Ferguson, Hobbs agree to settlement voiding original WA Constitution voter rule

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs' Office has, through agency rulemaking, officially removed a residency requirement for registering to vote enshrined in the state’s original 1889 Constitution.

The rulemaking occurred after both Hobbs and state Attorney General Bob Ferguson agreed to a consent decree earlier this year to settle a 2023 lawsuit arguing that the constitutional provision violated federal law due to a 2018 state law.

Under Article VI, Section 1 of the Washington Constitution, a person must be a resident of Washington for 30 days “immediately preceding the election at which they offer to vote” in order to register. Sta

However, a November 2023 lawsuit filed by the Washington State Alliance for Retired Americans argued that this residency requirement was in violation of the U.S. Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, which prohibits residency requirements for people to participate in federal elections. In 2018, the state Legislature enacted Senate Bill 6021, which allows Washington voters to register to vote as late as 8 p.m. on Election Day.

According to the consent decree, “as a result of this change, Washington residents who have lived at a particular address longer than 30 days do not have to meet any durational limits to vote, while new residents must meet the 30-day Durational Residency Requirement.”

The consent decree stipulated that the residency requirement be removed, not just for federal elections but for state elections as well, “as long as the State does not impose a durational registration requirement to vote.” If the Legislature did impose that requirement before Aug. 1, then the 30-day residency requirement in the state Constitution would be allowed to remain.

If SOS's rulemaking is allowed to remain through Aug. 1, the Legislature can still impose new residency requirements in the future and reinstate the constitutional provision, but the change would not take effect until after this year's election season.

Though no longer enforced, Article VI, Section 1 will remain in the Constitution unless the document is amended to remove it.

The consent decree was signed by Ferguson on Hobbs’ behalf on March 8, the day after the legislative session ended. The lawsuit was also filed against King County Elections Director and Thurston County Auditor’s Office, both of which also signed the decree.

At a June 25 rulemaking session, SOS adopted the change so that people registering to vote are no longer required to attest that they have been a resident of Washington for 30 days. According to archive.org’s June 13 capture of the SOS voter registration form, the 30-day requirement had already been removed.

The change has drawn criticism from some political candidates, including Dale Whittaker running for SOS as a Republican. In a post on his campaign website he wrote that “the Consent Decree is a backroom deal that bypasses the state constitution, legislature, and the citizens of Washington. This is a power-grab by activists using the courts and willing supplicants to make wholesale changes to state election practices hoping it flies under the radar of public and legal scrutiny. The 30-day residency requirement is a constitutional mandate that cannot be disregarded, and the recent court action does just that.”

Kittitas County Auditor Bryan Elliot wrote in an email to The Center Square that "my biggest concern is the rapid implementation of this change in a Presidential Election year. Our offices are agile, but this action has the potential to create further mistrust of the voter registration system, especially when state law and the state constitution both still contain language that is contrary to the consent decree."

"Additionally, there are more changes needed than just updating the voter registration form, which are already provided free of charge to counties," he wrote further. "We will also need to update and replace our confirmation and acknowledgement notices to voters which all contain references to the 30-day residency requirement. This will be an unbudgeted expense for my county that we will need to prioritize to comply with the ruling.”

When The Center Square reached out to SOS for comment, Communications Manager Derrick Nunnally wrote in an email that “this agreement saved the state a costly and likely losing court fight over enforcing the 30-day residency requirement.”

When asked whether or not Hobbs would support a legislative solution to restore the requirement, Nunnally wrote that “Hobbs would give any such proposal a full review and evaluation before deciding any question of support or opposition,” noting that Hobbs voted in favor of the 2018 same-day voter registration bill when he was a state senator.

https://www.thecentersquare.com/washington/article_68c3f81c-34cb-11ef-a8dc-8bd8afe0c045.html

The Grim Reaper: Biden Declares Two Justices Will Be Gone In Four Years

 by Jonathan Turley,

One of the least discussed aspects of the interview with President Joe Biden last night was his declaration that two of the nine justices are not long for the Court. The question is which two are facing retirement or the reaper.

In arguing for his remaining as the nominee despite record low polling, the President told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos with certainty that the next president “in going to appoint at least two new appointees.”

That must be uneasy news for the relatively small court that almost of a third will soon pass . . . one way or another.

Liberals have been pushing Sonia Sotomayor to retire, but she has clearly rejected those calls.

On CNN, journalist Josh Barro bluntly wondered why Sotomayor remains on the bench when younger jurists could be brought on to guarantee a liberal vote for years to come. He indicated that many liberals are frustrated with her for not stepping down: “I find it a little bit surprising, given what Justice Sotomayor describes there about the stakes of what is happening before the Supreme Court, that she’s not retired. She’s 69 years old, she’s been on the court for 15 years.”

At 70, Sotomayor shows no signs of mental decline. She has been a highly effective justice, stepping into the vacuum created by the death in 2020 of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Of course, few ever questioned the “Notorious RBG” in her decision to stay on the Court, despite her much older age and longer tenure. While some of us noted that Ginsburg was taking a huge risk in not allowing then-President Barack Obama to pick a successor, she remained on the Court in spite of medical problems and ultimately was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Ginsburg, however, was almost 20 years older than Sotomayor.

There is no concern for deterioration or death on the bench in Sotomayor’s case. It is simply a matter of swapping out justices like light bulbs before they burn out.

All of the justices are younger than Ginsburg when she passed (and considerably younger than President Biden who is running for a second four-year term).

• Justice Thomas, 76.

• Justice Alito, 74.

• Justice Sotomayor, 70.

• Chief Justice Roberts, 69.

• Justice Kagan, 64.

• Justice Kavanaugh, 59.

• Justice Gorsuch, 56.

• Justice Jackson, 53.

• Justice Barrett, 52.

Justice Clarence Thomas is the oldest, but has not indicated that he is ready to retire. He would likely want to wait for a Republican president.

If history is a measure, he has time. Oliver Wendell Holmes retired at 90.

A recent analysis of the court’s projected composition suggested the next time the majority of justices will be appointed by a Democrat is likely to be around 2065.

I did not find that analysis particularly compelling.

However, I also fail to see how Biden can be certain that 2 of the 9 justices will die or retire. After all, even Thomas is six years younger than Biden.

If he is predicting the death or retirement of Thomas within four years, he would presumably predict his own passing or retirement years ago.

Running on the pledge to replace two departing justices could prove awkward if the justices are reluctant to be replaced or dispatched.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/grim-reaper-biden-declares-two-justices-will-be-gone-four-years

Comer Seeks Docs, Interview With White House Physician Who Obviously Lied

 White House physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor - who for years has been giving President Biden a clean bill of health despite obvious signs of cognitive and physical decline - has some 'splainin' to do.

On Sunday, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer demanded to interview O'Connor, and has suggested that the doctor's involvement in a Biden family business dealing "may have" influenced his medical assessments of the president - who was found to be too cognitively impaired to prosecute for mishandling classified documents. 

Specifically, O'Connor counseled James Biden in connection with alleged work he was performing for Americore Health, LLC - which paid James Biden $200,000 the same day James turned around and wrote Joe a check for $200,000 for an undocumented "loan repayment."

"Recently, it was reported that you have ‘never recommended that [President] Biden take a cognitive test," Comer wrote O'Connor. "In February of this year, the Committee conducted a transcribed interview with James Biden. During the interview, James Biden confirmed that you provided him counsel in connection with the alleged work he was performing for Americore."

Comer has requested all documents and communications related to Americore, and wants him to sit for a transcribed interview.

"To understand the extent of your involvement in the Biden family’s financial activity, we request that you produce all documents and communications in your possession regarding Americore and James Biden. Additionally, the Committee requests you make yourself available for a transcribed interview with Committee counsel. Please contact staff by July 14, 2024, to schedule the interview," reads the letter reported by Just the News.

Perhaps Comer will ask him about that Parkinson's specialist who visited the White House at least 9 times in the past year.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/comer-seeks-docs-interview-white-house-physician-who-obviously-lied

Mega-Donors Cut Off Biden, Prepare PACs To Fund 'Mini-Primary' And New Candidate

 On Saturday, a fifth Democratic member of Congress called for embattled, enfeebled President Biden to quit the 2024 presidential race. Minnesota Rep. Angie Craig also became the first incumbent in a tight race to do so, saying, "I do not believe that the President can effectively campaign and win against Donald Trump."

Coupled with reports that Senate intelligence committee chair Mark Warner is point man in a drive to organize Senate Democrats into a united front urging Biden to quit, the political pressure is clearly mounting. However, Biden is also under rapidly-rising pressure along a second front, as major Democratic donors are not only telling him to quit, but are closing their checkbooks -- or creatively using them to pave the way for a new candidate. 

One of those deeply-disenchanted donors is Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, who gave more than $20 million to boost Democratic candidates in recent years, including upwards of $1.5 million for Biden's 2020 campaign. Last week, Hastings publicly called for Biden to quit. He reiterated that stance after watching Biden's terrible Friday interview with George Stephanopoulos, telling ABC News. "Biden is unfortunately in denial about his mental state. He needs to step aside to let a vigorous Democratic leader beat Trump."

Then there's Kase Capital Management portfolio manager Whitney Tilson, who told ABC, "[Biden]'s not in [a] condition to handle the rigors of the presidency for another four years...All of us are standing by to see what happens here. Even the wealthiest people have limitations to money." More bluntly, he took to Twitter to say, "Biden's campaign is a ghost. It's over." 

Rather than simply moving to the sidelines, some mega-donors are engaging in creative political-financial engineering -- such as former Inuit and Paypal CEO Bill Harris, who donated $620,000 to the Biden Victory Fund in 2020 and told ABC that, given his performance in the debate and the Stephanopoulos interview, most observers would see Biden's departure as "inevitable."

Former PayPal CEO Bill Harris is laying the financial groundwork for a Democratic "mini-primary" to choose Biden's replacement (Tony Avelar/Bloomberg via Forbes)

On Friday, Harris announced that his Democrats for the Next Generation PAC was committing to spend $2 million "to fund a series of debates among prominent candidates to become the Democratic nominee for president if Biden steps aside." Some are referring to the concept as a "mini-primary" -- and it's seen by many as a mechanism for ensuring that Kamala Harris isn't tapped merely by virtue of her title.  

Bill Harris waved off Democrats' unease about a potentially messy and divisive process for picking a new candidate. “It’s not that we have to protect ourselves from chaos and drama,” Harris told the Washington Post. “We need drama and a little chaos. I think it can be refreshing and energizing.”

In addition to drama and chaos, there's some major branding confusion in the mix, as another group of deep-pocketed Democrats -- led by crypto billionaire Mike Novogratz and Hollywood moviemaker Andrew Jarecki -- is launching a nearly-identically-named "Next Generation PAC".

That group has even grander plans: raising up to $100 million for what might be characterized as a political escrow and incentive fund, designated to promote a successor 2024 Democratic standard-bearer. If Biden is on the November ballot, the fund would be redirected to promote down-ballot candidates -- and not Biden.  

Hollywood donors are fuming at movie mogul and Biden campaign co-chair Jeffrey Katzenberg -- who's accused of concealing Biden's poor mental health (Rachel Mummey/Bloomberg via Getty Images and Intelligencer)

In the wake of Biden's debate disaster, the first notes of alarm among major Democratic benefactors came via anonymous quotes. Now, they're pouring out of the woodwork to publicly declare their convictions that Biden needs to step aside. A sampling: 

• Filmaker and heiress Abigail Disney said she's withholding planned donations to a Biden-backing constellation of groups that included the Biden campaign, the Democratic National Committee, super PACs and nonprofits. "[They] will not receive another dime from me until they bite the bullet and replace Biden at the top of the ticket,” she told the Times. 
• Damon Lindelof, who created the "Lost" TV series, posted an opinion piece in Deadline calling for a donor "DEMbargo" targeting not only Biden but also other candidates -- to be called off only if Biden quits.   
• Los Angeles real estate billionaire Rick Caruso tweeted, "In this vital election, stepping aside is the right and honorable thing for President Biden to do." 
• Gideon Stein, chairman of AI advertising firm WriteLabel, is withholding $3.5 million in contributions pending Biden's ouster. He told the Times that he and almost every other big donor he's in contact with think "a new ticket is in the best interest of defeating Donald Trump.”

