Georgia

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      9 Governor’s Races to Watch in 2022

      by

      This November, voters in three dozen states will elect, or re-elect, their chief executive. Even before the candidate matchups are set, the contours of the debate in many of these races are clear. The races for governor are likely to be noisy, with fights over schools, managing the economy, residual Covid debates and race and gender politics.In some of the most competitive races, the outcome has implications far beyond the governor’s mansion. With many Republican voters embracing debunked theories about former President Donald J. Trump’s loss in the 2020 election and pushing for new voting restrictions, governors in battleground states are at the front line in a fight over American democracy, determining how easy it is to vote and even whether election results will be accepted, no matter which party wins.Here are some of the races we’re watching.Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan during a news conference on crime reduction.Nick Hagen for The New York TimesMichiganGov. Gretchen Whitmer is facing voters in this swing state after angering many on the right by imposing strict Covid-19 safety measures and vetoing legislation she says perpetuates falsehoods about the 2020 presidential election results. With Democrats facing a particularly tough climate this year, a crowded field of Republican candidates has gathered to challenge her. James Craig, the former police chief of Detroit, appears to be the early front-runner among a group of 10 Republicans.Gov. Tony Evers of Wisconsin, who is up for re-election in November, vetoed a package of Republican election measures.Andy Manis/Associated PressWisconsinLike Ms. Whitmer in Michigan, Gov. Tony Evers was elected in the Democratic wave of 2018. And also like Ms. Whitmer, he has spent much of his term doing battle with a Republican-led Legislature. Mr. Evers blocked new restrictions on abortion and voting, at times branding himself as a firewall against a conservative agenda.Wisconsin Republicans, already divided over their party’s embrace of election falsehoods, are facing a contentious primary to challenge Mr. Evers. Among the contenders is a former lieutenant governor, Rebecca Kleefisch; Kevin Nicholson, a management consultant and former Marine; Tim Michels, a former candidate for U.S. Senate; and Tim Ranthum, a state lawmaker running on a fringe attempt to “decertify” the 2020 presidential election.Gov. Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania cannot seek a third term.Noah Riffe/Centre Daily Times, via Associated PressPennsylvaniaGov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, is prohibited from seeking a third term because of term limits, and Democrats hope Josh Shapiro, the state attorney general and likely nominee, can hold the seat for them. Mr. Shapiro will face the winner of the nine-person Republican primary, which includes Bill McSwain, a former U.S. attorney whom Trump harshly criticized for not investigating his claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election. State Senators Doug Mastriano and Jake Corman, as well as David White, a former Delaware County Council member, are also running.David Perdue has the Trump endorsement in the Georgia governor’s race.Audra Melton for The New York TimesGeorgiaFormer President Donald J. Trump is trying to use the Georgia governor’s race — and other state contests — to seek revenge for his 2020 loss in the state. He endorsed former Senator David Perdue in an uphill battle against Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican incumbent who resisted Mr. Trump’s pressure to overturn the election results.That divisive primary could hobble the winning Republican as he heads into a general election fight against Stacey Abrams, the likely Democratic nominee, whose narrow loss to Mr. Kemp in 2018 helped propel her to national prominence.Katie Hobbs, Arizona’s secretary of state, began her race for governor with a fund-raising edge.Cassidy Araiza for The New York TimesArizonaTerm limits are creating an open race for governor in a state that has been seized by unfounded claims of election fraud since Mr. Trump’s loss in 2020. Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, started with a sizable fund-raising lead over her two primary opponents, Aaron Lieberman, a former state legislator, and former Mayor Marco López of Nogales, who worked for Customs and Border Protection in the Obama administration.Kari Lake, a former news anchor at a Fox television station in Phoenix, Ariz., who was endorsed by Mr. Trump, has had an edge in the crowded Republican field. Other Republicans include Karrin Taylor Robson, a former member of the Arizona Board of Regents, and Paola Tulliani Zen, a business owner.Gov. Laura Kelly is expected to face a close race this fall.John Hanna/Associated PressKansasGov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, was elected in this reliably red state with less than 50 percent of the vote in 2018. She is headed to another competitive race in November. The likely Republican nominee is Derek Schmidt, the state’s attorney general.Though she angered Republicans by vetoing legislation barring transgender athletes from women’s sports and raising the eligibility requirements for food stamps, Ms. Kelly’s first television ad features Mr. Trump and a bipartisan theme. Mr. Schmidt has been endorsed by Mr. Trump.Gov. J.B. Pritzker at the groundbreaking for the Obama Presidential Center in Chicago.Mustafa Hussain for The New York TimesIllinoisGovernor J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat and billionaire, is up for re-election in this blue state with a history of electing Republican governors. Two billionaires looking to oust him are vying in a competitive, and most likely expensive, Republican primary.That race includes State Senator Darren Bailey, who has the backing of the billionaire Richard Uihlein, and Mayor Richard Irvin of Aurora, who has the financial support of Ken Griffin, the state’s richest resident and a longtime Pritzker rival. The race also includes Jesse Sullivan, a well-funded businessman and first-time candidate.Gov. Greg Abbott has overseen a hard right turn in the Texas government.Joel Martinez/The Monitor, via Associated PressTexasGov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, is running for a third term with a fund-raising advantage over his leading Democratic rival and having overseen a hard right turn in state government. Mr. Abbott has bused migrants from the southwest border to the nation’s capital, blocked mask and vaccine mandates, and pushed for criminal investigations of parents who seek transition care for transgender youths.His rival, Beto O’Rourke, is a former three-term congressman from El Paso, who nearly ousted Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican, in 2018, and ran for president in 2020. His comment that year — “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15” — may have weakened, if not doomed, his chances with voters in gun-friendly Texas.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February in Orlando.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesFloridaGov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, is widely believed to harbor presidential ambitions that are putting him on a crash course with the state’s other ambitious politician, Mr. Trump, whose endorsement helped Mr. DeSantis narrowly win the governor’s office just four years ago.Florida has transformed as Mr. DeSantis has increased and flexed his power to remarkable effect, opposing Covid-19 mandates, outlawing abortions after 15 weeks and restricting school curriculums that led to fights with Disney and the banning of math books. Mr. DeSantis has a fund-raising advantage over his likely Democratic opponent, Representative Charlie Crist, a Democrat and former Republican governor of the state, who is in a crowded primary that includes Nikki Fried, the commissioner of agriculture and consumer services.— More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Georgia Jury to Consider Whether Trump Illegally Interfered in 2020 Election

