US voting rights

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      House Democrats tell Senate: exempt voting rights bill from filibuster

      by

      US voting rightsHouse Democrats tell Senate: exempt voting rights bill from filibusterFilibuster exception would allow Democrats to push through their voting rights reform bill over unanimous Republican opposition Hugo Lowell in Washington DCTue 13 Jul 2021 03.00 EDTLast modified on Tue 13 Jul 2021 03.01 EDTTop Democrats in the House are spearheading a new effort to convince the Senate to carve out a historic exception to the filibuster that would allow them to push through their marquee voting rights and election reform legislation over unanimous Republican opposition.The sweeping measure to expand voting rights known as S1 fell victim to a Republican filibuster last month after Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell and his leadership team unified the conference to sink the bill in a party-line vote.Now, furious at Republicans for weaponizing the filibuster against Joe Biden’s legislative agenda, House majority whip James Clyburn is pushing Senate Democrats to end its use for constitutional measures, according to sources familiar with the matter.The rare and forceful effort from a member of the House leadership to pressure changes in the Senate underscores the alarm among Democrats that the filibuster may be an insurmountable obstacle as they race to overturn a wave of Republican ballot restrictions.Ending the use of the filibuster for constitutional measures – and lowering the threshold to pass legislation to a simple majority in the 50-50 Senate – is significant as it would almost certainly pave the way for Democrats to expand voting across the US.The voting rights and election reform legislation remains of singular importance to Democrats as they seek to counter new voter restrictions in Republican-led states introduced in response to Trump’s lies about a stolen 2020 presidential election.Clyburn’s proposal to change Senate rules is intended to be limited. It would not eliminate the filibuster entirely, and would allow senators in the minority party to continue to deploy the procedural tactic on other types of legislation.The problem, as Democrats see it, is that Republicans in recent years have all but rewritten Senate rules to force supermajorities even for bills that carry bipartisan support. Filibustering bills, once extremely rare, has now become routine.The proposal to create an exception to the filibuster for constitutional measures mirrors the exception Democrats carved out for judicial nominations in 2013, after Republicans blocked former President Obama’s picks for cabinet posts and the federal judiciary.Clyburn’s proposal is particularly notable, the sources said, since it is broadly supported by the rest of the House Democratic leadership and is considered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be the only way to break the logjam in the Senate.The effort to create exceptions to the filibuster is being led by Clyburn in large part because of the influence he carries with the White House and the affinity he enjoys with Biden on a personal level, the sources said. Clyburn, a South Carolina congressman, was influential in securing his state for Biden in the 2020 race for the Democratic nomination – something that rescued Biden’s campaign from disaster.When Biden endorsed partial reforms to the filibuster in March, the prospect of Democrats taking action to defang the minority party’s ability to stall legislation, shifted almost overnight from a theoretical question to a possible reality on Capitol Hill.The details of what Biden endorsed was far less important than the fact he backed reform at all, and Clyburn, encouraged by that reception, has spoken to White House counsellor Steve Ricchetti and Vice President Harris to back his proposal, the sources said.McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, told the Guardian on Monday he was deeply unimpressed by Clyburn’s maneuvers. “If it’s not broken, it doesn’t need fixing,” McConnell said of the filibuster, adding he would “absolutely” oppose any changes.Clyburn’s outreach to top Senate Democrats and the Biden administration comes after Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer brought the issue of filibuster reform to the forefront by forcing votes last month on some of Biden’s most high-profile measures.The idea was to show to moderate Democrats opposed to filibuster reform – most notably Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema – that Republicans under McConnell will sink any Democratic policy proposals in an attempt to obstruct the administration.Schumer is still strategizing over how to advance S1 after vowing to reintroduce the bill following its defeat, according to a source familiar with his thinking. “In the fight for voting rights, this vote was the starting gun, not the finish line,” Schumer said.But carving out an exception to the filibuster for constitutional measures such as voting rights legislation, first floated by the number three Senate Democrat Patty Murray, appears to be the primary option despite resistance from the likes of Manchin and Sinema.Democrats open to making the change have previously indicated that their argument that the minority party should not have the power to repeatedly block legislation with widespread support resonates with the wider American public.They have also suggested that only partially ending its use could have fewer consequences for them should their political fortunes reverse as soon as after the 2022 midterms and they are thrust into the minority, trying to block Republican legislation.“The people did not give Democrats the House, Senate and White House to compromise with insurrectionists,” House Democrat Ayanna Pressley wrote on Twitter after Republicans blocked S1, illustrating the sentiment. “Abolish the filibuster so we can do the people’s work.”TopicsUS voting rightsUS SenateHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      How Trump’s big lie has been weaponized since the Capitol attack

