Latest news with #Bill487
Black America Web
02-06-2025
- Politics
- Black America Web
Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana
Source: Mario Tama / Getty One of the most innocuous yet insidious ways voter suppression rears its head is through redistricting, a process by which a state legislature draws up voting maps along political lines. Despite a federal judge finding that their current legislative map violates the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana lawmakers have rejected a new map that would've included eight new, majority Black districts. The Louisiana Illuminator reports that Bill 487 and Bill 488, which would've redrawn the legislative maps for the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, were struck down in a 9-6 and 9-5 vote that fell along party lines. The current maps were drawn in 2022 and utilized census data from 2010, despite the fact that the state's Black population has only increased over the last decade. Black voters make up a third of Louisiana's population, but the current voting maps only have one majority Black district. Rep. Edmond Jordan (D-Baton Rouge), ithe chairman of the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus, authored both bills. He explained the changes were necessary to address a ruling by a federal judge last year that found the current map disenfranchised Black voters. 'By us not upholding our obligation and redrawing these maps … I think it sends a signal that we are unwilling to do so,' Jordan told his fellow legislators. 'Rather than wait on the court to come up with a decision, I think it's incumbent upon us to get ahead of that and maybe draw these maps and show the court that we're willing to comply with Section 2' of the Voting Rights Act. The Republican opposition explained that they didn't feel the need to update the maps as the ruling is currently under appeal, and they believe that the courts will rule in their favor. They also brought up concerns that the new district lines would require current elected officials to move in order to still represent their district or possibly have to run against another incumbent to maintain their seat in the legislature. Jordan understood those concerns but stated his priority was giving Black voters an equal voice in determining who represents them. 'What we're trying to do is attempt to unpack and uncrack these districts so that they would comply with Section 2,' Jordan said. Source: Juan Silva / Getty From the Louisiana Illuminator: Packing is a type of gerrymandering that forces a large number of voters from one group into a single or small number of districts to weaken their power in other districts. Cracking dilutes the power of those voters into many districts. Jordan's plan would have added new majority Black House districts in Natchitoches, Lake Charles, Shreveport and Baton Rouge, and Black Senate districts in Baton Rouge, Shreveport and Jefferson Parish. In what can only be described as saying the quiet part out loud, state Republicans added that they found Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to be outdated. For clarity, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prevents any voting law or measure 'which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.' Considering that they're actively using legislative districts to curb the power of Black votes, it's clear Section 2 is still a necessity to maintain voting rights within majority Black communities. Redistricting is always a partisan affair, with the legislative map being drawn by whatever party has power. Far too often, though, the redistricting efforts by state Republicans are largely built around minimizing Black voting power to keep Republicans in office. This isn't only an issue in Louisiana, as several states have drawn legislative maps that explicitly undermine Black votes. Redistricting plans in the state of Texas are also facing legal challenges due to allegations of racism. There's an ongoing fight in Texas's Tarrant County over redistricting plans that several state legislators believe violate the Voting Rights Act, and there's currently a federal case underway against the Texas state government over its 2021 voting map that was believed to have 'diluted the power of minority voters.' One of the worst offenders is Alabama, whose redistricting efforts have been deemed racist by federal judges several times. State Republicans have said that if they don't receive a favorable ruling in their appeal on the decision, they won't update the voting map until 2030 to avoid federal oversight. There is nothing more on brand for the modern GOP than having a temper tantrum when being told to be less racist. If anything, this is a reminder that in America, the boring, procedural racism is often the worst kind. SEE ALSO: Poll Shows Companies Maintaing DEI Intiatives Have Better Reputations MIT Becomes Latest University To Back Away From DEI Initiatives SEE ALSO Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
