ReportWire

Tag: legislative bodies

  • Scotland blocked from holding independence vote by UK’s Supreme Court | CNN

    Scotland blocked from holding independence vote by UK’s Supreme Court | CNN

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Britain’s Supreme Court has ruled that Scotland’s government cannot unilaterally hold a second referendum on whether to secede from the United Kingdom, in a blow to independence campaigners that will be welcomed by Westminster’s pro-union establishment.

    The court unanimously rejected an attempt by the Scottish National Party (SNP) to force a vote next October, as it did not have the approval of Britain’s parliament.

    But the decision is unlikely to stem the heated debate over independence that has loomed over British politics for a decade.

    Scotland last held a vote on the issue, with Westminster’s approval, in 2014, when voters rejected the prospect of independence by 55% to 45%.

    The pro-independence SNP has nonetheless dominated politics north of the border in the intervening years, at the expense of the traditional, pro-union groups. Successive SNP leaders have pledged to give Scottish voters another chance to vote, particularly since the UK voted to leave the European Union in 2016.

    The latest push by SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon involved holding an advisory referendum late next year, similar to the 2016 poll that resulted in Brexit. But the country’s top court agreed that even a non-legally binding vote would require oversight from Westminster, given its practical implications.

    “A lawfully held referendum would have important political consequences relation to the Union and the United Kingdom Parliament,” Lord Reed said as he read the court’s judgment.

    “It would either strengthen or weaken the democratic legitimacy of the Union and of the United Kingdom Parliament’s sovereignty over Scotland, depending on which view prevailed, and would either support or undermine the democratic credentials of the independence movement,” he said.

    Sturgeon said she accepted the ruling on Wednesday, but tried to frame the decision as another pillar in the argument for secession. “A law that doesn’t allow Scotland to choose our own future without Westminster consent exposes as myth any notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership & makes (a) case” for independence,” she wrote on Twitter.

    She accused the British government of “outright democracy denial” in a speech to reporters later on Wednesday.

    Sturgeon said her next step in her effort to achieve a vote will be to brand the next British general election – scheduled for January 2025 at the latest – as a proxy referendum in Scotland on which course to take.

    But UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak heralded the court’s “clear and definitive ruling” as an opportunity to move on from the independence debate. “The people of Scotland want us to be working on fixing the major challenges that we collectively face, whether that’s the economy, supporting the NHS or indeed supporting Ukraine,” he said in Parliament.

    Opinion polls suggest that Scots remain narrowly divided on whether to break from the UK, and that a clear consensus in either direction has yet to emerge.

    England and Scotland have been joined in a political union since 1707, but many Scots have long bristled at what they consider a one-sided relationship dominated by England. Scottish voters have historically rejected the ruling Conservative Party at the ballot box and voted heavily – but in vain – against Brexit, intensifying arguments over the issue in the past decade.

    Since 1999, Scotland has had a devolved government, meaning many, but not all, decisions are made at the SNP-led Scottish Parliament in Holyrood, Edinburgh.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Malaysia faces hung parliament for first time in history | CNN

    Malaysia faces hung parliament for first time in history | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Malaysia was facing a hung parliament for the first time in its history as support for a conservative Islamic alliance prevented major coalitions from winning a simple majority in a general election.

    Without a clear winner, political uncertainty could persist as Malaysia faces slowing economic growth and rising inflation. It has had three prime ministers in as many years.

    Failure by the main parties to win a majority means a combination of them would have to build a majority alliance to form a government. Malaysia’s constitutional monarch may also get involved, as he has the power to appoint as Prime Minister a lawmaker whom he believes can command a majority.

    Longtime opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim’s coalition won the most seats in Saturday’s general election, results from the Election Commission showed.

    The biggest surprise came from former premier Muhyiddin Yassin who led his Perikatan Nasional bloc to a strong showing, pulling support from the incumbent government’s traditional strongholds.

    Muhyiddin’s alliance includes a Malay-centric conservative party and an Islamist party that has touted shariah or Islamic law. Race and religion are divisive issues in Malaysia, where the Muslim ethnic-Malay population make up the majority and ethnic Chinese and Indians the minorities.

    Both Anwar and Muhyiddin claimed to have the support to form government, though they did not disclose which parties they had allied with.

    Muhyiddin said he hoped to finish discussions by Sunday afternoon. His alliance is a junior partner in incumbent Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob’s ruling coalition and could work with them again.

    Anwar said he would submit a letter to Malaysia’s King Al-Sultan Abdullah detailing his support.

    If Anwar clinches the top job, it would cap a remarkable journey for a politician who, in 25 years, went from heir apparent, to the premiership, to a prisoner convicted of sodomy to the country’s leading opposition figure.

    Since 2015, Malaysian politics has been overshadowed by the 1MDB corruption scandal, which saw billions of dollars of taxpayers money embezzled out of the country. It brought down former prime minister, Najib Razak, who is now serving a 12-year prison sentence for corruption.

    Three prime ministers have governed the Southeast Asian country since a febrile election with a record turnout was fought four years ago on the key issue of corruption.

    Malaysia has 222 parliamentary seats but polls were held only for 220 on Saturday.

    The Election Commission said Anwar’s multi-ethnic Pakatan Harapan coalition won a total of 82 seats, while Muhyiddin’s Perikatan Nasional alliance won 73 seats. Ismail’s Barisan coalition got 30. One seat was unannounced as of 2100 GMT.

    “The key takeaway from this election is that Perikatan has successfully disrupted the two party system,” said Adib Zalkapli, a director with political consultancy Bower Group Asia.

    Barisan and Pakatan have long been Malaysia’s main blocs.

    Barisan said it accepted the people’s decision, but stopped short of conceding defeat. The coalition said in a statement it remains committed to forming a stable government.

    Veteran leader Mahathir Mohamad meanwhile was dealt his first election defeat in 53 years in a blow that could mark the end of a seven-decade political career, losing his seat to Muhyiddin’s alliance.

    A record number of Malaysians voted on Saturday, hoping to end a spate of political uncertainty that has resulted in three prime ministers amidst uncertain economic times and the Covid-19 pandemic.

    The political landscape has been rocky since Barisan lost the 2018 election after governing for 60 years from independence.

    Anwar made his name as a student activist in various Muslim youth groups in Kuala Lumpur in the late 1960s, as the country reeled from the protracted Communist insurgency of the Malayan Emergency.

    Arrested in 1974 in student protests against rural poverty, Anwar was sentenced to 20 months in jail. Despite his firebrand reputation, he later confounded liberal supporters in 1982 by joining the conservative United Malays National Organization (UMNO) led by Mahathir.

    The freed politician was the heir apparent to then-premier Mahathir until 1998, when he was sacked and charged for corruption and sodomy. He was found guilty the following year, a ruling that led to mass street demonstrations.

    The sodomy conviction was overturned, but the corruption verdict was never lifted, barring him from running for political post until a decade later.

    In 2008, once his ban on political participation was lifted, he was hit with further sodomy charges.

    Following an appeal of the acquittal of those charges he was convicted again and jailed in 2015. Human rights groups were highly critical when the conviction was upheld, calling it politically motivated – a claim the government denied.

    Anwar was released from prison in 2018 after joining with old foe Mahathir and Muhyiddin to defeat Barisan for the first time in Malaysia’s history, amid public anger at the government over the multibillion-dollar 1MDB scandal.

    That coalition collapsed after 22 months in power due to infighting over a promise by Mahathir to hand the premiership to Anwar. Muhyiddin briefly became premier, but his administration collapsed last year, paving the way for Barisan’s return to power with Ismail at the helm.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Princes Andrew and Harry will keep their last royal roles. But there’s a catch | CNN

    Princes Andrew and Harry will keep their last royal roles. But there’s a catch | CNN

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in the November 18 edition of CNN’s Royal News, a weekly dispatch bringing you the inside track on Britain’s royal family. Sign up here.


    London
    CNN
     — 

    When King Charles III celebrated his birthday earlier this week, the headlines focused on the new monarch taking on a new park ranger post previously held by his father, Prince Philip.

    Then there were, of course, the military bands performing “Happy Birthday” outside Buckingham Palace at the changing of the guard. And many of the family posted celebratory notes and photographs to official social media accounts. All of this will have probably helped make the day a memorable one.

    But separately, the King also moved to address a dilemma that has remained unresolved since long before Queen Elizabeth II’s death.

    On Monday, Charles asked the UK Parliament to allow his siblings, Princess Anne and Prince Edward, to become Counsellors of State. The move would empower them to step in for him temporarily when directed to do so. The King said in a message read out in the upper chamber, the House of Lords, that maintaining the smooth running of the government was behind the request.

    “To ensure continued efficiency of public business when I’m unavailable, such as while I’m undertaking official duties overseas, I confirm that I would be most content should Parliament see fit for the number of people who may be called upon to act as Counsellors of State under the terms of the Regency Acts 1937 to 1953 to be increased to include my sister and brother, the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex and Forfar, both of whom have previously undertaken this role,” the King wrote.

    The same message was also read out in the lower house, the Commons.

    At present, by law, the group of royals who can fill in for the sovereign numbers five – limited to the monarch’s spouse and the first four family members in the line of succession over the age of 21. Two counselors can be appointed to act on the monarch’s behalf through a letters patent and help keep the state ticking over. Currently, that means the cohort includes Queen Consort Camilla as well as the Prince of Wales, Duke of Sussex, Duke of York and Princess Beatrice.

    Experts have long suggested the existing pool of counselors is too small, while public debate on the topic grew toward the latter part of the late Queen’s reign as she became increasingly frail. Charles and William were authorized to act as counselors on occasion when the Queen was unwell. But it was not lost on many that her other two counselors were Princes Harry and Andrew, despite no longer being working members of the family – albeit for very different, well-covered reasons.

    Normally, the machinations of royal duties would remain behind palace walls. But the topic re-emerged with Charles’ accession, and because any changes to the Regency Act require legislation, the discussion was broached in the House of Lords for the first time late last month.

    Labour Peer Viscount Stansgate challenged Andrew and Harry’s regency powers, remarking that the Duke of York “has left public life,” while the Duke of Sussex “has left the country.” He queried if it was time “to approach the King to see whether a sensible amendment can be made to this Act?” In response, the Lord Privy Seal, Lord True, said he wouldn’t divulge “any private conversations” he may have had with the King or the Royal Household but that “the government will always consider what arrangements are needed to ensure resilience in our constitutional arrangements.”

    Princess Anne and Prince Edward are set to become Counsellors of State.

    The King’s moves this week confirm that the palace has been thinking about the dilemma and the options available. And adding to the group of official stand-ins is not unprecedented, having previously been done for the Queen Mother in 1953 after Elizabeth II came to the throne.

    Practically, it seems there is a desire within Parliament to resolve the issue quickly. A day after Charles’ request, members of the Lords replied to the monarch, assuring him they would act “without delay” and “will provide such measures as may appear necessary or expedient for securing the purpose set out by His Majesty.”

    And the Lords weren’t kidding when they offered expedience, with the Counsellors of State Bill 2022-23 whipping through the Palace of Westminster at breakneck speed. It was given its first reading by Tuesday afternoon and is set to have its second reading and be debated next week.

    Expanding the group of royals who can deputize for the King in his absence is an elegant solution to a potential constitutional crisis. It provides for more flexibility while probably going some way to avoid family awkwardness and shields the two dukes from the public embarrassment that might have arisen had they been stripped of their positions. Charles’ approach means both are still technically counselors on paper but firmly puts an end to speculation over whether Harry or Andrew will ever be called upon.

    Prince William presented England winger Jack Grealish with the iconic number 7 shirt.

    William sends England squad off to World Cup in style.

    The Prince of Wales visited the England soccer squad on Monday at St. George’s Park, the team’s HQ, ahead of their departure for the World Cup in Qatar, which kicks off this weekend. Just before the Three Lions swapped the drizzly winter weather for the heat of Doha, William was on hand to wish the team well. “I’m really here to point out that the rest of the country is behind you,” he told the squad, as he presented each player with their shirt number. “We are all rooting for you, enjoy it.”

    While William serves as president of England’s Football Association, many Welsh fans on social media suggested the visit was tactless for the holder of the Prince of Wales title and questioned his loyalties.

    William has never been shy about being a passionate England fan, as we mentioned last week. And he has been a presence in the Wembley stands, along with his son, George, cheering the team on at previous tournaments. However, he sought to address the criticism mid-week during a trip to the Welsh Parliament in Cardiff. “I’m telling everyone I’m supporting both, definitely. I can’t lose,” he said. “I’ve got to be able to play carefully with my affiliations because I worry otherwise if I suddenly drop England to support Wales then that doesn’t look right for the sport.”

