More stories

  • in

    How 2 Families Faced a Catastrophic Birth Defect

    Ashlee Wiseman, a waitress at a Sizzler in Idaho Falls, Idaho, was 10 weeks pregnant when a nurse phoned with crushing news: a test of fetal DNA in her blood had found that her baby girl had trisomy 18, a catastrophic genetic abnormality, and was unlikely to survive.Devastated, she called her partner, Clint Risenmay, who was at work. He broke down in tears.Ashlee’s response was different.“A still small voice took over me,” she said. “I’m like, ‘I’m not going to listen to them. There has to be something that can help her. And there has to be someone who can help.’”A social media search led her to Dr. John Carey, a professor emeritus of pediatrics at the University of Utah, who has devoted his life to helping families dealing with trisomy 18. He supports pregnant women who chose abortion, but also helps couples who want to have babies with this rare condition, though most will be stillborn or die within a year.Ashlee and Clint were undeterred. They could do it, they assured Dr. Carey. They would lovingly care for a baby with complex medical needs.The consequences of trisomy 18 are dire. The babies have three copies of chromosome 18 instead of two and, as a result, have serious medical and developmental problems. Nearly all are unable to eat, walk or talk, and all have severe cognitive disabilities. They often need open-heart surgery and feeding and breathing tubes. Many women, after hearing what is in store, choose 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

  • in

    Idaho Prison Gang Member and Accomplice Arrested After Hospital Ambush

    The two men fled from a hospital in Boise, Idaho, after an ambush in which three corrections officers were shot. The authorities were investigating whether they had killed two people while at large.An Idaho prison gang member and an accomplice who fled a Boise hospital on Wednesday in a brazen escape in which three corrections officers were shot were arrested on Thursday, according to the authorities, who said they were investigating whether the men had killed two people while they were at large.The episode began about 2 a.m. Wednesday, when Idaho Department of Correction officers took Skylar Meade, 31, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence, to the Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center in Boise, Idaho, for medical treatment, the Boise Police Department said on Wednesday.As the officers were about to take him back to prison, they were attacked by someone who was later identified as Nicholas Umphenour, 28, according to the authorities. Three officers were shot — two by Mr. Umphenour, and one by a police officer who arrived at the hospital just after the ambush, the authorities said. Mr. Meade and Mr. Umphenour, who were prison mates for about four years, fled before Boise Police officers arrived at the hospital, the Police Department said.While Mr. Meade and Mr. Umphenour were on the loose, the police warned that the two men were considered “armed and dangerous.” They were caught without incident around 2 p.m. Thursday after a brief vehicle pursuit in the Twin Falls area, about 120 miles southeast of Boise, Chief Ron Winegar of the Boise Police Department said at a news conference.Lt. Col. Sheldon Kelley with the Idaho State Police said at the news conference that the authorities were investigating whether separate homicides of two men — one in Nez Perce County and another, about 100 miles northeast in Clearwater County in Idaho — are tied to Mr. Meade and Mr. Umphenour.Colonel Kelley said that shackles found at the scene of one of the killings helped the authorities establish a potential link to the two suspects.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

  • in

    Idaho Republican Caucus Results 2024

    Doors will open for Republican caucuses across the state at 2 p.m. Eastern time, and those who arrive in person by 3:30 Eastern time will be admitted. There will be one round of voting, and those who were registered as Republicans by the deadline at the end of last year may participate. There is no […] More

