ReportWire

Tag: us political parties

  • Joe Biden’s latest gaffe plays right into Republicans’ hands | CNN Politics

    Joe Biden’s latest gaffe plays right into Republicans’ hands | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden once called himself a “gaffe machine” – and his latest slip-up is a whopper.

    Speaking at the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health on Wednesday, Biden tried to acknowledge the presence of Rep. Jackie Walorski – despite the fact that the Indiana Republican had died in a car accident in early August.

    “Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie? I think she wasn’t going to be here – to help make this a reality,” Biden said.

    The White House sought to play off the odd moment as nothing more than Walorski being “top of mind” for Biden.

    “There will be a bill signing in her honor this coming Friday, so, of course, she was on his mind,” said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. “She was top of mind for the President.”

    Which, sure. Everyone make mistakes.

    But that’s a pretty big mistake to make. And unfortunately for Biden, it plays into a caricature that Republicans – led by former President Donald Trump – have long been painting of him.

    “This guy doesn’t have a clue. He doesn’t know where the hell he is,” Trump said of Biden during the 2020 campaign. “This guy doesn’t know he’s alive.”

    At another point, Trump said: “Biden is shot. I’m telling you he’s shot. There’s something going on.”

    Biden’s overall health didn’t play much of a role in the 2020 election, however. Forty-one percent of voters in the 2020 election exit poll said that only Biden had the mental and physical health to serve as president. The same number – 41% – said that only Trump had the mental and physical stamina to do the job. Another 8% said neither did.

    In 2021, amid the bungled US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Tennessee Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty suggested that the handling of the situation “created doubt not only in my mind, in the mind of many, many Americans, but also doubt in the minds of our allies” regarding Biden’s ability to do the job.

    Earlier this year, Kansas GOP Sen. Roger Marshall, a physician, suggested that Biden should submit to yearly cognitive testing. “I think we’re all concerned for President Biden’s mental health,” Marshall said at the time. He added that he felt he had seen a “deterioration” in Biden’s mental health over the past year.

    Here’s what we know for facts: Biden is 79 years old. He is the oldest person ever to be elected to a first term as president and, if he runs for a second term, will be the oldest person to do that too. His most recent physical was last November. At that time, the White House doctor said that Biden “remains fit for duty, and fully executes all of his responsibilities without any exemptions or accommodations.”

    What we also know is that Biden’s age is an issue for voters well beyond the hardcore Republican base.

    In a New York Times/Siena College poll conducted over the summer, Biden’s age was a leading factor among Democratic voters who said they preferred the party nominate someone else for president in 2024.

    As The New York Times noted in a July story on Biden’s age, citing more than a dozen current and former senior officials and advisers:

    “[T]hey acknowledged Mr. Biden looks older than just a few years ago, a political liability that cannot be solved by traditional White House stratagems like staff shake-ups or new communications plans. His energy level, while impressive for a man of his age, is not what it was, and some aides quietly watch out for him. He often shuffles when he walks, and aides worry he will trip on a wire. He stumbles over words during public events, and they hold their breath to see if he makes it to the end without a gaffe.”

    On Wednesday, Biden didn’t make it to the end without a gaffe.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Israel’s instability matters to the US | CNN Politics

    Why Israel’s instability matters to the US | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

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



    CNN
     — 

    The pictures from Israel are incredible: seas of protesters rising up across the country.

    A general strike interrupted daily life and threatens to cripple the economy.

    The country’s defense minister has been sacked by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    The flashpoint for all of this is Netanyahu’s controversial plan to change the country’s judicial system, weaken its Supreme Court and give Israel’s parliament – the Knesset, which is currently controlled by his government – more say over appointing justices.

    Netanyahu’s government acknowledged the pushback and hit a monthlong pause on that judicial overhaul plan late Monday, perhaps trying to cool things down without abandoning the plan.

    Read updates from throughout Monday.

    Frustration with the court extends beyond Netanyahu, but his effort just so happens to coincide with his trial for corruption. Netanyahu denies any wrongdoing and any link between the judicial changes and his trial – but not everyone takes his denials at face value.

    “He’s embraced this judicial reform movement – it’s actually a revolution movement – to try to give him the ability to stack … the Supreme Court in a way that people, Israelis generally, suspect is designed to protect him from the consequences of the prosecution, the trial that he’s now going through,” former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk noted on CNN on Monday.

    “So, it looks like it’s more of a personal agenda than a national agenda that he’s pursuing.”

    Netanyahu has defended the plan, which he argued in a recent interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper maintains the judiciary’s independence without allowing it to be “unbridled.”

    Indyk noted that other members of Netanyahu’s ruling coalition have their own reasons for wanting to overhaul the country’s Supreme Court.

    Far-right allies of Netanyahu don’t want the court to protect Palestinian land rights in the West Bank, Indyk said, and religious parties don’t want the court to force their orthodox religious students to serve in the army like other Israelis.

    CNN’s Hadas Gold, who has been reporting all day from the protests, has an in-depth look at the judicial overhaul effort, who supports it and why it has created so much controversy. Read her story.

    The protests have been building for months, but it is a general strike that shut down daily life and the firing by Netanyahu of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant that appear to have changed the situation.

    “It’s clear that he’s lost control of the country,” Indyk said. “There’s never been a general strike like this, which is shutting down the ports, the airport, the hospitals, schools.”

    Netanyahu has few options to pull back from the judicial overhaul plan, Amir Tibon, a senior editor at the Haaretz newspaper, said on CNN International on Monday.

    “On the one hand, he’s got a coalition that is based purely on Israel’s right wing, ultra-religious, far-right nationalistic political elements,” Tibon said, noting that those elements have long wanted to curb the power of the Supreme Court, which they see as a liberalizing force in Israel that has pushed for LGBTQ and women’s rights in the country.

    “On the other hand, the people protesting in the streets in Israel against this judicial overhaul, this is really the backbone of the Israeli economy,” Tibon said. “It’s the high-tech industry, it’s academia, a lot of people are from the high ranks of the military.”

    Gallant, before his firing, warned the country’s military could dissolve if there is a perception it is sliding away from democracy.

    Tibon envisioned another flare-up in a month if the judicial overhaul plan returns, and worried that the Knesset could be on a collision course with the courts.

    “Israel’s enemies are watching this and rubbing their hands in glee,” Indyk said. “And that affects American national security interests as well because we depend on Israel to stabilize the region.”

    President Joe Biden, who Indyk noted has a long history with Netanyahu, “needs to adopt the ‘friends don’t let friends drive drunk’ approach, put his arm around Bibi (a commonly used nickname for Netanyahu) and say, listen old pal, you need to back off and you need to do it quickly – not just for the sake of Israel, which we care about deeply. But also for the sake of American national security interests.”

    Netanyahu may bristle at Americans trying to influence the judicial overhaul plan, but he has similarly gotten involved in domestic US politics. He actively campaigned in the US against the Iran nuclear deal during the Obama administration and got very close to former President Donald Trump, who ended it. The relationship between Trump and Netanyahu has since soured.

    Efforts by the Biden administration to reinstate the deal have so far failed.

    The US subsidizes Israel’s security to the tune of billions of dollars. In addition to a 10-year agreement to give Israel $3.3 billion in financing annually, the US also spends $500 million per year on the country’s missile defense system. In fact, Israel is “the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II,” according to a recent Congressional Research Service report.

    Biden, like most US politicians, likes to say that US support for Israel is absolute, but there is growing frustration with Israel among his Democratic Party.

    In fact, Democrats’ sympathies are now more likely to lay with Palestinians over Israel for the first time since Gallup started tracking the issue in 2001. That shift is driven mostly by young Americans – millennials born between 1980 and 2000.

    There is more vocal opposition to Israel’s policy moves among Democratic lawmakers.

    “What Bibi is doing is alarming, appalling, and perilous for the relationship between our two countries,” Sen. Brian Schatz, the Hawaii Democrat, said on Twitter. “We stand for democracy.”

    The Biden administration is set to convene its second virtual summit to promote democracy this week, an incredible coincidence as it watches a key democracy struggle. Israel has been invited to participate, and Netanyahu is scheduled to partake in the summit on Wednesday, though he is not listed on the public schedule of the event. US officials familiar with the planning told CNN’s White House team that there are no plans to change Netanyahu’s participation in the event as of now.

    Ultimately, the stakes are much larger than the judicial overhaul push that has set the recent events off.

    “It’s about what is the nature of Israel,” the former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Monday. “Will Israel remain a Jewish democratic state or (become) a nondemocratic … dictatorship or more religious country.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The 10 Senate seats most likely to flip in 2024 | CNN Politics

    The 10 Senate seats most likely to flip in 2024 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Opportunity is ripe for Republicans to win back the Senate next year – if they can land the candidates to pull it off.

    The GOP needs a net gain of one or two seats to flip the chamber, depending on which party wins the White House in 2024, and it’s Democrats who are defending the tougher seats. Democrats hold seven of the 10 seats that CNN ranks as most likely to flip party control next year – and the top three are all in states former President Donald Trump carried twice.

    But this spring’s recruitment season, coming on the heels of a midterm cycle marred by problematic GOP candidates, will likely go a long way toward determining how competitive the Senate map is next year.

    National Republicans got a top pick last week, with Gov. Jim Justice announcing his Senate bid in West Virginia – the seat most likely to flip party control in 2024. (Rankings are based on CNN’s reporting, fundraising figures and historical data about how states and candidates have performed.) But Justice appears headed for a contentious and expensive primary. And in many other top races, the GOP hasn’t yet landed any major candidates.

    Democrats, meanwhile, are thankful that most of their vulnerable incumbents are running for reelection, while a high-profile House member has largely cleared the field for one of their open Senate seats.

    Pollster asked Democrats who they like for 2024. Here’s what he found

    The unknown remains West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin. Responding to Justice’s candidacy, Manchin – who has said he’ll decide about running by the end of the year – had this to say to CNN about a potentially messy GOP primary: “Let the games begin.”

    The anti-tax Club for Growth’s political arm has already committed to spending $10 million to back West Virginia Rep. Alex Mooney in the GOP primary. And tensions between the club, which has turned against Trump, and more establishment Republicans could become a feature of several top Senate races this cycle, especially with the National Republican Senatorial Committee weighing more aggressive involvement in primaries to weed out candidates it doesn’t think can win general elections.

    In the 2022 cycle, most of Trump’s handpicked candidates in swing states stumbled in the general election. But the former president picked up a key endorsement this week from NRSC Chair Steve Daines. The Montana Republican has stayed close with Trump, CNN has previously reported, in a bid to ensure he’s aligned with leadership.

    Democrats defending tough seats have previously used GOP primaries to their advantage. Manchin survived in 2018 in part because his opponent was state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. That wasn’t an accident. Democrats had spent big attacking one of his primary opponents to keep him out of the general election.

    Last year’s midterms underscored that candidates really do matter after Republicans failed to harness favorable national winds in some key races. In a presidential year, the national environment is likely to loom large, especially with battleground states hosting key Senate races. It will also test whether some of the last remaining senators who represent states that back the opposite parties’ presidential nominees can hold on.

    President Joe Biden, who carried half of the states on this list in 2020, made official last week that he’s running for reelection. The GOP presidential field is slowly growing, with Trump still dominating most primary polling. It’s too early to know, however, what next year’s race for the White House will look like or which issues, whether it’s abortion or crime or the economy, will resonate.

    So for now, the parties are focused on what they can control: candidates. Even though the 2024 map is stacked in their favor, Republicans can’t win with nobody. But there’s plenty of time for would-be senators to get into these races. Some filing deadlines – in Arizona, for example – aren’t for nearly another year. And there’s an argument to be made that well-funded or high-profile names have no reason to get in early.

    Here’s where the Senate map stands 18 months from Election Day.

    Incumbent: Democrat Joe Manchin

    joe manchin 2024 senate race

    Sen. Joe Manchin isn’t one to shy away from attention – and he’s getting plenty of it by keeping everyone guessing about his reelection plans. Assuming he runs, Democrats will have a fighting chance to defend this seat in a state Trump carried by 39 points in 2020. The senator has repeatedly broken with the White House – on Biden’s first veto and the White House’s debt ceiling stance, for example.

