Dem 'disarray'? Florida House candidate drops out, Conyers kept off ballot

Democrats suffered a double blow after their choice candidate in a Florida House race suddenly dropped out and longtime Michigan Rep. John Conyers apparently failed to qualify for the primary ballot in his state. 
Republicans, looking to defend their majority in the House this fall, seized on the developments as a sign that Democrats are in "disarray" in the mid-terms. 
"Whether it's this situation [in Michigan], or Democrats finding out today they have no candidate in the Florida 13 competitive seat, House Democrats are watching any remaining hopes of making Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House again evaporate before their eyes," said Daniel Scarpinato, spokesman with the National Republican Congressional Committee. 
In Michigan, Conyers is expected to appeal the decision after Wayne County Clerk Kathy Garrett said the Democratic congressman didn't get enough signatures to appear on the Aug. 5 primary ballot. He could still run as a write-in candidate, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee voiced confidence that Conyers will ultimately win re-election. 
But in Florida, the party for the moment appears to be left without a candidate after Ed Jany, an independent running with Democratic support against Republican Rep. David Jolly, dropped out. 
The decision by the Marine and former police officer comes days after The Tampa Bay Times published a story questioning whether he padded his education credentials on his resume. 
In a statement, Jany made no reference to that report, and cited difficulty balancing the campaign with professional work he was doing in Brazil. 
"In my professional capacity, I am responsible for coordinating some of the Command and Control for Security at the World Cup in Brazil this year, something I committed to doing some time ago," he said in a statement, according to The Tampa Bay Times. "I wrongly assumed that I could maintain my professional work requirements while running for office, just as I was able to work full-time as a police officer while pursuing a full-time education and balancing my military service in the past." 
DCCC Executive Director Kelly Ward issued a brief statement on the decision. "We respect and appreciate Ed Jany's ongoing efforts to continue serving his country and wish him the best in his future endeavors," Ward said. 
But the development undoubtedly stings for Democrats, whose candidate Alex Sink narrowly lost to Jolly in a special election in March for the Tampa-area House seat. They have another chance to win the seat in the fall, but it's unclear whether the party will rally behind a new candidate. 
The NRCC described the latest development as an "epic failure." 
Each party has about two-dozen House seats in play this year, according to political analysts. That makes for an uphill battle for Democrats to close the GOP's 34-seat majority. 
In Michigan, Conyers' situation is not unprecedented. In 2012, another Michigan congressman, Republican Thad McCotter of suburban Detroit, didn't make the ballot because a staff member turned in phony signatures or ones from old petitions. 
Conyers was at risk because officials believe several people who signed his petitions do not appear to have been registered voters or had registered too late. 
Federal court actions, meanwhile, are taking aim at the requirement that petition collectors be registered voters. The ACLU has filed suit to change state law. 
Conyers' opponent in the primary, the Rev. Horace Sheffield III, said Garrett should be commended for her stand. 
"I appreciate it -- with knowing the relationship and respect she has for the congressman," Sheffield told The Associated Press on Tuesday evening. "I also respect that she did what the law called for her to do." 
Sheffield, 59, said his campaign manager, Richard Jones, filed the challenge after learning that at least two people hired to get signatures for Conyers were not registered at the time to vote in Wayne County. 
Conyers was elected to the U.S. House in 1964 after winning the Democratic primary by 108 votes. 
Since then, he routinely has won re-election -- often with more than 80 percent of the vote -- and became the senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus, which he helped found. 
His closest call came in the 2010 general election. That year Conyers received 77 percent of the vote. It came at a time Republicans swept offices across the state, including Rick Snyder's election as governor. The election also came just two months after Conyers' wife reported to prison to begin a three-year sentence for corruption. 
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

UCLA prof says stats prove school's admissions illegally favor blacks

Public universities in California are barred from using race as a factor in admitting students, but a UCLA professor who once served on its admissions oversight team says he has proof they do it anyway.
While the first round of admissions consideration is handled fairly, African-American students are nearly three times as likely to make it out of the "maybe" pile than equally-qualified white students, and more than twice as likely as Asians, according to Tim Groseclose, a political science professor at the school and author of a new book titled, “Cheating: An Insider's Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA.”
“UCLA is using racial preferences in admissions,” Groseclose, who made his case using data from 2006-2009, told FoxNews.com.
After a first look results in most applications being either accepted or rejected, a handful of senior university staff sift through those marked for further consideration, according to Groseclose. That’s where the alleged bias happens. He found black applicants were accepted at a  43 percent rate in the second round, while whites were accepted at a 15 percent rate and Asians at an 18 percent rate.
"All of the cheating was done by the senior staff,” Groseclose said.

“UCLA is using racial preferences in admissions.”- Tim Groseclose, UCLA political science professor

And race outweighs socioeconomic status, according to Groseclose. For instance, black applicants whose families had incomes exceeding $100,000 were about twice as likely to be accepted in round two as Asian and white kids whose families make just $30,000 and had similar test scores, grades and essays.
UCLA spokesman Ricardo Vazquez told FoxNews.com that the school “will not address specific assertions made by Prof. Groseclose,” but said “UCLA believes its admissions process to be fair, transparent and consistent with state law.”
Additionally, Vazquez pointed to a study on the issue that it commissioned, which was done by UCLA Sociology Prof. Robert Mare.
“An independent review of UCLA’s holistic review admissions process released in 2012 found no evidence of bias,” Vazquez said in an emailed statement.
But Groseclose said the report cited by Vazquez found that if admissions were truly race neutral, “245 more North Asian applicants would have been admitted, which would be almost a 9 percent increase…  121 fewer black applicants would have been admitted… [a 33 percent decrease].” It also found that whites and Hispanics benefited at Asians’ expense in the admissions process.
The university’s alleged law-breaking goes back to 2006, when students protested and demanded higher minority enrollment. Shortly after that, Groseclose said, the university’s chancellor met with him and other members of the university’s admissions oversight committee and urged them to find a way to increase diversity.
The next year, black enrollment nearly doubled. Groseclose, wondering if the university had illegally based admission on race, asked if he could look at the detailed admissions data. Administrators refused to give him the data for a year, but eventually turned it over after he invoked a state law that gave him a right to see the files.
Groseclose has posted the data on his website.
Groseclose believes there is a strong case for a lawsuit to be filed by people who think they were discriminated against, but says UCLA is hardly unique.
“I think this is common – not just the racial preferences, but also the lying,” he said.
While California is one of eight states that do not allow race to affect admissions decisions, the rest do. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court held that states are free to prohibit the use of racial considerations in university admissions, upholding Michigan’s constitutional amendment banning affirmative action. But advocates say achieving racial diversity in student bodies is critical.
“I support affirmative action because engaging with racial diversity during the college years enhances student learning and prepares students for citizenship in a diverse democracy,” Julie Park, assistant professor of education at the University of Maryland and author of the book “When Diversity Drops,” told FoxNews.com.
“I also support it because student merit is more than just SAT scores,” she added.
But others say affirmative action backfires.
“When students’… level of academic preparation is substantially lower than that of their classmates, a wide range of unrebutted, peer-reviewed research shows that they learn less,” Richard Sander, author of “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help,” told FoxNews.com.
Groseclose agrees, but acknowledges that the position is unpopular in California. He has since decided to leave for a job at George Mason University in Virginia, beginning this summer.
“Within academia, there are just certain things you must say are true, even if you know they're false," he said. "Academia needs a major shakeup.”

