Ohio

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Ohio Republicans accused of trying to mislead voters with abortion ballot wording

      by

      Abortion rights advocates in Ohio filed a lawsuit on Monday, claiming that state Republican leaders are trying to confuse voters on a ballot measure about access to reproductive healthcare.Last week, the Ohio ballot board – led by the Republican secretary of state, Frank LaRose – approved the wording of Issue 1, a November ballot measure that will ask voters if the state constitution should guarantee a right to abortion, contraception, fertility treatment and miscarriage care.The new lawsuit accuses the ballot board’s Republican majority of presenting voters with a confusing summary of Issue 1 in an attempt “to mislead Ohioans and persuade them to oppose the amendment”.According to the lawsuit filed with the Ohio supreme court, the ballot board was asked to “put the clear, simple 194-word text of the Amendment itself on the ballot, so that voters could see exactly what they were being asked to approve”.Instead, the board approved a summary of the amendment that is longer than the amendment itself, replacing the term “fetus” with “unborn child”. The summary also does not mention the other forms of reproductive healthcare guaranteed by the amendment, like access to contraception and fertility treatments.The summary does not change the content of the constitutional amendment itself, but abortion rights advocates worry that it will mislead voters at the ballot box, dissuading Ohioans from supporting Issue 1.“The ballot board’s members adopted politicized, distorted language for the amendment, exploiting their authority in a last-ditch effort to deceive and confuse Ohio voters ahead of the November vote on reproductive freedom,” said Lauren Blauvelt, a spokesperson for Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, the abortion rights coalition leading the lawsuit.The legal battle over the language of the Ohio ballot measure is the latest attempt to block voters from passing a state constitutional amendment on reproductive rights.Earlier this month, Ohio Republicans held a costly special election in an attempt to make it more difficult for voters to amend the state constitution. In a resounding failure for the Ohio GOP, voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, opting to keep the current method of passing citizen-led amendments.A recent poll from USA Today Network/Suffolk University showed rising support for a state constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion.LaRose last week tweeted that the amendment was a move from “the radical left”.In the ballot board meeting, LaRose told members that he thought his summary of the amendment was “fair and accurate”.“We tried to summarize that the best way we can and make it a clear statement here in the ballot language of what this amendment would actually do,” he said.LaRose, an avowed abortion opponent, launched his campaign for US Senate last month.The Ohio Capital Journal revealed that LaRose’s campaign received a $1m donation from a new soft-money group established by the conservative lawyer David Langson, who also funded at least two additional campaigns to block the passage of the reproductive rights amendment.Other Ohio Republicans – like the state attorney general, Dave Yost – share LaRose’s staunch opposition to abortion.But the lawsuit commended the attorney general for setting aside his personal views on abortion to “lawfully and impartially” complete his “amendment-related duties”.In March, Yost approved the summary language of the amendment submitted by abortion rights advocates, writing in a certification letter that the language was a “fair and truthful” explanation of the proposed changes to the Ohio constitution.“My personal views on abortion are publicly known,” Yost wrote.But the attorney general added that he could not “use the authority” of his office to unfairly influence state policy.He added: “Elected office is not a license to simply do what one wishes.” More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Won’t Stop at Banning Abortion

      by

      There is no way to regulate and control pregnancy without regulating and controlling people. States that have enacted abortion bans in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health have also considered the establishment of new regimes for the surveillance and criminalization of anyone who dares to circumvent the state’s dictates for the acceptable use of one’s body.This is why the war on abortion rights is properly seen as a war on bodily autonomy and why the attack on reproductive freedom has moved hand in hand with a renewed attack on the gay, queer and transgender community. It’s all part of the same tapestry of reaction. And this reactionary impulse extends to the means of the anti-abortion political project as well as its ends.The same lawmakers who want to rob their constituents of the right to bodily autonomy have also begun to treat democracy as an obstacle to avoid, not a process to respect. If the people stand in the way of ending abortion, then it’s the people who have to go.We just witnessed, in fact, an attempt by anti-abortion lawmakers to do exactly that — to try to remove the public from the equation.A majority of Ohio voters support the right to an abortion. The Ohio Legislature — gerrymandered into an seemingly perpetual Republican majority — does not. In many states, this would be the end of the story, but in Ohio voters have the power to act directly on the state constitution at the ballot box. With a simple majority, they can protect abortion rights from a Legislature that has no interest in honoring the views of most Ohioans on this particular issue.Eager to pursue their unpopular agenda — and uninterested in trying to persuade Ohio voters of the wisdom of their views — Republican lawmakers tried to change the rules. Last week, in what its Republican sponsors hoped would be a low-turnout election, Ohioans voted on a ballot initiative that would have raised the threshold for change to the state constitution from a simple majority to a supermajority. They defeated the measure, clearing the path for a November vote on the future of abortion rights in the state.In his opinion for the court in Dobbs, Justice Samuel Alito cast the decision to overturn Roe and Casey as a victory for democracy. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” he wrote. Reproductive rights, Alito continued, quoting Justice Antonin Scalia’s 1992 dissent in Casey, are “to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.”Citizens can persuade each other, and they can vote. But our political system is not designed to turn the aggregate preferences of a majority into direct political power. (If that were true, neither Alito nor his Republican colleagues, save for Clarence Thomas, would be on the Supreme Court.) More important, Alito’s vision of voting and representation only works if that legislative majority, whoever it represents, is interested in fair play.But as the Ohio example illustrates, the assault on bodily autonomy often includes, even rests on, an assault on other rights and privileges. In Idaho, to give another example, the No Public Funds for Abortion Act, which passed before Dobbs was decided, would punish state employees with the termination of employment, require restitution of public funds and possible prison time for counseling in favor of an abortion or referring someone to an abortion clinic. Other legislatures, such as those in Texas and South Carolina, have pushed similar restrictions on speech in pursuit of near total abortion bans in their states.There’s something that feels inevitable in this anti-abortion turn toward political restriction. The attack on bodily autonomy is not general. It is aimed, specifically, at women. It subjects their bodies to state control and in the process degrades their citizenship. “Without the ability to decide whether and when to have children, women could not — in the way men took for granted — determine how they would live their lives, and how they would contribute to the society around them,” the dissenters in Dobbs wrote. For women to take their place as “full and equal citizens,” they “must have control over their reproductive decisions.”In other words, the attack on bodily autonomy is an assault on both political equality and reproductive freedom. It creates a class of citizens whose status is lower than that of another group. And once you are in the business of degrading the citizenship of one group of people, it’s easy to extend that pattern of action to the citizenship of other groups of people. The authoritarian habits of mind that you cultivate diminishing one form of freedom may lead you to view other forms of freedom with equal contempt.For now, the anti-abortion project is an assault on one form of freedom. But don’t be surprised if, to secure whatever victories it wins, it becomes an attack on all the others.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

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden links Grand Canyon national monument to fight against climate change – as it happened

      by

      From 4h agoJoe Biden is spending today in Arizona, where at 2pm eastern time he will announce that he is designating about one million acres around the Grand Canyon as a national monument, which will also protect it from uranium mining.The Guardian’s Maanvi Singh and Mary Yang have more:
      Joe Biden will designate a “nearly 1m acres” expanse around the Grand Canyon as a new national monument, protecting the region from future uranium mining.
      The designation, which Biden is expected to announce on Tuesday comes after years-long lobbying by tribal leaders and local environmentalists to block mining projects that they say would damage the Colorado River watershed and important cultural sites.
      The new Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Grand Canyon national monument encompasses the headwaters of the Colorado River, as well as the habitat of the endangered California condor. It is also the homeland of several tribes. Baaj Nwaavjo means “where tribes roam” for the Havasupai tribe and I’tah Kukveni means “our footprints” for the Hopi tribe.
      “Establishing the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument honors our solemn promise to Tribal Nations to respect sovereignty, preserves America’s iconic landscapes for future generations, and advances my commitment to protect and conserve at least 30% of our nation’s land and waters by 2030,” Biden said in a statement.
      In 2012, the Obama administration had blocked new mining on federal land in the area – but the protections are due to expire by 2023. The new designation would protect the area in perpetuity. Mining industry officials have said they will attempt to challenge the decision.
      Congress has been exploring new laws to boost national uranium production and enrichment, in an effort to reduce the US’s dependence on Russian imports.
      Democrats and Republicans are closely watching a special election in Ohio that could indicate if voters, even in red states, are willing to protect abortion access. Buckeye state residents are considering Issue 1, a GOP-backed measure that would make it more difficult to change the state constitution, which reproductives rights advocates are asking voters to do in November to ensure abortion remains legal. Today’s election is viewed as a test of whether the issue, which so animated voters in last year’s midterm elections and was seen as one reason why Democrats nationwide performed better than expected, remains as potent as it once was. Polls close in Ohio at 7.30pm eastern time.Here’s what else happened today:
      Joe Biden established a new national monument around the Grand Canyon, linking the decision to his fight against climate change.
      If Issue 1 is approved in Ohio, election-day turnout will likely be crucial, a top political analyst says.
      Ron DeSantis is replacing his campaign manager in an effort to jump-start his floundering presidential bid.
      The Washington DC grand jury that last week indicted Donald Trump is continuing its work, for reasons that remain unknown.
      Addressing a rally in New Hampshire, Trump made light of the multiple criminal indictments filed against him, saying they helped him in the polls.
      Below is a map of Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, which Joe Biden established today.The new areas are around the national park situated in northern Arizona, and outlined in green:Meanwhile in Ohio, voting is ongoing in the special election over Issue 1, which would raise the bar to amend the state’s constitution through the ballot box, as abortion rights advocates hope voters will do later this year.It may only be one state of 50, but nonetheless expect today’s election to be viewed as a litmus test for how important the issue of reproductive rights is to Americans, more than a year after the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade.A CNN poll released today indicates that voters nationwide do indeed remain fired up by the court’s decision, which overturned nearly 50 years of precedent and allowed states to ban abortion completely. The share of those surveyed disapproving of the decision was 64%, the same as it was a year ago, CNN says.After a draft of the court’s decision was leaked in May 2022, the network’s pollsters found that 26% of respondents would only vote for a candidate who shared their view on abortion. That number is now up to 29% in the latest survey, according to CNN.Donald Trump is in New Hampshire, an early voting state in the Republican primaries, where he is basking in his status as the frontrunner for the nomination.The former president is an avid poll watcher, and is clearly relishing the noticeable uptick in his public support ever since the first criminal indictments again him became public earlier this year:Among those who joined Joe Biden for his speech at the Grand Canyon was Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona senator who last year left the Democratic party to be an independent:Sinema has had a tortured relationship with Biden and many Democrats, particularly progressives. When Democrats controlled the Senate in 2021 and 2022 by just a single vote, Sinema acted to block proposals that would have increased taxes on the wealthy, voted against raising the minimum wage and protected the filibuster, which requires most legislation to pass with at least 60 votes.She is up for re-election next year, though she has not said if she will stand for another term. Today, Emerson College released polling showing that if Sinema is on the ballot, she will probably pull support from the Republican candidate – not whoever the Democrats nominate. If that trend holds, it will be good news for Biden’s allies, who are defending several Senate seats in red or swing states next year, and can only afford to lose one and maintain their majority in the chamber.As he announced a new million-acre national monument around the Grand Canyon, Joe Biden connected the move to his fights against climate change and rightwing culture war policies.