Politics

WASHINGTON (AP) — For Senate Democrats, an oh-so-slim 51-49 majority never sounded so good.

Sen. Raphael Warnock’s victory in swing-state Georgia gives Democrats a welcome “lift,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday at the Capitol — newly confident of sidelining Trump-inspired Republicans in Congress and reaching across the aisle to other GOP lawmakers to deliver on bipartisan priorities with President Joe Biden.

“If we can get some bipartisan things done, it will of course be better for the country. And it will be better for the Republican Party,” he said.

Tuesday’s election was for just one seat, but Warnock’s win in the tight runoff provides an unexpected capstone to the midterm election cycle for his party. It makes easier for Senate Democrats to organize and govern, and provides a crucial edge in a divided Congress as Republicans take hold of the House.

Gone is the especially intense political pressure of a 50-50 Senate that required all Democrats to toe the line — and made it possible for a single senator, notably Joe Manchin, to buck party priorities.

When the new Congress assembles in January, the extra seat will give Senate Democrats a solid majority that provides greater control over not just floor votes but also the committees, which are the backbeat of legislating.

And mostly gone will be the days when Capitol Hill came to a standstill awaiting Vice President Kamala Harris’ motorcade for her role of breaking tie votes — particularly for Biden’s nominees — which she has had to do more often than any predecessor.

“Chuck Schumer’s job is going to get a lot easier,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.

After the longest evenly split Senate in modern times, the new dynamic ensures the chamber will serve as a barrier to legislation from the Republican House that Democrats disagree with — and a potential bridge for bipartisan deal making as Republicans assess the post-Trump landscape.

While it still takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance most bills in the Senate, there will be ample grounds for compromise, particularly if Republican leader Mitch McConnell is eager to show voters his party can deliver ahead of the 2024 presidential and congressional elections.

McConnell was silent Wednesday on Warnock’s victory and the new political reality.

In January, for starters, Democrats will have an easier time using their 51-49 majority for simple tasks of governing, including votes on Biden’s nominees to judicial and executive positions, which Republicans have wielded as weapons.

The same goes for committee action. The Democrats will now have full power to send legislation to the Senate floor, overcoming Republican objections that can drag out the process. They also will have subpoena power, which they plan to use for investigating corporate America.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., had kind words for the top Republicans on what has been his evenly divided panel.

“Chuck Grassley is a friend, we’ve been able to work together. And I’m confident we can do that again with Senator Graham,” said Durbin, referring to Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who will take Grassley’s place in the new Senate.

“But,” said Durbin, “we’re in a better position to bargain.”

Key Republicans had regrets Wednesday over their failure to pick up that vital 51st seat, blaming their losses in large part on the party’s focus on relitigating the 2020 election that Donald Trump, the former president, lost to Biden.

“That was a losing argument,” said Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2 Republican, about the stolen election claims.

His party lost the GOP-held seat in Pennsylvania that was open due to a retirement. Every Democratic incumbent won, an unexpected accomplishment and a first for a party in power in decades.

As Republicans struggle to emerge from the midterms, Democrats intend to capitalize on the GOP’s Trump divisions and win over some Republicans for bipartisan projects — much the way they did this session in passing a bipartisan infrastructure bill, a computer chips package and others.

“There are a good number of Republicans in the Senate and the House who are not MAGA,” Schumer said, referring to Trump’s campaign slogan, Make America Great Again.

“It is my intention to reach out to them” and see how both sides can work in a bipartisan way, he said.

“You say, ‘Oh, that will never happen,’” Schumer said, answering likely skeptics. “Well look at what happened this summer with 50-50.”

Schumer declined to outline the party’s agenda for the new term, saying it’s still a work in progress. Both parties are expected to take their annual retreats at the start of the year to assemble their priorities.

“It gives us just a lift — the fact that we got the 51 votes,” Schumer said.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, the influential Vermont independent who caucuses with the Democrats, said the increased majority will make it “much easier to go forward in a progressive way.”

source

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — In an election in which Republicans underperformed nationally, Lester Chang was a success story. He beat a New York City Democrat who’d been in office for almost 36 years, and in doing so became the first Asian American elected to represent Brooklyn’s growing Chinatown in the state Assembly.

