Categories
Politics

U.S. deploying 3,000 troops to assist evacuate Kabul embassy employees as Taliban advance

WASHINGTON – The Biden administration will deploy 3,000 troops to Afghanistan to facilitate downsizing at the U.S. embassy in Kabul as the Taliban advance rapidly into the Afghan capital.

The troops, which will consist of a total of three infantry battalions from the Marines and the Army, will be stationed at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul within 24 to 48 hours, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said during a press conference Thursday.

“This is a very tightly focused mission to ensure the orderly reduction of civilian personnel from Afghanistan,” said Kirby, adding that the Pentagon expects to increase its air transport capabilities in the region.

A Taliban fighter guarded the entrance to the police headquarters in Ghazni on August 12, 2021, when the Taliban moved closer to the Afghan capital after taking the city of Ghazni.

AFP | Getty Images

In addition, a US infantry brigade will be stationed in Kuwait if it is needed in Afghanistan to secure the airport.

In the meantime, a joint Army and Air Force unit of 1,000 men is being deployed to Qatar to help process special immigrant visas for Afghan nationals who supported US and NATO forces during the war.

Kirby said that despite the temporary influx of troops into Afghanistan, the US expects to fully withdraw all troops by August 31.

CNBC policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

The US embassy in Kabul on Thursday again urged Americans to leave Afghanistan immediately, warning that their ability to help citizens was “extremely limited” due to deteriorating security conditions and downsizing.

“In view of the evolving security situation, we assume that we will fall back on a core diplomatic presence in Afghanistan,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Ned Price on Thursday.

Price added that Foreign Secretary Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had spoken to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and NATO partners about the new troop movement earlier on Thursday.

Since President Joe Biden’s decision in April to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, the Taliban have made staggering strides on the battlefield, with nearly two-thirds of the nation under their control.

The militants captured the strategically important city of Ghazni on Thursday and brought their front line within 95 miles of Kabul, an astonishing development that comes almost two weeks before US and NATO coalition forces exit.

The Taliban also claim to have captured Kandahar and Herat, Afghanistan’s second and third largest cities. Afghan officials confirmed Thursday night that the Taliban had captured Kandahar, the 12th district, according to a report by The Associated Press.

Zoom In Icon Arrows pointing outwards

Although the Afghan military was vastly outnumbered, the Taliban captured three Afghan provincial capitals and a local army headquarters in Kunduz on Wednesday, according to the AP.

Wednesday’s wins followed a dramatic blitz weekend in which the group captured five provincial capitals in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon has previously said that the ongoing Taliban offensive in the war-torn country violates a commitment made by the group last year to open peace talks with the Afghan government.

“What we are seeing on the ground is that the Taliban are advancing and taking control of district and provincial centers, which clearly shows that they believe it is possible to get government through violence, brutality, violence and repression in great contradiction to their previously stated goal of actually participating in a negotiated political solution, “Kirby told reporters on Wednesday.

Afghan security personnel are patrolling after regaining control of parts of the city of Herat after fighting between the Taliban and Afghan security forces on the outskirts of Herat, 640 kilometers (397 miles) west of Kabul, Afghanistan, on Sunday, August 8, 2021.

Hamed Sarfarazi | AP

He added that while the Pentagon is concerned to see such advances by the Taliban, the Afghan military must now take advantage of nearly two decades of training from US and NATO coalition forces.

“They have the advantage in numbers, operational structure, air force and modern weapons, and it’s really about having the will and leadership to use those advantages for their own benefit,” said Kirby.

“The recipe cannot just be a permanent US presence in Afghanistan that never ends,” he added.

At the White House, Biden told reporters on Tuesday that he had no regrets about his decision to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, despite the Taliban’s shocking gains.

“Look, we’ve spent over a trillion dollars over 20 years, we’ve trained and equipped over 300,000 Afghan forces with modern equipment,” Biden said.

“Afghan leaders need to come together,” added the president. “You have to fight for yourself, fight for your nation.”

– CNBC’s Spencer Kimball contributed to this report from New York.

Categories
Politics

Taliban Seize Key Afghan Metropolis as Biden Speeds Deployment

As his army has all but collapsed and his government’s control shrinks, Mr. Ghani is facing pressure to step down. Yet in a recorded speech televised early Saturday afternoon, he promised only to “prevent further instability” and did not resign. With Taliban forces having captured Pul-i-Alam, a provincial capital only 40 miles from Kabul, Mr. Ghani said he had begun “extensive consultations at home and abroad” and that the results would soon be shared. He said remobilizing Afghanistan’s military forces was a priority.

Still, he has little apparent support at home, and thousands of his soldiers were surrendering. Mr. Ghani was not “worth fighting for,” Omar Zakhilwal, a former finance minister, tweeted on Friday.

With most of Afghanistan under the control of the Taliban, and with Kabul one of the last bastions held by government forces, many of the city’s residents expressed fatalism and fear at the prospect of their home falling into the hands of the militant group.

The Taliban seized Mazar-i-Sharif barely an hour after breaking through the front lines at the city’s edge. Soon after, government security forces and militias fled — including those led by the infamous warlords Marshal Abdul Rashid Dostum and Atta Muhammad Noor — effectively handing control to the insurgents.

In the late 1990s, Mazar-i-Sharif was the site of pitched battles between the Taliban and northern militia groups that managed to push back the hard-line insurgents before the group took over the city in 1998. The victory followed infighting and defections among the militias and culminated with the Taliban’s massacre of hundreds of militia fighters who had surrendered.

During the current Taliban military campaign, Mazar’s defense was almost completely reliant on the reincarnations of some of those very same militias that have all but failed to hold their territory elsewhere in the north. Some are led by Mr. Dostum, a former Afghan vice president who has survived the past 40 years of war by cutting deals and switching sides.

Others were behind Mr. Noor, a longtime power broker and warlord in Balkh Province who fought the Soviets in the 1980s and the Taliban in the 1990s. During the civil war, he was a commander in Jamiat-i-Islami, an Islamist party in the country’s north, and he was a leading figure in the Northern Alliance that supported the American invasion in 2001. Shortly afterward, he became Balkh’s governor, deeply entrenched as the singular authority in the province. He refused to leave his position after Mr. Ghani fired him in 2017.

Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and Christina Goldbaum from Kabul, Afghanistan. Lara Jakes contributed reporting from Washington, and Najim Rahim and Sharif Hassan from Kabul. Adam Nossiter also contributed reporting.

Categories
Politics

Lockdown ends at D.C. navy base after suspect is detained

Arnold Gate of the Anacostia-Bolling joint military base in Washington, Wednesday, April 17, 2013.

Alex Brandon | AP

A lockdown at a U.S. military base in Washington, D.C., was lifted Friday after authorities detained a possibly armed individual who had entered the campus.

The all-clear announcement came at 2:50 p.m., more than two hours after Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling alerted people that the individual, initially described as a Black man with a medium-build carrying a Gucci bag, was on base.

The suspect had been detained by security forces at the base and would be transferred to the Metropolitan Police Department, whose officers were on the scene, a spokesman for the base told CNBC. The spokesman declined to say if the person surrendered willingly or if he was armed at the time he was detained.

Earlier, a spokeswoman for the MPD told CNBC that the department had received a phone call at 12:04 p.m. regarding the sound of gunshots being heard at a location east of the base.

No victims were been identified, the spokeswoman said.

MPD said they would only verify the person was male.

A social media account for the base at 12:37 p.m. first announced the potential threat.

“LOCKDOWN LOCKDOWN LOCKDOWN,” said a post on the base’s Facebook page.

“If you encounter the individual and have a safe route, RUN. If you do not have a safe route to run, HIDE. Barricade your door, turn off the lights and your cell phone ringer, and remain silent. If you are hiding, prepare to FIGHT,” the post said.

An update later described the individual as a Black man with a medium build and “dreads that are mid-back in length.” The person was wearing blue or green pants and a white tank top, and he may have been carrying a bag, according to that Facebook post.

That update, which came more than an hour after the lockdown order was posted, advised people to “continue to shelter in place.”

About 15 minutes beforehand, the Facebook page had alerted people to be on the lookout for two individuals: one a Black male with medium build “with dreads” and “wearing ripped blue jeans,” and the other a Black man wearing green pants and a white top who “may be injured.”

That was revised to just one person in subsequent posts.

Google Earth viewo of Anacostia-Bolling Air Force Base, DC.

Google Earth

Categories
Politics

James Hormel, America’s First Brazenly Homosexual Ambassador, Dies at 88

James C. Hormel, the first openly gay person to represent the United States as ambassador, died in San Francisco on Friday. He was 88.

His death at California Pacific Medical Center has been confirmed by a family spokesman. His son Jimmy said Mr. Hormel had been in the hospital for two weeks.

Mr. Hormel, a philanthropist and grandson of the founder of Hormel Foods, was Ambassador to Luxembourg under President Bill Clinton. But his nomination process met with public opposition, led by conservative Republicans who portrayed Mr. Hormel as a sinner and equated homosexuality with addiction or kleptomaniacs.

Mr. Clinton first nominated Mr. Hormel for this post in 1997. By then, Mr. Hormel had been openly gay for three decades. He also had an impressive track record.

As Dean of the University of Chicago Law School from 1961 to 1967, he founded the James C. Hormel Public Service Program to encourage law students to enter the public service. In the early 1990s, he served as deputy US delegation to the 51st General Assembly of the United Nations, founding director of the City Club of San Francisco, and director of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.

In 1997, Mr. Hormel also served as chairman of Equidex, a San Francisco-based company that manages the Hormel family’s philanthropic endeavors and investments, a position he held for years. He was active as a donor in the Democratic Party for a long time and was a member of the board of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the largest gay and lesbian organization in the country.

But his nomination was an issue for Republican Senators James Inhofe from Oklahoma, Tim Hutchinson from Arkansas and Robert Smith from New Hampshire, who were in the 11. The Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott from Missouri, eventually prevented the Senate from taking the nomination voted.

Senators cited Mr Hormel’s political views and his activism for gay rights as reasons to oppose his nomination. “We are concerned about the political views of this candidate,” said Gary Hoitsma, a spokesman for Mr. Inhofe. “He was an outspoken advocate of things like same-sex marriages that we disagree with.”

Mr. Hormel steadfastly met with each of his skeptics and challenged their resistance. It is unclear whether these talks had any effect, but Mr. Hormel was finally appointed ambassador in 1999 when Mr. Clinton bypassed the normal verification process and appointed him during the recess of Congressional. Mr. Hormel was ambassador until December 2000.

“He was a man of immense integrity and dignity,” said his son. “He was always proud to be who he was and he never tried to change.”

James Catherwood Hormel was born on January 1, 1933 in Austin, Minnesota, the youngest son of Jay and Germaine (Dubois) Hormel and the grandson of George A. Hormel, founder of Hormel Foods. He grew up in Austin, where much of the city worked for the Hormel meat factory that his father ran.

Mr. Hormel received a bachelor’s degree in history from Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania, in 1955, where he met his future wife, Alice McElroy Parker. They married that year and divorced in 1965.

After graduating from Swarthmore, Mr. Hormel earned a law degree from the University of Chicago. He eventually returned to Swarthmore to serve on the college’s board of directors. He met Michael PN Araque in 2008 when Mr. Araque was there for his sophomore year. They got married in 2014.

