The bill, also known as S1 is the largest

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin said Sunday he’ll vote against his Democratic colleagues’ far-reaching election bill, the For the People Act, because it’s too partisan.

“It’s the wrong piece of legislation to bring our country together and unite our country, and I’m not supporting that because I think it would divide us more. I don’t want to be in a country that’s divided any further,” Manchin said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“I think there’s a lot of great things in that piece of legislation, but there’s an awful lot of things that basically don’t pertain directly to voting,” the senator said.

The bill, also known as S1, is the largest overhaul of U.S. election law in at least a generation and covers many aspects of the voting process, including requiring states to automatically register eligible voters and offer same-day voter registration.

The measure also requires states to offer 15 days of early voting and allows no-excuse absentee balloting, which 14 states would have to implement. The states that already allow it would have to conform to S.1’s standards.

Manchin also detailed his opposition to the For the People Act in an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette-Mail.

“Do we really want to live in an America where one party can dictate and demand everything and anything it wants, whenever it wants? I have always said, ‘If I can’t go home and explain it, I can’t vote for it.’ And I cannot explain strictly partisan election reform or blowing up the Senate rules to expedite one party’s agenda,” Manchin wrote.

Manchin reiterated his support for the filibuster in the op-ed.

“With that in mind, some Democrats have again proposed eliminating the Senate filibuster rule in order to pass the For the People Act with only Democratic support. They’ve attempted to demonize the filibuster and conveniently ignore how it has been critical to protecting the rights of Democrats in the past,” he wrote.

Rep. Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., pushed back against Manchin on Twitter and said the West Virginia lawmaker’s op-ed should be titled, “Why I’ll vote to preserve Jim Crow.” He also appeared on MSNBC and said the op-ed is “intellectually un-serious.”

Meanwhile, Manchin and another bipartisan-minded Democrat, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, are facing pressure to support the voting reform bill.

A liberal dark-money group is launching advertisements in their home states in an attempt to get their constituents in West Virginia and Arizona to pressure them into supporting the For the People Act.

“While these decisions are never easy, they are opening the door for the department to increase efficiencies as California continues to focus on reentry and rehabilitation efforts,” corrections department Secretary Kathleen Allison said in a statement.

As California and the West heads deeper into drought, experts predict this summer could bring another onslaught of deadly and destructive wildfires across the region. The increased danger comes at a time when federal firefighters, classified as “forestry technicians” by the Forest Service, are faced with a shrinking and exhausted workforce.

Among the most skilled and experienced teams, colloquially known as hotshots, only 70 percent of crews are expected to be fully staffed this year, according to the union that represents federal firefighters.

State and municipal departments are beefing up their crews in anticipation of a heightened fire threat, and California lawmakers are scrambling to fund fire suppression and prevention efforts. Recently, Newsom proposed pouring $2 billion into the state’s fire response, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein has introduced several bills in Congress to increase preparedness.

Activists have long complained that California relies too heavily on inmate firefighters, who receive $1 an hour while fighting a fire compared to a professional firefighter, who can earn $40,000 or more in their first year.

In 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15. The judge also pointed out that a Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists or feet, than by his rifle.

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers or machine guns,” Benitez said in his ruling.

“Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes. Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern.”

The judge said despite California’s ban, there currently are an estimated 185,569 “assault” weapons registered with the state – grandfathered in before California’s evolving definition of an “assault” weapon.

The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition that is among several by gun advocacy groups challenging California’s firearms laws.

It was filed on behalf of gun owners who want to use high-capacity magazines in their legal rifles or pistols, but said they can’t because doing so would turn them into illegal “assault” weapons under California law. Unlike military weapons, the semi-automatic rifles fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, and the plaintiffs say they are legal in 41 states.

The lawsuit said California is “one of only a small handful states to ban many of the most popular semiautomatic firearms in the nation because they possess one or more common characteristics, such as pistol grips and threaded barrels,” frequently but not exclusively along with detachable ammunition magazines.

Brandon Combs, the president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement that the ruling “held what millions of Americans already know to be true: Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are unconstitutional and cannot stand.”–166189822/–166189838/–166190265/–166190339/–166190357/–166189822/–166189838/–166190265/–166190339/–166190357/–166189822/–166189838/–166190265/–166190339/–166190357/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *