Media Search:



Voter information guide for special election to fill Alcee Hastings’ seat – WPTV.com

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. The first of several deadlines in a special election to fill the congressional seat left vacant by the death of U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., is soon approaching.

Monday marks the deadline for those Palm Beach County or Broward County residents living in Florida's 20th Congressional District to change their party affiliations before the Nov. 2 primary election.

Hastings, who served in the House since 1993, died of pancreatic cancer in April. He was 84.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis set the primary and general election dates for Nov. 2 and Jan. 11, leaving the constituents of this mostly Democratic district without representation in Washington for months.

Am I eligible to vote in the special election?

The short answer is, most likely, yes, provided you meet a few basic requirements and assuming you reside within Florida's 20th Congressional District.

In order to register to vote, you must:

What do I need when I go to vote?

Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. during the special and general elections. Any voters waiting in line at 7 p.m. will have the opportunity to cast a ballot.

In order to vote, you must provide a Florida driver's license, identification card, U.S. passport or some other form of photo identification with signature.

Where is Florida's 20th Congressional District?

The district includes portions of Palm Beach and Broward counties. That includes parts of Loxahatchee, Royal Palm Beach, West Palm Beach and Lake Park in Palm Beach County and parts of Fort Lauderdale, Miramar and Pompano Beach in Broward County.

Who are the candidates?

A total 11 Democrats and two Republicans -- plus one Libertarian and three independents, one of whom is a write-in candidate -- are seeking to occupy the seat.

Here are the candidates, in alphabetical order by party:

DemocratsSheila Cherfilus-McCormick: CEO of Trinity Health Care ServicesElvin Dowling: West Palm Beach native, former aide and longtime mentee of HastingsBobby DuBose: minority leader in Florida House, representing portions of Broward CountyOmari Hardy: Florida House District 88, former Lake Worth Beach commissionerDale Holness: Broward County commissioner, former mayor once endorsed by HastingsPhil Jackson: retired U.S. Navy chief petty officerEmmanuel Morel: former president of Democratic Progressive Caucus of Palm Beach CountyBarbara Sharief: Broward County commissioner, previously served as first Black mayorImran Siddiqui: doctor of internal medicine in Broward CountyPriscilla Taylor: former state legislator, Palm Beach County commissioner and mayorPerry Thurston: Florida Senate District 33, representing portions of Broward County

RepublicansJason Mariner: former drug addict and convict, CEO of AdSkinzGreg Musselwhite: welding inspector who lost to Hastings in 2020 general election

LibertarianMike ter Maat: Hallandale Beach police officer since 2010

IndependentsJim FlynnLeonard SerratoreShelley Fain (write-in)

What is the difference between a primary and general election?

Florida is a closed-primary state, which means that only voters registered within a political party may vote in that party's primary election, unless a universal primary contest occurs. A universal primary contest is when all candidates for an office have the same party affiliation and the winner will have no opposition in the general election.

That is not the case in this special election, so voters won't be able to cast their ballots for a candidate in another party. For example, a Republican voter can't vote for a Democratic candidate during the primary election and vice versa.

Important Dates

WPTV

Monday, Oct. 4: Deadline to register for primary election or change party affiliationMonday, Dec. 13: Deadline to register for general electionSaturday, Oct. 23: 5 p.m. deadline to request vote-by-mail ballotTuesday, Nov. 2: 7 p.m. deadline to return vote-by-mail ballotTuesday, Nov. 2: District 20 primary electionTuesday, Jan. 11: District 20 general election

Early Voting Dates

Saturday, Oct. 23-Sunday, Oct. 31: 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. (primary election)Saturday, Jan. 1-Sunday, Jan. 9: 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. (general election)

Early Voting Locations

WPTV

Palm Beach County Library, Belle Glade Branch725 NW Fourth St.Belle Glade 33430

Palm Beach County Library, Main Library3650 Summit Blvd.West Palm Beach 33406

Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, West County Branch Office2976 State Road 15, Second FloorBelle Glade 33430

Palm Beach State College, Loxahatchee Groves Campus15845 Southern Blvd.Loxahatchee Groves 33470

Wells Recreation & Community Center2409 Ave. H W.Riviera Beach 33404

Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections

Read more here:
Voter information guide for special election to fill Alcee Hastings' seat - WPTV.com

‘School choice’ developed as a way to protect segregation – Newsday

The year 2021 has proved a landmark for the "school choice" cause a movement committed to the idea of providing public money for parents to use to pay for private schooling.