    William continued that while he was growing up, Wales didn’t qualify for many football tournaments and so he picked England. But he’ll be cheering both teams on in their first games on Monday and more broadly, he’s found a way to back both countries over the years. “I’ve supported England [football] since I’ve been quite small, but I support Welsh rugby. That’s kind of my way of doing it.”

    This year’s tournament is Wales’ first World Cup in more than half a century. The two teams are set to clash in the group stages on November 29.

    King Charles shares ‘concern’ after Australia floods.

    The King sent a letter to Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese late last week to express his concern after flash floods devastated parts of Victoria, a state in the southeast of the country. “Our heartfelt thoughts are with all those affected and for the losses that have been suffered,” Charles wrote. “It has been particularly inspiring to see how communities have pulled together to protect homes and livestock and to support each other during this appallingly difficult period,” he added. The floods are the latest threat caused by climate change that Australia has faced in recent years – after battling wildfires for months in 2020. According to PA Media, Albanese said in September that he would be “very comfortable” with the King expressing his views on the “importance of climate change. It is about the very survival of our way of life,” he said.

    Kate visiting Ukrainian refugees who have resettled in the UK.

    The Princess of Wales visited Reading Ukrainian Community Center on Thursday, to meet with displaced Ukrainian families who have arrived in the United Kingdom following Russia’s invasion of their home country. After hearing the stories of these families – whose lives at the end of the year are unrecognizable from how they were at the beginning – Kate joined Ukrainian children taking part in an art session. Kate’s visit followed a virtual roundtable meeting she hosted last week, where she discussed with the First Lady of Ukraine how best to provide mental health support to Ukrainians amid the ongoing conflict.

    Kate took part in an art class with young Ukrainian refugees.

    Harry pens deeply personal letter to bereaved military children.

    Prince Harry may not have been in the UK for last weekend’s Remembrance Day but he found his own way to mark the occasion. The Duke of Sussex wrote a letter to bereaved military children through the British charity Scotty’s Little Soldiers, offering his sympathies and sharing how he has navigated his grief. “We share a bond even without ever meeting one another, because we share in having lost a parent. I know first-hand the pain and grief that comes with loss and want you to know that you are not alone,” he wrote. The charity supports children whose parents have died in service of the British armed forces. On Remembrance Sunday, dozens of these brave children marched through London wearing the charity’s black and yellow scarves. Harry also wrote knowingly of the “difficult feelings” acts of remembrance can stir. “Whenever you need a reminder of this, I encourage you to lean into your friends at Scotty’s Little Soldiers,” he said. “I couldn’t be more grateful and relieved that you have amazing people walking beside you throughout your journey.” Over in the United States, Harry commemorated Veterans Day by attending a remembrance service at Pearl Harbor, while on his Archewell foundation’s website, he and wife Meghan praised the “brave men and women” who have “made tremendous sacrifices and embody duty and service.” Read Harry’s full letter here.

    Prince WIlliam visited the Welsh Parliament, called the Senedd, on Wednesday.

    Getting grilled about his footballing allegiances was not William’s principal reason for going to Cardiff. The Prince of Wales visited the Senedd Wednesday to meet representatives of the Welsh Parliament and hear about the issues of the greatest importance to the Welsh people. William also met the Welsh Youth Parliament, whose members opened up about topics concerning their generation of future leaders.

    King Charles attended the Remembrance Sunday service at The Cenotaph in London.

    Charles III led Britain’s annual Remembrance Sunday service for the first time as monarch last weekend. The King attended the service alongside Camilla, the Queen Consort, and other members of the royal family at the Cenotaph monument in central London. The new monarch laid a wreath, the design of which paid tribute to the wreaths of his grandfather, King George VI, and his mother, the late Queen. Camilla was joined by other senior royals including the Princess of Wales to view the moment from the balcony of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which looks out onto the war memorial. A wreath was laid on the Queen Consort’s behalf for the first time. Find out more in our story.

    “Over the past few months, my husband and I have drawn immense comfort from the messages of condolence that we have received, and continue to receive, from the four corners of the world. They have reminded us that the written word has a unique ability to connect, to heal, to reassure and to offer hope, even in the midst of grief.”

    The Queen Consort paid tribute to her “dear mother-in-law” during a reception for winners of the Queen’s Commonwealth Essay Competition 2022.

    The speech during the reception at Buckingham Palace on Thursday was the first time Camilla had publicly spoken in her role as Queen Consort.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Divided government is more productive than you think | CNN Politics

    Divided government is more productive than you think | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Now that CNN has projected Republicans will win the House of Representatives, it’s time to consider a Washington where both parties have some control.

    Despite underperforming on Election Day, the GOP gains will have a major impact on what’s accomplished in the coming two years.

    Additional climate change policy? Don’t count on it. National abortion legislation? Not a chance. Voting rights? Not likely.

    Plus, Republicans have indicated they will use any leverage they can find – including the debt ceiling – to force spending cuts.

    While you might immediately think this is all a recipe for a stalemate in Washington, I was surprised to read the argument, backed up by research, that the US government actually overperforms during periods of divided government.

    Those periods are coming more and more frequently, by the way. While there used to be relatively long periods of a decade or more during which one party controlled all of Washington, recent presidents have lost control of the House.

    Barack Obama, Donald Trump and George W. Bush each saw their party lose the House. President Joe Biden will join that club.

    The two Republicans in the ’80s and ‘90s – Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush – both had productive presidencies and never enjoyed a sympathetic congressional majority. The last president to enjoy unified government throughout his presidency was Democrat Jimmy Carter, and voters did not look very kindly on him in the final analysis.

    What’s below are excerpts from separate phone conversations conducted before the midterm election with Frances Lee and James Curry, authors of the 2020 book, “The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era.” Lee is a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, and Curry is a political science professor at the University of Utah. What led me to them was their 2020 argument that divided government overperforms and unified government underperforms expectations.

    What should Americans know about divided government?

    LEE: It’s the normal state of affairs in our politics in the modern era. Since 1980, something like two-thirds of the time we’ve had a divided government.

    And yet you think about all the things that government has undertaken in the years since the Second World War. The role and scope of the US government is so much greater now than it was then. And a lot of that happened in divided government. Most of that has been under divided government time. …

    Unified government usually results in disappointment for the party in power, which is just exactly what we’ve seen here in (this) Congress. Democrats were unable to deliver on their bold agenda, and that’s not different than what Republicans faced when they had unified government and couldn’t pass repeal and replace of Obamacare.

    Now hold on. Republicans passed a massive tax cut bill with unified government. Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which included spending to address climate change. Those are the major accomplishments of recent years, no?

    CURRY: I think we’re making a mistake when we say that those are the three biggest things that have happened. For instance, earlier you talked about the American Rescue Plan (another Covid relief bill passed with only Democratic support) – it is not as significant as the CARES Act, which was the first major Covid relief legislation passed by Congress. It passed in March of 2020, and it passed on an overwhelming bipartisan basis.

    A lot of what was included in the American Rescue Plan were things that were initially set out under the CARES Act. Arguably the CARES Act was the single most important legislative accomplishment that we’ve had in this country in several decades.

    And there are other examples too … things like criminal justice reform that was passed with bipartisan support in 2018, and many others things that are just as significant from a public policy standpoint, including also the bipartisan infrastructure bill that Congress passed last year.

    They don’t have as much political significance, foremost because they were passed on a single-party basis. But I don’t think you can make the case that they’re necessarily more significant in terms of policy consequences for the country.

    (In a follow-up email, Curry said that Congress often flies its bipartisanship accomplishments under the radar as part of larger bills, which means they don’t get as much attention. He pointed to big-ticket items that passed quietly in 2019 as part of larger spending bills, including raising the age to buy tobacco to 21, pushing through the first major pay raise for federal employees in years and repealing unpopular Obamacare taxes. He has similar examples for each recent year. But if they are not contentious, they get less attention, he said.)

    Your argument is counter to the current narrative of American politics – that parties enact more on their own. Is that a media problem? A partisanship problem?

    LEE: I’m still blown away by how much was done on Covid. Basically the United States government spent 75% more in 2020 than it spent in 2019. All that was Covid.

    You’re talking about New Deal levels of spending and yet people just didn’t even seem to notice it because it was done on a bipartisan basis. We basically had a universal basic income in response to Covid and all the small business aid – it’s just extraordinary – and yet, it just seemed to pass people by as though nothing important occurred.

    I don’t think it’s just a media story. The media wrote stories about the Covid aid bills, but it just didn’t capture people’s attention.

    And I think that’s because it didn’t cut in favor of or against either party. When you don’t have a story that drives a partisan narrative, most people are just not that interested in it. Most people that pay attention to politics are not that interested in it. It lacks a rooting interest.

    What about the big things that need action? Immigration reform has eluded Congress for decades and climate change is an existential threat. How can divided government be preferable if Congress can’t come together to address these problems?

    CURRY: I’m not saying divided government is preferable, which I think is important. I’m just saying it doesn’t make that big a difference on a lot of these issues.

    So we’ve seen that list of issues you just mentioned – climate change, immigration, etc. These are issues that Congress has equally struggled to take big, bold action on under divided or unified government.

    On climate change, for instance, Democrats want to do big, bold things, but they aren’t able to go as far as they want to, because not only are there disagreements between the parties on how to address climate change, there are disagreements among Democrats about the best way to address climate and environmental legislation.

    On immigration, you have clear divisions across party lines, but also divisions within each party.

    LEE: Congress can pass legislation spending money or cutting taxes. The problem is it’s difficult to do things that create backlash. It’s hard to do serious climate legislation without being prepared to accept a backlash.

    Isn’t this just a structural problem then? If there was no requirement for a filibuster supermajority, couldn’t a simple majority of lawmakers be more effective?

    LEE: On the two examples that you just put forward – on immigration and climate – the filibuster has not been the obstacle to recent efforts.

    In immigration reform that Republicans attempted to do (under Trump), they couldn’t get majorities in either the House or Senate. Democrats were way short of a Senate majority when they tried to do climate legislation under Obama. They barely got out of the House.

    (Curry and Lee’s research shows the filibuster is not the primary culprit standing in the way of four out of five of the priorities that parties have failed to enact since 1985.)

    CURRY: We found a more common reason why the parties fail on the things that can be accomplished is because they are unable to unify internally about what to do. The filibuster matters, but it is far from the most significant thing.

    But certainly the legislation that passes under divided government is different than what would have passed under a unified government. The parties must compromise more. Whether the government is unified or divided matters, right?

    CURRY: It makes a difference certainly for precisely what is in these final policy bills. It certainly makes a difference for the politics of the moment. It really makes a difference for each side of the aisle in terms of being able to say, we got this much done or that much done that matches my hopes and dreams as a Democrat or a Republican.

    But it’s just sort of an overstated story that unified government means big, bold things happen and divided government means they don’t.

    Wouldn’t Washington work better if one party was more easily able to deliver on its goals when voters gave it power?

    CURRY: Whether it would be better if we had a situation like you have in more parliamentary-style governments where a party takes control, they pass what they will and stand to voters, I think it’s just in the eye of the beholder.

    On one hand, potentially, yes, because it’s very clear and clean from a party responsibility or electoral responsibility standpoint, where parties pass things and then voters can hold them accountable or not. On the other hand, then you would see more wild swings in policy from election to election.

    Does the growing number of swings in power in Congress mean American voters consciously prefer divided government?

    CURRY: I don’t think that Americans necessarily have a preference for divided government. That’s something that people sometimes say. It sounds nice.

    But the reality is that roughly since the 1980s and early 1990s, it’s been the case that electoral margins are really tight – you have relatively even numbers of Americans that prefer Democrats and Republicans. And so from election to election, based on turnout and swings back and forth, you get this constant back and forth of our electoral politics where one party is in control for two to four years and then the other party is in control.

    That’s really important because it has massive implications for our politics. If you have a political system and political dynamic like we have today, where each party thinks they can constantly win back control or lose control of the House, the Senate and the presidency, it ups the stakes for every single decision that’s going to be made.

    Everything is considered through a lens of how will this affect our partisan fortunes in the next election, and that makes things just naturally more contentious.

    Can we agree that ours is not a very effective way to govern?

    CURRY: It is certainly the case that Congress does not pass every single thing that every person wants it to. But I don’t think that is ever true of any government. Nor do I think that’s a reasonable bar to set a government against.

