Tag Archives: overwhelmingly

US

Arizona: Maricopa County precincts with voting problems were not overwhelmingly Republican

Leave a comment

Comment

PHOENIX — The voting locations that experienced problems on Election Day in Maricopa County, home to more than half of Arizona’s voters, do not skew overwhelmingly Republican, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

The finding undercuts claims by some Republicans — most notably Kari Lake, the GOP nominee for governor, and former president Donald Trump — that GOP areas in the county were disproportionately affected by the problems, which involved a mishap with printers. Republicans nonetheless argue that their voters were more likely to be affected, given their tendency to vote on Election Day rather than mail in their ballots.

The claims come as Lake continues to narrowly trail her rival, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, and as the number of ballots remaining to be counted dwindles.

Starting early on Tuesday, printers at 70 of the county’s 223 polling sites produced ballots with ink that was too light to be read by vote-counting machines, which caused ballots to be rejected. That forced voters to wait in line, travel to another location or deposit their ballots in secure boxes that were transferred to downtown Phoenix and counted there. County officials say no one was denied the right to vote.

The Post identified the precincts of affected voting locations using data provided by Maricopa County election officials and then examined the voter registration breakdown within each precinct using data from L2, an election data provider.

The analysis found that the proportion of registered Republicans in affected precincts, about 37 percent, is virtually the same as the share of registered Republicans across the county, which stands at 35 percent.

Throughout the week, prominent Republicans suggested without evidence that the problem with printers only affected Republican areas.

Lake, addressing reporters after voting with her family at a site downtown, said, “There’s a reason we decided to change locations — we were going to go to a pretty Republican area.” Instead, she said, “We came right down to the heart of liberal Phoenix to vote because we wanted to make sure that we had good machines.”

“And guess what?” she added. “They’ve had zero problems with their machines today. Not one machine spit out a ballot here today. Not one, in a very liberal area. So we were right to come and vote in a very liberal area.”

In fact, there were problems at locations in precincts that skew heavily Democratic, according to The Post’s analysis.

They included two elementary schools in east Phoenix and a health center in south Phoenix — all locations where the share of Democrats outnumbers Republicans by about 40 percentage points. At the Mountain Park Health Center in south Phoenix, which was among the precincts that experienced issues with printers, there were nearly three times as many votes for Lake’s Democratic opponent, Hobbs, as there were for the Republican candidate, according to results released by the county.

A spokesman for the Lake campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Lake’s claims were amplified throughout the weekend by Trump, who wrote on Truth Social, the social media site set up by the former president and his allies, that “Even Kari Lake was taken to a Liberal Democrat district in order to vote.”

The former president used that assertion to push an unfounded claim that Maricopa County officials “stole” the election from Blake Masters, the GOP nominee for Senate. Masters on Friday was projected to lose his race to the incumbent Democrat, Mark Kelly.

“So in Maricopa County they’re at it again. … but only in Republican districts,” wrote Trump, who made the county a target of his false claims of election fraud in 2020.

He concluded, “Do Election over again!”

Masters hinted at a similar demand in an appearance Friday on Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s show, before his race was called by the Associated Press. “I think the most honest thing at this point would be for Maricopa County to wipe the slate clean, just take all the ballots and do a fresh count,” he said.

Masters claimed that the county had “mixed up” ballots on two occasions but did not offer a basis for that assertion. A campaign spokesman did not respond to a request for the evidence underlying his claims.

A spokeswoman for the county’s elections department said that poll workers at two locations had combined two batches of ballots but that “This has happened in the past, and we have redundancies in place that help us ensure each legal ballot is only counted once.” Those redundancies, which include checking total ballots against check-ins at voting locations, are carried out “with political party observers present,” added the spokeswoman, Megan Gilbertson.

In a statement posted Saturday on Twitter, Masters did not push fraud claims but said he would not concede until all votes had been counted.

Maricopa County officials have stressed in recent days that the glitches did not cause any ballots to be misread or block anyone from voting. They say they are working as long as 18 hours a day to process a record number of ballots dropped off on Election Day — and they have said for weeks that tabulation could take as many as 12 days.

“I’m going to stand up for my state,” Bill Gates, the Republican chairman of the county board of supervisors, told reporters on Friday afternoon. “We’re doing things the right way.”

Leaders of the Arizona Republican Party maintain that their voters were disproportionately affected by the glitches because of their tendency to vote on Election Day. “It was no secret that Republicans intended to vote on Election Day,” the state party said in a statement issued on Sunday.