  • in

    US supreme court allows Idaho’s strict abortion ban to stand pending hearing

    The US supreme court on Friday allowed Idaho to enforce its strict abortion ban, even in medical emergencies, while a legal fight continues.The justices said they would hear arguments in April and put on hold a lower court ruling that had blocked the Idaho law in hospital emergencies, based on a lawsuit filed by the Biden administration.Hospitals that receive Medicare funds are required by a federal law to provide emergency care, potentially including abortion, no matter if there’s a state law banning abortion, the administration argued.The legal fight followed the court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade and allow states to severely restrict or ban abortion. The Joe Biden White House issued guidance about the law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act – or Emtala – two weeks after the high court ruling in 2022. The Democratic administration sued Idaho a month later.US district judge B Lynn Winmill in Idaho agreed with the administration. But in a separate case in Texas, a judge sided with the state.Idaho makes it a crime with a prison term of up to five years for anyone who performs or assists in an abortion.But the administration argues Emtala requires healthcare providers to perform abortions for emergency room patients when needed to treat an emergency medical condition, even if doing so might conflict with a state’s abortion restrictions.Those conditions include severe bleeding, pre-eclampsia and certain pregnancy-related infections.“For certain medical emergencies, abortion care is the necessary stabilizing treatment,” the solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, wrote in an administration filing at the supreme court.The state argued that the administration was misusing a law intended to prevent hospitals from dumping patients and imposing “a federal abortion mandate” on states. “[Emtala] says nothing about abortion,” Idaho’s attorney general, Raul Labrador, told the court in a brief.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionJust on Tuesday, the federal appeals court in New Orleans came to the same conclusion as Labrador. A three-judge panel ruled that the administration cannot use Emtala to require hospitals in Texas to provide abortions for women whose lives are at risk due to pregnancy. Two of the three judges are appointees of Donald Trump, and the other was appointed by another Republican president, George W Bush.The appeals court affirmed a ruling by US district judge James Wesley Hendrix, also a Trump appointee. Hendrix wrote that adopting the Biden administration’s view would force physicians to place the health of the pregnant person over that of the fetus or embryo even though Emtala “is silent as to abortion”.After Winmill, an appointee of Democratic president Bill Clinton, issued his ruling, Idaho lawmakers won an order allowing the law to be fully enforced from an all-Republican, Trump-appointed panel of the ninth US circuit court of appeals. But a larger contingent of ninth circuit judges threw out the panel’s ruling and set arguments in the case for late January. More

