Sandra Day O’Connor, who made history as the first woman on the Supreme Court, dies at 93
Ashley Murray, Alabama Reflector WASHINGTON — The first woman to serve on the nation’s highest court is dead at 93. Sandra Day O’Connor, a groundbreaking justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, died Friday in Phoenix, Arizona of complications related to advanced dementia, probably Alzheimer’s, and a respiratory illness, according to an announcement from the court. President Ronald Reagan nominated O’Connor in 1981, and she was confirmed by the full Senate, 99-0, in September of that year. The moderate O’Connor, who served on the bench until her retirement in 2006, was often the decisive vote in major cases that reached the Supreme Court in her nearly quarter-century as associate justice. The justices issued rulings in high-profile cases during O’Connor’s tenure, including Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 presidential contest in George W. Bush’s favor, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a 5-4 decision that affirmed the constitutional right to an abortion but with leeway for states to impose some restrictions. O’Connor sided with the majority in both cases. “She was consequential,” journalist and historian Evan Thomas told the National Archives in 2019 while promoting his biography “First: Sandra Day O’Connor.” She cast the so-called “swing vote” 330 times in 24 years, Thomas said. “And where it really mattered was in abortion rights and affirmative action,” he said, referring to several cases, including Grutter v. Bullinger, which upheld the consideration of race in the University of Michigan’s law school admissions. In 2022, O’Connor’s successor, Justice Samuel Alito, wrote the majority opinion overturning Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, striking down abortion rights at the federal level. A ‘true public servant’ and ‘trailblazer’ Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement Friday that O’Connor “blazed a historic trail as our Nation’s first female Justice.” “She met that challenge with undaunted determination, indisputable ability, and engaging candor. We at the Supreme Court mourn the loss of a beloved colleague, a fiercely independent defender of the rule of law, and an eloquent advocate for civics education. And we celebrate her enduring legacy as a true public servant and patriot,” he said. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said in a statement that the “nation mourns the passing of a towering figure in the history of American law.” “… From her election as the first female Majority Leader in the history of American legislatures to her confirmation as the first female Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor led with a brilliance and conviction that disarmed resistance. Her vote on the court frequently determined the majority in landmark cases, and the legacy of her role in landmark decisions reviving federalism during her first several terms on the Court continues to resound in Constitutional jurisprudence,” McConnell said. In the mid-1990s and 2000, O’Connor provided decisive votes in two 5-4 decisions that found federal laws unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, including sections of the Violence Against Women Act and a federal law that criminalized carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of schools. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said O’Connor was the “conscience of the Court.” Schumer said in a statement issued Friday that O’Connor “was one of the true historic figures of the 20th century. In decision after decision, Sandra Day O’Connor was often the key vote in defending the rights of Americans—in protecting clean air, in protecting women’s rights, in protecting against discrimination, in protecting voting rights. I join Americans all across the country in mourning her passing today.” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson of Louisiana described O’Connor as a “trailblazer” and “legal giant” in a Friday morning post on X. “As the first woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor inspired a generation of women — including the five female Justices that succeeded her — to chart a path that previously seemed unattainable,” he said. “Despite never serving as Chief Justice, she was widely regarded as the most powerful Justice on the bench during her tenure.” The women who followed O’Connor’s appointment to the court included Ruth Bader Ginsburg, nominated by former President Bill Clinton in 1993; Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in 2009 and 2010, both nominated by former President Barack Obama; Amy Coney Barrett, nominated by former President Donald Trump in 2020; and Ketanji Brown Jackson, nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022. Obama released a statement Friday recounting the well-known story of O’Connor’s challenges finding a job in the legal field as a woman in the 1950s, when she was asked about her typing skills and offered work as a legal secretary. “Fortunately for us, she set her sights a little higher – becoming the first woman to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court justice,” Obama said. “As a judge and Arizona legislator, a cancer survivor and child of the Texas plains, Sandra Day O’Connor was like the pilgrim in the poem she sometimes quoted – forging a new path and building a bridge behind her for all young women to follow. Michelle and I send our thoughts to Sandra’s family and everyone who learned from and admired her.” From the Southwest to the nation’s capital O’Connor was born on March 26, 1930, in El Paso, Texas, and grew up on a ranch in Arizona. She graduated near the top of her law school class at Stanford University in 1952. O’Connor began her law career as deputy county attorney of San Mateo County, California, followed by a position as a civilian attorney for Quartermaster Market Center, Frankfurt, Germany, from 1954 to 1957. O’Connor practiced law in Maryvale, Arizona, until 1960 and went on to serve as assistant attorney general of Arizona from 1965 to 1969. She followed her time in the attorney general’s office with multiple terms in the Arizona State Senate beginning in 1969 and eventually serving as the body’s majority leader. In 1975, she was elected as a Maricopa County Superior Court judge and served until 1979, when she was appointed to the Arizona Court
Tommy Tuberville joins legislation to hold VA employees accountable