Now, Democrats in the Legislature are talking about denying Chang his seat as they raise questions about whether he met a residency requirement. They question whether Chang lived in Brooklyn long enough to run for office. Republican supporters say he lives in the borough, in his childhood home.

But the possible rejection has infuriated supporters who see it as an effort to disenfranchise Asian voters.

“Our votes and our say is possibly going to be overridden by Assembly members representing other districts, and the Brooklyn Chinese community that did turn out for Lester, I don’t think they’re going to forget this,” said Yiatin Chu, the president of political club Asian Wave Alliance.

Chang, a 61-year-old retired U.S. Navy reservist who had a career in the global shipping industry, defeated Assemblyman Peter Abbate on Nov. 8 in Brooklyn’s 49th Assembly District.

Immigration has changed the Assembly district in recent years, with Asians accounting for more than half the population.

Under state elections rules, Chang was required to have been a resident of Brooklyn for 12 months prior to Election Day in order to be eligible to run for the Assembly. Some Democrats have raised the possibility that Chang lived in Manhattan for part of that time.

According to New York City Board of Elections records, Chang is currently registered to vote in Brooklyn.

“It came back to me that Lester did not live in the borough for one complete year, which is mandatory under the state constitution,” said Abbate, Chang’s opponent. “I’m not questioning whether he got more votes than I did, I’m questioning whether he ran under false pretenses.”

Jim Gardner, a professor at University at Buffalo with a focus on election law, said these types of discrepancies are often sniffed out at a much earlier phase.

“The party nominating someone must make sure they’re eligible,” said Gardner. “And you would expect the opposite party to have done their homework sooner.”

Democratic Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie last week called for the Assembly Judiciary Committee to review Chang’s eligibility. They’ll likely examine records such as utility bills and mortgage statements.

“Credible and serious questions have been raised,” Heastie, a Democrat, said in a statement. “We have an obligation to ensure that all members adhere to these constitutional residency requirements.”

Phone, email, and social media messages left for Chang weren’t immediately returned.

Assembly Minority Leader William Barclay, a Republican, defended Chang and said he was confident he would keep his seat.

“Lester Chang was raised in Brooklyn and resides in his childhood home,” said Barclay. “There is no precedent for a candidate who fairly won an election to have to prove their residency in order to be seated in the State Assembly.”

If the Assembly refuses to seat Chang on the grounds that he does not fulfill the residency requirement it would force Gov. Kathy Hochul to call a special election to fill the seat.

Chang could potentially run again in that election, depending on when it was held. But a new vote held outside the regular election cycle might bring a low turnout likely to favor a candidate supported by Brooklyn’s Democrats.

___

Maysoon Khan is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Maysoon Khan on Twitter at: twitter.com/MaysoonKhan

source

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House gave final approval Thursday to legislation protecting same-sex marriages, a monumental step in a decadeslong battle for nationwide recognition of such unions that reflects a stunning turnaround in societal attitudes.

President Joe Biden is expected to promptly sign the measure, which requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages, a relief for hundreds of thousands of couples who have married since the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision that legalized those marriages nationwide.

In debate ahead of the vote, several gay members of Congress talked about what it would mean for them and their families. Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H., said he was set to marry “the love of my life” next year and that it is “unthinkable” that his marriage might not be recognized in some states.

Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., said he and his husband should be able to visit each other in the hospital just like any other married couple and receive spousal benefits “regardless of if your spouse’s name Samuel or Samantha.”

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., said that the idea of marriage equality used to be a “far fetched idea, Now it’s the law of the land and supported by the vast majority of Americans.”

The legislation lost some Republican support since July, when 47 Republicans voted for it — a robust and unexpected show of support that kick-started serious negotiations in the Senate. But most of those lawmakers held firm.

“To me this is really just standing with the Constitution,” said Republican Rep. Ann Wagner of Missouri, who voted for it both times. She pushed back on GOP arguments that it would affect religious rights of those who don’t believe in same sex marriage.

“No one’s religious liberties are affected in any way, shape or form,” Wagner said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., presided over the vote as one of her last acts in leadership before stepping aside in January. She said the legislation “will ensure that “the federal government will never again stand in the way of marrying the person you love.”

