US Politics

Bannon’s escape plan: how the Trump strategist is trying to dodge prisonBannon is advancing a high-stakes defense as he battles a case that could mean up to a year in federal prison and thousands of dollars in fines if convicted As the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack was negotiating with Donald Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon to cooperate with its inquiry, the panel affirmed one of their rules: no third-party lawyers could attend witness depositions.That meant when Bannon’s then-attorney asked whether a lawyer for Trump could be present for the closed-door interview to decide what issues were covered by the former president’s invocation of executive privilege, the select committee flatly refused.‘Morally bankrupt’: outrage after pro-Israel group backs insurrectionist RepublicansRead moreNow, that refusal appears set to feature as one of Bannon’s central arguments to defend against his contempt of Congress indictment that came after he entirely skipped his deposition last October and refused to produce documents as required by his subpoena.The former Trump aide is advancing a high-stakes – and arcane-sounding – defense as he battles the justice department (DoJ) in a case that could mean up to a year in federal prison and thousands of dollars in fines if convicted – but potentially defang congressional power should he prevail.The all-or-nothing nature of the defense is characteristic of Bannon, a fierce defender and confidante of the former president even after he departed the White House seven months into the Trump administration after a turbulent tenure as his chief strategist.It was precisely because of his contacts with Trump in the days before January 6 that the select committee made Bannon one of the panel’s first subpoena targets as it seeks to uncover whether Trump oversaw a criminal conspiracy that culminated in the Capitol attack.The crux of Bannon’s argument is that he could reasonably believe the subpoena was invalid when the select committee refused to allow a Trump lawyer to attend the deposition, after the former president asserted executive privilege over the materials covered by the subpoena.The argument rests on a 2019 justice department office of legal counsel opinion (OLC) that says congressional subpoenas that prevent executive branch counsel from accompanying executive branch employees to depositions are “legally invalid” and not enforceable.Bannon’s attorneys say the doctrine at issue is protecting the president’s constitutional authority to limit the disclosure of privileged information, which typically involves discussions with close presidential aides who need to be able to offer candid advice. In that sense, the principle extends to Bannon, they argue: the supreme court decided in Nixon v GSA 1977 that former presidents could “assert” executive privilege, while a 2007 OLC opinion found executive privilege could cover discussions with private, non-executive branch employee advisers.And since the select committee issued only one subpoena for both documents and testimony, when the subpoena was invalidated by the panel’s refusal to allow a Trump lawyer to attend, Bannon’s attorneys contend the document request element of the subpoena also became void.“We don’t read OLC opinions in isolation,” David Schoen, one of three attorneys defending Bannon in this case – the others are Evan Corcoran and Bob Costello – told the Guardian in a text message. “They build on each other.”The justice department does not think the OLC opinions protect Bannon, in part because he was not an executive branch employee at the time of January 6, and the select committee contends Trump did not formally assert executive privilege over subpoenaed materials.The assistant US attorney Amanda Vaughn also indicated in recent court filings that Bannon’s argument – that the subpoena was invalid because House deposition rules excluded third-party lawyers – was in bad faith since his then-attorney, Bob Costello, never raised it as an issue at the time.