[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                 HEARING ON THE JANUARY 6TH INVESTIGATION

=======================================================================
                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                          SELECT COMMITTEE TO
                      INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH
                             ATTACK ON THE
                         UNITED STATES CAPITOL

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               ----------                              

                             JUNE 13, 2022

                               ----------                              

                            Serial No. 117-3

                               ----------                              

Printed for the use of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 
                6th Attack on the United States Capitol
                                     

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                     

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-999 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------           

 SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6TH ATTACK ON THE UNITED 
                             STATES CAPITOL

               Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
                    Liz Cheney, Wyoming, Vice Chair
                        Zoe Lofgren, California
                       Adam B. Schiff, California
                        Pete Aguilar, California
                      Stephanie N. Murphy, Florida
                         Jamie Raskin, Maryland
                       Elaine G. Luria, Virginia
                        Adam Kinzinger, Illinois
                            
                            COMMITTEE STAFF

                    David B. Buckley, Staff Director
      Kristin L. Amerling, Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
             Timothy J. Heaphy, Chief Investigative Counsel
                  Hope Goins, Counsel to the Chairman
                      Jamie Fleet, Senior Advisor
          Joseph B. Maher, Senior Counselor to the Vice Chair
               Timothy R. Mulvey, Communications Director
           Candyce Phoenix, Senior Counsel and Senior Advisor

Katherine B. Abrams, Staff           Thomas E. Joscelyn, Senior 
    Associate                            Professional Staff Member
Temidayo Aganga-Williams, Senior     Rebecca L. Knooihuizen, Financial 
    Investigative Counsel                Investigator
Alejandra Apecechea, Investigative   Casey E. Lucier, Investigative 
    Counsel                              Counsel
Lisa A. Bianco, Director of Member   Damon M. Marx, Professional Staff 
    Services and Security Manager        Member
Jerome P. Bjelopera, Investigator    Evan B. Mauldin, Chief Clerk
Bryan Bonner, Investigative Counsel  Yonatan L. Moskowitz, Senior 
Richard R. Bruno, Senior                 Counsel
    Administrative Assistant         Hannah G. Muldavin, Deputy 
Marcus Childress, Investigative          Communications Director
    Counsel                          Jonathan D. Murray, Professional 
John Marcus Clark, Security              Staff Member
    Director                         Jacob A. Nelson, Professional 
Jacqueline N. Colvett, Digital           Staff Member
    Director                         Elizabeth Obrand, Staff Associate
Heather I. Connelly, Professional    Raymond O'Mara, Director of 
    Staff Member                         External Affairs
Meghan E. Conroy, Investigator       Elyes Ouechtati, Technology 
Heather L. Crowell, Printer              Partner
    Proofreader                      Robin M. Peguero, Investigative 
William C. Danvers, Senior               Counsel
    Researcher                       Sandeep A. Prasanna, Investigative 
Soumyalatha O. Dayananda, Senior         Counsel
    Investigative Counsel            Barry Pump, Parliamentarian
Stephen W. DeVine, Senior Counsel    Sean M. Quinn, Investigative 
Lawrence J. Eagleburger,                 Counsel
    Professional Staff Member        Brittany M. J. Record, Senior 
Kevin S. Elliker, Investigative          Counsel
    Counsel                          Joshua D. Roselman, Investigative 
Margaret E. Emamzadeh, Staff             Counsel
    Associate                        James N. Sasso, Investigative 
Sadallah A. Farah, Professional          Counsel
    Staff Member                     Grant H. Saunders, Professional 
Daniel A. George, Senior                 Staff Member
    Investigative Counsel            Samantha O. Stiles, Chief 
Jacob H. Glick, Investigative            Administrative Officer
    Counsel                          Sean P. Tonolli, Senior 
Aaron S. Greene, Clerk                   Investigative Counsel
Marc S. Harris, Senior               David A. Weinberg, Senior 
    Investigative Counsel                Professional Staff Member
Alice K. Hayes, Clerk                Amanda S. Wick, Senior 
Quincy T. Henderson, Staff               Investigative Counsel
    Assistant                        Darrin L. Williams, Jr., Staff 
Camisha L. Johnson, Professional         Assistant
    Staff Member                     John F. Wood, Senior Investigative 
                                         Counsel
                                     Zachary S. Wood, Clerk
                       
                       CONTRACTORS & CONSULTANTS

                             Rawaa Alobaidi
                             Melinda Arons
                              Steve Baker
                            Elizabeth Bisbee
                              David Canady
                             John Coughlin
                             Aaron Dietzen
                              Gina Ferrise
                           Angel Goldsborough
                             James Goldston
                              Polly Grube
                          L. Christine Healey
                             Danny Holladay
                              Percy Howard
                              Dean Jackson
                           Stephanie J. Jones
                              Hyatt Mamoun
                               Mary Marsh
                               Todd Mason
                              Ryan Mayers
                              Jeff McBride
                               Fred Muram
                             Alex Newhouse
                              John Norton
                             Orlando Pinder
                               Owen Pratt
                              Dan Pryzgoda
                              Brian Sasser
                            William Scherer
                              Driss Sekkat
                              Chris Stuart
                            Preston Sullivan
                              Brian Young

                           Innovative Driven
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               STATEMENTS

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Select Committee 
  to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States 
  Capitol........................................................     1
The Honorable Liz Cheney, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of Wyoming, and Vice Chair, Select Committee to 
  Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol     2
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of California............................................     4

                               WITNESSES
                                Panel I

Mr. Chris Stirewalt, Former Fox News Political Editor............     7

                                Panel II

Mr. Byung Jin ``BJay'' Pak, Former U.S. Attorney for the Northern 
  District of Georgia............................................    19
Mr. Al Schmidt, Former City Commissioner of Philadelphia.........    21
Mr. Benjamin Ginsberg, Election Attorney.........................    22

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statement of Byung Jin ``BJay'' Pak, Former U.S. 
  Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia..................    29
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of California:
  Joint Statement of Elections Infrastructure Government 
    Coordinating Council & The Election Infrastructure Sector 
    Coordinating Executive Committees............................    32
  Report by the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee..............    33
  Joint Expert Report............................................    87
  Statement of Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel, 
    NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc................    89
  Statement of Trevor Potter, Founder and President, Campaign 
    Legal Center.................................................   112
  Statement of Wendy R. Weiser, Vice President for Democracy, 
    Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law..............   134
  Joint Statement of States United Democracy Center..............   148
  Joint Statement of Renee DiResta, Technical Research Manager, 
    Stanford Internet Observator, Stanford University and Kate 
    Starbird, PhD, Associate Professor, Human-Centered Design & 
    Engineering, and Co-Founder and Director, Center for an 
    Informed Public, University of Washington....................   173

 
                HEARING ON THE JANUARY 6TH INVESTIGATION

                              ----------                              


                         Monday, June 13, 2022

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
 Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on 
                                 the United States Capitol,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:46 a.m., in 
room 390, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Thompson, Cheney, Lofgren, Schiff, 
Aguilar, Murphy, Raskin, Luria, and Kinzinger.
    Chairman Thompson. The Select Committee to Investigate the 
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol will be in 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare the 
Committee in recess at any point.
    Pursuant to House Deposition Authority Regulation 10, the 
Chair announces the Committee's approval to release the 
deposition material presented during today's hearing.
    Good morning.
    Last week, the Select Committee laid out a preview of our 
initial findings about the conspiracy overseen and directed by 
Donald Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential 
election and block the transfer of power--a scheme 
unprecedented in American history.
    My colleagues and I don't want to spend time talking about 
ourselves during these hearings, but as someone who has run for 
office a few times, I can tell you, at the end of a campaign, 
it all comes down to the numbers. The numbers tell you the 
winner and the loser.
    For the most part, the numbers don't lie. But if something 
doesn't add up with the numbers, you go to court to get 
resolution. That is the end of the line. We accept those 
results. That is what it means to respect the rule of law. That 
is what it means to seek elective office in our democracy.
    Because those numbers aren't just numbers. They are votes. 
They are your votes. They are the will and the voice of the 
people. The very least we should expect from any person seeking 
a position of public trust is the acceptance of the will of the 
people--win or lose.
    Donald Trump didn't. He didn't have the numbers. He went to 
court. He still didn't have the numbers. He lost.
    But he betrayed the trust of the American people. He 
ignored the will of the voters. He lied to his supporters and 
the country. He tried to remain in office after the people had 
voted him out and the courts upheld the will of the people.
    This morning, we'll tell the story of how Donald Trump lost 
an election--and knew he lost an election--and as a result of 
his loss decided to wage an attack on our democracy, an attack 
on the American people, by trying to rob you of your voice in 
our democracy, and, in doing so, lit the fuse that led to the 
horrific violence of January 6th, when a mob of his supporters 
stormed the Capitol, sent by Donald Trump, to stop the transfer 
of power.
    Today, my colleague from California, Ms. Lofgren, and our 
witnesses will detail the Select Committee's findings on these 
matters.
    But, first, I will recognize our distinguished Vice Chair, 
Ms. Cheney of Wyoming, for any opening statement she would care 
to offer.
    Vice Chair Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Last week, as the Chairman noted, our Committee began 
outlining a 7-part plan--overseen by President Trump--to 
overturn the 2020 election.
    Today, we will begin looking at the initial part of that 
plan: President Trump's effort to convince millions of 
Americans that the election was stolen from him by overwhelming 
fraud.
    A Federal court has already reviewed elements of the 
Committee's evidence on this point, and said this: ``In the 
months following the election, numerous credible sources--from 
the President's inner circle to agency leadership and 
statisticians--informed President Trump and Dr. Eastman that 
there was no evidence of election fraud,'' sufficient to 
overturn the 2020 Presidential election.
    The court's opinion methodically documents each of the 
principal reasons for that conclusion, and I would urge all 
those watching to read it.
    Today, we will begin to show the American people some of 
our evidence. Today, you will hear much more from former 
Attorney General Bill Barr's recorded testimony, and you will 
hear in greater detail what others in the Department told 
President Trump: that his claims of election fraud were 
nonsense.
    You will also hear much more from President Trump's own 
campaign experts, who had also concluded that his fraud claims 
could not be supported.
    Let me focus briefly on just three points now.
    First, you will hear first-hand testimony that the 
President's campaign advisors urged him to await the counting 
of votes and not to declare victory on election night. The 
President understood, even before the election, that many more 
Biden voters had voted by mail, because President Trump ignored 
the advice of his campaign experts and told his supporters only 
to vote in person.
    Donald Trump knew before the election that the counting of 
those mail-in ballots in several States would not begin until 
late in the day and would not be complete for multiple days. 
This was expected, reported, and widely known.
    You will also hear testimony that President Trump rejected 
the advice of his campaign experts on election night and, 
instead, followed the course recommended by an apparently 
inebriated Rudy Giuliani to just claim he won and insist that 
the vote counting stop, to falsely claim everything was 
fraudulent.
    He falsely told the American people that the election was 
not legitimate, in his words, ``a major fraud.'' Millions of 
Americans believed him.
    Second, pay attention to what Donald Trump and his legal 
team said repeatedly about Dominion voting machines--far-flung 
conspiracies with a deceased Venezuelan Communist allegedly 
pulling the strings. This was, ``complete nonsense,'' as Bill 
Barr said.
    President Trump's own campaign advisors, his Department of 
Justice, and his cybersecurity experts all told him the same 
thing.
    Here, for example, is White House lawyer Eric Herschmann. 
His view was shared by many of the Trump team whom we 
interviewed.

    Mr. Herschmann. I thought the Dominion stuff was--I never saw any 
evidence whatsoever to sustain those allegations.

    Vice Chair Cheney. Third, as Mike Pence's staff started to 
get a sense for what Donald Trump had planned for January 6th, 
they called the campaign experts to give them a briefing on 
election fraud and all of the other election claims.
    On January 2nd, the general counsel of the Trump campaign, 
Matthew Morgan--this is the campaign's chief lawyer--summarized 
what the campaign had concluded weeks earlier: That none of the 
arguments about fraud or anything else could actually change 
the outcome of the election.

    Mr. Morgan. Generally discussed on that topic was whether the 
fraud, maladministration, abuse, or irregularities, if aggregated and 
read most favorably to the campaign, would that be outcome 
determinative. And I think everyone's assessment in the room, at least 
amongst the staff, Marc Short, myself, and Greg Jacob, was that it was 
not sufficient to be outcome determinative.

    Vice Chair Cheney. As is obvious, this was before the 
attack on the Capitol. The Trump campaign legal team knew there 
was no legitimate argument--fraud, irregularities, or 
anything--to overturn the election. Yet, President Trump went 
ahead with his plans for January 6th anyways.
    Mr. Chairman, hundreds of our countrymen have faced 
criminal charges--many are serving criminal sentences--because 
they believed what Donald Trump said about the election and 
they acted on it. They came to Washington, DC, at his request. 
They marched on the Capitol at his request. Hundreds of them 
besieged and invaded the building at the heart of our 
constitutional Republic.
    As one conservative editorial board put it recently, ``Mr. 
Trump betrayed his supporters by conning them on January 6th, 
and he is still doing it.''
    Another conservative editorial board that has long 
supported President Trump said last week, Donald Trump, ``won't 
stop insisting that 2020 was stolen, even though he has offered 
no proof that that is true.''
    And this. Donald Trump now, ``clings to more fantastical 
theories, such as Dinesh D'Souza's debunked `2000 Mules,' even 
as recounts in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin confirm Trump 
lost.''
    Those are the correct conclusions to draw from the evidence 
gathered by this Committee. We have much more evidence to show 
the American people on this point than we can reasonably show 
in one hearing. But, today, we will begin.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. Without objection, the Chair recognizes 
the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for an opening 
statement.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In our opening hearing, we gave an overview of our 
investigation into the January 6th attack. The plot to 
overthrow the election was complex and had many parts, which 
we'll explore in remaining hearings. But, today, we examine the 
false narrative that the 2020 election was ``stolen.''
    Former President Trump's plan to overturn the election 
relied on a sustained effort to deceive millions of Americans 
with knowingly false claims of election fraud. All elements of 
the plot relied on convincing his supporters about these false 
claims.
    Today, we'll demonstrate the 2020 election was not stolen. 
The American people elected President Joe Biden. We'll present 
evidence that Mr. Trump's claims of election fraud were false, 
that he and his closest advisors knew those claims were false, 
but they continued to peddle them anyway, right up until the 
moments before a mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol.
    We'll also show that the Trump campaign used these false 
claims of election fraud to raise hundreds of millions of 
dollars from supporters who were told their donations were for 
the legal fight in the courts. But the Trump campaign didn't 
use the money for that. The Big Lie was also a Big Rip-Off.
    The former President laid the groundwork for these false 
claims well in advance of the election. As early as April 2020, 
Mr. Trump claimed that the only way he could lose an election 
would be as a result of fraud.

    President Trump. You know the things with bundling and all of the 
things that are happening with votes by mail where thousands of votes 
are gathered. And I'm not going to say which party does it, but 
thousands of votes are gathered, and they come in and they're dumped in 
a location. And then all of a sudden, you lose elections that you think 
you're going to win.
    President Trump. The only way we're going to lose this election is 
if the election is rigged. Remember that. It's the only way we're going 
to lose this election.
    President Trump. This is going to be a fraud like you've never 
seen. Did you see what's going on? Take a look at West Virginia. 
Mailmen selling the ballots. They're being sold. They're being dumped 
in rivers. This is a horrible thing for our country.
    Then-Candidate Biden. There is no----
    President Trump. This is not----
    Then-Candidate Biden. There is no evidence of that.
    President Trump. This is not going to end well.

    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Trump decided even before the election 
that, regardless of the facts and the truth, if he lost the 
election, he would claim it was rigged.
    Mr. Trump was right about one thing: It did not end well. 
On election night, Mr. Trump claimed, even before the votes 
were counted, that his loss was a result of fraud.
    Now, Thursday, we had testimony from Attorney General Barr 
about the Department of Justice investigation of Mr. Trump's 
fraud claims. Barr told Trump directly that his claims were 
``BS.'' Yet, after hearing the truth and that warning from the 
AG, Mr. Trump continued to peddle the false claims of fraud.
    You will hear detailed testimony from Attorney General Barr 
describing the various election fraud claims the Department of 
Justice investigated. He will tell you how he told Mr. Trump 
repeatedly that there was no merit to those claims. Mr. Barr 
will tell us that Mr. Trump's election night claims of fraud 
were made without regard to the truth and before it was even 
possible to look for evidence of fraud.
    Attorney General Barr wasn't alone. You will see and hear 
today other Department of Justice officials and senior advisors 
to Mr. Trump that they told him the claims he was making were 
not supported by evidence.
    The election fraud claims were false. Mr. Trump's closest 
advisors knew it. Mr. Trump knew it. That didn't stop him from 
pushing the false claims and urging his supporters to ``fight 
like hell'' to ``take back their country.''
    After he lost the election, various legal challenges were 
made. You will hear testimony today from a renowned Republican 
election litigation lawyer who will explain the normal process 
by which candidates challenge an election.
    Rather than accept the results of the election and the 
decisions of the courts, Mr. Trump pursued a different 
strategy: He tried to convince the American people the election 
had been stolen. Many of his supporters believed him, and many 
still believe him today.
    The attack on January 6th was a direct and predictable 
result of Mr. Trump's decision to use false claims of election 
fraud to overturn the election and to cling to power.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
    I now welcome our first witness.
    We are joined today by former Fox News Politics Editor 
Chris Stirewalt.
    Bill Stepien, President Trump's former campaign manager, 
was subpoenaed to be here and was in Washington this morning 
prepared to testify.
    Kevin Marino, Mr. Stepien's attorney, is here with us 
today--thank you, Mr. Marino, for coming--and he has advised us 
that Mr. Stepien's wife went into labor this morning. Mr. 
Stepien unexpectedly had to travel to be with his wife, and we 
wish him the best.
    Due to the depth and rigor of our investigation, we have 
several hours of Mr. Stepien's testimony from when we 
interviewed him in February, and we will be presenting that 
testimony today.
    I'll now swear in our witness.
    The witness will please stand and raise his right hand.
    [Witness sworn.]
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you. Please be seated.
    Let the record reflect the witness answered in the 
affirmative.
    I now recognize myself for questions.
    I want to start by showing a video that tells the story of 
what was going on in the Trump White House on election night in 
November 2020.

    Mr. Heaphy. Do you remember where you were on the night of the 
election November the 3rd?
    Ms. Trump. I was at the White House.
    Mr. Heaphy. Do you know where, specifically, over the course of 
that night you spent your time within the White House?
    Ms. Trump. There was an event that was organized in the residence. 
So, I moved between the residence, a room sort-of off the residence 
where some family members were.
    Mr. Heaphy. I take it, the President was upstairs in the residence?
    Mr. Kushner. He was upstairs. I was--we were kind-of on the first 
floor, so not upstairs we were with--mostly with Ivanka and her 
brothers and a couple other people who'd be coming in and out.
    Mr. George. Can you just describe the atmosphere? What were people 
expecting that night when you got to the White House?
    Mr. Miller. I think that there was--typically, for people who show 
up there on election night it's going to be a self-select more positive 
environment. I think people were a little bit nervous not knowing what 
was going to happen with the red wave or the red mirage as the debate 
was being carried out.
    Fox News Anchor Bret Baier. The Fox News decision desk is calling 
Arizona for Joe Biden. That is a big get for the Biden campaign.
    Mr. George. Arizona is called. Do you remember that?
    Mr. Stepien. I do.
    Mr. George. What do you remember happening where you were when 
Arizona was called?
    Mr. Stepien. I--there was surprise at the call.
    Mr. George. Who was surprised?
    Mr. Stepien. Most--most everyone in the room.
    Mr. George. Were--you being one of them?
    Mr. Stepien. Yes.
    Mr. George. Did that shift the atmosphere or the attitude in the 
White House?
    Mr. Miller. Completely.
    Mr. George. How so? Can you describe that?
    Mr. Miller. Because Fox News was the first one to go out and say 
that.
    Mr. George. And so was it anger kind-of directed toward Fox News 
for making a call more so than a disappointment that maybe the campaign 
lost Arizona?
    Mr. Miller. All of the above.
    Mr. George. So both? Anger and disappointment?
    Mr. Miller. Both disappointed with Fox and concerned that maybe our 
data or our numbers weren't accurate.
    Mr. Harris. Were you in the White House residence during the sort-
of past midnight into the early morning hours of November 4th?
    Mr. Giuliani. Yes, I'm sure it--it went over beyond midnight. Yes.
    Mr. George. Do you remember Rudy Giuliani being at the White House 
on election night and into the early hours the next morning?
    Mr. Stepien. I do.
    Mr. George. What do you remember about when he came?
    Mr. Stepien. He--he was--there were--I had heard that he was 
upstairs, you know, in that aforementioned reception area. And he was 
looking to talk to the President. And it was suggested instead that 
he'd come talk to several of us down off the Map Room.
    Mr. George. You said that Mr.--you had heard that Mr. Giuliani 
wanted to talk to the President and then he was directed your way. Did 
you end up talking to Mr. Giuliani when he was directed your way?
    Mr. Stepien. I did. I did.
    Mr. George. What was that conversation?
    Mr. Stepien. A lot of conversations were directed my way. A few of 
us, myself, Jason Miller, Justin Clark, Mark Meadows, gathered in a 
room off the Map Room to--to listen to whatever Rudy presumably wanted 
to say to the President.
    Mr. Heaphy. Was there anyone in that conversation who in your 
observation had had too much to drink?
    Mr. Miller. Like--Mayor Giuliani.
    Mr. Heaphy. Tell me more about that. What was your observation 
about his potential intoxication during that--that discussion about 
what the President should say when he addressed the Nation on election 
night?
    Mr. Miller. And the mayor was definitely intoxicated, but I do not 
know his level of intoxication when he spoke with the President, for 
example.
    Mr. Harris. Were you part of any discussions with the people I 
mentioned, Mr. Stepien, Mr. Meadows, or anyone else about whether the 
President should make any sort of speech on election night?
    Mr. Giuliani. I mean, I spoke to the President. They may have been 
present, but the President--spoke to the President several times that 
night.
    Mr. Miller. There were suggestions by, I believe it was Mayor 
Giuliani, to go and declare victory and say that we won it outright.
    Mr. Stepien. It was far too early to be making any calls like that. 
Ballots--ballots were still being counted. Ballots were still going to 
be counted for days. And it was far too early to be making any 
proclamation like that.
    Mr. Miller. I remember saying that I--to the best of my memory, and 
I was saying that we should not go and declare victory until we had a 
better sense of the numbers.
    Mr. George. Okay. Can you be more specific about that conversation? 
In particular, what Mayor Giuliani said, your response, and then 
anybody else in the room's response.
    Mr. Miller. I think effectively, Mayor Giuliani was saying we won 
it. They're stealing it from us. Where'd all the votes come from? We 
need to go say that we won. And essentially that anyone who didn't 
agree with that position was being weak.
    Mr. Heaphy. What was your view at the time as to what he should or 
shouldn't say?
    Ms. Trump. I don't know that I had a firm view as to what he should 
say in that circumstance. The results were still being counted. It was 
becoming clear that the race would not be called on election night.
    Mr. Stepien. My belief, my recommendation was to say that votes are 
still being counted. It's too early to--to tell. Too early to call the 
race. But, you know, we are proud of the race we--we run--we ran and, 
you know, we think--we think we're in a--in good position. And we'll 
have more to say about this, you know, the next day or the next day 
whenever we had something to say.
    Mr. George. And did anybody who is a part of that conversation 
disagree with your message?
    Mr. Stepien. Yes.
    Mr. George. Who is that?
    Mr. Stepien. The President disagreed with that. I don't recall the 
particular words. He thought I was wrong. He told me so. And, you know, 
that they were going to, you know, go in it--he was going--to go in a 
different direction.
    President Trump. This is a fraud on the American public. This is an 
embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this 
election. Frankly, we did win this election. We did win this election. 
[applause]

    Chairman Thompson. Mr. Stirewalt, did President Trump have 
any basis to declare victory on November 4, 2020?
    Mr. Stirewalt. No, none at all.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
    Mr. Stepien also testified that President Trump had no 
basis for declaring victory at that point in time.

    Mr. Stepien. My belief, my recommendation was to say that votes are 
still being counted. It's too early to--to tell. Too early to call the 
race. But, you know, we are proud of the race we--we run--we ran and, 
you know, we think--we think we're in a--in good position. And we'll 
have more to say about this, you know, the next day or the next day 
whenever we had something to say.

    Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
    Mr. Stirewalt, after the votes were counted, who won the 
Presidential election of 2020?
    Mr. Stirewalt. Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., of the great 
State of Delaware.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
    That is the bottom line. We have had an election. Mr. Trump 
lost. But he refused to accept the results of the democratic 
process.
    Pursuant to section 5(c)(8) of House Resolution 503, I now 
recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 
questions.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Stirewalt, I would like you to explain a term that was 
thrown around a lot during the election, and that is the so-
called ``red mirage.'' What does that mean?
    Mr. Stirewalt. So, in the 40 or 50 years, let's say, that 
Americans have increasingly chosen to vote by mail or early or 
absentee, Democrats prefer that method of voting more than 
Republicans do. So, basically, in every election Republicans 
win election day and Democrats win the early vote.
    Then you wait and start counting, and it depends on which 
ones you count first, but usually it is election day votes that 
get counted first and you see the Republicans shoot ahead. Then 
the process of baling and binding and unbinding all those mail-
in votes. Some States, like Pennsylvania, refused to count the 
votes first. So, you have to wait for all of that to come in.
    So, in every election, and certainly a National election, 
you expect to see the Republican with a lead, but it's not 
really a lead.
    When you put together a jigsaw puzzle, it doesn't matter 
which piece you put in first. It ends up with the same image. 
So, for us, who cares? But that's because no candidate had ever 
tried to avail themself of this quirk in the election counting 
system.
    We had gone to pains--and I'm proud of the pains we went 
to--to make sure that we were informing viewers that this was 
going to happen, because the Trump campaign and the President 
had made it clear that they were going to try to exploit this 
anomaly. We knew it was going to be bigger because the 
percentage of early votes was higher, right? We went from about 
45 percent of the votes being early and absentee to, because of 
the pandemic, that increased by about 50 percent.
    So, we knew it would be longer. We knew it would be more. 
So, we wanted to keep telling viewers: Hey, look, the number 
that you see here is sort of irrelevant, because it's only a 
small percentage of these votes.
    Ms. Lofgren. So, this red mirage, that's really what you 
expected to happen on election night?
    Mr. Stirewalt. Happens every time.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Stirewalt.
    Now, I'd like to play a clip of Attorney General Bill Barr, 
who also explains what was expected to happen on election 
night.

    Attorney General Barr. Right out of the box on election night, the 
President claimed that there was major fraud underway. I mean, this 
happened as far as I could tell before there was actually any potential 
of looking at evidence . . . 
    It seemed to be based on the dynamic that--that at the end of the 
evening, a lot of Democratic votes came in which changed the vote 
counts in certain States.
    That seemed to be the basis for this broad claim that there was 
major fraud. And I didn't think much of that because people had been 
talking for weeks and everyone understood for weeks that that was going 
to be what happened on election night.

    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Stepien obviously could not be with us 
today, and it's proper for him to be with his wife as they 
welcome their child. But he also had discussions with the 
President about the red mirage--that is, that it would be a 
long night and that early votes would favor him, but lots more 
votes would be counted over the course of the night and the 
days after.
    So, let's play clip 1 from our interview with Mr. Stepien.

    Mr. Stepien. I--I recounted back to that conversation with 
him in which I said--just like I said in 2016, it was going to 
be a long night. I--I told him in 2020 that, you know, there 
were--it was going to be a--a process again. As, you know, the 
early returns are going to be, you know, positive. Then we're 
gonna, you know, be watching the returns of--of ballots as, you 
know, they rolled in thereafter.
    Mr. George. Is it fair to say you're trying to present a--
a--what you thought would be a realistic picture of what might 
happen over the course of that night, being election night?
    Mr. Stepien. That night and the days that followed. Yeah. 
I--I--I always--I always, you know, I always told the President 
the truth. And, you know I--I, you know, I think he expected 
that from me. And I told him it was going to be a process. It 
was going to be, you know--you know, we're gonna have to wait 
and see how this turned out. So I--I--just like I did in 2016, 
I did the same thing in 2020.

    Ms. Lofgren. So, let's watch a short clip of President 
Trump speaking after he received that information from his 
campaign advisors.

    President Trump. We want all voting to stop. We don't want 
them to find any ballots at 4 o'clock in the morning and add 
them to the list.

    Ms. Lofgren. So, when former President Trump said that, it 
contradicted what his advisors had warned would happen. We all 
know that mail-in ballots played an important role in the 2020 
election. However, President Trump continuously discouraged 
mail-in voting.
    Mr. Stepien was so concerned about the President's position 
on mail-in voting that, in the summer of 2020, he met with 
President Trump, along with House Minority Leader Kevin 
McCarthy.
    Let's play clip 4.

    Mr. Stepien. Meeting that was had in particular, I invited 
Kevin McCarthy to join the meeting. He being of like mind on 
the issue with me in which we made our case for--for why we 
believed mail-in balloting--mail-in voting not to be a bad 
thing for his campaign. But, you know, the--the President's 
mind was made up and you understand, you know, how many times 
to, you know, go to the well on a particular topic.
    Mr. Heaphy. Yeah, I understand. Tell me a little bit more 
about the argument that you and Mr. McCarthy made to the 
President in that meeting as to why it wasn't a bad thing that 
mail-in voting was available.
    Mr. Stepien. Largely two pillars to that argument, both of 
which I've previously mentioned. One, you know, leaving a good 
deal to chance. Pushing or urging your voters to vote only on 
election day leaves a lot to chance. That's--that's A. And B, 
also previously mentioned, the fact that the Trump campaign, 
the Republican National Committee, the Republican Party had an 
advantage of--of grassroots workers and volunteers on the 
ground that would allow, you know, an--an advantage to enhance 
return rates of--of ballots that were mailed.
    Those were the two pillars of the argument.
    Mr. Heaphy. I see. And what, if anything, do you recall 
Representative McCarthy saying during that meeting?
    Mr. Stepien. We were--we were echoing the same argument. I 
mean, his--his words echoed--echoed mine and vice versa on 
those--on those two topics.

    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Stirewalt, you were at the decision desk 
at Fox News on election night, and you called Arizona early for 
President Biden, which was controversial.
    How did you make that call? Where did you think the race 
stood in the early hours of the next day?
    Mr. Stirewalt. Well, it was really controversial to our 
competitors, who we beat so badly by making the correct call 
first. Our decision desk was the best in the business, and I 
was very proud to be a part of it.
    Because we had partnered with the Associated Press and the 
National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, 
thanks to my colleague and friend Arnon Mishkin, we had built a 
wonderful device for forecasting the outcomes of election.
    So, we had a different set of data than our competitors 
did. We had more research, and we had a better system, and we 
had a great team.
    So, what you're waiting to see is, do the actual votes 
match up with the expectations in the poll? The real votes are 
testing the quality of your poll in targeted precincts and in 
targeted places.
    Let me tell you, our poll in Arizona was beautiful, and it 
was doing just what we wanted it to do, and it was cooking up 
just right.
    At some point--and I forget exactly who--but, at some 
point, it became clear that Arizona was getting ready to make a 
call.
    So we, around, you know, my boss, Bill Sammon, said, 
``We're not making any call until everybody says yes,'' because 
that was always our policy, unanimity.
    You have to understand, in this room you have, you know, 
the best--people from academia, Democrats, Republicans, a broad 
cross-section of people who had worked together for a decade, 
who were really serious about this stuff.
    So, we knew it would be a consequential call, because it 
was one of five States that really mattered, right? Wisconsin, 
Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona were the ones that we 
were watching. We knew it would be significant to call any one 
of those five. But we already knew Trump's chances were very 
small and getting smaller based on what we had seen.
    So, we were able to make the call early. We were able to 
beat the competition. We looked around the room. Everybody 
says, ``yea,'' and on we go.
    By the time we found out how much everybody was freaking 
out and losing their minds over this call, we were already 
trying to call the next State. We had already moved on. We were 
to Georgia. We were to North Carolina. We were looking at these 
other States.
    So, we thought it was--we were pleased, but not surprised.
    Ms. Lofgren. I see. You know, after the election, as of 
November 7th, in your judgment, what were the chances of 
President Trump winning the election?
    Mr. Stirewalt. After that point?
    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.
    Mr. Stirewalt. None. I mean, I guess you could--it's always 
possible that you could have, you know, a truckload of ballots 
be found somewhere, I suppose. But, once you get into this 
space, you know, ahead of today, I thought about what are the 
largest margins that could ever be overturned by a recount in 
the normal kind of--the kind of stuff that we heard Mike Pence 
talking about, sounding like a normal Republican that night, 
when he said, you know, we'll keep every challenge.
    Nothing like that. In a recount, you're talking about 
hundreds of votes. When we think about calling a race, one of 
the things that we would think about is, is it outside the 
margin of a recount?
    When we think about that margin, we think about, in modern 
history, you're talking about 1,000 votes, 1,500 votes at the 
way, way outside. Normally, you're talking about hundreds of 
votes, maybe 300 votes that are going to change.
    So, the idea that, through any normal process in any of 
these States--remember, he had to do it thrice, right? He 
needed three of these States to change. In order to do that, I 
mean, you're at an infinite--you're better off to play the 
Powerball than to have that come in.
    Ms. Lofgren. On November 7th, the other major news outlets 
called the race for President Biden. Now, Mr. Stepien told the 
Committee that he thought the odds were--and this is a quote--
``very, very, very bleak,'' and held a meeting with the 
President that same day.
    Let's show video clip 8.

    Mr. Stepien. With each day that wore on, I mean the--the 
trajectory of the race, you know, on election night Trump ahead 
in--in many States. And as--as that week wore on as the third 
became the fourth became the fifth and so on and so forth, and 
the vote-by-mail ballots were tabulated, you know, Trump's--
Trump's lead, you know, grew more narrow.
    And--and in--and in some places Biden surpassed, you know, 
Trump in--in the vote totals. So as--as the week wore on, as we 
paid attention to those numbers every single--multiple times a 
day, you know, internally, you know, I--I was feeling less 
confident for sure.
    Mr. George. What was your view on the state of the election 
at that point?
    Mr. Stepien. You know, very, very, very bleak. You know, 
I--I--I--we--we told him, you know, the group that went over 
there outlined, you know, my belief in--in--in chances for 
success at this point. And then we pegged that at, you know, 5 
maybe--maybe 10 percent based on recounts that were--that--
that, you know, either were automatically initiated or--or--or 
could be--could be initiated based on, you know, realistic 
legal challenges, not all the legal challenges that eventually 
were pursued. But, you know, it was, you know, my belief is 
that it was a very, very--I mean, 5 to 10 percent is not a very 
good optimistic outlook.

    Ms. Lofgren. Now, as President Trump and others continued 
to claim that the election was stolen, there were lawyers who 
were a part of the campaign, campaign lawyers, who were 
responsible for investigating the fraud claims.
    That includes Alex Cannon, who could not validate the 
claims that were being made, including those being made by the 
President.
    Let's roll video 13.

    Mr. George. This is an email. It's two emails actually. The 
first is from Alex Cannon to you and Faith McPherson, and then 
you forward that email on to Mark Meadows, Justin Clark, and 
Jason Miller, the subject being AZ Federal ID voters. If you 
look at the original email there it says, ``Bill, we completed 
the AZ analysis you requested.'' I assume that's about Arizona.
    And because of the un--the substantial uncertainty 
surrounding the databases, this is a highly unreliable way to 
identify ineligible voters. Can you explain the task that you 
gave to Mr. Cannon for this Arizona analysis?
    Mr. Stepien. Sure. Previously, I described some of my 
frustration with some of the--the claims that people would 
throw at President Trump regarding, you know, you know, you 
need to look at this. You know, this happened in this State or 
that happened in that State. And it would be, you know--those 
would flow to us to--to--to look into.
    I--I talked about that before I think.
    Mr. George. Yep.
    Mr. Stepien. You know, this is an example of that. I 
recall--I recall in Arizona someone had thrown out, I believe 
this to be the claim, that there were thousands of illegal 
citizens, people not eligible to vote, having cast their 
ballots in Arizona. Someone had thrown out that claim to 
President Trump. And with, you know, the margins being as close 
as they were as previously described, you know, that could 
potentially matter.
    So, this--this wild claim is thrown out, which, you know, 
on its face didn't seem, you know, realistic or possible to me. 
I asked Alex to look at the--you know, the--the claim. And I--I 
haven't read his full email, but I recall that the response to 
that, the reality of that was not illegal citizens voting in 
the election, I think it was like overseas voters voting in the 
election. I--I--so, obviously, you know, people who were 
eligible to vote.

    Ms. Lofgren. When these findings were passed up the chain 
to President Trump, he became frustrated, and he replaced the 
campaign's legal team.
    Let's play clip 14.

    Mr. Stepien. You know, I think the President, it was during the 
second week where things like you displayed were occurring, where he 
was, you know, growing increasingly unhappy with, you know, his team, 
you know, me less so because I was less involved at this point, but 
still me; growing increasingly unhappy with Justin Clark. And that--
that kind-of, you know--you know, paved the way for, you know, Justin 
to be moved out and Mayor Giuliani be moved in as the person in charge 
of, you know, the legal side of the campaign and, for all intents and 
purposes, the campaign at that point.

    Ms. Lofgren. Now, when Mr. Stepien became campaign manager, 
he was the second Trump campaign manager for the 2020 race, and 
there were only about 115 days until election day.
    So, let's play the video.

    Mr. Stepien. I inherited a campaign that was--the day I was hired 
was, I believe, President Trump's low point in the 2020 daily average 
polling against President Biden. It was--it was a campaign at a low 
point in the polls. It was structurally and fiscally deficient. You 
know, I--you know, there was a great deal wrong with the campaign in--
in--in both of those--in--in both of those areas. So, most of my day 
was spent fixing what--and I think I took over with 115 days left in 
the campaign. Most of my time was spent fixing the things that could be 
fixed with 115 days left in the campaign.

    Ms. Lofgren. Now, Mr. Stepien has been in the campaign 
field for a long time, and he worked for lots of different 
candidates and campaigns. He testified to this Committee about 
his concerns given the claims that Mr. Giuliani and Ms. Powell 
and their team were making publicly.
    Let's play clip 15.

    Mr. Heaphy. Okay. And it was important for you, Mr. Stepien, to 
sort-of pull back just for your own professional reputation. You didn't 
want to be associated with some of what you were hearing from the 
Giuliani team and others that--that sort-of stepped in in the wake of 
your departure.
    Mr. Stepien. I didn't mind being categorized. There were two groups 
of them. We called them kind-of my team and Rudy's team. I--I didn't 
mind being characterized as being part of Team Normal, as--as 
reporters, you know, kind-of started to do around that point in time. 
You know, I said, you know, hours ago, early on, that, you know, I've--
I've been doing this for a long time, 25 years, and I've spanned, you 
know, political ideologies from Trump to McCain to Bush to Christie, 
you know.
    And, you know, I can work under a lot of circumstances for a lot of 
varied, you know, candidates and politicians. But a situation where--
and I think along the way I've built up a pretty good--I hope a good 
reputation for being honest and--and professional, and I--I didn't 
think what was happening was necessarily honest or professional at that 
point in time. So, again, that led to me stepping away.

    Ms. Lofgren. So, the President did get rid of ``Team 
Normal,'' and I'd like to play a clip showing that the 
President found the people he needed to perpetuate his claims 
of fraud.

    Mr. Giuliani. They saw a big truck bringing in 100,000 ballots in 
garbage cans, in wastepaper baskets, in cardboard boxes, and in 
shopping baskets. And every single one of them was for Biden . . . 
    Because they were being notified by Smartmatic in Frankfurt that 
Biden was way behind, and they better come up with a lot more ballots. 
And we can prove every single thing I just said . . . 
    If you gave me the paper ballots, I could probably turn around each 
one of these States. I'm absolutely convinced if you--if you let me 
examine each one of those ballots, I'd pull out enough that were 
fraudulent that it would shake the hell out of the country.
    Ms. Powell. It can set and run an algorithm, that probably ran all 
over the country, to take a certain percentage of votes from President 
Trump and flip them to President Biden, which we might never have 
uncovered had the votes for President Trump not been so overwhelming in 
so many of these States that it broke the algorithm . . . 
    I remember that one of the things Mark said at some point was, 
``You can't show an actual vote was flipped,'' which I found at the 
time to be a remarkable assertion, because--because you don't have to 
have the gun to see the body lying on the floor bleeding out with five 
bullet holes in it was killed by a gun.
    Mr. Herschmann. What they were proposing I thought was nuts. You 
know, the theory was also completely nuts, right? I mean, it was a 
combination of Italians and Germans. I mean, different things have been 
floating around as to who was involved. I remember Hugo Chavez and the 
Venezuelans. She has an affidavit from somebody who says they wrote a 
software in--and something with the Philippines, just all over the 
radar.
    Mr. Heaphy. Did you ever share, Mr. Kushner, your view of Mr. 
Giuliani? Did you ever share your perspective about him with the 
President?
    Mr. Kushner. I guess--yes.
    Mr. Heaphy. Tell me what you said.
    Mr. Kushner. Well, basically not the approach I would take if I was 
you.
    Mr. Heaphy. Okay. And--and how did he react? How did President 
Trump react when you shared that view with him?
    Mr. Kushner. Oh, he said, you know, I--I have confidence in Rudy.
    Mr. Morgan. I think I had conversations with probably all of our 
counsel who were signed up to assist on election day as they disengaged 
with the campaign . . . 
    The general consensus was that the law firms were not comfortable 
making the arguments that Rudy Giuliani was making publicly . . . 
    I seem to recall that I had a similar conversation with most all of 
them.
    Attorney General Barr. I made it clear I did not agree with the 
idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff, 
which I told the President was bullshit. And, you know, I didn't want 
to be a part of it. And that's one of the reasons that went into me 
deciding to leave when I did.

    Ms. Lofgren. Even Sidney Powell, defending herself in a 
defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems, argued 
that, ``No reasonable person would conclude that her statements 
were truly statements of fact.''
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. I thank the witness for joining us 
today.
    The first panel is now dismissed.
    Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman 
from California, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Last week, we presented the testimony of former Attorney 
General Bill Barr, who testified before this Committee.
    Today, we present additional evidence, including his 
testimony that former President Trump started making claims of 
election fraud immediately after the election and that Barr 
concluded the claims were untrue.
    Now, due to the length of Attorney General Barr's 
testimony, we're only going to include relevant portions at the 
hearing today.
    So, let's play the video.

    Attorney General Barr. The Department, in fact, when we received 
specific and credible allegations of fraud, made an effort to look into 
these to satisfy ourselves that they were without merit . . . 
    And--and I was in the posture of trying to figure out--there was an 
avalanche of all these allegations of fraud that built up over a number 
of days, and it was like playing Whac-A-Mole because something would 
come out one day and then the next day it would be another issue . . . 
    Also, I was influenced by the fact that all the early claims that I 
understood on--were--were completely bogus and silly and usually based 
on complete misinformation. And so, I--I didn't consider the quality of 
claims right out of the box to give me any, you know, feeling that 
there was really substance here.

    Ms. Lofgren. For the first time since the election, the 
Attorney General spoke personally with the President on 
November 23rd, and this was at the White House.
    Let's play the video, please.

    Attorney General Barr. So, on November 23rd, I--I hadn't spoken to 
the President since the election, and, in fact, as I said, since the 
middle of October roughly. It was a little--getting awkward because 
obviously he had lost the election, and I hadn't said anything to him. 
And so, Cipollone said, ``You know, I think it's time you come over 
here.''
    And so, I came over to meet with the President in the Oval Office. 
And--and Meadows were--and Cipollone were there. And the President--
and--and this is leading up to this conversation with Kushner. The 
President said there had been major fraud and that, as soon as the 
facts were out, the results of the election would be reversed.
    And he went on--on this for quite a while, as he is prone to do. 
And then he got to something that I was expecting, which is to say that 
apparently the Department of Justice doesn't think that it has a role 
of looking into these fraud claims . . . 
    And I said, you know, that has to be the campaign that raises that 
with the State. The Department doesn't take sides in elections, and the 
Department is not an extension of--of your legal team. And our role is 
to investigate fraud. And if--and we'll look at something if it's--if 
it's specific, credible, and could have affected the outcome of the 
election. And--and we're doing that, and it's just not--they're not--
they're just not meritorious. They're not pan--panning out . . . 
    And as I walked out of the Oval Office, Jared was there with Dan 
Scavino, who ran his--ran the President's social media and who I 
thought was a reasonable guy and believe is a reasonable guy. And I 
said, how long is--how long is he going to carry on with this stolen 
election stuff? Where is this going to go?
    And by that time, Meadows had caught up with me and--leaving the 
office, and caught up to me and--and said that--he said, ``Look, I--I 
think that he's becoming more realistic and knows that there's a limit 
to how far he can take this.'' And then Jared said, ``You know, yeah, 
we're working on this. We're working on it.''

    Ms. Lofgren. Even after his Attorney General told him his 
claims of election fraud were false, President Trump continued 
to promote these claims.

    Attorney General Barr. I felt that things continued to deteriorate 
between the 23rd and the weekend of the 29th . . . 
    And then on November 29th, he appeared on Maria Bartiromo's show, 
``Sunday Futures,'' I believe it was. And he said that the Department 
was missing in action . . . 
    President Trump. Well, no, we had glitches where they moved 
thousands of votes from my account to Biden's account, and these are 
glitches. So, they're not glitches. They're theft. They're fraud, 
absolute fraud . . . 
    This election was over, and then they did dumps. They call them 
dumps--big, massive dumps in Michigan, in Pennsylvania, and all over . 
. . 
    How the FBI and Department of Justice--I don't know, maybe they're 
involved, but how people are allowed to get away from this stuff--with 
this stuff is unbelievable.

    Ms. Lofgren. Now, spurred by what he saw, Barr told the 
Associated Press on December 1st that there was no evidence of 
election fraud. Immediately after Attorney General Barr's 
statement went public, Mr. Trump berated and he nearly fired 
Barr. But Barr persisted in telling the President that there 
was no evidence to support the fraud claims.

    Attorney General Barr. This got under my skin, but I also felt it 
was time for me to say something. So on--I had--so I set up a lunch 
with the AP reporter, Mike Balsamo, and I told him at lunch--I made the 
statement that ``to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could 
have effected a different outcome in the election.''
    I had a later meeting scheduled at the White House at 3 o'clock 
with Meadows. This was previously scheduled. So, I knew this was gonna 
to come up. And I went over there, and I told my secretary that I 
thought I would probably be fired and told not to--to go home 
[laughter]--I mean, not to go back to my office, so I said you might 
have to pack up for me.
    And so, when I got over there, I met with the chief of staff. He 
said the President was angry. He didn't really go--get into the issue 
of the fraud. And then I went up to Pat Cipollone's office, and we were 
talking with each other. And word came down that he wanted us both to 
go to the Oval . . . 
    And the President was as mad as I've ever seen him, and he was 
trying to control himself . . . 
    And the President said, ``Well, this is, you know, killing me. You 
didn't have to say this. You must have said this because you hate 
Trump. You hate Trump.'' . . . 
    Then he raised the--the big vote dump, as he called it, in Detroit. 
And that, you know, he said people saw boxes coming in to the counting 
station at all hours of the morning and so forth. And I explained to 
him that I--at that point, I knew the exact number of precincts for 
Detroit. I think it was 630-something. I said, Mr. President, there are 
630 precincts in Detroit. And unlike elsewhere in the State, they 
centralize the counting process. So, they're not counted in each 
precinct, they're moved to counting stations.
    And so, a normal process would involve boxes coming in at all 
different hours, so there's nothing--and I said, did anyone point out 
to you--did all the people complaining about it point out to you, you 
actually did better in Detroit than you did--you did last time? I mean, 
there's no indication of fraud in Detroit . . . 
    And I told him that the stuff that his people were shoveling out to 
the public were bull--was bullshit. I mean, that the claims of fraud 
were bullshit. And, you know, he was indignant about that. And I 
reiterated that they've wasted a whole month on these claims--on the 
Dominion voting machines, and they were idiotic claims . . . 
    And I specifically raised the Dominion voting machines, which I 
found to be among the most disturbing allegations. Disturbing in the 
sense that I saw absolutely zero basis for the allegations. But they 
were made in such a sensational way that they obviously were 
influencing a lot of people--members of the public--that there was this 
systemic corruption in the system and that their votes didn't count and 
that these machines controlled by somebody else were actually 
determining it, which was complete nonsense.
    And it was being laid out there. And I told them that it was--it 
was crazy stuff, and they were wasting their time on that. And it was 
doing a great, grave disservice to the country.

    Ms. Lofgren. Okay. So, the very next day, the President 
released a video rehashing some of the very same claims that 
his chief law enforcement officer had told him were, 
``nonsense.''

    President Trump. Here's an example. This is Michigan. At 6:31 in 
the morning, a vote dump of 149,772 votes came in unexpectedly. We were 
winning by a lot. That batch was received in horror . . . 
    We have a company that's very suspect. Its name is Dominion. With 
the turn of a dial or the change of a chip, you can press a button for 
Trump and the vote goes to Biden. What kind of a system is this?

    Ms. Lofgren. Barr again told the President that there was 
nothing to these claims on December 14th.

    Attorney General Barr. When I walked in, sat down, he went off on a 
monologue saying that there was now definitive evidence involving fraud 
through the Dominion machines, and a report had been prepared by a very 
reputable cybersecurity firm, which he identified as Allied Security 
Operations Group. And he held up the report and he had--and then he 
asked that a copy of it be made for me. And while a copy was being 
made, he said, ``You know, this is absolute proof that the Dominion 
machines were rigged. The report means that I am going to have a second 
term.''
    And then he gave me a copy of the report. And as he talked more and 
more about it, I sat there flipping through the poor report and looking 
through it. And to be frank, it looked very amateurish to me . . . 
didn't have the credentials of the people involved . . . but I didn't 
see any real qualifications. And the statements were made very 
conclusory like this--these machines were designed to, you know, engage 
in fraud or something to that effect, but I didn't see any supporting 
information for it . . . 
    And I was somewhat demoralized because I thought, boy, if he really 
believes this stuff he has, you know, lost contact with--with--he's 
become detached from reality, if he really believes this stuff . . . 
    On the other hand, you know, when I went into this and would, you 
know, tell him how crazy some of these allegations were . . . 
    There was never--there was never an indication of interest in what 
the actual facts were . . . 
    In my opinion then, and my opinion now, is that the election was 
not stolen by fraud, and I haven't seen anything since the election 
that changes my mind on that, including the ``2000 Mules'' movie. 
[laughter]
    Ms. Lofgren. So maybe you can assess that ``2000 Mules,'' and 
people are talking about that.
    Attorney General Barr. Well, I mean, just in a nutshell, you know, 
I just think that the GBI was unimpressed with it, and I was similarly 
unimpressed with it because I think if you--because I was holding my 
fire on that to see what the photographic evidence was because I 
thought, well, hell, if they have a lot of photographs of the same 
person dumping a lot of ballots in different boxes, you know, that's 
hard to explain.
    So, I wanted to see what the photographic evidence was, but the 
cell phone data is singularly unimpressive. I mean it basically, if you 
take 2 million cell phones and--and figure out where they are 
physically in a big city like Atlanta or wherever, just by definition 
you're going to find many hundreds of them have passed by and spent 
time in the vicinity of these boxes.
    And the premise that, you know, if you go by about, you know, five 
boxes or whatever it was, you know, that that's a mule is just 
indefensible. If--by definition you're going to have a lot--hundreds of 
this. I mean, when I saw one contractor said, ``We figured out that our 
truck alone would account for six cell phone signals.'' This was a, you 
know, some kind of contractor. And you know, ``Our route would take us 
by these things on a regular basis.''
    So I--but then when the movie came out, you know, I think the 
photographic evidence in it was completely lack--I mean it was--there 
was a little bit of it, but it was lacking. You know it didn't--it 
didn't establish wide-spread illegal harvesting.
    The other thing is people don't understand is that it's not clear 
that even if you can show harvesting that that changes the--the results 
of the election. The courts are not going to throw out votes and then 
figure out what votes were harvested and throw them out. You'd still--
the burden on the challenging party to show that illegal votes were 
cast, votes were the result of undue influence or bribes or there was 
really, you know, the person was non compos mentis. But absent that 
evidence, I just didn't see courts throwing out votes anyway . . . 
    I felt that before the election it was possible to talk sense to 
the President. And while you sometimes had to engage in a big wrestling 
match with him, then it was possible to keep things on track. But I 
was--felt that after the election, he didn't seem to be listening, and 
I didn't think it was, you know, that I was inclined not to stay around 
if he wasn't listening to advice from me or his other Cabinet 
Secretaries.

    Ms. Lofgren. So, on December 14th, Barr quit.
    Now, the Attorney General wasn't the only person who told 
the President that his claims were false. Other officials and 
close advisors told him the same thing.

    Acting Attorney General Rosen. Rather than try to address a 
counterfactual or a hypothetical, let me just say, there were instances 
where the President would say, ``People are telling me this,'' or ``I 
heard this,'' or ``I saw on television,'' you know, this--this 
impropriety in Atlanta or Pennsylvania or something. And we were in a 
position to say, ``Our people already looked at that. And we know that 
you're getting bad information that--that's not correct. It's been 
demonstrated to be incorrect from our point of view. It had been 
debunked.''
    Mr. Lyons. A month-and-a-half or so after the election day and at 
that meeting, you know, various allegations of fraud were discussed, 
and you know, Eric and Pat didn't, you know--told the group, the 
President included, that none of those allegations had been 
substantiated to the point where they could be the basis for any 
litigation challenge to the election.

    Ms. Lofgren. President Trump's own Vice President and his 
top advisors also knew that there wasn't evidence to support 
the claims that the President was making.

    Mr. Harris. Anyone else other than Mr. Meadows who asked you about 
the status, outside of your legal group, you know, Mr. Morgan and the 
others you mentioned. Anyone else who asked you the status of what you 
were finding in your assessment of it?
    Mr. Cannon. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Harris. Who's that?
    Mr. Cannon. Peter Navarro.
    Mr. Harris. When did you talk to Mr. Navarro?
    Mr. Cannon. Mid-November.
    Mr. Harris. Around the same time as Mr. Meadows?
    Mr. Cannon. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Harris. And tell me about that conversation.
    Mr. Cannon. I recall him asking me questions about Dominion. And 
maybe some other categories of allegations of voter fraud. And I 
remember telling him that I didn't believe the Dominion allegations 
because I thought the hand recount in Georgia would resolve any issues 
with a technology problem and with Dominion or Dominion flipping votes.
    And I mentioned at that time that the CISA, Chris Krebs, had 
recently released a report saying that the election was secure. And I 
believe Mr. Navarro accused me of being an agent of the deep state 
working with Chris Krebs against the President. And I never took 
another phone call from Mr. Navarro . . . 
    Mr. Harris. Anyone else besides Mr. Meadows, Mr. Navarro, Mr. 
Hershman that you had discussions with inquiring about what you were 
finding in your review of the allegations that were pouring in?
    Mr. Cannon. I believe I had about a 15-second conversation with the 
Vice President about it as well.
    Mr. Harris. When was that?
    Mr. Cannon. During one of the visits to the White House. I don't 
know which one. I think it was the first one in November. I was--I had 
met him briefly at the campaign, and he remembered me and saw me. And 
he asked what I was doing on the campaign, and I told him that we were 
looking into some of the issues related to voter fraud.
    And he asked me, I don't remember his exact words, but he asked me 
if we were finding anything. And I said that I didn't believe we were 
finding--or, I was not personally finding--anything sufficient to alter 
the results of the election. And he--he thanked me. That was our 
interaction.

    Ms. Lofgren. At a later hearing, you'll hear live testimony 
from the former Acting Deputy Attorney General of the 
Department of Justice, Rich Donoghue, but now I would like to 
play a portion of his testimony.

    Acting Deputy Attorney General Donoghue. I tried to again put this 
in perspective and to try to put it in very clear terms to the 
President. And I said something to the effect of, ``Sir, we've done 
dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews. The major allegations 
are not supported by the evidence developed. We've looked at Georgia, 
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada. We're doing our job. Much of the info 
you're getting is false.'' And then I went into, ``For instance, this 
thing from Michigan--this report about 68 percent error rate. Reality 
is it was only 0.0063 percent error rate, less than 1-in-15,000.'' So, 
the President accepted that. He said, ``Okay, fine, but what about the 
others?''
    And again, this gets back to the point that there were so many of 
these allegations that when you gave him a very direct answer on one of 
them, he wouldn't fight us on it, but he would move to another 
allegation. So, then I talked about--a little bit about the 
Pennsylvania truck driver. This is another allegation that had come up. 
And this claim was by a truck driver who believed, perhaps honestly, 
that he had transported an entire tractor trailer truck full of ballots 
from New York to Pennsylvania.
    And this was again out there in the public and discussed, and I 
essentially said, ``Look, we looked at that allegation. We looked at 
both ends, both the people who load the truck and the people unload the 
truck. And that allegation was not supported by the evidence.'' Again, 
he said, ``Okay''--then he said, ``Note, I didn't mention that one. 
What about the others?''
    And I said, ``Okay, well, with regard to Georgia, we looked at the 
tape, we interviewed the witnesses, there is no suitcase.'' The 
President kept fixating on this suitcase that supposedly had fraudulent 
ballots, and that the suitcase was rolled out from under the table. And 
I said, ``No, sir, there is no suitcase. You can watch the video over 
and over. There is no suitcase. There is a wheeled bin where they carry 
the ballots, and that's just how they move ballots around that 
facility. There's nothing suspicious about that at all.''
    I told him that there was no multiple scanning of the ballots--
one--one part of that allegation was that they were taking one ballot 
and scanning it through three or four or five times to rack up votes 
presumably for Vice President Biden. I told him that the video did not 
support that.
    Then he went off on double voting--the top of the next page. He 
said, ``Dead people are voting. Indians are getting paid to vote.'' He 
meant people on Native American reservations. He said, ``There's lots 
of fraud going on here.'' . . . 
    Told him flat out that much of the information he's getting is 
false and/or just not supported by the evidence. We looked at the 
allegations, but they don't pan out.

    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Barr and his advisors were not the only 
ones who determined that the President's allegations regarding 
Dominion voting machines were false.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the 
record of this hearing reports issued by the Department of 
Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security 
Agency, otherwise known as CISA, that addressed and rejected 
the claims of manipulation of voting machines in the 2020 
election.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The information has been included in the Appendix and may be 
found on page 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Thompson. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I also ask unanimous consent to include in the record a 
report prepared by the Michigan senate oversight committee that 
disproved claims of election fraud in Michigan;\2\ as well as a 
statement by 59 of the country's leading election security 
scientists noting the absence of any credible evidence that the 
2020 election had been altered through technical compromise;\3\ 
and 5 other reports from organizations and individuals 
confirming there was no wide-spread fraud in the 2020 election 
or describing the spread of the former President's lies.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The information has been included in the Appendix and may be 
found on page 33.
    \3\ The information has been included in the Appendix and may be 
found on page 87.
    \4\ The information has been included in the Appendix and may be 
found on page 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Thompson. Without objection, so ordered.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. Pursuant to the order of the Committee 
of today, the Chair declares the Committee in recess for a 
period of approximately 10 minutes.
    [Accordingly, at 12:02 p.m., the Committee recessed until 
12:16 p.m., when it was called to order by the Chairman.]
    Chairman Thompson. I now welcome our second panel of 
witnesses.
    We are joined today by BJay Pak, Al Schmidt, and Ben 
Ginsberg.
    Mr. Pak is a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District 
of Georgia.
    Mr. Schmidt is a former city commissioner for the city of 
Philadelphia, where he served for more than 10 years.
    Mr. Ginsberg is one of the leading election law attorneys 
in the country and has represented Republican Presidential 
candidates in election litigation dating back to 2000, where he 
represented George W. Bush in the Bush v. Gore litigation.
    I will now swear in our witnesses.
    Please stand and raise your right hands.
    [Witnesses sworn.]
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you. Please be seated.
    Let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the 
affirmative.
    Pursuant to section 5(c)(8) of House Resolution 503, I now 
recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 
questions.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Before the break, I think you all heard Mr. Barr and Mr. 
Donoghue talk about the false claims that Mr. Trump and his 
supporters made about suitcases of fake ballots in Georgia. We 
have a witness here today who thoroughly investigated that 
issue.
    Mr. Pak, I want to thank you for appearing before us today.
    You were appointed by President Trump to serve as the U.S. 
Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and you served 
from 2017 until January 2021. You were the lead Federal 
prosecutor there and worked for the Department of Justice under 
then-Attorney General Bill Barr.
    Now, were you ever asked by Attorney General Barr to 
investigate claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election? If so, 
what were those claims?
    Mr. Pak. Thank you, Congresswoman Lofgren. Thank you for 
the question.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ The prepared statement of Mr. Pak has been included in the 
Appendix and may be found on page 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Approximately December 4th, I believe, of 2020, Attorney 
General Barr and I had a conversation about an unrelated case 
at issue. At the end of the conversation, Mr. Barr had asked me 
if I had seen a certain videotape that was being reported in 
the news where Mr. Giuliani, in a senate subcommittee hearing 
that was held the day before, December 3rd, showed a videotape 
of a purportedly--a security tape at the State Farm Arena in 
Atlanta, which is also in Fulton County, in the city of 
Atlanta--oh, I am sorry, city of--yes.
    At the time, Mr. Barr asked me--he had made a public 
statement that he had not seen any wide-spread election fraud 
that would question the outcome of the election, and because of 
the videotape and the serious allegation that Mr. Giuliani was 
making with respect to the suitcase full of ballots purported 
in the video, he asked me to find out what I could about it, 
because he had envisioned that in some days after our call that 
he was going to go to the White House for a meeting and then 
that issue might come up. He asked me to make it a priority to 
get to the bottom of--to try to substantiate the allegation 
made by Mr. Giuliani.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    I understand the Georgia secretary of state's office 
investigated those State Farm Arena allegations and didn't find 
any evidence of fraud.
    What did you find when your office conducted its own 
investigation?
    Mr. Pak. We found that the suitcase full of ballots, the 
alleged black suitcase that was being seen pulled from under 
the table, was actually an official lockbox where ballots were 
kept safe.
    We found out that there was a mistake in terms of a 
misunderstanding that they were done counting ballots or 
tallying ballots for the night, and the partisan watchers that 
were assigned by each of the respective parties were announced 
to go home.
    But once they realized the mistake, someone from the 
secretary of state's office had indicated, ``No, no, no, we're 
not done for the night. You need to go ahead and continue 
counting.'' So, once they packed up the lockbox full of 
ballots, they brought back the official ballot box again and 
continued to tally the ballots from that--from the lockbox.
    Unfortunately, during the senate hearing, Mr. Giuliani only 
played a clip that showed them pulling out the official ballot 
box from under the table and referring to that as a smoking gun 
of fraud in Fulton County, but, in actuality, in review of the 
entire video, it showed that that was actually an official 
ballot box that was kept underneath the tables, and then we saw 
them pack up because of the announcement that they thought they 
were done for the night, and then, once the announcement was 
made that you should continue counting, they brought the ballot 
box back out and they continued to count.
    We interviewed--the FBI interviewed the individuals that 
are depicted in the videos that purportedly were double-, 
triple-counting the ballots and determined that nothing 
irregular happened in the counting and the allegations made by 
Mr. Giuliani were false.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
    I would like to play again testimony from Mr. Donoghue, who 
appeared before the Committee before today.

