Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

Who’s in and who’s out at Biden’s democracy summit – Axios

Data: U.S. State Department; Map: Madison Dong/Axios Visuals

President Biden declared at this week's Summit for Democracy that the tide is turning in the global struggle between democracies and autocracies.

Driving the news: In drawing up invitations, though, Biden had to make some awkward calls as to which countries fall on which side.

Flashback: Biden set himself up for a headache when he raised the idea of a democracy summit on the 2020 campaign trail.

Yes, but: Sensitive to the perception that the U.S. is holding itself up as a lone paragon of democracy, the administration invited Costa Rica, the Netherlands, South Korea and Zambia to co-host the mostly virtual event.

No leader is going to fundamentally change their behavior just to earn an invitation to a virtual summit, but the gatherings could provide a useful platform for civil society, says Marti Flacks, director of the human rights initiative at CSIS.

The bottom line: While the pros and cons of holding these summits are much debated, Bidens broader claim about the global democratic trajectory isnt unfounded. In its annual report on the state of global democracy, Freedom House described 2022 as a possible turning point.

See original here:
Who's in and who's out at Biden's democracy summit - Axios

Off the Bench | Three C’s are cornerstones to our democracy – News-Gazette

As I sat down to start working on this column I looked at the calendar on my computer and saw that May 1, 2023, will fall on a Monday. I also learned that May 1 will be the first day of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. What the good folks at Apple failed to note is May 1 is Law Day. Readers who have followed this column likely recall that I write about it most every year. This year is no exception.

Each year a theme is chosen. Past themes have focused on the rule of law as well as the Constitution of the United States and various amendments to that document. The organizers changed things up a little this year selecting as the theme, Cornerstones of Democracy: Civics, Civility and Collaboration.

Rather than focusing on a particular constitutional provision, this theme recognizes serious challenges facing our society and serves as a call to the legal profession to lead the way in addressing those challenges.

Deborah Enix-Ross, president of the American Bar Association, issued a statement in which she recognized the proud history of our country and its uninterrupted democracy. She also opined that we are at a critical moment in our history. She commented on what many Americans have observed, stating We face a country divided over many issues. We have experienced decreasing faith in institutions and a growing distrust of one another. We have seen attacks on the justice system, the norms of our democracy, and the rule of law. She further expressed concern regarding her perception of a lack of civility in our conversations as well as a lack of understanding of basic civics. She challenged the legal profession to lead the way.

In my years as an attorney and judge, I have worked with and observed lawyers who are marvelous advocates. I have no doubt that our profession is up to the challenge. However, in order to preserve our great country and its democracy all citizens must get on board.

The 2023 theme points to three cornerstones. We shall look at each in the order they appear, starting with civics. According to the dictionary, civics is a social science dealing with the rights and duties of citizens. While we begin to learn about each in grade school, our education should be ongoing. I suspect we have all heard someone proclaim I know my rights! On occasion such a person asserts a right that does not exist. We need to know and protect our rights. Courts are in the business of protecting rights of citizens. However, if we do not understand our rights we may never seek court enforcement of them.

Duties of citizenship must also be learned and remembered. My favorite example is jury duty. As I have written in prior columns, our entire system of justice, both civil and criminal, depends upon citizens answering the call. Regarding all civic duties, we cannot leave it to someone else.

Lawyers spend considerable time dealing with people who have competing interests and conflicting points of view. Whether negotiating a contract or divorce settlement or trying a case in court, they show they can be zealous advocates while communicating in a civil manner.

Lawyers are not alone in this regard. All of us deal with conflict and significant differences. We have to be able to be civil in navigating our way through these challenges. I recently heard PGA tour golfer Rickie Fowler answer a question as to what he had learned from legendary golfer Arnold Palmer. One of the things that stuck with Rickie was his observation that Arnold Palmer, despite his lofty status, treated people as he wanted to be treated himself. That sounds like what we refer to as the Golden Rule. That may not solve everything but it is surely a good start.

The final component, collaboration, requires people working together. A football, basketball or baseball team cannot be successful if each player follows an individual game plan or, worse, fights with teammates. As a country we have many challenges and more than a few enemies. We cannot prevail if we do not work together. Devoting our energy to tearing each other down and working to make people with differing views look bad is a recipe for failure. I suspect we would all be pleased to see more collaboration in Washington and Springfield. It might catch on with the rest of us. Our history shows we are capable of standing together in tough times.

