To Fight Democrats’ First Bill, GOP Calls in Discredited Advocates of Voter Suppression

This is how Republicans are planning to resist an effort to expand voting rights.

Demonstrators protest the second meeting of President Donald Trump's election integrity commission on September 12, 2017, in Manchester, New Hampshire.Holly Ramer/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

With the House of Representatives set to debate its first legislation of the new session on Tuesday, Republicans are calling in two “expert witnesses” to fight the measure who are best known for discredited claims about voter fraud that have been repeatedly debunked in federal court.

The House Judiciary Committee is holding its first hearing Tuesday on a sweeping democracy reform bill introduced by Democrats that would make it far easier to vote and harder to buy elections. HR 1: The For the People Act includes reforms like automatic and Election Day registration, nationwide early voting, independent redistricting commissions, and public financing of congressional campaigns. Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig called it ā€œthe most important civil rights bill in half a century.ā€

While voting rights lawyers are testifying in favor of the bill, Republicans on the judiciary committee who oppose the legislation have recruited two of the biggest vote suppressors in their party to testify against it: Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation and J. Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Foundation.

Von Spakovsky and Adams were key members of President Donald Trumpā€™s controversial election integrity commission, which shut down after failing to find evidence of widespread voter fraud. For more than a decade, they have led an aggressive push to make it harder to vote and have spread false claims about fraud. Their credibility has also been called into question recently by federal courts.

Von Spakovsky and Adams first worked together to roll back voting rights enforcement in the Justice Departmentā€™s Civil Rights Division under George W. Bush. Von Spakosvky was special counsel to Bradley Schlozman, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, who said he wanted to ā€œgerrymander all of those crazy libs” out of the division’s voting section. (Schlozman was later embroiled in scandal for the politically motivated firings of US attorneys.) Six former lawyers in the voting section called von Spakovsky the ā€œpoint person for undermining the Civil Rights Divisionā€™s mandate to protect voting rights.ā€

Adams, as a lawyer in the voting section, sought to prosecute African Americans in reverse-discrimination cases and resigned from the Justice Department when the Obama administration refused to prosecute the New Black Panther Party case, citing ā€œa hostility in the voting section and in the Civil Rights Division to bringing cases on behalf of white victims for the benefit of national racial minorities.ā€

As members of Trumpā€™s election commission, von Spakovsky and Adams helped then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the commissionā€™s vice chair, formulate a controversial letter requesting sensitive voter data from all 50 states, which backfired spectacularly when many states refused the request. Before joining the commission, von Spakovsky called on the Trump administration to exclude Democrats and ā€œmainstream Republican officials and/or academicsā€ from joining it.

Von Spakovsky was among the first figures in the Republican Party to lobby for strict voter ID laws, and was retained by Kobach to defend Kansas’ proof-of-citizenship law for voter registration, which blocked 1 in 7 new voters in Kansas from registering from 2013 to 2016. District Judge Julie Robinson, a Bush appointee, struck down the law last year and sharply criticized von Spakovskyā€™s testimony at the trial.

ā€œThe Court gives little weight to Mr. von Spakovskyā€™s opinion and report because they are premised on several misleading and unsupported examples of noncitizen voter registration, mostly outside the State of Kansas,ā€ Robinson wrote. ā€œHis myriad misleading statements, coupled with his publicly stated preordained opinions about this subject matter, convinces the Court that Mr. von Spakovsky testified as an advocate and not as an objective expert witness.ā€

Adams, for his part, has made wildly unsubstantiated charges about the prevalence of mass voter fraud, falsely claiming in a series of reports that there was an ā€œalien invasionā€ of thousands of noncitizen voters in Virginia.

One of the ā€œastonishingā€ examples of fraud claimed by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a right-wing legal group helmed by Adams, was that Maureen Erickson, who listed an address in Guatemala, had ā€œvoted in 14 different electionsā€”most recently in 2008ā€”before her registration was canceled.ā€ But as my colleague Pema Levy reported, Erickson was a US citizen living in Guatemala as a missionary who legally voted by absentee ballot in Virginia.

Four Virginia voters falsely accused of voting as noncitizens have sued Adams for voter intimidation, claiming he violated the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, among other civil rights laws.

Adams has filed numerous lawsuits to force states and countiesā€”including some with large minority populationsā€”to aggressively purge their voter rolls. One such lawsuit filed against Floridaā€™s Broward County, a heavily Democratic area, was dismissed by a federal judge last year, who called the expert testimony by Adamsā€™ group ā€œmisleadingā€ and ā€œinaccurate.ā€

Adams has dubbed HR 1 ā€œNancy Pelosiā€™s plan to terminate state control over American elections.ā€ Election law experts have widely praised the bill. Rick Hasen of the University of California-Irvine School of Law said it would ā€œgo an enormous way toward repairing our badly broken democracy.ā€

But Republicansā€”as evidenced by the testimony of von Spakovsky and Adamsā€”have launched a counteroffensive against what they view as a threat to the GOPā€™s power. ā€œTheir proposal is simply a naked attempt to change the rules of American politics to benefit one party,ā€ Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wrote in the Washington Post on January 17. ā€œIt should be called the Democrat Politician Protection Act.ā€

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate