ReportWire

Tag: Constitutions

  • Trump appeals Maine ruling barring him from ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause

    Trump appeals Maine ruling barring him from ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause

    [ad_1]

    PORTLAND, Maine — Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday appealed a ruling by Maine’s secretary of state barring him from the state’s 2024 ballot over his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, contending she had no authority, that he incited no riot, never swore to “support” the Constitution and was not a government officer as stipulated in the constitutional amendment she cited.

    Trump, whose front-running Republican candidacy could be threatened, appealed the Maine decision by Democrat Shenna Bellows, who became the first secretary of state in history to bar someone from running for the presidency under the rarely used Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That provision prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

    The former president is expected to soon appeal a similar ban by the Colorado Supreme Court. That appeal would go to the U.S. Supreme Court, while Bellows’ action is being appealed to a Maine Superior Court.

    Trump’s appeal on Tuesday asks that Bellows be required to place him on the March 5 primary ballot. The appeal argues that she abused her discretion and relied on “untrustworthy evidence.”

    “The secretary should have recused herself due to her bias against President Trump, as demonstrated by a documented history of prior statements prejudging the issue presented,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

    Bellows reiterated to The Associated Press on Tuesday that her ruling was on pause pending the outcome of the appeal, which had been expected.

    “This is part of the process. I have confidence in my decision and confidence in the rule of law. This is Maine’s process and it’s really important that first and foremost every single one of us who serves in government uphold the Constitution and the laws of the state,” she said.

    Trump is expected to appeal a similar ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never issued a decision on Section 3. The Colorado court’s 4-3 ruling that it applied to Trump was the first time in history the provision was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot.

    Trump’s critics have filed dozens of lawsuits seeking to disqualify him in multiple states.

    None succeeded until a slim majority of Colorado’s seven justices — all of whom were appointed by Democratic governors — ruled against Trump. Critics warned that it was an overreach and that the court could not simply declare that the Jan. 6 attack was an “insurrection” without a more established judicial process.

    A week after Colorado’s ruling, Bellows issued her own. Critics warned it was even more perilous because it could pave the way for partisan election officials to simply disqualify candidates they oppose. Bellows, a former head of Maine’s branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, has previously criticized Trump and his behavior on Jan. 6.

    The Constitution’s Section 3 has been barely used since the years after the Civil War, when it kept defeated Confederates from returning to their former government positions. The two-sentence clause says that anyone who swore an oath to “support” the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection cannot hold office unless a two-thirds vote of Congress allows it.

    Trump’s lawyers argue the provision isn’t intended to apply to the president, contending that the oath for the top office in the land isn’t to “support” the Constitution but instead to “preserve, protect and defend” it. They also argue that the presidency isn’t explicitly mentioned in the amendment, only any “officer of the United States” — a legal term they contend doesn’t apply to the president.

    Trump made the opposite argument defending against his prosecution for fraud by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, contending the case should move to federal court because the president is “an officer of the United States.” The prosecutors argued that language only applies to presidential appointees — Trump’s position here.

    The contention that Section 3 doesn’t apply to the president drew a scathing response from the Colorado Supreme Court last month.

    “President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oathbreakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land,” the court’s majority opinion said. “Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”

    As for history, Congress granted amnesty to most former Confederates in 1872, and Section 3 fell into disuse. Legal scholars believe its only application in the 20th century was being cited by Congress in 1919 to block the seating of a socialist who opposed U.S. involvement in World War I and was elected to the House of Representatives.

    But it returned to use after Jan. 6, 2021. In 2022, a judge used it to remove a rural New Mexico county commissioner from office after he was convicted of a misdemeanor for entering the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. Liberal groups sued to block Republican Reps. Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene from running for reelection because of their roles on that day. Cawthorn’s case became moot when he lost his primary in 2022, and a judge ruled to keep Greene on the ballot.

    Some conservatives warn that, if Trump is removed, political groups will routinely use Section 3 against opponents in unexpected ways. They have suggested it could be used to remove Vice President Kamala Harris, for example, because she raised bail money for people arrested after George Floyd’s murder at the hands of Minneapolis police in 2020.

    Trump and his allies have attacked the cases against him as “anti-democratic” and sought to tie them to President Joe Biden because the Colorado case and some others are funded by liberal groups who share prominent donors with the Democratic president. But Biden’s administration has noted that the president has no role in the litigation.

    Those who support using the provision against Trump counter that the Jan. 6 attack was unprecedented in American history and that there will be few cases so ripe for Section 3. If the high court lets Trump stay on the ballot, they’ve contended, it will be another example of the former president bending the legal system to excuse his extreme behavior.

    ___

    Riccardi reported from Denver.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chilean voters reject conservative constitution, after defeating leftist charter last year

    Chilean voters reject conservative constitution, after defeating leftist charter last year

    [ad_1]

    SANTIAGO, Chile — Voters rejected on Sunday a proposed conservative constitution to replace Chile’s dictatorship-era charter, showing both the deep division in the South American country and the inability of political sectors to address people’s demands for change made four years ago.

    With nearly all votes counted late Sunday, about 55.8% had voted “no” to the new charter, with about 44.2% in favor.

    The vote came more than a year after Chileans resoundingly rejected a proposed constitution written by a left-leaning convention and one that many characterized as one of the world’s most progressive charters.

    The new document, largely written by conservative councilors, was more conservative than the one it had sought to replace, because it would have deepened free-market principles, reduced state intervention and might have limited some women’s rights.

    The process to write a new constitution began after 2019 street protests, when thousands of people complained about inequality in one of Latin America’s most politically stable and economically strongest countries.

    Chilean President Gabriel Boric said Sunday night that his government won’t try a third attempt to change the constitution, saying there are other priorities.

    He admitted he wasn’t able to “channel the hopes of having a new constitution written for everyone.” On the contrary, he said, after two referendums, “the country became polarized, it was divided.”

    Javier Macaya, the leader of the conservative Independent Democratic Union party, recognized the defeat and urged the government not to raise the issue again.

    “From a perspective of coherence and respect for democracy, we recognize the results,” Macaya said.

    Now, the constitution adopted during the dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet — which was amended over the years —- will remain in effect.

    That is what former President Michelle Bachelet had hoped for when she voted early Sunday.

    “I prefer something bad to something worse,” said Bachelet, who campaigned to reject the latest charter proposal.

    One of the most controversial articles in the draft said that “the law protects the life of the unborn,” with a slight change in wording from the current document that some warned could make abortion fully illegal. Chilean law currently allows abortions for three reasons: rape, an unviable fetus and risk to the life of the mother.

    Another article in the proposed document that sparked controversy said prisoners who suffer a terminal illness and aren’t deemed to be a danger to society at large can be granted house arrest. Members of the left-wing opposition said the measure could end up benefiting those who have been convicted of crimes against humanity during the Pinochet’s 1973-1990 dictatorship.

    The charter would have characterized Chile as a social and democratic state that “promotes the progressive development of social rights” through state and private institutions. It was opposed by many local leaders who said it would scrap a tax on houses that are primary residences, a vital source of state revenue that is paid by the wealthiest.

    It also would have established new law enforcement institutions and said irregular immigrants should be expelled “as soon as possible.”

    César Campos, a 70-year-old taxi driver, turned out early to support the new constitution. He viewed it as a vote against the left, whose ideas largely dominated the first, rejected draft.

    “Boric wants everybody to be equal,” Campos said of the president. “Why should anyone who studies or works their entire life have to share that?”

    In 2022, 62% of voters rejected the proposed constitution that would have characterized Chile as a plurinational state, established autonomous Indigenous territories and prioritized the environment and gender parity.

    In Santiago, the capital, talk before Sunday’s vote often turned to security rather than the proposed charter. State statistics show an uptick in robberies and other violent crimes, a development that tends to benefit conservative forces.

    “This whole process has been a waste of government money … it’s a joke,” said government employee Johanna Anríquez, who voted against the new constitution, calling “it is very extremist.”

    “Let’s keep the one we have and, please, let’s get on with the work of providing public safety,” Anríquez said.

    There appeared to be little enthusiasm for Sunday’s vote. Most citizens are exhausted after 10 elections of various types in less than 2½ years, but voting is compulsory in Chile.

    Malen Riveros, 19, a law student at the University of Chile, said the fervor that was ignited by the 2019 street protests has been lost and for her, the choice on Sunday was between the bad or the worse.

    “The hopes were lost with the passing of time,” Riveros said. “People have already forgotten why we went into the streets.”

    ___

    Follow AP’s coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • In a rare appearance, Melania Trump welcomes new citizens at a National Archives ceremony

    In a rare appearance, Melania Trump welcomes new citizens at a National Archives ceremony

    [ad_1]

    In a rare public appearance, former first lady Melania Trump stressed the importance of “guarding our freedom” and the responsibilities that accompany American citizenship as she spoke Friday at a naturalization ceremony at the National Archives.

