States (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Republican-Led States Push to Expand Power to Curb Immigration

      by

      Republicans’ latest efforts capitalize on the issue’s prominence in the 2024 election. But the fate of their proposals is still being litigated.Nearly a year since Texas adopted a law empowering state and local police officers to arrest undocumented migrants who cross into its territory, Republican lawmakers in at least 11 states have tried to adopt similar measures, capitalizing on the prominence of immigration in the 2024 presidential election.The fate of the proposals — six have been enacted or are under consideration, with Louisiana expected to sign its measure into law as early as next week — is still being litigated. In a case before a federal appeals court, Texas is defending its law by arguing that illegal immigration is a form of invasion, allowing it to expand its power to protect its borders. Federal courts have previously ruled that, from a constitutional perspective, the definition of the term invasion is limited to military attacks.States have tested the limits of their power over immigration before, but lawyers and legal scholars said the push this year was accompanied by what had amounted to a public-relations campaign.In campaign speeches, political ads and the halls of Congress, more Republicans are echoing former President Donald J. Trump by arguing that the rise of migration at the southern border is an “invasion.” President Biden, under pressure from both Republicans and Democrats to tackle the issues at the border, signed an executive order this month to curb asylum, and he could have more actions coming next week.The measure expected to be signed by Gov. Jeff Landry, Republican of Louisiana, includes provisions allowing Mr. Landry and his attorney general to establish a compact with Texas to address border security. Mr. Landry has already met with Gov. Greg Abbott, Republican of Texas, and dispatched Army National Guard soldiers from Louisiana to Texas’ border with Mexico.Valarie Hodges, the state senator in Louisiana who wrote the legislation, joined other Republicans in calling Mr. Biden’s recent action “too little, too late,” saying in an interview that state measures like hers were essential because the Biden administration had failed to enforce immigration laws.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

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Western Governors Give Bipartisanship a Try. At Least for a Few Days.

      by

      The bipartisan boat ride on Lake Tahoe was scrapped because of scheduling issues. At least three of the participating Republicans were suing the administration of one of the Democrats.At the opening reception, Gov. Mark Gordon of Wyoming, a conservative in cowboy boots, turned to Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a liberal in sunglasses and a ball cap, and joked, “You and I shouldn’t be seen together.”Not everybody laughed.As the Western Governors’ Association marked its 40th anniversary this week in Olympic Valley, Calif., the organization did its best to maintain a tradition that has long been its hallmark: the increasingly lost art of governing across party lines.Under sunny skies and a snowcapped Sierra Nevada, experts from the private sector to members of the Biden administration presented on disaster management, opioids and carbon capture. Aides rushed between meeting rooms. Eight governors appeared on a panel examining the organization’s longstanding culture of consensus — but seven of them were no longer in office.“We used to have this bumper sticker — ‘Bipartisanship Happens,’” Steve Bullock, the former Democratic governor of Montana, said. “But bipartisanship doesn’t just happen. It takes work.”Mr. Newsom welcomed the 300 or so attendees to the meeting, but he did not stay for the full conference.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesWe 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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      San Diego Is Once Again a Top Migrant Entry Point

      by

      Asylum seekers from around the world are trying to enter the United States through California, and immigrant traffic there has reached its highest level in decades.From sunrise to sunset, the U.S. Border Patrol buses arrived every hour at a sunbaked parking lot in San Diego.Dozens of migrants stepped outside each time, many seeming to be confused about what was happening at this trolley hub on a recent weekend. There were no local officials to answer questions. No services. And few ways to reach their next destination in the United States.For the first time in 25 years, the San Diego region has become a top destination for migrants along the southern United States border, surpassing the number of illegal crossings at areas in Arizona and Texas for several weeks this year, according to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection.It has been a surprising turn for a border spot that was the focal point of the bitter national debate over immigration decades ago, before falling out of the spotlight as migrant flows shifted eastward. The recent surge in San Diego has been overwhelming enough that a government-funded welcome center exhausted its budget and had to close in February. Since then, the United States Border Patrol has bused migrants to a trolley center and sent them on their way.After being dropped off at the Iris Avenue Transit Center, many of the migrants head to the San Diego International Airport or find shelter provided by churches or nonprofit organizations in the San Diego area.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      What to Watch in Primaries in Georgia, Kentucky, Idaho and Oregon

