ReportWire

Tag: Referendums

  • French constitutional body rules on pension referendum call

    French constitutional body rules on pension referendum call

    [ad_1]

    France’s top constitutional body is to rule on a last-ditch effort by opposition lawmakers to thwart President Emmanuel Macron’s move to raise the retirement age to 64, through a possible referendum or new bill restoring the pension age to 62

    PARIS — France’s top constitutional body is to rule Wednesday on a last-ditch effort by opposition lawmakers to thwart President Emmanuel Macron’s move to raise the retirement age to 64, through a possible referendum or new bill restoring the age to 62.

    The move has been prompted by opposition legislators who are seeking to launch a complex, lengthy process in hopes of rejecting Macron’s unpopular pension law that was enacted last month.

    The Constitutional Council’s role is to assess whether the opposition’s request meets the legal conditions for a potential referendum. If so, supporters would have nine months to collect signatures from at least 4.8 million, or 10%, of French voters.

    Macron’s government would then be able to choose between sending the opposition’s text to parliament for debate and eventually a vote, or waiting for six months to put the measure before voters in a referendum. The proposal would only go to a national referendum if it were not debated by lawmakers.

    However, the Constitutional Council rejected a similar proposal in April. The authors have revised the measure to add language stating that a change in the financing of France’s pension system is needed.

    The process, established in 2015, has never yet led to a referendum.

    Regardless of what the council decides, its ruling would not suspend the law that Macron’s government pushed through by using a special constitutional power to raise the retirement age without a final parliamentary vote.

    Macron has defended the reform, saying it is needed to keep the pension system afloat as the population ages.

    The measure has prompted months of street protests from opponents who argue there are other ways to finance the pension system, including via a tax on the wealthy or employers instead.

    The country’s main labor unions on Tuesday called for another round of nationwide demonstrations and strikes on June 6.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opponents make last-ditch effort to stop French pension law

    Opponents make last-ditch effort to stop French pension law

    [ad_1]

    PARIS — Opponents of a law that would raise the retirement age in France from 62 to 64 are making last-ditch plans to prevent the change that is set to take effect in September.

    The country’s main labor unions on Tuesday called for another round of nationwide demonstrations and strikes on June 6. May Day protests across France on Monday drew either 800,000 people — that’s according to French authorities — or 2.3 million people, which was the estimate given by organizers.

    France’s top constitutional body is expected to rule Wednesday on a request from opposition lawmakers to start a lengthy process that could ultimately lead to a bill or a referendum to restore the minimum retirement age of 62.

    With President Emmanuel Macron having demonstrated his determination to press on with the unpopular pension reform, here’s a look at the next steps for his government and the plan’s opponents.

    A LONG SHOT AT A REFERENDUM

    The Constitutional Council’s role is to assess whether the opposition’s request over bringing the retirement age back to 62 meets the legal conditions for a potential referendum. If so, supporters would have nine months to collect signatures from at least 4.8 million, or 10%, of voters.

    Macron’s government would then be able to choose between sending the opposition’s text to parliament for debate and eventually a vote, or waiting for six months to put the measure before voters in a referendum in six months. The proposal would only go to a national referendum if it were not debated by lawmakers.

    However, the Constitutional Council rejected a similar proposal in April. The authors have revised the measure to add language stating that a change in the financing of France’s pension system is needed.

    Regardless of what the council decides Wednesday, its ruling would not suspend the law that Macron’s government pushed through by using a special constitutional authority to raise the retirement age without a final parliamentary vote.

    MACRON WANTS TO MOVE ON

    In a televised speech last month, the French leader made clear his intention to move on to other topics now that his pension law was enacted.

    Macron said he heard people’s anger but insisted that the law was needed to keep the pension system afloat as the population ages.

    He announced negotiations to start this month on “key issues” such as improving employee wages, career progressions and working conditions, including for older workers, in the hope these would persuade some unions to get back to the negotiating table.

    Last week, Macron’s government presented its road map for the coming months, with the aim of getting greater support for future bills. Parliament is set to debate a major military bill by the end of the month.

    Legislators will then examine a government proposal on profit-sharing by companies with more than 11 employees. The proposal is intended to turn into law an agreement that unions and employers’ organizations signed in February.

    This paragraph might work better if we reverse order of sentences?

    If you think that works better that’s fine with me. the chronological order is that the government has six months to send the text to parliament – if it doesn’t, it must organize a referendum)).

    OPPONENTS’ NEXT STEPS

    Unions argue the higher retirement age erodes hard-won rights for workers. The date they chose for the next nationwide protests is two days before the lower house of France’s Parliament plans to debate a legislative proposal to bring back the retirement age back to 62.

    A group of opposition lawmakers has championed the proposal, which is separate from the one before the Constitutional Council, in the hope that most members from the left and the right would vote in favor. Macron’s centrist alliance lost its majority in the National Assembly last year.

    Yet there’s no guarantee such move will succeed, because some opposition lawmakers from the conservative party are in favor of the change.

    In a statement Tuesday, unions said they would work together to issue common proposals to address employee concerns over “wages, working conditions, health at work, social democracy, gender equality and the environment.”

    “There’s deep mistrust, and dialogue can only be restored if the government proves its intention to finally take into account unions’ proposals,” they wrote.

    Opponents are also expected to stage more “casserolades,” or scattered protest actions in which they bang pots and pans to make noise near sites Macron and his government members are visiting.

    “We will not turn over a new leaf as long as the pension reform is not withdrawn,” the head of the hard-left CGT union, Sophie Binet, warned Monday.

    ___

    Follow AP’s coverage of the French government at https://apnews.com/hub/france-government

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Uzbekistan votes on changes that extend president’s tenure

    Uzbekistan votes on changes that extend president’s tenure

    [ad_1]

    Voters in Uzebekistan are casting ballots in a referendum on a revised constitution that promises human rights reforms

    TASHKENT, Uzbekistan — Voters in Uzebekistan, the most populous former Soviet Central Asian republic, cast ballots Sunday in a referendum on a revised constitution that promises human rights reforms but that also would allow the country’s president to stay in office until 2040.

    Approval appears certain. Backers have conducted an array of promotional events featuring local celebrities, and elections in Uzbekistan are widely regarded as noncompetitive.

    With four hours until the polls closed, the central elections commission reported turnout at more than 62%, well above the 50% threshold for the referendum to be valid.

    The proposed changes include lengthening the presidential term from five to seven years, while retaining the existing two-term limit. Although President Shavkat Mirziyoyev is in his second term, the change in term length would allow him to run twice more after his current tenure ends in 2026.

    Other changes include abolishing capital punishment and boosting legal protections for citizens, including those accused of crimes.

    Under Mirziyoyev’s predecessor, Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan was one of the region’s most repressive countries. Mirziyoyev, who took over after Karimov died in 2016, touts the constitutional changes as showing that Uzbekistan will make freedoms and human rights paramount.

    The referendum originally was planned for last year, but was put off in the wake of deadly unrest in the Karakalpakstan region when it was announced that the changes would include rescinding Karakalpakstan’s right to vote on whether to secede.

    Although the likelihood of secession is very small, that proposal angered residents of the poor and environmentally beleaguered republic that makes up a third of Uzbekistan’s territory but has only about 5% of the country’s 36 million people. Mass unrest broke out in the Karakalpak capital, Nukus; at least 18 people died in clashes with police.

    The new package being voted on Sunday retains the Karakalpakstan secession right.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Can France’s constitutional body halt disputed pension bill?

    Can France’s constitutional body halt disputed pension bill?

    [ad_1]

    PARIS — French protesters are bracing for an expected ruling Friday by a top constitutional body that they hope will derail President Emmanuel Macron’s unpopular pension reform plan.

    If the Constitutional Council greenlights the reform, the bill raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 can enter into force. Yet the body has the power to reject the text, fully or partially. Protesters marched around France on Thursday and plan scattered demonstrations Friday in hopes of pressuring the body to strike it down.

    Here’s a look at what’s at stake.

    WHAT’S THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL?

    The body’s role is to make sure a law is in line with France’s Constitution prior to enactment.

    In this case, it comes after Macron’s centrist government forced the pension bill through parliament without a vote, using a special constitutional power.

    The council is currently composed of three women and six men aged between 64 and 77, and is headed by former Socialist Prime Minister Laurent Fabius. Most members are centrists and conservatives, including two named by Macron. The council’s discussions and votes are not made public.