    Born in Slovenia, Melania Trump is the only first lady who is also a naturalized U.S. citizen. She recounted her path to that citizenship, beginning with a worker visa upon arriving in New York City during her career as a model.

    “How fortunate to be with the naturalizing individuals and their families as they recite the Oath of Allegiance and become Americans before our great nation’s founding documents,” she said.

    The location of the ceremony was notable. The national repository for presidential documents has featured as part of one of the criminal cases pending against her husband, former President Donald Trump, as he seeks a second term in the White House.

    The National Archives sent a referral to the FBI stating that 15 boxes recovered from Trump’s Florida home in January 2022 contained dozens of documents with classified markings, part of an investigation that has resulted in 37 counts of mishandling classified documents, including retaining classified information and obstructing justice.

    Trump’s trial is scheduled to begin on May 20, 2024, despite efforts by his team to postpone it until after next November’s presidential election.

    Friday’s ceremony marked a rare appearance for the former first lady, who has said she supports her husband’s campaign but has not yet been on the campaign trail as he seeks the 2024 GOP nomination. She attended the memorial service for Rosalynn Carter in Georgia a little over two weeks ago.

    She said Friday that becoming a U.S. citizen comes with a great deal of responsibility.

    “It means actively participating in the democratic process and guarding our freedom,” she said. “It is a life-altering experience that takes time, determination and sometimes even tremendous strength.”

    In his latest campaign for the White House, Trump has promised a return to hard-line immigration policies if he wins the 2024 election.

    Among his proposals, Trump wants to revive and expand his controversial travel ban, which initially targeted seven Muslim-majority countries, begin new “ideological screening” for all immigrants and end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship by signing an executive order his first day in office. That would only permit children with at least one U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident parent to be eligible for a passport, Social Security number and other benefits.

    Friday’s ceremony featured 25 people from 25 nations being sworn in as new U.S. citizens, surrounded by founding documents including the Constitution.

    ___

    Meg Kinnard can be reached at http://twitter.com/MegKinnardAP

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mexico's president vows to eliminate regulatory, oversight agencies, claiming they are 'useless'

    Mexico's president vows to eliminate regulatory, oversight agencies, claiming they are 'useless'

    [ad_1]

    Mexico’s president wants to eliminate almost all remaining government oversight and regulatory agencies before he leaves office on Sept. 30, claiming they are “useless” and cost too much

    ByThe Associated Press

    December 11, 2023, 2:25 PM

    FILE – Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador speaks at the National Palace in Mexico City, Jan. 10, 2023. Mexico’s president vowed Monday, Dec. 11, 2023 to try to eliminate almost all remaining government oversight and regulatory agencies before he leaves office on Sept. 30, claiming they are “useless” and cost too much. (AP Photo/Fernando Llano, File)

    The Associated Press

    MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s president vowed Monday to try to eliminate almost all remaining government oversight and regulatory agencies before he leaves office on Sept. 30, claiming they are “useless” and cost too much.

    “There are a lot of wasteful agencies that do not serve any purpose,” President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said. “All of these supposedly autonomous agencies have to disappear.”

    He vowed to send a bill to Congress to eliminate the federal anti-monopoly commission and agencies regulating telecommunications, the energy market and access to government information.

    The president has accused the anti-monopoly commission of trying to block his efforts to increase the power of government-owned oil and energy companies. He has claimed the information access agency processes too many freedom of information requests from the public.

    It is unclear whether López Obrador has the votes in Congress to make the changes. Most of the agencies are enshrined in the Constitution, and changing it requires a two-thirds vote.

    López Obrador’s dislike of any kind of oversight, including separation of powers, has been a hallmark of his administration.

    He has sought to cut funds for the judicial branch and eliminated requirements for environmental impact statements on government projects. He cut funds for the electoral watchdog organization and sought to limit its powers to enforce electoral rules.

    López Obrador had previously mentioned his desire to eliminate external oversight agencies in 2020.

    The watchdog groups were created by López Obrador’s predecessors, often to regulate areas that were once state-dominated, like the oil and electricity industries. Those sectors were opened to private competition, something López Obrador also opposes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Germany is having a budget crisis while the economy struggles

    Germany is having a budget crisis while the economy struggles

    [ad_1]

    FRANKFURT, Germany — German Chancellor Olaf Scholz vowed Tuesday that his government will work “as fast as possible” to solve a budget crisis, but he offered few details on how he would achieve his goals of promoting clean energy and modernizing the struggling economy after a court decision struck down billions in planned spending.

    Scholz and his quarrelsome governing coalition must decide what to cut next year after Germany’s top court ruled that 60 billion euros ($65 billion) in funding for renewable energy projects and relief for consumers and businesses from high energy prices caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violated debt limits set out in the constitution.

    Cuts that need to be made next year could further slow down what is already the world’s worst-performing major economy.

    Germans “need clarity in unsettled times,” Scholz said in a speech to parliament. He promised that the government would not abandon its goals of sharply reducing carbon emissions from fossil fuels and protecting social spending.

    Speaking over outbursts of derisive laughter from opposition members, Scholz said it would be “a serious, an unforgivable mistake … to neglect the modernization of our country.”

    In terms of where to reduce spending, he said a cap on consumers’ utility bills is no longer needed because energy prices have fallen, although the government would act if they rose again. “You’ll never walk alone,” Scholz said, quoting the song title in English.

    The now-banned spending was aimed at some of the long-term problems plaguing growth in Europe’s largest economy, such as the need to invest in new sources of affordable renewable energy like wind, solar and hydrogen and to support battery and computer chip production.

    That has led to calls from some to loosen the debt limits because they restrict the government’s response to new challenges.

    But Scholz’s coalition of Social Democrats, Greens and pro-business Free Democrats doesn’t have the two-thirds majority to do that without the conservative opposition, the Christian Democrats, who brought the legal challenge in the first place.

    Opposition leader Friedrich Merz criticized Scholz as a “know-it-all” who wasn’t willing to change course and “lacked any idea of how the country should develop in the coming years.” He vowed to uphold the debt limits.

    There was a lack of details from Scholz on what could be cut next year. On top of that, a long-term solution could take years, possibly until after the next national elections scheduled for 2025.

    Economists say spending cuts will only add to the challenges facing Germany after Russia cut off the cheap natural gas that fueled its factories, squeezing businesses and raising the cost of living for households paying more for energy.

    The constitution limits deficits to 0.35% of economic output, though the government can go beyond that if there’s an emergency it didn’t create, such as the pandemic.

    Germany’s constitutional court said the government could not shift unused emergency funding meant for COVID-19 relief to boost wind and solar projects, help with energy bills and encourage investment in computer chip production.

    Some of the banned spending has already been used. To comply with the ruling, the government is changing the 2023 budget by declaring an emergency, citing Russia’s natural gas cutoff.

    The question now is next year’s budget. The government would have to scramble to cover shortfalls of roughly 30 billion to 40 billion euros — plus 20 billion to 30 billion euros for 2025 — compared with earlier plans, according to Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg bank.

    Some spending can be moved to public-private partnerships or taken over by the country’s development bank. But those fudges will only go so far.

    Ultimately, spending may be reduced by as much as 0.5% of annual economic output for the next two budget years, Schmieding said.

    The debt limits were enacted in 2009 after the government piled up debt paying to rebuild former East Germany after Germany reunified at the end of the Cold War and when tax revenue dropped during the 2007-2009 global financial crisis and Great Recession.

    For years afterward, Germany balanced its budget or even ran small surpluses as the economy lived large on cheap Russian natural gas and booming exports of luxury cars and industrial machinery, with rapidly growing China serving as a major market. Economists say the government skimped on investment in infrastructure, renewable energy and digitalization — gaps it is now trying to make up.

    The fallout has left Germany projected to be the worst-performing major economy this year, shrinking by 0.5%, according to the International Monetary Fund.

    Prospects for next year are only a little better. Industry is struggling with energy prices and a lack of skilled labor, while Chinese automakers are challenging Germany’s Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes-Benz and have plans to expand sales across Europe.

    The budget debate is ironic because Germany has the smallest long-term debt pile of any of the Group of Seven advanced democracies, with debt of 66% of gross domestic product. That compares to 102% in Britain, 121% in the U.S., 144% in Italy and 260% in Japan.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ohio voters just passed abortion protections. Whether they take effect is now up to the courts

    Ohio voters just passed abortion protections. Whether they take effect is now up to the courts

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio’s new constitutional projections for abortion access and other reproductive rights are supposed to take effect Dec. 7, a month after voters resoundingly passed them. That prospect seems increasingly uncertain.

