Exclusive: Dozens of former Republican officials in talks to form anti-Trump third party

cincybearcat · February 2021

DewieCox said:

Neither GOP voters nor candidates truly care about fewer abortions or it wouldn’t really be an issue. People that vote on it want 0 abortions and will twist the logic to serve that narrative.

That is generalizing. That said, instead of working pathways to fewer abortions, many have pretended to focus solely on a ban.

Merkin Baller · February 2021

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

this discussion lends to the argumentbthat by and large its not pro-life its pro-birth. After that get a fucking job kid.....

People who believe in choice also have kids, and also need help with the expense of raising a child. I assume the last sentence is sarcasm, but what's your real opinion? Are you against this type of help for lower/middle income families?

Yeah not real sure how abortion became a part of this.

For me it was when it was when the birth rate issue was presented as motivation for conservatives to get on board.

I inferred from that that conservatives might get behind it as it might mean less abortions.

If I misinterpreted, that's on me.

Maybe it means less abortions to them, maybe it just means a higher birth rate. But either way, why does it matter what their motivation is if you agree with the concept. That just makes it more likely to pass. Like I said earlier, if Bernie rolled this exact same program out, not talking about birth rates, would we D's support it reflexively? I think maybe so. Just because Bernie rolls it out doesn't make it more less likely to incentivize having babies or reducing abortion. And at the end of the day, is there anyone against fewer abortions?

I don't think either of the boldfaced things would motivate conservatives to vote for such a program, because I genuinely believe the majority of them don't care as much about those things as they let on.

FWIW, I didn't reflexively support it before I knew who presented it... I only found out it was Romney when you mentioned that in a reply, so your point about Bernie doesn't really apply, at least not to me.

Well I can tell you the the conservative intelligentsia are lining up behind this program. I mean people like Ramesh, Douthat, Dreher and other non Trumpy conservatives. From their view, the birth rate is a reason they are putting forth. Now they aren’t voting senators, but these guys influence senators.

So do you think this is a good idea or bad one?

If there's legitimate conservative support behind it, then I stand corrected.

Again, I am in favor of helping families who need the help, I'm not anti-welfare. With that being said, I would need to read up more on this to answer your question.

mrussel1 · February 2021

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

this discussion lends to the argumentbthat by and large its not pro-life its pro-birth. After that get a fucking job kid.....

People who believe in choice also have kids, and also need help with the expense of raising a child. I assume the last sentence is sarcasm, but what's your real opinion? Are you against this type of help for lower/middle income families?

Yeah not real sure how abortion became a part of this.

For me it was when it was when the birth rate issue was presented as motivation for conservatives to get on board.

I inferred from that that conservatives might get behind it as it might mean less abortions.

If I misinterpreted, that's on me.

Maybe it means less abortions to them, maybe it just means a higher birth rate. But either way, why does it matter what their motivation is if you agree with the concept. That just makes it more likely to pass. Like I said earlier, if Bernie rolled this exact same program out, not talking about birth rates, would we D's support it reflexively? I think maybe so. Just because Bernie rolls it out doesn't make it more less likely to incentivize having babies or reducing abortion. And at the end of the day, is there anyone against fewer abortions?

I don't think either of the boldfaced things would motivate conservatives to vote for such a program, because I genuinely believe the majority of them don't care as much about those things as they let on.

FWIW, I didn't reflexively support it before I knew who presented it... I only found out it was Romney when you mentioned that in a reply, so your point about Bernie doesn't really apply, at least not to me.

Well I can tell you the the conservative intelligentsia are lining up behind this program. I mean people like Ramesh, Douthat, Dreher and other non Trumpy conservatives. From their view, the birth rate is a reason they are putting forth. Now they aren’t voting senators, but these guys influence senators.

So do you think this is a good idea or bad one?

If there's legitimate conservative support behind it, then I stand corrected.

Again, I am in favor of helping families who need the help, I'm not anti-welfare. With that being said, I would need to read up more on this to answer your question.

Fair enough. I am not saying I support it yet either, but I support the concept to start. I don't know how it all nets out when you start removing tax breaks and the EITC and replace it with straight cash. Will it be a net positive, particularly to the lower income? I'm not sure. But I'm definitely open to the concept and I welcome center right R's dealing with real problems, rather than fantasy stuff. To see actual forward looking legislation being proposed is a step in teh right direction. It also helps move past the age of Trump.

