(NEW YORK) — Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., announced Wednesday that she will switch congressional districts when she runs for reelection next year after barely eking out a victory in 2022.
Boebert, a House hardliner who made a name for herself as a staunch advocate for gun owner rights, said in a video that she will be running in Colorado’s 4th Congressional District rather than the 3rd Congressional District, which she currently represents. The 4th Congressional District is currently held by Rep. Ken Buck, a Republican who is retiring at the end of his current term. The district leans more Republican than the seat Boebert currently holds.
In a Facebook video, Boebert cast the move as a “fresh start.”
“I cannot put into words how grateful I am for everyone who has steadfastly stood alongside me over the past year and beyond. I am going to do everything in my power to represent the 3rd District well for the remainder of this term as I work to earn the trust of grassroots conservative voters in the 4th District to represent them in 2025,” Boebert wrote in caption accompanying the video.
Still, the Colorado Republican nodded to the headwinds she could face if she were to run for reelection in her current district and the implications for House Republicans’ narrow majority if she were to lose.
“I will not allow dark money that is directed at destroying me personally to steal this seat. It’s not fair to the 3rd District and the conservatives there who have fought so hard for our victories,” she said.
Boebert was already facing a credible primary challenger in the 3rd Congressional District in attorney Jeff Hurd, who had started racking up endorsements from prominent Republicans like former Gov. Bill Owens.
The move comes after she won reelection by about 500 votes against Adam Frisch, a Democrat who is running again in 2024 and has more than tripled her in fundraising so far this cycle.
Frisch responded to Boebert’s announcement in a statement shared with ABC News, in which he said he has “one of the greatest name ID, fundraising, and district-wide relationship advantages for any challenger in the country.”
“From Day 1 of this race, I have been squarely focused on defending rural Colorado’s way of life, and offering common sense solutions to the problems facing the families of Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District,” he said. “My focus will remain the same, and I look forward to bringing these issues with me to Congress in 2024.”
Boebert’s self-styled reputation as a Christian conservative took a hit earlier this year after she was caught on video groping a date at a performance of the musical “Beetlejuice” in Denver. She has since apologized for the incident.
Her move will place her in Colorado’s most Republican district, which Buck won with over 60% of the vote in 2022. However, there is already a crowded field of Republicans running to replace Buck, and Boebert currently lives hundreds of miles from the 4th Congressional District, though she said she plans on moving.
Legally, she can run in any district in Colorado as long as she lives in the state.
ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
(IDAHO) — A federal judge has preliminarily blocked an Idaho law banning gender-affirming healthcare treatments for transgender people under 18 years old. The law was set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2024, and would have made it a felony to provide such care.
District Court Judge Lynn Winmill ruled Wednesday that the law’s restrictions violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“Transgender children should receive equal treatment under the law,” Winmill stated in his decision. “Parents should have the right to make the most fundamental decisions about how to care for their children.”
He continued, “Time and again, these cases illustrate that the Fourteenth Amendment’s primary role is to protect disfavored minorities and preserve our fundamental rights from legislative overreach … and it is no less true for transgender children and their parents in the 21st Century.”
HB 71 was signed into law by Governor Brad Little in April. The law bans puberty blockers — which allow children to explore their gender identity and pause the growth of permanent sex characteristics — hormone therapies, as well as surgeries. Physicians interviewed by ABC News have said that surgeries on adolescents are rare and only considered on a case-by-case basis.
The legislation provides an exception for children with “medically verifiable genetic disorder of sex development,” also known as intersex.
Any medical professional convicted of providing such care could be convicted of a felony and imprisoned in the state prison for up to 10 years, according to the law’s text.
At least 20 states have implemented restrictions on access to gender-affirming care, many of which have faced legal challenges. The law in Arkansas, the first legislation of its kind in the U.S., was also ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.
