ReportWire

Tag: Voting

  • Bipartisan commission gets to work on upgrading 28-year-old NC elections systems

    [ad_1]

    North Carolina’s election technology is long overdue for an upgrade, state officials say, and now a bipartisan commission is poised to meet for the first time Tuesday to dive into the nitty-gritty of modernizing the systems. 

    In the end, officials say, election results should come faster, voter data should be better maintained, and the systems that organize votes should be more secure.

    North Carolina’s Statewide Elections Information Management System (SEIMS) dates to 1998. It has evolved into a tangle of technology, consisting of modern, web-based applications and legacy systems that are written in unsupported programming languages that pose security risks, and are difficult to manage and update. The current systems are “on the verge of malfunctioning due to various updates to operating and other system resources,” the state said in describing the upgrade to potential contractors.

    Lawmakers passed a spending package last year that included $15 million for the State Board of Elections to use for upgrades to the system, including improvements to campaign finance software. 

    State Auditor Dave Boliek, a Republican whose office oversees state election administration, created the bipartisan commission to help oversee the modernization effort, and to build faith among voters who might be skeptical of the process. The Modernization of Election Data Systems commission is made up of 22 members: professional election staffers, political appointees and academics, who are tasked with helping fix the technology that supports North Carolina’s elections.

    Election technology has come under scrutiny from some voters in recent years, fueled in part by President Donald Trump’s disproven claims about voter fraud during the 2020 election. In 2024, nearly one in every three North Carolina voters had little to no faith in the accuracy of election results, according to a WRAL News poll. Mistrust was highest among Trump supporters, even though audits of past election results haven’t found widespread voter fraud.

    A recent North Carolina lawsuit — brought by Republican Jefferson Griffin, who challenged a 2024 race for a state Supreme Court seat — put a brighter spotlight on election data management, though. Griffin challenged the validity of thousands of voters, saying they had errant or incorrect information on file with the state. Griffin lost that challenge and the race, but his effort prompted the state to seek to verify the identity of thousands of North Carolina voters.

    The tech upgrade also comes as Democrats question whether elections can be administered impartially following the transfer of election control from the Democratic governor’s office to the Republican state auditor — a move enabled by the Republican-led state legislature.

    Phase one of the modernization effort — including requesting proposals from vendors and creating the commission — is complete. The second phase will take several years. Boliek plans incremental modernization of the current system to keep it operational. 

    In the meantime, Boliek says the current system is in good shape to produce accurate results and a fair election.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Is a DHS tool kicking naturalized citizens off voter rolls?

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration revamped a tool to search citizenship status and help states find ineligible voters.

    A Florida Democratic lawmaker said the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is using it to target eligible voters.

    “DHS is pushing states to ban naturalized U.S. citizens from voting by falsely labeling them as illegal,” U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Feb. 15 on X. “It’s an attack on democracy disguised as immigration enforcement. If the SAVE Act becomes law, DHS would use the same flawed, untested tool nationwide.”

    Wasserman Schultz’s post linked to a news investigation that reported the Systematic Alien Verification Act (SAVE) tool has wrongly identified foreign-born, naturalized U.S. citizens as ineligible voters. Previously, the SAVE tool was primarily used to prevent noncitizens from using federal benefits, but the Trump administration rapidly expanded it in 2025, building a national citizenship lookup tool to find noncitizens on state voter rolls.

    Right now, states’ participation is voluntary. But if the SAVE America Act becomes law, they would be required to use the tool.

    Federal law already bans noncitizens from voting in federal elections and cases of noncitizen voting are rare. If they vote, noncitizens risk deportation, fines, or jail time. 

    The U.S. House recently passed the SAVE America Act, which would require people to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote and present an approved form of photo ID when voting. 

    The bill has President Donald Trump’s support but faces a shaky future in the Senate. 

    As lawmakers consider imposing the expanded SAVE tool across the country, we looked at how Florida and other states are using it and what it means for voters.

    What is the SAVE tool?

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services runs the SAVE tool, which checks immigrants’ eligibility for public assistance programs, such as Medicaid, housing loans and unemployment.

    For more than a decade, some states, including Florida, have used SAVE to check people’s citizenship status for voter registration. 

    What changed in 2025?

    The Trump administration expanded the tool by pulling in data from across the federal government to try to help states find noncitizen voters.

    The overhaul started after Trump’s March executive order directing the Social Security Administration to share data on anyone who has ever applied for a Social Security number to help states verify voter eligibility. The tool continues to merge data, recently including the State Department’s U.S. passport database.

    The tool now lets state election officials use the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers, passport numbers, names and birth dates to check if voters are citizens. They also use it to verify whether voters have died.

    The Justice Department, meanwhile, has told states to turn over their voter rolls to find noncitizens, and then sued about half of those states for failing to fully comply. 

    What have Florida and other states discovered using the tool? 

    Florida is among 26 states that use or plan to use the tool for voter verification, DHS said.

    In a 2025 report, Florida’s Office of Election Crimes and Security said preliminary investigations into the citizenship status of more than 835 people found that 198 were “likely noncitizens” who illegally registered or voted in Florida; it referred 170 to law enforcement. The report said it used various methods in its investigation, including DMV records, documents relevant to citizenship, and the SAVE tool to cross verify people’s status.

    The office didn’t respond to PolitiFact’s questions about how many of Florida’s more than 13.3 million registered voters were confirmed noncitizens, voted in recent elections or faced criminal charges. The secretary of state’s office also didn’t say how many citizens have been mistakenly flagged by the SAVE tool. 

    Several Florida county elections officials told PolitiFact that the state primarily sends a list of potential noncitizens to their offices for their review. 

    Alachua County, which has about 162,600 registered voters, used information from the tool to remove nine people from its voter rolls for noncitizenship since January 2025, said Dillon Boatner, an information specialist at the county’s elections office. Three of the nine had cast votes within the past four years, he said. 

    Polk County, which has about 444,900 registered voters, confirmed 69 people flagged by the system were noncitizens and were removed from voter rolls over the last year, said Melony Bell, the county’s elections supervisor. When PolitiFact asked for the total number of people the tool flagged for review, and how many ended up being U.S. citizens, Bell said the office couldn’t pull a report providing those numbers.
     
    Leah Valenti, Charlotte County’s elections supervisor, told The New York Times that 15 out of 176,000 names she uploaded to the tool came back as noncitizens. Of those, three people were mistakenly added to the rolls and two others had already sent in documentation to prove their naturalized citizenship.

    Other states using the tool likewise haven’t reported large numbers of noncitizens casting ballots.

    Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry, a Republican, said in September that officials identified 79 “likely noncitizens” who had voted in at least one election since the 1980s after running nearly all of the state’s 2.9 million voters through the tool.

    Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, also a Republican, said in January that officials spent months examining the state’s 2 million registered voters and found one confirmed noncitizen, who never voted. 

    Out of 49.5 million voter registrations that have been checked in SAVE across the country, The New York Times reported Jan. 14 that federal officials referred around 10,000 for further investigation of noncitizenship, or roughly .02% of the names processed. 

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services told PolitiFact over 59 million voter verification queries have been processed in the tool since its relaunch.

    Why are people concerned about the tool’s accuracy?

    Lawyers and organizations who specialize in voting rights have warned that using SAVE to verify citizenship can lead to errors because the data is sometimes based on incomplete or outdated information.

    A Feb. 13 ProPublica and Texas Tribune investigation found that the tool has made persistent mistakes, “particularly in assessing the status of people born outside the U.S.” The tool doesn’t always reflect when people became naturalized citizens and DHS has had to correct information sent to multiple states after SAVE misidentified voters as noncitizens, the report said.

    SAVE doesn’t have access to all potential data that could show whether someone is a citizen, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services told PolitiFact in a statement.

    When the tool flags people who say they are citizens, the agency said it manually checks for inconsistencies before sending results back to the state for review.

    Data from the Social Security Administration can be outdated for naturalized citizens because the agency has historically relied on people to voluntarily report citizenship changes in person, creating significant lags. 

    “This data will be reliably stale and will target naturalized citizens for undue suspicion,” Danielle
    Lang, the Campaign Legal Center’s director of voting rights, previously told PolitiFact. The center was one of the groups that sued the administration over Trump’s executive order.

    The Social Security Administration started noting citizenship in its data 40 years ago, so the agency doesn’t have a complete database, according to the Institute for Responsive Government, an organization that provides governments with research, including about election infrastructure.

    Because U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services merged a massive amount of data from multiple agencies, the new features require testing and validation, the institute said in May, recommending election officials process carefully when using the tool. 

    “Data of unknown or unverified quality must not be used to initiate voter removals without strict adherence to all safeguards in state and federal law,” the institute said. 

    What can naturalized citizens do if they are flagged?

    The voter removal process varies by state. If a voter is flagged as ineligible in Florida, state statute says local election officials must notify them by mail within seven days explaining why they were identified. The notice must include a request for a response within 30 days, after which the person will be removed from the voter registration system.

    Eligible voters wrongly flagged by the system must provide documentation of their citizenship or request a formal hearing to contest the findings. 

    For naturalized citizens, valid proof of citizenship includes a U.S. passport, a certificate of naturalization or citizenship. U.S. citizens who were born outside the country would need to show a consular report of birth abroad, a State Department document certifying a child born abroad to U.S. citizen parents acquired citizenship at birth.

    RELATED: Trump administration overhauls database for election officials to check voters’ citizenship status

    PolitiFact Senior Correspondent Amy Sherman contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tarrant County early-voting locations, dates & times for March 3 primary election

    [ad_1]

    FortWorth

    Early voting starts Tuesday in Democratic and Republican primaries for U.S. Senator, Texas state lawmaker seats, county positions and other elected offices up and down the ballot.

    The in-person early voting period runs from Feb. 17-27. Voters in Tarrant County can head to any polling location in the county to get a jump start on voting ahead of the March 3 election.

    Here’s when and where to vote in Tarrant County.

    Schedule for primary early voting in Tarrant County

    Polls are open at the following times:

    • Feb. 17-20: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    • Feb. 21: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
    • Feb. 22: 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    • Feb. 23-27: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

    Tarrant County early voting locations for Democratic, Republican primaries

    There are 40 polling places open for early voting. A list of the sites is available on the Tarrant County Election Administration website, but we’ve also listed them out here for those wanting to head out and cast their ballots early.

    • ACTIV (2061 W Green Oaks Blvd., Arlington, 76013)
    • Bob Duncan Center (2800 S Center St., Arlington 76014)
    • City of Arlington South Service Center (1100 SW Green Oaks Blvd., Arlington 76017)
    • Elzie Odom Athletic Center (1601 NE Green Oaks Blvd., Arlington, 76006)
    • Tarrant County Subcourthouse in Arlington (700 E Abram St., Arlington 76010)
    • Tarrant County College Southeast Campus EMBD 1105 (2100 Southeast Parkway, Arlington, 76018)
    • Azle ISD PD (483 Sandy Beach Road, Suite A, Azle, 76020)
    • Bedford Public Library (2424 Forest Ridge Drive, Bedford 76021)
    • Benbrook Community Center (228 San Angelo Ave., Benbrook 76126)
    • Colleyville Recreation Center Annex A (5008 Roberts Road, Colleyville, 76034)
    • Crouch Event Center in Bicentennial Park (900 E Glendale St., Crowley, 76036)
    • Euless Family Life Senior Center (300 W Midway Drive, Euless 76039)
    • City of Forest Hill City Hall (3219 California Parkway, Forest Hill, 76119)
    • Charles F. Griffin Building (3212 Miller Ave., Fort Worth, 76119)
    • Como Community Center (4660 Horne St., Fort Worth, 76107)
    • Dionne Phillips Bagsby Southwest Subcourthouse (6551 Granbury Road, Fort Worth, 76133)
    • Handley-Meadowbrook Community Center (6201 Beaty St., Fort Worth 76112)
    • Northpark YMCA (9100 N Beach St., Fort Worth, 76244)
    • Northside Community Center (1100 NW 18th St., Fort Worth, 76164)
    • Southside Community Center (959 E Rosedale St., Fort Worth 76104)
    • Southwest Community Center (6300 Welch Ave., Fort Worth, 76133)
    • Summerglen Branch Library (4205 Basswood Blvd., Fort Worth, 76137)
    • Tarrant County College Northwest Campus, WFSC 1403A (4801 Marine Creek Parkway, Fort Worth, 76179)
    • Tarrant County Elections Center (2700 Premier St., Fort Worth, 76111)
    • Tarrant County Plaza Building (201 Burnett St., Fort Worth, 76102)
    • Asia Times Square, Hong Kong building room 116 (2615 W Pioneer Parkway, Grand Prairie, 75051)
    • Grapevine Public Library (1201 Municipal Way, Grapevine, 76051)
    • Haltom City Senior Center (3201 Friendly Lane, Haltom City, 76117)
    • Legacy Learning Center Northwest ISD (501 School House Road, Haslet, 76052)
    • Brookside Center (1244 Brookside Drive, Hurst, 76053)
    • Gary Fickes Northeast Courthouse (645 Grapevine Highway, Hurst, 76054)
    • Keller Town Hall (1100 Bear Creek Parkway, Keller, 76248)
    • Dover Fellowship Hall (208 Municipal Drive, Kennedale, 76060)
    • Sheriff’s Office North Patrol Division (6651 Lake Worth Blvd., Lake Worth, 76135)
    • Tarrant County Subcourthouse at Mansfield (1100 E Broad St., Mansfield 76063)
    • Vernon Newsom Stadium (3700 E Broad St., Mansfield, 76063)
    • North Richland Hills City Hall (4301 City Point Drive, North Richland Hills 76180)
    • Saginaw Public Library (300 W McLeroy Blvd., Saginaw, 76179)
    • Southlake Town Hall (1400 Main St., Southlake, 76092)
    • White Settlement Public Library (8215 White Settlement Road, White Settlement 76108)

    Do voters have to register with a specific political party?

    No, voters in Texas do not have to register with a political party in order to vote in its primary.

    More resources for Democratic, Republican primary voters

    Here are some other resources that Tarrant County voters may find useful:

    Eleanor Dearman

    Fort Worth Star-Telegram

    Eleanor (Elly) Dearman is a Texas politics and government reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. She’s based in Austin, covering the Legislature and its impact on North Texas. She grew up in Denton and has been a reporter for more than six years.
    Support my work with a digital subscription

    [ad_2]

    Eleanor Dearman

    Source link

  • 5th Circuit upholds Texas ban on paid ballot harvesting, overturning lower court

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    A federal appeals court Thursday upheld a Texas law banning paid ballot harvesting, reversing a lower court that had blocked the measure as unconstitutional and allowing the state to enforce the restriction.

    In a 26-page opinion, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a district court erred when it struck down part of Texas’ 2021 election law, Senate Bill 1. The provision makes it a crime to be paid to interact with voters in person while they are filling out mail ballots in order to influence how they vote.

    Under the statute, a person commits a crime if they knowingly provide “vote harvesting services” in exchange for compensation or other benefit. The law defines those services as in-person interaction with one or more voters, in the physical presence of an official ballot, intended to deliver votes for a specific candidate or measure.

    The law targets paid political operatives who go door to door, help voters request or complete mail ballots and then collect those ballots — sometimes while advising or pressuring voters as they mark them.

    RNC GETS DAY AT SUPREME COURT TO CHALLENGE LATE-ARRIVING MAIL BALLOTS

    Texas circuit court upheld ban on paid ballot harvesting.  (Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

    Supporters of the measure say paid ballot collection creates opportunities for coercion or fraud, particularly with mail-in voting, where election officials are not present. Opponents argue organized ballot assistance is a legitimate get-out-the-vote strategy and that restrictions disproportionately affect elderly and minority voters who rely on help returning ballots.

    Judge Edith H. Jones, writing for the panel, said the lower court improperly invalidated the law before it had even taken effect and relied on speculative hypotheticals.

    The district court had ruled the statute was unconstitutionally vague and violated the First Amendment, issuing an injunction that barred the Texas attorney general, secretary of state and several district attorneys from enforcing it.

    TEXAS PASSES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT EXPLICITLY PROHIBITING NONCITIZEN VOTING

    The 5th Circuit disagreed.

    On the vagueness claim, the panel said terms such as “compensation or other benefit” and “physical presence” have common meanings that juries can understand. The court also emphasized that the statute requires a person to act “knowingly,” which narrows its reach.

    The judges said the law clearly applies, for example, to “prevent paid partisans from haranguing Texas citizens while they fill out their mail ballots.”

    Voting stations in Texas

    In a 26-page opinion, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a district court erred when it struck down part of Texas’ 2021 election law, Senate Bill 1. The provision makes it a crime to be paid to interact with voters in person while they are filling out mail ballots in order to influence how they vote. (MARK FELIX/AFP via Getty Images)

    The panel also rejected the First Amendment challenge. Applying a balancing test commonly used in election law cases, the court said Texas has a compelling interest in preventing voter intimidation and fraud and in preserving confidence in elections.

    The opinion leaned heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, which upheld Arizona restrictions on ballot collection and recognized that mail-in voting presents unique fraud risks.

    Even under the highest constitutional standard of review, the 5th Circuit said, Texas’ law is narrowly tailored because it applies only to paid, in-person conduct directly involving a ballot — not to unpaid volunteers or general political advocacy.

    Georgia absentee ballots

    Supporters of the measure say paid ballot collection creates opportunities for coercion or fraud, particularly with mail-in voting, where election officials are not present.  (AP Photo/John Bazemore)

    The ruling also addressed procedural issues, concluding that the Texas attorney general and secretary of state were not proper defendants under sovereign immunity principles. However, local district attorneys who indicated they would enforce the law absent an injunction can remain parties to the case.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    The decision marks a significant win for Texas officials defending the state’s post-2020 election reforms and reinforces a broader trend in federal courts giving states wide latitude to regulate election procedures.

    Voting rights groups involved in the lawsuit could seek rehearing or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hockinson School District Holds Levy Special Election February 10th – KXL

    [ad_1]

    Web photo:  HSD Facebook Page

    HOCKINSON, Wash. — Voters in the Hockinson School District in Clark County have a decision to make to as the district asks for a $26.2 million dollar levy to extend current funding for the next 4 years in a special election. Superintendent Steve Marshall believes it’s a vote for the future.

    Marshall says he is hoping this will pass and they can avoid cuts, but says their main job is simply to make due with what they have – and maximize dollars for every student. He calls that “The Hockinson Way.”

    You can listen to Hockinson School District Superintendent Steve Marshall’s extended converstaion with KXL’s Brett Reckamp from Beyond the Headlines by clicking below.
    https://p.ftur.io/kxl/4348

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Brett Reckamp

    Source link

  • Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon calls for ICE to

    [ad_1]


    Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon calls for ICE to “surround the polls” in November – CBS News









































    Watch CBS News



    Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has called on President Trump to deploy ICE agents to voting sites during the midterm elections. CBS News White House reporter Aaron Navarro has more.

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • Trump says federal government should ‘take over’ state elections

    [ad_1]

    President Trump said Monday that the federal government should “nationalize” elections, repeating — without evidence — his long-running claim that U.S. elections are beset by widespread fraud.

    Speaking on a podcast hosted by former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, Trump said Republicans should “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” alleging that voting irregularities in what he called “crooked states” are hurting the GOP.

    “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting,” Trump said.

    The proposal would clash with the Constitution’s long-standing framework that grants states primary authority over election administration, and underscored Trump’s continued efforts to upend voting rules ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

    Trump, for example, lamented that Republicans have not been “tougher” on the issue, again asserting without evidence that he lost the 2020 election because undocumented immigrants voted illegally for Democrats.

    “If we don’t get them out, Republicans will never win another election,” Trump said. “These people were brought to our country to vote and they vote illegally, and it is amazing that the Republicans are not tougher on it.”

    In his remarks, the president suggested that “some interesting things” may come out of Georgia in the near future. Trump did not divulge more details, but was probably teasing what may come after the FBI served a search warrant at the election headquarters of Fulton County, Ga.

    Days after FBI agents descended on the election center, the New York Times reported that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was with agents at the scene when she called Trump on her cellphone. Trump thanked them for their work, according to the report, an unusual interaction between the president and investigators tied to a politically sensitive inquiry.

    In the days leading up to the Georgia search, Trump suggested in a speech during the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, that criminal charges were imminent in connection to what he called a “rigged” 2020 election.

    Georgia has been central to Trump’s 2020 claims. That’s where Trump called Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on January 2021, asking him to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn the state’s results. Raffensperger refused, affirming that a series of reviews confirmed that Democrat Joe Biden had won the state.

    Since returning to office a year ago, Trump has continued to aggressively pushed changes to election rules.

    He signed an executive order in March to require proof of U.S. citizenship on election forms, but months later a federal judge barred the Trump administration from doing so, saying the order violated the separation of powers.

    “Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in October.

    In Congress, several Republican lawmakers have backed legislation to require people provide proof of citizenship before they register to vote.

    Some conservatives are using the elections bill as bargaining chip amid negotiations over a spending package that would end a partial government shutdown that began early Saturday.

    “ONLY AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE VOTING IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS. This is common sense not rocket science,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) wrote on X on Monday as negotiations were continuing.

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Out-of-state group funds pot law repeal

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A Virginia-based group is leading an initiative to repeal Massachusetts’ 2016 recreational cannabis law and putting hundreds of thousands of dollars behind the effort, according to newly released campaign finance data.

    The anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana has contributed more than $1.5 million to a proposed referendum that would effectively halt recreational cannabis sales by forcing the state’s $1.7 billion industry to convert to medical pot shops. It would also ban nonmedical home growing.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmu:=:?8D H:E9 E96 DE2E6 ~77:46 @7 r2>A2:8?D 2?5 !F3=:4 u:?2?46 D9@H E96 pC=:?8E@?[ ‘:C8:?:232D65 8C@FA 4@?EC:3FE65 S`]dd >:==:@? 😕 $6AE6>36C E@ E96 r@2=:E:@? 7@C 2 w62=E9J |2DD249FD6EED x?4][ 2 4@>>:EE66 E92E 9:C65 A2:5 D:8?2EFC6 82E96C6CD E@ 4=62C 2 7:CDE 9FC5=6 E@ E96 32==@E]k^Am

    kAm“(6 2C6 DFAA@CE:?8 E9:D 677@CE 3642FD6 >@>6?EF> 😀 C:D:?8 24C@DD E96 4@F?ECJ E@ C6;64E =682= >2C:;F2?2[” E96 8C@FA’D 4@7@F?56C 2?5 rt~[ z6G:? $236E[ D2:5 😕 2 AC6A2C65 DE2E6>6?E] “p?5 ?@ H@?56Ci p>6C:42?D 😕 6G6CJ DE2E6 2C6 H2<:?8 FA E@ E96 >2DD:G6 92C>D E9:D ?6H q:8 %@3244@ :?5FDECJ 5@6D E@ 6G6CJE9:?8 7C@> >6?E2= 2?5 A9JD:42= 962=E9 E@ D@4:2= 4@96D:@? 2?5 @C56C]”k^Am

    kAm%96 8C@FA[ 4@7@F?565 3J 7@C>6C #9@56 xD=2?5 r@?8C6DD>2? !2EC:4< z6??65J[ 😀 32?:=2C C6A62= :?:E:2E:G6D 😕 @E96C DE2E6D H96C6 A@E 😀 =682=]k^Am

    kAm$236E 2C8F6D E92E E96 25G6?E @7 C64C62E:@?2= A@E 😕 |2DD249FD6EED 92D 4@?EC:3FE65 E@ :?4C62D65 5CF8 255:4E:@? 2?5 >6?E2= 962=E9 :DDF6D 2>@?8 J@FE9D H9:=6 6?C:49:?8 E96 42??23:D :?5FDECJ]k^Am

    kAmw6 4:E65 DEF5:6D 7C@> 4@?D6CG2E:G6 8C@FAD 4=2:>:?8 “G:@=6?E 4C:>6” 92D DA:<65 😕 E96 DE2E6 D:?46 A@E H2D =682=:K65]k^Am

    kAm“{682= H665 92D 366? 2 325 562= 7@C 6G6CJ@?6 6I46AE E96 :?5FDECJ[” $236E D2:5]k^Am

    kAm#J2? s@>:?8F6K 😀 E96 6I64FE:G6 5:C64E@C @7 E96 |2DD249FD6EED r2??23:D r@2=:E:@? 2?5 9625 @7 2 4@>>:EE66 @AA@D:?8 E96 C6A62= 677@CE]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D C62==J :D?’E 23@FE AF3=:4 962=E9 @C D276EJ[” 96 D2:5] “xE’D 2 ?2E:@?2= @C82?:K2E:@? ECJ:?8 E@ AFD9 :ED 286?52 @? E96 DE2E6 2?5 FD6 :ED @FE@7DE2E6 5@?@CD E@ DAC625 >:D:?7@C>2E:@? 😕 2? 677@CE E@ @G6CEFC? 2 56>@4C2E:4 @FE4@>6] %96 DE2E6’D G@E6CD >256 :E 4=62C 😕 a_`e E96J @G6CH96=>:?8=J DFAA@CE =682=:K2E:@?]”k^Am

    kAms@>:?8F6K D2:5 =682= H665 92D 366? 2 H:?572== 7@C E96 DE2E6 2?5 =@42= 8@G6C?>6?ED[ H9:49 92G6 4@==64E65 9F?5C65D @7 >:==:@?D @7 5@==2CD 😕 E2I6D D:?46 C64C62E:@?2= D2=6D H6C6 7:CDE 2FE9@C:K65] w6 5:DAFE65 4=2:>D 3J E96 8C@FA E92E E96 42??23:D :?5FDECJ 92D 4@?EC:3FE65 E@ 4C:>6]k^Am

    kAm$FAA@CE6CD @7 E96 C6A62= 677@CE 4=62C65 2 >2;@C 9FC5=6 E@ E96 32==@E 27E6C E96J DF3>:EE65 >@C6 E92? fg[___ G@E6C D:8?2EFC6D E@ $64C6E2CJ @7 $E2E6 q:== v2=G:?’D @77:46 7@C 46CE:7:42E:@? @7 E96 x?:E:2E:G6 !6E:E:@? 7@C 2 {2H #6=2E:G6 E@ #68F=2E:?8 |2C:;F2?2] v2=G:? 46CE:7:65 E96 D:8?2EFC6D]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6 q2==@E {2H r@>>:DD:@? C6;64E65 2 4@>A=2:?E 2==68:?8 DFAA@CE6CD @7 E96 677@CE “7C2F5F=6?E=J” 4@==64E65 D:8?2EFC6D 7C@> G@E6CD 3J 9:C:?8 2 E9:C5A2CEJ 8C@FA E92E >256 5646AE:G6 4=2:>D 23@FE H92E E96 AC@A@D65 32==@E BF6DE:@? H@F=5 5@ :7 2AAC@G65]k^Am

    kAmq@E9 E96 $64C6E2CJ @7 $E2E6’D ~77:46 2?5 E96 |2DD249FD6EED ~77:46 @7 E96 pEE@C?6J v6?6C2= H6C6 C6A@CE65=J 4@?E24E65 3J G@E6CD 4@?46C?65 23@FE E96 E24E:4D 36:?8 FD65 3J E96 2?E:42??23:D 42>A2:8? E@ 4@==64E D:8?2EFC6D] }6:E96C H2D H:==:?8 E@ 4@>>6?E 23@FE 2?J 24E:G6 :?G6DE:82E:@?D]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED G@E6CD =682=:K65 C64C62E:@?2= 42??23:D E9C@F89 2 32==@E C676C6?5F> 😕 a_`e[ H9:49 A2DD65 H:E9 dbT @7 E96 G@E6]k^Am

    kAm#646?E A@==D 92G6 D9@H? DEC@?8 DFAA@CE 7@C C64C62E:@?2= A@E 😕 E96 DE2E6 2?5 ?2E:@?2==J]k^Am

    kAmrC:E:4D 2=D@ D2J 2==@H:?8 42??23:D E@ C6>2:? =682= H9:=6 DE@AA:?8 E96 C6E2:= >2C<6E H@F=5 7665 3=24< >2C<6E D2=6D @7 E96 5CF8[ 4C62E:?8 AF3=:4 D276EJ :DDF6D]k^Am

    kAm&?56C E96 DE2E6 4@?DE:EFE:@?[ E96 {68:D=2EFC6 😀 C6BF:C65 E@ 4@?D:56C E96 :?:E:2E:G6 A6E:E:@?D 367@C6 324<6CD @7 E96 C676C6?5F>D >FDE 4@?5F4E 2?@E96C C@F?5 @7 D:8?2EFC6 82E96C:?8] {2H>2<6CD 92G6 F?E:= |2J d E@ G@E6 @? E96 AC@A@D2=D]k^Am

    kAmx7 =2H>2<6CD 5@?’E E2<6 FA E96 4FCC6?E >62DFC6D[ 324<6CD @7 E96 C676C6?5F>D >FDE 82E96C `a[cah D:8?2EFC6D E@ >2<6 E96 32==@E]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Buster Posey takes center stage among the newcomers for next year’s Hall of Fame ballot

    [ad_1]

    These days, Buster Posey’s focus is on trying to build a winner as president of baseball operations for the San Francisco Giants.

    Eleven months from now, however, writers will be evaluating an earlier part of his career.