As we strive to preserve our democracy let us all remember civics, civility and collaboration. They are indeed cornerstones.

David Bernthal of Mahomet is a retired 21-year federal magistrate. He is a counsel with the Webber & Thies PC law firm. His email is askthejudge1@gmail.com.

Read the original here:
Off the Bench | Three C's are cornerstones to our democracy - News-Gazette

USAID Announces New Initiatives at the 2023 Summit for … – USAID

During the secondSummit for Democracy, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is unveiling new efforts to advance democracy abroad under the Presidential Initiative for Democratic Renewal (PIDR), as well as sharing updates on progress made over the past year on initiatives announced at the first Summit.

USAID is contributing eight new initiatives many of which are focused on policy reforms to the PIDR for the second Summit. The PIDR comprises five lines of effort in response to significant challenges to democracy in the 21st Century. This includes thePartnerships for Democratic Development (PDD),which provides multi-year support to countries that demonstrate sustained democratic progress. Today, at the 2023 Summit for Democracy, USAID is announcing the first wave of nine PDD partner countries: Armenia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Malawi, Nepal, North Macedonia, Paraguay, Timor-Leste, and Zambia.

For FY 2023 and FY 2024, the Administration has requested $540 million ($270 million annually) to support USAIDs PIDR programming, subject to the availability of funds and working with Congress.

Continued here:
USAID Announces New Initiatives at the 2023 Summit for ... - USAID

Biden’s favorite Middle East ally is spoiling his democracy party – POLITICO

Demonstrators protest against plans by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government to overhaul the judicial system in Tel Aviv on March 28, 2023. | Oded Balilty/AP Photo

Joe Bidens second Summit for Democracy has been billed as a chance for the president to champion democracy and call out the evils of autocracy around the world.

Unfortunately for Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu preempted his programming this week.

The Israeli prime ministers now-paused plan to defang the judiciary of one of Americas staunchest democratic allies has injected an inconvenient set of circumstances into Bidens democracy celebration. Biden and his aides opposed the judicial overhaul and said so as much in public (and just as forcefully in private). But they remain unsettled by Netanyahus actions even as he has put the idea on hold.

On Tuesday night, Biden said Israel had gotten itself into a difficult spot and that he hoped Netanyahu walks away from it.

Netanyahu, however, released a rather defiant statement indicating he would press ahead with some form of judicial change and that Israel makes its decisions by the will of its people and not based on pressures from abroad, including from the best of friends.

Underlying the fear inside the White House was a sense that the Netanyahu-led far-right coalition now governing the once-stable democracy in the Middle East has authoritarian leanings. Those concerns have deepened as Washington tries to hold together a democratic alliance against dictatorships in places including Russia, China and Iran, an archrival of Israel.

There are domestic considerations as well. The turmoil in Israel has given Biden a foreign policy headache right in the run-up to the 2024 presidential race. A longstanding public backer of Israel, Biden now heads a party in which a growing number of members are openly critical of the country.

Some of those Democrats say Biden needs to set aside his affection and go beyond rhetoric to pressure Israel on everything from safeguarding democracy to establishing a Palestinian state.

Joe Biden has personally made clear repeatedly that theres going to be no consequences, so why should Netanyahu change his behavior based on anything the United States says? said Matt Duss, a leading progressive voice and Middle East analyst who has advised Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on foreign policy.

Despite Netanyahus push for the judicial overhaul, Israel was invited to participate in the summit, the second of which Biden has convened since taking office. But the Israeli leader was not expected to attend the leader-level meetings that Biden will helm on Wednesday, White House aides said. A person familiar with the issue said that Netanyahu was instead slated to speak on a panel during the week, but it was not clear if even that was finalized.

The White House tried to tamp down tensions with Israel on Tuesday. The U.S. ambassador to Israel, Tom Nides, said Netanyahu would at some point be invited to Washington, although a White House spokesperson said no meeting had been decided. Aides said that while they were encouraged Netanyahu paused his plan for the judiciary, they were still in wait and see mode about whether he would return to them in the next session of the Knesset. Allies do not expect Biden to be hurt politically by his handling of the matter.

Where he has expressed differences with Israel on West Bank settlements and on a judicial overhaul that could weaken Israels democratic foundations he is on solid ground with the vast majority of Americans, and those in his party, said Dan Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel under then-President Barack Obama. I suspect any rival, from any side, would find this issue to be hardly worth taking on.

