Category Archives: Libertarian

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffDems unlikely to subpoena Bolton Trump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms Hillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus MORE (D-Calif.) says Democrats are making progressin their negotiationsover the reauthorization of a key surveillance bill, stating Tuesday that they areworking to includemore privacy protections.

Intraparty rifts have emerged in recent weeks as some progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans push toinclude additionalprivacy protection amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), while others argue that a clean reauthorization billhas a better chance of making it through the Senate.

Schiffsays he and his staffhave been working the House Judiciary Committee as well as Reps. Zoe LofgrenZoe Ellen LofgrenTrump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms Hillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus Schiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill MORE (Calif.) and Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalBiden surge calms Democratic jitters House passes .3 billion measure to fight coronavirus Trump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms MORE (Wash.) twoJudiciary Democrats who have pushed for more protections inan effort to get the bill passed by March 15. That's the deadline to extend three expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Actthattouch onroving wiretaps, lone wolf surveillance and a controversial program that allows the U.S. government to request access to phone metadata.

"We're trying to find as much common ground as we can," Schiff told The Hill. "We are trying to incorporate even more privacy protections in the hopes that we can get to an agreement in a timely way."

Schiff said some of Lofgren's amendments are being considered, including an amicus provision that would add an outside advocate for every FISA case in which an American is targetedas well asmake it illegal for the government to collect a U.S. citizens metadata.

"We're looking atexpanding the amicus provisions. We are lookingat limiting the period of attention to business records, what the business records provision can be used for,making sure thatyou can't use the business records to get things you would need a court order for in the criminal context,limiting the use of geolocation data or their usage oflocation information," Schiff said.

House Democrats last week were forced to pull their bill in the Judiciary Committeeand postpone a markup afterLofgrenthreatened to force votes on several FISA-related amendments. So far, a new markup has not been announced.

Schiff indicated an understanding has been reached on the issue of metadata butsaid they are still figuring out other issues like the amicus provisions.

"We're trying to figure out what's the capacity of the amicus but also how toweed out those cases that are truly routine that don't present any novel issues, making sure that that's a real distinction," he said.

He said one area of disagreement is whether some provisions could overly constrain the gathering of intelligence.

"Part of the issue is whether we use the FISAprocess to impose constraints that are not even present in the criminal law process, and that is a philosophical difference that may be driving some of the division on particular provisions," he said.

Jayapal, when asked about the state of negotiations, also saidthere'smore work to be done.

"So far, we are just not there, but we are continuing to talk and hope to see new proposals that address the areas we have raised," Jayapal said, adding that she too hopes to reauthorize by the deadline.

The debate has also engulfed Republicans, with GOP members clashing as well on whether they should have a clean reauthorization bill or overhaul it to include new protections.

Libertarian Republicanssuch as Sens.Rand Paul(R-Ky.) andMike Lee(R-Utah) arepushing forsweeping reforms.

Still, most Republicans are also pushing for additional protections, pointing tothe use of a wiretap on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page during the 2016 election.

Federal officials suspected Page of working as an unregistered foreign agent for Russia during the 2016 presidential election, particularly after he made a trip to the Kremlin in July of that year when questions were already swirling about the campaigns ties to Moscow.

They say the extensive review of the 2016 FISA process by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz aids their case. While he did not find evidence to suggest political bias impacted the FBIs decision to open the counterintelligence probe and concluded that the FBI had an authorized purpose for the inquiry, he did find17 significant errors or omissions in the surveillance warrant applications for Page, dating back to 2016.

Trump is also involved.He is expected to meet with key Republican allies in the House and Senate Tuesday afternoon to discuss the matter.It is unclear where Trump will stand onit.

Rep. Chris StewartChristopher (Chris) Douglas StewartSchiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill Trump shakes up Justice Department, intelligence community John Ratcliffe back under consideration by Trump for top intel job MORE (R-Utah), a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, also said he wants to outside advocatesas well as a transcriptof the court proceedings. If Democrats include such provisions, among a few others, then he believes Republican will also support the bill.

"The question is, will the White House support it? I think we'll know later on this afternoon," Stewart added.

Trumphas told congressional allies that he will not accept a clean reauthorization bill, as Attorney GeneralWilliam Barrand GOP leadership are said to support a position that is at odds with what Barr is said to have told senatorsearlier this month.

As the debate continues, some senatorshave stated their supportfora short-term extension to iron out the rest of the differences.

Schiff, meanwhile,indicated that he believes some Republicans are taking their push too far.

"We're open to any general policy proposals for reform. We are not open for politicizing this or using the bill to make partisan statements, and that's sort of where many Republicans are at the moment,"Schiff said.

Read more:

Schiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill | TheHill - The Hill

The Senate on Thursday easily passed more than $8 billion in funding to fight the coronavirus, sending the measure to President TrumpDonald John TrumpAs Biden surges, GOP Ukraine probe moves to the forefront Republicans, rooting for Sanders, see Biden wins as setback Trump says Biden Ukraine dealings will be a 'major' campaign issue MORE, who is expected to sign it.

Senatorsvoted 96-1on the bill, which was finalized and cleared the House the day before.

The bill provides $7.76 billion to agencies combating the coronavirus. It also authorizes another $500 million in waivers for Medicare telehealth restrictions, bringing the total figure greenlighted under the bill up to $8.3 billion.

Included within that is $2.2 billion to help federal, state and local public health agencies prepare for and respond to the coronavirus, including funds for lab testing, infection control and tracing individuals who might have had contact with infected people.

The Senate's passage caps off a weeks-longsprint to get emergency funding through Congress amid growing concerns about a widespread outbreak within the United States.

