ReportWire

Tag: Constitutions

  • King Charles III ends first Australian visit by a reigning British monarch in 13 years

    King Charles III ends first Australian visit by a reigning British monarch in 13 years

    [ad_1]

    MELBOURNE, Australia — MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — King Charles III ends the first visit to Australia by a reigning British monarch in 13 years Tuesday with anti-monarchists hoping his journey is a step toward an Australian citizen becoming head of state.

    Controversy interrupted the visit on Monday when Indigenous independent senator Lidia Thorpe yelled at Charles during a reception that he was not her king and Australia was not his land.

    Esther Anatolitis, co-chair of the Australian Republic Movement, that campaigns for an Australian citizen to replace the British monarch as Australia’s head of state, said while thousands turned out to see the king and Queen Camilla at their public engagements, the numbers were larger when his mother Queen Elizabeth II first visited Australia 70 years ago.

    An estimated 75% of Australia’s population saw the queen in person during the first visit by a reigning British monarch in 1954.

    “It’s understandable that Australians would be welcoming the king and queen, we also welcome them,” Anatolitis said. “But it doesn’t make any sense to continue to have a head of state appointed by birth right from another country.”

    Anatolitis acknowledged that getting a majority of Australians in a majority of states to vote to change the constitution would be difficult. Australians haven’t changed their constitution since 1977.

    “It’s tricky, isn’t it? We’ve got that hurdle, of course,” Anatolitis said.

    Constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey said an Australian republic was not something that Charles, 75, need worry about in his lifetime.

    She said the failure of a referendum last year to create an “utterly innocuous” Indigenous representative body to advise government demonstrated the difficulty in changing Australia’s constitution.

    “It’s just that on the whole people aren’t prepared to change the constitution,” Twomey said.

    “So a republic, which would be a much more complex constitutional question than the one last year, would be far more vulnerable to a scare campaign and to opposition,” she said.

    “So unless you had absolutely unanimous support across the board and a strong reason for doing it, it would fail,” she added.

    Philip Benwell, national chair of the Australian Monarchist League, which wants to maintain Australia’s constitutional link to Britain, said he was standing near Thorpe at the Canberra reception when she started yelling at the king and demanding a treaty with Indigenous Australians.

    “I think she alienated a lot of sympathy. If anything, she’s helped to strengthen our support,” Benwell said.

    Thorpe has been criticized, including by some Indigenous leaders, for shouting at the king and failing to show respect.

    Thorpe was unrepentant. She rejected criticism that her aggressive approach toward the monarch was violent.

    “I think what was unacceptable is the violence in that room, of the King of England praising himself, dripping in stolen wealth, that’s what’s violent,” Thorpe told Australian Broadcasting Corp. “The violence is from the colonizer being in that room asserting his authority, being paid for by every taxpayer in this country.”

    Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wants Australia to become a republic but has ruled out a referendum during his first three-year term. A vote remains a possibility if his center-left Labor Party wins elections due by May next year.

    Australians decided in a referendum in 1999 to retain Queen Elizabeth II as head of state. That result is widely regarded to have been the consequence of disagreement about how a president would be chosen rather than majority support for a monarch.

    Sydney University royal historian Cindy McCreery suspects Australia is not yet ready to make the change.

    “There’s interest in becoming a republic, but I think what we may forget is that logistically speaking we’re not going to have a referendum on that issue any time soon,” McCreery said.

    “I, as a historian, think that it’s probably not realistic to expect a successful referendum on a republic until we’ve done more work on acknowledging our … complicated history,” she said.

    “Becoming a republic doesn’t mean that we’ve somehow thrown off British colonialism. It hopefully has meant that we’re engaging with our own history in an honest and thoughtful way,” she added.

    Charles and Camilla’s Tuesday began watching Indigenous dancers perform at a Sydney Indigenous community center. The couple used tongs to cook sausages at a community barbecue lunch at the central suburb of Parramatta and later shook the hands of well-wishers for the last time of their visit outside the Sydney Opera House. Their final engagement was an inspection of navy ships on Sydney Harbor in an event known as a fleet review.

    Charles’s trip to Australia was scaled down because he is undergoing cancer treatment. He arrives in Samoa on Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Musk offers voters $1M to sign PAC petition backing the Constitution

    Musk offers voters $1M to sign PAC petition backing the Constitution

    [ad_1]

    Elon Musk, the billionaire founder of Tesla and Space X and owner of X who’s gone all-in on Republican Donald Trump’s candidacy for the White House, has already committed at least $70 million to help the former president. Now he’s pledging to give away $1 million a day to voters for signing his political action committee’s petition backing the Constitution.

    The giveaway is raising questions and alarms among some election experts who say it is a violation of the law to link a cash handout to signing a petition that also requires a person to be registered to vote.

    Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, the state’s former attorney general, expressed concern about the plan on Sunday.

    “I think there are real questions with how he is spending money in this race, how the dark money is flowing, not just into Pennsylvania, but apparently now into the pockets of Pennsylvanians. That is deeply concerning,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    A closer look at what’s going on:

    Musk promised on Saturday that he would give away $1 million a day, until the Nov. 5 election, for people signing his PAC’s petition supporting the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, and the Second Amendment, with its right “to keep and bear arms.” He awarded a check during an event Saturday in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to a man identified as John Dreher. A message left with a number listed for Dreher was not returned Sunday. Musk gave out another check Sunday.

    Musk’s America PAC has launched a tour of Pennsylvania, a critical election battleground. He’s aiming to register voters in support of Trump, whom Musk has endorsed. The PAC is also pushing to persuade voters in other key states. It’s not the first offer of cash the organization has made. Musk has posted on X, the platform he purchased as Twitter before renaming it, that he would offer people $47 — and then $100 — for referring others to register and signing the petition.

    Trump, who was campaigning Sunday in Pennsylvania, was asked about Musk’s giveaway, and said, “I haven’t followed that.” Trump said he “speaks to Elon a lot. He’s a friend of mine” and called him great for the country.

    Some election law experts are raising red flags about the giveaway. Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance lawyer, said the latest iteration of Musk’s giveaway approaches a legal boundary. That’s because the PAC is requiring registration as a prerequisite to become eligible for the $1 million check. “There would be few doubts about the legality if every Pennsylvania-based petition signer were eligible, but conditioning the payments on registration arguably violates the law,” Fischer said in an email.

    Rick Hasen, a UCLA Law School political science professor, went further. He pointed to a law that prohibits paying people for registering to vote or for voting. “If all he was doing was paying people to sign the petition, that might be a waste of money. But there’s nothing illegal about it,” Hasen said in a telephone interview. “The problem is that the only people eligible to participate in this giveaway are the people who are registered to vote. And that makes it illegal.”

    Michael Kang, an election law professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, said the context of the giveaway so close to Election Day makes it harder to make the case that the effort is anything but a incentivizing people to register to vote.

    “It’s not quite the same as paying someone to vote, but you’re getting close enough that we worry about its legality,” Kang said.

    A message seeking comment was left with the PAC on Sunday, as was a request for comment from the Justice Department.

    Typically coordination between campaigns and so-called super PACs had been forbidden. But a recent opinion by the Federal Election Commissioner, which regulates federal campaigns, permitted candidates and these groups to work together in certain cases, including getting out the vote efforts.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A rare copy of the US Constitution sells for $9 million at auction

    A rare copy of the US Constitution sells for $9 million at auction

    [ad_1]

    ASHEVILLE, N.C. (AP) — A rare copy of the U.S. Constitution printed 237 years ago and sent to the states to be ratified was sold for $9 million at an auction Thursday evening in North Carolina.

    Brunk Auctions sold the document, the only copy of its type thought to be privately owned, at a private auction. The name of the buyer was not immediately released.

    Bidding took just over seven minutes, with bids coming in at $500,000 intervals mostly over the phone. There was a pause at $8.5 million, then another after someone on the phone bid $9 million.

    “Just another second or two. Savor it a little bit selling here at nine million,” said auctioneer and auction house owner Andrew Brunk.

    Brunk was thankful. The auction was originally set for Sept. 28 but was delayed after Hurricane Helene caused catastrophic damage throughout Asheville and western North Carolina.

    “It’s a privilege to have it here. It’s been quite a ride,” Brunk said.

    Part of a 1787 copy of the U.S. Constitution that sold for $9 million is displayed on a screen at Brunk Auctions in Asheville, N.C., on Thursday, Oct. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins)

    Image

    Brunk Auctions owner Andrew Brunk takes bids for a copy of a painting shortly before a 1787 copy of the U.S. Constitution was sold for $9 million in Asheville, N.C., on Thursday, Oct. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins)

    Image

    Lauren Brunk waits to see if a bidder on the phone wants to make a bid during an auction that included a 1787 copy of the U.S. Constitution that sold for $9 million at Brunk Auctions in Asheville, N.C., on Thursday, Oct. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins)

    The copy was printed after the Constitutional Convention finished drafting the proposed framework of the nation’s government in 1787 and sent it to the Congress of the ineffective first American government under the Articles of Confederation, requesting it be sent to the states to be ratified by the people.