      by

      The panel will have up to a year to recommend whether the prosecutor should pursue criminal charges against the former president and his allies.ATLANTA — As the criminal investigation of Donald J. Trump by Manhattan prosecutors appears to be stalling out, the separate investigation into whether the former president and his allies illegally interfered with Georgia’s 2020 election results took a significant step forward on Monday, as 23 people were chosen to serve on a special investigative grand jury.The panel will focus exclusively on “whether there were unlawful attempts to disrupt the administration of the 2020 elections here in Georgia,” Judge Robert C.I. McBurney of the Fulton County Superior Court told 200 potential jurors who had been called to a downtown Atlanta courthouse swarming with law enforcement agents.The ability of the special grand jury to subpoena witnesses and documents will help prosecutors, who have encountered resistance from some potential witnesses who have declined to testify voluntarily. The panel will have up to a year to issue a report advising District Attorney Fani T. Willis on whether to pursue criminal charges.Some legal experts have said the inquiry could be perilous for Mr. Trump, who, in a January 2021 phone call, asked Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to put Mr. Trump ahead of his Democratic rival, Joseph R. Biden Jr., in Georgia’s presidential election tally.The seating of the Georgia grand jury comes as a criminal inquiry in Manhattan has come to an apparent standstill. Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, is said to be concerned about the strength of the New York case, which focuses on whether Mr. Trump exaggerated the value of assets in annual financial statements. People close to the investigation have told The New York Times that the inquiry may lose steam if other witnesses do not step up to cooperate.In the Georgia case, a group of legal experts, in an analysis published last year by the Brookings Institution, wrote that the call to Mr. Raffensperger, and other postelection moves by Mr. Trump, put the former president at “substantial risk” of criminal charges in Georgia, including racketeering, election fraud solicitation, intentional interference with performance of election duties and conspiracy to commit election fraud.The investigation is also likely to look at Trump allies who inserted themselves into election administration matters in Georgia, including Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani; Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; and Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s former chief of staff. The investigation is within the purview of the Fulton County district attorney because many of the actions in question took place in or involved phone calls to officials in Fulton County, which includes the State Capitol building in downtown Atlanta and numerous government offices.In addition to the call with Mr. Raffensperger, Mr. Trump has publicly described how he called Gov. Brian Kemp after the election and asked him to call a special election to “get to the bottom” of “a big election-integrity problem in Georgia.” Mr. Trump also called Chris Carr, the state attorney general, asking him not to oppose a lawsuit challenging the election results in Georgia and other states, and Mr. Raffensperger’s chief investigator, asking her to find “dishonesty” in the election.In January 2021, Mr. Trump asked Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to put Mr. Trump ahead in Georgia’s presidential election tally.Audra Melton for The New York TimesThe investigations into such matters were already underway, Judge McBurney said in court on Monday. “But now it’s time for 26 members of our community to participate in that investigation,” he said, referring to the 23 jurors and three alternates.Judge McBurney told potential jurors to announce that they had a potential conflict if they were convinced that a crime had definitely been committed in regard to the 2020 elections — or if they were convinced that no crimes at all had occurred. Roughly 25 said they had such a conflict.The special grand jurors will issue subpoenas, hear testimony and review documents. The meetings will be confidential, and jurors will not be allowed to discuss the proceedings outside of their meetings. But the judge noted that witnesses could speak about the proceedings publicly if they so wished.In January, a majority of the judges in the Fulton County Superior Court system approved Ms. Willis’s request for the special grand jury, allowing it to meet for up to a year beginning May 2. After the panel makes recommendations regarding criminal prosecutions, it will be up to Ms. Willis, a Democrat, to return to a regular grand jury to seek criminal indictments.Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University, said that impaneling the grand jury was a sign that prosecutors had acknowledged the complexity, sensitivity and unique nature of the case. Among other things, Ms. Willis has raised the possibility that Mr. Trump and his allies violated the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO. Like the federal RICO law, which has been used to target the Mafia and other organized crime networks, Georgia’s state racketeering statute is a tool that can be used to go after a broad range of groups that take part in patterns of criminal conduct. Proving that case would require a deep examination of multiple moving parts.Among them, potentially, are a call that Mr. Graham made to Mr. Raffensperger asking whether mail-in votes could be discarded in counties with high rates of questionable ballot signatures; a visit Mr. Meadows made to suburban Atlanta to monitor an election audit there; and postelection appearances that Mr. Giuliani made before state legislative committees in which he asked for an alternative pro-Trump slate of electors to be appointed.“There’s a lot more than just the phone call,” said Mr. Kreis, who added that the case involved areas of the law that were “underdeveloped.”“We don’t have a lot of claims or potential claims that someone violated Georgia law by soliciting election fraud, because you’d have to be pretty crazy to go to the secretary of state’s office to demand a change in vote tabulations,” he said. “These are things so brazen it’s almost beyond belief.”Mr. Trump has other legal challenges to overcome in the wake of his one-term presidency, all of them taking on greater importance given the fact that he appears to be positioning himself to make another presidential run in 2024.The Trump InvestigationsCard 1 of 7Numerous inquiries. More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Will Trump Face a Legal Reckoning in Georgia?

