House passes bill bolstering landmark voting law
House Democrats have passed legislation that would strengthen a landmark civil rights-era voting law weakened by the Supreme Court over the past decade, a step party leaders tout as progress in their quest to fight back against voting restrictions advanced in Republican-led states. The bill, which is part of a broader Democratic effort to enact a sweeping overhaul of elections, was approved on a 219-212 vote, with no Republican support. Its Tuesday passage was praised by President Joe Biden, who said it would protect a “sacred right” and called on the Senate to “send this important bill to my desk.” But the measure faces dim prospects in that chamber, where Democrats do not have enough votes to overcome opposition from Senate Republicans, who have rejected the bill as “unnecessary” and a Democratic “power grab.” That bottleneck puts Democrats right back where they started with a slim chance of enacting any voting legislation before the 2022 midterm elections when some in the party fear new GOP laws will make it harder for many Americans to vote. But they still intend to try. Speaking from the House floor, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it was imperative for Congress to counteract the Republican efforts, which she characterized as “dangerous” and “anti-democratic.” “Democracy is under attack from what is the worst voter suppression campaign in America since Jim Crow,” Pelosi said. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, named for the late Georgia congressman who made the issue a defining one of his career, would restore voting rights protections that have been dismantled by the Supreme Court. Under the proposal, the Justice Department would again police new changes to voting laws in states that have racked up a series of “violations,” drawing them into a mandatory review process known as “preclearance.” The practice was first put in place under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But it was struck down by a conservative majority on the Supreme Court in 2013, which ruled the formula for determining which states needed their laws reviewed was outdated and unfairly punitive. The court did, however, say that Congress could come up with a new formula, which is what the bill does. A second ruling from the court in July made it more difficult to challenge voting restrictions in court under another section of the law. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Terri Sewell, said “old battles have indeed become new again,” enabled by the Supreme Court’s rulings. “While literacy tests and poll taxes no longer exist, certain states and local jurisdictions have passed laws that are modern-day barriers to voting,” said Sewell, an Alabama Democrat. In many cases, the new bill wouldn’t apply to laws enacted in the years since the court’s 2013 ruling. That likely includes the wave of new Republican-backed restrictions inspired by Donald Trump’s false claims of a stolen 2020 election. But if signed into law along with Democrats’ other election bill, the For the People Act, many of those restrictions could be neutralized — and likely prevented from getting approved again. Both laws would likely face legal challenges. In the short term, the vote Tuesday was expected to soothe restive Democratic activists who have been frustrated by inaction on the issue in the Senate. NAACP President Derrick Johnson said he was “encouraged” by the bill’s passage. But he also offered a thinly veiled threat, pledging to watch closely as the Senate takes it up and “keep track of every yea and every nay” vote. “Make no mistake, we will be there, on the ground in 2022, in every state that needs a new Senator,” he said in a statement. Democrats’ slim 50-50 majority in the Senate means they lack the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. For months, progressives have called for scrapping the filibuster, but a number of moderate Democrats oppose the idea, denying the votes needed to do so. It’s also not clear that the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, as written, would be supported by all Democrats in the Senate, where there are no votes to spare. One provision in the bill would ban many types of voter ID laws, including those already on the books. That’s at odds with a proposal from West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who is the chamber’s most conservative Democrat. He’s spent weeks working with Senate leadership to develop a more narrowly focused alternative to the For the People Act and has specifically called for a voter ID standard that would allow for people to use a document like a utility bill. Republicans, meanwhile, blasted the timing of the measure, noting that Pelosi called Democrats back from August recess to pass the bill, as well as to take votes on Democrats’ spending priorities when the U.S. is dealing with its chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. “If there’s any moment in time to put an election aside, if there’s any moment of time to put politics aside, I would have thought today was this day,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Conservatives also criticized the bill as a departure from the 1965 voting law, which used minority turnout data as well as a place’s history of enacting discriminatory voting laws when determining which places would be subject to preclearance. The new bill, instead, leans heavily on looser standards, such as using the number of legal settlements and consent decrees issued in voting rights cases to pull places into preclearance. That would, Republicans argue, play into the hands of Democrats, who have built a sophisticated and well-funded legal effort to challenge voting rules in conservative-leaning states. Rep. Michelle Fischbach, a Minnesota Republican, predicted it would be a boon for Democratic advocacy groups and trial lawyers, who would “file as many objections as possible to manufacture litigation.” “It empowers the attorney general to bully states and seek federal approval before making changes to their own voting laws,” she said. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Joe Biden holds to Kabul August 31 deadline despite criticism
U.S. President Joe Biden declared Tuesday he is sticking to his August 31 deadline for completing a risky airlift of Americans, endangered Afghans, and others seeking to escape Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. The decision defies allied leaders who want to give the evacuation more time and opens Biden to criticism that he caved to Taliban deadline demands. “Every day we’re on the ground is another day that we know ISIS-K is seeking to target the airport and attack both us and allied forces and innocent civilians,” Biden said at the White House, referring to the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate, which is known for staging suicide attacks on civilians. He said the Taliban are cooperating and security is holding despite a number of violent incidents. “But it’s a tenuous situation,” he said, adding, “We run a serious risk of it breaking down as time goes on.” The United States in recent days has ramped up its airlift amid new reports of rights abuses that fuel concern about the fate of thousands of people who fear retribution from the Taliban and are trying to flee the country. The Pentagon said 21,600 people had been evacuated in the 24 hours that ended Tuesday morning, and Biden said an additional 12,000 had been flown out in the 12 hours that followed. Those include flights operated by the U.S. military as well as other charter flights. Biden said he had asked the Pentagon and State Department for evacuation contingency plans that would adjust the timeline for full withdrawal should that become necessary. Pentagon officials expressed confidence the airlift, which started on August 14, can get all Americans out by next Tuesday, the deadline Biden had set long before the Taliban completed their takeover. But unknown thousands of other foreign nationals remain in Afghanistan and are struggling to get out. The Taliban, who have wrested control of the country back nearly 20 years after being ousted in a U.S.-led invasion after the 9/11 attacks insist the airlift must end on August 31. Any decision by Biden to stay longer could reignite a war between the militants and the approximately 5,800 American troops who are executing the airlift at Kabul airport. In Kabul, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told a news conference the U.S. must stick to its self-imposed deadline, saying “after that, we won’t let Afghans be taken out” on evacuation flights. He also said the Taliban would bar Afghans from accessing roads to the airport while allowing foreigners to pass in order to prevent large crowds from massing. At the Pentagon, spokesman John Kirby said Aug. 31 leaves enough time to get all Americans out, but he was less specific about completing the evacuation of all at-risk Afghans. He said about 4,000 American passport holders and their family members had been evacuated from Kabul as of Tuesday. “We expect that number to grow in coming days,” Kirby said. With the full U.S. withdrawal looming, the Pentagon said several hundred U.S. troops have been withdrawn because they are no longer needed to complete the evacuation mission. Kirby said these are headquarters staff, maintenance personnel, and others. “It will have no impact on the mission at hand,” he said. It’s unclear how many Americans who want to leave are still in the country, but their status is a hot political topic for Biden. Some Republicans bristled Tuesday at the U.S. seeming to comply with a Taliban edict. “We need to have the top priority to tell the Taliban that we’re going to get all of our people out, regardless of what timeline was initially set,” said Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana. And Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters Monday that “it was hard for me to imagine” wrapping up the airlifts by the end of the month. One of the main refugee groups resettling Afghan evacuees in the United States said many people, including some American citizens, still were finding it impossible to get past Taliban checkpoints and crushing throngs outside the airport. “The United States cannot pat itself on the back for a job half-done,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. Biden decided in April that he was ending the U.S. war, which began in October 2001. Former President Donald Trump had earlier agreed in negotiations with the Taliban to end the war in May. However, Biden waited until the Taliban had swept to power this month, following the collapse of the U.S.-backed government and its army, to begin executing an airlift. Tragic scenes at the airport have transfixed the world. Afghans poured onto the tarmac last week and some clung to a U.S. military transport plane as it took off, later plunging to their deaths. At least seven people died that day, and another seven died Sunday in a panicked stampede. An Afghan soldier was killed Monday in a gunfight. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said the Group of Seven nations will not recognize a Taliban government unless it guarantees people can leave the country if they wish, both before and after the August deadline. A day earlier, the director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, William Burns, met with a top Taliban leader in Kabul. The extraordinary meeting reflected the gravity of the crisis and America’s need to coordinate with a Taliban group it has accused of gross human rights abuses. For now, the U.S. military coordinates all air traffic in and out of the Kabul airport, but the Taliban will take over thereafter the U.S. pullout. Meanwhile, a U.S. official said Burns, the CIA director, met with Taliban leader Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar — an extraordinary moment for the U.S. spy agency, which for two decades targeted the Taliban in paramilitary operations. It was not clear what exactly they discussed. The CIA partnered with Pakistani forces to arrest Baradar in 2010, and he spent eight years in a Pakistani prison before the Trump administration persuaded Pakistan to release him in 2018
Supreme Court orders ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy reinstated
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Biden administration likely violated federal law in trying to end a Trump-era program that forces people to wait in Mexico while seeking asylum in the U.S. With three liberal justices in dissent, the high court refused to block a lower court ruling ordering the administration to reinstate the program informally known as Remain in Mexico. It’s not clear how many people will be affected and how quickly. Under the lower court ruling, the administration must make a “good faith effort” to restart the program. There also is nothing preventing the administration from trying again to end the program, formally called Migrant Protection Protocols. A federal judge in Texas had previously ordered that the program be reinstated last week. Both he and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused the administration’s request to put the ruling on hold. Justice Samuel Alito ordered a brief delay to allow the full court time to consider the administration’s appeal to keep the ruling on hold while the case continues to make its way through the courts. The 5th Circuit ordered expedited consideration of the administration’s appeal. The court offered little explanation for its action, although it cited its opinion from last year rejecting the Trump administration’s effort to end another immigration program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. In that case, the court held that the decision to end DACA was “arbitrary and capricious,” in violation of federal law. The administration has “failed to show a likelihood of success on the claim that the memorandum rescinding the Migrant Protection Protocols was not arbitrary and capricious,” the court wrote Tuesday in an unsigned order. The three dissenting justices, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, did not write an opinion expressing their views of the case. In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said it regrets that the high court declined to issue a stay. The department said it would continue to challenge the district court’s order. The American Civil Liberties Union called on the administration to present a fuller rationale for ending Remain in Mexico that could withstand court scrutiny. “The government must take all steps available to fully end this illegal program, including by re-terminating it with a fuller explanation. What it must not do is use this decision as cover for abandoning its commitment to restore a fair asylum system,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s immigrant rights project. During Donald Trump’s presidency, the policy required tens of thousands of migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. to turn back to Mexico. It was meant to discourage asylum seekers, but critics said it denied people the legal right to seek protection in the U.S. and forced them to wait in dangerous Mexican border cities. The judge, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, ordered that the program be reinstated in response to a lawsuit filed by the states of Texas and Missouri, whose governors have been seeking to reinstate some of the hard-line anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration. The Biden administration argued in briefs that the president has “clear authority to determine immigration policy” and that Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had discretion in deciding whether to return asylum seekers to Mexico. The policy has been dormant for more than a year, and the administration argued that abruptly reinstating it “would prejudice the United States’ relations with vital regional partners, severely disrupt its operations at the southern border, and threaten to create a diplomatic and humanitarian crisis.” The Trump administration largely stopped using the “Remain in Mexico” policy at the start of the pandemic, at which point it began turning back virtually everyone crossing the Southwest border under a different protocol — a public health order that remains in effect. President Joe Biden suspended the program on his first day of office, and the Homeland Security Department ended it in June. Kacsmaryk was nominated to the federal bench by Trump. The 5th Circuit panel that ruled Thursday night included two Trump appointees, Andrew Oldham and Cory Wilson, along with Jennifer Walker Elrod, nominated to the appeals court by President George W. Bush. At the high court, at least five of the six conservative justices, including three Trump appointees, voted for the restart of the program. Under the court’s opaque treatment of emergency appeals, the justices don’t always say publicly how they voted. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Alabama poison control fields more calls about ivermectin
