Why a vote dispute in North Carolina should worry Americans
IT WAS almost a normal concession. On May 7th Jefferson Griffin, a Republican candidate for a North Carolina Supreme Court seat, thanked his family for giving 'a lot to this campaign' and said he would pray for his opponent's success. But the timing of the statement was unusual. It came a full six months and two days after election day.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Why Trump could be the X factor in New Jersey: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. In today's edition, Steve Kornacki looks ahead to the general election in New Jersey after last night's gubernatorial primaries. Peter Nichols previews this weekend's military parade in Washington, which occurs against the backdrop of immigration protests around the country. And Andrea Mitchell examines the ripple effects of the new travel ban. — Adam Wollner The Trump factor looms over New Jersey's newly set race for governor By Steve Kornacki The matchup for New Jersey's gubernatorial election is set, but looming over the contest will be a name that won't be on any ballot: Donald Trump. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who secured the Democratic nomination in Tuesday's primary, is already running ads that attack Republican Jack Ciattarelli for his ties to the president. Ciattarelli, who was also the GOP's nominee in 2021, romped to victory in his party's primary after successfully cultivating Trump's support. In focusing on Trump, Democrats have history on their side. New Jersey voters have a strong tendency to elect governors from the party that doesn't control the White House. This has been the case in all but two races over the past four decades. Plus, Democrats have run this playbook successfully in New Jersey before. Eight years ago, during Trump's first term, Gov. Phil Murphy scored a 14-point win over Republican Kim Guadagno. Murphy sought to tie Guadagno to Trump, whose approval rating in New Jersey that fall stood at just 33%. (Murphy was also aided by the cratering popularity of outgoing Republican Gov. Chris Christie.) Republicans are counting on the Trump factor playing differently this time around. And, at least for now, there are some key variables they can point to with optimism. One is the result of last year's presidential race, when Trump lost New Jersey by 6 points to Kamala Harris. That was a far cry from his 16-point loss in 2020 and his 14-point defeat in 2016. From the outset of the 2017 gubernatorial race, it was obvious that Trump would be a major electoral liability for the GOP. That's not as clear this time around. In fact, a PIX11/Emerson College poll conducted a few weeks ago showed Trump with a 47% job approval rating in New Jersey. That's far higher than he fared during the 2017 campaign, or for that matter, at any point during his first term. It's also higher than the 40% approval rating for Murphy, who is term-limited and provides Ciattarelli with his own opportunity to tie his opponent to an unpopular leader. There's also some history Republicans can point to. Democrats have controlled the New Jersey governorship for two consecutive terms now, with Sherrill seeking to make it three. This is the fifth time since 1981 that one of the two parties has tried for a third straight term. They all failed. Bridget Bowman and Ben Kamisar have five key takeaways from Tuesday's results. Adam Noboa breaks down how each of the candidates in the crowded Democratic field fared on their home turf. Julie Tsirkin, Olympia Sonnier and Bridget explore how Ciattarelli is now attempting to pivot to the general election. By Peter Nicholas President Donald Trump is getting the parade he wanted showcasing America's military power — but he'll also be getting mass protests exposing the nation's partisan divisions. The tanks and artillery launchers rolling through Washington on Saturday will honor the Army's 250th anniversary, which falls on the day Trump turns 79. But in Washington and in all 50 states, organizers are scheduled to stage protests that could dwarf the parade in size. A coalition of pro-democracy, labor and liberal activists is arranging a full day of counterprogramming to make the case that Trump is hijacking the Army celebration to venerate himself. The parade is happening at a fraught moment when Trump has drawn the military — among the nation's most trusted institutions — into a tense standoff in Los Angeles over his aggressive efforts to deport people living in the United States illegally. The Trump administration this week activated about 700 Marines to help quell demonstrations over his immigration enforcement methods, despite warnings from California officials that he is inflaming the situation. ICE is preparing to deploy its Special Response Teams to five cities run by Democratic leaders, according to two sources familiar with the planning of the future operations. The Trump administration is telling immigration judges — who report to the executive branch and are not part of the independent judiciary — to dismiss pending cases as a tactic for speeding up arrests. During an interview with NBC's 'Nightly News' anchor Tom Llamas, White House border czar Tom Homan said that protests in Los Angeles are making immigration raids more 'difficult' and more 'dangerous.' Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott said he'll deploy the National Guard across the state 'to ensure peace and order' ahead of a planned protest in San Antonio. California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom warned that 'democracy is under assault' in a speech blasting Trump's immigration tactics. A federal grand jury indicted Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., on charges stemming from a confrontation with law enforcement at an ICE detention center in Newark last month. The way Trump has responded to protests in California is very different than how he treated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. By Andrea Mitchell Little noticed amid the uproar over the ICE raids in Los Angeles this week is the imposition of a travel ban 2.0 — a retooled version of President Donald Trump's first-term policy, modified to avoid legal challenges. 