Politics

(PHOENIX) — Arizona Republicans on Wednesday again blocked a Democratic-led effort to repeal a controversial 19th-century ban on almost all abortions in the state, which the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled is enforceable.

Democrats in the state House failed to overcome procedural obstacles to advance House Bill 2677, introduced by Democratic state Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, to repeal the 1864 abortion law, which predates Arizona’s statehood and only provides exceptions to save the life of the pregnant woman.

Only one of the Republican representatives joined with the Democratic minority, leaving them one vote short of pushing the bill forward.

“The last thing we should be doing today is rushing a bill through the legislative process to repeal a law that has been enacted and reaffirmed by the Legislature several times,” Speaker Ben Toma, a Republican, said during Wednesday’s state House session.

“Abortion is a complicated topic — it is ethically, morally complex,” said Toma. “I understand that we have deeply held beliefs.”

Assistant Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos, speaking after Toma, said, “This issue is very simple: Do we support or do we oppose an 1864 territorial abortion ban that includes no exceptions for rape, no exceptions for incest?”

He continued: “We heard the speaker mention that we shouldn’t be rushing this process. Members, we have had since 1864 to repeal this abhorrent law,”

Arizona lawmakers had reconvened on Wednesday after a week’s recess, with much attention was on the repeal bill and whether it would move forward.

It’s unclear how Democrats will next attempt to roll back the strict ban, though members in the state Senate have said they plan to act quickly to take up such efforts in their chamber later Wednesday.

The Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling reviving the 1864 ban immediately roiled the politics of the key swing state — being celebrated by abortion opponents and denounced by abortion access advocates and Democrats, while top Republicans, including Donald Trump, said it went too far.

The ban remains temporarily on hold but Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said this week that the earliest it could take effect is June 8 — “absent any additional litigation” or legislative action.

Anyone found guilty of violating it will face two to five years in state prison. Mayes previously said she would not prosecute providers under the law.

Arizona Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, on Wednesday planned to hold rally outside the state Capitol in support of the 1864 ban.

The Arizona for Abortion Access coalition was also set to hold a rally outside of the state Capitol.

If Arizona lawmakers attempt repeal again, how would it work?

Hamilton’s repeal bill, which failed to advance on Wednesday, already passed two readings in the Arizona House, setting it up for another attempt at a floor vote — after one more step.

A member will need bring up a motion to waive the normal procedures to consider the bill, since it has not yet been heard in a committee.

That waive motion was opposed by nearly all Republicans in the state House majority on Wednesday. But if it ever succeeds, the repeal ban could then go up for a full House vote and would need 31 votes to pass — a simple majority of legislators in the 60-member chamber.

As there are 29 Democratic members in the Arizona House, the bill needs just two Republican votes to succeed. The GOP members to watch are Reps. Matt Gress, David Cook and Tim Dunn.

Toma, the Arizona House speaker, said last week that lawmakers will not “rush legislation on a topic of this magnitude without a larger discussion,” and Republican lawmakers quashed an earlier, Democratic-led effort to quickly repeal the ban.

“We as an elected body are going to take the time needed to listen to our constituents and carefully consider appropriate actions,” Toma said last week.

The Center for Arizona Policy, which has led the fight against abortion rights at the Legislature and successfully lobbied for myriad restrictions, has called on GOP lawmakers not to repeal the 1864 ban.

If the Arizona House votes yes on the bill, however, there are still more steps and procedures before the ban is formally repealed and off the books.

The proposal, after passing the state House, would then go to the state Senate for yet another vote to waive rules on the bill.

Two Republicans are needed to join Democrats in the state Senate as well, and Sens. Shawnna Bolick and T.J. Shope have said they’d support the repeal.

The legislation may have to go through further procedural steps given that it has not yet been read in the state Senate. That includes a rule requiring bills be heard on three separate days, so it will likely take at least three more days.

To repeal the 1864 ban immediately, lawmakers would have to include an emergency clause in their language but get a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Otherwise, anything approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor does not take effect until 90 days after the end of the legislative session.

Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, opposes the ban.

“A law passed in 1864 by 27 men is the reason why my 22-year-old daughter now has fewer rights than I did at her age,” she wrote on X on Tuesday. “It’s absolutely outrageous. I’m committed to ensuring that future generations have the essential freedoms they deserve.”

She has reiterated that an executive order she signed in 2023 prohibits county attorneys from going above Mayes, the Arizona attorney general, who has said her office is still analyzing legal options and is continuing plans over what to do if litigation efforts are unsuccessful, including how Arizona can support abortion providers.

Potentially dueling ballot measures on abortion

The Arizona for Abortion Access campaign is working to get a potential constitutional amendment on the state’s ballot in November enshrining abortion access. The campaign has said that they have gathered more than 500,000 signatures – surpassing the necessary threshold.

The proposed amendment would amend Arizona’s Constitution to prohibit the state from legislating against abortion up until fetal viability, which is around 24 weeks into pregnancy; and it enshrines other abortion protections into law.

The Republican-led House counsel in Arizona has, separately, internally proposed a plan to rival the state’s abortion rights ballot initiative by adding ballot initiatives of their own in the wake of what they call “court chaos” on abortion policy, according to a presentation leaked Monday and shared with ABC News.

That proposal includes potentially legislatively-referred ballot initiatives that would compete with the Arizona for Abortion Access measure — to either return to a 15-week ban that had been in effect before the 1864 ruling or offer a six-week ban, with exceptions in both cases for rape, incest, fetal abnormalities and to save the life of “the woman” in the language presented.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Senate on Wednesday dismissed both impeachment articles against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, deeming them “unconstitutional.”

The trial against Mayorkas, long a target of Republican criticism over his handling of immigration policy and the southern border, lasted just three hours after senators were sworn in as jurors.

The votes to dismiss both articles and adjourn the trial were along party lines, 51-49.

House Republicans, back in February, approved two articles over what they called Mayorkas’ failed leadership. The first article alleged Mayorkas willfully and systemically refused to comply with the law on immigration policy and the second accused him of breaching public trust. The Cabinet secretary, the first to be impeached in nearly 150 years, had called both allegations “baseless.”

Leading up to the trial, Republicans were demanding a thorough consideration of the articles of impeachment take place while Democrats said they would seek to dismiss them quickly.

Such back-and-forth was apparent as proceedings kicked off in the Senate after lawmakers were sworn in as jurors.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., first asked for unanimous consent on a plan that would have allowed for debate time and for Republicans to raise various points of order before Democrats moved toward a motion to dismiss the charges.

Republicans quickly objected.

“Never before in the history of our republic has the Senate dismissed or tabled articles of impeachment when the impeached individual was alive and had not resigned,” Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., said as he rose to reject what Schumer proposed.

“I will not assist Senator Schumer in setting our Constitution ablaze and bulldozing 200 years of precedent,” Schmitt added.

Schumer responded that the first of the articles of impeachment “does not allege conduct that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor” and “therefore is unconstitutional.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., tried to aside Schumer’s motion that the first article of impeachment against Mayorkas is unconstitutional.

“Our colleagues know that we are obligated to take these proceedings seriously,” McConnell said. “This is what our oath prescribes. It is what the history and precedent require and I would urge each of our colleagues to consider that this is what our framers actually envisioned.”

McConnell added, “This process must not be abused, it must not be short circuited. History will not judge this moment well.”

Republican senators tried several times to move into a closed session or adjourn the court of impeachment, but such efforts failed along party lines.

“The Senate Majority Leader has argued that Secretary Mayorkas’ defiance of federal immigration law and active aiding and abetting of the worst illegal alien invasion in American history does not constitute a high crime or misdemeanor,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said as he tried to move debate behind closed doors.

“He has presented no argument on that question. He has presented no briefing on that question … the only rational way to resolve this question is actually to debate it, to consider the Constitution and consider the law,” Cruz added.

All senators present for Wednesday’s proceedings were seated at their desks. At some points, lawmakers could be seen handing out candy or huddling in groups for conversation.

Mayorkas previously called the allegations “false” and “politically motivated.” Asked about the proceedings earlier Wednesday as the department rolled out a new campaign to child exploitation, the secretary said he was focused on his work.

“The Senate is going to do what the Senate considers to be appropriate as that proceeds,” Mayorkas said. “I’m here in New York City on Wednesday morning, fighting online child sexual exploitation and abuse. We are focused on our mission. Our mission is an imperative to keep everyone safe and secure.”

ABC News’ Juhi Doshi contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Though he remains confined to a court room on most weekdays for his New York hush money trial, which began on Monday, former President Donald Trump is adapting his schedule and his message to try and boost his bid to return to the White House.

On Tuesday evening, at the end of the second day of jury selection in his trial, Trump visited a bodega in Harlem, the scene of a fatal stabbing two years ago, to criticize what he said were Democratic failures in public safety.

Trump singled out the Manhattan district attorney by name, echoing his repeated accusations that Democrats are soft on crime and that the charges against him are motivated by partisanship, which prosecutors reject, saying they are following the law. Trump denies all wrongdoing.

“It’s Alvin Bragg’s fault,” he claimed at the bodega. “He does nothing. He goes after guys like Trump, who did nothing wrong. Violent criminals, murderers — they know there are hundreds of murderers all over the city.”

He used his stop after court not only to take a jab at Bragg and his criminal trial, one of four he faces, but also to repeat his rhetoric about what he often describes on the trail as “crime-ridden” cities largely run by Democrats — like New York, his hometown, where he built his national profile before moving to Florida.

He has made similar claims about crime in Atlanta as he’s railed against Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who is prosecuting him in Georgia related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.

The shop that Trump visited in Harlem on Tuesday, at the invitation of the Bodega Association, he said, was the scene of a homicide in 2022 when the shop’s then-clerk Jose Alba fatally stabbed someone whom Alba later said was attacking him and he was acting in self-defense.

Surveillance footage from inside the bodega showed the other man, Austin Simon, confronting Alba behind the cash register and shoving him before the two were drawn into a fight.

Alba was initially charged with murder. The case was controversial, and Bragg’s office later dropped the case against Alba, reportedly saying they had insufficient proof to proceed.

Despite Trump’s rhetoric about crime, statistics from New York City police show violent crime in the city has been falling.

Through March 17, homicides were down 19% from the same period in 2023, according to the data — though homicides previously surged 30% in 2020, during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Crime and public safety are key parts of Trump’s pitch to voters on the trail, along with attacking President Joe Biden for high inflation and immigration.

With the first of his criminal trials now underway, the former president has both complained about how his obligations in court are interfering with his campaign schedule and he has insisted he plans to campaign “all over” on the weekends, with rallies “all over the place.”

The Biden campaign isn’t directly commenting on the trial, though they have issued thinly veiled attacks through press releases and sought a contrast by having the president actively campaign in battlegrounds like Pennsylvania this week while Trump sits in court.

At his own campaign stop on Tuesday, Biden went after Trump for previously supporting tax cuts on the wealthy and said Trump “embodies” the “failure” of so-called trickle-down economics.

Biden’s team has also said that his campaign has been more active across swing states, even before Trump’s trial began.

“This is a trial that should have never been brought. … I should be right now in Pennsylvania, in Florida, in many other states — North Carolina, Georgia — campaigning,” Trump told reporters as he headed back to court on Tuesday, taking advantage of the omnipresent news coverage outside.

Speaking with the press at the Harlem bodega later on Tuesday, Trump repeated his frequent, baseless criticism that it’s an “election interference” to keep him off the trail.

In New York, he faces 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree related to money paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential bid, in order to stop Daniels from going public about what she claimed was a sexual encounter with him, which he denies. He has pleaded not guilty.

As jury selection is underway, Trump said at the bodega that “anybody that’s fair” is his ideal juror.

Asked how he feels about the seven jurors selected so far, he responded, “I’ll let you know in about two months.”

He dodged a question about whether he believes the jurors seated are fair, instead saying there shouldn’t be a jury in the first place.

Trump also claimed he has not violated the limited gag order imposed by Judge Juan Merchan overseeing the case — after the prosecution on Monday argued he did so by posting social media attacks on Daniels and his former attorney Michael Cohen, who are potential key witnesses.

“There shouldn’t be a gag order,” Trump said, calling it “unconstitutional.”

At his bodega stop, he was also asked about recent efforts by two GOP hard-line lawmakers to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson over Johnson’s support for voting on foreign aid.

“We’ll see what happens with that,” Trump said. “I think he’s a very good person.”

ABC News’ Gabriella Abdul-Hakim, Mary Bruce, Peter Charalambous, Bill Hutchinson and Molly Nagle contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced on Wednesday Democrats will ultimately seek to dismiss the articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

“Today, the trial will commence, and we will be in our seats as jurors for the third time in four years. But this time, senators will provide as jurors in the least legitimate, least substantive and most politicized impeachment trial ever in the history of the United States,” Schumer said in remarks on the Senate floor.

“For the sake of the Senate’s integrity and to protect impeachment for those rare cases we truly need it, senators should dismiss today’s charges,” Schumer added.

Senators are expected to square off, largely along party lines, over whether to proceed with a full-scale trial of Mayorkas over his handling of immigration policy and the southern border when they convene at 1 p.m. EDT.

“When we convene in trial today, to accommodate the wishes of our Republican Senate colleagues, I will seek an agreement for a period of debate time that would allow Republicans to offer a vote on trial resolutions, allow for Republicans to offer points of order and then move to dismiss,” Schumer said.

House GOP managers delivered two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas Tuesday, and the next step in the proceedings calls for senators to be sworn in as jurors, sitting as a court of impeachment, on Wednesday afternoon.

Because Democrats control the Senate, and if they stick together, they could quickly win a vote to dismiss the articles. Just 51 votes would be needed.

Many Democrats believe that the articles of impeachment, which accuse Mayorkas of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and “breach of public trust” are baseless and politicized.

But Schumer’s facing a fight from Senate Republicans, many of whom are enraged at the suggestion that there wouldn’t be a full trial.

“This is raw gut politics,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said during a news conference on Tuesday where he shared the stage with the House impeachment managers.

“What Senator Schumer is going to do tomorrow — it is fatuous, it is fraudulent and it is an insult to the Senate. It is a disservice to every American citizen who believes in the rule of law,” he said.

Beyond complaining, though, there’s very little Republicans can ultimately do to get their demands met if all Democrats stick together.

But it’s not clear that they will.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., faces a difficult reelection fight in increasingly-red Montana this fall. He hasn’t yet said whether or not he would support a motion to dismiss and has repeatedly told reporters he’d wait to make a decision until he’s read the articles.

Notably, when the articles were being read aloud in the Senate by impeachment manager Rep. Mark Green on Tuesday, Tester, who had previously been seated in the chamber, left his seat and headed to the cloak room.

He caught flack for it from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, during the GOP news conference shortly after.

“Jon Tester was nowhere to be found because apparently it was too frightening to hear the managers imply read the facts of the people that were dying because of policies he supports,” Cruz said.

It’s unclear what Tester will ultimately decide. But if he sticks with his party, there is ultimately very little Republicans can do to force a trial to go on. That doesn’t mean they’ll make things easy.

If Democrats want to quickly table the trial, Republicans are expected to offer a number of procedural points of order that would force votes and could eat up several hours of floor time.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told reporters after a closed-door lunch Tuesday that there’s been an ongoing behind-the-scenes discussion about an agreement that would allow several hours of debate over whether a trial is necessary before a motion to dismiss is ultimately voted on.

“For those of us who would like to have some discussion or debate the potentially offer that we are going to be considering I think offers us an opportunity to build our case,” Tillis said.

Such an agreement would require the consent of all senators, and it’s unclear if that could happen.

Senators might also try to send the trial to a committee for it to be heard, as they’re permitted to do when an impeachment is brought against someone who is not a sitting president.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who has been among those demanding a trial, suggested this might be an “acceptable” outcome.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he will strongly oppose Democratic efforts to quash the impeachment effort, saying it is the chamber’s solemn duty to take the matter seriously.

“The Senate will be called for just the 19th time in our history to rule on the impeachment of a senior official of our government. It’s a responsibility to be taken seriously.

“I intend to give these charges my full and undivided attention. Of course, that would require that senators actually get the opportunity to hold a trial. And this is exactly what history and precedent dictates. Never before has the Senate agreed to a motion to table articles of impeachment,” McConnell said.

“I’ll strenuously oppose the effort to table the articles of impeachment and avoid looking at the Biden administration border crisis squarely in the face,” he added.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Columbia University President Nemat “Minouche” Shafik testified Wednesday before a congressional committee investigating antisemitism on the New York City campus after two of her counterparts at other elite colleges resigned amid a backlash over their responses at a previous hearing of the same panel.

Prior to letting Shafik speak, Rep. Virginia Foxx, chair of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, opened the hearing by calling some elite U.S. colleges “hotbeds of antisemitism and hate.”

“Columbia University is one of the worst of those hotbeds and we’ve seen too little, far too late done to counter that and protect students and staff,” Foxx, R-North Carolina, said. “Columbia stands guilty of gross negligence at best and, at worst, has become a platform for those supporting terrorism and violence against the Jewish people.”

In her opening statement, Shafik, who was appointed president of the Ivy League school in July 2023, told the committee that Columbia “strives to be a community free of discrimination and hate in all forms and we condemn the antisemitism that is so pervasive today.”

Shafik said she took the job to foster a diverse community at Columbia.

“But on Oct. 7, the world changed and so did my focus,” she said of the day Hamas terrorists launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking others hostage, according to Israeli officials.

She said a “major challenge” has been reconciling free speech with the rights of Jewish students to go to school in a environment free of discrimination and harassment.

“Regrettably, the events of Oct. 7 brought to the fore an undercurrent of antisemitism that is a major challenge and like many other universities Columbia has seen a rise in antisemitic incidents,” Shafik said.

Shafik said she has taken actions since Oct. 7, including enhancing Columbia’s reporting channels, hiring staff to investigate complaints and forming an antisemitism task force.

“Safety is paramount and we would do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of our campus,” Shafik said. “We must uphold freedom of speech, because it’s essential to our academic mission, but we cannot and shouldn’t tolerate abuse of this privilege to harass and discriminate.”

Shafik was joined on the witness panel by David M. Schizer, dean emeritus and Harvey R. Miller professor of law and economics at Columbia Law School; Claire Shipman, co-chair of the Columbia University Board of Trustees; and David Greenwald, also a co-chair of the school’s board of trustees.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Oregon, repeated a key question from the first antisemitism hearing in December: “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Columbia’s code of conduct?”

Each witness, including Shafik, told Rep. Bonamici, “Yes, it does.”

In a heated exchange, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-New York, asked Shafik what disciplinary action has been taken against faculty members who have made antisemitic remarks.

Shafik said repeatedly that those faculty members “have been spoken to” but cited only one who has been dismissed for making such remarks.

Speaking about one professor who was spoken to by a senior administrator after making antisemitic comments, Shafik said “he has not repeated anything like that.”

“Does he need to repeat, stating that the massacre of Israeli civilians ‘was awesome’?” Stefanik asked. “Does he need to repeat his participation in an unauthorized pro-Hamas demonstration on April 4?”

Before Shafik could respond, Stefanik cited Schizer’s opening statement, in which he spoke about the lack of enforcement at Columbia.

Shafik answered, “We have 4,700 faculty at Columbia …” But before she could finish her sentence, Stefanik cut her off.

“But I’m talking about faculty members who are supporting terror,” Stefanik said.

She noted a professor who was hired after the Oct. 7 attacks and later posted “Yes, I am with Hamas and and Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad” on social media.

“He also decried ‘false reports’ accusing Arabs and Muslims of decapitating the heads of children and being rapists,” Stefanik said. “We know that there were decapitations of babies, of innocent Israeli citizens, of seniors, of women. There were rapes. Yet, Columbia hired this individual as a professor. How did that hiring process work? Were you aware of those statements before the hiring?”

Shafik responded, “I share your repugnance at those remarks. I completely understand that. On my watch, faculty who make remarks that cross the line, there will be consequences for that.”

She said that professors who cross the line will be “either taken out of the classroom or dismissed.”

“Was he one of those?” Stefanik asked.

Shafik said, “He has not just been terminated, but his files will show that he will never work at Columbia again.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Nikki Haley has been tapped to be a chair at the Hudson Institute conservative think tank, according to a statement from the group Monday morning, marking the first major move for the former 2024 Republican presidential candidate since she left the race.

“When our policymakers fail to call out our enemies or acknowledge the importance of our alliances, the world is less safe. That is why Hudson’s work is so critical,” Haley, who previously received the group’s Hudson’s Global Leadership Award, said in a statement.

“I look forward to partnering with them to defend the principles that make America the greatest country in the world,” Haley said.

She will be the Walter P. Stern chair, named for the group’s former chairman. Hudson’s board chair, Sarah May Stern, said in her own statement that Haley is “courageous and insightful.”

It remains unclear, however, to what extent Haley will weigh in on the 2024 presidential race — or not.

A former South Carolina governor and U.N. ambassador, she was the last major candidate to challenge former President Donald Trump for the 2024 GOP nomination, which he ultimately won.

By the end of Haley’s primary campaign, she had also become one of Trump’s most vocal critics within the party — something she had avoided earlier in the race.

And though he triumphed in almost every contest, Haley did win two primaries, in Vermont and Washington, D.C. She often touted the argument that Trump would not be able to unify the party and win a general election because a notable minority of Republicans continued to vote for her.

Haley didn’t endorse Trump when she ended her campaign in early March.

“I have always been a conservative Republican and always supported the Republican nominee,” Haley said then. “But on this question, as she did on so many others, Margaret Thatcher provided some good advice when she said, ‘Never just follow the crowd. Always make up your own mind.'”

“It is now up to Donald Trump to earn the votes of those in our party and beyond it, who did not support it,” she added. “And I hope he does that. At its best politics is about bringing people into your cause, not turning them away. And our conservative cause badly needs more people.”

ABC News’ Hannah Demissie and Oren Oppenheim contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(PHOENIX) — Arizona lawmakers are reconvening on Wednesday after a week’s recess and could soon take up legislation to repeal a controversial 19th-century ban on almost all abortions in the state, which the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled is enforceable.

The Arizona state House is scheduled to hold a floor session first, followed by the state Senate.

The House may vote on House Bill 2677, introduced by Democratic state Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton to repeal the 1864 abortion law, which predates Arizona’s statehood and only provides exceptions to save the life of the pregnant woman.

The Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling reviving the ban immediately roiled the politics of the key swing state — being celebrated by abortion opponents and denounced by abortion access advocates and Democrats, while top Republicans, including Donald Trump, said it went too far.

The ban remains temporarily on hold but Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said this week that the earliest it could take effect is June 8.

Anyone found guilty of violating it will face two to five years in state prison. Mayes previously said she would not prosecute providers under the law.

Arizona Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, on Wednesday will hold a rally outside the state Capitol in support of the 1864 ban.

The Arizona for Abortion Access coalition is also set to hold a rally outside of the state Capitol.

How could Arizona’s House repeal the abortion ban?
Hamilton’s repeal bill has already passed two readings in the Arizona House, setting it up for a potential floor vote as soon as Wednesday — after one more step.

According a timeline detailed by The Arizona Republic, which two Democratic legislative aides confirmed to ABC News, here’s what the process would be:

A member would bring up a motion to waive the normal procedures needed for the bill that would repeal the abortion ban law, since the proposal has not yet been heard in a committee.

If that waive motion succeeds, it can go up for a full House vote and would need 31 votes to pass — a simple majority of legislators in the 60-member chamber.

As there are 29 Democratic members in the Arizona House, the bill needs just two Republican votes to succeed. The GOP members to watch are Reps. Matt Gress, David Cook and Tim Dunn.

Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma said last week that lawmakers will not “rush legislation on a topic of this magnitude without a larger discussion,” and Republican lawmakers quashed an earlier, Democratic-led effort to quickly repeal the ban.

“We as an elected body are going to take the time needed to listen to our constituents and carefully consider appropriate actions,” Toma said last week.

Republican leaders in both chambers are not expected to support the legislation. The Center for Arizona Policy, which has led the fight against abortion rights at the Legislature and successfully lobbied for myriad restrictions, is calling on GOP lawmakers not to repeal the 1864 ban either.

If the Arizona House votes yes on the bill, however, there are still more steps and procedures before the ban is formally repealed and off the books.

The proposal, after passing the state House, would then go to the state Senate for yet another vote to waive rules on the bill.

Two Republicans are needed to join Democrats in the state Senate as well, and Sens. Shawnna Bolick and T.J. Shope have said they’d support the repeal.

The legislation may have to go through further procedural steps given that it has not yet been read in the state Senate. That includes a rule requiring bills be heard on three separate days, so it will likely take at least three more days.

To repeal the 1864 ban immediately, lawmakers would have to include an emergency clause in their language but get a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Otherwise, anything approved by the Legislature and signed by the governor does not take effect until 90 days after the end of the legislative session.

Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, opposes the ban.

“A law passed in 1864 by 27 men is the reason why my 22-year-old daughter now has fewer rights than I did at her age,” she wrote on X on Tuesday. “It’s absolutely outrageous. I’m committed to ensuring that future generations have the essential freedoms they deserve.”

She has reiterated that an executive order she signed in 2023 prohibits county attorneys from going above Mayes, the Arizona attorney general, who has said her office is still analyzing legal options and is continuing plans over what to do if litigation efforts are unsuccessful, including how Arizona can support abortion providers.

Potentially dueling ballot measures on abortion
The Arizona for Abortion Access campaign is working to get a potential constitutional amendment on the state’s ballot in November enshrining abortion access. The campaign has said that they have gathered more than 500,000 signatures – surpassing the necessary threshold.

The proposed amendment would amend Arizona’s Constitution to prohibit the state from legislating against abortion up until fetal viability, which is around 24 weeks into pregnancy; and it enshrines other abortion protections into law.

The Republican-led House counsel in Arizona has, separately, internally proposed a plan to rival the state’s abortion rights ballot initiative by adding ballot initiatives of their own in the wake of what they call “court chaos” on abortion policy, according to a presentation leaked Monday and shared with ABC News.

That proposal includes potentially legislatively-referred ballot initiatives that would compete with the Arizona for Abortion Access measure — to either return to a 15-week ban that had been in effect before the 1864 ruling or offer a six-week ban, with exceptions in both cases for rape, incest, fetal abnormalities and to save the life of “the woman” in the language presented.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Jury selection began Monday in former President Donald Trump’s first criminal trial over allegations that he falsified business records to conceal criminal conduct. Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels are among the witnesses expected to testify in the weeks-long Manhattan trial.

Trump is accused of allegedly engaging in a scheme with his then-attorney Michael Cohen and others to influence the 2016 election by suppressing negative information about Trump’s alleged sexual encounter with adult actress Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford. He has denied the affair and all wrongdoing in the matter.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg impaneled a grand jury to hear the hush money case in 2023, which eventually voted to indict Trump.

Trump is facing 34 counts of falsifying business records. The New York trial is expected to run for six to eight weeks.

Here are the key players in the trial:

Michael Cohen
Trump’s former attorney allegedly coordinated the catch-and-kill scheme and directly sent a $130,000 hush-money payment to Daniels in the days ahead of the 2016 election.

Cohen was reimbursed $420,000 in 2017 — through 12 $35,000 payments — for that hush-money payment and other costs, and the records to falsely characterize those payments as legal expenses form the underlying 34 criminal counts in the New York case.

Cohen worked as an executive vice president at the Trump Organization and personal counsel to Donald Trump, describing himself as Trump’s “fixer.”

A lawyer in New York private practice who lived in one of Trump’s buildings, Cohen joined the Trump Organization after helping the former president with a real estate dispute and other favors.

In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to tax evasion, lying to Congress and violations of campaign finance law — when he made payments to Clifford. Cohen spent more than a year in federal prison before finishing his sentence in home confinement.

Cohen’s congressional testimony prompted the New York Attorney General to open its investigation into the Trump Organization’s finances. Cohen testified as a key witness in Trump’s civil fraud trial, where he alleged that Trump directed him and then Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg to fraudulently inflate his net worth.

Judge Arthur Engoron in February ordered Trump and his company to pay more than $450 million in the civil lawsuit and banned the former president and his sons from running companies in New York for three years. Trump denied all wrongdoing and said he will appeal.

 

Stephanie Clifford a.k.a. Stormy Daniels
Daniels is an adult film actress who allegedly had a sexual encounter with Trump at a golf tournament in 2006. Trump has denied the allegations of an affair. In the days following the release of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape in 2016, Cohen negotiated a deal to secure Daniels’ silence for $130,000, according to prosecutors.

Daniels has given multiple media interviews, written a book and featured in a documentary in the years after the story became public in 2018.

Daniels claims that she never wanted the incident itself to become public and that her sexual relationship with the former president was consensual. 
In March, Daniels told ABC’s “The View” that she is “absolutely ready” to testify at Trump’s criminal trial. 
“I’m absolutely ready. I’ve been ready. I’m hoping with all of my heart that they call me,” Daniels said. “I relish the day that I get to face him and speak my truth.”

Daniels unsuccessfully sued the former president for defamation in 2018 after Trump suggested her allegations about being threatened to keep quiet about her encounter with Trump was a “total con job.” A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit, determined that Trump’s statement fell within the “‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse,” and ordered Daniels to pay Trump’s legal fees.

Rhona Graff
Graff worked as Donald Trump’s longtime executive assistant at the Trump Organization, serving as the gatekeeper to the former president after she joined the company in 1987.

Trump described Graff as his “very loyal secretary” in the 1997 book “The Art of the Comeback.”

Serving as a senior vice president at the Trump Organization, Graff did not join the 
White House but remained a point of contact for anyone seeking Trump’s attention.

Graff was subpoenaed to answer questions by the New York Attorney General about the Trump Organization’s finances, including the company’s document retention policy and Trump’s oversight of his financial statements.

 

Hope Hicks
Hope Hicks served as Trump’s 2016 campaign press secretary, coordinating with Trump in the weeks ahead of the election as his aides and advisors attempted to silence long-denied allegations of his affair with Daniels, according to court records from a federal investigation.

Hicks held multiple senior level roles in the Trump White House. She no longer works for Trump.

Madeleine Westerhout
Westerhout served as Trump’s executive assistant for the first two-and-a-half years of his presidency, describing herself as Trump’s “primary gatekeeper.”

Westerhout also served as the director of Oval Office operations for eight months but left her role in August 2019 after she shared details of her work — including reportedly making comments about Tiffany Trump — at an off-the-record event with reporters.

“While Madeleine Westerhout has a fully enforceable confidentiality agreement, she is a very good person and I don’t think there would ever be reason to use it. She called me yesterday to apologize, had a bad night. I fully understood and forgave her! I love Tiffany, doing great!” Trump wrote on X (then Twitter) on August 31, 2019.

 

Jeffrey McConney
The Trump Organization’s longtime controller, McConney received the fraudulent invoices from Cohen and began processing them, according to prosecutors.

McConney prominently testified as witness for both the state and defense at Trump’s civil fraud trial last year, where he broke down to tears on the witness stand when questioned about his departure from the Trump Organization.

“To be hit over the head every time with a negative comment over something is just really frustrating, and I gave up,” McConney testified.

 

Karen McDougal
McDougal is a former Playboy model who alleged that she had a 10-month affair with Trump in 2006 and 2007. Trump denied having a sexual relationship with McDougal.

Executives at the National Enquirer contacted McDougal in June 2016 with an offer to tell her story, with the intention to kill it, according to prosecutors. American Media Inc. eventually paid McDougal $150,000 for her story with the understanding that the Trump Organization would reimburse AMI for the payment, according to prosecutors.

 

David Pecker
David Pecker served as the longtime chief executive of American Media Inc., which published the National Enquirer.

Shortly after Trump announced his presidential campaign, Pecker met with Trump and agreed to act as the “eyes and ears” of the campaign by looking out for and killing negative stories about Trump, according to the Manhattan DA.

Pecker allegedly directed a 2015 deal to pay $30,000 to a former Trump Tower doorman — regarding the false allegation that Trump allegedly fathered a child out of wedlock — to take place because of his prior agreement with Cohen and Trump. Cohen allegedly insisted that the deal stay in place even after AMI discovered it was false. AMI paid the doorman, according to the Manhattan DA.

 

Dylan Howard
Dylan Howard worked as the editor-in-chief of the National Enquirer between 2014 and 2020.

Howard allegedly communicated with Cohen to buy McDougal’s story and to coordinate Daniel’s hush-money payment, according to prosecutors.

Trump and Cohen agreed to reimburse AMI for the payment and AMI signed an agreement in September 2016 to transfer then rights to the story to the Trump Organization for $125,000, but the deal fell through before the reimbursement took place, according to prosecutors.

Deborah Tarasoff
Tarasoff worked in the Trump Organization’s accounting department and allegedly helped arrange for Cohen to be reimbursed for Daniel’s hush money payment.

 

Keith Davidson
Davidson is an attorney who negotiated the payments for Daniels and McDougal. He is the “Lawyer B” mentioned in the indictment.

In a 2019 interview with ABC News, Davidson described how the release of the Access Hollywood tape served as the “catalyst” for the hush money payment to Daniels.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Bob Menendez may blame his wife when he stands trial next month on political corruption charges, according to a court document unsealed Tuesday after news organizations, including ABC News, fought to make it public.

The potential line of defense was filed secretly earlier this year, before the judge agreed Menendez and his wife would be tried separately due to Nadine Menendez’s undisclosed medical condition. The senator’s trial is scheduled to begin May 6 in Manhattan federal court.

Defense attorneys said Menendez could take the stand in his own defense and implicate his wife by suggesting she kept information from him and he was unaware of her allegedly illegal activities.

“While these explanations, and the marital communications on which they rely, will tend to exonerate Senator Menendez by demonstrating the absence of any improper intent on Senator Menendez’s part, they may inculpate Nadine by demonstrating the ways in which she withheld information from Senator Menendez or otherwise led him to believe that nothing unlawful was taking place,” the filing said.

Menendez is accused of accepting, cash, gold bars and other perks from New Jersey businessmen in exchange for official favors to benefit the businessmen and the governments of Egypt and Qatar. He has pleaded not guilty.

The senator announced last month that he will not be running for a fourth term as a Democrat in the fall.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Senators are expected to square off Wednesday, largely along party lines, over whether to proceed with a full-scale trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over his handling of immigration policy and the southern border.

House GOP managers delivered two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas Tuesday, and the next step in the proceedings calls for senators to be sworn in as jurors, sitting as a court of impeachment, on Wednesday afternoon at 1 p.m. EDT.

But after senators take the oath, how things go from there is a somewhat open question.

Democrats control the Senate, and if they stick together, they could quickly vote to dismiss — or table — the articles without ever holding more of a trial. It would take 51 votes.

Democratic leaders have kept their cards close to the vest about managing the articles, but there’s little appetite among Senate Democrats to hold a full-scale impeachment trial.

Many Democrats believe that the articles of impeachment, which accuse Mayorkas of “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” and “breach of public trust” are baseless and politicized.

“Impeachment should never be used to settle a policy disagreement,” Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor on Tuesday. “Let me say that again: Impeachment should never be used to settle a policy disagreement. Talk about awful precedents. This would set an awful precedent for Congress. Every time there’s a policy agreement in the House, they send it over here and tie the Senate in knots to do an impeachment trial? That’s absurd. That’s an abuse of the process. That is more chaos.”

Schumer has promised to manage the articles “as expeditiously as possible” but has not said exactly what that would look like.

He’s facing a fight from Senate Republicans, many of whom are enraged at the suggestion that there wouldn’t be a full trial.

“This is raw gut politics,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said during a news conference on Tuesday where he shared the stage with the House impeachment managers.

“What Senator Schumer is going to do tomorrow — it is fatuous, it is fraudulent and it is an insult to the Senate. It is a disservice to every American citizen who believes in the rule of law,” he said.

Beyond complaining, though, there’s very little Republicans can ultimately do to get their demands met if all Democrats stick together.

But it’s not clear that they will.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., faces a difficult reelection fight in increasingly-red Montana this fall. He hasn’t yet said whether or not he would support a motion to dismiss and has repeatedly told reporters he’d wait to make a decision until he’s read the articles.

Notably, when the articles were being read aloud in the Senate by impeachment manager Rep. Mark Green on Tuesday, Tester, who had previously been seated in the chamber, left his seat and headed to the cloak room.

He caught flack for it from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, during the GOP news conference shortly after.

“Jon Tester was nowhere to be found because apparently it was too frightening to hear the managers imply read the facts of the people that were dying because of policies he supports,” Cruz said.

It’s unclear what Tester will ultimately decide. But if he sticks with his party, there is ultimately very little Republicans can do to force a trial to go on. That doesn’t mean they’ll make things easy.

If Democrats want to quickly table the trial, Republicans are expected to offer a number of procedural points of order that would force votes and could eat up several hours of floor time.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told reporters after a closed-door lunch Tuesday that there’s been an ongoing behind-the-scenes discussion about an agreement that would allow several hours of debate over whether a trial is necessary before a motion to dismiss is ultimately voted on.

“For those of us who would like to have some discussion or debate the potentially offer that we are going to be considering I think offers us an opportunity to build our case,” Tillis said.

Such an agreement would require the consent of all senators, and it’s unclear if that could happen.

Senators might also try to send the trial to a committee for it to be heard, as they’re permitted to do when an impeachment is brought against someone who is not a sitting president.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who has been among those demanding a trial, suggested this might be an “acceptable” outcome.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said he will strongly oppose Democratic efforts to quash the impeachment effort, saying it is the chamber’s solemn duty to take the matter seriously.

“The Senate will be called for just the 19th time in our history to rule on the impeachment of a senior official of our government. It’s a responsibility to be taken seriously,” he said.

“I intend to give these charges my full and undivided attention. Of course, that would require that senators actually get the opportunity to hold a trial. And this is exactly what history and precedent dictates. Never before has the Senate agreed to a motion to table articles of impeachment,” McConnell said.

“I’ll strenuously oppose the effort to table the articles of impeachment and avoid looking at the Biden administration border crisis squarely in the face,” he added.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.