Amid all the angst, some wealthy donors are turning on each other. Many are angry with Hollywood tycoon and top Biden fundraiser Jeffrey Katzenberg, who's seen as having perpetrated a sort of fraud by concealing Biden's mental decline as he persuaded reluctant donors to give him their money. As one unnamed Hollywood figure and Democratic booster told the Financial Times: 

“[Katzenberg] would say, ‘He’s fine, I was just with him. He had this famous quote for everybody, which was ‘I’m happy to put you in a room with him and you’ll see for yourself.’ But nobody did it.”

Ironically, the Katzenberg angle and the entire "Biden-is-sharp-as-a-tack" scam have the makings of a great Hollywood movie...that is, if Hollywood would allow some frank introspection. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/major-donors-cut-biden-prepare-pacs-fund-mini-primary-and-new-candidate

Presidential Historian: Dropping Biden Won't Help Democrats

 President Biden is under mounting pressure to drop his bid for a second term. In this interview with the Wall Street Journal, American University Historian Allan Lichtman, who correctly predicted nine of the last ten presidential elections using his system of "13 keys to the White House," breaks down why Biden still represents the best bet for Democrats.

"American presidential elections are essentially votes up or down on the strength or performance of the White House Party. In other words, it is governance, not campaigning that counts," Lichtman said. "It is still the best bet for Democrats to have Biden stay in the race."

"The 13 keys to the White House are 13 true/false questions pertaining primarily to the strength and performance of the White House party, that when answered true, always favor stability. If six or more of the keys are false, we have earthquakes. If fewer than six are false, we have stability."


"Biden running checks off two keys. Biden stepping aside, they lose the incumbency, and it is not at all clear that there wouldn't be a big party fight," he said.

"Let's assume for a moment that the pressure is so great that Biden has to step aside. Here's what he should do, to preserve the keys and keep the Democrats' best chances alive. He should say, 'For the good of the country, I am making the ultimate sacrifice, I am stepping down from the presidency.' And then Kamala Harris would become president and they would secure the incumbency key. He could then release all of his delegates to Harris to secure the contest key. That's the only situation under which the Democrats would not start out with some keys deficit."

The 13 yes/no keys in the current Biden-Trump race:

If six or more are false, Biden is predicted to lose. Currently two are false and four are undetermined.

[Yes] Incumbent seeking re-election

[Yes] No primary contest

[No] Party mandate

[Yes] Strong short-term economy

[Yes] Strong long-term economy

[Yes] Major policy change

[Yes] No scandal

[No] Charismatic incumbent

[Yes] Uncharismatic challenger

[?] No significant third party

[?] No social unrest

[?] No major foreign/military failure

[?] Major foreign/military success

 https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/07/07/historian_explains_why_dropping_biden_wont_help_democrats.html

Smith & Nephew shares surge on activist Cevian building stake

 Shares in Smith & Nephew rose 7% to the top of the FTSE 100 index on Thursday after activist investor Cevian Capital disclosed a 5% stake in the British medical equipment maker, a filing showed.

Cevian, whose newly disclosed holding would make it Smith & Nephew's second largest shareholder according to LSEG data, is known for taking stakes in companies and calling for change.

Smith & Nephew, which makes orthopaedic implants, wound dressings and other surgical materials, has lost more than 50% of its stock value from an all-time high hit in February 2020.

Pandemic lockdowns that led to surgery delays and supply-related disruptions from COVID times, as well as high raw material costs due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, have taken a toll on the company, which has struggled to grow its margins.

"Smith & Nephew owns fundamentally attractive businesses in structurally growing markets, but the company has not generated shareholder value for many years," Friederike Helfer, a partner at Cevian Capital, said in a statement.

"Cevian sees the potential to create significant long-term value by improving the operating performance of the company’s businesses. We have high expectations for the board and management to realize this potential," he added.

Smith & Nephew's FTSE 100 shares have struggled to eke out yearly gains for the past four years.

The group said it would continue to engage with Cevian "as we do with all of our shareholders", without providing further details as the conversations are private.

In 2022, it started a transformation plan that aimed to grow its hip and knee implant, wound management and sports medicines businesses while expanding margins.

"Cevian is likely to hold management's feet to the fire and may look for more ambitious targets than set out under the existing improvement plan," AJ Bell analyst Russ Mould said.

