Latest news with #BrennanCenterforJustice
CBS News
5 days ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Texas lawmakers launch redistricting hearings amid political and community concerns
Texas lawmakers kicked off the first of several hearings on redistricting Thursday in Austin, with more scheduled for Houston and Arlington in the coming days. The effort to redraw the congressional boundaries could have major consequences on local, state and national politics. "All eyes are on Texas right now," said Michael Li, a redistricting expert at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. When Gov. Greg Abbott called this special session, he said the current congressional maps needed to be changed because of constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ sent a letter to the governor earlier this month, saying four of the state's Democratic-controlled districts, including District 33 – which covers parents of Tarrant and Dallas counties and is currently represented by Marc Veasey, are illegal because of racial gerrymandering. However, Democrats believe that's not the real reason for the unusual mid-decade redistricting effort. Texas Republicans are facing pressure from President Donald Trump to help maintain the GOP's control of the U.S House. "It is very unprecedented that you would have the president of the United States step in in this way and sort of command a redrawing the map," Li said. Republicans currently have 25 of the 38 congressional seats in Texas. Mr. Trump has said he wants five more ahead of next year's midterm elections. The Republican-dominated state legislature finalized the existing maps just four years ago, in 2021, after the release of the 2020 census data. "It's very unusual for a party that they got exactly what it wanted in redistricting, go back and redo the maps, potentially to make them better for them, but also potentially creating a lot of risk that it backfires on them," said Li. He believes what Texas Republicans are doing is a "brazen power play" that will lead to a legal fight. "It's very hard to get more Republican seats in Texas without aggressively targeting the power of communities of color who last year provided 100% of the growth, and about 98% of the growth since the 2020 census," said Li. The president and CEO of the Dallas Black Chamber of Commerce, Harrison Blair, has been fielding calls from business owners who are worried about the consequences of redistricting. "They're telling me right now they don't want to be redistricted," Blaid said. "It would be like driving a new freeway or a train track through the middle of an existing community. It harms the businesses. It harms our ability to have a voice." Blair is encouraging members to send letters, attend the public hearings on this issue, or call their state lawmakers. "Texas marches to the beat of its own drum," said Blair. "But right now it seems like the president is running what's happening in Texas in this special session out of DC. So it's disconcerting to say the least." State lawmakers haven't release any proposed maps yet, so it's not clear which districts could be impacted. "The problem is when you're redrawing the lines in one place, it's very hard to do so without affecting surrounding communities," said Veronikah Warms, the voting rights policy attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project. "It can have a ripple effect that goes out through the entire state." In this case, it could change who represents you in Congress and what policies they advocate for. "So I would encourage you, to tell lawmakers about it," Warms said. "Tell them not to put you in with a community that does not have the same interests and priorities and values that you do because otherwise your representation in crafting federal law is going to be not what it should be. It won't be fair." Saturday, July 26 in Houston Monday, July 28 in Arlington All testimony in person will be limited to two minutes per witness, and the duration of the public testimony portion of hearing will be limited to five hours. Texas residents who wish to electronically submit comments related to congressional redistricting without testifying in person can do so until the hearing is adjourned by clicking here.
Yahoo
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Could Trump ‘run' New York City?
President Donald Trump issued a provocative threat during a Cabinet meeting this week: If New York City elects a 'communist' mayor, he might take the city over, just like he might take over Washington, DC. 'We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to,' he said. He was referring to the rise of Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee in New York's upcoming mayoral race. Mamdani is not a communist, but rather a democratic socialist in the vein of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The president clearly sees the would-be mayor as an A-list political enemy he'll use to argue the Democratic Party has been overtaken by the 'radical left.' His increasing use of the word 'communist' harks back to the ugliness of the Red Scare. Trump also trotted out some profanity in the Cabinet Room of the White House when he referred to Mamdani as 'a man who's not very capable, in my opinion, other than he's got a good line of bullsh*t.' It's the latest in a string of increasingly charged accusations Trump has made, including that Mamdani, who is a naturalized citizen, might be in the US illegally, something for which there is no evidence. That kind of attack will sound familiar to anyone who remembers Trump's incessant and false questioning of President Barack Obama's birth certificate. But the idea that Trump might try to 'run' New York if Mamdani wins is something else — a warning to New York voters and a new threat to expand presidential power. Does that mean starving the city of federal funds or something more drastic? It would also be pretty clearly unconstitutional for him to try to 'run' the city, according to Elizabeth Goitein, an expert on presidential power at the Brennan Center for Justice. When I asked her what presidential authority would allow him to do so, her answer was short. 'Not run a city,' she said, pointing to the 10th Amendment, which gives powers not enumerated in the Constitution back to the states. 'There's no emergency power that allows the president to take over a city,' she said, and particularly not in retaliation for electing a mayor the president disagrees with. He has tested the Constitution repeatedly during his second term — trying to reinterpret the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship and reimagine the federal bureaucracy without passing any laws. But Goitein pointed to key decisions, including a rejection of Trump's attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act to more swiftly deport people without due process, to argue the courts remain a meaningful check on the administration. Trump's advisers, CNN has reported, considered using the Insurrection Act, another antiquated law from the early days of the republic, to broadly use federal troops for law enforcement in Los Angeles to help federal deportation agents. Instead, they ended up citing more recent law that allows the federal government to take control of a state's National Guard, for which California is now suing the administration. Goitein said the deployment of troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, by the Eisenhower administration was in the service of a Supreme Court Order. 'That's very different from a city electing a mayor with whose policies the president opposes,' she said. Martial law was declared in Hawaii during World War II, she said, but it was authorized by a law that no longer exists. Trump also referred at the White House to the possibility that he could also take over Washington, DC, something that he has been talking about for years. There's clear precedent for the federal government being in charge of the nation's capital. It's in the Constitution, after all, something that has always complicated efforts by progressives and Democrats to grant statehood to DC. But Congress ceded self-governance to district residents back in 1973, with a law signed by President Richard Nixon, who described himself as 'a longtime supporter of self-government for the District of Columbia.' The CNN presidential historian Tim Naftali, a former director of the Nixon Presidential Library, told me Nixon did take the idea of self-governance seriously, including for DC residents. Trump has described DC today as 'a nightmare of murder and crime,' but back then it was literally reeling and still rebuilding after riots destroyed city blocks following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. Naftali pointed out that Nixon was close with the city's mayor, Walter Washington, who advocated for the construction of the Metro subway system and installed the city's first public defender. 'Nixon's view of the District of Columbia was that the residents of the district could best govern themselves,' Naftali told me. 'I do not believe that is Donald Trump's view at all.' The law Nixon signed allowed Washingtonians to vote for their first-ever popularly elected mayor in 1974. Conservatives in Congress today want to take that power back and have introduced a bill, the 'BOWSER Act' (so named to troll DC Mayor Muriel Bowser), to repeal DC's home rule and put the city more under federal control. Trump aligns with Bowser on one key DC issue: the reconstruction of RFK stadium as a home for the Washington Commanders, although the proposal is currently stalled before DC's city council. He promised to 'renovate it, and rebuild our capital city,' but so far that has included the issuance of an executive order and creation of a committee focused on surging police into the streets and creating a beautification plan. Trump said his chief of staff, Susie Wiles, has been working with DC's mayor. And Bowser has been notably uncritical of the Trump administration in his second term. Domingo Morel is an associate professor of political science and public service at New York University who has written about the ugly history of states taking over things like school boards or imposing their will on cities, frequently those with large Black and minority populations, and taking power from the local populations. Trump is implying something similar here, Morel told me. 'He's saying to New Yorkers, 5 million or so registered voters, 'Whatever you say doesn't matter; we're going to take away your ability to govern because we don't like the way you have decided to vote.'' That's assuming Mamdani wins, which is a big assumption, given the fact that current Mayor Eric Adams and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo will both be on the ballot on Election Day. Meanwhile, former New Yorker Trump will be chiming in with vague threats.
