Connect with us

Politics

Why Kanye West Could Face an Election Fraud Investigation

Published

on

  • Kanye West could be subject to an election fraud investigation because of issues with petitions he submitted to get on the ballot in three states.
  • In New Jersey and Illinois, West has been accused of collecting hundreds of invalid signatures.
  • West removed himself from the race in New Jersey over the matter, and Illinois’ Election Board is expected to remove him from the ballot because of the nearly 2,000 invalid signatures he sent in.
  • In Wisconsin, the Democratic Party filed a complaint accusing West’s campaign of turning in petitions with fake signatures. It even included testimonies from multiple people who accused his campaign of tricking people into signing his petition.

West Withdraws Election Petition in New Jersey

Since announcing his run for president in July, Kanye West’s campaign has been an uphill climb. Now, the rapper and his team could be facing the possibility of an election fraud investigation.

At the end of last month, West’s campaign filed a petition to appear on the presidential ticket in New Jersey. However, a few days after that paperwork was sent in, a lawyer found that over 700 of the 1,327 signatures West collected had multiple issues. Those issues included having no last names listed, including people who were not registered to vote in New Jersey, and including people who did not even live in the state at all.

Last Monday, just hours before a scheduled hearing to determine the validity of his petition, West’s team withdrew the application. 

“At this time, Kanye 2020 has no further option than to regrettably withdraw from New Jersey and cease further efforts to place Mr. West’s name on the New Jersey ballot,” his campaign wrote in an email to the judge overseeing the matter.

Issues in Illinois

On Friday, an election board in Illinois ruled that 60%— or nearly 2,000 of the 3,218 signatures West collected— were invalid. The decision was handed down after it was reported that three different whistleblowers asked the state to take a closer look at the end of last month.

If the findings of the board hold up, West will fall 1,300 signatures short of the 2,500 he needs to be able to appear on the ballot in his home state. However, the board’s ruling is just preliminary, and their findings still have to go to a hearing examiner, who will make a recommendation as to whether or not West should stay on that ballot.

After that, the Illinois State Board of Elections will vote on the recommendation, which they are expected to do late next week. 

According to reports, the election board’s preliminary decisions historically have had a lot of weight on the hearing examiner’s recommendation. Ed Mullen, one of the lawyers who challenged West’s petition, said the determination means that West “is virtually certain to be kicked off the ballot.”

Both this ruling in Illinois and the New Jersey incident have prompted experts to speculate that West and his campaign could be subject to an election fraud investigation.

“Two states declaring #KanyeWest inelligible to be on #POTUS ballot due to faulty signatures could open him up to an #ElectionFraud investigation,” political analyst April Ryan said in a tweet. “I would imagine other states where reported GOP operatives assisted him to get on the ballot will soon be reviewing. #Election2020”

Complaints in Wisconsin 

However, that’s not where this story ends. The same day that the state board in Illinois announced the results of their review, the Wisconsin state Democratic Party filed a complaint asking state officials to keep West off the ballot.

In their complaint, they allege that West’s campaign was late in submitting their paperwork and that there were numerous issues with those filings, including problems with signatures he collected.

According to reports, the complaint claims that the papers he filed included incorrect addresses for the people who circulated it, and that the petitions contained bogus signatures like “Mickey Mouse,” “Bernie Sanders,” and even two for “Kanye West.”

Very notably, the complaint also included affidavits from six people who say they were tricked into signing West’s petition. One of those affidavits was from a woman who said she unknowingly signed his papers outside a Walmart when one of West’s circulators told her signature was needed to ensure she was registered to vote in the general election.

“If I had known that, I wouldn’t have signed the papers, absolutely not,” she said in her affidavit. “Kanye West would not get my vote and I think it is a joke that he is running for president.”

Duping people into signing a petition is a serious allegation. “If the affidavits are true … crimes were committed by the West campaign,” the lawyer who collected those affidavits for the Democratic Party told reporters.

In this case, it appears that West’s team is pushing back. On Monday, his campaign filed a counter-complaint, where they alleged that the state Democratic Party filed their complaint because they “fear the candidacy of Kanye West and seek to silence him.”

The complaint also accused the Party engaged in an “organized effort of harassment and intimidation” against his candidacy and claimed they hired a private investigator to “track and spy” on his signature gatherers.

Now, the complaints will be reviewed by an Elections Commission panel is made up of three Democrats and three Republicans, who will then make a recommendation regarding West’s filings and if he should be on the ballot.

While these incidents may open West up to legal issues, it is already mathematically impossible for him to win. So far, West has only filed petitions to appear on the presidential ticket in 10 states.

While he was able to get on the ballot in Oklahoma, he also withdrew his filings to appear on the ticket in New Jersey. Now, regardless of if he makes it on the ballot in Illinois or Wisconsin, he already will be on enough ballots to yield get 270 electoral votes.

See what others are saying: (Vanity Fair) (Mic) (Milwaulkee Journal Sentinel)

Politics

Supreme Court Begins Contentious New Term as Approval Rating Hits Historic Low

Published

on

The most volatile cases the court will consider involve affirmative action, voting rights, elections, and civil rights for the LGBTQ+ community.


High Court to Hear Numerous Controversial Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday officially kicked off a new term that will be marked by a number of very contentious cases.

The justices, led by a conservative super-majority, will hear many matters that have enormous implications for the American people.

The first case the court will hear this term involves a major environmental dispute that will determine the scope of government authority under the Clean Water Act — a decision that could have a massive impact on U.S. water quality at a time when water crises’ have been heightened by climate change.

The case also comes amid increasing concerns about federal inaction regarding climate change, especially after the Supreme Court significantly limited the government’s power to act in this area at the end of its last term.

Cases Involving Race

Several of the most anticipated decisions also center around race, including a pair of cases that challenge affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

For over four decades, the high court has repeatedly upheld that race can be a factor in college admissions to ensure a more equitable student body. Despite the fact that multiple challenges have been struck down in the past, the court’s conservative super majority could very well undo 40 years of precedent and undermine essential protections.

The high court will decide a legal battle that could significantly damage key voting protections for minorities set forth under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The case in question stems from a lower court opinion that invalidated Alabama’s congressional map for violating a provision in the VRA prohibiting voting rules that discriminate on the basis of race.

Alabama had drawn its map so only one of its seven congressional districts was majority Black, despite the fact that nearly one in every three voting-age residents in the state are Black. 

States’ Power Over Elections 

Also on the topic of gerrymandering and elections, the justices will hear a case that could have a profound impact on the very nature of American democracy. The matter centers around a decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court to strike down the Republican-drawn congressional map on the grounds that it amounted to an illegal gerrymander that violated the state’s Constitution.

The North Carolina GOP appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause gives state legislatures almost total control over how federal elections are carried out in their state under a theory called the independent state legislature doctrine.

“That argument, in its most extreme form, would mean that [sic] no state court and no state agency could interfere with the state legislature’s version of election rules, regardless of the rules set down in the state constitution,” NPR explained.

In other words, if the Supreme Court sides with the North Carolina Republicans, they would essentially be giving state legislatures unchecked power over how voting maps are designed and elections are administered.

LGBTQ+ Rights

Another notable decision the justices will make could have huge implications for the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights more broadly. That matter involved a web designer in Colorado named Lori Smith who refused to design websites for same-sex couples because she believed it violates her right to religious freedoms.

That belief, however, goes against a Colorado nondiscrimination law that bans businesses that serve the public from denying their services to customers based on sexual orientation or identity.

As a result, Smith argues that the Colorado law violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment. If the high court rules in her favor, it would undermine protections for the LGBTQ+ community in Colorado and likely other states with similar laws.

Experts also say such a ruling could go far beyond that. As Georgetown University’s Kelsi Corkran told NPR, “if Smith is correct that there’s a free speech right to selectively choose her customers based on the messages she wants to endorse,” the Colorado law would also allow white supremacists to deny services to people of color because that “would be a message of endorsement.”

Record-Low Approval Rating

The court’s high-stakes docket also comes at a time when its reputation has been marred by questions of legitimacy.

A new Gallup poll published last week found that the Supreme Court’s approval rating has sunk to a record low. Specifically, less than half of Americans said they have at least a “fair amount” of trust in the judicial branch — a 20% drop from just two years ago.

Beyond that, a record number of people also now say that the court is too conservative. Experts argue that these numbers are massively consequential, especially as the U.S. heads into yet another highly-contentious court term.

“The Supreme Court is at an important moment,” Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs told The Hill

“Trust in the institutions has vastly diminished, certainly among Democrats, and many have a close eye on how they rule on other vital matters. If decisions seem to keep coming from a very pointed political direction, frustration and calls for reform will only mount.”

See what others are saying: (The Hill) (CNN) (The Wall Street Journal)

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event

Published

on

The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.


“Where’s Jackie?” 

Video of President Joe Biden publicly asking if a congresswoman who died last month was present at a White House event went viral Wednesday, giving rise to renewed questions about the leader’s mental acuity.

The remarks were made at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-In.) had helped convene and organize before her sudden death in a car accident.

The president thanked the group of bipartisan lawmakers who helped make the event happen, listing them off one by one, and appearing to look around in search of Rep. Walorski when he reached her name.

“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he called. “I think she wasn’t going to be here to help make this a reality.” 

The incident flummoxed many, especially because Biden had even acknowledged her work on the conference in an official White House statement following her death last month.

“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” the statement read.

“I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America.”

The Age Maximum Question

Numerous social media users and news outlets presented the mishap as evidence that Biden, who is 79, does not have the mental capacity to serve as president. Others, meanwhile, raised the possibility of imposing an age maximum for the presidency.

Most of the comments against the president came from the right, which has regularly questioned his mental stability. However, the idea of an age limit goes beyond Biden and touches on concerns about America’s most important leaders being too old.

While Biden is the oldest president in history, former President Donald Trump — who is 76 and has also had his mental state continually questioned — would have likewise held that title if he had won re-election in 2020.

These concerns extend outside the presidency as well: the current session of Congress is the oldest on average of any Congress in recent history, and the median ages are fairly similar among Republicans and Democrats when separated by chambers.

There is also a higher percentage of federal lawmakers who are older than the median age. Nearly 1 out of every 4 members are over the age of 70.

Source: Business Insider

What’s more, some of the people in the highest leadership positions are among the oldest members. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), is the oldest-ever House Speaker at 82, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — the president pro tempore of the Senate and third person in line for the presidency — is the same age, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is 80.

As a result, it is unsurprising that a recent Insider/Morning Consult poll found that 3 in 4 Americans support an age max for members of Congress, and more than 40% say they view the ages of political leaders as a “major” problem.

Those who support the regulations argue that age limits are standard practice in many industries, including for airplane pilots and the military, and thus should be imposed on those who have incredible amounts of power over the country.

However, setting age boundaries on Congress and the President would almost certainly necessitate changes to the Constitution, and because such a move would require federal lawmakers to curtail their own power, there is little political will.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (NBC News)

Continue Reading

Politics

Churches Protected Loophole in Abuse Reporting for 20 years, Report Finds

Published

on

In some cases, Clergy members failed to report abuse among their congregation, but state laws protected them from that responsibility.


A Nationwide Campaign to Hide Abuse

More than 130 bills seeking to create or amend child sexual abuse reporting laws have been neutered or killed due to religious opposition over the past two decades, according to a review by the Associated Press.

Many states have laws requiring professionals such as physicians, teachers, and psychotherapists to report any information pertaining to alleged child sexual abuse to authorities. In 33 states, however, clergy are exempt from those requirements if they deem the information privileged.

All of the reform bills reviewed either targeted this loophole and failed or amended the mandatory reporting statute without touching the loophole.

“The Roman Catholic Church has used its well-funded lobbying infrastructure and deep influence among lawmakers in some states to protect the privilege,” the AP stated. “Influential members of the Mormon church and Jehovah’s witnesses have also worked in statehouses and courts to preserve it in areas where their membership is high.”

“This loophole has resulted in an unknown number of predators being allowed to continue abusing children for years despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials,” the report continued.

“They believe they’re on a divine mission that justifies keeping the name and the reputation of their institution pristine,” David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, told the outlet. “So the leadership has a strong disincentive to involve the authorities, police or child protection people.”

Abuses Go Unreported

Last month, another AP investigation discovered that a Mormon bishop acting under the direction of church leaders in Arizona failed to report a church member who had confessed to sexually abusing his five-year-old daughter.

Merrill Nelson, a church lawyer and Republican lawmaker in Utah, reportedly advised the bishop against making the report because of Arizona’s clergy loophole, effectively allowing the father to allegedly rape and abuse three of his children for years.

Democratic State Sen. Victoria Steele proposed three bills in response to the case to close the loophole but told the AP that key Mormon legislators thwarted her efforts.

In Montana, a woman who was abused by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses won a $35 million jury verdict against the church because it failed to report her abuse, but in 2020 the state supreme court reversed the judgment, citing the state’s reporting exemption for clergy.

In 2013, a former Idaho police officer turned himself in for abusing children after having told 15 members of the Mormon church, but prosecutors declined to charge the institution for not reporting him because it was protected under the clergy loophole.

The Mormon church said in a written statement to the AP that a member who confesses child sex abuse “has come seeking an opportunity to reconcile with God and to seek forgiveness for their actions. … That confession is considered sacred, and in most states, is regarded as a protected religious conversation owned by the confessor.”

See what others are saying: (Associated Press) (Deseret) (Standard Examiner)

Continue Reading