Venezuela’s Political and Economic Future Hangs in the Balance as Ruling and Opposition Parties Fight Over Presidential Election Results
Why American voters should be concerned
Welcome to The News Lede, a newsletter that provides an unvarnished overview of what’s happening in the news with a touch of satire. It’s here where you’ll find independent journalism meets civic engagement advocacy.
Venezuela’s Political and Economic Future Hangs in the Balance as Ruling and Opposition Parties Fight Over Presidential Election Results
As Donald Trump spent the weekend pledging that voters would never have to vote again should he win in November, Venezuela’s strongman, Nicolas Maduro, threw another wrench into the South American country’s democratic process. The deeply disliked oppressive leader of a once strong economy cynically set Venezuela’s presidential election results on fire by declaring victory after the opposition announced voters likely ousted him by a large margin.
In a normal timeline, the opposing parties of another sovereign nation contesting election results wouldn’t be a bellwether of American politics. But we are not in a normal timeline and what is happening right now in Venezuela is a window into what to expect from Donald Trump and his MAGA party in November.
The Republican Party is openly telling us that they already have a plan in place to contest November’s election results if Donald Trump loses. Members of the party are also still legally challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election and the 2022 midterms. And they have been laying the messaging groundwork to try to convince the American people that the electoral process cannot be trusted. All while they challenge state election laws and try to take over state election programs.
Venezuela runs elections differently from us, but Maduro’s regime has directly impacted United States immigration and border policies, which the Republican Party exploits, and his election interference in more than one presidential election mirrors what Americans face with Donald Trump as the GOP nominee.
Venezuela presidential election disputed over election tampering by Maduro loyalists
Before all the votes were counted and verified, Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro’s National Electoral Council declared him the winner of Sunday’s presidential election. Elvis Amoroso, the head of the South American nation’s electoral authority, which is controlled by Maduro loyalists, claimed that with 80% of voting stations reporting, Maduro secured 51% of the vote while opposition candidate Edmundo González garnered 44%. But it appears that the council has still not released official voting tallies from each of the more than 15K stations, which has blocked the opposition party’s ability to verify the results.
Similar to prior Venezuelan presidential elections, many expected the government to interfere with the election to ensure Maduro remained in power. In January, Maduro banned opposition leader Maria Corina Machado from running. Also, 71 individuals who have worked for the opposition have been arbitrarily detained and a dozen online media outlets have been blocked.
As for the voting process, Maduro’s government has ramped up voter suppression efforts by implementing strict passport and residency requirements for Venezuelans living abroad, imposing dress codes for voting stations and arbitrarily preventing voting stations from being set up, and delaying the processing of voter ID cards.
Maduro's win in 2018 was also called into question. Opposition parties boycotted, stating the election was not free or fair.
These anti-democratic measures, coupled with the dire economic crisis, mobilized the opposition to form a broad coalition for this presidential election and it pinned its hopes on garnering a big enough margin to overcome Maduro’s efforts to deny the will of the Venezuelan people.
Omar Barboza, head of the main opposition coalition, said the results it has obtained from campaign representatives at voting stations reflect the enthusiasm by the Venezuelan people who came out in droves to vote against Maduro. He added that Maduro’s loyalists stymied the ability to verify results at voting stations across the country.
A former legislator and current representative of the opposition’s Unitary Platform coalition, Delsa Solórzano, echoed this sentiment. She told the BBC, “There is an important number of voting centers where they are removing our witnesses.” She also alleged that “at this moment, the National Electoral Council has paralyzed the transmission of the voting tallies,” adding, “they refuse to transmit and print the tallies produced by the voting machines, whose copies are essential to verify that the results correspond with the official results.”
According to Venezuelan law, parties are allowed to send witnesses to count paper receipts at each polling station. Witnesses at polling stations across the country have reported that many have been prevented from doing so. On Sunday, opposition spokespeople told the press that witnesses have only been granted access to less than one third of the printed receipts.
Tallies by the opposition show that in Caracas, a Maduro stronghold, more than 2X the vote went to González. As word spread on social media about these results, people began chanting, “And it has fallen, and it has fallen, this government has fallen,” a phrase that Venezuelans have used in the future tense since Maduro came to power.
Maduro has been in power for 11 years, which has led to economic peril for the Venezuelan people. Since Maduro was elected in 2013, approximately 7.7M Venezuelans—roughly one quarter of the population—have left the country in desperate search of work as hyperinflation and violent oppression continues to crush the economy.
Maduro’s insistence to rely on Venezuela’s oil reserve—the world’s biggest—for economic stability has been fruitless. In fact, under Maduro’s rule, Venezuela has experienced the worst economic collapse of a peacetime country in modern history. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported that, in just the last 10 years, Venezuela’s economy, once the 5th largest economy in Latin America, has shrunk to the equivalent of a medium-sized city.
Rightly so, Venezuelans no longer have confidence in Maduro or his ruling socialist PSUV party, which has been in power for 25 years. One community leader, Katiuska Camargo, said that voter turnout has been low for years because “there was so much collective disappointment," but Venezuelans are now "determined that these people leave power immediately.”
Part of the formation of an opposition coalition was to prevent votes from splitting and to organize voters to back the unified effort to unseat the unpopular strongman. The united front reported on Sunday that 54.8% of voters—about 11.7M people—turned out on Sunday, which was much higher than in several elections. The voter turnout and the obfuscation by Maduro loyalists to allow transparency in the vote tabulation process has led the main opposition party to pledge to challenge the result.
In addition, foreign leaders in neighboring states are calling foul on Maduro’s win.
Several foreign leaders in South America have refused to recognize Maduro’s claim to victory, with many decrying the lack of transparency and calling on international observers to weigh in.
