The Utah Supreme Court is set to hear a significant case regarding the contested GOP primary election results.
According to the Washington Examiner, the court will evaluate Colby Jenkins’s concerns about 1,171 mail-in ballots that were not counted in his race against Rep. Celeste Maloy.
On June 25, the Republican primary election between Colby Jenkins and Celeste Maloy was extremely close, ultimately leading to a recount. The recount revealed that Maloy had a narrow lead over Jenkins, with a difference of only 176 votes.
However, Jenkins raised concerns about 1,171 mail-in ballots that were not counted because they missed the postmark deadline. Jenkins asserts that not including these ballots is a violation of the state's constitution, specifically pointing to Article I, Section 17.
Colby Jenkins's legal team has been actively pursuing various avenues to ensure the contested ballots are counted. Prior to this, Jenkins's campaign requested a federal judge to count these ballots, but the judge denied the request.
The lieutenant governor’s office, which oversees election procedures, has weighed in on the matter. In a brief filed on Wednesday, Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson's office emphasized that state law clearly mandates that ballots must be postmarked by the deadline to be valid.
Lt. Gov. Henderson’s office stated: “While the Respondents are sensitive to the issues in this case and find it unfortunate that some voters’ ballots were not postmarked on time, they do not and cannot control the Postal Service. Nor can they ignore the clear dictates of the law. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that a ballot is returned on time lies with the voter.”
Jenkins argues that excluding the late-postmarked ballots infringes upon the constitutional guarantee of free elections as contained in Article I, Section 17. He points to the historical context of the provision, emphasizing its importance in maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.
Jenkins remarked, “Take a look at the Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 17… from 1896! ‘All elections shall be free, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage.’ Including the post office.”
The case will be reviewed by the Utah Supreme Court justices during oral arguments scheduled for Friday morning. Jenkins hopes that the court will recognize the constitutional implications and rule in favor of counting the 1,171 ballots.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future elections in Utah. If the court rules in favor of Jenkins, it could set a precedent for how mail-in ballots with late postmarks are treated in subsequent elections.
Meanwhile, Utah election officials stand firm on the importance of adhering to current laws. They stress that it remains the responsibility of voters to ensure their ballots meet the deadline requirements to be counted.
To summarize, Colby Jenkins's challenge regarding 1,171 uncounted ballots will be heard by the Utah Supreme Court following a closely contested primary against Rep. Celeste Maloy. The state insists on adhering to postmark deadlines, while Jenkins claims this violates constitutional provisions. The outcome of the case may influence future election procedures.
According to Just The News, Special Counsel David Weiss's office has revealed that Hunter Biden allegedly received compensation from a Romanian businessman who aimed to influence U.S. policy.
Weiss's office made the revelation public on Wednesday through a court filing. The filing stated that Hunter Biden was compensated by a Romanian businessman who sought to influence United States policy decisions. This evidence will be introduced in Biden's federal tax case scheduled for next month.
The court document urged the rejection of Biden's request to exclude certain prejudicial evidence. Prosecutors argued that a business associate would testify about the relationship between Biden and the Romanian businessman.
“The evidence of what the defendant agreed to do and did do for [the businessman] demonstrates the defendant’s state of mind and intent during the relevant tax years charged in the indictment,” wrote senior assistant special counsel Derek Hines.
“It is also evidence that the defendant’s actions do not reflect someone with a diminished capacity, given that he agreed to attempt to influence U.S. public policy and receive millions of dollars pursuant to an oral agreement.”
Despite the significant allegations, the evidence presented does not show a direct financial connection between Hunter Biden and a foreign country. According to the court filing, the evidence showcases Biden’s state of mind and intent during the years relevant to the tax charges.
The accusations brought against Hunter Biden include failing to pay taxes, failing to file taxes, evading an assessment, and filing a fraudulent tax form. The prosecution aims to introduce testimonies and documents that outline Biden's alleged financial transactions and agreements.
Special Counsel Weiss’s team highlighted that Hunter Biden’s activities do not indicate a person with diminished capacity. The evidence surrounding Biden’s agreement with the Romanian businessman aims to show his intentional actions during the relevant tax years.
