Daily Archives: May 30, 2023

Correction: The headline and first paragraph of this story has been updated for clarity.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), president pro tempore of the Senate, on Sunday criticized GOP “hostage taking” in the debt ceiling negotiations as “dangerous” and said it can’t become “the norm” for such situations.

“I look forward to carefully reviewing the legislative text and discussing this with my colleagues. However, it can’t be overstated just how dangerous this kind of hostage-taking of our nation’s credit is to our economy and standing around the world,” Murray said on Twitter, sharing an Associated Press article about the agreement in principle reached by the two leaders. 

“This cannot be the norm,” she added.

Democrats have repeatedly criticized congressional Republicans for not agreeing to a “clean” debt ceiling hike that would raise the nation’s borrowing limit unconditionally.

President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Saturday said they’d reached a deal in principle that would raise the debt ceiling for two years and apply new federal spending caps in that same window.

The legislative text isn’t out yet, which has many lawmakers sidestepping questions about whether they’ll back the agreement, which has to clear the House and Senate to take effect.

The tentative deal comes after tense negotiations as the White House pushed for a clean debt ceiling increase and Republicans pushed for a hike tied to spending cuts.

The deal also comes just days ahead of the June 5 deadline which Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said is the cutoff point past which the nation will run out of money to pay its bills. If the U.S. doesn’t deal with the debt ceiling in time, the country would go into default, which Yellen and others have warned could be catastrophic for the economy and detrimental to the country’s standing on the world economic stage.

This story was updated at 6:58 p.m.

Link:

Senate Democrat calls GOP hostage-taking in debt ceiling deal making dangerous: This cannot be the norm - The Hill

House Democrats' messaging guidance on the newly released debt ceiling bill instructs them to say the legislation rejects "extreme demands" from Republicans, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: It is a look at how Democrats plan to counter claims by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) that the bill is a total GOP win that contains no concessions for the other side.

Driving the news: Axios obtained a copy of the messaging guidance sent to House Democrats' offices on Monday morning by the Democratic Policy & Communications Committee.

The backdrop: The guidance largely codifies the case House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has been making about the deal.

What we're watching: How conservative House Republicans, who have been agitating against the bill, react to these arguments.

The state of play: Democrats will need to persuade enough of their members to vote for the bill to make up for lost votes on the GOP side.

Read more here:

Scoop: Dems told to say debt ceiling bill rejects GOP's "extreme demands" - Axios

Just six months into his tenure as the House minority leader, Representative Hakeem Jeffries faces a formidable challenge: selling his fellow Democrats on the budget deal negotiated behind closed doors between President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy, without much input from his end.

Negotiators reached a deal on Saturday to raise the debt ceiling and avert a potential default that could come as early as June 5, but Mr. Jeffries had no idea how many votes he might ultimately have to deliver for the package because he had heard nothing from Republicans about how many defections they expected once the measure hit the floor.

The situation is particularly galling to Democrats because, while it is hard-right Republicans who have pushed the nation to the brink of default by refusing to raise the debt limit without spending cuts, they are all but certain to oppose the compromise that has been hammered out. Even if Republicans meet their threshold of winning over a majority of their members for the package, it will probably still require backing from scores of Democrats to pass.

I can say with a great deal of clarity that if dozens of Democratic votes in the House will be necessary, we cannot reach an extreme resolution in this instance in order to satisfy the needs of right-wing ideologues, Mr. Jeffries said in an interview.

The struggle over the debt limit is the first major political and policy fight in 20 years in which House Democrats have not been led into the fray by someone named Pelosi. Mr. Jeffries, a 53-year-old, six-term lawmaker from Brooklyn, succeeded Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader since 2003 and two-time speaker, in January without opposition. Now he is getting something of a trial by fire, with the global economy and the retirement accounts of millions of Americans on the line.

Of the four congressional leaders, Mr. Jeffries has the least power, but he might also have the greatest challenge, because it is clear that House Democrats will be essential to pushing the debt limit bill over the finish line from their minority position in the House. Though Mr. Jeffries had little direct sway in the talks, Mr. McCarthy is well aware that he cannot hope to prevail if House Democrats reject it en masse.