    Existing abortion-related lawsuits are moving again through the courts now that voters have decided the issue, raising questions about how and when the amendment will be implemented.

    The amendment declared an individual’s right to “make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions” and passed with a strong 57% majority. It was the seventh straight victory in statewide votes for supporters of abortion access nationally since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned constitutional protections.

    But the amendment did not repeal any existing Ohio laws, providing an opening for Republican elected officials and anti-abortion groups to renew their efforts to halt, delay or significantly water it down.

    “A lot of that hard work of figuring out what state laws are inconsistent with the amendment and what state laws can remain, does tend to devolve to the courts,” said Laura Hermer, a professor of law at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, who studies access to health coverage and care in the U.S. “It’s difficult to imagine that the Legislature will say, ‘All right, you win. We’re going to repeal the heartbeat ban’ and so forth.”

    The state Legislature is controlled by Republicans whose leaders opposed the November ballot amendment, which was known as Issue 1. The Ohio Supreme Court also is controlled by Republicans, who have a 4-3 majority, and will be the final judge of constitutional questions. Several of the Republican justices have taken actions or made statements that have caused abortion rights organizations and ethics attorneys to question their objectivity on the subject.

    Minority Democrats in the Ohio House announced legislation two days after the election aimed at avoiding a piecemeal approach to implementing the amendment. Among other steps, they called for repealing the state’s ban on most abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected, which is around six weeks, and a 24-hour waiting period.

    “There are over 30 different restrictions in place,” said state Rep. Beth Liston, a physician and co-author of the Reproductive Care Act. “And I think that it is important that we don’t require citizens to go to court for every restriction, and, quite frankly, that we don’t let harm occur in the interim.”

    House Minority Leader Allison Russo was careful not to criticize the high court, which holds sway over the fate of those laws.

    “My hope is they will uphold the rule of law and the constitution,” she said.

    Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy last week ordered lawyers for the state and a group of abortion clinics to tell the court how they believe the measure’s passage has affected a case involving Ohio’s ban on most abortions once fetal cardiac activity is detected, which has been on hold since October 2022.

    A day after voters approved the amendment, U.S. District Judge Michael Barrett made a similar request of the parties in a long-running federal lawsuit challenging a set of state restrictions imposed on abortion providers’ operations. They included a requirement that clinics obtain agreements with a nearby hospital for emergency patient transfers, as well as a prohibition against public hospitals entering into those agreements.

    At least three other Ohio abortion laws also have been on hold in the courts.

    Passing legislation to bring Ohio law in line with the new constitutional amendment has been a non-starter with Republican lawmakers, who mostly opposed it and took extraordinary steps to defeat it.

    With a primary election in their GOP-heavy districts only months away, they are facing fierce pressure from anti-abortion groups to go in the other direction and either pass laws countering the amendment or using their supermajorities to strip courts of their power to interpret it.

    “The (Ohio) Constitution specifically says reigning in out-of-control courts is the legislators’ job,” the anti-abortion group Faith2Action argues in a recently released video. “So let’s call on the legislators to do their job, to use their constitutionally granted right to represent us and to keep pro-abortion judges from repealing Ohio laws based on an amendment that doesn’t even mention a single Ohio law.”

    The video argues that the “right to life” created in Ohio’s constitution is inalienable and that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade punted the abortion issue to “the people’s elected representatives.”

    But in his concurring opinion in that ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote that constitutional amendments were among the avenues for deciding the future of abortion access.

    “Moreover, the Constitution authorizes the creation of new rights — state and federal, statutory and constitutional,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But when it comes to creating new rights, the Constitution directs the people to the various processes of democratic self-government contemplated by the Constitution — state legislation, state constitutional amendments, federal legislation, and federal constitutional amendments.”

    For now, Republican Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens has said legislation targeting the power of state courts will not be considered. GOP Senate President Matt Huffman has ruled out lawmakers pushing for an immediate repeal of Issue 1, as had once been suggested, saying nothing like that should be tried, at least in 2024.

    How Attorney General Dave Yost will proceed also is being closely watched.

    In a legal analysis of Issue 1 that the Republican published before the election, Yost said the amendment created a new standard for protecting abortion access that “goes beyond” the law of the land under Roe v. Wade.

    “That means that many Ohio laws would probably be invalidated … and others might be at risk to varying degrees,” he wrote.

    Hermer, the law professor, said that statement is convenient for lawyers fighting to implement the constitutional amendment but such an analysis isn’t legally binding for Yost.

    “He doesn’t necessarily have to stand down, but, of course, having already said that, it’s going to make it a bit more difficult to hold those sorts of positions,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judges rule against Tennessee Senate redistricting map over treatment of Nashville seats

    Judges rule against Tennessee Senate redistricting map over treatment of Nashville seats

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A Republican-drawn map for Tennessee’s Senate seats violates the state Constitution because lawmakers incorrectly numbered the legislative districts in left-leaning Nashville, which affects which years those seats are on the ballot, a panel of judges ruled Wednesday.

    The ruling centers on maps passed by the Republican-supermajority Legislature in 2022 during the once-a-decade redistricting process.

    Tennessee’s constitution dictates that districts must be numbered consecutively in counties that have more than one district. The newly drawn redistricting plan does not do that in Davidson County, which encompasses Nashville. Instead, it’s numbered 17, 19, 20 and 21.

    The numbering matters because the four-year Senate terms are staggered, putting some districts on the ballot in presidential election years, others in gubernatorial election cycles.

    Currently, those four districts are represented by three Democrats and one Republican. There are 27 Republicans and 6 Democrats in the state Senate.

    According to Wednesday’s ruling, the state’s attorneys “conceded” that they would not defend the Senate map in court and instead focused their attention arguing that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue. Tennessee’s state House map was also challenged in the lawsuit, though the state did defend those boundaries.

    Ultimately, the three judges panel upheld the House map and ordered the Tennessee Senate to come up with a new district layout by Jan. 31, 2024.

    Senate Speaker Randy McNally, a Republican who previously defended the Senate map as legally sound, said legislative leaders were reviewing Wednesday’s decision but believed that an “appeal is a very viable option.”

    A spokesperson for Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti also said the office was reviewing the ruling.

    “Today’s court ruling against the gerrymandered state Senate map is a clear win for the Tennessee Constitution,” said Democratic Sens. Raumesh Akbari and London Lamar in a joint statement. “Even when a political party has a supermajority in the legislature, its members must still follow the law.”

    Akbari and Lamar added that they looked forward to advocating for a “fair map and transparent process” over the following weeks.

    Separately, Democrats had argued that the House map also divides more counties than needed to create districts with roughly equal populations, and that it dilutes the power of minority voters. The map splits 30 counties, the maximum permitted for the state House. The Tennessee Democratic Party said Wednesday that it would continue fighting the ruling on upholding the House map.

    “Our fight for a constitutional State House map is not over,” said Hendrell Remus, chairman of the state’s Democratic Party, in a statement.

    “Composing a constitutional map is like piecing together a complex puzzle because one may not focus on a single factor to the exclusion of other constitutional factors…The nature of constructing a puzzle whose pieces have inherent conflict means that a perfect map will never be constructed by, nor required of the General Assembly,” the judges wrote in their ruling.

    Three voters filed the lawsuit in 2022, which was backed by the Tennessee Democratic Party. The state had argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue over the maps, but the panel of judges allowed the case to proceed with one plaintiff eligible to challenge the House map, and another allowed to contest the Senate map.

    In April 2022, the panel of state trial-level judges blocked the Senate map from taking effect. The state appealed, and within a week, the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned that decision and let the maps stand. The justices reasoned that the lower court judges didn’t properly consider how blocking the map and extending the candidate filing deadline would harm elections officials and cause voter confusion.

    A legal challenge against Tennessee’s redistricting maps is still pending in federal court, as well.

    The federal lawsuit alleges that the U.S. House districts and those for the state Senate amount to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering under the 14th and 15th amendments. The challenge of the congressional map focuses on how the map split Nashville three ways, turning a Democratic seat there into a Republican pickup in 2022. The Senate challenge focuses on the boundaries in majority-Black Shelby County, including part of Memphis. A Republican represents the seat in question.

    That lawsuit, however, is not scheduled to make its way to trial until April 2025.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Both sides appeal ruling that Trump can stay on Colorado ballot despite insurrection finding

    Both sides appeal ruling that Trump can stay on Colorado ballot despite insurrection finding

    [ad_1]

    DENVER — Both a liberal group that sought to disqualify Donald Trump and the former president himself on Monday night appealed a Colorado judge’s ruling that Trump “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6, 2021 but can stay on the state’s ballot.

