The Republican National Committee (RNC) has filed a lawsuit against the North Carolina State Board of Elections, alleging that recent instructions on absentee voting violate state law.
According to Just The News, the litigation, filed last week, targets a memo sent by the board to county election offices regarding the handling of absentee-by-mail ballots.
The complaint, joined by the North Carolina Republican Party and a registered voter from Pasquotank County, argues that the board's guidance contradicts state laws requiring absentee ballot security envelopes to be sealed for the votes to be counted. This lawsuit marks the sixth legal challenge faced by the board in just 43 days.
The RNC contends that Numbered Memo 2021-03, issued by Elections Board Executive Director Karen Brinson Bell, provides guidance that conflicts with statutory requirements.
The plaintiffs argue that this memo undermines the carefully drafted absentee-voting statutes put in place by the General Assembly.
Jason Simmons, the state Republican Party Chairman, expressed disappointment in Bell's actions, stating:
State law is clear in this matter and it is unfortunate that Director Bell is acting beyond her authority. We will continue to enforce integrity in the elections process and adherence to statutory requirements.
The lawsuit cites four specific statutes that require absentee ballots to be received by county boards of elections in sealed envelopes to be considered valid.
The plaintiffs claim that the memo in question advises county boards of elections that an absentee ballot may be counted even if it is not submitted in a sealed container-return envelope. This guidance, they argue, directly contradicts the clear language of state law.
Before filing the lawsuit, the plaintiffs attempted to seek a declaratory ruling from the board. However, this request was rejected, prompting the legal action.
The litigation names the board as a whole, each member in their board capacity, and Executive Director Bell as defendants. The board's composition includes three Democrats and two Republicans.
This lawsuit is part of a series of legal challenges faced by the North Carolina State Board of Elections in recent weeks. Since July 22, the board has been involved in litigation related to various election issues.
Previous lawsuits have addressed ballot access for the Justice For All Party, and the We The People Party, voter roll maintenance, and a freedom of speech case involving John F. Kennedy Jr. This latest challenge adds to the growing list of legal battles facing the board as the 2024 election cycle approaches.
The RNC's lawsuit highlights ongoing tensions between political parties and election officials over the interpretation and implementation of voting laws. As the case progresses, it may have significant implications for how absentee ballots are handled in North Carolina during future elections. The outcome could potentially impact voter confidence in the absentee voting process and shape the state's approach to ballot security measures.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to deny the Biden administration’s request on Title IX rules may alter the political landscape ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
The ruling prevents the enforcement of new Title IX regulations across 26 states, and legal experts suggest that the outcome could end up benefitting Vice President Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign, as Newsweek reports.
In August, the Supreme Court ruled against the administration's effort to lift a ban on newly revised Title IX guidelines, which include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. This decision is especially significant as it occurred during the Court’s traditional recess, a period when such rulings are unusual.
Title IX, enacted in 1972, is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. President Biden’s administration expanded these protections in August 2024 to explicitly include gender identity and sexual orientation. However, a coalition of 26 states challenged the changes, delaying their implementation.
The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 ruling, found the administration’s arguments insufficient to overturn lower court decisions that had paused the enforcement of the updated Title IX regulations in those 26 states. These states are led by Republican attorneys general who argue the changes go too far and infringe on state rights. Legal battles in lower courts over the new rules are ongoing.
Michael Popok, an attorney and legal commentator, called the decision a "gift" to Kamala Harris’ campaign. The ruling could galvanize Harris’ support from progressive voters and LGBTQ+ advocates by drawing attention to her alignment with policies that protect gender and reproductive rights. Harris has frequently emphasized these issues, particularly in response to Donald Trump’s positions on abortion and women's rights.
The Supreme Court’s ruling follows its landmark 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, which ignited a nationwide debate over reproductive rights. This adds another layer of complexity to the current legal and political environment, which many view as heavily scrutinized by the courts. For the Harris campaign, the ruling strengthens the argument that the future of gender rights, reproductive rights, and educational protections are at stake in the 2024 election.
