More stories

  • in

    Pennsylvania G.O.P.’s Push for More Power Over Judiciary Raises Alarms

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyPennsylvania G.O.P.’s Push for More Power Over Judiciary Raises AlarmsAfter fighting the election results, state Republicans are trying to increase their control of the courts. Outraged Democrats and good government groups see it as a new kind of gerrymandering.The Pennsylvania Capitol building, which houses chambers for the State Supreme Court. Under a Republican proposal, the legislative branch would have more control over the courts. Credit…Hilary Swift for The New York TimesFeb. 15, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETWhen the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously rejected a Republican attempt to overturn the state’s election results in November, Justice David N. Wecht issued his own pointed rebuke, condemning the G.O.P. effort as “futile” and “a dangerous game.”“It is not our role to lend legitimacy to such transparent and untimely efforts to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters,” wrote Justice Wecht, a Democrat who was elected to a 10-year term on the bench in 2016. “Courts should not decide elections when the will of the voters is clear.”Now Pennsylvania Republicans have a plan to make it less likely that judges like Justice Wecht get in their way.G.O.P. legislators, dozens of whom supported overturning the state’s election results to aid former President Donald J. Trump, are moving to change the entire way that judges are selected in Pennsylvania, in a gambit that could tip the scales of the judiciary to favor their party, or at least elect judges more inclined to embrace Republican election challenges.The proposal would replace the current system of statewide elections for judges with judicial districts drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature. Those districts could empower rural, predominantly conservative areas and particularly rewire the State Supreme Court, which has a 5-to-2 Democratic lean.Democrats are now mobilizing to fight the effort, calling it a thinly veiled attempt at creating a new level of gerrymandering — an escalation of the decades-old practice of drawing congressional and state legislative districts to ensure that political power remains in one party’s hands. Democrats are marshaling grass-roots opposition, holding regular town hall events conducted over Zoom, and planning social media campaigns and call-in days to legislators, as well as an enormous voter education campaign. One group, Why Courts Matter Pennsylvania, has cut a two-minute infomercial.Republicans in Pennsylvania have historically used gerrymandering to maintain their majority in the legislature, despite Democratic victories in statewide elections. Republicans have controlled the State House of Representatives since 2011 and the State Senate since 1993.Current schedules for the legislature make it unlikely the Republicans could marshal their majorities in the House and Senate to pass the bill by Wednesday and put the proposal before voters on the ballot in May. Passing the bill after that date would set up a new and lengthy political war for November in this fiercely contested state.Republicans have some history on their side: Pennsylvania voters tend to approve ballot measures.“You should be very suspicious when you see a legislature who has been thwarted by a Supreme Court in its unconstitutional attempts to rig the democratic process then trying to rig the composition of that Supreme Court,” said Wendy Weiser, the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.She added, “It is way too much control for one branch to have over another branch, particularly where one of its charges is to reign in the excesses of the legislative branch.”If the Republican bill becomes law, Pennsylvania would become just the fifth state in the country, after Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and Illinois, to wholly map its judicial system into electoral districts, according to the Brennan Center. And other states may soon join Pennsylvania in trying to remake the courts through redistricting.Republicans in the Texas Legislature, which is also controlled by the G.O.P., recently introduced a bill that would shift districts for the state appellate courts by moving some counties into different districts, causing an uproar among state Democrats who saw the new districts as weakening the voting power of Black and Latino communities in judicial elections and potentially adding to the Republican tilt of the Texas courts.Gilberto Hinojosa, the chair of the Texas Democratic Party, called the bill a “pure power grab meant to keep Blacks and Latinos from having influence on courts as their numbers in the state grow.”These judicial redistricting battles are taking shape as Republican-controlled legislatures across the country explore new restrictions on voting after the 2020 elections. In Georgia, Republicans in the state legislature are seeking a host of new laws that would make voting more difficult, including banning drop boxes and placing sweeping limitations on mail-in voting. Similar bills in Arizona would restrict mail-in voting, including barring the state from sending out mail ballot applications. And in Texas, Republican lawmakers want to limit early voting periods.The nationwide effort by Republicans follows a successful four-year drive by the party’s lawmakers in Washington to reshape the federal judiciary with conservative judges. Led by Senator Mitch McConnell, until recently the majority leader, and Mr. Trump, the Senate confirmed 231 federal judges, as well as three new Supreme Court justices, over the former president’s four-year term, according to data maintained by Russell Wheeler, a research fellow at the Brookings Institution.In a state like Pennsylvania, which has two densely populated Democratic cities and large rural areas, this could give outsize representation to sparsely populated places that lean more conservative, particularly if the legislature resorts to a gerrymandering tactic similar to one used in Pennsylvania in 2011.“Republicans have been good at gerrymandering districts in Pennsylvania, or good in the sense that they’ve been successful,” said State Senator Sharif Street, a Democrat. “I think they would like to remain successful, and they are confident that they can gerrymander judicial districts.”Republicans in the state legislature argue that their proposed move would give different regions of Pennsylvania more representation.Russ Diamond, the Republican state representative who is sponsoring the bill, said in an email that regional representation was necessary for the judiciary “because the same statewide consensus which goes in making law should come to bear when those statutes are heard on appeal, are applied in practical real-life situations, and when precedent is set for the future of the Commonwealth.”State Representative Russ Diamond during a town hall meeting in Llewellyn, Pa. He sponsored the bill to reshape the judiciary, after first introducing a similar one in 2015. Credit…Lindsey Shuey/Republican-Herald, via Associated Press“The overall goal is to include the full diversity of Pennsylvania’s appellate courts,” Mr. Diamond added. “There is no way to completely depoliticize the courts, other than choosing judges via random selection or a lottery system. Every individual holds some political opinion or another.”Geographic diversity, however, rarely equates to racial diversity in the courts. The four states that use judicial districts in state Supreme Court elections — Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi and Kentucky — have never had more than one justice of color on the court at any given time, according to data from the Brennan Center.While eight states use some form of judicial districts to elect judges, Pennsylvania’s proposal remains an outlier on a few key elements. First, a partisan legislature would have the power to redraw the districts every 10 years, whereas those elsewhere remain for longer or are based on statute. Additionally, the judicial districts in Pennsylvania would not be bound by or based on any existing legislative or congressional districts, created from scratch by the Republican-controlled legislature.The move has caught the attention of national Democratic groups that are at the forefront of redistricting battles across the country.“A decade ago, Pennsylvania Republicans gerrymandered themselves into majorities in the legislature and congressional delegation,” said Eric H. Holder Jr., the former United States attorney general and current chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. “Now that their grip on power has been forcibly loosened by the courts, they want to create and then manipulate judicial districts in a blatant attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary and stack the courts with their conservative allies.”Because the bill has already passed the House once, in 2020, it needs only to pass both chambers of the state legislature again to make it on the ballot.Further stoking Democrats’ fears: The bill does not need the signature of Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat. Since it would be an amendment to the Constitution, it would head to the ballot as a referendum question to be voted on in the next election (if the bill passes before Wednesday, it would go to voters during the May primary). Historically, Pennsylvania voters have voted more in favor of ballot measures than against them, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures.Good government groups have teamed up with Democrats to mount a huge voter education campaign, anticipating that the judicial question may soon be on the ballot. Progressive groups including the Judicial Independent Project of PA, a new coalition that includes the voting rights group Common Cause, have been holding digital town halls about the judicial redistricting proposal, with attendance regularly topping 100 people.On a Thursday evening late last month, more than 160 people logged into Zoom to hear from coalition leaders about the bill and to hatch plans to further mobilize against it. Rebecca Litt, a senior organizer from a local Indivisible group, proposed a call-your-legislator day. Ricardo Almodovar, an organizing director with We the People PA, another progressive group, noted the graphics and other social media campaigns already underway to help educate voters.“We’re also trying to humanize the courts,” Mr. Almodovar explained during a smaller session with southeastern Pennsylvania residents, sharing stories of how specific court decisions “impact our lives.”Throughout the full, hourlong meeting, organizers repeatedly sought to make the stakes very clear.“We are in the last legislative session of this,” said Alexa Grant, a program advocate with Common Cause. “So we are the last line of defense.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    New York Republican Claudia Tenney Wins Final House Seat

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyLast Undecided House Race Finally Goes to Republican, by 109 VotesClaudia Tenney, a Republican from Central New York, regained a seat she lost in 2018 after a judge ruled that her 109-vote victory was legitimate.The ruling will allow Claudia Tenney to return to Washington, where she established herself as a close ally of President Donald J. Trump, but also alienated some voters with her divisive stances and rhetoric.Credit…Heather Ainsworth for The New York TimesFeb. 5, 2021, 7:42 p.m. ETThe nation’s last undecided House race came to an apparent resolution on Friday when a judge ruled that Claudia Tenney, a former Republican congresswoman in Central New York, be certified the winner, three months after Election Day.Ms. Tenney held a mere 109-vote lead over her opponent, Anthony Brindisi, a moderate Democrat who was seeking re-election in New York’s 22nd Congressional District, following months of litigation and a series of twists and turns over how hundreds of contested ballots should be counted.The ruling will allow Ms. Tenney to return to Washington, where she established herself as a close ally of President Donald J. Trump, but also alienated some voters with her divisive stances and rhetoric.“I’m honored to have won this race,” Ms. Tenney said in a statement. “It was a hard-fought campaign and I thank Anthony Brindisi for his service. Now that every legal vote has been counted, it’s time for the results to be certified.”Since the courts intervened late last year, the contest has been defined by ever-changing, razor-thin margins and a convoluted judicial process that exposed egregious flaws in the way election officials handled and counted ballots. For weeks, a judge was tasked with deciding the fate of more than 1,000 ballots challenged by both campaigns, leaving the seat empty when the new Congress was seated in January.Even so, the saga may not be over: The Brindisi campaign has argued that several hundred ballots that were rejected should have been counted and it has signaled that it could appeal the election results. Mr. Brindisi could also seek recourse in the House of Representatives, which has the power to order a new election or recount in the race, and potentially unseat Ms. Tenney.“I am shocked and surprised by this decision because of the countless errors and discrepancies that have occurred throughout this initial count,” Mr. Brindisi said in a statement. “I believe a full audit and hand recount is the only way to resolve this race. With the margin so thin, the ever-changing tally, and the countless errors that have occurred arriving at today’s final number we can’t afford to wonder here. We have to get it right.”The election in the 22nd District, which stretches from the southeastern shores of Lake Ontario to the northern Pennsylvania border, was a rematch between the candidates and one of the most expensive contests in the nation.Ms. Tenney was vying to reclaim her seat from Mr. Brindisi, who upset her in 2018, when he won by fewer than 4,500 votes in a district where Republicans outnumber Democrats. When the polls closed on Nov. 3, Ms. Tenney had a seemingly insurmountable 28,422-vote lead based on the in-person vote. But as tens of thousands of mail-in ballots poured in, her lead dwindled to 12 votes.That lead expanded and contracted, swinging in favor of one candidate or the other at various points, as the state judge overseeing the case waded through weeks of arguments from the campaigns over how different challenged ballots should be counted.That’s when the mishaps and errors began to emerge, threatening the legitimacy of the results and forcing an increasingly exasperated judge to order county boards of elections to revise their tallies and fix certain errors.In one case, county officials discovered a batch of dozens of uncounted ballots weeks after the election. In another instance, it was revealed that officials in Oneida County did not process the applications of more than 2,400 voters, making them ineligible to vote on Election Day. Then there was the “StickyGate” scandal, in which election officials could not determine whether a batch of disputed ballots had been counted because of Post-it notes that had mysteriously fallen off the ballots.Indeed, Justice Scott J. DelConte of the New York State Supreme Court wrote in his ruling on Friday that the “record in this election reflects that both candidates suffered the effects of systemic violations of state and federal election laws.”But he asserted that “every single valid vote that was cast in New York’s 22nd Congressional District has been accounted for, and counted.”The final tally, Justice DelConte said, showed Ms. Tenney had received 156,098 votes to Mr. Brindisi’s 155,989 votes.Justice DelConte said he did not have the authority to order a recount, arguing that the House of Representatives held ultimate authority over the seat and that Mr. Brindisi could seek to challenge the results in the House, where Democrats hold a majority.A new state law in New York that requires recounts in races where the margin is 0.5 percent or less went into effect this year, but it does not apply to the race in the 22nd District because the election was conducted last year.Even so, Mr. Brindisi’s lawyers have argued against certifying the results until his pending appeals were resolved and they sought a recount, noting the margin in the race was below the 0.5 percent threshold.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

  • in

    Lillian Blancas, Candidate for a Texas Judgeship, Dies of Covid-19

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyLillian Blancas, Candidate for a Texas Judgeship, Dies of Covid-19Ms. Blancas, a widely respected lawyer, died six days before a runoff election in El Paso but remained on the ballot and was expected to win. She was 47.Lillian E. Blancas’s plan was to work as a prosecutor, public defender and private lawyer before winning a judgeship. Credit…via Blancas familyDec. 10, 2020, 3:33 p.m. ETThis obituary is part of a series about people who have died in the coronavirus pandemic. Read about others here.Lillian E. Blancas, a widely respected lawyer in El Paso, always wanted to be a judge. She was expected to achieve her goal on Saturday in a runoff election, in which she was the favorite.Ms. Blancas died at a hospital in the city on Monday. She was 47. The cause was Covid-19, her brother Moises Blancas said.Ms. Blancas, was an assistant district attorney and public defender for nearly a decade before she opened her own law firm in 2019, came in first in a field of three on Nov. 3 in the race for an open seat in El Paso’s municipal court. Because she did not win a majority of the votes, the race went to an automatic runoff.Her death came too late to remove her name from the ballot. If she wins, the City Council would appoint a replacement.Ms. Blancas was known as much for her tireless work on the part of indigent defendants as she was for her wit and charm, inside and outside the courtroom.Among her many friends, who called her Lila, was her opponent in the runoff, Enrique A. Holguin, who met her in 2013 when he joined the district attorney’s office. She helped mentor him, and later took care of his dog when he went on trips.“She was a straight shooter, very professional, but always polite,” Mr. Holguin said. “When we were on opposite sides of a case, we never locked horns.”Lillian Elena Blancas was born in El Paso on May 2, 1973 to Victor Blancas and Maria Elena (Montelongo) Blancas, immigrants from Mexico who met while working at a meatpacking plant in El Paso. Her father later became a plumber, while her mother stayed at home to raise the children.In addition to her brother Moises, she is survived by her mother, another brother, Victor, and a sister, Gabby. Her father died in 2014.Neither of her parents went to college, and it was important to them that their children received a good education. All four siblings graduated from college; Lillian received a degree in political science from the University of Texas at El Paso in 2002.Rather than go directly to law school, she spent several years teaching middle school science in El Paso. “The kids just flocked to her, because she had this no-holds-barred personality,” said Christina Klaes, a fellow teacher and friend.Ms. Blancas left teaching in 2006 and graduated three years later from the Texas Tech University School of Law. She quickly joined the El Paso district attorney’s office. It was part of her plan: gain experience as a prosecutor, switch to being a public defender, hang out her own shingle and run for a judicial seat.As a public defender, she handled capital murder cases, and defended poor, often very young clients, said Heather Hall, a lawyer in the public defender’s office. In her spare time, Ms. Blancas mentored lawyers who wanted to work with clients who were indigent or had mental-health issues.“Lila had this silver tongue as a lawyer,” said Amanda Enriquez, a lawyer and friend, “but she was full of empathy and compassion.”Ms. Blancas tested positive for Covid on Halloween; three days later, she won 40 percent of the vote in the election, sending her and Mr. Holguin to a runoff. The disease kept her from actively campaigning. She entered the hospital twice before being sent to intensive care, where she died.El Paso County has been hit hard by the pandemic, recording 10,813 total cases per 100,000 residents as of Wednesday, more than twice the statewide rate, while the city’s intensive care units were running at 97 percent capacity.After the election, Mr. Holguin, her opponent, texted her his congratulations. “You’re going to have a head start, because I have Covid,” Mr. Holguin said she responded.“I was ready to lose this election,” he said, “but I wasn’t ready to lose a friend.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More