    The reality is Congress does a lot of stuff and does a lot more than people give it credit for, but it also fails to take action on a lot of policies. I think that’s just politics. That’s just government. It’s not just an American problem, and it’s not just a facet of our specific political system.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion: She had the most endangered seat in the US Senate. Here’s how she held onto it | CNN

    Opinion: She had the most endangered seat in the US Senate. Here’s how she held onto it | CNN

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: Sheila Leslie, a long-term Nevada resident, served as a Democrat in the Nevada state legislature for 14 years. She is a columnist for the Reno Gazette-Journal and a retired human services professional. The views expressed in this commentary are her own. Read more opinion on CNN.



    CNN
     — 

    Of all the Senate Democrats said to be at risk of being engulfed by a Republican “red wave,” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto was widely viewed as the most vulnerable. And yet as we all now know, the incumbent senator from Nevada now will serve another six years, after being declared the projected winner this weekend over her Republican challenger.

    Cortez Masto’s crucial win, which doubters had insisted was unlikely at best, clinched Democratic control of the Senate for the second half of Joe Biden’s presidency.

    When the last large batch of ballot results were released from Democrat-leaning Clark County late Saturday, Cortez Masto took a decisive lead over her election-denying Republican challenger Adam Laxalt. And when she was pronounced the winner, progressives breathed a long sigh of relief. We’ve been waiting for years for the country to regain its sanity and repudiate the lies and misinformation from Trump and his acolytes.

    The full story has yet to be written about how she was able to wrest victory from Laxalt, but if you look at the vote percentages coming in for Cortez Masto from rural Nevada over the last few days, they are surprisingly high given the overwhelming Republican registration there. Those critically important rural votes, added to the urban vote, pushed her over the top.

    Simply put, Cortez Masto was able to siphon away just enough votes from Laxalt, former President Donald Trump’s 2020 Nevada campaign co-chair, by making forays into the MAGA-leaning, rural parts of her state, padding her wins in urban strongholds like Reno and Las Vegas.

    Nevadans are still adjusting to Covid-era election reforms that provide many early voting opportunities, universal mail-in ballots, drop-off boxes and same-day registration. Since much of the mail is counted in the days after the election, Republicans running statewide often see their leads slowly evaporate. It’s expected and explainable, although that doesn’t always stop MAGA Republicans from irresponsibly claiming election fraud when they lose.

    Cortez Masto campaigned vigorously throughout the Silver State, running a textbook campaign, even earning endorsements from high-profile Republicans throughout the state who praised her bipartisan leadership, work ethic and integrity. This was in contrast to Laxalt, who many viewed as a carpet-bagging Virginian, capitalizing on his grandfather’s sterling reputation in the state.

    (Adam Laxalt’s grandfather Paul Laxalt was a beloved former governor and US senator from Nevada, whose family emigrated from the Basque country in the 1920s to raise sheep in the high desert of Northern Nevada.)

    Aside from her outreach to moderate Republicans, Cortez Masto followed a tried-and-true campaign playbook, making fulsome use of the Nevada Democratic establishment’s vaunted get-out-the-vote ground game, honed and perfected by the late Harry Reid, the former Democratic Senate Majority Leader.

    That ground game was bolstered by the influential Culinary Union members who reportedly knocked on over a million doors in a coordinated push to get Cortez Masto across the finish line. She also leaned in on abortion rights, an issue of great interest to voters across the political spectrum.

    The senator received ample support from a variety of progressive advocacy organizations and individual backers, including hundreds of volunteers from California, who streamed into Nevada, where their time and talents are more politically productive, to provide election help.

    And the week before the election, Third Act, a new national group targeting people over 60 to work on climate justice and protecting democracy, sent its celebrity founder, climate activist Bill McKibben to Nevada to meet with hundreds of older Nevadans. He was joined by renowned author Rebecca Solnit and Secretary of State candidate Cisco Aguilar at a “Defend Our Democracy” event in Reno.

    That event inspired scores to show up the next day to walk door-to-door for pro-democracy candidates, shining a bright spotlight on Aguilar who subsequently won a close race against a staunch election-denier, Jim Marchant. He had vowed to “overhaul the fraudulent election system” in Nevada.

    Marchant had a hand in organizing a false slate of “alternative” electors that was sent to Congress after the 2020 election. He indicated he would not have certified the vote in 2020 – and officials in Nevada fear he might not observe the election norms in 2024 if Trump is the Republican party’s presidential nominee.

    The Reid machine and grassroots efforts were not as successful for Gov. Steve Sisolak however. He was denied a second term by Sheriff Joe Lombardo, a Trump-endorsed candidate who was forced to dial back his characterization of Trump in a debate as merely a “sound president.”

    When the former president expressed grumpy displeasure at the comment, Lombardo proclaimed him “the greatest president” a few days later. Lombardo looked weak and beholden to Trump, but he pacified the MAGA crowd and maintained their support.

    Many factors played into Sisolak’s defeat, some of them outside his control, including the global pandemic, which devastated Nevada’s tourism industry for months. Sisolak, to his credit, prioritized public health measures and saving lives while absorbing anger and resentment from Nevadans who valued their mask-avoiding liberty over protecting their neighbors.

    In coordination with casino executives, he closed the Las Vegas strip for months, overwhelming the state’s unemployment system, which couldn’t keep up with the number of people suddenly unable to work.

    Sisolak’s reelection bid suffered from other challenges: He alienated progressives with vetoes of several key Democratic policy bills, including a death penalty abolition bill that certainly won’t resurface under Lombardo’s administration. Progressives likely still voted for him, but with little enthusiasm – complaining about his lack of vision and inaction on many priority concerns. Some undoubtedly chose the unique Nevada option of “none of the above” on their ballots, in a protest against both candidates.

    But aside from Sisolak being given a pink slip, it was a good election for Nevada’s Democrats. They kept their three congressional seats and added to their majorities in the state assembly and state senate, majorities which mean that they can limit any drastic budgetary or policy measures Lombardo may want to enact.

    And, importantly, they kept an election-denier out of the all-important post of secretary of state. In previous election years, that race would have been of back burner interest. But this year, flipping the seat into Democratic hands and away from meddling of the Republican challenger – QAnon-linked Marchant – was a top priority for many Democratic voters.

    The governor-elect will now get an opportunity to wrestle a severely underfunded state government into shape. He may be in for a shock when he discovers just how woefully underpaid the state workforce is and its astronomical vacancy rates.

    Now Nevadans will have to wait to see how Lombardo makes good on his promise to boost the economy by reducing regulations (as if that is what ails the state.) There’s a good reason why Nevada’s Republican governors never make good on their tired promises to cut taxes and ‘waste’ in state government. Lombardo is about to find out.

    If our newly-elected governor absorbs the national message of this election cycle, he’ll approach his new job with a post-MAGA attitude and get to work with the Democratic legislature on the many pressing issues facing Nevadans.

    Voters have shown us they’re exhausted by the political chaos and lack of civility. They want problem solvers, not flame throwers. With its mixed election results, Nevada may lead the way back to a democratic norm that we worried we might not see again.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Georgia candidate makes history as first known Muslim and Palestinian woman elected to state House | CNN Politics

    Georgia candidate makes history as first known Muslim and Palestinian woman elected to state House | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Ruwa Romman remembers the sadness she felt as an 8-year-old girl sitting in the back of a school bus watching classmates point to her house and erupt in vicious laughter.

    “There’s the bomb lab,” they jeered in yet another attempt to brand her family as terrorists.

    On Tuesday, the same girl – now a 29-year-old community organizer – made history as the first known Muslim woman elected to the Georgia House of Representatives, and the first Palestinian American elected to any office in the state.

    After 10 months of relentless campaigning, the Democrat said she is eager to begin representing the people of District 97, which includes Berkeley Lake, and parts of Duluth, Norcross, and Peachtree Corners in Gwinnett County.

    As an immigrant, the granddaughter of Palestinian refugees, and a Muslim woman who wears the hijab, or Islamic headscarf, the road to political office hasn’t been easy, especially in the very Christian and conservative South.

    “I could write chapters about what I have gone through,” Romman told CNN, listing the many ways she’s faced bigotry or discrimination.

    “All the times I am ‘randomly’ selected by TSA, teachers putting me in a position where I had to defend Islam and Muslims to classrooms being taught the wrong things about me and my identity… it colored my entire life.”

    But those hardships only fueled her passion for civic engagement, especially among marginalized communities, Romman said.

    “Who I am has really taught me to look for the most marginalized because they are the ones who don’t have resources or time to spend in the halls of political institutions to ask for the help they need,” she said.

    Romman began in 2015 working with the Georgia Muslim Voter Project to increase voter turnout among local Muslim Americans. She also helped establish the state chapter for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization.

    Soon after, Romman began working with the wider community. Her website boasts: “Ruwa has volunteered in every election cycle since 2014 to help flip Georgia blue.”

    She said her main focus is “putting public service back into politics,” which she intends to do by helping expand access to health care, bridging the economic opportunity gap, protecting the right to vote, and making sure people have access to lifesaving care like abortion.

    “I think a lot of people overlook state legislators because they think they’re local and don’t have a lot of impact, not realizing that state legislatures have the most direct impact on them,” Romman said. “Every law that made us mad or happy started in the state legislature somewhere.”

    Romman said she always wanted to influence the political process, but never thought she’d be a politician.

    The decision to run for office came after attending a Georgia Muslim Voter Project training session for women from historically marginalized communities, where a journalist covering the event asked if she wanted to run for office.

    “I told her no, I don’t think so, and she ended up writing a beautiful piece about Muslim women in Georgia, but she started it with ‘Ruwa Romman is contemplating a run for office,’ and I wasn’t,” Romman recounted. “But when it came out, the community saw it and the response was so overwhelmingly positive and everyone kept telling me to do it.”

    Two weeks later, Romman and a group of volunteers launched a campaign.

    She was surrounded by family, friends and community members who were rooting for her success. Together, they knocked on 15,000 doors, sent 75,000 texts, and made 8,000 phone calls.

    Her Republican opponent John Chan didn’t fight fair, she said.

    “My opponent had used anti-Muslim rhetoric against me, saying I had ties to terrorism, at one point flat-out supporting an ad that called me a terrorist plant,” she said.

    Flyers supporting Chan’s candidacy insinuated she is associated with terrorist organizations.

    Chan did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

    It was the same type of bullying Romman faced as a schoolgirl, she said. Only this time, she wasn’t alone. Thousands of people had her back.

    “What was incredible is that people in my district sent his messaging to me and said ‘This is unacceptable. How can we help? How can we get involved? How can we support you?’ and that was such an incredible moment for me,” she said.

    Representative elect Ruwa Romman at the Georgia State Capitol for her new member orientation.

    It was also ironic, Romman added, because her passion for her community and social justice is rooted in her faith: “Justice is a central tenant of Islam,” she pointed out. “It inspires me to be good to others, care for my neighbors, and protect the marginalized.”

    It’s also rooted in her family’s experience as Palestinian refugees, who she said were banished from their homeland by Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

    “My Palestinian identify has instilled in me a focus on justice and care for others,” Romman said. “Everyone deserves to live with dignity. I hope that Palestinians everywhere see this as proof that consistently showing up and working hard can be history making.

    “I may not have much power on foreign policy, but I sincerely hope that I can at least remind people that Palestinians are not the nuisance, or the terrorists, or any other terrible aspersion that society has put on us,” she added. “We are real people with real dreams.”

    Romman joins three other Muslim Americans elected to state and local office in Georgia this election cycle, according to the Georgia Muslim Voter Project, but her win is particularly groundbreaking.

    “We’ve had Muslim representation at the state level in Georgia, but these wins take representation for Georgia Muslims further than ever before because now we have more gender and ethnic representation for Muslims,” the group’s executive director Shafina Khabani told CNN. “Not only will we have a representation that looks like us and aligns with our values, but we will have an opportunity to advocate and influence policies that impact our communities directly.”

    “Having diversity in political representation means better laws, more accepting leadership, and welcoming policies for all of Georgia,” she said.

    More than anything, Romman hopes her election points to a future free of hate and bigotry.

    “I think this proves that people have learned that Muslims are part of this community and that tide of Islamophobia is hopefully starting to recede,” Romman added.

    Looking back at her childhood, Romman wishes she could tell her younger self things would get better with time, and that one day she would not only make Georgia history, but hopefully a real difference in the world.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Israeli President invites Netanyahu to form government | CNN

    Israeli President invites Netanyahu to form government | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Jerusalem
    CNN
     — 

    Israel’s President Isaac Herzog asked Benjamin Netanyahu to form a new government on Sunday, allowing the former prime minister to secure the country’s top job for a record sixth time and extend his record as the nation’s longest-serving leader.

