ReportWire

Tag: Voting

  • Macron bypassed parliament and angered French citizens. Setting the far-right up for a bounce

    Macron bypassed parliament and angered French citizens. Setting the far-right up for a bounce

    [ad_1]

    French President Emmanuel Macron.

    Ludovic Marin | Afp | Getty Images

    President Emmanuel Macron‘s controversial pension overhaul, pushed through by overriding the country’s parliament, could eventually erase what the French leader has been working for over the last six years, political analysts told CNBC.

    Macron has placed himself as a centrist politician. When aiming to become president in 2017, he chose to establish his own party (La Republique en Marche!, which has been rebranded Renaissance) and tried to break away from the traditional conservative and socialist stances. He positioned himself as an opposite to extremism and a solution to the rather staid politics of the past.

    At elections in 2017 and 2022, he comfortably overcame the far-right challenge of Marine Le Pen — but analysts now predict a more clouded outlook with Macron not eligible to run in 2027.

    Macron’s recent decision to use special legislative powers to push through a hike in the retirement age adds to a wider dissatisfaction with the political system, Armin Steinbach, a professor of European law and economics at H.E.C. Business School, told CNBC last week.

    A poll published earlier this month by the French business channel BFM TV showed that if there were a vote today between Macron and the National Rally’s Le Pen, the sitting president would lose with 45% of the votes. Macron won the 2022 election with 58.5% of the support.

    Macron is not grooming anyone and that’s part of the problem.

    Shahin Vallée

    senior research fellow, German Council on Foreign Relations

    Macron’s popularity rating has worsened in the wake of the pension reforms. At the end of March, almost 70% of people surveyed disapproved of the president, versus 61% at the start of the year.

    “The bottom line is that it is definitely increasing the split in the society,” Steinbach added.

    France has seen 11 days of protest against the new pension laws. The proposed legislation pushes the retirement age up from 62 to 64, and for Macron, and his government, it’s a necessity in order to balance the public finances.

    Without enough parliamentary support for the reforms, the French government used Article 49.3 of the constitution, which means the law passes through the lower chamber without a vote. The move angered many French lawmakers and citizens and France’s top court on Friday is due to rule on whether the proposals follow the country’s constitution.

    When asked if Macron’s actions would boost more extremist parties, Shahin Vallée, a senior research fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations, said: “Yes, absolutely.”

    Vallée, a former economic advisor to Macron when he served as French economy minister, added that the reforms are “polarizing” voters and will have “disastrous medium-term consequences for the French public.”

    Le Pen has voiced her opposition to the pension reform. In the 2022 election, she said she was in favor of keeping the retirement age at 62 and lowering it to 60 for workers who started their careers before the age of 20.

    No successor

    On top of potentially more support for parties from the political extremes, experts have mentioned how Macron’s lack of a clear successor will also impact future elections.

    “Macron is not grooming anyone and that’s part of the problem,” Vallée said, adding that “Renaissance [party] is a one man party.”

    Macron is serving his second mandate as president and the French constitution prevents him from running again for the job in 2027. Without a strong candidate to lead his party at the next election, the centrist group might struggle to pick up enough votes.

    Three different spokespeople for the Renaissance party, including Secretary General Stéphane Séjourné, were not immediately available for comment when contacted by CNBC.

    But the fact that there’s not a clear successor from Macron’s own party could also be tactical.

    “None of them have an interest in being the official successor,” Steinbach said, mentioning Bruno Le Maire, the current finance minister, and Edouard Philippe, the former prime minister, as potential successors. He argued that a “natural break” from Macron would be more helpful for potential successors when gathering votes, as they could more easily distance themselves from the negative connections of the sitting president.

    Vallée also said he wouldn’t be surprised if Macron takes on a job in the European Union after this mandate, “it could be a great holding spot, especially if Le Pen gets elected in 2027.”

    In an interview with Politico, François Bayrou, a top ally of Macron, also said that Macron’s participation in French politics will not end after his second mandate as president.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Nashville council to vote on restoring ousted state lawmaker

    Nashville council to vote on restoring ousted state lawmaker

    [ad_1]

    Nashville officials are poised to vote to reinstate one of the two Black Democratic lawmakers expelled by Republican colleagues over their gun control protest on the House floor after a deadly school shooting

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) —

    Nashville officials are poised to vote Monday to reinstate one of the two Black Democratic lawmakers expelled by Republican colleagues for their gun control protest on the Tennessee House floor after a deadly school shooting — essentially, sending him back after a long weekend.

    Nashville’s metro council has called the meeting to address the vacancy left by the expulsion on Thursday of former Rep. Justin Jones. Many councilmembers have publicly commented that they want to send Jones back to the statehouse. The vote will happen as state lawmakers hold their first floor sessions since last week’s expulsion votes.

    Expelled Memphis Rep. Justin Pearson, meanwhile, could be reappointed at a Wednesday meeting of the Shelby County Commission.

    Special elections for the seats, which have not yet been set, will take place in the coming months. Jones and Pearson have said they want to be reappointed and plan to run in a special election.

    At the Statehouse, meanwhile, it’s unclear how House Republicans would respond to seeing the lawmakers they kicked out sent right back. House Speaker Cameron Sexton has said lawmakers will go through the process if or when they are reappointed.

    The expulsions have made Tennessee a new front in the battle for the future of American democracy, while propelling the ousted lawmakers into the national spotlight. Jones and Pearson have quickly drawn prominent supporters. President Joe Biden spoke with them and Vice President Kamala Harris visited them in Nashville.

    A third Democrat targeted for expulsion, Rep. Gloria Johnson of Knoxville, has also garnered national attention. Johnson, who is white, was spared expulsion by a one-vote margin. Republican lawmakers justified splitting their votes by saying Johnson had less of a role in the protest — she didn’t speak into the megaphone, for example.

    The protesting lawmakers had called on Republicans to pass some sort of gun control legislation in the aftermath of the Nashville school shooting that killed six people, including three young children and three adults working at the school. The shooter was killed by police.

    Johnson has also suggested race was likely a factor on why Jones and Pearson were ousted but not her, telling reporters it “might have to do with the color of our skin.”

    GOP leaders have said the actions — used only a handful times since the Civil War — had nothing to do with race, and instead were necessary to avoid setting a precedent that lawmakers’ disruptions of House proceedings through protest would be tolerated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Expelled Tennessee lawmakers both seeking seats again

    Expelled Tennessee lawmakers both seeking seats again

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Two former Black Democratic lawmakers who were expelled by Republican colleagues in Tennessee say they want to be reappointed, then elected back to their seats, following their ouster for a protest on the House floor urging passage of gun-control measures in the wake of a deadly school shooting.

    Nashville’s metro council is likely to reappoint Justin Jones to the seat during a specially called Monday meeting. The Shelby County Commission plans to announce soon when it will meet to fill the vacancy left by Justin Pearson’s expulsion. Likewise, commissioners can reinstall Pearson, who is from Memphis.

    Both former lawmakers told NBC’s Meet the Press that they want to return to their positions as lawmakers. Special elections for the seats, which have yet to be set, will follow in the coming months.

    The expulsions have made Tennessee a new front in the battle for the future of American democracy. The former lawmakers have quickly drawn prominent supporters. President Joe Biden spoke with them and Vice President Kamala Harris visited them in Nashville.

    “You know, we will continue to fight for our constituents,” Jones said. “And one thing I just want to say … is that this attack against us is hurting all people in our state. You know, even though it is disproportionately impacting Black and Brown communities, this is hurting poor white people. Their attack on democracy hurts all of us.”

    In separate votes on Thursday, the GOP supermajority expelled Jones and Pearson, a move leaving about 140,000 voters in primarily Black districts in Nashville and Memphis with no representation in the House.

    Pearson and Jones were expelled in retaliation for their role in the protest the week before, which unfolded in the aftermath of a school shooting in Nashville that killed six people, including three young students.

    A third Democrat, Rep. Gloria Johnson of Knoxville, was spared expulsion by a one-vote margin. Johnson is white, spurring outcry at the differing outcomes for the two young, Black lawmakers. Republican lawmakers who split their votes have cited Johnson’s points on the floor that her role in the protest was lesser — she didn’t speak into the megaphone, for example.

    Johnson has also suggested race was likely a factor on why Jones and Pearson were ousted but not her, telling reporters it “might have to do with the color of our skin.”

    Republican House Speaker Cameron Sexton said that’s a “false narrative.”

    “It’s unfortunate, she’s trying to put political racism in this, which there was nothing on this,” Sexton told Fox News on Friday.

    GOP leaders said the expulsion actions — used only a handful times since the Civil War — were necessary to avoid setting a precedent that lawmakers’ disruptions of House proceedings through protest would be tolerated.

    Pearson said the statehouse has been a “toxic work environment.” He noted the scrutiny he received for wearing a black dashiki — a tunic-like garment that originated in west Africa — for session, rather than a suit and tie.

    “It’s about us not belonging in the institution because they are afraid of the changes that are happening in our society, and the voices that are being elevated,” Pearson said on Meet the Press.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Tennessee GOP’s majority used power to expel Democrats

    How Tennessee GOP’s majority used power to expel Democrats

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The expulsion of two Tennessee Democrats over a gun control protest is an extraordinary showcase of how the levers of single-party power in America’s statehouses can be pulled not only to shut down opponents, but to also punish them.

    On any given day in Tennessee, Republicans have the commanding majority to pass just about any law they want. The lopsided dynamic is common in many U.S. statehouses — including where Democrats are in charge — and it has widened under gerrymandered voting maps that redraw legislative district boundaries to dilute the opposition party’s votes.

    But in ousting Reps. Justin Jones and Justin Pearson altogether from the Tennessee Legislature on Thursday, Republicans went beyond their typical ability to steamroll Democrats. They instead maximized their parliamentary power to exact retribution.

    Not only did Republicans have the votes to oust the lawmakers — one of the few times such drastic action has been taken since the Civil War — they suspended legislative rules of procedure to hasten the process.

    The expulsions reverberated far beyond Tennessee, with Democrats in states where they’re similarly outnumbered taking notice. GOP leaders defended their actions as necessary to send a message that disruptive protests in the Tennessee House would not be tolerated.

    A third Democrat, Rep. Gloria Johnson, was narrowly spared expulsion by a one-vote margin.

    “The erosion of democracy in the state Legislature is what got us here,” Pearson said after his ouster. “It wasn’t walking up to the well, it wasn’t being disruptive to the status quo, it was the silencing of democracy and it’s wrong.”

    THE TENNESSEE VOTE

    In Tennessee, Republicans hold a supermajority control in both the House and Senate and have wielded full control of the Legislature since 2008.

    But in the House, GOP members have increasingly used parliamentary maneuvers to cut off debate – particularly on controversial topics ranging from abortion to LGBTQ+ issues and guns. Republicans have used a legislative tactic known as “calling the question,” which forces an immediate vote on a bill and cuts off debate that can otherwise stretch on for hours.

    In the days leading to the expulsion hearing, Republicans also employed what’s known as “suspending the rules,” which allows lawmakers to sidestep usual procedure — such as what happened on Thursday, when lawmakers suspended rules to allow the so-called “Tennessee three” to defend themselves.

    Suspending the rules is not always divisive — it can be used to speed up passage of uncontentious bills, for example — but it can also inflame tensions.

    Democrats who spoke during Thursday spent most of their time calling on Republicans to pass some sort of gun control legislation in the aftermath of the Nashville school shooting. But they also accused their GOP colleagues of having used the rules to keep debate to a minimum on other topics throughout the legislative session.

    Several Democrats joked Thursday how they normally weren’t allowed to talk at such length but got a minor break of sorts during the hearing because of to the national attention it had attracted.

    House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, dismissed suggestions that Democrats have been silenced, saying lawmakers have many opportunities to speak up during legislative committee hearings and on the House floor.

    “We haven’t had anybody complain,” Sexton said. “People raise their hands to be recognized. I don’t know who is going to call the question.”

    LEGISLATIVE TACTICS

    The aggressive actions by Tennessee Republicans demonstrated a flip side to parliamentary tactics that lawmakers in the minority often use to as a last-ditch effort to thwart the other side. Among the most common are filibusters, in which lawmakers try to run out the clock on a bill through lengthy speeches.

    In Nebraska, a filibuster brought lawmaking to a standstill for weeks this year over GOP legislation that would impose restrictions on transgender rights. State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh, a Democrat, introduced amendment after amendment to every bill on the Senate floor and took up all eight debate hours allowed by the rules each day.

    Two years ago, Texas Democrats temporarily stalled passage of new voting restrictions for weeks by breaking quorum and going on a 38-day walkout. They had quietly walked out of the House chamber one by one while facing the potential of Republicans calling the question for a decisive vote before a midnight deadline to pass the bill.

    ‘NUCLEAR OPTION’

    Texas state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, who helped spearhead the Democrats’ walkout in 2021, described calling the question as a “nuclear option” and criticized it an offensive tactic to stop debate.

    On Friday, he called the expulsions in Tennessee a warning for lawmakers in minority parties to keep their guard up. He said he was especially mindful of how state legislators act at a time when there is gridlock in Washington and the Supreme Court is throwing contentious issues back to the states to decide.

    “If you can willy-nilly silence voices by changing rules, then I think that is a significant assault on our democracy,” Fischer said.

    ___

    Weber reported from Austin, Texas.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tennessee becomes new front in battle for American democracy

    Tennessee becomes new front in battle for American democracy

    [ad_1]

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Tennessee has become a new front in the battle for the future of American democracy after Republicans expelled two Black lawmakers from the state Legislature for their part in a protest urging passage of gun-control measures.

    In separate votes on Thursday, the GOP supermajority expelled Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, a move leaving about 140,000 voters in primarily Black districts in Nashville and Memphis with no representation in the Tennessee House.

    Kevin Webb, a 53-year-old teacher from Pearson’s district, said removing him “for such a small infraction” is “classic America.”

    “There’s been bias against Black individuals in this country for 500 years,” Webb said. “What makes us think that it’s going to stop all of a sudden?”

    Pearson and Jones were expelled in retaliation for their role in the protest, which unfolded in the aftermath of a school shooting in Nashville that killed six people, including three young students. A third Democrat was spared expulsion by a one-vote margin.

    The removal of the lawmakers, who were only recently elected, reflects a trend in dozens of states where Republicans are trying to make it harder to cast ballots and challenging the integrity of the election process.