Progressives previously signaled that they were not inclined to support any deal that cut domestic spending or imposed stricter work requirements on public benefit programs.

While he has not been in the room, Mr. Jeffries has been in regular conversation with the White House about what is transpiring, with Jeffrey D. Zients, the White House chief of staff, serving as a major point of contact. Mr. Jeffries credited the administration with engaging with a wide array of House members to prepare them for what is ahead.

Theyve been open, honest and accessible with House Democrats across the ideological spectrum, he said.

House Democrats have grumbled that the White House remained too quiet as the talks progressed, not wanting to knock them off track, while Mr. McCarthy and his lieutenants gathered regularly with reporters, gaining some advantage on the public relations front. Mr. Jeffries moved to fill that gap in recent days with a series of appearances he used to assail far-right Republicans, whom he accused of trying to crash the economy for political reasons.

Theyve decided that either they are able to extract extreme and painful cuts that will hurt everyday Americans or crash the economy and benefit politically in 2024, he said. That is unreasonable, its cruel, its reckless, and its extreme. But it is the modern-day Republican Party in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Jeffries, who has so far had a working relationship with Mr. McCarthy, was not ready to extend that criticism to the speaker.

Its not clear to me that it includes McCarthy, he said, referring to the group of Republicans he viewed as hoping for a politically advantageous default. I think McCarthy has a very difficult job in terms of corralling the most extreme elements of his conference. But the extreme elements have said they dont believe House Republicans should be negotiating with the hostage they have taken.

As Mr. Jeffries navigated the debt limit showdown, senior House Democrats said he was able to draw from a reservoir of good will and trust from his membership.

Hes clearly on top of these issues, said Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, the veteran lawmaker and top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee. He understands the politics of where we are, and I think there is pretty broad support in the caucus for the posture hes adopted.

He responds, he answers questions, and he tells you the truth, said Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.

Although it appears that a deal has been struck, Mr. Jeffries has one potential trick up his sleeve should that fall apart and a catastrophic default appear imminent. He and his team quietly prepared a special petition to force a debt-limit increase vote if all else fails. All 213 Democrats have now signed the petition, leaving them five short of the 218 votes needed. He called this past week for moderate Republican lawmakers to bridge the gap.

Unfortunately, so-called moderates in the House Republican Conference have failed to show the courage necessary to break with the most extreme wing of their party, he said. Now is the time to do it.

Originally posted here:

Debt Ceiling Is First Big Test for Hakeem Jeffries, the Top House Democrat - The New York Times

There is a a whole big swath of the Republican Party, who Murphy said he believes actually wants to see the U.S. default an event that would put tens of billions of dollars in Social Security benefits, federal salaries, payments to Medicaid providers and veterans benefits at risk. It also would rock global markets.

The agreement announced Saturday is not yet a sure thing. Any bill will have to be passed by both chambers of Congress before heading back to Bidens desk, and to prevent default it all has to happen fast before June 5, when the government is expected to no longer be able to pay its debts.

On Sunday, Murphy voiced concern about the speed with which members of Congress will be able to send the final deal back to the president.

Its going to take at least three to four days for this to get to the House of Representatives and then it could take as long as a week if Republicans use all of the procedural tactics at their disposal. That of course would result in a default on American debt. something that we would never recover from, Murphy said.

See the original post:

Does the debt deal have enough GOP support? This Democratic senator says he's worried. - POLITICO

Delbert Hosemann has many liberal friends. This is becoming more and more clear as we advance in this political season.

Delbert the Democrat has been a name that seems to be sticking to the lieutenant governor and with good reason. You can look at his record and the legislation he has fought to kill. That alone would be enough to prove his loyalties do not land with true Republican voters or conservatives.

He killed legislation that would have completely phased out the state income tax. He has fought against religious liberties. He told President Donald Trump to go jump in the Gulf of Mexico when the president was asking for help on voter integrity and he has stood against necessary voter ID requirements to protect our elections.

All of that while also fighting behind the scenes to ensure he got a pay raise. He also pushed to get the legislature a pay raise. (One that, thankfully, Sen. Chris McDaniel was able to kill after the vote.) He led the redistricting charge to grow Bennie Thompsons district. He appointed 13 out of 16 Democrats to key committee chairs while leaving nine Republican senators without a chair.

