This week in politics: Why was Jimmy Hoffa, Teamsters Union leader, discussed in MS House?
A bill to restrict union access throughout Mississippi was killed on Wednesday by a motion to reconsider just before the House gaveled out of the 2025 session. The bill was not readdressed, killing it.
Before the House adjourned for the year on Wednesday, Republicans and Democrats fiercely debated the legislation, in which several Democrats argued that unions had helped to guarantee labor rights and protections for Mississippians and Americans across the country.
At one point Rep. Oscar Denton, D-Vicksburg, asked Rep. Lee Yancey, R-Brandon, who presented the bill, who unions ever actually hurt.
Yancey quickly shot back, stating that "they still haven't found Jimmy Hoffa."
2025 special session: MS governor considering 'priorities for conservatives' for 2025 special session. Read why
Public broadcasting seat denied: Senate votes 'no' on governor staffer's appointment to MPB board. Read why
Hoffa, who was the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters from 1957 until 1971, disappeared suddenly in 1975. In 1981, he was officially declared dead.
Hoffa had become and still is notorious for his alleged ties to organized crime and for his disappearance. In 2003, years after his death, Frank Sheeran, a man who also had deep alleged ties to the Mafia, admitted to killing Hoffa as part of a book titled "I Heard You Paint Houses: Frank 'The Irishman' Sheeran and Closing the Case on Jimmy Hoffa," by Charles Brandt.
Mississippi lawmakers on Wednesday killed a piece of legislation aimed at banning most intoxicating hemp products while allowing for the sale and regulation of hemp beverages containing "low" amounts of THC, the psychoactive part of cannabis.
The bill had been put through the ringer twice in the Senate, where it first passed by only a slim margin in the first half of the 2025 Legislative Session. However, the bill died by less than a few votes in the Senate early last week.
It was held back from death by a motion to reconsider the bill, but Senate lawmakers did not take it back by the time they gaveled out the 2025 session.
Hemp ban: Hemp THC ban bill facing challenges in MS Senate. Read why
DEI ban update: DEI bans for schools, colleges passed by Mississippi Legislature
The situation will leave many of these intoxicating hemp products on Mississippi shelves, mostly in gas stations and convenience stories, for at least another year. Currently no regulations exist to restrict who, regardless of age, can purchase these products.
It's probably not common knowledge among average Mississippians, but the first sign that the 2025 session was ending early this year came when tomatoes were placed on the desks of House lawmakers, and on Thursday when they were put on the Senate's.
The tradition is a long-standing one in the Mississippi legislature and is often the sign for lawmakers to wrap up the session and go home, if for no other reason, than to plant tomato seedlings before they die on lawmakers' desks.
On Thursday, the Legislature ended the session early after budget negotiations stalled and thus stonewalled the final stretch of the session. That work stoppage on the budget came when the House skipped a Saturday working deadline day last week to hash out a budget, citing that it did not want to pass a rushed budget at the last minute without proper vetting, as is done every year.
The Senate blasted the House for not showing and then refused to consider suspending the legislature's deadlines to revive more than 100 budget proposals. The House tried to send a suspension resolution to the higher chamber, but after the Senate didn't take it up by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, the House adjourned and left the Capitol. The Senate did the same the next morning.
As House members and Senators were leaving the Capitol this week, most were seen carrying these little plants, a bit of an odd image of the session coming to a close.
Grant McLaughlin covers the Legislature and state government for the Clarion Ledger. He can be reached at gmclaughlin@gannett.com or 972-571-2335.
This article originally appeared on Mississippi Clarion Ledger: State Politics: Jimmy Hoffa discussed during union debate in MS House
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
11 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court could end race-based voting districts. Good. They're antiquated.
Considering race inherently means discrimination in the sense that you believe skin color is an important factor in vote choice. A redistricting war between red and blue states has erupted in response to Texas' new proposed map, prompting Democrats nationwide to go on the offensive. This isn't the only reason redistricting is making headlines. The Supreme Court has indicated that it will be considering whether race-based districts are constitutional next term. The colorblind approach taken by the conservative justices on many other issues, such as college admissions and employment discrimination, indicates that they may be skeptical of race-based districting as well. The Supreme Court should strike down racial considerations in the districting process. Many states have interpreted the Voting Rights Act to mandate the creation of a specific number of majority-minority districts, which is in tension with the Supreme Court's precedents on the matter. It's unconstitutional to consider race when creating district maps In this case, Louisiana has adopted a new districting map, adding a second majority-Black district to the state. The state is being accused of violating the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ordered briefing on, as the order phrased it, 'Whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' Navigating race in the districting process poses a unique challenge. States cannot create districts based solely on race, for fear of violating the equal protection clause, but they also fear that they will run afoul of the Voting Rights Act if they take a colorblind approach. However, the Supreme Court may rule that all race-based considerations in districting are unconstitutional, alleviating the burden on states to navigate the narrow space left by these two forces. They would be justified in doing so. Opinion: I'm a Democrat who left Texas. New GOP maps will silence Latino voters. The Supreme Court has made it clear in recent cases that they are skeptical of any policy dealing with group characteristics rather than individuals. Justice Clarence Thomas has called the practice of race-based redistricting in response to general past discrimination 'utterly divorced from the sort of 'specific, identified instances of past discrimination' that this Court demands to justify a race-based remedy. Nor is a race-conscious approach reflective of modern times, compared with those at the time of the Voting Rights Act's passage in 1965. Multiple Supreme Court justices have lamented race-based remedial solutions that have no end point. Some have suggested that race-conscious practices can be employed to address specific injustices in their aftermath, but that such programs must have an end point. Six decades later, proponents of race-based considerations in the districting process would have these guidelines in place for eternity. It's understandable why explicit mandates based on race might have been a necessary evil in the 1960s, but the systematic discrimination that spurred the need for such requirements is now long in the past. Race-based districting makes no sense In Louisiana v. Callais, in particular, the facts are particularly egregious. In a desperate quest to create an additional majority minority district, Louisiana has created a monstrosity of a district, stretching across the majority of the state's width and height in order to group together as many Black people as possible. Situations like these demonstrate how overemphasis on race can lead to the neglect of other factors vital to districting, such as compactness and continuity. Opinion: Do you think the Supreme Court is partisan? Well you're wrong. Race should not prevail over other important considerations. A cluster of neighboring counties with similar regional struggles has more in common than two majority-Black cities on opposite sides of a state. Considering race inherently means discrimination in the sense that you believe skin color is an important factor in vote choice. It should go without saying, but explicit attempts to minimize the impact of minority voters in elections also run afoul of these principles as well. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Race isn't any more important in districting considerations than any other characteristic that correlates with voting patterns. Districting based on race makes little more sense than grouping together people of a certain income level, education level, age range or any other group that can be thought of as having some form of collective interests. The assumption that minority groups themselves are a cohesive voting unit is one rooted in past trends, but in a misunderstanding of where the end point of racial progress ought to be. The goal of districting with regard to race is not that each racial group has its own unique form of representation; rather, it is that race, in the end, is no longer a meaningful differentiation in voting patterns. It is inevitably prejudiced to assume that race is a valuable determining factor in vote choice. There is little reason to believe that a White person put into the exact same upbringing as someone from any specific minority group would have any different voting tendencies. Race may correlate with vote patterns, but it tells you absolutely nothing valuable about an individual. Even if grouping individuals based on race is intended to achieve equal representation, it may run afoul of equal protection. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
What Supreme Court Justices Said About Gerrymandering
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause is facing renewed scrutiny amid a political standoff in Texas, where Democrats have fled the state to block Republican-backed redistricting maps. Critics argue that the ruling, which bars federal courts from reviewing partisan gerrymandering claims, has emboldened aggressive map-drawing that diminishes minority representation. Why It Matters The ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause removed federal courts as a check on partisan gerrymandering, leaving disputes to state courts and legislatures. In states such as Texas, where one party controls the map-drawing process, this can significantly shape election outcomes, potentially diluting minority voting power and limiting fair representation in Congress. The current standoff highlights how the decision has emboldened partisan redistricting strategies, raising broader concerns about the balance of power in American democracy. What To Know The Supreme Court's Role In Rucho, the court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear claims of partisan gerrymandering. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that "such claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," arguing that there is no constitutional standard to judge them. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the opinion. In a sharp dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the court's refusal to intervene would imperil the foundations of democracy. Joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan wrote: "Of all times to abandon the Court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one." Kagan argued that the court's withdrawal from redistricting disputes allowed lawmakers to choose their voters instead of the other way around. The ruling left redistricting battles to state courts and legislatures. While Roberts acknowledged that extreme gerrymandering was "incompatible with democratic principles," he maintained that political remedies, rather than federal judicial intervention, were the proper response. The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2023. The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, Is Gerrymandering? Gerrymandering occurs when political leaders manipulate voting district boundaries to benefit their party. Here's how it works: Imagine your neighborhood is evenly split between two political parties. Instead of drawing fair, competitive districts, lawmakers can manipulate boundaries so one party's voters are grouped together ("packing") or split apart across multiple districts ("cracking"). This makes it much harder for the other party to win seats—even if they receive as many overall votes. For everyday people, this means your vote might not count as much as it should. A community could be divided in a way that weakens its political voice, leaving voters with leaders who don't reflect their priorities on issues such as education, health care or taxes. In the long run, it can lock in one party's power for years, reducing accountability and limiting real choice at the ballot box. Recent Reaction in Texas On Tuesday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott petitioned the state Supreme Court to remove Houston Representative Gene Wu from office, citing the Democrat's role in leading fellow lawmakers in a quorum-breaking protest over redistricting. Abbott said in a news release about the petition, "There must be consequences." Wu and dozens of Democrats left for Illinois on Sunday to block a vote on a GOP-backed congressional map that seeks to strengthen Republican control in Washington, arguing that without federal oversight, partisan map-drawing could undermine fair representation for Black and Latino voters. What People Are Saying Texas Governor Greg Abbott, addressing lawmakers who fled the state, said: "I made clear in a formal statement on Sunday, August 3, that if the Texas House Democrats were not in attendance when the House reconvened at 3 p.m. on Monday, August 4, then action would be taken to seek their removal. They have not returned and have not met the quorum requirements. "Representative Wu and the other Texas House Democrats have shown a willful refusal to return, and their absence for an indefinite period of time deprives the House of the quorum needed to meet and conduct business on behalf of Texans." State Representative Gene Wu, the House Democratic Caucus chair, said in a statement: "Denying the governor a quorum was not an abandonment of my office; it was a fulfillment of my oath. Unable to defend his corrupt agenda on its merits, Greg Abbott now desperately seeks to silence my dissent by removing a duly-elected official from office." He added: "History will judge this moment." Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned on Tuesday that if Abbott succeeded: "We do not have a democracy anymore. … And if the state of Texas has any law left in it, the Court will immediately dismiss this farce." What Happens Next With federal courts barred from hearing partisan gerrymandering claims, any legal challenges to Texas' redistricting maps are expected to play out in state courts. While plaintiffs may invoke state constitutional protections or the federal Voting Rights Act, voting rights advocates warn that without federal oversight, states could pursue increasingly aggressive gerrymandering strategies. As Texas moves forward with its redistricting plans, the Rucho decision and the ideological divide it revealed continue to shape the national conversation about voting rights, representation and the role of the judiciary in protecting democratic norms.
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
Philippine Senate Shelves Impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte
Vice President Sara Duterte of the Philippines moved one step closer to defeating the impeachment case against her on Wednesday, after the Senate voted to put on hold a trial that could have led to her removal. The Senate voted 19-4 to archive the impeachment complaint against Ms. Duterte, which had been approved by the lower house. Though the Senate can still hold a trial later, the possibility is diminishing. Last month the Supreme Court found the impeachment proceedings were unconstitutional, which influenced the Senate vote. In a statement last week, Ms. Duterte called the charges an abuse by the House. It was the latest sign that Ms. Duterte, who was impeached in February, and her party, once led by her father, former President Rodrigo Duterte, is emerging from this political storm stronger than most experts expected. In May elections, candidates endorsed by the Dutertes won more seats in both chambers of Congress. That was a show of strength for Ms. Duterte, who has made no secret of her intention to succeed President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., her former ally. In the Philippines, as in the United States, the Senate tries and convicts an official impeached by the House of Representatives. The House voted in February to impeach Ms. Duterte and accused her of misusing public funds and making threats to assassinate Mr. Marcos, his wife, and Speaker Martin Romualdez of the House. Ms. Duterte and Mr. Marcos, also the child of a former president, ran on the same ticket in 2022, winning in a landslide on the combined popularity of their two families. Their alliance quickly crumbled as the House, where allies of Mr. Marcos hold a slim majority, opened probes into the vice president's budget. The feud reached a peak in March, when the Marcos administration arrested Mr. Duterte and handed him over to the International Criminal Court to face charges of crimes against humanity for thousands of deaths during his war on drugs. Mr. Duterte is in prison awaiting trial at The Hague. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
