US Politics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr sues North Carolina elections board to remove his name from ballot

      by

      Robert F Kennedy Jr is suing North Carolina’s state board of elections after it refused to remove his name from the electoral ballot following his decision to drop his independent presidential campaign and endorse Donald Trump.The legal action comes after a series of ballot woes that initially impeded Kennedy’s campaign but are now threatening to undermine the impact of his decision to end it.Kennedy announced the suspension of his presidential bid on 23 August, saying he planned to remove his name from the ballot in 10 states, including vital swing states where his was presence was likely to damage Trump in knife-edge contests with Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee.“Our polling consistently showed that by staying on the ballot in the battleground states, I would likely hand the election over to the Democrats, with whom I disagree on the most existential issues,” Kennedy told journalists when he announced his withdrawal in Phoenix, Arizona, last month.He has since been enthusiastically embraced by Trump, who has appointed him to his transition team, despite concerns among conservative Republicans about Kennedy’s Democratic past and his support for abortion rights.However, Kennedy’s request to remove his name in North Carolina – a key battleground where recent opinion surveys have shown Harris taking a small lead – was rejected by the state election board after it said around 1.7m ballot papers had already been printed and that producing new ones would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.“It would not be practical to reprint ballots that have already been printed and meet the state law deadline to start absentee voting,” the board said in a 29 August statement.Sixty seven of the states 100 counties have already received their absentee mail-in ballots, meaning creating batches would create logistical problems, officials said. “When we talk about the printing a ballot we are not talking about … pressing ‘copy’ on a Xerox machine. This is a much more complex and layered process,” the election board’s executive director, Karen Brinson Bell, said.Board members split three to two along Democratic-Republican party lines in denying Kennedy’s request.A law suit filed on his behalf claims that the decision has damaged his rights of free speech.“By refusing to acknowledge Kennedy’s statutory rights and entitlements, defendants have irreparably harmed him,” the suit argued. “Even worse, by forcing Kennedy to remain on the ballot against his will, defendants are compelling speech in violation of [the US constitution].”The dispute with North Carolina is mirrored in two other states seen as vital to the outcome of the 5 November election.Kennedy has also been refused permission to remove his name from the ballot in Wisconsin and Michigan, where polls indicate his presence could help Harris at the expense of Trump.In Michigan, Harris gains 0.1% with Kennedy’s name on the ballot, according to RealClearPolitics, which already gives her a 2.2% lead over Trump from recent polling averages. The same analysis sees her gaining 0.5% through Kennedy’s presence in Wisconsin, where she already has a one point advantage in recent surveys.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWisconsin – where Kennedy was nominated by the Natural Law Party – rejected his request to remove his name on 27 August, citing election law that states that only death could result in a candidate’s removal once nominated.“Any person who files nomination papers and qualifies to appear on the ballot may not decline nomination,” the state’s election law says. “The name of that person shall appear upon the ballot except in case of death of the person.”Kennedy has successfully removed himself from the ballot in several other battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Nevada and Arizona.His struggle to get off the ballot in some states has been mirrored by his difficulties in getting on in others, where his presence is unlikely to affect the outcome.In New York, an appeals committee last week upheld a judge’s decision to exclude from the ballot on the grounds that he lived in California and that an address he filed as a state residence was that of a friend.“This is not a situation where Kennedy erroneously listed a former residence in the nominating petition, but rather, Kennedy listed an address at which the record evidence reflects he has never resided,” the panel of judges wrote.Ironically, Georgia – another battleground state where Kennedy’s presence could adversely affect Trump – recently ruled that he was “not qualified” to appear on the ballot because of doubts about his New York residence. The Georgia secretary of state’s office has said that Kennedy’s name “will not be appearing on the ballot in Georgia this election”. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      For decades, it’s been a man’s world on Capitol Hill – that’s finally changing