    It’s one of about 100 copies printed by the secretary of that Congress, Charles Thomson. Just eight are known to still exist and the other seven are publicly owned.

    Thomson likely signed two copies for each of the original 13 states, essentially certifying them.

    What happened to the document up for auction Thursday between Thomson’s signature and 2022 is not known.

    Image

    A 1787 copy of the U.S. Constitution that sold for $9 million is displayed at Brunk Auctions in Asheville, N.C., on Thursday, Oct. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins)

    Image

    FILE – An 1787 copy of the U.S. Constitution that will be put up for auction is shown at Brunk Auctions in Asheville, N.C., on Sept. 5, 2024. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins, file)

    Image

    A Brunk auction employee waits to see if a bidder on the phone wants to make a bid during an auction that included a 1787 copy of the U.S. Constitution that sold for $9 million at Brunk Auctions in Asheville, N.C., on Thursday, Oct. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins)

    Two years ago, a property was being cleared out in Edenton in eastern North Carolina that was once owned by Samuel Johnston. He was the governor of North Carolina from 1787 to 1789 and oversaw the state convention during his last year in office that ratified the Constitution.

    The copy was found inside a squat, two-drawer metal filing cabinet with a can of stain on top, in a long-neglected room piled high with old chairs and a dusty book case, before the old Johnston house was preserved. The document was a broad sheet that could be folded one time like a book.

    Along with the Constitution on the broad sheet printed front and back is a letter from George Washington asking for ratification. He acknowledged there would have to be compromise and that certain rights the states enjoyed would have to be given up for the nation’s long-term health.

    Image

    FILE – Part of an 1787 copy of the U.S. Constitution that will be put up for auction is shown at Brunk Auctions in Asheville, North Carolina, on Sept. 5, 2024. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins, file)

    Image

    FILE – Auctioneer Andrew Brunk, left, and historian Seth Kaller, right show off a 1787 copy of the U.S. Constitution that will be put up for auction at Brunk Auctions in Asheville, N.C., on Sept. 5, 2024. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins, file)

    Image

    Brunk Auctions owner Andrew Brunk takes bids for a 1787 copy of the U.S. Constitution that sold for $9 million in Asheville, N.C., on Thursday, Oct. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Collins)

    The Constitution copy wasn’t the only seven-figure purchase Thursday. A watermarked 1776 first draft of the Articles of Confederation went for $1 million.

    Also sold for $85,000 was a 1788 Journal of the Convention of North Carolina at Hillsborough where representatives spent two weeks debating whether ratifying the Constitution would put too much power with the federal government instead of the states.

    Auction officials were not sure what the Constitution document would go for because there is so little to compare it to. The last time a copy of the Constitution that was sent to the states sold, it was for $400 in 1891.

    In 2021, Sotheby’s of New York sold one of only 14 remaining copies of the Constitution printed for the Continental Congress and delegates to the Constitutional Convention for $43.2 million, a record for a book or document.

    ___

    This story corrects that Andrew Brunk is the owner of the auction house that sold the document and not the owner of the document.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As women seek open congressional seats in Maryland, reproductive rights are front and center

    As women seek open congressional seats in Maryland, reproductive rights are front and center

    [ad_1]

    FREDERICK, Md. (AP) — In an election where the future of reproductive rights is on the ballot in Maryland and elsewhere across the country, the state’s all-male congressional delegation stands to gain an influx of women.

    It could happen in Maryland’s 6th Congressional District, where Democrat April McClain Delaney is running against conservative Republican Neil Parrott, a former member of the Maryland House of Delegates. They’re competing to represent a wide swath of rural Maryland and more affluent liberal suburbs of Washington, D.C.

    In a year when voters also could elect the nation’s first female president, women are vying for two other open seats in Maryland’s 10-member congressional delegation. The delegation has been all-male since former Sen. Barbara Mikulski retired in 2016, but the state has a long history of female officeholders from both parties.

    McClain Delaney, a mother of four daughters whose husband previously represented the district, says she wants to protect the reproductive rights of her children and other young people in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to end the constitutional right to an abortion and leave those decisions to the states. She previously worked in the Biden administration’s Department of Commerce and has focused much of her career on protecting children’s online safety.

    “I can’t believe that my mother, my daughters’ grandmother, had more reproductive freedoms than they currently do,” she said in a recent interview. She said she once experienced an ectopic pregnancy that could have been fatal if restrictive abortion laws had limited her access to life-saving medical care.

    Parrott, meanwhile, has deflected questions about reproductive rights on the campaign trail. He made his anti-abortion stance clear during 12 years in the Maryland State House. But now, he says, it’s “really a non-issue” because he doesn’t believe either political party can get enough congressional votes to regulate abortion nationally — a position similar to that of former President Donald Trump, the GOP presidential nominee.

    That approach also echoes recent efforts by other conservatives and leaders of the anti-abortion movement now struggling to appeal to voters in blue-leaning Maryland. The state’s voters will also consider a constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.

    Parrott, 54, has worked to move the conversation to friendlier terrain, emphasizing his commitment to lowering inflation, creating a stronger economy for middle-class families and stopping illegal immigration. He says his opponent — who lives several miles outside the district in an affluent suburb of Washington — is out of touch with the struggles of everyday Americans, including people in the 6th Congressional District.

    U.S. House members are only required to live in the state they represent.

    McClain Delaney has used personal funds to bolster her campaign and received endorsements from big-name Democrats, including former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin.

    She’s also outspent Parrott by a wide margin, according to AdImpact, which tracks campaign spending. Just since the May 14 primaries, Democrats have spent more than $600,000 on advertising in the 6th District race, compared to slightly more than $30,000 spent by Republicans.

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    Those figures are not expected to change much between now and Nov. 5, with McClain-Delaney having a nearly 20-1 advantage in ad spending reserved the rest of the way. Neither candidate has received much support from the national parties or outside groups, a possible indicator that both sides view the seat as safely Democratic.

    Parrot is a longtime resident of Hagerstown, a small city in western Maryland surrounded by farmland. A traffic engineer by trade, he said he can relate to people dealing with high grocery bills and unaffordable housing.

    “I have a history here,” he said. “I’ve served in the community here.”

    But McClain Delaney, 60, argues she’s more ideologically in line with most 6th District voters. She calls herself a “common sense, common ground” candidate. The daughter of an Idaho potato farmer, she says she can get Washington politicians to address the needs of working families.

    McClain Delaney has attacked Parrott’s record in the Maryland House of Delegates, particularly on issues impacting women.

    Parrott, in turn, has accused McClain Delaney of lying and taking things out of context. In an interview last week, Parrott said he supports the right to abortion in cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is at risk.

    Tensions between the candidates erupted into a heated exchange during the last few minutes of a recent public forum.

    “Shame on her,” Parrott said, pointing a finger at McClain Delaney, who denied putting out false information as members of the audience chanted and jeered.

    The House seat was vacated by David Trone, who ran for Senate and lost to Angela Alsobrooks in the Democratic primary earlier this year.

    The 6th District hasn’t always favored Democrats. It was represented by Republican Roscoe Bartlett for 20 years before McClain Delaney’s husband, John Delaney, won the seat in 2012 following a redistricting that helped Democrats.

    Seven of Maryland’s eight House members are Democrats, as are the state’s two senators. Three women are vying for open seats this election cycle.

    In Maryland’s deep blue 3rd Congressional District, state Sen. Sarah Elfreth won a crowded Democratic primary. Her main rival was former U.S. Capitol police officer Harry Dunn, who defended the U.S. Capitol against Jan. 6 rioters. In 2018, Elfreth became the youngest woman elected to the state Senate. She’s pledged to prioritize reproductive health and affordable child care.

    Reproductive freedom is also at the forefront of the U.S. Senate race between former Republican Gov. Larry Hogan and Alsobrooks, a Democrat who argues women have too much at stake to risk losing Democrats’ thin Senate majority. She said having more women at the table is a big deal.

    “I believe it makes our policies more complete,” she said in a recent interview. “And so this is a moment that gives us the opportunity to make sure that we are adding women — mothers and daughters and sisters — to the Senate to ensure that the variety of lived experiences are represented in that body.”

    ___

    This story has been corrected to reflect that Maryland’s delegation has 10 members, not nine, and that there are nine Democrats, not eight, in the delegation

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A rare 1787 copy of the US Constitution is up for auction

    A rare 1787 copy of the US Constitution is up for auction

    [ad_1]

    ASHEVILLE, N.C. — Historical document appraiser and collector Seth Kaller spreads a broad sheet of paper across a desk. It’s in good enough condition that he can handle it, carefully, with clean, bare hands. There are just a few creases and tiny discolorations, even though it’s just a few weeks shy of 237 years old and has spent who knows how long inside a filing cabinet in North Carolina.

    At the top of the first page are familiar words but in regular type instead of the sweeping Gothic script we’re used to seeing: “WE, the People …”

    And the people will get a chance to bid for this copy of the U.S. Constitution — the only of its type thought to be in private hands — at a sale by Brunk Auctions on Sept. 28 in Asheville, North Carolina.

