35 Burst results for "State Legislature"
California's Reparations Panel Is Pushing to Close 10 Prisons
"Reparations panel is pushing for the state's legislature to close ten prisons. So crime is up and they want ten prisons closed. Because a disproportionate number of the people in the prison are black. Now, you have to understand everything makes sense. Truth is not a left wing value. Therefore, they don't ask do blacks commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. Because that's a truth question, and it is not a left wing value truth. They just note that that is true, and therefore what do they do? They don't work on, for example, ways to have more black kids grow up with a father figure or father real father in his or her life, especially his. Instead, they close prisons. These are rotten human beings, and people don't want to believe that. They look at a picture of Gavin Newsom and they don't see a rotten human being. They see a handsome man.
California Then vs. Now: Two Separate Countries
"California's reparations panel is pushing for the state's legislature. Did you know that California? People who only know how to destroy. To think of California when I moved here as a young man in the 1970s and to think of it today. Is to think of two separate countries, civilizations. They have ruined this paradisical place. Yes, Paradise had serpents, remember that. Paradisical does not suggest perfect. But they've ruined it. So now there's a reparations panel. There is no end. To what the left will push for. No end. People thought that when same sex marriage was approved, the most radical redefinition of marriage in history, that the left would say, okay, we really, we've achieved our goal, and we will now leave the sexual arena. But they never do. The next battle is to celebrate. That's what gay pride excuse me, LGBTQI plus pride is about, celebrating. You will celebrate people who change sexes, or who believe they have changed sexes. You will celebrate or you're a hater. That's why it's called gay pride, not gay acceptance not gay tolerance. Pride is an achievement to change sexes. Don't you take pride in achievement? Is it an achievement to be gay?
California Dems Consider Wealth Tax, Even for Those Who Moved Out
"California Democrats consider a wealth tax including for people who moved out of the state Fox points out several Democrat led states introduced similar measures and effort to tack the rich even more Have you noticed these Democrat tyrannical states are working together The working very closely together So you can't escape That's why they try to nationalize California's policies So no matter where you go your smothered with them California lawmakers are pushing legislation That would impose a new tax on the state's wealthiest residents even if they're already moved to another part of the country How are they going to do this What are they going to do Assembly Alec assemblyman Alex Lee a progressive Democrat says here Last week introduced a bill in the California state legislature That would impose an extra annual 1.5% on those with a worldwide net worth Above 1 billion starting as early January 2024 and it goes higher from there worldwide wealth extends beyond annual income to include diverse holdings such as farm assets arts and other collectibles stocks and hedge fund interest Legislation is a modified version of a wealth tax approved in California assembling 2020 Although they declined to pass it back then here it is again
Getting the House in Order
"You know, you just made a very important point because you come from the people, if you will, there's this administrative state, this establishment that exists within both parties and it's obvious that they don't want their power challenge. And it's amazing to me that so many Republicans seem to be going for this where we have this growing administrative state and less fewer people's voices are being heard. I mean, we the people were just simply not being heard and it amazes me and how many conservatives and or Republicans will say conspiracy theorists and this and that, and I'm just like, guys, do you see what's going on here? I mean, Arizona is a swing state. If we don't get our elections straight, Carrie, I don't think we can win in 2024, frankly. I'm worried about that, but I just, as I was sitting here waiting to come on the show today, I was watching a committee down at our state legislature in the state Senate where they're talking about election reform and they are dropping some serious truth bombs as we speak right now talking about many of the issues that we presented in our lawsuit when it comes to signature verification hundreds of thousands of ballots did not have proper signature verification literally ballasts with no signature were passed through. Ballots with scribbles that and nowhere came nowhere clear close to what the original signature for that ballot should have been. Were passed through to the tune of hundreds of thousands. We have wide scale cheating, we have laws that are not being followed. And if we don't step up and do it now, I don't know when we will. So I'm really pleased that there are at least talking about that. I'm pleased that our election case, the best election case to ever make it into the courts is moving through the courts when the appellate court right now. And so all is not lost. I do believe we can bring about some change before 24.
NY bill would stop MSG from kicking out enemy lawyers
"A New York State bill would stop entertainment venues from kicking out enemies. New York City's Madison Square Garden and other sports venues could be barred from refusing entry to perceived enemies of their owners under a bill introduced in the New York State legislature seeking to amend a current state law. The plan is to add sporting events to the list of public places of entertainment that can not refuse entry to people that arrive with a valid ticket. The original law without that clause was intended to stop Broadway venues from blocking theater critics that they didn't like. The garden and other notable venues announced several people recently using facial recognition technology, the technology has been used to stop a New Jersey mom from accompanying her daughter on a girl scouts filled trip and barred an attorney who owned New York Knicks tickets from attending the game. I'm Lisa dwyer
How Red State Lawmakers Can Use Their Power With Ilya Shapiro
"We have to fix our institutions. We have to, for lack of a better term, D woke by them and purge them of these insidious elements. And one of the leaders is a very smart person, very articulate person, is Ilya Shapiro, and he wrote a piece for The Wall Street Journal called saying state lawmakers can reform higher education and boy is that my love language. That speaks straight to the heart of what we talk about on this program and turning point USA. I'm excited to explore that with Amelia. Welcome to the program. All right, well good to be back with you, Charles. Yeah, very good. Tell us about your piece. We'll go from there. Sure. Well, I was on last with you describing the outcome of my fight with Georgetown where they tried to cancel me and said, I canceled them all sorts of illiberal tendencies that I my eyes were open to through that experience. And the problem that I discovered, you know, I'm a First Amendment lawyer constitutional lawyer now with the Manhattan institute. I've always been into free speech and due process. But what I really learned is that what's going on on college campuses, law schools, elsewhere, is the bureaucratization. And this is not the decades old conservative complaint about liberal professors, but rather in the time since I graduated college and law school, there's been this bureaucratic bloat, and most of that is these DEI offices, diversity, equity, inclusion, a really orwellian name that goes against intellectual diversity prevents equal opportunity and excludes anyone who deviates from a progressive orthodoxy. So I got together with some lots of people working on this issue, as you mentioned, my MI colleague Chris ruf, and Matt and byan Berg of the Goldwater institute, we got together, and we thought, what can, from a public policy perspective, a lot of people kind of throw up their hands and say the kids these days, or it's a culture, there's nothing for policy to do, but actually at least with respect to public institutions where a lot actually the majority of college students attend public institutions, state legislatures can get involved
Rep. Matt Gaetz Describes the Latest Rules Package
"I have several questions, but the rules package that passed yesterday. Was it a carbon copy of what was agreed to in the negotiations so far? So there are two major differences from where we were at the beginning of the week to where we ultimately ended up on the rules package first, the motion to vacate, reduced from a 5 member threshold to a one member threshold critical accountability tool, second feature of that, the church commission so that we can really focus on that in the rules. Is that okay, we had a guest yesterday that was not in rules package. Okay, so Matt, is it fair to say that if these rules were in place, the $1.7 trillion omnibus bill would not have passed as it was designed. Absolutely. It would have violated the single subject rule that exists in over 45 of our state legislatures, but not in the United States Congress. And many of the amendments that pulled that terrible piece of legislation together would have failed on Germany grounds. Now, your amendment actually has to be relevant to the underlying Bill to be considered. I know that sounds wonky, but just this last Congress, the national defense authorization act wasn't even a stand-alone bill at the end, it wasn't amendment to a water infrastructure Bill. Earlier in my career in Congress, we had to take one vote that was the farm Bill and related to war powers in Yemen. And these things ought to be considered separately, a serious country would not pair things that are not germane together and would not consider this as huge a single subject.