    The appeals were filed with the Colorado Supreme Court. The ruling by District Court Judge Sarah Wallace on Friday — which said Trump is not covered by the Constitution’s ban on insurrectionists holding office — was the latest in a series of defeats for the effort to end Trump’s candidacy with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

    A group in Michigan has filed an appeal with that state’s Supreme Court.

    The constitutional provision has only been used a handful of times since the years after the Civil War. It was created to prevent former Confederates from returning to government positions.

    The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, filing on behalf of a group of Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters, argued that Wallace was wrong in ruling that it’s not clear the provision was intended to apply to presidents.

    The section prevents those who took an oath to support the Constitution from serving in Congress, the Electoral College “or as an officer of the United States.” It does not specifically mention the presidency.

    Based on common sense alone, the appeal states, “there would be no reason to allow Presidents who lead an insurrection to serve again while preventing low-level government workers who act as foot soldiers from doing so. And it would defy logic to prohibit insurrectionists from holding every federal or state office except for the highest and most powerful in the land.”

    Trump, meanwhile, appealed Wallace’s finding that he did engage in insurrection and questioned whether a state court judge like her, rather than Congress, should settle the issue.

    The case will be heard by the seven justices on the state court, all of whom were appointed by Democrats.

    Colorado officials have urged a final decision by Jan. 5, 2024, when they must finalize their primary ballot. The next step after Colorado’s high court would be the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never ruled on Section 3.

    Trump has slammed the lawsuits as “election interference” by Democratic “dark money” groups.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Poland’s newly elected parliament meets for the first time

    Poland’s newly elected parliament meets for the first time

    [ad_1]

    WARSAW, Poland — The Polish parliament is meeting for the first time on Monday after an election last month heralded a change of course for the Central European nation at a time of war across the border in Ukraine.

    Following a choreography determined by the constitution, President Andrzej Duda will address the ceremonial opening of the newly elected legislature. The lawmakers will take their oaths and elect a speaker.

    The outgoing prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki. must resign with his government, though he is expected to remain as a caretaker premier, perhaps for weeks, because Duda has delayed the transition of power.

    The 460 lawmakers elected to the lower house of parliament, the Sejm, will gather at noon. The 100-seat Senate will follow with its first session later in the afternoon. Both bodies have been chosen for a four-year term.

    All of the lawmakers were chosen in an election on Oct. 15 collectively won by pro-EU parties ranging from conservatives to the left. They ran separately but promising to work together to restore democratic norms after eight years of rule by Law and Justice, a nationalist conservative party that was in conflict with the European Union.

    The party received more votes than any other single party but fell fell short of a majority with 194 seats. Still, Duda, an ally of Law and Justice, gave Morawiecki the first chance to form the government. The party has no coalition partner and its attempt to build a government is seen as doomed to fail. The attempt could delay Poland having a functioning government by up to four weeks.

    The willing coalition alliance, in contrast, holds a majority of 248 seats in the Sejm. The party leaders signed a coalition agreement and say they are ready to start governing. They say they aim to repair foreign alliances and will work to release billions of euros in EU funds that were frozen due to Law and Justice’s erosion of judicial independence.

    Their candidate for prime minister is the 66-year-old Donald Tusk, an experienced politician who held that position already from 2007-14 and then went on to be a top leader of the EU in the role of European Council president from 2014-19.

    The coalition’s candidate for speaker of the Sejm is Szymon Holownia, the leader of the Poland 2050 party and a rising star in Polish politics.

    Piotr Mueller, the Law and Justice government spokesman, acknowledged that it will be “extremely difficult” for Morawiecki to form a new government. But he told TVN24 that it was his duty to try after Duda entrusted him with the mission. If he fails, Tusk will be the next prime minister, Mueller said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Capitol rioter plans 2024 run as a Libertarian candidate in Arizona’s 8th congressional district

    Capitol rioter plans 2024 run as a Libertarian candidate in Arizona’s 8th congressional district

    [ad_1]

    One of the more recognizable figures in the U.S. Capitol riot apparently wants to run for Congress

    ByThe Associated Press

    November 12, 2023, 4:14 PM

    FILE – Supporters of President Donald Trump, including Jacob Chansley, right with fur hat, are confronted by U.S. Capitol Police officers outside the Senate Chamber inside the U.S. Capitol, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. Chansley, the spear-carrying rioter whose horned fur hat, bare chest and face paint made him one of the more recognizable figures in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol, apparently aspires to be a member of Congress. Online paperwork shows that Chansley filed a candidate statement of interest, Thursday, Nov. 9, 2023, indicating he wants to run as a Libertarian in the 2024 election for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District seat. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)

    The Associated Press

    PHOENIX — Jacob Chansley, the spear-carrying rioter whose horned fur hat, bare chest and face paint made him one of the more recognizable figures in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, apparently aspires to be a member of Congress.

    Online paperwork shows the 35-year-old Chansley filed a candidate statement of interest Thursday, indicating he wants to run as a Libertarian in next year’s election for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District seat.

    U.S. Rep. Debbie Lesko, a 64-year-old Republican representing the district since 2018, announced last month that she won’t seek re-election. Her term officially ends in January 2025.

    Chansley pleaded guilty to a felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding in connection with the Capitol insurrection.

    He was sentenced to 41 months in prison in November 2021 and served about 27 months before being transferred to a Phoenix halfway house in March 2023. Chansely grew up in the greater Phoenix area.

    Chansley is among the more than 700 people who have been sentenced in relation to Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Authorities said Chansley was among the first rioters to enter the Capitol building and he acknowledged using a bullhorn to rouse the mob.

    Although he previously called himself the “QAnon Shaman,” Chansley has since disavowed the QAnon movement.

    He identified himself as Jacob Angeli-Chansley in the candidate statement of interest paperwork filed with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office.

    The U.S. Constitution doesn’t prohibit felons from holding federal office. But Arizona law prohibits felons from voting until they have completed their sentence and had their civil rights restored.

    Emails sent to Chansley and his attorney seeking comment on his political intentions weren’t immediately returned Sunday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ohio is the lone state deciding an abortion-rights question Tuesday

    Ohio is the lone state deciding an abortion-rights question Tuesday

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio becomes the latest flashpoint on Tuesday in the nation’s ongoing battle over abortion access since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a constitutional right to the procedure last year.

    Voters will decide whether to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing an individual right to abortion and other forms of reproductive healthcare.

    Ohio is the only state to consider a statewide abortion-rights question this year, fueling tens of millions of dollars in campaign spending, boisterous rallies for and against the amendment, and months of advertising and social media messaging, some of it misleading.

    With a single spotlight on abortion rights this year, advocates on both sides of the issue are watching the outcome for signs of voter sentiment heading into 2024, when abortion-rights supporters are planning to put measures on the ballot in several other states, including Arizona, Missouri and Florida. Early voter turnout has also been robust.

    Public polling shows about two-thirds of Americans say abortion should generally be legal in the earliest stages of pregnancy, a sentiment that has been underscored in half a dozen states since the Supreme Court’s decision reversing Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

    In both Democratic and deeply Republican states — California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana and Vermont — voters have either affirmed abortion access or turned back attempts to undermine the right.

    Voter approval of the constitutional amendment in Ohio, known as Issue 1, would undo a 2019 state law passed by Republicans that bans most abortions at around six weeks into pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape and incest. That law, currently on hold because of court challenges, is one of roughly two dozen restrictions on abortion the Ohio Legislature has passed in recent years.

    Issue 1 specifically declares an individual’s right to “make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” including birth control, fertility treatments, miscarriage and abortion.

    It still allows the state to regulate the procedure after fetal viability, as long as exceptions are provided for cases in which a doctor determines the “life or health” of the woman is at risk. Viability is defined as the point when the fetus has “a significant likelihood of survival” outside the womb with reasonable interventions.

    Anti-abortion groups have argued the amendment’s wording is overly broad, advancing a host of untested legal theories about its impacts. They’ve tested a variety of messages to try to defeat the amendment as they seek to reverse their losses in statewide votes, including characterizing it as “anti-parent” and warning that it would allow minors to seek abortions or gender-transition surgeries without parents’ consent.

    It’s unclear how the Republican-dominated Legislature will respond if voters pass the amendment. Republican state Senate President Matt Huffman has suggested that lawmakers could come back with another proposed amendment next year that would undo Issue 1, although they would have only a six-week window after Election Day to get it on the 2024 primary ballot.

    The voting follows an August special election called by the Republican-controlled Legislature that was aimed at making future constitutional changes harder to pass by increasing the threshold from a simple majority vote to 60%. That proposal was aimed in part at undermining the abortion-rights measure being decided now.

