Aziz Huq/Politico Magazine:
The Supreme Court Stopped Short of a Radical Act
Both the mifepristone ruling and the Wisconsin judicial election suggest the politics of court reform are shifting.
But Wisconsin’s judicial election earlier this month suggests that the White House’s assessment of how judicial politics plays among Democratic voters no longer holds water. That election may signal a broader shift in the tectonics of voter mobilization in respect to courts and judges more generally.
The most obvious reason for thinking something has changed is that it was Democrats, and not Republicans, who were galvanized by the judicial election. These voters, moreover, were moved by the issue of judicial power but were not motivated as much by the goal of electing Democrats. In a state Senate race held that same day, the Republican candidate eked out a win. That too was a highly consequential election, giving Republicans a Senate supermajority and the votes to oust officials through impeachment.
James Traub/Politico Magazine:
The Hottest Political Reform of the Moment Gains Ground
Inside Jeanne Massey’s relentless campaign to fix democracy, starting in Minnesota.
At issue was ranked choice voting, a wonky reform that advocates are convinced will help drain the toxins from our national politics. Ranked choice voting allows voters to list their top three or more candidates, eliminates the last-place finisher and then redistributes votes to the remaining candidates until one emerges with a majority. The approach has been quietly making gains across the country, but it burst into the public consciousness last year after it helped a centrist Democrat thwart Sarah Palin’s bid for Congress in Alaska.
Tim Miller/The Bulwark:
Don’t Daydream of a Third Party President
Plus: The rubber band theory of politics.Miller: And I get it. Really, I do. But in a counterintuitive way, the candidate-quality issues and the extent of our polarization actually make it less likely for third-party success.
Bernadette Rostenkowski (Melissa Ivy Rauch on The Big Bang Theory): Yeah, you’re gonna have to walk me through that.
Miller: There are two main reasons why. One, we’re living in a time of extreme negative partisanship. Negative partisanship is a concept where voters are committed to one side, not so much because they love their candidate, but because they despise the other candidate.
Homer Simpson (from The Simpsons): I hate them so much!
Miller: So if you are the type to (correctly) think that Donald Trump might literally end our democracy, you are less likely to risk “wasting” your vote on a third party, even if you don’t love Joe Biden because you don’t want to take a chance that it could help Trump.
A little overseas news, this from the UK where a Labour MP gets discipled:
Labour suspends Diane Abbott in attempt to stifle fresh antisemitism row
MP loses party whip after writing letter suggesting Jewish, Irish, and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people had not experienced racism
Labour has sought to head off a fresh antisemitism storm by suspending the party whip from Diane Abbott, after the former shadow home secretary played down suggestions of racism against Jewish people.
In comments that were swiftly condemned by senior Conservatives and faith groups, the MP argued that minority groups – such as Jewish people, as well as Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people – faced similar levels of prejudice to people with red hair.
Hours after her remarks about how “white people with points of difference” are discriminated against in society were published, Abbott apologised and claimed they were made in error.
Want to know more about Roma and Traveller groups? I know you do! From a website (TravellerMovement.org on topic:
Gypsy Roma and Traveller History and Culture
Gypsy Roma and Traveller people belong to minority ethnic groups that have contributed to British society for centuries. Their distinctive way of life and traditions manifest themselves in nomadism, the centrality of their extended family, unique languages and entrepreneurial economy. It is reported that there are around 300,000 Travellers in the UK and they are one of the most disadvantaged groups. The real population may be different as some members of these communities do not participate in the census.
The Traveller Movement works predominantly with ethnic Gypsy, Roma, and Irish Traveller Communities.
Did you know Roma languages are more closely related to Northern India than European origin?
From Haaretz, the protests go on:
Former Likud minister: Gov't promised security but only interested in crushing the justice system
Former Education Minister Limor Livnat, a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party and an outspoken right-wing critic of the government's judicial overhaul plan, accused the government of promising "security, peace and governance" while solely focusing on the "coup to crush the legal system."
Speaking in front of a crowd of demonstrators in Jerusalem, Livnat, who worked alongside Netanyahu for much of his tenure as prime minister, said that she "was born and raised on the right, I have remained in the right-wing camp all my life, and I will never have another ideology, but Likud is no longer my home," arguing that the party's founded, former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, believed in a strong, independent judiciary.
And back to the US.
Tara Palmeri/Puck:
The DeSantis Endorsement-ghazi Blame Game
Poor Ryan Tyson. That’s the name I keep hearing from Tallahassee insiders as DeSantis-world reels from the tidal wave of Florida congressmen endorsing Trump over their own governor. Tyson, a top pollster and advisor to DeSantis (who allegedly “never conducts polls”) was deputized to try to shore up support among the Florida delegation for DeSantis ahead of his high-profile visit to Washington this week, following the traumatic defection of Rep. Byron Donalds to Trump. (He and his wife Erika are good friends with Casey and Ron, who offered their support if he wanted to be chairman of the party’s state G.O.P.)
Alas, Tyson wasn’t very successful, because seven more members of the Florida delegation chose to endorse Trump instead—including Reps. Matt Gaetz, Anna Paulina Luna, Brian Mast, Greg Steube, Cory Mills, Vern Buchanan and John Rutherford. The main gripe was that DeSantis didn’t personally make the calls, but left it to Tyson. “Part of the problem with Tyson is that nobody knew who the fuck he was,” said one G.O.P. advisor to a member of Congress who was called. Tyson declined to comment.
