Mourners Honor Minnesota Lawmaker and Husband at Funeral
new video loaded: More
Subterms
100 Shares33 Views
new video loaded: More
175 Shares36 Views
in ElectionsThe Democratic mayoral hopeful promises free child care, a $30 minimum wage and a massive tax hike on the city’s corporations. But much is not within a mayor’s control.Zohran Mamdani’s rapid rise from upstart mayoral hopeful to likely winner of the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City was propelled by the simple message that the city was too expensive — and that he had plans that would fix it.Mr. Mamdani’s singular focus on the city’s affordability crisis resonated, especially with young voters. They embraced his populist promises to make bus service free, freeze rents on stabilized apartments, build city-owned grocery stores and offer free early child care.But whether his campaign promises can become reality is an open question — and important parts of Mr. Mamdani’s platform are not solely in a mayor’s control.While some of his left-leaning policy ideas are not entirely new — rents have been frozen before, for example — others would represent a dramatic reimagining of city government.And much of Mr. Mamdani’s agenda relies in large measure on increasing revenue through taxes on businesses and the wealthy — part of an overarching vision to rethink how the city funds expanded social programs. Along with raising income taxes, he has pledged to shift the property tax burden “from the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods,” according to his campaign website.Already, Mr. Mamdani’s plans, in line with his democratic socialist political affiliation, have prompted intense backlash from business leaders who say he poses a danger to New York’s economy. In private meetings, power brokers are discussing how to mount a strong challenge to Mr. Mamdani in the November general election.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
138 Shares75 Views
in ElectionsThe justices asked that the case, which has implications for the political power of Black voters, be reargued next term.The Supreme Court declined on Friday to weigh in on Louisiana’s contested congressional voting map, instead ordering that new arguments be scheduled during its next term.There was no explanation offered for why the justices did not make a decision or set a date for new arguments. All but one paragraph in the six-page order was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissent.Justice Thomas wrote that it was the court’s duty to hear such congressional redistricting challenges and that the justices had “an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly.”It is the latest twist in a winding legal battle over whether Louisiana drew congressional districts that fairly empower all voters after the 2020 census. The case has been closely watched, given that a decision striking down Louisiana’s map could affect the balance of power in the narrowly divided House of Representatives.For now, the state’s latest map, which the State Legislature approved in January 2024, will remain in place. That map paved the way for a second Black Democrat, Cleo Fields, to join Representative Troy Carter, a New Orleans-area Democrat, in the state’s congressional delegation. It was the first time in decades that Louisiana had elected two Black members of Congress, and allowed Democrats to pick up a second seat in the state.One-third of the state’s population is Black.“Although we hoped for a decision this term, we welcome a further opportunity to present argument to the court regarding the states’ impossible task of complying with the court’s voting precedents,” Liz Murrill, the Louisiana attorney general, said in a statement shared on social media.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
125 Shares132 Views
in ElectionsAfter lawmakers required high schools to start no earlier than 8:30 a.m., school administrators complained that it was unworkable. Last month, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a repeal.Florida’s brief attempt to let high school students sleep longer began two years ago when one of the state’s most powerful politicians listened to an audiobook.The book, “Why We Sleep,” argues that sufficient sleep is fundamental to nearly every aspect of human functioning. Paul Renner, then the Republican speaker of the State House, said reading it turned him into a “sleep evangelist”; he started tracking his own sleep and pressing the book on other lawmakers.To give teenagers more time to rest, he pushed for a new law that would require public high schools to start no earlier than 8:30 a.m. and middle schools no earlier than 8 a.m. In 2023, Florida became only the second state — after California, its political opposite — to adopt such a requirement, and it asked schools to comply by 2026.“School start times are one of those issues that both Republicans and Democrats can get behind,” Mr. Renner said in an interview.This year, it all fell apart.Facing growing opposition from school administrators who said the later times were unworkable and costly, the Legislature repealed the requirement last month.Florida’s experiment was over before it began, an example of a policy driven by a single powerful lawmaker that flopped once he was termed out of office. It also illustrates how, even as concerns grow about the well-being of American teenagers, a modest scheduling shift with broad support from scientific and medical experts can struggle to gain traction.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
138 Shares87 Views
in ElectionsThe Minnesota assassination is causing some state legislators to rethink home security and how much personal information they make public.When an assassin visited the homes of two Minnesota lawmakers on Saturday, it exposed the longstanding tension between a public official’s accessibility and their security.Both State Representative Melissa Hortman, who along with her husband Mark was killed, and State Senator John A. Hoffman, who along with his wife Yvette was wounded, readily shared their home addresses with constituents. Ms. Hortman’s address was listed on her campaign website, and Mr. Hoffman’s address had been listed on his official legislative webpage, a common practice in many states.But in the hours after the shootings, while police officers were still searching for the assassin, lawmakers across the country began to rethink their approach to privacy and safety. The Michigan State Police held security briefings for legislators. The police in Fairfax County, Va., increased patrols around lawmakers’ homes. And in North Dakota, officials decided by midday Saturday to scrub home addresses from legislator biography pages.“In light of the tragedy in Minnesota, we quickly decided to remove all addresses until our leaders have time to assess the proper balance between transparency and safety of our elected officials,” John D. Bjornson, the director of the North Dakota Legislative Council, said in an email.In interviews with lawmakers across the country, some said sharing their home address helped reassure constituents that they were part of the community and could be easily reached. But unlike governors and presidents, most state lawmakers have no special security protection when they are away from work. The country’s coarsening public discourse has left them to weigh difficult trade-offs.“Part of the reason why my address is easily found is to make it clear that I actually live in my district,” said Stephanie Sawyer Clayton, a Democratic state representative in Kansas. “If you have a P.O. box, you don’t look authentic, right?”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