Recently, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) told Alabama reporters he has joined as a co-sponsor for the Restore VA Accountability Act. “I also Announced my support for new legislation to bring back accountability at the VA,” Tuberville told Alabama press corps reporters in a phone conference. “Under President [Barack] Obama, there was a national scandal. VA facilities in Phoenix and elsewhere had long lines for veterans to get care – then they covered it up and at least 40 veterans even died. It was an absolute disgrace, so President Trump signed a bipartisan bill to fire VA employees who weren’t doing their jobs.” Recently, the Biden Administration settled a class action lawsuit brought by the fired employees and agreed to give them their jobs back. “More than 4,000 VA employees across the country were fired, but now the Biden Administration is ignoring that law,” Sen. Tuberville explained. “They have reached a settlement to give these people their jobs back. They’re even giving them back pay. It is outrageous to the American taxpayer. It’s going to mean worse care for our veterans, so I am supporting legislation to give VA leaders the power they need to hold people accountable. Our veterans deserve the best care we can provide.” Sponsors say that the legislation would restore accountability for the VA while protecting whistleblowers. Specifically, the legislation would: · Ensure VA decisions supported by substantial evidence are upheld on appeal. · Negate the requirement for a performance improvement plan prior to disciplinary action. · Unlock expedited removal, demotion, or suspension authority for use with all categories of VA employees. · Align the disciplinary authority for unsatisfactory VA managers and supervisors with the process currently in place for members of the Senior Executive Service. The passage of the VA Accountability Act of 2017 allowed the VA to cut through cumbersome bureaucratic processes and paperwork to more easily hold bad employees accountable and fire them in an expedited manner. The Biden VA decided it would no longer utilize Section 714 authority as of April 3, 2023. This allowed many of the 4,000 VA workers dismissed from their duties with cause to return to their positions. In March, VA Secretary Denis McDonough testified before the House Veterans Affairs Committee that “Section 714 wasn’t really helping us necessarily manage our workforce as much as it was getting us in front of federal judges and in front of administrative bodies.” McDonough stated, “In all cases, we do think we have what we need to manage our authorities outside” the 2017 law. Tommy Tuberville was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2020. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Jefferson County Republicans announce slate of local candidates
On Wednesday, the Jefferson County Republican Party announced their slate of countywide and local candidates. Major party qualifying for the 2024 election cycle ended on Friday. The Jefferson County Republican Party is running a host of candidates in the 2024 election, including: John Amari for Probate Judge, Place 1. For Probate Judge, Place 2 – Joel R. Blankenship For Assistant Treasurer – Delor Baumann For Assistant Tax Collector – Johnny Curry For Board of Education, Place 1 – Phillip Brown For Board of Education, Place 2 – Robert “Glenn” Durough For Constable, District 15 – Rod Honeycutt For Constable, District 15 – Larry Woods For Constable, District 44 – Stephen A. Moseley For Constable, District 45 – Tim Anders Sr. For Constable, District 46 – Keith Hall For Constable, District 47 – Gilbert F. Douglas III For Constable, District 48 – Robert De Buys For Constable, District 51 – Ronnie Dixon For Constable, District 51 – Joe Williams For Constable, District 55 – Ken Gray Sr The Republican primary is on March 5. Since none of these local candidates have primary opponents, they automatically qualify for the November 5 general election. There will be a number of contested races on the Republican primary ticket in Jefferson County, including President of the United States, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Court of Civil Appeals Place 2, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 2, and President of the Public Service Commission, Alabama’s Seventh Congressional District, Alabama’s Sixth Congressional District, and State Board of Education Place 3. The next Republican Party Executive Committee Meeting is Tuesday, November 21, at the Homewood Library at 6:00 PM. Chris Brown is the Chairman of the Jefferson County Republican Party. While Republicans dominate statewide offices across Alabama, both Houses of the Alabama Legislature, and the last time a Democratic presidential candidate carried Alabama was 1976, the Democratic Party has become the dominant political party in Jefferson County. The Democratic Party has won the last two sheriff’s elections and for district attorney. Jefferson County supported Joe Biden in 2020, Clinton in 2016, Obama in 2012, and Obama in 2008. Even though Republicans carried the state as a whole, Brown says a study of where the growth is happening in Jefferson County (Hoover, Gardendale, Trussville, McCalla, etc.) shows that it is occurring in Republican areas while many Democratic precincts are experiencing long term declines in population. The prospect of turning Jefferson County red is increasingly likely long-term. Will that change occur in 2024, however, remains to be seen. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
21 candidates qualify to run in Congressional District 2
Alabama’s Second Congressional District race was already crowded, but by the time major party qualifying ended on Friday at 5:00 p.m., a total of 21 candidates had qualified with the Alabama Democratic Party and the Alabama Republican Party. The Congressional District 2 (CD2) seat is an open seat because the court-appointed special master redrew Alabama’s congressional districts in such a way that two incumbents, Barry Moore (R-Enterprise) and Jerry Carl (R-Enterprise), now live in the same district – Alabama’s First Congressional District. While Moore and Carl battle over which one gets to remain in Congress, CD2 is open with no incumbent. Since the rules for Congressional Districts do not require you to live in the district you are running, politicians from all over Alabama are running for this seat. Thirteen candidates qualified to run in CD2 with the Alabama Democratic Party. Retired Marine and 2020 congressional candidate James Averhart from Mobile qualified. So did State Representative Napoleon Bracy Jr. Bracy represents Prichard. He works for Austal. State Senator Merika Coleman from Jefferson County qualified. Coleman represents Birmingham, Bessemer, and Pleasant Grove. State Representative Anthony Daniels from Huntsville is running for the seat. Daniels is the House Minority Leader. Shomari Figures works in Washington, D.C., for Attorney General Merrick Garland but is originally from Mobile. His parents are State Senator Vivian Figures and the late State Senator Michael Figures (both of Mobile). He has worked for President Barack Obama. Brian Gary is a general surgeon at Jackson Hospital. State Representative Juandalynn Givan represents Birmingham and Forestdale in Jefferson County. Givan is a Jefferson County attorney. State Representative Jeremy Gray represents Lee and Russell Counties in the Legislature. He is the House Minority Whip. Phyllis Harvey-Hall was the Democratic nominee for CD2 in 2022 and 2020. She lost both times to Barry Moore. Willie J. Lenard is a resident of Opelika. Vimal Patel is a successful hotelier, commercial real estate investor, and realtor. He was a candidate in the Democratic primary in 2022 but lost to Harvey-Hall. Larry Darnell Simpson is a musician. Darryl “Sink” Sinkfield is an ASU alum and supporter. Eight Republicans have qualified. State Senator Greg Albritton of Atmore is an attorney. The retired naval officer is currently the House Finance & Taxation General Fund Committee chairman. Dick Brewbaker is a former Montgomery area automobile dealer. The Pike Road resident is a former state senator who served two terms from 2010 to 2018. Caroleene Dobson is a real estate attorney and a former rodeo standout. She serves on the Alabama Forestry Commission and Southeast Livestock Exposition. Karla M. DuPriest is a former candidate for U.S. Senate. She is a longtime congressional staffer who currently runs a popular barbecue restaurant in Mobile. Wallace Gilberry is a former University of Alabama football player who has played for multiple NFL teams. Hampton S. Harris has also qualified for the post. Stacey T. Shepperson qualified on Friday afternoon, right before the close of GOP qualifying. Belinda Thomas serves on the Newton City Council in Dale County. Both major party primaries are on March 5. If necessary, the primary runoff elections will be held on April 16. The eventual Republican and Democratic nominees will then face each other a year from now in the 2024 general election on November 5. The new district lines mean that Congressional District 2 has shifted from being a safe Republican seat to a likely Democratic seat. Given the razor-thin Republican majority in the House of Representatives, this district flipping to the Democrats could help swing control of Congress to the Democrats. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Heather Moore addresses Montgomery GOP
Heather Moore – the wife of Congressman Barry Moore (R-ALO4), was the keynote speaker on Thursday at the Montgomery County Republican Party’s annual Lincoln – Reagan dinner. Approximately 150 Republicans, including several dignitaries, were in attendance on the sixth floor of the RSA Plaza Building next to the Alabama State House for the annual event. “I love politics,” Heather said. “When Barry was in the State House, I would drive up for the day to watch the action on the floor and drive home before the kids got home.” Heather reminisced that once the State Legislature voted to extend unemployment benefits in the wake of the Great Recession, and one member of the House voted no on extending those benefits. Heather was sitting in the gallery with her friend, Bill Goolsby – who was also in attendance on Thursday. “Who is the one idiot who voted no?” Heather asked Goolsby. “That would be your husband,” Goolsby replied. Heather texted Barry, “You voted the wrong way,” but Barry could not be swayed from his stance. “That was the day that Barry was the one no vote to extend unemployment benefits.” Barry Moore has been an outspoken supporter of Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) as the next House Speaker. “Jim and Polly Jordan have become great friends,” Heather said. Bill Harris, Moore’s district director, said that Congressman Moore wanted to attend but could not because of the open Speaker of the House race and the possibility that there could have been a vote that night. Barry Moore is in his second term representing Alabama’s Second Congressional District. “We are $33 trillion in debt,” Rep. Barry Moore told the Montgomery GOP in a taped statement. “Inflation is up. Gas prices are rising.” Rep. Moore accused the Biden Administration of illegally giving “billions of dollars to Ukraine while 53% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.” Moore said that spending has soared since 1997 because Congress has failed to do its job by passing appropriations through normal order by using 12 spending bills. “The House has already passed several of these appropriations bills, but we are on a short notice to finish the rest and send them to the Senate,” Congressman Moore said. Moore said that Heather is “my favorite teammate of 31 years.” Harris said that Moore said of Heather, “She would have written my speech anyway, so I might as well send her.” Heather Moore grew up in the Sand Mountain area of Dekalb County. “I came from a very political family on my mother’s side,” Heather said, “My granddaddy was a farmer and a cotton broker. He was a Republican and a staunch supporter of Ronald Reagan.” “We are Appalachians, so we all live a quarter mile from each other, so my grandparents had a great role in my upbringing,” Heather said. “My dad’s side of the family were all yellow dog Democrats,” Heather said. “Staunch Republicans and the other side were yellow dog Democrats. I realized that the Republican side was always the happy side while the Democrat side was always mad.” “I was a huge Ronald Reagan fan,” Heather said. “I remember going to Donald Trump’s inauguration.” Heather Moore said that originally, she was not impressed with Barry Moore, but that position changed. “I did say that I would not go out with Barry Moore if he was the last man on Earth. I married him ten months later,” Mrs. Moore recounted. “We started our small business in Enterprise,” Heather said. “Barry never had any intention of getting involved in politics, but I did. I joined the Coffee County Republican Executive Committee.” Heather continued, “In 2006, some of our friends said your husband should run. Barry wouldn’t hear it. In 2008 (Barack) Obama was elected and said we are not a Christian nation, but a nation of citizens.” That is when Barry Moore became interested in running. He ran and was elected to the Alabama House of Representatives in 2010. “Barry is a horrible politician,” Heather said. “He is terrible at it. Barry is going to say what he believes. There is one Barry.” “Who thought three years ago that we could fall so far,” Heather said. “In 2020, Barry was running for Congress, and we thought Donald Trump was going to be President, and we were going to get so much done.” While Barry Moore was elected, Donald J. Trump was defeated by Joe Biden, and Republicans lost control of both Houses of Congress. The GOP gained limited control of the House of Representatives in 2022. “Barry is the eternal optimist,” Heather said. “He says that everything is going to be OK. I had to tell him, ‘No, Barry, things are not going to be OK.’” “It has been one crisis after another,” Heather said. “Back in the good ole days, it was Democrat versus Republicans. Now, it is not. It is normal versus crazy. It’s crazy versus normal. That is what we are having to fight as a nation.” Barry Moore’s Second Congressional District was recently redrawn along racial lines by a federal three-judge panel, making it highly likely that a Democrat will win Congressional District 2. The Moores’ Coffee County was drawn into Congressman Jerry Carl’s (R-Mobile) First Congressional District, potentially pitting the two GOP incumbents against each other. “The states have the right to choose their federal representative,” Heather said. “That is what the Constitution says. The Constitution of Alabama says that the Legislature draws those maps. I pray that Steve Marshall fights this all the way to the Supreme Court.” “He has loved every county in this district,” Heather said of Barry. “We represent every county. Barry has loved on every county, and some of those counties are Black.” “When you call our office, we don’t ask what color you are,” Heather said. “We don’t ask if you are a Republican or Democrat. We ask how can we help you.” “I don’t care what skin color my Congressman, or my President, is as long as they represent me with Republican values,” Heather said. “Read the Bible – read the Old Testament. There were evil kings in the Bible,” Heather said. “We are
Tommy Tuberville says net neutrality rules would be burdensome government involvement in broadband
U.S. Senators Tommy Tuberville and Katie Britt joined U.S. Senators John Thune (R-South Dakota) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in pushing back against the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) proposal to reinstate Obama-era broadband regulations. In a letter to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, the senators warned that reviving these burdensome regulations would devastate the free market, leading to fewer choices and slower speeds for broadband customers. “Our country faces real challenges,” the Senators wrote. “A lack of public-utility regulations for the internet is not one of them. Instead, the FCC and the Biden administration should be focusing on bipartisan efforts to address real problems, such as addressing rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government’s broadband subsidy programs, and regulatory and permitting obstacles to broadband deployment, both of which divert funds and resources from the goal of connecting unserved Americans.” Net neutrality rules were passed under former President Barack Obama and then rescinded under former President Donald Trump. They could return under a new push by FCC chair Rosenworcel. The rules would reclassify broadband access as an essential service on par with other utilities like water or power. “For everyone, everywhere, to enjoy the full benefits of the internet age, internet access should be more than just accessible and affordable,” Rosenworcel said at an event at the National Press Club. “The internet needs to be open.” The proposed rules would return fixed and mobile broadband service to its status as an essential telecommunications service under Title II of the Communications Act. It would also prohibit Internet service providers from blocking or throttling lawful Internet traffic and from selling “fast lanes” that prioritize some traffic over others in exchange for payment. The move comes after Democrats took majority control of the five-member FCC on Monday for the first time since President Joe Biden took office in January 2021 when new FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez was sworn in. Rosenworcel said the FCC will vote in October to take public comment on the proposed rules. Net neutrality is the principle that internet providers treat all web traffic equally. Telecom companies say the rules can undermine investment in broadband and introduce uncertainty about acceptable business practices. Telecommunications companies argue that they should be able to control the pipes they built and own. Tuberville serves on the U.S. Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry (AG) Committee. Tuberville has championed expanding broadband access for rural and agricultural communities. He has made that one of his 2023 Farm Bill priorities because he understands the importance of reliable internet access for successful farming operations. Tuberville is the Ranking Member of the AG Subcommittee on Rural Development and Energy. His first hearing as a Ranking Member focused on expanding broadband access for rural areas, with discussions revolving around streamlining the application and permitting process, service speeds, broadband deployment infrastructure, and prioritizing internet access to rural communities. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Farmers are disappointed with Biden Administration revisions to water regulation rules
On Tuesday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a final rule amending the 2023 definition of “waters of the United States.” According to original reporting by the Alabama Cattlemen’s Association, the amendments conform with the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sackett v. EPA. The agencies had to amend their rule to conform to the U.S. Supreme Court decision while still following the law and implementing the Clean Water Act, which provides essential protections that safeguard the nation’s waters from pollution and degradation. The final action is intended to finally provide the clarity needed to advance these goals while moving forward with infrastructure projects, economic opportunities, and agricultural activities. Specifically, the amendments include: · Eliminates “interstate wetlands” from the list of jurisdictional waters. · Limits jurisdictional tributaries to features “that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water.” · Redefines “adjacent” as “having a continuous surface connection.” · The rule wholly removes the significant nexus test from consideration when identifying tributaries and other waters as federally protected. · It also revises the adjacency test when identifying federally jurisdictional wetlands. · It clarifies that interstate wetlands do not fall within the interstate waters category and clarifies the types of features that can be considered under the “additional waters” category. It is important to note that this amendment does not affect any other aspects of the 2023 rule, including agricultural exclusions. In the Sackett decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a [Joe] Biden rewrite of the waters of the U.S. rule (WOTUS) that would have given the federal government strict oversight over every creek, tributary, pond, or drainage ditch in the country. The Alabama Farmers Federation is still opposed to the Biden Administration’s rewrite. The Alabama Farmers Federation’s Mitt Walker said the revisions, while technically in line with a May Supreme Court ruling, are discouraging. “It’s disappointing to see the EPA again hamper farmers’ rights to manage water on their land,” said Walker, who leads national affairs for Alabama’s largest general farm organization. “We have been fighting for clear, concise rules since the 2015 WOTUS rule was released. This is a small step in the right direction, but EPA must make more changes to roll back regulatory overreach.” EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers made the revisions without public notice and comments in response to the Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court ruling. The rule will take effect upon publication in the Federal Register. The Sackett case concerned two Idaho landowners, Michael and Chantell Sackett, who contended wetlands on their property were not “adjacent” under the Clean Water Act. Zippy Duvall is the President of the American Farm Bureau Federation. “EPA had a golden opportunity to write a Waters of the U.S. Rule that’s fair to farmers and stands the test of time but instead chose to continue government overreach and revise only a small slice of the rule that was rejected by the Supreme Court,” said Duvall, a farmer from Georgia. “We’re pleased the vague and confusing ‘significant nexus’ test has been eliminated as the Supreme Court dictated. But EPA has ignored other clear concerns raised by the justices, 26 states, and farmers across the country about the rule’s failure to respect private property rights and the Clean Water Act. Farmers and ranchers share the goal of protecting the resources they’re entrusted with. They deserve a rule that respects farmers as partners in that effort.” The current WOTUS dispute has now spanned three presidential administrations, beginning with President Barack Obama. This will potentially have had enormous economic impact for farmers, ranchers, developers, and even many residential communities. Anyone who interacts with water in the country. The Obama administration originally rewrote the existing rule, that applied to only navigable bodies of water. The Trump Administration overturned the Obama Administration rule change. Biden then reversed the Trump rule and reinstated the Obama rule. “The Biden Administration in two years has racked up more regulations than the Obama Administration did in eight years,” U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Alabama) said of the Biden rule earlier in the year before the Supreme Court ruling. “They’re continuing their red tape regime with yet another reckless rulemaking decision that would prioritize their leftwing political agenda at the expense of hardworking Americans. This type of job-killing overregulation would strangle Alabama farmers, cattlemen, manufacturers, energy producers, builders, landowners, and small businesses.” “Alabamians have tended to our own land, waterways, and resources for generations, and we remain best positioned to preserve and utilize them for generations to come,” Britt said. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Donald Trump pleads not guilty to federal charges that he tried to overturn the 2020 election
Donald Trump pleaded not guilty Thursday to trying to overturn the results of his 2020 election loss, answering for the first time to federal charges that accuse him of orchestrating a brazen and ultimately unsuccessful attempt to block the peaceful transfer of presidential power. The former president appeared before a magistrate judge in Washington’s federal courthouse two days after being indicted by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith. Of the three criminal cases he’s facing, the most recent charges are especially historic since they focus on Trump’s efforts as president to subvert the will of voters and obstruct the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory. His refusal to accept defeat and his lies about widespread election fraud helped fuel the violent riot on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. Trump, who is now the early front-runner in the 2024 Republican presidential primary, sat stern-faced with his hands folded, shaking his head at times as he conferred with an attorney and occasionally glancing around the courtroom as his court appearance began. He stood up to enter his “not guilty” plea, answered perfunctory questions from the judge, and thanked her at the conclusion of the arraignment. His appearance Thursday unfolded — as will the rest of the case — in a downtown courthouse between the Capitol and the White House and in a building where more than 1,000 of the Capitol rioters have been charged by the Justice Department, which last November appointed Smith to lead a probe into the role of Trump and his allies in the events of that day. The indictment charges Trump with four felony counts related to his efforts to undo his presidential election loss, including conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. The charges could lead to a lengthy prison sentence in the event of a conviction, with the most serious counts calling for up to 20 years. Smith himself attended the arraignment, sitting in the courtroom’s front row behind the prosecutors handling the case and about 20 feet away from Trump. He looked at times in Trump’s direction, though neither appeared to gesture at or talk to each other. U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya set the next court date for Aug. 28, when a tentative trial date will be set, and directed Trump not to communicate directly about the facts of case with any individual known to be a witness. Three police officers who defended the Capitol that day were also seen entering the courthouse. One of them, Aquilino Gonell, who retired from the Capitol Police after suffering injuries, took stock of the location’s symbolism, noting that it was “the same court in which hundreds of rioters have been sentenced. It’s the same court former President Trump is being arraigned in today for his alleged involvement before, during, and after the siege.” Trump has said he is innocent. His legal team has characterized the latest case as an attack on his right to free speech and his right to challenge an election that he believed had been stolen. He addressed the proceedings in a brief statement on a drizzly tarmac at Washington’s Reagan National Airport before he boarded his plane back to New Jersey. “This is the persecution of the person that’s leading by very, very substantial numbers in the Republican primary and leading Biden by a lot,” he said. “So if you can’t beat ‘em, you persecute ‘em, or you prosecute ’em. We can’t let this happen in America.” One early point of contention emerged Thursday when defense lawyers bristled at the idea that a trial could be rapidly scheduled. Prosecutors said they would move quickly to provide Trump’s lawyers with the information they’d need to prepare a defense, but defense attorney John Lauro said it was “somewhat absurd” that the case could be ready for trial anytime soon. “These are weighty issues. Obviously, the U.S. has had three years to investigate this matter,” Lauro said. The election theft case is part of escalating legal troubles for the ex-president, coming nearly two months after Trump pleaded not guilty to dozens of federal felony counts accusing him of hoarding classified documents at his Florida estate and thwarting government efforts to retrieve them. That case is set for trial next May. He also was charged in New York with falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment to a porn actor during the 2016 presidential campaign, a case scheduled for trial next March. And prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia, are expected in the coming weeks to announce charging decisions in an investigation into efforts to subvert election results in that state. Thursday’s arraignment was part of a now-familiar but nonetheless stunning ritual for Trump, requiring him to hit pause on his presidential campaign and play the role of criminal defendant. He was flown by private plane from New Jersey to Washington, where his motorcade with lights and sirens made its way through the nation’s capital — a journey documented in wall-to-wall cable coverage once again. His appearance represented a relatively rare return to Washington since he left the White House. After a trip that took him through a highway tunnel and District streets, Trump lamented what he called the “filth and the decay” of the city, which he claimed was worse than when he ended his term. But that overlooks the fact that when he left office, some businesses were boarded up, and military presence in the city was ramped up in the aftermath of the insurrection sparked by his own election lies. Federal and state election officials and Trump’s own attorney general have said there is no credible evidence the election was tainted. The former president’s allegations of fraud were also roundly rejected by courts, including by judges Trump appointed. The courtroom Thursday filled with spectators who included several federal judges, including Chief District Court Judge James Boasberg — presumably there to observe the momentous event. The indictment chronicles how Trump and his Republican allies, in what Smith described as an attack on a “bedrock
Terri Sewell hosts symposium on Shelby v. Holder
On Wednesday, Congresswoman Terri Sewell (D-AL07) led a symposium in Birmingham on the landmark Supreme Court ruling Shelby v. Holder that struck down the preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act 1965. “This morning, I convened some of our nation’s premiere civil rights and voting rights leaders at the 16th Street Baptist Church to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Shelby County v. Holder decision which gutted the Voting Rights Act,” said Sewell on Facebook. “In the decade since the Shelby decision, one thing is clear—old battles have become new again as the right to vote has come under attack. But we in Alabama have seen this before and we’re not going down without a fight. The Foot Soldiers left us a blueprint to protect their progress and advance it. Drawing courage from their sacrifice, we will protect the right to vote in Alabama and across the country.” Sewell was joined on Wednesday by President & CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Maya Wiley, former U.S. Senator Doug Jones, the President & General Counsel of the Mexican Americans Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) Thomas A. Saenz, the Associate Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) Tona Boyd, Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Jacqueline De Leon, Birmingham Civil Rights Institute President & CEO DeJuana Thompson, the executive director of Alabama Forward Evan Milligan, the Co-Founder & Executive Director of Black Voters Matter Cliff Albright, the Vice President of Census & Voting Programs for Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC) Terry A. Minnis, the Co-Director of the Voting Rights Project for Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Marcia Johnson, and the Alabama Policy Director for the Southern Poverty Law Center Jerome Dees. “The Shelby decision was decided in 2013,” Sewell said. “It had tremendous ramifications. The disastrous decision in Shelby versus Holder gutted key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,” Sewell said. “The preclearance section stopped really restrictive voting laws before they went into effect.” “The Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights is the lobbying arm of the civil rights movement,” President Wiley said. “Barack Obama won in 2008, and that was the beginning of the end of bipartisanship on voting rights.” “In 2006, George Bush supported, and very few members of Congress were willing to oppose, extending the Voting Rights Act,” Wiley said. “After Obama’s win, things changed. Instead of contesting for our votes, they made it harder for us to vote,” Wiley said. Sen. Jones said, “Terri has become, since the death of John Lewis, the champion of voting rights in the U.S. Congress.” Jones said that in the effort to make it harder to vote, “we (the state of Alabama) have kind of led the way.” Jones said that Alabama has a “very restrictive voting law.” “Alabama has done a good job of registering people, but we have made it very difficult to vote,” Jones said. “Our voting is still below the national average, even in Georgia.” “Racial turnout gaps have increased in Alabama over the last ten years,” Sewell said. “I am proud to be the lead sponsor of the John Robert Lewis Voter Protection Act. Restoring preclearance is the key to unlocking a lot of the voting suppression laws that we have.” Saenz said the Shelby v. Holder ruling gave “a green light to further restrict people of color, blacks, and Latinos.” “But for Shelby County, Texas would be a swing state today,” Saenz said. “The Voting Rights Act was the most effective federal civil rights law in United States history.” Since Shelby County v. Holder, Saenz said it is much more difficult for MALDEF to be aware of voting process changes, especially at the local level. “A pronounced lack of transparency in what is happening at local levels across this country to suppress minority voters across this country,” Saenz said. “We don’t know about some of these changes until it is too late to go into court to do something.” “There are five states where the Black population is rising faster than the Hispanic population, and Alabama is one of those states,” Jones said. “20% of the Black population is under the age of 20. Times are a changing, and the people on the other side know it.” Jones said that nonpartisan committees for redistricting congressional seats and legislatures is a change that is needed. “Congress needs to pass some minimal standards for early voting,” Jones said. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Katie Britt backs bipartisan legislation to solidify American sanctions on Iran
U.S. Senator Katie Britt recently joined Presidential candidate U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) and Senators Maggie Hassan (D-New Hampshire), Bill Hagerty (R-Tennessee), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada) in cosponsoring the Solidify Iran Sanctions Act (SISA) to make permanent the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. “This legislation sends an important bipartisan message to Iran that the United States will not tolerate continued threats to American national security,” said Sen. Britt. “Peace is achieved through strength. We must stand firm against bad actors and ensure that, first and foremost, our homeland is protected against aggression. I will always fight for America’s safety, and this act is a strong step to safeguard our nation’s future.” “As evidenced by the recent Iranian-backed drone strike in Syria that tragically killed South Carolinian Scott Dubis and the recent seizure of a U.S.