Tea Party-backed candidate Sasse wins GOP Senate primary in Nebraska

Tea Party favorite Ben Sasse won the Republican nomination for an open Senate seat in Nebraska Tuesday night, after a heated and costly primary battle that drew heavy national attention.
Sasse, a university president, was able to hold off former state treasurer Shane Osborn and dark horse candidate Sid Dinsdale, who had begun to surge in recent weeks. Sasse grabbed 49 percent of the vote with Dinsdale finishing second and Osborn finishing third, according to preliminary returns.
"We were never doing this because we need another job," Sasse told supporters Tuesday night. "We were only going to do this if we were going to talk about big bold conservative ideas."
The win makes Sasse a huge favorite in November's general election, where he'll face Democrat Dave Domina, an Omaha attorney. The winner will replace Republican Mike Johanns, who didn't seek a second term.
Sasse, the president of Midland University, had steadily gained the backing of some of the most influential conservative groups and figures. His victory is a huge win for the Tea Party, as the movement has struggled to gain traction this year in the primaries.
Osborn had the backing of allies of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and ran an aggressive campaign. Further scrambling the race, Pinnacle Bank President Dinsdale had sought to capitalize on the Sasse-Osborn fight and had climbed in the polls.
In recent weeks, big names gravitated to Sasse's side, including Sarah Palin and Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. Sasse also has the backing of the Club for Growth, the Tea Party Patriots, the Senate Conservatives Fund and FreedomWorks.
"Ben Sasse won this race because he never stopped fighting for conservative principles," said Matt Hoskins, executive director of the Senate Conservatives Fund, which spent more than $1.2 million to help Sasse.
Cruz said Sasse's win "is a clear indication that the grassroots are rising up to make D.C. listen."
Sasse focused on his conservative credentials, opposition to abortion, support for gun rights and goal of repealing and replacing the health care law.
In one 30-second ad, Sasse's two young daughters, Alex and Corrie, talked about how much their dad opposed the Affordable Care Act. "He wants to destroy it," said one daughter. "He despises it," said the other.
However, Sasse advised former Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt's firm as the group reached out to businesses and organizations in 2010 to explain and implement the new law. Osborn recently began running a 30-second TV ad linking Sasse to writings and speeches from several years earlier commenting on elements that would become part of the law firmly opposed by most Republicans.
Outside groups and the candidates have spent millions on the race in which the GOP winner is widely expected to prevail in November. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, the party's campaign operation, remained neutral.
The Tea Party movement has struggled in earlier contests, with their favored candidates losing to establishment favorites in Texas, North Carolina and Ohio.
Looking ahead to upcoming primaries, the Tea Party's chances to upset incumbents have been diminishing in Kentucky, Kansas, Idaho and Mississippi.
In Nebraska's GOP primary for governor, Omaha businessman Pete Ricketts narrowly defeated Attorney General Jon Bruning. Term limits prevented Republican Gov. Dave Heineman from running again.

Michael Sam

Report: Thousands of convicted criminals freed while awaiting deportation proceedings

The Obama administration released thousands of convicted criminals -- including murderers and those convicted of sexual assault -- while they were awaiting deportation proceedings, according to a new report. 
The Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based advocacy group, released the statistics on Monday, in its latest bid to draw attention to what analysts with the organization say are lax enforcement practices by the Obama administration. 
The numbers showed that in 2013, Immigration and Customs Enforcement released 36,007 "convicted criminal aliens" while they were waiting for the outcome of their deportation cases. They represented a total of 88,000 convictions. 
The majority of the cases involved individuals convicted on lower-level or nonviolent offenses, like auto theft, drunk-driving and drug charges. But many were involved in more serious cases.   
According to the report, the 88,000 convictions included: 
-- 193 homicide convictions 
-- 426 sexual assault convictions 
-- 303 kidnapping convictions 
-- More than 1,000 aggravated assault convictions 
Jessica Vaughan, the group's director of policy studies, said in a statement she was "astonished" by the figures. Referring to an ongoing Department of Homeland Security review of deportation policies, she said any "further relaxation of enforcement" would be "hard to justify" in light of the statistics. 
"Congress should resist further action on immigration reform until the public can be assured that enforcement is more robust and that ICE can better deal with its criminal alien caseload without setting them free in our communities," she added. 
ICE defended its enforcement practices when asked about the report, and said in a statement that many of those cited were released "under restrictions such as GPS monitoring, telephone monitoring, supervision, or surety bond."
Further, the statement said the agency was required by law to release some of those individuals.
"The releases required by court decisions account for a disproportionate number of the serious crimes listed in the report.  For example, mandatory releases account for over 75% of the homicides listed," ICE said.
The individuals in question were reportedly released on bond or on parole or under various other alternatives to detention while awaiting processing. 
The same organization that published the data put out a separate report more than a month ago that showed ICE agents were opting not to deport thousands of "criminal aliens." These are separate from the cases detailed in the latest study. 
According to that prior report, ICE released 68,000 foreign nationals in 2013 who either had criminal convictions or charges against them. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, though, accused CIS of distorting the numbers, and claimed that some of them could represent minor offenses. Further, the agency said a total of 216,000 "convicted criminals" were removed in 2013.

