Politics

Lawmakers and other advocates step up pushback over battle over DEI

Anti-DEI legislation is front and center at state levels, with bills taking aim at college campus policies.

Sen. Katie Britt projects contrast in taking aim at Biden’s State of the Union address

The GOP’s youngest woman ever elected to the Senate attacks the president calling him a “diminished leader.”

Biden pushes to protect consumer wallets at State of the Union

The President proposed higher taxation on the wealthy, tax credits for ordinary Americans and eliminating deceptive pricing for consumers at Thursday’s State of the Union address.

In Photo: Pro-Palestinian Americans want Biden to know that “the state of our union is genocide”

Hours before President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address, protesters gathered in front of the White House in protest of the administration’s support of Israel’s military.

Video: Young South Carolina Republicans lean toward Trump

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Students in South Carolina prepared to cast their votes in the Republican presidential primary on Saturday. Young, college-aged voters have largely grown up in the post-Trump era. They have – as a result – become politically active in a very different era of the Republican Party. 

While college students are not the most active voting demographic this year, they are an indication of the future of politics in the United States. We talked to students at the University of South Carolina ahead of the primary.


Watch the video report here:

Video: Haley voters in South Carolina face tough choice if Trump becomes Republican nominee

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Donald Trump easily won the South Carolina Republican primary on Saturday by capturing almost 60% of the vote while former governor Nikki Haley earned 39.5% in her home state.

Earlier in the day, some of Haley’s voters said they strongly preferred her over Trump – but not necessarily over President Joe Biden in the general election.


Watch the video report here:

 

Video: Immigration top of mind for South Carolina voters

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Voters across the Palmetto State arrived at the polls as early as 7 a.m. Saturday, eager to cast their ballots for the Republican they prefer to represent the party in the presidential election in November. 

Though South Carolina is candidate Nikki Haley’s home state, where she served as governor from 2011 to 2017, many of her constituents seemed displeased with her policies and positions.

Instead, most South Carolinians hailed former president Donald Trump’s stances on immigration and the economy. Residents said they supported Trump through previous election cycles and are enthusiastic to throw their weight behind him again.

 

WATCH THE VIDEO STORY HERE:

Changes in Columbia voting locations lead to confusion and anger on primary day

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Many South Carolina voters arrived at their usual voting locations on Saturday to find no other voters there, which was an unexpected sight on the day of the state’s Republican primary election. These locations weren’t just empty, however – they were no longer voting locations. 

“They had two signs up at the entrance of the parking lot where I normally parked that directed me to this location,” said voter Ben Inabinet. 

Inabinet’s typical voting location is Hand Middle School, which is over a mile and a half away from his new voting location, Ben Arnold Center Park. That same location is one that many voters in the area were rerouted to, now counting as the designated voting location for five separate South Carolina precincts. 

Many voters were informed of this rerouting through signs posted at their previous voting locations redirecting them to their new locations. Others were informed of the change from neighborhood advisories. Notably, no one learned about this change from the South Carolina state government. 

“I got an email from my neighborhood association,” Bailey Davis, a voter in Ward 10 said. “I didn’t get anything from the state of South Carolina.”

Although the South Carolina government quietly put out these voting location changes, it has been proven that increased distance from voting locations has a direct negative impact on voter turnout

Because South Carolina is a car-heavy state and voter location information was posted online, many voters were able to go to their new voting locations without much struggle. However, In Richland County, an area where 16.2% of the population lived in poverty in 2022, access to motor vehicles and fast internet are not reliable for many.

To let other voters know about voting location changes, many Columbia residents took to using word-of-mouth, informing neighbors about their new polling locations through social media and conversation. Inabinet was informed about his new location by his aunt and Davis found out through a neighborhood-wide message. In some cases, inconsistent spread of this information led to panic among voters in Columbia. 

“All the teachers were like ‘I don’t know where my polling location is, they changed it, I got a letter three months ago telling me it changed and I don’t remember where it is,’” schoolteacher and voter Melanie Walker said. “It’s kind of a disaster.”

Despite still showing up to vote, many felt that this sudden location change could have widespread impacts on other voters in Columbia. 