    Netanyahu, who served 12 years as Prime Minister before losing office in 2021, was recommended by party leaders representing more than half of Israel’s 120 parliament or Knesset members after the president concluded a political consultation with them.

    “Israel’s citizens require a stable and functioning government,” he said in remarks after the closed-door meeting with Netanyahu. “A government that serves all citizens of Israel, both those who supported and voted for it and those who opposed its establishment; a government that works on behalf of and for the sake of all shades of the Israeli mosaic, from all communities, sectors, faiths, religions, lifestyles, beliefs, and values, and that treats them all with sensitivity and responsibility.”

    “Please God, it will be a stable, successful, and responsible government of all of the people of Israel,” said Netanyahu, speaking alongside Herzog. “We are brothers and we will live together side by side.”

    Israelis voted on November 1 for a fifth time in four years to break the political stalemate in the country.

    Netanyahu’s Likud party has the most seats in the Knesset, and the former prime minister will have 28 days to form a coalition government, with the possibility of a two-week extension.

    But Netanyahu isn’t in for an easy ride: he is now likely to lead an ever-polarized country and possibly one of the most right-wing governments in Israel’s history.

    During negotiations, he will have to divide up ministries among his coalition partners and haggle over policies.

    This is where things get interesting. The five factions allied with Netanyahu’s Likud have a four-seat majority in the 120-seat Knesset, or parliament, and failure to give any one of them what they want could provoke them to bring the coalition down.

    When it comes to the ultra-Orthodox parties, their demands are uncontroversial as far as Netanyahu is concerned: bigger budgets for religious schools, and the right not to teach their children secular subjects such as math and English.

    The real showdowns are likely to come with his new extreme right-wing allies. Netanyahu rode to power on the back of a stunning showing by the Religious Zionism/Jewish Power list, which, with 14 seats, is now the third-biggest grouping in the Knesset. Its leader, Itamar Ben Gvir, who has a conviction for inciting anti-Arab racism and supporting terrorism, has demanded to be made Public Security Minister, in charge of Israel’s police.

    Ben Gvir’s partner is Bezalel Smotrich, who has described himself as a “proud homophobe.” He has said Israel should be run according to Jewish law. He has spoken of reducing the power of the Supreme Court, and striking out the crime of breach of trust – which just so happens to be part of the indictments against Netanyahu in his ongoing corruption trials. Netanyahu has long denied all of the charges. If Smotrich wins the Justice Ministry he covets, he may be able to make these things happen, ending Netanyahu’s legal worries.

    Yet these may be the least of his concerns. Having joined forces with the extreme right wing, the sixth reign of Netanyahu may end up further alienating the half of Israel that didn’t vote for the bloc of parties backing him.

    Assuming Netanyahu can reach a coalition agreement by the December 11 deadline, the Knesset Speaker will call a confidence vote within seven days. If all goes to plan, his government will then take office.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Netanyahu to be invited to form government, paving way for return of Israel’s longest-serving leader | CNN

    Netanyahu to be invited to form government, paving way for return of Israel’s longest-serving leader | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Tel Aviv and Jerusalem
    CNN
     — 

    Israel’s President Isaac Herzog announced Friday he will invite Benjamin Netanyahu to form Israel’s next government, paving the way for him to take the country’s top job for a record sixth time and extend his record as the nation’s longest-serving leader.

    Herzog will officially issue the mandate to Netanyahu on Sunday, he said. Herzog made the announcement after meeting with all the factions in parliament, the Knesset, to ask who they would back for prime minister.

    In a statement released by his office, he said: “At the end of the round of consultations, 64 members of the Knesset recommended to the president the chairman of the Likud faction, MK Benjamin Netanyahu.” He added that 28 Knesset members recommended outgoing Prime Minister Yair Lapid. The same number chose not to recommend anyone.

    Herzog will meet with Netanyahu at the president’s residence on Sunday to formally give him the mandate. Under Israeli law, Netanyahu will then have 28 days to form a new government, with the possibility of a 14-day extension if required.

    During negotiations, Netanyahu will have to divide up ministries among his coalition partners and haggle over policies.

    This is where things get interesting. With a four-seat majority in the 120-seat Knesset, or parliament, the five factions allied with Netanyahu’s Likud are all potential kingmakers: fail to give any one of them what they want, and they could bring the coalition down.

    When it comes to the ultra-Orthodox parties, their demands are uncontroversial as far as Netanyahu is concerned: bigger budgets for religious schools, and the right not to teach their children secular subjects such as math and English.

    The real showdowns are likely to come with his new extreme right-wing allies. Netanyahu rode to power on the back of a stunning showing by the Religious Zionism/Jewish Power list, which, with 14 seats, is now the third-biggest grouping in the Knesset. Its leader, Itamar Ben Gvir, who has a conviction for inciting anti-Arab racism and supporting terrorism, has demanded to be made Public Security Minister, in charge of Israel’s police.

    Ben Gvir’s partner is Bezalel Smotrich, who has described himself as a “proud homophobe.” He has said Israel should be run according to Jewish law. He has spoken of reducing the power of the Supreme Court, and striking out the crime of breach of trust – which just so happens to be part of the indictments against Netanyahu in his ongoing corruption trials. Netanyahu has long denied all of the charges. If Smotrich wins the Justice Ministry he covets, he may be able to make these things happen, ending Netanyahu’s legal worries.

    Yet these may be the least of his concerns. Having been forced to join forces with the extreme right wing, the sixth reign of Netanyahu may end up further alienating the half of Israel that didn’t vote for the bloc of parties backing him.

    Restrictions on settlements in the occupied West Bank could be loosened, prompting international condemnation. Violence between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank could worsen; 2022 has already seen more people killed on each side than any time since 2015.

    Then there’s the potentially explosive issue of the Jerusalem holy site known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as the Ḥaram al-Sharīf, or Noble sanctuary.

    Under the status quo, only Muslims are allowed to pray at the compound. Ben Gvir advocates allowing Jews to pray at what is their holiest site.

    Any change could be used as a pretext by Palestinian militants to carry out attacks. It would almost certainly be condemned by Israel’s new friends in the Arab world, such as Morocco, the UAE and Bahrain.

    President Herzog himself summed up the issue when a hot mic caught him telling Netanyahu’s allies in the Shas party: “You’re going to have a problem with the Temple Mount. That’s a critical issue. You have a partner that the entire world is anxious about,” an apparent reference to Ben Gvir.

    Herzog told another of Netanyahu’s allies, Avi Maoz of the avowedly anti-LGBT Noam faction: “There has been concern about things you have said about the LGBT community. All human beings were created in God’s image and we must respect everyone. We have only one State of Israel. That pertains also to your party.”

    Could a Netanyahu-led government have disputes with the United States? Netanyahu may not have the same bromance with President Joe Biden as he did with Donald Trump, but the two men seem to get along.

    “We are brothers,” Biden told Netanyahu in a call after the election. “My commitment to Israel is unquestionable. Congratulations, my friend.”

    Netanyahu replied: “We will bring more historic peace agreements [with the Arab world], that is within reach. My commitment to our alliance and our relationship is stronger than ever.”

    Netanyahu is vehemently against the US rejoining the Iran nuclear deal, but that seems off the table for now. On Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Israel’s reluctance to provide Kyiv with defensive weapons, Netanyahu promised President Volodymyr Zelensky to “seriously examine” the issue.

    Assuming Netanyahu can reach a coalition agreement by the December 11 deadline, the Knesset Speaker will call a confidence vote within seven days. If all goes to plan, Bibi’s government will then take office, perhaps on December 18 – in time for Hanukkah, the Jewish festival of lights (and miracles).

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Photos: 2022 US midterm elections | CNN Politics

    Photos: 2022 US midterm elections | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A worker uses a steamer to get the wrinkles out of an American flag before the start of at an election night watch party in Los Angeles on Tuesday, November 8.

    Jae C. Hong/AP

    Updated 7:49 PM EST, Tue November 8, 2022

    The midterm elections on Tuesday will decide which party controls the chambers of Congress for the next two years.

    Democrats are playing defense in blue-state strongholds such as New York, Washington and Oregon as they aim to hold on to the House of Representatives. Republicans only need a net gain of five seats to win back control of the House.

    A handful of swing state showdowns will decide the destiny of the Senate, which is currently split 50-50. Some of the key Senate races to watch are in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and Pennsylvania.

    A Republican triumph in either the House or the Senate has the potential to curtail Joe Biden’s presidency and set up an acrimonious two years of political standoffs ahead of the 2024 race for the White House.

    Dozens of governorships, secretaries of states and attorneys general are also on the ballot.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats confront their nightmare scenario on election eve as economic concerns overshadow abortion and democracy worries | CNN Politics

    Democrats confront their nightmare scenario on election eve as economic concerns overshadow abortion and democracy worries | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Democrats close their midterm election campaign Monday facing the nightmare scenario they always feared – with Republicans staging a gleeful referendum on Joe Biden’s struggling presidency and failure to tame inflation.

    Hopes that Democrats could use the Supreme Court’s overturning of the right to an abortion and a flurry of legislative wins to stave off the classic midterm election rout of a party in power are now a memory. Biden faces a dark political environment because of the 40-year-high in the cost of living – and his hopes of a swift rebound next year are clouded by growing fears of a recession.

    On the eve of the election, Democrats risk losing control of the House of Representatives and Republicans are increasingly hopeful of a Senate majority that would leave Biden under siege as he begins his reelection bid and with ex-President Donald Trump apparently set to announce his own campaign for a White House return within days.

    It’s too early for postmortems. Forty million Americans have already voted. And the uncertainty baked into modern polling means no one can be sure a red wave is coming. Democrats could still cling onto the Senate even if the House falls.

    But the way each side is talking on election eve, and the swathe of blue territory – from New York to Washington state – that Democrats are defending offer a clear picture of GOP momentum.

    A nation split down the middle politically, which is united only by a sense of dissatisfaction with its trajectory, is getting into a habit of repeatedly using elections to punish the party with the most power.

    That means Democrats are most exposed this time.

    If the president’s party takes a drubbing, there will be much Democratic finger-pointing over Biden’s messaging strategy on inflation – a pernicious force that has punched holes in millions of family budgets.

    Just as in last year’s losing off-year gubernatorial race in Virginia, which the president won by 10 points in 2020, Democrats are closing the campaign warning about democracy and Trump’s influence while Republicans believe they are addressing the issue voters care about most.

    “Here’s where the Democrats are: they’re inflation deniers, they are crime deniers, they’re education deniers,” Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.

    Hilary Rosen, a longtime Democratic consultant, said on the same show that her party had misjudged the mood of the electorate.

    “I’m a loyal Democrat, but I am not happy. I just think that we are – we did not listen to voters in this election. And I think we’re going to have a bad night,” Rosen told CNN’s Dana Bash.

    “And this conversation is not going to have much impact on Tuesday, but I hope it has an impact going forward, because when voters tell you over and over and over again that they care mostly about the economy, listen to them. Stop talking about democracy being at stake.”

    Rosen is not the only key figure on the left uneasy with the midterm strategy. Former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, urged the White House to do more to stress economic concerns in recent weeks even while acknowledging the crisis of democracy and the importance of abortion rights. In retrospect, it appears Democrats were slow to recognize that a favorable period over the summer, spurred by falling gasoline prices and a hot streak for the president in passing legislation, wouldn’t last long enough to compensate for a ruinous political environment caused by the economy.

    In effect, Biden’s stress on the threat to US political institutions posed by Trump essentially asks voters to prioritize the historic foundation of America’s political system over their own more immediate economic fears.

    It’s a message that resonates strongly in Washington, DC, where the scars of the US Capitol insurrection are keenly felt. And it is undeniably important because the survival of the world’s most important democracy is at stake. After all, Trump incited an insurrection that tried to thwart the unbroken tradition of peaceful transfers of power between presidents.

    But outside the Beltway bubble of politicians and journalists, democracy feels like a far more distant, esoteric concept than the daily struggle to feed a family and to be able to afford to commute to work. From Pennsylvania to Arizona, the return to normality after the Covid-19 nightmare that Biden promised remains elusive to many as the economic after effects of the once-in-a century health emergency linger.

    The impossibility of the political environment for Democrats was laid bare in a CNN/SSRS poll released last week. Some 51% of likely voters said the economy was the key issue in determining their vote. Only 15% named abortion – a finding that explains how the election battleground has tilted toward the GOP. Among voters for whom the economy is their top concern, 71% plan to vote Republican in their House district. And 75% of voters think the economy is already in a recession, meaning that Biden’s efforts to stress undeniably strong economic areas – including the strikingly low unemployment rate – are likely to fall on deaf ears.

