- Illinois voters to decide competitive US House primaries around the stateon March 19, 2024 at 4:18 am
CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois voters are set to decide competitive U.S. House races around the state in Tuesday’s primary election. The most closely watched races in Illinois include a downstate Republican matchup and two Chicago-area Democratic primaries. Here’s a closer look: In southern Illinois, Republican Rep. Mike Bost faces only his second intraparty challenge in seeking his sixth term in Congress. Former state Sen. Darren Bailey, the unsuccessful 2022 GOP nominee for governor, is hoping to unseat the 63-year-old incumbent. Bailey, 57, has maintained that Bost is not conservative enough. Illinois’ 12th Congressional District, redrawn after the 2020 Census, now includes a large chunk of southeastern Illinois that gave Donald Trump more than 70% of the vote in both 2016 and 2020. Bailey’s hopes to win the endorsement in this race from the former president were dashed when Trump, the presumptive 2024 presidential nominee, gave his backing to Bost. The issues are clear in the race: Rebuffing any regulation on the possession of guns, reducing inflation, opposing abortion and sealing the U.S. southern border, a particular problem for Illinois, which has received roughly 36,000 migrants who have largely crossed into Texas and have been sent to Chicago. Bailey contends Republicans in Congress should fight Democrats’ agenda on these and other issues and cooperate only when they abandon “extreme” positions. Bost opposes Democrats’ policies but calls himself a “governing conservative,” seeking compromise to get things done. Locked in a five-way primary, Rep. Danny Davis faces one of the most competitive reelections of his decades-long political career. The Democrat, who first won office in 1996, has faced questions about his fitness for office at age 82. He says those questions are fair but that his experience is valuable, particularly for leadership on key committees. He’s a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means. “I’m one of the most active elected officials I know,” he said. Davis has enthusiastic party backing. Still, the Democrats challenging him hope there’s enough dissatisfaction among voters to help them. Davis was able to fend off a 2022 primary challenge from progressive anti-violence activist Kina Collins, who received about 45% of the vote in the district that includes downtown Chicago and neighborhoods on the south and west sides, along with some suburbs. The 33-year-old is giving it a third try, though she trails the other candidates in fundraising. The other well-known candidate in the race is Chicago City Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin, a former Davis ally who says it’s time for him to be voted out. She has backing from prominent Black pastors and the powerful Chicago Teachers Union. The winner of the Democratic primary is expected to win in November. Also running are Chicago educator Nikhil Bhatia and Kouri Marshall, a former deputy director for Gov. J.B. Pritzker. Three-term Rep. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia faces a spirited challenge from Chicago Alderman Raymond Lopez. The congressman, who dominates in funding and endorsements, is facing his first primary challenger since 2018, when he won congressional office. Lopez says Garcia is no longer the right fit for the district, which is predominantly Hispanic and includes working-class communities and neighborhoods on the city’s southwest side as well as wealthy suburbs. The 45-year-old Lopez is one of the most conservative members of City Council, often backing police. He has called Garcia an “extreme Democrat.” Meanwhile, Garcia, 67, says voters have repeatedly put him in office, including in 2022 after a remap added new territory to the district. He’s also a former state legislator and city alderman. Garcia dominates in fundraising, raising $376,000 last year compared to Lopez’s $46,000 in the same time period, according to federal election records. He’s picked up endorsements from labor groups, while Lopez has support from the Chicago police union. There’s no Republican running in the heavily Democratic district. Tuesday’s winner is expected to win outright in November. ___ Associated Press political writer John O’Connor contributed to this report from Springfield. Brought to you by www.srnnews.com
- Tuesday’s primaries include a key Senate race in Ohio and clues for the Biden-Trump rematchon March 19, 2024 at 4:18 am