Even before the judicial overhaul plan was introduced, the Biden administration had grown alarmed by Netanyahus coalition government, which includes several figures with racist, homophobic, misogynist and religiously extreme ideologies.

For Netanyahu, a veteran Israeli pol, it was a means of getting back into the prime ministers office as he tries to evade corruption charges in Israels courts. But inside Biden world, it appeared to be more than just an alliance of convenience. Some of Netanyahus allies back legislation making it harder to remove him from office, and his statement Tuesday suggested he was worried that his coalition might fracture if he is seen as kowtowing to Washington.

Biden and Netanyahu have known each other for decades and share a personal warmth and familiarity. Hey man, whats going on? is Bidens standard greeting to Netanyahu, aides said.

But they also have had sharp differences.

Their ties were strained by Netanyahus 2015 speech to Congress in which he castigated the Iran nuclear deal worked on by the Obama administration, when Biden was vice president. And Biden has expressed private dismay that Netanyahu became such a fawning acolyte of ex-President Donald Trump and that Israel has largely stayed on the sidelines during Russias war on Ukraine.

White House aides arranged a call between the two men earlier this month with the hopes that Biden could nudge the prime minister toward abandoning his judicial overhaul.

Despite firm words from Biden, Netanyahu proceeded with the plan, rattling many American Jews concerned about Israels future. Administration officials, keenly aware of the importance of Americas security relationship with Israel, proceeded carefully, both publicly and privately warning Netanyahu that he should seek a compromise with those who oppose the overhaul.

Over the weekend, Netanyahu fired his defense minister for criticizing the judicial plan. The White House released a statement that echoed its past ones, reminding Netanyahu that democratic societies are strengthened by checks and balances, and fundamental changes to a democratic system should be pursued with the broadest possible base of popular support.

Yet the huge protests were what appeared to have forced Netanyahu to back down, at least temporarily.

Ahead of the Summit for Democracy, White House aides say that Netanyahus decision to relent on the judicial reform push was proof that Israels democracy was responsive and worked.

But the push itself still raises questions about the future of Israeli politics and injects more uncertainty into an already unstable region.

Israel is hardly the only country invited to the summit facing internal strife. India, for example, has seen serious democratic backsliding under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Poland, too, is facing questions about its democratic strength, as are countries such as Mexico and Brazil. The United States own democracy has been tested in the wake of the Trump presidency.

But the tension with Israel is the one with the most direct ties to Bidens own political future as he eyes a re-election decision and possible rematch with Trump.

Biden has long been a traditionalist on U.S.-Israel relations. He has remained close to reflexively pro-Israel advocacy organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He has declined to return the U.S. Embassy to Tel Aviv after Trump relocated it to Jerusalem. And he has refused to impose conditions on the billions of dollars in U.S. security assistance the United States provides to Israel.

Those moves by the president who has also received the backing of the more progressive pro-Israel advocacy group J Street has run counter to the budding sentiment within the Democratic Party.

A growing number of liberal voices are critical of the Israeli governments treatment of the Palestinians. And a Gallup poll released this month showed that Democrats sympathies in the Middle East now lie more with the Palestinians than the Israelis, 49 percent versus 38 percent

These are shifts that could prove an annoyance to Biden on the campaign trail.

At the end of the day, this issue is not a voting issue for 99.999 percent of people, right? said Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street. But I dont think the majority of the Democratic Party is going to be okay if Israel takes steps that provoke tremendous outbreaks of violence and lots of people are getting hurt. I dont think theyll be okay as Israel undoes its judicial independence and the underpinnings of its democracy.

Continue reading here:
Biden's favorite Middle East ally is spoiling his democracy party - POLITICO

A High-Stakes Election in the Midwest’s Democracy Desert – The New Yorker

Last month, Mary Lynne Donohue drove me along Superior Avenue, a long artery that runs across Sheboygan, Wisconsin, a small industrial city on Lake Michigan. We headed west from the lake, passing expansive, stately homes that grew more modest the farther we got from the water. You can see its exactly the same on both sides, Donohue said, gesturing at the houses lining the street. In 2011, Republicans redrew the states district maps, using Superior Avenue to cleave the Twenty-sixth Assembly District, which for decades had encompassed the entire cityand had been reliably Democratic. The new map kept homes to the south of Superior in the Twenty-sixth, but put those to the north into the Twenty-seventh, which used to comprise the rural, Republican areas around Sheboygan. In every subsequent election, Republicans have won both the Twenty-sixth and the Twenty-seventh.