    Anne Levade, professor of public law at Paris university, said the ruling will be on strictly legal grounds. “The Constitutional Council won’t say if the pension reform is right or wrong, if it is politically in favor or against it,” she said. “The argument that will be made will be a legal reasoning.”

    POTENTIAL SCENARIOS

    Opponents challenged the government’s choice to include the pension plan in a budget bill, which significantly accelerated the legislative process, arguing it should have been a regular bill instead. They hope it will provide grounds for the Constitutional Council to reject the text as a whole.

    Most likely, the council will approve the biggest part of the bill while rejecting some of its articles — the body often rejects measures which have an insufficient link with the main purpose of the text.

    The age measure in that perspective appears in line with a budget bill, experts said.

    Rejecting a bill as a whole is “a very rare option,” Levade said, noting that only five such decisions have been made since 1959.

    Political scientist Benjamin Morel said such a scenario would mean that “the bill disappears … because the procedure that has been used (to pass it) would be considered as wrong.”

    “We don’t really know whether a pension reform can go through a social security budget bill,” Morel added. “It doesn’t seem the natural way (of doing it). But there’s nothing ruling it out in the Constitution.”

    A LONG SHOT AT A REFERENDUM

    Legislators opposing the pension reforms have also filed a request to start a lengthy process that could ultimately lead to a referendum on a proposal for the legal retirement age not to exceed 62.

    The Constitutional Council on Friday is also expected to rule on whether that proposal meets the conditions provided by law. If so, opponents to Macron’s pension plan will have a nine-month period to register at least 4.8 million signatures — or 10% of voters.

    Still, it doesn’t mean the proposal would automatically be put to referendum, Levade stressed. Macron’s government would instead be able to send it for debate at parliament. A nationwide vote would be organized only if it’s not examined by legislators.

    In any case, Friday’s ruling on the referendum issue would not suspend the pension bill.

    WHAT’S NEXT ?

    If the Constitutional Council gives its green light, Macron will be able to enact the bill within 15 days — except for any measures that are rejected.

    Macron said last month he wants pension reform to be implemented by the end of the year. Some political observers suggest he could try to appease critics with a government reshuffle in the coming weeks or months.

    Meanwhile, unions have vowed to continue their strikes and protests until the withdrawal of the pension plan.

    They have in mind the big protests of 2006 against the creation of special contracts to more easily hire and fire people under 26. That law was withdrawn just after being enacted, under pressure of strong public opposition.

    On the other hand, previous pension reforms that prompted massive protests in 2010 were still implemented.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Can France’s constitutional body halt disputed pension bill?

    Can France’s constitutional body halt disputed pension bill?

    [ad_1]

    PARIS — French unions are staging new nationwide protests Thursday, on the eve of an expected ruling by a top constitutional body that they hope will derail President Emmanuel Macron’s unpopular pension reform plan.

    If the Constitutional Council greenlights the reform, the bill raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 can enter into force. Yet the body has the power to reject the text, fully or partially. Here’s a look at what’s at stake ahead of Friday’s decision.

    WHAT’S THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL?

    The body’s role is to make sure a law is in line with France’s Constitution prior to enactment.

    In this case, it comes after Macron’s centrist government forced the pension bill through parliament without a vote, using a special constitutional power.

    The council is currently composed of three women and six men aged between 64 and 77, and is headed by former Socialist Prime Minister Laurent Fabius. Most members are centrists and conservatives, including two named by Macron. The council’s discussions and votes are not made public.

    Anne Levade, professor of public law at Paris university, said the ruling will be on strictly legal grounds. “The Constitutional Council won’t say if the pension reform is right or wrong, if it is politically in favor or against it,” she said. “The argument that will be made will be a legal reasoning.”

    POTENTIAL SCENARIOS

    Opponents challenged the government’s choice to include the pension plan in a budget bill, which significantly accelerated the legislative process, arguing it should have been a regular bill instead. They hope it will provide grounds for the Constitutional Council to reject the text as a whole.

    Most likely, the council will approve the biggest part of the bill while rejecting some of its articles — the body often rejects measures which have an insufficient link with the main purpose of the text, in this case social security financing.

    The age measure in that perspective appears in line with a budget bill, experts said.

    Rejecting a bill as a whole is “a very rare option,” Levade said, noting that only five such decisions have been made since 1959.

    Political scientist Benjamin Morel said such a scenario would mean that “the bill disappears … because the procedure that has been used (to pass it) would be considered as wrong.”

    “We don’t really know whether a pension reform can go through a social security budget bill,” Morel added. “It doesn’t seem the natural way (of doing it). But there’s nothing ruling it out in the Constitution.”

    A LONG SHOT AT A REFERENDUM

    Legislators opposing the pension reforms have also filed a request to start a lengthy process that could ultimately lead to a referendum on a proposal for the legal retirement age not to exceed 62.

    The Constitutional Council on Friday is also expected to rule on whether that proposal meets the conditions provided by law. If so, opponents to Macron’s pension plan will have a nine-month period to register at least 4.8 million signatures — or 10% of voters.

    Still, it doesn’t mean the proposal would automatically be put to referendum, Levade stressed. Macron’s government would instead be able to send it for debate at parliament. A nationwide vote would be organized only if it’s not examined by legislators.

    In any case, Friday’s ruling on the referendum issue would not suspend the pension bill.

    WHAT’S NEXT ?

    If the Constitutional Council gives its green light, Macron will be able to enact the bill within 15 days — except for any measures that are rejected.

    Macron said last month he wants pension reform to be implemented by the end of the year. Some political observers suggest he could try to appease critics with a government reshuffle in the coming weeks or months.

    Meanwhile, unions have vowed to continue their strikes and protests until the withdrawal of the pension plan.

    They have in mind the big protests of 2006 against the creation of special contracts to more easily hire and fire people under 26. That law was withdrawn just after being enacted, under pressure of strong public opposition.

    On the other hand, previous pension reforms that prompted massive protests in 2010 were still implemented.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Abortion foes take aim at ballot initiatives in next phase of post-Dobbs political fights | CNN Politics

    Abortion foes take aim at ballot initiatives in next phase of post-Dobbs political fights | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    After a string of recent ballot-box victories for abortion rights groups, opponents of the procedure are redoubling their efforts – including, in some places, pushing to make it harder to use citizen-approved ballot measures to guarantee abortion access.

    An anti-abortion coalition in Ohio, for instance, recently unleashed a $5 million ad buy targeting an effort to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution through a ballot initiative – just as the initiative’s organizers won approval to collect signatures to put the question to voters in November. Meanwhile, legislators in Ohio and other states are weighing bills that would make it more difficult to pass citizen-initiated changes to state constitutions.

    The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last year left abortion laws up to the states, and abortion rights groups quickly scored wins on ballot measures in six of them – including in the battleground state of Michigan, where voters protected abortion access, and in the Republican strongholds of Kansas, Kentucky and Montana, where voters defeated efforts to restrict abortions.

    “What we saw in the midterms last year was a wake-up call,” said Kelsey Pritchard, director of state public affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. She said helping local groups defeat abortion-related ballot measures is one of the top three priorities for the group’s state affairs team.

    Groups on both sides of the abortion divide have poured big sums into an upcoming state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin that has seen record spending and offers a key test of the potency of the abortion issue among voters in a battleground state. Whether a conservative or liberal candidate wins a swing seat Tuesday on the seven-member high court there could determine the fate of abortion rights in the state. A Wisconsin law, enacted in 1849, that bans nearly all abortions is being challenged in court and is likely to land before the state Supreme Court.

    More fights over ballot initiatives on abortion are stirring to life around the country. In addition to Ohio – where a state law banning abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy has been put on hold by a judge – abortion rights proponents have begun to push ballot proposals in South Dakota and Missouri. Most abortions are now illegal in those two states.

    And groups in at least more six states are considering citizen initiatives as a way to guarantee or expand access to abortions, said Marsha Donat, capacity building director at The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which helps progressive groups advance ballot measures.

    Ohio, however, looms as the next big abortion battleground on the 2023 calendar – with skirmishes already underway in the courts, the state legislature and on the airwaves.

    A state “fetal heartbeat” law that prohibits many abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy took effect when the US Supreme Court struck down Roe with its decision last June in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. But the law has been put on hold by a judge in Cincinnati in a case that’s expected to end up before the state’s high court.