    Without Manchin, Democrats know West Virginia is all but lost. Manchin raised only $371,000 in this year’s first fundraising quarter, which ended March 31, and Republicans are already attacking him, with One Nation – the issue advocacy group aligned with Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell – launching an ad campaign tying him to the Inflation Reduction Act. (The senator went on Fox News last week and threatened to back a repeal of his own bill.) Still, Manchin has nearly $10 million in the bank, as well as outside cover from Democratic-allied groups.

    Republicans will likely be spending quite a lot of time and money attacking each other in the primary. The Club for Growth’s political arm is backing House Freedom Caucus member Alex Mooney, while Gov. Jim Justice will likely have backup from GOP party leaders. The wealthy governor, who was first elected as a Democrat before switching parties in 2017, has high name ID and is close with Trump. Mooney also has Trumpian credentials, having won a member-on-member House primary last year with the former president’s endorsement. The congressman is already attacking the governor in an ad as “Liberal Jim Justice,” using imagery of his opponent in a face mask.

    Incumbent: Democrat Jon Tester

    jon tester 2024 senate race

    Democrats got welcome news with Sen. Jon Tester’s announcement that he’s running for a fourth term – and that he raised $5 million in the first quarter (more than a million of which came from small-dollar donors). Tester is running in Trump country – Montana backed the former president by 16 points in 2020 – but like Manchin he has a well-established brand to draw on, which includes breaking with Biden when he needs to. (Tester also voted for a GOP resolution to roll back a Biden administration ESG investing rule, which prompted the president’s first veto.) The GOP field is still taking shape. Republicans are interested in retired Navy SEAL Tim Sheehy, a businessman with the potential to self-fund, and state Attorney General Austin Knudsen.

    Another potential candidate is Rep. Matt Rosendale, who lost to Tester in 2018 after winning the GOP nomination with the help of the Club for Growth, which has recently been at odds with Trump. Rosendale made a telling appearance at Mar-a-Lago in April for Trump’s post-indictment speech after snubbing the former president’s pick for House speaker in January when he didn’t back Kevin McCarthy. The congressman hasn’t said yet whether he’s running, but he raised only about $127,000 in the first quarter of the year – well short of what he’d need for a competitive Senate bid.

    Incumbent: Democrat Sherrod Brown

    sherrod brown 2024 senate race

    Sen. Sherrod Brown is the only Democrat to win a nonjudicial statewide race in Ohio over the past decade, so the big question for 2024 is whether he can defy expectations again in his red-trending state. Trump has twice carried the Buckeye State by 8 points, and his handpicked candidate, JD Vance, defeated Democrat Tim Ryan by about 6 points in last year’s Senate race despite the Republican’s campaign struggles.

    Brown is much more of an institution in Ohio than Ryan, and he’s built up relationships not just among White working-class communities but urban centers too. He raised $3.6 million in the first quarter of the year. Two wealthy Republicans are in the race to try to take him on – businessman Bernie Moreno, whom Trump has praised, and state Sen. Matt Dolan, whose family owns the Cleveland Guardians baseball team. Both men ran for Senate in 2022, but Moreno dropped out ahead of the primary. Dolan, who ran as a moderate conservative less than enthralled with Trump and his election lies, finished third in a crowded field. Rep. Warren Davidson and Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose could also jump into this year’s GOP race.

    Incumbent: Independent Kyrsten Sinema

    kyrsten sinema 2024 senate race

    Arizona has the potential to be one of the most interesting races this cycle, but a lot depends on whether Democratic-turned-independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema runs for reelection. Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego, who’s running to her left, outraised the incumbent $3.8 million to $2.1 million in the first quarter. Sinema has a clear cash-on-hand advantage – nearly $10 million to Gallego’s $2.7 million.

    Earlier this month, Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb became the first major Republican to enter the race, leaning into a law enforcement message. But the filing deadline isn’t until next April, so there’s still plenty of time for others to jump in. Some Republicans are anxious about the potential entry of Kari Lake, last year’s losing gubernatorial nominee, who still maintains she won. She’d likely be popular with the base in a state that’s become a hotbed of election denialism, but her candidacy could pose a serious risk for the party in a general election. The NRSC recently pushed her to move away from election conspiracy theories, CNN reported.

    Former attorney general nominee Abe Hamadeh and Karrin Taylor Robson, who lost last year’s gubernatorial primary to Lake, have also met with NRSC officials, CNN reported. Also in the mix could be Republican businessman Jim Lamon, who lost the party nod for the state’s other Senate seat last year. Republicans would like to see Sinema run because she and Gallego would likely split the vote on the left. But they’ve got their work cut out from them in landing a candidate who can appeal to the GOP base without alienating the general electorate in a state that narrowly backed Biden in 2020.

    Incumbent: Democrat Jacky Rosen

    jacky rosen 2024 senate race

    Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen is, as expected, running for reelection, touting her middle-class roots and bipartisan legislative wins in an announcement video in April. “Nevada is always a battleground,” the senator says – a reminder that Democrats don’t want to take this state for granted. Rosen was first elected in 2018 – a midterm year – by 5 points. Last fall, her Democratic colleague, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, defeated former state Attorney General Adam Laxalt by less than a point.

    The state tends to get bluer in presidential years, but Biden and Hillary Clinton both carried it only by about 2 points. Republicans don’t yet have a major name in the race, but they’re watching two defeated candidates from last year – Army veteran Sam Brown, who lost the GOP Senate nod, and attorney April Becker, who lost a bid for a redrawn House seat.

    Incumbent: Democrat Tammy Baldwin

    tammy baldwin 2024 senate race

    Sen. Tammy Baldwin announced earlier this month that she’s running for a third term, giving Democrats an automatic advantage for now over Republicans, who have no declared candidates in this perennial battleground state. Baldwin raised $2.1 million in the first quarter, ending with nearly $4 million in the bank.

    Establishment Republicans have expressed strong interest in Rep. Mike Gallagher. Even Rep. Tom Tiffany, who recently bought Senate web domain names, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he thought his fellow congressman should run. But there’s little sign that Gallagher, the chair of the new House select committee on the Chinese Communist Party, is interested. Two businessmen with the ability to tap into or raise significant resources could be in the mix – Eric Hovde, who lost the GOP Senate nomination in 2012, and Scott Mayer. And then there’s controversial former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who could draw support in a GOP primary but seriously complicate a general election for Republicans.

    Democrats are feeling good about the recent state Supreme Court election, which the Democratic-backed candidate won by 10 points, flipping control of the bench to liberals. Still, the competitiveness of this state – which Biden carried by about half a point after Trump had won it by a similar margin four years earlier – shouldn’t be underestimated.

    Incumbent: Democrat Debbie Stabenow (retiring)

    debbie stabenow 2024 senate race

    Rep. Elissa Slotkin has mostly cleared the Democratic field of major rivals in the race to succeed retiring Democrat Debbie Stabenow in another Midwestern battleground state. A few less-known names are in, and actor Hill Harper – of “The Good Doctor” and “CSI: NY” – could throw his hat in the Democratic ring, but it’ll be hard to rival Slotkin’s fundraising. She brought in about $3 million in the first quarter.

    On the GOP side, State Board of Education member Nikki Snyder announced her campaign in mid-February, but she hadn’t raised much money by the end of the first quarter. Former Rep. Peter Meijer could run, but his vote to impeach Trump would likely kill his prospects of winning the nomination – unless it were a heavily splintered primary field. Other possible GOP names include businessman Kevin Rinke and former Detroit Police Chief James Craig, who finished second and sixth, respectively, in last year’s gubernatorial primary. (Craig was a write-in candidate after failing to make the ballot because of invalid signatures.)

    Michigan Democrats did well last year – retaining the top three executive offices and flipping the state legislature – and they feel optimistic about their chances in the state in a presidential year. Still, Biden only won the state by less than 3 points. And while Slotkin has experience winning tough races, a lot may depend on whom the GOP nominates and which way the national winds are blowing next year.

    Incumbent: Democrat Bob Casey

    bob casey 2024 senate race

    Democrats breathed another sigh of relief when Sen. Bob Casey, who disclosed a prostate cancer diagnosis earlier this year, announced that he was running for a fourth term. A former state auditor general and treasurer and the son of a two-term governor, Casey is well known in the Keystone State. He most recently won reelection by 13 points against a hard-line congressman who had tied himself closely to Trump.

    This year, national Republicans are eyeing former hedge fund executive Dave McCormick, who lost the GOP nomination for Senate last year, as a top-tier recruit. Upon Casey’s reelection announcement, McCormick immediately attacked him, saying in a statement that a vote for Casey was “a vote for Biden and [Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer.” The wealthy Republican has been on tour promoting his new book, “Superpower in Peril: A Battle Plan to Renew America,” and has hired staff but has yet to launch a campaign.

    And consternation remains among national Republicans that losing 2022 gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano could jump into the race. An election denier who lost by 15 points last fall, Mastriano could jeopardize the race for Republicans. His candidacy would likely inspire a concerted effort by national Republicans to defeat him in the primary.

    Incumbent: Republican Ted Cruz

    ted cruz 2024 senate race

    Texas and Florida – both in a far different category of competitiveness compared with the rest of the states on this list – are trading places this month. GOP Sen. Ted Cruz is running for reelection after passing on another presidential bid. He raised $1.3 million in the first quarter – relatively little for a massive, expensive state – and ended March with $3.3 million in the bank. He’s proved to be a compelling boogeyman for the left, with Democrat Beto O’Rourke raising millions to try to unseat him in 2018, ultimately coming up less than 3 points short.

    After a gubernatorial loss last year, O’Rourke hasn’t made any noise about this race. But Democratic Rep. Colin Allred, who raised about half a million dollars in the first quarter, is looking at it. State Sen. Roland Gutierrez, who represents Uvalde, is also weighing a bid, the San Antonio Express-News reported. Still, unseating Cruz in a state Trump won by nearly 6 points in 2020 will be a tall order.

    Incumbent: Republican Rick Scott

    rick scott 2024 senate race

    Sen. Rick Scott has a history of close elections – he was first elected in 2018 by a fraction of a point following two prior narrow wins for governor. But GOP Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. Ron DeSantis won commanding victories last fall, suggesting the state is getting redder.

    Democrats don’t seem to have a major candidate as yet, but whoever opposes Scott is likely to use his controversial policy proposal – released last year during his NRSC chairmanship – against him. Scott’s plan had originally proposed sunsetting all federal programs every five years, but the senator later added a carve-out for Medicare and Social Security amid backlash from his own party. His most immediate headache could come in the form of intraparty attacks along those lines – and others.

    Attorney Keith Gross has launched a primary challenge, alluding in his announcement video to Scott’s tenure as the head of a hospital chain company that the Justice Department investigated for health care fraud. While the company pleaded guilty to fraudulent Medicare billing, among other things, and paid $1.7 billion in fines, Scott wasn’t charged with a crime. It’s unclear how much of his own money Gross, who previously ran for office in Georgia as a Democrat, would put into a campaign.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Simmering tensions erupt between top Texas state Republicans | CNN Politics

    Simmering tensions erupt between top Texas state Republicans | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The day after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton accused the state House speaker of presiding over the chamber while drunk and called on him to resign, a House ethics panel on Wednesday heard explosive testimony from investigators detailing what they described as years of misconduct by the attorney general.

    The week’s events marked an eruption of simmering tensions between two of the top Republicans in the most populous red state.

    The remarkable outburst of public acrimony has been years in the making. Paxton, a more conservative figure who aligned himself with former President Donald Trump and used his office to challenge the 2020 presidential election results, has long cast House leadership as too liberal.

    His attacks on state House Speaker Dade Phelan are a vivid window into a political environment where Republicans control all levers of state government but are split into multiple factions battling for power and influence.

    Paxton on Tuesday posted on Twitter a letter to the state House General Investigating Committee, the chamber’s ethics panel, asking for an investigation into Phelan for performing his duties in what Paxton described as “an obviously intoxicated state.”