Supporters of these restrictions argue that they protect children from “medically unnecessary interventions that result in irreparable infertility, chronic health problems, and mutilated reproductive organs,” stated conservative Christian lobbying group Idaho Family Policy Center in a press release following the signage of the bill.
The teenage plaintiffs at the center of this lawsuit, who would be impacted by the legislation, say that gender-affirming care has been vital to their mental health. It’s a sentiment that several studies have shared.
Transgender youth are more likely to experience anxiety, depressed mood, and suicidal ideation and attempts, often due to gender-related discrimination and gender dysphoria, according to the CDC. Gender-affirming hormone therapy has been proven to improve the mental health of transgender adolescents and teenagers, according to a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
One plaintiff said puberty blockers “had near immediate positive effects” on her. “By pausing the physical changes that were causing her depression and anxiety, her mental health greatly improved,” Winmill’s decision states.
The second plaintiff began taking puberty blockers after “several months of therapy, additional visits with her doctor, and lab work.” After a few months, she began taking low-dose hormone therapy, according to the filing.
“Since receiving gender-affirming medical care, Jane’s mental health has significantly improved, but the debate over HB 71 and other anti-transgender bills has affected her mental health and her grades,” read the filing, using a pseudonym for the plaintiff. “When the bill passed, Jane wept in the hallway at school, and her parents had to take her home. The passage of the bill has also caused the Doe family to consider leaving Idaho so that Jane can continue to access the medical care that has helped her so significantly.”
Major national medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and over 20 more agree that gender-affirming care is safe, effective, beneficial, and medically necessary.
(NEW YORK) — Bipartisan negotiations resume Wednesday between senators on a potential border security package, a source familiar confirms.
ABC News is told the conversations will be held remotely as the Senate is out on recess for the holiday and is not expected to return until Jan. 8.
Before leaving town last week, principal Senate negotiators signaled they were making “progress” on a potential deal and that they would continue discussing it during the recess.
Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy, GOP Sen. James Lankford and Arizona independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema — the trio leading the talks — had been huddling for weeks to try to find a way forward on changes to immigration and border security.
Details on what could be in a potential border security package are still slim, but the main areas of discussion include: toughening asylum protocols for migrants arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, bolstering border enforcement with more personnel and high-tech systems and deterring migrants from making the journey to the US in the first place.
The senators say they are trying to ensure that migrants who have a credible claim to asylum can safely apply, but that officials can also quickly turn away those who don’t qualify. The goal, senators have said, is to create a more orderly, efficient asylum system that reduces chaos at the border.
Republicans have insisted that a bipartisan compromise on immigration and border security policy is necessary to advance additional funding for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas traveled to Mexico City on Wednesday to discuss historic levels of migration at the U.S.-Mexico border. They plan to meet with Mexican President Andrés Manual López Obrador before returning to Washington later on Wednesday. Their meeting will be focused on “unprecedented irregular migration in the Western Hemisphere and identify ways” each country can address border security challenges, including reopening key ports of entry, the Department of State said in a statement last week.President Joe Biden has previously said he is willing to make “significant compromises” on immigration policy to secure an aid deal for Ukraine in its war against Russia.
The urgent meeting comes as a caravan of an estimated 6,000 migrants makes its way to the U.S. border.
(NEW YORK) — The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an appeal aimed at barring former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
In doing so, Michigan’s high court upheld a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling earlier this month that rejected an earlier appeal filed by the watchdog group Free Speech For People on behalf of a group of Michigan voters.
The group had sought to remove Trump from the ballot based on his activity surrounding the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, by his supporters and filed an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court shortly after that ruling.
The ruling in the battleground state comes days after the Colorado Supreme Court made the historic move last week to ban Trump from that state’s GOP primary ballot — a first-of-its-kind order in which the majority of the court said the former president “engaged in insurrection” on Jan. 6. Trump’s team has said that decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming weeks.
The Michigan Supreme Court rejected the FSFP’s appeal on procedural grounds, saying it was not “persuaded that the questions presented” should be reviewed by that court.