Still, most Republicans opposed the legislation and some conservative advocacy groups lobbied aggressively against it in recent weeks, arguing that it doesn’t do enough to protect those who want to refuse services for same-sex couples.

“God’s perfect design is indeed marriage between one man and one woman for life,” said Rep. Bob Good, R-Va, ahead of the vote. “And it doesn’t matter what you think or what I think, that’s what the Bible says.”

Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., choked up as she begged colleagues to vote against the bill, which she said undermines “natural marriage” between a man and a woman.

“I’ll tell you my priorities,” Hartzler said. “Protect religious liberty, protect people of faith and protect Americans who believe in the true meaning of marriage.”

Democrats in the Senate, led by Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, tried to address those GOP concerns by negotiating an amendment that would clarify that the legislation does not affect the rights of private individuals or businesses that are already enshrined in current law. The amended bill would also make clear that a marriage is between two people, an effort to ward off some far-right criticism that the legislation could endorse polygamy.

Thursday’s vote came as the LGBTQ community has faced violent attacks, such as the shooting earlier this month at a gay nightclub in Colorado that killed five people and injured at least 17.

“We have been through a lot,” said Kelley Robinson, the incoming president of the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. But Robinson says the votes show “in such an important way” that the country values LBGTQ people.

“We are part of the full story of what it means to be an American,” said Robinson, who was inside the Senate chamber for last week’s vote with her wife and young son. “It really speaks to them validating our love.”

The vote was personal for many senators, too. The day the bill passed their chamber, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was wearing the tie he wore at his daughter’s wedding to another woman. He recalled that day as “one of the happiest moments of my life.”

Baldwin, the first openly gay senator who has been working on gay rights issues for almost four decades, tearfully hugged Schumer as the final vote was underway. She tweeted thanks to the same-sex and interracial couples who she said made the moment possible.

“By living as your true selves, you changed the hearts and minds of people around you,” she wrote.

source

Partisan gerrymandering is back before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case stemming from the latest attempt by North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature to draw U.S. House districts favoring GOP candidates.

The question justices will consider Wednesday is whether state courts can rely on their state constitutions — as the North Carolina Supreme Court did — to strike down politically rigged voting districts for congressional elections.

North Carolina’s top Republican lawmakers contend they can’t. Rather, they assert that the U.S. Constitution gives power over federal elections only to state legislatures and Congress — an argument known as the “independent state legislature” theory. A broad embrace of the theory by the high court could upend hundreds of election laws across the U.S.

A ruling for North Carolina’s legislature also could affect redistricting lawsuits in states ranging from Republican-led Ohio to Democratic-led New Mexico. It also could call into question new congressional maps enacted by other state courts after the 2020 census, including in Democratic-dominated New York.

The stakes are high because Republicans won only a slim House majority in the November elections, giving them just enough power to challenge President Joe Biden’s agenda. Any ruling that causes some districts to be redrawn likely would kick in for the 2024 elections.

WHAT IS GERRYMANDERING?

Gerrymandering is when a political party in power manipulates voting district boundaries to make it harder for the opposing party to win. That typically is done by packing opponents’ voters into a few districts and spreading out others among multiple districts to dilute their voting strength.

Throughout U.S. history, both Republicans and Democrats have gerrymandered after the once-a-decade census, when districts are redrawn to account for population changes.

Republicans controlled more state capitols after the 2010 census and used redistricting to their advantage, prompting a flurry of lawsuits from Democrats. Those suits culminated in 2019, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in another North Carolina case that federal courts have no role in deciding partisan gerrymandering disputes. Even so, the majority opinion suggested that state courts still could hear such claims.

Freed from federal constraints, partisan gerrymandering surged after the 2020 census. So did the number of lawsuits in state courts alleging that partisan gerrymandering violated state constitutions.

FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS

A 2018 decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided a template for voting-rights advocates to pursue gerrymandering claims in state courts. Although the Pennsylvania Constitution contains no specific mention of partisan gerrymandering, the state’s high court said it was prohibited under a state constitutional provision requiring “free and equal” elections.

The Pennsylvania court struck down U.S. House districts enacted by the Republican-led Legislature and governor after the 2010 census and imposed new districts. The first election under that court-imposed map shifted the state’s congressional delegation from a 13-5 Republican majority after the 2016 election to a 9-9 split between Republicans and Democrats after the 2018 election, better reflecting the battleground state’s overall partisan composition.

In 2019, a panel of North Carolina judges used similar reasoning to block U.S. House districts passed by the Republican-led General Assembly. They said the districts likely ran afoul of state constitutional provisions guaranteeing “free” elections, “equal protection of the laws” and the right to free speech and assembly. The legislature subsequently passed revised districts for the 2020 election, and the GOP’s congressional majority over Democrats shrunk from 10-3 to 8-5.

Voting rights groups raised a similar court challenge when North Carolina’s congressional districts were redrawn again by Republican lawmakers after the 2020 census, which gave the state an additional House district. The state Supreme Court struck down the districts on similar grounds and allowed a temporary new map approved by a three-judge panel to be used for the 2022 election, a map that resulted in Democrats and Republicans equally splitting the state’s 14 congressional districts. It’s that case that’s now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

PENDING LAWSUITS

A decision in the North Carolina case could affect ongoing court battles involving Kentucky, New Mexico and Utah. Lawsuits in each of those states make similar claims that U.S. House districts enacted by state legislatures after the 2020 census violated their state constitutions.

The New Mexico Supreme Court is to hear arguments in January in a lawsuit brought by Republicans against the U.S. House districts enacted by the Democratic-controlled Legislature and governor. The suit contends the districts diluted the conservative vote and violated the state constitution’s “equal protection” guarantee.

In Kentucky, Democrats have asked the state Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling that partisan gerrymandering is not prohibited by the state constitution. The lawsuit against the U.S. House districts enacted by the Republican-led Legislature cites the state constitution’s guarantee of “free and equal” elections.

In Utah, the Republican-led Legislature and governor ignored the recommendations of an independent commission and enacted their own U.S. House districts after the census. A lawsuit pending in state court claims the map violates the state constitution’s guarantee of “free” elections, “equal protection” as well as the freedoms of speech and assembly. Attorneys for the Legislature have asked the state Supreme Court to halt the case.

OTHER COURT CASES

The outcome of the North Carolina case also could have implications for Ohio and New York, where state courts ruled that U.S. House maps enacted after the 2020 census violated specific state constitutional prohibitions against partisan gerrymandering.

Ohio’s Supreme Court twice ruled that Republicans who control the redistricting process violated a voter-approved constitutional provision against unduly favoring political parties. But the 2022 election went forward anyway using the stricken districts as Republicans appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s unclear whether the nation’s high court will take up the Ohio case. But a decision in favor of North Carolina’s GOP lawmakers could pave the way for Ohio’s Republican officials to ignore their own court’s directives.

Earlier this year, New York’s highest court struck down congressional districts enacted by the Democratic-led Legislature after an independent commission failed to agree on a plan. The court said lawmakers violated a voter-approved state constitutional prohibition against favoring particular political parties. A judge then imposed new U.S. House districts for the 2022 election that were not as skewed toward Democrats.

A ruling for North Carolina’s Republican lawmakers could create an avenue for New York Democrats to argue that state judges had no authority to throw out the map they originally passed and impose a new one.

Some conservative lawyers have urged the high court to issue a comparatively narrow ruling that would still allow state courts to overturn maps in states such as New York, where voters have explicitly approved anti-gerrymandering initiatives.

A Maryland court this year also ruled that the U.S. House map passed by the Democratic-led Legislature was an “extreme gerrymander” that violated state constitutional requirements for compact districts and “free” elections. But the court never imposed a new map. Instead, lawmakers worked with the outgoing Republican governor to enact a new map. Democrats will have full control of state government when the new governor is sworn in next month.

source

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday tapped a longtime Republican lawmaker to be Texas’ new elections chief, a pick who could enjoy a smoother confirmation process following the blowback and scrutiny his two previous picks faced.