But this has always been DeSantis’s problem. He lacks the personal touch, whereas Trump always calls, often for no reason at all. Steube, who recently suffered serious injuries falling off a ladder, told Politico that he made his decision in part because DeSantis, unlike Trump, never called to check in. (This frosty behavior hasn’t been helping DeSantis with donors, either.)
Banned in the USA: State Laws Supercharge Book Suppression in Schools
These efforts to chill speech are part of the ongoing nationwide “Ed Scare” — a campaign to foment anxiety and anger with the goal of suppressing free expression in public education. As book bans escalate, coupled with the proliferation of legislative efforts to restrict teaching about topics such as race, gender, American history, and LGBTQ+ identities, the freedom to read, learn, and think continues to be undermined for students.
Below, PEN America updates its tally and analysis of book bans during the first half of the 2022-2023 school year, from July to December 2022. This research builds on PEN America’s 2022 report, Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Censor Books in Schools, which covered book bans from July 2021 to June 2022.
Republican senators are warning that criminal charges hanging over former President Trump will give the GOP a bad look if he is the party’s eventual nominee, especially in a year when Republicans are eager for a chance to retake the Senate.
While GOP senators have accused Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) of waging a politically motivated prosecution of Trump, they acknowledge it nevertheless will hurt their chances in the 2024 election if charges are still hanging over Trump next summer and fall.
Trump’s next in-person court appearance is scheduled for December, which means legal proceedings could stretch well into 2024. He also could face additional charges from the Department of Justice and the Fulton County, Ga., district attorney.
“I think it’s a problem for a party to be considered legitimate by people who care about America to have someone who’s been indicted, who’s had to plead the Fifth multiple times, who’s been surrounded by individuals who’ve gone to jail, one after the other, or been convicted of felonies,” to be its nominee for president, said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who was the GOP’s nominee for president in 2012.
But Romney doesn’t think any of that will stop Trump from winning next year’s presidential primary.
“I don’t think that has any particular impact on the primary process or the likelihood that Donald Trump will be our nominee,” he said. “I don’t think the primary voters look at electability; I think they look for the person they think will pursue what they believe in.”
Last year, criminal cases in Manhattan took an average of more than 900 days to proceed from indictment to a trial verdict, according to data reported by Reuters.
Unless Trump can persuade a judge to dismiss Bragg’s case, he likely will remain under indictment and have a legal cloud over his head during next year’s election.
He also faces a possible indictment from Justice Department special prosecutor Jack Smith — who is investigating Trump’s role in the lead-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, as well as his possession of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago — and from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D), who is investigating allegations that Trump interfered in Georgia’s 2020 election.
Senate Republican Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) suggested Trump’s growing legal problems could take a toll on his viability as a candidate.
“Some of these things will drag out for some period of time, so I’m guessing a lot of it will be unresolved” by next year’s presidential election, he said.
“But I don’t think it’s going to deter him from running,” he added. “It’s probably not going to deter people from endorsing him.”
So far, nine Senate Republicans have endorsed Trump — Sens. Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), J.D. Vance (Ohio), Eric Schmitt (Mo.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (Miss.), Markwayne Mullin (Okla.), Ted Budd (N.C.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and Bill Hagerty (Tenn.).
Asked about Trump’s support from fellow Republican senators despite his legal baggage, Thune said Trump “will probably be a force in the nominating process so members, I think, are probably looking at their states, their constituencies and the politics around the former president and what makes the best sense for them.”
Thune said many Republicans view Bragg’s prosecution as “very politically motivated,” but he warned “all this stuff,” referring to the legal battles, will likely have “a cumulative effect to it.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), an adviser to the Senate GOP leadership, told The Hill it “would be better” not to have a nominee for president who is under indictment.
He was spotted stopping by a get-to-know-you event for Trump’s possible rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), in Washington on Tuesday.
Cornyn said he “went by to pay my respects, shake his hand and wish him well” but doesn’t plan to make any endorsement ahead of next year’s primary. Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) also attended the event.
Many Senate Republicans think Trump’s repeated yet unsubstantiated claims that the 2020 election was stolen, which candidates he endorsed in the 2022 midterm election embraced, hurt their chances of winning back the Senate majority.
And they fear Trump’s ongoing legal dramas could hurt their chances in 2024, as well.
“I think there are several individuals who are looking at running for the presidency that could do a good job of uniting our country. I would prefer to look at one of those individuals — I’m looking forward to having one of those other individuals be successful in obtaining the presidency,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said of the Republican candidates who will challenge Trump in the primary.
Asked about what it would mean for the party to have its nominee for president under indictment, Rounds said, “I can’t think of anything positive about having that occur.”
One Republican senator who requested anonymity to comment on what Trump’s legal problems mean for Republican candidates in 2024 said if the Republican candidate for president is under indictment, it’s a problem in the general election.
“It’s a bad look,” the lawmaker added.
“An indictment means something; conviction means a lot more. That’s a finding of fact that the law was violated. Someone has been charged; they’re presumed to be innocent, but from a political point of view, you never want your candidates under a cloud of criminal prosecution,” the source said.
Yet Trump maintains a big lead in the polls over DeSantis and other potential rivals among Republicans nationwide.
A Wall Street Journal poll of 600 likely primary voters conducted from April 11 to April 17 found Trump well ahead of the field with 48 percent support compared to DeSantis, who had 24 percent support, in a hypothetical matchup. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley came in a distant third with 5 percent support.
A Wall Street Journal survey conducted in December showed DeSantis beating Trump 52 percent to 38 percent.