    Paxton’s call for Phelan’s resignation came after video circulated on social media over the weekend of Phelan appearing to slur his words as he presided over the House chamber at the end of Friday’s late-night session.

    Paxton did not present any evidence beyond the video clips to support his claim that Phelan was drunk.

    “It is with profound disappointment that I call on Speaker Dade Phelan to resign at the end of this legislative session,” Paxton said in a statement posted to his Twitter account. “Texans were dismayed to witness his performance presiding over the Texas House in a state of apparent debilitating intoxication.”

    Less than an hour later, the state House General Investigating Committee – a panel that investigates corruption in state government and has the power to initiate impeachment proceedings – revealed it had subpoenaed records from Paxton’s office as part of an investigation Phelan’s office said started in March.

    “It is not surprising that a committee appointed by liberal Speaker Dade Phelan would seek to disenfranchise Texas voters and sabotage my work as Attorney General,” Paxton said in a statement he posted on Twitter. “The false testimony of the highly partisan Democrat lawyers with the goal of manipulating and misleading the public is reprehensible. Every allegation is easily disproved, and I look forward to continuing my fight for conservative Texas values.”

    Phelan’s office said Paxton’s allegation was merely retaliation for the House ethics panel’s probe.

    “Mr. Paxton’s statement today amounts to little more than a last ditch effort to save face,” Phelan communications director Cait Wittman said in a statement Tuesday.

    Democratic state Rep. Terry Canales said that the broader context of Friday’s all-day session made clear that Phelan “was not under the influence.”

    “At that point in the night the House had been in session over 13 hours and we had been doing so for multiple days in a row. We were all exhausted,” Canales said in a statement. “Nevertheless, I had multiple interactions with the speaker throughout the day and that night and I can say unequivocally he was not under the influence.”

    The acrimony between Phelan and Paxton underscores the personal and ideological tensions within the GOP as the party approaches its 2024 presidential primary.

    Phelan has also clashed in recent months with another more conservative Republican official, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, over property tax relief, school choice and other key issues.

    The state House hearing is the latest in a string of legal troubles for Paxton. CNN has previously reported that he was facing an FBI investigation for abuse of office and that Justice Department prosecutors in Washington, DC, took over the corruption investigation. He is also under indictment for securities fraud in a separate, unrelated case. Paxton has denied all charges and allegations.

    On Wednesday, a team of lawyers working with the House ethics panel spent three hours laying out details of allegations of misconduct against Paxton spanning years.

    The probe began in March after Paxton sought to use $3.3 million in state dollars to settle a whistleblower lawsuit after four former employees of the attorney general’s office accused him of using his authority to benefit political friend Nate Paul, a real estate investor who had donated tens of thousands of dollars to Paxton’s campaign. In the settlement, Paxton apologized but did not admit fault or accept liability. He denied wrongdoing and said in a statement he had agreed to the settlement “to put this issue to rest.”

    As the hearing took place on Wednesday, the Texas Tribune reported that Paxton called into Dallas radio host Mark Davis’ show and criticized the investigation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

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

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How the ‘independent state legislature’ theory, now rejected by SCOTUS, fueled chaos in 2020 and could influence 2024 | CNN Politics

    How the ‘independent state legislature’ theory, now rejected by SCOTUS, fueled chaos in 2020 and could influence 2024 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a controversial legal theory that would’ve given partisan state lawmakers nearly unchecked power over US elections.

    Former President Donald Trump and his staunch allies used the now-rejected “independent state legislature” theory to justify their attempts to overturn the 2020 election. And many Trump critics warned that, without action from the Supreme Court, these same vulnerabilities would threaten the 2024 election.

    In a case about North Carolina redistricting, the Supreme Court ruled that state courts and other state entities can review laws passed by state legislatures setting rules for federal elections. The court’s majority – a coalition of three conservatives with the three-justice liberal bloc – rejected the GOP-backed theory that elected politicians have unreviewable authority to set election rules.

    One of the reasons Republicans might want to shift power to state legislatures is because their party has a structural advantage on that front. Republicans currently control the legislatures in four states that Joe Biden carried in 2020 – Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin and New Hampshire – and they control two additional statehouses in the battleground states of North Carolina and Florida.

    States across the country adjusted their election rules in 2020, while the Covid-19 pandemic was raging and before vaccines were available. The changes included adding dropboxes in populated areas and easing the rules for when mail-in ballots can be accepted, among other things.

    Many of these tweaks were implemented by state courts, governors, secretaries of state and other state election administrators. But according to the “independent state legislature” theory, these rule changes were illegal, because they didn’t come directly from the state legislature.

    This is what formed the basis of many of Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

    Trump allies, like right-wing lawyer John Eastman, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, used this theory to argue Biden’s victories in key states were illegitimate because they “unlawfully” conducted elections or “failed to follow their own laws.”

    This legal theory fueled their unsuccessful lawsuits seeking to nullify millions of votes, and their attempt to reject Biden’s electors when Congress tallied the electoral votes on January 6, 2021.

    Still, after the 2020 debacle, conservative legal figures kept up the fight, perhaps with an eye toward 2024. Top Republicans, including Trump and House GOP leaders, continued to peddle the theory. Eastman filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the North Carolina case, urging the justices to give state legislatures full control over elections.

    “Federal courts overwhelmingly rejected those Republican arguments before and after the 2020 elections, and the Supreme Court today put the issue to bed,” said R. Stanton Jones, a lawyer who argued against the theory when the case was before the North Carolina Supreme Court.

    The high court’s ruling will have a significant impact on the 2024 presidential election, because it closes off some legal pathways for Trump to once again undermine the electoral process.

    For starters, there is now Supreme Court precedent rejecting some of the more maximalist but unsettled theories that have been championed by Eastman and other GOP lawyers. (Never mind the fact that amid the 2020 chaos, even Eastman admitted that his harebrained legal proposals would be unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court, as CNN recently reported.)

    But the somewhat limited ruling leaves plenty of avenues for future election-related challenges, regarding how districts are drawn, the deadlines for mail-in ballots, and other key questions.

    Legal scholars observed Tuesday that the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, specifically said federal courts have “a duty to exercise judicial review” over state court decisions that influence federal elections. But the majority opinion didn’t set the ground rules.

    “By not setting a clear standard for when state courts would go too far in the future, the decision leaves open a number of questions that will have to be resolved in future election-related disputes,” said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

    Indeed, Adam Kincaid, who leads a national GOP redistricting group, said in a statement that Tuesday’s ruling “should serve as a warning to state courts inclined to reach beyond the constitutional bounds of judicial review,” signaling that there are plenty of lawsuits to come.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Harris accuses ‘so-called leaders’ of pushing propaganda and waging culture wars in fiery Florida speech | CNN Politics

    Harris accuses ‘so-called leaders’ of pushing propaganda and waging culture wars in fiery Florida speech | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Vice President Kamala Harris went headfirst into flashpoint culture war issues Friday when she slammed Florida Republicans for the state Board of Education’s newly approved set of standards for teaching Black history, accusing “so-called leaders” of pushing propaganda and willfully misleading children.

    It’s the latest example of Harris acting as a rapid response voice for the administration, quickly deploying around the country in the immediate aftermath of a controversial vote or law being passed to offer forceful pushback of moves taken by state Republicans on guns, abortion and education. On Wednesday, the Florida Board of Education approved a new set of standards for how Black history should be taught in the state’s public schools, sparking criticism from education and civil rights advocates who said students should be allowed to learn the “full truth” of American history.

    “We know the history. And let us not let these politicians who are trying to divide our country win” Harris said in her fiery high-profile speech. “They are creating these unnecessary debates. This is unnecessary to debate whether enslaved people benefited from slavery. Are you kidding me? Are we supposed to debate that?”

    Harris said that she was concerned Republicans want to “replace history with lies.” She highlighted new standards, which, according to a document posted to the state’s Department of Education website, require instruction for middle schoolers to include “how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.”

    It is the latest development in the state’s ongoing debate over African American history, including the education department’s rejection of a preliminary pilot version of an Advanced Placement African American Studies course for high school students, which it claimed lacked educational value. The White House has spoken out forcefully against book bans and other steps to remove elements of American history from school curricula, and the issue was included in Biden’s reelection announcement video in April.

    The president’s advisers view the issue as one that can galvanize Democrats in next year’s elections, and Harris’ presence in the state at the epicenter of boiling culture wars seeks to present Harris and Biden as the safeguards against extremist steps that could limit freedoms and speech.

    On her eighth trip to Florida since taking office, Harris criticized the state’s governor and presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis – though not by name – in what has become a clear strategy to increase the Biden administration’s engagement with the Republican. That strategy has been bolstered by polling and research showing Americans opposed to banning books that include information on slavery and other issues.

    DeSantis hit back Friday, accusing Harris and Democrats in a tweet of spreading lies “to cover for their agenda” and telling reporters in Utah that the vice president’s criticism of Florida’s Board of Education was “absolutely ridiculous.”

    Earlier in the day, the former California attorney general had adopted a prosecutorial cadence to shine light on the Biden administration’s efforts to stand as a safeguard against what she called a national agenda by extremists to claw back rights.

    “These extremists, so-called leaders should model what we know to be the correct and right approach if we really are invested in the well-being of our children. Instead, they dare to push propaganda to our children. This is the United States of America. We’re not supposed to do that,” she said.

    Harris made the point that American allies and enemies abroad know the history of slavery in the US but these proposals, she alleged, would leave children from the US without that same knowledge.

    “That’s building in a handicap for our children that they are going to be the ones in the room who don’t know their own history with the rest of the world,” she said.

    On the standards themselves, Harris described the atrocities of slavery in detail, reciting how children were ripped from their mothers’ arms and were treated as less than human.

    “So, in the context of that, how is it that anyone could suggest that in the midst of these atrocities, that there was any benefit to being subjected to this level of dehumanization,” Harris questioned.

    Asked by CNN about the benchmark, DeSantis deflected, saying he “wasn’t involved.”

    “You should talk to them about it. I didn’t do it. I wasn’t involved in it,” the governor said.

    Pressed further, DeSantis said: “I think that they’re probably going to show some of the folks that eventually parlayed, you know, being a blacksmith into, into doing things later in life. But the reality is, all of that is rooted in whatever is factual. They listed everything out. And if you have any questions about it, just ask the Department of Education.”

    Harris has spent the summer months traveling the country to speak out in support of freedoms she and Democrats believe are under attack by Republicans, including abortion and the right to learn. The vice president has appeared in front of base Democratic voters that include Black voters, women and young people to deliver her message.

    Friday’s last-minute trip to Florida – it was only scheduled on Thursday night – marks the second time this year she’s delivered high-profile remarks in the Sunshine State meant to condemn Republican attacks on rights. Harris told the mainly Black crowd in Jacksonville’s historic LaVille neighborhood that the administration was listening and quickly responding to their concerns.

    “You are not alone,” Harris said.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden announces new environmental justice initiatives | CNN Politics

    Biden announces new environmental justice initiatives | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden announced new environmental justice actions on Friday, including an executive order that the White House says will make environmental justice a central mission of federal agencies.

    “Under this order, environmental justice will become the responsibility of every single federal agency – I mean, every single federal agency,” Biden pledged at a White House Rose Garden signing ceremony surrounded by climate and environmental justice advocates just before Earth Day.

    He continued, “Every federal agency must take into account environmental health impacts on communities and work to prevent those negative impacts. Environmental justice will be the mission of the entire government woven directly into how we work with state, local, tribal, and territorial governments.”

    The executive order, which will still be up to agencies to implement, will create a new Office of Environmental Justice inside the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

    Friday’s move comes as as many environmental justice groups have been frustrated at the administration’s recent approval of a major Alaska oil project. CNN also reported Friday that the Biden administration is planning to roll out aggressive new rules to regulate planet-warming pollution from natural gas power plants – a move that could face fierce legal challenges.

    Friday’s move also took place as Biden is preparing to announce his reelection bid as soon as next week, CNN reported Thursday. During his last presidential campaign, he worked hard to court environmental justice activist groups.