Jane Nelson, a state senator who didn’t seek reelection last month, hasn’t been a divisive figure in the Legislature and gives Abbott a candidate with a strong path to confirmation in the state Senate chamber where she served for 30 years.

The announcement followed the resignation of Texas Secretary of State John Scott, whose appointment in 2021 came under immediate criticism over his brief stint as a lawyer on former President Donald Trump’s legal team. Scott was preceded by David Whitley, a former Abbott aide who resigned before he could be forced out of office after calling into the question the U.S. citizenship of thousands of voters based on flawed data.

“Voters expect fair elections with accurate, timely results, and I am committed to making that happen,” Nelson said in a statement.

Nelson is a former teacher from suburban Dallas and held a long stint as the senate’s chief budget writer. The Texas secretary of state’s office is still in the process of completing a limited audit of the 2020 election despite no evidence of widespread fraud.

source

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that anyone who thinks the Constitution should be suspended would have a “very hard time” becoming president in the United States, trying to distance himself from Donald Trump’s new White House bid.

It’s the second time McConnell has been forced to open his weekly press conference preemptively responding to questions about the former president’s remarks and behavior. Last week, it was over Trump’s dinner meeting with a white nationalist Holocaust denier.

“Let me just say that anyone seeking the presidency who thinks the Constitution can somehow be suspended or not followed, it seems to me, would have a very hard time being sworn in as President of the United States,” McConnell said at the Capitol.

The remarks come as Trump, who announced he is running again for the presidency in 2024, is putting his party into the familiar position of responding to his ideas, statements and outbursts, forcing Republicans to publicly answer for his behavior.

Trump over the weekend called for “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution” after new revelations of what he said was Twitter’s unfair treatment of him during the 2020 presidential election that he lost to Joe Biden.

Reaction from Republicans has been critical, even as many GOP officials remain unwilling to directly confront Trump as the leader of their party.

Speaking Tuesday in South Carolina, Mike Pence, Trump’s former vice president, said, “I think anyone who serves in public office, anyone who aspires to serve in public office or serve again in public office should make it clear that they will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

McConnell, as the Republican leader trying to steer his party in a post-Trump era — the two have not spoken since McConnell agreed to the Electoral College tally for Biden at the end of 2020 — faces an endless task of reacting to the former president’s outbursts.

Still, McConnell deflected questions over whether he could support Trump if he becomes the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nominee.

Instead, the Senate GOP leader reiterated the difficulty of taking the oath, which requires the president-elect to defend the Constitution.

“It would be pretty hard to be sworn into the presidency if you’re not willing to uphold the Constitution,” McConnell said.

Over the weekend, Trump latched on to a report from new Twitter owner Elon Musk suggesting favoritism on the social media platform during the 2020 presidential race.

Twitter was asked to moderate content about Biden’s family, particularly his son, Hunter Biden, that Republicans wanted to amplify in their attacks against the Democrat.

Trump, on his social media app, had said that, “Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” He later accused the media of distorting his comments and “trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution.”

Two weeks ago, Trump came under criticism for having dinner with Nick Fuentes, a known white nationalist and Holocaust denier. Trump said he was unaware of Fuentes’ beliefs.

Republicans have been unable to firmly reject Trump as their potential nominee even as many of them try to distance themselves from his recent activities.

House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy, who is in line to become the House speaker when Republicans take control in the new year, has yet to fully weigh in on Trump’s latest comments.

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, a staunch Trump critic, tweeted directly at McCarthy to respond:

“This week Trump said we should terminate all rules, regulations etc ‘even those in the Constitution’ to overturn the election. Are you so utterly without principle that you won’t condemn this either?”

__

Associated Press writers Meg Kinnard in Rock Hill, South Carolina, and Jill Colvin in New York contributed to this report.

source

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is taking up a case with the potential to fundamentally reshape elections for Congress and the presidency.

The justices are hearing arguments Wednesday over the power of state courts to strike down congressional districts drawn by the legislature because they violate state constitutions.

Republicans from North Carolina who are bringing the case to the high court argue that a provision of the U.S. Constitution known as the elections clause gives state lawmakers virtually total control over the “times, places and manner” of congressional elections, including redistricting, and cuts state courts out of the process.

