News Clips

Mr. Zeldin’s pledge to push him out “is an authoritarian move,” said Susan Lerner, the executive director of Common Cause New York, a good government advocacy group. “If the voters recall a D.A., that’s the will of the voters. But for some other entity to override the will of the voters is antithetical to our system of governance.”

"No American is above the law, including former presidents and their advisers," Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, said in a statement. "Steve Bannon learned that today through a jail sentence and a fine for defying a subpoena from the January 6th Committee." "It is imperative that Congress have subpoena power with teeth in order to fulfill its oversight and investigatory responsibilities," Scherb added. "If individuals could defy congressional subpoenas with impunity, our system of checks and balances would break down."

The main reason behind the fight over assets, said Jonathan Mehta Stein of California Common Cause, is the political benefits they can bring to a council member. “It all goes back to campaign fundraising and building power,” said Stein, who is the group’s executive director. Those benefits are twofold, Stein said. First, having a business or commercial hub in your district puts you in contact with business owners who want to curry favor with you, which translates into campaign donations. And second, having a significant asset such as a major event space or a high-profile business gives you opportunities to hobnob with VIPs and powerful state figures. “You’re building your networks; you’re building your Rolodex,” developing social cachet that will come in handy when you’re running for higher office, he said. What the call revealed was council members “trying to build the political power of one racial or ethnic group at the expense of another,” Stein said. “But their own interest in the future of their political careers was also at play amid all the racism. ... When they’re trying to secure economic assets in their districts or their friends’ districts, they are trying to secure a glide path to more power, more influence and higher office for themselves and their friends.”

“It's really creating two Americas,” says Sylvia Albert, director of voting and elections at Common Cause. “One where your vote is attempted to be suppressed and one where you’re being provided with more access to the ballot.” ... “This is designed specifically to make sure that many of the absentee ballots that are cast will not be counted simply because they didn't get there in time or were not returned properly,” explains Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin. “The calculation in Wisconsin by the Republicans is that more Democrats vote by absentee ballot overall than Republicans so they view it in their interests to be able to restrict how absentee ballots are returned. By getting rid of all the drop boxes, their calculation is that this will help them.”

Sylvia Albert, director of voting and elections with Common Cause, said voter advocacy groups are prepared to intervene should partisan actors interfere with certification without justification or if a secretary of state refuses to seek a court order compelling a local board to act. “That is why we are here, and there will be lot of advocates and lawyers willing and able to step in and file if the secretary is not interested in using their authority or their position to ensure that the votes of their constituents are counted,” Albert said.

The court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause barred federal court challenges to partisan gerrymanders. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said it was not an issue for the federal judiciary to decide, but emphasized the ruling did not “condemn complaints about districting to echo into a void.” In fact, the issue was being actively addressed at the state level, Roberts wrote. He cited Florida’s amendment and one of Pariente’s opinions. Responding to liberal justices who wanted to reject Rucho’s map as an unconstitutional gerrymander, Roberts wrote they could not because “there is no ‘Fair Districts Amendment’ to the Federal Constitution.”