    Vice Chair Cheney. Mr. Donoghue you--we talked at some length about 
whether or not the White House or the President was informed about the 
Antrim report. On the results of the investigations, the interviews 
that have gone on on Fulton County, how would those results have been 
communicated to the White House, to the President?
    Acting Deputy Attorney General Donoghue. I don't know how they were 
initially communicated. I do know that they came up in subsequent 
conversations with the President, and DAG Rosen and I essentially told 
him, ``We looked into that and it's just not true.''
    Vice Chair Cheney. Okay. So, he was--he was informed.
    Acting Deputy Attorney General Donoghue. I told the President 
myself that several times, in several conversations that these 
allegations about ballots being smuggled in in a suitcase and run 
through the machine several times, it was not true--that we looked at 
it. We looked at the video; we interviewed the witnesses; it was not 
true.

    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Pak, after you left the U.S. attorney's 
office on January 4, 2021, did the next U.S. attorney there, I 
think Mr. Trump's personal pick, Bobby Christine, did he 
investigate any remaining claims of fraud? If so, did he find 
any evidence that supported the President's claims of voter 
fraud?
    Mr. Pak. It is my understanding that Mr. Christine 
continued any investigations that were pending at the time of 
my departure, but he was unable to find any evidence of fraud 
that affected the outcome of the election.
    Ms. Lofgren. So, after investigating the President's and 
Mr. Giuliani's claims about voter fraud in Georgia, is it your 
view today that there was no evidence of wide-spread fraud 
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the 
election in Georgia?
    Mr. Pak. That is correct.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Pak. I want to thank you also 
for the service that you have given to our country. We 
appreciate that.
    Next, I would like to turn to President Trump's false 
allegations about election integrity in Philadelphia. The 
Attorney General discussed these allegations at some length.

    Attorney General Barr. You know, the idea the President has 
repeatedly suggested that there was some kind of outpouring of 
unexpected votes in inner city areas like Philadelphia as recently as 
January 13th when he walked off the NPR set. He was asked by the 
interviewer, you know, what's--you know, what's your evidence of fraud?
    And he said more people voted in Philadelphia than there were 
voters. And that was absolute rubbish. The turnout in Philadelphia was 
in line with the State's turnout and in fact it was not as--as 
impressive as many suburban counties. And there was nothing strange 
about the Philadelphia turnout. It wasn't like there were all these 
unexpected votes that came out in Philadelphia.
    So, you know, I think once you actually look at the votes and then 
if there's an obvious explanation, he--you know, for example, in 
Pennsylvania, Trump ran weaker than the Republican ticket generally. He 
ran weaker than two of the State candidates. He ran weaker than the 
Congressional delegate--delegation running for Federal Congress, and he 
ran weaker than the--the Republican--I think, I haven't looked at this 
recently, but he generally was a weak element on the Republican ticket. 
So, that does not suggest that the election was stolen by fraud.
    Mr. Heaphy. How about Pennsylvania and Bill McSwain? You were 
talking with the U.S. attorney in Philadelphia about an alleged 
discrepancy between the number of absentee ballots issued and the 
number of ballots cast.
    Attorney General Barr. Right. So, I--I--you know, that was a--a--
one of the big ones for a period of time. I think--I think that was 
raised in Gettysburg by Giuliani or something like that, but it kept on 
being repeated. And I found it annoying because it didn't seem that it 
was right. So, I called--I called McSwain, and he got back to me. He 
said, ``No, the problem is that Mastriano, threw out a--threw out this 
number. And what he did was he mixed apples and oranges. He took the 
number of applications for the Republican primary, and he compared it 
to the number of absentee votes cast in the general election. But once 
you actually go and look and compare apples to apples, there's no 
discrepancy at all.''
    And, you know, that's one of the--I--I think at some point I 
covered that with the President.

    Ms. Lofgren. We have another witness here today who has 
detailed knowledge about the election process in Philadelphia.
    Mr. Schmidt, at the time of the 2020 Presidential election, 
you were serving as the only Republican member of 
Philadelphia's three-member city commission which is 
responsible for overseeing elections throughout the city. Is 
that correct?
    Mr. Schmidt. That is correct, Congressperson.
    Ms. Lofgren. So, President Trump made numerous claims 
regarding fraudulent voting practices in Philadelphia, 
including the claim that dead people were voting. In fact, Mr. 
Giuliani told Pennsylvania State legislators that 8,000 dead 
people voted in Pennsylvania.
    You investigated those claims of voter fraud. Can you tell 
us what you found?
    Mr. Schmidt. Not only was there not evidence of 8,000 dead 
voters voting in Pennsylvania, there wasn't evidence of 8.
    We took seriously every case that was referred to us, no 
matter how fantastical, no matter how absurd, and took every 
one of those seriously, including these.
    Ms. Lofgren. As it turns out, even Mr. Trump's campaign 
lawyers knew that the dead voter claims weren't valid.

    Mr. Giuliani. I guess the crooks in Philadelphia are disappointed 
in this. They only submitted 8,021 ballots from dead people--mail-in 
ballots for dead people. Probably easier for dead people to submit 
mail-in ballots than it is to vote in person.
    Mr. Herschmann. Rudy was at this stage of his life and the same 
ability to manage things at this level or not. And obviously, I think 
Bernie Kerik publicly said it. They never proved the allegations that 
they were making, and they were trying to develop.

    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Schmidt, on November 11, 2020, President 
Trump tweeted about you, saying--and here is a quote--``A guy 
named Al Schmidt, a Philadelphia Commissioner and so-called 
Republican (RINO), is being used big time by the Fake News 
Media to explain how honest things were with respect to the 
Election in Philadelphia. He refuses to look at a mountain of 
corruption & dishonesty. We win!''
    As a result of that tweet and the CNN interview you gave 
where you stated the dead voter claims in Pennsylvania were 
false, you and your staff were subjected to disturbing threats. 
Can you tell us about that?
    Mr. Schmidt. The threats prior to that tweet--and, on some 
level, it feels almost silly to talk about a tweet, but we can 
really see the impact that they have, because, prior to that, 
the threats were pretty general in nature: ``Corrupt election 
officials in Philadelphia are gonna get what's coming to 
them''; ``You're what the Second Amendment is for''; ``You're 
walking into the lion's den''--all sorts of things like that.
    After the President tweeted at me by name, calling me out 
the way that he did, the threats became much more specific, 
much more graphic, and included not just me by name but 
included members of my family by name, their ages, our address, 
pictures of our home--just every bit of detail that you could 
imagine. That was what changed with that tweet.
    Ms. Lofgren. Behind me are redacted threats that you 
received that you have provided to the Committee. Now, we 
redacted portions of the text to protect your family.
    Mr. Schmidt, I think I speak for all of my colleagues when 
I say we are deeply sorry for what you and your loved ones have 
been through. I also want to thank you for your service to your 
country and for standing up for the rule of law.
    I want to thank both Mr. Pak and Mr. Schmidt for their 
service, their testimony, and for standing up for the rule of 
law.
    Now I would like to turn to another subject.
    The courts in our country provide a legitimate venue for 
campaigns to challenge what they view as irregular election 
practices. Now, courts have the final say on how the law 
applies to those challenges.
    We have a renowned legal expert here to address the Trump 
campaign's activities in court.
    Mr. Ginsberg, you have spent your entire career 
representing Republicans in election-related litigation. You 
served as the national counsel on Republican Presidential 
campaigns in 2000, in 2004, and in 2012. You played a key role 
in the 2000 Florida recount that led to the Supreme Court's 
decision in Bush v. Gore. You served as the co-chair of the 
Presidential Commission on Election Administration. I think it 
is fair to say you are the most prominent Republican lawyer who 
has litigated in the election field.
    Now, you have analyzed the Trump campaign's litigation 
pretty carefully. What is the, like, normal process for post-
election litigation? How was the Trump campaign's different 
from the kinds of post-election litigation you have been 
involved in and know about?
    Mr. Ginsberg. In the normal course of things, any campaign, 
on the night of the election and in the days after, will do a 
couple of different things.
    One is that they will analyze precinct results to look for 
abnormalities in the results, and they will send people to 
those precincts to ask more questions.
    Second, all campaigns will have poll watchers and poll 
workers and observers in the polling place. So, campaigns will 
talk to those people if they saw any irregularities that could 
cause problems in the election.
    Now, the Trump campaign talked pre-election about having 
50,000 poll workers, so presumably they did have eyes on the 
ground in all of these places.
    So, in the normal course of things, a campaign will analyze 
the reports that come in. The Trump campaign had a couple of 
basic problems, however. No. 1, the 2020 election was not 
close. In 2000, that was 537 and close. In this election, the 
most narrow margin was 10,000-and-something in Arizona, and you 
just don't make up those sorts of numbers in recounts.
    When the claims of fraud and irregularities were made, you 
have heard very compelling testimony from Mr. Stepien, from 
Matt Morgan, from Alex Cannon about those claims and how they 
didn't believe them. So, that put the Trump campaign on sort-of 
a process of bringing cases without the actual evidence that 
you have to have and which the process is designed to bring 
out.
    Ms. Lofgren. So, are you aware of any instance in which a 
court found the Trump campaign's fraud claims to be credible?
    Mr. Ginsberg. No. There was never that instance in all the 
cases that were brought. I have looked at the more than 60 that 
include more than 180 counts. No, the simple fact is that the 
Trump campaign did not make its case.
    Ms. Lofgren. The Select Committee has identified 62 post-
election lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and his allies 
between November 4, 2020, and January 6, 2021. Those cases 
resulted in 61 losses and only a single victory, which actually 
didn't affect the outcome for either candidate.
    Despite those 61 losses, President Trump and his allies 
claim that the courts refused to hear them out and, as a 
result, they never had their day in court.
    Mr. Ginsberg, what do you say about the claims that Mr. 
Trump wasn't given an opportunity to provide the evidence they 
had of voter fraud? In fact, did they have their day in court?
    Mr. Ginsberg. They did have their day in court.
    About half of those cases that you mentioned were dismissed 
at the procedural stage for a lack of standing--the proper 
people didn't bring the case--or there wasn't sufficient 
evidence and it got dismissed on a motion to dismiss.
    But, in the others, there was discussion of the merits that 
were contained in the complaints, and in no instance did a 
court find that the charges of fraud were real.
    It is also worth noting that, even if the Trump campaign 
complained that it did not have its day in court, there have 
been post-election reviews in each of the 6 battleground States 
that could have made a difference, and those ranged from the 
somewhat-farcical Cyber Ninjas case in Arizona to the Michigan 
senate report that was mentioned earlier, the hand recount in 
Georgia that Mr. Pak addressed, and in each one of those 
instances there was no credible evidence of fraud produced by 
the Trump campaign or his supporters.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
    You know, as Mr. Ginsberg has explained, there are no cases 
where the Trump campaign was able to convince a court that 
there was wide-spread fraud or irregularities in the 2020 
election.
    Over and over, judges, appointed by Democrats and 
Republicans alike, directly rebutted this false narrative. They 
called out the Trump campaign's lack of evidence for its 
claims. The judges did that even in cases where they could have 
simply thrown out the lawsuit without writing a word.
    You can see behind me a few excerpts from the decisions in 
these 62 cases.
    The Trump campaign's lack of evidence was criticized by 
judges across the political spectrum.
    In Pennsylvania, a Trump-appointed judge concluded, 
``Charges require specific allegations and proof. We have 
neither here.''
    Another Trump-appointed judge warned that, if cases like 
these succeeded, ``Any disappointed loser in a Presidential 
election able to hire a team of clever lawyers could flag 
claimed deviations from election results and cast doubt on 
election results.''
    The list goes on and on.
    Allegations are called, ``an amalgamation of theories, 
conjecture, and speculation.'' In another, ``strained legal 
arguments without merit''; ``unsupported by evidence''; 
``derived from wholly unreliable sources''; ``a fundamental and 
obvious misreading of the Constitution.''
    The rejection of President Trump's litigation efforts was 
overwhelming. Twenty-two Federal judges appointed by Republican 
Presidents, including 10 appointed by President Trump himself, 
and at least 24 elected or appointed Republican State judges 
dismissed the President's claims.
    At least 11 lawyers have been referred for disciplinary 
proceedings due to bad faith and baseless efforts to undermine 
the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election. Rudy Giuliani 
had his license to practice law suspended in New York, and, 
just this week, a newly-filed complaint will potentially make 
his suspension from practicing law in D.C. permanent.
    As we have just heard from perhaps the most preeminent 
Republican election lawyer in recent history, the Trump 
campaign's unprecedented effort to overturn its election loss 
in court was a deeply damaging abuse of the judicial process.
    As stated by U.S. District Court Judge David Carter, this 
was ``a coup in search of a legal theory.''
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. I want to thank our witnesses for 
joining us today.
    The Members of the Select Committee may have additional 
questions for today's witnesses, and we ask that you respond 
expeditiously in writing to those questions.
    Without objection, Members will be permitted 10 business 
days to submit statements for the record, including opening 
remarks and additional questions for the witnesses.
    The second panel of witnesses is now dismissed.
    Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman 
from California, Ms. Lofgren, for a closing statement.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Now that we understand the litigation efforts by President 
Trump and his allies, I would like to present additional 
actions taken by the Trump campaign during this time.
    President Trump continued to push the ``stolen election'' 
narrative even though he and his allies knew that their 
litigation efforts making the same claim had failed.
    Now, it is worth pointing out that litigation generally 
does not continue past the safe harbor date of December 14th. 
But the fact that this litigation went on--well, that decision 
makes more sense when you consider the Trump campaign's 
fundraising tactics. Because if the litigation had stopped on 
December 14th, there would have been no fight to defend the 
election and no clear path to continue to raise millions of 
dollars.
    Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask for unanimous 
consent to include in the record a video presentation 
describing how President Trump used the lies he told to raise 
millions of dollars from the American people. These fundraising 
schemes were also part of the effort to disseminate the false 
claims of election fraud.
    Chairman Thompson. Without objection, so ordered.

    Ms. Wick. My name is Amanda Wick, and I'm senior investigative 
counsel at the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th 
Attack on the United States Capitol.
    Between election day and January 6th, the Trump campaign sent 
millions of fundraising emails to Trump supporters, sometimes as many 
as 25 a day. The emails claimed the, `` . . . Left-wing MOB'' was 
undermining the election; implored supporters to, ``step up . . . to 
protect the integrity'' of the election; and encourage them to, ``fight 
back.''
    But as the Select Committee has demonstrated, the Trump campaign 
knew these claims of voter fraud were false. Yet they continued to 
barrage small-dollar donors with e-mails encouraging them to donate to 
something called the Official Election Defense Fund. The Select 
Committee discovered no such fund existed.
    Ms. Allred. I don't believe there was actually a fund called the 
Election Defense Fund.
    Mr. Aganga-Williams. Is it fair to say that the Election Defense 
Fund was another--I think we can call that a marketing tactic?
    Mr. Coby. Yes.
    Mr. Aganga-Williams. And tell us about these funds as marketing 
tactics.
    Mr. Coby. Just the topic matter where money could potentially go to 
be--how money could potentially be used.
    Ms. Wick. The claims that the election was stolen were so 
successful President Trump and his allies raised $250 million, nearly 
$100 million in the first week after the election.
    On November 9, 2020, President Trump created a separate entity 
called the Save America PAC. Most of the money raised went to this 
newly-created PAC, not to election-related litigation.
    The Select Committee discovered that the Save America PAC made 
millions of dollars of contributions to pro-Trump organizations, 
including $1 million to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows's charitable 
foundation; $1 million to the America First Policy Institute, a 
conservative organization which employs several former Trump 
administration officials; $204,857 to the Trump Hotel Collection; and 
over $5 million to Event Strategies Inc., the company that ran 
President Trump's January 6th rally on the Ellipse.
    President Trump. All of us here today do not want to see our 
election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is 
what they're doing.
    Ms. Wick. The evidence developed by the Select Committee highlights 
how the Trump campaign aggressively pushed false election claims to 
fundraise, telling supporters it would be used to fight voter fraud 
that did not exist. The emails continued through January 6th, even as 
President Trump spoke on the Ellipse.
    Crowd. [unintelligible]
    Ms. Wick. Thirty minutes after the last fundraising email was sent, 
the Capitol was breached.
    Crowd. U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! [unintelligible] U-S-A! U-S-A!

    Ms. Lofgren. Every American is entitled and encouraged to 
participate in our electoral process. Political fundraising is 
part of that. Small-dollar donors use scarce disposable income 
to support candidates and causes of their choosing, to make 
their voices heard, and those donors deserve the truth about 
what those funds will be used for.
    Throughout the Committee's investigation, we found evidence 
that the Trump campaign and its surrogates misled donors as to 
where their funds would go and what they would be used for. So, 
not only was there the Big Lie, there was the Big Rip-Off.
    Donors deserve to know where their funds are really going. 
They deserve better than what President Trump and his team did.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. Without objection, the Chair recognizes 
the gentlewoman from Wyoming, Ms. Cheney, for a closing 
statement.
    Vice Chair Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank all of our witnesses 
today.
    I would also like to, in particular, wish Mr. Stepien and 
his family all the best on the arrival of a new baby.
    Today's hearing, Mr. Chairman, was very narrowly focused, 
and in the coming days you will see the Committee move on to 
President Trump's broader planning for January 6th, including 
his plan to corrupt the Department of Justice and his detailed 
planning with lawyer John Eastman to pressure the Vice 
President, State legislatures, State officials, and others to 
overturn the election.
    Let me leave you today with one clip to preview what you 
will see in one of our hearings to come. This is the testimony 
of White House lawyer Eric Herschmann. John Eastman called Mr. 
Herschmann the day after January 6th, and here is how that 
conversation went.

    Mr. Herschmann. I said to him, ``Are you out of your f-ing mind?'' 
I said I could--I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth 
from now on, ``Orderly transition.''

    Vice Chair Cheney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. At the conclusion of last week's 
hearing, we showed you a video of rioters explaining why they 
had come to Washington on January 6th. It was because Donald 
Trump told them to be here.
    Today, we heard about some of the lies Donald Trump 
embraced and amplified when it became clear he didn't have the 
numbers of votes to win the election.
    We heard about how officials at different levels of 
government explored claims of fraud and found no evidence, yet 
the former President continued to repeat those false claims 
over and over again.
    Today, we will end things where we did on Thursday, back on 
January 6th, hearing words of individuals who wanted to stop 
the transfer of power. We know they were there because of 
Donald Trump. Now we will hear some of the things they 
believed.
    Without objection, I enter into the record a video 
presentation.

    Voice. I know exactly what's going on right now: fake election. 
They think they're going to fucking cheat us out of our vote and put 
Communist fucking Biden in office. It ain't fucking happening today, 
buddy.
    Voice. You voted?
    Voice. Yes, sir.
    Voice. How'd it go?
    Voice. Voted early, it went well except for the can't--can't really 
trust software--Dominion software all over it.
    Voice. We voted, and right in the top, right-hand corner of the 
Dominion voting machine that we used, there was a wi-fi symbol with 
five bars, so that most definitely connected to the internet, without a 
doubt. So, they stole that from us twice. We're not doing it anymore. 
We're not taking it anymore. So, we're standing up. We're here. 
Whatever happens, we're not laying down again.
    Voice. I'm from Pennsylvania.
    Voice. It worked.
    Voice. It didn't work. It absolutely----
    Voice. It worked----
    Voice. It didn't work----
    Voice. You voted.
    Voice. No!
    Voice. Trust the system.
    Voice. Two hundred thousand people that weren't even registered 
voted. Four hundred and thirty thousand votes disappeared from 
President Trump's tally, and you can't stand there and tell me it 
worked.
    Voice. I don't want to tell you that what we're doing is right, but 
if the election's being stolen what is it going to take?

    Chairman Thompson. The Chair requests those in the hearing 
room remain seated until the Capitol Police have escorted 
Members from the room.
    Without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]



                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              

              Prepared Statement of Byung Jin ``BJay'' Pak
                             June 13, 2022
    Chairman Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and Members of the Committee, 
good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you 
today. My name is BJay Pak, and I had the great honor to serve as the 
Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia 
from October 10, 2017, to January 4, 2021. My resignation early last 
year capped off nearly a decade of service in the U.S. Department of 
Justice, as I had previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in 
the Criminal Division of my former office, from 2002 to 2008. I have 
also had the honor to serve in the judicial branch of the Federal 
Government as a law clerk for Judge Richard Mills of the United States 
District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Moreover, I served 
as a State Representative in the Georgia General Assembly from 2011 to 
2017. Because I am a believer in term limits, I decided not to stand 
for re-election after three terms. Since 2021, I have been in private 
practice in Atlanta, Georgia.
    As a 10-year-old immigrant boy from South Korea, I never could have 
imagined that I would one day serve the United States as the chief 
Federal law enforcement officer for one of the largest Federal 
districts in the Nation. Unlike the Americans who were granted 
citizenship through birthright, I, along with millions of immigrants to 
this Nation, had the privilege to take an oath to become a citizen of 
this great country. The oath of citizenship is very similar to the oath 
I took to become a U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. 
Each oath makes clear, in no uncertain terms, that one's allegiance is 
to the Constitution, and not to any President, or political party. The 
oath has served as my guiding principle throughout my public service 
career.
    Like many Americans, I was called to public service after the 
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Prior to the attacks, I 
thought our country was invincible. But those attacks showed that we 
were vulnerable, and our country needed its citizens to help protect 
it, and to serve within its ranks. I was fortunate to be able to serve 
nearly a decade in the Department of Justice--the only Department in 
the country that has a moral virtue in its name.
    My testimony today relates to my time as U.S. attorney, and 
particularly, the last month of my tenure. The events which unfolded on 
January 6th at the U.S. Capitol brought extreme shock and 
disappointment to Americans and to the world. I certainly felt those 
same emotions as I saw images of that event on television. But I hope 
that what occurred that day and the days leading up to January 6th will 
never overshadow all the great work done by the career public servants 
who faithfully serve the Northern District of Georgia and the 
Department of Justice every single day.
    During my tenure as U.S. attorney, from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal 
year 2020, our prosecutors and law enforcement partners:
   increased overall prosecutions by 30 percent;
   increased drug enforcement by 85 percent to fight the opioid 
        epidemic;
   increased white-collar crime prosecutions by 112 percent;
   help recover hundreds of millions of dollars in restitutions 
        and fines; and,
   instituted an innovative and successful recidivism reduction 
        program for violent offenders who were returning to society 
        after serving their sentences.
    Of course, 2020 was a particularly difficult year for our country 
generally, and for the Northern District of Georgia in particular. We 
started the year working through the longest Government shutdown in 
recent history and faced challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, 
demonstrations and unrest following the murders of George Floyd and 
Ahmaud Arbery, including challenges from those who sought to use the 
cover of legitimate protest as an opportunity to wreak havoc and 
mayhem. At the end of the year, the 2020 Presidential election became 
one of the most intense in our Nation's recent history. As this 
Committee is well aware, Georgia was a hotly contested swing State, and 
our office and our law enforcement partners in the Northern District of 
Georgia went above and beyond the call of duty to fulfill their mission 
to enforce the law, despite the many challenges that they faced.
                      state farm arena video clip
    Among those challenges were individuals who continuously made false 
allegations that the elections in Georgia had serious irregularities, 
or that the result of those elections was fraudulent. One such example 
was the alleged ``suitcase full of fake ballots'' incident. On December 
3, 2020, Rudy Giuliani appeared before a subcommittee of the Georgia 
State senate that was looking into election integrity issues. During 
the hearing, Mr. Giuliani played a video clip purportedly showing the 
tallying of ballots from Fulton County at the State Farm Arena on 
election night--November 3, 2020. I learned of his appearance at the 
committee hearing and the existence of the video clip through media 
reports. According to the media reports, Mr. Giuliani claimed that the 
video showed the Fulton County election workers at State Farm Arena 
taking a black ``suitcase'' out from under a table, removing 
purportedly fake ballots from the suitcase, and running the purportedly 
fake ballots through the tabulating machine after the observers from 
the respective political parties had been sent home. Mr. Giuliani 
claimed that this video was a ``smoking gun'' of evidence of election 
fraud in Fulton County.
    Mr. Giuliani's claims were simply untrue and making such a claim 
was reckless. At the request of Attorney General William Barr, our 
office and the FBI conducted a preliminary inquiry to evaluate whether 
any of the allegations made by Mr. Giuliani with respect to the State 
Farm Arena video could be substantiated. After reviewing the evidence 
and interviewing witnesses, my office and the FBI concluded that there 
was nothing to substantiate Mr. Giuliani's claims, let alone any 
potential violations of Federal law. The ``suitcase'' was a legitimate 
lockbox used to store official ballots, and all lockboxes and ballots 
were accounted for. I reported our conclusions from the preliminary 
inquiry to Attorney General Barr, and to Rich Donoghue, who was then 
the principal associate deputy attorney general to Deputy Attorney 
General Jeff Rosen.
    One unfortunate consequence of Mr. Giuliani making such 
unsubstantiated claims of election fraud was that the Fulton County 
Election workers depicted in the State Farm Arena video clips were 
``doxed''--in other words, their names, addresses, and other 
information were publicized. I received reports that they were being 
harassed, and that some had received death threats. As a result, law 
enforcement resources had to be diverted from other areas and deployed 
to protect the workers.
                             jeffrey clark
    A few days before January 1, 2021, I spoke again with Mr. Donoghue, 
who was by this time, the acting deputy attorney general. Mr. Donoghue 
indicated that he had just left a long meeting at the White House with 
President Trump. He told me that the President was singularly focused 
on Georgia, and that he was unable to dissuade the President from the 
notion that that he won Georgia, and that the election was stolen. I 
reiterated to Mr. Donoghue that, although every election has some 
irregularities, I had received no substantial reports of election fraud 
supported by evidence, enough to even initiate a formal investigation. 
Mr. Donoghue agreed and expressed frustration that some individuals 
were feeding the President various unsubstantiated theories of election 
fraud, and that he and others had to spend a significant amount of time 
to dispel the theories.
    Mr. Donoghue then asked if I knew Jeff Clark. I have never met nor 
spoken with Mr. Clark. Mr. Donoghue told me that Mr. Clark was the 
Assistant Attorney General for the Environment & Natural Resources 
Division, and at the time, was also the Acting Assistant Attorney 
General of the Civil Division. Mr. Donoghue stated that Mr. Clark had 
``the President's ear'', and that Mr. Clark was suggesting that the 
DOJ, in an extremely unorthodox fashion, both intervene in support of 
the Trump campaign in a civil lawsuit filed in Fulton County, Georgia 
alleging election fraud, and sign a letter urging the Georgia 
legislature to call a special session to investigate alleged election 
irregularities. Mr. Donoghue and I both felt strongly that this was 
highly unusual and not appropriate. Mr. Donoghue also told me that Mr. 
Clark would call me about election irregularities. I told Mr. Donoghue 
that I would be happy to tell Mr. Clark that there was no evidence of 
wide-spread election fraud, and that I would reject any request for the 
U.S. attorney's office to either intervene in a lawsuit or ask any 
State authority to pause the certification process. Mr. Donoghue stated 
that he would not be surprised if the President himself called me. I 
told Mr. Donoghue that even if the President called me himself, my 
answer would not change. Neither Mr. Clark nor President Trump ever 
contacted me, however.
                              resignation
    After President Biden's victory in the 2020 election, I had always 
planned to submit my resignation in January 2021, as is customary for 
many DOJ political appointees. My plan was to make my resignation 
effective on Inauguration Day--January 20, 2021, so that my first 
assistant U.S. attorney would be promoted as acting U.S. attorney, 
pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. I did not announce my 
intentions to the public at that time. However, during the latter part 
of December, I notified members of the U.S. attorney's office, the 
District Court, and some of our law enforcement partners of my plans. I 
also told Mr. Donoghue.
    On January 3, 2021, I learned for the first time, through media 
reports, of the call between President Trump and Georgia Secretary of 
State Brad Raffensperger, in which President Trump reportedly attempted 
to persuade Secretary Raffensperger to ``find votes,'' and continued to 
claim that the Georgia election was ``rigged.'' On learning about this 
call, I was deeply concerned and disturbed about what was being asked 
of the Office of the Secretary of State and considered resigning 
immediately. I eventually decided against an immediate resignation, 
given the upcoming run-off election in Georgia where the control of the 
U.S. Senate hung in the balance; I did not want my sudden resignation 
to be used or interpreted in any way to influence that run-off 
election.
    Around 10 o'clock pm that evening, I noticed that I had several 
missed calls from Mr. Donoghue, and a text from him asking me to return 
his calls. When I called him back, Mr. Donoghue told me that he and 
Acting Attorney General Rosen had returned from a 3-hour meeting at the 
White House during which the President had expressed extreme 
displeasure toward the DOJ for ``not doing enough'' about the purported 
fraud that he believed cost him the election. Mr. Donoghue indicated 
that the President had read a 2016 New York Times article--in which I 
was quoted regarding how then-candidate Trump's campaign rhetoric 
created difficulties in recruiting minorities to the Republican party--
and became convinced that I was a ``never-Trumper,'' which in the 
President's mind, was the reason there was no election fraud 
investigations in Atlanta. The President wanted the DOJ leadership to 
fire me. Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue were opposed to my removal and told 
the President that, as I am a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney, they did 
not have the power to fire me. At that point, someone at the meeting 
noted that I was already going to submit my resignation in the upcoming 
week, so the President could simply accept my resignation early, rather 
than fire me. The President indicated that he wanted the resignation 
letter as soon as possible.
    Mr. Donoghue offered to place me in a Senior Executive Service 
position within DOJ until Inauguration. I declined because, after the 
revelations of that day, I no longer wished to serve in that 
administration. Concerned about the disruption that would be caused by 
a sudden transition of leadership in the office, I asked Mr. Donoghue 
if my first assistant U.S. attorney, Kurt Erskine, could serve as 
acting U.S. attorney after my resignation. Mr. Donoghue said that he 
and Mr. Rosen had suggested Mr. Erskine to the President, but the 
President recommended that Bobby Christine, then the U.S. Attorney for 
the Southern District of Georgia, serve as the acting U.S. Attorney for 
Northern District, because the President had heard ``good things'' 
about Mr. Christine. Mr. Donoghue indicated that the President called 
Mr. Christine from the White House to offer him the position. Mr. 
Donoghue stated that Mr. Christine was caught off-guard by the offer 
and was confused as to whether he could even serve in both roles 
simultaneously. Mr. Donoghue indicated that I could choose how to 
announce my resignation, either in a press conference to ``blow the 
whistle'' or by issuing a statement. He suggested that a low-key 
resignation would be best for all involved, especially when he and a 
few others were ``trying to hold the ship together'' until 
Inauguration. I told him I would think about it and let him know.
    The next morning on Monday, January 4, 2021, I called Mr. Donoghue 
on my way to the office to let him know that I had decided to make a 
quiet exit, as I did not want my resignation to become a distraction to 
those who still had a job to do at DOJ. I told Mr. Donoghue to ``hang 
in there,'' because we needed him, and that it was an honor to serve 
the Nation with him. I then called Mr. Christine to arrange a 
conference call between our leadership teams to facilitate a smooth 
transition and offered to set up a briefing on all election-related 
investigations that were pending.
    Once at the office, I spoke to my first assistant U.S. attorney, 
Mr. Erskine, and the remaining members of my leadership team to inform 
them that I would be resigning, effective immediately. I then sent my 
resignation to the Acting Attorney General and to the President.
    Despite the abrupt end to my tenure as U.S. attorney, I am proud of 
the great work done by our everyday heroes in the law enforcement 
community, and by the U.S. attorney's office for the Northern District 
of Georgia. Serving as U.S. attorney and working with the dedicated 
public servants has been the greatest honor of my professional life. 
But the best part of working in the U.S. Department of Justice, and in 
particular the U.S. attorney's office, is that it is where you do the 
right thing, the right way, for the right reasons. I have strived to 
conduct myself in a way that serves and honors those ideals.
    Thank you for your time. God bless you, and may God bless these 
United States.
                                 ______
                                 
  Joint Statement of Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating 
  Council & The Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive 
                               Committees
                Original release date: November 12, 2020
    WASHINGTON.--The members of Election Infrastructure Government 
Coordinating Council (GCC) Executive Committee--Cybersecurity and 
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Assistant Director Bob Kolasky, 
U.S. Election Assistance Commission Chair Benjamin Hovland, National 
Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) President Maggie Toulouse 
Oliver, National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) 
President Lori Augino, and Escambia County (Florida) Supervisor of 
Elections David Stafford--and the members of the Election 
Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Council (SCC)--Chair Brian Hancock 
(Unisyn Voting Solutions), Vice Chair Sam Derheimer (Hart InterCivic), 
Chris Wlaschin (Election Systems & Software), Ericka Haas (Electronic 
Registration Information Center), and Maria Bianchi (Democracy Works)--
released the following statement:
    ``The November 3d election was the most secure in American history. 
Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and 
double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the 
result.
    ``When States have close elections, many will recount ballots. All 
of the States with close results in the 2020 Presidential race have 
paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count 
each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and 
resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction 
of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system 
deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.
    ``Other security measures like pre-election testing, State 
certification of voting equipment, and the U.S. Election Assistance 
Commission's (EAC) certification of voting equipment help to build 
additional confidence in the voting systems used in 2020.
    ``While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities 
for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure 
you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our 
elections, and you should too. When you have questions, turn to 
elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections.''
    Last Published Date: November 12, 2020
                                 ______
                                 
           Report by the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee














































































































                                 ______
                                 
                          Joint Expert Report
   scientists say no credible evidence of computer fraud in the 2020 
 election outcome, but policy makers must work with experts to improve 
                               confidence
16 November 2020
    We are specialists in election security, having studied the 
security of voting machines, voting systems, and technology used for 
government elections for decades.
    We and other scientists have warned for many years that there are 
security weaknesses in voting systems and have advocated that election 
systems be better secured against malicious attack. As the National 
Academies recently concluded, ``There is no realistic mechanism to 
fully secure vote casting and tabulation computer systems from cyber 
threats.'' However, notwithstanding these serious concerns, we have 
never claimed that technical vulnerabilities have actually been 
exploited to alter the outcome of any U.S. election.
    Anyone asserting that a U.S. election was ``rigged'' is making an 
extraordinary claim, one that must be supported by persuasive and 
verifiable evidence. Merely citing the existence of technical flaws 
does not establish that an attack occurred, much less that it altered 
an election outcome. It is simply speculation.
    The presence of security weaknesses in election infrastructure does 
not by itself tell us that any election has actually been compromised. 
Technical, physical, and procedural safeguards complicate the task of 
maliciously exploiting election systems, as does monitoring of likely 
adversaries by law enforcement and the intelligence community. Altering 
an election outcome involves more than simply the existence of a 
technical vulnerability.
    We are aware of alarming assertions being made that the 2020 
election was ``rigged'' by exploiting technical vulnerabilities. 
However, in every case of which we are aware, these claims either have 
been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent. To our collective 
knowledge, no credible evidence has been put forth that supports a 
conclusion that the 2020 election outcome in any State has been altered 
through technical compromise.
    That said, it is imperative that the U.S. continue working to 
bolster the security of elections against sophisticated adversaries. At 
a minimum, all States should employ election security practices and 
mechanisms recommended by experts to increase assurance in election 
outcomes, such as post-election risk-limiting audits.
    If you are looking for a good place to start learning the facts 
about election security, we recommend the recent National Academies of 
Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) study, ``Securing the 
Vote'', which is available for free download at https://doi.org/
10.17226/25120.
            Signed,
(Affiliations are for identification purposes only; listed 
        alphabetically by surname.)
1. Tony Adams, Independent Security Researcher.
2. Andrew W. Appel, Professor of Computer Science, Princeton 
University.
3. Arlene Ash, Professor, University of Massachusetts Medical School.
4. Steven M. Bellovin, Percy K. and Vida L.W. Hudson Professor of 
Computer Science; affiliate faculty, Columbia Law, Columbia University.
5. Matt Blaze, McDevitt Chair of Computer Science and Law, Georgetown 
University.
6. Duncan Buell, NCR Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, 
University of South Carolina.
7. Michael D. Byrne, Professor of Psychological Sciences and Computer 
Science, Rice University.
8. Jack Cable, Independent Security Researcher.
9. Jeremy Clark, NSERC/Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton/Catallaxy 
Industrial Research Chair in Blockchain Technologies, Concordia 
Institute for Information Systems Engineering.
10. Sandy Clark, Independent Security Researcher.
11. Stephen Checkoway, Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Oberlin 
College.
12. Richard DeMillo, Chair, School of Cybersecurity and Privacy and 
Warren Professor of Computing, Georgia Tech.
13. David L. Dill, Donald E. Knuth Professor, Emeritus, in the School 
of Engineering, Stanford University.
14. Zakir Durumeric, Assistant Professor of Computer Science, Stanford 
University.
15. Aleksander Essex, Associate Professor of Software Engineering, 
Western University, Canada.
16. David Evans, Professor of Computer Science, University of Virginia.
17. Ariel J. Feldman, Software Engineer.
18. Edward W. Felten, Robert E. Kahn Professor of Computer Science and 
Public Affairs, Princeton University.
19. Bryan Ford, Professor of Computer and Communication Sciences, Swiss 
Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL).
20. Joshua M. Franklin, Independent Security Researcher.
21. Juan E. Gilbert, Banks Family Preeminence Endowed Professor & 
Chair, University of Florida.
22. J. Alex Halderman, Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, 
University of Michigan.
23. Joseph Lorenzo Hall, SVP Strong Internet, Internet Society.
24. Harri Hursti, Co-founder, Nordic Innovation Labs and Election 
Integrity Foundation.
25. Neil Jenkins, Chief Analytic Officer, Cyber Threat Alliance.
26. David Jefferson, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired).
27. Douglas W. Jones, Associate Professor of Computer Science, 
University of Iowa.
28. Joseph Kiniry, Principal Scientist, Galois, CEO and Chief 
Scientist, Free & Fair.
29. Philip Kortum, Associate Professor of Psychological Sciences, Rice 
University.
30. Carl E. Landwehr, Visiting Professor, University of Michigan.
31. Maggie MacAlpine, Co-founder, Nordic Innovation Labs and Election 
Integrity Foundation.
32. Bruce McConnell, former Deputy Under Secretary for Cybersecurity, 
Department of Homeland Security, (currently) president, EastWest 
Institute.
33. Patrick McDaniel, Weiss Professor of Information and Communications 
Technology, Penn State University.
34. Walter Mebane, Professor of Political Science and of Statistics, 
University of Michigan.
35. Eric Mill, Chrome Security PM, Google.
36. David Mussington, Professor of the Practice, School of Public 
Policy, University of Maryland College Park.
37. Peter G. Neumann, Chief Scientist, SRI International Computer 
Science Lab.
38. Lyell Read, Researcher at SSH Lab, Oregon State University.
39. Ronald L. Rivest, Institute Professor, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology.
40. Aviel D. Rubin, Professor of Computer Science, Johns Hopkins 
University.
41. Bruce Schneier, Fellow and Lecturer, Harvard Kennedy School.
42. Alexander A. Schwarzmann, Dean of Computer and Cyber Sciences, 
Augusta University.
43. Hovav Shacham, Professor of Computer Science, The University of 
Texas at Austin.
44. Micah Sherr, Provost's Distinguished Associate Professor, 
Georgetown University.
45. Barbara Simons, IBM Research (retired).
46. Kevin Skoglund, Chief Technologist, Citizens for Better Elections.
47. Michael A. Specter, EECS PhD Candidate, MIT.
48. Alex Stamos, Director, Stanford Internet Observatory.
49. Philip B. Stark, Professor of Statistics and Associate Dean of 
Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of California, Berkeley.
50. Jacob Stauffer, Director of Operations, Coherent CYBER.
51. Camille Stewart, Cyber Fellow, Harvard Belfer Center.
52. Rachel Tobac, Hacker, CEO of SocialProof Security.
53. Giovanni Vigna, Professor, Computer Science, University of 
California, Santa Barbara.
54. Poorvi L. Vora, Professor of Computer Science, The George 
Washington University.
55. Dan S. Wallach, Professor, Departments of Computer Science and 
Electrical & Computer Engineering, Rice Scholar, Baker Institute of 
Public Policy, Rice University.
56. Tarah Wheeler, Cyber Fellow, Harvard Belfer Center.
57. Eric Wustrow, Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical, 
Computer & Energy Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder.
58. Ka-Ping Yee, Review Team Member, California Secretary of State's 
Top-to-Bottom Review of Voting Systems.
59. Daniel M. Zimmerman, Principal Researcher, Galois and Principled 
Computer Scientist, Free & Fair.
                                 ______
                                 