The Republicans are advancing a concept called the independent legislature theory, never before adopted by the Supreme Court but cited approvingly by four conservative justices.

A broad ruling could threaten hundreds of election laws, require separate rules for federal and state elections on the same ballot and lead to new efforts to redraw congressional districts to maximize partisan advantage.

The court’s decision in the North Carolina case also might suggest how the justices would deal with another part of the Constitution — not at issue in the current case — that gives legislatures the authority to decide how presidential electors are appointed. That provision, the electors clause, was central to efforts to try to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election in several closely contested states.

The North Carolina state Supreme Court struck down districts drawn by Republicans who control the legislature because they heavily favored Republicans in the highly competitive state. The court-drawn map used in last month’s elections for Congress produced a 7-7 split between Democrats and Republicans.

North Carolina is among six states in recent years in which state courts have ruled that overly partisan redistricting for Congress violated their state constitutions. The others are Florida, Maryland, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

State courts have become the only legal forum for challenging partisan congressional maps since the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that those lawsuits cannot be brought in federal court.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court and joined by four other conservative justices, noted that state courts remained open. “Provisions in state statutes and state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply,” Roberts wrote, in an opinion joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas.

But Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas wrote in March that they would have allowed the Republican-drawn map to be used this year. Alito wrote for the three justices that “there must be some limit on the authority of state courts to countermand actions taken by state legislatures when they are prescribing rules for the conduct of federal elections. I think it is likely that the applicants would succeed in showing that the North Carolina Supreme Court exceeded those limits.”

Kavanaugh has separately written about the need for federal courts to police the actions of state courts when it comes to federal elections, citing an opinion by three conservatives in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the 2000 presidential election. Thomas was one of the three justices on that 22-year-old opinion, but the court decided the case on other grounds.

In North Carolina, Republican lawmakers won’t have to wait for the court’s decision to produce a new congressional map that is expected to have more Republican districts.

Even as Democrats won half the state’s 14 congressional seats, Republicans seized control of the state Supreme Court. Two newly elected Republican justices give them a 5-2 edge that makes it more likely than not that the court would uphold a map with more Republican districts.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

source

ATLANTA (AP) — Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock defeated Republican challenger Herschel Walker in a Georgia runoff election Tuesday, ensuring Democrats an outright majority in the Senate for the rest of President Joe Biden’s current term and capping an underwhelming midterm cycle for the GOP in the last major vote of the year.

With Warnock’s second runoff victory in as many years, Democrats will have a 51-49 Senate majority, gaining a seat from the current 50-50 split with John Fetterman’s victory in Pennsylvania. There will be divided government, however, with Republicans having narrowly flipped House control.

“After a hard-fought campaign — or, should I say, campaigns — it is my honor to utter the four most powerful words ever spoken in a democracy: The people have spoken,” Warnock, 53, told jubilant supporters who packed a downtown Atlanta hotel ballroom.

“I often say that a vote is a kind of prayer for the world we desire for ourselves and for our children,” declared Warnock, a Baptist pastor and his state’s first Black senator. “Georgia, you have been praying with your lips and your legs, your hands and your feet, your heads and your hearts. You have put in the hard work, and here we are standing together.”

Democrats’ Georgia victory solidifies the state’s place as a Deep South battleground two years after Warnock and fellow Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff won 2021 runoffs that gave the party Senate control just months after Biden became the first Democratic presidential candidate in 30 years to win Georgia.Voters returned Warnock to the Senate in the same cycle they reelected Republican Gov. Brian Kemp by a comfortable margin and chose an all-GOP slate of statewide constitutional officers.

Democrats’ new outright majority in the Senate means the party will no longer have to negotiate a power-sharing deal with Republicans and won’t have to rely on Vice President Kamala Harris to break as many tie votes.

About 1.9 million runoff votes were cast in Georgia by mail and during early voting. A robust Election Day turnout added about 1.4 million more, slightly more than the Election Day totals in November and in 2020.

source

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem tried Tuesday to win over the Republican-controlled Legislature with details of her plan to enact a historic repeal of the state’s tax on groceries. But to deliver on the campaign promise, the Republican governor must convince lawmakers in the coming months that the state can also afford to tackle inflation and a long list of items pressing on the state’s budget.

