Contact Me By Email


What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.


This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.

Monday, October 21, 2024

A Writer Sees Leniency in the Supreme Court’s Approach to Public Corruption - The New York Times

A Writer Sees Leniency in the Supreme Court’s Approach to Public Corruption

"A Georgetown law professor argues that five rulings by the justices in recent years have allowed behavior that is “sketchy as hell” and meant to make the judiciary look good by contrast.

Four men in dark suits stand in front of the Supreme Court on an overcast day.
The public corruption conviction of former Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, right, was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016.Drew Angerer for The New York Times

Eight years ago, before revelations about luxury travel and gifts accepted by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., the Supreme Court considered the case of a politician who had been prosecuted for public corruption after receiving similar benefits. The court threw out his conviction. In the years since, the court has overturned four otherconvictions in public corruption cases.

In all five of the decisions, the court’s message has been that “federal law must be interpreted so as not to cover behavior that looks, to any reasonable observer, sketchy as hell,” Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Georgetown, wrote in a new article, “Corruption and the Supreme Court,” which will be published next year in The Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities.

Taken together, he added, the decisions make a basic point and a more subtle one. The basic one, he said, is that “the justices keep letting crooked politicians off the hook.”

The more subtle one is that they “went out of their way to insist that nonjudicial politics is pervasively shot through with tawdriness.” They did so, at least in part, he wrote, to try to make the judiciary look good by contrast.

To be sure, four of the decisions were unanimous, and most expressed concern about allowing prosecutors to bring serious federal charges based on broadly worded statutes. In June, for instance, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for six members of the court, said that making it a crime for politicians to accept after-the-fact gratuities for their actions would set “a vague and unfair trap for 19 million state and local officials.”

The first case, from 2016, concerned Bob McDonnell, a former governor of Virginia. Mr. McDonnell was convicted in 2014 after accepting travel on a private jet, a Rolex, the use of a vacation home and a Ferrari, along with substantial loans from a business executive whose company made nutritional supplements that he hoped to have tested by a state university.

A federal appeals court upheld Mr. McDonnell’s conviction, saying that the governor had “exploited the power of his office in furtherance of an ongoing effort to influence the work of state university researchers.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for a unanimous court, disagreed, reasoning that Mr. McDonnell could be prosecuted only if he had accepted benefits in exchange for an “official act,” which the court defined as “a formal exercise of governmental power.”

The governor’s considerable efforts on behalf of his benefactor did not clear that bar, the chief justice wrote. That was so, he said, even though the governor had arranged meetings for, attended events with and contacted other government officials on behalf of the executive.

The crucial term in the decision — “official act” — also figured in Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion in July granting substantial immunity from prosecution to former President Donald J. Trump.

But there the chief justice interpreted the term much more broadly, saying that a president’s official acts were those “within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.” That had the effect of making much if not most of Mr. Trump’s conduct during his presidency subject to at least presumptive immunity.

The two interpretations of the same phrase, both shielding government officials from accountability, are hard to square, Professor Chafetz said.

“They really do seem to go in different directions,” he said. “If something is official enough to get you immunity, then it should be official enough to be the kind of thing you can’t accept money for doing.”

Context matters, of course, and the same term may have a different meaning in a federal anti-corruption statute and in the interpretation of the separation of powers called for by the Constitution. And the two decisions share a general theme, said James Burnham, who represented Mr. McDonnell and later served as a lawyer in the Trump administration.

“The through line between cases like McDonnell and the Supreme Court’s immunity decision is a broad concern about overzealous prosecutors using vague statutes to pull conduct into the criminal system that does not belong there,” he said.

Chief Justice Roberts made the same connection, citing the McDonnell decision in granting immunity to Mr. Trump. “The hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a president is making decisions under ‘a pall of potential prosecution,’” he wrote, quoting from the earlier decision, poses a risk to effective government.

The five decisions limiting public corruption prosecutions were of a piece with a line of campaign finance cases that started with Citizens United, the 2010 decision that said the First Amendment protects independent political spending by corporations and unions. There is, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, only one justification for restricting such spending: quid pro quo corruption akin to bribery.

Money spent for “ingratiation and access” is not enough, Justice Kennedy wrote, anticipating the line the court would draw in the McDonnell case.

“The fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt,” Justice Kennedy wrote, adding: “The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.”

Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002. More about Adam Liptak"

A Writer Sees Leniency in the Supreme Court’s Approach to Public Corruption - The New York Times

Trump Ratchets Up Threats on the Media - The New York Times

Trump Ratchets Up Threats on the Media


(Trump threatens the specific protections found in the "First Amendment to the US Constitution)

Presidents are not all-powerful, but, if elected, Donald Trump would have some influence with the federal regulators who oversee major television networks.

Former President Donald Trump stands in front of a crowd of members of the media, many pointing cameras at him.
Former President Donald J. Trump speaks to the media after debating Vice President Kamala Harris. He has since called for ABC’s license to be “terminated” because of his displeasure with how the network handled the debate.Kenny Holston/The New York Times

Threatening the news media is nothing new for former President Donald J. Trump. He has accused major news outlets of defamation, blocked journalists from rallies and White House events, goaded followers into profane chants about CNN and popularized the term “fake news,” now embraced by autocrats around the world.

Even by those standards, though, his latest anti-media obsession — stripping television networks of their ability to broadcast the news because of coverage he doesn’t like — stands out.

“CBS should lose its license,” Mr. Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform last week. “60 Minutes should be immediately taken off the air.” He has repeated his demands in speeches and in interviews, echoing his earlier calls for ABC’s license to be “terminated” because of his displeasure with how the network handled his debate against Vice President Kamala Harris.

On Sunday, Mr. Trump ratcheted up his threats against CBS. “We’re going to subpoena their records,” he told Fox News in an interview, repeating his claim that the network’s edit of Ms. Harris’s recent appearance on “60 Minutes” was misleading. Asked if revoking a broadcast license was a “drastic punishment,” Mr. Trump did not answer directly, instead lobbing a string of insults at Ms. Harris, whom he called “incompetent” and “a Marxist.”

During the “60 Minutes” interview, which aired on Oct. 7, Ms. Harris was asked about the war in the Middle East. In an early excerpt released by CBS a day before, Ms. Harris gave one lengthy answer; in the episode itself, Ms. Harris appeared to give a different, pithier reply.

Mr. Trump — who got into a tiff with CBS ahead of the “60 Minutes” episode, and declined to sit for an interview of his own — quickly seized on the editing as evidence of pro-Harris bias. “60 Minutes” said on Sunday that the “two” answers were merely taken from different sections of Ms. Harris’s full response to the question, and that Mr. Trump’s accusation of deceitful editing “is false.”

CBS’s editing was perceived by rival executives as clumsy, but still well within standard journalistic practice for TV news, and media experts have dismissed Mr. Trump’s claim as preposterous. But one member of the Federal Communications Commission, the regulatory agency that oversees broadcasters, has already expressed receptivity to the notion that  CBS’s handling of the interview may have breached federal rules.

“Interesting. 🤔 Big if true,” the commissioner, Nathan Simington, wrote on X. Mr. Trump later shared a screenshot of Mr. Simington’s post on Truth Social.

Broadcast networks like ABC, CBS and NBC do not actually need a license to produce or publish news content. But the local affiliate stations that carry their broadcasts do require licenses. Those licenses are overseen by the F.C.C., which is independent from the White House.

A president cannot unilaterally revoke a license, but the president appoints members to the five-person commission. Mr. Simington is one of two current Republican members of the F.C.C. appointed by Mr. Trump. The other is Brendan Carr, who has shown a fondness for Elon Musk, one of Mr. Trump’s loudest champions and the owner of X, which happens to be the one major social media platform that the former president has not denigrated in recent weeks.

Mr. Simington and Mr. Carr, who did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Sunday, could remain in their roles if Mr. Trump takes office. If the U.S. Senate returns to Republican control, the body would probably approve whomever Mr. Trump chooses for the F.C.C. And with a 3-2 majority, Mr. Trump’s F.C.C. appointees could theoretically vote to revoke whichever licenses they please.

Such a scenario requires several variables to fall Mr. Trump’s way, foremost of which would be securing victory over Ms. Harris in November. It would also require the commission to ignore decades of precedent and effectively reject longstanding norms that guarantee protections for media organizations.

Still, the fact that a feasible, if narrow, path exists for Mr. Trump’s proposed crackdown speaks to the permeability of federal protections for the news media — and the obscure levers in the byzantine regulatory machine that an emboldened president may reach for in a moment of pique.

“These threats against free speech are serious and should not be ignored,” Jessica Rosenworcel, the current chairwoman of the F.C.C., said in a statement. “The F.C.C. does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”

Tom Wheeler, the Democratic chairman of the F.C.C. from 2013 to 2017, said in an interview that Mr. Trump’s threats could create a “chilling effect” on how news organizations make editorial calls.