“I made a commitment as president to prioritize respect for the tribal sovereignty and self determination, to honor the solemn promises the United States made to tribal nations, to fulfill federal trust and treaty obligations,” Biden said.“At a time when some seek to ban books and bury history, we’re making it clear that we can’t just choose to learn only what we want to know. We should learn everything that’s good or bad, the truth about who we are as a nation. That’s what great nations do.”The new Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Grand Canyon national monument is the homeland for several tribes, and includes the headwaters of the drought-stricken Colorado river.“Preserving these lands is good not only for Arizona but for the planet. It’s good for the economy, it’s good for the soul of the nation, and I believe … to my core it’s the right thing to do. But there’s more work ahead to combat the existential threat of climate change,” Biden said.Joe Biden, who is lagging his predecessors when it comes to giving news conferences and interviews to reporters, has sat for a one-on-0ne with the Weather Channel.The network said its interview airs tomorrow, and will concern climate change:Expect the president to talk about the Inflation Reduction Act, both in that interview and in his speech today at the Grand Canyon. Signed about a year ago, the measure is the first piece of federal legislation intended to address climate change.Few places in America are more beautiful than the Grand Canyon, which those aboard Air Force One got a good view of when Joe Biden arrived yesterday:According to the White House, the president will in a few minutes speak from the Red Butte Airfield, an abandoned facility that local broadcaster KPNX calls “one of Arizona’s hidden gems”.Joe Biden is spending today in Arizona, where at 2pm eastern time he will announce that he is designating about one million acres around the Grand Canyon as a national monument, which will also protect it from uranium mining.The Guardian’s Maanvi Singh and Mary Yang have more:
      Joe Biden will designate a “nearly 1m acres” expanse around the Grand Canyon as a new national monument, protecting the region from future uranium mining.
      The designation, which Biden is expected to announce on Tuesday comes after years-long lobbying by tribal leaders and local environmentalists to block mining projects that they say would damage the Colorado River watershed and important cultural sites.
      The new Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Grand Canyon national monument encompasses the headwaters of the Colorado River, as well as the habitat of the endangered California condor. It is also the homeland of several tribes. Baaj Nwaavjo means “where tribes roam” for the Havasupai tribe and I’tah Kukveni means “our footprints” for the Hopi tribe.
      “Establishing the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument honors our solemn promise to Tribal Nations to respect sovereignty, preserves America’s iconic landscapes for future generations, and advances my commitment to protect and conserve at least 30% of our nation’s land and waters by 2030,” Biden said in a statement.
      In 2012, the Obama administration had blocked new mining on federal land in the area – but the protections are due to expire by 2023. The new designation would protect the area in perpetuity. Mining industry officials have said they will attempt to challenge the decision.
      Congress has been exploring new laws to boost national uranium production and enrichment, in an effort to reduce the US’s dependence on Russian imports.
      The supreme court’s grant of a Biden administration request to reinstate its regulations on ghost guns while a legal challenge continues came about after a split among the six-member conservative majority.Conservatives Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, while Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts joined with the court’s three liberals in allowing the regulations to remains in place, at least for now, Bloomberg News reports.Expect further litigating over the rules, which Bloomberg reports were put in place by the Biden administration to stop gun violence, only to be challenged in court:
      The ATF rule subjects gun kits to the same federal requirements as fully assembled firearms, meaning dealers must include serial numbers, conduct background checks and keep records of transactions.
      “It isn’t extreme. It’s just basic common sense,” Biden said when he announced the rule at a White House event last year.
      US District Judge Reed O’Connor tossed out the regulation, and a three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals had left the core of his ruling in force while it considers the administration’s appeal on an expedited basis. All four lower court judges are Republican appointees.
      Alito last week temporarily blocked O’Connor’s order while the high court decided how to handle the case.
      The key legal issue is whether gun kits can be classified as “firearms” under a 1968 law that imposes requirements on dealers. The administration contends that kits qualify as firearms because the law covers items that can “readily be converted” into functional weapons. The disputed weapons can be assembled by almost anyone in as little as 20 minutes, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in court papers.
      The rule is being challenged by a collection of manufacturers, dealers, individuals and gun-rights groups. They say the administration is trying to change a 50-year-old understanding of the 1968 Gun Control Act.
      The US Supreme Court has just granted a request by Joe Biden’s administration to reinstate – at least for now – a federal regulation aimed at reining in privately made firearms called “ghost guns” that are difficult for law enforcement to trace, Reuters reports.The news agency further writes:
      The justices put on hold a July 5 decision by US District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth, Texas that had blocked the 2022 rule nationwide pending the administration’s appeal.
      O’Connor found that the administration exceeded its authority under a 1968 federal law called the Gun Control Act in implementing the rule relating to ghost guns, firearms that are privately assembled and lack the usual serial numbers required by the federal government.
      The rule, issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2022 to target the rapid proliferation of the homemade weapons, bans “buy build shoot” kits without serial numbers that individuals can get online or at a store without a background check. The kits can be quickly assembled into a working firearm.
      The rule clarified that ghost guns qualify as “firearms” under the federal Gun Control Act, expanding the definition of a firearm to include parts and kits that may be readily turned into a gun. It required serial numbers and that manufacturers and sellers be licensed. Sellers under the rule also must run background checks on purchasers prior to a sale.
      Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency matters arising from a group of states including Texas, on July 28 temporarily blocked O’Connor’s decision to give the justices time to decide how to proceed.
      The administration on July 27 asked the justices to halt O’Connor’s ruling that invalidated a Justice Department restriction on the sale of ghost gun kits while it appeals to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.The administration said that allowing the O’Connor’s ruling to stand would enable an “irreversible flow of large numbers of untraceable ghost guns into our nation’s communities.”
      Who is James Uthmeier, Florida governor Ron DeSantis’s newly-designated campaign manager for the Republican’s presidential bid?Another youthful face now at the head of extremist DeSantis’s campaign, Uthmeier was gubernatorial chief of staff after being DeSantis’s general counsel, but he’s also a former senior adviser to Wilbur Ross, a controversial commerce secretary in the Trump administration.Reuters further reports that:
      It is unclear what direction Uthmeier will take the DeSantis campaign as its new manager. He has relatively little experience with campaigns or electoral politics in general.
      The latest shakeup fits into a historical pattern for DeSantis, said Whit Ayres, a Republican operative who was DeSantis’ pollster when he ran for Florida governor in 2018. “This is par for the course for DeSantis’ campaigns. He’s run for Congress three times, and for governor twice. He had different campaign staff for all five campaigns. It is very difficult to run for president the first time if you have nobody around you who has presidential experience,” he added.
      Florida governor Ron DeSantis has replaced the campaign manager of his bid to win the 2024 Republican nomination for US president, Generra Peck, four days after Robert Bigelow, the biggest individual donor to a group supporting the DeSantis candidacy, told Reuters he would not donate more money unless the governor changes his approach because “extremism isn’t going to get you elected,” the news agency reports. The new campaign manager will be close adviser James Uthmeier.Reuters further reports:
      Bigelow said he had told Peck, who he called “a very good campaign manager,” that DeSantis needed to be more moderate to have a chance.Asked how Peck reacted, Bigelow said, laughing: “There was a long period of silence where I thought maybe she had passed out. But I think she took it all in.”DeSantis is running second in the race for the Republican nomination to face Democratic President Joe Biden in the November 2024 election, but has been sinking in opinion polls for months. The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll put his national support at just 13%, far behind former President Trump, at 47%.“James Uthmeier has been one of Governor DeSantis’ top advisors for years and he is needed where it matters most: working hand in hand with Generra Peck and the rest of the team to put the governor in the best possible position to win this primary and defeat Joe Biden,” Romeo, the communications director, said in a statement.
      DeSantis had been facing increasing pressure from donors to change tack in recent months as he continued to drop in the polls and he burned through cash at a faster-than-expected rate.Dan Eberhart, a prominent Republican donor, suggested that the move was still too tepid.
      DeSantis faces a crucial moment on August 23 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, at the first Republican debate of the 2024 campaign. Donald Trump has said he plans to skip the debate, which would make DeSantis the focus of attacks from other candidates.
      Democrats and Republicans are closely watching a special election in Ohio that could indicate if voters, even in red states, are willing to protect abortion access. Buckeye state residents are considering Issue 1, a GOP-backed measure that would make it more difficult to change the state constitution, which reproductives rights advocates are asking voters to do in November to ensure abortion remains legal. Today’s election is viewed as a test of whether the issue, which so animated voters in last year’s midterm elections and was seen as one reason why Democrats nationwide performed better than expected, remains as potent as it once was. Polls close in Ohio at 7.30pm eastern time.Here’s what else is going on today: More