    Posey is expected to be the top newcomer on the 2027 Hall of Fame ballot. There are no first-ballot inductees this year after the results were announced on Tuesday night. Holdover candidates Carlos Beltrán and Andruw Jones were the only ones voted in.

    Beltrán and Jones were the top returning vote-getters from 2025, so it wasn’t a shock when they received the necessary 75% approval from members of the Baseball Writers’ Association of America. It helped that the newcomers to the ballot didn’t draw too much attention. Of that group, only Cole Hamels even cleared the 5% threshold to avoid being dropped from future votes.

    Next year, Posey has a chance to make the Hall on his first try. A seven-time All-Star who led the Giants to three World Series titles, the star catcher was the National League batting champion and MVP in 2012.

    Catcher can be a tough position to predict when it comes to Hall voting, but Joe Mauer made it two years ago on his first opportunity.

    “I remember doing like a poll before that ballot came out, just gauging what people thought would happen with Mauer, and the results were all over the place,” said Ryan Thibodaux, who runs an online ballot tracker prior to the announcement of each year’s results. “Some people thought he’d get like 20% and some people thought he’d get elected. I think the sense with Posey, maybe because of Mauer a little bit, is that he could very well get in on the first ballot.”

    Andy Pettitte’s vote jumped from 27.9% to 48.5% this year, and Félix Hernández’s increased from 20.6% to 46.1%. That does not mean their chances of being inducted are that similar. Pettitte only has two more years on the ballot before exhausting the 10-year limit. Hernández, on the other hand, has only been on it twice and has plenty of time.

    Lately, voters have been quite open to considering the top starting pitchers on the ballot. CC Sabathia was a first-ballot inductee last year, and now Pettitte and Hernández have had big jumps in approval. And Hamels earned 23.8% support in his first time on the ballot.

    A concern for Hamels is the fact that eventually, the likes of Clayton Kershaw, Justin Verlander and Max Scherzer — each of whom has three Cy Young Awards — will be on the ballot. It’ll be harder for other starters if they’re being compared directly to those three.

    But Hernández might get in before that becomes an issue.

    The highest vote-getter who didn’t reach 75% this year is Chase Utley, who moved from 39.8% to 59.1%. This was only his third time on the ballot.

    “It looks like Utley got himself into a position where he might be elected as soon as next year, although a 16% gain is not easy,” Thibodaux said. “He’ll probably get close if he doesn’t actually get all the way.”

    Only one player will be in his 10th year on the ballot next time. That’s Omar Vizquel, who received only 18.4% approval this year.

    The slick-fielding shortstop was at 52.6% in 2020, but he was accused of domestic violence by his ex-wife and his support cratered. He was also sued over claims of sexual harassment by a former minor league bat boy.

    ___

    AP MLB: https://apnews.com/hub/mlb

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • EU lawmakers vote to hold up Mercosur trade agreement over legal concerns

    [ad_1]

    BRUSSELS — European Union lawmakers on Wednesday voted to hold up ratification of a major free trade agreement with the Mercosur group of South American countries over concerns about the legality of the deal.

    In a vote in Strasbourg, France, lawmakers narrowly approved sending the EU-Mercosur agreement to Europe’s top court to rule on whether it is in line with the bloc’s treaties. The result was 334 votes in favor to 324 against, with 11 abstentions.

    The assembly cannot vote to approve the pact until the European Court of Justice has ruled, and this could take months.

    The long sought-after free trade agreement was signed into effect on Saturday. Twenty-five years in the making, it aimed to strengthen commercial ties in the face of rising protectionism and trade tensions around the world.

    The deal was seen as a central priority of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who shepherded it through a key vote on Jan. 9 among the EU’s 27 leaders. “The more trading partners we have world-wide, the more independent we are,” von der Leyen said at the World Economic Forum in Davos, pointing to Mercosur and another trade deal in the works with India.

    Supported by South America’s cattle-raising countries and European industrial interests, the accord is aimed at gradually eliminating more than 90% of tariffs on goods ranging from Argentine beef to German cars, creating one of the world’s largest free trade zones and making shopping cheaper for more than 700 million consumers.

    France, Europe’s major agricultural producer, wanted stronger protections for farmers and has sought to delay the pact. Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot welcomed the parliament’s vote, saying in a social media post that the assembly “expressed itself in line with the position that we have defended. France takes responsibility for saying no when it has to, and history often proves it right. The fight continues.”

    The European Commission said that it “strongly regrets” the parliament’s decision.

    However, the EU’s powerful executive branch can provisionally apply the deal until then. EU leaders are expected to discuss the way ahead at an emergency summit focused on transatlantic relations on Thursday.

    In a post on social media, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz described the EU parliament’s decision as “regrettable.”

    “It misjudges the geopolitical situation. We are convinced of the legality of the agreement. No further delays. The agreement must now be applied provisionally,” Merz wrote.

    Bernd Lange, head of the parliament’s committee on trade, said the vote was “absolutely irresponsible” and “very harmful for our economic interests.”

    Opponents should simply vote against ratification “instead of using delaying tactics under the guise of legal review,” he wrote on X.

    Ratification is considered all but guaranteed in South America, where the agreement has broad support.

    Mercosur consists of the region’s two biggest economies, Argentina and Brazil, as well as Paraguay and Uruguay. Bolivia, the bloc’s newest member, is not included the trade deal, but could join in the coming years. Venezuela has been suspended from the bloc and is not included in the agreement.

    —-

    AP writers Sam McNeil in Brussels and David McHugh in Frankfurt, Germany contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Battle Ground Public Schools Goes for Another Levy – KXL

    [ad_1]

    Battle Ground, Wash. — After two recent failed bond levy’s, Battle Ground Public Schools will ask voters again to say yes to a bond levy.  February 10th, the nearly $190 million dollar replacement Educational Programs & Operations Levy will be on the ballot.  It is designed to replace one that expired in 2021.

    Voters said no to a school bond levy in February and April of 2025.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Brett Reckamp

    Source link

  • Guinea’s junta leader is confirmed president-elect after first vote since a 2021 coup

    [ad_1]

    CONAKRY, Guinea — The Supreme Court in Guinea on Sunday upheld the election victory of Gen. Mamadi Doumbouya, cementing the junta leader’s transition to a democratically elected president four years after staging a coup in the West African nation.

    Doumbouya won the country’s first election since the 2021 coup after polling 86.7% of the votes, according to the General Directorate of Elections. His victory, which had been predicted by analysts, was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the capital Conakry.

    “Today, there are neither winners nor losers. There is only one Guinea, united and indivisible,” Doumbouya said in a broadcast late Sunday, calling on citizens to “build a new Guinea, a Guinea of ​​peace, justice, shared prosperity, and fully assumed political and economic sovereignty.”

    Yero Baldé, the runner-up who won 6.59% of the vote, had filed a petition accusing the electoral body of manipulating the results in Doumbouya’s favor. But authorities said he withdrew the petition a day before the Supreme Court verdict.

    The Dec. 28 election was held under a new constitution that revoked a ban on military leaders running for office and extended the presidential mandate from five years to seven years.

    Critics say Doumbouya has clamped down on political opponents and dissent since the 2021 coup, leaving him with no major opposition among the eight other candidates in the race.

    The weakened opposition “focused attention on Mamadi Doumbouya as the only key figure capable of ensuring the continuity of the state,” said N’Faly Guilavogui, a Guinean political analyst. “Guineans are waiting to see what efforts he will make to ensure political stability and reconciliation,” Guilavogui added.

    Despite the country’s rich mineral resources including the world’s biggest exporter of bauxite, which is used to make aluminum, more than half of its 15 million people are experiencing record levels of poverty and food insecurity, according to the World Food Program.

    The junta’s most important initiative has been a mega-mining project at Simandou, the world’s largest iron ore deposit. The 75% Chinese-owned project began production in December after decades of delays.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here are PolitiFact’s top 10 fact-checks of 2025

    [ad_1]

    Claims about deportations, the Department of Government Efficiency, and someone fainting in the White House were among the mistruths that kept PolitiFact busy in 2025 — and they featured in some of our most popular stories this year. 

    Here are our 10 most-read fact-checks, from a tenuous gang connection to fears over voter eligibility.

    10. President Donald Trump says Kilmar Abrego Garcia has “‘MS-13’ on his knuckles.” 

    President Donald Trump said Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a man the U.S. government deported to El Salvador in March, had MS-13 tattooed on his knuckles — illustrating a purported affiliation with the MS-13 gang founded by El Salvadoran immigrants.

    Trump made the claim during an April interview, referring to an image he posted on Truth Social of a left hand bearing four tattoos. Each finger in the picture displayed a different image — a marijuana leaf, a smiley face with an X for eyes, a cross and a skull — and an M, an S, a 1 and a 3 above these images. 

    But we found that the M, S, 1 and 3 don’t appear in other photos of Abrego Garcia’s hand, including one that Salvadoran government officials took when Abrego Garcia met with Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., on April 17 in El Salvador. (Abrego Garcia is now back in the U.S awaiting a criminal trial.)  

    The tattoos also do not appear in an Abrego Garcia family photo immigration advocates shared. The photograph Trump shared appears to have been altered to include “MS-13” above the other symbols. And MS-13 experts told PolitiFact that none of those symbols are known signifiers of the gang. 

    We rated this claim Pants on Fire!

    9. Novo Nordisk’s Gordon Findlay didn’t faint Nov. 6, 2025, in the Oval Office. He wasn’t even there

    Dave Ricks, chair and chief executive officer of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Co., was speaking in the Oval Office on Nov. 6 when a man standing behind him fainted. 

    Multiple social media posts claimed the man who became ill was “Novo Nordisk Executive Gordon Findlay.” They included a post from X’s artificial intelligence-powered chatbot Grok.

    But Gordon Findlay, a Novo Nordisk manager based in Switzerland, wasn’t at the White House that day.

    The man who fainted doesn’t work for Novo Nordisk or Eli Lilly; he was an Eli Lilly GLP-1 patient and attended a drug pricing announcement at the White House as the company’s guest.