“It is hard to yank a license; it is particularly hard to yank a license on the instruction of the president of the United States,” Mr. Wheeler said. “But it is not hard to have an impact on decision making.”

“I don’t envy the role of a Trump chairman of the F.C.C.,” Mr. Wheeler added.

If Mr. Trump were elected again, his Justice Department would also have oversight of significant corporate media transactions.

On the campaign trail in 2016, Mr. Trump pledged to block AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, the owner of CNN, a network whose coverage he frequently railed against. When he was president, the antitrust division of the Justice Department sued to block the deal, although the government ultimately lost the case at trial.

In recent years, Mr. Trump has frequently criticized Comcast, the parent company of NBCUniversal and MSNBC, and called out its chief executive, Brian Roberts, over NBC’s news coverage. Comcast has long been rumored to be considering a merger or spinoff of NBCUniversal, although nothing has been announced.

Because of his penchant to exaggerate, and his history of employing rhetoric that does not always line up with his actions, it is difficult to parse exactly how Mr. Trump would handle these issues if he retook the White House.

For all Mr. Trump’s bark, American networks and news organizations emerged relatively intact from his presidency. The news outlet that arguably suffered the steepest consequence was Fox News, which paid $787.5 million to settle a defamation suit stemming from Mr. Trump’s baseless claims about the 2020 election.

Last week, Mr. Trump extended his media criticism to Fox News, which is home to several of his most loyal pundits. He attacked the network for airing too many “Radical Left Lunatics,” and said he planned to meet with Fox’s owner, Rupert Murdoch, to demand that Fox News stop running “negative commercials” about his campaign.

None of that prevented Mr. Trump from sitting for an interview that aired on Sunday with the Fox News host Howard Kurtz. In that conversation, Mr. Trump called The New York Times “corrupt” and suggested, in vague language, that he was “probably going to sue them at some point very soon.” He did not provide an example of the coverage that bothered him.

Even Mr. Trump’s threats about broadcast licenses are not new. In 2017, he floated the ideaof stripping NBC of its licenses after its news division reported a story about nuclear weapons that displeased him.

At the time, Mr. Trump was rebuked by the then-chairman of the F.C.C., Ajit V. Pai, who said the agency “does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast,” adding, “The F.C.C., under my leadership, will stand for the First Amendment.”

In that instance, Mr. Trump took no further action. Mr. Pai, a Republican first appointed to the commission by Barack Obama, served for the remainder of Mr. Trump’s term.

Michael M. Grynbaum writes about the intersection of media, politics and culture. He has been a media correspondent at The Times since 2016. More about Michael M. Grynbaum

David McCabe is a Times reporter who covers the complex legal and policy issues created by the digital economy and new technologies. More about David McCabe


Trump Ratchets Up Threats on the Media - The New York Times

Marjorie Taylor Greene faces LEGAL NIGHTMARE after Latest Move

Friday, October 18, 2024

🚨 Ron DeSantis pulls ILLEGAL move against TV stations


Ron Santis is really dumb.

BREAKING: Trump gets the legal news he’s DREADED in Georgia



The hand count requirement was overturned by the State Supreme Court.

Judge slaps down Florida effort to ban abortion ad: ‘It’s the first amendment, stupid’ | Florida | The Guardian

Judge slaps down Florida effort to ban abortion ad: ‘It’s the first amendment, stupid’

"State health department sent letter to stations demanding they not air TV ad backing abortion access ballot measure

people hold up signs in support of abortion access
Abortion rights supporters protest in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on 13 July 2024. Photograph: John Parra/Getty Images for MoveOn

Florida’s health department can’t block a TV advertisement in support of a ballot measure that would protect abortion rights, a federal judge ruled on Thursday, after the department sent letters to local TV stations commanding them to stop airing the ad or risk criminal consequences.

“The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech is ‘false’,” US district judge Mark E Walker wrote in his ruling. “To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it’s the First Amendment, stupid.”

Florida is one of 10 states set to vote on abortion-related ballot measures in November. If enacted, Florida’s measure would enshrine abortion rights into the state constitution and roll back the state’s six-week ban on the procedure, which took effect in May.

Earlier this month, Florida’s health department sent cease-and-desist letters to TV stations running an ad by Floridians Protecting Freedom, the campaign behind the measure. In the ad, a woman named Caroline speaks about being diagnosed with cancer while pregnant.

