Secret Service Director James Murray sent an agency-wide memo on Tuesday, the details of which are being first reported by CNN, informing employees that it is considering temporarily suspending the use of texts while the agency fixes gaps in how it retains those messages, according to sources who described the memo.
The Secret Service has been under heavy criticism after the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general told Congress last month that the agency had erased text messages from the time period surrounding January 6 that had been requested by Congress.
While the agency has said that it has cooperated with the inspector general — and that messages were lost as a result of a pre-planned phone data migration in January 2021 — the memo is the latest sign that the Secret Service sees a need to change its data practices amid the backlash over the January 6 messages.
One of the sources said the Secret Service leadership made clear it would not stop the use of text messages without first understanding what kind of impact it might have on the performance of Secret Service agents. Agency employees, for instance, text with local police officers, one source said, and the agency wouldn’t want to lose that channel of communication.
There is concern, the source said, that fully disabling the agency’s texting capabilities could harm the Secret Service’s protection capabilities.
Politico first reported the agency was considering suspending the use of texts.
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Secret Service declined to comment.
The Secret Service and DHS — as well as the Defense Department — have all faced questions about missing messages around the time of January 6, as Congress, government watchdogs and the National Archives have all demanded answers into how the messages were deleted. The DHS inspector general told the Secret Service last month his office was conducting a criminal investigation into possible erased text messages.
The Secret Service memo says that the agency has a four-point plan to prevent data loss and fulfill obligations to preserve records, according to one source. The memo states that there were regulatory and security reasons why the agency’s text messages weren’t backed up on a server but said that significant efforts are underway to cover the gap between technological capability and record preservation requirements.
The Secret Service’s chief information officer and executive resources board plan to assess the benefits and impacts of suspending the use of text messages temporarily until a technological solution is identified, the memo states.
The effort is also intended to serve as a roadmap for the next Secret Service director, as Murray had planned to retire before saying he would remain in place until a new director is appointed.
According to the lawsuit, the National Archives learned of Navarro’s private account from the House committee investigating the government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, which obtained messages from the previously unknown email address.
Between 200 and 250 of the emails on Navarro’s private account should have been given to the National Archives, prosecutors say.
Navarro, however, did not copy these messages to his official government email account, according to prosecutors, and when the archivist attempted to contact Navarro in order to secure these records, Navarro did not respond.
The lawsuit is a bold and unusual enforcement move by the Justice Department’s Federal Programs Branch — which pursues civil, not criminal, matters — to strike at allegedly sloppy federal records maintenance during the Trump administration.
Public records advocates have long taken issue with lost, never-created or deleted records, but the Justice Department has rarely sued former administration officials over the Presidential Records Act.
“Mr. Navarro has refused to return any Presidential records that he retained absent a grant of immunity for the act of returning such documents,” the lawsuit says, adding that Navarro “is wrongfully retaining Presidential records that are the property of the United States, and which constitute part of the permanent historical record of the prior administration.”
The lawsuit says that Justice Department officials attempted to negotiate with Navarro and his legal team to obtain a copy of the emails, but Navarro refused unless he was given “a grant of immunity” in exchange. It is not clear what Navarro wanted immunity from.
The former trade adviser is facing separate contempt of Congress charges after failing to comply with a subpoena by the House select committee investigating January 6, 2021. In July, Navarro rejected a plea offer, claiming that former President Donald Trump told him he was covered by executive privilege.
Navarro’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“I am devastated and saddened to learn about the tragic passing of my dear friend Jackie Walorksi and two of her staffers,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise announced in a statement.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced Walorski’s death, sharing a statement from the family.
“Dean Swihart, Jackie’s husband, was just informed by Elkhart County Sheriff’s office that Jackie was killed in a car accident this afternoon. She has returned home to be with her Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Please keep her family in your thoughts and prayers We will have no further comment at this time,” read a message from the congresswoman’s office that McCarthy tweeted.