    Voters overwhelmingly defeated that special election question, setting the stage for the high-stakes fall abortion campaign.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Does Jan. 6 constitutionally block Trump from 2024 ballot? Lawyers to make case on day 2 of hearing

    Does Jan. 6 constitutionally block Trump from 2024 ballot? Lawyers to make case on day 2 of hearing

    [ad_1]

    DENVER — The videos playing in a Colorado courtroom were both chilling and, by now, familiar — a violent mob, with some wearing tactical gear, smashing through the U.S. Capitol, attacking police officers and chanting “Hang Mike Pence!”

    Now, lawyers on day two of the weeklong hearing are arguing whether the infamous events of Jan. 6, 2021 constituted an insurrection under a rarely used clause of the U.S. Constitution that they are trying to use to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. The hearing in Colorado is one of two this week — with the second before the Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday — that could end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never before ruled on the Civil War-era provision in the 14th Amendment.

    Tuesday’s witnesses are expected to include an expert in right-wing violence and an expert on Section Three of the 14th Amendment, which has only been used a handful of times since it was adopted in 1868. The testimony will get to the heart of the thorny legal issues the case raises — what constitutes an “insurrection” and how can the extreme political penalty of being barred from office be applied?

    The plaintiff’s lawyers contend the provision is straightforward and that Trump is clearly disqualified from the presidency, just as if he were under the Constitution’s minimum age for the office of 35.

    Trump’s lawyers argue that there remains a host of questions — did the authors even mean for the provision to apply to the presidency, which is not mentioned in the amendment although “presidential and vice presidential electors” are, along with senators and members of the House of Representatives? Did it target those who simply exercised free speech to support unpopular causes or only those who took up arms?

    Scott Gessler, Trump’s lead Colorado attorney and a former Republican secretary of state there, dismissed the lawsuit as “anti-democratic” and noted that one other presidential candidate — socialist labor organizer Eugene Debs — even ran for the office from prison without people trying to use Section Three to disqualify him.

    “If they don’t like President Trump, they need to get involved in an election,” Gessler said after the first day. “But what they’re trying to do is short-circuit an election.”

    On Monday, the Colorado testimony began with details about the Jan. 6 assault that was intended to stop Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election win.

    Lawyers representing six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters argued that Trump’s violent rhetoric preceding the attack makes him culpable, and barred from the presidency again under that clause prohibiting anyone who swore an oath to the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding office.

    “We are here because Trump claims, after all that, that he has the right to be president again,” attorney Eric Olson said. “But our Constitution, the shared charter of our nation, says he cannot do so.”

    Trump’s legal team and presidential campaign assailed the lawsuit as little more than an attempt by Democrats to derail his attempt to reclaim his old job. Trump is so far dominating the Republican presidential primary, and the lawsuits to block him were organized by two separate liberal groups.

    Seeking to underscore that point, Trump’s campaign said before the hearing that it had filed a motion for District Court Judge Sarah B. Wallace to recuse herself because she had made a $100 donation in October 2022 to the Colorado Turnout Project, a group whose website says it was formed to “prevent violent insurrections” such as the Jan. 6 attack. Wallace declined to do so.

    She was appointed to the bench in August of that year by Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat. Wallace said she didn’t recall the donation until the motion was filed and has no preconceptions about the legal issues in the case.

    “I will not allow this legal proceeding to turn into a circus,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court arguments begin in effort to bar Trump from presidential ballot under ‘insurrection’ clause

    Court arguments begin in effort to bar Trump from presidential ballot under ‘insurrection’ clause

    [ad_1]

    DENVER — The campaign to use the U.S. Constitution’s “insurrection” clause to bar former President Donald Trump from running for the White House again enters a new phase this week as hearings begin in two states on lawsuits that might end up reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

    A weeklong hearing on one lawsuit to bar Trump from the ballot in Colorado begins Monday, while on Thursday oral arguments are scheduled before the Minnesota Supreme Court on an effort to kick the former president off the ballot in that state.

    Whether the judges keep Trump on the ballot or boot him, their rulings are likely to be swiftly appealed, eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court. The nation’s highest court has never ruled on the Civil War-era provision in the 14th Amendment that prohibits those who swore an oath to uphold the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding higher office.

    “We’ve had hearings with presidential candidates debating their eligibility before — Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, John McCain,” said Derek T. Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, listing candidates challenged on whether they met the constitutional requirement of being a “natural born citizen.” But these cases, Muller added, are different, using an obscure clause of the Constitution with the “incendiary” bar against insurrection.

    Even if they’re longshots, Muller said, they have a plausible legal path to success and raise important issues.

    “Those legal questions are very heavy ones,” Muller said.

    Dozens of cases citing Section Three of the 14th Amendment have been filed in recent months, but the ones in Colorado and Minnesota seem the most important, according to legal experts. That’s because they were filed by two liberal groups with significant legal resources. They also targeted states with a clear, swift process for challenges to candidates’ ballot qualifications.

    That means the Colorado and Minnesota cases are taking a more legally sound route to get courts to force election officials to disqualify Trump, as opposed to other lawsuits that seek a sweeping ruling from federal judges that Trump is no longer eligible for the presidency.

    The plaintiffs in the cases argue the issue is simple: Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, leading to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, mean he’s disqualified from the presidency just as clearly as if he were not a natural-born citizen, another constitutional prerequisite for the office.

    “Four years after taking an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution as President of the United States … Trump tried to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, leading to a violent insurrection at the United States Capitol to stop the lawful transfer of power to his successor,” alleges the Colorado lawsuit, filed on behalf of Republican and unaffiliated voters by the liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.

    “By instigating this unprecedented assault on the American constitutional order, Trump violated his oath and disqualified himself under the Fourteenth Amendment from holding public office, including the Office of the President.”

    Trump has castigated the lawsuits as “election interference.” His lawyers contend that none of the issues are simple in a provision of the Constitution that hasn’t been used in 150 years.

    The clause has only been used a handful of times since immediately after the Civil War. Trump’s lawyers contend that it was never meant to apply to the office of president, which is not mentioned in the text, unlike “Senator or Representative in Congress” and “elector of President and Vice President.”

    The provision allows Congress to grant amnesty — as was done in 1872 to allow former confederates back into government — which has led some to argue that it has no power without an enabling act of Congress.

    Finally, Trump’s lawyers contend the former president never “engaged in insurrection” and was simply exercising his free speech rights to warn about election results he did not believe were legitimate.

    “Trump’s comments did not come close to ‘incitement,’ let alone ‘engagement’ in an insurrection,” his attorneys wrote in a filing in the Colorado case, adding examples of cases where the congressional authors of Section Three declined to use it against people who only rhetorically backed the confederacy.

    The arguments in Colorado could feature testimony from witnesses to the Jan. 6 attack or other important events during Trump’s efforts to overturn the election. The identities of witnesses have been shielded until they take the stand, part of the court’s effort to limit the heated rhetoric and threats that have become an issue in Trump’s criminal trials.

    The lawyers are expected to delve deeply into the history of the drafting of the provision in the 14th Amendment and its use between its adoption in 1868 and the amnesty law in 1872. There is scant legal precedent on the issue — so little that the attorneys have had to argue about the meaning of an 1869 case written by Salmon Chase, who was then chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court but wrote only as an appeals judge.

    After the amnesty act in 1872, legal scholars could only find one other time the provision was cited, when Congress refused to seat a socialist member of the House of Representatives because he opposed entry into World Wat I.

    Then last year, it was used by CREW to bar the head of “Cowboys for Trump” from a county commission seat in rural New Mexico. A second liberal group, Free Speech For People, filed lawsuits seeking to prevent Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Madison Cawthorn from running for reelection.

    The judge overseeing Greene’s case ruled in her favor, while Cawthorn’s case became moot after he was defeated in his primary. Free Speech For People filed the case in Minnesota, where challenges to ballot appearances go straight to the state supreme court.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • This is banned in the US but a hot topic in fight over Ohio’s abortion amendment

    This is banned in the US but a hot topic in fight over Ohio’s abortion amendment

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — With Election Day closing in, anti-abortion groups seeking to build opposition to a reproductive rights measure in Ohio are messaging heavily around a term for an abortion procedure that was once used later in pregnancy but that hasn’t been legal in the U.S. for over 15 years.

    In ads, debates and public statements, the opposition campaign and top Republicans have increasingly been referencing “partial-birth abortions” as an imminent threat if voters approve the constitutional amendment on Nov. 7. “Partial-birth abortion” is a non-medical term for a procedure known as dilation and extraction, or D&X, which is already federally prohibited.

    “It would allow a partial-birth abortion,” Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine told reporters recently as he explained his opposition to the constitutional amendment, known as Issue 1.