“Costello inquired – but said that he did not need an immediate answer – whether there was a way for a lawyer for President Trump to appear at the defendant’s deposition,” Vaughn said in the justice department’s response to Bannon.But Bannon won an initial victory on the dispute last week after the judge in the case ordered the justice department to turn over OLC “writings” about its position on prosecuting current or former US officials claiming immunity from congressional subpoena over executive privilege.US district judge Carl Nichols granted the request by Bannon’s attorneys, who suggest Costello was relying on the OLC opinions to current and former White House aides when he advised Bannon not to appear for his deposition since the select committee subpoena was invalid.A spokesman for the select committee and a spokesman for the US attorney for the District of Columbia declined to comment.The defense that Bannon is advancing – using broad readings of parts of the justice department’s own positions and amalgamating them into a wider argument – is controversial, but it underscores the complexities facing the justice department in pursuing the case.“Bannon’s trying to use the OLC opinions as a shield that doesn’t quite cover him, but gives him enough of a defense to fend off the DoJ’s necessity of proving criminal intent,” said Jonathan Shaub, a law professor at the University of Kentucky and a former OLC attorney-adviser.To establish criminal contempt of Congress, the justice department has to prove Bannon’s subpoena defiance was “willful” – which Bannon’s attorneys say should be interpreted as meaning whether the former Trump aide knew his conduct was unlawful or wrong.The combined force of Bannon’s arguments, his attorneys say, demonstrate that he did not know his defiance was unlawful, and shifts the burden onto the justice department to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bannon did not believe the privilege claims were valid.The former Trump aide is also coupling the argument that the subpoena was invalid with the defenses that he relied on the advice of counsel when he defied the subpoena, and that he cannot be prosecuted because OLC opinions – considered binding on the justice department – forbid it.Bannon’s attorneys say the former Trump aide ignored his subpoena entirely on the advice of Costello, who relied on the OLC opinions about immunity for former presidential aides and was the only point of contact with the select committee during negotiations about his cooperation.It is far from clear whether Bannon will prevail.In a hearing last week, Nichols cast doubt on the advice of counsel argument, noting that the relevant case law, Licavoli v United States 1961, holds that relying on legal advice to defy a subpoena is no defense.The justice department argued in their brief that the interpretation of “willful” should in fact remain the standard established by the Licavoli court: “a deliberate and intentional failure to appear or produce records as required” by a congressional subpoena.But Bannon’s lawyers have noted that the Licavoli case did not involve executive privilege and therefore does not apply to Bannon, not least because the justice department has itself maintained that executive privilege cases are unique because of the constitutional implications.“He’s reaching for all the straws that he can,” Shaub said of Bannon. “It may succeed or it may not. But if Nichols rules against him, he’s certainly going to take it to the DC circuit or even up to the supreme court. He’s definitely playing a longer game here.”TopicsSteve BannonDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

To hear the full episode, be sure to search for and subscribe to Politics Weekly America wherever you get your podcasts.
Florida’s governor seems to relish addressing whatever culture war is raging. He might have learned a thing or two from his former backer, Donald Trump. If the polls are right, the two might end up fighting against each other in the Republican primaries for the 2024 presidential election. So who is DeSantis, and what are his chances?
Jonathan Freedland speaks to Ana Ceballos of the Miami Herald and Peter Schorsch of Florida Politics to learn more about him.

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

Subscribe to Politics Weekly America on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts Let us know what you think of the episode at [email protected] Take part in The Guardian’s podcast survey More

Florida’s governor seems to relish addressing whatever culture war is raging. He might have learned a thing or two from his former backer, Donald Trump. If the polls are right, the two might end up fighting against each other in the Republican primaries for the 2024 presidential election. So who is DeSantis, and what are his chances?
Jonathan Freedland speaks to Ana Ceballos of the Miami Herald and Peter Schorsch of Florida Politics to learn more about him.

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

Archive: CNN, NBC, Fox News Take part in the Guardian’s podcast survey Listen to Politics Weekly UK with John Harris Send your questions and feedback to [email protected]. Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts. More

Californians could see fuel price relief in the form of government rebatesThe governor has proposed giving drivers in the state $400 debit cards and giving transit agencies $750m to cover bus or train fares California residents could get free public transit rides and gas rebates under a proposal from the governor to help bring relief as fuel prices in the state reach record highs.Gavin Newsom’s plan is the latest floated by officials in California, where drivers are paying more for fuel than anywhere else in the country.US gas prices have started to slowly fall after reaching record levels in recent weeks, surging in part because of pandemic-induced inflation and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But prices in the Golden State have continued to trend upward, and California drivers are now paying an average of $5.88 a gallon, according to AAA.‘It’s not worth it’: rising gas prices force drivers to work for less than minimum wageRead moreHere’s what we know about the governor’s proposal:What is Newsom’s plan?The Democratic governor has proposed giving all drivers in the state $400 debit cards for up to two vehicles, amounting to a total of $800. Anyone who has a car registered in California would receive the money, regardless of income, immigration status or whether or not their vehicles use gasoline.Newsom wants to give $750m to transit and rail agencies to cover bus or train fare for Californians who do not own cars. That funding would would cover the costs for free rides for 3 million people a day for three months, the governor said.The plan also includes $1.1bn to pause scheduled inflationary increases for diesel and fuel taxes this summer, and $500m for projects that promote biking and walking.Why is Newsom doing this?California’s gas prices are consistently the highest in the nation. On Wednesday, the state’s average gas prices hit a new record at $5.88 a gallon, more than $2 higher than it was a year ago, according to AAA.The high fuel costs are hitting residents hard, particularly gig workers for whom fuel makes up a large part of their daily costs.Giving money directly to taxpayers would provide relief and allow Newsom to avoid suspending the state’s gas tax as other states have done. California’s gas tax is the second-highest in the US at 51 cents a gallon, but Democratic leaders have been wary of pausing it as they fear oil companies would not pass the savings along to drivers.What are the criticisms?Republican lawmakers in the state have urged Newsom to suspend California’s gas tax in order to provide immediate relief to drivers. Newsom’s proposal will take time to deliver – the governor’s office has said people could see rebates by July.“People need relief now,” said James Gallagher, the assembly Republican leader. “We’ve got now, like, four different competing plans amongst the Democrats. These guys are going to negotiate against themselves for weeks to months and who knows what we’re going to get.”Meanwhile, Democrats have concerns about providing assistance to all Californians with registered vehicles, regardless of their income. Democratic leaders have been discussing their own proposal, which would give $200 rebates to every taxpayer and their children with taxable income less than $125,000 for single filers and $250,000 for joint filers.Rising fuel prices pose a policy challenge for Newsom as he tries to wean the state off fossil fuels. He has signed executive orders aimed at banning the sale of new gas-powered cars in the state by 2035 and halting all oil extraction by 2045.Laura Deehan with Environment California, a nonprofit that advocates for an end to fossil fuel use, was critical of Newsom’s effort, and said that giving people money for gas would encourage them to drive more. Instead, the governor should use the $9bn on programs aimed at getting people out of gas-guzzling cars, she said.“Just giving out these rebates to anyone who has a car in the state isn’t going to help us in the long run move away from the volatility that comes with our dependence on fossil fuels,” she said.What happens next?The state legislature, where Democrats dominate both the assembly and the senate, must approve the plan. Newsom’s office said the governor would be willing to negotiate with lawmakers about who can get the money, a process that could take time to sort out.A moderate Democrat who supported a separately proposed plan to give every taxpayer $400 has indicated they would back Newsom’s effort and urged the legislature and governor to act quickly.“The contours of the governor’s proposal are a little different than what we proposed, but I would be very happy to support this,” said Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democratic assembly member from Laguna Beach.What’s happening elsewhere in the US?With prices for fuel and other essentials soaring across the US, states are considering giving rebate checks directly to taxpayers as well as cutting sales taxes, offering property tax relief and reducing or suspending state gas taxes.The proposals come as many states have more funding than usual thanks to billions of dollars in federal pandemic aid and ballooning tax revenue.Janet Mills, Maine’s governor, wants to send $850 to most residents in the state to help with fuel costs and inflation. New Mexico’s governor recently signed off on a tax package that will give some taxpayers $250 checks, which lawmakers say will help with high gas prices.Maryland’s governor has signed a law temporarily suspending the state’s gas tax; Georgia has done the same while also offering $1.1bn in refunds to taxpayers. In Illinois, the governor has proposed halting a 2.2-cent increase in the motor fuel tax, suspending a 1% grocery sales tax for a year and providing a property tax rebate of up to $300.TopicsCaliforniaGasUS politicsexplainersReuse this content More

Biden seeks to reassure Europe as he walks tightrope over Ukraine crisisPresident reiterated his message to Brussels that America is back, while he promises to impose sanctions on 300 members of the Russian parliament He did not shove the prime minister of Montenegro at a photo-op, he did not call the British prime minister and German chancellor “losers” and he did not deride Nato as a bunch of grifters looking for a free lunch.So low was the bar set by former US president Donald Trump that, merely by condemning Russia’s Vladimir Putin rather than gushing over his biceps, Joe Biden earned good will on his unity and resolve tour of Europe.The president came to Brussels on Thursday with promises to accept up to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees fleeing the month-long Russian invasion, give $1bn in new humanitarian aid and impose sanctions on 300 members of the Russian parliament.It was an attempt to project reassurance that Biden, born during the second world war, can emulate President Franklin Roosevelt’s “great arsenal of democracy” without stumbling into a third.US expands Russian sanctions and plans to accept 100,000 Ukrainian refugeesRead moreBut the 79-year-old’s handshakes and whispers with France’s Emmanuel Macron and others at the Nato, G7 and European Council summits may put the seal on the Obama paradox: an American president more popular abroad than at home.Gallup surveys conducted before Russia invaded Ukraine showed the image of US leadership making a significant recovery from the Trump era. “Between 2020 and 2021, American leadership saw double-digit gains in 20 of the 27 Nato members surveyed both years,” the polling firm said.That stands in vivid contrast with Biden’s approval rating within the US, which this week fell to a new low of 40%, according to a Reuters/ Ipsos opinion poll. The survey found that 54% of Americans disapprove of his job performance as the country struggles with high inflation.Biden’s approval rating matched Trump’s at this point in his presidency: both stood at 40% in mid-March in their second year in office. The relief of western allies at having America back at the table is unlikely to be reflected by domestic voters in the midterm elections in November.That is why Republicans are hammering away at Biden by urging him to do more for Ukraine though with few specific details and, more loudly and convincingly to the electorate, by blaming him for soaring gas prices at home. They intend to prove the old adage that all politics is local.The point was illustrated on prime time cable news television on Wednesday night. CNN’s Anderson Cooper opened his show with coverage of the war in Ukraine; Tucker Carlson, on the conservative Fox News channel, talked instead about supreme court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson declining to offer a definition of “woman” during her Senate confirmation hearing.CNN’s Reliable Sources newsletter noted: “As Cooper showed horrifying drone footage of the widespread devastation in Mariupol, Carlson showed his audience a sex-ed type graphic of the female reproductive system.”It observed: “Four weeks after the war commenced, there are signs that fatigue is setting in. TV news ratings, for instance, have started to fall back to reality after ballooning early on. And perhaps another sign is the return of culture idiocy that is once again saturating channels like Fox and social media feeds.”It is a further reminder to be grateful that Trump no longer has his finger on the Twitter button – or the nuclear one. The man who once posed the biggest threat to global democracy has been replaced in that role by Putin. Biden beat one and must now thwart the other.So far that has meant a “Goldilocks” approach – not too hot, not too cold, not too weak, not too provocative. This received a boost on Thursday when Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy delivered a video address to Nato from Kyiv that did not, according to White House officials, include calls for a no-fly zone or Nato membership, giving Biden some breathing room.Still, Zelinskiy naturally urged Nato to stiffen its spine and do more, and it remains unclear how Biden will respond if an increasingly desperate Putin resorts to biological, chemical or even nuclear weapons. Western unity will be tested as the costs of war bite into the global economy.The German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, dismissed calls to follow the US by boycotting Russian energy supplies, warning: “To do so from one day to the next would mean plunging our country and all of Europe into recession.”The president who made a contest between democracy and autocracy the guiding principle of his foreign policy will also be aware that Thursday’s meetings are being watched closely by China, which has sent mixed signals about the invasion and may yet give Putin military support.China’s decisive turning point: will it side with Russia and divide the world?Read moreNato’s determined response, and the underperformance of the bogged down Russian army, may serve as a warning to Chinese president Xi Jinping and scramble his calculus for an assault on Taiwan. Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution thinktank in Palo Alto, California, told reporters this week: “Xi is pissed as hell because it completely changes the timeline and the dynamics of the situation.“The most fascinating dimension of this crisis right now is to watch Xi Jinping be completely tied up in knots over what to do about this. He and the senior Chinese leadership are clearly struggling for a narrative and a response.”Standing against a blue backdrop dotted with Nato logos, Biden addressed the issue of Chinese intervention at a press conference. He recalled that, in a recent call with Xi, he pointed out that many US and foreign corporations have left Russia. “I indicated that he would be putting himself in significant jeopardy. I think that China understands that its economic futures are much more closely tied to the west than it is to Russia. So I’m hopeful that he does not get engaged.”He reiterated his message to Brussels that America is back. But towards the end of the question and answer session, someone raised European concerns that Trump might get re-elected in 2024 – raising the spectre of a return to the uncertainty, insults and Putin-praise singing.The president replied: “One of the things I take some solace from is I don’t think you’ll find any European leader who thinks that I am not up to the job… I don’t criticise anybody for asking that question. But the next election, I’d be very fortunate if I had that same man running against me.”Steeped in foreign policy after decades as a senator and vice-president, Biden is likely to be thinking about geopolitical questions in terms of decades. Unfortunately for him, his political legacy could be decided by Tucker Carlson and viewers’ demand for instant gratification.TopicsNatoJoe BidenUS foreign policyUS politicsVladimir PutinRussiaUkrainefeaturesReuse this content More

It’s the beginning of a new era in Washington – and Putin is responsibleRobert ReichThere has been a quiet understanding that we’re on the brink of a new cold war, potentially even a hot one – which requires that we join together to survive I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest something that would have seemed utter nonsense as late as a month ago: I’m seeing the stirrings in Washington of a new era of … I’m not sure what to call it. “Unity” is way too strong. “Bipartisanship” is premature. “De-partisanship” is too clunky.Putin may ramp up his war in Ukraine – here’s how Nato should respond | Ivo DaalderRead moreBut something new seems to be happening, and Vladimir Putin is responsible.Don’t get me wrong. Democrats and Republicans won’t join hands and sing Kumbaya anytime soon. Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy will continue to ambush Democrats every chance they get. Expect bitter battles over background checks, immigration reform, civil rights protections and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation to the supreme court. Trump won’t stop telling his big lie. Your Fox News-obsessed Uncle Bob will remain in his hermetically sealed alternative universe.Yet ever since the runup to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, I’ve noticed something in Washington that I haven’t seen in three decades – a quiet understanding that we’re on the brink of a new cold war, potentially even a hot one. Which requires that we join together in order to survive.It’s a subtle shift – more of tone than anything else. I saw it when Volodymyr Zelenskiy addressed Congress from Ukraine. When he showed lawmakers a gut-wrenching video of the war’s consequences, many eyes filled with tears. The lawmakers shared, according to Maine’s independent senator Angus King, “a collective holding of breath”. That Republicans and Democrats shared anything – that they were even capable of a collective emotion – is itself remarkable.With bipartisan support, Ukraine is receiving unprecedented military and humanitarian aid to fight Putin’s war, including anti-aircraft systems that many experts say can defend against bombs and missiles from Russia’s land-based weaponry.Beyond Ukraine, you can also discern the shift in a series of recent across-the-aisle agreements. After literally 200 failed attempts, the Senate just passed an anti-lynching law. The Senate has also given sexual misconduct claims firmer legal footing with a new law ending forced arbitration in sexual assault and harassment cases. The Senate also just approved sweeping postal reform. And unanimously decided to keep daylight savings time year-round. And it has given the green light to long-awaited reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act as part of a giant spending bill.I’m hearing from Senate staffers that they’re close to bipartisan agreement to strengthen antitrust laws. Also on a measure to expand semiconductor manufacturing in America, as part of a new China competitiveness bill. And another measure to limit the cost of insulin.OK, none of this is as dramatic as protecting voting rights or controlling prescription drug costs. But compared with the last few years, it’s extraordinary. (You may not have heard much about these initiatives because the media only picks up on bitter conflict and name-calling.)Something new is happening in Washington, and I think I know why.You see, I came to Washington in 1974, in the Ford administration, and then worked in the Carter administration. The cold war was raging during those years, serving as a kind of silent backdrop for everything else. Democrats and Republicans had different views on a host of issues, but we worked together because it was assumed that we had to. We faced a common threat.The cold war had produced an array of bipartisan legislation involving huge investments in America – legislation that was justified by the Soviet threat but in reality had much more to do with the needs of the nation. The National Interstate and Defense Highway Act was designed to “permit quick evacuation of target areas” in case of nuclear attack and get munitions rapidly from city to city. Of course, in subsequent years it proved indispensable to America’s economic growth.America’s huge investment in higher education in the late 1950s was spurred by the Soviets’ Sputnik satellite. The official purpose of the National Defense Education Act, as it was named, was to “insure trained manpower of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the national defense needs of the United States”. But it trained an entire generation of math and science teachers, and expanded access to higher education.The defense department’s Advanced Research Projects Administration served as America’s de facto incubator for new technologies. It was critical to the creation of the internet as well as new materials technologies. John F Kennedy launched the race to the moon in 1962 so that space wouldn’t be “governed by a hostile flag of conquest” (ie, the Soviet Union). But it did much more than this for America.Then, in November 1989, the Berlin Wall came down. And in December 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed.Just three years later, Newt Gingrich became speaker of the House – and instigated the angriest and most divisive chapter in modern American political history. I was there. I remember the change in Washington, as if a storm had swept in. Weeks before, Republican members of Congress occasionally gave me a hard time, but they were generally civil. Suddenly, I was treated as if I were the enemy.Looking back, I can’t help wonder if the cold war had held America together – gave us common purpose, reminded us of our interdependence. With its end, perhaps we had nowhere to turn except on each other. If the cold war had not ended, I doubt Gingrich would have been able to launch a new internal war inside America. Had the Soviet menace remained, I doubt Donald Trump would have been able to take up Gingrich’s mantle of hate and conspiracy.Putin has brought a fractured Nato together. Maybe he’s bringing America back together too. It’s the thinnest of silver linings to the human disaster he’s creating, but perhaps he’ll have the same effect on the US as the old Soviet Union did on America’s sense of who we are.TopicsUS politicsOpinionVladimir PutinUkraineRussiaRepublicansDemocratscommentReuse this content More

US state legislatures threaten citizens’ rights. We ignore them at our perilThe bodies have become the engines of policymaking, behind Georgia’s voting restrictions and Florida’s ‘don’t say gay’ bill Hello, and happy Thursday,Since late last year, I have been intensely focused on the frantic efforts by both major parties to put themselves in the best position to win US House races this fall.State-by-state, lawmakers are undertaking the once-a-decade task of redrawing all 435 districts in the US House. In most states, legislatures are responsible for drawing the new lines, and to no one’s surprise, both parties have jostled to draw as many districts in their favor as possible. While many, including me, expected Republicans to dominate the process, because they have control of more legislatures, Democrats have been boosted as a result of anti-gerrymandering reforms and an aggressive legal strategy.Reading lots of analysis about what’s happening at the congressional level, I started thinking that there was a much more significant redistricting story that was being largely overlooked. As they’ve been drawing congressional districts, state lawmakers have also been redrawing districts for their state legislatures (yes, they are setting the boundaries for the districts they run in).US supreme court blocks new Wisconsin voting maps in boost for RepublicansRead moreThis lack of attention is significant because state legislatures have become the engines of policymaking in the US. Take a second and think about the most controversial pieces of legislation you’ve heard about recently. Maybe it’s the sweeping new voting restrictions in Georgia. The “don’t say gay” bill in Florida. Anti-abortion bills in Texas and Oklahoma. All of these measures were passed in state legislatures, not Congress. With the federal government bogged down in gridlock, state legislatures, where one party often has control, have become the forums to pass legislation on issues such as school funding and public health that directly affect people’s lives.“The gerrymandering of the state legislative maps, it’s actually more important than even the congressional gerrymandering,” David Pepper, a former chairman of the Ohio Democratic party, told me. “We have this repeat cycle where every few weeks an outrage of some state law that passed somewhere and then we all cover the court case. But very rarely do people go back and look at: ‘What’s the cause of all this craziness in states?’”Republicans currently control 62 legislative chambers, while Democrats control 36. There are 23 states where Republicans have complete control over state government, and 14 where Democrats do.While things are slightly better for Democrats than they were a decade ago, control of state legislatures is unlikely to change over the next decade. Just 17.5% of districts are estimated to be competitive, a slight decrease from a decade ago, according to Chris Warshaw, a political science professor at George Washington University.“Most of the plans are pretty uncompetitive and most are biased in favor of one of the two parties. So I don’t think we’re likely to see many state legislatures flip control over the next decade,” he said.Letting Republicans depress the vote is ‘not in the cards’: a US governor on a race that may shape democracyRead morePerhaps no state better embodies the consequences of state legislative gerrymandering than Wisconsin. The Wisconsin state assembly, the legislature’s lower chamber, is widely understood to be one of the most gerrymandered bodies in the US. It’s so distorted that it’s virtually impossible for Republicans to lose a majority in it – even if they got a minority of the vote, they would still be able to hold a majority of the seats.Republicans have used that advantage recently to press a slew of anti-democratic policies, including a partisan review of the 2020 election that made the impossible case for how the lawmakers could “decertify” the results of the 2020 race.Earlier this month, Democrats had hoped they would get a slight boost in the legislative maps. After looking at a range of proposals, the state supreme court picked a new legislative map submitted by Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, saying it best complied with an earlier court order to make as little change as possible to the current maps.But on Wednesday, the US supreme court stepped in and threw out those maps, taking issue with the creation of additional Black-majority district in the Milwaukee area. It sent the case back to the state court for further consideration.“The will of the people is traditionally the law of the land. That is not the case at this point in time,” Tony Evers, Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, told me last week.Also worth watching…
I spoke with Evers about the stakes for his re-election bid and democracy.
Listen to Pamela Moses, the Black Memphis woman sentenced to six years in prison for trying to register to vote, speak about her case.
This redistricting cycle has blunted the political power of voters of color.
Arizona Republicans are advancing a measure that would do away with no-excuse mail-in and early voting, which is widely used in the state.
Ohio Republicans remain engaged in a high-stakes standoff with the state supreme court, which has refused to let GOP lawmakers enact gerrymandered electoral districts.
TopicsUS newsFight to voteUS voting rightsUS politicsRepublicansDemocratsWisconsinfeaturesReuse this content More