“The doctors knew if I did not end my pregnancy, I would lose my baby, I would lose my life and my daughter would lose her mom,” Caroline says in the ad. “Florida has now banned abortion even in cases like mine.”

The letters said the claim that women can’t get life-saving abortions in Florida was “categorically false”, since Florida’s ban permits abortions in medical emergencies. “The fact is these ads are unequivocally false and detrimental to public health in Florida,” Jae Williams, the Florida department of health communications director, said in an email late on Thursday.

However, doctors across the country have said abortion bans are worded so vaguely as to force them to deny people medically necessary abortions. A New York doctor recently said that she had treated a woman with an ectopic pregnancy – which is nonviable and potentially life-threatening if left untreated – who had been turned away from a Florida hospital.

In response to the letters, Floridians Protecting Freedom sued the Florida surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, and John Wilson, the former general counsel for the state health department. At least one TV station stopped airing the ad, the coalition’s lawsuit alleged.

On Thursday, Walker granted a temporary restraining order blocking Ladapo from taking any further action against broadcasters or other media outlets that might air ads by Floridians Protecting Freedom.

“Of course, the surgeon general of Florida has the right to advocate for his own position on a ballot measure,” Walker wrote. “But it would subvert the rule of law to permit the state to transform its own advocacy into the direct suppression of protected political speech.”

Over the last several weeks, Florida’s government, run by Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor, has sent law enforcement officials to investigate people who signed a petition to get the measure on the ballot, set up a webpage urging people not to vote for it, and issued a report suggesting the measure got on the ballot due to “a large number of forged signatures or fraudulent petitions”. Floridians Protecting Freedom has denied wrongdoing.

Anti-abortion activists have since filed a lawsuit to remove the measure from the ballot or nullify votes cast for it."

Judge slaps down Florida effort to ban abortion ad: ‘It’s the first amendment, stupid’ | Florida | The Guardian

Wednesday, October 16, 2024

Archdiocese of Los Angeles Agrees to Pay $880 Million to Settle Sex Abuse Claims

Archdiocese of Los Angeles Agrees to Pay $880 Million to Settle Sex Abuse Claims

“The settlement is the highest single payout by an archdiocese, experts said, and brings Los Angeles’s cumulative payout in sex abuse lawsuits to more than $1.5 billion.

Archbishop José H. Gomez last year. “I am sorry for every one of these incidents, from the bottom of my heart,” he said in a statement on Wednesday.Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times — Getty Images

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles, the nation’s largest archdiocese, has agreed to pay $880 million to 1,353 people who say they were sexually abused as children. The settlement, which experts said was the highest single payout by an archdiocese, brings Los Angeles’s cumulative payout in sex abuse lawsuits to more than $1.5 billion.

The settlement was announced on Wednesday in a joint statement by lawyers for the plaintiffs and the archdiocese. 

“I am sorry for every one of these incidents, from the bottom of my heart,” Archbishop José H. Gomez said in a statement. “My hope is that this settlement will provide some measure of healing for what these men and women have suffered.”

The agreement represents the near conclusion to decades of litigation against the archdiocese, with only a few suits remaining. In 2007, it reached a $660 million settlement in abuse lawsuits brought by 508 people who accused Catholic clergy and members of religious orders of abuse. Over the years, the archdiocese has sold off real estate, liquidated investments and taken out loans to cover the staggering costs of litigation.

Archbishop Gomez said in a statement that the new settlement would be paid through “reserves, investments and loans, along with other archdiocesan assets and payments that will be made by religious orders and others named in the litigation.” He said that donations designated for parishes, schools and specific mission campaigns would not be used for the settlement.

“It’s never going to be full justice when the harm is a child’s life,” said Michael Reck, a lawyer with Jeff Anderson & Associates who helped represent some of the plaintiffs. “But it’s a measure of justice and a measure of accountability that gives these survivors some sense of closure at least.”

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Ruth Graham is a national reporter, based in Dallas, covering religion, faith and values for The Times. More about Ruth Graham

The Danger Is Greater Than in 2020. Be Prepared.

The Danger Is Greater Than in 2020. Be Prepared.

“A citizen’s guide to defending the 2024 election

"I Voted" stickers, some with an American flag and some with an outline of Michigan
Nic Antaya / Bloomberg / Getty

Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

Sign up for The Decision, a newsletter featuring our 2024 election coverage.