"It could also push for a rationalisation of the company’s portfolio."

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/smith-nephew-shares-soar-activist-090304736.html

City’s migrant debit-card spending balloons — as no-bid vendor rakes in a fortune

 In June, I reported that after months of inactivity, City Hall had loaded up its migrant cash-debit cards with another nearly $1.1 million in taxpayer money.

Days later, the Adams administration confirmed it: Gotham taxpayers will spend $2.6 million through the end of the year to add 7,300 families to the existing program, which has served about 900 families since March.

The city considers that “pilot” successful — but still hasn’t released a whiff of data to prove it.

Even if you think it’s a good idea to try giving migrants cash cards instead of direct aid for meals and other basics, the way Adams has gone about it is not the way to do it.

In January, the city inked a no-bid, one-year deal with MoCaFi, a company co-founded by an Adams supporter, to distribute a potentially open-ended amount of money — “above $150 million” — to migrants staying at city hotels.

The city was in a hurry to sign the contract, but it took three months to start handing out those debit cards.

In late March, City Hall said it would launch the scheme with 115 families over six weeks, giving each family of four $350 a week; the pilot grew to 900 families.

Through late June, the program racked up about $850,000 in costs — but only $648,000 went to the actual migrants.

Instead, according to the contract, nearly $211,000 is owed or has been paid in fees to MoCaFi: $62,500 for half a year’s setup fee and two quarterly fees of $62,500 each, and stray fees for cards ($3.50 each) and a share of the money given to the migrants (3%).

The city says the program has saved almost $600,000, compared to delivering three boxed meals a day to the migrants’ doors.

But that’s comparing apples to (rotten) oranges.

Yes, City Hall is paying $8 each for three meals a day to a different no-bid contractor, under a deal it concealed for months — twice as much as the $4 per meal that MoCaFi debit-card recipients get to spend.

Yet the city has only just begun a bid process to see how much such meals might cost if companies compete for the job.

For reference, it cost the city between $4 and $6 per meal to provide take-out school breakfasts and lunches during the 2021 pandemic closures.

Plus, a big part of this comparison relies on a different assumption: that migrants, with no access to cooking facilities, can successfully budget $4 per meal.

A real-world example strains that assumption: The New York Times followed a family of three to a downtown bodega, where they bought one day’s lunch . . . for $44, or close to $15 apiece.

Sure, maybe they’ll save some of that food for dinner.

But Manhattan prepared-food outlets aren’t cheap.

There’s a way we can know the facts — under its MoCaFi contract, City Hall has access to all “card-level spending data,” including “specific transaction information” for each card, with “transaction amounts, timestamps, and locations.”

The city should release these reports: Where are people spending their MoCaFi money?

Is it mostly at bodegas and other prepared-food outlets, or at grocery stores?

Such releases would protect against fraud, telling us whether people are spending their money on items coded as acceptable under the program — that is, food and baby supplies — and if they’re spending it within the five boroughs.

The city’s stance toward potential fraud is trust us, even though there’s massive scope for improper card disbursal (giving out cards to the wrong people, like city workers), card theft, illegal card transfers and spending on items that aren’t included in the program.

As for security, MoCaFi has applied to the city to pay a Bronx security subcontractor $350,000 for “staffing services” at the Roosevelt Hotel.  

But the MoCaFi contract says that the city, not MoCaFi, is “responsible for the security of the [cards] until delivered . . . to cardholders,” and that the city is supposed to keep the cards in a locked safe or cabinet.

So why the need for a Roosevelt subcontractor, and why was this one chosen?

Finally, as New York enters the second half of this one-year contract, what’s the longer-term plan?

City officials say this program is working. Indeed, since the city doesn’t expect to spend the full $53 million it had budgeted this year, it’s already thinking of requesting an extension to next year. 

This, when they could be starting now to launch a competitive-bid process, to see if other financial services or benefits companies can manage this program more cheaply than MoCaFi can.

As it stands, MoCaFi remains the main beneficiary of a potentially massive new city-paid benefits program that is likely to persist as long as the migrant crisis does. 

Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.

https://nypost.com/2024/07/07/opinion/citys-migrant-debit-card-spending-grows-vendor-rakes-it-in/