Constitutions

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares170 Views

    Mexico Passes Bill Barring Legal Challenges to Constitutional Changes

    by

    The bill has drawn criticism from legal scholars who say it would bulldoze any judicial oversight of constitutional matters. Mexico’s lower house of Congress approved sweeping new measures on Wednesday that would prevent legal challenges to constitutional amendments, allowing lawmakers to reshape the country’s charter without any judicial review — even from the Supreme Court.The bill, which was already passed by the Senate last week, has drawn criticism from legal scholars and human rights experts, who say it would bulldoze any judicial oversight of constitutional matters and hand the ruling Morena party seemingly unchecked power to pass profound changes to the laws governing the nation.Most state legislatures are expected to approve the measure in the coming days, paving the way for the president to sign it into law.The move comes at a tense moment for Mexico, in which the major branches of government barreling toward open conflict over the fundamental makeup of the judicial system and the role it should play in the country’s democracy.“This reform, if it passes, does place us in a context of an exercise of unlimited power,” said Guadalupe Salmorán Villar, a researcher on global rule of law and constitutional democracy based in Mexico City. “It’s an overt attempt by the federal government, with the support of the large congressional majority of Morena and its allies, to politically subjugate the judiciary.”Olga Sánchez Cordero, a Morena lawmaker, said that while the initiative would bar courts from weighing in on the content of constitutional amendments, it would not prohibit challenges on procedural grounds. Until now, she said, the Constitution has not been clear on how changes to the charter could be revised, but now there would be “a clear, explicit, unequivocal mechanism” for evaluating them.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares117 Views

      in Elections

      Mega-Donors Pour $8 Million Into Late Push Against N.Y. Abortion Measure

      by

      A late-stage effort to defeat a New York State ballot measure that would enshrine a right to abortion into the State Constitution has been bolstered by $8 million in donations from a handful of conservative donors.The Vote No on Prop 1 political action committee received $6.5 million from Dick Uihlein, a scion of one of the founders of Schlitz beer and the founder of the shipping company Uline. Along with his wife, Mr. Uihlein has given generously to former President Donald J. Trump, as well as to groups opposed to gay and transgender rights. Last year, Mr. Uihlein spent $4 million to defeat Ohio’s abortion amendment, providing the bulk of the funding against the measure.The committee also received $1 million from Thomas J. Tisch, a financier who was a key supporter of Lee Zeldin’s unsuccessful bid for governor of New York in 2022.The late infusion of cash is expected to amplify opponents’ messaging surrounding the measure, known as the Equal Rights Amendment.Conceived of as a way to safeguard abortion after the fall of Roe v. Wade, the initiative would also expand legal protections to people based on sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability and national origin.Democrats had hoped that the ballot initiative could help boost turnout by energizing voters who care about abortion rights. Public sentiment in New York appeared to be on the ballot’s side: A recent Siena College poll shows that some 69 percent of New Yorkers approve of the amendment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Montana Certifies Signatures for November Abortion Question

      by

      Also on Tuesday, Arizona’s Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a similar ballot measure. That means at least nine states will vote on whether to establish a constitutional right to abortion.Voters in Montana will decide in November whether to enshrine a right to abortion in the state Constitution, joining eight other states with similar citizen-sponsored questions on their ballots.Montana’s secretary of state sent an email late Tuesday to the coalition of abortion rights groups sponsoring the measure, certifying that they had collected enough valid signatures to place it on the ballot. The coalition had submitted more than 117,000 signatures, nearly double the 60,039 required and the most submitted for a ballot measure in Montana history.And in Arizona — which, like Montana, was facing a Thursday deadline to certify its ballots — the state’s Supreme Court rejected an appeal late Tuesday from anti-abortion groups trying to strike a similar measure that the secretary of state there had approved last week. The justices, all appointed by Republicans, said that their decision did not signal support for the measure, only that they did not agree with the technical objection raised by the anti-abortion groups about the language used on ballot petitions.National Democrats and abortion rights groups are pouring money into ballot measures in both states in the hopes that they can drive turnout to help the Democrats running for the Senate, where the party holds a razor-thin majority. In Montana, Senator Jon Tester is perhaps the party’s most endangered incumbent.Abortion remains legal in Montana until viability — the point when a fetus can survive outside the uterus, generally around 24 weeks of pregnancy — because of a 1999 state Supreme Court decision that said the right to privacy in the state Constitution included a right to “procreative autonomy.”Advocates say the measure is necessary to prevent future members of the court, who are elected, from reversing that decision. And the state’s Republican governor, Greg Gianforte, and the Republican-controlled Legislature have repeatedly tried to ban or restrict abortion.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Utah Supreme Court Upholds a Block on a Strict Abortion Ban

      by

      Utah cannot enforce its near-total ban on abortion while a challenge to the law proceeds in the courts, the State Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. The Utah Supreme Court upheld on Thursday a suspension of the state’s near-total ban on abortion, meaning the procedure remains legal while a court challenge to the law proceeds. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, it cleared the way for two Utah laws to come into force: a ban on most abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy, which was passed in 2019 and is currently in effect, and a near-total abortion ban passed in 2020 that would prohibit the procedure at any time during pregnancy, with very limited exceptions, including for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.The near-total abortion ban took effect in 2022, but the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah almost immediately filed a lawsuit in the state seeking to block the ban. The organization argued that the ban violated several provisions in the State Constitution, including those that guarantee a right to determine family composition and a right to gender equality.A trial court issued a preliminary injunction in July 2022 blocking the state from enforcing the near-total ban while the case proceeded. Utah state officials appealed, but the State Supreme Court ruled against them on Thursday and left the injunction in place. Camila Vega, a staff attorney for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and one of the litigators on the case, said after the state’s appeal was filed last August that the organization would “once again make the case that the trigger ban violates the Utah constitution, which protects pregnant Utahns’ ability to make their own medical decisions and their right to determine when and whether to have a family.”In court filings, the state argued that the Utah constitution does not protect a right to abortion, and that the injunction imposed “severe irreparable harm on the State side of the balance, given the profound state and public interest at stake — the preservation of human life, both the mother’s and the unborn child’s.” The state challenged Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s standing to file the lawsuit, and argued that the trial court had abused its discretion and erred in issuing the injunction. The State Supreme Court rejected those arguments on Thursday. Whether abortion up to 18 weeks will remain permanently legal in the state of Utah depends on the outcome of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the near-total ban. The ruling on Thursday did not decide that question; rather, it said that the lower courts were right to let the case proceed and to keep the state from enforcing the ban in the meantime. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Cuáles son los métodos que usan los gobiernos autoritarios para influir en las elecciones?

      by

      Al igual que otros líderes autoritarios de todo el mundo, Maduro ha empleado innumerables tácticas para amañar las elecciones en un intento de obtener legitimidad mientras desvirtúa el proceso democrático.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]El lunes, el presidente Nicolás Maduro fue declarado ganador en la votación presidencial de Venezuela a pesar de las flagrantes irregularidades electorales, lo que ha sumido al país en protestas generalizadas.La votación se produjo después de que millones de venezolanos apoyaran al candidato de la oposición, Edmundo González, quien sustituyó a la popular líder de la oposición, María Corina Machado, a quien el gobierno de Maduro le prohibió postularse. Maduro fue declarado vencedor por la autoridad electoral del país, que no hizo público el recuento completo de votos, lo que alimentó las sospechas sobre la credibilidad de la victoria de Maduro.Machado calificó los resultados de “imposibles” y muchos señalaron a la interferencia del gobierno en los centros de votación.No es la primera vez que se acusa al gobierno de Maduro de presentar resultados electorales falsos. Al igual que otros líderes autoritarios de todo el mundo, Maduro ha empleado innumerables tácticas para amañar las elecciones en un intento de obtener legitimidad desvirtuando el proceso democrático.A continuación, analizamos cinco maneras diferentes en que los gobiernos autoritarios pueden amañar las elecciones.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Alabama’s I.V.F. Shield Law Now Faces a Constitutional Challenge

      by

      The challenge, from two of the families who filed the initial lawsuit, raises the possibility that access to I.V.F. could once again be in jeopardy in the state.Two Alabama families at the center of the wrongful-death lawsuit that led to the temporary suspension of in vitro fertilization procedures in the state have asked a judge to overturn a new law that shields clinics and doctors from civil and criminal liability.Their challenge to the law raises the possibility that access to I.V.F. could once again be placed in jeopardy in Alabama. And it could further inflame tensions across the country over whether to enshrine protections for I.V.F., as influential Christian conservatives look to curb the use of the popular reproductive treatment.Alabama lawmakers quickly pushed through the shield law in early March after the State Supreme Court weighed in on the lawsuit and ruled that frozen embryos could legally be considered children. The families had filed the claim over the accidental destruction of their embryos at a Mobile clinic in 2020.Multiple clinics had shuttered to avoid the threat of legal challenges, adding to the emotional, financial and physical toll of infertility for Alabama families suddenly left in medical limbo.The swift passage of the shield law led clinics to reopen and restart embryo transfers. But the law did not explicitly address the legal question of “fetal personhood” raised by the State Supreme Court opinion, and many in the Republican-dominated Legislature acknowledged they would very likely need a more permanent solution.This week, after the clinic asked for the wrongful-death lawsuit to be dismissed, the families argued that the shield law was a violation of their constitutional rights, including equal protection, due process and the Alabama Constitution’s “guarantees of life, the right to bear children and the right to a remedy for wrongful deaths of such children.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      La izquierda gana a lo grande en México. Los inversores están preocupados

      by

      El peso tuvo su peor semana desde la pandemia. Los inversores temen que el gobierno apruebe “cambios radicales” a la Constitución, considerados como un desmantelamiento de los controles y equilibrios democráticos.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]El conteo final de votos publicado el fin de semana sugiere que el partido político de izquierda que gobierna México y sus aliados obtendrían amplias mayorías en el Congreso, lo que podría permitir a la coalición aprobar cambios radicales en la Constitución.El conteo final de votos publicado el fin de semana sugiere que el partido político de izquierda que gobierna México y sus aliados obtendrían amplias mayorías en el Congreso, lo que podría permitir a la coalición aprobar cambios radicales en la Constitución.El recuento oficial de las elecciones de la semana pasada mostró que el partido, Morena, y sus socios parecían en camino de conseguir una mayoría de dos tercios en la Cámara baja del Congreso.En el Senado, parecía que la coalición no alcanzaría la supermayoría, pero por un pequeño número de escaños, según los analistas, lo que significa que probablemente solo necesitaría el apoyo de unos pocos legisladores de la oposición para modificar la Constitución. Construir esas alianzas “es relativamente fácil” de conseguir, dijo el presidente del partido, Mario Delgado, en una entrevista.“Somos ahora una fuerza dominante”, añadió Delgado, “por decisión de la gente”.La composición final de la legislatura aún no está clara porque una parte de los escaños del Congreso mexicano se designan mediante un sistema de representación proporcional en agosto. Las impugnaciones legales también podrían afectar al reparto de escaños.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en México: los resultados apuntalan el dominio de Morena

      by

      Con los resultados de las votaciones del domingo, el partido Morena puede llevar y aprobar en el Congreso reformas que implican un cambio sistémico.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]La elección de Claudia Sheinbaum como presidenta de México logró el mayor margen de ventaja en décadas y, aunque todavía se estaban contando los votos el lunes, quedó claro que Morena, el partido de izquierda que actualmente gobierna México, y sus aliados podrían estar en condiciones de cambiar el panorama político del país.Parecen estar a punto de conseguir la mayoría necesaria en el Congreso para promulgar propuestas de cambio de la Constitución que han alarmado a la oposición, incluido el avance de una polémica legislación que podría desmantelar controles cruciales del poder presidencial.Sheinbaum, la primera mujer y la primera persona judía que es elegida para la presidencia, venció a su oponente el domingo por una sorprendente diferencia de 30 puntos porcentuales o más, según los primeros resultados. Se esperaba que ella y Morena ganaran, pero su contundente victoria superó las encuestas previas a las elecciones.“Estamos llevándonos carro completo en estas elecciones”, dijo Mario Delgado, líder del partido Morena, en un discurso pronunciado el domingo.Las elecciones sirvieron como referendo sobre los casi seis años de mandato de Andrés Manuel López Obrador, el actual presidente, reflejando que una sólida mayoría del electorado ha respaldado su gestión al frente del país.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Macron Moves to Declare State of Emergency in New Caledonia

      by

      The French authorities have undertaken a “massive” mobilization of security forces since violent protests broke out over a constitutional amendment that changes voting rules in the South Pacific territory.Protesters burned cars and businesses in New Caledonia’s capital after France’s Parliament approved a change to the territory’s voting rules.Delphine Mayeur/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesPresident Emmanuel Macron of France convened a crisis meeting on Wednesday and moved to declare a state of emergency in New Caledonia after deadly riots in the semiautonomous French Pacific territory that has long sought independence.The French authorities have undertaken what they called a “massive” mobilization of security forces since violent protests broke out in New Caledonia this week over a proposed amendment to the French Constitution that would change voting rules in the territory. A vote in France’s Parliament approving the amendment on Tuesday ignited riots overnight that left three people dead.Mr. Macron met Wednesday with his Defense and National Security Council about the situation, according to a statement from his office. It said he had expressed “strong emotion” over the deaths and gratitude to French security forces. It also said he had requested that a state of emergency be declared for the territory at the afternoon cabinet meeting.“All violence is intolerable and will be subject to a relentless response” to ensure that order is restored, the statement said, adding that Mr. Macron had welcomed appeals for calm from officials.France annexed New Caledonia, a smattering of islands with a population of about 270,000, in 1853. The prospect of independence has fueled decades of tensions in the territory.After armed conflict claimed dozens of lives there in the 1980s — an uprising known as “the Events” — the French government promised change. The territory has held three independence referendums since 2018; all have been voted down.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More