“It has an impact,” Davis said. “I’ve never been here before, it’s not super far, but it’s definitely more inconvenient for me versus having it in my neighborhood.”

Photos: Trump Jr. rallies supporters in Charleston before primary day

North Charleston, S.C. — The day before the South Carolina Republican primary, a crowd of supporters gathered at the Team Trump state headquarters to hear Donald Trump Jr. speak.

As former President Donald Trump hosted a rally in Rock Hill, his son spoke to Trump campaign volunteers at smaller events in the South Carolina Lowcountry on Feb. 23.

“We need to go out there, we need to finish this thing off,” Trump Jr. told the crowd.

He accused Republican candidate Nikki Haley of trying to undermine the Republican party and called her a fake conservative.

Trump Jr. also criticized the Biden administration for failing to enact stricter border policies and said Republicans were “just as bad” for spending money on Ukraine.

Of the 45,000 Americans he asked at Trump events, he said, only one thought it was a top ten issue, and that person was from Ukraine.

“What does that get us? Well, it gets Nikki Haley a board seat at Boeing and probably Raytheon. A couple Americans will make a lot of money while mortgaging our children and grandchildren’s future,” he said.

Attendees said if Trump is re-elected, they’d want to see him do the same thing he did four years ago. They trust he will close the border and stop funding the war in Ukraine.


South Carolina resident Alex Smith, 27, said he supports Trump over other Republican candidates because he has the best shot at the presidency. “He’s been there, he’s proven himself,” Smith said. (Clare Zhang/MNS)

 

Todd Gerhart, who was selling honey outside the event, shows Trump Jr. one of the Trump-shaped bottles. The sign at his table reads, “Give the ‘Donald’ a squeeze.” (Clare Zhang/MNS)

 

Trump Jr. takes selfies with attendees as he leaves the headquarters. (Clare Zhang/MNS)

Biden losing support in South Carolina, young Black voters say

Columbia, S.C. — In 2020, Black voters in South Carolina handed now-President Joe Biden his first primary victory and helped propel him to the White House. This year, Biden changed South Carolina’s Democratic primary to the first in the nation, because its diversity “reflects the nation more,” with Black voters comprising over 60% of the Democratic base. With no real challengers, the president swept 96% of the vote.

But some young Black South Carolinians say they have seen enthusiasm around Biden fading in their communities since he took office.

Eboni Dawkins, an 18-year-old student at the University of South Carolina, remembers going to the polls in November 2020 with family and seeing members of the Divine Nine — historically Black fraternities and sororities — showing out in their Greek-letter shirts for vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

“Black people are always gonna ride for that. That’s a family for people that’s part of it,” Dawkins said. “They wanted to support that Black woman that was running.”

Seeing someone who looked like her in office, Dawkins thought, meant they would represent her interests and bring change in her community. But she said she hasn’t seen Biden or Harris doing anything to improve the lives of those whose support propelled them to office.

“You don’t really see him doing nothing but falling down stairs,” Dawkins said, referencing when the president slipped on the steps of Air Force One in September. “I’ve heard that you don’t really see Kamala doing nothing. Being a part of D9, being Black in general isn’t enough anymore.”

Without an endorsement from veteran Black Democrat Rep. Jim Clyburn in 2020 and the resulting support from Black voters in South Carolina, Biden wouldn’t be president today, said Scott Huffmon, a professor of political science at Winthrop University.

Skyla Praylow, 19, said Biden and other politicians try to court Black communities but aren’t doing much to help them. She pointed to Biden’s January visit to Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, where a shooter killed nine parishioners in 2015.

“I heard about Biden going to the church,” she said. “But it’s not like there are policies there to help it. It is a poor area, and it’s really visible.”

It’s a sign that the Biden administration hasn’t reciprocated the support they received from Black voters in 2020, she said.

Students said Biden broke his 2020 campaign promise on forgiving student loan debt. Just Wednesday, Biden announced another $1.2 billion canceled in student loan debt, bringing the total during his presidency to $138 billion canceled for 3.9 million borrowers.