“In normal times, Americans don’t think much about democracy. Our Constitution, with its guarantees of free press, speech, and assembly, was written more than two centuries ago. Our electoral system has never failed, not during two world wars, not even during the Civil War. Citizenship requires very little of us, only that we show up to vote occasionally. Many of us are so complacent that we don’t bother. We treat democracy like clean water, something that just comes out of the tap, something we exert no effort to procure.

“But these are not normal times.”

wrote those words in October 2020, at a time when some people feared voting, because they feared contagion. The feeling that “these are not normal times” also came from rumors about what Donald Trump’s campaign might do if he lost that year’s presidential election. Already, stories that Trump would challenge the validity of the results were in circulation. And so it came to pass.

This time, we are living in a much different world. The predictions of what might happen on November 5 and in the days that follow are not based on rumors. On the contrary, we can be absolutely certain that an attempt will be made to steal the 2024 election if Kamala Harris wins. Trump himself has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the results of the 2020 election. He has waffled on and evaded questions about whether he will accept the outcome in 2024. He has hired lawyers to prepare to challenge the results.

Read: The moment of truth

Trump also has a lot more help this time around from his own party. Strange things are happening in state legislatures: a West Virginia proposal to “not recognize an illegitimate presidential election” (which could be read as meaning not recognize the results if a Democrat wins); a last-minute push, ultimately unsuccessful, to change the way Nebraska allocates its electoral votes. Equally weird things are happening in state election boards. Georgia’s has passed a rule requiring that all ballots be hand-counted, as well as machine-counted, which, if not overturned, will introduce errors—machines are more accurate—and make the process take much longer. A number of county election boards have in recent elections tried refusing to certify votes, not least because many are now populated with actual election deniers, who believe that frustrating the will of the people is their proper role. Multiple people and groups are also seeking mass purges of the electoral rolls.

Anyone who is closely following these shenanigans—or the proliferation of MAGA lawsuits deliberately designed to make people question the legitimacy of the vote even before it is held—already knows that the challenges will multiply if the presidential vote is as close as polls suggest it could be. The counting process will be drawn out, and we may not know the winner for many days. If the results come down to one or two states, they could experience protests or even riots, threats to election officials, and other attempts to change the results.

This prospect can feel overwhelming: Many people are not just upset about the possibility of a lost or stolen election, but oppressed by a sensation of helplessness. This feeling—I can’t do anything; my actions don’t matter—is precisely the feeling that autocratic movements seek to instill in citizens, as Peter Pomerantsev and I explain in our recent podcast, Autocracy in America. But you can always do something. If you need advice about what that might be, here is an updated citizen’s guide to defending democracy.

Help Out on Voting Day—In Person

First and foremost: Register to vote, and make sure everyone you know has done so too, especially students who have recently changed residence. The website Vote.gov has a list of the rules in all 50 states, in multiple languages, if you or anyone you know has doubts. Deadlines have passed in some states, but not all of them.

After that, vote—in person if you can. Because the MAGA lawyers are preparing to question mail-in and absentee ballots in particular, go to a polling station if at all possible. Vote early if you can, too: Here is a list of early-voting rules for each state.

Secondly, be prepared for intimidation or complications. As my colleague Stephanie McCrummen has written, radicalized evangelical groups are organizing around the election. One group is planning a series of “Kingdom to the Capitol” rallies in swing-state capitals, as well as in Washington, D.C.; participants may well show up near voting booths on Election Day. If you or anyone you know has trouble voting, for any reason, call 866-OUR-VOTE, a hotline set up by Election Protection, a nonpartisan national coalition led by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

If you have time to do more, then join the effort. The coalition is looking for lawyers, law students, and paralegals to help out if multiple, simultaneous challenges to the election occur at the county level. Even people without legal training are needed to serve as poll monitors, and of course to staff the hotline. In the group’s words, it needs people to help voters with “confusing voting rules, outdated infrastructure, rampant misinformation, and needless obstacles to the ballot box.”

If you live in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin, you can also volunteer to help All Voting Is Local, an organization that has been on the ground in those states since before 2020 and knows the rules, the officials, the potential threats. It, too, is recruiting legal professionals, as well as poll monitors. If you don’t live in one of those states, you can still make a financial contribution.