      by

      The halls of the US Congress were, for many years, a man’s world. The first woman elected to Congress, the Republican Jeannette Rankin of Montana, joined the House in 1917, three years before the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote and decades before the civil rights movement enabled ballot access for women of color.Now, more than a century later, 150 women serve in Congress, marking an all-time high. And as more women have joined the House and Senate, the ranks of senior staffers on the Hill have shifted alongside them. More women, specifically young women, are leading congressional offices as chiefs of staff, giving them invaluable access to lawmakers and opportunities to influence the policies that shape Americans’ lives.Data shows that white male staffers are still more likely to hold senior roles on Capitol Hill, but the young women who lead congressional offices want to help change that. And among Democratic chiefs of staff, this year represents an inflection point: many of them were first inspired to get involved in politics after Hillary Clinton’s loss in 2016, and the country now has another opportunity to not only defeat Donald Trump but elect Kamala Harris as the first female president.“It’s really important for women in positions of power to be speaking out and sharing their experiences,” said Marie Baldassarre, 29, chief of staff to the Democratic congressman Ro Khanna. “The more of those examples that young women can have, then the less we doubt ourselves – because we’ve seen other people do it.”A call to action after 2016Multiple Democratic chiefs of staff said they had not envisioned a career in politics before Trump’s victory in 2016. They certainly did not expect to rise to the level of a chief of staff, who holds the most senior role in a congressional office and can directly consult with a House member on legislative and political decisions.After her family emigrated to the US from Iran when she was seven, Armita Pedramrazi, chief of staff to the Democratic representative Mary Gay Scanlon, thought she might go into pro-bono immigration law. Then a mentor suggested she apply for a job with the then congresswoman Susan Davis.“I applied completely on a whim, thinking there was absolutely no way that someone without political connections or without some sort of leverage could work for a congressional office,” said Pedramrazi, 32. “It felt like this incredibly far away, impossible thing.”She got the job and eventually moved to Washington DC in 2016, expecting to do immigration policy work with Hillary Clinton’s administration. That did not come to pass, but she stayed on in her legislative role with Davis before arriving in Scanlon’s office and working her way up to chief of staff.For Amy Kuhn, chief of staff to Democratic congresswoman Sara Jacobs, Clinton campaign’s in 2016 marked her first foray into political work. And although Clinton lost, the experience allowed Kuhn to meet her current boss and underscored the importance of the work.“I’m a gay woman who grew up in the very red state of Montana, so a lot of my life has been very political by its nature,” said Kuhn, 35. “[The Clinton campaign] was such a good experience, but the outcome was so personal and painful, and we were all reckoning with what it meant for Donald Trump to become president.”If Trump’s presidency spurred them into action, several chiefs of staff said the overturning of Roe v Wade in 2022 served as a reminder of why they chose this professional path.“My mom dedicated her career to fighting for reproductive rights, and that was something I really viewed as a threat when I first got involved in politics,” Baldassarre said. “Now that Roe has been overturned, it just motivates me that the fight isn’t over.”Since launching her campaign, Harris has placed a renewed emphasis on the importance of protecting abortion access. She has embraced the rallying cry of “we’re not going back” to bolster her argument that this election represents an existential fight over Americans’ fundamental freedoms.For young women working in Democratic politics, the excitement around Harris’s candidacy demonstrates the importance of deploying effective messengers who understand the gravity of issues like abortion access.View image in fullscreen“She’s a trustworthy narrator. She can talk about the issue from personal experience, as so many women can,” said Abby May, 28, chief of staff to the Democratic congressman Wiley Nickel. “Being able to speak to the millions of women out there who are worried about having their rights ripped away, and knowing that she’s someone who understands exactly what’s at stake, is hugely impactful.”The same logic applies to the young women who lead congressional offices, Pedramrazi argued.“Being a young woman in this moment, there are ways that we can talk about the issues facing the electorate and our constituents that are much more personal,” she said.“To me, that’s the benefit of any type of diversity. You have people who are bringing a different kind of fire to the issues that affect them personally. And I think that is as true being a young woman chief of staff as it is for anyone.”More work remainsEven as more young women step into senior roles in congressional offices, they remain somewhat of an anomaly. According to 2019 data compiled by the left-leaning thinktank New America, 22% of female Hill staffers serve in senior roles compared to 33% of male Hill staffers. Women were also less likely than men to serve in roles focused on political leadership, which tend to be more senior and better paid. Among female staffers on the Hill, 11% of them worked in political leadership in 2019, compared to 17% of male staffers.People of color face their own challenges on the Hill. According to a 2022 report from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, people of color account for only 18% of top House staff, even as they make up 40% of the national population. In the personal offices of white Democratic members, people of color represent 14.8% of top staff, compared to 5.2% in the personal offices of white Republican members.And although those under 35 made up a majority of Hill staffers, political leadership roles tend to be held by those more advanced in their careers. In 2019, the average tenure for all staffers was roughly three years, according to New America’s data, but the average tenure for those in political management roles was more than 14 years.The impact of remaining in the minority is felt by many of the staffers. May said that, even as her boss has expressed unwavering confidence in her capabilities, she has still had the experience of being mistaken for his daughter or intern.“I think the main challenges are with external folks who come in expecting one type of face when they’re meeting with the chief of staff and get mine,” May said. “Being taken seriously at all levels when we are doing such important work is still a reality that I think all women chiefs of staff – and women around the country – deal with.”Baldasarre echoed that sentiment, while praising Khanna and other mentors for giving her opportunities for advancement. “I think the biggest challenge that I’ve faced has actually been much more subtle, which is that women, people of color, younger people, we just aren’t given the same benefit of the doubt when we walk into a new room,” she said.Despite those challenges, there are signs of slow change. The New America data found the percentage of women in senior staffer roles increased by 5%, from 17% to 22%, between 2017 and 2019, although the percentage of men in senior staffer roles rose by 11 points in that same time period. The report from the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that the percentage of people of color in top House staffer positions rose from 13.7% to 18% between 2018 and 2022.“I’m grateful that the institution of Congress is sort of changing along with us,” Kuhn said. “We go into weekly meetings with all the Democratic chiefs, and it is a remarkably diverse room.”The young women chiefs of staff are bringing about change in their own offices as well, encouraging colleagues to take mental health days and providing younger employees the opportunity to voice their opinions.Pedramrazi wants to build an experience for her younger coworkers that feels distinctly different from her own early memories on the Hill, when she often felt condescended to by external groups. She got the impression that her contributions or concerns were dismissed out of hand because she wasn’t taken seriously by external advisers.“No one really was standing to attention when a brown, 24-year-old young woman was speaking,” Pedramrazi said. “And I think part of the amazing experience of being a chief of staff now is … creating a really safe environment for our staffers – regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, race – to feel really heard in the office.”May hopes that by building more equitable offices, more young women will be motivated to get involved in politics. In a year where the enthusiasm of young voters could decide the outcome of a presidential election, that mission feels more urgent than ever.“Representation of young women only encourages more young women to get involved and get their own seats at the table,” May said. More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Erwin Chemerinsky on the need for a new US constitution: ‘Our democracy is at grave risk’