      by

      Over 2,300 text messages to and from Mark Meadows, a former chief of staff for Donald J. Trump, offer stunning real-time details of the efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Not least among the revelations are Mr. Meadows’s repeated overtures to the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, with Mr. Meadows pressing the Georgian to be in communication with the White House.Mr. Trump and Mr. Raffensperger eventually spoke, resulting in Mr. Trump’s now-infamous demand that the secretary “find 11,780 votes” — just one more vote than Joe Biden’s margin of victory in the state.On May 2 we see the latest consequence of those efforts: the opening of a special grand jury by District Attorney Fani Willis in Fulton County, Ga., to gather evidence relating to possible criminal charges against Mr. Trump and others associated with him. As important as congressional investigations are, Ms. Willis’s work may present the most serious prospect of prosecution that Mr. Trump and his enablers are facing.We understand that after Robert Mueller’s investigation and two impeachments, the prospect of Mr. Trump actually facing accountability may be viewed with skepticism. Most recently, he seems to have avoided charges by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg.But Ms. Willis, a Democrat, has a demonstrated record of courage and of conviction. She has taken on — and convicted — a politically powerful group, Atlanta’s teachers, as the lead prosecutor in the city’s teacher cheating scandal.And she is playing with a strong hand in this investigation. The evidentiary record of Mr. Trump’s postelection efforts in Georgia is compelling. It is highlighted by a recording of Mr. Trump’s Jan. 2, 2021, call with Mr. Raffensperger, in which Mr. Trump exhorted Mr. Raffensperger to “find” those votes.The tape also contains threats against the secretary and his staff that had an element of coercion, like Mr. Trump’s warning that failing to identify (nonexistent) fraud would be “a big risk” to Mr. Raffensperger and to his lawyer. The recording is backed by voluminous evidence that Mr. Trump likely knew full well he had lost, including acknowledgment from administration officials like his attorney general, William P. Barr, and an internal Trump campaign memo admitting that many fraud claims were unfounded. As a federal judge noted in finding that Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the election were likely criminal, the former president “likely knew the justification was baseless and therefore that the entire plan was unlawful.”What’s more, Georgia criminal law is some of the most favorable in the country for getting at Mr. Trump’s alleged misconduct. For example, there is a Georgia law on the books expressly forbidding just what Mr. Trump apparently did in Ms. Willis’s jurisdiction: solicitation of election fraud. Under this statute, a person commits criminal solicitation of election fraud when he or she intentionally “solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause” another person to engage in election fraud.The decision to impanel a special grand jury is itself another indicator of the peril Mr. Trump may face. Under Georgia practice, special purpose grand juries are typically used for focused investigation of a matter and have the power to subpoena witnesses. Special grand juries develop expertise in a single case over a sustained period (here up to 12 months), as opposed to regular grand juries, which hear many matters over a shorter period. Unlike regular grand juries, the special grand jury cannot issue an indictment, but any charging recommendations are presented by a district attorney to a regular grand jury, which can then indict based on the special grand jury’s work.The special grand jury will begin issuing subpoenas for some of the 30 or so witnesses who have refused requests for voluntary interviews. Those initial witnesses will then be served and will start appearing in June. Mr. Trump and those closest to him have a history of rushing to court to fight subpoenas, but they are unlikely to be given the opportunity in this first wave. Careful prosecutors usually start with less controversial witnesses, and Ms. Willis is a careful prosecutor. If Mr. Trump or those closest to him are served, that is when subpoenas are most likely to be challenged in court — but that is probably months away.If Mr. Trump is charged, it will set off a legal battle. There are substantial legal defenses that Mr. Trump could attempt. He could argue that he has constitutional immunity from prosecution for his acts while president, that his words were protected by the First Amendment or even that he acted in absolute good faith because he genuinely believed that he had won.The judicial system will ultimately decide if these defenses will work. But soliciting election fraud is not within the scope of official presidential duties protected by immunity, the First Amendment does not protect criminal activity, and a president cannot successfully claim good faith when he was repeatedly told by his own officials that there was no fraud. Still, no one should consider the case a slam-dunk.The case also in no way diminishes the importance of the House of Representatives’ Jan. 6 committee. In fact, the committee will most likely aid the Georgia prosecution while going about the business of its own investigation. (Ms. Willis and the committee have reportedly already been in contact.) For example, litigation with Mr. Meadows disclosed key details of the alleged plot to overturn the Georgia election. An email the committee filed from one of the lawyers helping Mr. Trump, Cleta Mitchell, included a detailed 11-point memo about overturning the election. Operating outside Washington, Ms. Willis might have taken years to obtain that email and other evidence like it.Jury trials, which both of us have tried and supervised, are living events, and success is never assured. But in Georgia, if it reaches that stage, the evidence is strong, the law is favorable, the prosecutor is proven, and the cause — democracy itself — is just.Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at Brookings and the executive chair at the States United Democracy Center, was special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first Trump impeachment and is the author of “Overcoming Trumpery.” Donald Ayer, a former U.S. attorney in the Reagan administration and deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration, is an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law and on the advisory board of States United.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Marjorie Taylor Greene accused of lying in hearing in Capitol attack case