DewieCox · February 2021

cincybearcat said:

DewieCox said:

Neither GOP voters nor candidates truly care about fewer abortions or it wouldn’t really be an issue. People that vote on it want 0 abortions and will twist the logic to serve that narrative.

That is generalizing. That said, instead of working pathways to fewer abortions, many have pretended to focus solely on a ban.

Is it? They’re not phased by the fact that abortion rates have dropped consistently for decades and still chastise pro choice more than any other issue.

Merkin Baller · February 2021

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

mrussel1 said:

Merkin Baller said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

this discussion lends to the argumentbthat by and large its not pro-life its pro-birth. After that get a fucking job kid.....

People who believe in choice also have kids, and also need help with the expense of raising a child. I assume the last sentence is sarcasm, but what's your real opinion? Are you against this type of help for lower/middle income families?

Yeah not real sure how abortion became a part of this.

For me it was when it was when the birth rate issue was presented as motivation for conservatives to get on board.

I inferred from that that conservatives might get behind it as it might mean less abortions.

If I misinterpreted, that's on me.

Maybe it means less abortions to them, maybe it just means a higher birth rate. But either way, why does it matter what their motivation is if you agree with the concept. That just makes it more likely to pass. Like I said earlier, if Bernie rolled this exact same program out, not talking about birth rates, would we D's support it reflexively? I think maybe so. Just because Bernie rolls it out doesn't make it more less likely to incentivize having babies or reducing abortion. And at the end of the day, is there anyone against fewer abortions?

I don't think either of the boldfaced things would motivate conservatives to vote for such a program, because I genuinely believe the majority of them don't care as much about those things as they let on.

FWIW, I didn't reflexively support it before I knew who presented it... I only found out it was Romney when you mentioned that in a reply, so your point about Bernie doesn't really apply, at least not to me.

Well I can tell you the the conservative intelligentsia are lining up behind this program. I mean people like Ramesh, Douthat, Dreher and other non Trumpy conservatives. From their view, the birth rate is a reason they are putting forth. Now they aren’t voting senators, but these guys influence senators.

So do you think this is a good idea or bad one?

If there's legitimate conservative support behind it, then I stand corrected.

Again, I am in favor of helping families who need the help, I'm not anti-welfare. With that being said, I would need to read up more on this to answer your question.

Fair enough. I am not saying I support it yet either, but I support the concept to start. I don't know how it all nets out when you start removing tax breaks and the EITC and replace it with straight cash. Will it be a net positive, particularly to the lower income? I'm not sure. But I'm definitely open to the concept and I welcome center right R's dealing with real problems, rather than fantasy stuff. To see actual forward looking legislation being proposed is a step in teh right direction. It also helps move past the age of Trump.

Agreed.

static111 · February 2021

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Smellyman said:

the world doesn't need more people

Agreed and furthermore the world doesn’t need more Americans lol. Less people means more resources. And if we aren’t forcing people not to have kids, or killing kids then a smaller population is great.

So what about helping existing families, pulling them out of poverty? The birth rate issue is how you get conservatives on board.

Hey I’m all for helping pull people out of poverty, but tying it to increasing birth rates would be ridiculous, and outside of a bubble would lead to plenty of other problems. Fucking conservatives man. Like why not just help raise people out of poverty because it’s the right thing to do and not to make “sky daddy” happy that your country’s population is growing and glorying his name 🤦‍♂️

If you like the proposal, why do you care what the GOP incentive is? If Bernie Sanders put out that plan while just saying " It's to help lower and middle class families raise their children", would your reaction have been the same? Would you have been against it?

I said I’m for helping Americans out of poverty. I’m for that, but against the religious grandstanding or nationalism birth rate incentives tied to it. I just question why there has to be some convoluted reason for some people getting behind helping others that need help.

Halifax2TheMax · February 2021

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Smellyman said:

the world doesn't need more people

Agreed and furthermore the world doesn’t need more Americans lol. Less people means more resources. And if we aren’t forcing people not to have kids, or killing kids then a smaller population is great.

So what about helping existing families, pulling them out of poverty? The birth rate issue is how you get conservatives on board.

Hey I’m all for helping pull people out of poverty, but tying it to increasing birth rates would be ridiculous, and outside of a bubble would lead to plenty of other problems. Fucking conservatives man. Like why not just help raise people out of poverty because it’s the right thing to do and not to make “sky daddy” happy that your country’s population is growing and glorying his name 🤦‍♂️

If you like the proposal, why do you care what the GOP incentive is? If Bernie Sanders put out that plan while just saying " It's to help lower and middle class families raise their children", would your reaction have been the same? Would you have been against it?

I said I’m for helping Americans out of poverty. I’m for that, but against the religious grandstanding or nationalism birth rate incentives tied to it. I just question why there has to be some convoluted reason for some people getting behind helping others that need help.

Fearing elimination of the white race is why.

mrussel1 · February 2021

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Smellyman said:

the world doesn't need more people

Agreed and furthermore the world doesn’t need more Americans lol. Less people means more resources. And if we aren’t forcing people not to have kids, or killing kids then a smaller population is great.

So what about helping existing families, pulling them out of poverty? The birth rate issue is how you get conservatives on board.

Hey I’m all for helping pull people out of poverty, but tying it to increasing birth rates would be ridiculous, and outside of a bubble would lead to plenty of other problems. Fucking conservatives man. Like why not just help raise people out of poverty because it’s the right thing to do and not to make “sky daddy” happy that your country’s population is growing and glorying his name 🤦‍♂️

If you like the proposal, why do you care what the GOP incentive is? If Bernie Sanders put out that plan while just saying " It's to help lower and middle class families raise their children", would your reaction have been the same? Would you have been against it?

I said I’m for helping Americans out of poverty. I’m for that, but against the religious grandstanding or nationalism birth rate incentives tied to it. I just question why there has to be some convoluted reason for some people getting behind helping others that need help.

Fearing elimination of the white race is why.

Who cares the reason? I dropped the red herring out of curiosity and all the commentary ignores the lower and middle class direct benefit.

Halifax2TheMax · February 2021

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

static111 said:

Smellyman said:

the world doesn't need more people

Agreed and furthermore the world doesn’t need more Americans lol. Less people means more resources. And if we aren’t forcing people not to have kids, or killing kids then a smaller population is great.

So what about helping existing families, pulling them out of poverty? The birth rate issue is how you get conservatives on board.

Hey I’m all for helping pull people out of poverty, but tying it to increasing birth rates would be ridiculous, and outside of a bubble would lead to plenty of other problems. Fucking conservatives man. Like why not just help raise people out of poverty because it’s the right thing to do and not to make “sky daddy” happy that your country’s population is growing and glorying his name 🤦‍♂️

If you like the proposal, why do you care what the GOP incentive is? If Bernie Sanders put out that plan while just saying " It's to help lower and middle class families raise their children", would your reaction have been the same? Would you have been against it?

I said I’m for helping Americans out of poverty. I’m for that, but against the religious grandstanding or nationalism birth rate incentives tied to it. I just question why there has to be some convoluted reason for some people getting behind helping others that need help.

Fearing elimination of the white race is why.

Who cares the reason? I dropped the red herring out of curiosity and all the commentary ignores the lower and middle class direct benefit.

It’s a wink wink nod nod. Mittens is at least bright enough to know that demographics aren’t on “their side.” And as you well know, a proposal is far from passed upon legislation resulting in law.

Halifax2TheMax · February 2021

So much winning. In fact, there’s so much winning that some saw it when POOTWH descended the escalator so many moons ago.

https://www.boston.com/uncategorized/national-news/2021/02/10/theres-nothing-left-why-thousands-of-republicans-are-leaving-the-party

The Juggler · February 2021

Posted in the Trump thread. Here too, for good measure.
Donald Trump has destroyed the republican party. Far right extremists want a new Trumpier Patriot party. Reasonable republicans want a more center-right party.

The democrats have a real chance to capitalize right now.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-party-exclusive/exclusive-dozens-of-former-republican-officials-in-talks-to-form-anti-trump-third-party-idUSKBN2AB07P

Exclusive: Dozens of former Republican officials in talks to form anti-Trump third party

By Tim Reid

5 MIN READ

(Reuters) - Dozens of former Republican officials, who view the party as unwilling to stand up to former President Donald Trump and his attempts to undermine U.S. democracy, are in talks to form a center-right breakaway party, four people involved in the discussions told Reuters.

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump waves as he arrives at Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., January 20, 2021. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

The early stage discussions include former elected Republicans, former officials in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Trump, ex-Republican ambassadors and Republican strategists, the people involved say.

More than 120 of them held a Zoom call last Friday to discuss the breakaway group, which would run on a platform of “principled conservatism,” including adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law - ideas those involved say have been trashed by Trump.

The plan would be to run candidates in some races but also to endorse center-right candidates in others, be they Republicans, independents or Democrats, the people say.

Evan McMullin, who was chief policy director for the House Republican Conference and ran as an independent in the 2016 presidential election, told Reuters that he co-hosted the Zoom call with former officials concerned about Trump’s grip on Republicans and the nativist turn the party has taken.

Three other people confirmed to Reuters the call and the discussions for a potential splinter party, but asked not to be identified.

Among the call participants were John Mitnick, general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security under Trump; former Republican congressman Charlie Dent; Elizabeth Neumann, deputy chief of staff in the Homeland Security Department under Trump; and Miles Taylor, another former Trump homeland security official.

The talks highlight the wide intraparty rift over Trump’s false claims of election fraud and the deadly Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol. Most Republicans remain fiercely loyal to the former president, but others seek a new direction for the party.

The House of Representatives impeached Trump on Jan. 13 on a charge of inciting an insurrection by exhorting thousands of supporters to march on the Capitol on the day Congress was gathered to certify Democrat Joe Biden’s election victory.

Call participants said they were particularly dismayed by the fact that more than half of the Republicans in Congress - eight senators and 139 House representatives - voted to block certification of Biden’s election victory just hours after the Capitol siege.

Most Republican senators have also indicated they will not support the conviction of Trump in this week’s Senate impeachment trial.

“Large portions of the Republican Party are radicalizing and threatening American democracy,” McMullin told Reuters. “The party needs to recommit to truth, reason and founding ideals or there clearly needs to be something new.”

‘THESE LOSERS’

Asked about the discussions for a third party, Jason Miller, a Trump spokesman, said: “These losers left the Republican Party when they voted for Joe Biden.”

A representative for the Republican National Committee referred to a recent statement from Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.

“If we continue to attack each other and focus on attacking on fellow Republicans, if we have disagreements within our party, then we are losing sight of 2022 (elections),” McDaniel said on Fox News last month.

“The only way we’re going to win is if we come together,” she said.

The Biden White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

McMullin said just over 40% of those on last week’s Zoom call backed the idea of a breakaway, national third party. Another option under discussion is to form a “faction” that would operate either inside the current Republican Party or outside it.

Names under consideration for a new party include the Integrity Party and the Center Right Party. If it is decided instead to form a faction, one name under discussion is the Center Right Republicans.

Members are aware that the U.S. political landscape is littered with the remains of previous failed attempts at national third parties.

“But there is a far greater hunger for a new political party out there than I have ever experienced in my lifetime,” one participant said.

Reporting by Tim Reid; Additional reporting by Jarrett Renshaw; Editing by Soyoung Kim and Peter Cooney

mickeyrat · February 2021

Opinion: Trump left them to die. 43 Senate Republicans still licked his boots.

Senate votes to acquit Trump in second impeachment trial

On Feb. 13, Republican senators cast enough votes to acquit former president Donald Trump on an impeachment charge. (The Washington Post)

Opinion by

Dana Milbank

Columnist

Feb. 13, 2021 at 6:37 p.m. EST

In the end, the darkest truth of Donald Trump’s crime came to light.

As his marauders sacked the Capitol on Jan. 6 in their bloody attempt to overturn the election, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy called the then-president and pleaded for Trump to call off the attack.

Trump refused, essentially telling McCarthy he got what he deserved. Trump was, in effect, content to let members of Congress die.

That damning account, in a statement Friday night from Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.), a Republican who defended Trump during his first impeachment, momentarily threw the Senate’s impeachment trial into chaos on its final day.

Trump’s lawyers, in their slashing, largely fictitious defense, claimed that Trump was “horrified” by the violence, hadn’t known that Vice President Mike Pence was in danger and took “immediate steps” to counter the rioting.

But Herrera Beutler revealed such claims to be a lie. When McCarthy “finally reached the president on January 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was antifa that had breached the Capitol,” she wrote. McCarthy, she continued, “refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters. That’s when, according to McCarthy, the president said: ‘Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.’ ”

On Feb. 13, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said former president Trump could still be held accountable within the criminal justice system. (The Washington Post)

Her account wasn’t seriously or substantively refuted. On Saturday afternoon, senators agreed that Herrera Beutler’s statement would be entered into the trial record as evidence.