      by

      Among progressive scholars of the US constitution, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, is widely considered pre-eminent. Now 71, he studied at Northwestern and Harvard and has also taught at DePaul, USC, Duke and UC Irvine. He has argued several cases at the US supreme court and written extensively about it.His last book, Worse Than Nothing, was a broadside against originalism, the doctrine touted by rightwing justices as they take an axe to hard-won rights. In his new book, Chemerinsky goes to the root of the problem with a still starker title: No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.Less than a hundred days from a presidential election which could see the return of Donald Trump, a candidate widely held to threaten cherished freedoms, Chemerinsky says: “I see an American government that is increasingly dysfunctional and that has lost the confidence of the people, in a society that is increasingly politically polarised. I worry greatly for the future of American democracy.View image in fullscreen“I wrote the book to explain how much of the problem stems from the constitution and suggest how it can be fixed.”In conversation, Chemerinsky patiently outlines the problem. It boils down to this: the US constitution is not fit for purpose.It was created in 1787 by a small group of white men who hashed out a deal in their own interests, chief among them protecting smaller states and owners of enslaved people. Those framers made foundation stones of economic and racial inequality and also erected enduring barriers to political equality including an electoral college that makes minority victory possible in presidential elections and two senators for each state regardless of population.The constitution has been changed, significantly in 1791, with the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights, and between 1865 and 1870, after the civil war, with amendments to abolish slavery, expand the citizenry and give Black men the vote. There have been other major changes, not least the 19th amendment, which gave women the vote in 1920. A century later, though, change seems harder than ever.Consider the plight of the Equal Rights Amendment, which simply says “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” and which, as Chemerinsky describes it, “was passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1972” as “a simple and un-objectionable statement”, but “even though 38 states at some point ratified it … is still not part of the constitution”.The ERA is stymied by pure politics. Pure politics – as practised by Republicans who benefit most from the enshrinement of minority control, as found in the stubborn persistence of Senate rules such as the filibuster that exist to block change – is of course eternal. And so as another election year grinds on, Democrats hoping to fend off Trump, Republicans seeking to tighten their grip on the levers of power, there the constitution sits, physically in the National Archives in Washington, theoretically near-impossible to change.Chemerinsky offers pointers to how change might be achieved – mostly by Democrats winning majorities in statehouses and Congress and working to sway public opinion towards the need for radical change, via a new constitutional convention. But he concludes with striking pessimism.“Our government is broken and our democracy is at grave risk, but I don’t see any easy solutions,” he writes. “A book that describes problems ideally should offer realistic fixes, but none are apparent … I desperately want to be wrong, either about my premise (that American democracy faces a serious crisis), or my conclusion (that fixing the problems will be hugely difficult or even impossible).”In conversation, Chemerinsky strikes a more hopeful note.“The constitution is revered,” he says, referring not just to the document itself but to rhetoric, teaching and even popular entertainment that has made demigods of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and other framers. “That reverence has a cost in that it has kept us from focusing on its flaws and how much they contribute to our crisis of democracy.“I have argued that there should be a progressive interpretation of the constitution. But I also think it is time to begin considering a new constitution. I think people could ratify a new constitution even though this mechanism is not provided for in the constitution.”In short, as in most aspects of politics, it’s all a matter of will.On the page, Chemerinsky also devotes space to the question of free speech, a right guaranteed by the first amendment but forever contested. Among progressives, such contests now rage regarding protests against US support for Israel in its war in Gaza. Last April, that debate burst into Chemerinsky’s backyard – literally. A traditional dinner for students, given with his wife, the law professor Catherine Fisk, was interrupted by protesters.As Chemerinsky wrote, for the Atlantic, he was “stunned to see the leader of Law Students for Justice in Palestine … stand up with a microphone that she had brought … and begin reading a speech about the plight of the Palestinians”.Chemerinsky and Fisk “immediately approached her and asked her to stop speaking and leave the premises. The protester continued. At one point, [Fisk] attempted to take away her microphone. Repeatedly, we said to her: ‘You are a guest in our home. Please leave.’“The student insisted that she had free-speech rights. But our home is not a forum for free speech; it is our own property, and the first amendment – which constrains the government’s power to encroach on speech on public property – does not apply at all to guests in private backyards.”It was one dramatic and traumatic event in an episode that has turned the left against itself. Understandably, Chemerinsky is guarded about what happened in his backyard in April and its implications. But he is happy to explain his approach to free speech issues.“Absolutism rarely makes sense,” he says. “Free speech cannot be absolute. Perjury is speech, but it can be punished. An employer who says to an employee, ‘Sleep with me or you’re fired,’ is engaged in speech, but can be held liable. No one suggests gun rights can be absolute. No one believes that there is a right to have guns in courthouses or airports.”No one in normal society, perhaps. In the age of Trump, extreme beliefs surge.Chemerinsky also grapples with the specter of secession, amid increasing debate over the idea that in an age of deep division, states either right or left, red or blue, might decide to start out anew, perhaps prompting a new civil war.To Chemerinsky, secession by progressive states is just as possible as a rightwing move to secede, particularly if Trump wins the White House and Republicans take full control of Congress.“I do not think secession is likely,” he says, “and I certainly don’t think it is desirable. But I think it is a possible path we could be discussing more in the years ahead if there are not changes.”