Will SCOTUS Give State Legislatures Authority on Election Rules?
"The Supreme Court just heard the arguments in the case of more versus Harper. An important case arising out of North Carolina because it has implications for the rules that govern the 2024 presidential election. Now, whenever you have the Supreme Court arguments, people pay close attention to how the justices, what kind of questions they're asking, they're sort of reading the tea leaves to try to figure out how these people are going to vote. But the issue is this who makes the rules. Who's the ultimate authority in making election rules. And this could mean gerrymandering rules that have to do with the shape of a district. They could have to do with voter ID rules. They could have to do with the deadline for sending in mail in ballots. Who is the final authority on this? Is it the legislature, the state legislatures? Is it the state courts? Is it the state constitution as interpreted by the state court? Is it officials who are running the elections like the Secretary of State to someone like that have the final and unilateral right to change the rules? Who is it? Who does what does the constitution say about this? Well, the constitution is actually kind of clear. And the constitution says that the authority in determining the manner by manner they mean the mode of conducting elections is up to the state legislature. So this couldn't really be more clear. But it's not quite as simple as we think for the simple reason that even though the state legislature makes a law, let's follow what happens when the state legislature makes a law. The legislature passes a law. But that law then goes to the governor, who is the equivalent in the state of, say, the president, and the governor decides am I going to veto the law? So a law doesn't become a law until it is passed by the legislature and then signed by the governor. So the governor has a say in your. He has authority. And this is important because by and large the left and talking about this case acts as if, giving the legislature the state legislature final authority somehow implies that the governor has no say that the courts have no say, but this is actually not what is at stake. This is not what that issue. The left is sort of distorting the meaning of this case.
Jenna Ellis and Eric Talk Trump's Contributions to the Supreme Court
"Welcome back. I'm talking to Jenna Ellis. Jenna, you have a podcast. It's the Jenna Ellis show dot com. Is that where people can find it? Yes, on the Salem podcast network. And so rumble or our non friends at YouTube or anywhere you stream audio. The Jenna Ellis show dot com. Okay, you did an in depth show recently on the Supreme Court and this argument on Monday about yet another Colorado situation. So I want to talk about that. But you were teeing it up a moment ago while we were off the year by saying that thanks to Donald Trump actually doing what he said and appointing constitutionalists and originalists to the Supreme Court and fighting for them, including for Kavanaugh. Because of that, we have a Supreme Court that actually believes in the constitution, which gives us a fighting chance going forward when loony people in places like Colorado decide to go full on Marxist, thank goodness we can appeal to the Supreme Court, which is effectively what just happened. Absolutely. And the greatest generational win of my lifetime and possibly even your lifetime Eric, of course, was the overturn of roe versus wade, which would never have happened, but for Donald Trump and you talk about contrast and clarity to have a Supreme Court that was willing to recognize state sovereignty and the limits of power on the federal level is truly remarkable. And so when we look at this case, it's three O three creative versus Elena's. And the issue in that case, I'm from Colorado, so I am very familiar and actually was part of the team that sincerely advocated for the state legislature at that time where we had just one seat majority in the Senate for Republicans to have a sunset, meaning a total defunding of the Colorado civil rights commission,
Youngkin ends shutdown penalties, wants some reimbursed
"Virginia's governor wants to reimburse some of those fined for disobeying virus related shutdown orders. Governor Glenn youngkin, says Virginia will stop further enforcement or penalties for violations of COVID-19 shutdown orders, although it won't apply to violations related to health facilities like hospitals and nursing homes, he's also asking the state legislature and agencies to reimburse some of the fines in a statement youngkin says the fact that businesses are still dealing with COVID-19 related penalties is infuriating the Republican issued an executive order this week to gather reports on the penalties, he described the actions as draconian overreach by his democratic predecessor Ralph northam. Northam's former spokesperson Elena yeoman defended his record, telling news outlets northam made Virginia one of the safest states during the height of the pandemic, and near the top for COVID vaccinations. I'm Jennifer King
Justice Elena Kagan: No State Remedies for Gerrymandering
"So here's justice Elena Kagan During the hearing today cut 15 go If I could mister Thompson I'd like to step back a bit And just think about consequences Because this is a theory with big consequences It would say that if a legislature engages in the most extreme forms of gerrymandering there is no state constitutional remedy for that even if the courts think that that's a violation That's not true We're not talking about violations of the constitution for instance The state legislature were too congressional districts in a way that violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution which was ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures I will remind you That is one of the post Civil War amendments A state legislature is not free to do that In other words a state legislature is not free to violate the federal constitution or the state constitution And that's not what we're talking about We're talking about a Supreme Court such as Pennsylvania deciding well we're going to extend the counting of ballots in other week Well you don't have to actually sign the envelope Well you don't have to actually date the envelope even though that state law
Courts Shouldn't Be Deciding Congressional Districts for Elections
"So in North Carolina the Speaker of the House of Representatives Republican They present their proposal They and the Supreme Court where was challenged Throw it out and rewrote it And the Supreme Court of North Carolina determined the congressional districts for North Carolina And do you think the framers of your constitution or the ratifiers of the constitution would have agreed with that Of course not But the Democrats rely on it Many of these marginal states politically speaking purple or leaning red but you never know you know that sort of thing If you change the election system and the courts do it for you you're going to win That's why Mark Elias and 300 lawsuits later the Democrats were able to change the laws in these various states And that to me is the real issue of what took place in this last election Across the country And so they had a hearing on this today oral argument And the pressure is on in the media and elsewhere If in fact the constitution is upheld If in fact the state legislatures retain their ultimate authority and don't surrender it to one of the two other branches of the state the executive or the judicial which are not mentioned in this section of the constitution the legislature is Then we can have all kinds of problems you see because it's too political Elections are political America That's what they're intended to be
The Implications of Moore v. Harper
"There's this case That's at the Supreme Court called more versus Harper This is the North Carolina case we've been talking about And this is the case that involves the language about state legislatures in the federal constitution And the Democrats are desperate To prevent the constitution from being applied to elections They've destroyed our election system They've destroyed it This is what the Republicans in the Senate and some of the house Will not come to grips with This is what some of the Republican governors will not come to grips with This is what all the media will not come to grips with particularly those on the take as consultants and pollsters Many of whom have media platforms They just assume find a foil and attack that foil But it's them They've changed the laws in these states and they know exactly what they've done She have a handful of brave Republican legislators and legislatures who are trying to get this under control And of course they're accused of racism Jim Crow two Jim eagle whatever the nut comes up with And so all the talk about suspending the constitution This case is about a constitution being suspended by Democrats and their surrogates in the states Because that's how they win elections The winning a lot of elections because they've changed the voting systems in these states and they've changed the voting systems in these states not to lose but to win