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans in Ohio are about to vote … to curtail the power of voting | Moira Donegan

      by

      Technically, August special elections are supposed to be illegal in Ohio. Late last year, a Republican-backed bill passed the state house prohibiting most special elections in August, reasoning that timing an election in the dog days of late summer depressed turnout, and cost too much money. But those same Republicans changed their tune in May, when it became clear that abortion rights supporters in Ohio would be able to put a ballot measure to voters securing abortion rights in the state in the November 2023 election. Ohio has a six-week ban on the books, but it is currently blocked by a court, and abortion remains legal up to 22 weeks of pregnancy. The measure, if passed, would help keep it that way, amending the Ohio state constitution to grant individuals a right to “make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions”.Ballot measures have been extremely successful tools of the pro-choice movement since the supreme court abolished the federal abortion right last year in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health: pro-choice ballot initiatives passed by surprisingly large margins even in Ohio’s heavily Republican neighbor state, Kentucky, as well as the similarly deep-red Kansas. Since Dobbs, every single time abortion rights have been put to the voters, they have prevailed. And so suddenly, the Ohio GOP felt that it was important that a vote be held in August: a vote, that is, to curtail the power of voting.Ohio voters head to the polls on Tuesday to vote on Issue 1, the Republicans’ response to the November constitutional amendment. The sole question posed to voters in the August special election is a direct attempt to stop the legalization of abortion through democratic means: if passed, Issue 1 would make it more difficult for a ballot initiative to be brought to Ohio voters, and more difficult to pass one that was. The rule change would require advocates to collect signatures in all Ohio counties before a proposal could be placed on the ballot – a procedure that would give disproportionate power to rural, conservative parts of the state – and raise the threshold for passage from 50% to 60%. Currently, the pro-choice ballot initiative slated to go before Ohio voters in November polls at about 58% approval.And so the fight over abortion rights and Issue 1 in Ohio has become a proxy for the broader fight many Republicans are waging across the states: when voters don’t like the party’s proposed policies – and overwhelmingly, voters do not like abortion bans – then instead of changing their platforms or setting out to persuade the electorate to change their minds, Republicans simply change the rules, so that the voters’ wishes don’t get in the way of their preferred policy outcomes. Don’t want to vote for the Republican party line? Then state Republicans will make sure that your vote doesn’t matter.The Issue 1 special election is just the latest in a string of efforts by state Republican parties to curtail access to ballot measures. In Missouri, a court ruled that a ballot initiative seeking to legalize abortion could be presented on the 2024 ballot, even though the Republican attorney general there, Andrew Bailey, had tried to stonewall the effort by falsely claiming that the vote would cost the state a gargantuan amount of money. But state Republicans there had already pushed another measure through the state house, requiring ballot initiatives to receive at least 57% of the vote to pass. Like in Ohio, Missouri was unable to keep the abortion rights measure off the ballot. But just as Ohio Republicans are doing, the Missouri GOP tried to rig the process, explicitly to lessen the pro-choice side’s chances. The measure failed in the Missouri state senate, but Republicans there have vowed to try again. Republicans in at least nine other states – Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Maine, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Utah – have also tried to make it harder for ballot initiatives to pass, at least when those initiatives support abortion rights.Abortion is not the only issue where Republicans have sought to curtail access to direct democracy in order to protect their policy goals. In South Dakota, an effort last year to raise the ballot initiative passage threshold to 60% was aimed mostly at stopping Medicaid expansion in the state. (It failed.)But abortion has long been the issue around which America’s anti-democratic forces are most determined and inventive. In Texas, for instance, Republican politicians have responded to local prosecutors in large, Democratic-leaning cities like Houston who say they will not prosecute abortion cases by passing a bill allowing those prosecutors to be removed for “misconduct”. Similar bills aiming to curtail the authority of elected district attorneys over whether or not to enforce criminal abortion bans have also been brought forward by Republicans in Georgia, Indiana and South Carolina. Like the limits on ballot initiatives, the limits on the discretion of local DA’s also aim to end the ability of public opinion to influence policy outcome. If you don’t want to vote for the Republican policy, the Republicans will make sure your vote doesn’t matter; and if you vote in an official who will pursue a different policy, the Republicans will make sure that official loses the authority to do her job.Maybe it’s appropriate that Republicans have made the anti-abortion crusade the focus of so much of their anti-democracy efforts. Abortion bans, after all, are substantively anti-democratic. They are unpopular, yes, imposed by the unelected supreme court. But more importantly they are an insult to citizenship, depriving half of Americans the ability to live their lives with freedom, dignity, bodily integrity and self-determination – preconditions to any meaningful, equal status as citizens. It makes sense that Republicans would embark on sneaky, procedural efforts to undermine abortion in pursuit of this same project. They don’t want to allow women to live as full, equal citizens. But really, they don’t especially want that for anyone else, either. In justifying his decision to overturn Roe v Wade, Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, wrote that if women didn’t like what he was doing to them, they could just vote. “Women are not without political power,” he wrote. At least, the Republican ones aren’t. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Today’s Top News: DeSantis Acknowledges Trump’s 2020 Loss, and More

      by

      The New York Times Audio app is home to journalism and storytelling, and provides news, depth and serendipity. If you haven’t already, download it here — available to Times news subscribers on iOS — and sign up for our weekly newsletter.The Headlines brings you the biggest stories of the day from the Times journalists who are covering them, all in about 10 minutes. Hosted by Annie Correal, the new morning show features three top stories from reporters across the newsroom and around the world, so you always have a sense of what’s happening, even if you only have a few minutes to spare.Along with other Republican presidential candidates, Ron DeSantis has been testing new lines of attack against Donald Trump.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesOn Today’s Episode:DeSantis Bluntly Acknowledges Trump’s 2020 Defeat, with Nicholas NehamasWhat’s at Stake in Ohio’s Referendum on Amending the State ConstitutionThe Taliban Won but These Afghans Fought On, with Christina GoldbaumEli Cohen More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump claims protective order against him would infringe his free speech rights – live

      by

      From 19m agoAhead of an afternoon deadline for his lawyers to respond to a request from special counsel Jack Smith for a protective order in the January 6 case, Donald Trump said such a ruling would infringe on his free speech rights.From his Truth social account:
      No, I shouldn’t have a protective order placed on me because it would impinge upon my right to FREE SPEECH. Deranged Jack Smith and the Department of Injustice should, however, because they are illegally “leaking” all over the place!
      The former president’s attorneys have until 5pm eastern time to respond to the request from Smith, who asked for the protective order after Trump on Friday wrote, “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” on Truth.Smith wants Trump’s attorneys barred from publicly sharing “sensitive” materials including grand jury transcripts obtained during the January 6 case’s pre-trial motions.Aileen Cannon, the federal judge presiding over Donald Trump’s trial on charges related to keeping classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort, appeared to disclose an ongoing grand jury investigation in a court filing today, the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports:Cannon was appointed to the bench by Trump, and faced scrutiny last year for a decision in an earlier stage of the Mar-a-Lago case that some legal experts viewed as favorable to the former president, and which was later overturned by an appeals court.Cannon’s is presiding over Trump’s trial in Florida on charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, who alleges the former president illegally stored classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort, and conspired to hide them from government officials sent to retrieve them.In response to the charges filed against him over January 6, Donald Trump’s lawyers have argued the former president did not know that he indeed lost the 2020 election. But as the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports, that defense may not be enough to stop prosecutors from winning a conviction:Included in the indictment last week against Donald Trump for his efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election was a count of obstructing an official proceeding – the attempt to stop the vote certification in Congress on the day his supporters mounted the January 6 Capitol attack.The count is notable, because – based on a review of previous judicial rulings in other cases where the charge has been brought – it may be one where prosecutors will not need to prove Trump knew he lost the election, as the former president’s legal team has repeatedly claimed.The obstruction of an official proceeding statute has four parts, but in Trump’s case what is at issue is the final element: whether the defendant acted corruptly.The definition of “corruptly” is currently under review by the US court of appeals for the DC circuit in the case titled United States v Robertson. Yet previous rulings by district court judges and a different three-judge panel in the DC circuit in an earlier case suggest how it will apply to Trump.In short: even with the most conservative interpretation, prosecutors at trial may not need to show that Trump knew his lies about 2020 election fraud to be false, or that the ex-president knew he had lost to Joe Biden.“There’s no need to prove that Trump knew he lost the election to establish corrupt intent,” said Norman Eisen, special counsel to the House judiciary committee in the first Trump impeachment.“The benefit under the statute is the presidency itself – and Trump clearly knew that without his unlawful actions, Congress was going to certify Biden as the winner of the election. That’s all the corrupt intent you need,” Eisen said.Donald Trump’s team has clearly been paying attention to Ron DeSantis’s NBC News interview, with a spokeswoman attacking the Florida governor for his comments dismissing the ex-president’s false claims about his 2020 election loss:Speaking of Republican presidential candidates, NBC News scored a sit-down interview with Florida governor Ron DeSantis, and got him to again say that his chief rival Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.DeSantis, whose campaign for the White House is in troubled waters, had been vague on the issue until last week, when he started saying publicly that he did not believe the former president’s false claims about his election loss.Here he is saying it again, on NBC:In his final days as vice-president, Mike Pence faced pressure from Donald Trump to go along with his plan to disrupt Joe Biden’s election victory. Pence refused his then-boss’s request, and the two running mates are now foes, but could Pence potentially be a witness in the trial on the federal charges brought against Trump over the election subversion plot?In an interview with CBS News broadcast over the weekend, Pence, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, said he has “no plans to testify”, but added “people can be confident we’ll obey the law. We’ll respond to the call of the law, if it comes and we’ll just tell the truth.”Far from being worried about what Trump’s former deputy might have to say about him, the former president’s attorney John Lauro said his legal team would welcome Pence’s testimony.“The vice-president will be our best witness,” Lauro said in a Sunday appearance on CBS, though he didn’t exactly say why he felt that way. “There was a constitutional disagreement between the vice-president [Pence] and president Trump, but the bottom line is never, never in our country’s history, as those kinds of disagreements have been prosecuted criminally. It’s unheard of.”Good morning, US politics blog readers. Mere days have passed since special counsel Jack Smith indicted Donald Trump for his failed effort to reverse his 2020 election loss, but the two sides are already battling over what the former president can say and do. On Friday, Trump wrote “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”, prompting Smith’s prosecutors to request a protective order that would restrict what the former president’s legal team can share publicly, saying it is necessary to guard people involved in the case against retaliation.Trump’s lawyers have until 5pm eastern time today to respond. It’s an early salvo in what is expected to be the lengthy process Smith’s case is expected to take, and which will undoubtedly hang over the 2024 election, where Trump is currently the frontrunner. Either way, the former president has not been shy about sharing his thoughts regarding the unprecedented criminal charges leveled against him, and do not be surprised if today is no different.Here’s what else is happening:
      Voters in Ohio are gearing up to decide on Tuesday whether to approve a Republican-backed proposal that will raise the bar for changing the state’s constitution. What this is really about is a ballot initiative scheduled to be put to a vote in November that would enshrine abortion protections in the state’s laws, but which would face a much more difficult road to passage if tomorrow’s vote succeeds.
      Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor whose presidential campaign appears to be floundering, just sat down for an interview with NBC News, where, among other things, he reiterated that he believed Trump lost the 2020 election.
      Joe Biden is hosting World Series winners the Houston Astros at the White House today, before heading to the Grand Canyon. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      The election that could determine the future of democracy in Ohio

      by

      An under-the-radar election in Ohio on Tuesday has quietly emerged as one of the most high-stakes stress tests for American democracy in recent years.The question Ohio voters will decide on 8 August is simple: how easy should it be to amend the state constitution? Like 17other states, Ohio allows citizens to place constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot if they get a certain number of signatures and more than 50% of the statewide vote. The process has been in place for more than a century in Ohio, and in November, voters will use it to decide whether to protect abortion rights.In May, Republicans who control the state legislature abruptly sent a proposal to the ballot called Issue 1 that would make it much harder to change the constitution. If approved, a constitutional amendment would need 60% of the vote to pass instead of a simple majority. It would also make it significantly harder for citizens to even propose a constitutional amendment, requiring signatures from 5% of the voters in all of Ohio’s 88 counties (the state currently requires organizers to get signatures in 44).“It absolutely is minority rule,” Maureen O’Connor, a Republican who served on the Ohio supreme court for nearly two decades and stepped down as chief justice at the end of last year, and opposes Issue 1, said in a telephone interview. “If you get 59.9% of a vote that says yes, 40.1% can say no. This is the way it’s gonna be. We can thwart the effort of the majority of Ohioans that vote. And that’s not American.”The change in signature gathering would make it nearly impossible to get something on the ballot, which is already difficult, and only allow deep-pocketed groups to do so, said Jen Miller, the president of the Ohio chapter of the League of Women Voters, which opposes the amendment.The campaign to raise the threshold has been largely funded by Richard Uihlein, an Illinois billionaire and GOP mega-donor who has spent more than $5m on the effort so far. A conservative non-profit backed by Uihlein, the Foundation for Government Accountability, has been involved in efforts to raise the threshold for constitutional amendments across the country.Republicans have made little secret of why they’re in a rush to change the rules: this fall, Ohioans are set to vote on an amendment that would enshrine the right to an abortion in the state’s constitution. “This is 100% about keeping a radical pro-abortion amendment out of our constitution. The left wants to jam it in there this coming November,” the Ohio secretary of state, Frank LaRose, a Republican running for the US Senate and one of the most prominent supporters of the amendment, said last month.Similar measures to protect abortion access have been extremely popular in other states and passed by wide margins after the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade last year.Beyond reproductive rights, the August election has far-reaching implications for democracy in Ohio. Republicans hold a supermajority in the Ohio legislature after they manipulated district lines to their advantage last year, brazenly ignoring several rebukes from the state supreme court. Activists are already working to draft a constitutional amendment that would strip lawmakers of their redistricting authority entirely. But making it harder to change the constitution would essentially allow Republicans to keep their distorted advantage.“Ohioans would no longer have a tool accessible to them to keep the Ohio government accountable when they are not acting in the interest of our communities and our families,” said Jen Miller, the president of the Ohio chapter of the League of Women Voters, which opposes Issue 1.“What we’re talking about is that a small minority would be able to block the will of the majority of Ohioans.”‘A very dirty trick’Opponents of Issue 1 have assembled a wide-ranging coalition that includes civic action groups, unions, and environmental groups. The campaign, One Person One Vote, has received considerable funding from out-of-state progressive groups, and have aggressively canvassed across the state, sent mailings to voters, and held weekly community meetings throughout the summer.One hot evening in July, Sarah Strinka, a 26-year-old canvasser with Ohio Citizen Action, one of the main groups opposing Issue 1, crisscrossed lawns in Westlake, a Cleveland suburb, in tie-dye sandals, making sure that people knew the election was happening on 8 August and trying to persuade them to vote against it. Nearly all of the voters who came to their doors that evening said they planned to vote against the change.“It seems like a very dirty trick to try and not get a major issue like this pushed through in an August election,” said Matt Jackson-McCabe, one of the voters who Strinka talked to. “I was like, ‘This is bullshit.’”“It’s like pulling the wool over the people’s eyes,” said Daniel Hayden, 76, another voter in Westlake. “Republicans – they want to take away the control, to control everything. They want to take control away from the people.”Not everyone Strinka spoke with was entirely convinced. “It’s my understanding, because I’m Republican, that this is a Democratic-led issue. Correct?” one man said in his driveway. Strinka pointed out that there was actually bipartisan opposition to the amendment. “It impacts every single issue moving forward. I know a lot of people are talking about issues for November, but this could impact everything,” she said.The man said he would do more research.Republicans ‘can kind of do what they want’Ohioans have voted on hundreds of constitutional amendments over the last century, but they haven’t been asked to vote on one in an August election since 1926. Last year, the turnout in August was so anaemic, just 8%, that Republicans decided to cancel August elections altogether.But in May, they abruptly reversed that decision, saying that the cost of the election was worth it ahead of the abortion measure. “If we save 30,000 lives as a result of spending $20 million, I think that’s a great thing,” Matt Huffman, an anti-abortion Republican who serves as the senate president, told reporters earlier this year.The rush seems to be a cynical calculation that the election will have low turnout and those who do cast a ballot will be highly motivated ‘yes’ voters.“I think it’s a mistake to revive August elections for the sole purpose of passing an issue of such consequence,” said Robert Taft, a Republican who served as governor of Ohio from 1999 to 2007 and opposes Issue 1. “If it were to pass, it’d either have, possibly have 11 or 12% of eligible voters in Ohio deciding that the constitution shouldn’t be amended unless 60% agree.”And that calculation may be backfiring. Turnout during early voting has been strong – more than 533,000 people have cast their ballots so far. That far exceeds the 288,700 votes cast early in the May 2022 primaries. “This is gubernatorial-level turnout,” an election official told the Associated Press, which also reported some offices throughout the state were struggling to staff the massive turnout.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPolling has been limited and it’s difficult to predict the results of a ballot referendum. A USA Today/Suffolk University poll in July showed 57% of voters opposed Issue 1, while 26% supported it. A different July poll by Ohio Northern University showed voters were more evenly divided.Those who support Issue 1 argue that it’s already too easy for citizens to amend the constitution. That isn’t supported by data; since 1912 citizens have sent 71 constitutional amendments to the ballot and just 19 have passed, according to Steven Steinglass, a professor emeritus at the College of Law of Cleveland State University, who has studied the constitution.“I think there should be that high of a threshold,” said Heidi M, a lawyer in Cleveland who declined to give her full name. “Is it going to be a higher burden to go out and get signatures for an initiative? Yes, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing.”“The constitution is supposed to be hard to change. But the constitution is not for making laws,” said Tomie Patton, the president of the Republican club in Avon Lake, just west of Cleveland. “If you don’t like the legislation then change the legislators like we have to everywhere else.”But in Ohio, changing the legislature isn’t so easy. In 2015, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that required lawmakers to draw legislative districts that reflected the political balance of Ohio over the prior decade. When it came time to draw new districts in 2021, they should have drawn ones that reflected the 54-46 percent advantage Republicans have had in the state.Instead, lawmakers drew maps that enabled them to keep a supermajority. The Ohio supreme court rejected the maps five different times, but Republicans were able to run out the clock and eventually adopt a map in their favor. Republicans used that supermajority to refer the measure to the ballot this year.Republicans are well-aware of how critical that supermajority is. “We can kind of do what we want,” Matt Huffman, the Republican senate president, said last year.O’Connor served as the key swing vote in each of the Ohio supreme court’s decisions until she stepped down from the court last year because she had reached the mandatory retirement age.Now, she said, she and other activists are drafting a constitutional amendment that would take redistricting power away from the legislature entirely, putting it in the hands of a panel of citizens.“We’ll have a constitutional amendment, hopefully, and that will change the entire playing field,” she said. “And it’s nothing but a good thing unless you’re a member of the Republican supermajority.”‘Vote no’ campaign presses onWith the election edging closer, the “vote no” campaign has been emphasizing what they say is the fundamental unfairness of what it would mean to raise the threshold to 60%.The same evening that Strinka knocked on doors in Westlake, a group of volunteers with the League of Women Voters sat under the pavilion at the local library and, over pizza, wrote postcards to voters urging them to cast their ballots against the amendment. One of them was Donna McGreal, 68, who said she hadn’t really been politically active since the Vietnam war. Each of the postcards she wrote essentially had some version of the same message.“It’s simple,” she wrote in neat cursive on the postcards. “Issue 1 tries to change it so 59% of the vote will lose to 41%. Keep majority rule in Ohio.”They’re hoping that message will resonate with voters like Sue Kuderca, 66, a retired nurse in Youngstown, who said she was leaning towards supporting the amendment because of her views on abortion.“My mind is not 100% made up. It took me a while to even understand what yes or not meant. But the abortion thing, I’m pretty adamant about that. An abortion when ready to deliver at 9 months. That’s murder,” she told Ron Gay, a canvasser with the Communications Workers of America who approached her in her driveway and urged her to vote now. (The proposed amendment in November would allow the state to continue to prohibit abortion after fetal viability, generally at 22-23 weeks. Many states, even while Roe v Wade was fully intact, did not allow abortions at nine months.)“I totally understand. People feel that way about that. But that’s in November. They’re going to take away our right to change anything by majority vote in August,” Gay replied.Kuderca said she would think about it. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Mississippi Primary Election 2023: Live Results

      by

      Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, is seeking a second term in office against two long-shot primary challengers. He is expected to face off in November against a state public service commissioner, Brandon Presley, a Democrat and a second cousin of Elvis Presley. More