FSFP said it was “disappointed” by the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision, noting in a statement that the high court did not rule on a number of questions concerning the legal theories advanced in the lawsuit. “It simply declined to overrule a lower court ruling that the Michigan state challenge process does not allow challenges to presidential candidates at the primary stage,” the group said.
Trump celebrated the Michigan Supreme Court ruling in a post on his social media platform. “The Michigan Supreme Court has strongly and rightfully denied the Desperate Democrat attempt to take the leading Candidate in the 2024 Presidential Election, me, off the ballot in the Great State of Michigan,” he said.
Trump called the 14th Amendment challenges a “pathetic gambit,” adding, “Colorado is the only State to have fallen prey to the scheme.”
The Michigan 14th Amendment cases never reached a trial to review evidence, unlike in Colorado. Oral arguments took place in a Michigan Court of Claims in early November for three lawsuits: two that challenged Trump’s eligibility, suing Michigan’s Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson to keep Trump off the ballot, and a third lawsuit filed by the former president suing Benson. That suit demanded it be declared she has no authority to do so. A Michigan Court of Claims judge dismissed the first two suits and upheld the third.
FSFP then filed an appeal with with the Michigan Court of Appeals in its challenge seeking to keep Trump off the state’s primary and general election ballots. That court rejected the effort, saying in a 3-0 opinion that the plaintiff’s challenge was not “ripe” on procedural grounds. It did not specifically rule on whether Trump fell under the disqualification clause.
While the court did not release a vote count, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth M. Welch dissented, contrasting the Michigan and Colorado 14th Amendment cases, specifically comparing Michigan law with Colorado’s election code.
“The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision was preceded by a lengthy evidentiary proceeding in a trial court that developed the factual record necessary to resolve the complicated legal questions at issue,” Welch wrote, “Significantly, Colorado’s election laws differ from Michigan’s laws in a material way that is directly relevant to why the appellants in this case are not entitled to the relief they seek concerning the presidential primary election in Michigan.”
The plaintiffs “have identified no analogous provision in the Michigan Election Law that requires someone seeking the office of President of the United States to attest to their legal qualification to hold the office,” she added.
Ron Fein, legal director of FSFP, said in a statement that the Michigan Supreme Court “ruling conflicts with longstanding US Supreme Court precedent that makes clear that when political parties use the election machinery of the state to select, via the primary process, their candidates for the general election, they must comply with all constitutional requirements in that process. However, the Michigan Supreme Court did not rule out that the question of Donald Trump’s disqualification for engaging in insurrection against the U.S. Constitution may be resolved at a later stage.”
Fein said that their organization would continue with “current and planned legal actions in other states to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against Donald Trump.”
(DENVER, Colo.) — Denver police are increasing security for members of the Colorado Supreme Court after last week’s ruling that Donald Trump should be disqualified from running for president under the 14th Amendment.
“The Denver Police Department is currently investigating incidents directed at Colorado Supreme Court justices and will continue working with our local, state and federal law enforcement partners to thoroughly investigate any reports of threats or harassment,” Denver police said in a statement Tuesday. “Due to the open investigations and safety and privacy considerations, we will not be providing details of these investigations. The Department is providing extra patrols around justice’s residences in Denver and will provide additional safety support if/as requested.”
In a 4-3 ruling that could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, a majority of Colorado’s seven justices wrote that the former president “engaged in insurrection” for his behavior on Jan. 6, 2021, ahead of scores of his supporters storming the U.S. Capitol.
“President Trump’s direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary,” the justices wrote.
“Moreover,” they wrote, “the evidence amply showed that President Trump undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power.”
On Dec. 21, the FBI told ABC News it was working with local law enforcement in Colorado to monitor threats to the justices.
“The FBI is aware of the situation and working with local law enforcement,” the agency said in a statement to ABC News. “We will vigorously pursue —investigations of any threat or use of violence committed by someone who uses extremist views to justify their actions regardless of motivation.”
