Latest news with #Ballotpedia
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Gina Ortiz Jones, lesbian and military vet, elected mayor of San Antonio
Gina Ortiz Jones, a lesbian and military veteran who served in President Joe Biden's administration, has been elected mayor of San Antonio, the second-largest city in Texas and seventh-largest in the U.S. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. Jones beat Rolando Pablos, a former Texas secretary of state, in a runoff election Saturday. The margin was 54.3 percent to 45.7 percent, according to Ballotpedia. They advanced to the runoff because no candidate out of 27 in the May 3 general election received a majority of the vote. In the general election, Jones led with 27.2 percent and Pablos came in second with 16.6 percent. The current mayor, Ron Nirenberg, could not run again due to term limits. Races for mayor and other city positions in San Antonio are officially nonpartisan, but this election was partisan in practice. Jones emphasized her affiliation with the Democratic Party, while Pablos, who was elected secretary of state as a Republican, highlighted his ties to leading Republicans such as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. RELATED: Jones was undersecretary of the Air Force during the Biden administration; she was the first lesbian, second member of the LGBTQ+ community, and first woman of color (she's Filipina American) to serve in the post. She twice ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House as a Democrat. She was an intelligence officer in the Air Force and was deployed to Iraq during the war there, serving under 'don't ask, don't tell.' After leaving the Air Force, she worked for the federal government as an adviser on intelligence and trade, with agencies including the Defense Intelligence Agency and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. She left government service six months into Donald Trump's first term. In the mayoral race, 'she campaigned on her plans to expand early-childhood education to more children and increase affordable housing and work programs for unskilled workers,' The New York Times reports. 'San Antonio showed up and showed out,' she told supporters Saturday night after the results came in. 'We reminded them that our city is about compassion and it's about leading with everybody in mind. … So I look forward to being a mayor for all.' RELATED: Lesbian Gina Ortiz Jones Wants to Be Texas's First Out Congress Member Two other cities among the largest 10 in the nation have had LGBTQ+, specifically lesbian, mayors. Annise Parker was mayor of Texas's largest city, Houston, from 2010 to 2016. Until recently, she was president and CEO of the LGBTQ+ Victory Fund. Houston is the fourth-largest city in the U.S. Another lesbian, Lori Lightfoot, was mayor of Chicago, the third-largest, from 2019 to 2023. Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson hailed Jones's victory, releasing this statement: 'Every one of us deserves leaders who value equality and will fight to ensure that we can live freely without fear of discrimination. Gina Ortiz Jones is that leader. That's why HRC was proud to make calls and knock doors to help mobilize Equality Voters in San Antonio and put her over the finish line. Her win isn't just exciting, it's historic; as the first ever openly LGBTQ+ mayor of San Antonio during a time of ceaseless attacks on our community, Gina is emblematic of the resilience, strength, and joy that our community has already used to thrive in challenging times. We can't wait to see her get to work tackling the problems that are impacting our neighbors, families and coworkers and standing up for the rights and safety of every San Antonian.' Evan Low, president and CEO of LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, which endorsed Jones, issued this statement: 'Gina Ortiz-Jones is LGBTQ+ Victory Fund family, and we are proud to see her rise to lead America's seventh-largest city as mayor. As a veteran, her service reflects the estimated 1 million LGBTQ+ veterans who have contributed to our nation with honor, distinction, and an unyielding warrior spirit. San Antonio voters made the right call by sending Gina to City Hall, not only making history but selecting a candidate who is driven to make lives better in her hometown.' Jones will be sworn in June 18 for a four-year term.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Elon Musk to launch the America Party amidst Trump feud: How many political parties exist in the US?
They might have parted ways, but thanks to the bitter (sans the 'sweet') ending, Elon Musk isn't ready to back down. America's most prominent power couple has called it quits – and that's all anyone is talking about for the last few days, courtesy, Elon Musk and Donald Trump 's very public fallout. Post the breakup, Musk is not only calling out Trump on social media like a hurt teenager, but he is also washing the dirty laundry out in the open. However, instead of charting the road most taken and asking for alimony, Musk is setting up shop for his own venture – his latest being a new political party. The America Party. What is the America Party? The Tesla CEO, in a surprising and bold move, has floated a new party – 'The America Party' – following his public feud with the US President, after his poll on X received support from at least 80% of respondents. After Musk and Trump engaged in a heated spat, the Tesla CEO created a new poll on his X platform, asking whether it was time to create a new political party in America. He revealed the results recently, showing 80% support from respondents. To start it from the top, the idea for the America Party was first introduced by Musk on his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), where he conducted a poll asking his followers if it was time to create a new political party that represents the 80% of Americans in the political center. The poll garnered over 5.6 million responses, with more than 80% supporting the initiative. Musk has time and again expressed dissatisfaction with both the Democratic and Republican parties, suggesting that they no longer serve the interests of the majority of Americans. In that context, it is clear that Musk envisions the America Party as a centrist alternative that prioritizes pragmatic solutions over partisan ideologies. Needless to say, if the idea of the America Party is actualized, this could signal a potential shift in the American political landscape. Moreover, the timing of this proposal is significant, coinciding with an escalating feud between Musk and Trump. The conflict began when Musk criticized Trump's $2.4 trillion tax and spending bill, labeling it fiscally irresponsible. In response, Trump threatened to cut federal contracts with Musk's companies, leading to a public exchange of barbs between the two. Musk has since suggested that the America Party could serve as a viable alternative to the current political establishment. How many political parties are there in the US? Beyond the bipartisanship of the Democratic and Republican parties, the United States boasts a diverse array of political parties. According to Ballotpedia, there are at least 55 distinct ballot-qualified political parties across the nation, with a total of 238 state-level parties. These parties vary in size, influence, and geographic reach. While the Democratic and Republican parties are recognized in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., several other parties have established significant presences in multiple states: Libertarian Party: Recognized in 38 states, the Libertarian Party advocates for minimal government intervention in both personal and economic matters. Green Party: With recognition in 23 states, the Green Party emphasizes environmental issues, social justice, and anti-corporate policies. Constitution Party: Present in 12 states, this party promotes a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and advocates for limited government. These parties often serve as alternatives for voters seeking options outside the traditional two-party system. In addition to the major third parties, numerous other political organizations operate within specific states or on a national level: Alliance Party: A center-left party formed in 2019, the Alliance Party focuses on anti-corruption, electoral reform, and social justice issues. Natural Law Party: Founded in 1992, this party advocates for policies based on Transcendental Meditation and holistic health principles. American Solidarity Party: Established in 2011, the American Solidarity Party promotes Christian democracy, emphasizing social justice and environmental stewardship. These parties, while smaller in scale, contribute to the political diversity of the United States. Challenges faced by the third parties Despite their presence, third parties encounter significant challenges in gaining electoral success. The US electoral system, characterized by single-member districts and a "first-past-the-post" voting method, tends to favor a two-party system. This structure makes it difficult for third-party candidates to win elections and secure legislative representation. Moreover, third parties often face obstacles such as limited media coverage, reduced access to campaign financing, and restrictive ballot access laws. These barriers can hinder their ability to compete effectively in elections. However, Musk's party – if he chooses to form one – might chart a different path for itself. Given his massive wealth at disposal for political campaigns, his grasp over social media and its technological tools, the America Party – if formed – might actually succeed to leave its footprints, although the success of such an initiative would depend on overcoming significant structural and logistical barriers, as well as garnering widespread support across the political spectrum. As the United States has a complex electoral system, with ballot access laws varying significantly from state to state, making it to the electoral politics right at this moment might not be a possible feat to achieve, even for Musk. Elon Musk's Big Warning In Retaliation To Trump; 'SpaceX Will Decommission Dragon Spacecraft'
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Texas Lawmakers Crush Most Red Flag Firearm Regulations
(Texas Scorecard) – Lawmakers in the Texas House have approved a measure to preemptively prohibit the state from adopting most firearm-related red flag laws. Senate Bill 1362, filed by State Sen. Bryan Hughes (R–Mineola) in the Senate and carried by State Rep. Cole Hefner (R–Mount Pleasant) in the House, was finally passed in an 86-53-1 vote on Wednesday. The measure would disallow judges from issuing most extreme risk protection orders, also known as 'red flag' orders or ERPOs, which prevent an individual from owning or purchasing a firearm during legal proceedings. It would also bar local jurisdictions from accepting federal funding to implement or enforce an ERPO. An individual found to be in violation could receive a state jail felony conviction. Under the measure, the only instances in which a judge could prevent an individual from owning or purchasing a gun during legal proceedings would be in certain firearm-related cases or through existing protective orders. While Texas courts currently do not issue ERPOs, the measure is intended to prevent the practice, as an increasing number of states have begun to adopt it. According to Ballotpedia, as of May 2025, 21 states—including California, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, and New York—have explicitly enacted laws authorizing courts to issue ERPOs. SB 1362 'reinforces Texas' commitment to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens, while ensuring due process for all Texans,' Hefner said Tuesday when laying out the measure on the floor. State Rep. Wes Virdell (R–Brady) shared a story about law enforcement officers in Maryland who visited 61-year-old Gary J. Willis' house in the early morning to confiscate his firearms with 'no actual evidence or due process.' The visit took a turn after Willis resisted the officers. He was shot and died from his injuries. Virdell also cited research from the RAND Corporation that summarized various studies on the effectiveness of ERPOs. Overall, the evidence showed inconclusive effectiveness. After a lengthy point of order, House Democrats proposed a slate of amendments that ultimately failed, including several by State Rep. Vikki Goodwin (D–Austin) seeking to create new exceptions and strike certain provisions. The only amendment eventually approved was one by Hefner clarifying that existing domestic violence protective orders preventing the purchase or ownership of firearms are not at risk under SB 1362. State Rep. Erin Zwiener (D–Driftwood) questioned Hefner about the necessity of passing the measure. 'So, I think as I understand it, right now, it would take a law by the State of Texas—us passing a law—for there to be extreme risk protective orders. And after this bill is passed, it would take a law from the State of Texas for us to have extreme risk protective orders,' said Zwiener. 'Well, a rational person would see it that way,' responded Hefner. 'But I do believe we've seen many cities and judges and prosecutors skirt the law, manipulate it, or work around it, come up with new things that we have to come down here and chase after them to try to rein them back in.' The measure will now be sent back to senators, who are expected to concur with the limited changes ultimately approved by representatives. Senators initially passed SB 1362 in late March. Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt told Texas Scorecard that lawmakers' passage of the measure was 'long overdue and will help further protect Texans from future anti-gun administrations in D.C.' He also thanked Hughes, Hefner, State Rep. Briscoe Cain (R–Deer Park), and House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R–Lubbock) for helping to push SB 1362 across the finish line.
Forbes
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Deepfakes Are Spreading — Can The Law Keep Up?
A comparison of an original and deepfake video of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. (Elyse Samuels/The ... More Washington Post via Getty Images) When an explicit AI-generated video of Taylor Swift went viral in January, platforms were slow to take it down, and the law offered no clear answers. With the lack of an organized regulatory structure in place for victims — famous or not — states are scrambling to fill in the void, some targeting political ads, others cracking down on pornographic content or identity fraud. That has led to a patchwork of laws enforced differently across jurisdictions drawing varying lines between harm and protected speech. In April, prosecutors in Pennsylvania invoked a newly enacted law to charge a man in possession of 29 AI-generated images of child sexual abuse — one of the first known uses of a state law to prosecute synthetic child abuse imagery. What began as a fringe concern straight out of dystopian fiction — that software could persuasively mimic faces, voices and identities — is now a predominant issue in legal, political and national security debates. Just this year, over 25 deepfake-related bills have been enacted across the U.S., according to Ballotpedia. As laws finally begin to narrow the gap, the resistance and pushback is also escalating. Consumer-grade diffusion models — used to create realistic media of people, mimic political figures for misinformation and facilitate identity fraud — are spreading through servers and subreddits with a virality and scale that's making it difficult for regulators to track, legislate upon and take down. 'We almost have to create our own army,' said Laurie Segall, CEO of Mostly Human Media. 'That army includes legislation, laws and accountability at tech companies, and unfortunately, victims speaking up about how this is real abuse.' 'It's not just something that happens online,' added Segall. 'There's a real impact offline.' Many recent laws pertain directly to the accessibility of the technology. Tennessee's new felony statute criminalizes the creation and dissemination of nonconsensual sexual deepfakes, carrying up to 15 years in prison. In California, where a record eight bills on AI-generated content passed in a single month, legislators have been attempting to regulate a wide range of related issues, from election-related deepfakes to how Hollywood uses deepfake technology. These measures also reflect the increasing use of AI-generated imagery in crimes, often involving minors, and often on mainstream platforms, but the legal terrain remains a confusing minefield for victims. Depending on the state, the same deepfake image might be criminal in one jurisdiction but dismissed in another, indicating the growing chaos and discrepencies of state-level governance in the absence of federal standards. 'A young woman whose Instagram profile photo has been used to generate an explicit image would likely have legal recourse in California, but not Texas,' notes researcher Kaylee Williams. 'If the resulting image isn't considered realistic, it may be deemed criminal in Indiana, but not in Idaho or New Hampshire.' If the person who generated the image claims to have done so out of 'affection' rather than malice, the victim could seek justice in Florida, but not Virginia, Williams adds. Intimate deepfakes are the latest iteration of the dehumanization of women and girls in the digital sphere, states Williams, calling it 'a rampant problem that Congress has thus far refused to meaningly address.' According to a recent study by child exploitation prevention nonprofit Thorn, one in 10 teens say they know someone who had deepfake nude imagery created of them, while one in 17 say they have been a direct victim of this form of abuse. The harm also remains perniciously consistent: a 2019 study from cybersecurity firm Deeptrace found that a whopping 96% of online deepfake video content was of nonconsensual pornography. Despite the widespread harm, the recent legislative push has met with notable resistance. In California, a lawsuit filed last fall by right-wing content creator Chris Kohls — known as Mr Reagon on X — drew support from The Babylon Bee, Rumble and Elon Musk's X. Kohls challenged the state's enforcement of a deepfake law after posting an AI-generated video parodying a Harris campaign ad, arguing that the First Amendment protects his speech as satire. The plaintiffs contend that laws targeting political deepfakes, particularly those aimed at curbing election misinformation, risk silencing legitimate satire and expression. A federal judge agreed, at least partially, issuing an injunction that paused enforcement of one of the California laws, warning that it 'acts as a hammer instead of a scalpel.' Theodore Frank, an attorney for Kohls, said in a statement they were 'gratified that the district court agreed with our analysis.' Meanwhile, Musk's X in April filed a separate suit against Minnesota over a similar measure, contending that the law infringes on constitutional rights and violates federal and state free speech protections. 'This system will inevitably result in the censorship of wide swaths of valuable political speech and commentary,' the lawsuit states. 'Rather than allow covered platforms to make their own decisions about moderation of the content at issue here, it authorizes the government to substitute its judgment for those of the platforms,' it argues. This tug-of-war remains a contentious topic in Congress. On May 22, the House of Representatives passed the 'One Big Beautiful' bill which includes a sweeping 10-year federal moratorium on state-level AI laws. Legal scholar and Emory University professor Jessica Roberts says Americans are entirely left vulnerable without state involvement. 