TOOK TILL THE 21ST CENTURY

Chloé Zhao becomes 1st woman of color to win top DGA honor
By LINDSEY BAHR

April 11, 2021

FILE - Chloe Zhao poses for a portrait to promote her film "Nomadland" during the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah on Jan. 22, 2018. (Photo by Taylor Jewell/Invision/AP, File)


Chloé Zhao’s “Nomadland” continued its tour of dominance through awards season Saturday night, when Zhao took top honors at the 73rd annual Directors Guild Association Awards.

She is the second woman to earn the honor and the first woman of color to do so. Kathryn Bigelow was the first for “The Hurt Locker.” And it all but solidifies her frontrunner status leading up to the Oscars on April 25.

The untelevised event was held virtually with nominees accepting over zoom calls from around the world, in lieu of the typical hotel ballroom ceremony in Beverly Hills.

Only seven times in history has the DGA winner ever not gone on to take the best director prize at the Academy Awards. Last year was a rare exception when the Guild honored “1917” director Sam Mendes and then the Oscar went to “Parasite” director Bong Joon Ho.
ADVERTISEMENT



Zhao was up against Emerald Fennell for “Promising Young Woman,” Aaron Sorkin for “The Trial of the Chicago 7,” Lee Isaac Chung for “Minari” and David Fincher for “Mank.” The only difference in the Oscars lineup is that Sorkin is not among the nominees — instead, Thomas Vinterberg is for “Another Round.”

Zhao’s lyrical film about transient workers in the American West starring Frances McDormand started its awards journey winning the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, the People’s Choice award at the Toronto International Film Festival, the Golden Globe for best drama and best director and the top honor from the Producer’s Guild.

The first-time directing prize went to Darius Marder for “Sound of Metal,” his innovative exploration of what happens when a drummer has severe, traumatic hearing loss. And documentary directing was given to Gregory Kershaw and Michael Dweck for “The Truffle Hunters,” which follows a group of older men who seek out the expensive and rare white Alba truffle in the forests of Piedmont, Italy.

The Directors Guild also celebrates achievements in television directing.

Lesli Linka Glatter won the dramatic prize for her “Homeland” episode “Prisoners of War,” Susanna Fogel took the comedy honor for the “In Case of Emergency” episode of “The Flight Attendant” and Scott Frank was recognized for directing the limited series “The Queen’s Gambit.”

MEN INTERFERING IN WOMEN'S HEALTH

Some GOP-led states target abortions done through medication

By DAVID CRARY and IRIS SAMUELS

April 11, 2021


1 of 3

FILE - This Sept. 22, 2010 file photo shows bottles of the abortion-inducing drug RU-486 in Des Moines, Iowa. In 2021, about 40% of all abortions in the U.S. are now done through medication — rather than surgery — and that option has become all the more pivotal during the COVID-19 pandemic. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

About 40% of all abortions in the U.S. are now done through medication — rather than surgery — and that option has become all the more pivotal during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abortion rights advocates say the pandemic has demonstrated the value of medical care provided virtually, including the privacy and convenience of abortions taking place in a woman’s home, instead of a clinic. Abortion opponents, worried the method will become increasingly prevalent, are pushing legislation in several Republican-led states to restrict it and in some cases, ban providers from prescribing abortion medication via telemedicine.

Ohio enacted a ban this year, proposing felony charges for doctors who violate it. The law was set to take effect next week, but a judge has temporarily blocked it in response to a Planned Parenthood lawsuit.

In Montana, Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte is expected to sign a ban on telemedicine abortions. The measure’s sponsor, Rep. Sharon Greef, has called medication abortions “the Wild West of the abortion industry” and says the drugs should be taken under close supervision of medical professionals, “not as part of a do-it-yourself abortion far from a clinic or hospital.”

Opponents of the bans say telemedicine abortions are safe, and outlawing them would have a disproportionate effect on rural residents who face long drives to the nearest abortion clinic.

“When we look at what state legislatures are doing, it becomes clear there’s no medical basis for these restrictions,” said Elisabeth Smith, chief counsel for state policy and advocacy with the Center for Reproductive Rights. “They’re only meant to make it more difficult to access this incredibly safe medication and sow doubt into the relationship between patients and providers.”

Other legislation has sought to outlaw delivery of abortion pills by mail, shorten the 10-week window in which the method is allowed, and require doctors to tell women undergoing drug-induced abortions that the process can be reversed midway through — a claim that critics say is not backed by science.

It’s part of a broader wave of anti-abortion measures numerous states are considering this year, including some that would ban nearly all abortions. The bills’ supporters hope the U.S. Supreme Court, now with a 6-3 conservative majority, might be open to overturning or weakening the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established the nationwide right to end pregnancies.

Legislation targeting medication abortion was inspired in part by developments during the pandemic, when the Food and Drug Administration — under federal court order — eased restrictions on abortion pills so they could be sent by mail. A requirement for women to pick them up in person is back, but abortion opponents worry the Biden administration will end those restrictions permanently. Abortion-rights groups are urging that step.




With the rules lifted in December, Planned Parenthood in the St. Louis region would mail pills for telemedicine abortions overseen by its health center in Fairview Heights, Illinois.

A single mother from Cairo, Illinois, more than a two-hour drive from the clinic, chose that option. She learned she was pregnant just a few months after giving birth to her second child.

“It wouldn’t have been a good situation to bring another child into the world,” said the 32-year-old woman, who spoke on the condition her name not be used to protect her family’s privacy.

“The fact that I could do it in the comfort of my own home was a good feeling,” she added.

She was relieved to avoid a lengthy trip and grateful for the clinic employee who talked her through the procedure.

“I didn’t feel alone,” she said. “I felt safe.”

Medication abortion has been available in the United States since 2000, when the FDA approved the use of mifepristone. Taken with misoprostol, it constitutes the so-called abortion pill.

The method’s popularity has grown steadily. The Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights, estimates that it accounts for about 40% of all abortions in the U.S. and 60% of those taking place up to 10 weeks’ gestation.

“Beyond its exceptionally safe and effective track record, what makes medication abortion so significant is how convenient and private it can be,” said Megan Donovan, Guttmacher’s senior policy manager. “That’s exactly why it is still subject to onerous restrictions.”

Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio, which includes Cincinnati, says medication abortions account for a quarter of the abortions it provides. Of its 1,558 medication abortions in the past year, only 9% were done via telemedicine, but the organization’s president, Kersha Deibel, said that option is important for many economically disadvantaged women and those in rural areas.

Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, countered that “no woman deserves to be subjected to the gruesome process of a chemical abortion potentially hours away from the physician who prescribed her the drugs. ”

In Montana, where Planned Parenthood operates five of the state’s seven abortion clinics, 75% of abortions are done through medication — a huge change from 10 years ago.

Martha Stahl, president of Planned Parenthood of Montana, says the pandemic — which increased reliance on telemedicine — has contributed to the rise in the proportion of medication abortions.

In the vast state, home to rural communities and seven Native American reservations, many women live more than a five-hour drive from the nearest abortion clinic. For them, access to telemedicine can be significant.

Greef, who sponsored the ban on telemedicine abortions, said the measure would ensure providers can watch for signs of domestic abuse or sex trafficking as they care for patients in person.

Yet advocates of the telemedicine method say patients are grateful for the convenience and privacy.

“Some are in a bad relationship or victim of domestic violence,” said Christina Theriault, a nurse practitioner for Maine Family Planning who can perform abortions under state law. “With telemedicine, they can do it without their partner knowing. There’s a lot of relief from them.”

The group has health centers in far northern Maine where women can get abortion pills and take them at home under the supervision of health providers communicating by phone or videoconferencing. It spares women a drive of three to four hours to the nearest abortion clinic in Bangor, Theriault said.

Maine Family Planning is among a small group of providers participating in an FDA-approved research program allowing women to receive the abortion pill by mail after video consultations. Under the program, the Maine group also can mail pills to women in New York and Massachusetts.

___

Samuels is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

TRUMP SECRETLY ORDERED STAND DOWN
‘Clear the Capitol,’ Pence pleaded, timeline of riot shows

By LISA MASCARO, BEN FOX and LOLITA C. BALDOR

April 10, 2021

1 of 7
FILE - In this Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, file photo, violent rioters storm the Capitol, in Washington. New details from the deadly riot of Jan. 6 are contained in a previously undisclosed document prepared by the Pentagon for internal use that was obtained by the Associated Press and vetted by current and former government officials. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — From a secure room in the Capitol on Jan. 6, as rioters pummeled police and vandalized the building, Vice President Mike Pence tried to assert control. In an urgent phone call to the acting defense secretary, he issued a startling demand.

“Clear the Capitol,” Pence said.

Elsewhere in the building, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were making a similarly dire appeal to military leaders, asking the Army to deploy the National Guard.

“We need help,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said in desperation, more than an hour after the Senate chamber had been breached.

At the Pentagon, officials were discussing media reports that the mayhem was not confined to Washington and that other state capitals were facing similar violence in what had the makings of a national insurrection.

“We must establish order,” said Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a call with Pentagon leaders.

But order would not be restored for hours.

These new details about the deadly riot are contained in a previously undisclosed document prepared by the Pentagon for internal use that was obtained by The Associated Press and vetted by current and former government officials.

The timeline adds another layer of understanding about the state of fear and panic while the insurrection played out, and lays bare the inaction by then-President Donald Trump and how that void contributed to a slowed response by the military and law enforcement. It shows that the intelligence missteps, tactical errors and bureaucratic delays were eclipsed by the government’s failure to comprehend the scale and intensity of a violent uprising by its own citizens.

With Trump not engaged, it fell to Pentagon officials, a handful of senior White House aides, the leaders of Congress and the vice president holed up in a secure bunker to manage the chaos.

While the timeline helps to crystalize the frantic character of the crisis, the document, along with hours of sworn testimony, provides only an incomplete picture about how the insurrection could have advanced with such swift and lethal force, interrupting the congressional certification of Joe Biden as president and delaying the peaceful transfer of power, the hallmark of American democracy.
ADVERTISEMENT



Lawmakers, protected to this day by National Guard troops, will hear from the inspector general of the Capitol Police this coming week.

“Any minute that we lost, I need to know why,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., chair of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, which is investigating the siege, said last month.

The timeline fills in some of those gaps.

At 4:08 p.m. on Jan. 6, as the rioters roamed the Capitol and after they had menacingly called out for Pelosi, D-Calif., and yelled for Pence to be hanged, the vice president was in a secure location, phoning Christopher Miller, the acting defense secretary, and demanding answers.

There had been a highly public rift between Trump and Pence, with Trump furious that his vice president refused to halt the Electoral College certification. Interfering with that process was an act that Pence considered unconstitutional. The Constitution makes clear that the vice president’s role in this joint session of Congress is largely ceremonial.

Pence’s call to Miller lasted only a minute. Pence said the Capitol was not secure and he asked military leaders for a deadline for securing the building, according to the document.

By this point it had already been two hours since the mob overwhelmed Capitol Police unprepared for an insurrection. Rioters broke into the building, seized the Senate and paraded to the House. In their path, they left destruction and debris. Dozens of officers were wounded, some gravely.

Just three days earlier, government leaders had talked about the use of the National Guard. On the afternoon of Jan. 3, as lawmakers were sworn in for the new session of Congress, Miller and Milley gathered with Cabinet members to discuss Jan. 6. They also met with Trump.

In that meeting at the White House, Trump approved the activation of the D.C. National Guard and also told the acting defense secretary to take whatever action needed as events unfolded, according to the information obtained by the AP.

The next day, Jan. 4, the defense officials spoke by phone with Cabinet members, including the acting attorney general, and finalized details of the Guard deployment.

The Guard’s role was limited to traffic intersections and checkpoints around the city, based in part on strict restrictions mandated by district officials. Miller also authorized Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy to deploy, if needed, the D.C. Guard’s emergency reaction force stationed at Joint Base Andrews.

The Trump administration and the Pentagon were wary of a heavy military presence, in part because of criticism officials faced for the seemingly heavy-handed National Guard and law enforcement efforts to counter civil unrest in the aftermath of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

In particular, the D.C. Guard’s use of helicopters to hover over crowds in downtown Washington during those demonstrations drew widespread criticism. That unauthorized move prompted the Pentagon to more closely control the D.C. Guard.

“There was a lot of things that happened in the spring that the department was criticized for,” Robert Salesses, who is serving as the assistant defense secretary for homeland defense and global security, said at a congressional hearing last month.