      No Democracy Lasts Forever is published in the US by Liveright More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Elizabeth Warren condemns Trump for ‘changing his tune’ on IVF

      by

      The US senator Elizabeth Warren has accused Donald Trump of trying to have it “both ways” with in vitro fertilization (IVF), two days after the former president vowed to force health insurance companies or the federal government to pay for the treatments if he is elected in November.Speaking on MSNBC, Warren said Trump was simply adapting his positions according to what he perceived his audience’s preference to be.“So when he thinks he’s talking to his radical base, he says: how radical do you need for me to be?” Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, said Saturday.“Donald Trump will go there and go further. But when he’s talking to the overwhelming majority of Americans, who very much oppose that radical approach to abortion and IVF, he tries to change his tune, and then is shocked when each side now is starting to call him out on that.”The Republican nominee for November’s presidential election has recast his position on IVF as a strong supporter of the pricey treatment – a characterization Democrats reject, accusing him of shifting his position only after US voters signaled broad support for reproductive rights.Similarly, Democrats accuse Trump of shifting his position on abortion rights. On Friday, he said he would vote against a ballot measure in his home state of Florida that would protect abortion rights beyond six weeks after facing backlash from conservative supporters.A day earlier, Trump upset anti-abortion activists when he told NBC News that he supported the measure. “You need more time than six weeks,” said Trump, who has repeatedly boasted about how his three appointees on the US supreme court created a conservative supermajority which eliminated federal abortion rights in 2022.“I’ve disagreed with that right from the early primaries when I heard about it.”Kamala Harris issued a statement saying her opponent “just made his position on abortion very clear”.“He will vote to uphold an abortion ban so extreme it applies before many women even know they are pregnant,” Harris said.On Saturday, Warren accused Trump of playing games on IVF.She said: “Are you kidding me? He also supports – and it’s also there in his platform – that IVF will effectively be banned all across the United States. Sorry, Donald, can’t have it both ways.”Warren also accused the former president of lacking principles – which is why, she said, women do not trust him.“There’s no principle here for him other than, ‘Does it help Donald Trump?’” Warren said. “That is his single guiding principle, and American women are just flat calling him out on that and saying we are not going to trust Donald Trump.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US politics: Will election denier Kari Lake help Trump win Arizona? – podcast

      by

      At the end of July, the TV news anchor turned rightwing politician Kari Lake won the Republican Senate primary in Arizona. She will face Democrat Ruben Gallego in November.
      So how will the Trump-inspired election denier do? Where does Kari Lake fit in with today’s Republican party? And will her presence help or hinder Trump in that all-important border swing state?
      Jonathan Freedland speaks to Elaine Godfrey of the Atlantic to find out more about the Senate hopeful.

