US Politics

Subpoenas of Trump allies by January 6 panel set up high-stakes showdownBefore taking its decision, the select committee gamed out scenarios: what happens if Republicans defy the subpoenas? The House select committee investigating the Capitol attack made a political and legal gambit when it issued unprecedented subpoenas that compelled five Republican members of Congress to reveal inside information about Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election.The move sets into motion an extraordinary high-stakes showdown of response and counter-response for both the subpoenaed House Republicans – the House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs and Mo Brooks – and the panel itself.Congressman Bennie Thompson, the Democrat chair of the select committee, authorized the subpoenas on Wednesday after the panel convened for final talks about whether to proceed with subpoenas, with House investigators needing to wrap up work before June public hearings.“We inquired to most of them via letter to come forward, and when they told us they would not come, we issued the subpoena,” Thompson said of McCarthy and his colleagues. “It’s a process. And the process was clearly one that required debate and discussion.”The decision came after a recognition that their investigation into January 6 would not have been complete if they did not at least attempt to force the cooperation of some of the House Republicans most deeply involved in Trump’s unlawful schemes to return himself to office.But the subpoenas are about deploying a political and legal power play in the crucial final moments of the investigation as much as they are about an effort to gain new information for the inquiry into efforts to stop Joe Biden’s certification in time for public hearings.That is evident in the conundrum faced by the subpoenaed House Republicans – with the knowledge that how they respond to the orders seeking testimony about their contacts with Trump will determine the future of the investigation and of congressional subpoena power.In the days before the select committee assented to Thompson signing off on the subpoenas, the members on the panel gamed out the scenarios and reached the conclusion that subpoenas were actually a win-win situation, according to sources familiar with the discussions.If the subpoenaed House Republicans decided to comply and provide cooperation to the select committee as the subpoenas are designed to do, then the panel would obviously benefit from their testimony, the sources recounted of the panel’s discussion.If the subpoenaed House Republicans promised retaliatory subpoenas against Democrats should they take the House majority next year then they were going to do that anyway, the select committee reasoned, and they should issue the subpoenas.If the subpoenaed House Republicans simply ignored the orders, then they would only be undercutting their ability to subpoena Democrats in partisan investigations should the GOP take the House majority next year, since they would have set a precedent for non-compliance.The extent of cooperation by the five Republican members of Congress will also set an additional precedent: if McCarthy and his colleagues appear for a deposition but stonewall the inquiry, then Democrats would surely reciprocate in kind when they get subpoenaed.The select committee left their final meeting before Thompson signed off on the subpoenas hopeful of cooperation, but not really expecting anything, the sources said. If the House Republicans agreed to testify, it would be a welcome surprise.But that final point was key, the sources said, and the panel realised the subpoenas in that sense were almost self-enforcing.The issue at play is that House Republicans have been fantasising about subpoenaing Democrats in partisan investigations should they take the House majority. But those subpoenas would have power only if Republicans did not first undercut congressional subpoena power by defying them.The “precedent” question is often derided by Democrats as foolish since they believe Republicans would happily defy their subpoenas, only to then force Democrats to comply regardless of how Republicans previously behaved, but it got some consideration on Thursday.At least one of the subpoenaed House Republicans was seriously consulting about the precedent issue with his staff, according to staffers in that member’s office. And after the subpoenas were released, none of the five Republicans notably said they would defy them.The immediate and reflexive reaction on Capitol Hill to the subpoenas centred on how the select committee intended to enforce the subpoenas, but the panel has no real interest in pursuing any legal enforcement, the sources said.If the subpoenaed House Republicans sued to block the subpoenas in court, the select committee in that instance would probably have the House counsel, Doug Letter, contest the injunctions on behalf of the panel though only as a formality, the sources said.But if the subpoenaed House Republicans ignored the orders, the select committee would probably rely on the “self-enforcing” mechanism since any effort to have a court uphold the subpoena could take months and would outlast the panel’s existence, the sources said.The panel also told itself it could always decide whether to punish for non-compliance and refer the five Republican members of Congress for criminal contempt of Congress, though it was not clear whether the justice department would take up such a referral.Congressman Jamie Raskin, a Democrat member of the select committee, told reporters that he had little patience for Republicans’ complaints about the unprecedented nature of the subpoenas – and the binds faced by the five House Republicans.“If we have continued violence waged against the Congress, the vice-president, the peaceful transfer of power, and members of Congress have information, they should come and testify voluntarily,” Raskin said. “If they don’t, all of us should come to expect they could be subpoenaed.”TopicsUS elections 2020US Capitol attackUS politicsanalysisReuse this content More

Revealed: supporters of Trump’s big lie work as election officials across GeorgiaOfficials in at least seven counties of crucial swing state found to have promoted falsehood that 2020 election was stolen by Biden The effort to install local election officials who promote Donald Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen has seen particular success in the crucial swing state of Georgia, where at least eight county election officials are promoters of the falsehood, a Guardian investigation has found.The officials span the state, from suburban counties outside Atlanta to rural counties near the Tennessee and Alabama borders. All have substantial power over the administration of local, state and national elections in their counties, often with little oversight beyond scantly attended public meetings and small-town newspapers.They include: one election official who has posted in support of a discredited election conspiracist who believes the alleged presence of bamboo in paper ballots is proof they came from Asia, and thus show interference from China; two officials who tried, on the basis of bogus fraud allegations, to decertify the results of the January 2021 runoff that resulted in the election of the state’s first Black senator; one official who insisted that Georgia’s election laws needed to change if Republicans were going to “have a shot” at winning future elections.All continue to serve in their appointed positions as county election board officials in Floyd, Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Jackson, Lumpkin and Spalding counties. None responded to requests for comment from the Guardian.The investigation looked at seven counties out of 159, meaning the number of election officials who support election conspiracy theories could be much higher.“These disturbing facts bring to light what we’ve known for a while: support for the big lie is growing – the result of powerful political actors stoking a dangerous fire,” the voting rights group New Georgia Project said in a statement.“There is absolutely no place on our boards of elections, or in any of our elected offices, for leaders who refuse to accept the results of fair and certified elections.”Election boards have access to voter rolls, and make rules about polling places, ballots and voter registration. They also make determinations on ballots in which the voters’ intention is unclear.The boards seat between four and five members, usually split evenly between the two main parties with a tie-breaking, “non-partisan” member often chosen by the county commission or a local judge.With 159 counties, Georgia therefore has hundreds of county election board officials, creating and changing election policy on a weekly basis with little other than local activists and press to track them.Among them is Dottie Krull, a 79-year-old Republican on the Lumpkin county election board, located a little over an hour north of Atlanta. Shortly after the 2020 election, Krull began posting about the big lie on her personal Facebook page.