    Abortion rights supporters recently won approval to begin collecting signatures to put a measure on the November ballot that would guarantee Ohioans’ access to abortion. If approved by voters, state officials could not prohibit abortion until after fetal viability, the point at which doctors say the fetus can survive outside the womb.

    The initiative says that “every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions” on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion.

    It also would bar the state from interfering with an individual’s “voluntary exercise of this right” or that of a “person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right.”

    A conservative group called Protect Women Ohio immediately launched an ad campaign – putting $4 million on the air and $1 million into digital advertising – to cast the amendment as one that would strip parents of their authority to prevent a child from having an abortion or undergoing gender reassignment surgery, although the proposed constitutional amendment makes no mention of transgender care.

    Officials with Protect Women Ohio argue that the initiative’s language is broad enough to be interpreted as extending to gender reassignment surgery, an assertion initiative proponents say is false.

    In the campaign aimed at defeating the amendment, “we’ll make sure they have to own every last word of this radical initiative,” said Aaron Baer, the president of Center for Christian Virtue and a Protect Women Ohio board member, told CNN. “They chose this language for a reason, and we’re not going to let them off the hook.”

    Lauren Blauvelt – who chairs Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, the group promoting the initiative – said the ad “is completely wrong” and called it an “unfortunate talking point from the other side.”

    “Our amendment … creates the fundamental right that an individual can make their own reproductive health care decisions” and does not touch on other topics, she said.

    But the ad campaign highlights the effort to link abortion to the transgender and parental rights issues currently animating conservative activists.

    Susan B. Anthony’s Pritchard said she believes that her side can win on the issue of limiting abortions but “we believe also that we broaden our coalition and broaden awareness of what these things actually do when we highlight the parental rights issue that is very real.”

    The initiative’s supporters need to collect more than 413,000 signatures from Ohioans by July 5 to qualify for the November ballot. Under current Ohio law, changes to the state’s constitution can be approved via ballot initiative by a simple majority of voters.

    A bill introduced by Republican state Rep. Brian Stewart would increase that threshold to 60% and would mandate that the signatures needed to put an amendment on the ballot come from all 88 counties in the state, instead of 44, as currently required.

    Ohio state Senate President Matt Huffman backs raising the threshold and also supports holding an August special election to change the ballot initiative rules. If successful, the higher threshold would be in effect before November’s election when voters could consider adding abortion rights to the state constitution.

    Neither Huffman nor Stewart responded to interview requests from CNN.

    Ohio lawmakers recently voted to end August special elections, citing their expense and low participation. But Huffman recently told reporters in Ohio that a special election – with a potential price tag of $20 million – would be worth the expense if it helped torpedo the abortion initiative.

    “If we save 30,000 lives as a result of spending $20 million, I think that’s a great thing,” he said, according to Cleveland.com.

    The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center is tracking 109 measures across 35 states that could affect initiatives put to voters in 2024. Some would increase the threshold for an initiative to pass. Others would increase the minimum number of signatures – or require that they come from a broader geographic area – before an initiative could qualify for the ballot in the first place, Donat said.

    Many of the bills that seek to make it more difficult to pass ballot initiatives do not specifically target abortion issues. But they come as progressive groups increasingly turn to the initiative process as a way to bypass Republican-controlled legislatures and put a raft of issues – from legalizing marijuana to expanding Medicaid eligibility and boosting the minimum wage – directly to voters.

    “Attacks, through state legislatures, on the ballot measure process have been pretty consistent and pretty aggressive for the last several (election) cycles,” said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, which has helped pass progressive measures in red states.

    Hall said the abortion issue, while not the sole focus of current efforts to curb ballot initiatives, has put “additional fuel on an already burning fire.”

    In Missouri, a state law banning most abortions – including in cases of rape and incest – took effect last year after Roe was overturned. A group called Missourians for Constitutional Freedom has filed petition language that proposes adding abortion protections to the state constitution via ballot initiative. In recent cycles, voters in Missouri have expanded Medicaid eligibility and legalized recreational marijuana use through such initiatives.

    This year, the state’s Republican-controlled legislature is weighing making it harder for those initiatives to succeed. In February, the state House voted to raise the bar for amending the state constitution from a simple majority to 60%. Voters would have to approve the higher threshold.

    “I believe the Missouri Constitution is a living document but not an ever-expanding document,” Republican state Rep. Mike Henderson, the measure’s sponsor, said during House floor debate. “And right now, it has become an ever-expanding document.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Berlin climate proposal fails to get enough yes votes to win

    Berlin climate proposal fails to get enough yes votes to win

    [ad_1]

    The German news agency dpa reports that a Berlin referendum that would have forced the city to ramp up its climate goals has failed because there weren’t enough necessary votes in favor

    BERLIN — A Sunday referendum in Berlin that would have forced the city to ramp up its climate goals failed because there weren’t enough votes in favor of the proposal, the German news agency dpa reported.

    After about 98% of the votes had been counted, the supporters of the proposal were just ahead of the opponents of such a change in the law, according to an announcement by the city-state’s election administration. However, that result only met one requirement for a successful proposal. The second requirement, a quorum of at least 25% of all eligible voters, was not met, dpa reported.

    Shortly before the end of the count, there were around 423,000 votes in favor and around 405,000 votes against. The quorum for a successful referendum would have been around 608,000 votes in favor of the proposal.

    The referendum had called for Berlin to become climate neutral by 2030. The target meant that in less than eight years, the city would no longer be allowed to contribute further to global warming.

    An existing law sets the deadline for achieving that goal at 2045, which is also Germany’s national target.

    A grassroots group that had initiated the proposal had argued that Berlin’s current target isn’t in line with the 2015 Paris climate accord, which aims to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) compared with the pre-industrial average.

    The center-right Christian Democratic Union, which won a recent local election in the capital and is likely to lead its new government, had opposed the earlier target.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Berlin vote could turbocharge German capital’s climate plans

    Berlin vote could turbocharge German capital’s climate plans

    [ad_1]

    BERLIN — Voters in Berlin go to the polls this weekend to decide on a proposal that would force the city government to drastically ramp up the German capital’s climate goals.

    Sunday’s referendum, which has attracted considerable financial support from U.S.-based philanthropists, calls for Berlin to become climate neutral by 2030, meaning that within less than eight years the city would not be allowed to contribute further to global warming. An existing law sets the deadline for achieving that goal at 2045, which is also Germany’s national target.

    The center-right Christian Democratic Union, which won a recent local election in the capital and is likely to lead its new government, opposes the earlier target but would be bound to implement it if the referendum passes.

    Jessamine Davis, a spokesperson for the grassroots group that initiated the vote, said Berlin’s current target isn’t in line with the 2015 Paris climate accord, which aims to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) compared with the pre-industrial average.

    “This is a very ambitious target, we’re clear about that. And it won’t be easy,” she said of the plan to cut almost all emissions by 2030. “But the climate crisis is an even bigger challenge.”

    Davis pointed to the flood disaster in western Germany two years ago that killed more than 180 people and caused tens of billions of euros (dollars) in economic damage. Scientists say such disasters could become more likely as the planet warms. By contrast, redesigning Berlin’s city-wide heating network so it becomes carbon neutral is estimated to cost 4 billion euros, she said.

    Polls show Berliners are narrowly in favor of the proposal, but the law also requires that it win the support of at least 25% of the city’s 2.4 million eligible voters to pass — something that could be harder to achieve on a day when no elections or other votes are taking place.

    To draw attention to the referendum, Davis’ group has conducted a large-scale advertising campaign, helped by donations of almost 1.2 million euros ($1.3 million). While about 150,000 euros came from crowdfunding, most of the money was provided by philanthropic organizations and individuals.

    The biggest chunk — over 400,000 euros — came from German-American investors Albert Wenger and Susan Danziger.

    In emails to The Associated Press, Wenger said the U.S.-based couple had “a long history of supporting climate movements and making investments in innovative solutions to the climate crisis.”

    “The Berlin ballot initiative demonstrates that citizens in a democratic process are demanding faster and stronger climate action,” he said. “This is a replicable model for the rest of the world and could result in achieving climate neutrality by 2030 before major tipping points are crossed.”

    Stefan Evers, a senior lawmaker for the Christian Democrats, said his party acknowledges the “historic challenge” of climate change and the impacts it is already having on Berlin and its 3.7 million inhabitants.

