LA Times Today: Take it from California's election czar, the SAVE Act is a sham
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber wrote an opinion piece for the L.A. Times calling the bill 'Jim Crow 2.0.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Michigan House passes ranked choice voting ban
LANSING, Mich. (WLNS) — A bill to ban the use of ranked choice voting in the state of Michigan has passed the state House of Representatives 57-44, with 9 not voting. , introduced by Republican State Rep. Rachelle Smit (R-43), would prohibit the state, as well as any city, township, or other municipality from conducting elections using ranked choice voting. Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Candidates are then eliminated in rounds until a candidate wins a majority. The bill additionally includes any method that allows voters to vote for more candidates than total number of positions to be filled in the election. Smit says ranked choice voting is 'chaotic,' and that it would cost millions of tax dollars to implement. 'Studies and real-world elections have shown that Ranked Choice Voting disproportionately impacts minority voters and those who don't vote in every election,' wrote Smit in a news release obtained by 6 News. The representative also says the election method could confuse voters. 'Ranked Choice Voting, with its rounds of counting and reallocation, only breeds skepticism – especially when every close contest invites lawsuits and recount battles,' wrote Smit in a news release obtained by 6 News. The bill now goes to the Senate for further consideration. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump isn't trying to ‘erase history' at Smithsonian — he's reversing a destructive woke takeover
Liberals were up in arms this week after President Trump said he wanted a review of the Smithsonian Institute — saying their displays were too negative, and too focused on slavery. But Trump isn't trying to 'erase history,' he's looking to reverse a woke movement that has indeed rewritten the American story to highlight suffering rather than providing a balanced picture of our past. Trump's criticism that the Smithsonian is overly focused on slavery is not unreasonable: In nearly every exhibit, critical race theory in general, or slavery specifically, makes an appearance. For instance, its new Benjamin Franklin exhibit on his innovations includes a whole section on slavery — with assumptions, but no proof, that slaves assisted Franklin in his electrical innovations. Even if they hadn't, the curators argue that without their work around the house, Franklin couldn't have spent the time on his experiments! 'Franklin held people enslaved during the time he pursued his electrical experiments. Their labor in his household helped make time that he could use to study electricity. Family, friends, and visitors directly participated in electrical experiments. The records are few and unclear, but enslaved people may also have directly assisted his research.' Another example of the obsession with slavery comes from the National Portrait Gallery; nearly every early Founding Father's description includes a statement on slavery. For example, the description for Thomas Jefferson includes the statement: 'Although Jefferson once called slavery 'an abominable crime,' he consistently enslaved African Americans, including his late wife Martha's half-sister, Sally Hemings, with whom he had several children.' The overemphasis on the history of slavery is a fairly recent development, an offshoot of the Black Lives Matter movement. In 2019, Lonnie G. Bunch III took over as the Secretary of the Smithsonian. Prior to that, Bunch was the founding director of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, which is nearly exclusively focused on the legacy of slavery, with exhibits such as In Slavery's Wake, Slavery and Freedom, and Make Good the Promise, which deal with the history of slavery. Also in 2019, the Smithsonian collaborated with the New York Times on its 1619 Project, which falsely claims that the United States started, not with the Declaration of Independence or Revolutionary War, but when the first slave ship arrived. As curator Mary Elliot remarked at the time: 'This is a shared history, everyone inherited the legacies of slavery.' But America's history is more than just about slavery, and not everyone inherited this legacy — after all, America is also a nation of immigrants who came after the Civil War. In the Smithsonian 2020 annual report, more obsession with slavery comes into view. The Smithsonian is on a mission to have a completely searchable digital museum called 'The Searchable Museum Initiative.' One may think it would begin with digitization of some our greatest moments in history, such as the landing on the moon, the passing of the US Constitution, or even its great Natural History collections. You would be wrong; the digitization began 'with the museum's Slavery and Freedom exhibition.' The annual report claims that 'The Searchable Museum will provide rich, interactive, digital experiences that match the immersive experience of a visit to the physical museum' — unfortunately, likely as biased as a visit to the museum themselves. The problem with modern museums is not just about the obsession with slavery; it's also about dishonestly painting all of American history as evil and full of horrors — with little or no redeeming qualities. For instance, in the Smithsonian's American Indian Museum in NYC, George Washington hardly gets a mention, but his silhouette is used in a description of him as a 'town destroyer' — supposedly a nickname that Native Americans still use to describe our first President. And yet there's no mention in either of the American Indian Museums — in NYC or DC — about slavery practiced by Native Americans, both before Europeans' arrival and afterward. For example, the Cherokee owned slaves. In 1835, 15,000 Cherokee owned 1,592 African slaves; by the Civil War onset, 17,000 Cherokee owned 4,000 African slaves. While museums should provide an honest account of history, they should not be afraid to showcase and celebrate American achievement, which includes ending slavery. At present, however, museums seem more interested in pushing a woke, revisionist history of the United States. With two new Smithsonian museums in development, the National Museum of the American Latino and the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum, we can expect more of the same — unless we take action against woke propaganda now. Elizabeth Weiss is a professor emeritus of anthropology at San José State University and author of 'On the Warpath: My Battles with Indians, Pretendians, and Woke Warriors.'
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Why many voters in deep-red Northern California are fuming about Newsom's maps
COTTONWOOD — When the talk turned to politics at the OK Corral bar in this historic stagecoach town on Tuesday night, retired nurse Ovie Hays, 77, spoke for most of the room when she summed up her view of Gov. Gavin Newsom's redistricting plan. 'I don't want Democrats around,' she said. 'They have gone too far in controlling us. We won't have a say in anything.' Nearby, a man in hard-won cowboy boots agreed with Hays — using much more colorful language. He works as a ranch hand and said he'd just come from fixing a goat pen. 'The morons in charge, and the morons that put [those] morons in charge need to understand where their food comes from,' he said. He declined to see his name printed, like a lot of folks in this part of Shasta County and neighboring counties. In its current form, California's 1st Congressional District, which sweeps south from the Oregon border almost to Sacramento, is larger than Massachusetts or Maryland or eight other states. This is farm and forest country. From the glittering peaks and dense forests of Mt. Shasta and the Sierra Nevada, rivers course down to the valley floor, to vast fields of rice, endless orchards of peaches and golden, rolling grassland full of more cows than people. Voters here are concerned with policies that affect their water supply and forests, given that the timber industry limps along here and fires have ravaged the area in recent years. This is also Republican country. For the last 12 years, this district has been represented by Congressman Doug LaMalfa, a rice farmer from Oroville who is a staunch supporter of Donald Trump. But if voters approve the redistricting plan in November, the deep-red bastion that is LaMalfa's district will be cleaved into three pieces, each of them diluted with enough Democratic votes that they could all turn blue. The northern half of the district would be joined to a coastal district that would stretch all the way down to the Golden Gate Bridge, while the southern half would be jigsawed into two districts that would draw in voters from the Bay Area and wine country. Northern California finds itself in this situation because of power plays unleashed by President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Newsom and others. To ensure GOP control of the House of Representatives, Trump pressured Abbott to redraw Texas' congressional maps so Republicans could take more seats. Newsom responded by threatening to redraw California's maps to favor Democrats, while saying he'd holster this pistol if Texas did the same. The California Legislature is expected to approve a plan Thursday that would put new maps on the November ballot, along with a a constitutional amendment that would override the state's voter-approved, independent redistricting commission. If voters approve the new maps, they would go into effect only if another state performs mid-decade redistricting. Under the proposal, Democrats could pick up five seats currently held by Republicans, while also bolstering some vulnerable Democratic incumbents in purple districts. Now, voters in Northern California and other parts of the state find themselves at the center of a showdown. And from Marysville to Redding this week, many — including those who call themselves Democrats — said they were outraged at what they saw as another example of urban California imposing its will on rural California, areas that city people generally ignore and don't understand. 'Their needs and their wants are completely different than what we need here,' said Pamela Davis, 40, who was loading bags of chicken feed into the back of her SUV in Yuba City. Her children scrambled into their car seats, chatting happily about the cows and ducks they have at home on their farm. Davis, who said she voted for LaMalfa, said voters in California's cities have no understanding of water regulations or other policies vitally important to agriculture, even though what happens in farming areas is crucial to the state overall. 'We're out here growing food for everybody,' she said. 'Water is an issue all the time. That kind of stuff needs to be at the top of everybody's mind.' For years, folks in the so-called north state have chafed at life under the rule of California's liberal politicians. This region is whiter, more rural, more conservative and poorer than the rest of the state. They have long bemoaned that their property rights, grazing rights and water rights are under siege. They complain that the state's high taxes and cost of living are crushing people's dreams. The grievances run so deep that in recent years many residents have embraced a decades-old idea of seceding from California and forming a 'State of Jefferson.' Some residents, including LaMalfa, said if redistricting were to go through, it could further fuel those sentiments. And even some voters who said they abhorred Trump and LaMalfa and planned to vote in favor of the redistricting plan said they worried about the precedent of diluting the rural vote. Gail Mandaville, 76, was sitting with her book group in Chico and said she was in favor of the plan. 'I just am really, really afraid of the way the country is going,' the retired teacher said. 'I admire Newsom for standing up and doing something.' Across the table, Kim Heuckel, 58, said she agreed but also wondered whether a member of Congress from a more urban area could properly represent the needs of her district. 'I'm sorry, but they don't know the farmlands,' she said. 'We need our farmers.' We do, chimed in Rebecca Willi, 74, a retired hospice worker, but 'all the things we stand for are going down the drain,' and if the redistricting in Texas goes forward, 'we have to offset it because there is too much at stake.' In an interview, LaMalfa predicted that California's voters would reject the redistricting plan. 'We're not going anywhere without a fight,' he said. But should it pass, he predicted that his constituents would suffer. 'We don't have Sausalito values in this district,' he said, adding that politicians in the newly redrawn districts would be 'playing to Bay Area voters; they won't be playing towards us at all.' One of the biggest issues in his district recently, he noted, has been concern over wolves, who have been roaming ranch lands, killing cattle and enraging ranchers and other property owners. With redistricting, he said, 'if it doesn't go to the dogs, it will go to the wolves.'
