#2022 up assembly elections

[foreverlogical]

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers signed new legislative districts into law on Monday to replace gerrymandered Republican maps that the new liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down in December. If the court signs off on the new maps, Wisconsin would finally get much fairer districts after more than a decade of tilted maps that have locked Democrats out of power in this longtime swing state.

Evers had recently proposed these maps to the court in the hopes that the justices would select them, but in a surprise, the Republican-run legislature passed them last week before the court could act. The court is still likely to review these new maps to ensure they comply with the criteria it laid down for any remedial plans, including that they be politically neutral.

As illustrated in the graphic at the top of this story, Joe Biden would have won an 18-15 majority of seats in the state Senate, while Donald Trump would have carried a 50-49 majority of state Assembly districts. (Click here and here for interactive versions with partisan and demographic data from Dave's Redistricting App.) The now-invalid Republican maps, by contrast, gave Trump an 22-11 edge in the Senate and a 64-35 advantage in the Assembly.

Because only half of the seats in the Senate will be up for election in November, Democrats would likely have to wait until the 2026 elections before they could flip the upper chamber. However, the new maps would give them a chance to take back the Assembly this fall.

Republicans may have opted for Evers' proposals because they are slightly more favorable to the GOP compared to other plans that were under consideration by the court. Nonetheless, Evers' maps are still much fairer than the current GOP gerrymanders, which let Republicans win a veto-proof two-thirds supermajority in the Senate in 2022 and nearly hit that mark in the Assembly despite Democrats winning most statewide races that same year.

[tomorrowusa]

Illinois is very strongly in favor of reproductive freedom. It's a major destination for people from red states in the region who are seeking reproductive healthcare.

Some Republican-run jurisdictions in red states have made it a crime to assist women to leave those states for the purpose of getting an abortion. The Illinois legislature has responded to that by making it illegal for any Illinois authorities to cooperate with investigators from red states seeking to prosecute their states' residents for getting abortions in Illinois or assisting them in arranging to help them get abortions.

Authorities in Illinois would not be allowed to aid another state’s investigation of people coming to Illinois to seek abortions or other reproductive health care under a bill that cleared the General Assembly Thursday. House Bill 5239, which needs only a signature from Gov. J.B. Pritzker to become law, also gives individuals the right to sue for civil damages if their information is improperly disclosed.

Gov. Pritzker is certain to sign the bill into law.

There's also help for teens who need family planning services.

Further, it gives minors the right to apply for public aid to obtain family planning services without the consent of their parents. And it gives the state exclusive authority to define and regulate “lawful health care activity,” prohibiting local units of government from exercising similar authority. The bill is one of several responses Illinois lawmakers have passed in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade. It came in response to legislative efforts in other states to ban or severely limit access to abortion services.

These measures became necessary after the Republican US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

While the focus this year is mostly on national politics, Illinois reminds us that there is much the states can do on their own.

Find out who is running for state legislature in your districts. If you're represented by MAGA Republicans then contact your state or county Democratic Party organization and ask how you can help elect Democrats to represent you.

Find Your Legislators Look your legislators up by address or use your current location.

[kp777]

By Miles Parks

NPR

June 7, 2023

Why are Republicans abandoning one of the best tools the government has to catch voter fraud? That simple question is the focus of a new NPR investigation, published Sunday.

The tool is the Electronic Registration Information Center, better known as ERIC. It was created almost a decade ago as a way for states to share government data, in an effort to keep their voter rolls up to date. It allows election officials better insight into when their voters move and die and the rare times when they vote twice in different states, which is illegal.

"The little secret is that maybe more than 10 years ago, if somebody voted in Ohio, in Florida, in Arizona and Texas, you would have never known," Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, said in an interview with NPR in February. "With ERIC, we can compare our voter rolls to those states."

Eight Republican states have now pulled out of ERIC, including many with voting officials who are on the record as praising the partnership as recently as a few months ago. Ohio pulled out a month after LaRose spoke to NPR.

J. Christian Adams, a conservative elections attorney, has long been a critic of how ERIC operates. But he told NPR: "It's this crazy zeal to get out of ERIC ... that is going to cause voter fraud to flourish."

So what happened? Here are five takeaways from NPR's investigation:

1. A far-right website kicked things off

The story starts in January 2022, when a far-right website called the Gateway Pundit, which has pushed conspiracy theories in the past, began writing about ERIC. Up until then, the partnership was considered a quiet bipartisan success story, with member states that spanned the political spectrum.

NPR's investigations team analyzed hundreds of thousands of social media posts on a handful of social media sites frequented by election deniers. We found the Gateway Pundit's coverage started the far right's fixation on the program:

See Chart.

Roughly a week after the first Gateway Pundit article, Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin, a Republican, announced his state would become the first to pull out of ERIC, citing "concerns raised by citizens, government watchdog organizations and media reports."

2. Local "election integrity" groups are a political force

NPR found that while Ardoin did not make a big public show out of pulling out of ERIC, he did bring the announcement to maybe the only constituents at that time who would even care: a local group of conservative activists gathered in Houma, La.

The crowd, assembled for an "election integrity town hall," applauded for 15 seconds when Ardoin announced he was pulling the state out of ERIC. The event was publicized less than 24 hours before Ardoin's office released its statement on ERIC.

NPR's investigation also found these sorts of community election integrity groups to be critical in the effort to discredit ERIC across the country.

A group called Protect Your Vote Florida published a page on its website called "How to Influence Florida Legislators to Suspend Contract with ERIC!"

"The STRATEGY is to run a campaign directed at key Florida legislators," the group wrote in the post, which included a list of the state's lawmakers and contact information. "Hand delivered letters, emails, phone calls, and social media activity will all be utilized to maximize impact."

Emails acquired by NPR through public records requests showed election officials began to field questions from voters and state lawmakers shortly after these calls went out.

3. A Trump ally has coordinated an election denial machine

Cleta Mitchell is known by many for working with former President Donald Trump to try to overturn the 2020 election. The attorney was on the infamous call where Trump asked Georgia election officials to "find votes."

In the time since, she's been building an election denial infrastructure.

Her podcast, "Who's Counting," has become a central hub for stolen election narratives, and she's also started a coalition of grassroots groups across the country called the Election Integrity Network.

NPR's investigation found Mitchell to be a ringleader of sorts for the effort to dismantle ERIC.

She even hosted a secret ERIC summit with red state lawmakers last summer, according to documents shared with NPR by a nonprofit watchdog group called Documented.

Secretaries of state from the first five states to withdraw from ERIC attended the event, according to one attendee.

See chart.

4. Republican primaries are a driving force behind the ERIC exodus

In Louisiana, when Ardoin made the decision to leave ERIC, he was gearing up to run for reelection in a state Trump won by almost 20 percentage points. He was facing numerous challenges on his right. And ERIC was becoming a priority for Republican voters.

"We started hearing it on the campaign trail," added Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen in an interview with NPR.

Allen ran for his office last year, and shortly after the Gateway Pundit published its first article, he made a campaign promise to pull out of ERIC if he won. This January, he followed through, and Alabama became the second state to withdraw.

Secretaries of state in Missouri, West Virginia and Ohio — all states that have pulled out — have announced campaigns for higher office next year, or are expected to run.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis is a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. DeSantis appointed Cord Byrd as his secretary of state last year, and the state's stance on ERIC shifted almost immediately.

NPR's investigation found that before he was secretary, Byrd regularly joined election integrity calls hosted by Mitchell.

5. ERIC withdrawals will make for "dirtier voter rolls" and an emboldened far right

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, put it simply in an interview with NPR: The states that have left ERIC "indirectly said, 'We're going to have dirtier voter rolls.' "

Brianna Lennon, a Democrat who oversees voting in Boone County, Mo., told NPR that will surely be the case in her county.

Before Missouri joined ERIC, the elections office relied on returned mail to find out if a voter moved to another state.

"That's what we'll have to go back to using," she said.

Election experts say less accurate voter rolls have a direct impact on voters, from longer lines at precincts to mail ballots and information getting sent to the wrong places.

Lennon told NPR she's worried about what the ERIC saga means for the 2024 election cycle. She had gotten a sense recently that community election integrity groups were gaining more traction in her state, but she says the secretary of state's decision was the first major policy decision she's seen that lined up so directly with their goals.

"I'm sure there are going to be ripples that come from this particular move and I'm not exactly sure what the end will be," she said. "I don't think this is an isolated thing."

Read or listen to the full investigation here.

[contemplatingoutlander]

"Far from being exceptional in American history, gun-control regulations are the default. If 'Bruen' was designed to nullify the constitutional basis for many gun laws, it ought to fail."

--Robert J. Spitzer, political science professor emeritus at SUNY Cortland

Robert J. Spitzer, professor emeritus at SUNY Cortland outlines the early--and plentiful--history of gun regulation laws in early American history. Consequently, Clarence Thomas's 2022 Bruen decision might not be the disaster for gun control that some people have thought. Below are some excerpts from the article.

In the summer of 1619, the leaders of the fledgling Jamestown colony came together as the first general assembly to enact “just Laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting.” Consisting of the governor, Sir George Yeardley; his four councillors; and 22 elected “burgesses,” or representatives, the group approved more than 30 measures. Among them was the nation’s first gun law:

"That no man do sell or give any Indians any piece, shot, or powder, or any other arms offensive or defensive, upon pain of being held a traitor to the colony and of being hanged as soon as the fact is proved, without all redemption."

After that early example of gun control came many more laws placing restrictions on the ownership and use of firearms. If guns have always been part of American society, so have gun laws. This fact might come as a surprise to some gun-rights advocates, who seem to believe that America’s past was one of unregulated gun ownership. That view received a big assist in 2022, when the Supreme Court declared in "New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen" that the constitutionality of modern gun laws depends on whether they are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In other words, the constitutional standard for any modern gun law boils down to whether you can find a good precedent for it back in the 1700s or 1800s. The advocates’ assumption is that such precedents are few and far between, but thanks to the work of researchers and the digitization of archival material, thousands of old gun laws, of every imaginable variety, are now available for reference. Far from being exceptional in American history, gun-control regulations are the default. If "Bruen" was designed to nullify the constitutional basis for many gun laws, it ought to fail. [...] Throughout this long period in the history of the republic, up until the beginning of the 20th century, gun laws placed conditions or restrictions on weapons access for a wide variety of citizens—in particular, indentured servants, vagrants, non-Protestants, those who refused to swear an oath of loyalty to the government, felons, foreigners, minors, and those under the influence of alcohol. Numerous laws regulated hunting practices, as well as firearms’ carry, use, storage, and transportation; regulated the manufacture, inspection, storage, and sale of firearms; imposed gun licensing; and restricted dangerous or unusual weapons. Despite the Thomas opinion’s claim that “the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century ‘sensitive places’ where weapons were altogether prohibited,” some local authorities outlawed the discharge of firearms in or near towns, buildings, or roads, as well as after dark, on Sundays, at public gatherings, and in cemeteries. In some jurisdictions, any use of a firearm that wasted gunpowder was also an offense. [...] In the post-revolutionary 1800s, as rising violent crime led more people to arm themselves, a total of 42 states (plus the District of Columbia) enacted laws against concealed carry. Three more did so in the early 1900s, so that the total included almost every state in the Union. As many states from the 1700s to 1900s also enacted some form of weapons-licensing law. That’s not all. Over that same period, at least 22 states restricted any gun carrying, including of long guns. Moreover, across the entire period, three-quarters of the states had laws either against “brandishing”—waving a gun around in a menacing or threatening manner—or merely having a weapon on display in public. [...] In addition, even though for much of its history America was an agrarian country...its lawmakers and enforcers were inventive and determined about ensuring public safety. When they perceived a threat to that order from firearms, they passed laws to restrict or prevent them. And back then, by and large, no court struck those laws down. That is what is truly consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. So if we accept the originalist premise of "Bruen," the actual result should be to render a broad array of gun regulations constitutional. [color emphasis added]

[yougottabetheguy]

So French politics is a total mess right now.

But we need a tiny bit of backstory to fully understand why.

In 1944, France took back its' territories from invading armies. The 4th Republic was declared when De Gaulle stepped down as commander-in-chief-in-exile.

The 4th Republic tried to be parliamentary, but also incentivised coalitions, which constantly broke down. So there were massive political instabilities which came to a head in the Algerian war of independence in 1958. French soldiers, living in Algeria, threatened to invade the mainland if the head of government didn't give up peace talks with the Algerian rebels. So De Gaulle, the man who brought freedom back to France and fended off American imperialism post-WWII, was called on to solve the crisis.

He decided to form a new semi-presidential republic, that wouldn't be bogged down by giving excessive power to the elected assembly.

The President is directly elected for 5 years, and so is the lower house (Assembly). To be eligible to be president, you must have the support of at least 500 mayors or regional councillors over the entire country. (Yes, that does mean that the French people are asked to vote at least 5 times every 5 years: mayoral, regional, legislative (lower house), presidential, and European). The upper house, the Senate, is voted in indirectly by all representatives (mayors, councillors, Assembly members).

Phew.

But also, the Assembly can overturn the Presidency by a simple majority vote. And the President can, at any time, dissolve the Assembly.

This means, that since the legislative and presidential elections are very close to each other, that the presidential party/coalition has always had a majority in the Assembly, except for a few occasions. (I think Mitterrand didn't have one)

It's a presidential republic because the President has strong executive power, and can pass executive bills without the Assembly's approval: so called Article 49§3. Article 49§3 is meant to break parliamentary deadlock on critical issues, like national budgets, by forcing the Assembly to take action. The Assembly can overturn the President and block the bill by simple majority of registered Assembly members, not just those who turn up to the vote. So it is a political gamble. Mr Macron has used this to bully his party in the past: "Vote for my controversial retirement pension reform or vote me out and lose your seat."

But also, Mr Macron is a scheming, conniving bastard. He used the rise of the far right to his political gain: in 2017, he presented himself as a centrist. He was young, smart, an economist, hot, and had a wife with intrigue (they met when she was his French teacher in high school). And he won out against the far right. His party was founded in 2015, so no-one knew what to do with him.

But then, over the years, we slowly realised that he was financially liberal, socially centrist, and morally bankrupt. He was accused of putting his friends in power and generally being money grubbing. But his international appeal was pretty good.

So then he won again in 2022: hoping that the left wouldn't form a coalition (they did), that he could hold down the centre parties (he couldn't), and the far right wouldn't become larger (it did). But he still managed to get a slim majority. Thus heavy use of 49§3 to align his party.

All in all, the left were/are furious. Twice now, they did the political good deed of voting for the candidate they didn't really like to block the one they hate from getting in. So tensions were high.

Now in 2024, the far right win big in the European Elections. They get a sizeable share of french votes (mostly from low turnout by other parties). Macron decides to dissolve the Assembly 2 (?) days later.

Huh?? Why?? What?? Tf do we do now??

So now we have a legislative election in a month that no one saw coming. Everyone scrambles. The left form a coalition in 2 weeks, their manifesto cobbled together by sleepless nights. The right, once composed of 2-3 parties, has split, the vast majority of the traditional right now have joined the far right. The centre is gutted, save for Macron's party, who's effectively subsumed their voter demographic.

The legislative elections have a 2 round system: everyone votes for who they actually want in round 1 and settles in round 2.

It's chaos.

After round one, the left have a 30% hold on the country, the centre have 20%, and the far right have 35%.

Everyone realises that the far right have a real chance at winning a majority. Le Pen pushes her electorate as hard as she can: she doesn't just want to be the biggest party and get to form the government, she wants a majority and overturn the President.

