Politics

(LOS ANGELES) — As Californians head to the polls to decide on whether they want to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom, and if so, who to replace him with, preliminary data is showing positives for the incumbent.

Just 3 in 10 California voters say Newsom’s pandemic control measures are too strict, countering a key argument in the recall drive against him. And 6 in 10 in preliminary exit poll results rate the Republican Party unfavorably — a challenge for those seeking to unseat the incumbent Democrat.

Still, other preliminary results in the recall election exit poll are less incumbent-friendly: Six in 10 voters call the cost of living in their area “unmanageable,” and the electorate divides evenly in rating the state’s economy positively or negatively, 49-48%.

Helpfully for Newsom — if it holds in later data — 54% of voters in preliminary results say he’s in touch with their concerns. More, 69%, support the state’s student mask mandate. And 63% side with Newsom in seeing vaccination as more of a public health responsibility than a personal choice.

More call the pandemic the state’s top issue than pick any of four other issues offered in the exit poll. Notably, just 24% say the pandemic is getting worse in the state; a plurality of voters, 39%, say it’s improving, with the rest saying it’s staying the same.

While economic discontent can be challenging for incumbents, it’s far from a replay of the recall of Gov. Gray Davis in 2003. Then, a vast 83% rated the state’s economy negatively; accordingly, 71% disapproved of Davis’ performance as governor, clearing the way for Arnold Schwarzenegger to take his seat.

A further difference — to the extent it holds in subsequent data — may be most crucial of all: Democrats outnumber Republicans in these preliminary results by 17 percentage points, 43-26% (with the rest independents and others.) That looks more like the electorate in Newsom’s 2018 election as governor, 46-23%, Democrat-Republican, and less like 2003, a virtually even 39-38%.

In another measure of partisan preferences, more voters see the Democratic Party favorably rather than unfavorably, by 52-43%. While an underwhelming expression of support in itself, that compares with a broadly negative view of the Republican Party, 32-63%, favorable-unfavorable.

In part reflecting those views of the parties, 55% of voters in these preliminary data say they’d be “concerned” or “scared” if Newsom were removed, dividing about evenly between those two options. Fewer, 40%, would be “excited” or “optimistic.”

Approvals

The exit poll asks Newsom’s job approval rating, a result that’s embargoed for release until after the polls close tonight at 8 p.m. Pacific time. In available data, a recent pre-election poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 53% of likely voters approved of his work in office. While only mildly positive, that’s a far cry from Davis’ approval in the 2003 recall, a dismal 27%.

For his part, President Joe Biden — who campaigned with Newsom on Monday — has a 56% approval rating in these preliminary results. Biden won the state in 2020 with 63% support, versus 34% for former President Donald Trump. In results so far, 55% say they voted for Biden a year ago, and 32% for Trump.

By contrast, 34% express a favorable opinion of Newsom’s leading challenger, Republican Larry Elder, while 49% see him unfavorably. That makes Elder less of a draw than Schwarzenegger 18 years ago; he had a 50-45% favorable-unfavorable rating.

The California recall election exit poll is being conducted with a mix of telephone interviews with early and absentee voters and in-person interviews with Election Day voters at a sample of polling places today. Results so far, as noted, are preliminary, and can change as additional data come in throughout the night.

COVID-19 pandemic

While pandemic-related attitudes may boost Newsom, so does Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. California is third-lowest nationally in per-capita weekly COVID-19 cases, tied for the second-lowest death rate and one of only three states plus the District of Columbia to have less than a high level of community transmission. Eighty-four percent of adults in the state have received at least one dose of a vaccine, ranking it in the top-10 states nationally.

That said, the pandemic is hardly the only issue facing California. Preliminarily, 31% cite it as the most important issue among five offered, compared with homelessness, 22%; the economy, 16%; wildfires, 14%; and crime, 8%.

On an additional issue not included in the top-issue list, 60% call climate change a very serious problem for the state and 19% call it somewhat serious. Just 17% don’t think it’s serious.

Voting

Eighty percent of voters in these preliminary results cast their ballot in advance of Election Day, mostly by mail rather than at a drop-off location. Majorities in the preliminary exit poll results report voting by mail across partisan lines — 85% of Democrats, 72% of independents and 62% of Republicans.

If follows that late campaigning can’t have made much of a difference: Eighty-seven percent of voters say they made their choice more than two weeks ago; indeed, 7 in 10 say they decided before August.