    At least 177 bills restricting voting or creating systems that can intimidate voters or permit partisan interference were filed or introduced in dozens of states so far this year, according to the Brennan Center.

    “It represents a really slow erosion of our democracy,” said Neha Patel, co-executive director of the State Innovation Exchange, a strategy center for state legislators working toward progressive policies.

    Patel called the expulsions “the third prong of a long-range strategy.” She said it was once “unprecedented” for states to make it harder for people to vote, but the practice has become “commonplace.”

    It’s also become common for the GOP to challenge the electoral process and raise questions about election integrity. The next question is whether states with Republican supermajorities will follow Tennessee’s lead in expelling opponents with different points of view, she said.

    Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan organization advocating for better government, said expulsions have generally been reserved for lawmakers involved in criminal activity.

    Voters losing their chosen representatives for doing their jobs is “unheard of,” Wertheimer said. He has not learned of any similar action in other states, “but this stuff travels.”

    The action in Tennessee drew outcries from a range of groups.

    National Urban League President Marc Morial said the issue was about race, but “it’s not only about race. It’s about basic American values.”

    Referring to the right to vote, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, he said, “It appears as though the Tennessee Legislature needs a refresher on the American Constitution.”

    The president of the Congressional Black Caucus, Nevada Rep. Steven Horsford, called for the Tennessee lawmakers to be returned to their seats and for Attorney General Merrick Garland to look into potential violations of the Voting Rights Act.

    NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson said the civil rights organization was prepared to take legal action “to ensure that this heinous attempt to silence the voice of the people is addressed in a court of law.”

    House Speaker Cameron Sexton pushed back against criticism that he was leaving thousands of Tennesseans without representation and taking away their voice.

    “There are consequences for actions,” he said. “Those members took away the voice of this chamber for 45 minutes when they were on the House floor leading the protest and disrupting the business that we’re doing.”

    The trio’s participation in the demonstration lasted only a few minutes. It was Sexton who called for a recess to meet with lawmakers.

    Webb questioned why Jones and Pearson would be expelled while Rep. Gloria Johnson, who is white, was not.

    Clayton Cardwell, who lives in Jones’ district in Nashville, said in a telephone interview that the protest in favor of stricter gun laws last week was “the right thing to do.”

    “I was hoping that the entire House would join in,” he said. When the retired teacher was getting his master’s degree in special education, Cardwell remembers being told that teaching was the safest occupation you could have. “Now I think it is one of the most dangerous.”

    Cardwell, who is white, also questioned the motives behind the expulsions: “We’ve just got a lot of old white men there who are prejudiced.”

    Nashville attorney Chris Wood was so concerned about the possible expulsion of his representative that he went to the Capitol on Thursday to watch the proceedings.

    “It was appalling,” he said. “It was an abuse of power.”

    Wood has three children in public schools and called it “unbelievable and immoral” that the Republican majority would refuse to even consider gun restrictions.

    No issue could be more important to the community “than ending gun violence and letting our kids come home at the end of the day,” he said. “This is the only country in the world where this happens.”

    Wood expects Jones and Pearson to be back soon. They could be reappointed to the House by county commissions in their districts and run again in a special election.

    Andrea Wiley, a lifelong Tennessee resident who lives and works in Pearson’s district, said she was embarrassed for the state.

    “It’s really hard to be from here and see us in the national news at this level,” she said. “It is really scary to me that I don’t have a voice in Nashville that’s representing me, my community, my neighborhood.”

    Tamala Johnson said she and her family voted for Pearson and she agreed with him about changing gun laws.

    “I don’t think he should have been expelled for voicing his opinion,” Johnson said.

    The vote to expel “makes me feel like we don’t have a word,” she said. “You threw him out just because he’s fighting to improve gun laws. … There’s no trust.”

    ____

    Sainz reported from Memphis, Tennessee. Fields reported from Washington, D.C. Associated Press writers Kimberlee Kruesi in Nashville, Tennessee, and Hilary Powell in Richmond, Virginia, also contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Formal results confirm Milatovic win in Montenegro election

    Formal results confirm Milatovic win in Montenegro election

    [ad_1]

    Official results have confirmed a crushing defeat for Montenegro’s long-time leader Milo Djukanovic in a weekend presidential election

    ByPREDRAG MILIC Associated Press

    PODGORICA, Montenegro — Official results released Thursday confirmed a crushing defeat for Montenegro’s long-time leader Milo Djukanovic in a weekend presidential election, signaling his departure from the small Balkan state’s political scene after more than 30 years in power.

    Economic expert Jakov Milatovic, a political novice, won Sunday’s presidential runoff with around 59% of the vote, according to the final official results.

    Djukanovic led Montenegro to independence from much larger Serbia in 2006 and to NATO membership in 2017.

    Milatovic’s victory reflected voter fatigue with Djukanovic — who has served as president twice and prime minister seven times — as well as disillusionment with established politicians. Although the presidency is largely a ceremonial position in Montenegro, it influences the political trends in the country.

    Djukanovic tendered his resignation as president of Montenegro’s largest party, the centrist Democratic Party of Socialists. The party, which Djukanovic led for 25 years, on Thursday named an interim leader.

    Djukanovic told a party meeting that he would stay on as a member. He said the party’s election performance was “unsatisfactory” but not so low given what he called “the influence of certain factors from outside Montenegro” – a reference to negative propaganda against him from Serbia and the Serbian Orthodox Church during campaigning.

    This was Djukanovic’s first loss in an election since he entered politics in the former Yugoslav republic in the early 1990s. During his decades in power, the 61-year-old switched from being a pro-Serbian communist to a pro-Western politician.

    Milatovic, 36, first entered politics in 2020 after finishing his education in Britain and the United States.

    The outcome of Sunday’s election is likely to impact on an early parliamentary vote set for June 11. That vote was scheduled because of a monthslong government deadlock that stalled Montenegro’s pending European Union membership and alarmed the West as war rages in Ukraine.

    Though Milatovic’s Europe Now group isn’t formally part of the country’s ruling coalition, his presidential candidacy won backing from the shaky alliance that includes parties advocating closer ties with neighboring Serbia as well as Russia.

    Milatovic has denied Djukanovic’s allegations that the governing coalition is pushing Montenegro back under Serbian and Russian influence.

    Since the election, Milatovic has pledged to keep the country on course for EU membership strengthen NATO ties and adhere to international sanctions against Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. Those positions have angered Serbian nationalists who had hoped he would turn away from Djukanovic’s pro-Western policies and align the small Balkan state with Serbia and Russia.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • North Carolina lawmaker signals party switch with big impact

    North Carolina lawmaker signals party switch with big impact

    [ad_1]

    RALEIGH, N.C. — Speculation is rising in the North Carolina legislature that a Democrat is about to switch parties and give Republicans a complete veto-proof majority in the General Assembly, a move that could affect legislation on immigration, abortion and voting.

    The GOP scheduled a Wednesday news conference at party headquarters with Rep. Tricia Cotham of Mecklenburg County. House Speaker Tim Moore said Tuesday that Cotham and chamber leaders will “make a major announcement.”

    If the Democrat does switch parties, it would be a major political setback for Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper and allies in their attempts to block conservative initiatives during the governor’s final two years in office.

