El Tribunal Supremo de Minnesota escuchó ayer (jueves) los argumentos en un caso de alto perfil que implica los esfuerzos para mantener al expresidente Donald Trump fuera de la votación primaria del estado. Se trata de un caso similar al que se ha llevado a cabo en otros lugares del país en relación con sus acciones del 6 de enero.

Una pregunta clave relacionada con el caso es si Trump es responsable de incitar la insurrección, y si esas acciones entran en conflicto con una cláusula de la 14ª Enmienda.

El politólogo David Sturrock, de la Universidad Estatal del Suroeste de Minnesota, dice que otra cuestión es si los estados tienen autoridad para tomar la determinación, y si quieren sentar un precedente importante.


"Por lo general, los tribunales se inclinan por permitir a los votantes que puedan elegir," asegura Sturrock. "Son reacios a decirle a los votantes o a los funcionarios electorales: "No pueden incluir el nombre de un candidato en la boleta"."

Dice que ese factor pesa mucho, aunque reconoce que son aguas desconocidas y que es razonable cuestionar las acciones de Trump el 6 de enero. Los observadores de la Corte dicen que los jueces parecían escépticos ante los argumentos de los solicitantes. Sus abogados sostienen que Trump participó en una rebelión contra la Constitución de Estados Unidos y que la 14ª Enmienda está redactada para evitar que los "insurrectos" asuman el poder nuevamente. Un caso similar se está desarrollando en Colorado.

Sturrock dice que otra cosa a tener en cuenta son las posibles consecuencias si los tribunales se ponen del lado de los demandantes que quieren que Trump sea eliminado de la boleta electoral.

"Facilita que la próxima vez, cualquiera de los dos partidos pueda perseguir a un miembro del otro partido con acusaciones falsas," dice Sturrock. "Y cuanto más fácil le resulte utilizar una herramienta, más probabilidades habrá de que los miembros más exaltados la utilicen."

Dice que eso es evidente ahora mismo en el Congreso, ya que algunos miembros intentan censurar a sus colegas por asuntos que no se consideran dignos de tal disciplina.

Sturrock dice que otro desafío al que se enfrentan los peticionarios en Minnesota es la falta de tiempo antes de las primarias, especialmente si estos casos acaban ante Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos.



get more stories like this via email

By Kyla Russell for WISH-TV.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the WISH-TV-Free Press Indiana-Public News Service Collaboration

Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith said he supports efforts to redistrict Indiana's U.S. House seats, and he's seen what could be redrawn maps floating around, but has not seen any official maps.

He shared his thoughts on Friday in a one-on-one interview with I-Team 8.

"People want to scream about gerrymandering. Listen, every state does it. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. I think what Republicans have kind of fallen into the trap of doing for many years in the establishment way of thinking is if we just play nice, they'll play nice, if and when they're in power. We found out that that doesn't happen. So, listen, we've got the ball. We need to run the ball down the field, and we should do everything we can to make big wins for Republican principles, constitutional concepts and I believe ... the Republican Party embodies those principles better than the other party does. So, I'm fully in support of President Trump and his offensive-minded strategy here."

Beckwith told I-Team 8 he does not know exactly what happened on Thursday in a closed-door meeting at the Statehouse with Vice President JD Vance, Gov. Mike Braun and other top state lawmakers.

However, Beckwith said, he is aware of the taxpayer cost to calling a special session.

He says it's worth it.

"I think in the long run, if we can get the outcome that we're looking for, I think it will be certainly we're going to have to spend money. Yes, they are expensive. Nobody takes that lightly. That is certainly a conversation that needs to be had, and we need to look at that. But, I do think if we can take the 1st and 7th districts back, and really make Indiana a powerhouse red state, and then also give Washington a boost with a little bit more in the majority there. I think, economically, it will pay off in the long run, and I think we'll see our investment have big returns."/p<>


Kyla Russell wrote this article for WISH-TV.


get more stories like this via email

A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.

The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.

Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.

"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."

The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.

"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.

Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.

"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."


get more stories like this via email

Texas lawmakers will return to Austin on July 21 for a special legislative session called by Gov. Greg Abbott.

The 18 items on the agenda include redrawing congressional maps. Redistricting usually occurs every 10 years, following the census, but Abbott added the item to the agenda after the Department of Justice drew attention to four Democratic seats.

Christina Sanders, founder of the nonprofit PoliChic Engagement Fund, said Texas maps are already caught up in litigation.

"Some of the court cases that are still even pending from the maps that have not been drawn fairly and the potential impact of new maps in the middle of a census cycle," Sanders explained.

The Biden administration sued Texas, alleging the state's legislative and congressional district maps discriminate against Latino and Black voters. The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, withdrew from the lawsuit earlier this year.

The seats targeted by the Justice Department are held by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, and Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas. They are also focused on the vacant seat previously held by late Congressman Sylvester Turner. Following the 2023 legislative session, Abbott called four special sessions to pass a school voucher bill, which failed.

Sanders feels Abbott is using special sessions to push personal agendas.

"A special session would be for something like the flood that just occurred," Sanders argued. "It would be something that there is an emergency -- something immediate needs to happen at this moment -- because this policy for the state cannot wait."

Flood warning systems and communication are also on the agenda, along with hemp and THC legislation and changes to the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness test.