Students knew little about Biden’s progress in canceling student loan debt, or who it applied to. Lashay Jackson, 19, said it was another empty promise that candidates make to get in office and fail to act on quickly enough.

Their critiques came in sharp contrast with what Clay Middleton, Biden’s South Carolina senior advisor, said Biden’s message was in this year’s South Carolina primary: promise made, promise kept.

Biden won overwhelmingly in the primary, but turnout fell from 16% of total eligible voters in 2020 to 4% in 2024. Huffmon identified a few potential reasons for low turnout, including voter confusion over the early, first-in-the-nation date, and a lack of enthusiasm for Biden.

“Usually the approval rating for a Democratic president among Democrats is going to be close to 90%. For Biden, his approval rating among Democrats is only a little over 70%. And that’s in South Carolina, where African Americans make up a ton of the Democratic support,” Huffmon said. “The (primary) was definitely an attempt to show enthusiasm for Biden. I’m not sure it succeeded.”

Jackson said she doesn’t know what Biden has done during his presidency. But she sees plenty of problems getting worse: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, high prices and even COVID-19. 

“After his presidential election, it’s like he fell off the face of the earth,” she said. “I feel like if things were going well, we would hear about it a lot more.”

Biden has participated in fewer interviews and news conferences than any of his predecessors going back to Ronald Reagan, and Democratic officials have pushed him to make more public appearances to shore up confidence in his mental sharpness.

Meanwhile, reporters and Biden’s opponents have jumped on the narrative that his age makes him unfit for office. Many students said Biden’s age makes him out of touch with what the country needs, and Praylow said she wants him to listen to the younger people in the Democratic party.

“I feel like there need to be younger candidates,” Praylow said. “Both (Biden and Trump) are old men, honestly. Both need to be out of there.”

College students feel apathetic toward voting in South Carolina Republican primary

Columbia, S.C. – Many college students are choosing not to vote in Saturday’s Republican presidential primary election in South Carolina, saying they feel unrepresented by the candidates and apathetic towards politics.

In 2020, only 16.4% of S.C. voters participated in presidential primary elections, while 72.1% voted in the general election. Many college students at the University of South Carolina seemed to fall in line with this trend, reporting that the primary felt unimportant to them.  

For USC student John Koch, registering to vote just hasn’t felt urgent. 

“I really just haven’t gotten around to [registering],” Koch said. “I know that I should, but none of my friends have really been talking about it or anything. I just didn’t see the need.”

Koch also said he feels Trump’s selection as the Republican nominee is a “foregone conclusion,” which has discouraged him from voting. Former S.C. Governor Nikki Haley’s defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as Trump’s popularity here, indicate a Trump victory in the state is imminent.

“It doesn’t feel like it’s going to be a close race, so I just don’t feel like putting in the effort at the moment,” Koch said. “I would like to vote against [Trump], but it honestly doesn’t seem like it’ll make a difference.”

Video report: College students sitting our Republican primary in S.C. (Alicia Tang/MNS)

Danielle Vinson, a professor of politics and international affairs at Furman University, said that many college students feel disillusioned by the state of politics in the U.S. “I hear [students] saying that politics is just a lot of people squabbling, and they’re not actually getting things done,” Vinson said. 

Vinson also argued that because many students don’t vote, politicians sometimes ignore them and instead focus on older generations. According to the Pew Research Center, 27% of nonvoters in the 2020 presidential election were between the ages of 18 and 29. 

“A lot of young people just don’t think it matters, but you see the politicians paying attention to the people that vote,” Vinson said. “If young people as a group become more active, then I think you’ll see politicians starting to focus a little bit more on that.”

Some students are held back by busy schedules and a lack of information about the candidates. 

“I’ve just been really focused on school,” said USC student Juliana Narral. “I haven’t really had time to research any of the candidates because I’ve always been in the books.”

Narral said that if she was going to vote, she would look for a candidate who would “prioritize people of color like [herself].”

Other students said they didn’t feel motivated to vote in the primary but plan to vote in the general election in November. USC student Casey Smith said that he wouldn’t be voting in Saturday’s primary but would vote for Trump in November. 

“Our state of the economy when Trump was president I feel like was a lot better,” Smith said. “His policies with immigration and the border wall, I felt like that was a pretty fair policy.”

Ashleigh Robinson, a USC student from Rockhill, S.C., said that she isn’t voting because she feels “promises aren’t kept” by politicians. 

“I feel like a lot of the politicians nowadays, they only appeal to what people want to hear,” Robinson said. “They don’t put a lot of action into the things they say they’ll do or the groups that they’ll pay attention to.”

Robinson said she wants a “realistic” candidate that “doesn’t make false promises.” She hopes for a candidate who will advocate for marginalized communities and low-income individuals. 

Vinson has seen similar perspectives in her students at Furman University. She argued that politicians need to appeal more to issues that are important to Gen Z, including climate change and LGBTQ+ rights.

Despite choosing not to vote in Saturday’s primary, Robinson said she is optimistic that there will be candidates that she will want to vote for in the future. 

“I have hope that maybe a potential Gen Z candidate will come about one day and everybody will be willing and ready to vote for them,” Robinson said.

Maria Heim contributed to production.

Supreme Court hears arguments in case that could have implications for independent contract truckers

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case involving commercial truckers that could expand the definition of transportation workers to include people who drive goods for companies that are not in the transportation sector.

The case, Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., involves whether workers who were treated as independent contractors are exempt from settling disputes via arbitration as set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act of 1926. Companies like Amazon are following the case closely to see if it would have implications for the way it treats its independent contractors who transport their goods.

Neil Bissonnette is part of a group of truckers who filed a wage-dispute lawsuit against Flowers Foods, the company that makes Wonder Bread and other baked goods. The act in question exempts employment contracts of “seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” The court must decide whether Bissonnette and his fellow truckers fall under that exemption from arbitration.

Flowers and its distributor, Lepage Bakeries, tried to argue that Bissonnette and his colleagues don’t qualify for the exemption and thus must go through mandatory arbitration rather than the court system for any dispute.

In a similar case, Domino’s Pizza, LLC v. Carmona, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that workers performing similar duties, such as delivering pizza, are exempt from mandatory arbitration because they are “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”

Most of the justices’ questions focused on the language of the controversial exemption.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked the workers’ lawyer, Jennifer Bennett, about the history and current applicability of the exemption.

Bennett spoke of the labor strikes beginning in 1919, fueled by workers on lumber boats and in shipyards employed by companies in industries other than transportation.

“Group-based arbitration makes transparent issues that are coming up amongst transportation workers before they end up in nationwide strikes that are going to interrupt national commerce,” she said.

Bennett’s principal argument was that the original language in the exemption said nothing about whether an employer sold transportation.

She also argued that Flowers Foods was being too narrow in its definition of “seamen” because their truckers were engaging in the transport of goods just as “seamen” aboard a ship carry goods for trade and commerce. 

“Even if we were to accept every single one of Flowers’ arguments on seamen, they still haven’t shown that this employer-based industry requirement has anything to do with the words of the statute,” Bennett said.

The justices took a harder line with Traci Lovitt, the lawyer for Flowers Foods and its distributor, Lepage Bakeries.

Lovitt argued the plaintiffs provided too broad of a definition for “seamen” and called their argument “flatly inconsistent with the notion of a transportation worker,” as well as in a previous case involving the same law. She also said the independent truck drivers –  who she argued are owners of the baked goods rather than employees of the bakery – “look nothing like railroad employees or seamen.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Lovitt about the source of her argument that workers must be in the industry to be exempt from arbitration, claiming Congress did not write the limitation in the statute.

Though Lovitt attempted to answer Jackson’s question, the justice continued to probe, “Where is the industry piece coming from?”

In her dissent, Bennett said she didn’t hear an argument from the justices that the text implied an employee needed to work for a transportation company.

“If Congress were really trying to get at people who could disrupt commerce, they would not have included an employer-based limitation. I think that’s why we don’t see one in the statute,” she said.

Bennett said the employer-based industry test would be challenging to apply; therefore Congress didn’t include the requirement in the statute in 1926.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the number of workers who will be exempt and companies who will go to court will be “massive” if the respondents lose.