Wherever you live, consider working at a polling station. All Voting Is Local can advise you if you live in one of its eight states, but you can also call your local board of elections. More information is available at PowerThePolls.org, which will send you to the right place. The site explains that “our democracy depends on ordinary people who make sure every election runs smoothly and everyone's vote is counted—people like you.”

Wherever you live, it’s also possible to work for one of the many get-out-the-vote campaigns. Consider driving people to the voting booth. Find your local group by calling the offices of local politicians, members of Congress, state legislators, and city councillors. The League of Women Voters and the NAACP are just two of many organizations that will be active in the days before the election, and on the day itself. Call them to ask which local groups they recommend. Or, if you are specifically interested in transporting Democrats, you can volunteer for Rideshare2Vote.

Read: Donald Trump’s fascist romp 

If you know someone who needs a ride, then let them know that the ride-hailing company Lyft is once again working with a number of organizations, including the NAACP, the National Council of Negro Women, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the National Council on Aging, Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote, and the Hispanic Federation. Contact any of them for advice about your location. Also try local religious congregations, many of whom organize rides to the polls.

Smaller gestures are needed too. If you see a long voting line, or if you find yourself standing in one, report it to Pizza to the Polls and the group will send over some free pizza to cheer everyone up.

Join Something Now

Many people have long been preparing for a challenge to the election and a battle in both the courts and the media. You can help them by subscribing to the newsletters of some of the organizations sponsoring this work, donating money, and sharing their information with others. Don’t wait until the day after the vote to find groups you trust: If a crisis happens, you will not want to be scouring the internet for information.

Among the organizations to watch is the nonpartisan Protect Democracy, which has already launched successful lawsuits to secure voting rights in several states. Another is the States United Democracy Center, which collaborates with police as well as election workers to make sure that elections are safe. Three out of four election officials say that threats to them have increased; in some states, the danger will be just as bad the day after the election as it was the day before, or maybe even worse.

The Brennan Center for Justice, based at NYU, researches and promotes concrete policy proposals to improve democracy, and puts on public events to discuss them. Its lawyers and experts are preparing not only for attempts to steal the election, but also, in the case of a Trump victory, for subsequent assaults on the Constitution or the rule of law.

For voters who lean Democratic, Democracy Docket also offers a wealth of advice, suggestions, and information. The group’s lawyers have been defending elections for many years. For Republicans, Republicans for the Rule of Law is a much smaller group, but one that can help keep people informed.

Talk With People

In case of a real disaster—an inconclusive election or an outbreak of violence—you will need to find a way to talk about it, including a way to speak with friends or relatives who are angry and have different views. In 2020, I published some suggestions from More in Common, a research group that specializes in the analysis of political polarization, for how to talk with people who disagree with you about politics, as well as those who are cynical and apathetic. I am repeating here the group’s three dos and three don’ts:

•Do talk about local issues: Americans are bitterly polarized over national issues, but have much higher levels of trust in their state and local officials.

•Do talk about what your state and local leaders are doing to ensure a safe election.

•Do emphasize our shared values—the large majority of Americans still feel that democracy is preferable to all other forms of government—and our historical ability to deliver safe and fair elections, even in times of warfare and social strife.

•Don’t, by contrast, dismiss people’s concerns about election irregularities out of hand. Trump and his allies have repeatedly raised the specter of widespread voter fraud in favor of Democrats. Despite a lack of evidence for this notion, many people may sincerely believe that this kind of electoral cheating is real.

•Don’t rely on statistics to make your case, because people aren’t convinced by them; talk, instead, about what actions are being taken to protect the integrity of the vote.

•Finally, don’t inadvertently undermine democracy further: Emphasize the strength of the American people, our ability to stand up to those who assault democracy. Offer people a course of action, not despair.

Read: The last man in America to change his mind about Trump

As a Last Resort, Protest

As in 2020, protest remains a final option. A lot of institutions, including some of those listed above, are preparing to step in if the political system fails. But if they all fail as well, remember that it’s better to protest in a group, and in a coordinated, nonviolent manner. Many of the organizations I have listed will be issuing regular statements right after the election; follow their advice to find out what they are doing. Remember that the point of a protest is to gain supporters—to win others over to your cause—and not to make a bad situation worse. Large, peaceful gatherings will move and convince people more than small, angry ones. Violence makes you enemies, not friends.

Finally, don’t give up: There is always another day. Many of your fellow citizens also want to protect not just the electoral system but the Constitution itself. Start looking for them now, volunteer to help them, and make sure that they, and we, remain a democracy where power changes hands peacefully.“