Mediaboss Marketing

Republicans are pushing legislation to crack down on voting by noncitizens, which happens rarely and is already illegal in federal elections, in a move that reinforces former President Donald J. Trumps efforts to delegitimize the 2024 results if he loses.

On Thursday, House Republicans plan to vote on a bill that would roll back a District of Columbia law allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections, which they contend is needed to prevent Democrats from expanding the practice to other jurisdictions. And they are advancing another measure that would require states to obtain proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, when registering a person to vote.

The legislation has virtually no chance of becoming law, but it serves to amplify one of Mr. Trumps favorite pre-emptive claims of election fraud. It also underscores Republicans embrace of a groundless narrative one that echoes the racist great replacement conspiracy theory that Democrats are intentionally allowing migrants to stream into the United States illegally in order to dilute the voting power of American citizens and lock in electoral victories for themselves.

Speaker Mike Johnson recently appeared alongside Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago, the former presidents Florida resort and residence, to announce a pledge to get tough on migrants flowing across the border, suggesting with no evidence that they were coming in unchecked as part of a plot to vote for President Biden.

There is currently an unprecedented and a clear and present danger to the integrity of our election system and that is the threat of noncitizens and illegal aliens voting in our elections, Mr. Johnson warned during a news conference on the steps of the Capitol this month.

But he conceded that he had no evidence to support that assertion.

We all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections, but its not been something that is easily provable, Mr. Johnson said. We dont have that number.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

See the article here:
House G.O.P. Moves to Crack Down on Noncitizen Voting, Sowing False Narrative - The New York Times

WASHINGTON, D.C. Eleven prominent Republicans were arraigned in an Arizona courtroom on Tuesday for a number of felonies related to their involvement to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the Grand Canyon State. All 11 people pleaded not guilty to their myriad criminal charges.

In late April, 18 people were indicted on a number of alleged crimes surrounding a plot to overturn the states presidential election results and falsely declare former President Donald Trump the winner of the key battleground state. The scheme involved 11 state Republicans falsely declaring themselves electors and cast their electoral votes for Trump.

All 11 of the fake electors were indicted along with a number of top Trump officials, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, campaign staffer Michael Roman and former campaign lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Boris Ephystein and Christina Bobb.

Among the people to be formally charged on Tuesday include nine of the 11 Republicans who falsely claimed to be electors and submitted documentation to Congress declaring Trump the winner of the presidential election in Arizona. They include former Arizona GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward, state Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern and RNC Committeeman Tyler Bower.Giuliani and Bobb were also arraigned on Tuesday.

All the people indicted for their involvement in the scheme were charged with a myriad of alleged crimes, including nine felony counts for conspiracy, fraud and forgery. Trump himself was not charged, but he was referred to as a unindicted co-conspirator in the 58-page indictment.

Eastman, one of Trumps former attorneys who was the author of two notorious memos outlining how Trump could refute the election results and stay in office, was the first of the indicted Arizona Republicans to be arraigned. On Friday, Eastman was formally charged on Friday and pleaded not guilty to the crimes.

Giuliani, another one of Trumps former lawyers, was one of several people unnamed in the original indictment because he had not yet been served a notice of indictment. After nearly a month, authorities were finally able to locate Giuliani who was in Palm Beach, Florida celebrating his 80th birthday and serve him his notice of indictment.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) announced on Monday that Giuliani had been served indictment papers after the former New York City mayor posted a since-deleted picture to X of himself at his birthday party, writing If authorities cant find me by tomorrow morning they must dismiss the indictment.

Read the indictment here.

Learn more about the indictment here.

This post was updated on Tuesday, May 21 at 4:50 p.m. EDT to reflect that all 11 defendants, not 12 as was originally reported, were arraigned and pleaded not guilty.

Read the original post:
Prominent Republicans To Be Arraigned in Arizona for Election Subversion Plot - Democracy Docket

Mother Jones; Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/ZUMA; Tim Mossholder/Unsplash

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of a South Carolina congressional map that a lower court had previously found diluted the power of Black voters. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Courts conservative supermajority wrote that the Challengers provided no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander, and their circumstantial evidence is very weak.