A statement released by the congresswoman’s office said that two staffers had also died. “In addition to the devastating loss of Congresswoman Walorski, it is with a broken heart that I announce the passing of two dedicated members of her staff, Zach Potts and Emma Thomson. They were the epitome of public servants who cared deeply about the work they performed,” said the statement from Tim Cummings, the congresswoman’s chief of staff.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered flags at the Capitol to be flown at half-staff in response to the death of the congresswoman, Pelosi deputy chief of staff Drew Hammill announced Wednesday afternoon.
News of the congresswoman’s death and the death of two of her staffers came as a major shock on Capitol Hill and immediately sparked an outpouring of grief and remembrances from lawmakers and aides who paid tribute to their lives and careers.
The congresswoman was viewed inside the House Republican conference as someone who could one day ascend to the ranks of GOP leadership, and her name had been batted around for the position of conference chairwoman in the past. She had been a member of the House GOP’s deputy whip team.
Walorski, who was 58, represented Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District and had previously served as a member of the Indiana House of Representatives. She began serving in Congress in 2013.
The congresswoman served as the top Republican on the House Ethics Committee, a spot that put her in line to become chair of the panel if the GOP retakes the House majority in the upcoming midterm elections. She also served as the ranking GOP member for a subcommittee of the powerful House Ways and Means committee.
GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming tweeted in reaction to the news, “There was no more dedicated or effective member of Congress than Jackie,” adding, “I was proud to be her friend.”
This story has been updated with additional developments Wednesday.
And in a private call with business groups on Tuesday, Sinema asked a question about the bill’s proposed 15% minimum tax on corporations that gave them some hope for optimism.
“Is this written in a way that’s bad?” Sinema asked, according to Danny Seiden, president of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, who relayed the call to CNN.
“It gave me hope that she’s willing to open this up and maybe make it better,” Seiden said.
Sinema’s office declined to comment on the call. But she has expressed concerns about other tax provisions as well — namely on raising taxes on so-called carried interest, which would impact private equity and hedge fund managers, and raise $14 billion in the Democrats’ bill. Sinema has relayed to top Democrats that she wants that provision out of the bill, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Sinema, the lone holdout among the 50-member Senate Democratic Caucus and who was blindsided by news of the deal last week, has refused to tip her hand one way or the other on the bill — giving conservative critics of the bill reason to believe they could convince her to change her mind. Democrats are still confident that they can win her over from her but also acknowledge that they may have to make some changes – particularly over the tax provisions – to get her to “yes.”
But as she’s been in talks with Democrats who have touted the bill’s benefits, Republicans like Senate Minority Whip John Thune have expressed concerns to her about the taxes on companies and the proposal to hire new IRS agents to bolster tax enforcement.
“She’s analyzing it,” the South Dakota Republican said of Sinema. “Ella Keeps her own counsel, I think as most of you know, and usually comes to her own decisions de ella, pretty independent of any pressure that she might get from either side. So you know, I think she’s going through that process right now.”
At a conference news on Wednesday, where Republican senators railed against the proposed tax hikes, Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo said senators were privately making the same case to Sinema.
“We are making this case that we’ve made here to you today as aggressively as we can,” Crapo said.
On Wednesday, Sinema indicated to CNN that she was in no hurry to announce her position on the bill. “Taking my time,” she said. Her spokesperson reiterated that Sinema was waiting for the review by the Senate parliamentarian to be completed before announcing her position.
But last fall, Sinema indicated her support for a corporate minimum tax, saying at the time that it’s a “common sense” proposal to ensure that “highly profitable corporations” pay their share of taxes. The proposal was developed last fall with her input from her after she rejected calls to raise corporate income tax rates, a Democratic aid said Wednesday.
In the private call with Sinema on Tuesday, Seiden expressed the business community’s opposition to the 15% tax provision, noting it would particularly hit manufacturers that take advantage of an accelerated depreciation tax deduction that lowers their tax burden. (Seiden said National Association of Manufacturers president Jay Timmons was also on the call; A NAM representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
Seiden told CNN that Sinema did not “tip her hand” on any particular provision, asked for more information on how the bill affects Arizona, but asked that question, which gave him hope that she would be open to somehow amending the bill’s tax proposals.
“She did not tip her hand, tip her hat, in any way, shape or form,” Seiden said. “It was a pure listening moment for her, collecting information, soliciting information, just like any good representative would do.”