Statement of Janai Nelson, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal 
                   Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
                              May 3, 2022
                            i. introduction
    Thank you for the opportunity to directly submit this statement to 
the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the 
United States Capitol. No other act of mass violence in modern history 
has threatened the existence of our Republican form of government more 
than the insurrection that occurred at the United States Capitol a mere 
16 months ago. The goal of the insurrectionists was clear: To 
effectuate a violent coup, deny the will of the majority of voters, and 
upend the functioning of our increasingly multi-racial, multi-ethnic 
democracy. Therefore, it is essential to the security and endurance of 
our democracy that this committee understand the January 6th attack in 
its full context: As a manifestation of broad white supremacist 
backlash against robust democratic participation by people of color. 
This backlash has been fueled in part by the false narrative that 
rampant voter fraud occurred in communities of color and also by a 
deep-seated fear that the changing racial and ethnic demographics in 
the United States and the increasing racial and ethnic diversity of the 
electorate threaten the existing power structure premised on white 
supremacy. Moreover, the insurrection was preceded and followed by a 
rash of racially discriminatory voter suppression laws aimed at Black 
and Brown Americans and which continue to threaten the integrity of our 
electoral process. Faced with the added specter of future mass violence 
in our electoral process, Congress must not only address the threat to 
our democracy by investigating the January 6th attack but also by 
enacting legislation to fully protect the right to vote and ensure 
against election subversion.
A. Statement of Purpose and Outline
    The purpose of this testimony is to make clear the explicit 
connection between the violence of January 6th and the legal 
retrenchment that both preceded and followed it, and to insist that 
Congress cannot address the root cause of the Insurrection without 
acting to build a more inclusive, multiracial, multi-ethnic democracy 
by protecting what the late Congressman John Lewis called the 
``precious, almost sacred'' right to vote for Black and Brown 
Americans.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Rep. John Lewis: ``Your Vote Is Precious, Almost Sacred,'' PBS 
Newshour (Sep. 6, 2021),https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/rep-john-
lewis-your-vote-is-precious-almost-sacred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I briefly discuss the history of racial progress and backlash in 
the United States; show how a false narrative about elections stolen 
through massive voter fraud has served as a coded appeal to white 
racial resentment and a central frame that connects the January 6th 
Insurrection with wide-spread efforts to restrict the franchise; 
highlight the historic 2020 turnout of voters of color that intensified 
the current backlash; detail the various ways the backlash has taken 
shape since 2020; and explain how furthering progress on race and 
preventing future insurrection both require solutions that promote a 
truly inclusive, multi-racial democracy, starting at the ballot box and 
that protect our elections from subversion.
B. LDF and Our Work
    LDF is America's premier legal organization fighting for racial 
justice. Through litigation, advocacy, and public education, LDF seeks 
structural changes to expand democracy, eliminate disparities, and 
achieve racial justice in a society that fulfills the promise of 
equality for all Americans. LDF also defends the gains and protections 
won over the past 80 years of civil rights struggle and works to 
improve the quality and diversity of judicial and executive 
appointments.
    Since its founding in 1940, LDF has been a leader in the fight to 
secure, protect, and advance the voting rights of Black voters and 
other communities of color.\2\ LDF's founder Thurgood Marshall--who 
litigated LDF's watershed victory in Brown v. Board of Education,\3\ 
which set in motion the end of legal segregation in this country and 
transformed the direction of American democracy in the 20th century--
referred to Smith v. Allwright,\4\ the 1944 case ending whites-only 
primary elections, as his most consequential case. He held this view, 
he explained, because he believed that the right to vote, and the 
opportunity to access political power, was critical to fulfilling the 
guarantee of full citizenship promised to Black people in the 14th 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. LDF has prioritized its work 
protecting the right of Black citizens to vote for more than 80 years--
representing Martin Luther King Jr. and the marchers in Selma, Alabama 
in 1965, litigating seminal cases interpreting the scope of the Voting 
Rights Act, and working in communities across the South to strengthen 
and protect the ability of Black citizens to participate in a political 
process free from discrimination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ LDF has been an entirely separate organization from the NAACP 
since 1957.
    \3\ 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
    \4\ 321 U.S. 649 (1944).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to a robust voting rights litigation docket, LDF has 
monitored elections for more than a decade through our Prepared to Vote 
initiative (``PTV'') and, more recently, through our Voting Rights 
Defender (``VRD'') project, which place LDF staff and volunteers on the 
ground for primary and general elections every year to conduct non-
partisan election protection, poll monitoring, and to support Black 
political participation in targeted jurisdictions--primarily in the 
South. LDF is also a founding member of the non-partisan civil rights 
Election Protection Hotline (1-866-OUR-VOTE), presently administered by 
the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
    ii. race in the united states: a history of progress & backlash
    America's history has been a halting and fraught journey concerning 
racial equality. This journey, however, has never been a straight line. 
In fact, the story of multiracial democracy in the United States is a 
tale of progress, backlash, and retrenchment--at times followed by 
further progress, yet often long-delayed.\5\ This pattern is clear in 
the experience of Black Americans across four centuries. The backlash 
that follows moments of progress can take many forms. Two 
manifestations, however, are consistent and concrete: Violence and 
legal changes intended to relegate Black people to the margins of 
democratic society. We've experienced several of these cycles 
throughout American history, and our current moment shows all the signs 
of this same pattern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Indeed, 8 of the 17 post-Bill of Rights amendments to the U.S. 
Constitution expanded the franchise directly or expanded the 
Constitutional rights and protection to ensure a more inclusive vision 
of ``we the people'' over the course of XX years. U.S. CONST. amends. 
XIII, XIV, XV, XVII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, XXVI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Cycles of Progress and Backlash
    The first substantial step toward racial equality in the United 
States came through the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution, 
which ushered in an era known as Reconstruction. During this period, 
the Federal Government enforced new rules protecting the civil and 
voting rights of Black people in the South, and as a result Black 
people began to build political power through elected office and 
economic stability through institutions such as trade unions.\6\ This 
moment of progress, however, engendered a severe backlash wherein the 
influence and dominance of white supremacy was restored through 
violence and laws, in a period known as Redemption.\7\ Following the 
Compromise of 1877, the Federal Government withdrew its enforcement of 
the rules protecting the civil and voting rights of Black people and 
the Supreme Court ruled that courts would not protect Black people's 
civil rights against private actors \8\ resulting in nearly a century 
of racial terror through lynchings, mob violence, and Jim Crow ``Black 
Codes'' enforcing strict segregation and second-class citizenship 
ensued.\9\ It was not until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's, 
and specifically the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that the racial caste 
system reestablished through Redemption began to give way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Eric Foner, The Second Founding: How the Civil War and 
Reconstruction Remade the Constitution (2019).
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).
    \9\ Foner supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This pattern of progress and retrenchment has repeated throughout 
American history. In the early 20th Century, Black Americans began to 
leave the South--often under cloak of darkness--to escape the yoke of 
Jim Crow and seek fairer treatment and economic opportunity in the 
cities of the North.\10\ This ``Great Migration'' of approximately 6 
million people provided opportunities unfathomable in the Redemption 
South. Yet those who migrated North were not met with open arms. The 
backlash from Northern whites and the National power structure 
manifested in myriad ways, but perhaps the most painful and lasting was 
redlining--a process through which mortgage lenders enforced strict 
residential segregation and robbed Black Americans of the single 
biggest opportunity to build generational wealth.\11\ Ironically, the 
same Federal Government that briefly enforced Southern Blacks' rights 
during Reconstruction now drove their deprivation in Northern cities 
through its racist housing policy \12\ among other racially 
discriminatory practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Isabel Wilkerson, The Warmth of Other Suns: the Epic Story of 
America's Great Migration (2011).
    \11\ Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law (2018); Lisa Rice, Long 
Before Redlining: Racial Disparities in Homeownership Need Intentional 
Policies, Shelterforce (Feb. 15, 2019), https://shelterforce.org/2019/
02/15/long-before-redlining-racial-disparities-in-homeownership-need-
intentional-policies/; Douglas S. Massey & Nancy A. Denton, American 
Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass (1998); Ira 
Katznelson, When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of 
Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America (2005); Robert C. 
Lieberman, Shifting the Color Line: Race and the American Welfare State 
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998).
    \12\ See generally Color of Law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, the progress of LDF's landmark Brown v. Board of 
Education case which ended decades of legal segregation in America's 
public schools, was followed by ``massive resistance'' and segregation 
academies.\13\ In addition to defying the law to maintain racial 
hierarchy throughout the South, communities chose to shutter public 
infrastructure rather than share it equally--even draining public pools 
rather than allowing Black and white children to swim together.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Report: Segregation in America, EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE 
(2018), 20-39, https://segregationinamerica.eji.org/
report.pdf?action=purge.
    \14\ HEATHER MCGHEE, THE SUM OF US: WHAT RACISM COSTS EVERYONE AND 
HOW WE CAN PROSPER TOGETHER (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keeping with this insidious pattern, the progress of electing the 
Nation's first Black president in 2008 was followed by a substantial 
mobilization of white Americans through the Tea Party movement who 
pushed back vehemently against policies that once received bipartisan 
support (such as health insurance mandates) and questioned President 
Barack Obama's birthplace and thus his legitimacy as President.\15\ 
More recently, robust public demonstrations of anguish and anger over 
George Floyd's murder and countless other examples of police devaluing 
Black lives with wanton violence generated an important National 
conversation about structural racism. However, these multi-racial 
efforts to confront police violence against communities of color have 
been met with sharp backlash in the form of white-led State 
legislatures and school boards passing so-called ``anti-critical race 
theory'' measures that mandate that our public school systems teach 
students an inaccurate, sanitized version of American history and ban 
an increasing number of books about race, including some classic texts 
that have long been part of the public school curricula.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Robb Willer, Matthew Feinberg & Rachel Wetts, Threats to 
Racial Status Promote Tea Party Support Among White Americans (May 4, 
2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2770186 or http://
dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2770186.
    \16\ In Defense of Truth, NAACP LDF (accessed Jan. 19, 2022), 
https://www.naacpldf.org/truth/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Response to the 2020 Presidential Election Fits the Pattern of 
        Cyclical Backlash
    The 2020 Presidential election and its aftermath fit the long-
standing cyclical pattern of progress and backlash that continually 
thwarts efforts at cementing durable change to perfect our union. In 
2020, communities of color drove robust voter turnout leading to 
electoral results that challenged the political status quo. The 
violence on January 6th and the attendant effort to override the valid 
outcome of the 2020 Presidential election were one concrete form of 
backlash, and the rash of anti-voter laws introduced and enacted in 
States across the country, building on a wave of voter suppression 
efforts that preceded the election,\17\ was another. Both responses 
were fueled by a common false narrative rooted in racism and the 
project of white supremacy. What will happen next remains an open 
question. Whether we confront this backlash head-on and advance toward 
further progress or backslide into what some have justly called Jim 
Crow 2.0 depends in significant part upon Congress' response to the 
current moment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Will Wilder, Voter Suppression in 2020, Brennan Center for 
Justice (Aug. 20, 2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
research-reports/voter-suppression-2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  iii. framing the 2020 backlash: false rhetoric of stolen elections 
           connects january 6th to on-going voter suppression
    Coded racial appeals have served as an overarching frame for the 
backlash against the 2020 election. Those seeking to stoke racial 
resentment for their political and economic advantage began laying the 
groundwork for this frame for many years prior to 2020. For decades, 
those seeking to restrict the franchise have used false concerns about 
voter fraud to justify barriers to the ballot.\18\ This framework began 
to take center stage during the prior administration. When President 
Trump won the 2016 election through the Electoral College but fell more 
than 3 million total votes short of Hillary Clinton, he told his 
supporters that there was only one reasonable explanation: Millions of 
people had voted illegally for Clinton, masking his true victory among 
legitimate voters.\19\ With no actual evidence of voter fraud to 
support his claim, Trump set up the Presidential Commission on Election 
Integrity allegedly to find it.\20\ The Commission produced no such 
evidence and shut down amidst credible allegations of secrecy, 
mismanagement, and discriminatory intent.\21\ Nonetheless, the mere 
creation of this high-level government commission stoked doubt about 
the sanctity of our elections and likely helped legitimize the false 
claim of rampant voter fraud for some.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ German Lopez, The case against voter ID laws, in one chart, 
Vox.com (August 6, 2015), https://www.vox.com/2015/8/6/9107927/voter-
id-election-fraud; See also, Quinn Scanlan, `We've never found systemic 
fraud, not enough to overturn the election: Georgia Secretary of State 
Raffensperger says,' ABC News (Dec. 6, 2020), https://abcnews.go.com/
Politics/weve-found-systemic-fraud-overturnelection-georgia-secretary/
story?id=74560956; Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth, Brennan Center for 
Justice (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/
files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf.
    \19\ Glenn Kessler, Donald Trump's bogus claim that millions of 
people voted illegally for Hillary Clinton, Washington Post (Nov. 27, 
2016), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/11/27/
trumps-bogus-claim-that-millions-of-people-voted-illegally-for-hillary-
clinton/.
    \20\ President Announces Formation of Bipartisan Presidential 
Commission on Election Integrity, the White House (May 11, 2017), 
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/president-
announces-formation-bipartisan-presidential-commission-election-
integrity/.
    \21\ Jessica Huseman, A Short History of the Brief and Bumpy Life 
of the Voting Fraud Commission, ProPublica (Jan. 4, 2018), https://
www.propublica.org/article/a-short-history-of-the-brief-and-bumpy-life-
of-the-voting-fraud-commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Heading into the 2020 election, President Trump also told his 
supporters repeatedly that he could only lose through massive 
fraud;\22\ and he refused to say definitively whether he would accept 
the election results if he lost.\23\ When Trump did in fact lose the 
2020 Presidential election--both the popular vote and the Electoral 
College--his supporters echoed his false Statements that rampant fraud 
explained the outcome, and both the Trump campaign and legions of its 
most loyal supporters used this frame as a central theme to guide their 
activities in the aftermath. In response to false claims that the 2020 
election was stolen through rampant fraud, extremist factions 
orchestrated a campaign to disrupt the counting and certification of 
the Presidential election and ultimately to overturn its results.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Zachary Wolf, The 5 key elements of Trump's Big Lie and how it 
came to be, CNN (May 19, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/19/
politics/donald-trump-big-lie-explainer/index.html.
    \23\ David Leonhardt, Trump's Refusal to Concede, New York Times 
(Nov. 12, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/briefing/ron-klain-
jeffrey-toobin-tropical-storm-eta.html.
    \24\ Simon Romero, Shaila Dewan & Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio, 
In a Year of Protest Cries, Now It's `Count Every Vote!' and `Stop the 
Steal!', THE N.Y. TIMES (Nov. 5, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/
11/05/us/electionprotests-vote-count.html; LDF Issues Statement 
Condemning Breach of U.S. Capitol, Attempted Coup by Supporters of 
President Trump, NAACP LDF (Jan. 6, 2020), https://www.naacpldf.org/
press-release/ldf-issues-Statement-condemning-breach-of-u-s-capitol-
attempted-coup-by-supporters-of-president-trump/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This false narrative of voter fraud is rooted in racism and 
connects the violence of January 6th to the litany of voter suppression 
laws taken up by nearly every State. First, the sharp racial divide 
between those promoting and believing these false claims and those who 
accept the results of the 2020 election is one indication of how the 
phantom fraud frame is in fact steeped in racism.\25\ Second, views 
about whether the 2020 election was stolen appear to be correlated with 
views on race. Third, the connection between the embrace of the false 
fraud narrative and regressive attitudes about race has manifest in 
legislatures across the country. For example, State legislators who 
were the authors or lead sponsors of some of the most aggressive 2021 
voter suppression laws have also introduced legislation banning so-
called ``critical race theory'' from being taught in schools; barred 
the removal of Confederate monuments; and responded to racial justice 
protests about police brutality against Black people by increasing 
criminal penalties for protest-related activities.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Belief in the Big Lie narrative is sharply divided by 
partisanship, which is highly correlated with race. See Joel Rose & Liz 
Baker, 6 in 10 Americans say U.S. democracy is in crisis as `Big Lie' 
takes route, NPR (Jan. 3, 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/01/03/
1069764164/american-democracy-poll-jan-6. In addition, ``Republicans 
most likely to believe that racism and discrimination are not a problem 
are also the most devout believers in the Stop the Steal narrative.'' 
Lee Drutman, Theft Perception, VOTER STUDY GROUP (June 2021), https://
www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/theft-perception.
    \26\ See AR H.B. 1218, 93d Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess., (Ark. 2021) 
(banning school curricula that ``promotes societal division'' on the 
basis of race, among other factors), available at https://
www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/
Detail?id=HB1218&ddBienniumSession=2021%2F2021R; AR H.B. 1231, 93d Gen. 
Assemb., Reg. Sess., (Ark. 2021) (banning teaching the 1619 Project), 
available at https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/
Detail?id=HB1231&ddBienniumSession=2021%2F2021R; AR H.B. 1761, 93d Gen. 
Assemb., Reg. Sess., (Ark. 2021) (banning educational materials that 
portray any group of people as inherently racist, that argue that any 
group of people should feel guilt or shame due to race, and that the 
United States is systemically racist), available at https://
www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/
Detail?id=HB1761&ddBienniumSession=2021%2F2021R; AR S.B. 12, 93d Gen. 
Assemb., Reg. Sess., (Ark. 2021) (adding schools to list of 
institutions that are not allowed to promote ``divisive concepts'' 
including that any group of people is inherently racist), available at 
https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/
Detail?id=SB12&ddBienniumSession=2021%2F2021S2; and TX S.B. 3, 82d 
Leg., 2d Sess., (Tex. 2021) (banning curricula that promote the idea 
that anyone is inherently racist by virtue of their race, whether 
consciously or unconsciously, an individual bears responsibility for 
actions undertaken in the past by members of the same race, or the 
advent of slavery in the now-United States constituted the true 
founding of the United States, among other ideas), available at https:/
/capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=872&Bill=SB3. See 
also TX S.B. 1663, 86th Leg., Reg. Sess., (Tex. 2019) (banning the 
removal monuments that have existed for at least 40 years, among other 
restrictions), available at https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/- 
History.aspx?LegSess=86R&Bill=SB1663; AR S.B. 553, 93d Gen. Assemb., 
Reg. Sess., (Ark. 2021) (banning the removal of monuments that pertain 
to any war, including the Civil War), available at https://
www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/
Detail?id=SB553&ddBienniumSession=2021%2F2021R; and FL S.B. 288, 2019 
Sen., (Fla. 2019) (banning removal, alteration, concealment, etc. of 
statutes or memorials commemorating veterans or military organizations, 
including during the Civil War), available at https://www.flsenate.gov/
Session/Bill/2019/288/?Tab=BillText. See also GA S.B. 403, 2021-2022 
Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess., (Ga. 2022) (providing immunity for law 
enforcement transporting individuals to mental health facilities), 
available at https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/61506; AL H.B. 284, 
2021 Leg., Reg. Sess., (Ala. 2021) (providing liability protection for 
law enforcement officials taking individuals with mental illness to a 
mental health facility and removing requirement that such officials go 
through the involuntary commitment process before doing so), available 
at https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB284/id/2271288; TX H.B. 1788, 87th 
Leg., Reg. Sess., (Tex. 2021) (creating immunity for schools, school 
districts, and security personnel for ``reasonable actions'' taken by 
school security personnel to preserve safety), available at https://
capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/- Text.aspx?LegSess=87R&Bill=HB1788; and 
FL S.B. 826, 2021 Sen., (Fla. 2021) (extending sovereign immunity to 
members of Child Protection Teams), available at https://
www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/826/?Tab=BillText. See also AR S.B. 
300, 93d Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess., (Ark. 2021) (prohibiting parole for 
certain firearm possession cases), available at https://
www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/
Detail?id=SB300&ddBienniumSession=2021%2F2021R, AR H.B. 1866, 92d Gen. 
Assemb., Reg. Sess., (Ark. 2019) (imposing time limits on when someone 
can apply for a pardon), available at https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/
Bills/Detail?id=HB1866&ddBienniumSession=2019%2F2019R; AR H.B. 1064, 
93d Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess., (Ark. 2021) (increasing the loopback 
period for certain DWI offenses for the purpose of sentence 
enhancements), available at https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/
Detail?id=HB1062&ddBienniumSession=2021%2F2021R; KY H.B. 215, 2022 Gen. 
Assemb., Reg. Sess., (Ky. 2022) (removing pretrial diversion and 
increasing minimum penalties for certain drug trafficking offenses), 
available at https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/22rs/hb215.html; GA 
S.B. 479, 2021-2022 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess., (Ga. 2022) (for firearm 
possession cases, charges a separate offense for each firearm 
possessed), available at https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/61936, 
and GA S.B. 359, 2021-2022 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess., (Ga. 2022) 
(providing minimum criminal penalties for a series of crimes, including 
some firearm felonies, and requiring the maximum sentence for certain 
repeat offender elder or child abuse crimes), available at https://
www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/61213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Perhaps the clearest sign that the January 6th insurrection and the 
recent rash of anti-voter laws are not separate phenomena, but rather 
are two expressions of white racial anxiety about shifting power 
dynamics in the United States, is that both have strongholds in places 
where the white population is declining, either absolutely or in 
relation to people of color.
    The Chicago Project on Security & Threats analyzed various 
characteristics of 716 people who have been charged with crimes related 
to January 6th.\27\ After examining several factors, the Project 
determined that (other than county size) the strongest predictor of 
insurrection participation was residing in a county with a substantial 
decline in white population since 2015.\28\ The authors conclude that 
their ``analysis suggests that local decline of the non-Hispanic white 
population has a galvanizing effect, and counties that have had higher 
rates of non-Hispanic white population decline in the last half-decade 
are likely to produce insurrectionists at a higher rate.''\29\ They 
note further that, ``[g]iven the overwhelming whiteness of the 
population of insurrectionists, the finding that counties with higher 
rates of demographic change are also counties that sent more 
insurrectionists even when controlling for a host of competing factors 
is consistent with a political movement that is partially driven by 
racial cleavages and white discontent with diversifying 
communities.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Robert Pape et al., American Face of Insurrection: Analysis of 
Individuals Charged for Storming the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, 
Chicago Project on Security and Threats (Jan. 5, 2022), https://
d3qi0qp55mx5f5.cloudfront.net/cpost/i/docs/
Pape_American_Face_of_Insurrection_(2022-01-05)_1.pdf?mtime=1641481428.
    \28\ Id. at 21.
    \29\ Id. at 18.
    \30\ Id. at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sum, the false narrative around stolen elections is not just 
about a single politician or a single election but rather it 
effectively foments and channels a broader wave of status insecurity 
and racial resentment. It is a common progenitor of both the violence 
and attempt to erase the results of the 2020 election that occurred on 
January 6th and the wide-spread effort to restrict access to the 
ballot.
iv. voters of color overcame barriers to assert consequential political 
                             power in 2020
    The 2020 election was not beset with large-scale fraud, as those 
promoting the January 6th insurrection have claimed.\31\ It also did 
not, as numerous news reports suggested, ``go smoothly.''\32\ Accounts 
from LDF's Voting Rights Defender and Prepared to Vote teams, detailed 
in the LDF Thurgood Marshall Institute's latest Democracy Defended 
report,\33\ reveal the depth and breadth of the issues voters faced, 
especially voters of color. From onerous vote-by-mail restrictions 
during a pandemic to voter intimidation, poll closures and unreasonably 
long lines, Black voters in particular faced a litany of barriers to 
the ballot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Melissa Block, The clear and present danger of Trump's 
enduring `Big Lie', National Public Radio (December 23, 2021), https://
www.npr.org/2021/12/23/1065277246/trump-big-lie-jan-6-election.
    \32\ Sherrilyn Ifill, No, This Election Did Not Go `Smoothly,' 
SLATE (Nov. 9, 2020), https://slate.com/news-andpolitics/2020/11/2020-
election-voting-did-not-go-smoothly.html.
    \33\ Thurgood Marshall Institute, Democracy Defended, NAACP LDF 
(Sept. 2, 2021), https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/
LDF_2020_DemocracyDefended-1-3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yet, participating in the 2020 Presidential election was historic. 
Voters overcame a host of obstacles with determination and resilience. 
Two-thirds of eligible voters casted ballots in the 2020 Presidential 
election.\34\ This is the highest turnout rate recorded since 1900; but 
it actually represents the highest turnout ever given the significant 
expansion of both the general population and the population of eligible 
voters since the turn of the twentieth century.\35\ Black voter turnout 
was greater than 65% and nearly matched records set when President 
Obama was on the ballot.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Michael P. McDonald, National General Election VEP Turnout 
Rates, 1789-Present, UNITED STATES ELECTIONS PROJECT, Jan. 14, 2022, 
http://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ Michael P. McDonald, Voter Turnout Demographics, UNITED STATES 
ELECTIONS PROJECT (accessed Jan. 14, 2022), http://
www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The historic turnout continued on January 5, 2021 with Georgia's 
runoff election. Turnout in runoff elections, which occur after 
Election Day, is typically modest, and at times anemic. But, with 
control of the U.S. Senate at stake, and the opportunity to elect 
candidates who reflected the growing diversity of the State, a record 
60% of Georgians turned out in the January runoff.\37\ The 4.4 million 
Georgians who cast ballots on January 5 was more than double the number 
who voted in the previous record turnout runoff election in 2008.\38\ 
Black voters drove this historic participation, with Black turnout 
dropping just 8% from the general election compared with an 11% decline 
among white voters.\39\ The result was the election of the first Black 
and Jewish senators in Georgia's history.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ Nathaniel Rakich et al., How Democrats Won the Georgia 
Runoffs, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT (Jan. 7, 2021, 2:47 PM), https://
fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-won-the-georgia-runoffs/.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Mark Niesse & Jennifer Peebles, Turnout dip among Georgia 
Republicans flipped U.S. Senate, THE ATLANTA J.-CONST. (Feb. 2, 2021), 
https://www.ajc.com/politics/turnout-dip-among-georgia-republicans-
flipped-us-senate/IKWGEGFEEVEZ5DXTP7ZXXOROIA/.
    \40\ Steve Peoples, Bill Barrow, and Russ Bynum, Warnock, Ossoff 
win in Georgia, handing Dems control of Senate, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Jan. 
6, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/Georgia-election-results-
4b82ba7ee3cc74d33e68daadaee2cbf3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This historic turnout was no accident and was not driven by the 
stakes alone. National civil rights and civil liberties groups and 
Black-led grassroots organizations in Georgia had spent years 
challenging attempts to restrict access to the ballot and building 
substantial voter outreach campaigns to educate voters regarding the 
stakes of Federal, State, and local elections and assist communities as 
they navigate the voting process.\41\ The Herculean effort it took to 
help Black and Brown voters overcome barriers to the ballot in the 2020 
election is not sustainable, however, nor should it be required given 
the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The backlash to 
the results of this historic turnout and its consequences was 
immediate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Anna North, 6 Black women organizers on what happened in 
Georgia--and what comes next, Vox (November 11, 2020), https://
www.vox.com/21556742/georgia-votes-election-organizers-stacey-abrams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  v. the post-2020 backlash in action
    A new chapter of an old story, the backlash to historic 2020 voter 
turnout among people of color has been swift and severe. As with past 
reactions to racial progress the post-2020 backlash has featured both 
violence and legal regression--in this case in the form of efforts to 
restrict the franchise. Based on the false narrative of voter fraud, 
this violence and votes backlash began with campaign operatives 
questioning vote totals in Black and Brown communities. It continued 
through a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol focused on 
invalidating the election results and thus the political power 
exercised by the Black and Brown communities and accelerated through 
both successful efforts to erect barriers to the ballot and a 
regressive redistricting cycle that severely constricts the ability of 
voters of color to assert their full strength at the polls. It 
continues to this day with active plans to subvert future elections.
A. Questioning Vote Totals in Black and Brown Communities
    The spark to this particular backlash was the turnout among voters 
of color, especially Black voters, that led to President Biden's 
victory in the 2020 election. President Trump and his allies reacted 
immediately by asserting claims of massive fraud and questioning vote 
totals, specifically targeting Black elections officials and voters in 
Black population centers such as Detroit (where election officials 
counting votes were mobbed and harassed),\42\ Philadelphia (where the 
FBI helped local police arrest two men with weapons suspected of a plot 
to interfere with ballot counting),\43\ and the Atlanta metro region 
(where Trump alleged that hundreds of thousands of ballots mysteriously 
appeared).\44\ Similarly, President Trump and his allies alleged fraud 
in places like Arizona where robust turnout among the Latino population 
was decisive. Again, we saw coordinated attempts to infiltrate ballot 
counting headquarters and tamper with vote counting.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Bostock, supra note 41.
    \43\ Ewing et al., supra n. 41.
    \44\ Jeff Amy, Darlene Superville, & Jonathan Lemire, GA election 
officials reject Trump call to `find' more votes, ASSOCIATED PRESS 
(Jan. 4, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/trump-raffensperger-phone-
call-georgia-d503c8b4e58f7cd648fbf9a746131ec9.
    \45\ Lahut, supra n. 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wayne County, Michigan emerged as a central focus of attempts to 
translate the false narrative regarding voter fraud into actual 
subversion of a free and fair election. On November 20, 2020, LDF filed 
a lawsuit on behalf of the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization and 
three individuals alleging that President Trump's attempt to prevent 
Wayne County, Michigan from certifying its election results was a clear 
example of intimidating those charged with ``aiding a[] person to vote 
or attempt to vote'' in violation of the Voting Rights Act, and that 
this intimidation was aimed at disenfranchising Black voters.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Complaint, Mich. Welfare Rights Org. v. Trump, Civ. Action 20-
3388 (EGS) (D.D.C. Apr. 1, 2022). Available at https://
www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Trump-Campaign-Complaint.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Complaint explained how race was a driving factor in the 
Michigan certification debate: ``During [a meeting of the Wayne County 
canvassing board], one of the Republican Canvassers said she would be 
open to certifying the rest of Wayne County (which is predominately 
white) but not Detroit (which is predominately Black), even though 
those other areas of Wayne County had similar discrepancies [between 
ballot numbers and poll book records] and in at least one predominantly 
white city, Livonia, the discrepancies were more significant than those 
in Detroit.''\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Complaint at \27 at 7. Mich. Welfare Rights Org. v. Trump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsequently, on December 21, 2020, LDF amended its Complaint, 
adding the NAACP as a Plaintiff, and alleging that President Trump and 
his supporters made similar efforts to disenfranchise voters--and 
especially Black voters--in other States, including Georgia, 
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Arizona.
    The Amended Complaint summarizes the racial discrimination central 
to the post-election strategy to invalidate the political voice of 
Black and Brown communities:
    Under the specter of preventing ``fraud,'' Defendants engaged in a 
conspiracy, executed through a coordinated effort, to disenfranchise 
voters by disrupting vote counting efforts, lodging groundless 
challenges during recounts, and attempting to block certification of 
election results through intimidation and coercion of election 
officials and volunteers. These systematic efforts--violations of the 
VRA and the Ku Klux Klan Act--have largely been directed at major 
metropolitan areas with large Black voter populations. These include 
Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and others. Because 
President Trump lost the popular vote in Michigan and other States that 
were necessary for a majority of the electoral college, Defendants 
worked to block certification of the results, on the (legally 
incorrect) theory that blocking certification would allow State 
legislatures to override the will of the voters and choose the Trump 
Campaign's slate of electors . . . On November 19, 2020, President 
Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and others, held a press 
conference at the RNC headquarters in Washington, DC, where they 
repeated false allegations of fraud and openly discussed their strategy 
of disenfranchising voters in Detroit and Wayne County. At that press 
conference, Mr. Giuliani asserted without evidence that the Trump 
campaign had identified 300,000 ``illegitimate ballots,'' and stated: 
``These ballots were all cast basically in Detroit that Biden won 80-
20,'' and ``it changes the result of the election in Michigan, if you 
take out Wayne County.''\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Complaint at 18-21 Mich. Welfare Rights Org. v. Trump.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sum, the strategy to block election certifications by alleging 
fraud and questioning vote totals was not only a political ploy to 
rescue a failed candidacy. But by focusing the efforts on cities and 
counties with large populations of voters of color, the strategy was 
also to advance a narrative that people of color are not legitimate 
actors in our democracy (as voters or election officials).
B. The January 6th Insurrection
    After challenging election results in communities of color, the 
next step in the violence and votes backlash was the January 6th 
Insurrection--just 1 day after Black voters asserted their power in 
Georgia. The violent attack on the Capitol on January 6th was a brazen, 
virulent, and deadly manifestation of the concerted effort to undermine 
our democracy, to overthrow the government, and to negate the votes 
cast by our communities. The information unveiled through the on-going 
investigations of this committee and the Department of Justice confirms 
that the violence was foreseeable and part of a larger planned coup 
attempt abetted by encouragement or deliberate inaction at the highest 
levels.\49\ The founder of the Oath Keepers and ten others have been 
charged with ``seditious conspiracy''\50\ and according to an early 
assessment, 13% of those arrested have had associations with militias 
or right-wing extremist groups.\51\ Perhaps most concerning, January 
6th marked an embrace of political violence and previously fringe 
ideologies by mainstream conservatives,\52\ a threat that has been 
growing for some time,\53\ has only worsened since the Insurrection and 
remains of serious concern.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Paul LeBlanc, The January 6 committee formed 6 months ago. 
Here's what it's uncovered, CNN (January 4, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/
2021/12/29/politics/january-6-committee-investigation-trump-what-
matters/index.html; Department of Justice, One Year Since the Jan. 6 
Attack on the Capitol, (Updated Dec. 30, 2021), https://
www.justice.gov/usao-dc/one-year-jan-6-attack-capitol.
    \50\ Department of Justice, Leader of Oath Keepers and 10 Other 
Individuals Indicted in Federal Court for Seditious Conspiracy and 
Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach: Eight Others Facing 
Charges in Two Related Cases, Department of Justice Office of Public 
Affairs (Jan. 13, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-oath-
keepers-and-10-other-individuals-indicted-Federal-court-seditious-
conspiracy-and.
    \51\ Ayman Ismail, We Know Exactly Who the Capitol Rioters Were, 
Slate (Jan. 4, 2022), https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/01/
january-6-capitol-riot-arrests-research-profile.html.
    \52\ (``The normalization of the conspiracies that animate their 
beliefs is great news for extremists, who don't have to work nearly as 
hard to have their views accepted in the mainstream.'') Digital 
Forensic Research Lab, Experts react to the year since January 6, 
Atlantic Council (Jan. 4, 2022), https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-
depth-research-reports/experts-react-to-the-year-since-january-6/
#perilous; (``The Jan. 6 insurrectionists really are best understood as 
a product of the mainstream.'') Ayman Ismail supra note 60.
    \53\ Seth Jones, The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United 
States, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Nov. 7, 2018), 
https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states.
    \54\ (In a poll, 25% of Republicans believe the Qanon conspiracy 
and 15% of Americans believed that ``American patriots may have to 
resort to violence'') Giovanni Russonello, QAnon Now as Popular in U.S. 
as Some Major Religions, Poll Suggests, New York Times (updated Aug. 
12, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/us/politics/qanon-
republicans-trump.html; (``Extremist movements are stronger, conspiracy 
networks larger, and elements of the GOP more radical, with some 
elected officials spreading extremist views. The prosecution of 
insurrectionists has not shut down groups like the racist Proud Boys 
and anti-government Oath Keepers, or like-minded allies who thrive on-
line and on the streets.'') Digital Forensics Lab supra note 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This attempt to thwart the peaceful transfer of power--the very 
hallmark of a functioning democracy--was the natural conclusion of 
years of rhetoric inciting and condoning racism and white 
supremacy,\55\ expanding the proliferation of conspiracy theories,\56\ 
and flouting the rule of law. More specifically, it was the direct 
result of false rhetoric regarding stolen elections that tapped into 
existing racial anxiety. As the political scientist Hakeem Jefferson 
and the sociologist Victor Ray have written, ``Jan. 6 was a racial 
reckoning. It was a reckoning against the promise of a multiracial 
democracy and the perceived influence of the Black vote.''\57\ We know 
this in part because ``those who participated in the insurrection were 
more likely to come from areas that experienced more significant 
declines in the non-Hispanic white population--further evidence that 
the storming of the Capitol was, in part, a backlash to a perceived 
loss of status, what social scientists call `perceived status threat.' 
''\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ James Rainey & Melissa Gomez, Asked to condemn white 
supremacists, Trump tells Proud Boys hate group to `stand by', THE LA 
TIMES (Sept. 29, 2020), https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/
2020-09-29/asked-to-condemn-white-supremacists-trump-tells-proud-boys-
hate-group-to-stand-by.
    \56\ Shirin Ghaffary, The long-term consequences of Trump's 
conspiracy theory campaign, Vox (Nov. 20, 2020), https://www.vox.com/
recode/21546119/trump-conspiracy-theories-election-2020-coronavirus-
voting-vote-by-mail.
    \57\ Hakeem Jefferson & Victor Ray, White Backlash is a Type of 
Racial Reckoning, Too, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT (Jan. 6, 2022), https://
fivethirtyeight.com/features/white-backlash-is-a-type-of-racial-
reckoning-too/.
    \58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some of the most enduring imagery from the attack on the U.S. 
Capitol points to race as a central, underlying factor. Many 
photographs from the January 6th insurrection were disturbing, but one 
in particular encapsulated the historical significance and the stakes 
for our Republic: the image of an insurgent inside the U.S. Capitol 
brandishing a Confederate flag.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Indeed, many insurrectionist donned Confederate paraphernalia. 
Javonte Anderson, Capitol riot images showing Confederate flag a 
reminder of country's darkest past, USA TODAY (Jan. 13, 2021), https://
www.usatoday.com/story/news/2021/01/07/capitol-riot-images-confederate-
flag-terror/6588104002/ . . . 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The Backlash Accelerates: States Pass Anti-Voter Laws and Use 
        Centennial Redistricting to Weaken the Voices of Voters of 
        Color
    The next stage of the backlash played out in State legislatures 
across the country through bills and laws intended to block Black and 
Brown Americans' access to the ballot. In 2021 we saw a repeat of 
history--a steady drip of old poison in new bottles.\60\ Whereas in a 
bygone era discriminatory intent in voting restrictions was dressed up 
in the alleged espousal of ideals such as securing a more informed and 
invested electorate, the new professed justification is fighting voter 
fraud, an imaginary phantom that serves as a basis to attack the right 
to vote. State lawmakers introduced and advanced new voting laws 
targeted to ensure that the robust turnout among voters of color in the 
2020 Presidential election could not be repeated. Legislators 
introduced more than 400 bills in nearly every State aiming to restrict 
the franchise.\61\ Nineteen States enacted a total of 34 laws that roll 
back voting rights and erect new barriers to the ballot.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ Deuel Ross, Pouring Old Poison into New Bottles: How 
Discretion and the Discriminatory Administration of Voter ID Laws 
Recreate Literacy Tests1 45 COLUM. HUM. Rts. L. REV. 362 (2014).
    \61\ Resource: Voting Laws Roundup: December 2021, BRENNAN CENTER 
FOR JUSTICE (Jan. 12, 2022) https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-december-2021.
    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Critically, many of these laws are directly targeted at blocking 
pathways to the ballot box that Black and Brown voters used 
successfully in 2020. For example, after Black voters increased their 
usage of absentee ballots as a result of the pandemic, S.B. 90 in 
Florida severely curtailed the use of unstaffed ballot return drop 
boxes and effectively eliminated community ballot collection.\63\ And 
in Georgia and Texas, after strong early in-person turnout among Black 
voters, lawmakers initially moved to outlaw or limit Sunday voting in a 
direct attack on the ``souls to the polls'' turnout efforts undertaken 
by many Black churches to mobilize voters to engage in collective civic 
participation.\64\ Another law in Georgia hampers vote-by-mail, cuts 
back on early voting, and more.\65\ The 2021 omnibus voting law in 
Texas eliminates a number of accessible, common-sense voting methods, 
including ``drive-thru'' voting and 24-hour early voting--both methods 
that proved invaluable for Black and Brown voters in Texas's largest 
cities in 2020.\66\ In all, these laws severely restrict the ability of 
voters of color to cast a ballot and specifically target the ways in 
which these voters participated successfully in the 2020 Presidential 
election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ See generally Compl. for Decl. and Inj. Relief, Fla. State 
Conferences of Branches v. Lee, No. 4:21-cv-00187-WS-MAF (N.D. Fla. May 
6, 2021), ECF No. 1.
    \64\ Letter from Sam Spital et al., NAACP LDF to Texas Senate (May 
29, 2021), https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/LDF-Conference-
Committee-Report-Opposition-Senate-20210529-1.pdf; Letter from John 
Cusick et al., NAACP LDF et al., to Georgia House of Representatives, 
Special Committee on Election Integrity (Mar. 14, 2021), https://
www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/LDF-SPLC-Written-Testimony-on-
SB202-3.18.21.pdf. In both States, after advocacy from LDF and others, 
lawmakers eventually removed these blatantly discriminatory provisions 
from the omnibus voting bills under consideration--although in both 
States, the final forms of the enacted bills remained extremely harmful 
to voters of color. See LDF Files Lawsuit Against the State of Florida 
Over Suppressive Voting Law, NAACP LDF (May 6, 2021), https://
www.naacpldf.org/press-release/ldf-files-lawsuit-against-the-state-of-
florida-over-suppressive-voting-law/; Civil Rights Groups Sue Georgia 
Over New Sweeping Voter Suppression Law, NAACP LDF (March 30, 2021), 
https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/civil-rights-groups-sue-georgia-
over-new-sweeping-voter-suppression-law/.
    \65\ See S.B. 202, https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/
document/20212022/201498.
    \66\ Compl. for Decl. and Injunctive Relief, Houston Justice v. 
Abbott, No. 5:21-cv-00848 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2021), ECF No. 1, 
available at https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Houston-
Justice-et-al.-v.-Abbott-et-al.-Complaint.pdf; see also Press Release: 
Lawsuit Filed Challenging New Texas Law Targeting Voting Rights, NAACP 
LDF (Sept. 7, 2021), https://www.naacpldf.org/press-release/lawsuit-
filed-challenging-new-texas-law-targeting-voting-rights/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The people targeted by these laws are well aware of what is 
happening and are actively fighting back. Jeffrey Clemmons, a Black 
resident of Harris County Texas in his early twenties who was a leader 
in his college NAACP chapter and served as an election judge in 2020, 
is suing to push back on the Texas 2021 voter suppression law, 
represented by LDF.\67\ Mr. Clemmons says:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\ Compl. for Decl. and Injunctive Relief, Houston Justice v. 
Abbott, No. 5:21-cv-00848 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2021), ECF No. 1.

``I absolutely think that the over 400 laws that were pushed through 
legislatures from Texas to Georgia to curtail our rights to vote were 
indeed because of the incredible turnout of people of color and young 
people again who had never turned up to the ballot box before. We felt 
so motivated and so strongly about this election because we knew [what] 
was on the line if we didn't vote in so many instances and because we 
are tired of not being represented properly . . . And so these election 
laws are an attempt to turn back the clock on our voting rights and 
make sure that [] never happens again to create, you know, this 
environment of fear that if you vote, you're going to be punished for 
it.''\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \68\ Interview by Adam Lioz, Senior Policy Counsel for LDF, with 
Jeffrey Clemmons (Jan. 10, 2022) (on file with author).

    Of the more than 400 bills introduced last year, at least 152 in 18 
States have carried over into current legislative sessions, and more 
than a dozen additional bills were pre-filed by December in 
anticipation of the 2022 session.\69\ As of January 2022, legislatures 
in more than half of U.S. States had introduced, pre-filed, or carried 
over more than 250 anti-voter bills.\70\ Like in 2021, many of these 
bills target the specific ways that Black and Brown voters have made 
their voices heard in recent elections.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\ Resource: Voting Laws Roundup: December 2021, supra n. 70.
    \70\ Voting Laws Roundup: February 2022, Brennan Center for Justice 
(Feb. 9, 2022), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/voting-laws-roundup-february-
2022?_ga=2.231456991.1301012527.1649763533-1535293244.1632777334.
    \71\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to enacting laws that restrict access to the ballot, 
several States have used the first centennial redistricting process in 
six decades without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act, to 
weaken the voices of voters of color. From 1970--just after the 
``reapportionment revolution'' forced line-drawers to adhere to the 
one-person, one-vote principal \72\--through the 2010 redistricting 
cycle, the preclearance protection of Section 5 of the Voting Rights 
Act was the most powerful tool to protect Black and Brown voters 
through the districting process. Section 5 certainly did not ensure 
that Black voters enjoyed fully equal representation throughout the 
country, but its anti-retrogression principle did mean that at least 
hostile State legislatures could not set Black voters further back 
after each Census.\73\ Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been a 
complementary tool, allowing Black and Brown voters and community 
organizations to bring lawsuits when district maps disempowered them 
compared with neighboring white communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\ See e.g., Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Reynolds v. 
Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
    \73\ See 52 U.S.C. 10304(b); Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 
(1976); Florida v. United States, 885 F..Supp. 2d 299 (D.D.C. 2012); 
Texas v. United States, 887 F. Supp.2d 133 (D. D.C. 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Supreme Court, however, substantially weakened these 
protections in the 2013 Shelby case when it undercut the preclearance 
protections of Section 5 and in 2021 when the Court made Section 2 
claims more challenging in Brnovich v. DNC.\74\ The result is that 
Black communities entered the current redistricting cycle with a 
shredded shield, more exposed to the manipulations of white-dominated 
State legislatures than at any time since Jim Crow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\ 594 U.S. (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Prior to the current round of redistricting, political 
representation in the United States was already sharply skewed. In 
2019, people of color made up 39% of the U.S. population but only 12% 
of elected officials across the country, according to an analysis of 
nearly 46,000 Federal, State, and local office holders.\75\ Put another 
way, white Americans occupied nearly 90% of elected offices in the U.S. 
despite forming just over 60% of the population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\ Datasets, The Electability Myth: The Shifting Demographics of 
Political Power in America, REFLECTIVE DEMOCRACY CAMPAIGN, https://
wholeads.us/datasets/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The current districting process threatens to worsen this already 
skewed representation. The Nation has grown substantially more diverse 
since 2010,\76\ but political representation is not on track to reflect 
this growing diversity--and Black and Brown Americans are likely to see 
their representation remain static or even lose ground in many places 
rather than see their power increase with their numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ U.S. Census Bureau's Diversity Index has gone up from 54.9% to 
61.1% since 2010. Eric Jensen et al., The Chance That Two People Chosen 
at Random Are of Different Race or Ethnicity Groups Has Increased Since 
2010, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (Aug. 12, 2021), https://www.census.gov/
library/stories/2021/08/2020-united-states-population-more-racially 
ethnically diverse-than-2010.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than 42% of Americans are 
now people of color.\77\ Since the 2010 Census, the Latino population 
grew by 23%, compared to just 4.3% non-Latino population growth.\78\ 
The Black population grew by nearly 6%.\79\ This growth was even 
starker among voters of color. One 2021 report projected that nearly 
80% of the growth in voting eligible population would be through people 
of color, including 17% from Black voters.\80\ These shifts, and the 
accompanying anxiety around power and social status, have made certain 
Americans vulnerable to the false fraud frame, especially in States 
with the most profound changes. A key backlash strategy has been to use 
the districting process to ensure that the power of voters of color 
does not grow with their numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ Id.
    \78\ Press Release, 2020 Census Statistics Highlight Local 
Population Changes and Nation's Racial and Ethnic Diversity, U.S. 
CENSUS BUREAU (Aug. 12, 2021), https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/2021/population-changes-nations-diversity.html.
    \79\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 
94-171) Summary File, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (accessed Jan. 18, 2022); U.S. 
Census Bureau, 2020 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) 
Summary File, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (accessed Jan. 18, 2022). See also 
U.S. Census Bureau, Race and Ethnicity in the United States: 2010 
Census and 2020 Census (Aug. 12, 2021), https://www.census.gov/library/
visualizations/interactive/race-and-ethnicity-in-the-united-state-2010-
and-2020-census.html.
    \80\ Michael C. Li, The Redistricting Landscape, 2021-2022, BRENNAN 
CENTER FOR JUSTICE (Feb. 11, 2021), at 15, fig. 7, https://
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/redistricting-
landscape-2021-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the leadup to the current districting cycle, Brennan Center 
districting expert Michael Li issued a report citing the loss of 
Section 5 and narrowing of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to warn 
that in substantial parts of the country ``there may be even greater 
room for unfair processes and results than in 2011, when the Nation saw 
some of the most gerrymandered and racially discriminatory maps in its 
history.''\81\ So far, unfortunately, his predictions have largely 
borne out. In late November, Li noted that ``[c]ommunities of color are 
bearing the brunt of aggressive map drawing,'' citing Illinois, North 
Carolina, and Texas as examples.\82\ In Texas, ``communities of color 
accounted for 95% of the State's population growth last decade. Yet, 
not only did Texas Republicans create no new electoral opportunities 
for minority community communities, but their maps also often went 
backwards.''\83\ The pattern has continued--so much so that Li noted in 
mid-January that ``[p]people of color are getting shellacked in 
redistricting'' this cycle.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ Id. at 3.
    \82\ Michael C. Li, Early Lessons from the Current Redistricting 
Round, BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE (Nov. 30, 2021), https://
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/early-lessons-current-
redistricting-round.
    \83\ Id.
    \84\ Michael Li (@mcpli), Twitter (Jan. 13, 2022, 2:33 PM), https:/
/twitter.com/mcpli/status/1481711130020130816.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A December 2021 New York Times article detailed how white lawmakers 
are systematically driving Black elected officials from positions of 
power by carving up their districts and at times forcing them to run 
against other incumbents.\85\ The article cites at least two dozen 
examples, including former Congressional Black Caucus chair G.K. 
Butterfield of North Carolina, who is retiring as a result and called 
the situation a ``five-alarm fire.''\86\ \87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\ Nick Corasaniti & Reid J. Epstein, Map by Map, G.O.P. Chips 
Away at Black Democrats' Power, THE N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 18, 2021), https:/
/www.nytimes.com/2021/12/18/us/politics/gop-gerrymandering-black-
democrats.html.
    \86\ Id.
    \87\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    LDF has brought lawsuits challenging the anti-voter laws and the 
unfair redistricting maps in several States; and our allies are suing 
in many others. For example, 6 of the 9 States formerly covered by 
Section 5 have completed at least some of their post-Census districting 
maps, and in 5 of these 6 States at least one map (and often more than 
one) is being challenged in lawsuits alleging racial 
discrimination.\88\ Had the Supreme Court not gutted the heart of the 
Voting Rights Act in 2013 by rendering inoperable the requirement that 
jurisdictions with histories of voting discrimination ``preclear'' 
voting changes before they take hold, many of the restrictive voting 
laws passed in 2021 would not have gone into effect. Five of the 19 
States that passed restrictive laws were fully covered by the VRA's 
preclearance provisions.\89\ Now affected voters are forced to push 
back piecemeal, using the Constitution's protections against 
intentional vote discrimination and the Voting Rights Act's remaining 
protections against discriminatory impact.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \88\ Redistricting Across States, ALL ABOUT REDISTRICTING, https://
redistricting.lls.edu/ (accessed Jan. 18, 2022).
    \89\ See U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE, Jurisdictions Previously Covered by 
Section 5, https://www.justice.gov/crt/jurisdictions-previously-
covered-section-5; Resource: Voting Laws Roundup: December 2021, supra 
n. 70.
    \90\ 594 U.S. (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    LDF is currently litigating cases against 2021 voter suppression 
laws in Georgia, Florida, and Texas; and discriminatory redistricting 
plans in Alabama, South Carolina, and Louisiana. This litigation is an 
important but limited tool to protect Black and Brown Americans' right 
to vote. Voting rights litigation can be slow and expensive, often 
costing parties millions of dollars.\91\ The cases also expend 
significant judicial resources.\92\ Additionally, the average length of 
Section 2 cases is 2 to 5 years.\93\ In the years during a case's 
pendency, thousands--and, in some cases, millions--of voters are 
effectively disenfranchised.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\ The Cost (in Time, Money, and Burden) of Section 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act Litigation1 NAACP LDF (Feb. 19, 2021), https://
www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Section-2-costs-2.19.21.pdf.
    \92\ Federal Judicial Center, 2003-2004 District Court Case-
Weighting Study, Table 1 (2005) (finding that voting cases consume the 
sixth most judicial resources out of 63 types of cases analyzed).
    \93\ Voting Rights Act: Section 5 of the Act--History, Scope, and 
Purpose: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the H. 
Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 92 (2005) (``Two to 5 years is a 
rough average'' for the length of Section 2 lawsuits).
    \94\ See e.g., Veasey v. Abbott, No. 20-40428 (5th Cir. Sept. 3, 
2021), available at https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/20/20-
40428-CV0.pdf (upholding grant of $6,790,333.31 in attorneys' fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The details of these cases (described in chronological order below) 
show that these laws are targeted at pushing back on strong 2020 
turnout among voters of color and are clearly part of the backlash 
unleashed through false narratives about voter fraud. These cases have 
survived multiple attempts to block aggrieved voters from having their 
day in court--such as motions to dismiss or for summary judgment--and 
two of them have already resulted in victories for Black voters at the 
trial court level. In January, a three-judge panel ordered Alabama to 
draw new Congressional maps that give Black voters a fair opportunity 
to elect their preferred candidates (this ruling was put on hold by the 
Supreme Court).\95\ A Federal judge in March struck down Florida's 
voter suppression law and ruled that it was the product of intentional 
racial discrimination.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\ 21A375 Merrill v. Milligan 595 U. S. (2022). Available at 
https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/
order_supreme_court_alabama_case_2_7_2022.pdf.
    \96\ League of Women Voters of Fla. Inc. v. Lee, 4:21cv186-MW/MAF 
(N.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            a. Georgia
    In addition to being the most visible place Black voters asserted 
power in 2020, Georgia has seen significant population growth among 
people of color over the last decade. According to the U.S. Census 
Bureau, the State's diversity index jumped several points over the past 
decade, and Georgia jumped two slots to become the ninth most diverse 
State in the Nation.\97\ This made the Peach State especially 
vulnerable to the false fraud frame. In fact, Georgia wasted no time 
translating the backlash against the rising voices of voters of color 
into legislative action to restrict the franchise. On January 7, 2021--
two days after the run-off election, and the day after the 
Insurrection--Georgia House Speaker David Ralston announced the 
creation of a Special Committee on Election Integrity (``EIC'') and by 
early February, Georgia legislators had filed sweeping legislation to 
limit early and absentee voting.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\ Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the United States: 2010 Census 
and 2020 Census, U.S. Census Bureau (Aug. 12, 2021), https://
www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/racial-and-ethnic-
diversity-in-the-united-States-2010-and-2020-census.html.
    \98\ Stephen Fowler, Sweeping Elections Bill To Limit Early And 
Absentee Voting, NPR (Feb. 19, 2021), https://www.npr.org/2021/02/19/
969497398/georgia-republicans-file-sweeping-elections-bill-to-limit-
early-and-absentee-vot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    LDF, jointly with the Southern Poverty Law Center (``SPLC''), 
provided oral and written testimony throughout the legislative session 
to oppose omnibus bills restricting access to the right to vote, 
explaining that these bills would disproportionately harm low-income 
voters and voters of color.\99\ Yet, the Georgia General Assembly 
refused to conduct any racial-impact study of legislation that would 
carry forward the State's troubling history of voting 
discrimination.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\ LDF and SPLC Action Fund Submit Testimony Opposing Georgia's 
S.B. 202, NAACP LDF (Mar. 18, 2021), https://www.naacpldf.org/news/ldf-
and-splc-action-fund-submit-testimony-opposing-georgias-s-b-202/.
    \100\ Since the 2013 Shelby decision, the State of Georgia has 
enacted voting restrictions across five major categories studied by the 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Voter identification requirements, 
documentary proof of citizenship requirements, voter purges, cuts to 
early voting, and polling place closures or relocations. Democracy 
Diminished, NAACP LDF (Oct. 6, 2021), at 25-32, https://
www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Democracy-Diminished_10.06.2021-
Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 17, 2021, with little notice to EIC members, and members 
of the public, an EIC member introduced a substitute bill to Senate 
Bill 202 (``S.B. 202''), which expanded the legislation from 3 pages to 
over 90 pages just hours before a full hearing. With limited 
opportunity for meaningful engagement and review, the EIC rushed S.B. 
202 through additional hearings. On March 25, 2021, the House and 
Senate passed S.B. 202, and the Governor signed it into law during a 
closed-door session.\101\ One of the most restrictive voting laws of 
recent years, S.B. 202: (1) Severely limits mobile voting; (2) imposes 
new identification requirements for requesting and casting an absentee 
ballot; (3) delays and compresses the time period for requesting 
absentee ballots; (4) imposes new restrictions on secure drop boxes; 
(5) implements out-of-precinct provisional ballot disqualification; (6) 
drastically reduces early voting in run-off elections; and (7) 
criminalizes the provision of food and water to voters waiting in line 
to cast a ballot.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \101\ Stephen Fowler, ``Georgia Governor Signs Election Overhaul, 
Includes Changes to Absentee Voting,'' NPR (Mar. 25, 2021), https://
www.npr.org/2021/03/25/981357583/georgia-legislature-approves-election-
overhaul-including-changes-to-absentee-vot.
    \102\ Civil Rights Groups Sue Georgia Over New Sweeping Voter 
Suppression Law NAACP LDF (Mar. 30, 2021), https://www.naacpldf.org/
press-release/civil-rights-groups-sue-georgia-over-new-sweeping-voter-
suppression-law/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On March 30, 2021, LDF, along with allies, filed a lawsuit, later 
amended, in the Northern District of Georgia, which challenges S.B. 202 
on behalf of several groups including the Sixth District of the African 
Methodist Episcopal Church, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc, Georgia 
ADAPT, Georgia Advocacy Office, and the Southern Christian Leadership 
Conference.\103\ The lawsuit raises several claims including racial 
discrimination in violation of the VRA and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 
Amendments; an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote under the 
First and Fourteenth Amendments; an unconstitutional burden on the 
right to freedom of speech and expression under the First Amendment; 
discrimination on the basis of disability under Title II of the 
American Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973, and a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition on 
immaterial requirements to voting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the 2022 legislative session, Georgia lawmakers picked up where 
they left off last year. After promising no further major election 
changes, the Georgia House nonetheless pushed through a package that 
sought to give the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) original 
jurisdiction to investigate nonexistent election crimes; reduce the 
number of voting machines required on Election Day; and increase 
mandates on elections officials without corresponding resources.\104\ 
After strong pushback from elections officials and the voting rights 
community, the legislature removed most of the anti-voter provisions, 
but did pass legislation that threatens to intimidate voters by 
involving the GBI directly in elections.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \104\ GA HB1464. Regular Session 2021-2022, (Mar. 30, 2022).
    \105\ Cami Mondeaux, Georgia lawmakers pass bill giving GBI power 
to investigate voter fraud, Washington Examiner (Apr. 5, 2022), https:/
/www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/georgia-lawmakers-pass-bill-
giving-gbi-power-to-investigate-voter-fraud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            b. Florida
    Florida, which also grew more diverse in the last decade,\106\ was 
not far behind Georgia in channeling the false fraud claims and 
resulting backlash into new voting restrictions. On May 6, 2021, 
Governor DeSantis signed into law a broad voter suppression bill known 
as S.B. 90.\107\ The same day LDF filed a lawsuit on behalf of the 
Florida State Conference of the NAACP, Disability Rights Florida, and 
Common Cause against the Florida Secretary of State, challenging 
multiple provisions of the bill including: (1) Restrictions and new 
requirements for VBM applications; (2) limitations on where, when, and 
how drop boxes can be used; and (3) a vague and overbroad prohibition 
on conduct near polling places, including potentially criminalizing 
offering free food, water, and other relief to Florida voters waiting 
in long lines.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the United States supra note 
106.
    \107\ Gov. DeSantis Signs GOP-Backed Elections Bill at Event Closed 
to Local Media, ASSOCIATED PRESS (May 6, 2021), https://
www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/gov-desantis-signs-gop-backed-elections-
bill/2444871/.
    \108\ Important Facts About LDF's Lawsuit Challenging Florida's New 
Voting Law, NAACP LDF (accessed Jan. 19, 2022), https://
www.naacpldf.org/naacp-publications/ldf-blog/important-facts-about-
ldfs-lawsuit-challenging-floridas-new-voting-law/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On October 8, 2021, Chief Judge Mark E. Walker denied the Secretary 
of State's motion to dismiss with respect to most of our claims, noting 
that the allegations of intentional discrimination in our complaint 
drew a ``a straight, shameful line from the discriminatory laws of the 
1880's to today.''\109\ Judge Walker then struck down S.B. 90 in March 
of this year, ruling that the law violates Section 2 of the Voting 
Rights Act, and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. 
Constitution.\110\ Because the district court found that the Florida 
legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters through 
its enactment of S.B. 90, the court granted the Plaintiffs' request for 
bail-in relief, thereby retaining jurisdiction in the matter for 10 
years and prohibiting Florida from enacting certain voting changes 
without pre-approval.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \109\ Order on Motion to Dismiss at 52, Florida State Conference of 
the NAACP et. al. v. Laurel Lee, No. 4:21-cv001-87-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla 10/
8/21), ECF No. 249.
    \110\ https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-ORDER-
SB90.pdf.
    \111\ Id. at 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In reaching its finding of intentional discrimination, the Court 
pointed to decades of troubling history, noting that ``[a]t some point, 
when the Florida Legislature passes law after law disproportionately 
burdening Black voters, this Court can no longer accept that the effect 
is incidental.''\112\ It also discussed the specific context of the 
2020 election and how S.B. 90 was framed in response. After noting a 
surge in vote-by-mail participation, high turnout generally, and the 
fact that by all accounts the election was conducted without major 
security concerns, the court referenced the National climate and 
Florida's response, making an explicit connection to the January 6th 
Insurrection:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\ Id. at 64.

``While Florida's election went smoothly, this Court cannot ignore 
reality. The 2020 election and its aftermath, on a national scale, was 
chaotic, though scant evidence was presented on this issue. Between the 
2020 election and SB 90's introduction, then-President Trump refused to 
acknowledge that he had lost the election, causing an escalating crisis 
that culminated in a mob storming the United States Capitol on January 
6, 2021. This is not determinative, but this Court cannot evaluate the 
Legislature's actions without at least acknowledging these events. 
Indeed, the [election] Supervisors' lobbyist, David Ramba, testified 
that considering ``all of the things that were on the national news and 
who stole what and everything else, we knew that somebody was going to 
come up with a piece of legislation.''
``As Mr. Ramba expected, in the first legislative session after the 
2020 election, the Legislature, through SB 90, made a sweeping set of 
changes to Florida's election code, with a specific focus on VBM. For 
context, between 2013 and 2020 the Legislature made no changes to VBM. 
And the exact justification for SB 90 as a whole, and for its 
constituent parts, is difficult to pin down, with sponsors and 
supporters offering conflicting or nonsensical rationales. Indeed, as 
Senator Farmer testified, the rationale for SB 90 ``was perhaps the 
most [elusive] answer we faced.'' . . . Nor was there any evidence 
before the Legislature that fraud is even a marginal issue in Florida 
elections.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\ Id. at 68-70 (internal citations omitted).

    Judge Walker's careful 288-page opinion makes clear that Florida 
legislators used false claims of voter fraud as a pretext to enact 
legislation they knew would suppress the Black vote, in direct response 
to robust 2020 turnout.
            c. Texas
    Texas is another State that experienced substantial population 
shifts since 2010. On September 7, 2021, Governor Abbott of Texas 
signed S.B. 1, one of the most restrictive voting laws in the country. 
As the bill advanced, members and witnesses who raised concerns--and 
evidence--that the bill would harm voters of color and voters with 
disabilities were largely ignored or chastised for uttering the word 
``racism'' in the debate. Texas House Democrats staged a walkout and 
eventually left the State to break quorum and prevent the passage of 
such a damaging bill. But proponents of the omnibus election bill 
rammed it through the legislative process, which the Governor extended 
by two special sessions and threatened funding of legislative staff 
salaries in order to force passage of the bill.\114\ After submitting 
testimony and advocating against the bill as it made its way through 
the Texas legislature, LDF filed a lawsuit challenging S.B. 1 on the 
same day it was signed into law.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\ Heidi Perez-Moreno, 2,100 State Workers Caught in the 
Crosshairs of Gov. Greg Abbott's Veto of Legislature Funding, THE TEXAS 
TRIBUNE (July 2, 2021), https://www.texastribune.org/2021/07/02/greg-
abbott-veto-legislature-staffers/.
    \115\ Our lawsuit is 1 of 6 challenging S.B. 1 that have been 
consolidated under La Union del Pueblo Entero v. State of Texas, No. 
5:21-cv-00844 (W.D. Tex.), including a case brought by the U.S. 
Department of Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The passage of S.B. 1 was a direct backlash to the record voter 
turnout in Texas in the 2020 election cycle and in particular, the 
power that Black and Brown voters exercised at the polls. Expanded 
early voting, drive-thru voting, and 24-hour voting facilitated this 
record-high voter participation, particularly for urban voters of color 
who were more likely to use these means of access. For example, 
approximately 1.6 million registered voters in Harris County: 1.3 
million voted early in person; over 177,000 voted by mail; and over 
200,000 voted on Election Day.\116\ S.B. 1 targeted the means and 
methods of voting primarily used by Black and Brown voters that had 
facilitated a smooth, secure, and accessible election. Among its many 
restrictions,S.B. 1 eliminates drive-thru voting and 24-hour voting, 
restricts early voting hours, restricts vote-by-mail opportunities and 
application distribution, and bans drop boxes--innovations that had 
given local counties the options and flexibility they needed to help 
eligible voters of all backgrounds and abilities cast a ballot, and 
that Black and Brown voters had disproportionately relied on to vote. 
S.B. 1 also imposes burdens and intrusive documentation requirements on 
individuals who provide voters assistance or transport voters to the 
polls, those providing such assistance to the threat of criminal 
penalties for violations. Finally, by making it harder for election 
officials to regulate and supervise poll watchers, S.B. 1 empowers 
partisan poll watchers to interfere with election administration and to 
intimidate and harass voters at the polls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \116\ Harris County Elections, Election Results Archive, Canvass 
Report: Nov Live 110320 General and Special Elections, (Nov. 16, 2020), 
https://www.harrisvotes.com/HISTORY/20201103/Official%20Canvass.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S.B. 1 has already caused substantial problems in Texas' March 1 
primary election, where counties were forced to reject a huge 
percentage of vote-by-mail applications.\117\ One hundred eighty-seven 
of Texas' 254 counties threw out 22,898 duly cast vote by mail 
ballots--approximately 13% of all ballots cast during primary vs. 1-2% 
rejected in previous elections.\118\ The rejection rate in the most 
populous counties was roughly 15%, a staggering increase from the 2020 
election, where the State-wide rejection rate was roughly 1%.\119\ The 
unprecedented vote-by-mail rejections seems to have a disproportionate 
impact on minority voters across the State. In particular, 6 of the 9 
zip codes in Harris County with the most ballot rejections were 
majority Black.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \117\ Alexa Ura, Hundreds of Mail-in Ballot Applications are Being 
Rejected Under Texas' New Voting Rules, THE TEXAS TRIBUNE (Jan. 13, 
2022), https://www.texastribune.org/2022/01/13/texas-voting-mail- 
rejections/?utm--source=Texas+Tribune+Newsletters&utm--
campaign=22dff95b59- trib-newsletters-top-story-
alert&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d9a68d8efc-22dff95b59- 
101201265&mc_cid=22dff95b59.
    \118\ Ross Ramsey, Analysis: When 1 in 8 Texas mail ballots gets 
trashed, that's vote suppression, Texas Tribune (Mar. 18, 2022), 
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/18/texas-rejected-election-
ballots/.
    \119\ Nick Corasaniti, Mail Ballot Rejections Surge in Texas, With 
Signs of a Race Gap, New York Times (Mar. 18, 2022), https://
www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/us/politics/texas-primary-ballot-
rejections.html.
    \120\ Nick Corasaniti supra n. 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S.B. 1 has made it more difficult for voters to cast ballots, 
stifled innovation, undermined trust in our democracy, and chipped away 
at voluntary participation as election workers by making the job more 
difficult while adding criminal penalties for the job.
    In our lawsuit, LDF, along with our co-counsel from The Arc and 
Reed Smith, argues that S.B. 1 discriminates against Black and Brown 
voters and burdens voters with disabilities in violation of the First 
and Fourteenth Amendments, Sections 2 and 208 of the Voting Rights Act, 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act.\121\ We represent Houston Justice, the Houston Area 
Urban League, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., and The Arc of Texas, 
organizations that have long worked to ensure Black and Brown voters, 
incarcerated voters, and voters with disabilities can access the 
franchise through providing voter education and voter assistance. 
Largely through volunteer efforts, these groups help vulnerable 
communities make their voices heard through the ballot box, for example 
by educating voters about their voting method options and election 
rules, providing transportation to the polls, distributing, and 
assisting with the completion of vote-by-mail applications, and helping 
voters with disabilities navigate the voting process and complete their 
ballots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \121\ Lawsuit Filed Challenging New Texas Law Targeting Voting 
Rights, NAACP LDF (Sept. 7, 2021), https://www.naacpldf.org/press-
release/lawsuit-filed-challenging-new-texas-law-targeting-voting-
rights/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S.B. 1 frustrates the mission of our clients, placing obstacles, 
bans, and exposure to criminal prosecution in the way of their efforts 
to help marginalized communities vote. But the greatest loss is for 
Texas voters themselves who will be disenfranchised or burdened by the 
web of bans and restrictions erected by the law--Black and Brown voters 
and voters with disabilities who relied on the methods of voting now 
made illegal and who counted on engagement and assistance from groups 
like our clients to safely cast a ballot. In intent and effect, S.B. 1 
blocks their right to vote, continuing a shameful history of voter 
suppression in Texas.
            d. Alabama
    Alabama has played a special role in the Civil Rights Movement, due 
in significant part to its shameful history of racial discrimination in 
voting. In 1992, litigation forced Alabama to create a Congressional 
district that allowed Black voters a real opportunity to elect 
candidates of their choice.\122\ As a result, a Black Congressperson 
was elected from Alabama for the first time since Reconstruction.\123\ 
Yet outside of that one district, Black candidates continue to face 
defeat in Congressional elections, though many strong candidates have 
run and have attracted the support of the overwhelming majority of 
Black voters.\124\ Indeed, Alabama is one of only 10 States where no 
Black person has ever won State-wide elected office.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \122\3Wesch v. Hunt, 785 F. Supp. 1491, 1498 (S.D. Ala. 1992), 
aff'd sub nom. Camp v. Wesch, 504 U.S. 902 (1992).
    \123\ Compl., Milligan v. Merrill, No. 2:21-cv--01530-AMM (N.D. 
Ala. Nov. 16, 2021), ECF No. 1 (``Milligan Compl.'').
    \124\ U.S. House of Representatives, Black-American Members by 
State and Territory, 1870-Present, https://history.house.gov/
Exhibitions-and-Publications/BAIC/Historical-Data/Black-American-
Representatives-and-Senators-by-State-and-Territory/ (last visited 
January 18, 2022).
    \125\ Summer Ballentine, Analysis: 10 States still haven't elected 
minority State-wide, ASSOCIATED PRESS (Sept. 3, 2016), https://
apnews.com/article/6d70082a5f854109aee7874e915c6631.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For some time now, it has been possible to create two majority-
Black Congressional districts in Alabama.\126\ This is even more true 
now given that all of the State's population growth in the last decade 
was driven by people of color.\127\ As of the 2020 Census, non-Hispanic 
whites have fallen to 63% of the Alabama's population while Black 
Alabamians have grown to just over 27% of the population.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \126\ Even in 1992, the Black population was large enough and 
geographically compact enough to create two majority-Black 
Congressional districts, but Black leaders at that time believed an 
effective electoral opportunity for Black voters required significantly 
more than a bare majority. Wesch, 785 F. Supp. at 1498.
    \127\ Alabama Population Grew 5.1% Since 2010, Surpassing 5 
Million, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU (Aug. 5, 2021), https://www.census.gov/
library/stories/state-by-state/alabama-population-change-between-
census-decade.html.
    \128\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yet Alabama's white power structure has refused to contend with the 
State's growing diversity, preferring to maintain the status quo in a 
process that was anything but transparent. In September 2021, the 
State's Legislative Reapportionment Office held 28 public hearings, all 
but one of which were held during regular business hours when working 
Alabamians were unlikely to attend.\129\ Comments by the legislators 
overseeing the process indicated the outlines of the Congressional plan 
had already been decided before the public hearings, yet no draft map 
was released until after the public comment period had closed.\130\ And 
no changes were made to the plans in response to public input. 
Moreover, although civil rights advocates and Black State legislators 
asked for a racial polarization study before the legislature adopted a 
map that continued packing Black voters into a single Congressional 
district, no such study was ever done.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \129\ Mike Cason, Alabama lawmakers begin task of drawing new 
political districts, al.com, (Aug. 31, 2021) https://www.al.com/news/
2021/08/alabama-lawmakers-begin-task-of-drawing-new-political-
districts.html.
    \130\ Id. (quoting State Senator Jim McClendon stating that ``there 
won't be any surprises'' in the new Congressional plan).
    \131\ Milligan Compl., supra n. 122,  50-71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On November 4, 2021, Alabama enacted a Congressional map under 
which Black Alabamians have a meaningful chance to see their preferred 
candidate elected in only one out of the State's 7 Congressional 
districts.\132\ In other words, Black Alabamians are more than 27% of 
the population, but are a majority--and have a realistic chance of 
electing their preferred representatives--in only 14% of the State's 
Congressional districts. In contrast, white Alabamians are 63% of the 
population but form a majority in nearly 86% of the Congressional 
districts. This is akin to one-person, half-a-vote for Black residents, 
and one-person, one-and-a-third votes for white residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \132\ See Stipulation of Facts, Milligan v. Merrill, No. 2:21-cv-
01530-AMM (N.D. Ala. 2021), ECF No. 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In November, after the State adopted a Congressional plan that 
continued the status quo, LDF sued on behalf of Greater Birmingham 
Ministries, the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, and five 
affected voters, demanding that the State create a second district that 
gives Black Alabamians an equal chance to see their preferred 
candidates represent them in Congress.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \133\ Milligan Compl., supra n. 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The lack of adequate representation in Congress has real 
consequences for Alabama's Black communities. Shalela Dowdy, a 
community organizer and captain in the U.S. Army Reserves who is one of 
the plaintiffs in LDF's Congressional redistricting litigation, 
explained how elected officials work against the needs of Alabamians in 
the State's Black Belt, who disproportionately lack access to health 
care.\134\ The region suffers from high rates of HIV and has been hit 
hard by COVID-19, regional hospitals have closed, doctors are often far 
away, and residents often cannot afford health insurance. Despite these 
serious issues affecting their constituents, many Alabama legislators 
have refused to support expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\ Milligan Compl., supra n. 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The State legislative plan, adopted through the same problematic 
process as the Congressional plan, similarly distorts Black 
representation, and LDF has also challenged this plan. In January, a 
unanimous three-judge district court struck down Alabama's 
Congressional map and ordered the State legislature to draw a new map 
that complies with the Voting Rights Act by including two districts 
where Black voters have the opportunity to elect candidates of their 
choice.\135\ Unfortunately, the Supreme Court subsequently granted a 
motion to the stay the trial court's injunction of the maps, which 
means that the 2022 elections will take place under discriminatory maps 
and the underlying challenge to the maps will proceed next Term.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \135\ Singleton v. Merrill, No. 2:21-cv-01291 (N. D. Ala.). 
Available at https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/PRELIMINARY-
INJUNCTION-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-AND-ORDER.-Signed-by-Judge-Anna-M-
Manasco-on-1_24_2022.-1.pdf.
    \136\ https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/
order_supreme_court_- alabama_case_2_7_2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            e. South Carolina
    South Carolina has a long history of racial discrimination in 
voting and in the redistricting process in particular. During the four 
decades that the State was covered by the Voting Rights Act's 
preclearance protections, the Department of Justice objected 120 times 
to racially discriminatory voting changes, and at least 27 of these 
objections involved State or local redistricting plans.\137\ And, in 
every redistricting cycle since Congress enacted the VRA, voters have 
been forced to go into court to seek redress from discriminatory 
maps.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\ First Amended Compl. for Inj. and Decl. Relief at 13, South 
Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McMaster, No. 3:21-cv-03302-
JMC-TJH-RMG (D.S.C. Dec. 23, 2021), ECF No. 84, available at https://
www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/AMENDED-PLAINT-for-injunctive-and-
declaratory-relief-against-JoAnne-Day-Clifford-J-Elder-002.pdf.
    \138\ Id.  43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In October 2021, LDF first filed suit regarding post-2020 Census 
redistricting in the State on behalf of the South Carolina State 
Conference of the NAACP and an individual voter.\139\ Plaintiffs were 
forced to bring this initial complaint because of the South Carolina 
legislature's unnecessary delay in drawing new redistricting maps that 
respect the Constitutional one-person-one-vote principle. The 
legislature's failure to remedy malapportioned districts threatened to 
delay the process of drawing updated districts until the legislature 
was due back on January 11, 2022, which would have undermined the 
public's and courts' ability to evaluate the legality of new district 
lines before the March 30, 2022 filing deadline for primary 
elections.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \139\ Compl. for Inj. and Decl. Relief, South Carolina State 
Conference of the NAACP v. McMaster, No. 3:21-cv-03302-JMC-TJH-RMG 
(D.S.C. Oct. 12, 2021), ECF No. 1, available at https://
www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021-10-12-SC-NAACP-v.-McMaster-
Malaportionment-Complaint-FINAL-FILE-STAMPED.pdf.
    \140\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The legislature did ultimately return to draw new State House and 
Senate districts before the end of 2021. South Carolina's map-drawing 
process was largely inaccessible and unresponsive to public input. In 
August and October 2021, LDF, South Carolina NAACP, ACLU, and other 
organizations sent letters to the House and Senate \141\ Committee 
expressing concern about the lack of transparency and proposing 
legislative and Congressional maps that would redress population 
disparities and create opportunities for Black voters to elect 
candidates of choice.\142\ The committees responsible for these maps 
repeatedly posted proposed plans with limited opportunities for 
meaningful review. As just one example, the House Committee invited 
public input on its draft State House map on November 10, which was 
posted less than 48 hours before the only public hearing it sought 
public testimony on the plan.\143\ The House Judiciary Committee 
subsequently amended and adopted this initial State House map with no 
opportunity for public input.\144\ The legislature also repeatedly 
discounted and ignored the public testimony that it did receive. And 
there is no indication that the legislature conducted a racially 
polarized voting analysis or any other analysis key to compliance with 
the Voting Rights Act despite repeated requests to do so.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \141\ LDF Sends Letter to the South Carolina House Redistricting Ad 
Hoc Committee About their Obligations Under Section 2 of the Voting 
Rights Act and the Constitution, NAACP LDF (Aug. 9, 2021), https://
www.naacpldf.org/news/ldf-sends-letter-to-the-south-carolina-house-
redistricting-ad-hoc-committee-about-their-obligations-under-section-2-
of-the-voting-rights-act-and-the-constitution/; LDF Submits Proposed 
Congressional and Senate Redistricting Maps to the South Carolina 
Senate Judiciary Redistricting Subcommittee and the House Redistricting 
Ad Hoc Committee, NAACP LDF (Oct. 8, 2021), https://www.naacpldf.org/
press-release/ldf-submits-proposed-submitting-proposed-congressional-
and-senate-maps-to-the-south-carolina-senate-judiciary-redistricting-
subcommittee-and-the-house-redistricting-ad-hoc-committee/.
    \142\ Id.  70, 71.
    \143\ Id.  75.
    \144\ Id.  85-95.
    \145\ Id.  9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, the legislature evaded their Constitutional obligations 
for redistricting. They did so by enacting State House and 
Congressional maps with districts that both ``pack'' and ``crack'' 
Black voters to dilute Black voting strength and opportunities for 
Black voters to elect candidates of their choice. But this result was 
not inevitable; the legislature had many alternative maps available to 
them that would have corrected for malapportionment, complied with 
Federal and State law considerations, and relevant redistricting 
criteria that the legislature adopted. Now, these maps are the latest 
examples of a decades-long pattern by the legislature of adopting 
discriminatory maps. LDF's current lawsuit provides an opportunity for 
Black South Carolinians to have a fair chance to elect State House and 
Congressional candidates who adequately represent their interests.
            f. Louisiana
    In Louisiana, which has the second-highest Black population of any 
State in the country, we are seeing the same pattern as in Alabama. In 
March, the State legislature passed redistricting plans that continue 
to pack Black Louisianans into a single Congressional district 
stretching from New Orleans to Baton Rouge and into many fewer State 
legislative districts than fairness and their numbers in the population 
demand.\146\ As in much of the South, voting in Louisiana remains 
stubbornly and starkly polarized along racial lines, with large 
majorities of white voters declining to support Black candidates. The 
result is that in districts in which white voters make up the majority, 
candidates supported by Black Louisianans do not succeed at the ballot 
box.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \146\ Letter to Louisiana Senate and House Governmental Affairs 
Committee, NAACP LDF (Oct. 18, 2021), https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-
content/uploads/2021.10.18-Letter-re-Louisiana-congressional-
Redistricting.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to the 2020 census, Louisiana's Black population has 
grown to more than 33% while the white population has fallen to 
57%.\147\ The legislature's Congressional plan, however, hands control 
of over 83% of the seats to white voters. A similar pattern holds in 
the redistricting plans for the Louisiana House of Representatives and 
Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \147\ U.S. Census Bureau, LOUISIANA: 2020 Census (Aug. 25, 2021). 
Available at https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state/
louisiana-population-change-between-census-decade.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The legislature adopted these plans in the face of powerful 
community input demanding a greater voice for Black voters and despite 
the introduction of several alternative plans by members of the State's 
legislative Black caucus that would have created an additional seat in 
the Congressional plan. At least one of the alternative plans scored as 
well as or better than the plan the that was ultimately adopted on 
every measure the legislature purported to care about. The explanation 
from the legislature for their failure to consider these alternatives 
has been misinformation and, as in Alabama, unsupported claims that the 
Voting Rights Act requires a gerrymandered majority-Black district 
based in New Orleans that deprives Black voters of an equal opportunity 
to have their voices heard anywhere else in the State.
    On March 9, 2022, in response to sustained community advocacy, 
Governor John Bel Edwards vetoed the Congressional plan passed by the 
legislature because it failed to include a second majority-Black 
Congressional district. On March 30, 2022, the legislature voted to 
override the Governor's veto rather than attempt to craft a compromise 
plan that would provide greater voting opportunities to Black 
Louisianans. That this was the first time in nearly three decades that 
Louisiana has seen a successful veto override is a testament to the 
legislature's commitment to its refusal to share power with the State's 
rising Black population. Hours after the veto override vote, LDF filed 
suit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act challenging the 
Congressional plan.
                (a) Judicial Redistricting
    Black representation on Louisiana's Supreme Court is also under 
threat. Under a consent decree that resulted from a landmark decision 
in the case of Chisom v. Roemer, there is currently one member of the 
State supreme court who is elected from a majority-Black district.\148\ 
The State recently asked the Federal court to dissolve that decree and 
end Federal oversight under the pretext of a need to redistrict to 
correct population imbalances. The State's motion comes at a time when 
it faces pressure to add an additional majority-minority district and 
amid an effort to expand the size of the court from 7 to 9 members, 
which would further dilute the influence of Black voters on judicial 
elections.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \148\ Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380 (1991).
    \149\ See Allen v. Louisiana, 14 F.4th 366 (5th Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                (b) Drawing Local Lines
    Congressional maps and State-wide plans are critical, but far from 
the only arena where fair districting is under attack. The one-person, 
one-vote principle requires thousands of jurisdictions across the 
country to redraw lines every decade--from county commissions and city 
councils to school boards. In the absence of preclearance, 
redistricting plans are being drawn that will affect the most intimate 
aspects of people's lives for a decade with no serious scrutiny or 
oversight. LDF lawyers, trainers, organizers, and policy staff have 
spent the past 6 months working to make sure that local communities 
have the tools they need to engage meaningfully in the process. Non-
profit organizations like LDF can fill some of the gap left by the 
Shelby County decision, but with no mandate that they affirmatively 
scrutinize and justify their redistricting plans, many localities are 
giving little heed to the requirements of the Voting Rights Act and the 
Fourteenth Amendment.
D. Backlash Beyond Election Day: Subverting Election Results
    The 2020 election and 2021 runoff taught entrenched interests that 
even in the face of formidable obstacles and deliberate barriers, Black 
and Brown voters can at times break through to make their voices heard. 
Given this lesson, we are now seeing bold and deliberate efforts to 
interfere with the voting infrastructure in ways that will facilitate 
the sabotage of elections or the subversion of election results. Two 
primary approaches are to provide more direct control over elections to 
partisan actors, and to replace nonpartisan, good-faith election 
workers with loyalists who strongly believe in the false narrative 
around stolen elections.
    In 2021, 32 laws were enacted in 17 States which allow State 
legislatures to politicize, criminalize election administration 
activity, or otherwise interfere with elections.\150\ These include 
measures to shift authority over elections from executive agencies or 
nonpartisan bodies to the legislature; roll back local authority 
through centralization and micromanagement; and criminalize good-faith 
mistakes or decisions by elections officials.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \150\ Memorandum from States United Democracy Center, Protect 
Democracy, and Law Forward to Interested Parties (Dec. 23, 2021), at 2, 
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21169281/democracy-crisis-in-
the-making-report-update_12232021-year-end-numbers.pdf.
    \151\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These new rules allow white-dominated legislatures or State-wide 
bodies to assert control over majority Black local jurisdictions. In 
Georgia, for example, another provision of S.B. 202 allowed the State 
Election Board to assume control of county boards.\152\ Through this 
bill and separate legislation to reorganize county election boards, 
several Black election board members or supervisors have been replaced 
with individuals closely aligned with a particular partisan 
ideology.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \152\ James Oliphant & Nathan Layne, Georgia Republicans purge 
Black Democrats from county election boards, REUTERS (Dec. 9, 2021), 
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/georgia-republicans-purge-black-
democrats-county-election-boards-2021-12-09/.
    \153\ For example, H.B. 162 reconstituted the Morgan County Board 
of Elections, giving control over all appointments to the Board of 
County Commissioners, and leading directly to the removal of Helen 
Butler and Avery Jackson, two Black members Board members. Ms. Butler 
had served on the board for more than a decade without any allegations 
of wrongdoing and neglect, using her position to advocate for more 
accessible elections. Protecting the Freedom to Vote--Recent Changes to 
Georgia Voting Laws and the Need for Basic Federal Standards to Make 
Sure All Americans Can Vote in the Way that Works Best for Them, 
Hearing Before the S. Comm. On Rules and Admin, 117th Cong. 11 (2021) 
(Statement of Helen Butler, Exec. Dir., Ga. Coal. for the People's 
Agenda), https://www.rules.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
Testimony_Butler.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, criminalization provisions of legislation expose good-
faith election officials to unreasonable risk for doing their jobs. For 
example, Texas' S.B.1, contains a provision that exposes election 
judges who take action to prevent poll watchers from harassing voters 
to possible criminal sanctions.\154\ This despite the fact that the 
Texas Election Code contains specific provisions designed to protect 
voters from exactly such interference--and it is the election judge's 
responsibility to enforce these provisions at a given polling 
location.\155\ The new law thus puts good-faith election judges in a 
no-win situation where they can incur criminal penalties for fulfilling 
their duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \154\ Compl. for Decl. and Injunctive Relief, Houston Justice v. 
Abbott, No. 5:21-cv-00848 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2021), ECF No. 1.
    \155\ Tex. Election Code  33.057, 33.058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beyond legal changes, extremists who believe the 2020 election was 
stolen have subjected elections officials to death threats and other 
forms of harassment on an on-going basis. A November 2021 Reuters 
Special Report documented nearly 800 threats to election workers over 
the previous year, including more than 100 that could warrant 
prosecution.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \156\ In June, an Arizona man called Secretary of State Katie 
Hobbs' office and left a messaging saying she would hang ``from a f----
tree . . . They're going to hang you for treason, you f----bitch.'' 
156[sic] In August 2021, a Utah man who had been listening to a Mesa 
County, Colorado election clerk criticize Secretary of State Jena 
Griswold sent Secretary Griswold a Facebook message: ``You raided an 
office. You broke the law. STOP USING YOUR TACTICS. STOP NOW. Watch 
your back. I KNOW WHERE YOU SLEEP, I SEE YOU SLEEPING. BE AFRAID, BE 
VERRY AFFRAID. I hope you die.'' Linda So & Jason Szep, Special Report: 
Reuters unmasks Trump supporters who terrified U.S. election workers, 
REUTERS (Nov. 9, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/
reuters-unmasks-trump-supporters-terrifying-us-election-workers-2021-
11-09/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to an April 2021 survey, approximately one-third of 
election officials are concerned about feeling unsafe on the job, being 
harassed on the job, and/or facing pressure to certify election 
results.\157\ Nearly one-third have already felt unsafe and almost 20% 
have been threatened on the job.\158\ This has led to a wave of 
retirements, causing the director of the Center for Election Innovation 
and Research to tell the New York Times, ``We may lose a generation of 
professionalism and expertise in election administration. It's hard to 
measure the impact.''\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \157\ Brennan Center for Justice, Local Election Officials Survey 6 
(June 16, 2021), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/local-election-officials-survey.
    \158\ Id. at 7.
    \159\ Michael Wines, After a Nightmare Year, Election Officials Are 
Quitting, N.Y. TIMES (July 2, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/
02/us/politics/2020-election-voting-officials.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This concern is almost certainly more acute for Black election 
officials and other election officials of color. Texas election judge 
and LDF client Jeffrey Clemmons, a Black man in his early twenties, 
says that if he works as an election worker again in the future:

