Category Archives: Republican

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp will be permitted to hand-pick the state's next Supreme Court Justice after that same high court ruled last week that a special election set for Tuesday could be canceled.

Kemp and his Secretary of State, Brad Raffensberger, moved to cancel votingin the stateearlier this year after state Supreme Court Justice Keith Blackwell announced he would step down after his six-year term expires at the end of 2020.

Taking the matter of who should succeed Blackwell into his own hands will allow Kemp, a Republican, to appoint another right-wing judge to serve on the highest court in the state for at least two years. Like the U.S. Supreme Court, the nine-member Georgia Supreme Courtthough most of its member recused themselves from ruling on this caseenjoys a Republican majority.

Both the Democratic and Republican former lawmakers who were running for the seatJohn Barrow and Beth Beskinfiled lawsuits to have the election reinstated, but the state SupremeCourt sided with Kemp last week in a 6-2 vote.

Kemp narrowly won his 2018 gubernatorial race while serving asSecretary of State,a role in which he purged 53,000 mostly African-American voters from the state rolls.

On Tuesday, radio host Joe Madison called the governor's move an attempt at "rigging" another state election.

Six of the state's Supreme Court justices recused themselves from the case, forcing fivelower court judges to participate in handing down the ruling.

As Ian Millhiser explained at Vox, the Georgia state Constitution makes Kemp and Raffensberger's actionstechnically legal:

The court's decision inBarrowturns on the tension betweentwo provisions of the Georgia Constitution. The first provides that "all Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Court of Appeals shall be elected on a nonpartisan basis for a term of six years," and that the terms of these judges "shall begin the next January 1 after their election." Because this language refers to "all Justices," it suggests that an election must be held to fill Blackwell's seat, and that whoever prevails in that election shall join the state Supreme Court on the first of January.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

But a separate provision of the state constitution permits the governor to temporarily fill vacancies on the state Supreme Court, and it provides that "an appointee to an elective office shall serve until a successor is duly selected and qualified and until January 1 of the year following the next general election which is more than six months after such person's appointment."

"The second provision seems to suggest that an appointed justice may serve until January 1, 2023and longer, if that justice eventually wins the 2022 election," wrote Millhiser.

Justice Brenda Holbert Trammell cast one of the dissenting votes, writing in her opinion that while she does not object to gubernatorial appointments overall, the people of Georgia should have retained their right to vote for their next state Supreme Court justice.

"In this instance, when the resignation will not result in a vacancy in the office until (originally) almost six months after the election, I cannot in good conscience agree that the election should be cancelled and the will of the people thrust aside as 'fruitless and nugatory,'" wrote Holbert Trammell.

As Daniel Nichanian, editor of The Appeal, tweeted, Kemp also recently acted to suspend a county race in order to retain a District Attorney position for the Republican Party.

When Athens-Clarke and Oconee County DA Brian Mauldin, a Democrat, announced in February that he would not seek another term, Mauldin asked the governor to appoint an interim DA "promptly" so former state lawmakerDeborah Gonzalez, who was planning to run as a progressive reformer, could run against the interim DA in November.

"Kemp, however, did no such thing," wrote Jay Willis at The Appeal last week. "By failing to act by May 3, six months before Election Day 2020, he ensured that whoever he eventually picks won't face a challenger until Election Day 2022 at the earliest. Gonzalez, the would-be reformer, will have to wait until then for a shot."

"As governor, Kemp has pivoted from hollowing out democratic elections to simply cancelling them," added Willis.

Read this article:

Think Trump and Republicans Wouldn't Try to Cancel an Election? Look at What GOP in Georgia Just Pulled Off - Common Dreams

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.

So far, Americans have largely supported using social distancing to slow the spread of the new coronavirus. According to a Washington Post/University of Maryland poll published this week, most Americans agree that its necessary to wear a mask, stay at home when possible, avoid gatherings and keep 6 feet away from others in public. And while Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say these measures are important, sizable majorities in both parties still agree that they are necessary. But while Americans are mostly on the same page about current social distancing measures, there are also signs that they increasingly disagree about where the crisis is headed, with Democrats saying the worst is yet to come and Republicans saying the worst is behind us.

According to a CNN poll released this week, nearly three-quarters of Democrats said the worst of the crisis is still ahead of us, while only about a quarter of Republicans said the same. This marked a 15 percentage-point drop among Democrats since CNN last asked the question in April, and a 44-point drop among Republicans. A YouGov/Economist poll also found a similar divide this week; 58 percent of Democrats said the pandemic is going to get worse compared with only 20 percent of Republicans. (The pollster included a third choice, We are currently in the worst part of the pandemic, which just over 20 percent of both Democrats and Republicans chose.) And a daily tracking poll conducted by Navigator Research also found that between mid-April and early May, the share of Americans who thought the worst was yet to come declined sharply. However, that number has been ticking back up again since May 4, which may reflect increased concern that the virus will spread as more states begin to ease restrictions on businesses and public gatherings.

The polls this week also show that Americans are adjusting their expectations about when the need for social distancing is likely to end. According to the Washington Post/University of Maryland poll, two-thirds of Americans think that it will be at least the end of July before people can safely gather in groups of 10 or more, up from 45 percent who thought so a month ago. This months total includes 80 percent of Democrats and 54 of Republicans. And this weeks YouGov/Economist poll found that a 47 percent plurality including a third of Republicans and almost two-thirds of Democrats believe it will be at least September before it is safe to end social distancing measures.

Concerns about catching the virus have stayed fairly consistent over the month of May so far. According to FiveThirtyEights coronavirus poll tracker, the share of Americans who say they are somewhat or very concerned that they or someone they know will get sick stayed mostly steady at about 68 percent.

And the share of Americans who say theyre concerned about the viruss impact on the economy has also stayed about the same hovering at around 87 percent for the past six weeks.

The share of Americans who approve of Trumps handling of the virus response, however, has declined about 4 points over the past month, though in the shorter term his rating remains essentially unchanged, with 43.3 percent approving of the job hes doing handling the pandemic this week and 43.5 percent approving last week.

Attitudes toward Trumps handling of the crisis are, expectedly, very partisan, with a majority of Republicans approving and a majority of Democrats opposed. Feelings seem to be more mixed about leaders outside the federal government, however according to a new Pew Research poll, state and local officials, on average, continue to enjoy more bipartisan support than Trump. However, Republicans appear to be souring on local and state officials work faster than Democrats are. For instance, since March, the share of Republicans who think their local elected officeholders are doing a good or excellent job has declined by 12 points, while the share of Democrats who say the same has remained unchanged at 66 percent. Likewise, Republican approval of the job state officials were doing declined by 12 percentage points, while Democratic approval dropped by only 5 points. Additionally, Republicans, who were more likely than Democrats to rate public health officials such as those at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention favorably in March were less likely to do so now. Sixty-eight percent of Republicans said health officials are doing a good or excellent job, down 16 points since March, while about three-quarters of Democrats felt health officials were doing a good job in both polls.

However, at this point, the majority of Americans are not yet frequenting public places despite growing disagreement on where the coronavirus crisis is headed next. A Morning Consult poll conducted last week asked Americans about whether theyre going to public places and socializing with others, and it didnt find much of a partisan gap in reported behavior. So for now at least, it seems like many Americans are staying put, although that might change in the coming weeks.

According to FiveThirtyEights presidential approval tracker, 43.6 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 52.0 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -8.4 points). At this time last week, 43.3 percent approved and 51.4 percent disapproved (for a net approval rating of -8.1 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 44.3 percent and a disapproval rating of 51.4 percent, for a net approval rating of -7.1 points.

In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 7.7 percentage points (48.9 percent to 41.2 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 7.9 points (48.5 percent to 40.6 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 7.8 points (48.6 percent to 40.8 percent).

Check out all the polls weve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections.

CORRECTION (May 15, 2020, 10:01 a.m.): A previous version of this article reversed President Trumps job approval numbers: 43.6 percent of Americans approve of the job hes doing and 52.0 percent disapprove, not the other way around.

Read more here:

Democrats Say The Worst Of The Coronavirus Is Yet To Come. Republicans Say The Worst Is Over. - FiveThirtyEight

Republicans appeared poised to win two congressional seats one in Wisconsin and one in California in special election races that are being watched closely as preludes to the general election in November as many states will move to mail-in voting amid the coronavirus pandemic.

In Wisconsin, the Republican Tom Tiffany notched an easy victory, in a reliably red district. In California, early results indicated the Republican Mike Garcia is on track to retake a seat that Democrats had flipped in 2018. Both seats will be up for election again in November.

The California vote was based almost entirely on mailed-in ballots, and the full results likely wont be clear for days. Officials will accept ballots postmarked by election day, even if they arrive up to three days later.

Whoever wins the California special election would fill the seat of the former US representative Katie Hill, who resigned amid scandal in late 2019. The circumstances of Hills resignation she quit amid allegations that she had an affair with a staffer, and after private photos of her had been published online without her consent had brought national attention to the race. Donald Trump, who endorsed Garcia and alleged that the election was rigged because of the opening of a new voting center in the district, also ensured that the race was closely watched, especially by Democrats who believed it would be a referendum on the president.

On Wednesday morning, Garcia, a former navy fighter pilot, was ahead of the Democratic California state legislator Christy Smith by 55.9% to 44.1%, preliminary results from the California secretary of states office said.

It is looking extremely good, Garcia said on a conference call. I wont give a victory speech tonight. Well save that for hopefully tomorrow night as the data comes in.

Smith earned the endorsements of Barack Obama and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Hills unpopularity in the district, post-scandal, had been a hurdle for her campaign. Prior to the election, the Cook Political Report changed its assessment of the race from lean Democratic to a tossup as the pandemic shut down traditional campaigning through door-knocking and town halls.

Regardless of the outcome, Democrats are hopeful about Smiths chances in the November election. The electorate will be very different then, said Rose Kapolczynski, a Democratic strategist based in Los Angeles. And I still think Smith will have a strong chance.

It is wise to avoid projecting too much about the November elections based on this race, said Paul Mitchell, with the campaign research firm Political Data Inc. To do so would be like predicting the championship based on the results of two-on-two basketball game before the finals, Mitchell said.

Traditionally, older, white, and Republican voters are overrepresented in special elections, Mitchell said. Younger and minority voters, who lean Democratic, are more likely to vote in larger numbers in November.

In Wisconsin, Tiffany, a state senator endorsed by Trump, easily won a special congressional election in a heavily conservative, rural Wisconsin district. But Democrats are likely to watch his margin of victory and consider it evidence of that partys gains if Tiffanys opponent Tricia Zunker performs better than the 20-point defeat the Democrats faced in district in 2018. Preliminary results show Tiffany leading by 14 points.

For Trump to win re-election, red areas have to get redder to balance out blue areas getting bluer, said the Wisconsin Democratic party spokeswoman, Courtney Beyer.

But Tiffany dismissed the argument. Any time you lose by 14 points, I dont think thats a moral victory, he said. This is a decisive victory here.

Tiffany will replace the former reality TV star Sean Duffy, a Republican who retired in September. The district has been vacant since Duffys retirement.

Zunker, the president of the Wausau school board, was trying to become the first Native American from Wisconsin elected to Congress. She pulled in big-name endorsements including Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, but the numbers were against her. The district has been under Republican control since 2011 and was redistricted to more heavily favor Republicans.

See the rest here:

Republicans appear on track to win two congressional seats - The Guardian

WASHINGTON The congressional Democrats' latest proposal for rescuing the nation from the coronavirus economic crash looks like a series of dreams come true for New York State and the Buffalo area.

The state would get $34.4 billion over two years, and more than $1 billion would flow into Buffalo's coffers. Congress would send $517 million to Erie County, and property owners across the state would get back the cherished SALT deduction that Congress trimmed three years ago.

"This is exactly what a disaster relief bill should look like," Rep. Brian Higgins, a Buffalo Democrat, said of the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act, or Heroes Act.

But to Republicans, the Democrats' $3 trillion proposal is a disaster in itself.

"Obviously, it's a partisan exercise," said Rep. Tom Reed, a Corning Republican who criticized the measure for loosening the reins on the cannabis industry, releasing federal prisoners and aiding undocumented immigrants.

In other words, then, the Heroes Act is just the opening volley in what's likely to be a longer and more difficult tussle than Congress endured in passing its first four pieces of legislation aimed at responding to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Heroes Act would refill local government accounts that have been running low because sales tax revenues have disappeared amid the Covid-19 shutdown. In the Buffalo area alone, municipalities would get $2.2 billion over two years.

"This proposal would absolutely eliminate the city's fiscal problems," said Buffalo Mayor Byron W. Brown. "I think that this proposal is very forward-thinking in that municipalities won't just need federal aid for one year, but they will need it for multiple years."

Erie County Executive Mark C. Poloncarz was equally pleased.

The bill "provides the certainty we need so that we could continue providing the services as normal for a county government without having to do drastic layoffs," Poloncarz said.

The measure would also give $171.2 million to the City of Niagara Falls and $117.7 million to the Niagara County government. The largest towns in the region would each receive tens of millions of dollars, and even the smallest municipalities would get something.

Moreover, the bill would likely limit cuts in state funding to municipalities and school districts. Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday that the state now faces a $61 billion funding gap. The Heroes Act would cover $22.3 billion of this year's shortfall and give the state $12.1 billion in 2021.

Cuomo was particularly pleased with the bill's proposed return of the federal deduction for state and local taxes. Capped at $10,000 annually in the Republican Congress' 2017 tax overhaul, that deduction would go uncapped for the next two years a move that would help high-tax states such as New York to retain residents.

"It's the single best piece of action for the State of New York," Cuomo said.

The trouble with the Heroes Act, though, is that its an entirely Democratic bill and any successful measure will have to pass muster with the Republican-led Senate and the Republican president.

And while President Trump remained silent on the measure, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had plenty to say.

"Even the media is describing it as a partisan wish list with no chance of becoming law," McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said in a statement. This is exactly the wrong approach."

Rather than starting work on a fourth major coronavirus funding bill, McConnell said he is putting together a bill aimed at protecting businesses from lawsuits if they reopen amid the Covid-19 crisis.

Meantime, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy took issue with provisions of the Heroes Act guaranteeing the right to vote by mail this fall, rescuing troubled pension funds and restoring the SALT deduction.

The problems with this 1815-page, multi-trillion dollar messaging bill are plain to see," said McCarthy, a California Republican. "Its central demands changing election laws, bailing out mismanaged pensions, and temporarily suspending the cap on SALT tax deductions for millionaires and billionaires were drafted behind closed doors, predate the crisis, and are not targeted to coronavirus."

Despite that partisan divide, Democrats and Republicans agreed there are areas where the two parties may eventually come to an agreement.

Reed has been working with Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican, and Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, on a measure that would provide $500 billion to states and localities half of what the Heroes Act would deliver.

"A trillion dollars is not reasonable," Reed said.

There's also bipartisan interest in increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health. The Heroes Act would boost NIH funding by $4.75 billion just shy of the $5 billion that Higgins has been pushing for research into finding a vaccine or treatment for Covid-19.

"We have to deal with the problem at hand," Higgins said.

Congress may do that at a leisurely pace, though, partly because the Trump administration has said there's no need to pass another relief bill immediately.

"We just want to make sure that before we jump back in and spend another few trillion of taxpayers money that we do it carefully," Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin said on Fox News this week.

But Congress is already facing pressure from the nation's governors. Cuomo, the Democratic vice chair of the National Governors Association, and Gov. Larry Hogan, the group's Republican vice chair, delivered a joint statement Wednesday calling for fast action.

"With widespread bipartisan agreement on the need for this assistance, we cannot afford a partisan process that turns this urgent relief into another political football," they said.

Originally posted here:

Localities win in Democratic bill that Republicans dismiss out of hand - Buffalo News

"I will say that you're going to be speaker of the House because of this impeachment hoax. I really believe it," Trump told House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy in February. "And I'm going to work hard on it. I'm going to try and get out to those Trump areas that we won by a lot. And you know, in '18 we didn't win."

On paper, it made sense. There are 30 House districts currently held by Democrats that Trump carried in 2016. Win just 20 of those 30 and lose none of their own seats and Republicans are back in control! (Republicans need to net 18 seats to retake the majority.)

"Right now, of the 30 Democrats in Trump-won districts, ten lack GOP challengers with more than $250,000 in the bank. And it's going to be nearly impossible to catch up amid a global pandemic."

And not only that! There is now, according to Wasserman, a real chance that Democrats willpick upseats in the House this fall. He writes:

"For the first time this cycle, neither party is a clear favorite to gain House seats this fall. Anything from no net change to a small single-digit gain for either side is possible. That's good news for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats."

The change in the political landscape is due to a variety of factors -- from Joe Biden's emergence as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to House Democrats' massive fundraising edge over their GOP counterparts.

But there is no question a shift has occurred, and it's very much in Democrats' favor.

The Point: There now exists a realistic possibility that Democrats not only win the White House but also consolidate control in the House and Senate in November. Which would be a very big deal.

Follow this link:

How the House is slipping away from Republicans - CNN

Catastrophic earthquakes. Solar flares that bring down the entire power grid. The global rise of white supremacy. What could come after coronavirus?

If you thought the Kavanaugh hearing was contentious this would probably be that on steroids, said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). Nevertheless, if the president makes a nomination then its our responsibility to take it up.

While no one says they expect a Supreme Court vacancy, GOP senators also acknowledge its plausible that Trump could find himself with a third nominee. And one thing is clear: Most Republicans have no qualms about approving a Supreme Court pick from a president in their own party, even if it is an election year.

In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said voters should decide in the election which president should choose the next Supreme Court justice because the Senate and White House were controlled by different parties. And in the Trump era, hes repeatedly asserted that he would fill a vacancy in 2020.

McConnell and his allies argue the situation is different because Republicans control both the White House and the Senate. They say that makes the situation far different than when Obama was president and McConnell refused to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland.

Democrats acknowledge they could get run over in the next eight months. Supreme Court nominees can now be confirmed by a bare majority after McConnell changed the rules in 2017 to overcome a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalias successor.

Theyre not troubled by inconsistencies, said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). It would be completely inconsistent with everything that was said [in 2016]. But we knew when they were saying it they didnt mean it. We knew that was a situational answer.

The remaining months of Trumps first term could also be the last chance the GOP has to put its stamp on the courts for years to come. McConnell could lose his majority or Trump could be ousted by former Vice President Joe Biden which means Republicans would take no chances and move quickly to fill an empty seat on the high court.

Sen. John Thune. | Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

My guess is yes. Thats ultimately a decision the leader makes. But I think youve heard him speak to the subject before. He believes if there was a vacancy, hed fill it, said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the GOP whip. Confirmation hearings in the age of COIVD-19 would be very interesting but Im sure no less contentious than the last one.

Republican senators are not publicly pushing for a vacancy nor are they advertising their plans to fill any that presents itself. However, the last two vacancies occurred in election years. And Trump already has a list of potential Supreme Court picks.

In a brief interview, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declined to say there was a cut-off to when a new vacancy might be considered. His predecessor, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), declined to hold a hearing for Garland.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said a Supreme Court opening represents the ultimate hypothetical but one Republicans would be prepared to respond to whenever it occurs.

Theres no cut off, said Blunt, the No. 4 GOP leader.

In addition to Ginsburgs health, senators are also keeping tabs on whether any other justices will retire. Four justices are 70 or older: Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

When Anthony Kennedy retired in 2018 and sparked the confirmation fight over Justice Brett Kavanaugh, he made his announcement in late June after the spring term concluded. That allowed the Senate GOP to confirm Kavanaugh before midterms that threatened their majority.

Sen. Josh Hawley. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a former Supreme Court clerk, said he had heard no inside chatter about an impending vacancy. But he said that given the age of the courts current members, you have to be prepared.

I would be very surprised if we didnt move forward with hearings and try to fill the seat. Im sure it would be very controversial, principally because of the balance of the court, Hawley said. If its replacing someone like Justice Ginsburg, that would be a big shift, that would be a big deal.

In that hypothetical scenario, the GOP would need the support of 50 of its 53-member majority to fill a vacancy. Vice President Mike Pence can cast a tie-breaking vote.

Still, at least one Republican senator believes the approaching election should weigh on any decision to fill an empty seat.

Youre coming pretty close, though, to the presidential election, said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the only Republican to oppose Kavanaugh. That is something that you factor into these discussions about how we move forward.

Go here to see the original:

'We're going to fill it': Republicans ready for any Supreme Court vacancy - POLITICO

Colorado Republican Chairman Ken Buck is facing criticism from within his own party after revelations that he pressured another party official to submit incorrect election results and then spent party money to defend the move.

At least two party executives say they were surprised to learn Buck whos also a U.S. representative defended his position on the state Senate District 10 primary ballot in district court and then appealed that ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court, running up possibly tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Kris Cook, chair of the Denver Republican Party, found out about it Wednesday only to hear hours later that Buck canceled a committee meeting that had been scheduled for Friday.

Were touching on something here thats not quite clean, and its not quite the image I have of what the party ought to be, Cook said, later adding:I think its worth questioning whether him in that role is going to have a negative effect on the rest of this cycle.

On an April 17 conference call, Buck pressured Eli Bremer, a GOP chairman for state Senate District 10, to follow the direction of the central and executive committees and certify that a Senate candidate had won a place on the ballot. The candidate, however, did not receive 30% in an assembly vote as required by the state.Filing that paperwork would have been illegal, Bremer told Buck on the call, but the chair persisted.

Ultimately, a Bremer ally filed a friendly lawsuit in Denver District Court, where a judge ruled that the move would indeed have been illegal. The GOP appealed the matter to the Colorado Supreme Court, which declined Tuesday to hear the case, cementing the decision.

The state Republican Party wont appeal the issue further, representatives said.

Its unclear whether authorities are looking into the legality of Bucks direction to Bremer on the call, which The Denver Post obtained a recording of this week.

A representative of Colorado Attorney General Phil Weisers office declined to comment, instead nodding in the direction of El Paso County District Attorney Dan May, since Senate District 10 is in El Paso County. Lee Richards, a spokesperson for May, said in a text that nothing has been filed with the district attorney regarding the matter. She did not respond when asked whether the office is investigating.

Wayne Williams, a Republican former Colorado Secretary of State who argued the court case against the GOP, said he could see how the disagreement might arise over the reporting of the assembly results. Until this point there had been no substantial legal precedent on the issue.

I think they legitimately believed they had the ability to do that, but they were wrong and multiple courts have said so, Williams said.

Its unclear whether the U.S. House Committee on Ethics will take up the issue. A representative declined to comment Thursday.

Amid the controversy, Buck canceled a state GOP committee meeting planned for Friday. Party spokesperson Joe Jackson told The Post that there was no pending business, therefore Chairman Buck decided not to waste everyones time with a meeting.

The cancellation email said the partys team was humming along, the Denver GOPs Cook said a characterization she did not agree with: I find that a little head-in-the-sand and a little bit misleading.

She is unhappy that she was kept in the dark about the partys legal scuffles with Bremer despite the fact that she is a member of the executive committee, which is essentially the state partys governing board.In addition to the legal costs racked up by the party, Bremer is demanding payment for his attorney fees, which he estimates will total $15,000, in addition to an apology from Buck.

Weve not been apprised of any of the legal shenanigans on this or that weve been exposed to paying Elis legal fees, Cook said.

Kaye Ferry, a committee member from Eagle County, also was disconcerted to find out about the legal battle in the news. She isnt calling for Bucks resignation but said the situation is a distraction during a time when the focus should be on re-electing President Donald Trump and Sen. Cory Gardner.

You are in the middle of an uproar and theres a target on your back, she said of Buck, which means there is a target on our back.

Indeed, the situation drew comment from state Democrats on Thursday.

Im pretty blown away by this, Morgan Carroll, chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, said in a statement. The idea that a chair of a political party a chair who is a sitting congressman, at that would attempt to coerce a local party leader to knowingly falsify an election result is disturbing and undemocratic.

See more here:

Colorado Republican Chair Ken Buck in the hot seat after revelations over election results - The Denver Post

President Donald Trump with Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds during a campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa. (Tom Brenner / Getty Images)

EDITORS NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Winterset, IowaThis weekend, Iowa began reopening 77 of its 99 counties, despite having some of the fastest-growing outbreaks of Covid-19 in the United States. According to The New York Times, the Sioux City metro area has the highest number of new confirmed cases per 1,000 residents in the country, largely due to the areas meatpacking plants. Sioux City is in Woodbury County, which has 1,323 of Iowas 10,404 confirmed cases of Covid-19 as of this writing and wasnt allowed to begin reopening.Ad Policy

Next door, however, is Ida County: a quieter place with about 7 percent of Woodbury Countys population and no confirmed cases of Covid-19. In fact, none of the five counties bordering Woodbury County have even 100 confirmed cases, but Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds has just provided incentive for the people of Woodbury County, and other counties with high infection rates, to travel to these more rural counties, by allowing the opening of their restaurants, fitness centers, malls, and other establishments as long as they operate at half capacity and follow some social distancing guidelines. And with Iowas geography, that situation isnt uncommon. Polk County is home to another of the countrys fastest-growing outbreaks, with 1,875 confirmed cases, and it was also forced to remain closed. But its not hard to imagine some of its residents heading south to Warren County or north to Story County, both of which were allowed to open, with only 67 cases between them. Given the frequency of asymptomatic cases, its also not hard to imagine some of those visitors accidentally bringing the virus with them.

At her daily coronavirus press briefing on Monday, Reynolds claimed that her response to the pandemic isnt politicalthough evidence would suggest it isnt rooted in science, either. Reynolds ignored a report from the University of Iowa College of Public Health warning that Iowa hasnt yet hit its peak and that ending mitigation efforts too soon would likely result in a second wave of cases. National models also projected an increase in deaths as states begin reopening. Early in April, the Iowa Board of Medicine and Iowa Medical Society both sent letters to Reynolds asking her to issue a shelter-in-place order. Instead, Reynolds relied on a rubric dividing the state into six regions and scoring each region on a 12-point scale. Scores ranged from zero to three in four categories: percentage of population older than 65, percentage of identified cases requiring hospitalization, infection rate per 100,000 population in the past 14 days, and the number of outbreaks at long-term-care facilities. A region would have to score a 10 or higher for a stay-at-home order to be implemented.

Reynolds has been a perfect Trumpian model throughout the pandemic, never issuing a stay-at-home order, temporarily banning abortions by declaring them nonessential surgeries, and even parroting Trumps line that sunlight could be what we need right now. And as she follows Trumps calls to begin reopening the country, Iowa Workforce Development is using the move as a way to strip people of their unemployment benefitseven as Republicans at the federal level seek protections for the employers who will force these people to go back to work. On Monday, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation updated its prediction of how many Iowans will die of Covid-19 by August 4, increasing the total by about 1,000. But testing is still limited in the state, and its unclear if Iowans will ever know the true impact of Reynoldss decision. On a tip from Cedar Rapids native Ashton Kutcher, she signed a $26 million contract with a Utah-based health software company whose tests, according to new reporting by The Salt Lake Tribune, show a positive result for Covid-19 less than half as often as those of other companies.

Republicans have posited a false dichotomy during the pandemic: Save lives or save the economy. It shouldnt have to be said, but mass death is bad for economies. In a survey of economists from the Initiative on Global Markets, the vast majority agreed: Abandoning severe lockdowns at a time when the likelihood of a resurgence in infections remains high will lead to greater total economic damage than sustaining the lockdowns to eliminate the resurgence risk. Sending people in the most financially precarious situations back to work in unsafe conditions isnt just cruel and dangerous. It also threatens to erase any gains workers have made toward a functioning social safety net over the past two months. But when workers realize how much really depends on their labor, they become more powerful. They can make demands, and theyve started to do so. The choice isnt between public health and the economy; its between keeping workers safe and keeping capitalists rich, and Reynolds and Trump, among other GOP leaders, have made it very clear which side theyre on.

Thankfully, activists in Iowa arent staying silent. Iowa Student Action recently won a tuition freeze worth $6.5 million for Iowa students, and Iowa State student Alexa Rodriguez reflected on the victory with a perspective that can be applied to so many victories workers and students have won in the past month: These institutions have always had the power to protect the working class, students, and people of color who have been harmed at disproportionately high rates not only by the pandemic but by the structure of our education, health care, and economic systems as well. They have actively chosen not to help. Reynolds and the GOP are trying to make people feel powerless so they can continue exploiting them, but victories like Iowa Student Actions prove it doesnt have to be that way.

Read the original:

Iowas Republican Governor Sacrifices Citizens to Trump - The Nation

DECATUR, Ill. (WAND) - Instead of Gov. JB Pritzker's five-phase-plan, "Restore Illinois", Reps. Blaine Wilhour and Darren Bailey developed their own idea.

It's called the "Back to Business" plan, and it's cut down to three phases.

Under Pritzker's phase three, barbershops, salons and retail stores would be back in business. At last check, Illinois is under the governor's second phase, 'flattening'.

Wilhour told WAND News the lawmakers' goal is to open the central Illinois region faster and get people back to work.

Under the "Back to Business" plan. churches, parks and day cares would be open under phase one. It would start May 10, but all of what's allowed wouldn't work at 100% capacity.

"Our plan can go into effect basically immediately," Wilhour said.

In phase two, bars, theaters, summer camps and gaming facilities would be open. Toward the beginning of June, every business and public place would be open at 75% capacity or more, thus reaching phase three. This would be phase four in the governor's plan.

"We designed it to set a bar for these businesses," Wilhour said. "If the business can obtain that bar, they should be allowed to work."

Bailey told WAND News the three-phase-plan was reviewed by multiple Illinois health department directors. He said the plan will be sent the Illinois Department of Public Health for approval.

It should be known wearing masks and being socially distant would still be recommended through all three phases. Compared to Pritkzer's plan, this gives Illinoisans more freedom in the later phases. Bailey said people who are vulnerable to COVID-19 would be protected.

However, their three-phase-plan has not been approved. Illinois is still under the rules of Pritzker.

Follow this link:

Republican lawmakers come up with their own version of 'Restore Illinois' - WAND

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.

How the hell did we get here? Thats what Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wants to know. The congressman and colleagues have introducedlegislation to set up a commission to investigate and identify how the Trump administration failed in its response to the coronavirus. (Based on our timeline of the first 100 days of Trumps response, theyll have plenty to look into.)

Schiff recently joinedMother JonesEditor-in-Chief and the Commonwealth Club to talk hiring Twitter trolls into top intelligence positions, and chat about his alternative to universal basic income. Real time oversight is vitally important, he says. Even if its hard to do meaningful oversight when youre dealing with bodies that dont particularly want to share the answers. But Schiff believes his experience from the impeachment trial has prepared him for it.

You can watch the full interview here, or read an edited transcript below.

Congressmen, at the end of the impeachment trial, you posed a rhetorical question to the Senate: You may be wondering how much damage the president can do over the next few months before the election. Then you said, A lot, a lot of damage. What were you imagining then and how does that square with whats happening now?

I dont think anyone anticipated that we would very soon lose more lives than we did during the Vietnam War, and its due to the incompetence and maladministration of this president. We grossly underestimated the damage that he could do.

The impeachment proceedings and then-trial centered around the accusation that Trump essentially extorted the president of Ukraine and then covered it up. How is that mentality playing out here?

Those that have been willing to say nice things about him have seen the Trump campaign take those statements and put them into campaign ads. We cant have any confidence that this president or his administration are making those decisions on the basis of science, on the basis of need, on the basis of whats in the best interest of the American people, but as we said during the trial, the one thing you can always count on Donald Trump for is, he will do whats right for Donald Trump, not whats right for the country.

You said its hard to tell if something is of corrupt intent or just incompetence. How are you untangling that right now?

This has been the story of the Trump presidency. You can say, Thats really not in the presidents interest to do politically, but he does it nonetheless because he thinks its good for him personally. He thinks its good for him politicallyits part of the myopia of this extraordinary narcissism we see.

Its certainly not in the national interest for Donald Trump to be out there postulating that maybe people should inject bleach as a way of killing the virus or pushing out untested treatments. The entire prism is not whats best for the country with this president, [its] whats best for him.

Is that in part because his aides and children are unable, or unwilling, to tell him the truth? Or are they living in a bubble of their own creation as well?

One of the points we made during the trial is that youre not going to change the presidents character. He is who he is. In terms of his family, Jared Kushner was asked about this grim milestone we are crossing where more people are dying of the virus and have died of the virus than died during Vietnam, and his answer was, Weve made really good decisions. Were doing a really good job. [That] was equally revealing in terms of this whole familys blind spot.

The most that we can do in Congress is try to mitigate and limit the damage, do vigorous oversight, and insist on accountability. We need to do that in real time.

Do you feel confident that you are getting forthright briefings from the intelligence community?

Well, it grieves me to say that the answer is no, that there has been a tremendous politicization of the intelligence community under Trump.

It has really reached its pinnacle with the appointment of Rick Grenell as the top intel official in the country, someone who has virtually no intelligence experiencehe was essentially a Twitter troll. He did what you do to get a high appointment in the Trump administration: You go on Fox, on social media, and make the most incendiary attacks on the presidents opponents and say the most exaggerated claims on behalf of the president.

I think it came as a surprise to most people that inspectors general who were supposed to be this firewall against intergovernmental corruption, or malfeasance of other sorts, could be so easily dismissed by the very people that they are reporting on. Is that something that happened before and what could Congress do to fortify those rules and laws?

The inspector generals system, which has been really integral to rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in government and has a great success record, is a post Watergate reform. But like so many of the post Watergate reforms, theyve been obliterated by this president.

In the intelligence bill that were drafting now, we are going to have a provision that provides you cannot fire an inspector general except for good cause. Were going to also have requirements that if you do fire an inspector general, Congress needs to be informed of what they were working on when they were fired. The existing law says that when you fire an inspector general you have to give 30 days notice. Well the president did an end run around that so that they couldnt fulfill that last 30 days. Now that 30 days might have given the opportunity for the inspector general to make sure that investigations that were ongoing were not closed, swept under the rug, or made to disappear.

We are going to be putting in statute protections for the inspector generals going forward, things that we didnt think were going to be necessary, because we thought presidents would never do what this president is doingour own post Watergate reforms. Things that will be necessary when this president has gone to make sure that our democratic norms and institutions are codified, or protections are codified, so that they can never be assaulted the way that this president has.

Have you found any bipartisan support for such line of thinking thus far?

Given the slave like devotion of particular House Republicans, Kevin McCarthy doesnt cross the street without asking Donald Trump. That kind of sycophantic, slavish devotion to the president isnt going to admit of independent reforms.

What kind of accountability can Congress muster now under these circumstances? The oversight committeewhat can it do and not do in the immediate future?

There are two kinds of oversight going on in Congress that are going to be very important in real time. Real time oversight is vitally important. Theres a whole host of other issues thoughits very difficult at a distance to do meaningful oversight when youre dealing with bodies that dont particularly want to share the answers. Much of what we will need to know in the intel committee will be classified and therefore we cannot do it at a distance. We certainly dont have the secure video capability among all of our members around the country right now to be able to conduct such a hearing.

In the meantime, we are doing the kind of oversight that we can by requesting, requiring information by teleconference, by using the budget where necessary to compel answers. For example, an oversight committee looking at the problem with protective gear. They did a bipartisan briefing where administration officials acknowledged that there were shortages of protective gear and tests and that there are shortages in reagents and swabs. Its less visible to the public, which is a problem, because a very important point of the oversight is getting good information out to the country.

When you talked to my colleague David Corn during the impeachment hearings, you were shocked that it was quite obvious that when you started making your arguments to the Senate, that they hadnt watched the house hearing, and not just hadnt watched the full of them, but seemed to have it all kind of mediated through Fox. Do you feel that thats going on with this crisis?

House Republicans have become such a cult of the president that theyre not even capable of acknowledging the facts staring them in the face. We had to operate from the premise, which turned out to be all too accurate, that the senators were really not watching the hearings in the House. They were getting the topline from Fox, which was completely misleading.

Have you seen any conciliatory movement within the California delegation when it comes to the pandemic? Kevin McCarthy, Devin Nunesdo the two of them, and you, and Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters ever come to any agreement about what needs to proceed in terms of representing the state of California?

I will say its been one of the biggest disappointments Ive had of the Trump administration, and that is, I had a much higher view of my Republican colleagues of their commitment to their own ideals, of their commitment to the constitution. They dont represent the Republican party anymore. They represent a cult of personality of the president. And so, I do think when the president is gone, I have to hope that they will return to being Republican once again.

COVIDs taken every inequity in our society and magnified it and increased it. What of any old fights may have a chance of being viewed in a new way by both members of Congress and more conservative constituents?

One thing I will say about what we ought to do right nowI was struck at the approach that European countries were taking, but also Asian countries. Where the government was guaranteeing payroll for businesses, large and small.

That seemed to me much more equitable, much more efficient. You didnt need a separate program for small business and one for large industry. You didnt need to overwhelm unemployment compensation. You didnt need to have so many people unemployed. And when this virus does pass, then who have to now go and find employment because people got to retain the jobs they had, even if they couldnt perform the work right now. That kind of a payroll guarantee is the best approach.

Do you think its via payroll or is it a UBI, a universal basic income, kind of start it up now, lets become Alaska?

Those are two good models for us to explore. Ive been particularly attracted to the payroll model because it has the effect of preserving employment. Theyre not also mutually exclusive. The stimulus checks are a form of universal basic income if you made them monthly. But I particularly think that the payroll guarantee is the right approach. America has made a choice to have millions and millions of its people now going to unemployment rolls.

Do you think election protection will be a part of the next stimulus bill?

Absolutely. I think we have to insist that in the next legislation that we take up, we protect the health of the American people, we protect the health of our economy, and we protect the health of our democracy. The American people have a right not only to be able to vote, but to know where their elected officials stand on the franchise, whether they are willfully trying to obstruct peoples ability to vote in this country.

So if the Republicans are determined to disenfranchise people, it ought to be abundantly clear what theyre doing so that they can be held accountable at the polls.

More:

Adam Schiff Says Trump's Cult of the President Has Infected the Republican Party - Mother Jones