Federal judge signals support for reviving voter lawsuit in Georgia
The Brief
A federal appeals panel signaled it may revive a lawsuit accusing True the Vote of violating the Voting Rights Act by challenging over 360,000 Georgia voters ahead of the 2021 Senate runoff.
Judges questioned a lower court's ruling that found no attempted voter intimidation, calling it a potential legal error.
The lawsuit, filed by Fair Fight, claims the mass voter challenges were reckless and intended to suppress votes.
ATLANTA - A federal appeals court in Atlanta appears poised to revive a closely-watched legal case involving a controversial mass voter eligibility challenge that took place in Georgia ahead of the 2021 U.S. Senate runoff elections, according to The Associated Press.
What we know
A three-judge panel from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday in a case brought by Fair Fight, a voting rights group founded by former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. The group sued Texas-based True the Vote, alleging the nonprofit attempted to intimidate voters by challenging the eligibility of more than 360,000 people ahead of the runoff.
The original case was dismissed last year by U.S. District Judge Steve Jones, who ruled that Fair Fight had failed to prove True the Vote's actions amounted to voter intimidation under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
During Tuesday's hearing, two appellate judges—Adalberto Jordan and Federico Moreno—signaled disagreement with the lower court's conclusion. Judge Jordan called the dismissal a "legal error," while Moreno suggested the trial judge had not fully examined all parts of the law.
What they're saying
The appellate judges expressed concern that the lower court overlooked key aspects of the case. In particular, Judge Jordan stressed that intent alone can support a claim of attempted intimidation: "Attempt does not require success," he noted.
Judge Moreno questioned whether intimidating voters was the real objective behind the challenge and said the appeals court should provide clarity on mass voter eligibility contests in future elections.
True the Vote's attorney, Jake Evans, defended the group's actions, arguing there was no intent to intimidate and no direct contact between True the Vote's co-founder, Catherine Engelbrecht, and any of the voters who testified.
Big picture view
The outcome of this appeal could set a precedent for how far third-party groups can go in challenging voter rolls before elections. With election security and voter suppression continuing to spark national debate, the case raises broader questions about the limits of citizen-led scrutiny and the protections afforded under the Voting Rights Act.
What's next
The appeals panel has not yet issued a ruling, but Tuesday's questioning suggests Fair Fight may see its lawsuit revived. If that happens, the case will likely return to district court for further proceedings. In the meantime, the appellate court's decision could influence how courts handle similar voter challenges in upcoming election cycles.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Skiing
On Wednesday, June 11, 2025, the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee published a provision to the current reconciliation bill that was introduced by the House earlier this year. The bill is referred to as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by President Donald bill and its provision introduce a number of polarizing policies on things like funding for environmental and land management agencies, as well as the sale of huge parcels of public lands, which has a potentially massive impact on outdoor recreation in the US. One of the key points in the bill's most recent provision mandates the sale of between 0.5% and 0.75% of the 193 million acres of land managed by the US Forest Service, and 245 million acres managed by the BLM for housing development. In total, the bill references between roughly 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of land split between BLM (1.23-1.84 million acres), and the Forest Service (between 956,000 and 1.45 million acres) that would be sold across 11 western states including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada and what does this mean for skiers? Keep reading for to keep up with the best stories and photos in skiing? Subscribe to the new Powder To The People newsletter for weekly updates. According to a fact sheet issued by the Committee, which is led by Utah Senator Mike Lee, the sale excludes the sale of National Parks, National Monuments, National Recreation Areas, components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Fish Hatchery Systems, Wilderness Preservation Areas, and 'nearly every other protected designations.''This is not about our most sacred and beautiful places. This is often about barren land next to highways with existing billboards that have no recreational value', said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. The fact sheet also notes that the US Department of the Interior estimates that the BLM has 1.2 million acres of land within a mile of a population center and another 800,000 acres between one and five miles of a population center. The Forest Service has another million acres within one mile of population centers, all which may qualify for 'disposal.' While lands like those in our National Parks and Monuments are protected under their current federal designations, a recent Justice Department opinion means that the President is allowed to both designate and repeal National Monuments, and their land protections, without a vote from Congress, per the Antiquities Act. President Trump is no stranger to the Act, as he significantly reduced the size of Bear's Ears National Monument in Utah in 2017, in what was the largest reversal of federal land protections in U.S. history. A map released by the Wilderness Society shows the large splotches of Forest Service and BLM land that could be included in these disposals across the 11 western states. A quick scroll through the map (included at the top of this article) shows the footprints of many ski areas covered by the green overlay of Forest Service land. While the protections of National Parks and National Monuments feel precarious under the bill and the current administration, the fact sheet does note that land with valid existing use permits cannot be sold as part of the it pertains to skiing, many ski areas in the US operate on Forest Service land with a Ski Area Term Special Use permit, created under the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986. Section IV of this permit notes that these permits qualify as valid existing rights, making it highly unlikely, at least in the bill's current state, that any of the