Monthly Archives: May 2023

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

StateAssembly Democrats on Tuesdayheld what was supposed to be a routine committee meeting to consider final pieces of legislation before adjourning next month. Instead, it went off the rails, with fellow Democrats losing their tempers and insulting each other.

According to a video of the Codes Committee meeting viewed by NY1, things got heated when Committee Chair Jeffrey Dinowitz called for a vote on Westchester Democrat Amy Paulins bill, which requires police officers to take temporary custody of firearms when responding to reports of domestic violence.

This was not the first time the bill had come before the committee and failed to gather enough votes to pass. Dinowitz, a Bronx Democrat, was challenged on that point by Manhattan Democrat Daniel ODonnell. Part of the exchange went like this:

ODonnell: Is this not the bill we voted down last week?

Dinowitz: This is the bill that did not have enough votes, and we removed it last week. Yes, its the same exact bill.

ODonnell: So we now allow do-overs on some bills?

Dinowitz: I believe it is within my discretion to put bills on the agenda.

ODonnell: The videotape said something different, Jeffrey. I would recommend you look at it.

Dinowitz: The point being, Daniel. The bill had neither enough votes to be reported last time. Nor did it have enough votes to be defeated or held.

ODonnell went on to say that it was unfair to the 149 other members of the House who cant get their bills reconsidered. A short time later, a vote was held and once again, it didnt have enough support to pass.

After the vote, ODonnell proceeded to walk out of the hearing room. As he passed Queens Assemblymember Catalina Cruz, a Democrat who voted in favor of the bill, he audibly whispered to her: Grow a pair, honey.

Cruz became visibly upset, and immediately responded: That was so disrespectful. A few seconds later, Cruz stood up and declared: I have something. I dont care who is in here. I am a woman of color. I am an attorney. And to be spoken to like that, by a man. By a white man. In front of people. It is not ok.

Dinowitz then said: I didnt hear what he said. Im sorry. What did he say?

As Cruz gets up to leave, she turns to Dinowitz and says: He told me to grow a pair.

NY1 reached out to ODonnell and Cruz for comment, but did not immediately hear back.

View original post here:

Democrats trade insults over bill at committee meeting - Spectrum News NY1

The Executive Branch Ethics Commission of Kentucky has finally completed its investigation of Democrat Alison Grimes, a former secretary of state who ran an unsuccessful campaign for Senate against Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2014.

The commission, in a unanimous vote, hasfinedher $10,000 for abusing her position and influence to provide 18 Democratic candidates with official, confidential voter lists in violation of state law in an obvious attempt to aid their political campaigns.

The commissionopenedits investigation in 2021, after her father, Gerald Jerry Lundergan, a former state representative and former chairman of the Kentucky Democratic Party, was convicted of violating federal campaign finance laws.

Along with a political consultant, who was also convicted, Lundergan illegally funneled more than $200,000 from one of his companies to his daughters Senate campaign. He sought to appeal his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, whichrejectedthe appeal in May 2022.

At the time that she was running against the Republican McConnell, Grimes was Kentuckys secretary of state, and she remained in that office until 2020.

She was never charged in the federal prosecution involving her father andclaimedshe had no knowledge of the day-to-day operations of her own Senate campaign or the illegal corporate financing by her father.

But she was charged with violating Kentuckys state ethics laws for her misbehavior while she was secretary of state.The commissions Final Order, which was issued on May 19, details its findings that were based on clear and convincing evidence, including Grimes own admissions, documents such as email communications, and facts that the parties do not dispute.

Grimes ordered her staff to download information from the Voter Registration System onto flash drives, including lists of newly registered voters. The purpose of downloading the information was to distribute voter lists to selected Democratic Party candidates.That, said the commission, is undisputed.

None of the forms that the law requires be completed by anyone requesting voter information were completed, and none of the fees that state law imposes were charged to those Democratic candidates.

Moreover, the candidates were provided with personal information of voters that state law prohibits being released.

Grimes tried to claim as a defense that she was responding to an open records request under state law. But as the commission pointed out, the information she distributed electronically to the Democratic Party candidates is protected from disclosure under the Open Records Act of Kentucky.

Moreover, Grimes couldnt produce any evidence that her office ever actually received an open records request.There were no Open Records request forms in the file and no evidence documenting receipt of an Open Records request.