    Biden’s new order directs agencies to work more closely with impacted communities and improve “gaps” in scientific data to try to better tackle the impacts of pollution on people’s health, a White House official said. If toxic substances were released from a federal facility in the future, the order requires federal agencies to notify nearby communities.

    The order comes a few years after Biden announced his signature “Justice40” initiative, vowing to direct 40% of federal climate and clean funding from new legislation to disadvantaged communities. On Friday, three additional agencies – the Department of Commerce, the National Science Foundation and NASA – will also join the initiative.

    Biden also took a swipe at Republicans in his speech, contrasting his action on environmental justice with the GOP’s policies.

    During his remarks on Friday, the president detailed how he’s spent much of his tenure in office surveying damage from extreme weather events, calling the threat of climate change “an existential threat to our nation” and criticizing congressional Republicans for attempting to block his legislative priorities focused on climate.

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, recently unveiled provisions in his debt limit proposal that would overturn clean energy tax credits passed in the Inflation Reduction Act last year. The proposal also includes HR 1 – the GOP’s version of an energy permitting bill.

    Republicans, Biden argued, would “rather threaten to default on the US economy, or get rid of some $30 billion in taxpayer subsidies … than getting rid of $30 billion in taxpayer subsidies to an oil industry that made $200 billion last year.”

    “Imagine seeing all this happen – the wildfires, the storms, the floods – and doing nothing about it,” he continued. “Imagine taking all these clean energy jobs away from working class folks all across America. Imagine turning your back on all those moms and dads living in towns poisoned by pollution and telling them, ‘Sorry, you’re on your own.’ We can’t let that happen.”

    This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • No. 3 House Republican defends party’s debt ceiling bill | CNN Politics

    No. 3 House Republican defends party’s debt ceiling bill | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Majority Whip Tom Emmer said Sunday that President Joe Biden “doesn’t have to negotiate” over the debt ceiling, saying that “Republicans in the House, led by Kevin McCarthy, have passed the solution.”

    House Republicans last week narrowly passed their bill to raise the nation’s $31.4 trillion debt limit by an additional $1.5 trillion. But the measure faces nearly impossible odds of passing in the Democratic-led Senate. Emmer disagreed with that contention in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

    “To say that it’s dead on arrival in the Senate, when you’ve got even Joe Manchin suggesting support for this type of approach, I think that’s not exactly accurate,” the Minnesota Republican said. “If you don’t like something in it, if you have ideas of your own, our speaker is more than willing, I’m sure, to listen to those.”

    The House GOP measure was aimed at boosting Republicans’ efforts to negotiate with Democrats as the country approaches its default deadline as soon as this summer. But the White House has said it will not negotiate a debt ceiling increase and will accept only a clean proposal to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.

    Following passage of the GOP bill, Biden told reporters Wednesday that he would be “happy to meet with McCarthy, but not on whether or not the debt limit gets extended. That’s not negotiable.”

    Separately on Sunday, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Biden needs to come to the table to negotiate with Republicans on spending and the debt limit.

    “The White House needs to ultimately get into this negotiation. The president has been in hiding for two months,” the Louisiana Republican said on ABC’s “This Week.”

    “That’s not acceptable to Americans. They expect the president to sit in a room with Speaker McCarthy and start negotiating,” he added.

    The US hit its debt ceiling in January and can’t continue to borrow to meet its obligations unless Congress raises or suspends it. The Treasury Department is avoiding default – which would happen this summer or early fall – by using cash on hand and “extraordinary measures,” which should last at least until early June, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in January.

    A breach of the US debt ceiling could spark a 2008-style economic catastrophe, wiping out millions of jobs and setting America back for generations, Moody’s Analytics has warned.

    Emmer, when asked by Bash if he could guarantee that the US government will not default on its debts, said, “I can, assuming that our president and the (Chuck) Schumer Senate recognize the gravity of the problem. This is no longer about politics.”

    “House Republicans will not allow America to default on its debt,” he added. “We showed that last week.”

    Emmer also disputed the characterization of some of the GOP bill’s provisions to reduce spending as “cuts.”

    “These are spending reforms. And all we’re doing is going back to the Biden-Pelosi budget of last year,” he said, referring to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    The debt ceiling legislation, dubbed the “Limit, Save, Grow Act,” proposes sizable cuts to domestic programs but would spare the Pentagon’s budget. It would return funding for federal agencies to 2022 levels while aiming to limit the growth in spending to 1% per year. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the bill would trim government deficits by $4.8 trillion over 10 years.

    As part of the 320-page bill, the GOP is also proposing to block Biden’s plan to grant student loan forgiveness, repeal green energy tax credits and kill new Internal Revenue Service funding enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act last year. The plan would also expedite new oil drilling projects while rescinding funding enacted to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CNN projects Republican Carolyn Carluccio will advance to fall Pennsylvania Supreme Court race against Democrat Daniel McCaffery | CNN Politics

    CNN projects Republican Carolyn Carluccio will advance to fall Pennsylvania Supreme Court race against Democrat Daniel McCaffery | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican voters in Pennsylvania made a candidate supported by the GOP establishment their nominee for an open state Supreme Court seat, rejecting another Republican contender more closely aligned with former President Donald Trump’s wing of the party.

    CNN projected the victory of Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Carolyn Carluccio in Tuesday’s primary, which marks a rebound for the more traditional elements of the GOP in this presidential battleground state. She will defeat Commonwealth Court Judge Patricia McCullough, who briefly halted the certification of the state’s election results in 2020, and had the backing of a key Trump ally, Republican state Sen. Doug Mastriano in this election.

    Mastriano had pushed the falsehood in his failed 2022 bid for governor that election fraud led to Trump’s 2020 loss in the state. Last year, the Trump-endorsed Mastriano bested the Republican field to win his party’s nomination in the governor’s race, only to suffer a double-digit defeat to Democrat Josh Shapiro in the general election.

    Carluccio now will face Democrat Superior Court Judge Daniel McCaffery in the fall.

    The Republican and Democratic nominees are vying for an open seat on Pennsylvania’s high court, following the death of former Chief Justice Max Baer, a Democrat, last year.

    The outcome of November’s election will not tip the partisan balance on the high court, where Democrats currently hold a 4-2 majority on the seven-member body, but it could narrow the gap and start to lay the foundation for a shift in power in future election cycles, experts say.

    “It could create a situation where, very shortly, the partisan balance on this court could be up for grabs,” said Douglas Keith, who researches judicial elections at the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school.

    State supreme courts are the final arbiters on key issues, ranging from election ground rules to abortion policies. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld the state’s no-excuse mail voting law, and last year selected the state’s congressional map, breaking an impasse between the then-Republican controlled legislature and the state’s Democratic governor.

    Justices on Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court serve 10-year terms. After the first election, they run in so-called retention elections without opponents.

    Much of the attention in the Pennsylvania contest centered on the GOP primary between Carluccio and McCullough, who halted certification of the 2020 results – including Joe Biden’s victory in the state – in a ruling that was swiftly overturned by the state Supreme Court.

    McCullough, who lost a 2021 bid for the Supreme Court, calls herself “a strict constitutionalist judge,” and touted her rulings against pandemic restrictions and the state’s mail-in voting law in the campaign.

    But Carluccio had the backing of the state Republican Party and a national GOP group that’s active in judicial elections, the Republican State Leadership Committee’s Judicial Fairness Initiative, which has weighed in with $600,000 in advertising to boost Carluccio.

    In a statement to CNN this week, Carluccio said she would leave “personal and political opinions at the door and look at each case without bias and only determine the constitutionality of what’s before me.”

    Carluccio said she hasn’t questioned the outcome of any election, but she said she is concerned by what she called the “conflicting, and sometimes unclear,” decisions on the state’s mail-in voting law in recent years by the state Supreme Court.

    In 2019, the state legislatures passed a no-excuse mail-in voting law, known as Act 77, with bipartisan support. But it has become the target of criticism from some Republicans after it was employed in the contentious 2020 election that saw Biden flip the state. The high court has weighed in on aspects of the law multiple times. In 2020, for instance, the court ruled that ballots in two counties with missing dates on the outside of the ballot return envelope could be counted. In the 2022 election, however, the court ordered that mail ballots with missing or improper dates on the return envelopes should be kept out of the count and deadlocked on the underlying legal questions.

    “Our election laws must be applied consistently across all counties, regardless of the election year,” Carluccio said in her statement. “And, when part of our electorate has concerns about the integrity of our elections, rather than dismiss their concerns, the response should be bold transparency in the administration of our elections.”

    The modest spending in the under-the-radar Pennsylvania high court race stood sharp contrast to the record-setting spending that candidates and outside groups plowed into a Wisconsin Supreme Court election last month that, in the end, flipped control of that state’s high court to liberals. (A Kantar Media/CMAG analysis for the Brennan Center found that the ad spending for the Wisconsin high court seat hit $28.8 million as of early April, and some estimates put the likely final tally of all spending in that election even higher.)

    In an interview ahead of Tuesday’s election, Penn State political scientist Michael Nelson said the GOP primary represented a “good opportunity to get a sense of where the energy in the party is, what segment of the party is able to get their people to go on the polls on a random Tuesday in May when there hasn’t been wall-to-wall television advertising.”

    “Given that the Mastriano wing of the Republican Party was so dominant in the elections last fall, it will be interesting to see whether they can keep up that momentum or whether the standard-issue conservative wing of the party is able to rebound,” he added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tim Scott once described own police reform bill as a ‘defund’ bill — then attacked Democrats for same approach | CNN Politics

    Tim Scott once described own police reform bill as a ‘defund’ bill — then attacked Democrats for same approach | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican presidential candidate Sen. Tim Scott once said his 2020 police reform bill would “defund” local police departments from federal grants for non-compliance, but he later attacked Democrats for proposing the same policies.

    Introduced in the summer of 2020, Scott’s JUSTICE Act was aimed at reforming the practices of local police departments in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

    The bill, according to its text and summaries from the Congressional Research Services, in part used incentives from the federal government to force local police departments to enact change, withholding funding through two key programs from local police departments that did not comply with law.

    “Our bill says that we will defund departments if they don’t ban chokeholds,” Scott said in one Facebook live in June 2020, describing one of the defunding provisions.

    “You lose money from the federal government,” he added, if departments didn’t use body cameras. “It’s all tied to money. That’s the one penalty we can actually enact on the federal level.”

    Senate Democrats blocked Scott’s bill shortly after it was introduced in June 2020, saying the bill inadequately addressed reforming law enforcement and police misconduct.

    As Republicans took strong issue with the so-called “Defund the Police” movement – a slogan that gained popularity during the summer of 2020 in which supporters sought to redirect funds from police to other public services such as social work and mental health services or remove police funding entirely – Scott began to use the approach he had previously advocated for to attack Democrats.

    “Is it OK to limit funding to grants if local police don’t meet a certain standard or don’t qualify based on some parameters? I say, no. They say yes,” Scott said in April 2022.

    A Scott campaign spokesman said in a statement that Scott’s “focus has always been to provide more resources to departments while incentivizing reform.”

    “As Democrats called for defunding the police, the senator worked with law enforcement for more net funding. To suggest otherwise is patently false,” said the spokesman, Nathan Brand.

    The JUSTICE Act stipulated that state and local governments would not be eligible to continue to receive grant funding through two federal grant programs – the COPS program and the Bryne Program – unless police departments put in place certain reform practices.

    The bill required the banning of chokeholds and no-knock warrants in drug cases to continue to receive funding under the programs. It also put in place certain DOJ training requirements for new officers and compelled police departments to provide use of force data to FBI databases to maintain funding.

    Speaking on ABC’s “This Week” in June 2020, Scott responded to a story from The Root, a left-leaning Black publication, which said that the bill’s mechanism of preventing departments from receiving funding if they failed to comply with the law was a version of defunding the police.

    “God bless ‘The Root.’ It’s nice to have them on my side every blue moon. I’m not sure I would go with their conclusions. But, yes, it is important for us to use the resources that we provide to law enforcement, and a way to get them, to compel them towards the direction that we think is in the best interest of the nation, the communities that, they, they serve and frankly of the officers themselves,” said Scott.

