Politics

By Jarrett Renshaw and Trevor Hunnicutt

(Reuters) – U.S. President Joe Biden launches a coast-to-coast tour this week to tout the new climate and tax bill and boost Democrats running in November’s elections. But when he arrives, some of those candidates may be nowhere in sight, fearing Biden is too much of a liability.

Democrats hope the trip will boost the president’s poor poll numbers and draw attention to his achievements. But some candidates for Congress worry that campaigning with Biden will hurt them in the Nov. 8 election, according to more than a dozen interviews with senior Democrats and local campaign officials in battleground states including Pennsylvania and Arizona.

Biden, whose latest approval rating is 40%, is polling lower than most, if not all, Democratic candidates in competitive races, often by double digits, Democratic pollsters said.

The trip, the latest effort to reset his presidency, will test the limits of Biden’s influence in a party that has shown flashes of disloyalty in recent weeks. Some Democratic members of Congress have questioned whether Biden, at 79 already the oldest U.S. president, should run for reelection in 2024.

As they consider campaigning with him, Democratic candidates will closely watch whether Biden can move public opinion on his tour. On the plus side, Biden can share good news about recent legislative victories on climate change, gun control and boosting domestic microprocessor production along with a Kansas victory on abortion rights.

“Sure it was a great month, but the jury is still out whether it actually made a difference or whether it’s just too late,” said one senior Democrat.

Meanwhile, opposition Republicans have unified around attacking Biden despite the party’s internal divisions over former President Donald Trump and the fatal Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Right-wing media, elected officials and Trump have hammered a message that the White House has struggled to combat: Biden and his policies are responsible for record inflation, and he’s old, doddering and confused.

While Biden’s defenders note that inflation is higher in some other countries and say he is undiminished, some candidates worry they may face awkward questions at events about whether they support the president’s reelection. Their answers could serve as fodder for Republican rivals, sources said.

Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate Tim Ryan is running a populist campaign in Ohio against Trump-backed Republican J.D. Vance. The state has shifted hard to Republicans in recent elections, but polls show the race is a toss-up.

In July, Ryan, who currently holds a seat in the U.S. House, cited scheduling conflicts for skipping a Biden economic speech in Cleveland and has dodged questions about whether Biden should run again. Ryan would only consider appearing with Biden under limited circumstances, an official with the campaign effort told Reuters.

The official, for example, noted that Biden is expected to return to Ohio in coming weeks for the groundbreaking of an Intel plant that will eventually provide 3,000 jobs and get a big boost from the recently passed CHIPS Act, which aids the semiconductor industry.

“That is something Tim Ryan would likely attend with Biden. The messaging and politics are aligned,” the official said.

Ryan campaign spokesperson Izzi Levy said she could not comment on his plans related to his congressional work. But regarding political events with Biden, she said, “We have not asked him to campaign in Ohio and have no plans to do so.”

RISING TIDE

The Nov. 8 elections will determine whether Democrats retain their slim majorities in the House and Senate, or Republicans gain control. There are 43 competitive House races and seven Senate races, according to a Reuters analysis of data from three nonpartisan research groups on the competitiveness of U.S. elections. The White House thinks it can make gains in the Senate despite expected losses in the House.

Biden will speak at a Democratic National Committee event in Maryland on Thursday, his first political rally in months. It will serve as the kickoff to his midterm push. Democrats at the top of the ticket in Maryland are largely running against Trump-aligned opponents who face an uphill battle in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one.

Democrats in competitive races across the country say they are eager to see Biden hit the road and combat Republican attacks by boasting about a string of legislative achievements that include historic bipartisan bills on gun control and infrastructure along with more partisan achievements on climate change and health care. Officials frequently use the adage that a rising tide lifts all boats.

“If Biden can lift his poll numbers, it helps all Democrats,” a Democratic pollster involved in Pennsylvania races said.

In Pennsylvania, campaign officials say a Biden visit is unnecessary – and potentially risky – because Democrats have early leads over Republican candidates viewed as flawed. Republican gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano is a Trump-backed election-denier who attended the Jan. 6 rally in Washington while Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz is struggling in early polls amid questions about his ties to the state.

“We hope the president comes to the state, but we are not sure how much the Democratic candidates will be joining him. At this point, it doesn’t make much sense,” said one senior Democratic official involved in the governor’s race.

Josh Shapiro, the Democratic candidate for governor in Pennsylvania, has appeared with Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris separately this year. Manuel Bonder, a campaign spokesman, said Shapiro “will continue welcoming President Biden to his home state.”

Jennifer Holdsworth, a Democratic strategist, called the decision by some Democrats to distance themselves from Biden a “colossal mistake.”

“This has been a monumentally consequential administration. Voters don’t care about the politics of the moment, they care about results and this administration has delivered,” Holdsworth said.

(Reporting By Jarrett Renshaw and Trevor Hunnicutt; Additional reporting by James Oliphant; Editing by Heather Timmons and Cynthia Osterman)

source

(Reuters) – President Joe Biden launches a coast-to-coast tour this week to tout the new climate and tax bill and boost Democrats running in November’s elections. But when he arrives, some of those candidates may be nowhere in sight, fearing Biden is too much of a liability.

Democrats hope the trip will boost the president’s poor poll numbers and draw attention to his achievements. But some candidates for Congress worry that campaigning with Biden will hurt them in the Nov. 8 election, according to more than a dozen interviews with senior Democrats and local campaign officials in battleground states including Pennsylvania and Arizona.

Biden, whose latest approval rating is 40%, is polling lower than most, if not all, Democratic candidates in competitive races, often by double digits, Democratic pollsters said.

The trip, the latest effort to reset his presidency, will test the limits of Biden’s influence in a party that has shown flashes of disloyalty in recent weeks. Some Democratic members of Congress have questioned whether Biden, at 79 already the oldest U.S. president, should run for reelection in 2024.

As they consider campaigning with him, Democratic candidates will closely watch whether Biden can move public opinion on his tour. On the plus side, Biden can share good news about recent legislative victories on climate change, gun control and boosting domestic microprocessor production along with a Kansas victory on abortion rights.

“Sure it was a great month, but the jury is still out whether it actually made a difference or whether it’s just too late,” said one senior Democrat.

Meanwhile, opposition Republicans have unified around attacking Biden despite the party’s internal divisions over former President Donald Trump and the fatal Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Right-wing media, elected officials and Trump have hammered a message that the White House has struggled to combat: Biden and his policies are responsible for record inflation, and he’s old, doddering and confused.

While Biden’s defenders note that inflation is higher in some other countries and say he is undiminished, some candidates worry they may face awkward questions at events about whether they support the president’s reelection. Their answers could serve as fodder for Republican rivals, sources said.

Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate Tim Ryan is running a populist campaign in Ohio against Trump-backed Republican J.D. Vance. The state has shifted hard to Republicans in recent elections, but polls show the race is a toss-up.

In July, Ryan, who currently holds a seat in the U.S. House, cited scheduling conflicts for skipping a Biden economic speech in Cleveland and has dodged questions about whether Biden should run again. Ryan would only consider appearing with Biden under limited circumstances, an official with the campaign effort told Reuters.

The official, for example, noted that Biden is expected to return to Ohio in coming weeks for the groundbreaking of an Intel plant that will eventually provide 3,000 jobs and get a big boost from the recently passed CHIPS Act, which aids the semiconductor industry.

“That is something Tim Ryan would likely attend with Biden. The messaging and politics are aligned,” the official said.

Ryan campaign spokesperson Izzi Levy said she could not comment on his plans related to his congressional work. But regarding political events with Biden, she said, “We have not asked him to campaign in Ohio and have no plans to do so.”

RISING TIDE

The Nov. 8 elections will determine whether Democrats retain their slim majorities in the House and Senate, or Republicans gain control. There are 43 competitive House races and seven Senate races, according to a Reuters analysis of data from three nonpartisan research groups on the competitiveness of U.S. elections. The White House thinks it can make gains in the Senate despite expected losses in the House.

Biden will speak at a Democratic National Committee event in Maryland on Thursday, his first political rally in months. It will serve as the kickoff to his midterm push. Democrats at the top of the ticket in Maryland are largely running against Trump-aligned opponents who face an uphill battle in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one.

Democrats in competitive races across the country say they are eager to see Biden hit the road and combat Republican attacks by boasting about a string of legislative achievements that include historic bipartisan bills on gun control and infrastructure along with more partisan achievements on climate change and health care. Officials frequently use the adage that a rising tide lifts all boats.

“If Biden can lift his poll numbers, it helps all Democrats,” a Democratic pollster involved in Pennsylvania races said.

In Pennsylvania, campaign officials say a Biden visit is unnecessary – and potentially risky – because Democrats have early leads over Republican candidates viewed as flawed. Republican gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano is a Trump-backed election-denier who attended the Jan. 6 rally in Washington while Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz is struggling in early polls amid questions about his ties to the state.

“We hope the president comes to the state, but we are not sure how much the Democratic candidates will be joining him. At this point, it doesn’t make much sense,” said one senior Democratic official involved in the governor’s race.

Josh Shapiro, the Democratic candidate for governor in Pennsylvania, has appeared with Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris separately this year. Manuel Bonder, a campaign spokesman, said Shapiro “will continue welcoming President Biden to his home state.”

Jennifer Holdsworth, a Democratic strategist, called the decision by some Democrats to distance themselves from Biden a “colossal mistake.”

“This has been a monumentally consequential administration. Voters don’t care about the politics of the moment, they care about results and this administration has delivered,” Holdsworth said.

(Reporting By Jarrett Renshaw and Trevor Hunnicutt; Additional reporting by James Oliphant; Editing by Heather Timmons and Cynthia Osterman)

source

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A member of the U.S. congressional panel probing the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol said on Sunday he was encouraged by Mike Pence’s recent comments that the former vice president was willing to consider testifying before the committee.

“I was encouraged to hear it and I hope it meant what it sounded like it meant. We have been in discussion with the vice president’s counsel for some time,” U.S. Representative Adam Schiff said in an interview with CNN on Sunday.

Pence said on Wednesday he would consider testifying before the committee if asked.

(Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Matthew Lewis)

source

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan Republican gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon chose former state Rep. Shane Hernandez of Port Huron as her running mate Friday in her bid to unseat Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

Hernandez served two terms in the Michigan House ending in 2020, when he ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. House. He chaired the powerful budget-writing House Appropriations Committee for one term.

“Shane Hernandez as lieutenant governor will help to improve our schools, create safer communities and improve our economy,” Dixon said in a statement.

Hernandez said Dixon’s “vision is the right one for Michigan and I believe we will defeat Whitmer and begin to repair the damage she’s caused to our families, students, and business owners.”

Dixon announced her choice one hour before a state GOP deadline. At the Aug. 27 state GOP convention, delegates will vote whether to approve her pick.

Whitmer’s lieutenant governor is Garlin Gilchrist II. The general election is Nov. 8.

John Sellek, a Republican political strategist, said the selection of Hernandez “appears to be a solid pick of someone both with a deep knowledge of the state budget and the GOP street cred of having come up from the grassroots of the party.”

source

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina’s highest court opened the door Friday to nullifying a voter ID mandate approved by citizens in 2018 because the lawmakers who put it on the ballot were elected from districts tainted by illegal racial bias.

However, the North Carolina Supreme Court stopped short of striking down the voter ID requirement and another constitutional amendment that limited income tax rates, ruling that a lower court must gather more evidence on the measures before tossing them out.

Voter identification is not currently required in North Carolina, because it’s held up in separate litigation regarding state voter laws. Friday’s ruling doesn’t alter that situation.

The long-awaited ruling, decided 4-3 by the court’s Democratic majority, is a victory for the state NAACP, which sued Republican legislative leaders. It undoes a state appeals court ruling that upheld the amendments, and it sends the case back to Wake County Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins, who previously struck down the amendments.

Friday’s ruling decried that the Republican-controlled legislature proceeded with putting the constitutional amendments on the ballot despite the fact that more than two dozen districts had been found to be tainted by illegal racial bias.

Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Anita Earls noted that “what makes this case so unique is that the General Assembly, acting with the knowledge that 28 of its districts were unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered and that more than two-thirds of all legislative districts needed to be redrawn to achieve compliance with the Equal Protection Clause, chose to initiate the process of amending the state constitution.”

However, the opinion said that before taking a step as serious as undoing constitutional amendments approved by voters, the trial court must gather more evidence on whether leaving the amendments in place would allow improperly elected legislators to escape accountability, further exclude voters from the democratic process or amount to continued discrimination.

In a dissent, Associate Justice Phil Berger Jr. wrote that the ruling by the court’s Democratic majority “unilaterally reassigns constitutional duties and declares that the will of the judges is superior to the will of the people of North Carolina.”

Federal courts had declared that nearly 30 districts used in 2016 elections were unlawful racial gerrymanders. Ultimately over 100 of the 170 General Assembly seats had to be redrawn. Judges had permitted lawmakers elected in 2016 to serve in the General Assembly for the next two-year session. Still, the plaintiffs’ lawyers said that this edition of the legislature was illegally constituted, so the amendment was unlawfully on the ballot and should be canceled.

In 2020, a split state Court of Appeals panel declared that such a threshold for blocking legislative action would cause chaos and confusion by allowing anyone to challenge any conventional legislation approved by a majority of lawmakers whose districts were struck down. The appeals court overturned Collins’ 2019 ruling that struck down the amendments and found the General Assembly had exceeded its authority to place the referenda.

The state NAACP hailed Friday’s ruling as limiting an improperly elected legislature’s ability to change the state constitution.

“Rigging elections by trampling on the rights of Black voters has consequences. No legislature has the right to use racially gerrymandered maps — infecting more than two-thirds of the districts of this state — to steal power from the people to change our state’s constitution,” said state NAACP President Deborah Maxwell in a statement.

The NAACP sought narrow relief — that a General Assembly elected from illegally distorted boundaries lose its ability to propose constitutional referenda. Unlike legislation, it argued, a referendum needs support from three-fifths of the members of each legislative chamber to go on the ballot and isn’t subject to gubernatorial veto.

Republican state House Speaker Tim Moore issued a statement arguing that Friday’s ruling was a political decision.

“This party-line ruling is in direct contradiction to the rule of law and the will of the voters. The people of North Carolina will not stand for the blatant judicial activism and misconduct that has seized our state’s highest court, and neither will I,” Moore said.

The divided decision further intensifies sharp differences on the court and should bring greater focus on two seats on the statewide ballot this fall. Both are currently held by Democrats, so Republicans need to win one of them to regain a majority.

Friday’s ruling didn’t block regular state laws that require simple majorities and are subject to a governor’s veto. GOP legislators have passed other regular laws lowering taxes and requiring photo identification to vote.

A rule-making law passed in 2018 after the voter ID amendment was approved sought to implement the mandate. Friday’s ruling doesn’t cancel that law. But it remains unenforceable pending two other lawsuits — one federal and one state — challenging current voter ID rules.

A majority on a three-judge panel of trial judges struck down those rules last September, saying the law was rushed through the General Assembly and still intentionally discriminates against Black voters. The state Supreme Court has since agreed to hear this case, too.

source

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — Sen. Joe Manchin said he pays no attention to criticism or campaign donations when making decisions about what’s best for West Virginia.

Sounding somewhat exasperated when asked whether the dramatic bump in campaign contributions he’s received from oil and gas interests in recent months influenced his voting, the conservative Democrat said no.

During a roundtable discussion in Charleston on Friday, he said his office’s outsized role in drafting the sprawling economic package signed this week by U.S. President Joe Biden made him the target of the “far left,” environmental activists and the fossil fuel industry all at once.

“Nobody in their right mind would go through what I have gone through with my staff for the last eight months, taking all the crap we’ve taken from everybody in the country” if they weren’t doing what they believe is right, he said.

“I can be the hero and the villain all within a 24-hour shift,” he said. “The bottom line is, I make no excuses for what I think is right. I’ve always said this — If I can explain that, I can vote. I can take the criticism I know that goes with those votes. That’s part of the game.”

Manchin, who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, offered a key vote needed to pass the Democrats’ flagship climate and health care bill in the 50-50 Senate. The House used a party-line 220-207 vote to pass the legislation, which Biden signed Tuesday.

The law, which places caps on prescription drug prices for seniors and extends subsidies meant to help Americans pay for health insurance, contains billions in incentives for clean energy. Owing largely to Manchin’s influence, it also offers renewed support for traditional fuel sources such as coal and natural gas with steps such as subsidies for technology that reduces carbon emissions.

“I wasn’t sure that they would ever agree because of my friends on the far left, the environmental community, was totally committed to dispersing and basically eliminating fossil,” Manchin said of the law.

But Manchin said there is “no way you can get rid of fossil in any short period of time.”

“You can use it cleaner as you basically transition, but it’s going to be with us, and you got to do the best you can with it,” he said. “So, I wanted to make sure they understood that.”

On the other side, he said he’s “been criticized by all my friends in the coal industry” because they think the bill doesn’t go far enough to protect their interests.

“(They) for some reason think that this is going to be harmful,” said Manchin, whose family owns Enersystems, a coal brokerage company. “I think it basically is a pathway forward so we can continue to produce industry, provide energy that our country needs.”

Under an agreement with the Democratic leadership, Manchin proposed a separate list of legislation to speed up federal permitting and make energy projects harder to block under federal acts. He also specifically asked that federal agencies “take all necessary actions” to streamline completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a project long opposed by environmental activists.

The 303-mile (487-kilometer) pipeline, now mostly finished, would transport natural gas drilled from the Appalachian Basin through West Virginia and Virginia. Legal battles have delayed completion by nearly four years and doubled the pipeline’s cost, now estimated at $6.6 billion.

This election cycle, Manchin has received more campaign contributions from natural gas pipeline companies than any other member of U.S. Congress — contributions that have increased from $20,000 in 2020 to $331,910 in 2022, according to campaign finance records compiled by Open Secrets.

On Friday, he said his agenda in advocating for the pipeline was to bring down the cost for consumers by increasing the size of the market and creating jobs. He insisted the campaign money had nothing to do with it.

“I understand the cynical part of that. People look at it and they go, ‘Well, they’re just taking care of themselves,’” he said. “I’m sorry people, I have no idea who contributes. I don’t look at that, I don’t go out and advocate that at all.”

He said lawmakers need to “rise above” corporate and party pressure to deliver for their constituents.

“Politics has become a very, very nasty, destructive type of process … both sides are guilty of weaponizing the good of America for the good of the party — both sides, and it’s just not right for our country,” he said.

source

By Brendan Pierson

(Reuters) – A Utah judge on Friday blocked a state law banning transgender girls from participating in girls’ school sports from being enforced while he considers a lawsuit by three transgender students challenging the law.

Utah’s state legislature passed the law earlier this year, arguing that it would help protect athletes and ensure women were not edged out of their sport.

But Judge Keith Kelly of the Third Judicial District Court in Salt Lake City ruled that transgender girls did not necessarily have an automatic advantage over other girls, since puberty-blocking treatments can prevent them from developing the physical advantages for sports that boys can have.

With the ban blocked for now, Utah law states that transgender girls’ eligibility to participate in girls’ sports will be decided by a state-created commission on a case-by-case basis.

“The negative impact of the ban on these girls has been profound, and they are all breathing much easier now that it has been blocked,” said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represents the plaintiffs. “We are very grateful for the court’s decision and looking forward to putting an end to this law once and for all.”

A spokesperson for Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes declined to comment on the ruling.

Following a series of sporting victories by trans women athletes, including a collegiate swimmer, some conservatives and women’s sports advocates have called for more restrictive legislation. Utah’s ban was passed over the veto of Governor Spencer Cox, a Republican, in March, who argued that it applied to very few students.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated in 2019 that just 1.8% of high school students in the country are transgender, and the Human Rights Campaign has said that, according to surveys, only about 12% play on girls’ sports teams.

(Reporting by Brendan Pierson and Tyler Clifford in New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Rosalba O’Brien)

source

ATLANTA (AP) — A federal judge on Friday said Sen. Lindsey Graham’s appearance before a special grand jury investigating whether then-President Donald Trump and others illegally tried to influence the 2020 election in Georgia should not be delayed to allow him to continue to challenge it in court.

Earlier this week, U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May ordered Graham to honor his subpoena for the special grand jury. Graham’s attorneys appealed that order to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and asked May to stay her ruling and prohibit the special grand jury from questioning him while that appeal plays out. May declined that request in her order on Friday.

“Under the circumstances, further delay of Senator Graham’s testimony would greatly compound the overall delay in carrying out the grand jury’s investigation,” May wrote. “Further delay thus poses a significant risk of overall hindrance to the grand jury’s investigation, and the Court therefore finds that granting a stay would almost certainly result in material injury to the grand jury and its investigation.”

Graham is currently scheduled to testify on Tuesday. But he still has another motion to stay May’s ruling pending before the 11th Circuit.

Representatives for Graham did not immediately respond to messages on Friday seeking comment.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis opened the investigation early last year and in July filed petitions seeking to compel testimony from seven Trump advisers and associates, including Graham.

Former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, who’s been told he’s a target of the investigation, testified before the special grand jury for nearly six hours on Wednesday. Two other lawyers who advised Trump, John Eastman and Jenna Ellis, were ordered this week to appear before the panel later this month. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp filed a motion Wednesday seeking to quash a subpoena for his testimony.

The investigation, originally prompted by a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, is one of several pending legal threats Trump faces. Willis has said she’s considering seeking to compel the former president himself to testify before the special grand jury.

Attorneys for Graham, a South Carolina Republican, have argued that a provision of the U.S. Constitution provides absolute protection against a senator being questioned about legislative acts. But the judge found there are “considerable areas of potential grand jury inquiry” that fall outside that provision’s scope. The judge also rejected Graham’s argument that the principle of “sovereign immunity” protects a U.S. senator from being summoned by a state prosecutor.

Graham also argued that Willis, a Democrat, had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances necessary to compel testimony from a high-ranking official. But the judge disagreed, finding that Willis had shown “extraordinary circumstances and a special need” for Graham’s testimony on issues related to an alleged attempt to influence or disrupt the election in Georgia.

Willis and her team have said they want to ask Graham about two phone calls they say he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his staff shortly after the 2020 general election. During those calls, Graham asked about “reexamining certain absentee ballots cast in Georgia in order to explore the possibility of a more favorable outcome for former President Donald Trump,” Willis wrote in a petition.

Graham also “made reference to allegations of widespread voter fraud in the November 2020 election in Georgia, consistent with public statements made by known affiliates of the Trump Campaign,” she wrote.

Republican and Democratic state election officials across the country, courts and even Trump’s attorney general found there was no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to affect the outcome of the election.

In asking May to stay her decision, Graham’s lawyers argued that his rights to immunity would be violated the moment he was questioned.

Willis’ team responded that delaying Graham’s testimony would harms the investigation. In addition to facts he knows, he’s also expected to shed light on other sources of information that the special grand jury may want to pursue, they wrote. So waiting to talk to him “could ultimately delay” the entire investigation.

In the separate motion for a stay filed with the 11th Circuit, Graham’s attorneys argue that on Wednesday Chief Senior Assistant District Attorney Donald Wakeford agreed to postpone the scheduled testimony pending the outcome of the appeal. They included a voicemail Wakeford left for Graham attorney Brian Lea.

Lea says in a declaration filed with the motion that later that same afternoon Wakeford confirmed Graham’s grand jury appearance wouldn’t move forward until the appeal was resolved. But then Wakeford sent an email 20 minutes later “stating that he did not ‘want to characterize the contents of our response before it is written,’” Lea wrote.

Lea said he reached out to Wakeford several more times by phone and email but got no response until Wakeford sent an email at 4:40 a.m. Friday saying the district attorney’s office intended to oppose the stay and would argue that Graham should appear before the special grand jury as planned.

___

Associated Press writer Meg Kinnard in Columbia, South Carolina, contributed reporting.

___

Follow AP’s coverage of the Trump investigations at: https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump

source

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A former deputy Virginia attorney general who says she was fired over social media posts in which she praised the Capitol rioters as “patriots” and falsely claimed Donald Trump won the 2020 election is suing the attorney general’s office for defamation.

Monique Miles alleges in her lawsuit that Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares and members of his staff damaged her professional reputation and credibility when a spokesperson told the media she had resigned from her job and that she was not transparent during her initial interviews for the job.

Miles said she was forced out of her job as The Washington Post was getting ready to publish a story with screenshots of Facebook posts she wrote as a private citizen, more than a year before she began working as the deputy attorney general of the Government Operations and Transactions division, which oversaw work on issues related to election integrity.

“News Flash: Patriots have stormed the Capitol,” Miles wrote. “No surprise. The deep state has awoken the sleeping giant. Patriots are not taking this lying down. We are awake, ready and will fight for our rights by any means necessary.”

The lawsuit seeks $1 million in damages.

In her complaint, Miles said she was aggressively recruited to apply for a job as a deputy attorney general shortly after Miyares won the 2021 election. She said she had known Darrell Jordan, Miyares’ chief of staff, for about four years and believed the office was aware of her views about the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6 riots because she and Jordan were Facebook “friends” and he was “privy” to her posts.

Miles said no one in the attorney general’s office — including Miyares — asked her about her political views during interviews for the job.

About a week after Miles began her job in January, a friend told her the Post had asked her for comment on a story about Miles. She said she immediately told Jordan and other officials in Miyares’ offiice.

On Feb. 10, she said she had a series of meetings, phone calls and text messages with the officials in which she presented them with screenshots of her Facebook posts and explained that she had later edited some of them as she gained “more information from the news, post-election lawsuits, legislative hearings, and election audits as information was unfolding.”

In a text exchange with Jordan, she wrote, “I don’t condone the Jan. 6 riot or any of the lawlessness,” according to the lawsuit.

Miles said she was told the attorney general’s office would give her “an opportunity to resign,” but she did not do so.

Miles said she sent a message to several officials — including Miyares — and told them, “I have done nothing wrong.”

The lawsuit says that Miyares’ director of communications, Victoria LaCivita, issued a statement saying Miles had resigned. Miles said she was inundated by news outlets seeking comment, but she did not respond at first, believing that Miyares’ office would correct their statement. But when no correction was issued, Miles said she reached out to the media to say she had been asked to resign because of statements she made about the election and the events of Jan. 6.

LaCivita, who is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, said in a statement Friday that the attorney general’s office “commits to vigorously defend against Ms. Miles’ claim for $1 million of taxpayer money and is confident that our legal position is strong.”

According to the lawsuit, a statement issued by LaCivita said the attorney general’s office and Miles had “parted ways” because she showed a “lack of transparency during her initial interviews for the position.”

Miles said the statement impugned her reputation for truthfulness and integrity, qualities that are especially important as an attorney in a profession in which character and fitness are required to maintain a license to practice law.

“This is all about clearing my name,” Miles said in a telephone interview Friday.

Miles said in the lawsuit that she has lost clients because of the suggestion that she was not transparent and has been questioned by at least two judges in open court about the matter.

Courthouse News first published a story about the lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday in Richmond Circuit Court..

source

ATLANTA (AP) — Two Georgia Public Service Commission elections will not occur this November, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday, reversing an earlier appeals court ruling that allowed them to proceed.

Instead, the high court reverted to the original decision by a federal judge in Atlanta that postponed the elections after finding that electing the five commissioners statewide illegally diluted Black votes.

District 2 Commissioner Tim Echols and District 3 Commissioner Fitz Johnson, both Republicans, are seeking reelection to six-year terms. Echols is being challenged by Democrat Patty Durand and Libertarian Colin McKinney, while Johnson faces Democrat Shelia Edwards.

The Supreme Court decision came hours after a state court judge in a separate case overturned a residency challenge to Durand and allowed her to stay on the ballot, ruling that new districts drawn earlier this year violated Durand’s rights. Edwards also earlier won a residency challenge.

The Supreme Court ruled that U.S. District Judge Steven Grimberg’s decision did not come too close to the election. The justices ruled that the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong to block Grimberg’s order by citing an earlier Supreme Court decision saying judges shouldn’t order changes close to elections.

Grimberg broke new ground in finding that statewide elections violate the Voting Rights Act, although his decision hinged on Georgia’s decision of having candidates live in particular districts but run statewide. He found that illegally handicapped Black-favored candidates, and that such candidates would have a better chance of winning if only voters in a district voted on each candidate, making it possible to draw at least one Black-majority district.

Justices, in an unsigned one-paragraph order, wrote that the 11th Circuit was wrong to rely on that decision because Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger earlier told Grimberg that officials would have enough time to alter ballots if Grimberg ruled by Aug. 12. Justices found that because of that statement, Raffensperger had forfeited that argument.

The high court left open the possibility that the 11th Circuit could block Grimberg’s ruling and let the election go forward on other grounds. The 11th Circuit is also expected to consider a full appeal of the ruling later.

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr argues that Grimberg fundamentally erred in his decision by concluding that race and not Democratic partisanship drove defeats of candidates preferred by Black voters. He also says the judge overstepped in concluding that only state law and not the state constitution requires statewide elections. Grimberg earlier rejected both arguments.

Plaintiffs have said district elections would spotlight concerns of Black voters, including people with lower incomes who pay high utility bills. The lawsuit was brought by leaders of the NAACP, Georgia Conservation Voters and Black Voters Matter.

The commission regulates Georgia Power Co. and other utilities, determining how much companies are allowed to bill millions of ratepayers.

If Grimberg’s ruling stands, state lawmakers would have to draw single-member districts for the commission.

Another federal judge earlier this year a llowed Georgia’s congressional elections to proceed even though he preliminarily found redistricting was likely to have illegally harmed Black voters. Voting rights advocates have decried decisions that prioritize allowing elections to go forward, saying they allow states to proceed with illegal elections. It also sparks fears that the Supreme Court will gut the Voting Rights Act section allowing people to sue over district lines and other voting provisions.

Georgia’s Public Service Commission elections have been intensely litigated this year. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Melynee Leftridge ruled Thursday that Durand should stay on the ballot despite Raffensperger trying to kick her off for not meeting her district’s one-year residency requirement.

Leftridge ruled that the requirement was not constitutional in Durand’s case because she was targeted for exclusion during redistricting based on her residency.

The judge cited text messages between Echols and Public Service Commissioner Tricia Pridemore, who drew the districts that lawmakers adopted in March. Leftridge said evidence shows Pridemore had drawn a map that left Gwinnett County, where Durand previously lived, in District 2. But after Echols texted Durand’s previous address to Pridemore, she drew a new map that excluded Gwinnett County from the district.

Durand moved to Conyers, part of the new District 2, but Raffensperger challenged her qualifications in April for not meeting the one-year residency requirement.

Leftridge ruled that the residency law, as applied, violated Durand’s First Amendment right to free association and her 14th Amendment right to equal protection.

___

Follow Jeff Amy on Twitter at http://twitter.com/jeffamy.

source