Republican lawmakers look for ways to weaken state judges
William Raftery, an analyst at the National Center for State Courts, said the battle between branches of state government for power dates to the earliest years of the U.S. and that lawmakers often make proposals aimed at weakening judges. Most of them aren't adopted.
Advertisement
He said it won't be clear whether the efforts are getting more traction until most states' legislative sessions wrap up in a few months.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Here's a look at the measures:
Who can decide what's constitutional?
In 1803 the U.S. Supreme Court established a precedent in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison that courts can find laws unconstitutional.
A Montana legislative committee has voted to reject that concept. It advanced a measure that says the idea that courts alone have the power to decide what laws are constitutional is 'a myth' and does not accurately reflect the 1803 ruling.
Instead, the GOP-sponsored bill asserts that 'no single branch has exclusive power to bind its decisions on another branch of government.'
A vote in the full House is the next step. The same measure passed the Senate but failed in the House two years ago.
The push comes after Montana court rulings that Republican lawmakers didn't like. A district judge last year blocked enforcement of three laws to restrict abortion access and the state Supreme Court kept a law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors on hold.
Rep. Lee Deming, the sponsor of the resolution, said he's not responding to any particular rulings.
An analysis of legislation by the bill-tracking service Plural shows Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia have similar legislation this year.
Advertisement
Kansas considers changing how Supreme Court is selected
In Kansas, GOP leaders have long been frustrated with state Supreme Court rulings that forced them to spend more on public schools, overturned death sentences and protected abortion rights. They're renewing a push to change how justices are selected.
The governor now chooses a justice from three nominees put forth by a commission controlled by lawyers. Voters get a say every six years on whether the justice can continue serving.
Senate President Ty Masterson said he and others want to cut the influence of lawyers and have voters choose justices, as they did in Kansas before 1960, and as 22 other states do.
If lawmakers approve the idea, it would go before voters.
Fred Logan, a lawyer and former Kansas Republican Party chair, said during a legislative hearing Tuesday that shifting to elections will make raising money for a campaign the key skill for potential justices, instead of their legal knowledge and experience.
Who can decide if a regulation is legal?
An Oklahoma bill would tell judges not to defer to government agencies' interpretation of laws if the statutes themselves are not crystal clear.
That effort would tell judges how to do their jobs while at the same time taking power away from the executive branch.
The concept echoes a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that supporters, including conservatives and business groups, said will stem overreach by agencies.
At least 20 states have adopted a similar stance through court rulings, laws and a constitutional amendment in Florida, according to an analysis by Ballotpedia.
A committee has advanced the Oklahoma bill to the full Senate.
A Missouri lawmaker introduced a bill to oust a judge but pulled back
A Missouri legislative leader proposed a bill designed to oust a circuit court judge whose rulings he didn't like, but has since decided against the move.
Advertisement
House Speaker Pro Tem Chad Perkins, a Republican, said his bill to reduce the number of judges in a mid-Missouri circuit from four to three was aimed at pushing Judge Cotton Walker off the bench.
Some of Walker's rulings have paved the way for a marijuana legalization ballot question to go before voters and another that forced a rewrite of the state's description of an abortion rights ballot measure.
Perkins told The Associated Press this week that the legislation is on hold because the circuit has so many cases on its docket that it doesn't make sense to cut a judgeship.
'With that being said, I will reiterate I'm not happy with Judge Walker's rulings,' Perkins said, 'but that's a matter for the voters of Cole County to take care of.'
Walker would be on the ballot next year if he seeks reelection.
Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Associated Press reporter David Lieb in Jefferson City, Missouri, contributed to this article.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
BlackRock calls antitrust claims "unprecedented, unsound and unsupported"
(Reuters) -An attorney for BlackRock called antitrust claims by Republican-led states "unprecedented, unsound and unsupported" on Monday and said they had failed to show how the firms' involvement with industry climate groups interfered with market competition. Gibson Dunn attorney Gregg Costa spoke as BlackRock and co-defendants Vanguard and State Street seek to dismiss the claims in the closely watched antitrust case brought by Texas and 12 other states.
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats are drawing closer to the crypto industry despite Trump divisions
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump builds a crypto empire — including hosting a private dinner with top investors at his golf club — Democrats have united in condemning what they call blatant corruption from the White House. But the Democratic Party's own relationship with the emerging crypto industry is far less cut and dried. Work in the Republican-led Senate to legitimize cryptocurrency by adding guardrails has drawn backing from some Democrats, underscoring growing support for the industry in the party. But divisions have opened over the bill, with many demanding it prevent the Republican president and his family from directly profiting from cryptocurrency. 'I'm all on board with the idea of regulating crypto,' said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. 'But at this moment, when cryptocurrency is being so clearly used by Donald Trump to facilitate his corruption, I don't think you can close your eyes to that when you're legislating.' The legislation is moving ahead more rapidly than Congress usually acts when an industry is new. But the big money and campaign donations flowing from cryptocurrency firms have made them a new powerhouse on the political scene, one that's increasingly gaining allies and capturing the attention of lawmakers. A look at what to know about the industry's clout and the political fight over what's known as the GENIUS Act: To understand the growing clout of the crypto industry, look no further than the 2024 election. Fairshake, a crypto super political action committee, and its affiliated PACs spent more than $130 million in congressional races. Fairshake spent roughly $40 million supporting Republican Bernie Moreno in Ohio in an effort to defeat Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. Brown, who lost to Moreno by more than 3 percentage points, was seen as a chief critic of the industry as the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. 'DC received a clear message that being anti-crypto is a good way to end your career, as it doesn't represent the will of the voters,' Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, wrote in a social media post the day after the 2024 election. Coinbase — the largest crypto exchange in the U.S. and biggest contributor to Fairshake — does not view support for its industry as partisan, according to Kara Calvert, the company's vice president of U.S. policy. The industry also spent heavily to support Democrats Ruben Gallego and Elissa Slotkin in their races for open Senate seats in battleground states. Fairshake spent $10 million in support of Slotkin during her successful Senate run against Republican Mike Rodgers, and Slotkin, who won the Michigan race by fewer than 20,000 votes, spoke in favor of crypto on the campaign trail. Slotkin declined to be interviewed. Similar dynamics are setting up ahead of 2026 in contested House and Senate races. Fairshake said in January that it already had $116 million in cash on hand aimed at the 2026 midterm elections. 'We're not slowing down, and everything remains on the table,' Josh Vlasto, a spokesperson for Fairshake, told The Associated Press. Hours before a May 19 vote to move forward on cryptocurrency legislation in the Senate, an advocacy group tied to Coinbase sent an email to the offices of U.S. senators warning that the vote would count toward their crypto-friendliness scores. 'What the spending does is put crypto on the map. It lets members know that this is not a phase, this is real industry, with real dollars, that is developing its hold in Washington,' said Calvert. A significant number of Democrats, 16, joined Republicans in advancing the crypto legislation. The GENIUS Act would create a new regulatory structure for stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency typically pegged to the U.S. dollar. It is viewed as a step toward consumer protections and greater legitimacy for the industry. The sticking point for many Democrats is that while the bill prohibits members of Congress and their families from profiting off stablecoins, it excludes the president from those restrictions. Trump, once a skeptic of the industry, has vowed in his second term to make the U.S. the global capital of crypto. Meanwhile, he and his family have moved aggressively into nearly every corner of the industry: mining operations, billion-dollar bitcoin purchases, a newly minted stablecoin and a Trump-branded meme coin. Days after Trump's interests in the industry became public in early May, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York urged the Democratic caucus to unite and vote against the package to have a stronger hand in negotiations, according to a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity to discuss private discussions. On May 8, a bloc of Senate Democrats who had previously backed the GENIUS Act reversed course — ultimately voting to block the bill from advancing. Negotiations between Senate Democrats and Republicans followed. The White House was also involved, and in contact with senators' offices on both sides of the aisle, according to a senior official granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. The new version of the bill is now expected to pass the 100-member Senate this month. Amendments are still possible. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. has filed an amendment — cosponsored by Schumer — that would bar the president and his family from profiting off stablecoins, though it's unlikely to pass. 'There is room for improvements as there often is with a lot of legislation. But with this in particular, we've got issues with the president,' said Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona 'Having said that, this was negotiated with Democrats and Republicans. We got to a place. We voted on it. I expect this is the version we're going to pass.' Still, the legislation is stirring unease. Schumer, asked if he's urging members to vote against the bill, noted that he has opposed the legislation and said 'there's division in our caucus on that issue.' 'There's a gaping hole in this bill that everybody sees,' Murphy said. 'After it's passed, it will be illegal for me to issue a cryptocurrency, but it's legal for the president of the United States.' 'If this bill passes, we kind of go from a dirt road to a paved road,' he said. If the Senate approves the stablecoin legislation, the bill will still need to clear the House before reaching the president's desk. Crypto advocates say the next priority is pushing Congress for market structure legislation, a far more sweeping effort than simply regulating stablecoins. 'Stablecoin is one step of the path. Then you need market structure. We're hopeful that the Senate works together to pass something quickly,' Calvert said. Some Democrats view the legislation as a chance to impose basic guardrails on a rapidly growing industry that's particularly popular among men and younger voters, two groups that drifted from the party in 2024. ___ Associated Press writers Alan Suderman, Lisa Mascaro, Matt Brown and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
Boston Globe
32 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Firearm death rate for children increased most in N.H., declined most in R.I. since 2010, study finds
Advertisement The most gun-friendly states were passing more liberalizing legislation, while the stricter states adopted more restrictions, according to Faust. The study looked at 49 states with sufficient data, excluding Hawaii because of inadequate data due to small numbers. Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up Given those changes, Faust said, he and other researchers, including collaborators at Yale School of Medicine, wanted to study the impact of a state's legislative approach on outcomes in different states. 'The question was: Is this a national problem? Is it a state level problem? And if so, is it about the laws?' said Faust. The study divided states into three groups based on an analysis of their gun laws: most permissive, permissive, and strict. Their finding was that the most-permissive states had the biggest increases in mortality, while permissive states had somewhat big increases, and strict states saw no increase. New Hampshire was classified in the most permissive category. Here, the rate started out relatively low compared to other states, the study found, but has doubled since the Supreme Court ruling. Advertisement Nationally, firearms are the leading cause of death for children and adolescents. But outcomes from one state to another varied widely, according to the study. 'I was horrified for some people, but reassured for others,' Faust said. 'You can have a Second Amendment, but have reasonable safety policies that make it so people can exercise their rights without having any untoward effect on the safety of our communities.' Nationally, the study found only four states in which there was a statistically significant decline in childhood firearm mortality after McDonald v Chicago: California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island. All of them fell into the strict firearms law group. Among them, Rhode Island was the state with the biggest decrease. 'It's a really important study that shows, one, that permissive firearm laws are associated with greater pediatric firearm death,' said Kelly Drane, research director at Giffords Law Center, a nonprofit that promotes gun violence prevention. 'It shows the benefit of states taking action to protect children.' And, she said, the study highlights how different outcomes are in different states, and how that relates to the strength of their gun laws. 'You can really see how children in some states are much safer, much less likely to die from gun violence than children in other states,' said Drane. But another independent expert, Dr. Cedric Dark, said it's difficult to establish causality, and there are indications in the study that other factors are likely at play beyond the policy changes after 2010. He pointed to a national increase in homicide deaths around 2020. Advertisement 'I think there's something else going on too, especially in that COVID era,' said Dark, who practices emergency medicine and teaches at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas. In 2024, Dark, who is also a gun owner, published a book on gun violence, 'Under The Gun: An ER Doctor's Cure for America's Gun Epidemic.' In his research for the book, Dark said, he found specific policies that are known to save lives, including universal background checks, child access prevention laws, domestic violence restraining orders, and bans on large capacity magazines. 'The main point for me is: What are those policies that states that are least restrictive versus most restrictive have implemented?' he said. Since 2010, New Hampshire has enacted several liberalizing gun laws. In 2011, the 'What we've seen in states that have passed these laws is that homicides increased drastically after Stand Your Ground laws passed, presumably because people are choosing to stand their ground rather than retreat from conflicts as they would have been required to before,' said Drane. Then, in 2017, the state Advertisement The state's gun laws earned it an 'D-' from Giffords Law Center in its But it New Hampshire's baseline rate from 1999 to 2010 was actually quite low compared to other states, at 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people. But from 2010 to 2023, it nearly doubled, up to 0.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Drane said New Hampshire is likely benefiting from its neighbors with stricter gun laws like Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut, which act as a buffer. In contrast, Rhode Island's mortality rate, with its strict gun laws, declined from 1.2 deaths per 100,000 people down to 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people. Massachusetts, classified as a strict state, has a relatively low rate of childhood firearm deaths, and that didn't change significantly in the years after 2010, although it may have diminished slightly. Its rate went from 0.7 deaths per 100,000 to 0.6 deaths per 100,000, although the change wasn't statistically significant. The study classified Vermont as a permissive state, and its rates rose from 1.1 deaths per 100,000 to 1.8 deaths per 100,000, but the change was not statistically significant. Amanda Gokee can be reached at