      by

      Voters are headed to the polls on Tuesday in several states. In California’s 20th Congressional District, the most conservative in the state, two Republicans will face off in a special election to determine who will temporarily fill the seat of Representative Kevin McCarthy, who was ousted as House speaker last year and then resigned. The winner will serve until January, when the next Congress is sworn in. Vince Fong, a state lawmaker and onetime aide to Mr. McCarthy, had a significant lead in the primary. He will face Mike Boudreaux, the longtime sheriff of Tulare County. (They will face each other again in the fall in the quest for a full term.)Georgia, Kentucky, Oregon and Idaho have primary contests today. In Kentucky and Oregon, voters will also weigh in on the presidential primaries, raising the possibility of protest votes against both President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.Here is what else to watch.The Trump prosecutor Fani Willis will be on the ballot in Georgia.Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, will face a challenger in the Democratic primary for her position. Her opponent is Christian Wise Smith, a lawyer who placed third in the primary against Ms. Willis in 2020 and was defeated in the 2022 Democratic primary for attorney general in Georgia.Scott McAfee, the judge overseeing Mr. Trump’s trial in Georgia, is also in a competitive race against Robert Patillo II, a civil rights lawyer and radio host. A third candidate, Tiffani Johnson, was disqualified and is fighting that decision.A progressive vies for a rematch in a swing district in OregonJamie McLeod-Skinner, a progressive challenger, knocked out a moderate seven-term Democratic representative in Oregon’s Fifth Congressional District during the 2022 primaries, but ultimately lost to her Republican opponent, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, by a two-point margin — a result that contributed to Republicans’ taking a thin majority in the House that year.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      A Close Examination of the Most Infamous Public Toilet in America

      by

      On a recent sunny Sunday, residents of San Francisco’s Noe Valley gathered to celebrate the opening of a toilet. But not just any toilet. This was the nation’s most infamous public toilet.In 2022, my colleague Heather Knight, then at The San Francisco Chronicle, noticed the projected price tag on the commode: $1.7 million, which Assemblyman Matt Haney had secured from the state. This was business as usual in San Francisco. Other public toilets had cost about the same. Local officials were planning a celebration. But Knight’s article set off a furor. Gov. Gavin Newsom clawed back the money. The party was canceled. Haney denounced the project he had made possible: “The cost is insane. The process is insane. The amount of time it takes is insane.” He wanted answers.Phil Ginsburg, the general manager of San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Department, responded with a letter that is a masterpiece of coiled bureaucratic fury. He told Haney that the department had been “pleasantly surprised” by the “unexpected allocation” of $1.7 million for the Noe bathroom. “Until now,” Ginsburg wrote, “we have not received any questions from you on the estimate.”But Ginsburg was happy to walk Haney through the numbers and describe how Haney, as a former member of San Francisco’s powerful Board of Supervisors and a current member of the State Legislature, bore responsibility for them. “As you will see, the process is indeed long and expensive,” he noted. “It is also the result of many years of political choices and exacerbated by skyrocketing costs.”There’s the planning and design phase, which requires bringing the design for the public toilet to “community engagement stakeholders” and refining it based on their feedback. That typically takes three to six months. Then the Public Works Department can solicit bids from outside contractors. That takes six months. Construction takes four to six months more, depending on whether a prefab toilet is used or one is constructed on site. The toilet also needed approval from the Department of Public Works, the Planning Department, the Department of Building Inspection, the Arts Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Mayor’s Office on Disability and PG&E, the local electric utility.“I share your frustration and concern over the length and costs associated with public construction processes,” Ginsburg wrote. “As an elected official, I hope you will advocate for policy changes at the state and local level to make it easier to move small projects like this one.”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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Transportation Dept. and State Attorneys General Will Look Into Airline Complaints

      by

      Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced a new partnership with more than a dozen state attorneys general that aims to improve protections for air travelers.Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Tuesday announced a new partnership with more than a dozen state attorneys general to investigate consumer complaints against airlines.The partnership sets up a process for state attorney general’s offices to review complaints from travelers and then pass the baton to the federal Transportation Department, which could take enforcement action against airlines.“The support that’s being offered by state attorney general’s offices means that our capacity to protect airline passengers is expanding,” Mr. Buttigieg said at Denver International Airport, where he appeared with Colorado’s attorney general, Phil Weiser, a Democrat who is among those joining the partnership.The federal-state initiative is Mr. Buttigieg’s latest step aimed at improving protections for air travelers and ensuring that airlines are held accountable when they err. The Transportation Department has issued more than $164 million in penalties against airlines during his tenure, according to the agency. Mr. Buttigieg has also pressed airlines to seat children with their parents for free and to improve the services they offer to travelers who experience lengthy delays or cancellations.The Transportation Department said attorneys general from 15 states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin — had signed agreements to be part of the partnership.The attorneys general from the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. Virgin Islands also have joined, the department said, bringing the total number involved to 18. Of those, 16 are Democrats and two are Republicans.Under federal law, states are generally barred from enforcing their own consumer protection laws against airlines. State attorneys general have pushed for federal legislation that would empower them to take action against airlines, just as they can against companies in other industries.The new partnership does not grant them that power. Instead, their offices would investigate complaints from travelers, and if they determine that federal consumer protection rules may have been violated, they could refer the matter to the Transportation Department under a fast-track process. The federal agency would then review the complaint and could take enforcement action.“The ideal world would be one where states are given formal authority to enforce consumer protection law alongside the Department of Transportation,” Mr. Weiser said. “Congress has failed to act on that thus far, but we are not waiting for action.”In a statement, Airlines for America, a trade group representing the country’s largest air carriers, said it regularly worked with the Transportation Department and state attorneys general to improve the flying experience for travelers.“We appreciate the role of state attorneys general and their work on behalf of consumers,” the group said, adding that it looked forward to continuing to work with them. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Says Abortion Will Be Left to the States. Don’t Believe Him.

      by

      When Donald Trump was asked about the recent Florida Supreme Court decision upholding his adopted state’s abortion ban, he promised that he would announce where he stands this week, a sign of how tricky the politics of reproductive rights have become for the man who did more than any other to roll them back. Sure enough, on Monday, he unveiled his latest position in a video statement that attempted to thread the needle between his anti-abortion base and the majority of Americans who want abortion to be legal.Trump’s address was, naturally, full of lies, including the absurd claim that “all legal scholars, both sides,” wanted Roe v. Wade overturned, and the obscene calumny that Democrats support “execution after birth.” But the most misleading part of his spiel was the way he implied that in a second Trump administration, abortion law will be left entirely up to the states. “The states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land, in this case the law of the state,” said Trump.Trump probably won’t be able to dodge the substance of abortion policy for the entirety of a presidential campaign; eventually, he’s going to have to say whether he’d sign a federal abortion ban if it crossed his desk and what he thinks of the sweeping abortion prohibitions in many Republican states. But let’s leave that aside for the moment, because when it comes to a second Trump administration, the most salient questions are about personnel, not legislation.Before Monday, Trump had reportedly considered endorsing a 16-week national abortion ban, but the fact that he didn’t should be of little comfort to voters who want to protect what’s left of abortion rights in America. Should Trump return to power, he plans to surround himself with die-hard MAGA activists, not the establishment types he blames for undermining him during his first term. And many of these activists have plans to restrict abortion nationally without passing any new laws at all.Key to these plans is the Comstock Act, the 19th-century anti-vice law named for the crusading bluenose Anthony Comstock, who persecuted Margaret Sanger, arrested thousands, and boasted of driving 15 of his targets to suicide. Passed in 1873, the Comstock Act banned the mailing of every “obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article,” including “every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine or thing” intended for “producing abortion.” Until quite recently, the Comstock Act was thought to be moot, made irrelevant by a series of Supreme Court decisions on the First Amendment, contraception and abortion. But it was never actually repealed, and now that Trump’s justices have scrapped Roe, his allies believe they can use Comstock to go after abortion nationwide.“We don’t need a federal ban when we have Comstock on the books,” Jonathan F. Mitchell, Texas’ former solicitor general and the legal mind behind the state’s abortion bounty law, told The New York Times in February. Mitchell is very much a MAGA insider; he represented Trump in the Supreme Court case arising from Colorado’s attempt to boot the ex-president off the ballot as an insurrectionist. As The Times has reported, Mitchell is on a list of lawyers vetted by America First Legal, a nonprofit led by the Trump consigliere Stephen Miller, as having the “spine” to serve in a second Trump administration.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

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Why States Have Spent Billions Subsidizing Hollywood

      by

      Inside the costly competition to attract TV and film shoots. State governments use our tax dollars to build roads, fund schools and provide health care. In 38 states, they also ship money off to a high-gloss private industry: Hollywood.And it’s a lot of money. My colleague Christopher Kuo and I found that those states had given out more than $25 billion over the past two decades to subsidize the making of movies and television. The idea is to lure businesses to spend money, employ locals and stimulate the economy.The problem is, the programs are actually huge money losers for states. Studies show that these efforts typically return a quarter or even a dime on every dollar given to studios.Yet lawmakers are not slowing their spending. Quite the opposite. Hollywood is playing states off one another, and the competition has them sweetening their deals to lure productions, economists say. Under mounting pressure from New Jersey, New York recently expanded its film incentive program by 67 percent, to $700 million. Oklahoma went from $4 million to $30 million in just three years, in part to stay competitive with Texas. Then, Texas decided to spend nearly seven times that amount.“You could find almost an unlimited number of better uses for the same dollars,” said Michael Thom, a tax expert at the University of Southern California. “Who on earth would say, ‘Keep giving the money to Hollywood; my kid’s school doesn’t need new books’?”My colleagues and I wanted to understand why these programs persist. This morning, we published the third article in our series about the topic. Here’s a quick look at what we found.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