Picture by George Frey for Getty Images
- The Republican National Committee filed a lawsuit against California Gov. Gavin Newsom alleging that an executive order he signed expanding mail-in voting is illegal.
- The order would send mail-in ballots to all registered voters in the state ahead of the general election.
- The lawsuit comes as President Trump and other Republican leaders have ramped up their criticisms against the numerous states that have expanded mail-in voting amid the coronavirus pandemic.
RNC Files Lawsuit
The Republican National Committee, along with the other Republican groups, filed a lawsuit Sunday against California Gov. Gavin Newsom, claiming an executive order he passed that sends mail-in ballots to every registered voter in the state ahead of the general election is illegal.
That executive order, signed by Newsom on May 8, does not entirely close down all polling places, but it does strongly encourage everyone who can to vote by mail. It has also been described as the largest expansion of vote-by-mail that any state has put in place as a result of the pandemic.
Now, the lawsuit filed by the RNC, which was also joined by the Republican Congressional Committee and the California Republican Party, says that order goes too far.
According to reports, the lawsuit argues that Newsom’s actions went beyond the scope of his power because he didn’t go through the state Legislature. It also accuses him of making a “brazen power grab” that would “violate eligible citizens’ right to vote.”
The lawsuit claims that the order “invites fraud, coercion, theft, and otherwise illegitimate voting” because it mandates that ballots be sent to all registered voters, including inactive voters.
That sentiment was echoed by RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, who first announced the lawsuit on Twitter, where she referred to the order as Newsom’s “illegal election power grab.”
“His radical plan is a recipe for disaster that would create more opportunities for fraud & destroy the confidence Californians deserve to have in their elections,” she continued. “Make no mistake, Democrats are trying to use this pandemic to redesign our entire election system for political gain, and we will not let their brazen attempts go unchallenged.”
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla responded to the lawsuit in a series of tweets on Sunday night, where he defended the vote by mail measure and accused Republicans and President Donald Trump of using the coronavirus pandemic to engage in voter suppression.
“Expanding vote-by-mail during a pandemic is not a partisan issue — it’s a moral imperative to protect voting rights and public safety,” he wrote. “Vote-by-mail has been used safely and effectively in red, blue, and purple states for years.”
“This lawsuit is just another part of Trump’s political smear campaign against voting by mail,” Padilla continued. “We will not let this virus be exploited for voter suppression.”
Broader Efforts Against Mail-In Voting
Padilla’s last point is important to note here. While the lawsuit was filed in California, this pushback is part of a much broader trend that has become apparent as more and more states expand vote-by-mail during the pandemic.
President Trump himself has been very vocal about his opposition to expanding vote-by-mail in recent weeks. Last week, Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from Michigan and Nevada. Michigan is sending voters mail-in ballot applications while Nevada is mailing active registered voters the ballots themselves.
Trump claimed that the efforts in both states were illegal and accused both Democrat and Republican leaders of engaging in voter fraud and cheating in the elections. On Sunday, Trump doubled down on those attacks again in a tweet.
“The United States cannot have all Mail In Ballots. It will be the greatest Rigged Election in history,” the president wrote. “People grab them from mailboxes, print thousands of forgeries and ‘force’ people to sign. Also, forge names. Some absentee OK, when necessary. Trying to use Covid for this Scam!”
But according to reports, there is no evidence that “thousands” of forgeries have been linked to mail-in voting, and there is not extensive evidence of people being forced to sign absentee ballots.
In fact, numerous studies have found that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the U.S. from either in-person or mail-in voting. Some studies have shown that instances of voter fraud account for just a fraction of a percent of all votes cast.
Still, Trump has not been alone in his attacks of these new proposals. Republican leaders all over the country have joined the president in making the same baseless claims about fraud and election security.
Now, they have the legal backing of the RNC and other major Republican leadership groups. According to CNN, the lawsuit is just one part of a $20 million effort led by the RNC “to combat Democratic-led expansions of vote-by-mail across the country.”
Trump Threatens to Move Convention
The lawsuit against Gov. Newsom is not the only significant piece of RNC-related news coming out of the long holiday weekend.