Axios
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Georgia to cut nearly 480,000 names from voter rolls
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger plans to remove nearly 480,000 names from Georgia's voter rolls before the end of summer. Why it matters: Purges are necessary maintenance to secure the integrity of elections and use reputable government data to create the removal list, proponents like Raffensperger argue. Yes, but: Critics like the Brennan Center for Justice agree that the rolls should be accurate. But they say the deletions too often remove eligible voters — particularly young and minority voters or people who move frequently. How it works: Raffensperger is sending cancellation mailers to 477,883 registered "inactive" voters, meaning they did not cast a ballot for both the 2022 and 2024 general elections. Those voters, he said in a press release, have already received letters notifying them of their inactive status. Voters with pending cancellations have 40 days to update their registration by using the My Voter Page, completing and returning a provided postcard, or submitting a new voter registration application. What they're saying:"Georgia's voter rolls are the cleanest in the nation thanks to the diligent partnerships we've made to secure our elections," Raffensperger said. "Clean voter rolls mean clean elections. My promise to Georgia voters is elections that are free, fair, and fast – and we're doing just that." The other side: Critics of Georgia's "use it or lose it" voter registration rules, which were upheld 5-4 by the U.S. Supreme Court shortly before the 2018 midterms, say the restrictions punish people for not doing something. According to American Public Media, then-Secretary of State Brian Kemp's more than 500,000-voter purge the previous year booted tens of thousands of eligible voters. By the numbers: According to the secretary of state's office, the list of voters now facing removal includes: 180,473 people who moved out of state, according to the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) 87,027 voters who filed a change of address, according to the U.S. Postal Service 105,848 people who have not cast a ballot, updated their registration or responded to mail from election officials 104,535 records of people whose mail from county election officials was returned undeliverable Zoom out: Raffensperger is also informing people who use a P.O. box or business as their voter registration address to update their records with a residential address or get kicked off the voter roll.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A Minnesota military family speaks out: No troops to quell protests
An M1A1 tank in Washington D.C. (Photo by) As a Minnesota military family, we feel compelled to speak against the Los Angeles Marine deployment and address what we see as a far more troubling issue that affects every American family. The deployment of active duty military forces against American citizens on American soil in a law enforcement capacity is fundamentally wrong and deeply dangerous to our republic. Our Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen take a sacred oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They are trained to fight wars — not to police American communities. When we blur the line between military force and civilian law enforcement, we abandon core principles that have protected our democracy for nearly 250 years. The Posse Comitatus Act is 150-year old law that bans in most instances federal troops from engaging in civilian law enforcement. As Joseph Nunn of the Brennan Center for Justice writes, the law 'embodies an American tradition that sees military interference in civilian affairs as a threat to both democracy and personal liberty.' Our founders understood that military power must never be turned inward against the very people our service members have sworn to protect. As a military family, we know the character of our service members. They are patriots who love this country and its people. They should never be put in the impossible position of having to choose between following orders and upholding their oath to protect American citizens' constitutional rights. This isn't just another ho-hum political dispute — it's about the fundamental nature of American democracy. Military families have sacrificed enough. Our service members should not be used as tools of domestic enforcement against the communities they call home. We call on all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, to reject the normalization of military deployment against civilians. Today it may not affect your family directly — but precedents set today will echo for generations. Our military belongs on foreign battlefields protecting America, not on American streets policing Americans.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump has floated invoking the Insurrection Act. It's only been done a handful of times in modern history.
President Donald Trump has said he may invoke the Insurrection Act, a law that grants the president the authority to deploy the U.S. military on American soil, as protests and unrest continue in Los Angeles over raids and deportations of immigrants. Though the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act broadly limits the military from participating in civilian law enforcement, the 218-year-old Insurrection Act, signed by President Thomas Jefferson, allows the president to deploy the military to suppress an "insurrection," "domestic violence" or other public disturbances that obstruct the execution of federal laws or deprive people of constitutional rights. The law states that a president may send the military — either in consultation with state officials or when 'the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States' — against American citizens. Trump, who has not invoked the act, has relied on other executive authorities to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, along with 700 active-duty Marines, to the anger of both state and national Democrats. The Marines are forbidden from participating in law enforcement activities unless Trump officially invokes the Insurrection Act. But Trump has said he is considering doing so. "If there's an insurrection I would certainly invoke it,' Trump said from the Oval Office on Tuesday. 'We'll see … If we didn't get involved right now Los Angeles would be burning." In the nearly 250 years of the nation's history, the Insurrection Act or its predecessors has only been invoked 30 times, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a liberal law and policy organization. Several of those times were during the civil rights movement, when both presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson invoked the act, including in the wake of the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Here are four times presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act. The most recent declaration under the Insurrection Act was in 1992 — and also in Los Angeles. In the late afternoon of April 29, 1992, three white police officers were acquitted of brutally beating Rodney King, who was Black. The beating, which was caught on camera, lasted some 15 minutes and left King with skull fractures, broken bones and permanent brain damage. Fires were set and stores looted. Dozens were killed, thousands were injured, and even more arrested. By the third day of rioting, President George H. W. Bush had had enough. Though state-controlled guard troops had already quelled some of the violence by then, Bush invoked the Insurrection Act on May 1, 1992. Bush appeared to have the support of California Gov. Pete Wilson, a fellow Republican who had already ordered 4,000 troops into the streets. But the troops were unprepared, according to TIME magazine, and were short of ammunition and lacked basics like flak jackets, batons and riot shields. 'What we saw last night and the night before in Los Angeles is not about civil rights,' Bush said at the time. 'It's not about the great cause of equality that all Americans must uphold. It's not a message of protest. It's been the brutality of a mob, pure and simple. And let me assure you: I will use whatever force is necessary to restore order. What is going on in L.A. must and will stop. As your President I guarantee you this violence will end.' It wasn't Bush's first time invoking the act. In September 1989, Bush dispatched more than 1,000 military police to the Virgin Islands after two days of looting and violence on St. Croix, the result of devastation caused by Hurricane Hugo. In the wake of the storm, 90 percent of the island's buildings were damaged, according to reports from The Washington Post at the time, while communications and transportation were also knocked out. As looting unfolded, people were reportedly carrying guns around the streets. 'Units and members of the Armed Forces of the United States will be used to suppress the violence described in the proclamation and to restore law and order in and about the Virgin Islands,' Bush wrote in his order. The federal government received some requests for aid from the territorial government, the nonpartisan law and policy journal Just Security found, but to what degree has been disputed. The order did receive some pushback from then-Democratic Gov. Alexander Farrelly, who told the Associated Press that he had not yet asked for federal troops. Farrelly also denied claims that there was 'anarchy' in the Islands. 'There is some looting, no doubt about that,' Farrelly said, according to The New York Times. "But there is no near state of anarchy. And I should know. I'm in the streets every day and I'm the governor of this territory." In 1987, Cuban inmates facing deportation staged a riot at the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta. The prisoners seized dozens of hostages and set fire to the prison. At least one person was killed and others were shot, according to the Los Angeles Times. In response, then-President Ronald Reagan invoked the Insurrection Act. 'I have been informed that certain persons, in unlawful combination and conspiracy, have engaged in the violent criminal seizure and detention of persons and property in the vicinity of Atlanta, Georgia,' Reagan said in his proclamation. 'Their actions have made it impracticable to enforce certain laws of the United States there by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.' Despite his proclamation, troops were never deployed to the prison. Instead, federal law enforcement officers, who were advised by several U.S. Army special forces soldiers, managed to quell the riot. The prison takeover lasted 11 days before the incarcerated men gave up control of the penitentiary and released the remaining hostages. In the aftermath of the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. on. April 4, 1968, a wave of civil unrest swept the nation. For 10 days after King's murder, nearly 200 cities saw looting, arson and thousands of instances of property damage. Washington saw the most damage — more than 1,200 fires and $24 million in insured property damage, according to Smithsonian Magazine. Johnson appeared to emphasize with many protesters, including those within the Black community. 'If I were a kid in Harlem, I know what I'd be thinking right now. I'd be thinking that 'the whites have declared open season on my people, and they're going to pick us off one by one unless I get a gun and pick them off first,'' Johnson said. But as rioting continued, Johnson on April 5, 1968, called in the guard and the armed forces to help end violence and assist in the 'restoration of law and order.' Two days later, Johnson invoked the act twice more to deploy troops to Chicago and Baltimore, where rioting was also still underway.