He has stood against legislation designed to protect our Second Amendment rights. In addition, he has fought to expand Obamacare through Medicaid expansion.

Because of these things, Delbert has become a darling for the liberal media. They reported glowingly when he told President Trump to go jump in the Gulf of Mexico. They have projected Delbert the Democrat as their champion and with good reason: Because he is a liberal champion.

Democrat challenger for governor, Brandon Presley, was so excited to hear Delbert the Democrat speak last year he put on two different shoes as he bragged about it on Twitter. And, of course, Delbert replied with a laughing emoji. I can definitely see them working well together to move this state to the left.

Mississippi Today has spent a large part of its coverage into the lieutenant governors race trying to make Chris McDaniel look bad while ignoring Delberts record. That media outlet attempted to double down on a report that McDaniel had filed an incomplete campaign finance report, despite the fact the Secretary of States office admitted fault due to an issue with its website.

The outlet has spent countless political cartoons, editorials and other resources to defend Delbert or paint McDaniel in a negative light. At this point, it seems to be staffed with nothing more than political operatives working for the Hosemann campaign, in my opinion. For a media outlet like it to defend a Republican like this should speak volumes about the Republican in question.

Over the weekend, the former chairman and executive director of Mississippis Democrat Party Sam Hall wrote a column attacking McDaniel. His attack was the latest in a long line of liberal Democrats rushing to defend Hosemann.

Halls attack on McDaniel further proves who the Democrats in this state feel best represents their values. They want to make sure anything they print is a defense of Delbert the Democrat or an attack on McDaniel. It also makes it clear that Hall would love nothing more than a Presley/Hosemann combo running our state. This combo would be a liberal nightmare.

Have you ever seen the mainstream media in Mississippi ever rush to defend a Republican before? Can you name a time you thought they were trying to push a conservative candidate? I cannot think of one time. I am sure you cannot either.

Hall, the Mississippi Today crew and many others in the Mississippi media represent the very left of our state. They represent the Obama crowd. And they are carrying the wood for Delbert the Democrat.

The lines are clear for us in Mississippi. If we truly want a conservative Mississippi, we must not fall for the fake news lies. As Gov. Tate Reeves recently stated, there is only one conservative in this race. That is Chris McDaniel. We all need to do whatever we can between now and Aug. 8 to ensure he beats Delbert the Democrat.

Jack Fairchilds is host of The Right Side podcast. He lives in Jones County

Visit link:

Delbert the Democrat and his friends in the liberal media - leader-call.com

If the shocking 2016 presidential election of Donald J. Trump taught us anything, it should be that voters can still be unpredictable and unpollable, and that millions of them believe that the entrenched elites from both political parties no longer hear their voices or speak for them.

Voters are continually seeking a new champion. Will Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. become such a champion? I believe so — at least as far as the Democratic primary process is concerned.

When that process is final and all the votes from the primaries and caucuses have been tabulated, I believe Kennedy will emerge as the Democratic nominee for president in 2024.

Cue the laughter and pejoratives. Most from the left. Some from the right. In our increasingly polarized times, everything seems to be viewed through the prisms of ideology, tribalism, anger, hate and the outright dismissal of voices in opposition to our own. But if we choose to put down those often-distorted prisms and open our eyes, there are still facts, figures and pragmatic reasons as to why the less obvious (or the most ridiculed) might still be the correct answer.

My first reason for predicting a Kennedy nomination is that I am still not convinced President Joe Biden will actually run for reelection, primarily because of concerns regarding his advanced age and the perception of cognitive decline.

With regard to Biden’s age being a roadblock to a 2024 campaign, we have this from former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who was asked about it at the Financial Times Weekend Festival: “His age is an issue. And people have every right to consider it.”

In a Quinnipiac poll out this week, 65 percent of voters said they think Biden, 80, is too old for a second term. That’s a share that could very well continue to rise.

But for the moment, Biden has declared his intention to run for reelection. And therein lies reason number two why I believe Kennedy will be the eventual nominee. The longer Biden stays in the race, the more he hurts the chances of undeclared Democratic contenders such as Vice President Kamala Harris, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg or even former First Lady Michelle Obama. 

As Biden lets other potential candidates twist in the wind, Kennedy continues to crisscross the nation taking almost every media opportunity given to him — even and especially those on the right, such as Fox News and the New York Post.

Of course, one of the reasons Kennedy is appearing on conservative outlets is because many in the now-activist mainstream media refuse to give him a platform.

Back in 1975 and 1976, when former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter ran his longshot campaign for the White House, some in the media also refused to give him a platform. But they did so because they ignorantly dismissed his campaign as a joke, not because they were personally or ideologically opposed to his policies.

Today, many in the media refuse to have Kennedy on because they are outraged that he dared to question the lockdowns, masking and vaccine mandates that came in the wake of the COVID-19 virus. Additionally, I believe many of them are simply running interference for the Biden White House. 

But again, there is a real danger in viewing the political process with ideological blinders permanently attached to your face. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently used a statement in a lawsuit over the Title 42 public health order to give a scathing overview of how civil liberties were trampled during the COVID era. 

The U.S., he wrote, may “have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country….Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too.”

Many on the left now condemning Kennedy as an “anti-vaxxer” might have no problem with these draconian actions. But guess what? Tens of millions of Americans did and still do.

These Americans are going to be very open to hearing Kennedy’s voice as he barnstorms the nation in the face of a liberal media blackout. 

The next reason why I believe Kennedy will prevail is that he is far from the “one issue” candidate some in the media believe him to be. He is speaking to multiple issues a majority of voters want addressed — issues which have been upending their quality of life for years.

Kennedy’s “ace in the hole” may very well be his simplified campaign message: “Tell the truth.” He pledges to roll up his sleeves much like his dad did in the 1960s and engage in honest conversations with the people. 

Next, because of the Kennedy name coupled with his own stated values, RFK Jr. will make tremendous inroads with Black, Hispanic and disenfranchised voters — a large part of the Democratic base.

After Kennedy met with the editorial board of the New York Post, the editors wrote: “Kennedy has real conviction and charisma, and he’s fiercely independent of many of the party’s reigning pieties — all of which should appeal.”

His message should most especially appeal considering the latest Monmouth University poll declaring that only 16 percent of respondents said the U.S. is headed in the right direction.

Sixteen percent.

The headline for that Post editorial read: “Biden’s a fool to ignore the RFK Jr. challenge.” To that list of “fools” I would add the activist media and the Democratic Party. Despise him all you want, but Kennedy is already polling at 20 percent against Biden as his pragmatic voice continues to reach more and more Americans in search of a champion. 

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.

See the rest here:

Why I believe RFK Jr. will be the 2024 Democratic nominee - The Hill

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Democrats in the Texas Legislature have struggled to keep a united front against a barrage of conservative Republican priorities, including proposed limits on drag performers, school library books that discuss sex, and medical treatments for young transgender Texans.

That difficulty has led to eye-catching defections by some Democrats, exposing fractures within the party on LGBTQ rights and the proper role of discussions about sex and gender in public.

Nowhere was that divide more evident than in Rep. Shawn Thierrys 12-minute speech on the House floor earlier this month defending her vote in favor of a bill that would ban hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender Texans under the age of 18. The Houston Democrats voice quivered as she recounted grappling with the issue before casting a vote she felt represented her constituents.

Certainly, the topic of gender and body dysphoria in children requires careful consideration, caution and compassion, Thierry said in her speech. It remains my legislative duty and moral obligation to vote the conscience and core values of my constituency. I will do this today with an open heart and clear mind.

To advocates for transgender Texans, including medical experts who say gender-affirming care is important to the youths well-being, Thierrys vote on Senate Bill 14 was a stark betrayal.

To political observers, it highlighted an ongoing challenge for the Democratic Party, whose base includes liberals and moderates as well as older voters whose beliefs on sex and gender are being recast and challenged.

The Democratic Party is giving voice to constituencies that were formerly shushed and quieted, so issues like how to treat gender dysphoria are new issues, and I do think the average person is sort of unclear about those issues and how to respond to them, said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University. Theyre uncomfortable with them.

Thierrys speech, which repeated conservative talking points that advocates for transgender Texans challenged as false, drew the brunt of criticism from fellow Democrats, but she was not alone in breaking with the party. Longtime Democratic Reps. Harold Dutton of Houston and Tracy King of Batesville also voted for SB 14, as did Rep. Abel Herrero of Robstown.

On other hot-button issues, longtime Dallas Democratic Sen. Royce West voted in favor of a bill regulating drag shows, while nearly a dozen House Democrats voted for a bill to ban books deemed sexually explicit. The vote on books came despite the state partys chair criticizing the bill as part of a Republican attempt to ban huge catalogs of literature every two years. Some of the targeted books deal with helping kids understand their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Ten House Democrats voted with Republicans to pass Senate Bill 15, which was sold as an effort to protect womens sports from transgender competitors by requiring college athletes to compete on sports teams that align with their sex assigned at birth.

To LGBTQ advocates, the votes showed that many lawmakers, and much of the states population, remain unfamiliar with the lives of transgender Texans.

On both sides of the aisle, people dont understand transgender issues and transgender people in Texas, said Andrea Segovia, senior field and policy adviser for the Transgender Education Network of Texas. Having these few Democrats vote for the bill is a clear representation of that.

While her group has spent years talking to lawmakers about transgender Texans and their needs, she said this years session shows that education efforts need to continue.

The movement forward is more education, more working on Where are those gaps of information? Why is it that this talking point from the opposition worked better than ours? she said. Theres a lot of homework from our part that we plan to do to figure out how we can come back better and stronger for our people.

Jillson said Republicans have a built-in advantage a center-right base that is older, whiter and more conservative, allowing for an easier consensus on social issues.

Democrats, on the other hand, have a base that includes a broader range of age, race and religious affiliation.

For Democrats, its much more difficult, Jillson said, adding that positions taken by some lawmakers who represent more conservative constituencies may clash with activists who support LGBTQ rights.

Segovia said Republicans have been winning the messaging war. By the time she and fellow activists try to explain how puberty blockers and hormone therapy work and the benefits they provide to a population at higher risk of depression and suicide, opponents have already scared lawmakers and the general public into voting to ban such procedures, she said.

The opposition uses a bumper sticker to make their point, and we come back and we say a paragraph, Segovia said. Its always a disadvantage.

Former state Rep. Celia Israel, an Austin Democrat and an LGBTQ advocate, echoed Segovias concerns and said some lawmakers were not doing deeper research to look past talking points.

The Texas Legislature is reflective of the population of Texas. If theyre hearing scary stuff from different sources and theyre not balancing it out with facts and real people, thats a problem, thats not being true to yourself, she said. You want people to vote their districts and their conscience, but you dont want them to vote against science.

Matt Mackowiak, a GOP political consultant, said Republicans have identified social issues that resonate with the public and taken positions that are more in line with the general Texas population.

If these bills were as extreme and radical as the left says, you would have Republican defections, and youre not seeing that, he said.

Mackowiak said hes seen more Democratic defections than expected, and he thanked those lawmakers for crossing the aisle on difficult issues. But he said he would expect liberal Democrats to take them to task during next years primary elections.

Did these Democratic House members that came to their own decisions, did they misjudge their own electoral vulnerability, or did they swim with the tide? he said.

Older Democrats also have an influence on their party, said Jeronimo Cortina, a political scientist at the University of Houston. In heavily Hispanic South Texas, Democrats have historically enjoyed support based on social programs to improve health care, provide benefits to seniors and lift people out of poverty. But that support has been counterbalanced by a largely conservative populace with close ties to the Catholic Church and, increasingly, evangelical churches.

Many of those churches oppose abortion and the growing acceptance of LGBTQ people in society.

Black voters, historically the most reliable base for the Texas Democratic Party, also face a similar issue, Cortina said. Black churches organize the highly successful souls to the polls efforts that whisk voters from their churches to polling locations during elections. But some of those churches, he added, are not welcoming to LGBTQ Texans.

Not all Christian denominations can be defined as welcoming churches on issues of homosexuality or broadly LGBTQ+ issues. That complicates how these representatives voted in terms of that, Cortina said. Its an internal tug-of-war between progressive Democrats and more traditional conservative Democrats.

Nine of the 11 House Democrats who crossed party lines to vote for banning sexually explicit books were either Black or hailed from South Texas. All 10 who voted for the bill on transgender college athletes fell in the same categories.

Those votes have led to anger and frustration from liberal Democrats who say theyve tried to address concerns lawmakers expressed about these bills.

The argument that I wasnt aware or I didnt know? It's trash at this point, Segovia said.

Joel Montfort, a Democratic political consultant, offered to help any candidate considering a primary challenge to Thierry after her vote in favor of SB 14, saying she was not a real Democrat.

Montfort also criticized Theirrys vote to ban sexually explicit library books.

To see a Democrat backpedal and buy into the GOP propaganda just like she did with book banning, its all just nonsense, Montfort said. Youre not really a Democrat then. Youre not paying attention to your constituents rights.

But some Democrats defended their colleagues. State Rep. Eddie Morales, an Eagle Pass Democrat who voted against SB 14, said Thierry should be recognized for her courage.

She carefully laid out her analysis and reasoning, Morales said on social media. Republicans have the votes to pass this bill without her vote. Yet she voted her [conscience] knowing she was opening herself up to attacks from within her own base.

Morales, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, voted for the book ban bill, restrictions on drag artists and requiring transgender collegiate athletes to join sports teams based on their sex assigned at birth. He said he voted against the ban on gender-affirming care after meeting the family of a transgender teen.

Democratic leaders have taken a careful approach to addressing the division within their party. The chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer of San Antonio, stayed out of the fracas, saying lawmakers are responsible for their own votes.

When a member takes a vote on this House floor, they are voting consistently with the values and the principles of their district, Martinez Fischer said. Every member has to go home and explain these votes, and everybody takes a vote knowing that they have to come back and get reelected.

Disclosure: Southern Methodist University and University of Houston have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Tickets are on sale now for the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin on Sept. 21-23. Get your TribFest tickets by May 31 and save big!

Excerpt from:

Republican blitz on LGBTQ issues exposes fractures among Texas ... - The Texas Tribune

Why It Matters: Harris County could tilt the power balance in Texas.

Harris County, the states most populous county, has become a reliable Democratic stronghold.

The passage of the bills marked the culmination of a monthslong effort by Texas Republicans to contest some of that dominance. They highlighted Election Day problems last November in Harris County as justification for challenging results that favored Democrats and call into question the way the Democratic-led county runs its elections.

It was a stated intention of some of the folks in the Legislature to take action against Harris County election administration, said Daniel Griffith, the senior policy director at Secure Democracy USA, a nonpartisan organization focused on elections and voter access.

Senate Bill 1750 eliminates the appointed position of elections administrator, which has been in place in Harris County only since late 2020. If the bill becomes law with the governors signature, the county must return to its previous system of running elections, in which the county clerk and the county tax collector-assessor split responsibilities. Both positions are currently occupied by elected Democrats.

The Legislatures support for S.B. 1750 and S.B. 1933 is because Harris County is not too big to fail, but too big to ignore, State Senator Paul Bettencourt, a Houston Republican and sponsor of several election bills, said in a statement. The publics trust in elections in Harris County must be restored.

Another bill, Senate Bill 1070, removes Texas from an interstate system for crosschecking voter registration information run by a nonprofit, the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC. The system has been the target of conservative attacks in several states in part because it requires states using it to also conduct voter outreach when new voters move in from out of state. The Texas measure bars the state from entering into any crosschecking system that requires voter outreach.

Yet another bill, House Bill 1243, increases the penalty for illegal voting from a misdemeanor to a felony.

The measures that passed were opposed by Democratic representatives and voting rights groups. But advocates of greater access to the polls were relieved that other, more restrictive measures put forward and passed in the State Senate including one that would have required voters to use their assigned polling place instead of being able to vote anywhere in the county, and another that would have created a system for the state to order new elections under certain circumstances in Harris County failed in the Texas House.

Those havent moved and thats definitely a good thing, Mr. Griffith said.

The bills invite new scrutiny of elections, especially in Harris County, where officials would be expected to revamp their system just months before important elections.

Under the new legislation, future complaints about the functioning of elections in the Democratic-run county could create the real possibility that the secretary of state, a former Republican state senator, could step in and oversee elections as early as next year, as the county votes for president.

The bills, said Mayor Sylvester Turner of Houston, create more problems than they allegedly solve.

Top officials in Harris County have vowed to go to court to challenge both measures aimed at the county once the laws go into effect (Sept. 1, if the governor signs), meaning the fight over elections in the county remains far from over.

See the original post:

Texas Passes Bills Targeting Elections in Democratic Stronghold - The New York Times

Dont be too sure a Democratic majority can be built on the grounds of abandoned houses of worship. Photo: Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

One of the big predictions in American politics lately, of infinite comfort to embattled progressives, is that the increasing number of religiously non-affiliated Americans, particularly among younger generations, will spur a steady leftward drift. Perhaps that will mean, we are told, that Democrats will be able to build their elusive permanent majority on the grounds of abandoned houses of worship. Or perhaps, some hope, the religious roots of todays Republican extremism will begin to wither away, allowing American conservatives to resemble their less intemperate distant cousins in other advanced democracies, ending the culture wars.

Both propositions may be true. But its a mistake to treat so-called nones as an undifferentiated secularist mass, as Eastern Illinois University political scientist Ryan Burge explains with some fresh data. He notes that in 2022, 6% of folks were atheists, 6% were agnostics, and another 23% were nothing in particular. This large bloc of nothing in particular voters may lean left, all other things being equal, but they tend to be as uninterested in politics as in religion, making them a less than ideal party constituency. He explains:

To put this in context, in 2020 there were nearly as many nothing in particulars who said that they voted for Trump as there were atheists who said that they voted for Biden.

While atheists are the mostpolitically active groupin the United States in terms of things like donating money and working for a campaign, the nothing in particulars are on another planet entirely.

They were half as likely to donate money to a candidate compared to atheists. They were half as likely to put up a political sign. They were less than half as likely to contact a public official.

This all points to the same conclusion: they dont vote in high numbers.So, while there may be a whole bunch of nothing in particulars, that may not translate to electoral victories.

As Burge mentioned, however, there is a none constituency that leans much more strongly left and is very engaged politically indeed, significantly more engaged than the white evangelicals were always hearing about. That would be atheists. In a separate piece, he gets into the numbers:

The group that is most likely to contact a public official? Atheists.

The group that puts up political signs at the highest rates? Atheists.

HALF of atheists report giving to a candidate or campaign in the 2020 presidential election cycle.

The average atheist is about 65% more politically engaged than the average American.

And as Thomas Edsall points out in a broader New York Times column on demographic voting patterns, atheists really are a solid Democratic constituency, supporting Biden over Trump by an incredible 87 to 9 percent margin. Its worth noting that the less adamant siblings of the emphatically godless, agnostics, also went for Biden by an 80 to 17 percent margin and are more engaged than nothing in particulars as well.

So should Democrats target and identify with atheists? Heres the problem: Despite the trends, there are still three times as many white evangelicals as atheists in the voting population. And there are a lot more religious folk of different varieties, some of whom have robust Democratic voting minorities or even majorities who probably wouldnt be too happy with their party showing disdain for religion entirely. Theres also a hunt-where-the-ducks-fly factor: If atheists and agnostics already participate in politics and lean strongly toward Democrats, how much attention do they really need? Theres a reason that politicians, whatever their actual religious beliefs or practices, overwhelmingly report some religious identity. Congress lost its one professed atheist when California representative Pete Stark lost a Democratic primary in 2012; the only professed agnostic in Congress is Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, whose political future isnt looking great.

Its a complicated picture. Conservative columnist Ross Douthat argues that American liberalisms increasing identification with secularism is keeping a lot of conservative Christians from politically expressing their reservations about Donald Trump. And religious people beyond the ranks of conservative faith communities may feel cross-pressured if Democratic politicians begin to reflect the liberal intelligentsias general assumption that religion is little more than a reactionary habit rooted in superstition and doomed to eventual extinction.

Perhaps it makes more sense for Democratic atheists and agnostics to spend time educating and mobilizing the nothing in particular Americans who already outnumber white evangelicals and ought to be concerned about how theyll be treated if a Christian-nationalist Gilead arises. Only then can nones become the salvation for the Democratic Party.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

See the article here:

The Rise of Religious 'Nones' Won't Save Democrats - New York Magazine