Republican control of a majority of state legislatures, combined with pandemic learning disruptions, set the stage for multiple victories. Seven states have created new school choice programs, and 11 others have expanded current programs through laws that offer taxpayer-funded vouchers for private schooling and authorize tax credits and educational savings accounts that incentivize parents moving their children out of public schools.

On its face, this new legislation may sound like a win for families seeking more school options. But the roots of the school choice movement are more sinister.

white Southerners first fought for "freedom of choice" in the mid-1950s as a means of defying the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, which mandated the desegregation of public schools. Their goal was to create pathways for white families to remove their children from classrooms facing integration.

Prominent libertarians then took advantage of this idea, seeing it not only as a means of providing private options, but also as a tool in their crusade to dismantle public schools altogether. This history reveals that rather than giving families more school options, school choice became a tool intended to give most families far fewer in the end.

School choice had its roots in a crucial detail of the Brown decision: The ruling only applied to public schools. white Southerners viewed this as a loophole for evading desegregated schools.

In 1955 and 1956, conservative white leaders in Virginia devised a regionwide strategy of "massive resistance" to the high court's desegregation mandate that hinged on state-funded school vouchers. The State Board of Education provided vouchers, then called tuition grants, of $250 ($2,514 in 2021 dollars) to parents who wanted to keep their children from attending integrated schools. The resistance leaders understood that most Southern white families could not afford private school tuition and many who could afford it lacked the ideological commitment to segregation to justify the cost. The vouchers, combined with private donations to the new schools in counties facing desegregation mandates, would enable all but a handful of the poorest Whites to evade compliance.

Go inside New York politics.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.

Other Southern states soon adopted voucher programs like the one in Virginia to facilitate the creation of private schools called "segregation academies," despite opposition from Black families and civil rights leaders. Oliver Hill, an NAACP attorney key to the Virginia case against "separate but equal" education that was folded into Brown, explained their position this way: "No one in a democratic society has a right to have his private prejudices financed at public expense."

Despite such objections, key conservative and libertarian thinkers and foundations, including economists Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, Human Events editor Felix Morley and publisher Henry Regnery, backed the white Southern cause. They recognized that white Southerners' push for "freedom of choice" presented an opportunity to advance their goal of privatizing government services and resources, starting with primary and secondary education. They barely, if ever, addressed racism and segregation; instead, they spoke of freedom (implicitly, white freedom).

Friedman began promoting "educational freedom" in 1955, just as Southern states prepared to resist Brown. And he praised the Virginia voucher plan in his 1962 book, "Capitalism and Freedom," holding it up as a model for school choice everywhere. "Whether the school is integrated or not," he wrote, should have no bearing on eligibility for the vouchers. In other words, he knew the program was designed to fund segregation academies and saw it as no barrier to receiving state financing.

Friedman was far from alone. His fellow libertarians, including those on the staff of the William Volker Fund, a leading funder on the right, saw no problem with state governments providing tax subsidies to white families who chose segregation academies, even as these states disenfranchised Black voters, blocking them from having a say in these policies.

Libertarians understood that while abolishing the social safety net and other policies constructed during the Progressive era and the New Deal was wildly unpopular, even among white Southerners, school choice could win converts.

These conservative and libertarian thinkers offered up ostensibly race-neutral arguments in favor of the tax subsidies for private schooling sought by white supremacists. In doing so, they taught defenders of segregation a crucial new tactic abandon overtly racist rationales and instead tout liberty, competition and market choice while embracing an anti-government stance. These race-neutral rationales for private school subsidies gave segregationists a justification that could survive court review and did, for more than a decade before the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional.

When challenged, Friedman and his allies denied that they were motivated by racial bigotry. Yet, they had enough in common ideologically with the segregationists for the partnership to work. Both groups placed a premium on the liberty of those who had long profited from white-supremacist policies and sought to shield their freedom of action from the courts, liberal government policies and civil rights activists.

Crucially, freedom wasn't the ultimate goal for either group of voucher supporters. White Southerners wielded colorblind language about freedom of choice to help preserve racial segregation and to keep Black children from schools with more resources.

Friedman, too, was interested in far more than school choice. He and his libertarian allies saw vouchers as a temporary first step on the path to school privatization. He didn't intend for governments to subsidize private education forever. Rather, once the public schools were gone, Friedman envisioned parents eventually shouldering the full cost of private schooling without support from taxpayers. Only in some "charity" cases might governments still provide funding for tuition.

Friedman first articulated this outlook in his 1955 manifesto, but he clung to it for half a century, explaining in 2004, "In my ideal world, government would not be responsible for providing education any more than it is for providing food and clothing." Four months before his death in 2006, when he spoke to a meeting of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), he was especially frank. Addressing how to give parents control of their children's education, Friedman said, "The ideal way would be to abolish the public school system and eliminate all the taxes that pay for it."

Today, the ultrawealthy backers of school choice are cagey about this long-term goal, knowing that care is required to win the support of parents who want the best for their children. Indeed, in a sad irony, decades after helping to impede Brown's implementation, school choice advocates on the right targeted families of color for what one libertarian legal strategist called "forging nontraditional alliances." They won over some parents of color, who came to see vouchers and charter schools as a way to escape the racial and class inequalities that stemmed from white flight out of urban centers and the Supreme Court's willingness to allow white Americans to avoid integrating schools.

But the history behind vouchers reveals that the rhetoric of "choice" and "freedom" stands in stark contrast to the real goals sought by conservative and libertarian advocates. The system they dream of would produce staggering inequalities, far more severe than the disparities that already exist today. Wealthy and upper-middle-class families would have their pick of schools, while those with far fewer resources disproportionately families of color might struggle to pay to educate their children, leaving them with far fewer options or dependent on private charity. Instead of offering an improvement over underfunded schools, school choice might lead to something far worse.

As Maya Angelou wisely counseled in another context, "When people show you who they are, believe them the first time." If we fail to recognize the right's true end game for public education, it could soon be too late to reverse course.

Nancy MacLean is William H. Chafe distinguished professor of history and public policy at Duke University and author of "Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America."

Read more:
'School choice' developed as a way to protect segregation - Newsday

Democrats attack GOP candidates far from Texas over abortion rights – Yahoo News

Democrats are trying to attack Republican political candidates over abortion rights far from Texas including libertarian states like New Hampshire and Nevada.

Why it matters: The strategy highlights the national resonance of the new Texas law banning abortions past six weeks. The Democratic Party sees an opening in next year's midterm elections to capitalize on voters opposition to it.

Get market news worthy of your time with Axios Markets. Subscribe for free.

Both Nevada and "Live-Free-or-Die" New Hampshire also have female senators up for re-election in 2022.

The Democrats' ad campaigns have the potential to drive up turnout by women.

What were watching: Democrats are already releasing ads hitting Republicans for their record on choice in the hope of making an early impression on voters.

The New Hampshire Democratic Party has a digital ad, released Monday, that attempts to blame the states Republican governor, Chris Sununu, for the New Hampshire Executive Councils decision to defund Planned Parenthood.

In the ad, titled "Laughing," the first text to appear on the screen references the Texas law.

In Nevada, Democrats are hitting Adam Laxalt, a Republican Senate primary candidate, by tying him to Dean Heller, who's running for governor, through their abortion rights comments.

The backdrop: Both states have a history of supporting abortion rights measures that Democrats intend to highlight.

In Nevada in 1990, over 60% of voters approved a ballot measure that reaffirmed allowing abortion up to 24 weeks. The law can only be changed by a direct vote by the people, meaning the legislature cannot amend it.

65% of voters in the state consider themselves "pro-choice," according to a poll conducted over the summer by OH Insights.

The issue was a deciding factor in the 1990s in New Hampshire. Many credit the successful gubernatorial campaign of now-Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)with her highlighting her support for abortion rights against an anti-abortion Republican opponent.

What theyre saying: I think that protecting womens reproductive rights is fundamental to the Granite State, Ray Buckley, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, told Axios.

Story continues

He added, We are either No. 1 or close to it in support of abortion, support of a womans choice, and that is part of our DNA that government should not be involved in that question.

Andy Orellana, a spokesperson for Nevada Democratic Victory, the coordinated campaign for Democrats in 2022, said, "With Nevada Republicans calling for extreme abortion bans like the one in Texas, Laxalts anti-choice record has only become more alienating to voters."

Go deeper: "Swing voters oppose Texas abortion law"

More from Axios: Sign up to get the latest market trends with Axios Markets. Subscribe for free

Read the original post:
Democrats attack GOP candidates far from Texas over abortion rights - Yahoo News

American democracy will continue to be tested: Peril author Robert Costa on Trump, the big lie and 2024 – The Guardian

It is nearly half a century since Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein became the worlds most famous journalistic double act, immortalized by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman in the film All the Presidents Men.

But Woodwards latest book, about the decline and fall of Donald Trump, is co-written with a different Washington Post colleague who was not yet born at the time of the Watergate break-in.

So, Robert Costa, aged 35, how does it feel to be the new Carl Bernstein?

There is only one Carl Bernstein, to be sure, and I have immense respect for him, Costa says by phone. But we both had the privilege of working alongside Bob Woodward and when you work with Bob Woodward, you learn his method of reporting. He spends hours and hours interviewing people, probing them for better answers, candid answers about what really happened.

Costa, who has spent much of his career as a daily political reporter at the Post, relished a chance to immerse himself in long-form investigative journalism. Woodward would tell me, go back and keep digging, and I would have people over at my house and we would sit for hours with different sources.

He would do the same and really talk to people in person. Get away from the phone, get away from email and do interviews in person. Bob Woodward is as old school as you can get and I think thats a compliment in a digital journalism age where the frantic pace at times takes you away from the ability to really report at length.

It is a characterization that resonates with the All the Presidents Men depiction of Woodward and Bernstein diligently rifling through checkout cards at the Library of Congress or knocking on doors late at night and coaxing clues out of unwilling witnesses.

Woodward and Costa time will tell if it has the same ring interviewed Trump for the Washington Post in March 2016. The presidential candidates observation that real power derives from fear gave Woodward the title of his first book in what would prove a Trump trilogy: Fear (2018), Rage (2020) and, with Costa, Peril (2021).

The word haunts it from the opening page, which quotes Joe Bidens inaugural address We have much to do in this winter of peril to the last sentence of the 418th and final page: Peril remains.

The authors interviewed more than 200 people (though both Biden and Trump declined) on deep background, resulting in more than 6,000 pages of transcripts covering the coronavirus pandemic, Black Lives Matter protests, presidential election, 6 January insurrection and nascent Biden presidency.

Among the more colorful anecdotes are Senator Lindsey Graham telling Trump: You fucked your presidency up, only for Trump to abruptly hang up on him, and Senator Mitch McConnell regaling Republican colleagues: Do you know why [former secretary of state Rex] Tillerson was able to say he didnt call the president a moron? Because he called him a fucking moron.

Another piece of advice from Woodward, 78, to his co-author: assume nothing. Costa recalls: I would have the two words assume nothing taped to my computer screen because you cant assume anything in American politics. We thought we knew the whole story of January 6 but realised it was not just a domestic political crisis. This was a national security emergency.

This had the whole world on edge: the UK, the Russians, our European allies, the Chinese. President Trumps conduct sparked a national security emergency that largely unfolded behind the scenes and that was the story we discovered and wanted to tell, along with the whole transition that our reporting shows was quite dangerous.

This generated the splashiest news headlines from the book. The top US military officer, Gen Mark Milley, grew alarmed about Trumps conduct and feared that he was in serious mental decline during his final days in office. At the same time Milley saw foreign allies and adversaries unsettled by the events of 6 January when a pro-Trump mob stormed the US Capitol and delayed ratification of Bidens election win.

The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff decided to take action to avoid a potentially catastrophic miscommunication. Milley called Gen Li Zuocheng of the Peoples Liberation Army in October 2020 and again in January 2021 to assure him that the US government was stable and had no intention of attacking China.

On the second call, two days after images of the deadly 6 January riot stunned the world, Milley sought to assure Li: We are 100% steady. Everythings fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes.

And on that day Milley also told his staff that, if Trump ordered a nuclear strike, they would have to go through a consultation process with him before it was carried out an effort to ensure that nothing be done in a rash manner.

After the books publication, Trump called Milley a dumbass and denied that he ever had any intention of attacking China. But that was not the point. Costa explains: Milley, as a senior military officer, had many interactions with President Trump, and our reporting shows he does not believe President Trump sought war during the transition or even wanted to start a war.

What Chairman Milley was worried about was a hair-trigger environment where the presidents conduct or different military exercises abroad could be misconstrued by the Chinese or others as some kind of rogue act that would lead to a confrontation that was unnecessary to the point of even being hostile and hot.

He wanted to avoid that. De-escalation was the motivation for his efforts. Some people have read our book, including President Trump, and accused Milley of treason but our reporting doesnt show any kind of intention to subvert the presidency. Our book shows him trying to preserve the American government from collapsing into some kind of military crisis or national security crisis.

The implication that Milley worked around civilian leadership did indeed provoke uproar on the right and demands for his dismissal. But Milleys office insisted that the calls were coordinated within the Pentagon and across the US government, while Biden said he had great confidence in the four-star general.

Peril also recounts an encounter in the Oval Office on the eve of the insurrection when Trump demanded that his vice-president, Mike Pence, overturn the results of the election, even though he lacked the constitutional power to do so.

Hearing the raucous cheers and blasting bullhorns of his supporters gathering in the streets of Washington, the president asked: If these people say you had the power, wouldnt you want to?

Pence replied: I wouldnt want any one person to have that authority.

Trump asked: But wouldnt it be almost cool to have that power?

Pence said: No Ive done everything I could and then some to find a way around this. Its simply not possible.

Trump shouted: No, no, no!. You dont understand, Mike. You can do this. I dont want to be your friend anymore if you dont do this.

Torn between his oleaginous devotion to Trump and his oath to the constitution, Pence eventually turned to fellow Indianian Dan Quayle, who served as vice-president under George HW Bush. Quayle told him: Mike, you have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away.

It is safe to assume that Woodward and Costa never imagined their book would contain a cameo by a man who once famously misspelled potato as the unlikely saviour of democracy. Costa says: January 5th, 2021, will be remembered as the temptation of Mike Pence.

You see him trying so hard to help President Trump, to do what Trump wants, but being told by his lawyers and his advisers you cant do it. And ultimately, this former vice-president Dan Quayle, now in political winter in Arizona. rarely heard from on the American scene, talks to his fellow Indiana Republican and fellow vice-president Mike Pence and says, Mike, you cant do it. You have to just count the votes.

Why, after everything, after all the toadying, did Pence decide to do the right thing? Hes someone who grew up as a Reagan Republican, a movement conservative, and thats always been the core of who he is. Hes evolved during the Trump years to be a Trump Republican more than anything else.

This is someone who at nearly every step for four years did what President Trump wanted him to do but, when it came down to the constitution, he could not break. There was the last temptation in his vice-presidency and he resisted but it was quite a journey to that moment of resistance.

Hours after the rioters left the US Capitol building, Pence did certify the election result and, on 20 January, Trump skulked away from the White House as Biden was sworn in as the 46th president. But Trumps big lie about a stolen election continues to spread, mutate and captivate the Republican party and a significant minority of the American population. Pences name now elicits boos from the Make America Great Again crowd.

Costa warns: What happened in January 2021 was not a passing storm in American politics. Its part of a new climate inside of the Republican party, a Republican party where in many states there is a demand to reject Bidens victory, even to this day, and to elect Trump-allied people to election positions to make sure that President Trump, if he runs again, will have a smoother path to power.

The lesson for so many Republicans after 2020, based on our reporting, is to do even more to make sure President Trump can come back and that comes through in the book in the narrative of Senator Lindsey Graham and others.

Voting rights are under siege in Republican-controlled states. Pro-Trump state governors continue to prolong the pandemic by resisting mask and vaccine mandates. Last week Congressman Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump, announced that he would not seek re-election, prompting the former president to gloat: One down, nine to go!

The battle for the soul of America, as Biden framed it, may only be at half-time. Costa continues: American democracy has been tested over the past year and it will continue to be tested. President Trump is still out there on the political campaign trail.

His rallies dont get much coverage these days but, if you watch them, they have almost a war-like cadence in terms of the rhetoric. He sounds at times almost like Winston Churchill: we will never surrender, we will never give in.

Thats the approach President Trumps taking with his core voters, rallying them ahead of 2022 and the election in 2024. This is a political presence that does not want to go away and he is stoking his political capital at every turn, even if it doesnt get much attention. He is on the road to political recovery inside the Republican party and perhaps even on the presidential campaign trail, if informally at this time.

Towards the end of Peril, there is an account of a call between Trump and his former campaign manager, Brad Parscale, in early July this year. Parscale asked if Trump was going to run for president again. Trump replied: Im thinking about it. Im really strongly thinking about running.

Later, Parscale told others: I dont think he sees it as a comeback. He sees it as vengeance.

Just the sort of word that Woodward and Costa could use for the title of their next book. If it comes to that.

Go here to see the original:
American democracy will continue to be tested: Peril author Robert Costa on Trump, the big lie and 2024 - The Guardian

Trump says he has ‘a mouth that tells the truth’ while lying at rally – Business Insider

Former President Donald Trump said Democrats are "after" him because they think he has a "big mouth" during a rally in Georgia on Saturday.

"They want to go after me because I have, they think, a big mouth. I don't have a big mouth, you know what I have, I have a mouth that tells the truth," Trump told the crowd.

The former president was discussing the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in a speech filled with inaccuracies and false statements.

Trump recounted a bizarre exchange of what he said happened when Taliban co-founder Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar learned of the US withdrawal.

"He gets a call or a message. It said the military has left. He said 'you're nuts' in their language," Trump said of Baradar.

Trump blamed President Joe Biden for sending people to Afghanistan to help with the withdrawal "who weren't even familiar with all of it" including 13 service members who were killed in an ISIS-K terror attack.

However, it was Trump who started the process to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, at one point even bragging about it.

Trump falsely claimed those evacuated were not eligible to be evacuated. He also claimed the administration "abandoned hundreds of American citizens in enemy-occupied territory."

The US began evacuating Americans and Afghan allies soon after the Taliban took over Kabul on August 15. Biden considered extending the August 31 deadline to withdraw all troops from the country but the Taliban threatened "consequences"if the US did notleave by the deadline.

More than 120,000 people had been evacuated from the country by the time the last US plane left Kabul. Evacuees were vetted before boarding flights out of the country, in secondary stops, as well as before coming into the US, for those who are being processed to be resettled here.

Trump also criticized Republicans at the rally and reiterated the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. He was joined by three Republicans who he's endorsed: Herschel Walker, who recently launched a Senate campaign, Rep. Jody Hice, who he's endorsed to replace Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and Sen. Burt Jones, who worked to overturn the election results in Georgia, the Associated Press reported.

The former president used the rally to slam officials like Raffensperger, a Republican who maintained the election in the state was fair and accurate.

Read more from the original source:
Trump says he has 'a mouth that tells the truth' while lying at rally - Business Insider