Noem, a Republican, was critical of a proposal to repeal the state grocery tax during the final days of the legislative session in March, but this fall, she changed course and made it a centerpiece of her reelection campaign.

“Eliminating the sales tax on groceries is the biggest way that in my budget that we can help South Dakotans tackle the challenge of Joe Biden’s inflation and protect their hard-earned money,” she told the Legislature in her annual budget address. “Unfortunately, food costs have risen by far too much. Families are struggling to make ends meet as a result.”

Noem, who has set her political ambitions beyond South Dakota, repeatedly took aim at Biden’s economic policies in the speech and credited the state’s rosy financial outlook to her conservative policy-making.

However, the state’s economic growth has lagged behind much of the country this year. South Dakota’s gross domestic product growth — the broadest measure of economic output — ranked 33rd among states from April through June, according to the most recent report from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Some Republicans and Democrats say they first want give raises to keep pace with inflation to people who draw their income from state funds. They also need to find funding for the Medicaid expansion approved by voters this year, upgrades to the state’s prison system and shortages in elder care facilities.

“We’re going into a year where there’s a real interest in cutting taxes but there are also a lot of new demands because of high inflation,” said Republican Rep. Tony Venhuizen ahead of Noem’s speech.

The governor has estimated that repealing the state tax on groceries would cost about $100 million and argued that state revenue growth can cover it. Noem expects the state to have $310 million in ongoing revenue growth in the upcoming fiscal year, as well as $216 million in one-time funds available.

During her victory speech on Election Day, Noem was so confident that the state was ready to cut the grocery tax that she also hinted at other projects she would like to fund — incentivizing paid family leave and creating a way for childcare workers to get benefits. On Tuesday, she said she wanted to send $23 million to pay for paid family leave for both state employees and private sector workers, but made no mention of addressing what many in the state see as a crisis-level shortage in childcare.

Budget-setting during most of Noem’s first term was filled with state revenues swollen by consumer spending and federal pandemic relief. Noem has credited her hands-off approach to governmental COVID-19 protection measures for keeping the state’s economy humming.

But lawmakers are also cautioning that those years of plenty — when millions of dollars went to upgrading university campuses and other projects — could soon be over. Noem said some of those projects, like a new event center at the state fairgrounds, a new public health lab and university upgrades, are running over budget due to inflation and would require $26 million in additional funding.

A potential recession could take a toll on state budget revenues in the coming year and inflation has already left budget holes to fill, said Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, a Republican who presides over the Senate. He expressed skepticism at the idea of cutting taxes that provide ongoing revenue for the state.

Sen. Casey Crabtree, the Republican caucus leader, issued a statement praising Noem’s budget approach but stayed silent on the proposed repeal of the grocery tax.

“The GOP-led Senate is dedicated to making sure our residents are taxed fairly and that South Dakota remains fiscally sustainable in the long term,” he said.

Democrats, meanwhile, have pushed for years to repeal the state’s tax on groceries. But even Rep. Linda Duba, who will be just one of two Democrats on the Joint Appropriations Committee, predicted that the state could afford only an incremental cut to the tax if it also keeps up with inflation in funding for teachers, state employees and community support providers.

“We are going to see a fight between those who want to do all these tax relief programs — but you’ve got to care for all the people in our state,” she said.

source

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed local election officials in Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and Pennsylvania, asking for communications with or involving former President Donald Trump, his 2020 campaign aides and a list of allies involved in his efforts to try to overturn the results of the election.

The requests, issued to Milwaukee and Dane counties in Wisconsin; Wayne County, Michigan; Maricopa County, Arizona; and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, are the first known subpoenas by Smith, who was named special counsel last month by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Smith is overseeing the Justice Department’s investigation into the presence of classified documents at Trump’s Florida estate as well as key aspects of a separate probe involving the violent storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump’s frantic efforts to remain in power.

The subpoenas, some of which were first reported by The Washington Post, are the clearest indication yet that Smith’s work will include an examination of the fake electors that were part of Trump’s efforts to subvert the election count and certification. All of the states where requests were sent are states that Trump and his allies targeted as they tried to overturn the democratic vote.