    We rated this claim False.

    8. Did Bill Clinton create a fast-track deportation process exempt from due process? No.

    As the Trump administration drew criticism over aggressive deportations, some social media users pointed to a law enacted under former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The posts said an immigration law Clinton signed showed immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally are not entitled to due process.

    The 1996 law established a fast-track deportation process called expedited removal that allows people to be deported without first going to immigration court. Although immigrants going through that process have fewer protections, they are not exempt from due process. People are screened, notified of deportation and can contest the deportation if they have a well-founded fear of persecution. Legal experts say there are no exceptions to due process rights, regardless of immigrants’ legal status or how they entered the country.

    We rated this claim False.

    7. Is it ‘official’ that Trump approved a $5,000 ‘DOGE dividend’ stimulus? No.

    As the Department of Government Efficiency touted billions in canceled government contracts, rumors spread that the reclaimed money would wind up in taxpayers’ pockets.

    A Feb. 23 Facebook post, for example, said Trump was going to sign an order giving some taxpayers a stimulus check for $5,000.

    We found no White House announcements or news reports reflecting this. 

    James Fishback, CEO of the investment firm Azoria Partners, proposed giving American taxpayers a $5,000 “DOGE dividend” with money the Department of Government Efficiency aimed to save, and Trump mentioned the idea to reporters.

    But DOGE didn’t cut the necessary $2 trillion from the federal government’s budget to make this proposed plan feasible.

    We rated this claim False.

    6. El gobernador de Texas Greg Abbott no dijo que deportaría a Dios si ‘fuera ilegal’

    A Spanish-language TikTok video appeared to show a journalist reporting that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he would have deported God if the higher power were in the U.S. illegally. 

    But the July video manipulated TelevisaUnivision journalist Enrique Acevedo’s voice to present the misleading news. PolitiFact en Español submitted the audio from the video to an AI detector, which said the audio was fake.

    We rated this claim False.

    5. X post exaggerates wealth of Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren

    A Feb. 11 X post called out the significant wealth of prominent Democratic and Republican members of Congress. The account wrote about the supposed annual salaries and net worths of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

    Members of Congress are required to file annual financial disclosure reports detailing their assets and liabilities. Lawmakers also publicly report their annual salaries. But the lawmakers’ net worths weren’t driven by their government salaries; instead, their wealth mostly came from investments, such as stocks and real estate.

    PolitiFact analyzed these four congressional members’ 2023 financial disclosure reports — the most recent ones available at the time — and found that this post exaggerated their wealth.

    We rated this claim Mostly False.

    4. Zelenskyy’s statement about Ukraine aid didn’t reveal money laundering operation

    After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his military had received only a portion of the U.S. aid earmarked for the country’s war against Russia, critics floated that the funding was misused through money laundering.

    But Zelenskyy’s Feb. 1 statements aren’t proof of money laundering; they align with public data on the U.S. funding packages. 

    Zelenskyy said Ukraine had received about $75 billion in military assistance of the $175 billion the U.S. has dedicated to Ukraine aid. That was in line with what researchers monitoring funding to Ukraine observed at the time.

    A large portion of the money stayed in the U.S. and a smaller portion went to other countries in the region. 

    We rated these claims False.

    3. No, Trump didn’t post that the president should be impeached if the Dow drops 1,000 points

    As Trump’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico took effect March 4, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped by more than 1,300 points in two days.

    Some X users — including former U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., — shared a screenshot of what looked like a 2012 X post from Trump.

    The screenshot made it look like Trump wrote, “If the Dow drops 1,000 points in two days the President should be impeached immediately.”

    But this was a fake post that had been circulating for at least six years. There’s no record of Trump making such a statement.

    We rated this claim Pants on Fire!

    2. Trump had hand in temporary ceasefires around the world but evidence is scant he stopped ‘six wars’

    Trump has repeatedly said he’s ended several wars, but there’s a lot of uncertainty around Trump’s role in these conflicts.

    “I’ve stopped six wars — I’m averaging about a war a month,” Trump said July 28 in Scotland. 

    Experts said in August that although he deserves some credit for deals that eased various conflicts, some leaders dispute his role in such negotiations.

    The U.S. was involved in a temporary peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda that experts said is significant albeit shaky, for example. But Trump also wrongly said he ended a conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia, and there’s little evidence he thwarted an escalation between Kosovo and Serbia. 

    We fact-checked other similar statements from the president this year, including one that he ended “seven unendable wars.”

    We rated that and this claim Mostly False.

    1. SAVE Act would make it harder, not impossible, for married people to register to vote

    Congressional Republicans want to pass a bill that would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. This worried voting rights advocates who say it would hinder registration among eligible citizens.

    The SAVE Act, would require people registering to vote or updating their voter registrations to use certain identifying documents, including military IDs, enhanced IDs showing citizenship, birth certificates or passports to prove citizenship. The bill passed in the House in April and is awaiting debate in the Senate.

    “If you are a woman that has changed your name from your birth certificate, let’s say through marriage and you took your husband’s name, you are no longer eligible to vote if this bill passes the Senate,” a Feb. 10 TikTok video said. 

    That’s not quite accurate. The bill would make voter registration more difficult for married people who change their last names, and anyone whose name does not match the name on a birth certificate. But it would not prohibit it outright. 

    We rated this claim Mostly False. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Myanmar holds first election since military seized power but critics say the vote is a sham

    [ad_1]

    YANGON, Myanmar — Voters went to the polls Sunday for the initial phase of Myanmar’s first general election in five years, held under the supervision of its military government while a civil war rages throughout much of the country.

    Final results won’t be known until after two more rounds of voting are completed later in January. It’s widely expected that Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, who has governed Myanmar since an army takeover in 2021, will then assume the presidency.

    The military government has presented the vote as a return to democracy, but its bid for legitimacy is marred by the absence of formerly popular opposition parties and reports that soldiers used threats to force voters’ participation.

    While more than 4,800 candidates from 57 parties are competing for seats in national and regional legislatures, only six are competing nationwide with the possibility to gain political clout in parliament. The military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party is by far the strongest contender.

    Voting is taking place in three phases, with Sunday’s first round being held in 102 of Myanmar’s 330 townships. Subsequent phases will take place on Jan. 11 and Jan. 25, but 65 townships won’t participate in the election because of ongoing armed conflicts.

    Final results are expected to be announced by February. It wasn’t clear if or when the authorities would release aggregate figures of Sunday’s voting, although counts were publicly announced at local polling stations.

    Critics of the current system say that the election is designed to add a facade of legitimacy to the status quo. Military rule began when soldiers ousted the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi in February 2021. It blocked her National League for Democracy party from serving a second term despite winning a landslide victory in the 2020 election.

    They argue that the results will lack legitimacy because of the exclusion of major parties and government repression.

    The expected victory of the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party makes the nominal transition to civilian rule a chimera, say opponents of military rule and independent analysts.

    “An election organized by a junta that continues to bomb civilians, jail political leaders, and criminalize all forms of dissent is not an election — it is a theater of the absurd performed at gunpoint,” Tom Andrews, the U.N.-appointed human rights expert for Myanmar, posted on X.

    However, the election may provide an excuse for neighbors like China, India and Thailand to say that the vote represents progress toward stability. Western nations have maintained sanctions against Myanmar’s ruling generals because of the military’s anti-democratic actions and the brutal war against opponents.

    According to a count carried out at one polling station in Yangon after the polls closed, only 524 of 1,431 registered voters — just under 37% — cast their ballots.

    Of those, 311 voted for the pro-military Union Solidarity and Development Party, suggesting that opposition calls for a voter boycott may have been heeded.

    Khin Marlar, 51, who cast her ballot in Yangon’s Kyauktada township, said that she felt that she should vote, because she hoped that peace would follow afterward. She explained that she had fled her village in the town of Thaungta in the central Mandalay region because of the fighting.

    “I am voting with the feeling that I will go back to my village when it is peaceful,” she told The Associated Press.

    A resident of southern Mon state, who asked to be identified only by her first name, Khin, for fear of arrest by the military, told the AP that she felt compelled to go to a polling station because of pressure from local authorities.

    “I have to go and vote even though I don’t want to, because soldiers showed up with guns to our village to pressure us yesterday,” Khin said, echoing reports from independent media and rights groups.

    Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s 80-year-old former leader, and her party aren’t participating in the polls. She is serving a 27-year prison term on charges widely viewed as spurious and politically motivated. Her party, the National League for Democracy, was dissolved in 2023 after refusing to register under new military rules.

    Other parties also refused to register or declined to run under conditions they deem unfair, and opposition groups have called for a voter boycott.

    Amael Vier, an analyst for the Asian Network for Free Elections, noted a lack of genuine choice, pointing out that 73% of voters in 2020 cast ballots for parties that no longer exist.

    According to the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, more than 22,000 people are currently detained for political offenses, and more than 7,600 civilians have been killed by security forces since 2021.

    Armed resistance arose after the army used lethal force to crush nonviolent protests against its 2021 takeover. The ensuing civil war has left more than 3.6 million people displaced, according to the U.N.

    A new Election Protection Law imposes harsh penalties and restrictions for virtually all public criticism of the polls.

    There were no reports of major interference with the polls, though opposition organizations and armed resistance groups had vowed to disrupt the electoral process.

    Both the military and its opponents believe power is likely to remain with Min Aung Hlaing, who led the 2021 seizure of power.

    “I am the commander in chief. I am a civil servant. I cannot say that I want to serve as a president. I am not the leader of a political party,” he told journalists after casting his vote. “There is a process for electing a president from parliament only when it is convened. I think it is appropriate to speak about it only then.”

    ___

    Grant Peck reported from Bangkok.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FACT FOCUS: It is not illegal for voters to show ID in New York and California

    [ad_1]

    As the leadup to the 2026 midterm elections begins, social media users — among them billionaire X owner Elon Musk, who briefly served as a top advisor to President Donald Trump — are using false information to advocate for more voter ID laws in the U.S.

    “America should not have worse voter ID requirements than every democratic country on Earth,” Musk wrote in a recent X post, which had been liked and shared approximately 310,000 times as of Wednesday. “California and New York actually banned use of ID to vote! It is illegal to show your ID in those states. The only reason to do this is fraud.”

    But voter registration requirements and guidance for poll workers paint a different picture.

    Here’s a closer look at the facts.

    CLAIM: It is illegal for voters to show ID when casting a ballot in New York and California.

    THE FACTS: This is false. Voters in both states need to show ID when it is necessary to complete their registration, but it is not required otherwise. Poll worker guidance published by New York and California instructs workers not to ask voters for ID unless records indicate that it is needed.

    “There is nothing unlawful about that voter presenting a form of photo identification at a poll site in addition to fulfilling the signature verification requirement outlined in the state’s consitution,” Kathleen McGrath, a spokesperson for the New York State Board of Elections, said of voters whose identity has already been verified. “In fact, in some counties, voters are allowed to scan their license in an effort to expedite the looking up of their voter record on the e-pollbook, but this cannot be legally required.”

    The California secretary of state’s office similarly said that “California law does not prohibit a voter from voluntarily presenting their identification.”

    In New York, voters provide their Department of Motor Vehicles number or the last four digits of their social security number when registering to vote. They may also use another form of valid photo ID or a government document that shows their name and address, such as a utility bill or a bank statement. Voters will be asked for ID at the polls if their identify cannot be verified before Election Day, according to the state’s registration form.

    Recent guidance for New York poll workers states: “Do not ask the voter for ID unless ‘ID required’ is next to their name in their voter records.”

    California has similar identification processes. If voters do not provide a driver’s license number, a state ID number or the last four digits of their social security number when registering, another form of ID must be provided if they are voting for the first time in a federal election and registered by mail or online, according to the secretary of state’s office.

    “Poll workers must not ask a voter to provide their identification unless the voter list clearly states identification is required,” reads recent guidance for California poll workers released by the state.

    County election officials automatically mail ballots to all active registered voters. In the 2024 general election, 80.76% of voters voted by mail. Some counties in California do not offer in-person voting at all.

    Musk’s post also includes an image that lists 114 countries under the title, “Full or partially democratic countries that require ID to register to vote or cast a ballot on election day in all districts.” All of them have a green checkmark to their left except for the U.S., which has a red “x.”

    Although many countries listed in the image require ID for one or both of these actions, there are at least two exceptions — New Zealand and Australia. In New Zealand, voters can register without ID by filling out a signed enrollment form and do not need to present ID at the polls. Australian voters do not need ID to cast a ballot and may have someone who is already registered confirm their identity when submitting an enrollment form.

    Representatives for Musk did not respond to a request for comment.

    ___

    Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FACT FOCUS: It Is Not Illegal For Voters To Show ID In New York And California – KXL

    [ad_1]

    (AP) – As the leadup to the 2026 midterm elections begins, social media users — among them billionaire X owner Elon Musk, who briefly served as a top advisor to President Donald Trump — are using false information to advocate for more voter ID laws in the U.S.

    “America should not have worse voter ID requirements than every democratic country on Earth,” Musk wrote in a recent X post, which had been liked and shared approximately 310,000 times as of Wednesday. “California and New York actually banned use of ID to vote! It is illegal to show your ID in those states. The only reason to do this is fraud.”

    But voter registration requirements and guidance for poll workers paint a different picture.

    Here’s a closer look at the facts.

    CLAIM: It is illegal for voters to show ID when casting a ballot in New York and California.

    THE FACTS: This is false. Voters in both states need to show ID when it is necessary to complete their registration, but it is not required otherwise. Poll worker guidance published by New York and California instructs workers not to ask voters for ID unless records indicate that it is needed.

    “There is nothing unlawful about that voter presenting a form of photo identification at a poll site in addition to fulfilling the signature verification requirement outlined in the state’s consitution,” Kathleen McGrath, a spokesperson for the New York State Board of Elections, said of voters whose identity has already been verified. “In fact, in some counties, voters are allowed to scan their license in an effort to expedite the looking up of their voter record on the e-pollbook, but this cannot be legally required.”

    The California secretary of state’s office similarly said that “California law does not prohibit a voter from voluntarily presenting their identification.”

    In New York, voters provide their Department of Motor Vehicles number or the last four digits of their social security number when registering to vote. They may also use another form of valid photo ID or a government document that shows their name and address, such as a utility bill or a bank statement. Voters will be asked for ID at the polls if their identify cannot be verified before Election Day, according to the state’s registration form.

    Recent guidance for New York poll workers states: “Do not ask the voter for ID unless ‘ID required’ is next to their name in their voter records.”

    California has similar identification processes. If voters do not provide a driver’s license number, a state ID number or the last four digits of their social security number when registering, another form of ID must be provided if they are voting for the first time in a federal election and registered by mail or online, according to the secretary of state’s office.

    “Poll workers must not ask a voter to provide their identification unless the voter list clearly states identification is required,” reads recent guidance for California poll workers released by the state.

    County election officials automatically mail ballots to all active registered voters. In the 2024 general election, 80.76% of voters voted by mail. Some counties in California do not offer in-person voting at all.

    Musk’s post also includes an image that lists 114 countries under the title, “Full or partially democratic countries that require ID to register to vote or cast a ballot on election day in all districts.” All of them have a green checkmark to their left except for the U.S., which has a red “x.”

    Although many countries listed in the image require ID for one or both of these actions, there are at least two exceptions — New Zealand and Australia. In New Zealand, voters can register without ID by filling out a signed enrollment form and do not need to present ID at the polls. Australian voters do not need ID to cast a ballot and may have someone who is already registered confirm their identity when submitting an enrollment form.

    Representatives for Musk did not respond to a request for comment.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • Eurovision plans changes to voting, security after allegations of Israeli government ‘interference’

    [ad_1]

    GENEVA (AP) — Organizers of the Eurovision Song Contest announced plans to change the voting system of the popular musical extravaganza to ensure fairness, a move that follows allegations of “interference” by Israel’s government.

    The European Broadcasting Union, a Geneva-based union of public broadcasters that runs the event, said Friday that the changes were “designed to strengthen trust, transparency and audience engagement.”

    Israel has competed in Eurovision for more than 50 years and won four times. But calls for Israel to be kicked out swelled over the conduct of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in the Hamas-Israel war in Gaza.

    The allegations of Israeli government interference have added a new twist to the debate.

    In September, Dutch public broadcaster AVROTROS — citing human suffering in the Gaza war — said that it could no longer justify Israel’s participation in the contest. Several other countries took a similar stance.

    The Dutch broadcaster went on to say there had been “proven interference by the Israeli government during the last edition of the Song Contest, with the event being used as a political instrument.” The statement didn’t elaborate.

    That same month, the CEO of Israeli public broadcaster Kan, Golan Yochpaz, said that there was “no reason why we should not continue to be a significant part of this cultural event, which must not become political.”

    Kan also said then that it was “convinced” that the EBU “will continue to maintain the apolitical, professional and cultural character of the competition, especially on the eve of the 70th anniversary of Eurovision” next year.

    As part of the new Eurovision measures, in next year’s contest — scheduled to take place in May in Vienna — the number of votes per payment method will be reduced by half to 10, the EBU said.

    In addition, “professional juries” will return to the semifinals for the first time since 2022 — a move that will give roughly 50-50 percentage weight between audience and jury votes, it said.

    Organizers will also enhance safeguards to thwart “suspicious or coordinated voting activity” and strengthen security systems that “monitor, detect and prevent fraudulent patterns,” EBU said.

    Contest director Martin Green said that the neutrality and integrity of the competition is of “paramount importance” to the EBU, its members, and audiences, adding that the event “should remain a neutral space and must not be instrumentalized.”

    The EBU’s general assembly on Dec. 4-5 is poised to consider whether Israel can participate next year. A vote on that participation will only take place if member broadcasters decide the new steps are “not sufficient,” Green said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Eurovision plans voting, security changes after allegations of Israel ‘interference’

    [ad_1]

    GENEVA — Organizers of the Eurovision Song Contest announced plans to change the voting system of the popular musical extravaganza to ensure fairness, a move that follows allegations of “interference” by Israel’s government.

    The European Broadcasting Union, a Geneva-based union of public broadcasters that runs the event, said Friday that the changes were “designed to strengthen trust, transparency and audience engagement.”

    Israel has competed in Eurovision for more than 50 years and won four times. But calls for Israel to be kicked out swelled over the conduct of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in the Hamas-Israel war in Gaza.

    The allegations of Israeli government interference have added a new twist to the debate.

    In September, Dutch public broadcaster AVROTROS — citing human suffering in the Gaza war — said that it could no longer justify Israel’s participation in the contest. Several other countries took a similar stance.

    The Dutch broadcaster went on to say there had been “proven interference by the Israeli government during the last edition of the Song Contest, with the event being used as a political instrument.” The statement didn’t elaborate.

    That same month, the CEO of Israeli public broadcaster Kan, Golan Yochpaz, said that there was “no reason why we should not continue to be a significant part of this cultural event, which must not become political.”

    Kan also said then that it was “convinced” that the EBU “will continue to maintain the apolitical, professional and cultural character of the competition, especially on the eve of the 70th anniversary of Eurovision” next year.

    As part of the new Eurovision measures, in next year’s contest — scheduled to take place in May in Vienna — the number of votes per payment method will be reduced by half to 10, the EBU said.

    In addition, “professional juries” will return to the semifinals for the first time since 2022 — a move that will give roughly 50-50 percentage weight between audience and jury votes, it said.

    Organizers will also enhance safeguards to thwart “suspicious or coordinated voting activity” and strengthen security systems that “monitor, detect and prevent fraudulent patterns,” EBU said.