    The minimum bid for the auction is $1 million. There is no minimum price that must be reached.

    This copy was printed after the Constitutional Convention approved the proposed framework of the nation’s government in 1787 and it was ratified by the Congress of the ineffective first American government under the Articles of Confederation.

    It’s one of about 100 copies printed by the secretary of that Congress, Charles Thomson. Just eight are known to still exist and the other seven are publicly owned.

    Thomson likely signed two copies for each of the original 13 states, essentially certifying them. They were sent to special ratifying conventions, where representatives, all white and male, wrangled for months before accepting the structure of the United States government that continues today.

    “This is the point of connection between the government and the people. The Preamble — ‘we the people’ — this is the moment the government is asking the people to empower them,” auctioneer Andrew Brunk said.

    What happened to the document up for auction between Thomson’s signature and 2022 isn’t known.

    Two years ago, a property was being cleared out in Edenton in eastern North Carolina that was once owned by Samuel Johnston. He was the governor of North Carolina from 1787 to 1789 and he oversaw the state convention during his last year in office that ratified the Constitution.

    The copy was found inside a squat, two-drawer metal filing cabinet with a can of stain on top, in a long-neglected room piled high with old chairs and a dusty book case, before the old Johnston house was preserved. The document was a broad sheet that could be folded one time like a book.

    “I get calls every week from people who think they have a Declaration of Independence or a Gettysburg Address and most of the time it is just a replica, but every so often something important gets found,” said Kaller, who appraises, buys and sells historic documents.

    “This is a whole other level of importance,” he added.

    Along with the Constitution on the broad sheet printed front and back is a letter from George Washington asking for ratification. He acknowledged there will have to be compromise and that rights the states enjoyed will have to be given up for the nation’s long-term health.

    “To secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each and yet provide for the interest and safety for all — individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest,” wrote the man who would become the first U.S. president.

    Brunk isn’t sure what the document might go for because there is so little to compare it to. The last time a copy of the Constitution like this sold was for $400 in 1891. In 2021, Sotheby’s of New York sold one of only 13 remaining copies of the Constitution printed for the Continental Congress and delegates to the Constitutional Convention for $43.2 million, a record for a book or document.

    But that document was mostly for internal use and debate by the Founding Fathers. The copy being sold later this month was one meant to be sent to people all around the country to review and decide if that’s how they wanted to be governed, connecting the writers of the Constitution to the people in the states who would provide its power and legitimacy.

    There are other items up for auction in Asheville including a 1776 first draft of the Articles of Confederation and a 1788 Journal of the Convention of North Carolina at Hillsborough where representatives spent two weeks debating if ratifying the Constitution would put too much power with the nation instead of the states.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prosecutor challenges Mark Meadows’s bid to move Arizona’s fake elector case to federal court

    Prosecutor challenges Mark Meadows’s bid to move Arizona’s fake elector case to federal court

    [ad_1]

    PHOENIX (AP) — A prosecutor urged a judge on Thursday to reject former Donald Trump presidential chief of staff Mark Meadows’ bid to move his charges in Arizona’s fake elector case to federal court, saying his actions in trying to overturn the 2020 election results weren’t part of his job at the White House.

    Meadows has asked a federal judge to move the case to U.S. District Court, arguing his actions were taken when he was a federal official working as Trump’s chief of staff and that he has immunity under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says federal law trumps state law.

    The former chief of staff, who faces charges in Arizona and Georgia in what state authorities alleged was an illegal scheme to overturn the 2020 election results in Trump’s favor, had unsuccessfully tried to move state charges to federal court last year in an election subversion case in Georgia.

    Prosecutor Krista Wood said Meadows’ electioneering efforts weren’t part of his official duties at the White House. “He is not authorized to meddle in the state’s administration of elections,” Wood said.

    The prosecutor pointed to messages received and sent by Meadows in the weeks after the 2020 election, including a text Meadows sent to then-Republican Gov. Doug Ducey two weeks after Election Day saying former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was trying to reach the governor to talk about the election results.

    Meadows attorney George Terwilliger maintained his client’s messages and actions were part of his official duties and suggested important context about the messages was missing. “I don’t think the court can rely on those text messages,” Terwilliger said.

    While not a fake elector in Arizona, prosecutors said Meadows worked with other Trump campaign members to submit names of fake electors from Arizona and other states to Congress in a bid to keep Trump in office despite his November 2020 defeat.

    In 2020, President Joe Biden won Arizona by 10,457 votes.

    While Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office had said Meadows missed the deadline for asking a court to move the charges to federal court, Meadows’ attorneys say another federal law allows for cases to be moved to federal court at a later time for good cause.

    Terwilliger said he waited to try to move Meadows’ Arizona charges to federal court until after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a July ruling that gave former presidents broad immunity from prosecution. U.S. District Judge John Tuchi, who was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Barack Obama, didn’t say when he would issue his ruling on Meadows’ request.

    Last year, Meadows tried to get his Georgia charges moved to federal court, but his request was rejected by a judge, whose ruling was later affirmed by an appeals court. The former chief of staff has since asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling.

    The Arizona indictment also says Meadows confided to a White House staff member in early November 2020 that Trump had lost the election. Prosecutors say Meadows also had arranged meetings and calls with state officials to discuss the fake elector conspiracy.

    Meadows and other defendants are seeking a dismissal of the Arizona case.

    Meadows’ attorneys said nothing their client is alleged to have done in Arizona was criminal. They said the indictment consists of allegations that he received messages from people trying to get ideas in front of Trump — or “seeking to inform Mr. Meadows about the strategy and status of various legal efforts by the president’s campaign.”

    In all, 18 Republicans were charged in late April in Arizona’s fake electors case. The defendants include 11 Republicans who had submitted a document falsely claiming Trump had won Arizona, another Trump aide and five lawyers connected to the former president.

    In early August, Trump’s campaign attorney Jenna Ellis, who worked closely with Giuliani, signed a cooperation agreement with prosecutors that led to the dismissal of her charges. Republican activist Loraine Pellegrino also became the first person to be convicted in the Arizona case when she pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge and was sentenced to probation.

    Meadows and the other remaining defendants have pleaded not guilty to the forgery, fraud and conspiracy charges in Arizona.

    Trump wasn’t charged in Arizona, but the indictment refers to him as an unindicted coconspirator.

    Eleven people who had been nominated to be Arizona’s Republican electors had met in Phoenix on Dec. 14, 2020, to sign a certificate saying they were “duly elected and qualified” electors and claimed Trump had carried the state in the 2020 election.

    A one-minute video of the signing ceremony was posted on social media by the Arizona Republican Party at the time. The document was later sent to Congress and the National Archives, where it was ignored.

    Prosecutors in Michigan, Nevada, Georgia and Wisconsin have also filed criminal charges related to the fake electors scheme.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Illegal voting by noncitizens is rare, yet Republicans are making it a major issue this election

    Illegal voting by noncitizens is rare, yet Republicans are making it a major issue this election

    [ad_1]

    Only U.S. citizens are eligible to vote in this fall’s election for president and other top offices. While that is nothing new, the potential for noncitizens to register or vote has been receiving a lot of attention lately.

    Citing an influx of immigrants in recent years at the U.S.-Mexico border, Republicans have raised concerns about the possibility that noncitizens will be voting and they have taken steps in numerous states to address that prospect, even though cases of noncitizens actually voting are rare.

    GOP officials have undertaken reviews of voter rolls, issued executive orders and placed constitutional amendments on state ballots as part of an emphasis on thwarting noncitizen voting. Some Democrats contend the measures could create hurdles for legal voters, are unnecessary and lead people to believe the problem of noncitizens voting is bigger than it really is.

    What does the law say?

    A 1996 U.S. law makes it illegal for noncitizens to vote in elections for president or members of Congress. Violators can be fined and imprisoned for up to a year. They can also be deported.

    When people register to vote, they confirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens. Federal law requires states to regularly maintain their voter rolls and remove anyone who is ineligible, a process that could identify immigrants living in the country illegally.

    No state constitutions explicitly allow noncitizens to vote, and many states have laws that prohibit noncitizens from voting for state offices such as governor or attorney general. But some municipalities in California, Maryland and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia, do allow voting by noncitizens in some local elections such as for school board and city council.

    What does the data say?

    Voting by noncitizens is rare. Yet Republican officials have highlighted voter registration reviews that turned up potential noncitizens.

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, said this past week that more than 6,500 potential noncitizens have been removed from Texas voter rolls since 2021, including 1,930 with “a voter history” who have been referred for investigation by the attorney general’s office. Texas has almost 18 million registered voters.

    Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, said in August that he referred for potential prosecution 138 apparent noncitizens found to have voted in a recent election and 459 more who registered but did not vote. Those figures were higher than reviews from previous years but a small fraction of the more than 8 million registered voters in Ohio.

    Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen, a Republican, recently announced that 3,251 people previously identified as noncitizens by the federal government are being switched to inactive status on the state’s voter registration rolls. They will be required to provide proof of citizenship and fill out a form to vote in November. Alabama has more than 3 million registered voters.

    In Georgia, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger found that 1,634 potential noncitizens tried to register to vote between 1997 and 2022, though election officials flagged them and none was registered. Georgia registered millions of other voters during that time.

    Some election administration experts have said the voter roll reviews show that current tools to flag noncitizen voters are working.

    What do the courts say?

    Arizona provides a case study for the long-running attempts by Republicans to prohibit noncitizen voting.

    Under a 2004 voter-approved initiative, Arizona required a driver’s license, birth certificate, passport or other similar document to approve a federal voter registration application. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that Arizona cannot require documentary proof of citizenship for people to vote in federal elections.

    The state responded by creating two classes of voters. For state and local elections, voters must provide proof of citizenship when they register or have it on file with the state. But because that cannot be required in presidential and congressional elections, tens of thousands of voters who have not provided proof of citizenship are registered only for federal elections.

    An August order by a divided U.S. Supreme Court will allow voter registration forms submitted without “documentary proof of citizenship” to be rejected by Arizona counties while litigation over the law continues. People will be able to register to vote in presidential and congressional elections using a different federal form that requires people to swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, without requiring proof.

    What’s on the ballot?

    Republican-led legislatures in eight states have proposed constitutional amendments on their November ballots declaring that only citizens can vote.

    Proposals in Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin would replace existing constitutional provisions stating that “every” citizen or “all” citizens can vote with new wording saying “only” citizens can vote. Supporters contend the current wording does not necessarily bar noncitizens from voting.

    In Idaho and Kentucky, the proposed amendments would explicitly state: “No person who is not a citizen of the United States” can vote. Similar wording won approval from Louisiana voters two years ago.

    Voters in North Dakota, Colorado, Alabama, Florida and Ohio passed amendments between 2018 and 2022 restricting voting to “only” citizens.

    What else are states doing?

    Although noncitizen voting already is prohibited in the state constitution, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry of Louisiana is continuing to draw attention to the issue. He recently signed an executive order requiring state agencies that provide voter registration forms to include a written disclaimer that noncitizens are prohibited from voting.

    In Georgia, Raffensperger last week required every polling place to post a sign in English and Spanish warning noncitizens that it is illegal to vote.

    Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, citing “significant growth of the noncitizen population” in the state, set up a special email account Wednesday to report suspected violations of election laws.

    In Wisconsin, Republicans have filed a pair of similar lawsuits in recent weeks that challenge the state’s process for verifying whether a registered voter is a citizen. The lawsuits seek court orders requiring the elections commission to perform checks to ensure there are no registered voters who are noncitizens.

    North Carolina Republicans have sued the state election board, alleging it is not enforcing a new law aimed at removing people from voter rolls who seek jury duty exclusions because they are not citizens.

    Tennessee’s top election office sent letters in June asking for proof of citizenship from more than 14,000 registered voters, though those who failed to respond will not be barred from voting. The list was based on data from the state Department of Safety and Homeland Security, which has information about whether residents were U.S. citizens when they first interacted with that department.

    What has Congress done?

    Republicans in Congress are pushing a bill, known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote. During a news conference about the legislation this year, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., did not provide specific examples of noncitizens voting but insisted it is a concern.

    “We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections,” he said, “but it’s not been something that is easily provable.”

    The legislation passed the Republican-led House in July largely along partisan lines but has not come to a vote in the Democratic-led Senate. The Biden administration said it is strongly opposed and that laws against noncitizen voting are working.

    “This bill would do nothing to safeguard our elections, but it would make it much harder for all eligible Americans to register to vote and increase the risk that eligible voters are purged from voter rolls,” the White House said in a statement.

    Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin, and Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    By David A. Lieb | Associated Press

    Source link

  • Mexico’s electoral agency gives govrerning coalition 73% of seats in Congress, with 60% of votes

    Mexico’s electoral agency gives govrerning coalition 73% of seats in Congress, with 60% of votes

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s electoral institute voted Friday to give the governing Morena party and its allies about 73% of seats in the lower house of Congress, though the coalition won less than 60% of the votes in the June 2 elections.

    The ruling, which can be challenged in court, would give the governing coalition the two-thirds majority it needs for the Chamber of Deputies to approve changes in Mexico’s constitution. If the ruling stands, Morena and it allies would have about 364 seats in the 500-seat body.

    Critics said that would give Morena more power in Congress than it won at the voting booth.

    The dispute involves a law that assigns some seats in Congress on the basis of proportional representation. That was designed to give smaller parties some seats in Congress, based on their national vote percentage, even if they couldn’t win individual congressional district races.

    But the law also stipulates that the proportional seats can’t be used to give any party a majority in Congress.

    Morena apparently got around that by “lending” some of its winning congressional district candidates to two allied smaller parties. The smaller parties aren’t subject to the no-majority rule, but they vote in lockstep with Morena.

    The institute’s governing council voted that proportional representation rules apply only to parties individually and without taking into account the effect that might have on a majority coalition.

    While it is unlikely Morena and its allies will be given a two-thirds majority in the Senate, whose approval is also needed for constitutional changes, the coalition will probably be just a couple of seats short in that body and could feasibly win the needed votes from a smaller party.

    The issue is important because outgoing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador — and his successor, fellow Morena member Claudia Sheinbaum — have vowed to use the two-thirds majority to pursue 20 constitutional changes, including making all judges run for election.

    Critics say electing judges would undermine the independence of the judiciary branch in favor of even greater control for the governing party.

    The proposal has spurred criticism from investors and financial institutions and the U.S. ambassador to Mexico in recent days.

    On Tuesday, Morgan Stanley downgraded its recommendation for investing in Mexico, saying the changes would “increase risk.” In an analysis report, Citibanamex warned that passage of the proposal could end in the “cancellation of liberal democracy.”

    On Thursday, U.S. Ambassador Ken Salazar said the proposed changes pose a “risk” to Mexico’s democracy and that they threaten “the historic commercial relationship” between the two countries.

    In addition, the federal courts have been mostly shut down by a strike by court employees that began Monday to protest the judicial proposal. Judges and magistrates joined the walkout Wednesday.

    Among other constitutional proposals, Morena is pushing a change that would essentially do away with all of Mexico’s independent oversight and regulatory bodies. The party claims they are a waste of money, and says oversight responsibilities should be given to government departments instead, essentially allowing them to police themselves.

    López Obrador has tried to push through his pet infrastructure projects, mostly railways and oil refineries, without oversight, regulation or environmental impact statements, but he has frequently faced court challenges. Changing the constitution would sweep those obstacles away.

    López Obrador leaves office Sept. 30, but Sheinbaum — who won the June 2 election to become Mexico’s first female president — has vowed to continue all of his policies.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • TikTok compares itself to foreign-owned American news outlets as it fights forced sale or ban

    TikTok compares itself to foreign-owned American news outlets as it fights forced sale or ban

    [ad_1]

    TikTok on Thursday pushed back against U.S. government arguments that the popular social media platform is not shielded by the First Amendment, comparing its platform to prominent American media organizations owned by foreign entities.

    Last month, the Justice Department argued in a legal brief filed in a Washington federal appeals court that neither TikTok’s China-based parent company, ByteDance, nor the platform’s global and U.S. arms — TikTok Ltd. and TikTok Inc. — were entitled to First Amendment protections because they are “foreign organizations operating abroad” or owned by one.

    TikTok attorneys have made the First Amendment a key part of their legal challenge to the federal law requiring ByteDance to sell TikTok to an approved buyer or face a ban.

    On Thursday, they argued in a court document that TikTok’s U.S. arm doesn’t forfeit its constitutional rights because it is owned by a foreign entity. They drew a parallel between TikTok and well-known news outlets such as Politico and Business Insider, both of which are owned by German publisher Axel Springer SE. They also cited Fortune, a business magazine owned by Thai businessman Chatchaval Jiaravanon.

    “Surely the American companies that publish Politico, Fortune, and Business Insider do not lose First Amendment protection because they have foreign ownership,” the TikTok attorneys wrote, arguing that “no precedent” supports what they called “the government’s dramatic rewriting of what counts as protected speech.”

    In a redacted court filing made last month, the Justice Department argued ByteDance and TikTok haven’t raised valid free speech claims in their challenge against the law, saying the measure addresses national security concerns about TikTok’s ownership without targeting protected speech.

    The Biden administration and TikTok had held talks in recent years aimed at resolving the government’s concerns. But the two sides failed to reach a deal.

    TikTok said the government essentially walked away from the negotiating table after it proposed a 90-page agreement that detailed how the company planned to address concerns about the app while still maintaining ties with ByteDance.

    However, the Justice Department has said TikTok’s proposal “failed to create sufficient separation between the company’s U.S. operations and China” and did not adequately address some of the government’s concerns.

    The government has pointed to some data transfers between TikTok employees and ByteDance engineers in China as why it believed the proposal, called Project Texas, was not sufficient to guard against national security concerns. Federal officials have also argued that the size and scope of TikTok would have made it impossible to meaningfully enforce compliance with the proposal.

