50 percent of characters to be LGBTQIA and racial minorities" in the leaked video — though she doesn't say that.
Sandra Smith now says Disney wants 50% of their characters to be gay.
Exactly! Note the things he pointed out as “political ideology” are all progressive causes. Pushing right-wing ideology is going to be fine I guess. White nationalism, anti-gay/trans propaganda, misogyny and a white-washed US history will be back on the menu boys!
Nearly every single prominent anti-gay figure has sooner or later turned out to be a closet case. Case in point this week: Matt Schlapp. They’re all working out their own internalized homophobia and self-hatred by trying to hurt other people.
And I think every single leader that the so-called “ex-gays” have had later turned out to be still totally gay. To their credit, several of them later came clean and apologized for their actions.
Before it merged with USF in 2001, New College was the toughest Florida college to get into. It was a big deal when I was in high school. Since the merger with a public university, enrollment has plummeted to around 700.
I don’t care if you watch it, but I want to make a point about the resurgence of bathroom bills.Β You know those bills that say trans people must use the bathroom of their assigned sex at birth.Β Β Mostly because cis women have been told that trans women or women who do not look feminine enough will violate and hurt them.Β Β Yes we must judge everyone by their looks so we can tell who fits the girl enough or the boy enough categories.Β Β We already know that the idea that a person will go to the effort to claim to be trans to assault women in a bathroom is debunked and stupid.Β If a guy wants to assault women they are not going to change their entire life to do it in a woman’s bathroom, they will just charge into one and do it, or do it when the woman comes out or a dozen other ways.Β It simply is not reasonable.Β Β But let’s go back to comfort.Β A cis female person I respect said she would be uncomfortable in a bathroom with a “manly looking woman”.Β Β OK please look at this person in the video that says they are trans.Β Β That means if these “go to the toilet of your assigned birth” laws are enforced this person would be forced by law to use a female’s bathroom no matter how uncomfortable for them or the women.Β Β This is the stupidity of these laws and the people pushing the bigotry.Β Β Look at this guy, what bathroom does he belong in?Β Β These bathroom laws are based in bigotry and made up fears.Β Β What are you people doing in the bathroom, holding a social gathering?Β We have to understand what is driving these bathroom bill laws is an attempt to stop societal change and progression by the groups that are scared of the new ways.Β The die hard religious groups, the traditionalist who say it was not done this way when I was growing up, and the people that just simply feel the need to control society to make sure it stays the same so they feel comfortable.Β Β Hugs
A cisgender female cancer survivor who had her breasts removed said that public restroom users regularly challenge her gender, making her nervous about such confrontations.
Tiffany Liles-Taylor β a 43-year-old lesbian woman from the English town of Enderby, Leicestershire, about 96 miles north of London β was diagnosed with breast cancer and had a double mastectomy in 2020.
βIβve had to carry around these really heavy things my whole life,βΒ she told ITV. βI was in my forties and they were starting to get droopy anyway β so I thought βthese can goβ.β
After a long recovery, she returned to work as a ward clerk in a local hospital in spring 2021. However, the short-haired woman now finds that sheβs regularly misgendered.
She said that she gets called βTimothyβ more than βTiffanyβ and has high social anxiety because she has short hair and is quite masculine, causing others to assume that sheβs a guy when they see her together with her wife.
βPublic toilets are very stressful because people will always challenge me whenever I go in,β she said. βThey will ask me if Iβm in the right toilet, or get members of staff to question why Iβm thereβ to which I have to constantly explain that I had cancer, not a sex change.β
βItβs that confrontation that I hate. I want people to understand that I am a woman, and I am in the right place,β she added.
When she wears clothing or wigs that are commonly seen as more feminine, she says she still gets mistreated because the clothes make her feel inauthentic and uncomfortable.
England has laws allowing public accommodation access for LGBTQ+ people and forbidding discrimination against queers. But even such legal protections canβt stop misgendering and harassment from ignorant individuals.
Liles-Taylor isnβt the only cis female who has been harassed in a public restroom for her gender presentation.
In November, a young cis woman with short hair recorded another womanΒ harassing her in the public restroomΒ of the Rampart Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada because the woman assumed she was transgender.
In the U.S., right-wingers have created a panic about trans individuals using public bathrooms, claiming that trans people are sexual predators and that public accommodation laws allow them to sexually harm women and children. In reality, the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by cisgender men and women.