Forest Service lands that ski areas are on such as Mt. Bachelor, Arapahoe Basin, Mt. Hood, Steamboat, Keystone, Copper, and more could be sold and developed. So, while the current provision to the bill might not threaten ski area footprints themselves, there are other pieces of the bill that would certainly have an effect on skiing, and more broadly, the use of our public lands for recreation. For one, land near ski resorts doesn't necessarily fall under the rights of a Ski Area Special Use permit, and could hypothetically be sold. The fact sheet says that 'the proposal prioritizes lands that are nominated by States or units of local governments; are adjacent to existing developed areas; have access to existing infrastructure; are suitable for residential housing; reduce checkerboard land patterns; or are isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage.' However, with a number like 2.2 million acres as the minimum number of land acreage mandated to be sold in the bill, there is a distinct possibility that the footprint of lands sold would bleed beyond those dubbed 'prioritized' by the proposal. Given the bill's $29 billion in expected revenue, and an emphasis on building housing, a resource that can be sparse in mountain towns that are often bordered by expanses of Forest Service and BLM land, the idea that precious wilderness would be sold is not remotely impossible. Along with the potential sale of lands managed by The Forest Service, proposed funding would also be rescinded for a number of Forest Service programs, including the protection of old growth forests. These budget cuts to the US Forest Service could be up to $392 million in management alone, and another $391 million to Forest Service operations budgets in an effort to 'restore federalism by empowering states to assume a greater role in managing forest lands within their borders.' Additionally, Interior Secretary Burgum is pushing for a bill that would cut $900M in funding for the National Park Service, which would potentially lead to the closure of up to 350 sites managed by the National Park Service, and the cutting of 5,000 full-time Park Service rescinding of funds for the National Park System and Bureau of Land Management would also impact funding for the carrying out of projects concerning the conservation, protection, and resiliency of lands and resources managed by the two agencies, as well as for certain conservation and habitat restoration projects on NPS and BLM Lands. In total, the administration's 2026 budget recommendations would cut around a billion dollars from the NPS. 'Isn't it a betrayal of the relationship (between Congress and the Forest Service) to be cutting programs in half in preparation for shutting them down completely when the vision has not been laid out by Congress to do so?' said Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, who also expressed concern over a reorganization of the country's firefighting teams, an issue close to the hearts of many Oregonians. Beyond the bill's provision on public lands, there are other facets of the bill that have potentially catastrophic long term effects on our climate. As skiers, we know that climate change is already a threat to our winters, livelihoods, and passed, the bill would rescind funding for a number of government agencies and programs that monitor and collect data on climate change-related metrics, as well as for federally funded conservation programs. Specifically, the bill rescinds funding to implement the EPA's addressing of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a commonly used component in traditional ski waxes that have been found to have significant negative environmental impacts. The bill would also rescind funding for the Council on Environmental Quality as it pertains to collecting data related to environmental and climate issues, amongst other things. Funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and USGS, whose work is essential in weather forecasting and studying climate change, would be rescinded. This could be detrimental to certain communities when preparing for extreme weather summarize, the bill and provision in question have the potential for a massive reduction in size to public lands used for recreation, like skiing, and funding cuts to government led research and management of climate change, that could have significant impacts on the planet's rapidly warming climate. Conservation groups such as the Outdoor Alliance and Protect Our Winters, as well as a slew of brands, athletes, and outdoor climate activists in skiing have taken to social media to share information and encourage the public to contact their Senate representatives with their opinions on the bill passed in The House on May 22, 2025, and is now up for debate in the Senate. President Trump is reportedly hoping for a Senate vote to take place by July 4, 2025, but any number of things could delay that vote. If passed, the bill would be sent back to the House for approval before being sent to the oval office to be Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Could Impact Skiing first appeared on Powder on Jun 18, 2025
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Skiers Consider Boycotting Utah
As always, skiers on Reddit have all kinds of opinions, however wild they may or may not be. This week, r/skiing's keyboard warriors have decided to address the current reconciliation bill up for debate in the US Senate and the provision to it, which amongst other things, would mean the potential sale of a few million acres of US public lands. One particularly fired-up skier has taken to r/skiing to say that in light of the bill, Utah skiers should start boycotting the state. For context, the bill's provision that concerns the sale of public lands was published by the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is led by Republican Utah Senator Mike Lee."It's time to boycott Utah. Utah Sen. Mike Lee wants to sell millions of acres of public land. He needs to feel it where it hurts the most: his economy," the post by Reddit user Hobbitsliketoparty, is titled. Want to keep up with the best stories and photos in skiing? Subscribe to the new Powder To The People newsletter for weekly updates. The post details that, indeed, up to 3.3 million acres of US public lands would be sold across 11 western states, including Utah. In Utah specifically, this could include land near Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons, Millcreek, Parley's, and more BLM land close to some of Utah's National Parks like Zion and Arches. Under the provision, National Parks, National Monuments, National Recreation Areas, components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, National Wildlife Refuge System, National Fish Hatchery