    It could make it easier for Republicans to enact bills that would force sheriffs to cooperate with federal immigration agents and prevent counting absentee ballots received after Election Day. The GOP is also debating if and how to place further restrictions on abortion.

    While Republicans already hold the 30 Senate seats needed to override vetoes, they have been one seat shy of a similar advantage in the House since the November elections. Cooper made preventing supermajorities his top campaign priority last fall.

    Cotham, a former teacher and assistant principal, served in the House for nearly 10 years through 2016 before returning in January.

    She sat at a new desk surrounded by Republicans on the House floor for the late Tuesday afternoon session. Staff members earlier took her belongings from her previous desk, which had adjoined those of other veteran House Democratics.

    Cotham left after the floor session ended without taking reporters’ questions and didn’t respond to a text message. Her Twitter account “liked” a post that welcomed her to the House GOP caucus.

    Moore declined comment Tuesday when asked whether Cotham was switching parties. Cotham’s voter registration information on the State Board of Elections website late Tuesday listed her as a Democrat.

    Republicans have been advancing legislation this year that in previous years Cooper successfully vetoed. Until now, the governor has had enough Democratic votes to uphold vetoes if the party members showed up and voted together.

    Last week, the Legislature successfully overrode one of Cooper’s vetoes for the first time since 2018 and approved a bill that in part eliminated the state’s pistol permit purchase system. Cooper has stopped short of vetoing three other bills this year on topics that he vetoed in 2021. He didn’t sign this year’s measures, but rather allowed them to become law without his signature.

    Cotham was one of three House Democrats who were absent last week during the override votes on the gun bill. The absences meant Republicans were able to meet the three-fifths majority threshold necessary to complete the override and advance their agenda.

    Cotham said later that day that while she didn’t support the permit repeal, she had informed both parties she would be absent for the vote, citing a scheduled hospital treatment. She and other absent Democrats took criticism for what happened, leading at least one liberal-leaning group to announce plans to “hold them accountable” in 2024.

    News of Cotham’s potential party switch led some Democratic leaders to call on her to resign from the House instead, saying voters elected her based on her support as a Democrat for abortion rights, public education and civil rights. It’s unclear whether her views have changed.

    Separately, Cooper said Cotham’s apparent party switch was a “disappointing decision.”

    Her votes on “women’s reproductive freedom, election laws, LGBTQ rights and strong public schools will determine the direction of the state we love,” Cooper said in a news release.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Montenegrins choose new president amid political turmoil

    Montenegrins choose new president amid political turmoil

    [ad_1]

    Montenegrins are casting ballots in a runoff presidential election that is a battle between a long-serving pro-Western incumbent and a newcomer promising changes in the small NATO member state in Europe locked in political turmoil

    ByPREDRAG MILIC Associated Press

    PODGORICA, Montenegro — Montenegrins are casting ballots on Sunday in a runoff presidential election that is a battle between a long-serving pro-Western incumbent and a newcomer promising changes in the small NATO member state in Europe that has been locked in political turmoil.

    Observers say that President Milo Djukanovic, who is credited with leading Montenegro to independence and into NATO, could be facing defeat from the economist Jakov Milatovic, the candidate backed by governing parties advocating closer ties with Serbia.

    The runoff vote on Sunday is being held after none of the contenders won majority support in the first round of voting two weeks ago. Some 540,000 people are eligible to vote in Montenegro, a country of 620,000 located in the Balkan peninsula and by the Adriatic Sea.

    The winner of Sunday’s vote could also reflect on the upcoming early parliamentary election on June 11. That vote was scheduled because of months-long government deadlock that stalled European Union integration and alarmed the West as war rages in Ukraine.

    Djukanovic, 61, first became prime minister at 29 and has stayed in power for the past 32 years — longer than his Democratic Party of Socialists, which was ousted in a 2020 parliamentary election.

    Djukanovic has been a key Western ally in countering Russian influence and keeping the Balkans stable. He has insisted that the struggle is not over despite Montenegro’s NATO membership because of Serbia’s alleged expansionist policies and Russia’s influence.

    Milatovic, who is 36 and was educated in Britain and the United States, has appealed to voters disillusioned with established politicians like Djukanovic. Milatovic has insisted that he wants Montenegro to join the EU although some of the parties that backed his candidacy are pro-Russian.

    If Milatovic wins, his Europe Now movement could find itself in a position to dominate the next government after the snap vote in June. Djukanovic has hoped that his re-election for another five-year term would pave the way for his DPS to also return to power in June.

    Milatovic’s Europe Now emerged after the first government that resulted from the 2020 parliamentary elections collapsed. As the economy minister in that government, Milatovic gained popularity by increasing salaries but critics say this was done at the cost of the already depleted health system and not as an outcome of reform.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Wisconsin Supreme Court control, abortion access at stake

    Wisconsin Supreme Court control, abortion access at stake

    [ad_1]

    MADISON, Wis. — MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and likely the future of abortion access, Republican-drawn legislative maps and years of GOP policies in the key swing state rests with the outcome an election Tuesday that has seen record campaign spending.

    The winner of the high-stakes contest between Republican-backed Dan Kelly and Democratic-supported Janet Protasiewicz will determine majority control of the court headed into the 2024 presidential election. The court came within one vote of overturning President Joe Biden’s narrow win in 2020, and both sides expect another close race in 2024.

    It’s the latest election where abortion rights has been the central issue since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June. It’s also an example of how officially nonpartisan court races have grown into political battles as major legal fights play out at the state level.

    All of it has fueled spending that will double, and likely triple or more, the previous high of $15.4 million spent on a state court race in Illinois in 2004. Democrats have spent heavily for Protasiewicz and Republicans for Kelly.

    Democrats are trying to flip control of the court, which has had a majority of conservative justices the past 15 years. That has allowed the court to uphold an array of Republican priorities, including banning absentee ballot drop boxes last year and affirming the 2011 law all-but ending collective bargaining for most public workers.

    “The policy direction of Wisconsin is going to be determined in large part by this Supreme Court race,” said University of Wisconsin-Madison political science professor Barry Burden. “Everything from abortion to disputes over the 2024 presidential election are going to land in the lap of this court. And the winner will be the deciding justice on these issues.”

    Protasiewicz, 60, has tried to make the race a referendum on abortion, running on a Democratic-backed agenda that includes her loudly voicing her “personal values” in support of abortion rights.

    The court is expected to rule on a lawsuit challenging the state’s 174-year-old law banning nearly all abortions.

    That law, enacted a year after statehood, went back into effect after the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, leading to an end to abortions being provided in Wisconsin. Democrats, including Gov. Tony Evers who won reelection in November, have seized on the issue.

    “Abortion was a real motivator for Democrats and independents,” Burden said. “It’s been amped up in this election because the court has a real role in determining the policy.”

    Protasiewicz won the backing of Planned Parenthood and other similar groups as she focused on abortion without saying how she would rule on the pending case challenging the ban. But she’s promised that Kelly would vote to uphold it.

    Kelly hasn’t said whether he thinks the ban is legal. But he has expressed opposition to abortion in the past, including in a 2012 blog post in which he said the Democratic Party and the National Organization for Women were committed to normalizing the taking of human life.

    Kelly also has done legal work for Wisconsin Right to Life, one of three anti-abortion groups that has endorsed him.