This story was in a news article how Mark Meadows a high ranking republican / Christian dominionist who did voter fraud in NC.Β Β But while like always republicans who scream about all the voter fraud but they excuse it as they keep getting caught doing it.Β Β Again I am so sick of the double standard.Β Β Here in Florida DeathSantis got a lot of press by going after former felons who were told they could vote with his election police, yet they never go after the known republicans who have been found guilty of voter fraud who live in the Villages.Β DeathSantis and the local press never mention them and that they are republicans, while screaming about the democrats trying to steal the elections.Β Β Hugs
Pamela Moses at home in Memphis.Β Photograph: Andrea Morales/The Guardian
The case of Pamela Moses sparked a national outcry β but newly uncovered documents reveal the extent of its injustice
It was the morning after Labor Day and Pamela Moses was in a rush.
All summer, the outspoken activist had been feuding with election officials in Memphis, Tennessee. She wanted to get her name on the ballot for Memphisβs 2019 mayoral election, even gathering enough signatures to do so. But officialsΒ said she could not runΒ β a prior felony conviction made her ineligible to seek office.
Β
Now, there was a new problem. In late August, the local elections commission sent her a letter saying they were going to cancel her voter registration. Moses was confused β she had been voting for years. That day, she was determined to sort it out.
But what unfolded over just a few hours that day on 3 September 2019 would upend her life. It would lead to a sudden arrest months later at OβHare airport in Chicago and culminate in a six-year prison sentence for voter fraud.
Her case would go on to touch a nerve in the US and cause a national outcry. While thereβs no comprehensive data on voter fraud prosecutions based on race, it was one ofΒ several recent examplesΒ in which Black defendants like Moses have facedΒ long criminal sentencesΒ for voting errors, while white people have faced little punishment for more fraud. Long after the abolition of poll taxes and literacy tests, Black Americans still face significant scrutiny for trying to exercise their right to vote.
To make matters worse there is a byzantine bureaucracy inΒ TennesseeΒ and other US states, which can make it nearly impossible for people with felony convictions to vote again. The system has allowed officials to block people from voting for owing small sums of money and prosecutors to bring charges against others who make good-faith mistakes about their voting eligibility.
But at the center of the Moses case was a relatively simple question: should someone who makes a voting mistake face serious criminal charges?
Nearly everyone inΒ MemphisΒ seems to know Moses, 45, or has heard ofΒ her.
Sheβs a self-taught student of the law β the librarians in the county law library know her by name β and has sued many of the top officials in Memphis, frequently representing herself in court. SheβsΒ appearedΒ inΒ local papersΒ over the years. Sheβs had disagreements with other local activists and founded her own non-profit.
βIf she sees something that she feels is unjust, sheβs going to say something about it,β said Dawn Harrington, who has been friends with Moses for over two decades and is the executive director of Free Hearts, a criminal justice non-profit. βSheβs not going to be afraid of the backlash that might happen.β
βSheβll always take you to the limit,β said Michael Working, a criminal defense attorney in Memphis who has represented Moses and known her for a decade. βSheβs willing very often to be publicly flogged by the government on principle.β
In person, Moses is at times mercurial, but often charming. She can rattle off the history of Memphis neighborhoods, the names of local judges, lawyers and statutes that sheβs researched, sprinkling in bits of hip-hop history (she also writes and produces her own music). She is fiercely protective of Taj, her teenage son.
Few officials attracted Mosesβs ire as much as Amy Weirich, a Republican who served as the district attorney in Shelby county, which includes Memphis. Several years ago, Moses madeΒ local headlinesΒ when Weirich prosecuted her for stalking and harassing a local judge, tampering with evidence and forgery.
In 2015, Moses pleaded guilty to those charges and was sentenced to several years of probation. Years later, she would say that pleading guilty and not fighting the case βwas the worst mistake of my lifeβ. She believed she was innocent, but the conviction led people to think she was guilty.
Harrington, her longtime friend, said that the case cemented her status as someone who was disliked by people in high office in Memphis. βShe had been on the bad side of the powers that be there,β she said.
When Moses pleaded guilty, there wasΒ a hearingΒ in which a judge questioned her and made sure she understood the consequences of her decision. But there was one ramification that neither the judge nor any of the lawyers present brought up: Moses would lose the right to vote for life.
To understand Mosesβs case, one needs to know that America has long stripped people convicted of felonies of the vote.
After constitutional amendments in the 19th century expanded the franchise to Black Americans, many states passed felon disenfranchisement laws as a way to continue to keep African Americans from the ballot box and therefore prevent them from wielding political power, said Christopher Uggen, a professor at the University of Minnesota who has studied the topic closely. He suggested the laws had persisted because people with criminal convictions are stigmatized, and so seeking redress for them is politically fraught.
Today, the laws continue toΒ heavily affectΒ Black Americans β 5.3% of the adult Black population is disenfranchised because of a felony, compared to 1.5% of the non-Black adult population. Overall, an estimated 4.6 million people canβt vote because of a felony conviction in the US.
