www.thecentersquare.com – By Kim Jarrett | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-05-13 12:27:00
A federal appeals court panel heard arguments from a Georgia group accusing True the Vote of voter intimidation. The group challenged 364,000 Georgia voters’ eligibility after the 2020 election, but Fair Fight argued it was an attempt to intimidate voters. A district judge ruled in 2024 that the challenge did not meet voter intimidation standards. True the Vote’s attorney claimed the group never contacted voters, while Fair Fight argued the mass challenge aimed to prevent voting. True the Vote, a Texas-based organization, said the case is crucial for defending election integrity.
(The Center Square) – A federal appeals court panel heard arguments Tuesday from a Georgia group accusing True the Vote of voter intimidation.
True the Vote challenged the eligibility of 364,000 Georgia voters after President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election to former President Joe Biden. The challenge came before a January 2021 runoffs in the U.S. Senate races that Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock won.
Fair Fight sued the group, saying the effort was an attempt to intimidate Georgia voters. U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones ruled after a seven-day bench trial in 2024 that the challenge did not reach the standards for voter intimidation. The state did not provide records showing if any of the voter challenges were viable, according to testimony in Tuesday’s hearing.
Jake Evans, an attorney for True the Vote, told the three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals Court that the organization made no attempts to contact any of the voters in question.
“The attempted act was to submit the voter challenge,” Evans said. “The attempted act was not to contact or intimidate a voter.”
Uzoma Nkwonta, who presented the case for Fair Fight, said while there is no evidence in the record that there is a record of how many challenges were unsuccessful, no one presented evidence of a meritorious challenge or one that was not frivolous or incorrect.
“The natural cause of the mass challenge is intimidation, it’s preventing people from voting,” Nkwonta told the panel.
Fair Fight was founded by Democrat Stacey Abrams in 2018 after her unsuccessful gubernatorial run in 2018. Abrams lost the governor’s race again in 2022 to Republican Brian Kemp.
True the Vote is a Texas-based organization that says on its website it is challenging election security, transparency and integrity. Tuesday’s hearing is “one of the most consequential legal battles yet,” the group said.
“This isn’t just about one hearing – it’s about holding the line for election integrity and defending the voice of we the people,” the group said on its website.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Right
The article largely reports on the facts of a legal dispute concerning voter challenges in Georgia without overt editorializing, presenting statements and positions from both sides: True the Vote, a group focused on election integrity often associated with conservative causes, and Fair Fight, a voting rights organization founded by Democrat Stacey Abrams. While the piece includes neutral descriptions of the arguments and litigation history, it provides slightly more detailed emphasis on True the Vote’s perspective and uses phrases like “one of the most consequential legal battles yet,” which appears to reflect the language of True the Vote’s website. The article also notes the affiliations of the organizations, which adds context but can subtly frame the narrative along partisan lines. Overall, the tone is mostly factual but leans modestly toward a Center-Right perspective through the inclusion of the conservative group’s self-description and less detailed coverage of counterarguments.
A three-judge federal court panel recently reviewed whether a Texas conservative group, True the Vote, violated the Voting Rights Act by attempting to intimidate minority voters during the 2021 Georgia runoff election. Fair Fight Action argued that True the Vote’s mass voter eligibility challenges targeted 365,000 voters using inaccurate data, potentially violating the act. True the Vote’s attorney defended the actions as efforts to safeguard election integrity, claiming no intent to intimidate voters. The court expressed concerns over the lower court’s decision, highlighting the case’s national significance for voting rights protection. The ruling is still pending.
Federal court might revive Georgia lawsuit claiming mass challenges violate Voting Rights Act
A three-judge federal court panel spent an hour in a downtown Atlanta courthouse Tuesday hearing arguments from attorneys about whether a conservative Texas organization’s mass voting challenges during a 2021 runoff violated the federal Voting Rights Act by intimidating minority voters.
Plaintiff Fair Fight Action, founded by Stacey Abrams, argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that U.S. District Court Judge Steve C. Jones erred in ruling last year that True the Vote’s challenge to 365,000 Georgia voters’ eligibility did not constitute intimidation prior to historic Democratic Senate victories in Georgia when Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff prevailed in the Jan. 5, 2021 runoff.