    ``I am almost certain that I am going to face probably more 
harassment than I did the last time around because of the heightened 
political environment that we're in, where people feel again as if 
their elections are being stolen, that you know, democracy is being 
undermined left and right, which it is, but of course not in the way 
that they think that it is. And so you're going to have people who are 
signing up to be poll watchers for probably partisan campaigns and 
coming into polling places and attempting to identify election fraud as 
it were through the Texas election bills . . . I can only imagine 
things I'm going to face, whether it's someone, you know, yelling 
belligerently at me or taking video of me when I'm just doing my job or 
potentially having the cops called on me because of the color of my 
skin and the fact that I'm working an election.''\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \160\ Interview with Jeffrey Clemmons, supra note 77.

    The effort to subvert elections from the inside is picking up 
steam. With Black and Brown election workers pushed out of the picture, 
those who embrace the false fraud frame are waiting in the wings to 
infiltrate the system. According to the New York Times, ``[i]n races 
for State and county-level offices with direct oversight of elections, 
Republican candidates coming out of the Stop the Steal movement are 
running competitive campaigns, in which they enjoy a first-mover 
advantage in electoral contests that few partisans from either party 
thought much about before last November.''\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \161\ Charles Homans, In Bid for Control of Elections, Trump 
Loyalists Face Few Obstacles, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 11, 2022), https://
www.nytimes.com/2021/12/11/us/politics/trust-in-elections-trump-
democracy.html?campaign--id=9&emc=edit_nn_- 20211213&instance_id=- 
47676&nl=the-morning&regi_id=67300419&segment_id=76841&te=1&user_id=- 
a026c13970046cd04a509ac0738ecf7a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Secretary of state races have also been transformed by this 
phenomenon. Formerly about election mechanics or perhaps how much to 
expand voting opportunities these contests are now being driven by 
inaccurate claims regarding election legitimacy. In about half of this 
year's 27 secretary of state contests there's at least one candidate 
who claims the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, or otherwise 
questions its legitimacy.\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \162\ `The Big Lie' Lives On, And May Lead Some to Oversee The Next 
Election, NPR (Jan. 6, 2022), https://www.npr.org/transcripts/
1070864361. Candidates have claimed that Georgia ``certified the wrong 
result'' and that ``700,000 people are illegal voters'' in the State; 
that Michigan added dead people to the voter file, while calling for an 
Arizona-style audit; that there were up to 35,000 ``fictitious voters'' 
in Pima County, Arizona; and that there was a group of secretary of 
state candidates ``doing something behind the scenes to try to fix 2020 
like President Trump said.'' Ian Vandewalker & Lawrence Norden, 
Financing of Races for Offices that Oversee Elections: January 2022, 
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE (Jan. 12, 2022), at 15, fig. 7, https://
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/financing-races-
offices-oversee-elections-january-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With no pushback from Congress, those intent on subverting the next 
election by continuing to raise doubts about 2020 are becoming more 
brazen, not less. On January 15, President Trump held his first 2022 
rally in Florence, Arizona.\163\ Former Trump chief strategist Stephen 
Bannon explained that the purpose of the rally was to kick off an 
attempt to decertify President Biden's 2020 electors in 4 swing 
States.\164\ The explicit strategy was to sow distrust and paint 
President Biden as an illegitimate President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \163\ Trump rally in Arizona: Former president calls Biden `a 
disaster' for the country, AZCENTRAL (Jan. 14, 2022), https://
www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2022/01/14/trump-rally 
arizona-live-updates-florence/6529316001/.
    \164\ Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski), Twitter (Jan. 15, 2022, 
11:04 AM), https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/
1482383205181366278.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The combination of removing non-partisan or bipartisan election 
officials, exposing good-faith election workers to criminal penalties, 
and a constant stream of threats and harassment contributes to perhaps 
the most dangerous aspect of the efforts to subvert election results: 
Thousands of election officials with experience and integrity are being 
replaced by false fraud loyalists who are on a mission to achieve a 
particular election outcome without regard to whether that outcome 
aligns with the voice and intent of the majority of the electorate.
vi. solutions: congress has the power and responsibility to protect our 
                               democracy
    The U.S. Constitution gives Congress both the authority and the 
responsibility to act to protect our democracy. This Committee has been 
charged with the responsibility of diagnosing the root causes of the 
January 6th Insurrection and prescribing the solutions that can heal 
our ailing democracy. To do that work, it is critical that Congress 
view January 6th in its full context, and not as an isolated incident; 
only then does the full range of necessary solutions come into view. 
This includes legislation to protect the right to vote, especially for 
people of color; and to protect democracy from subversion.
A. Protect the Right to Vote
    The purpose of the raft of 2021 voter suppression laws, the 
discriminatory redistricting process, and the efforts to sabotage 
election results is to prevent people of color from ever again 
asserting their full voice and power. We need Congress to step up to 
its responsibility to ensure that we can achieve full and fair 
representation by passing legislation that protects the right to vote 
for Black and Brown Americans. Such legislation should, at a minimum, 
contain the following essential provisions:
   Restore the VRA's preclearance protections through updated 
        coverage parameters. Many of the States manipulating maps or 
        passing restricting voting laws--including the 6 States LDF is 
        suing--were covered by the Voting Rights Act's preclearance 
        protections prior to Shelby and would likely be covered again 
        under a restored Voting Rights Act. Preclearance in the new law 
        would start in 2021, so these laws would need to go through the 
        process and could be blocked from further effect.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \165\ Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, H.R. 5746, 117th Cong. 
(2021-2022)  9016(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Restore and strengthen Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 
        giving litigators across the country more powerful tools to 
        push back on discrimination. This includes clarifying the legal 
        standards for bringing Section 2 vote denial claims after the 
        Brnovich case, and that partisan motivation does not undercut a 
        claim of racial discrimination and establishing a new Nation-
        wide prohibition against diminishing the ability of voters of 
        color to access the ballot or elect candidates of choice.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \166\ Id. at  9001-9002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Provide a broad set of minimum standards for ballot 
        accessibility for Federal elections such that the ability to 
        exercise your right to vote is not dependent upon which State 
        you live in. States should be required to offer Same Day 
        Registration, robust early voting and vote-by-mail 
        opportunities, accept a broad range of voter identification, 
        make Election Day a holiday, implement automatic voter 
        registration, restore the vote to people with felony 
        convictions and more.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \167\ Id. at  1031, 1202, 1301-1305, 1801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Create a new Federal statutory claim against undue burdens 
        on the right to vote.* For harsh rules that restrict access 
        across the board, this can provide an alternative to First and 
        Fourteenth Amendment claims under the so-called Anderson-
        Burdick standard which has been weakened by the Supreme Court 
        and other courts in recent years. And in cases where laws place 
        disparate burdens on the rights of voters of color, low-income 
        voters, women, and others, a new claim can supplement Voting 
        Rights Act claims, which require extensive expert analysis and 
        statistical evidence to prove and increase the chances of 
        timely relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Id. at  3401-3403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Outlaw partisan gerrymandering for Congressional 
        districts.\168\ This helps communities of color by undercutting 
        a key excuse lawmakers give for undermining their political 
        voice--it was about partisanship, not race \169\--and by 
        reducing the chances that leaders elected by these communities 
        are marginalized within the elected bodies in which they serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \168\ Id. at  5001-5008.
    \169\ See e.g. Michael Wines, ``Republican Gerrymander of North 
Carolina Maps is Upheld in Court,'' THE N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 11, 2022), 
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/us/politics/north-carolina-
redistricting.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Fight Election Subversion
    In addition to protecting the right to vote, Congress must take 
action to prevent subversion of our free and fair elections. This 
includes enacting explicit new protections for election workers and 
election infrastructure, as well as a provision that prevents partisan 
bodies such as State legislatures from removing State and local 
election officials without due cause.\170\ Congress must also update 
the Electoral Count Act of 1887 to fix the vague and outdated vote 
counting and election certification processes that provided an opening 
for bad-faith actors to attempt to subvert the will of the people by 
manipulating election results.\171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \170\ Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, H.R. 5746, 117th Cong. 
(2021-2022)  3001-3301.
    \171\ Discussion Draft ``Electoral Count Modernization Act,'' 
available at https://www.king.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
mcg22051.pdf.pdf, is one such proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reform of the Electoral Count Act is far from sufficient to address 
the multitude of threats to ensuring free and fair democratic elections 
facing the Nation today but it is a needed component.
                            vii. conclusion
    This Select Committee does its work at a historic moment when it is 
not hyperbole to say that the fate of American democracy hangs in the 
balance. Black and Brown Americans face the greatest assault on our 
voting rights since the Jim Crow Black Codes rolled back the progress 
made during Reconstruction. Indeed, the threat of our democracy 
breaking apart at the seams and sliding irreversibly into 
authoritarianism has not been as acute since the Civil War.
    The recent Census confirmed that the Country is growing more 
diverse by the day and the great question before us is whether we will 
embrace a truly inclusive, multiracial democracy or entrench a racial 
hierarchy of white supremacy that has beleaguered our democracy since 
its inception.
    When NPR asked University of Southern California election scholar 
Franita Tolson to rank her concern about our democracy as a whole and 
the trend of false fraud narrative adherents taking over election 
offices in particular on a scale from one-to-ten, her response was a 
resounding 50.\172\ In April, respected election law scholar Richard L. 
Hasen wrote in the Harvard Law Review that ``[t]he United States faces 
a serious risk that the 2024 Presidential election, and other future 
U.S. elections, will not be conducted fairly and that the candidates 
taking office will not reflect the free choices made by eligible voters 
under previously announced election rules.''\173\ I believe the threat 
to our democracy is even more urgent than this. If people of color are 
blocked from the ballot or the vote is subverted in 2022, it may be too 
late to steer our democracy back on course.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \172\ `The Big Lie', supra n. 165.
    \173\ Richard L. Hansen, Identifying and Minimizing the Risk of 
Election Subversion and Stolen Elections in the Contemporary United 
States (Sep. 18, 2021). Harvard Law Review Forum, Vol.135, 2022, UC 
Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2021-50, Available at SSRN: 
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3926381. see also Barton Gellman, Trump's 
Next Coup Has Already Begun, THE ATLANTIC (Dec. 6, 2021), https://
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-
trump-coup-2024-election/620843/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Historians will study the period between 2020 and 2025 for decades 
to come, seeking to explain the next century of American life. They 
will ask the question: Did we act when we had the chance, or did we 
squander our last, best hope to protect the freedom to vote and save 
our democracy? Black Americans have played a special role in our 
country's history in calling the Nation to honor its highest ideals. 
And, we have been raising alarm bells about the descent of our 
democracy for years.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \174\ Lani Guinier & Gerald Torres, The Miner's Canary, Harvard 
University Press (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    January 6th was not an isolated incident, but rather the 
unfortunate consequence of powerful interests fomenting a backlash to 
the 2020 elections. Those interests are determined to block the 
emergence of an inclusive, multi-racial democracy by erecting barriers 
to the ballot and by dismantling the non-partisan election 
infrastructure. Securing and protecting the freedom to vote and the 
integrity of our elections are essential to maintaining our still 
nascent democracy. Congress must act swiftly to do so before our 
democracy is unrecognizable, if it exists at all.
                                 ______
                                 
   Statement of Trevor Potter, Founder and President, Campaign Legal 
                                 Center
                             April 1, 2022
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony before the Select 
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States 
Capitol. I am the founder and president of Campaign Legal Center (CLC), 
a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to advancing American 
democracy through law. I am also a Republican former commissioner and 
chair of the Federal Election Commission, and served as general counsel 
to John McCain's 2000 and 2008 Presidential campaigns and deputy 
general counsel to President George H. W. Bush's 1988 Presidential 
campaign.
    American democracy stands at a perilous crossroads: Will it remain 
a country based on the rule of law and of truth, or fall to hidden 
manipulation and deception, and will the peaceful struggle to ensure 
representative self-government prevail over the fight for raw power? 
This Select Committee's urgent work to investigate the sources of what 
ails our political process and fueled the unprecedented attack on our 
Capitol is critical to begin reinforcing America's founding democratic 
ideals as a Nation of integrity and freedom.
    I testify before you to emphasize the threat that persistent lies 
about an allegedly ``stolen election'' present to our democratic 
institutions. The fiction that the voting and counting in the 2020 
election was in any form illegitimate has been thoroughly debunked in 
court proceedings across the country, in experts' analyses, and by the 
hardworking officials who oversaw the election. Nonetheless, the stolen 
election lies have persisted, creating a dangerous ecosystem in which 
contrived emergencies degrade public trust in elections, which is then 
used to justify changes in policy and law that impose real harms on our 
voting processes and the people who administer them.
    The emerging threats to our democratic processes that I want to 
address here manifest in four main categories: The increasing number of 
proposed State bills and enacted laws that cynically limit eligible 
voters' access to the ballot; the proliferation of ad hoc, partisan 
reviews of election results; the widening of cracks in our legal 
framework that can be exploited by rogue actors to usurp the electoral 
power from the people; and the alarming increase of threats against 
election officials and the politicization of their roles. These efforts 
to cast doubt on our electoral system have led to a startling loss of 
trust in the American political system that will take concerted efforts 
to restore.
    Although these problems are significant, I am confident they are 
solvable. The public's faith in the truth and in our democracy can 
overcome these difficult times. The Federal Government must help the 
truth prevail by enacting and enforcing laws that shore up our 
institutions and reduce the dangers imposed by the stolen election 
lies.
 a. stolen election lies lead to harmful voting restrictions, improper 
        government practices, and threats to election officials.
    Traditionally, the work of CLC and other voting rights and 
democracy reform organizations has emphasized combatting restrictions 
on the freedom to vote and improving voting access--from registration 
to the casting of ballots to the processing and tabulating stages. This 
work has taken on renewed importance in the face of the dramatic 
increase in State legislatures pushing bills that make it more 
difficult to vote for no good reason. But the nature of our work has 
also changed significantly since the post-election events that 
culminated on January 6, 2021. Now, democracy advocates must confront 
new hazards in the form of election sabotage and the politization of 
election administration that, along with pre-election restrictions of 
the franchise, can damage the integrity of the entire electoral system. 
Addressing these mounting concerns is critical to advancing democracy 
and protecting the freedom to vote.
    In this section of my testimony, I will briefly overview the stolen 
election lies that have escalated in recent years, and then will 
discuss in greater detail how those falsehoods have prompted real harms 
to voters, our democratic institutions, and the people who make our 
electoral system work.
    The election skeptics cast doubt on time-tested and widely-used 
programs that enable eligible voters to safely, conveniently, and 
securely exercise their freedom to vote--such as vote by mail, early 
voting, and accessible drop boxes--and have encouraged new laws that 
arbitrarily increase the costs of political participation. The 
falsehoods have led to partisan reviews of ballots and voting systems 
and have inspired new legislation that makes it easier for politicians 
to discard the expressed will of their voters. Distressingly, the lies 
endanger election officials with threats of violence, often forcing 
hardworking nonpartisan public servants out of their jobs and rousing 
highly partisan election conspiracists to try and replace them.
1. The stolen election lies are groundless and damaging.
    The proximate causes of the new subversive threats to American 
democracy are the widely dispersed lies that the 2020 Presidential 
election was ``stolen'', and that the winner is somehow illegitimate. 
Leading up to and since the 2020 election cycle, partisan actors have 
promoted the false narrative that there is wide-spread voter fraud in 
American elections and that their preferred candidates lose only 
because the other side cheated. Propagators of this conspiracy have 
used their stolen election lies to justify efforts to overturn the 
results of elections, to make voting harder, and to actually corrupt 
elections in the future.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See, e.g., Nick Corasaniti & Reid J. Epstein, How Republican 
States Are Expanding Their Power over Elections, N.Y. Times (June 19, 
2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/19/us/politics/republican-
states.html; National Task Force on Election Crises, Undermining Free & 
Fair Elections: An Update on the Risk of Election Crises Since November 
2020 at 3 (July 14, 2021), https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
5e70e52c7c72720- ed714313f/t/60ecbb773b84fb5bce43c7fc/1626127223644/
Task+- Force+Progress+Report+%28July+2021%29.pdf; see also States 
United Democracy Ctr., Protect Democracy, and Law Forward, Democracy 
Crisis Report Update: New Data and Trends Show the Warning Signs Have 
Intensified in the Last Two Months (June 10, 2021), https://
statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Democracy-Crisis-
Part-II_June-10_Final_v7.pdf; States United Democracy Ctr., Protect 
Democracy, and Law Forward, A Democracy Crisis in the Making (Apr. 22, 
2021), https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20688594/democracy-
crisis-report-april-21.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, what started as on-line misinformation that voters in 
Arizona were being ``forced to use felt-tipped Sharpie pens'' that they 
wrongly believed voting machines would not count inspired the false 
allegation ``that thousands of Trump votes would be thrown out in 
Arizona'' and became part of a slew of election lies about the election 
results there.\2\ This simple lie, quickly demonstrated by nonpartisan 
election officials to be false, might have been comical if it were not 
so destructive. But the falsehoods about Sharpies and ballots went on 
to help generate frivolous lawsuits challenging Arizona's results,\3\ 
and led to armed protesters crowding outside a ballot-counting center 
calling for vote-counting to stop.\4\ The election conspiracies in 
Arizona further prompted prominent elected officials to submit a 
falsified slate of alternative Presidential electors to Congress 
contrary to the popular vote in that State, undertake a costly and 
damaging partisan review of the ballots in the State's largest county, 
and propose and enact changes to State election law that reduce voter 
access and needlessly increase election costs and complexity.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Official Information Regarding the Use of Sharpies in Maricopa 
County, Citizens Clean Elections Comm'n, https://
www.azcleanelections.gov/election-security/sharpies (last accessed Mar. 
15, 2022); Rachel Leingang &McKenzie Sadeghi, Fact check: Arizona 
election departments confirm Sharpies can be used on ballots, USA Today 
(Nov. 5, 2022), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/
04/fact-check-sharpiegate-controversy-arizona-false-claim/6164820002/.
    \3\ Jim Rutenberg, et al., 77 Days: Trump's Campaign to Subvert the 
Election, N.Y. Times (Jan 31, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/
31/us/trump-election-lie.html.
    \4\ Tony Romm, et al., Facebook Bans `STOP THE STEAL' Group Trump 
Allies Were Using to Organize Protests Against Vote Counting, Wash. 
Post (Nov. 5, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/
05/facebook-trump-protests/.
    \5\ See States United Democracy Ctr. April and June Reports, supra 
note 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other stolen election lies arose from partisans exploiting some 
voters' misperception that all the eligible ballots would be processed 
and counted by the end of election day, and that they could expect 
final results that night. The time line for when all votes are 
processed and counted is in part related to the volume of ballots that 
election officials must accurately canvass. But perceived delays to the 
time line are also directly related to whether State law allows 
election officials to preprocess early returned ballots to be ready to 
tabulate as soon as polls close.\6\ Nearly every State in the country 
enables its election officials to preprocess valid ballots that are 
returned before election day by, for example, simply removing the 
ballot from its envelope, flattening it, and stacking it with other 
ballots to be ready for tabulation after polls close.\7\ With millions 
of ballots to count, this preparation time adds up; preprocessing 
reduces the already significant strain on election day. States that 
limit or prohibit preprocessing--including closely contested States 
like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin--prolonged the counting 
process, which stolen election lie believers exploited to sow doubt in 
the election.\8\ During this time, partisans used the delays they 
created in State law to promote their stolen election lies and pressure 
their constituents to launch ``stop the count'' movements that sought 
to distort election results by not tabulating lawful votes.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See, e.g., Derek Tisler, et al., The Roadmap to the Official 
Count in an Unprecedented Election, Brennan Ctr. for Justice (Oct. 26, 
2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/roadmap-
official-count-unprecedented-election; Edward B. Foley & Charles 
Stewart III, Explaining the Blue Shift in Election Canvassing, J. of 
Pol. Institutions and Pol. Economy (Mar. 1, 2020), http://dx.doi.org/
10.2139/ssrn.3547734.
    \7\ See Table 16: When Absentee/Mail Ballot Processing and Counting 
Can Begin, Nat'l Conf. of State Legislatures (Mar. 15, 2022), https://
www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-16-when-
absentee-mail-ballot-processing-and-counting-can-begin.aspx; Quinn 
Scanlan, How battleground States process mail ballots--and why it may 
mean delayed results, ABC News (Oct. 30, 2020), https://abcnews.go.com/
Politics/battleground-states-process-mail-ballots-delayed-results/
story?id=73717671.
    \8\ See, e.g., Zach Montellaro, Michigan, Pennsylvania and 
Wisconsin decided the 2016 election. We'll have to wait on them in 
2020., Politico (Sept. 15, 2020), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/
09/15/swing-states-election-vote-count-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin-
414465; Miles Parks, In Swing States, Officials Struggle To Process 
Ballots Early Due To Strict Local Laws, NPR (Oct. 14, 2020), https://
www.npr.org/2020/10/14/922202497/in-swing-states-laws-add-pressure-
prevent-officials-from-processing-ballots-earl.
    \9\ See, e.g., Tresa Baldas, et al., Chaos erupts at TCF Center as 
Republican vote challengers cry foul in Detroit, Detroit Free Press 
(Nov. 4, 2020), https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/
2020/11/04/tcf-center-challengers-detroit-michigan/6164715002/; Jim 
Rutenberg et al., supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The pressure campaign for partisans to subscribe to the stolen 
election lies has made the issue a National political litmus test for 
candidates across the country. During the height of the over 60 
frivolous litigation contests challenging the 2020 results, former 
President Trump undertook an unrelenting attack on the election by 
using his bully pulpit to publicly incite his supporters and to 
privately seek to coerce Federal and State officials to throw out the 
popular election.\10\ The lies spread on-line and on partisan media 
outlets, which were then promoted by hundreds of elected lawmakers who 
breached the public trust by magnifying the reach of these 
falsehoods.\11\ The rising threat of political violence from these lies 
prompted the incumbent National security and Federal law enforcement 
apparatus to reassure the public that the 2020 election was ``the most 
secure in American history'' with ``no evidence that any voting system 
deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way 
compromised''\12\ and no serious evidence of voter fraud.\13\ But the 
mistrust already sown meant many ``true believers'' believed these 
statements too were false. Since then, even some prominent proponents 
of the stolen election lies have admitted as a defense in court that 
``[n]o reasonable person would conclude that the statements 
[challenging the 2020 election] were truly statements of fact.''\14\ 
Nonetheless, the lies have continued, and are still believed by many.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Karen Yourish & Larry Buchanan, Since Election Day, a Lot of 
Tweeting and Not Much Else for Trump, N.Y. Times, Nov. 24, 2020, 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/24/us/politics/trump-
twitter-tweets-election-results.html (``In total, the president 
attacked the legitimacy of the election more than 400 times since 
Election Day, though his claims of fraud have been widely debunked''); 
Anita Kumar & Gabby Orr, Inside Trump's Pressure Campaign to Overturn 
the Election, Politico (Dec. 21, 2020), www.politico.com/news/2020/12/
21/trump-pressure-campaign-overturn-election-449486 (``In total, the 
President talked to at least 31 Republicans, encompassing mostly local 
and State officials from four critical battleground States he lost--
Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. The contacts included at 
least 12 personal phone calls to 11 individuals, and at least 4 White 
House meetings with 20 Republican State lawmakers, party leaders, and 
attorneys general, all people he hoped to win over to his side. Trump 
also spoke by phone about his efforts with numerous House Republicans 
and at least 3 current or incoming Senate Republicans.'').
    \11\ Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute, VoterFraud2020 Twitter 
Database, https://voterfraud2020.io/ (last visited Mar. 21, 2022); 
Justin Hendrix, The Big Lie Is a Reality, Just Security (Feb. 23, 
2022),https://www.justsecurity.org/80324/the-big-lie-is-a-reality/; 
Representative Zoe Lofgren, Social Media Review(Jan. 31, 2021), https:/
/housedocs.house.gov/lofgren/SocialMediaReview8.pdf.
    \12\ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Joint 
Statement From Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council 
& The Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees 
(Nov. 12, 2020), https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-
elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election.
    \13\ Adam Goldman & Zolan Kanno-Youngs, F.B.I. Director Sees No 
Evidence of National Mail Voting Fraud Effort, N.Y. Times (Sept. 24, 
2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/24/us/politics/fbi-director-
voter-fraud.html (quoting FBI director Christopher Wray); Michael 
Balsamo, Disputing Trump, Barr says no widespread election fraud, 
Associated Press (Dec. 1, 2020), https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-
widespread-election-fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d (quoting 
former Attorney General Bill Barr).
    \14\ Jane C. Timm, Sidney Powell's legal defense: `Reasonable 
people' wouldn't believe her election fraud claims, NBC News (Mar. 23, 
2021), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/sidney-powell-s-
legal-defense-reasonable-people-wouldn-t-believe-n1261809 (citing 
Sidney Powell legal filing in a subsequent defamation case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our democratic institutions bent but ultimately held firm under the 
strain of the post-2020 election chaos that culminated with the January 
6 attack on the Capitol and challenges to the electors. But the damage 
done, and the weaknesses exploited during that time, have laid the 
groundwork for future attacks against and within our electoral system. 
The former President has kept the stolen election lies narrative at the 
forefront,\15\ and made a candidate's willingness to accept those 
falsehoods a salient political criterion in party politics.\16\ The 
fabricated stolen election efforts have shifted political dynamics 
across the country, with one recent analysis finding that ``163 
Republicans who have embraced Trump's false claims are running for 
State-wide positions that would give them authority over the 
administration of elections.''\17\ And numerous losing candidates for 
public office since the 2020 election have already harnessed the stolen 
election lies to cast doubt on their losses and the legitimacy of their 
opponents, no matter the margin of victory.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ See, e.g., Melissa Block, The clear and present danger of 
Trump's enduring `Big Lie', NPR (Dec. 23, 2021), https://www.npr.org/
2021/12/23/1065277246/trump-big-lie-jan-6-election; Josh Dawsey, Trump 
muses on war with Russia and praises Kim Jong Un, Wash. Post (Mar. 6, 
2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/03/06/trump-focuses-
foreign-policy-speech-gops-top-donors/.
    \16\ Calvin Woodward, Trump's `Big Lie' imperils Republicans who 
don't embrace it, Associated Press (May 9, 2021), https://apnews.com/
article/michael-pence-donald-trump-election-2020-government-and-
politics-0c07947f9fd2b9911b3006f0fc128ffd.
    \17\ Ashley Parker, et al., How Republicans became the party of 
Trump's election lie after Jan. 6, Wash. Post (Jan. 5, 2022), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-jan-6-election-lie/2022/01/
05/82f4cad4-6cb6-11ec-974b-d1c6de8b26b0_story.html.
    \18\ Numerous losing candidates have refused to concede because of 
trumped-up lies about voting fraud. For example, upon losing to 
Congresswoman Karen Bass of California, challenger Errol Webber echoed 
President Trump's rhetoric, tweeting, ``I will NOT concede. Every LEGAL 
vote needs to be counted!'' In Maryland, candidate Kimberly Klacik cast 
doubt on the validity of mail-in votes, writing, ``I beat my opponent 
on day of & in-person early voting, along with absentee. However, 97k 
mail-in ballots were found in his favor?'' See Teo Armus, Echoing 
Trump, Congressional Candidates Refuse to Concede, Make Unproven Fraud 
Claims, Wash. Post (Nov. 10, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
nation/2020/11/10/congress-trump-election-fraud-claim/; see also John 
L. Dorman, A Florida Republican who was defeated by 59 percentage 
points in a Congressional special election won't concede, Business 
Insider (Jan. 16, 2022), https://www.businessinsider.com/florida-
republican-mariner-wont-concede-cherfilus-mccormick-house-race-
landslide-2022-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These stolen election lies cast a dangerous shadow extending well 
beyond 2020. Proponents of the lies continue to interrogate election 
officials and demand they prove a negative--that no distortions 
affected the elections--as a justification to continue repeating 
falsehoods about the voting system indefinitely.\19\ Researchers 
studying misinformation predict that such manipulations of the truth 
and the public trust will continue on ``for years or even 
decades.''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Jane Mayer, The Big Money Behind the Big Lie, The New Yorker 
(Aug. 2, 2021), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/08/09/the-big-
money-behind-the-big-lie.
    \20\ Brian Fung & Rishi Iyengar, Misinformation Channels Claim 
Biden Is No Longer President-elect. That's Not True., CNN (Nov. 11, 
2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/tech/biden-lost-pennsylvania-
fact-check/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The election falsehoods encourage laws that limit voter access.
    Even before the post-election chaos of 2020, early proponents of 
stolen election lies derided States that sought to make access to 
voting easier--during an unprecedented global pandemic--so their 
citizens could safely make their voices heard without putting their 
health in jeopardy.\21\ The focus of the attack became voting by mail, 
where eligible registered voters receive a mailed ballot to their home 
and can return their voted ballot before election day, often by return 
mail or by dropping it off at a designated location.\22\ This type of 
voting has been available for years in a range of States, with 
Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Utah adopting a comprehensive 
vote by mail system before 2020 but still providing their citizens with 
alternative opportunities to vote in-person on election day.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ See, e.g., Miles Parks, Ignoring FBI And Fellow Republicans, 
Trump Continues Assault On Mail-In Voting, NPR (Aug. 28, 2020), https:/
/www.npr.org/2020/08/28/906676695/ignoring-fbi-and-fellow-republicans-
trump-continues-assault-on-mail-in-voting.
    \22\ See, e.g., Kimberly Hall, Vote-By-Mail and Absentee Voting--
Secure Alternatives to Cast Your Ballot in 2020, Campaign Legal Ctr. 
(Aug. 27, 2020), https://campaignlegal.org/update/vote-mail-and-
absentee-voting-secure-alternatives-cast-your-ballot-2020.
    \23\ Since 2020, three other States--California, Nevada, and 
Vermont--have also moved to a comprehensive vote-by-mail system. See 
Table 18: States With All-Mail Elections, Nat'l Conf. of State 
Legislatures (Feb. 3, 2022), https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-
and-campaigns/vopp-table-18-states-with-all-mail-elections.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite the successful practices in these States, numerous studies 
showing vote by mail is safe and secure, and even many stolen election 
proponents themselves using that method to cast their own ballot, 
falsehoods about vote by mail took off in 2020.\24\ The lies were 
deliberate and carefully planned, operating to convince a segment of 
voters that there would be two elections, one legitimate and comprised 
only of in-person, election-day voting, and a separate, fraudulent 
election where vote-by-mail ballots were frauds and favored one 
political party.\25\ This highly effective and pernicious 
disinformation campaign against expanded voting access spread across 
the American political media ecosystem to mislead Americans that vote 
by mail is somehow unreliable or manipulable.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Tim Alberta, A Journey Into the Heart of America's Voting 
Paranoia, Politico Magazine (Oct. 30, 2020), https://www.politico.com/
news/magazine/2020/10/30/voting-mail-election-2020-paranoia-433356.
    \25\ Jonathan Swan & Zachary Basu, A premeditated lie lit the fire, 
Axios (Jan. 16, 2021), https://www.axios.com/trump-election-
premeditated-lie-ebaf4a1f-46bf-4c37-ba0d-3ed5536ef537.html?deepdive=1.
    \26\ Yochai Benkler, et al., Mail-In Voter Fraud: Anatomy of a 
Disinformation Campaign, Harvard Berkman Klein Ctr. (Oct. 1, 2020), 
https://cyber.harvard.edu/publication/2020/Mail-in-Voter-Fraud-
Disinformation-2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In reality, our elections are quite secure, and the actual 
occurrence of voter fraud is vanishingly rare.\27\ The many successes 
in the administration of the 2020 election and low occurrence of 
irregularities, even under strained pandemic conditions, only further 
proves the point.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ See, e.g., Elaine Kamarck and Christine Stenglein, Low Rates 
of Fraud in Vote-By-Mail States Show the Benefits Outweigh the Risks, 
The Brookings Institution (June 2, 2020), https://brook.gs/3ct24tJ 
(analyzing elections in universal vote-by-mail States--Colorado, 
Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington--and discrediting fraud concerns); 
Wendy R. Weiser, The False Narrative of Vote-by-Mail Fraud Brennan Ctr. 
for Justice (Apr. 10, 2020), www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-
opinion/false-narrative-vote-mail-fraud (studying voter datasets and 
concluding it is ``more likely for an American to be struck by 
lightning than to commit mail voting fraud''); Richard L. Hasen, 
Election Meltdown 128 (2020) (summarizing that ``[t]he issue of 
organized voter fraud has now been put to the test in courts and in 
social science'' and amounts to no more than ``a sham perpetuated by 
people who should know better, advanced for political advantage'').
    \28\ Nick Corasaniti, et al., The Times Called Officials in Every 
State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud, N.Y. Times (Nov. 6, 2021), https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/politics/voting-fraud.html; Christina A. 
Cassidy, Far too little vote fraud to tip election to Trump, AP finds, 
Associated Press (Dec. 14, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/voter-
fraud-election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-
7fcb6f134e528fee8237c7601db3328f; Jane Mayer, supra note 19 (stating, 
for example, that ``data on Arizona, the putative center of the storm, 
is not exactly alarming: of the millions of votes cast in the State 
from 2016 to 2020, only nine individuals were convicted of fraud. Each 
instance involved someone casting a duplicate ballot in another State. 
There were no recorded cases of identity fraud, ballot stuffing, voting 
by non-citizens, or other nefarious schemes. The numbers confirm that 
there is some voter fraud, or at least confusion, but not remotely 
enough to affect election outcomes'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But the stolen election lies that attacked the innovations ensuring 
voting was safe and convenient in 2020--and producing record-breaking 
high turnout for voters of all political persuasions \29\--have 
continued and materialized in harmful changes in State laws. As 
Benjamin Ginsberg, a prominent Republican election lawyer, summarized, 
partisans who support the stolen election lies are ``conjuring up 
charges of fraud to erect barriers to voting for people [the Republican 
party] fears won't support its candidates.''\30\ The falsehoods have 
inspired a well-funded national movement that exploits the stolen 
election lies and baseless claims of fraud to make voting needlessly 
harder; it undermines the basic democratic guarantee that all eligible 
voters must be empowered to vote and have that vote counted.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Drew DeSilver, Turnout soared in 2020 as nearly two-thirds of 
eligible U.S. voters cast ballots for president, Pew Research Ctr. 
(Jan. 28, 2021), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/28/
turnout-soared-in-2020-as-nearly-two-thirds-of-eligible-u-s-voters-
cast-ballots-for-president/  (collecting turnout sources).
    \30\ Jeremy W. Peters, In Restricting Early Voting, the Right Sees 
a New `Center of Gravity', N.Y. Times (Mar. 24, 2021), https://
www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/us/politics/republicans-trump-voting-
rights.html/.
    \31\ Jane Mayer, supra note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the end of the 2021 State legislative sessions, States across 
the country had enacted a record-shattering number of new voting 
restrictions that often derived from the stolen election lies. In 
total, State legislators proposed 581 new bills that experts say would 
have made voting more difficult.\32\ Lawmakers in 21 States enacted 
into law 52 of those proposed bills--many of which were omnibus bills 
containing dozens of new restrictions--to make voting more 
difficult.\33\ This steep increase in new anti-voter laws far exceeded 
the previous high-water mark set with the 19 total voting restrictions 
enacted in 2011.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ These totals from the 2021 legislative sessions are derived 
from trackers at the Brennan Center for Justice, the Voting Rights Lab, 
and FiveThirtyEight. See, e.g., Voting Rights Lab, Comprehensive Bill 
Search, https://tracker.votingrightslab.org/pending/search (last 
accessed Mar. 23, 2022); Kaleigh Rogers, The Big Lie's Long Shadow, 
FiveThirtyEight (Jan. 12, 2022), https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/
the-big-lie-voting-laws/; Nathaniel Rakich & Elena Mejia, Texas's New 
Law Is The Climax Of A Record-Shattering Year For Voting Restrictions, 
FiveThirtyEight (Sept. 8, 2021), https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/
texass-new-law-is-the-climax-of-a-record-shattering-year-for-voting-
restrictions/; Voting Laws Roundup: December 2021, Brennan Ctr. for 
Justice (Jan. 12, 2022), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-december-2021.
    \33\ See sources cited supra note 32.
    \34\ Wendy R. Weiser & Lawrence Norden, Voting Law Changes in 2012, 
Brennan Ctr. for Justice (Oct. 3, 2011), https://www.brennancenter.org/
our-work/research-reports/voting-law-changes-2012/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recent laws enacted in Texas and Georgia provide two of the most 
glaring examples. In those States, lawmakers hastily pushed through two 
broad election law measures--known as Georgia S.B. 202 and Texas S.B. 
1--that dramatically changed the States' voting processes to make 
access to the ballot more difficult overall. The legislatures in both 
States did so by engaging in procedural maneuvering that limited public 
input, relying on politically-motivated outside organizations to draft 
numerous provisions, and at times admitting that the changes were to 
serve a political calculation rather than bolster a fair voting 
process.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ See Exclusive: Documented Obtains Recording of 3 Hour Long 
Voter Suppression Strategy Session Hosted by ALEC, Documented (Dec. 6, 
2021), https://documented.net/investigations/exclusive-documented-
obtains-recording-of-3-hour-long-voter-suppression-strategy-session-
hosted-by-alec; Aris Folley, Georgia's GOP House Speaker says vote-by-
mail system would be `devastating to Republicans', The Hill (Apr. 4, 
2020), https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/490879-georgias-gop-
house-speaker-says-vote-by-mail-system-would-be-devastating; Stephen 
Fowler and David Armstrong, 16 Years Later, Georgia Lawmakers Flip 
Views On Absentee Voting, Georgia Public Broadcasting (Mar. 7, 2021), 
https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/03/07/16-years-later-georgia-lawmakers-
flip-views-on-absentee-voting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Among other restrictions, both laws reduce the applicable time 
periods to request a mail-in ballot, and then add confusing 
requirements for voters submitting a vote by mail ballot or an 
application for a ballot to provide additional information that does 
not correlate with voting eligibility and disrupts voters' settled 
expectations. So far, the results of the two new laws are that fewer 
eligible voters, and in particular voters of color, are able to 
participate in the political process. In Texas this year, provisions of 
S.B. 1 resulted in election officials disqualifying vote-by-mail 
ballots at abnormally high rates during the State's 2022 primary.\36\ 
Roughly 13% of all submitted vote-by-mail ballots were discarded as a 
direct result of the new restrictive legal requirements, while experts 
say that any rejection rate above 2% is cause for concern in a typical 
election.\37\ The result was that 22,898 likely eligible voters in 
Texas did not have their ballots counted during the primary because of 
new hurdles S.B. 1 put in place.\38\ In Georgia, S.B. 202's changed 
requirements also led to election officials rejecting 4% of mail-in 
ballot request forms--up from fewer that 1% before the new law's 
restrictions were enacted. In a State like Georgia, where the margin of 
victory is often narrow, such a high number of voter rejections could 
make the difference in close elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\ Paul J. Weber & Acacia Coronado, Texas mail ballot rejections 
soar under new restrictions, Associated Press (Mar. 16, 2022), https://
apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-elections-texas-voting-only-
on-ap-45ba51fe9dd951a0f82015bd6bd9ff41.
    \37\ Id.
    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Texas' and Georgia's new restrictions are unfortunately not 
outliers. Florida in 2021 similarly enacted an omnibus restrictive 
voting law, S.B. 90, that also increased the costs of voting by mail 
and risks heightened rejections of eligible voters as in Georgia and 
Texas.\39\ Arizona, among several other restrictive laws, enacted H.B. 
1485 \40\ that made the State's permanent early voting list no longer 
permanent because declining to vote would trigger eligible voters being 
kicked off the list.\41\ Montana enacted numerous new laws--H.B. 176, 
H.B. 506, and S.B. 169--that in effect make it harder for students and 
Native voters to participate in the political process.\42\ And Iowa 
enacted S.F. 413, which makes voting more burdensome at nearly every 
stage of the process by significantly shortening available voting hours 
and opportunities.\43\ All of these bills and others have drawn costly 
litigation, requiring taxpayers to expend huge sums to defend laws that 
make it harder for them to vote, and are based on lies about elections 
rather than any empirical need to disrupt the valid ballot security 
measures already in place.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Lawrence Mower, Florida Senate passes law calling for new 
elections security office under DeSantis control, Miami Herald (Mar. 6, 
2022), https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-
politics/article259083293.html.
    \40\ H.B. 1485, 55th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2021).
    \41\ Ben Giles, Arizona Republicans Enact Sweeping Changes To 
State's Early Voting List, NPR (May 11, 2021), https://www.npr.org/
2021/05/11/995998370/arizona-republicans-enact-sweeping-changes-to-
states-early-voting-list.
    \42\ Iris Samuels, Lawsuit argues new Montana law suppresses 
student vote, Associated Press (Oct. 12, 2021), https://apnews.com/
article/congress-university-of-montana-montana-helena-voter-
registration-1e8774b19ba6faaa2165a96cf9e4e89e; Kevin Trevellyan, 
Advocates Fear Montana's New Ballot Law Could Harm Voters Who Struggle 
To Be Heard, NPR (May 25, 2021), https://www.npr.org/2021/05/25/
999904063/advocates-fear-montanas-new-ballot-law-could-harm-voters-who-
struggle-to-be-hear.
    \43\ Stephen Gruber-Miller, Gov. Kim Reynolds signs law shortening 
Iowa's early and Election Day voting, Des Moines Reg. (Mar. 9, 2021), 
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/08/iowa-
governor-kim-reynolds-signs-law-shortening-early-voting-closing-polls-
earlier-election-day/6869317002/.
    \44\ See, e.g., Voting Rights Litigation Tracker, Brennan Ctr. for 
Justice (Mar. 22, 2022), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
research-reports/voting-rights-litigation-tracker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The harmful results of the 2021 legislative session are far from 
the last word about what the stolen election lies have done to reshape 
voting in America. This year, in 2022, State legislatures across the 
country are back to work building on the election falsehoods to 
continue making voting harder for their citizens. As of March 2022, 
numerous proposed bills that are even more extreme that those presented 
in 2021 are making their way through States' legislatures.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\ See e.g., Voting Laws Roundup: February 2022, Brennan Ctr. for 
Justice (Feb. 9, 2022), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-february-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, Arizona legislators have rushed to introduce over a 
hundred election bills that would politicize the State's election 
administration processes and propose substantial cutbacks to voting 
options that have historically eased the burdens on Arizona voters.\46\ 
One of the most egregious proposals that Arizona recently enacted into 
law, H.B. 2492, adds significant new voter registration and voter 
eligibility requirements that proponents knowingly enacted to violate 
Federal law.\47\ Among other extreme provisions, H.B. 2492 feeds off 
the stolen election lies by demanding that all voters provide costly 
and at times inaccessible documentary proof of U.S. citizenship and 
proof of current residence to be eligible to vote; conditioning ability 
to register on whether a voter submits a State registration form or 
Federal registration form; targeting naturalized U.S. citizens by 
mandating registrants disclose their place of birth, even though that 
is immaterial to eligibility; requiring State officials to check voters 
against inaccurate and stale databases to initiate purging them from 
the registration rolls, and then subjecting them to potential criminal 
prosecution; and prohibiting an entire class of eligible registered 
voters from using vote-by-mail opportunities and voting in Presidential 
elections at all.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\ Kirk Siegler & Liz Baker, Arizona Republicans continue pushing 
voting restrictions, risking backfire, NPR (Mar. 4, 2022), https://
www.npr.org/2022/03/04/1083501487/arizona-republicans-continue-pushing-
voting-restrictions-risking-backfire.
    \47\ H.B. 2492, 56th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2022).
    \48\ Ray Stern, Arizona requires proof of citizenship for voters, 
under bill signed by Gov. Ducey, Arizona Republic (Mar. 29, 2022), 
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/03/30/
proof-citizenship-bill-arizona-voters-signed-gov-ducey/7221503001/; 
Katya Schwenk, `Extreme' Arizona Elections Bills Inching Closer to Law, 
Phoenix New Times (March 30, 2022), https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/
news/extreme-arizona-elections-bills-inching-closer-to-law-13323436; 
Ray Stern, Would proof-of-citizenship bill really purge 200K voters? 
Answers mixed, Arizona Republic (Mar. 29, 2022), https://
www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2022/03/29/arizona-
bill-proof-citizenship-voters-legal-issues/7188177001/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, a law that recently passed in Florida, S.B. 254, 
creates a new election crimes ``police force''--a measure local 
election officials deemed a ``recipe for disaster'' that seeks to 
placate stolen election lie proponents and invites the harassment of 
eligible voters.\49\ Georgia lawmakers have taken similar steps to 
advance H.B. 1464, which would, along with other disruptive election 
law changes, also create a broad-mandated election investigation task 
force that nonpartisan election officials oppose.\50\ And Idaho 
legislators have pushed two bills, H.B. 692 and H.B. 693, that reduce 
voting opportunities and that proponents have explicitly tied to their 
2020 stolen election lies.\51\ These are among many other examples of 
State lawmakers continuing to make policy decisions based on myths 
about the 2020 Presidential results, and currying political favor with 
the proponents of those falsehoods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Gary Fineout, Legislature gives DeSantis new election police 
to target voter fraud in Florida,  Politico (Mar. 10, 2022), https://
www.politico.com/news/2022/03/10/desantis-gets-florida-election-police-
00015926.
    \50\ See, e.g., Jeff Amy, Georgia Republicans seek further changes 
to election laws, Associated Press (Mar. 16, 2022), https://apnews.com/
article/2022-midterm-elections-voting-donald-trump-elections-atlanta-
c6484e2653e93bb8885b6273f65c1cab; Maya King & Nick Corasaniti, Local 
Election Officials in Georgia Oppose G.O.P. Election Bill, N.Y. Times 
(Mar. 28, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/28/us/politics/
georgia-election-bill.html.
    \51\ Clark Corbin, Idaho legislative committee advances to bills 
making last-minute voting changes,  Idaho Capital Sun (Mar. 2, 2022), 
https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/03/02/idaho-legislative-committee-
advances-to-bills-making-last-minute-voting-changes/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, some key States have continued their unwillingness to 
make positive changes in State election law that would give voters 
greater faith in our elections. Most notable are Pennsylvania, 
Michigan, and Wisconsin, which, as described above, have continued 
their refusal to implement adequate procedures for election officials 
to preprocess early received ballots to lessen the overwhelming work on 
election day, enable quicker results, and reduce the ability of 
election conspiracists to sow doubt during the post-election day 
period. Pennsylvania failed to enact legislation that would give 
election officials more time to process vote-by-mail ballots.\52\ 
Wisconsin lawmakers have likewise declined to take up a proposal that 
would allow preprocessing and ease election day burdens.\53\ Michigan 
officials changed the law in late 2020 to permit some larger cities to 
open ballot envelopes 1 day before election day, but this slight change 
was inadequate to allow for proper preprocessing.\54\ Following the 
2020 election, some Michigan lawmakers wanted to go the opposite 
direction and make ballot counting even more difficult. Instead of 
allowing election officials added time to preprocess ballots, the 
lawmakers introduced a bill that would have mandated vote-counting stop 
the day after election day, regardless of whether all ballots were 
counted.\55\ States failing to make necessary and noncontroversial 
changes to avoid prolonged vote counting risks repeating the same 
mistakes of the 2020 election that gave room for the stolen election 
lies to develop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Stephen Caruso, Little has changed for Pennsylvania election 
officials, voters heading into 2022, Pennsylvania Capital-Star (Mar. 
18, 2022), https://www.penncapital-star.com/civil-rights-social-
justice/little-has-changed-for-pennsylvania-election-officials-voters-
heading-into-2022/.
    \53\ See Shawn Johnson, Wisconsin bill to allow for early canvass 
of absentee ballots likely dead, Wisc. Public Radio (Mar. 8, 2022), 
https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-bill-allow-early-canvass-absentee-
ballots-likely dead.
    \54\ Jonathan Oosting, Clerks: Michigan needs practical election 
reforms, not partisan posturing, Bridge Michigan (Mar. 1, 2022), 
https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/clerks-michigan-needs-
practical-election-reforms-not-partisan-posturing.
    \55\ See S.B. 299, 100th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Mich. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The choices undertaken by legislators to give credence to stolen 
election lies by undermining our voting system are deeply misguided. 
Alternatively, bipartisan groups of lawmakers in some States have 
rightly taken the lesson of the 2020 election to be that expansions to 
voter access help all voters and do not benefit one political party 
over another. Kentucky is an example of productive, bipartisan 
lawmaking to make voting easier without compromising election security. 
The State recently enacted legislation to increase voting options and 
election security (at least as compared to pre-pandemic elections), 
including an expansion of early voting, an on-line portal for 
requesting a mail-in ballot, and a gradual transition to voting systems 
that guarantee a paper ballot trail.\56\ Likewise, Utah's legislature 
rejected a proposed bill that would have eliminated Utah's 
comprehensive vote-by-mail system, H.B. 371, because a bipartisan group 
of lawmakers spurned the baseless claims of fraud and understood that 
expansions to voting help all citizens.\57\ Indeed, in Virginia, which 
has in recent years enacted many reliable expansions that improve 
voting access, saw historic high voter turnout in the election of a 
Republican Governor, further disproving the notion that letting more 
people vote redounds to the advantage of one political party.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Bruce Schreiner, Kentucky Governor Signs Bipartisan Early 
Voting Measure, Associated Press (Apr. 7, 2021), https://
www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-04-07/kentucky-governor-
signs-bipartisan-early-voting-measure.
    \57\ Bryan Schott, Utah House committee rejects baseless claims of 
election fraud; soundly defeats bill to end universal vote by mail, 
Salt Lake Trib. (Feb. 23, 2022), https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/
2022/02/23/utah-house-committee/.
    \58\ Reid J. Epstein, The Democratic Turnout Myth Unravels, N.Y. 
Times (Nov. 6, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/politics/
democrats-turnout-virginia.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The last 2 years of States' efforts to make significant cutbacks to 
the freedom to vote show that groundless stolen election myths are 
resulting in real-world consequences at voters' expense. Falsely 
asserting that voting by mail is somehow illegitimate (while often 
using that mechanism oneself) or that expanding times to vote somehow 
increases the risk of corruption is not empty rhetoric. Voters carry 
the burdens of these lies, and in the end they result in bad policy 
that makes the costs of participating in our democratic process higher 
for no valid reason.
3. The election falsehoods encourage partisan ballot reviews and 
        partisan election takeovers that undermine the integrity of the 
        voting system.
    The stolen election lies have also led to problematic new laws and 
practices that hyper-politicize the administration of elections and 
reviews of their results. This falls into two main categories: The 
inception of partisan sham audits that question lawfully certified 
results, and the attempted partisan usurpation of authority over 
elections administration that shifts control from designated election 
officials to political actors. These transformations that arise from 
the stolen election lies pose a tremendous threat to the proper 
functioning of, and the people's trust in, our voting system.
            i. Post-election partisan sham ``audits'' diminish trust in 
                    elections.
    True post-election audits, in which a subset of the ballots cast in 
each county are hand-counted to verify the accuracy of the initial 
reported results, are standard practice in many States across the 
county.\59\ But following the 2020 election, partisan actors in certain 
States sought to vindicate their falsehoods by undertaking unreliable 
post-certification reviews of the final results. Unlike standard post-
election audits--which include numerous safeguards to ensure 
reliability and transparency, and which serve a valuable role in our 
democracy--these ad hoc partisan investigations employ unqualified 
third parties using unreliable techniques to go on fishing expeditions 
for political fodder. Such sham investigations that build off the 
stolen election lies threaten to undermine confidence in our election 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ See Post-Election Audits, Nat'l Conf. of State Legislatures 
(Oct. 25, 2019), https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/
post-election-audits635926066.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The most infamous of these efforts, in Maricopa County, Arizona, 
illustrates the deficiencies and dangers of post-election partisan 
reviews that operate outside the typical audit framework. Roughly 
10,000 votes separated the winner and loser in Arizona's Presidential 
election results in 2020.\60\ A standard post-election audit conducted 
by a bipartisan group of election officials under State law found no 
irregularities.\61\ But dissatisfied with this outcome, and under 
pressure from supporters of the stolen election lies, Arizona's State 
senate leadership authorized a so-called ``forensic audit'' of the 
results only in Maricopa County--Arizona's largest and most diverse 
county.\62\ The legislature demanded--on threat of criminal 
prosecution--that Maricopa County officials turn over voter equipment 
and millions of ballots to a contractor called Cyber Ninjas that had no 
relevant experience in election work, dubious fundraising sources, 
unambiguous partisan and financial incentives, and volunteer staff 
comprised of aggrieved supporters of the losing Presidential 
candidate.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ See Arizona Election Results, State of Ariz., https://
results.arizona.vote/#/featured/18/0 (last visited Mar. 19, 2022).
    \61\ See Jonathan Bydlak, et al., Brennan Ctr. for Justice, 
Partisan Election Review Efforts in Five States 3-4 (July 8, 2021), 
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/
Partisan%20Election%20Review%20- 
Efforts%20Across%20the%20United%20States%20in%202021%20%2007.08.21.pdf.
    \62\ See Jonathan Bydlak, et al., supra note 62, at 5-6; Bob 
Christie, Arizona Senate Releases More Records of 2020 Election Review, 
Associated Press (Sept. 1, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/elections-
senate-elections-election-recounts-87a4805f495f9d4cfddf5827429ab105.
    \63\ See, e.g., Trey Grayson and Barry C. Burden, Report on the 
Cyber Ninjas Review of the 2020 Presidential and U.S. Senatorial 
Elections in Maricopa County, Arizona, States United Democracy Ctr. 
(June 22, 2021); StephenRicher, The Madness of the Maricopa County 
Election Audit, National Review (May 27, 2021), https://
www.nationalreview.com/2021/05/the-madness-of-the-maricopa-county-
election-audit/; Dan Zak, The Mess in Maricopa, Washington Post (May 
21, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2021/05/21/arizona-
election-audit-trump-maricopa/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The unprofessional and partisan Cyber Ninjas process ultimately 
confirmed that the announced winner of Arizona's Presidential election 
did in fact receive the most votes. But it nevertheless raised several 
baseless claims about the security of Arizona's elections,\64\ which 
has provided a pretext for Arizona lawmakers to foment skepticism of 
the results and propose changes in Arizona law that would make voting 
access harder and election administration more partisan.\65\ Despite 
Maricopa County publishing an exhaustive report thoroughly debunking 
the conspiracies promoted in the Cyber Ninjas report, polls show that 
the damage to Arizonans' faith in the integrity of the State's 
elections was already done just by having the sham review at all.\66\ 
Only 36% of those polled believe that the Cyber Ninjas review proved 
the fair winner in Maricopa County, and a majority of Republicans still 
rejected that topline finding, choosing to believe instead that the 
process found significant fraud to further validate the stolen election 
lies.\67\ The tangible costs go even further, with the Cyber Ninjas 
process now running up a $4 million bill to taxpayers to replace 
compromised election equipment and address numerous legal disputes.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Ben Giles, The Discredited GOP Election Review in Arizona's 
Largest County Also Finds Biden Won, NPR (Sept. 24, 2021), https://
www.npr.org/2021/09/24/1040327483/the-controversial-election-review-in-
arizona-confirms-bidens-win.
    \65\ Miles Parks, Experts Call It a `Clown Show' but Arizona 
`Audit' Is a Disinformation Blueprint, NPR (June 3, 2021), https://
www.npr.org/2021/06/03/1000954549/experts-call-it-a-clown-show-but-
arizona-audit-is-a-disinformation-blueprint.
    \66\ See Maricopa County Elections Department, Correcting the 
Record (Jan. 2022), https://recorder.maricopa.gov/justthefacts/pdf/
Correcting%20The%20Record%20- %20January%202022%20Report.pdf.
    \67\ Erin Snodgrass, The much-maligned Arizona election audit 
reinforced doubt about the 2020 election results, according to a new 
poll, Business Insider (Nov. 15, 2021), https://
www.businessinsider.com/arizona-election-audit-reinforced-doubt-about-
2020-election-results-2021-11.
    \68\ Mary Jo Pitzl, How the price tag of the Arizona Senate's 
review of the 2020 election grew from $150K to more than $4M, Arizona 
Republic (Feb. 23, 2022), https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/
politics/arizona/2022/02/23/arizona-audit-cost-to-taxpayers-for-2020-
election-review-tops-4-million/6829459001/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, Arizona's error-prone, costly, and partisan-
motivated ``investigation'' has not been an isolated occurrence.\69\ 
Undeterred by the roundly rejected and wasteful Cyber Ninjas review, 
other States have followed Arizona's lead to undertake their own 
partisan election investigations that further damage faith in our 
voting systems. After the Governor vetoed the Pennsylvania 
legislature's proposed wide-ranging measure to rewrite the State's 
election law, including provisions that would enable partisan officials 
to sabotage elections, lawmakers turned to other methods to further 
their stolen election lies. In September 2021, State senators in 
Pennsylvania began what they called a ``forensic investigation'' of the 
election that was decided and certified almost a year prior.\70\ The 
investigation launched a sweeping, ad hoc, secretive, and standardless 
review of ballots, which, among other things, attempted to subpoena the 
private information of more than 9 million registered voters for 
analysis by a firm with no experience in election law or data 
analytics.\71\ When details of the contract with the audit company were 
eventually released to the public, more questions than answers remained 
and it is unclear if the results of the ``investigation'' due in May 
2022 will be released for public scrutiny.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\ See Not an Audit, States United Action, Fair Fight Action 
United to Protect Democracy, https://notanaudit.com/ (last visited Mar. 
31, 2022).
    \70\ Andrew Seidman & Jonathan Lai, What to know about Pennsylvania 
Republicans' investigation of the 2020 election, The Phila. Inquirer 
(Sept. 29, 2021), https://www.inquirer.com/politics/pennsylvania/
pennsylvania-election-audit-2021-updates-results-20210922.html.
    \71\ States United Democracy Ctr. June Report, supra note 1.
    \72\ Sam Dunklau, Pa. Senate election probe contract doesn't say if 
the public will see the results, among other things, WITF (Dec. 9, 
2021), https://www.witf.org/2021/12/07/pa-senate-election-probe-
contract-doesnt-say-if-the-public-will-see-the-results-among-other-
things/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Texas, just days after the conclusion of the Arizona sham review 
and hours after a request from the former President, the Texas 
secretary of state's office announced a ``full forensic audit'' of the 
2020 general election in four Texas counties: Collin, Dallas, Harris, 
and Tarrant.\73\ Unsurprisingly, the first batch of results of the 
review found nothing out of the ordinary.\74\ But regardless, the 
efforts undertaken gave election skeptics more reasons to further their 
lies about the results--even in a State that the former President won.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\ Neelam Bohra, Texas secretary of state's office auditing four 
counties' 2020 elections months after an official called the Statewide 
process ``smooth and secure'', The Texas Tribune (Sept. 23, 2021), 
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/23/texas-2020-election-audit/.
    \74\ Alexa Ura & Allyson Waller, First part of Texas' 2020 election 
audit reveals few issues, echoes findings from review processes already 
in place, The Texas Tribune (Dec. 31, 2021), https://
www.texastribune.org/2021/12/31/secretary-state-texas-election-audit/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, in Wisconsin, a top State lawmaker hired former Wisconsin 
Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman to oversee a partisan 
investigation of the 2020 election, announcing the selection at his 
political party's annual convention.\75\ Gableman's alleged vow to act 
as a neutral arbiter with no preconceived conclusions was inconsistent 
with his previous public and private efforts to spread the stolen 
election lies.\76\ When Gableman released his 136-page report to the 
General Assembly in February 2022, he embraced fringe election 
conspiracies and advocated for the decertification of the 2020 election 
results--a proposal both impossible and unlawful.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\ Shawn Johnson, Following Warning By Trump, Vos Announces 
Former Justice Will Lead Assembly GOP Election Probe, Wisc. Public 
Radio (June 26, 2021), https://www.wpr.org/following-warning-trump-vos-
announces-former-justice-will-lead-assembly-gop-election-probe.
    \76\ Patrick Marley, Michael Gableman said bureaucrats `stole our 
votes' before he was put in charge of reviewing 2020 election, 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Jan. 6, 2022), https://www.jsonline.com/
story/news/politics/2021/08/09/michael-gableman-said-election-stolen-
before-put-charge-wisconsin-review/5518815001/ Scott Bauer, Ex-
justice's Wisconsin election probe drags as critics scoff, Associated 
Press (Feb. 7, 2022), https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-wisconsin-
elections-racial-injustice-election-2020-
9f9ce4a95e3d21bebb4ef7bd9543146f.
    \77\ GOP investigator suggests Wisconsin Legislature decertify 2020 
election results, WISN (Mar. 1, 2022) https://www.wisn.com/article/
wisconsin-republican-report-suggests-decertifying-2020-election-
results/39271268; Zach Montellaro, Wisconsin GOP's 2020 report embraces 
fringe election decertification theory, Politico (Mar. 1, 2022), 
www.politico.com/news/2022/03/01/wisconsin-republicans-embrace-
election-decertification-00012793.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While these partisan audits have largely gone unaddressed and seem 
to be further expanding to other States, the U.S. Department of Justice 
has published warnings about their harms to our democratic process. In 
July 2021, the Attorney General released guidance to ensure that States 
comply with Federal law if conducting post-election ``audits.''\78\ The 
Attorney General's stated primary concerns with these purported audits 
are two-fold: The risk to compromising election records, as happened in 
Arizona, and the threats of voter intimidation, such as those 
associated with stolen election conspiracists going door-to-door to 
interrogate voters in North Carolina, Colorado, and elsewhere.\79\ 
Along these lines, the Attorney General sent a letter to the organizers 
of the Arizona audit, which lead them to drop a planned canvass of 
voters under the threat of Federal enforcement action.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\ U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Department Issues Guidance on 
Federal Statutes Regarding Voting Methods and Post-Election ``Audits'' 
(July 28, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-
issues-guidance-federal-statutes-regarding-voting-methods-and-post.
    \79\ See, e.g., Nicholas Riccardi, Lawsuit seeks to stop group's 
door-to-door voter fraud hut, Associated Press (Mar. 9, 2022), https://
apnews.com/article/voting-rights-2022-midterm-elections-biden-steve-
bannon-colorado-63beba2f69226f53ed305457c47a83ea; Press Release, 
Statement Regarding Door-to-Door Canvassers Requesting Voter 
Information, North Carolina State Board of Elections (Feb. 18, 2022), 
https://www.ncsbe.gov/news/press-releases/2022/02/18/statement-
regarding-door-door-canvassers-requesting-voter-information.
    \80\ Jeremy Duda, Justice Department raises concerns with audit, 
Arizona Mirror (May 5, 2021), https://www.azmirror.com/2021/05/05/
justice-department-raises-concerns-with-audit/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These partisan-driven, costly, and amateur reviews of elections by 
lawmakers and inexperienced third parties feed the stolen election 
narrative. They are at best redundant with the States' existing 
legitimate audit procedures that are dependable and designed by experts 
in the field of election administration. More dangerously, the so-
called ``fraudits'' further erode trust in democracy, and the 
fabricated results can be used as a cover story for partisans' efforts 
to exert greater control over elections and enact laws that make voting 
needlessly more difficult.
            ii. Attempts at partisan usurpation of election 
                    administration reduce security in elections.
    Among the most concerning responses to the stolen election lies are 
attempts by partisan actors to interfere with traditionally nonpartisan 
election administration functions. In the 2021 legislative sessions, 
State legislators ``proposed more than two hundred bills in 41 States 
that have the potential to allow those legislators to interfere with 
election administration in one way or another, and at least two dozen 
bills have already been passed into law.''\81\ These efforts can be 
tied directly to the former President's efforts to ``pursu[e] a 
strategy to have Republican-run legislatures in battleground States 
override results favoring [his opponent], in an unprecedented bid to 
alter the outcome of the election,''\82\ as well as to his pressure 
campaign on election officials to ``find'' votes and manufacture his 
victory.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ See, e.g., sources cited supra note 1.
    \82\ Deanna Paul, Trump Campaign Wants States to Override Electoral 
Votes for Biden. Is That Possible?, The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 21, 
2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-campaign-wants-states-to-
override-electoral-votes-for-biden-is-that-possible-11605973695.
    \83\ Former president Trump's much-publicized call to Secretary 
Raffensperger asking him to ``find'' an additional 11,780 votes and 
declare Trump the winner of Georgia's Presidential election shows the 
political willingness to corruptly influence election officials to set 
aside the principles of impartial election administration to achieve 
partisan aims. See Amy Gardner, `I Just Want to Find 11,780 Votes': In 
Extraordinary Hour-Long Call, Trump Pressures Georgia Secretary of 
State to Recalculate the Vote in His Favor,  Wash. Post (Jan. 3, 2021), 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-
georgia-vote/2021/01/03/d45acb92-4dc4-11eb-bda4-
615aaefd0555_story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most alarming were new State proposals that in some cases would 
have allowed partisan actors to entirely discard the results of popular 
elections with which they disagreed.\84\ For example, a proposed bill 
in Arizona last year, H.B. 2720, would have provided that ``by majority 
vote at any time before the Presidential inauguration [the legislature] 
may revoke the secretary of state's issuance or certification of a 
Presidential elector's certificate of election.''\85\ A similar 
proposal in Missouri, H.B. 1301, would have allowed the State 
legislature to ``retain its authority to name Presidential electors in 
cases of fraud'' or if a court or the Executive branch were perceived 
to have interfered in election administration.\86\ In Texas, S.B. 7, a 
bill ultimately replaced by S.B. 1 discussed above, would have granted 
power to overturn elections to the State's elected judges.\87\ And in 
Nevada, certain lawmakers sought a State constitutional amendment that 
would have transferred power to certify the State's election results 
from the State supreme court to the State legislature.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \84\ See, e.g., Matt Vasilogambros, Republican Legislators Curb 
Authority of County, State Election Officials, Pew Charitable Trusts 
(July 28, 2021), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/
blogs/stateline/2021/07/28/republican-legislators-curb-authority-of-
county-state-election-officials.
    \85\ H.B. 2720, 55th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2021). Arizona had two 
other proposed bills that would have similarly allowed the state 
legislature to interfere with election results. See States United 
Democracy Ctr. June Report, supra note 1, at 9-10.
    \86\ H.B. 1301, 101st Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Mo. 2021).
    \87\ Brennan Ctr. for Justice, Voting Laws Roundup: December 2021 
(Jan. 12, 2022), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/voting-laws-roundup-december-2021.
    \88\ Assemb. J. Res. 13, 81st Leg., 2021 Reg. Sess. (Nev. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These failed efforts are part of a concerning trend of State 
legislatures responding to the outcome of the 2020 election by trying 
to consolidate power to themselves at the expense of experienced 
election officials.\89\ Indeed, several less extreme but still 
problematic proposals in the same vein have become law since 2020.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\ See Election Crisis Task Force Report, supra note 1, at 3.
    \90\ See Nick Corasaniti, Voting Rights and the Battle Over 
Elections: What to Know, N.Y. Times (Dec. 29, 2021), https://
www.nytimes.com/article/voting-rights-tracker.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For instance, in Arkansas, lawmakers passed a new law, S.B. 643, 
that authorizes a legislative committee to investigate election 
complaints and makes it easier to take over county elections without a 
legitimate justification.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \91\ Sam Levine, How Trump's big lie has been weaponized since the 
Capitol attack, The Guardian (July 7, 2021), https://
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/07/us-capitol-riot-attack-on-
democracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Legislators in Georgia followed suit after proponents of the stolen 
election lies baselessly accused nonpartisan county election workers of 
manipulating votes. Part of Georgia's S.B. 202, enacted during Spring 
2021 and described above, grants the State Election Board broad power 
over county election officials.\92\ Specifically, S.B. 202 allows ``the 
State Election Board [to] suspend elected county or municipal 
superintendents and appoint an individual to serve as the temporary 
superintendent'' in that jurisdiction.\93\ Superintendents are 
considered the ``top election officials'' of each county, and the 
Board-appointed superintendent will be able to ``exercise all the 
powers and duties of a superintendent as provided by law,''\94\ which 
includes disqualifying voters, relocating polling sites, and 
potentially refusing to certify results.\95\ Because a party with the 
majority in both houses of the Georgia General Assembly will control 
the Board, the broad power granted to the State Election Board 
correspondingly broadens the Assembly's power to influence members of 
the Board on partisan grounds.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\ Nicholas Reimann, GOP-Controlled Georgia Board Launches Probe 
in Possible Takeover of Atlanta Elections from Local Officials, Forbes 
(Aug. 18, 2021), https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/08/
18/gop-controlled-georgia-board-launches-probe-in-possible-takeover-of-
atlanta-elections-from-local-officials.
    \93\ Ga. Code Ann.  21-2-33.1(f).
    \94\ Ga. Code Ann.  21-2-33.1(f).
    \95\ S.B. 202 did not alter the standards for certifying election 
results. See, e.g., Ga. Code Ann.  21-2-33.1(f) (giving Board-
appointed superintendents ``all the powers and duties of a 
superintendent as provided by law''). However, there is debate over the 
circumstances under which a superintendent could refuse to certify 
results and what the consequences of that refusal would be. The 
relevant statute provides that a superintendent ``shall . . . 
certif[y]'' the results by the Monday following the election after the 
returns are ``found to be correct or corrected.'' Id.  21-2-493(k). As 
part of this process, ``[i]f any error or fraud is discovered, the 
superintendent shall compute and certify the votes justly.'' Id.  21-
2-493(i). Georgia law also does not explicitly provide for what happens 
if a superintendent declines to certify results: The relevant provision 
provides only that she ``shall'' do so. Ga. Code Ann. Sec.  21-2-
493(k). When a county refused to certify the results of a recount in 
2020, the Secretary of State's office responded by providing technical 
support to facilitate the recount process and launching a still-on-
going investigation of the county's process. Secretary of State's 
Office Opens Investigation into Coffee County's Handling of Recount, 
Ga. Sec'y Of State, https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/
secretary_of_states_office_opens_investigation_into_coffee_countys_handl
ing_of_recount (last visited Mar. 30, 2022).
    \96\ See, e.g., Ga. Code Ann.  21-2-33.1(f) (giving Board-
appointed superintendents ``all the powers and duties of a 
superintendent as provided by law''); see also States United Democracy 
Ctr. April Report, supra note 1, at 12-14; Nick Corasantini & Reid J. 
Epstein, What Does Georgia's Voting Law Really Do?, N.Y. Times (Aug. 
18, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/us/politics/georgia-
voting-law-annotated.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S.B. 202 also more directly grants the Georgia General Assembly 
power over local election officials by allowing individual Georgia 
representatives to request performance reviews of election officials in 
their jurisdictions.\97\ Upon receiving these requests, the State 
Election Board is to appoint ``an independent performance review 
board'' and then may use the findings of the review board as the basis 
to remove the official whose performance is in question.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\ Ga. Code Ann.  21-2-106(a).
    \98\ Id.  21-2-106(a), (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reviews pursuant to this provision are already under way. The State 
Election Board appointed a partisan performance review board to 
investigate the baseless stolen election allegations in Fulton County 
and potentially take over election administration there, which contains 
Georgia's largest concentration of Democratic voters.\99\ Despite 
recently confirming the accuracy of Fulton County's election results, 
the State Election Board nonetheless referred the county election 
officials to the State attorney general for investigation of the scant 
incidents of inadvertent and inevitable human errors--moving a step 
closer to the county officials being replaced by appointed partisans 
who would administer the next election.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \99\ Mark Niesse, Prospect of Georgia election takeover fuels 
concerns about vote integrity, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Dec. 
23, 2021), https://www.ajc.com/politics/prospect-of-georgia-election-
takeover-fuels-concerns-about-vote-integrity/
CFMTLFW6TZFH7O4LLNDZ3BY4NE/; Kristal Dixon, Exit interview with 
Georgia's most high-profile elections director, Axios (Mar. 23, 2022), 
https://www.axios.com/local/atlanta/2022/03/23/exit-interview-georgia-
elections-director-richard-barron; Nick Corasaniti, Potential G.O.P. 
Takeover of Atlanta-Area Election Board Inches Forward, N.Y. Times 
(Aug. 18, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/18/us/politics/
georgia-elections-republicans.html.
    \100\ Mark Niesse, Investigation blames human error for issues in 
Fulton election audit, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (Mar. 16, 
2022), https://www.ajc.com/politics/investigation-blames-human-error-
for-issues-in-fulton-election-audit/QTRKTKJYY5B3BMK2WOHU6AQXVY/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, in other Georgia counties, nonpartisan election 
boards that have been in place for years to manage and certify 
Georgia's elections are being abruptly dissolved under new Georgia 
law.\101\ This fundamental restructuring of local election 
administration in Georgia has enabled counties to shift power away from 
long-time impartial election officials and toward inexperienced 
partisan actors, who in some instances have explicitly endorsed 
groundless stolen election claims.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \101\ See, e.g., Stephanie McCrummen, `Gutted': What happened when 
a Georgia elections office was targeted for takeover by those who claim 
the 2020 election was a fraud, Wash. Post (Mar. 14, 2022), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/03/14/georgia-elections-fraud-purge/
; James Oliphant & Nathan Layne, Georgia Republicans purge Black 
Democrats from county election boards, Reuters (Dec. 9, 2021), https://
www.reuters.com/world/us/georgia-republicans-purge-black-democrats-
county-election-boards-2021-12-09/; Nick Corasaniti and Reid J. 
Epstein, supra note 1.
    \102\ James Oliphant & Nathan Layne, Georgia Republicans purge 
Black Democrats from county election boards, Reuters (Dec. 9, 2021 8:53 
PM), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/georgia-republicans-purge-black-
democrats-county-election-boards-2021-12-09/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, adding to the Georgia General Assembly's intrusion on 
election administration functions, S.B. 202 removes the Georgia 
secretary of state as the chairperson of the State Election Board, 
instead calling for the chairperson to be elected by the Georgia 
General Assembly, with the secretary of state merely deemed an ``ex 
officio nonvoting member of the board.''\103\ While the chairperson 
``shall be nonpartisan,''\104\ this new procedures nonetheless open the 
door for the election of a chairperson who shares the majority of the 
General Assembly's views regarding the results or legitimacy of any 
given election. Given the tensions between Georgia's secretary of state 
and legislators that arose during the 2020 election--with Republican 
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger facing criticism for not 
supporting the former President and his allies' stolen election lies 
\105\--legislators could seek out a chairperson whom members believe 
would follow its party line on any given matter, including whether to 
certify the results of an election if the winner does not belong to the 
same party that controls the General Assembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\ Ga. Code Ann.  21-2-30(a), (d).
    \104\ Id.  21-2-30(a.1)(2).
    \105\ Amy Gardner, Ga. Secretary of State Says Fellow Republicans 
Are Pressuring Him to Find Ways to Exclude Ballots, Wash. Post (Nov. 
16, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brad-raffensperger-
georgia-vote/2020/11/16/6b6cb2f4-283e-11eb-8fa2-
06e7cbb145c0_story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, a new law proposed but recently struck down in 
Arizona would have also shifted power away from the Arizona secretary 
of state, Katie Hobbs, on blatantly partisan grounds.\106\ The law 
provided that Arizona's attorney general, Mark Brnovich, ``has sole 
authority to direct the defense of State election law or laws being 
challenged,'' thereby permitting him to ``intervene on behalf of the 
State'' ``in any proceeding in which the validity of a State election 
law is challenged . . . if [he] determines'' that ``intervention is 
appropriate.''\107\ Accordingly, the law would have given the Arizona 
Attorney General, who is Republican, ultimate authority to dictate 
legal strategy in election law cases in the event that he disagrees 
with the State's elected secretary of state, currently a Democrat.\108\ 
Importantly, this designation of control over litigation was designed 
to last only through the end of Secretary Hobbs' term, as the goal of 
the legislature was ``to ensure that the authority given to . . . 
Brnovich would not transfer to any Democrat who won the next race for 
attorney general.''\109\ Although the Arizona Supreme Court struck down 
this law on procedural grounds because the legislature improperly 
passed it in an omnibus budget bill,\110\ nothing in the court's 
decision prevents the State from reenacting it, and numerous pending 
proposals in the Arizona legislature would effectively do so.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ See Michael Wines, In Arizona, G.O.P. Lawmakers Strip Power 
From a Democrat, N.Y. Times (June 25, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/
2021/06/25/us/Arizona-Republicans-voting.html..--
    \107\ S.B. 1819, sec. 33, 55th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2021).
    \108\ Ben Giles, Arizona Republicans Strip Some Election Power from 
Democratic Secretary of State, NPR (June 30, 2021), https://
www.npr.org/2021/06/30/1011154122/arizona-republicans-strip-some-
election-power-from-democratic-secretary-of-state.
    \109\ Michael Wines, In Arizona, G.O.P. Lawmakers Strip Power from 
a Democrat, N.Y. Times (June 25, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/
06/25/us/Arizona-Republicans-voting.html.
    \110\ See Jeremy Duda, Court strikes down bans on mask mandates, 
critical race theory and more, Arizona Mirror (Sept. 27, 2021), https:/
/www.azmirror.com/2021/09/27/court-strikes-down-bans-on-mask-mandates-
critical-race-theory-and-more/.
    \111\ See, e.g., H.B. 2691, 56th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2022); 
H.B. 2378, 56th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2022); S.B. 1137, 56th 
Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Texas, the recently enacted S.B. 1 presents another instance of 
the legislative usurpation of election officials' authority. S.B. 1 
imposes severe restrictions on how election officials can administer 
elections and help citizens apply to vote or cast a vote.\112\ For 
example, the Texas law prohibits early voting clerks from any ``attempt 
to solicit a person to complete an application for an early voting 
ballot,''\113\ and forbids State or local officials from 
``distribut[ing] an application form for an early ballot'' to someone 
who did not request the application, or from ``us[ing] public funds to 
facilitate'' such distribution by someone else.\114\ Finally, the bill 
uses sweeping language to mandate that public officials ``not create, 
alter, modify, waive, or suspend any election standard, practice, or 
procedure mandated by law or rule in a manner not expressly authorized 
by this code.''\115\ In effect, S.B. 1 would eliminate election 
officials' ability to administer State law in the manner that they 
believe would, based on their experience and discretion in specific 
circumstances, ensure that more citizens are able to vote easily and 
that elections run efficiently within the processes established by the 
legislature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\ Chuck Lindell, Gov. Greg Abbott Signs SB 1, the GOP Voting 
Bill, into Law, Austin Am. Statesman (Sept. 7,2021), https://
www.statesman.com/story/news/2021/09/07/texas-voting-law-gop-greg-
abbott-sb-1/5751333001.
    \113\ Tex. Elec. Code  84.0011 (sec. 4.02)
    \114\ Tex. Elec. Code  84.0111 (sec. 4.05)
    \115\ Tex. Elec. Code  276.017 (sec. 6.03)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New proposals in 2022 continue the trend of State legislators 
attempting to enact laws that seize power over elections to partisan 
lawmakers at the expense of experienced election officials. From new 
bills filed in Wisconsin and Michigan to renewed efforts in 
Arizona,\116\ legislators are pursuing troubling ways to put election 
administration in the hands of political party patrons rather than 
trusted election officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \116\ See, e.g., Lalee Ibssa & Meg Cunningham, GOP-controlled 
legislatures look to overhaul election laws ahead of 2022 midterms, ABC 
News (Feb. 10, 2022), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-controlled-
legislatures-overhaul-election-laws-ahead-2022/story?id=82730052 
(Michigan); Michael McDaniel, Arizona Senate pushes an election bill to 
create a permanent audit team that could be fielded by Cyber Ninja 
auditors, Courthouse News (Feb. 17, 2022), https://
www.courthousenews.com/arizona-senate-pushes-an-election-bill-to-
create-a-permanent-audit-team-that-could-be-fielded-by-cyber-ninja-
auditors/ (Arizona); Jake Thomas, Ex-Oath Keeper, 1/6 Protester Lead 
Push to Change Michigan's Election Audit Process, Newsweek (Jan. 20, 
2022), https://www.newsweek.com/ex-oath-keeper-1-6-protester-lead-push-
change-michigans-election-audit-process-1671428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The changes in State laws that narrow the authority traditionally 
given to impartial elections experts, or that provide for increased 
influence over the functions of election administration by the State 
legislature, risk removing the key guardrails that prevented further 
democratic crises in 2020. By increasing the partisan influence over 
traditionally nonpartisan election administration tasks, such as the 
ministerial responsibility of certifying the final results after the 
votes have been counted, supporters of the stolen election lies have 
made usurping the electoral power away from the people easier. Enabling 
greater partisan manipulation of election administration risks widening 
cracks in our legal framework and removing the principled election 
officials who were willing to stand firm for democratic norms rather 
than submit to raw political objectives during the 2020 election.
4. The election falsehoods encourage threats against hardworking 
        election officials, the criminalization of their work, and the 
        politicization of their roles.
    Nonpartisan election officials have borne the brunt of some of the 
worst consequences from the 2020 stolen election lies. These public 
servants, who work under-appreciated jobs to ensure that our democratic 
processes properly function and that every vote that should be counted 
gets counted, have come under tremendous stress throughout the 2020 
election cycle and since. Given that the former President recently 
suggested that because ``[t]he vote counter is often more important 
than the candidate,'' and that his supporters ``have to get a lot 
tougher and smarter at the polls,'' the forces intimidating election 
officials are unlikely to subside.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \117\ Josh Dawsey, Trump muses on war with Russia and praises Kim 
Jong Un, Wash. Post (Mar. 6, 2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
nation/2022/03/06/trump-focuses-foreign-policy-speech-gops-top-donors/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The immense pressure on election officials most alarmingly includes 
a steep rise in the harassment and threats of violence targeting 
them.\118\ A recent investigation identified hundreds of occurrences of 
intimidation and harassment against election workers and officials 
Nation-wide, but only a handful of arrests of the attackers.\119\ 
Proponents of the stolen election lies directed over 100 explicit 
threats of death or violence at more than 40 election officials.\120\ 
Nearly 8 in 10 local election officials feel the physical danger 
presented in their work has increased recently, and one-sixth report 
having received explicit threats of violence.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \118\ See, e.g., Linda So & Jason Szep, Special Report: Terrorized 
U.S. Election Workers Get Little Help from Law Enforcement, Reuters 
(Sept. 8, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/terrorized-
us-election-workers-get-little-help-law-enforcement-2021-09-08/; The 
Brennan Ctr. for Justice and the Bipartisan Policy Ctr., Election 
Officials Under Attack (June 16, 2021), https://www.brennancenter.org/
sites/default/files/2021-06/BCJ-129%20ElectionOfficials_v7.pdf.
    \119\ Linda So & Jason Szep, supra note 118.
    \120\ Id.
    \121\ See, e.g., Poll of Local Election Officials Finds Safety 
Fears for Colleagues--and Themselves,  Brennan Ctr.for Justice (Mar. 
10, 2022), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/
poll-local-election-officials-finds-safety-fears-colleagues-and; Zach 
Montellaro, Local election officials are exhausted, under threat and 
thinking about quitting, Politico (Mar. 10, 2022), https://
www.politico.com/news/2022/03/10/election-officials-exhausted-under-
threat-00015850; Press Release, ``One in Three Election Officials 
Report Feeling Unsafe Because of Their Job,'' Brennan Ctr. For Justice 
& Bipartisan Policy Ctr. (June 16, 2021), https://
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/one-three-election-
officials-report-feeling-unsafe-because-their-job.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State secretaries of state--who typically serve as their States' 
chief election officers--are among those who faced significant threats 
and intimidation to themselves and their families in the wake of the 
2020 election.
    In her testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and 
Administration in October 2021, Arizona secretary of state Katie Hobbs 
described the threats that she and other election officials have faced 
in the year since the 2020 election.\122\ From the armed groups that 
amassed outside Secretary Hobbs' home chanting, ``Katie come out and 
play, we are watching you,'' to the orange jumpsuits mailed to 
intimidate Arizona county supervisors,\123\ these once behind-the-
scenes election officials are now facing growing threats.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \122\ U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Emerging 
Threats to Election Administration (Oct. 26,2021), https://
www.rules.senate.gov/hearings/emerging-threats-to-election-
administration.
    \123\ Denelle Confair, AZ Secretary of State Katie Hobbs Testifies 
Before U.S. Senate Committee on Emerging Election Threats, News 4 
Tucson (Nov. 1, 2021), https://www.kvoa.com/news/az-secretary-of-state-
katie-hobbs-testifies-before-u-s-senate-committee-on-emerging-election/
article_0193c76e-3689-11ec-b3c7-1f2864e3a0ae.html.
    \124\ Miles Parks, Death Threats and Conspiracy Theories: Why 2020 
Won't End for Election Officials, NPR (Aug. 17, 2021), https://
www.npr.org/2021/08/17/1027747378/death-threats-and-conspiracy-
theories-why-2020-wont-end-for-election-officials; Jane Mayer, supra 
note 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who resisted the 
former President's claims that the election in Georgia was stolen, also 
``receiv[ed] death threats almost immediately after Trump's surprise 
loss in Georgia,'' leading him and his family to go into hiding after 
his daughter-in-law's home was broken into and individuals identified 
as members of the Oath Keepers, an extremist group, were discovered 
outside his own home.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \125\ Linda So, Trump-Inspired Death Threats Are Terrorizing 
Election Workers, Reuters (June 11, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/
investigates/special-report/usa-trump-georgia-threats/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson also faced death threats 
and harassment following the election.\126\ Armed protesters used 
megaphones to chant election-related conspiracy theories outside of 
Benson's home a few weeks after the election while Benson was home with 
her 4-year-old son.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \126\ Id.; see also Bill Chappel, Michigan Secretary of State Says 
Armed Protesters Descended on Her Home Saturday, NPR (Dec. 7, 2020), 
https://www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/12/07/
943820889/michigan-secretary-of-state-says-armed-protesters-descended-
on-her-home-saturday.
    \127\ Bill Chappel, Michigan Secretary of State Says Armed 
Protesters Descended on Her Home Saturday, NPR (Dec. 7, 2020), https://
www.npr.org/sections/biden-transition-updates/2020/12/07/943820889/
michigan-secretary-of-state-says-armed-protesters-descended-on-her-
home-saturday.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Colorado secretary of state Jena Griswold reported to Federal 
officials receiving 22 death threats in 1 week alone in February 
2022.\128\ One prominent proponent of election conspiracy theories in 
Colorado claimed that Griswold stole the election and threatened that 
``if you're involved in election fraud, then you deserve to hang'' 
because, he said, ``sometime the old ways are the best ways.''\129\ 
Long after the 2020 Presidential election, these threats suggest that 
the dangerous trend extends beyond high-profile Federal elections to 
even include off-cycle State elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \128\ Zach Montellaro, supra note 121.
    \129\ Bente Birkeland, Facing ongoing threats, Colorado's Secretary 
of State says the position needs more security--and other politicians 
want the same, Colo. Public Radio (Mar. 2, 2022), www.cpr.org/2022/03/
02/colorado-secretary-of-state-jena-griswold-security-harassment/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Workers in lower- or mid-level positions similarly face threats and 
intimidation from those angered by the outcome of the election and 
their misguided stolen election beliefs. For example, some supporters 
of the election falsehoods seized on a video that spread quickly on-
line of a poll worker placing paper in the trash, believing it proved 
the vote count had been corrupted.\130\ Even though Fulton County 
quickly fact-checked the claims, showing they were false by comparing 
the size of the paper thrown away with the size of a ballot, ``by the 
time fact checkers weighed in, the poll worker had already quit and 
gone into hiding, due to the false accusations against him.''\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \130\ Dan Glaun, Threats to Election Officials Piled Up as 
President Trump Refused to Concede, PBS News Frontline (Nov. 17, 2020), 
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/threats-to-election-
officials-piled-up-as-president-trump-refused-to-concede/.
    \131\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These threats are unlikely to subside on their own. Indeed, a 
recent poll shows that nearly 4-in-10 polled Americans who believe the 
stolen election lies also say that violence may be necessary to ``save 
our country,'' in their view.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \132\ Aaron Blake, Nearly 4 in 10 Who Say Election Was Stolen From 
Trump Say Violence Might Be Needed to Save America, Wash. Post (Nov. 1, 
2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/01/4-10-who-say-
election-was-stolen-trump-say-violence-might-be-needed-save-america/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the Federal Government has attempted to step in, those 
efforts have so far been unable to abate the serious threats and risks 
of harm to election officials. The Department of Justice held a recent 
meeting with a bipartisan group of over 1,400 election officials to 
``discuss mounting and persistent threats to the safety of election 
officials and workers across the country,'' and launched an Election 
Threats Task Force to monitor and address such threats.\133\ And the 
Department of Homeland Security issued an advisory warning that 
``[s]ome domestic violent extremists have continued to advocate for 
violence in response to false or misleading narratives about 
unsubstantiated election fraud,'' and that the ``months preceding the 
upcoming 2022 midterm elections could provide additional opportunities 
for these extremists and other individuals to call for violence 
directed at democratic institutions, political candidates, party 
offices, election events, and election workers.''\134\ But from this 
announced increased attention to the issue, the Department of Justice 
has revealed only two prosecutions of stolen election extremists who 
credibly threatened violence against election officials.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \133\ Press Release, Readout of Justice Department Leadership 
Meeting on Threats to Election Workers, U.S. Dep't of Justice Office of 
Public Affairs (Aug. 26, 2021), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/readout-
justice-department-leadership-meeting-threats-election-workers; Jane C. 
Timm, `We Have to Protect Them': DOJ Vows Investigations, Prosecutions 
of Threats to Election Workers, Wash. Post (June 25, 2021), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-allies-election-oversight/2021/
11/28/3933b3ce-4227-11ec-9ea7-3eb2406a2e24_story.html.
    \134\ Dep't of Homeland Security, Summary of Terrorism Threat to 
the U.S. Homeland (Feb. 7, 2022), https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/
national-terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-february-07-2022.
    \135\ Press Release, Man Charged for Threatening Nevada State 
Election Worker, U.S. Dep't of Justice Office of Public Affairs (Jan. 
27, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-charged-threatening-
nevada-state-election-worker; Press Release, Texas Man Arrested for 
Making Election-Related Threats to Government Officials, U.S. Dep't of 
Justice Office of Public Affairs (Jan. 27, 2022), https://
www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-man-arrested-making-election-related-
threats-government-officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the same time that election workers are fielding alarming 
harassment and intimidation from outside actors, recent changes in 
State laws since the 2020 election have also created new ways for 
election work to be subject to formal criminal prosecution. Numerous 
States--including Texas, Iowa, and North Dakota--have enacted new laws 
that specifically criminalize activities by election officials, in many 
cases with the threat of felony prosecutions or with hefty punishments 
for even ``technical infractions'' of election law.\136\ Some of these 
new criminal law proposals, such as the recently-enacted Arizona H.B. 
2492 described above, put election workers in the precarious position 
to either abandon their duties to register eligible voters pursuant to 
Federal law requirements, or follow those Federal duties but face State 
felony prosecution applying new State criminal laws that target only 
election officials.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \136\ See, e.g., States United Democracy Ctr. April and June 
Reports, supra note 1.
    \137\ H.B. 2492, 56th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2022); Ray Stern, 
supra note 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under these perilous conditions, election workers are leaving their 
posts at worrying rates, or they are being forced out of their 
positions for partisan gain. Administering an election during an 
unprecedented global pandemic is a challenging feat and harrowing 
experience in itself; many election officials who now face threats of 
violence after getting through the 2020 election are opting for 
retirement rather than continue through the 2022 or 2024 election 
cycles.\138\ In one recent study, 30% of polled election officials 
reported knowing one or more workers who have already left their job at 
least in part because of a fear for their safety due to the increased 
threats and intimidation.\139\ The same poll shows that 20% of the 
remaining election officials say they are likely to quit before 
2024.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \138\ Michael Wines, After a Nightmare Year, Election Officials Are 
Quitting, N.Y. Times (July 2, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/
02/us/politics/2020-election-voting-officials.html.
    \139\ Poll of Local Election Officials Finds Safety Fears for 
Colleagues--and Themselves Brennan Ctr. for Justice (Mar. 10, 2022), 
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/poll-local-
election-officials-finds-safety-fears-colleagues-and.
    \140\ See id.; see also Miles Parker, 1 in 5 local election 
officials say they're likely to quit before 2024, NPR (Mar. 10, 2022), 
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/10/1085425464/1-in-5-local-election-
officials-say-theyre-likely-to-quit-before-2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other election officials willing to stick around may not be able to 
do so because partisan actors are finding new ways to force their 
removal. In Michigan, after a Republican appointee to the State board 
of canvassers refused to stop the certification of the State's 2020 
election results, partisan lawmakers blocked reappointing him to a 
subsequent term.\141\ Virginia's Governor recently replaced the State's 
top election official, who was widely seen as a nonpartisan consensus 
choice, with a former top aide to a State senator who while in office 
praised the January 6 insurrectionists.\142\ In Pennsylvania, the State 
legislature pursued the impeachment of the members of two county 
election commissions who voted to count timely received vote-by-mail 
ballots that lacked a date handwritten by the voter, which has been 
subject to on-going litigation.\143\ And the former State supreme court 
justice leading the partisan sham review of Wisconsin's elections has 
pushed to jail city election officials for refusing to participate in 
the stolen election conspiracy.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \141\ Sam Levine, How Trump's big lie has been weaponized since the 
Capitol attack, The Guardian (July 7, 2021), https://
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/07/us-capitol-riot-attack-on-
democracy.
    \142\ Patrick Wilson, Youngkin names local GOP official, former 
aide to Chase, as new State elections commissioner, The Richmond Times-
Dispatch (Mar. 20, 2022), https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/
youngkin-names-local-gop-official-former-aide-to-chase-as-new-state-
elections-commissioner/article_2d9ee742-742f-5325-
9692562bd65c37fc.html.
    \143\ Jonathan Lai, Pa. Republican Lawmakers Threaten to Impeach 
Philly Officials for Counting Undated Mail Ballots, The Phila. Inquirer 
(May 28, 2021), https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/
pennsylvania-republican-lawmakers-impeachment-philadelphia-city-
commissioners-20210528.html; States United Democracy Ctr. June Report, 
supra note 1.
    \144\ Patrick Marley, Wisconsin Republicans seek to jail more 
officials as part of their review of the 2020 Presidential election, 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Feb. 18, 2022), https://www.jsonline.com/
story/news/politics/2022/02/18/wisconsin-republicans-michael-gableman-
seeks-jail-officials-2020-presidential-election-review/6853176001/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While election officials are under attack and offices across the 
country are experiencing a mass exodus of experienced employees, stolen 
election lies proponents have redoubled their efforts to replace 
election workers with rogue political actors. There is currently an 
active, well-funded campaign to recruit partisans to take over election 
administration roles, making it easier to sabotage future 
elections.\145\ As of January 27, 2022, at least 21 candidates who have 
subscribed to stolen election lies are running for secretary of states 
in 18 States; this means that in 2 out of 3 secretary of state contests 
Nation-wide, one of the leading candidates has publicly supported the 
conspiracy challenging the 2020 election results.\146\ Some the most 
highly contested secretary of state races with election skeptics as 
candidates are in swing States--e.g., Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia, and 
Nevada--where a rogue State elections chief could cause significant 
uncertainty and disruption.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \145\ Amber Phillips, How Trump-backed secretary of state 
candidates would change elections in the United States Wash. Post (Dec. 
1, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/01/how-trump-
backed-secretary-state-candidates-would-change-elections-america/; 
Lawrence Norden & Derek Tisler, Addressing Insider Threats in 
Elections, Brennan Ctr. for Justice (Dec. 8, 2021), https://
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/addressing-insider-
threats-elections.
    \146\ States United Democracy Ctr., Secretary of State Races in 
2022 (Jan 27, 2022), https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/
uploads/2022/02/sos_deniers.html.
    \147\ Amber Phillips, How Trump-backed secretary of state 
candidates would change elections in the United States Wash. Post (Dec. 
1, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/01/how-trump-
backed-secretary-state-candidates-would-change-elections-america/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lower-profile election worker positions are also at risk of being 
coopted for political purposes. Appointees to State and county election 
positions are becoming more extreme and partisan. In Michigan, for 
example, political actors have worked in recent months to replace 
county canvassers with partisans who have embraced the stolen election 
lies.\148\ Similar efforts are under way in Ohio, Iowa, and other 
States.\149\ In a particularly shocking example, one of the attendees 
at the so-called Stop the Steal rally leading to the January 6 storming 
of the U.S. Capitol soon returned home to Pennsylvania, declared his 
candidacy to be an election judge, and then won that election.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \148\ Sam Levine, Why are Michigan Republicans quietly replacing 
key election officials?, The Guardian (Oct. 14, 2021), https://
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/14/michigan-republicans-election-
officials-fight-to-vote.
    \149\ See, e.g., Jake Zuckerman, Governor appoints former lawmaker 
to elections board who hyped up 2020 voter fraud claims, Ohio Capital 
Journal (Mar. 10, 2022), https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/03/10/
governor-appoints-former-lawmaker-to-elections-board-who-hyped-up-2020-
voter-fraud-claims/; Thomas Beaumont & Anthony Izaguirre, Iowa flap 
raises fears of politicized local election offices, Associated Press 
(May 30, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-iowa-local-
elections-voting-rights-elections-8ae7926dcd07f4dba7- ede49d6fc894d9.
    \150\ Charles Homans, In Bid for Control of Elections, Trump 
Loyalists Face Few Obstacles, N.Y. Times (Dec. 15, 2021), https://
www.nytimes.com/2021/12/11/us/- politics/trust-in-elections-trump-
democracy.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sum, election officials since 2020 have faced intense external 
forces of threats of violence and harassment, and internal forces of 
being criminalized, fired, or politicized. In this environment, the 
country's election infrastructure will struggle to maintain nonpartisan 
and impartial workers who are in it to promote democracy and fair 
results rather than seeking partisan gain. Election officials are the 
lifeblood of a properly functioning voting system. Allowing them to be 
replaced by partisan actors risks severe consequences if and when the 
next election crisis arises.
b. the consequences of stolen election lies are depressed public trust 
                in government and the electoral process.
    Since the 2020 Presidential election, poll after poll has shown 
that the events of January 6th and the fallout of the stolen election 
lies have shaken Americans' belief in our democratic institutions. 
Generally, Americans' trust in government is at historic lows.\151\ 
People are concerned that the events of January 6th are not just 
isolated incidents but a sign of increasing political violence, and 
this has eroded the belief that American democracy is secure.\152\ In 
one January 2022 poll, 64% of Americans believe democracy in the United 
States is ``in crisis and at risk of failing''\153\ and only 20% are 
very confident in the country's ability to conduct an honest 
election.\154\ Polled voters see that risk growing, with two-thirds of 
respondents in one poll saying the county is more at risk of democratic 
decline than it was a year ago.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \151\ Public Trust in Government: 1958-2021, Pew Research Ctr. (May 
17, 2021), https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-
trust-in-government-158-2021/ (last accessed Mar. 30, 2022).
    \152\ Anthony Salvanto, Kabir Khanna, Fred Backus, & Jennifer 
Depinto, CBS News poll: A year after Jan. 6, violence still seen 
threatening U.S. democracy, and some say force can be justified, CBS 
News (Jan. 2, 2022, 1:01 PM), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-
opinion-poll-2022/.
    \153\ Joel Rose, 6 in 10 Americans say U.S. democracy is in crisis 
as the `Big Lie' takes root, NPR (Jan. 3, 2022), https://www.npr.org/
2022/01/03/1069764164/american-democracy-poll-jan-6.
    \154\ Brittany Shepherd, Americans' faith in election integrity 
drops: POLL, ABC News (Jan. 6, 2022), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/
americans-faith-election-integrity-drops-poll/story?id=82069876; 
Brittany Shepherd, Majority of Americans think Jan. 6 attack threatened 
democracy: POLL, ABC News (Jan. 2, 2022), https://abcnews.go.com/
Politics/majority-americans-jan-attack-threatened-democracy-poll/
story?id=81990555.
    \155\ Salvanto, supra note 152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This deterioration of voters' confidence in elections and in 
Government crosses party lines. General feelings of pride in American 
democracy are at all-time lows, hovering above 50% and down 
considerably from a high of 90% in 2001 and 63% in 2017.\156\ While 
only 30% of polled Democratic voters attest they are confident in the 
U.S. election system,\157\ the falsehood that the 2020 election was 
stolen from the former President has been disastrous for Republicans' 
faith in our elections, with only 13% of Republicans who are very 
confident in the election system and 59% that have little faith.\158\ 
Overall, only 37% of polled Republicans said they are confident the 
next Presidential election will be open and fair.\159\ And while 82% of 
Democrats said they would trust the results of the 2024 Presidential 
election to be accurate if their candidate did not win; only 33% of 
Republicans reported feeling the same.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \156\ Dan Balz, Scott Clement, & Emily Guskin, Republicans and 
Democrats divided over Jan. 6 insurrection and Trump's culpability, 
Post-UMD poll finds, Wash. Post (Jan. 1, 2022), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/01/post-poll-january-6/.
    \157\ Shepherd, supra note 154.
    \158\ Id.
    \159\ David Nather, Axios-Ipsos Poll: Republicans lose trust in 
elections, Axios (Nov. 20, 2021), https://www.axios.com/axios-ipsos-
poll-republicans-lose-trust-elections-52410b23-9513-453b-8a37-
d140cae2d455.htmldeepdive=1.
    \160\ PBS News Hour/NPR/Marist Poll, Nature of the Sample: NPR/PBS 
NewsHour/Marist Poll of 1,209 National Adults (Nov. 5, 2021), https://
maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/NPR_PBS-
NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_B_202110251104.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Troublingly, voters of both parties doubt that State officials of 
the other party will agree to accept the results of an election if 
their party loses.\161\ Democrats have become more skeptical, with 67% 
concerned about the results in Republican States, compared to 56% of 
Republicans about results in Democratic States.\162\ Independents share 
in the skepticism but are more concerned about Republican-controlled 
States.\163\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \161\ Balz, supra note 156.
    \162\ Id.
    \163\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Polling conducted after the results of the Arizona Cyber Ninjas 
review also shows those partisan-motivated ``investigations'' are 
especially damaging to the public trust. As noted above, only 36% of 
those polled believe that the Cyber Ninjas review proved the correct 
winner of Maricopa County's Presidential votes; a majority of polled 
Republicans reject the audit's findings, choosing to believe instead 
that the process found significant voter fraud when it in fact did 
not.\164\ Additional polling from before and after Arizona's partisan 
election investigation found that it did more to reinforce concerns 
around election fraud than to alleviate them.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \164\ Erin Snodgrass, The much-maligned Arizona election audit 
reinforced doubt about the 2020 election results, according to a new 
poll, Business Insider (Nov. 15, 2021), https://
www.businessinsider.com/arizona-election-audit-reinforced-doubt-about-
2020-election-results-2021-11.
    \165\ Doubt in American System Increases, Monmouth Univ. Polling 
Institute (Nov. 15, 2021), https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/
reports/monmouthpoll_us_111521/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The perceived and actual risk of repeated political violence 
because of disputed election results is also on the rise. Asked if 
violent action against the Government is justified at times, over a 
third of respondents in one poll agreed, with the strongest support 
coming from Republicans and independents.\166\ This increased 
acceptance of political violence is significantly higher than past 
polls over more than two decades.\167\ Disturbingly, recent polling 
shows that Americans now expect violence from supporters of the losing 
side in an election: While only 2% of respondents say they actively 
favor violence if their side lost the election, a quarter said it would 
depend on the circumstances.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \166\ Balz, supra note 156.
    \167\ Id.
    \168\ Salvanto, supra note 152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Researchers studying political violence are also ringing alarm 
bells about the increased risks in the United States. For example, 
Rachel Kleinfeld, senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict, and 
Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 
and a leading expert on political violence, warns that both the amount 
and nature of political extremism has worsened in the United 
States.\169\ Kleinfeld's identified factors that elevate the risks of 
political violence typify our current circumstances: (1) Perceived 
highly-competitive contests that could shift the balance of power; (2) 
stark partisan division based on identity; (3) electoral rules that can 
be manipulated; and (4) weak institutional constraints on violence that 
lead perpetrators to believe they will not be held accountable.\170\ 
According to Kleinfeld, ideas that were once considered fringe are now 
covered on mainstream media outlets, creating a growing audience that 
is willing to undertake, support, or excuse the use of force for 
perceived political gain.\171\ The people who could be willing to 
commit political violence are now not just rogue outliers, but 
sometimes regular Americans who are integrated in social life but 
nonetheless captured and manipulated by stolen election 
conspiracies.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \169\ Rachel Kleinfeld, The Rise of Political Violence in the 
United States, Journal of Democracy (Oct. 2021), https://
www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-political-violence-in-
the-united-states/.
    \170\ Id.
    \171\ Id.
    \172\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the election falsehoods have split the Republican 
Party into fractions of supporters and representatives who believe the 
conspiracy and those who accept reality.\173\ The unwillingness of some 
partisans to accept the results of the 2020 election now over 15 months 
later creates deep rifts in our political associations. Even some 
leading Republican officials who initially were willing to question 
aspects of the election without fully committing to the conspiracy now 
cannot reel in members of their party who are perpetuating the extreme 
falsities.\174\ As the fringe views are given credence, they become 
more prominent and take on a life of their own that cannot easily be 
pulled away from the minds of voters and lawmakers once party 
leadership realizes the deception has gone too far.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \173\ Reid J. Epstein, Fringe Scheme to Reverse 2020 Election 
Splits Wisconsin G.O.P., N.Y. Times (Feb. 19, 2022), https://
www.nytimes.com/2022/02/19/us/politics/wisconsin-election-
decertification.html.
    \174\ Id.; see also Calvin Woodward, supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In sum, manufactured concerns over stolen elections make large 
segments of the electorate distrust legitimate results and question the 
democratic process. Far from empty rhetoric or just politics as usual, 
these stolen election lies mislead Americans into challenging the rule 
of law and contesting the peaceful transition of power when their 
preferred candidates lose. This reduced confidence in elections leads 
to partisan lawmakers further damaging the system by enacting laws that 
politicize the process or make voting needlessly more difficult. And 
the stolen election lies inspire the type of political violence 
perpetrated on January 6, 2021, which rips at the ties binding our 
country by denigrating our democratic institutions and ideals.
c. the federal government must take action to prevent further damage to 
                          our election system.
    While the problems stemming from the stolen election lies are 
significant and pose a serious threat to the proper functioning of our 
democracy, many of them are solvable through Federal legislative and 
enforcement action. The priorities must be to address increased efforts 
to raise the burdens of voting, the manipulation of votes and results 
after election day, and the alarming threats against election 
officials. Congress can pass new laws that fix weaknesses in our 
current legal framework where proponents of stolen election lies have 
sought to exploit gaps for political gain. Many such fixes already 
exist in specific provisions contained in proposed laws currently 
before Congress.
    First, Congress must enact new laws that will curb the rise of laws 
that make voting needlessly more difficult based on stolen election 
lies. As I have described above, new laws and proposed legislation in 
the last 2 years have chased the shadow of voter fraud by finding 
heavy-handed and overbroad news ways to remove eligible voters from the 
registration rolls and make voter access more difficult.
    There are several critical provisions already drafted in 
legislation before Congress that would make an immediate difference and 
have had successful bipartisan use in the States. To begin, enacting 
same-day registration can limit the harmful effects of wrongful 
registration purges by allowing eligible voters to still show up to 
register and vote on election day.\175\ Standardizing meaningful early 
voting in the States will also enable citizens with greater voting 
inflexibilities (such as rural voters, students, and voters with less 
access to resources) to still be able to cast their ballot even if they 
cannot do so on election day.\176\ Guaranteeing access to vote by 
mail--a process that States across the country have tested for years 
and found is safe, secure, and partisan-neutral \177\--will make sure 
that any eligible voter who wants to vote is empowered to do so.\178\ 
And requiring that States give their election officials meaningful 
additional time before election day to preprocess received ballots and 
prepare them to be tabulated after the polls close will help ensure 
timely election results.\179\ Enacting these Federal baselines, among 
others, will reinforce our National ideals that, no matter where 
someone lives or how many resources they have, all citizens should have 
a fair chance to participate in the electoral process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \175\ See, e.g., Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, Rules 
Committee Print 117-28 Text of the House Amendment to the Senate 
Amendment to H.R. 5746, Sec. 1031. Same Day Registration, at 71-75 
(Jan. 12, 2022), https://rules.house.gov/sites/
democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR5746EAS-RCP117-
28.pdf#page=71; see also See Same Day Voter Registration, Nat'l Conf. 
of State Legislatures (Sept. 9, 2021), https://www.ncsl.org/research/
elections-and-campaigns/same-day-registration.aspx.
    \176\ See, e.g., Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, Rules 
Committee Print 117-28 Text of the House Amendment to the Senate 
Amendment to H.R. 5746, Sec. 1201. Early Voting, at 119-126 (Jan. 12, 
2022), https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/
BILLS-117HR5746EAS-RCP117-28.pdf#page=119; see also Early In-Person 
Voting, Nat'l Conf. of State Legislature (Jan. 17, 2022), https://
www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/early-voting-in-state-
elections.aspx.
    \177\ See, e.g., Daniel M. Thompson, et al., Universal vote-by-mail 
has no impact on partisan turnout or vote share, Proceedings on the 
National Academy of Sciences (June 9, 2020), https://www.pnas.org/doi/
10.1073/pnas.2007249117; see also sources cited supra notes 28 & 29.
    \178\ See, e.g., Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, Rules 
Committee Print 117-28 Text of the House Amendment to the Senate 
Amendment to H.R. 5746, Subtitle D--Voting by Mail, at 128-169 (Jan. 
12, 2022), https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/
files/BILLS-117HR5746EAS-RCP117-28.pdf#page=128.
    \179\ See, e.g., Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, Rules 
Committee Print 117-28 Text of the House Amendment to the Senate 
Amendment to H.R. 5746, Sec. 1201. Early Voting, at 126-27 (Jan. 12, 
2022), https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/
BILLS-117HR5746EAS-RCP117-28.pdf#page=126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, Congress should legislatively reinforce that States have no 
power to disturb the results of popular elections. Congress can do so 
by updating the Electoral Count Act (ECA), focusing on two core 
clarifying revisions that remove ambiguities in the 1887 statute's at-
times obscure and outdated language. Critically, the ECA must make 
clear that once a State holds a legitimate popular election to select 
its Presidential electors, the State legislature has no power to 
displace those results. The ECA is key to reinforcing what we know from 
our Constitution to be true--that any post-hoc usurpation of the 
Presidential electors power from the people violates voters' 
fundamental Constitutional rights, and intrudes on the Federal 
Government's Constitutional prerogative to designate the time for 
holding Presidential elections and the process for counting the duly 
provided votes from States' legitimate popular election results.
    Along similar lines, Congress must update the ECA to expressly 
provide that once a State's election results are settled, the State 
Governor has no authority to refuse to certify that outcome. Again, our 
Constitution forbids any contrary result. But the ECA can and should be 
updated to fortify that elections in our modern democracy are dictated 
by the people, not one potentially rogue official. Congress can 
likewise enact additional laws that authorize the Department of 
Justice, as provided in existing legislative proposals, to prevent 
interference with State and local officials conducting the vote count 
and election certification to ensure the people's voice is accurately 
reflected.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \180\ See, e.g., Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, Rules 
Committee Print 117-28 Text of the House Amendment to the Senate 
Amendment to H.R. 5746, Title III--Preventing Election Subversion, 
Subtitle A--Restrictions on Removal of Election Administrators, at 251-
62 (Jan. 12, 2022), https://rules.house.gov/sites/
democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR5746EAS-RCP117-
28.pdf#page=251.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, Congress must urgently pass new laws that provide greater 
Federal protections for election officials and volunteers. Existing 
Federal criminal law generally prohibits threats made through 
interstate communications, which has been the source of the Department 
of Justice's recent prosecutions of two stolen election extremists who 
threatened officials in Nevada and Georgia.\181\ But that leaves 
enforcement gaps for certain intrastate and in-person threats that 
Federal law may not reach, and fails to protect the specific security 
needs of election officials under attack.\182\ Existing proposals in 
legislation before Congress that add new Federal criminal offenses and 
resources for the prosecutions of violent stolen election conspiracists 
would aid the Department of Justice to provide needed protections for 
election workers.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \181\ See sources cited supra note 135.
    \182\ See Linda So & Jason Szep, supra note 118.
    \183\ See, e.g., Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, Rules 
Committee Print 117-28 Text of the House Amendment to the Senate 
Amendment to H.R. 5746, Subtitle B--Increased Protections for Election 
Workers at 263-64 (Jan. 12, 2022), https://rules.house.gov/sites/
democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR5746EAS-RCP117-
28.pdf#page=263; Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, Rules Committee 
Print 117-28 Text of the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to 
H.R. 5746, Sec. 3205. Private Rights Of Action By Election Officials, 
Sec. 3206. Making Intimidation Of Tabulation, Canvass, And 
Certification Efforts A Crime, at 278-80 (Jan. 12, 2022), https://
rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-
117HR5746EAS-RCP117-28.pdf#page=278.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, the Federal Government, through CISA and other 
agencies, must engage now to coordinate more trainings and provide 
additional funding for election offices to protect themselves against 
threats and take steps to remove identifying information on-line to 
avoid harassment or doxing.\184\ Programs that protect the information 
of domestic violence and stalking victims in government databases can 
serve as a model.\185\ Additionally, election officials under threat 
should be provided Federal grants to purchase home intrusion detection 
systems, and further funding for training and education related to 
maintaining greater personal security.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \184\ See Brennan Ctr. for Justice, Election Officials Under 
Attack, supra note 118, at 8-9.
    \185\ Id. at 7.
    \186\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fourth, Congress can enact new laws to strengthen protections over 
the security of State voting equipment, voters' ballots, and the 
counting process. Provisions in existing proposals before Congress 
include improving security and chain-of-custody procedures for voting 
equipment and ballots to prevent their manipulation by State actors or 
private companies during sham partisan reviews of election 
results.\187\ Federal law should also be updated to prohibit Federal 
actors from improperly seizing State or county voting equipment and 
materials.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \187\ Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, Rules Committee Print 
117-28 Text of the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 
5746, Subtitle D--Protection of Election Records & Election 
Infrastructure, at 280-86 (Jan. 12, 2022), https://rules.house.gov/
sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR5746EAS-RCP117-
28.pdf#page=280.
    \188\ See, e.g., Matthew S. Schwartz, Jan. 6 panel is investigating 
a Trump administration plan to seize voting machines, NPR (Jan. 23, 
2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/01/23/1075219215/jan-6-panel-is-
investigating-a-trump-administration-plan-to-seize-voting-machine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fifth, Congress should enact new laws that seek to address post-
election misinformation, as well as fraudulent fundraising and spending 
on efforts to perpetuate the stolen election lies. Congress can do so 
by prohibiting misinformation campaigns intended to impede the lawful 
counting of ballots or certification of results.\189\ Congress can 
address problematic financial incentives for stolen election lies \190\ 
and protect donors by restricting fraudulent post-election fundraising 
for frivolous election contests.\191\ It can also increase post-
election spending transparency for voters by defining spending by 
candidates and groups on efforts to influence vote counting as election 
spending, so it is subject to the same limits and disclosure 
requirements as other campaign spending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \189\ See, e.g., Social Media Misinformation and Administration in 
the 2020 General Election, Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project (Mar. 
10, 2021), https://healthyelections.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/
Social_Media_Misinformation.pdf.
    \190\ See, e.g., Isaac Stanley-Becker, et al., Prosecutors demanded 
records of Sidney Powell's fundraising groups as part of criminal 
probe, Wash. Post (Nov. 30, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
politics/2021/11/30/sidney-powell-defend-the-republic-criminal-probe/.
    \191\ See, e.g., John L. Dorman, supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
  Statement of Wendy R. Weiser, Vice President for Democracy, Brennan 
              Center for Justice at NYU School of Law \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of 
Law is a nonpartisan public policy and law institute that works to 
strengthen the systems of democracy and justice so that they work for 
all Americans. I am the vice president for democracy and director of 
the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, which among other issues 
focuses on voting rights and election administration. I have authored 
numerous nationally-recognized reports, studies, and articles on voting 
rights and elections. My work has been featured in academic journals 
and media outlets across the country. I have served as counsel in many 
voting rights lawsuits and have testified previously before Congress, 
and before several State legislatures, on a variety of issues relating 
to election administration. My testimony does not purport to convey the 
views, if any, of the New York University School of Law. I thank Lauren 
Miller, counsel at the Brennan Center, for her substantial assistance 
in preparing this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             April 8, 2022
    Chairman Thompson and Members of the Select Committee: Thank you 
for the opportunity to submit this testimony to discuss the 
disinformation about the 2020 Presidential election that fueled the 
violent January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol (the 
``insurrection'') and how that disinformation continues to threaten 
voting and elections in America.
    On behalf of the Brennan Center for Justice, I thank this Committee 
for its investigation into one of the most shameful and alarming 
attacks on American democracy in our Nation's history. As you know, the 
insurrection's motivating theory was that the 2020 Presidential 
election was ``stolen'' from former President Donald Trump.\2\ This 
``Big Lie'' relies on disproven \3\ and racially charged allegations of 
wide-spread voter fraud,\4\ ballot irregularities,\5\ and conspiracies 
to otherwise ``rig'' the election.\6\ The 2020 election is over, but 
the Big Lie continues to wreak havoc on our elections. My testimony 
will explain how the same disinformation about voter fraud and the 2020 
election that drove the January 6 insurrection is fueling on-going 
efforts to undermine voting rights and sabotage the electoral process 
across the country, as well as efforts to attack election officials and 
otherwise undermine impartial election administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``Transcript of Trump's Speech at Rally before US Capitol 
Riot,'' Associated Press, January 13, 2021, https://apnews.com/article/
election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-capitol-siege-media-
e79eb5164613d6718e9f4502eb471f27; Brian Naylor, ``Read Trump's Jan. 6 
Speech, a Key Part of Impeachment Trial,'' National Public Radio, 
February 10, 2021, https://wwwnpr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-
jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial; Lauren Leatherby et al., 
``How a Presidential Rally Turned into a Capitol Rampage,'' New York 
Times, January 12, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/
12/us/capitol-mob-timeline.html; and Southern Poverty Law Center, The 
Road to Jan. 6: A Year of Extremist Mobilization, https://
www.splcenter.org/news/2021/12/30/road-jan-6-year-extremist-
mobilization.
    \3\ Daniel Funke, ``Fact Check: How We Know the 2020 Election 
Results Were Legitimate, Not `Rigged' as Donald Trump Claims,'' USA 
Today, January 6, 2022, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/
2022/01/06/fact-check-donald-trump-2020-election-results/9115875002/; 
``Joint Statement from Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating 
Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive 
Committees,'' Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 
November 12, 2020, accessed April 8, 2022, https://www.cisa.gov/news/
2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-
coordinating-council-election; and Brennan Center for Justice, It's 
Official: The Election Was Secure, 2020, https://www.brennancenter.org/
our-work/research-reports/its-official-election-was-secure.
    \4\ Donald Trump, interview by Maria Bartiromo, Sunday Morning 
Futures, Fox News, November 29, 2020, https://vimeo.com/485180163.
    \5\ ``Tweets of November 16, 2020,'' American Presidency Project, 
UC Santa Barbara, November 16, 2020, accessed April 8, 2022, https://
www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/tweets-november-16-2020.
    \6\ American Presidency Project, ``Tweets.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Part I of my testimony walks through evidence of how the Big Lie is 
driving two anti-democratic trends in the States: The swift, aggressive 
push to restrict access to voting rights and the novel push to enable 
partisan actors to interfere in election administration. In the 12 
months following the insurrection, 19 States passed 34 restrictive 
voting bills, or bills that make it more difficult to vote, according 
to the Brennan Center's count.\7\ This was a significant escalation 
over years past. At the same time, State lawmakers pressed a new 
species of legislation-election sabotage bills--which enable partisan 
actors to interfere with or manipulate elections by changing who runs 
elections, counts the votes, and how. At least 11 election sabotage 
laws passed in 9 States in 2021.\8\ This anti-democratic push continues 
today; as of the Brennan Center's January 14, 2022 count, State 
lawmakers had introduced, pre-filed, or carried over more than 250 
restrictive voting bills \9\ and 41 election sabotage bills.\10\ These 
bills are much more closely connected to the push to overturn the 2020 
election than many realize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Brennan Center for Justice, Voting Laws Roundup: December 2021, 
2021, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-
laws-roundup-december-2021.
    \8\ Will Wilder, Derek Tisler, and Wendy R. Weiser, The Election 
Sabotage Scheme and How Congress Can Stop It 2021, Brennan Center for 
Justice, 3-6, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/
election-sabotage-scheme-and-how-congress-can-stop-it.
    \9\ Brennan Center for Justice, Voting Laws Roundup: February 2022, 
2022, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-
laws-roundup-february-2022.
    \10\ Brennan Center, Voting Laws Roundup: February 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My testimony will establish, first, that many of these new 
restrictive voting and election sabotage bills stem directly from the 
false allegations made in lawsuits brought by former President Trump's 
campaign and his supporters in their bid to change the 2020 election 
results. Second, it will demonstrate that the State lawmakers leading 
this legislative charge are among the same individuals who rejected the 
2020 election results. Almost all of them made public statements 
connecting their support for restrictive voting legislation to 
disinformation about the legitimacy of the 2020 election or wide-spread 
voter fraud. Already, the voting legislation that they succeeded in 
passing is creating tangible, negative effects on voters and 
disproportionately impacting voters of color.
    Part II of my testimony will describe two ways in which the Big Lie 
is driving attacks on impartial election administration. First, false 
claims about voter fraud and the legitimacy of the 2020 election are 
triggering attacks on our Nation's election administrators, leading an 
unprecedented number to contemplate quitting. A recent Brennan Center 
survey found that 1 in 6 election officials have experienced threats 
because of their job, and nearly 1 in 3 know of at least one colleague 
who has left their position due to safety concerns, increased threats, 
or intimidation.\11\ Second, my testimony lays out how the Big Lie is 
politicizing election administration in other ways. Among other things, 
2022 candidates for election administration positions are embracing 
election denial in their pitch to voters and donors. Races that feature 
election denial have seen massive increases in contributions, 
particularly from out-of-State donors. These trends pose a serious risk 
to impartial election administration in America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Brennan Center for Justice, Local Election Officials Survey 
(March 2022) 2022, 6, 19, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
research-reports/local-election-officials-survey-march-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In short, there is ample evidence that the disinformation that 
fueled the January 6th insurrection continues to undermine our election 
system. With 2022 primaries in progress, and the 2024 Presidential 
election around the corner, the dangers to American democracy loom 
large.
    This Committee's work is critical to repairing the breach in the 
fabric of our Nation caused by the January 6th insurrection. It is 
critical to ensuring that the perpetrators of the violent insurrection 
are held accountable, and its victims receive justice. It also is 
critical to ensuring that this reprehensible history does not repeat 
itself. And it is critical to ensuring the that the Big Lie that fueled 
the insurrection does not continue to grow and further damage our 
democracy.
    i. the same election denial claims and rhetoric that fueled the 
    insurrection are driving damaging vote suppression and election 
                            sabotage efforts
    Since the 2020 election, the country has witnessed two aggressive, 
anti-democratic developments in State legislatures. First, efforts to 
suppress voting have soared. In 2021 alone, at least 19 States passed 
34 restrictive voting laws, or laws that make it more difficult to vote 
\12\--the largest number that the Brennan Center has seen in any year 
since it first began tracking voting legislation in 2011.\13\ Indeed, 
between 2011 and 2021, at least 33 States passed 97 restrictive voting 
bills, and more than a third of those laws passed last year alone.\14\ 
This legislative push was Nation-wide; overall, legislators introduced 
more than 400 restrictive voting bills in 49 States in 2021.\15\ This 
trend continues in 2022. As of the Brennan Center's January 14, 2022 
count, State lawmakers had introduced, pre-filed, or carried over more 
than 250 restrictive voting bills.\16\ The provisions in these bills 
range from curtailing access to mail voting and enacting new or 
stricter voter ID requirements, to imposing new barriers for voters and 
limiting or eliminating same-day voter registration.\17\ These numbers 
continue to grow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Brennan Center, Voting Laws Roundup: December 2021.
    \13\ Brennan Center, Voting Laws Roundup: December 2021.
    \14\ Brennan Center, Voting Laws Roundup: December 2021; Brennan 
Center for Justice, Voting Laws Roundup 2020, 2020, https://
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-
2020-0; Brennan Center for Justice, Voting Laws Roundup 2019, 2019, 
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-
roundup-2019; Brennan Center for Justice, Voting Laws Roundup 2018, 
2018, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-
laws-roundup-2018; Brennan Center for Justice, Voting Laws Roundup 
2017, 2017, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/
voting-laws-roundup-2017; Brennan Center for Justice, Voting Laws 
Roundup 2016, 2016, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/voting-laws-roundup-2016; Brennan Center for Justice, Voting 
Laws Roundup 2015, 2015, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-2015; Brennan Center for Justice, 
Voting Laws Roundup 2014, 2014, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-2014; Brennan Center for Justice, 
Voting Laws Roundup 2013, 2013, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-2013; Brennan Center for Justice, 
Election 2012: Voting Laws Roundup, 2012, https://
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/election-2012-voting-
laws-roundup; and Wendy R. Weiser and Nhu-Y Ngo, Voting Rights in 2011: 
A Legislative Round-Up, 2011, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
research-reports/voting-rights-2011-legislative-round.
    \15\ Brennan Center, Voting Laws Roundup: December 2021.
    \16\ Brennan Center, Voting Laws Roundup: February 2022.
    \17\ Brennan Center, Voting Laws Roundup: December 2021; and 
Brennan Center, Voting Laws Roundup: February 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, States have seen a dramatic spike in legislation that would 
enable partisan actors to meddle in election administration and vote 
counting processes--otherwise known as ``election sabotage'' bills. The 
Brennan Center identified at least 11 election sabotage laws passed in 
9 States in 2021,\18\ including laws in 2 States that allow partisan 
actors to remove election officials from their positions and replace 
them close to an election,\19\ laws in 6 States that create criminal 
penalties for election officials who take certain steps to make it 
easier for individuals to vote,\20\ and laws in 3 States that empower 
partisan poll watchers to interfere in the vote-counting process.\21\ 
Our January 14, 2022 count found that legislators in at least 13 States 
already had pre-filed and introduced an unprecedented 41 such bills 
that would threaten the people and processes that make elections 
work.\22\ These provisions range from allowing any citizen to initiate 
or conduct biased election audits; to imposing new criminal or civil 
penalties on election officials for making unintentional errors; to 
allowing partisan actors to remove election officials from office.\23\ 
These numbers also continue to grow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Wilder, Tisler, and Weiser, Election Sabotage Scheme, 3-6.
    \19\ Wilder, Tisler, and Weiser, Election Sabotage Scheme, 3.
    \20\ Wilder, Tisler, and Weiser, Election Sabotage Scheme, 5.
    \21\ Wilder, Tisler, and Weiser, Election Sabotage Scheme, 5.
    \22\ Brennan Center, Voting Laws Roundup: February 2022.
    \23\ Brennan Center, Voting Laws Roundup: February 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Brennan Center has been chronicling and studying these negative 
developments. Specifically, two recent analyses demonstrate that the 
same false allegations of a stolen election that drove the insurrection 
are driving these on-going efforts to undermine voting rights and 
sabotage electoral processes. One analysis examined the text of 
restrictive voting and election sabotage legislation to show that it 
closely maps onto the same allegations made in lawsuits brought by 
former President Trump and his supporters in the wake of the 2020 
election--all of which were unsuccessful. The second analysis reviewed 
the rhetoric of those legislators leading restrictive voting and 
election sabotage efforts to establish that these bills rest upon the 
same debunked rhetoric of wide-spread voter fraud that fueled the 
insurrection.
A. There Is Strong Evidence That the False Claims That Fueled the 
        Insurrection Are Fueling Vote Suppression and Election Sabotage 
        Legislation
    For more than a decade, the Brennan Center has tracked and reported 
on new laws that make it more difficult for individuals to vote.\24\ 
From the outset, baseless claims of voter fraud fueled this legislative 
movement.\25\ Following the 2020 election, former President Trump and 
his supporters used this same rhetoric to conjure up claims of a 
``stolen'' election and launch a full-scale effort to overturn the 
Presidential election results in key States, including through a flurry 
of unsuccessful lawsuits discussed in section i below. In the wake of 
that failed effort, election denial proponents began rapidly 
introducing and passing State bills that restrict access to voting and 
make it easier for partisan actors to meddle in election 
administration. Our research demonstrates that this unprecedented 
legislative push was driven in significant part by claims that the 2020 
election was stolen, as reflected by the similarity between the false 
claims made in lawsuits and the new legislative provisions, as well as 
by the public statements made by legislative sponsors concerning the 
legitimacy of the 2020 election and wide-spread voter fraud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Brennan Center, Voting Laws Roundup: February 2022.
    \25\ Brennan Center for Justice, Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth, 
2017, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/
debunking-voter-fraud-myth; Brennan Center, Refuting the Myth of Voter 
Fraud; and ``The Myth of Voter Fraud,'' Brennan Center for Justice, 
accessed April 8, 2022, https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-
every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is well-established that voter fraud, while pernicious, is 
vanishingly rare in U.S. elections.\26\ Courts universally rejected 
lawsuits seeking to overturn the 2020 election result based upon false 
theories of fraud.\27\ Election officials and experts of all political 
persuasions overwhelmingly agree that the 2020 election was one of the 
most secure in modern history.\28\ Nevertheless, false claims about 
wide-spread voter fraud and the legitimacy of the 2020 election 
continue to drive legislation and policy efforts in the States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Brennan Center, Refuting the Myth of Voter Fraud.
    \27\ Rosalind S. Helderman and Elise Viebeck, `` `The Last Wall': 
How Dozens of Judges across the Political Spectrum Rejected Trump's 
Efforts to Overturn the Election,'' Washington Post, December 12, 2020, 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judges-trump-election-lawsuits/
2020/12/12/e3a57224-3a72-11eb-98c4-
25dc9f4987e8story.html?utmcampaign=wptodayshead- 
lines&utmmedium=email&utmsource=newsletter&wpisrc=nlheadlines.
    \28\ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, ``Joint 
Statement''; and Brennan Center, It's Official: The Election Was 
Secure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            i. Comparison of False Legal Claims about the 2020 Election 
                    and State Legislation Introduced and Passed in 2021
    In the days before and after the 2020 election, former President 
Trump's campaign and his supporters filed a blizzard of unsuccessful 
lawsuits in an attempt to alter the election's outcome.\29\ These 
lawsuits made a variety of allegations that the election was rife with 
fraud and irregularities. A recent Brennan Center analysis demonstrates 
that the false allegations contained in these suits map directly onto 
many provisions in the wave of new restrictive voting and election 
sabotage measures passed in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ ``Voting Rights Litigation Tracker 2020,'' Brennan Center for 
Justice, July 28, 2020, accessed April 8, 2022, https://
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/voting-rights-litigation-
tracker-2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The analysis focuses on those lawsuits that raised false claims of 
fraud and attempted to disrupt or overturn the election, which were 
filed in 17 States.\30\ Although courts rejected these suits,\31\ in 
2021 legislators in 16 of the 17 States where suits were filed 
introduced bills to restrict access to voting.\32\ The majority of 
lawsuits filed before or immediately after the 2020 election centered 
on allegations that the mail voting process was not secure, despite 
well-settled evidence to the contrary.\33\ Not surprisingly, the most 
common theme of new restrictive voting legislation last year was, in 
turn, an effort to restrict mail voting.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Katie Friel and Will Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation 
in Anti-Voter Lawsuits and Anti-Voter Legislation, Brennan Center for 
Justice (forthcoming), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-
reports/finding-same-misinformation-anti-voter-lawsuits-and-anti-voter. 
The Brennan Center's analysis focused exclusively on those 2020 
election lawsuits that relied on false claims about voter fraud and 
sought to disrupt or overturn the election. The analysis included 
lawsuits filed before the election that relied on false fraud claims 
and sought to enjoin certain methods of voting or have certain 
categories of votes cast out. It also included lawsuits filed after the 
election that used false claims of fraud to seek to invalidate certain 
categories of votes or overturn the election entirely. The analysis 
excluded cases filed by pro se litigants that made vague allegations of 
fraud that were not specific to any State or jurisdiction.
    \31\ Helderman and Viebeck, `` `The Last Wall.' ''
    \32\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation.
    \33\ Wendy R. Weiser, ``The False Narrative of Vote-by-Mail 
Fraud,'' Brennan Center for Justice, April 10, 2020, https://
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/false-narrative-vote-
mail-fraud.
    \34\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fact, the connections between the 2020 litigation claims and the 
2021 restrictive voting bills were much more specific than that. In 15 
of the 16 States with both litigation and legislation, at least one 
provision in a new restrictive voting bill can be directly traced to a 
specific false claim made in a 2020 election lawsuit in that State.\35\ 
The similarities remain just as strong when looking only at the most 
extreme category of lawsuits: Those filed after Election Day seeking to 
overturn the results or block certification of an election. These 
lawsuits, filed in at least 12 States, relied heavily upon spurious 
claims of fraud that courts ultimately rejected.\36\ Yet in 11 of these 
12 States, a provision contained in a 2021 restrictive voting bill 
directly mirrors false claims made in those suits.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation.
    \36\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation.
    \37\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Arizona, for example, one 2020 lawsuit contested the results of 
the Presidential election based in part upon an unproven claim that 
out-of-State voters cast ballots in Arizona.\38\ The case was 
dismissed, but in 2021 Arizona legislators introduced a bill to expand 
voter roll purges in an effort to remove hypothetical out-of-State 
voters from the voter rolls.\39\ Similarly, multiple cases in Wisconsin 
challenged election officials' decision to accept absentee ballots 
without a photo ID during the pandemic based upon the State's exemption 
to the voter ID requirement for individuals who are ``indefinitely 
confined.''\40\ In 2021, legislators introduced two bills to repeal the 
exemption.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation; and Pet. 
For Elec. Cont., Stevenson v. Ducey, No. CV2020-096490 (Ariz. Super. 
Ct. 2020).
    \39\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation; and H.B. 
2358, 55th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2021).
    \40\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation; and Pls.' 
Compl., Feehan v. Wis. Elections Commission, 2020 WL 7630410 (E.D. Wis. 
2020).
    \41\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation. S.B. 204, 
2021 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wis. 2021). One of the two bills (Wis. S.B. 204) 
was passed by the legislature but subsequently vetoed by the Governor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In some States, the connections between 2020 litigation claims and 
2021 legislative efforts were especially pronounced. In Georgia, for 
instance, litigation pushed four spurious claims to cast doubt upon the 
election results: (i) Poll watchers were deliberately blocked from 
observing ballot processing, creating doubt in the accuracy of the 
counting process; (ii) the State's use of drop boxes increased the risk 
of fraud; (iii) absentee ballots generally threaten election integrity 
and lead to fraud; and (iv) private foundations used grant funding to 
gain undue influence over election officials.\42\ These claims were 
unsuccessful, and yet the Georgia legislature reinforced them by 
signing into law Senate Bill 202, which: (i) Expands legal rights of 
poll watchers to observe elections without constraints by election 
administrators; (ii) limits the availability of drop boxes; (iii) 
significantly restricts access to mail voting by imposing stricter 
identification requirements for absentee voters and narrows the window 
to apply for absentee ballots; and (iv) prohibits local election 
administrators from accepting funding from private sources.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation.
    \43\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation; and S.B. 
202, 156th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pennsylvania illustrates the connection between baseless lawsuits 
challenging the integrity of the 2020 election and 2021 election 
sabotage provisions. Many of the legal challenges in Pennsylvania 
falsely claimed that the State's certification of the 2020 election was 
somehow invalid.\44\ Although unfounded, these claims did influence 
Pennsylvania legislators, who introduced at least five resolutions in 
2021 directly aimed at invalidating the results of the 2020 
election.\45\ Legal challenges in the State also made allegations of 
fraud as to the State's ``notice and cure'' practice, by which election 
officials notify voters if there is an issue with their mail-in ballot 
and provide the voter with an opportunity to fix the mistake.\46\ While 
those claims were rejected, legislators subsequently introduced a bill 
to prohibit election officials from providing any opportunity for 
voters to cure their mail ballots.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation.
    \45\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation.
    \46\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation.
    \47\ Friel and Wilder, Finding the Same Misinformation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ii. Analysis of Public Statements by Proponents of 
                    Restrictive Voting and Election Sabotage 
                    Legislation
    A second recent Brennan Center analysis examined public statements 
made by sponsors and key proponents of restrictive voting and election 
sabotage legislation in the States and found that those sponsors 
justified their legislation using the same discredited claims of a 
wide-spread fraud and a stolen election that fueled the insurrection. 
The analysis focused on two sets of public rhetoric: (i) Statements 
made by the chief sponsors and co-sponsors of the 13 most restrictive 
new laws passed in 2021; and (ii) statements concerning all 25 such 
bills introduced in Georgia and all 31 introduced in Pennsylvania in 
2021, as these two States saw some of the most aggressive restrictive 
voting and election sabotage bills.\48\ In total, the analysis 
uncovered relevant statements for 58 bills \49\ made in legislative 
proceedings, at campaign events, to reporters, and on social media, 
with striking results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Andrew Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric from Sponsors of State 
Voter Suppression Legislation, Brennan Center for Justice 
(forthcoming), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/
election-denial-rhetoric-sponsors-state-voter-suppression-legislation. 
The analysis excluded legislation with more minor voting restrictions 
and mixed legislation that included both provisions that restricted 
voting access and expanded it.
    \49\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric. In total, the analysis 
reviewed 68 bills (one of which is a Georgia bill that was counted both 
in the list of the most restrictive new laws and in the list of 
restrictive voting bills in Georgia). Fifty-eight of these 68 bills 
contained relevant public statements from their sponsors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We found, first, that the vast majority of the 58 bills were 
sponsored by legislators who publicly questioned the validity of the 
2020 election, including the chief sponsors of 10 of the 13 most 
restrictive new State laws.\50\ For example, Arkansas Representative 
Mark Lowery, who served as the chief sponsor of legislation enhancing 
voter ID requirements,\51\ notably stated that he ``believe[s] Donald 
Trump was elected President'' in 2020 and signed a letter asking for 
audits of the 2020 election in every State and decertification of any 
result declared ``prematurely and inaccurately.''\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
    \51\ H.B. 1112, 93d Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2021).
    \52\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, sponsors of 20 of the 25 restrictive bills introduced in 
Georgia last year questioned the election's outcome, mostly by 
suggesting that the surge in absentee ballots in 2020 led to fraud.\53\ 
Representative Barry Fleming, chair of the Georgia House Special 
Committee on Elections formed in the wake of the 2020 election, 
suggested in an op-ed that unreliable mail ballots changed the outcome 
of certain races in 2020.\54\ He argued that ``Democrats [were] relying 
on the always-suspect absentee balloting process to inch ahead in 
Georgia and other close States'' and proceeded to compare mail ballots 
to ``the shady part of town down near the docks you do not want to 
wander into because the chance of being shanghaied is 
significant.''\55\ He added: ``Expect the Georgia Legislature to 
address that in our next session in January [2021].''\56\ 
Representative Fleming later shepherded Senate Bill 202--an omnibus 
vote suppression and election sabotage package--through the House and 
served as the lead sponsor on two other restrictive bills.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
    \54\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric; and Barry Fleming, ``Guest 
Column: Republican Party Wins on Election Day, and Future Is Bright,'' 
Augusta Chronicle, November 15, 2020, https://www.augustachronicle.com/
story/opinion/columns/guest/2020/11/15/guest-column-republican-party-
wins-on-election-day-and-future-is-bright/43155971/.
    \55\ Fleming, ``Guest Column: Republican Party Wins.''
    \56\ Fleming, ``Guest Column: Republican Party Wins.''
    \57\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric; and S.B. 202, 156th Gen. 
Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And in Pennsylvania, sponsors of 25 of the 31 restrictive bills 
introduced in 2021 questioned the 2020 election's integrity.\58\ 
Representative Russ Diamond, for instance, wrote a Facebook post 
alleging that there were ``troubling discrepancies between the numbers 
of total votes counted and total numbers of voters who voted in the 
2020 General Election.''\59\ He also believed that officials counted 
200,000 extra votes and considered certifying Pennsylvania's election 
results to have been ``absolutely premature, unconfirmed, and in 
error.''\60\ Representative Diamond subsequently sponsored five bills 
to restrict voting access in 2021 and served as the lead sponsor on 
four.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
    \59\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
    \60\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
    \61\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, sponsors of many vote suppression and election sabotage 
bills introduced last year expressly connected those bills to false 
claims about the 2020 election. Sponsors of 6 of the 13 most 
restrictive bills made connections between voter fraud and the bill at 
hand.\62\ For example, when introducing Senate Bill 1111, which would 
have limited the types of addresses at which voters register to vote 
and otherwise enhances ID requirements,\63\ Texas Senator Paul 
Bettencourt maintained that the ``November 2020 election demonstrated 
the lack of transparency and lack of integrity within the election 
process.''\64\ Along with six other ``election integrity'' bills that 
he filed, Senator Bettencourt posited that Senate Bill 1111 would help 
``to make sure the problems we faced in 2020 will not happen 
again.''\65\ In Pennsylvania, Senator Doug Mastriano--who was present 
on Capitol grounds on January 6, held hearings in which Rudy Giuliani 
spread false claims of voter fraud, attempted to lead a partisan audit 
of the 2020 election, and reportedly claimed that he saw ``better 
elections in Afghanistan'' \66\--went on to co-author a memorandum in 
support of Senate Bill 515, which would repeal no-excuse mail 
voting.\67\ The memo echoed his earlier rhetoric by claiming that the 
bill would ``once again restore confidence in our democracy and shine a 
light into the shadow of doubt that has been cast over Americans' most 
democratic process.''\68\ Likewise in Georgia, sponsors of 9 of the 
State's 25 restrictive bills argued that the provisions in those bills 
were intended to address purported 2020 election fraud.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
    \63\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric; and S.B. 1111, 87th Leg., 
Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2021).
    \64\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
    \65\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
    \66\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
    \67\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
    \68\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
    \69\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, and not surprisingly, our analysis found that sponsors of 
every piece of introduced and enacted legislation publicly justified 
their legislation as measures to address voter fraud and election 
integrity--often in language mirroring that used by proponents of 
conspiracy theories relating to the 2020 election.\70\ This language 
included, for example, trying to ``restore or confirm confidence in the 
election process'' or creating ``an election where legal votes count, 
and illegal votes do not.''\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
    \71\ Garber, Election Denial Rhetoric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
    In short, the connections uncovered by the Brennan Center's 
research demonstrate that the same election denial that drove 
litigation and rhetoric to overturn the 2020 election result played a 
critical role in driving restrictive voting and election sabotage 
efforts in 2021.
B. Restrictive Voting Legislation Fueled by Disinformation About the 
        2020 Election and Voter Fraud Is Harming Voters, and 
        Disproportionately Voters of Color
    The spike in restrictive voting legislation in 2021 already is 
harming voters, with a disproportionate amount of this harm falling on 
voters of color. First, existing research has found measurable, 
negative turnout effects for many of the types of provisions passed in 
2021.\72\ For example, multiple social science studies have found that 
measures that create stricter voter ID requirements or limit polling 
place access markedly depress voter turnout, with larger effects for 
voters of color.\73\ Other studies have found that reducing early in-
person voting opportunities can reduce turnout,\74\ as do earlier 
registration deadlines \75\ and policies leading to long lines on 
Election Day.\76\ Where empirical studies have not found a negative 
turnout impact, that does not mean harm is not occurring, but rather 
that it cannot be measured by existing empirical tools--or that large 
amounts of resources have been invested to overcome these barriers and 
maintain turnout levels.\77\ Already, the new law led to the rejection 
of thousands of mail-in ballots in the March 2022 primary election.\78\ 
In Texas's largest counties, rejection rates ranged from between 6- and 
almost 22%--significantly higher than the State's 1% rejection rate in 
the 2020 election cycle.\79\ Similarly, after the passage of mail 
voting restrictions in Georgia Senate Bill 202, voters in the State's 
2021 local elections were 45 times more likely to have their mail 
ballot applications rejected--and ultimately not vote as a result--than 
in 2020.\80\ These examples represent just a small slice of the surge 
in new restrictive voting legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \72\ See, e.g., Brennan Center for Justice, The Impact of Voter 
Suppression on Communities of Color, 2022, https://
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/impact-voter-
suppression-communities-color.
    \73\ Brennan Center, Impact of Voter Suppression on Communities of 
Color.
    \74\ Hannah L. Walker, Michael C. Herron, and Daniel A. Smith, 
``Early Voting Changes and Voter Turnout: North Carolina in the 2016 
General Election,'' Political Behavior 41 (2019); and Ethan Kaplan and 
Haishan Yuan, ``Early Voting Laws, Voter Turnout, and Partisan Vote 
Composition: Evidence from Ohio,'' American Economic Journal: Applied 
Economics 12(1) (2020).
    \75\ Greg Vonnahme, ``Registration Deadlines and Turnout in 
Context,'' Political Behavior 34 (2012).
    \76\ Stephen Pettigrew, ``The Downstream Consequences of Long 
Waits: How Lines at the Precinct Depress Future Turnout,'' Electoral 
Studies 71 (2021).
    \77\ S.B. 1., 87th Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. (Tex. 2021)
    \78\ Kevin Morris, Coryn Grange, and Zoe Merriman, The Impact of 
Restrictive Voting Legislation, Brennan Center for Justice, 2022, 
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/impact-
restrictive-voting-legislation.
    \79\ Morris, Grange, and Merriman, Restrictive Voting Legislation.
    \80\ Ryan Little and Ari Berman, ``We Uncovered How Many Georgians 
Were Disenfranchised by GOP Voting Restrictions. It's Staggering.'' 
Mother Jones, January 28, 2022, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/
2022/01/gop-voting-law-disenfranshised-georgia-voters/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, as new laws begin to take effect, there is mounting 
evidence that they already are disenfranchising voters. In Texas, for 
example, Senate Bill 1 creates a more stringent voter ID requirement 
pursuant to which voters must provide their driver's license number or 
partial social security number that matches the county's own files.
    Further, these new laws target and fall most harshly on voters of 
color. There is a growing body of social science research proving that 
restrictive voting laws disproportionately impact voters of color.\81\ 
There also is mounting evidence that the laws passed this year are 
especially like to have, and already are having, that effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\ Brennan Center, Impact of Voter Suppression on Communities of 
Color.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, new laws making mail voting more difficult target and 
already are harming voters of color. Black voters--who make up about a 
third of the electorate in Georgia--comprised half of all late ballot 
application rejections in the State during 2021 local elections.\82\ In 
Florida, an analysis of drop box usage amongst different groups 
revealed that the State's new restrictions on this voting method will 
impose greater burdens on Black voters than on other groups.\83\ And in 
Arizona, the State's shorter window for voters to add missing 
signatures to mail ballots will especially harm Navajo voters, many of 
whom would have to travel hundreds of miles to an election office to 
add their signature.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\ Morris, Grange, and Merriman, Restrictive Voting Legislation.
    \83\ Morris, Grange, and Merriman, Restrictive Voting Legislation; 
and S.B. 90, 2021 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2021).
    \84\ Morris, Grange, and Merriman, Restrictive Voting Legislation; 
S.B. 1003, 55th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2021); and Navajo Nation, 
Office of the President and Vice President, ``Navajo Nation Leaders 
Urge Arizona Governor to Veto Voter Suppression Bill,'' news release, 
April 30, 2021, https://www.navajo-nsn.gov/News%20Releases/OPVP/2021/
Apr/FOR%20IMMEDIATE- 
%20RELEASE%20%20Navajo%20Nation%20leaders%20urge%20Arizona%20Governor%20
to%- 20veto%20voter%20suppression%20bill.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There also is significant evidence that laws restricting voters 
from receiving help when voting or registering to vote 
disproportionately impact voters of color.\85\ Black and Latino voters 
are more likely to depend upon the help of third-party organizations to 
register and vote in Florida.\86\ As a result, the State's new limits 
on these organizations will create a disproportionate impact on them as 
compared to white voters.\87\ Similarly, many Native American voters in 
Montana rely upon paid ballot collectors, as they often have infrequent 
mail service and limited access to locations at which they can submit 
their ballot.\88\ A new State law bans the use of paid ballot 
collectors, creating a more burdensome voting process for many Native 
Americans, especially those with disabilities or who may lack access to 
transportation.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\ Morris, Grange, and Merriman, Restrictive Voting Legislation.
    \86\ Morris, Grange, and Merriman, Restrictive Voting Legislation.
    \87\ Morris, Grange, and Merriman, Restrictive Voting Legislation; 
and Fla. S.B. 90.
    \88\ Morris, Grange, and Merriman, Restrictive Voting Legislation.
    \89\ Morris, Grange, and Merriman, Restrictive Voting Legislation; 
and H.B. 530, 2021 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mont. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, new voter identification laws will disproportionately harm 
voters of color. For example, although Black registered voters account 
for only 30% of Georgia's registered voters, they comprise more than 
half of those registrants without a qualifying State ID number or 
driver's license under Senate Bill 202.\90\ This is consistent with 
existing research that shows the racial turnout gap grows when States 
enact strict voter ID laws.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\ Morris, Grange, and Merriman, Restrictive Voting Legislation.
    \91\ Brennan Center, Impact of Voter Suppression on Communities of 
Color.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These disparate impacts are not coincidental. There is a growing 
body of evidence that the push to restrict access to voting in the 
States is inextricable from race. Social science studies over the past 
decade have linked restrictive voting legislation to increases in 
political participation or population growth by voters of color.\92\ 
Forthcoming Brennan Center research provides evidence that the 
disinformation fueling restrictive voting legislation is perceived as 
race-based and that racial resentment is one of the most significant 
factors driving efforts to make voting more difficult.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\ Brennan Center, Impact of Voter Suppression on Communities of 
Color; Daniel R. Biggers and Michael J. Hanmer, ``Understanding the 
Adoption of Voter Identification Laws in the American States,'' 
American Politics Research 45 (2017); Keith G. Bentele and Erin E. 
O'Brien, ``Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive 
Voter Access Policies,'' Perspectives on Politics 11 (2013); and Angela 
Behrens, Christopher Uggen, and Jeff Manza, ``Ballot Manipulation and 
the `Menace of Negro Domination': Racial Threat and Felon 
Disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850-2002,'' American Journal 
of Sociology 109 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ii. the same election denial that drove the insurrection threatens 
                   impartial election administrators
    In addition to these on-going threats to voting rights and 
electoral processes, disinformation about the 2020 election and voter 
fraud also is driving a wave of attacks on impartial election 
administrators. This risks triggering an election official retention 
crisis as experienced and capable officials leave or are forced out of 
their positions. Election denial also is politicizing--and 
nationalizing--the races by which these election officials are chosen, 
raising fears about who will replace the officials from both parties 
\93\ who worked tirelessly to hold the line against election sabotage 
during the 2020 election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \93\ The 2020 Democracy Fund/Reed College Survey of Local Election 
Officials found that 44% of local election officials surveyed 
identified as Republican, compared to 33% who identified as Democrat 
and 22% who described themselves as Independent (among the 72% of 
respondents who shared their party identification). Paul Gronke et al., 
``Pursuing Diversity and Representation Among Local Election 
Officials,'' Democracy Fund, May 20, 2021, https://democracyfund.org/
idea/pursuing-diversity-and-representation-among-local-election-
officials/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Disinformation About the 2020 Election and Voter Fraud Is Driving 
        Attacks on Election Officials and Pushing Them out of Their 
        Positions
    Election officials are facing unprecedented levels of threats and 
harassment. These attacks, which range from vigilante threats and 
intimidation to overt political interference and threats of 
prosecution, are forcing impartial, experienced election workers across 
the country to question their personal safety. Many of these attacks 
stem from the same election denial that fueled both the insurrection 
and the surge in restrictive voter and election sabotage legislation 
discussed above.
            i. Vigilante Threats and Harassment
    In the wake of the 2020 election, threats and harassment against 
State and local election officials have skyrocketed.\94\ A recent 
survey of local election officials conducted by the Brennan Center 
reveals that 1 in 6 local election officials have experienced threats, 
ranging from racist and gendered harassment to death threats that named 
the election official's spouse and children.\95\ More than 3 in 4 local 
election officials said that threats have increased in recent years, 
and nearly 1 in 3 know of at least one election worker who has left 
their job at least in part because of fears for their safety.\96\ These 
findings reaffirm previous research conducted by the Brennan Center, 
which detailed patterns of harassment and interference directed at all 
levels of State and local election administration following the 2020 
election.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \94\ Brennan Center for Justice and Bipartisan Policy Center, 
Election Officials Under Attack, 2021, https://www.brennancenter.org/
our-work/policy-solutions/election-officials-under-attack, 3-5.
    \95\ Brennan Center, Local Election Officials Survey, 6; Linda So 
and Jason Szep, ``Exclusive--Two Election Workers Break Silence after 
Enduring Trump Backers' Threats,'' Reuters, December 10, 2021, https://
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-threats-georgia-exclusiv-
idCAKBN2IP0VZ; and James Verini, ``He Wanted to Count Every Vote in 
Philadelphia. His Party Had Other Ideas,'' New York Times Magazine, 
December 16, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/magazine/trump-
election-philadelphia-republican.html.
    \96\ Brennan Center, Local Election Officials Survey, 5, 19.
    \97\ Brennan Center and Bipartisan Policy Center, Election 
Officials Under Attack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many of these attacks are traceable to the same stolen election 
allegations that fueled the insurrection. The violent threats against 
election workers have often explicitly invoked the baseless narratives 
of wide-spread election fraud and a stolen election. One email 
threatening to bomb polling places in Georgia declared that ``no one at 
these places will be spared unless and until Trump is guaranteed to be 
POTUS again.''\98\ In another case, a 63-year-old city clerk--who now 
carries a handgun out of fear for her safety--recalls a man who 
harassed her on the street and yelled ``why did you allow Trump to 
lose? Why did you cheat?''\99\ Election officials themselves have 
attributed increasing threats against them to disinformation; nearly 2 
in 3 respondents in the Brennan Center's survey of local election 
officials believe that false information is making their job more 
dangerous.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\ Linda So, ``Trump-Inspired Death Threats Are Terrorizing 
Election Workers,'' Reuters, June 11, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/
investigates/special-report/usa-trump-georgia-threats/.
    \99\ Kyung Lah and Kim Berryman, ``This Grandmother Has Overseen 
Dozens of Elections in Her City. And after 2020, She Carries a Gun,'' 
CNN, January 21, 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/21/politics/
michigan-wisconsin-election-worker-intimidation/index.html.
    \100\ Brennan Center, Local Election Officials Survey, 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Threats and harassment driven by election denial have continued at 
a dangerous pace into 2022. A recent POLITICO review across major 
social media platforms revealed a ``flood'' of recent posts promoting 
2020 stolen election theories, including posts that used violent 
imagery and explicitly discussed attacking election officials.\101\ In 
February, the Department of Homeland Security issued an advisory 
warning that election fraud disinformation could motivate violent 
attacks on democratic institutions, including election workers, in the 
months preceding the 2022 midterm elections.\102\ As 2022 elections 
approach, these threats continue to directly impact the lives of 
election officials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \101\ Mark Scott and Rebecca Kern, ``The Online World Still Can't 
Quit the `Big Lie,' '' POLITICO, January 6, 2022, https://
www.politico.com/news/2022/01/06/social-media-donald-trump-jan-6-
526562.
    \102\ ``Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland,'' 
Department of Homeland Security, last modified February 7, 2022, 
accessed April 8, 2022, https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-
terrorism-advisory-system-bulletin-february-07-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            ii. Political Interference and Threats of Prosecution
    The aftermath of the 2020 election also sparked a barrage of 
political attacks against election officials. These attacks included 
the widely-reported efforts by former President Trump and his 
supporters to overturn the election outcome in key swing States. Most 
notably, the former President attempted to pressure Georgia Secretary 
of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, to ``find 11,780 votes'' and 
illegitimately declare him the State's winner.\103\ In Michigan, he 
publicly pressured local and State officials to revoke their votes to 
certify the election for President Biden.\104\ These initial efforts to 
pressure election officials and sow distrust in the electoral system 
stem from the same false allegations of a stolen election that drove 
the insurrection.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\ Amy Gardner and Paulina Firozi, ``Here's the Full Transcript 
and Audio of the Call Between Trump and Raffensperger,'' Washington 
Post, January 5, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-
raffensperger-call-transcript-georgia-vote/2021/01/03/2768e0cc-4ddd-
11eb-83e3-322644d82356story.html.
    \104\ Maggie Haberman et al., ``Trump Targets Michigan in His Ploy 
to Subvert the Election,'' New York Times, November 19, 2020, https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/us/politics/trump-michigan-election.html.
    \105\ See Brennan Center and Bipartisan Policy Center, Election 
Officials Under Attack, 16-17; and Ann Gerhart, ``Election Results 
Under Attack: Here Are the Facts,'' Washington Post, March 11, 2021, 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2020/election-
integrity/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Even after the 2020 election result was definitively resolved, 
political meddling persisted in the form of unsubstantiated audits and 
recounts. In Maricopa County, Arizona Republican Party leaders 
organized a sham ``audit'' of the county's election results in an 
effort to discredit them.\106\ To this day, Republican leaders in 
Arizona continue to claim--without evidence--that election 
administrators mishandled thousands of ballots.\107\ The Arizona audit 
sparked copycat movements across the country, as the Wisconsin and 
Pennsylvania State legislatures ordered similar reviews of the 2020 
vote.\108\ As recently as September 2021, the Texas secretary of 
state's office announced a ``comprehensive forensic audit'' of the 2020 
results in four major counties.\109\ And in Nevada, the State's 
Republican Party compelled Republican Secretary of State Barbara 
Cegavske to review nearly 123,000 ballots based upon unfounded 
allegations of voter fraud.\110\ Secretary Cegavske's review, which 
consumed 125 hours of her staff's time, found no evidence of 
fraud.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ Elizabeth Howard and Gowri Ramachandran, ``Partisan Arizona 
Election `Audit' Was Flawed From the Start,'' Brennan Center for 
Justice, September 27, 2021, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/
analysis-opinion/partisan-arizona-election-audit-was-flawed-start.
    \107\ Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services, ``Another Senate 
Subpoena Issued for Arizona 2020 Election Documents,'' Arizona Daily 
Star, March 21, 2022, https://tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-
and-politics/another-senate-subpoena-issued-for-arizona-2020-election-
documents/articledcc76aaa-a96d-11ec-a17a-b7f87b1c1504.html.
    \108\ Michael Wines, ``Arizona's Criticized Election Review Nears 
End, but Copycats Are Just Getting Started,'' New York Times, September 
23, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/23/us/arizona-election-
review.html; Laurel White, ``Wisconsin's GOP-Backed Election 
Investigation Expanded over the Holidays,'' Wisconsin Public Radio, 
January 3, 2022, https://www.wpr.org/wisconsins-gop-backed-election-
investigation-expanded-over-holidays; and Sam Dunklau, ``Pa. Senate 
Election `Audit' Contract Doesn't Say If the Public Will See the 
Results,'' WITF, December 7, 2021, https://www.witf.org/2021/12/07/pa-
senate-election-probe-contract-doesnt-say-if-the-public-will-see-the-
results-among-other-things/.
    \109\ Reid J. Epstein, ``Texas, Under Pressure From Trump, 
Announces a `Full Forensic Audit' of the 2020 Election In Four 
Counties,'' New York Times, September 23, 2021, https://wwwnytimes.com/
2021/09/23/us/politics/texas-trump-election-audit.html.
    \110\ Jacob Solis, ``2020 Election Fraud Conspiracy Theories Remain 
Central to Many Republican Campaigns,'' Nevada Independent, October 17, 
2021, https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/2020-election-fraud-
conspiracy-theories-remain-central-to-many-republican-campaigns.
    \111\ Barbara K. Cegavske, secretary of state, and Mark A. 
Wlaschin, deputy secretary for elections, ``Re: Elections Integrity 
Violation Reports,'' (via email, Nevada Office of the Secretary of 
State: April 21, 2021), https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/
showpublisheddocument?id=9428.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More disturbingly, election officials increasingly face threats in 
the form of criminal prosecution. Just recently, election officials in 
Wisconsin were threatened with jail time as part of a months-long, 
spurious review of the 2020 Presidential election.\112\ Michael 
Gableman, a former State Supreme Court justice leading the review for 
Republican legislators, issued the threat after the chairwoman of the 
State Elections Commission and several other officials refused to sit 
for secret, closed-door interviews with him and instead requested to 
sit for the interviews before a legislative committee.\113\ As 
discussed in Part I above, other States such as Texas and Arizona are 
passing laws that would impose criminal penalties on election officials 
for routine activities and unintentional mistakes.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\ Patrick Marley, ``Wisconsin Republicans Seek to Jail More 
Officials as Part of Their Review of the 2020 Presidential Election,'' 
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, February 18, 2022, https://
www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2022/02/18/wisconsin-republicans-
michael-gableman-seeks-jail-officials-2020-Presidential-election-
review/6853176001/.
    \113\ Marley, ``Wisconsin Republicans Seek to Jail More 
Officials.''
    \114\ S.B. 1, 87th Leg., 1st Spec. Sess. (Tex. 2021); and H.B. 
2905, 55th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Like the upsurge in vigilante attacks, the wave of political 
attacks following the 2020 election finds its roots in the same 
election denial that drove the insurrection. Unfortunately, political 
attacks against election officials show no sign of abating.\115\ State 
legislators across the county continue to propose bills that allow for 
criminal penalties against, or the removal of, experienced election 
officials.\116\ In fact, when the Brennan Center asked local election 
officials to compare how worried they were about political interference 
in the 2020 election with how worried they are about political 
interference in future elections, nearly three times as many said they 
are very worried about the future.\117\ In other words, election 
officials themselves believe that the political attacks against them 
will get worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\ Grace Gordon, et al., The Dangers of Partisan Incentives for 
Election Officials, Bipartisan Policy Center and Election Reformers 
Network, 2022, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/the-dangers-of-
partisan-incentives-for-election-officials/.
    \116\ NH H.B. 1567, 2022 Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.H. 2022); and S.F. 
413, 89th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Iowa 2021).
    \117\ Brennan Center, Local Election Officials Survey, 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            iii. Growing Election Official Retention Crisis
    These disinformation-driven attacks threaten to create a retention 
crisis among election officials. According to the Brennan Center's 
survey, 3 in 5 local election officials are concerned that threats and 
harassment will make it more difficult to retain or recruit election 
workers going forward.\118\ Disinformation also exacerbates the 
already-heavy strain on election workers, who must spend significant 
time correcting misleading and false information.\119\ Due to these 
challenging circumstances, dozens of local election officials in 
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin already have left their 
positions.\120\ In Nevada, by 2024 more than a third of the State's 17 
top county election officials will be new to the job.\121\ And Nation-
wide, 1 in 5 elected officials surveyed plan to leave their position 
before 2024.\122\ These officials overwhelmingly cited stress and the 
belief that politicians are attacking ``a system that they know is fair 
and honest'' as their top reasons for leaving.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \118\ Brennan Center, Local Election Officials Survey, 19.
    \119\ Brennan Center and Bipartisan Policy Center, Election 
Officials Under Attack, 10.
    \120\ Sean Golonka, ``Election Official Departures Rising Amid 
Burnout, Angry Voters, New Requirements,'' Nevada Independent, January 
23, 2020, https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/election-official-
departures-rising-amid-burnout-angry-voters-new-requirements.
    \121\ Golonka, ``Election Official Departures.''
    \122\ Brennan Center, Local Election Officials Survey, 18.
    \123\ Brennan Center, Local Election Officials Survey, 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Disinformation About the 2020 Election and Voter Fraud Is Distorting 
        State-wide Campaigns to Oversee Elections
    The vast majority of the thousands of State and local election 
officials in America are elected. This year, elections from town clerk 
and supervisor to State secretary of state and Governor will decide who 
will administer and certify the elections during the next Presidential 
cycle in 2024.\124\ Twenty-seven States will hold elections for 
secretary of state--the official who typically serves as a State's 
chief election officer.\125\ These races are being run in the context 
of a disinformation campaign intended to cast doubt on election 
results, and a significant number of election official candidates in 
these races are invoking claims that the 2020 election was 
invalid.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \124\ Local officials, like county clerks, are typically 
responsible for designing ballots, running polling places, employing 
poll workers, and overseeing ballot counts. Secretaries of state are 
often a State's chief election official, overseeing procedures for 
voter registration and voting, as well as certifying results. Governors 
can also be involved in election administration through appointments, 
emergency declaration powers, and sometimes certification of results. 
Ian Vandewalker and Lawrence Norden, Financing of Races for Offices 
that Oversee Elections: January 2022, Brennan Center for Justice, 2022, 
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/financing-
races-offices-oversee-elections-january-2022.
    \125\ Louis Jacobson, Secretary of State Races: More Important Than 
Ever in 2022, and More Complicated, Too, Sabato's Crystal Ball--UVA 
Center for Politics, December 1, 2021, https://centerforpolitics.org/
crystalball/articles/secretary-of-state-races-more-important-than-ever-
in-2022-and-more-complicated-too/.
    \126\ Lawrence Norden and Derek Tisler, ``Addressing Insider 
Threats in Elections,'' Brennan Center for Justice, December 8, 2021, 
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/addressing-
insider-threats-elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, many candidates embrace disinformation about the 2020 
election and voter fraud in their pitch to voters and donors, 
including--at the highest level--secretaries of state and gubernatorial 
candidates. The States United Democracy Center found that 21 secretary 
of state candidates disputed the results of the 2020 election, 
including at least 1 candidate in 18 of the 27 States holding secretary 
of state contests this year.\127\ Similarly, 24 of the 36 gubernatorial 
contests this year have seen campaigns take part in this 
disinformation.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \127\ ``Secretary of State Races in 2022,'' States United Democracy 
Center, last modified January 27, 2022, accessed April 8, 2022, https:/
/statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/sosdeniers.html.
    \128\ ``Governor Races in 2022,'' States United Democracy Center, 
last modified January 27, 2022, accessed April 8, 2022, https://
statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/govdeniers.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This disinformation has, in turn, increased the prominence of these 
races, illustrated by trends in the financing of contests for secretary 
of state in key battleground States. Compared to recent election 
cycles, campaigns are raising more money, from more donors, with 
greater reliance upon out-of-State donations.
    Across the States with the closest margins in the 2020 Presidential 
contest that are holding secretary of state elections this year 
(Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, and Wisconsin), the 
amount of campaign contributions has climbed more than 3 times higher 
than at this point in the 2018 cycle and 8 times higher than 2014, 
according to the Brennan Center's analysis.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \129\ Ian Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices that Oversee 
Elections: February 2022, Brennan Center for Justice, 2022, https://
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/financing-races-
offices-oversee-elections-february-2022. We include the Wisconsin 
secretary of state race even though that office does not administer 
elections because election denial is an issue there. The Wisconsin 
Elections Commission, like elections administrators in many States, has 
been attacked over the 2020 elections. There has been a push, including 
by several declared candidates for secretary of state or Governor, to 
give the secretary of state greater power over elections. See Laurel 
White, ``GOP Lawmaker Amy Loudenbeck Launches Secretary of State 
Campaign, Calls for Office to Take Control of Elections,'' Wisconsin 
Public Radio, December 1, 2021, https://www.wpr.org/gop-lawmaker-amy-
loudenbeck-launches-secretary-state-campaign-calls-office-take-control-
elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disinformation about the 2020 election and voter fraud is primarily 
responsible for this trend. Arizona, for example, has received National 
attention for claims about election irregularities, as is discussed 
above. One candidate, a leading fundraiser in the secretary of state 
race, has claimed that ``Trump won'' and called for ``decertifying'' 
the election.\130\ Amidst this disinformation-driven dialog, 
contributions to Arizona secretary of state candidates doubled since 
the last cycle and have reached levels more than 8 times higher than at 
this point in the 2014 cycle.\131\ Further, the number of donors giving 
in this year's secretary of state election, 11,566, is higher than that 
of recent cycles by a factor of 10.\132\ By comparison, only 1,235 
people gave to all the Arizona secretary of state candidates combined 
in 2018.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \130\ Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices: February 2022.
    \131\ Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices: February 2022.
    \132\ Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices: February 2022.
    \133\ Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices: February 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Michigan, one leading candidate has claimed that Dominion voting 
machines used by the State changed votes and said that ``Trump won 
Michigan.''\134\ Another has said the ``Big Lie'' is leading to ``an 
effort to try again in 2024 what those democracy deniers attempted to 
do in 2020 but failed.''\135\ Amid this rhetoric, contributions to 
Michigan secretary of state candidates are 3 times higher than at this 
point in the 2018 cycle.\136\ Incumbent Jocelyn Benson (D), who 
administered the 2020 election in Michigan and opposes claims that the 
2020 election was invalid, has raised $1.5 million, from 4,890 
donors.\137\ Educator Kristina Karamo, Benson's Republican opponent, 
has raised the second-largest amount: $233,494 from 2,206 donors.\138\ 
They each have more donors than those giving to all the secretary of 
state candidates combined in the last cycle, which was 1,478.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\ Jeremy Herb and Sara Murray, ``Trump-Backed Michigan 
Secretary of State Candidate Spread False Election Claims and January 6 
Conspiracy Theories,'' CNN, November 16, 2021, https://www.cnn.com/
2021/11/16/politics/kristina-karamo-michigan-secretary-of-state-
candidate/index.html.
    \135\ Vandewalker and Norden, Financing of Races for Offices: 
January 2022.
    \136\ Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices: February 2022.
    \137\ Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices: February 2022.
    \138\ Beth LeBlanc, ``Benson Leads Karamo in Cash Haul for Michigan 
Secretary of State's Race,'' Detroit News, January 31, 2022, https://
www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/31/jocelyn-benson-
leads-kristina-karamo-cash-haul-michigan-secretary-state-race/
9288506002/; and Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices: February 
2022.
    \139\ Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices: February 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beyond the sheer amounts of money flowing into secretary of state 
races, these contests for bureaucratic State positions are taking on a 
more National profile as candidates attract unprecedented numbers of 
donors and funding from outside their own State.
    In Arizona, the amount that donors from other States have 
contributed has soared to almost 10 times more than in the 2018 cycle 
and over 30 times more than in either the 2014 or 2010 cycle.\140\ 
Republican State Representative Mark Finchem has received contributions 
from 4,983 people who live outside Arizona--two-thirds of his 
donors.\141\ Another secretary of state candidate, Democratic State 
Representative Reginald Bolding, also counts a majority of his donors--
54% of his 1,390 contributors--from other States.\142\ In the 2018 
cycle, by comparison, only 117 out-of-State donors made contributions 
throughout the entire secretary of state contest.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \140\ Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices: February 2022.
    \141\ Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices: February 2022.
    \142\ Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices: February 2022.
    \143\ Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices: February 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, the Michigan secretary of state election also has seen a 
sudden increase in out-of-State funding. Donors living outside of 
Michigan have contributed $474,977--three-and-a-half times higher than 
the amount from the prior election, which also saw out-of-State funding 
levels higher than each of the two election cycles before.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \144\ Vandewalker, Financing of Races for Offices: February 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In light of these numbers, it is important to recognize the 
dangerous interplay between election denial, threats against election 
officials, and the nationalization of races for election official 
positions. As detailed above, disinformation-driven attacks against 
election officials are pushing experienced officials from both parties 
out of their positions. At the same time, the individuals who may 
replace them will in many instances emerge from nationalized, 
politically-charged races that heavily feature disinformation about the 
2020 election and voter fraud. Our research shows that local election 
officials themselves are worried about this very problem and the impact 
on their profession: Over half of local election officials surveyed by 
the Brennan Center worry that their incoming colleagues might believe 
that ``wide-spread voter fraud'' contaminated the 2020 elections.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \145\ Brennan Center, Local Election Officials Survey, 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regardless of the outcome of these elections, relentless voter 
fraud lies and conspiracy theories have damaged voter confidence in 
election results, which is necessary for a functioning democracy. A 
majority of Americans believe U.S. democracy is ``in crisis and at risk 
of failing.''\146\ One candidate put it starkly: ``If American 
democracy is to survive, political figures of both parties need to 
abandon stolen-election claims.''\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \146\ Mallory Newall, Chris Jackson, and James Diamond, ``Seven in 
Ten Americans Say the Country Is in Crisis, at Risk of Failing,'' 
Ipsos, January 3, 2022, https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/seven-ten-
americans-say-country-crisis-risk-failing.
    \147\ Vandewalker and Norden, Financing of Races for Offices: 
January 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ______
                                 