Supreme Court grapples with North Carolina case that could upend elections
"The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments today over whether a state court have the power to strike down congressional districts drawn by the state legislatures, Republicans from North Carolina are bringing the case to the high court, arguing that the constitution allows state lawmakers to have virtually total control over the times, places and manner of congressional elections, including redistricting, the North Carolina state Supreme Court struck down districts drawn by Republicans who control the legislature because they heavily favored Republicans. North Carolina is among 6 states in recent years in which state courts have ruled that overly partisan redistricting for Congress violated
Mark Meckler: Andy Biggs Does Not Respect the Constitution
"It's another concern I have Let's say we get the 34 state legislatures and they send the document or whatever we want to call it the petition to Congress which is supposed to be a ministerial act because they shall approve it so they can hold their convention If begs were the Speaker of the House he might sit on that the way he sat on it that is the issue as the president of the Senate in Arizona no I mean certainly you might try to clearly doesn't respect the constitution He only respects the parts that he likes that he thinks he's wiser than the framers of the constitution So he could try to do that Mark The good news is that the states have the authority to gather even if Congress doesn't do it But he could definitely try to get in the way One thing I want to bring up market there's an important part of the history here This is a guy who writes regularly for the new American which is a John birch society publication It's important And this goes way back Mark You'll remember this as well as anybody The John birch society was chased out of the legitimate conservative movement by Goldwater by Reagan and by Buckley himself as a bunch of fringe lunatics that we're going to destroy the conservative movement that's who Andy Biggs stands for
The Supreme Court Justices Have Turned Into Internet Trolls
"Your comments on Samuel shecky Alito. To Internet trolls now, Supreme Court justices. It's like it's like they all decided to be Internet commenters because they can get away with it. I'm going down, in fact, I'm going down tonight to Washington to watch them take democracy apart tomorrow. North Carolina case about the independent state legislature, you know, independent state legislatures theory, which is approximately the same, you might as well call it the brain from planets onto our theory for all relevance of that to anything. Yeah. It's actually going to get a hearing. I can hardly wait until I can hardly wait to hear what she comes up with for that. He's working on a bunch of new material before he goes on his federalist society chuckle on tour. Yes. So explain to people that don't understand what, so he joked about black Santa, children and clan robes and dating websites as the Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a case weighing a web designer's bid to avoid working on same sex weddings because she's a conservative evangelical Christian. So try to explain this to people and what Alito's point was he was trying to he was trying to he asked whether a black sand at the mall is obligated to take a picture with a child dressed in a clan outfit. So then they tried to get him to explain what a Klan outfit is. Yeah. Right. My question would have been. You mean like the one that's like in the back of your closet? Hi. Which is why I will never be on the Supreme Court. Right. But is it me? They sound like callers to right wing radio shows to me. The Supreme Court Justices. What about if? You know, it's like the whataboutism arguments, right? Well, they're not even good ones. Right. You know, they're not even good one about arguments. They're like, you know, the people who do their own research on the Internet and, you know, aha. I found it, you know, I found the landmine that will destroy the libs forever. And it's some bizarre comparison from some political figure they had. They hadn't heard of 15 minutes before they called the radio show.
David Carlucci: Titles Can Be Deceiving
"Urban areas, suburban to an extent, but your urban suburban areas are going to be your more blue or purple if you would. Everywhere else in this country is red, okay? You look at the maps for the last 20 years in presidential elections. It's this massive red country except for the blue popping, you know, in the areas we talk about. And that just happens. And I think it is funny. Yeah, I mean, I see my side, you know, we got this and right now, frankly, and just, you know, I'll be honest. McCarthy's got a problem. And it's a problem that I've talked to members in the caucus that have said, if he gives too much. And right now he's got four or 5 and just say, hey, no, we're not going to vote for you. So there's not a lot to give, but if he did, then you start to lose other members of the party. And it's the same truth. I love how y'all do it though. I love how the Democrats do it in Congress. In their elections, if they have a controversy or a different group, they just make vice chairs. I have never seen a conference that had more leadership positions than the House democratic caucus. It is the most amazing thing about it. Well, I'll tell you, that's something I've done a lot of work on the state legislatures. And it's been a lot of fun because you get to learn about these 99 different chambers in the United States. Because every state has two chambers, except for Nebraska, which is unicameral. But so you see the party leadership or the party in power in the chamber, you got to be very careful because majority leader might mean something different from state to state. You can have conference leader. And I've seen that on display in New York. Back over about 15 years ago, there was all these titles. And the conference leader was really the leader. You know, the majority leader was just ceremonial, but you had to know what was going on. But you see that in these chambers where these titles can be deceiving.
Democrat David Carlucci Has Always Worked Across the Aisle
"Cut my teeth in a time where I, I'm a Democrat, but in order to get elected to the Senate, I beat a Republican. And it was a Republican held seat for a generation. Just outside New York City. So I always modeled myself on trying to work across the aisle to get results, and I had the good fortune of before getting elected to the state Senate. I was elected as town clerk in the town of clarkstown, New York. It's about just under 90,000 people. It's a big town, but as town clerk, you're just helping people all day, right? You're helping them access government to make it that government is their friend and how to use it. So if done right, this town clerk, all you're doing is making friends, right? Participate in the town board meetings by being the minute taker, but you don't have to take that stance. But it was a great foundation in that trying to understand, listen, listen, trying to understand people where they're coming from. And I think that's one of the unfortunate parts of our state legislatures of our Congress is the hyper partisanship that we can't seem to put these labels aside. Even though we'll disagree on many things, like we've talked about before, we've talked a lot about addiction and mental health. And some of the ideas we have in strategies align. And I think that's where you can find some positives to say, hey, where can we find that common ground? Not let's just pile on top all the ways that we disagree. All the reasons you're wrong, I'm right. And let's just stop there. We don't get anything done. So I find it's really positive to try to do that as much as possible.