On the eve of Trump’s rally Jan. 6 near the White House, the first 255 National Guard troops arrived in the district, and Mayor Muriel Bowser confirmed in a letter to the administration that no other military support was needed.

By the morning of Jan. 6, crowds started gathering at the Ellipse before Trump’s speech. According to the Pentagon’s plans, the acting defense secretary would only be notified if the crowd swelled beyond 20,000.

Before long it was clear that the crowd was far more in control of events than the troops and law enforcement there to maintain order.

Trump, just before noon, was giving his speech and he told supporters to march to the Capitol. The crowd at the rally was at least 10,000. By 1:15 p.m., the procession was well on its way there.

As protesters reached the Capitol grounds, some immediately became violent, busting through weak police barriers in front of the building and beating up officers who stood in their way.

At 1:49 p.m., as the violence escalated, then- Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund called Maj. Gen. William Walker, commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, to request assistance.

Sund’s voice was “cracking with emotion,” Walker later told a Senate committee. Walker immediately called Army leaders to inform them of the request.

Twenty minutes later, around 2:10 p.m., the first rioters were beginning to break through the doors and windows of the Senate. They then started a march through the marbled halls in search of the lawmakers who were counting the electoral votes. Alarms inside the building announced a lockdown.

Sund frantically called Walker again and asked for at least 200 guard members “and to send more if they are available.”

But even with the advance Cabinet-level preparation, no help was immediately on the way.

Over the next 20 minutes, as senators ran to safety and the rioters broke into the chamber and rifled through their desks, Army Secretary McCarthy spoke with the mayor and Pentagon leaders about Sund’s request.

On the Pentagon’s third floor E Ring, senior Army leaders were huddled around the phone for what they described as a “panicked” call from the D.C. Guard. As the gravity of the situation became clear, McCarthy bolted from the meeting, sprinting down the hall to Miller’s office and breaking into a meeting.

As minutes ticked by, rioters breached additional entrances in the Capitol and made their way to the House. They broke glass in doors that led to the chamber and tried to gain entry as a group of lawmakers was still trapped inside.

At 2:25 p.m., McCarthy told his staff to prepare to move the emergency reaction force to the Capitol. The force could be ready to move in 20 minutes.

At 2:44 p.m., Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer as she tried to climb through a window that led to the House floor.

Shortly after 3 p.m., McCarthy provided “verbal approval” of the activation of 1,100 National Guard troops to support the D.C. police and the development of a plan for the troops’ deployment duties, locations and unit sizes.

Minutes later the Guard’s emergency reaction force left Joint Base Andrews for the D.C. Armory. There, they would prepare to head to the Capitol once Miller, the acting defense secretary, gave final approval.

Meanwhile, the Joint Staff set up a video teleconference call that stayed open until about 10 p.m. that night, allowing staff to communicate any updates quickly to military leaders.

At 3:19 p.m., Pelosi and Schumer were calling the Pentagon for help and were told the National Guard had been approved.

But military and law enforcement leaders struggled over the next 90 minutes to execute the plan as the Army and Guard called all troops in from their checkpoints, issued them new gear, laid out a new plan for their mission and briefed them on their duties.

The Guard troops had been prepared only for traffic duties. Army leaders argued that sending them into a volatile combat situation required additional instruction to keep both them and the public safe.

By 3:37 p.m., the Pentagon sent its own security forces to guard the homes of defense leaders. No troops had yet reached the Capitol.

By 3:44 p.m., the congressional leaders escalated their pleas.

“Tell POTUS to tweet everyone should leave,” Schumer implored the officials, using the acronym for the president of the United States. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., asked about calling up active duty military.

At 3:48 p.m., frustrated that the D.C. Guard hadn’t fully developed a plan to link up with police, the Army secretary dashed from the Pentagon to D.C. police headquarters to help coordinate with law enforcement.

Trump broke his silence at 4:17 p.m., tweeting to his followers to “go home and go in peace.”

By about 4:30 p.m., the military plan was finalized and Walker had approval to send the Guard to the Capitol. The reports of state capitals breached in other places turned out to be bogus.

At about 4:40 p.m. Pelosi and Schumer were again on the phone with Milley and the Pentagon leadership, asking Miller to secure the perimeter.

But the acrimony was becoming obvious.

The congressional leadership on the call “accuses the National Security apparatus of knowing that protestors planned to conduct an assault on the Capitol,” the timeline said.

The call lasts 30 minutes. Pelosi’s spokesman acknowledges there was a brief discussion of the obvious intelligence failures that led to the insurrection.

It would be another hour before the first contingent of 155 Guard members were at the Capitol. Dressed in riot gear, they began arriving at 5:20 p.m.

They started moving out the rioters, but there were few, if any, arrests. by police.

At 8 p.m. the Capitol was declared secure.

___

Associated Press writers Michael Balsamo in New York, Nomaan Merchant in Houston, and Mary Clare Jalonick, Jill Colvin, Eric Tucker, Zeke Miller and Colleen Long contributed to this report.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M FUNDING TERRORISTS
NRA trial opens window on secretive leader’s life and work

By JAKE BLEIBERG

April 9, 2021

1 of 3
nt. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy, File)


DALLAS (AP) — Wayne LaPierre flies exclusively on private jets, he sailed around the Bahamas for “security” and he never sends emails or texts in the course of his work running the nation’s most politically influential gun-rights group.

LaPierre’s testimony this week during the National Rifle Association’s high-stakes bankruptcy trial offered a rare window into the work and habits of the notoriously secretive titan of the American firearms movement.

Seldom seen in public outside choreographed speeches and TV appearances, the 71-year-old was blunt and occasionally combative under lawyers’ questioning. He took the virtual witness stand in a federal case over whether the NRA should be allowed to incorporate in Texas instead of New York, where the state is suing in a separate effort to disband the group over alleged financial abuses.

LaPierre’s testimony revealed him to be an embattled executive defending his leadership and punching back against what he characterized as a political attack by New York Attorney General Letitia James. But he also tried to acknowledge enough mistakes and course corrections to avoid having the NRA’s reins handed to a court-appointed overseer — a move he said would be a death blow to the 150-year-old group that claims 5 million members.

The NRA declared bankruptcy in January, five months after James’ office sued seeking its dissolution over allegations that executives illegally diverted tens of millions of dollars for lavish personal trips, no-show contracts and other questionable expenditures.