    My testimony has shown that the same allegations that fueled the 
insurrection are continuing to wreak havoc on our democracy. The 
attacks on our democracy, in turn, expose the uncomfortable truth that 
our country does not have sufficient guardrails in place to protect our 
elections from efforts to restrict voting, sabotage our electoral 
processes, and undermine impartial election administration. To ensure 
free and fair elections, we must bolster and strengthen those 
guardrails. Most critically, we need baseline National standards for 
voting access and election administration, protections against voting 
discrimination, protections for impartial election administrators, and 
other defenses against election sabotage.
    Congress has broad authority under the Constitution to enact the 
necessary legislation, and it came close to doing so earlier this year. 
The Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which narrowly failed to 
overcome a filibuster in March, would address many of these problems. 
Most importantly, it would establish National standards for the casting 
and the counting of ballots in Federal elections and protect against 
harmful rollbacks of voting rights, partisan efforts to discard or 
otherwise manipulate election results, and attacks on election 
officials who are simply following well-recognized best practices. It 
also would directly insulate election officials from politicized 
efforts to remove them, increase safeguards against vigilante threats 
and harassment, curb the fraudulent ``audits'' that have been conducted 
in Arizona and elsewhere, and give voters a statutory right to sue if 
their voting rights are infringed, including by a failure to certify 
lawful election results. It contains direct curbs on disinformation--
including a clear prohibition on the dissemination of false information 
about elections designed to suppress the vote--as well as increased 
transparency for paid political communications over the internet. 
Finally, it would revitalize the landmark Voting Rights Act's 
protections against racial discrimination in voting that the Supreme 
Court has hobbled, among many other much-needed provisions.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \148\ See Wilder, Tisler, and Weiser, The Election Sabotage Scheme; 
Brennan Center for Justice, The Freedom to Vote Act, 2022, https://
www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-act; 
Hearing on Protecting a Precious, Almost Sacred Right: The John R. 
Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, before the S. Comm. On Judiciary, 
117th Cong. (2021) (testimony of Wendy Weiser, vice president for 
democracy, Brennan Center for Justice), https://www.brennancenter.org/
our-work/research-reports/testimony-protecting-precious-almost-sacred-
right-john-r-lewis-voting; Hearing on Oversight of the Voting Rights 
Act: Potential Legislative Reforms, before the H. Comm. on Judiciary, 
Subcomm. on the Constitution, Civil Rights, & Civil Liberties, 117th 
Cong. (2021) (testimony of Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy, 
Brennan Center for Justice), https://docshouse.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/
20210816/114010/HHRG-117-JU10-Wstate-WeiserW-20210816.pdf; Hearing on 
the Oversight of the Voting Rights Act: A Continuing Record of 
Discrimination, before the H. Comm. on Judiciary, Subcomm. on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, 117th Cong. (2021) 
(testimony of Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy, Brennan 
Center for Justice), https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU10/20210527/
112700/HMTG-117-JU10-Wstate-WeiserW-20210527.pdf; Hearing on Voting in 
America: The Potential for Polling Place Quality and Restrictions on 
Opportunities to Vote to Interfere with Free and Fair Access to the 
Ballot, 117th Cong. (2021) (testimony of Kevin Morris, Researcher, 
Brennan Center for Justice), https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/
default/files/2021-06/Morris%20%20Written%20Testimony.pdf; Hearing on 
Voting in America: A National Perspective on the Right to Vote, Methods 
of Election, Jurisdictional Boundaries, and Redistricting, before the 
H. Comm. on House Administration, Subcomm. on Elections, 117th Cong. 
(2021) (testimony of Michael Waldman, president, Brennan Center for 
Justice), https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/
2021-06-22%20Waldman%20%20Testimony- .pdf; and Hearing on the 
Implication of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Potential 
Legislative Responses, before the H. Comm. On Judiciary, Subcomm. on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights, & Civil Liberties, 117th Cong. (2021) 
(testimony of Sean Morales-Doyle, acting director, voting rights and 
elections program, Brennan Center for Justice), https://docshouse.gov/
meetings/JU/JU10/20210716/113905/HHRG-117-JU10-Wstate-Morales-DoyleS-
20210716.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The only way to neutralize the disinformation-driven threats to our 
democracy and to protect against potentially catastrophic results is 
through such Federal legislation. We strongly urge Congress to revisit 
this critical bill and pass it into law.
                                 ______
                                 
