Category: fox-news/politics/state-and-local

Wisconsin GOP leader downplays pressure to impeach nonpartisan elections czar

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Wisconsin's Republican Assembly leader on Tuesday downplayed pressure he's receiving from former President Donald Trump and fellow GOP lawmakers to impeach the state's nonpartisan elections administrator, saying such a vote is "unlikely" to happen.

Some Republicans have been trying to oust state elections administrator Meagan Wolfe, who was in her position during the 2020 election narrowly lost by Trump in Wisconsin. The Senate voted last month to fire Wolfe but later admitted the vote was symbolic and had no legal effect.

Five Assembly Republicans in September introduced 15 articles of impeachment targeting Wolfe, a move that could result in her removal from office if the Assembly passed it and the Senate voted to convict. The Republican president of the Senate has also called on Assembly Speaker Robin Vos to proceed with impeachment.

WISCONSIN REPUBLICANS MOVE TO IMPEACH STATE ELECTIONS CZAR

A group led by election conspiracy theorists launched a six-figure television advertising campaign last month threatening to unseat Vos if he did not proceed with impeachment. On Monday night, Trump posted a news release on his social media platform Truth Social from one of GOP lawmaker's who sponsored the impeachment. The release from state Rep. Janel Brandtjen criticized Vos for not doing more to remove Wolfe.

Vos on Tuesday said Republicans were "nowhere near a consensus" and no vote on impeachment was imminent.

"I can’t predict what’s going to happen in the future, but I think it is unlikely that it’s going to come up any time soon," Vos said.

Vos has previously said he supports removing Wolfe, but he wanted to first see how a lawsuit filed on her behalf to keep her in the job plays out.

The Assembly can only vote to impeach state officials for corrupt conduct in office or for committing a crime or misdemeanor. If a majority of the Assembly were to vote to impeach, the case would move to a Senate trial in which a two-thirds vote would be required for conviction. Republicans won a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate in April.

WISCONSIN SENATE APPROVES 3 NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS IN ELECTION SECURITY PUSH

Wolfe did not immediately return a message seeking comment Tuesday. In September, Wolfe accused Republican lawmakers who introduced the impeachment resolution of trying to "willfully distort the truth."

Vos called for moving on from the 2020 election.

"We need to move forward and talk about the issues that matter to most Wisconsinites and that is not, for most Wisconsinites, obsessing about Meagan Wolfe," Vos said.

The fight over who will oversee elections in the presidential battleground state has caused instability ahead of the 2024 presidential race for Wisconsin’s more than 1,800 local clerks who actually run elections. The issues Republicans have taken with Wolfe are centered around how she administered the 2020 presidential election and many are based in lies spread by Trump and his supporters.

President Joe Biden defeated Trump in 2020 by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin, an outcome that has withstood two partial recounts, a nonpartisan audit, a conservative law firm’s review and multiple state and federal lawsuits.

Wisconsin Republicans advance election reform-centric constitutional amendments

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Republicans who control the Wisconsin Legislature have advanced a series of constitutional amendments that would outlaw private funding for elections ahead of the 2024 presidential contest, bar municipalities from allowing non-U.S. citizens to vote in local elections and enshrine existing voter photo ID requirements in the state constitution.

The proposals debated Tuesday at a joint hearing of the Senate and Assembly elections committees stem from false claims made by former President Donald Trump and his supporters that widespread voter fraud tipped the 2020 presidential election in favor of President Joe Biden.

Constitutional amendments must be passed in two consecutive sessions of the state Legislature before being ratified by voters in a statewide election. The governor cannot veto a constitutional amendment.

EX-WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT JUSTICE FIGHTS SUBPOENA OVER PROTASIEWICZ IMPEACHMENT ADVICE

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has previously vetoed more than a dozen Republican-backed elections proposals, including a 2021 bill to outlaw private elections grants.

