A crowd in a House committee meeting Thursday evening chanted loudly, “Let us speak; let us speak,” when the chairman announced that the committee would soon end the public testimony on a proposed 15-week abortion ban.
The last speaker, a woman from Tampa Bay, began to make her remarks, and the chanting in the crowd began. The woman was then escorted out of the committee room by House security.
The crowd in the committee room continued to chant “Let us speak,” and “Abortion is health care.”
Lawmakers began to leave, including, State Rep. Erin Grall, the sponsor of the bill.
Then the crowd began saying, “All power to the people.”
Then, Capitol Police began escorting people out of the committee meeting.
Protesters then gathered outside in the courtyard at the state Capitol. They were chanting “Our body, our choice.”
Ultimately, lawmakers proceeded to debate the bill. House members in the Health Care Appropriations Subcommittee voted 10-5 in favor of the bill, HB 5.
At the end of the vote, Committee Chairman Bryan Avila, of Miami-Dade said, “We had an incident.”
He thanked his colleagues for the questions and debate.
“I just want to say, you know, we, we’re certainly trying to make sure that we are able to do what we need to do….my intent, again, was to make sure each and every one of you had enough time to represent your constituents…and be able to be heard on this issue.”
This committee meeting Thursday was the second committee meeting on the proposed 15-week abortion ban. It came as anti-abortion protesters disrupted a Planned Parenthood health center in Fort Myers, leading to several arrests.
At the committee meeting starting at 4 p.m., there were three amendments; two didn’t pass. Another one did, related to $1.6 million for establishing fetal and infant mortality review committees.
The committee room was crowded, and the chairman, Avila, wanted to make sure the meeting was restricted for a two-hour period. In fact, the meeting went over, following the incident.
There’s another House committee coming up for HB 5 in the House Health and Human Resources committee. Then it would go to the full House. The Senate also has to approve the bill. The Senate has its own abortion ban bill, SB 1416, but the House has been carrying the legislation since the beginning of the legislative session.
HB 5 showed up the first day of the legislative session, on Jan. 11.
Florida has a history of lawmakers pushing to restrict legal access to abortion services, threatening the protections under Roe v. Wade, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortions.
For example, GOP members of the Florida Legislature had pushed for abortion restrictions including legislation signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2020 that requires parental consent for a minor to terminate a pregnancy.
Critics, such as the ACLU of Florida have called the consent law unconstitutional. The law requires that pregnant minors receive written parental consent to get an abortion, regardless of rape or incest, as previously reported by the Florida Phoenix.
In September of 2021, Republican state Rep. Webster Barnaby filed a similar bill to Texas’ restrictive anti-abortion law that hasn’t moved so far in the 2022 legislative session.
Like the Texas version, the measure would ban abortions after about six weeks and allow private citizens to enforce it by suing individuals who help aid women in abortion services. However, the bill hasn’t been popular among some GOP lawmakers, including Senate President Wilton Simpson because of the private citizens lawsuit issue. Even Gov. DeSantis had expressed concerns about the provision that encourages citizens to bring lawsuits.
Meanwhile, a decision is looming in the U.S. Supreme Court involving a Mississippi law similar to Florida’s proposed abortion ban that prohibits most abortions after 15 weeks. The proposed 15-week ban that continues to move in the 2022 session has triggered several protests across the state from organizations on both sides of the issue surrounding abortions.
Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Diane Rado for questions: firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow Florida Phoenix on Facebook and Twitter.
A Pennsylvania appeals court has struck down the commonwealth’s landmark 2019 mail-in voting law, though the near certainty of an appeal means voters might not notice a difference until the Supreme Court weighs in.
In a 49-page opinion issued by Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt on Friday morning, a five member panel of the court found 3-2 that the law, which allows all Pennsylvanians to vote by mail without an excuse, was unconstitutionally enacted as a statute, rather than being approved through the state’s long and rigorous constitutional amendment process.