  • in

    US businessman is wannabe ‘warlord’ of secretive far-right men’s network

    The founder and sponsor of a far-right network of secretive, men-only, invitation-only fraternal lodges in the US is a former industrialist who has frequently speculated about his future as a warlord after the collapse of America, a Guardian investigation has found.Federal and state tax and company filings show that the Society for American Civic Renewal (SACR) and its creator, Charles Haywood, also have financial ties with the far-right Claremont Institute.SACR’s most recent IRS filing names Haywood as the national organization’s principal officer. Other filings identify three lodges in Idaho – in Boise, Coeur d’Alene and Moscow – and another in Dallas, Texas.SACR’s public-facing presence is confined to a slick one-page website advertising the organization’s goal as “civilizational renaissance”, and a society “with strong leadership committed to family and culture”.The site claims SACR is “raising accountable leaders to help build thriving communities of free citizens” who will rebuild “the frontier-conquering spirit of America”. It condemns “those who rule today”, saying that they “corrupt the sinews of America”, “[alienate] men from family, community, and God” and promising to “counter and conquer this poison”.It also prominently features SACR’s cross-like insignia or “mark” which it describes variously as symbolizing “sword and shield” and the rejection of “Modernist philosophies and heresies”.Finally, the site advises that SACR membership “is organized primarily around local groups overseen by a national superstructure” and “is by invitation only”, offering an email address for those “interested in learning more”.The Guardian emailed the website contact address from a pseudonymous address but received no response.Heidi Beirich is co-founder of the Global Project on Hate and Extremism and an expert of the far right. She characterized the rhetoric on the website as “palingenetic ultranationalism”, a feature of fascism that proposes a revolution as a means of national rebirth.Haywood has become more active and prominent as a blogger and commentator on the far-right podcast circuit since selling his solely owned Indianapolis-based shampoo manufacturing company, Mansfield-King, to a competitor for an undisclosed price in September 2020.On his personal website, The Worthy House, where he styles himself “Maximum Leader”, Haywood has written that the sale made him “rich beyond the dreams of avarice and looking to cause trouble”. Mansfield-King was reportedly “on track to do $45m in revenue” in the year before its sale.He has featured on Claremont Institute podcasts like The American Mind and shows run by Claremont Institute staffers and alumni, like the New Founding podcast. He has also written for Claremont’s website, The American Mind.Indiana company records show that Haywood incorporated SACR as a domestic non-profit in Indiana on 22 July 2020, just ahead of the sale of his company. IRS records show that on SACR was approved as a non-profit fraternal organization – with provision to create subsidiary lodges – under section 501(c)(10) of the Internal Revenue code.The organization’s structure, aims and apparent secrecy are striking in the light of some of the ideas Haywood has promoted in articles on the Worthy House website.One idea he has repeatedly raised on the website is that he might serve as a “warlord” at the head of an “armed patronage network” or “APN”, defined as an “organizing device in conditions where central authority has broken down” in which the warlord’s responsibility is “the short- and long-term protection, military and otherwise, of those who recognize his authority and act, in part, at his behest”.The “possibilities involving violence” that APNs might face, Haywood writes include “more-or-less open warfare with the federal government, or some subset or remnant of it”.Further on, Haywood writes: “At this moment I preside over what amounts to a extended, quite sizeable, compound, which when complete I like to say, accurately, will be impervious to anything but direct organized military attack”, adding that “it requires a group of men to make it work … what I call ‘shooters’ – say fifteen able-bodied, and adequately trained, men.”These “shooters”, Haywood explains, “can operate my compound, both defensively and administratively”, meanwhile, “I have the personality, and skills, to lead such a group.”Haywood was one of the first on the right to try to rehabilitate the rioters who stormed the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. Just over two months after that incident, he praised it as an “electoral justice protest”, commenting that “the Protest was pretty awesome in every way. Its most precise analog in American history … is the Boston Tea Party.”The Guardian requested comment from Haywood via text message and email after attempting to contact him via telephone but received no response.Laura K Field is a political theorist and a senior fellow at the Washington DC-based thinktank the Niskanen Center who has written and spoken extensively about the “reactionary conservatism” of the Claremont Institute and those in its milieu.In a telephone conversation, Field said that “some of the Claremont Institute’s leaders have taken on an apocalyptic view of America and think we’re already in a situation where our society is more conflict-ridden than we were before the civil war”.Their fears of “unyielding technocratic tyranny” mean that some in Claremont circles have been “dabbling in talk of secession for years”, and “believe they need to use whatever they might need, including paramilitaries”.Haywood’s ideas have seen him characterized as an extremist even by others on the far right including the former American Conservative columnist Rod Dreher, who wrote last December that Haywood was “seriously, batshit crazy” and characterized him as writing from a “Midwestern Führerbunker”.State and federal tax filings, however, indicate that Haywood has succeeded in attracting men to help him build a network in line with his ideas. Although there is no public membership list available, federal and state filings from regional lodges identify their officers along with those who initially incorporated each lodge.In particular, Skyler Kressin of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, appears to serve a key role in SACR. Idaho and Texas company records show that Kressin incorporated lodges in Boise, Coeur d’Alene and Dallas; serves as a director of the Coeur d’Alene and Dallas lodges; and was named as the principal officer of the parent organization on its 2020-2021 tax return.Like other members revealed as officers in the filings, Kressin appears to be an affluent professional working as a tax accountant.The Guardian emailed a request for comment to Kressin but received no response.According to tax records Haywood has funded SACR through his Howdy Doody Good Times foundation, for which he and his wife, Alison Murphy, are both listed as directors. In the 2020-2021 tax year the foundation gave $30,000 to SACR, followed by $10,000 the following year, according to its 990 filings.Further funding for SACR was provided by the Claremont Institute, which gave $26,248 in 2021 in one of only two grants the organization distributed that year, per its own IRS filings.In another indication of what appears to be a mutually supportive relationship, Haywood’s foundation contributed $50,000 to the Claremont Institute in 2020-2021.The Guardian emailed a Claremont media spokesperson, David Bahr, inviting comment.On Haywood’s sponsorship of SACR and his Claremont ties, Field, the political theorist, said: “What’s creepy about the local-level stuff is that this country has a history of local autocracy … the way they’re acting undermines the rule of law.” More

  • in

    GOP-run states are eyeing abortion beyond their borders. Blue states are fighting back