    TikTok attorneys said Thursday that some of what the government views as inadequacies of the agreement were never raised during the negotiations.

    Separately the DOJ on Thursday evening asked the court to submit evidence under seal, saying in a filing that the case contained information classified at “Top Secret” levels. TikTok has been opposing those requests.

    Oral arguments in the case are scheduled to begin on Sept. 16.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nobel laureate Yunus arrives in Bangladesh to take over as interim leader

    Nobel laureate Yunus arrives in Bangladesh to take over as interim leader

    [ad_1]

    DHAKA, Bangladesh — Bangladesh’s next leader Muhammad Yunus arrived home Thursday from an overseas trip and will take office later in the day, as he looks to restore calm and rebuild the country following an uprising that ended the 15-year, increasingly autocratic rule of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

    Yunus landed at Dhaka’s Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport on Thursday afternoon and was welcomed by the country’s military chief, Gen. Waker-Uz-Zaman, who was flanked by navy and air force heads.

    Some of the student leaders who led the uprising against Hasina were also present at the airport to welcome him. They had earlier proposed Yunus as interim leader to the country’s figurehead president, who is currently acting as the chief executive under the constitution.

    Security was tight at the airport to ensure Yunus’ safe arrival, as the country has experienced days of unrest following the downfall of Hasina on Monday. President Mohammed Shahabuddin will administer the oath-taking ceremony on Thursday night when Yunus is expected to announce his new Cabinet.

    Before leaving Paris, where he was attending the Olympics, Yunus appealed for calm in Bangladesh amid tensions over the country’s future.

    Hasina’s son Sajeeb Wazed Joy, who acts as an adviser to his mother, vowed Wednesday that his family and the Awami League party would continue to be engaged in Bangladesh’s politics — a reversal from what he’d said earlier in the week after Hasina stepped down Monday and fled to India.

    Yunuswas named as interim leader following talks among military officials, civic leaders and the student activists who led the uprising against Hasina. Yunus made his first public comments in the French capital on Wednesday before boarding a plane to return home.

    Yunus congratulated the student protesters, saying they had made “our second Victory Day possible,” and he appealed to them and other stakeholders to remain peaceful, while condemning the violence that followed Hasina’s resignation.

    “Violence is our enemy. Please don’t create more enemies. Be calm and get ready to build the country,” Yunus said.

    Bangladesh’s military chief, Gen. Waker-Uz-Zaman, said in a televised address on Wednesday that he expected Yunus to usher in a “beautiful democratic” process.

    Yunus, who was awarded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for his work developing microcredit markets, told reporters in Paris: “I’m looking forward to going back home and seeing what’s happening there, and how we can organize ourselves to get out of the trouble that we are in.″

    Asked when elections would be held, he put his hands up as if to indicate it was too early to say.

    “I’ll go and talk to them. I’m just fresh in this whole area,” he said.

    A tribunal in Dhaka earlier on Wednesday acquitted Yunus in a labor law violation case involving a telecommunication company he founded, in which he was convicted and sentenced to six months in jail. He had been released on bail in the case.

    The president had dissolved Parliament on Tuesday, clearing the path for an interim administration that is expected to schedule new elections.

    Yunus has been a longtime opponent of Hasina, who had called him a “bloodsucker” allegedly for using force to extract loan repayments from rural poor, mainly women. Yunus has denied the allegations.

    In a span of weeks since July 15, more than 300 people died in violence in Bangladesh. Rising tensions in the days surrounding Hasina’s resignation created chaos, with police leaving their posts after being attacked. Dozens of officers were killed, prompting police to stop working across the country. They threatened not to return unless their safety is ensured. The looting of firearms was also reported in local media.

    The chaos began in July with protests against a quota system for government jobs that critics said favored people with connections to Hasina’s party. But the demonstrations soon grew into a broader challenge to Hasina’s 15-year rule, which was marked by human rights abuses, corruption, allegations of rigged elections and a brutal crackdown on her opponents.

    Joy, Hasina’s son, said in a social media post on Wednesday that his family would return to politics and not give up following attacks on the Awami League party’s leaders and members. Many see Joy as Hasina’s successor in a dynastic political culture that dominates the South Asian nation’s politics.

    On Monday, Joy had said Hasina would not return to politics after she stepped down. But in a video message posted on his Facebook page on Wednesday, he urged party activists to rise up.

    “You are not alone. We are here. The family of Bangabandhu has not gone anywhere,” he said.

    Hasina’s father, independence leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, is fondly referred to in Bangladesh as Bangabandhu, which means “friend of Bengal.”

    “If we want to build a new Bangladesh, it is not possible without the Awami League,” he said.

    “The Awami League is the oldest, democratic, and largest party in Bangladesh,” Joy added. “The Awami League has not died … It is not possible to eliminate the Awami League. We had said that our family would not engage in politics anymore. However, given the attacks on our leaders and activists, we cannot give up.”

    Overnight into Thursday, residents across Dhaka carried sticks, iron rods and sharp weapons to guard their neighborhoods amid reports of robberies. Communities used loudspeakers in mosques to alert people that robberies were occurring, as police remained off duty. The military shared hotline numbers for people seeking help.

    The quick move to select Yunus came when Hasina’s resignation created a power vacuum and left the future unclear for Bangladesh, which has a history of military rule, messy politics and myriad crises.

    Many fear that Hasina’s departure could trigger even more instability in the densely populated nation of some 170 million people, which is already dealing with high unemployment, corruption and a complex strategic relationship with India, China and the United States.

    Hasina, 76, was elected to a fourth consecutive term in January, in an election boycotted by her main opponents. Thousands of opposition members were jailed before the vote, and the U.S. and U.K. denounced the result as not credible.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Utah’s near-total abortion ban to remain blocked until lower court assesses its constitutionality

    Utah’s near-total abortion ban to remain blocked until lower court assesses its constitutionality

    [ad_1]

    SALT LAKE CITY — A near-total abortion ban will remain on hold in Utah after the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the law should remain blocked until a lower court can assess its constitutionality.

    With the decision, abortion remains legal up to 18 weeks under another state law that has served as a fallback as abortion rights have been thrown into limbo.

    The panel wrote in its opinion that Planned Parenthood Association of Utah had legal standing to challenge the state’s abortion trigger law, and that a lower court acted within its purview when it initially blocked the ban.

    Their ruling only affects whether the restrictions remain on pause amid further legal proceedings and does not decide the final outcome of abortion policy in the state. The case will now be sent back to a lower court to determine whether the law is constitutional.

    The trigger law that remains on hold would prohibit abortions except in cases when the mother’s life is at risk or there is a fatal fetal abnormality. A separate state law passed this year also would allow abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy in cases of rape or incest.

    Utah lawmakers passed the trigger law — one of the most restrictive in the nation — in 2020 to automatically ban most abortions should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade. When Roe fell in June 2022, abortion rights advocates in Utah immediately challenged the law, and a district court judge put it on hold a few days later.

    Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision, most Republican-led states have implemented abortion bans or heavy restrictions. Currently, 14 states are enforcing bans at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions. Four more have bans that kick in after about six weeks of pregnancy — before many women realize they’re pregnant. Besides Utah’s, the only other ban currently on hold due to a court order is in neighboring Wyoming.

    When the U.S. Supreme Court determined there was no right to abortion in the federal Constitution, a key legal question became whether state constitutions have provisions that protect abortion access. State constitutions differ, and state courts have come to different conclusions. In April, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that an abortion ban adopted in 1864 could be enforced — but lawmakers quickly repealed it.

    Abortion figures to be a major issue in November’s elections, with abortion-related ballot measures going before voters in at least six states. In the seven statewide measures held since Roe was overturned, voters have sided with abortion rights advocates each time.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tunisian President Kais Saied to seek reelection in October after tumultuous first term

    Tunisian President Kais Saied to seek reelection in October after tumultuous first term

    [ad_1]

    FILE – Tunisian President Kais Saied attends a signing ceremony with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, Friday, May 31, 2024. A Tunisian court on Friday sentenced presidential candidate Lotfi Mraihi to eight months in prison and banned him from contesting election for life in the latest move to stifle opponents of President Kais Saied in the upcoming October election. (Tingshu Wang/Pool Photo via AP, File)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Forced labor, same-sex marriage, shoplifting on the ballot in California this year

    Forced labor, same-sex marriage, shoplifting on the ballot in California this year

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Forced labor, same-sex marriage and shoplifting are among the 10 statewide ballot measures that California voters are set to consider in November.

    The California secretary of state assigned proposition numbers to the measures on Wednesday after the Legislature added two more bond proposals to the ballot.

    Here’s a look at what voters will decide in November:

    This asks voters for permission to borrow $10 billion for public school construction and repairs. Most of the money, $8.5 billion, would go to elementary and secondary schools. The rest, or $1.5 billion, would go to community colleges. No money would be available for the California State University or University of California systems.