At least one of the judges expressed skepticism about the soundness of the lower court ruling.
Mass voter challenges have been a mainstay in Georgia since the 2020 presidential election, when Democrat Joe Biden narrowly defeated Republican Donald Trump by about 12,000 votes in the state.
According to Fair Fight Action and others who filed suit, True the Vote’s actions likely violated the Voting Rights Act by using inaccurate voter registration information and voter intimidation tactics such as posting citizen watchdogs to monitor people casting ballots.
On Tuesday, the federal panel peppered the attorneys with questions while acknowledging the case’s national significance on voting rights protections.
Attorney Jake Evans, representing True the Vote, asserted that the intent behind the mass challenges was to protect election integrity.
Evans said that the mass challenging of voters’ eligibility prior to the 2021 runoff did not amount to voter intimidation.
Fair Fight’s attorney, Uzoma Nkwonta of the Elias Law Group, argued that although Jones acknowledged recklessness in his ruling, the district court erred in not following the generally accepted standard for taking a substantial step towards the course of action that led to the injury.
Nkwonta referenced the Muscogee County election board having to take up more than 4,000 challenged ballots from the 2020 November general election based on faulty national change of address data.
“Not only was it foreseeable, it’s exactly what True the Vote wished for and exactly what True the Vote demanded,” Nkwonta said. “True the Vote issued press releases, prepared one-pagers, considered suing counties and did everything in their power to force (Muscogee) County to take the very action that they took.”
“The voter intimidation statutes have been enforced since the 1960s and even earlier, and they often involve cases in which individuals were applying laws or taking actions that were permissible in every other scenario, but were impermissible because they were intimidating voters,” Nkwonta said.
Evans said that over the course of a seven-day trial the voters who testified did not provide proof of how they were intimidated by True the Vote. He argued the plaintiffs have failed to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
“An attempted act has to be traceable to the alleged intimidation,” Evans said. “Here, there are three individual voters where there is no connection. There is no alleged challenger that’s submitted to challenge these individuals. It’s completely untraceable.”
Judge Federico Moreno said he disagreed with Evans stating it was an “open and shut appeal.”
“I don’t know about the substantive 11 B claims, but I think the district court committed legal error with regard to the attempt,” Moreno said, referencing a section of the act that bars voter intimidation. “Attempt is generally defined, both in civil and criminal law, as the intent to carry out an objective and taking a substantial means toward doing that.”
Moreno provided an anecdote about how a bank robber told a teller, “Give me the money in your drawer” before then being thwarted by a security officer.
“That person has attempted to commit bank robbery, even though he has not stolen the money because he was stopped by a third-party intermediary,” Moreno said.
In addition, Moreno questioned Evans about whether an organization that filed several hundred frivolous voter challenges could be considered an attempt to intimidate voters.
Evans said that True the Vote did not use tactics to intimidate voters like other cases where robocalls were used to threaten voters or Native Americans were targeted by sending people to follow them into polling places.
“Judge Jones looked at the evidence,” Evans said. “He evaluated the demeanor of the witnesses. He saw the witnesses testify, evaluated the totality of the evidence, and he made a factual finding in his order that said that there was no intent by True the Vote to intimidate any voter, any witness.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
SUBSCRIBE
Georgia Recorder is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Georgia Recorder maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor John McCosh for questions: info@georgiarecorder.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
The article presents a legal case surrounding allegations of voter intimidation during the 2021 Georgia runoff election. It highlights the arguments from Fair Fight Action, a voting rights group founded by Stacey Abrams, as well as True the Vote, a conservative organization. The language and framing emphasize the significance of protecting voting rights, and the article provides detailed accounts from both sides. However, the presence of Fair Fight, a prominent Democratic-backed organization, along with a critical view of True the Vote’s actions, gives the article a lean towards the left, advocating for the protection of minority voters and questioning the motives of conservative groups.
