(WASHINGTON) — With poll workers across the country resigning at an alarming rate, efforts to recruit their replacements have grown increasingly partisan – a troubling trend that experts fear will serve to undermine Americans’ faith in the vote.
This week, as part of National Poll Worker Recruitment Day, several state Republican parties issued rallying cries on social media meant to attract a new generation of poll workers. Their pleas included politically charged language, calling on followers to “join the fight,” “combat Democrats” and “SAVE AMERICA!”
While political parties have long engaged in recruitment efforts, experts say these latest overtures mark a “notable” escalation in the way partisans solicit interest in these critical roles.
“It’s only recently that I’ve started seeing widespread use of language that implies the other side is cheating, or that working as a poll worker could be characterized as joining a ‘fight,’ as opposed to an opportunity to serve the community and the democratic process,” said Larry Norden of the Brennan Center, a nonpartisan think tank.
The politicization of poll workers reflects broader democratic challenges the country has faced in recent years. As the front line of election administration, these workers undertake the burden of ensuring a free and fair vote at polling stations in each community. The work is often described as tedious, but it is cited as among the most important jobs in a democracy.
In the wake of the 2020 presidential election, poll workers bore the brunt of false claims that the election was compromised by fraud. Many became targets of threats, and a survey from the Brennan Center for Justice found that one-third of election workers reported feeling unsafe because of their job. In some states, Republican lawmakers have proposed legislation that would impose criminal charges on poll workers for committing errors.
The fallout, combined with pandemic-related obstacles, has prompted a mass exodus of poll workers and raised questions about who would replace them.
“There is very much a coordinated effort underway to use criminalization of election officials’ jobs, intimidation and violence to drive officials from their jobs and to replace them with partisan activists,” said Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
To offset the widespread resignations and spur recruitment efforts, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission last year dubbed Jan. 25 National Poll Worker Recruitment Day, “with the goal of encouraging potential poll workers to sign up to help America vote.”
At least 19 state Republican parties from Connecticut to California promoted poll worker recruitment this week, and at least five injected their messaging with partisan overtones.
“Join the front lines of election security by being a poll worker! As @JoeBiden just stated, it matters who counts the votes. #LeadRight,” read one tweet from the Nevada Republican Party.
In North Carolina, the Republican Party Twitter account called on supporters to “combat Democrats’ unconstitutional assault on our most basic voting protections” by signing up to become a poll worker.
Democracy advocates have warned that a new generation of poll workers may put partisan loyalties above a commitment to democracy. This week they said the rhetoric used in Republican social media channels threatens to make that nightmare scenario a dangerous reality.
“The last thing we need are partisan appeals for non-partisan positions,” said Nick Penniman, founder and CEO of IssueOne, a democracy watchdog. “Election workers may be Democrats or Republicans, but our elections work in this country because the workers who run them put voters first.”
(NEW YORK) — With the highly infectious omicron COVID-19 variant spreading rapidly across the country and overwhelming the health care system, health officials have been pleading with Americans to get vaccinated and boosted.
“The doctors and data have made crystal clear, vaccinations and boosters provide the best protection,” White House COVID-19 coordinator Jeff Zients said during a press briefing on Wednesday. “Vaccines remain our single most powerful tool.”
But despite continued public urgings from the White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the nation’s vaccination initiation and COVID-19 booster rate continues to lag, which experts say is particularly worrisome, as efficacy continues to wane overtime.
“Booster shots are effective against both infection and serious disease,” Dr. David Dowdy, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told ABC News. “If people don’t get boosted, we as a population are more vulnerable to the virus. To my mind, the biggest concern is that people who are vaccinated but not boosted may infect people who haven’t been vaccinated.”
As of Wednesday, just under half of those who are eligible to receive a booster — about 85 million Americans — have yet to receive their additional shot, and data shows that each day, fewer and fewer Americans are getting vaccinated. Since mid-December, the number of Americans receiving their booster every day has been cut in half — falling from more than 1 million people boosted every day to just over half a million people. In addition, 63 million eligible Americans remain totally unvaccinated.
Experts say several factors are to blame for the nation’s drop in booster shots being administered, including confusion with the CDC’s messaging and an uncertainty and lack of understanding from many about the urgency and need for boosters.
