ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Judicial Watch

Justice

Voter Suppression: Brought To You By Conservative Billionaire Oil Heir

Since launching its 2012 Election Integrity Project in February, the right-wing Judicial Watch has been a leading player in the push for more voting restrictions. The group — best known for its Clinton-era lawsuits — has demanded more voting roll purges like Gov. Rick Scott’s (R) failed efforts in Florida. But a ThinkProgress examination of tax filings reveals that the group has received millions of dollars from foundations tied to conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife since the start of 2001.

Though other rich right-wing funders like Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess have gotten more attention in this campaign, Scaife has bankrolled the conservative movement for decades. A 1998 Washington Post story dubbed him the “funding father of the right.” Since the 1960s, the Pittsburgh media baron and heir to the Mellon banking and oil fortune has distributed hundreds of millions of dollars to conservative causes including the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, and the Hoover Institution. He controls the Scaife Foundations — a group of conservative and philanthropic tax-exempt organizations. Between 2001 and 2010, the Allegheny Foundation, Carthage Foundation, and Sarah Scaife Foundation — all part of the Sciafe empire — gave at least $5.8 million to Judicial Watch.

The Carthage and Sarah Scaife Foundations focus on “public policy programs that address major domestic and international issues.” Each has given millions to Judicial Watch. The Allegheny Foundation claims it “concentrates its giving in the Western Pennsylvania area and confines most of its grant awards to programs for historic preservation, civic development and education,” yet it too gave $67,000 annually to Judicial Watch in 2009 and 2010.

Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project has pushed states to purge what it believes to be ineligible voters from the voter rolls, criticized voter registration efforts, and fought for voter ID laws. While the group claims “election fraud was a significant concern during the 2008 and 2010 election season,” studies show that you a more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit voter fraud. And while these tactics to combat the alleged problem are likely to suppress voter turnout and registration, especially among minority groups, they would do little to stop actual voter fraud even if someone did want to commit it.

NEWS FLASH

West Virginia Acts on GOP Front Group’s Efforts to Force Voter Purges | Election officials in West Virginia may be stepping up efforts to purge voter rolls because a GOP front group threatened to sue the state. In an effort to limit voter turnout this election season, Judicial Watch, in conjunction with True the Vote, has sent letters to a number of states threatening lawsuits and further investigations, and has acted on that threat once, suing the state of Indiana. In both Lincoln and Boone County, election officials are moving to “clean up” voter rolls and prevent a lawsuit. As a first step toward removing voters from the rolls, officials in Boone have mailed 9,100 cards to registered voters, and officials in Lincoln have plans to mail 9,610 more. Officials contend that they are mailing cards to people they believe have moved. Lincoln County Clerk Myrl Gue says he hopes that Judicial Watch will look at the work the county is doing and decide not to sue.

Alex Brown

Justice

GOP Front Group Suing States To Force Voter Purges

A screen shot from True the Vote's website

A Tea Party group is suing states to try to purge their voter rolls before November’s election. True the Vote, an arm of the King Street Patriots, has filed a suit against the state of Indiana, alleging that the state has poor “list maintenance” of its voters.

This suit kicks off a series of state-focused attempts by True the Vote, serving as a co-plaintiff with the conservative “watchdog” group Judicial Watch, to limit voter turnout this election season. Voter purges may be presented under the guise of fairer elections, but the idea of “cleaning” a list usually results in legal voters — overwhelmingly voters of color — being kicked off the rolls.

True the Vote’s agenda is clearly political, as can be evidenced from their website that lists Wisconsin’s recall election as a ‘victory’ (despite day-of claims of voter fraud) and Florida as an upcoming target. Other states on the list for lawsuits include more than half are swing states in play this election season:

According to a Judicial Watch investigation voter rolls in the following states appear to contain the names of individuals who are ineligible to vote: Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, Alabama, and California. As part of its 2012 Election Integrity Project, Judicial Watch has put these states on notice that they must clean up their voter registration lists or face Judicial Watch lawsuits.

The Obama Justice Department has failed to enforce Section 8 the NVRA in court, having last filed a lawsuit to enforce voter list maintenance requirements of the NVRA in 2007. The current DOJ it is now opposing Florida’s Section 8 efforts to remove non-citizens from the voting rolls.

“This lawsuit is a historic step in restoring integrity to the American system of electing its leaders,” stated True the Vote President Catherine Engelbrecht. “Dirty election rolls can lead to election fraud and stolen elections.”

Attempts at “list management” aren’t quite as clear-cut as the press release makes it out to be. Florida’s recent tussles over voter rolls have resulted in voter suppression efforts — though it was technically aimed at non-citizens, those kicked off the rolls included two 90-plus world war two veterans. But while those voters were purged under the banner of protecting elections, fraud in the state is still less likely than getting hit by lighting.

Alyssa

Conservatives Attack Kathryn Bigelow For Doing Research on Osama bin Laden Movie, ‘Zero Dark Thirty’

Conservatives are apparently very upset that the Obama administration talked to Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal for their upcoming movie about the campaign to hunt down Osama bin Laden—despite the fact that Bigelow and Boal have been clear that the movie will cover the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations:

Complaining about the White House’s efforts to stall the organization’s requests for death photos of the Al-Qaeda leader, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, “These documents, which took nine months and a federal lawsuit to disgorge from the Obama administration, show that politically-connected filmmakers were giving extraordinary and secret access to bin Laden raid information, including the identity of a Seal Team Six leader.

“It is both ironic and hypocritical that the Obama administration stonewalled Judicial Watch’s pursuit of the bin Laden death photos, citing national security concerns, yet seemed willing to share intimate details regarding the raid to help Hollywood filmmakers release a movie ‘perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost’ to the Obama campaign.”

This is a silly complaint. First, the movie, Zero Dark Thirty, is coming out more than a month after the election precisely to avoid any suggestion that it’s an attempt to influence the campaign. Second, collaborating with a fictional movie project is as much of a risk for the Obama administration as it is a guarantee of an election slam dunk. Kathryn Bigelow is the inverse of a director like Michael Bay who’s willing to rent his opinions to the government in exchange for lots and lots of military hardware. She’s got a very specific vision, one that isn’t particularly triumphalist and is based more on the front lines than in the halls of power.

And finally, what this kind of objection really reveals is an attempt by conservatives to preserve the idea that only they can authentically represent the troops. When Act of Valor casts real Marines for parts in a silly, overdramatized movie, that’s supposed to be a move so dedicated to honoring members of the military that there’s no valid way to critique it. But when Bigelow and Boal do research to try to give their movie verisimilitude, they’re dupes who couldn’t possibly care about the truth of the story they’re trying to tell.

Media

Judicial Watch Smears Judge Who Ruled Warrantless Wiretapping Is Illegal, Media Takes The Bait

Last week, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional. Subsquently, Taylor was attacked by the conservative group Judicial Watch which claimed that she had a “conflict of interest” because she “serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case.”

Judicial Watch’s allegation has garnered extensive media coverage. It’s a bogus charge. Here are the facts:

– Over the last two years the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan has donated about $50 million to charitable causes. Its $45,000 in grants to the ACLU represents just .09% of their total giving.

– The money to the ACLU had nothing to do with their activities relating to this litigation or government surveillance. The grant funded “a gay rights project.”

– Judge Taylor is one of 50 community members on the foundation’s board. It wasn’t a personal decision by Judge Taylor.

None of this information was disclosed by Judicial Watch. Once you know the facts, there is not a “reasonable question about [her] impartiality” based on the foundation’s activities. That hasn’t stopped the media (or the blogosphere) from breathlessly reporting the “story.”

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up