Latest news with #GOP-majority
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal trial alleging illegal racial gerrymandering in Tampa Bay Senate seat concludes
The front of the federal courthouse in Tampa on June 12, 2025 (Photo by Mitch Perry/ Florida Phoenix) A panel of three federal judges is now weighing whether a Tampa Bay state Senate district created in 2022 was the result of illegal racial gerrymandering. A four-day trial over the district concluded on Thursday afternoon and judges must decide whether the constitutional rights of voters in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties were violated when the Legislature created the Senate district in 2022 that crossed from St. Petersburg over the water to Hillsborough County. Florida was sued by three voters who are represented by the ACLU of Florida and the Civil Rights & Racial Justice Clinic at New York University School of Law. The plaintiffs allege that the Legislature's plan to connect Black populations from parts of Hillsborough and Pinellas counties violated their equal-protection rights by unjustifiably packing Black voters into District 16 and removing them from nearby District 18, reducing their influence there. The defendants, Senate President Ben Albritton and Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, have denied that claim, saying that the maps were lawfully drawn up and previously approved as legally sound by the Florida Supreme Court. But the defense's arguments go beyond refuting the plaintiffs' claims. Indeed the defense went on the offense both before and during the trial to allege that the ACLU of Florida's lead attorney in the case, Nicholas Warren, worked behind the scenes with Democratic House and Senate staffers to try to get a partisan map approved. To bolster that argument, attorneys representing the state called Matthew Isbell to the stand (remotely) on Thursday, their last witness. Isbell is a Tallahassee-based data analyst and consultant who has worked with Democrats and Democratic-affiliated groups over the past decade. Text and direct Twitter messages between Isbell and Warren were displayed to the court showing how both men hoped that the Senate would adopt a map that kept Pinellas County intact and separate from Hillsborough County. Warren drew his own map that kept the two counties separate and introduced it before the redistricting committee in late 2021, without identifying himself as being a staff attorney for the ACLU of Florida. Sen. Ray Rodrigues, who was chair of the Senate Committee on Reapportionment at the time, subsequently sent a memo to all 40 state senators accusing him of violating Senate rules by not disclosing that he was with the ACLU of Florida. Warren testified earlier this week that he drew the map on his own personal time and resources, and that the Senate forms that needed to be completed to appear before the committee did not require an individual to list his employer. Isbell testified on Thursday that he believed that the GOP-majority Legislature's motivation to split the city of St. Petersburg up was motivated by partisan politics, an allegation that attorneys for the Florida Senate president's office have strongly refuted. After Isbell's video appearance concluded, the closing statements began, starting with the plaintiffs. Warren declared that 'race predominated in the drawing of the district.' In terms of direct evidence to back up that statement, Warren played a video clip from a November 2021 committee hearing. The excerpt shows Orange County Democratic Sen. Randolph Bracy asked Senate Committee on Reapportionment staff director Jay Ferrin why the newly proposed Senate District 16 district had to cross from St. Petersburg over into Tampa Bay and Hillsborough County. Ferrin replied that it was to comply with the Fair Districts amendment in the Florida Constitution, specifically the 'Tier 1' standards which provide protections for racial and language minorities. Bracy then asked Ferrin if there was a way to configure the district to comply with the Fair Districts amendment and still keep the two countries separate. Another video exchange showed Pasco County Republican Danny Burgess,telling Bracy that Senate 'staff' had said keeping the counties separate wasn't possible, because it would lead to a 'significant number of voters who would be disenfranchised.' At the time Burgess was the chair of another Senate committee that also dealt with reapportionment. Ferrin agreed with Burgess, saying it would result in a'wide diminishment' that would ultimately disenfranchise Black voters in Pinellas County. Bracy followed up asking how much the Black vote would be diminished by if the counties were to remain separate. Ferrin replied 'close to 30%,'and added that such a reduction 'would constitute diminishment.' That comment, Warren said in his closing, revealed that race placed a major role in why Senate District 16 was created. The defense came back with closing statements from the two attorneys representing their side: Daniel Nordby, who was representing Ben Albritton in his official capacity as president of the Florida Senate, and Mohammad Jazil, who was representing Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd. Nordby said the plaintiffs had to prove that race was a predominant factor in the creation of Senate District 16, but that they fell short. 'Plaintiffs have not come close to doing so,' Nordby said. He emphasized how Ferrin had recognized the constitutional requirements for drawing up districts – which is that districts should be compact, and when possible, utilize existing political and geographic boundaries. Ferrin did, Nordby said, noting that Ferrin used important boundaries such as I-275, the Hillsborough River, and 22nd Avenue North in St. Petersburg, a major artery, when configuring the Senate district. Nordby acknowledged that race was a consideration, because 'it had to be,' noting that to ignore that would be ignoring part of the state constitution. Nordby also dismissed the three alternative maps drawn up for the plaintiffs by Pennsylvania State University professor of statistics Cory McCartan that keep Hillsborough and Pinellas counties separate. And he then addressed the peculiar situation regarding Warren, saying, 'This case is an odd one.' Nordby asserted Warren had essentially 'laundered' his map through the alternative presented during the trial by McCartan. He also questioned why none of the lawmakers that plaintiff attorneys had indicated could be witnesses in the case – Sen. Darryl Rouson, House Democratic Leader Fentrice Driskell and most notably former Bracy, the 'alleged lynchpin' for the plaintiff's case, never showed up. Bracy was a scheduled witness but failed to appear earlier in the week, much to the disappointment of the ACLU attorneys. When contacted by phone on Tuesday by a representative from the three-judge panel, Bracy said he hadn't seen the subpoena until that very day and said that he had already told plaintiff attorneys that he did not intend to show up. Burgess and Rodrigues cited legislative privilege in declining to appear, according to the court. Representing Byrd,Jazil said all of the proposed Senate maps that the ACLU had presented during the trial were examples of partisan and racial gerrymandering, and cited his text messages to House and Senate staffers involved with the reapportionment process. In response to their closing arguments meanwhile, Daniel Tilley, another attorney with the ACLU of Florida, noted how no lawmaker had testified. Tilley said all of the attention focused on Warren was a 'contrived kerfuffle' that found no evidence to support the idea that members of the Senate were influenced by his map. It was, he surmised, a 'spectacular failure.' During the four-day trial there were hours of detailed descriptions by experts that dealt with how to draw legislative districts that were logically configured and not oddly shaped. The Florida Senate District 16 seat is held by Rouson, who resides in St. Petersburg. Several Tampa-based constituents in the district complained earlier in the trial that he was not as accessible to meet in Hillsborough County, though defense attorneys said he has district offices in the county in Tampa and Brandon. The three-judge panel that will decide the case includes two of them who are Trump appointees. The panel was led by Andrew L. Brasher, who serves in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Accompanying him was U.S. Senior District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell and U.S. District Judge Thomas P. Barber, both of whom serve on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Brasher and Barber were appointed by Trump during his first term as president in 2019. If they rule in favor of the plaintiffs, their hope would be that the Florida Senate could create and approve a new map of the district in time for the 2026 election. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Time of India
06-06-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Snacks like M&M's, Skittles, and Doritos ‘Not recommended for human consumption' in US?
HighlightsTexas Senate Bill 25 proposes mandatory warning labels on processed food products like M&M's, Skittles, and Doritos, stating they are 'not recommended for human consumption' if they contain certain controversial additives. The proposed legislation, supported by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., aims to enhance food transparency and protect public health by informing consumers about potentially harmful ingredients. Major corporations, including PepsiCo, Mondelez, Coca-Cola, Conagra Brands, and Walmart, have expressed opposition to the bill, arguing that it could create confusion among consumers and is based on foreign standards rather than U.S. regulations. A new legislative move in Texas has ignited nationwide debate as the state's GOP-majority legislature advances a bill requiring warning labels on various processed food products, including popular snacks such as M&M's, Skittles, and Doritos. The proposed labels would declare these items as 'not recommended for human consumption' if they contain additives restricted or banned in countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, or the European Union, as per a report by the New York Post. Bill Targets Controversial Food Additives Titled Senate Bill 25 , the measure mandates that beginning in 2027, any food or beverage product sold in Texas containing synthetic dyes, bleached flour, or other controversial ingredients must carry a clearly visible warning label. The label would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.' The legislation is part of a broader initiative supported by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has made food transparency a cornerstone of his 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign. 'We are committed to protecting public health by ensuring families know what's in their food,' Kennedy stated earlier, as mentioned in a report by the New York Post. Governor's Office Reviewing the Legislation With the legislative session having concluded on Monday, Governor Greg Abbott now has 20 days to sign or veto the measure. A spokesperson from the Governor's office said that Abbott is carefully examining the implications of the bill. 'Governor Abbott will continue to work with the legislature to ensure Texans have access to healthy foods to care for themselves and their families,' said press secretary Andrew Mahaleris. If enacted, the bill would require warning labels to be printed at a font size no smaller than the smallest existing FDA-mandated text on packaging. It also calls for the label to be prominently displayed with sufficient contrast for visibility. Food Industry Pushes Back The proposed labeling rule has met resistance from major corporations. In a joint letter dated May 19, industry leaders including PepsiCo, Mondelez, Coca-Cola, Conagra Brands, and Walmart urged Texas lawmakers to reconsider the bill, citing its sweeping scope and potential confusion for consumers. 'The food labeling provision in this bill casts an incredibly wide net — triggering warning labels on everyday grocery items based on foreign standards, not on regulations from Texas authorities or the U.S. FDA,' the letter argued. Walmart, which was among the signatories, issued a statement saying it is closely tracking legislative developments and deferred further comment to the Texas Retailers Association, which also contributed input during bill discussions. A consultant representing the retail association noted, 'Texas retailers and our members including Walmart worked hard on this bill, made some changes, and we'll see how it develops over the next 20 days.' Consumer Groups Warn of Confusion and Costs Industry experts and advocacy groups warn the proposed law could bring unintended consequences. John Hewitt, senior vice president of the Consumer Brands Association, has called for Governor Abbott to veto the measure. 'The ingredients used in the U.S. food supply are safe and have been rigorously evaluated,' Hewitt said. 'This legislation could result in inaccurate warning language, legal risks, and unnecessary alarm among consumers.' As the state awaits Abbott's decision, the future of household snack names like Skittles, M&M's, and Doritos in Texas grocery aisles remains uncertain. If passed, Texas would become the first U.S. state to mandate such foreign-comparison warning labels on processed foods. FAQs What is Senate Bill 25 in Texas? It's a proposed law that mandates warning labels on foods containing additives banned or restricted in the UK, EU, Canada, or Australia, targeting products like M&M's, Doritos, and Skittles. What would the warning label say? The label would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.'
Time of India
05-06-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Snacks like M&M's, Skittles, and Doritos ‘Not recommended for human consumption' in US? Here's what the Texas Bill proposes
A new legislative move in Texas has ignited nationwide debate as the state's GOP-majority legislature advances a bill requiring warning labels on various processed food products, including popular snacks such as M&M's, Skittles, and Doritos. The proposed labels would declare these items as 'not recommended for human consumption' if they contain additives restricted or banned in countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, or the European Union, as per a report by the New York Post. Bill Targets Controversial Food Additives Titled Senate Bill 25 , the measure mandates that beginning in 2027, any food or beverage product sold in Texas containing synthetic dyes, bleached flour, or other controversial ingredients must carry a clearly visible warning label. The label would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.' The legislation is part of a broader initiative supported by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has made food transparency a cornerstone of his 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign. 'We are committed to protecting public health by ensuring families know what's in their food,' Kennedy stated earlier, as mentioned in a report by the New York Post. Governor's Office Reviewing the Legislation With the legislative session having concluded on Monday, Governor Greg Abbott now has 20 days to sign or veto the measure. A spokesperson from the Governor's office said that Abbott is carefully examining the implications of the bill. 