Connect with us

Politics

CA GOP Sets Up Unofficial Absentee Ballot Drop Boxes, Secretary of State Calls It Illegal.

Published

on

  • The California GOP has installed multiple, unofficial ballot drop-off boxes in Southern California, but Secretary of State Alex Padilla says those boxes are illegal and could result in felonies. 
  • Padilla has also argued the existence of such boxes could lead to confusion for absentee voters. 
  • The GOP, citing a 2016 law allowing third parties to collect and deliver ballots, argued that the boxes are legal. The GOP has repeatedly condemned this law before now. 
  • Padilla has said the 2016 law referenced by the GOP requires voters to designate a specific person to collect their ballot, something a drop box cannot do.

California GOP Sets Unofficial Drop Boxes

Republicans in California have illegally set up multiple, unofficial absentee ballot drop boxes in at least three counties, according to Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

Despite those drop boxes not being official locations established by local election offices, the GOP has listed them as such, reportedly setting them up outside of churches, gyms, gun stores, and gas stations.

Source: Since-deleted tweet acquired by The Washington Post

On Sunday, Padilla said these drop boxes — which have been found in Los Angeles, Orange, and Fresno Counties — mislead voters and violate state law.

“My office is coordinating with local officials to address the multiple reports of unauthorized ballot drop boxes,” he told the Orange County Register. “Californians should only use official ballot drop boxes that have been deployed and secured by their county elections office.”

According to Padilla, it’s even possible that these drop boxes could result in felony charges, with his office noting that criminal charges for erecting or advertising unofficial ballot boxes could result in a two to four-year prison sentence.

GOP Defends Putting Up Ballot Boxes

The California GOP has defended setting up the drop boxes. It has argued that it is operating under a law that allows third parties to collect and deliver ballots to election officials.

For example, in California, the law allows volunteers and campaign workers to go directly to the homes of voters to collect completed ballots. State Democrats have even held “ballot parties” where attendees fill out their ballots before leaving them with volunteers who later return them to election officials.

Because that law was written by state Democrats and later signed into law by then-Governor Jerry Brown in 2016, the GOP said on Twitter that it was “not sure why people are all of a sudden surprised.”

“If a congregation/business or other group provides the option to its parishioners/associates/ or colleagues to drop off their ballot in a safe location, with people they trust, rather than handing it over to a stranger who knocks on their door – what is wrong with that?” it added.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The National Republican Congressional Committee also suggested that Democrats are “only ok with ballot harvesting” when they’re the ones doing it.

Since the introduction of this law, the GOP has criticized it extensively. In May, the GOP sued Governor Gavin Newsom over the practice ahead of a special election.

Democrats have justified the law by saying that it can increase voter turnout for people living with disabilities, as well as for other people who might not be able to make it to the polls.

Still, there is a key difference between how that 2016 law works and how the California GOP is using it. Specifically, Padilla said these drop boxes are illegal because that law requires a voter to designate a person to return their ballot; however, no one is present at these drop boxes.

On top of that, Padilla said the unofficial drop boxes don’t meet security requirements.

Now, Padilla’s office has said that it will be sending updated guidance to both Democrats and Republicans, warning them that they could face criminal charges if they use unsanctioned drop boxes. 

If you’re a California voter, you can go to the secretary of state’s website to find official drop-off locations.

Confusion in Other States Over Absentee Voting Rules

COVID-19 has brought about unprecedented change to the American voter system. In return, that has brought with it confusion over how voters in each state are allowed to cast ballots. 

In North Carolina, at least 6,800 ballots are in limbo because of errors voters made while filling out those ballots. Notably, almost half are from people of color.

While the state’s Board of Elections said last month that it would allow voters to fix those errors, a federal judge halted the plan on Oct. 3, arguing that it changed the rules too close to Election Day.

North Carolina is a key swing state where both President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Joe Biden are running a tight race. In fact, in 2008, Barack Obama only won it by 14,000 votes. 

In Pennsylvania, a federal judge has now denied the Trump campaign and the Republican Party’s attempts to make drop boxes in Pennsylvania unconstitutional.

In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott issued a proclamation at the beginning of the month that blocked Texas counties from setting up more than one absentee ballot drop box location during the early election period.

That order was overturned on Friday by U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman, who called the order “perplexing” since it didn’t affect counties’ abilities to set up multiple drop-off locations on Election Day and since multiple drop-off locations had already been set up. 

Pitman also argued that Abbott’s proclamation created confusion among voters and disproportionately affected elderly voters, voters living with disabilities, and voters in populous counties. 

On Saturday, Pitman’s injunction on the proclamation was temporarily halted by an appeals court judge. The order will now stay in effect until the court rules on the matter. 

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Newsweek) (The Hill)

Politics

Biden Calls on Congress To Extend Eviction Moratorium

Published

on

The move comes just two days before the federal ban is set to expire.


Eviction Freeze Set To Expire

President Joe Biden asked Congress on Thursday to extend the federal eviction moratorium for another month just two days before the ban was set to expire.

The request follows a Supreme Court decision last month, where the justices ruled the evictions freeze could stay in place until it expired on July 31. That decision was made after a group of landlords sued, arguing that the moratorium was illegal under the public health law the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had relied on to implement it.

While the court did not provide reasons for its ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a short concurring opinion explaining that although he thought the CDC “exceeded its existing statutory authority,” he voted not to end the program because it was already set to expire in a month.

In a statement Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki cited the Supreme Court decision, as well as the recent surge in COVID cases, as reasons for the decision to call on Congress. 

“Given the recent spread of the delta variant, including among those Americans both most likely to face evictions and lacking vaccinations, President Biden would have strongly supported a decision by the CDC to further extend this eviction moratorium to protect renters at this moment of heightened vulnerability,” she said. 

“Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has made clear that this option is no longer available.”

Delays in Relief Distribution 

The move comes as the administration has struggled to distribute the nearly $47 billion in rental relief funds approved as part of two coronavirus relief packages passed in December and March, respectively.

Nearly seven months after the first round of funding was approved, the Treasury Department has only allocated $3 billion of the reserves, and just 600,000 tenants have been helped under the program.

A total of 7.4 million households are behind on rent according to the most recent data from the Census Bureau. An estimated 3.6 million of those households could face eviction in the next two months if the moratorium expires. 

The distribution problems largely stem from the fact that many states and cities tasked with allocating the fund had no infrastructure to do so, causing the aid to be held up by delays, confusion, and red tape. 

Some states opened portals that were immediately overwhelmed, prompting them to close off applications, while others have faced technical glitches.

According to The Washington Post, just 36 out of more than 400 states, counties, and cities that reported data to the Treasury Department were able to spend even half of the money allotted them by the end of June. Another 49 —  including New York — had not spent any funds at all.

Slim Chances in Congress

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) urged her colleagues to approve an extension for the freeze Thursday night, calling it “a moral imperative” and arguing that “families must not pay the price” for the slow distribution of aid.

However, Biden’s last-minute call for Congress to act before members leave for their August recess is all but ensured to fail.

While the House Rules Committee took up a measure Thursday night that would extend the moratorium until the end of this year, the only way it could pass in the Senate would be through a procedure called unanimous consent, which can be blocked by a single dissenting vote.

Some Senate Republicans have already rejected the idea.

“There’s no way I’m going to support this. It was a bad idea in the first place,” Senator Patrick Toomey (R-Pa.) told reporters. “Owners have the right to action. They need to have recourse for the nonpayment of rent.”

With the hands of the CDC tied and Congressional action seemingly impossible, the U.S. could be facing an unprecedented evictions crisis Saturday, even though millions of Americans who will now risk losing their homes should have already received rental assistance to avert this exact situation.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (The Associated Press)

Continue Reading

Politics

Mississippi Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Roe v. Wade

Published

on

The Supreme Court’s decision to consider Mississippi’s restrictive abortion ban already has sweeping implications for the precedents set under the landmark reproductive rights ruling, but now the state is asking the high court to go even further.


Mississippi’s Abortion Case

Mississippi filed a brief Thursday asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade when it hears the state’s 15-week abortion ban this fall.

After months of deliberation, the high court agreed in May to hear what will be the first abortion case the 6-to-3 conservative majority will decide.

Both a district judge and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had ruled that Mississippi could not enforce the 2018 law that banned nearly all abortions at 15 weeks with exceptions for only “severe fetal abnormality,” but not rape and incest.

If the Supreme Court upholds the Mississippi law, it would undo decades of precedent set under Roe in 1973 and upheld under Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, where the court respectively ruled and reaffirmed that states could not ban abortion before the fetus is “viable” and can live outside the womb, which is generally around 24 to 28 weeks.

When the justices decided to hear the case, they said they would specifically examine the question of whether “all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

Depending on the scope of their decision on the Mississippi law, the court’s ruling could allow other states to pass much more restrictive abortion bans without the risk of lower courts striking down those laws.

As a result, legal experts have said the case will represent the most significant ruling on reproductive rights since Casey nearly three decades ago, and the Thursday brief raises the stakes even more.

When Mississippi asked the justices to take up its case last June, the state’s attorney general, Lynn Fitch (R), explicitly stated that the petition’s questions “do not require the Court to overturn Roe or Casey.”

But that was before the court’s conservatives solidified their supermajority with the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett — who personally opposes abortion — following the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

New Filing Takes Aim at Roe

With the new filing, it appears that Fitch views the high court’s altered makeup as an opportunity to undermine the constitutional framework that has been in place for the better part of the last century.

“The Constitution’s text says nothing about abortion,” Fitch wrote in the brief, arguing that American society has changed so much that the previous rulings need to be reheard.

“Today, adoption is accessible and on a wide scale women attain both professional success and a rich family life, contraceptives are more available and effective, and scientific advances show that an unborn child has taken on the human form and features months before viability,” she added, claiming the power should be left to state lawmakers. 

“Roe and Casey shackle states to a view of the facts that is decades out of date,” she continued. “The national fever on abortion can break only when this Court returns abortion policy to the states.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Mississippi’s sole abortion provider in the suit against the state’s law, painted Fitch’s effort as one that will have a chilling effect on abortion rights nationwide.

“Mississippi has stunningly asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and every other abortion rights decision in the last five decades,” Nancy Northup, the president and CEO of the group said in a statement Thursday. “Today’s brief reveals the extreme and regressive strategy, not just of this law, but of the avalanche of abortion bans and restrictions that are being passed across the country.”

The Supreme Court has not yet said exactly when during its fall term it will hear oral arguments on the Mississippi case, but a decision is expected to come down by next June or July, as is standard.

An anticipated ruling just months before the 2022 midterms will almost certainly position abortion as a top issue at the ballot box.

See what others are saying:  (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (Politico)

Continue Reading

Politics

Republicans Boycott Jan. 6 Committee After Pelosi Rejects Two of McCarthy’s Picks

Published

on

The House Minority Leader said that unless House Speaker Pelosi reinstated the two members, Republicans will launch their own investigation into the insurrection.


Pelosi Vetoes Republicans

Republicans are boycotting the select committee to investigate the insurrection after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) rejected two of the five GOP members Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) picked to serve on the panel Wednesday.

In a statement, Pelosi cited the “statements and actions” of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Oh.) and Jim Banks (R-In.), whose nominations she said she was opposing “with respect for the integrity of the investigation.”

Jordan and Banks — both staunch allies of former President Donald Trump — have helped propagate the previous leader’s false election claims, opposed efforts to investigate the insurrection, and voted not to certify the election for President Joe Biden. 

A senior Democratic aide also specifically told The Washington Post that Democrats did not want Jordan on the panel because he reportedly helped Trump strategized how to overturn the election and due to the fact he spoke to the then-president on Jan. 6, meaning there is a possibility he could be called to testify before the very same committee.

The aide also said that Democrats opposed Banks’ selection because of a statement he issued after McCarthy chose him.

In the statement, the representative compared the insurrection to the racial justice protests last summer, implied that the rioters were just normal American’s expressing their political views, and claimed the committee was a political ploy “to justify the Left’s authoritarian agenda.”

Notably, Pelosi did say she would accept McCarthy’s three other nominees — including Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Wi.), who also voted against certifying Biden’s win.

McCarthy Threatens Separate Investigation

McCarthy, however, refused to select new members, and instead opted to remove all his appointees from the would-be bipartisan committee.

In a statement condemning the move, the minority leader said that Pelosi’s action “represents an egregious abuse of power.” 

“Denying the voices of members who have served in the military and law enforcement, as well as leaders of standing committees, has made it undeniable that this panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility and shows the Speaker is more interested in playing politics than seeking the truth,” he said.

“Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts.”

Pelosi defended her decision during a press conference Thursday, where she said that Banks and Jordan were “ridiculous” choices for the panel. 

“When statements are ridiculous and fall into the realm of, ‘You must be kidding,’ there’s no way that they’re going to be on the committee,” she added.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The New York Times) (CNBC)

Continue Reading