    The party has proposed increasing the budget for climate-related measures by 5 to 10 billion euros, but Evers said the investments required if the referendum passes would break the bank.

    “Everybody who votes ‘yes’ on Sunday needs to ask themselves: Do we want to make drastic savings on kindergartens, schools, public sports facilities, homeless aid and social housing because of this referendum, or not,’” he told fellow lawmakers Thursday.

    Evers warned that if estimates of a 100 billion-euro price tag for the measures are accurate, “then in a few years Berlin won’t be climate-neutral but bankrupt.”

    Strong criticism of the plan has also come from newspapers owned by German media giant Axel Springer. Its biggest shareholder is American investment firm KKR, which has sizeable financial interests in the fossil fuel industry.

    In a statement, Axel Springer dismissed as “absurd” any suggestion that its publications could be influenced by the interests of its owners. “Economic interests or those of third parties don’t play a role in the coverage by our media,” it said.

    Davis said she’s optimistic about the referendum’s chances, “but what really counts now is that everybody goes to the polls.” Days before the referendum her group complained that many voters who requested postal ballots had not received them.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Australia decides referendum question to create Black Voice

    Australia decides referendum question to create Black Voice

    [ad_1]

    CANBERRA, Australia — The Australian government on Thursday released the wording of a referendum question that promises the nation’s Indigenous population a greater say on policies that effect their lives.

    Australians will vote sometime between October and December on the referendum that would enshrine in the constitution an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

    An emotional Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said such a body promoting Indigenous views to the government and Parliament was needed to overcome Indigenous disadvantage.

    “We urgently need better outcomes because it’s not good enough where we’re at in 2023,” Albanese told reporters.

    Indigenous Australians from the Torres Strait archipelago off the northeast coast are culturally distinct from the mainland Aboriginal population. The two peoples account for 3.2% of the Australian population and are the nation’s most disadvantaged ethnic group.

    “On every measure, there is a gap between the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the national average,” Albanese said.

    “A 10-year gap in life expectancy, a suicide rate twice as high, tragic levels of child mortality and disease, a massive overrepresentation in the prison population and deaths in custody, in children sent to out-of-home care,” he said.

    “And this is not because of a shortage of goodwill or good intentions on any side of politics and it’s not because of a lack of funds. It’s because governments have spent decades trying to impose solutions from Canberra rather than consulting with communities,” he added.

    The wording of the referendum question that the Cabinet signed off on Thursday is similar to words proposed by Albanese last year.

    The question will be: “A proposed law: To alter the constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

    If the referendum succeeds, the constitution would state that the “Voice may make representations” to the Parliament and government “on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”

    The Parliament would make laws relating to the Voice “including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

    Opinion polls suggest most Australians support the Voice concept, which Albanese announced was a majority priority of his center-left Labor Party government during his election night victory speech in May last year. But deep divisions remain across Australian society.

    Opposition leader Peter Dutton said his conservative Liberal Party has yet to decide whether they would support the Voice and required more detail including the government’s own legal advice.

    The Nationals party, the junior coalition partner in the former government, announced in November they had decided to oppose the Voice, saying it would divide the nation along racial lines.

    Australia is unusual among former British colonies in that no treaty was ever signed with the nation’s Indigenous population. The constitution came into effect in 1901 and has never acknowledged the Indigenous population as the country’s original inhabitants.

    The term Great Australian Silence was coined late last century to describe an erasure of Indigenous perspectives and experiences from mainstream Australian history.

    Changing Australia’s constitution has never been easy and more than four-in five referendums fail.

    Of the 44 referendums held since 1901, only eight have been carried and none since 1977.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Vote to block Georgia spaceport upheld by state’s high court

    Vote to block Georgia spaceport upheld by state’s high court

    [ad_1]

    SAVANNAH, Ga. — Georgia’s highest court Tuesday upheld an election in which coastal residents voted overwhelmingly last year to block their county government from building a launchpad for blasting commercial rockets into space.

    The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously rejected a legal challenge by Camden County commissioners who sought to have the referendum last March declared invalid. The officials argued Georgia’s state constitution doesn’t allow citizens to veto decisions of county governments.

    The court strongly disagreed, ruling that the state constitution’s language “plainly grants repeal and amendment powers to the electorate” over county ordinances and resolutions. The opinion by Justice Carla Wong McMillian said the county’s reading of the same provisions “would violate well established tenets of constitutional interpretation.”

    The court’s ruling could be the final blow for Camden County’s pet economic development project. Elected commissioners for the county of 55,000 residents at the Georgia-Florida line has spent the past decade and $11 million seeking to build Spaceport Camden. They say the project would bring economic growth not just from rocket launches, but also by attracting related industries and tourists.

    Opponents say the project poses potential environmental and safety hazards that outweigh any economic benefits. The county planned to build the spaceport on an industrial plot formerly used to manufacture pesticides and munitions.

    The proposed flight path would send rockets over Little Cumberland Island, which has about 40 private homes, and neighboring Cumberland Island, a federally protected wilderness visited by about 60,000 tourists each year. Residents and the National Park Service have said they fear explosive misfires raining fiery debris could spark wildfires near homes and people.

    In March, opponents forced a referendum on the project after gathering more than 3,500 petition signatures from registered voters saying they wanted the spaceport on the ballot.

    The result was a big defeat for the spaceport. The final tally showed 72% of voters sided with halting the project by overruling commissioners’ prior decision to buy land for the spaceport.

    Despite the project’s defeat at the polls, county officials had tried to keep the project moving forward while their legal challenge was pending before the state Supreme Court.

    The owner of the 4,000-acre (1,600 hectare) site on which the county planned to build the launchpad announced in July — four months after the referendum — it was no longer offering the property to Camden. County commissioners then filed suit, seeking to force the landowner to sell.

    The legal issues before the Georgia Supreme Court had nothing to do with job growth or safety. Instead, they involved how much power the state’s constitution gives people to overrule decisions made by their county governments.

    The Georgia constitution lays out a means for citizens to call special elections to make “amendments to or repeals of (county) ordinances, resolutions, or regulations.” To force a referendum, citizens must collect petition signatures from at least 10% of a county’s registered voters.

    Attorneys for Camden County unsuccessfully argued the state constitution restricts the scope of those elections, only allowing voters to alter powers and responsibilities delegated to county governments by state law.

    The Association County Commissioners of Georgia, which represents elected officials across the state’s 159 counties, joined Camden County in challenging the referendum. Both Camden County and the association said allowing voters to directly overturn decisions of county officials could lead to instances of a single issue being repeatedly approved by a county and then repealed by voters.

    The Supreme Court dismissed that argument in its ruling, saying: “There is little evidence that such a parade of horribles would occur, given that a county’s governing authority, which is comprised of elected officials, would be unlikely to routinely disregard the will of the electorate.”

    Both sides in the legal battle over the spaceport acknowledged that the citizen referendum power is rarely used in Georgia.

    Lawyers for spaceport critics who gathered signatures calling for the referendum noted it took roughly two years until enough people had signed their petition to force a vote on the project.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Indigenous senator quits party over Australian referendum

    Indigenous senator quits party over Australian referendum

    [ad_1]

    CANBERRA, Australia: — An Indigenous senator in Australia quit the minor Greens party on Monday in a disagreement over a referendum to be held this year that would create an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

    Sen. Lidia Thorpe’s resignation illustrates deep divisions among Indigenous Australians on the referendum and increases the difficulty for the government in getting legislation through the Senate.

    The Greens have suggested they will support a referendum likely to be held this year that would enshrine in the constitution a body representing Indigenous people to advise Parliament on policies that effect their lives. It would be known as the Indigenous Voice.

    Thorpe had argued that Australia should first sign a treaty with its original inhabitans that acknowledged that they had never ceded their sovereignty to the British colonists.

    She said after quitting the Greens that the party’s support for the Voice was “at odds with the community of activists who are saying treaty before Voice.”

    “This country has a strong grassroots black sovereign movement full of staunch and committed warriors and I want to represent that movement fully in this Parliament,” Thorpe told reporters. “It has become clear to me that I can’t do that from within the Greens.”

    Another high-profile Indigenous Sen. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has also spoken out against the Voice, arguing it would divide the nation along racial lines. Her conservative party, the Nationals, took an official position in November to oppose the referendum, prompting a senior lawmaker and Voice advocate Andrew Gee to quit the party.

    Bipartisan support has long been regarded as a prerequisite for a referendum’s success. But despite the divisions, an opinion poll published by The Australian newspaper on Monday found 56% of respondents in favor of the Voice. Opponents accounted from 37% and 7% were undecided.

    The survey of 1,512 voters nationwide was conducted from Feb. 1 to 4. It had a 3 percentage point margin of error.

    Indigenous people accounted for 3.2% of Australia’s population in the 2021 census. Indigenous Australians are the most disadvantaged ethnic group in Australia. They die younger than other Australians, are less likely to be employed, achieve lower education levels and are overrepresented in prison populations.

    Greens leader Adam Bandt and his deputy Mehreen Faruqi said they were sorry Thorpe had decided to leave their progressive party.

    Bandt said he had told Thorpe that the party’s constitution allowed her to take a different position on the Voice from her colleagues.

    Pakistan-born Faruqi said she and Thorpe had worked together as “strong allies against white supremacy and racism in all its forms.”

    “I know that we will continue to work together, this work of decolonization, as well as working for climate justice,” Faruqi said.

    Thorpe said she would continue to work with the Greens on their climate policy. The Greens want Australia to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 75% below 2005 levels by the end of the decade.

    The center-left Labor Party government enshrined in law a 43% target after it was elect in May last year.

    Labor has relied on the Greens’ 12 senators to pass legislation through the upper chamber that the conservative opposition party opposes.

    With the Greens’ support, Labor had only needed to enlist the vote of a single unaligned senator. With Thorpe’s departure, Labor now will need the support of two unaligned senators.

    Bandt said the government would continue to rely on the Greens to get its legislative agenda through the Senate.

    “The situation remains now still more or less the same in the Senate. The Greens are central in the balance of power in the Senate,” Bandt said.

    Thorpe has proved a radical and divisive element in the Senate. She was criticized for referring to the then-British monarch during a Senate swearing in ceremony in August last year as “the colonizing, her majesty Queen Elizabeth II.”

    She resigned as the Greens deputy leader in the Senate in October over what Bandt called a “significant lack of judgment” in failing to declare an intimate relationship she had with a former president of a biker gang.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge temporarily blocks California fast food wages law

    Judge temporarily blocks California fast food wages law

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A judge on Friday temporarily blocked the state of California from implementing a landmark new law aimed at raising wages and improving working conditions for fast food workers.

    Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang’s order came in response to a lawsuit by restaurant industry groups that are seeking a referendum on the November 2024 ballot in a bid to overturn the law.

    The law establishes a 10-member council empowered to set minimum wages as well as standards for hours and working conditions for California’s fast food workers.

    State and county elections officials are still verifying whether the referendum proposal received enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, a determination expected by the end of January. If that happens, the law would be halted from taking effect until voters weigh in.

    In the meantime, the state Department of Industrial Relations said it plans to begin implementing the law on Sunday. That could include clearing the way for appointments to the Fast Food Council. But any wage increases or other changes couldn’t take effect until at least October, meaning the law would have no immediate impact on worker pay.

    The International Franchise Association and the National Restaurant Association said state law requires the state to sit tight until the status of the referendum is determined. The industry groups submitted more than 1 million signatures from voters in support of the referendum, well above the roughly 620,000 required by state law.

    “California bureaucrats, at the behest of special interests, are taking an unprecedented step to violate their Constitution and the will of more than one million voters who asked for the Fast Food Council to be stopped via the referendum process,” Matt Haller, chief executive officer and president of the International Franchise Association, said in a statement.

    The Service Employees International Union, which drove support for the creation of the council, blasted the lawsuit and several companies by name, including McDonald’s, Chipotle and Starbucks.

    “This cowardly tactic comes right out of the corporate playbook Californians have, unfortunately, come to know too well,” said Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California, in a statement.

    “When corporations fail to halt progressive legislation in the legislature, they pivot to bankrolling ballot measures in an attempt to circumvent democracy and the will of the people,” she added.

    If the signature drive doesn’t qualify for a referendum and the law moves forward, fast food wages could be raised as high as $22 an hour by the end of 2023. California’s minimum wage for all workers is set to rise to $15.50 an hour starting Sunday.

    Chang, the judge, scheduled a hearing on the matter for Jan. 13. She also wrote that restaurant groups have failed to prove they properly served the state with the lawsuit, and she ordered them to do so.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House approves referendum to ‘decolonize’ Puerto Rico

    House approves referendum to ‘decolonize’ Puerto Rico

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. House passed a bill Thursday that would allow Puerto Rico to hold the first-ever binding referendum on whether to become a state or gain some sort of independence, in a last-ditch effort that stands little chance of passing the Senate.

    The bill, which passed 233-191 with some Republican support, would offer voters in the U.S. territory three options: statehood, independence or independence with free association.

    “It is crucial to me that any proposal in Congress to decolonize Puerto Rico be informed and led by Puerto Ricans,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, which oversees affairs in U.S. territories.

    The proposal would commit Congress to accept Puerto Rico into the United States as the 51st state if voters on the island approved it. Voters also could choose outright independence or independence with free association, whose terms would be defined following negotiations over foreign affairs, U.S. citizenship and use of the U.S. dollar.

    Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who has worked on the issue throughout his career, said it was “a long and torturous path” to get the proposal to the House floor.

    “For far too long, the people of Puerto Rico have been excluded from the full promise of American democracy and self-determination that our nation has always championed,” the Maryland Democrat said.

    After passing the Democrat-controlled House, the bill now goes to a split Senate where it faces a ticking clock before the end of the year and Republican lawmakers who have long opposed statehood.

    Puerto Rico Gov. Pedro Pierluisi, of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party, traveled to Washington for the vote. He called it a historic day and said the 3.2 million U.S. citizens who live on the island lack equality, do not have fair representation in the federal government and cannot vote in general elections.

    “This has not been an easy fight. We still have work to do,” he said. “Our quest to decolonize Puerto Rico is a civil rights issue.”

    Members of his party, including Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González, cheered the approval of the bill, although reaction in the U.S. territory was largely muted and tinged with frustration since it is expected to be voted down in the Senate.

    The proposal of a binding referendum has exasperated many on an island that already has held seven nonbinding referendums on its political status, with no overwhelming majority emerging. The last referendum was held in November 2020, with 53% of votes for statehood and 47% against, with only a little more than half of registered voters participating.

    The proposed binding referendum would be the first time that Puerto Rico’s current status as a U.S. commonwealth is not included as an option, a blow to the main opposition Popular Democratic Party, which upholds the status quo.

    Pablo José Hernández Rivera, an attorney in Puerto Rico, said approval of the bill by the House would be “inconsequential” like the approval of previous bills in 1998 and 2010.

    “We Puerto Ricans are tired of the fact that the New Progressive Party has spent 28 years in Washington spending resources on sterile and undemocratic status projects,” he said.

    González, Puerto Rico’s representative in Congress, praised the bill and said it would provide the island with the self-determination it deserves.

    “Many of us are not in agreement about how that future should be, but we all accept that the decision should belong to the people of Puerto Rico,” she said.

    ———

    Coto reported from San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Taiwan votes on lower voting age, mayors, city councils

    Taiwan votes on lower voting age, mayors, city councils

    [ad_1]

    TAIPEI, Taiwan — Voters headed to the polls across Taiwan in a closely watched local election Saturday that will determine the strength of the island’s major political parties ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

    Taiwanese citizens will be picking their mayors, city council members and other local leaders in all 13 counties and the six major cities. There’s also a referendum to lower the voting age from 20 to 18. Polls opened at 8 a.m. (0000GMT) Saturday.

    While international observers and the ruling party have attempted to link the elections to the long-term existential threat that is Taiwan’s neighbor, many local experts do not think China has a large role to play this time around.

    “The international society have raised the stakes too high. They’ve raised a local election to this international level, and Taiwan’s survival,” said Yeh-lih Wang, a political science professor at National Taiwan University.

    President Tsai Ing-wen, who also serves as the chairman of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, has spoken out many times about “opposing China and defending Taiwan” in the course of campaigning. But the DPP’s candidate Chen Shih-chung, who was running for mayor in Taipei, only raised the issue of the Communist Party’s threat a few times before he quickly switched back to local issues as there was little interest, experts said.

    During campaigning, there were few mentions of the large-scale military exercises targeting Taiwan that China held in August in reaction to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit.