The NRA contends that its Chapter 11 filing is a legitimate maneuver to facilitate a move to a more gun-friendly state, Texas, and was made necessary by a Democratic politician who has “weaponized” her state’s government. Lawyers for James’ office, meanwhile, say it’s an attempt by NRA leadership to escape accountability for using the group’s coffers as their piggybank.

LaPierre appeared on camera before a court in Dallas on Wednesday and Thursday and was grilled by lawyers for New York and Ackerman McQueen, an Oklahoma City-based advertising agency that says the NRA owes it more than $1 million.

The questioning has focused on LaPierre’s management of the NRA and the legitimacy of his filing for bankruptcy without first informing most of the group’s top executives and its board.

On Wednesday, a lawyer for New York asked why the state’s investigation had turned up no emails or text messages from LaPierre.

“I’m old fashioned,” he replied. “I haven’t sent any emails or texts.”

The allegations of financial abuses and mismanagement have roiled the NRA and threatened LaPierre’s grip on power. Political infighting spilled out in public during the NRA’s 2019 annual meeting, where its then-president Oliver North was denied a second term. Tensions also eventually led to the departure of a man who’d been seen as LaPierre’s likely successor, Chris Cox, who headed the group’s lobbying arm.

To be sure, it’s not unusual for chief executives of organizations the size of the NRA to travel by private plane or live lifestyles beyond the means of most people. But LaPierre’s alleged misspending of NRA membership dues came even as the group was urging supporters to donate so that it would have enough cash to battle gun control efforts.

Board members and former NRA leaders who support LaPierre didn’t respond to requests for comment or referred questions to the NRA. Others who are skeptical of LaPierre’s leadership said the trial has only reaffirmed their concerns.

“I’m looking for the next Wayne,” said Phillip Journey, a board member and Kansas judge who is set to testify during the trial next week. “This can’t go on forever.”

LaPierre said Thursday that he kept the bankruptcy secret from the full board because he was worried that someone on it would leak the plan. “We were very concerned,” he testified.

He also said he was within his authority to file for bankruptcy with only the assent of the board’s three-member special litigation committee, he attacked James and New York’s financial regulator as “corrupt,” and he repeatedly strayed beyond the bounds of yes or no questioning to defend his record.

LaPierre’s efforts to explain his actions led to opposing lawyers moving to strike from the record much of what he said after nearly every question. He occasionally raised his voice and his expansive answers drew repeated warnings from his own attorneys and the judge.

“Can you answer the questions that are asked and do you understand that I’ve said that to you more than a dozen times in the last two days?” Judge Harlin Hale asked LaPierre on Thursday.

“I understand your honor,” he replied. “I apologize if I’ve gone too long.”

LaPierre also, however, showed moments of regret and referred repeatedly to the NRA’s “self-correction.”

For instance, he defended summer sailing in the Bahamas on a large yacht he borrowed from a Hollywood producer who has done business with the NRA. LaPierre said the family trips were a “security retreat,” noting that some came as he was facing threats months after mass shootings.

But he acknowledged that not mentioning the voyages on conflict-of-interest forms — which New York’s lawsuit contends violated NRA policy — was an oversight.

“I believe now that it should have been disclosed,” he testified. “It’s one of the mistakes I’ve made.” ___

Associated Press writer Lisa Marie Pane in Boise, Idaho, contributed to this story.

BACKGROUNDER 
Police chiefs throw support behind Biden’s civil rights pick
By MICHAEL BALSAMO

April 9, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — Dozens of police chiefs who ran some of America’s largest police forces are lending their support to Kristen Clarke, who has been nominated to run the Justice Department’s civil rights division.

In a letter to congressional leaders Friday, the law enforcement leaders from more than three dozen cities say Clarke has “demonstrated an uncanny ability to work closely with federal and state and local law enforcement officials” through years as a prosecutor and civil rights advocate.

The signers include Bill Bratton, who was commissioner of the New York Police Department and Los Angeles police chief; Charles Ramsey, who ran the police forces in Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.; former Boston police commissioner Ed Davis and dozens of others.
ADVERTISEMENT



Some of the largest law enforcement groups in the U.S. have also thrown their support behind Clarke. They include the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives and others.

Clarke, who was president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, an advocacy group, is expected to play a pivotal role as the Justice Department focuses more on civil rights issues, criminal justice and policing policies in the wake of nationwide protests over the death of Black Americans at the hands of law enforcement. Attorney General Merrick Garland has also emphasized his commitment to combating racial discrimination in policing, saying at his confirmation hearing that America doesn’t “yet have equal justice.”

The endorsements from both the chiefs and some of America’s biggest law enforcement organizations signal broad support for Clarke’s nomination within the law enforcement community as a fierce and fair advocate committed to combating civil rights offenses.

“The past several years have shed light on just how important it is for law enforcement officers to develop trust within communities,” reads the letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The police chiefs said Clarke had built a national reputation “as someone who is trustworthy and who fiercely defends and protects the most vulnerable crime victims in our communities.”

“As a result, she is someone who will bring an enormous amount of credibility among community leaders to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department,” read the letter. “This credibility will be of paramount importance as she does some of the important work of building relationships with law enforcement leaders and seeking accountability where needed.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled Clarke’s confirmation hearing for Wednesday.

AP Interview: Stacey Abrams on voting rights, her next move

By BILL BARROW and HILARY POWELL

April 9, 2021

FILE - In this Monday, Dec. 14, 2020, file photo, Democrat Stacey Abrams walks on Senate floor before of members of Georgia's Electoral College cast their votes at the state Capitol in Atlanta. In a new interview with The Associated Press, voting rights advocate Abrams discussed a new state law that tightens some Georgia voting rules after Democrats carried the state in the 2020 elections. (AP Photo/John Bazemore, Pool, File)

ATLANTA (AP) — Georgia is at the forefront of the partisan fight over voting rights and election law.

The Associated Press sat down this week with Stacey Abrams, the Democratic candidate for governor in 2018 and a leading voice on ballot access, to talk about a sweeping new state law that tightens some Georgia voting rules after Democrats carried the state in the 2020 elections.

The interview has been condensed for brevity:

AP: Please explain what you mean when you say this new law will make it harder for Georgians to vote, particularly Black and other minority Georgians.

ABRAMS: In the 2018 election and the 2020 election, there has been an increased use of early voting, in-person absentee voting, use of drop boxes. And these are all of the things that have been tightened. The change from (using) signature verification to using an ID to submit your absentee ballot is a direct result to lawsuits that we filed to allow more people to use absentee balloting.

These are (new) laws that respond to an increase in voting by people of color by constricting, removing or otherwise harming their ability to access these perquisites. It doesn’t say brown and Black people can’t vote. It simply says we’re going to remove things that we saw you use to your benefit; we’re going to make it harder for you to access these opportunities.

AP: Gov. Brian Kemp has been assertive in defending the law. He focuses on provisions like codifying weekend early voting, setting aside money to make state IDs free. Judged individually, are some of these good moves?

ABRAMS: This now gives them permission to shorten your early voting time. Instead of it being 7 (a.m.) to 7 (p.m.), it now can be 9-to-5, and the county has to decide to give you more power. Prior to this, it was assumed everyone can vote from 7 to 7. (Editor’s note: Old Georgia law said early voting would be conducted during “normal business hours,” though most counties had longer hours. The new law specifies a weekday window of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. but allows counties to expand to a 12-hour window.)

I object to a characterization that suggests they have given something that did not exist. What they’ve done is actually placed restrictions.

When it comes to free ID, the notion of it being free is actually a misnomer. You may not have to pay a fee, (but) you’ve got to pay for the birth certificate, you’ve got to pay for all the documentation that leads up to being able to get that ID. And there is a cost, especially to rural communities, that often do not have transportation or access to the DMVs, which are not on every street corner. So there’s a very real cost to voters to secure this ID.

FILE - In this Nov. 2, 2020, file photo Stacey Abrams speaks to Biden supporters as they wait for former President Barack Obama to arrive and speak at a rally as he campaigns for Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden at Turner Field in Atlanta. In a new interview with The Associated Press, voting rights advocate Abrams discussed a new state law that tightens some Georgia voting rules after Democrats carried the state in the 2020 elections. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson, File)

AP: Do you support consumer boycotts and corporate responses like Major League Baseball moving the All-Star Game from metro Atlanta?

ABRAMS: I grew up in the Deep South. Boycotts are the reason that I have the ability to make this argument as a free citizen. I understand the impulse of boycotting, but I also understand that boycotts operate differently depending on your targets and depending on your timeline. I do not believe that a boycott at this moment is beneficial to the victims of these bills. I do believe it is absolutely necessary for corporations to show their goodwill. They have to publicly denounce these bills, they have to support and invest in voting rights expansion, and they need to support the federal voting rights standards.

AP: Can you talk about how voting is rooted in your United Methodist faith, growing up with a strong, religious background and both your parents being clergy?

ABRAMS: I grew up in a family that not only believed in our faith as a religious identity, but believed our faith as a responsibility and lived experience. For me, defending the right to vote is not just about defending it for people of color. My push is that we should have expansion of the right to vote for every community that faces barriers, including the disabled, those who are returning citizens (released from prison), the poor, young people. Unfortunately, the targets tend to be those very same communities. And thus, most of the work that I do is about lifting up their voices and protecting their right to vote.

AP: Bottom line, could Democrats have won in Georgia in 2020 under these new rules? Could you win a governor’s race if you run again?

ABRAMS: I think it is possible for Democrats to win ... but I will say this: It is wrong for any state to preclude access, especially under the guise and under the baldfaced lie that this is an expansion. ... We should not be thinking about these laws in the context of who can win an election, except to the extent that Republicans are gaming the system because they’re afraid of losing an election.

AP: Democrats’ pending voting bills in Washington wouldn’t supersede everything in state laws, but how much could they mitigate the negative effects you see in state actions?

ABRAMS: It would standardize the laws so that our democracy does not depend on our geography. Congress (can) say we will have a standardized election system that guarantees automatic voter registration, in-person early voting and no-excuses mail balloting. Those three pieces alone absolutely create ... a level opportunity for voters regardless of race and regardless of geography to participate in our elections.

AP: Can you see Democrats passing any voting changes without changing the Senate filibuster rule? And how does it strike you to hear President Biden say the filibuster is a vestige of the Jim Crow era but that he doesn’t necessarily support completely scrapping the rule?

ABRAMS: While I am disappointed by the recent op-ed by Sen. Joe Manchin that says that he’s not willing to entertain any changes to the filibuster, I do believe his good intention that we should be able to achieve bipartisan support. ... I do believe that there’s legitimate argument to be made that carving out an exception to protect the fundamental rights of democracy, and participation in democracy, is worthy of an exemption to the filibuster. I can understand the hesitation of completely scrapping it, including the hesitation expressed by the president, because the worry is that if you remove it completely, you no longer have any controls over what can happen. Although it was used by avowed Southern racists to block civil rights, the original intention was not grounded necessarily in abject racism.

AP: But do you see any scenario where voting rights legislation gets 10 Republican votes required to pass under current filibuster rules?

ABRAMS: I think that it is unlikely. (But) I am a woman of faith. And so my approach is to pray for what I need but work for what I think needs to be done.

AP: There is an assumption that you will run for governor again next year. Is there any time frame when you will make your decision public?

ABRAMS: I am not thinking about that right now. My focus is on making certain we can have elections (with) full participation in 2022. I’m also working through my organization Fair Count on ensuring that every person who’s eligible for the (COVID-19) vaccination can get it, especially in the underserved southwest, rural area of Georgia. We’re also doing work on COVID recovery through the Southern Economic Advancement Project to ensure that recovery includes fixing the public health infrastructure that is so broken across the South.

___

Powell reported from Washington.

BACKGROUNDER

Senate filibuster’s racist past fuels arguments for its end

By LISA MASCARO

April 9, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — Once obscure, the Senate filibuster is coming under fresh scrutiny not only because of the enormous power it gives a single senator to halt President Joe Biden’s agenda, but as a tool historically used for racism.

Senators and those advocating for changes to the practice say the procedure that allows endless debate is hardly what the founders intended, but rather a Jim Crow-relic whose time is up. Among the most vivid examples, they point to landmark filibusters including Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour speech against a 1957 Civil Rights bill, as ways it has been used to stall changes

The debate ahead is no longer just academic, but one that could make or break Biden’s agenda in the split 50-50 Senate. Carrying echoes of that earlier Civil Rights era, the Senate is poised to consider a sweeping elections and voting rights bill that has been approved by House Democrats but is running into a Senate Republican filibuster.

In a letter Friday, nearly 150 groups called on the Senate to eliminate the filibuster, saying the matter takes on fresh urgency after passage of more restrictive new elections law in Georgia, which could be undone by the pending “For the People” act that’s before Congress.

“The filibuster has a long history of being used to block voting rights, civil rights, and democracy-protecting bills,” said Fix our Senate and a roster of leading progressive and advocacy groups focused on gun control, climate change, immigration and other issues.

“Senate Democrats will soon face a choice: Protect our democracy and pass the For the People Act, or protect the filibuster — an outdated and abused ‘Jim Crow relic’ that deserves to be tossed into the dustbin of history.”

The pressure is mounting on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democrats as time ticks on Biden’s priorities. With the narrow Senate and the Democrats holding just a slim majority in the House, it’s clear that Republicans will be able to easily block bills from passing Congress, which they plan to do.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell recently declared it “fake history” to suggest a racial component to the filibuster practice.

In a Senate speech, McConnell recalled times the filibuster was used by both parties, including just last year when Democrats were in the minority and used it to block other bills. “It’s not a racist relic,” McConnell said.

Established almost by accident in a way that allows unlimited debate, the filibuster practice dots early congressional history, but entered the lexicon on the eve of the Civil War. By the early 20th century, it was used to block anti-lynching bills but became more widely used in recent years, sharpened as a procedural weapon to grind any action to a halt in the Senate.

To overcome a filibuster takes 60 votes, but some Democratic senators have proposed lowering that threshold to 51 votes, as has been done to allow approval of executive and judicial nominees. Senate Democrats hold the slim majority this session because under the Constitution, the Vice President, Democrat Kamala Harris, can cast the tie-breaking vote

McConnell himself changed the filibuster practice when Republicans were in the majority, stunning Washington when he maneuvered the Senate to lower the 60-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees to 51 votes, enabling Republicans to install three of Donald Trump’s high court judicial nominees over Democratic objections.

The top-ranking Black member of Congress, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, warned senators recently that he would not be quiet if they used the filibuster to halt action on raising the minimum wage and other Democratic priorities. “We’re not just going to give in to these arcane methods of denying progress,” the South Carolina Democrat said, hearkening back to Thurmond’s speech.

But it would take all Democrats to agree to change the rules, and some centrists, including Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., are not on board.

“There is no circumstance in which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster,” he wrote in a recent op-ed.

Manchin has received as much attention as any other senator as the White House conducts outreach to Congress.

Biden has spoken to him several times, and he’s also received calls from other senior officials including White House chief of staff Ron Klain.

Biden advisors have long known that he would express reluctance to overhaul the filibuster. And Manchin is not alone — as many as 10 Democratic senators have been wary of changing the filibuster practice.

The president and White House aides have also spoken to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., among others, according to advisors.

The administration’s pitch to all the senators, including Manchin, has framed the moment as one that calls for drastic action, including a need to uphold voting rights in the face of legislation they believe can be considered racist.

Harvard Law professor Michael Klarman said while the filibuster itself may in itself be racist, it certainly has been used that way in the past — as well as in the present.

“There’s nothing partisan about saying the filibuster has mostly been used for racist reasons, I think everybody would agree that that’s true,” he said.

The election legislation coming before the Senate will become a test case. Already approved by the House as H.R. 1, the sweeping federal package would expanding voting access by allowing universal registration, early voting by mail and other options, undoing some of Georgia’s new law.

Democrats intend to eventually bring it forward for votes and test the Republicans willingness to object.

At the same time, Schumer is eyeing another process, so-called budget reconciliation, that provides a tool for certain budgetary bills to be approved on a 51-vote threshold, bypassing GOP opposition.

Democrats used the reconciliation process to Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package, in the face of unified Republican no votes, and could use it again to advance his $2.3 trillion infrastructure packag e or other priorities.

Since reconciliation revolves around budgetary matters, it’s it’s not clear the elections bill or others legislation gun control or immigration, for example, could be considered under the procedure.

One Democrat, Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia, the new senator whose election in January helped deliver the party majority control, recently signaled he is prepared to use all options to push ahead on the elections bill.

“I intend to use my leverage, and my state’s leverage as the majority maker, whose electoral future is in peril right now, to demand that we deal with voting rights,” he told The Associated Press, “and we deal with it urgently and swiftly.”

___

Associated Press writer Jonathan Lemire contributed to this report.

Soviet cosmonaut made pioneering spaceflight 60 years ago THIS WEEK

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV

April 12, 2021


1 of 19

FILE - In this undated file photo, Soviet cosmonaut Major Yuri Gagarin, first man to orbit the earth, is shown in his space suit. Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space 60 years ago. The successful one-orbit flight on April 12, 1961 made the 27-year-old Gagarin a national hero and cemented Soviet supremacy in space until the United States put a man on the moon more than eight years later. (AP Photo/File)

MOSCOW (AP) — Crushed into the pilot’s seat by heavy G-forces, Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin saw flames outside his spacecraft and prepared to die. His voice broke the tense silence at ground control: “I’m burning. Goodbye, comrades.”

Gagarin didn’t know that the blazing inferno he observed through a porthole was a cloud of plasma engulfing Vostok 1 during its re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere, and he was still on track to return safely.

It was his quiet composure under pressure that helped make him the first human in space 60 years ago.

Gagarin’s steely self-control was a key factor behind the success of his pioneering 108-minute flight. The April 12, 1961, mission encountered glitches and emergencies — from a capsule hatch failing to shut properly just before blastoff to parachute problems in the final moments before touchdown.

From the time 20 Soviet air force pilots were selected to train for the first crewed spaceflight, Gagarin’s calm demeanor, quick learning skills and beaming smile made him an early favorite.

Two days before blastoff, the 27-year-old Gagarin wrote a farewell letter to his wife, Valentina, sharing his pride in being chosen to ride in Vostok 1 but also trying to console her in the event of his death.
MORE STORIES:
– AP PHOTOS: From Moscow to Pacific, Russia glorifies Gagarin
– American, Russians dock at International Space Station
– Piece of SpaceX rocket debris lands at Washington state farm

“I fully trust the equipment, it mustn’t let me down. But if something happens, I ask you Valyusha not to become broken by grief,” he wrote, using a nickname for her.

Authorities held onto the letter and eventually gave it to Gagarin’s widow seven years later after he died in an airplane crash. She never remarried.

Gagarin’s pioneering, single-orbit flight made him a hero in the Soviet Union and an international celebrity. After putting the world’s first satellite into orbit with the successful launch of Sputnik in October 1957, the Soviet space program, rushed to secure its dominance over the United States by putting a man into space.

“The task was set, and people were sleeping in their offices and factory shops, like at wartime,” Fyodor Yurchikhin, a Russian cosmonaut who eventually made five spaceflights, recalled.

As the Soviet rocket and space program raced to beat the Americans, it suffered a series of launch failures throughout 1960, including a disastrous launch pad explosion in October that killed 126 people. Missile Forces chief Marshal Mitrofan Nedelin was among the victims.

Like Gagarin, Soviet officials were prepared for the worst. No safety system had been installed to save the cosmonaut in case of another rocket explosion at blastoff or after.
ADVERTISEMENT


Authorities drafted three versions of a bulletin about Gagarin’s flight for the official TASS news agency: one announcing a successful flight, another in case of problems, and the third one for a mission ending in disaster.

Apart from potential engine failures and other equipment malfunctions, scientists questioned an individual’s ability to withstand the conditions of spaceflight. Many worried that a pilot could go mad in orbit.

Soviet engineers prepared for that situation by developing a fully automatic control system. As an extra precaution, the pilot would receive a sealed envelope containing a secret code for activating the capsule’s manual controls. The theory was that a person who could enter the code must be sane enough to operate the ship.

Everyone in the space program liked Gagarin so much, however, that a senior instructor and a top engineer independently shared the secret code with him before the flight to save him the trouble of fiddling with the envelope in case of an emergency.

Problems began right after Gagarin got into Vostok 1, when a light confirming the hatch’s closure did not go on. Working at a frantic pace, a leading engineer and a co-worker removed 32 screws, found and fixed a faulty contact, and put the screws back just in time for the scheduled launch.

Sitting in the capsule, Gagarin whistled a tune. “Poyekhali!” — “Off we go!” — he shouted as the rocket blasted off.

As another precaution, the orbit was planned so the spacecraft would descend on its own after a week if an engine burn failure stranded the ship. Instead, a glitch resulted in a higher orbit that would have left Gagarin dead if the engine had malfunctioned at that stage.
Full Coverage: Science

While the engine worked as planned to send the ship home, a fuel loss resulted in an unexpected reentry path and a higher velocity that made the ship rotate wildly for 10 agonizing minutes.

Gagarin later said he nearly blacked out while experiencing G-forces exceeding 10 times the pull of gravity. “There was a moment lasting two or three seconds when instruments started fading before my eyes,” he recalled.

Seeing a cloud of fiery plasma around his ship on re-entry, he thought his ship was burning.

A soft-landing system hadn’t been designed yet, so Gagarin ejected from the module in his spacesuit and deployed a parachute. While descending, he had to fiddle with a sticky valve on his spacesuit to start breathing outside air. A reserve chute unfolded in addition to the main parachute, making it hard for him to control his descent, but he landed safely on a field near the Volga River in the Saratov region.

Gagarin was flown to Moscow to a hero’s welcome, hailed by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and greeted by enthusiastic crowds cheering his flight as a triumph on par with the victory in World War II. In the years before he died at age 34, he basked in international glory, visiting dozens of countries to celebrate his historic mission.

“The colossal propaganda effect of the Sputnik launch and particularly Gagarin’s flight was very important,” Moscow-based aviation and space expert Vadim Lukashevich said. “We suddenly beat America even though our country hadn’t recovered yet from the massive damage and casualties” from World War II.

Gagarin was killed in a training jet crash on March 27, 1968. Not quite 16 months later, the U.S. beat the Soviet Union in the space race, putting an astronaut on the moon.

The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union ended the era of rivalry. Russia’s efforts to develop new rockets and spacecraft have faced endless delays, and the country has continued to rely on Soviet-era technology. Amid the stagnation, the much-criticized state space corporation Roscosmos has focused on a costly plan to build its new, rocket-shaped headquarters on the site of a dismantled rocket factory.

___

Associated Press journalists Kostya Manenkov and Kirill Zarubin in Moscow contributed to this report.

AP PHOTOS: From Moscow to Pacific, Russia glorifies Gagarin
April 12, 2021


1 of 13

FILE - In this Saturday, Sept. 21, 2019 file photo, the sun sets over a statue of the first cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin at the Russian leased Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. From a giant statue towering over Moscow to a more modest monument on the Sakhalin Island in the Pacific Ocean, dozens of memorials across Russia commemorate Yuri Gagarin, the cosmonaut who became the first person in space on April 12, 1961, 60 years ago. (AP Photo/Dmitri Lovetsky, File)

MOSCOW (AP) — From a giant statue towering over Moscow to a more modest monument on the Sakhalin Island in the Pacific Ocean, dozens of memorials across Russia commemorate Yuri Gagarin, the cosmonaut who became the first person in space 60 years ago.

Gagarin’s 108-minute mission took the Space Age to a new level and marked a historic achievement for the Soviet Union, which beat the United States in a tight race to launch a man beyond Earth’s atmosphere.

For the Soviet people, Gagarin’s spaceflight was a triumph comparable to the victory over the Germans in World War II. It has remained a source of national pride since April 12, 1961, a symbol of the country’s bravery and technological prowess.

Gagarin died seven years after he orbited the planet. The first monuments glorifying him and his pioneering achievement were erected while he still was alive.



A titanium obelisk depicting a starting rocket and dedicated to the first Soviet cosmonauts was unveiled in Moscow in 1964. Standing 107 meters high, (351 feet), it includes a Gagarin relief. The Cosmonauts Alley near the Conquerors of Space monument that opened in 1967 features bronze busts of Gagarin and other Soviet cosmonauts.

Another towering monument built in 1980 also became a Moscow landmark: a titanium statue of Gagarin standing on a pedestal formed to resemble rocket exhaust. It is 42 meters (138 feet) high and weighs 12 tons.

After Gagarin died in a training jet crash in March 1968, he was buried near the Kremlin Wall alongside former Soviet leaders. The field near Moscow where his plane crashed also got a memorial.

Other Gagarin monuments include a statue in Star City, home to the spaceflight training center just outside the capital where Gagarin and many other cosmonauts lived.

Dozens of others are spread across Russia, including one in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, on the far-eastern Sakhalin Island.

A statue of Gagarin also marks the Baikonur space launch facility, the place he blasted off from in then-Soviet Kazakhstan. After the Soviet Union’s collapse, Russia leased Baikonur for both piloted space missions and satellite launches.



A field near the Volga River where Gagarin landed after his historic 1961 flight bears an obelisk and a Gagarin statue added later. A theme park was set up there to mark the 60th anniversary of his flight.

Small but quick: Bhutan vaccinates 93% of adults in 16 days
April 12, 2021


1 of 6

Face masks for use as precaution against coronavirus are displayed for sale at a shop in Thimpu, Bhutan, Monday, April 12, 2021. The tiny Himalayan kingdom wedged between India and China has vaccinated nearly 93% of its adult population since March 27. Overall, the country has vaccinated 62% of its 800,000 people. (AP Photo)

THIMPU, Bhutan (AP) — When plotted on a graph, the curve of Bhutan’s COVID-19 vaccination drive shoots upwards from the very first day, crossing Israel, the United States, Bahrain and other countries known for vaccinating people rapidly.

Those countries took months to reach where they are, painstakingly strengthening their vaccination campaigns in the face of rising coronavirus cases. But the story of Bhutan’s vaccination campaign is nearly finished — just 16 days after it began.

The tiny Himalayan kingdom wedged between India and China has vaccinated nearly 93% of its adult population since March 27. Overall, the country has vaccinated 62% of its 800,000 people.

The rapid rollout of the vaccine puts the tiny nation just behind Seychelles, which has given jabs to 66% of its population of nearly 100,000 people.

Its small population helped Bhutan move fast, but its success has also been attributed to its dedicated citizen volunteers, known as “desuups,” and established cold chain storage used during earlier vaccination drives.

Bhutan received its first 150,000 doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine from neighboring India in January, but the shots were distributed beginning in late March to coincide with auspicious dates in Buddhist astrology.

The first dose was administered by and given to a woman born in the Year of the Monkey, accompanied by chants of Buddhist prayers.

“Let this small step of mine today help us all prevail through this illness,” the recipient, 30-year-old Ninda Dema, was quoted by the country’s Kuensel newspaper as saying.

Dr. Pandup Tshering, secretary to the Ministry of Health, said jabs were still being provided to those who could not get vaccinated during the campaign period and that the country had enough doses to cover its entire population.

Bhutan has recorded 910 coronavirus infections and one death since the pandemic began.

Bhutan has a mandatory 21-day quarantine for all people arriving in the country. All schools and educational institutions are open and are monitored for compliance with COVID-19 protocols, Tshering said.

Bhutan is the last remaining Buddhist kingdom in the Himalayas. But the country has transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a democratic, constitutional monarchy.

ANOTHER REASON TO END THE DEATH PENALTY

Texas’ longest serving death row inmate has sentence tossed
By JUAN A. LOZANO

This photo provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice shows Raymond Riles. An appeals court has overturned the sentence of Texas’ longest serving death row inmate, whose attorneys say has languished in prison for more than 45 years because he's too mentally ill to be executed. (Texas Department of Criminal Justice via AP)

HOUSTON (AP) — An appeals court has overturned the sentence of Texas’ longest serving death row inmate, whose attorneys say has languished in prison for more than 45 years because he’s too mentally ill to be executed.

Raymond Riles’ “death sentence can no longer stand” because the 70-year-old inmate’s history of mental illness was not properly considered by jurors, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled Wednesday.

The decision means Riles’ case will be sent back to a Houston courtroom for resentencing.

He was sent to death row in 1976 for fatally shooting John Thomas Henry in 1974 at a Houston car lot following a disagreement over a vehicle. A co-defendant, Herbert Washington, was also sentenced to death, but his sentence was overturned, and he later pleaded guilty to two related charges and was sentenced to 50 and 25 years in prison.

When Riles was tried, state law did not expect jurors to consider mitigating evidence such as mental illness when deciding whether someone should be sentenced to death. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that Texas jury instructions were unconstitutional because they didn’t allow consideration of intellectual disability or mental illness or other issues as mitigating evidence in the punishment phase of a capital murder trial.

But Riles’ case remained in limbo as lower courts failed to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision until at least 2007, said Jim Marcus, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law and one of Riles’ attorneys. That then gave Riles a realistic chance to prevail on this legal issue but it wasn’t until recently that he had contact with attorneys who were willing to assist him, Marcus said.

Inmates like Riles are “housed on death row because their judgment is a sentence of death, but it can’t be carried out because they’re too mentally ill. In Texas, that means people are left to languish in the Polunsky Unit (the location of Texas’ death row), where the conditions are basically solitary confinement,” Marcus said.

While prosecutors argued at Riles’ trial that he was not mentally ill, several psychiatrists and psychologists testified for the defense that he was psychotic and suffered from schizophrenia. Riles’ brother testified that his “mind is not normal like other people. He is not thinking like other people.”

“All parties (now) agree that he is mentally ill. The state of Texas has treated him as such for the 45 years he’s been on death row,” said Thea Posel, an assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law and another of Riles’ attorneys.

Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg did not challenge the effort to overturn the death sentence.

“We are glad Texas’ highest (criminal) court agreed with prosecutors and defense lawyers that jurors must be able to consider a defendant’s mental health history before deciding punishment,” Ogg said Thursday.

Ogg’s office declined to comment on whether prosecutors will again pursue a death sentence in Riles’ case.

Marcus said he thinks Riles will most likely be resentenced to life in prison.

“This would be a very difficult case for Harris County to pursue further because Mr. Riles is so mentally ill, that it’s unlikely he would be found competent to stand trial,” he said.

If he were to be resentenced to life in prison, he would likely be eligible for release, but any final decision would be made by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Marcus said.

While the Supreme Court has prohibited the death penalty for individuals who are intellectually disabled, it has not barred such punishment for those with serious mental illness, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

In 2019, the Texas Legislature considered a bill that would have prohibited the death penalty for someone with severe mental illness. The legislation did not pass.

The state, which during most years executes more inmates than any other state, has not had an execution since July 2020.