   Joint Statement of Christine Todd Whitman, former Governor of New 
  Jersey; Steve Bullock, former Governor of Montana; Jim Hood, former 
 Attorney General of Mississippi; Tom Rath, former Attorney General of 
New Hampshire; Trey Greyson, former Secretary of State of Kentucky; and 
  Frankie Sue Del Papa, former Secretary of State of Nevada, For the 
                     States United Democracy Center
                              May 27, 2022
    Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and distinguished Members of the 
Select Committee, we are pleased to submit this statement in our 
capacity as members of the Bipartisan Advisory Board of the States 
United Democracy Center. States United is a nonpartisan organization 
advancing free, fair, and secure elections. We focus on connecting 
State officials, law enforcement leaders, and pro-democracy partners 
across America with the tools and expertise they need to safeguard our 
democracy. We are more than a think tank--we are an action tank. 
Together, we are committed to making sure every vote is counted, every 
voice is heard, and every election is safe. Our founders and Advisory 
Board are comprised of former administration officials, law enforcement 
leaders, and former State and local leaders from both the Republican 
and Democratic political parties who are committed to engaging and 
empowering pro-democracy leadership.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement to help the 
Select Committee in its on-going review of issues connected to the 
attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. As we will 
discuss, the attack that occurred on January 6, 2021, was not an 
isolated event involving random protestors. Rather, it was the logical 
next step in a continuing anti-democracy movement, instigated and 
fomented by various people, including former President Donald Trump, 
which was put into motion years earlier. But the movement does not 
begin or end solely with Trump; a host of diverse groups of people are 
involved, including lawyers such as Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and 
John Eastman; advisors to Trump, like Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, 
Michael Flynn, and Mike Lindell; and State and local officials from all 
over the country, including Pennsylvania State Senator and Republican 
nominee for the Governorship of Pennsylvania Doug Mastriano, Arizona 
Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, and Texas Attorney General Ken 
Paxton.
    January 6 was also merely a next step, not a final one. Events 
leading up to and following that day reveal a sustained and coordinated 
effort by the former president and his anti-democracy allies to 
suppress voting rights, delegitimize free and fair elections, and 
subvert the will of the voters by overturning election results deemed 
undesirable to their movement. As we explain in our testimony, many of 
the tactics used to produce the January 6 attack and many of the people 
who affirmatively helped make it happen are still hard at work 
undermining our democracy today.
i. the january 6, 2021, attack on the capitol was not an isolated event
    The unprecedented and horrific attack on the United States Capitol 
on January 6, 2021, was not an isolated event. It was just one in a 
years-long series of coordinated efforts by former President Trump, his 
advisors, various lawyers, and like-minded State and local officials to 
delegitimize and attempt to overturn President Joseph Biden's victory 
in the November 2020 Presidential election.
a. The Precursors to the Current Anti-Democracy Movement
    The anti-democracy movement in America is not new, but Trump's 
leading role in it can be traced back to the 2012 Presidential 
election. As early as election night on November 6, 2012, when then-
President Obama was reelected after defeating now-Senator Mitt Romney, 
Trump tweeted that the election was a ``total sham'' and a 
``travesty,'' and claimed that the United States is not a democracy.\1\ 
Trump also asserted via Twitter that there were ``reports of voting 
machines switching Romney votes to Obama'' and warned voters to 
``[m]ake sure to verify the voting machine does not switch your 
vote.''\2\ After major news outlets called the race for then-President 
Obama around 11 p.m. on November 6, Trump tweeted, ``We can't let this 
happen . . . We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our 
nation is totally divided!''\3\ The next day, Trump foreshadowed his 
2016 election campaign slogan, tweeting: ``We have to make America 
great again!''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Trump Twitter Archive, Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) (Nov. 
6, 2012, 11:33 PM EST), https://www.thetrumparchive.com.
    \2\ Trump Twitter Archive, Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) (Nov. 
6, 2012, 2:56-2:57 PM EST), https://www.thetrumparchive.com.
    \3\ Trump Twitter Archive, Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) (Nov. 
6, 2012, 11:29 PM EST), https://www.thetrumparchive.com.
    \4\ Trump Twitter Archive, Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) (Nov. 
7, 2012, 2:03 PM EST), https://www.thetrumparchive.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Two years later, during the midterm elections in November 2014, 
Trump furthered his conspiracy theory, baselessly alleging wide-spread 
election fraud, claiming that ``[e]lection officials [were] saying that 
there is nothing stopping illegal immigrants from voting. This is very 
bad (unfair) for Republicans!''\5\ Trump repeated the same baseless 
narrative leading up to the 2016 election when polls predicted that 
former Secretary Hillary Clinton would win the presidency. In October 
2016, Trump tweeted that the ``election is absolutely being rigged by 
the dishonest and distorted media pushing Crooked Hillary--but also at 
many polling places--SAD.''\6\ Even after he won the election, he 
continued to falsely declare that he had won the popular vote, even 
though Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.\7\ While 
complaining about unfairness or mismanagement of elections may be valid 
where wrong-doing has actually occurred, Trump and his allies' 
complaints are striking because they have no factual basis, they are 
made preemptively (before the elections even take place), and they are 
baked into an ideological certainty that their side must win or else 
the elections are rigged. This view has served as a litmus test to 
determine whether one is a true ally of the anti-democracy movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Trump Twitter Archive, Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) (Oct. 
31, 2014, 4:43 PM EST), https://www.thetrumparchive.com.
    \6\ Trump Twitter Archive, Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) (Oct. 
16, 2016, 1:01 PM EST), https://www.thetrumparchive.com.
    \7\ 2016 Presidential Election Results, N.Y. Times (Aug. 9, 2017), 
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president; Trump has 
longstanding history of calling elections `rigged' if he doesn't like 
the results, ABC News (Nov. 11, 2020), https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/
trump-longstanding-history-calling-elections-rigged-doesnt-results/
story?id=74126926; Trump Twitter Archive, Donald J. Trump 
(@realDonaldTrump) (Nov. 27, 2016, 3:30 PM EST), https://
www.thetrumparchive.com (``In addition to winning the Electoral College 
in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of 
people who voted illegally.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trump was far from alone in touting these anti-democracy lies. For 
example, as Trump was ramping up for the 2016 election, his long-time 
confidante, Roger Stone, reportedly sent him a 13-page strategy 
memorandum, suggesting that the campaign should emphasize that the 
``system is rigged against the citizens.''\8\ Additionally, in an 
interview on a far-right radio show, Stone explained that he thought 
Trump's campaign should address ``wide-spread voter fraud'' and 
``talk[] about it constantly.''\9\ Likewise, Rudy Giuliani, former 
mayor of New York City who would later become Trump's lawyer, asserted 
on CNN that one would have been a ``moron'' to assume there would be no 
election fraud in cities like Philadelphia and Chicago.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Trump and the Truth: The ``Rigged'' Election, The New Yorker 
(Oct. 8, 2016), https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-and-the-
truth-the-rigged-election.
    \9\ Trump labels Clinton `the devil' and suggests election will be 
rigged, The Guardian (Aug. 2, 2016), https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2016/aug/02/donald-trump-calls-hillary-clinton-the-devil-and-
suggests-election-will-be-rigged?CMP=fb_gu.
    \10\ Why Trump's talk of a rigged vote is so dangerous, CNN (Oct. 
19, 2016), https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/donald-trump-rigged-
election/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While complaints about the results of an election routinely emanate 
from leaders on both sides of the aisle following a contest, former 
President Trump and his allies' behavior stands out because of its 
reliance on falsehoods, conspiracies, and blatant lies.\11\ In short, 
for the better part of the last decade, Trump and his allies 
intentionally planted seeds to cast doubt on legitimate election 
results and to foment suspicions among a substantial portion of the 
American public that voting is rigged, so much so that the number of 
votes cast for the other side cannot be trusted and the election 
results cannot be believed. This narrative feeds on baseless assertions 
that votes from undocumented immigrants, deceased individuals, or 
people who have moved are changing election outcomes \12\ and on 
general distrust in democratic institutions, including the Government 
itself, as well as the press, spurred by Trump's ``fake news'' 
campaign.\13\ Because these false election-related theories have now 
become so ubiquitous, anti-democracy activists can (and often do) claim 
that any electoral losses by their preferred candidates must be the 
result of wide-spread voter fraud--and for that reason must be 
overturned. The poisonous seeds planted in the past decade flourished 
during the 2020 election, leading up to the Capitol attack on January 
6, 2021, and have continued to grow in ways that severely threaten the 
life and health of our democracy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt, The Crisis of American 
Democracy, American Educator (Fall 2020), https://files.eric.ed.gov/
fulltext/EJ1272137.pdf; Nicolas Berlinksi et al., The Effects of 
Unsubstantiated Claims on Confidence in Elections, https://cpb-us-
e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.dartmouth.edu/dist/5/2293/files/2021/03/voter-
fraud.pdf?_sm_au_=iHV4TH4F6TNDzFH7FcVTvKQkcK8MG.
    \12\ How a racist myth about immigrants voting continues to fuel 
unproven claims of voter fraud, Los Angeles Times (June 25, 2021), 
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-06-25/racist-myth-of-
immigrants-voting-fuels-claims-of-voter-fraud.
    \13\ Donald Trump's ``Fake News'' Tactics, The New Yorker (Dec. 2, 
2017), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/donald-trumps-
fake-news-tactics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The Anti-Democracy Movement in the Run-Up to the 2020 Election
    When former President Trump was up for reelection in 2020, he and 
his allies (new and old), including lawyers, advisors, and State and 
local officials, built upon his long-standing efforts to cast doubt on 
the legitimacy of the voting process. Ultimately, this metastasized 
into a full-throated attempt to overthrow the legitimate Presidential 
election of November 2020, commonly known as the ``Stop the Steal'' 
movement.
    This movement stemmed from the baseless theory that expanded mail-
in voting, which was being offered or expanded in many States because 
the COVID-19 pandemic made in-person voting difficult or dangerous, 
would cause rampant voter fraud. There is no truth to the assertion 
that wide-spread mail-in voting leads to wide-spread voter fraud,\14\ 
nor is there any support for Trump's assertions that undocumented 
immigrants cast significant numbers of mail-in ballots in our 
elections.\15\ Instead, former President Trump and his allies created 
this narrative leading up to the 2020 election because they believed 
that mail-in ballots could skew heavily toward then-candidate Biden--
especially during the pandemic when many of Trump's proponents eschewed 
social distancing and other safety precautions and called upon Trump's 
base to do the same.\16\ Because mail-in voting was expanded for the 
2020 election, it was well understood that days or weeks would likely 
be required to count all votes following Election Day.\17\ As a 
consequence, it was widely expected that votes counted on Election Day 
would skew toward former President Trump, but that as the mail-in 
ballots cast on or before Election Day were counted, the number of 
votes for Biden would increase.\18\ Thus, efforts by the former 
President and his allies to delay the mail, to discourage mail-in 
voting, and to stop counting ballots past November 3, 2020, were 
entirely self-serving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Natalie Scala, et. al, Evaluating mail-based security for 
electoral processes using attack trees, Risk Analysis: An International 
Journal (Jan. 24, 2022), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/
10.1111/risa.13876; Why a Vote-by-Mail Option is Necessary, Brennan 
Center for Justice (Apr. 7, 2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-
work/research-reports/why-vote-mail-option-necessary; How does vote-by-
mail work and does it increase election fraud?, Brookings (June 22, 
2020), https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/how-does-vote-
by-mail-work-and-does-it-increase-election-fraud/.
    \15\ The Actually True and Provable Facts About Non-Citizen Voting 
TIME (Feb. 13, 2017), https://time.com/4669899/illegal-citizens-voting-
trump/; Yet again, Trump falsely blames illegal voting for getting 
walloped in California, Wash. Post (July 23, 2019), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/23/yet-again-trump-falsely-
blames-illegal-voting-getting-walloped-california/; Analysis: 
Noncitizen Voting is Vanishingly Rare, Brennan Center for Justice (Jan. 
25, 2017), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/
analysis-noncitizen-voting-vanishingly rare; Noncitizens Don't 
Illegally Vote in Detectable Numbers, Cato Institute (Nov. 25, 2020), 
https://www.cato.org/blog/noncitizens-dont-illegally-vote-detectable-
numbers.
    \16\ A step-by-step look at Trump's falsehoods on mail-in voting: 
Analysis, ABC News (Oct. 1, 2020), https://abcnews.go.com/politics/
step-step-trumps-falsehoods-mail-voting-analysis/story?id=73354979; 
Edward B. Foley, A Big Blue Shift: Measuring an Asymmetrically 
Increasing Margin of Litigation, 48 Journal of Law & Politics 501 
(2013), http://www.lawandpolitics.org/hifi/files/content/vol-xxvii-no-
4/Foley_Color_116.pdf; Richard L. Hasen, Beyond the Margin of 
Litigation: Reforming U.S. Election Administration to Avoid Electoral 
Meltdown, 62 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 937 (2005), https://law2.wlu.edu/
deptimages/Law%20Review/62-3Hasen.pdf; see also The `Blue Shift' Will 
Decide the Election The Atlantic (Aug. 10, 2020), https://
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/brace-blue-shift/615097/.
    \17\ How Long Will Vote Counting Take? Estimates and Deadlines in 
All 50 States, N.Y. Times (updated Nov. 7, 2020), https://
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/upshot/vote-counting-today-polls-
election.html; How many votes will be counted after election night?, 
MIT News (Oct. 15, 2020), https://news.mit.edu/2020/votes-counted-
after-election-1015; How Trump's mail voting sabotage could result in 
an election night nightmare, Vox (Aug. 11, 2020), https://www.vox.com/
2020/8/11/21358960/trump-mail-voting-sabotage-explained.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An effort to impede the functioning of the United States Postal 
Service (USPS) gained steam in May 2020 when the USPS Board of 
Governors, all appointed by Trump, selected Trump campaign donor Louis 
DeJoy to be postmaster general.\19\ Shortly after DeJoy assumed office, 
the USPS adopted a number of operational changes that threatened to 
delay mail deliveries, including reductions in the availability of 
overtime, restrictions on extra trips to transport mail, and 
elimination of some mail processing equipment.\20\ Reporting complaints 
from constituents about a slowdown in service, Members of Congress from 
both parties, including anumber of ardent Trump supporters, pushed back 
against these changes. Republican U.S. Sen. Steve Daines and Republican 
U.S. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, Greg Gianforte, Peter King, David 
McKinley, and Daniel Webster sent or signed on to letters with 
Democratic Members of Congress to DeJoy pressing for reversal of the 
changes in mail handling.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Board of Governors Announces Selection of Louis DeJoy to Serve 
as Nation's 75th Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Serv. (May 6, 2020), 
https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/2020/0506-bog-
announces-selection-of-louis-dejoy-to-serve-as-nations-75th-postmaster-
general.htm.
    \20\ Following Yesterday's Meeting, Leader Schumer and Speaker 
Pelosi Send New Letter to Postmaster DeJoy Calling for Immediate 
Reversal of Recent Postal Service Changes that Threaten Timely Mail 
Delivery for Millions, Senate Democrats (Aug. 6, 2020), https://
www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/following-yesterdays-
meeting-leader-schumer-and-speaker-pelosi-send-new-letter-to-
postmaster-dejoy-calling-for-immediate-reversal-of-recent-postal-
service-changes-that-threaten-timely-mail-delivery-for-millions.
    \21\ Senator Steve Daines, Letter to Postmaster General Louis DeJoy 
(Aug. 8, 2020), https://www.daines.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/USPS%20-
%20Mail%20Delay.%202020.08.06.pdf; Carolyn B. Maloney et al., Letter to 
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy (Aug. 6, 2020), https://
oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2020-08-
06.CBM%20et%20al.%20to%20DeJoy-
%20PMG%20re%20Postal%20Standards%20Changes.pdf; Congress urges Postal 
Service to undo changes slowing mail, AP (Aug. 6, 2020), https://
apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-seniors-mt-state-wire-voting-steve-
daines-a291ebc31c5638aa5a9adafc2ff2b430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the same time, Trump disseminated theory after theory about how 
mail-in voting would contaminate the 2020 election, further laying the 
foundation for claims of fraud to be made in the event of a Biden win 
in November. On May 21, 2020, at a press conference in Michigan, he 
said of mail-in ballots, ``who knows who's signing it? . . . [T]hey 
pirate these applications . . . You have all of the harvesting . . . 
They walk in at the end of a race . . . and then all of a sudden, out 
of the blue come thousands of votes at the very end.''\22\ Trump 
tweeted on May 24 that ``People grab [ballots] from mailboxes, print 
thousands of forgeries and `force' people to sign. Also, forge 
names.''\23\ On June 22, he tweeted, ``RIGGED 2020 ELECTION: MILLIONS 
OF MAIL-IN BALLOTS WILL BE PRINTED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES, AND OTHERS. IT 
WILL BE THE SCANDAL OF OUR TIMES!''\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Remarks by President Trump in Listening Session with African 
American Leaders, The White House (May 21, 2020), https://
trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-
trump-listening-session-african-american-leaders-ypsilanti-mi/.
    \23\ Trump Twitter Archive, Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) (May 
24, 2020, 10:08 AM EST), https://www.thetrumparchive.com.
    \24\ Trump attacks mail-in voting with new series of false claims, 
The Guardian (June 22, 2020) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/
jun/22/trump-mail-in-voting-fraud-claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trump, who had already been opposing a $25 billion package of 
resources requested by the Postal Service, stated openly in August 2020 
that withholding the funds would prevent ``universal mail-in 
voting.''\25\ On the Fox Business Network, the former President told 
host Maria Bartiromo on August 13 that, ``[i]f we don't make a deal, 
that means they don't get the money, [which] means they can't have 
universal mail-in voting; they just can't have it.''\26\ Shortly after 
these comments, and after sustained bipartisan pressure, Postmaster 
General DeJoy announced suspension of some changes at the Postal 
Service and promised to ``deliver the nation's election mail on time 
and within our well-established service standards.''\27\ Ultimately, 
the inspector general for the Postal Service concluded that the Postal 
Service prioritized processing election mail during the 2020 election 
cycle and that, while timeliness fell slightly below target goals, it 
improved significantly over the delivery speed for election mail during 
the 2018 midterm election cycle.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ USPS Requests $75B in Emergency Funds to Keep Agency Alive, 
Gov. Exec. (Apr. 9, 2020), https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/04/
usps-requests-75b-emergency-funds-keep-agency-alive/164506/; see also 
President Trump with Coronavirus Task Force Briefing, C-SPAN at 36:44 
(Apr. 7, 2020), available at https://www.c-span.org/video/?471020-1/
president-trump-criticizes-who-comments-resignation-acting-navy-
secretary.
    \26\ Trump admits he's blocking postal cash to stop mail-in votes, 
AP (Aug. 13, 2020), https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-election-
2020-ap-top-news-elections-politics-14a2ceda724623604cc8d8e5ab9890ed.
    \27\ Postmaster General Louis DeJoy Statement, U.S. Postal Serv. 
(Aug. 18, 2020), https://about.usps.com/newsroom/national-releases/
2020/0818-postmaster-general-louis-dejoy-statement.htm.
    \28\ Office of the Inspector General, United States Postal Service, 
Service Performance of Election and Political Mail During the November 
2020 General Election (Mar. 5, 2021), https://www.uspsoig.gov/document/
service-performance-election-and-political-mail-during-november-2020-
general-election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although Trump and his allies never pointed to any evidence of 
significant voter fraud, they continued to claim that mail-in voting 
could lead to such fraud. For instance, Doug Mastriano, a Pennsylvania 
State senator, originally voted to pass a law in 2019 called Act 77 
that expanded access to mail-in ballots to any voter who requested 
one.\29\ However, after an unprecedented number of Pennsylvanians 
applied for mail-in ballots by April 2020, Mastriano was quoted as 
saying, ``I feel a bit dubious about this,'' due to purportedly 
heightened risks of voter fraud.\30\ In Texas, Attorney General Ken 
Paxton praised the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of a case seeking to 
extend access to mail-in ballots because he thought the rejection would 
help guard against ``wide-spread fraud.''\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Op-Ed: How Pennsylvania Democrats Hijacked Act 77, Senator 
Doug Mastriano (Jan. 26, 2022), https://senatormastriano.com/2022/01/
26/op-ed-how-pennsylvania-democrats-hijacked-act-77/ (noting ``[e]very 
single Republican Senator voted for [Act 77]'' in October 2019); With 
audit, Pa. Sen. Mastriano is obscuring his own role in fomenting 
election chaos, Pennsylvania Capital-Star (July 11, 2021), https://
www.penncapital-star.com/commentary/with-audit-pa-sen-mastriano-is-
obscuring-his-own-role-in-creating-act-77-fomenting-election-chaos-
opinion/;  Unprecedented volume of mail-in voting looming in primary, 
The Daily Item (Apr. 30, 2020) https://www.dailyitem.com/news/
local_news/unprecedented-volume-of-mail-in-voting-looming-in-primary/
article_e7710206-72c7-522f-ba8f-6bb6f5519d9a.html.
    \30\ Unprecedented volume of mail-in voting looming in primary, The 
Daily Item (Apr. 30, 2020) https://www.dailyitem.com/news/local_news/
unprecedented-volume-of-mail-in-voting-looming-in-primary/
article_e7710206-72c7-522f-ba8f-6bb6f5519d9a.html.
    \31\ Voting rules changed quickly for the primaries. But the battle 
over how Americans will cast ballots in the fall is just heating up., 
Wash. Post (July 3, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/
voting-rules-changed-quickly-for-the-primaries-but-the-battle-over-how-
americans-will-cast-ballots-in-the-fall-is-just-heating-up/2020/07/03/
9b865dfa-ba43-11ea-80b9-40ece9a701dc_story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. The Anti-Democracy Movement from November 3, 2020, to January 6, 
        2021
    Between the election on November 3, 2020, and the Electoral College 
vote count on January 6, 2021, the ``Stop the Steal'' movement employed 
a multifaceted approach to subvert the will of the American people. 
Their efforts were often chaotic, and when a given tactic failed, they 
shifted focus to another that might succeed in overturning the election 
result favoring Biden. During this period, their strategy encompassed 
five primary anti-democracy efforts: (1) Inspired by Trump and his 
allies' statements, aggressive and dangerous protests at central count 
facilities in States with narrow margins while ballots were still being 
counted; (2) a wave of baseless lawsuits alleging wide-spread election 
fraud; (3) a campaign to pressure Republican officials to overturn 
election results; (4) the creation of a group of sham electors from 
swing States to sign certificates falsely claiming that former 
President Trump had won the election in their States; and (5) a broader 
disinformation campaign intended to persuade portions of the American 
public that Trump was the rightful winner of the 2020 Presidential 
election.
    First, the Trump-inspired protests.--On election night, in the 
early morning hours of Wednesday, November 4, former President Trump 
appeared on television declaring that he had won the election. After 
listing several States where he claimed to be in the lead or nearly so, 
the former President declared, ``most importantly, we're winning 
Pennsylvania by a tremendous amount.''\32\ This announcement was met by 
a standing ovation from his audience of supporters. He continued, ``We 
want all voting to stop. We don't want them to find any ballots at 4 
o'clock in the morning and add them to the list.''\33\ At the time, 
vote counting was ongoing in Pennsylvania, because under State law 
absentee ballots could not be canvassed until Election Day. On Twitter 
at 3:04 a.m., Al Schmidt, a Republican commissioner on the Philadelphia 
County Board of Elections responded to the then-President of the United 
States: ``Philadelphia will NOT stop counting ALL legitimate votes cast 
by eligible voters. And we will report and report and report until the 
last vote is counted.''\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Trump declares victory prematurely, says will go to Supreme 
Court to dispute election count, YouTube (Nov. 4, 2020), https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsI3jcgiIhA.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Al Schmidt (@commish--schmidt), Twitter (Nov. 4, 2020), 
https://twitter.com/commish_schmidt/status/1323898927666659328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following night, Kevin McCarthy, the Minority Lead of the U.S. 
House of Representatives, spoke on Fox News about fraud supposedly 
taking place in vote counting facilities around the country. He urged 
listeners to ``not be quiet, do not be silent about this. We cannot 
allow this to happen before our very eyes.''\35\ Hundreds of 
demonstrators then showed up outside central count facilities in 
numerous cities chanting, ``stop the steal'' and calling for police to 
``arrest the poll workers,'' and carrying signs that read ``Make 
Elections Fair Again'' and ``We Love Trump.''\36\ Many of these 
demonstrators were also carrying guns--some of them handguns, and 
others, military-style semiautomatic rifles.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ 77 Days: Trump's Campaign to Subvert the Election, N.Y. Times 
(Jan. 31, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/us/trump-election-
lie.html.
    \36\ Increasingly normal: Guns seen outside vote counting centers, 
AP (Nov. 7, 2020), https://apnews.com/article/protests-vote-count-
safety-concerns-653dc8f0787c9258524078548d518992.
    \37\ Id.; Two charged with carrying weapons near Philadelphia vote-
counting site, Wash. Post (Nov. 8, 2020); https://
www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2020-election/trump-supporters-protest-
outside-vote-centers-in-arizona-michigan/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the days and weeks immediately following Election Day, central 
count facilities in large and traditionally Democratic-leaning cities 
such as Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Phoenix, and Las 
Vegas were confronted by angry protesters demanding to oversee vote 
counting and questioning the legitimacy of the voting process. There 
was nothing suspicious about the count process taking longer than in 
past elections in these cities--they have much larger populations than 
their rural counterparts and thus had to process a larger number of 
mail-in ballots--but then-President Trump had expressed outrage that 
ballots were being counted past Election Day.
    Poll workers reported fearing for their safety as they worked to 
count the remaining votes.\38\ In Detroit, poll workers were harassed 
by unruly challengers yelling, taunting, jeering, and pounding their 
fists on windows while the counting went on.\39\ In Pennsylvania, 
Commissioner Schmidt later described his work as ``racing against a 
disinformation campaign that could potentially disenfranchise voters . 
. . It's not about the campaign or about who you want to win. This is 
never about who wins and who doesn't. But if a campaign is trying to 
disenfranchise the voters of Philadelphia, you can't not respond to 
it.''\40\ While votes were still being counted, Trump's supporters 
began attending ``Stop the Steal'' rallies in various cities as 
disparate as Boise, Idaho; Colorado Springs, Colorado; and Delray 
Beach, Florida to protest Biden's victory.\41\ Pro-Trump State 
lawmakers attended many of these rallies, which often involved 
altercations between Trump supporters and counter-protesters.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ Increasingly normal: Guns seen outside vote counting centers, 
AP (Nov. 7, 2020), https://apnews.com/article/protests-vote-count-
safety-concerns-653dc8f0787c9258524078548d518992.
    \39\ `Get to TCF': What really happened inside Detroit's ballot 
counting center, Detroit Free Press (Nov. 6, 2020), https://
www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/11/06/tcf-center-
detroit-ballot-counting/6173577002/.
    \40\ He Wanted to Count Every Vote in Philadelphia, His Party Had 
Other Ideas., N.Y. Times, (Dec. 16, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/
2020/12/16/magazine/trump-election-philadelphia-republican.html.
    \41\ Trump supporters gather for `Stop the Steal' rally in Boise, 
Idaho Press (Nov. 7, 2020), https://www.idahopress.com/news/local/
trump-supporters-gather-for-stop-the-steal-rally in-boise/
article_2110cb2a-35c6-52ba-a753-336ad7b8bef3.html; Trump supporters 
gather for `Stop the Steal' rally in Colorado Springs, Fox21News (Nov. 
7, 2020), https://www.fox21news.com/top-stories/trump-supporters-
gather-for-stop-the-steal-rally-in-colorado-springs/; `Stop the steal' 
protestors rally in Delray Beach to show support for Trump, CBS12 (Nov. 
7, 2020), https://cbs12.com/news/local/stop-the-steal-protestors-rally-
in-delray-beach-to-show-support-for-trump.
    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, the lawsuits.--At the news conference at Four Seasons Total 
Landscaping in Philadelphia on November 7, 2020, Rudy Giuliani 
announced the Trump campaign's intention to begin litigation over 
allegations of voter fraud in Pennsylvania and other States.\43\ On 
November 13, Sidney Powell, a lawyer aligned with the Trump campaign, 
appeared on the Fox Business Network proclaiming to host Lou Dobbs that 
there had been massive voter fraud ``organized and conducted with the 
help of Silicon Valley people, the big tech companies, the social media 
companies and even the media companies.''\44\ Powell promised to combat 
the fraud with overwhelming evidence in blockbuster lawsuits, pledging 
that she would ``release the Kraken.''\45\ Powell proceeded to file 
lawsuits in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, alleging that 
manipulated voting machines destroyed ballots and switched votes. Each 
of these lawsuits was dismissed as baseless by the courts.\46\ The 
district court in Michigan presciently observed that Powell's lawsuit 
there ``seems to be less about achieving the relief Plaintiffs seek--as 
much of that relief is beyond the power of this Court--and more about 
the impact of their allegations on People's faith in the democratic 
process and their trust in our government.''\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Rudy Giuliani Trump Campaign Philadelphia Press Conference at 
Four Seasons Total Landscaping, Rev Transcripts (Nov. 7, 2020), https:/
/www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/rudy-giuliani-trump-campaign-
philadelphia-press-conference-november-7.
    \44\ `Release the Kraken,' a catchphrase for unfounded conspiracy 
theory, trends on Twitter, N.Y. Times (Nov. 17, 2020), https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/technology/release-the-kraken-a-catchphrase-
for-unfounded-conspiracy-theory-trends-on-twitter.html.
    \45\ ``Release the Kraken'' is a reference to a line from the 1981 
movie ``The Clash of the Titans,'' featuring the mythical sea monster. 
Id.
    \46\ Sidney Powell's `Kraken' lawsuits failed again, as judges in 
Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin have now dismissed her cases, 
Business Insider (Dec. 10, 2020), https://www.businessinsider.com/
sidney-powell-lawsuits-dismissed-michigan-georgia-arizona-wisconsin-
2020-12; Federal judges reject GOP effort to overturn swing State 
election results, Politico (Dec. 7, 2020), https://www.politico.com/
news/2020/12/07/judge-rejects-overturn-michigan-election-results-
443411.
    \47\ King et al. v. Whitmer et al., Case No. 20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW 
(E.D. Mich.), ECF No. 62, 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In reality, the anti-democracy movement never had a legal strategy 
in pursing this long string of lawsuits. Instead, this was a public 
relations strategy from the start: Their only goal was to generate 
noise about election fraud, repeated in case after case and headline 
after headline, with the goal of creating the false public impression 
that the vote must have been affected by some level of corruption. In 
total, Trump and his allies filed more than 75 baseless lawsuits in 
State and Federal courts seeking to overturn election results in States 
where Trump lost.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Post-Election Litigation Analysis and Summaries, Stanford-MIT 
Healthy Elections Project (Mar. 10, 2021), https://
healthyelections.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Post-
Election_Litigation_Analysis.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To be clear, we are not suggesting that post-election litigation is 
necessarily illegitimate--the ability to challenge election results in 
court is an important tool to ensure free and fair elections in our 
country. But these lawsuits were illegitimate because they were not 
based on any evidence or plausible allegations of any kind. Indeed, 
Trump's claims of election fraud were debunked by officials in his own 
administration. On November 23, 2020, then-Attorney General William 
Barr told Trump that, based on the Justice Department's investigation, 
the notion that voting machines were rigged in Biden's favor was 
``bullshit.''\49\ Additionally, on December 1, Attorney General Barr 
told Trump that the theory of voting machine fraud was ``demonstrably 
crazy.''\50\ The same day, the former Attorney General announced 
publicly that the Justice Department had not found any wide-spread 
election fraud.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Bob Woodward & Robert Costa, Peril 166 (2021).
    \50\ Id. at 170.
    \51\ Disputing Trump, Barr says no wide-spread election fraud, AP 
(Dec. 1, 2020), https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-
fraud-b1f1488796c9a98c4b1a9061a6c7f49d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unsurprisingly, Trump's legal team lost all but one of their post-
election lawsuits (the one suit in which they prevailed had nothing to 
do with fraud, nor could it have changed the outcome of the 
election).\52\ Many of these cases failed for basic lack of standing. 
For example, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit (in 
which Trump sought to intervene) in the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to 
invalidate millions of votes cast in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, 
and Wisconsin.\53\ The Supreme Court denied Paxton's request to 
initiate the case in a one-page order, holding that Texas had no 
standing to sue about ``the manner in which another State conducts its 
election.''\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Trump did not win two-thirds of election lawsuits `where 
merits considered', Politifact (Feb. 9, 2021), https://
www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/09/blog-posting/trump-did-not-
win-two-thirds-election-lawsuits-whe/.
    \53\ Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al., 141 S. Ct. 1230 (2020); Trump 
asks Supreme Court to invalidate millions of votes in battleground 
states, CNN (Dec. 10, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/
trump-supreme-court/index.html.
    \54\ Texas v. Pennsylvania, et al., 141 S. Ct. 1230 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other courts dismissed similar lawsuits because there was no merit 
to the allegations of voter fraud.\55\ For instance, Kelli Ward, a 
former Arizona State senator and the chair of the Arizona Republican 
Party, filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn Biden's narrow victory in 
Arizona. After hearing 2 days of testimony and oral arguments, the 
trial court found ``no misconduct, no fraud and no effect on the 
outcome of the election.''\56\ The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the 
decision, holding that Ward ``failed to present evidence of misconduct 
or illegal votes, `let alone establish any degree of fraud or a 
sufficient error rate that would undermine the certainty of the 
election results,' '' and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear 
Ward's case.\57\ In another example, attorney Erick Kaardal filed suit 
on December 22, 2020, in Federal district court in Washington, DC on 
behalf of a group of voter alliances from several States seeking, among 
other things, to enjoin Vice President Mike Pence from counting the 
Electoral College votes for several States.\58\ This last-ditch effort 
failed, and the judge found the allegations so baseless that she 
referred Kaardal to a disciplinary committee.\59\ Another Federal 
district court judge in Michigan granted a motion for sanctions against 
Trump's lawyers who brought an election fraud lawsuit there, including 
Sidney Powell. The court's order, more than 100 pages in length, 
concluded that the ``lawsuit represent[ed] a historic and profound 
abuse of judicial process.''\60\ A Colorado State court judge--who also 
granted sanctions against the lawyers who brought a putative class 
action lawsuit alleging wide-spread voter fraud in the Presidential 
election--found the plaintiffs' complaint to be ``one enormous 
conspiracy theory.''\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\ By the numbers: President Donald Trump's failed efforts to 
overturn the election, USA Today (Jan. 6, 2021) www.usatoday.com/in-
depth/news/politics/elections/2021/01/06/trumps-failed-efforts-
overturn-election-numbers/4130307001/; Trump's judicial campaign to 
upend the 2020 election: A failure, but not a wipe-out, Brookings (Nov. 
30, 2021), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/11/30/trumps-
judicial-campaign-to-upend-the-2020-election-a-failure-but-not-a-wipe-
out/.
    \56\ Ward v. Jackson, Case No. CV2020-015285 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Dec. 
4, 2020); Judge rejects Arizona Republican Party's attempt to overturn 
election results; GOP vows appeal, AZCentral (Dec. 4, 2020), https://
www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/04/arizona-
judge-rejects-republican-effort-overturn-State-election-results/
3821578001/.
    \57\ Ward v. Jackson, Case No. CV-20-0343-AP/EL (Ariz. Sup. Ct. 
Dec. 8, 2020); Ward v. Jackson, et al., No. 20-809 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2021) 
(denying petition for review), https://www.supremecourt.gov/
search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-809.html; 
Election lawsuit from Arizona GOP chair Kelli Ward denied hearing by 
U.S. Supreme Court, AZCentral (Feb. 22, 2021), https://
www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/02/22/us-supreme-
court-wont-hear-kelli-wards-lawsuit-arizona-election/4544983001/.
    \58\ Wisc. Voters Alliance v. Pence, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-
03791-JEB (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 2020), ECF No. 1.
    \59\ Id., ECF No. 23.
    \60\ King et al. v. Whitmer et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-1314-LVP-RSW 
(E.D. Mich. Aug. 25, 2021), ECF No. 172.
    \61\ O'Rourke et al. v. Dominion Voting Systems et al., Case No. 
1:20-cv-03747-NRN (D. Colo. Aug. 3, 2021), ECF No. 136.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Third, the pressure campaign aimed at State officials.--Trump and 
his allies also bombarded State officials in key swing States, 
pressuring them to alter election results in his favor. For example, in 
Arizona, in the weeks following the election, Republican chair of the 
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Clint Hickman, received calls 
from the White House, Rudy Giuliani, and Kelli Ward urging the Board to 
announce that it had discovered voting irregularities. Hickman refused 
these requests so that the Board's work and related litigation could 
follow their proper course. As Hickman stated, ``We were in litigation 
at all these points . . . Whatever needed to be said, needed to be said 
in a courtroom in front of a judge or a jury.''\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Maricopa County supervisor on rejecting calls from Trump 
allies: `Whatever needed to be said, needed to be said in a courtroom', 
CNN (July 5, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/05/politics/clint-
hickman-trump-giuliani-election-calls-maricopa-county-cnntv/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, Aaron Van Langevelde, a Republican member of the 
Michigan State Board of Canvassers, recounted that ``some political 
leaders urged the Board to withhold certification [of electoral votes 
for Biden] based on unproven allegations of voter fraud, even though we 
had no legal authority to do so . . . We were asked to take power we 
didn't have. What would have been the cost if we had done so? 
Constitutional chaos and the loss of our integrity.''\63\ Van 
Langevelde refused, and Michigan certified its electoral votes for 
Biden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ Aaron Van Langevelde's speech about the 2020 election: `We 
were asked to take power we didn't have', Boston Globe (July 5, 2021), 
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/07/05/nation/aaron-van-langeveldes-
speech-about-2020-election-we-were-asked-take-power-we-didnt-have/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trump and his closest advisors also directly pressured State 
legislators. In mid-November 2020, days before Michigan certified its 
election results, Trump invited members of the Michigan State 
legislature to come to the White House, including the House speaker and 
Senate majority leader.\64\ Around a week later, he invited several 
Pennsylvania lawmakers, including Doug Mastriano.\65\ Attorneys Rudy 
Giuliani and Jenna Ellis visited members of several State legislatures 
on Trump's behalf, including in Arizona,\66\ Pennsylvania, and Michigan 
to make allegations of voter fraud and to pressure the lawmakers to 
take legislative action to overturn the results.\67\ Giuliani told the 
Pennsylvania contingent: ``It's the State [l]egislature that controls 
this process. It's your power. It's your responsibility. And I think 
you know, and you have to convince the rest of your members, Republican 
and Democrat, [that] they owe that to the people of their State, and 
they owe that to the people of the United States.''\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Michigan lawmakers who met with Trump say they see nothing to 
change election outcome, CNN (Nov. 21, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/
11/20/politics/michigan-house-speaker-will-meet-trump/index.html.
    \65\ President Trump invited Pa. lawmakers to the White House. Then 
everyone went silent., PennLive (Nov. 27, 2020), https://
www.pennlive.com/news/2020/11/president-trump-invited-pa-lawmakers-to-
the-white-house-then-everyone-went-silent.html.
    \66\ Arizona GOP lawmakers hold meeting on election outcome with 
Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani AZCentral (Nov. 30, 2020), https://
www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/30/republican-
lawmakers-arizona-hold-meeting-rudy-giuliani/6468171002/.
    \67\ Here's How The Trump Campaign Is Still Trying to Overturn 
Biden's Victory, Forbes (Dec. 1, 2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/
alisondurkee/2020/12/01/heres-how-the-trump-campaign-is-still-trying-
to-overturn-bidens-victory/?sh=132938f13561.
    \68\ Giuliani tells Pennsylvania legislators they can override 
popular vote to appoint pro-Trump electors, Yahoo! News (Nov. 25, 
2020), https://news.yahoo.com/giuliani-tells-pennsylvania-legislators-
they-can-override-popular-vote-to-appoint-pro-trump-electors-
010121925.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On January 2, 2021, Trump, joined by attorney Cleta Mitchell,\69\ 
called Brad Raffensperger, the Republican Secretary of State of 
Georgia, pressuring him to ``find'' enough votes for a Trump victory. 
Trump pressed Raffensperger, asserting that ``the ballots are corrupt. 
And you're going to find that they are--which is totally illegal, it is 
more illegal for you than it is for [those who corrupted them] because, 
you know what they did and you're not reporting it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \69\ How a lawyer who aided Trump's 2020 subversion efforts was 
named to a Federal election advisory board, CNN (Nov. 18, 2021), 
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/cleta-mitchell-election-
assistance-commission-advisor/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That's a criminal--that's a criminal offense.'' Raffensperger did 
not give in to this pressure, answering instead: ``Well, Mr. President, 
the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong.''\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\ Transcript: President Trump's Phone Call With Georgia Election 
Officials, N.Y. Times (Jan. 3, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/
03/us/politics/trump-raffensperger-georgia-call-transcript.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These instances are only a few examples. Trump and his team were 
contacting everyone they could in their attempt to overturn the 
election result. It is thanks to Hickman, Van Langevelde, 
Raffensperger, and other courageous local election officials around the 
country that this effort to not count eligible votes or to find 
additional votes for Trump that did not exist failed.
    Fourth, the fake electors.--In an effort reportedly overseen by 
Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign officials,\71\ people who would have 
been electors from seven swing States had Trump won declared themselves 
the rightful electors on December 14, 2020. These sham electors 
``submitted false Electoral College certificates declaring Trump the 
winner of the Presidential election in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New 
Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.''\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\ Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake 
electors plot in 7 States, CNN (Jan. 20, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/
2022/01/20/politics/trump-campaign-officials-rudy-giuliani-fake-
electors/index.html.
    \72\ EXPLAINER: How fake electors tried to throw result to Trump, 
AP (Feb. 21, 2022), https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-joe-biden-
presidential-elections-election-2020-electoral-college-
311f88768b65f7196f52a4757dc162e4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trump's allies then used these sham electors to try to overturn the 
election. In Arizona, 30 Republican lawmakers, including Arizona State 
Representative Mark Finchem,\73\ signed a joint resolution asking 
Congress to accept their State's ``alternate'' electoral votes cast for 
Trump.\74\ On January 6, several of Trump's allies in the House and 
Senate used these fake certificates to delay and attempt to block the 
certification of Biden's victory during Congress's joint session.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\ Donald Trump is now backing a QAnon conspiracy theorist to run 
Arizona's elections, CNN (Sept. 14, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/
14/politics/donald-trump-mark-finchem-arizona/index.html.
    \74\ `This should terrify the nation': the Trump ally seeking to 
run Arizona's elections, The Guardian (Feb. 21, 2022), https://
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/21/mark-finchem-trump-arizona-
elections-secretary-of-state.
    \75\ EXPLAINER: How fake electors tried to throw result to Trump, 
AP (Feb. 21, 2022), https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-joe-biden-
presidential-elections-election-2020-electoral-college-
311f88768b65f7196f52a4757dc162e4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These fake electors were a necessary component of a scheme that 
centered on then-Vice President Pence and that was set to culminate on 
January 6 when he would throw out the legitimate electoral votes from 
those States and substitute in the fake ones--if he could be persuaded 
to do so. By law and custom, the Vice President plays only a ceremonial 
role in the electoral process. Under Article II of the Constitution and 
the Electoral Count Act of 1887, the Vice President opens the 
certificates of votes sent by the States' Presidential electors and, 
after the votes have been counted, announces the outcome, officially 
certifying the result of the Presidential election.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\ Trump Says Pence Can Overturn His Loss in Congress. That's Not 
How it Works, N.Y Times (Apr. 30, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/
01/05/us/politics/pence-trump-election.html. The limited role of the 
Vice President in the certification of the electoral results was even 
reflected in testimony from Mr. Eastman himself following the 2000 
Presidential election. He stated then that under the Electoral Count 
Act, Congress ``counts'' the votes and is ``the ultimate judge'' of 
disputes about the count and, in doing so, ``is answerable to no one, 
not the Supreme Court of the United States, not the Supreme Court of 
Florida, in that judging, because that power is delegated to it by the 
Constitution.'' 67 Florida Select Joint Committee on the Manner of 
Appointment of Presidential Electors, 2000, (Fl. 2000) (testimony of 
Professor John C. Eastman), https://www.c-span.org/video/?160847-1/
manner-appointment-presidential-electors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But Trump advisor and then-professor at Chapman University John 
Eastman concocted a plan spelled out in memoranda in late December 2020 
and early January 2021 in which Pence would ignore his legal 
obligations at the joint session of Congress on January 6 and would 
refuse to recognize electoral votes from several States based on a 
claim that there were ``multiple slates of electors'' in those States 
(i.e., the valid electors and sham electors discussed earlier). Pence 
was either to declare an outright victory for Trump or to pass the 
Presidential election to the House of Representatives. Since each State 
delegation in the House would have one vote, the Republicans' control 
of 26 State delegations was expected to ensure a majority for 
Trump.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \77\ READ: Trump lawyer's memo on six-step plan for Pence to 
overturn the election, CNN (Sep. 21, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/
09/21/politics/read-eastman-memo/index.html (two-page memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eastman argued that these measures, though ``BOLD,'' were justified 
by the fact that ``this Election was Stolen by a strategic Democrat 
plan to systematically flout existing election laws for partisan 
advantage,'' and ``we're no longer playing by Queensbury Rules, 
therefore.''\78\ Trump demanded that Pence take part in this scheme, 
essentially presenting Pence with a choice between violating the 
Constitution and being denounced by Trump, likely dashing any chance 
Pence had of ever becoming President himself with support from Trump's 
base.\79\ As this Select Committee well knows, in March of this year, a 
Federal judge weighed in on Eastman's plot. In a civil case related to 
the Committee's pursuit of documents from Eastman, the court found that 
Eastman and Trump most likely had committed felonies, including by 
obstructing the work of Congress in counting electoral votes and 
conspiring to defraud the United States.\80\ The court called the 
scheme ``a coup in search of a legal theory.''\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \78\ Id. (six-page memo).
    \79\ Pence Reached His Limit With Trump. It Wasn't Pretty, N.Y. 
Times (Jan. 12, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/us/politics/
mike-pence-trump.html.
    \80\ Eastman v. Thompson et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-00099-DOC-DFM 
(C.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2022), ECF. No. 260.
    \81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Around the same time that John Eastman was working on his January 6 
legal strategy from outside the administration, Jeffrey Clark, the 
acting Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice's Civil 
Division, was working on a legal strategy from within the Government. 
By late December, Clark told colleagues that he was aware of 
information implicating Chinese intelligence in using thermometers to 
change the election results, despite there being no evidence of such 
foreign interference.\82\ On December 28, 2020, Clark emailed his 
superiors with a draft letter that urged Georgia officials to convene 
the State legislature in a special session to investigate 
``irregularities'' in the election.\83\ Fortunately, his superiors 
refused to send the letter.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \82\ How a Trump Environmental Lawyer Tried To Weaponize the 
Justice Department To Help the President, CNN (Aug. 6, 2021), https://
www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/politics/doj-clark-trump-election/index.html.
    \83\ Trump Loyalist at DOJ Circulated Draft Georgia Letter with 
False Election Fraud Claims ABC News (Aug. 4, 2021), https://
www.cnn.com/2021/08/04/politics/draft-doj-georgia-letter-election-
reversal/index.html.
    \84\ How a Trump Environmental Lawyer Tried To Weaponize the 
Justice Department To Help the President, CNN (Aug. 6, 2021), https://
www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/politics/doj-clark-trump-election/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fifth, the disinformation campaign.--The disinformation campaign 
related to the 2020 election started well before election day. The high 
volume of mail-in ballots was further exploited by anti-democracy 
forces, who fabricated stories suggesting the ballots were susceptible 
to fraud. For example, a single tweet in September contending that over 
1,000 mail-in ballots had been found in a dumpster was picked up by a 
far-right news website, which ran an ``exclusive'' story on a purported 
scheme by the county to dump uncounted ballots. In fact, the photo 
shared in the tweet showed old envelopes from the 2018 election that 
were being recycled--and ballots for the 2020 election cycle had not 
yet even been mailed. Within a day, the story had been shared by over 
25,000 Twitter users, including Donald Trump Jr.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\ As U.S. election nears, researchers are following the trail of 
fake news, Science.org (Oct. 26, 2020), https://www.science.org/
content/article/us-election-nears-researchers-are-following-trail-fake-
news.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disinformation came from the top, too. Harvard researchers found 
that tweets or briefings or Fox News appearances by Trump himself drove 
most spikes in media coverage, which allowed him to ``disseminate and 
reinforce his disinformation campaign'' regarding election fraud.\86\ 
This trend was exacerbated by the fact that different segments of the 
population held different beliefs about the election, driven in large 
part by the news outlets they tuned in to.\87\ Thus, for example, in 
September 2020, 61 percent of Republicans who primarily watched Fox 
News or listened to talk radio for their news said fraud had been a 
``major problem when mail-in ballots are used,'' whereas the percentage 
dropped to 44 percent for Republicans who also listened to other 
outlets, and to 23 percent for Republicans who did not rely on Fox News 
or talk radio.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \86\ Id.
    \87\ How Americans Navigated the News in 2020: A Tumultuous Year in 
Review, Pew Research Center (Feb. 22, 2021), https://
www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/02/22/misinformation-and-competing-
views-of-reality-abounded-throughout-2020/.
    \88\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After the election, lawsuits, recounts, audits, and other actions 
by Trump and his allies served as fodder for a broader anti-democracy 
disinformation campaign to convince segments of the American public 
that Biden stole the election. Indeed, a central goal of this anti-
democracy movement--since before 2016--has been to cast doubt on 
election results and give anti-democracy allies enough of an echo 
chamber so that if and when Trump lost the election, whether in 2016 or 
2020, a substantial number of people would believe it was because of 
fraud.
    This disinformation campaign has been supported by many of Trump's 
allies. For example, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell said that he spent $25 
million pushing voter fraud claims and that he would ``spend everything 
[he has] and sell everything [he has] if that's what it takes'' to 
overturn Biden's victory.\89\ Steve Bannon, Trump's former chief 
strategist, promoted the theory that Biden stole the election from 
Trump on his popular podcast, War Room.\90\ Former Trump National 
Security Advisor and Retired Army General Michael Flynn went on a 
public speaking campaign to further sow doubts about the vote and urge 
States to conduct independent reviews of their election results.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \89\ MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell told Insider he's already spent $25 
million pushing voter-fraud claims and will spend everything he has on 
the cause, Business Insider (Dec. 16, 2021), https://
www.businessinsider.com/mypillow-mike-lindell-25-million-pushing-
baseless-voter-fraud-claims-2021-12.
    \90\ Heeding Steve Bannon's Call, Election Deniers Organize to 
Seize Control of the GOP--and Reshape America's Elections, ProPublica 
(Sept. 2, 2021), https://www.propublica.org/article/heeding-steve-
bannons-call-election-deniers-organize-to-seize-control-of-the-gop-and-
reshape-americas-elections.
    \91\ The military-intelligence veterans who helped lead Trump's 
campaign of disinformation, Reuters (Dec. 15, 2021), https://
www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-election-military/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NewsGuard, an independent service that evaluates the credibility of 
media sources, investigated and found 166 websites in the United States 
and Europe spreading misinformation about voting, the ballot-counting 
process, and the results of the 2020 U.S. election.\92\ The top myths 
spread included the theories that Democrats committed significant voter 
fraud using manipulated voting machines or mail-in ballots to change 
votes from Trump to Biden or to add extra votes for Biden; that 
undocumented immigrants unlawfully cast a significant number of 
absentee ballots (presumably heavily skewed toward Biden); and that 
poll workers manipulated ballots at counting centers when demonstrators 
were not allowed to oversee their counting process.\93\ Trump's 
supporters also took to social media to spread these lies, which 
Trump's team then attempted to use as evidence of wide-spread voter 
fraud in their ultimately unsuccessful lawsuits.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \92\ 2020 Election Misinformation Tracking Center, The Top Election 
Myths Spreading Online and the Red-Rated Websites Promoting Them: 166 
and Counting, NewsGuard (Jan. 20, 2021), https://www.newsguardtech.com/
special-reports/election-misinformation-tracker/.
    \93\ Id.
    \94\ Trump's 5-year campaign of lies led to the Capitol attack. And 
we just let it happen.1 USA Today (Jan. 13, 2021), https://
www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/01/13/trump-disinformation-
campaign-led-to-capitol-coup-attempt-column/6639309002/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Preparation for and Participation in January 6
    Leading up to the joint session of Congress on January 6, the 
effort to overturn Biden's victory included public rallies in 
Washington, DC in support of Trump's election fraud theories.
    In the early morning of December 12, 2020, ahead of the ``Million 
MAGA March'' planned for later that day, Roger Stone told a crowd of 
Trump supporters, ``We will fight to the bitter end for an honest count 
of the 2020 election. Never give up, never quit, never surrender, and 
fight for America. We have an obligation to see that the rightful 
winner of the election is seated, and that is the greatest president 
since Abraham Lincoln, Donald J. Trump.''\95\ Michael Flynn also spoke 
at the December 12 rally, promising that Trump would remain in 
office\96\ and likening the assembled protesters to the biblical 
figures who destroyed the walls of Jericho.\97\ Lesser-known figures 
spoke too: Amanda Chase, a State senator in Virginia who has been 
described as ``Trump in heels,'' echoed Trump's claim that Biden 
``cheated to win'' and that she and many other Americans would ``never 
accept these results.''\98\ She made drastic claims that Trump should 
declare martial law to conduct an audit of election results in her 
State.\99\ That same month, incidentally, Sidney Powell, working with 
Pennsylvania State Senator Doug Mastriano, began funding an audit of 
the voting machines in rural Fulton County, Pennsylvania, a community 
of fewer than 15,000 people that had voted overwhelmingly for Trump. 
This audit served as a test case of the audit trend that would persist 
well into 2022 throughout several States.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\ `Nothing is Over': Roger Stone Addresses Trump Supporters at 
Protest in Washington, Yahoo! News (Dec. 12, 2020), https://
www.yahoo.com/now/nothing-over-roger-stone-addresses-142409365.html.
    \96\ Michael Flynn Says Trump Will Remain President in First Public 
Remarks Since Pardon, Newsweek (Dec. 12, 2020), https://
www.newsweek.com/michael-flynn-says-trump-will-remain-president-first-
public-remarks-since-pardon-1554374; see also Flynn delivers first 
public remarks since Trump pardon at DC rallies, The Hill (Dec. 12, 
2020), https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/529956-flynn-
delivers-first-public-remarks-since-trump-pardon-at-dc-rallies.
    \97\ US election: Pro-Trump rallies see scuffles in US cities, BBC 
News (Dec. 13, 2020), https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-
55292610; Trump riots: 65 days that led to chaos at the Capitol, BBC 
News (Jan. 10, 2021), https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-
55592332.
    \98\ Pro-Trump Martial-Law-Pushing Amanda Chase `Getting Things in 
Order' to Run for Congress Newsweek (Nov. 8, 2021), https://
www.newsweek.com/pro-trump-martial-law-pushing-amanda-chase-getting-
things-order-run-congress-1647184.
    \99\ Virginia gubernatorial candidate says, `Trump should declare 
martial law', Fox News (Dec. 17, 2020), https://www.foxnews.com/
politics/virginia-amanda-chase-trump-martial-law.
    \100\ Group led by `Kraken' lawyer Sidney Powell hired the firm 
recounting AZ's election to probe election in Fulton Co., Pennsylvania 
Capital-Star (May 24, 2021), https://www.penncapital-star.com/
government-politics/group-led-by-kraken-lawyer-sidney-powell-hired-the-
firm-recounting-azs-election-to-probe-a-pa-election/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Members of the Proud Boys hate group were among the rally goers on 
December 12. After it ended, they prowled the streets of Washington, 
vandalizing a Black Lives Matter sign at a historic Black church, and 
confronting counter-protesters in altercations that left at least four 
people with stab wounds.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \101\ Metro. African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Proud Boys 
Int'l, L.L.C. et al., Case No. 2021 CA 000004 B (D.C. Super. Ct.) 
(Complaint); Proud Boys leader arrested, accused of destroying D.C. 
Church's Black Lives Matter sign, NBC News (Jan. 4, 2021), https://
www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/proud-boys-leader-arrested-after-
allegedly-destroying-d-c-church-n1252789; How a D.C. Bar Became the 
`Haven' for the Proud Boys, Politico (Dec. 14, 2020), https://
www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/14/harrys-bar-proud-boys-
washington-dc-445015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further rallies in D.C. on and immediately before January 6 were 
coordinated in part by Ali Alexander, who had created a limited 
liability company called Stop the Steal in 2020.\102\ Alexander Stated 
in internet broadcasts in December 2020 that he had organized his 
January 6 rally with U.S. Reps. Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, and Mo 
Brooks,\103\ and on December 7, 2020, Alexander posted a tweet stating 
that he was ``willing to give [his] life for this fight,'' which the 
Arizona Republican Party (chaired by Kelli Ward) then retweeted with 
the addition, ``He is. Are you?''\104\ Trump tweeted from his own 
account on December 19, 2020: ``Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be 
there, will be wild!''\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\ Business Entity Records--Stop the Steal, LLC, Alabama 
Secretary of State, https://arc-sos.State.al.us/cgi/corpdetail.mbr/
detail?corp=821150; Trump allies helped plan, promote rally that led to 
Capitol attack, ABC News (Jan. 8, 2021), https://abcnews.go.com/US/
trump-allies-helped-plan-promote-rally led-capitol/story?id=75119209.
    \103\ `Stop the Steal' organizer, now banned by Twitter, said three 
GOP lawmakers helped plan his D.C. rally, Wash. Post (Jan. 13, 2021), 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/13/ali-alexander-capitol-
biggs-gosar/.
    \104\ `Stop the Steal' Organizer in Hiding After Denying Blame for 
Riot, The Daily Beast (Jan. 11, 2021); Arizona GOP asks if followers 
willing to give their lives to `stop the steal', The Hill (Dec. 8, 
2020), https://thehill.com/homenews/news/529195-arizona-gop-asks-if-
followers-willing-to-give-their-life-to-stop-the-steal.
    \105\ Trump Twitter Archive, Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 
(Dec. 19, 2020, 1:42 AM EST), https://www.thetrumparchive.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many others in Trump's orbit helped to organize and promote the 
anti-democracy events that led up to the Capitol attack on January 6--
some also spoke at the events. During the week before, Senator 
Mastriano helped arrange bus rides for Trump supporters from 
Pennsylvania to DC.\106\ Many of the key figures in the Stop the Steal 
movement spoke at a rally on January 5 at Freedom Plaza, emceed by 
Alexander. Flynn spoke at the event, declaring that ``the Members of 
Congress, the members of the House of Representatives, the members of 
the U.S. Senate, those of you who are feeling weak tonight, those of 
you that don't have the moral fiber in your body, get some tonight 
because tomorrow we the people are going to be here, and we want you to 
know we will not stand for a lie.''\107\ Mike Lindell urged the crowd: 
``Tomorrow, you need to pray for our Vice President to look up to God 
and say, `I need to make a decision, Lord, and to make the right 
decision for our country.' ''\108\ Other speakers included Roger Stone 
and Mark Finchem.\109\ Between speakers, Alexander led the crowd in 
chants of ``stop the steal'' and made declarations including, ``[t]he 
rebellion starts now''\110\ and ``[w]e ready for battle!''\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \106\ Mastriano campaign spent thousands on buses ahead of D.C. 
insurrection, WHYY (Jan. 12, 2021), https://whyy.org/articles/
mastriano-campaign-spent-thousands-on-buses-ahead-of-d-c-insurrection.
    \107\ Flynn, Papadopoulos address pro-Trump rally in DC, AP (Jan. 
10, 2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu5BJY-tG-c; Longtime Trump 
advisers connected to groups behind rally that led to Capitol attack, 
ABC News (Jan. 15, 2021), https://abcnews.go.com/US/longtime-trump-
advisers-connected-groups-rally led-capitol/story?id=75261028.
    \108\ #StopTheSteal Coalition Pre-Rally in DC at Freedom Plaza, 
RSBN TV, Periscope (Jan. 5, 2021), https://www.pscp.tv/w/1RDxlPOgyorxL.
    \109\ Id.
    \110\ Id. at 43:30.
    \111\ Id. at 1:06:47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Also on January 5, a group of around 100 State legislators sent a 
letter to Pence regarding the purported ``illegalities present in the 
2020 election'' and asking him to ``afford [the] nation more time to 
properly review'' the election results by ``postponing the January 6th 
opening and counting of the electoral votes for at least 10 
days.''\112\ Doug Mastriano, Mark Finchem, and Wisconsin State 
Assemblyman Timothy Ramthun signed the letter.\113\ In an email to Vice 
President Pence's counsel on January 6, Eastman conceded that this 
proposed 10-day postponement would constitute a ``minor violation'' of 
the law.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \112\ Letter to Vice President Michael R. Pence, Wisconsin Examiner 
(Jan. 5, 2021), https://wisconsinexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/
01/Letter-to-Pence-1.pdf; These 15 State legislators asked Pence not to 
certify election results, Wisconsin Examiner (Jan. 14, 2021), https://
wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/01/14/these-15-State-legislators-asked-
pence-not-to-certify-election-results/.
    \113\ Letter to Vice President Michael R. Pence, Wisconsin Examiner 
(Jan. 5, 2021), https://wisconsinexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/
01/Letter-to-Pence-1.pdf.
    \114\ Eastman v. Thompson et al., Case No. 8-22-cv-00099-DOC-DFM 
(C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2022), ECF No. 160-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Also on January 5, on his War Room podcast, Steve Bannon told his 
listeners, ``All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.'' He announced 
that, ``it's not going to happen like you think it's going to happen. 
Okay, it's going to be quite extraordinarily different. And all I can 
say is, strap in . . . You have made this happen and tomorrow it's game 
day. So, strap in. Let's get ready.''\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\ Ep. 631-Pandemic: One Day Away (W/ Maggie Vandenberghe, Jack 
Posobiec, Sean Parnell and Richard Baris) at 29:30, Steve Bannon's War 
Room (Jan. 5, 2021), https://listen.warroom.org/e/ep-631-pandemic-one-
day-away-w-maggie-vandenberghe-jack-posobiec-sean-parnell-and-richard-
baris/; How Trump allies stoked the flames ahead of Capitol riot, CNN 
(Jan. 18, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/18/politics/trump-bannon-
stone-giuliani-capitol-riot-invs/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. The January 6 Assault on the Capitol and Democracy
    Then came January 6 itself, which began with Trump tweeting shortly 
after midnight echoing his and his supporters' long-standing efforts to 
delegitimize the election results and to pressure Pence to violate his 
Constitutional obligations. ``If Vice President @Mike--Pence comes 
through for us, we will win the Presidency. Many States want to 
decertify the mistake they made in certifying incorrect & even 
fraudulent numbers in a process NOT approved by their State 
Legislatures (which it must be). Mike can send it back!''\116\ Later in 
the morning, Trump tweeted: ``All Mike Pence has to do is send them 
back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme 
courage!''\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \116\ Trump Twitter Archive, Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 
(Jan. 6, 2021, 1 o'clock AM EST), https://www.thetrumparchive.com.
    \117\ Trump Twitter Archive, Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) (Jan. 
6, 2021, 8:17 AM EST), https://www.thetrumparchive.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Next came speeches to a crowd assembled at the Ellipse next to the 
White House. This time, the speakers included Texas Attorney General 
Ken Paxton, who declared that ``[o]ne of the great things about the 
State of Texas is, we did not quit,'' referring to his failed lawsuit 
to force other States to cast their electoral votes for Trump. ``If you 
look at Georgia, they capitulated, they consented. We kept fighting in 
Texas.'' Paxton went on, ``What we have in President Trump is a 
fighter. And I think that's why we're all here.'' He pledged, ``We will 
not quit fighting. We're Texans, we're Americans, and the fight will go 
on.''\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \118\ Ken Paxton at Trump's D.C. Rally: `We will not quit 
fighting', Houston Chronicle (Jan. 6, 2021), https://
www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Paxton-Trump-DC-rally 
election-2020-georgia-15850073.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Giuliani told the crowd that ``[i]t is perfectly appropriate given 
the questionable constitutionality of the Election Counting Act [sic] 
of 1887 that the Vice President can cast it aside.'' He asserted that, 
in the previous day's U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia and in the 
November Presidential election, voting machines had been programmed to 
fraudulently add votes, claiming that an ``expert'' had examined the 
machines and ``has absolutely what he believes is conclusive proof that 
in the last 10 percent, 15 percent of the vote counted, the votes were 
deliberately changed.'' Giuliani exhorted the crowd, ``Let's have trial 
by combat.''\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\ Rudy Giuliani Speech Transcript at Trump's Washington, DC. 
Rally: Wants `Trial by Combat', Rev Transcripts (Jan. 6, 2021), https:/
/www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/rudy-giuliani-speech-transcript-at-
trumps-washington-d-c-rally-wants-trial-by-combat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Eastman spoke on the Ellipse as well, repeating that ``we know 
there was fraud, traditional fraud that occurred. We know that dead 
people voted.'' He went on to describe the supposed voting machine 
fraud, concluding that ``all we are demanding of Vice President Pence 
is this afternoon at 1 o'clock he let the legislators of the State look 
into this.''\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \120\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trump then addressed the crowd, asserting that ``we won this 
election, and we won it by a landslide.'' He challenged the crowd, ``if 
you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country 
anymore.''\121\ And he addressed Pence, who was not present: ``Mike 
Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution 
and for the good of our country. And if you're not, I'm going to be 
very disappointed in you.''\122\ Pence issued a letter shortly before 
he was scheduled to preside over the joint session of Congress, stating 
that he lacked ``unilateral authority to determine which electoral 
votes should be counted and which should not,'' and indicating that he 
would abide by the Electoral Count Act.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \121\ Read Trump's Jan. 6 Speech, A Key Part Of Impeachment Trial, 
NPR (Feb. 10, 2021), https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-
trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial.
    \122\ Id.
    \123\ Read Pence's Full Letter Saying he Can't Claim `Unilateral 
Authority' to Reject Electoral Votes, AP (Jan. 6, 2021), https://
www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-pences-full-letter-saying-he-cant-
claim-unilateral-authority-to-reject-electoral-votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A large portion of the crowd at the Ellipse moved from there to 
Capitol Hill. Among them was Ron Hanks, who had recently been elected 
to the Colorado legislature. He said that he had come to DC ``to get a 
read of the Nation's Trump supporters . . . to get a sense of what may 
happen next to combat this stolen election.''\124\ Altercations with 
the Capitol Police soon followed--and many of the ringleaders of the 
anti-democracy movement were there to fan the flames. Finchem tweeted 
photographs of protestors gathered on the steps of the Capitol 
building.\125\ Alexander led chants outside the Capitol of ``victory or 
death.''\126\ Mastriano claimed that he did not go beyond police lines 
and left the area ``when it was apparent that this was no longer a 
peaceful protest,'' but video footage shows him and his wife passing 
through a breached police barricade.\127\ At 2:11 p.m., rioters 
breached a window at the Capitol building.\128\ As you know all too 
well, the mob entered the Capitol, and Members of Congress and the Vice 
President were forced to evacuate. Ward tweeted, ``Congress is 
adjourned. Send the elector choice back to the legislatures.''\129\ 
Trump tweeted that Pence lacked ``the courage to do what should have 
been done to protect our Country and our Constitution,''\130\ but 
eventually, through heroic efforts, the Capitol Police and the National 
Guard restored order at the Capitol, and the vote count resumed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \124\ The Trump Rally (Jan. 7, 2021), https://drive.google.com/
file/d/1jyoRaj7kI0V4X-0jAB3Z0xaJjOc2uk8e/view (copy on file with States 
United); see also Colorado House Democrat calls for removal of GOP 
colleague who was at Jan. 6 rally, Denver Post (Feb. 16, 2021), https:/
/www.denverpost.com/2021/02/16/ron-hanks-colorado-house-removal-
capitol-riot/.
    \125\ Seven Arizonan Republican legislators face calls to ban them 
from the House and Senate, KNXV (Jan. 8, 2021), https://www.abc15.com/
news/state/seven-arizonan-republican-legislators-face-calls-to-ban-
them-from-the-house-and-senate.
    \126\ Baked Alaska, the QAnon Shaman . . . who led the storming of 
the Capitol?, The Guardian (Jan. 7, 2021), https://www.theguardian.com/
us-news/2021/jan/07/baked-alaska-the-qanon-shaman-who-led-the-storming-
of-the-capitol.
    \127\ Pa. GOP lawmaker Doug Mastriano says he left the Capitol area 
before the riot. New videos say otherwise, The Philadelphia Inquirer 
(May 25, 2021), https://www.inquirer.com/news/doug-mastriano-capitol-
riot-pennslyvania-video-20210525.html; Videos Contradict State 
Lawmaker's Claim He Left Capitol While It Was `Still Peaceful', 
HuffPost (May 25, 2021), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doug-mastriano-
capitol-riot_n_60ac5e99e4b019ef10de09c7.
    \128\ How the rioters who stormed the Capitol came dangerously 
close to Pence, Wash. Post (Jan. 15, 2021), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-rioters-capitol-attack/2021/01/
15/ab62e434-567c-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html; Inside the Capitol 
Riot: An Exclusive Video Investigation, N.Y. Times (Sept. 23, 2021), 
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/30/us/jan-6-capitol-attack-
takeaways.html.
    \129\ Kelli Ward (@kelliwardaz), Twitter (Jan. 6, 2021), https://
twitter.com/kelliwardaz/status/1346916956801179649.
    \130\ Trump Twitter Archive, Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) (Jan. 
6, 2021, 2:24 PM EST), https://www.thetrumparchive.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Soon after, a new disinformation campaign was launched to cast the 
riot as either a protest that got out of hand or a false-flag operation 
by leftists to embarrass Trump. Hanks wrote that the crowd at the 
Capitol was not the same as at Trump's rally: ``[v]ery few people at 
the Ellipse were wearing masks. Those at the Capitol were wearing 
bandanas, like the Antifa bandits of the summertime riots.''\131\ 
Congressmembers Matt Gaetz, Paul Gosar, and Mo Brooks all spouted the 
conspiracy theory that Antifa had attacked the Capitol.\132\ Giuliani 
appeared on Bannon's podcast on January 9, asserting that Democrats had 
stormed the building.\133\ The same claims were echoed by Finchem,\134\ 
Ward,\135\ Paxton,\136\ and Lindell.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \131\ The Trump Rally (Jan. 7, 2021), https://drive.google.com/
file/d/1jyoRaj7kI0V4X-0jAB3Z0xaJjOc2uk8e/view (copy on file with States 
United).
    \132\ Antifa Didn't Storm The Capitol. Just Ask The Rioters., NPR 
(Mar. 2, 2021), https://www.npr.org/2021/03/02/972564176/antifa-didnt-
storm-the-capitol-just-ask-the-rioters.
    \133\ YouTube bans Steve Bannon's podcast channel hours after Rudy 
Giuliani appeared on an episode and blamed the Capitol siege on 
Democrats Business Insider (Jan. 9, 2021), https://
www.businessinsider.com/youtube-bans-steve-bannon-war-room-podcast-
rudy-giuliani-comments-2021-1; Google bans two Steve Bannon YouTube 
channels after Trump lawyer Giuliani claims stolen election, The 
Mercury News (Jan. 8, 2021), https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/01/08/
googles-youtube-hosts-video-of-trump-lawyer-giuliani-claiming-stolen-
election-two-days-after-deadly-capitol-insurrection/.
    \134\ Among some in Arizona GOP, siege of the US Capitol was 
everyone's fault except Trump, AZCentral (Jan. 7, 2021), https://
www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2021/01/07/these-arizona-
republicans-say-trump-isnt-to-blame-for-capitol-riot/6580354002/.
    \135\ As Nation's Capitol swirled into chaos, Arizona played a 
central role, AZCentral (Jan 6, 2021), https://www.azcentral.com/story/
news/politics/arizona/2021/01/06/arizonas-role-us-capitol-riot-paul-
gosar-election-certification/6571625002/.
    \136\ Ken Paxton told Trump supporters to `keep fighting.' When 
they breached the Capitol, he falsely claimed it wasn't them., The 
Texas Tribune (Jan. 7, 2021), https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/07/
texas-ken-paxton-trump-supporters/.
    \137\ How Trump's pied pipers rallied a faithful mob to the 
Capitol, Reuters (Jan. 11, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-
usa-trump-protest-organizers-insight/how-trumps-pied-pipers-rallied-a-
faithful-mob-to-the-capitol-idUSKBN29G2UP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For those who were involved in the attempted coup on January 6, the 
fight did not end on that day. Soon after, Amanda Chase gave a floor 
speech in Virginia defending those who stormed the Capitol, calling 
them ``patriots who love their country and do not want to see our great 
republic turned into a socialist country.''\138\ On January 10, 
Alexander appeared in an internet video, promising: ``We are going to 
punish the traitors,'' referring to Republican politicians who endorsed 
Biden's electoral victory. ``The Lord says vengeance is his, and I pray 
I am the tool to stab these motherf--ers.''\139\ This continuing 
rhetoric was a cause for concern for House Minority Leader Kevin 
McCarthy. In newly released audio from a private call from January 10, 
2021, McCarthy urged Republican leaders to monitor lawmakers' public 
statements and alert him to potentially dangerous messages: ``I do not 
want to look back and think we caused something, or we missed 
something, and someone got hurt. I don't want to play politics with any 
of that.''\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \138\ Virginia Senator Who Defended Capitol Rioters Faces Censure 
Effort NBC4 Washington (Jan. 23, 2021), https://www.nbcwashington.com/
news/local/virginia-senator-who-defended-capitol-rioters-faces-censure-
effort/2549545/.
    \139\ Id.
    \140\ McCarthy Feared G.O.P. Lawmakers Put `People in Jeopardy' 
After Jan. 6 New York Times (April 26, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/
2022/04/26/us/politics/mccarthy-republican-
lawmakers.html?partner=slack∣=sl-share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
               ii. the anti-democracy movement continues
    As we explained, the terrible events of January 6 were not the 
start of this anti-democracy movement, nor were they the end. The 
central tenet of the ``Stop the Steal'' movement--the ``Big Lie'' that 
the 2020 Presidential election was stolen from Trump--has only spread 
further. Today, it is a tool for certain anti-democracy activists, whom 
we at States United call ``election deniers,'' to take steps to ensure 
that former President Trump and his advisors, lawyers, and like-minded 
State and local officials will be able to control the outcomes of 
future elections across the country regardless of whether they or their 
preferred candidates actually win those elections.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \141\ The clear and present danger of Trump's enduring `Big Lie', 
NPR (Dec. 23, 2021), https://www.npr.org/2021/12/23/1065277246/trump-
big-lie-jan-6-election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That's where we now find ourselves. Many of the same people who 
preemptively cast doubt on the 2016 and 2020 elections, and who were 
involved in efforts to take over the Government by force to change the 
result of the 2020 Presidential election, have now developed a playbook 
for future elections: First, they change the rules of elections; then, 
they change the referees--the people who will enforce those rules. This 
process is accompanied by many of the same anti-democracy tactics that 
were employed prior to January 6, such as pressure aimed at State 
officials--including challenging them in primary elections--and 
sustained disinformation campaigns. The objective is to change the 
results in the future--and some even bizarrely believe that the results 
of 2020 can still be changed. The purported justification for all of 
that is the ``Big Lie,'' that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump 
through voter fraud.
a. Changing the Rules
    We first turn to the efforts to change the rules of elections. In 
the aftermath of the 2020 Presidential election, a wave of legislative 
proposals to revise election laws swept across the country State by 
State.\142\ The Voting Rights Lab identified more than 2,000 bills that 
seek to alter in one way or another the way elections are 
administered.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \142\ A Democracy Crisis in the Making, States United Democracy 
Center (Apr. 22, 2021), https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/
uploads/2021/04/FINAL-Democracy-Crisis-Report-April-21.pdf.
    \143\ Legislative Tracker, Voting Rights Lab (last checked Apr. 12, 
2022), https://tracker.votingrightslab.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Of course, as we said earlier with respect to litigation, nothing 
is inherently problematic about introducing bills relating to election 
laws. But many of these bills involve efforts to alter basic principles 
about how elections are administered and aspire to put highly partisan 
State legislators in charge of basic decisions about our elections--
with the ostensible goal being to rig election outcomes and give a 
political party the ability to nullify the votes of the people.
    Traditionally, the executive branch and local election officials 
have run our voting systems, but these recent efforts would give State 
legislators the power to disrupt election administration and the 
reporting of results--powers beyond those they had in 2020 or indeed 
throughout much of the last century. Had such bills been law in 2020, 
they would have significantly added to the turmoil that surrounded the 
election, and they would have raised the alarming prospect that the 
outcome of the Presidential election could be decided contrary to the 
people's votes. When the losing party overrides the will of the voters, 
our system of Government collapses.
    Our organization, States United, published a report, Democracy 
Crisis in the Making, on precisely this issue. In April 2021,\144\ we 
identified 148 bills threatening to interfere with election 
administration across 36 States. In May 2022, States United published 
an updated report that found the trend of introducing election 
subversion bills has accelerated. As of April 8, 2022, legislatures in 
33 States have introduced 229 bills--175 introduced in this calendar 
year alone and 54 rolled over from the last calendar year. In total, 50 
election subversion bills have been enacted or adopted (32 last year 
and 18 thus far this year).\145\ A few are worth highlighting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \144\ Democracy Crisis in the Making: How State Legislatures are 
Politicizing, Criminalizing, and Interfering with Elections, States 
United Democracy Center, https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/resources/
democracy-crisis-in-the-making-how-state-legislatures-are-politicizing-
criminalizing-and-interfering-with-elections/.
    \145\ Democracy Crisis in the Making: How State Legislatures are 
Politicizing, Criminalizing, and Interfering with Elections, States 
United Democracy Center, https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/
uploads/2022/05/DCITM_2022.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Buried among the more publicized provisions of Georgia's S.B. 
202,\146\ enacted in March 2021, are changes to Georgia's election laws 
that fundamentally alter the balance of power between the executive and 
legislative branches. For example, the law changes the appointments 
power and restricts the State Election Board's ability to respond to 
emergencies. In particular, the law replaces the directly-elected 
secretary of state as chair of the State Election Board with a 
``chairperson elected by the General Assembly''\147\ and it empowers 
the State Election Board--now chaired by a legislative appointee--to 
investigate and replace local election officials whose competence has 
been, as the law puts it, ``call[ed] into question.''\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \146\ S.B. 202, Georgia 2021-2022 Regular Session, https://
www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498; A Democracy 
Crisis in the Making, States United Democracy Center (Apr. 22, 2021), 
https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FINAL-
Democracy-Crisis-Report-April-21.pdf.
    \147\ S.B. 202, Georgia 2021-2022 Regular Session, https://
www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201498.
    \148\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Context is important here. In light of the Secretary of State Brad 
Raffensperger's resisting calls from State legislators and others 
(including Trump) to overturn the election results, this is a clear 
effort by partisan legislators to wrest control of the State's 
elections into their own hands.
    Before this year, the State Election Board was chaired by the 
secretary of state and, in addition, was comprised of two legislative 
appointees and one representative of each political party. Under the 
new law, the chair is selected by a simple majority vote of the Georgia 
Senate and House. While the chair must be ``nonpartisan,'' this merely 
means that they must not have engaged in partisan politics--for 
example, by participating in a partisan campaign--for the previous 2 
years. Additionally, the chair can be removed and replaced by the 
legislature at any time by a majority vote, giving the legislature 
effective control of the board.
    Further, those legislative appointees now have the power to replace 
local election officials with their own hand-picked substitutes. In 
Georgia, elections are administered by ``superintendents''--usually 
bipartisan or nonpartisan county election boards. Under the new law, 
the State Election Board can replace superintendents if it finds that 
there has been ``demonstrated nonfeasance, malfeasance, or gross 
negligence in the administration of . . . elections'' over a 2-year 
period. This vague standard raises the specter of election manipulation 
by partisan actors.
    Indeed, in an extreme case, the legislature--acting through the 
Board--might be able to abuse this power to overturn the results of an 
election--for example, by replacing a superintendent to prevent the 
certification of election results.
    Kansas's H.B. 2332,\149\ which was passed by overriding the 
Governor's veto in May 2021,\150\ charts a different path for inserting 
the legislature into crucial election functions and depriving the 
Governor or secretary of state of vital powers. This law strips the 
Governor of any authority to modify election laws or procedures. The 
secretary of state is now barred from settling any litigation regarding 
elections without the consent of the legislative coordinating council. 
And Kansas State courts now lack the authority to modify State election 
laws except under powers that may be granted to them by the State's 
constitution. As a result, in the event of an emergency, such as a 
flood that renders polling places inaccessible, the Governor will be 
unable to act quickly to modify election procedures. Likewise, the 
secretary of state will have their hands tied in court, and effectively 
every lawsuit regarding voting in Kansas--potentially everything from 
the certification of election results to how voter registration is 
conducted--will be overseen by a group of partisan political actors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \149\ Democracy Crisis Report Update: New Data and Trends Show the 
Warning Signs Have Intensified in the Last Two Months, States United 
Democracy Center, Project Democracy, and Law Forward (June 10, 2021), 
https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Democracy-
Crisis-Part-II_June-10_Final_v7.pdf.
    \150\ HB 2332, Kansas 2021-2022 Legislative Sessions (Apr. 12, 
2022), http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2021--22/measures/hb2332/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last, in Arkansas, the State legislature enacted a new measure in 
2021, H.B. 1803,\151\ which expands the power and investigative scope 
of the State's partisan State Board of Election Commissioners to 
oversee or even undo election results. The seven-member board is 
chaired by the secretary of state, and the remaining six members of the 
board are appointed by the State's Governor, legislative leaders, and 
the heads of its Republican and Democratic parties. Under previous law, 
the board was empowered to hear and resolve complaints about violations 
of voter registration laws as well as general election complaints, but 
it was considered to be ``toothless.'' Now, the board may hear a 
broader range of complaints including about how county boards tabulated 
ballots or certified results, as well as their ``election processes'' 
or the conduct of elections in general. If the board finds a complaint 
valid, it is entitled to impose fines and ``institute corrective 
actions.''\152\ Since the remedy is not further specified in the law, 
critics have worried that the broad language could enable the board to 
overturn elections.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \151\ Id.
    \152\ Are State legislators really seeking power to overrule the 
voters?, Politifact (July 14, 2021), https://www.politifact.com/
article/2021/jul/14/are-state-legislators-really-seeking-power-
overrul/.
    \153\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since Georgia is a State that has been characterized by some 
extremely close elections, we know that laws restricting voting rights 
there can directly affect the outcomes of critical State-wide elections 
that have an impact on the whole Nation. Although the latter two laws 
we discussed were not enacted in States with as narrow election 
margins, they illustrate a disturbing trend of anti-democracy forces 
developing and workshopping laws to change the election system to suit 
their ends, which they can then import into other States with more 
closely contested elections. In this way, certain solidly Republican 
States have acted as, as The New York Times called them, ``laboratories 
for legislation.''\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \154\ In Bid for Control of Elections, Trump Loyalists Face Few 
Obstacles, N.Y. Times (Dec. 11, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/
11/us/politics/trust-in-elections-trump-democracy.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is also notable that many of the same individuals who were 
involved in anti-democracy efforts before the 2020 Presidential 
election and in the run-up to and during the January 6 insurrection are 
now leading these efforts to change the rules of elections. Again, we 
want to be clear: These efforts to change election rules are premised 
on baseless accusations and lies, not verifiable evidence or even 
plausible allegations of fraud.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \155\ 10 Voter Fraud Lies Debunked, Brennan Center for Justice (May 
27, 2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/10-
voter-fraud-lies-debunked; Factbox: Trump's False claims debunked: the 
2020 election and Jan. 6 riot, Reuters (Jan. 6, 2022), https://
www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-false-claims-debunked-2020-election-
jan-6-riot-2022-01-06/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last November, Doug Mastriano announced legislation to repeal Act 
77,\156\ the law that had established no-excuse mail voting in 
Pennsylvania,\157\ even though he voted for its passage in 2019.\158\ 
He has also supported challenges to Act 77 in Pennsylvania's courts. 
When the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court struck down Act 77 in January 
of this year,\159\ Mastriano said that he ``welcome[s] the end of `no-
excuse' mail-in voting in Pennsylvania.''\160\ Pennsylvania's Supreme 
Court later stayed the lower court's decision,\161\ allowing Act 77 to 
remain in effect while the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the appeal.\162\ 
Mastriano also initiated a so-called ``forensic investigation'' of the 
2020 Presidential election,\163\ though he was later stymied in those 
efforts by fellow Republican and Pennsylvania Senate President Pro 
Tempore Jake Corman.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \156\ Op-Ed: Election Reform--Let the People Decide, Senator Doug 
Mastriano (May 4, 2021), https://senatormastriano.com/2021/05/04/op-ed-
election-reform-let-the-people-decide/; Pennsylvania court strikes down 
no-excuse mail voting law CBS News (Jan. 28, 2022), https://
www.cbsnews.com/news/mail-in-voting-ballots-struck-down-pennsylvania.
    \157\ Pennsylvania court strikes down no-excuse mail voting law, 
CBS News (Jan. 28, 2022), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mail-in-voting-
ballots-struck-down-pennsylvania/.
    \158\ Details for Senate RCS No. 311, Pennsylvania State Senate 
(Oct. 29, 2019), https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/RC/Public/- 
rc_view_action2.cfm?sess_yr=2019&sess_ind=0&rc_body=S&rc_nbr=311.
    \159\ Pennsylvania court strikes down no-excuse mail voting law CBS 
News (Jan. 28, 2022), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mail-in-voting-
ballots-struck-down-pennsylvania/.
    \160\ Pennsylvania court strikes down State's no-excuse absentee/
mail-in voting law, Ballotpedia News (Feb. 2, 2022), https://
news.ballotpedia.org/2022/02/02/pennsylvania-court-strikes-down-states-
no-excuse-absentee-mail-in-voting-law/.
    \161\ McLinko et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al., Case 
Nos. J-18A-2022, J-18B-2022, J-18C-2022, J-18D-2022, J-18E-2022 (Penn. 
S. Ct. Mar. 1, 2022).
    \162\ Pa. Supreme Court weighs future of State's popular mail 
voting law, The Philadelphia Inquirer (Mar. 8, 2022), https://
www.inquirer.com/politics/pennsylvania/spl/pennsylvania-mail-voting-
supreme-court-hearing-20220308.html&outputType=app-web-view.
    \163\ Op-Ed: Why I am initiating a forensic investigation of the 
2020 General Election and 2021 Primary, Senator Doug Mastriano (July 7, 
2021), https://senatormastriano.com/2021/07/07/op-ed-why-i-am-
initiating-a-forensic-investigation-of-the-2020-general-election-and-
2021-primary/.
    \164\ Here's why State Sen. Doug Mastriano says Pa. election audit 
`stopped for the time being'1 GoErie (Aug. 20, 2021), https://
www.goerie.com/story/news/2021/08/20/pa-election-audit-mastriano-trump/
8198996002/; see also Frontrunning Pa. Governor candidate still focused 
on unproven election fraud claims, PennLive (Mar. 19, 2022), https://
www.pennlive.com/news/2022/03/leading-candidate-for-pa-governor-
amplifies-false-unproven-stolen-election-narrative.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    John Eastman, who wrote the now-infamous memoranda about Pence's 
purported ability to overturn the 2020 Presidential election on January 
6, penned a new memorandum regarding the supposed right of Wisconsin's 
State legislature to overturn the State's Presidential election 
results.\165\ In a memorandum to Wisconsin State Assemblyman Timothy 
Ramthun, Eastman argued that ``State legislatures . . . do have the 
authority to de-certify the election of Presidential electors in their 
State upon a definitive showing of illegality and/or fraud in the 
conduct of the election sufficient to have altered the results of the 
election.''\166\ Eastman concluded that the State legislature could 
then ``appoint electors as it sees fit.''\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \165\ Wisconsin Is Ground Zero for the MAGA Effort to Steal the 
Next Election, Rolling Stone (Feb. 6, 2022), https://
www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-wisconsin-
eastman-election-decertification-1295191/.
    \166\ John Eastman Letter to Representative Timothy Ramthun (Dec. 
30, 2021), https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/madison.com/- 
content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/dc/7dca5f5e-6d6d-5527-8c82-
cfe4dbf52236/6201a1a5e6d38.pdf.
    \167\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arizona Republican Chairwoman Kelli Ward has been a vocal supporter 
of legislative and judicial efforts in Arizona to limit voting 
rights.\168\ She has also publicly shamed Republican legislators who 
did not support so-called ``election integrity'' bills, tweeting: 
``Keep your eyes open AFTER the legislative session to see what rewards 
Boyer and Ugenti-Rita get from the swamp for killing #ElectionIntegrity 
bills in the Senate . . . ''.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \168\ Arizona Republicans Seek to Stop Early Voting with Supreme 
Court Lawsuit, Phoenix New Times (Mar. 2, 2022), https://
www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/arizona-republican-yvonne-cahill-sues-
katie-hobbs-in-lawsuit-that-could-end-early-voting-13135090; Kelli Ward 
(@kelliwardaz), Twitter (Feb. 28, 2022), https://twitter.com/
kelliwardaz/status/1498466919908737028.
    \169\ Kelli Ward (@kelliwardaz), Twitter (Mar. 14, 2022) https://
twitter.com/kelliwardaz/status/1503509426224869376; Arizona State 
senators block a dozen GOP-sponsored election reform bills, Courthouse 
News Service (Mar. 14, 2022), https://www.courthousenews.com/arizona-
state-senators-block-a-dozen-gop-sponsored-election-reform-bills/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem recently introduced HCR 
2033, a concurrent resolution ``calling for the elections of Maricopa, 
Pima, and Yuma counties to be set aside based on clear and convincing 
evidence that the elections in those counties were irredeemably 
compromised.''\170\ Arizona also recently enacted a new law requiring 
proof of citizenship to vote in Presidential elections,\171\ which 
voting rights groups estimate could disenfranchise tens of thousands of 
people who are entitled to vote but lack the required 
documentation.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \170\ News Release, Representative Finchem Introduces Resolution to 
Set Aside & Decertify Three 2020 County Elections, Arizona House of 
Representatives, Representative Mark Finchem (Feb. 7, 2022) https://
www.azleg.gov/press/house/55LEG/2R/220207FINCHEMHCR2033.pdf.
    \171\ H.B. 2492, Arizona Fifty-fifth Legislature--Second Regular 
Session, https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/76970.
    \172\ Arizona Passes Proof-of-Citizenship Law for Voting In 
Presidential Elections, N.Y. Times (Mar. 31, 2022), https://
www.nytimes.com/2022/03/31/us/politics/arizona-voting-bill-
citizenship.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Texas, Attorney General Paxton, who previously stated that Trump 
``would've lost the election'' in Texas had his office not convinced 
the State Supreme Court to prevent Harris County from sending 
applications for mail-in ballots to all registered voters,\173\ formed 
a ``2021 Texas Election Integrity Unit'' in an effort to ``devote 
agency lawyers, investigators, support staff, and resources to ensuring 
this local election season . . . is run transparently and 
securely.''\174\ It was ``specially tasked with overseeing the 2021 
election season.''\175\ Paxton also sought to indict a county clerk 
based on her administration of the 2020 Presidential election, though 
the case was rejected by a grand jury.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \173\ Texas AG Says Trump Would've `Lost' State If It Hadn't 
Blocked Mail-In Ballots Applications Being Sent Out, Newsweek (June 5, 
2021), https://www.newsweek.com/texas-ag-says-trump-wouldve-lost-state-
if-it-hadnt-blocked-mail-ballots-applications-being-1597909.
    \174\ AG Paxton Announces Formation of 2021 Texas Election 
Integrity Unit, Press Release (Oct. 18, 2021), https://
www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-announces-
formation-2021-texas-election-integrity-unit.
    \175\ Id.
    \176\ Amid Texas GOP's effort to question electoral integrity, 
attorney general tried to indict Travis County elections chief, The 
Texas Tribune (Dec. 20, 2021), https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/20/
texas-ken-paxton-travis-county-elections/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Colorado HB 1204 was introduced by Representative Ron Hanks to 
overhaul the State's election system. The bill did not make it out of 
committee, but would have eliminated early voting, both in person and 
by mail, unless the voter had requested an absentee ballot based on a 
``valid'' excuse.\177\ Otherwise, all ballots would need to be cast in 
person on Election Day, and then counted by hand within 24 hours after 
the polls have closed.\178\ Further, the bill would have withdrawn 
Colorado from the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a 
non-profit organization of States that helps to ``improve the accuracy 
of America's voter rolls and increase access to voter registration for 
all eligible citizens.''\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \177\ HB22-1204 Election Systems, Colorado General Assembly, 
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1204.
    \178\ Id.
    \179\ Ensuring the Efficiency And Integrity of America's Voter 
Rolls, Election Registration Information Center, https://
ericstates.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Virginia State Senator Amanda Chase previously said she was working 
with Sidney Powell ``to expose what I and others believe is extensive 
fraud here in Virginia,''\180\ and has now introduced SB 605, a bill 
that would require a ``forensic audit'' of the results of the 2020 
election and create a process for future citizen-initiated audits.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \180\ GOP gubernatorial candidate in Virginia calls on Trump to 
declare martial law, The Hill (Dec. 15, 2020), https://thehill.com/
homenews/campaign/530291-gop-gubernatorial-candidate-in-virginia-calls-
on-trump-todeclare-martial.
    \181\ SB 605 Conduct of election, election results, post-election 
forensic audits, Virginia's Legislative Information System, https://
lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?221+sum+SB605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Attorney Erick Kaardal appeared in Wisconsin conducting on-camera 
interviews of people at nursing homes and questioning the mental 
capacity of elderly people who voted in 2020.\182\ Attorney Cleta 
Mitchell, who helped Trump pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad 
Raffensperger to overturn the election results there, was quietly 
appointed to the board of advisors for the U.S. Election Assistance 
Commission, which was created after the controversial 2000 Presidential 
election recount in Florida ``to serve as a clearinghouse for election 
administration information and provide voluntary guidance to 
States.''\183\ Additionally, Michael Flynn and Roger Stone just 
recently announced an initiative to train election volunteers in eight 
closely contested States to ``expose shenanigans at the ballot 
box.''\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \182\ In conspiracy-laden `circus' Gableman attacks Wisconsin 
election administration, Wisconsin Examiner (Mar. 2, 2022), https://
wisconsinexaminer.com/2022/03/02/in-conspiracy-laden-circus-gableman-
attacks-wisconsin-election-administration/.
    \183\ How a lawyer who aided Trump's 2020 subversion efforts was 
named to a Federal election advisory board CNN (Nov. 18, 2021), https:/
/www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/cleta-mitchell-election-assistance-
commission-advisor/index.html.
    \184\ Patrick Byrne, Gen. Flynn, Roger Stone Announce New Election 
Integrity Initiative In Orlando, PJ Media (Feb. 26, 2022), https://
pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/jeff-reynolds/2022/02/26/patrick-byrne-
gen-flynn-roger-stone-announce-new-election-integrity-initiative-in-
orlando-n1562049; General Flynn, Patrick Byrne, Roger Stone, Joe Flynn 
Will Unveil Bi-Partisan Election Integrity Initiative at CPAC, PR 
Newswire (Feb. 23, 2022), https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/
general-flynn-patrick-byrne-roger-stone-joe-flynn-will-unveil-bi-
partisan-election-integrity-initiative-at-cpac-301488663.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Replacing the Refs
    As we mentioned earlier, the strategy since January 6 has been two-
fold: First, change the rules governing elections, and then, change the 
people who enforce those rules. When elections are run by anti-
democracy operatives, then those same people can control the outcomes. 
Since 2020, election deniers have lined up to oversee voting at all 
levels of the system, from State-wide officials to precinct-level poll 
workers.
    We are tracking the trend of election deniers running for State-
wide office as part of a research project Replacing the Refs.\185\ To 
qualify as an election denier, a candidate must have falsely claimed 
that Trump won the 2020 election, spread lies about the legitimacy of 
the 2020 Presidential election, called for a ``forensic audit'' of the 
2020 Presidential election after the results were certified or 
otherwise finalized, promoted conspiracies about the 2020 Presidential 
election, and/or taken actions to undermine the integrity of the 2020 
Presidential election, including, for example, participating in a Stop 
the Steal event.\186\ We have found that, as of April 4, 2022, at least 
53 election deniers are running for Governor in 25 States, at least 13 
election deniers are running for attorney general in 13 States, and at 
least 23 election deniers are running for secretary of state in 19 
States.\187\ Put another way, an election denier is running in 2 out of 
3 races for Governor and secretary of state, and 1 out of 3 races for 
attorney general. In addition, 9 States have election deniers running 
in all 3 State-wide races.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \185\ Replacing the Refs, States United Democracy Center, https://
statesuniteddemocracy.org/resources/replacingtherefs/.
    \186\ Id.
    \187\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It's not just top-line State-wide roles that are important to 
election administration. In fact, local races--such as judges and 
inspectors of elections--can be just as impactful.\188\ People in these 
types of positions oversee polling locations and safeguard the counting 
of votes. Although partisan judges or inspectors might only affect a 
small number of votes per precinct, their cumulative effect could tilt 
State-wide elections.\189\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \188\ The Desperate Scramble to Stop an Insider Election Threat The 
Atlantic (Nov. 14, 2021), https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/
2021/11/pennsylvania-election-threat/620684/.
    \189\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Election deniers are focusing on these positions, too. Last year, 
in two of Pennsylvania's 67 counties--York and Lancaster--almost a 
dozen candidates for judge or inspector of elections were election 
deniers.\190\ One election denier--who ran to be judge of elections in 
his precinct--organized buses traveling to Washington, DC for the 
January 6 ``Stop the Steal'' rally.\191\ He was viewed as being so 
outside the mainstream that a fellow Republican urged the leader of the 
local Democratic committee to find someone to run against him.\192\ He 
won anyway.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \190\ Id.
    \191\ Id.; How January 6 changed what it means to be a Republican 
in one Pennsylvania county, CNN (Jan. 5, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/
2022/01/05/politics/jan-6-capitol-riot-lancaster-republicans/
index.html.
    \192\ How January 6 changed what it means to be a Republican in one 
Pennsylvania county, CNN (Jan. 5, 2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/
05/politics/jan-6-capitol-riot-lancaster-republicans/index.html.
    \193\ In Bid for Control of Elections, Trump Loyalists Face Few 
Obstacles, N.Y. Times (Dec. 11, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/
11/us/politics/trust-in-elections-trump-democracy.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, many of the election deniers who participated in the 
events of January 6 in some respect are now following up on those 
efforts by running for positions that would allow them to administer 
elections. One is Doug Mastriano, the Pennsylvania State senator who 
quickly jumped on the anti-democracy bandwagon. He is now the 
Republican nominee in the race for Governor of Pennsylvania, at the 
encouragement of Trump.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \194\ Frontrunning Pa. Governor candidate still focused on unproven 
election fraud claims, Penn Live Patriot-News (Mar. 20, 2022); https://
www.pennlive.com/news/2022/03/leading-candidate-for-pa-governor-
amplifies-false-unproven-stolen-election-narrative.html How a Trump 
ally rode Trump's election fraud lie to political prominence, Politico 
(June 16, 2021), https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/17/doug-
mastriano-trump-pennsylvania-494796; Doug Mastriano has won the GOP 
primary for Pa. Governor after a campaign fueled by election lies, The 
Philadelphia Inquirer (May 18, 2022), https://www.inquirer.com/
politics/election/doug-mastriano-wins-pa-republican-primary-governor-
20220517.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem is running to be 
Arizona's secretary of state--and he has Trump's endorsement.\195\ It 
is not surprising, then, that he has made the Big Lie a central tenet 
of his campaign.\196\ So too has Tim Ramthun, who is running for 
Governor of Wisconsin and states on his campaign website that he ``will 
call for an independent full forensic physical cyber audit for the 
November 2022 election, beginning with my race regardless of the 
outcome.''\197\ He has Mike Lindell's endorsement.\198\ In Texas, Ken 
Paxton won the Republican run-off in his bid for another term as 
Attorney General and is now the party's nominee.\199\ Ron Hanks is 
running to be a United States Senator from Colorado.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \195\ Mark Finchem, election conspiracy promoter, gets Trump's 
endorsement for secretary of state, AZCentral (Sept. 13, 2021), https:/
/www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/09/13/trump-
endorses-mark-finchem-arizona-secretary-state-election/8322839002/.
    \196\ Trump followers zero in on secretary of state campaigns, 
Politico (Jan. 24, 2022), https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/24/
trump-secretary-of-state-campaigns-00000473.
    \197\ Wisconsin Is Ground Zero for the MAGA Effort to Steal the 
Next Election, Rolling Stone (Feb. 6, 2022), https://
www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-wisconsin-
eastman-election-decertification-1295191/; Ramthun for Governor, 
https://www.ramthunforgovernor.com/.
    \198\ Wisconsin Is Ground Zero for the MAGA Effort to Steal the 
Next Election, Rolling Stone (Feb. 6, 2022), https://
www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-wisconsin-
eastman-election-decertification-1295191/.
    \199\ Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton easily defeats George P. 
Bush in GOP primary runoff, The Texas Tribune (May 24, 2022), https://
www.texastribune.org/2022/05/24/texas-attorney-general-runoff-results-
ken-paxton-george-p-bush/.
    \200\ Controversial Republican State Rep. Ron Hanks files to run 
for U.S. Senate in 2022, Colorado Sun (Oct. 1, 2021), https://
coloradosun.com/2021/10/01/ron-hanks-announces-senate-bid/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Big Lie has also been fully incorporated into the dogma of the 
QAnon movement, which, in turn, has promoted the candidacies of 
election deniers. The Guardian reported earlier this year that QAnon 
``played a critical role in steering far-right candidates toward the 
secretary of state races as part of what appears to be a calculated 
Nation-wide assault on American democracy.''\201\ Jim Marchant, a 
candidate for Nevada secretary of State, revealed last year that the 
idea for him to run was not his own; he was approached by a QAnon 
figure known as Juan O Savin,\202\ who is involved in a QAnon 
``project'' to ``help[] candidates across the country.''\203\ In 
addition, Ron Watkins, who is widely believed to be ``Q'' (or one of 
possibly two ``Qs'')\204\ wrote a baseless affidavit used in 2020 
election litigation stating that voting machines used software 
``designed . . . to facilitate digital ballot stuffing via simple vote 
result manipulation.''\205\ Sidney Powell filed the affidavit in her 
Georgia lawsuit targeting the State's use of Dominion Voting Systems' 
voting machines.\206\ Watkins has since announced he is running for 
Congress in Arizona as his ``next step'' in getting ``really involved 
in election integrity issues.''\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \201\ `We have a project': QAnon followers eye swing State election 
official races, The Guardian (Feb. 11, 2022), https://
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/11/qanon-donald-trump-big-lie-
elections-swing-states.
    \202\ Id.
    \203\ Id.
    \204\ Who is Behind QAnon? Linguistic Department Finds 
Fingerprints, N.Y. Times (Feb. 19, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/
02/19/technology/qanon-messages-authors.html.
    \205\ Former Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell Cites QAnon Promoter in 
Voter Fraud Lawsuit, Daily Beast (Dec. 1, 2020), https://
www.thedailybeast.com/former-trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-cites-qanon-
backer-ron-watkins-in-voter-fraud-lawsuit-affidavit; To boost voter-
fraud claims, Trump advocate Sidney Powell turns to unusual source: The 
longtime operator of QAnon's Internet home, Wash. Post (Dec. 1, 2020), 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/01/powell-cites-
qanon-watkins/.
    \206\ To boost voter-fraud claims, Trump advocate Sidney Powell 
turns to unusual source: The longtime operator of QAnon's Internet 
home, Wash. Post (Dec. 1, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/
technology/2020/12/01/powell-cites-qanon-watkins/; Setting the Record 
Straight: Facts & Rumors, Dominion Voting (Apr. 12, 2022), https://
www.dominionvoting.com/strs-georgia/; Pearson v. Kemp, No. 1:20-cv-
04809-TCB (N.D. Ga.).
    \207\ QAnon figure says he's running for Congress to secure 
elections, Arizona Capitol Times (Oct. 18, 2021), https://
azcapitoltimes.com/news/2021/10/18/qanon-figure-says-hes-running-for-
congress-to-fix-elections/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our studies have concluded that election deniers are attempting to 
take steps to be able to control administration of future elections 
across the United States. Our findings also illustrate a related, and 
important, point: Many of the efforts to replace existing officials 
with election deniers do not involve replacing a Democrat with a 
Republican. Rather, we find that it is often non-election-denying 
Republicans who face challenges from election deniers.\208\ Especially 
in light of the many Republicans who have stood up to the Big Lie and 
supported the rule of law, the attempted takeover of our election 
system is not a partisan issue; it is a question of one's commitment to 
democracy and the rule of law as opposed to embracing the anti-
democracy notion that voters should not determine the outcome of 
elections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \208\ Secretary of State Races in 2022, States United Democracy 
Center (Mar. 1, 2022), https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/
uploads/2022/03/sos_deniers-2.html#3_Secretary_of_State_Races_in_2022 
(example: Georgia).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Anti-Democracy Pressures Today
    Where candidates who publicly embrace the Big Lie have seen their 
political fortunes soar, others who refuse to accede to this anti-
democracy movement have faced substantial backlash, including from 
members of their own party. As the Associated Press aptly explained, 
signing onto the Big Lie is a ``litmus test,'' and former President 
Trump and his supporters will ``shame--and potentially remove--members 
of their party'' who do not pass the test.\209\ For example, U.S. 
Senator Mitt Romney was booed by a crowd, even as he reminded them that 
he was once the Republican Party's nominee for President. In Texas, the 
only anti-Trump Republican in a special election for a Congressional 
seat finished in ninth place.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \209\ Whose `Big Lie'? Trump's proclamation a new GOP litmus test, 
AP (May 3, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/politics-campaign-2016-
election-2020-government-and-politics-f3428d42d4d3fdfe59c560b6fadbbc70.
    \210\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In perhaps the clearest sign of the split within the Republican 
Party between pro-and anti-democracy factions, Republicans who refuse 
to embrace the Big Lie have been censured. At the Georgia Republican 
Party's 2021 convention, Raffensperger was censured for ``dereliction 
of his constitutional duty,'' and the censure called for him to 
``commit [himself] to securing Georgia's elections.''\211\ In Arizona, 
the Republican Party censured Cindy McCain, former Senator Jeff Flake, 
and Governor Doug Ducey, all of whom refused to support the effort to 
overturn the 2020 Presidential election.\212\ As you are well aware, 
just a couple of months ago, the Republican National Committee censured 
Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the only two House Republicans who 
agreed to join this Select Committee.\213\ The censure resolution 
famously denounced this committee for supposedly persecuting ``ordinary 
citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.''\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \211\ Kemp booed and Raffensperger censured at Georgia GOP 
convention, CNN Politics (June 5, 2021), https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/
05/politics/brad-raffensperger-brian-kemp-georgia-republican-
convention/index.html.
    \212\ Arizona Republicans censure Cindy McCain, GOP Governor, AP 
(Jan. 23, 2021), https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-race-and-
ethnicity-censures-arizona-lawsuits-a50165b9d5c4468d5d1bb434c5e9c80a; 
Arizona GOP censures Flake, Ducey and McCain, signaling a fractured 
party in a key swing state, CNN Politics (Jan. 24, 2021), https://
www.cnn.com/2021/01/23/politics/arizona-gop-censure-mccain-flake-ducey/
index.html.
    \213\ RNC votes to censure Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger over 
work with Jan. 6 panel, NPR (Feb. 4, 2022), https://www.npr.org/2022/
02/04/1078316505/rnc-censure-liz-cheney-adam-kinzinger-jan-6-committee-
capitol.
    \214\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, threats of violence against election officials have 
exploded in number, against both Democrats and Republicans. According 
to Reuters, ``[s]ome of the most severe threats'' were those directed 
at Republican officials in Georgia,\215\ including Raffensperger. 
Threats were also made against Philadelphia's two Democratic city 
commissioners, Lisa Deeley and Omar Sabir.\216\ Philadelphia's third 
city commissioner, Republican Al Schmidt, who tweeted at Trump on the 
morning after the 2020 election, also received multiple death threats. 
They were so serious that police officers were stationed outside his 
home and his family received a security detail.\217\ He has since 
resigned.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \215\ U.S. election workers get little help from law enforcement as 
terror threats mount Reuters (Sept. 8, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/
investigates/special-report/usa-election-threats-law-enforcement/.
    \216\ Id.
    \217\ Id.
    \218\ Al Schmidt resigns as city commissioner to lead Committee of 
Seventy PhillyVoice (Nov. 30, 2021), https://www.phillyvoice.com/al-
schmidt-philadelphia-city-commissioners-committee-of-seventy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A survey commissioned by the Brennan Center for Justice found that 
``one in three election officials feel unsafe because of their job,'' 
and ``nearly one in five listed threats to their lives as a job-related 
concern.''\219\ Reuters conducted a separate investigation and found 
``hundreds of incidents of intimidation and harassment of election 
workers and officials Nation-wide.''\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \219\ Election Officials Under Attack, Brennan Center for Justice 
(June 16, 2021), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-
solutions/election-officials-under-attack.
    \220\ U.S. election workers get little help from law enforcement as 
terror threats mount, Reuters (Sept. 8, 2021), https://www.reuters.com/
investigates/special-report/usa-election-threats-law-enforcement/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The threats have been directed not only at public officials, but 
also voters. According to a recently filed lawsuit, an organization 
called ``United States Election Integrity Plan'' is ``deploying its 
agents, who are sometimes armed, to go door-to-door around Colorado to 
intimidate voters.''\221\ The individual defendants, who are founders 
of USEIP, are employed and paid by Mike Lindell,\222\ and USEIP thanks 
Lindell in its organizing manual.\223\ One of the defendants appeared 
on Steve Bannon's podcast to discuss the organization, which he said 
would ``help coordinate the election integrity efforts of citizens 
across the country.''\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \221\ Colorado Montana Wyoming State Area Conference of the NAACP, 
et al. v. United States Election Integrity Plan, et al., Case No. 1:22-
cv-00581 (D. Colo. Mar. 9, 2022), ECF No. 1; Colorado election deniers 
sued by civil rights groups over door-to-door ``intimidation,'' The 
Durango Herald (Mar. 15, 2022), https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/
colorado-election-deniers-sued-by-civil-rights-groups-over-door-to-
door-intimidation/.
    \222\ Id.
    \223\ Lawsuit seeks to stop group's door-to-door voter fraud hunt, 
AP (Mar. 9, 2022), https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-2022-
midterm-elections-biden-steve-bannon-colorado-
63beba2f69226f53ed305457c47a83ea.
    \224\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to Ipsos research, 24 percent of Americans agree that 
``sometimes it is okay to engage in violence to protect American 
democracy.''\225\ And as we described, the dissemination of the Big Lie 
by election deniers and the menacing threats directed at government 
officials and election workers have contributed substantially to this 
trend toward intimidation, threats, and violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \225\ Seven in ten Americans say the country is in crisis, at risk 
of failing Ipsos (Jan. 3, 2022), https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/seven-ten-
americans-say-country-crisis-risk-failing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Perhaps most alarming, it is not as if dissemination of the Big Lie 
is relegated to shadowy corners of the internet. To the contrary, in 
fact, it has infiltrated major news media outlets. For example, Fox 
Nation, Fox News Channel's streaming service, presented a three-part 
``documentary'' series about the January 6 insurrection produced by Fox 
host Tucker Carlson.\226\ PolitiFact found that the series ``attempted 
to rewrite the events of the insurrection'' by ``float[ing] several 
conspiracies . . . including that the violence was instigated by left-
wing activists, that it may have been an FBI-led false flag, and that 
the government is using it to strip millions of Trump voters of their 
Constitutional rights.''\227\ These theories have been repeatedly and 
definitively debunked.\228\ Chris Wallace, a former Fox News host, 
recently confirmed that he had complained to Fox News management about 
the series and that the network's treatment of the broadcast 
contributed to his departure.\229\ These events demonstrate the 
critical role that the press and news media must play in combatting 
false and baseless statements by anti-democracy activists--and the 
concomitant risks when they are co-opted as part of the anti-democracy 
movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \226\ Tucker Carlson Is Stirring Up Hatred of America The Atlantic 
(Nov. 2, 2021), https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/
patriot-purge-tucker-carlson-documentary/620589/.
    \227\ Tucker Carlson's `Patriot Purge' film on Jan. 6 is full of 
falsehoods, conspiracy theories, Politifact (Nov. 5, 2021), https://
www.politifact.com/article/2021/nov/05/tucker-carlsons-patriot-purge-
film-jan-6-full-fals/.
    \228\ No, there is no evidence that the F.B.I. organized the Jan. 6 
capitol riot, N.Y. Times (June 18, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/
06/18/technology/misinformation-unindicted-co-conspirators-capitol-
riot.html; How Pro-Trump Forces Pushed a Lie About Antifa at the 
Capitol Riot, N.Y. Times (Mar. 1, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/
03/01/us/politics/antifa-conspiracy-capitol-riot.html; Tucker Carlson's 
`Patriot Purge' film on Jan. 6 is full of falsehoods, conspiracy 
theories, Politifact (Nov. 5, 2021), https://www.politifact.com/
article/2021/nov/05/tucker-carlsons-patriot-purge-film-jan-6-full-
fals/.
    \229\ Chris Wallace Says Life at Fox News Became `Unsustainable', 
N.Y. Times (Mar. 27, 2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/27/
business/media/chris-wallace-cnn-fox-news.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last, election deniers' rampant spreading of anti-democracy 
disinformation has shaped the opinions of the American public to an 
almost unimaginable extent. According to Ipsos, around a third of 
Americans now ``believe there was fraudulent voting in the [2020] 
election,'' and a fifth ``say they are unsure--meaning under half of 
respondents unequivocally state[d] there was no, or very little, 
fraudulent voting in the election.''\230\ That is consistent with a CNN 
poll \231\ showing that 36 percent of Americans do not believe 
President Biden won the election, as well as an NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist 
poll \232\ finding that 75 percent of Republicans believe there were 
``real cases of fraud that changed the results.'' Similarly, a November 
2021 Monmouth University survey found that ``one-third of the public 
continues to believe voter fraud determined the outcome of the 2020 
election, a finding that has been consistent over the past year.''\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \230\ Seven in ten Americans say the country is in crisis, at risk 
of failing, Ipsos (Jan. 3, 2022), https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/seven-
ten-americans-say-country-crisis-risk-failing.
    \231\ CNN (Sept. 15, 2021), http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/09/
15/rel5e.-.elections.pdf.
    \232\ NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist National Poll: Trust in Elections, 
Threat to Democracy, November 2021, MaristPoll (Nov. 1, 2021), https://
maristpoll.marist.edu/polls/npr-pbs-newshour-marist-national-poll-
trust-in-elections-threat-to-democracy-biden-approval-november-2021/.
    \233\ National: Doubt in American System Increases Monmouth 
University (Nov. 15, 2021), https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/
documents/monmouthpoll_us_111521.pdf/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because such a substantial number of Americans don't believe the 
results of the 2020 Presidential election, election deniers can point 
to those Americans' lack of confidence as justification for new, 
restrictive voting laws. As Wisconsin State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos 
put it, ``we have to improve the process when literally hundreds of 
thousands of people in Wisconsin doubt that the election was held in a 
way that didn't have substantial charges of fraud.''\234\ Left unsaid 
was that it was election deniers' concerted efforts--first to sow doubt 
in the election before it happened, then to lead efforts to reject the 
certification of the election on January 6, and finally to continue to 
spread disinformation about the election after the fact--that caused 
such ``doubts.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \234\ `A Perpetual Motion Machine': How Disinformation Drives 
Voting Laws, N.Y. Times (May 13, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/
05/13/us/politics/disinformation-voting-laws.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            iii. conclusion
    We close by thanking you for the opportunity to provide this 
important context around the January 6 attack on the Capitol. We hope 
that our statement helps show that the attack was no isolated incident. 
For years before, former President Trump and his allies had sown doubt 
about the integrity of American elections. After the American people 
cast their ballots in 2020, those same people, along with additional 
allies, pursued a multi-pronged strategy to overturn an electoral 
result that they did not like. The strategy involved baseless 
litigation, menacing protests, targeted political pressure, wide-spread 
disinformation, and corrupt legislative schemes.
    Those efforts failed because certain public servants, devoted to 
the rule of law, stood up against the attempted coup and defended our 
republican form of government. Judges dismissed lawsuits that 
threatened our system of free elections. State and local officials--
Republicans and Democrats--spoke truth to power and, despite threats 
against their lives and families, pushed ahead to count every vote. And 
a Vice President, under tremendous pressure to deliver victory to his 
own political tribe, refused to seize a power that was not his. As he 
wrote on January 6, ``my oath to support and defend the Constitution 
constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which 
electoral votes should be counted and which should not.''\235\ Our 
democracy was saved by the courage of people who made the choice to do 
right, in positions where those choices made all the difference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \235\ Read Pence's Full Letter Saying he Can't Claim `Unilateral 
Authority' to Reject Electoral Votes, AP (Jan. 6, 2021), https://
www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-pences-full-letter-saying-he-cant-
claim-unilateral-authority-to-reject-electoral-votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But the anti-democracy movement has adapted and is acting today to 
ensure that people with courage and devotion to the rule of law are not 
in positions to safeguard elections in the coming years. The same group 
that stoked fears of voter fraud in 2020, that sought to undermine the 
electoral process and overturn the results, that incited the mob that 
stormed the Capitol--Trump, Giuliani, Powell, Eastman, Stone, Bannon, 
Lindell, Flynn, Paxton, Ward, Finchem, Mastriano, Ramthun, Alexander, 
Watkins, Chase, Kaardal, Hanks, and many more in Statehouses and on 
county boards or city councils across the country--are working now to 
change the game and replace the refs. They are working to ensure that 
2020 was the last time that they will ever be denied control over 
Government in this country--regardless of what the voters say.
    In short, the movement against American democracy did not begin or 
end on January 6, 2021. It is strong and growing today, and it requires 
a profound and powerful response. Thank you.
Joint Statement of Renee DiResta, Technical Research Manager, Stanford 
   Internet Observatory,Stanford University and Kate Starbird, PhD, 
   Associate Professor, Human-Centered Design & Engineering, and Co-
  Founder and Director, Center for an Informed Public, University of 
                               Washington
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]