Connect with us

CBS News

Supreme Court won’t let Green Party candidate Jill Stein on Nevada general election ballot

Avatar

Published

on


Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a bid to put Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein on the Nevada general election ballot, leaving in place a lower court decision that excluded the party from the vote.

The dispute is one of the first involving the upcoming election to land before the Supreme Court, though more are likely to follow. The high court in August revived part of an Arizona law requiring documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote using a state-created form, but declined to allow enforcement of provisions mandating such proof in order to vote for president or by mail.

Both Nevada and Arizona are key battleground states that could decide the outcome of the presidential contest between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Stein is the Green Party’s nominee for president. Ballots in Nevada had to be finalized by Sept. 6.

The Supreme Court denied a request from the Nevada Green Party to toss out a lower court injunction that blocked its candidates from appearing on the general election ballot. There were no noted dissents.

The Nevada case

The dispute involving the Nevada Green Party was brought by the Nevada State Democratic Party, which sued in June to challenge the Green Party’s access to the ballot. Nevada Democrats claimed the Green Party, a minor political party in the state, used the wrong form to gather signatures to get on the ballot, rendering them invalid. The Green Party had been inadvertently emailed the incorrect form by the Nevada Secretary of State’s Office after its original petition contained a technical error. 

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein speaks during the People's 1st Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on July, 13, 2024.
Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein speaks during the People’s 1st Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on July, 13, 2024.

Joel Angel Juarez for The Washington Post via Getty Images


The state Democratic Party was correct that the wrong affidavit was circulated, but the Green Party argued that keeping its candidates off the ballot would violate the Constitution. The Green Party prevailed before a state district court, but the Nevada Supreme Court found its rights were not violated. 

The state high court then ordered the secretary of state to remove the Nevada Green Party candidates from the general election ballot.

“If the Green Party had reviewed the petition before using it, it would have discovered the incorrect circulator affidavit as the Green Party was clearly aware of the legal requirements for the affidavit considering it had used the correct affidavit in its original petition,” the Nevada Supreme Court said in its divided decision earlier this month. “This is an unfortunate oversight on the part of both the secretary and the Green Party.”

In a request for emergency relief from the Supreme Court, lawyers for the Nevada Green Party called the state court’s order preventing access to the ballot “extraordinary,” and a violation of due process and equal protection. They urged the Supreme Court to toss out the lower court ruling excluding the Green Party from the Nov. 5 ballot.

Green Party candidates “are wrongfully ripped from the ballot and Nevadans who would vote for them in this election are robbed of the opportunity to do so,” they argued. One of the lawyers involved in the case is Jay Sekulow, who has represented Trump in other matters in the past.

The Green Party claimed that thousands of Nevada voters who signed petitions for it to be listed on the ballot are now disenfranchised by the state supreme court’s decision.

“Exclusion from a ballot is tantamount to an electoral death penalty for candidates,” its lawyers claimed.

But Nevada Democrats argued that the relief the Green Party is seeking is “extraordinary” and “seemingly unprecedented,” and accused the party of attempting to be excused from failing to comply with the state’s ballot access laws.

Lawyers for the Democrats noted that ballots are already being printed and are set to be sent out within days, and disturbing the Nevada Supreme Court’s ruling would disrupt the printing process, they said. Ballots for military and overseas voters must be mailed out by Sept. 20, while out-of-state absentee ballots have to be sent out by Sept. 26. Nevada officials said in a separate filing that at least one county clerk has already sent out military and overseas ballots, as well as ballots to out-of-state voters, to ensure compliance with federal and state laws.

The state Democratic Party urged the justices to reject the Green Party’s “effort to inject chaos and uncertainty into Nevada’s election process during the ballot-printing process just days before ballots are sent to voters.”

Nevada’s secretary of state echoed warnings that ordering Stein to be placed back on the ballot would undermine the integrity of the state’s election, as the Green Party could try to force the state to send some voters new ballots. 

“Here, the harm is far greater than just the loss of time preparing and printing ballots,” lawyers for the state told the Supreme Court in a filing. “Ballots have already been mailed to some voters, and if the Court grants the Application, it would lead to voter confusion and an erosion of confidence in the electoral process.”



Read the original article

Leave your vote

Continue Reading

CBS News

Man kills self in explosions outside Brazil’s Supreme Court

Avatar

Published

on


A man who failed in an attempt to break into Brazil’s Supreme Court killed himself in explosions outside the building Wednesday that forced justices and staff to evacuate, authorities said.

The two strong blasts were heard about 7:30 p.m. after the day’s session finished and all the justices and staff left the building safely, Brazil’s Supreme Court said in a statement.

Local firefighters confirmed one man died at the scene in the capital Brasilia, but did not identify him.

Man kills self in explosions outside Brazil's Supreme Court
Police guard the crime scene where a man died after explosions in front of Brazil’s Supreme Court in Brasilia, Brazil, on Nov. 13, 2024. 

EVARISTO SA/AFP via Getty Images


Celina Leão, the lieutenant governor of Brazil’s federal district, said the suspect had earlier detonated explosives in a car in a Congress parking lot, which did not cause injuries.

“His first action was to explode the car. Then he approached the Supreme Court and tried to get in the building. He failed and then there were the other explosions,” Leão said in a news conference.

Local media reported that the car that exploded belonged to a member of Brazil’s Liberal Party, the same of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Leão said only investigations will determine whether the owner of the car is the same man who died in the blasts.

Leão recommended that Congress be closed Thursday to avoid new risks. Brazil’s Senate heeded her call and the lower house will be shut until noon, speaker Arthur Lira said.

“It could have been a lone wolf, like others we’ve seen around the world,” Leão said in a news conference. “We are considering it as a suicide because there was only one victim. But investigations will show if that was indeed the case.”

Leão added only forensics will be able to identify the body, which remained outside the Supreme Court for three hours after the blasts.

The blasts outside the Supreme Court took place about 20 seconds apart in Brasilia’s Three Powers Plaza, where Brazil’s main government buildings, including the Supreme Court, Congress and presidential palace, are located.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was not in the neighboring presidential palace at the time, spokesman José Chrispiniano said.

Police blocked all access to the area and the presidential security bureau was conducting a sweep of the grounds around the presidential palace.

Brazil’s federal police said it is investigating and did not provide a motive.

The Supreme Court in recent years has become a target for threats by far-right groups and supporters of Bolsonaro’s due to its crackdown on the spread of false information. In particular, Justice Alexandre de Moraes has been a focus for their ire.

Lula’s spokesman said that late on Wednesday the leftist leader was gathering at the presidential residence with federal police chief Andrei Rodrigues, and Supreme Court Justices de Moraes and Cristiano Zanin.



Read the original article

Leave your vote

Continue Reading

CBS News

11/13: CBS Evening News – CBS News

Avatar

Published

on


11/13: CBS Evening News – CBS News


Watch CBS News



Trump selects Gaetz, Gabbard to join his Cabinet; Vietnam War-era “Dustoff” crews honored with Congressional Gold Medal

Be the first to know

Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.




Read the original article

Leave your vote

Continue Reading

CBS News

What to know about Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy

Avatar

Published

on


Donald Trump is vowing to reduce wasteful federal spending by tapping two billionaires — Tesla CEO Elon Musk and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy — to spearhead the initiative, which the president-elect is calling the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

The appointments, announced by Trump on Tuesday, raise a host of questions about the effort, including whether Musk and Ramaswamy will have the authority to make changes in federal outlays, given that Congress authorizes the nation’s spending, as well as where the businessmen might look to cut spending. Under the plan, meanwhile, DOGE is not an official government department, raising questions about how its powers and how it will operate.

The announcement comes a week after Trump won a second term as president, with voters expressing their dissatisfaction with the economy under the Biden administration. As part of his campaign vows, Trump promised to slash government spending. Musk’s bio on X, the social media platform he bought in 2022, now reads, “The people voted for major government reform.” 

“Frankly, it does need to be done again, so every few decades you really need to look at everything,” Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution who managed the Clinton Administration’s National Performance Review, an effort to cut government spending in the 1990s, told CBS MoneyWatch. 

But Kamarck also harbors reservations about Musk and Ramaswamy’s mandate, especially after the former recently suggested he could find more than $2 trillion in savings — almost one-third of the federal government’s $6.7 trillion in annual spending. Two-thirds of that spending is mandatory through programs including Social Security and Medicare, while discretionary spending is largely spent on defense. 

“This is the first warning sign that this is going to be a failed operation,” Kamarck said. “That’s insane.” 

The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Here’s what to know about the Department of Government Efficiency. 

What is the Department of Government Efficiency? 

Trump announced the DOGE in a statement on Tuesday, describing it as an effort to “slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” 

The name is a nod to Musk’s support for a cryptocurrency called dogecoin, which was created as a joke by two software engineers and uses the image of a smiling Shiba Inu dog. (Dogecoin has more than tripled in price during the last month, and now trades at 38 cents.)

Trump said Musk and Ramaswamy’s work “will conclude no later than July 4, 2026,” or by the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Trump only outlined the initiative’s contours and didn’t disclose how it will be staffed or funded. The Trump campaign didn’t respond to a request about the DOGE’s funding or whether Musk or Ramaswamy will be paid for their work on the effort. 

Can the DOGE actually cut federal spending? 

At the moment, that appears unlikely given that the DOGE isn’t a real government department, which would need to be created by congressional approval. Federal spending is authorized by Congress, and senators and House representatives may hesitate to support cuts to major programs like Social Security or Medicare, which are popular with millions of voters, or to the nation’s military.

It’s also not clear how the organization will operate. It could come under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which dictates how external groups that advise the government must operate and be accountable to the public.

Trump described Musk and Ramaswamy’s role as providing “advice and guidance from outside of government.” 

That doesn’t amount to much, Kamarck said.

“They have no authority — none whatsoever,” she added, while noting that the backing of the president can help convince lawmakers to throw their support behind efficiency efforts. 

What have Musk and Ramaswamy said about federal spending?

Musk, the world’s richest person with a net worth of $319 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, has described the U.S. government as bloated and said it its spending is unsustainable. The Tesla founder also said he wants to reduce the number of federal agencies to 99, down from more than 400. 

“There are so many [agencies] that people have never heard of, and that have overlapping areas of responsibilities,” Musk said earlier this month. 

While on the campaign trail with Trump, Musk also said he could cut “at least $2 trillion” from the annual budget. “Your money is being wasted, and the Department of Government Efficiency will fix that,” Musk said.

Musk is known for cost-cutting at his own companies, slashing most of X’s workforce after he bought the business two years ago as well as focusing on manufacturing costs at Tesla. Even so, those efforts have had mixed results, with X’s valuation falling by about 80% since his purchase. Tesla’s stock price, meanwhile, has surged 48% in the past year, bumping its value above $1 trillion. 

Ramaswamy, whom Forbes says has a net worth of about $1 billion, dropped out of the presidential race in January after running on an “anti-woke” campaign. He also advocated for government cuts by eliminating the Department of Education, a goal shared by President-elect Trump. 

Have administrations previously tried to cut costs? 

Yes, both Republican and Democratic presidents have created efforts to cut government spending.

In 1982, President Ronald Reagan created the Grace Commission, led by wealthy businessman J. Peter Grace, the CEO of W. R. Grace & Company, a chemicals business. About 150 business people volunteered for the commission, which ultimately recommended 2,500 reforms, according to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

“Most of the recommendations, especially those requiring legislation from Congress, were never implemented,” the library notes. “However, the Commission’s work provided a starting point for many conservative critiques of the federal government.”

In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton created the National Performance Review with the goal to create a government that would work better and cost less, Kamarck said. The group was staffed with civil servants who understood the bureaucracy, and many of whom had frustrations with it, she added. 

The group had some successes in streamlining operations and paring costs, eventually cutting more than 300,000 jobs, according to a study from the Congressional Research Service. Kamarck noted that the group also focused on integrating technology into departments at a time when the internet was just emerging, leading to efficiencies such as online tax filing.

Where could the Trump administration cut spending? 

While experts are skeptical of Musk’s claim he can cut $2 trillion in spending, they also point out there are opportunities to look at efficiencies.

Eliminating Medicare fraud is one area that could result in savings, according to the Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan group that looks at government spending. Its recommendations also include reducing the nation’s contributions to the U.N. and ending subsidies for some agricultural products, like dairy and sugar. Its projected savings: $377 billion in the first year, or about 19% of the $2 trillion that Musk is eyeballing. 

But efficiency goes beyond cost-cutting, Kamarck noted. It’s also about understanding how the bureaucracy works, 

“Every single thing in the federal government is big and complicated, and there are layers and layers of complexity,” she noted. “Al Gore and I relied on hundreds of experienced civil servants to tell us how this worked  — and if you don’t do this, which I suspect they won’t because Musk is an arrogant billionaire, you will fail.”

Does Musk have conflicts of interest? 

Yes, as Musk’s SpaceX works with the Department of Defense and NASA, with the federal government pledging $3 billion to his companies last year, according to the New York Times. Tesla, meanwhile, has been investigated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as well as by other agencies. 

Federal employees are generally required to disclose their financial assets and entanglements to ward off any potential conflicts of interest, and to divest significant holdings relating to their work. Because Musk and Ramaswamy would not be formal federal workers, they would not face those requirements or ethical limitations.

contributed to this report.



Read the original article

Leave your vote

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2024 Breaking MN

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.