    This would remove the ban on same-sex marriage from the California Constitution. Voters added that ban to the constitution in 2008. But the U.S. Supreme Court has prevented California from enforcing the ban since 2013. Still, the language banning same-sex marriage remains in the state constitution. The proposed amendment would remove the ban and replace it with language saying, “The right to marry is a fundamental right.”

    This asks voters for permission to borrow $10 billion for various climate programs. The largest chunk of the money, $3.8 billion, would help pay to improve drinking water systems and prepare for droughts and floods. Programs preparing for wildfires would receive $1.5 billion while programs combating sea level rise would get $1.2 billion.

    The rest would be divided up among parks and outdoor recreation programs, clean air initiatives and programs preparing for extreme heat, protecting biodiversity and helping make farms and ranches sustainable.

    This would change the state constitution to make it easier for local governments to borrow money, provided they use the funds to build affordable housing or public infrastructure. Local governments, excluding school districts, currently can borrow money only if two-thirds of voters approve.

    This would lower that threshold to 55% for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects. Public infrastructure includes water and sewer systems, public transportation, libraries, broadband internet and hospitals.

    This would change the California Constitution to ban forced labor in any form. The constitution currently bans involuntary servitude, or forced labor, except as a punishment for crime. That exemption has become a target of criminal justice advocates concerned about prison labor conditions. It is not uncommon for people who are incarcerated to be put to work earning less than $1 an hour.

    This eventually would increase California’s minimum wage to $18 per hour. It is currently $16 per hour for most people and $20 per hour for fast food workers. Health care workers will eventually see their minimum wage reach $25 per hour, according to a law that Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last year.

    This would repeal a state law prohibiting cities and counties from capping rents on single-family homes, condominiums and apartments built after 1995. Supporters say the proposal would help prevent homelessness.

    Similar measures failed in 2018 and 2020 amid fierce opposition led by landlord groups and the real-estate industry. Opponents argued the proposal would hurt mom-and-pop landlords and discourage the construction of affordable housing.

    State lawmakers in 2019 approved a 10% statewide cap on annual rent increases. The law exempted new construction for 15 years and is set to expire in 2030. Several cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Jose also have local rent control policies.

    This would permanently allow California’s Medicaid program to pay pharmacies directly for prescription drugs. California started doing this in 2019 after Newsom signed an executive order allowing the payments. This measure would make it a law.

    The measure also would require some health care providers to spend almost all of the money they get from a federal prescription drug program directly on patient care instead of other things.

    This proposition appears to be directed at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The measure has the backing of the California Apartment Association, which helped pay for an ad criticizing the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The foundation has said it is being targeted for its support for rent control.

    This would make the state pay doctors more money for treating patients who are covered by Medicaid, the government-funded health insurance program for people with low incomes.

    Managed care organizations contract with the state to provide these health benefits. The state taxes these organizations to help pay for the Medicaid program. This measure would require the state to use a portion of that tax money to increase how much Medicaid pays doctors.

    This would make the crime of shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders and increase penalties for some drug charges, including those involving the synthetic opioid fentanyl. It also would give judges the authority to order those with multiple drug charges to get treatment.

    Proponents said the initiative is necessary to close loopholes in existing laws that have made it challenging for law enforcement to punish shoplifters and drug dealers.

    Opponents, including Democratic state leaders and social justice groups, said the proposal would disproportionately imprison poor people and those with substance use issues rather than target ringleaders who hire large groups of people to steal goods for them to resell online.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Which states could have abortion on the ballot in 2024?

    Which states could have abortion on the ballot in 2024?

    [ad_1]

    LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Organizers of an effort to scale back Arkansas’ abortion ban face a Friday deadline to submit enough signatures to try to put their proposal before voters in November’s election.

    If they’re successful, Arkansas would be the sixth state where election officials are validating signatures on abortion measures. They are already on the ballot in another five, plus a proposed amendment in New York that would bar discrimination based on “pregnancy outcomes.”

    Supporters of other abortion measures in Arizona and Nebraska submitted petitions in their respective states on Wednesday.

    The fate of the measures could reshape or confirm the trendlines that have developed in the two years since the U.S. Supreme Court removed the nationwide right to abortion.

    Since the ruling, most Republican-controlled states have new abortion restrictions in effect, including 14 that ban it at every stage of pregnancy. Most Democratic-led states have laws or executive orders to protect access.

    Voters in all seven states that have had abortion questions before voters since 2022 have sided with abortion rights supporters, including California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio and Vermont.

    Here’s a look at the abortion measures that could be on ballots in November:

    COLORADO

    Colorado’s top election official confirmed in May that a measure to enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution, including requirements that Medicaid and private health insurers cover it, made the ballot for the fall election.

    Supporters said they gathered more than 225,000 signatures, nearly double the requirement of over 124,000 signatures. Amending the state constitution requires the support of 55% of voters.

    Those backing a dueling measure — a law to ban abortion — did not submit signatures and the measure will not go before voters.

    Abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy in Colorado.

    FLORIDA

    The state Supreme Court ruled in April that a ballot measure to legalize abortion until fetal viability could go on the ballot despite a legal challenge from state Attorney General Ashley Moody, who argued there are differing views on the meaning of “viability” and that some key terms in the proposed measure are not properly defined.

    Advocates collected nearly a million signatures to put a state constitutional amendment to legalize abortion until viability on the ballot, surpassing the nearly 892,000 required.

    To take effect, the measure would need agreement from at least 60% of voters.

    Abortion is currently illegal in Florida after the first six weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant, under a law that took effect May 1.

    MARYLAND

    Voters also will be asked this year to enshrine the right to abortion in Maryland’s constitution. The state already protects the right to abortion under state law and Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1. Abortion is allowed in Maryland until viability.

    NEVADA

    The Nevada Secretary of State ‘s office announced in June that a ballot question to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution has met all of the requirements to appear in front of voters in November.

    Under the amendment, abortion access for the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, or later to protect the health of the pregnant person, would be enshrined. Such access already is ensured under a 1990 law.

    To change the constitution, voters would need to approve it in both 2024 and 2026.

    SOUTH DAKOTA

    South Dakota voters will vote this fall on a measure to ban any restrictions on abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. It would allow the state, in the second trimester, to “regulate the pregnant woman’s abortion decision and its effectuation only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.”

    An abortion ban would be allowed in the third trimester, as long as it included exceptions for the life and health of the woman.

    The state’s top election official announced May 16 that about 85% of the more than 55,000 signatures submitted in support of the ballot initiative are valid, exceeding the required 35,017 signatures.

    Opponents have sued to try to take the initiative off the ballot.

    ARIZONA

    Abortion rights supporters submitted more than 823,000 signatures on Wednesday to put an abortion access measure before voters in November. That’s more than twice as many as required.

    Election officials still need to verify the signatures.

    Under the measure, the state would not be able to ban abortion until the fetus is viable, with later abortions allowed to protect a woman’s physical or mental health.

    Abortion is currently legal for the first 15 weeks of pregnancy in the state. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled in April that enforcement could begin soon for a near-total ban already on the books. The governor has since signed a bill repealing that law. It is still expected to be in effect for a time, however.

    ARKANSAS

    Proponents of an amendment to allow abortion in many cases must gather nearly 91,000 signatures by Friday for the measure to get on the Nov. 5 ballot. They also must submit a minimum number of signatures from 50 of 75 counties.

    Supporters said on Wednesday they were about 5,800 short of the requirement with two days left to circulate petitions.

    The measure would bar laws banning abortion in the first 20 weeks of gestation and allow abortion later in pregnancy in cases of rape, incest, threats to the woman’s health or life, or if the fetus would be unlikely to survive birth.

    Because it allows abortion to be banned 20 weeks into pregnancy, the proposal does not have the support of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which includes Arkansas. The state currently bans abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with narrow exceptions.

    Anti-abortion groups in the predominantly Republican state also have campaigned heavily against the measure, and one group published the names and hometowns of canvassers gathering signatures for the proposal.

    MISSOURI

    Missouri abortion rights advocates turned in more than 380,000 signatures, more than twice the required 171,000, for a measure asking voters to approve a constitutional amendment to guarantee abortion until viability. Local election officials have until July 30 to verify the signatures, then it’s up to the secretary of state to declare whether there were enough.

    A group of moderate Republicans have for this year abandoned efforts for an alternate amendment that would have allowed abortion up to 12 weeks, with limited exceptions after that time.

    Abortion is currently banned in Missouri at all stages of pregnancy, with limited exceptions.

    MONTANA

    Abortion rights proponents in Montana have proposed a constitutional amendment that would bar the government from denying the right to abortion before viability or when it’s necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person.

    After a legal battle over the ballot language, the Montana Supreme Court in April wrote its version of the language that would appear on the ballot if enough valid signatures are certified. Sponsors were required to submit about 60,000 by June 21. They turned in about 117,000, nearly twice the amount needed.

    Counties have until July 19 to verify the signatures and the secretary of state would have until Aug. 22 to determine whether the amendment goes on the ballot.

    Abortion is legal until viability in Montana under a 1999 Montana Supreme Court opinion.

