Mediaboss Marketing

Lets begin by parsing the grammatically confounding title of Gov. Ron DeSantis aggressive legislative idea. He calls it the Combating Violence, Disorder and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act. Thats not what it would do. In reality, it would amplify the danger it professes to prevent.

Nor would it combat violence. Instead, it would expand the states stand your ground law. Neither would it stem disorder. Rather, it would limit the ability of citizens to demonstrate in the streets.

Among its innovations are enhanced immunities for police and civilian violence alongside tough financial penalties for localities trying to defund or reconfigure their police forces. It would outlaw forms of social protest that have long been protected as free speech, while criminalizing those who obstruct or interfere with the regular flow of vehicular traffic.

At the heart of the states original stand your ground legislation was an effort to flip the script on cause and effect, target and aggressor, by framing the victims of violence as perpetrators, and the perpetrators as self-defenders.

The new proposal which could become state law if it finds sponsorship and is approved by both chambers features multiple elements that at first glance appear disparate. But, actually, they intersect in limiting a persons right to occupy public space, the ground to which the original 2005 Florida law refers. For those gathering to protest racial injustice, the legislation would eliminate the ground on which they may safely stand.

DeSantis proposes to criminalize assemblies of seven or more people that damage property or obstruct law enforcement or other governmental functions or services. Property damage would include pulling down, destroying, or defacing public property, including but not limited to a monument or statue. Sound familiar? On June 26, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to Protect American Monuments, Memorials, and Statues and Combat Recent Criminal Violence from rioters, arsonists, and left-wing extremists. DeSantis proposal targets those who would dismantle or deface Confederate memorials. Florida boasts more than 60 of them.

The numerical limitation on assemblies echoes post-Civil War Black Codes, curtailing Black freedom of movement, employment and assembly. Georgias 1866 penal code forbid assemblies of over seven persons amongst freed people. Characterizing the Black Lives Matter protests as riots and mobs places blame for social disorder on to the shoulders of those most subjugated by entrenched violence and marginalization. Its a role-reversal with deep historic roots, where victims become perpetrators and perpetrators shape-shift into victims.

This role-reversal frames DeSantis efforts to depict unarmed protesters as criminals, so that they appear as reasonable targets for civilian violence. His proposal would provide legal immunity to a driver who causes injury or death to a person who obstructs or interferes with the regular flow of vehicular traffic, opening the door to vehicular violence like that responsible for Heather Heyers death at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, and more than 100 occasions since March 2020 in which motorists have driven into groups of protesters. The proposal suggests that anyone who commits vehicular homicide against demonstrators and claims that it was accidental is not liable for such injury or death.

The legislation would amend the states existing stand your ground law by providing immunity to armed citizens who claim to be protecting property from looters and mobs, where looting is defined as criminal mischief that results in the interruption or impairment of a business operation. Florida laws already empower citizens to defend themselves and their own businesses, but DeSantis expansion would allow other people to use violence to protect businesses that dont even belong to them.

Like the popular you loot, we shoot memes that surface during hurricanes and tornadoes, Floridas stand your ground law invites armed aggression under the guise of protecting property. We witnessed the consequences of such logic in Kenosha, Wisc., where a white 17-year-old armed with an AR-15 crossed state lines in response to a social media entreaty for patriots to take up arms and defend our city tonight from evil thugs. Under the mantle of patriotism, the young gunman joined a group of armed civilians to defend the city from protesters, killing two unarmed people and injuring another. Afterward, he claimed to have acted in self-defense.

This capacity to claim self-defense after a lethal encounter is the key innovation of the stand your ground laws that originated in Florida and rapidly spread to more than half the states. If the governors recommended legislation passes, the law would allow an armed aggressor to kill in the course of upholding law and order or protecting property. By deflecting responsibility for instigating a deadly encounter, even if ones target was unarmed, it would elevate property over human life.

In the lethal logic of stand your ground, the killers perception of threat goes unquestioned if the only other witness is dead. In DeSantis proposal, even a crowd of witnesses will be powerless to establish criminal liability when armed citizens claim to be upholding the law against a violent or disorderly assembly.

The timing of DeSantis' proposal speaks to this momentous national reckoning, where we can feel the ground in which our democracy is rooted shifting under our feet. If approved, the legislation would deputize armed citizens to defend property, while criminalizing those who dare to stand up to systemic violence and racism.

In case it isnt clear on the surface, the goal is to silence these voices and to undermine the transformative justice demands that have proliferated nationwide. Against this powerful groundswell of public protest, the Florida governors proposal stands as a desperate effort to secure a reactionary legacy while obstructing the movement toward justice.

Caroline Light teaches gender and ethnic studies at Harvard University. She is the author of Stand Your Ground: A History of Americas Love Affair with Lethal Self-Defense. She wrote this exclusively for the Tampa Bay Times.

Read the rest here:
DeSantis new stand your ground would provoke the danger it professes to prevent | Column - Tampa Bay Times

As Democratic leaders in New York institute more stringent restrictions to combat the coronavirus and urge people to follow them, one group of local Democratic power brokers did not seem to get the message.

At a birthday party last weekend for Carlo Scissura, president of the New York Building Congress, an influential trade organization, some leaders sipped drinks, rubbed shoulders and rarely wore masks.

Photos that surfaced this week from the event, held last Saturday at a private residence in Brooklyn, according to an official familiar with the gathering, prompted cries of hypocrisy, calls for resignations and, eventually, a round of apologies on Friday.

This is a particularly trying time and there were shortcomings that I regret, Mr. Scissura said in a statement that noted that the party was not his idea. I greatly appreciate the gesture of my friends to throw me a surprise party, but we all must follow strict protocols so we can get past this pandemic.

The photos from the party, which were published by The Daily News, show Frank Seddio, the former chairman of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, chatting closely with Ingrid Lewis-Martin, the deputy Brooklyn borough president. Neither wore masks.

The party took place just as New York City has been fighting a resurgence of the virus. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has limited gatherings in homes to 10 people, and Mayor Bill de Blasio closed public schools this week and is urging New Yorkers to avoid visiting family for Thanksgiving.

This party was asinine, counterproductive and insulting to all New Yorkers, Mr. de Blasios spokesman, Mitch Schwartz, said in a statement on Friday. Every attendee should apologize and then match their words with actions. City Hall expects them to start by holding responsible, virtual Thanksgiving celebrations next week.

The timing was particularly awkward for Ms. Lewis-Martin, who is a deputy for Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president who announced his campaign for mayor this week. Mr. Adams, a Democrat, appeared in a video that showed him wearing a mask and greeting New Yorkers with an elbow bump.

Ms. Lewis-Martin, a longtime adviser to Mr. Adams since his days in the State Senate, said in a statement that all New Yorkers should wear masks and follow public health guidelines.

I apologize for my lapse in compliance with Covid-19 precautions, she said. As a public figure in Brooklyn, I know it is my responsibility to lead by example.

Mr. Adams said in a statement that he accepted Ms. Lewis-Martins apology. We are all human and have lapses in judgment; what is important is that we recognize when we make mistakes and commit ourselves to the high level of vigilance that is necessary to prevent the spread of this terrible virus, he said.

At the party last weekend, guests were given masks, each persons temperature was taken and the event was primarily held outside, according to someone who attended the party.

But many New Yorkers were dismayed by the lack of caution depicted in the photos. James Patchett, the president of the citys economic development corporation under Mr. de Blasio, called on the officials at the party to step down.

This is an embarrassment, he wrote on Twitter. Every one of these people should resign.

Joseph Borelli, a Republican city councilman from Staten Island, said Democrats were being hypocritical after criticizing him for saying earlier that he would hold a large family gathering for Thanksgiving. He pointed to Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor of California who apologized for attending a lavish dinner without a mask, as another example.

Many of the most panicked purveyors of Covid craziness are actually members of the good for thee, not for me set, he said.