    “And I guess their point is if the, if the – police departments don’t do what you are asking, they will lose access to federal funds,” followed up Jon Karl, the show’s host. “So, so there would be an element of withholding funding here?

    “Yes,” said Scott. “Very, very important aspect of our bill.”

    Speaking with PBS, Scott made similar comments in summer 2020.

    “In your proposal, you are saying these things should be tied to federal funding, that, if departments go ahead with them, they risk losing funding,” Scott was asked.

    “Yes,” he responded.

    A year later, however, Scott was directly attacking Democrats for the same approach.

    “We have about a billion dollars in grant money that goes to police,” Scott said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” in September 2021. “When you start saying in order to receive those dollars, you must do A, B, and C, and if you don’t do A, B, and C, you literally lose eligibility for the two major pots of money – the Byrne grants and the COP grants, when you tell local law enforcement agencies that you are ineligible for money, that’s defunding the police. There’s no way to spin that.”

    After Scott made his comments, the two major policing organizations – the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police – disputed his categorization that the Democratic bill defunded police departments.

    “Despite some media reports, at no point did any legislative draft propose ‘defunding the police,’” the groups said in joint statement in September 2021. “In fact, the legislation specifically provided additional funding to assist law enforcement agencies in training, agency accreditation, and data collection initiatives.”

    “What I did not agree to was the cuts that come from noncompliance,” Scott added on CBS. “When you say once again that in order for you to receive the money for the Byrne grants or the COP grants, you must do the following, and if you don’t do the following you lose money – that’s more defunding the police. We saw that tried throughout the country.”

    The Democrats’ bill, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, like Scott’s bill, had requirements, albeit harsher ones, to continue to receive funds through the two programs. The bill required reporting use of force data, submitting misconduct records to a national database, the elimination of and training on racial profiling and independent audit programs, and passing laws banning chokeholds and no-knock warrants in drug cases, among other provisions.

    “I’m not gonna be a part of defunding the police by making them ineligible for the two major grants that come from the federal government to local police,” Scott added on Fox News in September 2021.

    Scott made similar comments in April 2022.

    “Is it OK to limit funding to grants if local police don’t meet a certain standard or don’t qualify based on some parameters? I say no. They say yes,” Scott said in April 2022. “You know, the whole defund the police conversation that’s been going on. And what we’ve seen is that unfortunately, a lot of the cities have literally tried defunding the police to see if it works. The answer is, it doesn’t work very well.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • McCarthy and hardliners reach tentative agreement to resume House floor business | CNN Politics

    McCarthy and hardliners reach tentative agreement to resume House floor business | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Hardline conservatives have agreed to end their blockade of the House floor while they continue discussions with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy about future spending decisions and a new “power-sharing agreement,” according to multiple members leaving the speaker’s office.

    Conservatives who had voted against a procedural vote in retaliation for how GOP leadership handled the debt ceiling deal now say they are willing to support the procedural vote, after they received new commitments from McCarthy about how the California Republican plans to operate going forward, though they said the exact details are still being worked out and did not say whether they would ever be made public or put into a written statement.

    “I think you’re gonna see an agreement to move forward in the next day or two on moving the legislation we wanted to move last week,” said Rep. Bob Good, a Virginia Republican who has repeatedly criticized McCarthy.

    Rep. Ralph Norman, a South Carolina Republican, said of the nearly hourlong meeting in McCarthy’s office: “We aired our issues. We want to see this move forward as a body.”

    Norman said one of the things McCarthy agreed to was to involve conservatives more directly in future decision making.

    A group of hardline conservatives have held up legislative action in the GOP-led House for nearly a week in protest of the deal McCarthy struck with President Joe Biden to raise the nation’s borrowing limit last month. Conservatives wanted the debt ceiling deal to cut more federal spending than it did, and several far-right members of McCarthy’s conference accused him of reneging on commitments he made to them in private in order to win the speakership in January.

    McCarthy told the hardliners Monday that he wouldn’t have cut the debt ceiling deal had he known it would “divide us,” according to a GOP source familiar with the meeting.

    But McCarthy knew at the time that not all his members were going to be on board with the deal, with many of them publicly expressing their concerns with the direction of the talks.

    One of the concessions McCarthy agreed to as part of Monday’s developments was an ironclad commitment to bring a pistol brace bill from GOP Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia to the floor. Leadership has agreed to incorporate the bill, which would block a new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives rule on pistol braces, into an upcoming procedural vote.

    That vote, which is slated for Tuesday, will now combine a rule for the pistol brace bill with a rule for a gas stoves bill as well as a bill to rein in the administration’s regulatory powers.

    GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida said, “The power-sharing agreement that we entered into in January with McCarthy … it has to be renegotiated, so what happened on this debt ceiling bill never happens again.”

    Specifically, Gaetz said the hardliners want more tools to put more “downward pressure on spending,” and want a return to fiscal 2022 spending levels.

    House Appropriations Chairwoman Kay Granger announced Monday night that her panel will take up spending bills that would roll back funding to the levels demanded by the hardliners, a move that could ease tensions between the group and McCarthy while generating backlash from the White House and Senate Democrats.

    Gaetz said that while they’re willing to end their stand against the procedural vote this week, he warned that they’re willing to oppose future procedural votes if they don’t get their way.

    “If there’s not a renegotiated power sharing agreement then perhaps we’ll be here next week,” he said.

    House Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Perry of Pennsylvania confirmed they’ve reached a “framework for moving forward” but did not provide details.

    Rep. Dusty Johnson of South Dakota, leaving McCarthy’s office, said they have a path forward now but said there will be no votes in the House tonight, as they had previously planned.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Marjorie Taylor Greene downplays House Freedom Caucus vote to eject her | CNN Politics

    Marjorie Taylor Greene downplays House Freedom Caucus vote to eject her | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia told CNN on Tuesday afternoon that she still hasn’t been informed by the House Freedom Caucus that she has been kicked out of the far-right group.

    But she said she’s “not really concerned about it.”

    “No one has told me that,” Greene told reporters on Capitol Hill. “As a matter of fact, all the information I found out was from you guys.”

    She added, “I’m here for Georgia’s 14th District. That’s who voted for me. That’s who sent me here and that’s who I work for. And I don’t have time for the drama club.”

    CNN previously reported that the Freedom Caucus ejected Greene from the group just before the July Fourth recess because of her allegiance to GOP leadership and fights she had with members of the caucus, but Freedom Caucus Chairman Scott Perry wasn’t able to get in contact with Greene over the break to tell her the news. Greene’s ejection from the group is the first time the caucus had voted to remove a member since formally launching in 2015.

    Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, told CNN Tuesday, “I don’t discuss that” when asked about Greene’s membership status and whether he’s gotten a hold of her yet.

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy – who worked to bring Greene into the fold, which is part of the reason for her Freedom Caucus ouster – offered praise for the congresswoman, calling her “one of the most conservative members” and “one of the hardest working members.”

    McCarthy called it a “loss” for the Freedom Caucus that they decided to boot her.

    “I don’t know why they would do something like that from any perspective,” he told reporters. “I will tell you this – Marjorie Taylor Greene is a very good member, works hard, represents her district night and day. She is always here fighting for the process where it may. I think it’s a loss for the Freedom Caucus.”

    Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a Freedom Caucus co-founder, echoed a similar sentiment, telling CNN: “I was for keeping Marjorie.”

    Jordan praised the Georgia Republican as a “fine member” who “fights hard for her constituents” and “does a great job,” but declined to get into any internal Freedom Caucus dynamics.

    Another member of the caucus, Rep. Ralph Norman, told reporters that Greene’s beliefs were too far apart from the rest of the Freedom Caucus for her to remain a member.

    “She left the Freedom Caucus. Her views were not the same, which is fine,” the South Carolina Republican said. “She’s a good friend, we just disagree. So it was good for her and it’s good for the Freedom Caucus.”

    Norman added, “She was critical of us, of the 20 in January,” referring to the 20 House Republicans who opposed McCarthy’s bid for speaker. “She had different opinions on different things, the 20, of what we did in January, she just disagreed with, and that’s fine, but she’s very vocal and continued on.”

    News of Greene’s removal was confirmed publicly by members during the July Fourth recess.

    “A vote was taken to remove Marjorie Taylor Greene from the House Freedom Caucus – for some of the things she’s done,” Republican Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland told reporters last week.

    Colorado Republican congressman and Freedom Caucus member Ken Buck also confirmed Greene’s ousting to CNN’s Dana Bash in an interview on Tuesday.

    “My understanding is they voted to remove her, and the chairman has tried to contact her to let her know and there haven’t been any returned phone calls,” Buck told CNN’s Dana Bash on “Inside Politics” Tuesday. “This week she will undoubtedly get notified.”

    Buck said he was not in the Friday morning meeting before recess where the vote had been held, but if he had been there, he would not have voted to kick her out, despite his belief she doesn’t belong within the conservative group.

    “I don’t want her to be in the Freedom Caucus, but I wouldn’t vote to kick her out,” Buck told Bash. “Once she is in the Freedom Caucus, I think she is what she is.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy finds some fans in a very Trumpy place | CNN Politics

    GOP hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy finds some fans in a very Trumpy place | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    West Palm Beach, Florida
    CNN
     — 

    They wore Trump hats and Trump T-shirts and cheered wildly when former President Donald Trump took the stage to fireworks. But at the Turning Point Action conference in West Palm Beach, Florida, some of the conservative attendees said they had a little space in their hearts for Vivek Ramaswamy – the GOP newcomer running a longshot presidential primary bid against Trump, whom he has promised to pardon if it comes to that.

    What they told CNN they liked most was the way Ramaswamy comes across on TV. The 37-year-old extremely wealthy pharmaceutical entrepreneur has never held public office, but he’s quick and assertive, and has become a frequent guest on cable news and conservative YouTube channels. He’s best known for denouncing “wokeness,” which he says has infected American corporations and investment banks that influence them.

    Karen Colby – standing next to the sequin-packed “Trump Girl Shop” booth featuring “Theresa’s Concealed Carry Handbags.” – said she’d recently seen Ramaswamy on TV. “I forget what he was actually saying, but I said, ‘Dang, I really like him. I like him a lot,’” said Colby, a Republican from Broward County, Florida. “I like his values. I like what he says. I like his no-nonsense attitude. … If he does not earn the position of president, I would love to see him as vice president. President Trump: if you’re listening, choose Vivek.”

    In Republican primary polls, Ramaswamy is competitive with seasoned politicians, though still in single figures and far behind Trump. CNN did not encounter a Turning Point attendee who had something nice to say about former Vice President Mike Pence, who many saw as having betrayed Trump by certifying the 2020 election results. The pro-Trump crowd did not like former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who has been critical of the former president. And though Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was popular at the conference last year, he’s now fallen out of favor with this crowd amid his challenge to Trump, according to Turning Point spokesperson Andrew Kolvet.

    Former President Donald Trump, who took the stage as fireworks were set off, remained the clear favorite.

    But that didn’t kill their appetite for one of DeSantis’s signature issues: “wokeness.” And on that subject, they found a lot to like in Ramaswamy, who wrote a book called “Woke Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam.” His argument is that corporations make statements about liberal social values and climate change at the expense of their profits, and that that is bad for investors and consumers.

    Dolan Bair, a student at Wheaton College in Illinois, found Ramaswamy’s argument convincing. He thought a lot of big companies “push more liberal agendas,” and “maybe the government should not allow them to hold their liberal values over their consumers and their employees.”

    Dolan Bair, center, said he found liberal values too pervasive in society.

    Sure, Apple and Google were private companies, he said, but they’re so large he couldn’t avoid them. He could buy a different beer than Bud Light but there wasn’t a good option for a non-woke search engine.

    Bair believed gay people had been treated unfairly, even imprisoned, in the past. “But at what point does Pride Month go away?” he asked. “When does when does Pride Month become two months? When does it become Pride Year?” CNN asked how a Pride Year – with more rainbow merchandise at Target, for instance – would affect him personally. “They could be using their money to go into R&D for better products, or lowering their product prices,” he said, echoing an argument made by Ramaswamy.