In contrast, Republican-led states continue to argue that the Biden administration’s changes to Title IX violate states' rights and impose federal overreach. While these lawsuits continue to wind through the courts, the ruling leaves the Department of Education grappling with uneven enforcement across the country.
A spokesperson for the Department of Education expressed disappointment with the Supreme Court’s ruling but reaffirmed the department’s commitment to defending the new Title IX regulations. The spokesperson noted that schools in 24 states unaffected by the injunction must still comply with the new guidelines.
Legal challenges to the revised Title IX rules are ongoing, with courts expected to review the issue in the coming months. The Department of Education continues to support the changes, which were introduced in April 2024, maintaining that they provide critical protections against discrimination.
The ongoing legal battles could keep Title IX at the center of political debates throughout the 2024 election cycle. As more appeals and court rulings unfold, both sides are likely to continue using the issue to mobilize their respective voter bases.
With the Supreme Court's decision, the stakes in the 2024 election appear to be rising.
Whether the legal outcome favors the administration's Title IX changes or supports the Republican states' resistance, the ruling may prove pivotal for shaping public opinion on these critical social issues.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has seen a notable shift in the racial makeup of its incoming class following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision against affirmative action in higher education admissions.
The court’s ruling has led to a decrease in Black, Hispanic, and Native American students, with a corresponding rise in the percentage of white and Asian students in the university’s newest cohort, as NC Newsline reports.
In the fall of 2024, the percentage of first-year and transfer students identifying as white or Asian increased from 88.5% in 2023 to 89.6%. This shift in student demographics represents the first enrollment cycle since the Supreme Court decision, handed down in June 2023, declared race-conscious admissions practices unconstitutional.
The ruling, which came in a 6-3 vote, was based on the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The decision significantly impacted UNC Chapel Hill, whose admissions policies had previously considered race as a factor in creating a diverse student body.
The largest demographic decreases were observed among Black students. Their representation in the incoming class dropped from 10.5% in 2023 to 7.8% in 2024. This 2.7% decline marks the most significant reduction among all racial and ethnic groups at the university.
Hispanic student enrollment also saw a dip, falling from 10.8% in 2023 to 10.1% in 2024. Native American students experienced a similar decline, dropping from 1.6% to 1.1% over the same period.
The overall enrollment data shows that UNC Chapel Hill’s efforts to attract diverse populations face new challenges in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. While some students identified with more than one race or ethnicity, leading to totals exceeding 100%, the trend is clear: diversity in the traditional sense is declining.
Conversely, the university saw an increase in the number of Asian students. In the fall of 2024, Asian students made up 25.8% of the class, up from 24.8% in 2023. This 1% rise highlights the growing presence of this demographic in the university’s student body. White student enrollment also slightly increased, moving from 63.7% to 63.8% over the same time period. Meanwhile, Pacific Islander representation rose from 0.2% to 0.3%.
The overall student population for the 2024 incoming class includes 4,641 first-year students and 983 transfer students. A large portion of these students—4,608—are from North Carolina, while the remaining 1,016 hail from out-of-state or international locations.
Rachelle Feldman, UNC Chapel Hill’s vice provost for enrollment, urged caution in interpreting the early data. “It’s too soon to see trends with just one year of data,” she said. Feldman stressed that the university remains dedicated to both following the Supreme Court ruling and ensuring that students from all backgrounds feel encouraged to apply.
Feldman reiterated the institution's commitment to welcoming students from all 100 counties across North Carolina, emphasizing the university's affordability and inclusivity. Despite the demographic shifts, the total number of applicants to UNC Chapel Hill increased from 63,217 in 2023 to 73,192 in 2024, representing a 15.8% jump. Students in the incoming class come from 95 counties within North Carolina, all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and 79 countries.