Mr. Seddio gave The Daily News two estimates from that night; he put the partys attendance at roughly a dozen, and, oddly, the number of times he passed gas at four. He did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Seddios successor as leader of the Brooklyn Democratic Party, Rodneyse Bichotte, released a statement through a spokesman: We encourage everyone during this period to abide by safety measures such as social distancing and wearing a mask.

Some New Yorkers have bristled at the restrictions on gatherings. During Mr. de Blasios weekly appearance on the radio station WNYC on Friday, a caller asked the mayor if the shutdowns were just because you want to destroy Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Mr. de Blasio said he was disappointed that he would not be seeing relatives this Thanksgiving, but he said the restrictions were necessary to save lives.

We have to keep people alive so they can celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas going forward, he said.

See the article here:
Democratic Leaders in Brooklyn Mingled at a Party. Few Wore Masks. - The New York Times

Democrats are growing confident they might be able to pull off twin victories in the Senate runoff races in Georgia in January what would have been a long shot political upset only a few years ago but is now being viewed as a real possibility after massive turnout from suburban voters in the general election helped President-elect Joe Biden flip the state from red to blue.

Bidens hopes of enacting his agenda rest on the outcome of the Jan. 5 runoff elections, which will determine control of the Senate.

If Democratic candidates Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock beat Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, the Republican incumbents, the Senate would be split 50-50. Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, as president of the Senate, would control the tie-breaking vote, opening the door for the Biden administration to push through legislation on the pandemic, the economy, climate change, and other priorities.

Georgia is a battleground state, and we have voters who understand whats at stake in the runoff elections, said Nikema Williams, the state Democratic Party chair.

This is a turnout election, said Williams, who had her own election victory in the seat formerly held by the late civil rights icon John Lewis.

It just depends on which side can get their people back out.

In order to go two-for-two in Georgia, Ossoff and Warnock will need to recreate Bidens coalition from the November election, in particular his strong support among suburban voters who were fed up with President Donald Trump. Large turnout in Cobb, Gwinnett and other suburban counties surrounding Atlanta powered Biden to victory in Georgia, making him the first Democratic presidential nominee to win the state since Bill Clinton in 1992.

The Associated Press called Georgia for Biden on Thursday, after the state completed a hand recount. Biden is leading Trump by less than 13,000 votes, out of more than 5 million votes.

WATCH: Behind the ballots in Georgias recount the largest in U.S. history

Bidens victory in Georgia and the opportunity for the party to control the Senate will motivate Democrats to vote in the Senate runoffs, said Jacquelyn Bettadapur, chair of the Cobb County Democratic Party. Democrats are focused on targeting voters who turned out in the general election, instead of trying to recruit new voters to the polls, she said.

Democrats are engaged, Bettadapur said. Im curious to see how successful Republicans are without Trump at the top of the ticket turning out the vote.

There are two runoffs because no candidate in either Senate race on Nov. 3 crossed the 50 percent threshold required under state law to win outright. Perdue is up for reelection against Ossoff, while Loeffler is running in a special election against Warnock to fill the remaining two years of Johnny Isaksons term. Isakson cited health reasons in his decision to step down last year.

Ossoff rose to prominence after narrowly losing a high-profile House race in 2017. Warnock, the senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, was not as well known coming into the race but managed to win more votes than Loeffler with a message focused on strengthening health care during the coronavirus pandemic.

Republicans said GOP voters were just as motivated as Democrats to get out and vote in the runoffs. Loeffler and Perdue have made control of the Senate the central theme of the upcoming January elections, portraying their challengers as radical progressives who would allow Biden to enact socialist policies if the Democratic Party wins control of the upper chamber.

PERRY, GA NOVEMBER 19: (R to L) U.S. Sen. David Purdue (R-GA) and Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) wave to the crowd of supporters at a Defend the Majority rally with Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) at the Georgia National Fairgrounds and Agriculture Center on November 19, 2020 in Perry, Georgia. Loeffler and Purdue are facing Democratic U.S. Senate candidates Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock in a January 5th runoff race. (Photo by Jessica McGowan/Getty Images)

The message is aimed at moderate suburban voters from both parties who may have voted for Biden in the general election but are hesitant to give Democrats control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, said David Johnson, a Republican strategist.