Even knowing this, most Republican senators, as long expected, voted to acquit Trump, a craven surrender to the political imperative not to cross the demagogue. But the impeachment trial was not in vain, for it revealed the ugly truth: Trump knew lawmakers’ lives were in danger from his violent supporters, and instead of helping the people’s representatives escape harm, Trump scoffed.

Republicans scrambled to limit the damage of Herrera Beutler’s revelation. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who had feigned being open to conviction, abandoned the pretense and, minutes before the Senate convened Saturday, emailed his Republican colleagues that he would vote to acquit.

On the Senate floor, Trump counsel Michael van der Veen, a personal-injury lawyer by day, tried in every way to demonstrate his indignation at the late revelation. He shouted. He growled. He gesticulated madly. He pounded the lectern. He stomped. He spit out words: “Antics.” “Rumor.” “Report.” “Innuendo.” “False narrative!” He actually declared that “it doesn’t matter what happened after the insurgence into the Capitol building.” So what if Trump scoffed at McCarthy’s desperate entreaty to save lawmakers’ lives?

Sputtering like the Looney Tunes character Sylvester the Cat, van der Veen declared: “Nancy Pelosi’s deposition needs to be taken. Vice President Harris’s deposition absolutely needs to be taken. And not by Zoom. None of these depositions should be done by Zoom. We didn’t do this hearing by Zoom! These depositions should be done — in person, in my office, in Philly-delphia!”

Sufferin’ succotash!

Laughter broke out in the chamber.

“I don’t know why you’re laughing,” he responded. “It is civil process. … I’ll slap subpoenas on a good number of people.” He seemed to think he was arguing a slip-and-fall case in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas.

Republicans joined the theatrics.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.), an always-Trumper, was seen pointing at Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) and saying “blame you” in a raised voice. Romney was one of five Republicans who joined all 50 Democrats in voting to allow witness testimony.

Sen. Mike Lee (Utah), another Trump ally, interrupted a presentation to complain that the House impeachment managers “said something that’s not true” — never mind that the Senate had sat in silence during hours of falsehoods from Trump’s team.

After Herrera Beutler’s revelations sparked a vote for witnesses, Senate leaders brokered a compromise to keep the impeachment trial from spiraling into endless discovery. Herrera Beutler’s statement would be admitted as evidence, but this would “not constitute a concession by either party as for the truth of the matters asserted by the other party.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the lead impeachment manager, claimed that “this uncontradicted statement" provided “further decisive evidence of [Trump’s] intent to incite the insurrection.”

Van der Veen, in response, howled about due process and fairness being “violently breached” — interesting words, given what his client did.

When the yeas and nays were counted, seven Senate Republicans joined Herrera Beutler in her courageous stand, voting along with all 50 Democrats to convict Trump. The other 43 Republicans, some of whom, like McConnell, feebly denounced Trump’s conduct even as they acquitted him, now have the cowardly distinction of licking the boots of the man who left them to die.

Sign up to receive my columns in your inbox as soon as they’re published.

bootlegger10 · February 2021

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/538786-louisiana-gop-votes-to-censure-cassidy-over-impeachment-vote

Louisiana Republican party voted to censure Republican Senator who voted for impeachment. Do you think they censured Trump for inciting an insurrection or at the very minimum did nothing to stop it? McConnell even stood up and said Trump was guilty of all accusations after the vote. And the Louisiana GOP feels like they need to censure this person. That is deep, deep level of despicable. I used to be a Republican and watcher of Fox News for a while. I don't agree with a lot of what the far left Dems want, but I'm glad not to be associated with this GOP.

static111 · February 2021

Can’t wait til he gets off scot free from whatever comes up next, now that the TDS has effectively been established as a defense in two impeachment’s.

mickeyrat · February 2021

meanwhile in Pennsylvania...

Pennsylvania G.O.P.’s Push for More Power Over Judiciary Raises Alarms

After fighting the election results, state Republicans are trying to increase their control of the courts. Outraged Democrats and good government groups see it as a new kind of gerrymandering.

By Nick Corasaniti

Feb. 15, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ET

When the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously rejected a Republican attempt to overturn the state’s election results in November, Justice David N. Wecht issued his own pointed rebuke, condemning the G.O.P. effort as “futile” and “a dangerous game.”

“It is not our role to lend legitimacy to such transparent and untimely efforts to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters,” wrote Justice Wecht, a Democrat who was elected to a 10-year term on the bench in 2016. “Courts should not decide elections when the will of the voters is clear.”

Now Pennsylvania Republicans have a plan to make it less likely that judges like Justice Wecht get in their way.

G.O.P. legislators, dozens of whom supported overturning the state’s election results to aid former President Donald J. Trump, are moving to change the entire way that judges are selected in Pennsylvania, in a gambit that could tip the scales of the judiciary to favor their party, or at least elect judges more inclined to embrace Republican election challenges.

The proposal would replace the current system of statewide elections for judges with judicial districts drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature. Those districts could empower rural, predominantly conservative areas and particularly rewire the State Supreme Court, which has a 5-to-2 Democratic lean.

Democrats are now mobilizing to fight the effort, calling it a thinly veiled attempt at creating a new level of gerrymandering — an escalation of the decades-old practice of drawing congressional and state legislative districts to ensure that political power remains in one party’s hands. Democrats are marshaling grass-roots opposition, holding regular town hall events conducted over Zoom, and planning social media campaigns and call-in days to legislators, as well as an enormous voter education campaign. One group, Why Courts Matter Pennsylvania, has cut a two-minute infomercial.

Republicans in Pennsylvania have historically used gerrymandering to maintain their majority in the legislature, despite Democratic victories in statewide elections. Republicans have controlled the State House of Representatives since 2011 and the State Senate since 1993.

Current schedules for the legislature make it unlikely the Republicans could marshal their majorities in the House and Senate to pass the bill by Wednesday and put the proposal before voters on the ballot in May. Passing the bill after that date would set up a new and lengthy political war for November in this fiercely contested state.

Republicans have some history on their side: Pennsylvania voters tend to approve ballot measures.

“You should be very suspicious when you see a legislature who has been thwarted by a Supreme Court in its unconstitutional attempts to rig the democratic process then trying to rig the composition of that Supreme Court,” said Wendy Weiser, the director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

She added, “It is way too much control for one branch to have over another branch, particularly where one of its charges is to reign in the excesses of the legislative branch.”

If the Republican bill becomes law, Pennsylvania would become just the fifth state in the country, after Louisiana, Kentucky, Mississippi and Illinois, to wholly map its judicial system into electoral districts, according to the Brennan Center. And other states may soon join Pennsylvania in trying to remake the courts through redistricting.

Republicans in the Texas Legislature, which is also controlled by the G.O.P., recently introduced a bill that would shift districts for the state appellate courts by moving some counties into different districts, causing an uproar among state Democrats who saw the new districts as weakening the voting power of Black and Latino communities in judicial elections and potentially adding to the Republican tilt of the Texas courts.

Gilberto Hinojosa, the chair of the Texas Democratic Party, called the bill a “pure power grab meant to keep Blacks and Latinos from having influence on courts as their numbers in the state grow.”

These judicial redistricting battles are taking shape as Republican-controlled legislatures across the country explore new restrictions on voting after the 2020 elections. In Georgia, Republicans in the state legislature are seeking a host of new laws that would make voting more difficult, including banning drop boxes and placing sweeping limitations on mail-in voting. Similar bills in Arizona would restrict mail-in voting, including barring the state from sending out mail ballot applications. And in Texas, Republican lawmakers want to limit early voting periods.

The nationwide effort by Republicans follows a successful four-year drive by the party’s lawmakers in Washington to reshape the federal judiciary with conservative judges. Led by Senator Mitch McConnell, until recently the majority leader, and Mr. Trump, the Senate confirmed 231 federal judges, as well as three new Supreme Court justices, over the former president’s four-year term, according to data maintained by Russell Wheeler, a research fellow at the Brookings Institution.

In a state like Pennsylvania, which has two densely populated Democratic cities and large rural areas, this could give outsize representation to sparsely populated places that lean more conservative, particularly if the legislature resorts to a gerrymandering tactic similar to one used in Pennsylvania in 2011.

“Republicans have been good at gerrymandering districts in Pennsylvania, or good in the sense that they’ve been successful,” said State Senator Sharif Street, a Democrat. “I think they would like to remain successful, and they are confident that they can gerrymander judicial districts.”

Republicans in the state legislature argue that their proposed move would give different regions of Pennsylvania more representation.

Russ Diamond, the Republican state representative who is sponsoring the bill, said in an email that regional representation was necessary for the judiciary “because the same statewide consensus which goes in making law should come to bear when those statutes are heard on appeal, are applied in practical real-life situations, and when precedent is set for the future of the Commonwealth.”

“The overall goal is to include the full diversity of Pennsylvania’s appellate courts,” Mr. Diamond added. “There is no way to completely depoliticize the courts, other than choosing judges via random selection or a lottery system. Every individual holds some political opinion or another.”

Geographic diversity, however, rarely equates to racial diversity in the courts. The four states that use judicial districts in state Supreme Court elections — Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi and Kentucky — have never had more than one justice of color on the court at any given time, according to data from the Brennan Center.

While eight states use some form of judicial districts to elect judges, Pennsylvania’s proposal remains an outlier on a few key elements. First, a partisan legislature would have the power to redraw the districts every 10 years, whereas those elsewhere remain for longer or are based on statute. Additionally, the judicial districts in Pennsylvania would not be bound by or based on any existing legislative or congressional districts, created from scratch by the Republican-controlled legislature.

The move has caught the attention of national Democratic groups that are at the forefront of redistricting battles across the country.

“A decade ago, Pennsylvania Republicans gerrymandered themselves into majorities in the legislature and congressional delegation,” said Eric H. Holder Jr., the former United States attorney general and current chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. “Now that their grip on power has been forcibly loosened by the courts, they want to create and then manipulate judicial districts in a blatant attempt to undermine the independence of the judiciary and stack the courts with their conservative allies.”

Because the bill has already passed the House once, in 2020, it needs only to pass both chambers of the state legislature again to make it on the ballot.

Further stoking Democrats’ fears: The bill does not need the signature of Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat. Since it would be an amendment to the Constitution, it would head to the ballot as a referendum question to be voted on in the next election (if the bill passes before Wednesday, it would go to voters during the May primary). Historically, Pennsylvania voters have voted more in favor of ballot measures than against them, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Good government groups have teamed up with Democrats to mount a huge voter education campaign, anticipating that the judicial question may soon be on the ballot. Progressive groups including the Judicial Independent Project of PA, a new coalition that includes the voting rights group Common Cause, have been holding digital town halls about the judicial redistricting proposal, with attendance regularly topping 100 people.

On a Thursday evening late last month, more than 160 people logged into Zoom to hear from coalition leaders about the bill and to hatch plans to further mobilize against it. Rebecca Litt, a senior organizer from a local Indivisible group, proposed a call-your-legislator day. Ricardo Almodovar, an organizing director with We the People PA, another progressive group, noted the graphics and other social media campaigns already underway to help educate voters.

“We’re also trying to humanize the courts,” Mr. Almodovar explained during a smaller session with southeastern Pennsylvania residents, sharing stories of how specific court decisions “impact our lives.”

Throughout the full, hourlong meeting, organizers repeatedly sought to make the stakes very clear.

“We are in the last legislative session of this,” said Alexa Grant, a program advocate with Common Cause. “So we are the last line of defense.”

Voting Rights, the 2020 Election and Political Fights in the Courts

The Gerrymander Battles Loom, as G.O.P. Looks to Press Its Advantage

Jan. 31, 2021

After Record Turnout, Republicans Are Trying to Make It Harder to Vote

Jan. 30, 2021

77 Days: Trump’s Campaign to Subvert the Election

Jan. 31, 2021

Nick Corasaniti covers national politics. He was one of the lead reporters covering Donald Trump's campaign for president in 2016 and has been writing about presidential, congressional, gubernatorial and mayoral campaigns for The Times since 2011. @NYTnickc • Facebook

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

Sign Up

More in Politics

Image

Credit...Todd Heisler/The New York Times

Zoom Fatigue on the Campaign Trail: 5 Takeaways From the Mayor’s Race

Feb. 15, 2021

Biden Takes Center Stage With Ambitious Agenda as Trump’s Trial Ends

Feb. 14, 2021

Why Seven Republican Senators Voted to Convict Trump

Feb. 14, 2021

Calls Grow for Commission to Investigate Capitol Riot

Feb. 14, 2021

How a Minimum-Wage Increase Is Being Felt in a Low-Wage City

Feb. 14, 2021

Gern Blansten · February 2021

static111 said:

Can’t wait til he gets off scot free from whatever comes up next, now that the TDS has effectively been established as a defense in two impeachment’s.

Are you trolling? Cause it seems like you are.

Halifax2TheMax · February 2021

Suckers.

Like many Trump supporters, conservative donor Fred Eshelman awoke the day after the presidential election with the suspicion that something wasn’t right. His candidate’s apparent lead in key battleground states had evaporated overnight.

The next day, the North Carolina financier and his advisers reached out to a small conservative nonprofit group in Texas that was seeking to expose voter fraud. After a 20-minute talk with the group’s president, their first-ever conversation, Eshelman was sold.

“I’m in for 2,” he told the president of True the Vote, according to court documents and interviews with Eshelman and others.

“$200,000?” one of his advisers on the call asked.

“$2 million,” Eshelman responded.

Over the next 12 days, Eshelman came to regret his donation and to doubt conspiracy theories of rampant illegal voting, according to court records and interviews.

Now, he wants his money back.

The story behind the Eshelman donation — detailed in previously unreported court filings and exclusive interviews with those involved — provides new insights into the frenetic days after the election, when baseless claims led donors to give hundreds of millions of dollars to reverse President Biden’s victory.

Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party collected $255 million in two months, saying the money would support legal challenges to an election marred by fraud. Trump’s staunchest allies in Congress also raised money off those false allegations, as did pro-Trump lawyers seeking to overturn the election results — and even some of their witnesses.

True the Vote was one of several conservative “election integrity” groups that sought to press the case in court. Though its lawsuits drew less attention than those brought by the Trump campaign, True the Vote nonetheless sought to raise more than $7 million for its investigation of the 2020 election.

True The Vote lawsuit: How GOP donor Fred Eshelman came to want his money back - The Washington Post

mrussel1 · February 2021

I read this earlier. Crazy that a man with that kind of money, that he earned, would fall into this trap.

JeBurkhardt · February 2021

Halifax2TheMax said:

Suckers.

Like many Trump supporters, conservative donor Fred Eshelman awoke the day after the presidential election with the suspicion that something wasn’t right. His candidate’s apparent lead in key battleground states had evaporated overnight.
The next day, the North Carolina financier and his advisers reached out to a small conservative nonprofit group in Texas that was seeking to expose voter fraud. After a 20-minute talk with the group’s president, their first-ever conversation, Eshelman was sold.
“I’m in for 2,” he told the president of True the Vote, according to court documents and interviews with Eshelman and others.
“$200,000?” one of his advisers on the call asked.
“$2 million,” Eshelman responded.
Over the next 12 days, Eshelman came to regret his donation and to doubt conspiracy theories of rampant illegal voting, according to court records and interviews.
Now, he wants his money back.
The story behind the Eshelman donation — detailed in previously unreported court filings and exclusive interviews with those involved — provides new insights into the frenetic days after the election, when baseless claims led donors to give hundreds of millions of dollars to reverse President Biden’s victory.
Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party collected $255 million in two months, saying the money would support legal challenges to an election marred by fraud. Trump’s staunchest allies in Congress also raised money off those false allegations, as did pro-Trump lawyers seeking to overturn the election results — and even some of their witnesses.
True the Vote was one of several conservative “election integrity” groups that sought to press the case in court. Though its lawsuits drew less attention than those brought by the Trump campaign, True the Vote nonetheless sought to raise more than $7 million for its investigation of the 2020 election.

True The Vote lawsuit: How GOP donor Fred Eshelman came to want his money back - The Washington Post

A fool and his money....... In this case a rich fool.

Halifax2TheMax · February 2021

And they can run on the same platform as 2016 as well. Maybe come down the escalator again?

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2021/02/16/steve-bannon-trump-house-speaker

GOP

Comments

Exclusive: Dozens of former Republican officials in talks to form anti-Trump third party

Opinion: Trump left them to die. 43 Senate Republicans still licked his boots.

Pennsylvania G.O.P.’s Push for More Power Over Judiciary Raises Alarms

Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

More in Politics

Zoom Fatigue on the Campaign Trail: 5 Takeaways From the Mayor’s Race

Biden Takes Center Stage With Ambitious Agenda as Trump’s Trial Ends

Why Seven Republican Senators Voted to Convict Trump

Calls Grow for Commission to Investigate Capitol Riot

How a Minimum-Wage Increase Is Being Felt in a Low-Wage City

Categories