Here's What You Need To Know About Today's Election Between Roy Moore And Doug Jones

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Republicans should have had an easy time winning an Alabama Senate seat — but they really could lose Tuesday as the state’s wild, extraordinary race comes to an end.

Voters will decide between GOP nominee Roy Moore, a right-wing culture warrior and the state’s former chief justice, and Democrat Doug Jones, a former US attorney known for successfully prosecuting two members of the Ku Klux Klan for a bombing that killed four black children. The winner gets the seat previously held by Jeff Sessions, who joined the Trump administration as attorney general this year.

In the closing weeks, the race has been rocked by allegations that Moore, as an adult, made sexual advances on a minor, sexually assaulted a 16-year-old, and pursued romantic relationships with other teens. Moore has denied the allegations. But the scandal alarmed many national Republicans: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the National Republican Senatorial Committee disavowed him and have raised the possibility of expulsion should Moore win. And national Democrats, who were already intrigued by their chances against a wild card such as Moore, have sensed an opportunity to pick up a seat in the kind of Deep South state generally write off and narrow the GOP’s 52-seat edge in the Senate.

Jones

Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call,Inc.

“I didn't vote for Roy Moore,” Sen. Richard Shelby, the Alabama Republican who will serve alongside the winner, said Sunday morning during an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper. “I wouldn't vote for Roy Moore. I think the Republican Party can do better.”

Even without the misconduct accusations, the Senate race would have been a national spectacle because of the perpetually controversial Moore. He was twice removed from the Alabama Supreme Court, first over his refusal to remove a Ten Commandments monument on public grounds, and again when he refused to enforce federal rulings on marriage equality. He also is known for his far-right positions on gay rights (he once said homosexuality should be illegal) and for his opinion that Muslims should not be allowed to serve in Congress.

But even after the allegations, Republicans did not totally abandon Moore. President Donald Trump, whose victory last year despite late-breaking accusations of sexual misconduct has served somewhat as a template for Moore, offered unequivocal endorsements for the candidate over the last week. Trump also used a political rally Friday in Pensacola, Florida — a media market that reaches Alabama voters — to plug Moore’s candidacy. The Republican National Committee, which had briefly withdrawn its financial support, followed Trump’s lead and resumed its assistance in the last week of the race.

Jones has enjoyed a significant money advantage, thanks to his own fundraising efforts and to expenditures by allied groups. But in a state where Trump won 63% of the vote in 2016, piecing together a winning coalition for a Democrat is still a tricky affair. Jones needs Democrats to turn out in droves, and he also needs to win some Republican voters disenchanted with Moore and hope that some Republicans just stay home.

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

The Democratic cavalry arrived in the campaign’s final weekend to help Jones with the first part: Jones spent the weekend campaigning in Democratic areas up and down the state with prominent black Democrats, including New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, and Rep. Terri Sewell, Alabama’s lone Democratic member of Congress. Former president Barack Obama and former vice president Joe Biden recorded robocalls for the Democrat that began running Monday, the AP reported. At each of his stops over the weekend, Jones made a point of quoting Shelby’s attacks on Moore.

Moore, meanwhile, disappeared from the campaign trail over the weekend, and his team was sketchy about reports that he was in Philadelphia for the Army–Navy football game. Wherever he was, he held no public events until Monday night and skipped his hometown church service. (On Monday night, Moore confirmed he was out of the state over the weekend, “to take my wife out of the mess and let her relax with her son at West Point.”)

Moore

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Moore’s absence from the trail became a regular point in Jones’ stump speech as the campaign closed out. “Y’all have covered politics for a long time. When is the last time you heard of a candidate for statewide office leaving the state?” he asked reporters at a Birmingham diner Monday morning. “It only goes to show that he cares more about his personal agenda than he does the people of Alabama.”

Moore resurfaced Monday night for a rally headlined by Steve Bannon, the Breitbart News executive and erstwhile Trump strategist who has fully embraced his candidacy and appeared with him three times. The first came on the eve of a primary runoff battle between Moore and Sen. Luther Strange, who was appointed as Sessions’ interim successor. Strange lost that race despite heavy backing from McConnell and the GOP establishment, and even from Trump.

Trump’s presence in the campaign looms large. He won Alabama last year by a commanding margin and remains popular in the state. The president’s initial embrace of Strange puzzled many, given Moore’s anti-establishment rhetoric — his primary eve rally with Bannon was a “Drain the Swamp Rally,” a theme ripped straight out of Trump’s 2016 playbook.

The rally had no shortage of odd moments. One of the speakers was a Vietnam veteran who served with Moore but hadn’t seen him in decades. Bill Staehle defended Moore against the sexual misconduct allegations by recalling the time they found themselves inside a brothel of teenage girls and how Moore quickly decided to leave. And when Moore and his wife, Kayla, took the stage, they let loose a long list of grievances. Kayla Moore, in an effort to persuade people that her husband is not anti-Semitic, noted the couple’s Jewish attorney and Jewish friends.

Most of the other speakers — a collection of prominent right-wing figures — tightly tied Moore to Trump.

“We’re all here to support President Trump,” Paul Nehlen, a GOP primary challenger to House Speaker Paul Ryan in Wisconsin, said at the rally. “This is a spiritual battle.”

Bannon characterized a vote against the Republican as a vote against the “Trump miracle” and for opponents of the president, including those in the GOP establishment.

“Tomorrow they call the question,” Bannon said. “This is a national election.”

Source BuzzFeed - Politics http://ift.tt/2BVGXOK

Read More

Roy Moore’s Last And Weirdest Campaign Event

Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore stands behind his wife, Kayla, as she speaks during a campaign event Monday night in Midland City, Alabama.