The commission did not directly call Grimes a liar, but it said that her defense that she was responding to an open records request was incredible and implausible. Even if she had been, it was processed contrary to law because personal information was released and none of the required forms or fees were completed or charged.

Grimes could not plead ignorance of the law according to the commission. She conferred that benefit knowinglyproviding Democratic candidates with voter lists to which they were not entitled, in violation of state law. She was not laboring under a good faith misunderstanding of the law, since the Kentucky statutes governing this are unambiguous, and the secretary of state would know the requirements of the law she administered.

In fact, it would be disingenuous and incredible to suggest that she did not.

She also knew the rules governing voter information from personal experience because she, as a candidate, when she was running for office, requested voter lists from the Secretary of States Office and paid the required fees.

She would know that Open Records requests require redaction of personal information.

Grimes, said the commission, had to know she was providing information to which the recipients were not entitled. In its dry, legal, straightforward exposition of the facts, the commission makes it very clear that Grimes knowingly violated Kentucky law as a government official in partisan actions intended to help candidates of her own political party.

Kentucky is lucky that Grimes is no longer its secretary of state, a position that, because it administers elections, requires honest, ethical officials. And the states residents are fortunate that someone willing to engage in such unprincipled behavior is not their U.S. senator.

Grimes joins her father in the annals of Kentuckys political history as another unethical politician who was willing to abuse her position of public trust, as the commission concluded, to confer a benefit and advantage to her political friends and allies.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

Continued here:

Kentucky Democrat Who Lost Bid to Unseat McConnell Fined $10K ... - Heritage.org

https://apnews.com/article/mississippi-governor-election-democrat-bob-hickingbottom-6325c33a3484d787e2445c980f0fbf07

Click to copy

Click to copy

1 of 2

FILE -Bob Hickingbottom speaks at the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, Miss., Thursday, Aug. 1, 2019, when he was a constitution party candidate for Mississippi governor. A judge ruled Friday, May 26, 2023, that the Mississippi Democratic Party had improperly excluded Hickingbottom from running for governor as a Democrat in 2023. If the state Supreme Court agrees with that ruling, Democrats would have an August primary with Hickingbottom and Brandon Presley seeking the party nomination for governor. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, File)

1 of 2

FILE -Bob Hickingbottom speaks at the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, Miss., Thursday, Aug. 1, 2019, when he was a constitution party candidate for Mississippi governor. A judge ruled Friday, May 26, 2023, that the Mississippi Democratic Party had improperly excluded Hickingbottom from running for governor as a Democrat in 2023. If the state Supreme Court agrees with that ruling, Democrats would have an August primary with Hickingbottom and Brandon Presley seeking the party nomination for governor. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, File)

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) Mississippi could have a Democratic primary for governor in August because a judge ruled Friday that the party improperly excluded a candidate from the ballot.

The state Democratic Party immediately filed notice that it will ask the Mississippi Supreme Court to overturn the judges ruling on the candidacy of Bob Hickingbottom.

I appreciate the courts consideration. We hope to get a more favorable ruling on appeal, the committees attorney, Gerald Mumford, told The Associated Press.

The state Democratic Executive Committee decided in February that Hickingbottom could not be on the ballot as a Democrat. Hickingbottom, who has described himself as a political operative, ran for governor as a Constitution Party candidate in 2019.

The executive committee also excluded Gregory Wash from running for governor this year, after he ran a low-budget campaign for governor in the Democratic primary four years ago.

The partys decisions left Brandon Presley, a four-term public service commissioner, as the only Democratic candidate for governor. Wash did not challenge the partys decision, but Hickingbottom filed a lawsuit.

Republican Gov. Tate Reeves is seeking a second term, and he faces two challengers in the GOP primary military veteran David Hardigree and physician Dr. John Witcher.

Mississippi primaries are Aug. 8, and the general election is Nov. 7.

Presley campaign spokesman Michael Beyer on Friday responded to questions about a potential Democratic primary by focusing on a welfare misspending case that developed while Reeves was lieutenant governor.

We welcome any legally qualified candidate to enter the race, and our campaign will continue to focus on Tate Reeves failed record of allowing criminals to misspend $77 million of Mississippians hard-earned taxpayer dollars meant for working families on luxury cars, steak dinners, and even a volleyball stadium, Beyer said.

Judge Forrest A. Johnson Jr. wrote that the Democratic Party was not allowed to reject Hickingbottoms candidacy on grounds that Hickinbottom has failed to file an economic interest statement with the Ethics Commission.

Johnson wrote that Hickingbottom meets the qualifications to run for governor, which are in the state constitution: A candidate must be at least 30 years old, a U.S. citizen at least 20 years and a resident of Mississippi at least five years before the election.

Hickingbottom is Black, and Presley is white. Attracting support from Black voters is an important part of winning a Democratic primary. Presleys campaign did not mention race Friday, but Mississippi Republican Party chairman Frank Bordeaux did.

Brandon Presley and his Democratic Party allies corruptly pushed his African American opponent off the ballot, Bordeaux said in a statement. A judge just ruled their actions are illegal and unethical, and now Presley faces a primary challenge. Why did Brandon Presley work so hard to prevent an African American candidate from accessing the ballot?

HIckingbottom filed a campaign finance report this month showing he raised and spent no money through April. Presley reported $1.6 million in his campaign fund.

Reeves reported $9 million in campaign money, while Witcher reported about $21,000 and Hardigree reported no money.

See original here:

Mississippi Democrats improperly excluded candidate for governor ... - The Associated Press

About half of Vietnamese American registered voters are Republicans or lean to the GOP the highest share across the five largest Asian origin groups in the United States.

Overall, about six-in-ten Asian American registered voters (62%) identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, and 34% are Republicans or GOP leaners, according to a Pew Research Center survey of Asian adults conducted from July 2022 to January 2023.

Around two-thirds of U.S. registered voters who are Filipino (68%), Indian (68%) or Korean (67%) identify as Democrats or lean Democratic. Chinese American voters are also majority Democratic (56%), while Vietnamese American voters tilt to the GOP (51% Republican, 42% Democratic).

Asian voters are more likely than voters overall to affiliate with the Democratic Party: U.S. registered voters are about evenly split between the Democratic Party (47%) and the Republican Party (48%).

Overall, 80% of Asian Americans who are U.S. citizens ages 18 and older (and therefore eligible to vote) report being absolutely certain that they are registered to vote at their current address. This includes about three-quarters or more in each of the five origin groups in this analysis.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand differences in political affiliation among Asian American registered voters, based on their ethnic origin and other demographic factors, as well as examine the geographic distribution of Asian Americans who were eligible to vote in the U.S. in 2021.

Eligible voters are defined as U.S. citizens ages 18 and older. Not all eligible voters are actually registered to vote. Registered voters are defined as those who self-report being certain that they are registered at their current address.

The analysis of Asian American registered voters is based on a nationally representative survey of 7,006 Asian adults. The survey sampled U.S. adults who self-identify as Asian, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic ethnicity. It was offered in six languages: Chinese (Simplified and Traditional), English, Hindi, Korean, Tagalog and Vietnamese. Responses were collected from July 5, 2022, to Jan. 27, 2023, by Westat on behalf of Pew Research Center.

The Center recruited a large sample to examine the diversity of the U.S. Asian population, with oversamples of the Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Korean and Vietnamese populations. These are the five largest origin groups among Asian Americans. In this analysis, the five largest ethnic groups include those who identify with one Asian ethnicity only, either alone or in combination with a non-Asian race or ethnicity. Survey respondents were drawn from a national sample of residential mailing addresses, which included addresses from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Specialized surnames list frames maintained by the Marketing Systems Group were used to supplement the sample. Those eligible to complete the survey were offered the opportunity to do so online or by mail with a paper questionnaire. For more details, read theMethodology. For questions used in this analysis, read theTopline Questionnaire.

The analysis of Asian American eligible voters is based on data from the U.S. Census Bureaus American Community Survey from 2021 provided through Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) from the University of Minnesota. In this analysis, Asians are defined as those who report their race as Asian alone and non-Hispanic, Asian and at least one other race and non-Hispanic, or Asian and Hispanic. The five largest ethnic groups include those who identify with one Asian ethnicity only, either alone or in combination with a non-Asian race or ethnicity.

Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts, its primary funder. The Centers Asian American portfolio was funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, with generous support from The Asian American Foundation; Chan Zuckerberg Initiative DAF, an advised fund of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; the Henry Luce Foundation; the Doris Duke Foundation; The Wallace H. Coulter Foundation; The Dirk and Charlene Kabcenell Foundation; The Long Family Foundation; Lu-Hebert Fund; Gee Family Foundation; Joseph Cotchett; the Julian Abdey and Sabrina Moyle Charitable Fund; and Nanci Nishimura.