On Monday, Trump separately threatened to move the Republican National Convention from North Carolina if the state’s governor, Democrat Roy Cooper, did not promise to hold the event at full capacity. Right now, the convention is set for the end of August.
In a series of tweets Trump called on Gov. Cooper to guarantee that the convention can be held without coronavirus restrictions, writing that he loves North Carolina and that he had pushed for the convention to be held there, but adding that Gov. Cooper “is still in Shutdown mood & unable to guarantee that by August we will be allowed full attendance in the Arena.”
“In other words, we would be spending millions of dollars building the Arena to a very high standard without even knowing if the Democrat Governor would allow the Republican Party to fully occupy the space,” he said.
Trump also said that Gov. Cooper must immediately say if the space can be fully occupied.
“If not, we will be reluctantly forced to find, with all of the jobs and economic development it brings, another Republican National Convention site,” he wrote. “This is not something I want to do. Thank you, and I LOVE the people of North Carolina!”
Trump’s announcement comes as North Carolina moved to ease more restrictions on Friday, transitioning to its second phase of reopening. Right now, according to reports, the state allows for the opening of some businesses, and gatherings are limited to no more than ten people inside and 25 people outside.
But coronavirus cases are still on the rise. On Saturday, the state’s Department of Health and Human Services reported the highest number of confirmed cases in a single day since the pandemic started.
As a result, it is currently unclear if the state will be ready to host the convention at the level Trump wants.
According to reports, the convention is set to be held at an arena in Charlotte that can hold as many as 20,000 people. When Trump says “full capacity,” he means 20,000 people in an enclosed space and likely without proper distancing measures.
But, at least for now, it doesn’t seem like Trump is going to get an immediate answer.
“State health officials are working with the RNC and will review its plans as they make decisions about how to hold the convention in Charlotte,” a spokesperson for the governor’s office said in response to Trump’s tweets. “North Carolina is relying on data and science to protect our state’s public health and safety.”
Separately, the Mayor of Charlotte, Vi Lyles, also reportedly said that her primary concern is the city’s “vulnerable populations” who could get sick from the coronavirus.
As for what state the convention would be moved too, Trump did not say, but during an interview with Fox News on Monday, Vice President Mike Pence indicated that Texas, Florida, and Georgia, all of which have enacted the broadest plans to reopen, were on the short list.
See what others are saying: (CNN) (The Los Angeles Times) (The Wall Street Journal)
Republican Congressman Proposes Bill to Ban Anyone Under 16 From Social Media
The proposal comes amid a growing push for social media companies to be stringently regulated for child and adolescent use.
The Social Media Child Protection Act
Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Ut.) introduced legislation Thursday that would ban all Americans under the age of 16 from accessing social media.
The proposal, dubbed the Social Media Child Protection Act, would require social media companies to verify users’ ages and give parents and states the ability to bring legal actions against those platforms if they fail, according to a press release.
The legislation would also mandate that social media platforms implement “reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from users and perspective users.”
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would be given the authority to enforce these regulations and implement fines for violations.
Stewart has argued that the move is necessary to protect children from the negative mental health impacts of social media.
“There has never been a generation this depressed, anxious, and suicidal – it’s our responsibility to protect them from the root cause: social media,” he said in a statement announcing the bill.
“We have countless protections for our children in the physical world – we require car seats and seat belts; we have fences around pools; we have a minimum drinking age of 21; and we have a minimum driving age of 16,” the Congressman continued.
“The damage to Generation Z from social media is undeniable – so why are there no protections in the digital world?”
While Stewart’s arguments are nothing new in the ongoing battle around children and regulating social media, his legislation has been described as one of the most severe proposals on this front.
The plan would represent a huge shift in verification systems that critics have long said fall short. Many social media sites like TikTok and Twitter technically ban users under 13 from joining, but there is no formal verification process or mechanisms for enforcement. Companies often just ask users to provide their birthdays, so those under 13 could easily just lie.
Backlash and Support
Stewart — who spent the weeks before the rollout of his bill discussing the matter with the media — has already gotten pushback from many who say the idea is too extreme and a bad approach.