The left choose to pull out of places that they aren't going to win to avoid diluting the vote. Days before the 2nd round, Macron has said nothing similar. A few days before, his message is simple: "We're not going to do anything. We won't pull out of races we might not win." It's a kick in the teeth for the left.

The end of the second round looks like this:

Purple is the left coalition, yellow is Macron, blue is traditional right, brown is far right.

With 182 seats, the left have the most, and should form the next government. Not by law, but by convention.

Macron has 168 seats, the far right have 143.

The majority is 289 seats. No one is close, but a coalition would work.

Unfortunately, that's a problem: since no government in the past 60 years has had to form a coalition, no one knows how, and aren't amenable to it in the first place.

But the left are ecstatic. They struggled so hard to unite, they defied all odds to challenge Macron, and now they have the institutional (but not legal) right to name a Prime Minister (head of the lower house).

This all happened before the Olympics. So Macron declares that there must be political unity during the Olympics. So everyone agrees and keeps quiet for a while.

Side note, Mr Macron has called himself the "God of Time" in private meetings, since he believes that he can dictate when things happen, putting off decisions and important meeting by leveraging the might of french bureaucracy at them. But that kind of tactic wears thin very quickly.

After the Olympics, and the fiasco that was, politics can start again. The left, after an awful lot of arguing and trial and error, name Lucie Castets as Prime Minister. She's smart, female, and merely socialist (as opposed to communist). The far right immediately oppose her, declaring that they would vote to overturn her as soon as she is sworn in. "Blah blah blah not strong not good too extreme".

So they try again. And again. Until Macron, who is the person who swears in the Prime Minister, invites potential candidates from different parties to his office. So now, somehow, Macron, who didn't win the majority of seats, is choosing the PM. He invites Hollande, Sarkozy, Mélenchon, Duflot, Cazeneuve, Bertrand, Castets to try and find a leader who might not be immediately overturned.

The left insist that any extreme right candidate will be overturned. The far right insist that any candidate with an inkling of leftism will be overturned. Macron's party stays quiet.

So we arrive at today: Michel Barnier is our new PM. He's right wing. He voted against decriminalising gays in the 80s.

His inauguration speech had catchphrases like: "Access to public services, security in daily life, and immigration control". He promises to establish a "German-style" cabinet, made up of ministers from all parties. But we'll see how that goes.

So...yeah...I love how the left got the most seats of all parties and is now completely out of government.

Macron _could_ have formed a left alliance and chosen to uphold french dignity. He _could_ have chosen an ex-centrist PM. He _could_ have chosen compromise, but instead bent the knee to the right because they're more vocal.

Maybe I'll update this as time goes by. Maybe I'll be too depressed to do so.

[mariacallous]

It's even more grotesque because Mar Galcerán has been an activist and official working on inclusiveness and disability policy for a while now in Spain.

For decades she battled to ensure that people with intellectual disabilities were part of the conversation. The extent of the progress she had made, however, was laid bare recently when Mar Galcerán became Spain’s first parliamentarian with Down’s syndrome.

“It’s unprecedented,” the 45-year-old told the Guardian. “Society is starting to see that people with Down’s syndrome have a lot to contribute. But it’s a very long road.”

Her feat has been decades in the making. When Galcerán was 18 years old, she joined the conservative People’s party (PP) after being attracted to what she described as its embrace of tradition.

Slowly she worked her way up the party apparatus. Her commitment paid off last May when she was added as the 20th name on the list of candidates the PP was fielding in Valencia’s regional elections.

News that Galcerán had obtained a seat in the regional parliament came soon after. “Welcome Mar,” the region’s PP leader, Carlos Mazón, wrote on social media. “Great news for politics, overcoming barriers.”

The achievement catapults Galcerán to the top of the ranks of the handful of people with Down’s syndrome who have crashed through barriers to enter the world of politics. In 2020, Éléonore Laloux became the first person with the genetic disorder in France to be elected to public office, as a city council member in the northern town of Arras, while Ireland’s Fintan Bray was hailed for making history after he was elected to a political position in the country in 2022.

In Spain, Galcerán’s path into politics was blazed by Ángela Bachiller, who in 2013 became Spain’s first city councillor with Down’s syndrome in the northern city of Valladolid.

Galcerán may be the first in Europe, however, to join a regional or national parliament, according to Spain’s Down’s syndrome federation.

“We haven’t heard of anyone else,” said Agustín Matía Amor of Down España. “It’s a huge step forward and an example of real inclusion.”

He was quick to point out that the achievement was also a reflection of the decades Galcerán had spent working to advance the status of people with Down’s syndrome in Spain. For more than 20 years Galcerán had worked as a civil servant in Valencia, most recently helping to carve out inclusive policy, adding to the four years she spent at the helm of Asindown, a Valencian organisation dedicated to helping families with children that have Down’s syndrome.

“It’s both great news and a recognition of her work and the many initiatives she was involved in,” said Matía Amor. “It’s a good example of what is possible.”

While Galcerán’s September swearing in was hailed by Spanish media, she said the reaction online had been mixed. “You find all sorts on social media,” she said. “There are people who support me. But there are also others who think I’m not capable. But these are people who don’t know me or my background.”

As she gets acquainted with her new role, she described it as a tremendous responsibility. “I want to learn how to do it well, for Valencianos, and more importantly, for those of us who have different abilities.”

Ultimately she hoped her presence in the regional parliament would help to dismantle the many prejudices that continue to linger in society, particularly when it comes to people with Down’s syndrome. “I want people to see me as a person, not just for my disability.”

[abigailspinach]

“How often in 100 days do you get to change the trajectory of the world? How often in 100 days do you get to do something that’s going to impact generations to come?” Walz asked. “And how often in the world do you make that bastard wake up afterwards and know that a Black woman kicked his a**, sent him on the road?”

The line was well received on the call and almost immediately grabbed headlines. For many Democrats, at least, the online virality – with apologies to Biden’s “Dark Brandon” meme – was the kind they have pined for over the past few years.

Walz also has a personal story befitting the zeitgeist – a family history, as he discussed last month, of infertility troubles, with his wife of three decades, Gwen, which allows him to speak with some authority against opponents or skeptics of in vitro fertilization, or IVF.

“My oldest daughter’s name is Hope. That’s because my wife and I spent seven years trying to get pregnant, needed fertility treatments, things like IVF – things (MAGA Republicans) would ban,” Walz told Harris supporters. “These guys are the anti-freedoms.”

And to draw a bright, cheeky line under his own childhood experience, Walz – not for the last time – recounted that he “grew up in a small town: 400 people, 24 kids in the class, 12 cousins.”

Prior to Congress, Walz was a high school teacher and football coach and served in the Army National Guard. Over more than a decade in Congress, he assembled a fairly centrist voting record. As a first-time campaigner, he opposed a ban on same-sex marriage and supported abortion rights. And once in Congress, he balanced that out with comparatively more conservative positions on gun rights, which resulted in scoring a National Rifle Association endorsement. Walz has since fallen out of favor with the gun lobby over his support for gun safety actions as governor.

“I think he was a solid Democratic member of the House with a few twists - focus on ag, farmers, rural areas,” said Democratic strategist Jeff Blodgett, a longtime aide to the late Sen. Paul Wellstone. “I think that he wanted to protect rifles and things of that nature as a rural congressman.”

Walz ran for governor in 2018, emerging victorious by a double-digit margin. He won reelection in 2022 with 52 percent of the vote. As governor Walz had to grapple with divided government and slim majorities in the state Legislature. But in 2022, the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (as the state’s Democratic Party is known) won control of both the state House and Senate giving Walz’s party a slim “trifecta” of legislative control.

That allowed Walz to sign into law a raft of expansive social welfare programs such as free lunch for public school students, expansive access to Medicaid, increased protections that allow workers to unionize and expanded medical and family paid family leave.