“I guess we all know why Biden stayed in his basement and didn’t campaign,” Krull quoted a friend as saying. “He knew he didn’t need to.”In Forsyth county, elections board member Joel Natt was present on a conference call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and other election officials when he blamed unspecified election “irregularities” as a reason why Georgians of both parties were becoming “less and less trusting” of Raffensperger’s office.In Floyd county, Pam Peters was described by an election conspiracy theorist who spoke to the Washington Post as an “investigative partner.” Days before election day, Peters volunteered for Trump in Rome, Georgia.In Hall county, elections board member Tom Smiley said he took issue with claims that the 2020 election saw no fraud, saying he would amend it to “NO FRAUD DISCOVERED”.Perhaps no elections board official has been the subject of as much controversy as Alice O’Lenick, chair of the Gwinnett county board of registration.O’Lenick has been a vocal supporter of restrictions to poll access and voting rights, her critics say. In 2016, O’Lenick opposed the use of Spanish-language ballots. (The county was eventually forced to include them by the US Census Bureau under the Voting Rights Act.)She has also supported the abolition of so-called “no excuse” absentee voting, in which only the elderly or infirm would be allowed to fill out an absentee ballot; opposed the use of drop boxes, alleging spurious claims of ballot harvesting; served on a task force that recommended sweeping changes to voting rights so Republicans could “at least have a shot” at winning elections; and alleged without providing direct evidence that Gwinnett county saw an uptick in attempted voting by undocumented immigrants.In Spalding county, election board chair Ben Johnson continues to post prolifically about a wide variety of far-right conspiracy theories, including those involving alleged ballot harvesting and Dominion voting machines. In late April, Johnson shared a photo from a Canadian news outlet that had been altered to proclaim that conspiracy theorists “keep getting things right”.In Jackson county, Republican election board officials Larry Ewing and Jeff Hughes, following a campaign by the national conservative group True the Vote, forced an investigation into 211 people who had voted after recently changing their address, in the unsubstantiated belief that up to 2,000 Jackson county residents who had recently changed their addresses could have voted illegally.The pair also refused to certify the runoff election of Raphael Warnock, the state’s first Black senator, until the 211 names were passed on to the secretary of state for further investigation. The results were eventually certified with their dissent.“I can’t stress enough how widespread the election fraud lies have taken hold in the area,” said Pete Fuller, chair of the Jackson county Democratic party. “It’s very disconcerting how effective the misinformation has been.”TopicsDonald TrumpGeorgiaRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

The Democratic party needs new, younger leadership before it’s too late Cas MuddeThe party’s leaders came of age in a distant era and haven’t grasped that today’s Republican party belongs to the extreme right The population of the United States is much younger than that of most European countries, but its political establishment is much older. The 2020 presidential election was fought between 74-year-old Donald Trump and 77-year-old Joe Biden – compare that to 53-year-old Marine Le Pen and 44-year-old Emmanuel Macron in last month’s French presidential election. The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, is 71, while minority leader Mitch McConnell is 80. In the generally younger House of Representatives, the majority leader, Nancy Pelosi, is 82, making minority leader Kevin McCarthy look like a spring chicken at a mere 57. This is not just a problem for the functioning of the democratic system; it endangers the survival of it.While the majority of political leaders in the US are over 65, only a small minority of the population – 16.9% – is. This is a serious problem for the representativeness of the political system. Not only are previous generations much less diverse in terms of ethnicity and race, they have very different ideological and partisan profiles. Obviously, there is nothing new to this “rule by the elderly”, but it is increasingly threatening not just satisfaction with the democratic system but the system itself.Although political socialization is a lifelong process, the “impressionable or formative years” are between childhood and adulthood. Similarly, professionally, we are often heavily shaped by the early years of our careers, only partly updating our views later. For the Democratic leaders, this means that they were politically socialized in the 1960s and their professional socialization was in the 1980s – for Biden it even started in the 1970s. All have served in Congress for at least 35 years, starting when Ronald Reagan was president – in Biden’s case it was Richard Nixon – presidents, and Republicans, that most voters know only from the history books.In itself, this huge age gap between elites and masses does not have to create a problem of representation. Politicians like Bernie Sanders (80) and Jeremy Corbyn (72) have become the political heroes of a new generation of voters in recent years. And in terms of political priorities and values even Biden and Pelosi might be relatively close to the people they represent. The real problem is in their dated understanding of politics and the contemporary Republican party, and its political leadership, which has gotten stuck in the 1980s.For instance, President Biden regularly reminisces about the days when he could have lunch with segregationists, when he and politicians he disagreed with could still “respect” each other. (Incidentally, the segregationists were in his own party at that time.) And Pelosi recently said, “I want the Republican party to take back the party to where you were when you cared about a woman’s right to choose, you cared about the environment.” Now, I only moved to this country in 2008, but I am almost 55 and have been following US politics for quite a while, and I cannot remember that Republican party.What Biden and Pelosi still cannot come to grips with, is that the Republican party is a far-right party, increasingly closer to the extreme right than the radical right. A recent poll showed that nearly half of all Republicans agree with the so-called great replacement theory, a racist conspiracy theory mainly propagated by the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, but with a decades-long past in far-right Europe. And while the theory might be new (to the US), the racist sentiments are not. Scholars like Christopher Parker and Matt Barreto showed a decade ago that the Tea Party mobilization was fueled by racial resentment and, as Rachel Blum more recently showed, the Tea Party has since captured the GOP (thereby enabling Trump’s takeover and further radicalization).Like many other older members of the liberal media and political establishment, Biden and Pelosi seem to think that media figures like Carlson and politicians like Ted Cruz do not really mean what they say and simply try to mobilize a crowd with their endorsement of Trump’s stolen election lie, their whitewashing of the storming of the Capitol, or their racist conspiracy theories about a “great replacement”. Leaving aside whether that actually matters, and whether it is morally less reprehensible or politically less dangerous – I actually think it is both more reprehensible and dangerous – it is politically irrelevant. The genie is out of the bottle!Not only are Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy not in control of the Republican party, even Donald Trump is not. When he spoke out in support of Covid-19 vaccines, for example, few if any of “his” base changed their position. And people like Cruz and Josh Hawley have always run after the radicalized base, rather than led it. The point is, even if there were still people left in the Republican party with the courage and conviction to “take back” the party, they lack the power to do so. In fact, it hasn’t been “their” party for decades now.It is high time that both Democrats and Democrats understand this. It is high time that Democratic leaders as well as liberal journalists stop listening to Republican politicians who say in private that they disagree with Trump, the insurrection, or “stop the steal”. They don’t matter! What the Democratic party is facing, as the rest of the country, is a political party that openly undermines the democratic system in word and deed. That is the only Republican party that exists, at least for now. And if they don’t act very quickly, that party will have full control of all major institutions of the country: the presidency, Senate, House and supreme court. To prevent this, we need leaders who live in the here and now, not in some (imagined) past.