    The Planned Parenthood clinic in Spokane, Washington, is just a 30-minute drive from the Idaho border, and since May, when Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law went into effect, it’s been sitting on a timebomb.Like many blue-state abortion clinics, the Spokane health center has been inundated with patients from out of state since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade a year ago in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, allowing abortion to be banned outright or severely restricted in many states. In Spokane, they have received patients from as far away as Texas and Florida. But the new law in Idaho, which criminalizes anyone who helps a minor travel out of state for an abortion without the permission of their parents, threatens this already unsustainable reality. It is the first effort to criminalize travel for the purposes of abortion, and to make the state’s ban on abortion within its borders into something more like a ban on its citizens accessing abortion anywhere.The Idaho law marks a major escalation in the post-Dobbs battle over abortion: an attempt by an anti-choice state to extend its abortion ban beyond its borders. And it puts a target on those who travel along the interstate highway to the Spokane Planned Parenthood. If the trafficking law is ultimately enforced – if an aunt or a sister drives a teenage girl across the Idaho border to have an abortion, and gets caught – the prosecution and civil suits that follow will more likely than not center around a procedure that takes place at the Spokane center. “Nobody wants to be the guinea pig case,” says Sarah Dixit, the public affairs manager for Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho. “Nobody wants to be the example of what it looks like when a state tries to enforce one of these laws.”If Idaho gets its way, the Spokane clinic won’t have a choice.But Washington is one of a growing list of Democratic-controlled states that are pushing back through abortion “shield” laws that aim to extend protections to doctors providing abortions to out-of-state patients and to the patients themselves. Ten states have passed different versions of such laws and more are likely to come.In April, the state passed a set of bills that add new legal protections for medical providers, restrict the reach of out-of-state subpoenas, prohibit the use of state resources for out-of-state anti-abortion legal actions, protect patient data from use in out-of-state legal actions, and expands access to abortion care. The bills provide some much-needed peace of mind to a reproductive health field that’s reeling from anxiety and uncertainty about what’s legal, what’s actionable, and what an emboldened and inventive anti-choice movement might do next. They also advance an untested legal theory about what obligations states have – and don’t have – to honor and assist with the enforcement of other states’ laws.The five bills, collectively referred to as Washington’s “shield law”, were signed by Governor Jay Inslee in Seattle on 27 April. But they were nearly a year in the making. The state senator Yasmin Trudeau, a Democrat representing Tacoma was one of the law’s architects. A millennial, Trudeau is acerbic and funny, and surprisingly candid for a politician. She remembers being at a state senate event with her mother when the Dobbs draft opinion was leaked on 3 May 2022. Like many women, they were both intimately invested in the abortion right: Trudeau was born when her mother, denied an abortion, was just 14. “She was forced to marry and forced to mother,” Trudeau told me. At the time of the leak, Trudeau herself was pregnant, and all too familiar with the burden and gravity of pregnancy. “Carrying a baby,” she said, “is not like carrying a purse.” She began looking into what could be done to secure the rights of women and medical providers in Washington.Trudeau was connected to other Washington legislators looking to expand and secure abortion access in their state. Among them was Drew Hansen, a lawyer and Washington house member from Bainbridge Island who did much of the legwork in shaping the bills. Like Trudeau, he set to work as soon as he learned that Dobbs was coming. “As soon as the draft decision leaked, we started mapping out what other states would have to do to prosecute or enforce civil liability,” Hansen told me. He talked to law enforcement about what interstate prosecutions look like and require; he talked to north-west reproductive rights activists, law professors and a panel of OBGYNs. “I spent all last summer and fall incorporating their feedback, going through drafts [of the bills],” he said. The idea was to get a complete picture of all the ways that another state’s laws could impede access in Washington, and get as close as they could to eliminating them.Washington, like other states that have passed abortion shield laws – including California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New York – is looking to provide some clarity in a confusing new era. Even in pro-choice states, the end of Roe v Wade has changed the abortion landscape, and providers are now staring down a vast, complex and ever-changing regime of new criminal penalties and civil liabilities imposed by anti-choice states.The possibilities unravel in an endless stream of questions, which Hansen and Trudeau alike say they have received from anxious, uncertain medical practitioners. Could an abortion provider based in Spokane be subpoenaed to comply with the Idaho travel ban, made to describe the care they provided or incriminate someone who brought a patient to their doors? Could that same provider be sued under Idaho’s law that allows people who can claim a blood relation to an aborted fetus to file civil suits against