    “So I think if you can’t even raise this issue in (the capital) Taipei,” Wang said. “You don’t even need to consider it in cities in the south.”

    Instead, campaigns resolutely focused on the local: air pollution in the central city of Taichung, traffic snarls in Taipei’s tech hub Nangang, and the island’s COVID-19 vaccine purchasing strategies, which had left the island in short supply during an outbreak last year.

    Candidates spent the last week before the elections in a packed public schedule. On Sunday, the DPP’s Chen marched through Taipei with a large parade filled with dancers in dinosaur suits and performers from different countries. Chiang Wan-an, the Nationalist party’s mayoral candidate, canvassed at a hardware market, while Vivian Huang, an independent candidate, visited lunch stalls at a market. All three made stops at Taipei’s famous night markets.

    The question is how the island’s two major political parties — the Nationalist and the incumbent DPP — will fare. Because both Tsai and the Nationalist’s chair Eric Chu handpicked candidates, the performance will impact their own standings within their party, as well as the party’s strength in the coming two years.

    “If the DPP loses many county seats, then their ability to rule will face a very strong challenge,” said You Ying-lung, chair at the Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation that regularly conducts public surveys on political issues.

    The election results will in some ways also reflect the public’s attitude towards the ruling party’s performance in the last two years, You said.

    Observers are also watching to see if outgoing Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je’s Taiwan People’s Party’s candidates will pick up a mayoral seat. A 2024 presidential bid for Ko will be impacted by his party’s political performance Saturday, analysts say. Ko has been campaigning with his deputy, the independent mayoral candidate Huang, for the past several weeks.

    Food stall owner Hsian Fuh Mei said he was supporting Huang.

    “We want to see someone international,” he said. “If you look at Singapore, before we were better than Singapore, but we’ve fallen behind. I hope we can change direction.”

    Others were more apathetic to the local race. “It feels as if everyone is almost the same, from the policy standpoint,” said 26-year-old Sean Tai, an employee at a hardware store.

    Tai declined to say who he was voting for, but wants someone who will raise Taipei’s profile and bring better economic prospects while keeping the status quo with China. “We don’t want to be completely sealed off. I really hope that Taiwan can be seen internationally,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 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

  • FACT FOCUS: Did late night Michigan voting lines show fraud?

    FACT FOCUS: Did late night Michigan voting lines show fraud?

    [ad_1]

    Michigan saw record turnout for a midterm election this week, with control of the governor’s office and referendums on abortion and voting rights in the balance.

    But with a heightened focus on voting problems and irregularities nationwide, Ann Arbor became a target for false information following reports of long lines of voters waiting to cast ballots late into the night Tuesday in the college community.

    Elections officials, government watchdog groups and other experts, however, said the election process was carried out according to state law.

    Here are the facts.

    CLAIM: City officials in Ann Arbor were registering new voters and allowing them to vote long after the polls closed on Election Day.

    THE FACTS: The false claim gained traction after a Republican candidate for Michigan secretary of state issued a lengthy statement on social media singling out the vote in Ann Arbor — a liberal bastion that’s home to the University of Michigan — as proof of election malfeasance.

    “We will not tolerate the lawlessness of the Ann Arbor city clerk,” Kristina Karamo wrote in her Election Day tweet, which has since been liked or shared more than 1,200 times.

    The Trump-endorsed Republican, who ended up losing to incumbent Democratic Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, doubled down on her claims Thursday in a tweet that was also widely shared.

    “The Ann Arbor clerk is engaging in mass Election Crimes. Illegally registering people after 8pm,” another Twitter user wrote, echoing the false claim. “They are arrogantly breaking the law.”

    But Michigan state law allows any person in line when polls close at 8 p.m. to register to vote and to cast a ballot, election officials and experts told The Associated Press this week.

    “Although we say the polls are open until 8pm in MI, if you are in line before 8pm and stay in line you can vote,” Sharon Dolente, a senior advisor for Promote the Vote, wrote in an email. “The same is true if you need to register to vote first, in order to vote.”

    Promote the Vote, a coalition that includes the NAACP, the League of Women Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union, coordinated an Election Day hotline and had hundreds of observers at polling locations throughout the state on Tuesday.

    Dale Thomson, a political science professor at the University of Michigan in Dearborn, agreed, noting that Michigan voters in 2018 approved same-day registration, meaning voters can enroll up to and including on Election Day.

    The Michigan Department of State, which oversees elections statewide, confirmed with Ann Arbor officials that all voters registered after 8 p.m. had been in line before polls closed and that each person was provided a document to verify that, said Jake Rollow, an agency spokesperson.

    “Eligible American citizens have the constitutional right to register to vote and vote, and if they are in line at the 8 p.m. deadline on Election Day, they must be allowed to do so,” he wrote in an email.

    Joanna Satterlee, a spokesperson for the city of Ann Arbor, said the waiting voters were handed a “ticket” in the form of a blank application to vote.

    Only those in line holding the application were permitted to register and vote, she said. Staff were also present to ensure no one joined the lines after 8 p.m.

    Satterlee said the city didn’t have a count for how many votes were cast by those waiting in line past 8 p.m. on Tuesday, but that the last ballot was issued shortly after 1 a.m. Wednesday.

    She said the three voting locations impacted were City Hall and two sites on the University of Michigan campus, where hundreds of waiting voters were seen wrapped up in donated blankets and sipping on hot cocoa as temperatures dropped below 45 degrees.

    The U.S. Department of Justice, which posted election monitors in other Michigan cities, declined to comment, and Karamo’s campaign didn’t respond to messages this week.

    But the secretary of state’s office said it will work with city officials, university administrators and student leaders in Ann Arbor and other college communities to “identify and implement practices to prevent such situations” going forward.

    Michigan State University on Friday said it experienced similarly long voting lines, with the last ballot cast on its East Lansing campus at 12:09 a.m. Wednesday.

    “Unfortunately, long lines in some locations, most often university towns, have been a challenge in Michigan for years,” said Dolente. “This was true before same day registration was adopted. Promote the Vote looks forward to working with election officials to prevent it from happening in the future.”

    ___

    This is part of AP’s effort to address widely shared misinformation, including work with outside companies and organizations to add factual context to misleading content that is circulating online. Learn more about fact-checking at AP.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Voters in four states approve effort to wipe slavery and indentured servitude off the books | CNN Politics

    Voters in four states approve effort to wipe slavery and indentured servitude off the books | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Voters in five states on Tuesday were asked whether to update their states’ constitutions to remove slavery and indentured servitude as potential punishments.

    Although the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibited slavery in 1865, it allowed an exception “for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,” and the proposed amendments asked voters to either explicitly rule out slavery and indentured servitude as potential punishments or remove the terms from state law altogether.

    Voters in four states agreed to strike the punishment from the books, CNN projects, while the effort fell short in one.

    Voters in Alabama approved a ballot measure that will overhaul the state’s constitution to rid it of racist language and make the constitution more accessible to Alabama’s citizens, CNN projects. One of the revisions in the overhaul will remove an exception clause as it applies to slavery and indentured servitude, changing the text of the constitution from:

    That no form of slavery shall exist in this state; and there shall not be any involuntary servitude, otherwise than for the punishment of crime, of which the party shall have been duly convicted.

    To:

    That no form of slavery shall exist in this state; and there shall not be any involuntary servitude.

    Voters in Oregon approved a ballot measure to remove “all language creating an exception” and make “the prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude unequivocal.”

    As part of the initiative, the Oregon Constitution was amended to allow “programs to be ordered as part of sentencing,” such as ones for education, counseling, treatment and community service.

    Tennessee voters approved a measure to amend the state’s constitution to say slavery and indentured servitude shall be “forever prohibited,” CNN projects.

    In Vermont, a measure to amend the constitution passed, CNN projects.

    Although Vermont was the first state to outlaw slavery, the proposal sought to remove text that read “no person born in this country, or brought from oversea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person as a servant, slave or apprentice, after arriving to the age of twenty-one years, unless bound by the person’s own consent, after arriving to such age, or bound by law for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like.”

    Louisiana voters rejected an amendment that would have changed the state’s constitution by explicitly prohibiting the punishments, CNN projects.

    Louisiana voters had been asked to mark yes or no to the question, “Do you support an amendment to prohibit the use of involuntary servitude except as it applies to the otherwise lawful administration of criminal justice?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Obama, campaigning in Georgia, warns of threats to democracy

    Obama, campaigning in Georgia, warns of threats to democracy

    [ad_1]

    COLLEGE PARK, Ga. (AP) — Former President Barack Obama returned to the campaign trail Friday in Georgia, using his first stop on a multi-state tour to frame the 2022 midterm elections as a referendum on democracy and to urge voters not to see Republicans as an answer to their economic woes.

    It was a delicate balance, as the former president acknowledged the pain of inflation and tried to explain why President Joe Biden and Democrats shouldn’t take all the blame as they face the prospects of losing narrow majorities in the House and Senate when votes are tallied Nov. 8. But Obama argued that Republicans who are intent on making it harder for people to vote and — like former President Donald Trump — are willing to ignore the results, can’t be trusted to care about Americans’ wallets either.

    “That basic foundation of our democracy is being called into question right now,” Obama told more than 5,000 voters gathered outside Atlanta. “Democrats aren’t perfect. I’m the first one to admit it. … But right now, with a few notable exceptions, most of the GOP and a whole bunch of these candidates are not even pretending that the rules apply to them.”

    With Biden’s approval ratings in the low 40s, Democrats hope Obama’s emergence in the closing weeks of the campaign boosts the party’s slate in a tough national environment. He shared the stage Friday with Sen. Raphael Warnock, who faces a tough reelection fight from Republican Herschel Walker, and Stacey Abrams, who is trying to unseat Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who defeated her narrowly four years ago.

    Obama will travel Saturday to Michigan and Wisconsin, followed by stops next week in Nevada and Pennsylvania.

    For Obama personally, the campaign blitz is an opportunity to do something he was unable to do in two midterms during his presidency: help Democrats succeed in national midterms when they already hold the White House. For his party, it’s an opportunity to leverage Obama’s rebound in popularity since his last midterm defeats in 2014. Their hope is that the former president can sell arguments that Biden, his former vice president, has struggled to land.

    Biden was in Pennsylvania on Friday with Vice President Kamala Harris and plans to be in Georgia next week, potentially in a joint rally with Obama and statewide Democratic candidates. But he has not been welcomed as a surrogate for many Democratic candidates across the country, including Warnock.

    “Obama occupies a rare place in our politics today,” said David Axelrod, who helped shape Obama’s campaigns from his days in the Illinois state Senate through two presidential elections. “He obviously has great appeal to Democrats. But he’s also well-liked by independent voters.”

    Obama tried to show off that reach Friday. The first Black president drew a hero’s welcome from a majority Black audience, and he offered plenty of applause lines for Democrats. But he saved plenty of his argument, especially on the economy, for moderates, independents and casual voters, including a defense of Biden, who Obama said is “fighting for you every day.”

    He called inflation “a legacy of the pandemic,” the resulting supply chain disruption and the Ukraine war’s effects on global oil markets — a sweeping retort to Republican attempts to cast sole blame on Democrats’ spending bills.

    “What is their answer? … They want to give the rich tax cuts,” Obama said of the GOP. “That’s their answer to everything. When inflation is low, let’s cut taxes. When unemployment is high, let’s cut taxes. If there was an asteroid heading toward Earth, they would all get in a room and say, you know what we need? We need tax cuts for the wealthy. How’s that going to help you?”

    Biden has sought to make similar arguments, and was buoyed this week with news of 2.6% economic growth in the third quarter after two consecutive quarters of negative growth.

    Yet Lis Smith, a Democratic strategist, said Obama is better positioned to convince voters who haven’t decided whom to vote for or whether to vote at all.

    “If it’s just a straight-up referendum on Democrats and the economy, then we’re screwed,” Smith said. “But you have to make the election a choice between the two parties, crystallize the differences.”

    Obama, she said, did that in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections “by winning over a lot of working-class white voters and others we don’t always think about as part of the ‘Obama coalition.’”

    Obama left office in January 2017 with a 59% approval rating, and Gallup measured his post-presidential approval at 63% the following year, the last time the organization surveyed former presidents. That’s considerably higher than his ratings in 2010, when Democrats lost control of the House in a midterm election that Obama called a “shellacking.” In his second midterm election four years later, the GOP regained control of the Senate.

    Still, Bakari Sellers, a prominent Democratic commentator, said Obama’s broader popularity shouldn’t obscure how much his “special connection” with Black voters and other non-white voters can help Democrats.

    The Atlanta rally brought Obama together with Warnock, the first Black U.S. senator in Georgia history, and Abrams, who’s vying to become the first Black female governor in American history.

    In Michigan, Obama will campaign in Detroit with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who is being challenged by Republican Tudor Dixon, and in Wisconsin he’ll be in Milwaukee with Senate candidate Mandela Barnes, who is trying to oust Republican Sen. Ron Johnson. Each city is where the state’s Black population is most concentrated. Obama’s Pennsylvania swing will include Philadelphia, another city where Democrats must get a strong turnout from Black voters to win competitive races for Senate and governor.

    With the Senate now split 50-50 between the two major parties and Vice President Kamala Harris giving Democrats the deciding vote, any Senate contest could end up deciding which party controls the chamber for the next two years. Among the tightest Senate battlegrounds, Georgia, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are three where Black turnout could be most critical to Democratic fortunes.

    Axelrod said Obama’s turnabout from his own midterm floggings to being Democrats’ leading surrogate is, in part, a rite of passage for any former president. “Most of them — maybe not President Trump, but most of them — are viewed more favorably after they leave office,” Axelrod said.

    Notably, during Obama’s presidency, former President Bill Clinton was the in-demand heavyweight surrogate, especially for moderates trying to survive Republican surges in 2010 and 2014.

    Axelrod said Obama and Clinton have a similar approach.

    “What Clinton and Obama share is a kind of unique ability to colloquialize complicated political arguments of the time, just talk in common-sense terms,” Axelrod said. “They’re storytellers.”

    ___

    Learn more about the issues and factors at play in the 2022 midterm elections at https://apnews.com/hub/explaining-the-elections. And follow the AP’s election coverage of the elections at https://apnews.com/hub/2022-midterm-elections.

    ___

    This story has been corrected to show Abrams, not Kemp, is trying to unseat the governor.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Russian strike kills 23 as Kremlin to annex Ukraine regions

    Russian strike kills 23 as Kremlin to annex Ukraine regions

    [ad_1]

    KYIV, Ukraine — A Russian strike on the Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia killed at least 23 people and wounded dozens, an official said Friday, just hours before Moscow planned to annex more of Ukraine in an escalation of the seven-month war.

    Zaporizhzhia Regional Governor Oleksandr Starukh made the announcement in an online statement Friday. He said there were at least 28 wounded when Russian forces targeted a humanitarian convoy heading to Russian-occupied territory.

    He posted images of burned out vehicles and bodies lying in the road. Russia did not immediately acknowledge the strike.

    The attack comes as Moscow prepares to annex four regions into Russia after an internationally criticized, gunpoint referendum vote as part of its invasion of Ukraine. Those regions include areas near Zaporizhzhia, but not the city itself, which remains in Ukrainian hands.

    Starukh said those in the convoy planned to travel into Russian-occupied territory to pick up their relatives and then take them to safety. He said rescuers were at the site of the attack.

    The annexation — and planned celebratory concerts and rallies in Moscow and the occupied territories — would come just days after voters supposedly approved Moscow-managed “referendums” that Ukrainian and Western officials have denounced as illegal, forced and rigged.

    Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Thursday that four regions of Ukraine — Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia — would be folded into Russia during a Kremlin ceremony attended by President Vladimir Putin, who is expected to give a major speech. Peskov said the regions’ pro-Moscow administrators would sign treaties to join Russia in the Kremlin’s ornate St. George’s Hall.

    In an apparent response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called an emergency meeting Friday of his National Security and Defense Council.

    Zelenskyy also sought to capitalize on anti-war sentiment in Russia by issuing a special video directed at Russia’s ethnic minorities, especially those in Dagestan, one of the country’s poorer regions in the North Caucasus.

    “You do not have to die in Ukraine,” he said, wearing a black hoodie that read in English “I’m Ukrainian,” and standing in front of a plaque in Kyiv memorializing what he called a Dagestani hero. He called on the ethnic minorities to resist mobilization.

    The U.S. and its allies have promised to adopt even more sanctions than they’ve already levied against Russia and to offer millions of dollars in extra support for Ukraine as the Kremlin duplicates the annexation playbook it followed when it incorporated Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014.