Loeffler and Perdue need to try to win back some of the suburbans who voted against Trump, Johnson said. Those are the areas where Democrats made the gains and provided Biden the extra edge. And they used to be Republican.

READ MORE: Vice President Pence campaigns in Georgia ahead of Senate runoffs

The battle over suburban voters underscores demographic shifts that have reshaped the states political landscape.

Georgias population grew from roughly 8.2 million people in 2000 to 10.5 million in 2018, an increase driven primarily by a surge in new Latino and Asian residents. Non-white residents, who tend to lean Democratic, now account for 47 percent of the states population, according to state data.

The share of the states electorate that is white dropped from 68 percent in 2000 to 58 percent in 2018, a Pew Research Center study found.

The political changes are most visible in Atlanta and its surrounding suburbs. The Atlanta metropolitan area added 733,646 residents between 2010 and 2019, according to Census data, putting state and congressional races in play for Democrats for the first time in decades.

Those forces converged to help put Biden over the top in the general election. Biden received 75,000 more votes in Gwinnett County than did Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee in 2016 turning her 5.8-percentage point win into an 18-point blowout. Biden outperformed Clinton in Cobb County by 60,000 votes, expanding her victory margin there from 2.2 points to a 14-point win. Clinton lost the state overall by 5 percentage points.

Cobb County is still the number one county in the state in terms of Republican votes, but the growth of the county unfortunately for us has been mostly Democratic, said Jason Shepherd, the countys Republican chair.

In the runoffs, Republicans cant win the state without massive turnout in suburban areas like Cobb County, he added.

But voter turnout in runoff elections in Georgia and across the country is typically lower than in the preceding general election. It is always a challenge for candidates to convince voters who are tired of politics to go back to the polls so soon after a long, divisive general election season.

In 2008, 2.1 million people voted in Georgias Senate runoff election between then-Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the Republican incumbent, and Democrat Jim Martin. That represented a nearly 50 percent drop in the turnout rate from the general election.

Chambliss beat Martin by roughly 3 percentage points in the general election that year, but he received 49.8 percent of the vote, falling just short of the 50 percent threshold required under state law to avoid a runoff. Chambliss routed Martin in the runoff the following month, winning by nearly 15 points.

Republicans pointed to the 2008 runoff in arguing that Democrats were too overconfident this time around. When Saxby was in the runoff people were coming out of the woodwork to help him win, said Shepherd, who served as a regional chairman for Chambliss campaign.

Others said the state has changed too much since then to make it a meaningful comparison.

Twelve years ago, Republicans were at the apex of their power and their strength in the state, said Andra Gillespie, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta. Bidens victory this year suggests there are many more Democrats in the state now in 2020 than there were in 2008.

As the races ramp up, money from outside political groups and donors is pouring into the state. Spending on both sides has already topped $100 million and that figure is expected to grow significantly in the weeks leading up to the start of early in-person voting on Dec. 14.

Campaign volunteers are also flooding into the state ahead of the Jan. 5 runoff. Democrats from across the country have for two weeks been calling to volunteer to travel to Georgia to help get out the vote, said LeWanna Heard-Tucker, the head of the Democratic Party in Atlanta. She said outreach efforts so far have focused on reminding voters when the election is, and when the early voting period starts.

Some voters dont need reminding.

Kelly Spencer, a self-described independent voter who recently moved to Atlanta from a nearby suburb, said she was highly motivated to hand Democrats control of the Senate.

There might have been a time when I would have said theres better to have some balance. If we have a Democratic president, Republicans should be in control of the Senate, said Spencer, a real estate investor. Spencer said she has voted for Republicans and Democrats for president in the past, but supported Biden in 2020 because she was so appalled by Trumps demeanor in office.