For over three decades, Mr. Hormel has worked providing resources to organizations that support people living with HIV and AIDS, or that address substance abuse and breast cancer.

Michael Hormel, his husband, said that Mr. Hormel has a “beautiful, very sweet, but full, round singing voice” and that they are both “keen advocates of the arts” who support the San Francisco Symphony and other arts organizations. He added that Mr. Hormel liked simple things like dark chocolate and an orange note in his gin.

Mr. Hormel received a variety of awards for philanthropy, including the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association’s Silver Spur Award for Civic Leadership and a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Human Rights Campaign. He has also received honorary doctorates from Swarthmore, Hamline University in Minnesota, and the California Institute of Integral Studies.

In addition to his husband, who collaborated with him in his philanthropic and charitable work, Mr. Hormel had five children, Alison, Anne, Elizabeth, Jimmy and Sarah; 14 grandchildren; and seven great-grandchildren.

During Mr. Hormel’s time in the hospital, his husband said he pondered how Mr. Hormel’s passion for the legal profession had enabled him to be recognized as his wife and enabled them to spend the final hours of James’ life together .

“Without his determination to make the world fairer and more just,” says Michael Hormel, “I wouldn’t be sure whether even hospitals would have been so open-minded.”

Categories
Politics

New York Meeting will droop Andrew Cuomo impeachment investigation

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo listens during his announcement at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in Manhattan in New York City, New York, U.S., May 11, 2021

Eduardo Munoz | Reuters

The New York state Assembly will suspend its impeachment investigation of Gov. Andrew Cuomo after his resignation takes effect Aug. 25, Speaker Carl Heastie said Friday.

Cuomo announced his resignation earlier this week after the New York state attorney general’s office  found that he sexually harassed at least 11 women and oversaw a hostile working environment in his office.

Heastie said there is no longer a need for the state Assembly Judiciary Committee’s impeachment investigation, which was authorized in March, due to the governor’s resignation. The Judiciary Committee also advised the Assembly that the state constitution does not authorize the legislature to impeach and remove an elected official who is no longer in office, Heastie said.

However, the committee’s work over the last several months did uncover evidence related to allegations against the governor, Heastie said, which “could likely have resulted in articles of impeachment had he not resigned.”

This includes evidence related to sexual harassment and misconduct, the misuse of state resources in relation to the governor’s memoir, and misleading disclosure of nursing home data during the coronavirus pandemic.

Heastie has asked the Judiciary Committee to turn over to “relevant investigatory authorities” all the evidence gathered during the inquiry.

The state attorney general’s office is investigating issues concerning Cuomo’s memoir, while the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York is probing his administration’s actions related to nursing home data.

Investigations into the governor’s sexual misconduct are being carried out by local law enforcement authorities in five jurisdictions: Manhattan, Albany, Westchester, Nassau and Oswego.

“The people of this great state expect and deserve a government they can count on to always have their best interests in mind. Our government should always operate in a transparent, safe and honest manner,” Heastie said in a statement Friday.

Lindsey Boylan, a former aide to the governor and one of the 11 women who came forward with sexual harassment allegations, was critical of the Assembly’s decision.

“The Assembly’s decision to call off its impeachment investigation is an unjust cop out. The public deserves to know the extent of the Governor’s misdeeds and possible crimes. His victims deserve justice and to know he will not be able harm others,” Boylan said in a Twitter post Friday.

In his resignation speech Tuesday, Cuomo said he decided to step down to avoid distracting the state as it grapples with the pandemic and other issues.

“Given the circumstances, the best way I can help now is if I step aside and let government get back to government,” Cuomo said Tuesday. “And therefore that is what I’ll do, because I work for you, and doing the right thing, is doing the right thing for you.”

The governor has denied sexually harassing people, but conceded that some of his comments made women uncomfortable, and he apologized for that.

Cuomo dodging impeachment and removal means he still has the option of running for office again, including jumping into a future gubernatorial election.

Cuomo’s reelection campaign account had just more than $18 million on hand after the first half of the year, overwhelmingly surpassing the funds of New York Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul, who will finish the remainder of the governor’s term when he steps down. Hochul intends to run for governor after she finishes out Cuomo’s term.

Records show Cuomo’s campaign paid more than $280,000 to his attorney’s firm, Glavin PLLC, while he was under investigation by the New York state attorney general’s office.

— CNBC’s Dan Mangan and Brian Schwartz contributed to this report.

Correction: Lindsey Boylan is a former aide to the governor and one of the 11 women who came forward with sexual harassment allegations. An earlier version misspelled her name.

Categories
Politics

Decide Permits Biden’s Narrower Evictions Ban in Place for Now

WASHINGTON – A federal judge on Friday allowed the Biden government’s moratorium on replacement evictions to continue and said it had no power to block such public health emergency policies, despite believing that “the government is not will enforce “when the matter returns to the Supreme Court.

In a 13-page ruling, Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the District Court for the District of Columbia cast doubts about the legality of the policy issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on August 3 in the counties where Covid-19 occurred is, had imposed rages.

The ban replaced an expired, nationwide moratorium, first imposed last September to prevent people from crowding into homeless shelters and with relatives and spreading the virus. The new one is narrower because it only applies at high transfer rates. Still, this category currently covers about 91 percent of the counties in the United States.

Judge Friedrich blocked the statewide version of the moratorium in May, but the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned it and the Supreme Court abandoned that decision in June. On Friday, she ruled the replacement policy was so similar to the original that the earlier appeal court ruling controlled the case – for now.

“Without the DC Circuit ruling,” she wrote, she would immediately prevent the government from enforcing the new eviction ban. “But the court’s hands are tied.”