"state legislature" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Agreed to use a North Carolina redistricting case to consider adopting a far reaching legal doctrine that would shift more federal election power to the state legislatures that are now disproportionately controlled by Republicans. Joining me is elections law expert Richard burr fault, a professor at Columbia law school. What's this North Carolina case about? The North Carolina case grows out of a challenge to the state legislature is redistricting of North Carolina's congressional delegation. State legislature is overwhelmingly Republican. There was a democratic governor that he can be outvoted. Because various can be overturned. The legislature adopted a very pro Republican plan, North Carolina is a pretty close state, but I think it would produce something like 13 Republican and three democratic districts. Here's where it gets interesting. The North Carolina Supreme Court interpreting the state's constitution concluded that that was an unconstitutional under the state constitution's partisan gerrymander. Embedded violated not a particular provision of North Carolina constitution aimed at gerrymandering, but it's general provision dealing with free and fair elections. And so they struck it down in order to plan. That has been challenged by the Republican legislature. And indeed, the Supreme Court just upheld the idea that the Republican legislators could actually sue independently because the democratic attorney general is not supporting this argument. On the theory of what has come to be known as the independent state legislature doctrine. What does that mean? Well, the provision of the constitution that deals with elections for Congress to article one. Basically says that the state legislatures shall determine the time place and manner of elections for Congress. Congress can override that. But in the first instance, it's the state legislature. Where does legislature? Until fairly recently, no one thought that meant a legislature in particular as opposed to kind of let's call it the state legislative process. But the question has come up as to whether or not the legislature in some sense is independent of its state constitution independently with state Supreme Court so that when the state Supreme Court interprets the state constitution to set aside with the state legislature is done, that triggers an article one question and maybe as an article one violation. And that's what's picked up this idea of the independent state legislature doctrine that somehow the saint legislature is actually independent of its own constitution. Independent of its own state Supreme Court is doctrine has been kicking around for about 20 years and a number of Supreme Court Justices have indicated some support for it primarily in the context of presidential elections because they similar provision in article two. Deals with the selection of presidential electors. So if the state courts don't have the authority to look at these maps, who does, who has the authority? Well, at this point, since the Supreme Court has renounced a federal gerrymandering claim, it's not clear anybody really does. I mean, in theory, the U.S. Supreme Court upon the U.S. Constitution could review state legislative plans if they had racial discrimination. For example, but the U.S. Supreme Court has said they're not going to look at plans for partisan gerrymandering. When they said that, and the rucha case a couple of years ago, they pointed to the role of the states in the coming more active in policing partisan gerrymandering. But this could undo that. Depending on exactly what the court does, how far it reads. The U.S. Constitution is a constraint on the ability of state courts to review and undo the decisions of state legislatures. So as you mentioned, the Republicans have been pushing this theory for decades, is this the theory they advanced in the descent in Bush V gore? Right. It was Ethereum by three of the justices and Bush V gore led by chief justice rehnquist. It was not embraced by the majority. It was also a theory that has been alluded to in various concurring and dissenting opinions by I think at least three justices over the court during a lot of the fighting over the 2020 presidential election. In which a number of them Alito, Thomas, maybe even fork Gorsuch Kavanaugh indicated some sympathy and alita, in fact, said that even if presidential election was over, there was a case that came out of Pennsylvania challenging these Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision interpreting Pennsylvania law to give more time for absentee ballots to be counted in the end it didn't make any difference in the court dismissed the case, but justice a leader said they should have taken the case in order to resolve this question of the independence in which your doctrine. It could be a significant both for congressional redistricting and potentially for presidential elections. Does it look like they have four votes already? They assume thanks for both to take sir. The questions will they have 5? And even when they agree that there is some review, it's not completely clear how much they would read state courts out of this. It's very unclear what this doctrine will do. I mean, it's hard to believe that state legislatures exist outside their constitution. But that's sort of part of the argument. Some have argued that it might make a difference if the state constitution has a very clear provision that deals with partisan gerrymandering. As opposed to situations where snake supreme courts are relying on very, very general provisions about the right to vote. But we just don't know what the Supreme Court will do if this court concludes that state legislatures are either unbound by their state constitutions or unbound by state Supreme Court interpretations or they're somehow the U.S. Supreme Court can review state Supreme Court interpretations of state constitutions, which something they have either never or hardly ever done in modern times. Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Columbia law professor Richard braff fault, and we'll talk about where this doctrine could lead. You're listening to Bloomberg. The
"state legislature" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"Let's make this a law exam question for everybody A state legislature Let's say it's a Republican state legislature Let's say it votes And it says only Republican electors can possibly be sent To Congress Only Republicans That is no Democrat electors can be sent Article two in powers the legislatures to set the rules for voting Would that be okay No Why Because it violates another part of the constitution called the equal protection clause Okay fine But they do it anyway And somehow those electors wind up With the archivist who sends them in the big envelope with the other electors To be voted on Under the Twelfth Amendment as looting and others argue the vice president has no choice whatsoever Just assuming that under this election count act of 1887 That there aren't enough objections and opposition to counting them And I could get more in the weeds but there's no point Would the vice president of the United States as the president of the Senate be required to accept those votes mister producer What do you say law professors What do you say judge ludik What do you say attorney Jacobs or whatever his name is What do you say Is that okay Because based on your arguments the answer is yes he'd be required I understand this as a hypothetical But that's the way it goes It's the way these tests work So the vice president of the United States according to their theory not the constitution itself but according to their theory despite swearing an oath of the constitution would be compelled to allow those votes and count those votes even though he knows it violates the federal constitution That can't be right That can't be right Twelfth Amendment does an enshrine unconstitutionality So you've got to use common sense A common sense would tell you of course he can call that into question Right Well the vice president of the United States becomes aware that a Democrat elected Supreme Court in Pennsylvania and a Democrat elected governor in a Democrat elected Secretary of State have changed the election laws right up to election day To benefit the Democrat party in violation of article two the state legislature objects but the overruled by that court in the rover ruled by the governor's administrative actions But those electors retired to be counted or can the vice president say you know let's take a week and take a look at it That's.
"state legislature" Discussed on Max & Murphy on Politics
"And so 95% of New York households would spend less than they now do on health coverage and healthcare under a single payer system. So why hasn't this? Let's stick with this then. Why hasn't the New York health act passed? When Republicans controlled the state Senate, the assembly led by Democrats passed the New York health act multiple times. Democrats in the state Senate all signed on symbolically as co sponsors of the bill, then Democrats get full control of the legislature, it doesn't happen. And it hasn't happened now for those four years basically awful democratic control. Why? Obviously, you had a governor and Andrew Cuomo, who was very who said, we shouldn't do this on the state level. I'd like to see a Don the national level. That could be just a punt in a way of avoiding discussing it. And obviously, governor hulk has been governor only for 9, ten months. But what's your assessment? Why hasn't this gotten to the finish line here? Well, for the years when the Republicans controlled the state Senate, the opposition that kept it from moving in the state Senate was the insurance industry and big business. Which regarded it as, well, the insurance industry, quite properly regarded it as legislation that would put the health insurance industry out of business. And they were making a lot of money and didn't want to be put out of business. Under once the Democrats took a majority in the state Senate, you know, we now have a majority of the members of both houses are co sponsors of the bill..
"state legislature" Discussed on Max & Murphy on Politics
"When that finally passed. We were able to undo the compromise we had had to make in 1977, so sometimes it takes a while. Wow. To get the whole deal done. You've been chair of the assembly health committee for 35 years, why did you become the chair in the first place? What precipitated that? What made that happen? Was it a particular interest in urge of yours to chair it? Was it luck? Was it somebody needed to do it? And you were named? You know, for the 8 years before I became chair of the health committee, I was deputy majority leader. In the assembly, after having chaired a couple of committees, and when the health committee, well, what happened was the guy who was the majority leader of the assembly left the assembly in late April to become head of the New York State business council. Jim Tallinn, who for a number of years had shared the health committee, became a majority leader. And so the health committee opened up. And a member of my staff called me up and said, you know, dick, you really ought to put your name forward for that. It's an important committee, you'd be really great at it. And I said to her, stop talking, I'm going to hang up the phone. I'm going to call the speaker Mel Miller and let him know I'm interested before he gives it to somebody else. Because there were quite a few other people who were angling to get the championship. And within two days, I was the new chair of the health committee. You know, it was not a topic I knew a lot about. You know, almost all of us in the assembly at that point relied on Jim talon to know health policy and we had enough confidence in him that if Jim talon said we should do such and such, we all said count me in. I learned a lot very quickly. I was fortunate that Jim talon was not leaving me assembly. He stayed on as majority leader. And I relied on him heavily for several years to learn from. But it was a, it was a big change in my career. It totally changed the set of issues that I work on. And it's about the best thing I've ever done in my career. What was top of mind then when you said, if this works out or once it did work out, these are these are the things I really need to be tackling. HIV was it different sets of laws and public health around drug use was go ahead. Well, you know, I had worked on two or three health issues before I became chair in May of 87. I had worked on legislation to create what became known as the prenatal care assistance program, which was essentially an aspect of Medicaid that gave additional support for prenatal care. And we had done that in the early 80s and I got involved in that issue because Carol Bellamy, who was the city council president at the time, and a good friend of mine, she was interested in the issue and. Got me working.
"state legislature" Discussed on Max & Murphy on Politics
"You finished your final session, of course there could be a special session before the end of the year. You might wind up back in Albany passing some bills again. But how does it feel? And broadly speaking, what are you reflecting on as you wrapped up this session? Well, in a word, it feels good. I am very much looking forward to loving retirement. But I also had a terrific year this year. We got 31 bills of mine passed the assembly. 21 of my bills passed both houses. And some have already been signed by governor hochul, the rest that we're hoping will get signed. So, you know, on the other hand, there were things that we wanted to get done that didn't get done. Most importantly, passing the New York health act, which I've been sponsoring for 30 years now. It was one more disappointing year in the fact did not come to the assembly and Senate floor and get past, but that struggle will continue. In some ways, I often say the legislature has sort of conspired to enable my addiction to the legislature every just about every year at the end of session. I feel great that we accomplish some important things. And that makes me want to come back and at the same time, I'm always disappointed if things that we didn't get done. And that makes me want to come back. So in many ways, this end of session was like many others. How did it happen this more than half a century in the assembly, you looked at a congressional run at one point, but really have been so devoted and loyal to the assembly and continuing to stay there. How did that happen for you, obviously there have been some other legislators who have had pretty long runs, but nothing, nothing like yours. How did that happen? Well, you know, in other than getting elected at a very young age, of course. Yeah, well, in 19. When I was 13, John Kennedy was running for president and like millions of other Americans. I was really impressed with him and at that tender age decided that elective office was what I wanted to do for a career. And when I got to high school a year later, I ran into a handful of other kids, one of whom is my congressman, Jerry Nadler. And we all realized that we were all interested in politics and decided we would work together to try to get each other elected. And in 1970, lo and behold, I ran for an open seat in the state assembly. And got elected and I think part of the part of what has kept me here all this time is that in 1974, after being in the minority politically with the Watergate landslide, we took a majority in the state assembly and have held it ever since, a growing majority. And serving in the majority in the assembly can, if you're really interested in public policy, can be in an extraordinarily rewarding.
"state legislature" Discussed on Max & Murphy on Politics
"This is Ben max from Gotham gazette, a publication of citizen junior foundation. Thanks very much for tuning in here for this episode of the show. We are speaking here on Wednesday, June 8th, 2022. It is a few days after the end of the New York State legislative session, which my guest today was a part of his last of more than 50. Assembly member Richard dick gottfried joins me here today. He represents the 75th assembly district covering Chelsea hell's kitchen, Murray hill, midtown, parts of the Lincoln Center area in Manhattan, and he's chair of the assembly health committee, assembly member Godfrey is the longest serving legislator in New York State history and not seeking reelection this year. He's been known per his announcement of his retirement as an outspoken champion for progressive values, comprehensive healthcare, human rights, and Manhattan's west side. He has served in the New York State assembly since 1970 and is chair of the health committee since 1987. He sponsored over 500 laws, including major changes related to LGBTQ rights, the Hudson River waterfront, hotels, criminal justice reform, child healthcare and much, much more. We will get into a lot of that with some of them are Godfrey to hear in just one minute. He's also known as the lead sponsor of the New York health act to create universal publicly funded single payer health coverage in New York, and we will discuss that long battle with him here on the show in just a moment. First, very quickly, if you've missed the recent reporting at Gotham gazette, you can find it at Gotham gazette dot com. We've been covering the end of that state legislative session. New York City budget season is upon us, the mayor and the city council have to get to an agreement on a new city budget by the end of this month here in June and much more. There is, of course, a lot going on with redistricting in the 2022 New York elections for the House of Representatives, the state legislature, statewide seats, and more, and we've been covering a lot of that as well. Here on the show, on max politics, we've been having a bunch of really interesting conversations. It's something of a retirement week here as my other guest this week on the show is state senator Diane savino. I just had a conversation with her that you can find after you listen to this one about her 18 years that felt like a long time to her, but nothing, of course, compared to today's guest to some of them are Godfrey, but talking with state senator Diane savino also this week about her tenure in the state Senate. She's moving on and declining to seek reelection as well this year. And then other weeks recently I've spoken with New York City council member carlina Rivera, who's now running for Congress in the newly constructed New York ten and a bunch of other great guests so you can find all of those at max politics wherever you get your podcasts or we have them all at the Gotham gazette website. Okay, assembly member Richard gottfried. Thank you very much for joining me. How are you? I'm doing fine. Good to be with you. So how does it feel?.
"state legislature" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"It's morning edition on WNYC on Michael hill Early voting is underway in New York City and for those of you who haven't voted in person yet you should know 5 state referendum proposals appear on the flip side of the ballot They include questions about changing the redistricting process voting and the civil court system as well as a cleaner environment if these proposals pass they take effect January 1st Now as you know ballot proposals are often complicated It's hard to figure out whether to vote yes or no without some preparation So this week we have WNYC and Gotham is editor David Cruz here to give us some guidance Hi David Hi Mike Tell me this Today we're focusing on just ballot proposal number one It seems to be the most complicated and largely involved redistricting is that right That's correct It's a lot to digest but here's the gist The sections on redistricting ask voters to say yes or no to making it easier for lawmakers to reshape legislative and congressional lines in the redistricting process This was specifically benefit Democrats because they're the dominant party in the state legislature currently And they're attempting to take redistricting by the horns and away from the independent redistricting commission Now this is the ten member panel that's currently charged with drawing the lines that avoid favoring one political party over another So one measure ask whether the state legislature can get the commissions redrawn maps earlier for review And if voters agree candidates in newly drawn districts have extra time to collect required signatures to get on the June primary ballot New Yorkers approved the redistricting commission 7 years ago isn't there concern that Bala proposal number one would dilute the spirit of bipartisanship that was intended Yes that's correct Right now because Democrats control the state legislature at least one Republican appointee from the Senate and assembly has to sign off on these redistricting maps before state lawmakers can vote on them So another measure undervalued proposal number one asked New Yorkers to sign off on a less bureaucratic process where any Republican appointee can vote in favor of these maps And another measure under the proposal involves updating an existing rule where the commission's co executive directors have to be chosen by Republican and democratic appointees respectively So ten years from now the co executive directors can come from the same party but some good government groups including the league of women voters view this proposal as eliminating the bipartisan spirit that was expected of the commission But another good government group common cause he's a differently They want voters to approve this in awe of ballot proposal number one because it would lead to professional map makers on the redistricting commission and truly make it nonpartisan at least they believe it would And also the current setup shuts out independence So this provision would at least allow commissioners to appoint an independent And yet another measure undervalued proposal one makes it easy for these redistricting maps to be approved through what's called a simple majority What are the implications there So because Democrats control the state assembly and Senate at least two thirds of lawmakers have to approve redistricting maps This is called the supermajority but ballot proposal number one asked New Yorkers to allow just a simple majority to approve the maps regardless of whether one party dominates each house But a simple majority is not defined in the proposed amendment For the purposes of the redistricting process underway now this would mean Democrats won't really need the Republicans to approve the maps So opponents specifically Republicans fear this will open the door for state Democrats to draw their own maps to suit their party Now this indirectly reduces the voices of New Yorkers represented by a Republican lawmaker And this can also spot trouble for Democrats ten years from now should Republicans regain the majority So the dominant party can continue to ram through redistricting maps as they have in the past And that proposal one includes still other measures that appear to be administrative in nature You had written about all of this in detail at gothamist dot com but the key thing for voters to know about valor proposal one it's a yes or no vote on all of it Right even though you the voter have at least 7 measures to consider under this first ballot proposal you have to choose either one yes or no at the end of it So it can get complicated if you approve one measure say speeding up the timeline for the redistricting process but not like the measure on instituting a simple majority vote And New Yorkers can opt to skip this ballot proposal or any others altogether That's doubly NYC's David Cruz be sure to come back tomorrow to hear the ballot proposals three and four which we promise are way less complicated David thanks for the explanations here Thank you And.
"state legislature" Discussed on Fresh Air
"Justin chang recommends the movie. The woman who ran a seventy six minute dramatic comedy from the south korean filmmaker hung song. Su it went a directing prize at the twenty twenty berlin international film festival and is now playing in select theaters nationwide. Here's justin's review the sixty year old south korean writer director. Hong sung is one of the most tirelessly productive filmmakers working today over the past couple of decades. He's made a remarkable twenty six features sometimes turning out one reason to a year. The consistency and quality of his work has earned him a significant following at film festivals and among art house audiences who've come to love his ryan melancholy movies. Slender low budget drama series. That often focused on the fractious dynamics between women and men his stories are usually built around a few recurring elements romantic entanglements personal anxieties ordinary conversations. That gradually turn on comfortable and revealing. especially if there's drinking involved for this reason on has often been wrongly accused making the same movie over and over again with only slight variations in story instructor. It's not that hong repeats himself. It's more that he's fascinated by repetition as a fact of life the way people often find both comfort and dissatisfaction in routine he explores that tendency to sublime effect in the woman who ran his latest movie to hit theaters. If you're unfamiliar with hongs work. This is good place to start as any. The title is a bit of a riddle. There are several women in the and we never see any of them running. The main character is a mild-mannered woman from seoul named gun. He who's played by the terrific actress. Kim in he hongs frequent collaborator and offscreen partner..
"state legislature" Discussed on Fresh Air
"And the the movie studios recognized that they couldn't keep putting their head in the sand and that opened the door to the mainstream embracing and debating ideas that previously had been limited the guard and for me look the movie that most reflects this above all probably chinatown. It's such a great movie. It's such a great movie right. I mean and i. I talked to robert town. Who wrote the movie and others who were who were involved in it. I had a great time. I found the photographer who took the onset photos publicity stuff most of which was never published and he was showing me shots of the last night of shooting because the last night of shooting is the great ending of chinatown. Forget it jake. It's chinatown and you can just see the chilliness between fade away in roman polanski Who battled throughout the whole movie but chinatown really does nashville in some ways. As i argue in the book which is not as great. A movie as a chinatown nashville. I believe though kind of moby dick of early seventies cinema the attempt to wrestle into one story all of the themes but chinatown. I really captures this period. Both in american life and in popular culture. Where the idea that. You can't really trust those who are making decisions in your name. There are wheels within wheels. We don't know as much as we think we do. It's just an incredibly powerful expression of those ideas done in a classic film. Nawar ron brownstein. I want wanna thank you so much for being on our show. Thank you for talking with us. Oh thanks for having me always a great time. Ronald brownstein is a senior editor at the atlantic and senior. Political analyst at cnn. His latest book is called. Rock me on the water..
"state legislature" Discussed on Fresh Air
"I think unequivocally unequivocally look your your job as a journalist is to tell your readers what's happening as best you can and as best you can understand it and you know many of the things i've said to you in the last hour you know. I think there would be a lot of reporters has it into say as explicitly because they would worry it would taint them in some way as not being objective or not being fair but this is the reality of what we are living in is that we are in a different era and we are in a position that i don't think the country has really ever been except for maybe the southern dominated democratic party in the eighteen fifties where you have a substantial and i believe the dominant faction one party. That is moving and he consciously anti-democratic way small d. as a means of maintaining majority power in a country where the evidence is that they no longer have majority support. And i feel like you're events what's happening. that's what you have to unearth and describe and track and respectfully but i think you clearly. and so. yeah. I do think that the role of and obviously that plays out as well at a kind of more tactical micro-level day-to-day in responding to things that aren't true. The the commands of being fair do not require you to willfully blind yourself to what's happening. In fact i cannot imagine anything more perverse than saying out of a desire to be seen by some as fair willfully mislead my audience as to the magnitude of. What's happening. I think i'd just as an incredible version of what your priorities should be. I think some in the press are kind of stuck in that mode. But i do think by and large reporters have moved toward understanding that. This is a different moment and you may have to be more assertive. Than in the past about describing. What's actually happening. Well let me reintroduce you again..
"state legislature" Discussed on Fresh Air
"And the idea that you know what mansion in cinema senators mansion and cinema are essentially saying is that democrats should do this only if republicans in the senate agreed to undo what republicans in the states are doing highly unlikely highly illogical a historical. So that is the choice. They face so senators cinema and mansion asking for bipartisanship in an era when that is most improbable so say president biden decided. Yet we're gonna go for ending the filibuster for voting rights. Just for voting rights are the odds. Do you think that cinema and mansion would actually agree to that because he needs their votes. I mean would it be possible to end the filibuster if he if biden decided he wanted to. The short answer is no knows terry. So let's let's let's kind of recap the state of play. The house passed very expensive bill called. Hr one which establishes a nationwide floor voting rights allows requires every state to provide automatic and same day. Registration requires every state to allow early voting and mail voting on demand limits gerrymandering has new fundraising and ethical provision. It was it was kind of covering the waterfront that passed the house went to the senate and republicans filibustered it and obviously that was the end of the line for that bill where they are now. Is that center mansion. Who was a former secretary of state of west virginia Put out a series of principles about what he could support as an alternative to that and it wasn't as sweeping. hr one but it went further in that direction than i think. Most democrats voting rights advocates expected. So what they are doing now somewhat fitfully because being overshadowed by the infrastructure and budget talks is democrats are trying to unify behind a bill. Based on the mansion principles that every democrat in the senate and present william the house would endorse and the goal at that point is to then say to mansion and cinema. Okay here's a reasonable bill..
"state legislature" Discussed on Fresh Air
"Let's get back to my interview with ronald brownstein. A senior editor at the atlantic. Where he's been writing about how. The republican party has become more extreme as reflected in the conservative bills being passed at the state level. There's a big debate within the democratic party. About whether to end the filibuster or to end the filibuster on a limited basis for instance just for voting rights issues and What would you say is the state of that debate right now. Well i start by saying it. Is i wrote in january and still believe it is the biggest single choice democrats face in this congress weather to end the filibuster to pass a national floor voting rights. I think that is far more important than how many bridges ultimately they find in southern indiana. You're talking about the infrastructure bill there. Yeah yes yes. I am yeah so is an enormously consequential decision because you know i was. I was talking to an historian for for another story. I was writing. And if you think about the nineteen sixties and the civil rights struggle of the nineteen sixties. The southern segregationists were trying to prevent the federal government from changing jim crow from uprooting jim crow in their states. They weren't trying to export jim crow to new states. They weren't trying to make jim crow a national standard. They just wanted it was a defensive maneuver to keep the federal government out what we are seeing now in. The red states is more like what happened in the eighteen. Fifty s when the south was trying to use Trying to achieve a national expansion of slavery to override and undermine the limits on expanding slavery into new territories and maybe ultimately even into into the free states. this is analogous because what's happening in. The red states on voting is not just about preventing democrats from electing a governor in texas or georgia or arizona. It's about flipping. The rules are tilting. The table in a way that makes it easier for republicans to control the senate and to control the house gerrymandering and to win the presidency both through voter suppression and maybe even sa- version of the results with these enhanced powers and some of these laws to take over local election boards. So this is not only about controlling the red states this is about changing the rules and the.
"state legislature" Discussed on Fresh Air
"We don't see him and hear him every day the way we used to And i'm wondering if you think. Republicans feel they need trump anymore or whether they've adapted enough of his style that they can carry it on without him and still get the support of his base. That's a great question. look i think. Trump's personal power is still substantial the larger power. is this what we call the trump. Ace is the republican coalition at this point. And that's why. I think the twenty twenties one of the reasons why i think i've written. I think the twenty twenty s will be the most difficult decade for the country in many ways since the eighteen fifties because the weather or not trump himself is personally leading this parade. This is a reality. You know something like thirty five thirty. Maybe forty percent of the country is so alienated from the way. America is changing that it is willing to undermine the basic pillars of our democracy. If that's what it takes to keep power that's not going away. Even if trump never runs again others will in in various ways in the party. Pick up that. It's it's a. It's a demand side phenomenon as much as a supply side phenomenon. there is a portion a majority. I think of the republican base. That want something trumpian and someone will step in to do that now. Having said that. I just have one caveat. The one thing republicans don't know is whether they can get the super heated turn out. The trump personally inspires among these voters. There's no question that a republican delivering. This message is going to win. Three quarters or four fifths of white evangelical 's and is gonna win sixty two to sixty seven percent of non college whites but will they get the extraordinary level of turnout pulling people off their couch into the voting booth. That trump did. They don't know that. And i think that in many ways is residual power and the party the fear that his voters will not turn out in the same numbers unless he is enthusiastically encouraging them to do so. Well let me reintroduce you here if you're just joining us. My guests is ronald brownstein a senior editor at the atlantic and senior. Political analyst for cnn. We'll talk more after we take a break. I'm terry gross and this is fresh air. This message comes from..
"state legislature" Discussed on Fresh Air
"By the american enterprise institute another conservative think tank in which roughly fifty five percent of republicans said the traditional american way of life is disappearing so fast we may have to use force to save it and in that same poll. Three quarters of republicans said discrimination against whites is now a biggest problem as discrimination against minorities and this legislation that we're talking about in the state level reflects those kind of viewpoints and priorities. In the same way that trump's messaging was much more about racial identity than it was about. Tax rates was not ronald reagan. The government is the problem. This was who should be running the country. You know we are the real america and we are under assault from minorities and immigrants who threaten us and elites who disdain us and we should we should be holding the power against these forces that are trying to transform america into something unrecognizable. And i think that is what is driving the state agenda more than any kind of conventional line of division between the parties about the size and role of government. Do you think a lot of republicans have taken on the tone of trump's politics the anger the hostility the mocking absolutely look. It all goes together. I mean i think look. I think the core trump message is that democrats are fundamentally alien force that is trying to steal your america and transform it into something unrecognizable. It's what people have described since two thousand sixteen as the flight ninety three argument among conservatives referring to the passengers who crashed hijacked plane on nine eleven rather than allowing it to be flown into washington and trump offers a version of that which is that the country is at the brink. He said frequently in the twenty two thousand election. Mike pence said at the convention that this is not about whether democrats or republicans control washington. This is about whether america remains america. And so once you have put out the argument and once a substantial portion of your base has accepted the argument that any win for the other side will irrevocably disfigure and transform america into something unrecognizable an alien to its founding principles and beliefs. I mean it is a really short step. I think to convince them that. The other side is literally stealing the election or that. The consequences of allowing the other side to take power are so dangerous that it justifies a literal assault on the capital. It's all rooted in in the broad swath of the base. That is so fundamentally alienated from the way. America is changing that they are willing to support any means necessary in order to maintain power. I mean you probably saw a poll out this week from cbs. In which a majority of republicans and trump voters described the attack on the capital defending freedom and only twenty percent described it as insurrection. That's kind of where we are. And i think everything we're talking about both at the state level and the national level is flowing out of that sentiment that the deep well of alien nation among us central portion of the base. How much is trump perceived as still having in the republican party. Coz you know he's been having his rallies but he's not. He's not on social media the way he used to be..
"state legislature" Discussed on Fresh Air
"Dan patrick who was kind of the leader of the the most militant conservative action. The state. I think it was very open about driving this restorick conservative agenda forward by saying look this is. What the basis demanding not-so-subtle message to legislators who were hasn't redistricting will be happening soon. Based on the recent census. So what does that looking like. About which direction do you think it will change politics. Well this is where the democratic failure in two thousand eight hundred eighty to make bigger inroads is so consequential. Because you have the ability for these republican. Legislators to gerrymander draw districts in a way that essentially virtually guarantees that they will maintain control of these chambers for several years to come into the twenty twenty s. I think redistricting kind of age over time as population shifts happen so it may not guarantee them a full decade but certainly the texas legislature can draw lines at virtually guarantees that they are going to be in control of the next couple of years especially when couple with what they are trying to do on voting rights. And really you know. This is the core in some ways. The core issue that the whole debate over voting rights at the federal level is coming down to because one of the key provisions in the democratic bill h. r. one that attempts to set a nationwide flora voting rights is to try to combat this gerrymandering in the states. And i can tell you. It's the sense of urgency among the sponsors about acting on passing some version of hr one at the national level. Is that on in the middle of august so roughly a month from now. The census will transmit the population data. That the state's us to re district and the fear is that the red states like texas and florida and georgia will try to re district as quickly as possible to create facts on the ground so that even if democrats pass national standards that inhibit gerrymandering later. They can argue to the supreme court that they shouldn't apply to them because it would be retroactive. And so that is the real deadline that many of the advocates on capitol hill are looking at data a really close deadline. It's a really close deadline. I mean it's it's it's hard to imagine. They are going to be able to pull this together in the next few weeks. It's not clear that they're going to be able to pull this together at all but it is. It just underscores what. We're watching this kind of dialectic. Between red states that are moving on many fronts to stew as aggressively as possible. Say we are not going to be part of this. What you are doing at the national level and the question of whether democrats can use their national power to create some nationwide floor of policy and writes on a whole series of areas but voting rights being the most consequential you read that the conservative bills being passed at the state level reflect the stamp of donald trump and what in what way both in terms of the policies and the political approach to they reflect trump's stamp what you really see the state level is a manifestation of what trump made very clear at the national level that the driving engine of them. Ron republican coalition. I think the glue of the modern republican coalition is resistance to hostility to the cultural and demographic changes remaking america polling by the conservative ethics and public policy center earlier this year ninety percent of trump voters said christianity in america is under assault. There was polling..
"state legislature" Discussed on Fresh Air
"It represents just one stream in torrent of conservative legislation posed to remake the country. Gop controlled states have advanced their most conservative agenda in years and one that reflects donald trump's presence stamp on the party. That's what my guest ronald brownstein wrote in a recent column in the atlantic were. He's a senior editor. He's also senior political analyst at cnn. Earlier this year he wrote a column in the atlantic titled how the gop surrendered to extremism one of his books. Unrelated topic is titled the second civil war. How extreme partisanship has paralyzed. Washington and polarized america brown is a former national political correspondent and national affairs columnist for the l. a. times and covered the white house and national politics for the national journal. His latest book which was published in the spring is titled. Rock me on the water. Nineteen seventy four. The year los angeles transformed movies music television and politics. It's about the period. When pop culture started reflecting the vanguard of culture and politics taking a more watered down version to the mainstream our interview was recorded yesterday. Morning ron brownstein. Welcome back to fresh air. It's been a long time. Glad to have you back again..
"state legislature" Discussed on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM
"Our state's legislature and legalizing drugs is now on the agenda. Let's bring in Cairo radios Hannah Scott to explain. Hey, Hannah. Hello. Good morning. Good morning. So we know that Oregon was the first state to decriminalized small amounts of drugs. Are we going to be the second? What's going on? We very likely will be the second. I think there's a There's a solid chance that this bill will move. This is called the Pathways to Recovery Act. It was just dropped or introduced yesterday. We'll get a hearing on it next week. And essentially, what this does is decriminalizes. Kind of like the policies we've seen here in King County of not prosecuting for any drug if it's I think it's a gram or less. In King County. Snohomish County had a 2 G or less policy for a while. That is since been reversed so they can prosecute insomuch counting if they choose to. But essentially, the idea is that this kind of big part of the national conversation is what we've been doing Criminalizing drugs doesn't work right? And especially when we're Talking about personal use of drugs for people dealing with substance used substance use disorder. That's a disease and and they can't control. We need more treatments, not more criminalization. So that's the idea. Behind this bill. Now Oregon's law that you just mentioned kicked in this week and it is an immediate bill. They will invest more in using. Actually, they're using their marijuana taxes in Oregon to pay for expanded treatment and help alternatives and avoiding the whole entering the criminal justice system at all. Here, this bill would create this task force of work group. If you will, that will Come up with the rules on. I think the idea would be to get the report to the Legislature by Mitter. End of 2022 to then go ahead and start implementing used the word task force. And of course, that would have to be Oh, Washington. Yeah. Okay, So what? What amounts again. Are we talking about? Because it just immediately. My reaction is I don't like this, and I believe we're still talking about 2 G or or less in that in that general area, Anything that's clear distribution intended to be, you know, sold or anything like that. That's definitely not going to get a pass. But yeah, so to to about 2 G just for personal use. It sounds like Addressed the feeling that I'm getting that there's going to be start to be some moment. Um, now I know the thought of what do you mean, You want to just legalize drugs, and it's like, No, they want to legalize a small amount. And so if you get caught with a small amount, right, Hannah, then then yes, You're fun. But if you get caught with excess amount It means you're probably looking to distribute. That's not good going to the hands of kids or anything like that. So as far as what you're hearing, is there a little bit more momentum with this bill? There's a There's actually quite a bit of a momentum momentum. It's something that I've heard pushed for some time. This was actually going to be in a new initiative for the voters, but because the pandemic it they had problems getting signatures, so they are just going straight to the Legislature and look the makeup of our legislature this session. I think there's Definitely some significant support for this. There's you know, the pandemic has taken all the headlines this this last year or so and behind the scenes, all of the same things that were our problems before are still our problems, Homelessness, the opioid crisis, all of these things and what they were doing before and what continues to be done is not working, so this is a non option to try toe. Find a new way. And on top of that, simultaneously, you've got this big push for criminal justice reform period for emptying the jails period and keeping everyone but the most serious of the serious offenders, not in behind bars, so they go together. Yeah, And again. I have hesitancy when I hear that, too, Because we just talked about letting you know someone out without bail after he's accused of firing two dozen nearly two dozen You kill what? I can't believe you just Had to wrap that in there. Well, that's what we're talking about, though. This is an effort E O go other different routes versus and I know that you and I have a different stance when it comes to Criminalizing drugs and in particular possession of drugs. I know what it's like to have someone in your family. Someone you love who is addicted to drugs. My oldest brother had a drug addiction. And no matter what you try, and I understand it, it would have broken my heart if he ended up In jail. I mean the person he was harming the most. So I understand the the person he was harming the most was himself. So I understand that idea, But I also see what is going on in particular in downtown Seattle. And we see the open air drug dealing and and what has happened. That does concern me. But why is that happening right that we've been? They have been well, not more recently, but they had prior to been arresting. These people put him in jail and you can only the law works in a way. We can only hold them so long unless it's a big amount within and there's no treatment. So This is not just focused on either the you know, like you have to go to treatment for 28 days and stay in a bed Necessarily. This is peer to peer so people with lived experience, which is a very big deal, and all the research points to that, being among the most helpful things you can do to get people into treatment. People, you know, put them with people who understand whether at and can can kind of speak on the same level of them. But you also don't have to be an impatient You don't have to live in the facility, so it doesn't depend on these mass amounts of dollars where we have to create new facilities and, you know, create new beds necessarily. They're just used to be that alternative, and it's so it's It's a different approach. It's going to be for sure, a controversial approach. It could make a difference specifically with what you're talking about this farce homeless that we see on the streets because right now they're just kicked out. And nobody does anything. That is true. Thank you so much. Hannah Scott. And you say it has supported that bipartisan supporters mature. Not yet. Not yet. I haven't seen bipartisan but it just dropped late yesterday afternoon, so we'll see in the hearing next week. How this goes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You know, Ursula, I was thinking about this is Hannah was talking and I was thinking, Let me just give a scenario and let's just say my oldest baby G since he's over 18 years old. Um He goes, hangs out with some friends, right and with some friends, he somehow he gets some oxy or something some some things that he's not supposed to have Okay, because he wants to try it. And let's say that he does that. So then he's out and about and somehow he gets stopped, and he it's found on him, right? Police, of course, illegal drugs he needs. He has to go to jail because that's the law, right? He's over 18 years old. Let's just say hypothetically, that Don't have the money. To help him. So I don't have the money to help him. Now he's gonna have this on his record, right. So when he goes to apply for a job, this is on his record when he goes to try to rent an apartment. This is on his record. Then my son has kids, and he has kids in his job. His ability to get a job is limited. Because of that mistake that he had made. He wasn't able to get a lawyer and get that white clean. And so now, as he's having kids, he and his kids are in poverty, then his kids or 15 16 years old, and then they're hanging out on the corner, right? And then people say, Oh, they got to get these kids off the corner. Would all goes back to that mistake that my son made. So I'm not saying everybody go out and do drugs. What I am saying is, is how we have done things for so long. Does not help us. And sometimes there has to be a bit of grace for those that have caught with a minimal amount. That's all I'm saying on 100%. Here. You and I'm softening on this. That whole idea and how you described it. Absolutely. I understand that, And I 100% believe that we do such a disservice when it comes to Drug treatment, mental health treatment Offering those services you.