An Initiative to Give Ex-Felons Voting Rights Could Remake Florida’s Politics in 2020 - Intelligencer ( New York Magazine )

January 23, 2018

An Initiative to Give Ex-Felons Voting Rights Could Remake Florida’s Politics in 2020

By

Ed Kilgore

Supporters of the Florida initiative think they have the signatures filed to get their constitutional amendment on the November ballot. Photo: Courtesy of Florida Rights Restoration Coalition

In the vast arsenal of methods used over the years to suppress minority voting, one of the oldest is disenfranchisement of people with criminal records long after they’ve paid their debt to society. In the South, permanent ex-felon disenfranchisement was common in the immediate wake of slavery’s demise, and was used in combination with Black Codes criminalizing any exercise of personal freedom to restore as much white supremacy as was possible.

That’s why permanent disenfranchisement of ex-felons entered Florida’s Constitution in 1868. Even as most other states in the South and elsewhere abandoned such policies, Florida has retained this vestige of Jim Crow, making it one of just three states (the others are Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia) where acts of executive clemency are required to allow ex-felons to vote. And under current Republican governor Rick Scott, past broad exercises of such clemency have all but come to a halt, as the New York Times notes:

Gov. Rick Scott of Florida grants only 8 percent of the requests that come before the state’s clemency board, which he leads — for a total of only a few hundred people each year, even though there is a backlog of more than 10,000 petitions awaiting review.

Scott also instituted a waiting period of five years after a felon has completed his or her sentence before obtaining the right to petition the governor for a rare restoration of voting rights.

The impact of these policies has been enormous, particularly for Florida’s African-American population:

The ACLU and other groups believe that now some 1.5 million Floridians—about 10 percent of the adult citizen population—are voteless, some because they are still serving sentences, but most because of felony convictions in their past. Among African-American men in the state, the number is north of 20 percent.

That could change this year. Today the Florida Rights Restoration Initiative succeeded in securing the 766,000 certified signatures necessary to place a constitutional amendment on the November 2018 ballot automatically restoring voting rights for people who have served their sentences (with the exception of murderers and sex offenders).

A 60 percent “yes” vote will be needed to enact this proposal. Though there’s no publicly available Florida polling on ex-felon re-enfranchisement, a national Rasmussen survey in 2014 found that likely voters favored restoration of voting rights for felons who had completed their sentences by a robust 65–28 margin. Earlier national polling shows consistent majority support for re-enfranchisement, particularly when those who have committed heinous crimes are exempted (as is the case in Florida’s initiative).

The biggest threat to passage of FRRI is probably partisan polarization. Some prominent national Republicans have supported a general policy of ex-felon re-enfranchisement over the years, including Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, and George W. Bush, who have signed onto a coalition supporting restoration of voting rights. Indeed, Bush is significant insofar as he is one of the more notable beneficiaries of Florida’s ban on ex-felony voting; had even a small fraction of the estimated 600,000 disenfranchised voters — disproportionately African-Americans; according to one estimate black males are seven times more likely than their white counterparts to be incarcerated for a felony — been able to participate in the 2000 election, it would not have gone to overtime, much less to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It would not be surprising if Florida Republicans decided that ex-felon voting is an existential threat to their political power in the state, particularly when combined with this year’s enormous influx of Puerto Ricans who can immediately vote and who lean heavily Democratic. So the ballot initiative could become a bloody partisan issue in Florida this year along with red-hot gubernatorial and Senate races. If it passes, though, Florida and its 29 electoral votes will probably be a ripe target for whoever runs for president as a Democrat in 2020.

Exclusive: China's state-owned firms to face more mergers, bankruptcies - Reuters

JANUARY 24, 2018 / 7:36 PM /

Exclusive: China's state-owned firms to face more mergers, bankruptcies

Soyoung Kim, Paritosh Bansal

DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - China’s state-owned enterprises will face more mergers and bankruptcies as the government overhauls the lumbering state sector, the head of the country’s state asset regulator told Reuters.

In a rare interview with a foreign news outlet, Xiao Yaqing, chairman of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC), stressed Beijing’s commitment to streamline its bloated and debt-ridden state-owned sector and create conglomerates capable of competing globally.

China embarked on a revamp of its state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in 2015 to tackle rising corporate debt and also to make them more profitable and responsive to market forces.

It has claimed progress in its SOE restructuring through mergers, reductions in excess capacity, the relocation of workers, closure of “zombie” firms, and implementing a controversial scheme under which debt is converted into equity.

“Our wish is for them to be bigger, stronger and more efficient. And this is what they’re about to be in the future,” Xiao told Reuters on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos on Tuesday.

He said the focus would be to strictly separate government functions from the SOEs’ business operations, though it was vital for the ruling Communist Party to retain control of the state sector during the process.

The number of enterprises administered by the central government has been reduced to 98 from 117 in 2012.

The merger of China’s top coal miner, Shenhua Group Corp SHGRP.UL, and China Guodian Group Corp CNGUO.UL, among the country’s top five state power producers, created the world’s largest power utility worth $278 billion.

When asked about further SOE consolidation, Xiao said the number of central government-owned companies would continue to decrease through mergers in “a voluntary process”, though the SASAC did not have a target for this reduction.

Xiao also pointed out the importance of the relocation of workers during the reforms, saying that SOEs, with the help from local governments, ought to create programs to absorb laid-off workers after consultation with them.

“We do not want them to be laid off or just fired in this process,” he said. “We need them to be allocated into new positions.”

PROFIT RECOVERY, CUTTING DEBT

Enterprises owned by China’s central government reported robust growth in 2017, with total profit up 15.2 percent, the fastest in five years.

In the interview, Xiao attributed the rebound of SOEs’ profitability to China’s stable economic growth, rising commodity prices and ongoing state-sector reforms.

“We reduced a lot of ‘zombie enterprises’. Now the management efficiency of the companies is significantly improved,” he said.

The Communist Party’s People’s Daily reported this month that central government-owned SOEs had met their target of shutting 1,200 zombie enterprises by the end of last year.

Moreover, state-owned enterprises will target coal capacity cuts of 12.65 million tonnes in 2018, and will also aim to reduce excess capacity in coal-fired power, non-ferrous metals, shipbuilding and construction materials.

Xiao said SOEs’ leverage is at “healthy levels”, and bankruptcies and liquidation have only happened at second-tier companies, not at the holding group level.

SASAC has pledged to further lower debt ratios of central government-owned firms by another 2 percentage points by the end of 2020.

Xiao expects market-driven SOE bankruptcies to continue.

“As long as you’re market player, you have your good times and you have your bad times, and sometimes you just go bankrupt,” Xiao said.

STRENGTHENING PARTY CONTROL

As SOEs spearhead investment in infrastructure projects overseas under Beijing’s Belt and Road initiative, the strengthened leadership of the Communist Party at SOEs is raising concerns that political factors will be prioritized.

The value of overseas assets held by China’s centrally owned enterprises has exceeded 6 trillion yuan ($940 billion), with investments in more than 185 countries and regions.

While saying the government will slowly move to play a less direct role in the business operations of state firms, Xiao defended the Communist Party’s control of the state sector.

Imposing party discipline on state firms remains a key part in choosing top management and in fighting graft at SOEs, he said, adding that he did not see any conflict of interest between state political goals and commercial interests of SOEs.

“SOEs are owned by the general public, which means everyone in this country is a shareholder. Then we need a representative, which is the Chinese communist party, to supervise and play a scrutiny role for the companies,” Xiao said.

Xiao said that during his meetings with CEOs in Davos, business leaders had expressed strong interest in China, in working with its SOEs and in the future of SOE reforms.

“I can’t tell you what the SOE sector will be in 10 or 20 years, but we do hope that SOEs could be exactly like other companies: they will have higher liquidity of their assets and respond more efficiently to market changes,” Xiao said.

($1 = 6.3925 Chinese yuan renminbi)

Reporting By Soyoung Kim and Paritosh Bansal in DAVOS, Switzerland; Writing by Shu Zhang in BEIJING; Editing by Mark Bendeich

Carillion bosses in firing line as MPs launch inquiry into collapse - Independent

24/1/2018

Carillion bosses in firing line as MPs launch inquiry into collapse

Richard Howson, who headed the company from 2012 until July 2017, pocketed £1.5m in 2016

Ravender Sembhy

Thousands of workers remain in limbo over the future of their jobs AFP

A string of top bosses at collapsed construction giant Carillion are to be grilled by MPs next month as the political fallout from the debacle rages on.

Parliament's Pensions and Business Committees on Wednesday launched a joint inquiry into the group's demise, which has cast doubt over the future of thousands of workers on jobs ranging from hospital construction to school meals and cleaning.

Carillion's liquidation left in its wake a £900m debt pile, a £590m pension deficit and hundreds of millions of pounds in unfinished public contracts.

Labour vows tougher rules to strip 'rogue suppliers' of contracts

The committees confirmed that they will call several Carillon bosses as witnesses to evidence sessions on February 6.

They include former chief executive Richard Howson, chairman Phillip Green, interim boss Keith Cochrane and ex-finance chiefs Richard Adam, Zafar Khan and Emma Mercer.

It comes after anger over Mr Howson's bumper pay packet during and after his tenure, as well as that of Mr Khan and Mr Cochrane.

Mr Howson, who headed the company from 2012 until July 2017, pocketed £1.5m in 2016, which included a £122,612 cash bonus and £231,000 in pension contributions.

As part of his departure deal, Carillion had agreed to continue paying him a £660,000 salary and £28,000 in benefits until October 2018.

A similar deal was struck for Mr Khan, who left Carillion in September but was set to receive £425,000 in base salary for the following 12 months.

Interim chief executive Mr Cochrane was in line to be paid his £750,000 salary until July.

Labour MP Rachel Reeves, chairwoman of the Business Committee, said: "In the wake of the BHS scandal, Carillion has the hallmarks of another corporate governance failure, with directors asleep at the wheel while the business went off a cliff, in this case leaving jobs, pensions and public services under threat and a host of suppliers out of pocket.

"As a committee, we will also want to explore the executive pay arrangements at Carillion, the potential cost to the taxpayer of the insolvency, and the role of both directors and non-executive directors in the company's collapse."

Carillion introduced the "clawback" provision as part of its pay policy in 2014 which would allow the company to demand executives return cash and share bonuses for up to two years after payment - a move it said brought the business in line with the updated UK Corporate Governance Code.

However, those terms were relaxed by 2016 when Carillion's remuneration committee added stipulations that the clawback provision could only be triggered if the firm's results were mis-stated or the executive was "guilty of gross misconduct".

The committees will also probe the role of Carillion's auditor, KPMG, which signed off the group's 2016 accounts.

The Insolvency Service, which last week ceased payments to Carillion executives, and the Financial Reporting Council will also be called at an earlier hearing next week as questions remain over the strength of corporate governance at the company.

Robin Ellison, chairman of trustees of Carillion's pension scheme, will also be grilled.

Pensions Committee chairman Frank Field said: "Another day, another company goes bust hot on the heels of a clean bill of health from a Big Four financial services firm.

"The particularly nasty twist in this now grimly familiar tale is the mountain of debt and giant pension deficit this public services contractor leaves in the wreckage of its collapse- with an accompanying massive hit to the public purse.

"It must also be time now for the auditors who cosily signed off this disaster-in-the-making as a 'going concern' less than a year ago to begin to account for themselves."

Inside the Dysfunctional Relationship of Donald Trump and Theresa May - Bloomberg

Inside the Dysfunctional Relationship of Donald Trump and Theresa May

Forget closer transatlantic ties and a state visit to London, it’s been a year of public clashes.

By Tim Ross and Margaret Talev

January 24, 2018, 9:34 PM GMT+11

When Theresa May returned to the grandeur of the British Embassy on Washington’s Massachusetts Avenue in January last year, her aides had no idea how spectacularly awry her visit to Donald Trump’s White House had gone.

Debriefing her advisers, the U.K. prime minister remembered something: “Oh, yes,” she said. “He did hold my hand at one point.” Already fearful of the political fallout at home from getting too close to Trump, the astonished officials asked if the incident had been captured on camera. “Yes, I think so,” May replied, according to people present.

Theresa May and Donald Trump at the White House.

Photographer: Christopher Furlong via Getty Images

The resulting image, splashed on British front pages, came to define her visit, the first by a foreign leader after Trump’s inauguration. What May’s entourage couldn’t have predicted is that the gaffe would also turn out to be the high point in the first year of the latest incarnation of the “special relationship” between the U.S. and the U.K.

Just under 12 months later, the two are due to meet in Davos at the World Economic Forum on Thursday, and there’s unlikely to be any hand-holding. In that time, the alliance first coined by Winston Churchill and famously nurtured by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s has become increasingly dysfunctional and at its least cordial in decades.

The transatlantic ties are critical to May’s administration, while just convenient for Trump. The U.K. needs to forge new trade partnerships after leaving the European Union. The U.S. wants to reconfigure some of its relationships to protect American companies.

Rather than a tighter bond, a promised state visit and a future trade deal, Trump and May have clashed repeatedly in public—over intelligence leaks after a terrorist attack in Manchester, the Iran nuclear deal, and most dramatically after the president tweeted a message from a British far-right anti-Muslim campaigner.

@realDonaldTrump

.@Theresa_May, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!

12:02 PM - Nov 30, 2017

“As the U.K. negotiates its departure from the EU it wants to be able to emphasize its Atlantic relationship,” said Heather Conley, director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “The problem is the Trump administration is not providing the U.K. with that balance.”

Many of the current and former officials interviewed for this article asked for anonymity to speak candidly about the uneasy political aspect of the alliance, which is a sensitive matter on both sides of the Atlantic.

When Trump upended the world order by winning the presidency in November 2016, few leaders felt the vibrations as much as May. The soon-to-be U.S. president had supported Brexit and suggested making his supporter and her political rival, anti-EU campaigner Nigel Farage, the new British ambassador to Washington.

Her officials dismissed it. Matters worsened when it emerged that Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, May’s co-chiefs of staff, had publicly ridiculed Trump as “a chump” on Twitter before they entered government and urged their colleagues to shun his team. The pair set off on a secret trip to the U.S. to rescue the alliance. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson followed and soon after May arranged to visit the U.S.

Trump was clearly pleased with the idea. “She’ll be my Maggie,” he reportedly told his aides, referring to Reagan and Thatcher.

In London, Hill was especially keen to keep Trump close. She argued that a strong alliance with America was just what Britain needed in order to make a success of Brexit. The prospect of accelerating a trade agreement with the U.S. was a major goal for the U.K.

Ronald Reagan welcomes Margaret Thatcher at the White House during her official visit to the U.S. in 1983.

Photographer: Jean-Louis Atlan/Sygma via Getty Images

Hill and Timothy planned May’s trip to the White House and took up the idea of offering the president a state visit in return, the highest honor that Britain can give a foreign leader. It would involve the president and first lady staying with Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace and attending a state banquet in his honor. May's team believed such treatment would appeal to Trump's vanity.

Senior diplomats and the U.K. security services had other ideas, according to some accounts. They wanted May to keep her distance from Trump until he had been office for longer, two people familiar with the matter said. However, one person involved doesn’t recall much internal disagreement.

“It was clear to me and others at the time that an offer of a state visit to President Trump was over the top and unnecessary,” said Katie Perrior, who served as May’s communications director until last June’s U.K. election was called. “Senior diplomats and civil servants both in the U.K. and U.S. raised their concerns through formal and informal routes, warning against rushing into it—and were ignored.”

Ultimately the offer was made. Shortly before May was due to leave the embassy for the White House, an urgent message arrived from from the palace. It said that the Queen had agreed to invite Trump and his wife. May’s officials hastily re-wrote her impending statement moments before her motorcade left for the White House to include the invitation.

Over a meal of blue cheese salad and beef ribs in the White House banqueting room, Trump held forth on a wide range of topics. “The president had strong views on all of them,” recalls Chris Wilkins, then May’s strategy director, who was among the aides around the table. “He said Brexit’s going to be the making of us. It’s going to be a brilliant thing.”

Trump turned to May and told her he believed there were parts of London that were effectively “no-go areas” due to the number of Islamic extremists. May chose to speak up to “correct him,” Wilkins said.

Trump also discussed his British golf courses and his hopes that the relationship with May would be stronger than the Thatcher-Reagan alliance. “It was an hour of the president holding court and the PM being very diplomatic and not many other people saying anything,” Wilkins said.

It shows the contrast in personalities that make for an unusual relationship, albeit one still underpinned by enduring strategic military cooperation and cultural links. As one British official observed, Trump is a larger than life character and May is almost the complete opposite.

During formal phone calls between the two leaders, May finds it almost impossible to make headway and get her points across, one person familiar with the matter said. Trump totally dominates the discussion, leaving the prime minister with five or ten seconds to speak before he interrupts and launches into another monologue.

In one phone conversation during 2017, Trump complained to May over the criticism he’d been getting in British newspapers. Amid warnings that Trump would face protests in the streets when he arrived, he told the prime minister he would not be coming to the U.K. until she could promise him a warm welcome.

May responded to say such treatment was simply the way the British press operate, and there wasn’t much she could do. In the secure bunker underneath the prime minister’s office, her advisers listened in to the call in astonishment at Trump’s demand.

British officials suspect Trump’s displeasure still lingers. The president canceled a planned trip to London next month for the official opening of the new U.S. embassy building. He claimed he disapproved of a deal to sell the old U.S. diplomatic headquarters. Some in May’s team now regret their “nightmare” decision to offer Trump a state visit.

While the offer of a state visit still stands, British officials don’t expect him to take it up any time soon, or perhaps ever.

“The relationship has taken some knocks,” said Peter Westmacott, a former British ambassador to the U.S. “But there is so much substance to the relationship—commercial, defense, intelligence, foreign policy, cyber, culture, language and shared values—that we all have an interest in ensuring that it remains strong.”

Even if May and Trump patch things up on the slopes of Davos, there’s a cloud on the horizon: another royal invitation.

This time it’s to the wedding of the Queen’s grandson, Prince Harry, and American actor Meghan Markle. None has been forthcoming. But if Trump does make it, at least he might know some of the possible guests: Prince Harry’s famous friends include Barack and Michelle Obama.

It's Judgment Day in Brazil as Lula Faces Court Verdict - Bloomberg

It's Judgment Day in Brazil as Lula Faces Court Verdict

By Simone Preissler Iglesias

January 24, 2018, 5:00 PM GMT+11 Updated on January 24, 2018, 10:08 PM GMT+11

Three judges in Porto Alegre to rule on corruption conviction

Adverse ruling will complicate Lula’s presidential candidacy

Demonstrators raise their hands during a rally in support of former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, ahead of his appeal hearing in Porto Alegre, Brazil, on Jan. 23.

A Brazilian court on Wednesday started hearing an appeal of former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s criminal conviction, a case that could scupper his presidential ambitions and shape the outcome of October’s election.

Ahead of the ruling in the southern city of Porto Alegre, Lula’s Workers’ Party bused in tens of thousands of supporters in a show of strength for the 72-year old leftist, who leads the opinion polls by a wide margin and denies any wrongdoing. An adverse ruling would likely prevent Lula from running or taking office.

Regardless of the outcome of the trial, the former factory worker plans to launch his election campaign on Thursday, pledging to roll back the business-friendly reforms introduced by President Michel Temer. While some investors fear Lula’s candidacy and would prefer him out of the picture, many prominent politicians -- including Temer himself -- argue he should have the chance to run for the sake of Brazilian democracy.

"This is truly a lose-lose situation for all parties," said Christopher Sabatini, a professor of international relations from Columbia University. If Lula is ruled ineligible it could "look like a target political vendetta, but if he’s allowed to run it will look like impunity."

While Lula retains a passionate and solid support base, many Brazilians are outraged by the prospect of him returning to the presidential palace. With demonstrations planned by opponents as well as supporters, elite snipers are in position on city rooftops and naval patrol boats have been deployed. The airspace above the court house has also been shut down.

Investor Concern

Most investors are expecting all three judges to vote against Lula and will be disappointed if there is a dissenting vote, as this could increase chances for appeals.

"There are a lot of different possible outcomes from Lula’s judgment, but the markets aren’t working with a pessimistic scenario," said Joao Souza Fernandes, an economist at Quantitas Gestão de Recursos.

Lula supporters wave flags at a campsite in Porto Alegre, on Jan. 23.Photographer: Dado Galdieri/Bloomberg

In a defiant speech to a crowd of supporters in Porto Alegre on Tuesday, Lula minimized the importance of financial markets.

"The market’s afraid of Lula," he said. "I don’t need the market. What I need is for the people to take part."

Since his conviction in July last year, polls have shown a steady increase in support for Lula, with the latest Datafolha survey finding 36 percent of the electorate would vote for him. His nearest rival, far-right congressman Jair Bolsonaro, had the backing of 18 percent.

But the survey also found that 39 percent of the electorate would not consider voting for Lula under any circumstances.

Credited with hauling millions of Brazilians out of poverty during the commodities boom that characterized his years in power, Lula left the presidency in 2010 with an approval rating of around 80 percent. While he helped steer his hand-picked successor, Dilma Rousseff, to two election victories, his reputation soured as the economy tanked and corruption charges piled up.

Aside from his conviction for accepting 3.7 million reais ($1.2 million) -- principally in the form of a renovated beachside apartment -- from a construction company in return for favors, he faces six other criminal charges. Lula maintains his innocence and says the accusations are politically motivated.

— With assistance by Vinicius Andrade, and Matthew Malinowski

Toys "R" Us plans to close more than 180 U.S. stores - CNN Money

Toys "R" Us plans to close more than 180 U.S. stores

by Rishi Iyengar @Iyengarish

January 24, 2018: 4:10 AM ET

Toys "R" Us is planning to shutter a fifth of its U.S. stores.

The troubled retailer, which declared bankruptcy in September, is looking to close down as many as 182 outlets across the country, according to a court filing late Tuesday.

The news comes after a brutal year for retailers in the U.S. in which store closings across the country hit a record.

Over nearly seven decades in business, Toys "R" Us has built up 1,600 stores around the world. About 880 of them are in the U.S.

The filing Tuesday by the company's lawyers said the decision to shut so many stores was prompted by increased competition and a shift by customers toward online shopping.

Content by the UK’s Department for International Trade

Wearable tech that helps shed body fat

As DNA code meets computer code, technology is revolutionize healthcare and life sciences. The UK is in the vanguard of this new era.

Related: Retail's toughest year -- a record for store closings

The planned closures, which need court approval, are expected to begin early next month and be mostly completed by the end of April, Toys "R" Us CEO Dave Brandon said in a message to customers posted on the company's website.

"The actions we are taking are necessary to give us the best chance to emerge from our bankruptcy proceedings as a more viable and competitive company," he said.

Several other stores will be converted into co-branded Toys "R" Us and Babies "R" Us outlets, Brandon added.

Toys "R" Us stores outside the U.S. are unaffected.

Melanie Teed-Murch, president of Toys "R" Us Canada, said in a statement that all 83 locations there would continue operating as usual.

Toys "R" Us has suffered from fierce competition from fellow retailer Walmart (WMT) and online giant Amazon (AMZN) that left it reeling under $5 billion in debt.

The company's same-store sales fell 4.4% in the quarter ended October, with its U.S. stores experiencing a sharper drop of 7%. The toy industry at large is also facing headwinds, with key manufacturers like Lego and Mattel struggling with declining sales.