Latinos

Notably among groups, Hispanic/Latino voters make up a quarter of the turnout in these early results. That compares with 31% in the 2020 presidential election, but surpasses this group’s share of the electorate in previous midterms in data since 1994 and in the 2003 recall contest alike.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Senate Democrats on Tuesday introduced their latest version of a sweeping election reform bill to counter the record-number of voting restrictions that have passed in GOP-led states, which they say make it harder for minorities and low-income Americans to cast a ballot.

The modified bill, now known as The Freedom to Vote Act, is a compromise after the previous For The People Act failed to pass in the Senate last June.

Significantly, the new bill was crafted by a group that included moderate Sen. Joe Manchin, a key swing vote, after he opposed an earlier version of the legislation charging that it was too broad and lacked bipartisan support.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., promised a vote on the bill next week, most likely a procedural vote to break an expected GOP filibuster.

“This is a good proposal. One that nobody in this chamber should oppose,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning. “My colleague Senator Manchin is working with Republicans to secure support for the bill and we look forward to hearing what changes they might make on legislation.”

Changes in the newly negotiated election reform bill.

The new bill still encompasses sweeping election law changes, from voter ID requirements, expanded early voting, making Election Day a national holiday, banning partisan gerrymandering, and implementing election security and campaign finance measures.

But among the provisions dropped or changed is the automatic mailing of ballots. Under the new measure, any voter may request a mail-in ballot but they are not sent out automatically. The legislation will continue to allow voter roll purges but requires changes to be “done on the basis of reliable and objective evidence and prohibits the use of returned mail sent by third parties to remove voters.”

The bill would also no longer implement public financing of presidential and congressional elections. Still, there are a number of election security provisions, including mandatory, nationwide use of machines that deliver paper ballots.

In an attempt to address Republican states that passed changes giving partisan officials a say in election outcomes following President Donald Trump’s false allegation that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen,” Senate Democrats have proposed in the bill establishing “federal protections to insulate nonpartisan state and local officials who administer federal elections from undue partisan interference or control.”

“The fact of the matter is that this legislation is critical for stopping some of the most egregious assaults against voting rights happening at the state level. A few weeks ago, the governor of Texas signed one of the most sweeping voter suppression bills in the entire country,” Schumer said.

Voting rights advocates have praised the bill and are urging the Senate to pass the legislation.

“The Freedom to Vote Act is a very strong bill. It gives powerful new momentum to the fight to protect democracy. It should be passed, and soon,” said Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law.

“There is now no substitute for action. As redistricting unfolds across the country, time is of the essence. Lawmakers from both parties should embrace this new legislation, and will do so if they are serious about protecting democracy,” he added.

It is unclear if this bill would garner the support of many Republicans, though Manchin has been talking to fellow moderate Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. The Minority blocked the Democrats’ first stab at the bill claiming it was a solution in search of a problem and maintaining that election administration is the province of states — not the federal government.

Yet, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, signaled that there are provisions in the latest bill that she could support.

“He sent me a very high-level summary last week which they read, but it does not have many of the details fleshed out. There are two provisions in that if they’re done correctly I would support. One is the disclosure of contributors to dark money groups, but it has to apply to all of them,” Collins said.

Ten Republicans would be needed to overcome the chamber’s filibuster rule requiring 60 votes for most legislation. To modify that rule, all 50 Democrats would need to be on board with changing Senate rules to allow the legislation to pass on a simple majority vote — with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie — but Manchin has point blank refused to support such an extraordinary move.

“The filibuster is permanent,” Manchin told ABC News when pressed on a voting rights specific carve-out.

At this point, it appears there is not likely to be enough GOP support to pass the measure, though Manchin said he’s continuing conversations with Murkowski and that the Senate has “made some good strides” finding compromise.

“We made some major changes from the original position we’re taking and we’ve got something that makes a lot of sense,” Manchin told ABC News’ Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott on Tuesday.

“I’m anxious to go talk to all my Republican friends, which I’ve been doing, giving the outline of what we’re trying to change and see if there’s a filibuster,” he added.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., responded Monday night to backlash sparked by her controversial Met Gala gown emblazoned with the words “Tax the Rich,” saying she intended to carry the message into a wealthy space and borrowed the dress because “while the Met is known for its spectacle, we should have a conversation about it.”