    “For many years, in Ohio and in this country, we’ve had a law that said a partial-birth abortion — where the child is partially delivered and then killed and then finally delivered — was illegal in Ohio,” the governor continued. “This constitutional amendment would override that.”

    Constitutional scholars say that is not true and that the amendment would not override the existing federal ban if Ohio voters approve it.

    “So changing our constitution will not affect in the slightest way the applicability of the federal partial-birth abortion ban,” said Dan Kobil, a law professor at Capital University in Columbus, who supports abortion rights. “It would be a federal crime for a doctor to violate that ban.”

    That’s because the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution calls for federal laws to trump state laws, said Jonathan Entin, professor emeritus of law at Case Western State University.

    “If the federal law prohibits a particular technique, then that’s going to prevail over a state law that might be inconsistent,” he said.

    Ohio is the only state this November where voters will decide whether abortion should be legal. But the debate isn’t happening in isolation. The state has been used as a campaign testing ground by anti-abortion groups after a string of defeats since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a constitutional right to the procedure. And next year, abortion rights supporters are planning to put the question before voters in several more states, ensuring the issue will be central to races up and down the ballot.

    A D&X procedure involved dilating the woman’s cervix, then pulling the fetus through the cervix, feet-first to the neck. The head was then punctured and the skull emptied and compressed to allow the fetus to fit through the dilated cervix. Before the federal ban, it was used for both abortions and miscarriages in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.

    DeWine was serving in the U.S. Senate when the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed in 2003. He voted for the prohibition, which declared a “moral, medical, and ethical consensus” that the procedure was “gruesome and inhumane.” President George W. Bush signed the measure into law with DeWine at his side.

    The ban was largely on hold while a constitutional challenge played out. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 rejected arguments against the law, upholding its application across all 50 states.

    Asked why the governor suggested a federal law he supported would not apply if Ohio changes its constitution, spokesman Dan Tierney said DeWine bases his position on provisions of the U.S. Constitution that prevent the federal government from regulating conduct that has no effect on interstate commerce. Kobil acknowledged that argument, but said it’s “almost certain to fail” if tested, given that the Supreme Court already declared the ban constitutional.

    DeWine isn’t the only top elected Republican in the state to warn that the procedure would be revived if the amendment passes on Nov. 7.

    In a memo earlier this month, Republican Attorney General Dave Yost said the state’s laws outlawing abortions through D&X and another procedure, non-intact dilation and evacuation, or D&E, the most common second trimester method, “would both be invalidated and these abortions would be permitted” if the amendment passes. The Ohio Senate’s Republican supermajority passed a resolution saying something similar.

    Entin, of Case Western, said “to the extent that the Ohio laws he’s discussed are also covered by the federal law, it doesn’t matter,” because federally banned procedures would remain illegal.

    Kelsey Pritchard, director of state public affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, whose political arm is a major funder of the campaign opposing the amendment, said the federal ban “lacks enforcement” under a Biden Administration she described as “extreme pro-abortion.”

    “If it’s not being enforced, if there’s no teeth to it, then the protections need to happen at the state level,” argued spokesperson Amy Natoce of Protect Women Ohio, the Issue 1 opposition campaign. “Of course, if Issue 1 passed, we won’t have those protections.”

    Mae Winchester, a Cleveland-based maternal fetal medicine specialist, said use of the term in the campaign messaging over the amendment is misleading.

    “‘Partial-birth abortion’ is a made-up term that only serves to create confusion and stigmatize abortion later in pregnancy,” she said. “It’s not a procedure that’s described anywhere in medical literature, and so it’s not considered a medical term or even an actual medical procedure.”

    Ohio passed the nation’s first ban on what its lawmakers then dubbed “partial birth feticide” in 1995, just three years after Ohio physician Martin Haskell debuted the D&X procedure during an abortion practitioners conference. He touted it as a way to avoid an overnight hospital stay and as safer and less painful for women than other methods.

    Protect Women Ohio has invoked Haskell’s legacy in one of its ads. It shows an image of Haskell and describes the procedure he pioneered as “painful for the mother and the baby.” The voiceover then calls for a no vote on the amendment “so people like Dr. Haskell can’t perform painful ‘late-term’ abortions.”

    The spot doesn’t note the distinction between “partial-birth” and “late-term” abortions — both non-medical terms coined by anti-abortion advocates — nor reference the federal ban.

    Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, said because of protections provided to individuals and abortion providers in the amendment, “The ad withstands any scrutiny.”

    Haskell retired from active practice two years ago. He declined comment. But he has donated to the main group supporting the constitutional amendment, Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights.

    Pro-Choice Ohio Executive Director Kellie Copeland called talk of “late-term” and “partial-birth” abortions a scare tactic.

    “Issue 1 allows for clear restrictions on abortion after viability that protect patients’ health and safety,” she said. “These situations, when a woman needs an abortion later in pregnancy, are incredibly rare and heartbreaking for families.”

    Ohio hasn’t had an abortion of any type performed after 25 weeks’ gestation since 2018 and only four have been recorded since 2013, according to statistics compiled by the state Health Department. Abortions between 21 and 24 weeks’ gestation, a span that encompasses the outside limit of Ohio’s current law, totaled 576, or 0.6% of the total, over that time.

    Pritchard, of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, attributed the low numbers to the state’s existing abortion restrictions.

    ___

    Associated Press reporter Christine Fernando in Chicago contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • This procedure is banned in the US. Why is it a hot topic in fight over Ohio’s abortion amendment?

    This procedure is banned in the US. Why is it a hot topic in fight over Ohio’s abortion amendment?

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — With Election Day closing in, anti-abortion groups seeking to build opposition to a reproductive rights measure in Ohio are messaging heavily around a term for an abortion procedure that was once used later in pregnancy — but hasn’t been legal in the U.S. for over 15 years.

    In ads, debates and public statements, the opposition campaign and top Republicans have increasingly been referencing “partial-birth abortions” as an imminent threat if voters approve the constitutional amendment on Nov. 7. “Partial-birth abortion” is a non-medical term for a procedure known as dilation and extraction, or D&X, which is already federally prohibited.

    “It would allow a partial-birth abortion,” Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine told reporters recently as he explained his opposition to the constitutional amendment, known as Issue 1.

    “For many years, in Ohio and in this country, we’ve had a law that said a partial-birth abortion — where the child is partially delivered and then killed and then finally delivered — was illegal in Ohio,” the governor continued. “This constitutional amendment would override that.”

    Constitutional scholars say that is not true and that the amendment would not override the existing federal ban if Ohio voters approve it.

    “So changing our constitution will not affect in the slightest way the applicability of the federal partial-birth abortion ban,” said Dan Kobil, a law professor at Capital University in Columbus, who supports abortion rights. “It would be a federal crime for a doctor to violate that ban.”

    That’s because the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution calls for federal laws to trump state laws, said Jonathan Entin, professor emeritus of law at Case Western State University.

    “If the federal law prohibits a particular technique, then that’s going to prevail over a state law that might be inconsistent,” he said.

    Ohio is the only state this November where voters will decide whether abortion should be legal. But the debate isn’t happening in isolation. The state has been used as a campaign testing ground by anti-abortion groups after a string of defeats since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a constitutional right to the procedure. And next year, abortion rights supporters are planning to put the question before voters in several more states, ensuring the issue will be central to races up and down the ballot.

    A D&X procedure involved dilating the woman’s cervix, then pulling the fetus through the cervix, feet-first to the neck. The head was then punctured and the skull emptied and compressed to allow the fetus to fit through the dilated cervix. Before the federal ban, it was used for both abortions and miscarriages in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.

    DeWine was serving in the U.S. Senate when the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed in 2003. He voted for the prohibition, which declared a “moral, medical, and ethical consensus” that the procedure was “gruesome and inhumane.” President George W. Bush signed the measure into law with DeWine at his side.

    The ban was largely on hold while a constitutional challenge played out. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 rejected arguments against the law, upholding its application across all 50 states.

    Asked why the governor suggested a federal law he supported would not apply if Ohio changes its constitution, spokesman Dan Tierney said DeWine bases his position on provisions of the U.S. Constitution that prevent the federal government from regulating conduct that has no effect on interstate commerce. Kobil acknowledged that argument, but said it’s “almost certain to fail” if tested, given that the Supreme Court already declared the ban constitutional.

    DeWine isn’t the only top elected Republican in the state to warn that the procedure would be revived if the amendment passes on Nov. 7.

    In a memo earlier this month, Republican Attorney General Dave Yost said the state’s laws outlawing abortions through D&X and another procedure, non-intact dilation and evacuation, or D&E, the most common second trimester method, “would both be invalidated and these abortions would be permitted” if the amendment passes. The Ohio Senate’s Republican supermajority passed a resolution saying something similar.