      by

      Marjorie Taylor Greene accused of lying in hearing in Capitol attack caseLawyers for groups challenging Republican say text Greene sent to Meadows, released by House panel, shows she lied in testimony Lawyers for voters seeking to bar the far-right Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene from Congress over her support for the January 6 insurrection have accused her of lying in a hearing in the case.JD Vance’s Senate run is a test of Trump’s influence on the Republican partyRead moreIn a filing Friday, lawyers for groups challenging Greene said a text from the Georgia congresswoman to then White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, released by the House committee investigating January 6, shows she lied in testimony.At the hearing in Atlanta earlier this month, a fractious affair in front of an administrative judge, Greene said she could not recall advocating for Donald Trump to impose martial law after the Capitol attack, as the then president sought to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden.In the text message released this week, Greene told Meadows on 17 January 2021, 11 days after the riot and three days before Biden’s inauguration: “In our private chat with only Members several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call Marshall [sic] law.“I just wanted you to tell him. They stole this election. We all know. They will destroy our country next.”As reported by Bloomberg News, attorneys for Greene’s challengers said: “Greene’s testimony at the hearing that she could not remember discussing martial law with anyone was already dubious.“This text with President Trump’s chief of staff makes her testimony even more incredible because it seems like the kind of message with the kind of recipient that a reasonable person testifying truthfully would remember.”Greene’s lawyer, James Bopp Jr, told Bloomberg: “The text very clearly said she doesn’t know about those things. It couldn’t be clearer.“It’s just another outrageous fabrication that we have been seeing from the other side throughout this case, because they don’t have the law on their side.”The attempt to push Greene off the ballot in the Republican primary is based on section three of the 14th amendment to the US constitution. Ratified in 1868, shortly after the civil war, the amendment bars from office anyone who has taken an oath under the constitution but then engaged in insurrection.A bipartisan Senate committee linked seven deaths to the Capitol attack, which occurred after Trump told supporters to “fight like hell” in service of his lies about electoral fraud.Riot participants have tied Greene to their cause. She has repeated Trump’s lie that the election was stolen but also denied links to rioters and said she was not calling for political violence when she backed Trump’s claims.In the immediate aftermath of the Capitol riot, Greene was one of 147 Republicans in the House and Senate who objected to electoral college results.The groups challenging Greene have challenged other Trump supporters.An effort to exclude Madison Cawthorn, from North Carolina, failed when a judge said an 1872 civil war amnesty law was not merely retroactive. Attempts to eject two Arizonans, Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, were also rejected.The judge in Greene’s case has said he will soon make a recommendation to Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, who will then rule.Raffensperger is a conservative Republican but also the official who blocked Trump’s attempt to overturn his defeat in Georgia. Raffensperger has said that caused him to fear for his safety.Greene appears in This Will Not Pass, a hotly anticipated new book by two New York Times reporters, both in her relation to the January 6 attack and as a thorn in the side of congressional Democrats.“If there was one Republican who had shown she had no business serving in Congress,” Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns write, “Democrats believed it was” Greene.The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, though, “thought it would be pointless to try expelling Greene from the House. Even if an expulsion vote succeeded, the speaker believed Greene would easily win a special election in her district and return.”TopicsGeorgiaUS Capitol attackUS politicsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The fight over voting continues. Here’s the latest.