About halfway through town, Donohue, a retired attorney who is the president of Sheboygans school board, abruptly turned the car north, up a small side street, and slowed down in front of a brown, ranch-style house. In 2011, the house belonged to Mike Endsley, a Republican who, the previous year, had won the Twenty-sixth in an upset. The boundary line drawn by the Republicans had jagged up from Superior to keep Endsleys house in the district.

Donohue parked, stood in front of the house, and shook her head. In the high philosophy of redistricting, one of the basic goals is to keep communities together, she said. Endsley retired almost a decade ago; now the two Assembly members and the state senator who represent the city all live in conservative hamlets outside it. Donohue went on, When you cut municipalities in half, that municipality no longer has its own voice. Its been taken away.

The 2011 maps had been drawn in secret, in a locked wing of a law firm across the street from the Wisconsin state capitol. The year before, Republicans had captured all branches of the states governmenta sweep carried out as part of REDMAP, a project promoted by Karl Rove to secure G.O.P. control of redistricting in swing states. After mapping dozens of possible scenarios, Republican legislative leaders settled on the most extreme partisan gerrymandering possible. Since then, they have never won fewer than sixty of the states ninety-nine Assembly seats, even when Democrats have won as much as fifty-three per cent of the aggregate statewide vote.

Donohue, who is seventy-three years old and has curly chestnut hair, grew up in Sheboygan. She has been a community-minded activist since high school, when she won the Young American Medal for Service, which L.B.J. put around her neck in a ceremony in Washington, D.C. After college, she and a friend took a ten-month trip across the country in a 1960 Volkswagen bus that they called the flying tomato, and then she applied to an auto-mechanics program at a technical college and to the University of Wisconsin Law School. She was rejected by the technical college but got accepted to law school. She eventually returned to Sheboygan to work on cases involving domestic-violence victims, tenant disputes, and disability benefits, among other things.

In 2015, Donohue and eleven other plaintiffs sued the state, alleging that the 2011 gerrymandering violated their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs won in federal court, scoring the first victory against partisan redistricting in three decadesuntil, on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the case for lack of standing. (The Justices argued that plaintiffs were needed from each of Wisconsins ninety-nine Assembly districts.) I started to cry, Donohue said. You felt a sense of hopelessness. Nonetheless, in 2020, Donohue ran for the Twenty-sixth Assembly District seat. I couldnt leave it uncontested, she told me. Its like not showing up on the battlefield. She lost by eighteen points.

In 2021, the Republican-controlled state legislature and Tony Evers, Wisconsins Democratic governor, each proposed new maps, which are required by law every ten years. The Governors maps were based on models from a nonpartisan redistricting agency that he created. The Republicans reused the 2011 maps, with adjustments that minimized Democratic gains. A legal battle ensued, and, in November of that year, the Wisconsin Supreme Courts 43 conservative majority ruled, in a decision it described as apolitical, that the new maps should make the least change possible to the 2011 maps. In a dissent, Justice Rebecca Dallet called the ruling a striking blow to representative democracy in Wisconsin. The least-change approach, she wrote, perpetuates the partisan agenda of politicians no longer in power. Dallet noted that the least-change standard has no basis in the U.S. or Wisconsin constitutions. I believe in the separation of powers, Dallet told me, in her office in the state capitol. In order for that to function, you have to be able to have peoples votes count; one person, one vote has to mean something.

Evers went on to draw new maps based on the least-change standard, but added a seventh, majority-Black Assembly district in Milwaukee to reflect the growth in the citys Black population. Evers cited the need to satisfy Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits denying citizens equal access to the political process on the basis of race. The Wisconsin Supreme Court approved, with Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative, breaking from his colleagues to join the liberals. Republicans made an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Everss new maps, which modestly diminished their advantage, amounted to a 21st century racial gerrymander. The Court intervened through its so-called shadow docketwhich is used to issue unsigned opinions without hearings or briefingsto reject Everss maps and rebuke Hagedorns opinion. (This has widely been interpreted as a signal that the Court is prepared to gut Section 2, the last remaining effective part of the Voting Rights Act.) The case was sent back to Wisconsin, where Hagedorn reversed himself and endorsed the original maps proposed by the Republicans, entrenching their control, in theory, in perpetuity. In the next election, Republicans won a veto-proof supermajority in the State Senate and came within two seats of one in the Assembly.