      by

      The fight to voteUS voting rightsHow Trump’s big lie has been weaponized since the Capitol attackImmediately after the riot Republicans continued to object to election results – and efforts to restrict voting and push the big lie have only grown in the six months since The fight to vote is supported byAbout this contentSam Levine in New YorkWed 7 Jul 2021 07.00 EDTLast modified on Wed 7 Jul 2021 08.38 EDTSign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterHours after the US Capitol was secured against a violent insurrection on 6 January, the Senate reconvened in a late-night session to move ahead with certifying Joe Biden’s electoral college victory. It was a dramatic moment designed to send a clear message: democracy would prevail.“To those who wreaked havoc in our Capitol today, you did not win. Violence never wins. Freedom wins,” the then vice-president, Mike Pence, said as senators reconvened. “As we reconvene in this chamber, the world will again witness the resilience and strength of our democracy.”“They tried to disrupt our democracy. They failed,” Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, said on the Senate floor.But while the attack on the Capitol failed on 6 January, the attack on US democracy has continued unabated. It continued immediately after the riot, when Republican lawmakers continued to object to the electoral college results in that late-night session, and has only grown in the six months that followed.“We saw the makings of the big lie between November and January, but the consequences of the big lie seem much worse now, six months later, than even in the midst of the big lie leading up to January 6,” said Ned Foley, a law professor at the Ohio State University.In state capitols across the country, Republicans have weaponized lies about the 2020 election to push laws that make it harder to vote. They have embraced amateur inquiries into election results that have already been audited. And they have enacted measures that make it easier to remove local election officials from their posts, opening up the possibility of partisan meddling in future elections. A quarter of Americans, including a staggering 53% of Republicans, believe Donald Trump is the “true president”, a May Reuters/Ipsos poll found.“The fact that the January 6 insurrection didn’t scare us and prompt many Republicans to start aggressively rejecting those claims, and instead Republicans continue to embrace those claims as a justification for imposing additional restrictions means that our democracy remains in real trouble,” said Franita Tolson, a law professor at the University of Southern California.While Donald Trump and his allies failed in their effort to get local election officials to overturn the election, Republicans across the US have moved to make it easier to overturn future elections.After Aaron Van Langevelde, a Republican appointee on the Michigan board of canvassers, refused to block the certification of his state’s election results, Republicans declined to reappoint him to a new term. In Georgia, Republicans stripped the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, of his role as chair of the state elections board after Raffensperger, a Republican, pushed back on Trump’s claims of fraud. Under a new law, the legislature will appoint the chair of the board, which now has the power to remove local election officials from their posts.In Arkansas, Republicans passed a new law authorizing a legislative committee to investigate election complaints and allows the state’s board of election commissioners to take over running elections in a county if the board believes there is an election violation “would threaten either a county’s ability to conduct an equal, free, and impartial election, or the appearance of an equal, free and impartial elections”. In Iowa, Republicans enacted a new law that imposes new criminal penalties on election workers for failing to adhere to election law.The most visible effort to undermine the election results continues in Arizona, where the Republican state senate authorized an unprecedented