      by

      The conflict over sweeping new restrictions on voting, largely confined to statehouses and governors’ desks since 2020, is spilling over into the midterm elections.About two dozen states have tightened laws regulating matters like who is eligible to vote by mail, the placement of drop boxes for absentee ballots and identification requirements. Many of the politicians driving the clampdown can be found on the ballot themselves this year.Here are some of the latest developments.In Pennsylvania, the four leading Republican candidates for governor all said during a debate on Wednesday that they supported the repeal of no-excuse absentee voting in that state.In 2020, about 2.6 million people who were adapting to pandemic life voted by mail in Pennsylvania, more than a third of the total ballots cast. But Republicans, smarting over President Donald J. Trump’s election loss to Joseph R. Biden Jr. and promulgating baseless voter fraud claims, have since sought to curtail voting by mail. A state court in January struck down Pennsylvania’s landmark law expanding absentee voting, a ruling that is the subject of a pending appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.Lou Barletta, one of the four on the debate stage and a former congressman, asserted that no-excuse absentee voting was conducive to fraud.“Listen, we know dead people have been voting in Pennsylvania all of our lives,” Mr. Barletta said. “Now they don’t even have to leave the cemetery to vote. They can mail in their ballots.”Several states had already conducted elections primarily through mail-in voting before the pandemic, with there being little meaningful evidence of fraud. They include Colorado and Utah, a state controlled by Republicans.Elsewhere in Pennsylvania, officials in Westmoreland County, which includes the suburbs east of Pittsburgh, voted this week to scale back the number of drop boxes used for absentee ballots to just one. The vote was 2-to-1, with Republicans on the Board of Commissioners saying that the reduction from several drop boxes would save money. The lone Democrat said that the change would make it more difficult for people to send in their ballots.In Arizona, two Trump-endorsed Republican candidates — Kari Lake in the governor’s race and Mark Finchem for secretary of state — sued election officials this month to try to stop the use of electronic voting machines in the midterm elections. Helping to underwrite the lawsuit, along with similar efforts in other states, is Mike Lindell, the MyPillow chief executive.In Nevada, a push by Republicans to scale back universal mail-in voting while introducing a new voter ID requirement ran into a major setback on Monday when two different judges in Carson City invalidated those efforts.In Georgia, Brian Kemp, the Republican governor, signed a bill on Wednesday empowering the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to pursue criminal inquiries into election fraud, an authority solely held by the secretary of state in the past. More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Kemp and Perdue Debate, Looking Back at 2020 and Ahead to Abrams