Systems, Wilderness Preservation Areas, and 'nearly every other protected designations,' would be excluded from the sale. Land sold under the bill would be for the purpose of building housing in order to ease housing shortages in the US. u/Hobbitsliketoparty has done their research, because they also state that 'but there's no requirement that the land be used for affordable housing. Developers and private buyers could snap up access points, trailheads, and wild spaces. That access could be gone for good.'The bill's provision has some vague language about proposals to purchase the land would need to include a description of how intended development would address local housing needs, including supply and affordability. However, there's no stipulation on holding the proposer to that once the sale is carried out. Considering Utah Senator Mike Lee's creation and support of the bill, u/Hobbitsliketoparty is proposing a boycott of funding to Utah's outdoor economy in protest. "If we let this happen, it sets a dangerous precedent. Politicians should not be allowed to auction off public land with almost no public input. And Utah has a history of this. From shrinking Bears Ears to resisting wilderness protections, they've been chipping away for years. If Utah's leadership insists on selling out our public lands, we should stop funding their outdoor economy. That means skipping the ski trips. Skipping the canyoneering. Skipping the visits to the Mighty 5. In 2017, Outdoor Retailer pulled its convention out of Salt Lake City after similar attacks on public land. It worked. Maybe it's time we acted again," reads the post. Several commenters point out and thank u/Hobbitsliketoparty for doing their research and reiterate the fact that while many of Utah and other state's ski areas are on public lands, often managed by USFS, the permits they operate on also exempt them from the sale. But that doesn't mean that trailheads and access points for other, non-inbounds skiing recreation wouldn't be threatened by the sale. It's hard to say whether boycotting skiing in Utah and the rest of its outdoor tourism economy would send the right message to Sen. Lee. For one, the Senate vote is slated to take place sometime in the next few weeks, which means, by the time ski season rolls around, there will already be a decision. Also, food for thought—boycotting Utah's outdoor tourism economy as a revenue source for the state would potentially fuel supporter's of the bill's fire by giving them more ammunition to sell off public lands. But I get it, u/Hobbitsliketoparty is angry like a lot of Americans right now about this potential attack on our public lands, but rather than boycotting a local tourism industry, the best course of action would be to call your local senators and let them know you oppose the bill, or use a handy form from an organization like the Outdoor Alliance or Protect Our Winters to do Consider Boycotting Utah first appeared on Powder on Jun 20, 2025
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Texas may soon enact restrictions on when and how students can protest
The state of Texas could be set to pass a law putting major limits on protests at its public universities, including banning demonstrations at certain times of day and barring all protests during the final two weeks of the semester. The law, whose Republican backers describe as an explicit response to the state's pro-Palestine campus protests, would impact more than one million students at one of the nation's largest public university systems and has drawn criticism from free speech advocates and students. 'While the world watched Columbia, Harvard and other campuses across the country taken hostage by pro-terrorist mobs last year, Texas stood firm. UT allowed protest, not anarchy,' State Senator Brandon Creighton told The Washington Post about his bill. 'No First Amendment rights were infringed — and they never will be. This is how we protect student safety, defend our institutions, and safeguard freedom for generations to come.' The bill, Senate Bill 2972, would prohibit protests between 10pm and 8am, ban students from erecting tents and wearing disguises like masks, bar the use of drums and microphones, and halt 'expressive activities' during the final two weeks of class. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has until the end of the week to decide on the law, which will go into effect if he declines to act. His office has not indicated how he will proceed. Civil rights advocates argue the bill's provisions contradict the spirit of a 2019 Texas law, passed when Republicans largely argued campuses overly restricted conservative speech, that mandated universities ensure all outdoor common areas were considered traditional public forums where anyone could protest as long as they weren't breaking the law or disrupting university functions. 'S.B. 2972 threatens the free expression of all Texans, regardless of political beliefs,' Caro Achar of the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a statement. 'This bill imposes broad restrictions that allow school officials to restrict how, when, and where Texans can speak on campus — undermining the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, staff, and the general public.' 'I don't know that we've seen a law regulating campus expression that's this restrictive,' Tyler Coward, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told The New York Times of the bill. The 'expressive activity' limited in the bill could range from a conversation to a t-shirt with a slogan, others warned. In 2024, Texas saw large-scale campus pro-Palestine protests, and state officials responded by sending in over 100 state troopers to clear out a protest encampment at the University of Texas at Austin. All told, over 150 were arrested at state universities last April. In the wake of widespread pro-Palestine encampments on campus last year, universities across the country reiterated existing restrictions and imposed new rules on protest, including mask bans and time-place-and-manner limits. During the recent Los Angeles protests against federal immigration raids, Donald Trump unilaterally claimed masks were no longer allowed at protests, despite having no legal authority to make such a demand. Protest restrictions have also been a key sticking point in the administration's negotiations with top universities like Harvard and Columbia, which the White House has alleged aren't doing enough to stop campus antisemitism that flared during the protests. The administration has sought to pause funding to these Ivy League schools unless they submit to wide-ranging reforms. Harvard has challenged the administration, while Columbia has largely acceded to the Trump demands, including partially banning face masks.