There have been 99 U.S. cases spread among 13 states, and 10 people have died, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Trump administration sent its emergency request to Congress on Feb. 24, less than two weeks ago. The initial $2.5 billion amount, only half of which would have been new funding, was criticized by Democrats and some Republicans as being too low.

By late last week, the bipartisan group negotiating the deal were looking at between $6 billion and $8 billion, sources told The Hill. By Monday that had climbed to $7.5 billon, and the final figure ended up being slightly higher.

But talks appeared stuck as late as Wednesday morning over the issue of vaccine affordability.

Democrats had pushed for language in the bill that would require any coronavirus vaccines or treatments developed by private companies with federal funding to be priced affordably. But Republicans had argued that could discourage drug companies from investing in potential cures and vaccines.

A source told The Hill that there was also discussion at a leadership level about ensuring Medicare would fully cover copay for a vaccine, but the idea was rejected by Republicans. Government health care experts have said a vaccine is a year to 18 months away.

The bill does state that the Health and Human Services secretary may take measures to assure those products are affordable.

Democrats also touted the inclusion of $300 million for purchasing vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics. A House Democratic aide said the carveout would help ensure that "when a vaccine is developed, Americans can receive it regardless of their ability to pay."

The bill did face one final hurdle on Thursday in the form of Sen. Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulAs Biden surges, GOP Ukraine probe moves to the forefront Republicans, rooting for Sanders, see Biden wins as setback Trump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms MORE (R-Ky.). The libertarian-minded GOP senator wanted to use money from foreign aid accounts to offset the billions in coronavirus spending, but senators easily set aside his amendment. Paul was the lone senator to vote against the final measure Thursday.

"I think that we should not let fear or urgency causeus to lose our minds," Paul said ahead of the vote, "and causeus to act in an irresponsible fashion."

Continued here:

Senate passes $8.3 billion coronavirus bill, sending it to Trump | TheHill - The Hill

Griffiths is a contributing writer.

While the Democratic contest was quickly condensing into a two-man race, 18 minimally known presidential aspirants were convening for a sprawling discussion on Wednesday.

Though billed as a debate among independents, organizers said the gathering was really more an intervention on a broken system a moment to give candidates on the margins an opportunity to rail against the Republican and Democratic duopoly, and to show how rivals can discuss policies more civilly than the polarized shouting that marks so much political discourse.

"One thing that's clear is that the political system we have right now is not serving us well. Worst of all, it doesn't even allow for straightforward solutions to be part of the conversation. That's why we're creating this platform for a new national dialogue," said Christina Tobin, who created the Free and Equal Elections Foundation, which staged the livestreamed event at a hotel in downtown Chicago.

To create a more comprehensive discussion and a more thoughtful tone, where sound bites were not necessary for candidates unspooling views that stretched across the ideological spectrum, Tobin moderated a pair of debates among nine candidates each both of them lasting three and a half hours.

"There's a large and growing political reform wave that is slowly but surely winning transformational changes at the local level, but you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream political coverage. It's past time for democracy itself to be part of the national conversation," said Eli Beckerman, founder of Open The Debates, the debate's co-host.

Though the debate included topics that ranged from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to mandatory vaccinations, the conversation largely focused on political reform and the obstacles third-party and independent candidates face nationwide -- starting with the fall presidential debates.

"Democrats and Republicans will stop at nothing to squash any other voice from being heard," said Libertarian Jo Jorgensen. "It's how they stay in power. What most Americans don't realize is that the debate commission is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican and Democratic parties."

While venting frustration at rules that restrict access to the nationally televised debates, candidates also deliberated the finer points of an array of other proposals for making the political process more democratic and representative of the national will: ranked-choice voting, the rival alternative called approval voting, efforts to make it easier for partisan outsiders to get on the ballot, public financing of campaigns, regulating money in politics and various plans for altering the rules of the Electoral College.

"Our country is in crisis. But it's not the first time we've ever been in crisis. I've spent my career teaching American history. And every time that we have a period of crisis we also have a period of creativity, where lots of new ideas pop up, and many of those ideas pop up from third parties," said American Solidarity Party nominee Brian Carroll.

"I think we need more transparency in our current system first, and more options to be used at the local level. We need to really think this through," Libertarian Erik Gerhardt said in urging a go-slow approach to a nationwide refashioning of the election system,.

The debate was notable for how infrequently the candidates talked beyond their two-minute limits, interrupted one another, spoke out of turn or made a disparaging comment about somebody else on stage.

Organizers made an effort to exclude dozens of people who say they're running for president on the true margins of reality. More than two-dozen people qualified for an invitation because they are seeking the nominations of one of the five parties that have primaries and are on the ballot in at least two states Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green and Constitution or are independents running the bureaucratic traps to get on the ballots of at least two states.

The candidates with hope of gaining some traction for their cause often point to a recent USA Today survey in which 65 percent said they support "making it easier for third-party and independent candidates to run for office."

Independent Mark Charles, a member of the Navajo Nation, said he thought the event provided "a dialogue that our nation's simplistic two-party system does not know how to have."

Tobin said she hopes the event is the beginning of a tour of open presidential debates that are inclusive and focused on solutions. FEEF has not announced when or where a second event might take place.

http://www.youtube.com

http://www.youtube.com

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Link:

Civility and pleas to be heard mark debate among 18 marginal candidates - The Fulcrum

Mar 7th 2020

ON AN ICY late evening in Boston, on March 5th 1770, an angry mob advanced on a dozen redcoats standing outside the citys customs building. Ignoring the pleas of the British officer present, Captain Thomas Preston, the Bostonians hurled razor-edged oyster shells and blocks of wood and ice in the darkness, knocking one soldier off his feet. He fired back, prompting several others to do likewise before Preston, despite having been clubbed in the mle, ordered them to stop. The soldiers retired, leaving three men dead in the snow and several wounded, two of whom died shortly after.

