DOJ sues Virginia for allegedly purging voters too close to election
Thinkstock/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department filed suit against Virginia on Friday over a statewide program aimed at removing voters from its election rolls in the lead-up to the 2024 election if DMV records don’t indicate United States citizenship.
The Department said it filed the lawsuit based on a federal law that prohibits purges from rolls within the 90-day period leading up to an election.
“As the National Voter Registration Act mandates, officials across the country should take heed of the law’s crystal clear and unequivocal restrictions on systematic list maintenance efforts that fall within 90 days of an election,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
The system, implemented via executive order by Gov. Glenn Youngkin, has already faced lawsuits from several immigration rights groups.
The DOJ recently filed a similar lawsuit against the state of Alabama over similar voter roll purges.
The Justice Department seeks injunctive relief that “would restore the ability of impacted eligible voters to vote unimpeded on Election Day,” the department said in a statement.
In a statement on the governor’s website, Youngkin called the lawsuit a “politically motivated action,” and vowed to not “stand idly by.”
Rep. Nancy Mace; Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Republican Rep. Nancy Mace said Tuesday that the bill she introduced to ban transgender women from using biological women’s restrooms at the U.S. Capitol was “absolutely” in response to Rep.-elect Sarah McBride’s entering Congress.
“Yes, and absolutely. And then some,” Mace told reporters at the Capitol.
“I’m not going to stand for a man, you know, someone with a penis, in the women’s locker room,” she said.
McBride, a Democrat from Delaware, didn’t respond to questions on the topic as she entered the House Democratic caucus meeting Tuesday morning.
Monday night, she responded to Mace in a post on X, saying, “This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing.”
Outside the Republican conference meeting, GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia called McBride a “biological man” and said she had confronted House Speaker Mike Johnson at during the House Republican Conference meeting Tuesday morning about what “men in leadership” would do to address their concerns.
“You know, Sarah McBride, as he calls himself, formerly Tim McBride, is a biological man, and he should not be using any of our restrooms in the Capitols, in the in our office buildings. But Nancy Mace’s resolution doesn’t go far enough,” Greene said.
“A resolution is just a statement by Congress saying that Congress disagrees with something we need, something more binding. And that’s what I just brought up at the microphones there — in our conference, I directly asked Speaker Johnson what the men in our leadership are going to do about this, because this this has to be stopped,” Greene added.
Mace invoked her own experiences as a victim of rape as part of the reason she introduced the measure.
“That’s not okay. And I’m a victim of abuse myself. I’m a rape survivor,” Mace said. “I have PTSD from the abuse I’ve suffered at the hands of a man, and I know how vulnerable women and girls are in private spaces, so I’m absolutely 100% going to stand in the way of any man who wants to be in a women’s restroom, in our locker rooms, in our changing rooms. I will be there fighting you every step of the way,” she said.
Mace told ABC’s John Parkinson that she wanted to expand her efforts and push a measure that would ban transgender women from using biological women’s bathrooms on all federal property.
“Number one, I want to see this in the House Rules package. I want to make sure that no men are in women’s private spaces. And it’s not going to end here. This shouldn’t be going on any federal property. If you’re a school or an institution that gets government funding, this kind of thing should be banned. I think it’s sick. It’s twisted,” Mace said.
Mace said that her position was a feminist one.
“I have fought like hell for women’s rights. I mean, 25 years ago, this year, I became the first woman to break the glass ceiling and graduate from a military college that was formerly all male, and to see the way that I’ve been attacked today and last night for fighting to protect women and girls — it’s ridiculous. So, if that — being a feminist makes me an extremist, I’m totally here for it,” she said.
“And if McBride wants to go to the gym, she can go to Planet Fitness, where they allow biological men to be around in a room in a private space with underage girls like no thank you. It’s not going to happen, not on my watch,” Mace said.
During his weekly news conference Tuesday morning, Johnson declined to speak about McBride’s gender when asked by a reporter whether she is a man or woman. Johnson also would not say if he’d support Mace’s proposal to ban transgender women from women bathrooms in the Capitol.
Asked whether McBride is a man or a woman, he responded, “Look, I’m not going to get into this. We welcome all new members with open arms who are duly elected representatives of the people. I believe it’s a it’s a command we treat all persons with dignity and respect. We will. And I’m not going to engage in silly debates about this. There’s a concern about uses of restroom facilities and locker rooms and all that. This is an issue that Congress has never had to address before. We’re going to do that in deliberate fashion with every consensus on it, and we will accommodate the needs of every single person.”
Then asked whether he would respond to Mace’s measure, he answered, “I’m not going to address plans on any of that. I just told you what I’m going to say about the issue. I’m not going to engage in this. We don’t look down upon anyone. We treat everybody. That’s a principle that would have pursued my whole life issue, a first impression for Congress, as we will any other thing. We’ll provide appropriate accommodation for every member of Congress.”
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump’s attorneys have asked the judge overseeing his federal election interference case to further delay the release of a redacted appendix containing evidence amassed by special counsel Jack Smith in his probe of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a Thursday morning court filing.
The release of the redacted appendix, which was an attachment to the immunity motion unsealed two weeks ago by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that included new details about Trump and his allies’ actions leading up to the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, is currently scheduled for Thursday.
In their motion Thursday, Trump’s attorneys requested that Chutkan delay the release of the appendix until Nov. 14 — after the presidential election — when Trump’s own reply brief appendix is due. The former president is expected to argue that his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6 should be immune from prosecution.
“Here, President Trump requests only that the Court briefly continue its existing stay of the Order, such that the redacted versions of the SC Appendix and President Trump’s forthcoming appendix may be released concurrently,” the filing said. “Although this stay will not eliminate the harms President Trump identified in his prior opposition filings, certain harms will be mitigated. For example, if the Court immediately releases the Special Counsel’s cherry-picked documents, potential jurors will be left with a skewed, one-sided, and inaccurate picture of this case.”
“If the appendices are released simultaneously, at least some press outlets will attempt to report both sides of this case, reducing (although, again, not eliminating) the potential for irreversible prejudice,” the filing said.
The filing includes arguments that could draw direct a rebuke from Judge Chutkan, after she previously warned Trump’s attorneys to not level any further allegations of partisanship at Smith’s team without providing evidence.
Trump’s attorneys also argue that while Chutkan has previously said the election will play no role in her decisions in the case, she should address “the public’s interest in ensuring that this case does not unduly interfere, or appear to interfere, with the ongoing election.”
Smith did not respond to Trump’s request for a delay, the filing says.
Trump last year pleaded not guilty to federal charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election in order to remain in power.
Smith subsequently charged Trump in a superseding indictment that was adjusted to respect the Supreme Court’s July ruling that Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken as president.
(NEW YORK) — Israelis broadly pick former President Donald Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris as better for Israel’s security and in turn favor Trump for the U.S. presidency, albeit with sharp political divisions, a national survey by Langer Research Associates and PORI (Public Opinion Research Israel) finds.
Fifty-eight percent of Israelis in the survey, conducted in September, said Trump would be better for Israel’s security, vs. 20% for Harris. If they had a vote in the U.S. election, Israelis said they’d pick Trump over Harris by a similar 54%-24%, with the rest taking a pass.
To a large degree, these attitudes follow the fault lines in Israeli politics. Among people who would support parties in the ruling coalition led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if an election in Israel were today, 88% picked Trump as better for Israel’s security and 84% preferred him for the U.S. presidency — results that may reflect tensions between Netanyahu’s government and the Biden administration.
Supporters of Israeli opposition parties, by contrast, split closely, 39%-37%, Harris-Trump, in preference for the presidency. That said, even opposition party supporters picked Trump over Harris as better for Israel’s security, albeit by a comparatively close 41%-32%.
While much attention now is on the conflict with Hezbollah and Iran, another question finds majority Israeli rejection of the suggestion that Israel is doing too little to avoid civilian casualties in the war in Gaza. To the contrary, “considering the challenges of conducting battles in populated areas,” 54% said Israel is doing too much to avoid such casualties. Twenty-eight percent said it’s doing the right amount; 14%, too little.
The three questions in this study were included in a random-sample, face-to-face survey of 1,012 Israelis, with fieldwork by PORI, Sept. 8-22, before the bulk of Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah and Iran’s subsequent missile attack this week. (Eighty-two percent of interviews were completed before Sept. 17, when thousands of Hezbollah pagers exploded.)
The U.S. election
In addition to the political gaps in attitudes toward the U.S. presidential candidates, ethnic and religious differences are sharp. Sixty-four percent of Jews picked Trump over Harris as better for Israel’s security, while Arabs, who account for about 17% of Israel’s adult citizen population, divided essentially evenly, 27%-24%; 36% saw no difference between the two. In vote preference, Jews went for Trump by 58%-23%, while Arabs split 28%-26%; the rest said they wouldn’t participate or didn’t express a preference.
Gaps also are present within the Jewish population. The shares picking Trump as better on security ranged from 53% of secular Jews to 88% of Orthodox Jews. Patterns are similar in preference for the presidency: Secular Jews favored Trump by 11 points, 46%-35%, widening to 65%-17% among traditional Jews and 69%-3% among ultra-Orthodox Jews, and peaking for Trump at 85%-4% among Orthodox Jews.
U.S. election preferences among Israeli Jews overall are sharply different from those of Jews in the United States. In ABC News/Ipsos polling, combining late August and mid-September surveys for an adequate sample size, U.S. Jews favored Harris over Trump by 63%-33%.
Another difference is by age. In the United States, Harris does best with younger adults. In Israel, it’s Trump who does best in this group, with 65% of those younger than 35 picking Trump on security and 58% supporting him for president. These drop to 52% and 48% for Trump, respectively, among Israelis age 65 and older.
Trump also prevails among Israelis in strength of sentiment. Thirty percent overall said they’d “surely” support Trump for president, vs. 10% who said this about Harris; and 37% said Trump would be “much” better for Israel’s security, compared with 12% for Harris.
Civilian casualties in Gaza
There also are ethnic, religious and political gaps in views of efforts to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza, given the challenges of urban combat. Strikingly, while just 7% of Jews said Israel is doing too little to avoid such casualties, that rises to 50% of Israeli Arabs.
Among Jews, about eight in 10 of those who are Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox said Israel is doing too much to avoid civilian casualties. This falls to 63% of traditional Jews and 47% of secular Jews.
Politically, among those who favor coalition parties, 76% said Israel is doing too much to avoid civilian casualties. This declines to 41% of opposition party supporters, with 21% saying Israel is doing too little; 34%, about the right amount.
About this survey
This survey is a joint project of Langer Research Associates, a New York-based firm that specializes in the design, management and analysis of public opinion research domestically and internationally; and PORI (Public Opinion Research Israel), a leading Israeli public opinion research firm founded in 1966. The study’s questions were asked as a part of PORI’s September face-to-face omnibus survey.
The survey was conducted in Hebrew and Arabic among 1,012 respondents across Israel via area probability sampling. One hundred primary sampling units were randomly selected, with households selected via random walk and respondents selected via the last-birthday method. Up to three revisits were made at each selected household. In quality control, 20% of each interviewer’s work was re-checked randomly by phone.
Data were weighted for probability of selection and calibrated to census data for sex by age and region. Results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 points for the full sample, including a design effect due to weighting of 1.05. As in any survey, error margins are larger for subgroups. Sampling error is not the only source of differences in polls.
