The mainstream press plays both sides — we play on the side that's pro-democracy. Join Democracy Docket premium and help fund fearless journalism for $10/month.
THIS WEEK
Floridians fighting for direct democracy
SCOTUS rejects a GOP bid to undo Michigan’s pro-voter reforms
Trial begins challenging Texas maps as racially biased
FLORIDA
Voters fight for their right to pass ballot initiatives
Voters in multiple states have approved ballot measures protecting their rights or advancing progressive reforms. GOP lawmakers would prefer voters didn’t have that option.
Earlier this month, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed into law HB 1205, which makes it harder to get measures on the ballot, and has prompted a legal challenge from advocates and voters. A hearing in the case, Florida Decides Healthcare v. Byrd, was held Thursday, with the plaintiffs asking the court to block the law.
Arkansas, Idaho, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, South Dakota and Utah have all tried to crack down on ballot initiatives, too. But Florida’s law is perhaps the harshest.
It imposes “vague, punitive, and excessive” restrictions on the initiative process, the complaint charges, such as stricter deadlines and new eligibility criteria for petition gatherers.
SCOTUS declines to hear GOP case against Michigan’s pro-voter reforms
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Republicans’ request to hear their challenge to pro-voter amendments to the Michigan Constitution, approved by voters in 2018 and 2022.
Michiganders overwhelmingly passed a 2018 ballot measure that made voting easier by establishing automatic voter registration, no-reason absentee voting and straight-party voting. By a wide margin, voters approved additional changes in 2022: nine days of early voting, prepaid ballot postage, access to absentee-ballot drop boxes and more.
Eleven GOP state lawmakers filed suit to nullify the amendments. Using the radical independent state legislature theory, they argued that only state legislatures – not citizens – have the authority to set rules for federal elections.
A federal district court judge dismissed the case in April last year. Then, in December, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling.
With over 18 million registered voters and 268,820 square miles, even the redistricting lawsuits in Texas are sprawling.
Trial began this week in a set of consolidated lawsuits challenging the state’s congressional, legislative and other state-level redistricting maps. It’s expected to last several weeks.
The case is just one of many alleging racial bias in voting that the U.S. Department of Justice has dropped since President Donald Trump took office, along with legal challenges in Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia and others.
The move is part of the Trump administration’s overhaul of the DOJ – cutting staff, reassigning attorneys and shifting focus from enforcing voting rights to finding voter fraud. The voting section has dwindled to just three attorneys, according to an estimate provided to Democracy Docket by Justice Connection, a new watchdog group.
Despite the DOJ’s withdrawal, private plaintiffs, including the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), are continuing their case against Texas’ maps. In a complaint first filed in 2021, LULAC and other groups argued the state’s redistricting plans “unlawfully dilute the voting strength of Latinos.”
The case involves multiple maps, multiple plaintiffs and VRA and racial gerrymandering claims.
To Impose Abortion Ban, Missouri GOP Aims to Stymie Direct Democracy
Missourians approved a ballot measure in November officially enshrining their abortion rights in the state constitution. But the GOP-controlled state legislature this week put a referendum on the ballot that would effectively repeal the will of the voters.
Not only would the referendum undermine the will of the voters, but it’s also written using deceptive language that makes it seem like it’s protecting abortions in certain circumstances. In reality, the procedure is already legal and the measure actually is limiting abortions to only those exceptions.
“HJR 73 is a cynical attempt to dupe voters into believing they’re granting more exceptions to abortion laws when they’d really be allowing abortion bans,” writes Susan Rinkunas. Read more here.
NEW VIDEO
Democrats’ Plan to Stop the SAVE Act, DOGE | Sen. Alex Padilla
California Senator Alex Padilla foiled Republicans’ attempt to pass the SAVE Act this week. Sen. Padilla joins Marc to discuss protecting voters’ information from DOGE, his experience expanding ballot access as California’s secretary of state and the work Senate Democrats are doing to fight voter suppression. Watch it on YouTube here.
What We’re Doing
One thing about living through the second Trump administration is there’s no shortage of reading. The newest book on Democracy Docket reporter Jacob Knutson’s TBR is “Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes.” It’s written by Leah Litman, a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. If you like your legal analysis to include vibes, this book could be for you.
This is one of our free weekly newsletters. If you were forwarded this email, you can subscribe to our newsletters here.
.png?height=50&upscale=true&name=Bluesky_Logo-grey%20(2).png){kind=logo}
