State Houses Thread

[GreyhoundFan]

Okay, @Destiny, Delegate Webert is trying to make it safe for you to visit Virginia! "It’s a crime in Virginia to swear in public. A lawmaker says that’s #@!#ing nuts."

Spoiler

Virginia law demands that residents keep it clean, even in moments crying out for the foulest four-letter words. It’s illegal in this state to curse in public.

“Profane swearing” is a Class 4 misdemeanor punishable by a $250 fine, right up there with public intoxication. It’s a law that predates the Civil War. Yet modern-day potty-mouths still get charged under it — in small numbers, but in ways that can raise troubling questions about law enforcement.

But a state lawmaker from a county that sounds a lot like a curse word is trying hard to get rid of the law.

Del. Michael Webert (R-Fauquier) is a cattle farmer who knows that stuff happens. And that when it does, only a few choice words will do.

“When you’re working [with] cows and a 1,400-pound animal doesn’t do what you want it to, or steps on your feet, every once in a while something colorful comes out of your mouth,” said Webert, 38.

A conservative on most issues, Webert says his goal is to protect free speech and shrink a bloated state code by removing a law already deemed unconstitutional decades ago under Virginia Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

“When I cursed, my mother told me not to and handed me a bar of soap,” he said. “You shouldn’t get hit with a Class 4 misdemeanor.”

Repeal is by no means assured, even in a Capitol designed by free-speech champion Thomas Jefferson. Webert has carried the same bill for the past two sessions. Both times, it died in committee. It might have better chances when the General Assembly convenes next month, with lots of new, more-liberal delegates who were elected last month.

While it might make sense to scrap an unconstitutional law, legislators who vote for repeal could stand accused of promoting profanity. And that has made many wary of discussing Webert’s bill. The rare exception was Del. David Albo (R-Fairfax), who steps down in January and served on the House committee that torpedoed Webert’s previous attempts.

“We’ve had conversations about this type of thing over the years. There are a few statutes on the books that have been ruled unconstitutional,” Albo said, noting that state law still prohibits flag burning decades after the Supreme Court struck down such bans.

“Your opponent is not going to say, ‘Dave Albo voted to let people burn American flags, but to be fair, it’s unconstitutional.’ They’re not going to explain the whole thing,” Albo said. “For most people, it’s not worth it.”

There are reasons beyond political self-preservation for hanging on to the law.

Daniel Post Senning is the great-great grandson of the late Emily Post, whose musings about etiquette set the tone for polite society in a more formal era.

Senning, who carries on the family business through the Emily Post Institute, thinks there’s something to be said for keeping a lid on blue language.

“You want some sort of public standards for decorum,” said Senning, who has conducted etiquette seminars on the subject of profanity in the workplace. “We are definitely advocates for awareness and consideration.”

But academics who do scholarly research on swearing — really, they exist — say such bans are futile. It aims to “enforce politeness, and that’s not something that the law is equipped to do,” said Jesse Sheidlower, a lexicographer, Columbia University professor and author of “The F-Word,” a scholarly history of the word.

Jonathan Hunt, a University of San Francisco language professor who has researched cussing, said what’s considered profane is always changing. In a more religious era, blasphemy was considered the biggest taboo. In secular times, it was “anything having to do with bodily functions.” And today, racist or sexist slurs.

“There’s always some taboo in language, some perception that those words have a strange and magical power, often a power to harm,” he said. “And it moves around.”

It is not clear how many people get charged under Virginia’s law each year. Statewide figures are hard to come by since the statute covers swearing and public intoxication, and a breakdown for swearing alone was not immediately available. The numbers appear to be small based on arrests in Arlington County, which has a local ordinance modeled on the state law.

In a county of 230,000 residents, police charged a mere three people with cursing over the past two years.

That is not to say the law is all but forgotten. The Arlington County Board voted in 2015 to jack up the $100 local fine to match the state penalty. Virginia Beach, which also has a local ordinance, installed signs on its boardwalk saying swearing is banned, an effort to enhance the family-friendly atmosphere.

Fairfax County drew attention to its own swearing ban in late October, when police took a reporter from a liberal media outlet to the ground following an expletive-laced argument captured on video.

“If you curse again, you will go to jail,” an officer says at one point.

The reporter’s reply — “F--- this!” — triggers an aggressive arrest, though in the end he was charged with disorderly conduct and avoiding arrest.

Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Virginia affiliate, said it is “well settled law that generalized prohibitions on profanity in public are a violation of the First Amendment.”

“This is an interesting issue, in part because (even though they are supposed to issue a summons for misdemeanors) police often use this statute or a related local ordinance as an excuse to arrest someone, or at least stop them, and then do a search incident to arrest so they can arrest the person on another charge,” Gastañaga said in an email.