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris says Trump ‘disrespected sacred ground’ on cemetery visit

      by

      Kamala Harris – the Democratic nominee for November’s White House race – has accused Donald Trump of “disrespecting sacred ground” on his recent visit to Arlington national cemetery, as the controversy over an apparent altercation between workers of his campaign and cemetery staff continued to build.The vice-president on Saturday accused the former president and Republican nominee of staging a “political stunt” after the US army accused the Trump campaign of turning a wreath-laying ceremony on Monday to mark the deaths of US soldiers in Afghanistan into a photo opportunity. The army also accused two campaign workers representing Trump – who said he was invited to the ceremony by the family of one of the honored soldiers – of pushing aside an official who told them it was forbidden to take pictures at the graves of military members who had recently died.Harris wrote in a lengthy statement on X that the cemetery – the resting place of more than 400,000 military veterans and their eligible dependents, dating back to the revolutionary war – was “not a place for politics”.She said: “Donald Trump’s team chose to film a video there, resulting in an altercation with cemetery staff. Let me be clear: the former president disrespected sacred ground, all for the sake of a political stunt.”Meanwhile, Democrats have called for a US army report into an apparent altercation between campaign staff and cemetery officials.In her statement, Harris said: “If there is one thing on which we as Americans can all agree, it is that our veterans, military families, and service members should be honored, never disparaged, and treated with nothing less than our highest respect and gratitude.“And it is my belief that someone who cannot meet this simple, sacred duty should never again stand behind the seal of the President of the United States of America.”At a rally on Friday, Trump said he only posed for photographs at the invitation of the families – even though they did not have the authority to approve such pictures.He said in Johnstown, Pennsylvania: “I don’t need publicity. I get a lot of publicity. I would like to get a lot less publicity … I would hire a public relations agent to get less publicity.”In a final rebuke of Trump, Harris wrote of fallen soldiers: “I mourn them and salute them. And I will never politicize them.”In a letter to the US army secretary, Christine Wormuth, Democrats with the House oversight committee requested a report by Monday into the reported showdown, including whether the Republican nominee’s “campaign staff violated federal law or cemetery rules and whether the Trump campaign informed the families of service members buried at the cemetery that their gravestones would be used in Mr Trump’s political campaign ads”, as CBS reported.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe cemetery is considered a politics-free zone. But on Monday, on the invitation of relatives of the soldiers killed in Kabul, Trump brought campaign photographers to document the visit.An army spokesperson said on Thursday that a female Arlington national cemetery official was “abruptly pushed aside” during an argument with Trump aides over photos and filming on the grounds for partisan, political or fundraising purposes.A spokesperson for the military said the episode was “unfortunate”, and it was “also unfortunate” that the cemetery “employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked”. The employee is not pressing charges.The army said Arlington national cemetery conducts nearly 3,000 such public ceremonies annually “without incident”, and visitors to the ceremony Trump attended had been made aware of laws that prohibit political activity.The Trump campaign said it had been granted explicit permission to bring “campaign-designated media” to the section of the cemetery for the slain soldiers’ – or Gold Star – families. The campaign denied an altercation had taken place and said: “There was no physical altercation as described and we are prepared to release footage if such defamatory claims are made.”View image in fullscreenDemocratic congressman Jamie Raskin said in the letter that “it appears that the Trump campaign – which arrived at the cemetery with a photographer and videographer – completely flouted the laws and rules they were informed of and filmed footage in the restricted area for use in a political TikTok video”.Raskin also cited an apology issued by the Utah governor, Spencer Cox, who had attended the ceremony with Trump and posted photos of the event to his official social media accounts.“This was not a campaign event and was never intended to be used by the campaign,” Cox wrote in a social media post on Wednesday. “It did not go through the proper channels and should not have been sent. My campaign will be sending out an apology.”Republicans have trying to make the US withdrawal from Afghanistan a campaign issue through which to attack Harris.In an interview with CNN on Thursday, Harris confirmed she was the last person in the room before Joe Biden made the decision to pull US troops out of Afghanistan. Asked if she felt comfortable with the president’s decision, Harris responded: “I do.” More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump comes out in support of recreational-use marijuana in Florida

