ReportWire

Tag: state legislature

  • S. Carolina’s US House maps under scrutiny because of race

    S. Carolina’s US House maps under scrutiny because of race

    [ad_1]

    A trial to determine whether South Carolina’s congressional maps are legal closes Tuesday with arguments over whether the state Legislature diluted Black voting power by remaking the boundaries of the only U.S. House district Democrats have flipped in more than 30 years.

    The trial also marks the first time the South Carolina maps have been legally scrutinized since the U.S. Supreme Court removed part of a 1965 law that required the state to get federal approval to protect against discriminatory redistricting proposals.

    A panel of three federal judges will hear closing arguments in the case in Charleston. A ruling is expected later.

    The Republican-dominated General Assembly redrew the maps early this year based on the 2020 U.S. census, and they were used in this month’s midterm elections.

    According to a lawsuit filed by the NAACP, the new boundaries unconstitutionally split Black voters in the state’s 1st, 2nd and 5th Districts and packed them all into the 6th District, which already had a majority of African American voters.

    The civil rights group has asserted during months of arguments that the General Assembly’s actions not only diluted Black voting strength, but also strengthened the 6-to-1 advantage Republicans have in the state’s U.S. House delegation. The last time a Democrat flipped a U.S. House seat was in 2018. Before that Democrats hadn’t won a seat from Republican control since 1986.

    The new congressional districts “render Black voters unable to meaningfully influence congressional elections in those districts,” the NAACP lawyers allege in the lawsuit.

    Attorneys for state lawmakers said the 1st District had to have changes because much of South Carolina’s more than 10% population growth from 2010 to 2020 happened along the coast.

    The Legislature also insisted it followed guidance the U.S. Supreme Court laid out in 2013 when it overturned a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act requiring South Carolina and eight other mostly Southern states to get federal approval when they redrew district maps.

    “The General Assembly did not improperly use race in drawing any district or in enacting any redistricting plan,” the Legislature’s attorneys wrote. “The General Assembly may have been aware of race in drawing districts and redistricting plans, but such awareness does not violate the Constitution or law.”

    The crux of the NAACP argument is that the Legislature ignored “communities of interest” in several regions of the state: places where voters share economic, social, historic or political bonds or are located within the same geographic or government boundaries.

    They cited several plans lawmakers did not adopt that would have kept Charleston and surrounding areas entirely in the 1st District instead of breaking off some areas with significant African American populations and putting them into the 6th District.

    Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace won under the old map in 2020 by 1.3 percentage points. Under the new map, she won reelection to the 1st District earlier this month by 13.9 percentage points.

    ___

    James Pollard is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US Catholic bishops worry about abortion views in the pews

    US Catholic bishops worry about abortion views in the pews

    [ad_1]

    BALTIMORE — Even as they signaled a continued hardline stance on opposing abortion and same-sex marriage, the nation’s Catholic bishops acknowledged Wednesday that they’re struggling to reach a key audience: their own flock.

    The members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rounded out their leadership bench during the last day of public sessions of their fall annual meeting in Baltimore, which concludes with private meetings Thursday.

    They also set in motion a plan to recirculate their long-standing election document in 2024 — a 15-year-old statement that prioritizes opposition to abortion — while acknowledging it’s outdated and adding a cover statement addressing such things as the teachings of Pope Francis and the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling in June that overturned the nationwide right to abortion.

    The bishops elected Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley as secretary in a 130-104 vote over Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, who had been named a cardinal by Pope Francis. It’s the second time in five years that the bishops have passed over a Francis-appointed cardinal for a key leadership post.

    Earlier this year, Coakley had applauded the decision by San Francisco’s archbishop to deny Communion to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic Democrat from that city who supports abortion rights. So had the bishops’ new point man on opposition to abortion — Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington, Virginia, elected Wednesday as chairman of its Committee on Pro-Life Activities.

    The votes came a day after the bishops elected as their new president Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services. Broglio is also seen as more of a culture warrior than Pope Francis, though Broglio has dismissed the idea of any “dissonance” between the two.

    At the same time, Coakley cited the importance of Francis’ priorities in a news conference Wednesday.

    Coakley is leading the bishops’ review of, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” a document they have used in election years with only minor revisions since 2007.

    While a full revision will take years, bishops approved Coakley’s recommendation to begin drafting a new introduction to issue with the document in time for 2024’s election. It would incorporate recent events such as the Ukraine war and the Dobbs decision.

    The plan also includes using parish bulletins and social media to share main ideas from the lengthy document.

    Coakley said the new introduction needs to reflect Pope Francis’ priorities, such as promoting civil discourse and protecting the environment.

    “It’s a rich pontificate that offers us plenty to lay out for people … to embrace the vision that Pope Francis has articulated,” Coakley said.

    Bishops from both the progressive and conservative flanks of the church echoed concern that Catholics aren’t reading the document.

    Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky, a Francis appointee, said that bishops need a statement that’s relevant amid the shaken confidence in democracy following the U.S. Capitol riot and in the wake of Dobbs and defeats for abortion opponents in votes on five state ballot measures. “It’s irresponsible to issue an old teaching and suggest the church has nothing new to say when so much of this context has changed,” he said.

    Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, one of the most outspoken conservative bishops, lamented the recent state ballot measures. Polls show Catholics to be mixed on legal abortion.

    “I think it’s a solid document,” Strickland said, but “I think we have to acknowledge people aren’t listening.”

    The gap between Francis and the U.S. bishops reflects in part the conference’s continued emphasis on culture-war battles over abortion and same-sex marriage.

    Francis, while also opposing both in keeping with church teaching, has used his papacy to emphasize a wider agenda of bringing mercy to those at the margins, such as migrants and other poor. The Vatican said in 2021 the church cannot bless gay unions because God “cannot bless sin,” but Francis has made outreach to the church’s LGBTQ members a hallmark of his papacy. As recently as last Friday, Francis met with the Rev. James Martin, an American Jesuit priest whom the pontiff has supported in his calls for dialogue with LGBTQ Catholics.

    Both Pelosi and President Joe Biden, another Catholic who favors legalized abortion, have received Communion since 2021 in churches in Rome, the pope’s own diocese.

    The bishops also heard an impassioned talk Wednesday by Archbishop Borys Gudziak of the Ukrainian Archeparchy of Philadelphia on behalf of war-torn Ukraine.

    Gudziak thanked U.S. Catholics for providing millions in relief for displaced Ukrainians and urged continued American support for Ukraine’s self-defense, saying Russian assaults have left many vulnerable in the coming winter.

    At the same time, he said that on a conference call with staff at a Catholic university in Lviv, he heard only joy and resolve even amid losses of electrical power in Russia’s missile barrage Tuesday. One staff member told him, “Better without electricity and with Kherson,” he said, alluding to the recently liberated city.

    Gudziak accused Russia of a “genocide” through such attacks and through its denial of Ukrainians’ identity as a separate people.

    Also Wednesday, a small group of survivors of sexual abuse and their supporters held a sidewalk news conference outside Baltimore Marriott Waterfront, where the bishops are meeting. While this year marks the 20th anniversary of the bishops’ landmark policy barring all abusers from ministry, advocates are seeking more transparency.

    They called for bishops in every diocese to post detailed lists of credibly accused abusers and to stop lobbying against state legislation that would extend statutes of limitations for abuse lawsuits.

    David Lorenz, Maryland director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, cited Archbishop Broglio’s archdiocese as one of the few that still does not publish even a minimal list of abusers. Broglio declined to comment.

    “I don’t need another apology because it doesn’t do anything to protect kids,” Lorenz added. “I want action to help kids. I want them (bishops) to be totally, absolutely transparent.”

    Also Wednesday, the bishops voted to advance efforts to have three American women declared saints.

    They include Michelle Duppong of North Dakota, a campus missionary who died of cancer in 2014 and is credited with showing faithfulness in suffering.

    They also include two 20th century women: Cora Evans, a Catholic convert from Utah who reported mystical experiences from an early age; and Mother Margaret Mary Healy Murphy of Texas, founder of a religious order, who provided education and other ministry to African Americans.

    ———

    Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Four Lessons Republicans Must Learn Before 2024

    Four Lessons Republicans Must Learn Before 2024

    [ad_1]

    The Republican Party swaggered into Tuesday’s midterm elections with full confidence that it would clobber President Joe Biden and his Democratic Party, capitalizing on voters’ concerns over inflation and the economy to retake majorities in both chambers of Congress. The question, party officials believed, was one only of scale: Would it be a red wave, or a red tsunami?

    The answer, it turns out, is neither.

    As of this morning, Republicans had yet to secure a majority in either the House or the Senate. Across the country, Democrats won races that many in the party expected to lose. Millions of votes are still to be counted, particularly in western states, but this much is clear: Even if Republicans eke out narrow congressional majorities, 2022 will be remembered as a triumph for Democrats, easily the best midterm cycle for an incumbent president’s party since 2002, when the country rallied around George W. Bush and his GOP in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

    Given the tailwinds they rode into Election Day—a fragile economic outlook, an unpopular president, a pervasive sense that our democracy is dysfunctional—Republicans spent yesterday trying to make sense of how things went so wrong. There was a particular focus on Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, three battleground states that went from red to blue on Election Day 2020, and states where Democrats won major victories on Tuesday.

    Based on my reporting throughout the year, as well as data from Tuesday’s exit polling and conversations with Republican officials in the immediate aftermath of Election Day, here are four lessons I believe the party must learn before the next election in 2024.

    1. Democratic turnout is going to boom in the post-Dobbs era.

    For 50 years, Republicans raged against the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that established a constitutional right to an abortion, arguing that the ruling should be struck down and abortion policies should be determined by individual states. When it finally happened—when Politico in early May published a leaked draft of the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization striking down Roe v. Wade—I warned the evangelical leader Russell Moore on his podcast that Republicans, and especially conservative Christians, were about to deal with some devastating unintended consequences.

    Up until the 2022 election, most voters had engaged with the abortion issue as an every-four-years, very-top-of-the-ticket decision. Presidents appoint Supreme Court justices, after all, and only a Supreme Court ruling could fundamentally change abortion policies in the country. (This was essential to Donald Trump’s victory in 2016: Nearly a quarter of his voters said the Supreme Court was their top issue in the election, after he’d promised to appoint “pro-life judges.”) Given that abortion rights were protected by Roe, the voters who identified abortion as their top priority always skewed Republican, and they were primarily mobilized by presidential campaigns and the prospect of Supreme Court vacancies.

    We have now entered a different political universe.

    More than a quarter of all voters named abortion as their top priority in this election. That number would be astonishing in any cycle, much less in a midterm campaign being waged against a backdrop of historic inflation and a looming recession. (The only issue of greater salience to voters overall—and not by much—was the economy, which 31 percent named as their top priority.) Even more surprising was the gap in partisan enthusiasm: Among the 27 percent of voters who prioritized abortion in this election, 76 percent supported Democratic candidates, according to exit polling, while just 23 percent backed Republicans.

    This is a direct result of the Dobbs ruling, which left individual states scrambling to figure out their own abortion regulations. With Republicans pushing a menu of restrictive measures across the nation, Democrats running for office at every level—Congress, state legislature, governor, attorney general—suddenly had ammunition to mobilize a party base that was, until that time, looking complacent. (When Republican Glenn Youngkin won the governor’s race in deep-blue Virginia last year, only 8 percent of voters named abortion as their top priority.) At the same time, Dobbs gave Democrats a tool to reach moderates and independents, particularly suburban women, who’d rejected the Republican Party in 2020 but were beginning to drift back toward the GOP because of concerns about inflation and crime.