      by

      Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia and his Republican primary opponent, former Senator David Perdue, bickered over the previous election — and over who would be more likely to defeat Stacey Abrams in November. ATLANTA — Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia and former Senator David Perdue, a former ally who is challenging him in the Republican primary next month, met in an explosive first debate on Sunday night that was marked by a lengthy rehashing of the 2020 election’s outcome and testy attacks each other’s veracity.During the hourlong exchange, the candidates sparred over their conservative bona fides, a handful of policy issues popular on the right and who would ultimately be the stronger candidate against Stacey Abrams in November.Mr. Perdue, who was defeated in a runoff last year by Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, repeatedly echoed former President Donald J. Trump’s baseless claim that the 2020 election had been “stolen and rigged” against the two of them, though multiple ballot recounts confirmed they had lost fair and square. Mr. Perdue, who was endorsed by Mr. Trump to challenge Mr. Kemp in the May 24 primary, assailed Mr. Kemp for refusing to call a special Georgia legislative session to try to overturn the election’s results.Mr. Perdue insisted he would still be a sitting United States senator if Mr. Kemp hadn’t “caved.”But when Mr. Perdue claimed that he had repeatedly asked Mr. Kemp to call such a special session, the governor pushed back forcefully, reminding voters of the many days he and his family had spent on Mr. Perdue’s campaign bus, trying in vain to help him win a second term. “Folks, he never asked me,” Mr. Kemp said. And when Mr. Perdue repeatedly accused the governor of lying, Mr. Kemp challenged him to produce witnesses to back up his claims.Each man portrayed the other unfavorably in light of 2020: Mr. Perdue said Mr. Kemp had betrayed Republican voters by failing to overturn the election, and Mr. Kemp pointed to Mr. Perdue’s loss to Mr. Ossoff as proof that he is too weak to defeat Ms. Abrams, the Democrat who narrowly lost to Mr. Kemp in 2018 and is making a second run for governor this year.Ms. Abrams’s candidacy loomed large over the entire evening, as both men underlined the danger they said she posed to Georgia if she wound up in the governor’s mansion. While Mr. Kemp holds a double-digit lead over Mr. Perdue in several polls, Mr. Perdue sought to remind voters of Mr. Kemp’s 1.4-percentage-point victory margin in 2018.“He barely beat Stacey Abrams in ’18, when I helped him secure President Trump’s endorsement, which he still today doesn’t think helped him at all,” Mr. Perdue said. The slugfest never let up, as a focus on Georgia policy issues in the debate’s second half-hour devolved into a fight over who was more authentically conservative, each candidate seeking to outflank the other from the right on education, public safety and jobs. Mr. Kemp doubled down on his support for a bill that prohibits teaching of “divisive concepts” on race and history, saying that Republicans in the state “passed this piece of legislation to make sure that our kids are not going to be indoctrinated in our schools,” and that curriculums should focus on “the facts, not somebody’s ideology.”But Mr. Perdue accused Mr. Kemp of abrogating his responsibility to protect students, parents and teachers alike. “They need to make sure that the woke mob’s not taking over the schools, and you’ve left them high and dry,” he said, asserting that the Atlanta schools were “teaching kids that voter ID is racist.”Answering a question about Latino voters, Mr. Perdue criticized Mr. Kemp’s record on immigration, recalling a 2018 campaign ad in which Mr. Kemp promised to use his own pickup truck to “round up illegals.” “Governor, what happened? Your pickup break down?” Mr. Perdue asked.Mr. Kemp said that the Covid-19 pandemic had intervened, saying that “picking up” people would only have helped spread infection in the state — and then reminded voters, for the umpteenth time, of Mr. Perdue’s defeat last year.“The fact is, if you hadn’t lost your race to Jon Ossoff, we wouldn’t have lost control of the Senate, and we wouldn’t have the disaster that we have in Washington right now,” Mr. Kemp said.A few clear-cut policy rifts did come into view over Georgia-specific issues.The two took opposite views of a new factory to produce electric trucks that is being built by Rivian Automotive in the state. Mr. Kemp exalted the project for the thousands of jobs it is expected to create, while Mr. Perdue cited an investment by the Democratic megadonor George Soros to dismiss Rivian as a “woke company,” saying that the project would redirect Georgians’ tax dollars into Mr. Soros’s pocket.Mr. Perdue attacked Mr. Kemp from several angles over rising crime in Atlanta, saying the governor had shrunk the size of the Georgia State Patrol and faulting him for failing to get behind an effort by some residents of Atlanta’s wealthy Buckhead neighborhood, alarmed about the surge in violent crime, to secede from the city. He accused the governor of staying out of the fray over the Buckhead secession movement for the sake of the “big company cronies downtown that are his big donors, that are desperate to not let that happen.”Mr. Kemp said he had raised troopers’ salaries, enhanced their training, created a crime suppression unit and deployed more troopers in metro Atlanta. And he pointed to his signing this month of a law allowing Georgians to carry concealed firearms without a permit.That was another way of fighting crime, he said.“The bad people already have the guns,” Mr. Kemp said. “We’re trying to give law-abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves, their family and their property.”Right to the end, both candidates were on message, and the message was largely a dim view of each other.In his closing, Mr. Perdue called Mr. Kemp a “weak governor trying to cover up a bad record.”Mr. Kemp, in his own summation, said Mr. Perdue was attacking his record in office “because he has none of his own, which is why he didn’t win his Senate race.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Marjorie Taylor Greene appears in court over attempt to bar her from Congress

      by

      Marjorie Taylor Greene appears in court over attempt to bar her from CongressEffort, brought by voters and liberal groups, to ban Republican for aiding the Capitol attack comes under the 14th amendment

