Mediaboss Marketing

I applaud and will follow with great anticipation The Democracy Solutions Project initiated by the Sun-Times. My suggestion is an easy start and finish to the problems we are facing on the political frontier. Any investigation into solutions to problems with our current two-party system should begin and will end with appropriate campaign finance reform.

Politicians are very adept at evading changes to campaign financing, but they should be willing to investigate such changes given the current political landscape. By now, politicians should be very weary of having to go through cycles of fundraising and coordinating (or pretending not to coordinate) with political action committees to finance their campaigns.

SEND LETTERS TO: letters@suntimes.com. We want to hear from our readers. To be considered for publication, letters must include your full name, your neighborhood or hometown and a phone number for verification purposes. Letters should be a maximum of approximately 375 words.

Current campaign financing drives corruption and ill-advised loyalties to PACs. While politicians should be paying attention to the will of their constituents, they are too often beholden to their heavy contributors. Campaign finance reform, if done correctly, would allow politicians to remove themselves from the distractions of fundraising and from the undue influence of PACs.

Gerald E. King, Merrionette Park

My biggest concern is what can I do to strengthen our democracy and to influence policy changes happening in other states? I vote, I stay informed, I debate politics with friends and family, and I support journalism.

After reading about the Democracy Solutions Project, it got me thinking about how it would be helpful to understand how a person in Illinois can help curb the erosion of rights in Missouri for transgender people, for example, or other signs of democracy failing our fellow citizens elsewhere.

Cristo Paraskevas, Park Ridge

I am writing to express my concern about limitations on voter access, gerrymandering and allegations of voter fraud.

Voter access limitations are a serious problem in many states. Some states have strict voter ID laws that make it difficult for many people to vote. Others have reduced early voting hours or closed polling places in certain areas. These restrictions disproportionately affect minority voters and are a clear attempt to suppress the vote.

Gerrymandering also undermines ourdemocracy. Politicians in many states have redrawn district lines to give their party an unfair advantage in elections. Politicians are choosing their voters instead of the other way around.

Finally, allegations of voter fraud have become a common refrain among some politicians. While there have been isolated incidents of voter fraud, there is no evidence of widespread fraud that would justify the restrictions being imposed on voters.

It is time for our elected officials to take action to protect the right to vote and ensure that our elections are fair and free. We need reforms that will expand access to the ballot, end gerrymandering, and restore confidence in our electoral system.

Steve Dominick

After reading the morning paper and again feeling like hope for our country is dim, I want to propose some suggestions.

Any sitting president should have a panel of advisers and problem solvers, including a sociologist, an environmental scientist, a psychiatrist, an economist and an additional spot for any expert in government.

These confidants should not be members of the political elite. This country should never be governed by the elite.

Members should be rewarded by the positive changes in society they can help bring about. They should always look toward the future, predicting future situations and problem solving any situation that will negatively affect our country.

The border refugee crisis is a good example. Heres a thought: Why is there such an uproar over how many refugees are sent to each city? Why not evaluate how many souls each city lost during the pandemic and how can we incorporate the refugees with jobs and a place to live? The amount of shortage of help each city complains of is an oxymoron. The help and willingness are there.

Ramona Clark, Hyde Park

I am writing to bring to your attention the continuous reckless speeding on DuSable Lake Shore Drive.

It was a tragic night for the family of Kenneth Hernandez, the 45-year-old road worker who was killed near my home in Lake View while doing his job to improve the city last month. If drivers whether they be on motorcycles or cars didnt abuse the speed limit and there wasnt lack of enforcement on the outer drive, this tragedy might have been averted.

However, cars and motorcycles speed north and south all day and all night with impunity from Oak Street to Hollywood, the end of the drive, because Chicago police are lax about penalizing speeders. In addition to the speeding, the deafening noise from some of the vehicles must be in violation of some ordinance.

Now that theres a smooth new roadway, I can just anticipate an increase in speeding and drag-racing that will occur late into the night, leading to the potential of more accidents and deaths.

I can only hope Hernandezs senseless death will spur the city and police to finally do their jobs and crack down on the violators, enforce the laws and protect ordinary citizens and city road workers.