Trump leads DeSantis by an average of more than 30 percentage points in polls conducted since the end of March.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who voted to convict Trump on the impeachment charge of inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, wonders what Trump’s commanding lead in the polls says about the direction of the party and country more broadly.
“How can this be? What country are we in?” she asked with a laugh.
“Is it a bad look for the country to have an individual that is viewed not only as a viable candidate but the frontrunner who’s under indictment?” she asked. “I don’t know. I stopped trying to figure out Donald Trump a long time ago.”
The silencing of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) after she called Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas a liar in a hearing has led to a pledge for a more civil House Homeland Security Committee going forward — a standard lawmakers may struggle to meet as they gear up for the secretary’s impeachment.
When Mayorkas appeared before Congress this week, Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) accused him of intentional disruption at the border and said his answers to prior questions show “incompetence.” Rep. Clay Higgins told Mayorkas it was “shameful what you brought upon our country.” Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) accused him of being smug.
Numerous lawmakers accused him of lying before Congress — an argument both Mayorkas and Democrats refute.
But while others accused Mayorkas of being dishonest, Greene on Wednesday explicitly labeled him a liar, something Green determined violated House rules on impugning someone’s character.
A hearing that began with a fiery opening statement from Green ended with a call to “dial the rhetoric down in the country and apparently in the committee.”
“We don’t have to despise someone because they disagree with us. We don’t have to disparage someone because they disagree with us,” he said in closing the hearing.
It was a commitment he made after a sidebar with ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who repeatedly described the panel's discourse that day as unbecoming for a committee with such a serious jurisdiction.
Whether that moment can be met already appears in doubt for a committee that contains many members eager to impeach Mayorkas — a process that involves holding him personally responsible for the Biden administration’s approach to the border.
Green was chastised early in the meeting by Democrats, who pointed to a story in The New York Times reporting he told donors to “get the popcorn” ready ahead of Wednesday’s hearing.
And Republicans on the panel have offered mixed assessments of whether they believe the tone of the hearing was inappropriate.
Greene called the decision to silence her for the rest of the hearing unfair, noting that numerous Republican speakers before her accused Mayorkas of lying to Congress, even if they did not label him as a liar directly.
“These are all impugning his character also, which is what they claimed were the rules. I think silencing me was extremely unfair. And I think it showed weakness from Republicans on the committee,” she said.
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) said calling someone a liar is “poor form,” but that doing so is justified in regards to Mayorkas.
“They have been provoked to engage with Secretary Mayorkas in very severe terms,” he said of some of his colleagues. “And there's a reason for it.”
Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), however, suggested the committee members take a softer approach in their language if not in their stance, pointing to specific passages from the Bible that guide him.
“We can be unwavering without compromise, and also be gentle and reasonable. And so it hangs on my wall. It's hidden in my heart. And that's who I want to be as a legislator,” he said, pointing to James 3:17.
“I can disagree with someone and disagree with them heartily. And that's what makes our nation great is we have raucous debates, right? But I also want people to know that I love them and that the way I behold them in my subconscious is not through hatred, it is through love towards them as an individual who's made in the image of God.”
Mayorkas is no stranger to heated rhetoric. At one point last year during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, one lawmaker compared him to Benedict Arnold, suggesting he was a traitor to the country. And numerous senators this week likewise attacked his character, with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asking whether he had “an ounce of human compassion” about the situation at the border.
At an event Friday, Mayorkas lamented the approach of lawmakers who criticize his character.
“They are not easy to listen to,” he said of the insults. “They also have ramifications that I wish individuals in positions of leadership would consider.”
“I am fundamentally — fundamentally though — I’m impervious to them. Because I may make some mistakes. My decisions may be mistaken. Some may disagree with them, but I have 100 percent confidence in the integrity of my decision,” Mayorkas said in response to a question from The Hill during an event at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Several Democrats, meanwhile, have sought to dismiss the budding impeachment argument from the GOP.
“They can disagree with him on policy, but that is not a high crime and misdemeanor, nor does it in any way violate the Constitution and has no grounds for impeachment,” Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.) said.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said while many colleagues offered similar remarks to Greene, her comments have received the most attention, undercutting the effort to focus on Mayorkas.
“I think most of the Republicans are saying the same thing. I think most Republicans were calling [the] secretary names, belittling him and not allowing him to speak, insinuating that he was lying — all things which are false,” Garcia told The Hill.
“Republicans are focused — and they were clear — even in the chairman's comments at the fundraiser that he had, that he expected today to be a circus, he expected today to be kind of a made-for-TV event, which is how they planned it. And I think it backfired on them,” he said Wednesday.
Green has said he was misquoted in the Times article, though he did not specify how, and noted the impeachment process will ultimately fall to the House Judiciary Committee.
The nearly 20-minute delay in challenging Greene’s comments was a source of embarrassment for some on the committee. Thompson warned the division on display is poor signaling to adversaries who keep tabs on internal dynamics in the U.S.
“Our charge as a committee is to keep the homeland safe from foreign as well as domestic terrorists,” he said.
“And if they see a committee tasked with that responsibility acting like we did today, you're saying, ‘Well, look, we don't have to worry anymore since it’s going off the rails.’”
Green told The Hill that going forward committee members need to “just attack the problem. You don’t attack the person.”
But he sees the issue as one on both sides of the aisle, adding that “There better not be any of either side breaking the rules of decorum,” in a nod to a sign brought by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) criticizing Greene’s effort to defund the FBI.
Greene made a similar argument, saying Thompson chaired a committee that impugned her character.
“Bennie Thompson has used his position, especially his chairmanship on the Jan. 6 committee, to literally call Republicans names every single day impugning our character, me specifically,” she said, adding that Democrats have called her an insurrectionist.
Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) said he appreciated the efforts at the end of the hearing to “rein it back in,” but said whether Green can ultimately do so remains to be seen.
“It varies from different Republican members. I think for some of them, this is the raison d'etre. They're going for more quotes, more tweets, more sales, more dollars raised on the internet. They're not going to change,” he said.
“The chairman and some of the other members, I hope that they will step back from that precipice and we can actually get back to doing some reasonable work.”
Republicans have a chance to flip two governors' mansions in red states this November as Democrats try to hold the line and are hopeful for one upset.
Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi — all states that went double-digits in favor of Donald Trump against Joe Biden in the last two presidential elections — elect governors in 2023.
"Kentucky and Louisiana both present opportunities for the citizens to elect a Republican governor that better represents the values of those states," Daniel Scarpinato, a spokesman for the Republican Governors Association, told Fox News Digital.
Two states could have their first elected Black governor, while another state’s contest is reminding voters of celebrities Elvis Presley and Brett Favre.
"Kentucky is the most competitive of the three, which we rank as a toss-up," Jacob Rubashkin, an analyst with Inside Elections, told Fox News Digital. "The others either lean or are likely Republican. But all could develop into highly competitive contests."
After disappointing 2022 midterms, a strong showing in off-year governors’ races would be welcome news for the GOP, but there is a tendency to overhype off-year elections, he said.
"Republicans would love to go into 2024 with victories under their belt," Rubashkin added. "But after the Republican candidate for governor won in Virginia in 2021 and almost won in New Jersey, some people thought it was a harbinger for a big red wave in the midterms. That didn’t bear out in 2022,"
Kentucky Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear has a 61% approval rating, according to a late January Mason-Dixon poll that showed him decisively leading four of the 12 Republicans competing for their party’s nomination in a May 16 primary. The two leading GOP candidates are Attorney General Daniel Cameron and Trump’s former United Nations Ambassador Kelly Craft.
While Inside Elections ranks the Kentucky governor’s race a toss-up, the Cook Political Report ranks it as "lean Democrat."
An Emerson College/Fox 56 WDKY poll last week found Cameron leading with 30%, followed by Craft at 24% and Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles at 15%. Cameron could become the state’s first Black governor, while Craft could be the state’s second woman governor.
Beshear is from a political dynasty, the son of former Gov. Steve Beshear. A former state attorney general, the younger Beshear defeated incumbent Republican Gov. Matt Bevin in 2019.
"Gov. Andy Beshear has built his own brand of caring and showing up, whether it’s helping people after floods in Eastern Kentucky or tornados in Western Kentucky," Sam Newton, spokesman for the Democratic Governors Association, told Fox News Digital.
"Kentucky has record-low unemployment. Contrast that with 12 Republicans running. Kelly Craft is spending millions on attack ads saying Daniel Cameron is soft like a teddy bear. … Republicans are beating each other up and tearing each other down."
Policies could cut against Beshear, said Scarpinato of the RGA.
"Andy Beshear has made decisions out of step with Kentuckians, whether it’s vetoing a transgender bill or his COVID-19 policies, where he shut down churches," Scarpinato said.
KENTUCKY GOVERNOR ACCUSED OF VIOLATING OPEN RECORDS ACT ON COVID SCHOOL CLOSURES
The advantage could shift when Republicans likely unite after the primary, said Stephen Voss, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky.
"A Republican opponent could get voters to think of Beshear not as a person but as a representative of the Democratic Party," Voss said. "But that is a lot easier to do in a Senate race than in a governor’s race. … The state is Republican enough that you can never rule out a GOP nominee despite the fact that Beshear is popular. It is a long time between now and November. It could be something neither candidate can control. Will the nation focus on national events? Will the focus shift to cultural issues?"
Both Inside Elections and the Cook Political Report rank Louisiana as "lean Republican."
Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards is term-limited, so the state with the so-called jungle primary is going to be for an open seat.
Most Democrats in the state are backing Bel Edwards’ former Transportation and Development Secretary Shawn Wilson. Attorney General Jeff Landry is the leading Republican, who the party formally endorsed in November 2022.
However, other Republicans are running in the state’s jungle primary. These include state Treasurer John Schroder and state Senate Majority Leader Sharon Hewitt.
Unlike the current moderate Democrat, Wilson could be too liberal for Louisiana, Scarpinato said.
"In Louisiana, it’s an open seat, which gives us a strong chance, and the Democratic candidate is a progressive Democrat that does not fit the state," Scarpinato said.
There may be more candidates on both sides, as the filing deadline is not until Aug. 10. In Louisiana, all the candidates compete in the same Oct. 14 primary. If no candidate wins 50% of the vote, the top two have a runoff regardless of party affiliation in the general election, which will be Nov. 18.
"The jungle primary does complicate outcomes in Louisiana politics," said Voss, the University of Kentucky professor who is a native of Louisiana, where he was formerly a political reporter and state Senate staffer. "Unlike Kentucky, Louisiana is more partisan and more in favor of Republicans. Any Democrat will have a hard time."
A JMC Analytics poll last month showed Wilson at 29% and Landry at 28%. Other candidates were far behind.
If victorious in November, Wilson would be Louisiana’s first elected Black governor. The former Confederate state had two Black governors during Reconstruction. Oscar Dunn, a Republican, was the first Black man ever elected as lieutenant governor in 1868. He became acting governor when Gov. Henry Clay Warmouth, a Republican, was injured in 1871. That same year, Dunn died under mysterious circumstances. So, another African American, P.B.S. Pinchback, moved from state Senate president to the lieutenant governor’s job. In 1872, when Warmouth faced impeachment, Pinchback assumed office as acting governor.
The race is set with GOP Gov. Tate Reeves facing Democratic opponent Brandon Presley, the second cousin to Elvis Presley.
Inside Elections and Cook Political Report each rank Mississippi as "likely Republican." Democrats are hopeful, as the race is surprisingly close, with Reeves leading with 46% to Presley’s 39%, according to a survey in a March by Magnolia Tribune/Mason-Dixon Polling.
"Tate Reeves is deeply unpopular across party lines," Newton of the Democratic Governors Association said. "Brandon Presley has a record of winning in deep red areas because he is focused on fighting for working people in Mississippi."
Presley is a member of the Mississippi Public Service Commission, an elected three-member board that regulates utilities in the state. Previously, he was mayor of Nettleton.
In 2019, Reeves, as lieutenant governor, won 52% to defeat Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood.
The governor has been loosely named in the controversy surrounding the alleged misappropriation of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds that were redirected to unrelated purposes.
The state of Mississippi is now suing 38 people and companies, including retired NFL player Brett Favre, to attempt to reclaim $24 million out of the $77 million in federal welfare money. Favre helped raise money for the University of Southern Mississippi volleyball center. He has denied knowing a $5 million grant for the facility came from the welfare funds.
The relation to Elvis Presley is a net positive for the Democrat but won’t likely be decisive, Rubashkin said.
"At the national level, the last name is a hook for donors," Rubashkin said. "Within Mississippi, what’s more important is that his uncle was a sheriff and that he was mayor of Nettleton."
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas says the Biden administration is getting ready to announce a new border security plan to handle an expected surge of migrants when pandemic-era immigration restrictions lift May 11.
“I think next week we’ll have more to say about our preparation and some of the things we are going to be doing,” Mayorkas told reporters at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters on Thursday.
President Biden has come under steady fire from Republican lawmakers over his administration’s handling of the border. This week, Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) filed a vote of no confidence resolution against Mayorkas, saying his handling of the border is negligent.
“I stand at the ready to receive articles of impeachment from the House and conduct an impeachment trial in this body,” Marshall said at a Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday. “But in the meantime, I think the Senate must show our colleagues in the House that we’ve had enough of the failures from the Department of Homeland Security and believe that the secretary is not fit to faithfully carry out the duties of his office.”
Illegal border crossings are expected to increase significantly starting in May once pandemic-era rules on immigration expire, most notably Title 42, which allows the U.S. to quickly turn away undocumented migrants without allowing them to seek asylum in the interest of public health.
“We’re certainly going to see numbers higher than we’re seeing today,” Border Patrol Commissioner Troy Miller said in a hearing Wednesday.
Miller cited U.N. statistics that an estimated 660,000 migrants are traveling through Mexico right now. He said the number of border crossings could nearly double to about 10,000 per day.
Mayorkas did not disclose what the new plan would be, but he said the department would prepare with additional bed space in migrant facilities.
Nearly 2 million migrants have been turned back from the border using Title 42. The Biden administration has come under fire from Democrats and activists who have said the measure does not provide border crossers with their right to seek asylum in the U.S.
The administration has attempted to overturn Title 42 in the past but ran into roadblocks in federal court and opposition from Republican lawmakers in border states. With the coronavirus pandemic officially over, the administration no longer expects any legal challenges.
Mayorkas said the department is considering a new rule to more easily deny asylum claims. Migrants who have not applied for asylum in other countries on their way to the U.S. or have crossed the border illegally would not be eligible for asylum.
The rule is in the public comment period, and Mayorkas said Tuesday that there is not a specific date for implementation as of now.
Mayorkas was questioned by House and Senate lawmakers this week in hearings that saw him receive harsh criticism and some personal attacks.
Much of the criticism was focused on reports that a significant number of child migrants were placed with sponsors who forced them to work, sometimes through the night, at dangerous factories.
Immigration is expected to be a major issue in the 2024 election; Biden is expected to announce his reelection campaign in the coming days.
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) on Thursday introduced a vote of no confidence resolution for Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the first effort in the Senate to mirror impeachment efforts percolating in the House.
The resolution comes after Marshall said during an exchange with Mayorkas in a Senate appearance on Tuesday that the secretary was derelict in his duties and, “I would be derelict to not do something about this.”
The nine-page resolution lays out a series of complaints about the state of the border, blaming Mayorkas for everything from increased migration, including attempts to clear a camp of some 15,000 Haitians near the Texas border, to drug flows and overdoses.
"There isn't one American who believes our southern border is secure,” Marshall said in a release.
“In the real world, if you fail at your job, you get fired — the federal government should be no different.”
The resolution would have little effect if passed — an uphill battle in the Democrat-led Senate, and it would not have any bearing on impeachment efforts in the House, which have still not formally taken shape.
The resolution also points to an argument building in the House that Mayorkas was dishonest before Congress — a case built on the secretary asserting in prior appearances that he has maintained control of the border.
The GOP argues that Mayorkas is failing to meet the definition of operational control laid out under the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which says the standard has only been met if the country prohibits “all unlawful entries” of both migrants and drugs.
Mayorkas recently told lawmakers that the standard of perfection laid out under the law has never been met, but it encourages the secretary to use all resources at their disposal to improve security.
“The Secure Fence Act provides that operational control means that not a single individual crosses the border illegally. And it’s for that reason that prior secretaries and myself have said that under that definition, no administration has had operational control,” Mayorkas said.
“As I have testified under oath multiple times, we use a lens of reasonableness in defining operational control. Are we maximizing the resources that we have to deliver the most effective results? And under that definition, we are doing so very much to gain operational control.”
With escalating impeachment discussions, the Department of Homeland Security has also called on Congress to do more to address problems with the U.S. immigration system that exacerbate efforts to enter and remain in the country illegally.
“Instead of pointing fingers and pursuing baseless attacks, Congress should work with the Department and pass legislation to fix our broken immigration system, which has not been updated in over 40 years,” the agency said in a statement.
While numerous House lawmakers have expressed an interest in impeaching Mayorkas, the process has not yet begun. If successful, an impeachment resolution would be forwarded to the Democrat-led Senate.
Comments from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) this week again presented a challenge to GOP leadership after she was silenced Wednesday following an exchange with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas whom she accused of being a liar.
Greene’s comments pushed Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee to move to take down her words, a ruling that blocks a lawmaker from being recognized to speak during a hearing.
Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) agreed the speech violated House rules by attacking someone’s character, appearing not to immediately realize a move to “take down” her comments versus striking them from the record would terminate her right to speak again.
Greene on Thursday called the decision unfair, particularly because a series of Republican lawmakers had spent their time accusing Mayorkas of being dishonest before Congress. It’s a claim Democrats have dismissed as a weak argument the GOP is exploring ahead of a possible impeachment of the secretary.
“I think it's not fair. Especially our Chair, Mark Green, and others, were also accusing Secretary Mayorkas of lying, calling him a liar. Congressman Green also called him incompetent. These are all impugning his character also, which is what they claimed were the rules,” she said in response to a question from The Hill.
“I think silencing me was extremely unfair. And I think it showed weakness from Republicans on the committee.”
Two separate comments from Greene on Wednesday brought proceedings to a roughly 20-minute halt.
She first accused Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) of cheating on his wife with a Chinese spy — a charge the California lawmaker vehemently denied and a comment Democrats also challenged, which Republicans on the panel shot down in a party-line vote.
Minutes later, she called Mayorkas a liar while accusing the secretary of failing to work to stem the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.
“You’re a liar. You are letting this go on, and the numbers prove it,” she said.
Green, speaking with The Hill on Wednesday after the hearing, said while other members made similar comments about Mayorkas, they were more carefully tailored.
“Well, you just attack the problem. You don't attack the person. Note that I said Mayorkas lied to Congress. I didn't say Mayorkas was a liar. No one objected to me saying, ‘You gave false testimony.’ Or, ‘You lied,’ but they would object if I said, ‘You're a liar.’ Because that's attacking the person as opposed to what he did or said. So that's the subtle difference,” he said.
The chair ended Wednesday’s hearing with a call for greater civility, saying, “We do need to dial the rhetoric down in the country and apparently in the committee.”
On Thursday morning, the Georgia lawmaker said she planned to speak to Green on the floor — a conversation she later said changed little.
“He basically said that we have two different styles. And so we have a disagreement still about what took place yesterday. But you know, I'm still new to committees,” Greene said, nodding to her last session in Congress where she was removed from her posts.
“So I'll make sure that I'm making sure I'm following the rules, which I do believe is important, but at the same time, I'm still going to keep pushing.”
According to reporting from CNN, sources close to Green said he privately reprimanded Greene and would contemplate asking Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to remove her from the panel if something similar happened again.
But Greene dismissed that possibility, noting that she had spoken with McCarthy.
“Speaker McCarthy's never going to let that happen,” she said, adding that “he agreed with me.”
Reached for comment Thursday, a spokeswoman for the committee said, “Chairman Green looks forward to Congresswoman Greene’s full participation in the plethora of upcoming committee activities to get answers for the American people on the Mayorkas border crisis.”
McCarthy’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Democrats on Thursday cast the episode as another example of Republicans elevating the Trump-aligned MAGA (Make America Great Again) wing of the party.
"The extreme MAGA Republicans are showing the American people who they are. They're not even trying to hide their extremism. And Exhibit A is Marjorie Taylor Greene. She is totally out of control. But they don't care. The leadership apparently supports Marjorie Taylor Greene,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said at a press conference.
“The rank-and-file Republicans apparently support Marjorie Taylor Greene. She's allowed to lie. She's allowed to debase the institution.”
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who served as a staffer to Democrats during former President Trump’s first impeachment, said Republicans have done little to demonstrate that Mayorkas lied under oath — the underlying charge of their questions.
GOP lawmakers have for months asked Mayorkas whether he has operational control of the border, looking for any inconsistencies in his statements. They point to a 2006 law that defines operational control as the prevention of all unlawful entries, a standard of perfection that has never been met.
“They seem to be trying to create some sort of record of him making false statements under oath, but their own statements undermine those accusations, and there's no basis for them to proceed with impeachment,” he told The Hill Wednesday.
“I frankly was very disappointed with the tenor of the entire hearing. And the ad hominem insults and attacks on the secretary is just a shameful demonstration of a lack of respect for a cabinet official.”
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., on Thursday asked Chief Justice John Roberts testify on May 2 about ethics rules that govern the Supreme Court, as controversy continues to swirl around Justice Clarence Thomas' trips he took with a GOP mega-donor.
"I invite you, or another Justice whom you designate, to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 2, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to testify at a public hearing regarding the ethical rules that govern the Justices of the Supreme Court and potential reforms to those rules," Durbin said in a letter to Roberts on Thursday.
"In extending this invitation, I offer that the scope of your testimony can be limited to these subjects, and that you would not be expected to answer questions from Senators regarding any other matters," Durbin said.
Durbin asked Roberts this month to open an investigation into Thomas over what Democrats say is his "misconduct" that was detailed in a ProPublica report.
The liberal news outlet's report accused Thomas of improperly receiving lavish vacations from Republican mega donor Harlan Crow, which reportedly included taking trips across the world on Crow's yacht and private jet without disclosing them.
Expert have dismissed the ProPublica report as political hit piece and explained that justices are permitted to accept invites to properties of friends for dinner or vacations without paying for it or disclosing it.
Thomas released a rare statement following the report saying that he has consistently followed ethics guidelines.
DEMOCRATS PRESS SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE TO INVESTIGATE CLARENCE THOMAS' TRIPS WITH GOP MEGADONOR
"Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years," Thomas said.
"As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them. Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable," Thomas said.
"I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines," he said. "These guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance. And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future."
REPORT ON CLARENCE THOMAS' TRAVEL HABITS IS 'POLITICS PLAIN AND SIMPLE': EXPERT
Durbin told Roberts Thursday that "there has been a steady stream of revelations regarding Justices falling short of the ethical standards expected of other federal judges and, indeed, of public servants generally."
"These problems were already apparent back in 2011, and the Court’s decade-long failure to address them has contributed to a crisis of public confidence. The status quo is no longer tenable," Durbin said.
Durbin added that "there is ample precedent for sitting Justices of the Supreme Court to testify before Congress, including regarding ethics. Durbin says the Judiciary Committee most recently heard testimony from sitting Justices in October 2011, and that hearing "included robust exchanges about the Court’s approach to ethics matters."
Fox News Digital's Brandon Gillespie contributed to this report.
By James Varney for RealClearInvestigations
In New York City, if the newcomers aren’t put up at the luxury cruise terminal that served the QE2, they could get $700-a-night midtown hotel accommodations with iconic Manhattan views. In Chicago, they found themselves whisked to suburban lodgings. In Denver, officials refer to them discreetly as “guests” and you needn’t bother inquiring about their inns or addresses.
The people enjoying these free digs aren’t privacy-conscious jet-setters, but the secrecy surrounding them might be comparable: They’re some of the millions of migrants who have illegally crossed into the U.S. since the Biden administration relaxed most border controls.
RELATED: Nearly 270,000 Apprehensions, Gotaways at Southern Border in March
No one knows exactly how many people have poured across the southwestern U.S. border since President Biden took office, or where they’ve gone since. The official number of encounters by Customs and Border Patrol stands at 5.2 million people, logged over the last two full federal fiscal years and fiscal 2023 through March. But that number is imprecise because it includes repeat encounters with the same people and omits the many who slipped into the country unnoticed by border agents.
Under President Biden, the U.S. smashed past the 200,000 monthly encounters mark for the first time in July 2021 and it has repeatedly topped that record in the months since. By comparison, in fiscal 2020, which ended a month before Biden’s defeat of President Trump, the U.S. averaged 38,174 monthly encounters at the border, according to CBP figures.
Because of an official lack of transparency, all those people and the circumstances by which they have arrived and remained have made it hard to take stock of the historic influx. Through midnight flights and buses from the border to far-flung locales, the administration has made it difficult to identify where the migrants are now living and receiving services. Also unclear are the costs associated with the arrivals.
But flares have been sent up – especially over immigrant sanctuary cities like New York, Denver and Chicago, which have long promised to house migrants. While those cities are providing housing and other services for a small fraction of the recent migrants, the costs are significant for these budget-strapped metropolises.
Denver plans to spend $20 million in the first six months of this year to provide housing to migrants. Officials say this works out to between $800 and $1,000 per week per person.
In January the state of Illinois turned down Chicago’s request for more funds, saying it had already spent close to $120 million on its “asylum seeker emergency response” – or roughly $33,000 per migrant.
New York City Mayor Eric Adams has asked for more than $500 million in federal aid, while pegging the city’s spending at between $2 billion and $3 billion.
Other data points of the opaque costs of Biden-era illegal immigration include Massachusetts’ estimate that it will need $28 million to launch a program to provide driver’s licenses to undocumented residents. The state is seeking a share of the omnibus spending bill passed by Democrats in December 2022 when they controlled both houses of Congress, which included $800 million for cities grappling with the influx.
RELATED: Biden to Open Up Medicaid, Obamacare to About 700,000 Illegal Immigrants
These numbers are incomplete in part because it is hard to separate the added cost of recent migrants from costs for the millions of undocumented immigrants who were in the country before the recent surge.
A March study by the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates that, after accounting for taxes paid by undocumented migrants, they cost taxpayers over $150 billion per year – a 30% increase since 2017.
Yet FAIR acknowledges the problem of fixing costs has become more difficult, given the record-breaking numbers of illegal crossers in the past two and a half years and efforts by some government agencies to mask their spending.
“We often had to grapple with a paucity of easily accessible official data,” the report notes. “Many state and federal entities do not publish detailed data that they collect, making it difficult to reliably separate illegal aliens from citizens of lawful immigrants. We have also encountered cases where the current administration has revoked or restricted documents published by previous administrations in order to reduce the visibility of data which shines a negative light on their immigration policy agenda.”
Those totals also involve far more than simple food and board. To arrive at its staggering sum, FAIR includes estimates of the costs in education, health care and law enforcement.
“The irony is not only are these sanctuary jurisdictions turning to Washington with their hands out, but that they still refuse to join with governors like Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis in demanding that the federal government take decisive steps to stanch the influx of new migrants,” FAIR spokesman Ira Mehlman told RealClearInvestigations, referring to the Republican chief executives of Texas and Florida, respectively. “The obvious hypocrisy of declaring yourself a sanctuary jurisdiction while complaining about the costs and burdens associated with it are undeniable.”
Groups that favor more relaxed border security measures, such as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and the American Immigration Council, did not respond to RCI’s request for comment; the liberal Brookings Institution declined to comment.
RELATED: Illegal Immigration is Surging… Across the Northern Border, Now
Cities housing many migrants have a hard time estimating costs. New York Mayor Adams has asked for more than $500 million in federal aid, while pegging the city’s spending one time at $2 billion and another time at $3 billion. Those are the sorts of bills New York has racked up putting what they call “asylum seekers” or “migrants” in hotels.
And Adams, whose requests sometimes include the claim “we are all in this together,” wants to spend even more. This month, he floated the idea of paying college tuition for illegal immigrants if they attend New York state schools outside the city.
Using Adams’ own number of some 40,000 illegal immigrants that New York City has foot the bills for, it means taxpayers are spending roughly $150,000 per person to host new arrivals. In March, City Hall scaled back its count of the number of its immigrants to 12,700, which meant the taxpayers’ were spending nearly $5 million a day to take care of them, according to a New York Post analysis.
The Office of the New York City Public Advocate, which helps immigrants navigate the benefits available to them, did not respond to multiple requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Adams declined to address questions about spending, pointing instead to various links the city maintains for immigrants and noting the city has expanded a New York County Supreme Court decision in 1981 regarding shelter for homeless people to cover immigrants.
Whatever the current official number of illegal immigrants New York is dealing with it is but a fraction of those that have poured into various Texas communities along the border.
Officials at El Paso’s City Hall, one of the ground zeroes in the illegal immigration crush, did not respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment on its spending. But Gov. Abbott said his Operation Lone Star, launched in March 2021, has “allocated more than $4 billion to do the federal government’s job and secure the border,” Abbott’s spokesman Andrew Mahaleris said.
It was Abbott who began busing illegal immigrants to some of the sanctuary cities that declare themselves so welcoming, such as New York, Denver and Chicago.
RELATED: Cruz to Mayorkas: ‘If You Had Integrity, You Would Resign’
“Texas began busing migrants to sanctuary cities last April to provide relief to our overrun and overwhelmed border communities,” Mahaleris said. “Mayors Adams, [Muriel] Bowser and [Lori] Lightfoot were all too happy to tout their sanctuary city statuses until Texas bused over 16,900 migrants, collectively, to their self-declared sanctuary. Instead of complaining about dealing with a fraction of the border crisis Texas communities see every day, these hypocrites should call on President Biden to take immediate action to secure the border – something the president continues failing to do.”
Lightfoot, departing as mayor of Chicago after her defeat in February, first turned to Illinois for millions to help the Windy City cope with its several thousand illegal immigrants Texas provided. In January, however, the state turned her down, saying it had already spent close to $120 million on its “asylum seeker emergency response.”
That response came last September when Illinois Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker issued an “emergency disaster proclamation.” His proclamation and the words of other state leaders presented a schizophrenic picture in which they portray Illinois as a “welcoming beacon of hope” and complain they weren’t given “official advance warning.”
Most of the money Illinois spent – more than $61.5 million, or roughly $31,000 per immigrant – went to contracts with organizations or staff “who provided on site case management and other services at multiple locations.”
Illinois dropped another $8 million on “interim housing,” nearly $4 million on “health screenings for asylum seekers, and more than $29 million on “hotel, transportation and housing costs,” according to their breakdown.
Nowhere did Pritzker or Lightfoot question the wisdom of the Biden administration ‘s border policies, and there was no indication they understood the burdens that had been put on border cities and states. Instead, the unmistakable message was that if illegal immigrants were going to be sent where the “welcoming beacon” shone, other people should pay for it.
RELATED: Rio Grande Border Patrol Agents Assaulted While Apprehending Illegal Aliens
“They can say all that is for free, but now they’re finding out they can’t have a welfare society and an open border,” said Lora Reis, the director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Denver held a budget “transparency and equity” meeting earlier this month at which Chief Financial Officer Margaret Danuser said the city will have spent between $17 and $20 million on housing and other services for between 5,000 and 6,000 illegal immigrants between Dec. 2022 and this June. The city hoped to get federal taxpayers to reimburse it for $2.8 million, and a Colorado state fund for another $3.5 million.
Those figures show Denver spent about the same as Chicago at roughly $33,000 per immigrant, costs that are still far below New York City’s.
“None of these sanctuary mayors or governors have ever asked for a secure border, it was always just, ‘feds, give us money!’” said Reis. “They can say all that for free, but they are finding out you can’t have a welfare system and an open border.”
Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.
The post Where Did All the Biden Illegal Immigrants Go? Sanctuary Cities Like New York Are Only Part of the Answer appeared first on The Political Insider.