inquiry into ballots and voting equipment in Maricopa county, the largest in the state. The effort, funded by Trump allies, is being led by a firm with little experience in election audits and whose founder has expressed support for the idea that the election was stolen. It also comes after two previous county audits affirmed the results of the 2020 race.Even as experts have raised alarms about the Ariziona inquiry, which includes far-fetched ideas like looking at ballots for bamboo fibers, Republicans in other US states have embraced it. There are calls for similar reviews in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan, among other places.Republicans have also continued the ethos of the 6 January attack by enacting measures that make it harder to vote after a presidential election that saw the highest turnout in nearly a century. In Georgia, the same new law that allows for interference in elections also requires voters to provide identification information both when they request and return a mail-in ballot. The same law also curtails the availability of mail-in ballot drop boxes, allows for unlimited citizen challenges to voter qualifications, and prohibits volunteers from distributing food and water while standing in line to vote.In Florida, a state long praised for its widespread use of mail-in ballots, Republicans enacted a measure that significantly limits drop boxes and requires voters to provide identification information when they request a mail-in ballot. Iowa Republicans also passed a law that cuts the early vote period by nine days, and requires polls to close earlier.In Montana, Republicans tightened voter ID requirements, made it harder for third parties to collect and so voters can no longer register at the polls on election day – a move that will probably have a big impact on the state’s sizable Native American population. In Arizona, where mail-in voting is widely used, Republicans changed a state policy so that voters could no longer permanently remain on a list allowing them to automatically receive a mail-in ballot for every election.While Republicans ultimately weren’t successful in blocking the certification of Joe Biden’s win, there are still deep concerns that it could succeed next time.The Electoral Count Act, the law that governs the counting of electoral votes, appears to authorize state legislatures to step in and appoint electors in the event of a failed election, but offers no guidance on what would constitute such a scenario. If there is a dispute between the houses of Congress over a state’s slate of electors, the same federal law defaults to whichever group of electors has been certified by a state’s governor. Republicans are poised to take control of the US House in 2022, a perch from which they could wreak havoc when it comes time to count electoral votes.Federal law also says that Congress isn’t supposed to second-guess the certification of electors as long as states reach an official result by the so-called “safe harbor” deadline about a month after election day. But when members of Congress and senators objected to the electoral college results in January, Foley noted, there was little discussion of that deadline, which every state except Wisconsin met in 2020.Foley, the Ohio state professor, has been worried about the ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act long before 2020, warning that Congress was ill-equipped to resolve a legitimately disputed close election. He has urged Congress to revisit and clarify the law before the next election crisis.But last year, he was alarmed at how far Trump and allies took their fight over the election, even with little evidence of fraud.“As I look ahead to 2024, I think the pathology that’s going on culturally with respect to acceptance of defeat, the inability to accept defeat, that is really, really dangerous,” he said. “That seems new in a way we haven’t seen.”TopicsUS voting rightsThe fight to voteUS Capitol attackUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Beto O’Rourke on Texas: ‘I don’t know that we’re a conservative state’

      by

      Beto O’RourkeInterviewBeto O’Rourke on Texas: ‘I don’t know that we’re a conservative state’Alexandra VillarrealThe former Democratic presidential hopeful discusses the importance of the voting rights fight Sat 3 Jul 2021 04.00 EDTTo Beto O’Rourke, voting rights represent the silver bullet for progress in Texas.If more of the over 7 million Texans who were eligible to vote but didn’t last election could actually make it to the ballot box, the former Democratic presidential hopeful thinks state lawmakers would soon stop going after transgender student athletes and abortion access.Bad strategy? How the Republican attack on voting rights could backfireRead moreInstead, legislators would spend their time fixing Texas’s electric grid, which left millions shivering in the dark and hundreds dead when it failed during a devastating winter storm last February. They would be compelled to expand healthcare coverage in a state with the most uninsured people anywhere in the country, and they would actually address the Covid-19 pandemic, which has killed more than 51,000 Texans.“I don’t know that we’re a red state. I don’t know that we’re a conservative state. I don’t know that we’re a state that is focused on transgender girls’ sports, or telling people what to do with their bodies,” O’Rourke told the Guardian in an exclusive interview.“I think it is a minority really of the people and the voters in this state. It’s just the majority aren’t reflected because they aren’t voting.”A native El Pasoan and one of the country’s foremost Democrats, O’Rourke spent much of June traversing his home state, advocating for voting rights. As he registered eligible voters in 102F (39C) heat or held intimate town halls with as few as 100 people, he was fighting for democracy in Texas – before it’s too late.“If the great crime committed by Republicans was trying to suppress the votes of those who live outside of the centers of power,” he said, “then the great crime of Democrats was to take all of these people for granted.”During his travels, he heard from people who readily admitted they hadn’t been paying attention until he showed up.“You cannot expect people to participate in the state’s politics if you don’t show them the basic respect of listening to them and understanding what’s most important to them and then reflecting that in the campaign that you run,” O’Rourke said.“You can’t do that at a distance, and you can’t do that through a pollster or a focus group. You have to do that in person.”Many Democrats are waiting with bated breath to see if O’Rourke launches a bid to oust Texas’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott, in 2022. But for now, he’s mostly brushing off questions about his political future; the voting rights fight could not be more urgent, he said, and he doesn’t have the bandwidth to simultaneously mount a separate campaign.“As this woman at our meeting in Wichita Falls said, you know, it may not matter who the candidates are on the ballot if that vote can be overturned,” he said. “Or if we functionally disenfranchise millions of our fellow Texans.”Texas was already infamous as the hardest place to vote in the United States before this year’s legislative session, when state lawmakers capitalized on false narratives about widespread voter fraud to push for new, sweeping voting restrictions.Democrats in the state House staged a historic walkout at the 11th hour to kill one of the most controversial restrictive voting bills. But Abbott, who still considers “election integrity” an emergency, announced he would convene a special session starting 8 July, teeing up yet another bitter showdown via legislative overtime.As O’Rourke sees it, the special session is one of two fronts in the war for voting rights in Texas. The other is at the federal level, where Democrats are scrambling to protect the polls after Republicans blocked their ambitious For the People Act.Texas special sessions can’t last more than 30 days, and the US Congress has mere weeks before a long August recess.“There is a very tight window within which we’ve gotta do everything we can,” O’Rourke said.At stake are a rash of new provisions that would make it even harder and scarier to vote, in a state with already chronically low voter turnout.In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Texas Republicans proposed barring 24-hour and drive-thru voting, doing away with drop boxes, and subjecting public officials to state felonies for soliciting or distributing unrequested vote by mail applications, among other hardline policies.Many of their suggestions directly targeted innovations to expand voter access last year in Texas’s largest county, Harris, which is both diverse and more left-leaning. And voting rights advocates worry that in general, Texans of color will be disproportionately disenfranchised by the restrictions being advanced.Already, Texas has extremely limited vote-by-mail access, virtually no online voter registration and no same-day registration during early voting or on election day. Voters have to show acceptable forms of identification, which can include a handgun license but not a student ID.The state is a hotbed for gerrymandering, and politicians purposely attenuate the voting power in communities of color. Hundreds of Texas polling stations have shuttered since 2012, with closures concentrated where Black and Latino populations are growing the most.O’Rourke remembers how he used to be baffled by people who didn’t vote. Not any more.“When your voting power has been diminished like that, it is not illogical or irrational to say, ‘I’m not gonna vote. I’m not gonna participate in this one. I’m not gonna get my hopes up,’” he said.Last month, when O’Rourke visited Rains county, Texas, a woman with multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and other illnesses explained how – because she’s disabled and doesn’t drive – she struggled to get identification. An ID cost her $125, a modern-day poll tax, she said.As she told her story, O’Rourke said, even the local GOP chairwoman was seemingly nodding her head, as if the issue was starting to make sense.In Gainesville, where 40 suspected Unionists were hanged during the civil war, a young woman told O’Rourke that she successfully organized to bring down a Confederate statue at the park where his town hall was taking place.But she wasn’t registered to vote, she added.“It’s not for lack of urgency or love for country,” O’Rourke said. “I think it’s because they are acutely aware of how rigged our democracy is at this moment, and nowhere more so than Texas.”From ideological courts to a Republican-controlled legislature and a rightwing executive, conservatives dominate every branch of the state government.Their overpowering dominion makes it nearly impossible for liberals to make inroads in Texas, despite long-held Democratic hopes that rapidly changing demographics will trigger a blue wave.Still, O’Rourke refuses to give up.“If we register in numbers and turn out in numbers, even with a rigged system – and we should acknowledge that it’s rigged – and even with the deck that is stacked, there’s still a way to prevail,” he said.“It’s not gonna be easy. And it’s gonna require a lot of us.”TopicsBeto O’RourkeTexasUS voting rightsUS politicsinterviewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court deals blow to voting rights by upholding Arizona restrictions

      by

      The US supreme court has upheld two Arizona voting restrictions in a ruling that dealt a major blow to the Voting Rights Act, the landmark 1965 civil rights law designed to prevent voting discrimination.In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld Arizona statutes that prohibit anyone other than a close family member or caregiver from collecting mail-in ballots, which are widely used in the state.The court also upheld a statute that requires officials to wholly reject votes from people who show up to cast a ballot in the wrong precinct, even if the person is otherwise entitled to vote in the state.“Neither Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule nor its ballot-collection law violates §2 of the VRA. Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule enforces the requirement that voters who choose to vote in person on election day must do so in their assigned precincts,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a majority that included the court’s five other conservative justices, referring to section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.He added: “Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting’.”The decision means that the Arizona statutes will remain in effect and make it harder to challenge discriminatory voting laws across the US at a time when a swath of Republican-run state legislatures are pushing a wave of new voting restrictions that voting rights advocates say are aimed at suppressing the vote and especially target communities of color.“Today the supreme court made it much harder to challenge discriminatory voting laws in court. The justices stopped short of eviscerating the Voting Rights Act, but nevertheless did significant damage to this vital civil rights law and to the freedom to vote,” Sean Morales-Doyle, the acting director of the voting rights and elections program at the Brennan Center for Justice, said in a statement.Richard Hasen, an election law scholar at the University of California, Irvine, said the decision was a significant blow to the Voting Rights Act, one of America’s landmark civil rights laws.“The conservative supreme court has taken away all the major available tools for going after voting restrictions. This at a time when some Republican states are passing new restrictive voting law[s],” he wrote in a blogpost. “This is not a death blow for section 2 claims, but it will make it much, much harder for such challenges to succeed.”The larger dispute in the case, Brnovich v Democratic National Committee, was how courts should interpret section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits any voting practice that results in the “denial or abridgment” of the right to vote based on race. The provision has become a critical tool for civil rights lawyers to challenge discriminatory voting laws in recent years, especially after a 2013 supreme court ruling that dramatically weakened the Voting Rights Act.Alito declined to endorse a specific test for future section 2 cases, but outlined five “guideposts” that could be applied in future cases.Courts should weigh the size of the burden that a voting law imposes, the magnitude of disparities in how they affect different minority groups, the state’s interest in enacting such a law, as well as how far the challenged law departs from standard practice in 1982, the year when the relevant portion of the Voting Rights Act was adopted, Alito wrote.And when courts evaluate a voting law, they need to consider the accessibility of a state’s entire electoral system, rather than just the law at hand, Alito added.Alito used those five factors to set an extremely high bar for challenging the Arizona law.Arizona’s prohibition on out-of-precinct voting only required voters to ensure they showed up at the right precinct on election day, a minimal burden in Alito’s view. Alito also dismissed evidence that minority voters were about twice as likely to have their provisional ballots rejected than white voters, noting that only a small percentage of Arizona voters overall cast an out-of-precinct provisional ballot on election day.“A policy that appears to work for 98% or more of voters to whom it applies – minority and non-minority alike – is unlikely to render a system unequally open,” he stated.Alito took a similar approach in upholding Arizona’s ban on third-party ballot collection. He noted that voters who cast their ballot by mail have several ways to return the ballot other than having someone collect it. The plaintiffs in the case also failed to provide statistically significant evidence, Alito said, that the ban disproportionately harmed Native American voters.Alito also gave states significant leeway to use voter fraud – which is extremely rare – as an excuse to restrict voting. “It should go without saying that a state may take action to prevent election fraud without waiting for it to occur and be detected within its own borders,” he wrote.Justice Elena Kagan wrote a searing dissenting opinion for the court’s three liberal justices, bluntly saying the majority opinion “enables voting discrimination”.The Voting Rights Act, Kagan wrote, makes any voting law that results in racial discrimination illegal, no matter how small the burden is for the voter, since even burdens that seem small can lead to discrimination in voting.She also rejected Alito’s suggestion that the Arizona laws did not provide more of a burden on minority voters because 98% of voters overall were unaffected.“Suppose a state decided to throw out 1% of the Hispanic vote each election. Presumably, the majority would not approve the action just because 99% of the Hispanic vote is unaffected,” she wrote.She also dismissed Alito’s acceptance of voter fraud as an excuse to pass voting restrictions. “Of course preventing voter intimidation is an important state interest. And of course preventing election fraud is the same. But those interests are also easy to assert groundlessly or pre-textually in voting discrimination cases,” she wrote.Joe Biden said in a statement he was “deeply disappointed” with the ruling and renewed his call for federal voting legislation, which Republicans blocked in the US Senate last month.“In a span of just eight years, the court has now done severe damage to two of the most important provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – a law that took years of struggle and strife to secure,” he said in a statement.Biden added: “While this broad assault against voting rights is sadly not unprecedented, it is taking on new forms. It is no longer just about a fight over who gets to vote and making it easier for eligible voters to vote. It is about who gets to count the vote and whether your vote counts at all.”Democrats in Washington are scrambling to find a way to pass new federal voting rights protections.One of the bills under consideration would restore the portion of the Voting Rights Act that section 2 has been used in lieu of in recent years and require certain states across the country to get voting changes approved by the federal government before they go into effect, in a bid to minimize discrimination.Kagan also noted in her dissenting opinion that the case came to the court at a time when states were considering hundreds of laws that would make it harder to vote, a moment she described as uniquely dangerous for American democracy.“The court decides this Voting Rights Act case at a perilous moment for the nation’s commitment to equal citizenship. It decides this case in an era of voting-rights retrenchment,” she wrote. “What is tragic here is that the court has (yet again) rewritten – in order to weaken – a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses. What is tragic is that the court has damaged a statute designed to bring about ‘the end of discrimination in voting’.” More

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Derek Chauvin sentenced to 22 and a half years for murder of George Floyd – latest news

      by

      Key events

      Show

      3.55pm EDT
      15:55

      Chauvin given 22 and a half years for George Floyd murder

      1.42pm EDT
      13:42

      Health secretary ordered to investigate Fort Bliss migrant children complaints

      1.28pm EDT
      13:28

      Charges possible in Trump Organization investigation – report

      12.50pm EDT
      12:50

      Republican congressman compares Democrats to Nazis

      12.17pm EDT
      12:17

      DoJ sues over Georgia voting rights measure – full report

      12.05pm EDT
      12:05

      Georgia governor slams DoJ voting rights lawsuit

      11.10am EDT
      11:10

      Justice Department sues Georgia over voting law

      Live feed

      Show

      5.43pm EDT
      17:43

      Gabrielle Canon here, taking over from the west coast for the evening.
      Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has tweeted his reaction to the Chavin sentence it “historic” but agreeing with others that more needs to be done.
      “This is a positive step toward justice, but our work is not done. We’ve known all along that accountability in the courtroom is not enough,” he says.

      Governor Tim Walz
      (@GovTimWalz)
      Today, Judge Cahill gave Derek Chauvin a historic sentence. This is a positive step toward justice, but our work is not done. We’ve known all along that accountability in the courtroom is not enough. https://t.co/mlLijFciIf

      June 25, 2021

      “The statements today from George Floyd’s family and members of the community were painful but powerful,” he continues. “Now, as Derek Chauvin faces years behind bars, we must come together around our common humanity and continue on towards justice for all”.
      The stataement echoed the statement the governor issued on April 20, when Chauvin was found guilty of murdering George Floyd, when he said that systemic change was needed to prevent this from happening again.
      Here is more from his statement in April:

      “Too many Black people have lost—and continue to lose—their lives at the hands of law enforcement in our state.”
      “Our communities of color cannot go on like this. Our police officers cannot go on like this. Our state simply cannot go on like this. And the only way it will change is through systemic reform.”
      “We must rebuild, restore, and reimagine the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve. We must tackle racial inequities in every corner of society—from health to home ownership to education. We must come together around our common humanity.”
      “Let us continue on this march towards justice.”

      Updated
      at 5.47pm EDT

      5.27pm EDT
      17:27

      Evening summary

      That’s it for me. Here’s a recap of what happened today:

      Derek Chauvin was sentenced to 22 years in prison for the death of George Floyd.
      Here’s Joe Biden responding to the ruling.
      The UFO report is out.
      Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida addressed the building collapse and efforts by rescue workers there.
      The Manhattan district attorney informed attorneys for Donald Trump that criminal charges could be filed against the family business.

      5.13pm EDT
      17:13

      Here’s Al Sharpton reacting to the ruling. Like Ellison, he said the ruling was not enough. Sharpton noted that the ruling is “longest sentence they’ve ever given but it is not justice. Justice is George Floyd would be alive.”

      ABC News
      (@ABC)
      Rev. Al Sharpton on Derek Chauvin 22.5-year sentence: “Had they done sentences like this before, maybe Chauvin would not have thought he would have gotten away with it.” https://t.co/IuuRKnTv3s pic.twitter.com/vw7mGKzXvh

      June 25, 2021

      5.06pm EDT
      17:06

      Some reaction from various corners of Twitter to the Chauvin ruling:

      Jemele Hill
      (@jemelehill)
      If you’re wondering if Derek Chauvin’s sentence is fair, Chauvin will be 60 years old when he’s released from prison after serving 15 years of his 22 1/2-year sentence. George Floyd was murdered by Chauvin when he was 46. Floyd can never resume his life. Chauvin can.

      June 25, 2021

      Meena Harris
      (@meena)
      Just a reminder that Chauvin being sentenced to 22 years in prison is not justice. George Floyd being alive today — along with countless other black people murdered by the police — is justice. There’s no achieving justice from a system that is fundamentally unjust.

      June 25, 2021

      W. Kamau Bell
      (@wkamaubell)
      White people, do not celebrate Derek Chauvin’s sentence. Figure out how you can put the same attention & activism on all police murders of Black people that you put on George Floyd. Your work is not done.

      June 25, 2021

      Harry Litman
      (@harrylitman)
      Presumptive sentence for the crime for a person of Chauvin’s criminal history is 12.5 years. So in effect Judge Cahill imposed an additional 10 years for the aggravating factors. Remember, Chauvin waived his right for a jury to determine & probably jury would have found even more

      June 25, 2021

      5.02pm EDT
      17:02

      My colleague Adam Gabbatt had a long dispatch about the UFO report:

      The mystery of UFOs seen in American skies is likely to continue following the release of the US government’s highly anticipated UFO report.
      The report released Friday afternoon made clear that while American intelligence officials do not believe aliens are behind the UFOs – or what scientists prefer to call unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) – that were observed by Navy pilots, they cannot explain what the flying objects are.
      The report confirms that the observed phenomena are not part of any US military operations.
      The Pentagon studied over 140 incidents reported by Navy pilots of UFOs seen over the last two decades for the report, many of which were seen during the summer of 2014 into the spring of 2015.
      The release of the report caps a six-month wait, since a group of elected officials succeeded in including the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021 in a $2.3tn coronavirus relief bill signed by Donald Trump last December.
      The act ordered government agencies to provide a declassified “detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence” and “a detailed description of an interagency process” for reporting UFOs.
      The discussion of UFOs – at government level or outside it – has been stigmatized for decades. While some have used the UAP materials as fodder for theories on alien life, officials have pointed to the possible threat of the UAPs being from an adversary using technology unknown to the US.

      4.50pm EDT
      16:50

      The much-awaited (at least to me) Director of National Intelligence report on UFOs is here. Read it.

      4.41pm EDT
      16:41

      Joe Biden was asked about his reaction to the Chauvin ruling. Here’s the pool report:

      Question: Do you have a reaction to Derek Chauvin being sentenced to 22.5 years in prison?
      Biden: “I don’t know all the circumstances that were considered but it seems to me, under the guidelines, that seems to be appropriate.”
      Thanks to the AP’s Darlene Superville for lending a good recording of the quote.
      More quotes coming.

      The Recount
      (@therecount)
      President Biden reacts to Derek Chauvin sentence of 22.5 years, saying “that seems to be appropriate.” pic.twitter.com/hNGv84W1LY

      June 25, 2021

      Updated
      at 4.51pm EDT

      4.32pm EDT
      16:32

      Oliver Laughland

      Just before sentencing Derek Chauvin to 22 and a half years, judge Cahill, known as a forthright and relatively brusque jurist, stated he had written a lengthy, 26 page sentencing memo to explain his thinking on the sentence, which is 10 years above the state guidance for second degree murder. “What the sentence is not based on is emotion or sympathy, but at the same time I want to acknowledge the deep and tremendous pain families are feeling, especially the Floyd family,” Cahill told the court.
      The document itself is filled with a lot legal reasoning, but the conclusion is worth reporting here as it’s a neat summary of Cahill’s thinking.
      He writes: “Part of the mission of the Minneapolis police department is to give citizens ‘voice and respect’. Here, Mr Chauvin, rather than pursuing the MPD mission, treated Mr Floyd without respect and denied him the dignity owed to all human beings and which he certainly would have extended to a friend or neighbor. In the court’s view, 270 months, which amounts to an additional 10 years over the presumptive 150 month sentence, is the appropriate sentence.”

      Updated
      at 4.36pm EDT

      4.17pm EDT
      16:17

      Here is the sentencing order on the Chauvin ruling in the Floyd case.

      4.16pm EDT
      16:16

      Attorney Ben Crump has also responded to the ruling.

      Ben Crump
      (@AttorneyCrump)
      22.5 YEARS! This historic sentence brings the Floyd family and our nation one step closer to healing by delivering closure and accountability.

      June 25, 2021

      4.15pm EDT
      16:15

      Ellison continues: “My hope for Derek Chauvin is that he uses his long sentence to reflect on the choices he made … my hope is that he takes the time to learn something about the man whose life he took.”
      Ellison is going on to say the sentencing “is not enough”.

      Updated
      at 4.19pm EDT

      4.14pm EDT
      16:14

      Ellison is now speaking.
      “The sentence that the court just imposed on Derek Chauvin … is one of the longest a former police officer has ever received for an unlawful use of deadly force,” Ellison said. “Today’s sentencing is not justice but it’s another moment of real accountability on the road to justice.”

      Updated
      at 4.19pm EDT

      4.12pm EDT
      16:12

      Attorney General Keith Ellison of Minnesota is about to speak about the ruling and Derek Chauvin’s sentencing. More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Justice department sues state of Georgia over laws that 'deny the right to vote' – video

      by

      The justice department is suing the state of Georgia over the new voting laws it says violate the Voting Rights Act and suppress Black Americans’ right to vote.
      Attorney General Merrick Garland made the announcement after the justice department scrutinized a wave of new laws in Republican-controlled states that tighten voting rules.
      Under the bill, the legislature gave itself power to remove local election officials deemed to be underperforming and added a voter ID requirement for mail ballots. It will result in fewer ballot drop boxes in metro Atlanta

      US politics latest updates More