The New York congresswoman dominated talk about the gala on social media, with people calling her a hypocrite for wearing her economic justice message on the back of a fancy dress while attending a charity event attended by New York and Hollywood elites with tickets that cost $35,000 a pop.

Republicans on social media questioned why Ocasio-Cortez would attend an event for society’s elite if she wants to tax the rich.

Sen. Rich Scott, R-Fla., said in a tweet Tuesday that Ocasio-Cortez “wants to tax the rich but took time out of her busy schedule to hob knob with NY and Hollywood elites who paid $30k to attend the #MetGala (and deduct it from their taxes).”

Larry Elder, the conservative talk radio host running against Gov. Gavin Newsom in California’s recall election, tweeted the headline of an article about Ocasio-Cortez’s dress with the accompanying hashtag “#WeveGotACountryToSave.”

Florida’s Lt. Gov. Jeanette Nunez also took to Twitter Monday night saying, “Only in America where a self-described Democratic socialist can wear a $10k “tax the rich” dress, pay $30k for a ticket, and be praised as a champion for the poor. Champagne socialists like AOC are far removed from reality.”

Ocasio-Cortez was quick to respond, explaining on social media that New York City elected officials are often invited to the gala and attend “due to our responsibilities in overseeing our city’s cultural institutions that serve the public” — pointing out that she was one of several of the city’s politicians in attendance.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., were also present at the annual event, which was canceled last year due to the coronavirus.

Ocasio-Cortez also made note on her Instagram account that the dress was borrowed from designer Aurora James, who attended the gala along with the congresswoman.

James is the founder of Brother Vellies, a clothing brand focused on traditional African designs and sustainability, and the 15 Percent Pledge, a nonprofit that challenges major retailers to commit a minimum of 15% of their shelf space to Black-owned businesses, according to their respective websites.

In an interview during Vogue’s livestream of the gala, Ocasio-Cortez and James explained the idea behind the controversial dress.

“We really started having a conversation about what it means to be working-class women of color at the Met, and we said, ‘We can’t just play along, but we need to break the fourth wall and challenge some of the institutions,'” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And while the Met is known for its spectacle, we should have a conversation about it.”

Ocasio-Cortez, on Instagram, said, “The time is now for childcare, healthcare, and climate action for all. Tax the Rich.”

On CNN Tuesday morning, James reiterated that the concept behind the gown was to bring the message of economic justice to a gathering of the wealthy.

“The Met Gala is obviously one of the most exclusive events in the world, and we wanted to come and deliver a message. And I think when we talk about inclusion and gaining access to closed rooms for people of color, when you finally get a seat at the table you have to decide what the message is that you want to deliver,” James said. “I think for the congresswoman, I think for myself, economic equality and economic justice is sort of top of mind.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Justice Stephen Breyer said Tuesday the Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision allowing Texas to effectively ban abortion across the state was “very bad” but not politically motivated.

“We don’t trade votes, and members of the court have different judicial philosophies,” Breyer, the court’s most senior liberal justice, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

“Some emphasize more text. … Some, like me, probably emphasize more purposes. And the great divisions are probably much more along those lines than what we would think of as political lines,” Breyer said.

“I thought that was a very bad decision and I dissented,” he said.

The court’s denial of the request from Texas abortion providers to temporarily put state law SB8 on hold also drew sharp criticism from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote in dissent that the court chose to “ignore its constitutional obligations … the sanctity of its precedents and of the rule of law.”

Breyer explained that “a rule of law means you sometimes follow decisions you don’t like.”

The 83-year-old justice has published a new book — “The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics” — defending the Supreme Court as a nonpartisan institution whose power depends on credibility among Americans of all viewpoints.

“That’s a treasure, and it’s been built up over many many years,” Breyer told Stephanopoulos.

“I am worried if people don’t understand it,” he said, “they won’t have trust in our institutions. And if they don’t have trust in institutions, it becomes difficult if not impossible to live in a society of 331 million people of tremendous diversity.”

Breyer, the court’s oldest member, has come under intense pressure from progressives to step down while Democrats control the Senate and White House.

He told GMA that he is thinking about retirement but has not yet made a decision on timing.

“There are many different considerations,” Breyer said. “I do not intend to die there on the court; I hope not.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Californians may be the only ones that can vote in Tuesday’s recall election, but in his closing arguments for Gov. Gavin Newsom, President Joe Biden warned that the country’s political future is on the ballot.