      US politics – live coverage
      The far-right Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared in court in Georgia on Friday for a hearing in an attempt to bar her from Congress for aiding the insurrection at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021.Republican leader Kevin McCarthy considered urging Trump to quit, audio revealsRead moreA lawyer for Greene, James Bopp, tried to portray her as a “victim” of the Capitol attack, rather than an instigator.Ron Fein, for the challengers, said: “The most powerful witness against Marjorie Taylor Greene’s candidacy … is Marjorie Taylor Greene herself.”Greene, who testified, is set to appear on the Republican ballot for Georgia’s 24 May primary and has been endorsed by Donald Trump.The administrative judge overseeing the hearing will present his findings to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, who will then determine whether Greene is qualified.Raffensperger, a Republican, stood up to Trump when the then president tried to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory in Georgia. Raffensperger has said that as a result, he feared for his family’s safety.In a statement on Thursday, Trump incorrectly blamed Raffensperger and the Georgia governor, Brian Kemp, for allowing the challenge against Greene, saying she was “going through hell in their attempt to unseat her”.The effort to bar Greene from re-election was brought by a coalition of voters and liberal groups and comes under the 14th amendment to the US constitution.Passed after the civil war, the amendment was written to prevent anyone sitting in Congress if they have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort to the enemies” of the constitution.On Friday, some in the room in Atlanta cheered and applauded as Greene took her seat – prompting the judge to later say such behaviour would not be tolerated. Matt Gaetz of Florida, another far-right Republican and Trump supporter, was in the room. He tweeted: “I’m here in Atlanta to support ⁦[Greene] against the assault on democracy that is this effort to remove her from the ballot.”As the hearing began, Greene tweeted: “Only the People have the right to choose who they send to Congress.”Supporters of Trump attacked Congress on 6 January 2021 in an attempt to stop certification of his defeat by Biden, in service of Trump’s lies about electoral fraud.A bipartisan Senate committee connected seven deaths to the riot. More than 100 officers were hurt. About 800 people, including members of far-right and militia groups, have been charged, some with seditious conspiracy. Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection but acquitted. A House investigation continues.Organisers of events on January 6 have said Greene communicated with them. Greene has denied it and said she does not encourage violence. In October, however, she told a podcast hosted by Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist: “January 6 was just a riot at the Capitol and if you think about what our Declaration of Independence says, it says to overthrow tyrants.”After the riot, Greene was one of 147 Republicans in Congress who objected to results in battleground states.An effort to use the 14th amendment against Madison Cawthorn, a Trump ally from North Carolina, was unsuccessful, after a judge ruled an 1872 civil war amnesty law was not merely retroactive. In Greene’s case, a federal judge said the 1872 law did not apply.In Atlanta on Friday, Bopp said the challengers were making a very serious charge.“They want to deny the right to vote to the thousands of people living in the 14th district of Georgia by removing Greene from the ballot,” he said, adding that Greene “did not engage in the attack on the Capitol”.Greene met Trump about objections to state results because of concerns about voter fraud, Bopp said. At the time of the riot, he said, she was at the Capitol urging people via social media to be safe and remain calm.“Representative Greene was a victim of this attack,” Bopp said, adding that she believed her life could be in danger.The challenge opened with questioning of a historian about the 14th amendment and uprisings including the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, which was quashed by George Washington.Ron Fein, a lawyer for the voters who filed the challenge, said Greene took an oath but broke it by engaging in an insurrection. Unlike past insurrections, Fein said: “The leaders of this insurrection were among us, on Facebook, on Twitter, on corners of social media that would make your stomach hurt.”Although Greene was not on the steps of the Capitol, she played an important role in stoking Republican fury, Fein said. The day before the insurrection, Greene posted: “It’s our 1776 moment!” on the conservative-friendly Parler platform.“The most powerful witness against Marjorie Taylor Greene’s candidacy … the most powerful witness in establishing that she crossed the line into engagement in insurrection is Marjorie Taylor Greene herself,” Fein said.Bopp raised frequent objections. When Greene took the stand, the lawyer Andrew Celli became frustrated when she did not directly answer or said he was speculating.Celli asked the court “to acknowledge that this is an adverse witness” and said: “Ms Greene, I’m just asking questions.”“I’m just answering,” Greene said.Celli asked Greene about posts on social media and other statements. Greene repeatedly said she did not recall them.Whenever Celli suggested Greene endorsed the use of violence to interrupt the certification of the electoral votes, Greene said she did not support violence and was encouraging peaceful protest.Celli played a clip of an interview the day before the riot in which Greene referred to “our 1776 moment”. Asked if she was aware some Trump supporters saw that as a call to violence, Greene said that was not her intention and she was talking about plans to object to electoral votes.“I was talking about the courage to object,” she said.The Associated Press contributed reportingTopicsUS politicsUS Capitol attackRepublicansGeorgianewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Only the Feds Can Disqualify Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene

      by

      The events of Jan. 6, 2021, are casting a long shadow over the midterm elections. Voters in North Carolina are seeking to bar Representative Madison Cawthorn from running for re-election to his House seat, and those in Georgia are trying to do the same to Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene.These voters have filed complaints with state elections officials arguing that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies members of Congress who engage in insurrection from appearing on the congressional ballot. (Challenges to other elected officials have also begun involving other candidates.)But these challenges face an intractable problem: Only the federal government — not the states — can disqualify insurrectionists from congressional ballots. States cannot unilaterally create procedures, unless authorized by federal statute, to keep accused insurrectionists off the congressional ballot.If these members of Congress engaged in insurrection, then the U.S. House of Representatives may exclude them, or federal prosecutors may charge them with the federal crime of insurrection. But in light of an important 1869 judicial decision, the cases against Mr. Cawthorn and Ms. Greene — which are currently mired in both state and federal proceedings — cannot remove the candidates from the congressional ballot.The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War. Section 3 disqualified many former Confederates from holding certain public offices if they had taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution but subsequently, as Section 3 declares, “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” Since 1868, the federal judiciary has had few occasions to interpret Section 3. As a result, the courts are largely in uncharted territory. Nevertheless, there is some important on-point precedent.An 1869 case concerning Hugh W. Sheffey is instructive for the Jan. 6 litigation and how courts might see things today. Mr. Sheffey took an oath to support the Constitution but later served as a member of the Confederate Virginia legislature, thereby actively supporting the Confederacy.After the war, he served as a state court judge. As Judge Sheffey, he presided over the trial and conviction of Caesar Griffin for shooting with an intent to kill. Later, Mr. Griffin challenged his conviction in federal court. He argued that Section 3 should have disqualified Mr. Sheffey from serving as judge. Griffin’s case, as it is known, was heard on appeal by the federal circuit court in Virginia. Salmon P. Chase, the chief justice of the United States and an appointee of President Abraham Lincoln, presided over the appeal. Chief Justice Chase ruled against Mr. Griffin, finding that Section 3 did not disqualify Judge Sheffey, despite the fact that he had taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and that it was “admitted,” as the case stated, that he later committed a Section 3 disqualifying offense.Chief Justice Chase reasoned “that legislation by Congress is necessary to give effect to” Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — and that “only” Congress can enact that legislation. Chief Justice Chase added that the exclusion of disqualified office holders “can only be provided for by Congress.” Congress must create the procedure that would determine if a defendant violated Section 3. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment emphasizes this principle: Congress, it states, “shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”In short, Griffin’s case teaches that in legal terms, Section 3 is not self-executing — that is, Congress must establish, or at least authorize, the process that affords accused insurrectionists an opportunity to contest the allegations brought against them.Mr. Cawthorn and Ms. Greene deny that they engaged in insurrection and oppose any assertion that they violated the law, which would include Section 3 disqualifying offenses. Moreover, in the Cawthorn and Greene cases, the plaintiffs have not pointed to any federal legislation authorizing the states to police Section 3 by disqualifying accused insurrectionists from the congressional ballot. Without federal authorization, state elections boards and even state courts could very well be powerless to make determinations about congressional candidates and Section 3.There may be another way, based on an existing statute, to disqualify a candidate from congressional ballots: the Insurrection Act of 1862. This legislation, which predated the 14th Amendment, mirrors one of the disqualifying offenses established in Section 3.The modern Insurrection Act is virtually unchanged from the statute Lincoln signed in 1862. If the Justice Department indicts and succeeds in convicting Mr. Cawthorn, Ms. Greene or others of insurrection under that act, then on that basis, state elections boards and state courts may remove these candidates from the congressional ballot.Representative Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesBut so far, the Justice Department has not charged any congressional candidates with inciting or engaging in an insurrection or with any other disqualifying offenses. Most of the Jan. 6 federal charges have been based on things like property crimes or for obstructing official proceedings or assaulting officers rather than insurrection.If the Justice Department does not secure a conviction of a Section 3 disqualifying offense before the state ballot is printed (the primary in North Carolina is scheduled for May 17 and the one in Georgia for May 24), then, generally, state boards of election and even state courts will be powerless to remove otherwise eligible congressional candidates from the ballot.Recently, some scholars and advocates have contested Chief Justice Chase’s opinion in Griffin’s case as precluding the state challenges against Mr. Cawthorn and Ms. Greene. In their view, even in the absence of a federal statute, state election officials who conclude that a person engaged in insurrection may proceed to remove that candidate from the congressional ballot. There is no Supreme Court precedent that squarely forecloses that position. Moreover, Chief Justice Chase’s decision was not rendered by the United States Supreme Court, and so it is not controlling precedent. On Monday, a federal court in Georgia allowed the state court disqualification proceeding to go forward against Representative Greene. The federal judge did so without citing or distinguishing Griffin’s case.Still, we think the chief justice’s opinion is persuasive; we expect state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, will likely follow this historically entrenched position. Chief Justice Chase’s approach is the simplest path. If the courts find that Section 3 is not self-executing, there is no need for state election officials to decide far more politically charged questions about whether Mr. Cawthorn and Ms. Greene — and potentially, looking ahead to 2024, Donald Trump — engaged in insurrection.Congress has not authorized the states to enforce Section 3 by striking congressional candidates from the ballot. Thus, state courts and elections boards lack jurisdiction to exclude alleged insurrectionists from the congressional ballot. In such circumstances, state governments must let the people decide who will represent them in Congress.Josh Blackman is a law professor at South Texas College of Law Houston. S.B. Tillman is an associate professor at the Maynooth University School of Law and Criminology. They recently wrote a law review article about the application of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to President Trump.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More