The Justice Department declined to comment. But in a statement Jen Psaki, White House press secretary said, “The government believes the CDC’s new moratorium is an appropriate use of its legitimate powers to protect public health. We are pleased that the regional court has left the moratorium, but we know that further proceedings are likely in this case. “

Plaintiffs, led by the Alabama Association of Realtors, are expected to promptly bring the case back to the appellate court to expedite its path to the Supreme Court, where five of the nine justices Judge Friedrich are likely to agree that the ban exceeds the emergency powers government under a broad but vague Public Health Act of 1944.

An attorney for the plaintiffs directed a request for comment to Patrick Newton, a spokesman for the National Association of Realtors who is not involved in the case but is helping landlords. He said plaintiffs would appeal, adding, “We are confident that this illegal eviction ban will soon come to an end.”

The government’s power to ban evictions as part of its efforts to combat the pandemic has raised complex legal and political issues. The Biden administration had signaled that it would let an earlier version of the moratorium, which had already been extended several times, expire in late July after a Supreme Court judge warned that it was likely to be legally shaky.

But as the delta variant of the virus increased, and spokeswoman Nancy Pelosi and progressive Democrats called on the White House to reverse course, the government passed a new, tighter moratorium this month – even as Mr Biden made it clear in comments to reporters that it did his chances of being upheld by the Supreme Court were slim.

“Most of the constitutional research says it is unlikely to pass the constitutional test,” he said on Aug. 3. “But there are several key scientists who believe this is possible – and it is worth the effort.”

To signal that the White House understands the moratorium’s longer-term prospects are weak, Ms. Psaki on Friday urged state and local officials to take other steps that could mitigate a virus-spreading wave of mass displacement, including imposing local moratoriums and taking more aggressive steps to distribute $ 46.5 billion that Congress approved as an emergency fund for rent.

A temporary moratorium on the pandemic began to evacuate during the Trump administration. Sometimes Congress has specifically approved this. But when those deadlines expired, the CDC enacted extensions under the 1944 Act, which empowers the government to enact rules it deems necessary to slow the spread of disease between states.

Unable to evict non-paying tenants, landlords sued, questioning whether a nationwide eviction ban was outside of the 1944 law.

In May, Judge Friedrich ruled that plaintiffs would likely prevail and issued an order prohibiting the government from enforcing the ban during the litigation. However, she upheld that ruling even while the government appealed, and the appeals court declined to overturn her stay, stating that contrary to her view, the ban would most likely be found lawful.

At the end of June, the Supreme Court also refused to have her stay lifted and voted 5 to 4 against the immediate blocking of the original eviction ban. But while the government won, the lawsuit came with a strong warning: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh warned that “clear and specific approval from Congress” was required for the moratorium to continue beyond its scheduled expiration in late July.

At this point, the pandemic appeared to be subsiding, and the government thought tens of billions of dollars seized by Congress as an emergency fund for rentals were about to be distributed. With this in mind, the Biden government’s legal and policy teams agreed to allow the moratorium to expire as planned.

But by the end of July, the conditions had changed. The distribution of housing benefits turned out to be dysfunctional, and coronavirus cases increased. When the speedy passage of new laws proved politically impossible, House Democrats, led by Ms. Pelosi, urged Mr. Biden to act unilaterally, at a time when his broader agenda made it dangerous to overthrow all allies in the narrowly divided Congress alienate.

This move was made difficult by the fact that some Biden politicians and members of the press had meanwhile suggested that the Supreme Court’s move in June make an extension of the moratorium illegal. These now awkward comments were, in the view of officials familiar with internal reasoning, an oversimplification of the more complicated reality.

In fact, they advised, the government could maintain its position that it can approve an eviction moratorium under the 1944 law because the Supreme Court’s action in June did not set a definitive, controlling precedent for what that law might mean. However, they also warned that it was likely that the Supreme Court would quickly lift any new moratorium, and such a ruling could also limit the CDC’s flexibility to act in a future public health crisis.

Three days after the end of the nationwide moratorium, the Biden government issued its narrower eviction moratorium until October.

One legal question raised by the case is whether the new facts – the advent of the delta variant and the restricted scope of the ban – distinguish the new moratorium from the old in a legally meaningful way, or whether the main question is how to interpret the moratorium Statute of 1944.

In her judgment on Friday, Judge Friedrich stated that the replacement moratorium was basically so similar to the original that it was considered an extension of the same for which the existing litigation could continue, and not as a new directive for which legal arguments were introduced would have to about.

“The slight differences between the current and previous moratorium do not exempt the former from ordering by this court,” she wrote, adding that although the government “has excluded some districts from the scope of the recent moratorium, the policy remains in effect nationwide.” sharing the same ”. Structure and design like its predecessors, offers continuous coverage with them and claims to rest on the same legal authority. “

Categories
Politics

Gerrymandering may restrict minority voters’ energy even after Census positive aspects

Pendler kommen mit Metro-North während der morgendlichen Hauptverkehrszeit am 8. Juni 2020 in New York City an der Grand Central Station an.

Angela Weiss | AFP | Getty Images

Der Kampf um die Neuordnung der US-Kongressbezirke findet zum ersten Mal seit Jahrzehnten ohne bestimmte bundesstaatliche Schutzmaßnahmen statt, was die Besorgnis aufkommen lässt, dass farbige Wähler ins Abseits geraten könnten, obwohl sie einen größeren Anteil an der Bevölkerung haben.

Das Census Bureau hat diese Woche Daten veröffentlicht, die den Bundesstaaten als Grundlage für die Neuordnung ihrer Kongressbezirke dienen werden. Der Prozess wird die Machtverhältnisse in den Vereinigten Staaten für ein Jahrzehnt beeinflussen und könnte sich in den Zwischenwahlen 2022 auf das eng gespaltene Repräsentantenhaus auswirken.

Die Volkszählungsdaten zeigen, dass die USA in den letzten zehn Jahren vielfältiger geworden sind. Hispanische, asiatische und multirassische Gemeinschaften wuchsen schnell, während die weiße Bevölkerung zum ersten Mal in der Geschichte zurückging.

Obwohl die weiße Bevölkerung immer noch die größte Gruppe in den USA insgesamt ist, schrumpfte sie um 8,6 %. Die hispanische Bevölkerung ist um 23% gewachsen, die asiatische Bevölkerung um 35% und die schwarze Bevölkerung um 5,6%. Auch die multirassische Bevölkerung ist in den letzten zehn Jahren mit einem Anstieg von 276% am ​​schnellsten gewachsen.

CNBC-Politik

Lesen Sie mehr über die politische Berichterstattung von CNBC:

Während diese Daten einen signifikanten Anstieg der Farbgemeinschaften in den letzten zehn Jahren zeigen, könnte ihre politische Repräsentation darunter leiden, wenn Staaten ihre politischen Karten neu erstellen, sagen Experten.

„Es ist sicherlich möglich, dass wir trotz des Bevölkerungswachstums tatsächlich einen Rückgang der Minderheitenvertretung sehen, und wir erwarten, dass dies im Laufe des Jahrzehnts ein Bereich erheblicher Rechtsstreitigkeiten sein wird“, sagte Adam Podowitz-Thomas, leitender Rechtsstratege für das Princeton Gerrymandering Project und das Princeton Electoral Innovation Lab.

Der Oberste Gerichtshof hat 2013 eine wichtige Bestimmung im Voting Rights Act aufgehoben, wonach neun überwiegend südliche Bundesstaaten die Genehmigung für ihre Kongresskarten von der Bundesregierung einholen mussten. Grafschaften in Staaten außerhalb des Südens, wie New York und Kalifornien, unterlagen ebenfalls Vorabgenehmigungsregeln.

Um eine Genehmigung zu erhalten, mussten die Bundesstaaten der Bundesregierung nachweisen, dass ihre Neuverteilungspläne keinen diskriminierenden Zweck oder keine diskriminierenden Auswirkungen aufgrund von Rasse, Hautfarbe oder Zugehörigkeit zu einer sprachlichen Minderheitengruppe hatten, so das Justizministerium.

Das Fehlen einer Vorabklärung in diesem Jahr wird einer stärkeren Gerrymandering Platz machen, die die politische Macht von Minderheitengemeinschaften trotz ihrer wachsenden Bevölkerung in den USA bedrohen könnte, sagen Experten.

„Einzelparteienkontrolle“

Gerrymandering bezieht sich auf die Manipulation von Bezirksleitungen, um eine Partei oder Klasse von Menschen zu begünstigen. Obwohl die Taktik von beiden Parteien angewendet wird, sind die Republikaner in einer stärkeren Position, da sie in mehr Staaten die Kontrolle über eine einzige Partei haben, so Samuel Wang, Direktor des Princeton Gerrymandering Project.

„Die alleinige Kontrolle der Kartenzeichnung in einem Staat ist sicherlich der größte Motivator und Prädiktor für Gerrymandering“, sagte Wang.

Laut einem im Februar vom Brennan Center for Justice veröffentlichten Bericht haben die Republikaner die Kontrolle über das Zeichnen von Kongresskarten in 18 Bundesstaaten und Gesetzeskarten in 20 Bundesstaaten, darunter Florida, Georgia, North Carolina und Texas.

Demokraten hingegen haben dem Bericht zufolge nur die Kontrolle über die Karten des Kongresses in sieben Bundesstaaten und die Karten der Legislative in neun Bundesstaaten. Die verbleibenden Bundesstaaten haben unabhängige Kommissionen und eine parteiübergreifende Kontrolle über die Kartenzeichnung oder sie benötigen keine Karten, da sie Ein-Distrikt-Staaten sind.

Insgesamt haben Republikaner laut NBC News die Möglichkeit, 187 Kongressdistrikte und Demokraten 84 zu ziehen. Die Praxis des Gerrymandering zielt oft auf farbige Wähler ab und kann durch zwei Taktiken erreicht werden, die allgemein als Cracking und Packing bekannt sind.

Die alleinige Kontrolle der Kartenzeichnung in einem Staat ist sicherlich der größte Motivator und Prädiktor für Gerrymandering.

Samuel Wang |

Direktor des Princeton Gerrymandering Project

Cracking beinhaltet die Verteilung einer Minderheitsgemeinschaft auf die Bezirke, so dass sie einen kleinen Teil der Wählerschaft ausmachen und in jedem Bezirk wenig politische Macht haben, so Wang. Aber eine Minderheitsgemeinschaft kann auch in einen einzigen Wahlbezirk gepackt werden, um ihren Einfluss in anderen Bezirken zu verringern, fügte Wang hinzu.

Nach der letzten Volkszählung im Jahr 2010 machten die Republikaner gesetzgeberische Fortschritte, indem sie in einer Reihe von Staaten, in denen sie eine Einparteienkontrolle hatten, gerrymandering machten, so Yurij Rudensky, ein Neuverteilungsberater im Demokratieprogramm des Brennan Centers.

“Es ist wirklich eine Art Subversion dieses demokratischen Prozesses, der unser Regierungssystem bis ins Mark schädigt und erschüttert, weil es bedeutet, dass die Wahlergebnisse vorbestimmt sind und die Wähler ihre Vertreter nicht wirklich wählen können”, sagte Rudensky. “Das haben republikanische Agenten zu Beginn des Jahrzehnts getan.”