The four justices who voted in favor of removing Trump from the primary ballot continued to receive threats over the weekend, even encouraging more violence in the wake of previous media reports, according to SITE Intelligence Group, which that tracks online activity of white supremacist and jihadist organizations. Threats included calls for the justices to be dragged from their homes, hanged and shot, according to SITE Intel Group.
Colorado’s four-justice majority predicted that the matter would wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. They stayed the ruling until Jan. 4, 2024, saying it would maintain the status quo pending any review from the nation’s high court.
ABC News’ Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., doubled down on his support for Israel’s campaign in Gaza and said he would not support funding for a future Palestinian state that would be run in part by either Hamas or the Palestinian Authority.
“Well, you got to remember Hamas wants to up the casualties of their own people. They’re using the Palestinian people as human shields,” Graham told ABC News’ Pierre Thomas on “This Week” Sunday when asked about mounting civilian casualties in Gaza. “So, I blame the death of all these Palestinians on Hamas, but Israel is trying to mitigate casualties.”
“I would not invest 15 cents in a future Palestine where Hamas is still standing,” Graham, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, added. “Their leaders need to be killed and captured, and I wouldn’t invest 15 cents into the Palestinian Authority regarding a new Palestine. [Mahmoud] Abbas’ Palestinian Authority is dead to me. So, when we get to the day after Israel has ceased military operations because Hamas has been destroyed, the new Palestine cannot have Hamas, and it cannot be governed by the PA.”
The threat from Graham comes amid Israel’s offensive in Gaza against the Hamas terrorist organization, which was sparked by the militant group’s unprecedented surprise attack on Israel on Oct. 7.
At least 20,000 people have been killed and more than 53,300 others injured in Gaza since the Israel-Hamas war began, according to figures from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry and the Hamas government media office. In Israel, more than 1,200 people have been killed and 6,900 others injured since Oct. 7, according to the Israel Defense Forces.
It’s still unclear what Israel’s plan is for the Gaza Strip after its military operations against Hamas end. Some kind of government run by Abbas has been floated, but the longtime Palestinian Authority leader is thought to be viewed as corrupt by Palestinians in the West Bank, his center of power.
Graham also voiced concerns Sunday that the fighting between Israel and Hamas is sparking growing threats against the United States, citing the violence to argue for further funding to the FBI and Defense Department.
“Jihadist groups all over the world are calling on their members to attack America as payback for us helping Israel. So, the threat levels are at an all-time high. October the seventh put gasoline on a fire and we need to get our border secure and up our game,” he told Thomas.
“We’re under siege at home and abroad. Domestic terrorism does worry me, but jihadist-inspired terrorist attacks are at an all-time high. They want to punish us for helping Israel. So, now’s not the time to go cheap on the FBI or the Department of Defense,” Graham added.
Thomas also pressed Graham on negotiations in the Senate over border security, which Republicans are tying to aid the Biden administration wants to send to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
Republicans and Democrats have said they’re making progress on asylum reforms, though GOP lawmakers want tighter restrictions on the White House’s use of parole, which offers broad protections to certain groups of people whose home countries are in turmoil.
“We have to get it done. The asylum fixes are going pretty well. The hang-up is parole. This administration does not want to let go of the tool they’re abusing,” Graham, a defense and immigration hawk, said. “They’ve been taking the parole statute and granting mass parole, blanket parole and we need to stop.”
The South Carolina Republican, a top ally of Donald Trump, also took aim at a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that would prohibit the former president from appearing on the state’s primary ballot, citing his role in sparking the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. Trump’s campaign is appealing the ruling.
“In my view, there’s no constitutional basis for their decision they rendered. I think it will be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court. Donald Trump will eventually be on the ballot in Colorado. I think he will win the primary,” Graham said.
(WASHINGTON) — Republican accusations that the Justice Department has been politicized to target former President Donald Trump and others on the right are a “disservice” to the DOJ’s employees and add fuel to a toxic environment that has helped drive a recent rise in threats against public officials, Deputy Attorney Lisa Monaco told ABC News’ “This Week” in an exclusive interview.
“Those claims bear no resemblance to the Justice Department that I know,” Monaco told ABC News’ Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas. “The Justice Department that I know is filled with dedicated men and women, investigators, lawyers, prosecutors, analysts, professional staff who get up every day, Pierre, they get up every day without regard to who’s in the White House or who’s in Congress.”
Monaco, the DOJ’s second-highest ranking official, added, “It really bothers me when I hear those claims because it does a disservice to the men and women of the Justice Department.”
In the interview, Monaco addressed what she said is an “unprecedented rise” in threats against public officials around the country that the Justice Department has had to address, including federal cases just in the last week involving individuals who allegedly threatened a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, FBI agents and three U.S. presidential candidates.
While she declined to discuss comments from any specific individual, Thomas asked Monaco whether comments such as calling DOJ officials “thugs” was helpful in the current moment.
Monaco’s comments in defense of the department come at a time when it is arguably under greater scrutiny than ever before in its history — following the unprecedented two indictments against Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith for his alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving the White House and attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
A separate special counsel appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, David Weiss, recently returned two separate indictments against President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden for alleged tax and gun crimes. And another Special Counsel, Robert Hur, is investigating Biden’s handling of classified documents after leaving the vice presidency.
Thomas asked Monaco whether she could assure the American people all three special counsels are leading their investigations “without regard to anything but the facts and the law.”
“Yes,” Monaco said. “And the reason I say that, Pierre, is look, these are matters of the utmost importance and significance. … Cases of that level of significance are — it’s exceptionally important that they are handled independently, confidentially and free of any outside or inappropriate influence and that’s exactly why the attorney general appointed special counsels in the first place.”
Monaco further said Biden has never raised any of the matters at issue in the three separate special counsel probes with her, nor tried to influence the department.
DOJ ‘hard at work’ addressing national security issues from border crisis
As the Biden administration remains in talks with Republicans on Capitol Hill to reach a deal to address the crisis at the southern border, Monaco was asked about whether thousands of foreign nationals from countries like Russia and China who have sought to come into the country over the past year present a “national security issue” for the Justice Department to address.
“Well, sure, these are national security issues,” Monaco answered. “And the Justice Department and the FBI are working with the Department of Homeland Security that has primary responsibility for securing the border, working with the intelligence community to address national security challenges and threats from wherever they emanate. And you can be assured that the FBI and the Justice Department are hard at work on that.”
Pressed on the current backlog of roughly three million people in U.S. immigration courts — including many individuals requesting asylum — Monaco pointed to DOJ’s latest budget request to Congress, which she said would pave the way for more money and authorities to hire immigration judges.
“Look, this is a real challenge,” Monaco said. “The Justice Department operates the immigration courts with immigration judges, and the — they are essential to a fair and efficient immigration system. And we have been resolving a record number of cases in the last couple of years, but we still have far too few immigration judges.”
2020 Democratic presidential hopeful former Vice President Joe Biden talks with fellow candidate Marianne Williamson (L) at the Wing Ding Dinner on August 9, 2019 in Clear Lake, Iowa. — Alex Edelman/AFP via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Not only are many of President Joe Biden’s most high-profile Democratic challengers having difficulty making a dent in national polling, but they’re also running into a major snafu in their efforts to replace him: getting onto state ballots in the first place.
Rep. Dean Phillips, author Marianne Williamson and progressive commentator Cenk Uygur have encountered roadblocks in Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina and Massachusetts — which they allege without evidence have been placed, at least in part, by the national Democratic Party, or even the president himself as part of a broader conspiracy between the “party elites” and state chapters to bend the process in Biden’s favor.
Both state and national groups, for their part, unequivocally deny the allegation. The Democratic National Committee has been clear in its support for the incumbent, as iscustomary, since before Biden formally launched his re-election bid. State parties have also noted the “standard practice” of their decision to solely include the incumbent on their ballots, citing the move during previous election cycles.
“The DNC does not oversee ballot access. Ballot access is determined through state parties and state law. In order to appear on a ballot, a campaign must complete state-specific requirements determined by those bodies,” a DNC aide said in a statement to ABC News in response to the challenging campaigns’ allegations.
The aide noted that the party offers resources and guidance to all Democratic primary candidates and “continues to be available as a resource to them on these matters.”
Uygur is facing additional accessibility complications because of his status as a naturalized citizen. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution explicitly states that “no person except a natural born citizen” can be president. After being born in Turkey and immigrating to the U.S. at eight years old, Uygur’s citizenship status seemingly does not fit under the constitutional requirement.
Florida
The first major blow was dealt to these challengers in late November, when Florida Democrats quietly submitted to their secretary of state a list of presidential candidates who would participate in their primary election on March 19 — and only Biden was on it.
The move will likely trigger the state to cancel the contest altogether, as Florida state law dictates that if only one candidate is included on a party’s primary ballot, their primary election would not be held.
The campaigns of Phillips, Williamson and Uygur immediately sounded the alarm over the state party’s “authoritarian” and “unconstitutional” decision to exclude all three of their candidates — the only other Democrats in the 2024 presidential race — from the ballot despite their attempts to gain access.
While the deadline to submit nominations for the ballot to the Florida secretary of state was Nov. 30, it’s the Florida Democratic Party’s process to meet every four years at their state convention to vote and place candidates on their primary ballot, a process outlined in the DNC-approved delegate selection plan.
That convention began on Oct. 27 — the same day that Phillips announced his candidacy — and ended on Oct. 29. The party submitted their ballot on Nov. 1. Williamson’s campaign said it had sent its paperwork in September, ahead of the party meeting, but did not hear back.
A spokesperson for the Florida Democratic Party told ABC News that the process is “standard.”
“It is not uncommon for an incumbent president to be declared the automatic winner of a presidential primary. In 2011, Florida Democrats similarly voted unanimously for incumbent President Barack Obama,” the party wrote in a statement.
Phillips’ campaign has threatened legal challenges against both the Florida Democrats and the Democratic National Committee.
Former presidential candidate and entrepreneur Andrew Yang is assisting Phillips’ cause, telling ABC News that “we are activating our network in Florida to help ensure that voters have a say in the future of the country.” Yang clarified the “we” are allies in his network he knows personally rather than the official resources of the political party he founded in 2021, “The Forward Party.”
“What’s happening in Florida is important — do we live in a democracy or not? If the Democrats can simply cancel their own primaries they should change their name to something else,” Yang continued.
Uguyr’s campaign eventually did file challenges against both parties. Earlier this month, he brought an “implementation challenge” arguing that the state party violated its own DNC-approved delegate selection plan by nominating a single candidate for the presidential preference primary through its State Executive Committee at a time and through a process that were not disclosed, which effectually excluded additional Democratic candidates appearing on the ballot.
On Dec. 13, DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee Co-Chairs Minyon Moore and James Roosevelt, Jr. responded to Uygur’s filing by giving the Florida state party 21 days to respond to the challenge, a window that was then extended until Jan. 5 because of impending federal holidays.
The DNC offered to provide guidance to the Phillips campaign a few weeks before the Florida filing deadline, but the campaign said it did not take up their offer.
“We have not had an opportunity to meet with them,” said Jeff Weaver, a senior advisor for Phillips, who ran Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign and advised his 2020 run. “What were they going to tell me beyond what was in the Democratic delegate selection plan? That the Florida party is holding out of fault the Democratic delegate selection plan?”
Tennessee and North Carolina
The deadlines for political parties in Tennessee and North Carolina to submit primary ballot lists to their state elections divisions were Dec. 5 and Dec. 6, respectively. The Democratic parties in both states also submitted just Biden as an option for voters, despite efforts from other candidates like Phillips, Williamson and Uygur to get on ballots.
Unlike in Florida, where there is a state law saying that if only one candidate is included on a party’s primary ballot, their primary election would not be held, North Carolina and Tennessee will not cancel their Democratic primaries.
Yet, similarly to the Sunshine State, ballot access in Tennessee for Democrats is directed through a DNC-approved state delegate selection plan that does not explicitly outline a filing process for candidates. There is no filing fee or paperwork — just an assumption that campaigns would need to correspond with the state party in order to get on the ballot.
Hendrell Remus, the chair of the Tennessee Democrats, said the State Executive Committee convened on Nov. 11 to establish its ballot. Biden was the only candidate the committee had “received interest from and vetted,” he said, as a “a bona fide Democrat.”
Remus fiercely denied any claims that the party was coordinating with national Democrats in efforts to deny other candidates from their ballot.
“That’s absolutely not true for Tennessee. I mean, we follow the law,” said Remus.
He said he directed each campaign to the other option for getting on the ballot: filing a petition signed by 2,500 registered Tennessee voters. Phillips’ signatures are being verified by Tennessee’s secretary of state.
In North Carolina, a spokesperson for the state party said it did get requests from candidates other than Biden, including Uygur, Williamson and Phillips, but told them they did not reach the standards for their nomination: a candidacy that is “generally advocated and recognized in the news media,” that has a donor base and that includes active campaigning in the state.
A source familiar with the North Carolina Democrats denies any meddling from Democrats in Washington, D.C., such as the White House or the DNC. The source stressed that Phillips was equipped with all the information he needed to qualify for the ballot with significant time and was walked through the process by a member of the party directly.
The donor and campaign requirements dictated by the party are not in North Carolina’s delegate selection plan approved by the DNC.
There are two additional methods for candidates to get on the North Carolina Democratic primary ballot: being nominated by a member of the State Board of Elections or submitting a petition signed by 10,000 residents.
Massachusetts
Most recently, Williamson alleged that the Massachusetts Democratic Party was conducting a “misplaced attempt at protecting Joe Biden” after she learned the state party chair planned only to submit Biden’s name — despite her lobbying for the contrary — to the secretary of the commonwealth for the official primary ballot.
“The DNC is at it again. … This is a pattern and we cannot let it stand,” Williamson said on X.
A spokesperson for the Massachusetts Democratic Party confirmed to ABC News that both Williamson and Phillips’ campaigns submitted requests to the party’s chairman to be placed on the ballot, but, “in following the state party’s custom,” the chair indeed only submitted Biden’s name. A letter indicating that decision was submitted to the secretary of the commonwealth’s office on Nov. 22, the office’s communications director Debra O’Malley told ABC News, but the Democratic Party chair could add additional candidates until early January.
There are two other ways to get on the ballot in Massachusetts: collecting 2,500 signatures from registered and eligible voters or petitioning the secretary of the commonwealth himself by Dec 22. Williamson and Phillips’ campaigns plan on pursuing the latter option, their respective teams tell ABC News.
“After that process is complete, the secretary will add any nationally recognized candidates to the ballot who have not qualified through other methods,” O’Malley said.
Biden holds sizable leads over all of his primary challengers, according to 538 polling. He has a 61-point lead over Williamson, who averages around 7% nationally. Phillips is polling at 3.8%. Uygur was not included in 538’s compilation of data.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court has denied special counsel Jack Smith’s request to immediately take up former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity from prosecution in his federal election interference case.
In a single-line order Friday, the court declined to grant a writ of certiorari before judgment — meaning it will allow a federal appeals court to hear the matter first, which is what Trump’s legal team had urged the court to do.
The decision effectively keeps the court out of the case for now and could mean the case’s March 4 trial date could be delayed.
Trump is seeking the dismissal of the case on the grounds that he has “absolute immunity” from prosecution for actions taken while serving in the nation’s highest office.
Smith earlier this month asked the Supreme Court to step in and quickly rule on the issue — a potentially landmark decision that could, for the first time in American history, determine whether a former U.S. president can be prosecuted for actions taken while in office.
Attorneys for Trump asked the Supreme Court to reject the special counsel’s request, urging the justices to allow a federal appeals court to consider the matter first.
Trump in August pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called “fake electors,” using the Justice Department to conduct “sham election crime investigations,” trying to enlist the vice president to “alter the election results,” and promoting false claims of a stolen election as the Jan. 6 riot raged — all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.
The former president has denied all wrongdoing and denounced the charges as “a persecution of a political opponent.”
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Friday signed an executive order allowing the U.S. to impose another level of sanction enforcement on Russia that will go after financial institutions that have indirectly allowed Russia to keep building its war arsenal.
“The new executive order by the president will simply give us a tool that will allow us to go after financial institutions that failed to make the choice to either stop allowing their companies to ship these goods to the Russia’s military industrial complex, or getting out of business with Russia,” a senior administration official said on a call with reporters.
National security adviser Jake Sullivan said the new sanctions “will make clear to foreign financial institutions that facilitating significant transactions relating to Russia’s military industrial base will expose them to sanctions risk,” noting that the multiple rounds of sanctions imposed by the U.S. and its allies to date “have significantly degraded Russia’s ability to replace the equipment, materials, and technology it needs to fuel its aggression.”
“They have cut into Russia’s financial resilience, forcing Russia to turn to rogue regimes for supplies and make difficult decisions to resource its military spending. And importantly, our measures have also been tailored and targeted to avoid unintended harm for the world economy,” he continued.
Friday’s order — just one approach among many employed by the U.S. in an effort to weaken Russia amid its aggression against Ukraine — is aimed at cracking down on an evasion tactic that has allowed Russia to continue to get access to financial institutions through other, smaller financial institutions, and buy materials they need for war. Russian sanctions have been a constant game of cat and mouse, and the new executive order marks the latest effort to catch Russia in those tactics.
“It gives us a surgical tool that allows us to go after the financial institutions that are doing transactions that further Russia’s military industrial complex,” the senior administration official said on the call with reporters.
Another senior administration official gave an example of some of the “secondary” steps in the sanction process that the U.S. has focused on: Russian diamonds. The U.S. has already banned the import of Russian diamonds directly, but with Friday’s executive order has also banned diamonds shipped from Russia to another country for processing, and then to the U.S.
The officials both cautioned that the executive order was just one tool in the toolkit to weaken Russia, including military and humanitarian aid for Ukraine, and consistently implored Congress to approve the supplemental aid package the White House has requested.
The U.S.’ initial set of sanctions and export controls had a significant impact on Russia, the first official said, but the Kremlin has since built “cutouts and facilitators” through smaller companies. Experts diverge on whether the sanctions have had a strong enough impact on Russia.
“We’ve sanctioned a number of these companies that we’ve found, but ultimately, the choke point for these companies and Russia’s ability to continue to try and circumvent our sanctions is the financial system because ultimately they need to have financial transactions in order to move things from a third party jurisdiction into Russia,” the official said.
“What this tool allows us to do is to target those institutions and give them a very stark choice,” the official said.
The official said it was unlikely any U.S. or European banks will directly be implicated by the executive order, but rather that it could impact some of their partners.
“So part of our goal in issuing — in using this tool is going to be getting banks in Europe in the United States that have relationships with banks around the world and other jurisdictions to help warn them about the importance of taking steps to prevent themselves from being used to move goods into Russia that furthers the military industrial complex,” the official said.
To Sullivan, the new sanctions are a critical messaging tool.
“We are sending an unmistakable message: anyone supporting Russia’s unlawful war effort is at risk of losing access to the U.S. financial system,” he added.