In the meantime, she’s hearing arguments from both sides. On the Senate floor Tuesday night, a number of senators from both parties approached the senator, including Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, GOP Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state and Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia.
Democratic leaders acknowledge they are uncertain where she will come down.
“She didn’t tell me or give me any signals as to where she’s going on this bill,” Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic whip, said of a recent conversation he had with the senator. “We need her, we need every single vote, so I hope she’ll be with us.”
While Democrats say the bill would ensure large corporations don’t avoid paying taxes, instilling “fairness” into the tax code, the Arizona Chamber president argued that a minimum corporate tax makes the code “overly complicated.” Seiden said that raising taxes during a recession is particularly unpopular and would inject more uncertainty into the marketplace.
“The meeting went great,” said Seiden of his call with Sinema. “She knows that our businesses are struggling, because of inflation, because of supply chain issues. So anything that will impact or make that worse or halt the economic growth that we’ve seen, she’s very sensitive towards that.”
Seiden thanked Sinema for her work on the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the recent legislation boosting semiconductor manufacturing, but said the “the celebration of the Chips Act is short-lived” if some of the tax provisions remain untouched in the bill negotiated by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin.
Seiden said he would like to see some of the energy and environmental pieces go through without the “poison pill” tax provisions, acknowledging that some elements of the energy sector support provisions like the tax credits for electric vehicles. Nikola Corporation and Lucid Group, two electric vehicle manufacturers, have operations in Arizona.
Corporations are hoping that Sinema, the crucial vote in the 50-50 Senate, will make changes to the bill, pointing to her previous statements.
In April, Sinema told the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, “I am unwilling to support any tax policies that would put a break on that type of economic growth, or stall business and personal growth for America’s industries.”
“You all know, the entire country knows, that I am opposed to raising the corporate income tax,” Sinema said. “That was true yesterday and it is true today.”
Sinema already has effectively pushed back on raising personal and corporate tax rates in President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better bill, one reason she is being attacked by the left.
If she doesn’t back the bill, a potential 2024 challenger warned it would come back to haunt her.
“I think there’s going to be some consequences at the ballot box for her,” said Arizona Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego, who has expressed interest in possibly mounting a primary campaign against Sinema.
John LaBombard, a former Sinema spokesperson, said that Sinema is looking for “good, effective policy that is not going to carry any unintended consequences” and would be “impervious” to political considerations.
“I’ve not met someone more impervious to political pressure than Kyrsten Sinema,” LaBombard said.
This story and headline have been updated with additional developments Wednesday.
CNN’s Jessica Dean and Morgan Rimmer contributed to this report.
His lawyer, Amanda Bevins, appeared on his behalf at an arraignment in Napa County Superior Court in California and entered a plea of not guilty to the charges, which were brought after Pelosi was arrested on May 28 after having been involved in a nighttime collision.
Pelosi, who did not appear in court on Wednesday, will remain free on his own recognizance and is due back in court on August 23.
The 82-year-old had been attempting to cross SR-29 in late May when his 2021 Porsche was hit by a 2014 Jeep traveling northbound on the road, according to a collision report from the California Highway Patrol. The vehicles “sustained major collision damage,” according to a criminal complaint.
The complaint noted that Pelosi was operating his vehicle “while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage and a drug and under their combined influence.” Authorities said in the complaint that when asked for ID at the scene, Pelosi handed the officers both his license from him and an “11-99 Foundation” card. The foundation is the California Highway Patrol charity, which “provides emergency assistance to California Highway Patrol employees and scholarships to their children,” according to its website.
The punishment for the misdemeanor charges “includes up to five years of probation, a minimum of five days in jail, installation of an ignition interlock device, fines and fees, completion of a court ordered drinking driver class and other terms, according to a release from the Napa County District Attorney’s Office.
Pelosi completed sobriety tests at the time of the incident “showing signs of impairment,” according to a criminal complaint. The criminal complaint noted that California Highway Patrol determined Pelosi “was the proximate cause of the collision.”
A native of San Francisco, he has been married to Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, since 1963. The two have five children.
Kinzinger told CNN’s Brianna Keilar on “New Day” that the subpoena likely signals that the Justice Department’s investigation has a “very deep interest” in what Trump did.