Trumps refusal to concede the election and baseless claims of voter fraud since Nov. 3 turned her off even further from backing Republicans in the runoffs, she said.

But Shepherd, the Republican chairman in Cobb County, said he thinks Trumps decision to keep fighting the results of the election would motivate his base to show up for the runoffs, especially with control of the Senate up for grabs. Republicans across the state are really eager to send a message, he said.

Continue reading here:
In Georgia, can Bidens winning coalition deliver the Senate to Democrats? - PBS NewsHour

Oregon Democrats may be vulnerable to Republican walkouts, but they do still have the ability to direct the legislative agenda.

PORTLAND, Ore. Oregon Democrats are poised to maintain their three-fifths supermajority in the state legislature, outnumbering Republicans 37-23 in the House and 18-12 in the Senate.

Democrats had hoped to secure a two-thirds supermajority the amount of people that need to be present to vote on legislation to prevent the Republican walkouts that have halted legislative business in recent years.

Yet, they fell short, barely holding onto their Senate supermajority and losing a net one seat to the Republicans in the House.

With Oregon Democrats still vulnerable to Republican walkouts, why does it matter that they held onto their supermajorities?

Holding three-fifths majorities means Democrats can pass revenue-related bills without Republican support. For example, in 2019, the Oregon Legislature passed a $1 billion tax package to fund education, despite Republican opposition.

The Democrats will also largely control next years redistricting process: the redrawing of state and national electoral lines after the decennial census. The stakes are high, as Oregon could receive a sixth U.S. congressional seat.

KGW political analyst Len Bergstein highlights that state law forbids lines from being drawn to favor a political party and said that the process seems to be becoming increasingly nonpartisan in Oregon.

According to Bergstein, the supermajority does give Democrats the power to direct the legislative agenda and flexibility when it comes to consensus building.

There's room within the caucus for people to take a variety of different positions and maybe avoid a very tough vote the Democrats have still got the majority, Bergstein said.

On the other hand, the larger a majority, the harder it can be to wrangle the caucus. For example, party divisions have recently come to the floor as Rep. Janelle Bynum challenged House Speaker Tina Kotek for her seat.

And with only a three-fifths supermajority, the Democrats may still be vulnerable to Republican walkouts. In recent sessions, Republicans have walked out numerous times to protest the Democrat-supported cap-and-trade bill, among other issues.

But Bergstein said with multiple crises in Oregon, from the pandemic to wildfires, the demand for legislation might overtake political tactics like walkouts.

If (Republicans) continue to walk away on a broad range of those very big ticket items, I think they're going to be talking to a narrower and narrower constituency, and they're going to render themselves kind of obsolete, he said.

Regardless, Bergstein said that though Democrats did not reach their goal of a two-thirds majority, they seemed to view the election as a success. The supermajority is, in part, symbolic of Oregonians' political views.

One of the key messages is that Oregonians, in general, are happy with the direction they're going in terms of the democratic agenda, he said.

Oregon Democrats have held supermajorities since 2018. How common are supermajorities in state legislatures?

Pretty common. 27 states now have either three-fifths or two-thirds supermajorities in one or more chambers, with the majority of them being Republican.

Republicans are projected to now have supermajorities in 31 state legislative chambers, while Democrats have 19 supermajorities in state chambers, according to Multistate analysis.

State legislatures have historically been dominated by Republicans, and Democrats largely failed in their goal to ride a blue wave to state legislature victories this year.

Democrats did secure the supermajority in the Delaware senate but lost their supermajorities in the Nevada and Vermont houses. Meanwhile, Republicans kept all of their supermajorities and added one in the Montana House.

Supermajorities are sometimes important when it comes to overriding gubernatorial vetoes, though the size of the majority needed to exercise this power varies from state to state.

Some legislatures only need a simple majority to override vetoes, while other legislatures like Oregons need a two-thirds majority to exercise this power. With only a three-fifths majority, Oregon Democrats are unable to override the governors vetoes, though this power is rarely needed with the sitting governor being a Democrat.

Supermajorities can be especially influential when the sitting governor is of the opposite political party than the supermajority, effectively neutralizing the governors veto power.

See the original post here:
Democrats maintained their supermajorities in the Oregon legislature. Why does it matter? - KGW.com

Massachusetts politicos spend an inordinate amount of time speculating about what will happen if Elizabeth Warren leaves the Senate to take another position.

The subject came up in 2019 during Warrens run for the Democratic presidential nomination; it resurfaced earlier this year when she was angling to be Joe Bidens running mate. Now, with the Bay States senior senator being bruited for Treasury secretary in the next administration, the topic is alive again.

If Warren resigns her Senate seat, Massachusetts law authorizes Governor Charlie Baker to appoint an interim senator pending a special election. But Bakers a Republican, and Democrats break out in hives at the thought of even a temporary Republican senator.

One of those Democrats, state Representative Mindy Domb of Amherst, last week proposed amending the law to require that any vacancy be filled by an appointee of the same political party as the person vacating the office.

That provoked Baker into issuing a rare veto threat.

Asked about Dombs amendment, the governor called it an example of the situational dynamics around this stuff when it comes to process associated with elections.

Thats Baker-ese for political parties brazenly changing the rules whenever it will benefit them. Such brazenness has emerged as a specialty on Beacon Hill, where, as the Boston Globe reported in 2016, the basic rule for filling vacancies seems to [be] something like: whatever helps Democrats the most.

For a long time, Massachusetts Democrats were content with the system established in 1913, when the 17th Amendment, providing for the direct election of senators, was added to the Constitution.

In the event of a Senate vacancy, state law empowered the governor to appoint a replacement who would serve until the next statewide election.

When John F. Kennedy resigned from the Senate after winning the 1960 presidential election, for example, Governor Foster Furcolo selected Kennedys Harvard roommate, Benjamin Smith, to keep the seat warm until the 1962 election. By then, JFKs kid brother, Teddy, was old enough to run for the Senate.

But in 2004, things changed. Senator John Kerry was running for president, and Republican Mitt Romney was in the governors office.

If Kerry were to win, Romney would get to appoint a new senator to serve until the next general election.

So Ted Kennedy by then the longest-serving senator in Massachusetts history lobbied the Legislature to change the law and strip away the governors traditional power to fill vacancies.

Democrats gleefully did so. At the final vote, the Boston Globe reported, hooting and hollering broke out on the usually staid House floor, as House Speaker Thomas Finneran smirked: Its a political deal. Its very raw politics.

Five years later, Democrats engineered more raw politics again at Kennedys urging.

During his final illness, knowing his own seat would soon be vacant, Kennedy encouraged Massachusetts lawmakers to overturn the 2004 law, and restore the authority of the governor Democrat Deval Patrick to pick his successor. The Legislature readily complied.

After Kennedys death, Patrick appointed an old Kennedy loyalist, Paul Kirk, to hold the seat until a special election could be held. And when Kerry left the Senate to become secretary of state in January 2013, Patrick likewise picked his successor another Democratic stalwart, Mo Cowan.

But now that the governors office is once more occupied by a Republican, Democrats are itching to change the law yet again.

Domb didnt bother to pretend that her proposal to force Baker to replace Warren with a Democrat had any motive other than sheer partisanship.

She wanted to protect the balance of power in the US Senate, she said, and to protect the rock stars of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, who all happen to be Democrats.

Her amendment has been shelved for now, but everyone knows Democrats are ready to turn on a dime if Warren is tapped for Bidens cabinet. Its a little early to get in front of that at the moment, the House Ways and Means Committee chairman, Boston Democrat Aaron Michlewitz, serenely told Sate House reporters last week. But its a conversation that we are all willing to have.

No doubt about that. If Warren leaves the Senate, the Legislature will see to it that a Democrat replaces her. Changing laws for partisan advantage may be disreputable, but when has that ever troubled Beacon Hill?

Original post:
Whatever helps Democrats the most | Opinion | avpress.com - Antelope Valley Press