Cas Mudde is a Guardian US columnist and the Stanley Wade Shelton UGAF professor in the school of public and international affairs at the University of Georgia
TopicsUS politicsOpinionDemocratscommentReuse this content More

Missouri Senate primary highlights rise of violent rhetoric on the rightIn an era of polarization, candidates posing with guns and using extreme language about opponents threatens more violence On 25 April, the former Missouri governor Eric Greitens, now running for US Senate, posted a video on Twitter of him and Donald Trump Jr, firing semi-automatic rifles at a range.“Striking fear in the hearts of liberals everywhere,” the former president’s son said.Republican Senate hopeful Eric Greitens accused of abuse by ex-wife Read moreIn the accompanying post, Greitens wrote: “Striking fear into the hearts of liberals, RINOs, and the fake media.”Greitens, a former Navy Seal, shared the video even though a woman whom he had an affair with accused him of tying her up and tearing her clothes off without her consent, and his ex-wife, Sheena, accused him of knocking her down and hitting one of their sons hard enough to knock one of his teeth loose, according to an affidavit filed as part of a child custody dispute.She also alleged that he purchased a gun, refused to tell her where it was and threatened to kill himself unless she expressed public support for him.Greitens’ gun-focused messaging is concerning, according to researchers who study links between communication and political violence, not only because more than a third of the mass shooters in recent years also had a history of committing domestic violence, according to a Bloomberg report.But it’s also part of a significant increase among politicians – largely Republicans – in recent years in references to guns and threatening language in campaign ads, according to researchers.That rhetoric contributes to polarization in our society and can translate to physical violence, they say.Given the tense political climate, researchers expect rhetoric from rightwing political figures to continue to coarsen and lead to more violence before the pendulum swings back to a less charged time.“Violence is in politics as a violation of the idea that people have an equal say in the political process of choosing their governments and of being able to express themselves freely,” said Nathan Kalmoe, professor of political communication at Louisiana State University and author of Radical American Partisanship. “Clearly this kind of messaging, where you’re calling out political opponents while you’re shooting at a gun range, is a kind of a violent threat.”Since Donald Trump became president in 2016, the number of threats against members of Congress has soared, according to data provided by the Capitol police to news organizations. That year, there were 902 threats against the lawmakers. In 2021, there were 9,600.Republicans are also more likely than Democrats to think civilians may need to engage in combat to save America. A majority of Republicans support the possible use of force to preserve the “traditional American way of life”, according to a 2021 George Washington University Politics Poll. Among Democrats the number was 15%.When asked if a time will come when “patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands”, 47% of Republicans agreed, as opposed to 9% of Democrats.About one-third of Republicans also agreed that “because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country”, according to a 2021 survey from the Public Religion Research Institute. Among Democrats, the number was 18%.But the use of incendiary speech to rile up supporters in a democracy did not start with Trump.“Certainly, we’ve experienced time periods in the US that were as divisive and as polarized as today,” James Piazza, professor of political science at Penn State University, said. “It kind of goes in waves. And if you look at the type of speech and rhetoric that politicians used in those previous eras of polarization and division, they look a lot like what you see today; it’s dehumanizing speech.”Trump and other Republicans are using threatening language to tap into anger about the shifting demographics of the United States and the sense that a Christian way of life is coming under threat, according to political scientists.“Trump played into that anger and amplified it and went much further than most Republican leaders, especially the most prominent, had gone in very explicitly making these statements, not just the election rejection, but also the other kinds of anti-democratic statements, including hostility towards various racial, ethnic and religious minority groups,” said Kalmoe.One key difference between the Trump era and other highly polarized periods is the advent of social media, which amplifies speech by instantly sending it to millions of people and often strips nuance from a statement, according to Helio Fred Garcia, professor of professional development and leadership at Columbia University and the author of Words on Fire: The Power of Incendiary Language and How to Confront It.“There’s a giant megaphone that is out there,” said Piazza, who authored a study on the connection between political hate speech and domestic terrorism. “There really is a whole new realm of the ability to mobilize people, to radicalize people, to have more fringe voices play an outsized role in national discussions.”Greitens is not alone among Republicans in using such incendiary language. For example, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, recently told Real America’s Voice, a media group, “The Democrats are the party of pedophiles. The Democrats are the party of princess predators from Disney … Their identity is the most disgusting, evil, horrible thing happening in our country.”In interviews, political scientists said such language was occurring mostly but not exclusively on the right. But they struggled to provide examples of Democrats doing the same thing.In 2018, former attorney general Eric Holder, who served in Obama administration, said: “When they go low, we kick ’em. That’s what this new Democratic party is about.”“Immediately the right jumped on him and said, ‘He’s provoking violence.’” Garcia said. “Interestingly, the same people who said, ‘No, Trump isn’t promoting violence,’” criticized Holder.Given the charged political climate, the academics say more violence like – or worse than – the January 6 Capitol riot is inevitable. Piazza said this wave of divisiveness and polarization is reminiscent of the time before the civil war when “you had similar politician rhetoric to mobilize voters and to demobilize and demonize the other side that resulted in political violence”.That said, Piazza does not expect something like the civil war to erupt.“We do actually have pretty strong political institutions in the United States, and we have strong security institutions. The US military is extraordinarily professionalized, and the US military has done an extremely good job of being apolitical,” he said.Garcia also forecasts more violence. He thought the US could return to a more normal place after the end of Trump’s presidency but because Trump still insists he won, Garcia thinks it will take more than eight years and further carnage for the pendulum to swing back to a more normal place.To avoid that, Piazza and others call for more regulation of social media. He is encouraged by bipartisan efforts to hold the companies accountable.He hopes the government introduces regulations so that a politician “trying to rile people up for political gain or attention, or to raise money, wouldn’t be able to get away with that on social media. They would have to really watch what they had to say in terms of demonizing others and engaging in hate speech,” he said.In the meantime, Greitens ranks third in the Republican Senate primary polling but still leads against Democratic candidates, according to FiveThirtyEight. Greitens and his primary opponents did not respond to requests for comment.In the campaign ad, Greitens and Trump switch from the semi-automatic rifles to handguns.It closes with them firing more shots and Greitens saying: “Liberals beware.”TopicsRepublicansUS politicsMissourifeaturesReuse this content More

This week Jonathan Freedland speaks to Jonathan Martin of the New York Times after the publication of his new book This Will Not Pass and what he and his co-author Alexander Burns unearthed about events behind the scenes in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, why all is not well for the Biden administration, and what all of this says for the future of the two-party system

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

Archive: PBS Newshour, NBC You can buy This Will Not Pass here. Listen to Thursday’s episode of Politics Weekly UK with Rafael Behr. Sign up to First Edition for free at theguardian.com/firstedition. Send your questions and feedback to [email protected]. Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts. More

Senator Rand Paul single-handedly holds up $40bn US aid for UkraineDemocratic and Republican Senate leaders both supported package but Paul objected to scale of spending The top Democrat and Republican in the US Senate joined forces in a rare moment of unity on Thursday in an attempt to pass $40bn in aid for Ukraine, only to be stymied by a single Republican lawmaker: the Kentucky libertarian Rand Paul.Faced with the prospect of an extended delay for the package that passed the House of Representatives on Tuesday, the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, and his Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell, sought to move forward on the aid package only to be blocked by Paul, a fiscal hawk who objects to the amount of spending proposed.Putin could use nuclear weapon if he felt war being lost – US intelligence chiefRead moreThe stalemate delayed passage of the measure into next week.The Senate has scheduled an initial procedural vote on the bill for late Monday afternoon.It was unclear whether that vote would then speed passage of the Ukraine aid. Alternatively, passage could come around the middle of next week if any senator wants to force a series of legislative steps before a final vote.As the Ukraine aid bill became caught in the Senate’s procedural gears, Schumer pleaded for fast action: “The package is ready to go, the vast majority of senators on both sides of the aisle want it.”He added: “If Senator Paul persists in his reckless demands … all he will accomplish is to single-handedly delay desperately needed Ukraine aid.”But Paul was not moved.The delay into next week could cause problems for western countries trying to bolster Ukraine in its fight against Russia.The Biden administration has said that by 19 May it expects to run out of available funds to draw on under an authority that allows the president to authorize the transfer of weapons without congressional approval in response to an emergency.Paul is demanding that the legislation be altered to require an inspector general to oversee spending on Ukraine. Without his agreement, the Senate must follow a lengthy process stipulated by the chamber’s arcane rules.McConnell, Paul’s fellow senator from Kentucky, weighed in, saying: “Ukraine is not asking us to fight this war. They’re only asking for the resources they need to defend themselves against this deranged invasion. And they need this help right now.”The House passed the Ukraine spending bill by 368 to 57, with only Republicans voting against it.Joe Biden had asked Congress to approve an additional $33bn in aid for Ukraine. But lawmakers decided to increase the military and humanitarian funding.“This is the second spending bill for Ukraine in two months. And this bill is three times larger than the first,” Paul said before formally blocking the aid package. “Congress just wants to keep on spending, and spending.”The aid package had previously included more spending for dealing with Covid-19 in the US, but the two causes were decoupled after Republicans balked.Meanwhile, the White House Covid-19 coordinator, Ashish Jha, issued a dire warning that the US will be increasingly vulnerable to the coronavirus this fall and winter if Congress does not swiftly approve new funding for more vaccines and treatments.In an Associated Press interview, Jha said Americans’ immune protection from the virus was waning, the virus was adapting to be more contagious and booster doses for most people would be necessary, with the potential for enhanced protection from a new generation of shots.His warning came as the White House said there could be up to 100m infections from the virus later this year and as Biden somberly ordered flags to half-staff to mark the imminent milestone of 1 million US Covid deaths.TopicsUS SenateUS politicsUkraineCoronavirusnewsReuse this content More

Joe Biden marked the imminent “tragic milestone” of 1m deaths in the US in his address to the second global Covid-19 summit this morning, and renewed his call to Congress to strike a deal on a coronavirus relief package.Biden highlighted the urgency of his $22.5bn request, which he says is crucial to fund vaccines, treatments and testing domestically, as well as boosting global efforts to end the emergency:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Today, we’re at a new stage in fighting this pandemic, facing an evolving set of challenges. We have to double down on our efforts to get shots in people’s arms, country by country, community by community, ensure we have reliable and predictable supplies of vaccines and boosters for everyone, everywhere, expand access globally to testing and treatments. And we have to prevent complacency.Biden’s demand of US lawmakers has stumbled, one of a number of growing headaches for the president amid crises over inflation and abortion rights. An on-again, off-again bipartisan Covid deal was scuppered by political wrangling over immigration specifically. Republicans agreed to a $10bn compromise “in principle”, without money for global initiatives, then backed out when the Biden administration insisted on pushing ahead with the termination of the Trump-era Title 42 policy that blocked refugees at the southern border because of coronavirus concerns. As long as COVID-19 is present in one country, it impacts all of us. This morning I join @USAmbUN at the Second Global COVID Summit to discuss our path forward. Tune in. https://t.co/BiSN2peafu— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) May 12, 2022
Officially, the Covid-19 death toll in the US is not yet at 1m, Johns Hopkins reporting on Thursday a tally of 999,000. But the inevitable reaching of that grim figure in the coming few days fired Biden’s new call to action, at home and internationally:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}I continue to call on Congress to take urgent action to provide emergency Covid-19 funding that is vital to protect Americans, to make sure that we maintain our supplies and Covid-19 tests, treatments and vaccines, including next-generation vaccines that are being developed.
The request also includes $5bn to keep up our global partnership in the fight against Covid-19 and sustain our efforts to get shots in people around the world, expand access to treatments and save lives everywhere.
We can do this, we can control Covid-19, we can start to build a better, healthier and more secure future today if we all do our part, and if we step up together. He announced new global initiatives including sharing of US Covid-19 technologies, partnerships to expand access to rapid testing and antiviral treatments in harder to reach areas, and $450m seed funding for a pandemic preparedness and global health security fund to be established this summer:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The US has provided more than $19bn to help countries fight Covid-19, life saving medicines, oxygen, tests, equipment, supplies, and partnered with countries to improve their capacity to manufacture vaccines.
We’ve delivered more than 500m vaccines to 115 countries and we’re going to… deliver another 500m doses.
But there’s still so much left to do. This pandemic isn’t over. We mark a tragic milestone here in the US, 1m empty chairs around the family dinner table, irreplaceable losses that each leave behind a family or community forever change because of this pandemic.Read the White House proclamation on 1m Covid-19 deaths here.Thanks for joining us for a whirlwind day in US politics! We’re closing this blog now, but you can keep on top of developments in the Ukraine-Russia conflict in our 24-hour live blog here.In a solemn start to the day, Joe Biden marked the imminent “tragic milestone” of 1m Covid-19 deaths in the US, and used the second global Covid-19 summit to renew his call for Congress to approve a deal on a relief package.“There’s still so much left to do. This pandemic isn’t over,” the president said.“We mark a tragic milestone. One million empty chairs around the family dinner table, irreplaceable losses that each leave behind a family or community forever changed because of this pandemic”. Biden ordered flags to fly at half-mast around the country until the end of the weekend.Here’s what else we followed today:
Joe Biden is considering a visit to the Korean demilitarized zone, when he makes the first trip to Asia of his presidency, White House press secretary Jen Psaki indicated.
Senate leaders Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell urged senators from both parties to pass a $40bn Ukraine aid package, although objections in the chamber looked set to delay the vote.
Federal prosecutors opened a grand jury investigation into Donald Trump’s handling of classified White House material.
The House committee investigating the 6 January Capitol attack incited by Trump subpoenaed the Republican House minority leader Kevin McCarthy and four other congressmen.
Nancy Pelosi explained why Democrats rejected legislation proposed by Republican senators that would codify abortion rights, claiming states would still have too much power in determining women’s right to choose.
The nine US supreme court justices met for the first time since last week’s leak of the draft opinion that would overturn almost half a century of abortion protections.
Joe Biden is considering a visit to the Korean demilitarized zone, when he makes the first trip to Asia of his presidency, White House press secretary Jen Psaki indicated moments ago.The US president plans a trip to South Korea and Japan later this month. It came up at the briefing at the White House today, which is still underway, that Biden may go to the narrow neutral zone between North and South Korea.The Biden administration also believes North Korea could be preparing for a new significant missile test, Psaki indicated.A reporter asked: Does [Biden] intend to visit the DMZ and what’s your current assessment of the threat of a North Korean nuclear test?Psaki responded:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Well, on the first question, we’re still finalizing details of the schedule for the trip and what it looks like. Obviously, that is a step that is taken by many who visit the region. But I expect we’ll have our national security adviser here in the briefing room next week with Karine [Jean-Pierre] to preview the trip.
In terms of whether we expect a test. The United States assesses that [North Korea] could be ready to conduct a test there as early as this month.
This would be its seventh such test. We’ve shared this information with allies and partners and are closely coordinating with them.
As you noted, the president is traveling to the Republic of Korea and Japan next week, where he will continue strengthening these alliances and make clear our commitment to the security of the Republic of Korea. The trip to Asia is scheduled from May 20 to May 24.In 2019, then-president Donald Trump became the first incumbent US president to step into North Korea, after entering the DMZ, and he met North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.There was no tangible outcome from the meeting, in terms of North Korea pulling back on its nuclear weapons program or other issues.Joe Biden has spoken with retailers and manufacturers to address a chronic shortage of baby formula in stores nationwide, the White House has said.In her afternoon briefing, press secretary Jen Psaki said the president demanded that safe supplies be restored as soon as possible.Earlier today, leading manufacturer Abbott Laboratories warned it could take two months for its products to reach shelves after a nationwide recall.Psaki said Biden spoke with chief executives of Walmart and Target to focus on restocking shelves, and said the administration would be looking at improving supplies through more imports, as well as asking the the federal trade commission and state attorneys general to clamp down on price gouging:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}We’ve already seen an increase in supply over the past couple of weeks. What we are seeing, which is an enormous problem, is hoarding, people hoarding because they’re fearful, and people hoarding because they are trying to profit off fearful parents.
We do not want parents, mothers, families out there to be stressed and worried about feeding their babies.
Our message to parents is we hear you, we want to do everything we can, and we’re going to cut every element of red tape to help address this and make it better.Ahead of huge protests planned this weekend against the prospect of Roe v Wade being overturned, US attorney general Merrick Garland has announced ramped up security for the Supreme Court justices. “The Attorney General directed the U.S. Marshals Service to help ensure the Justices’ safety by providing additional support to the Marshal of the Supreme Court and Supreme Court Police,” the Department of Justice said in a press statement on Wednesday. The attorney general’s orders came after more than 100 protestors marched earlier this week to the home of Justice Samuel Alito. Alito wrote the 98-page draft opinion about Roe v Wade, leaked to Politico and published on May 2.The final court decision on whether to remove the constitutional right to seek an abortion in the US, afforded by the landmark 1973 Roe ruling, is expected next month.In addition to Alito, protestors also gathered outside the homes of Chief Justice John Roberts, even though he was not one of the five conservative justices from the nine-member bench, who signed onto the draft opinion.And there were also demonstrations outside the home of justice Brett Kavanaugh, who did sign on, in the draft opinion, to overturn Roe.According to federal statute Title 18, Section 1507 of the US code, it is illegal to picket or parade “in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer” with the “intent of influencing any judge.” On Monday, senators swiftly passed the Supreme Court Police Parity Act which seeks to expand protection of the justices and their families. The bill is awaiting to be passed onto the House where if approved, will then be transferred to the president for his signature. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that protests “should never include violence, threats, or vandalism.”Workers took Donald Trump’s name off his hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC on Wednesday, after the completion of the $375m sale of the lease to investors from Florida. House Democrats estimate the former president, under legal and financial pressure on multiple fronts, will reportedly gain $100m from the sale, once a loan for the renovations is paid off.One ethics group called the hotel “a sinkhole of corruption”. During Trump’s four years in the White House, the hotel became a magnet for aides, supporters and foreign businesses seeking favour.Critics and ethics groups were particularly concerned about the situation as Trump did not formally divest himself from the Trump Organization. The presidential historian Michael Beschloss predicted that even after the sale “political ghosts will linger”.The hotel lost more than $70m in the four years of Trump’s presidency, including losses each year before pandemic shutdowns in 2020. Many hotel brokers, owners and consultants did not expect the 263-room hotel, located close to the White House, to fetch such a high price.The price of the lease, equivalent to more than $1.4m a room, has drawn scrutiny from Democrats in Congress. The New York Times reported that JLL, a real estate firm, put the average sales price for hotels in Washington in 2020 at $354,000 per room.CGI Merchant Group, the buyer, reportedly plans to turn the hotel into a branch of the Waldorf Astoria hotel chain. Earlier this month, the House oversight committee requested documents from CGI, listing all investors, which reportedly include the former New York Yankees slugger and confessed drugs cheat Alex Rodriguez.Read more:‘Sinkhole of corruption’: Trump Organization sells Washington hotelRead moreSenators were urged to pass a $40bn package of military, economic and humanitarian aid for Ukraine by the end of the day, despite last-minute obstacles placed by rogue Republicans.Democratic and Republican leaders tried clearing the way for its passage Thursday afternoon, the Associated Press reports. The measure passed the House 368-57 on Tuesday.Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell called on “both sides to help us pass this urgent funding bill today”. The Kentucky Republican’s pointed inclusion of his own colleagues came as the only apparent stumbling block seemed to be a demand from Rand Paul, the state’s other senator, for an inspector general to scrutinize the new spending.“I’m not allowing a speedy passage of the bill without having something fiscally responsible in the bill,” Paul told reporters.New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, the senate majority leader, backed McConnell’s call:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Republicans shouldn’t block this bill. There is no reason, no reason whatever, not to get Ukraine funding approved fast.Joe Biden has promised to quickly sign the bill, which he says is crucial to keep military aid, including howitzer artillery and other weaponry, flowing to Ukraine.McConnell said:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Helping Ukraine is not an instance of mere philanthropy. It bears directly on America’s national security and vital interests that Russia’s naked aggression not succeed and carries significant costs. In probably the least surprising development of an already toxic Republican senate primary race in Pennsylvania, Donald Trump has weighed in to savage a rival – albeit a far-right one – challenging his favored candidate, the television personality Mehmet Oz.The recipient of Trump’s snark is the self-declared “America First” hopeful Kathy Barnette, a political commentator who has surged in popularity in recent weeks to a point where, according to Axios, Republicans are “panicking” she might actually win.Barnette, who claims she was the product of her mother’s rape at the age of 11, has a long history of controversial and extremist views. She is in the almost certainly unique position of being a Black Republican who has drawn criticism from all wings of the party, from Trump to Pat Toomey, the moderate senator whose retirement has opened up the Pennsylvania seat.“Kathy Barnette will never be able to win the General Election against the Radical Left Democrats,” Trump declares in his statement, littered as always with unorthodox grammar and punctuation, and random uppercase letters.“She has many things in her past which have not been properly explained or vetted, but if she is able to do so, she will have a wonderful future in the Republican Party – and I will be behind her all the way.“Dr Oz is the only one who will be able to easily defeat the Crazed, Lunatic Democrat in Pennsylvania. A vote for anyone else in the Primary is a vote against Victory in the Fall!”Oz has a narrow advantage in the polls for the 17 May primary over Barnette and David McCormick, an Army veteran and George W Bush administration official favored by many mainstream Republicans.But Maga voters, as the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington found at a Trump rally in Greensburg earlier this month, don’t quite know what to make of him.Exactly who is the “crazed lunatic” Trump refers to is anyone’s guess. There are four candidates for the Democratic nomination, including congressman Conor Lamb and Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor John Fetterman.It’s been a lively morning so far in US political news and there is more to come, so do stay tuned.Here’s where things stand:
Federal prosecutors have opened a grand jury investigation into Trump’s handling of classified White House material, the NYT reports
The House committee investigating the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots subpoenaed Congressman Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican in the House of Representatives, along with other lawmakers on Thursday
House speaker Nancy Pelosi has explained why Democrats rejected legislation proposed by Republican senators that would codify abortion rights, saying: “What’s in the Republican bill would enable states to do very destructive things when it comes to a woman’s right to choose”
All nine US Supreme Court justices are meeting for the first time on Thursday since last week’s leak of the draft opinion that would overrule Roe v Wade
Joe Biden has marked the “tragic milestone” of 1m Covid-19 deaths in the US by renewing his calls to Congress to strike a deal on a relief package
Federal prosecutors have opened a grand jury investigation to try to establish whether Donald Trump mishandled classified White House materials that he had access to while he was the president and that have since been found at Mar-a-Lago, the residence he moved to after he lost the election to Joe Biden, the New York Times reports.The outlet speaks of an “intensifying inquiry” indicating that the Department of Justice is looking into how Trump and senior aides handled sensitive documents in the dying days of the Republican’s one-term presidency.It writes:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}In recent days, the Justice Department has taken a series of steps showing that its investigation has progressed beyond the preliminary stages. Prosecutors issued a subpoena to the National Archives and Records Administration to obtain the boxes of classified documents, according to the two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.
The authorities have also made interview requests to people who worked in the White House in the final days of Mr. Trump’s presidency, according to one of the people.
The investigation is focused on the discovery by the National Archives in January that at the end of Mr. Trump’s term he had taken to his home at the Mar-a-Lago resort 15 boxes from the White House that contained government documents, mementos, gifts and letters.
After the boxes were returned to the National Archives, its archivists found documents containing “items marked as classified national security information,” the agency told Congress in February. In April, it was reported that federal authorities were in the preliminary stages of investigating the handling of the classified documents.The intensifying inquiry suggests that the Justice Department is examining the role of Mr. Trump and other officials in his White House in their handling of sensitive materials during the final stages of his administration. @maggieNYT @nytmike https://t.co/mEmD78IIvN— Adam Goldman (@adamgoldmanNYT) May 12, 2022
The select committee empowered the panel’s chairman, congressman Bennie Thompson, to move ahead with subpoenas to House minority leader Kevin McCarthy and other Republicans including Jim Jordan, Scott Perry, and Andy Biggs and Mo Brooks, the sources said.Members on the select committee empowered Thompson to take the extraordinary step to subpoena Republican members of Congress after the five flatly refused to accept invitations to provide voluntary assistance to the investigation, the sources said.The select committee is seeking to compel some of the most sensitive information about Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in its subpoenas to the Republican members of Congress, the sources said.The Guardian reported earlier this week that the panel was moving closer to issuing subpoenas to Republican members of Congress, appalled at their refusal to assist the investigation in any way despite prima facie connections to the events of 6 January.What changed for members of the select committee, according to sources familiar with internal deliberations, was that they could no longer ignore what appeared to be deep involvement in Trump’s unlawful schemes to overturn the 2020 election results.The scope and targets of the subpoenas are not final until the orders are made public, and the sources cautioned that details could still change. But the subpoenas are expected to encompass the contents of the letters seeking voluntary cooperation, they said.That would indicate the select committee intends to ask McCarthy – the top Republican in the House – about what he knew of the former president’s involvement in, and response to, the Capitol riots, as well as why Trump believed he was at fault for the riot.It also suggests House investigators are interested in seeking more detail about meetings between Trump and Republican members of Congress at the White House before the Capitol attack where they strategized ways to stop Joe Biden’s certification on 6 January.Congressman Kevin McCarthy, the top Republican in the US House of Representatives, and other lawmakers on Thursday received subpoenas from the House committee investigating last year’s attack on the US Capitol by supporters of then-president Donald Trump, an escalation of the panel’s efforts to secure their testimony, Reuters reports.The January 6 House Select Committee had previously sent letters to Republican lawmakers, asking for their voluntary cooperation with the panel’s investigation. The panel had a renewed interest in McCarthy’s cooperation after new reporting last month showed he had told the Republican leadership days after January 6 that Trump admitted to him at least partial responsibility for the Capitol attack, sources said.The select committee is particularly focused on whether Trump might have indicated to McCarthy why he believed he was culpable for the Capitol attack, the sources said, and whether the former president knew he may have acted unlawfully on January 6.A huge, violent mob invaded the Capitol in an attempt to prevent the official certification by a joint session of Congress – ie the Senate and House – of Joe Biden’s victory over Trump in the November 2020 presidential election.Trump had earlier goaded crowds at a rally near the White House to make their way to Capitol, urging supporters that they needed to “fight like hell” to defend his presidency.The insurrection ultimately failed and Biden’s win was certified in the early hours of the next day, after lawmakers, media and staff had run for their lives from the deadly rioters.Nancy Pelosi has been explaining why Democrats rejected legislation proposed by Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski that would codify Roe v Wade abortion protections into federal law.At her weekly briefing, the House speaker spelled out why her party pushed the women’s health protection act, which failed in the US Senate yesterday, instead of backing the more restrictive but still protective reproductive rights act from the pro-choice Republicans, seen as more likely to have attracted bipartisan support..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}It’s not enough just to pass a bill to have a compromise. It’s not a compromise, because what’s in the Republican bill would enable states to do very destructive things when it comes to a woman’s right to choose.Pelosi explained that while both bills would have enshrined into law the basics of Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling guaranteeing abortion protections, which the supreme court looks set to reverse, the Democrats’ act would go further.It would, she said, have added the protections given by the 1992 Planned Parenthood v Casey ruling, which dealt with other issues including the viability of a fetus and restrictions on how far states could go in tinkering with the provisions of Roe:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}This is not a public policy debate that is isolated from the personal impact that it has on the lives of women, whether it’s contraception, whether it’s invitro fertilization, whether it’s a post-miscarriage care, whether its size and timing of a family.
It is personal between a woman, her doctor, her God [and] her family, not the supreme court, or the Congress of the United States. The US was today confirmed as the host of the 2031 men’s Rugby World Cup and the 2033 women’s event. This is not particularly political news, except Joe Biden formally supported the bid, as we reported here, and has been known to be very enthusiastic about the game, as we reported here. And here. We (OK, I) have also reported about how politicians from both sides of the aisle have played and loved the game, here, here and elsewhere.The Guardian is working on a follow-up piece about what the bid announcement might mean for American rugby, and in the course of harvesting statements has spoken both to the Congressional Rugby Caucus (co-chairs Eleanor Holmes Norton, Democrat of Washington DC and Alex Mooney, Republican of West Virginia). Statements are awaited. In the meantime Chris Murphy, the Democratic senator from Connecticut, has confirmed he was a college rugby player and said the following:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}“I was first introduced to rugby at Williams, and although I wasn’t very good, I loved the sport and made lifelong friends. I am excited that the U.S. will host the men’s and women’s Rugby World Cups and look forward to it introducing even more Americans to the game.For further reading, here’s the US Eagles men’s fly-half or full-back Will Hooley on What This All Means For The Game:We can build it, they will come: a USA Rugby World Cup will be a gamechanger | Will HooleyRead more More

Crystal Mason on a ruling that could change her life: ‘I know this is not over’ A court in Texas must reconsider its decision to sentence Mason to five years for a voting error – how does she feel?Hello Fight to Vote readers,Every Tuesday night for the last year or so, Crystal Mason has had trouble sleeping.On Wednesday mornings, the Texas court of criminal appeals, the state’s highest criminal court, usually issues its ruling. And since March of last year, Mason has been waiting for a ruling from the court that could change her life. She’s been appealing a five-year prison sentence for voting a provisional ballot in 2016. Mason was ineligible to vote at the time because she was on federal supervised release – which is like probation – for a tax felony. Texas prohibits anyone from voting while they are serving a criminal sentence, but she says – and probation officials have confirmed – that no one told her she was ineligible.Yesterday, Mason, who is 47-years-old and raised seven kids and has six grandchildren, got the phone call she’s been anxiously waiting for. In an 8-1 ruling, the court told a lower court it had to reconsider the case to determine whether Mason actually knew she was ineligible to vote when she cast a ballot. It was a partial, but far from final, victory for Mason.I’ve been following Mason’s case for the last few years, and on Wednesday, I spoke with Mason hours after the ruling. We talked about about her case and why she thinks it’s struck a nerve across the US.How are you feeling, and what was it like to get the news this morning?I was at work and Kim [Mason’s lawyer] called me … She said the decision came in. I just started to panic, I started to sweat, like nervous, like, ‘What’s going on, Kim?’She let me know that it’s going back to the second court of appeals and they have to prove intent. Like where I really knew that I was committing a crime. And I feel like that’s a good step. That’s a good step right there.If you go off facts and facts alone, Sam, you know that the supervised release officer testified on the stand and said no one told me [I couldn’t vote] in the supervised release office. Then I received paperwork in my judgment and commitment, and in black and white, it’s not there. And then you can see it in my supervised release information, it was not there.Texas court ordered to reconsider decision to uphold prison sentence for woman who votedRead moreI think that the criminal court of appeals asked them something very important. That needs to be … that’s the whole case, right there. I’m very happy that they did that. But I know this is not over.You were never told, never had any idea, being on federal supervised release, that you couldn’t vote in Texas?Absolutely not. I was never told that. I never had any paperwork stating that. I was going by all my conditions of being on supervised release, and I did not see that at all. I do know that as a felon you still have the right to vote. I had no idea that being on supervised release took that right away from me.There’s no way … I’m on track. I got a good job. I’m making decent money. I’m in school. I’m back with my family, my kids, my grandbabies. You wouldn’t have ever taken a chance, if there was even a grey line, of me thinking that I was ineligible to vote. I just wouldn’t have did that. You just don’t.This has been a disaster for me. The jobs that I have lost. Me going back to prison [Mason was ordered to return to federal prison for 10 months for being convicted of a crime while on supervised release], leaving my kids. Me fighting to try to maintain everything. It’s been a disaster for me.There have been very significant consequences for you and your family. Can you walk me through what some of those consequences have been?I had to go back to prison. I had three jobs taken away from me. I fought to maintain my house and everything. And I am the provider for my family.You were not a political person in 2016.Not at all.And since then you’ve become political. Can you tell me a little bit about what you’ve been doing and what made you get more politically active?If you go back to my first interviews, you’ll hear me say ‘I’ll never vote again. I’ll never vote again.’ And that was it. And I realized that’s exactly what they wanted me to do. That’s exactly what they wanted me to say.I realized that no, I have to let everybody know that what I had done was an innocent mistake. And I am being prosecuted for an innocent mistake and that is not right. And then I had to let everybody know how important it is to go vote. Because the people that did this to me – the judge, the DA, the prosecutor – they’re all elected officials. So this is the reason why it’s so important that we get out and vote.And what has your group, Crystal Mason ‘The Fight’, been focused on? Has it been teaching people about their rights eligibility? Encouraging them to vote? All of the above?All of the above. Educating them on the different types of ballot. We’re getting ready to do a town hall. And that’s where we’re asking different candidates running for different positions to come to my venue and speak to the community. And let us know: who you are and what do you plan on doing if you get the seat you’re running for.I’ve traveled across the country, and almost everywhere I go, people have heard of that woman in Texas who was sentenced to five years in prison for trying to vote. I’m curious why you think your case has resonated so much and caused so much outrage?I think the people see the wrongness. The people that’s in the court system, the people that’s in a position to do something about it has turned a blind eye on it. I feel that people who hear the story and just really see, they know that I did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong. Nothing at all.I filled out a provisional ballot. I’m being sentenced for illegally voting and I never voted. I mean that’s wrong right there.There are some people who have said your case is an example of intimidation. Sending a message to Black people, and people who have felony convictions in their past, that you better be really sure you can vote before you try. Do you see it as intimidation? Have you heard from other people who are not going to vote because they heard about what’s happened to you?I have heard that. That’s because people are scared. They’re listening to me, and I tell them ‘yep, I’m right here but I’m fighting and it’s very wrong.’ But people don’t want to take a chance.And yes, I do feel like my case is sending a message to the Black and the brown [people]: ‘If you dare come to the polls, this could happen to you’. So yes, I do feel like it’s sending a message. It is a scare tactic. And that’s not right, that’s not right at all. So that’s the reason I’m out here speaking to people and telling people how important it is to vote.And actually you voted in the primary, a couple months ago [Mason’s supervised release expired last year, allowing her to vote in Texas]. What was that like for you to go back to the voting booth and cast a ballot when you were eligible?It was very exciting. I was with my family, and the things that I didn’t know [before], I knew. So once I finished up with my ballot, I automatically went to go help my mother. And of course I got stopped and they said, ‘Oh no, you can’t.’I told her … I can help her. I had to fill out a form, and they notarized it and everything. I turned around and I went to help my mom and I helped my niece. So I felt real good about being knowledgable about being able to help them through that ballot.Is there anything you hope people take away from your case? What do you hope people will learn from your case and take away from it.The importance of voting. Everybody that has something to do with my case are elected officials.TopicsUS newsFight to voteTexasUS politicsUS voting rightsfeaturesReuse this content More