Virginia’s aversion to profanity goes back to the nation’s infancy, as native son George Washington famously ordered his troops to quit swearing in August 1776.

State law has prohibited public swearing at least since 1860. The fine then: $1 per offense.

I'm surprised I've never been charged under that statute.

[Destiny]

2 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Okay, @Destiny, Delegate Webert is trying to make it safe for you to visit Virginia! "It’s a crime in Virginia to swear in public. A lawmaker says that’s #@!#ing nuts."

  Reveal hidden contents

Virginia law demands that residents keep it clean, even in moments crying out for the foulest four-letter words. It’s illegal in this state to curse in public.

“Profane swearing” is a Class 4 misdemeanor punishable by a $250 fine, right up there with public intoxication. It’s a law that predates the Civil War. Yet modern-day potty-mouths still get charged under it — in small numbers, but in ways that can raise troubling questions about law enforcement.

But a state lawmaker from a county that sounds a lot like a curse word is trying hard to get rid of the law.

Del. Michael Webert (R-Fauquier) is a cattle farmer who knows that stuff happens. And that when it does, only a few choice words will do.

“When you’re working [with] cows and a 1,400-pound animal doesn’t do what you want it to, or steps on your feet, every once in a while something colorful comes out of your mouth,” said Webert, 38.

A conservative on most issues, Webert says his goal is to protect free speech and shrink a bloated state code by removing a law already deemed unconstitutional decades ago under Virginia Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

“When I cursed, my mother told me not to and handed me a bar of soap,” he said. “You shouldn’t get hit with a Class 4 misdemeanor.”

Repeal is by no means assured, even in a Capitol designed by free-speech champion Thomas Jefferson. Webert has carried the same bill for the past two sessions. Both times, it died in committee. It might have better chances when the General Assembly convenes next month, with lots of new, more-liberal delegates who were elected last month.

While it might make sense to scrap an unconstitutional law, legislators who vote for repeal could stand accused of promoting profanity. And that has made many wary of discussing Webert’s bill. The rare exception was Del. David Albo (R-Fairfax), who steps down in January and served on the House committee that torpedoed Webert’s previous attempts.

“We’ve had conversations about this type of thing over the years. There are a few statutes on the books that have been ruled unconstitutional,” Albo said, noting that state law still prohibits flag burning decades after the Supreme Court struck down such bans.

“Your opponent is not going to say, ‘Dave Albo voted to let people burn American flags, but to be fair, it’s unconstitutional.’ They’re not going to explain the whole thing,” Albo said. “For most people, it’s not worth it.”

There are reasons beyond political self-preservation for hanging on to the law.

Daniel Post Senning is the great-great grandson of the late Emily Post, whose musings about etiquette set the tone for polite society in a more formal era.

Senning, who carries on the family business through the Emily Post Institute, thinks there’s something to be said for keeping a lid on blue language.

“You want some sort of public standards for decorum,” said Senning, who has conducted etiquette seminars on the subject of profanity in the workplace. “We are definitely advocates for awareness and consideration.”

But academics who do scholarly research on swearing — really, they exist — say such bans are futile. It aims to “enforce politeness, and that’s not something that the law is equipped to do,” said Jesse Sheidlower, a lexicographer, Columbia University professor and author of “The F-Word,” a scholarly history of the word.

Jonathan Hunt, a University of San Francisco language professor who has researched cussing, said what’s considered profane is always changing. In a more religious era, blasphemy was considered the biggest taboo. In secular times, it was “anything having to do with bodily functions.” And today, racist or sexist slurs.

“There’s always some taboo in language, some perception that those words have a strange and magical power, often a power to harm,” he said. “And it moves around.”

It is not clear how many people get charged under Virginia’s law each year. Statewide figures are hard to come by since the statute covers swearing and public intoxication, and a breakdown for swearing alone was not immediately available. The numbers appear to be small based on arrests in Arlington County, which has a local ordinance modeled on the state law.

In a county of 230,000 residents, police charged a mere three people with cursing over the past two years.

That is not to say the law is all but forgotten. The Arlington County Board voted in 2015 to jack up the $100 local fine to match the state penalty. Virginia Beach, which also has a local ordinance, installed signs on its boardwalk saying swearing is banned, an effort to enhance the family-friendly atmosphere.

Fairfax County drew attention to its own swearing ban in late October, when police took a reporter from a liberal media outlet to the ground following an expletive-laced argument captured on video.

“If you curse again, you will go to jail,” an officer says at one point.