But The Post’s analysis found that the proportion of Republican Election Day voters in precincts with printer problems was virtually the same as the share in precincts countywide, bolstering the county’s argument that people in affected areas who wanted to vote on Tuesday were not prevented from doing so.

Attorneys for the party asked a judge on Tuesday night to require county officials to extend voting times by three hours, citing the mechanical problems. But about five minutes before the polls were set to close, the judge denied the request, finding that Republicans were unable to show that any voter had been denied the ability to cast a ballot.

In Maricopa, voters can cast their ballots at any polling center, no matter where they live. It’s different from some systems that require people to cast their votes at designated locations near or in their neighborhoods.

Voters who live in the suburbs and drive into downtown Phoenix for work, for example, can cast their ballots either near their home, in the city’s center or at schools, churches or any of the 223 polling locations set up throughout the vast county.

Traditionally, people tend to vote in areas close to their homes or in locations that are part of their daily routines, said political scientist Michael McDonald of the University of Florida.

“The vote centers are conveniently located, they’re part of your day, they may be on your route for all of your errands,” he said.

Bronner reported from Washington. Jon Swaine and Reis Thebault contributed to this report.



Read original article here

World

Chile new constitution: Voters overwhelmingly reject proposal in referendum

Leave a comment



CNN
 — 

Chilean voters resoundingly rejected a new, progressive constitution in a referendum on Sunday, following a nearly two-year process that aimed to reflect a broader array of voices in the nation’s document.

With almost all of the ballots counted, 62% of voters rejected the proposal with 38% voting in favor, according to the Chile Electoral Service.

The proposed constitution, which had the support of leftist President Gabriel Boric, included 388 articles that would have significantly extended social rights, increased environmental regulation and given the government wider responsibility for social welfare programs. It also would have provided full gender parity and added designated seats for indigenous representatives.

The document was rejected in all of Chile’s provinces, including the more progressive capital of Santiago and its metropolitan area, where voters had overwhelmingly supported Boric last December during the presidential election.

Boric responded to the defeat in a live televised address to the nation after the close of polling on Sunday.

“Today the people of Chile have spoken, and they have done so loudly and clearly,” Boric said. “They have given us two messages. The first one is that they love and value their democracy … The second one is that the people of Chile was not satisfied with the proposed constitution and, therefore, has decided to reject in a clear way at the polls.”

Images from Santiago on Sunday show a sombre mood among supporters of the constitution, while others celebrated the news it had been voted down.

The constitution currently in place was written under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, who ruled Chile with an iron fist from 1973 to 1990. Proponents of the new constitution wanted a break from Chile’s authoritarian past and a document that reflected the interests of communities that, according to them, had been ignored.

The proposed change was initiated in 2020 when then-president Sebastien Piñera called a referendum on creating a new constitution amid social turmoil and popular discontent sparked by a metro fare increase in October 2019.

In October 2020, more than 78% of Chilean voters approved a plebiscite that proposed constitutional change, and in June 2021, they cast their ballots again to pick the members for a constituent assembly.

The Constitutional Assembly was the first in the world to have full gender parity and the first in the country´s history to include designated seats for indigenous representatives.

Supporters were hopeful its progressive stance would be reflected in a new, updated constitution.

And the constitutional process itself was praised internationally for giving the country an institutional way out of a social crisis, and for responding to modern Chileans’ demands for more equality and a more inclusive and participatory democracy.

According to University of Chile professor Robert Funk, removing remnants of the past imposed by Pinochet was a key driver for creating a new constitution.

“The existing constitution in Chile was written originally in 1980 under the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Since then, it was amended many, many times; but it was always questioned because it was imposed during a dictatorship,” Funk said.

After much deliberation, the final draft of the revised constitution was submitted to Boric, Piñera’s successor, in July this year.

But although most Chilean voters supported the idea of constitutional change back in October 2020, divisions appeared over the proposed draft.

Soon after the draft was made public, different polls began showing an increasing trend toward the rejection of the charter, with the government publicly recognizing that scenario.

The defeated constitution would have been one of the most progressive in the world, giving the state a front-line role in the provision of social rights.

The draft put a strong emphasis on indigenous self-determination and on the protection of the environment, and would have dismantled the highly privatized water rights system. It had required gender equality in all public institutions and companies, and enshrined the respect for sexual diversity. It also envisaged a new national healthcare system.

But the project became bitterly divisive.

The right argued the draft would shift the country too far left, or that it was too ambitious and difficult to turn into efficient laws. In the lead-up to the vote, even some of its supporters on the left wanted adjustments made, with their slogan “approve to reform.”

The opposition has vowed to begin a new process to rewrite the constitution, promising voters the next one will better reflect their interests.

In his speech Sunday, Boric signaled this was not the end of efforts toward reform.

“This decision by Chilean men and women requires our institutions and political actors to work harder, with more dialogue, with more respect and care, until we arrive at a proposal that interprets us all, that is trustworthy, that unites us as country,” Boric said.

Read original article here

World

Chile votes overwhelmingly to reject new, progressive constitution | Chile

Leave a comment

Chileans have voted comprehensively against a new, progressive constitution that had been drafted to replace the 1980 document written under Gen Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship.

With 96% of the votes counted in Sunday’s plebiscite, the rejection camp had 61.9% support compared with 38.1% for approval amid what appeared to be a heavy turnout with long lines at polling states. Voting was mandatory.

Senator Ximena Rincón, one of the leaders of the reject campaign, described the victory as “clear and emphatic”, and called for a new constitutional convention to be convened.

The “approve” campaign has accepted defeat and the country’s 36-year-old president, Gabriel Boric, has already called a meeting of party leaders for Monday morning at La Moneda, the presidential palace.

Chile’s president, Gabriel Boric, speaks to the nation on Sunday night. Photograph: Marcelo Segura/Chilean Presidency/AFP/Getty Images

“I commit to put my all into building a new constitutional itinerary alongside congress and civil society,” said Boric in a televised address to the nation, confirming that he would meet with the heads of political parties and both chambers of congresson Monday morning.

The 1980 document drawn up under Pinochet will now remain in force and Chile’s future looks decidedly uncertain.

In 2020, an initial plebiscite saw nearly 80% of voters opt to draft a new constitution, but after an arduous year of negotiations, people appear to have expressed their dissatisfaction with the end product.

As results trickled in and the reject camp’s lead grew, groups of jubilant reject supporters crowded street corners and filled squares up and down the country to celebrate their victory.

There were concerns that disgruntled approve supporters could stage a repeat of the 2019 demonstrations that started the constitutional reform process. But a crowd of no more than several hundred gathered in the main square in Santiago and they were quickly dispersed by police using water cannons and tear gas.

People supporting the new constitution draft accept defeat in Santiago. Photograph: Javier Torres/AFP/Getty Images

The proposed constitution included a long list of social rights and guarantees that had appeared to respond to the demands of that vast social movement.

It enshrined gender parity across government and other organs of the state – for the first time anywhere in the world – prioritised environmental protection and recognised Chile’s Indigenous peoples for the first time in the country’s history.

The decision to reject a constitution that guaranteed women’s rights and gender parity was made 70 years to the day since women were first given the vote in Chile.

“This is a badly written constitution,” said Carmen Fuentes, 61, who cast her vote in a wealthy north-eastern suburb of Santiago. “There’s been a division in this country for a long time, and this plebiscite won’t change that.”

Many criticised the document’s guarantees for Indigenous people, which they said would divide Chile. Others warned that the shakeup of the political system was unnecessary and experimental.

In the centre of the city, others were more optimistic that a change could be possible, citing the need to shed Chile of the Pinochet-era constitution and the model it enshrined, moving on to a more egalitarian, democratic future.

But that future now looks distant. Boric has expressed a willingness to repeat the constitutional process, but the basis for reform is still very much up for debate.

Some of the constitution’s most prominent critics have mooted allowing congress to reform the 1980 document or including experts in a new process, but details were light from both sides, with neither willing to commit to a possible way forward.

Read original article here

World

Senate Overwhelmingly Votes to Add Sweden and Finland to NATO

Leave a comment

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a treaty that would expand NATO to include Finland and Sweden, with Republicans and Democrats linking arms to pave the way for one of the most significant expansions of the alliance in decades amid Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine.

The vote was 95 to 1, with only Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, opposing the move. The lopsided tally, far surpassing the two-thirds support necessary to approve a treaty, underscored the bipartisan appetite for a more muscular Western military alliance even amid threats from Russian officials that Sweden and Finland would face retaliation should they join NATO.

“Finland’s and Sweden’s membership will strengthen NATO even further, and is all the more urgent given Russian aggression, given Putin’s immoral and unjustified war in Ukraine,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader. “Putin is strengthening the NATO alliance, and nothing shows it better” than the Senate’s resounding approval of the pact.

All 30 current members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization must ratify the accession of the two countries. Twenty-two countries have already done so, but as recently as two weeks ago, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey was threatening to block Finland and Sweden’s membership bids, which would prolong the process.

Still, the approval of the United States is a crucial step, and the vote was a triumph for President Biden. It was a vindication of his push to rally Western allies to confront Mr. Putin’s brutal campaign in Ukraine and a step toward fulfilling his pledge as a presidential candidate to restore the alliances frayed badly during the Trump era and reassert the role of the United States in protecting democracy around the world.

“This historic vote sends an important signal of the sustained, bipartisan U.S. commitment to NATO, and to ensuring our alliance is prepared to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow,” Mr. Biden said in a statement, adding that he looked forward to welcoming “two strong democracies with highly capable militaries, into the greatest defensive alliance in history.”

Democrats argued that adding Sweden and Finland to NATO would reduce the burden on the United States and the broader alliance.

“More than ever, it is crystal clear that NATO plays a vital role for the security of the United States and as a bulwark in protecting peace and democracies throughout the world,” said Senator Bob Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

“Seventy years ago, democratic nations of Europe and the United States came together to defend the liberty, freedom and individual rights of their citizens from the threat of a militarized Soviet Union,” Mr. Menendez continued. “Now — as then — the defensive alliance serves as a bulwark of stability and the rule of law for the people of its member states.”

The vote margin also reflected a striking repudiation by Republicans of the “America First” philosophy espoused by President Donald J. Trump, who was openly contemptuous of NATO and of American commitments to international organizations.

Some Republicans in the Senate have watched with alarm as a growing number of their colleagues, seeking to emulate Mr. Trump and appeal to his supporters, have taken up anti-interventionist positions at odds with their party’s traditional hawkish stance. Even while Mr. Trump occupied the White House, foreign policy was one of the few areas where Republicans dared challenge him.

The overwhelming tally on Wednesday — with just one defection — was one of the most forceful rejections yet of that isolationist worldview. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, voted present.

Few Republicans expressed qualms with the notion of entering a mutual defense pact with a country that shares an 800-mile border with Russia, instead arguing that doing so would strengthen the alliance.

The vote came a day after Republicans in the House rallied around Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California — one of their most bitter political adversaries — for defying the Chinese government’s warnings and traveling to Taiwan. That support, and the resounding vote on Wednesday, were a stark contrast to the pitched battles Republicans have engaged in with Democrats on domestic policy.

It also marked the success of a concerted effort by Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, who has long pushed against the anti-interventionist strain in his party, but in recent months launched a particularly aggressive effort to publicly rally support for the kind of assertive military presence abroad that was once viewed as Republican orthodoxy.

Determined to show the world that Mr. Trump’s views on military aid and alliances did not hold sway over Senate Republicans, the Republican leader traveled in May to Ukraine, Sweden and Finland.

Mr. McConnell argued that both Sweden and Finland would be able to carry their share of the defense burden, in an attempt to counter a concern frequently raised by conservatives about adding to the alliance. And he had made the case to his members that “even closer cooperation” with the two nations would help the United States counter China, another argument invoked by Republicans contending that the U.S. needs to shift its defense resources away from Europe and toward Asia.

“Their accession will make NATO stronger and America more secure,” Mr. McConnell said in a speech from the Senate floor on Wednesday. “If any senator is looking for a defensible excuse to vote no, I wish them good luck.”

Only Mr. Hawley, who is widely viewed as an aspiring presidential candidate in 2024, voted against the treaty, writing in an opinion article that “NATO expansion would almost certainly mean more U.S. forces in Europe for the long haul.”

“In the face of this stark reality, we must choose,” Mr. Hawley said. “We must do less in Europe (and elsewhere) in order to prioritize China and Asia.”

The four other Republican senators who are widely assumed to harbor presidential aspirations — Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Tim Scott of South Carolina, and Marco Rubio of Florida — all voted in favor of the expansion.

Mr. Cruz, in a brief interview, called NATO “the most successful military alliance in modern history,” and said that “bringing in serious additional military capacity” would only strengthen it.

And Mr. Cotton took to the Senate floor on Wednesday afternoon ahead of the vote to deliver a point-by-point argument against the treaty’s opponents, casting them as “alarmist and backward.”

“Some critics say America shouldn’t pledge to protect countries halfway around the world,” Mr. Cotton said. “But these critics are seven decades too late. We’re already treaty-bound to defend more than two dozen nations in Europe.”

The “real question today,” he said, “is whether adding two capable and strong nations to our mutual defense pact will make us stronger or weaker.”

Only the Senate is vested with the authority to consider and approve treaties. The House last month, in a display of solidarity, passed a nonbinding resolution supporting Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO, in a 394 to 18 vote.

Read original article here

Business

U.S. FDA advisers overwhelmingly back Moderna COVID vaccine for ages 6-17

Leave a comment

A pharmacist holds a vial of the Moderna coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine in West Haven, Connecticut, U.S., February 17, 2021. REUTERS/Mike Segar

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

June 14 (Reuters) – Advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday unanimously recommended that the agency authorize Moderna Inc’s (MRNA.O) COVID-19 vaccine for children and teens aged 6 to 17 years of age.

Around 77 million people in the United States have received at least a two-dose course of Moderna’s vaccine, which has long been available for people aged 18 and older.

The committee of outside experts is scheduled on Wednesday to consider the Moderna shot for children under 6, and Pfizer (PFE.N) and BioNTech’s (22UAy.DE) COVID vaccine for children under 5 – and in both cases as young as 6 months.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

There is unlikely to be significant immediate demand the Moderna shots for 6- to 17-year olds. The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine was authorized for children aged 5 to 11 in October, and approval for teenagers preceded that by months.

Yet only around 30% of those ages 5 to 11 and 60% of 12- to 17-year olds are fully vaccinated in the United States, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

“I’d like to give parents as many choices as possible, and let them make the decisions about this for their children,” committee member and UC Berkeley professor Dr. Arthur Reingold said at the meeting.

The FDA – which generally follows the recommendations of its advisers but is not obligated to do so – is likely to authorize the Moderna vaccine for ages 6-17 soon. The CDC also needs to recommend the vaccine’s use. A committee of its advisers is scheduled to meet Friday and Saturday.

There have long been concerns that the Moderna vaccine, which is given at a higher dose than the Pfizer/BioNTech shot, may cause types of heart inflammation known as myocarditis and pericarditis at higher rates, primarily in younger males.

Some countries in Europe have limited use of Moderna’s vaccine for younger age groups after surveillance suggested it was tied to a higher risk of heart inflammation, and the FDA delayed its review of the shot to assess the myocarditis risk.

U.S. regulators presented data at the meeting on Tuesday suggesting that Moderna’s vaccine may have a higher risk of heart inflammation in young men, but said the findings were not consistent across various safety databases and were not statistically significant, meaning they might be due to chance.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Manas Mishra in Bengaluru; Additional reporting by Michael Erman in New Jersey; Editing by Jason Neely and Bill Berkrot

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

US

San Francisco votes overwhelmingly to recall progressive DA Chesa Boudin

Leave a comment

San Francisco residents voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to recall District Attorney Chesa Boudin, one of the nation’s most progressive top prosecutors.

Partial results from the San Francisco Department of Elections on Tuesday night showed the recall measure – also known as Proposition H – had the support of nearly 60% of voters, with 40% voting against it. 

Boudin sought to reform the criminal justice system, ending the use of cash bail, stopping the prosecution of minors as adults, and focused on lowering jail populations amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Boudin also became the first San Francisco DA to file homicide charges against city police officers. 

At an election night gathering, Boudin told his supporters he is just getting started in the push for criminal justice reform.

“We have two cities. We have two systems of justice. We have one for the wealthy and the well-connected and a different one for everybody else. And that’s exactly what we are fighting to change,” he said.

“We know that this is a system that has systematically failed us, not just for decades, but for generations.”

San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin greets supporters after partial election returns showed him being recalled by voters on June 7, 2022. Recall proponents said his policies made the city less safe.

Noah Berger / AP


San Francisco Mayor Landon Breed will choose Boudin’s replacement.

Whoever is appointed will have to run in the general election to fill the remainder of Boudin’s term, which was to last through 2023. 

Proponents of the recall claimed Boudin — a longtime public defender — wasn’t prosecuting criminals aggressively and said his instituting progressive policies was putting the safety of residents at risk. They spent over $7 million blasting that message to voters in San Francisco throughout the course of the campaign. 

“This election does not mean that San Francisco has drifted to the far right on our approach to criminal justice,” Mary Jung, a chair of the recall campaign, said in a statement. “In fact, San Francisco has been a national beacon for progressive criminal justice reform for decades and will continue to do so with new leadership.”

Momentum to recall Boudin picked up steam throughout 2021 as hate crimes against Asian Americans in San Francisco increased dramatically and victims blamed Boudin, saying he was siding with criminals. Recall supporters also pointed to car break-ins and viral smash-and-grab robberies at major retail stores, claiming they were becoming common occurrences as consequences of Boudin’s policies. 

Boudin’s team maintained throughout the campaign that there was no direct correlation between the spike in some crimes and the DA’s policies. But Tuesday night’s results indicate voters didn’t buy that message. 

The recall in San Francisco could have implications for other progressive, reform-minded prosecutors across the country. Boudin narrowly won in 2019 as progressive prosecutors pledged to focus on alternatives to incarceration and hold police officers accountable. 

In Los Angeles, organizers are now close to gathering enough signatures to force a recall vote for their district attorney, George Gascon. He was elected in 2020 and previously served as San Francisco’s DA. His resignation and subsequent move to Southern California paved the way for Boudin to take office. 

There are still votes to count and election results will need to be certified before Breed gets to appoint a replacement. 

Breed has not officially weighed in on the DA recall. In October 2019, Breed appointed Susie Loftus, the former president of the San Francisco Police Commission, as the interim DA following Gascon’s resignation.

During that November’s election, Boudin got 36% of the support in the initial count, but San Francisco’s ranked-choice voting system propelled him to victory over Loftus by fewer than 3,000 votes.

Last month, District Two Supervisor Catherine Stefani became the first elected official in the city to endorse the recall. Multiple political operatives involved with the recall effort told CBS News that Stefani would likely be considered by Breed as a potential replacement.

Musadiq Bidar

CBS News reporter covering the intersection between politics and tech.

Read original article here

US

After delay, U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approves $40 billion in Ukraine aid

Leave a comment

WASHINGTON, May 19 (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved nearly $40 billion in new aid for Ukraine on Thursday sending the bill to the White House for President Joe Biden to sign into law as Washington races to keep military assistance flowing nearly three months after Russia’s invasion.

The Senate voted 86-11 in favor of the emergency package of military, economic and humanitarian assistance, by far the largest U.S. aid package for Ukraine to date. All 11 no votes were from Republicans.

The strong bipartisan support underscored the desire from lawmakers – most Republicans as well as Biden’s fellow Democrats – to support Ukraine’s war effort, without sending U.S. troops. It came hours after the Senate confirmed Biden’s nominee to be U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, career diplomat Bridget Brink, filling a post that had been vacant for three years. read more

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

“This is a large package, and it will meet the large needs of the Ukrainian people as they fight for their survival,” Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said, urging support for the emergency supplemental spending bill before the vote.

Biden said the spending bill’s passage ensured there will be no lapse in U.S. funding for Ukraine.

“I applaud the Congress for sending a clear bipartisan message to the world that the people of the United States stand together with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their democracy and freedom,” Biden said in a statement, noting that he would announce another package of security assistance on Thursday. read more

A top aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy thanked the Senate and said the money would help ensure the defeat of Russia. “We are moving towards victory confidently and strategically,” Zelenskiy’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak said in an online post minutes after the vote.

DEADLINE LOOMED

The U.S. Capitol is pictured following a Senate vote, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., May 19, 2022. REUTERS/Tom Brenner

Read More

The House of Representatives passed the spending bill on May 10, also with every “no” vote from Republicans. It stalled in the Senate after Republican Senator Rand Paul refused to allow a quick vote. Biden’s fellow Democrats narrowly control both the House and Senate, but Senate rules require unanimous consent to move quickly to a final vote on most legislation. read more

Some of those who voted “no” said they opposed spending so much when the United States has a huge national debt. “I’m always going to ask the question, how are we paying for it?” Senator Mike Braun told reporters at the Capitol.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had urged lawmakers to work quickly, telling congressional leaders in a letter that the military had enough funds to send weapons to Kyiv only until Thursday, May 19, so the bill passed just before that deadline.

When Biden signs the supplemental spending bill into law, it will bring the total amount of U.S. aid approved for Ukraine to well over $50 billion since the Russian invasion began on Feb. 24.

Biden had originally asked Congress for $33 billion for Ukraine, but lawmakers increased it to about $40 billion, with an eye toward funding Ukraine for the coming months.

The package includes $6 billion for security assistance, including training, equipment, weapons and support; $8.7 billion to replenish stocks of U.S. equipment sent to Ukraine, and $3.9 billion for European Command operations.

In addition, it authorizes a further $11 billion in Presidential Drawdown Authority, which allows Biden to authorize the transfer of articles and services from U.S. stocks without congressional approval in response to an emergency.

And it includes $5 billion to address food insecurity globally due to the conflict, nearly $9 billion for an economic support fund for Ukraine and some $900 million to help Ukrainian refugees.

The war has killed thousands of civilians, forced millions of Ukrainians from their homes and reduced cities to rubble. Moscow has little to show for it beyond a strip of territory in the south and marginal gains in the east.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; additional reporting by David Ljunggren and Steve Holland; Editing by Daniel Wallis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

US

Austin voters overwhelmingly say yes to marijuana, no-knock warrant ballot measure

Leave a comment

Austinites voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure that prevents the city’s police officers from enforcing laws against possessing small amounts of marijuana or from entering a property unannounced using no-knock warrants.

Proposition A  — which removes police discretion by cementing these two policies into law — passed with  56,004 votes in favor, or 85.8%, while there were 9,270 votes against it, or 14.2%, according to final but unofficial results from the Travis County Clerk’s office.

Prop A was Austin’s lone proposition on the Saturday ballot and generated limited buzz ahead of the vote. Following hotly contested fights in Austin elections on homeless camping in May 2020 and police officer hires last November, Prop A did not even yield an opposition campaign.

More: Why there is little opposition to Austin ballot measure on pot, no-knock warrants

With the passage of Prop A, the city’s police officers will no longer be allowed to make an arrest or issue a citation for possession of a misdemeanor amount of marijuana, with two exceptions: if the arrest or citation is part of an investigation into a high-priority narcotics case or into a violent felony.

Otherwise, the most police officers will be allowed to do is seize the drugs.

The proposition’s passage by voters codifies into law the policy the Austin City Council recommended to the Austin Police Department in early 2020 after Gov. Greg Abbott the year before signed a law that made it all but impossible to distinguish narcotic marijuana from legal hemp. In July 2020, then-Police Chief Brian Manley announced that officers would no longer cite or arrest people for having small amounts of pot.

More: Austin council OKs plan to give $1M in taxpayer money to struggling families

On the no-knock warrants issue, passage of Prop A  stipulates that police officers investigating a crime can still enter a residence with a signed warrant, but only after they’ve announced their presence and waited at least 15 seconds. 

The use of no-knock warrants became the focus of a national conversation in 2020 after Breonna Taylor was killed by Louisville, Kentucky, police officers in a botched raid of her apartment. Later that year, the Austin City Council limited police use of a no-knock warrant to only when officer safety is an issue and after receiving approval from a commander and a judge.

Austin police officers execute a no-knock warrant only three or four times a year and only when confronting a suspect they believe to be dangerous, according to Ken Casaday, who heads the Austin Police Association labor union.

The police union was neutral on the proposal’s marijuana-related language but opposed the elimination of no-knock warrants. Austin Police Chief Joseph Chacon told the American-Statesman he was not taking a public position on Prop A. 

The organization behind the proposition, Ground Game Texas, is led by two past congressional candidates: Julie Oliver, the Democratic nominee in House District 25 in 2018 and 2020, and Mike Siegel, the Democratic nominee in House District 10 in those same years.

Siegel, the political director of Ground Game Texas, said the organization was pleased with the results.

“It looks like Prop A is passing with an enormous mandate from Austin voters,” Seigal said. “We hope that sends a message to state leaders that issues like marijuana reform and stopping no-knock warrants are extremely popular among voters and we need to get this done statewide.”

Casaday, president of the Austin Police Association labor union, said he was not overly concerned with the measure passing.

“This was really a feel-good deal for the people that were behind Prop A but we don’t believe it really affects anything,” Casaday said. 

Casaday said the union did not “get involved in the marijuana debate,” and that it believes federal law will cover the no-knock warrant aspect of the proposition. 

“We don’t believe that will affect us. The city of Austin cannot tell the police chief how to run his department when it comes to safety and we fully expect to continue to do search warrants even though we only do maybe two or three a year. I don’t think this will affect anything,” he said. “As far as the marijuana goes, we’ve pretty much had a hands-off policy for the last two or three years.”

The effective date for Prop A will be the date of the canvass of the election. The deadline to conduct the canvass is May 18.

Saturday’s vote was the final city election before the November election, when the mayor and five City Council districts will be in play.

Read original article here

World

Germany flips on sending arms to Ukraine, lawmakers overwhelmingly approve heavy weaponry shipment

Leave a comment

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

German lawmakers on Thursday voted to send “heavy weapons and complex machinery” to Ukraine just one week after claiming its arms reserves were tapped.

The vote in the lower house of parliament signifies a completed stance reversal after it passed with 586 votes in favor, 100 against, and seven abstentions first reported German news outlet DW. 

Members of the Ukrainian Territorial Defence Forces examine new armament, including NLAW anti-tank systems and other portable anti-tank grenade launchers, in Kyiv on March 9, 2022, amid the ongoing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 
(GENYA SAVILOV/AFP via Getty Images)

TREVOR REED LANDS IN US AFTER PRISONER SWAP WITH RUSSIA

Germany has faced criticism for its reservations on sending significant defensive support to Ukraine, notoriously sending 5,000 helmets in the lead up to the invasion. 

Just last week German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock claimed that Berlin’s armed services have said it “can no longer supply weapons from its own reserves.”

German leadership instead pledged to provide training, spare parts for machinery and facilitate continued arms supplies with other allies. 

But now German will look to send anti-aircraft systems and armored vehicles as Russia looks to ramp up its offensive not only in Ukraine but is signaling it may launch a campaign in neighboring Moldova.

German lawmakers also approved the deployment of heavy weaponry and soldiers to NATO nations in the eastern bloc.

Ukrainian servicemen ride atop an armoured fighting vehicle Tuesday as Russia’s attack on Ukraine continues at an unknown location in Eastern Ukraine.
(Press service of the Ukrainian Ground Forces/Handout via REUTERS)

GERMANY TO AUTHORIZE TANK SHIPMENT TO UKRAINE, BENDING TO INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE

Some lawmakers, including members of the far-right Alternative for Germany party, voted against the measure over concerns it could be interpreted as a declaration of war by Russia.

Similarly, members of the socialist Left Party reportedly pointed to comments made by Chancellor Olaf Scholz regarding fears that enhanced NATO support could escalate the conflict and prompt a greater nuclear threat.

The Thursday vote comes just two days after a summit at the U.S. Ramstein airbase in Germany attended by 40 allied nations from NATO and beyond, where German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht agreed to send tanks to Ukraine. 

 U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin championed the stance reversal and said he thinks their heavy weaponry “will provide real capability for Ukraine.”

Soldiers walk amid destroyed Russian tanks in Bucha, on the outskirts of Kyiv, Ukraine.
(AP/Rodrigo Abd)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

He said he would not speculate on what else Germany may agree to give Ukraine.

But the defense secretary added, “Based upon everything that I’ve seen, in my interaction with the Minister of Defense, and how intently she has been focused on making sure that she can do everything that she can to help and work alongside our partners and allies, that she’ll continue to look for ways to be relevant and provide good capability to the Ukrainians as they continue to prosecute this fight.”

Read original article here

World

San Marino votes overwhelmingly to end abortion ban

Leave a comment

Around 77.30% of voters approved the measure which would make abortion legal in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. The vote will also make it legal for woman to get an abortion beyond 12 weeks if the pregnancy is life threatening for the woman, or anomalies and malformations of the fetus arise that pose a serious health risk to the woman.

The microstate’s Secretary of the Interior, Elena Tonnini, hopes to draft up a law based on the vote as soon as possible, according to public broadcaster San Marino RTV.

The vote in the northern Italian enclave of 33,000 people comes as authorities in countries such as Poland and the US state of Texas have tightened abortion laws. Earlier this month, Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that penalizing abortion is unconstitutional.

Up to now in San Marino, women who ended their pregnancies risked three years’ imprisonment. The term is twice as long for anyone who carries out an abortion.

San Marino women wanting an abortion normally went to Italy, where they could only get one privately, at a cost of about 1,500 euros ($1,765).

Elsewhere in Europe, the Mediterranean island of Malta, and the micro-states of Andorra and Vatican City, another Italian enclave, still ban abortion.

In Europe’s last referendum on abortion, the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar voted in June to ease what remain extremely strict curbs. Ireland legalized abortion in a far higher-profile referendum in 2018.

Social progress has tended to be slow in San Marino. Women did not get the right to vote until 1960, 14 years after surrounding Italy, and have only been allowed to hold political office since 1974. Divorce was legalized in 1986, some 16 years after Italy.

Additional reporting by Reuters.

Read original article here

The Ultimate News Site