The Georgia state Senate on Tuesday passed legislation that would require voters to submit a driver’s license number, state identification card number or a photocopy of an approved form of identification in order to vote absentee in the state. Senate Bill 67 passed the upper chamber in 35-18 vote on Tuesday and now heads to the state House for consideration, The Associated Press reports . The bill has already been met with opposition from Democrats and voting rights groups who say the legislation would make it difficult for voters who don't have a driver’s license or state identification card to vote absentee. According to the AP, absentee ballots are currently tallied using signature verification. ADVERTISEMENT State Sen. Larry Walker, one of the Republicans sponsoring the bill, said the bill would not affect about 97 percent of voters, according to the AP. The remaining percentage of voters, Walker said, could vote in person. In a statement on Tuesday afternoon, voting rights group Fair Fight Action said the bill would add “needless barriers to voting in Georgia” and accused proponents of the measure of ignoring voters who would be affected by the legislation. “In Georgia, with more than 7,692,567 registered voters, that means that 230,777 electors may not have the requisite identification and will therefore incur a burden in complying with the law,” the group said, while also adding that the “discriminatory policy” shows “Georgia has not moved past the racist motivations for which it was included in preclearance under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.” The bill, which has more than 25 Republican co-sponsors, is one of a number of bills Republicans have filed in the Georgia General Assembly that would directly impact voting, particularly absentee voting , and voter registration in the state. Another bill advanced by a state Senate subcommittee in a party-line 3-2 vote would, if passed, require Georgians who wish to vote by absentee to ...
Morning business report
Tiger Woods to avoid reckless driving charge in crash, Los Angeles sheriff says
close Video Sportscaster Jim Gray reacts to Tiger Woods' hospitalization after serious car crash 'Never underestimate the heart of a champion' says Gray of hopes for Wood's recovery. Tiger Woods will avoid reckless driving charges and officials are treating his crash as an accident, Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva said Wednesday. Villanueva said there was no evidence that Woods was impaired by drugs or alcohol when first responders got to the scene. CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM "A reckless driving charge has a lot of elements into it and this is purely an accident," Villanueva said. "There will be a cause of it and there will be a vehicle code attached to the cause – for inattentive driving or whatever the case may be. "But that’s an infraction and a reckless driving is actually more than an infraction. That’s a misdemeanor crime that has a lot of elements attached to it and there’s nothing like that." Villanueva said that no data was recorded from the 2021 Genesis SUV’s black box which could reveal how fast Woods was going at the time. The posted speed limit was 45 mph, he added. TIGER WOODS WAS UNAWARE OF 'HOW GRAVELY HE WAS INJURED' IMMEDIATELY AFTER WRECK, DEPUTY SAYS From January 2020 to today, Villanueva said there were 13 accidents near the same point where Woods crashed. Four of which had injuries. Villanueva answered questions about Woods’ wreck on Facebook and Instagram Live . Woods, 45, suffered "multiple leg injuries" after being involved in a "single-vehicle roll-over" collision on the border of Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes at around 7:12 a.m. local time. His team released a statement early Wednesday morning that detailed the extent of those injuries. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP "Comminuted open fractures affecting both the upper and lower portions of the tibia and fibula bones were stabilized by ...
Biden’s tricky tango with Congress
Sign up to get our new weekly column as a newsletter. We're looking back at the strongest, smartest opinion takes of the week from CNN and other outlets. (CNN) "There are men of character in the U.S. Congress, both House and Senate. There are women of character, too. But the evidence for 'character' needs to be something other than the iteration of the word itself," writes Marjorie Garber in her book "Character: The History of a Cultural Obsession." That is a useful frame for trying to make sense of the dramas that proliferated on Capitol Hill this week as Congress took up multiple nominations to President Joe Biden's Cabinet and held its first hearing on the January 6 insurrection. As Garber notes, the translation of individual traits into a "national character" most often occurs at "times of stress, as a marker not so much of social progress as of social and cultural anxiety." We saw this. Conviction and commitment (and the lack of same), and in darker terms, eccentricity, hypocrisy and excuses made for bad behavior were on full display on the nation's highest political stage. Dismissing hypocrisy with a laugh is part of what has left America's political discourse vulnerable to infiltration by dangerous conspiracy theories, wrote Frida Ghitis, reacting to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson's remarks during hearings about the violent Capitol riots. He suggested, citing multiple discredited claims, that the day had a "jovial," "festive" tone and that the assault had been a false-flag operation. As Ghitis pointed out: "That conspiracy theories exist and are spreading is not news, but hearing them uttered by a US senator during an official congressional hearing marks a new low, one that demands we sit up and take notice. " And because tens of millions of Americans "believe the same thing[s]... by uttering that poisonous nonsense from the halls of Congress, Johnson is pumping more fuel into a dangerous fire." While no huge new ...
The GOP’s uncertain future
What if President Donald Trump throws out the political playbook yet again and starts his own political party? Many conservatives believe the left stole the 2020 presidential election and hope to save the country from the socialist squad of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Democrats don't trust GOP on 1/6 commission: 'These people are dangerous' Progressives fume over Senate setbacks Budget Committee chair pledges to raise minimum wage: 'Hold me to it' MORE (D-N.Y.). Would those conservatives join a new national political party? They just might. ADVERTISEMENT Don’t believe me? A recent Rasmussen poll found that 61 percent of Republicans agree that President Biden did not win the election fairly . This is an astonishing share for a viewpoint that our social institutions do not tolerate. It is a thought crime according to many in the mainstream media, social media, Hollywood and academia. The campaign to alter these Americans’ view has failed, but not for lack of trying. Where should these Republicans turn? They are not about to give up on civic engagement merely because they are supposedly unwelcome in polite society. They know better than to wallow aimlessly in despair of ever winning another election. Would they join a new party that better represents them? Almost half of Republican voters said in a recent poll that they would join a new Trump-led political party, and less than one-third would stay with the Republican Party. Howls of “you will lose every future election if you divide the Republican party in half” will not resonate with those who felt certain that President Trump Donald Trump Noem touts South Dakota coronavirus response, knocks lockdowns in CPAC speech On The Trail: Cuomo and Newsom — a story of two embattled governors McCarthy: 'I would bet my house' GOP takes back lower chamber in 2022 MORE would win reelection based on his record of achievements . Many ...
Russia Seeks to Strengthen Old Ties with Myanmar Junta
PHNOM PENH, CAMBODIA - Russia’s appetite for influence and lucrative arms sales in Southeast Asia has been whetted by the latest coup in Myanmar, where isolated generals remain distrustful of China but still require allies on the United Nations Security Council. Chinese investments had flourished in Myanmar under the now-deposed civilian government effectively led by former opposition figure Aung San Suu Kyi, and the military, also known as Tatmadaw, benefitted through state owned enterprises brought under its control before Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy won historic 2015 elections. However, relations between junta leaders and Beijing have long been strained over Chinese interference across their common border – an existential threat not shared with Russia – and Beijing’s assistance to long-running ethnic insurgencies, including the sale of weapons to rebels. Bradley Murg, a senior research fellow at the Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace, said Russia and China are both maneuvering to protect their vested interests in Myanmar. “We’ve seen Russia step up to the plate twice with its actions in the Security Council on the Myanmar question and again joining with China and others in the human rights council to potentially oppose any form of condemnation of the new regime,” he said. Russia and China used their power in the Security Council to water down the world body’s response to the coup, led by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing. China labeled the coup a “cabinet reshuffle” while Russia called it a “purely domestic affair,” and, according to The Irrawaddy , a news site, even asked the international community for “practical assistance to the new authority of Myanmar." That was despite the message from U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who said he would do everything in his power to pressure Myanmar and “make sure that this coup fails.” Guterres has also consistently slammed the repression and violence inflicted upon protesters. ...