The reporter’s reply — “F--- this!” — triggers an aggressive arrest, though in the end he was charged with disorderly conduct and avoiding arrest.

Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Virginia affiliate, said it is “well settled law that generalized prohibitions on profanity in public are a violation of the First Amendment.”

“This is an interesting issue, in part because (even though they are supposed to issue a summons for misdemeanors) police often use this statute or a related local ordinance as an excuse to arrest someone, or at least stop them, and then do a search incident to arrest so they can arrest the person on another charge,” Gastañaga said in an email.

Virginia’s aversion to profanity goes back to the nation’s infancy, as native son George Washington famously ordered his troops to quit swearing in August 1776.

State law has prohibited public swearing at least since 1860. The fine then: $1 per offense.

I'm surprised I've never been charged under that statute.

No shit right? I’d spend my life in jail under that. 

[GreyhoundFan]

27 minutes ago, Destiny said:

No shit right? I’d spend my life in jail under that. 

No worries, I'll bail you out!

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

24 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

2 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

It didn't fully flip. It's now standing at 50-50, which forces a power-sharing situation. Of course, 50-50 is eons better than the 66-34 advantage the Repugs had before last month. The WaPo has a bit more on what will happen. There are still other recounts going on, but none were as close as this particular race.

The Virginia Senate is still in Repug hands, but they only have a 21-19 advantage, and the Lieutenant Governor, who breaks ties, is a Dem.

Spoiler

NEWPORT NEWS — The balance of power in Virginia’s legislature turned on a single vote in a recount Tuesday that flipped a seat in the House of Delegates from Republican to Democrat, leaving control of the lower chamber evenly split.

The outcome, which reverberated across Virginia, ends 17 years of GOP control of the House and forces Republicans into a rare episode of power sharing with Democrats that will refashion the political landscape in Richmond.

It was the culmination of last month’s Democratic wave that had already diminished Republican power in purple Virginia.

Democrat Shelly Simonds emerged from the recount as the apparent winner in the 94th House district, seizing the seat from Republican incumbent David Yancey. A three-judge panel still must certify the results, an event scheduled for Wednesday.

Of the 23,215 votes cast in the district on Election Day, Yancey held a tenuous lead of just 10 votes going into Tuesday’s recount.

But five tedious hours later, after painstaking counting overseen by local elections officials and the clerk of court, Yancey’s lead narrowed before it gradually disappeared and then reversed.

The final tally: 11,608 for Simonds to 11,607 for Yancey.

“I knew it was going to be a roller coaster ride and the counts were going to change and votes were going to shift around. but I had faith in the system and final outcome,” said Simonds, who stayed off Twitter to avoid anxiety. “This is part of a huge wave election in Virginia where voters came out in record numbers to force a change in Virginia, and I’m really proud to be part of that change.”

Power sharing in the House of Delegates is an awkward exercise; the last such arrangement was in 1998. Committee chairs have to be negotiated, as does the person who will serve as Speaker. With the parties split 50-50, there is no mechanism to break ties and any legislation short of 51 votes does not advance.

Republicans hold a slight 21-19 edge in the state Senate, but with a Democratic lieutenant governor to break ties, and a Democratic governor with veto power, Republicans may be forced to advance a more bipartisan agenda.

It’s a dramatic shift that caught even top Democrats by surprise. Republicans have controlled the 100-seat House since 2000; even outgoing Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a big cheerleader for his party, had thought the Republican edge was insurmountable.

But Democrats fired up by the election of Donald Trump turned out in big numbers on Election Day and ran as candidates in districts that hadn’t seen Democratic challengers in years.

That wave hit a new high mark with Tuesday’s recount.

“I don’t even live in the district but I am so excited, I can’t believe it,” said Susan Mariner, a Democrat who had come over from Virginia Beach just to see the recount.

Even election officials who had spent the day keeping order seemed rattled by the fact that such a momentous race could be settled in such dramatic fashion.

“Now as you report that - to the media - anybody that says their vote don’t count please make sure to stress that” it does, Newport News Electoral Board Chairman Sean Devlin said in announcing the official result.

Both sides agreed that the recount went smoothly but as the day wore on, the humdrum trickle of a vote here and a vote there began to build to high tension.

Volunteers had arrived at the Newport News city office building as early as 7:30 a.m. A conference room was outfitted with coffee, little buckets of candy and two massive ballot-scanning machines that the city rented for $15,000.

Teams of recount officials sat at four tables in the center of the room, with lawyers, the media and other onlookers kept along two walls. Each table featured two paid election officials - one selected by each party - and two volunteer observers, also one for each party.