The Legislature approved the amendments requiring voters to be U.S. citizens and outlawing private elections grants in its last session. The voter ID amendment is a new proposal this year, which means the soonest it could be put on the ballot for voter approval is 2025.

Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August said Tuesday that he hopes to put the amendment outlawing election grants before voters in the statewide April 2024 election and put the citizenship requirements on the November 2024 ballot.

Conservatives were outraged in 2020 by a nonprofit that distributed hundreds of millions of dollars in grants, mostly funded by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, to local election offices. Opponents termed the money "Zuckerbucks" and claimed it was an attempt by the billionaire to tip the vote in favor of Democrats, although there was no evidence to support that. Since 2020, GOP lawmakers in at least 20 states have outlawed private elections grants.

There has also been a recent push for states to specifically make clear that only U.S. citizens can vote in state and local elections. Some cities and towns across the country have allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections. Federal law already requires U.S. citizenship to vote in national elections and no state constitutions explicitly allow noncitizens to vote in state or local elections.

The Wisconsin Constitution guarantees that every U.S. citizen age 18 and over is a qualified elector. But it does not specifically say that only U.S. citizens are qualified to vote in state or local elections.

"I don't think anyone in this room believes noncitizens are going to gain the right to vote in the state of Wisconsin anytime soon," said Jamie Lynn Crofts, policy director for Wisconsin Voices. "It should be up to people at the local level to decide if noncitizens should be able to vote in their local elections."

The photo ID amendment would enshrine the state's current photo ID law, enacted in 2011, in the state constitution. The Legislature could still pass exceptions to the requirement.

WISCONSIN ALLOCATES $402M TO COMBAT PFAS, OTHER WATER POLLUTANTS

The move to make photo ID a constitutional requirement comes after the Wisconsin Supreme Court flipped to liberal control. There is no current legal challenge to the state's voter ID requirement, which is one of the strictest in the country. But other election-related lawsuits challenging restrictions on absentee voting and ballot drop boxes could be taken up by the state Supreme Court.

Republican supporters at Tuesday's hearing said the voter ID law is designed to ensure that only qualified voters cast ballots. But opponents say voter ID requirements make it more difficult for people to vote, particularly those with disabilities, the elderly and people who don't have driver's licenses.

Under current law, and the proposed amendment, voters must provide one of a list of approved photo IDs in order to cast their ballot. Acceptable IDs include a Wisconsin driver’s license, U.S. passport, tribal ID, U.S. military ID or student ID. Absentee voters must provide a photocopy of their ID when requesting a ballot.

Voters who do not have one of the required photo IDs can vote a provisional ballot and then return by the deadline with the identification to have the ballot counted. The ability to cast a provisional ballot does not change under the proposed amendment.

Ex-Wisconsin Supreme Court justice fights subpoena over Protasiewicz impeachment advice

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice is fighting a subpoena ordering her to appear in court in a lawsuit related to advice she gave about possible impeachment of a current liberal justice, calling it "unreasonable and oppressive."

Republican lawmakers have threatened possible impeachment of current Justice Janet Protasiewicz related to comments she made during the campaign calling GOP-drawn legislative maps "rigged" and "unfair." She joined with the liberal majority of the court in agreeing to hear a lawsuit supported by Democrats that seeks to overturn the GOP maps and enact new ones.

Wisconsin Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos asked three former conservative Supreme Court justices for advice on impeachment. Two of the three told him that impeaching Protasiewicz was not warranted. The third, former Chief Justice Patience Roggensack, has not said what her advice was and Vos has repeatedly refused to disclose it.

TOP WISCONSIN REPUBLICAN STANDS BY PROTASIEWICZ IMPEACHMENT THREATS

The liberal watchdog group American Oversight filed a lawsuit alleging that the three former justices researching impeachment for Vos had violated both the state open meetings and open records laws. American Oversight wants the judge to order the former justices to meet in public and to release records related to their work. It was also seeking attorneys fees.

Last week, Roggensack received a subpoena compelling her to attend a hearing in the case was scheduled for this Thursday. On Monday, she asked to be released from the subpoena.

"I believe it would be unreasonable and oppressive to require me to appear at a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction and even for the Court to consider such a motion," Roggensack wrote.

The judge scheduled another hearing for Wednesday afternoon, likely to address Roggensack's request.

Roggensack, in her affidavit with the court, said the order being sought, which included requiring the former justices to meet in public, would impair her First Amendment rights of freedom of expression, peaceably assembling and petitioning the government.

Roggensack said that Vos, the Republican legislator, asked for her advice on impeachment. Roggensack said she told him she had been researching the issue on her own "because I found the topic to be interesting and because I had not previously considered the standards for impeachment of a Supreme Court justice."

Roggensack said she never considered Vos’s request to mean she was becoming part of a governmental body or committee as American Oversight alleged in its lawsuit.

Vos himself called the effort a panel when he announced in September that he was seeking their advice.

Roggensack said she had a lunch with the other two former justices, David Prosser and Jon Wilcox, along with Vos’s attorney. Prosser and Wilcox have also said that was the only meeting the three former justices had. They all said that they separately advised Vos and did not collaborate on their advice.

FORMER WI SUPREME COURT JUSTICE REFUSES TO NAME THOSE INVOLVED IN PROTASIEWICZ IMPEACHMENT PUSH

American Oversight filed open records requests with the former justices. Prosser released the email he sent Vos that included his impeachment advice, as well as voicemail messages from Roggensack and text messages they exchanged.

Neither Wilcox, Roggensack, nor Vos’ office have responded to its requests for records, American Oversight said.

Vos originally said he was considering impeachment if Protasiewicz did not recuse herself from the redistricting case. She didn’t recuse. Vos didn't move to impeach her, following the advice against impeachment from the former justices. But now he's suggesting he may attempt to impeach her if she does not rule in favor of upholding the current Republican maps.

The Wisconsin Constitution reserves impeachment for "corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors."

Wisconsin Gov. Evers finds $170M in federal funds to continue COVID-era childcare subsidies

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers will use newly discovered federal dollars to keep a pandemic-era child care subsidy program going for another year and a half, his administration announced Monday after Republican legislators refused to devote any more money to the program.

Officials with Evers’ administration said Monday they will use $170 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency pandemic response operations to keep the Child Care Counts program running through June 2025. Evers ripped Republicans in a news release, saying that it’s "unconscionable" that the GOP wouldn’t extend the program.

"It’s time for Republicans to get serious about solving our problems and join us in doing the right thing for our kids and families, our workforce, and our state," Evers said.

TOP WISCONSIN REPUBLICAN STANDS BY PROTASIEWICZ IMPEACHMENT THREATS

Spokespersons for Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu didn't immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

Launched in 2020, the Child Cares Counts program provides child care providers across the country with money to help retain staffs as well as cover curriculum, utility and rent costs. The program handed out almost $600 million dollars to nearly 5,000 child care providers in Wisconsin between March 2020 and March 2023, according to the state's nonprofit Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

FEDS, LOCAL OFFICIALS PLEDGE $450M TO DREDGE OUT MILWAUKEE WATERWAYS

The program is set to expire in January, leading many to warn that the loss of the subsidies could lead to child care providers shutting their doors or a decline in early education services, particularly in rural areas.

Evers has been trying to persuade Republicans to use Wisconsin's $7 billion surplus to keep Child Care Counts afloat in Wisconsin. His state budget called for spending $300 million in state money for the program over the next two years.

GOP lawmakers stripped the plan from the budget. Evers called a special legislative session last month in hopes of prodding Republicans to take action, but they have refused to cooperate with the governor.

Top Wisconsin Republican stands by Protasiewicz impeachment threats

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The Republican leader of Wisconsin’s Assembly refused to back down on Thursday from possibly impeaching a newly elected liberal state Supreme Court justice over her refusal to step aside in a redistricting case, even after two former conservative justices advised him against the unprecedented move.

"No, absolutely not," Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said when asked at a news conference if impeachment of Justice Janet Protasiewicz was off the table.

"If they decide to inject their own political bias inside the process and not follow the law, we have the ability to go to the U.S. Supreme Court," Vos said, "and we also have the ability to hold her accountable to the voters of Wisconsin."

FORMER WI SUPREME COURT JUSTICE REFUSES TO NAME THOSE INVOLVED IN PROTASIEWICZ IMPEACHMENT PUSH

The Wisconsin Democratic Party said the comments are a signal that Republicans are backing off from impeaching Protasiewicz "by moving the goalposts in an effort to save face."

Vos first floated the possibility of impeachment in August after Protasiewicz called the Republican-drawn legislative boundary maps "rigged" and "unfair" during her campaign. Impeachment has drawn bipartisan opposition and two former conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, asked by Vos to investigate the possibility, told him in the past week it was not warranted. Vos refused to say what advice he got from the third retired justice.

Protasiewicz refused to recuse from the redistricting lawsuit last week and sided with the liberal majority in accepting the lawsuit. Vos suggested Thursday that impeachment may hinge on how Protasiewicz rules on that case.

"She said she’s going to follow the law," Vos said. "The most important aspect of the law is following past precedent."

Vos also said Protasiewicz’s acceptance of nearly $10 million from the Wisconsin Democratic Party would unduly influence her ruling.

Protasiewicz last week rejected those arguments, noting that other justices have accepted campaign cash and not recused from cases. She also noted that she never promised or pledged to rule on the redistricting lawsuit in any way. A state judiciary disciplinary panel has rejected several complaints against Protasiewicz that alleged she violated the judicial code of ethics with comments she made during the campaign.

With Vos tying impeachment to how Protasiewicz rules on redistricting, it’s nearly certain that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers would be able to name a replacement if the Legislature removes Protasiewicz from office or she resigns.

A special election is only triggered if a vacancy occurs before Dec. 1. Oral arguments in the redistricting case are set for Nov. 21, which makes it nearly certain a ruling won’t come until after the special election deadline.

That means if the Legislature moves to impeach and convict Protasiewicz, they would do it knowing that Evers would name her successor — who would certainly be another liberal.

ETHICS COMPLAINTS OVER WI JUSTICE PROTASIEWICZ'S CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS REJECTED

Other justices, both conservative and liberal, have spoken out in the past on issues that could come before the court, although not always during their run for office like Protasiewicz did. Current justices have also accepted campaign cash from political parties and others with an interest in court cases and haven’t recused themselves. But none of them has faced threats of impeachment.

The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 64-35 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate. Republicans adopted maps last year that were similar to the existing ones.

Wisconsin’s Assembly districts rank among the most gerrymandered nationally, with Republicans routinely winning far more seats than would be expected based on their average share of the vote, according to an Associated Press analysis.

Both lawsuits ask that all 132 state lawmakers be up for election in 2024 in newly drawn districts.

Former WI Supreme Court justice refuses to name those involved in Protasiewicz impeachment push

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

One of three former Wisconsin Supreme Court justices asked to review possible impeachment of a current justice refused to tell a judge Friday who else was looking into that question.

Former Justice David Prosser called a lawsuit alleging violations of the state open meetings law "frivolous," saying those looking into impeachment met once but are operating independently and not as a governmental body subject to the law.

Prosser and the attorney for Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos both refused to tell the judge during Friday's hearing who else was tabbed by Vos to review impeachment. Vos is looking into possible impeachment of liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz if she does not recuse herself from a pair of redistricting lawsuits.

ETHICS COMPLAINTS OVER WI JUSTICE PROTASIEWICZ'S CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS REJECTED

The liberal watchdog group American Oversight sued Monday, alleging the group of justices was violating the state open meetings law by not letting the public attend its meetings. Prosser is the only former justice to say publicly that he is among the group.

Prosser indicated during the hearing before Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington that three former justices met at least once.

"Three people had lunch together," Prosser said. "We had lunch together because we didn’t know what we were really supposed to do. If other people are going to have input, it’s going to be their input, not my input. I think this is an absolutely frivolous case."

When asked directly by the judge if he would name who the other two former justices were, Prosser said, "No." Likewise, Vos attorney Matthew Fernholz said he would not disclose their names without first consulting with Vos. Vos has repeatedly declined to name who he asked, only saying he tabbed three former justices to look into impeachment.

None of the eight other living former justices, six of whom are conservatives, have said they are a part of the review. The most recently retired justice, conservative Patience Roggensack, hung up when contacted by The Associated Press to ask if she was on the panel.

The judge asked Prosser if the group intended to meet again.

"The people that I had lunch with had the same view of what we might say and we would do it individually," Prosser said. He said the group was not producing a formal report and Vos never told him he was creating a panel.

"The word ‘panel’ never came up," Prosser said. "Certainly we were not ordered to do anything. ... This is not a governmental body by any stretch of the imagination."

Vos himself called it a panel when he announced its formation Sept. 13.

"I am asking a panel of former members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review and advise what the criteria are for impeachment," Vos said on WISN-AM.

Vos said he was asking the group to "come back with an analysis to say whether or not (impeachment) is possible and how it should occur."

Prosser and Fernholz on Friday both asserted that the former justices were like any other constituent that a public official may meet with to gather advice.

"That’s done all the time," Prosser said. "That is not something that is going to require notices and people coming and listening to everything that’s happening. That’s just not realistic at all."

Fernholz took it a step further, saying "The secret panel does not exist."

American Oversight had asked the judge to order the group not to meet. But Judge Remington said he can't consider the case until after the district attorney has 20 days to investigate American Oversight's complaint. That deadline is Oct. 9. Remington set another hearing for Oct. 19.

"It could be very well, Justice Prosser, that this is not a committee that is not subject to public meetings law," Remington said. "We just don’t know because the facts are uncertain."

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne said in court Friday that it appeared to him the group may be violating the open meetings law, calling it "astonishing."

"If nothing else they should be meeting in public," Ozanne said.

But he said his investigation hasn’t gotten far, in part, because he doesn’t know who the other former justices working on the issue are.

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT FLIPS FROM CONSERVATIVE TO LIBERAL CONTROL FOR FIRST TIME IN 15 YEARS

American Oversight attorney Christa Westerberg said the group of justices is subject to the open meetings law because Vos created it to advise him, it has a defined membership and he asked that it report back to him with recommendations.

"We don’t have secret panels in Wisconsin," she said. "The work of government isn’t secret. I don’t think this is a very heavy lift. ... It just boggles my mind that all of this can be done in secret."

Protasiewicz’s installment in August flipped the high court to liberal control for the first time in 15 years. Vos has called for her to recuse herself in the redistricting cases because of comments she made on the campaign trail calling the state’s heavily gerrymandered, GOP-drawn electoral maps "unfair" and "rigged," as well as the nearly $10 million she accepted from the Wisconsin Democratic Party.

Protasiewicz has yet to decide whether she will recuse herself from the cases. The court has also yet to decide whether it will take up the lawsuits.

Texas law banning drag performances in front of children ruled unconstitutional by federal judge

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The Texas law dubbed the "Drag Ban" that restricted "sexually oriented performances" in the presence of a child or on public property was ruled unconstitutional on Tuesday by a federal judge, who issued a permanent injunction barring state officials from enforcing it.

Senate Bill 12 was signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in June and was set to go into effect Sep. 1 but was blocked after being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which filed a lawsuit against the law last month.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge David Hittner said the law was "an unconstitutional restriction on speech," and that it "violates the First Amendment as incorporated to Texas by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution."

TRUMP CAMPAIGN WALKS BACK CLAIM FORMER PRESIDENT PURCHASED GLOCK AMID QUESTIONS ABOUT LEGALITY

The ruling further ordered Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and other state officials to not enforce the law.

According to one of the definitions in the law, a "sexually oriented performance" means a visual performance that features "a male performer exhibiting as a female, or a female performer exhibiting as a male, who uses clothing, makeup, or other similar physical markers and who sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs before an audience" and "appeals to the prurient interest in sex."

Critics have referred to the law as a "drag ban," though its author and supporters claim it was proposed and signed into law to protect children.

WATCH: REPORTERS PILE ON FRUSTRATED KARINE JEAN-PIERRE OVER BIDEN PLAN TO JOIN UAW PICKET

The ACLU filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas in Houston, and claimed the law "unconstitutionally singles out drag performances as a disfavored form of expression." It also asserted that several terms are not defined or are written in a way that targets protected expression.

Drag was described in the lawsuit as an "art form" that is "inherently expressive," and has no set standard. "As with any art form, there is nothing inherently sexual or obscene about drag," the lawsuit read. "Drag can be performed for any age level and in any venue, since drag artists tailor their performances to their audience."

Fox News Digital has reached out to Paxton's office for comment.

Fox News' Greg Wehner contributed to this report.

Wisconsin Republicans move to impeach state elections czar

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A group of Republican Wisconsin lawmakers on Thursday proposed impeaching the battleground state's top elections official as Democrats wage a legal battle to keep the nonpartisan administrator in office.

Democrats say the GOP-controlled state Senate acted illegitimately when it voted along party lines last week to oust Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe. In a lawsuit challenging the vote, Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul accused Republicans of attacking the state's elections.

The resolution introduced Thursday by five Assembly Republicans makes Wolfe the second state official GOP lawmakers have threatened with impeachment this month. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, Wisconsin's top Republican, created a panel last week to investigate the criteria for impeaching liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz, whose installment in August tipped the Wisconsin Supreme Court to liberal control for the first time in over a decade.

WISCONSIN DEMOCRATS LAUNCH $4M AD BLITZ TARGETING GOP LAWMAKERS CONSIDERING IMPEACHMENT OF NEW LIBERAL JUSTICE

Wolfe has been targeted by conspiracy theorists who falsely claim she was part of a plot to rig the 2020 election in favor of President Joe Biden. The lawmakers proposing her impeachment have played a role in advancing those claims and some pushed to decertify the results of the 2020 election.

"A gaggle of well-known election deniers is once again attacking Meagan Wolfe, a nonpartisan election administrator who has served Wisconsin and our democracy with the utmost respect and dignity," Democratic Senate Minority Leader Melissa Agard said in a statement.

The 23-page impeachment resolution reiterates conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and faults Wolfe for election administration decisions that were made by elections commissioners. As the elections commission’s nonpartisan administrator, Wolfe has little decision-making power and instead implements decisions made by the three Democrats and three Republicans on the bipartisan commission.

WISCONSIN DEMOCRATIC GOV. EVERS’ SPECIAL ELECTION ON CHILD CARE, WORKER SHORTAGES REJECTED BY GOP LEGISLATURE

"No matter how many times some politicians misrepresent my actions and how this agency works, it does not make what they’re saying true," Wolfe said in a statement. "It’s irresponsible for this group of politicians to willfully distort the truth when they’ve been provided the facts for years."

Republican Rep. Janel Brandtjen, one of the resolution's authors, lost her position as chair of the Assembly elections committee and was even kicked out of a GOP caucus last year after Republicans said they lost trust in her for promoting election lies. Brandtjen has frequently butted heads with Vos and other GOP leaders, and she endorsed Vos' Republican primary opponent in the 2022 midterm.

The resolution to impeach Wolfe would need approval from Vos to move forward. He did not respond to an email or text message seeking comment Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu also did not respond to emails seeking comment.

Numerous reviews have found that the 2020 election in Wisconsin was fair and the results were accurate. Biden defeated then-President Donald Trump in 2020 by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin, an outcome that has withstood two partial recounts, a nonpartisan audit, a conservative law firm’s review, and multiple state and federal lawsuits.

Texas Senate to vote on AG Ken Paxton impeachment

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

The Texas Senate will vote on articles of impeachment brought against state Attorney General Ken Paxton at 10:30 a.m. central time on Saturday, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick announced.

The jury of 30 senators, most of whom are Republicans, spent about eight hours deliberating behind closed doors since the Senate ended deliberations. A two-thirds majority is required to convict Paxton on any of 16 articles of impeachment that accuse Paxton of bribery, corruption and unfitness for office.

The vote could be a slow, public process. Each article of impeachment gets a separate vote. Republicans hold a 19-12 majority in the Senate, meaning that if all Democrats vote to convict Paxton, they would need nine Republicans to join them.

Paxton faces accusations that he misused his political power to help the real estate developer Nate Paul. Paxton's opponents have argued that the attorney general accepted a bribe by hiring Paul.

"If we don’t keep public officials from abusing the powers of their office, then frankly no one can," Republican state Rep. Andrew Murr, one of the impeachment managers in the Texas House, said during closing arguments. 

Attorneys for the bipartisan group of lawmakers prosecuting Paxton’s impeachment rested their case Wednesday after a woman who was expected to testify about an extramarital affair with Paxton made a sudden appearance at the trial, but she never took the stand.

The affair is central to the proceedings and accusations of Paul, who was under FBI investigation and employed the woman, Laura Olson. One of the articles of impeachment against Paxton alleges that Paul's hiring of Olson amounted to a bribe.

Paxton's lawyers have cast the impeachment effort as a ploy by establishment Republicans to remove a proven conservative from office, pointing to Paxton's long record of challenging Democratic presidential administrations in high profile court cases that have won him acclaim from former President Donald Trump and conservative hardliners. 

"I would suggest to you this is a political witch hunt," Paxton attorney Tony Buzbee said. "I would suggest to you that this trial has displayed, for the country to see, a partisan fight within the Republican Party."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Paxton was also previously indicted in June for allegedly making false statements to banks. 

Paxton, who was suspended from office pending the trial's outcome, was not required to attend the proceedings and appeared only once in the Senate, durinc closing arguments, since testimony began last week. His wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, sat across the room from him. She was required to be present for the whole trial but was prohibited from participating in debate or voting on the outcome of her husband's trial. 

This is a developing story and will be updated. Fox News' Danielle Wallace and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 
 

Ethics complaints over WI Justice Protasiewicz’s campaign statements rejected

Posted on by Latest Political News on Fox News

A state judiciary disciplinary panel has rejected several complaints lodged against Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz that alleged she violated the judicial code of ethics for comments she made during the campaign. It's a setback to Republicans who argued those remarks could warrant impeachment.

Protasiewicz on Tuesday released a letter from the Wisconsin Judicial Commission informing her that "several complaints" regarding comments she had made during the campaign had been dismissed without action.

The commission's actions are private unless released by one of the parties involved. Protasiewicz received permission from the commission to release its May 31 letter to her, which she then provided to The Associated Press.

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT FLIPS FROM CONSERVATIVE TO LIBERAL CONTROL FOR FIRST TIME IN 15 YEARS

Protasiewicz’s win in April flipped majority control of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court from conservative to liberal for the first time in 15 years. Democrats heavily backed her campaign, during which Protasiewicz criticized Republican-drawn electoral maps and spoke in favor of abortion rights.

In recent weeks, Republican lawmakers have been floating the possibility of impeaching Protasiewicz over her comments calling the legislative maps they drew "unfair" and "rigged."

Protasiewicz never promised to rule one way or another on redistricting or abortion cases.

She took office in August, and in her first week, two lawsuits seeking to overturn the Republican-drawn legislative electoral maps were filed by Democratic-friendly groups. The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to hear the cases, and Protasiewicz has not responded to a motion from the Republican-controlled Legislature that she recuse herself from the cases.

Protasiewicz sent the commission’s order Tuesday to attorneys in the redistricting cases, ordering them to respond by Sept. 18 on how it affects the request that she recuse herself from the lawsuits.

A lawsuit in a county court seeking to overturn Wisconsin's 1849 abortion ban was filed before Protasiewicz won election. That case is expected to eventually reach the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The Wisconsin Republican Party in February released one complaint filed against Protasiewicz by Randall Cook, a Republican supporter. His complaint alleged that Protasiewicz had declared how she would rule on cases related to abortion and redistricting, in violation of provisions of the state judicial code.

"Wisconsin has never seen a Supreme Court Justice so brazenly declare how she would rule on a case before it ever came to the Court, and we had hoped the principles of equal justice would be seriously considered by the Judicial Commission, despite their liberal bias," Wisconsin Republican Party Chairperson Brian Schimming said in a statement. "It was clearly asking too much."

In the letter to Protasiewicz, Judicial Commission Executive Director Jeremiah Van Hecke referred to "several complaints" it had received and dismissed without action. The letter said the complaints pertained to comments she had made at a Jan. 9 candidate forum and several interviews in December and January.

The complaints also alleged that she had made false comments about her opponent, Republican-backed Dan Kelly, in two campaign ads and in social media posts, according to the commission's letter.

The commission did not give a reason for why it dismissed the complaints, but Van Hecke said that it had reviewed her comments, the judicial code of ethics, state Supreme Court rules, and relevant decisions by the state and U.S. supreme courts.

In one of the cases cited, a federal court in Wisconsin ruled there is a distinction between a candidate stating personal views during a campaign and making a pledge, promise or commitment to ruling in a certain way.

Protasiewicz declined to comment on the commission’s action.

The nine-member Judicial Commission is one of the few avenues through which people can challenge the actions of Supreme Court justices. It is tasked with investigating judges and court commissioners who are accused of violating the state’s judicial code of conduct. Its members include two lawyers and two judges appointed by the Supreme Court and five non-lawyers appointed by the governor to three-year terms.

Republican members of the state Senate judiciary committee on Tuesday and last month grilled judicial ethics commissioners up for reappointment about when justices and judges should recuse themselves from cases, especially if they call a case "rigged," a clear allusion to Protasiewicz’s campaign remarks.

Republicans, including Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, allege Protasiewicz has prejudged redistricting cases pending before the Supreme Court because of comments she made during her campaign. They also say she can't fairly hear the cases because she took nearly $10 million in campaign donations from the Wisconsin Democratic Party, which did not file the lawsuits but has long pushed for new maps.

WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT ELECTION TURNOUT BREAKS RECORD AS DEM-BACKED CANDIDATE WINS

Vos said Protasiewicz must recuse herself from any Wisconsin redistricting case and the commission's letter only "muddies the waters."

"The Judicial Commission decided Justice Protasiewicz could not be sanctioned for what she said on the campaign trail," Vos said in a statement. "The Commission did not address whether she can sit on a case after accepting $10 million in campaign funds from the Democrat Party — the interested party in the redistricting case. Nor did they address whether she may sit on a case having made commitments for how she would rule that are inconsistent with the obligation to be impartial."

The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled Legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 65-34 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate. It would take only 50 votes to impeach. It takes 22 votes to convict in the Senate, the exact number of seats Republicans hold.

If the Assembly impeaches her, Protasiewicz would be barred from any duties as a justice until the Senate acted. That could effectively stop her from voting on redistricting without removing her from office and creating a vacancy that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers would fill.