Search This Blog

Sunday, July 7, 2024

House Dems launch united effort against election bill requiring voters prove citizenship

 House Democrats launched a united effort to vote against a Republican-backed election bill that would require voters provide proof of citizenship to cast ballots in federal elections. 

Republicans are pushing the passage of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, otherwise known as the SAVE Act, which would amend the National Voter Registration Act, and require states to obtain proof of citizenship from voters for federal elections, as well as purge noncitizens from voter rolls. 

Democratic leadership is urging its House members to vote against the bill in the lead-up to the vote, saying it would place “an extreme burden [on] countless Americans” in order to vote. 

“As we’ve seen a number of times this Congress, House Republicans continue to irresponsibly call into question the credibility of our elections. Despite numerous recounts, challenges in court, and deep-dives by conservative think-tanks, there has been zero evidence of the widespread fraud that this bill purports to target. It is already illegal under current law for noncitizens to register to vote or to vote in federal elections,” the office of House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., wrote in a “whip question,” Axios first reported. The whip vote rounds up this coming weeks’ votes and outlines guidance regarding how Democratic House members should vote. 

00:00
03:56

“Democrats are urged to VOTE NO on H.R. 8281,” the whip question states. 

“It is already illegal under current law for noncitizens to register to vote or to vote in federal elections,” the office of House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., wrote.Shutterstock
House Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled the bill earlier this year alongside former President Trump in a high-profile press conference at Mar-a-Lago.AP

Republican House leadership, meanwhile, is urging the bill’s passage, with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., posting on X that “the SAVE Act will safeguard our elections by ensuring only American citizens vote in federal elections.”

He detailed in the X thread that, if passed, the law would: require “state election officials to ask about citizenship before providing voter registration forms”; require “an individual to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections”; allow “state officials to accept a wide variety of documents that will make it easy for CITIZENS to register to vote in federal elections”; provide “states with access to federal agency databases so they can remove noncitizens from voter rolls and confirm citizenship for individuals lacking proof of citizenship,” among other directives. 

Under the legislation, voters would be required to provide proof of citizenship via IDs and documentation such as a passport, a government-issued photo ID showing proof the individual was born in the U.S., military IDs, or a valid photo ID as well as documentation showing proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, the legislation states. 

Democratic leadership is urging its House members to vote against the bill in the lead-up to the vote.Ken Ruinard – staff / USA TODAY NETWORK

Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy introduced the legislation in May, with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introducing the Senate’s companion bill, and received widespread support from Republican lawmakers who said it would secure elections. Johnson notably unveiled the bill earlier this year alongside former President Trump in a high-profile press conference at Mar-a-Lago. 

“Secure elections are a key cornerstone for any representative government; without them, we won’t have a country. Radical progressive Democrats know this and are using open border policies while also attacking election integrity laws to fundamentally remake America. That’s why I am proud to introduce the SAVE Act with Speaker Johnson and my Republican colleagues, along with the invaluable support of citizens and organizations that recognize we must end the practice of non-citizens voting in our elections,” Roy said on May 8. 

Johnson circulated a 22-page report late last month urging House members to pass the legislation, contending there is “irrefutable evidence that noncitizens have been illegally registering to vote and have illegally voted in U.S. elections.”

Johnson posted on X that “the SAVE Act will safeguard our elections by ensuring only American citizens vote in federal elections.”Getty Images
Under the legislation, voters would be required to provide proof of citizenship via IDs and documentation.Ken Ruinard – staff / USA TODAY NETWORK

“While falsely claiming the 2016 election was ‘stolen’ due to ‘foreign election interference,’ Democrats ignore the real threat of foreign election interference posed when noncitizens are allowed to register and vote in U.S. elections,” Johnson wrote in the report. “Lax voter registration laws make it possible for noncitizens to register and vote in federal elections while campaign finance loopholes allow noncitizens to fund U.S. election activities – both of which can affect the outcome of our elections.”

Johnson’s X thread championing the legislation last week received support from fellow Republicans, as well as critics of the Democratic Party. Tech billionaire Elon Musk notably sounded off that lawmakers who vote against the bill are “traitors” to the U.S. 

“Those who oppose this are traitors. All Caps: TRAITORS What is the penalty for traitors again?” Elon Musk posted in response to Johnson’s post. 

The Constitution calls on traitors guilty of treason to be sentenced to death or be imprisoned for no less than five years. They are also to be fined no less than $10,000 and be barred from ever holding office in the U.S.

