Trump’s former adviser plays a prominent role in the voting battle

A Republican Party attorney who advised former President Donald Trump on his campaign to overturn the 2020 election results is playing a central role in coordinating the Republican effort to tighten voting laws across the country.

Cleta Mitchell, a longtime Republican lawyer and conservative advocate, was one of Trump’s advisers in a January phone call in which Trump asked Georgia’s election officials to “find” enough votes to declare him, not the Democrat Joe Biden, the winner of the battlefield state.

Mitchell has now taken the helm of two separate efforts to push through strict voting laws and fight democratic efforts to expand access to the polls at the federal level. It also advises state legislators on drafting voting restriction proposals. And, he said Friday, he is in regular contact with Trump.

“People are really interested in participating and we have to harness all that energy,” Mitchell said in an interview. “There are many groups that have projects on electoral integrity that have never done so.”

Mitchell’s new prominence tightens ties between the former president, who has falsely insisted on losing the election due to fraud, and the review of state votes led by the Republican Party that has helped turn a fundamental principle of democracy on a partisan battlefield.

Trump’s false allegations of fraud have fueled a wave of new voting restrictions. More than 250 proposed voting restrictions have been proposed this year by mostly Republican lawmakers, according to the Brennan Justice Center. On Thursday, the governor of the Republican Party of Georgia signed the law a measure that requires voters to present their ID to vote by mail, it gives the state-controlled Republican legislature new powers over local and illegal election boards that provide food or water to people waiting in line to vote. On Friday, Biden condemned him as “Jim Crow in the 21st Century.”

In response, Democrats have stepped up the momentum for a massive federal election review bill. This proposal, known as HR 1, would effectively neutralize state-wide electoral identification laws, allow everyone to vote by mail if they wished, and automatically register citizens to vote. Republicans see it as an invasion of state control over the election and say it is designed to give Democrats an advantage.

“The left is trying to dismantle 100 years of advance in the election administration,” said Mitchell, who expressed bewilderment at Democrats ’accusations that Republicans are trying to suppress votes. “We’re now watching two different movies.”

Mitchell’s most public involvement in the election wars involved Trump’s call for Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on January 2nd. During that call, Mitchell insisted he had evidence of voting fraud, but officials in the Secretary of State’s office told him the data was incorrect.

The call is part of an investigation by the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office into whether Trump or others tried to unduly influence election officials. Mitchell would not discuss the call or the investigation.

Mitchell’s involvement caused a stir in the legal community and led her to leave her long job at the law firm of Foley & Lardner. But Mitchell says this has been a blessing.

“One of the great advantages of giving up my law firm is that I can devote all my time to something I love,” he said.

Mitchell has two new roles in an emerging Conservative voting operation. He leads a $ 10 million initiative in the limited government group FreedomWorks to push for new voting restrictions and help train Conservatives to get involved in the mouths of local elections. He is also a legal member of the Conservative Partnership Institute, an organization led by former Republican Sen. Jim DeMint. She says she will use this role to “coordinate” conservative voting positions, especially in opposition to HR 1.

An Oklahoma state lawmaker Mitchell, 70, has ties to other influential actors in the Conservative movement. She also serves as an external advisor to the American Legislative Exchange Committee, a conservative group that provides model legislation to state lawmakers and organized a call with state lawmakers and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz to oppose HR 1.

And Mitchell said he has been talking regularly with Republican lawmakers about the need for new election laws. He didn’t want to identify who he’s talking to, but he said it’s always been a passion.

“I’ve been working with state legislatures for several years to get them to pay attention to what I call the political process,” Mitchell said. “I love legislatures and working with legislators.”

Likewise, he would not detail his conversations with Trump or say whether these were the new voting fights. “I get in touch with the president quite often,” he said of Trump.

Repeated audits have shown no significant problems with the 2020 election. Trump and his supporters lost more than 50 lawsuits challenging their results.

Mitchell says he believes the courts used legal traps to avoid seriously addressing Trump voter fraud allegations.

This evidence had led some conservative groups to be careful not to echo Trump’s unfounded claims of election fraud, even while advocating stricter restrictions on Americans ’voting.

Mitchell’s role could complicate this effort to keep his distance.

“I have concerns about the election, but I don’t think the election was stolen,” said Noah Wall, executive vice president of FreedomWorks. Still, Wall said he saw no conflict in working with Mitchell. “When we talk about what we’re going to focus on, I don’t see the light of day between their problems and ours,” Wall said.

Mitchell has a long history in the Conservative movement, with positions on the boards of the National Rifle Association and the Bradley Foundation. She represented the head of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, and has been a campaign advocate for several Republican senators. She is also president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a conservative electoral law project that she said could be involved in a litigation against HR 1, if passed or in support of new laws such as Georgia’s.

.Source