Driving the Day
Must Read Stories
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton faces historic impeachment: alleged misconduct shakes Lone Star State
- New York Times: Ken Paxton Is Temporarily Suspended After Texas House Vote: Lawmakers in the Texas House voted on Saturday to impeach Ken Paxton, the state’s Republican attorney general, temporarily removing him from office over charges that he had used his elected position to benefit himself and a campaign donor. After a four-hour proceeding before a packed gallery, the vote landed with titanic force in the Texas Capitol, where a statewide office holder had not been impeached in more than a century, since the Legislature voted to oust the sitting governor, James E. Ferguson, in 1917, for embezzlement and misuse of public funds. Before the vote, Representative Andrew Murr, the Republican chair of the House investigating committee that recommended impeachment, closed by urging his colleagues to impeach. “The evidence presented to you is compelling and is more than sufficient to justify going to trial,” he said, adding: “Send this to trial.”
- Washington Post: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has been impeached. Here’s why: In the eight years since he was indicted on charges of securities fraud, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has overcome a mountain of legal troubles and accusations of wrongdoing while becoming a Republican official entrenched in the party’s culture wars who has the support of former president Donald Trump. On Saturday, his luck changed. The Texas House of Representatives voted 121-23 to impeach Paxton on Saturday afternoon. He now faces a trial in the Texas Senate. After Paxton called on Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan (R) to resign this week over alleged drunkenness — after what a TV station said was “the end of a 14-hour day” at the House — the Republican-led General Investigating Committee notified Paxton that it had been investigating him for months, and it unanimously recommended that the attorney general be impeached and removed from office. Alleged bribery, obstruction of justice and abuse of public trust were among the behavior cited by Texas Republicans in the articles of impeachment that lawmakers presented Saturday.
- New York Times: Who is Nate Paul, the donor at the center of the case?: Much of the alleged misconduct detailed in the articles of impeachment filed against Attorney General Ken Paxton centers on his relationship with a real estate investor, Nate Paul. Not long ago, Mr. Paul, who in 2018 donated $25,000 to Mr. Paxton’s campaign, was heralded as one of the most successful young real estate entrepreneurs in Austin, Texas. His legal troubles came into public view in 2019 when F.B.I. agents raided his 9,175-square-foot home and his downtown offices in an inquiry whose details they declined to disclose. Investigators with a Texas House committee testified this week that Mr. Paul had asked his friend, Mr. Paxton, to help him find out details of the federal investigations, a potential violation of the state’s open records laws.
- New York Times: Trump calls impeachment proceedings against Ken Paxton ‘very unfair.’: Former President Donald J. Trump said on Saturday that the impeachment proceedings against Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, were unfair and vowed to fight against lawmakers who pursued impeachment. Mr. Trump said in a statement on Truth Social, his social media platform, that moving to impeach Mr. Paxton was contrary to the will of voters who elected Mr. Paxton to a third term by a wide margin in November. “Hopefully Republicans in the Texas House will agree that this is a very unfair process that should not be allowed to happen or proceed,” Mr. Trump wrote. “I will fight you if it does.” A House panel led by Republicans has accused Mr. Paxton, also a Republican, of unethical behavior, including accepting favors from a real estate investor in exchange for access to and assistance from his office.
White House unveils landmark national strategy against antisemitism amid rising concerns and partisan backlash
- Washington Post: White House releases national strategy to counter antisemitism: The White House on Thursday pledged to increase federal efforts to combat rising antisemitism with new initiatives aimed at improving public awareness in places such as schools and college campuses and offering more community training to encourage the reporting of hate crimes. In its national strategy to counter antisemitism, the White House also calls on social media companies to more aggressively prevent the spread of hate speech and anti-Jewish content online. It asks Congress to hold accountable those platforms that do not provide transparency on how such content is disseminated. The plan lays out dozens of commitments from the Biden administration to help protect Jewish communities, while calling on Congress and local governments to follow suit.
- Washington Post: Boebert dismisses antisemitism push as effort to target conservatives: President Biden on Thursday released the country’s first national strategy for combating antisemitism, a landmark lauded by Jewish and anti-hate groups as progress toward addressing the increasing instances of violence and bias toward Jewish people in the United States. But Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) saw the effort as an attack on those of her political persuasion. “When they say stuff like this, they mean they want to go after conservatives,” she tweeted. “Their tactics are straight out of the USSR’s playbook.” Her comments quickly attracted criticism from detractors who accused her of conflating a straightforward campaign against antisemitism with an assault on the right — and, by implication, equating conservatives with antisemites.
In The States
TEXAS: Legislature gives final approval Sunday on three anti-democratic voting bills
- New York Times: With New Voting Bills, Texas Legislature Targets Elections in Democratic Stronghold: The Texas Legislature gave final approval on Sunday to a new round of voting bills to increase penalties for illegal voting and expand state oversight of local elections specifically in Harris County, which includes Houston, where Democrats have become dominant. The measures, which now head to Gov. Greg Abbott to sign, include a bill that would upend elections in Houston a few months before the city’s mayoral race in November by forcing the county to change how it runs elections and return to a previous system. That bill, known as Senate Bill 1750, was crafted so that it applies only to Harris County. So was another bill, Senate Bill 1933, that would give broad new powers to the secretary of state, appointed by the governor, to direct how elections are run in the county if there are complaints and to petition a court to replace the top election officials when deemed necessary.
- Washington Post: Texas Republicans pass voting bills targeting large Democratic county: Texas Republicans wound down their regular legislative session Sunday by changing election policies for a single populous Democratic stronghold but not other parts of the state. The measure gives the secretary of state under certain conditions the power to run elections in Harris County, home to Houston and 4.8 million residents. It follows a bill approved days earlier that shifts the oversight of elections from its appointed elections administrator to the county clerk and county assessor. Harris County officials at a news conference last week said they would bring a lawsuit challenging the measures as soon as Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signs them into law. “These bills are not about election reform,” said Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, the county’s chief executive. “They’re not about improving voters’ experience. They are entirely about suppressing voters’ voices. The reasoning behind these bills is nothing but a cynical charade.”
FLORIDA: DeSantis’ new sweeping election law faces legal challenges, critics cite Civil Rights Act violations
- Public News Service: Florida Faces Lawsuits Over Sweeping New Elections Law: The moment Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a sweeping elections bill into law last week, several voter-advocacy groups filed lawsuits against it. Senate Bill 7050 creates a broad set of restrictions for third-party voter registration groups. It cuts the amount of time they have to submit voters’ applications, and adds new and higher fines for late submissions. Estee Konor – associate director of litigation with Demos, a ‘think tank’ that focuses on racial justice – said her group’s lawsuit targets a new provision that bans any non-citizen from getting involved in voter-registration work. Konor said it directly impacts groups she represents, such as Hispanic Federation and Poder Latinx, that have a long history of helping people register to vote. “And really what this law does is,” said Konor, “it is an attack on the ability of Floridians – regardless of their immigration status – to participate in the democratic process of civic engagement.”The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Lawrence McClure – R-Dover – said the bill is meant to hold voter-registration groups to high standards and protect voters’ personal information. Groups like the League of Women Voters and other plaintiffs are also suing, claiming the law is unconstitutional and violates the First and 14th amendments.
CONNECTICUT: Connecticut Senate approves state voting rights bill
- CT Mirror: After long debate, CT Senate advances state voting rights act: The Connecticut Senate on Thursday night advanced a landmark bill intended to protect historically disenfranchised communities from discrimination at the ballot box, including key protections once considered a stronghold of the federal Voting Rights Act before it was gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Bill 1226, dubbed the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of Connecticut — a nod to the late civil rights icon — passed on a 27-9 vote just before midnight, following hours of emotionally charged debate among lawmakers over what the proposal would accomplish. The Senate’s approval of the comprehensive bill marked the first time it passed out of either chamber since it was initially introduced in 2021. “This legislation is named in recognition of an incredible civil rights champion and legislator who fought his entire career to expand voting rights to people in this country,” said Sen. Mae Flexer, D-Killingly and co-chair of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, in her opening remarks.
What Experts Are Saying
Betsy Schick, policy advisor at CREW, and Debra Perlin, policy director at CREW: “It is very likely that Trump will soon face his first federal indictment for his possession and mishandling of over 300 classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence. Trump’s apparent refusal to cooperate with law enforcement to return those documents and the protracted attempts by the Department of Justice and NARA to retrieve them not only places Trump in legal peril, but differentiates his conduct from that of President Biden and former Vice President Pence. With three simultaneous investigations into former President Trump’s conduct moving forward in New York, Georgia, and at the Department of Justice, Trump’s legal woes have likely only begun.” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Report
Norman Eisen, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institute, Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21, and Joshua Kolb, former law clerk on the Senate Judiciary Committee: “If Trump instructed his employees to move documents for the obvious purpose of concealing them from investigators — especially if they practiced doing so — then that would speak directly to Trump’s intent in this matter. In light of a grand jury subpoena requiring the return of the classified documents, he would appear to have taken brazen steps to thwart the subpoena and interfere with the Justice Department’s investigation.” MSNBC Op-Ed
Harry Litman, former US attorney: “Judging by [Special Counsel Jack] Smith’s recent flurry of activity, however, it seems the special counsel wanted to use the investigative powers of the grand jury for all they’re worth before asking it to return an indictment. A grand jury’s defining function is to indict. But for prosecutors, the grand jury also has an indispensable investigative function, issuing subpoenas and hearing testimony from any relevant and available witness the prosecution chooses to call. For Smith, it’s an opportunity to probe Trump’s anticipated defenses, lock in witnesses’ stories and pursue investigative avenues that might or might not pan out. All these investigative functions dry up once a grand jury returns an indictment.” LA Times Op-Ed
Headlines
The MAGA Movement And The Ongoing Threat To Elections
New York Times: A Small Town’s Tragedy, Distorted by Trump’s Megaphone
Rolling Stone: MAGA Supporters Say They Were Duped into ‘Trump Bucks’ Get-Rich-Quick Scheme
New York Times: Missteps and Miscalculations: Inside Fox’s Legal and Business Debacle
Trump Investigations
Washington Post: Evidence grows that Trump hoarded documents — and showed them to people
CBS: Prosecutors in Trump’s criminal case say they have recording of Trump and a witness
Slate: What Could Trump Possibly Get Out of Attacking Special Prosecutor Jack Smith?
January 6 And The 2020 Election
New York Times: Sedition Sentence for Oath Keepers Leader Marks Moment of Accountability
Axios: Liz Cheney says Republicans “wanted me to lie” about Trump
Daily Beast: Jan. 6 Rioters Raised Thousands in Donations—Prosecutors Want to Take It Away
NPR: 2 more Oath Keepers are sentenced to prison terms for the Jan. 6 Capitol attack
Opinion
New York Times: Who Can Rein In the Supreme Court?
Washington Post: DeSantis and Musk bet on each other. They both lost
New York Times: Will DeSantis Destroy Conservatism as We Know It?
Hill: Florida’s anti-LGBT laws are unwarranted and un-American
New York Times: The Real Threat to Freedom Is Coming From the States
Hill: There is precedent for Clarence Thomas to resign — he needs to step down now
New York Times: How Twitter Shrank Elon Musk and Ron DeSantis
In the States
CBS News Miami: Florida lawmakers shielded in redistricting fight
The Post Journal: Dems Approve Voting Info Upon Release From Local Jails
Pennsylvania Capital-Star: ‘We’re in a moment’: Is it time to expand voting rights for incarcerated Pennsylvanians?
