Latest news with #U.S.HouseofRepresentatives
Axios
6 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
Louisiana loses its Independent Party
About 150,000 Louisiana voters lost their party affiliation last week when the state officially did away with the Independent Party. Why it matters: It's part of the logistical and clerical shifts state officials are making as Louisiana prepares to host closed party primaries in 2026 for five elections, which affect all voters, regardless of party affiliation. Be smart: This transition is bound to be complicated for voters, but it's worth paying attention to to make sure your vote counts the way you want it to in 2026 and beyond. The changes will not impact voting in this fall's municipal elections in New Orleans and Jefferson Parish. Catch up quick: At Gov. Jeff Landry's urging, state lawmakers last year approved a shift away from Louisiana's jungle primary system for five of the state's elections. It means that, instead of everyone getting to vote in the same primary elections, party affiliation will determine who you get to vote for in primaries and primary run-offs. There won't be restrictions in general elections. Affected elections include races for the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, Louisiana Supreme Court, Public Service Commission and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Between the lines: Though the change doesn't take effect until 2026, efforts are already underway at Secretary of State Nancy Landry's office to get things organized. That's why state lawmakers approved the dissolution of the Independent Party earlier this year to make way for a slightly more streamlined process for those voters to participate in primaries. How it'll work: Former Independent Party voters are now lumped in with the more than 650,000 other voters already considered "unaffiliated," according to the Secretary of State's office. When those voters arrive at the polls or request to vote by mail, they'll be offered a choice to vote in the Republican or Democrat primaries, or decline to vote in them. That choice will stand for both the primary and the primary runoff, unless a voter formally changes their party between those two dates. Voters who are registered as Republican or Democrat will only be able to vote in the primaries for their party affiliation. Voters who are registered as any of the dozens of other minor parties in the state won't be able to vote in the primaries. Instead, they'll only be able to vote in their local races. What we're watching: Louisiana has long been known for its large population of " ancestral Democrats," which makes the state look more blue than it typically votes. But if those voters want to actually participate in Republican primaries, this may drastically shift the state's data on registered voters as people formally affiliate with the GOP.
Economic Times
02-08-2025
- Politics
- Economic Times
US Supreme Court poised to assess validity of key voting rights law
Reuters FILE: U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson signs the U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping spending and tax bill, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 3, 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Friday that it will assess the legality of a key component of a landmark federal voting rights law, potentially giving its conservative majority a chance to gut a provision enacted 60 years ago that was intended to prevent racial discrimination in voting. The brief order issued by the court raises the stakes in a case already pending before the justices involving a legal challenge to an electoral map passed by Louisiana's Republican-led legislature that raised the number of Black-majority U.S. congressional districts in the state from one to two. The justices said they will consider whether it violates the U.S. Constitution for states to create additional voting districts with populations that are majority Black, Hispanic or another minority as a way to remedy a judicial finding that a state's voting map likely violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The case, due to be heard by the justices in their next term that begins in October, sets the stage for a major ruling expected by the end of June 2026 that could affect the composition of electoral districts around the United States. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The dispute strikes at tensions between the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress during the U.S. civil rights era to bar racial discrimination in voting, and adhering to the constitutional principle of equal protection, which limits the application of race when the borders of electoral districts are redrawn. Boundaries of legislative districts across the country are reconfigured to reflect population changes every decade in a process called redistricting. The court previously heard arguments in the case in March. But in June, the justices declined to issue a ruling and indicated they would invite the parties to address additional questions. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UCLA, called the stakes enormous, writing in a blog post that the court seems to be asking whether the section of the Voting Rights Act at issue "violates a colorblind understanding of the Constitution." The action follows a major ruling by the court in 2013 in a case involving Alabama's Shelby County that invalidated another core section of the Voting Rights Act that determined which states and locales with a history of racial discrimination need federal approval for voting rule changes affecting Black people and other minorities. "This Court is more conservative than the Court that in 2013 struck down the other main pillar of the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case," Hasen wrote. "This is a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down the second pillar." The matter is being litigated at the Supreme Court at a time when Republican President Donald Trump is taking steps to eliminate programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion that aim to promote opportunities for minorities, women, LGBT people and others. In the Louisiana case, state officials and civil rights groups appealed a lower court's ruling that found the map laying out the state's six U.S. House of Representatives districts - with two Black-majority districts, up from one previously - violated the constitutional promise of equal protection. A group of 12 Louisiana voters identifying themselves in court papers as "non-African American" sued to block the redrawn map. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests to provide the racial breakdown of the plaintiffs. The state and the rights groups are seeking to preserve the map. Black people comprise nearly a third of Louisiana's population. During the first round of arguments in the case in March, lawyers for Louisiana argued that the map was not drawn impermissibly by the legislature with race as the primary motivation, as the lower court found last year. The map's design, the Republican-governed state argued, also sought to protect Republican incumbents including House Speaker Mike Johnson and No. 2 House Republican Steve Scalise, who both represent districts in the state. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates. Arguments in the case centered on Louisiana's response to U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick's June 2022 finding that an earlier map likely violated the Voting Rights Act and whether the state relied too heavily on race in devising the remedial map. Dick ruled that a map adopted earlier that year by the legislature that had contained only one Black-majority district unlawfully harmed Black voters. Dick ordered the addition of a second Black-majority district. The Supreme Court in 2023 left Dick's ruling in place, and it previously allowed the map at issue in the current case to be used in the 2024 election. A three-judge panel in a 2-1 ruling in April 2024 found that the map relied too heavily on race in the map's design in violation of the equal protection provision. The Constitution's 14th Amendment contains the equal protection language. Ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the amendment addressed issues relating to the rights of formerly enslaved Black people.