138 Shares98 Views
in ElectionsThe suspect, Vance Boelter, was appointed more than once to the Workforce Development Board, where he served with State Senator John A. Hoffman, who was shot on Saturday.The man suspected of shooting two Democratic state lawmakers in Minnesota early on Saturday had served on a state board with one of the victims, records show.The suspect identified by the authorities, Vance Boelter, 57, was appointed several times by Minnesota governors to the Workforce Development Board, where he served with State Senator John A. Hoffman, who was shot and survived.Mr. Boelter and Senator Hoffman attended a virtual meeting together in 2022 for a discussion about the job market in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, minutes from the meeting show.Drew Evans, the superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, said investigators did not yet know how well the two knew each other, if at all.Mr. Boelter was appointed to the board in 2016 by Mark Dayton, a Democrat who was then the governor. More recently, he was appointed by Gov. Tim Walz, also a Democrat. The board has 41 members who are appointed by the governor, and its goal is to improve business development in the state.A state report in 2016 listed Mr. Boelter’s political affiliation as “none or other,” and another report in 2020 listed him as having “no party preference.” Voters do not declare political affiliation when they register in Minnesota.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
125 Shares107 Views
in ElectionsEven as the national political discourse has grown hyperpartisan in recent years, Minnesota had kept a foothold on its own traditions.The assassination of an elected official is rare and shocking anywhere on American ground.Nowhere is it more jarring than in Minnesota, a state known for a singular political culture with high value placed on bipartisanship and a tradition of civic involvement that transcends ideology.“What happened today is simply incomprehensible and unimaginable, certainly in the context of Minnesota,” Norm Coleman, a former senator from Minnesota and former mayor of St. Paul, said in an interview on Saturday. He ticked off a list of Republican and Democratic politicians who had reached across the aisle — Hubert Humphrey, Tim Pawlenty and Amy Klobuchar. “It’s a history of people who tried to find common ground.”Authorities in Minnesota were still trying to capture the 57-year-old man who has been identified as the suspect in the shootings that took place early Saturday in the quiet suburbs of the Twin Cities. But they said that it was “politically motivated” act of violence, and that the suspect had papers in his car that indicated he may have been planning to target one of the “No Kings” protests taking place in the state or cities across the country on Saturday.Even as the national political discourse has grown hyperpartisan in recent years, Minnesota has kept a foothold on its own traditions, formed by a long line of politicians who were known for their openness and bipartisanship approach. Some lawmakers, including State Senator John A. Hoffman, a Democrat who was shot in the attacks overnight, still posted their home addresses online. State Representative Melissa Hortman, a Democrat, was killed in the attacks, along with her husband, Mark, and Mr. Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were seriously wounded.A SWAT and K9 team sweep the neighborhood near the home of State Representative Melissa Hortman of Minnesota in Brooklyn Park on Saturday.Tim Gruber for The New York TimesMinnesota, one of only three states with a legislature where control is split between Democrats and Republicans, consistently has higher voter turnout than any other state, with 76 percent of voting-age citizens casting ballots in the 2024 presidential election.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
125 Shares93 Views
in ElectionsFor decades, a little-known nonprofit organization has played a central role in keeping the lights on for 65 million people in the Eastern United States.Even some governors and lawmakers acknowledge that they were not fully aware of how much influence the organization, PJM, has on the cost and reliability of energy in 13 states. The electrical grid it manages is the largest in the United States.But now some elected leaders have concluded that decisions made by PJM are one of the main reasons utility bills have soared in recent years. They said the organization had been slow to add new solar, wind and battery projects that could help lower the cost of electricity. And they say the grid manager is paying existing power plants too much to supply electricity to their states.Some governors have been so incensed that they have sued PJM, drafted or signed laws to force changes at the organization, or threatened to pull their states out of the regional electric grid.The Democratic governors of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania sharply criticized the organization in recent interviews with The New York Times and in written statements. And the Republican governor of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, called on the organization to fire its chief executive in a letter obtained by The Times.“PJM has lost the plot,” Gov. Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey said in an interview. In another interview, Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland said about PJM, “I am angry.”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
175 Shares159 Views
in ElectionsA bill permitting so-called medical aid in dying passed the State Legislature and will now head to Gov. Kathy Hochul for her signature.The New York State Senate approved a bill on Monday that would allow people facing terminal diagnoses to end their lives on their own terms, which the bill’s proponents say would grant a measure of autonomy to New Yorkers in their final days.The bill, which passed the State Assembly earlier this year, will now head to the desk of Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, for her signature. It is unclear whether she plans to sign it; a spokesman for her office said she would review it.Eleven states and the District of Columbia have passed laws permitting so-called medical aid in dying. The practice is also available in several European countries and in Canada, which recently broadened its criteria to extend the option to people with incurable chronic illnesses and disabilities.The bill in New York is written more narrowly and would apply only to people who have an incurable and irreversible illness, with six months or less to live. Proponents say that distinction is key.“It isn’t about ending a person’s life, but shortening their death,” said State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a Manhattan Democrat and one of the sponsors of the bill. It passed on Monday night by a vote of 35 to 27, mostly along partisan lines.He framed the measure as a statement of New York’s values, citing efforts by Republicans to increase governmental control over people’s bodies, including by restricting gender-affirming care and 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
This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.