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

MIDLAND CITY, Alabama — Roy Moore’s closing argument was an airing of grievances.

In his first appearance on the campaign trail in nearly a week, the Senate candidate in Alabama complained bitterly about how he’s been treated by the media, by supporters of his Democratic opponent, and by establishment Republicans. And, facing allegations of sexual misconduct that could cost him Tuesday’s special election here, he lashed out again at his accusers.

“I want you to understand this,” said Moore, who’s been accused of making sexual advances on a minor, sexually assaulting a 16-year-old, and pursuing romantic relationships with other teens. “The Washington Post put out this terrible, disgusting article, saying I had done something. I want you to understand something. They said these women … had not come forward for nearly 40 years, but they waited until 30 days before this general election to come forward.”

His wife, Kayla, had some grievances, too. She responded to critics who have called her husband racist and anti-Semitic by noting his former black employees and their Jewish friends.

“Fake News will tell you that we don’t care for Jews,” she said as part of an extended attack on reporters. “One of our attorneys is a Jew. We have very close friends that are Jewish.”

(In recent days, two comments of Moore’s have particularly drawn scrutiny: a September remark, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, that the country “was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another” and a suggestion that the liberal billionaire George Soros was going to hell. Soros is Jewish.)

The Election Eve rally inside a special events barn in southeast Alabama featured a lineup of right-wing speakers, headlined by Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert and Steve Bannon, the Breitbart executive chairman and former chief strategist for President Donald Trump. But Kayla Moore’s comments — and her husband’s outrage — stood out most. Polls are all over the place in the race’s closing days, but the accusations against Moore helped turned what should have been an easy win for Republicans into a battle with Democrat Doug Jones. Moore’s frustration was evident.

At one point, he alluded to Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, a Republican who doesn’t support him and who went on CNN on Sunday to say the “Republican Party can do better.” Moore didn’t mention Shelby’s name, only that he was among the senators opposed to his candidacy. The National Republican Senatorial Committee stopped funding Moore after the accusations.

“We’re up to neck in alligators,” Moore said, playing off Trump’s “drain the swamp” messaging. “We’re up to our neck in people that don’t want change in Washington, DC. They want to keep it the same, keep their power, keep their prestige, and keep their positions.”

Moore also complained of “threats on social media for anyone who would back this campaign. We’ve been intimidated, other people have been intimidated, and we’re tired of it.”

The rally was the third Bannon has headlined for Moore, including one during a September primary — a contest in which Trump backed interim Sen. Luther Strange. But Trump has since become an unequivocal Moore supporter, even after the misconduct allegations.

Bannon and other speakers tied Moore tightly to Trump. “You what they’re doing trying to shut up President Trump and Judge Moore? They’re trying to shut you up,” Bannon said.

Moore also had a message for Republicans who might be reluctantly voting for him anyway, eager to keep their slim advantage over Democrats in the Senate.

“If you don’t believe in my character,” he said, “don’t vote for me.”

Source BuzzFeed - Politics http://ift.tt/2kp7JYD

Read More

Appoint Kamala Harris Or Cory Booker To Replace Franken On Judiciary, Says CBC Chair

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

The chair of the Congressional Black Caucus has urged New York Sen. Chuck Schumer to appoint either Sens. Kamala Harris or Cory Booker to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In a letter dated Dec. 7, a copy of which was obtained by BuzzFeed News, Louisiana Rep. Cedric Richmond laid out an argument for either senator, both black attorneys, to take the spot on the committee soon to be vacated by Sen. Al Franken, who said last week that he would resign after Senate Democratic colleagues called on him to do so following multiple allegations of groping.

"In the current political and legal environment," Richmond wrote, "Black America faces the greatest threats to its rights and safety since the post-Reconstruction era. Given this pivotal moment in American history, the CBC urges you and the Senate Democratic Caucus to appoint a CBC Member to join Ranking Member Feinstein and others in defense of our democracy, our values and our constitutional rights."

In January, Booker broke with Senate tradition by declaring that then-Sen. Jeff Sessions was not the right person to be attorney general, marking the first time a sitting senator testified against a colleague for a cabinet post. Richmond — along with Rep. John Lewis — was also a part of those proceedings; alluding to his remarks in his letter to Schumer, Richmond said, "I am sad to say that our concerns were correct."

He continued, "This administration immediately started endangering a framework of rights and protections that have been secured and defended for over a century. It has undermined criminal justice reform, litigated in defense of voter suppression and attacked affirmative action. At a moment when we have witnessed a significant spike in hate crimes, it has sympathized with white supremacists. It has taken deliberate steps to under the restorations of trust between law enforcement and communities. Last its judicial nominees are the least diverse, most underqualified, and morally problematic candidates in recent memory."

The request comes on the heels of the CBC losing one of its most prominent members, former Rep. John Conyers, who was the ranking member the powerful House Judiciary Committee. He retired following several allegations that he engaged in sexual misconduct with women who worked for him, including a harassment claim he settled for $27,000. Conyers has repeatedly denied the allegations, which were first reported by BuzzFeed News, though he confirmed the settlement.

But seeing one of its own rise to Franken's spot on Judiciary would be a coup for the CBC; some members have lamented the period of time during which there were calls for Conyers to resign and none for Franken to do so. Senate Democrats began calling for Franken to resign on Dec. 6. Franken, for his part, announced on Dec. 7 that he would resign in the coming weeks. Richmond penned his letter to Schumer the same day.

Both Booker and Harris are frequently mentioned as 2020 Democratic primary candidates. Harris currently sits on the Budget Committee, Intelligence Committee, Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and Environment and Public Works. Booker currently sits on Foreign Relations, Commerce, Science and Transportation, Small Business and Entrepreneurship and Environment and Public Works.