'Governor Abbott will continue to work with the legislature to ensure Texans have access to healthy foods to care for themselves and their families,' said press secretary Andrew Mahaleris. If enacted, the bill would require warning labels to be printed at a font size no smaller than the smallest existing FDA-mandated text on packaging. It also calls for the label to be prominently displayed with sufficient contrast for visibility. Food Industry Pushes Back The proposed labeling rule has met resistance from major corporations. In a joint letter dated May 19, industry leaders including PepsiCo, Mondelez, Coca-Cola, Conagra Brands, and Walmart urged Texas lawmakers to reconsider the bill, citing its sweeping scope and potential confusion for consumers. 'The food labeling provision in this bill casts an incredibly wide net — triggering warning labels on everyday grocery items based on foreign standards, not on regulations from Texas authorities or the U.S. FDA,' the letter argued. Walmart, which was among the signatories, issued a statement saying it is closely tracking legislative developments and deferred further comment to the Texas Retailers Association, which also contributed input during bill discussions. A consultant representing the retail association noted, 'Texas retailers and our members including Walmart worked hard on this bill, made some changes, and we'll see how it develops over the next 20 days.' Consumer Groups Warn of Confusion and Costs Industry experts and advocacy groups warn the proposed law could bring unintended consequences. John Hewitt, senior vice president of the Consumer Brands Association, has called for Governor Abbott to veto the measure. 'The ingredients used in the U.S. food supply are safe and have been rigorously evaluated,' Hewitt said. 'This legislation could result in inaccurate warning language, legal risks, and unnecessary alarm among consumers.' As the state awaits Abbott's decision, the future of household snack names like Skittles, M&M's, and Doritos in Texas grocery aisles remains uncertain. If passed, Texas would become the first U.S. state to mandate such foreign-comparison warning labels on processed foods. FAQs What is Senate Bill 25 in Texas? It's a proposed law that mandates warning labels on foods containing additives banned or restricted in the UK, EU, Canada, or Australia, targeting products like M&M's, Doritos, and Skittles. What would the warning label say? The label would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.'
Economic Times
04-06-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
Snacks like M&M's, Skittles, and Doritos ‘Not recommended for human consumption' in US? Here's what the Texas Bill proposes
Bill Targets Controversial Food Additives Governor's Office Reviewing the Legislation Live Events Food Industry Pushes Back Consumer Groups Warn of Confusion and Costs FAQs What is Senate Bill 25 in Texas? What would the warning label say? (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel A new legislative move in Texas has ignited nationwide debate as the state's GOP-majority legislature advances a bill requiring warning labels on various processed food products, including popular snacks such as M&M's, Skittles, and Doritos. The proposed labels would declare these items as 'not recommended for human consumption' if they contain additives restricted or banned in countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, or the European Union, as per a report by the New York Senate Bill 25 , the measure mandates that beginning in 2027, any food or beverage product sold in Texas containing synthetic dyes, bleached flour, or other controversial ingredients must carry a clearly visible warning label. The label would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.'The legislation is part of a broader initiative supported by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has made food transparency a cornerstone of his 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign. 'We are committed to protecting public health by ensuring families know what's in their food,' Kennedy stated earlier, as mentioned in a report by the New York the legislative session having concluded on Monday, Governor Greg Abbott now has 20 days to sign or veto the measure. A spokesperson from the Governor's office said that Abbott is carefully examining the implications of the bill. 'Governor Abbott will continue to work with the legislature to ensure Texans have access to healthy foods to care for themselves and their families,' said press secretary Andrew enacted, the bill would require warning labels to be printed at a font size no smaller than the smallest existing FDA-mandated text on packaging. It also calls for the label to be prominently displayed with sufficient contrast for proposed labeling rule has met resistance from major corporations. In a joint letter dated May 19, industry leaders including PepsiCo, Mondelez, Coca-Cola, Conagra Brands, and Walmart urged Texas lawmakers to reconsider the bill, citing its sweeping scope and potential confusion for consumers.'The food labeling provision in this bill casts an incredibly wide net — triggering warning labels on everyday grocery items based on foreign standards, not on regulations from Texas authorities or the U.S. FDA,' the letter which was among the signatories, issued a statement saying it is closely tracking legislative developments and deferred further comment to the Texas Retailers Association, which also contributed input during bill discussions.A consultant representing the retail association noted, 'Texas retailers and our members including Walmart worked hard on this bill, made some changes, and we'll see how it develops over the next 20 days.'Industry experts and advocacy groups warn the proposed law could bring unintended consequences. John Hewitt, senior vice president of the Consumer Brands Association, has called for Governor Abbott to veto the measure. 'The ingredients used in the U.S. food supply are safe and have been rigorously evaluated,' Hewitt said. 'This legislation could result in inaccurate warning language, legal risks, and unnecessary alarm among consumers.'As the state awaits Abbott's decision, the future of household snack names like Skittles, M&M's, and Doritos in Texas grocery aisles remains uncertain. If passed, Texas would become the first U.S. state to mandate such foreign-comparison warning labels on processed a proposed law that mandates warning labels on foods containing additives banned or restricted in the UK, EU, Canada, or Australia, targeting products like M&M's, Doritos, and label would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.'
Time of India
04-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Snacks like M&M's, Skittles, and Doritos ‘Not recommended for human consumption' in US? Here's what the Texas Bill proposes
A new legislative move in Texas has ignited nationwide debate as the state's GOP-majority legislature advances a bill requiring warning labels on various processed food products, including popular snacks such as M&M's, Skittles, and Doritos. The proposed labels would declare these items as 'not recommended for human consumption' if they contain additives restricted or banned in countries like the UK, Canada, Australia, or the European Union, as per a report by the New York Post. Bill Targets Controversial Food Additives Titled Senate Bill 25 , the measure mandates that beginning in 2027, any food or beverage product sold in Texas containing synthetic dyes, bleached flour, or other controversial ingredients must carry a clearly visible warning label. The label would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.' The legislation is part of a broader initiative supported by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has made food transparency a cornerstone of his 'Make America Healthy Again' campaign. 'We are committed to protecting public health by ensuring families know what's in their food,' Kennedy stated earlier, as mentioned in a report by the New York Post. Governor's Office Reviewing the Legislation With the legislative session having concluded on Monday, Governor Greg Abbott now has 20 days to sign or veto the measure. A spokesperson from the Governor's office said that Abbott is carefully examining the implications of the bill. 'Governor Abbott will continue to work with the legislature to ensure Texans have access to healthy foods to care for themselves and their families,' said press secretary Andrew Mahaleris. If enacted, the bill would require warning labels to be printed at a font size no smaller than the smallest existing FDA-mandated text on packaging. It also calls for the label to be prominently displayed with sufficient contrast for visibility. Live Events Food Industry Pushes Back The proposed labeling rule has met resistance from major corporations. In a joint letter dated May 19, industry leaders including PepsiCo, Mondelez, Coca-Cola, Conagra Brands, and Walmart urged Texas lawmakers to reconsider the bill, citing its sweeping scope and potential confusion for consumers. 'The food labeling provision in this bill casts an incredibly wide net — triggering warning labels on everyday grocery items based on foreign standards, not on regulations from Texas authorities or the U.S. FDA,' the letter argued. Walmart, which was among the signatories, issued a statement saying it is closely tracking legislative developments and deferred further comment to the Texas Retailers Association, which also contributed input during bill discussions. A consultant representing the retail association noted, 'Texas retailers and our members including Walmart worked hard on this bill, made some changes, and we'll see how it develops over the next 20 days.' Consumer Groups Warn of Confusion and Costs Industry experts and advocacy groups warn the proposed law could bring unintended consequences. John Hewitt, senior vice president of the Consumer Brands Association, has called for Governor Abbott to veto the measure. 'The ingredients used in the U.S. food supply are safe and have been rigorously evaluated,' Hewitt said. 'This legislation could result in inaccurate warning language, legal risks, and unnecessary alarm among consumers.' As the state awaits Abbott's decision, the future of household snack names like Skittles, M&M's, and Doritos in Texas grocery aisles remains uncertain. If passed, Texas would become the first U.S. state to mandate such foreign-comparison warning labels on processed foods. FAQs What is Senate Bill 25 in Texas? It's a proposed law that mandates warning labels on foods containing additives banned or restricted in the UK, EU, Canada, or Australia, targeting products like M&M's, Doritos, and Skittles. What would the warning label say? The label would read: 'WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.'