Last week, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky shared three new studies, all of which clearly demonstrated that unvaccinated individuals are at greater risk of severe illness, and even death, from COVID-19, compared to those who are vaccinated. The studies found that booster shots significantly increased protection against severe disease, both during the delta wave and at the beginning of the omicron wave.
“Protection against infection and hospitalization with the omicron variant is highest for those who are up to date with their vaccination, meaning those who are boosted when they’re eligible. There are still millions of people who are eligible for booster doses and have not yet received one,” Walensky said during a White House COVID-19 press briefing last week.
The first study found a third shot slashed the risk of visiting the ER or urgent care by 94% during delta and 82% during omicron. A second study found that the unvaccinated were nearly 14 times more likely to be infected and 53 times more likely to die, compared to the vaccinated and boosted, and a third study reported that although omicron was more likely to cause breakthrough infections compared to delta, even among the boosted, protection against more severe illness remained high.
“There may be a bit more pain and suffering with hospitalizations in those areas of the country that have not been fully vaccinated or have not gotten boosters,” Dr. Anthony Fauci told Martha Raddatz during an appearance on ABC News’ This Week on Sunday.
Messaging on vaccinations cause confusion
Health experts suggest the nation’s slowing booster campaign and the CDC’s unclear messaging and guidance are the reasons many Americans haven’t felt the need to get boosted.
“While the initial vaccination drive was met with clear communications, incentives and mandates, the booster campaign has had far less organization,” said John Brownstein, Ph.D., an epidemiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital and an ABC News contributor.
Complicating matters is the fact that the virus has already mutated several times, with new variants emerging, creating additional confusion.
“The changing science of variants and boosters has required real-time adapting of public health messaging and guidance, providing less time to prepare and convince people on the value of a third shot,” Brownstein said.
Further muddling the messaging is the discussion about whether a fourth dose of a coronavirus vaccine shot will be needed to offer protection against omicron. Israel is currently administering additional boosters to residents over the age of 60, and immunocompromised individuals, among others.
When asked whether a fourth shot will be necessary, Fauci told ABC’s This Week that it is still unclear whether an additional booster shot will be recommended, as scientists are still trying to determine how much protection is provided by the first booster.
Fauci added that it’s “quite conceivable, and I hope it’s true, that the third shot boost will give a much greater durability of protection.”
Some Americans may not understand the urgency for boosters, experts say
Although researchers report that the science behind the benefit of boosters is clear, some experts say many Americans still do not fully understand the urgency of getting boosted.
“There are many who may not yet understand the importance of [the] third dose of vaccine,” said Creech. “By giving an additional dose, particularly of an mRNA vaccine several months after those initial doses, we leverage the immune system’s ability to create long-term memory. That 1-2 punch is the best way to protect quickly and protect for a longer period of time.”
For other fully vaccinated Americans, a booster may seem unnecessary, for the time being, Dowdy said.
“For those who want protection against serious disease, but don’t care if they get a mild infection, the first series is probably sufficient. For those who want to avoid any infection at all costs, they’ve come to realize that a booster shot – while helpful – is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card,” Dowdy explained.
Despite the fact that omicron has been shown to cause less severe disease, Walensky stressed this week that as a nation, we are still facing a high overall burden of disease.
“Importantly, ‘milder’ does not mean ‘mild.’ And we cannot look past the strain on our health systems and substantial number of deaths — nearing 2,200 a day — as a result of the extremely transmissible omicron variant,” Walensky said.
Hospital officials have repeatedly stressed that the sheer number of infections caused by the new variant could still overwhelm the health care system. Nationwide, there are just under 150,000 COVID-19-positive Americans receiving care — a total which has just begun to fall after hitting a record high of 160,000 patients earlier this month.
When asked whether the C.D.C. might consider changing the definition of “fully vaccinated” to encourage more Americans to get the additional shot, Walensky reiterated that at this time, the agency is working to ensure people are “up to date” with their vaccinations.
“Right now, we’re pivoting our language, we really want to make sure people are up to date. That means if you recently got your second dose, you’re not eligible for a booster, you’re up to date. If you are eligible for a booster and you haven’t gotten it, you’re not up to date,” Walensky said.
Vaccination campaign must target both the unvaccinated and the unboosted
Experts stress the vaccination campaign must not only focus on the unboosted, but also on the 63 million eligible Americans who remain completely unvaccinated.The efforts should not be perceived as an “either/or situation, but rather a “both/and,” said Creech.