The bill comes as the immigration crisis continues mounting under the Biden administration, with at least 1.6 million migrants designated as “gotaways” alone between Fiscal Year 2021 to Fiscal Year 2023, Fox previously reported. Gotaways are individuals who evade Border Patrol agents.

https://nypost.com/2024/07/07/us-news/house-dems-launch-united-effort-against-election-bill-requiring-voters-prove-citizenship/

Harris mentions Biden just once in latest appearance — as she hits campaign trail without president

 Vice President Kamala Harris has been pounding the pavement — making the case for another term for President Biden, but conspicuously only said his name once during a campaign appearance in New Orleans Saturday.

“In 122 days, we each have the power to decide what kind of country we want to live in,” Harris, 59, told Essence Ventures CEO Caroline Wanga during a nearly 30-minute sit-down interview at Essence Fest, a major event hosted by the black women’s magazine — now in its 30th year.

Harris, who previously drew questions about her profile and portfolio within the Biden administration, has been thrust into the national spotlight following her boss’ dreadful June 27 debate performance.

Harris has been in the media spotlight like never before after three and a half years in the White House where she’s been mostly out of sight.Getty Images
VP Harris touted the administration’s achievements and attacked former President Trump during a recent Q&A at Essence Fest, but only mentioned her boss by name once in passing.Pool/ABACA/Shutterstock

Biden’s showing on stage against former President Donald Trump, in which he sounded hoarse and seemed to have difficulty completing thoughts coherently, set off a wave of panic among Democratic politicians and big-money donors, leading to several prominent Dems and newspapers calling for the 81-year-old to step aside.

As the ticket’s natural successor, top Democrats have begun raising the question of whether Harris — a former US Senator and California state attorney general — has a better chance of defeating former Trump than Biden.

The president’s continued strange behavior and unusual statements at public events have led to questions about his competency and deeply rattled faith in his ability to serve another term.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said on “Meet the Press” Sunday that VP Harris could “overwhelmingly” win in a matchup with Trump, gushing that he felt she’d make a “phenomenal” commander-in-chief.

“I think she has the experience, the judgment, the leadership ability to be an extraordinary president,” Schiff told NBC’s Kristen Welker.

However Schiff stopped short of calling for Biden to step aside, instead urging the incumbent to consult people with “distance and objectivity” before deciding on the future of his candidacy.

Ahead of the vice president’s on-stage Q&A this weekend, members of the Congressional Black Caucus including Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) threw cold water on notions that a change was coming to the Democratic ticket.

“There ain’t gonna be no other Democratic candidate,” the 17-term House member said to raucous applause from the crowd.

“It’s gonna be Biden and you know it.”

Prominent Democrats including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) have been heaping praise on the 59-year-old former US Senator and California Prosecutor.Getty Images

Rather than echoing Waters’ reassurances about Biden himself, Harris touted her own resume, and hit out at Trump’s 34 felony convictions and his threats to exact revenge against political rivals

“This is probably the most significant election of our lifetime,” Harris said, talking up the stakes of this year’s race.

“We have said it every four years, but this here one is it,” she said.

Her only mention of President Biden was in passing while referencing the administration’s efforts to cancel student debt.

Although swapping out the president for VP Harris has its supporters, at least conceptually, the change would be far from a slam-dunk for the Democrats.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken after the debate, Harris isn’t faring much better than Biden, with 42% of respondents saying they favor her compared to 43% for Trump.

Five Thirty Eight polling shows Harris with a 37.1% approval rating and a 49.6% disapproval rating, compared to 36.9% and 57.1% for the president.

These numbers are not far off from those notched by Trump in the same poll, who received a 38.6% disapproval rating and 53.6% approval.

https://nypost.com/2024/07/07/us-news/vp-kamala-harris-mentions-biden-just-once-at-essence-fest/

4 senior House Dems, including Nadler, join calls for Biden to drop out of 2024 race

 Four more senior House Democrats are calling for President Joe Biden to end his reelection bid following a private call with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Sunday, according to multiple reports.

Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), and Mark Takano (D-Calif.) have all called on the incumbent to step aside for the 2024 Presidential race during the two-hour call with Jeffries, sources told Politico, the New York Times and other outlets.

The four Democrats made their claims during a meeting of House Democrats on Sunday that was meant to address the party’s anxieties and concerns over Biden’s ability to win in November.