Carl Szabo, the vice president and general counsel of the social media trade group NetChoice, told The Washington Post that such a decision should be left to parents.
“Rather than doomsaying or trying to get between parents and their families, the government should provide tools and education on how best to use this new technology, not demonize it,” he said.
Others have also argued that the move could cut off access to powerful and positive online resources for kids.
“For many kids, especially LGBTQ young people who may have unsupportive parents or live in a conservative area, the internet and social media are a lifeline,” Evan Greer, the director of the advocacy group Fight for the Future, told The Post. “We need better solutions than just cutting kids off from online community and educational resources.”
Lawmakers have also echoed that point, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Ca.), who represents Silicon Valley. However, there also seems to be support for this measure. At least one Democratic Congressmember has told reporters they are open to the idea, and Stewart says he thinks the proposal will have broad bipartisan backing.
“This is bipartisan… There’s Democratic leaders who are actually maneuvering to be the lead co-sponsor on this,” he told KSL News Radio, adding that President Joe Biden recently wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal that referenced similar ideas.
A Growing Movement
Stewart is just one among the growing number of lawmakers and federal officials who have voiced support for keeping kids and younger teens off social media altogether.
In an interview with CNN Sunday, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy expressed concern regarding “the right age for a child to start using social media.”
“I worry that right now, if you look at the guidelines from the platforms, that age 13 is when kids are technically allowed to use social media,” he said. “But there are two concerns I have about that. One is: I, personally, based on the data I’ve seen, believe that 13 is too early.”
Murthy went on to say that adolescents at that age are developing their identity and sense of self, arguing that social media can be a “skewed and often distorted environment,” adding that he is also worried about the fact that the rules around age are “inconsistently implemented.”
His comments gained widespread backing. At least one Senator posted a tweet agreeing, and an FTC Commissioner also shared the remarks on the platform. Stewart, for his part, explicitly cited Murthy’s remarks in the press release announcing his bill.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (KSL News Radio) (CNN)
Feds Investigate Classified Files Found in Biden’s Former Office
The documents reportedly include U.S. intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics such as Ukraine, Iran, and the United Kingdom
What Was in the Files?
President Biden’s legal team discovered about 10 classified files in his former office at the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington D.C., the White House revealed Monday.
The Department of Justice has concluded an initial inquiry into the matter and will determine whether to open a criminal investigation.
According to a source familiar with the matter who spoke to CNN, they include U.S. intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics such as Ukraine, Iran, and the United Kingdom.
A source also told CBS News the batch did not contain nuclear secrets and had been contained in a folder in a box with other unclassified papers.
The documents are reportedly from Biden’s time as vice president, but it remains unclear what level of classification they are and how they ended up in his office.
Biden kept an office in the. Penn Biden Center, a think tank about a mile from the White House, between 2017 and 2020, when he was elected president.
On Nov. 2, his lawyers claim, they discovered the documents as they were clearing out the space to vacate it.
They immediately notified the National Archives, which retrieved the files the next morning, according to the White House.
What Happens Next?
Attorney General Merrick Garland must decide whether to open a criminal investigation into Biden’s alleged mishandling of the documents. To that end, he appointed John Lausch Jr., the U.S. attorney in Chicago and a Trump appointee, to conduct an initial inquiry.
Garland reportedly picked him for the role despite him being in a different jurisdiction to avoid appearing partial.
Lausch has reportedly finished the initial part of his inquiry and provided a preliminary report to Garland.
If a criminal investigation is opened, Garland will likely appoint an independent special counsel to lead it.
The case mirrors a similar DoJ special counsel investigation into former President Donald Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified materials and obstruction of efforts to properly retrieve them.
On Nov. 18, Garland appointed Jack Smith to investigate over 300 classified documents found at Trump’s Florida residence, Mar-a-Lago.
Trump resisted multiple National Archives requests for the documents for months leading up to the FBI’s raid on his property, then handed over 15 boxes of files only for even more to be found still at Mar-a-Lago.
“When is the FBI going to raid the many houses of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House?” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday. “These documents were definitely not declassified.”
Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the new chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told reporters he will investigate the Biden files.
Republicans have been quick to pounce on the news and compare it to Trump’s classified files, but Democrats have pointed out differences in the small number of documents and Biden’s willingness to cooperate with the National Archives.
The White House has yet to explain why, if the files were first discovered six days before the midterm elections, the White House waited two months to reveal the news to the public.
See what others are saying: (CNN) (The New York Times) (BBC)
Lawmakers Propose Bill to Protect Fertility Treatments Amid Post-Roe Threats
The move comes as a number of states are considering anti-abortion bills that could threaten or ban fertility treatments by redefining embryos or fetuses as “unborn human beings” without exceptions for IVF.
The Right To Build Families Act of 2022
A group of Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill Thursday that would codify the right to use assisted reproductive technologies like in-vitro fertility (IVF) treatments into federal law.
The legislation, dubbed the Right To Build Families Act of 2022, was brought forward by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Il) and Patty Murray (D-Wa.) alongside Rep. Susan Wild (D- Pa.). The measure would bar any limits on seeking or receiving IVF treatments and prohibit regulations on a person’s ability to retain their “reproductive genetic materials.”
The bill would also protect physicians who provide these reproductive services and allow the Justice Department to take civil action against any states that try to limit access to fertility treatments.
The lawmakers argue it is necessary to protect IVF because a number of states have been discussing and proposing legislation that could jeopardize or even ban access to the treatments in the wake of the Roe v. Wade reversal.
“IVF advocates in this country today are publicly telling us, ‘We need this kind of legislation to be able to protect this,’” Murray told HuffPost. “And here we are after the Dobbs decision where states are enacting laws and we have [anti-abortion] advocates who are now starting to talk, especially behind closed doors, about stopping the right for women and men to have IVF procedures done.”
Fertility Treatments Under Treat
The state-level efforts in question are being proposed by Republican lawmakers who wish to further limit abortions by redefining when life begins. Some of the proposals would define embryos or fetuses as “unborn human beings” without exceptions for those that are created through IVF, where an egg is fertilized by a sperm outside the body and then implanted in a uterus.
For example, a bill has already been pre-filed in Virginia for the 2023 legislative session that explicitly says life begins at fertilization and does not have any specific language that exempts embryos made through IVF.
Experts say these kinds of laws are concerning for a number of reasons. In the IVF process, it is typical to fertilize multiple eggs, but some are discarded. If a person becomes pregnant and does not want to keep the rest of their eggs. It is also normal that not all fertilized eggs will be viable, so physicians will get rid of those.
Sometimes doctors will also implant multiple fertilized eggs to increase the likelihood of pregnancy, but that can result in multiple eggs being fertilized. In order to prevent having multiple babies at once and improve the chance of a healthy pregnancy, people can get a fetal reduction and lower the number of fetuses.
All of those actions could become illegal under proposals that do not provide exemptions.
“In my case, I had five fertilized eggs, and we discarded three because they were not viable. That is now potentially manslaughter in some of these states,” said Duckworth, who had both of her daughters using IVF.
“I also have a fertilized egg that’s frozen. My husband and I haven’t decided what we will do with it, but the head of the Texas Right to Life organization that wrote the bounty law for Texas has come out and specifically said he’s going after IVF next, and he wants control of the embryos,” Duckworth added.
In a hearing after Roe was overturned, Murray also raised concerns about “whether parents and providers could be punished if an embryo doesn’t survive being thawed for implantation, or for disposing unused embryos.”
Experts have said that even if anti-abortion laws defining when life begins do provide exceptions, it would be contradictory and confusing, so providers would likely err on the side of caution and not provide services out of fear of prosecution.
“[Abortion bans] are forcing women to stay pregnant against their will and are, at the very same time, threatening Americans’ ability to build a family through services like IVF,” Murray said in a statement to Axios. “It’s hard to comprehend, and it’s just plain wrong.”
The federal legislation to combat these efforts faces an uphill battle. It is unlikely it will be passed in the last few days of lame duck session, and with control of Congress being handed to Republicans come January, movement in the lower chamber will be hard fought.
Duckworth, however, told Axios that she will keep introducing the legislation “until we can get it passed.”