    Sam Mathew said he agreed with Ramaswamy's call to include gender issues in his platform.

    Sam Mathew was the most ardent Ramaswamy supporter CNN found, decked out in merch bearing the campaign’s slogan, “Truth.” “I like the way Vivek delivers the message on how to bring the country together by following the truth,” Mathew said. What did he mean by truth? “Truth, basically, to me, is exposing the lies,” he said.

    Ramaswamy campaigns on “10 truths,” starting with “God is real,” and “There are only two genders.” CNN asked Mathew why the gender issue was so important, given the scale of national and global problems. “If you don’t have a base, where there’s a man and a woman – and if you’re confusing the young generation with a third gender, or a fourth gender, or a fifth gender – then the whole concept of humanity is lost,” Mathew said.

    Mathew, an Indian American like Ramaswamy, immigrated to the US in the late 80s and went to college in Michigan. Back then, he saw hardly any other Indians in his neighborhood. Mathew knew racism existed. But since the Obama administration, he said, there was too much focus on race from elites. He felt liberal social values were being “pushed” through “constant bombarding” from news media, teachers’ unions, and universities. “I don’t know much about what is being taught, but from what I hear, it’s mostly telling Black kids that White people are bad, in simple terms,” Mathew said.

    In the conference’s presidential straw poll, Trump won 86% of votes. When attendees were asked for their second choice, Ramaswamy got 51%.

    As Trump was about to take the stage at the conference, CNN got a text from Kolvet, the Turning Point spokesperson, asking if If there was interest in an interview with Ramaswamy, a man who has raised his profile with his openness to all media – from network TV to niche podcasts. Shortly before the interview began, Ramaswamy got an email from Jordan Peterson asking him to come for another podcast chat. Peterson is a Canadian psychology professor best known for his opposition to what he calls “cultural Marxism” and his advice to young men that they stand up straight and clean their rooms.

    In his interview with CNN – as he has in many, many other venues – Ramaswamy went to his central point and said wokeness was a “symptom of a cultural cancer” that was filling a hole in the hearts of people who had lost their national identity.

    “I think the way we win is by taking a long, hard look in the mirror and ask ourselves who we really are as individuals – it is not just our race, it is not just our sexual identity or our gender, it is not just our political affiliation,” Ramaswamy said. “Ask ourselves, ‘Who am I as an individual?’ I’m not riding some tectonic plate of group identity. I am me. You are you,” he said.

    “I think the right way to deal with what I view as the last final burning embers of racism is to let that quietly burn out rather than trying to put that fire out by accidentally throwing kerosene on it,” Ramaswamy said.

    Images of Trump, left, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, right, covered with messages written on sticky notes at the Turning Point Action conference.

    Turning Point had set up a wall with three-foot cardboard cutouts of all the candidates’ faces, and invited conference-goers to write what they thought of each on sticky notes. On Ramaswamy’s face, most views had been positive – “the future,” “unite us plz,” “Vivek have my children,” “Trump’s VP.”

    But there was a dark side: two messages had white nationalist references. On one, a Star of David crossed out with the word “soon.” On the other, “1488,” which combines code for a slogan about protecting White children with code for “Heil Hitler.”

    Ramaswamy said he had not seen the notes or ever heard of the 1488 meme. He knew racism still existed and had experienced it. But people faced a choice, he said, whether to “wallow” in it.

    When CNN pointed out the notes to Kolvet, the Turning Point spokesperson, he took them down.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Inside the backchannel communications keeping Donald Trump in the loop on Republican investigations | CNN Politics

    Inside the backchannel communications keeping Donald Trump in the loop on Republican investigations | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump continues to wield enormous power on Capitol Hill as House Republicans seek to curry favor with the former president, pursuing his fixations through their investigations and routinely updating him and his closest advisers on their progress.

    A number of top House GOP lawmakers have disclosed in recent days their efforts to keep the former president informed on the pace and substance of their investigations. Lines of communication appear to go both ways. Not only are Trump, his aides and close allies regularly apprised of Republicans’ committee work, they also at times exert influence over it, multiple people familiar with the talks tell CNN.

    The constant, and sometimes direct, communication between Trump and the committees has emerged as a crucial method for Trump to shape Republicans’ priorities in their newly-won House majority. It also underscores the extraordinary sway an ex-president still holds over his party’s lawmakers and the deference many still afford him.

    That dynamic has been on full display over the past week, as top House Republicans attempted to intervene in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation of hush money payments Trump allegedly made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. That’s led to an acrimonious back and forth between three powerful Republican committee chairs and Bragg over what, if any, jurisdiction Congress has over the DA’s work.

    House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, the third-ranking House Republican, has become a key point person for Trump on Hill investigations. The New York Republican talks to Trump roughly once a week, and often more, frequently briefing him on the House committees’ work, three sources familiar with their conversations tell CNN. Trump often calls her as well, the sources said.

    Stefanik and Trump spoke several times last week alone, where she walked him through the GOP’s plans for an aggressive response to Bragg.

    GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who serves on the House Oversight Committee, which is conducting a number of investigations into President Joe Biden, also speaks to Trump on a frequent basis. Both she and Stefanik have endorsed Trump’s 2024 presidential bid and are said to be interested in serving as his running mate.

    “I keep him up on everything that we’re doing,” Greene told CNN. “He seems very plugged in at all times. Sometimes I’m shocked at how he knows all these things. I’m like, ‘How do you know all this stuff?’”

    Multiple sources tell CNN that Trump and House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan speak regularly but declined to divulge whether those conversations included Jordan’s investigative efforts. 

    “Conversations among concerned parties about issues facing the country are not news and regular order in Congress,” Jordan’s spokesperson Russell Dye said in a statement to CNN.

    Trump, meanwhile, has been regularly briefed on the work of House Oversight Chairman James Comer, but the Kentucky Republican said the two have not spoken since the 2020 presidential election.

    “I haven’t talked to Trump since he was President” Comer told CNN. “Now, I talk to former people that used to work for Trump every now and then. But not about Trump.”

    A source close to Comer added he communicates with “a variety of outside groups, associations and interested parties about the Oversight Committee’s work.”

    At his rally in Waco, Texas on Saturday, Trump publicly thanked Comer and Jordan, saying Comer “has become a great star.”

    The decision of what to investigate also underscores the extent to which Republican-led committees are willing to act as a shield for the embattled former president, as well as attempt to inflict damage on Biden ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

    That includes launching a probe into the House Select Committee that investigated January 6, investigating GOP allegations of Biden family influence peddling, and dropping investigations into foreign spending at Trump-owned properties.

    Trump’s influence on House Republicans has been particularly telling in the way they have gone after Bragg in recent days.

    After Trump on March 18 suggested his arrest was imminent, two days later, Jordan, Comer and Bryan Steil, chair of House Administration Committee, sent a letter to Bragg calling for him to sit down for a transcribed interview with their panels — a move that multiple sources familiar with the letter said was prompted by Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s public condemnation of Bragg’s case.

    The request came after Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina sent a letter to Jordan last month asking him to investigate Bragg’s “egregious abuse of power,” The New York Times first reported and CNN confirmed.

    When Trump isn’t communicating directly with House Republicans himself, he is often doing so through a few top advisers, including those on his payroll and former aides who are still loyal to him, sources tell CNN.

    Boris Epshteyn, a self-described in-house counsel and senior adviser for Trump who is helping coordinate the former president’s legal strategy, has been at the center of the communications, four people familiar with the talks tell CNN.   

    Epshteyn frequently interacts with committee staff, counsel to the chairmen, members of the committee and aides to House leadership, sources said. Epshteyn’s role in the discussions range from being briefed on their work to the pace of the investigations. 

    Brian Jack, a former Trump administration official who joined McCarthy’s team in 2021 to lead his political operation, has also served as a crucial communicator between Trumpworld and the Speaker’s office, multiple source familiar his role said. Jack, who remains an adviser to McCarthy, recently began working on Trump’s 2024 reelection campaign.

    Jack is less involved in communications with the committees themselves, the sources said, but given his role in both McCarthy’s and Trump’s orbit, he’s often the go-to for advice on how to strategize efforts between the Hill and Trump’s team.

    Multiple sources familiar with the backchanneling say much of the talks are less about putting pressure on the committees – as members already know how to maximize their defense of Trump – and more about ensuring Trump’s team is on the same page as congressional Republicans.

    “Trump doesn’t have to tell House GOP committees to investigate, they already are doing investigations that play into Trump’s base and issues: Big Tech censorship, border, Hunter Biden’s business deals, and weaponization of the federal government,” a senior House GOP aide told CNN.

    A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment.

    Members on key investigative committees also keep in regular contact with Trump-aligned grassroots groups about investigations. Some of those groups have grown frustrated in recent weeks with how the House panels are conducting their work, including the time it took to hire individuals and get the investigative work started, multiple sources familiar with the matter said.

    GOP Rep. Dan Bishop, who serves on the weaponization subpanel, told CNN, “We’ve heard from outside groups a fair amount about ideas and recommendations.”

    Heritage Foundation president Dr. Kevin Roberts said in a statement to CNN, “Conservatives have high expectations for these committees to begin the process of de-weaponizing the federal government because the very fabric of our society is at stake.”

    A number of these Trump-affiliated groups have urged the GOP-led committees to move more aggressively against Biden.

    “We can’t have two years of hearings and then a report,” President of Judicial Watch Tom Fitton told CNN, referring to the pressure his group has placed on Congress to act immediately on the abuses of power that he sees happening, including “censoring Americans and trying to jail those who are perceived as political opponents.”

    Fitton said he has appreciated how House Republicans have updated the public on an “ongoing basis as opposed to just sitting on material” and added “if they don’t seem to be going in the right direction, there will be some pushback.”

    A number of other Trump-affiliated groups have urged GOP-led committees to move more aggressively against Biden. That includes the Conservative Partnership Institute, run by former GOP Sen. Jim DeMint and now home to Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and the Center for Renewing America, run by Trump’s former Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought.

    Staffers close to Jordan are in regular communication with outside groups, and to assuage the tensions that have arisen at times, they have explained that investigations take time to build, according to multiple sources familiar with the communications.

    “I’ve been raising holy hell because this weaponization committee has been structured to fail from Day One,” said Mike Davis, a former top aide to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley and founder of the Article III Project, which advocates for “constitutionalist judges.”

    “We’ve known since November that we were going to have these committees,” said Davis. “And they’re just now starting to get their act together.”

    Davis added that he has spoken at length with many of the outside groups about their concerns – though he has recently praised Jordan for calling on Bragg to testify, calling it “a step in the right direction” and even tweeted a number of times in support of Jordan.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New York Democrat has ‘a lot of questions’ for Biden administration about Pentagon leak | CNN Politics

    New York Democrat has ‘a lot of questions’ for Biden administration about Pentagon leak | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said Sunday she has “a lot of questions” for the Biden administration about the circumstances around the leak of highly classified Pentagon documents.

    “I have a lot of questions about: Why were these documents lying around? Why did this particular person have access to them? Where was the custody of the documents and who were they for?” Gillibrand said in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

    The Biden administration spent much of the past week scrambling to rectify damages after Jack Teixeira, an airman with the Massachusetts Air National Guard who held top-secret security clearance, posted documents online that revealed blunt details on the US intelligence assessment of the war in Ukraine as well as the extent of US eavesdropping on key allies.

    Teixeira, who worked as a low-ranking IT official, was arrested and federally charged last week for facilitating the leak. He allegedly began posting information about the documents online around December and photos of the documents in January, court records show.

    Gillibrand, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, sidestepped criticizing the military’s vetting process for security clearances but said questions needed to be answered at a Senate briefing this week.

    “It sounds like he was extremely immature and someone who did not understand the weight and the importance of these documents. And so we need to figure it out and put proper protections in place,” she said.

    The Pentagon breach has left looming questions about national security implications. In a statement acknowledging the extent of the problem the leaks exposed, President Joe Biden said Friday that he had directed both the military and intelligence community to “take steps to further secure and limit distribution of sensitive information.”