    Putin early Friday issued decrees recognizing the independence of the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, steps he had taken in February regarding Luhansk and Donetsk and earlier for Crimea.

    Ukraine has repeated its vows to recapture the four regions, as well as Crimea. For its part, Russia pledges to defend all its territory — including newly annexed regions — by all available means, including nuclear weapons.

    Heightening the tensions are Russia’s partial military mobilization and allegations of sabotage of two Russian pipelines on the Baltic Sea floor that were designed to feed natural gas to Europe. Adding to the Kremlin’s woes are Ukraine’s success in recapturing some of the very land Russia is annexing and problems with the mobilization that President Vladimir Putin acknowledged Thursday.

    Ukraine’s Western supporters have described the stage-managed referendums on whether to live under Russian rule as a bald-faced land grab based on lies. They say some people were forced to vote at gunpoint in an election without independent observers on territory from which thousands of residents have fled or been forcibly deported.

    In unusually strong language, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told reporters Thursday in New York that Russia’s annexation would violate the U.N. Charter and has “no legal value.” He described the move as “a dangerous escalation” and said it “must not be accepted.”

    “Any decision by Russia to go forward will further jeopardize the prospects for peace,” Guterres said.

    As a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, Russia bears “a particular responsibility” to respect the U.N. Charter, the secretary-general said.

    U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Guterres conveyed the message to Russia’s U.N. ambassador, Vassily Nebenzia, on Wednesday.

    In what would be a major blow to Moscow’s war effort, the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War said Ukrainian forces may soon encircle Lyman, 160 kilometers (100 miles) southeast of Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city.

    “The collapse of the Lyman pocket will likely be highly consequential to the Russian grouping” in the northern Donetsk and western Luhansk regions and “may allow Ukrainian troops to threaten Russian positions along the western Luhansk” region, the institute said, citing Russian reports.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Occupied Ukraine holds Kremlin-staged vote on joining Russia

    Occupied Ukraine holds Kremlin-staged vote on joining Russia

    [ad_1]

    KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — A Kremlin-orchestrated referendum got underway Friday in occupied regions of Ukraine that sought to make them part of Russia, with some officials carrying ballots to apartment blocks accompanied by gun-toting police. Kyiv and the West condemned it as a rigged election whose result was preordained by Moscow.

    Meanwhile, in a grim reminder of the brutality of the 7-month-old invasion, U.N. experts and Ukrainian officials pointed to new evidence of Russian war crimes. Kharkiv region officials said a mass burial site in the eastern city of Izium held hundreds of bodies, including at least 30 displaying signs of torture.

    The referendums in the Luhansk, Kherson and partly Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia and Donetsk regions were widely seen as a prelude to Moscow annexing the regions. The voting, which was overseen by authorities installed by Russia, is scheduled to run through Tuesday and is almost certain to go the Kremlin’s way.

    Authorities in the Kherson region said residents of a small Moscow-controlled area of the neighboring Mykolaiv province also will be able to vote, and that small area was “incorporated” into Kherson until all of Mykolaiv is taken over by Russian forces.

    Ukraine and the West said the vote was an illegitimate attempt by Moscow to slice away a large part of the country, stretching from the Russian border to the Crimean Peninsula. A similar referendum took place in Crimea in 2014 before Moscow annexed it, a move that most of the world considered illegal.

    Citing safety reasons, election officials carried ballots to homes and set up mobile polling stations for the four-day voting period. Russian state TV showed one such election team accompanied by a masked police officer carrying an assault rifle.

    Ivan Fedorov, the Ukrainian mayor of Melitopol in the Zaporizhzhia region, told The Associated Press that Russians and residents of Crimea were brought into his city to urge people to vote.

    “The Russians see an overwhelming reluctance and fear to attend the referendum and are forced to bring people… to create an image and an illusion of the vote,” he said. “Groups of collaborators and Russians along with armed soldiers are doing a door-to-door poll, but few people open the doors to them.”

    Voting also occurred in Russia, where refugees and other residents from those regions cast ballots.

    Denis Pushilin, the Moscow-backed separatist leader in the Donetsk region, called the referendum “a historical milestone.”

    Lawmaker Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of Russia’s State Duma, said in an online statement to the regions: “If you decide to become part of the Russian Federation, we will support you.”

    Thousands attended pro-Kremlin rallies across Russia in support the referendums, news agencies reported. “Long live the one, great, united Russian people!” one speaker told the large crowd at a central Moscow rally and concert titled, “We Don’t Abandon Our Own.”

    Luhansk Gov. Serhii Haidai accused officials of taking down the names of people who voted against joining Russia. In online posts, Haidai also alleged that Russian officials threatened to kick down the doors of anyone who didn’t want to vote.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged Ukrainians in occupied regions to undermine the referendums and to share information about the people conducting “this farce.” He also urged Ukrainians to avoid being called up in the Russian mobilization announced Wednesday.

    “But if you do end up in the Russian army, then sabotage any enemy activity, interfere with any Russian operations, give us all important information about the occupiers. … And at the first opportunity, switch to our positions,” he said in his nightly address.

    President Vladimir Putin’s partial mobilization of reservists could add about 300,000 troops, his defense minister said. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov dismissed as false media reports of plans to muster up to 1.2 million troops.

    Across the vast country, men hugged their weeping family members before departing as part of the call-up, which has raised fears that a wider draft might follow. Anti-war activists planned more protests Saturday.

    Other Russian men tried desperately to leave the country, buying up scarce plane tickets and creating traffic jams hours or even days long at some borders. The lines of cars were so long at the border with Kazakhstan that some people abandoned their vehicles and walked — just as some Ukrainians did after Russia invaded their country Feb. 24.

    Russian authorities sought to calm public fears over the call-up. Lawmakers introduced a bill Friday to suspend or reduce loan payments for those called to duty, and media emphasized that they would be paid the same as professional soldiers and that their civilian jobs would be held for them.

    The Defense Ministry said many of those working in high tech, communications or finance will be exempt, the Tass news agency reported.

    Amid the mobilization and referendums, the horrors of the conflict persisted.

    Kharkiv regional Gov. Oleh Synyehubov and regional police chief Volodymyr Tymoshko said at least 30 of the 436 bodies exhumed so far in Izium bore signs of torture. Among them were the bodies of 21 Ukrainian soldiers, some found with their hands bound behind their backs, they said.

    Russian forces occupied Izium for six months before being pushed out by a Ukrainian counteroffensive this month. The exhumations, which began a week ago, are nearing an end, as investigators work on identifying victims and how they died. A mobile DNA lab was parked at the edge of the burial site.

    “Each body has its own story,” Synyehubov said.

    Experts commissioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council also presented evidence of potential war crimes, including beatings, electric shocks and forced nudity in Russian detention facilities, and expressed grave concerns about extrajudicial killings the team was working to document in Kharkiv and the regions of Kyiv, Chernihiv and Sumy.

    With world opinion pushing Moscow deeper into isolation over the war, Russia lashed out against the West. Its U.S. ambassador, Anataly Antonov, said at a Moscow conference Friday about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis that Washington is trying to bring Russia “to its knees” and divide it into “several fiefdoms” while stripping it of its nuclear weapons and its permanent seat at the U.N. Security Council.

    In new reports of fighting, Ukraine’s presidential office said 10 civilians were killed and 39 others wounded by Russian shelling in nine regions. Battles continued in the southern Kherson province during the vote, it said, while Ukrainian forces meted out 280 attacks on Russian command posts, munitions depots and weapons.

    Heavy fighting also continued in the Donetsk area, where Russian attacks targeted Toretsk, Sloviansk and several smaller towns. Russian shelling in Nikopol and Marhanets on the western bank of the Dnieper River killed two people and wounded nine.

    In other developments, Kyiv expelled Iran’s ambassador and reduced staff at the Iranian Embassy in response to Tehran’s “supply of weapons to Russia for war on Ukrainian territory,” said Oleh Nikolenko, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry. Ukraine reported shooting down an Iranian-made Mohajer-6 drone that can be used for surveillance or to carry precision-guided weapons, adding that it destroyed four other Iranian-made Shahed-136 drones.

    Earlier Friday, Ukrainian officials said Russia had attacked the port city of Odesa with Iranian-made drones, killing one person.

    —-

    Associated Press writer Lori Hinnant in Izium contributed.

    ___

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the war at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine

    [ad_2]

    Source link