Nadler, Morelle, Smith and Takano join five other House Democrats who have issued statements questioning Biden’s reelection prospects following a poor performance during the first presidential debate against former President Donald Trump.

https://nypost.com/2024/07/07/us-news/4-senior-house-dems-including-ny-rep-jerry-nadler-join-call-for-biden-to-drop-out-of-2024-race/

Federal Court Blocks Title IX Expansion to Include Gender Identity In Texas And Montana

 by Matt McGregor via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A district judge has granted Texas and Montana’s request for a preliminary injunction against the federal government’s attempt “to impose a sweeping new social policy” that allows for Title IX coverage for gender identity.

The ruling follows others in which federal judges have brought Title IX revisions to a halt.

In this most recent decision, Texas District Judge Jeremy Kernodle ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) can’t force state health care providers to fund gender-affirming care by threatening them with the loss of federal funding.

In May 2024, HHS issued a press release on its Final Rule, which expanded the definition of Title IX protections in 2016 to include “discrimination based on the basis of gender identity” to fit in with Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Title IX was initially established in 1972 to protect women from discrimination in public education.

When Congress enacted the ACA in 2010, no agency—or court—had ever interpreted ‘on the basis of sex’ to mean ‘on the basis of gender identity,’” Judge Kernodle wrote. “But in 2016, HHS began to do so, issuing a rule purporting to implement Section 1557 and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of ‘gender identity.’”

Texas and Montana, two states that exclude gender-affirming care procedures from their Medicaid programs and prohibit doctors from performing them on minors, sued HHS, arguing that the federal health department has no authority to mandate that the states adhere to these revisions.

HHS said in its press release that the regulations were updated to prevent “dehumanizing beliefs” surrounding medical treatments and conditions such as gender dysphoria.

“The Department will approach gender dysphoria as it would any other disorder or condition,” HHS said in its Final Rule. “If a disorder or condition affects one or more body systems, it may be considered a physical or mental impairment.”

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said the Final Rule’s intent is to “strengthen protections” and ensure “equal access to this nation’s health care system and its social service programs for people with disabilities and their families.”

It is comprehensive in scope, advancing justice for people with disabilities and helping to ensure they are not discriminated against under any program or activity receiving funding from HHS just because they have a disability,” Mr. Becerra said.

Judge Kernodle wrote in his order that the Final Rule proposes an “absurd” policy in that health care entities are prohibited from limiting services exclusive to one sex, such as providing a prostate exam.

The Final Rule would also allow men who identify as females to be allowed in “female-exclusive facilities, including shared hospital rooms.”

The Final Rule also affects health insurance coverage like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Judge Kernodle wrote.

As applied to state-sponsored insurance plans like Medicaid and CHIP [Children’s Health Insurance Program], the Final Rule has the effect of requiring states to pay for ‘transition’ and other ‘gender-affirming’ procedures,” he said.

As in other rulings on this issue, the primary reason for Judge Kernodle’s decision was that the states demonstrated that they would face irreparable financial harm by failing to comply with HHS’s rule.

Both states receive billions in federal funding, he wrote, which would “likely be withheld for violating the Final Rule,” he wrote.

“The loss of such funding for Medicaid and CHIP would devastate these programs and their beneficiaries,” he said.

Other Rulings

On July 3, Mississippi District Judge Louis Guirola also ruled that HHS couldn’t enforce its reinterpretation of Title IX protections to include gender identity.

Plaintiffs in up to 15 states, including Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, and Mississippi, filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Mississippi.

Judge Gurioloa said the plaintiffs have proven that they would “incur substantial costs” if they didn’t comply with the Final Rule by losing federal funding, which was the deciding factor in his order.

“As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established all four elements for imposing a preliminary injunction and stay,” he wrote.

Other rulings include Kansas v. U.S. Department of Education, in which a federal judge ruled the Department of Education couldn’t impose its redefinition of sex to include gender identity and sexual orientation.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC)—an LGBT advocacy organization—issued a press release criticizing the ruling.

This ruling is not only morally wrong, it’s also bad policy,“ HRC Director Kelly Robinson said.

“Everyone deserves access to the medical care they need to be healthy and thrive.”

“This isn’t over,” she added. “All LGBTQ+ people should receive the health care they deserve and be able to make informed decisions about our own bodies.”

The Epoch Times contacted the HRC and HHS for comment on this new ruling.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/federal-court-blocks-title-ix-expansion-include-gender-identity-texas-and-montana