    Pentagon officials have said the Defense Department has moved to tighten the flow of highly sensitive documents, limiting who across the government receives its highly classified daily intelligence briefs. Those briefs are normally available on any given day to hundreds, if not thousands, of people across the government.

    Congress is also vowing to investigate what happened and why the US intelligence community failed to discover its secrets were on a public internet forum for weeks.

    “We need to know the facts. We need to know who this airman was, why he felt he had the authority or ability to show off confidential documents, secret documents to his friends,” Gillibrand said.

    Meanwhile, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Sunday that there was “no justification” for Republicans who have appeared to defend the leaking of classified information.

    “Those who are trying to sugarcoat this on the right, you cannot allow a single individual of the military intelligence community to leak classified information because they disagree with policy,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

    House Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner echoed that message Sunday in an interview with “Face the Nation” on CBS.

    Teixeira, the Ohio Republican said, “is someone who has compromised his country and has certainly compromised our allies. That’s not the oath that he took. That’s not the job that he took.”

    “If he’s brought through this process, and he’s found guilty, it will be of espionage. It’s of being a traitor to your country. That’s not someone … to look up to,” Turner said.

    Their comments come after Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia tweeted a defense of Teixeira’s actions last week.

    “For any member of Congress to suggest it’s OK to leak classified information because you agree with the cause is terribly irresponsible and puts America in serious danger,” Graham said.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • We are already in the food fight portion of the GOP primary | CNN Politics

    We are already in the food fight portion of the GOP primary | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

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



    CNN
     — 

    The 2024 Republican presidential primary is not fully underway as yet and already we are in the food fight phase.

    A super PAC supporting former President Donald Trump tried to smear Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis with pudding, seizing on a report, which the governor denies, about his eating habits to make a point about Social Security and Medicare.

    The ad itself is gross. And it drew a super PAC supporting DeSantis off the sidelines to air an ad of its own wondering why Trump was going after the Florida governor.

    For the record, neither DeSantis nor Trump currently say they will touch safety net benefits, but both have a past of suggesting they could.

    I talked to CNN chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny by email about the Trump/DeSantis dynamic, the role of deep-pocketed super PACs and what else is going on in this nascent primary campaign.

    WOLF: We are nine months away from the first primaries and not all of the top candidates have even declared their candidacies. But there’s some super PAC mudslinging. What’s happening and what do we need to take from all of this?

    ZELENY: A new season of attack ads has begun, with allies of Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis firing some of the first direct shots of the young presidential campaign. Now is the time to define your opponent – whether you’re an announced candidate (Trump) or expected to be one soon (DeSantis) – and begin pointing out potential vulnerabilities. Not surprisingly, the opening volley was about Social Security and Medicare and highlighting old comments about promising to reform the entitlement programs.

    WOLF: Super PACs can’t technically coordinate with campaigns. DeSantis doesn’t technically have a campaign. How is that working exactly?

    ZELENY: The Florida governor isn’t planning on jumping into the presidential race until May or June – after the legislative session is over – so until then, a group of deep-pocketed allies are coming to his defense. The super PAC, which is called Never Back Down, is effectively a campaign in waiting, complete with pollsters and political strategists of all varieties. Federal election law prohibits coordinating with the campaign, but when there isn’t an official campaign, that formality becomes far easier.

    WOLF: Do other Republican candidates have deep pocketed super PACs? Who are the other players to watch?

    ZELENY: Not nearly as deep, no, but most major Republican candidates have at least some type of super PAC assistance. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has some support – and is seeking more – as are other potential candidates. One likely presidential contender, Sen. Tim Scott, has one financial advantage that makes him stand apart from his rivals: He has more than $20 million left over in his campaign account from last year’s Senate race, which he can use on his presidential race. That’s a head start most of his rivals can only dream of.

    WOLF: Trump and DeSantis have been shadowboxing around each other for some time. Can we assume this is a prelude to a much more bruising fight in the making? What does this say about GOP unity heading into the primaries?

    Zeleny: GOP unity? That will come later – or that’s the hope of top Republican officials – but the bruising season of define-your-opponent is underway. The Trump-DeSantis feud has long been simmering, but their springtime exchanges are almost certainly quaint, compared to what’s likely to come.

    WOLF: What do we know about where these super PAC ads are running? Are they focused on specific types of voters or is this simply an effort to get attention from us in the media?

    ZELENY: For now, most of the ads are running on cable television and sports. The Make America Great Again group, which supports Trump, has been running ads for weeks now seeking to define DeSantis in a negative light. You have likely seen some of these, which begin with the ominous: “Think you know Ron DeSantis? Think again.”

    WOLF: Are there any changes in how you think super PACs will operate this year and how they’ll be involved in the campaign?

    ZELENY: With every passing election cycle, super PACs play a more prominent role. It’s easier to raise money – without the federal limits imposed upon candidates. If the early months of the year are any indication, the 2024 campaign will push the limits even more, with outside groups far more important than political parties or, in some cases, even the candidates themselves.

    WOLF: Are there any early conclusions we can draw about how Trump’s indictment by the Manhattan DA on criminal charges has affected his campaign? Has it impacted his popularity among Republican voters? Affected his fundraising?

    ZELENY: Early conclusions are often risky ones, but the Trump campaign insists the indictment has been a fundraising boost. It certainly has rallied many Republicans around him – or at least unified them in opposition to the indictment – but it may be far too soon to say whether this will continue to be the case. He faces potential criminal action in Georgia, for his role in trying to overturn the election results, as well as at least two federal investigations.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republican-controlled states target college students’ voting power ahead of high-stakes 2024 elections | CNN Politics

    Republican-controlled states target college students’ voting power ahead of high-stakes 2024 elections | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican-controlled legislatures around the country have moved to erect new barriers to voting for high school and college students in what state lawmakers describe as an effort to clamp down on potential voter fraud. Critics call it a blatant attempt to suppress the youth vote as young people increasingly bolster Democratic candidates and liberal causes at the ballot box.

    As turnout among young voters grows, new proposals that change photo ID requirements or impose other limits have emerged.

    Laws enacted in Idaho this year, for instance, prohibit the use of student IDs to register to vote or cast ballots. A new law in Ohio, in effect for the first time in Tuesday’s primary elections, requires voters to present government-authorized photo ID at the polls, but student IDs are not included. Identification issued by universities has not traditionally been accepted to vote in the Buckeye State, but the new law eliminates the use of utility bills, bank statements and other documents that students have used before.

    A proposal in Texas would eliminate all campus polling places in the state. Meanwhile, officials in Montana – where Democrat Jon Tester is seeking a fourth term in one of 2024’s highest-profile Senate contests – have appealed a court decision striking down additional document requirements for those using student IDs to vote.

    And voting rights advocates say a longstanding statute in Georgia, which bars the use of student IDs from private universities, has made it more difficult for students at several schools – including Spelman and Morehouse, storied HBCUs in Atlanta – to participate in Georgia’s competitive US Senate and presidential elections.

    “Republican legislatures … are pretty transparently trying to keep left-leaning groups from voting,” said Charlotte Hill, interim director of the Democracy Policy Initiative at UC-Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy. Rather than trying to sway young voters, lawmakers seem willing “to shrink the eligible electorate,” she added.

    Proponents say the changes are needed to protect against voter fraud and shore up public confidence in elections – battered by widespread, and false, claims of a stolen presidency in 2020. And they contend that the forms of identification provided by secondary schools and colleges vary too widely to serve as a reliable way to establish a voter’s identity and residency.

    “They are issued by colleges, universities, public and private high schools, and some have address and pictures, while some do not,” Idaho state Sen. Scott Herndon, a Republican and one of the sponsors of the new law, said in an email to CNN.

    During a legislative hearing earlier this year, Herndon said his goal was straightforward: “Make sure that people who are voting at the polls are who they say they are.”

    The efforts to clamp down on student IDs and campus voting come against a backdrop of gains for Democrats among this demographic group. Exit polls analyzed by the Brookings Institution found that people ages 18 to 29 – especially young women – made a pronounced shift toward Democrats in last year’s midterm elections, helping to blunt an expected “red wave” for Republicans.

    And voter registration among 18-24 year-olds increased in several states last year over 2018 levels – including Kansas and Michigan, where voters decided on ballot measures on abortion, following the US Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, according to data from Tufts University’s nonpartisan Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, or CIRCLE. CIRCLE conducts research into youth civic engagement.

    An analysis by The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel found that voting on college campuses soared in last month’s election for a state Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin. In that contest, the liberal candidate who prevailed, Janet Protasiewicz, had made protecting abortion rights a central feature of her campaign.

    Among the voting wards in the city of Eau Claire, for instance, the highest turnout came from the ward that served several University of Wisconsin dorms – with nearly 900 votes cast, up from 150 in a Supreme Court race four years earlier, the paper found. Protasiewicz won 87% of those votes.

    Prominent conservatives have spotlighted these voting trends.

    “Young voters are the issue,” Scott Walker, Wisconsin’s former Republican governor, wrote in a widely noticed Twitter post following the state Supreme Court election. “It comes from years of radical indoctrination – on campus, in school, with social media, & throughout culture,” said Walker, who is president of Young America’s Foundation, which works to popularize conservative ideas among young people. “We have to counter it or conservatives will never win battleground states again.”

    In an interview with CNN this week, Walker said his group is not seeking to change the ground rules for voting among younger Americans. But, he said, conservatives have been “overlooking ways to communicate to young people sooner than a month or two before the election.”

    One longtime GOP lawyer has discussed ways to curtail youth voting.

    The Washington Post, citing a PowerPoint presentation along with an audio recording of portions of the presentation obtained by liberal journalist Lauren Windsor, reported that GOP lawyer Cleta Mitchell recently urged Republicans to limit campus voting during a private gathering of Republican National Committee donors.

    Mitchell, who tried to help former President Donald Trump overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia, did not respond to a CNN interview request through a spokesperson for her current organization.

    In Idaho, notably, the number of young people ages 18 and 19 registered to vote soared 81% between the week of the midterm elections in November 2018 and the same time period in November 2022 – the highest gain in the nation – according to data collected by CIRCLE.

    One of the new laws in the state, which will take effect in January, drops student IDs from the list of accepted identification to vote. Now only these forms of ID can be used: a driver’s license or ID issued by the state’s transportation department, a US passport or identification with a photo issued by the US government, tribal identification or a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

    Student IDs had been accepted for voting for more than a decade in the state.

    State Rep. Tina Lambert, who authored the House version of the bill, declined a CNN interview request, citing a busy schedule.

    But she said in an email that students should be able to navigate the new law. “Students of voting age are smart and able,” Lambert wrote. “They are able to get the ID needed to vote. Most of them have IDs already, that they use for all the other things that they need legal ID for.”

    The law also has the support of Idaho Republican Secretary of State Phil McGrane, who told legislators this year that the change would help “maintain confidence in our elections” – although he said that he doesn’t know of any “instances of students trying to commit voter fraud.”

    He also noted that student identification was rarely used. Just 104 of the nearly 600,000 voters who cast ballots in Idaho’s general election last year did so using student ID, McGrane said.

    “Even if one person out there can only use a student ID to vote, that still matters. That’s still a vote,” said Saumya Sarin, a freshman at the College of Idaho in Caldwell, Idaho, and a volunteer with Babe Vote, a nonpartisan group that has worked to boost youth voter registration in the state. She testified against the proposal in the state legislature earlier this year.

    Saumya Sarin addresses the media at a press briefing announcing that BABE VOTE filed suit challenging the new law that removes student IDs as acceptable identification for voting in Idaho at the Idaho Statehouse in Boise on Friday, March 17.

    Sarlin, who turns 19 this week, said she presented a US passport last year when she voted for the first time, but she noted that she had “several friends off the top of my head” who don’t have the forms of identification now required in Idaho.

    “I think the direction that the youth are going with their vote scares the people who are currently in power a little bit because it works against them,” she said.

    Sarlin said she’s become active on voting issues to take a stand against state policies she opposes, including Idaho’s limits on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth and abortions. Idaho has a near-total ban on abortions and last month made it a crime to help a pregnant minor obtain an abortion in another state without parental consent.

    Babe Vote and the League of Women Voters of Idaho have filed a lawsuit in an effort to block the Idaho voter ID laws. The measures “were not driven by any legitimate or credible concerns about the ‘integrity’ of the state’s elections,” the groups argue in their civil complaint. “Instead, they are part of a broader effort to roll back voting rights, particularly for young voters by weaponizing imaginary threats to election integrity.”

    A separate lawsuit, brought by March for Our Lives Idaho and the Idaho Alliance for Retired Americans, in federal court also seeks to block the new laws.

    Not all proposals to restrict student voting have been successful to date.

    A bill introduced in February by GOP state Rep. Carrie Isaac in Texas to prohibit polling places on college campuses has not yet made it out of committee. Another Isaac bill would ban voting on K-12 campuses.

    She told CNN this week that the measures are needed because polling places are sites of raw emotions and high stress, and she doesn’t want that kind of environment in schools.

    “I don’t think it’s smart to invite people that would not otherwise have business on campus on our campuses,” Isaac said. “In Texas, we have two weeks of early voting that people are coming in, that would not otherwise be there. And I think we should do anything and everything to make our campuses as safe as possible.”

    She said she’s confident that college students can find ways to vote off-campus.

    In Georgia, a state that will be a key battleground in the 2024 White House contest, student IDs are accepted as a form of voter identification, but only if they are issued by public colleges in the state. Seven out of the 10 Historically Black Colleges and Universities Georgia are private, making it more difficult for students who attend those universities to cast their ballots, voting rights advocates say.

    Former state Sen. Cecil Staton, a Republican who sponsored the 2006 photo ID law, said the government can ensure consistent standards for student IDs at state schools. “We didn’t feel like we had that same ability with private schools,” he said.

    Aylon Gipson – a Morehouse student from Alabama and a fellow with the voting rights group Campus Vote Project – said he has a lot of friends who have had problems at the polls as a result of Georgia’s law, especially underclassmen who don’t have a driver’s license.

    Gipson, a junior economics major at Morehouse College, poses for a portrait in the library of the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel at Morehouse College in Atlanta on May 1.

    “I’ve seen specific instances where students will call me and say, ‘Hey, I tried to go in and vote, but I got turned around at this polling station,’ or specifically our on-campus polling station, because they didn’t have an ID or they didn’t have a valid license to be able to vote with,” Gipson said. “I think it’s disenfranchising students who attend these HBCUs simply because of the fact that we’re private.”

    And in Ohio, which will see a hotly contested US Senate race next year as Democrat Sherrod Brown seeks reelection in a state where the GOP controls the legislature and governor’s office, Tuesday’s primary election marks the first election with the new photo ID rules in place. Voting rights advocates say the new restrictions could spell problems for students who have moved to Ohio for college and are no longer allowed to provide dormitory, utility bills or other documents to establish their legal residency when voting.

    Getting the form of ID now required in Ohio, such as a state driver’s license, will invalidate identification students may possess from their home state.

    “It seems as if this specific group – out-of-state college students, who have every right to vote – have been targeted and singled out,” said Collin Marozzi, deputy policy director of the ACLU of Ohio.

    Legislators, he said, are sending a “poor signal to these college students: ‘We want your money for our colleges. We want your money for our economy. But we don’t really want you to have a voice in the future of this state.’ “

    Students in Ohio still can opt to vote absentee by mail if they don’t want to surrender their identification from the state where they used to live – provided they include the last four digits of their Social Security number on the application. (The law establishing new photo ID requirements also reduces the window to request and return absentee ballots.)

    “For that college student, they make a decision: Am I a voter in Ohio or, say, in Pennsylvania?” said Rob Nichols, a spokesman for Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican. “If you want to hang on to your Pennsylvania license, you can do so, vote absentee, give the last four digits of your Social, and you are on your merry way.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Feinstein’s return prompts renewed scrutiny over her fitness for office | CNN Politics

    Feinstein’s return prompts renewed scrutiny over her fitness for office | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Just a week after her return to the United States Senate after a roughly three month absence, questions continue to swirl around Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her mental capacity to serve in the world’s greatest deliberative body.

    The 89-year-old Democrat had been recovering from shingles at home in California, and had been absent from the Hill since February.

    Her long-awaited return on May 10 not only meant that the Senate Democratic Caucus would be at full attendance – since both Feinstein and Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman had been absent for much of the spring – but that the one-seat margin Democrats held on the powerful Judiciary Committee would be reconstituted to help advance President Joe Biden’s judicial nominations.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer greeted the frail Feinstein personally upon her return, when she was wheeled into the Capitol for a vote accompanied by staff on and off the floor. Schumer said Feinstein was “exactly where she wants to be, ready to do the things she loves the most – serving the people of California.” First elected to the Senate in 1992, she is the longest-serving woman senator in US history.

    But questions quickly sprang up on whether Feinstein, though present, would really be able to resume her demanding job. In a statement released by her office last week, Feinstein said that she is still “experiencing some side effects” from shingles and her doctors have advised her to “work a lighter schedule” as she returned to the Senate. During her arrival at the Capitol for votes, she appeared confused and was heard asking staff, “Where am I going?”

    And in an interaction with reporters Tuesday, as reported by the Los Angeles Times and Slate, Feinstein appeared confused by questions about her absence, saying, “I haven’t been gone. I’ve been here, I’ve been voting. Please, either know or don’t know.” It is not clear if Feinstein was referring to just the past week since her return or referring to the past several months while she was recovering at home.

    Feinstein’s office was asked for comment but indicated the senator did not have one at this time.

    Fellow Democrats remain unwilling to discuss Feinstein’s ability to serve, saying only they are glad to have a colleague back in the chamber.

    “I’m happy she’s returned, and that’s all I’m going to say about it,” Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono told CNN.

    Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, who replaced Feinstein as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “We certainly hope” that Feinstein will be able to serve the remainder of her term in the chamber, but demurred when asked if he is confident that she can serve.

    “I can’t be the judge of that. But I will tell you that she has to make that decision for herself and her family as to going forward, but we’re happy to have her back,” he said. “We’re monitoring her medical condition almost on a daily basis. Our staff is in touch with her staff.”

    The top Republican on the panel, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said of Feinstein, “She’s a dear friend. As a friend, you can see she’s hurting.”

    Other Republicans echoed that sentiment, wishing Feinstein well, but reluctant to weigh in on her mental acuity.

    “I have a lot of respect for Dianne Feinstein. She’s been great to work with. She’s a great committee member,” North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis told CNN’s Manu Raju, but said that “I haven’t had the chance to speak with her, so I couldn’t really comment on it.”

    “If you just take a look at anybody that spent ten months with a chronic case of shingles, that has a huge impact, I don’t care how old you are, but again I just haven’t spoken with her,” he said.

    Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn said that he is “not qualified to render a diagnosis,” but criticized some Democrats for calling on her to resign.

    “That seems a little harsh to me. I think that decision ought to be made by Senator Feinstein,” he said.

    Questions about a Senator’s health, and whispers about their fitness to serve, are not new. In the past decades, the median age of the Senate has ticked increasingly upward, with the 118th Congress median age at 65.3 years, according to the Pew Research Center.

    The current Senate has multiple members in their eighties, including Feinstein, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley. Another 41 Senators are at least sixty-seven years old, the official retirement age in the United States.

    In recent years, there have been prolonged absences by members of the Senate, notably Arizona Sen. John McCain, who battled brain cancer and was absent from the Senate almost eight months, but never faced calls from his colleagues to resign his seat.

    The late Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran was also out for several weeks with lingering health issues in the fall of 2017, and faced questions about his metal fitness, appearing frail and pale when he returned. The then-chairman of the influential Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters that he was fit to serve, and said at the time that he planned to run again in 2020, saying “it’s up to the people to decide. I think I am.”

    But the 79-year old Republican needed to be guided by staffers to a “Senators Only” elevator to find his way to the Senate floor. Cochran resigned from the Senate the following March.

    “I regret my health has become an ongoing challenge,” Cochran said in a statement announcing the end of a four-decade long career in the Senate. “I intend to fulfill my responsibilities and commitments to the people of Mississippi and the Senate through the completion of the 2018 appropriations cycle, after which I will formally retire from the U.S. Senate.”

    It is unclear if Feinstein will be given the same gentle off ramp afforded to her colleagues.

    On November 2020, Feinstein relented to pressure from other Democrats to give up the chair of the Judiciary Committee. In November 2022, under similar pressure, she announced that she would not want to serve as the Senate Pro Tempore, a high-ranking constitutional position granted to the longest-serving member of the Senate majority. Feinstein also announced the following February that she would not run for re-election in 2024. Her February 16, 2023 votes on the Senate floor would prove to be her last ones for months.

    Criticisms for Feinstein’s long absence started in earnest in April when fellow California Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna tweeted, “it’s time for @SenFeinstein to resign. We need to put the country ahead of personal loyalty.” Feinstein’s office pushed back on the criticism, arguing that there had not been a significant delay in advancing and confirming judicial nominees.

    After Fetterman and McConnell – who was injured in a fall and spent nearly two weeks in a rehabilitation facility – returned to the Senate, but Feinstein did not, it prompted more questions about the impasse created by her absence and Feinstein asked Schumer to temporarily replace her on the Judiciary Committee. Schumer proposed that Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin take her spot, but Senate Republicans blocked the effort, saying the move would allow judicial nominees they opposed to advance.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Top House progressive says Democratic leaders should be concerned about debt deal support | CNN Politics

    Top House progressive says Democratic leaders should be concerned about debt deal support | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Sunday that White House negotiators and Democratic leaders should be concerned about progressive support for the tentative deal to raise the debt ceiling for two years

    “Yes, they have to worry,” Jayapal told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union,” referring to some of the concessions made by the White House to reach the agreement with Republicans.

    Following the announcement of the deal Saturday night, the White House and Republican leaders in Congress have been mounting an intensive push to consolidate support. But the marathon is far from over, and there remains little certainty the nation will avoid a default.

    Whether House progressives will ultimately support the deal depends on the specifics of the agreement, Jayapal said, including how many people would be affected by expanded work requirements for certain adults receiving food stamps. The deal would also expand exemptions for certain recipients.

    “It is really unfortunate that the president opened the door to this, and while at the end of the day, you know, perhaps this will – because of the exemptions – perhaps it will be OK, I can’t commit to that. I really don’t know,” Jayapal said.

    The Washington Democrat said that she was briefed by top White House official Lael Brainard after the current framework came together but that she will not make her position clear until she can see legislative text.

    “That’s always, you know, a problem, if you can’t see the exact legislative text. And we’re all trying to wade through spin right now,” Jayapal said.

    The deal – which would also freeze spending on domestic programs and increase spending on defense and veterans issues, among other things – was meant to include provisions that could sway members of both parties to vote for it.

    Senior White House officials have been calling House Democrats since Saturday night to shore up support as some in the party say the Biden administration conceded too much.

    Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the former chair of the pro-business New Democrat Coalition, told “Fox News Sunday” he was leaning toward a “no” vote on the tentative deal.

    Himes said he did not want to validate the negotiating process used by Republicans, “which at the end of the day is a hostage-taking process,” adding that, “as the speaker said, there is absolutely nothing for the Democrats in these things.”

    But in a positive sign for the White House’s efforts to wrangle in Democratic votes, New Hampshire Rep. Ann McLane Kuster, the current head of the New Democrats bloc, signaled that her 99-member group may support the plan.

    “Our Members are encouraged that the two sides have reached an agreement, and are confident that President Biden and White House negotiators have delivered a viable, bipartisan solution to end this crisis,” Kuster said in a statement. “We are doing our due diligence as lawmakers to ensure that this agreement can receive support from both parties in both chambers of Congress.”

    Republican Rep. Dusty Johnson of South Dakota, one of the GOP negotiators on the deal, maintained that there were “no wins for Democrats” in the agreement.

    “There is nothing after the passage of this bill that will be more liberal or more progressive than it is today. It is a remarkable conservative accomplishment,” the chair of the center-right Republican Main Street Caucus said in a separate interview on “State of the Union.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link