On April 4th, Wisconsin will hold an election to replace Justice Patience Roggensack, a retiring conservative, which could upend the Courts ideological balance. Janet Protasiewicz, a circuit judge in Milwaukee, will face Daniel Kelly, a former state Supreme Court justice who was appointed by the former Republican governor Scott Walker, in 2016, to fill a vacancy. (In 2020, Kelly lost a bid for relection.) Already the most expensive judicial campaign in American history, the race is expected to cost more than forty million dollars, most of it spent by outside groups. (When Roggensack was elected, twenty years ago, outside spending totalled twenty-seven thousand dollars.) The outcome could reshape an institution that has helped transform Wisconsin into what the journalist David Daley calls a democracy deserta place where voters stand little chance of effecting political change. In its most recent biannual report, the Electoral Integrity Project, which measures the democratic attributes of electoral systems, gave Wisconsins district maps twenty-three points out of a hundred, the worst rating of any state in the country. The score is on par with that of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The media tends to focus on the federal judiciary, and particularly the U.S. Supreme Court, but state courts handle more than ninety per cent of cases in the American judicial system. The whole country was distracted, in some ways, by the successes of the Warren Court in the sixties, Jeff Mandell, a co-founder of Law Forward, a nonprofit progressive law firm in Madison, told me. You had organizations like the A.C.L.U. and others that were built up largely around going to federal court for relief. At some point, the right recognized that state courts can be much more powerful. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they only hear certain kinds of cases. State courts can hear and decide anything. They also get a lot less attention, so they can radically change whats happening in a state or region of the country.

The U.S. is one of the only countries in the world to hold judicial elections, and these elections are increasingly dominated by dark-money groups. In 2014, the Republican State Leadership Committee launched a project called the Judicial Fairness Initiative, which focussed exclusively on winning state judicial elections. Last year, it backed winning conservative candidates for three Supreme Court seats in Ohio and one in North Carolina, flipping control of that Court in a change with enormous implications for abortion access and gerrymandering.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has played a central role in an ongoing effort to overturn the states democratic norms. In 2015, the Court let stand one of the most restrictive voter-I.D. laws in the country. As a result, Wisconsin, which was once among the states where it was easiest to vote, is now ranked forty-seventh by the nonpartisan Cost of Voting Index. In a Facebook post, Todd Allbaugh, an aide to a Republican state senator, described a caucus meeting in which several Republican legislators were giddy over the voter-I.D. bills potential to suppress the votes of college students and minorities. Allbaugh quit the Party in protest.

That same year, the Court abruptly ended a criminal investigation regarding alleged cordination between Republicans and dark-money groups. It also issued an unprecedented order for prosecutors to destroy all the evidence that they had gathered. (A partial set of documents, leaked to the Guardian, revealed apparent quid-pro-quo payments, including seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars paid by the owner of a company that had manufactured lead paint to a conservative dark-money group in exchange for legislation granting legal immunity from lead-poisoning claims.) The conservative justices David Prosser and Michael Gableman refused to recuse themselves in the case, even though the groups being investigated had spent millions of dollars on their campaigns.

Since 2018, when Evers defeated Walker for the governorship, the Court has also played a decisive role in battles over the separation of powers. During the 2018 lame-duck session, the legislature stripped the governorship and the attorney generals office (which had also been won by a Democrat) of significant powers. The legislature also effectively created its own attorney generals office by giving itself the power to hire a special counsel, which it has used to file a bevy of lawsuits against Evers and other officials. In 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overruled two lower-court opinions that said the lame-duck changes were unconstitutional.

More recently, the Court ruled that Fred Prehn, a Walker appointee to the board of the Department of Natural Resources, could stay on after his term expired, in May, 2021, until his replacement was confirmedeven though the legislature had refused to hold hearings on Everss nominee for the opening. Prehns extended tenure insured that the board remained under a 43 conservative majority. Text messages uncovered in an open-records request showed that Prehn cordinated the extension with Walker, industry lobbyists, and Republican legislators. Senators are asking me to stay put because there [sic] not gonna confirm anyone, Prehn wrote to a former D.N.R. warden. So I might stick around for a while. See what shakes out. Ill be like a turd in water up there. During this time, Prehn cast the deciding vote to block groundwater standards for PFAS, also known as forever chemicals, which have been linked to cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, and increased risk of asthma and thyroid disease.

Originally posted here:
A High-Stakes Election in the Midwest's Democracy Desert - The New Yorker