“If presented to the people, a constitutional amendment to end the…requirement of in-person voting is likely to be adopted,” Leavitt wrote. “But a constitutional amendment must be presented to the people and adopted into our fundamental law before legislation authorizing no-excuse mail-in voting can ‘be placed upon our statute books.’”
Otherwise, Leavitt expressed “no view on whether such a system should, or should
not, be implemented as a matter of public policy.”
The law, known as Act 77, was passed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly and signed by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf in fall of 2019.
The suit was brought by a Republican county commissioner from Bradford County, as well as 14 legislators — 11 of whom voted for the law. In fact, in both chambers, all but two GOP lawmakers voted for the proposal.
At the time, it was seen as a bipartisan win that expanded voting access. Since then, millions of Pennsylvanians have used mail-in ballots to participate in democracy.
However, Republicans began to sour on the law, amid former President Donald Trump’s baseless efforts to delegitimize mail-in votes in the lead up to the 2020 election.
In November 2020, after he lost Pennsylvania and the presidency, some of the former president’s allies filed a similar suit to invalidate the law and have millions of legally cast mail-in ballots thrown out, likely handing the state’s electoral votes to Trump instead of President Joe Biden.
The state Supreme Court rejected their arguments, but the court will likely hear them anew.
Adam Bonin, a Philadelphia elections attorney who often works for Democrats, told the Capital-Star he expected the ruling to be overturned on an appeal to the state Supreme Court, which the Wolf administration filed Friday afternoon.
“Not only do I expect this decision to be overturned, but it’s crucial that the state Supreme Court act quickly to stay the effect of this decision,” Bonin said.
With the appeal. Pennsylvania court procedure mandates that the lower court’s order will automatically be stayed — meaning mail-in voting will remain legal until the high court issues a ruling.
While the decision creates another layer of uncertainty on the commonwealth’s upcoming elections, the local officials who run elections are used to it by now, after years of court fights and legislative inaction on election law.
One county election official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, expressed more displeasure about the timing than the ruling itself.
“An election director looks at this decision and says, ‘who cares?’ It’s going to be appealed,” they told the Capital-Star.
But with election day ticking closer, it does present the spectre of a time crunch in a month or two, when the state Supreme Court has to issue a final order — and “we’ll have no time to deal with the implications.”
Before Act 77, voters were restricted to two voting options specifically mentioned in the Pennsylvania state constitution — in-person at a polling place, or by absentee ballot.
“The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence,” the constitution says.
The section then mentions work, illness, or religious observances as a reason a voter may request an absentee ballot.
Combined with tight statutory timelines, Pennsylvania’s absentee ballot laws were among the strictest in the nation, and there was bipartisan agreement among state and local officials as well as advocates to loosen these standards in fall of 2019.
What got the deal done was a trade. Wolf, a Democrat, agreed to sign a bill that would remove the option of straight-ticket voting from Pennsylvania ballots — a GOP priority — as well as let any voter apply for a mail-in ballot without an excuse up to 50 days before an election.
The bill sailed through the General Assembly in about a week. Legislative Democrats were skeptical about the straight-ticket voting repeal, but Wolf called it a “giant leap forward” and signed it into law surrounded by smiling Republican lawmakers.
If passed as an amendment, it would have taken at least two years to enact it — as well as voters’ approval in a referendum.
Looking at the constitution’s language, the Wolf administration had argued that “because there is no express prohibition … against legislation establishing a new system of mail-in voting, it must be allowed,” Leavitt wrote.
Instead, she pointed to a 1920s Lancaster County voting case and a ruling on if Civil War soldiers at the front line could vote. The Legislature’s discretion applied only to picking voting machines, she argued, and the constitution’s language implies all voting, besides the specific absentee exemption, must be in-person.
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Michael Wojcik, joined by one colleague, called the argument a “faulty premise.”
Instead, Wojcik said the court should, quoting an earlier ruling, “proceed to our task by presuming constitutionality in part because … our sister branches take seriously their constitutional oaths.”
One small matter also remains unclear, Wojcik noted. While the court struck down Act 77, the majority opinion does not mention the fate of the repeal of straight ticket voting. Going off of precedent, “if the no-excuse mail-in provisions of Act 77 are found to be unconstitutional, all of Act 77’s provisions are void,” Wojcik wrote, meaning voters could once again have the option of voting for a whole ticket with one button.
But Bruce Ledewitz, a specialist in Pennsylvania constitutional law at Duquesne University Law School, said that the legal risk to Act 77 was known at the time the Legislature passed Act 77.
Ledewitz, a Capital-Star opinion contributor, pointed to a small section near the end of the 125-page statute, in which the Legislature wrote that any challenges to the law had to be filed within 180 days of its enactment.
“The Legislature knew they may be wrong, everybody knew this was exactly the issue,” Ledewitz told the Capital-Star. “It’s not shocking.”
The challenge instead came months after the window for a challenge closed, after Trump’s 2020 loss, from U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly, R-16th District, as well as a number of losing Republican candidates. The suit argued that 2.6 million mail-in votes should be invalidated, and the law tossed.
In rejecting the case, the state Supreme Court ruled on the timing and requested remedy — which would have set up a Trump victory — more than the substance of the challenge, Ledewitz noted.
In fact, at least one member of the high court,, Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy, signed onto an opinion expressing interest in hearing the full arguments against Act 77 even though she disagreed with tossing the 2020 results.
“I think both sides have a good legal case,” Ledewitz said. He expected the case might not necessarily follow party lines on the liberal-majority court.
Overall, he downplayed the eventual outcome.
“People who want to vote, vote,” Ledewitz said. “I think there’s a lot less at stake than people think there is.”
But Kadida Kenner, executive director of the New Pennsylvania Project, disagrees. Kenner, whose group tries to encourage voting and expand the electorate, was concerned that the ruling could have a chilling effect on people who don’t often engage in politics.
“This is an opportunity for someone to receive poor information, or bad information, or incomplete information and change their voting habits,” Kenner said
Mail-in ballots allow people who work multiple jobs with little day-to-day flexibility to participate in democracy, Kenner added. Removing the option here smacked of the judiciary playing politics, Kenner noted, amid widespread Republican efforts to restrict access to the ballot box.
But with an appeal likely, Kenner expressed confidence in the state Supreme Court to reverse the decision.
“We’re encouraging everyone who wants to vote by mail to keep requesting a ballot in 2022,” she said.
Pennsylvania Capital-Star is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Pennsylvania Capital-Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor John Micek for questions: email@example.com. Follow Pennsylvania Capital-Star on Facebook and Twitter.
Former Trump legal nemesis Michael Avenatti cross-examined his former star client on Friday -- and things went quickly off the rails.
Reuters reports that Avenatti spent significant time questioning Daniels about her beliefs in the paranormal, including her claimed ability to communicate with the dead.
"How do you speak with the dead?" Avenatti asked Daniels at one point.
"I don't know, it just happens sometimes," she replied, and then elaborated that "cards" and "meditation" sometimes help her talk with the deceased.
Reuters writes that Avenatti's questioning about Daniels's unorthodox beliefs in the occult were part of an effort to discredit her as a witness, although it's not clear what her purported paranormal abilities have to do with her allegations that he stole $300,000 from her.
According to ABC News legal analyst Dan Abrams, Avenatti also tried to corner undermine Daniels's complaints about his legal representation by citing past positive statements she'd made about his work.
"Didn't you tell the New York Times that watching me work was like watching the Sistine Chapel painted?" Avenatti asked her.
Daniels, however, was quick with a reply.
"That's that you told me to say," she shot back.
Avenatti became briefly famous during the Trump era when he represented Daniels after she claimed that Trump had paid her money just ahead of the 2016 presidential election to cover up their affair.
IN OTHER NEWS: Jan. 6 committee drops subpoenas for Trump’s ‘alternate electors’ in 7 states
Jan. 6 committee drops subpoenas for Trump’s ‘alternate electors’ in 7 states www.youtube.com