“While we want to respect the personal choices that individuals wish to make, we certainly need to invest resources to address misunderstandings or misconceptions that have led them to the decision not to vaccinate,” Creech said.
Strategies to increase overall vaccine confidence, as well as to raise awareness about the value of boosters, will also be applicable to vaccines as a whole, Creech said.
“It’s not about whether we should be prioritizing boosters over the primary vaccine series, it’s about how we message these in a way that prioritizes both,” Dowdy added.
Although the omicron surge seems to be sharply declining in many areas of the country, Americans must realize the pandemic is not over yet, Fauci stressed.
“It’s vital that we all remain vigilant in the face of this virus,” Fauci said. “It’s been a long two years. However, please now do your part to lean into this current moment. Now is the time to do what we know works: Wear a mask, get vaccinated and get boosted.”
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court will once again revisit the legality of affirmative action in higher education, after last upholding the decades-old precedent in 2016.
On Monday, the high court said it would take up a pair of cases that challenge the use of race as a factor in undergraduate admissions at Harvard University, the nation’s oldest private college, and the University of North Carolina, the nation’s oldest public state university.
That the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the cases together is seen by some experts as an indication that the conservative-leaning body could be willing to revisit its precedents and end race-conscious admissions in higher education — which proponents say will have wide-reaching implications for schools, and beyond.
Some studies suggest the policies — which consider race as one of many factors when reviewing applicants to further a diverse student body — have had a profound effect on opportunities for minority applicants, which in turn impact their job chances and careers. And they suggest that stopping them not only decreases the number of Black and Latino students enrolling in colleges but increases those of advantaged groups.
“It is a very, very significant threat to the continued constitutionality of affirmative action,” Tanya Washington, a professor of law at Georgia State University whose research focuses on educational equity, told ABC News.
Opponents — including the conservative group Students for Fair Admissions, which has brought both cases against the universities — have argued that the policies are discriminatory and violate students’ civil rights and the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
Since 1978, the court has said that race could be used as one factor among many in college admissions, barring the use of quotas or mathematical formulas to diversify a class.
In the landmark 2003 case Grutter vs. Bollinger, which the cases against Harvard and UNC are seeking to overturn, the court said that the goal of a diverse student body justifies the use of race, along with other factors, in admissions policies.
The court set the bar higher for schools with its 2013 decision in the case of Abigail Fisher, a white woman who attempted to end the consideration of race in the University of Texas’ admissions policies. In the majority opinion, former Justice Anthony Kennedy said that institutions must first exhaust all race-neutral means of achieving racial diversity, such as recruitment and socio-economic indicators, before considering race, Washington said.
The court last upheld affirmative action in 2016 when it again considered Fisher’s case, in a narrow vote that many at the time had expected to upend race-conscious admissions policies.
Since that decision, the makeup of the court has changed in a way that makes it seem likely the precedent could be overturned, according to Washington.
“The court has shifted to a more conservative bloc of justices — 6 to 3 — and I think there would be among that group of six a significant receptivity to overruling Grutter v. Bollinger,” Washington said, noting that the breakdown is unlikely to change with the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer.
With this latest case, the court could rule in one of several ways, according to Washington. It could say the use of race in admissions violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and overturn Grutter, ending affirmative action. It could uphold Grutter and find that the use of race in Harvard and UNC’s admissions policies was constitutional. Or it could uphold Grutter but find that the use of race in these contexts isn’t constitutional.
The court could also potentially further restrict the practice or require “higher standards” for schools to use it, Michael Olivas, the emeritus William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law at the University of Houston Law Center, told ABC News.
The consolidation of the two cases signals to Washington that “a majority of the court may be ready to overrule Grutter.” That the court also appeared inclined to overrule another long-standing precedent in Roe v. Wade also might indicate the same here, she said.
Against the convention wisdom at the time, Olivas had said the court would uphold affirmative action in the 2016 case. He said he believes the same now, even with a different makeup of the court.
“The world has changed, but the common law hasn’t changed,” he said. “I would hope that 50 years of very clear law would stand.”
‘Cataclysmic’ impact
Should the court end affirmative action in higher education, the impact will be far-reaching, Washington said, as most institutions — save for those in several states where it is prohibited at public universities — are using race-conscious admissions policies.