“This is not hyperbole. The eyes of the nation are on California because the decision you’re about to make isn’t just going to have a huge impact on California, it’s going to reverberate around the nation, and quite frankly, not a joke, around the world,” Biden stressed.

Biden rallied alongside Newsom Monday, first traveling to survey the fire damage from the Caldor Fire, then to Long Beach, California, to make one final pitch to voters.

His support for Newsom comes after a slew of top Democrats, including Vice President Kamala Harris and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, traveled to the Golden State to campaign for the embattled governor.

On the eve of his recall election, Newsom main argument was one focused on Trumpism.

“We may have defeated Donald Trump, but we have not defeated Trumpism,” he said. “Trumpism is still on the ballot in California and that’s why it’s so important, not just for all of us here at 40 million Americans strong in the nation’s largest and most populous state, but also to send a statement, all across the United States of America, that Trumpism isn’t … has no place here.”

It was a theme that Biden picked up, calling Republican front-runner Larry Elder a “clone of Donald Trump.”

“This is the closest thing to a Trump clone that I’ve ever seen in your state. Now I really mean it. And he’s leading the other team. He’s a clone of Donald Trump … you can’t let that happen. There’s too much at stake,” he said.

“You either keep Gavin Newsom as your governor, or you’ll get Donald Trump,” Biden continued.

While both speeches largely focused on making comparisons between Elder and the former president, Biden did praise Newsom on many of his policies, such as Newsom’s handling of the pandemic — which is one of the main reasons the recall effort took off.

“We don’t need politics in this battle against COVID. We need science. We need courage. We need leadership. We need Gavin Newsom. The governor will follow science. He’s got the courage to do it right now,” Biden said.

In another effort to nationalize the recall, Biden pointed to other states to warn voters of what could happen should Newsom be replaced.

“Do you have any doubt about how important it is to have Gavin, who respects women’s rights? Just take a look at what’s happening to states like Texas,” Biden said. “It just passed a law empowering complete strangers … become bounty hunters, going after women who exercise their right to choose. A law the United States Supreme Court refused to stop. Now other states say they’re looking to replicate the Texas law. You don’t think women’s rights are under assault? You’re not looking.”

In Tuesday’s election, voters will be asked two questions: Should Newsom be recalled? And if so, who should replace him?

At least 50% of voters will have to vote no on Tuesday’s recall in order for Newsom to keep his job.

As election day gets closer, Newsom’s job security is looking better, as 57.3% of voters say they’ll vote no, according to FiveThirtyEight’s polling average.

While Newsom’s team has expressed confidence in his ability to make it though Tuesday’s recall, his ally, Biden, wrapped up his remarks Monday night with a stark warning: it’s not over yet.

“You have a governor to make sure Donald Trump’s dark, destructive divisive politics never finds a place in California. So please — not a joke — on behalf of the people of Delaware, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, all across America, don’t take anything for granted,” the president said.

Although Californians will make their voices heard at the ballot box, candidates on both sides are warning of potential legal challenges that could follow.

Elder, who would not say if he would accept the results of Tuesday’s election in an interview with ABC News’ Zohreen Shah, has already started making claims of fraud.

On his campaign website, Elder has linked to a “Stop CA Fraud” page where voters can report fraud. While no votes have been calculated yet, the page already claims: “Statistical analyses used to detect in elections held in 3rd world nations…have detected fraud in California resulting in Governor Gavin Newsom being reinstated as governor.”

John Mehta Stein, executive director of California Common Cause, a nonpartisan, liberal-leaning political advocacy organization, told ABC News that such claims should be expected.

“There will inevitably be claims that the election is rigged because the purveyors of the ‘big lie’ need these local and state elections in between the major national elections to keep up their momentum; but all of their allegations in the November 2020 election fell flat,” Stein said. “There’s nothing new under the sun here. And we assume that there will be lawsuits filed after the recall and they will be treated the same way as the lawsuits in the 2020 election.”

Stein said misinformation in the recall could also undermine and limit turnout among the voters that those who are sowing the misinformation are trying to reach.

But such misinformation, he said, has “no basis in the realities of California’s election administration, which has been stress-tested repeatedly and proven to be some of the most secure, most reliable elections in the nation.”

That reliability will be put to the test Tuesday in an election with profound national consequences.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(SACRAMENTO, Calif.) — Voters who haven’t already cast their ballots by mail head to the polls Tuesday to weigh in on whether they would like to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Californians are faced with a two-part question — if they would like to recall Newsom and who they would like to replace him with. If more than 50% of voters say he should be recalled, he will be replaced with the highest vote-getter in the recall field, which consists of 46 candidates.

This is the fourth time in the nation’s history that voters have had an election to recall their governor, and only one governor has been recalled in the last century. In 2003, Democratic California Gov. Gray Davis, facing extremely low approval ratings, was recalled and replaced with former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This time, Republicans have a crowded primary field and, before nationally syndicated conservative radio host Larry Elder’s entrance into the race, the field was without a clear leader.

Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer was once thought to be the front-runner and is seen as the moderate in the race. Businessman John Cox, who was the GOP’s gubernatorial nominee in 2018, campaigned across the state with a live bear and an 8-foot ball of trash. Reality star and Olympic gold medalist Caitlyn Jenner entered the recall field, although she spent some time out of the country in Australia, reportedly filming a celebrity edition of a reality show.

Although numbers appear to be in his favor, Newsom recruited some of the biggest Democratic heavy-hitters to stump for him, including Vice President Kamala Harris and Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. President Joe Biden hit the trail with Newsom to close out his campaign in Long Beach, California, on Monday night.

“This is not hyperbole. The eyes of the nation are on California because the decision you’re about to make isn’t just going to have a huge impact on California, it’s going to reverberate around the nation, and quite frankly not a joke around the world,” Biden said Monday.

According to a recent poll from the Public Policy Institute of California, Newsom’s approval rating is sitting at 53%, and 58% of voters said they do not want him to be recalled. In 2003, exit polls showed Davis’ approval rating at 26% — a stark difference from where Newsom is today.

Historically, gubernatorial recalls produce similar vote margins for the governor holding office as they had in their last election, according to recall expert and senior fellow at Wagner College, Joshua Spivak. Gray Davis got 47% of the vote in 2002, and 44% in 2003 when he was recalled. In Wisconsin in 2010, Scott Walker was elected with 52.2% of the vote, and defeated his recall with 53.1%.

In 2018, Newsom won the state with 61.9% of the vote to GOP nominee John Cox’s 38.1%. In 2020, Biden carried with a similar margin, 63.5% of the vote to Trump’s 34.3%.

Democratic voter registration in the Golden State largely outpaces that of both Republicans and independents, putting Newsom at an advantage. So far, Democrats are leading both groups combined when it comes to returning their ballots: Democrats have returned nearly 4.1 million compared to the 3.8 million Republican and independent ballots that have been returned, according Monday data from Political Data Inc.

Democrats have attempted to nationalize the race to increase enthusiasm, warning of lawmaking similar to that of Republican-led states.

Harris, a native of the Bay Area, rallied with Newsom on Thursday and warned of the national consequences the recall could have if it was successful, referencing the recent change in abortion laws in Texas, among other things.

“What’s happening in Texas, what’s happening in Georgia, what’s happening around our country with these policies that are about attacking women’s rights, reproductive rights, voting rights, workers rights, they think if they can win in California they can do this anywhere, but we’re gonna show them they can’t,” Harris said.

The pandemic being a top issue across the state, Newsom has spent the campaign warning voters about potential policy changes surrounding the coronavirus if the recall passed. His team released an ad painting the election as “life or death.” He has singled out Elder’s promises that he will immediately end mask mandates and testing for state employees.

Spivak told ABC News that the threat of a leading candidate among the recall field, which was lacking before Elder joined the race two months ago, was helpful to Newsom in solidifying his message.

“He was really helped by Larry Elder eventually being the front-runner, because it gave him a comparison. Before he was trying to make it Newsom versus Trump, but Trump isn’t on the ballot,” Spivak said. “Larry Elder is, so Larry Elder can be Trump, play the role of Trump. And Larry Elder was obviously very happy to play the role … it was beneficial to both of them.”

Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, are already raising the alarm about the potential for voter fraud, based in conspiracies about the 2020 election. Trump claimed that the election is “probably rigged.” Elder warned of “shenanigans” last week — though he told ABC News Saturday, “So many people are going to vote to have it recalled, I’m not worried about fraud.”

Elder had previously said that he believed Biden won the 2020 election “fairly and squarely.” But he is now encouraging his supporters to call a hotline to report issues of voter fraud for litigation purposes in the recall, saying he fears there will be integrity issues similar to those of the 2020 election — despite there being no widespread evidence of voter fraud in November.

“We’re going to file lawsuits in a timely fashion,” Elder said last week.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In his first appearance on Capitol Hill since the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken faced more than five hours of questions from members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

He faces more questions from the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at 10 a.m. Tuesday.

Here are some key takeaways from Monday’s hearing in the House:

Doubling down on the withdrawal

Blinken’s opening statement laid out the Biden administration’s view of why everything went south so quickly and how they believe they did the best they could in those circumstances to evacuate 124,000 people — a line that Blinken never really broke from.

Instead, the top U.S. diplomat stuck to those talking points throughout the afternoon and into evening. He occasionally argued them in novel terms, but what was billed as the first oversight hearing of the Afghan withdrawal provided little new information.

“We inherited a deadline. We did not inherit a plan,” he said early on, essentially blaming former President Donald Trump’s deal with the Taliban to withdraw U.S. troops by May 1, something Trump bragged about just earlier this summer.

While President Joe Biden reversed several Trump-era agreements, Blinken argued if Biden had “not followed through on the commitments his predecessor made,” then Taliban attacks on U.S. troops would have resumed, and the U.S. would have had to send more American forces into Afghanistan.

For every aspect of the chaotic evacuation, he also countered criticism largely by laying the blame elsewhere. While some Americans were left behind, the State Department had warned them to leave repeatedly, he said; or while thousands of Afghan partners were not evacuated, the Biden administration did its best to reinvigorate the special immigrant visa program in its short time in office after Trump gutted it.

Evacuation operations “definitely improved, but it did not start from a great place,” he conceded at one point — before adding, “largely because of the exigency of the situation that we were in.”

It was not a victory lap and Blinken came as close to bristling as he does when asked about the administration calling the evacuations a “success.” But in five and a half hours of testimony, Blinken echoed what his boss has said publicly — he doesn’t regret his momentous decision to pull out, one that a majority of Americans have long supported.

Criticism of Biden’s withdrawal is bipartisan

How that withdrawal ensued, however, is a different question. Most of the committee’s Democrats defended Biden and lay the blame at Trump’s feet for his negotiations with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government and ended in a deal to withdraw U.S. troops and release 5,000 Taliban prisoners in exchange for Taliban commitments.

But a handful of them criticized the way Biden has conducted the withdrawal. Rep. Susan Wild, D-Pa., said many Afghan partners were not getting the help they needed, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., said there were “missteps,” and Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Mich., said the administration’s coordination was “very challenging.”

Perhaps the sharpest Democratic criticism came from Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., who served with Blinken in the State Department during the Obama administration. He said Biden picked “up where the Trump administration left off” and “sacrificed everything that was right with Afghanistan.”

“The sacrifice, I think, is profound: An extremely important counterterrorism partnership was lost, and a terrorism state is now upon us. Enormous gains for women, for the rule of law, for democracy, for human rights. Mass displacement,” he said.

“The Afghans remade their society. We didn’t do it, they did. It was our withdrawal, I’m afraid, that has unmade their society — and what have we gained for this,” he added — noting U.S. troops are not coming home, but deploying elsewhere in the region as they continue to pursue terrorists, but now without partners on the ground and with more civilian casualties likely.

Across the aisle, however, few Republicans conceded there were any errors in how Trump handled Afghanistan — some even suggested that the president who orchestrated the withdrawal wouldn’t have carried it out.

At least one Republican lawmaker made clear that there was blame on both sides: Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., a frequent Trump critic, told Blinken, “The Trump administration failed in the setup, and I think the Biden administration absolutely failed in the execution of this.”

Congress prioritizes partisan fights, not oversight

In two decades of war, Congress’ oversight role has been proven feeble at best — and Monday’s hearing put on bright display how deeply the legislative body has failed this critical mission.

Instead of achieving insights into executive branch decisions or securing commitments on the way forward, most lawmakers used their time to score political points or deliver soliloquies on who was to blame for a military and diplomatic mission that both parties led.

“Will you honor these families and give the American people the answers they deserve?” asked Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Tenn., without asking any question about the withdrawal except whether Blinken took responsibility.

He said he did for his agency and his decisions.

Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., repeatedly accused Biden, Blinken and the administration of manipulating U.S. intelligence about the Taliban threat — a dramatic accusation that, he said, meant they had blood on their hands. But when Blinken tried to address the accusation, Mast repeatedly talked over him, accused Blinken of lying, and said he wasn’t interested in what he had to say.

When Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., accused Blinken of trying to “ride the coattails” of the 13 U.S. service members who were killed by mentioning that State Department officials served alongside at the airport, Blinken interrupted with stunned offense. But Stuebe continued over him, refusing to let him address the accusation.

Three hours into the hearing, no lawmaker had asked about the U.S. drone strike that reportedly killed an aid worker and his family, not the ISIS-K terrorists the Pentagon said it had. There were just four questions about the issue, from two lawmakers.

Instead, Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., for example, asked Blinken about Hunter Biden’s laptop and Burisma, the Ukrainian state-run energy company — something the committee’s Democratic chair Gregory Meeks reminded him was outside the scope of the hearing. Perry also pressed Blinken about evacuating Afghan interpreters and other allies — even though he was one of 16 Republicans who voted against authorizing more visas for these Afghan partners and their families in July.

While Blinken maintained a polite demeanor — one that engendered good will among some Republican members — he was more than happy to let Democrats slug back for him.

Trump left him and Biden with little to work with, Rep. Kathy Manning, D-N.C., said, and Blinken responded with a subdued chuckle, “Not much.”

Rep. Gerald Connelly, D-Va., used his time to torch Trump’s Taliban deal and accuse Republicans of “amnesia,” as Blinken watched on through his monitor.

Under the U.S. constitution, Congress alone has the right to declare war — a vote its members never took despite 20 years of operations in Afghanistan. And in spite of repeated findings by the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction that U.S. money was being wasted or fueling corruption, Congress conducted very little oversight of U.S. funding.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The lone abortion clinic in Mississippi is warning the U.S. Supreme Court that any move to undermine a half-century of legal precedent affirming abortion rights would diminish the court’s credibility and lead to a national “upheaval” with sweeping consequences for millions of American women.

“People would be harmed, and chaos would ensue, even in states that claim not to be prohibiting abortion directly,” attorneys for Jackson Women’s Health wrote the court in a brief filed Monday.

The court later this year is expected to revisit a pair of longstanding but controversial decisions that have allowed states to regulate — but not ban — abortions before fetal viability, which is around 23-24 weeks, according to medical experts.

Mississippi passed a law in 2018 attempting to ban all abortions after 15 weeks, but lower courts blocked the measure citing Supreme Court precedent from Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

The state has asked the justices to overturn those decisions.

“Unless the court is to be perceived as representing nothing more than the preferences of its current membership, it is critical that judicial protection hold firm absent the most dramatic and unexpected changes in law or fact,” attorneys for the abortion providers wrote the court.

“Two generations (of women) — spanning almost five decades — have come to depend on the availability of legal abortion, and the right to make this decision has been further cemented as critical to gender equality,” they wrote.

The appeal comes on the heels of the court’s 5-4 decision this month allowing Texas to effectively ban most abortions across the state, despite what the majority called “serious questions” about the constitutionality of the law.

“While Texas is circumventing Roe and the Constitution, Mississippi is openly asking the court to overturn Roe,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Jackson Women’s Health and is leading the legal challenge against SB8 in Texas.

“If the court grants Mississippi’s request to overturn Roe, large swaths of the South and Midwest — where abortion is already hard to access — will eliminate abortion completely,” she said.

Eleven states have passed so-called “trigger laws” that would immediately ban all or nearly all abortions if Roe were overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

At the heart of the Mississippi case is a delicate balance the court has attempted to strike in its decisions over the years between a woman’s individual liberty and a state’s interest in protecting an unborn fetus.

The line devised by the court has been viability.

“Before that point, the court concluded, no state interest is strong enough to outweigh the woman’s liberty interest in deciding whether to carry her pregnancy to term,” attorneys for Jackson Women’s Health explained in their brief.

Mississippi has advocated for jettisoning the viability standard but, critics said, not proposed a clear alternative for the court to adopt instead.

“Scientific advances show that an unborn child has taken on the human form and features months before viability. States should be able to act on those developments,” the state told the court in July. “But Roe and Casey shackle states to a view of the facts that is decades out of date.”

Approximately 100 women per year in Mississippi seek abortions after 15 weeks, the clinic said in court documents. Jackson Women’s Health only performs abortions up to 16 weeks.

Attorneys for the clinic urge the justices to consider the human toll on millions of American women should they uphold the law or abolish Roe. They say forcing women to continue an unwanted pregnancy puts them at higher risk of health complications, emotional harm and financial strain.

“Accepting Mississippi’s request to abandon the viability line would turn back the clock for generations who have never known what it means to be without the fundamental right to make the decision whether to continue a pregnancy,” they write. “Until viability, a state may regulate, but not ban, abortion.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and Amy Coney Barrett found common ground Monday over shared concern that the nation’s highest court is increasingly viewed in ideological terms.

Barrett, in one of her first public speeches as a justice, told an audience Sunday in Kentucky that “this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” according to the Louisville Courier Journal.

Breyer, asked about those comments in an interview with the Washington Post on Monday, said that he agrees “with I think the approach is that she’s taking there.”

“As I’ve said, it takes some years and then you gradually pick up the mores of the institution. And the mores of the institution — you’re a judge, and you better be there for everybody,” said Breyer, the court’s oldest member and most senior liberal. “Even if a Democrat or Republican appointed you – you’re there as a judge.”

Barrett appeared to echo that sentiment in her speech, telling the audience that differences among “judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.”

Her message may have been undercut, however, by the fact that the event was hosted by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell inside an academic center named in his honor. Several progressive legal groups and independent judicial watchdogs criticized the optics.

“If Justice Barrett wants the Supreme Court not to be seen as partisan, she should avoid being hosted by a center named after the most partisan person in America,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix The Court, a nonpartisan advocacy group. “There’s value in members of the high court speaking to audiences outside of Washington, but that concept is corrupted when stretched to rationalize appearing at events that look and sound like political pep rallies.”

Breyer was not asked about and did not comment on the connection with McConnell. His appearance came as part of a media tour for his new book, “The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics.”

The public defense of the court as a nonpartisan institution comes at a fraught time for the justices and their credibility. The Court’s approval rating has dipped below 50% for the first time since 2017 and down 9-points from a decade high just last year, according to Gallup.

This month, the court became embroiled in a dramatic and highly divisive debate over abortion in Texas, after refusing to block an unprecedented law that effectively outlaws the procedure across the state by a narrow 5-4 vote.

Barrett voted with the majority; Breyer dissented.

“The timing wasn’t very good for my book because it’s pretty hard to believe when a case like those come along that we’re less divided than you might think,” Breyer lamented.

“A lot of people will strongly disagree with many of the opinions or dissents that you write, but still, internally, you must feel that this is not a political institution, that this is an institution that’s there for every American,” he said.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — President Joe Biden on Monday was making his first visit to the West Coast as president, with plans to survey wildfire damage and push for action on combatting climate change.

Biden planned to first stop in Boise, Idaho, to visit the National Interagency Fire Center — which coordinates the federal government’s response to wildfires — before traveling to the Sacramento, Calif., area to view the impact of the Caldor Fire and receive a briefing from local officials.

The president has used recent natural disasters to show the urgency of climate change and its deadly effects on the American people, pitching his massive spending plan as a way to rebuild infrastructure in a greener, cleaner, more resilient manner. This month, he has visited Louisiana, New Jersey and New York to see the impact of Hurricane Ida and its remnants.

The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress hope to pass two major bills by the end of the month that, together, would make hundreds of billions of dollars available for developing clean energy, rebuilding physical infrastructure to make it withstand more extreme weather events, and electrifying the federal fleet of vehicles.

The larger bill — the price tag and contents of which have been subject to Democratic infighting — would devote $135 billion to preventing wildfires, dealing with droughts, and promoting clean energy in rural communities, among other things.

After an aerial tour of the Caldor Fire’s impact on El Dorado County, Calif., Biden plans to deliver remarks on his administration’s response to recent wildfires and how his spending proposals “will strengthen our nation’s resilience to climate change and extreme weather events,” according to the White House.

He then plans to travel to Long Beach, Calif., to speak at a Monday evening campaign rally with Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat facing a recall election in which voting ends Tuesday.

“Today, the president’s showing how nature will take its course if we don’t act and we don’t start investing,” White House national climate adviser Gina McCarthy said in an interview with CNN on Monday.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.