    Democrats I spoke with throughout the summer and fall were hopeful that the abortion issue would be sufficient to prevent a Republican rout. It did that and much, much more. The Dobbs effect on this election is almost impossible to exaggerate. All five states that featured a ballot referendum on questions of abortion saw the pro-choice side win. (This includes Kentucky and Montana, states that President Joe Biden lost by 26 points and 16 points, respectively.) In those states alone, dozens of Democrats, from the top of the ballot to the bottom, received a potentially race-deciding boost from the abortion referendum. Even in the 45 states where abortion wasn’t literally on the ballot, it was clearly the issue that carried the day for a host of vulnerable Democrats.

    By every metric available—turnout, exit polling, individual races, and referendum results—abortion was the dominant motivator for Democrats, particularly younger Democrats, who have historically skipped midterm elections. It was also the dominant motivator for moderates and independents to stick with an unpopular president. The story of this election was that millions of voters who registered dissatisfaction with Biden and his economic policies voted for his party anyway. Why? Because they were more concerned about Republicans’ approach to abortion than Democrats’ approach to inflation.

    This is very bad news for the GOP. Democrats now have a blueprint for turning out the vote in a punishing political environment. In each of the two midterm elections under President Barack Obama, Democrats hemorrhaged congressional and state legislative seats because the party lacked a base-turnout mechanism—not to mention a persuasion tactic—to compensate for voters’ concerns over a sluggish economy. Politics is a copycat business. Now that Democrats have found a winning formula, you can expect to see entire field programs, messaging campaigns, microtargeting exercises, and ballot-initiative drives built around abortion access.

    A winning issue today is not necessarily a winning issue tomorrow. Abortion rights will rise and fall in terms of resonance, depending on the place, the party in control, and the policies that govern the issue locally. We’ve seen Democrats overplay their hand on abortion in the past, as in 2014, when Republicans flipped a U.S. Senate seat because the Democratic incumbent, Mark Udall, campaigned so myopically on abortion rights that even the liberal Denver Post editorial board ridiculed him as “Senator Uterus.” If Democrats rely too much on the issue—or, maybe the greater temptation, if they use their legislative power to advance abortion policies that are just as unpopular with moderates and independents as some of what Republicans campaigned on this cycle—their advantage could evaporate quickly.

    Still, the “Senator Uterus” episode came in the pre-Dobbs era, back when Americans still viewed the Supreme Court as the most immediate arbiter of abortion rights, and local candidates didn’t have nearly the reason (or incentive) to engage with the issue. This is now the post-Dobbs era. Voters who care about abortion are thinking less about Supreme Court justices and more about state legislators. The political advantage, at least for now, belongs to a Democratic Party that just weaponized the issue to turn out its base in a major and unexpected way.

    2. Bad candidates are an incurable (and fast-spreading) cancer.

    In Michigan, “Prop 3,” the ballot proposal enshrining abortion rights into the state constitution, drove enormous voter participation. Democrats were the clear beneficiary: They won all three statewide campaigns as well as the state’s most competitive congressional races. But Democrats did even more damage at the local level, ambushing Republicans in a number of off-the-radar local contests and winning back control of both state legislative chambers for the first time since 1983.

    But if you ask Republicans in the state, Prop 3 wasn’t the biggest contributor to the down-ballot massacre. Instead, they blame the terrible GOP candidates at the top of the ticket.

    Whereas Republicans in other states nominated one or perhaps even two far-right candidates to run in marquee statewide races, Michigan Republicans went for the trifecta. Tudor Dixon, the gubernatorial nominee, was a political novice who had made extreme statements about abortion and gun control in addition to casting doubts on Trump’s 2020 defeat. Matt DePerno, the nominee for attorney general, was best known for leading a crusade to investigate and overturn Biden’s 2020 victory in the state. Kristen Karamo, the nominee for secretary of state, was a like-minded conspiracy theorist who manifestly knew nothing about the way Michigan’s elections are administered, and even less about the other duties of the job she was seeking.

    “You just can’t ignore the question of candidate quality,” Jason Roe, who ran Republican Tom Barrett’s campaign against Elissa Slotkin, one of the nation’s premier congressional contests, in Michigan’s Seventh District, told me. “We had a fundraising disadvantage, we had Prop 3 to overcome, but candidate quality—that was our biggest headwind. Tom ran about seven points ahead of the statewide ticket. I’m not sure what else he’s supposed to do.”

    The same pattern was visible in different parts of the country. In Pennsylvania, Democrats seized back control of the state House chamber for the first time in more than a decade. How? Two words: Doug Mastriano.

    In the campaign to become Pennsylvania’s next governor—what was once expected to be one of the nation’s tightest races—Mastriano, the GOP nominee, proved particularly unpalatable. It wasn’t just Mehmet Oz, the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in that state, who stayed away; most GOP state lawmakers, even those who shared some of Mastriano’s fringe worldview as it pertains to election legitimacy or Christian nationalism, kept their distance.

    But it hardly mattered. The smoldering crater left by Mastriano’s implosion (he trailed by nearly 14 points as of yesterday evening) swallowed up Republicans all around him. Not only did Democrats improbably win back control of the state House; they also won all three of the state’s contested congressional races.

    Time and again on Tuesday, bad candidates sabotaged both their own chances of victory and also the electoral prospects of their fellow partisans on the ticket. And for most of these bad candidates, a common quality stood out: their views on the legitimacy of our elections.

    3. Voters prefer “out of touch”  to “out of their mind.”

    For Republicans, a central charge against Democrats throughout 2022 has been that Biden and his party are out of touch with ordinary Americans. A distilled version of the argument went like this: Democrats, the party of social and cultural elites, can’t relate to the economic pain being felt by millions of working people.

    That message penetrated—to a point.

    According to exit polls, 20 percent of voters said inflation has caused their families “severe hardship” over the past year. Among those respondents, 71 percent supported Republicans, and 28 percent supported Democrats. This is broadly consistent with other findings in the exit polling, as well as public-opinion research we saw throughout the summer and fall, showing disapproval of Biden and his stewardship of the economy. This would seem damning for Democrats—that is, until you consider the numbers in reverse and ask the obvious question: Why did three in 10 people who said they’ve experienced “severe hardship” decide to vote for the party that controls Congress and the White House?

    The simplest explanation is that although many of these voters think Democrats are out of touch, they also think Republicans are out of their minds. And it seems they prefer the former to the latter.

    “This is what I would see in our focus groups all summer, and it makes more sense now in retrospect,” says Sarah Longwell, a Republican strategist who produced a podcast series this year narrating her sessions with undecided voters. “We would have these swing voters who would say things are going bad: inflation, crime, Biden’s doing a bad job, all of it. And then you say, ‘Okay, Gretchen Whitmer versus Tudor Dixon. Who are you voting for?’ And even though they’re pissed at Whitmer—she hasn’t fixed the roads, she did a bad job with COVID—they were voting for her. Because they all thought Dixon was crazy.”

    It was the same thing, Longwell told me, in her focus groups all over the country—but particularly in the Midwest. She said that Tony Evers, the Democratic governor of Wisconsin, kept getting the same benefit of the doubt as Whitmer: “They didn’t like a lot of his policies, but they thought Tim Michels”—his Republican challenger—“was an extremist, a Trumplike extremist.” Her conclusion: “A lot of these people wanted to vote for a Republican; they just didn’t want to vote for the individual Republican who was running.”

    For many voters, the one position that rendered a candidate unacceptable was the continued crusade against our elections system. In Pennsylvania, for instance, 34 percent of voters supported Democrats despite experiencing “severe hardship,” significantly higher than the national average. The reason: 57 percent of Pennsylvanians said they did not “trust” Mastriano to oversee the state’s elections.

    Another strategy Republicans used to portray Democrats as “out of touch” was to focus on rising crime rates in Democratic-governed cities and states. This was an unqualified success: Exit polling, both nationally and in key states, showed that clear majorities of voters believe Republicans are better suited to handle crime. In Michigan, 53 percent of voters said they trusted Dixon to deal with crime, as opposed to just 42 percent for Whitmer. But it barely made a difference in the outcome: Despite trailing by 11 points on that question, Whitmer actually won the race by 11 points. To understand why, consider that 56 percent of Michigan voters characterized Dixon as “too extreme.” Only 38 percent said the same about Whitmer.

    In the exit polls, perhaps the most provocative question was about society’s changing values relative to gender identity and sexual orientation. Half of all voters—exactly 50 percent—said those values are changing for the worse. Only 26 percent, meanwhile, said those values are changing for the better. (The remaining 24 percent did not have a strong opinion either way.) This is another data point to suggest that Democrats, by championing an ultraprogressive approach to LGBTQ issues, come across as out of touch to many Americans. And yet, even among the voters who expressed alarm over America’s values in this context, 20 percent voted for Democrats. This is a revelation: Given the ferocity of rhetoric in this campaign about drag shows, transgender athletes, and sexualized public-school curricula, one might have predicted virtually zero people would both decry the LGBTQ agenda and vote Democratic. But two in 10 voters—more than enough to tip any close election—did exactly that. Why?

    Again, the simplest explanation is probably best: Plenty of voters are worried about unchecked progressivism on the left, but they’re even more worried about unchecked extremism on the right.

    That extremism takes many forms: delegitimizing our elections system, endorsing the January 6 assault on the Capitol, cracking jokes and spreading lies about the assault on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband. And all of this extremism, which so many swing voters spurned on Tuesday, is embodied by one person: Donald Trump.

    4. Trumpism is toxic to the middle of the electorate.

    Here’s the scenario many of us were expecting on Election Day: The president, still the titular head of his party despite a growing chorus of questions about his age and competence, suffers a series of humiliating defeats that reflect the weakness of his personal brand and cast doubt on his ability to lead the party moving forward.

    And that’s precisely what happened—to the former president.

    If Tuesday felt strange—“the craziest Election Night I’ve ever seen,” as the elections-analyst Dave Wasserman tweeted—it’s because so many races revolved around someone who wasn’t running for anything. The reason that practically every first-term president in modern history has gotten pummeled in the midterms is that the opposition party typically cedes the stage and makes it all about him. The idea is to force the party in power to own everything that’s unsatisfactory about the country—its economic performance, military failures, policy misfires. It’s a time-honored tradition: Make the election a referendum on the new guy in charge.

    Until now.

    In each of the three states that saw major Democratic victories—Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—25 to 30 percent of voters said they had cast their vote in opposition to Trump. To reiterate: This is a quarter of the total electorate, consistently across three of the nation’s most polarized battleground states, acknowledging that they were motivated by the idea of defeating someone who wasn’t on the ballot, and who currently holds no office. It’s easy to see why they succeeded: In these states, as well as nationally, the only thing worse than Biden’s approval rating was Trump’s. In state after state, congressional district after congressional district, voters rejected the Trump-approved candidate, for many of the same reasons they rejected Trump himself two years ago.

    Looking to 2024, GOP leaders will attempt to address the missed opportunities of this election. They will, no doubt, redouble their efforts to recruit strong candidates for statewide races; they will prioritize proven winners with mainstream views on abortion and democratic norms and the other issues by which moderates and independents will assess them. Whatever success party officials might find on a case-by-case basis, they will be treating the symptoms and ignoring the sickness. The manifest reality is that Trumpism has become toxic—not just to the Never Trumpers or the RINOs or the members of the Resistance, but to the immense, restless middle of the American electorate.

    We’ve long known that Trumpism without Trump doesn’t really sell; the man himself has proved far more compelling, and far more competitive, than any of his MAGA imitators. But what we saw Tuesday wasn’t voters selectively declining certain decaffeinated versions of Trump; it was voters actively (and perhaps universally, pending the result in Arizona’s gubernatorial race) repudiating the core elements of Trump’s political being.