    It’s too simple to say that Biden has ignored the impact of inflation, or doesn’t understand the pain it’s bringing to the country.

    The premise of his domestic presidency and his entire political career has been based on restoring the balance of the economy and restoring a measure of security to working and middle class Americans. His legislative successes could bring down the cost of health care for seniors and create a diversified green economy that shields Americans from future high energy prices amid global turmoil. But the benefits from such measures will take years to arrive. And millions of voters are hurting now and haven’t heard a viable plan from the president to quickly ease prices in the short-term.

    There is no guarantee that plans by Republicans to extend Trump-era tax cuts and mandate new energy drilling would have much impact on the inflation crisis either. And divided government would likely mean a stalemate between two dueling economic visions. But the election has turned into a vehicle for voters to stress their frustration, with no imminent hope that things will get better soon.

    Biden has resorted to highlighting bright spots of the economy – claiming to have reignited manufacturing, high job creation and a robust effort to compete with China. He’s now warning that Republicans would gut Social Security and Medicare on which many Americans rely in retirement.

    And in practice, there is not much a president can do to quickly lower inflation on their own. The Federal Reserve is in the lead and the central bank’s strategy of rising interest rates could trigger a recession that could further haunt Biden’s presidency.

    Inflation and high gas prices are also a global issue and have been worsened by factors beyond Biden’s control, including the war in Ukraine and supply chain issues brought on by the pandemic. At the same time, however, economists are debating the wisdom of Biden’s high-spending bills that sent billions of dollars into an overheating economy. And the White House’s repeated downplaying of the soaring cost of living as “transitory” badly misjudged the situation and was another thing that battered Biden’s credibility – on top of the confidence some voters lost in him during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan last year.

    The Republican Party also got exactly what it wanted as Trump has delayed his expected campaign announcement until after the midterms, depriving Biden of the opportunity to shape this election as a direct clash with an insurrectionist predecessor whom he beat in 2020 and who remains broadly unpopular. Such a confrontation might have enabled the president to dampen the impact of his own low approval ratings and win over voters who still disdain the twice-impeached former president.

    Ironically, Biden’s struggles in framing a believable economic message could bring about the very crisis of democracy that he is warning about.

    Any incoming GOP majority would be dominated by pro-Trump radicals. Prospective committee chairs have already signaled they will do their best to deflect from Trump’s culpability on the January 6, 2021, insurrection and go after the Justice Department as it presses on with several criminal investigations into the ex-President’s conduct. And Tuesday’s election could usher in scores of election deniers in state offices who could end up controlling the 2024 presidential election in some key battlegrounds. GOP dominance of state legislatures could further curtail voting rights.

    High inflation has also always been a toxic force that brews political extremism and tempts some voters to be drawn to demagogues and radicals whose political creed is based on stoking resentment and stigmatizing outsiders.

    If Democrats do lose big on Tuesday night, Trump will be a beneficiary.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Netanyahu eyes comeback as Israel votes in fifth election in four years | CNN

    Netanyahu eyes comeback as Israel votes in fifth election in four years | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Jerusalem
    CNN
     — 

    Israelis are heading to the ballot box for an unprecedented fifth time in four years on Tuesday, as Israel holds yet another national election aimed at ending the country’s ongoing political deadlock.

    For the first time in 13 years, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not running as the incumbent. Bibi, as he is universally known in Israel, is hoping to return to power as the head of a hard-right coalition, while centrist caretaker Prime Minister Yair Lapid is hoping the mantle of the acting premiership will help keep him in place.

    Netanyahu issued a stark warning as he cast his ballot on Tuesday morning.

    When asked by CNN about fears he would lead a far-right government if returns to office, Netanyahu responded with an apparent reference to the Ra’am party, which made history last year by becoming the first Arab party ever to join an Israeli government coalition.

    “We don’t want a government with the Muslim Brotherhood, who support terrorism, deny the existence of Israel and are pretty hostile to the United States. That is what we are going to bring,” Netanyahu told CNN in English, at his polling station in Jerusalem.

    Lapid, who hopes he and his political allies will defy polling predictions and remain in power, cast his ballot in Tel Aviv on Tuesday with a message to voters: “Good morning, vote wisely. Vote for the State of Israel, the future of our children and our future in general.” The name of Lapid’s party, Yesh Atid, means “there is a future.”

    Voter turnout five hours after polls opened was the highest it has been at that point been since 1999, the Central Election Committee said.

    There had been a strong get-out-the-vote effort ahead of Tuesday, with Netanyahu barnstorming the country in a converted truck turned into a bulletproof travelling stage, and Arab parties urging Arab citizens to vote to keep Netanyahu out.

    But if the final opinion polls are on target, it seems unlikely that this round of voting will be any more successful in clearing the logjam than the last four. Those polls project that Netanyahu’s bloc will fall one seat short of a majority in parliament.

    Just like in the previous four elections, Netanyahu himself – and the possibility of a government led by him – is one of the defining issues, especially as his corruption trial continues. A poll by the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) in August found a quarter of respondents said the identity of the party leader they were voting for was the second most important factor in their vote.

    But some top politicians on the center-right, who agree with him ideologically, refuse to work with him for personal or political reasons. So, in order to make a comeback, Netanyahu, leader of the center-right Likud party, is likely going to depend on the support of extreme right-wing parties to form a coalition – and if successful, may be forced to give their leaders ministerial positions.

    Israelis are also very concerned about cost of living, after seeing their utility and grocery bills shoot up this year. In the same IDI poll, 44% said their first priority was what a party’s economic plan would do to mitigate the cost of living.

    And security, always a major issue in Israeli politics, is on voters’ minds – 2022 has been the worst year in for conflict-related deaths for both Israelis and Palestinians since 2015.

    A recent compilation of polls put together by Haaretz shows that Netanyahu’s bloc of parties is likely to either come up just shy of – or just reach – the 61 seats needed to form a majority in the government, while the bloc led by Lapid falls short by around four to five seats.

    According to pollsters Joshua Hantman and Simon Davies, the last week of polling saw a small bump for Netanyahu’s bloc, showing it passing the 61-seat mark in six polls, and falling short in nine. The final three polls published on Friday by the three major Israeli news channels, all showed his bloc at 60 seats in the 120-seat Knesset.

    Recognizing the need to eke out just one or two more seats, Netanyahu has been focusing his campaigning in places that are strongholds for Likud. Party officials have previously claimed that hundreds of thousands of likely Netanyahu voters didn’t vote.

    Another major factor is the Arab turnout. Citizens who identify as Arab and have national voting rights make up around 17% of the Israeli population, according to IDI; their turnout could make or break Netanyahu’s chances. One of the parties, the United Arab List, has warned if Arab turnout falls below 48%, some of the Arab parties could fail to pass the 3.25% vote threshold needed to gain any seats in parliament.

    Along with soaring grocery and utility bills and a nearly impossible housing market, Tuesday’s vote takes place against the backdrop of an increasingly tense security environment.

    Earlier this year, a wave of attacks targeting Israelis killed 19 people, including mass attacks targeting civilians in Tel Aviv and other cities in Israel. There has also been a surge in armed assaults on Israeli troops and civilian settlers by Palestinian militants in the occupied West Bank this year, claiming the lives of several more soldiers and Israeli civilians. According to the Israel Defense Forces, there have been at least 180 shooting incidents in Israel and the occupied territories this year, compared to 61 shooting attacks in 2021.

    In the days leading up to election day, an Israeli man was killed and several injured in a shooting attack in the West Bank near Hebron. The next day, several soldiers were injured in a car ramming attack near the West Bank city of Jericho. The Palestinian attackers were killed in both cases.

    Israeli settler attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank – and sometimes on Israeli soldiers – are also on the rise, according to the human rights group B’Tselem.

    Near-daily Israeli security raids in West Bank cities have killed more than 130 Palestinians this year. While the Israeli military says most were militants or Palestinians violently engaging with them – including the newly formed ‘Lion’s Den’ militia – unarmed and uninvolved civilians have been caught up as well.

    The death of Al Jazeera correspondent Shireen Abu Akleh in May while covering an Israeli military raid in the West Bank caught worldwide attention. After several months the Israeli military admitted it was most likely their own soldiers who shot Abu Akleh – saying it was an unintentional killing in the midst of a combat zone.

    Palestinian disillusionment with their own leadership’s ability to confront the Israeli occupation has led to a proliferation of these new militias – and a fear among experts that a third Palestinian intifada, or uprising, is on the way.

    There are 40 political parties on the ballot, although only around a dozen parties are expected to pass the threshold to sit in the parliament. Immediately after polls close at 10 p.m. local time (4 p.m. ET), the major media networks release exit polls that give the first glimpse of how the vote went – although the official vote tally can vary from exit polls, often by small but crucial amounts.

    Only a dozen or so parties are expected to pass the minimum threshold of votes needed to sit in parliament.

    Once the vote is officially tallied, Israeli President Isaac Herzog will hand the mandate to form a government to the leader he considers most likely to succeed – even if they’re not the leader of the largest party.

    That candidate then has a total of 42 days to try and corral enough parties to reach the magic number of 61 seats of the 120-seat Knesset, the Israeli parliament, to form a majority government. If they fail, the President can transfer the mandate to another candidate. If that person fails within 28 days, then the mandate goes back to the parliament which has 21 days to find a candidate, a last chance before new elections are triggered. Lapid would stay on as caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Five elections in four years: What’s the deal with Israeli politics? | CNN

    Five elections in four years: What’s the deal with Israeli politics? | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Jerusalem
    CNN
     — 

    Stop us if you’re heard this one before: On Tuesday, Israelis are going to the polls to elect a new Knesset, or parliament. It’s the fifth time in less than four years that voters are casting ballots. Holding elections that often is bound to prompt some questions. Here are some answers.

    Israel has a parliamentary system made up of several parties – none of which have ever received enough votes on their own to secure a majority of seats in parliament. That means parties must team up to form coalitions and reach the 61 seats needed to form a ruling government. Those coalitions can also be shaky – lose one party’s support, or sometimes even one member of parliament, and you’ve lost the majority.

    The other factor is Benjamin Netanyahu. He served as prime minister for longer than anyone else in Israeli history, is in the midst of a corruption trial, and overall is a polarizing figure. Some top politicians on the center-right, who agree with him ideologically, refuse to work with him for personal or political reasons.

    That made it difficult for him to build lasting governing majorities following the previous four elections, and last year, his opponents managed to cobble together a never-before-seen coalition of parties from across the political spectrum to keep him out of power. But that coalition only held together for about a year and a quarter before its leaders, Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett, pulled the plug and called for new elections.

    Netanyahu’s center-right Likud party will almost certainly be the largest party in the Knesset after Tuesday’s vote, if the polls are correct. They’ll probably win about 30 seats, a quarter of the total, a compilation of polls by Haaretz, for example, suggests.

    Current Prime Minister Yair Lapid will be hoping his centrist Yesh Atid party will come in a strong second place.

    The man he partnered with to assemble the last government, Naftali Bennett, is not running this time around; his party has splintered and faces a potential electoral wipeout.

    Defense Minister Benny Gantz is aiming for a strong showing at the head of a new party called National Unity, a successor to his Blue and White party which now includes former Bennett ally Gideon Saar and former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Gabi Eisenkot, making his political debut.

    A far-right coalition called the Religious Zionist Party, headed by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, could be the largest extreme right-wing group ever seated in the Knesset.

    On the other hand, the once-mighty Labor Party and its predecessors, which governed Israel essentially as a one-party state for its first 30 years under David Ben-Gurion and his successors, is a shadow of its former self, and is projected to win only a handful of seats.

    Israel is a parliamentary democracy, where people vote for the party they support. Each party that gets at least 3.25% of the popular vote gets a certain number of seats in the Knesset based on the percentage of the total number of votes it won.

    The 3.25% threshold is intended to keep very small parties out of the Knesset, an attempt to make it easier to build governing coalitions.

    Israel has experimented in the past with electing the prime minister directly, separate from the Knesset, the way the US elects the president and Congress separately. It proved unwieldy and the country went back to standard parliamentary elections.

    The final polls suggest that Netanyahu’s party and its potential allies are hovering right around the knife edge number of 60 seats and the drama of election night will be whether the former PM scrapes above it.

    If his bloc clearly wins a majority, his path to building a government is clear and he will return to power.

    If the pro-Netanyahu bloc falls below 61 seats, things are more complicated. Netanyahu would still probably have the first chance to form a government if his Likud party is the biggest in the Knesset, which could result in days or weeks of negotiations that go nowhere.

    Netanyahu speaks to supporters in a modified truck during a campaign event this month.

    Current Acting Prime Minister Lapid could then get a chance to try to form a government, assuming his Yesh Atid party is the second largest. But his outgoing government included – for the first time in Israel’s history – an Arab party which has since fragmented into smaller parties which may not join another Israeli government (even if he invites them to, which is not certain.)

    That could mean no one can build a majority government, raising the possibility of … more elections. While party negotiations are taking place and until a new government is formed, Lapid remains in place as caretaker prime minister.

    Israelis are concerned about many of the same issues that people around the world are – the cost of living in particular.

    They are also always focused on security. In the region, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and support of militant groups are always a worry, and more locally, violence is high this year between Israelis and Palestinians.

    Some constituencies have their own specific concerns, such as the ultra-Orthodox, who want state support for their institutions and exemptions from army service; and religious Zionists, who want backing for West Bank settlements.

    But overwhelmingly, Israeli elections these days are about one issue and one man: Benjamin Netanyahu.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rishi Sunak: The super-rich former banker who will be the first person of color to lead Britain | CNN

    Rishi Sunak: The super-rich former banker who will be the first person of color to lead Britain | CNN

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Just seven short weeks ago, it looked as if it might be all over for Rishi Sunak.

    The former chancellor of the exchequer – the UK’s title for its chief finance minister – made a high-stakes gamble. He launched an attack that helped to end Boris Johnson’s premiership, put himself forward as his replacement, but ultimately lost to Liz Truss. Admitting defeat, he retreated to the parliamentary back benches.

    But in a sign of just how unpredictable British politics has become, Sunak has returned triumphant from the political wilderness to replace Truss, whose premiership imploded last week.

    Sunak was the only leadership hopeful to secure the support of 100 Conservative members of parliament, the necessary threshold set by party officials for potential candidates. He will become the first person of color to lead the UK – and at the age of 42, he is also the youngest person to take the office in more than 200 years.

    He was the last person standing after his rivals – Johnson and the Leader of the House of Commons Penny Mordaunt – fell by the wayside.

    Sunak first publicly declared on Sunday morning that he would be standing in the contest. In a tweet, he wrote, “The United Kingdom is a great country but we face a profound economic crisis. That’s why I am standing to be Leader of the Conservative Party and your next Prime Minister. I want to fix our economy, unite our Party and deliver for our country.”

    Other than that brief statement, he has made no big pitch for the leadership this time round.

    In the last contest, over the summer, he was widely seen as the more moderate of the two candidates. Compared to Truss, he took a less ideological line on matters like Brexit and the economy. (Unlike Truss, a remainer-turned hardline Brexiteer, Sunak voted for the UK to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum.)

    Like Truss, Sunak promised a tough approach to illegal immigration and vowed to expand the government’s controversial Rwanda immigration policy.

    Sunak, whose parents came to the UK from East Africa in the 1960s, is of Indian descent. His father was a local doctor while his mother ran a pharmacy in southern England, something Sunak says gave him his desire to serve the public.

    He will be the first Hindu to become British prime minister, securing the position on Diwali, the festival of lights that marks one of the most important days of the Hindu calendar. Sunak himself made history in 2020 when he lit Diwali candles outside 11 Downing Street, the official residence of the UK chancellor.

    He has faced challenges over his elite background, having studied at the exclusive Winchester College, Oxford and Stanford universities. He is known for his expensive taste in fashion and has worked for banks and hedge funds, including Goldman Sachs.

    Sunak has also been scrutinized over the tax arrangements of his wife Akshata Murty, the daughter of an Indian billionaire.

    Earlier this year, Sunak and Murty appeared on the Sunday Times Rich List of the UK’s 250 wealthiest people – the newspaper estimated their joint net worth at £730 million ($826 million).

    Sunak’s election on Monday marks the pinnacle of what has been a speedy rise to power. He was first elected as an MP in 2015 and spent two years on the back benches before becoming a junior minister in Theresa May’s government. Johnson gave Sunak his first major government role, appointing him as chief secretary to the Treasury in 2019 and promoting him to chancellor in 2020.

    Sunak has experience of economic crisis-fighting, having guided the UK through the Covid-19 pandemic, and positioned himself as the “sound finance” candidate.

    During the pandemic, Sunak put in place measures worth £400 billion ($452 billion) aimed at boosting the economy, including a generous furlough scheme, business loans and discounts on eating in restaurants. But that stimulus came at a huge cost and left the government scrambling to find savings.

    Sunak was an early critic of Truss’ economic plan, which was panned by investors, the International Monetary Fund and credit ratings agencies. While he also advocated for lower taxes, he said tax could only be cut once inflation is brought under control, which could take several years.

    His warning over the summer that Truss’ unfunded tax cuts could spark panic in the financial markets turned out to be true. The British pound crashed to a record low against the US dollar when Truss and her Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng unveiled their plan. Prices of UK government bonds rose at the fastest pace ever, sending borrowing costs skyrocketing.

    He also secured the most votes from MPs in the last leadership election – comfortably clearing the new threshold with 137 endorsements. Although Truss eventually won the decisive vote among grassroots members, Sunak was not far behind, gaining 43% of the vote.

    Johnson has made no secret of the fact that he believes Sunak betrayed him by resigning from his government, triggering his resignation on July 7 after a string of scandals made his position untenable.

    Johnson’s downfall followed months of revelations of parties held in 10 Downing Street while the rest of the country was under Covid lockdown restrictions. Johnson himself was fined by the police, making him the first prime minister in history found to have broken the law in office.

    For a long time, Sunak stood by Johnson – especially since he too was fined in the so-called Partygate scandal.

    But he turned against him after Johnson was slow to act when his deputy chief whip responsible for party discipline, Chris Pincher, was accused of sexually assaulting two men at a party in early July. (Pincher later said he had “drunk far too much,” although has not directly addressed the allegations.)

    Sunak’s shock resignation from Johnson’s cabinet over the Pincher scandal set into motion a series of high-profile resignations that led to Johnson’s demise – and ultimately, to his own rise to the Downing Street.

    Sunak faces an enormous task. The UK is in the midst of a deep cost-of-living crisis and soaring inequality. Financial markets are still spooked after Truss’ disastrous economic policy missteps.

    The Conservative party, already unpopular after 12 years in power, has plunged itself into a state of utter chaos over the past four months and is now well behind the opposition Labour party in opinion polls. The only comfort for Sunak is that he doesn’t have to call an election until January 2025.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Independent candidate upends Oregon race for governor and gives GOP an opening | CNN Politics

    Independent candidate upends Oregon race for governor and gives GOP an opening | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Betsy Johnson casts herself as the candidate for Oregon governor who will speak for voters who are “fed up” with homeless encampments and trash-strewn streets and tired of watching Republicans and Democrats “fight like two cats in a sack.”

    The former Democratic state senator, now running as an independent, likes to boast that she is not campaigning as “Miss Congeniality” and promises to govern from the center. Johnson argues that the policies of Democratic gubernatorial nominee Tina Kotek – the former state House speaker who is appearing at a private fundraising reception with President Joe Biden on Saturday – would leave the state “woke and broke,” while stating that her Republican opponent, Christine Drazan, a former state House minority leader, would endanger women’s reproductive rights.

    “I am the champion and the voice right now of people who feel disrespected, disenfranchised, looked down on, and they’re sick of it,” the bespectacled former helicopter pilot said in a telephone interview as Biden was headed to the state this week. “I have always been pro-choice, pro-cop, pro-change, pro-accountability and pro-alternative to the status quo. The status quo was getting us no place, and the only people that were suffering were Oregonians.”

    The resonance of that message from a moderate former Democrat with deep financial support in Oregon’s business community has upended the state’s race for governor this year – unnerving Democrats by creating a scenario under which Republicans could capture the office for the first time in 40 years.

    Two years after Portland lived through 100 nights of protests against police brutality and racial injustice – demonstrations that often led to violence – the state’s largest city is still attempting to repair its image. That recovery process was hindered by the economic fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic that led to shuttered businesses. And the challenge for Democrats has been compounded by the financial stressors that many voters and business owners are now feeling as a result of inflation. Portland also had a record number of homicides in 2021 and is grappling with a wave of gun violence that has raised concerns about crime.

    The race between Johnson, Kotek and Drazan to replace term-limited Democratic Gov. Kate Brown was already unusual as a matchup between three women in what could be a record year for female gubernatorial hopefuls.

    But Johnson was also able to pull off a rare feat for an independent candidate by keeping pace in fundraising with the major-party nominees by drawing on her relationships with business leaders. Nike co-founder Phil Knight donated $3.75 million to Johnson’s campaign before appearing to shift his allegiances to Drazan with a $1 million contribution earlier this month.

    Johnson’s presence in the race has been an unexpected boon for Republicans, who only comprise about a quarter of the electorate. Democrats make up about 34% of the state’s voters and nonaffiliated Oregonians account for nearly 35%, according to the most recent figures from the Oregon secretary of state.

    Jim Moore, a political science professor at Pacific University, said Johnson appears to be siphoning more votes from Democrats, creating what is essentially a tie between Kotek and Drazan in a state that Biden won by 16 points in 2020.

    “Voters are growing increasingly unhappy with what the Democrats are doing, but they’re not willing to go to the Republicans who’ve gone further to the right,” said Moore. That has led to support for Johnson among disaffected Democrats and the state’s growing ranks of unaffiliated voters.

    “There’s just a frustration that life overall appears to be getting harder,” Moore added. “So many people have come to Oregon – or grew up here – and say, ‘Yes, I get paid less than other places, but the quality of life is amazing.’ And they’re seeing that quality of life drop.”

    Drazan, a social conservative and an opponent of abortion rights, has also centered her message around the idea that the state needs greater balance in government as it attempts to address the rise in homelessness, the affordability of housing and achievement gaps students are facing as a result of school closures during the pandemic. Drazan has also criticized the relaxation of certain high school graduation requirements as she argues for a parental bill of rights – echoing the message from Republicans, such as Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who will campaign with her in Oregon next week.

    “We have had single-party control for a decade, which means that we have had the legislature really, truly fail to hold the governor to account, and likewise we’ve had the governor fail to hold the legislature to account,” she said during a recent debate hosted by KOBI-TV and Southern Oregon University. “We need balance. We need commonsense solutions that are durable – with long term value.”

    Kotek counters that Drazan demonstrated obstructionist tendencies when she led a legislative walkout in 2020 to protest a climate bill. The Democrat has argued that Drazan’s move effectively killed legislation that would have advanced the state’s efforts to improve homelessness, among other issues.

    “Tina called for a homelessness state of emergency almost three years ago, but Representative Christine Drazan literally walked off the job – blocking millions of dollars for emergency homeless shelters and affordable housing construction,” Katie Wertheimer, Kotek’s communications director, said in a statement.

    “Oregonians are justifiably frustrated and want real solutions to homelessness, crime, and the cost of living,” Wertheimer added. “Tina will do what Kate Brown couldn’t or wouldn’t, and finally declare that state of emergency, and she will hire crews to clean up the trash. She is the only trusted leader in this race bringing forward real plans that will deliver results.”

    Drazan defended the rationale for the walkout at the time, saying it was not the time for cap-and-trade policies “because we cannot prevent these costs from being passed on – not to big companies, not utilities – but just straight down the line to Oregonians.”

    “Homelessness, crime, affordability, and education all dramatically worsened during her time in power,” Drazan campaign spokesperson John Burke said of Kotek. “Oregonians have had enough of her excuses and her failed agenda. That’s why they’re going to elect Christine Drazan as their next governor.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Australian court to hear claims over alleged sexual assault in Parliament House | CNN

    Australian court to hear claims over alleged sexual assault in Parliament House | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Brisbane, Australia
    CNN
     — 

    A highly anticipated sexual assault trial began in Australia Tuesday in a case that has raised questions about the culture in the nation’s Parliament and the actions of ministers when the claims emerged.

    Former Liberal Party staffer Bruce Lehrmann has pleaded not guilty to sexual intercourse without consent relating to the alleged assault of his ex-coworker Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in Canberra in March 2019.

    The alleged assault was said to have taken place in the former defense minister’s office, a location that prompted criticism and questions over security levels within the nation’s political hub.

    Witnesses are expected to include politicians, security officials and the journalists who broke the story in February 2021, when Higgins went public with the allegations.

    ACT Supreme Court Justice Lucy McCallum is presiding over the trial, which is expected to last four to six weeks before a 12-member jury retires to deliver its verdict.

    The prosecution’s case is being led by the ACT’s director of public prosecutions, who must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Lehrmann acted without consent. The charge of sexual intercourse without consent carries a potential prison term of up to 12 years.

    The trial had been repeatedly delayed, partly due to media commentary around the high-profile case that attracted significant press attention when Higgins came forward.

    Higgins has since become a prominent advocate for women’s rights.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Voting rights advocates in the South emboldened by Supreme Court win | CNN Politics

    Voting rights advocates in the South emboldened by Supreme Court win | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    With a sense of relief that the conservative Supreme Court did not use a major Alabama redistricting case to further gut the Voting Rights Act, civil rights advocates and election attorneys are preparing for a new flood of redistricting litigation lawsuits challenging political maps – especially in the South – they say discriminate against minorities.

    In the 5-4 case decided Thursday, Alabama must now draw a second majority-Black US congressional district after Republicans were sued by African American voters over a redistricting plan for the 27% percent Black state that made White voters the majority in six of the seven districts.

    The six White majority districts are represented by Republicans; the Black majority district is represented by a Democrat.

    “I don’t think it’s going to stop Republicans from drawing racist maps,” Aunna Dennis, executive director of the voting rights group Common Cause, told CNN. “But I think that this empowers those of us pushing back and fighting that.”

    The majority opinion – written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was joined by the court’s three liberals and, in most parts, by Justice Brett Kavanaugh – effectively maintained the status quo around how courts should approach Voting Rights Act lawsuits that allege a legislative map discriminates by race.

    By letting old precedent around the Voting Rights Act to stand in the case, called Allen v. Milligan, the Supreme Court has likely emboldened voting rights advocates to bring cases they previously thought would have been doomed.

    Several election law attorneys and voting rights advocates have suggested to CNN they believe the decision could have a ripple effect across the South, in states like Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas where cases claiming Section 2 violations are already working through the courts.

    According to the Democracy Docket, a liberal-leaning voting rights media platform that tracks election litigation, there are 31 active federal cases involving Voting Rights Act redistricting claims similar to those in the Alabama case.

    “I suspect that there are a number of states with lawyers who were considering filing a lawsuit similar to the Milligan lawsuit, but they held off because the prospects of how everyone thought Milligan would go were so dim. But now, you’re going to have a whole range of suits filed,” said Alabama voting rights attorney J.S. “Chris” Christie, who filed one of the two lawsuits that were before the justices in the Milligan case.

    “Some of those will win, and some of them won’t. All redistricting suits are not the same,” Christie said, noting that Kavanaugh did not join an important part of Roberts’ opinion, depriving that section of a majority.

    Still, he said, “Lawyers who file these types of lawsuits are going to be encouraged and are going to pursue those cases aggressively, knowing that the Voting Rights Act precedents are there.”

    The ruling was a shock. The right-leaning high court, sometimes in decisions penned by Roberts himself, had been on a spree of landmark rulings over the last several years that had whittled down the scope of the Voting Rights Act. And in the flurry of emergency litigation last year ahead of the 2022 midterms, the Supreme Court repeatedly put on hold lower court rulings – including in the Alabama case – that would have ordered the redrawing of political maps ahead of last year’s elections, helping Republicans to narrowly reclaim the US House.

    That meant that, at least in Alabama, the election was carried out under a redistricting plan that the Supreme Court has now affirmed to be likely unlawful.

    “The fact remains that the Supreme Court previously allowed the same map that they just determined unconstitutionally, and systemically diluted Black votes be used in the 2022 election,” the Congressional Black Caucus said in a statement.

    In Alabama, lower courts said early last year that the state’s congressional map likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power. The courts ordered it redrawn in a way that was expected to produce a second majority-Black district, which would have shifted the partisan makeup of the state’s congressional delegation from 6-1 to 5-2.

    But, in February 2022, the Supreme Court put those decisions on hold until the justices could hear and decide the case themselves.

    At the heart of the dispute in the Alabama case was the way that, under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, race was used to determine if a map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting procedures “not equally open to participation by members” of a protected class, like racial minorities. Alabama was putting forward an argument for a supposedly “race-blind” approach to VRA redistricting compliance, that if endorsed, would have defanged the provision.

    Already, the Supreme Court led by Roberts had gutted a separate provision of the VRA that required certain jurisdictions (including Alabama and other states in the South) with a history of racially discriminatory voting policies to get federal approval for the maps that they drew.

    The Supreme Court’s emergency move last year to allow the Republican-drawn Alabama map to stay in place had cascading effects in lawsuits across the country.

    Some cases, like a challenge brought to Alabama’s state legislative redistricting plan, were put on hold.

    In a Georgia case that concerned both the congressional and state legislative redistricting plans, a federal judge said that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in at least some of the districts they were challenging, but he declined to grant the preliminary injunction, in part citing the Supreme Court’s emergency order.

    The Supreme Court, meanwhile, also froze a lower court order in a legal challenge brought against Louisiana’s congressional map that made similar arguments as the Milligan case, as Louisiana legislators had drawn just one majority-Black district of the six districts in the 33% percent Black state.

    The justices paused the case, where a federal judge was preparing to redraw the Louisiana map if the Republican lawmakers refused to do so, and said they were taking up the lawsuit but putting it on hold until the Milligan case was decided.

    Now the challengers’ lawyers in that case are anticipating that the Supreme Court will send it back to lower courts, where they were poised to prevail under the approach to VRA redistricting cases that the justices have now left undisturbed.

    Cases in Texas, Mississippi and elsewhere that inched ahead while the Milligan case was pending will go to trial without the threat that the challengers would need to prove their case under a drastically different Section 2 standard.

    “If anything, we no longer need to make adjustments that we had potentially been preparing for because the state of the law remains unchanged,” said Texas Civil Rights Project attorney Sarah Chen, whose group is involved in several challenges to Texas maps, including a lawsuit over Galveston County’s redistricting plan.

    “The Supreme Court did not endorse the radical changes proposed by Alabama in their arguments, the same changes that are also endorsed by opposing counsel in this Galveston redistricting matter,” Chen added.

    While challenges to statewide maps are what get the most national attention, the ruling’s effect on how the VRA is applied to local races like county commission elections and school board seats “is really going to impact voters’ everyday lives,” according to Christie, the Alabama voting rights attorney, who said that Thursday’s opinion will be “huge” in a newly filed challenge to a county commission map in the state.

    “Attorneys who file these types of lawsuits are going to be encouraged to pursue these cases knowing that the VRA precedent is there,” he said.

    Even before they get into a courtroom, voting rights advocates see the Milligan ruling as valuable for discouraging state and local map drawers from diminishing the political power of communities of color, as it squelched expectations that the Supreme Court was about to make VRA challenges more difficult to bring.

    “I am disappointed in today’s Supreme Court opinion but it remains the commitment of the Secretary of State’s Office to comply with all applicable election laws,” Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen, the defendant in the Alabama case, said in a statement after the ruling.

    In North Carolina, voting rights advocates had been reeling from a major defeat with the state Supreme Court recently ruling that North Carolina courts couldn’t police partisan gerrymandering. (Litigation over the state’s congressional plan is also before the Supreme Court in a legal dispute that does not concern the Voting Rights Act). They are finding a silver lining in that, thanks to Thursday’s ruling, the GOP legislators will be redrawing North Carolina’s political maps knowing Voting Rights Act protections for minority voters remain in force.

    “We would hope that they would really take this decision to heart that they would make a genuine good faith effort to comply with Section 2,” said Hilary Harris Klein, the senior counsel for voting rights with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

    Thursday’s ruling, said Deuel Ross, the deputy director of litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, “puts state legislatures and local redistricting bodies on notice that the Voting Rights Act is here to stay and if they deny communities of color the representation they deserve, that they will face lawsuits.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Europe is leading the race to regulate AI. Here’s what you need to know | CNN Business

    Europe is leading the race to regulate AI. Here’s what you need to know | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    The European Union took a major step Wednesday toward setting rules — the first in the world — on how companies can use artificial intelligence.

    It’s a bold move that Brussels hopes will pave the way for global standards for a technology used in everything from chatbots such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT to surgical procedures and fraud detection at banks.

    “We have made history today,” Brando Benifei, a member of the European Parliament working on the EU AI Act, told journalists.

    Lawmakers have agreed a draft version of the Act, which will now be negotiated with the Council of the European Union and EU member states before becoming law.

    “While Big Tech companies are sounding the alarm over their own creations, Europe has gone ahead and proposed a concrete response to the risks AI is starting to pose,” Benifei added.

    Hundreds of top AI scientists and researchers warned last month that the technology posed an extinction risk to humanity, and several prominent figures — including Microsoft President Brad Smith and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman — have called for greater regulation of the technology.

    At the Yale CEO Summit this week, more than 40% of business leaders — including Walmart chief Doug McMillion and Coca-Cola

    (KO)     CEO James Quincy — said AI had the potential to destroy humanity five to 10 years from now.

    Against that backdrop, the EU AI Act seeks to “promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy artificial intelligence and to ensure a high level of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights, democracy and rule of law and the environment from harmful effects.”

    Here are the key takeaways.

    Once approved, the Act will apply to anyone who develops and deploys AI systems in the EU, including companies located outside the bloc.

    The extent of regulation depends on the risks created by a particular application, from minimal to “unacceptable.”

    Systems that fall into the latter category are banned outright. These include real-time facial recognition systems in public spaces, predictive policing tools and social scoring systems, such as those in China, which assign people a “health score” based on their behavior.

    The legislation also sets tight restrictions on “high-risk” AI applications, which are those that threaten “significant harm to people’s health, safety, fundamental rights or the environment.”

    These include systems used to influence voters in an election, as well as social media platforms with more than 45 million users that recommend content to their users — a list that would include Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

    The Act also outlines transparency requirements for AI systems.

    For instance, systems such as ChatGPT would have to disclose that their content was AI-generated, distinguish deep-fake images from real ones and provide safeguards against the generation of illegal content.

    Detailed summaries of the copyrighted data used to train these AI systems would also have to be published.

    AI systems with minimal or no risk, such as spam filters, fall largely outside of the rules.

    Most AI systems will likely fall into the high-risk or prohibited categories, leaving their owners exposed to potentially enormous fines if they fall foul of the regulations, according to Racheal Muldoon, a barrister (litigator) at London law firm Maitland Chambers.

    Engaging in prohibited AI practices could lead to a fine of up to €40 million ($43 million) or an amount equal to up to 7% of a company’s worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.

    That goes much further than Europe’s signature data privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation, under which Meta was hit with a €1.2 billion ($1.3 billion) fine last month. GDPR sets fines of up to €10 million ($10.8 million), or up to 2% of a firm’s global turnover.

    Fines under the AI Act serve as a “war cry from the legislators to say, ‘take this seriously’,” Muldoon said.

    At the same time, penalties would be “proportionate” and consider the market position of small-scale providers, suggesting there could be some leniency for start-ups.

    The Act also requires EU member states to establish at least one regulatory “sandbox” to test AI systems before they are deployed.

    “The one thing that we wanted to achieve with this text is balance,” Dragoș Tudorache, a member of the European Parliament, told journalists. The Act protects citizens while also “promoting innovation, not hindering creativity, and deployment and development of AI in Europe,” he added.

    The Act gives citizens the right to file complaints against providers of AI systems and makes a provision for an EU AI Office to monitor enforcement of the legislation. It also requires member states to designate national supervisory authorities for AI.

    Microsoft

    (MSFT)     — which, together with Google, is at the forefront of AI development globally — welcomed progress on the Act but said it looked forward to “further refinement.”

    “We believe that AI requires legislative guardrails, alignment efforts at an international level, and meaningful voluntary actions by companies that develop and deploy AI,” a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement.

    IBM

    (IBM)    , meanwhile, called on EU policymakers to take a “risk-based approach” and suggested four “key improvements” to the draft Act, including further clarity around high-risk AI “so that only truly high-risk use cases are captured.”

    The Act may not come into force until 2026, according to Muldoon, who said revisions were likely, given how rapidly AI was advancing. The legislation has already gone through several updates since drafting began in 2021.

    “The law will expand in scope as the technology develops,” Muldoon said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • States accelerate efforts to block Chinese purchases of agricultural land | CNN Politics

    States accelerate efforts to block Chinese purchases of agricultural land | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    A growing number of states are considering or have passed measures this legislative term to ban “foreign adversaries” and foreign entities – specifically China – from buying farmland.