      by

      Donald Trump has come out in support for a proposed constitutional amendment that would legalize recreational marijuana in Florida, the state in which he resides.In a Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump said “personal amounts of marijuana will be legalized for adults” with Florida’s amendment 3, “whether people like it or not”.The former US president said “someone should not be a criminal in Florida, when this is legal in so many other States”. He added: “We do not need to ruin lives & waste Taxpayer Dollars arresting adults with personal amounts of it on them.”Trump, as a resident Floridian, will be able to cast a vote on the state’s amendment 3 in November, which would allow adults over 21 to legally buy and use marijuana without a medical card.Under the proposed amendment, growing marijuana independently would still be illegal, and individuals could possess no more than three ounces for personal use.Trump’s support contrasts with Florida’s governor and fellow Republican, Ron DeSantis, who has been a vocal opponent of the ballot measure. “This is bad policy and even worse constitutional law,” DeSantis wrote in an X post this week.DeSantis has said he opposes amendment 3 because of the smell, and has claimed, without evidence, that people would be “able to bring 20 joints to an elementary school”.In his social media post, Trump called on the state’s lawmakers to implement regulations that would ban the use of marijuana in public spaces “so we do not smell marijuana everywhere we go”.But advocates of marijuana legalization argue that Republican lawmakers are exaggerating the scale of the smell problem in order to support policies banning the public use of cannabis, which has become increasingly accepted by Americans for years.Most US states now allow medical or recreational consumption of marijuana. In recent years, 24 states and the District of Columbia have legalized the recreational use of cannabis – and 14 others have approved it for medical use, according to the Pew Research Center.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Florida amendment requires 60% voter support to pass. And public opinion polls show that a majority of Florida voters favor the measure.Voters in South Dakota and North Dakota will also decide ballot initiatives proposing to legalize recreational marijuana in the November election.Trump’s marijuana-related Truth Social post on Saturday came amid polls which generally show that he is trailing the vice-president and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris in key battleground states which could decide the White House race between them. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘This was a terrible idea’: the incident that broke Republicans’ DeSantis fever

      by

      In the end, it wasn’t culture war feuding over restricting LGBTQ+ rights, thwarting Black voters or vilifying immigrants that finally broke Republicans’ DeSantis fever in Florida.Nor was it his rightwing takeover of higher education, the banning of books from school libraries, his restriction of drag shows, or passive assent of neo-Nazis parading outside Disney World waving flags bearing the extremist governor’s name that caused them to finally stand up to him.It was, instead, a love of vulnerable Florida scrub jays; a passion to preserve threatened gopher tortoises; and above all a unanimous desire to speak up for nature in defiance of Ron DeSantis’s mind-boggling plan to pave over thousands of unspoiled acres at nine state parks and erect 350-room hotels, golf courses and pickleball courts.The outcry when DeSantis’s department of environmental protection (DEP) unveiled its absurdly named Great Outdoors Initiative last week was immediate, overwhelming and unprecedented. The Republican Florida senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott penned a joint letter slamming an “absolutely ridiculous” proposal to build a golf course at Jonathan Dickinson state park in Martin county. The Republican congressman Brian Mast, usually a reliable DeSantis ally, said it would happen “over my dead body”.Scores of Republican state congress members and senators, whose achievements during the more than five years since DeSantis was elected governor have been largely limited to rubber-stamping his hard-right agenda, lined up to denounce the projects. Many noted the plans had been drawn up in secret, with no-bid contracts destined for mysteriously pre-chosen developers outside the requirements of Florida law.Thousands of environmental advocates and activists swamped multiple state parks on Tuesday in a day of action to protest against not only the ravaging of broad swathes of wildlife habitat, but DeSantis’s lack of transparency and intention to limit public comment to only one hour at each state park during meetings that would be held simultaneously.By Wednesday, DeSantis’s initiative was in effect dead, as the governor, clearly chastened by the unexpected all-quarters challenge to his previously unquestioned authority, furiously back-pedaled at an awkward press conference in Winter Haven.“They’re going back to the drawing board,” he said of plans he conceded were “half-baked” and “not ready for prime time”.Desperately trying to pin blame elsewhere for a misadventure that was very demonstrably his own, he continued: “This is something that was leaked. It was not approved by me, I never saw that. It was intentionally leaked to a leftwing group to try and create a narrative.”His implausible comment denying accountability hung out to dry his own inner circle, notably his communications director, Bryan Griffin, who barely a week earlier was enthusing on X about an “exciting new initiative of the State of Florida … expanding visitor capacity, lodging, and recreation options in state parks”.The volte-face did not go unnoticed. On Thursday, a headline in the Tampa Bay Times questioned: “Is DeSantis losing his grip on Florida?”, the newspaper citing his disastrous run for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination as one possible catalyst for the fast-growing revolt.“The DeSantis administration is very tightly controlled and micromanaged from the top down, so the thought that he wasn’t aware of this or didn’t support it, or that somehow the people in those agencies would have pushed a huge plan like that without the governor’s knowledge or support, it’s just ludicrous,” said Aubrey Jewett, political science professor at the University of Central Florida’s school of politics, security and international affairs.“People just don’t freelance and come up with these things on their own. This was a totally self-inflicted political wound, a political error by Governor DeSantis and his administration. There’s just no reason to pursue a policy where you pave over state parks to build golf courses and hotels, right? There’s no demand, nobody was asking for this, and they just decided they were going to do it anyway. It was politically tone deaf.”Jewett said the parks debacle hurt DeSantis on two fronts.“It shows how ill-conceived this plan was, that you not only have Democrats, progressives, environmentalists, objecting to these plans, you also have mainstream Republicans in the legislature and at federal level all saying that this was a terrible idea,” he said.“It also shows DeSantis has lost some of the grip he’s had on Florida politics for the last four years. It didn’t seem like anyone or anything could stand up to him, and nor did most Republicans want to. He hit home run after home run, right? He’d pick an issue, exploit it, push it, and Republican conservatives were like, ‘Yeah, let’s go get those liberals, let’s go get those woke people.’ He just seemed to be on a winning streak.“They also didn’t want to get on the wrong side of him because he showed time and again that if you crossed him, he would come after you, he’d be politically vindictive.“Well, now it’s totally changed. We have virtually every big-name Republican in the state coming out and saying this was a terrible idea. This incident really highlights perhaps how far DeSantis has fallen in terms of political control and impact on Florida.”DeSantis, meanwhile, denied he ever had such a grip. Pressed further on the state park humiliation at a Thursday press conference, the governor said anybody who thought he was dictating anything was “misunderstanding politics”.“I’ve never categorized [it] as me having a grip on anything,” he told reporters, according to Florida Politics, insisting he merely had “an ability to set an agenda and deliver the agenda” working with lawmakers.Delighted Florida Democrats, naturally, seized the moment. State party chair Nikki Fried retweeted the article and alluded to animosity during the Republican primary campaign between Donald Trump and the governor he repeatedly demeaned.“I don’t know who is having more fun: Trump watching DeSantis losing power, or DeSantis watching Trump losing this election,” she wrote.Jewett doubts DeSantis, who will be termed out of office in January 2027, can be quite so effective during his remaining months in the governor’s mansion – especially with the Republican-dominated Florida legislature rediscovering its spine.“Without a clear political path forward to something bigger, he really is just one more lame duck governor with two years to go. He can’t be re-elected, and it becomes a little more difficult to influence people because they know you’re going to be gone,” he said.“It’s entirely possible that the legislature may become a more coequal branch again and stand up for themselves. It’s still going to be dominated by Republican conservatives and DeSantis is still conservative, so on a lot of things they’ll be on the same page.“But right now, your normal allies on the Republican side are giving you just as much grief as anybody else, and it’s entirely self-inflicted. You step on a rake and boom, the handle comes up and hits you right on the nose.” More