The courts ruling protects the seat of GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, a onetime relative moderate who has veered sharply to the right after Republicans redrew her district following the 2020 census to make it more GOP-friendly. She was one of eight House Republicans who voted to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy, and she subsequently endorsed Donald Trump despite once saying that she held him responsible for the January 6 insurrection. Mace defeated Democrat Joe Cunningham by one point in 2020, but she won reelection in her redrawn Charleston-based district by 14 points in 2022.

A GOP state senator from the area said he wanted to give the district astronger Republican lean. Republicans accomplished that goal by moving nearly 30,000 Black voters in Charleston County (62 percent of the countys total Black population) from the swing 1st district to the safely Democratic seat of longtime Rep. James Clyburn, one of the most powerful House Democrats.

A federal court ruled in January 2023 that the map was a stark racial gerrymander. But the Supreme Court disagreed, finding that South Carolina Republicans were motivated by politics, not race, and acted in good faith. The conservative justices rejected the factual findings of the lower court, which the high court is only supposed to do if the findings are clearly wrong. The courts delay in issuing a ruling (civil rights groups had asked the justices to rule by the beginning of the year) already forced the lower court to allow the disputed map to stay in place for this election, handing Republicans another House seat for 2024.

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said that the decision would make it much harder to strike down racially gerrymandered maps. The majoritys new evidentiary rule is meant to scuttle gerrymandering cases, she wrote. Going forward, plaintiffs now need to show extremely clear evidence of racial gerrymandering because courts are now supposed to give legislators the benefit of the doubt. This will make it easier for white Republicans to dilute the votes of communities of color. As Kagans dissent points out, Alitos majority opinion places uncommon burdens on gerrymandered plaintiffs that will make it very difficult to bring successful racial gerrymandering cases in the future. This Court is not supposed to be so fearful of telling discriminators, including States, to stop discriminating, Kagan wrote.

The Roberts Court has already made it very difficult to strike down gerrymandered maps, ruling that partisan gerrymandering cannot be challenged in federal court. The court has routinely sided with Republicans in other voting rights disputes, as well, gutting the Voting Rights Act on multiple occasions. The courts opposition to voting rights has become a key part of the GOP strategy to enshrine conservative minority rule. In a concurring opinion in the South Carolina case, Justice Clarence Thomas went so far as to suggest that racial gerrymandering and vote dilution claims could never be struck down in court. The Constitution, Thomas asserted, contemplates no role for the federal courts in the redistricting process. The Supreme Court, however, has frequently intervened in the redistricting process throughout US history, most notably in the one person, one vote cases from the 1960s.

One exception to the courts hostility to the right to vote came last June, when it invalidated Alabamas congressional mapbecause it did not include a second majority-Black district in a state that is 27 percent Black. That led to the drawing of a new majority-Black district that is expected to send a Democrat to the House in November. A similar result followed in Louisiana, where that state also drew a second majority-Black district.

But the courts sympathy to Black voting rights did not extend to South Carolina, and the outcomeis a significant win for Republicans hoping to retain their narrow House majority. Given the GOPs tiny edge in the lower house, a swing of just a few seats in November could be enough to decide who controls the chamber this year.

See the article here:
The Supreme Court Just Made It Easier for Republicans to Get Away With Racial Gerrymandering Mother Jones - Mother Jones

TOPEKA As the dust settles on the legislative maneuvering of the chaotic 2024 session, disability rights advocates applaud a budget provision meant to shorten wait times for disabled Kansans who need services.

Lawmakers overrode Gov. Laura Kellys veto to implement a provision that puts caps on the wait times for Kansans who want to receive state-funded disability services. Included in the state budget, the provision would forbid the waiting lists from exceeding 6,800 people during the fiscal year that begins in July.

Rocky Nichols, executive director of the Disability Rights Center of Kansas, said the change is incredibly positive.

It tells me the Legislature takes a waiting list seriously, Nichols said. This is going to have a huge impact. Hats off and I really want to commend the Legislature for coming up with these provisos, because its a very innovative way to ensure that youre actually going to reduce the waiting list. You set a cap.

The latest data shows 7,698 Kansans currently waiting for services, with 5,342 people on the intellectual and developmental disabilities waitlist and 2,356 people on the physical disability waitlist.