    Entin, of Case Western, said “to the extent that the Ohio laws he’s discussed are also covered by the federal law, it doesn’t matter,” because federally banned procedures would remain illegal.

    Kelsey Pritchard, director of state public affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, whose political arm is a major funder of the campaign opposing the amendment, said the federal ban “lacks enforcement” under a Biden Administration she described as “extreme pro-abortion.”

    “If it’s not being enforced, if there’s no teeth to it, then the protections need to happen at the state level,” argued spokesperson Amy Natoce of Protect Women Ohio, the Issue 1 opposition campaign. “Of course, if Issue 1 passed, we won’t have those protections.”

    Mae Winchester, a Cleveland-based maternal fetal medicine specialist, said use of the term in the campaign messaging over the amendment is misleading.

    “‘Partial-birth abortion’ is a made-up term that only serves to create confusion and stigmatize abortion later in pregnancy,” she said. “It’s not a procedure that’s described anywhere in medical literature, and so it’s not considered a medical term or even an actual medical procedure.”

    Ohio passed the nation’s first ban on what its lawmakers then dubbed “partial birth feticide” in 1995, just three years after Ohio physician Martin Haskell debuted the D&X procedure during an abortion practitioners conference. He touted it as a way to avoid an overnight hospital stay and as safer and less painful for women than other methods.

    Protect Women Ohio has invoked Haskell’s legacy in one of its ads. It shows an image of Haskell and describes the procedure he pioneered as “painful for the mother and the baby.” The voiceover then calls for a no vote on the amendment “so people like Dr. Haskell can’t perform painful ‘late-term’ abortions.”

    The spot doesn’t note the distinction between “partial-birth” and “late-term” abortions — both non-medical terms coined by anti-abortion advocates — nor reference the federal ban.

    Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, said because of protections provided to individuals and abortion providers in the amendment, “The ad withstands any scrutiny.”

    Haskell retired from active practice two years ago. He declined comment. But he has donated to the main group supporting the constitutional amendment, Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights.

    Pro-Choice Ohio Executive Director Kellie Copeland called talk of “late-term” and “partial-birth” abortions a scare tactic.

    “Issue 1 allows for clear restrictions on abortion after viability that protect patients’ health and safety,” she said. “These situations, when a woman needs an abortion later in pregnancy, are incredibly rare and heartbreaking for families.”

    Ohio hasn’t had an abortion of any type performed after 25 weeks’ gestation since 2018 and only four have been recorded since 2013, according to statistics compiled by the state Health Department. Abortions between 21 and 24 weeks’ gestation, a span that encompasses the outside limit of Ohio’s current law, totaled 576, or 0.6% of the total, over that time.

    Pritchard, of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, attributed the low numbers to the state’s existing abortion restrictions.

    ___

    Associated Press reporter Christine Fernando in Chicago contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Brazil’s Lula vetoes core part of legislation threatening Indigenous rights

    Brazil’s Lula vetoes core part of legislation threatening Indigenous rights

    [ad_1]

    RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Friday vetoed the core aspects of a bill passed by Congress that threatened to undo protections of Indigenous peoples’ land rights.

    The bill proposed to enshrine a legal theory that argues the date Brazil’s Constitution was promulgated — Oct. 5, 1988 — should be the deadline for when Indigenous peoples already had to be physically occupying land or be legally fighting to reoccupy territory.

    That legal theory was rejected by Brazil’s Supreme Court in September. A week later, the Senate — dominated by conservative lawmakers backed by Brazil’s powerful agribusiness — approved the bill on a vote of 43 in favor and 21 against.

    Friday was the deadline for Lula to act if he wanted to block all or parts of the legislation.

    “Today I vetoed several articles (of the legislation) … in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision on the subject. Let’s talk and keep working so that we continue to have, as we do today, legal security and also respect for the rights of the original people,” Lula said on social media.

    Backers of the legislation said it was needed to provide legal security to landowners, saying there is discomfort in rural areas due to a perceived lack of limits to the expansion of Indigenous territories.

    Indigenous rights groups argue the concept of the deadline is unfair because it does not account for expulsions and forced displacements of Indigenous populations, particularly during Brazil’s two-decade military dictatorship.

    Lula vetoed all references to the deadline theory and other provisions deemed harmful to Indigenous rights, such as allowing mining and the cultivation of genetically modified organisms.

    “We can consider the vetoes presented here by the president a great victory, (…) guaranteeing the government’s coherence with the Indigenous, environmental and international agenda,” the minister for Indigenous peoples, Sonia Guajajara, said at a news conference after meeting with Lula in the capital, Brasilia.

    The president stopped short of vetoing the entire bill, as requested by some Indigenous rights groups. The articles that were maintained are consistent with the tradition of Brazilian Indigenous policy since the 1988 Constitution, Institutional Relations Minister Alexandre Padilha said in a statement.

    Célia Xakriabá, a federal lawmaker from the southeastern state of Minas Gerais, celebrated Lula’s action but said that “the project still deals with other very serious issues for indigenous peoples.”

    “We continue to mobilize to guarantee our rights!” she added on X, formerly known as Twitter.

    Since taking office in January, the left-leaning Lula has given significantly more attention to the demands of Indigenous peoples than his far-right predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, including demarcating eight new Indigenous territories.

    But without a majority in Congress, he has faced intense pressure from conservative legislators who have stalled his environmental agenda.

    “The partial veto is strategic because it is estimated that a total veto would be easier to overturn in Congress,” Thiago Amparo, a law professor at the Getulio Vargas Foundation think tank and university, said on X.

    The lobby group for agribusiness, known by its Portuguese acronym FPA, said in a statement that it would seek to have Lula’s veto overturned when the bill is returned to Congress.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump is ‘not above the law,’ prosecutors say in urging judge to let federal election case proceed

    Trump is ‘not above the law,’ prosecutors say in urging judge to let federal election case proceed

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Federal prosecutors said Thursday that Donald Trump is “not above the law” as they urged a judge to reject the former president’s efforts to dismiss the case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

    Lawyers for Trump had asked U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan earlier this month to toss the federal election subversion case, asserting that he was immune from prosecution for actions he took while fulfilling his duties as president.

    Special counsel Jack Smith’s team responded in its own filing Thursday that there is nothing in the Constitution, or in court precedent, to support the idea that Trump or any other former president cannot be prosecuted for criminal conduct committed while in the White House.

    “The defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens,” prosecutors wrote.

    The question now heads to a decision from Chutkan, who is being asked to wade into the legally untested realm of a former president’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution. She’s not likely to have the final word, though, as defense lawyers — if they fail to persuade Chutkan — will have the opportunity to press their arguments before a federal appeals court or, ultimately, a Supreme Court with a clear conservative majority.

    Trump was charged in August in a four-count indictment in federal court in Washington with scheming to overturn the election that he lost to Democrat Joe Biden in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol in a violent but ultimately failed effort to halt the transfer of power.

    The Supreme Court has held that presidents are immune from civil liability for actions related to their official duties but it has never addressed the question of whether that immunity shields a president from criminal prosecution.

    Trump’s defense lawyers have seized on the absence of rulings to make the case that he must be considered exempt from prosecution, arguing that the the actions he’s accused of taking fall within the bounds of the presidency.

    But prosecutors rejected that argument on multiple grounds, saying the steps Trump took to stay in power — including by advancing false claims of voter fraud in an effort to block the formal counting of electoral votes — are well outside Oval Office duties and responsibilities.

    They also said Trump’s claims of immunity directly conflict with the nation’s Constitution, which allows for the criminal prosecution of a president for “acts committed during — and ultimately resulting in the president’s removal from — the presidency.”

    “The defendant, however, would turn the Impeachment Judgment Clause on its head and have the Court read it as a sweeping grant of immunity that forbids criminal prosecution in the absence of a Senate conviction — which, among other things, would effectively preclude any form of accountability for a president who commits crimes at the end of his term of office,” prosecutors said.

    Smith’s team also said that while some legal commentators have objected to Justice Department legal opinions stating that sitting presidents cannot face federal indictment, “there has been universal agreement that a former president may be subject to federal criminal prosecution — a principle recognized in the Constitution and rooted in historical practice.”

    The case, currently set for trial on March 4, 2024, is one of four criminal prosecutions that the former president is facing. Earlier this week, Chutkan, responding to a request from Smith’s team, imposed a limited gag order on Trump barring him from incendiary comments targeting prosecutors and potential witnesses.