Geithner, in memoir, suggests White House asked him to bend truth on deficit

Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claims in his new book that the White House on more than one occasion tried to put words in his mouth or outright asked him to bend the truth. 
In his memoir, "Stress Test: Reflections on Financial Crises," Geithner recalls a Sunday talk show prep session in 2011 during which top White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer wanted him to say Social Security "didn't contribute" to the federal deficit. Geithner wrote that he objected. 
"It wasn't a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute," Geithner wrote, explaining his own reasoning. "Pfeiffer said the line was a 'dog whistle' to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security." 
After the anecdote began to generate attention on Monday, a source close to Geithner clarified to Fox News that the former secretary "does not believe he was encouraged to go out and mislead the public on the Sunday shows." 
The source said all the former secretary was trying to get across was that Pfeiffer wanted him to "send a signal" to liberals about the president's commitment to not allowing major cuts to Social Security. 
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also defended Pfeiffer, reiterating the White House position that Social Security is not the "main driver" of the deficit, when compared with health care-related entitlement programs. "That, I'm sure, is the point that Dan was making," Carney said. 
Still, the episode and others in the 544-page book, in stores Monday, provide a glimpse into how the White House screens and provides information to the public -- particularly following revelations about White House involvement in a "prep call" for then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice's controversial appearance on Sunday shows after the 2012 Benghazi attacks. 
Geithner also recalled an incident in January 2009, having been on the job as secretary for less than a week, in which he rejected what a Democratic strategist wanted him to say at an Oval Office press event. 
"I was supposed to have my first one-on-one meeting with President Obama," Geithner wrote. "As I was about to walk into the Oval Office, Stephanie Cutter, a veteran Democratic operative who was handling our communications strategy, told me we would have a 'pool spray,' a photo opportunity for the White House press. 
"The president and I would make brief remarks about executive compensation, responding to a report that Wall Street firms had paid their executives big bonuses while piling up record losses in 2008. 'Here's what you're going to say,' Cutter said." 
Geithner wrote that Cutter handed him the text, and he "skimmed the outrage I was expected to express." 
He wrote: "I'm not very convincing as an angry populist, and I thought the artifice would look ridiculous." 
According to his memoir, he told Cutter he wouldn't do it. 
"Instead, I sat uncomfortably next to the president while he expressed outrage. Americans were furious about bailouts for overpaid bankers, and the White House political team wanted us to show we were on the right side of the backlash," he wrote. "The public outrage was appropriate ... but I didn't see how we could ever satisfy it. We had no legal authority to confiscate the bonuses that had been paid during the boom."

New Jersey mayor fights feds over prayer during citizenship ceremony

A New Jersey town canceled its ceremony celebrating new U.S. citizens after federal immigration officials would not allow the event to begin with a prayer.
According to the Star-Ledger, Carteret Mayor Daniel Reiman had assured U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials that the prayer leading Saturday’s ceremony would be nondenominational.
“They refused to budge on that,” Reiman said, the paper reported.
The battle came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local government meetings can include sectarian prayers.