    NEBRASKA

    Competing abortion measures could come before voters in November after supporters of each said Wednesday they turned in far more signatures than the 123,000 required for ballot access.

    One would enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution until viability. Supporters said they submitted more than 207,000 signatures.

    The other would write into the constitution the current law which bars abortions after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, with some exceptions. Its backers said they submitted more than 205,000 signatures.

    Organizers for a third effort did not submit petitions. It would have defined embryos as people, thus barring abortion at all stages of pregnancy.

    Some efforts that sought to restrict or ban abortion also have failed to reach ballots. In Wisconsin, the House approved a measure asking voters to ban abortion after 14 weeks, but the legislative session ended without a vote from the state Senate.

    Likewise, Iowa lawmakers ended their session without approving a measure asking voters to find there is no constitutional right to abortion. Pennsylvania lawmakers previously pursued a similar amendment, but it’s not expected to be added to the ballot this year.

    A Louisiana measure to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution died in committee, one in Maine effectively died when it fell short of receiving the approval of two-thirds of the House and a Minnesota measure was not passed by lawmakers.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hawaii settles climate change lawsuit filed by youth plaintiffs

    Hawaii settles climate change lawsuit filed by youth plaintiffs

    [ad_1]

    FILE – Hawaii Gov. Josh Green speaks at a news conference in Honolulu on Friday, Dec. 15, 2023. Hawaii’s governor and lawyers for youth plaintiffs on Thursday, June 20, 2024, announced they settled a lawsuit alleging Hawaii violated the state constitution by operating a transportation system that harmed the climate and infringed upon the children’s right to a clean and healthy environment..(AP Photo/Audrey McAvoy, File)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Oregon defendants without a lawyer must be released from jail, US appeals court says

    Oregon defendants without a lawyer must be released from jail, US appeals court says

    [ad_1]

    PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a ruling that Oregon defendants must be released from jail after seven days if they don’t have a defense attorney.

    In its decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called Oregon’s public defense system a “Sixth Amendment nightmare,” OPB reported, referring to the part of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees people accused of crimes the right to a lawyer. The opinion said Oregon is responsible for upholding legal protections for criminal defendants.

    Oregon has struggled for years to address its public defender crisis. As of Friday, more than 3,200 defendants did not have a public defender, a dashboard from the Oregon Judicial Department showed. Of those, about 146 people were in custody, but fewer people were expected to be impacted by Friday’s ruling, according to OPB.

    An Office of Public Defense Services draft report from March found that Oregon needs 500 additional attorneys to meet its obligations, OPB reported. State officials have sought to address the issue, including by taking such steps as providing additional funding, but structural issues remain.

    Next year, the Oregon Public Defense Commission will move from the judiciary to the executive branch under the governor. State lawmakers hope the move will provide more support to the agency.

    The 9th Circuit’s decision upheld a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane last year. The case came from Washington County, where 10 people charged with crimes and held at the county jail while not having court-appointed attorneys filed a class action habeas corpus petition through the state’s federal public defender’s office.

    Oregon’s federal public defender, Fidel Cassino-DuCloux, said Friday’s decision “breathes life into the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which have been an empty promise for too many presumptively innocent Oregonians charged with crimes.”

    “We hope that the state authorities heed the Ninth Circuit’s instruction that no one remains in jail without counsel and implements the decision without delay,” Cassino-DuCloux wrote in a statement.

    When asked by OPB whether the state would appeal, a spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Justice said they’re reviewing the decision.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • French authorities regain full control of New Caledonia’s capital after days of deadly unrest

    French authorities regain full control of New Caledonia’s capital after days of deadly unrest

    [ad_1]

    French authorities in New Caledonia regained full control of their Pacific territory’s capital, the French interior and overseas minister said on Friday after two weeks of unrest that had left seven people dead and significant destruction in the archipelago that has seen decades of tensions between those seeking independence and those loyal to France.

    Gerald Darmanin said in a post on X Friday that “a major police operation has taken place successfully” in the Riviere-Salee district of Noumea, the last area of New Caledonia’s capital that was under the protesters’ control.

    Darmanin said 400 members of French and New Caledonia’s security forces were involved in the operation, including members of the French elite anti-terrorism and anti-organized crime police unit and its counterparts of the French military. Twelve people were arrested in the operation and 26 roadblocks were dismantled and cleared, the minister said.

    The violence flared on May 13 in response to attempts by French President Emmanuel Macron’s government to amend the French Constitution and change voting lists in New Caledonia. France declared a state of emergency in its Pacific territory on May 15 and rushed hundreds of troop reinforcements to help police quell the revolt that included shootings, clashes, looting and arson.

    Both sides of New Caledonia’s bitter divide — Indigenous Kanaks, who want independence and those loyal to France — erected barricades, either to revolt against authorities or to protect their homes and properties. Pro-independence protesters built up barricades of charred vehicles and other debris, turning parts of the capital, Noumea into no-go zones.

    French President Emmanuel Macron decided on Monday to lift the state of emergency in New Caledonia to help facilitate dialogue between local parties and French authorities for the future of the 270,000 residents of the archipelago and restore peace.

    Pro-independence parties and Kanak leaders have urged Macron to withdraw the electoral reform bill if France wants to “end the crisis.” Opponents fear the voting legislation will benefit pro-France politicians in New Caledonia and further marginalize the Indigenous Kanaks who have long pushed to be free of French rule amid sharp economic disparities and decades of discrimination.

    Although violence has subsided in the past days, tensions remain as pro-independence leaders have called on supporters to and “remain mobilized” and “maintain resistance” against France.

    While emergency measures have been lifted, an evening and overnight curfew is still in place. Travel is banned in New Caledonia between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. except for health emergencies, and a ban on public gatherings, transport and carrying of weapons and sale of alcohol remains in place.

    The main international airport, La Tontouta, will remain closed to commercial traffic at least until Monday, and schools will not resume before mid-June, according to local authorities.

    New Caledonia became French in 1853 under Emperor Napoleon III, Napoleon’s nephew and heir. It became an overseas territory after World War II, with French citizenship granted to all Kanaks in 1957.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge rejects bid by Donald Trump to throw out classified documents case on constitutional grounds

    Judge rejects bid by Donald Trump to throw out classified documents case on constitutional grounds

    [ad_1]

    FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A federal judge on Thursday rejected one bid by Donald Trump to throw out his classified documents criminal case, and appeared skeptical during hours of arguments of a separate effort to scuttle the prosecution ahead of trial.

    U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a two-page order saying that though the Trump team had raised “various arguments warranting serious consideration,” a dismissal of charges was not merited. The case involves boxes of records, some highly classified, that Trump took to his Mar-a-Lago estate when he left the White House.

    Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by the former president, had made clear during more than three-and-a-half hours of arguments that she was reluctant to dismiss one of the four criminal cases against the 2024 presumptive Republican presidential nominee. She said at one point that a dismissal of the indictment would be “difficult to see” and that it would be “quite an extraordinary” step to strike down an Espionage Act statute that underpins the bulk of the felony counts against Trump but that his lawyers contend is unconstitutionally vague.

    The ruling from Cannon is a modest win for special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which in addition to the classified documents case is pursuing a separate prosecution of Trump on charges that he plotted to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

    But it left unanswered questions over when the case might proceed to trial and only covered one of the two motions argued in court on Thursday. A separate motion about whether Trump was permitted under the Presidential Records Act to retain the documents after he left the White House remains pending, but the judge also seemed disinclined to throw out the case on those grounds.

    “It’s difficult to see how this gets you to the dismissal of an indictment,” she told a Trump lawyer.

    Trump attended Thursday’s arguments, listening intently with his hands sometimes clasped in front of him on the defense table as his attorneys pressed Cannon to throw out the case.

    The hearing was the second this month in the case in Florida, which has unfolded slowly in the courts since prosecutors first brought charges last June. Cannon heard arguments on March 1 on when to schedule a trial date, but has yet to announce one and gave no indication Thursday on when she might do so. Prosecutors have pressed the judge to set a date for this summer. Trump’s lawyers are hoping to put it off until after the election.

    After the hearing, Trump on his Truth Social platform took note of the “big crowds” outside the courthouse, which included supporters with flags and signs who honked their car horns in solidarity with the ex-president. He again said the prosecution is a “witch hunt” inspired by President Joe Biden.

    Some of Thursday’s arguments centered on the 1978 statute known as the Presidential Records Act. The law requires presidential documents to be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration, though former presidents may retain notes and papers created for purely personal reasons.

    His lawyers say the act entitled him to designate as personal property the records he took with him to Mar-a-Lago in Florida and that he was free to do with the documents as he pleased.

    “He had original classification authority,” said defense lawyer Todd Blanche. “He had the authority to do whatever he thought was appropriate with his records.”

    Prosecutors countered that those records were clearly presidential, not personal, and included top-secret information and documents related to nuclear programs and the military capabilities of the U.S. and foreign countries. They say the presidential records statute was never meant to permit presidents to retain classified and top-secret documents, like those kept at Mar-a-Lago.