    Proponents of the laws, mostly Republicans but some Democrats as well, have frequently cited concerns about food security and the need to protect military bases and other sensitive installations. But the moves have stoked anxieties among some experts on US-Chinese relations, including those who see echoes of past discriminatory laws in the United States like the Chinese Exclusion Act.

    Florida last month joined a list of at least seven other states – including Virginia, North Dakota, Montana and Arkansas – to pass variations of such bills this session, according to the National Agricultural Law Center (NALC), which is tracking the issue and conducts research on agricultural and food law. Similar measures are percolating in more than two dozen states and there’s a bill in Congress that seeks to federalize the issue, the NALC said.

    States have previously sought to limit foreign investment, said Micah Brown, a staff attorney at the NALC. What’s new, Brown says, is that some lawmakers are taking aim at specific countries and their governments.

    “2023 is really swinging for the fences here, with a majority of states having some kind of proposal, at least one proposal,” Brown told CNN.

    Of slightly more than 40 million acres of agricultural held by foreign investors in the United States, China held less than 1% of that land – or 383,935 acres – as of the end of 2021, according to a report from the US Department of Agriculture.

    Florida’s law, signed on May 8, prohibits most citizens from “foreign countries of concern” from purchasing land on or within 10 miles of any “military installation or critical infrastructure facility,” including seaports, airports and power plants. It was signed alongside a different bill that bans internet applications like TikTok on Florida government devices, a similar area of focus for state politicians who have concerns about Chinese influence.

    The foreign countries of concern that are named include China, Russia, Cuba, North Korea and Iran, along with agencies and governments operating on their behalf. In public remarks, governor and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis repeatedly called out China.

    “Today, Florida makes it very clear: We don’t want the (Chinese Communist Party) in the Sunshine State. We want to maintain this as the ‘Free State of Florida.’ That’s exactly what these bills are doing,” DeSantis said at a bill signing in May.

    Following the bill’s passage, a group of Chinese citizens who live and work in Florida, along with a real estate company with primarily Chinese and Chinese-American clients, sued state officials, alleging the law would violate their equal protection and due process guarantees under the US Constitution. CNN has reached out to the governor’s office for comment.

    Virginia’s legislation doesn’t name China, though Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin has specifically cited the CCP in advocating for the new law. Montana’s applies to “foreign adversaries” as designated by the US Commerce Department, a list that includes China, Iran, North Korea and Russia.

    Brown said the 2023 laws are part of a larger “political flashpoint” prompted out of concerns over Chinese companies attempting to build agricultural sites near military bases in North Dakota and Texas. States including Arkansas and Indiana already had laws restricting certain foreign investments prior to this year’s legislative push.

    In North Dakota, a US subsidiary of Chinese company Fufeng Group attempted to build a wet corn milling plant in Grand Forks that would have sat near an Air Force base there and thus pose what the Department of the Air Force called a “significant threat to national security.”

    The head of Fufeng’s US operation denied the company has a “direct relationship” with the Chinese government in an interview with the Grand Forks Herald last year.

    “We’ve got lots of places in North Dakota they could have built that plant without being a security risk, but instead, they chose to buy land right next to an Air Force base,” North Dakota Republican state Rep. Lawrence Klemin, who co-sponsored the state’s bill, told CNN. “We’ve got two Air Force bases in North Dakota, and we’ve got lots of places where we don’t have them, so why didn’t they do that?” Klemin’s bill was signed in April.

    Texas is also considering a bill that would bar “hostile nations including China,” in the state from purchasing real property, like agricultural land, as Republican State. Sen. Lois Kolkhorst describes her legislation. The bill initially ignited controversy because it would have barred citizens of China and other adversarial countries from buying land in the state, though the bill was later amended to clarify that it would not apply to lawful permanent residents, US citizens and dual citizens and to include an exception for property considered “residence homestead.”

    Several experts on US-China relations with whom CNN spoke warned against knee-jerk responses and called for lawmakers to act on evidence, not suspicion.

    “I think there’s a good reason to want to keep control of strategic interests in one’s own country … but these bills about farmland, these bills about just property in general, to me, it’s transparent that they’re rooted in racism and xenophobia again because we’ve seen this before. It really isn’t the first time,” said Nancy Qian, a professor of economics at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management who has conducted research on US exclusion laws.

    Yan Bennett, the assistant director of the Paul and Marcia Wythes Center on Contemporary China at Princeton University, noted that US farmland is appealing for China because the country has food security issues and does not have enough arable land for cultivation.

    “When national security is threatened, yes, we need to take action,” Bennett told CNN. “But not every land purchase by a foreign government or a foreign national is a national security threat, so we need to make sure that we distinguish those purchases from those that are actual threats.”

    An atmosphere of racism and anti-China sentiment threatens other US interests as well, such as possibly deterring Chinese students from wanting to come to the US and obtain advanced degrees, explained Robert Daly, the director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States at the Wilson Center.

    “If we’re not careful that we are telling the world’s biggest talent pool that they’re an unwelcomed class or a reviled class here in the United States and that will also have implications for Chinese Americans,” Daly told CNN in February. “Real demonstrable security threats have to be met as such. I’m not saying that the Chinese Communist Party does not have plans and intentions that harm America’s interests – it does, and we need to go after those – but based on evidence.”

    In response to efforts in Texas and other states that are considering barring some Chinese citizens from owning US land over national security concerns, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson said earlier this year that trade between the two countries is “mutually beneficial.”

    “To overstretch the concept of national security and politicize economic, trade and investment issues runs counter to the principles of market economy and international trade rules, which undercuts international confidence in the US market environment,” spokesperson Mao Ning said at a news briefing in February.

    Virginia state Sen. Ryan McDougle, a Republican and co-sponsor of his state’s new law, dismissed what he called “ridiculous” concerns about his bill perpetuating racism against Asian-Americans, telling CNN in February it is “focused on a country that has established hostility to the United States.”

    In the near future, the Chinese spy balloon incident earlier this year will prompt increased attention to “the challenges that we are seeing from the CCP” – and thus the issue of Chinese farmland purchases in the US, predicted Rep. Dan Newhouse, a Washington Republican. The longtime China critic is sponsoring a bill in Congress that would that would ban the purchase of public or private agricultural land in the US by foreign nationals linked to the Chinese government.

    “I think people are waking up to the fact that we need to be more aware of what’s going on and prevent something happening that we don’t want to see,” Newhouse said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New York State Legislature passes bill to protect doctors who prescribe abortion pills for out-of-state patients | CNN Politics

    New York State Legislature passes bill to protect doctors who prescribe abortion pills for out-of-state patients | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A bill that would legally protect doctors who prescribe and send abortion pills to patients in states where abortion services are outlawed or restricted is now headed to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s desk after the state legislature passed the legislation on Tuesday.

    The bill ensures that doctors, medical providers and facilitators in the state will be able to provide telehealth services to patients out of state, according to a news release from the New York State Assembly.

    The new legislation also protects New York health providers from out-of-state litigation, meaning the state will not cooperate with cases prosecuting doctors in New York who provide telehealth abortion or reproductive services to people in other states.

    “This bill expands protections for telehealth providers by providing them the same protections afforded to doctors in other states with strong reproductive healthcare shield laws,” according to the news release.

    The bill also ensures that New York medical providers, complying with their practice, who offer telehealth services are not subject to professional discipline, “solely for providing reproductive health services to patients residing in states where such services are illegal.”

    CNN has reached out to the governor’s office to see if she will sign the legislation.

    CNN previously reported Hochul has indicated support for a shield law protecting medical providers of out of state abortion and reproductive services.

    Assemblymember Karines Reyes, a registered nurse who sponsored the bill, said she was “proud to sponsor this critical piece of legislation to fully protect abortion providers using telemedicine.”

    According to the state assembly’s news release, the bill recognizes the common use of medication abortion drugs, stating that 54% of abortions across the country are now medication abortions.

    Speaker of the New York State Assembly Carl Heastie said, “It is our moral obligation to help women across the country with their bodily autonomy by protecting New York doctors from litigation efforts from anti-choice extremists. Telehealth is the future of healthcare, and this bill is simply the next step in making sure our doctors are protected.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here’s what’s left for the Supreme Court’s final week of the term | CNN Politics

    Here’s what’s left for the Supreme Court’s final week of the term | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: A previous version of this story ran in early June.



    CNN
     — 

    All eyes are on the Supreme Court for its final week, as the justices will release cases on issues such as affirmative action, student loan payments, election law and LGBTQ rights.

    Of the 10 cases remaining, several that most capture the public’s attention are likely to lead to fiery opinions and dissents read from the bench.

    In addition, they will come down as the court finds itself in the center of a spotlight usually reserved for members of the political branches due to allegations that the justices are not transparent enough when it comes to their ethics disclosures, most recently with Justice Samuel Alito last week.

    Here are some of the remaining cases to be decided:

    The court is considering whether colleges and universities can continue to take race into consideration as a factor in admissions, a decision that could overturn long standing precedent that has benefited Black and Latino students.

    At issue are programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that the schools say help them to achieve diversity on campus.

    During oral arguments, the right side of the bench appeared ready to rule against the schools. Such an opinion would deliver a long-sought victory for opponents of affirmative action in higher education who have argued for decades that taking race into consideration – even in a limited manner – thwarts the goal of achieving a color-blind society.

    John Roberts skewers Harvard attorney’s comparison of race and music skills as qualities in applicants

    At the center of another case is a graphic designer, Lorie Smith, who seeks to expand her business and create custom websites to celebrate weddings – but does not want to work with gay couples out of religious objections to same-sex marriage.

    Smith has not yet moved forward with her new business venture because of Colorado’s public accommodations law. Under the law, a business may not refuse to serve individuals because of their sexual orientation. Smith, whose company is called 303 Creative LLC, said that she is willing to work with all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, but she draws the line at creating websites that celebrate same-sex marriage because expressing such a message would be inconsistent with her beliefs.

    The state and supporters of LGBTQ rights say that Smith is simply seeking a license to discriminate.

    The conservatives on the court were sympathetic at oral arguments to those put forward by Smith’s lawyer. They viewed the case through the lens of free speech and suggested that an artist or someone creating a customized product could not be forced by the government to express a message that violates her religious beliefs.

    Moore v. Harper has captured the nation’s attention because Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are asking the justices to adopt a long dormant legal theory and hold that state courts and other state entities have a limited role in reviewing election rules established by state legislatures when it comes to federal elections.

    The doctrine – called the Independent State Legislature theory – was pushed by conservatives and supporters of Trump after the 2020 presidential election.

    The North Carolina controversy arose after the state Supreme Court struck down the state’s 2022 congressional map as an illegal partisan gerrymander, replacing it with court-drawn maps that favored Democrats. GOP lawmakers appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court, arguing that the North Carolina Supreme Court had exceeded its authority.

    They relied upon the Elections Clause of the Constitution that provides that rules governing the “manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” must be prescribed in “each state by the legislature thereof.”

    Under the independent state legislature theory, the lawmakers argued, state legislatures should be able to set rules with little to no interference from the state courts.

    The justices heard oral arguments in the case last winter and some of them appeared to express some support for a version of the doctrine. The justices could, however, ultimately dismiss the dispute due to new partisan developments in North Carolina.

    After the last election, the North Carolina Supreme Court flipped its majority to Republican. In April, the newly composed state Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision and held that the state constitution gives states no role to play in policing partisan gerrymandering. After that decision was issued, the justices signaled they may dismiss the case.

    exp juneteenth anita hill amanpour intw 061901PSEG2 cnn us_00002001.png

    Anita Hill: America “has lost confidence in the Supreme Court”

    The Supreme Court is also considering two challenges to President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, an initiative aimed at providing targeted debt relief to millions of student-loan borrowers that has so far been stalled by legal challenges.

    Republican-led states and conservatives challenging the program say it amounts to an unlawful attempt to erase an estimated $430 billion of federal student loan debt under the guise of the pandemic.

    At the heart of the case is the Department of Education’s authority to forgive the loans. Several of the conservative justices have signaled in recent years that agencies – with no direct accountability to the public – have become too powerful, upsetting the separation of powers.

    They have moved to cut back on the so-called administrative state.

    In court, Chief Justice John Roberts as well as some other conservatives seemed deeply skeptical of the Biden administration’s plan.

    A former mail carrier, an evangelical Christian, seeks to sue the US Postal Service because it failed to accommodate his request not to work on Sundays.

    A lower court had ruled against the worker, Gerald Groff, holding that his request would cause an “undue burden” on the USPS and lead to low morale at the workplace when other employees had to pick up his shifts.

    There appeared to be consensus, after almost two hours of oral arguments, that the appeals court had been too quick to rule against Groff.

    [ad_2]

    Source link