Chile’s President Gabriel Boric stated the results “are difficult to believe” and that the Chilean government won’t recognize “any result that is not verifiable.” Chile’s foreign affairs minister, Alberto van Klaveren posted on X, “given the situation in Venezuela, we think it’s important to wait for the opinion of international observers.” Costa Rica’s President Rodrigo Chaves issued a statement on X rejecting Maduro’s claim, writing, “We will work with the democratic countries across the continent and international organizations to achieve the respect the Venezuelan people deserve.” Uruguay's president Luis Lacalle Pou said that the Maduro government was “going to 'win' regardless of the actual results."
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken also called on transparency, stating, “We have serious concerns that the result announced does not reflect the will or the votes of the Venezuelan people.” Blinked also alleged that Venezuela’s voting system was the target of a failed “massive hack” by a foreign actor, but did not extrapolate on it or state which foreign actor was behind the cyberattack.
The Authoritarian Regimes in Maduro’s Corner
Unsurprisingly, the only friends in Maduro’s court are *checks notes* authoritarian states, including China, North Korea, Russia, and Syria, as well as allied states Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
Similar to the isolated terrorist countries who are backing Maduro, the strongman blames U.S. sanctions for Venezuela’s economic crisis. The problem is that the U.S. isn’t entirely to blame for Maduro’s failure as the nation’s leader. He did that all on his own, but the United States’ use of sanctions against Venezuela is only exacerbating the problem Maduro created and also perpetuated.
After decades of under-investment in the state-owned energy company, PDVSA, Maduro announced in 2017 he was appointing loyal military officials to lead the company. The reduction in the price of oil between 2014 and 2017 triggered foreign currency shortages and lowered the value of Venezuelan currency.
Maduro’s bootlickers also lowered tax revenues from oil proceeds, which was a key source of government revenue. And perplexingly stupid given the Maduro government leaned into oil as a single issue economic generator. The fallout was swift. Maduro’s administration tried to pump the economy by printing money, but as the price of imports rose (which Venezuela relies on for basic goods), a new hyperinflation era began with inflation surpassing 1M percent (!!) by 2018.
As the price for basic goods became too expensive for people to afford and the goods that were available were understocked, Venezuelans left the country to be able to provide for their families.
Now, the U.S. isn’t the only nation Maduro’s government blames for its incompetence. Foreign Minister Yvan Gil posted on X that a group of foreign governments and powers is threatening Venezuela’s sovereignty. He wrote, “This group is a version of the infamous, defunct and defeated Lima group,” which includes Ecuador, Guatemala, and Panama. He refered to Venezuela’s acting president Juan Guaido claiming, “The same people who recognized a puppet in 2019 intend to impose him today in 2024.”
One thing is clear: Maduro’s excuse to point the finger at the world for the nation’s problems is simply not working on the people of Venezuela. And brazenly denying the will of the people who voted for change will only accelerate his downfall.
POTUS urges Congress to pass legislation to reform the Supreme Court
On Monday, President Joe Biden announced his proposal for reforming the Supreme Court, including reversing the high court’s Presidential immunity ruling. The plan includes 3 structural reforms to “restore trust and accountability,” including 18 year term limits via presidential appointment every 2 years for Supreme Court justices, a binding and enforceable code of conduct that mirrors the federal courts, and a constitutional amendment that stipulates that no president is immune from criminal prosecution. Since the power lies with Congress to pass legislation, Biden’s proposal urges the legislative branch to address fundamental concerns about the compromised court. The president will speak about the reform proposal during his address at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin, Texas, which will honor the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act.
UPDATE: Nevada attorney general appealed court ruling to dismiss case against fake electors
Nevada attorney general Aaron Ford’s office confirmed over the weekend that it appealed the case against the state’s fake electors to the Nevada Supreme Court. In June, Clark County District Court Judge Mary Kay Holthus dismissed the criminal charges, ruling that the case was filed in the wrong jurisdiction.
Nebraska Supreme Court legalizes partisan lawmaking agenda
Nebraska’s high court affirmed that the state legislature can apply the state’s single-subject rule to bills for a partisan agenda. On Friday, the GOP-controlled Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that LB574—a law that combines 2 separate measures restricting abortion to 12 weeks and gender-affirming healthcare for minors—does not violate the state Constitution’s single-subject rule because both treatments are medical care. While the Nebraska state Senate is nonpartisan in theory, the Republican party holds a supermajority in the chamber and maintains a trifecta over the state government. State lawmakers initially proposed separate bills: One for a 6-week abortion ban and one for limiting gender-affirming treatment for those under 18 years old. After the abortion bill failed in a filibuster, GOP lawmakers rushed to add a revised abortion ban to the other bill.
Planned Parenthood, which was represented by the ACLU of Nebraska, argued that lawmakers recognized the two types of medical treatments as unrelated subjects and that because neither could succeed on its own merit, Republicans combined them to secure the votes needed to pass both pieces of legislation. The court acknowledged that the treatments “are distinct types of medical care,” but relied on an 1895 ruling to reason that each fit under the umbrella of the bill’s purpose for “public health and welfare.” The majority determined that there was a logical connection and that, “we find no merit to Planned Parenthood’s argument that LB 574 contains more than one subject.”
In her partial dissent, Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman admonished the majority for applying different standards. She cited a 2020 decision in which the court blocked a ballot initiative seeking to legalize medical marijuana. The court determined the the referendum’s provisions to allow people to consume and produce marijuana were different subjects that violated the state’s single-subject rule. “It was the duty of the Legislature ... to compose legislation, including titling, which stated ‘one subject,’” adding, “It is not the role of this court to rescue legislative bills.”