Latest news with #ByrdRule
Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
FACT FOCUS: Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' does not let him delay or cancel elections
Social media users are falsely claiming that President Donald Trump's sprawling tax bill, which passed the Senate Tuesday after a turbulent overnight session, will give Trump undue influence over U.S. elections. 'The reason the GOP isn't concerned about the midterms and why they are pushing this bill is because it gives Trump power to cancel elections,' reads one X post. 'If this bill passes — it's the end of the country. Democracy is over.' The bill contains no such provision. Here's a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: President Donald Trump's tax bill will allow him to delay or cancel elections. THE FACTS: That's false. There is nothing in the legislation that would allow Trump, or any future president, to stop an election from going forward. According to legal experts, a constitutional amendment would have to pass for anyone to have the ability to cancel a federal election. The timing of elections for federal offices is stipulated in federal law and it is highly unlikely that Congress would pass a bill allowing the president to change that timing, experts said. 'Although President Trump might like to cancel or postpone an upcoming election if he thought his party was going to fare poorly, the One Big Beautiful Bill does not actually grant him that power,' said Barry Burden, director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Elections Research Center and a political science professor. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson called the false claims 'obviously fake news.' Burden and other experts agree that these allegations may stem from a misunderstanding of a section of the bill on judicial enforcement that was included in the version passed by the House. That section was removed from the bill after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that it violates the so-called Byrd Rule, which essentially bars policy matters in budget reconciliation bills. Section 70302 could have made it easier for Trump to disregard federal court rulings, requiring parties seeking preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders to put down a 'security,' such as a cash bond, before the court could issue contempt penalties. Regardless, such a provision would not allow Trump to delay or cancel elections, even if he tried. 'If Trump announced, I'm canceling the elections, that has as much power as my announcing I'm canceling the elections,' said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Marymount University who specializes in constitutional law and the law of democracy. Asked whether section 70302 would have given Trump power over whether elections occur, Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, replied, 'Obviously not.' The U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the power to set the time of elections, subject to any laws Congress enacts that 'make or alter such Regulations.' Congress set standard federal election dates with a series of laws, starting in 1845. That year, it was determined that states would choose presidential electors 'the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November.' Presidential elections have been held every four years on this day since 1848, including through the Civil War, World War I and World War II. Congress aligned House elections with presidential races in 1872 and in 1914 aligned the election of Senators with biennial House elections. The Constitution states that the term for president and vice president is four years, the term for senators is six years and the term for representatives is two years. Unless they are reelected, there is no mechanism for any of these officials to remain in office after their term ends. Only a constitutional amendment could change this. Some states have a provision that allows voting in federal races to continue after Election Day in 'extraordinary and catastrophic' circumstances, such as a natural disaster. There is no other way to delay a federal election. Levitt explained that theoretically Congress could pass a law giving the president the power to choose when a federal election happens, but that such a scenario is 'extremely unlikely.' ___ Find AP Fact Checks here:
San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
FACT FOCUS: Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' does not let him delay or cancel elections
Social media users are falsely claiming that President Donald Trump's sprawling tax bill, which passed the Senate Tuesday after a turbulent overnight session, will give Trump undue influence over U.S. elections. 'The reason the GOP isn't concerned about the midterms and why they are pushing this bill is because it gives Trump power to cancel elections,' reads one X post. 'If this bill passes — it's the end of the country. Democracy is over.' The bill contains no such provision. Here's a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: President Donald Trump's tax bill will allow him to delay or cancel elections. THE FACTS: That's false. There is nothing in the legislation that would allow Trump, or any future president, to stop an election from going forward. According to legal experts, a constitutional amendment would have to pass for anyone to have the ability to cancel a federal election. The timing of elections for federal offices is stipulated in federal law and it is highly unlikely that Congress would pass a bill allowing the president to change that timing, experts said. 'Although President Trump might like to cancel or postpone an upcoming election if he thought his party was going to fare poorly, the One Big Beautiful Bill does not actually grant him that power,' said Barry Burden, director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Elections Research Center and a political science professor. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson called the false claims 'obviously fake news.' Burden and other experts agree that these allegations may stem from a misunderstanding of a section of the bill on judicial enforcement that was included in the version passed by the House. That section was removed from the bill after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that it violates the so-called Byrd Rule, which essentially bars policy matters in budget reconciliation bills. Section 70302 could have made it easier for Trump to disregard federal court rulings, requiring parties seeking preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders to put down a 'security,' such as a cash bond, before the court could issue contempt penalties. Regardless, such a provision would not allow Trump to delay or cancel elections, even if he tried. 