"Either of these highly accomplished attorneys would be effective assets to the oversight and legislative efforts of Senate Judiciary Democrats," Richmond wrote. "They would also bring personal experience to bear on the important debates taking place in the Committee that directly impact millions of African-Americans in this country. Their perspective is sorely needed in conversations and initiatives already underway."

Source BuzzFeed - Politics http://ift.tt/2B9IFPX

Read More

Justices Won't Hear Case Asking Whether Civil Rights Laws Protect Against Anti-Gay Discrimination

Aaron P. Bernstein / Reuters

The Supreme Court won't weigh in for now on whether existing civil rights laws protect LGBT people from discrimination, the court announced Monday morning.

The justices declined to review a woman's claim that she was discriminated against based on her sexual orientation — a case that would have required the justices to rule on the matter.

Jameka Evans, represented by Lambda Legal, had asked the justices to hear her case arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against sexual orientation discrimination because it is a type of sex discrimination barred under the law.

In 1979, a federal appeals court ruled that "[d]ischarge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII." Since then, however, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and one federal appeals court — out of Chicago — have ruled that Title VII's sex discrimination ban does protect against sexual orientation discrimination.

When Evans brought her case, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled earlier this year that it was "bound to follow" that 1979 ruling "unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court."

The appeals court turned down Evans request for en banc review — meaning, of the full court — which led to the request for Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear Evans' appeal is not a ruling on the merits of her claim.

As law professor Anthony Kreis pointed out on Twitter, there are a few reasons why the court might prefer another case to resolve the question of Title VII coverage. For one, Evans' case is not over after the Supreme Court's decision. The appeals court ruled earlier that Evans still would be able to present a claim that she was discriminated against based on gender nonconformity.

Additionally, other people are raising the Title VII issue in other cases. One is pending now in the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which heard arguments in the case in an en banc hearing earlier this fall.

Advocates behind Evans' petition, however, had been hoping to get the issue before the Supreme Court during the term underway currently — a prospect that now is out of reach and could become key should the court be closely divided on the issue and Justice Anthony Kennedy or one of the more liberal justices leave the court before the matter is heard.

Source BuzzFeed - Politics http://ift.tt/2BUlGVw

Read More

Roy Moore Was Nowhere To Be Found On The Last Weekend Of The Alabama Senate Race

Roy Moore, at a rare public campaign event.

Joe Raedle / Getty Images

Roy Moore’s evangelicalism is his calling card, but on the Sunday before the special election that could send him to the Senate, he skipped church.

He didn’t worship at his usual hometown service, which some reporters had staked out in hopes of catching a glimpse or asking a question of the elusive Republican candidate. He didn’t visit any other congregations, either.

“Out of respect for people who want to worship without reporters hanging over their heads gawking, no, he did not attend church this morning,” Moore adviser Brett Doster told BuzzFeed News.

In the final days of a race that has put Alabama under a national political spotlight that doesn’t often shine here, Roy Moore has made himself scarce. He hasn’t held a public event since a Tuesday rally with right-wing provocateur Steve Bannon and isn’t scheduled to return to the campaign trail until Monday evening — for an Election Eve encore with Bannon.

By keeping a low profile, Moore has been able to avoid tough questions about accusations that, as an adult, he made sexual advances on a minor and pursued romantic relationships with other teens. The accusations upended his campaign, turning a race many believed he would win rather easily into a somewhat suspenseful battle with the Democratic nominee, Doug Jones.

Moore has denied the allegations, and polls have shown him rebounding since the initial shock of the Washington Post’s first story. Some suspect his strategy is to sit on a lead and not submit himself to the unpredictability of traditional media events, where reporters would be certain to ask about his past.

“My guess is that they think anything that comes up now is just going to hurt him, and their hard count gives them the confidence to keep it low key and let their ads carry the day,” said David Mowery, an Alabama political strategist who has worked with Democrats and Republicans. “It’s certainly not conventional, but literally nothing about this election has been conventional.”

Aside from paid advertising, the only sight of Moore this weekend came Sunday on The Voice of Alabama Politics, a show that airs locally across the state.

“They know I’ve stood for moral values, and so they’re attacking me in that area,” Moore told the program’s host, Bill Britt. “I understand that. But it’s also part of a scheme of political parties today and political candidates in both parties, quite frankly, to degrade your opponent — to take him down so that you appear to go up. And that’s a simple political tactic. Ritual defamation has been around for a long time, and that’s what this is.”

It was a friendly interview. Britt gently questioned Moore about the allegations. When Moore said he did not know any of his accusers, Britt did not press him on the fact that he initially acknowledged he knew at least two of them. At another point, Britt quipped: “Someone asked me the other day, was there a Democrat that I thought could be sent to Alabama that would help Doug Jones, and I said, ‘Not any living ones.’” (Britt and Moore both chuckled at that.)

The observation was timely, as Jones received assists this weekend several out-of-state Democrats. On Saturday, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick joined him at the historic Brown Chapel AME Church in Selma. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker headlined a rally for Jones that evening at Alabama State University. On Sunday, Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana attended a get-out-the-vote kickoff in Montgomery. The events were aimed at helping boost black turnout, which is seen as essential to the party’s chances of picking up the seat.

“I can’t remember what day we’re in now where Roy Moore is in hiding,” Jones told reporters in Selma. “He comes out only to be seen, kind of like the groundhog, who comes out every so often to see whether or not he sees his shadow.”

The only new Moore development announced as of Sunday afternoon was that Corey Stewart — the right-wing Senate candidate in Virginia known for defending Confederate symbols — would spend the final days of the race assisting Moore’s get-out-the-vote operation in Alabama. And that announcement came from Stewart. (On Twitter, Doster said a volunteer team logged “150,000 real voter contacts on last super Saturday push!”)

A Moore spokesperson did not respond to questions about how the Republican spent the weekend. The campaign has been emphasizing President Donald Trump’s event Friday night in Pensacola, Florida, not far from the Alabama border and in a TV market that reaches Alabama voters. Trump used a tiny part of his speech to reiterate his unequivocal endorsement for Moore. The president also has taped a last-minute robocall supporting Moore. Trump won Alabama by an overwhelming margin last year and remains popular in the state.

“It’s not a bad political strategy,” said Andy Surabian, a GOP strategist who works closely with Bannon, “to let President Trump’s rally from Friday be the driving message heading into Tuesday.”

Source BuzzFeed - Politics http://ift.tt/2iOzo4Y

Read More

The Bernie-Hillary Unity Commission Is About To Vote On Changing Superdelegates, Caucuses, And More. Here Are The Details.

Lisa Lake / Getty Images

After the contentious primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Party formed the Unity Reform Commission to make the nominating process more fair. This weekend, after four meetings over the course of seven months, the commission will gather for a final time to vote on recommended changes to the superdelegate system, caucus process, voter registration, and other rules.

The proposals, guided by the commission's official mandate, are significant. Members of the 21-person commission are still finalizing the language in the report they will present this weekend, but Democrats in and around the Unity Reform group say the recommendations would effectively reduce the number of superdelegates by about 60%, require absentee voting and mandatory vote counts in caucuses, encourage states to allow same-day party and voter registration, and set new guidelines at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that the party remains neutral during presidential elections.

Still, even if the Unity Reform Commission votes in favor of the proposals, that doesn't mean the changes are guaranteed. There's still a months-long, somewhat complicated process ahead before a final vote in 2018, cast by the DNC's 447 members. The result will either widen or help shrink the divide between grassroots progressives and the party — one that DNC chair Tom Perez has so far struggled to close.

Here’s what you need to know about the Unity Reform Commission, their proposed changes, and what happens after this weekend.

How’d we get here?

The Clinton-Sanders primary was a hard-fought contest of policy and message that few could have predicted: Sanders, a little-known U.S. senator from Vermont and Democratic socialist, mounted a real challenge against Clinton, a candidate with all the donors and endorsements on her side, and he almost won. The Clinton-Sanders primary will also be remembered as a race that exposed structural flaws in the nominating process and helped ignite a deep and bitter distrust among grassroots progressives toward the DNC and its leadership in Washington.

At points, Sanders campaigned as much against the party as against Clinton, raising questions about the debate process, superdelegate system, and closed primaries. In July 2016, WikiLeaks published hacked emails from the DNC that showed an internal bias against Sanders. By early 2017, as Democrats prepared to elect a new DNC chair, every major candidate agreed that the primary process had been unfair — and required a significant fix.

Enter the Unity Reform Commission.

Clinton and Sanders allies formed the commission at the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. Representatives from both camps — led by operatives such as Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, and Charlie Baker, Clinton's chief administrative officer — crafted a two-page resolution to establish the group.

Delegates approved the resolution on the floor of the 2016 convention. The resolution functions as the commission’s “mandate,” outlining specific changes to consider, as well as the process and timetable for making those changes — details hashed out at the convention as a kind of Clinton-Sanders compromise. The recommendations up for a vote this weekend largely reflect what's already in the mandate. This is key when it comes to the final vote in 2018. (More on that below.)

How will the voting work?

The commission will meet this weekend in Washington, D.C. On Friday, members will discuss each proposed change, and have the chance to introduce amendments to the final report, Democrats said. Votes will take place on each individual proposal. To pass, they need a simple majority of the 21-member commission, which is made up of appointees chosen by Clinton, Sanders, and Perez. (There is some confusion over whether the co-chairs, Larry Cohen and Jen O'Malley Dillon, will vote. A DNC official said they will. Two Unity Reform Commission members said they will not.)

After the vote, the next step in the process begins.

Based on which recommendations do and do not pass this weekend, the Unity Reform Commission will make revisions to their final report. The report then goes to the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee. The Rules and Bylaws Committee then has six months to put together their own report of sorts — a proposal with specific language to change the rules as they currently exist in the DNC Charter and Bylaws. After that process has concluded, the Unity Reform Commission will review the Rules and Bylaws Committee report and decide if it sufficiently reflects their own report. If they decide it does not, the original Unity Reform Commission report will still go before DNC members for a vote. If they decide it does, then the Rules and Bylaws Committee report alone will go before DNC members for the final vote.

When will the final DNC vote take place? Probably during the party's fall meeting in 2018. There is chance the process could conclude sooner, and the vote could take place at the DNC's spring meeting instead. But most Democrats anticipate a fall vote.

At that point, the rules change need two-thirds support to pass. That's about 295 DNC members.

The proposed changes fall into four main categories: superdelegates, caucuses, voting, and "party reform."

Clinton in 2016.

Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

1. The big one: superdelegates.

The superdelegate system has been perhaps the most contentious topic of discussion among members of the Unity Reform Commission. It's also the area where activists and Sanders supporters want to see the biggest change.

Under the current system for choosing a Democratic nominee, candidates compete in primaries and caucuses, amassing a number "pledged delegates" tied to their performance. In 2016, the candidate to hit 2,382 delegates became the nominee. Apart from the delegates decided by voters, usually around 700 people, called superdelegates, get their own unpledged delegate to award to the candidate of their choosing, regardless of voters. Superdelegates are DNC members; Democratic governors, U.S. senators, and members of Congress; and distinguished leaders like former presidents, vice presidents, and party chairs. Their unpledged delegates make up about 30% of the 2,382 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

The Unity Reform Commission will propose a new system: The superdelegates who are elected officials and distinguished party leaders would remain unpledged delegates. In 2016, that group numbered 280 people, according to Vox. The rest, DNC members (there are 447), would keep the title of superdelegate, but their votes would be bound proportionally to the vote count in their states.

The proposal, outlined by people in and around the commission this week, would effectively eliminate about 60% of superdelegates, though not in name. (As you'll hear some Democrats joke, DNC members want to keep their lanyards.)

The idea is the same one agreed upon and proposed in the 2016 mandate. But the topic was still a source of debate this year among commission members. At the Unity Reform Commission meeting in October, one of the members leading the charge on superdelegates, former Nevada state assembly member Lucy Flores, voiced a concern about creating "two categories" of superdelegates — putting rank-and-file members and activists a step below elected officials. "Those voices should not be treated as any lesser than others," she told other commission members.

2. Caucuses.

Hillary Clinton called them "creatures of the parties' extremes." Bernie Sanders won most of them in 2016. Iowa Democrats, who host the first caucus in the nominating process each year, are dead-set on protecting the process. Still, many in the party agree that the caucus system could certainly be improved, particularly to make the process more fair for lesser-known candidates.

The Unity Reform Commission will put forward a few changes.

One is a measure to make total vote counts public. This would benefit candidates who may not meet what's called the "viability threshold" in each caucus, meaning they do not receive support from 15% of caucus attendees and are therefore disqualified, releasing their supporters to go caucus for a different candidate. In 2016, for instance, Martin O'Malley did not receive enough support in many caucuses to meet the viability threshold, so he scored zero delegates. Under the new rule, that wouldn't change, but a vote count would show him with, say, 4% support, perhaps allowing him to point to some success and advance in the race.

Another change the commission is considering: absentee ballots in caucuses. The measure would address perhaps the biggest concerns about the caucus process, which afre accessibility and flexibility. If voters can't show up in person to a caucus at the allotted time — because of work or family obligations — they cannot participate in the primary. Caucus absentee ballots are already available in Nebraska's Democratic caucus.

3. Voting Rules.

As of Thursday, Democrats said, there is no language in the Unity Reform Commission report about mandating open primaries, which allow voters to participate in a primary regardless of party registration. But expect to see the commission address concerns about states like New York, which make it difficult for voters to change their party registration at the last minute. Ahead of the 2016 primary there, the deadline was Oct. 9, 2015, almost 200 days before the primary. As Sanders and his aides saw it, they were missing out on a key voting bloc — 27% of eligible voters who had chosen to list themselves as independents and likely missed the registration deadline to participate in the Democratic primary.

The Unity Reform Commission will propose a system to penalize states like this, by docking their number of pledged delegates, should they not adjust deadlines.

Also expect to see language encouraging states to pursue same-day party and voter registration, and to do so through litigation if necessary.

Former interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile with her new memoir.

Kamil Krzaczynski / Getty Images

4. "Party Reform."

This category is aimed broadly at making the Democratic National Committee more transparent and fair during presidential elections. Since 2016, the DNC has been a major source of resentment among progressives and Sanders supporters. Donna Brazile, the veteran Democrat who took over as interim DNC chair last year after the WikiLeaks scandal, reignited that fury last month with a new memoir, Hacks, which portrayed the primary as "rigged." In an explosive excerpt released in Politico, Brazile cited a joint fundraising agreement signed between Clinton and the DNC. That agreement gave her campaign some say in hiring and strategic decisions at the DNC before the start of the primary. (Sanders also had a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, but his did not grant the same authority, nor did his campaign know about the terms of Clinton's agreement, former aides said.)

As such, the Unity Reform Commission has added language to their final report to address joint fundraising agreements, sources said.

They will also tackle another concern raised by Brazile's book: that the same Democratic law firm, Perkins Coie LLP, represented both Clinton's campaign and the DNC, including in matters like joint fundraising agreements. "The nexus here of a single law firm representing both sides of the equation in the Clinton campaign and the DNC — that was completely unethical," former top Sanders aide Mark Longabaugh said after the release of Brazile's memoir. Weaver, the former campaign manager, similarly described the arrangement as an "obvious conflict." Perkins Coie declined to comment on the Brazile book, or the charges from Sanders allies.

Members are looking at a rule change to prohibit vendors and consultants from working for a campaign and the DNC at the same time in scenarios where there might be a conflict of interest.

So, will the changes actually pass? And will they be enough?

The Democrats involved know the stakes are high. Sanders voters in particular want to see the DNC take meaningful steps toward a fair process. Still, there is precedent for "reform" committees that begin with big promises and ultimately fall short.

The "Democratic Change Commission" — formed under DNC chair Tim Kaine after a drawn-out 2008 primary — moved to make similar changes to the superdelegate system, binding the votes to state results. By the time the proposal got to the Rules Committee, it was dead in the water. (Kaine, Clinton's vice presidential pick last year, said recently that he's "long believed" superdelegates should be eliminated.)

One concern here is that the vote on reducing superdelegates comes down, in the end, to superdelegates themselves — the 447 DNC members who will either vote to strip themselves of power or keep it. Still, this time around, Unity Reform Commission members are more optimistic. They point to the mandate, which clearly lays out the proposed superdelegate system and was approved by delegates, including DNC members, on the floor of the convention last summer.

As Weaver put it at the last Unity Reform Commission meeting: "This was passed unanimously at the quadrennial Democratic National Convention, the highest authority in the Democratic Party — which means that every superdelegate, including all the DNC members and all the electeds, already voted for this."

Source BuzzFeed - Politics http://ift.tt/2k9i6zJ

Read More

Sen. Al Franken Is Resigning Following Sexual Misconduct Allegations

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

Democratic Sen. Al Franken announced Thursday he would resign "in the coming weeks" following multiple allegations of sexual misconduct, making him the second member of Congress to say he would leave office this week as revelations about sexual harassment grip Capitol Hill and other industries.

"Some of the allegations against me are simply not true. Others I remember very differently," Franken said Thursday on a speech on the Senate floor.

The allegations, from seven women, date back to as early as 2003, when Franken was still a comedian, to his early years in the Senate, and include claims of unwanted kissing and groping.

On Wednesday, Franken faced growing calls to resign from Senate colleagues after Politico reported that he had allegedly tried to forcibly kiss a Democratic aide in 2006, before he was a senator, and that he told the young woman: "It’s my right as an entertainer." In a statement to Politico, Franken categorically denied the allegation, but several Democratic senators called on him to step down that day, as well as Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez.

"While Senator Franken is entitled to have the Ethics Committee conclude its review, I believe it would be better for our country if he sent a clear message that any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn’t acceptable by stepping aside to let someone else serve," New York Sen. Kristen Gillibrand wrote in a Facebook post.

The first allegation came in mid-November from Los Angeles news anchor Leeann Tweeden, who wrote in a post for KABC radio that while the pair were on a USO tour entertaining US troops in the Middle East, Franken forcibly kissed her and later groped her breasts while she was asleep. Tweeden also shared a photo of the groping incident.

Franken initially cast doubt on Tweeden’s recollection of the rehearsal during which he kissed her, but later issued a more detailed apology and said he would cooperate with a Senate Ethics Committee investigation requested by a bipartisan chorus of senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Since then, more women have come forward with accusations against Franken, who was first elected to the Senate in 2008. Lindsay Menz told CNN Franken grabbed her buttocks while they took a photo together at the Minnesota State Fair in 2010. Two unnamed women subsequently accused Franken of similar behaviour at events during his first Senate run, according to the Huffington Post.

“My immediate reaction was disgust,” one of the women, who met Franken at a Democratic fundraising event in 2008, told the Huffington Post. “But my secondary reaction was disappointment. I was excited to be there and to meet him. And so to have that happen really deflated me.”

The woman also accused Franken of asking her to join him in the bathroom, which Franken denies.

A fifth woman, army veteran Stephanie Kemplin, accused Franken of cupping her breast in 2003 while the two took a photo together in Kuwait, where she was deployed and Franken was performing on another USO tour. And a former elected official in New England, who spoke anonymously to Jezebel, accused Franken of giving her a “wet, open-mouthed kiss” without her consent in 2006.

Franken issued a statement in November saying he had “crossed a line” in his interactions with some women; at the time, only four women had accused him of misconduct.

“I’ve met tens of thousands of people and taken thousands of photographs, often in crowded and chaotic situations,” Franken said in the statement to the Minnesota Star Tribune. “I’m a warm person; I hug people. I’ve learned from recent stories that in some of those encounters, I crossed a line for some women — and I know that any number is too many.

“Some women have found my greetings or embraces for a hug or photo inappropriate, and I respect their feelings about that. I’ve thought a lot in recent days about how that could happen, and recognize that I need to be much more careful and sensitive in these situations. I feel terribly that I’ve made some women feel badly and for that I am so sorry, and I want to make sure that never happens again.”

At a press conference more than a week after the first allegations against him surfaced, Franken apologized for disappointing people and said he felt ashamed — but, when asked about a possible resignation, said he wouldn’t "speculate on that."

"If you had asked me two weeks ago, would any woman come forward with an allegation like this, I would have said 'no,'" Franken said. "This has been a shock, and it's been extremely humbling."

"I am going to work to regain their trust," he said at the time. "I am going to be accountable. We are going to cooperate completely with the ethics investigation."

The accusations against Franken come as lawmakers grapple with growing allegations of sexual misconduct in Congress. Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the longest serving member of the House announced his resignation on Dec. 5, following multiple accusations of sexual harassment and a secret settlement to keep one staffer quiet, as first reported by BuzzFeed News.

BuzzFeed News also reported that a former campaign staffer to Democratic Rep. Ruben Kihuen left the campaign after the then-candidate allegedly sexually harassed her on multiple occasions. Kihuen has SO FAR RESISTED calls for his resignation, including from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and the chairman of the Democrats’ House campaign committee, Ben Ray Luján.

LINK: Sen. Al Franken Says He'll Cooperate With Investigation Into Allegations He Groped Four Women

LINK: Al Franken Says He'll Be "Accountable" For Sexual Harassment Allegations

LINK: Al Franken Acknowledges His Behavior "Crossed A Line" For Too Many Women

Source BuzzFeed - Politics http://ift.tt/2BceQP2

Read More

Source CNN.com - RSS Channel - App Tech Section http://ift.tt/2j26PVe

Read More

Emails Show The Support Sally Yates Got From Within DOJ For Her Stand Against Trump's Travel Ban

Eric Thayer / Getty Images

Internal Justice Department emails released on Tuesday by a conservative watchdog group shed new light on the support that former acting attorney general Sally Yates got from within the Justice Department after she announced that she wouldn't defend President Donald Trump's first travel ban in January.

Judicial Watch, the group that obtained the messages through a Freedom of Information Act request, is pointing to the cache as proof of anti-Trump bias at the Justice Department — as well as within the special counsel's office investigating Russian influence in the 2016 election.

One of those emails to Yates came from Andrew Weissmann, who at the time was the head of the Justice Department's criminal fraud section and is now a member of special counsel Robert Mueller's team.

Judicial Watch / Via judicialwatch.org

"I am so proud," was the subject line on Weissmann's email to Yates, sent at 9:50 p.m. on Jan. 30. The body of the email read: "And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects, Andrew Weissmann."

A spokesman for the special counsel's office declined to comment on behalf of the office as well as Weissmann. Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement that Weissmann's email was "astonishing and disturbing."

"How much more evidence do we need that the Mueller operation has been irredeemably compromised by anti-Trump partisans? Shut it down," Fitton said.

Kathleen Clark, a legal ethics expert at Washington University School of Law, told BuzzFeed News that she didn't think that Weissmann's email presented a conflict of interest with his work on the special counsel's team. Weissmann expressing admiration for Yates was not necessarily evidence of bias, Clark said.

"Weissmann wasn't taking a swipe at Trump," Clark said.

Yates was fired by Trump on Jan. 30 after she announced to Justice Department officials via a one-page memo that she was not convinced that the travel ban executive order that Trump signed on Jan. 27 was lawful. The emails released by Judicial Watch show that messages of support came into her inbox from across the Justice Department throughout the evening. Some of the emails came from US attorneys, while others came from career officials and prosecutors across the country.

Judicial Watch highlighted several of those emails, including one from a DOJ appellate attorney, Jeffrey Clair, who wrote, "Thank you AG Yates. I’ve been in civil/appellate for 30 years and have never seen an administration with such contempt for democratic values and the rule of law. The President’s order is an unconstitutional embarrassment and I applaud you for taking a principled stand against defending it."

Judicial Watch / Via judicialwatch.org

Clair did not return a request for comment. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the emails.

The collection of emails includes messages that establish a clearer timeline of when Yates announced her decision not to defend the travel ban and her subsequent firing.

In an email time-stamped on Jan. 30 at 5:53 p.m., an official forwarded a message from Yates to a group of senior Justice Department officials, who were directed to "make sure that others who are working on these matters are made aware of her direction as well." The email released by Judicial Watch doesn't include an attachment, but the subject line is the same as a message sent 20 minutes later to US attorneys that did include the Yates memo on the travel.

Yates herself received an email time-stamped at 9:05 p.m. from White House official John DeStefano, which included as an attachment the notice that Trump was removing her from office. News reports indicate that the notice was hand-delivered to Yates at 9:15 p.m., and she's said in public statements since then that it was her understanding that emails from the White House had bounced back. A White House official told BuzzFeed News that the 9:05 p.m. email was the first notice sent to Yates.

In the days leading up to her firing, the cache shows that in addition to the substantive work of being acting attorney general — reviewing major court cases and fielding calls from stakeholders in and out of government, for instance — Yates was also addressing some of the more mundane tasks associated with settling in as the head of the department. On Jan. 25, she fielded emails about her official portrait. "Thanks so much for doing such a great job and making me feel so comfortable," she wrote to a member of the administrative support staff.

On the afternoon of Jan. 27, a few hours before the White House announced the travel ban executive order, an official asked Yates to weigh in on a plan for how to handle her use of Twitter going forward.

After the travel ban order was signed, she was sent copies of the flurry of emails that came in from lawyers who raced to court to challenge the ban, as well as messages exchanged among DOJ officials about how to handle questions from reporters about whether and to what extent the Justice Department reviewed the travel ban before Trump signed it. Multiple federal courts blocked the first travel ban, and Trump signed two successive travel ban orders that also faced court challenges. The third and latest travel ban is being litigated in several courts; the US Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the ban could take effect as the legal challenges play out.

In the hours after Yates alerted the Justice Department about her position on the first travel ban and after she was fired, messages continued to come in from DOJ attorneys and staff. "I am 100% behind you and your decision today," an assistant US attorney in California wrote her.

Another attorney in Pennsylvania wrote: "God bless you!"

Source BuzzFeed - Politics http://ift.tt/2AVhmZn

Read More

The Supreme Court Wants To Know: What Happens If This Baker Can Refuse To Sell A Cake To A Gay Couple?

Jack Phillips

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Justice Anthony Kennedy is again at the center of debate over a major case about gay rights, as a closely divided Supreme Court heard arguments over whether a Colorado baker can be forced under state antidiscrimination laws to provide a cake for a gay couple’s wedding.

The baker, Jack Phillips, is a Christian who opposes same-sex couples’ marriages and refused to make a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a gay couple. Phillips runs Masterpiece Cakeshop with his wife, and they were found to have violated Colorado’s public accommodations law, which bars sexual-orientation discrimination.

On Tuesday, Masterpiece Cakeshop, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom and backed by the US government, faced off against Craig and Mullins, represented by the ACLU, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in about 80 minutes of arguments. The justices asked extensive questions about just who and what qualifies as artistic expression.

At its most basic level, Masterpiece Cakeshop and the US government argue that the First Amendment protects creative people from being forced to create things that “inherently” send a message if they oppose that message. On the other side, the ACLU and Colorado argue that public accommodations laws are “content-neutral” and should apply to everyone — no exceptions.

For his part, Kennedy expressed discomfort with the idea that broad consequences could flow from a decision in favor of the baker, effectively watering down the exercise of the marriage right established in 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges. At the same time, he later also called it “too facile” to suggest that all opposition to same-sex couples’ marriages should be considered anti-gay discrimination.

When Kristen Waggoner, the lawyer for Masterpiece Cakeshop, said that she was not arguing for a decision that would allow a baker to ban a gay couple from purchasing an off-the-shelf cake, Kennedy pressed her on the point and asked why not? “Didn’t he express himself” when he made that cake?

The question was the first of many about the difficult line-drawing that would be involved in any decision favoring the baker. Waggoner answered that such a situation wouldn’t be covered because “[h]is speech has been completed” in that situation before the customer appeared — but other hypotheticals about who would be exempted from the antidiscrimination law and the extent of the exemption led to less definitive answers.

Charlie Craig, left, and Dave Mullins

Alex Wong / Getty Images

On the other side, Kennedy expressed concern to Colorado solicitor general Frederick Yarger about whether Colorado and the commission have shown “hostility to religion” based on their actions — a detour picked up by Kennedy’s more conservative colleagues.

“Tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual,” Kennedy said pointedly to Yarger, who responded that the legislative record for Colorado’s public accommodations law shows that Colorado spent significant time considering the legislation and the views of religious people before passage, including an exemption for places of worship.

When Kennedy questioned whether opposition to same-sex couples’ marriages could always be considered a type of sexual-orientation discrimination, the ACLU’s David Cole responded that the court had faced a similar question in a 1983 case relating to Bob Jones University’s then-existing ban on interracial dating or marriage. Cole said the court decided “that is race discrimination.” Ultimately, Cole argued, “I don’t think you can carve out an exception to content-neutral … regulation of public accommodation sales.” Essentially, he argued that these kinds of laws are not meant to have exceptions.

Masterpiece Cakeshop and the US government pointed to a different case — the 1995 decision that allowed a private group to ban a gay contingent from its St. Patrick’s Day parade.

Suggesting that the case is an inverse version of the parade case, US Solicitor General Noel Francisco said, “We don’t think you can force a speaker to join the parade.”

That question ultimately could decide the case: Is baking a cake participating in the wedding in a way that sends a message — equivalent to marching in the parade — or not?

The ACLU’s Cole thinks not. He responded to Francisco’s argument: “No one is suggesting the baker has to march in a parade,” and adding that, by way of example, “No one thinks the baker is wishing [someone] happy birthday” when a person buys a birthday cake.

As Kennedy sought out answers to his questions — often focused on the dignity of people on both sides of the case — his colleagues pressed the lawyers on scenarios that could be affected by the eventual decision in Tuesday’s case.

Minutes into the argument, Justice Elena Kagan pondered whether a hair stylist, like a baker, is also creating expressive speech for a wedding that could be refused.

"Why is there no speech in creating a wonderful hairdo?" Kagan asked. "The makeup artist? It's called an artist. It's the makeup artist."

Waggoner said she was not aiming to encompass the work of stylists as protected speech, but the baker's recusal should be protected.

"I'm quite serious, actually, about this," Kagan responded, echoing a sentiment from the court's more liberal justices who had joined Kennedy in ruling for same-sex couples in 2015 that it would be difficult to corral a ruling for Masterpiece Cakeshop in such a way that it doesn't allow creeping forms of discrimination. She raised the possibility of a tailor or a chef who, saying their work is artistic, might wish to refuse to fit a dress or craft a meal for a same-sex couple's event.

Waggoner walked a fine line between saying she wanted a ruling for her client but not a decision that creates a slippery slope, thereby possibly eroding civil rights laws for other classes of people or protecting an endless type of service providers. And yet, she sought a decision open-ended enough that other creative businesses that sell wedding services could turn away same-sex couples. Waggoner drew this line by insisting she wasn't asking to protect tailors and chefs, for example, but rather the baker's cake, which is inherently a message.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned why — even if there is a line to be drawn — the cake baker should be on the exempted side of the line. "The primary purpose of any food is to be eaten," she said. "There are sandwich artists," she said, but a sandwich-maker does't claim to create a First Amendment-protected lunch.

Kagan synthesized the these scenarios into three "axes" of questioning, each one exploring how ruling for the baker opens further questions in a different direction. Many questions centered around which sort of business would be afforded the right to refuse service, and at what point their wares became a constitutionally protected form of expression. "A second axis is, well, why is this only about gay people?” she said, touching on questions about how a ruling could apply to racial discrimination, sex discrimination, or even, as raised at one point, disability discrimination. “Why isn't it about race?” Finally, she questioned how a decision could be confined solely to products for weddings.

"What else counts?" Kagan asked — saying a funeral, bar mitzvah, or birthday could be affected. "This isn't such a small thing."

Justice Samuel Alito seemed to offer Waggoner an opening by suggesting that something functional that also has the artistry of fine architecture qualifies as expressive. But Waggoner objected on that point, saying architecture didn't meet the bar.

Justice Stephen Breyer seized on the stumble, quickly pondering how strange it would be to protect “this cake baker” but not Michelangelo's centuries-old architectural feats in Italy.

DOJ’s Francisco had his own scenario, saying the law should not compel a black sculptor to fashion a cross for white supremacist klansmen. Nor, he said, should a gay opera singer be forced to perform for the notoriously anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church.

From the more conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts tried to put limits on how far a religious-based organization must go if it provides some form of public accommodation. He twice invoked a possible Catholic legal assistance firm, asking if such a group — which generally provides legal support that isn’t religious in nature — should still, then, be required to violate its beliefs by assisting a same-sex couple.

Roberts asked if the hypothetical Catholic group "would have to provide representative services to someone who had a similar problem in connection with a same-sex marriage?"

Frederick Yarger, the solicitor general for the state of Colorado, which is representing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, said yes — if the Catholic group provides the same service to different-sex couples.

Highlighting the line-drawing question, Breyer bluntly stated at one point: "We can't have 42,000 cases, each kind of vegetable that the preparer thinks is something special." He concluded that if the court were to rule for Masterpiece Cakeshop, it would have to provide some clarity about how to approach the broad range of similar types of cases — suggesting that limiting a ruling to cake or making it wholly open-ended is untenable for the court.

Source BuzzFeed - Politics http://ift.tt/2AxRnVa

Read More