We would also like to thank the Leaders Forum for its thoughtful leadership and valuable assistance in helping make this survey possible.

The strategic communications campaign used to promote the research was made possible with generous support from the Doris Duke Foundation.

Among Asian registered voters, majorities across most demographic groups favor the Democratic Party, but there are some differences by age, gender and other factors:

Asian Americans represent a relatively small but fast-growing segment of the U.S. electorate. In 2021, 13.4 million Asian Americans were eligible to vote, making up 5.6% of all eligible voters, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the 2021 American Community Survey. Eligible voters in this analysis are defined as U.S. citizens ages 18 and older who live in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Not all eligible voters are registered to vote.

In 2021, the 2.8 million Chinese American eligible voters in the U.S. accounted for the largest population of any Asian origin group, followed by Filipino (2.6 million), Indian (2.1 million), Vietnamese (1.3 million) and Korean American (1.1 million) eligible voters.

As of 2021, the majority of Asian American eligible voters (56%) live in just five states. The state with the highest share is California, which is home to 4.3 million Asian eligible voters accounting for about a third (32%) of the total Asian eligible voter population. The state with the second-largest share of Asian American eligible voters is New York (1.1 million), followed by Texas (960,000), Hawaii (575,000) and New Jersey (545,000).

Among each of the countrys five most populous Asian origin groups, California also has the highest share of eligible voters of each group. This includes about four-in-ten eligible voters who are Filipino (41%), Chinese (38%) or Vietnamese (37%). Three-in-ten Korean eligible voters (29%) and one-fifth of Indian eligible voters (20%) live in California as well. The state with the second-largest share of eligible voters among each origin group varies. Some 14% of Vietnamese eligible voters live in Texas, and 7% of Filipino eligible voters live in Hawaii. New York is home to 15% of Chinese, 11% of Indian and 7% of Korean eligible voters.

Original post:

Asian voters in the U.S. tend to be Democratic, but Vietnamese ... - Pew Research Center

PHOENIX A Gilbert lawmaker called "a little bit disingenuous" a Tucson Democrats contention that she hid Bibles at the Arizona Capitol as a peaceful protest.

Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton has publicly stated she was trying to make a "playful'' point about the separation of church and state when she moved the Bibles that normally are in the members' lounge, putting them at various times underneath the cushions of chairs and, at one point, in a refrigerator.

And she said she was trying to start a "conversation'' about the issue, though she conceded that should have started with talking to someone and not hiding the books.

But Rep. Travis Grantham, R-Gilbert, one of three Republicans on the five-member House Ethics Committee, said during Thursday's hearing the explanation about a protest doesn't ring true.

"I find it a little bit disingenuous,'' he said.

"How is having a Bible sitting on a table somehow a violation of church and state?'' Grantham asked. "Did she feel like she was being coerced to follow a certain religion?''

Rep. Justin Heap, R-Mesa, one of three Republicans who filed the complaint with the committee, acknowledged he did not witness Stahl Hamilton's actions in hiding the Bibles that are in the members' lounge, the last of three incidents caught April 10 on a hidden camera set up by House staff.

But he said Thursday he was still offended after the videotape became public and the issue gained national attention. And Heap said he believes some action against Stahl Hamilton is appropriate.

"What was particularly disturbing to me is not simply that these Bibles were removed but the photos of where these Bibles were placed, in a refrigerator and under the cushions of chairs where I and other members and lobbyists sit,'' he told the Ethics Committee.

"I sit in those chairs,'' Heap said.

"So now I have to deal with the question of, at some point while these Bibles were missing, was I sitting on my own sacred text?''

Republicans on the House Ethics Committee sought to question Stahl Hamilton Thursday on her claim that her decision to hide Bibles amounted to a joke and a peaceful protest.

But she wasn't there, having made what she told Capitol Media Services was a decision not to attend on "the advice of my excellent lawyers.''

And that left the members of the GOP-dominated panel frustrated as they decide whether to recommend some punishment for her.

Rep. Joseph Chaplik, R-Scottsdale, who chairs the panel, acknowledged she was under no obligation to appear personally. And he said he won't hold that against her when recommending what punishment, if any, is appropriate.

"But I think it would have been more effective for her if she was here to give some light to some of our questions that were directed directly at her,'' Chaplik told Capitol Media Services after the hearing.

He said a final decision will come after lawmakers consult with attorneys to determine if her actions rise to the level of violating House ethics rules on the conduct of members, with a target of June 12 to make a recommendation to the full House.

Rep. Jennifer Longdon of Phoenix, one of the two Democrats on the panel, pointed out to Heap that Stahl Hamilton publicy apologized and asked him if he accepted that.

"I do appreciate her apology, but it can't be escaped that apology came only after the actions had been known, she was informed this had been caught on video and that this became an issue of national concern,'' Heap said.

"So that does put a shadow over the sincerity of the apology though if she is sincere I accept it,'' he continued. "But I think that question is irrelevant to the question of was her behavior appropriate.''

Grantham also raised questions about what he said, using air quotes, was her "apology.''

"She didn't apologize for the action,'' he said. "She apologized for the offense of anyone who thought that action was inappropriate.''

Rodriguez said Stahl Hamilton meant no disrespect to the House.

"However, she also has the utmost respect for her First Amendment rights to engage in peaceful protest,'' he said. "And we would describe what she did as a peaceful protest.''

Wed like to invite our readers to submit their civil comments, pro or con, on this issue. Email AZOpinions@iniusa.org.

Howard Fischer

@azcapmedia

@azcapmedia

Mr. Fischer, a longtime award-winning Arizona journalist, is founder and operator of Capitol Media Services.

View original post here:

Gilbert, Mesa lawmakers unimpressed with Democrat's reason for ... - Daily Independent

[W]e have come over time to see the flaws in our nations justice system and to view the states death penalty laws in particular as legally and morally troubling, wrote two former governors of Alabama in an op-ed for the Washington Post. Republican Robert Bentley (pictured, right) and Democrat Don Siegelman (pictured, left) agree that the 146 people whose death sentences were imposed by non-unanimous juries or judicial override should have their sentences commuted.We missed our chance to confront the death penalty and have lived to regret it, they wrote, but it is not too late for todays elected officials to do the morally right thing.

In support of their recommendation, the authors acknowledged the racist underpinnings of non-unanimous verdicts as a Jim Crow practice dating from the 1870s. Alabama had been the only state to allow a person to be sentenced to death by this legal relic. They noted 115 people were sentenced to die by non-unanimous jury verdicts, and an additional 31 people were sentenced to death by judges who overrode jury recommendations for life. The authors cited research by the Equal Justice Initiative that indicates judicial overrides may have been influenced by judges political concerns. Judicial overrides made up 7 percent of death sentences in a nonelection year but rose to 30 percent when Alabama judges ran for reelection.

The former governors recommend that the 146 people sentenced under the outlier practices of non-unanimity and judicial override receive reduced sentences, and that an independent review unit should be established to examine all capital murder convictions.

The governors also discuss the link between official misconduct and wrongful convictions, pointing to the exoneration of Walter McMillian, as well as the cases of two men on death row who may be innocent and whose sentences involved both misconduct and outlier sentencing practices.Toforest Johnson was sentenced to death by a non-unanimous jury after prosecutors withheld evidence that the key witness against Johnson received a secret $5000 reward.Rocky Myers, was never connected to the murder scene, and even though the jury recommended life without parole, the judge overrode the recommendation and ordered his execution. Siegelman also wrote that he is personally haunted by his decision to allow the execution of Freddie Wright in 2000, because he now believes Wright is innocent.

During the 2023 legislative session, Rep. Chris England (D - Tuscaloosa) proposed a bill to allow the death penalty only when a jury unanimously recommends it. Under existing law, a death sentence can be imposed if at least 10 jurors recommend death. The bill would retroactively reduced the death sentences of the 146 people discussed in the op-ed - those whose death sentences were non-unanimous, and those who were sentenced under judicial override. At a May 24, 2023 hearing on the bill, Mae Puckett, who served as a juror in the trial of Rocky Myers, said, What was the point of us ever being there if we werent going to matter? Why did we have to sit and listen to these horrible things? And see those pictures that we had to see? He was accused of stabbing a woman to death. I dont understand why we had to go through that for this man to have just turned around and say, No, it doesnt matter, I know what we need to do. And this man has been on death row for 25 years. The bill did not receive a vote before time ran out for it to be considered this legislative session.

Originally posted here:

Former Republican and Democratic Governors from Alabama ... - Death Penalty Information Center