Mediaboss Marketing

A lead Republican negotiator has welcomed Joe Bidens withdrawal of his threat to veto a $1.2tn bipartisan infrastructure bill unless a separate Democratic spending plan also passes Congress.

Senator Rob Portman of Ohio said on Sunday he and fellow Republicans were blindsided by Bidens comment, which the president made on Thursday after he and the senators announced a rare bipartisan compromise on a measure to fix roads, bridges and ports.

I was very glad to see the president clarify his remarks because it was inconsistent with everything that we had been told all along the way, Portman told ABCs This Week.

Moments after announcing the deal, Biden appeared to put it in jeopardy by saying it would have to move in tandem with a larger bill that includes a host of Democratic priorities and which he hopes to pass along party lines.

Biden said of the infrastructure bill on Thursday: If this is the only thing that comes to me, Im not signing it.

The comments put party pressure on the 11 Republicans in the group of 21 senators who endorsed the infrastructure package. One Republican, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, told Politico Biden had made his group of senators look like fucking idiots.

Biden issued a statement on Saturday that said he had created the impression that I was issuing a veto threat on the very plan I had just agreed to, which was certainly not my intent The bottom line is this. I gave my word to support the infrastructure plan and that is what I intend to do.

The White House said Biden would tour the US to promote the plan, starting in Wisconsin on Tuesday.

We were glad to see them disconnected and now we can move forward, Portman said.

A key Democrat, the West Virginia centrist Joe Manchin, told ABC he believed the bipartisan proposal could reach the 60 votes needed to become law.

This is the largest infrastructure package in the history of the United States of America, Manchin said. And theres no doubt in my mind that [Biden] is anxious for this bill to pass and for him to sign it. And I look forward to being there when he does.

Manchin also appealed to progressives to support the bill as part of a process which will see Democrats attempt to pass via a simple majority a larger spending bill containing policy priorities opposed by Republicans.

I would hope that all my colleagues will look at [the deal] in the most positive light, Manchin said. They have a chance now to review it. It has got more in there for clean infrastructure, clean technology, clean energy technology than ever before, more money for bridges and roads since the interstate system was built, water, getting rid of our lead pipes. Its connecting in broadband all over the nation, and especially in rural America, in rural West Virginia.

Another Republican, Mitt Romney of Utah, said he trusted Biden. He also delighted in needling Democrats over the separate spending package.

This is a bill which stands on its own, Romney told CNNs State of the Union about the infrastructure deal. I am totally confident the president will sign up if it comes to his desk. The real challenge is whether the Democrats can get their act together and get it on his desk.

Romney said Republicans are gonna support true infrastructure that doesnt raise taxes. Another Republican negotiator, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, told NBCs Meet the Press he thought the minority leader Mitch McConnell, will be for it, if it continues to come together as it is.

But, Romney, said, Democrats want to do a lot of other things and I think theyre the ones that are having a hard time deciding how to proceed.

A leading House progressive, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, told NBC it was very important for the president to know that the Democratic caucus is here to ensure that he doesnt fail.

And were here to make sure that he is successful in making sure that we do have a larger infrastructure plan. And the fact of the matter is that while we can welcome this work and welcome collaboration with Republicans that doesnt mean that the president should be limited by Republicans, particularly when we have a House majority, we have 50 Democratic senators and we have the White House.

I believe that we can make sure that [Biden] is successful in executing a strong agenda for working families.

See the article here:
Republicans will move forward on infrastructure after Biden veto threat - The Guardian

MADISON -Republican lawmakers are promising to try to swiftly take a dispute over their redistricting attorneys to the state Supreme Court if they don't get a favorable ruling from appeals judgesthis week.

The move may be risky because the high court on Friday reminded conservatives that it wants those bringing casesto follow regular procedures instead of engineering ways to get them to the justices as fast as possible.

Republicans who control the Legislature hired attorneys in December and January because they expect to be involved in litigation over redistricting, the high-stakes political process that takes place every 10 years of drawing new legislative and congressional districts.

A group of Madison teachers sued over the hiring of the attorneys and a Dane County judge in Aprilvoided the legal contracts, finding the legislators had no authority to hire the attorneys at this stage.

Appeals Judge Lisa Stark last week declined to put that ruling on hold.

In a motion Friday, an attorney for the Republicans asked a three-judge panel to set Stark's ruling aside and take up the issue itself. If it doesn't rule by Thursday, the Republicans will ask the Supreme Court to get involved, attorney Misha Tseytlin wrote.

"Absent stay relief from this Court, the Legislature intends to seek expedited relief from the Supreme Court on July 1, as it has previously indicated," Tseytlin wrote.

Whether the Supreme Court would be willing to take the case at this point is unclear. In a different case, a 4-3 majority on Friday emphasized that lawsuits should follow ordinary procedures instead of getting placed on fast tracks to the high court.

In that case, the majority said it was important to follow "well-establishedjudicial ground rules."

"To be sure, this court has an obligation to say what the law is, but this is not a standalone duty," the justices wrote. "Our responsibility to declare the law arises in the context of our duty to decide cases genuine and ripe disputes between parties with standing to raise them. It is not our institutional role to step in and answer every unsettled and interesting legal question with statewide impact."

The majority expressed that sentiment in explaining why it wasn't taking a challenge to Wisconsin's election rules that was brought straight to the high court instead of a lower court. The majority consisted of Justice Brian Hagedorn, who was elected in 2019 with the help of Republicans, and the court's three liberals, Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky.

The fight over the redistricting attorneys is being closely watched because it will likely affect how litigation over election maps plays out.

States must draw new districts every 10 years to account for population changes. Where the lines are placed can give one political party an advantage over the other.

Both sides expect the matter to wind up in court because Republican lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Tony Evers are unlikely to agree on the maps.

The legislators signed two contracts. One iswithattorney Adam Mortara and the Washington, D.C. law firmConsovoy McCarthy. The otheris withthe Madison law firmBellGiftosSt. John.

As of May, Republicans had spent about $103,000 in taxpayer funds on the attorneys. It's unclear if taxpayers could be reimbursed for any of that money.

ContactPatrick Marley at patrick.marley@jrn.com. Followhim on Twitter at @patrickdmarley.

Our subscribers make this reporting possible. Please consider supporting local journalism by subscribing to the Journal Sentinel at jsonline.com/deal.

Continue reading here:
Republicans say they will try to take case over redistricting attorneys to the Wisconsin Supreme Court - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

On a sweltering morning in Harvard Square, Leah Samura strode through the future home of a recreational marijuana shop she plans to open this fall and marveled at the irony of the location: Thestore where she will soon sell legal pot was once a police station.

"To be a Black woman in Harvard Square with a cannabis shop that used to be a police station is just an amazing opportunity," Samura said.

Launching her store,Yamba Boutique,has not been easy. Marijuana may be legal in Massachusetts and many other states, but a federal prohibition makes banks wary of issuing business loans to cannabis companies.

Democrats and Republicans in Washington increasingly agree it is time to legalize marijuana at the federal level; the trouble is lawmakers don't see eye to eye on how to do it.

Entrepreneurs caught in the middle of this debate often have to get creative. Samura and her husband, Sieh who is leading the plan for a second Yamba location, in Cambridge's Central Square have managed to pay some bills by supplying other retailers with a cannabis product they developed.

"It is a cannabis-infused personal lubricant," Leah Samura explained. "It was designed to really help women deal with some of the issues that we have down there."

The product's sales are not enough to cover all the costs of getting a business off the ground, however, so the Samuras turned to a private investor named Sean Hope. Though Hope is a successful attorney and real estate developer, the new cannabis company is a stretch even for him.

"I have essentially leveraged my family's worth in real estate to be able to participate," he said. "There's tremendous risk."

Lifting the federal marijuana ban could mitigate the risk by easing bank lending.

It also could bring the law in line with public opinion. In a recent Pew poll, 91% of American adults said marijuana should at least be legal for medical use, and 60% backed recreational use.Plus the vast majority of states have legalized medical or recreational marijuana already.

Yet Democrats and Republicans are in a stalemate.

"All we want is strictly to legalize it," saidTom Mountain, vice chair of the Massachusetts Republican Party, which supports a relatively straightforward legalization proposal by GOP congressmen Don Young of Alaska and David Joyce of Ohio.

"Now, the Democrats, on the other hand, they want to add a surtax to it," Mountain continued. "And then they want to divert the money to this program and that program. It's so typical. It's really so typical."

A Democratic bill called the MORE Act includes clearing some criminal records and funding social justice efforts with a 5% to 8% sales tax. MORE stands for Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement.

"I think it confronts the injustices of the past and charts a better path forward and gives people back their lives," said Rep.Ayanna Pressley, a cosponsor.

Studies show cannabis law enforcement disproportionately affects people of color, so Pressley argues it is only fair that people of color reap financial rewards from cannabis legalization.

Sieh Samura worries that is unlikely to happen without the special provisions in the MORE Act.

"Equity considerations for a fair market and the long history of cannabis prohibition and all the people that have been harmed there have to be part of the equation or else you will not be able to build a healthy, sustainable market," he said.

Still, Congress could legalize cannabis at the federal level and leave it up to states to launch equity initiatives, if they see fit. Some, like Massachusetts, already have such programs.

But a bipartisan deal does not appear imminent. The House passed a version of the MORE Act last year, only to see it stall in the Senate. The same could happen again.

Read the rest here:
Republicans And Democrats Are Divided Over Marijuana. Businesses Are Caught In The Middle - WBUR

"President Trump spent four years fixing the border. But the Biden administration broke it again, and we are now experiencing the worst border crisis in our history," Banks said in a statement. "Thats why the RSC has made carrying on the Trump legacy on immigration our top priority this Congress and why we are heading to the border with President Trump to explain how we can end this national embarrassment."

The border appearance will be the second meeting this month between Trump and members of the RSC, a sign of how the closely the broader GOP conference is hugging the former president. Earlier this month, leaders of the House Republican caucus met with Trump at his Bedminster resort in New Jersey, and RSC members have invited Trump to meet with them in Washington.

Republicans see a winning message with their base as they go after Biden's administration for its handling of rising migrant crossings. Already this year, multiple House GOP groups have trekked to the U.S.-Mexico border to call attention to the issue.

The RSC has played a key role in shaping GOP messaging on immigration, including the development of a framework shared with leadership that Banks described as guardrails for any future immigration deal.

Also joining Trump at the border next week will be Texas' GOP governor, Greg Abbott, who recently announced that the state would construct its own border wall as he embraces a hard-line approach to immigration.

Read the rest here:
House Republicans set to join Trump's border trip - POLITICO

On May 14, Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) signed three new bills into law. Two of the bills established new restrictions on voting, including a provision that could make it a crime to collect and submit ballots on behalf of another voter. The third bill made it illegal to protest near oil and gas pipelines, with a potential punishment of up to 18 months in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

The new laws appear to have a clear target: the members of Montanas various Native American tribes, who rely heavily on mass ballot collection drives in order to vote, and who in recent years have led protests against major oil and gas pipeline projects that posed a threat to their lands.

The GOP has sought for years to limit the right to protest and curb access to the vote. But both efforts have intensified across the country in 2021. So far this year, eight states, including Montana, have passed laws that create new criminal penalties related to protesting, according to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, which tracks such legislation. At the same time, Republicans have enacted new laws that create or strengthen criminal penalties related to voting or election practices in at least half a dozen states. Many of these laws, like Montanas, have explicitly criminalized or strengthened criminal penalties on the practice of returning ballots on behalf of voters.

And as is the apparent case in Montana, the wave of anti-voting and anti-protest laws a wave that civil rights groups say is unprecedented since the civil rights movement of the 1960s is not just broadly anti-democratic. It is also a specific assault on the rights of Black, brown and Native Americans.

They are responding to people who are trying to use fundamental rights in American society, whether its the right to vote or the right to protest, not by enabling people to tell legislators what they want and what they care about, but by seeking to cast them as criminals and silence them, both at the ballot and on the streets, said Vera Eidelman, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Photo by Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty ImagesTribe-led protests against pipeline projects in North Dakota, Montana and other states -- along with mass racial justice demonstrations across the country -- have led Republicans to pass a wave of new laws restricting protest rights.

The new laws are both obviously unconstitutional and largely unnecessary, Eidelman said, becausethey ostensibly seek to remedy problems that existing criminal statutes already cover. But they are part of a Republican turn against the basic tenets of democracy that only appears to be accelerating.

The GOP is working to criminalize voting, and theyre working to criminalize protesting, said Nse Ufot, CEO of the New Georgia Project, which opposed a sweeping new Georgia law that created multiple new crimes related to voting. So we cant protest, and you cant vote, because theyve created five new crimes and injected so much confusion into the system. What does that mean for the society that we will live in?

Targeting Third-Party Ballot Collection

Montanas HB 530 which Gianforte signed into law in May after Republican majorities in the state legislature passed it without a single Democratic vote prohibits anyone from submitting another voters absentee ballot if they receive a pecuniary benefit for doing so. Republican proponents of this provision argue it will help limit fraud associated with mail-in ballots.

Third-party ballot collection has become a primary focus of Republican efforts to create new criminal penalties related to voting especially in 2021, after former President Donald Trump spent last years election railing against the practices supposed potential to allow fraud. (Twenty-six states and Washington, D.C., allow the practice, although specifics vary: Some states only allow family members to return a voters ballot, and others limit how many ballots a single person can return.)

In reality, there is no evidence that ballot collection drives lead to fraud, and fraud itself is extremely rare no matter how Americans choose to vote. A legal challenge over a similar Arizona law that places heavy restrictions on the practice is currently under consideration at the Supreme Court, in a case proponents of the practice point to as evidence that the GOP crackdown on ballot collection is a partisan exercise to restrict votes. An attorney defending the law admitted in an appeals court that Republicans wanted it in place because third-party ballot collection puts the GOP at a competitive disadvantage in elections.

Republicans taking their cues from Trump have enacted new limits or bans on the practice in Iowa, Kentucky,Florida, Kansas and Arkansas. The new laws, some of which still allow voters to designate a family member to return a ballot on their behalf, almost universally create or increase criminal penalties for violating the stricter limits put in place.

Nonpartisan election officials typically view third-party ballot collection as a useful way to bolster democratic engagement among underserved populations. In Montana, Native Americans who live on reservations often lack access to daily U.S. Postal Service pickup, and many do not own cars that would allow them to make the drive which can be as long as 120 miles round-trip to the nearest in-person polling location. So tribal reservations have typically relied heavily on paid ballot collectors to pick up ballots from residents and transport them to county election offices en masse a practice that is now illegal. (Last year, a federal judge invalidated a similar Montana effort to ban third-party ballot collection on grounds that it disproportionately targeted Native American voters.)

This latest ban on ballot collection is intentional discrimination on behalf of the Republican legislature, said Jacqueline De Len, a staff attorney at the Native American Rights Fund, which alongside the ACLU of Montana filed a legal challenge against the new law last month.

Ullstein Bild via Getty ImagesResidents of Montana's reservations, where mail service is poor and unreliable, often rely on mass ballot collection drives to vote. But a new law signed by Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) would heavily restrict the practice.

In the face of very significant structural barriers that keep Native Americans from casting their ballots, ballot collection is the logical solution, she said. Pooling collected resources is the way that you overcome how difficult it is to vote, and having third party ballot collectors do that type of collective work just makes sense.

The Iowa ban on third-party ballot collection, voting rights groups have said, is likely to have disproportionate effects on the states Latino population. In those and other states, putting new limits on who can submit ballots on behalf of other voters is likely to present fresh obstacles for elderly and poorer voters, voters with disabilities and even college students all constituencies that are already more likely to report difficulties casting ballots.

Criminalizing Voting Mistakes

Other new laws have targeted election officials. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R) signed a law this year making it a crime for local election officials to mail out absentee ballots unless voters specifically requested them, a practice that became more common during the COVID-19 pandemic. A voting restrictions bill that narrowly failed in Texas included a similar provision, which could be revived when lawmakers reconsider the package in a fall special session.

The new laws could lead to a rash of additional charges for minor voting issues, like those that plagued Crystal Mason, a Texas woman who receiveda five-year prison sentencefor trying to vote without realizing she was ineligible.

And the laws will likely have a chilling effect on voters, election officials and organizations that seek to assist voters, all of whom may become more wary of committing crimes while trying to engage in a basic democratic practice.

The new Montana law has generated concern that many organizations that engage in third-party ballot collection will stop, out of fear that they might accidentally commit crimes.

It has both the actual effect of subjecting people to prosecution, and then the very real chilling effect that will discourage people from providing and getting the assistance thats needed to exercise their right to vote, said Eliza Sweren-Becker, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice in New York. Its one more thing to make voting harder, and one more thing to make people a little more scared to vote.

Limiting The Right To Assemble

Frightening people away from exercising a democratic right also seems to be the point of the various anti-protest bills that Republican legislators have sought to enact in recent years, in response to Native-led demonstrations against major pipeline projects and the racial justice protests that have taken place across the country.

Montanas new law, which has been characterized as one of the most extreme anti-protest measures in the country, would make trespassing near a critical infrastructure facility a misdemeanor punishable by up to four months in prison and $1,500 in fines. Larger crimes related to protesting oil and gas pipelines, or other facilities deemed critical, could result in felony charges punishable by 18 months in prison or $4,500 in fines. Organizations deemed conspirators could suffer even harsher criminal penalties.

Native groups in Montana, where tribes led protests against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, view the law as a deliberate attack on their right to demonstrate against threats to their lands and livelihoods.

Along with Montana, seven other states Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee have passed anti-protest laws in 2021. Some, like Montanas, explicitly target anti-pipeline protests. Others expand criminal penalties for protests that target monuments or block public streets, or create new penalties related to expanded definitions of rioting that would inevitably include peaceful protests.

The Republican push to curb protest rights has escalated since last summer, after mass protests erupted in the wake of the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Between June 1, 2020, and March 15, 2021, lawmakers in 33 states proposed at least 100 bills aimed at restricting protest and imposing harsh penalties on demonstrators convicted under the new legislation, according to a recent report by the free speech advocacy group PEN America. In Utah, a bill that ultimately died in committee sought to bar anyone convicted of felony riot from holding a government job or running for elected office. Similar legislation is pending in Alabama.

Photo by Adam DelGiudice/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty ImagesFollowing months of mass racial justice protests, Republican lawmakers in multiple states are trying to place new limits on demonstrating and expand the definition of "rioting" in a way that could criminalize peaceful protests.

This is about deterring folks from going to these protests, having them think twice about even going, said Bruce Franks Jr., a civil rights activist who won a seat in the Missouri state legislature after protesting at Ferguson in 2014. Struggling with mental health issues and facing a fine for a campaign finance violation, he resigned from his seat in 2019 and moved to Arizona.

The bills, he said, are meant to keep marginalized people down.

At least 11 other proposals, including a pending bill in Arizona, threatened to deny access to state benefits for anyone convicted or, in some cases, simply indicted after an arrest at a protest. Such benefits could include health care, unemployment insurance, school scholarships and other forms of government assistance.

If Im hit with felony charges for protesting, at this point in time I couldnt receive any public benefits like tuition waivers and financial aid, said Rich Villa, 28, a criminal justice undergraduate at Phoenix College in Arizona who was arrested last year during a protest against police brutality. Thats damaging in itself.

The threat of potentially losing other public benefits, he said, kept his fiance, who depends on food stamps to help feed their young child, away from the demonstrations last year.

This is a real-life depiction of how exercising your First Amendment right to speak out about injustices people are facing in this country means you can face real, real consequences, Villa said. Your life can be detrimentally impacted for speaking out against the injustices by the system you are in turn protesting... Its like David against Goliath.

Many of the bills have not made it through state legislatures this year, but legislation that would make it easier to classify protesters as terrorists is still pending in Ohio, and the proposals are an indication of what state legislators are likely to pursue in future sessions.

While Republicans have advanced bills targeting protesters, they have also reduced potential criminal liabilities for ordinary citizens who deliberately target demonstrators. Legislatures in Oklahoma and Florida have approved laws that would grant civil immunity to people who run over protesters with cars; the Oklahoma law also shields anyone who uses a vehicle to target protesters from criminal liability. The Iowa state House passed a similar bill, which hasnt come up for a vote in the state Senate yet.

Wielding cars as a weapon against protesters is a far-right fantasy that has increasingly become a reality. In 2017, James Alex Fields drove his car into a crowd of anti-racist protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer. Since then, the practice has become more common. Last summer, as racial justice demonstrations erupted nationwide, people drove their cars into crowds of protesters at least 72 times over a two-month span, according to researchers at the Chicago Project on Security and Threats.

Many of the new laws targeting protesters and voters are likely unconstitutional, Eidelman, the ACLU attorney, argued. But they are still likely to reduce participation in protests and elections among Americans who dont have the will or the means to wage a legal fight against them. The laws are poised to have drastic effects on American democracy, but for their Republican backers, that seems to be the point.

Part of the intended effect, Sweren-Becker said, is to scare people away from the democratic process.

Alexander C. Kaufman contributed reporting.

Calling all HuffPost superfans!

Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter

Read the original post:
Republicans Are Criminalizing The Democratic Process For People Of Color - HuffPost