Prosecutors also mentioned that a business associate would provide testimony about Hunter Biden's relationship with the Romanian national. This individual is expected to offer detailed insights into the nature of Biden's business dealings and the alleged compensation.
Hunter Biden's trial is scheduled to begin on September 5. The case has drawn significant public attention due to Biden's high-profile family connections and the serious nature of the allegations.
The prosecution aims to present a strong case by showcasing a range of evidence, including financial records and testimony from business associates. These elements are expected to paint a comprehensive picture of Biden’s financial dealings.
According to Senior Assistant Special Counsel Derek Hines, the evidence also indicates that Hunter Biden acted with full capacity and intentionality when attempting to influence U.S. public policy. The evidence suggests that Biden accepted millions of dollars as part of an oral agreement with the Romanian businessman.
Hunter Biden's upcoming federal tax case will hinge on the revelation that he allegedly received compensation from a Romanian businessman who sought to influence U.S. policy. The special counsel's office plans to present this evidence next month to demonstrate Biden's intent and state of mind during the relevant tax years. The evidence does not directly link Biden to a foreign country but suggests deliberate financial dealings. Starting September 5, the trial will bring to light detailed testimonies and evidence about Biden's financial transactions and agreements.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is under fire for allegedly failing to disclose private flights funded by conservative billionaire Harlan Crow.
These new allegations add to the existing controversy over Thomas's acceptance of undisclosed gifts and travel from Crow, raising ethics concerns.
According to Savvy Dime, the claims were brought forth by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, a leading Democrat and the Senate Finance Committee chairman. Wyden's letter revealed that Thomas and his wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, had taken a round trip from Hawaii to New Zealand in 2010 on Crow's private jet.
Senator Wyden accused Justice Thomas of failing to report these additional private jet trips despite recently amending his financial disclosures. Critics are voicing concerns about the ethical implications of these undisclosed flights and gifts from Crow.
Wyden has launched an investigation into the nature of Thomas's relationship with Crow. In his letter to Crow's attorney, Wyden requested detailed information about the financial ties between the two individuals.
"I am deeply concerned that Mr. Crow may have been showering a public official with extravagant gifts, then writing off those gifts to lower his tax bill," Wyden stated.
A spokesman for Harlan Crow dismissed the allegations, stating that Crow has consistently adhered to tax laws. The spokesman also suggested that Senator Wyden's actions were politically motivated and meant to harass a private citizen.
Wyden highlighted that Thomas had not disclosed the 2010 New Zealand trip in any of his financial disclosure forms. This oversight has added to the growing list of undisclosed gifts and travels involving Thomas.
Thomas had already been in the public eye for various undisclosed perks from Crow, which have been the subject of ongoing scrutiny.
Democratic lawmakers have intensified their calls for Supreme Court reforms in light of these revelations. President Joe Biden has floated the idea of implementing regulations regarding ethics and imposing term limits for Justices.
Justice Samuel Alito has also come under fire in recent times for controversial behavior, including flying flags with strong political messages during significant events. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has filed articles of impeachment against both Thomas and Alito. However, given the current Republican majority in the House, the probability of impeachment proceedings moving forward seems slim.
The series of undisclosed flights and gifts involving Justice Clarence Thomas and Harlan Crow have shined a spotlight on the Supreme Court's ethical standards. These recent revelations have fueled discussions about the necessary reforms to ensure transparency and accountability within the highest court.
In response to the allegations, a representative for Crow emphasized the legality of Crow's actions and dismissed Wyden's inquiries as politically motivated efforts to target a private individual. Despite these defenses, the investigation by Senator Wyden continues to gather significant attention and concern from both lawmakers and the public.
According to Fox News, a recent House report indicates that nearly 100 illegal immigrants on the terror watch list have been released into the United States during the Biden administration, raising significant concerns about national security.
The report underscores the increasing number of migrants from high-risk countries being encountered at the southwest border and the potential threat they pose.
Prepared by Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, the report details that more than 250 individuals on the terrorist watchlist were stopped at the southwest border between fiscal years 2021 and 2023. Out of these, at least 99 were released into various American communities. Meanwhile, 34 remain in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) custody but have not yet been removed from the country.