The Legislature set aside $45.8 million, available for fiscal year 2025, to fund services for 1,000 Kansans who are currently on the states waiting lists, divided evenly between people with intellectual and physical disabilities and those who have physical disabilities.

If enrollment trends continue along the same lines as last year, when 561 new people enrolled in the intellectual disability waitlist, the proposed new funding would not be enough to lessen the waitlist on its own.

During the veto override debate Monday, Sen. Rick Billinger, a Goodland Republican, said lawmakers couldnt continue to kick this down the road.

Folks, we put $38 million into a soccer tournament, Billinger said. If we cant put dollars in here for the IDD and the PD, we better refocus. And I believe that this is a step to try to get us to do better, because we must do better. Were failing this community.

The law requires KDADS by January to provide the Legislature with an estimate on the costs of keeping this cap in place. The Legislature will have to pass a supplemental funding bill to cover the costs of keeping the lists below the caps of 4,800 for the IDD waitlist and 2,000 for the PD waitlist.

The waitlists have been a long-intensifying problem. Kansans with intellectual or developmental disabilities are eligible for Medicaid-funded support waivers that cover a variety of needed services. People who want to receive this assistance are placed on a waiting list supervised by KDADS.

But wait times can last more than 10 years, and more and more Kansans have been added to the slow-moving lists. Kansas Reflector examined this issue last year in the series On the List.

The veto override works to ensure 500 new Kansans with intellectual and developmental disabilities are eliminated from our historic, record-high IDD waitlist, and will start receiving essential HCBS waiver services, said Sara Hart Weir, executive director of the Kansas Council on Developmental Disabilities. Moreover, this veto override caps the IDD waitlist in Kansas at 4,800, which is another long-term step toward eliminating our IDD waitlist in the Sunflower State.

Kelly said she supported finding a solution to the wait times. But she vetoed the caps because of concerns about capacity if they were implemented.

By instituting a cap on the number on the waitlists, the agency will be unable to maintain reserve capacity intended for specialty populations such as children coming into DCF custody, Home and Community Based Service, Kelly said in a veto explanation. In addition, continually adding slots to these waivers haphazardly or thoughtlessly capping the waitlist number will not be sufficient or sustainable unless provider capacity is also addressed.

The Senate voted 28-12 and the House 116-9 to override the governors veto.

Im not concerned about creating new problems. The problems continue to be there, said Sen. Molly Baumgardner, R-Louisburg. And they continue to be ignored by the agency. I support this veto override effort. And I urge the governor to have her secretary get the work done that needs to be done so that we as a legislature can clearly address the needs of the kids that are on the waitlist.

See the original post here:
'Incredibly positive': Disability advocates commend Kansas Republicans' effort on waitlists Kansas Reflector - Kansas Reflector

A 160-year-old abortion ban written before Arizona became a state that punishes doctors with prison time is now one step away from being repealed after a pair of Republicans in the state Senate on Wednesday crossed party lines to join Democrats in voting it down.

On April 9, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a near-total ban from 1864, which forbids all abortions except to save a womans life, trumps one passed in 2022 that strictly limits procedures performed after 15 weeks of gestation. That decision roiled the states political landscape, and a movement to repeal the law, supported mostly by Democratic lawmakers, emerged in the Arizona legislature.

Last week, following multiple blocked attempts, the state House of Representatives successfully voted to repeal the law, and on Wednesday the state Senate finalized that effort.

After Republican Sens. Shawnna Bolick and T.J. Shope broke away from their party to side with Democrats, House Bill 2677, which seeks to repeal the 1864 law, was approved by a vote of 16-14. The measure is now on Gov. Katie Hobbs desk, and the Democrat has vowed to sign it. A spokesman for her office said that she will do so on Thursday.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

In the Senate, the bills passage followed nearly three hours of heated debate, during which anti-abortion supporters in the gallery and Republican lawmakers on the floor excoriated Bolick and Shope for their votes.

Sen. Anthony Kern, R-Glendale, said it was insanity that the duo claim to be pro-life while voting in a way that violates the core values of the Republican party and allows abortions to continue in Arizona. Repealing the 1864 law means that the 15-week law, which permits elective abortions up to its gestational deadline, will take effect instead.