'We want to keep bad people out of our country,' Trump said. The last time around, the Trump White House had to rewrite the proposed ban three times before it passed Supreme Court muster. This time, the administration released fact sheets to show they were singling out countries whose citizens had high rates of overstaying their visas or don't properly screen their citizens for terrorism, not because most of the 12 countries banned are in Africa or the Middle East — prompting accusations of racial motivation, which would be unconstitutional. While not facing immediate legal challenges, the decision to bar travelers from Afghanistan in particular is outraging many U.S. veterans, including Trump supporters, who say they could not have survived the war without their Afghan translators. They say the U.S. is abandoning its Afghan allies and their families, who are being attacked, imprisoned and, in some cases, tortured by the Taliban for their past association with the U.S. Shawn VanDiver, president of #AfghanEvac, a coalition of U.S. veterans and advocacy groups, told me: 'The Taliban has made it very clear through their actions, not their words, what's going to happen to them. We get photos and videos every week of people being hunted down and killed.' We met an Afghan man who worked as a translator with the U.S. military for seven years who we can't identify without putting his family at risk. He got a special visa to come to the U.S, became a citizen and enlisted in the Marines to return to Afghanistan for another tour in Helmand Province. He spent years trying to bring his siblings and aging parents to the U.S. from Afghanistan to escape retaliation. They were approved last December and told to prepare to travel within days. Now the travel ban has shut the door. He told me when Trump announced the ban, 'For the first week, I couldn't go to work. I laid in bed, I was shocked for a week.' He added, 'I want to see my parents. They're getting old and I feel so bad. I cannot forgive myself if they pass and I can't see them.' He blames himself. But critics of the travel ban say it's the U.S. that went back on its word — something they warn future allies will remember when America wants their help.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Brazil's top court forms majority to hold social media platforms accountable for users' posts
BRASILIA, June 11 (Reuters) - Brazil's Supreme Court formed a majority on Wednesday to hold social media companies accountable for the content published by users on their platforms in the country.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes
A Wisconsin watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk claiming that he unlawfully bribed voters with million dollar checks and $100 giveaways in the state's latest Supreme Court election. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — a non-partisan, nonprofit organization that investigates election transparency — along with two Wisconsin voters, filed the suit against Musk, his super PAC America PAC, and another Musk-owned entity called the United States of America Inc.. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Musk and his entities violated state laws that prohibit vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries. It also accuses Musk of conducting civil conspiracy and acting as a public nuisance. Musk and America PAC did not respond to a request for comment. 'In the context of an election for Wisconsin's highest court, election bribery—providing more than $1 to induce electors (that is, voters) to vote— undermines voters' faith in the validity of the electoral system and the independence of the judiciary,' the suit reads. The complaint alleges that Musk violated state laws giving away $100 to voters who signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges' and handing out million dollar checks to those who signed the petition. and The suit says that those who had won the checks had voted for candidate Brad Schimel. At a town hall in Green Bay, Musk gave away million dollar checks to two different people, both of which the suit claims voted for Schimel. In a video America PAC posted on X, one of the winners said he had voted for Schimel and encouraged others to do the same. 'Everyone needs to do what I just did, sign the petition, refer your friends, and go out to vote for Brad Schimel,' the winner, Nicholas Jacobs, said in the video. The suit mentions that Musk had said that the $1 million awards would be given 'in appreciation' for those 'taking the time to vote.' Despite Musk's America PAC spending over $12 million dollars on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford still won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin attorney general Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk for his involvement in the state Supreme Court election, but a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing. A Pennsylvania judge similarly declined a request to block Musk's million-dollar giveaways in the state. During the presidential election, Musk's America PAC had also given out million dollar checks to people registered to vote in swing states, which the Justice Department had warned could be illegal. Musk defended his giveaways during the presidential election despite the allegations of unlawfulness by saying that those who signed the petition weren't given the money as a prize and that chance 'was not involved here.' Those who signed the petition were instead America PAC spokespeople with the 'opportunity to earn' $1 million. 'Make no mistake: an eligible voter's opportunity to earn is not the same thing as a chance to win,' Musk said, according to Reuters. Jeff Mendel, the co-founder of Law Forward — the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — said in an interview with NBC News that this lawsuit has the advantage of additional time. 'The election is over. Some passions have cooled, and we are bringing this in a normal posture, asking the court to go through its normal procedure,' Mendel said. 'We are confident that we'll get a complete and fair adjudication.' The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's lawsuit also seeks to bar Musk from 'replicating any such unlawful conduct in relation to future Wisconsin elections.' 'Almost everyone who was watching closely or saw what was happening here in Wisconsin in that very tight period was pretty horrified, and would say things like, 'Well, this can't possibly be legal,' or 'he can't possibly get away with this,'' Mendel said. 'That's really the purpose of this lawsuit, is to make sure that a court does say — in accord with both the law and, I think people across the political spectrums intuition — that this is not legal conduct, this is not consistent with how our democracy works, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.'