Kenneth Frigo, Lake View

Follow this link:
Campaign finance reform, voting, and other reader feedback on ... - Chicago Sun-Times

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

More here:
Our view: Democracy is a two-way street - La Grande Observer

op-ed

By Aizaz Gill

The 2022 midterm elections results demonstrated that more Pennsylvania voters are rejecting partisan rancor and seeking common ground. While this is a sign of hope for our democracy, there is still much work to be done to address the divides in our communities and workplaces. One important step for reducing polarization is for communities across the state to invest more in civic education for all K12 students.

As a nation, we are currently facing a crisis of civic literacy. A 2022 study from the University of Pennsylvania showed that only 47% of American adults can name all three branches of government. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progresss National Report Card, in 2018 only 24% of students performed at or above NAEP proficiency standards in civics.

This is the result of several decades of underinvestment in civic education. Currently, the federal government invests a mere 50 cents per K12 student in civic education compared to 54 dollars per K12 student for STEM. Both are important and worthy of public investment. This deficiency in civics funding contributes to the political polarization and dysfunction plaguing America today.

Businesses are concerned that too many young people lack a basic understanding of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the responsibilities of being a citizen. This limited education about our democratic system makes people more vulnerable to misinformation and sowing distrust in the electoral process, which are destructive to our countrys social cohesion and economic competitiveness. Continued neglect of civic education will weaken the states civic and economic strength, putting at risk businesses, supply chains and investments that will negatively impact employees and communities.

Students who receive quality civic education are more likely to vote, give back to their communities, complete college and develop skills that advance their careers. At Business for America, we believe that our constitutional democracy and economic prosperity must be driven by an engaged citizenry. Civic education needs to start with young people, who are our future employees and community leaders.

This is why Business for America was a leading sponsor of Philadelphia Civics Day on April 13, organized by Generation Citizen and Philadelphia Public Schools and hosted at the National Constitution Center. Like a science fair for civics, students from five Philadelphia high schools showcased their Action Civics projects with community and business leaders. They received valuable coaching and mentorship from these Community Advisors. Projects such as Civics Day provide students with essential skills such as critical thinking, multisource research and the ability to work on teams that require effective communication and collaboration.

In the Pennsylvania General Assembly, the last major piece of civics legislation was Act 35, signed into law by Gov. Tom Wolf in 2018. Act 35 amended the Public School Code of 1949 to require that all school entities administer a locally developed assessment of U.S. history, government and civics at least once to students during grades 7-12. However, the civics assessment test is being unevenly administered across school districts. Although it was a step in the right direction, Act 35 hasnt accomplished nearly enough to prepare young people to be civically engaged.

As an example, state Sen. Gebhard (R-48th dist.) has introduced legislation requiring completion of a half-credit economics and personal finance course as a graduation requirement in Pennsylvania. Perhaps PA legislators could examine similar ways of increasing governmental literacy of Pennsylvania students as well. Other examples could include a Civic Seal earned by high school students, media literacy classes or programs on the First Amendment.

Though Act 35 made progress to improve civic literacy throughout the commonwealth, we call on the PA state legislature to find more solutions for students to learn about their role in government, the rights and duties of citizenship and how they can participate in democracy. Our lawmakers in Harrisburg must invest in the civic education of our young people today so that the communities of Pennsylvania can reap the benefits for decades to come.

Aizaz Gill, of Burholme, is the Pennsylvania Policy Director for Business for America, a national, nonpartisan organization focused on engaging businesses across Pennsylvania to protect the democratic institutions that are essential to a thriving economy.

Link:
Improving K12 civic literacy is an investment in our democracy - Northeast Times

David J. Toscano is an attorney and a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates. He is the author of Fighting Political Gridlock: How States Shape Our Nation and Our Lives, University of Virginia Press, 2021, andBellwether: Virginias Political Transformation, 2006-2020, Hamilton Books, 2022.

Sometimes, the people want change so much that they resort to other measures that bypass their elected representatives. So goes the rationale for the direct democracy concept called initiative and referendum, a process by which citizens in various states can collect enough signatures to place proposals to change state constitutions or statutes directly before the people for a vote. Presently, 26 states include an initiative process in their constitutions, including 18 that permit direct amendments to their constitution. While South Dakota was the first to adopt this approach in 1898, most enacted these provisions in the early part of the 1900s.

This approach is dramatically different and easier from the way our U.S. Constitution allows amendments. With citizen initiative, all that is needed are sufficient signatures to place a referendum on the ballot, and a simple majority to vote for it.

The last decade has brought dramatic changes in states with the initiative processeven when the legislature opposed them. Some form of marijuana use has been legalized in 18 states via citizen initiative. Ballot initiatives won increases in the minimum wage in 11 states, including Florida (in 2020 with 61 percent of the vote), Missouri (in 2018 with 62 percent), and Arkansas (in 2018 with 68 percent); Floridas was the only one passed through constitutional amendment while the others were statutory enactments. Since 2017, Medicaid expansion has passed in seven states where the issue was put on the ballot, including by constitutional amendment in South Dakota (in 2022 with 56 percent of the vote), Missouri (in 2020 with 53 percent), and Oklahoma (in 2020 with 50.5 percent).

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

DOBBS THE DISRUPTOR

Passage of what might be characterized as progressive measures has proven extremely discomforting to GOP legislators, their priorities threatened by the voice of the people. But what really concerned conservative legislatures has been the success of direct democracy following the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs case.

First, there was Kansas and Kentucky, red states where voters recently stomped down efforts to restrict abortion. Then, there was Montana, where voters defeated a personhood amendment that would outlaw abortion but conceivably contraception as well.

Perhaps most significant was Michigan, where abortion rights activists engineered not only passage of a state constitutional right to reproductive freedom in November 2022, but in the process, helped bring the state a Democratic trifecta it had not enjoyed in decades. Citizens in 10 states are now actively engaged in placing abortion rights directly before the voters. And conservative state legislatures are not only devising creative ways to defeat them, but to strangle direct democracy in the process.

EXHIBIT AOHIO

The poster child for this fight is Ohio, a state where reproductive freedom advocates are organizing to pass a constitutional amendment this November.

The Buckeye state installed initiative and referendum in its constitution in 1912, shortly after former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt argued to its constitution convention that provisions in the states new charter include a way that the people, by popular vote, can readily amend it if at any point it works injustice.. Direct democracy was a key tenet of the progressive movement, which held that it could provide critical checks on the power of the legislature and the courts.

The Ohio Convention embraced Roosevelts position and the state joined about 20 other states who adopted this form of direct democracy in the early 1900s.

Ohio Republicans now want to change all of that. Many citizens felt burned by passage of an amendment to increase the minimum wage in 2006 and then by two constitutional amendments that required nonpartisan redistricting and which were used as the basis of the states Supreme Court slap down, in seven separate rulings, of Republican line-drawing before the last election. In addition to a reproductive rights amendment, Ohioans may also see a measure to increase the minimum wage on next years ballot. These efforts at direct democracy are threatening the conservative agenda.

In response, Republican legislators have advanced a measure to increase the passage threshold for constitutional amendments to 60 percent (In Michigan, Kentucky and Kansas, votes for abortion rights gained between 52 and 59 percent) and intend to place the proposal on the ballot in August- three months before the reproductive rights measure gets a vote. Former state lawmaker Michael Curtin suggests that in its 220 years of statehood, the Ohio General Assembly has never scheduled an August special election to enact such a major change to the Ohio Constitution. If the gambit succeeds, the threshold for the November abortion proposal will rise from 50 percent to 60 percent for passage.

Ohio lawmakers have been wallowing in hypocrisy throughout this debate, starting with their decision to schedule the vote on the proposed restrictions for this August. That decision contradicts a pledge they made only last year not to schedule these initiatives for low turnout elections like those that occur in August. In addition, they are also proposing to make it much harder for Ohioans to qualify future initiatives for the ballot by expanding signature-gathering quotas to all 88 counties from the current 44. Last November, the states GOP Attorney General, Frank LaRose, publicly stated that he could not support those restrictions to the initiative process.

The Ohio proposals are so brazen that they have prompted criticism from four previous governors, two Democrats and two Republicans. But they will soon be on the Ohio ballot.

RED STATES EMBRACE A COMMON APPROACH

Ohio is not alone in its attempts to change the rules of direct democracy. After successful ballot measures to legalize marijuana and expand Medicaid, and a new push by reproductive rights advocates to place constitutional provisions protecting abortion on the ballot in 2024, the Republican-controlled Missouri legislature is fast-tracking a constitutional amendment for the November 2023 ballot to raise the approval threshold for proposed constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60 percent.

Like Ohio, they also are attempting to make it more difficult to collect the signatures required to place proposed amendments on the ballot. Similar efforts are also underway in Oklahoma, and Florida, which already has a 60 percent threshold, is seeking to raise it to a 2/3rds majority. According to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center (BISC), at least 58 bills restricting the ballot initiative process have been introduced in state legislatures this year.

Even in conservative states, however, efforts to curtail direct democracy do not always succeed. Arizona voters recently rejected a proposed amendment that would have allowed the legislature to more easily repeal citizen-led ballot initiatives after approval. Last June, voters In Arkansas and South Dakota resoundingly rejected Republican-authored constitutional amendments to raise the threshold for passage of most ballot initiatives from a simple majority to 60 percent. In November 2022, South Dakotans then proceeded to pass a constitutional amendment to expand Medicaid with 56 percent of the vote.

DIRECT DEMOCRACY DEBATE IN A HYPER PARTISAN WORLD

If we did not live in such a hyper partisan world, it would be easier to have a thoughtful philosophical debate about the degree to which direct democracy should drive our policy choices. Our founders had such a debate, and they chose an amendment process for the U.S. Constitution that provided for little citizen input. Similarly, most state constitutions did not initially include provisions for direct democracy, notwithstanding proposals by Thomas Jefferson to include legislative referendums to allow citizens to approve laws. Virginias founders rejected Jeffersons advice, and, to this day, the Commonwealths constitution is among the most difficult to amend.

It was only 100 years later that the movement for direct democracy gained enough strength to change amendment processes in many states. It was a time much like our own, when the checks and balances did not appear to be working, and people looked for ways to overrule legislatures that appeared to be out of their control.

Nonetheless, questions remain. How easy should it be for state constitutions to be amended? Should a process like Alabamas be emulated, which makes changes to their constitution so easy that it includes over 900 amendments? Should we be worried that the passions of the public will be allowed to overrule the deliberative nature of the legislative process? How great should be the concern that citizen advocacy will force a legislature into monetary decisions that were not considered when the initiative was proposed? Passage of Californias Prop 13 in 1978, for example, created severe budget problems for the state government.

These are not easy questions to resolve as we debate the power of state legislatures versus citizen initiatives in which the direct will of the people is honored. Unfortunately, what is happening in red states is not about political philosophy, but about power. And citizen initiative remains one opportunity to counter that power and ensure that the will of the people is respected.

Continued here:
Direct democracy proves too scary for red state legislatures; so, they change the rules - The Fulcrum

As this Court is well aware, the justice systems reaction to January 6 bears the weighty responsibility of impacting whether January 6 becomes an outlier or a watershed moment, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Nestler wrote in the 183-page sentencing memo. Left unchecked, this impulse threatens our democracy.

Prosecutors cited polling from earlier this year showing that one in five Americans believe political violence is sometimes justified and that one in 10 believes it would be justified if it meant the return of President Trump.

Rhodes was charged with seditious conspiracy last year alongside nearly a dozen Oath Keepers for their roles in the Jan. 6 attack. Prosecutors alleged that Rhodes embraced Donald Trumps false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and used it to mobilize Oath Keepers across the country to resist the results of the election.

These defendants were prepared to fight. Not for their country, but against it, prosecutors wrote in their sentencing memo. In their own words, they were willing to die in a guerilla war to achieve their goal of halting the transfer of power after the 2020 Presidential Election. These defendants played a central and damning role in opposing by force the government of the United States, breaking the solemn oath many of them swore as members of the United States Armed Forces.

In an eight-week trial last year, prosecutors presented evidence that the group planned to descend on Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6 in response to Trumps call about two weeks earlier for supporters to be there, will be wild. They stockpiled weapons, which prosecutors contend were meant to be available if the mobs clash with police turned even more violent than it did, at a Comfort Inn in Arlington, Va.

Rhodes, an Army veteran, Yale Law School graduate and disbarred attorney, was one of a pair of Oath Keepers convicted by a jury last November on rare seditious conspiracy charges for planning an assault on the Capitol as Congress was tallying the electoral votes as part of the process transitioning power from Trump to President Joe Biden.

The other person convicted on the marquee charge was Kelly Meggs, a leader of the Florida Oath Keepers. Three Oath Keepers members tried with Rhodes and Meggs were acquitted of seditious conspiracy, but convicted on other felony charges.

Four other Oath Keepers were convicted of seditious conspiracy at a second trial in January. And three more pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy over the past year.

In addition to the nine Oath Keepers who have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, five members of the far-right Proud Boys have also been convicted of or pleaded guilty to the charge. Four of them, including the groups national leader Enrique Tarrio, were found guilty by a jury on Thursday. The sentencing recommendation for Rhodes is a window into the likely sentence that prosecutors will seek for Tarrio and his allies.

The recommendation for the stiff prison term for Rhodes was sent Friday night to U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who has presided over three jury trials for Oath Keepers members. A fourth is slated to take place later this year.

Mehta, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, has scheduled sentencing for Rhodes, Meggs and several other convicted Oath Keepers over a series of dates in late May and early June.

Prosecutors also announced in their Friday night submission that they are seeking similarly lengthy sentences for others convicted in the Oath Keepers trials to date, including: 21 years for Meggs, 18 years for Jessica Watkins, 17 years for Roberto Minuta, 17 years for Ed Vallejo, 15 years for Kenneth Harrelson and 14 years for Thomas Caldwell. Each of them would equal or exceed the lengthiest sentences given to Jan. 6 defendants so far.

Prosecutors arrived at those steep sentencing recommendations in part by labeling the actions of Rhodes and his co-conspirators terrorism, defined in the criminal code as acts that were intended to influence the government through intimidation or coercion. The Justice Department has sought this enhancement in relatively few Jan. 6 cases and with limited success.

Judges declined to adopt it in several cases against high-profile Jan. 6 defendants but none had been convicted of seditious conspiracy and none were alleged to have played as large a role in the Jan. 6 attack as Rhodes and his allies.

Prosecutors also dinged Rhodes and several allies for participating in post-trial interviews in which they defended their actions on Jan. 6. Rhodes, in particular, they said continues to invoke the words and deeds of the Founding Fathers in not-so-veiled calls for violent opposition to the government.

About 1,000 people have been charged criminally in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol, but prosecutors said Rhodes and other members of the fiercely anti-government Oath Keepers deserve lengthy prison sentences because they were instigators of the unrest and violence that broke out that day.

While the vast majority of those charged entered the Capitol building, Rhodes and Tarrio were convicted on the serious seditious conspiracy charge despite never setting foot in the building that day. Rhodes was in Washington and marched with Oath Keepers members, but remained in a parking lot as rioters entered the building and clashed with police. Tarrio had been arrested by police a couple of days before and was in Baltimore when the violence unfolded on Jan. 6 after being ordered to leave Washington.

While the 25-year recommendation for Rhodes is the lengthiest yet in Jan. 6 cases, it is only slightly longer than the 24-year, six-month sentence prosecutors sought for a man sentenced Friday for repeatedly assaulting police officers during the riot.

A jury convicted Peter Schwartz, 49, last December on assault and civil disorder charges for throwing a chair at police and spraying them with pepper spray, all while armed with a wooden tire knocker. According to prosecutors, unlike many Jan. 6 defendants, Schwartz had a substantial violent criminal history.

Mehta, the same judge handling the Oath Keepers cases, sentenced Schwartz to 14 years in prison. While that was more than a decade short of what prosecutors asked for, it was the longest sentence yet for a Jan. 6 offender. The next longest was also handed out by Mehta: 10 years for Thomas Webster, a retired New York City police officer who assaulted a D.C. cop on the front lines of the Capitol riot. Prosecutors had sought a 17-and-a-half year term in that case.

Link:
DOJ cites threats to democracy on Jan. 6 in push for steep Oath ... - POLITICO