“This is not just going to impact the elite,” Washington said. “What we are going to see, what I predict, is a cataclysmic drop in the numbers of Latino, Black and Indigenous students attending institutions of higher ed.”
A 2015 study published in the Journal of Higher Education that looked at the impact of affirmative action bans in six states found that the share of students of color in medical schools dropped after the bans went into effect.
In California, which has banned affirmative action policies at the state’s public universities since 1996, the education advocacy group EdSource found there was a double-digit enrollment gap between the percentage of Latino high school graduates and those enrolled in the University of California’s 2019 freshman class.
If Harvard were to stop considering race in its admissions process and solely use race-neutral factors, the proportion of African American students admitted to the class of 2019 would have likely dropped from 14% to 6%, and the proportion of Hispanic or “other” students from 14% to 9%, a university committee found. Meanwhile, “this decrease would produce a corresponding increase in students of other races, primarily white students,” its report said.
Disparities in admissions have implications for those who enter professional fields, like law or medicine, as well as higher education faculty, Washington said.
“I think it will make the quality of education less robust and less rigorous,” she said. “I think it will mean we also end up with fewer racially diverse professors and professionals. It’s going to have adverse and broad consequences for our society.”
For Olivas, one of the worst consequences of potentially ending affirmative action is the message it sends.
“I think it will send a signal to minority parents that their kids aren’t wanted,” he said. “I think that would be a mistake for all of us. I want a better-educated group no matter where they’re from.”
Whether or not affirmative action is upheld, disparities in admissions would still exist through policies like legacy admissions, which tend to disproportionately benefit white applicants, he added.
In the case against Harvard, Students for Fair Admissions alleges that Asian American applicants have been illegally targeted and rejected at a disproportionately higher rate in violation of the students’ constitutional rights. In the case against UNC, it alleges the university refused to use race-neutral alternatives to achieve the stated goal of a diverse study body.
“Every college applicant should be judged as a unique individual, not as some representative of a racial or ethnic group,” Edward Blum, the president of Students for Fair Admissions and a long-time affirmative action opponent and conservative activist, said in a statement.
In its complaint against Harvard, Students for Fair Admissions also argued that racial classifications “have a stigmatizing effect” on applicants.
“Irrespective of whether an individual African American or Hispanic applicant is admitted to Harvard because of a racial preference, so long as racial preferences exist, it will often be assumed that race is the reason for the applicant’s admission to the school,” the complaint stated. “This stigma can have a devastating effect on the psyche of impressionable students.”
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision this week, both Harvard and UNC said their admissions policies have been found to be constitutional by the lower courts.
“Considering race as one factor among many in admissions decisions produces a more diverse student body which strengthens the learning environment for all,” Harvard President Lawrence Bacow said in a statement.
Beth Keith, a spokesperson for UNC, said in a statement that its holistic admissions process “allows for an evaluation of each student in a deliberate and thoughtful way.”
Many experts, including Washington, expect the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case during its next term, which starts in October.
(WASHINGTON) — In a scathing rebuke of the nation’s current classification procedures, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines has told lawmakers that the current system classifies so much information it puts national security at risk — because of how long it can take to process.
“It is my view that deficiencies in the current classification system undermine our national security, as well as critical democratic objectives, by impeding our ability to share information in a timely manner, be that sharing with our intelligence partners, our oversight bodies, or, when appropriate, with the general public,” she writes in a letter dated Jan. 5 and sent to Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Jerry Moran, R-Kan.
The classification system, she wrote, reduces the intelligence communities capacity to “effectively support senior policy maker decision making, and further erodes the basic trust our citizens have in their government.”
The challenge on how to protect national security information, but appropriately share it is not a new challenge, nor is it easy, she said.
The senators wrote the Haines in October to express concern about the current classification system, noting numerous reviews of the process have “documented concerns across the entire lifecycle of the current system.”
“In the meantime, the volume of classified material produced continues to grow exponentially in a digital first environment, bringing with it the expanding burden of mandatory declassification requirements,” Haines said.
Haines said there are already efforts currently underway, but those were not disclosed in the letter obtained by ABC News.
She says the issue of classification is also “great importance” to President Biden.
(WASHINGTON) — As the world marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Thursday, the warning to “never forget” took on renewed meaning.
President Joe Biden, who was scheduled to host a 90-year-old Auschwitz survivor Bronia Brandman in the Oval Office, released a statement honoring the lives of the 6 million Jews and millions of others murdered by the Nazis while also highlighting the dangers of forgetting, denying and warping the history of the Holocaust.
“We must teach accurately about the Holocaust and push back against attempts to ignore, deny, distort, and revise history…We must continue to pursue justice for survivors and their families,” he said in a statement.
Thursday’s day of remembrance, the 77th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, comes amid rising concerns about antisemitism. A report released last fall by the American Jewish Committee found that one in four American Jews were targeted by antisemitism in the previous year.
Less than two weeks ago, a rabbi and three others were taken hostage for hours at a synagogue in Colleyville, Texas, resulting in the death of the gunman by police.
And the Holocaust has been invoked repeatedly in the debate on masks, sparking outrage that its atrocities are being minimized.
Last May, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said the Capitol mask mandate was similar to the gold star of David Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust (a claim she apologized for after visiting the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum), and Lauren Boebert, R-Col., called door-to-door vaccine administers “Needle Nazis,” just two months later.
There have also been concerns that Holocaust history is being whitewashed in the nation’s classrooms.
The latest controversy arose on Wednesday, when a Tennessee school board voted to ban “Maus,” a Pulitzer Prize-winning graphic novel depicting the Holocaust from the curriculum due to profanity and an image of a nude woman. In the book, cartoonist/artist Art Spiegelman tells the story of his parents’ time in a Nazi concentration camp.
Some of those lessons were on display Wednesday, when the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum held a virtual commemoration with reflections from Holocaust survivors on their experiences and the challenges that remain in the fight against antisemitism.
“Every day, we relive and remember how hatred tore apart our families, our communities and our world. Now we see a number of alarming events that we never imagined could happen in our adopted homeland,” said Péter Gorog, a volunteer at the museum, who was forced to flee his home as a young boy and live in a ghetto in Budapest.
“There are attacks against Jews and Jewish institutions in cities and towns across the world, fueled by antisemitic rhetoric, conspiracy theories and the persistent misuse of the Holocaust to promote an agenda.”
(CONCORD, N.H.) — The New Hampshire Executive Council on Wednesday approved a request to buy 1 million at-home COVID tests and sell them at state liquor stores, according to Gov. Christopher Sununu.
The governor expects they will be hitting shelves in the next two weeks.
“We will buy them for a certain price. We will put them on the shelves and sell them for that exact same price, approximately in the $13 range,” Sununu said during the press conference.
New Hampshire made the move to help meet the high demand for tests, according to Sununu.
“We also know that a lot of folks in New Hampshire might try to get some at stores and maybe there’s not as many on shelves with the federal government buying up so much supply. And we know that demand is still going to be there,” Sununu said.
New Hampshire provided free tests in November and these tests are becoming available in addition to those provided by the federal government, he said.
The Biden administration set up a plan to ship a total of 1 billion free at-home COVID tests to Americans’ homes. They are expected to begin arriving in late January.
(HOUSTON) — Three Houston police officers were shot Thursday afternoon by a suspect who fled, carjacked a white Mercedes and is currently holed up in a home in a standoff with authorities.
Houston police said that the officers are all in stable condition with non-life-threatening injuries. They are being treated at Memorial Hermann Hospital.
The incident took place around 2:40 p.m. local time when officers responded to a domestic call, Houston Police Chief Troy Finner told reporters at an evening news conference outside the hospital. The suspect spotted the officers and fled the scene in a car, with officers giving chase, Finner said.
The suspect crashed into a parking lot gate and then opened fire at the officers with an automatic weapon, according to Finner. The officers returned fire but the suspect escaped, carjacked the Mercedes and continued his flight, the chief said.
One officer was hit in the arm, another was hit in the leg and the third officer was shot in the foot, the police said.
The suspect entered a house in the Fifth Ward and fired on officers who were outside, Finner said. No officer was hurt in this shootout, according to police.
“He is still in the home and we’re treating it as barricaded suspect,” Finner said at 6 p.m. local time.
It was unknown if the suspect was wounded in either shootout, Finner added.
Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner said he visited each of the officers in the hospital.
“All three officers are in good spirits, all were talkative and we expressed our support of them,” he said.
This is the second incident this week in which a law enforcement officer was shot in Houston. Cpl. Charles Galloway of Harris County Constable Precinct 5 was shot and killed on Sunday when the deputy pulled over a car in southwest Houston.
Oscar Rosales, 51, who was arrested on Wednesday after fleeing to Mexico, has been charged with capital murder in that shooting.
(MILWAUKEE, Wis.) — Multiple persons of interest are in custody in connection with a sextuple homicide in Wisconsin that police believe was a targeted attack.
Six people were found dead inside a Milwaukee home after officers conducted a welfare check at the residence Sunday, police said. All victims — five men and one woman — had been shot, police said.
Four persons of interest are now in custody, though no one has been charged yet, Milwaukee Police Chief Jeffrey Norman said during a press briefing Thursday.
“We are still trying to determine what their involvement was, if any, in this homicide,” Norman said.
Police believe there were “multiple suspects” involved in the incident. Evidence suggests that the shooting was targeted, and it does not appear to have been a murder-suicide, according to the chief, who said there is no threat to the public at this time.
The motive, exact time of the shooting and exact number of guns used in the shooting are still being determined, Norman said.
ABC Milwaukee affiliate WISN reported that it obtained court records that show that three of the six victims’ names appear on a witness list for a pending homicide case in Milwaukee County Court.
When asked if that could be a reason why the victims were targeted, Norman told reporters that he believes it is unrelated to the incident, but that authorities are “looking into all angles.”
“Obviously, you never want to use one explanation for a particular incident and stick to that,” Norman said. “At this time, we’re pretty sure that that is not relative to this particular incident, but we never want to take away any particular explanation for what we’re finding in this investigation.”
During their investigation, authorities discovered that a woman who claimed she was a victim of a shooting called 911 about 12 hours before the victims were discovered. Police do not believe that she was a victim of this shooting, and her possible connection to the incident remains under investigation.
Acting Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson urged anyone with information in the case to come forward.
“It’s time for that person to step forward, to come up, say something,” he said during the briefing. “We can’t have a city where somebody can go and pull the trigger and kill somebody, and then go sit on somebody’s couch. We can’t have that.”
ABC News’ Abigail Bowen contributed to this report.
Dai Sugano/MediaNews Group/The Mercury News via Getty Images
(SAN JOSE, Calif.) — The National Association for Gun Rights filed a lawsuit against the city of San Jose, California, seeking to end a rule passed by city council which aims to reduce gun harm.
The rule, passed on Tuesday, requires gun owners to purchase liability insurance and pay an annual “gun harm reduction” fee. Gun owners will also be required to pay city cost recovery fees related to the program’s implementation.
“Liability insurance can reduce the number of gun incidents by encouraging safer behavior and it can also provide coverage for losses and damages related to gun incidents,” the bill states.
In the lawsuit, the National Association for Gun Rights claimed the new rule is unconstitutional.
“San Jose’s imposition of a tax, fee, or other arbitrary cost on gun ownership is intended to suppress gun ownership without furthering any government interest. In fact, the penalties for nonpayment of the insurance and fees include seizure of the citizen’s gun,” the lawsuit said. “The Ordinance is, therefore, patently unconstitutional”
The bill, which the group is attempting to strike down, will become law on July 25, six months after it was passed.
“If left intact, the City of San Jose’s Ordinance would strike at the very core of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and defend one’s home,” the gun rights group said in the lawsuit.
“They want to tax law-abiding gun owners simply for exercising their Second Amendment rights,” the association said in a post on its website. “This is just as unthinkable as imposing a ‘free speech tax’ or a ‘church attendance tax.'”
“If this California city can tax citizen’s Second Amendment rights, gun grabbers in cities all across the country will quickly follow suit,” the association said on its website.
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said he plans to support efforts to replicate these initiatives across the nation.
“Tonight San José became the first city in the United States to enact an ordinance to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, and to invest funds generated from fees paid by gun owners into evidence-based initiatives to reduce gun violence and gun harm,” Liccardo said in a statement on Tuesday.
The mayor’s office and the National Association for Gun Rights did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.
(HOUSTON) — Authorities in Houston are searching for the suspect who shot three Houston police officers and fled in a white Mercedes Thursday afternoon.
The officers’ conditions were not immediately clear.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