The court is expected to issue a decision by the end of its current term in June.

‘Damning, disturbing and despicable’: House Republicans grill VA’s chief over allegations of sexual harassment within agency

WASHINGTON – Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough faced intense questioning Wednesday from Republican lawmakers regarding allegations of sexual misconduct among the department’s high-ranking employees.

The House Veterans Affairs’ Committee decided in a bipartisan vote on January 11 to subpoena McDonough over documents related to accusations of sexual harassment within the VA’s Office of Resolution Management, Diversity & Inclusion. Committee Chairman Mike Bost (R-Ill.) called the office a “broken organization” poisoned by “toxic culture and bad leadership.”

“The findings of this report are damning, disturbing and despicable,” Bost said. “As a father of daughters, this blatant dereliction of duty makes me sick.”

Three employees of the division – Archie Davis, Gary Richardson and Harvey Johnson – have been accused in a whistleblower complaint of pursuing inappropriate sexual relationships with subordinate female employees. Davis exchanged “graphic” text messages with a subordinate, said Bost, citing a whistleblower.

Various whistleblowers testified behind closed doors shortly prior to the hearing. The transcripts of these testimonies have not been made public.

McDonough repeatedly denied knowing about sexual harassment occuring within his department, stating that he was not aware of a September 2023 letter detailing specific incidents of misconduct until Bost brought it to his attention in November. On Nov. 15, Gina Grosso – who declined to appear as a witness – quietly informed McDonough that she would resign as assistant secretary for Human Resources and Administration.

“The VA does not tolerate sexual harassment,” McDonough told the committee. “My unwavering commitment is to ensure that every employee works in a safe, welcoming, harassment-free environment.”

Republican lawmakers, however, were not swayed, saying the VA is “full of misconduct.”

“I don’t consider this to be a partisan or political process,” Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) said. “I find the conduct of this office deplorable. Culture starts at the top, and you have a top that is wrong.”

Democrats accused Republicans of both exaggerating the severity of the alleged misconduct as well as conflating sexual harassment with interactions of a sexually inappropriate nature.

“The conspiracy that the majority has pushed is not reflective of reality or facts,” ranking member Mark Takano (D-Calif.) said. “My colleagues across the aisle are either being intentionally reckless or cavalier with the truth or willfully blind.”

Rep. Julia Brownley (D-Calif.) pointed to Republicans’ histories of hypocrisy concerning the protection of women and underrepresented populations. Six of the eight Republicans on the committee, she said, voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act in 2022 – a landmark piece of legislation that mandates protections for survivors of domestic violence.

Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) similarly slammed Republicans for weaponizing the sensitive nature of this topic, especially for women.

“I belive the approach my colleagues are following will cause lasting harm to how we as a nation address the very real threat of sexual violence and harrasment in the workplace,” Ramirez said. “Exploiting pain for political points is not going to get us closer to addressing the failures in federal policy that address sexual harassment.”

House committee members on both sides of the political aisle emphasized the importance of increased workplace oversight and advancing federal legislation that safeguards against harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex.

“Public servants at the VA deserve a safe work environment,” Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) said. “I hope we use this moment to figure out what we can do better.” 


Published in conjunction with UPI Logo

House Impeaches Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas over border laws and breaching the public trust

WASHINGTON – House Republicans narrowly impeached Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in a 214-213 vote, making him the second Cabinet secretary in U.S. history to be impeached on Tuesday evening. 

The former secretary is charged with willfully refusing to comply with border laws and breaching the public trust. 

“We’re happy to get the job done,” Speaker Mike Johnson told a reporter as he left. 

 The articles of impeachment will now be sent to the Democratic-led Senate where they are expected to be rejected

Last week’s House vote failed when three Republicans – Reps. Ken Buck of Colorado, Tom McClintock of California and Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin joined all Democrats voting against impeachment, holding up the vote for a 215-215 tie. The same group reaffirmed their stance Tuesday evening. 

“[T]hey fail to identify an impeachable crime that Mayorkas has committed. In effect, they stretch and distort the Constitution,” Rep. McClintock stated. “Republicans don’t need to abuse the Constitution in order to prove our commitment to restore control of our border”

Republicans were able to pass the articles of impeachment on Tuesday night after House Majority Leader Steve Scalise returned to Washington after receiving blood cancer treatment.

“We have to be talking about securing America’s border if you want to have these other conversations about Ukraine, and [Speaker Johnson] has told that to the President,” Rep. Scalise said. 

House Democrats interpret the impeachment passage as a political ploy rather than justified charges based on “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” 

“It’s really unfortunate that the Congress has stooped to this level to actually impeach someone for effectively trying his best to do his job when you disagree with how he’s going about doing his job,” Rep. Daniel Goldman told Medill News Service. “If that’s gonna be the precedent, it’s opening up a whole Pandora’s box for this House.” 

A cabinet member has not been impeached in nearly 150 years. In 1876, secretary of war William W. Belknap faced articles of impeachment but was acquitted by the Senate. 

“House Republicans will be remembered by history for trampling on the Constitution for political gain rather than working to solve the serious challenges at our border,” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Mia Ehrenberg said.

President Biden responded in a statement Tuesday evening describing this impeachment as “baseless” and a “blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship.” Earlier in the day the president also urged the House to support aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan in the national security supplemental bill. 

“Congress needs to act to give me, Secretary Mayorkas, and my administration the tools and resources needed to address the situation at the border,” President Biden stated. “The House also needs to pass the Senate’s national security supplemental right away.”

Under Secretary Mayorkas more migrants have illegally crossed the border than ever before. According to U.S. Customs and Border Control, more than 85% crossed the border illegally are released into the nation and awaiting court dates. 

“It’s our border that matters, not other countries’ borders, our border matters,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green said. “Finally we’ve held Alejandro Mayorkas accountable for his willful betrayal of the American people and breaking federal immigration laws.” 

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Trump Eligibility

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Thursday for the Trump v. Anderson case to decide whether Donald Trump “engaged in insurrection” deeming him ineligible to be on Colorado’s primary ballot.

The arguments lasted about two hours with little mention of Trump’s role in the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, which turned violent and deadly. 

Jonathan Mitchell, an attorney for Trump, began by saying the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to keep Trump off the ballot was “wrong and should be reversed for numerous, independent reasons.”

Justice Clarence Thomas asked Mitchell whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is self-executing or if Congress needed to create legislation to enforce it. 

“It is entirely up to Congress,” Mitchell responded.

Mitchell argued that Section 3 only prohibits a person from holding office but not from appearing on the ballot. 

The justices expressed concern over whether it would be left up to the states when questioning both the lawyers representing Colorado voters and Trump’s legal team. 

A great deal of Trump’s case hinges on whether the justices agree that the president is not an “officer of the United States.” 

The 14th Amendment disqualifies any person who took an oath, “as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution” from “hold[ing] any office… under the United States.”

His legal team said that since Trump did not hold a prior office that required him to swear an oath of support to the Constitution, the disqualification does not apply to him. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressured Mitchell about his understanding of Section 3. 

“A bit of a gerrymandered rule, isn’t it, designed to benefit only your client?”

“This case does not come down to mere prepositions,” said Jason Murray, attorney for the Colorado voters, about the Trump legal team’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. 

As the nine justices questioned Murray, some showed signs that they would side with Trump, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who said, “the whole point of the 14th Amendment was to restrict state power.”

Justine Ketanji Brown Jackson put pressure on Murray by circling back to the fact that the 14th Amendment does not list the president. 

“The fact that electors of vice president and president are there suggests that really what they thought was if we’re worried about the charismatic person, we’re going to bar insurrectionist electors and, therefore, that person is never going to rise?” Jackson questioned.

As it continued, the justices’ concerns about states having different ballots and the implications this would have on future elections became clear. 

“I would expect that, you know, a goodly number of states will say whoever the Democratic candidate is, you’re off the ballot. And others for the Republican candidate, you’re off the ballot,” said Roberts.

All of the justices asked hard questions to both attorneys. 

This is the first case involving Section 3 to come before the Supreme Court.

“Those novel arguments in some ways are kind of splashing paint on a wall and hoping that it is able to stick,” said Dr. Michele Goodwin, a Constitutional Law professor at Georgetown Law. 

In September, four Republican and two independent voters in Colorado filed a lawsuit to keep Trump off the primary ballot. Following a five-day trial, District Judge Sarah B. Wallace found that Trump had engaged in an insurrection but Section 3 didn’t apply to the presidency. 

On Dec. 19, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the decision, concluding that the presidency is included in Section 3, disqualifying him from holding the Office of President.   

Goodwin explained that Section 3 was created to hold the nation together after the Civil War.

“If one is interpreting the 14th Amendment, Section 3, in an originalist way, those members of Congress that were constructing a new constitution, a reconstructed constitution, were deeply concerned about insurrectionists.” 

How the Supreme Court ultimately rules affects more than just Colorado’s primary. Maine’s secretary of state concluded that Trump should not appear on its primary ballot, but the decision is on hold until the Supreme Court’s ruling. 

Lawyers for both sides have asked the Court to rule quickly, before Super Tuesday on March 15.

Lawmakers push State Department nominee to crack down on human rights abuse if appointed

WASHINGTON – Lawmakers in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urged Dafna Hochman Rand, presidential nominee for Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, to crack down on accountability for human rights violations in both adversarial and allied countries on Thursday.

President Joe Biden announced Rand’s nomination in Nov. 2023. If confirmed, Rand would lead the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to protect democratic institutions worldwide and uphold human rights laws, a position that Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) called an “incredibly important post.”

According to Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the DRL Bureau has not had a Senate-confirmed leader in more than three years, emphasizing the urgency and importance of Rand’s nomination. 

“Attacks against human rights defenders are all across the globe, and coups and democratic backsliding threatens progress on every continent,” Cardin said. “Behind all this is the cancer of corruption that undermines the rule of law and good governance, threatening democratic institutions and human rights. That is why we need an assistant secretary who will be a powerful voice for democratic values.”

Rand is currently a Distinguished Resident Fellow in Strategic Affairs at Georgetown University and a lecturer at Princeton University. Previously, she served as Director of the Office of Foreign Assistance at the Department of State. She also has experience in the DRL, serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the bureau.

In her statement at the hearing, Rand said that responding to the Chinese Communist Party’s human rights violations is of “fundamental urgent importance.” 

“The PRC’s vision suppresses freedom of expression and persecutes ethnic and religious minorities,” Rand said. She also expressed concern for the detainment of journalists and political prisoners in China.

Rand noted that “more can be done in the State Department” to implement existing laws that discourage forced labor and human rights violations in China, such as the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which restricts the trade of products made by forced labor in the Xinjiang region of China. Rand committed to working toward greater enforcement of the UFLPA if she is confirmed. 

Sen. Van Hollen (D-Md.) expressed concern about the State Department’s struggle to enforce the Leahy Law, two provisions that prevent the U.S. from funding foreign security forces if there is evidence that the forces have committed gross violations of human rights. He said the State Department has “never had the political will to implement [the Leahy law].”

Rand promised to apply the Leahy Law “consistently and fairly” around the world if she is appointed. She emphasized the importance of securing the resources, staff and funding necessary to vet units receiving funding.

Rand also responded to Senators’ concerns about Egypt, which has detained thousands of political prisoners, according to Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). The Biden administration has pushed to send aid to Egypt, despite their many human rights abuses. 

Rand committed to advocating that the U.S. government “adhere to the law,” promising the committee that she would work to ensure the Leahy Law is enforced. 

“I fundamentally believe in terms of my vision for this bureau that we can integrate human rights and values into our geopolitical and strategic interest,” Rand said.

Cardin noted that most Republicans and several Democrats in the committee could not attend the hearing, attributing their absences to busy schedules and their confidence in Rand as a nominee. 

The committee will decide whether to recommend Rand favorably to the Senate in the coming months. If she is recommended, her nomination will be scheduled to be considered by the Senate.

 


 

Medill Today | March 14, 2024