    “The documents charged in the indictment are not personal records, period. They are not,” Harbach said. “They are nowhere close to it under the definition of the Presidential Records Act.”

    Trump’s lawyers separately challenged as overly vague a statute that makes it a crime to have unauthorized retention of national defense information, a charge that forms the basis of 32 of the 40 felony counts against Trump in the case.

    Defense lawyer Emil Bove said ambiguity in the statute permits what he called “selective” enforcement by the Justice Department, leading to Trump being charged but enabling others to avoid prosecution. Bove suggested a recent report by special counsel Robert Hur that criticized President Joe Biden’s handling of classified information did not recommend charges proved his point about the lack of clarity.

    When a law is unclear, Bove told Cannon, “The court’s obligation is to strike the statute and say ‘Congress, get it right.’”

    Jay Bratt, another prosecutor with Smith’s team, disputed that there was anything unclear about the law, and Cannon pointedly noted that striking down a statute would be “quite an extraordinary step.”

    In her subsequent ruling rejecting the defense request, she cited “still-fluctuating definitions of statutory terms/phrases” along with “disputed factual issues” that could be decided by a jury.

    Trump is accused of intentionally holding onto some of the nation’s most sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago — only returning a fraction of them upon demand by the National Archives. Prosecutors say he urged his lawyer to hide records and to lie to the FBI by saying he no longer was in possession of them and enlisted staff to delete surveillance footage that would show boxes of documents being moved around the property.

    Cannon has suggested in the past that she sees Trump’s status as a former president as distinguishing him from others who have held onto classified records.

    After the Trump team sued the Justice Department in 2022 to get his records back, Cannon appointed a special master to conduct an independent review of the documents taken during the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search. That appointment was later overturned by a federal appeals court.

    On Thursday, she wrestled with the unprecedented nature of the case, noted that no former president had ever faced criminal jeopardy for mishandling classified information.

    But, Bratt responded, “there was never a situation remotely similar to this one.”

    Trump is separately charged in a federal case in Washington with conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump has argued in both federal cases that presidential immunity protects him from prosecution, though Cannon has not agreed to hear arguments on that claim in the documents case.

    The U.S Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Trump’s immunity claim in the election interference case next month.

    Richer reported from Boston.

    [ad_2]

    By Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer and Terry Spencer | Associated Press

    Source link

  • France to seal the right to abortion in its constitution as world marks International Women’s Day

    France to seal the right to abortion in its constitution as world marks International Women’s Day

    [ad_1]

    PARIS — France’s leadership will use a Napoleon-era press to seal the right to abortion into the country’s constitution in a historic ceremony on Friday that’s open to the public — and designed to show support to women across the world on International Women’s Day.

    France is the first country to explicitly guarantee abortion rights in the national charter.

    While abortion is a deeply divisive issue in the United States, it’s legal in nearly all of Europe and overwhelmingly supported in France, where it’s seen more as a question of public health and not politics. French legislators approved the constitutional amendment on Monday in a 780-72 vote that was backed by many far-right lawmakers.

    Friday’s ceremony, held on the cobblestones of Vendome Plaza in Paris, is a key event on a day focused on advancing women’s rights globally. Marches, protests and conferences are being held from Jakarta, Indonesia, to Mexico City and beyond.

    The French constitutional amendment has been hailed by women’s rights advocates around the world, including places where women struggle to access birth control or maternal health care. French President Emmanuel Macron called it a direct result of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2022 rescinding long-held abortion rights.

    Macron’s critics questioned why he pursued the measure in a country with no obvious threat to abortion rights but where women face a multitude of other problems.

    France has a persistently high rate of women killed by their partners and challenges remain in prosecuting sexual abuse against women by powerful celebrities and other men. French women also see lower pay and pensions — especially women who are not white.

    Macron’s government said the abortion amendment was important to avoid a U.S.-like scenario for women in France, as hard-right groups are gaining ground and seeking to turn back the clock on freedoms around Europe.

    Macron will preside over the constitutional ceremony. Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti will use a 100-kilogram (220-pound) press from 1810 to imprint the amendment in France’s 1958 constitution.

    It will include the phrase saying, “the freedom of women to have recourse to an abortion, which is guaranteed.” The ceremony will be held outdoors with the public invited, in another first.

    France follows in the footsteps of the former Yugoslavia, whose 1974 constitution included the phrase: “A person is free to decide on having children.” Yugoslavia’s successor states retained similar language in their constitutions, though they did not spell out guaranteed abortion rights.

    In Ireland, voters will decide on Friday whether to change the constitution to remove passages referring to women’s domestic duties and broadening the definition of the family.

    Protesters in Istanbul plan to call attention to violence against women, and rallies are expected in many cities. Protests are often political and, at times, violent, rooted in women’s efforts to improve their rights as workers. This year’s global theme is “Inspire Inclusion.”

    Indonesian demonstrators demanded adoption of the International Labor Organization’s Conventions concerning gender equality and eliminating workplace violence and harassment. Labor rights groups in Thailand marched to the Government House to petition for better work conditions, and activists marching against violence in the Philippine capital were stopped by police near the presidential palace, sparking a brief scuffle.

    India’s government cut the price of cooking gas cylinders by 100 rupees ($1.20) with Prime Minister Narendra Modi posted on social media that the move was “in line with our commitment to empowering women.”

    Officially recognized by the United Nations in 1977, International Women’s Day is a national holiday in some 20 countries including Russia, Ukraine and Afghanistan.

    ___

    Associated Press journalists around the world contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Georgia Senate passes sports betting bill, but odds dim as constitutional amendment required

    Georgia Senate passes sports betting bill, but odds dim as constitutional amendment required

    [ad_1]

    Georgia senators passed a bill to allow sports gambling Thursday, but not before deciding that the measure also requires a state constitutional amendment, throwing ultimate passage into doubt.

    The Senate voted 35-15 to pass Senate Bill 386, sending it to the House for more debate. But 34 senators went against the sponsor’s wishes by attaching the requirement for the amendment in a separate vote. That would necessitate an additional constitutional amendment which would need support from at least 38 senators.

    The maneuvering shows how many Georgia lawmakers support an expansion of legal gambling, but disagree on what additional gambling should be added or by what legal method. That has killed bills years after year, including in 2023.

    Nationwide, 38 states allow sports betting. Some states allow only in-person bets, although most allow electronic betting from anywhere.

    “This issue is frustrating because so many of us generally agree about it, but year after year, we’ve seen it get stuck,” said Sen. Jason Esteves, an Atlanta Democrat.

    Supporters of passing a bill without an amendment say sports betting can be authorized under the Georgia Lottery. Voters approved the lottery in a statewide referendum on a constitutional amendment in 1992. That would mean that proceeds would be legally earmarked to prekindergarten classes and HOPE Scholarships for students who achieve at least a “B” average in high school.

    Sen. Clint Dixon, a Buford Republican, said more money for both programs is “much needed,” saying sports betting could generate $100 million or more in state tax revenue each year. Dixon’s bill would also require the lottery to gradually spend down a substantial part of its $2 billion in reserves, which would further increase funding.

    But many who voted for the bill also supported the constitutional amendment, which would allow the proceeds of sports gambling to be directed to other purposes, such as need-based scholarships.

    Democrats in particular have pushed for need-based scholarships. Their backing is key because some Republicans morally oppose gambling. Democrats have withheld their votes in past years, seeking to bargain over other issues.

    Others support a constitutional amendment because they argue Georgia voters never intended sports betting to be included when they passed a lottery in 1992. Sen. Bill Cowsert, an Athens Republican is a leading proponent of that stance. He called denying a statewide vote “sneaky,” and suggested that a court challenge would defeat any law that passed without an accompanying constitutional amendment.

    “My counsel would be don’t go spend this million dollars and start investing in this until you know this is constitutional,” Cowsert said. “There will be plenty of challenges.”

    An effort to pass a constitutional amendment flopped last year when it won 30 votes, a majority of senators but short of the 38 needed.

    A different Senate committee earlier this session passed a bill that would require a constitutional amendment, but there’s been no further movement on that measure. Those measures are backed by those who would like to see casinos and betting on horse racing in Georgia, as well as those would would like to spend sports betting taxes on other purposes.

    The bill that passed Thursday would take 20% of proceeds in taxes, after prizes are paid to gamblers. Nationwide, tax rates are set at anywhere from 6.75% in Iowa to 51% in Rhode Island and New York.

    The measure would give one license directly to the Georgia Lottery. Another eight licenses would be given to pro sports interests in Georgia, including MLB’s Atlanta Braves, the NFL’s Atlanta Falcons, the NBA’s Atlanta Hawks, the WNBA’s Atlanta Dream, Major League Soccer’s Atlanta United. Other licenses would go to NASCAR’s Atlanta Motor Speedway, and golf’s Augusta National and PGA.

    The lottery would be in charge of distributing seven other licenses without ties to pro sports teams. Those licenses would require a $100,000 application fee and an annual license fee of $1 million.

    [ad_2]

    Source link