The Supreme Court’s decision against affirmative action has ramifications beyond UNC Chapel Hill. Across the nation, colleges and universities are grappling with the ruling, as race-conscious admissions policies had been a longstanding tool for increasing diversity in higher education.
While some schools have seen similar drops in diversity, others are working to find alternative methods for maintaining varied student bodies within the constraints of the new legal landscape. The full effects of the ruling may take years to fully understand, as schools adjust to the new guidelines. As for UNC Chapel Hill, its leaders are committed to complying with the new laws while continuing to offer opportunities to students from all parts of the state and beyond.
A high-ranking spokesperson for the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office has been caught on a hidden camera expressing strong criticism of District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
According to The New York Post, Nicholas Biase, the chief spokesman, was recorded describing the case against Trump as "nonsense" and accusing Bragg of conducting "lawfare" for political gain.
The secret recordings, made on July 31 and August 14, 2024, were released by conservative podcaster Steven Crowder on social media. In the footage, Biase is seen conversing with an unidentified woman at what appears to be a bar, unaware that he was being recorded. The spokesman's candid remarks have shed light on potential internal disagreements within the justice system regarding the high-profile case against the former president.
In the recorded conversation, Biase, who claims to have known Bragg for 15 years and previously worked with him, did not mince words when discussing the hush money case against Trump. He described the prosecution as a "perversion of justice" and suggested that Bragg's motivations were politically driven rather than based on legal merit.
Biase accused the Manhattan District Attorney's office of manipulating charges to build a case against Trump. He expressed concern that the prosecutor might attempt to imprison the former president, predicting that such an outcome would be "ugly." The spokesman's comments reflect a stark contrast between his public role and his private opinions on this high-profile case.
The Department of Justice official also speculated about Bragg's future political ambitions, suggesting that the Trump prosecution was a means to gain public recognition. Biase's remarks imply a belief that the case has more to do with advancing Bragg's career than serving justice.
Biase's critique extended beyond the Manhattan case, encompassing other state-level prosecutions against Trump. He described the justice system at the state level as "the Wild West," implying a lack of restraint and professionalism compared to federal proceedings.
The spokesman highlighted the absence of certain federal rules at the state level, particularly the 90-day rule that restricts decisions on cases that could affect an election. This comparison suggests a belief that state-level prosecutions are more susceptible to political influence and less bound by ethical constraints.
Biase also commented on the separate civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James against Trump. He argued that the practices Trump was accused of were common among New York real estate professionals and that the prosecution was unprecedented and unjust.
The leaked recordings raise questions about the unity of opinion within law enforcement agencies regarding high-profile political cases. Biase's comments, if accurately represented, indicate a significant rift between federal and state-level perspectives on the prosecution of former President Trump.
These revelations could potentially impact public perception of the ongoing legal proceedings against Trump. The suggestion that a high-ranking official in the Department of Justice views the state's case as politically motivated might lend credence to claims of unfair treatment by Trump and his supporters.
Nicholas Biase stated in his apology:
I was recently made aware of a video where I regretfully made some statements in a private and social setting that don't reflect my views about two local and state prosecutions. I said these things in an effort to please and impress someone I just met, who was secretly filming me. I'm deeply sorry to the local and state law enforcement officials working on these matters, who deserve more respect than I showed them. I should have known better.
The incident serves as a reminder of the sensitive nature of ongoing legal proceedings and the potential consequences of private opinions being made public, especially for those in positions of authority within the justice system.
Republican leaders are grappling with a potential government shutdown as former President Donald Trump backs a controversial voting bill.
According to Daily Mail, the SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship to vote in presidential elections, has become a focal point in negotiations over a must-pass federal funding package due by September 30.
House Speaker Mike Johnson is attempting to balance Trump's support for the SAVE Act with Democrats' vow to block any deal, including the law. The situation has created a tense standoff, with only 26 days remaining before a potential government shutdown.
Trump has expressed strong support for the SAVE Act, stating he would be willing to shut down the government if necessary to ensure its passage. During an appearance on the "Monica Crowley Show," Trump declared, "I would shut down the government in a heartbeat if they don't get it."
The former president's backing has put additional pressure on Republican leaders to include the voting law in the funding package despite the risks of a shutdown.
Speaker Johnson is considering attaching the SAVE Act to a continuing resolution (CR) that would maintain current government funding levels until March 2025. However, this strategy faces significant opposition from Democrats, who have pledged to block any deal containing the voting measure.
The situation is further complicated by the slim Republican majority in the House. Even if all Republicans support the CR with the SAVE Act included, they would still need some Democratic votes to pass the measure.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has made it clear that any funding bill containing the SAVE Act would be "dead on arrival" in the Senate. This stance leaves little room for compromise and increases the likelihood of a government shutdown.
Some Republicans are concerned that Senate Democrats could strip the SAVE Act from the funding package and send it back to the House, potentially shifting blame for a shutdown onto the GOP. This scenario has led to debate within the party about the best path forward.
Proponents of the SAVE Act argue that it is necessary to prevent non-citizens from voting in U.S. elections. The bill would require voters to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, to register and vote in presidential elections. Critics, however, contend that existing laws already prohibit non-citizens from voting in federal elections. They argue that the SAVE Act could disenfranchise eligible voters who may have difficulty obtaining the required documentation.
With less than a month remaining before the September 30 deadline, pressure is mounting on Republican leaders to find a solution. Some within the party are urging caution, warning that a government shutdown could harm their electoral prospects.
Others, emboldened by Trump's support, believe that taking a stand on election integrity could energize their base. This internal debate reflects the broader tensions within the Republican Party as it navigates the upcoming election cycle.
In conclusion, the government funding negotiations have become entangled with a controversial voting bill backed by Trump. Republican leaders must balance the demands of their base with the practical realities of passing legislation in a divided government. As the deadline approaches, the risk of a government shutdown looms large, with potential political consequences for both parties.
In the Massachusetts Republican primary, attorney John Deaton emerged victorious, securing his position as the GOP challenger to incumbent Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren in the upcoming November election.
According to The Associated Press, Deaton triumphed in a three-way contest, defeating industrial engineer Bob Antonellis and Quincy City Council President Ian Cain.
The primary results set the stage for a showdown between Deaton, a former U.S. Marine and cryptocurrency attorney, and Warren, who is seeking her third term in the Senate. Warren ran unopposed in the Democratic primary, highlighting the contrast between the competitive Republican field and her unchallenged nomination.
John Deaton, who announced his candidacy earlier this year, expressed gratitude for the support he received from voters. Following his primary win, Deaton outlined his campaign priorities, which include addressing issues such as border security, family affordability, healthcare reform, support for Israel, and restoring faith in politics.
Deaton stated:
Tomorrow, we begin the next phase of the campaign – an effort that will hold Elizabeth Warren accountable for her failures on the border, the unaffordable cost of supporting a family, a broken healthcare system, abandoning our ally Israel, and restoring faith in our politics.
The Republican primary victory marks the beginning of Deaton's uphill battle against Warren, who has maintained strong support in the predominantly Democratic state of Massachusetts.
Senator Elizabeth Warren's campaign responded to Deaton's primary victory by emphasizing the clear choice now facing Massachusetts voters. Warren's campaign manager, Janice Rottenberg, highlighted the financial backing Deaton received during the primary:
A small handful of crypto billionaires and corporate special interests poured more than $2 million into a super PAC to handpick their preferred Republican candidate, and now Massachusetts voters have a clear choice that could determine control of the Senate.
This statement suggests that Warren's campaign will focus on contrasting her record and support base with Deaton's, particularly emphasizing the sources of his campaign funding.
Warren has already committed to participating in two debates in October, one in Boston and another in Springfield, indicating her readiness to engage directly with her Republican challenger.
Despite his primary success, John Deaton faces significant challenges in his bid to unseat Elizabeth Warren. Warren, a former Harvard law professor, has consistently performed well in Massachusetts elections, winning her Senate seat twice with substantial margins.
In her 2018 reelection, Warren secured over 60% of the vote, demonstrating her strong base of support in the state. Additionally, Massachusetts has shown a clear preference for Democratic candidates in recent elections, with President Biden carrying the state with 66% of the vote in the 2020 presidential race.
Deaton's relative obscurity in Massachusetts politics compared to Warren's national profile and established presence in the state presents another hurdle. The Republican challenger will need to quickly build name recognition and make a compelling case to voters to overcome Warren's incumbent advantage.
The Massachusetts Republican primary has set the stage for a contest between John Deaton and Senator Elizabeth Warren in the November Senate race. Deaton's victory in the GOP primary positions him as Warren's challenger, though he faces significant obstacles given Warren's popularity and the state's Democratic leanings. The upcoming debates in October will provide a crucial platform for both candidates to present their visions for the state and the country.
A Russian Mi-8T helicopter carrying 22 people crashed in the Kamchatka peninsula, with no survivors found at the wreckage site.
According to USA TODAY, the incident occurred near the Vachkazhets volcano in Russia's far eastern region, approximately 4,400 miles east of Moscow.
The state news agency TASS reported on Sunday that search teams discovered the crash site, confirming the tragic outcome. The cause of the crash remains unclear, although the region was experiencing severe weather conditions at the time of the incident.
The Kamchatka peninsula was hit by a cyclone over the weekend, bringing heavy winds and rain to the area. These adverse weather conditions coincided with the timing of the helicopter crash, raising questions about their potential role in the incident.
Despite the harsh weather, it has not been definitively established whether the cyclone directly contributed to the crash. Investigators will likely examine the possible impact of these meteorological factors as they piece together the events leading to the tragedy.
The challenging terrain and remote location of the crash site may complicate rescue and investigation efforts, potentially prolonging the process of determining the exact cause of the accident.
The Mi-8T helicopter, a model commonly used for both civilian and military purposes in Russia, had departed from a base in close proximity to the Vachkazhets volcano. This area is known for its rugged landscape and often unpredictable weather patterns.
The flight's purpose and the identities of those on board have not been disclosed in the initial reports. However, the loss of 22 lives represents a significant tragedy for the local community and the broader region.
Questions may arise about the decision to fly in potentially hazardous conditions, especially given the cyclone's presence in the area at the time of the flight.
Search teams faced the daunting task of locating the crash site in the vast and challenging terrain of the Kamchatka peninsula. The discovery of the wreckage marks a crucial step in the investigation process, although it brings the somber confirmation of no survivors.
The recovery operation is likely to be complex, given the remote location and the potential for continued adverse weather conditions. Investigators will need to carefully examine the wreckage to gather clues about the cause of the crash.
The process of identifying and repatriating the victims will be a priority for authorities, providing closure to the families affected by this tragedy.
In conclusion, the crash of the Russian Mi-8T helicopter in the Kamchatka peninsula has resulted in the loss of all 22 people on board. The incident occurred near the Vachkazhets volcano, amid challenging weather conditions caused by a cyclone. While the exact cause of the crash remains unknown, investigators will likely focus on the potential impact of the severe weather. The tragedy underscores the risks associated with aviation in remote and environmentally challenging regions.
A recent op-ed by Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker has raised questions about Minnesota Governor Tim Walz's representation of his career history.
According to Fox News, Parker's column, published on Friday, critiques Walz for potentially embellishing aspects of his background for political advantage.
The column, titled "Tim Walz isn't exactly what he seems," examines several controversies that have emerged since Walz was announced as Vice President Kamala Harris's running mate. These issues primarily revolve around Walz's statements regarding his National Guard service and a 1995 drunk driving incident.
In her op-ed, Parker does not accuse Walz of outright lying but suggests that he has a tendency to enhance his resume for political purposes. She writes, "I'm not saying that Walz lies precisely. But he tends to gild his résumé for political gain."
Parker's column delves into specific instances where Walz's statements have come under scrutiny. One such case involves the governor's 1995 drunk driving arrest in Nebraska, where he was caught speeding and failed a field sobriety test.
The columnist points out that while the arrest details are verifiable through police records, Walz's 2006 congressional campaign provided a different narrative.
Campaign staff reportedly told the press that Walz had not been drinking and failed to understand the officer's instructions due to hearing loss from a National Guard-related injury.
Parker also comments on Walz's recent joint interview with Harris on CNN, describing his performance as evasive. She notes that Walz failed to directly answer questions about his previous statements, particularly regarding his claim of carrying a gun "in war" despite never being deployed to a combat zone.
The governor's statements about his military service have drawn criticism from Parker and prompted responses from fellow veterans. Some who served alongside Walz in the same National Guard battalion have publicly challenged his honesty regarding his service record.
These veterans' statements add weight to the concerns raised about the accuracy of Walz's representations of his military experience. Their firsthand accounts contrast with some of the claims made by Walz, further complicating the narrative surrounding his service.
The scrutiny of Walz's statements comes at a crucial time, as he joins Vice President Harris on the campaign trail. Parker's critique raises questions about how these controversies might impact the campaign's messaging and credibility.
While the Harris-Walz campaign has not yet responded to requests for comment on the matter, the issues raised by Parker and others may require addressing as the election season progresses. The campaign's handling of these controversies could potentially influence public perception and voter trust.
In conclusion, Kathleen Parker's Washington Post op-ed has brought renewed attention to Governor Tim Walz's career claims. The column questions Walz's tendency to potentially embellish his record for political gain, focusing on controversies surrounding his National Guard service and a past drunk driving incident. Veterans who served with Walz have also spoken out against his statements about his military experience.
Musician Jack White has taken a public stand against former President Donald Trump's campaign for using a song by The White Stripes without permission.
White has threatened to sue the Trump campaign for using his band’s song, "Seven Nation Army," in a video posted by Trump’s deputy director of communications, Margo Martin, as the Independent reports.
On August 29, White shared a screen recording of a now-deleted clip on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
The clip showed Trump boarding a plane to Michigan and Wisconsin while ‘Seven Nation Army’ played in the background. The recording was posted by Margo Martin, one of Trump's top communication aides, who has since removed the video.
White did not hold back in his reaction. In an Instagram post, the Grammy-winning artist expressed his outrage over the unauthorized use of his music, calling Trump and his team "fascists" and threatening legal action. White made it clear that his lawyers would be pursuing a lawsuit, adding to the numerous legal challenges already facing the former president.
White’s Instagram post was more than just a legal warning; it was a scathing criticism of Trump’s behavior at a recent public event. White condemned Trump for what he described as an insult to America’s veterans during his visit to Arlington National Cemetery, where Trump laid a wreath to mark the third anniversary of the Abbey Gate attack in Kabul.
The rocker's words reflected a deep frustration not only with the unauthorized use of his music but also with the broader political and social issues he associates with Trump. He suggested that Trump’s actions should cost him the support of military families, whom White believes were disrespected by the former president.
The controversy surrounding White’s music is not an isolated incident. Over the past few years, the Trump campaign has repeatedly faced backlash from artists who object to the use of their music at his rallies and events. The most recent incident involves the iconic Swedish group ABBA, whose music was used in footage from a Trump rally.
A spokesperson for Universal Music, ABBA’s record label, confirmed that the group did not give permission for their songs to be used. The spokesperson stated that both the band and the label have demanded that the videos featuring ABBA’s music be taken down immediately.
This growing list of artists taking legal or public action against Trump’s campaign includes some of the most notable names in the music industry. Isaac Hayes's estate has already filed a lawsuit, and Beyoncé has issued a cease-and-desist letter, demanding that her music not be used in connection with Trump’s political activities.
The legal disputes involving music rights are a part of a broader trend of artists asserting control over how their work is used, particularly in the political sphere. These actions highlight the tension between creative rights and political campaigns that often seek to capitalize on popular music to energize their base.
White’s public denouncement and the potential legal action underscore the risks that political campaigns face when using copyrighted material without proper authorization. The Trump campaign’s repeated clashes with artists over music rights suggest that this issue will remain a contentious one as the former president continues to engage in political activities.
As of now, it remains to be seen how these legal challenges will unfold. However, the growing list of artists taking a stand against unauthorized use of their work is a clear indication of the importance they place on protecting their intellectual property and the messages associated with their music.
In a move that has reverberated through the Texas political landscape, State Rep. Shawn Thierry has announced her departure from the Democratic Party to join the Republican Party.
Thierry’s decision signals her opposition to what she views as the Democratic Party’s radical shift away from its traditional values, as an X post from the lawmaker explains.
Thierry, who has served in the Texas House for eight years, declared her decision to leave the Democratic Party last Friday. She made the announcement on X, citing a departure from the party’s roots and a growing ideological divide as the main reasons for her exit.
Thierry, a lifelong Democrat, expressed concern over the party’s stance on progressive policies, particularly regarding children’s rights and Title IX protections for women in sports. She criticized the party’s support for what she describes as extreme positions that have strayed from the values of many Americans.
As a mother and lawmaker, Thierry emphasized that her choice was guided by her commitment to family and faith. She voiced her belief that the Democratic Party no longer represents the interests of working families, a sentiment that she says has been growing among many within the party.
Thierry’s decision was not without consequences. She has faced significant backlash from her former party, particularly for her stance against legislation supporting gender transitions for minors. Her opposition to this policy, which she described as harmful to children, led to intense criticism and a well-funded campaign against her from within the Democratic Party.
Despite these challenges, Thierry has found new support within the Republican Party. Gov. Greg Abbott welcomed her decision, praising her for standing up against policies that he believes are out of step with the values of mainstream America. He highlighted the Republican Party’s commitment to economic empowerment, educational rights, and small business opportunities as being more aligned with Thierry’s principles.
Thierry has long been recognized for her work on issues such as maternal mortality, elderly protection, and anti-human trafficking. Her shift to the Republican Party marks a significant change in her political career, but she remains focused on championing the causes she believes in.
In her announcement, Thierry reflected on her journey and the reasons behind her decision. Quoting Maya Angelou, she indicated that her departure from the Democratic Party was a necessary step in her personal and political evolution. She described the party as having become “radicalized and ideologically rigid,” leaving her with no choice but to find a new political home.
Thierry, who is a practicing Baptist and a graduate of Howard University and Thurgood Marshall School of Law, has been a licensed attorney for 27 years. She expressed that her faith played a crucial role in her decision, guiding her through what she described as a period of deep reflection and soul-searching.
As she embarks on this new chapter, Thierry remains committed to her constituents and to the values that have guided her career. She emphasized that she will continue to advocate for policies that support families, children, and economic growth, now under the banner of the Republican Party.
Shawn Thierry’s departure from the Democratic Party and subsequent decision to join the GOP reflects her deep concern over the direction of the party she once called home. Her stance against progressive policies and her belief in traditional values have led her to align with the Republican Party, where she finds support for her views on family, faith, and freedom.
Despite facing opposition from her former party, Thierry has found new allies in the GOP, who share her vision for a better future for Texas and America. As she continues her legislative career, Thierry remains focused on making a difference for her constituents, guided by the principles that have always been central to her life and work.