those who facilitated an abortion? Or could she be targeted by an “aiding and abetting” clause that seeks to sweep up anyone even tangentially related to an abortion into a net of legal liability?Many of these questions are still unanswered, looming ominously in the muck of legal chaos that Dobbs has unleashed. The Washington shield law aims to provide at least some answers: an assurance that the state will argue that no one following Washington’s laws, and acting within Washington’s borders, will be legally punished by another state while Washington stands idly by.There are limits, however, to what a shield law can accomplish. There is only so much protection the laws can extend to the patients and their companions who travel for abortion care – and then have to travel back. Prosecutions and lawsuits are possible for returning patients and companions, because just as Washington’s shield law prevents Idaho’s anti-choice attacks from reaching over the border, Idaho also has no need to respect Washington’s own legal regime. There’s nothing in the shield law that can protect women from being prosecuted or sued once they travel back into Idaho after a legal abortion in Washington.There’s also nothing that prevents Idaho from arresting a Washington abortion doctor if she crosses into their territory for, say, a ski trip. A doctor who practices in both Washington and Idaho may find her license suspended in the latter state over abortion procedures she provided legally in the former. Washington’s law, in particular, is not as aggressive and proactive as those of some other pro-choice states. Some, like Massachusetts, have worked to provide more protection for telemedicine providers in their state, advancing the novel new claim that medical care is subject to the laws of the state where the provider is – not where the patient is located. This means that abortion providers in Boston, under state law, can prescribe abortion medication to a patient living in, say, Florida. Not so in Washington: under the shield law there, a Walla Walla provider who prescribes pills to her Sioux Falls patient online would not be protected.Some of this, of course, is on purpose. Both Trudeau and Hansen are eager to point out the limits of the law, casting Washington’s abortion shield regime as alternately comprehensive and constitutionally modest. Idaho, they both told me, is free to do whatever it wants – in Idaho. It’s just not free to do it in Washington. “The idea is not to interrupt what other states are doing,” Trudeau said. “We’re not the state that’s trying to come down on other states. We’re the ones trying to outline what the obligations are.”If Trudeau sounds defensive, it might be because those obligations are not entirely clear. Abortion shield laws like Washington’s have to be crafted in ways that avoid running afoul of the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution, which states: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Courts have traditionally interpreted this to allow for some degree of flexibility and discretion by states as to how they cooperate with other states, but a zealous and aggressive anti-abortion legal movement is likely to press the issue.This is what is most confounding about shield laws like Washington’s, and what is likely to be subject to considerable fighting in federal courts: the question they raise about what the states owe to one another, and how to mitigate those obligations when they conflict with the passionately held desires – and personal freedoms – of their citizens. In an interconnected country – where commerce, social life and healthcare are all dense with inextricable interstate connections – it remains uncertain if states like Washington will really be able to legally harden their own borders, and meaningfully protect themselves from the reach of other states’ anti-abortion laws.It raises questions, too, about just how long this country can remain so deeply and profoundly divided against itself. If legal judgements and criminal investigations no longer command inter-state cooperation, then what does it mean for the states to be in union with each other? If something is considered a fundamental right of citizenship in one state, and a crime 30 minutes away in another, then what entitlement does one state have to protect conduct that its neighbors want to prosecute? And what entitlement do other states have to stop their people leaving to a place where they might commit what the law understands as murder?Shield laws are likely to be the subject of lawsuits between pro- and anti-choice states sooner rather than later. In a federal judiciary that has been profoundly reshaped by a conservative legal movement propelled by anti-abortion animus, it would appear likely that many federal courts will invoke the obligations of interstate cooperation, or expansive estimations of anti-choice states’ interests in preventing their citizens from obtaining abortions. But as far as Hansen and Trudeau are concerned, the abortion shield law is nothing less than an assertion of Washington state’s sovereignty, and its right to democratic self-government.“The people of our state have spoken on this issue,” says Trudeau, and both election results and popular polling suggest that the strength of pro-choice sentiment in Washington is not ambiguous. “It’s a judgment of democratically elected officials in Washington state to decide what conduct is criminal and what is not,” Hansen says.As for the coming constitutional challenges, he thinks he’s done his homework. “I ran it by civil procedure scholars, by constitutional law scholars. No one could identify any federal constitutional barrier or federal statutory barrier,” Hansen told me. “No one could tell me why we couldn’t do it.” More