'AI and related technologies are a new frontier, where our existing law can be a poor fit,' said Roberts. 'With the current congressional gridlock, disempowering states will effectively leave AI unregulated for a decade. That gap creates risks — including bias, invasions of privacy and widespread misinformation.' Meanwhile, earlier this month, President Trump signed the Take It Down Act, which criminalizes the distribution of non-consensual explicit content — including AI-generated images — and mandates rapid takedown protocols by platforms. It passed with broad bipartisan support, but its enforcement mechanisms remain unclear at best. Financial institutions are increasingly sounding the alarm over identity fraud. In a speech in March, Michael S. Barr of the Federal Reserve warned that 'deepfake technology has the potential to supercharge impersonation fraud and synthetic identity scams.' There's merit to that: In 2024, UK-based engineering giant Arup was defrauded out of $25 million via a deepfake video call with what appeared to be a legitimate senior executive. And last summer, Ferrari executives reportedly received WhatsApp voice messages mimicking their CEO's voice, down to the regional dialect. Against that evolving threat landscape, the global regulatory conversation remains a hot-button issue with no clear consensus. In India, where deepfakes currently slip through glaring legal lacunae, there is growing demand for targeted legislation. The European Union's AI Act takes a more unified approach, classifying deepfakes as high-risk and mandating clear labeling. China has gone even further, requiring digital watermarks on synthetic media and directing platforms to swiftly remove harmful content — part of its broader strategy of centralized content control. However, enforcement across the board continues to be difficult and elusive, especially when the source code is public, servers are offshore, perpetrators operate anonymously and the ecosystem continues to enable rampant harm. In Iowa, Dubuque County Sheriff Joseph L. Kennedy was reportedly dealing with a local case where high school boys shared AI-generated explicit pictures of their female classmates. The tech was rudimentary, but worked enough to cause serious reputational damage. 'Sometimes, it just seems like we're chasing our tails,' Kennedy told the New York Times. That sense of disarray may also be relevant to regulators as they look to govern a future whose rules are being constantly written — and rewritten — in code. In many ways, the deepfake issue appears increasingly Kafkaesque: a bewildering maze of shifting identities, elusive culprits, a tech bureaucracy sprawling beyond regulatory reach — and laws that are always lagging at least a few steps behind.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
DOJ cutting American Bar Association access to judicial nominees
Attorney General Pam Bondi told the American Bar Association (ABA) Thursday that the Trump administration would no longer cooperate as the organization vets its judicial nominees. In a letter, the Department of Justice (DOJ) accuses the bar association of failing to 'fix the bias in its rating process,' a claim that follows the organization labeling some of President Trump's nominees as unqualified for the bench. 'Unfortunately, the ABA no longer functions as a fair arbiter of nominees' qualifications, and its ratings invariably and demonstrably favor nominees put forth by Democratic administrations,' Bondi wrote in the letter to ABA President William Bay. 'Accordingly, while the ABA is free to comment on judicial nominations along with other activist organizations, there is no justification for treating the ABA differently from such other activist organizations and the Department of Justice will not do so. Specifically, the Office of Legal Policy will no longer direct nominees to provide waivers allowing the ABA access to non-public information, including bar records. Nominees will also not respond to questionnaires prepared by the ABA and will not sit for interviews with the ABA,' she added. The ABA did not respond to a request for comment. The White House took a similar stance during Trump's first term in office. According to Ballotpedia, the ABA rated 264 of Trump's nominees: 187 were rated 'well-qualified,' 67 were rated 'qualified,' and 10 were rated 'not qualified.' Though a small figure, that stands in contrast with other recent administrations, which had at most three unqualified picks during their time in office. The Trump administration has taken a number of actions targeting the ABA. An executive order from Trump directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to consider whether to suspend the ABA's role as a law school accreditor. The organization also sued over the stripping of grant funding that limited its training programs abroad, as well as another at the Justice Department for victims of domestic and sexual violence. In the DOJ case, the judge found the targeting of the ABA violated the group's first amendment rights. 'The government does not meaningfully contest the merits of the ABA's First Amendment retaliation claim. It points to no deficiencies in the ABA's performance of its grant obligations,' Judge Christopher Cooper, a former President Obama appointee, wrote in the opinion. 'It concedes that similar grants administered by other organizations remain in place. It agrees that bringing a lawsuit is protected by the First Amendment. And it suggests no other cause for the cancellation apart from the sentiments expressed by Deputy Attorney General [Todd] Blanche in his memorandum,' he added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
