The mood in Germany has turned negative towards Brussels, with just 29 per cent of Germans seeing membership in the EU as an advantage.
The post Germans Turn Against Brussels, Less Than Three in Ten See EU Membership as Beneficial appeared first on Breitbart.
Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), a leading possible contender for former President Donald Trumpβs running mate, answered several key questions from Breitbart News for this exclusive question-and-answer written interview about Hollywood star Robert De Niroβs appearance at the behest of Democrat President Joe Bidenβs reelection campaign outside the Manhattan courthouse where Trump is being tried.
The post Exclusive β Sen. J.D. Vance: De Niroβs Biden Appearance Outside Trump Trial βMask Off Moment for Biden Regimeβ Similar to Hillaryβs Deplorables Attack appeared first on Breitbart.
A "vast conservative shift is well under way" in Europe according a survey which found voters are rejecting the globalist agenda of Brussels.
The post European Union Experiencing a βVast Conservative Shiftβ as Public Rejects Failed Globalist Policies: Report appeared first on Breitbart.
Four years after the 2020 census and the redistricting that occurred across the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday held that a lower court in South Carolina failed to distinguish between political and racial motivations by that stateβs Republican-controlled Legislature when lawmakers made slight revisions in the boundary lines of the stateβs seven congressional districts to improve GOP election prospects in one in particular, the 1st Congressional District.Β
That was a very important holding, because it pushed back on a recurring tactic now being used by Democrats to attack redistricting plans that disadvantage their party politically; namely, falsely claiming that partisan redistricting is tantamount to racial discrimination that violates the Voting Rights Act.
And if you can believe it, this entire case that went all the way to the highest court in the land was over a district in which the Legislature increased the projected Republican vote by 1.36% to 54.39% and the black voting-age population from 16.56% to 16.72%.
No, really.Β
The NAACP, which acts as an arm of the Democratic Party, made a federal case out of a change in voting percentages of 1.36% and 0.16%!
In Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by five of his colleagues, concluding that the district courtβs finding that race dominated the design of the 1st District was clearly erroneous.Β
South Carolinaβs 1st Congressional District had been a reliably Republican district until a Democrat, Joe Cunningham, was barely elected in 2018 with just 50.7% of the vote.Β Republican Nancy Mace took the district back in the 2020 election by another slim margin, just 50.6% of the vote.
Republicans in the state Legislature issued guidance after the 2020 census explaining that they would follow βtraditional districting principles, such as respect for contiguity and incumbent protection.β However, they βalso made it clear that [they] would aim to create a stronger Republican tilt in District 1.βΒ
The GOP-dominated Legislature maintained and protected incumbent Democratic Rep. James Clyburn, who has represented the single majority-minority congressional district in South Carolina since 1993, the 6th, because, as Republican state Sen. George βChipβ Campsen said, Clyburn βhas more influence with the Biden administration perhaps than anyone in the nation.βΒ
The Supreme Court reiterated that courts must distinguish between partisan and racial motivations in redistricting since, as the court previously held in 2019 in Rucho v. Common Cause, partisan motivations are not justiciable in federal court, while racial motivations may be unconstitutional if they were a predominant factor in the redistricting.
The majority chastised the lower court for only paying βlip serviceβ to the rules the court has set out for evaluating this issue in a redistricting case.
In fact, the district courtβs βmisguided approach infectedβ that courtβs findings, which βwere clearly erroneous under the appropriate legal standard.βΒ In other words, the lower court committed clear error because it failed to disentangle race from politics.
Moreover, Alito wrote, the NAACP did not provide any direct evidence of a racial gerrymander by state legislators and the NAACPβs circumstantial evidence was very weak.
Instead, the NAACP relied on deeply flawed reports by four βexpertsβ who ignored traditional districting criteria such as geographical constraints and the Legislatureβs partisan interests in strengthening Republican districts.
The NAACP also failed to offer a single alternative map to show that the Legislatureβs partisan goal could be achieved while raising the black voting population in the challenged district, a requirement that the Supreme Court has laid out in previous redistricting cases.
The NAACP separately claimed that the slight change in the percentage of GOP voters in District 1 diluted the vote of black residents, violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.Β But the majority found that the district court made the same mistakes in evaluating the vote-dilution claims that it made in evaluating the first claim.
That is, the NAACP failed to show that the stateβs redistricting plan had the purpose and effect of diluting the minority vote. In light of these errors, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
It is probably no surprise that the three liberal justices disagreed.
In a dissent that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan urged the court not to second-guess the district courtβs factual findings on whether partisanship or race was the predominant factor in the redistricting process by the state Legislature.
In her view, the court should have given the district courtβs view of events βsignificant deferenceβ and upheld it as long as it is βplausible.β
At the end of his majority opinion, Alito criticized that Β dissent, concluding that none of the points raised by Kagan was βvalid.βΒ That includes her bald assertionβwith no evidence to back it upβthat the legislators must have used racial data, rather than political data because, the dissenters claim, racial data βis more accurate than political data in predicting future votesβ and not using racial data would have required the βself-restraint of a monk.β
But as Alito pointed out, βthis jaded view is inconsistent with our case lawβs long-standing instruction that the βgood faith of [the] state Legislature must be presumedβ in redistricting cases.βΒ That is particularly true since βthe political data, unlike the racial data that the dissent prefers, took into account voter turnout.β
Alito concluded by saying that βthere is no substance to the dissentβs attacks.β
The South Carolina opinion serves as a warning shot across the bows of district court judges who presume bad faith on the part of state legislators and who fail to distinguish between political motivations and racial motivations in the redistricting process.
The Voting Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination in voting, not partisanship, and its provisions should not be abused to achieve political goals.
The post Supreme Court Rebuffs Claim of Partisan South Carolina Redistricting as Race Bias appeared first on The Daily Signal.
France and Germany, both led by globalist-left governments and both facing a damaging vote in less than two weeks put on a united front.
The post Franceβs Macron Tells Young People to Reject Nationalism, Embrace European Union appeared first on Breitbart.
New polling from Scott Rasmussen reveals that Americaβs elite 1%βthose with high incomes, urban residences, and postgraduate degreesβare significantly out of step with the rest of the country on a range of issues.
Itβs a troubling trend for America, and it doesnβt bode well for our future considering the elite 1% occupy many of the leadership roles in our cultural, educational, and government institutions.
Thereβs perhaps no statistic more shocking than the 69% of politically obsessed elites who think it would be better if only people with college degrees could vote. By comparison, just 15% of all voters hold that view. (Rasmussen defines βpolitically obsessedβ as elites who talk about politics every day.)
Rasmussenβs latest survey, conducted by RMG Research, asked other questions ranging from government censorship to gun ownership. On nearly every issue, thereβs a wide gulf between the ruling class and everyday Americans.
You can learn more about work on the elite 1% by tuning into βThe Scott Rasmussen Show,β which airs Sunday at 10 a.m. ET on Merit Street Media.
In the meantime, listen to our full interview on βThe Daily Signal Podcastβ or read an edited transcript below.
Rob Bluey: What are the headlines coming out of your latest research?
Scott Rasmussen: As a reminder, the last time we talked about how the politically obsessed elites think the American people have too much individual freedom and people in this elite world really trust the federal government.
What we did this time is began to ask some of these same groups, the elite 1 % and the politically obsessed, what do they think America looks like?
Perhaps the funniest finding of all is we ask the question, βDo most Americans agree with you on most important issues?β Now, if we ask voters, about half say, βYeah, I think most people agree with me.β Among the politically obsessed elites, 82% of that group thinks that most Americans agree with them on most issues. Itβs not even close to true, but theyβre looking in a mirror. They see what they want to see.
Whatβs scary about that, if you think about it in context of the administrative state, if these people believe that their views are representative of America, it justifies them cheating a little bit or bending the rules because they can say, βWeβre fighting for the American people.β In fact, theyβre fighting against the American people.
Bluey: Are there particular policy issues where you see that playing out more so than others? For instance, one that comes to mind is climate change.
Rasmussen: Itβs actually harder to find places where the American people are with the elite. You mentioned climate change. About 2 out of 3 of this politically obsessed elite think that most voters are willing to pay $250 a year or more to fight climate change.
When we do polling to ask people how much theyβre willing to payβin terms of taxes or higher pricesβabout half say theyβre not willing to pay anything, and 72% say nothing more than $100.