  • in

    Republicans ‘glorify political violence’ by embracing extreme gun culture

    Republicans in Idaho have been criticized for “glorifying political violence” after the party hosted Kyle Rittenhouse, the American who shot and killed two people at an anti-racism protest and injured another, as a celebrity guest at a fundraiser.The 20-year-old was the guest of honor at a Bonneville county Republican party event, in Idaho Falls, Idaho, on 15 April, where an AR-15 style rifle signed by Rittenhouse was auctioned off as part of a fundraiser and people could buy tickets to “Trigger time”: a Rittenhouse-hosted shooting event at a gun range.The event, amid a prolonged spate of mass shootings – many conducted with AR-15s – suggests a further embrace by Republicans of the most extreme elements of the gun lobby in the US, despite polls showing a majority of Americans, across party-affiliation, supporting some gun control laws.Rittenhouse was 17-years-old when he traveled to Kenosha, Wisconsin, from his home in Illinois, armed with an assault-style rifle, in August 2020. Black Lives Matter protests had been taking place in the city after Jacob Blake, an unarmed Black man, was shot seven times in the back by a white police officer, leaving Blake partially paralyzed.Rittenhouse joined other armed men acting as a self-described militia and roamed the city, before killing Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, 27.In a speech to the Bonneville county Republicans, Rittenhouse complained that he faces “ridicule on a daily basis” since he killed Rosenbaum and Huber. He was found not guilty of homicide in November 2021.The now 20-year-old Rittenhouse, who told the crowd in Idaho that the government is seeking to “take our guns” and “take the rest of our freedoms”, has become a darling of the far-right since the shooting, appearing on Fox News and other rightwing media.The embrace and lauding of someone like Rittenhouse is dangerous, said Stephen Piggott, a researcher at Western States Center who focuses on white nationalist, paramilitary and antidemocracy groups.“Elected officials and media personalities should really be denouncing political violence, not embracing it,” Piggott said.“For a GOP [group] to not only host and organize a fundraiser with him, and a shooting range event, call that event trigger time, I think really is the very epitome of glorifying political violence.”Rittenhouse addressed the crowd in Bonneville county, where he said stricter gun control laws would not “lower the unfortunate school shootings”. He complained that he was facing two lawsuits, one from the family of one of the men he killed and another from Grosskreutz.“I’m being sued by the estate of Anthony Huber,” Rittenhouse said.“He was the guy who attacked me with a skateboard and I was forced to defend my life from him.”Rebecca Casper, the mayor of Idaho Falls, said Rittenhouse “does not represent the majority of the people in Idaho Falls”.“Make no mistake, this unfortunate, distasteful and insensitive event was in no way supported by the City of Idaho Falls,” Casper said. “We are an inclusive and welcoming community and we join with so many others in voicing our dismay over such an insensitive and patently offensive event.”Rittenhouse’s appearance comes as the GOP and rightwing media have increasingly embraced rhetoric previously confined to fringe extremist groups, Piggott said, sparking fear and potentially increasing violence.“The rhetoric that I’ve seen from elected officials, from media personalities, especially when it talks about things like urban crime is practically indistinguishable from what I’m seeing from white nationalists talking about the same subject,” he said.“We’re at a point now where elected officials and media personalities are almost doing the work for white nationalists, especially when talking about crime.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionRittenhouse’s appearance comes amid a series of high-profile shootings in the US. According to the Gun Violence Archive there have been 167 mass shootings – defined as incidents where four people were shot or killed – in the US through 21 April.Six people, including three nine-year-old students, were murdered at a school shooting in Nashville on 27 March, while a gunman shot and killed five people at a bank in Louisville, Kentucky, bank on 10 April. AR-15 style weapons were used in both mass shootings.On 13 April Ralph Yarl, a 16-year-old Black boy, was shot twice by a white man after ringing the doorbell at the wrong house. Two days later a 20-year-old woman was shot and killed in New York state when she and some friends turned into the wrong driveway while looking for a house.“[Commentators] on the right have spent the last few years warning their viewers that vigilante justice might be necessary to keep their families safe – and Kyle Rittenhouse is the poster child for that inflammatory talking point,” said Matt Gertz a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a watchdog group that monitors rightwing media.Meanwhile there have also been spikes in hate crimes and incidents in the US. Violence against trans people and gender non-conforming people has risen in recent years, as have hate crimes against people based on their race, ethnicity or ancestry.Piggott said rhetoric against those communities could have contributed to the violence. He pointed to a Florida Republican recently describing transgender people as “demons” and “mutants”, and Paul Gosar, a Republican US representative, ​​referring to an “invasion of illegal aliens”, as examples.“When you’re using that type of rhetoric, that’s either violent or dehumanizing or both, I think it sends a green light that violence against those communities is acceptable,” Piggott said.The Bonneville county Republican party did not respond to a request for comment, and it seems unlikely that this will be Rittenhouse’s last invite to a rightwing event.So far this year alone Rittenhouse has appeared on Donald Trump Jr’s podcast, and been interviewed by Sebastien Gorka, a former Trump administration official, on his America First show.A planned appearance at an “anti-censorship” rally at a Texas brewery in January was canceled however. The brewery’s owner pulled the event after multiple customers complained. More

  • in

    Republicans Face Setbacks in Push to Tighten Voting Laws on College Campuses

    Party officials across the country have sought to erect more barriers for young voters, who tilt heavily Democratic, after several cycles in which their turnout surged.Alarmed over young people increasingly proving to be a force for Democrats at the ballot box, Republican lawmakers in a number of states have been trying to enact new obstacles to voting for college students.In Idaho, Republicans used their power monopoly this month to ban student ID cards as a form of voter identification.But so far this year, the new Idaho law is one of few successes for Republicans targeting young voters.Attempts to cordon off out-of-state students from voting in their campus towns or to roll back preregistration for teenagers have failed in New Hampshire and Virginia. Even in Texas, where 2019 legislation shuttered early voting sites on many college campuses, a new proposal that would eliminate all college polling places seems to have an uncertain future.“When these ideas are first floated, people are aghast,” said Chad Dunn, the co-founder and legal director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. But he cautioned that the lawmakers who sponsor such bills tend to bring them back over and over again.“Then, six, eight, 10 years later, these terrible ideas become law,” he said.Turnout in recent cycles has surged for young voters, who were energized by issues like abortion, climate change and the Trump presidency.They voted in rising numbers during the midterms last year in Kansas and Michigan, which both had referendums about abortion. And college students, who had long paid little attention to elections, emerged as a crucial voting bloc in the 2018 midterms.But even with such gains, Sean Morales-Doyle, director of the voting rights program for the Brennan Center for Justice, said there was still progress to be made.“Their turnout is still far outpaced by their older counterparts,” Mr. Morales-Doyle said.Now, with the 2024 presidential election underway, the battle over young voters has heightened significance.Between the 2018 and 2022 elections in Idaho, registration jumped 66 percent among 18- and 19-year-old voters, the largest increase in the nation, according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. The nonpartisan research organization, based at Tufts University, focuses on youth civic engagement.Gov. Brad Little of Idaho gave his approval to a law that bans student ID cards as a form of voter identification.Kyle Green/Associated PressOut of 17 states that generally require voter ID, Idaho will join Texas and only four others — North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina and Tennessee — that do not accept any student IDs, according to the Voting Rights Lab, a group that tracks legislation.Arizona and Wisconsin have rigid rules on student IDs that colleges and universities have struggled to meet, though some Wisconsin schools have been successful.Proponents of such restrictions often say they are needed to prevent voter fraud, even though instances of fraud are rare. Two lawsuits were filed in state and federal court shortly after Idaho’s Republican governor, Brad Little, signed the student ID prohibition into law on March 15. “The facts aren’t particularly persuasive if you’re just trying to get through all of these voter suppression bills,” Betsy McBride, the president of the League of Women Voters of Idaho, one of the plaintiffs in the state lawsuit, said before the bill’s signing.A fight over out-of-state students in New HampshireIn New Hampshire, which has one of the highest percentages in the nation of college students from out of state, G.O.P. lawmakers proposed a bill this year that would have barred voting access for those students, but it died in committee after failing to muster a single vote.Nearly 59 percent of students at traditional colleges in New Hampshire came from out of state in 2020, according to the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education at Tufts.The University of New Hampshire had opposed the legislation, while students and other critics had raised questions about its constitutionality.The bill, which would have required students to show their in-state tuition statements when registering to vote, would have even hampered New Hampshire residents attending private schools like Dartmouth College, which doesn’t have an in-state rate, said McKenzie St. Germain, the campaign director for the New Hampshire Campaign for Voting Rights, a nonpartisan voting rights group.Sandra Panek, one of the sponsors of the bill that died, said she would like to bring it back if she can get bipartisan support. “We want to encourage our young people to vote,” said Ms. Panek, who regularly tweets about election conspiracy theories. But, she added, elections should be reflective of “those who reside in the New Hampshire towns and who ultimately bear the consequences of the election results.”A Texas ban on campus polling places has made little headwayIn Texas, the Republican lawmaker who introduced the bill to eliminate all polling places on college campuses this year, Carrie Isaac, cited safety concerns and worries about political violence.Voting advocates see a different motive.