'If Trump announced, I'm canceling the elections, that has as much power as my announcing I'm canceling the elections,' said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Marymount University who specializes in constitutional law and the law of democracy. Asked whether section 70302 would have given Trump power over whether elections occur, Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, replied, 'Obviously not.' Congress set standard federal election dates with a series of laws, starting in 1845. That year, it was determined that states would choose presidential electors 'the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November.' Presidential elections have been held every four years on this day since 1848, including through the Civil War, World War I and World War II. Congress aligned House elections with presidential races in 1872 and in 1914 aligned the election of Senators with biennial House elections. The Constitution states that the term for president and vice president is four years, the term for senators is six years and the term for representatives is two years. Unless they are reelected, there is no mechanism for any of these officials to remain in office after their term ends. Only a constitutional amendment could change this. Some states have a provision that allows voting in federal races to continue after Election Day in 'extraordinary and catastrophic' circumstances, such as a natural disaster. There is no other way to delay a federal election. Levitt explained that theoretically Congress could pass a law giving the president the power to choose when a federal election happens, but that such a scenario is 'extremely unlikely.' ___
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
FACT FOCUS: Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' does not let him delay or cancel elections
Social media users are falsely claiming that President Donald Trump's sprawling tax bill, which passed the Senate Tuesday after a turbulent overnight session, will give Trump undue influence over U.S. elections. 'The reason the GOP isn't concerned about the midterms and why they are pushing this bill is because it gives Trump power to cancel elections,' reads one X post. 'If this bill passes — it's the end of the country. Democracy is over.' The bill contains no such provision. Here's a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: President Donald Trump's tax bill will allow him to delay or cancel elections. THE FACTS: That's false. There is nothing in the legislation that would allow Trump, or any future president, to stop an election from going forward. According to legal experts, a constitutional amendment would have to pass for anyone to have the ability to cancel a federal election. The timing of elections for federal offices is stipulated in federal law and it is highly unlikely that Congress would pass a bill allowing the president to change that timing, experts said. 'Although President Trump might like to cancel or postpone an upcoming election if he thought his party was going to fare poorly, the One Big Beautiful Bill does not actually grant him that power,' said Barry Burden, director of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Elections Research Center and a political science professor. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson called the false claims 'obviously fake news.' Burden and other experts agree that these allegations may stem from a misunderstanding of a section of the bill on judicial enforcement that was included in the version passed by the House. That section was removed from the bill after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that it violates the so-called Byrd Rule, which essentially bars policy matters in budget reconciliation bills. Section 70302 could have made it easier for Trump to disregard federal court rulings, requiring parties seeking preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders to put down a 'security,' such as a cash bond, before the court could issue contempt penalties. Regardless, such a provision would not allow Trump to delay or cancel elections, even if he tried. 'If Trump announced, I'm canceling the elections, that has as much power as my announcing I'm canceling the elections,' said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Marymount University who specializes in constitutional law and the law of democracy. Asked whether section 70302 would have given Trump power over whether elections occur, Richard Pildes, a professor of constitutional law at New York University, replied, 'Obviously not.' The U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the power to set the time of elections, subject to any laws Congress enacts that 'make or alter such Regulations.' Congress set standard federal election dates with a series of laws, starting in 1845. That year, it was determined that states would choose presidential electors 'the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November.' Presidential elections have been held every four years on this day since 1848, including through the Civil War, World War I and World War II. Congress aligned House elections with presidential races in 1872 and in 1914 aligned the election of Senators with biennial House elections. The Constitution states that the term for president and vice president is four years, the term for senators is six years and the term for representatives is two years. Unless they are reelected, there is no mechanism for any of these officials to remain in office after their term ends. Only a constitutional amendment could change this. Some states have a provision that allows voting in federal races to continue after Election Day in 'extraordinary and catastrophic' circumstances, such as a natural disaster. There is no other way to delay a federal election. Levitt explained that theoretically Congress could pass a law giving the president the power to choose when a federal election happens, but that such a scenario is 'extremely unlikely.' ___ Find AP Fact Checks here:
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Democrats fail to overturn ruling that tax cuts in GOP megabill don't add to deficit
The Senate voted along party lines Monday that making the expiring 2017 tax cuts permanent as part of President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' could be scored as deficit neutral and therefore comply with the Byrd Rule, allowing the bill to pass with a simple-majority vote. Democrats failed to defeat the ruling by the Senate chair, which Republicans control, that the chamber's 940-page One Big, Beautiful Bill Act does not violate the 1974 Congressional Budget Act by using a controversial 'current policy' baseline to score the extension of President Trump's expiring tax cuts as not adding to the deficit. If the tax portion of the bill were scored on a 'current law' baseline, which assumes the 2017 Trump tax cuts would expire at the end of 2025, then it would add an estimated $3.5 trillion to federal deficits between 2025-34 and would add to deficits after 2034 — beyond the 10-year budget window allowed by the Byrd Rule. Scored this way, the Republican bill would fail the rule, which governs what legislation is eligible to pass the Senate with a simple-majority vote on the reconciliation fast track, and Republicans would be forced to rewrite large parts of the measure. But when scored with a 'current policy' baseline, the Congressional Budget Office projects the tax cuts in the Finance Committee's section of the bill would increase deficits by not more than $1.5 trillion between 2025-34 and would not increase on-budget deficits after 2034. Democrats argued a current policy baseline had never been used before in a budget reconciliation bill, and had never been used to score an extension of expiring tax cuts as not adding to future deficits, and therefore was not in compliance with the Senate's Byrd Rule. And Democrats highlighted over the weekend that most of the Republican reconciliation package uses a 'current law' baseline to project the cost of the legislation. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) accused Republicans of 'deploying fake math and budgetary hocus-pocus to make it seem like their billionaire giveaways don't cost anything.' Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) accused Republicans of 'going nuclear' to blow up the Senate rules so they can make Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent. 'This is the nuclear option. It's just hidden behind a whole lot of Washington, D.C., lingo,' Wyden said on the floor. Wyden pointed out through a parliamentary inquiry that the Finance portion of the bill used two different baselines, current policy and current law. Senate Democrats had tried to schedule a meeting with Republican Budget Committee staff and with the parliamentarian to discuss whether using a current policy baseline violated Senate precedent and the Byrd Rule, but Republicans 'flat-out refused' to participate in such a meeting, according to a person familiar with the conversations. Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday morning that Republicans are not overruling the parliamentarian and asserted the parliamentarian has said it is up to him as Budget chair to set the baseline. And he argued Democrats in the past have supported the use of a current policy baseline to project the cost of legislation, although it hasn't been done before for a budget reconciliation package. He noted former Democratic Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad (N.D.) used a current policy baseline for a past farm bill. Republicans also point out former President Obama's budget office supported using a current policy baseline to score the extension of the expiring tax cuts from the George W. Bush era at the end of 2012. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said on the floor Monday that former Obama Director of the Office of Management and Budget Jeff Zients supported using the current policy baseline for the 2012 fiscal cliff deal. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
2 days ago
- Health
- The Hill
Senate bill allowed to ‘defund' Planned Parenthood
A Senate GOP provision that would block Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood will remain in the massive tax and spending bill after the Senate parliamentarian on Monday advised the language does not violate the chamber's Byrd Rule. The ruling from Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough comes after Senate Republicans updated the provision late Friday night to change the timing of the 'defunding' from 10 years to one year. The bill's language doesn't specifically mention Planned Parenthood; it prohibits clinics and providers that offer abortions from accepting Medicaid for the other family planning and reproductive health care services they provide. But Planned Parenthood is the only organization that it applies to. The provision is estimated to cost taxpayers $52 million over the next 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 'Republicans just got the green light to proceed with their destructive effort to defund Planned Parenthood health centers across the country—a crushing blow to the millions of women across America who rely on Planned Parenthood clinics for basic reproductive care,' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in a statement. 'Republicans' last-minute changes to shorten the timeline of this provision hardly matter—once health clinics lose funding and are forced to close their doors, they are unlikely to reopen again,' she added. The inclusion of the provision is a major victory for conservatives, who have long sought to cut off federal funding for the organization. But it could make it more difficult for on-the-fence Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to vote for the bill, as both have expressed support for abortion rights. Planned Parenthood has said losing Medicaid funding would put at least 200 health centers across the country at risk of closure — 90 percent of them in states where abortion is legal. More than 1 million low-income people would lose access to a health care provider. It follows a Supreme Court ruling last week that paves the way for red states to deny funding to Planned Parenthood. Medicaid is prohibited from paying for almost all abortions, but states want to cut government funding for other services Planned Parenthood provides as well. If the bill were to pass, the policy would be national. 'Republicans will stop at nothing in their crusade to take control of women's bodies and deny them the right to make their own health care decisions,' Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a joint statement. 'Republicans are trampling the law to force their extremist ideology onto the American people.'