Mosesβs home state of Tennessee strips any person convicted of a felony of the right to vote. NearlyΒ 472,000 peopleΒ of voting age canβt vote in Tennessee because of a felony conviction, the vast majority of whom have completed their sentence, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice non-profit. Itβs estimated that more than one in five Black people of voting age in the state canβt vote because of a felony.
In Tennessee, it is also extremely difficult for these people to get their voting rights back once they complete their sentences. There areΒ three different sets of rules, depending on when the person was convicted. A request to even just fill out the stateβs required application for the restoration of voting rights can be rejected for any reason β without explanation.
Tennesseeβs confusing system isnβt unusual. Many US states, particularly in the south, require anyone with a felony conviction to go through a bureaucratic process if they want to vote again.
In Mississippi, people with certain felony convictions have to petition the legislature to restore their voting rights individually βΒ and hardly anyoneΒ makes it through.
In Florida, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment in 2018 to repeal the stateβs lifetime voting ban for most people with felonies. But the Florida legislatureΒ quickly stepped inΒ and passed a measure that said completing a sentence meant paying all outstanding fines and court fees, which put voting again out of reach for many. Even if people can afford to pay, itβs extremely difficult to figure out how much they owe since the state has no centralized way of keeping track.
That uncertainty is the point of these laws, said Nicole Porter, the senior director of advocacy at the Sentencing Project.
βI think there is intentionality behind the complications,β she said. βItβs about chilling or minimizing participation in the electorate by certain constituencies. Itβs the modern-day manifestation of very hard policies that dominated the Jim Crow era.β
This was the tangled web Moses stepped into just after Labor Day in 2019.
Because she didnβt realize she had lost her voting rights, she had been voting regularly until the summer of 2019. When she was informed that her voter registration was about to be canceled, Moses called the elections commission and asked what to do. She said a staffer advised her to go through the restoration process. (The elections commission declined to say to the Guardian whether it had ever advised her to do so.)
The next step Moses took was the one on which her conviction β and its reversal β rested.
One of the people required to fill out the form for her voting rights restoration was a probation officer, who had to confirm that Mosesβs criminal sentence had concluded. When Moses showed up at the probation office on 3 September, she met with the manager on duty, named Kristoffer Billington, who had worked for the probation office for five years. He had never filled out the form before, he wouldΒ later testifyΒ in court.
Moses told him her probation was finished, and he went to the back of the office to research her case. Billington called a colleague in a different office for help. They both looked at Mosesβs file in the computer system.
According to the information they saw, it looked like Moses had finished her probation in 2018. But there was a problem β MosesβsΒ computer file stillΒ showed she was on unsupervised probation. Billington thought this was a bureaucratic error and believed someone had forgotten to close out her file.
As he was examining the case, the receptionist repeatedly called Billingtonβs office to tell him Moses was growing impatient and wanted to turn in the form to the election office, he would later testify. After about an hour of research, he wrote on the form that Moses had completed her probation, signed it and returned it to her.
Billington had made a mistake. Unbeknown to him, there were more case files that showed Mosesβs felony probation wouldnβt expire until the following year, 2020. In parallel, Moses had been fighting in court that summer to have a judge declare that her sentence was over because she wanted to run for mayor. In court filings, she argued that her probation had expired. But courts disagreed. Moses didnβt think those rulings were correct and thought Billington and the probation office would be able to give her a more definitive answer.
It might seem hard to believe that there was a dispute about something as basic as when Mosesβs sentence ended. But those kinds of ambiguities are actually quite common, Uggen said.
βPeople who arenβt subject to supervision donβt really understand how fuzzy things like release and supervision dates are,β he said. βAnybody inside the system or across jurisdictions knows that whatβs written on this piece of paper might be very different than that other piece of paper.β
And these bureaucratic mistakes can land people in prison.
Just 30 minutes after Moses left his office, Billington got a call from someone in the Tennessee attorney generalβs office telling him he made a mistake on the form. And after Moses turned in the form, the elections office quickly caught the mistake too. A few days earlier, they had referred her to prosecutors for potential voter fraud, owing to the fact they had learned she had been regularly voting while on probation.
βIsnβt whether or not she completed the required probationary period for the 2015 felonies the subject of the [ongoing court case],β Pablo Varela, an attorney for the elections commission,Β emailedΒ Kirby May, a prosecutor in the district attorneyβs office shortly after Moses turned in the form. βHow can the Court Clerk issue this attached document stating she has been granted final release from incarceration or supervision?β
May responded later that afternoon and attached a copy of a July court order saying Moses was still on probation. She was still ineligible to vote, he said.
Vicki Collins, a staffer at the elections commission, forwarded Mosesβs application to the Tennessee secretary of stateβs office to review. βThe Shelby County Election Commission has been in an ongoing lawsuit with Ms. Moses. She has been denied the right to be on the ballot for Mayor because she is still on probation until 2020,β wrote Collins, who specialized in helping people with felony convictions get their voting rights back. A little over an hour later, a lawyer with the secretary of stateβs office wrote back. She agreed Moses was ineligible to vote, but offered a new reason for why.