CBC
30-07-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Republican-led committee rejects Epstein associate's request for immunity as condition of testimony
Social Sharing A U.S. Republican-led congressional committee on Tuesday rejected a request by a longtime associate of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for immunity from future prosecution as a condition for testifying to the panel in the midst of a political storm surrounding President Donald Trump. Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted in New York in 2021 of helping Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls and is serving a 20-year sentence in Florida, has been subpoenaed to testify privately to the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The committee has aimed to conduct a deposition of Maxwell, a British socialite who was the wealthy financier's longtime girlfriend, on Aug. 11 at the prison where she's being held in Tallahassee. "Ms. Maxwell cannot risk further criminal exposure in a politically charged environment without formal immunity," Maxwell's lawyer David Markus told Rep. James Comer, who chairs the House committee, in a letter. In an emailed statement, a committee spokesperson said: "The Oversight Committee will respond to Ms. Maxwell's attorney soon, but it will not consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony." Markus also had laid down additional conditions for a deposition, including conducting it somewhere other than the prison and being provided with the committee's questions in advance. Maxwell, Markus said, would testify to the committee in a public setting if she were to be granted clemency. Maxwell is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn her conviction. Trump has said he was not considering a presidential pardon for her. WATCH | Trump says no thought given to a Maxwell pardon: Trump says he 'hasn't thought about' pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell 4 days ago Trump says Epstein 'stole' young women from his club Questions over Trump's past relationship with Epstein, who died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking minors, and his administration's handling of records related to the case have dogged the president for weeks, including during a weekend visit to Scotland. Trump knew Epstein socially in the 1990s and early 2000s, and has said that he cut off ties with Epstein years before his death. He told reporters Tuesday that Epstein "stole" young women who worked at Trump's club, Mar-a-Lago, including Virginia Giuffre, one of the disgraced financier's most well-known accusers. Aboard Air Force One from Scotland, Trump said he was upset that Epstein was "taking people that worked for me." The women, he said, were "taken out of the spa, hired by him — in other words, gone." "I said, 'Listen, we don't want you taking our people,' " Trump said. When it happened again, Trump said he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. Asked if Giuffre was one of the employees poached by Epstein, Trump first said he didn't know, but then said "he stole her." The White House initially said Epstein was banned for acting like a "creep." Giuffre, who took her own life earlier this year, claimed that Maxwell spotted her working as a spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago in 2000, when she was a teenager, and hired her as Epstein's masseuse, which led to sexual abuse. Although Giuffre's allegations did not become part of criminal prosecutions against Epstein, she is central to conspiracy theories about the case. She accused Epstein of pressuring her into having sex with powerful men, including Prince Andrew. Democrats and Trump supporters want documents released Democrats in Congress and some of Trump's core supporters have demanded the release of documents involving Epstein and Maxwell. Epstein served a 13-month jail sentence after pleading guilty in 2008 to a Florida state felony prostitution charge. Democrats on Tuesday sought more information about the matter. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse wrote to the Justice Department, asking for a copy of the transcript of a recent conversation a department official had with Maxwell. In addition, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called on the FBI to conduct a "counterintelligence threat assessment" to determine the risk to U.S. national security if a foreign entity were to gain access to the Epstein files. "Could our adversaries use that information to blackmail someone like the president or other senior leaders in government?" Schumer asked.
Yahoo
23-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Abigail Spanberger unveils ‘Growing Virginia Plan'
(WFXR)- WFXR is your local election headquarters. And the candidates for governor are focusing on financial issues. Democrat Abigail Spanberger made a campaign stop in Suffolk on Tuesday. She announced what she called her new 'Growing Virginia Plan.' Spanberger said that her plan would grow Virginia's workforce, business investment, and trade opportunities. 'We need a leader who understands what brings new businesses to Virginia,' said Abigail Spanberger, democratic candidate for Governor. 'I will be focused on aligning education and workforce training initiatives. As Virginia's next governor, I will work aggressively to promote Virginia as the best state in the country to do business.'(w Spanberger's republican challenger Winsome Earle-Sears told WFXR that Spanberger spent six years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, voting for bills that led to higher inflation and lost jobs. 'She was never in any of the rooms when the decisions were made on how we attract business,' said Winsome Earle-Sears, republican candidate for Governor. 'She was never in any of the rooms or being asked for advice on what do you think about talking with the legislature on how we can progress in Virginia. She was never there so she can't continue our polices.' The latest poll by Virginia Commonwealth University shows Spanberger leading the race over Earle-Sears, 49 percent to 37 percent among registered Virginia voters. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Straits Times
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
US House Speaker Johnson sees no immediate Russia sanctions action
FILE PHOTO: U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson reacts following the signing of U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping spending and tax bill, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 3, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo WASHINGTON - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson said on Tuesday he does not think the U.S. Congress should consider sanctions on Russia until after President Donald Trump's 50-day deadline for Moscow to end the war in Ukraine. "We were talking about sanctioning Russia," the Louisiana Republican said at a weekly news conference. "But I think the House and the Senate agree that the White House having given that deadline of 50 days, we need to allow the commander-in-chief and the administration and the secretary of defense and the Pentagon to do what they're going to do, and we'll see how that plays out," Johnson said. Some members of Congress have been pushing for stiff sanctions on Russia, including a Senate bill with 85 co-sponsors from both parties that would impose 500% tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium and other exports. China and India account for about 70% of Russia's international energy business, which helps fund its war effort. However, the Republican leaders of the Senate and House have said they will not bring any sanctions legislation up for a vote without Trump's approval. Trump on July 14 threatened stiff sanctions on Russia and countries that buy Russian oil, but gave Moscow 50 days to agree to a ceasefire deal. Johnson called for an end to the war. "We need peace, over there. It's gone on too long. Too many innocent people are dying. And we don't want further American involvement in this at all," he said. REUTERS