    He’s also charged by Smith’s team in Florida with illegally hoarding classified documents, is accused in Fulton County, Georgia, of conspiring to undo his election loss in that state and is awaiting trial in New York on state charges alleging that he falsified business records to cover up hush money payments to a porn actor.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Native Americans celebrate their histories and cultures on Indigenous Peoples Day

    Native Americans celebrate their histories and cultures on Indigenous Peoples Day

    [ad_1]

    Native Americans are celebrating their histories and cultures with events across the country marking Indigenous Peoples Day

    ByThe Associated Press

    October 9, 2023, 12:53 PM

    People attend an Indigenous People Sunrise ceremony at Bde Maka Ska Lake in Minneapolis, Minn. on Monday, Oct. 9, 2023. (Kerem Yücel/Minnesota Public Radio via AP)

    The Associated Press

    Native people celebrated their history on Monday with events across the U.S. marking Indigenous Peoples Day, from a sunrise gathering in Minneapolis to a rally in Maine.

    The ceremonies, dances and speeches came two years after President Joe Biden officially commemorated Indigenous Peoples Day. At the time, he said the day is meant to “honor America’s first inhabitants and the Tribal Nations that continue to thrive today.”

    In Minnesota, about 150 people, including the governor and lieutenant governor, attended a sunrise prayer and ceremony at Bde Maka Ska, a lake surrounded by parkland on the south side of Minneapolis.

    “Today, we recognize our ancestors and predecessors who really laid the foundation for us to stand,” said Thorne LaPointe, an indigenous organizer and Native American. “And we will always recognize our elders who are here and those who have gone on before us, who really kicked open the doors in their time nationally and internationally, and really made a place for us particular here in this city.”

    According to the Pew Research Center, 17 states and Washington, D.C., have holidays honoring Native Americans. Many of them celebrate it on the second Monday of October, pivoting from a day long rooted in the celebration of explorer Christopher Columbus to one focused on the people whose lives and culture were forever changed by colonialism. Dozens of cities and school systems also observe Indigenous Peoples Day.

    In Augusta, Maine, several hundred people celebrated Indigenous Peoples Day by rallying outside the Statehouse in support a Nov. 7 statewide vote on an amendment that would require the restoration of tribal treaties that were omitted from printed versions of the state constitution.

    Maulian Bryant, Penobscot Nation ambassador and president of the Wabanaki Alliance, said once people understand the importance to Native Americans, they will support it like they did when towns, and then the state, enacted Indigenous Peoples’ Day.

    Bryant recalled the successful grassroots conversations that took place about the legacy of Columbus, whose arrival brought violence, disease and suffering to Native Americans.

    “We want to honor the true stewards of these lands,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Tennessee Three’ Democrat sues over expulsion and House rules that temporarily silenced him

    ‘Tennessee Three’ Democrat sues over expulsion and House rules that temporarily silenced him

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Tennessee Democratic Rep. Justin Jones filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday challenging his expulsion in April and the House rules restricting lawmakers’ floor comments that Republicans applied to silence Jones for part of one day in August.

    Filed against House Speaker Cameron Sexton and House administrative officials, the lawsuit in Nashville federal court argues that Republicans have repeatedly blocked Jones from speaking during debate in violation of free speech rights under the state and federal constitutions.

    Additionally, the lawsuit by the Nashville member of the “Tennessee Three” contends his constitutional due process rights were infringed upon by the expulsion proceedings.

    Republicans ousted Jones and Rep. Justin Pearson, a fellow young Black Democrat, over their megaphone-amplified protest calling for gun control on the House floor just days after a Christian elementary school shooting killed six people. Republicans spared Democratic Rep. Gloria Johnson, who is white, from expulsion for her role in the demonstration by one vote.

    Jones and Pearson were quickly reappointed and then reelected in special elections, each attracting a wave of campaign donations over the few days they were out of office. Jones, Pearson and Johnson were propelled into the national spotlight.

    Beyond seeking that the expulsion and the House rules on debate be declared unconstitutional, the lawsuit also says Jones should be returned to a committee from which he was removed; restored other benefits, including his seniority level pre-expulsion and a full year’s credit in the state’s retirement system; and awarded other damages and costs.

    GOP leaders have said the expulsions were necessary to avoid setting a precedent that lawmakers’ disruptions of House proceedings through protest would be tolerated. They said the new House rules promote civility, respect and accountability.

    Sexton’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the Tennessee attorney general, Amy Wilhite, said the office was aware of the lawsuit but hadn’t received a copy from Jones’ attorneys yet.

    The lawsuit seeks to prevent Sexton and the state “from continuing to suppress dissent, whether through the updated House rules or otherwise, and to seek full restoration of the benefits, rights, and privileges that they illegally stripped from him (Jones) in retaliation for his protected speech.”

    The new House rule aimed at punishing disruptive members was approved for the August special session called by Republican Gov. Bill Lee in response to the deadly March shooting at The Covenant School. The rule allows members to be silenced anywhere from a day to the rest of the year for not sticking to the bill being debated.

    On the day the House voted to silence Jones, Sexton had warned Jones about calling a Republican’s bills “reprehensible,” “asinine,” and “insulting.” Sexton twice ruled him out of order for saying lawmakers should “stop trying to put more guns to start a gun fight in our schools that would not protect our children. What is one little Glock against an AR-15?”; and then saying the state should better fund mental health in schools and increase teacher pay instead of putting more police in schools.

    In addition to the limits on debate, House Republicans also instituted a ban on the public holding signs during floor and committee proceedings. A Tennessee judge blocked the sign ban from being enforced after agreeing with civil rights activists that the prohibition likely violated free speech rights. The state in response wrote that the judge “prohibited duly-elected legislators from enforcing their own duly-enacted rules.”

    Only a few bills passed during the tense special session, and none of them made any significant gun control changes. There was no consideration of a proposal to keep firearms away from people who are judged to pose a threat to themselves or others, which the Republican governor, Bill Lee, has supported.

    The session also ended in acrimony when Sexton and Pearson appeared to have a brief physical interaction where both accused each other of shoving moments after the House adjourned. Pearson and Jones had approached the speaker’s dais each holding a sign calling for gun control.

    Jones is represented in the lawsuit by onetime U.S. Attorney Jerry Martin and attorneys from a law firm that includes former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder has served on Jones’ legal team for several months.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court will decide if state laws limiting social media platforms violate the Constitution

    The Supreme Court will decide if state laws limiting social media platforms violate the Constitution

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether state laws that seek to regulate Facebook, TikTok, X and other social media platforms violate the Constitution.

    The justices will review laws enacted by Republican-dominated legislatures and signed by Republican governors in Florida and Texas. While the details vary, both laws aim to prevent the social media companies from censoring users based on their viewpoints.

    The court’s announcement, three days before the start of its new term, comes as the justices continue to grapple with how laws written at the dawn of the digital age, or earlier, apply to the online world.

    The justices had already agreed to decide whether public officials can block critics from commenting on their social media accounts, an issue that previously came up in a case involving then-President Donald Trump. The court dismissed the Trump case when his presidential term ended in January 2021.

    Separately, the high court also could consider a lower-court order limiting executive branch officials’ communications with social media companies about controversial online posts.

    In all, the justices added 12 cases Friday that will be argued during the winter. They include:

    — A dispute over the FBI’s no-fly list. The appeal came from the Biden administration in a case involving an Oregon man who once was on the list, but had been removed years ago. A federal appeals court said he could continue his lawsuit because the FBI never disavowed his initial inclusion.

    — A copyright case that involves a hit for the hip-hop artist Flo Rida in which he made use of someone else’s song from the 1980s. Music publishing companies that were sued for copyright infringement over the 2008 song “In the Ayer” are challenging a lower court ruling against them.

    — A plea by landowners in southeast Texas who want the state to compensate them for effectively taking their property. Their lawsuit claims that a successful project to renovate Interstate 10 and ensure it remains passable in bad weather results in serious flooding on their properties in heavy rainfall.

    The new social media cases follow conflicting rulings by two appeals courts, one of which upheld the Texas law, while the other struck down Florida’s statute. By a 5-4 vote, the justices kept the Texas law on hold while litigation over it continues.

    But the alignment was unusual. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted to grant the emergency request from two technology industry groups that challenged the law in federal court.

    Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch would have allowed the law to remain in effect. In dissent, Alito wrote, “Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news.”

    Proponents of the laws, including Republican elected officials in several states that have similar measures, have sought to portray social media companies as generally liberal in outlook and hostile to ideas outside of that viewpoint, especially from the political right.

    The tech sector warned that the laws would prevent platforms from removing extremism and hate speech.

    “Online services have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit,” Chris Marchese, the litigation director for the industry group NetChoice, said in a statement. “The internet is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship. We are confident the Court will agree.”

    Without offering any explanation, the justices had put off consideration of the case even though both sides agreed the high court should step in.

    The justices had other social media issues before them last year, including a plea the court did not embrace to soften legal protections tech companies have for posts by their users.

    [ad_2]

    Source link