“I hope Pat Cipollone actually just tells the truth. I have no doubt that he hasn’t. But there is no reason to protect particularly criminal behavior, what could potentially be criminal behavior behind executive privilege,” the Illinois Republican said. “So we’ll see where this goes. But there is no doubt that this investigation has developed further along than where we even knew it was or thought it was a few months ago.”
CNN reported Tuesday that the former White House counsel had been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to a source familiar with the matter. The revelation marks a significant escalation in the department’s probe into the plots to subvert the 2020 election.
Cipollone and his attorneys are in discussions about an appearance before the grand jury, including how to deal with executive privilege issues, the source said.
“I think in terms of their negotiations, obviously the Justice Department knows better what they can go around when it comes to saying executive privilege. And so I hope they, you know, go at that judiciously,” Kinzinger said.
Cipollone testified last month in a closed-door interview with the January 6 committee, and in its seventh public hearing, the panel played clips where he agreed with other Trump officials that there was insufficient evidence of election fraud and said that he believed Trump should have grant the election.
Kinzinger declined to get into details Wednesday of whether the January 6 committee and the Justice Department are cooperating related to Cipollone’s testimony to the panel.
Blake Masters, the onetime venture capitalist, will secure the Republican nomination for the US Senate, while Arizona Republicans have chosen state Rep. Mark Finchem, an election denier, as their nominee to take the helm of the state’s election machinery, CNN projects. And in the attorney general’s race, Trump’s preferred candidate, election denier Abraham Hamadeh, won the Republican nomination, CNN also projects.
Masters will face Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, who was unopposed in his primary Tuesday, in what’s expected to be one of the nation’s most competitive, and expensive, midterm match-ups, with control of the 50-50 Senate on the line.
Masters was chief operating officer of GOP meganor Peter Thiel’s investment firm, and his campaign was backed by more than $15 million in spending by Thiel.
Masters, who has spread lies about the results of the 2020 election and accused Democrats of trying to “change the demographics” of the country, defeated businessman Jim Lamon and Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, among others, in the GOP primary Tuesday.
Finchem is aiming to be the chief elections officer in a state that conducts its voting largely by mail and has been the target of a series of conspiracy theories advanced by Trump and his allies, who falsely allege that the 2020 election was stolen from the former President . The Arizona secretary of state is the state’s second-highest executive elected official and first in line to succeed the governor, as the state does not have a lieutenant governor.
Finchem was a member of the far-right “Oath Keepers” in 2014 and was an organizer of the “Stop the Steal” movement spurred by Trump’s lies about election fraud.
He’ll face the winner of the Democratic primary between Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes and state Rep. Reginald Bolding.
Finchem has said the state legislature should be able to overturn the will of voters in presidential elections — a position that, if embraced by Republicans after November’s election, could lead to a crisis in the 2024 election in one of the nation’s most competitive battleground states. .
Finchem believes the legislature should be able to overturn voters’ will. Two other Republican candidates in the race supported stricter election laws but rejected the kinds of lies about election fraud that Finchem has advanced.
Premier Mark McGowan and billionaire Clive Palmer have been found to have defamed each other during their vicious war of words in 2020 — but the harm done was minor, according to the Federal Court — as they were the damages awarded.
Delivering his judgment today, Justice Michael Lee said the defenses of both sides to allegations of defamation had failed — and the back-and-forth barbs had been defamatory.
But because the Federal Court judge found that both were involved in political argument — as nasty as it was — finding “real or material” damage was almost impossible.
He declined to award claimed aggravated damages to Mr Palmer, and said he could not find he suffered any real damage from Mr McGowan’s comments.
He assessed the damage to Mr Palmer’s reputation warranted an award of $5,000.
And Justice Lee then pointed to Mr McGowan’s landslide election victory as to the fact his reputation was not damaged by Mr Palmer — and might actually have been enhanced.
However, he said Mr Palmer’s comments warranted an award of $20,000 to the Premier.
In summing up the case, Justice Lee said arguments that neither side was involved in political posturing was “unpersuasive and superficial”.
He said amid the feud, the pair had both taken the opportunities to advance their political stance — particularly Mr McGowan, who he said “had a bully pulpit”.
And he concluded the “game had not been worth the candle” — taking up valuable resources from the court and the WA taxpayer.
The defamation case between the Premier and the billionaire stemmed from public barbs traded more than two years ago, as the pandemic was still spreading — and with Mr Palmer’s $30 billion claim against WA not yet public.
In press conferences of varying ferocity, Mr McGowan labeled the mining magnate the “enemy of the state” and “the enemy of Australia.”
In response, Mr Palmer allegedly implied Mr McGowan lied to West Australians about the pandemic — and was willing to accept bribes from Chinese interests.
That prompted both Mr Palmer to sue, and Mr McGowan to sue right back – with both men called to personally give evidence, which at times bordered on the bizarre.
During the sometimes florid and emotional testimony, both Mr McGowan and his Queensland adversary made striking claims about how the other’s words had impacted.
The Premier linked the verbal Mr Palmer’s attacks on him to the threats of physical attack from others, which he said left him fearing for the safety of his wife and children.
He promotes these ideas. He encourages all these people to weaponise themselves physically against my family.
“He is the sort of person who gets a band of people out there who believe this stuff. A band of followers he acquires who get wound up and outraged,” Mr McGowan said.
“He promotes these ideas. He encourages all these people to weaponise themselves physically against my family.”
And Mr Palmer went as far as claiming he believed Mr McGowan had granted himself a James Bond-style “license to kill” – and might use it to murder the mining magnate and get away with it.
That clause, he claimed, was his reading of the so-called ‘Palmer Act’ – the extraordinary piece of legislation drafted and passed in haste to kill off Mr Palmer’s mega-bucks royalties claim from the Balmoral South iron ore project in the Pilbara region .
“I then thought about James Bond movies… how would you license someone to kill? I didn’t know what the limits might be,” Mr Palmer told the court.
WA Premier Mark McGowan. Credit: News Corp Australia
“I reached a view that that’s what I thought it enabled them to do if they wanted to at an extreme level… that was a level of concern.
“To my mind, that meant that they could make offenses under the criminal code and not be held liable for them.”
Embedded within the case — and teased out by the lawyers — were communications between Mr McGowan and state attorney general John Quigley, which revealed the level of enmity within the WA government towards Palmer.
In them, Mr Palmer was referred to as fat, as a liar, as a turd and as “the worst Australian who is not in jail.”
Mr Quigley texted that he was working on a “poison pill for the fat man”.
And the 73-year old attorney general even referenced his own love life, asking Mr McGowan: “Are you glad me single again?.”
“Not making love in sweet hours before dawn – instead worrying how to defeat Clive,” Mr Quigley admitted.
That opened him up to being called as a witness — which opened another can of worms. Because Mr Quigley’s performance on the witness stand prompted accusations that he lied on oath, and he had to admit making glaring errors in his evidence of him.
“I gave inaccurate evidence to the court,” Mr Quigley said. “I am embarrassed about them (the answers). What I said was wrong.
Justice Lee summed up his thoughts on Mr Quigley’s courtroom performance abruptly: “Not dishonest — but all over the shop”.
John Quigley. Credit: DEAN LEWINS/AAPIMAGE
In his summary to the case on Tuesday, Justice Lee cited a quote from British politician Enoch Powell, saying politicians complaining about the press was like a “ship’s captain complaining about the sea”.
And he said the war of words between Mr McGowan and Mr Palmer was the “hurly burly” of two politicians arguing about political issues — predominantly the WA response to the Covid 19 pandemic, and the state response to Mr Palmer’s claim of $30 billion in damages.
Justice Lee also commented that the legislation which blocked that claim proceeded with the “speed of summer lightning”.
He described Mr Palmer’s evidence that he feared for his life at the hands of the WA government was “fantastic” — and “so unbelievable” that it undermined his other evidence.
“Not safe to place any particular reliance on it,” Justice Lee said.
And on Mr McGowan, Justice Lee said he was largely an “impressive witness” — but sometimes fell into the “muscle memory” of non-responsive answers.
And of Mr Quigley, Justice Lee said his evidence was both “confused and confusing”.
“Being a confused witness is quite different from being a dishonest one,” Justice Lee said. “Mr Quigley was not a reliable historian of events.”
Arguments about costs of the case, and who will pay them, will be made later this month.
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas voters on Tuesday sent a resounding message about their desire to protect abortion rights, rejecting a ballot measure in a conservative state with deep ties to the anti-abortion movement that would have allowed the Republican-controlled Legislature to tighten restrictions or ban the procedure outright.
It was the first test of voter sentiment after the US Supreme Court’s decision in June that overturned the constitutional right to abortion, providing an unexpected result with potential implications for the coming midterm elections.
While it was just one state, the heavy turnout for an August primary that typically favors Republicans was a major victory for abortion rights advocates. With most of the vote counted, they were prevailing by roughly 20 percentage points, with the turnout approaching what’s typical for a fall election for governor.
The vote also provided a dash of hope for Democrats nationwide grasping for a game-changer during an election year otherwise filled with dark omens for their prospects in November.
“This vote makes clear what we know: the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and should have the right to make their own health care decisions,” President Joe Biden said in a statement.
After calling on Congress to “restore the protections of Roe” in federal law, Biden added, “And, the American people must continue to use their voices to protect the right to women’s health care, including abortion.”
The Kansas vote also provided a warning to Republicans who had celebrated the Supreme Court ruling and were moving swiftly with abortion bans or near-bans in nearly half the states.
“Kansans bluntly rejected anti-abortion politicians’ attempts at creating a reproductive police state,” said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of the Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity. ”Today’s vote was a powerful rebuke and a promise of the mounting resistance.”
The proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution would have added language stating that it does not grant the right to abortion. A 2019 state Supreme Court decision declared that access to abortion is a “fundamental” right under the state’s Bill of Rights, preventing a ban and potentially thwarting legislative efforts to enact new restrictions.
The referendum was closely watched as a barometer of liberal and moderate voters’ anger over the Supreme Court’s ruling scrapping the nationwide right to abortion. In Kansas, abortion opponents wouldn’t say what legislation they’d pursue if the amendment were passed and bristled when opponents predicted it would lead to a ban.
Mallory Carroll, a spokesperson for the national anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, described the vote as “a huge disappointment” for the movement and called on anti-abortion candidates to “go on the offensive.”
She added that after the US Supreme Court ruling, “We must work exponentially harder to achieve and maintain protections for unborn children and their mothers.”
The measure’s failure was also significant because of Kansas’ connections to anti-abortion activists. Anti-abortion “Summer of Mercy” protests in 1991 inspired abortion opponents to take over the Kansas Republican Party and make the Legislature more conservative. They were there because Dr. George Tiller’s clinic was among the few in the US known to do abortions late in pregnancy, and he was murdered in 2009 by an anti-abortion extremist.
Anti-abortion lawmakers wanted to have the vote coincide with the state’s August primary, arguing they wanted to make sure it got the focus, though others saw it as an obvious attempt to increase their chances of winning. Twice as many Republicans as Democrats have voted in the state’s August primaries in the decade leading up to Tuesday’s election.
“This outcome is a temporary setback, and our fight dedicated to value women and babies is far from over,” said Emily Massey, a spokesperson for the pro-amendment campaign.
The electorate in Tuesday’s vote wasn’t typical for a Kansas primary, particularly because tens of thousands of unaffiliated voters cast ballots.
Kristy Winter, 52, a Kansas City-area teacher and unaffiliated voter, voted against the measure and brought her 16-year-old daughter with her to her polling place.
“I want her to have the same right to do what she feels is necessary, mostly in the case of rape or incest,” she said. “I want her to have the same rights my mother has had most of her life from her.”
Opponents of the measure predicted that the anti-abortion groups and lawmakers behind the measure would push quickly for an abortion ban if voters approved it. Before the vote, the measure’s supporters refused to say whether they would pursue a ban as they appealed to voters who supported both some restrictions and some access to abortion.
Stephanie Kostreva, a 40-year-old school nurse from the Kansas City area and a Democrat, said she voted in favor of the measure because she is a Christian and believes life begins at conception.
“I’m not full scale that there should never be an abortion,” she said. “I know there are medical emergencies, and when the mother’s life is in danger there is no reason for two people to die.”
An anonymous group sent a misleading text Monday to Kansas voters telling them to “vote yes” to protect choice, but it was suspended late Monday from the Twilio messaging platform it was using, a spokesperson said. Twilio did not identify the sender.
The 2019 Kansas Supreme Court decision protecting abortion rights blocked a law that banned the most common second-trimester procedure, and another law imposing special health regulations on abortion providers also is on hold. Abortion opponents argued that all of the state’s existing restrictions were in danger, though some legal scholars found that argument dubious. Kansas doesn’t ban most abortions until the 22nd week of pregnancy.
The Kansas vote is the start of what could be a long-running series of legal battles playing out where lawmakers are more conservative on abortion than governors or state courts. Kentucky will vote in November on whether to add language similar to Kansas’ proposed amendment to its state constitution.
Meanwhile, Vermont will decide in November whether to add an abortion rights provision to its constitution. A similar question is likely headed to the November ballot in Michigan.
In Kansas, both sides together spent more than $14 million on their campaigns. Abortion providers and abortion rights groups were key donors to the “no” side, while Catholic dioceses heavily funded the “yes” campaign.
The state has had strong anti-abortion majorities in its Legislature for 30 years, but voters have regularly elected Democratic governors, including Laura Kelly in 2018. She opposed the proposed amendment, saying changing the state constitution would “throw the state back into the Dark Ages.”
State Attorney General Derek Schmidt, a Republican hoping to unseat Kelly, supported the proposed constitutional amendment. He told the Catholic television network EWTN before the election that “there’s still room for progress” in decreasing abortions, without spelling out what he would sign as governor.
Although abortion opponents pushed almost annually for new restrictions until the 2019 state Supreme Court ruling, they felt constrained by past court rulings and Democratic governors like Kelly.
___
Stafford reported from Overland Park and Olathe.
___
Follow John Hanna on Twitter at https://twitter.com/apjdhanna. For more AP coverage of the abortion issue, go to https://apnews.com/hub/abortion.
Signs are displayed by a road in Lenexa, Kansas, on Monday. (Kyle Rivas/Getty Images)
Kansas on Tuesday became the first state in the nation to let voters weigh in on abortion since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
The closely watched vote offers the first popular look at voter sentiment in the wake of the decision striking down Roe, which eliminated a federal right to abortion and sent the matter back to the states.
Voters regardless of political affiliation were asked whether to amend the state constitution to remove a protected right to abortion. The procedure is currently legal up to 22 weeks in Kansas, where people from Texas, Oklahoma and Missouri have traveled for services amid Republican-led efforts to roll back abortion rights.
The text of the Tuesday’s question reads: “Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”
A majority vote for “yes” would result in the state constitution being amended to say that it “does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion.”
While such a vote would not ban abortion, it would be up to the GOP-controlled state legislature to pass laws regarding the procedure, including ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy without exceptions for rape and incest. And removing state constitutional protections would significantly curtail the ability of an individual to challenge a restrictive abortion measure.
to “no” vote would leave the state constitution unchanged, and abortions up to 22 weeks would remain legal. Lawmakers could still pass restrictive abortion laws, but the state would have to meet a higher threshold providing that it has a reason to enact the law in court.
Until now, the courts have recognized a right to abortion under the state constitution. Lawmakers had passed a restrictive abortion law in 2015 that would have banned the dilation and evacuation procedure, but it was permanently blocked by the courts.
When the Kansas state Supreme Court in 2019 ruled on the law, it said that the right to an abortion was protected under Section 1 of the Kansas constitution’s Bill of Rights, which reads, “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
The issue was placed on the primary ballot, rather than the general election, which abortion rights advocates believe was intended in order to limit turnout. Registered Republicans outnumber Democrats in the state by more than 350,000, according to the latest figures from the Kansas Secretary of State’s office.
The constitutional amendment has already raised voter interest in the primary election, according to the Kansas Secretary of State’s office.
CNN’s Nick Valencia and Devon Sayers contributed to this report.