Workers fed paper ballots into the machines one precinct at a time. Every time the machine couldn’t read a vote, it spit out the ballot. Those ballots were examined to determine if they carried a valid vote.

Of the 23 precincts, plus absentee and provisional ballots, there were only about 200 to 250 ballots that had to be examined by hand, Devlin said. Hour by hour, as each precinct was completed, workers posted the results on a white board. For much of the day, the result was either “no change” or “Simonds +1” next to one precinct after another.

Reporters and observers squinted to read the board and calculate what was happening to the total. Just when it seemed Simonds was eating away Yancey’s 10-vote margin, the Republican picked up a handful of votes to hold her off.

Lawyers for both sides, seated next to each other, were loose and joking in the morning.

But after a lunch break, the mood began to turn. Yancey stopped picking up votes - or when he did, Simonds matched him. With only three precincts left to count, Simonds had picked up 10 votes and Yancey had picked up four, preserving his lead.

Then Simonds picked up a few more. With one precinct to go, they appeared to be even.

“Anybody know what happens if it’s a tie?” one of the volunteers called out.

“It goes to the General Assembly,” Republican lawyer Trevor Stanley said.

In fact, in the event of a tied recount, Virginia law says the state board of elections chooses the winner by “determination by lot” – essentially, a coin toss.

By this time, he and the other lawyers were standing, pacing, talking in urgent tones into their phones. A shouting match erupted over whether the volunteer observers could talk to the election officials, and Devlin told the quarreling lawyers to quiet down or go outside.

At 3 p.m., Devlin told all the officials and observers to take their seats. The room had gone nearly silent, with all but one precinct in and Simonds showing a one-vote lead. Workers brought in a single box of absentee votes, then - with the whole room straining to see whether the whiteboard result would change - city registrar Vicki Lewis took the paperwork into a back room to go over the totals and check the math.

Twitter was in a frenzy but the results still weren’t final. At some point, word went around that the provisional ballots had changed nothing, and Simonds’ one-vote margin seemed to stand. The lawyers for the Republican edged outside with their phones.

By 3:20 p.m. Devlin announced the official results.

The process “appeared good,” said Stephen Klute, a volunteer for Yancey who was an offiical recount observer. He said he accepted the outcome. “Got to,” Klute said. “It’s the American way. The system works. So be it.”

Simonds had been waiting outside as the recount wound down, and said she wasn’t going to celebrate until she had confirmation from the city registrar.

She remembered how a Democrat named Jim Scott prevailed in a recount in 1991 to turn a 17-vote loss into a 1-vote win – earning the nickname “Landslide Jim.”

“I may become Landslide Shelly,” she said. “As long as they call me delegate, I’m okay with it.”

Yancey, who was in Richmond at a committee hearing, can contest the results of the election with the legislature, a step that veteran lawmakers last recall happening in 1979. But GOP officials said that seems unlikely.

“We congratulate Delegate-elect Simonds and welcome her to this historic body. We also thank Delegate David Yancey for his distinguished service,” House Majority Leader Kirk Cox (R-Colonial Heights) and other Republican leaders said via email.

“The responsibilities of the House of Delegates as an institution transcend party labels, and our obligations to govern this Commonwealth remain,” the GOP leaders said. “We stand ready to establish a bipartisan framework under which the House can operate efficiently and effectively over the next two years.”

The House Republican statement dropped the “Speaker-designate” title they normally provide to Cox, who Republicans chose to lead them had they kept their majority. A GOP official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Republicans weren’t quite sure what the process would be for choosing the next speaker.

With the chamber tied, House Clerk G. Paul Nardo, as the only sitting officer of the House, will preside over the chamber until a speaker is elected. The speakership will go to whomever can get to 51 votes first.

Gretchen Heal, Yancey’s campaign manager and spokeswoman, left the recount without speaking to voters and did not immediately return a text message and e-mail seeking comment.

The final makeup of the legislature is not settled. Recounts in two additional races are taking place this week: on Wednesday in Richmond’s District 68, where the Democrat leads by 336 votes, and on Thursday in Fredericksburg’s District 28, where the Republican leads by 82 votes. Democrats are seeking a new election in that one because more than 100 voters were mistakenly given ballots for the wrong legislative district.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Damn it: "Court tosses out one-vote victory in recount that had briefly ended a Republican majority in Virginia"

Spoiler

A three- judge panel declined to certify the recount of a key House race today, saying that a questionable ballot should be counted in favor of the Republican and tying a race that Democrats had thought they had won by a single vote.

“The court declares there is no winner in this election,” said Circuit Court Judge Bryant L. Sugg, after the judges deliberated for more than two hours.

The court’s decision leaves the race for the 94th District tied at 11,608 votes for each Del. David Yancey, the Republican incumbent, and Shelly Simonds, his Democratic challenger.

And it leaves the balance of power in the state legislature at 49-51, in favor of Republicans - at least for now.

In the case of a tie in a House race, state law says the winner is chosen by lot – essentially, a coin toss, according to Virginia state law.

But it doesn’t end there. If the loser of the coin toss is unhappy with that result, he or she can seek a second recount.

A person who answered Simonds’ cell phone said she was unavailable for comment. Yancey declined to comment to reporters as he walked out of the court house.

If the Repugs get to manage the coin toss, it will probably be a two-headed coin.

Edited December 20, 2017 by GreyhoundFan

[AmazonGrace]

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[onekidanddone]

On 12/15/2017 at 9:36 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

Okay, @Destiny, Delegate Webert is trying to make it safe for you to visit Virginia! "It’s a crime in Virginia to swear in public. A lawmaker says that’s #@!#ing nuts."

  Reveal hidden contents

Virginia law demands that residents keep it clean, even in moments crying out for the foulest four-letter words. It’s illegal in this state to curse in public.

“Profane swearing” is a Class 4 misdemeanor punishable by a $250 fine, right up there with public intoxication. It’s a law that predates the Civil War. Yet modern-day potty-mouths still get charged under it — in small numbers, but in ways that can raise troubling questions about law enforcement.

But a state lawmaker from a county that sounds a lot like a curse word is trying hard to get rid of the law.

Del. Michael Webert (R-Fauquier) is a cattle farmer who knows that stuff happens. And that when it does, only a few choice words will do.

“When you’re working [with] cows and a 1,400-pound animal doesn’t do what you want it to, or steps on your feet, every once in a while something colorful comes out of your mouth,” said Webert, 38.

A conservative on most issues, Webert says his goal is to protect free speech and shrink a bloated state code by removing a law already deemed unconstitutional decades ago under Virginia Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

“When I cursed, my mother told me not to and handed me a bar of soap,” he said. “You shouldn’t get hit with a Class 4 misdemeanor.”

Repeal is by no means assured, even in a Capitol designed by free-speech champion Thomas Jefferson. Webert has carried the same bill for the past two sessions. Both times, it died in committee. It might have better chances when the General Assembly convenes next month, with lots of new, more-liberal delegates who were elected last month.

While it might make sense to scrap an unconstitutional law, legislators who vote for repeal could stand accused of promoting profanity. And that has made many wary of discussing Webert’s bill. The rare exception was Del. David Albo (R-Fairfax), who steps down in January and served on the House committee that torpedoed Webert’s previous attempts.

“We’ve had conversations about this type of thing over the years. There are a few statutes on the books that have been ruled unconstitutional,” Albo said, noting that state law still prohibits flag burning decades after the Supreme Court struck down such bans.

“Your opponent is not going to say, ‘Dave Albo voted to let people burn American flags, but to be fair, it’s unconstitutional.’ They’re not going to explain the whole thing,” Albo said. “For most people, it’s not worth it.”

There are reasons beyond political self-preservation for hanging on to the law.

Daniel Post Senning is the great-great grandson of the late Emily Post, whose musings about etiquette set the tone for polite society in a more formal era.

Senning, who carries on the family business through the Emily Post Institute, thinks there’s something to be said for keeping a lid on blue language.

“You want some sort of public standards for decorum,” said Senning, who has conducted etiquette seminars on the subject of profanity in the workplace. “We are definitely advocates for awareness and consideration.”

But academics who do scholarly research on swearing — really, they exist — say such bans are futile. It aims to “enforce politeness, and that’s not something that the law is equipped to do,” said Jesse Sheidlower, a lexicographer, Columbia University professor and author of “The F-Word,” a scholarly history of the word.

Jonathan Hunt, a University of San Francisco language professor who has researched cussing, said what’s considered profane is always changing. In a more religious era, blasphemy was considered the biggest taboo. In secular times, it was “anything having to do with bodily functions.” And today, racist or sexist slurs.

“There’s always some taboo in language, some perception that those words have a strange and magical power, often a power to harm,” he said. “And it moves around.”

It is not clear how many people get charged under Virginia’s law each year. Statewide figures are hard to come by since the statute covers swearing and public intoxication, and a breakdown for swearing alone was not immediately available. The numbers appear to be small based on arrests in Arlington County, which has a local ordinance modeled on the state law.

In a county of 230,000 residents, police charged a mere three people with cursing over the past two years.

That is not to say the law is all but forgotten. The Arlington County Board voted in 2015 to jack up the $100 local fine to match the state penalty. Virginia Beach, which also has a local ordinance, installed signs on its boardwalk saying swearing is banned, an effort to enhance the family-friendly atmosphere.

Fairfax County drew attention to its own swearing ban in late October, when police took a reporter from a liberal media outlet to the ground following an expletive-laced argument captured on video.

“If you curse again, you will go to jail,” an officer says at one point.

The reporter’s reply — “F--- this!” — triggers an aggressive arrest, though in the end he was charged with disorderly conduct and avoiding arrest.

Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Virginia affiliate, said it is “well settled law that generalized prohibitions on profanity in public are a violation of the First Amendment.”

“This is an interesting issue, in part because (even though they are supposed to issue a summons for misdemeanors) police often use this statute or a related local ordinance as an excuse to arrest someone, or at least stop them, and then do a search incident to arrest so they can arrest the person on another charge,” Gastañaga said in an email.

Virginia’s aversion to profanity goes back to the nation’s infancy, as native son George Washington famously ordered his troops to quit swearing in August 1776.

State law has prohibited public swearing at least since 1860. The fine then: $1 per offense.

I'm surprised I've never been charged under that statute.

That had better not be the law in Maryland, or I'd be headed to Super Max for sure. Hell if the law holds true for minors my 14  year old should be in juvie until she ages out at 21. Not one of my prouder moments when I hear myself coming ot of my daughter's mouth.

[AmazonGrace]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/north-carolina-not-democracy-elections-cuba-iran-venezuela-gop-a7494561.html

According to some political scientists North Carolina is no longer classified as a democracy due to dismal voting rights record and gerrymandering.

[AmazonGrace]

 

[fraurosena]

What an absolute racist asshole!

 

[onekidanddone]

17 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

 

I texted with my Wisconsin connection about this. He said the vote was probably influenced by the proximity to the Twin Cities. It is a very rural area which made the surprising Blue victory that much better.

[WiseGirl]

3 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

I texted with my Wisconsin connection about this. He said the vote was probably influenced by the proximity to the Twin Cities. It is a very rural area which made the surprising Blue victory that much better.

I used to live in WI. I've noticed a lot of discontent for repugs showing up on my FB feed. I'm hoping......

[onekidanddone]

3 minutes ago, WiseGirl said:

I used to live in WI. I've noticed a lot of discontent for repugs showing up on my FB feed. I'm hoping......

I once asked my buddy about Walker, and the response was defiantly NSFW. The next one up is a special election in Pennsylvania. I'm thinking this is to replace the pro-life guy who bullied his mistress about  having an abortion 

[47of74]

So, is the state of Ohio planning to help these people care for their family members with Down Syndrome, or will they be presented with a pair of beautifully wrapped bootstraps and some thoughts and prayers? 

Of course not. And some of these Reich wing fucksticks will probably say to the mother than she should’ve kept her knees closed.

[CTRLZero]

A Facebook friend* from Arizona posted a "Lightning Bolt Update" from Arizona State Senator Sylvia Tenney Allen.  It's easy to find, so I won't post a link, but it includes some typical snippets (I laughed at the last sentence, because it seems even his biggest fan realizes there's a slight problem):
 

Quote

 

...Obama, who was slick...destroyed our country and push the world towards an Islamic Caliphate and socialist/Marxist economic system...

Now we have a very maverick, totally anti PC President...

[various praising of Trump's actions, yada, yada]

Pray for President Trump that he will humble himself and realize that he needs to change his delivery...

 

*My friend is not a Trump fan, but this Senator definitely is.

[AmazonGrace]

Supreme Court likes gerrymanders:

http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/18/politics/north-carolina-supreme-court-redistricting/index.html?sr=twCNNp011818north-carolina-supreme-court-redistricting0639PMStory&CNNPolitics=Tw

[47of74]

On 1/18/2018 at 10:08 PM, CTRLZero said:

A Facebook friend* from Arizona posted a "Lightning Bolt Update" from Arizona State Senator Sylvia Tenney Allen.  It's easy to find, so I won't post a link, but it includes some typical snippets (I laughed at the last sentence, because it seems even his biggest fan realizes there's a slight problem):
 

*My friend is not a Trump fan, but this Senator definitely is.

I'd reply back to said Senator with a not very nice description of what she could go do with her update.

Where I live in Iowa we have a Branch Trumpvidian as our Rep in the Iowa House.  She repeats all manner of horseshit than tries to gaslight people who call her ass to the carpet.

[GreyhoundFan]

Argh: "Virginia Senate passes bill to allow guns in places of worship"

Spoiler

RICHMOND — The Republican-controlled Virginia Senate voted Tuesday to repeal an old law banning guns — as well as bowie knives, daggers and other weapons — from places of worship.

Sen. A. Benton Chafin Jr. (R-Russell) said the “archaic law,” thought to date to Colonial times, treads on the private-property rights of churches. He also said it threatens the safety of worshipers, noting the massacre of 26 people at a Texas church in November.

“For any of us to sit here and think that when a gunman comes to you that a law is going to somehow protect you is sheer lunacy,” Chafin said during the floor debate.

The measure passed along party lines, 21 to 18, with one Democrat absent. The bill now heads to the House, which like the Senate is narrowly controlled by Republicans.

Through a spokesman, Gov. Ralph Northam (D) signaled he will veto the measure if it reaches his desk. “The governor is ready to work with the General Assembly to promote responsible gun ownership, but he does not believe more guns in more locations is a solution to the real problem of gun violence,” Northam spokesman Brian Coy said.

State law prohibits carrying “any gun, pistol, bowie knife, dagger or other dangerous weapon, without good and sufficient reason, to a place of worship.”

In 2011, then-Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) issued an opinion that the ban would not apply to someone with a ­concealed-carry permit, Sen. J. Chapman “Chap” Petersen (D-Fairfax) noted during an extended debate.

“Attorney generals come and they go,” Chafin replied, suggesting that worshipers could not rely on that opinion as legal protection if they carried a gun to church. He contended that under the current law, places of worship could not station armed security guards in their buildings.

Sen. Jeremy S. McPike (D-Prince William) offered what he said would be a better solution. He wants to ban worshipers from carrying weapons unless they have authorization from the house of worship. He sponsored a bill to that effect, but it died in a Senate committee last week.

Chafin said that if his own bill passed, churches could still choose to ban weapons from their premises.

Petersen, a lawyer who has represented churches in litigation, warned that churches, mosques and synagogues would be plunged into great controversy if guns became an option.

“Trying to decide whether you pass the collection plate from the left side or the right side is oftentimes an issue of controversy,” he said. “We’ve got plenty of issues already.”

Luckily, the Repugs lost their super-majority last November, so they probably won't be able to override the governor's veto.

[fraurosena]

Calling this 'an ethics problem' or 'a conflict of interest' is not what this is and is covering the truth in sweetly couched terms. This is corruption, pure and simple, and I wish everyone would start calling it for what it is. Why can't they just call a spade a spade when they see one?

What else is it, when a Republican lawmaker pays a Republican justice on the PA supreme court $25,000, when that justice is ruling on your gerrymandering case?

Republicans Fighting to Protect Gerrymandering in Pennsylvania Have an Ethics Problem

Quote

Last week, after the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court invalidated the state’s GOP-friendly congressional map, top Republicans in the state Legislature asked the state Supreme Court to throw out the decision. One of the Democratic justices, they argued, should have recused himself from the case because of comments he made in 2015 opposing gerrymandering.

But one of these Republicans, Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph Scarnati, did not disclose a more serious conflict of interest: Scarnati donated $25,000 to a different state Supreme Court justice, Republican Sallie Mundy, in April 2017. The donation came through his political action committee.

State Supreme Court justices in Pennsylvania are elected in partisan campaigns, and according to campaign finance disclosures, last year Mundy received donations from Scarnati as well as two Republican members of the US Congress from Pennsylvania. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick donated $1,000 to Mundy’s campaign on July 27, 2017, after the gerrymandering case was filed in state court, according to Mundy’s filing. On November 1, 2017, after voting rights groups had asked the state Supreme Court to take the case, GOP Rep. Charlie Dent donated $1,000 to Mundy. Both Fitzpatrick’s and Dent’s congressional districts were at stake in the case. Both congressman also gave through their political action committees. 

The day after Dent’s donation, Mundy filed a letter disclosing that a law firm involved in the case had donated to her campaign. But she never disclosed the donations from Scarnati, Fitzpatrick, or Dent. Mundy won reelection for a 10-year term less than a week later. 

“It’s a mistake,” Jim Mundy, the justice’s campaign treasurer and ex-husband, told Mother Jones Monday morning. Of Scarnati’s contribution, he said, “She is disclosing it as we speak.” According to Mundy, the campaign had pulled a list of individual contributors to her campaign for her to consider when making disclosures but did not include political action committees on that list. Now, he said, they would go back through their contributors to find politicians’ personal PACs.

The offices of Scarnati and Dent did not respond to requests for comment. Scarnati released a statement Monday afternoon noting that it is up to Mundy to decide which donations to disclose but that both Scarnati’s PAC and Mundy’s campaign reported the donation in publicly available campaign finance filings. Fitzpatrick’s campaign manager, Mike Barley, insists that Fitzpatrick did not donate to Mundy’s campaign and suggests the donation might have come from Fitzpatrick’s brother, former congressman Mike Fitzpatrick.

Last month, the court ruled that Pennsylvania’s congressional map, one of the most gerrymandered in the country, violated the state’s constitution. The vote was 5-2, with Mundy one of the two dissenters. The court ordered new maps to be drawn in time for the 2018 midterm elections. The decision was a big boost to Democrats hoping to retake the House of Representatives in November, and Republicans have fought it.

In addition to trying to get the decision thrown out over the Democratic justice’s public comments—a long shot because recusal requests are supposed to come before a decision, not after it—Republicans have asked the US Supreme Court to intervene. Republican secretaries of state from across the country have also weighed in, asking the Supreme Court to block the implementation of a new map in November. But that’s also considered a long shot because the matter concerns interpretation of the state constitution.

 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Rachel Crooks, who accused Trump of sexual harassment, is running for office"

Spoiler

Last December, as the Trump presidency chugged toward the close of its first year, a woman from western Ohio named Rachel Crooks appeared on CNN.

More than a year earlier, Crooks had been one of a handful of women to accuse then-candidate Donald Trump of unwanted sexual advances. Now, with Trump planted in the White House, Crooks was back in the public realm, pushing for a congressional investigation into the president’s behavior. The network’s Alisyn Camerota asked Crooks how she felt seeing the #MeToo movement flash across so many industries but miss the White House.

“I’m so thankful other women have the courage to come forward but I do feel forgotten,” Crooks admitted. “You can’t help but wonder why people aren’t talking about Trump and the people that came forward for him and why he’s immune to this.”

Crooks, who first detailed her allegations against Trump to the New York Times in October 2016, has continued to vocally press her case against the president. And like an unprecedented number of women, she’s now channeling her personal reaction into the political realm. On Monday, Crooks announced she was running for a seat representing Ohio’s 88th district in the State House.

“I think my voice should have been heard then, and I’ll still fight for it to be heard now,” the candidate told Cosmopolitan. “Americans are really upset with politics as usual, and I want to be a voice for them.”

As he has with other charges of unwanted sexual advances, Trump has denied Crooks’s claims. Last December, The Washington Post reported the White House had condemned the allegations “as a liberal political ploy.”

Crooks’s allegation dates from 2005 when she was a then-22-year-old receptionist at Bayrock Group, a real estate development firm located in Trump Tower in Manhattan. One day, Crooks introduced herself to Trump.

“Mr. Trump repeatedly kissed my cheeks and ultimately my lips in an encounter that has since impacted my life well beyond the initial occurrence in the feelings of self-doubt and insignificance I had,” she explained at a December 2017 news conference. “Unfortunately, given Mr. Trump’s notoriety and the fact that he was a partner of my employer, not to mention the owner of the building, I felt there was nothing I could do.”

Crooks, however, did immediately tell her sister and boyfriend, both of whom confirmed her account to the Times in October 2016.

Crooks grew up in the district, a rural part of western Ohio outside Toledo. According to her campaign release, her father was a mechanic, her mother a nurse. Living now in Tiffin, Crooks today works as the director of international student recruitment at Heidelberg University. She told Cosmopolitan she was urged to run by members of Seneca County Rising, a liberal resistance group in the area.

“I didn’t necessarily see myself in this role,” she told the magazine. “But multiple people encouraged and said, ‘I think you would be great.’ Once you hear it a few times, you start to believe it a little bit, and fully consider it. Once I sat down and mulled it over, I felt like it really was a duty that I had, that I should take on this responsibility firsthand and try to make a difference for other people.”

Crooks’s campaign has the backing of the Ohio Democratic Party. The seat is now held by Republican Bill Reineke. The district voted for Trump in 2016, but went for Barack Obama in both 2008 and 2012.  

“My top priorities for Ohio include creating good-paying, family-sustaining jobs, ensuring access to affordable health care, making sure our kids have great schools no matter where they live and investing in higher education and career training to prepare Ohioans for those good jobs,” she said in a statement.

Crooks’s campaign fits into a larger wave of first-time female candidates running for office since Trump’s election.

As The Post reported last month the Center for American Women and Politics has said 390 women have filed or plan to file for U.S. House seats, with 49 women eyeing runs for the U.S. Senate, the largest pool of women candidates ever. Emily’s List, a fundraising operation that trains pro-choice Democratic women for campaigns, has said they’ve been contacted by more than 26,000 women about potential runs, Time reported.

I hope she wins.

[AmazonGrace]