In 2015, one of the crimes Moses pleaded guilty to was tampering with evidence, which causes a permanent loss of voting rights in Tennessee. All of the research Billington had done at the probation office was irrelevant. It didnβt matter whether she was on probation or not.
The next morning, Collins, the elections staffer, appeared happy to learn Moses was permanently barred from voting. βLOOK AT HER STATUS!!! PERMANENTLY INELIGIBLE,β she wroteΒ in an email, including a smiley face.
The same day, the elections office also received a letter from the Tennessee department of corrections alerting them to Billingtonβs error. The letter didnβt say that Moses was to blame or that Billington was deceived.
The elections office quicklyΒ wroteΒ to Moses explaining she was permanently banned. βAbsent a change in state law, future attempts to register to vote anywhere in Tennessee may be considered a class D felony,β read the letter from Linda Phillips, the election administrator in Shelby county.
Later that evening, Phillips expressed concern that she hadnβt received a reply from Moses. βI am a bit concerned that Pamela Moses did not respond to my email telling her she would never be able to register to vote.β She hinted at concerns for her own safety over the issue, writing βI do have a concealed carry permit,βΒ in an emailΒ to a member of the election commission.
In a response to questions from the Guardian, Phillips said: βIf incorrect information is provided to our office, intentionally or unintentionally, the state of Tennessee alerts us about the inaccuracies. Thatβs what happened in Ms Mosesβs case.β
She also defended the emails she and Collins sent after learning Moses was ineligible to vote.
βAny email exchanges within [the elections commission] regarding announcements of Ms Mosesβs ineligibility to vote should be perceived as urgent notice to ensure staff awareness, considering Ms Mosesβs frequent and sometimes harassing visits to our offices,β she said.
Two months later, prosecutors filed a 14-count indictment, charging Moses with illegally voting nearly a dozen times after her 2015 guilty plea. She was arrested at OβHare airport while returning to the US from a trip abroad.
Later, prosecutors offered her a deal, saying if she pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge she would get six months of unsupervised probation and no additional prison time. She refused.
βIt was about the principle to me,β Moses said. βI hadnβt done anything wrong. All I did was try to get my right to vote back and you donβt like me,β she said. βI was OK with going to jail if people could understand what this is really about. I donβt regret making that decision.β
Just before the trial began, prosecutors dropped 12 of the 14 charges, declining to prosecute her for illegally voting. There was no evidence that anyone had told Moses she was ineligible to vote, and the fact that the elections office had sent her voter information made it harder to prove she knew.
The trial began on 3 November 2021 and lasted just two days. A single question remained: did Moses knowingly trick Billington to falsely say she was off probation when he filled out the form?
May, the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case, zeroed in on the numerous times after 2015 that Moses had asked courts to declare she was off probation and judges had rejected her requests.
βItβs like a child going up to both her parents, βGimme, gimme, gimmeβ β¦ They make the mistake and give it, even though theyβd told no, no, no. Itβs the same thing, she knew what she was doing on September 3rd,βΒ he saidΒ at the trial. βShe was desperate to try to get her rights restored, she wanted to run for mayor, whatever, she was desperate. She didnβt care, she was going to try anyway. This was her last stitch [sic] effort.β
When Billington testified, he owned up to his mistake. But May argued Moses had deceived him, even though she was not in the room when he did his research and signed off on the form. Billington said Moses had told him she was off probation when she walked into the office and was acting impatient as he researched her case.
Ferguson, Mosesβs lawyer, argued that the state was punishing Moses for its own mistake. βIf they canβt get it right, we canβt convict her for not getting it right,βΒ he saidΒ in his closing argument.
Ultimately the jurors found Moses guilty. InΒ late January, W Mark Ward, the judge overseeing the case, sentenced Moses to six years in prison. Weirich, the prosecutor, said Moses had brought a trial and any harsh punishment on herself by refusing to take the plea.
βI gave her a chance to plead to a misdemeanor with no prison time. She requested a jury trial instead. She set this unfortunate result in motion and a jury of her peers heard the evidence and convicted her,β sheΒ said at the time.
Local reportersΒ had beenΒ following Mosesβs case, but in early February, it started to receive national attention. The GuardianΒ published a storyΒ highlighting Mosesβs punishment. The next evening, Rachel MaddowΒ did a segmentΒ on Mosesβs case, comparing her six-year sentence to those of white Trump supporters who had received lesser sentences for intentional acts of voting fraud.Β The New York Times,Β Washington PostΒ andΒ Associated Press, among other outlets, followed. Moses, detained in prison, didnβt know her case was getting more attention.