-bound oil tanker, it is clear that Iran continues to engage in destabilizing activities that threaten the safety of America, Israel, and our other partners in the region,” Sen. Scott said. “Cementing these sanctions will apply pressure on Iran and help restrain this regime from developing weapons that threaten safety and security around the world.” “We must do everything that we can to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon and stop its support of terrorism,” said Sen. Hassan. Cementing these sanctions would advance national security by restraining Iran from engaging in malign activities that threaten the United States and its allies. SISA would also ensure that America’s sanctions regime continues to apply pressure on Iran amid its continuing dangerous nuclear escalation. In 1996, Congress passed the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), which allowed the president to impose secondary sanctions on Iran’s energy sector. Throughout the years, ISA provisions were expanded to include other Iranian industries. ISA consists of “triggers” that place sanctions on firms or entities that violate U.S. sanctions under this law. As Iran continues its nuclear enrichment towards a weapons-grade level, it is essential that the United States solidifies its pivotal sanctions to apply pressure toward the rogue regime. The Solidify Iran Sanctions Act removes the sunset provision in the ISA and signals that the U.S. remains firmly committed to sanctioning the regime until it changes its malign behavior. A companion bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Michelle Steel (R-California), Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Rep. Susie Lee (D-Nevada). There were international sanctions on Iran, but those went away in the Iran nuclear deal negotiated during the Obama administration. President Donald Trump reimposed U.S. sanctions, but the rest of the international community did not follow America’s lead. President Joe Biden has made some overtures towards negotiating a new deal with Iran, but Iran has not been receptive. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Wednesday that there was no nuclear deal with Iran on the table. “There is no agreement in the offing, even as we continue to be willing to explore diplomatic paths,” Blinken said at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. “We’ll see by their actions.” Blinken called on Iran to “not take actions that further escalate the tensions” with the United States and the Middle East. Katie Britt was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2022 To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Supreme Court rejects GOP in North Carolina case that could have reshaped elections beyond the state
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that state courts can curtail the actions of their legislatures when it comes to federal redistricting and elections, rejecting arguments by North Carolina Republicans that could have dramatically altered races for Congress and president in that state and beyond. The justices, by a 6-3 vote, upheld a decision by North Carolina’s top court that struck down a congressional districting plan as excessively partisan under state law. The high court did, though, indicate there could be limits on state court efforts to police elections for Congress and president, suggesting that more election-related court cases over the issue are likely. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that “state courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause. But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review.” The decision was the fourth major case of the term in which conservative and liberal justices joined to reject the most aggressive legal arguments put forth by conservative state elected officials and advocacy groups. Earlier decisions on voting rights, a Native American child welfare law, and a Biden administration immigration policy also unexpectedly cut across ideological lines on the court. Major rulings are expected by Friday on the future of affirmative action in higher education, the administration’s $400 billion student loan forgiveness plan, and a clash of religious and LGBTQ rights. The practical effect of Tuesday’s decision is minimal in North Carolina, where the state Supreme Court, under a new Republican majority, already has undone its redistricting ruling. Another redistricting case from Ohio is pending, if the justices want to say more about the issue before next year’s elections. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch would have dismissed the North Carolina case because of the intervening state court action. Vice President Kamala Harris said in a statement that the decision “preserves state courts’ critical role in safeguarding elections and protecting the voice and the will of the American people.” The Democratic administration defended the power of state courts in the case. Former President Barack Obama, in a rare public comment on a court decision, applauded the outcome as “a resounding rejection of the far-right theory that has been peddled by election deniers and extremists seeking to undermine our democracy.” At the same time, the leader of a Republican redistricting group said he was pleased the court made clear there are limits on state courts. The decision “should serve as a warning to state courts inclined to reach beyond the constitutional bounds of judicial review. This is a first, positive step toward reining in recent overreaches of state courts,” Adam Kincaid, president and executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, said in a statement. Derek Muller, a University of Iowa law professor and elections expert, said Tuesday’s decision leaves some room to challenge state court rulings on federal election issues, “but these are likely to be rare cases.” “The vast majority of state court decisions that could affect federal elections will likely continue without any change,” Muller said. The North Carolina case attracted outsized attention because four conservative justices had suggested that the Supreme Court should curb state courts’ power in elections for president and Congress. Opponents of the idea, known as the independent legislature theory, had argued that the effects of a robust ruling for North Carolina Republicans could be reached much further than just that one state’s redistricting. Potentially at stake were more than 170 state constitutional provisions, over 650 state laws delegating authority to make election policies to state and local officials, and thousands of regulations down to the location of polling places, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. The justices heard arguments in December in an appeal by Republican leaders in the North Carolina Legislature. Their efforts to draw congressional districts heavily in their favor were blocked by a Democratic majority on the state Supreme Court on grounds that the GOP map violated the state Constitution. A court-drawn map produced seven seats for each party in last year’s midterm elections in the highly competitive state. The question for the justices was whether the U.S. Constitution’s provision giving state legislatures the power to make the rules about the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections cuts state courts out of the process. Former federal appeals court judge Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative who has joined the legal team defending the North Carolina court decision, said in the fall that the outcome could have transformative effects on American elections. “This is the single most important case on American democracy — and for American democracy — in the nation’s history,” Luttig said. Leading Republican lawmakers in North Carolina told the Supreme Court that the Constitution’s “carefully drawn lines place the regulation of federal elections in the hands of state legislatures, Congress, and no one else.” During nearly three hours of arguments, the justices seemed skeptical of making a broad ruling in the case. Liberal and conservative justices seemed to take issue with the main thrust of a challenge asking them to essentially eliminate the power of state courts to strike down legislature-drawn, gerrymandered congressional district maps on grounds that they violate state constitutions. In North Carolina, a new round of redistricting is expected to go forward and produce a map with more Republican districts. The state’s Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, praised Tuesday’s decision, but also implicitly acknowledged that it does nothing to inhibit Republicans who control the legislature from drawing a congressional map that is more favorable to them. Cooper, who by state law can’t block redistricting plans approved by lawmakers, said that “Republican legislators in North Carolina and across the country remain a very real threat to democracy as they continue to pass laws to manipulate elections for partisan gain by interfering with the freedom to vote.” Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Hunter Biden will plead guilty in a deal that likely averts time behind bars in a tax and gun case
President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden will plead guilty to federal tax offenses but avoid full prosecution on a separate gun charge in a deal with the Justice Department that likely spares him time behind bars. Hunter Biden, 53, will plead guilty to the misdemeanor tax offenses as part of an agreement made public Tuesday. The agreement will also avert prosecution on a felony charge of illegally possessing a firearm as a drug user, as long as he adheres to conditions agreed to in court. The deal ends a long-running Justice Department investigation into the taxes and foreign business dealings of President Biden’s second son, who has acknowledged struggling with addiction following the 2015 death of his brother Beau Biden. It also averts a trial that would have generated days or weeks of distracting headlines for a White House that has strenuously sought to keep its distance from the Justice Department. The president, when asked about the development at a meeting on another subject in California, said simply, “I’m very proud of my son.” The White House counsel’s office said in a statement that the president and first lady Jill Biden “love their son and support him as he continues to rebuild his life.” While the agreement requires the younger Biden to admit guilt, the deal is narrowly focused on tax and weapons violations rather than anything broader or tied to the Democratic president. Nonetheless, former President Donald Trump and other Republicans continued to try to use the case to shine an unflattering spotlight on Joe Biden and to raise questions about the independence of the Biden Justice Department. Trump, challenging President Biden in the 2024 presidential race, likened the agreement to a “mere traffic ticket,” adding, “Our system is BROKEN!” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy compared the outcome to the Trump documents case now heading toward federal court and said, “If you are the president’s son, you get a sweetheart deal.” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, another presidential challenger, used the same term. Two people familiar with the investigation said the Justice Department would recommend 24 months of probation for the tax charges, meaning Hunter Biden will not face time in prison. But the decision to go along with any deal is up to the judge. The people were not authorized to speak publicly by name and spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity. He is to plead guilty to failing to pay more than $100,000 in taxes on over $1.5 million in income in both 2017 and 2018, charges that carry a maximum possible penalty of a year in prison. The back taxes have since been paid, according to a person familiar with the investigation. The gun charge states that Hunter Biden possessed a handgun, a Colt Cobra .38 Special, for 11 days in October 2018 despite knowing he was a drug user. The rarely filed count carries a maximum sentence of up to 10 years in prison, but the Justice Department said Hunter Biden had reached a pretrial agreement. This likely means as long as he adheres to the conditions, the case will be wiped from his record. Christopher Clark, a lawyer for Hunter Biden, said in a statement that it was his understanding that the five-year investigation had now been resolved. “I know Hunter believes it is important to take responsibility for these mistakes he made during a period of turmoil and addiction in his life,” Clark said. “He looks forward to continuing his recovery and moving forward.” The agreement comes as the Justice Department pursues perhaps the most consequential case in its history against Trump, the first former president to face federal criminal charges. The resolution of Hunter Biden’s case comes just days after a 37-count indictment against Trump in relation to accusations of mishandling classified documents on his Florida estate. It was filed by a special counsel, appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland to avoid any potential conflict of interest in the Justice Department. That indictment has nevertheless brought an onslaught of Republican criticism of “politicization” of the Justice Department. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans continue to pursue their own investigations into nearly every facet of Hunter Biden’s business dealings, including foreign payments. Rep. James Comer, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said the younger Biden is “getting away with a slap on the wrist,” despite investigations in Congress that GOP lawmakers say show — but have not yet provided evidence of — a pattern of corruption involving the family’s financial ties. Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, on the other hand, said the case was thoroughly investigated over five years by U.S. Attorney David Weiss, a Delaware prosecutor appointed by Trump. Resolution of the case, Coons said, “brings to a close a five-year investigation, despite the elaborate conspiracy theories spun by many who believed there would be much more to this.” California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who was scheduled to campaign with the president Tuesday evening, reaffirmed his support for Biden’s reelection. “Hunter changes nothing,” Newsom told the AP on Tuesday. Misdemeanor tax cases aren’t common, and most that are filed end with a sentence that doesn’t include time behind bars, said Caroline Ciraolo, an attorney who served as head of the Justice Department’s tax division from 2015 to 2017. An expected federal conviction “is not a slap on the wrist,” she said. Gun possession charges that aren’t associated with another firearm crime are also uncommon, said Keith Rosen, a past head of the criminal division in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware. For people without a significant criminal history, the total number of multiple types of illegal possession cases filed every year in Delaware amounts to a handful, he said. The Justice Department’s investigation into the president’s son burst into public view in December 2020, one month after the 2020 election, when Hunter Biden revealed that he had received a subpoena as part of the department’s scrutiny of his taxes. The subpoena sought information on the younger Biden’s business dealings with a number of entities, including