In Pennsylvania, for instance, Trump’s campaign sued unsuccessfully in court to try to overturn President Joe Biden’s victory, while his allies organized a Trump slate of electors to send to Congress. Trump and his supporters also repeatedly contacted top Republican lawmakers, at times asking about using the GOP-controlled legislature to give lawmakers the power to overturn the election. They refused.

The subpoenas, two of which were obtained by The Associated Press, request “any and all communications in any form” between June 1, 2020, and Jan. 20, 2021, “to, from, or involving” Trump, his campaign, lawyers and aides, including former campaign officials like Bill Stepien and Justin Clark and lawyers John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn, L. Lin Wood, Sidney Powell and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

In Wisconsin, Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenson said he received a subpoena on Monday and is working with the county’s attorney to comply with the request as soon as possible.

“I don’t see any issues with it,” he said. “Many of those names aren’t familiar to me, so I don’t know how many of those individuals did reach out to us. For example, I don’t recall receiving anything from Rudy Giuliani. I think I would have remembered that. But who knows.”

Christenson said he hoped the documents would help with the investigation, but he didn’t expect to turn over anything that hasn’t already been made public.

“I don’t expect to find any smoking gun,” Christenson said.

Dane County Clerk Scott McDonell said he received a similar subpoena on Dec. 1, asking for communications he had with “the gang of people you would sort of expect.”

McDonell said the only person on the list that his office had interaction with was Jim Troupis, Trump’s Wisconsin-based attorney. Trump paid for a recount of ballots cast in Milwaukee and Dane counties, the two largest Democratic counties in Wisconsin, following the 2020 election. Troupis spearheaded the legal effort not to count tens of thousands of ballots cast absentee in that election, including his own.

McDonell said he didn’t expect his response to the subpoena to reveal anything that “hasn’t been covered in the past.”

“I don’t have any stories of Trump calling me at dinner like the other guys,” McDonell said.

In Michigan, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson confirmed that Wayne County had received a subpoena from Smith but did not provide additional information on what it was seeking.

“We welcome and support the work of any law enforcement agency working to ensure full accountability for efforts to illegally overturn the fair and accurate results of Michigan’s 2020 election,” Benson said in a statement sent to The Associated Press.

Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Michigan centered on Detroit’s convention hall, which is located in Wayne County. Trump falsely claimed poll workers there “were duplicating ballots,” and an unsuccessful lawsuit by his campaign on Election Day forced election workers to temporarily halt the tallying of votes in the state’s largest city.

Another lawsuit was filed by several attorneys, including Trump allies Powell and Wood, on behalf of six Republican voters who wanted a federal judge to decertify Michigan’s results and impound voting machines. The judge declined, calling the request “stunning in its scope and breathtaking in its reach.”

Angela Benander, a spokesperson for the Michigan Department of State, said the department wasn’t aware of any other counties being issued subpoenas from Smith.

In Arizona, Maricopa County also received a subpoena and will comply, said county spokesperson Fields Moseley.

The county, which includes the Phoenix area and more than 60% of Arizona voters, had been a centerpiece of Trump’s efforts to overturn the election and cast doubt on the results.

Trump allies tried to pressure Republicans on the county board of supervisors not to certify his loss in 2020, and when they did so, continued trying to reach them as Congress prepared to tally the electoral votes on Jan. 6. Clint Hickman, then the chairman of the board, dodged calls from the White House operator, who left voicemails saying the president was trying to reach him.

In Pennsylvania, Allegheny County, the state’s second-most populous and home to Pittsburgh, received a subpoena as well, a spokesperson confirmed. The Pennsylvania Department of State, along with several jurisdictions targeted by Trump’s campaign in 2020 — Philadelphia and Bucks and Montgomery counties — declined comment on whether they’d received subpoenas, too.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment Tuesday.

In addition to the DOJ, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has also been investigating whether Trump and his allies illegally tried to interfere in the 2020 election in Georgia. ___

Colvin reported from New York. Associated Press writers Joey Cappelletti in Lansing, Michigan, Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix, Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

source