    Abortion isn’t the only hot political issue Protasiewicz has embraced. She also called the Republican-drawn legislative maps upheld by the current court “rigged” and said she would welcome revisiting them.

    The state Supreme Court upheld Republican-drawn maps in 2022. Those maps, widely regarded as among the most gerrymandered in the country, have helped Republicans increase their hold on the state Legislature to near supermajority levels, even as Democrats have won statewide elections, including Evers as governor in both 2018 and 2022 and Biden in 2020.

    When asked in an interview on Wisconsin Public Radio whether he thought the GOP-drawn maps were fair, Kelly punted.

    “I think that’s a political judgment,” he said, adding that his view was “entirely irrelevant.”

    Kelly was appointed to the state Supreme Court by then-Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, in 2016. He served four years before being defeated in 2020 on the same ballot as the Democratic presidential primary. Kelly was endorsed by then-President Donald Trump that year.

    Protasiewicz has tried to paint Kelly as an “extreme partisan” and a “true threat to democracy” given his ties to Republicans, including advising them on the plan to have fake GOP electors cast their ballots for Trump following the 2020 election even though he had lost.

    Four of the past six presidential races in Wisconsin have been decided by less than a percentage point, including Trump’s victory in 2016 and Biden’s win in 2020.

    Kelly, 58, has tried to distance himself from his previous Republican clients and his political beliefs.

    “I don’t talk about my politics because I understand they are not relevant to the work of the court,” he told the Dane County Bar Association in March. “We’re there to decide questions of the law and that’s it.”

    Protasiewicz is a former prosecutor who was first elected as a Milwaukee County judge in 2014.

    Kelly has accused Protasiewicz of being “bought and paid for” by Democrats and crossing the line by all-but declaring how she would rule on cases expected to come before the court. Kelly also tried to paint Protasiewicz as soft on crime, citing cases she handled as a judge, while also accusing her of “straight up lying” throughout the campaign on various issues.

    The winner will serve a 10-year term starting in August replacing retiring conservative Justice Pat Roggensack.

    In a sign of how divisive the race is, Roggensack endorsed Kelly, while her daughter, Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Ellen Brostrom, backed Protasiewicz. Brostrom said Kelly was “unfit” to serve because of his involvement in the fake GOP electors scheme.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox News should continue to trial, says Delaware judge

    Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation case against Fox News should continue to trial, says Delaware judge

    [ad_1]

    DOVER, Del. (AP) — A voting-machine company’s defamation case against Fox News over its airing of false allegations about the 2020 presidential election will go to trial after a Delaware judge on Friday ruled that a jury must decide whether the network aired the claims with actual malice, the standard for proving libel against public figures.

    Superior Court Judge Eric Davis ruled that neither Fox nor Dominion Voting Systems had presented a convincing argument to prevail on whether Fox acted with malice without the case going to trial. But he also ruled that the statements Dominion had challenged constitute defamation “per se” under New York law. That means Dominion did not have to prove damages to establish liability by Fox.

    “ ‘The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that [it] is CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true.’ ”


    — Superior Court Judge Eric Davis

    “The evidence developed in this civil proceeding demonstrates that [it] is CRYSTAL clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,” Davis wrote in his summary judgment ruling.

    The decision paves the way for a trial start in mid-April.

    Dominion is suing the network for $1.6 billion, claiming Fox defamed it by repeatedly airing false allegations by then-President Donald Trump and his allies in the weeks after the 2020 election claiming the company’s machines and its accompanying software had switched votes to Democrat Joe Biden. The network aired the claims even though internal communications show that many of its executives and hosts didn’t believe them.

    The company sued Fox News and its parent, Fox Corp.
    FOX,
    +1.36%

    FOXA,
    +1.13%    ,
    which shares ownership with News Corp
    NWS,
    +1.99%

    NWSA,
    +1.77%    ,
    parent company of MarketWatch publisher Dow Jones.

    Don’t miss: Top congressional Democrats Schumer and Jeffries seek on-air acknowledgements that Fox News personalities knew Trump lost and election wasn’t stolen

    See: 2020 election ‘was not stolen,’ Fox Chairman Rupert Murdoch said under oath, according to evidence in Dominion case

    Also: Pro-Trump on air, Tucker Carlson privately told his Fox News producer that he hates the former president with a passion

    Fox has said it was simply covering newsworthy allegations made by a sitting president claiming his re-election had been stolen from him. In his ruling, Davis said Fox could not escape potential liability by claiming privileges for neutral reporting or opinion.

    “FNN’s failure to reveal extensive contradicting evidence from the public sphere and Dominion itself indicates that its reporting was not disinterested.” the judge wrote.

    In a statement issued after the ruling, Dominion said it was gratified that the court had rejected Fox’s arguments and found “as a matter of law that their statements about Dominion are false. We look forward to going to trial.”

    Fox emphasized that the case is about the media’s First Amendment protections in covering the news. “Fox will continue to fiercely advocate for the rights of free speech and a free press as we move into the next phase of these proceedings,” the network said in a statement.

    See: ‘A complete nut’: Fox News hosts didn’t believe 2020 election fraud claims

    Also: Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity among potential witnesses at Fox News trial

    The coverage fed an ecosystem of misinformation surrounding Trump’s loss in 2020 that has persisted ever since.

    MarketWatch contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rejection of Black educator angers some Mississippi senators

    Rejection of Black educator angers some Mississippi senators

    [ad_1]

    JACKSON, Miss. — Mississippi’s Republican-led Senate voted Wednesday against confirming veteran educator Robert P. Taylor as state superintendent of education, angering some Black Democrats who said the rejection was at least partly because Taylor is Black and wrote years ago about the state’s racist history.

    The state Board of Education — which has members chosen by the Republican governor, lieutenant governor and House speaker — conducted a nationwide search for a superintendent last year. Board members announced in November that their unanimous choice was Taylor, who had worked the past 30 years in North Carolina.

    “This whole confirmation was a political process, and I knew that coming in,” Taylor told The Associated Press on Wednesday evening after the Senate vote. He said senators in the past have confirmed all previous nominees for state superintendent, and he is disappointed this group of senators did not confirm him.

    “The fact that they didn’t, that is what I have to live with,” Taylor said. “I will always respect the process.”

    It’s not unusual for nominees to serve while waiting for senators to consider confirmation, and Taylor had been working as superintendent in Mississippi since January. With the Senate’s rejection, the board will search for another superintendent.

    About 38% of Mississippi residents are Black. Taylor would have been Mississippi’s second Black state superintendent of education, after Henry Johnson served from 2002 to 2005.

    Taylor grew up in Laurel, Mississippi, and earned his bachelor’s degree in 1990 at the University of Southern Mississippi. As an undergraduate, he wrote for a newsletter called “The Unheard Word,” which he said gave Black students a voice that the campus newspaper often ignored.

    A 2020 article on the university’s Center for Black Studies website focused on the short-lived newsletter.

    “‘The Unheard Word,’ in my opinion, recognized that The University of Southern Mississippi was in the most racist state in the Union, and that while historical focus has always been on the University of Mississippi, Southern Miss had a past that was tainted as well,” Taylor told the Center for Black Studies.

    Taylor told AP in a phone interview that it’s important for people to read his words in context. He said the newsletter wrote, for example, about the history of Clyde Kennard, who sought to become the first Black student the university in the 1950s and was rejected because of his race. The Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, a state spy agency at the time, led efforts to block Kennard’s enrollment.

    The Senate vote on Taylor’s nomination Wednesday was mostly along party lines, 31 Republicans voting against. Of the 21 who voted for confirmation, five were Republicans and the others were Democrats.

    “Because we reject him because of his race, we’re rejecting God because God made him that way,” said Democratic Sen. David Jordan, who is Black.

    Republican Sen. Chris Johnson of Hattiesburg, who is white, voted in favor of nominating Taylor. He said Taylor answered senators’ questions in a straightforward manner during a confirmation hearing, including about what he had written about Mississippi’s racist history.

    “He answered that by saying, ‘At that time, that’s how I felt,” Johnson told reporters Wednesday after the nomination failed.

    The previous Mississippi superintendent of education, Carey Wright, retired on June 30 after 13 years in the job. An interim superintendent started July 1 and served until Taylor arrived.

    Senate Education Committee Chairman Dennis DeBar, a white Republican from Leaksville, said race had nothing to do with his vote against the nomination of Taylor. DeBar said he thinks Taylor is a good man and should be respected.

    “I think what really hurt Dr. Taylor the most … is we have several low-performing schools in our state,” DeBar said. “We would like to see someone with a better resume on improving low-performing schools.”

    Democratic Sen. Derrick Simmons of Greenville, who is Black, said Taylor should have been confirmed.

    “Dr. Taylor did everything that we tell people in the state of Mississippi to do — get a good education, try to use that good education, go out and get your experience and then come back to the state of Mississippi and give Mississippi all of your educational talents and all of your educational experience and give back to the community that gave to you,” Simmons said.

    Hours after the Senate rejected Taylor’s nomination, Democratic Sen. Barbara Blackmon of Canton, who is Black, tried to amend other legislation to say Mississippi would only consider nominees who have never left the state — a way of expressing her anger about the rejection. Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann said the amendment was not relevant, and senators did not vote on it.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New California gas price law another defeat for oil industry

    New California gas price law another defeat for oil industry

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — It was just a few weeks ago that California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the oil industry the second most powerful force on earth, trailing only Mother Nature in its ability to bend the elements — both physical and political — to its will.

    Yet on Tuesday, Newsom signed a new law that gives state regulators the power to penalize oil companies for making too much money, the first of its kind in the country. It’s the type of legislation the oil industry might have crushed in the past. But on Monday, the bill cleared the state Assembly with only one Democrat voting against it.

    “We proved we could finally beat big oil,” Newsom said Tuesday after signing the bill.

    The bill is the latest in a string of defeats for the oil industry in California, a state many don’t think of as a fossil fuel powerhouse. But for decades, California was one of the leading oil producers in the United States with a bustling industry that was a key part of the state’s economy. The state is now the nation’s seventh-largest oil producer, according to federal data.

    The oil industry doesn’t mind a David vs. Goliath comparison “as long as you think we’re David and not Goliath,” Kevin Slagle, spokesperson for the Western States Petroleum Association, said about the industry’s influence at the state Capitol. “Just look at the results the last couple of years on legislation.”

    Oil production has been steadily declining since the late 1980s from a combination of exhausting supplies and the state’s changing policy priorities. A state law requires California to be carbon neutral by 2045, meaning the state would remove as many carbon emissions from the atmosphere as it emits. The state’s plan to do so would reduce demand for liquid petroleum by 94% by 2045.

    State regulators have banned the sale of most new gas-powered cars in California by 2035. And last year, the state Legislature approved a bill limiting where new oil wells can be drilled, providing buffer zones around homes, schools and other sensitive sites.

    “We’re never going to get it right, in terms of this transition (away from oil), unless we minimize and mitigate the power and influence of big oil in this country,” said Newsom, now in his second term in office and widely seen as a potential presidential candidate beyond 2024. “They’re the biggest impediment to a just transition.”

    While its influence in California might have diminished, the industry is still asserting itself. The Western States Petroleum Association spent $11.7 million lobbying lawmakers in the 2021-2022 legislative session, far more than any other single group. Chevron followed behind it, spending $8.6 million, according to state campaign finance filings. The next closest single spender was the California Teachers Association, at $7.1 million.

    Likewise, the industry spent millions on campaign contributions in the 2022 election, supporting both Democrats and Republicans. More than a quarter of all 120 seats in the Legislature are newly elected members.

    Those donations did not always translate to favorable votes. New Assemblymember Esmerelda Soria, a Democrat who represents parts of the Central Valley, was the top beneficiary of money from a Western States Petroleum Association-affiliated committee. Soria voted Monday to support the legislation despite industry opposition.

    The only Democrat to vote against the potential oil profits penalty was Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains, whose district includes Kern County, home of the state’s oil industry. Her vote appeared to irk the Newsom administration.

    Bains, a family medicine and addiction doctor who was first elected in November, tweeted a picture of the vote, saying: “Stand alone if you must, but always stand for truth.”

    Dana Williamson, Newsom’s chief of staff, replied: “Alone and confused you shall likely remain.”

    Bains said she voted against the bill because during the height of the gasoline price spike last summer, the Newsom administration and legislative leaders refused to suspend the state’s gas tax. They argued oil companies would not pass along the savings to drivers.

    “What’s to stop them from passing on the cost of this new tax with high prices at the pump?” Bains said. “That inconsistency is even more frustrating.”

    Though the industry couldn’t stop the legislation, its presence could be felt in the final version, said Chris Micheli, a veteran California lobbyist who represents business clients but was not involved in the oil profits legislation. Newsom initially called for the Legislature to pass a new tax on oil company profits. Then he asked lawmakers to instead impose a penalty if oil company profits surpassed a certain threshold.

    Finally, Newsom and lawmakers agreed to let the California Energy Commission decide, punting the decision to a five-person panel appointed by Newsom with the consent of the state Senate. The bill also creates a new state agency with the power to monitor the petroleum markets, including requiring oil companies to disclose lots of data about their pricing.

    “The fact it took them three different substantive proposals to find something that would actually pass the Legislature I think goes to show the continued power and influence of the oil industry in this state,” Micheli said.

    Next year, the oil industry will be looking to exert its influence in another arena — public opinion. The industry is challenging a new state law that bans drilling new oil wells nearby homes, schools and other sensitive areas. Voters will decide in 2024 whether to uphold the law.

    “The partisan numbers of the two houses of the Legislature have dramatically changed,” Micheli said, referring to Democrats now having total control over state government. “The broader business community is going to have to go to the voters on some issues of public policy.”

    Newsom acknowledged Monday the importance of oil for the global economy, telling reporters: “I’m driving home tonight” and “I’m flying this weekend.”

    “Oil has built the American economy, built the industrial economy, I get it,” Newsom said. “But we are transitioning. And all I’m asking for is don’t rip us off anymore.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Voter abstention rises in Cuban National Assembly election

    Voter abstention rises in Cuban National Assembly election

    [ad_1]

    Cuba’s government is reported that abstention in National Assembly elections was just over 24%, a figure some analysts say reflects discontent with the island’s economic crisis as well as a rise in apathy

    HAVANA — Cuba’s government reported Monday that abstention in National Assembly elections was 24.1%, a figure some analysts said reflects discontent with the island’s economic crisis as well as a rise in apathy.

    While a 75.9% voter turnout in Sunday’s voting is high compared with other countries, it is about nine percentage points lower than voter turnout in Cuba‘s 2018 National Assembly elections and far lower than the 94.2% turnout seen in 2013.

    Since there was only one candidate running for each of the 470 legislative seats, turnout was watched by observers as a political thermometer.

    “It is evident that the government is dealing with less unconditional support from its bases,” said Arturo López-Levy, a professor at the Autonomous University of Madrid.

    Cuba’s economy was badly hit by the pandemic and increased U.S. sanctions, and the island nation has seen a surge in migration along with power outages and fuel shortages. The communist-ruled nation was rocked by rare protests in July 2021 and October 2022.

    Michael Shifter, an analyst with the Washington-based think tank the Inter-American Dialogue, said the 24% abstention is high in historical terms since the general average for non-participation has been 10%.

    Shifter described abstention in Cuba as a complex phenomenon that could reflect discontent with the government’s “bad performance” and “apathy or disinterest.”

    The voter turnout figures from Sunday’s legislative voting were announced by Alina Balseiro, president of the National Electoral Council. She said that of 8.1 million people registered to vote, 6.1 million voted. Some 6.2% of the ballots were blank and 3.5% voided.

    While critics contend that voters in Cuba’s legislative elections do no more than endorse a slate of candidates vetted by Communist Party officials, Cuban officials say the system is inclusive and builds unity, while steering clear of the divisiveness of party politics or any ill effects of big-money donors.

    Voting in Cuba is not compulsory but traditionally was considered a national duty.

    National Assembly elections are held every five years and are technically nonpartisan. But they fall under the indirect control of the Communist Party.

    Half of the 470 candidates came from municipal assemblies chosen in local elections last November. The other half were nominated by groups representing broad swaths of society, such as a women’s group and workers unions. All were vetted by election committees with ties to the party.

    The National Assembly is nominally the country’s highest governing power. It approves laws and votes for the president and executive officials from among its members.

    The new National Assembly is expected to convene April 19.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

    Berlin climate proposal fails to get enough yes votes to win

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Berlin vote could turbocharge German capital’s climate plans

    Berlin vote could turbocharge German capital’s climate plans

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California lawmakers to vote on possible gas price penalties

    California lawmakers to vote on possible gas price penalties

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California lawmakers on Thursday will vote on whether to allow penalties on oil companies for price gouging at the pump, a first-in-the-country proposal aimed at stopping the kind of spikes last summer that caused some drivers pay up to $8 per gallon as the industry reaped super-sized profits.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat seen as a possible presidential candidate beyond 2024, has used all of his political muscle to get the bill this far by making in-person pleas with state lawmakers in private ahead of Thursday’s first vote in the state Senate.

    The oil industry has pushed back, paying for a wave of digital ads that have labeled any potential penalty as a tax — an idea more likely to be scorned by voters. But they have failed to stop the bill, which after months of stagnating in the Democratic-controlled Legislature is now racing through the process with the Senate vote followed by a final vote in the state Assembly likely next week.

    The bill highlights the challenges of balancing the competing pressures of protecting consumers at the pump while at the same time pushing policies to end the state’s reliance on fossil fuels. California’s climate strategy — which includes banning the sale of most new gas-powered cars by 2035 — would reduce demand for gasoline by 94% by 2045.

    California’s gasoline prices are already higher than most other states because of taxes, fees and environmental regulations. California’s gas tax is the second-highest in the country at 54 cents per gallon. And the state requires oil companies make a special blend of gasoline to sell in California that is better for the environment but is more expensive to produce.

    Still, at one point during the price spike last year the average price of a gallon of gasoline in California was more than $2.60 higher than the national average — a difference regulators say is too large to be explained by taxes, fees and regulations.

    In response, Newsom asked lawmakers to limit how much money oil companies could make from selling gasoline in the state, with hefty fines imposed on anyone who went over that threshold. The idea was to incentivize companies to keep the price of oil within a certain range and prevent price spikes like last year.

    But that idea went nowhere in the state Legislature as lawmakers feared that whatever limit they chose would cause chaos in the market, causing refiners to make less gasoline that would in turn increase prices at the pump.

    “We can’t just have committees formed every time there’s a gas spike and think we have enough knowledge to figure out how to resolve the situation over the long term,” said Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, a Democrat from Thousand Oaks who was one of the lead negotiators for the bill in the state Assembly.

    Instead, after months of secret negotiations, Newsom and legislative leaders agreed to let the California Energy Commission decide whether to impose a penalty, and what the penalty should be. That means it’s possible the state would never impose a penalty on oil companies. Some lawmakers believe the prospect of a penalty could be enough to deter huge price increases in the future.

    The bill represents an agreement between Newsom and the Democratic lawmakers who control a majority of seats in the state Legislature. Republicans, who don’t have enough members to block bills from passing, blasted the proposal on Thursday.

    “This is socialism,” said state Sen. Brian Dahle, a Republican from Bieber. “This is pushing the government to pick winners and losers.”

    Much of the oil industry’s complaints about the bill have focused less on the potential penalty and more on a new, independent state agency lawmakers would create create to investigate the market. Oil companies would be required to disclose massive amounts of data to this agency, giving regulators a better sense of what could be driving price spikes. And, crucially, the agency would have subpoena power to compel oil company executives to testify.

    Kevin Slagle, spokesperson for the Western States Petroleum Association, said oil companies would have to report data on 15,000 transactions per day, what he called “a ridiculous level of reporting” that would drive up costs. He said the real problem with California’s gas prices are state laws and regulations that hinder the supply of fuel. He criticized Newsom and lawmakers for rushing the bill through the Legislature with little input from the oil industry.

    “Why does the governor want to jam this through? Clearly it’s because the details of this are not good for California consumers,” Slagle said. “They don’t address the problem, but it provides him a political win.”

    Dana Williamson, Newsom’s chief of staff, said she has repeatedly had meetings with representatives from the oil industry to discuss the bill, including meetings with specific companies and two meetings with the Western States Petroleum Association.

    “It’s a ridiculous over exaggeration that they have been cut out,” Williamson said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California lawmakers to vote on possible gas price penalties

    California lawmakers to vote on possible gas price penalties

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California lawmakers on Thursday will vote on whether to allow penalties on oil companies for price gouging at the pump, a first-in-the-country proposal aimed at stopping the kind of spikes last summer that caused some drivers pay up to $8 per gallon as the industry reaped super-sized profits.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat seen as a possible presidential candidate beyond 2024, has used all of his political muscle to get the bill this far by making in-person pleas with state lawmakers in private ahead of Thursday’s first vote in the state Senate.

    The oil industry has pushed back, paying for a wave of digital ads that have labeled any potential penalty as a tax — an idea more likely to be scorned by voters. But they have failed to stop the bill, which after months of stagnating in the Democratic-controlled Legislature is now racing through the process with the Senate vote followed by a final vote in the state Assembly likely next week.

    The bill highlights the challenges of balancing the competing pressures of protecting consumers at the pump while at the same time pushing policies to end the state’s reliance on fossil fuels. California’s climate strategy — which includes banning the sale of most new gas-powered cars by 2035 — would reduce demand for gasoline by 94% by 2045.

    California’s gasoline prices are already higher than most other states because of taxes, fees and environmental regulations. California’s gas tax is the second-highest in the country at 54 cents per gallon. And the state requires oil companies make a special blend of gasoline to sell in California that is better for the environment but is more expensive to produce.

    Still, at one point during the price spike last year the average price of a gallon of gasoline in California was more than $2.60 higher than the national average — a difference regulators say is too large to be explained by taxes, fees and regulations.

    In response, Newsom asked lawmakers to limit how much money oil companies could make from selling gasoline in the state, with hefty fines imposed on anyone who went over that threshold. The idea was to incentivize companies to keep the price of oil within a certain range and prevent price spikes like last year.

    But that idea went nowhere in the state Legislature as lawmakers feared that whatever limit they chose would cause chaos in the market, causing refiners to make less gasoline that would in turn increase prices at the pump.

    “We can’t just have committees formed every time there’s a gas spike and think we have enough knowledge to figure out how to resolve the situation over the long term,” said Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, a Democrat from Thousand Oaks who was one of the lead negotiators for the bill in the state Assembly.

    Instead, after months of secret negotiations, Newsom and legislative leaders agreed to let the California Energy Commission decide whether to impose a penalty, and what the penalty should be. That means it’s possible the state would never impose a penalty on oil companies. Some lawmakers believe the prospect of a penalty could be enough to deter huge price increases in the future.

    The bill represents an agreement between Newsom and the Democratic lawmakers who control a majority of seats in the state Legislature. Republicans, who don’t have enough members to block bills from passing, blasted the proposal on Thursday.

    “This is socialism,” said state Sen. Brian Dahle, a Republican from Bieber. “This is pushing the government to pick winners and losers.”

    Much of the oil industry’s complaints about the bill have focused less on the potential penalty and more on a new, independent state agency lawmakers would create create to investigate the market. Oil companies would be required to disclose massive amounts of data to this agency, giving regulators a better sense of what could be driving price spikes. And, crucially, the agency would have subpoena power to compel oil company executives to testify.

    Kevin Slagle, spokesperson for the Western States Petroleum Association, said oil companies would have to report data on 15,000 transactions per day, what he called “a ridiculous level of reporting” that would drive up costs. He said the real problem with California’s gas prices are state laws and regulations that hinder the supply of fuel. He criticized Newsom and lawmakers for rushing the bill through the Legislature with little input from the oil industry.

    “Why does the governor want to jam this through? Clearly it’s because the details of this are not good for California consumers,” Slagle said. “They don’t address the problem, but it provides him a political win.”

    Dana Williamson, Newsom’s chief of staff, said she has repeatedly had meetings with representatives from the oil industry to discuss the bill, including meetings with specific companies and two meetings with the Western States Petroleum Association.

    “It’s a ridiculous over exaggeration that they have been cut out,” Williamson said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Australia decides referendum question to create Black Voice

    Australia decides referendum question to create Black Voice

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Arizona court declines most of Lake’s appeal over gov’s race

    Arizona court declines most of Lake’s appeal over gov’s race

    [ad_1]

    The Arizona Supreme Court has declined to hear most of Republican Kari Lake’s appeal in a challenge of her defeat in the governor’s race, but revived a claim that was dismissed by a trial court

    ByJACQUES BILLEAUD Associated Press

    PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court has declined to hear most of Republican Kari Lake’s appeal in a challenge of her defeat in the governor’s race, but revived a claim that was dismissed by a trial court.

    In an order Wednesday, the state’s highest court said a lower-court had erroneously dismissed Lake’s claim challenging the application of signature verification procedures on early ballots in Maricopa County. The court sent the claim back to a trial court to consider.

    Lake, who lost to Democrat Katie Hobbs by just over 17,000 votes, was among the most vocal 2022 Republican candidates promoting former President Donald Trump’s election lies, which she made the centerpiece of her campaign. While most other election deniers around the country conceded after losing their races in November, Lake did not.

    In her challenge, the former TV anchor focused on problems with ballot printers at some polling places in Maricopa County, home to more than 60% of the state’s voters.

    The defective printers produced ballots that were too light to be read by the on-site tabulators at polling places. Lines backed up in some areas amid the confusion. Lake alleged ballot printer problems were the result of intentional misconduct.

    County officials say everyone had a chance to vote and all ballots were counted because those affected by the printers were taken to more sophisticated counters at election headquarters.

    In mid-February, the Arizona Court of Appeal rejected Lake’s assertions, concluding she presented no evidence that voters whose ballots were unreadable by tabulators at polling places were not able to vote.

    The appeals court noted that even a witness called to testify on Lake’s behalf confirmed ballots that couldn’t initially be read at polling places may ultimately have been counted. And while a pollster testified that the polling place problems disenfranchised enough voters to change the election’s outcome, the appeals court said his conclusion was baseless.

    Lake’s attorneys also said the chain of custody for ballots was broken at an off-site facility where a contractor scans mail-in ballots to prepare them for processing. The lawyers asserted that workers put their own mail-in ballots into the pile rather than returning them through normal channels, and that paperwork documenting ballot transfers was missing. The county disputes the claims.

    Hobbs’ attorneys have said Lake was trying to sow distrust in Arizona’s election results and offered no proof to back up her allegations.

    Lake faced extremely long odds in her challenge, which required proving misconduct specifically intended to deny her victory and that it resulted in the wrong woman being declared the winner.

    Hobbs took office as governor on Jan. 2.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Vote on Biden’s pick to run FAA delayed amid GOP opposition

    Vote on Biden’s pick to run FAA delayed amid GOP opposition

    [ad_1]

    The fate of President Joe Biden’s pick to run the Federal Aviation Administration is in doubt

    ByDAVID KOENIG AP Airlines Writer

    A vote on President Joe Biden’s choice to run the Federal Aviation Administration was delayed indefinitely Wednesday in the face of an opposition blitz by Republicans, who say the nominee lacks enough experience in aviation to lead the agency, which is under pressure to stem a surge in dangerous close calls between planes.

    The Senate Commerce Committee was scheduled to vote on Denver International Airport CEO Phillip Washington, whose nomination has languished since Biden announced his choice last July.

    Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said the vote would be delayed to gather information requested by senators. She did not detail the information or name the committee members who sought the delay.

    The FAA has not had a Senate-confirmed administrator since March 2022, when Stephen Dickson stepped down midway through his term. The agency is being led by an acting administrator, Billy Nolen.

    The FAA administrator is not a cabinet-level job, but Republicans have turned the nomination into a high-profile contest with Biden and Senate Democrats.

    Washington ran transit agencies in Denver and Los Angeles, but his only aviation-related experience has come since taking the top job at the Denver airport in July 2021. Washington has strong ties to the administration — he led the incoming Biden administration’s transition team for the Transportation Department, which includes the FAA.

    Republicans argue, however, that he lacks experience in FAA’s core mission of aviation safety.

    “This is a job for someone with specialized knowledge needed to ensure the safety of the flying public,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “Phil Washington is objectively, indisputably unqualified to lead the FAA.”

    Federal investigators are examining six recent close calls between planes — in one instance, a FedEx plane came within less than 100 feet of a Southwest jet after an air traffic controller cleared both to use the same runway in Austin, Texas.

    [ad_2]

    Source link