If you think about that in a policy sense, these influencers believe the American people are willing to pay something theyβre not, and thatβs why they can support some different policy ideas.
But look, itβs starts with a very basic thing: 71% of the politically obsessed elites think most Americans trust the federal government most of the time. That has not been true for 50 years. Itβs been a half century since people tended to trust the government that much. Today, only 22% of voters voiced that much trust in government.
That is one of the core distinctions. If you trust the federal government, you trust the regulatory apparatus a lot more. You trust other rules and regulations, and voters just arenβt there.
Bluey: Another area that you polled had to do with social media. What did you find when you surveyed the elite 1% on that particular topic?
Rasmussen: Everybody, whether youβre in the elite or not, has some concern about disinformation and fake news. Where the difference comes is what to do about it.
Among most voters, they say that having the government decide what is misinformation and fake news is a bigger threat than the fake news itself. Among the elites, they say just the opposite.
Should the federal government be allowed to censor social media posts? Among all voters, 16% say yes. Among the politically obsessed elites, just over 50 % say, βOf course, we should have the right to censor social media.β Fundamentally different views.
The views of the elite 1% amount to a rejection of Americaβs founding ideals. Even on something as simple as, βDoes the federal government listen too much or not enough to the American people?β Overwhelmingly, voters say the government is not listening to us and the elites are saying itβs listening too much.
Bluey: There seems to be a wide discrepancy of views when it comes to who should vote and who should have a say in our countryβs future. That number to me was one that stood out and was quite alarming.
Rasmussen: Absolutely alarming.
We asked a question that seemed to me to be absurd, Would it be better if only people with a college degree were allowed to vote?β
Appropriately, most Americans just soundly reject that idea. But among the elites, they heavily believe this country would be better off if all those deplorables who didnβt go to college werenβt allowed to vote.
Bluey: And one issue where thereβs also quite a big disparity is gun ownership. How do the elite view guns?
Rasmussen: Consistently for decades, voters say they want to live in a community where guns are allowed. Sometimes itβs in the low 60s, sometimes after a horrific shooting event, it moves down to the low 50s, but consistently a majority of Americans can support that.
Among the elite 1 % that politically obsessed portion of it, about 70% of them say, βNo, we want to live where guns are outlawed.β And 76% of them want to ban the private ownership of guns.
If you are in that politically obsessed elite and you believe strongly that we should ban guns, and if you believe that most American people want to live in a community where guns are outlawed, then you take an almost religious fervor to the fight to ban guns because you can convince yourself that youβre fighting on behalf of the public. And once again, youβre actually fighting against what the American people are looking for.
Bluey: Do you feel that the elite 1 % are more out of touch in 2024 than maybe they were in past generations?
Rasmussen: First, I donβt have data from past generations, so I canβt make a clear assessment on that. But I think itβs probably a little bit different.
There have always been elites. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were clearly elites of their era, but they also had a commitment to something larger than themselves. Thomas Jefferson, in writing the Declaration of Independence, said he was just articulating what the American people were feeling. At the same time, Alexander Hamilton said, βWe need to establish a monarchy.β If you actually read his plan, itβs horrific.
So there have always been some people and elites who kind of rejected the founding ideals, who rejected the concepts of the Declaration of Independence.
>>> βMost Terrifying Poll Result Iβve Ever Seenβ: Scott Rasmussen Surveys Americaβs Elite 1%
Whatβs changed in the last couple of generations are two things.
No. 1, weβre a little bit more sorted geographically. Members of the elite arenβt encountering non-elites on a regular basis. Itβs not just that we live in gated communities or separate areas. Public transportation has been replaced by Uber. Thereβs not a lot of contact with people who arenβt like you.
The second part is there has been the rise of what a lot of people view as the global elite, where people begin to see others from other countries as more like them than they do their own countrymen.
Bluey: The use of pronouns has become quite pronounced in a lot of corporate settings, even in our federal government. There are some departments and agencies that now include them in email signatures and things of that nature. Is there a difference of how elites view pronouns vs. the rest of America?
Rasmussen: Letβs start with the fact that most Americans donβt even know what youβre talking about when youβre expressing your preferred pronouns. Only about 1 out of 10 voters has ever introduced themselves in that manner.