Then, a few weeks later, new information came to light.
Through a public records request,Β the Guardian obtainedΒ the result of anΒ internal investigationΒ from the Tennessee department of corrections looking into why Billington had signed off on Mosesβs voting eligibility. The supervisors who had investigated squarely placed the blame on Billington for the error, undercutting the prosecutionβs idea that Moses had deceived him into signing off on the form.
Perhaps most significantly, Mosesβs lawyers had never seen the document before β prosecutors hadnβt turned it over with all of the other evidence in the case. That lack of disclosure was potentially unconstitutional and entitled Moses to a new trial.
The day after the Guardian published the document, Moses had a previously scheduled hearing to request a fresh trial. Judges rarely granted such requests β the hearing was supposed to be a formality on the way to an appeal. At any rate, that morning, Mosesβs lawyerΒ submitted the missing documentΒ to the court.
Remarkably, WardΒ unexpectedly grantedΒ Mosesβs request for a new trial. He said that the document should have been turned over to Mosesβs lawyers before the initial trial and that he had erroneously allowed certain other evidence to be admitted. Moses, who had been in jail, broke down in tears in the courtroom.
It wasnβt the first time Weirichβs officeΒ has come under fireΒ for failing to disclose evidence to a defendant. A 2014 study by the Fair Punishment Project found her office ranked first in Tennessee inΒ prosecutorial misconduct. Weirich sought to distance herself from the error. The department of corrections, not her office, was to blame for not turning over the missing document, she said.
Two months later, Weirich announced she would drop all charges against Moses. βShe has spent 82 days in custody on this case, which is sufficient,β she said in a statement, also noting Moses remained permanently barred from voting. βIn the interest of judicial economy, we are dismissing her illegal registration case and her violation of probation.β
Both Weirich and Ward would go onΒ to loseΒ their re-election bids in August.
Mosesβs case may have prompted a national outpouring of disapproval, but tendentious-seeming voter fraud charges have not disappeared.
In August, for instance, Floridaβs governor, Ron DeSantis, announced the state was prosecuting 19 people with prior criminal records for voter fraud. Many of the people charged saidΒ they were confusedΒ about their eligibility and that no one had told them they couldnβt vote.
Crystal Mason, a Black woman in Texas,Β is still appealingΒ a five-year prison sentence for casting a provisional ballot in the 2016 election while on supervised release for a federal felony. Mason has said she had no idea she was ineligible, and the ballot had even been rejected.
Moses, as well as those who have followed her case, doubt that it will be one of the last.
Both the Shelby county elections commission and the Tennessee department of corrections declined to say whether they had changed their processes for helping people determine their voting eligibility in the wake of Mosesβs case. βAny changes in that process would be done at the state level,β Phillips said.
One morning at the end of April, just after the charges were dropped against her, Moses held a press conference at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. She was there to speak publicly for the first time about Weirichβs decisions to drop the charges against her.
βWhen it comes to Black people in the south, whatever we do, if itβs wrong, youβve got to pay for itβ, said Moses.Β Photograph: Andrea Morales/The Guardian
βWhen it comes to Black people in the south, whatever we do, if itβs wrong, youβve got to pay for it,β she said. βIf there was a white person and I got treated the way I did, I would be just as upset. But you donβt see white people getting treated like that.β
Since her case was dropped Moses has been working on an album and documentary, and sheβs continued to push to be able to vote again.
Sheβs still seeking a gubernatorial pardon from her 2015 conviction and is suing Tennessee to try to get the stateβs felon disenfranchisement law declared unconstitutional. Sheβs also suing local officials for damages in her voter fraud case. βI donβt know what the future holds, but I do know I will get to vote again,β she said.
βI want people to take away that itβs not over just because Pamela is free,β said Dawn Harrington, Mosesβs friend.β Because there are so many other Pamelas all across the state.β
The weird thing is this entire lie is not needed unless they want to claim to be victims and then vindicated.Β Β Every article on this I have read states that what he demanded the libraries do is to give him the space and promote his Christian religious readings.Β That was the rub he wanted the libraries to sponsor him, pay him, and promote his religion.Β They refused.Β But they all allowed him to book a room and promote it himself, but that wouldn’t give him the media anti-drag queen vibe he wanted.Β Β So then he agrees to book a room, holds his reading which has very few kids and lots of adults, and lies about the mass of people attending.Β He claims 2,500 people attended, look how much more popular god is than the sinful drag queens.Β Β But as the library says, their biggest room only holds 300 people.Β Β And he did not book the biggest room.Β Why the need to lie?Β Β To push the idea that his god is great and popular and yes the right wing rabid media will report that number as truth knowing it is a lie.Β As I was once told it is not a lie if it is for Christ or if it helps us win.Β Hugs.
Actor Kirk Cameron went on Fox News Channel on Friday to discuss his fight against libraries who have been turning down story-hour book-reading pitches from the publisher of Cameronβs new childrenβs bookΒ As You Grow.
The sit-down came after a reading Thursday a the Indianapolis Public Library drew a sizable crowd β though the library disputes the attendance figures given by publisher Brave Books and repeated by Cameron on air.
Brave Books tweeted out Thursday that the event drew βover 2,500 people,β calling it a record crowd in the libraryβs 137-year history β stats Cameron referenced on the air. The library disputed that today.
Read theΒ full article. The video below from Cameronβs publisher has 1.1 million views at this writing.
We are being inaccurately portrayed in news/social after a room rental yesterday. Our estimated door count during the event is around 750, not 2500. We've had larger events. We turn 150 yrs old in 2023. And our auditorium, which our guests chose not to rent, holds 300, not 2000. pic.twitter.com/ETwtOhS7AP
The same Heritage Foundation judicial organization funded by wealthy Christion dominionists billionaires that also are funding the rabid right wing groups attacking the trans kids and drag queens.Β Β All in an attempt to stop the US from joining every other industrial advanced nation in the world in advancing civil rights and social understanding.Β Β These people are demanding the US retreat into a world they think existed long ago written about 2,500 years ago by people who did not understand anything about germs, the earth being round, space itself, or biology because they thought / wrote that striped sticks seen while animals bred would cause the color of the offspring.Β Β Think of that last alone.Β Β The people the fundamentalists are basing their anti-trans idea on comes from people who thought striped sticks (some versions say just sticks or branches) caused a difference in the color of the birthed offspring if the animals seen them while fucking.Β Really that is the level of understanding these people are basing their anti-trans, they’re there is no such thing as a different gender ID than the one identified at birth?Β Β I am tired of trying to play nice on this with these assholes.Β Β These are the same people that bankrolled a bunch of ideologs on to the SCOTUS who rushed to help trump because he was promoting their god and a future theocracy and are doing everything they can to deny Biden the same presidential powers because they want to enforce racism and religion.Β Β Let those with eyes see the truth of it.Β Β HugsΒ Β
Arizona v. Mayorkas, the Courtβs new Title 42 decision, appears to be the latest act of gamesmanship by a Republican Supreme Court.
Former President Donald Trump shakes hands with Justice Brett Kavanaugh before delivering the State of the Union address on February 5, 2019.Β Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
Ian MillhiserΒ is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court handed down a one-page, 5-4 decision extending the life of a Trump-era border policy known as Title 42, which expels numerous immigrants seeking to enter the United States using an expedited process.
That decision came inΒ Arizona v. Mayorkas, and is typical behavior from the Supreme Court β or, at least, is reflective of this Courtβs behavior since a Democrat moved into the White House at the beginning of 2021. Itβs the latest example of the Court dragging its feet after a GOP-appointed lower court judge overrides the Biden administrationβs policy judgments, often letting that one judge decide the nationβs policy for nearly an entire year.
The Title 42 program, which the Biden administrationΒ determined must be terminated last May, will now likely remain in effect for several more months due to the Courtβs decision. Indeed, even if the Court ultimately decides that the administration should prevail in this case, the Court is unlikely to lift its order extending this Trump-era program until June. And that delay may be the best-case scenario for the Biden administration β and for the general principle that unelected judges arenβt supposed to decide the nationβs border policy.
A brief history of the Supreme Courtβs politicized scheduling
In August 2021, a Trump-appointed judge named Matthew Kacsmaryk handed down aΒ poorly reasoned opinionΒ ordering the Biden administration to reinstate a program, known as βRemain in Mexico,β that required many asylum seekers to stay on the Mexican side of the US southern border while they awaited a hearing. Although the Supreme Court eventually reversed Kacsmaryk, itΒ sat on the case for more than 10 monthsΒ β effectively letting Kacsmaryk exercise the homeland security secretaryβs authority over the border during that entire period.
Worse, when the Court did eventually decide this case, known asΒ Biden v. Texas, it left one looming issue in the lawsuit unresolved and sent the case back to Kacsmaryk. The Supreme Court determined that Kacsmaryk misread federal immigration law to only give the federal government two alternatives when an asylum seeker arrives at the Mexican border,Β when in fact the government has many options. It left open the question of whether the Biden administration properly completed the appropriate paperwork when it terminated Remain in Mexico.
When the case returned to Kacsmaryk, a former Christian right activist with a record of granting legally dubious victories to conservative litigants, heΒ handed down a second orderΒ indicating that the administration must reinstate the Remain in Mexico program. It could be a year or more before the Supreme Court gets around to reviewing Kacsmarykβs new attempt to impose Trumpβs immigration policies on the country.
Similarly, last July, a Trump judge named Drew Tipton effectivelyΒ seized controlΒ of much of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkasβs authority over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency that enforces immigration law within US borders. Tiptonβs opinion isΒ exceedingly weakΒ and cannot be squared with more than a century of Supreme Court precedents, and a majority of the justicesΒ appeared likely to reverse TiptonΒ during oral arguments on the case in November.
But the Court has also sat on this case for months,Β rejecting the Justice Departmentβs requestΒ to immediately restore Secretary Mayorkasβs lawful authority over ICE in July. The Supreme Court may not rule on the case, known asΒ United States v. Texas, until next June β at which point Tipton will have unlawfully usurped Mayorkasβs authority for 11 months.
The Courtβs tendency to manipulate its own calendar isnβt restricted to immigration cases. One of the most high-profile examples of the Court delaying resolution of a case brought by left-leaning litigants occurred in September 2021, before the CourtβsΒ 2022 decision overrulingΒ Roe v. Wade. A 5-4 CourtΒ refused to decide a caseΒ challenging Texasβs strict anti-abortion law known as SB 8, effectively allowing Texas to ban many abortions whileΒ RoeΒ remained good law. (In fairness, the Court did eventually rule on SB 8 the next December, but that decision established that SB 8 isΒ immune from any meaningful constitutional challenge.)
The Court, which currently has a Republican supermajority, did not behave this way when a Republican occupied the White House. InΒ Barr v. East Bay SanctuaryΒ (2019), for example, a lower court blocked a Trump administration policy that effectively locked virtually all Central American migrants out of the asylum process. The Trump administration asked the justices to reinstate this policy in late August 2019, and the CourtΒ agreed to do so about two weeks later.
Similarly, inΒ Wolf v. Cook CountyΒ (2020), the Court reinstated a Trump administration policy targeting low-income immigrants β and itΒ did so just eight daysΒ after Trumpβs lawyers asked the Court to do so.
Indeed, under Trump, the Court was so quick to intervene when a lower court blocked one of the Republican administrationβs policies that Justice Sonia Sotomayor complained in dissent that her GOP-appointed colleagues wereΒ βputting a thumb on the scale in favor ofβ the Trump administration.
As these cases show, the Supreme Court can wield tremendous power not just by handing down substantive rulings that determine what federal law requires. It can often reshape federal policy for months or even longer by manipulating how quickly it attends to the cases on its docket.
Although the Court has historically discouraged litigants of all kinds from seeking relief on its so-called βshadow docket,β cases that are decided using an expedited process and without full briefing or oral argument, these longstanding norms faded away when Trump was president. When lower courts blocked Trump policies, the Court frequently raced to reinstate those polices.
Judicial partisanship, in other words, is often much more subtle than a Supreme Court opinion definitively ruling that the law must be read to implement Republican policies. Sometimes, locking GOP policies in place, at least temporarily, can be accomplished with little more than creative scheduling.
The winding road that brought Title 42 to the Supreme Court
Setting aside the question of when the Court will determine if the Title 42 program should continue to exist, it should be noted that the Courtβs decision inΒ ArizonaΒ is difficult to defend on the merits. As Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee whoΒ normally behavesΒ like a doctrinaire conservative,Β writes in hisΒ ArizonaΒ dissent, the Title 42 program was justified by a public health emergency β the acute phase of the Covid-19 pandemic β which has βlong since lapsed.β
Federal law permits the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to βprohibit, in whole or in part, theΒ introduction of persons and property from such countries or placesΒ as [it] shall designate in order to avertβ the spread of a βcommunicable diseaseβ that is present in a foreign country. Beginning in late 2020, when the Covid pandemic was raging, the Trump administration used this authority to order large numbers of noncitizens arriving at the Canadian and Mexican borders to beΒ immediately expelled from the United States.
The program is called βTitle 42β because the statute permitting it to exist is part of Title 42 of the United States Code.
The Biden administration, for its part, decided to leave this policy in place for more than a year after President Biden took office β Title 42 is both a useful tool for officials seeking to limit immigration at the southern border and an increasingly difficult-to-justify tool because its only legal basis is a statute permitting temporary immigration restrictions to prevent the spread of disease.
Eventually, the Biden administration determined that the program could no longer be called necessary. On April 1, the CDC concluded that βthe cross-border spread of COVID-19 due to covered noncitizensΒ does not present the serious danger to public health that it once did, given the range of mitigation measures now available.β Accordingly, the CDC announced that it would terminate the Title 42 policy as of May 23, 2022.