To ascertain what had gone wrong and who was to blame for the bloody massacre, there followed the most forensic series of investigations of the colonial period. It led to and included the trials of Preston and eight of his men for murder, at which scores of eye witnesses were cross-examined by the sharpest legal minds. The defence team for the soldiers included John Adams, a future president, and called 52 witnesses. The testimonies were contradictory. Some claimed Preston had ordered the soldiers to shoot. Most described the British retaliating under severe provocation; given the noise, darkness and confusion it was hard to be sure of anything.

Two of the redcoats were convicted of manslaughter and had the letter M seared into their thumbs. The rest were acquitted. Facts are stubborn thingswhatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, said Adams in his defence of the soldiers. In a later diary entry, displayed in a fine anniversary exhibition at the Massachusetts Historical Society, he determined that the verdict of the jury was exactly right.

That is not a view with which many of those who gather to watch Bostons annual re-enactment of the riot this week would concur. An idea of the massacre as an act of imperialist terror which provoked the crisis, five years later, after which this column is named is one of Americas most popular historical myths. This reflects a disinformation campaign that began directly after the violence and has continued, one way or another, ever since. At a time when the political use of history is proving especially contentiousfollowing the impeachment row and another over the New York Timess 1619 Project, which aims to reframe the American story around racismthe Boston Massacre is an instructive example.

Bostonians antipathy towards the 2,000 British troops sent to the city in 1768 has also been exaggerated. A new book by Serena Zabin documents many family ties between the armed forces and civilian population (it helped that Boston had a surfeit of women). Nonetheless, the garrison offended the libertarian zeal of the Bostonian elite, whose members duly seized on the riot for propaganda value. A cartoon engraved by Paul Revere depicted the redcoats as sneering killers, Preston as their apish cheerleader and the customs office as Butchers Hall. An annual Massacre orationthe precursor of this weeks re-enactmentwas launched a few months after the redcoats acquittal. Adams declined to give the third oration on the spurious ground of old age (he was 37). Yet he had in a way facilitated this burgeoning distortion through his own economy with the truth. He had taken pains to absolve regular Bostonians of any blame for the violence, instead attributing it to a motley rabble of saucy boys, negroes and molattoes, Irish teagues. Based on sketchy evidence, he blamed one of the victims, a black sailor called Crispus Attucks, in particular.

This had unforeseen consequences. Eighty years later Attucks was embraced by black abolitionists in Boston as the first martyr of the American revolution. When it was put to them that the riot was not the revolution and there was scant evidence for Attuckss lead role, they had only to cite Bostons orations and Adamss defence. A Bostonian paramilitary group, precursor to black units in the Union army, was called the Attucks Guards. A grand monument to Attucks was raised in Boston Common in 1888. Dedicating it, the Irish nationalist poet John Boyle OReilly tied Attucks to freedom struggles everywhere: We honour a shrine unfinished, a column uncapped with pridewhen Crispus Attucks died.

Attucks remains popular with black activists. In the civil-rights era, schools were named after him. Recent victims of police brutality and the group they inspired, Black Lives Matter, have been compared to him. White activists also recall the massacre. During its re-enactment in 1975, protesters against Massachusettss then policy of busing black children to affluent schools collapsed in the streetto assert that they were also victims of tyranny.

This saga holds several lessons. Libertarian ideals were the intellectual basis for the revolutionary struggle, yet a distorting lens through which to understand almost any isolated episode of it. Their epic force (illustrated in the massacres early commemorations: the 1775 oration was delivered by Joseph Warren, months before his death at Bunker Hill, in a toga) proved irresistible from the start, however. This politicising of events has in turn fuelled a rich American tradition of mobilising history to score points.

The Timess 1619 Project (named after the year Africans were first brought to North America) is not only a corrective to that tradition, but part of it. It has been criticised for being partial and containing inaccuracies. It also downplays the contribution of African-Americans to Americas struggle to live up to the founders vision; and the inspiration many of them have found in it. African-Americans were participants in the Boston Massacre and, in one of the first states to restrict and then abolish slavery, beneficiaries of the events it helped set in train. In the figure of Attucks, they also found an unlikely inspiration in massacre propaganda.

Sticklers for historical accuracy have much to complain of here. Yet the incontestable fact of the massacre offers consolation. In 18th-century Boston, justice and the rule of law prevailed over politics and the mob. Perhaps even more than ideas of freedom, they are Americas foundation. May Adamss successors remember it.

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline "Legends of the slaughter"

Read the original here:

Talking about a revolution - The Economist

The field is set for May as the deadline to file for elected office passed Monday night, and there will be contested races all throughout the ballot.

Two city council seats in Norfolk will be challenged by multiple candidates.

In the first ward, three candidates will compete for the seat held by Dick Pfeil, who is not seeking reelection. Those three are Christopher L. Moore, Juan E. Sandoval and Kory Hildebrand. In the second ward, four candidates have filed for Jim Langes seat: Frank Arens, Bill Hattery, Carl Weiland and Randy Dee. The top two vote-getters in each ward in May will advance to the general election in November.

At least two candidates will advance to the general election in the race for Madison County commissioner. Republicans Eric Stinson and Chris Thompson will compete in their partys primary, while Libertarian Zak Hookstra is running unopposed in that party. No Democratic candidate filed for the seat. Incumbent Christian Ohl declined to run for another term.

Three area state legislative seats will be contested between incumbent and challenger. Sen. Joni Albrecht of Thurston will face Sheryl Lindau of Wayne in District 17. The district covers Wayne, Thurston and Dakota counties. Sen. Lynne Walz of Fremont is being challenged by David Rogers of Fremont in District 15, which covers Dodge County. In District 43, which covers a large swath of North Central Nebraska, incumbent Tom Brewer of Gordon will be challenged by Tanya Storer of Whitman.

A Norfolkan also is throwing his hat into the race for the U.S. Senate. Dr. Daniel Wik, who was previously the Democratic nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2016, has filed in the Democratic primary for this years Senate race.

Dr. Wik, a pain management physician, faces a crowded field, with seven other candidates competing in the Democratic primary.

Other contested races include:

Four candidates will run for three seats on the Norfolk Public Schools board of education: incumbents Arnie Robinson and Sandy Wolfe and challengers Jenna Hatfield and Brenda Carhart.

Four candidates will run for three seats on the Elkhorn Valley board of education: incumbents Tyler Tegeler and Jenny Schutt, both of Meadow Grove, and challengers Sam Johnsen and Lucas Negus, both of Tilden.

Five candidates have filed for two seats on the Battle Creek City Council: incumbent Brent Nygren and challengers Chris Prauner, Nicole Schacher, Dave Trudeau and John Hrabanek.

Four candidates will compete for three seats on the Tilden City Council: incumbents Travis Rutjens and Darrell Wyatt, along with challengers Lisa A. Meyer and Terry James.

Patti Gubbels of Norfolk will run against Mike Goos of Columbus for a seat on the state board of education. The seat is held by Rachel Wise of Oakland, who has declined to run for another term.

Timothy Miller of Norfolk is challenging incumbent Jeff Scherer of Beemer for an at-large seat on the Northeast Community College board of governors.

Four races for seats on the Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources District board of directors are contested. Those include seats for subdistrict 1, between incumbent Aaron Zimmerman of Pierce and challenger Jay Reikofski of Foster; in subdistrict 2 incumbent Mark Hall of Norfolk is being challenged by Lee Klein of Norfolk; in subdistrict 4 Rod Zohner of Battle Creek and Michael Fleer of Battle Creek will vie for an open seat and Randy Ruppert of Fremont will challenge incumbent Gary Loftis of Craig in subdistrict 7.

Dennis Bridge of Royal and Cody Frank of Brunswick are running for an open seat on subdistrict 5 on the Upper Elkhorn NRD board of directors.

Incumbent Barry DeKay of Niobrara will be challenged by Aaron Troester of ONeill for a seat on the Nebraska Public Power District board of directors.

Several races, however, will proceed to May and November with no official opposition.

That includes Norfolk Mayor Josh Moenning, who is running for his second term.

Mike Flood, a Norfolk attorney and business owner, will run unopposed for the Nebraska Legislature to represent District 19, which covers Madison County. Flood, who previously served two terms in the Legislature, is running to replace Sen. Jim Scheer, who is ineligible because of term limits. Sen. Tom Briese of Albion will be running unopposed for a second term in District 41, which includes Boone, Antelope and Pierce counties.

Norfolk City Council incumbents Gary Jackson and Thad Murren also will advance with no opposing candidates.

In other uncontested races:

Jeremy Pochop, Toby Thompson and Sean Lindgren are running for three seats on the Battle Creek board of education. Pochop and Thompson are incumbents.

Eric L. Stone, Becky Wallin and Ginger Buhl-Jorgensen are running for three seats on the Newman Grove board of education. Wallin and Buhl-Jorgensen are incumbents.

Madison City Council incumbents Paul Kellen and Robert Fite are running unopposed to another term.

Donovan Ellis, Nicole Sedlacek, Arlan Kuehn, Gene Willers and Dirk Petersen are running unopposed in their respective districts for the Northeast Community College board of governors.

Cris Elznic is running unopposed to another term on the Newman Grove City Council.

Robert Huntley, Jerry Allemann and Matt Steffen are running unopposed for reelection to Lower Elkhorn NRD subdistricts 3, 5 and 6.

Russell Schmidt, Chris A. Johnson, Marcel Kramer, Carolyn A. Heine and Curtis Armstrong are all running unopposed to continue their terms on the Lewis & Clark NRD board of directors.

Karl Connell, Jack Engelhaupt, Randy Klawitter, Raymond Naprstek, Brian Kaczor, John Janzing and Donald Holtgrew are running unopposed to continue their terms on the Lower Niobrara NRD board of directors.

Leonard Danielski and Greg Wilke are running unopposed to another term on the Middle Niobrara NRD board of directors, while Tim Nollette is running for an open seat.

Roy Steward, Curtis Gotschall, Gene Kelly, Gary Bartak and Keith Heithoff are running unopposed to continue their terms on the Upper Elkhorn NRD board of directors. Arthur Tanderup is running unopposed for an open seat in subdistrict 6.

In the races for federal office, Republican Ben Sasse faces a challenge within his own party from Matt Innis of Crete. In addition to Dr. Wik, seven other Democrats have filed as well: Dennis F. Macek, Chris Janicek, Larry Marvin, Angie Philips, Alisha Shelton, Andy Stock and Gene Siadek.

In the first congressional district, Republican incumbent Jeff Fortenberry is unopposed in the primary, as is Libertarian challenger Dennis B. Grace. Democrats Kate Bolz of Lincoln and Babs Ramsey of Bellevue will compete in their partys primary.

In the third congressional district, incumbent Republican Adrian Smith faces a slew of challengers: Larry Bolinger, William Elfgren, Justin Moran and Arron Kowalski. Democrat Mark Elworth Jr. and Libertarian Dustin C. Hobbs face no opposition in their partys primaries.

Here is the original post:

Plenty of contested races on the ballot this year - Norfolk Daily News

Sunday, February 02, 2020 6:07 p.m. EST

By Praveen Menon

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - New Zealand's opposition party has ruled out a post-election deal with the party of Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, setting the stage for a close contest at the polls this year as both major parties may struggle to form a government.

Peters, a seasoned politician and leader of New Zealand First party, has often played the role of kingmaker in the country's German-style proportional representation electoral system.

He sided with Jacinda Ardern's Labour Party in the 2017 polls allowing her to unexpectedly form a center-left coalition government with NZ First and the Green Party.

Prime Minister Ardern has announced elections will be on Sept. 19, and kicked off a lengthy election campaign last week with promises of massive infrastructure spending.

The main center-right opposition National Party leader Simon Bridges said late on Sunday that he could not trust Peters, and New Zealand voters should have a clear choice about what they are getting when they go to the ballot box.

"A vote for NZ First is a vote for Labour and the Greens," Bridges said.

"I don't believe we can work with NZ First and have a constructive trusting relationship," he added.

The move weakens Peters' NZ First party, which is the only center party in parliament, and has been the only party with the ability to work with either the left bloc or right bloc, analysts said.

"This is likely to have a negative impact on NZ First's popularity, because they are now going to be less relevant. They now look less powerful, as they no longer have leverage or the potential to negotiate with both blocs," said political commentator Bryce Edwards of Victoria University in Wellington.

The National Party is hoping the move will weaken the Labour-led coalition and help it secure the votes of conservative NZ First supporters, Edwards added.

But National would also need to get as close to a majority as possible to secure a win, as it only has the small, libertarian ACT Party as a possible coalition partner.

Opinion polls last November showed National had 46% support, Labour had 39%, Greens had 7% and NZ first had just 4%. A political party has to win 5% of the votes or an electoral seat to get into parliament.

"Simon Bridges has just made it quite clear that he still has a lot to learn about politics," Peters said in a statement on Twitter in response to National's decision.

The election is a test for Ardern, who is hugely popular among liberal voters overseas thanks to her decisive response to the March 2019 mass shooting in Christchurch, her focus on climate change action and multilateralism, and her ability to combine motherhood and leadership.

But her popularity at home has been affected by slowing economic growth and low business confidence.

(Reporting by Praveen Menon; Editing by Daniel Wallis)

Link:

Ahead of polls, New Zealand's opposition party rules out deal with kingmaker Peters - Midwest Communication

By Guest Commentary | CalMatters

By Marc Joffe, Special to CalMatters

Originally published on Thursday, January 30

Many of California's primary voters are understandably focused on the Democratic presidential primary. But their March 3 ballots will also contain significant school bond measures that demand consideration.

State voters will be asked to weigh in on Proposition 13, a $15 billion general obligation bond that would subsidize school infrastructure projects around the state.

Separately, K-12 school districts and community college districts have placed bond measures on local ballots authorizing an additional $17 billion in borrowing.

Statewide, Californians do not appear to be straining the capacity of the state's school infrastructure.

Enrollment in traditional K-12 public schools has been roughly stagnant for years. Community College student enrollment peaked in 2008-09 at 2.9 million students, fell rapidly after the end of the Great Recession as prospective students found jobs, and has started ticking back up with 2.4 million enrolled in 2018-19.

Further, the state has already made significant investment in K-14 infrastructure.

According to the State Treasurer's DebtWatch database, school and community college districts issued $125 billion in general obligation bonds from 1984 to 2019, refinancing excluded. Plus, voters approved five statewide education bond measures between 1998 and 2016 totaling $54 billion.

With flat-to-declining enrollment figures, does the state really need to borrow billions more to fund investments in school infrastructure?

Undoubtedly, California must maintain and replace aging school buildings. But is a price tag in the tens of billions necessary, especially when California suffers from congested highways and an acute housing shortage?

The new Proposition 13 authorizes $9 billion in borrowing for K-12 schools, $2 billion for community colleges and $4 billion for state universities. Most of the money takes the form of matching funds, which local districts can use to top up their own building programs.

In the rush to qualify for these funds, over 110 districts have placed bond measures on the March ballot.

Some of the larger bond measures have attracted criticism.

For example, West Contra Costa Unified's $575 million measure was panned in a recent San Jose Mercury News editorial. The newspaper observed that the nearly insolvent district already has $1.4 billion in outstanding bonds with plans to issue $200 million in previously authorized debt this year.

If voters approve the latest measure, the district's bond program would approach $70,000 per student and the owner of a home with an average assessment would pay almost $1100 in property taxes for school debt service alone.

In the Central Valley, opponents of Merced Community College District's $247 million bond measure questioned whether additional borrowing would improve student success, noting that the college has suffered a 12% enrollment decline and "recently lost $3.8 million in state funding because students aren't meeting state-mandated performance measures."

An even more debatable bond measure is on the ballot in the Bay Area.

The San Francisco Community College District is asking voters to authorize $845 million in new bonds despite suffering a catastrophic decline in enrollment due in part to an accreditation controversy.

Fearing that their Community College of San Francisco degrees might prove worthless in the job market, many students went elsewhere. Enrollment plunged from 90,000 in 2011-12 to 65,000 today. With so much excess capacity at the school, it is hard to understand why additional construction is necessary.

And with so many San Franciscans living on the streets, investing in educational infrastructure seems to be an especially odd priority. Indeed, many Community College of San Francisco students are homeless as are over 1,800 of the city's K-12 pupils.

While not all the local bond measures are objectionable as the ones I have highlighted here, voters should take a critical look at the bonds on their ballots. If the proposals lack specificity, result in overcapacity, or lead to excessive district debt, a "no" vote would be the judicious choice.

_______

Marc Joffe is a senior policy analyst at the libertarian Reason Foundation in Los Angeles, marc.joffe@reason.org. He wrote this commentary for CALmatters. To read his previous commentary for CalMatters, please click here.

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics. Sign up for our newsletters and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

Read the original here:

CA Voters Asked To Approve $17B In School Construction Bonds; Much Of It Unneeded (Opinion) - Patch.com

Libertarians and other political third-parties will soon find out if fairness in federal courts extends to political third-parties, or is fairness confined to major party candidates. The answer will establish the degree of loyalty each branch of government has to political parties over the Constitution.

On the week of February 10, 2020 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, will hear argument in Jacobson v. Lee. This case is on appeal from a district court ruling that held unconstitutional a Florida statute that granted top ballot position to all candidates of the Governors political party. In Florida there has been a Republican Governor since 1998.

The Democrats argue that granting the top spot on all ballots to Republicans gives them an electoral advantage. Expert evidence at trial established that first listed candidates have gained an average electoral advantage of five percentage points due to ballot position. Since Governor Scott was elected in 2010 by a 1.2% margin and in 2018 Governor DeSantis won with only a 0.4 % margin, ballot position determined the outcome of both races.

In down-ballot races, the effect gives a 3.1% to 5.6% advantage to top spot candidates.

In Jacobson, the lower court found the impact of ballot placement based on the outcome of the last Governors race to be a denial of equal protection and discriminatory because it selects ballot position based solely on party affiliation.

The lower court offers solutions; at least 29 states either rotate or randomize the order of candidate names in general elections to neutralize the effects of position bias. For example, Ohio requires candidate ballot position be rotated from one precinct to another. Hawaii requires candidates be in alphabetical order. Colorado arranges candidate ballot position by lot, however, it undercuts its neutrality by dividing the candidates into two groups: major party and minor party candidates.

Jacobson is important to every minor party. For decades minor parties have fought merely to secure ballot access. A few have gained access in many states, but usually not all states. Now, minor parties have evidence that ballot placement is a critical matter once ballot access is secured.

Rigging elections occurs in many ways, not just intimidation and fake news. Denying fair ballot position also manipulates votes. The impact of these discriminatory actions is to limit the votes received and the fundraising potential of minor parties, while denying attention to their ideas.

Many articles ago, I addressed the monopoly the two major parties have over our political system.

The two major parties manipulate election laws to ensure one of their loyalists almost always wins the election. Controlling who wins directly translates into what laws are enacted, which citizens or corporations receive subsidies, who is taxed more or taxed less, how commerce is regulated and who will judge us should we violate any command.

According to an article in the Daily Kos ,there are 519,682 elected officeholders in the United States. Of this total, the Libertarian Party, in 2017, claims 168 of these officeholders; the Green Party in 2016 held 143 offices, and the Constitution Party holds 12 offices. Many of these positions are non-partisan offices. There are also, at least 26 Independent office holders, including 2 U.S. Senators who caucus with the Democrats, and 26 Democratic Vermont Progressives. A basic calculation places the third-party competitors share of the political market at 0.0006754%; almost zero.

What makes the power of the major parties so baffling is that political parties are not mentioned in our Constitution. Political parties are merely groups of individuals who organize to control government. In fact, for the first several years of our Republic, there were no political parties. Moreover, the major parties maintain complete control of the political marketplace against the fact that 57% of Americans believe a third political party is needed, according to a Gallup poll.

Again, I ask: does judicial fairness apply to minor political parties?

It may not, but the ballot position cases offer clear evidence of discriminatory impact on minor parties and open up a new line of attack for minor parties to seek fairer elections and greater voter participation.

A November 1, 2019 report in Ballot Access News illustrates how discriminatory our electoral system is against minor parties. It found [t]he U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear every election law cert. petition presented by a minor party or independent candidate starting in 1992, unless the Republican Party or the Democratic Party was also a party to the same case.

Action

Since Jacobson is only a dispute between the major parties, both having a great stake in the outcome, it is likely to be resolved by the Supreme Court. This gives the minor parties a chance to file Friends of the Courts briefs to educate the court on the plight of minor parties in ballot cases and the impact of discrimination on the voice of voters.

Party affiliation should not guarantee a 3.1% to 5.6% vote advantage to the two major parties; they have legislated themselves too many electoral advantages. Elections are for citizens to elect their representatives, not for political parties to control the nation.

Here is the original post:

Will SCOTUS Hearing on Ballot Position Apply to Minor Political Parties? - The Libertarian Republic

Welcome to The LATEST, your one-stop shop for todays top local news. We are a team of dedicated journalists who spend countless hours investigating and producing stories about the issues that affect your lives. We cant do this without you! Our nonprofit newsroom powers both LAist and 89.3 KPCC, the No. 1 NPR station in Southern California. Were only here because readers like you have stepped up to become members.

COLLEGE ADMISSIONS

Updated February 3, 2020 12:21 PM

Published February 3, 2020 12:10 PM

There's no shortage of criticisms about the standardized tests most colleges use to decide whether to admit students. Opponents say the SAT and ACT tests are a better measure of whether you can afford test preparation than a gauge of academic aptitude.

The University of California system has been debating whether to keep the tests, and last year it asked faculty leaders to study the issue. Now the results of the yearlong review are in:

Don't ditch the tests, faculty leaders say.

Well, that's the very short answer. The Academic Senate's executive committee released more than 200 pages of reasons why they think the tests are worthwhile. The main takeaway: after factoring in demographics and other socioeconomic information, less-advantaged students are actually admitted at a higher rate than other students with similar test scores.

The committee's preliminary recommendations will continue to be debated over the next few months. The full Academic Senate is expected to issue a final set of policy recommendations at its meeting in April.

You can read the full report here:

GO DEEPER:

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

Weather Alert

Updated February 3, 2020 11:46 AM

Published February 3, 2020 10:53 AM

Gusty winds are sweeping across Southern California this morning.

Across the region, winds will be blowing up to 50 mph, with gusts up to 70 mph, before gradually tapering off, according to the National Weather Service. Isolated gusts of up to 90 mph in the hills around the I-5 corridor are also expected.

Drivers beware. Meteorologist David Sweet says these strong winds can make you lose control of your vehicle.

He also advises homeowners to be mindful about the items they're leaving outside.

As a matter of fact, I heard potted plants being blown off balconies last night and crashing, so any potted plants, any loose items should be brought indoors, Sweet says.

And whenever we get high winds like this, you can count on reports of downed trees and problems with the power grid. The Huntington Library and Gardens says its closed today because it lost power.

Mayor Eric Garcetti noted on Twitter that crews have been working to restore electricity in neighborhoods where the wind knocked down power lines.

Slightly calmer Santa Anas are expected tomorrow, and temperatures are expected to remain cool Monday and Tuesday, with a slow warm-up later in the week.

GO DEEPER:

Brianna Flores and Brian Frank

Highway Shooting

Updated February 3, 2020 11:50 AM

Published February 3, 2020 10:22 AM

A woman is dead and five others injured after someone opened fire on a Greyhound bus bound for San Francisco.

The California Highway Patrol says a man boarded the 6848-1 and then started firing shots just before 1:30 Monday morning, while the bus was traveling on Interstate 5. The bus then pulled over near Lebec, and the alleged shooter got off.

The woman who died is believed to be from Colombia. Two of those injured are in serious condition.

A suspect is in custody. Its still unclear whether this was a random or targeted shooting.

"At this time there's no evidence to indicate that there was terrorism involved, or anything like that. We are still trying to establish a motive," CHP Sgt. Brian Pennings said at a late morning press conference.

A black handgun with additional magazines were left behind and later recovered by authorities, Pennings said.

Passengers are being questioned. Police say cell phones are being provided to passengers so that they can contact their loved ones.

"Our thoughts and prayers go out to everyone and every family member impacted by the incident today," Greyhound said in a statement.

This is a developing story.

The California Highway Patrol says a man got onto bus 6848-1 and started firing shots just before 1:30 Monday morning.

Brianna Flores

Warehouse Destroyed

Updated February 3, 2020 12:40 PM

Published February 3, 2020 10:10 AM

A four-alarm fire early Sunday wiped out the inventory and Irvine headquarters of Working Wardrobes, a nonprofit dedicated to providing professional attire and job training for people who've fallen on hard times and are trying to get back into the workforce.

The fire broke out at 5:50 a.m. Sunday. Video posted on Twitter by the Orange County Fire Authority showed massive flames billowing into the sky.

OCFA spokesman Tony Bommarito said firefighters initially pulled back because of the intense heat and smoke. "It was too dangerous," he said.

Working Wardrobes posted a press release on its website:

"Everything has been destroyed, including:

Donation Center: Large warehouse filled with racks, bins, and boxes filled with thousands of donations. Including jackets, pants, shirts, blouses, ties, shoes, jewelry and additional accessories, as well as housewares, office and cleaning supplies.

Career Center: Computer labs where clients worked to research and apply for jobs online, training rooms and IT computer lab. Plus, the VetNet team and program for veterans, SCSEP program for seniors, all client services for women, men, young adults, and all wardrobing services.

"We are absolutely devastated by this catastrophic loss, the heart of our operations is gone and so is 30 years of history," Working Wardrobes founder and CEO Jerri Rosen said in a statement. "We are grateful and relieved to report that no one was hurt or in the building at the time of the fire. Now our job is to get back on our feet so we can serve our clients very quickly and we aim to do just that with the help of our remarkable community."

The organization will set up temporary headquarters at a Goodwill facility in Santa Ana.

Bommarito says the preliminary estimate is $10 million in damage to the building and a $2 million loss of contents in the building, but that last figure may go up when Working Wardrobes does a full inventory.

The cause of the fire is under investigation.

"At this point were not ruling out anything," he said. "This is a super challenging fire investigation because of the amount of damage. You have the entire roof laying on everything that burned below. This is very challenging to be able to get in there and start working on that."

Crews will be on site in the next several days. Bommarito said his agency will look at whether it was intentionally set.

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

Broken Buildings

Updated February 3, 2020 6:05 AM

Published February 3, 2020 6:05 AM

You know that sinking feeling you get in your stomach when a pipe breaks and you get the plumbers bill? Well imagine taking a look at an invoice for close to $4 billion.

Thats what it would cost if you total up everything on all 23 campuses of the California State University system that needs to be fixed and maintained the heating and air-conditioning systems, the sidewalks, the locker-room lockers, the elevators, and on and on.

Some of that work is contracted out, but a lot of the daily maintenance falls to a relatively handful of trades workers. Christopher Rooney, a metal worker at Cal State Northridge, let LAist tag along while he made his rounds. When hes not crawling around in air-conditioning ducts, hes got plenty more to do. Mostly by himself the only other metal worker on the campus recently retired. He told us:

A lot of times there will be what they call trip hazards, cement will move and stuff or crack on walkways, and we have to constantly fix that. Handrails get broken, we fix those because once metal breaks it tends to be sharp and people can get hurt on that.

Everything Rooney and all of his fellow trade workers on all of the Cal State campuses is in this 282-page report. Be warned it isnt light reading.

GO DEEPER:

This Is What A $4 Billion Maintenance Backlog Feels Like To A Cal State Worker (LAist)

Adolfo Guzman-Lopez

VOTER GAME PLAN

Updated February 3, 2020 6:00 AM

Published February 3, 2020 6:00 AM

Primary election season 2020 is officially underway vote-by-mail ballots start going out today (although you still have till Feb. 25 to request yours). Our Voter Game Plan project has been fielding questions about all the big changes happening in the way we vote.

Here's one question we've been hearing: "I want to vote in the presidential primary. Do I have to change my party registration to vote for the candidate I want?"

You might have heard about a change this year that lets you vote for a candidate in the presidential primary even if you are not registered with that candidate's party and that's partially true.

If you are a registered voter with any party be it Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, etc. you'll automatically get a ballot with your party's presidential candidates. Simple enough.

If youre registered as No Party Preference, you are still allowed to vote for a presidential candidate in the Democratic, Libertarian, or American Independent parties. But in order to do so, you have to request what's called a "crossover ballot." If you plan to vote in person, you can simply request one when you get to the voting center.

But if you're voting by mail, then youll have to request that crossover ballot before February 25. You can do that by contacting your county elections office.

For L.A. County residents: The Los Angeles County Registrar's office in Norwalk is open weekdays 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and can be reached at (800) 815-2666. You'll get a phone menu to navigate, so here's a shortcut: press 2 and then 3 to reach someone who can help you request a crossover ballot. You can also email voterinfo@rrcc.lacounty.gov for more help.

Important reminder! This does not apply to the Republican, Green or Peace and Freedom parties. Youll have to register with those parties if you want to vote for their candidates.

Have more questions about the voting process? Our Voter Game Plan has been answering frequently asked ones here. If you want to ask us anything else, submit your question below.

GO DEEPER:

Brianna Lee

COMING UP

Updated February 3, 2020 10:23 AM

Published February 3, 2020 5:00 AM

In case you weren't watching, the Kansas City Chiefs staged a final-quarter comeback to win their first Super Bowl in 50 years, beating the San Francisco 49ers 31-20. There was also that superstar halftime show, with Shakira and Jennifer Lopez sharing a stage, and another tribute to late Lakers great Kobe Bryant.

But on to Monday. Temperatures will be in the 60s today, and you can expect a very chilly night -- the mercury could dip into the high 30s. If you're planning to brave the waves, note that a high surf advisory is in effect through tomorrow.

The March 3 primary is on the horizon. We now know where all of the county's new vote centers will be, and vote-by-mail ballots go out today.

What Were Covering:

Help Us Cover Your Community:

The news cycle moves fast. Some stories don't pan out. Others get added. Consider this today's first draft.

Brian Frank

Read the original here:

Fire Wipes Out OC Nonprofit That Helps People Get Back Into The Workforce - LAist

Ipswich man Anthony Bull has put his hand up to run for Division 2 in this year's historic election.

Mr Bull, a second generation Ipswich resident, works in digital marketing and analytics.

"I went to Redbank Plains State School before moving to Westside Christian College, then I actually enrolled at the University of Queensland at Ipswich before the business element got shut down and moved to St Lucia," he said.

"My history here (Ipswich) also extends to my parents; my dad used to be the president of one of the local soccer clubs. He has a field named after him at Westminster Soccer Club; the Kevin Bull field down in Redbank Plains.

"My mother works in a couple of charities here and my wife is from Ipswich as well."

Mr Bull said he wanted to run for council because he had a passion for politics and believed he could do better than the previous council.

"The previous council was a perfect example of an unchecked government," he said

"I'm a big believer in government transparency and government accountability; that the people who work in government have to answer to the people who voted them in."

Mr Bull has three main focuses if elected to council, which include not only streaming council meetings but having audio transcribed as a way of ensuring accountability.

"The other two issues that my platform is about are ending the gouging of rate payers by looking at some of the policies that were implemented by the previous government," he said.

"Perhaps some of the services we agreed to aren't the best service at the same price.

"The fact that there was corruption makes me think that there are some services there that need to be looked at."

Mr Bull was very open and admitted he hadn't done any specific research as to why he thought rates were higher but has looked at some previous budgets made by council.

He said he also wanted to support business growth, believing that embracing more business would make way for more jobs in the region.

Mr Bull registered with his wife as a group for council election in order to run as a Liberal Democrat because the party is not registered with the Electoral Commission of Queensland.

"The Liberal Democratic Party of Australia is only registered at the federal level at this stage but not at the state level," Mr Bull said.

"I kind of convinced her to run with me, I didn't want to run as an independent," he said.

"I wanted to let my flag fly and who I am is a member of the Liberal Democrats and for that reason I needed her help.

"You can't run as a group with one person and for her she's really helped me out a lot, she's mostly in it to help me out. She was thinking about running but she's mostly here to help me out for sure."

Mr Bull's wife, Jacinta, is registered as a Division 1 candidate but has since decided to change to Division 3.

"We just sort of did some polling and found there was more support in that area we did some research and thought that (Division 3) was a better fit."

Mrs Bull is not taking media interviews regarding her candidacy for Division 3.

Excerpt from:

Proud Libertarian to run in upcoming council election - Queensland Times