Allein das Gerrymandering in Michigan, Ohio und Pennsylvania verschaffte den Republikanern 16 bis 17 Sitze mehr im Kongress, als sie mit unvoreingenommenen Karten gehabt hätten, heißt es in dem Bericht des Brennan Center.

Eine Reihe republikanischer Aktivisten startete auch das Redistricting Majority Project (REDMAP), das 2010 mehr als 30 Millionen US-Dollar für die Neugestaltung von Wahlkarten zugunsten von GOP-Kandidaten aufbrachte, wie aus einer vom Brennan Center erhaltenen Gerichtsakte hervorgeht.

“Dieses Jahr wird das Gerrymandering schrecklich sein”, sagte Steven Ruggles, Demograph von der University of Minnesota. “Ohne die Preclearance können Sie davon ausgehen, dass die Republikaner in Bezug auf Gerrymandering dreister sein werden, sogar noch mehr als im Jahr 2010.”

Das Census Bureau veröffentlichte im April erste Daten auf Bundesstaatsebene, die zur Aufteilung der 435 Sitze im Repräsentantenhaus verwendet wurden, die eine leichte Verschiebung der politischen Macht in den von den Republikanern geführten Süden und Westen zeigten.

Laut den Volkszählungsdaten vom April gewann Texas zwei Sitze im Kongress, während Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina und Oregon jeweils einen hinzugewinnen. Kalifornien, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania und West Virginia verloren jeweils einen Sitz.

Die Demokraten klammern sich an eine knappe Mehrheit im Repräsentantenhaus. Sie kontrollieren 220 Sitze, während die GOP 212 hat. Es gibt drei freie Stellen.

Forderungen nach Reformen

Während es in diesem Umverteilungszyklus wahrscheinlich zu Gerrymandering kommen wird, könnte die Reform die Republikaner zwingen, sich stattdessen an farbige Wähler zu wenden, sagte Simone Leeper, Rechtsberaterin beim Campaign Legal Center.

“Es geht darum, ob sie beim Gerrymandering erfolgreich sind oder nicht. Wenn sie es sind, sind sie bestimmten Gemeinschaften weniger verantwortlich”, sagte Leeper. “Aber wenn wir das Gerrymandering stoppen können, können wir sie zur Rechenschaft ziehen und erwarten, dass sie versuchen, diese Wähler zu gewinnen.”

Bei den Wahlen 2020 gewann der damalige Präsident Donald Trump, ein Republikaner, die weiße Stimme mit 55 % bis 43 %, während der Demokrat Joe Biden, der Sieger, laut Pew Research die Stimmen der Schwarzen, Hispanics und Asiaten mit beträchtlichem Abstand gewann. Bei den hispanischen Wählern erzielte Trump jedoch erhebliche Zuwächse.

Auf Bundesebene, sagte Leeper, könnte die Verabschiedung kritischer Gesetze zur Bekämpfung von Gerrymandering beitragen. Dazu gehören der John Lewis Voting Rights Act, der die Vorabgenehmigungspflicht für die meisten Südstaaten wiederherstellen würde, und der For The People Act, der ein Verbot von parteiischer Gerrymandering enthält.

Die Wähler stellen sich am ersten Tag der vorzeitigen Abstimmung in Brooklyn, New York, am 24. Oktober 2020, vor dem Barclays Center, das als Wahllokal dient, an, um ihre Stimmzettel abzugeben.

Jeenah Mond | Reuters

Aber auch auf Landesebene können Minderheitengemeinschaften und Anwälte aktiv werden, sagte Podowitz-Thomas.

Nach Angaben der National Conference of State Legislatures haben ab 2019 acht Bundesstaaten die Möglichkeit, öffentliche Aussagen über die Umverteilung zu treffen, was es den Bürgern ermöglicht, sich in den Prozess einzubringen.

Podowitz-Thomas sagte, Einzelpersonen müssen den Neuverteilungsprozess ihres Staates genau verfolgen und an so vielen öffentlichen Anhörungen wie möglich teilnehmen, um auf eine Reform des Gerrymandering zu drängen.

„Wir sind optimistisch, dass Reformbefürworter und Durchschnittsbürger, die faire Karten wollen, sicherstellen, dass die Karten unabhängig davon, was die Wahlen 2022 bringen, den Willen der Wähler widerspiegeln und nicht nur parteiische Interessen widerspiegeln können“, sagte Podowitz-Thomas.

Allerdings kann das Gerrymandering nur abgeschwächt werden, wenn die Reform erfolgreich ist, bevor die Fristen für die Umverteilung schnell näher kommen.

Die am Donnerstag veröffentlichten Volkszählungsdaten kamen aufgrund der Pandemie Monate später als erwartet. Es gab auch Vorwürfe politischer Einmischung gegen die Trump-Administration, die es versäumte, der Umfrage eine Frage zur Staatsbürgerschaft hinzuzufügen. Die Verzögerung führte dazu, dass die Staaten sich bemühten, vor den Zwischenwahlen im nächsten Jahr neue Distrikte zu gründen.

“Viele Bundesstaaten werden mit beschleunigten Neuverteilungsfristen konfrontiert”, sagte Podowitz-Thomas. „Einige Staaten werden die verkürzten Zeitrahmen als Gründe nennen, den Prozess zu überstürzen und Karten schnell zu übergeben Termin.”

Über den diesjährigen Neuverteilungszyklus hinaus können Bundesstaaten Gerrymandering verhindern, indem sie überparteiliche unabhängige Kommissionen einsetzen, um den Neuverteilungsprozess zu überwachen.

Laut dem Brennan Center-Bericht sind Arizona, Kalifornien, Colorado und Michigan die einzigen Bundesstaaten mit solchen Kommissionen für die Neuverteilung durch den Kongress und die Gesetzgebung. Diese Kommissionen haben “die Aussichten für gerechtere Karten” in diesen Staaten “erheblich verbessert”, heißt es in dem Bericht.

Solche Kommissionen “wäre eine langfristige Lösung, um den Partisanen die Macht der Kartenzeichnung aus den Händen zu nehmen und sie in die Hände zu legen”. [the hands of] überparteiliche, die keinen parteiischen Gerrymander machen wollen”, sagte Leeper.

Einige Republikaner haben sich jedoch gegen die Reform des Gerrymandering ausgesprochen. Laut The Detroit News reichte die Michigan Republican Party 2019 sogar eine Klage ein, um die Bildung einer unabhängigen Neuverteilungskommission zu blockieren, die von den Wählern im Bundesstaat genehmigt wurde.

Mehrere Interessenvertretungen von Minderheiten äußerten die Notwendigkeit, die Reform nach der Veröffentlichung der Volkszählungsdaten am Donnerstag neu einzugrenzen.

„Der Neuzuordnungsprozess muss sicherstellen, dass asiatische Amerikaner und andere ethnische Minderheiten eine vollständige und faire Möglichkeit haben, Kandidaten ihrer Wahl zu wählen“, sagte Jerry Vattamala, Direktor des Demokratieprogramms beim Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, in einer Erklärung.

Thomas A. Saenz, Präsident des Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, sagte, die Organisation erwarte, dass alle Umverteilungen den Veränderungen der Latino-Bevölkerung in den USA Rechnung tragen

„Wir erwarten, dass diese gesetzlichen Verpflichtungen sowohl in Staaten mit seit langem bedeutender und wachsender Latino-Bevölkerung wie Kalifornien, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado und Illinois als auch in Staaten und lokalen Gebieten erfüllt werden, in denen die Latino-Bevölkerung erst jetzt lebt eine kritische Masse zu erreichen, um die Schaffung von Bezirken zu rechtfertigen, in denen Latino-Wähler die Möglichkeit haben, Kandidaten ihrer Wahl zu wählen”, sagte Saenz in einer Erklärung.

Die National Association for the Advancement of Colored People sagte auch, sie werde sich für einen fairen Umverteilungsprozess einsetzen, der die Beteiligung der Gemeinschaft fördert.

„NAACP ermutigt die Wähler, sich am Neuverteilungsprozess zu beteiligen, indem sie sich für einen fairen Prozess einsetzt, der den Beitrag der Gemeinschaft wertschätzt, Kriterien für die Neuverteilung, einschließlich der Einhaltung von Abschnitt 2 des Stimmrechtsgesetzes, und Karten, die die zunehmend vielfältige Bevölkerung dieser Nation widerspiegeln“, NAACP Präsident und CEO Das sagte Derrick Johnson am Freitag in einer Erklärung.

Abschnitt 2 des Stimmrechtsgesetzes verbietet Wahlpraktiken, einschließlich Neuverteilungsplänen, die aufgrund von Rasse, Hautfarbe oder Zugehörigkeit zu einer sprachlichen Minderheit diskriminieren.

Categories
Politics

C.D.C. Panel Recommends Third Vaccine Dose for Immunocompromised

Dr. Jose U. Scher, a rheumatologist at NYU Langone Health who has studied the effect of vaccines on the immunocompromised, said that the C.D.C. vote — and the guidance from its experts — would help patients who had been agonizing over whether to seek out a third shot. Previously, he said, when people tested themselves for antibodies after vaccination and came up empty, “there were no tools for us to respond to that.”

Updated 

Aug. 13, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ET

“We now know that this population was being left behind,” he said.

Immunocompromised people will not need a doctor’s permission or a prescription to get a third shot, C.D.C. officials said. They will need only to attest that they meet the eligibility requirements for an additional dose. Anyone else, including people with chronic medical conditions, like diabetes or asthma, should not be getting third shots at this point, they said.

Dr. Scher predicted that this honor-system approach could be messy. “I don’t know if there’s any way of corroborating someone’s claim” of being immunocompromised, he said. Requiring some kind of proof, such as a doctor’s note, would be a better process, he said.

The updated F.D.A. authorizations do not apply to immunocompromised people who received the single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The C.D.C. panel did not offer recommendations on additional shots for that group, which is believed to be small. But the lack of guidance from either the F.D.A. or C.D.C. has left that group in limbo.

Understand the State of Vaccine and Mask Mandates in the U.S.

    • Mask rules. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in July recommended that all Americans, regardless of vaccination status, wear masks in indoor public places within areas experiencing outbreaks, a reversal of the guidance it offered in May. See where the C.D.C. guidance would apply, and where states have instituted their own mask policies. The battle over masks has become contentious in some states, with some local leaders defying state bans.
    • Vaccine rules . . . and businesses. Private companies are increasingly mandating coronavirus vaccines for employees, with varying approaches. Such mandates are legally allowed and have been upheld in court challenges.
    • College and universities. More than 400 colleges and universities are requiring students to be vaccinated against Covid-19. Almost all are in states that voted for President Biden.
    • Schools. On Aug. 11, California announced that it would require teachers and staff of both public and private schools to be vaccinated or face regular testing, the first state in the nation to do so. A survey released in August found that many American parents of school-age children are opposed to mandated vaccines for students, but were more supportive of mask mandates for students, teachers and staff members who do not have their shots.  
    • Hospitals and medical centers. Many hospitals and major health systems are requiring employees to get a Covid-19 vaccine, citing rising caseloads fueled by the Delta variant and stubbornly low vaccination rates in their communities, even within their work force.
    • New York. On Aug. 3, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York announced that proof of vaccination would be required of workers and customers for indoor dining, gyms, performances and other indoor situations, becoming the first U.S. city to require vaccines for a broad range of activities. City hospital workers must also get a vaccine or be subjected to weekly testing. Similar rules are in place for New York State employees.
    • At the federal level. The Pentagon announced that it would seek to make coronavirus vaccinations mandatory for the country’s 1.3 million active-duty troops “no later” than the middle of September. President Biden announced that all civilian federal employees would have to be vaccinated against the coronavirus or submit to regular testing, social distancing, mask requirements and restrictions on most travel.

“We do understand the challenges here, and because of that we will continue to work very diligently to try to have a solution,” Dr. Peter Marks, the F.D.A.’s top vaccine regulator, said at the panel’s meeting. The F.D.A. is waiting on more data that it expects to receive this month, including Johnson & Johnson’s clinical trial data on the safety and efficacy of two doses.

Dr. Kathleen Dooling, a C.D.C. official, said that patients who qualify for a third dose should ideally seek out the vaccine they already received, but that they could take the other two-dose vaccine if necessary.

Presenting studies that supported giving third doses, Dr. Dooling emphasized that immunocompromised people who receive a third dose should still wear a mask, maintain social distancing with people they do not live with, and avoid crowds and poorly ventilated indoor spaces. She said that people with weakened immune systems had also been shown to be at greater risk of breakthrough infection.

Categories
Politics

U.S. decide denies landlords’ request to dam CDC nationwide eviction ban

Housing advocates and New York City renters march to call on Governor Andrew Cuomo to cancel rent on October 10, 2020 amid the pandemic.

Andrew Lichtenstein | Corbis News | Getty Images

A US judge on Friday denied a motion by rental groups to block the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s new eviction moratorium.

The decision of US District Judge Dabney Friedrich is a win for the Biden government.

More than 11 million Americans are left behind with their rentals, prompting the CDC to issue a new eviction ban earlier this month after the previous one expired on July 31. This protection is valid until October 3rd and for places where Covid rates remain high.

Broker groups are likely to appeal against Friedrich’s decision.

More from Personal Finance:
The federal rent subsidy is still not reaching the people
There are still six months free of federal student loan payments
Take these financial steps before you quit your job

The CDC’s eviction ban has faced numerous legal challenges and landlords have criticized it, saying they couldn’t afford to house people for free or shoulder the land’s massive arrears in rent. On Thursday the US Supreme Court lifted at least part of the eviction moratorium in New York.

Housing advocates say evictions must be banned until states distribute the $ 45 billion in rental subsidies provided by Congress. According to a recent analysis by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, only around $ 4.2 billion of that money has reached households.

“It is imperative that cities and states provide rental subsidies to vulnerable communities as soon as possible to prevent evictions and the public health impact in all of our communities,” said Emily Benfer, visiting law professor at Wake Forest University.

Categories
Politics

Moderates Threaten Stalemate Over Price range Vote and Infrastructure

WASHINGTON – Nine moderate House Democrats told Spokeswoman Nancy Pelosi on Friday that they will not vote for a budget decision that will pave the way for a $ 3.5 trillion social package to be passed later this year, until one dated Senate-approved infrastructure law passed the house and is legally signed.

The commitment in a letter early Friday is a major rift that threatens the carefully choreographed, two-pronged efforts of the Democrats in Congress and the Biden administration, both a trillion-dollar non-party infrastructure deal and an even more ambitious – but partisan one – To adopt the contract. social policy measure. The nine members of the House of Representatives are more than enough to block scrutiny of the draft budget in a house where Democrats have a three-seat majority.

The Senate passed the infrastructure bill on Tuesday with 69 votes, including 19 Republicans. It then approved a $ 3.5 trillion budget resolution in a party line vote early Wednesday that would allow Democrats in both houses to pass the social policy bill this fall without fear of a Republican Senate filibuster say goodbye.

To reassure more liberal Democrats who are more interested in the social policy law, Ms. Pelosi promised that she would not put the infrastructure law to the vote in the House of Representatives until the Senate passes the social policy law.

Given the 50-50 partisan split in the Senate, this may not happen well into the fall. And moderate Democrats in the House of Representatives say delaying an infrastructure vote runs the risk of unforeseen events derailing them.

“With the livelihoods of hard-working American families at stake, we simply cannot afford months of unnecessary delays and risk wasting this century’s bipartisan infrastructure package,” the letter submitted to and submitted to the New York Times reads Josh Gottheimer, Democrat of New Jersey, as lead author. “It’s time to shovel shovels in the ground and get people to work.”

Complicating the situation is that more than half of the nearly 100-strong Progressive Caucus in Congress take the opposite position, saying they won’t vote for the Infrastructure Bill until they have a sociopolitical measure that funds their priorities: climate change , Education, healthcare, family vacations, childcare and elderly care.

With the promised defectors from the Progressive Caucus, it appears that Ms. Pelosi is facing a stalemate as she does not have the votes to either get the infrastructure bill to President Biden’s desk or move forward the budgetary resolution needed to bring final Republican legislation forward Protect disability.

So far, most Democrats in Congress have been optimistic that both measures will find enough support.

“This is President Biden’s agenda, this is the Democrats’ agenda, this is what we walked on and what we need to deliver,” Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Progressive Caucus leader, said of the social policy bill. “It is important for us not to miss the target and I see no conflict.”

But their moderate counterparts do. “We will not consider voting for a budget decision until the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Bill is passed by the House of Representatives and comes into effect,” they wrote.

The draft letter was signed by Mr. Gottheimer and representatives Filemon Vela from Texas, Henry Cuellar from Texas, Ed Case from Hawaii, Kurt Schrader from Oregon, Carolyn Bourdeaux from Georgia, Jared Golden from Maine, Vicente Gonzalez from Texas and Jim Costa from California.