But that order never took effect. Shortly after CDC announced that the Title 42 program would end, a group of Republican state officials filed aΒ lawsuitΒ claiming that the program must continue in order to maintain what they described as βthe abrupt elimination of the only safety valve preventing this Administrationβs disastrous border policies from devolving into an unmitigated chaos and catastrophe.β The case was assigned to Judge Robert Summerhays, a Trump appointee to a federal court in Louisiana, and Summerhays issued anΒ orderΒ requiring the administration to continue the policy three days before Title 42 was supposed to end.
Summerhaysβs decision is wrong. In it, he claims that the Biden administration was required to undergo a lengthy process known as βnotice and comment,β which can take months or years to complete, before it could terminate the Title 42 program. But the whole point of the public health statute at issue in this case is that sometimes the government has to issue emergency immigration orders to mitigate a public health crisis.
If the government had to complete a months-long process every time it issues an order under this statute, then the statute serves no purpose. If a new disease were to emerge in, say, Switzerland tomorrow, it would be pointless for the government to close the border to Swiss people months from now. Such an emergency order must be issued as fast as possible.
Nor should a different process apply when the CDC decides to lift an emergency order. As the Supreme Court said inΒ Perez v. Mortgage Bankers AssociationΒ (2015), βagencies use the same procedures when they amend or repeal a rule as they used to issue the rule in the first instance.β
In any event, Summerhaysβs decision is not currently before the Supreme Court β itβsΒ currently on appealΒ to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. But the decision matters because his order is the specific thing that prevents the Biden administration from terminating the Title 42 program immediately.
TheΒ ArizonaΒ case β the one that is actually before the Supreme Court β involves a parallel lawsuit heard by Clinton-appointed Judge Emmet Sullivan, in a case calledΒ Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas. That decision determined that the Title 42 program is itself unlawful and must be terminated.
Frankly, there is nearly as much to criticize in Sullivanβs opinion as there is to criticize in Summerhaysβs. Both decisions depart from the ordinary rule that public health policy should be set by officials who are accountable to an elected president, and not by unelected judges. They also depart from the text of the relevant public health statute, which provides that public health officials β and not judges like Robert Summerhays or Emmet Sullivan β should determine when emergency immigration restrictions should be implemented to control the spread of a communicable disease.
But Sullivanβs order would also have the practical effect of implementing the same policy that the Biden administration sought to put in place last May. While Summerhays attacked the CDCβs order terminating the Title 42 program, Sullivan concluded that the Title 42 program is itself illegal and must be terminated on his authority.
Except that the Supreme Court decided to halt Sullivanβs order, at least for now.
The Supreme Courtβs Title 42 decision makes no sense
If you are confused by this convoluted tale of two competing lawsuits, I should warn you that things are about to get even more complicated.
The Biden administration did not seek a prolonged stay of Sullivanβs order, which means that this order should be in effect right now and the Title 42 program should be terminated. But the states behind theΒ LouisianaΒ lawsuit (the one heard by Summerhays), did ask a federal appeals court to stay Sullivanβs order β even though those states are not a party to theΒ Huisha-HuishaΒ lawsuit.
While it is sometimes possible for a non-party to a lawsuit to βinterveneβ in a case, and gain the power to act as if they were a party to the suit in the process, a bipartisan appeals court panel determined that the red statesΒ waited too long to interveneΒ in theΒ Huisha-HuishaΒ case. That order β not the merits of Sullivanβs decision, but the appeals court order determining that the states waited too long β is whatβs before the Supreme Court in theΒ ArizonaΒ case.
The Courtβs 5-4 decision inΒ Arizona, meanwhile, effectively ruled that the Title 42 program must remain in effect while the justices consider whether the red states failed to intervene in theΒ Huisha-HuishaΒ case in a timely manner.
So, to summarize, one judge, a Republican, has determined that the Republican Partyβs preferred immigration policy must remain in effect. His opinion is poorly reasoned and at odds both with a federal statute and with binding Supreme Court precedents. Meanwhile, a second judge, a Democratic appointee, has determined that the Republican Partyβs preferred immigration policy is illegal.
The CDC β the only institution that actually has the statutory authority to determine when the Title 42 program should be terminated β decided that this program must end in May. But CDCβs April order has been trapped in limbo for months due to the Republican judgeβs erroneous decision. And it is now likely to be trapped in limbo for much longer while the Supreme Court ponders a minor procedural question about when parties seeking to intervene in a lawsuit must do so.
All of this is happening, moreover, against the backdrop of a Supreme Court that took only days to determine that a Republican administration’s policies must be put into effect right away, but that often sits on cases blocking Democratic policies for months β even when the justices ultimately determine that the lower courtβs order blocking the Democratic policy was wrong.
In 2021, Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered a speech at the University of Louisvilleβs McConnell Center (named for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell), in which she announced that her goal was βto convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.β But if that is truly her goal, she and her colleagues might want to consider applying the same scheduling rules to cases brought by Republicans that her Court applies to cases brought by Democrats.