A poison control hotline in Alabama is fielding increased calls about possible ivermectin poisoning, an animal dewormer that doctors are warning people not to try as a home remedy for COVID-19. The Alabama Poison Information Center at Children’s of Alabama has fielded 24 ivermectin exposure cases so far this year, of which 15 were related to COVID-19 prevention and treatment, Conan Gasque, a spokesman for Children’s of Alabama, wrote in an email. There have been an additional five calls this year seeking information about ivermectin. By comparison, there were six total calls in 2019 and 12 in 2020. Those numbers included both known exposures and people seeking information. While, federal regulators have approved ivermectin to treat people and animals for some parasitic worms and for head lice and skin conditions, it’s not approved for COVID-19. The human and animal formulations are not the same, and doctors say it’s dangerous for people to self-dose, particularly with the large quantities given to animals. “You are not a horse. You are not a cow, Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” the Food and Drug Administration tweeted on Saturday with a link to a page explaining, “Why you should not use Ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.” The ivermectin exposure calls to the Alabama Poison Information Center are only a small fraction of calls to the center. It handled more than 105,000 calls, including initial and follow-up calls, in 2020. The Mississippi Health Department has also warned people not to use the livestock medicine to try to treat COVID-19, after poison-control centers there received calls about some ingesting it and becoming ill, including two people who were hospitalized. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Steve Flowers: More summer political happenings
Allow me to again open my political notebook for more summer political happenings in the Heart of Dixie. As Labor Day approaches, it looks as though the state constitutional officeholders, all Republicans, are going to escape serious or even any opposition. Lt. Gov. Will Ainsworth, Attorney General Steve Marshall, and Agriculture Commissioner Rick Pate are running unopposed. However, all three are running aggressive campaigns or, as the old saying goes, are running scared. It looks as though State Treasurer John McMillan will not run for reelection and may opt to be head of the new State Cannabis Commission. Waiting in the wing to run for treasurer is former State Treasurer Young Boozer. He will be a prohibitive favorite. He did an excellent job as Treasurer and remains very well thought of in Montgomery circles. The Secretary of State and Auditors jobs are open with no incumbents able to run. Surprisingly, state representative Wes Allen is the only one running for Secretary of State. He dodged a bullet when Birmingham businesswoman, Laura Johnston Clark, opted to not run. The State Auditor’s race has attracted several candidates. A recent entry is Mobilian Rusty Glover. He is a popular former state representative and state senator who ran statewide for lieutenant governor last time. He will be the favorite. I have never seen anyone who has ever met and visited with Rusty one-on-one who does not like him. The big money in next year’s election will be on the state legislative races. All 105 State House seats and all 35 State Senate races will be on the ballot. All 140 seats will have new lines. They may all be similar, but all will have to deviate to some degree. They will be drawing these new lines in a special reapportionment legislative session in late October or early November. The final census numbers just arrived within the last few days. This redistricting session is vitally important to all legislative incumbents. It is about political self-preservation. Redistricting also impacts the impending race for Speaker of the House, which will be determined shortly after the November 2022 General Election during the January 2023 organizational session. Current House Speaker Mac McCutchen announced during the summer that he was not running for reelection. This immediately set in motion a jockeying for position to be the next Speaker. The two candidates that are emerging are Steve Clouse (R-Ozark) and Nathaniel Ledbetter (R-Dekalb County). The race will be decided within the Republican House caucus. The House currently has a super majority, with 75% of the body being Republican. This GOP dominance will continue or may even be enhanced after reapportionment. Steve Clouse is a 27-year veteran of the House. He is the powerful Chairman of the House Ways and Means General Fund Committee. Nathaniel Ledbetter is a popular, folksy, keen, second-term representative who is the House Majority Leader. Both candidates start with a hard-core base of votes from legislators from their neck of the woods. Ledbetter has a rock-solid base from the northeastern corner of the State and Sand Mountain. Clouse has steadfast support from southeast Alabama and the Wiregrass. The race will probably be determined by the more populous delegation of legislators from the metropolitan areas of Jefferson/Shelby and Mobile/Baldwin. Ledbetter has the backing of retiring Speaker McCutcheon of Huntsville and probably has an advantage in the Madison/Limestone delegation. However, Ledbetter’s ace-in-the-hole may be that as Majority Leader, he is helping raise campaign money not only for incumbents but, more importantly, the 20 to 25 new members who are being elected next May. If it comes down to a straight, all north Alabama versus south Alabama race, that gives Ledbetter a leg up because there are more people and legislators from north Alabama because that is where the population is, as the current census numbers reveal. However, if a geographic war develops, look for the Montgomery River Region Republican legislators to side with south Alabama and Clouse. Again, the Jefferson/Shelby and Mobile/Baldwin delegations may very well be where the race is decided. The Jefferson/Shelby legislators from the upscale urbane districts will favor Clouse’s experience in a private vote. This same advantage will accrue to Clouse in the silk-stocking Mobile/Baldwin districts. Veteran Mobile legislator Victor Gaston, who is also Speaker Pro Tem of the House, is running for reelection probably to help elect Clouse as Speaker. They are very close and dedicated friends. Victor is very respected and may very well bring some Mobile legislators with him. See you next week. Steve Flowers is Alabama’s leading political columnist. His weekly column appears in over 60 Alabama newspapers. He served 16 years in the state legislature. Steve may be reached at www.steveflowers.us.