“This is just the latest in a long line of attacks on young people’s right to vote in Texas,” said Claudia Yoli Ferla, the executive director of MOVE Texas Action Fund, a nonpartisan group that seeks to empower younger voters.Students at the University of Texas at Austin lined up to cast their ballots on campus during the 2020 primary. A new proposal would eliminate all college polling places in the state.Tamir Kalifa for The New York TimesMs. Isaac has also introduced similar legislation to eliminate polling places at primary and secondary schools. In an interview, she mentioned the May 2022 school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers — an attack that was not connected to voting.“Emotions run very high,” Ms. Isaac said. “Poll workers have complained about increased threats to their lives. It’s just not conducive, I believe, to being around children of all ages.”The legislation has been referred to the House Elections Committee, but has yet to receive a hearing in the Legislature. Voting rights experts have expressed skepticism that the bill — one of dozens related to voting introduced for this session — would advance.G.O.P. voting restrictions flounder in other statesIn Virginia, one Republican failed in her effort to repeal a state law that lets teenagers register to vote starting at age 16 if they will turn 18 in time for a general election. Part of a broader package of proposed election restrictions, the bill had no traction in the G.O.P.-controlled House, where it died this year in committee after no discussion.And in Wyoming, concerns about making voting harder on older people appears to have inadvertently helped younger voters. A G.O.P. bill that would have banned most college IDs from being used as voter identification was narrowly defeated in the state House because it also would have banned Medicare and Medicaid insurance cards as proof of identity at the polls, a provision that Republican lawmakers worried could be onerous for older people.“In my mind, all we’re doing is kind of hurting students and old people,” Dan Zwonitzer, a Republican lawmaker who voted against the bill, said during a House debate in February.But some barriers are already in placeGeorgia has accepted student IDs only from public colleges and universities since 2006, so students at private institutions, including several historically Black colleges and universities, must use another form of identification.Georgia has accepted student IDs only from public colleges and universities since 2006, a rule that means students at private institutions, like several historically Black colleges and universities, must use another form of identification. Gabriela Bhaskar for The New York TimesIn Ohio, which has for years not accepted student IDs for voting, Republicans in January approved a broader photo ID requirement that also bars students from using university account statements or utility bills for voting purposes, as they had in the past.The Idaho bill will take effect in January. Scott Herndon and Tina Lambert, the bill’s sponsors in the Senate and the House, did not respond to requests for comment, but Mr. Herndon said during a Feb. 24 session that student identification cards had lower vetting standards than those issued by the government.“It isn’t about voter fraud,” he said. “It’s just making sure that the people who show up to vote are who they say they are.”Republicans contended that nearly 99 percent of Idahoans had used their driver’s licenses to vote, but the bill’s opponents pointed out that not all students have driver’s licenses or passports — and that there is a cost associated with both.Mae Roos, a senior at Borah High School in Boise, testified against the bill at a Feb. 10 hearing.“When we’re taught from the very beginning, when we first start trying to participate, that voting is an expensive process, an arduous process, a process rife with barriers, we become disillusioned with that great dream of our democracy,” Ms. Roos said. “We start to believe that our voices are not valued.” More