When they hear talk of it, it seems very foreign. But among the politically obsessed elite, about 60%, have introduced themselves expressing their preferred pronouns. And itβs hard to overstate the cultural difference at that point.
If youβre in this elite worldβif youβre in the elite schools or many agencies of the federal governmentβit is absolutely normal and an everyday occurrence that you meet somebody and they tell you not only their name and their position, but their preferred pronouns. In the rest of America, that just doesnβt happen.
When you get into discussions about misgendering somebody, there are regulations being pushed right now that would require employers to punish somebody for misgenderingβfor not using somebodyβs preferred pronouns. Only 9% of voters think thatβs a fireable offense, but even more than that, they donβt even know what the discussion is about.
This is where that glaring gap between the elites and most Americans is quite visible. It is the cultural world theyβre in, whether weβre talking about guns, or climate change policies, or preferred pronouns, or even the topic of should biological males be allowed to play in womenβs sports.
Among the politically obsessed elite, 41% say they should. Now, thatβs not a majority, but essentially, the politically obsessed elite is evenly divided on this question, whereas to most Americans, itβs ridiculous. Of course, biological males have a physical advantage. Of course, it is dangerous to let biological males into the womenβs locker room. But the elite is having a discussion about it. That is out of step with the country. It is dangerous.
Itβs fine to have different views. We all live on our own bubbles. Your bubble is a little different than mine, but probably has some overlap. But you have to be able to look outside your bubble and see what the rest of the country is doing.
If youβre in this elite world, you have enormous influence and you think your views are reflecting the public at large, thatβs a really dangerous combination.
Bluey: One of the most notable examples of the last decade is when Donald Trump was elected president. It seemed that the elites were in shock. What might happen if Trump is victorious in November and how might they react?
Rasmussen: On Election Day 2016, most of the conversation was Hillary Clinton is up by three in the polls, but thereβs a margin of error, sheβll probably win by six. There was a shock. They couldnβt believe it. They couldnβt imagine what was happening. And because in their mind, Hillary Clinton was the ideally prepared person.
Looking ahead to this year, first thing I will tell you is if the election is at all close, the way the last nine elections have been in, whichever team loses, theyβll believe the election was stolen. If Donald Trump wins, we will hear an awful lot about how he stole the election from these elites.
But something else is happening thatβs playing a part in the election. Itβs a distorted view of the public.
When we see the campus protests about the Palestinian situation, 62% of the elites have a favorable opinion. They think itβs great what these protesters are doing. Most voters donβt. Only 24% of voters support the protesters.
That leaves the pundits to misread the way a situation has played out. In fact, since the campus protest started, support for Israel has gone upβnot what some of the protesters might have hoped for.
A lot of the elites are misreading the dynamics going on right now. About 80 % of the elite 1% approve of the way Joe Biden is doing his job.
The post 69% of Elites Want to Restrict Voting to College Graduates Only appeared first on The Daily Signal.
A new study has revealed that roughly 10% to 27% of noncitizens living in the U.S. are illicitly registered to vote, which could result in up to 2.7 million illegal votes being cast in the November elections.
Experts say the significant amount of potential illegal votes could be enough to alter election results.
TheΒ study, released last week by the research institute Just Facts, notes that the 2022 U.S. census recorded approximately 19 million adult noncitizens living in the country. βGiven their voter registration rates, this means that about 2 million to 5 million of them are illegally registered to vote,β the report observes. βThese figures are potentially high enough to overturn the will of the American people in major elections, including congressional seats and the presidency.β
On Tuesday, James Agresti, president of Just Facts,Β joinedΒ βWashington Watchβ to discuss the scope of noncitizens casting ballots and the implications of the studyβs findings.
β[T]here are very broad openings for noncitizens to vote,β he explained, adding:
In no state in the nation are they required to provide proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote. Now, a couple of states like Arizona tried to enact that requirement, but they were blocked by a court ruling supported by the Obama administration.
And if you look at the federal voter-registration form, it says you can submit all different forms of ID to register. That could be a Social Security number; it could be a driverβs license number; or it could just be a utility bill.
I mean, these are things that anyone can get by living here. They do not prove youβre a U.S. citizen.
And more than that, a lot of noncitizens have faked Social Security numbers, especially illegal immigrants. Thatβs what they do to work. A recent estimate by the Social Security Administration tallied 2.5 million noncitizens who had Social Security numbers gained by using fake birth certificates or stealing those numbers from somebody else.
Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and board member of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, concurred. (Heritage founded The Daily Signal in 2014.)
β[T]he problem is, states arenβt doing very much to verify citizenship, so itβs extremely easy for someone whoβs not a citizen to register to vote and to vote in elections,β heΒ remarkedΒ during Mondayβs edition of βWashington Watch.β
βAnd when that is discovered, oftentimes nothing is done about it.β
Agresti went on to point out the effect that lax enforcement of citizen verification could have in November. β[B]ased on the latest available data, approximately 1 million to 2.7 million noncitizens are going to vote in the upcoming presidential election unless something changes. And that is more than enough to tip the results of congressional races, Senate races, and yes, the U.S. presidency.β
Von Spakovsky echoed Agrestiβs concerns. β[I]t doesnβt matter whether theyβre black or white, Asian or Hispanic. It doesnβt matter which political party they support. Every time an alien illegally votes, that alien is voiding, negating the vote of a citizen, no matter which political party they support,β he contended. βAnd the Democrats just donβt seem to want to understand that or to basically ignore it.β
Agresti further reflected on the motivations behind the Democratsβ opposition to efforts to improve election integrity.
β[I]tβs always hard to read peopleβs minds, but I can tell you this: The vast bulk of these noncitizens are voting for Democrats. According to the best data we have, about 80% of them will vote for Democrats when they vote illegally. And Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any kind of checking of peopleβs citizenship. It does benefit them. Is that their reasoning? Itβs an obvious incentive, but I canβt read their minds.β
Earlier this month, House Republicans attempted to address the issue byΒ introducing a billΒ that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and would remove noncitizens from existing voter rolls. But Agresti expressed doubt about the billβs chances of passage. βMy guess is it will move in the House and die in the Senate, but thatβs just an educated guess. And again, even if somehow it got through the Senate, thereβs no way [President] Joe Bidenβs signing that bill.β
βHowever,β he added, βI do think in the aftermath of the election, and we hate to have a repeat of 2020, that there should be some accountability, some lawsuits that demand proof that people are who they say they are in tight races. None of that was secured in the last round of election lawsuits, and it needs to be there.β
Agresti concluded by urging candidates involved in tight elections to demand verification that only citizens voted. βA candidate has to make a plea and say, βHey, I want this data to prove that these people who are registered and voted actually are citizens.ββ
Originally published at WashingtonStand.com
The post Up to 2.7 Million Noncitizens Could Vote Illegally in November, Study Warns appeared first on The Daily Signal.
A stage collapse during a campaign rally late Wednesday in the northern Mexican state of Nuevo Leon killed at least nine people β including a child β and injured a further 63, the stateβs governor said.
The post Nine Dead, 36 Injured After Stage Collapse at Mexico Political Rally appeared first on Breitbart.
The Trump campaign is launching the "Palm Beach Playbook" newsletter to bring voters "truth about President Trumpβs America First policies."Β
The post Exclusive: Trump Campaign Explains Plans for and Vision Behind Nightly Newsletter βPalm Beach Playbookβ appeared first on Breitbart.
The top House Republican is warning that the Democratic Party is trying to jail its chief political rival before Novemberβs election.
Appearing with Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on Saturday morningβs episode of βThis Week on the Hill,β House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., declared, βDonald Trump is being targeted because of who he is. If he was not running for president again, I donβt think youβd see any of this barrage of prosecutions, these local district attorneys and state attorneys who are after him β¦ .β
Referring to the myriad state and federal indictments leveled against former President Donald Trump over the past 15 months, Johnson added, βThey have targeted him because he is soon to be officially the nominee of the Republican Party for president, and this is their only way to stop him.β
βEverybody around the country can see this for what it is, anybody who looks at what is happening objectively has to reach the same conclusion. They are targeting him because of who he is,β Johnson explained.
He continued, βAnd the real threat to this β¦ is it is the weaponization of our system of justice itself. β¦ You have to understand this is something that would undermine a very foundational principle of our country. The people have to trust that the justice system is fair, that there really is equal justice under law. And if we donβt have that, we lose something very important to maintain a constitutional republic.β
Perkins added, βThe former president says itβs not just about him, but itβs what he represents, the people that he represents, the fact that he has stood up to the Left, to the media. Thatβs the reason he is the target.β
Johnson agreed: βI think he symbolizes a pushing back against that federal corruption and the Deep State and the bureaucracy and all the things that frustrate the American people. They see in Donald Trump someone who is unafraid to sort of crash through those barriers in a certain respect.β
He further noted, βI think thatβs why he is such a threat to them, and thatβs why they pulled out all the stops.β
Over the course of 2023, four criminal indictments, amounting to a total of 88 felony charges, wereΒ issuedΒ against Trump. The first, consisting of New York state charges, alleged that the former president had falsified business records. That trial is currently underway in Manhattan.
The Department of Justice indicted Trump last June for allegedly illegally keeping classified documents pertaining to national securityβafter having left the White House in 2021. A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., then indicted Trump for allegedly attempting to βdefraud the United Statesβ by overturning the 2020 election results. Almost immediately afterward, Trump was indicted in Fulton County, Georgia, for alleged racketeering related to the 2020 election results.
βWhat theyβre doing here really is a travesty of justice,β Johnson said of the Democratsβ campaign against Trump, which critics have characterized as βlawfare.β
βVery practically speaking, this was [Trumpβs] fifth week of trial in Manhattan on this charge, a crime that they canβt even adequately define. Prosecutors passed on bringing these charges eight years ago. They did it now for political reasons, and they kept him off the campaign trail.β
Perkins noted that left-wing lawfare extends far beyond just Trump, pointing to the 57-month prison sentenceΒ handed downΒ to pro-life activist Lauren Handy for blockading the entrance to a Washington, D.C., abortion facility in 2020.
Handy is reportedly the first person to be sentenced to prison under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, although the Biden administrationβs Justice Department is activelyΒ prosecutingΒ other pro-lifers, too. Johnson said that the Biden administrationβs targeting of pro-lifers is an βinstance of priorities being exactly in the wrong place.β
βTheyβre aggressively prosecuting people who are exercising their First Amendment freedom to talk about the sanctity of human life on a public sidewalk. And meanwhile, they catch and release dangerous criminals, persons who come across the border illegally, and people who are violent offenders multiple times over,β Johnson stated. βAnd yet theyβre targeting people that have a different political viewpoint. I just think itβs such a blatant example of exactly what weβre talking about. And the people see this. They see a two-tiered system of justice, and thatβs a real threat to us.β
βIf you lose the rule of law, if you lose the foundational underpinnings of a constitutional republic, what you ultimately result with, again, is a return to tyranny, because the people who are in charge have abused their authority,β the speaker explained. βAnd we know that power corrupts, and as Lord Acton observed, absolute power corrupts absolutely. You have to have all these checks and balances. You have to have the separation of powers, and you have to have the maintenance of law and order.β
Recent polling suggests that a supermajority of Americans agree that the Biden administration is carrying out a lawfare campaign against the former president.
A March survey from McLaughlin and AssociatesΒ foundΒ that nearly 70% of voters believe the slew of indictments against Trump are politically motivated, and almost 60% of voters (including close to 40% of Democrats) think [President Joe] Biden has played a role in the crusade against Trump. Additionally, 56% of voters (including a third of Democrats) said they believe that βJoe Biden wants to stop President Trump from winning the election by putting him in jail.β
The monthly Harvard CAPS/Harris polls haveΒ foundΒ some shifting over the past few months on whether voters would still support Trump if he were convicted on various charges, with voters typically being split 50-50 with a slight advantage in Trumpβs favor, but the latest pollβs findings demonstrated that the flurry of lawsuits against the former president isnβt helping Bidenβs popularity.
Originally published at WashingtonStand.com
The post βA Travesty of Justiceβ: House Speaker Dissects the Leftβs βLawfareβ Campaign Against Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.
Biden administration officials circulated and discussed a memo authored by a coalition of liberal groups aimed at getting more college students to participate in elections as part of the Education Departmentβs presidentially ordered voter-registration efforts, newly surfaced emails show.
Groups that donated millions to elect Democrats and are funded by major liberal donors submitted a list of recommendations to the Education Department in 2021 outlining ways the department could get college students, a historically liberal demographic, to vote more,Β accordingΒ to emails obtained by The Heritage Foundationβs Oversight Project. [Heritage founded The Daily Signal in 2014.]
The memo recommended that the Education Department include a voter registration option on its college financial aid application, use resources to make students aware of vote-by-mail opportunities, and allow universities to use federal work-study to pay students for nonpartisan election work.
The coalition of groups sent its memo in response to President Joe Bidenβs 2021Β executive orderΒ directing federal agencies to promote voter registration, education, and participation, offering recommendations on how to implement it.
Nick Lee, deputy assistant secretary for higher education, shared the memo withΒ Annmarie Weisman, another deputy assistant secretary, andΒ Gregory Martin, another department official, emails show. Lee explained to Weisman and Martin that he had been discussing ways to implement Bidenβs executive order with anΒ Education Department policy directorΒ and that he was willing to speak further on the topic.
Lee also shared the memo with members of the Education Departmentβs Office of the General Counsel, again explaining that the department was in the process of finalizing responses to Bidenβs voting executive order, emails show.
The Biden administration may have been receptive to at least one of the recommendations the coalition of left-of-center groups offered.
In April 2022, the Education DepartmentΒ clarifiedΒ that universities could pay students with federal work-study funds to engage in election-related work. Although students may be compensated for voter registration work, they cannot be paid using federal funds βfor work involving partisan or nonpartisan political activity, including party-affiliated voter registration activities, as this is expressly prohibited,β the department said.
In February, the Education DepartmentΒ expandedΒ on the specific work that federal funds could cover,Β statingΒ that βsupporting broad-based get-out-the-vote activities, voter registration, providing voter assistance at a polling place or through a voter hotline or serving as a poll workerβ were all acceptable.
Although Bidenβs executive order stresses that agencies should tap βnonpartisan third-party organizationsβ to aid with voter registration efforts, the effects of registering more college students to vote could be a boon for the Democratic Party.
A September 2020 pollΒ foundΒ that 70% of college students said they would vote for Biden in that yearβs election, compared to just 18% who said they would vote for then-President Donald Trump. Strong turnout among college students in 2022 helped Democrats pull off a better-than-expected midterm election performance, NPRΒ reported.
Heading into the November presidential election, Bidenβs reelection campaign isΒ seekingΒ to mobilize college students.
The president held a 23-point lead over Trump among college students heading into the election,Β accordingΒ to a Harvard Institute of Politics poll conducted in March.
The groups that sought to push the Education Department to mobilize more college voters themselves have ties to the Democratic Party.
TheΒ American Federation of TeachersΒ and theΒ National Education Association, for instance, are both signatories of the memo and have spent millions of dollars to help elect Democrats through their political action committees, Federal Election Commission records show.Β BothΒ groupsΒ endorsed Biden in the 2024 Democratic primary season and historically have supportedΒ the Democratic Party.
New America Foundation, which signed on to the memo through its education program, has received extensive support from the Soros familyβs philanthropic network, pulling in millions since 2016,Β accordingΒ to a grant database. George Soros himself hasΒ donatedΒ massive sums to Democrats and is one of the largest figures in the left-of-center philanthropic world.
The Voter Participation Center, another group that signed on to the memo, has received over $1 million from nonprofits managed by Arabella Advisors,Β taxΒ filingsΒ show.Β
Arabella AdvisorsΒ is a consultancy firm that manages a network of nonprofits that spend millions every year on efforts to help liberal groups and Democrats.
The Voter Participation Center on itsΒ websiteΒ claims to work diligently to mobilize members of the βNew American Majority,β which includes people of color and unmarried women, to register to vote and cast ballots.
Republicans have taken issue with the Biden administrationβs approach to using federal resources to juice voter participation.
βWe have concerns about the lack of constitutional and statutory authority for federal agencies to engage in any activity outside the agencyβs authorized mission, including federal voting access and registration activities,β a May 13 letter from the House Oversight Committee sent to Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young reads.
The Education Department, New America, the Voter Participation Center, the National Education Association, and the American Federation of Teachers didnβt immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundationβs requests for comment.
Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation
The post Biden Education Department Shared Activistsβ Memo on Mobilizing Dem-Leaning Voters appeared first on The Daily Signal.