8 States Changing Their Crypto Policies — Is Yours One of Them?
Unless you've been living under a rock, you've surely heard about cryptocurrency by now or have at least heard the term. Over the past several years, cryptocurrency has emerged as an alternative currency that can be bought and sold as a digital asset. While some have embraced crypto like President Trump, others have not and this includes some U.S. states. Read Next: For You: PYMNTS reported that since Trump took office for his second term, he's pushed the idea of creating a crypto reserve with plans to make the U.S. the capital of cryptocurrency. In March, Trump signed an executive order to create a 'Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.' The order mandates the establishment of a 'United States Digital Asset Stockpile' to serve as a secure account for the management of federally held digital assets. Discover Next: It's explained that the U.S. government currently holds a significant amount of Bitcoin (BTC), but has yet to implement a policy to maximize Bitcoin as a 'unique store of value in the global financial system.' Ultimately, Trump wants to harness the power of crypto to the country's advantage. While the president is taking action to make crypto a relevant store of value at the federal level, some states that initially set out to establish their own crypto reserves are walking back the idea. Some states had plans to allocate a percentage of their public funds to invest in Bitcoin. But now, these states are rejecting the proposed crypto legislation: Florida Arizona Montana North Dakota Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Dakota Wyoming For example, AInvest reported that a pair of bills proposed in Florida, House Bill 487 and Senate Bill 550, were created to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve at the state level. However, lawmakers are walking back their legislative efforts. Ultimately, the bills faced opposition and pushback before passage and were withdrawn. The state's legislative inaction could slow down the adoption and relevance of Bitcoin as a viable digital asset. In Arizona, similar crypto legislation made it further than it did in Florida. It passed both chambers of government, only to be vetoed by the state's governor. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs ultimately rejected legislation that planned to invest part of the state's retirement fund into Bitcoin. 'Arizonans' retirement funds are not the place for the state to try untested investments like virtual currency,' Hobbs wrote in a letter to the state senate president, as reported by PYMNTS. Mitrade explained that in Montana, the state's proposed Inflation Protection Act, which was passed by the House Business and Labor Committee, included the creation of a state Bitcoin reserve fund. However, the legislation was voted down by the full House; the final vote was 41 in favor and 59 against. The debate over the proposed bill included proponents who said it was a smart way to enhance state funds and opponents labeled the bill as speculative and a risky use of taxpayer money. Particularly at the state level, there is continued debate over whether cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are still considered speculative assets or not. While some digital assets have seen impressive gains, they can also be highly volatile and result in major losses (including Bitcoin). Establishing crypto reserves at the state level will require overcoming significant political opposition and regulatory challenges. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on Sources: PYMNTS, 'States Halting Efforts to Create Strategic Bitcoin Reserves.' The White House, 'Establishment of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile.' This article originally appeared on 8 States Changing Their Crypto Policies — Is Yours One of Them? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
8 States Changing Their Crypto Policies — Is Yours One of Them?
Unless you've been living under a rock, you've surely heard about cryptocurrency by now or have at least heard the term. Over the past several years, cryptocurrency has emerged as an alternative currency that can be bought and sold as a digital asset. While some have embraced crypto like President Trump, others have not and this includes some U.S. states. Read Next: For You: PYMNTS reported that since Trump took office for his second term, he's pushed the idea of creating a crypto reserve with plans to make the U.S. the capital of cryptocurrency. In March, Trump signed an executive order to create a 'Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.' The order mandates the establishment of a 'United States Digital Asset Stockpile' to serve as a secure account for the management of federally held digital assets. Discover Next: It's explained that the U.S. government currently holds a significant amount of Bitcoin (BTC), but has yet to implement a policy to maximize Bitcoin as a 'unique store of value in the global financial system.' Ultimately, Trump wants to harness the power of crypto to the country's advantage. While the president is taking action to make crypto a relevant store of value at the federal level, some states that initially set out to establish their own crypto reserves are walking back the idea. Some states had plans to allocate a percentage of their public funds to invest in Bitcoin. But now, these states are rejecting the proposed crypto legislation: Florida Arizona Montana North Dakota Oklahoma Pennsylvania South Dakota Wyoming For example, AInvest reported that a pair of bills proposed in Florida, House Bill 487 and Senate Bill 550, were created to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve at the state level. However, lawmakers are walking back their legislative efforts. Ultimately, the bills faced opposition and pushback before passage and were withdrawn. The state's legislative inaction could slow down the adoption and relevance of Bitcoin as a viable digital asset. In Arizona, similar crypto legislation made it further than it did in Florida. It passed both chambers of government, only to be vetoed by the state's governor. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs ultimately rejected legislation that planned to invest part of the state's retirement fund into Bitcoin. 'Arizonans' retirement funds are not the place for the state to try untested investments like virtual currency,' Hobbs wrote in a letter to the state senate president, as reported by PYMNTS. Mitrade explained that in Montana, the state's proposed Inflation Protection Act, which was passed by the House Business and Labor Committee, included the creation of a state Bitcoin reserve fund. However, the legislation was voted down by the full House; the final vote was 41 in favor and 59 against. The debate over the proposed bill included proponents who said it was a smart way to enhance state funds and opponents labeled the bill as speculative and a risky use of taxpayer money. Particularly at the state level, there is continued debate over whether cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are still considered speculative assets or not. While some digital assets have seen impressive gains, they can also be highly volatile and result in major losses (including Bitcoin). Establishing crypto reserves at the state level will require overcoming significant political opposition and regulatory challenges. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on Sources: PYMNTS, 'States Halting Efforts to Create Strategic Bitcoin Reserves.' The White House, 'Establishment of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile.' This article originally appeared on 8 States Changing Their Crypto Policies — Is Yours One of Them?
Business Mayor
07-05-2025
- Business
- Business Mayor
Florida scraps Bitcoin reserve bills as state-level crypto adoption faces setbacks
Florida's decision follows a broader trend of legislative setbacks surrounding Bitcoin reserve proposals. Similar bills have been shelved or blocked in states like Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Only 19 US states are still actively exploring legislation related to state Bitcoin reserves. Florida has withdrawn two key bills aimed at creating a state-level strategic Bitcoin (BTC) reserve, marking a significant pause in momentum for state-driven crypto investment efforts across the US. House Bill 487 and Senate Bill 550, both introduced in February 2025, have now been 'indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration,' according to the Florida Senate website. The bills had sought to authorize the use of public funds to invest in Bitcoin, signaling a potential shift in how state reserves are managed. With their withdrawal, Florida becomes the latest in a growing list of states backing away from formal crypto reserve legislation. Multiple states stall on BTC investment plans Florida's decision follows a broader trend of legislative setbacks surrounding Bitcoin reserve proposals. Similar bills have been shelved or blocked in states like Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. While many of these initiatives remain in early committee stages, few have progressed far enough to secure full legislative approval. Arizona had shown the most progress earlier this year with SB 1025, which passed a state House vote before being vetoed by Governor Katie Hobbs. The bill would have permitted investment of seized state funds into Bitcoin, representing the most advanced attempt at institutional BTC adoption at the state level. Despite the veto of SB 1025, Arizona is still considering SB 1373, a separate proposal that would allow up to 10% of state funds to be allocated to digital assets, including Bitcoin. However, that bill has yet to reach a final vote, and its fate remains uncertain amid growing legislative caution. Is Bitcoin legislation losing steam nationwide? According to data from Bitcoin Laws, only 19 US states are still actively exploring legislation related to state Bitcoin reserves (SBRs), with 36 bills under discussion. The number has dropped significantly over the past six months, reflecting increased hesitation among lawmakers due to market volatility, fiscal risks, and regulatory uncertainty. Much of this retreat has been attributed to concerns like those cited by Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, who pointed to the lack of long-term historical data supporting Bitcoin's stability or reliability for public fund management. Despite the slowdown at the state level, Bitcoin reserve discussions are gaining traction federally. President Donald Trump has reportedly signed an executive order directing agencies to explore the feasibility of a national Bitcoin reserve system. Still, skepticism remains. BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes recently argued that the US is unlikely to meaningfully expand its crypto holdings, citing entrenched financial conservatism and cultural resistance toward Bitcoin.