Through the trifecta, Minnesota Democrats were also able to codify abortion rights into law, increase transgender rights protections, pass a marijuana legalization bill and install new gun safety laws. Progressives hailed the work as an example of all that Democrats could achieve. Former President Barack Obama wrote in a tweet praising the most recent legislative session that it was a “reminder that elections have consequences.”

Walz touted the trifecta’s work in a combative 2023 State of the State address.

“There’s nowhere quite like Minnesota right now,” he told the audience of lawmakers. “Together, we’re not just showing the people of Minnesota what we’re capable of in delivering on our promises. We’re showing the entire American people just how much promise is contained in that progressive vision held by so many people.”

“As governor, he’s embraced the idea that it’s really important to invest in people and infrastructure to grow the economy,” Blodgett said. “And to do it in a way that really helps people in the middle and down below. To me, it’s just a huge focus on economic issues that are kitchen table issues that people care about.”

When speculation began about who Harris would pick as a running mate, Walz started out as the darkest of dark horses. He did get support from a few members of Congress such as Minnesota Rep. Angie Craig and Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, as well as encouragement from labor unions. In the end, Walz’s background as a governor experienced in working with Democrats and Republicans and his roots in rural Minnesota made him an appealing choice for Harris.

Walz was also a surprise to Republicans.

“Tim Walz doesn’t even register on the fear-o-meter,” Minnesota Republican strategist Kevin Poindexter said before the announcement, adding that Republicans had been more worried about Harris picking either Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly or Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. “Him joining the ticket as VP does not bring anything.”

Democratic strategist Raghu Devaguptapu, a former Democratic Governors Association political director, characterized Walz as a “real steady hand” more than anything else as a governor.

“He’s not the most charismatic guy, but he’s a steady hand. He’s really thoughtful, very likeable. He’s done a really nice job of building a broad coalition of support. … That’s the center of strength around Tim Walz,” Devaguptapu said.

[projektfotograficzny]

“In Our Shoes”

Zmicer Waynowski

In November 2020, Zmicer Waynowski was detained at one of the many rallies held in Belarus after the presidential elections. Together with millions of other Belarusians, he exercised his right for freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and stood for justice against the electoral fraud and state’s lawlessness. Zmicer was sentenced to 13 days of imprisonment under the infamous article 23.34 (“Participating in unauthorized mass events”). On being released and immediately facing further persecution, Zmicer left the country and applied for political asylum in Lublin.

In the course of two years, more than 50,000 of the photographer’s fellow citizens were forced into immigration and moved to Poland. In February 2022, after Russia’s attack on Ukraine, a wave of immigrants from Belarus was joined by millions of Ukrainians.

Upon arrival to a new, safer place refugees encounter numerous problems related to financial uncertainty, communication difficulties, culture gap, and certainly bureaucracy. One can hardly get through the red tape without the support of local officials who empathize with the newcomers and share their uneasy emotional state.

“In Our Shoes” is an attempt to invite Lubliners to literally experience what it feels like to be in a refugee’s shoes in an alien country—trying to find one’s balance on an uncomfortable shaky stool with one leg missing.

“I came up with the stool concept for my photography project somewhat automatically,” Waynowski recalls, “because this is the first phrase you hear when attending an immigration office: ‘Please, sit down!’ And it is when sitting on a chair that you take part in different formal conversations about your status, documents you need to submit, sign, or wait for. On some days, nervously clenching the stool, you put every effort to decipher the office worker’s emotions and understatements. On other days, you feel helpless and are almost about to lose… balance, equilibrium, hope…

Asking Lubliners to try themselves in our shoes, I spotted various reactions. I saw people getting seated on a two-legged stool almost professionally, as if it does not really matter how hard it could be. I also saw those who, just like me, were struggling to remain balanced.

But whatever stool trick my project participants chose, I am grateful to every empathetic Lubliner for what they have been doing for us. In the end, I am lucky to be where I am and happy to have met people who sincerely care for the less privileged ones—less privileged but still full of determination to move on.”  

“Na naszym miejscu”

Zmicer Waynowski

W listopadzie 2020 roku Zmicer Waynowski został zatrzymany podczas jednej z licznych wówczas akcji protestacyjnych, które odbywały się na Białorusi po wyborach prezydenckich. Razem z milionem swych rodaków wystąpił w obronie prawa do wolności wypowiedzi oraz pokojowych zgromadzeń, walcząc jednocześnie o sprawiedliwość, protestując przeciwko fałszowaniu wyników wyborów i braku poszanowania prawa przez władze państwowe. Za tę działalność Zmicer Waynowski został ukarany 13 dniami aresztu na mocy mającego złą sławę artykułu 23.34 („Udział w nielegalnych zgromadzeniach masowych”). Po wyjściu na wolność, nadal prześladowany, Zmicer opuścił Białoruś i wystąpił o azyl polityczny w Lublinie.

W ciągu dwóch ostatnich lat ponad 50 000 Białorusinów zostało zmuszonych do wyjazdu ze swego kraju. Większość z nich znalazła schronienie w Polsce. W lutym 2022 r. — po rosyjskim ataku na Ukrainę — do fali emigrantów z Białorusi dołączyły miliony Ukraińców.

Po dotarciu do nowego, bezpiecznego miejsca uchodźcy spotykają się z licznymi problemami związanymi z niepewnością finansową, z nieporozumieniami wynikającymi z nieznajomości języka, z szokiem kulturowym, a także z polską biurokracją, z którą trudno sobie poradzić bez wsparcia lokalnych urzędników, niejednokrotnie szczerze współczującym przybyszom.

„Na naszym miejscu” to projekt “dosłownie” zapraszający lublinian, by choć na chwilę wcielili się w skórę uchodźców w obcym kraju i spróbowali odnaleźć równowagę na niewygodnym chwiejnym stołku, przy którym brakuje jednej nogi.

„Pojawienie się stołka bez nogi jako metafory było w tym projekcie fotograficznym sprawą bardzo naturalną, — opowiada Waynowski. — Bo "Proszę usiąść" to pierwsze zdanie, które słyszy się w urzędach do spraw cudzoziemców. Uchodźca niepewnie siada na krzesło i, wsłuchując się z napięciem w słowa urzędników, bierze udział w rozmowach na temat swojego statusu, dokumentów koniecznych do złożenia, uzupełnienia czy podpisania. Nerwowo ściskając stołek, człowiek próbuje zgadnąć, jaki sens, kryje się za słowami pracownika urzędu; co wyrażają jego mina i gesty. Zdarzały się dni, kiedy czułem się tak bezradny, że byłem bliski utraty wszelkiej nadziei; traciłem równowagę i ducha, i ciała.

Prosząc lublinian, by spróbowali poczuć się na naszym miejscu, obserwowałem różne ich reakcje. Widziałem, że niektórzy niemal “zawodowo” siadają na chwiejnym stołku, jakby nie miało znaczenia, że brakuje jednej nogi, nie myśląc o tym, jak to może być trudne. Byli jednak i tacy, którzy podobnie jak ja, walczyli o zachowanie równowagi.

Niezależnie od tego, jak uczestnicy mojego projektu walczyli ze stołkiem, jestem wdzięczny każdemu mieszkańcowi i każdej mieszkance Lublina za to, co dla nas robią. Czuję się szczęśliwy i jestem zadowolony, że jestem tu, gdzie jestem i że spotykam ludzi, którzy szczerze troszczą się o tych mniej uprzywilejowanych, lecz pełnych determinacji, by iść dalej”.