    Contest director Martin Green said that the neutrality and integrity of the competition is of “paramount importance” to the EBU, its members, and audiences, adding that the event “should remain a neutral space and must not be instrumentalized.”

    The EBU’s general assembly on Dec. 4-5 is poised to consider whether Israel can participate next year. A vote on that participation will only take place if member broadcasters decide the new steps are “not sufficient,” Green said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Congress agrees to publicly release Epstein files

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Both the House and Senate acted decisively Tuesday to pass a bill to force the Justice Department to publicly release its files on the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a remarkable display of approval for an effort that had struggled for months to overcome opposition from President Donald Trump and Republican leadership.

    When a small, bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced a petition in July to maneuver around House Speaker Mike Johnson’s control of which bills reach the House floor, it appeared a longshot effort — especially as Trump urged his supporters to dismiss the matter as a “hoax.”

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAmqFE 3@E9 %CF>A 2?5 y@9?D@? 72:=65 😕 E96:C 677@CED E@ AC6G6?E E96 G@E6] }@H[ E96 AC6D:56?E 92D 3@H65 E@ E96 8C@H:?8 >@>6?EF> 369:?5 E96 3:== 2?5 6G6? D2:5 96 H:== D:8? :E] yFDE 9@FCD 27E6C E96 w@FD6 A2DD65 E96 3:==[ E96 $6?2E6 28C665 E@ A2DD E96 3:== H:E9 F?2?:>@FD 4@?D6?E @?46 :E 😀 D6?E E@ E96 $6?2E6]k^Am

    kAm%96 3:== A2DD65 E96 w@FD6 caf`[ H:E9 E96 @?=J ?@ G@E6 4@>:?8 7C@> #6A] r=2J w:88:?D[ 2 {@F:D:2?2 #6AF3=:42? H9@ 😀 2 76CG6?E DFAA@CE6C @7 %CF>A] w6 D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E E92E 96 @AA@D65 E96 3:== 3642FD6 :E 4@F=5 C6=62D6 :?7@C>2E:@? @? :??@46?E A6@A=6 >6?E:@?65 😕 E96 7656C2= :?G6DE:82E:@?]k^Am

    kAm%96 564:D:G6[ 3:A2CE:D2? H@C< 😕 r@?8C6DD @? %F6D52J 7FCE96C D9@H65 E96 AC6DDFC6 >@F?E:?8 @? =2H>2<6CD 2?5 E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? E@ >66E =@?896=5 56>2?5D E92E E96 yFDE:46 s6A2CE>6?E C6=62D6 :ED 42D6 7:=6D @? tADE6:?[ 2 H6==4@??64E65 7:?2?4:6C H9@ <:==65 9:>D6=7 😕 2 |2?92EE2? ;2:= H9:=6 2H2:E:?8 EC:2= 😕 a_`h @? 492C86D 96 D6IF2==J 23FD65 2?5 EC277:4<65 F?56C286 8:C=D]k^Am

    kAm“%96D6 H@>6? 92G6 7@F89E E96 >@DE 9@CC:7:4 7:89E E92E ?@ H@>2? D9@F=5 92G6 E@ 7:89E] p?5 E96J 5:5 :E 3J 32?5:?8 E@86E96C 2?5 ?6G6C 8:G:?8 FA[” D2:5 #6A] |2C;@C:6 %2J=@C vC66?6 2D D96 DE@@5 H:E9 D@>6 @7 E96 23FD6 DFCG:G@CD @FED:56 E96 r2A:E@= @? %F6D52J >@C?:?8]k^Am

    kAm“%92E’D H92E H6 5:5 3J 7:89E:?8 D@ 92C5 282:?DE E96 >@DE A@H6C7F= A6@A=6 😕 E96 H@C=5[ 6G6? E96 AC6D:56?E @7 E96 &?:E65 $E2E6D[ 😕 @C56C E@ >2<6 E9:D G@E6 92AA6? E@52J[” 25565 vC66?6[ 2 v6@C8:2 #6AF3=:42? 2?5 =@?8E:>6 %CF>A =@J2=:DE]k^Am

    kAm%96 3:==’D A2DD286 H@F=5 36 2 A:G@E2= >@>6?E 😕 2 J62CD=@?8 AFD9 3J E96 DFCG:G@CD 7@C 244@F?E23:=:EJ 7@C tADE6:?’D 23FD6 2?5 C64<@?:?8 @G6C 9@H =2H 6?7@C46>6?E @77:4:2=D 72:=65 E@ 24E F?56C >F=E:A=6 AC6D:56?E:2= 25>:?:DEC2E:@?D]k^Am

    kAmp D6A2C2E6 :?G6DE:82E:@? 4@?5F4E65 3J E96 w@FD6 ~G6CD:89E r@>>:EE66 92D C6=62D65 E9@FD2?5D @7 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^6ADE6:?6>2:=DECF>A9@FD656>@4C2ED53f57`_ca2fb6e`_73d56557a7h_35b2QmA286D @7 6>2:=Dk^2m 2?5 @E96C 5@4F>6?ED 7C@> tADE6:?’D 6DE2E6[ D9@H:?8 9:D 4@??64E:@?D E@ 8=@32= =6256CD[ (2== $EC66E A@H6C3C@<6CD[ :?7=F6?E:2= A@=:E:42= 7:8FC6D 2?5 %CF>A 9:>D6=7] x? E96 &?:E65 z:?85@>[ z:?8 r92C=6D xxx DEC:AA65 9:D 5:D8C2465 3C@E96C !C:?46 p?5C6H @7 9:D C6>2:?:?8 E:E=6D 2?5 6G:4E65 9:> 7C@> 9:D C@J2= C6D:56?46 27E6C AC6DDFC6 E@ 24E @G6C 9:D C6=2E:@?D9:A H:E9 tADE6:?]k^Am

    kAm%96 3:== 7@C46D E96 C6=62D6 H:E9:? b_ 52JD @7 2== 7:=6D 2?5 4@>>F?:42E:@?D C6=2E65 E@ tADE6:?[ 2D H6== 2D 2?J :?7@C>2E:@? 23@FE E96 :?G6DE:82E:@? :?E@ 9:D 562E9 😕 7656C2= AC:D@?] xE H@F=5 2==@H E96 yFDE:46 s6A2CE>6?E E@ C6524E :?7@C>2E:@? 23@FE tADE6:?’D G:4E:>D @C 4@?E:?F:?8 7656C2= :?G6DE:82E:@?D[ 3FE ?@E :?7@C>2E:@? 5F6 E@ “6>32CC2DD>6?E[ C6AFE2E:@?2= 92C>[ @C A@=:E:42= D6?D:E:G:EJ]”k^Am

    kAm%CF>A’D C6G6CD2=k^Am

    kAm%CF>A 92D D2:5 96 4FE E:6D H:E9 tADE6:? J62CD 28@[ 3FE k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>A6ADE6:?>:5E6C>D277@C523:=:EJ64@?@>J4h_ggcf4dge6ebd6ae645d66a_b57cfcQmEC:65 7@C >@?E9D E@ >@G6 A2DE E96 56>2?5Dk^2m 7@C 5:D4=@DFC6]k^Am

    kAm$E:==[ >2?J 😕 E96 #6AF3=:42? 32D6 92G6 4@?E:?F65 E@ 56>2?5 E96 C6=62D6 @7 E96 7:=6D] p55:?8 E@ E92E AC6DDFC6[ DFCG:G@CD @7 tADE6:?’D 23FD6 C2==:65 @FED:56 E96 r2A:E@= @? %F6D52J >@C?:?8] qF?5=65 😕 ;24<6ED 282:?DE E96 }@G6>36C 49:== 2?5 9@=5:?8 A9@E@D @7 E96>D6=G6D 2D E66?286CD[ E96J C64@F?E65 E96:C DE@C:6D @7 23FD6]k^Am

    kAm“(6 2C6 6I92FDE65 7C@> DFCG:G:?8 E96 EC2F>2 2?5 E96? DFCG:G:?8 E96 A@=:E:4D E92E DH:C= 2C@F?5 :E[” D2:5 @?6 @7 E96 DFCG:G@CD]k^Am

    kAmp?@E96C[ y6?2{:D2 y@?6D[ D2:5 D96 925 G@E65 7@C %CF>A 2?5 925 2 >6DD286 7@C E96 AC6D:56?Ei “x 368 J@F s@?2=5 %CF>A[ A=62D6 DE@A >2<:?8 E9:D A@=:E:42=]”k^Am

    kAm%96 8C@FA @7 H@>6? 2=D@ >6E H:E9 y@9?D@? 2?5 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^;677C6J6ADE6:?DFCG:G@CD4@?8C6DDECF>Ad5hg_fc_acd7hbd4hhc2h_3g46gacecaQmC2==:65 @FED:56 E96 r2A:E@= 😕 $6AE6>36Ck^2m[ 3FE 92G6 925 E@ H2:E >@?E9D 7@C E96 G@E6]k^Am

    kAm%92E’D 3642FD6 y@9?D@? <6AE E96 w@FD6 4=@D65 7@C =68:D=2E:G6 3FD:?6DD 7@C ?62C=J EH@ >@?E9D 2?5 C67FD65 E@ DH62C 😕 s6>@4C2E:4 #6A] k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^256=:E28C:;2=G22C:K@?29@FD66ADE6:?7:=6D;@9?D@?52fd4h7_6beaah`7b5_653`52hh6_`h5Qmp56=:E2 vC:;2=G2k^2m @7 pC:K@?2 5FC:?8 E96 8@G6C?>6?E D9FE5@H?] p7E6C H:??:?8 2 DA64:2= 6=64E:@? $6AE] ab[ vC:;2=G2 A=65865 E@ AC@G:56 E96 4CF4:2= a`gE9 G@E6 E@ E96 A6E:E:@? 7@C E96 tADE6:? 7:=6D 3:==] qFE @?=J 27E6C D96 H2D DH@C? :?E@ @77:46 =2DE H66< 4@F=5 D96 D:8? 96C ?2>6 E@ E96 5:D492C86 A6E:E:@? E@ 8:G6 :E >2;@C:EJ DFAA@CE 😕 E96 cbd>6>36C w@FD6]k^Am

    kAmxE BF:4<=J 3642>6 @3G:@FD E96 3:== H@F=5 A2DD[ 2?5 3@E9 y@9?D@? 2?5 %CF>A 3682? E@ 7@=5] %CF>A @? $F?52J D2:5 #6AF3=:42?D D9@F=5 G@E6 7@C E96 3:==]k^Am

    kAm*6E vC66?6 E@=5 C6A@CE6CD E92E %CF>A’D 564:D:@? E@ 7:89E E96 3:== 36EC2J65 9:D |2<6 p>6C:42 vC62E p82:? A@=:E:42= >@G6>6?E]k^Am

    kAm“(2E49:?8 E9:D EFC? :?E@ 2 7:89E 92D C:AA65 |pvp 2A2CE[” D96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm#2E96C E92? H2:E:?8 F?E:= ?6IE H66< 7@C E96 5:D492C86 A@D:E:@? E@ @77:4:2==J E2<6 67764E[ y@9?D@? 96=5 E96 G@E6 F?56C 2 AC@465FC6 E92E C6BF:C6D 2 EH@E9:C5D >2;@C:EJ]k^Am

    kAmqFE y@9?D@? 2=D@ DA6?E 2 >@C?:?8 ?6HD 4@?76C6?46 =:DE:?8 @77 AC@3=6>D E92E 96 D66D H:E9 E96 =68:D=2E:@?] w6 2C8F65 E92E E96 3:== 4@F=5 92G6 F?:?E6?565 4@?D6BF6?46D 3J 5:D4=@D:?8 A2CED @7 7656C2= :?G6DE:82E:@?D E92E 2C6 FDF2==J <6AE AC:G2E6[ :?4=F5:?8 :?7@C>2E:@? @? G:4E:>D]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 😀 2 C2H 2?5 @3G:@FD A@=:E:42= 6I6C4:D6[” y@9?D@? D2:5]k^Am

    kAm$E:==[ 96 G@E65 7@C E96 3:==] “}@?6 @7 FD H2?E E@ 8@ @? C64@C5 2?5 😕 2?J H2J 36 244FD65 @7 ?@E 36:?8 7@C >2I:>F> EC2?DA2C6?4J[” 96 6IA=2:?65]k^Am

    kAm|62?H9:=6[ w@FD6 s6>@4C2ED 46=63C2E65 E96 G@E6 2D 2 C2C6 H:?] w@FD6 s6>@4C2E:4 =6256C w2<66> y677C:6D 56D4C:365 :E 2D “2 4@>A=6E6 2?5 E@E2= DFCC6?56C]”k^Am

    kAmtG6? 2D E96 3:== 4=62C65 9:D 492>36C[ y@9?D@? AC6DD65 7@C E96 $6?2E6 E@ 2>6?5 E96 3:== E@ AC@E64E E96 :?7@C>2E:@? @7 “G:4E:>D 2?5 H9:DE=63=@H6CD]” qFE $6?2E6 |2;@C:EJ {6256C y@9? %9F?6 D9@H65 =:EE=6 :?E6C6DE 😕 E92E ?@E:@?[ D2J:?8 96 5@F3E65 E92E “2>6?5:?8 :E 😀 8@:?8 E@ 36 😕 E96 42C5D]”k^Am

    kAm%9F?6 D2:5 96 H@F=5 BF:4<=J 2DD6DD D6?2E@CD’ G:6HD @? E96 3:== E@ D66 :7 E96C6 H6C6 2?J @3;64E:@?D] w6 D2:5 E96 3:== 4@F=5 36 3C@F89E 7@CH2C5 😕 E96 $6?2E6 2D D@@? 2D %F6D52J 6G6?:?8 2?5 2=>@DE 46CE2:?=J 3J E96 6?5 @7 E96 H66<]k^Am

    kAm$6?2E6 s6>@4C2E:4 =6256C r9F4< $49F>6C 2=D@ :?5:42E65 96 H@F=5 2EE6>AE E@ A2DD E96 3:== %F6D52J]k^Am

    kAm“%96 p>6C:42? A6@A=6 92G6 H2:E65 =@?8 6?@F89[” 96 D2:5]k^Am

    kAm|62?H9:=6[ E96 3:A2CE:D2? A2:C H9@ DA@?D@C65 E96 3:==[ #6AD] %9@>2D |2DD:6[ #zJ][ 2?5 #@ z92??2[ sr2=:7][ H2C?65 D6?2E@CD 282:?DE 5@:?8 2?JE9:?8 E92E H@F=5 “>F4< :E FA[” D2J:?8 E96J H@F=5 7246 E96 D2>6 AF3=:4 FAC@2C E92E 7@C465 3@E9 %CF>A 2?5 y@9?D@? E@ 324< 5@H?]k^Am

    kAm“(6’G6 ?665=6DD=J 5C28865 E9:D @FE 7@C 7@FC >@?E9D[” |2DD:6 D2:5[ 255:?8 E92E E9@D6 C2:D:?8 AC@3=6>D H:E9 E96 3:== “2C6 27C2:5 E92E A6@A=6 H:== 36 6>32CC2DD65] (6==[ E92E’D E96 H9@=6 A@:?E 96C6]”k^Am

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    By STEPHEN GROVES – Associated Press

    Source link

  • Inside the Multimillion-Dollar Plan to Make Mobile Voting Happen

    [ad_1]

    Joe Kiniry, a security expert specializing in elections, was attending an annual conference on voting technology in Washington, DC, when a woman approached him with an unusual offer. She said she represented a wealthy client interested in funding voting systems that would encourage bigger turnouts. Did he have any ideas? “I told her you should stay away from internet voting, because it’s really, really hard,” he says.

    Later he learned who had sent her. It was Bradley Tusk, a New York City political consultant and fixer for companies like Uber fending off regulation. He’d made a fortune doing that (early Uber stock helped a lot), and he was eager to spend a good chunk of it pursuing online voting technology. Tusk convinced Kiniry to work with him. At the very least, Kiniry thought, it would be a valuable research project.

    Today Tusk is showing off the fruits of that collaboration. His Mobile Voting Foundation is releasing VoteSecure, a cryptography-based protocol that seeks to help people securely cast their votes on iPhones and Androids. The protocol is open source and available on GitHub for anyone to test, improve upon, and build out. Two election technology vendors have already committed to using it—perhaps as early as 2026. Tusk claims that mobile voting will save our democracy. But getting it accepted by legislators and the public will be the really, really hard part.

    Primary Numbers

    Tusk has been obsessed with mobile voting for a while. Around 2017, he began taking serious action, funding small elections that used existing technology to allow deployed military or disabled people to vote. He estimates he’s dropped $20 million so far and plans to keep shoveling cash into the effort. When I ask why, he explains that working with the government has given him a panoramic view of its failures. Tusk believes there is a single pressure point that could fix a number of mismatches between what the public deserves and what they get: more people using the ballot box. “We get lousy, or corrupt, government because so few people vote, especially in off-year elections and primaries, where the turnout is dismal,” he says. “If primary turnout is 37 percent instead of 9 percent, the underlying political incentives for an elected official to change—it pushes them to the middle, and they’re not rewarded for screaming and pointing fingers.”

    To Tusk, mobile voting is a no-brainer: We already do banking, commerce, and private messages on our phones, so why not cast a ballot? “If I don’t do it, who is going to do it?” he asks. Furthermore, he says, “if it doesn’t happen, I don’t think we’re one country in 20 years, because if you are unable to solve any single problem that matters to people, eventually they decide not to keep going.”

    Tusk had Kiniry evaluate existing online voting platforms—including some that Tusk himself had paid for. “Joe is considered the absolute expert on electronic voting,” says Tusk. So when Kiniry deemed those systems insufficient, Tusk decided that the best way forward was to start from scratch. He hired Kiniry’s company, Free & Fair, to develop VoteSecure. It’s not a turnkey solution but a backend part of a system that will require a user interface and other pieces to be operable. The protocol includes a means for voters to check the accuracy of their ballots and verify that their vote has been received by the election board and transferred to a paper ballot.

    Tusk says his next step is to “run legislation” in a few cities to allow mobile voting. “Start small—city council, school board, maybe mayor,” he says. “Prove the thesis. The odds of Vladimir Putin hacking the Queensborough election seems pretty remote to me.” (Next spring some local election elections in Alaska will offer the option of mobile-phone voting with software developed by Tusk’s foundation.) Kiniry agrees it’s way too soon to use mobile voting in national elections, but Tusk is betting that eventually the systems become familiar, to the point where people trust them much more than traditional paper ballots. “Once the genie’s out of the bottle, they can’t put it back, right?” he says. “That’s been true for every tech I’ve worked on.” But first the genie has to get out of the bottle. That’s no cinch.

    Crypto Foes

    The loudest objections against mobile or internet voting come from cryptographers and security experts, who believe that the safety risks are insurmountable. Take two people who were at the 2017 conference with Kiniry. Ron Rivest is the legendary “R” in the RSA protocol that protects the internet, a winner of the coveted Turing Award, and a former professor at MIT. His view: Mobile voting is far from ready for prime time. “What you can do with mobile phones is interesting, but we’re not there yet, and I haven’t seen anything to make me think otherwise,” he says, “Tusk is driven by trying to make this stuff happen in the real world, which is not the right way to do it. They need to go through the process of writing a peer-reviewed paper. Putting up code doesn’t cut it.”

    Computer scientist and voting expert David Jefferson is also unimpressed. Though he acknowledges that Kiniry is one of the country’s top voting system experts, he sees Tusk’s effort as doomed. “I’m willing to concede rock-solid cryptography, but it does not weaken the argument about how insecure online voting systems are in general. Open source and perfect cryptography do not address the most serious vulnerabilities.”

    [ad_2]

    Steven Levy

    Source link