SUMMARY: A local family in North Augusta, SC, is seeking help after their 9-month-old son, Theo Johnson, was diagnosed with End Stage Renal Disease. Born with Posterior Urethral Valves, Theo needs a kidney transplant to survive. His mother, Auburn Johnson, cannot donate due to her prior Pre-Eclampsia diagnosis. Despite numerous surgeries, Theo has defied expectations, never needing dialysis yet. He is now starting growth hormones and physical therapy. The family is seeking a donor with O-positive or O-negative blood. For information or to help, contact transplant coordinator Kate Hefner at 706-721-3773 or [Kathryn.hefner@wellstar.org](mailto:Kathryn.hefner@wellstar.org).
The U.S. and China agreed to reduce tariffs for 90 days, easing tensions in their trade war. Starting Wednesday, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods will drop to 10%, down from 145%. However, tariffs on certain products, including fentanyl-related chemicals and small packages, will remain. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized productive talks on the fentanyl crisis. While businesses express uncertainty, some analysts argue that the deal doesn’t resolve deeper issues, as the trade restrictions remain high compared to previous levels. The White House framed the agreement as a step toward addressing the U.S.-China trade imbalance.
U.S. and China hit the pause button on trade war for 90 days, as talks continue
The United States and China agreed Monday to lower steep tit-for-tat tariffs for 90 days, temporarily cooling a trade war but still leaving a cloud of uncertainty over businesses in the world’s two largest economies.
American and Chinese officials announced the pause will go into effect Wednesday, following talks in Geneva, Switzerland, as negotiations on a final deal continue. U.S. markets rallied following the announcement.
U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods will drop to a universal 10% baseline, down from the 145% President Donald Trump imposed last month. Trump’s previous 20% emergency tariffs announced in February on all products because of illicit fentanyl chemicals from China will remain in place, as will protective tariffs on goods still in place from the president’s first term. New duties on small packages sent to the U.S. from China, valued at less than $800, will also remain.
Fentanyl discussion
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Monday that he and Chinese counterparts “had a very robust and highly detailed discussion” on preventing fentanyl and the chemicals to make the synthetic opioid from entering the U.S.
“The upside surprise for me from this weekend was the level of Chinese engagement on the fentanyl crisis in the United States. They brought the deputy minister for public safety,” Bessent said.
Bessent told reporters that overall negotiations were “always respectful.”
“We had the two largest economies in the world. We were firm — and we moved forward … We came with a list of problems that we were trying to solve and I think we did a good job on that,” Bessent said.
The White House touted the 90-day pause as a “landmark deal” in a Monday press release.
China has agreed to lower its tariffs on U.S. goods to 10%, down from 125%, according to a joint statement.
Tariffs are taxes on goods coming across the border. Companies and small businesses that import items from China must pay them to the U.S. government to receive their purchases.
Business reaction unclear
“I see the president’s approach to this as him putting a knife in your back and then pulling it out an inch and calling it a win,” said Alex Duarte, senior economist at the Tax Foundation, a think tank that advocates for lower taxation.
“Depending on the good, the rate could be close to 55%, so the tariffs on China are still pretty high. It’s hard to say how businesses are supposed to react to this because there’s so much uncertainty and the president behaves very erratically,” Duarte told States Newsroom Monday.
States Newsroom spoke to several business owners who were extremely nervous ahead of Trump’s April 2 “liberation day” tariffs. That announcement sent markets plummeting.
Marcus Noland, executive vice president and director of studies at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview Monday the situation has “gone from OK to apocalyptic to bad.”
“It’s clearly preferable to a tariff that would have essentially ended trade between the two countries, but it’s still significantly more restrictive than where we started the year,” Noland said.
The White House released a statement Monday saying the administration will continue “working toward a rebalancing” of a trade deficit with China. In 2024, the U.S. purchased $295.4 billion more in goods from China than China purchased from the U.S.
“Today’s agreement works toward addressing these imbalances to deliver real, lasting benefits to American workers, farmers, and businesses,” according to the White House press release.
Last updated 1:51 p.m., May. 12, 2025
Georgia Recorder is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Georgia Recorder maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor John McCosh for questions: info@georgiarecorder.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The content presents a balanced view of the trade negotiations between the United States and China, highlighting both positive developments and ongoing challenges. It includes direct statements and reactions from government officials across the political spectrum as well as perspectives from economists and business owners. The article refrains from strongly favoring or criticizing any particular political figure or policy, providing a neutral overview focused on factual reporting and varied viewpoints.