Additionally, the report highlights that immigration judges granted bonds to at least 27 of these individuals who entered illegally. Border Patrol has also encountered tens of thousands of migrants hailing from nations deemed high-risk, including Afghan, Chinese, Iranian, Syrian, and Uzbek nationals among others. Specifically, there were 2,134 Afghan, 33,347 Chinese, 541 Iranian, 520 Syrian, and 3,104 Uzbek nationals.
The situation is further complicated by nearly 2 million 'gotaways'—migrants who have evaded Border Patrol—since the beginning of the Biden administration. These individuals' origins span 36 different countries, some of which are known for active terror presences, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, Tajikistan, and Yemen.
According to the House report, the Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS) encompasses both known or suspected terrorists and others considered a "potential threat." The number of encounters involving persons on the watchlist has surged by over 3,000% since President Biden took office in 2021.
The Biden administration attributes the crisis to inadequate funding and lack of comprehensive reforms, blaming Republicans for failing to address a “broken” immigration system. Conversely, Republicans pin the rising numbers on the current administration's rollback of Trump-era policies, which they claim has exacerbated the problem.
Adding a layer of severity to the situation, DHS reported that an ISIS-affiliated smuggling network facilitated the entry of over 400 individuals from Eastern European and Central Asian countries into the U.S. Among them, eight Tajik nationals with connections to ISIS were arrested in urban centers like New York City, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia after crossing the southern border. Three of these individuals made use of the CBP One phone application to arrange an appointment, while Border Patrol encountered four others.
The House report states, "Under the Biden-Harris Administration, of the more than 250 illegal aliens on the terrorist watchlist who were encountered by Border Patrol at the southwest border between fiscal years 2021 and 2023, DHS has released into American communities at least 99, with at least 34 others in DHS custody but not yet removed from the United States.”
The report further emphasizes the potential danger posed by the nearly 2 million migrants who have evaded capture. It contends, "That does not include the untold numbers of potential terrorists that evaded Border Patrol to enter the United States as part of nearly 2 million ‘gotaways’ since the beginning of the Biden-Harris Administration."
One segment of the document warns that the current impact on national security could be dwarfed by future threats. "Although American communities already feel the disastrous effects of the Biden-Harris Administration’s immigration policies, the worst could still be yet to come," the report claims.
Echoing a growing sentiment among national security experts and immigration officials, the report urges immediate action:
With national security experts and immigration officials increasingly concerned about the threat of terrorism originating from the border, it is clear that policymakers must take all necessary steps to secure the border and stop the flow of illegal aliens. However, the Biden-Harris Administration has refused to address the national security nightmare created by its radical, open-borders agenda.
The public debate over immigration policies is likely to intensify as both sides of the political spectrum seek solutions to these pressing concerns. Whether through policy reform or increased funding, it remains to be seen how, or if, the reported issues will be effectively addressed moving forward.
Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff's past affair with his children's nanny has resurfaced, causing concerns for Kamala Harris's campaign.
According to Daily Mail, Emhoff's affair with Najen Naylor, which resulted in a pregnancy, ultimately ended his first marriage and has now brought unwanted attention to Kamala Harris's campaign.
Doug Emhoff, who had been married to Kerstin for 16 years, had an affair with Najen Naylor, their children's nanny. Naylor was also a teacher at their children's prestigious private school in Culver City, California. Emhoff’s marriage ended in 2009 when his wife discovered the affair.
Naylor’s involvement with Emhoff led to significant professional and personal turmoil. Due to the scandal's fallout, she left her position at The Willows, an exclusive private school. The school's fees range from $32,525 to over $41,000 per year, reflecting its elite status.
Despite the affair, Naylor is praised by an anonymous parent as a great teacher and a lovely individual. Naylor confirmed the relationship but declined further comments. Additionally, a close friend, Stacey Brooks, stated she wouldn't provide more information without Naylor's consent.
Currently leading in the polls against Donald Trump, Kamala Harris faces a mounting crisis within her campaign due to this resurfaced scandal. Emhoff, whom she married in 2014 after meeting in 2013, must now confront his past's repercussions.
The affair has become a central issue, causing concern among Harris's campaign teams as they strategize responses. The fact that the affair and subsequent pregnancy did not result in a child being kept by Naylor adds to the complexity.
After leaving The Willows, Naylor transitioned into new professional ventures. Her LinkedIn profile lists positions such as the Director of New Business Development at Broadway Video in 2011 and a Senior Director role at Audible in 2018.
In 2021, Naylor bought a waterfront property in the Hamptons for $855,000, now valued at $1.4 million. She currently cares for a baby and a toddler at her home. This suggests financial stability despite the earlier scandal.
Emhoff and Naylor, it appears, reached a financial settlement tied to the scandal's fallout. This arrangement seems connected to her departure from The Willows. Naylor’s continued connection to current staff at the school indicates lingering ties and possibly some remaining support.
An old video from 2009 by Naylor showed her introducing three infants, although public searches revealed no birth records for a 'Brook Naylor' or 'Brook Emhoff' around that time. The absence of these records suggests additional layers to this convoluted tale.
The affair's resurfacing poses questions for the public and political realm due to its implications for Kamala Harris’s campaign. Criticism and scandal often shake political campaigns, but the impact on Harris will unfold in time. This complexity underscores the personal and professional blend in political lives.
In summary, Doug Emhoff's earlier affair with family nanny Najen Naylor, which led to his first marriage's end, has reemerged amidst Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign, creating concern and strategic challenges. Naylor's career trajectory and property investments post-scandal reveal her continued stability, yet the affair's detailed aftermath remains a sensitive topic affecting all involved.
Democrats in the United States are attempting to make significant strides to overturn a recent Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, aiming to make it a focal point in the upcoming election.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and President Joe Biden are leading efforts to challenge -- and reverse -- the effect of the ruling through legislative and constitutional amendment proposals, as Global News reports.
On Thursday, Schumer introduced the No Kings Act, a legislative proposal designed to essentially invalidate the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity. The proposed law aims to explicitly state that presidents are not above criminal law and to clarify congressional authority in determining the application of federal criminal statutes.
The Supreme Court's decision, handed down on July 1, grants presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken as part of their official duties. This ruling directly impacts the federal criminal case against former president Donald Trump, who faces charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Democrats argue that this ruling sets a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future presidents to commit criminal acts without fear of prosecution. Schumer emphasized the need for congressional action, stating, "Congress must use all its tools to restore trust and accountability to the highest court in the land."
Earlier this week, President Joe Biden expressed his support for a constitutional amendment to nullify the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. This proposal, part of a broader set of suggested court reforms, would require approval from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-quarters of the 50 state legislatures. Schumer highlighted that legislation would be the "fastest and most expedient method" to overturn the ruling. The No Kings Act also seeks to remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over presidential immunity appeals, empowering Congress with the final decision on such matters.
The Senate is currently in recess and will not reconvene until September. Despite this, Schumer believes that the legislative path offers a quicker resolution compared to the lengthy process of amending the Constitution. However, he did not specify a timeline for the vote.
Republicans in Congress have expressed strong opposition to the Democrats' initiatives. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell criticized Biden's proposal, asserting that it would "shred the Constitution." U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson echoed this sentiment, labeling Biden's proposals a "non-starter." Many in the GOP support the Supreme Court's ruling, arguing that it allows presidents to perform their duties without the distraction of potential prosecutions. They contend that this immunity is essential for the effective functioning of the executive branch.
To pass the No Kings Act, Democrats will need at least 60 votes in the Senate to overcome filibuster rules, necessitating support from at least nine Republican senators. Given the current political climate, securing these votes may prove challenging.
Democrats are concerned that the Supreme Court's ruling could enable future presidents to engage in criminal activities without consequence. Schumer remarked, "Make no mistake about it: we have a very strong argument that Congress, by statute, can undo what the Supreme Court does, that does not require a constitutional amendment."
The ruling's implications are significant, especially in light of recent events involving former President Trump. The case against Trump, centered on his attempts to reverse the 2020 election outcome, highlights the potential risks of unchecked presidential power. Schumer and Biden's efforts underscore a broader debate about the balance of power between the branches of government and the role of the judiciary in shaping the limits of executive authority. The No Kings Act represents a critical step in this ongoing discussion.
As the Senate prepares to reconvene, the outcome of the No Kings Act remains uncertain. The political divide in Congress poses a significant hurdle for Democrats seeking to pass the legislation. Despite the challenges, Schumer remains optimistic about the possibility of legislative success. He believes that clear and decisive action is necessary to safeguard the principles of accountability and the rule of law.
The upcoming months will be crucial in determining the fate of the No Kings Act and the broader efforts to address presidential immunity. The debate will likely intensify as the 2024 election approaches, making this issue a pivotal topic in American politics.
Sen. Ron Wyden has set the stage for a major political clash.
The Oregon Democrat is promoting the Restoring Congressional Authority Act, designed to allow Congress to reverse U.S. Supreme Court decisions, amid strong Republican opposition as the Washington Examiner reports.
Wyden's proposed bill seeks to shift power back to Congress, aiming to counter the influence of what he refers to as "radical right-wing" judges. The legislation, introduced on Thursday, emphasizes the need to prevent these judges from having undue sway over significant issues.
Wyden expressed explicit concerns regarding the impact of former President Donald Trump's appointees on the Supreme Court. He accused these "MAGA judges" of undermining progress on critical matters such as women's rights, healthcare, and climate change.
Wyden stated that the ongoing efforts by certain judges to reverse progress reflect a broader agenda driven by special interests. He stressed the necessity of restoring checks and balances within the federal government by ensuring the judiciary does not overreach. To reinforce his point, Wyden pointed to recent cases that have constrained federal regulatory power, highlighting the Chevron doctrine's recent rejection. He underscored that the Chevron ruling diluted congressional authority and the executive branch's ability to enforce laws effectively.
Republican leaders have been vocal in their opposition to Wyden's initiative. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito from West Virginia dismissed the Democrat's efforts as more than just an attempt at court-packing. Capito critiqued the proposal for its timing and suggested it served more as a distraction from current administrative policies. Her remarks reflected a broader Republican commitment to blocking Democratic attempts to reform the Supreme Court.
House Speaker Mike Johnson similarly dismissed the feasibility of President Joe Biden’s related Supreme Court reform proposals. Johnson's firm stance indicates the likely challenges Wyden's bill will face in Congress.
In June, the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo signaled a significant shift, limiting federal agencies' power. In response, President Biden has laid out a series of proposed reforms aimed at curbing what he perceives as judicial overreach.
Among Biden's recommendations are the imposition of 18-year term limits for justices and the establishment of a binding ethics code for the Supreme Court. He also expressed a desire to reverse rulings related to presidential immunity. Despite facing considerable pushback, these proposals align closely with the intent and goals of Wyden’s Restoring Congressional Authority Act. Both political figures aim to reconfigure the balance of power between Congress and the judiciary.
Wyden remains undeterred in his critique of the Supreme Court's current trajectory. He has pointed to a series of decisions that he believes moved the country backward on numerous key issues and were heavily influenced by partisan ideologies. Wyden’s legislative push positions him at the forefront of a contentious debate over the role and influence of the judiciary. He sees his bill as essential in maintaining the foundational principle of checks and balances that govern the United States.
With Republicans promising staunch resistance to Wyden's efforts, the upcoming legislative battles will undoubtedly be fierce. Wyden’s vision for a recalibrated judicial oversight hinges on a principle of curbing judicial overreach and restoring congressional authority.
In conclusion, Sen. Ron Wyden is advancing the Restoring Congressional Authority Act to counteract what he calls the undermining influence of radical right-wing judges. The bill aims to bolster congressional oversight over the judiciary, amid significant Republican opposition. As this legislative proposal unfolds, it highlights the broader tension in Washington regarding the balance of power and judicial reform.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has launched a significant legislative push aimed at fundamentally altering the legal protections formerly afforded to presidents.
According to Fox News, Schumer has taken initial steps to further President Biden's Supreme Court overhaul with the "No Kings Act," which targets stripping immunity from former President Trump.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer initiated the movement to advance President Joe Biden's Supreme Court reform by introducing the "No Kings Act." This legislation, central to Biden's reform, attempts to definitively state that former presidents are not shielded from criminal charges for deeds carried out while in office.
Schumer lamented the recent Supreme Court decision broadly construing presidential immunity. According to Schumer, the ruling bestows former presidents with undue protections and sets a dangerous precedent.
"The Founders were explicit—no man in America shall be a king," he asserted. Schumer's comments highlight his contention that the Court's decision undermines foundational democratic principles.
The "No Kings Act" is a direct response to what many Democrats view as an overreach by the current Supreme Court, which they often criticize as having been shaped heavily by former President Donald Trump.
Schumer vehemently criticized the ruling, marking it as "dangerous and devastating." His proposed legislation aims to counteract this perceived judicial overreach by unequivocally denying legal immunity to any former president or vice president for illegal actions committed during their tenure.
The legislative measure would substantially diminish the Supreme Court's authority in handling appeals related to this law. Specifically, it transfers the jurisdiction for legal challenges to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, while appellate jurisdiction would reside with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Schumer's proposal, enjoying the support of 34 Democratic senators, includes backing from vulnerable incumbents such as Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin. They collectively emphasize the necessity of this measure in upholding accountability within the highest offices of government.
Despite the momentum within the Democratic caucus, the "No Kings Act" faces substantial legislative hurdles. In a Senate requiring a 60-vote majority to circumvent the filibuster, Republican support appears unlikely. The House of Representatives, currently controlled by Republicans, further dampens the bill's prospects, suggesting it might not even be brought to the chamber floor for a vote.
President Biden's Supreme Court reform agenda also proposes other significant changes, including enforced term limits for justices and a stringent code of ethics. Schumer has applauded these facets, particularly the emphasis on reversing the recent decision on presidential immunity.
Expressing his alignment with President Biden's vision, Schumer remarked on the bill's necessity in maintaining democratic checks and balances. "Given the serious and far-reaching implications of the Court’s ruling, legislative action represents the swiftest means to rectify this severe breach."
Schumer's advancement of President Biden's Supreme Court overhaul signals a critical and contentious legislative effort. The "No Kings Act" targets the elimination of presidential immunity and seeks to curb the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over these matters. Supported by numerous Senate Democrats, the bill responds to a recent Supreme Court decision that granted significant immunity to former presidents. However, it faces steep challenges in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
According to Bloomberg, corporate America is bracing for potential significant changes to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives under a second Trump administration.
In January 2021, President Joe Biden repealed an executive order by former President Donald Trump that had restricted company DEI initiatives. Three-and-a-half years later, Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are neck-and-neck in polls for the upcoming presidential election.
The uncertainty has led businesses to reassess or eliminate certain DEI initiatives in anticipation of potential political and legal challenges. Businesses are preparing for a possible rollback of DEI programs while shoring up their efforts under the current supportive policies.
A Harris win in November would likely mean a continuation of supportive policies for DEI. However, conservative groups and some prominent business figures have criticized DEI policies, especially following the Supreme Court’s recent ban on affirmative action in college admissions.
A second Trump administration is expected to reinstate the executive order prohibiting bias training for government contractors, echoing previous criticisms from Trump’s Labor Department towards companies like Microsoft and Wells Fargo for pledging to increase Black executives.
Trump has pledged to reverse actions taken under Biden’s equity agenda, further heightening concerns among DEI advocates. The Bloomberg News/Morning Consult poll reveals a tight race, with 48% of voters backing Harris and 47% supporting Trump in battleground states. As a result, companies have become more cautious about promoting DEI programs publicly, removing terms like “anti-racist” and “unconscious bias” from their filings.
Lauren Hartz commented, “Our clients understand what’s at stake for DEI in the upcoming election.” Many who fear a rollback of current DEI efforts share this sentiment.
Vasu Reddy has noted, “Trump has made no secret of his vendetta against diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Reddy suggests that the aim is to intimidate businesses into avoiding these topics entirely, particularly those reliant on federal funding. Additionally, the Trump administration is expected to use the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other legal levers to influence corporate policy against DEI.
At the Republican National Convention, speakers criticized DEI, describing it as “division, exclusion, and indoctrination.” Conservative activists are pushing for further amendments to the Civil Rights Act to remove terms related to DEI and gender equality.
Despite these challenges, a Washington Post-Ipsos poll found that 61% of adults support DEI programs in the workplace, with higher support for specific initiatives. Younger employees, particularly those aged 18-29, show greater support for DEI compared to older employees.
Robby Starbuck remarked, “You’re going to see movement from day one of a Trump administration, maybe even literally before day one. Let’s make America sane again, let’s get away from all this crazy stuff, find unifying things.” This perspective underscores the anticipated swift actions against DEI initiatives if Trump wins.
Conversely, Alison Taylor argued, “To say we can just cancel ESG and DEI, and that phase is over, is deranged.” Taylor’s statement highlights the ongoing debate about the relevance and necessity of DEI and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives in the corporate world.
As the election approaches, the future of DEI initiatives hangs in the balance. Businesses are taking a cautious approach, wary of the potential for significant policy shifts that could impact their DEI strategies. The outcome of the election will determine whether these programs continue to receive support or face increased scrutiny and potential rollback.
According to ABC News, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper officially withdrew from the race to become Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate in the 2024 presidential election.
On Monday night, Governor Cooper announced that he would no longer be considered for the vice presidential spot on Kamala Harris' 2024 ticket. This decision followed his strong endorsement of Vice President Harris' campaign.
Cooper explained that the timing and current circumstances in North Carolina influenced his choice not to seek a national role. Despite this decision, Cooper remains a steadfast supporter of Harris.
Shortly after his announcement, Governor Cooper joined a grassroots organizing call aptly named "White Dudes for Harris." Interestingly, he did not discuss his recent decision to withdraw during the call. Instead, Cooper continued to emphasize the crucial role of Harris' candidacy in the upcoming election.
"I strongly support Vice President Harris' campaign for President. I know she's going to win and I was honored to be considered for this role. This just wasn't the right time for North Carolina and for me to potentially be on a national ticket," Cooper stated, affirming his commitment to Harris’ campaign.
Earlier this month, on July 21, Cooper had officially endorsed Harris, reflecting on their shared history as attorneys general and underscoring her qualifications to lead the nation.
Roy Cooper was expected to help extend Democratic influence into swing states if he joined Harris' campaign. His inclusion on the ticket could have been a significant development, especially given North Carolina's political landscape.
If Cooper had accepted a national role, North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson, a Republican, would have taken over as the active governor. This would have added a layer of political complexity, as Robinson is currently running against Democratic nominee, North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, for the governorship.
The decision leaves the path open for Harris to consider other prominent candidates as possible running mates, among them Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker.
In the meantime, Vice President Harris is anticipated to secure the Democratic presidential nomination imminently. The Democratic National Convention Committee's Rules Committee stipulates that a presidential nominee must be chosen by August 7. However, the selection of a vice-presidential candidate does not need to adhere to this same deadline, though it is still likely that the nominee for vice-president will also be chosen by then.
"As I've said from the beginning, she has an outstanding list of people from which to choose, and we'll all work to make sure she wins," Cooper reiterated, indicating that he would continue to play a supportive role in the upcoming election.
Cooper further added, "Kamala Harris should be the next President. I’ve known @VP going back to our days as AGs, and she has what it takes to defeat Donald Trump and lead our country thoughtfully and with integrity. I look forward to campaigning for her as we work to win NC up and down the ticket."
Governor Roy Cooper's withdrawal from the vice-presidential race was motivated by the timing and current state of affairs in North Carolina. Despite this, Cooper continues to strongly support Kamala Harris' candidacy for the presidency. After his announcement, Cooper joined a grassroots call and reiterated the significance of Harris' bid, having previously endorsed her on July 21. His potential departure from the governor's role would have affected North Carolina's political scene, implicating Republican Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson.