Mediaboss Marketing

STAMFORD Democrats will vote on their candidate for mayor Tuesday, choosing between the current head of the city, David Martin, and state Rep. Caroline Simmons.

After Simmons won the endorsement of the Democratic City Committee in a tight vote this summer, Martin submitted enough signatures from registered Democrats to force a primary election. Martin was first elected mayor in 2013.

The Stamford mayoral election, and elections for other municipal offices, will take place Nov. 2. After Republican candidate Joe Corsello dropped out on Sept. 8, the only other candidate in the mayoral race is former Major League Baseball manager Bobby Valentine, who is running as an unaffiliated candidate.

On Tuesday, Democrats in Districts 5 and 19 of the city will also vote on candidates for the Board of Representatives.

Bonnie Kim Campbell and Melinda Punkin Baxter are challenging incumbent Reps. Gloria DePina and Lila Wallace in District 5.

In District 19, Jennifer Matheny and Pina Basone are running against DCC-endorsed candidates Don Mays and John Pelliccia. The current representatives of the district, Bob Lion and Raven Matherne, decided not to seek reelection this year.

There are about 31,300 registered Democrats in Stamford, according to the Registrars of Voters. There are about 13,400 registered Republicans and 27,500 unaffiliated voters.

Only registered Democrats can vote in the primary. New voters who want to participate in the primary have until noon Monday to register in person as a Democrat. The deadline is the same for voters who are unaffiliated and want to change their registration to Democrat.

Ron Malloy, Stamfords Democratic registrar, stressed that unaffiliated voters can only switch their registration to Democrat if they have not belonged to any party in the last 90 days. For instance, if someone was a registered Democrat in July and then changed their registration to unaffiliated in August, the person cannot switch back to Democrat and vote on Tuesday, Malloy said.

Malloy also noted that nearly 1,400 people are registered with the Independent Party in Stamford. Some may think that they are unaffiliated voters, he said, but they are actually affiliated with the Independent Party, a minor party.

Polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday. There are 20 polling locations across the city. Voters can find their polling place at http://www.stamfordct.gov.

Those who have applied for and received absentee ballots have until 8 p.m. Tuesday to drop them off at a ballot box in the parking garage of the Stamford Government Center, 888 Washington Blvd., or at a box outside the Harry Bennett library, 115 Vine Road. Voters were able to use COVID-19 as a reason for seeking an absentee ballot.

For those who have mailed in their absentee ballots, the town clerks office must receive them on Election Day at the latest or else they wont be counted.

brianna.gurciullo@hearstmediact.com

Continue reading here:
Want to vote in Tuesdays Democratic primary? Heres what Stamford residents need to know - The Advocate

House Freedom Caucus Chair Representative Andy Biggs at a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Aug. 31, 2021.Photo: Alex Wong (Getty Images)

House Republicans are furious that their Democratic colleagues investigating the failed, Donald Trump-incited insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6 are seeking data on people tied to the riot and now they have a response: No, u.

Late last month, a Democratic-led committee asked 35 tech and telecom companies to preserve records of certain individuals involved in or linked to the riot, including Trump, his family, and Republican members of Congress. As first reported by Fox Business, GOP Representative Andy Biggs has now led several House Republicans in writing a letter to 14 firms demanding that they, in turn, preserve phone records and other data from 16 Democrats so that future Congresses can investigate alleged infractions.

According to Business Insider, the list of Democrats includes Vice President Kamala Harris, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Representative Eric Swalwell. Recipients of the letters included Amazon, AOL, Apple, AT&T, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Snap, Inc., T-Mobile, US Cellular, Verizon, Signal, Telegram, and Twitter.

There has been vehement opposition to the commission from Republicans. They successfully blocked the Senate from holding its own investigation, and the top Republican in the House, Kevin McCarthy, threatened to strip GOP members of their committee assignments if they participated in the House inquiry. Just two Republican representatives have joined it.

Republicans have already lobbed vague threats of reprisal at companies that choose to comply with the Jan. 6 committees data requests. McCarthy claimed handing over the data would be a federal crime and vowed the firms could be subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States under a future GOP majority. McCarthy never specified what supposed law the companies would be breaking, or any kind of mechanism whatsoever by which the Republicans could make good on their threats of revenge.

G/O Media may get a commission

Experts interviewed by the Washington Post agreed that while there may be federal laws preventing the companies from handing over records voluntarily, no such law exists that would hinder them from preserving them in anticipation of a forthcoming subpoena. A former lawyer for the office of the House counsel, Mike Stern, told the paper the companies would have to comply with those subpoenas when theyre served: Even if there is arguably a competing legal obligation or privilege that might trump the subpoena, I know of no principle that requires any subpoena recipient to risk contempt to protect the interests of their customers.

In the letter, House Republicans doubled down on the claim that the preservation requests were illegal under the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, adding neither the Committee nor you have the legal authority to provide those records. The letter continued that having said that, they want the records of Democrats to be preserved. This all obviously makes perfect sense.

Republicans have good reason to be anxious about the data requests. Some 147 GOP members of the House and Senate voted to refuse to recognize the 2020 election results, effectively declaring their support for baseless conspiracy theories about voter fraud and installing Trump for a second term. Those votes happened alongside the Jan. 6 riot, when a swarm of Trump supporters broke into the Capitol in an attempt to prevent Congress from certifying the results. Every single one of the Republicans named by CNN as part of the data-preservation requests voted against recognizing the election, and its clear the Democrats on the commission want to investigate their actions around the time of the attack:

... Republican Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Paul Gosar also of Arizona, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Jody Hice of Georgia and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania.

McCarthy has particular reason to be worried. CNN previously reported that he called Trump in the middle of the assault on the Capitol, urging him to call off the crowds, to which Trump responded Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are. McCarthy reportedly shot back, Who the fuck do you think youre talking to? The House leader has since packed away his spine, never to be seen again.

See the rest here:
House Republicans Say Democrats' Data Requests Are Illegal, and They Want a Piece of the Action - Gizmodo

The spirit of two Southern governors from more than half a century ago - Arkansas's Orval Faubus and Alabama's George Wallace, who defied the Supreme Court regarding race - is infecting the nation today, with different objectives. The Faubus-Wallace spirit of anti-judicial insurrection produced the Biden administration's extension of the eviction moratorium after the court judged it illegal. And the same spirit produced the Texas abortion law that leaves enforcement to private citizens in order to shield the state from legal vulnerability for a law that is ostentatiously incompatible with the court's abortion precedents. Those precedents, although muddled, should be challenged frontally, not evaded by legislative trickery.

Nowhere, however, is the Faubus-Wallace stance of contempt for the court as flagrant as in Washington state. There, the government and a government employees union have collaborated in a cynically presented, but nonetheless obvious, attempt to nullify two court rulings. On Sept. 27, the court will likely decide whether to act in self-defense by agreeing to hear the challenge against Washington's two-pronged assault on 2014 and 2018 rulings.

In those, the court held that state-mandated public sector unions are constitutional only if members have a right to opt out of paying dues that subsidize unions' political speech. In 1977, while upholding government compelling nonunion government employees to pay fees to support public employee unions' activities, the court uneasily acknowledged the "truism" that such unions exist to influence government policies, so their activities are political - akin to a political party's.

In 2014, the court affirmed the "bedrock principle" that only rarely can people be compelled to subsidize a third party's speech that they oppose. In 2018, the court said this principle means that nonmembers can opt out of supporting unions, and nonmembers' fees cannot be automatically deducted from their wages.

The 2014 case concerned in-home care providers, of whom Washington state today has about 40,000. They, unlike workers in traditional workplaces, are dispersed, isolated and have a high turnover rate of up to 40% annually. This makes it difficult to notify them of their constitutional right to opt out of paying fees. On this right, the court says, the constitutionality of public sector unions depends.

Three years after the court's 2014 affirmation of opt-out rights, thousands of Washington's in-home care providers had chosen not to subsidize the government-designated collective bargaining agency, the Service Employees International Union. The SEIU responded not by attempting to persuade dissatisfied fee payers of the union's benefits, but by trying to prevent the dissatisfied from learning about their right to opt out.

Only Washington's state government, which reimburses these workers, has their contact information. So, the SEIU supported a ballot initiative to give only the SEIU - which has a financial incentive to keep the workers ignorant of their right to opt out of SEIU - access to this information.

The initiative was advertised as protection of the elderly from identify theft, but no one offered a shred of evidence connecting public records requests with identity thieves. Such thieves do not usually file public information requests concerning their victims.

The SEIU, in collaboration with the state's heavily Democratic government (the state's last Republican governor was elected in 1980), violated the First Amendment twice: by engaging in viewpoint discrimination (only one side of the argument would have access to the audience), and by nullifying the opt-out right on which, the court has said, the constitutionality of public sector unions depends. This case also concerns political speech in another way: Government employees unions are conveyor belts, moving money extracted from members into Democratic Party coffers.

The SEIU's audacity is commensurate with its ingenuity in creating for itself a monopoly on information about the identity and location of voters in union elections, thereby locking in these captive workers indefinitely. This speaks volumes about SEIU's confidence in its ability to persuade workers that it is beneficial.

Government employee unions nationwide, and their state legislative collaborators, are watching. If Washington state can effectively nullify constitutional rights the court has twice affirmed, other states will concoct similar measures to skew, to the point of suffocation, public debate. Within hours of the court's 2018 decision, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, of fragrant memory, restricted access to information about members of government employee unions.

Somewhere the ghosts of Faubus and Wallace are experiencing admiration mingled with regret. Admiration for the oblique but effective tactic of burdening, to the point of extinction, constitutional rights. Regret that they, both Democrats, lived before defiance of the court became popular within their party.

George Will's email address is georgewill@washpost.com.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

View post:
Defying the Supreme Court is in fashion, and Democrats love it - Clinton Herald

The Biden administration and leftist congressional allies have perpetuated a tired charade of prioritizing human rights over other security-focused considerations with regard to relations with several key partners, including Egypt. One of the loudest Democratic voices in opposition to continued security assistance for Egypt is Sen. Christopher MurphyChristopher (Chris) Scott MurphyTell our troops: 'Your sacrifice wasn't in vain' Sunday shows preview: Bombing in Kabul delivers blow to evacuation effort; US orders strikes on ISIS-K White House seeks to regain control on Afghanistan MORE (Conn.), who questions a number of established partnerships supporting U.S. objectives across the Middle East.

In the past weeks, much has been revealed by our appalling abandonment of U.S. citizens and allies in Afghanistan. If promoting human rights was a primary consideration, the Biden administration would not support the Taliban a designated terrorist organization under the United Nations and U.S. Treasury Department which, this past week, blamed the U.S. for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

With this new reality, it is worth circling back to the administrations dangerous approach to the U.S.-Egypt relationship, where some hard questions must be asked of Democrats advocating a halt to critical security assistance.

Egypt faces multiple security challenges and requires urgent assistance in order to continue providing leadership on regional security matters. The nation and its president, Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi, are critical bulwarks against the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical islamist groups. It is clear that if security assistance is not provided by the United States, Egypt will seek it elsewhere, likely with Russia or other strategic rivals.

The House passed a 2022 foreign aid bill that proposes withholding $150 million from Egypt a larger amount than in previous years and that does not include the standard national security waiver for a portion of that withheld assistance. Due to long-standing fiscal problems, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Cairo is financially strapped and now risks losing U.S. financial assistance, which constitutes a big chunk of its annual military budget. Meanwhile, as its budget is expected to remain in a deficit through 2025, pressure is building in Egypt for more austerity measures. With citizens under 30 representing more than half the total population, the trajectory is unsustainable.

Our interests are harmed without Egypt as a key partner. Egypt has fought a Sinai insurgency, which at times, has spilled over into other parts of the country. The ISIS affiliate in Egypt has claimed responsibility for most attacks and the country has been under a state of emergency since April 2018, when two ISIS-claimed suicide bombings at churches in Alexandria and Tanta killed at least 45 people.

Next to the Sinai Peninsula, Sisi helped to broker peace at least for now in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. Although Egypt has historically played an important role in Israeli-Palestinian relations, many were caught off-guard by this development. It is a fragile peace, but this Egyptian-negotiated ceasefire highlights the critical regional leadership Cairo can and should provide.

Egypt faces a strategic challenge on its western border from the multi-year civil war in Libya and significant related security threats. Cairo is concerned that Turkish-sponsored Syrian mercenaries, combined with Erdogans support for the Muslim Brotherhood, could create an Islamic-oriented government in Tripoli. While a ceasefire was signed in 2020, Libya remains volatile and insecure.

Building on U.S. strategic security relations with Egypt, Central Command is currently engaged in a massive regional military exercise called Bright Star. In its statement on the exercise, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo states that the U.S.-Egypt security partnership plays "a leading role in regional security and efforts to combat the spread of extremism." To illustrate the size and scope of this exercise, other countries participating include: the United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Kuwait, the UAE, Tunisia, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania as well as Cyprus, Italy, Spain, Greece and Pakistan. This exercise is in addition to the counterterrorism training that took place earlier in the year.

Cairos security is also challenged from the south, as the Nile River flows through Sudan and into Ethiopia. Egypt depends on the Nile River to meet 95 percent of its water needs. Ethiopia, which also relies on the Nile for water, built and filled the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam despite objections from both Egypt and Sudan. Both countries say that once filled, this dam will increase water instability; a particularly serious problem for Egypt as its major cities are growing exponentially. Searching for sustainable solutions to this emerging water crisis, Egypt has requested assistance from U.N. and African Union friends and allies to reach a rapprochement with Ethiopia and hopefully avoid a military confrontation.

Egypt is facing massive security challenges both internally and externally. The United States needs Egypt to continue as a key regional leader in maintaining peace and stability, which are both in our long-term interest. Congressional Democrats must abandon their anti-Egypt rhetoric and focus on providing necessary security assistance in order to ensure U.S. national security interests are aggressively protected.

Cairo has taken a leadership role in addressing a number of important regional security challenges and should be encouraged and supported, not punished.

Simone Ledeen is a visiting fellow at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia School of Law's National Security Institute. She previously served as deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy. Twitter: @SimoneLedeen

See the article here:
Democrats are abandoning US allies: Is Egypt next? | TheHill - The Hill

Joe Biden and top Democrats are scrambling for a strategy to counter Republican restrictions on womens reproductive rights amid the fallout from a Texas statute that has banned abortions in the state from as early as six weeks into pregnancy but the options available to the administration are thin.

The conservative-dominated supreme court in a night-time ruling refused an emergency request to block the Texas law from taking effect, in a decision that amounted to a crushing defeat for reproductive rights and threatened major ramifications in other states nationwide.

Even as the US president on Thursday accused the court of carrying out an assault on vital constitutional rights and ordered the federal government to ensure women in Texas retained access to abortions, the future of reproductive rights remains in the balance.

The challenges facing Biden and Democrats reflect the deep polarization of Congress, and the difficulty in trying to force bipartisan consensus on perhaps the most controversial of issues in American politics.

Now, top Democrats in Congress have developed a multi-part strategy to roll back restrictions pushed by Republican-led states that rests on attempting to codify abortion rights protections into federal law and potentially to reform the supreme court.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, announced on Thursday that Democrats would vote within weeks to pass the Womens Health Protection Act, a bill that would ensure the right to access an abortion and for medical providers to perform abortions.

Upon our return, the House will bring up congresswoman Judy Chus Womens Health Protection Act to enshrine into law reproductive healthcare for all women across America, Pelosi said in a statement that also admonished the courts decision.

Separately, liberal Democrats led by progressives including the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are urging Biden to strike down other restrictions on access to abortions and the Hyde amendment, a measure that prohibits federal funding for most abortions.

Seizing on the Texas decision, liberal Democrats have also called anew for an expansion of the supreme court from nine to 13 seats, which would enable Biden to appoint four liberal-leaning justices to shift the politics on the bench.

The legislative response is aimed at reversing more than 500 restrictions introduced by Republican state legislatures in recent months and trigger laws that would automatically outlaw abortions if the supreme court overturned its ruling in the landmark Roe v Wade case that was supposed to cement abortion rights in the US.

But while such protections are almost certain to be straightforwardly approved by the Democratic-controlled House, all of the proposals face a steep uphill climb in the face of sustained Republican opposition and a filibuster in the 50-50 Senate.

The Senate filibuster rule a procedural tactic that requires a supermajority to pass most bills was in part why the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, focused on stacking the supreme court with conservative justices rather than pursue legislation to enact abortion restrictions at a federal level.

Forty-eight Democrats currently sponsor the Womens Health Protection Act in the Senate. Two Republicans Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have previously indicated support for abortion rights, but the numbers fall far short of the 60-vote threshold required to avoid a filibuster.

Against that backdrop, a majority of Senate Democrats have called for eliminating the filibuster entirely. But reforming the filibuster requires the support of all Democrats in the Senate, and conservative Democratic senators including West Virginias Joe Manchin and Arizonas Kyrsten Sinema are outspoken supporters of the rule.

The broad concern demonstrates how urgent the issue has become for Democrats, and with the Texas law in effect after the failure of the emergency stay, many reproductive rights advocates worry that Democrats will be unable to meet the moment with meaningful action.

Read the original post:
Democrats rush to find strategy to counter Texas abortion law - The Guardian