The craziest thing Ive seen and heard is, Im pro-life, yet Im going to vote to repeal the abortion ban. Its insanity to me, Kern said.

Sen. Jake Hoffman, who heads up the far-right Arizona Freedom Caucus, said the near-total abortion ban is one of the best, strongest, pro-life measures in the country, and that the law is representative of and reflective of our founding fathers intent.

That two Republicans crossed party lines to end that ban, Hoffman said, is unconscionable.

It is disgusting that this is the state of the Republican Party today, he said.

And Sen. David Farnsworth, R-Mesa, called on voters to take note of Shope and Bolick bucking their party.

Voters need to be aware when this happens - when we lose our conservative unity and Senators join the other side, he said.

Bolick, who is the wife of Clint Bolick, one of the four Supreme Court Justices who reinstated the 1864 law, defended her decision to repeal it by describing her history with pregnancy. One of her pregnancies, she explained, was unviable and ended in a D&C, a surgical procedure used in about half of abortions.

She said she was unconvinced that the 1864 law would allow women facing similar health issues to get the care they need. The laws exception is strictly reserved for immediately life-threatening emergencies, but outlaws abortions aimed at preventing injury to a woman.

Many women dont have textbook pregnancies, Bolick said.

Shope, meanwhile, did not explain his vote and refused to answer questions from reporters afterwards.

David Gowan, a Republican from Sierra Vista, compared Wednesdays vote to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Today feels like 9/11, he said.

At stake was literally life and death for Arizonans, said Farnsworth.

Have we become so evil? he said. God is watching.

Despite the action from the state legislature, the 1864 law is likely to remain in place for some time. Bills passed by lawmakers dont go into effect until 90 days after the legislative session ends.

But, with budget negotiations still in the beginning stages, that isnt expected to occur for several more weeks, pushing the repeals effectiveness date into August at the earliest months after the law is actually set to be revived.

In its ruling, the Arizona Supreme Court justices delayed the enforcement of the 1864 law by two weeks. Coupled with a separate court order staying the high courts decision for 45 days, and a motion from Attorney General Kris Mayes that failed to convince the justices to reconsider their ruling but did succeed in buying a few more days of time, the Civil War-era law wont be fully enforceable until June 27. Until then, women can obtain an abortion until 15 weeks of gestation, after which only life-threatening circumstances or a danger of permanent injury are sufficient to receive a procedure.

The only way the Arizona legislatures repeal could have made an impact before the 1864 law is reimplemented would have been via an emergency clause, which would have made the bill effective immediately upon the governors signature. But adding such a clause to a bill requires a supermajority vote in each legislative chamber a political impossibility as only five Republicans total supported the bid from Democrats to repeal the law and 16 would have been needed to add an emergency clause.

Instead, reproductive rights advocates are looking to use legal maneuvers to delay the high courts ruling as much as possible before voters have a chance to weigh in on the legality of abortion in November. The Arizona Abortion Access Act, which would enshrine the procedure as a right in the state Constitution, is headed for the ballot, having exceeded its signature requirement. The act preserves a womans right to an abortion up to the point of fetal viability, widely regarded as 24 weeks of gestation, and includes ample exceptions after that time if a doctor deems an abortion is necessary to safeguard the patients life, physical or mental health.

Earlier this week, Mayes filed a motion requesting that the Arizona Supreme Court delay enforcement of the 1864 law for 90 more days while her office considers whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on Wednesday, shortly after the state Senate voted to strike down the 1864 law, Planned Parenthood Arizona filed a motion with the high court requesting that it stay its ruling until the repeal can be implemented.

We see reproductive freedom champions at the executive level, with Governor Hobbs and Attorney General Mayes, who are working overtime to go back to the courts and continue to argue that this law should not go into effect, said Athena Salman, director of the Arizona campaigns for pro-abortion organization Reproductive Freedom for All during a news conference held after the Senate vote.

We already see that the effective date has been pushed back to June 27, she added. That is where the fight stands now.

And, despite the looming threat of the Civil War-era ban on the horizon, an executive order issued last year by Hobbs makes it unlikely that the law will ever be used against a doctor. The order centralizes prosecutorial authority for abortion law violations in the state attorney generals office, and Mayes has vowed never to take any doctor to court. Several county attorneys criticized the order and warned that they would launch a lawsuit against it for infringing on their right to take on cases as elected officials, but no such lawsuit has materialized.

Abortion rights supporters celebrated the successful repeal, but tempered their applause with acknowledgements that the vote doesnt constitute immediate relief from the near-total ban.

Pima County Attorney Laura Conover, who joined Planned Parenthood Arizona in court against the 1864 law, said in a written statement that she hopes the vote can give providers across the state some peace of mind. But, she said, her office will continue working on challenging the law before it can take effect in June.

Todays vote comes as partial relief: common sense can prevail. We dont live in 1864, and neither should our laws, she said. In the meantime, without an emergency clause, my team will continue to work with nationwide subject matter experts on what will be our next move in the courts.

Mayes, too, promised to keep fighting against the law, echoing Conovers disappointment that no emergency clause was added to the repeal bill.

Todays vote by the Arizona Senate to repeal the draconian 1864 abortion ban is a win for freedom in our state, she said, in a written statement. However, without an emergency clause that would allow the repeal to take effect immediately, the people of Arizona may still be subjected to the near-total abortion ban for a period of time this year. Rest assured, my office is exploring every option available to prevent this outrageous 160-year-old law from ever taking effect.

Vice President Kamala Harris placed the blame for the 1864 law, and the 15-week ban that remains in place in the interim, squarely on the shoulders of former President Donald Trump. As President Joe Biden seeks a second term, his reelection campaign has sought to highlight Trumps connections to abortion bans across the country. The Republican appointed three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, reshaping the bench into a conservative majority that later struck down Roe v. Wade, and has himself bragged about being responsible for the end of the constitutional right to abortion.

Donald Trump is the architect of this health care crisis in Arizona and across the country hes said so himself, Harris said, in a written statement. And hes ready to go even further by banning abortion nationwide with or without the help of Congress. We cannot allow these attacks on reproductive freedom to stand.

A national ban would nullify any abortion protections approved by voters in November, if Arizonans vote to pass the Arizona Abortion Access Act.

Heather Williams, the president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, added that the November election will be critical for the preservation of abortion rights beyond the Arizona Abortion Access Act. Awarding Democrats a legislative majority, she said, is the only way to block future attacks from Republican lawmakers most of whom opposed the repeal and many of whom have backed restrictive legislation in the past.

Make no mistake: Democrats fierce persistence against weeks of Republican obstruction is the only reason the 1864 ban was repealed and this shows a clear contrast in leadership. As Republicans regroup to defend their 15-week ban and work to undermine the upcoming abortion ballot measure in Arizona, we are focused on flipping the two seats in each chamber that will deliver Democratic majorities in Arizonas legislature, Williams said, in a written statement. The only way to protect and expand reproductive freedoms in Arizona is to elect Democrats to the state legislature.

The GOP majority in the legislature has signaled an interest in sending competing abortion-related proposals to the ballot in November as a way to detract support from the Abortion Access Initiative.

And Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, an anti-abortion organization that is behind most of the states restrictive laws, said on Wednesday that the focus should now turn to defeating the pro-abortion initiative. CAP is a backer of the It Goes Too Far Campaign, which seeks to convince voters that the Arizona Abortion Access Act is too extreme.

Today, the Arizona Senate has voted to repeal the pre-Roe law that once protected both the lives of unborn children and the well-being of mothers, Herrod said in a post on social media site X, formerly Twitter. I acknowledge and commend the courage of those lawmakers who stood resolutely with the unborn and their mothers. Now, in Arizona, our focus is to expose and defeat the extreme abortion amendment likely to be on the November ballot.

Jake Warner, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom who argued in court to reinstate the 1864 law, lamented the Senates vote but said the effort to keep the law in place isnt over.

We commend those who stood their ground to protect the lives of our most vulnerable Arizonans, and we will continue to do everything we can to advocate for real support and real healthcare for women, families, and unborn children here and across the country, he said.

***UPDATE: This story has been updated with additional reporting.

See the original post:
The AZ Senate has repealed the 1864 abortion ban, after 2 Republicans join Dems - Arizona Mirror