    This trouncing, on its own, might have done little to loosen Trump’s chokehold on American conservatism. But because it coincided with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s virtuoso performance—winning reelection by an astonishing 1.5 million votes; carrying by double digits Miami-Dade County, which Hillary Clinton won by 30 points; defeating his Democratic opponent by nearly 20 points statewide—there is reason to believe, for the first time in six and a half years, that the Republican Party does not belong to Donald Trump.

    “I’ll tell you why Tuesday was a bad night for Trump: Ron DeSantis now has 100 percent name ID with the Republican base. Every single Republican voter in the country knows who he is now,” says Jeff Roe, who managed Ted Cruz’s 2016 campaign and runs the nation’s largest political-consulting firm. “A lot of these people are gonna say, ‘All these other Republicans lost. This is the only guy that can win.’ That’s really bad for Trump. Republicans haven’t had a choice in a long time. Now they have a choice.”

    Trump’s intraparty critics have long complained that his brutally effective takeover of the GOP obscures his win-loss record. This is someone, after all, who earned the 2016 nomination by securing a string of plurality victories against a huge and fragmented field; who lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by nearly 3 million; who gave away the House in 2018 and the Senate in 2020; who lost the popular vote to Biden by 7 million and handed over the White House; and who just sabotaged the party’s chances of winning key contests in a number of battleground states.

    Earlier this week, Trump pushed back the expected launch of his 2024 presidential campaign. This was done, in part, so that he could appropriate the narrative of a grand Republican victory against Biden and the Democrats. Given his humiliating defeats, and how they’re being juxtaposed against the victories of his emerging young rival from Florida, Trump might want to move the announcement back up before a very different narrative begins to take hold.

    [ad_2]

    Tim Alberta

    Source link

  • Republican Katie Britt wins US Senate race in Alabama

    Republican Katie Britt wins US Senate race in Alabama

    [ad_1]

    MONTGOMERY, Ala — Republican Katie Britt on Tuesday won the U.S. Senate race in Alabama, becoming the first woman elected to the body from the state.

    Britt will fill the seat held by Richard Shelby, her one-time boss who is retiring after 35 years in the Senate. Britt was Shelby’s chief of staff before leaving to take the helm of a state business lobby. Britt defeated Democrat Will Boyd and Libertarian John Sophocleus.

    Britt, 40, cast herself as part of a new generation of conservative leaders and will become one of the Senate’s youngest members. She will be the first Republican woman to hold one of the state’s Senate seats and the state’s first elected female senator. The state’s previous female senators, both Democrats, had been appointed.

    “Tonight, parents, families and hard-working Alabamians across the state let their voices be heard. We said loud and clear this is our time,” Britt told supporters at her victory party in downtown Montgomery.

    Britt, who noted her early dismal poll numbers and how some initially dismissed her notion of running for Senate, said her campaign is “proof that the American dream is still alive.”

    Fueled by deep pockets and deep ties to business and political leaders, Britt ran under the banner of “Alabama First” and secured the GOP nomination after a heated and expensive primary. She was first in the initial round of voting and then defeated six-term Rep. Mo Brooks in a primary runoff.

    Brooks, who ran under the banner “MAGA Mo” — Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again campaign slogan — and was initially endorsed by the former president, had been an early favorite in the race. But Brooks faltered under a barrage of attack ads and lackluster fundraising. As Britt surged in the polls, Trump rescinded his endorsement of Brooks and swung his support to Britt.

    Britt began her political career working for Shelby. She thanked the outgoing senior senator for taking a chance on her 20 years ago and called him “Alabama’s greatest statesman” who left a lasting legacy on the state.

    The senator-elect was introduced by her husband Wesley Britt, a former football player for the New England Patriots and the University of Alabama, who said his best title is, “Katie’s husband.”

    Flanked by her husband and two-school-age children, and with her speech occasionally punctuated by the sound of children popping the red, white and blue balloons that fell to celebrate her victory, Britt called herself a “Mama on a mission” to get things done in Washington.

    Britt, who spent much of her race in partisan appeals, criticizing the policies of President Joe Biden and lamenting a country she said she no longer recognized, promised to work for all Alabamians, “even those that have different beliefs than I do.”

    “No one will worker harder than me in the United States Senate. I am going to listen to you, not lecture you. I know that every one of you is not going to agree with me on every single issue and that’s OK,” Britt said.

    “I am going to be a voice for parents and families and hard-working Alabamians across this state,” she said, “and I’m going to work tirelessly every single day to make Alabama proud.”

    ———

    Follow AP’s coverage of the elections at: https://apnews.com/hub/2022-midterm-elections

    ———

    Check out https://apnews.com/hub/explaining-the-elections to learn more about the issues and factors at play in the 2022 midterm elections.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How a GOP Congress Could Roll Back Nationwide Freedoms

    How a GOP Congress Could Roll Back Nationwide Freedoms

    [ad_1]

    If Republicans win control of one or both congressional chambers this week, they will likely begin a project that could reshape the nation’s political and legal landscape: imposing on blue states the rollback of civil rights and liberties that has rapidly advanced through red states since 2021.

    Over the past two years, the 23 states where Republicans hold unified control of the governorship and state legislature have approved the most aggressive wave of socially conservative legislation in modern times. In highly polarizing battles across the country, GOP-controlled states have passed laws imposing new restrictions on voting, banning or limiting access to abortion, retrenching LGBTQ rights, removing licensing and training requirements for concealed carry of firearms, and censoring how public-school teachers (and in some cases university professors and even private employers) can talk about race, gender, and sexual orientation.

    With much less attention, Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate have introduced legislation to write each of these red-state initiatives into federal law. The practical effect of these proposals would be to require blue states to live under the restrictive social policies that have burned through red states since President Joe Biden’s victory in 2020. “I think the days of fealty [to states’ rights] are nearing an end, and we are going to see the national Republicans in Congress adopting maximalist policy approaches,” Peter Ambler, the executive director of Giffords, a group that advocates for stricter gun control, told me.

    None of the proposals to nationalize the red-state social agenda could become law any time soon. Even if Republicans were to win both congressional chambers, they would not have the votes to overcome the inevitable Biden vetoes. Nor would Republicans, even if they controlled both chambers, have any incentive to consider repealing the Senate filibuster to pass this agenda until they know they have a president who would sign the resulting bills into law—something they can’t achieve before the 2024 election.

    But if Republicans triumph this week, the next two years could nonetheless become a crucial period in formulating a strategy to nationalize the red-state social-policy revolution. Particularly if Republicans win the House, they seem certain to explore which of these ideas can attract enough support in their caucus to clear the chamber. And the 2024 Republican presidential candidates are also likely to test GOP primary voters’ appetite for writing conservative social priorities into national law. Embracing such initiatives “may prove irresistible for a lot of folks trying to capture” the party’s socially conservative wing, Patrick Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, told me.

    It starts with abortion. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina in September introduced a bill that would ban the procedure nationwide after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In the House, 167 Republicans have co-sponsored the “Life Begins at Conception Act,” which many legal analysts say would effectively ban all abortions nationwide.

    In elections, Senator Rick Scott of Florida has proposed legislation that would impose for federal elections nationwide many of the voting restrictions that have rapidly diffused across red states, including tougher voter-identification requirements, a ban on both unmonitored drop boxes and the counting of any mail ballots received after Election Day, and a prohibition on same-day and automatic voter registration.

    In education, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has proposed to federalize restrictions on how teachers can talk about race by barring any K–12 school that receives federal money from using “critical race theory” in instruction. Several Republicans (including Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri) have introduced a “Parents’ Bill of Rights,” which would mandate parental access to school curriculum and library materials nationwide—a step toward building pressure for the kind of book bans spreading through conservative states and school districts. Nadine Farid Johnson, the Washington director for PEN America, a free-speech advocacy group, predicts that these GOP proposals “chipping away” at free speech are likely to expand beyond school settings into other areas affecting the general population, such as public libraries or private companies’ training policies. “This is not something that is likely to stop at the current arena, but to go much more broadly,” she told me.

    Representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana, along with several dozen co-sponsors, recently introduced a federal version of the “Don’t Say Gay” legislation that Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida pushed into law. Johnson’s bill is especially sweeping in its scope. It bars discussion of “sexually-oriented material,” including sexual orientation, with children 10 and younger, not only in educational settings, but in any program funded by the federal government, including through public libraries, hospitals, and national parks. The language is so comprehensive that it might even prevent “any federal law enforcement talking to a kid about a sexual assault or sexual abuse,” David Stacy, the government-affairs director at the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ advocacy group, told me.

    Johnson’s bill is only one of several Republican proposals to nationalize red-state actions on LGBTQ issues. During budget debates in both 2021 and 2022, Republican senators offered  amendments to establish a nationwide ban on transgender girls participating in school sports. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has introduced a bill (the “Protect Children’s Innocence Act”) that would set felony penalties for doctors who provide gender-affirming care to minors. Cotton, in a variation on the theme, has proposed to allow any minor who receives gender-affirming surgery to sue the doctor for physical or emotional damages for the next 30 years.

    Meanwhile, Senator Steve Daines and Representative Richard Hudson of North Carolina have introduced legislation requiring every state to accept a concealed-carry gun permit issued in any state—a mechanism for overriding blue-state limits on these permits. When Republicans controlled the House, they passed such a bill in 2017, but the implications of this idea have grown even more stark since then because so many red states have passed laws allowing residents to obtain concealed-carry permits without any background checks or training requirements.

    Ambler told me he expects that the NRA and congressional Republicans will eventually seek not only to preempt blue states and city limits on who can carry guns, but also to invalidate their restrictions on where they can do so, such as the New York State law, now facing legal challenge, barring guns from the subway.

    Brown, of the conservative EPPC, said it’s difficult to predict which of these proposals will gather the most momentum if Republicans win back one or both chambers. Some congressional Republicans, he said, may still be constrained by traditional GOP arguments favoring federalism. The strongest case for contravening that principle, he said, is in those instances that involve protecting what he calls “fundamental rights.” Graham’s national 15-week abortion ban can be justified on those grounds because “we are talking about, from my perspective, the life of an unborn baby, so having a federal ceiling on when states can’t encroach on protecting that fetus in the womb in the later stage of pregnancy makes a lot of sense to me.”

    In practice, though, Brown thinks that congressional Republicans may hesitate about passing a nationwide abortion ban, particularly with no hope of Biden signing it into law. He believes they are more likely to coalesce first around proposals to bar transgender girls from participating in sports and to prohibit gender-affirming surgery for minors, in part because those issues have proved “so galvanizing” for cultural conservatives in red states.

    Stacy, from the Human Rights Campaign, said that although Senate Republicans may be less enthusiastic about pursuing legislation restricting transgender rights, he hasn’t ruled out the possibility of a GOP-controlled Congress advancing those ideas. “It’s hard to know how far a Republican majority in either chamber would go on these issues,” he told me. “But what we’ve seen again and again in the states is that when they can, they have moved in these directions. Even when you take a look at more moderate states, when they have the power to do these things, they move these things forward.” That precedent eventually may apply not just to LGBTQ issues, but to all the red-state initiatives some Republicans want to inscribe into national law.

    These approaching federal debates reframe the battle raging across the red states during the past few years as just the first act of what’s likely to become an extended struggle.

    This first act has played out largely within the framework of restoring states’ rights and local prerogatives. As I’ve written, the red-state moves on social issues amount to a systematic effort to reverse the “rights revolution” of the past six decades. Over that long period, the Supreme Court, Congress, and a succession of presidents nationalized more rights and reduced states’ leeway to abridge those rights, on issues including civil rights, contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage.

    Now the red states have moved to reverse that long trajectory toward a stronger national floor of rights by setting their own rules on abortion, voting, LGBTQ issues, classroom censorship, and book bans, among other issues. In that cause, they have been crucially abetted by the Republican-appointed Supreme Court majority, which has struck down or weakened previously nationally guaranteed rights (including abortion and voting access).

    But the proliferation of these congressional-Republican proposals to write the red-state rules into federal law suggests that this reassertion of states’ rights was just a way station toward restoring common national standards of civil rights and liberties—only in a much more restrictive and conservative direction. “All of these things have been building for years,” Alvin Tillery, the director of the Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy at Northwestern University, told me. “It’s just that Mr. Trump gave them the idea they can succeed being more [aggressive] in the advocacy of these policies.”

    Like many students of the red-state social-policy eruption, Tillery believes that Republicans and social conservatives feel enormous urgency to write their cultural priorities into law before liberal-leaning Millennials and Generation Z become the electorate’s dominant force later this decade. “The future ain’t bright for them looking at young people, so they are acting in a much more muscular and authoritarian way now,” he said.

    With Republicans likely to win control of the House, and possibly the Senate, the next two years may become the off-Broadway stage of testing different strategies for imposing the red-state social regime on blue America. The curtain on the main event will rise the next time Republicans hold unified control of the White House and Congress—a day that may seem less a distant possibility if the GOP makes gains as big as those that now seem possible this week.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Mississippi capital to receive $35.6M in federal water funds

    Mississippi capital to receive $35.6M in federal water funds

    [ad_1]

    JACKSON, Miss — Mississippi officials on Friday approved the city of Jackson’s request for $35.6 million in federal funds to help fix its crumbling water infrastructure, following this summer’s flooding-induced breakdowns that left 150,000 people without running water for days.

    The Mississippi Municipality and County Water Infrastructure Grant Program approved the full amount the state’s capital city requested to pay for seven water and sewer projects.

    State lawmakers created the program in 2022 to provide grants matching the federal government’s aid for cities and counties financed through the American Rescue Plan Act. The dollar-for-dollar match means Jackson will have $71.3 million to upgrade its water system.

    Congress passed the sweeping American Rescue Plan Act to tame the public health and economic crises caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba said the funds would help provide reliable drinking water to a city that has periodically lost access to such a basic necessity.

    “We are grateful for the assistance and will continue to explore all potential funding avenues to achieve this end,” Lumumba said.

    Over $400 million in match funds will be awarded for the entire state in two rounds. Applications for the $180 million first round closed on Sept. 30. About 430 cities and counties in Mississippi applied for funding. The second round of funds will be awarded sometime in the spring. Jackson-area legislative leaders plan to press for money during the 2022 legislative session, which begins in January.

    “I was told by the executive director that one of the city’s drinking water projects scored higher than any other application in this first round,” said Democratic Sen. John Horhn of Jackson. “We are looking for the state to do more once the regular session begins in January.”

    A lingering boil water notice preceded the late summer crisis after testing revealed the tap water was unsafe.

    Among seven water and sewer system upgrades, the funds will be used to help replace a raw water pump at the beleaguered O.B. Curtis water treatment plant, which fell into crisis in late August after torrential rain fell in central Mississippi. The deluge altered the raw water quality entering Jackson’s treatment plants. That slowed the treatment process, depleted supplies in water tanks and caused a precipitous drop in pressure.

    Understaffing at its water treatment plants, a shrinking tax base and political disputes between city and state officials have also contributed to the city’s water woes.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Monday that the water in Jackson is safe to drink based on samples it collected over the past several months. But the agency is still waiting on another round of test results to determine whether Jackson has too much lead and copper in its water. The results are expected in mid-November.

    On Oct. 20, the EPA said it was investigating whether Mississippi state agencies have discriminated against Jackson by refusing to fund water system improvements in the city, where more than 80% of residents are Black and about a quarter of the population lives in poverty.

    ———

    Michael Goldberg is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/mikergoldberg.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Doctor to review if Uvalde victims had survivable injuries

    Doctor to review if Uvalde victims had survivable injuries

    [ad_1]

    AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas doctor said Thursday he is working with state police to determine whether any of the 21 people killed in the Uvalde school shooting could have been saved had medical help arrived sooner.

    The review of autopsies and other records is part of a criminal investigation by Texas Rangers into the hesitant police response at Robb Elementary School in May, said Dr. Mark Escott, who serves as the city of Austin’s chief medical officer.

    Police waited more than 70 minutes before confronting the gunman inside a fourth-grade classroom. Five months after the shooting, many families still question whether any of the 19 children and two teachers killed could have been saved had nearly 400 law enforcement officers on the scene acted sooner.

    Escott said he asked the Texas Department of Public Safety to do the review, which he described as in line with steps taken following other mass shootings in the U.S.

    “We expect that we will find some lessons learned that can be applied to policy around the country,” Escott said.

    The review was first reported by the Austin American-Statesman.

    It was not clear how much the findings will impact the state’s criminal investigation. The Texas Department of Public Safety did not immediately return a message seeking comment Thursday.

    Escott said the the review could take between three and six months and expressed hoped that the results will quickly be made public. Four other physicians who are EMS and trauma specialists, along with other expert advisors, will also help in the review, Escott said.

    He said the review will look at autopsy reports and medical records from hospitals and paramedics who treated the victims. Among the questions, Escott said, is whether victims could have survived if they had received first response help within 10 minutes and arrived at a trauma center within an hour.

    “The challenge we have in Uvalde is it is a small community and there are limited EMS resources and the closest level 1 or level 2 trauma center is 90 minutes away,” he said.

    Last week, Col. Steve McCraw, Texas’ state police chief, said the criminal investigation into the police response to the shooting led by Texas Rangers would be wrapped up by the end of the year and turned over to prosecutors. He didn’t indicate whether charges would be recommended against any officers.

    McCraw told families of the children killed in the shooting that the Texas Department of Public Safety “did not fail” Uvalde during the response amid escalating scrutiny over the department’s actions. One state trooper has been fired and several others were placed under internal investigation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Political spat over climate risks in investments gets hotter

    Political spat over climate risks in investments gets hotter

    [ad_1]

    ST. PAUL, Minn. — The political fight is only getting fiercer over whether it’s financially wise or “woke” folly to consider a company’s impact on climate change, workers’ rights and other issues when making investments.

    Republicans from North Dakota to Texas are ramping up their criticism of “ESG investing,” a fast-growing movement that says it can pay dividends to consider environmental, social and corporate-governance issues when deciding where to invest pension and other public funds. At the same time, Democrats in traditionally blue states like Minnesota are considering whether to make ESG principles an even bigger part of their investment strategies.

    The “E” for environment component of ESG often gets the most attention because of the debate over whether to invest in fossil-fuel companies. In the wide-ranging social, or S, bucket, investors look at how companies treat their workforces, reckoning a happier group with less turnover can be more productive. For the G, or governance aspect, investors make sure companies’ boards keep executives accountable and pay CEOs in a way that incentivizes the best performance for all stakeholders.

    The ESG industry has scorekeepers that give companies ratings on their environmental, social and governance performance. Poor scores can steer investors away from companies or governments seen as bigger risks, which can in turn raise their borrowing costs and hurt them financially.

    Florida has become one of the hottest battlegrounds for ESG. Gov. Ron DeSantis in August prohibited state fund managers from using ESG considerations as they decide how to invest state pension plan money. And even as his state cleans up from the environmental destruction caused by Hurricane Ian, DeSantis plans to ask the Florida Legislature in 2023 to go even further by prohibiting “discriminatory practices by large financial institutions based on ESG social credit score metrics.”

    Pension funds are often caught in the middle of the battles. Questions are flowing into the Florida Education Association from teachers about what DeSantis’ moves will mean for their retirements.

    “I usually tell them it’s still unclear what this exactly means,” said Andrew Spar, president of the union, which represents 150,000 teachers and educators across the state. Much is still to be determined, including exactly which funds the pension investments will steer toward.

    In contrast, the Minnesota State Board of Investment is considering a proposal to adopt a goal of making its $130 billion in pension and other funds carbon-neutral. The board already uses shareholder votes to advance climate issues. It seeks out climate-friendly investment opportunities and eschews investments in thermal coal. While the new proposal goes farther, it does not call for total divestment from fossil fuel companies, as many climate change activists advocate.

    The ESG debate has spilled into the race for Minnesota’s state auditor. Democratic incumbent Julie Blaha — who has singled out DeSantis as one of the leaders she believes are politicizing the discussion about ESG — has cited the investment board’s high returns in recent years as evidence the approach works.

    “To be a good fiduciary, you have to consider all the risks, and the evidence is clear that climate risk is investment risk,” Blaha said.

    But Blaha’s Republican challenger, Ryan Wilson, says investment returns must come first, and that all risks must be considered. He says the board shouldn’t “disproportionately dictate” that climate risk should matter more than other risks.

    Proponents say considering a company’s performance on ESG issues can boost returns and limit losses over the long term while being socially responsible at the same time. By using such a lens, they say investors can avoid companies that are riskier than they appear on the surface, with stock prices that are too high. An ESG approach could also unearth opportunities that may be underappreciated by Wall Street, the thinking goes.

    As for returns, there is no consensus on whether an ESG approach means lower or higher returns.

    Morningstar, a company that tracks mutual funds and ETFs, says slightly more than half of all sustainable funds ranked in the top half of their category for returns last year. Over five years, the showing is better with nearly three-quarters ranking in the top half of performers in the category.

    Rejecting ESG can be costly in ways besides investment performance.

    A Texas law that took effect in September 2021 banned municipalities from doing business with financial institutions that have ESG polices against investments in fossil fuel and firearms companies, industries that are important to the Texas economy. It turned out to be an expensive decision.

    Barred from underwriting local jurisdictions’ municipal bonds, five big underwriters — JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America and Fidelity — exited those markets. A Wharton School study estimated that the loss of those big players would cost Texas communities an extra $303 million to $532 million in higher interest payments on their bonds. Fidelity says it has since restored its good standing with Texas by certifying to the state that it does not boycott energy companies or discriminate against the firearms industry.

    Several big Wall Street banks and investment management companies have become favorite targets of the anti-ESG politicians because they’ve been outspoken in their embrace of ESG. Republican state treasurers have pulled or plan to pull over $1.5 billion this year out of BlackRock, the world’s largest investment company, which has a goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner. Missouri last month became the latest. Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick accused BlackRock of putting the advancement of “a woke political agenda above the financial interests of their customers.”

    Coal-producing West Virginia passed a law in June that allows for the disqualification of banks and other financial institutions from doing business with the state if they “boycott” energy companies. Treasurer Riley Moore soon banned BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo, blaming them for contributing to high energy prices by driving capital away from the industry.

    “We’re not going to pay for our own destruction,” Moore said.

    State officials have also been critical of ESG scores from ratings agencies and other outfits. For instance, S&P Global offended North Dakota State Treasurer Thomas Beadle because it rated the state as “neutral” for social and governance metrics but “moderately negative” for environmental factors because its economy and budget rely heavily on the energy sector.

    His state’s lawmakers last year prohibited their investment board from considering “socially responsible criteria” for anything but maximizing returns. Beadle told senators considering potential next steps that ESG has created “significant headwinds” for energy companies trying to raise capital, and that it could affect his state’s tax revenues.

    Besides state capitols, other big battlegrounds are federal agencies, where leaders of the backlash include the State Financial Officers Foundation, a group of Republican state treasurers, auditors and other officials. They’re trying to block rules being drafted at the Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Labor to require standardized climate disclosures by companies and to make it easier for pension plan fiduciaries to consider climate change and other ESG factors.

    The industry has heard the pushback and has even been surprised by how quickly it’s accelerated. But it’s pledging to plow ahead.

    US SIF is an industry group advocating sustainable investing whose members control $5 trillion in assets under management or advisement. Its CEO, Lisa Woll, believes that most of the national and state politicians railing against ESG investing probably don’t understand it.

    “If they did, it’s very difficult to make these kinds of allegations,” Woll said. “It feels more like a talking point than an informed critique.”

    ———

    Choe reported from New York.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California enables sexual assault victims to track rape kits

    California enables sexual assault victims to track rape kits

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Delays in testing evidence from sexual assaults have been a lost opportunity for investigators and a source of frustration for victims for years, prompting California officials to announce Tuesday that they have created a way for survivors to track the progress of linking their rape kits with DNA evidence.

    California is also the first state to hire a sexual assault evidence outreach coordinator, Sarai Crain, who will work with investigators, medical facilities and others to help track and process sexual assault evidence.

    The new online tracking system was required under a law approved by state lawmakers last year. It follows a 2017 California law that requires law enforcement agencies to submit the evidence for testing within 20 days and requires crime labs to test the evidence within 120 days or provide reasons for any delay.

    The goal is to end the backlog of rape kits by local agencies, make sure they are tested quickly once they are submitted, and keep survivors better informed, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said.

    Of nearly 6,400 kits collected in 2020, 90% were analyzed by May 2021, according to an annual report by the attorney general’s office. The rest were in various stages of processing. About half the tests found DNA that was compared to other DNA on the FBI’s database, and nearly 800 resulted in “hits” or matches with offenders in the database.

    Another nearly 200 kits were not submitted for testing for reasons including that the suspect already was known or the victim was not seeking to prosecute. The annual report for last year is not yet completed.

    The evidence is collected during medical examinations following sexual assaults, and can be used to link the assault to a suspect in existing DNA databases or develop a DNA profile that can be used in the future.

    The new online system provides information to survivors on the status of their sexual assault evidence collected since January 1, 2018. Victims can track whether their kits have been received by a law enforcement agency, are being sent to a laboratory for testing, have been received by a lab, are undergoing DNA analysis or have had the DNA analysis completed.

    California is among 30 states and Washington, D.C., that have committed to establishing a tracking system, according to the End the Backlog website run by the nonprofit Joyful Heart Foundation founded by producer, director, actress, and advocate Mariska Hargitay.

    However, “that doesn’t address the older kits that are some places still sitting on shelves,” said Ilse Knecht, the group’s director of policy and advocacy.

    A 2020 audit looking mainly at kits collected before 2018 found nearly 14,000 untested kits at the local level across the state prior to the new law.

    Crain’s job “is the first of its kind that will focus on the rape kit backlog,” Knecht said. “The goal is to get those kits that are older than 2018…to get a real count of what the number is across the state and then make sure they’re being sent in for testing.”

    Her job will include linking law enforcement agencies with public or private laboratories, according to Bonta’s office. Crain most recently was deputy chief for Oakland’s Department of Violence Prevention. Previously she was executive director of Bay Area Women Against Rape, the nation’s oldest rape crisis center.

    Aside from Crain’s assistance, Knecht said she will propose that California legislators next year pass a law requiring local agencies to test those old kits.

    The tests generated some controversy earlier this year when San Francisco’s prosecutor revealed that police there had used a DNA sample collected from a woman during a 2016 rape investigation to link her to a burglary in late 2021. State lawmakers passed a law banning the practice.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • States struggle with pushback after wave of policing reforms

    States struggle with pushback after wave of policing reforms

    [ad_1]

    RICHMOND, Va. — The national reckoning on race and policing that followed the death of George Floyd — with a Minneapolis police officer’s knee on his windpipe — spurred a torrent of state laws aimed at fixing the police.

    More than two years later, that torrent has slowed.

    Some of the initial reforms have been tweaked or even rolled back after police complained that the new policies were hindering their ability to catch criminals.

    And while governors in all but five states signed police reform laws, many of those laws gave police more protections, as well. More than a dozen states only passed laws aimed at broadening police accountability; five states only passed new police protections.

    States collectively approved nearly 300 police reform bills after Floyd’s killing in May 2020, according to an analysis by the Howard Center for Investigative Journalism at the University of Maryland. The analysis used data from the National Conference of State Legislatures to identify legislation enacted since June 2020 that affects police oversight, training, use of force policies and mental health diversions, including crisis intervention and alternatives to arrests.

    Many of the accountability laws touched on themes present in Floyd’s death, including the use of body cameras and requirements that police report excessive force by their colleagues. Among other things, police rights measures gave officers the power to sue civilians for violating their civil rights.

    North Carolina, for example, passed a broad law that lets authorities charge civilians if their conduct allegedly interfered with an officer’s duty. But it also created a public database of officers who were fired or suspended for misconduct.

    In Minnesota — where the reform movement was sparked by chilling video showing Floyd’s death at the knee of Officer Derek Chauvin — the state Legislature enacted several police accountability changes, but they fell well short of what Democrats and activists were seeking.

    The state banned neck restraints like the one used on Floyd. It also imposed a duty to intervene on officers who see a colleague using excessive force, changed rules on the use of force and created a police misconduct database.

    But during this year’s legislative session, Democrats were unable to overcome Republican opposition to further limits on “no-knock” warrants even after a Minneapolis SWAT team in February entered a downtown apartment while serving a search warrant and killed Amir Locke, a 22-year-old Black man.

    In Minneapolis, voters defeated a 2021 “defund the police” ballot initiative that would have replaced the department with a reimagined public safety unit with less reliance on cops with guns.

    Similar dynamics have played out in states as varied as Washington and Virginia, Nevada and Mississippi. And if the range of outcomes has varied as well, that comes as no surprise to Thomas Abt, a senior fellow with the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank.

    “We’re in the midst of this extraordinarily painful, very formidable process,” Abt said.

    ———

    WASHINGTON: PROGRESSIVE REFORMS MET WITH BACKLASH

    Days before the first anniversary of Floyd’s killing, Washington’s Democratic governor signed one of the most comprehensive police reform packages in the nation, including new laws banning the use of chokeholds and no-knock warrants.

    Police had argued that some of the reforms went too far and would interfere with their ability to arrest criminals. The pushback didn’t stop after the new laws went into effect.

    “There’s just that atmosphere of emboldened criminals and brazen criminality, and people telling law enforcement, ‘I know that you can’t do anything,’“ said Steve Strachan, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.

    Before the reforms, officers were generally allowed to use the amount of force necessary to arrest a suspect who fled or resisted.

    Police had historically been allowed to use force to briefly detain someone if they had reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in a crime. Under the new law, police could only use force if they had probable cause to make an arrest, to prevent an escape or to protect against an imminent threat of injury.

    Police said the higher standard tied their hands and allowed suspected criminals to simply walk away when police stopped them during temporary investigative detentions.

    Earlier this year, lawmakers rolled back some provisions, making it clear that police can use force, if necessary, to detain someone who is fleeing a temporary investigative detention. Police must still use “reasonable care,” including de-escalation techniques, and cannot use force when the people being detained are being compliant.

    Some are pushing for additional rollbacks. In a video released last month, a group of sheriffs, police chiefs and elected officials urged people to call their legislators to ask them to lift some new restrictions on police pursuits. Some suspects are ignoring commands to pull over, they said, knowing police cannot chase them.

    Current law prohibits police from engaging in a pursuit unless there is probable cause to believe someone in the vehicle has committed a violent offense or sex offense, or there is reasonable suspicion that someone is driving under the influence.

    Carlos Hunter, a 43-year-old Black man, was fatally shot by police in 2019. His sister, Nickeia, said it was disheartening to see some of the laws amended after years of reform efforts.

    “Any good the reforms that were in place did, they are going to try to undo in 2023,” she said. “They are trying to roll back every gain that was made.”

    ———

    NEVADA: REFORMS BLUNTED BY LACK OF FUNDING

    On paper, the police reforms passed in Nevada in 2021 appeared expansive.

    The public would get a statewide use-of-force database with information on deadly police encounters. Law enforcement agencies were mandated to develop an early-warning system to flag problematic officers. And officers had to de-escalate situations “whenever possible or appropriate” and only use an “objectively reasonable” amount of force.

    A year later, a lack of funding and a failure to follow through have blunted the impact of the reforms.

    The database doesn’t exist yet. The early-warning system wasn’t clearly defined, so some police departments said they’ve made no changes. And many law enforcement agencies already had de-escalation language in their use-of-force policies.

    While the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the state’s largest, had enacted reforms before the new laws, little has changed in the daily operations of smaller police forces.

    Sheriff Gerald Antinoro of Storey County, an area outside of Reno with an Old West mining past, said his department regularly updated its use-of-force policy and had its own “fail safes” to identify troubled officers.

    “If you want my opinion, mostly it was feel-good legislation that somewhere along the lines, somebody thought they were making a huge difference,” Antinoro said. “It’s fluff and mirrors.”

    Others are even more blunt.

    The reforms are “a waste of time” said Brian Ferguson, undersheriff for rural Mineral County.

    “I think it’s a way for a politician to say they made a change,” Ferguson said. “It really hasn’t changed the way we’ve been operating.”

    For this story, reporters at the Howard Center for Investigative Journalism at Arizona State University contacted the largest police departments in Nevada, as well as the sheriff’s offices for each of the state’s 16 counties. Of the eight agencies that responded, a few said they made small changes, like tweaking their use-of-force policies to align with the new law.

    Nevadans’ pro-police “Blue Lives Matter” sentiment and intense lobbying by prosecutors and police unions made it harder to pass reforms in Nevada than elsewhere, said Frank Rudy Cooper, director of the Program on Race, Gender & Policing at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

    The pared-down reforms still face obstacles.

    The Nevada Department of Public Safety waited more than a year before it received funding in August to begin collecting use-of-force data from all law enforcement agencies in the state. An estimate prepared by the software developer projected that costs associated with the data gathering would top $85,000. Details will include type of force and whether the civilian had a mental health condition or was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

    Other aspects of Nevada’s police reforms lack clear enforcement mechanisms. No one, for example, oversees setting standards for how departments identify problematic officers.

    “We were able to get ourselves out of that one,” said Mike Sherlock, executive director of the Nevada Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission, the state’s regulatory agency for law enforcement. Sherlock said the commission worried about the labor needed to keep track of officers and a lack of specifics about what defines problematic behavior.

    Meanwhile, no state agency is charged with tracking whether departments have updated their use-of-force policies.

    The Legislature’s leading reformer, state Sen. Dallas Harris, said she had to scale back the bills to get them passed. Ultimately, she said, it’s up to the public and the police departments themselves to make sure change happens.

    “I’m in the Legislature,” Harris said. “There’s only so far our reach extends.”

    ———

    MISSISSIPPI: LITTLE APPETITE FOR POLICE REFORM

    In Mississippi, where 38% of the population is Black, there is little political appetite for police reform — and Republican state Sen. Joey Fillingane is clear when he explains why.

    “The general feeling among my constituents in south Mississippi is we need to support police and thank them for the job they’re doing because crime is on the rise and they are standing between us and the criminal element,” he said.

    But there are some who see a need for action.

    Jarvis Dortch, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, was a member of the Mississippi House of Representatives when Floyd was killed. He watched as states around the country enacted a wide assortment of police reforms while no police accountability measures were approved in Mississippi.

    “It’s disappointing,” Dortch said.

    It is more than disappointing to Black people like Darius Harris who say their encounters with police are fraught because of racism.

    For years, Harris would go into Lexington, Mississippi, four or five times a week, to visit his brother or go grocery shopping. These days, Harris said he goes 20 miles out of his way to buy food rather than set foot in the small city in the Mississippi Delta.

    The reason, according to Harris, is that he is regularly targeted and threatened by Lexington police.

    “It’s not worth the risk of being harassed,” said Harris, a 45-year-old construction worker.

    Harris is one of five plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit that accuses the Lexington Police Department of subjecting Black residents to intimidation, excessive force and false arrests.

    Harris and his brother, Robert, were arrested on New Year’s Eve in 2021 as they shot off fireworks at Robert Harris’ house. The brothers were arrested again in April and charged with “retaliation against an officer” after they spoke out against the police department at a meeting, according to the lawsuit.

    Lexington’s population of 1,600 is about 80% Black. The lawsuit alleges that Lexington is “deeply segregated” and controlled by a small group of white leaders. Also named as a defendant is former Police Chief Sam Dobbins, who was fired in July after he was heard on an audio recording using racial slurs and saying he had killed 13 people in the line of duty.

    Attorneys for Dobbins acknowledge in court documents that the former chief was recorded “saying things he should not have said,” but argue that he did not violate the constitutional rights of the Harris brothers and the other plaintiffs.

    The new police chief, Charles Henderson, is Black. He denied any racial bias on the part of his officers.

    “Our police, we’re not prejudiced,” he said. “We definitely don’t stand behind any kind of racial profiling.”

    ———

    VIRGINIA: SHIFTING MENTAL HEALTH CALLS AWAY FROM POLICE

    Virginia, once a reliably conservative state, flexed its then-new Democratic muscle after Floyd’s death, passing a sweeping package of police reforms. Among them: legislation banning the use of chokeholds and no-knock search warrants.

    A key part of the reform package was a bill to set up a new statewide framework giving mental health clinicians a prominent role in responding to people in crisis — rather than relying on police. The law was named after Marcus-David Peters, an unarmed Black man who was fatally shot by a Richmond police officer in 2018 during a psychiatric crisis.

    Advocates hoped the new law would minimize police participation in emotionally charged situations that they may not be adequately trained to handle and can end with disastrous results.

    Five pilot programs began last year in various regions of the state, but some supporters of the law were disappointed when an amendment approved by the Legislature earlier this year gave localities with populations of 40,000 and under the ability to opt out of the system.

    Peters’ sister, Princess Blanding, said the law she envisioned has been “watered down to the point that overall it is ineffective.”

    The law allows each region to decide how to respond to mental health crises. “This lack of consistency is very dangerous and it could be the difference between life and death,” Blanding said.

    Before the program began, police would be dispatched to respond to mental health emergency calls to 911. After the new system launched in December, lower-risk calls began to be connected to the regional crisis call center but high-risk calls continued to be dispatched to police.

    Now, where the system is active, “community care teams” made up of police and mental health professionals (also known as co-response teams) are dispatched by 911 under certain circumstances, when available.

    Under the new system, mental health calls are assigned levels of urgency:

    –Those that do not require police investigation and are connected to the regional crisis call centers — part of the 988 National Suicide & Crisis Lifeline — for support and mental health referrals.

    –Calls in which the risk is assessed as urgent and a community care team is deployed.

    –High-risk situations, when police and other first responders are dispatched.

    On a recent weekday, dispatchers at the Richmond Department of Emergency Communications Center received a call from a woman who said there was a schizophrenic homeless man screaming on her front porch. A co-response team made up of a police officer and a mental health clinician responded. The man told them he was trying to get out of the rain and didn’t mean any harm.

    Another caller said someone told her to check herself into a mental ward. The dispatcher asked her if she was hurting anyone, including herself. “Nothing happened, but I’m going through a psychosis,” she said. The dispatcher transferred her to the 988 center.

    The legislation allowing small communities to opt out was introduced by Republican lawmakers who said those localities worry they cannot afford to set up a new response system and to hire additional mental health workers. The General Assembly allocated $600,000 for each regional behavioral health authority in the state to implement the program, but some small communities say that is not enough.

    Nine out of the 10 counties covered by the Middle Peninsula Northern Neck Community Services Board — a sprawling area, roughly the size of the state of Delaware, along the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay — have decided to opt out, said Executive Director Linda Hodges.

    “When this law was developed, they did not take these small rural communities into consideration,” Hodges said.

    In the capital Richmond, John Lindstrom, chief executive officer of the Richmond Behavioral Health Authority, said he is encouraged by the early results of the co-response teams.

    Between Aug. 15 and Sept. 30, when the first of two co-response teams was activated, there were 69 calls. None resulted in arrests, the use of force or injuries. Nine people were taken into custody for involuntary hospitalization, and 87% were given referrals to community mental health providers.

    “We’re not going to fix every bad outcome,” Lindstrom said, “but we want to further reduce them, to increase resources so people can have more confidence that if you call 911 or call 988 you’re going to get help, you’re not going to get hurt.”

    ———

    Lavoie reported from Richmond, Virginia; Monnay reported from College Park, Maryland; Rihl reported from Las Vegas. Rachel Konieczny in Phoenix and Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis also contributed reporting.

    ———

    This story is a collaboration among The Associated Press and the Howard Centers for Investigative Journalism at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism and at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. The Howard Centers are an initiative of the Scripps Howard Fund in honor of the late news industry executive and pioneer Roy W. Howard.

    Contact Arizona State’s Howard Center at howardcenter@asu.edu or on Twitter @HowardCenterASU. Contact Maryland’s Howard Center on Twitter @HowardCenterUMD.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court asked to review Mississippi voting rights case

    Supreme Court asked to review Mississippi voting rights case

    [ad_1]

    JACKSON, Miss — A Mississippi legal organization is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state’s provision permanently banning people convicted of certain felonies from voting.

    The Mississippi Center for Justice is petitioning the Supreme Court two months after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down its lawsuit challenging voting restrictions set forth in Mississippi’s 1890 state constitution. If successful, the lawsuit could grant voting rights to thousands of people permanently banned from casting ballots as a result of felony convictions.

    “At a time when our state and nation are struggling with the vestiges of a history of racism, it is important that the United States Supreme Court step in to address this remaining vestige of the malicious 1890 plan to prevent an entire race of people from voting in Mississippi,” said Rob McDuff, the attorney who brought the lawsuit for the Mississippi Center for Justice.

    Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution strips voting rights from people convicted of 10 felonies, including forgery, arson and bigamy. The state attorney general issued an opinion in 2009 that expanded the list to 22 crimes, including timber larceny, carjacking, felony-level shoplifting and felony-level bad check writing.

    Attorneys who challenged the provision had argued the authors of the state’s Jim Crow-era constitution showed racist intent when they chose which felonies would cause people to lose the right to vote, picking crimes they thought were more likely to be committed by Black people.

    The lawsuit dates back to 2017. In a news release, MCJ said it filed the suit on behalf of two Black men — Roy Harness and Kamal Karriem. Harness is a military veteran who was convicted of forgery in 1986 and Karriem is a former Columbus city council member who was convicted of embezzlement in 2005, the organization said. Both men served their sentences but still cannot vote.

    In their August ruling, a majority of 5th circuit judges said the plaintiffs “failed to meet their burden of showing that the current version of Section 241 was motivated by discriminatory intent.”

    “In addition, Mississippi has conclusively shown that any taint associated with Section 241 has been cured,” the majority wrote.

    Seven judges of the 17-member panel dissented. Judge James Graves — who is Black and from Mississippi — wrote that the majority of the appeals court had upheld “a provision enacted in 1890 that was expressly aimed at preventing Black Mississippians from voting” and that the court had done so “by concluding that a virtually all-white electorate and legislature, otherwise engaged in massive and violent resistance to the Civil Rights Movement, ‘cleansed’ that provision in 1968” by adding crimes that were considered to be race-neutral.

    In 1950, burglary was removed from the list of crimes that would strip people of voting rights. Murder and rape were added to the list in 1968. Attorneys representing Mississippi argued those changes “cured any discriminatory taint on the original provision.”

    Under the state constitution’s original provision, lesser crimes the authors thought were more likely to be committed by Black people stripped people of voting rights, while murder and rape did not.

    To regain voting rights in Mississippi now, a person convicted of a disenfranchising crime must receive a governor’s pardon or must win permission from two-thirds of the state House and Senate. Legislators in recent years have passed a small number of bills to restore voting rights.

    ———

    Michael Goldberg is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/mikergoldberg.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • AT&T Illinois to pay $23M to settle federal probe

    AT&T Illinois to pay $23M to settle federal probe

    [ad_1]

    CHICAGO — AT&T Illinois has agreed to pay a $23 million fine to resolve a federal probe into its illegal efforts to influence former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, prosecutors announced Friday.

    The U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago said in a news release that under the agreement, the company admits that it arranged to make payments to an associate of Madigan, who was one of the state’s most powerful political figures at the time, in exchange for Madigan’s help in pushing through legislation favorable to the company.

    In exchange for agreeing to pay the fine, prosecutors suspended their criminal case against the company alleging that it used an interstate facility to promote legislative misconduct. If, after two years, the company “abides by certain conditions, including continuing to cooperate with any investigation related to the misconduct alleged in the information,” the charges will be dropped.

    The announcement comes about seven months after Madigan was charged with a nearly $3 million racketeering bribery scheme. According to that indictment, Madigan used his speaker role and various other positions of power to further his alleged criminal enterprise. That indictment and Friday’s announcement mark a dramatic fall for one of the nation’s most powerful state legislators and the longest-serving state House speaker in modern U.S. history. Madigan resigned from the Legislature a year ago.

    According to prosecutors, AT&T admits that in 2017, it arranged for a Madigan ally to receive $22,500 in payments through a lobbying firm that had done work for the company. Prosecutors contend that arrangement was made to “disguise” why the ally, who didn’t work for the company, was being paid.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mississippi judge blocks private schools’ tax-funded grants

    Mississippi judge blocks private schools’ tax-funded grants

    [ad_1]

    JACKSON, Miss. — A Mississippi judge on Thursday blocked a state law that put $10 million of federal pandemic relief money into infrastructure grants for private schools.

    The ruling by Hinds County Chancery Judge Crystal Wise Martin is a victory for Parents for Public Schools. The nonprofit group sued to block the program, arguing that the funding gives private schools a competitive advantage over public schools.

    The lawsuit cites Section 208 of the Mississippi Constitution, which prohibits the use of public money for any school that is not “a free school.”

    “Any appropriation of public funds to be received by private schools adversely affects schools and their students,” Martin wrote. “Taxpayer funding for education is finite.”

    During this year’s legislative session, Mississippi’s Republican-controlled House and Senate made plans to spend most of the $1.8 billion the state is receiving from the federal government for pandemic relief.

    Republican Gov. Tate Reeves signed two bills in April. One created a grant program to help private schools pay for water, broadband and other infrastructure projects. The other allocated the $10 million of federal money for the program, starting July 1.

    The program allows grants of up to $100,000 to any in-state school that is a member of the Midsouth Association of Independent Schools and is accredited by a state, regional or national organization. Public schools cannot apply for the infrastructure grants.

    Legislators created a program to provide interest-free loans to public schools to improve buildings and other facilities, with money coming from the state. Those loans must be repaid within 10 years. The grants to private schools do not need to be repaid.

    Attorney General Lynn Fitch’s staff is reviewing the judge’s order and “evaluating next steps” of whether to appeal, chief of staff Michelle Williams said Thursday.

    The American Civil Liberties Union of Mississippi, the Mississippi Center for Justice and Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit June 15 on behalf of Parents for Public Schools, an advocacy group founded more than 30 years ago.

    Democracy Forward attorney Will Bardwell said in a statement that Martin’s ruling is “a victory for the Mississippi Constitution and every person who cares about public education in the state.”

    “When the state legislature violated the constitution by directing public money to private schools, it did more than merely continue Mississippi’s shameful history of undermining its children’s public schools. It broke the law, period,” Bardwell said. “Today’s ruling makes clear: No one, not even the Mississippi legislature, is above the law.”

    The private schools’ infrastructure grant program is overseen by the Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration. A spokeswoman for the agency said Thursday that no applications have been received and none of the money has been distributed.

    Martin noted that Mississippi’s public education system has been “chronically underfunded.” A 1997 state law established a complex funding formula called the Mississippi Adequate Education Program, which was designed to ensure schools receive enough money to meet midlevel academic standards. Legislators have fully funded the formula only two years.

    Martin noted that the same day she heard oral arguments in the case, Aug. 23, Jackson’s public Forest Hill High School had to dismiss early because of low water pressure. By Aug. 30, all of Jackson’s public schools had to go to online-only classes temporarily because problems in the city’s main water treatment plant caused most of Jackson to lose running water for a few days.

    “This court need only sit in Hinds County and take notice of current events to find that exclusive public infrastructure funding for private schools adversely affects public school students differently than the general public,” Martin wrote.

    ————

    Follow Emily Wagster Pettus on Twitter at http://twitter.com/EWagsterPettus.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • NBC reporter’s comment about Fetterman draws criticism

    NBC reporter’s comment about Fetterman draws criticism

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — An NBC News correspondent who interviewed Pennsylvania Senate candidate John Fetterman says an on-air remark she made about him having difficulty following part of their conversation should not be seen as a commentary on his fitness for office after he suffered a stroke.

    But reporter Dasha Burns’ comment that Fetterman appeared to have trouble understanding small talk prior to their interview has attracted attention — and Republicans have retweeted it as they seek an advantage in the closely followed Senate race between Fetterman and Republican Mehmet Oz.

    Fetterman, a Democrat, suffered a stroke on May 13, and his health has emerged as a major issue in the campaign.

    Burns’ Friday interview with Fetterman, which aired Tuesday, was his first on-camera interview since his stroke. He used a closed-captioning device that printed text of Burns’ questions on a computer screen in front of him.

    Fetterman appeared to have little trouble answering the questions after he read them, although NBC showed him fumbling for the word “empathetic.” Burns said that when the captioning device was off, “it wasn’t clear he was understanding our conversation.”

    “This is just nonsense,” business reporter and podcaster Kara Swisher, who had a stroke herself in 2011, said on Twitter. “Maybe this reporter is just bad at small talk.”

    Swisher recently conducted an interview with Fetterman for her podcast and said, “I was really quite impressed with how well he’s doing. Everyone can judge for themselves.” Swisher has called attacks on Fetterman because of his health “appalling.”

    A New York magazine reporter, Rebecca Traister, who interviewed the candidate for a cover story titled “The Vulnerability of John Fetterman,” tweeted that his “comprehension is not at all impaired. He understands everything. It’s just that he reads it and responds in real time … It’s a hearing/auditory challenge.”

    Burns said she understands that different reporters had different experiences with Fetterman.

    “Our reporting did not and should not comment on fitness for office,” Burns tweeted on Wednesday. “This is for voters to decide. What we push for as reporters is transparency. It’s our job.”

    Stories about the interview aired on “NBC Nightly News” and the “Today” show.

    Fetterman, 53, has been silent about releasing medical records or allowing reporters to question his doctors. He’s been receiving speech therapy and released a letter in June from his cardiologist, who said he will be fine and able to serve in the Senate if he eats healthy foods, takes prescribed medication and exercises.

    Problems with understanding and using language are common in recovering stroke victims, said Kevin Sheth, director of the Yale University Center for Brain and Mind Health. Some completely recover, some have continued impairments, he said.

    “There is an arc to the trajectory of recovery that varies from person to person,” Sheth said.

    But he cautioned that, without an examination, people should not make judgments about Fetterman’s condition based on his use of a language-assistance device.

    Burns’ statement about Fetterman has already been tweeted by political opponents, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican National Committee.

    The conservative website Townhall.com tweeted Burns’ quote, without making clear she had been referring to small talk and not the interview itself.

    Doug Andres, press secretary for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, tweeted that it was weird to see liberals attack a reporter for doing her job.

    “It’s almost like that whole thing about respecting and trusting the media is only true when it’s convenient for them,” he wrote.

    Swisher said in her podcast that her mother, a Pennsylvania resident, told her she didn’t think Fetterman should be in the U.S. Senate after suffering a stroke — even though her own daughter had recovered from one.

    Swisher said producers of the podcast refrained from cleaning up Fetterman’s interview — such as removing extraneous phrases like “um” or “you know” — so listeners could get an unvarnished view of how Fetterman responded to questions.

    In the podcast, Fetterman had little trouble with the word “empathy.”

    “Listen to the interview,” Swisher tweeted this week. “Even my rabidly GOP mother had to admit she was wrong.”

    ———

    Associated Press correspondent Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Newsom to call special legislative session over gas prices

    Newsom to call special legislative session over gas prices

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday he will call a special session of the state Legislature in December to pass a new tax on oil company profits to punish them for what he called “rank price gouging.”

    Gas prices soared across the nation this summer because of high inflation, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and ongoing disruptions in the global supply chain.

    But while gas prices have recovered somewhat nationwide, they have continued to spike in California, hitting an average of $6.39 per gallon on Friday — $2.58 higher than the national average, according to AAA.

    California has the second-highest gas tax in the country and other environmental rules that increase the cost of fuel in the nation’s most populous state. Still, Newsom said there is “nothing to justify” a price difference of more than $2.50 per gallon between California’s gas and prices in other states.

    “It’s time to get serious. I’m sick of this,” Newsom said. “We’ve been too timid.”

    The oil industry has pointed to California’s environmental laws and regulations to explain why the state routinely has higher gas prices than the rest of the country. Kevin Slagle, vice president of the Western States Petroleum Association, said Newsom and state lawmakers should “take a hard look at decades of California energy policy” instead of proposing a new tax.

    “If this was anything other than a political stunt, the Governor wouldn’t wait two months and would call the special session now, before the election,” Slagle said. “This industry is ready right now to work on real solutions to energy costs and reliability — if that is what the Governor is truly interested in.”

    Several states chose to suspend their gas taxes this summer, including Maryland, New York and Georgia. Newsom and his fellow Democrats that control the state Legislature refused to do that, opting instead to send $9.5 billion in rebates to taxpayers — which began showing up in bank accounts this week.

    It’s unclear how the tax Newsom is proposing would work. Newsom said he is still working out the details with legislative leaders, but on Friday said he wants the money to be “returned to taxpayers,” possibly by using money from the tax to pay for more rebates.

    The state Legislature briefly considered a proposal earlier this year that would have imposed a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies’ gross receipts when the price of a gallon of gasoline was “abnormally high compared to the price of a barrel of oil.”

    That proposal would have required state regulators to determine the tax rate, making sure it recovered any oil companies’ profit margins that exceeded 30 cents per gallon. The money from the tax would then have been returned to taxpayers via rebates.

    Newsom did not comment on that proposal when it was introduced in March, and lawmakers quickly shelved it. It could, however, act as a blueprint for the new proposal being negotiated between Newsom and legislative leaders.

    The Legislature’s top two leaders — Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon — said in a joint statement that lawmakers “will continue to examine all other options to help consumers.”

    “A solution that takes excessive profits out of the hands of oil corporations and puts money back into the hands of consumers deserves strong consideration by the Legislature,” they said. “We look forward to examining the Governor’s detailed proposal when we receive it.”

    California Republicans — who do not control enough seats to influence policy decisions in the Legislature — have called the tax “foolhardy.”

    “Who here thinks that another tax is going to bring down your gas prices? Is going to bring down any costs in this state? It’s not going to happen,” Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher told reporters on Wednesday.

    Last month, regulators at the California Energy Commission wrote a letter to five oil refiners — Chevron, Marathon Petroleum, PBF Energy, Phillips 66 and Valero — demanding an explanation for why gas prices jumped 84 cents over a 10-day period even as oil prices fell. The commission wrote that the oil industry had “not provided an adequate and transparent explanation for this price spike, which is causing real economic hardship to millions of Californians.”

    On Friday, Scott Folwarkow, Valero’s vice president for state government affairs, responded that “California is the most expensive operating environment in the country and a very hostile regulatory environment for refining.” He said that has caused refineries to close and tightened supply because California requires refineries to produce a specific fuel blend.

    He declined to provide details about the company’s operations based on the same anti-trust concerns. But he said the company makes appropriate arrangements to source supply when some refineries are down for maintenance.

    Newsom dismissed those arguments, saying that still doesn’t account for a $2.50 difference between California’s gas prices and those in the rest of the country.

    “These guys are playing us for fools. They have for decades,” Newsom said.

    The California Legislature usually meets between January and August, where they consider bills on a variety of topics. The governor has the power to call a special legislative session at any time by issuing a proclamation. When convened in a special session, lawmakers can only consider the issues mentioned in that proclamation.

    The last time a California governor called a special legislative session was in 2015, when then-Gov. Jerry Brown asked lawmakers to pass bills about health care and transportation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Drug gang kills 20 in attack on city hall in southern Mexico

    Drug gang kills 20 in attack on city hall in southern Mexico

    [ad_1]

    SAN MIGUEL TOTOLAPAN, Mexico — A drug gang shot to death 20 people, including a mayor and his father, in the mountains of the southern Mexico state of Guerrero, officials said Thursday.

    Residents began burying the victims even as a video posted on social media showed men who identified themselves as the Tequileros gang claiming responsibility for the mass shooting.

    The Guerrero state security council said gunmen burst into the town hall in the village of San Miguel Totolapan Wednesday and opened fire on a meeting the mayor was holding with other officials.

    Among the dead were Mayor Conrado Mendoza and his father, Juan Mendoza Acosta, a former mayor of the town. Most of the other victims were believed to be local officials.

    The walls of the town hall, which were surrounded by children’s fair rides at the time, were left riddled with bullets. Totolapan is geographically large but sparsely populated mountainous township in a region known as Tierra Caliente, one of Mexico’s most conflict-ridden areas.

    There were so many victims that a backhoe was brought into the town’s cemetery to scoop out graves as residents began burying their dead Thursday. By midday, two bodies had already been buried and 10 more empty pits stood waiting.

    A procession of about 100 residents singing hymns walked solemnly behind a truck carrying the coffin of one man killed in the shooting. Once they neared the cemetery, several men hoisted the coffin out of the truck and walked with it the waiting grave. Dozens of soldiers were posted at the entrance to the town.

    Ricardo Mejia, Mexico’s assistant secretary of public safety, said the Tequileros are fighting the Familia Michoacana gang in the region and that the authenticity of the video was being verified.

    “This act occurred in the context of a dispute between criminal gangs,” Mejia said. “A group known as the Tequileros dominated the region for some time; it was a group that mainly smuggled and distributed opium, but also engaged in kidnapping, extortion and several killings in the region.”

    Totolapan was controlled for years by drug gang boss Raybel Jacobo de Almonte, known by his nickname as “El Tequilero” (“The Tequila Drinker”).

    In his only known public appearance, de Almonte was captured on video drinking with the elder Mendoza, who was then the town’s mayor-elect, in 2015. It was not clear if the elder Mendoza was there of his own free will, or had been forced to attend the meeting.

    In that video, de Almonte appeared so drunk he mumbled inaudibly and had to be held up in a sitting position by one of his henchmen.

    In 2016, Totolapan locals got so fed up with abductions by the Tequileros that they kidnapped the gang leader’s mother to leverage the release of others.

    While the Tequileros long depended on trafficking opium paste from local poppy growers, the growing use of the synthetic opioid fentanyl had reduced the demand for opium paste and lowered the level of violence in Guerrero.

    Also Wednesday, in the neighboring state of Morelos, a state lawmaker was shot to death in the city of Cuernavaca, south of Mexico City.

    Two armed men traveling on a motorcycle fatally shot state Deputy Gabriela Marín as she exited a vehicle outside a pharmacy. A person with Marín was reportedly wounded in the attack.

    “Based on the information we have, we cannot rule out a motive related to politics,” Mejia said of that killing. “The deceased, Gabriela Marín, had just taken office as a legislator in July, after another member of the legislature died, and there were several legal disputes concerning the seat.”

    The killing of Mendoza brought to 18 the number of mayors slain during the administration of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and the number of state lawmakers to eight, according to data from Etellekt Consultores.

    Mexico’s Congress this week is debating the president’s proposal to extend the military’s policing duties to 2028. Last month, lawmakers approved López Obrador’s push to transfer the ostensibly civilian National Guard to military control.

    While attacks on public officials are not uncommon in Mexico, these come at a time when the López Obrador’s security strategy is being sharply debated. The president has placed tremendous responsibility in the armed forces rather than civilian police for reining in Mexico’s persistently high levels of violence. He pledged to continue, saying “we have to go on doing the same things, because it has brought results.”

    López Obrador sought to blame previous administrations for Mexico’s persistent problem of violence.

    “These are (criminal) organizations that have been there for a long time, that didn’t spring up in this administration,” López Obrador said. He also blamed local people in the Tierra Caliente region for supporting the gangs — and sometimes even electing them to office.

    “There are still communities that protect these groups, and even vote them into office as authorities,” the president said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Arizona weighing in-state tuition rate for some non-citizens

    Arizona weighing in-state tuition rate for some non-citizens

    [ad_1]

    PHOENIX — Arizona voters this November will decide whether to allow students regardless of their immigration status to obtain financial aid and cheaper in-state tuition at state universities and community colleges.

    At least 18 states, including California and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia now offer in-state tuition to all students who otherwise qualify regardless of status, according to a website that tracks higher education and immigration data.

    But there has been little past voter support in Arizona for granting in-state tuition, which is about a third of the rate for out-of-state undergraduate students, to those who arrived in the United States without approval, even if they attended high school in the state for years. Voters in 2006 overwhelmingly approved a proposition that prevented students who entered the U.S. without authorization from getting in-state tuition and other financial benefits.

    The current proposal known as Proposition 308, which was referred to this year’s Nov. 8 ballot by Arizona’s Legislature, would repeal some parts of the earlier initiative and allow all students including non-citizens to receive in-tuition rates as long as they graduated from and attended public or private high school or the home school equivalent for two years in Arizona.

    Tens of thousands of immigrant students could potentially benefit from the proposition in a state where an estimated 275,000 migrants are living without authorization.

    Arizona Republican State Sen. Paul Boyer introduced the measure for the ballot and it was passed by both houses. But a majority of Republicans opposed it.

    “They’re here illegally,” Republican state Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita said last month during a televised debate on the initiative. “And while I very much sympathize with so-called Dreamers or individuals who no fault of their own have been brought to this country, the reality is their immigration status does not qualify them for in-state tuition.”

    Reyna Montoya, CEO of Aliento, a community organization led by immigrant youth, argued for the initiative, saying that students and their parents had been paying taxes for years.

    “It’s about fairness and giving a pathway for education,” she said during the debate.

    The Arizona Board of Regents this spring approved base in-state undergraduate tuition of $10,978 for the 2022-2023 school year and a $29,952 base tuition rate for out-of-state undergraduate students.

    Luis Acosta, who was born in Mexico, has argued for Proposition 308, saying he was forced to seek a university education in Iowa because he could not afford the higher costs in Arizona, where he had lived his entire life after arriving at age 2. He graduated in Iowa with a bachelor’s degree in international studies and English.

    Diego Diaz, a junior at Arizona State University, was brought to the U.S. by his family when he was 4. He said higher out-of-state tuition costs created an economic burden.

    “I’m currently having to take a break from school to get finances under check,” Diaz said at a September news conference promoting the proposition.

    Some Arizona business owners say it makes sense to make sure the smartest young people remain and seek jobs in the state, no matter what their immigration status.

    “We need more talented workers with degrees and we have now more than ever,” John Graham, chairman and CEO of Sunbelt Holdings, said at the news conference. “That is why I’m supporting this initiative.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Attackers kill 18 in attack on city hall in southern Mexico

    Attackers kill 18 in attack on city hall in southern Mexico

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — Attackers gunned down a mayor, his father and 16 other people in the southern Mexico state of Guerrero on Wednesday, authorities said.

    State Attorney General Sandra Luz Valdovinos told Milenio television late Wednesday that 18 people were killed and two were wounded in the town of San Miguel Totolapan. Among the dead were Mayor Conrado Mendoza and his father, a former mayor of the town, she said. Two additional people were wounded.

    Images from the scene showed a bullet-riddled city hall.

    Later Wednesday, in the neighboring state of Morelos, a state lawmaker was shot to death in the city of Cuernavaca south of Mexico City.

    While attacks on public officials are not uncommon in Mexico, these come at a time when the security strategy of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is being sharply debated. The president has placed tremendous responsibility on the armed forces rather than civilian police for reining in Mexico’s persistently high levels of violence.

    San Miguel Totolapan is a remote township in Tierra Caliente, which is one of Mexico’s most conflict-ridden areas, disputed by multiple drug trafficking gangs.

    In 2016, Totolapan locals fed up with abductions by the local gang “Los Tequileros” kidnapped the gang leader’s mother to leverage the release of others.

    In Cuernavaca, Morelos State Attorney General Uriel Carmona said two armed men traveling on a motorcycle fatally shot state Deputy Gabriela Marín as she exited a vehicle.

    Local outlets said Marín, a member of the Morelos Progress party, was killed at a pharmacy in Cuernavaca. A person with Marín was reportedly wounded in the attack.

    Morelos Gov. Cuauhtémoc Blanco condemned the attack and said via Twitter that security forces were deployed in search of the attackers.

    The deaths of Mendoza and Marín brought the number of mayors killed during López Obrador’s administration to 18 and the number of state lawmakers to eight, according to data from Etellekt Consultores.

    Mexico’s Congress this week is debating the president’s proposal to extend the military’s policing duties to 2028. Last month, lawmakers approved López Obrador’s push to transfer the ostensibly civilian National Guard to military control.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • W.Va. Supreme Court hears arguments in school voucher case

    W.Va. Supreme Court hears arguments in school voucher case

    [ad_1]

    CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A voucher program that would provide West Virginia parents state money to pull their children out of K-12 public schools is blatantly unconstitutional and would disproportionately impact poor children and those with disabilities, a lawyer representing parents who sued the state argued Tuesday in West Virginia’s Supreme Court.

    The Hope Scholarship Program, which was passed by the GOP-controlled state legislature last year and would have been one of the most far-reaching school choice programs in the country, “negatively and intentionally” impacts West Virginia’s system of free schools, lawyer Tamerlin Godley told justices during oral arguments.

    “It decreases enrollment, and thus funding,” said Godley, who is representing two parents of children who receive special education supports in West Virginia public schools. “It utilizes public funding for subsidizing more affluent families that have chosen private and homeschooling and it silos the poor and special needs children who cannot use the vouchers.”

    Signed by Republican Gov. Jim Justice last year, the program was set to go into effect this school year but was blocked by Circuit Court Judge Joanna Tabit in July. In a lawsuit supported by the West Virginia Board of Education and Superintendent of Schools, three parents of special education students said the scholarship program takes money away from already underfunded public schools and is prohibitive because there aren’t local private schools that could meet their children’s needs. One family has since withdrawn from the case.

    The state immediately appealed the ruling. It’s unclear when justices will make a decision on the program, although the court’s current term ends in November.

    The law that created the Hope Scholarship Program allows families to apply for state funding to support private school tuition, homeschooling fees and a wide range of other expenses. More than 3,000 students had been approved to receive around $4,300 each during the program’s inaugural cycle, according to the West Virginia State Treasurer’s Office.

    Families could not receive the money if their children were already homeschooled or attending private school. To qualify, students had to have been enrolled in a West Virginia public school last year or set to begin kindergarten this school year.

    Supporters of the scholarship say the program would actually help low-income families that want an alternative to public education but couldn’t otherwise afford to make the change. The Hope Scholarship Program gives West Virginians “the same choice that wealthier families have always enjoyed—the right to choose the best education for their children,” Institute for Justice Attorney Joe Gay argued in January when parents first filed their lawsuit against the state.

    The Institute for Justice, which has defended educational choice programs in courts across the U.S., is representing at least one parent who intervened in the case in support of the program.

    Solicitor General Lindsay See argued Tuesday in court that state legislatures have discretion in making laws, unlike a state agency, which “can only do the things the Constitution or statute specifically says it can.”

    “Public schools are critically important, but the Legislature was not out of bounds for concluding that West Virginia families should have access to other options to based on their children’s individual needs,” she said.

    See said the program would result in a loss of funding for public schools — but not enough of a decrease that school districts will not be able to “perform their constitutionally mandated functions.”

    “That’s for the simple reason that decreased revenue from one year to another is not enough on its own to prove that a company or state or a school district is going to run a deficit,” she said. “Certainly, some costs are going to go down as students leave a particular public school. That decrease may not be one to one, but it’s not zero to one.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mormon leader calls abuse ‘abomination’ amid policy scrutiny

    Mormon leader calls abuse ‘abomination’ amid policy scrutiny

    [ad_1]

    SALT LAKE CITY — Russell M. Nelson, the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, told members of the faith on Saturday that abuse was “a grievous sin” that shouldn’t be tolerated and would bring down the wrath of God on perpetrators.

    Though the leader of the nearly 17-million member faith did not mention it directly, the remarks were the first on abuse from a senior church leader since The Associated Press published an investigation into how the church handles reports of sexual abuse when brought to its attention.

    “Let me be perfectly clear: any kind of abuse of women, children, or anyone is an abomination to the Lord,” Nelson told members of the faith gathered in Salt Lake City for its twice-yearly conference.

    The AP’s investigation found the hotline the church uses for abuse reporting can be misused by its leaders to divert accusations away from law enforcement and toward church attorneys. The story, based on sealed records and court cases filed in Arizona and West Virginia, uncovered a host of concerns, including how church officials have cited exemptions to mandatory reporting laws, known as clergy-penitent privilege, as reason to not report abuse.

    Since its publication, the church has said the investigation mischaracterizes its policies, while underlining how its teachings condemn abuse in the strongest terms.

    The church has historically used its conference to set a tone for its members, reflect on current events and announce changes in doctrine. Nelson’s remarks on Saturday echoed the statements the church has released since the publication of the AP’s investigation — condemning abuse, while also defending the church’s policies.

    “For decades now, the Church has taken extensive measures to protect — in particular — children from abuse,” Nelson, the church’s 98-year-old president, said sitting on a stool behind a conference center lectern, imploring listeners to research church policy themselves.

    Nelson described abuse as an influence of “the adversary,” employing a term the church frequently uses to describe forces that oppose the gospel and its teachings.

    Amid the church’s insistence that reporting mischaracterizes its sexual abuse hotline, Nelson also said “the adversary” worked “to blur the line between what is true and what is not true.”

    Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe Nelson is a prophet.

    This weekend’s event, which runs Saturday and Sunday, is broadcast to members around the world.

    [ad_2]

    Source link