NEW YORK (AP) — Five states will hold presidential primaries on Tuesday as President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump continue to lock up support around the country after becoming their parties’ presumptive nominees. Trump is expected to easily win GOP primaries in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Kansas and Ohio. Biden is expected to do the same in all those states except Florida, where Democrats canceled their primary and opted to award all 224 of their delegates to Biden. That’s not an unusual move for a party with an incumbent in the White House seeking reelection. Other races outside of the presidency could provide insight into the national political mood. Ohio’s Republican Senate primary pits Trump-backed businessman Bernie Moreno against two challengers, Ohio Secretary of State Frank Frank LaRose and Matt Dolan, whose family owns the Cleveland Guardians baseball team. Chicago voters will decide whether to assess a one-time real estate tax to pay for new homeless services. And voters in California will move toward deciding a replacement for former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who resigned his seat after being pushed out of Republican leadership. Trump and Biden have for weeks been focused on the general election, aiming their campaigns lately on states that could be competitive in November rather than merely those holding primaries. Trump on Saturday rallied in Ohio, which has for several years been reliably Republican. But there are signs the state could be competitive again in 2024. Last year, Ohio voted overwhelmingly to protect abortion rights in its constitution and voted to legalize marijuana. Biden, meanwhile, is set to visit Nevada and Arizona on Tuesday. Both men are running on their records in office and casting the other as a threat to America. Trump, 77, has portrayed 81-year-old Biden as mentally unfit. The president has described his Republican rival as a threat to democracy after his attempt to overturn the 2020 election results and his praise of foreign strongmen. For the last year, Trump has synthesized his campaign with his legal challenges, including dozens of criminal counts and civil cases in which he faces more than $500 million in fines. His first criminal trial was scheduled to start Monday in New York on allegations he falsified business records to cover up hush money payments. But a judge delayed the trial for 30 days after the recent disclosure of new evidence that Trump’s lawyers said they needed time to review. Brought to you by www.srnnews.com
- Rules that helped set real estate agent commissions are changing. Here’s what you need to knowon March 19, 2024 at 4:18 am
The cost of hiring a real estate agent to buy or sell a home may soon change, along with decades-old rules that have helped determine broker commissions. The policy changes could help spur price competition for agents’ services and lower the cost for sellers who now typically cover the commission for the buyer’s agent, as well as that of their own. In turn, more homebuyers could face pressure to pay for their agent’s commission out of pocket. That could be a challenge, especially for buyers already stretching financially to make a down payment and cover other upfront costs involved in buying a home. Still, housing market watchers say it can’t be immediately determined how significantly any changes that potentially shift the cost of hiring an agent to a homebuyer will affect home sales. An adjustment period is likely as buyers, sellers and agents figure out how to navigate what comes next. “I just think it’s too soon to tell,” said Greg Kling, an associate professor at the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business who has taught and written about real estate taxation. “We’re going to either see prices are going up for buyers, or the market is going to correct itself.” As part of a settlement announced Friday, the National Association of Realtors agreed to make some policy changes in order to resolve multiple class-action lawsuits brought on behalf of home sellers across the U.S. The trade group agreed to change its rules so that brokers who list a home for sale on any of the databases affiliated with the NAR are no longer allowed to include offers of compensation for a buyer’s agent. This change is meant to address a central assertion in lawsuits brought against the NAR and several major real estate brokerages: that homeowners are being forced to pay artificially inflated agent commissions when they sell their home. The trade group also agreed to require agents, or others working with a homebuyer, to enter into a written agreement with them. That is meant to ensure homebuyers know going in what their agent will charge them for their services. If the court signs off on the settlement, the NAR would implement the rule changes in mid-July. Meanwhile, several real estate brokerage operators, including Anywhere Real Estate and Keller Williams, have reached separate settlement agreements that include provisions for more transparency about agent commissions for homebuyers and sellers. “The residential real estate marketplace will take some time, perhaps several years, to fully process the implications of this settlement,” said Stephen Brobeck, senior fellow at the Consumer Federation of America. “But over time more, agents will feel free to offer different types of compensation and more consumers will comparison shop and negotiate commissions in a more transparent marketplace.” The key potential change centers on who foots the bill for real estate agents who represent homebuyers. Currently, an agent or broker representing a home seller typically splits a commission — often around 5% to 6% of the home’s sale price — with the agent working on behalf of the homebuyer. Such an arrangement is known in the industry as “cooperative compensation.” Under the proposed NAR settlement, a broker who represents a seller would no longer be allowed to include a blanket offer of cooperative compensation to a prospective buyer’s agent when they advertise the property on NAR-affiliated Multiple Listings Services, where a majority of U.S. homes are listed for sale. This is meant to remove any incentive from a buyer’s agent to steer their client away from home listings that don’t include a cooperative compensation offer. However, the proposed rule change leaves it open for individual home sellers to negotiate such an arrangement with a buyer’s agent outside of the MLS platforms, essentially creating a loophole for agents to keep things as they are now. Homebuyers could also ask the home seller for a concession that includes money to help cover the buyer’s agent compensation. What happens if a seller doesn’t want to offer to pay the buyer’s agent commission? Homebuyers would be on the hook to shop around for an agent they can afford. They’d also have to sign a contract with an agent before they enlist their services, spelling out how much the agent’s compensation will be. Having to factor in another expense into their homebuying budget could be challenging for homebuyers without a lot of savings or financial flexibility, making it tougher for them to navigate the housing market. Still, many variables are at play when it comes to buying or selling a home, not the least of which is how motivated each party is to close the deal. “If I’m a buyer and I know this seller is not going to reimburse my agent, then I may make a lower offer,” said Kling. “Now, obviously in a hot market, that strategy’s not going to work. But then in a hot market, I would have paid over listing price anyway.” The biggest change for homeowners looking to sell is they could push back against paying for buyer-agent commissions, which could translate into considerable savings. Consider a seller who agrees to pay a 3% commission for their listing agent — instead of potentially twice that to cover the buyer’s agent, too — and sells their home for February’s national median sale price of $379,100. That homeowner would save roughly $11,373 paying only their agent’s commission. “The settlement will also encourage more sellers to negotiate the compensation of their listing agents,” said Brobeck. Still, sellers may still face some pressure to cover buyer-agent commissions. The NAR built in an exception to its proposed rule change that would allow a buyer’s agent to see offers of cooperative compensation on home listings being advertised by their own brokerage. That workaround could tempt buyer agents to “steer” clients away from any listings that don’t come with an upfront compensation offer, which could prompt sellers to offer more competitive commissions to be split between their agent and the buyer’s, analysts with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods wrote in a research note Monday. “So long as steering incentives still exist, home sellers may be compelled to offer supracompetitive commissions to buyer agents in order to avoid steering,” the analysts wrote. One concern is that by making it easier for sellers to opt out of making a cooperative compensation offer to buyer agents, some buyers will opt against hiring an agent or only doing so toward the end of the process after they’ve gone through most of the home hunt themselves. That could end up weeding out some “lower-performing brokers,” Kling said. Another scenario is that alternative types of real estate business models will become more popular. This includes using discount brokers that will list a home for a flat fee of $500. “They don’t offer any compensation to the buyer agent because the buyer agent negotiates their own conditions if they want more,” said Mike Downer, a broker associate with Coldwell Banker Realty in Naples, Florida. “That business model has been around for a long time.” Brought to you by www.srnnews.com
- Federal court rules firearm restrictions on defendants awaiting trial are constitutionalon March 19, 2024 at 3:18 am
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Court orders that prohibited two criminal defendants from possessing firearms while they awaited trial were constitutional because they were in line with past restrictions on firearms, a federal court ruled Monday. Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, found that U.S. laws have historically sought to disarm dangerous criminal defendants, the Los Angeles Times reported. Sanchez said those previous prohibitions justified the restrictions placed on John Thomas Fencl and Jesus Perez-Garcia, defendants in California whose challenges to the law were consolidated in Monday’s order. “Here, the historical evidence, when considered as a whole, shows a long and broad history of legislatures exercising authority to disarm people whose possession of firearms would pose an unusual danger, beyond the ordinary citizen, to themselves or others,” Sanchez wrote. “The temporary disarmament of Fencl and Perez-Garcia as a means reasonably necessary to protect public safety falls within that historical tradition.” Katie Hurrelbrink, an attorney for both men, told the Times she intended to “continue litigating this” by asking for a review by a larger, en banc appellate panel and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. Attorney Tara McGrath said in a statement that the ruling “recognized the long history of keeping firearms out of the hands of those who refuse to abide by the law.” The Times cited court records that show Fencl was arrested and charged with various crimes after law enforcement officials discovered more than 100 guns in his home near San Diego. Perez-Garcia was arrested at the U.S.-Mexico border when a customs inspection of a vehicle in which he was a passenger uncovered about 11 kilograms of methamphetamine and half a kilogram of fentanyl, court records show. Both Fencl and Perez-Garcia argued that while detained defendants had historically had firearms taken away from them, there was no historical record of detainees who had been released from detention being precluded from possessing firearms. Sanchez wrote that the decision to take their guns was “consistent with our nation’s long history of temporarily disarming criminal defendants facing serious charges and those deemed dangerous or unwilling to follow the law.” Both men were released from custody pending trial and subsequently challenged the terms of their release under a “history and tradition” test the U.S. Supreme Court established in 2022 for assessing the constitutionality of gun laws nationwide. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen, the high court said that gun laws are legitimate only if they are rooted in U.S. history and tradition or are sufficiently analogous to some historic law. The Bruen decision led to a surge in challenges to gun laws. Brought to you by www.srnnews.com
- KEYWORD NOTICE – New York mayor accused of sexually assaulting transit co-worker in 1993on March 19, 2024 at 3:05 am
By Steve Gorman (Reuters) – A former New York City employee filed suit on Monday accusing Mayor Eric Adams of sexually assaulting her in 1993, when both worked for the municipal transit police bureau, after she went to him seeking help in navigating a hostile office environment. In a 26-page civil complaint filed in New York state court in Manhattan, Lorna Beach-Mathura alleged that Adams, then a transit officer, assaulted her in his car while parked along the Hudson River after promising her a ride home to discuss her career problems. She had trusted Adams and sought his help because of his role at the time as both a police department officer and leader in the NYPD Guardians Association, a fraternal group advocating equality and fair treatment for Black employees, the suit said. Adams flatly denied the allegations in a statement issued by city lawyers. Beach-Mathura said the alleged assault capped years of pervasive sexual harassment, discrimination and repeated denials of promotion she had endured as an administrative aide for the city transit bureau, now a part of the New York Police Department. According to the complaint, Adams agreed to help her obtain a promotion and offered to drive her home one evening to discuss the matter, but instead took her to a darkened, vacant lot where he demanded sexual favors in return for his assistance. As described in Beach-Mathura’s account, she refused his advances and pulled away her hand when Adams forcibly placed it on his exposed genitals before he masturbated himself to climax and ejaculated on her inside the car. She says he then dropped her off at a subway station. According to Beach-Mathura, Adams also was behind her subsequent transfer to another department where she lost seniority and was forced from her job during layoffs “in retaliation for refusing his quid pro quo sexual demands.” The lawsuit was filed under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, allowing accusers to sue over alleged long-ago sexual abuse even if statutes of limitations have expired. Beach-Mathura reserved her right to bring such a suit in a less-detailed court summons initially filed against Adams in November. At the time, a spokesperson for the mayor denied the claim and said Adams did not know the accuser or recall meeting her. In a statement issued on Monday, New York City Corporation Counsel Sylvia Hinds-Radix said the mayor still “fully denies these outrageous allegations and the events described.” It adds that Adams in 1993 “was one of the most prominent public opponents of the racism within the NYPD, which is why the suit’s allegations that he had any sway over promotions of civilian employees is ludicrous.” The NYPD Transit Bureau, the Guardians Association and the city of New York are also named as defendants in the suit, which seeks unspecified damages. (Reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles; Editing by Edwina Gibbs) Brought to you by www.srnnews.com