«На нашым месцы»

Зміцер Вайноўскі

У лістападзе 2020 года Змітра Вайноўскага затрымалі на адной са шматлікіх акцый, якія прайшлі ў Беларусі пасля прэзідэнцкіх выбараў. Разам з мільёнамі суайчыннікаў ён рэалізаваў сваё права на свабоду слова і мірных сходаў і выступаў за справядлівасць супраць фальсіфікацыі выбараў і дзяржаўнага беззаконня. Зміцер быў асуджаны на 13 сутак арышту паводле сумнавядомага артыкула 23.34 («Удзел у несанкцыянаваных масавых мерапрыемствах»). Пасля вызвалення і пераследу Зміцер пакінуў краіну і папрасіў палітычнага прытулку ў Любліне.

Цягам двух гадоў больш за 50 000 беларусаў былі вымушаныя эміграваць і пераехалі ў Польшчу. У лютым 2022, пасля нападу Расіі на Украіну, хваля мігрантаў з Беларусі папоўнілася мільёнамі ўкраінцаў.

Прыбываючы ў новую бяспечную краіну, уцекачы сутыкаюцца са шматлікімі праблемамі, звязанымі з фінансавай нявызначанасцю, камунікатыўнымі цяжкасцямі, культурным шокам і, вядома, бюракратыяй, з якой практычна немагчыма справіцца без падтрымкі мясцовых чыноўнікаў, якія спачуваюць новапрыбылым і нярэдка шчыра падзяляюць іх няпросты эмацыйны стан.

«На нашым месцы» — гэта запрашэнне люблінцам літаральна адчуць сябе на месцы бежанца ў чужой краіне, паспрабаваць знайсці раўнавагу на нязручным хісткім зэдліку без адной нагі.

«Метафара зэдліка для фотапраекта прыйшла неяк сама па сабе, — успамінае Вайноўскі. — Таму што менавіта гэтую фразу ты чуеш, калі наведваеш іміграцыйны офіс. “Калі ласка, сядайце!” І менавіта седзячы на зэдліку, ты ўдзельнічаеш у розных фармальных размовах аб сваім статусе, дакументах, якія трэба здаць, падпісаць ці пачакаць. Часам, нервова сціскаючы край сядзення, ты прыкладаеш усе намаганні, каб разгадаць эмоцыі і недаказкі офіснага супрацоўніка. А ў іншыя дні застаецца толькі бездапаможнасць: здаецца, што яшчэ крышачку — і ты амаль страціш усялякую... раўнавагу, баланс, надзею...

Прапануючы люблінцам паспрабаваць сябе на нашым месцы, я заўважаў розныя рэакцыі. Я бачыў, як людзі амаль прафесійна садзіліся на двухногі зэдлік, быццам для іх не мае ніякага значэння, наколькі гэта можа быць цяжка. Таксама я бачыў і тых, хто, як і я, змагаўся за захаванне раўнавагі.

Але які б мудрагелісты прыём з зэдлікам ні абралі ўдзельнікі майго фотапраекта, я ўдзячны кожнаму спагадліваму люблінцу і кожнай люблінцы за тое, што яны робяць для нас. У рэшце рэшт, мне пашанцавала быць там, дзе я ёсць, і я шчаслівы, што сустрэў людзей, якія шчыра клапоцяцца пра менш прывілеяваных — менш прывілеяваных, але ўсё яшчэ поўных рашучасці рухацца наперад».

«На нашому місці»

Зміцер Вайновський

У листопаді 2020 року Зміцера Вайновського затримали на одному з численних мітингів, які відбувались в Білорусі після президентських виборів. Разом з мільйонами інших білорусів він скористався своїм правом на свободу вираження поглядів і мирних зібрань і виступив за справедливість проти фальсифікації виборів і державного беззаконня. Зміцера засудили до 13 діб арешту за сумнозвісною статтею 23.34 («Участь у несанкціонованих масових заходах»). Після звільнення та через переслідування Зміцер покинув країну та попросив політичного притулку в Любліні.

Протягом двох років понад 50 000 співгромадян фотографа були змушені емігрувати та переїхали до Польщі. У лютому 2022 року, після нападу Росії на Україну, до хвилі іммігрантів з Білорусі приєдналися мільйони українців.

Після прибуття в безпечне місце, біженці стикаються з численними проблемами, пов’язаними з фінансовою нестабільністю, культурними відмінностями, труднощами в спілкуванні, та, звісно, з бюрократичною тяганиною, яка не мала б кінця, як��и не поміч місцевих чиновників, які співпереживають новоприбулим емігрантам та їх непростому становищу.

«На нашому місці — це спроба запропонувати люблінцям буквально відчути, що означає відчути себе на місці біженця в чужій країні — намагатися знайти рівновагу на хиткому табуреті без однієї ніжки.

«Я придумав концепцію табуретки для свого фотопроекту дещо автоматично, – згадує Вайновський. – Тому що перша фраза, яку ви чуєте, коли відвідуєте державну міграційну службу. "Будь ласка, сідайте!" І саме сидячи на стільці, ви берете участь у різноманітних офіційних розмовах про свій статус, документи, які потрібно подати, підписати чи на які потрібно очікувати. Бувають дні, коли, нервово стискаючи стілець, ви намагаєтесь розгадати емоції та паузи офісного службовця. В інші дні ви почуваєтесь безпорадними і майже втрачаєте... рівновагу, баланс, надію…

Пропонуючи люблінцям спробувати себе “на нашому місці”, я бачив різноманітні реакції. Я спостерігав, як люди сідають на двоногий табурет майже професійно, ніби для них не має значення, наскільки це може бути важко. Я також бачив тих, хто, як і я, намагався зберегти рівновагу.

Та який би трюк зі стільцем не виконували учасники мого проекту, я вдячний кожному чуйному люблінцю за те, що вони для нас роблять. Зрештою, мені пощастило опинитися там, де я є, і я щасливий, що зустрів людей, які щиро піклуються про менш привілейованих – менш привілейованих, але все ще сповнених рішучості рухатися далі».

[warningsine]

PARIS (AP) — Voters across mainland France have been casting ballots Sunday in the first round of an exceptional parliamentary election that could put France’s government in the hands of nationalist, far-right parties for the first time since the Nazi era.

The outcome of the two-round election, which will wrap up July 7, could impact European financial markets, Western support for Ukraine, and how France’s nuclear arsenal and global military force are managed.

Many French voters are frustrated about inflation and economic concerns, as well as President Emmanuel Macron’s leadership, which they see as arrogant and out-of-touch with their lives. Marine Le Pen’s anti-immigration National Rally party has tapped and fueled that discontent, notably via online platforms like TikTok, and dominated all preelection opinion polls.

A new coalition on the left, the New Popular Front, is also posing a challenge to the pro-business Macron and his centrist alliance Together for the Republic.

There are 49.5 million registered voters who will choose 577 members of the National Assembly, France’s influential lower house of parliament, during the two-round voting.

Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s resurgent National Rally, cast her ballot in her party’s stronghold in northern France on Sunday.

Turnout at midday at the first round stood at 25.9 % according to interior ministry figures, which is higher from the 2022 legislative elections at this time of the day. It was 18.43% at midday two years ago.

After a blitz campaign marred by rising hate speech, voting began early in France’s overseas territories, and polling stations opened in mainland France at 8 a.m. (0600 GMT) Sunday. The first polling projections are expected at 8 p.m. (1800 GMT), when the final polling stations close, and early official results are expected later Sunday night.

The voting is taking place during the traditional first week of summer vacation in the country, and absentee ballot requests were at least five times higher than in the 2022 elections, according to figures from the interior ministry.

Voters who turned out in person at a Paris polling station on Sunday had issues from immigration to inflation and the rising cost of living on their minds as the country has grown more divided between the far right and far left blocs with a deeply unpopular and weakened president in the political center.

“People don’t like what has been happening,” said Cynthia Justine, a 44-year-old voter in Paris. “People feel they’ve lost a lot in recent years. People are angry. I am angry.”

She added that with “the rising hate speech,” it was necessary for people to express their frustrations with those holding and seeking power and cast their ballots.

“It is important for me because I am a woman and we haven’t always had the right to vote,” Justin said. “Because I am a Black woman, it’s even more important. A lot is at stake on this day.”

Pierre Leclaer, a 78-year-old retiree, said he cast his ballot for the simple reason of “trying to avoid the worst,” which for him is “a government that is from the far right, populist, not liberal and not very Republican.”

Macron called the early election after his party was trounced in the European Parliament election earlier in June by the National Rally, which has historic ties to racism and antisemitism and is hostile toward France’s Muslim community. It was an audacious gamble that French voters who were complacent about the European Union election would be jolted into turning out for moderate forces in a national election to keep the far right out of power.

Instead, preelection polls suggest that the National Rally is gaining support and has a chance at winning a parliamentary majority. In that scenario, Macron would be expected to name 28-year-old National Rally President Jordan Bardella as prime minister in an awkward power-sharing system known as “cohabitation.”

In the restive French Pacific territory of New Caledonia, polls already closed at 5 p.m. local time due to an 8 p.m.-to-6 a.m. curfew that authorities on the archipelago have extended until July 8.

Nine people died during a two-week-long unrest in New Caledonia, where the Indigenous Kanak people have long sought to break free from France, which first took the Pacific territory in 1853. Violence flared on May 13 in response to attempts by Macron’s government to amend the French Constitution and change voting lists in New Caledonia, which Kanaks feared would further marginalize them.

Voters in France’s other overseas territories from Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint-Martin, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Guyana, French Polynesia and those voting in offices opened by embassies and consular posts across the Americas cast their ballots on Saturday.

While Macron has said he won’t step down before his presidential term expires in 2027, cohabitation would weaken him at home and on the world stage.

The results of the first round will give a picture of overall voter sentiment, but not necessarily of the overall makeup of the next National Assembly. Predictions are extremely difficult because of the complicated voting system, and because parties will work between the two rounds to make alliances in some constituencies or pull out of others.

In the past such tactical maneuvers helped keep far-right candidates from power. But now support for Le Pen’s party has spread deep and wide.

Bardella, who has no governing experience, says he would use the powers of prime minister to stop Macron from continuing to supply long-range weapons to Ukraine for the war with Russia. His party has historical ties to Russia.

The party has also questioned the right to citizenship for people born in France, and wants to curtail the rights of French citizens with dual nationality. Critics say this undermines fundamental human rights and is a threat to France’s democratic ideals.

Meanwhile, huge public spending promises by the National Rally and especially the left-wing coalition have shaken markets and ignited worries about France’s heavy debt, already criticized by EU watchdogs.

[crystalis]

"China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has released quite the explosive report on the US's National Endowment for Democracy (NED), explaining how under the cover of "promoting democracy", it has "long engaged in subverting state power in other countries, meddling in other countries’ internal affairs, inciting division and confrontation, misleading public opinion, and conducting ideological infiltration".

In short, it's subverting democracy, the exact contrary of what it says it's doing...

This is the link to the report:

The NED has long been infamous for doing this kind of stuff but there are a few things in the report that are really explosive:

1) Meddling on an enormous scale in Ukraine

The report claims that the NED "provided $65 million to the Ukrainian opposition during the 2004 Orange Revolution". They also write that "during the 2013-2014 Euromaidan, NED financed the Mass Media Institute to spread inflammatory information. NED also spent tens of millions of dollars in the use of such social media platforms as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram to spread disinformation, heighten ethnic tensions in Ukraine, and stir up ethnic antagonism in eastern Ukraine."

2) "Taking Mexico as a major target country for infiltration"

As the report details, the NED has financially supported numerous organizations like "Mexicans Against Corruption and Impunity (MCCI) and the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness (IMCO), and obstructed the electricity reform in Mexico". They also write that "in 2021, the Mexican government sent a note to the US government condemning NED’s funding of anti-government organizations in Mexico as 'an act of interventionism' 'promoting a coup.'"

3) Interference in Serbia's elections

They write that "in April 2022 and December 2023, Serbia held its presidential, National Assembly and local elections. NED interfered in the entire election process, and went all out to root for pro-US opposition candidates in the run-up to the elections. In May 2023, after two consecutive shooting incidents in Serbia, NED-sponsored human rights groups and pro-US opposition organizations staged mass demonstrations to demand the resignation of the Serbian government."

4) Instigating the recent protests in Georgia against the government for its foreign agents bill

They write that the "NED funded the establishment of three local NGO groupings in Georgia at the beginning of the 21st century to organize demonstrations in capital Tbilisi. In May 2024, NED rallied support for and instigated protests in Georgia against the foreign agents bill."

5) Supporting "Taiwan independence" separatist forces

They write that the NED co-hosted events with Taiwan's separatist Democratic Progressive Party, "tried to mobilize 'democratic forces' to open up the 'frontline of democratic struggle in the East' and hype up the false narrative of 'Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow'".

Needless to say, all of this is a complete violation of the UN Charter: they violate both the principle of sovereign equality that guarantees each state's right to freely choose and develop its own political, social, economic, and cultural systems; as well as the principle of non-intervention in the domestic matters of other states. And I'm not even mentioning the violation of the victim states' domestic jurisdictions..."

[learnwithmearticles]

France Election

The French 2024 election saw an amazing turnout from voters who ended up keeping the far-right out of the majority in the National Assembly.

This is not a landslide victory, but it does prove promising for the future if we can maintain this success.

French Parties

France has three main parties, here referred to as the ‘left’, ‘centrist’, and ‘right’ for convenience.

The left is primarily the New Popular Front (NFP). Their goals include limiting inflation on staple food items, increasing the minimum wage, and increasing public sector salaries and welfare benefits. They also aim to end the 2023 French pension reform law, which raised the retirement age to 64 and required someone to have worked at least 43 years. 

The center, or Les Centristes, is that which President Emmanuel Macron considers himself part of. Their goal is finding a compromise between socialism and capitalism, supporting a competitive economy as well as social welfare, and developing public transit and cleaner energy. Macron has praised the pursuit of decarbonized energy and vied for incentive policies supporting electric energy. He is harshly criticized for economic-related policies, such as heavy tax breaks for the richest citizens, the pension reform law, and putting his personal success above the French people.

The right are called the National Rally or, until 2018, the National Front. It is the most strongly xenophobic, and its goals include vilifying the European Union, increasing control and regulation of immigration, and feigning support for queer people while opposing same-sex marriage.

Election Results

The election saw the left win 182 seats in the National Assembly, while centrists won 163 and the right won 143, with smaller political factions making up the remainder. An absolute majority would be at 289 seats, so in the years to come we will likely see a lot of contention around the proposals, debating, and passing of laws.

This does mean the next Prime Minister will likely be elected -by Macron- from the politically left. This will be difficult, as many of Macron’s affiliates view leaders from the left as too extreme.

Popular veteran of left-wing politics, Jean-Luc Mélanchon, is an unlikely candidate due to how divisive he has been considered, despite coming in third in the 2022 presidential election. Marine Tondelier is another possible candidate, and currently the National Secretary of the Green Party. There is also François Ruffin, particularly known for disagreeing with Mélanchon based on views of what democracy should be. These are only a few of the people Macron has to consider to eventually fill the position.

Another important change is illuminated by the events surrounding the Pension Reform Bill. When Macron pushed it through, two no-confidence motions came from the National Assembly. If either had passed, Macron would have been forced to make major changes to the government, such as completely replacing his government appointments. While neither passed, one was only nine votes from the majority. With even more seats held by those who don’t align with Macron, we can expect potential future motions like this to be more successful. 

In other sectors, we might see large change with the left now rising in numbers in the National Assembly. Before the election, an interview with Sarah Legrain from the NPF indicated a belief in the National Assembly’s responsibility towards arts and culture. This responsibility includes not only improving access to the arts, but working towards an economy in which arts and culture can thrive.

Will conditions improve for people in France due to this election? With how recent it is, we can’t be sure. The fallout of this hectic decision from Macron to hold the reelection is yet to be fully realized. However, we can see specific examples of how the left might focus their attention in places like the economy, culture, and welfare.

Macron’s second and final term will end in 2027. With the hopeful turnout of this election, we can hope that French voters remain united and able to push their country further towards progress when the next election comes.

What Can This Mean for US elections?

Key information we can take from this is in the example of the French politicians. Between the first and second round of voting, more than 200 left-leaning candidates withdrew to avoid risking a split vote.

Similarly, many voters in the U.S. are having to deal with the dilemma of voting for the “least bad” options over voting for the “best” option. Third-party candidates, as discussed before on this page, are extremely unlikely to win a primary presidential election. Their popularity is in a middle ground because they are known enough to raise hopes of big changes, but not enough to stand against the two disproportionately powerful U.S. parties.

Additional Resources

1. Macron Energy Views

2. National Rally Views

3. Election Results

4. Events of the Pension Reform Bill

5. Potential Prime Ministers

6. Sarah Legrain Interview

[voskhozhdeniye]

“Courts usually aren’t allowed to hold someone in jail before evidence has been presented and they’ve had a chance to defend themselves,” explained Spokesman Marlon Kautz for the Atlanta Solidarity Fund, which operates out of Atlanta and pays bail for protesters. “But there’s a loophole: the court can demand a cash bail payment, and if the defendant can’t afford it they’re jailed indefinitely.” “Bail funds close this loophole in the cash bail system by leveling the playing field: they ensure that anyone—regardless of how poor or marginalized they are—can access the resources to make bail,” Kautz continued. “SB63 exposes that the loophole is not an accident, it’s the intended purpose of the bail system. Police, prosecutors, and politicians want a bail system which allows them to punish their political enemies, poor people, and people of color without trial.” The bill adds thirty additional charges that are ineligible for unsecured judicial releases, popularly known as signature bonds. The list includes charges commonly associated with protesting, like unlawful assembly and obstruction of a law enforcement officer, and street racing, like reckless stunt driving and promoting drag races. Additionally, the bill only allows elected and appointed judges to set bond in Georgia. Currently, unelected and unappointed judges may serve in vacant positions to help courts provide speedier bond hearings. The changes expanding cash bail were not unexpected based on previous iterations, but the last-minute addition to the final language of the bill significantly hindering the ability of individuals and organizations to pay bail on behalf of jailed people in the state came as a surprise. That addition to the bill did not appear in the state’s online legislation management system until sometime between late Wednesday evening and early Thursday morning.  “No more than three cash bonds maybe posted per year by any individual, corporation, organization, charity, nonprofit corporation, or group in any jurisdiction,” the bill now reads.  This change will severely impact the operational ability of bail funds in the state of Georgia like the Atlanta Solidarity Fund. To continue paying bail for arrested individuals, Georgia bail funds would need to register as professional bail bondsman with the respective sheriffs in each county they intend to operate, which requires fingerprinting and a full background check conducted by the respective sheriffs and the FBI. Registered bail bondsman organizations are still unable to pay more than three cash bonds per year, they must instead go to a third party company to attain a surety bond. Existing Georgia law also prohibits professional bondsmen from recommending defense attorneys to clients seeking bond. Pairing defendants with attorneys is another common function of the Atlanta Solidarity Fund. Violating this provision will constitute a misdemeanor in Georgia.

The use of bail funds gained new prominence in the wake of the 2020 George Floyd Protest, with new funds popping up in cities all around the country to help free the hundreds of protesters arrested that summer. In response, various state legislatures began introducing legislation aimed at curtailing the success of those organizations.  On Wednesday, Tennessee lawmakers introduced a bill outright prohibiting courts from accepting cash bails paid on behalf of defendants by charitable bail organizations. Kentucky legislators passed HB 5 in January, prohibiting charitable bail organizations from posting bonds of $5,000 or greater. Texas Governor Greg Abbot signed a law in November requiring charitable bail organizations to register with county clerks and provide monthly updates listing each defendant the fund paid bail for in the prior month. A 2022 law passed in Indiana requires charitable bail funds to pay a $300 certification fee every two years, and prohibits those organizations from posting bond for individuals accused of violent crimes or those facing felony charges with a previous violent crime conviction. The Bail Project sued the state of Indiana in federal court over its bail law, but lost the case in both the district and appeals court. “The purpose of these laws restricting and regulating community bail funds is clearly to suppress organizing and reject the expression of community solidarity,” said Pilar Weiss Director of Community Justice Exchange, which hosts the National Bail Fund Network. “These laws have nothing to do with safety or justice and are an open attack on mutual aid and community care. As criminalization of community solidarity increases, we’re seeing an increase in attacks like this whose aim is to block and reduce any routes to freedom.”

[tomorrowusa]

In last year's off-off year election, Democrats flipped the House of Delegates – the lower chamber of the Virginia legislature and held on to the Virginia Senate. This was contrary to the predictions of various pundits. ProTip: When you vote, you win.

One result of the Democratic takeover of the House of Delegates was the election of Virginia's first ever African American speaker of that chamber.

The Virginia General Assembly unanimously elected Democrat Don Scott as house speaker on Wednesday, making him the first Black speaker in the Virginia House of Delegates' history. Del. Scott approached the podium to cheers and a standing ovation as he took the oath of office and began his term as the leader of the House. "My first immediate emotion is just gratitude. I'm very grateful," said Scott, tearing up as he thanked his 88 year old mother and his wife, watching from the gallery. "The historic nature of this moment is not lost on me," he told the House. "I pray that it is a proud moment for all of us, as we nominate Delegate Don Scott as our next speaker of the house," said Del. Luke E. Torian in his nomination speech. "Over 400 years ago, people who looked like Delegate Scott gave their sweat blood and tears to build this Capitol," Del. Torian elaborated. "And I would say that is probably only right and fitting and appropriate that 400 years later, a person of color, an African American, whose ancestors helped to build this capital now stands to help lead this House of Delegates."

2023 was supposed to be a good year for Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin (AKA: Trumpkin) but the voters decided otherwise.

Early in 2022, Scott took on Gov. Glenn Youngkin after the Republican set up a "tipline" for Virginians to anonymously report educators for teaching so-called "divisive concepts" like Critical Race Theory. "What I've seen from his day one activities is not someone who is a man of faith, not a Christian, but someone who wants to divide the Commonwealth," Scott proclaimed to the Virginia House of Delegates, amid boos and jeers from the Republican side of the aisle. Scott took it in stride. "I know the truth hurts. I don't want to make you cry, like saying 'critical race theory,' because I know it hurts your feelings."

Youngkin is term limited and can't run in 2025. Hopefully there will soon be a Democratic trifecta in the Old Dominion state.

For now: Congratulations to Speaker Scott! 🎊

[enbycrip]

There’s some pretty fucking scary shit coming out from Netpol about how the various UK Police forces are using the particularly fascist police powers the Tories have given them.

So as usual I’m fucking bothering my MP because I’m too fucking ill and disabled to go out to protest most of the time but I can usually manage to write something faintly coherent.

Here’s my letter if you’d like a template to alter to write to yours:

Dear (my MP)

I am one of your constituents and, as I have written to you about previously, I am deeply and seriously concerned about the lack of transparency about the powers now possessed by UK police forces following the introduction of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

Last year the Joint Committee on Human Rights heard evidence about how often police powers were already used to limit or restrict protests under existing legislation and how there is no routine collection of data about when and how these powers are used. The JCHR recommended the creation of a publicly accessible central database, containing details about how, when and in what circumstances the police impose restrictions on rights to freedom of assembly.

This sensible and proportionate recommendation to safeguard the most basic human rights of the uk population has subsequently been ignored. Research by campaigners from Netpol shows continuing difficulties in obtaining even the most basic data from the police under freedom of information legislation. The Metropolitan Police uses these powers more than any other force. The recent and incredibly damning review by Baroness Casey on the culture and standards of behaviour within the Met raises numerous concerns about whether officers in London can be trusted to use these incredibly wide-ranging powers fairly and proportionately.

Despite the absolute essential nature of freedom of assembly and freedom to protest to the functioning of democracy, there is little or no openness or transparency on the way police are using their powers. There is a very serious need for the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) to immediately set up a publicly accessible central database, and, if the police are unwilling to do so, for a Bill to be introduced to compel them to do so.

Please

- read Netpol's briefing explaining why this is important, which you can find at https://netpol.org/police-powers-transparency

- Write to the NPCC to require them to set up a publicly accessible database.

- Introduce questions in Parliament at PM's Question Time regarding the police's lack of cooperation with human rights bodies requesting such vital information.

- Attend, if you are available, the forthcoming online briefing for parliamentarians on this issue on Thursday 27 April at 3.30pm.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks,

(Me)

You can use https://www.writetothem.com to email your MP.

[kp777]

By Jake Johnson

Common Dreams

Aug. 3, 2023

"In the past 12 years, one political party captured the Legislature and has insulated itself from being answerable to the voters."

Voting rights organizations and law firms joined forces Wednesday to file a legal challenge against Wisconsin's aggressively gerrymandered state legislative maps, which have allowed Republicans to cling to power in the Assembly and Senate for more than a decade.

Filed by Campaign Legal Center (CLC), Law Forward, the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, and Arnold & Porter, the petition argues that "Wisconsin's current legislative districts are unconstitutional in multiple ways," intentionally fragmenting Democratic voters in mid-sized cities and towns and giving Republicans an unlawful advantage.

The state's maps haven't changed much since 2011, when Republican lawmakers crafted GOP-friendly districts under then-Gov. Scott Walker.

"They are extreme partisan gerrymanders that violate multiple provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution," reads the new lawsuit, which was filed directly with the state Supreme Court. "The maps violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection because the Legislature, through these maps, has created superior and inferior classes of voters based on viewpoint, subordinating one class to the abusive fiat of the other. The maps also violate the constitutional guarantee of free speech because they retaliate against voters who express a political view by stripping them of political power."

The groups filed the challenge on behalf of 19 Wisconsin voters a day after liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz was sworn in to the state Supreme Court, ending 15 years of conservative dominance. Protasiewicz criticized Wisconsin's maps as "unfair" during her campaign for the seat—the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history.

Jeff Mandell, a partner at Stafford Rosenbaum and board president of Law Forward, said Wednesday that "in the past 12 years, one political party captured the Legislature and has insulated itself from being answerable to the voters."

"Despite the fact that our legislative branch is meant to be the most directly representative of the people, the gerrymandered maps have divided our communities, preventing fair representation," said Mandell. "This has eroded confidence in our political system, suppressed competitive elections, skewed policy outcomes, and undermined democratic representation."

"We have endured 12 years of rule by right-wing interests," Mandell added, "and the voters of Wisconsin deserve fair representation."

"Legislators have no right to complete a term of office that was unconstitutionally obtained."

After a legal battle last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court implemented Republican-drawn voting maps that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers vetoed in late 2021. Wisconsin's Republican-controlled Legislature tried and failed to override the governor's veto.

The new lawsuit argues that by imposing on the state the exact maps Evers vetoed, the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the separation-of-powers principle.

The petition notes that the maps "did precisely what Republicans hoped" in 2022, "increasing their majority to 64 assembly seats (two shy of a veto-proof two-thirds majority) and 22 senate seats (a veto-proof majority)."

"An equally divided electorate yielded near two-third majorities for Republicans in both chambers," the petition adds.

The plaintiffs ask that the state's current legislative maps be redrawn and call for special elections for state Senate seats that would otherwise not be up for reelection until 2026. If the lawsuit succeeds, state Assembly races would also be held under newly drawn maps.

"The legislators elected in November 2022 took office in unconstitutionally configured districts," the lawsuit states. "That constitutional infirmity has persisted for over a decade now, and Wisconsinites have suffered under this unconstitutional system for long enough. Legislators have no right to complete a term of office that was unconstitutionally obtained."

Mark Gaber, senior director of redistricting at Campaign Legal Center, said Wednesday that "for far too long, Wisconsinites have had their voices illegally silenced by extreme gerrymandering."

"Gerrymandering is a stain on our democracy no matter which party does it," said Gaber. "It's common sense: Voters should pick their politicians, not the other way around."

[helshades]

Hello, I would like to know what will happen tomorrow if the motion is voted negative? and in this case will there be strikes in paris? and also are the blockades in the universities useful, or are the gatherings more effective?

Well, there is a fair chance it won't be adopted anyhow, since the number of right-wing M.P.s willing to sign in their name is likely to be insufficient to garner the required 287 votes.

You see, the historical major party on the Right—roughly speaking, it corresponds to the English Tories or the Republicans in the U.S.—which was founded by national monument General de Gaulle (the French Churchill, though I'd argue a lot less conservative in the end than Sir Winston was), barely survived the last presidential election: from nearly a quarter of the votes back in 2017, it dropped to a shocking 4.78% in 2022. The few people who stayed are basically fossils willing to be faithful to le parti du Général, whereas the ones that fled left spread between Macron's camp and Marine Le Pen's Rassemblement National.

To put it succinctly, the Republicans (the name of the party since the very Atlantist former President Nicolas Sarkozy changed it from U.M.P.) are dead afraid they'd lose what they managed to scrap up during the legislative elections of 2022, which designated députés for each constituency, for a total of 577 members or Parliament in the National Assembly. For decades, the Republicans had collected a vast amount of seats; during the previous legislature, they had 112 of them. Since last year, they only got 61.

Should the motion de censure be adopted this time (it's not the first one this session, but the rest were rejected, chiefly because of L.R.), the government will fall: the Republicans will have to run for office again, when their popularity is at an all-time low as they've appeared to compromise and pactise with the government. Indeed, even though they're officially part of the opposition, they've consistently voted in favour of the presidential majority—and their electors have noticed, and not necessarily appreciated.

In a superb, very droll, but also very fiendish move, the leader of the far-right parliamentary group in the Assembly made an official announcement to promise the Republicans that in case they voted the motion (this time it's being proffered by the very benign, very moderate centrists at the L.I.O.T. group so that everyone could vote it, as the Left wouldn't vote any motion concocted by the R.N.), the R.N. would not run candidates against any of L.R.'s own in the upcoming legislative elections...

Since the crowds that have been rioting for three days and counting keep clamouring for M.P.s to vote the motion to destitute the government, I reckon the uprising will only intensify should it fail to pass nonetheless. As for the strikes, people have been on strike since January. On Tuesday 7th March, they broke a record for the number of protesters in the streets (3.5 million across the country), but most of all, workers have been striking in all sectors with their best efforts—the problem being the sheer state of everybody's finances after two disastrous lockdowns during Covid, plus an aggravating number of ill-advised governmental decisions.

This is no secret, though, the one thing that ever could bend a government, the one true democracy, is the strike. At this scale, we're talking general, unlimited striking, to paralyse a country's infrastructures and industry, and therefore its economy. In France, that represents about 2 billion euros per day. That means cutting supply for shareholders and industry captains, the great capitalists who alone have the power to tell Macron to back off and retire his own bill.

So the real question is, will people be able to prolong and extend the strike, when Macron is evidently determined to letting things go till they rot and the strikers can't hold it any longer. It's also possible that people rioting too close for the personal comfort of wealthy folk in the nicer neighbourhoods may prompt some to ask for appeasement and compromise. By the way, did you know Emmanuel Macron will welcome King Charles in the palace of Versailles next Monday? I do hope some people can take a hint.