“They refused to budge on that.”- Carteret Mayor Daniel Reiman

Reiman and immigration officials each cited the high court’s opinion.
Reiman, who was elected to office in 2002, said the court’s decision is proof that he should be able to open any event with a prayer. He issued a statement Friday saying it is borough policy to open all borough events with a prayer and a moment of silence.
The citizenship agency said the ruling does not mean federal agencies are required to include prayers in ceremonies. It cited a portion of the justices’ decision that referred to the “Pledge of Allegiance” as one of the traditions that “lend gravity to public proceedings.”
Katie Tichacek Kaplan, a spokeswoman for the immigration agency, told the Associated Press that it's a long-standing policy to make sure naturalization ceremonies are "conducted in a meaningful manner which is welcoming and inclusive and excludes political, commercial and religious statements."
Click to read the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America.
Reiman said the town celebrates diversity and that the prayer is non-denominational. He said the immigration service can "host its godless ceremony someplace else."
The event was moved to Newark.
During the fight to include prayer in the opening of the naturalization ceremony, Reiman cited the CIS website, which states that new citizens must recite an oath that contains the phrase, “so help me God,” as well as the “Pledge of Allegiance,” which includes the phrase “under God.”
The website says that reciting the pledge and oath completes the process of becoming a U.S. citizen.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Policing for Profit? Lawmakers, advocates raise alarm at growing gov’t power to seize property

WASHINGTON –  Motel owner Russell Caswell wasn’t expecting to find himself at the center of a national controversy when FBI agents came knocking on his door.
They said they wanted his Tewksbury, Mass., business – and the land it was on – because they suspected it was a hotbed for drug-dealing and prostitution. The agents, who were working with state and local authorities, told a disbelieving Caswell they had the right to take the property, valued at as much as $1.5 million, through a legal process known as civil forfeiture.
Caswell, 70, fought back, and the case turned into one of the nation's most contentious civil forfeiture fights ever – and one that legal experts say sheds light on a little-known practice that, when abused, is tantamount to policing for profit.
Civil forfeiture is when police and prosecutors seize property, cars or cash from someone they suspect of wrongdoing. It differs from criminal forfeiture cases, where prosecutors typically must prove a person is guilty or reach a settlement before freezing funds or selling property. In civil forfeiture, authorities don’t have to prove guilt, file charges or obtain a conviction before seizing private property. Critics say it is a process ripe for abuse, and one which leaves citizens little means of fighting back.
“You breed a culture of 'take first, ask questions later,'” Larry Salzman, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, told FoxNews.com. “It’s thuggish behavior.”
Law enforcement officials argue that civil forfeiture powers give them an effective tool against lawbreakers. Freezing funds and seizing assets allow them to hit alleged criminals, frequently suspected drug dealers, where it hurts the most – their wallets.
Alarmed civil rights groups and libertarians are rallying against the practice. Salzman's group defended Caswell and won case in federal court last year. 
But not every target of civil forfeiture can afford the fight.
In 1985, the U.S. Department of Justice created its Asset Forfeiture Fund. One year later, the fund -- which holds the proceeds from seized property and is available to be divvied out to law enforcement agencies -- brought in $93.7 million. In 2008, the amount had ballooned to $1.6 billion. In 2013, it reached $6.3 billion.
Across the country, many states are stepping up efforts to curb civil forfeiture abuse.
In Tennessee, local law enforcement agencies get to keep 100 percent of all property seized through civil forfeiture – an incentive some say can tempt police to go after property for the wrong reasons. Rep. Barrett Rich, a former state trooper, introduced legislation last year that would eliminate the practice in the Volunteer State.
The original version of Rich's bill would have required authorities to obtain a warrant before seizing property. Forfeiture and title transfer of property would take place only under due process of law and only if the owner of the property had been prosecuted and convicted. Rich's bill underwent amendments that, in the end, amounted to more modest reforms to state law.
“We shouldn’t completely get rid of civil forfeiture,” Rich told FoxNews.com. “It’s a valuable tool for law enforcement, but it is also ripe for abuse.”
In other states, the fight for reform has been even harder.
In March, the Georgia Sheriff’s Association successfully killed a bill that would have raised the burden of proof in civil cases and mandated the forfeiture of property worth more than $5,000 be brought before a judge rather than handled administratively.
GSA president and Putnam County Sheriff Howard Sills argued the bill would “demoralize the law enforcement community to a point where we will see little public benefit in enforcing the law when it comes to drug dealers and other criminal entrepreneurs.”
His letter drew harsh criticism from many watchdog groups.
“It is hard to believe that a Georgia law enforcement official would argue that upholding the law is worthwhile only when it is profitable,” Heritage Foundation bloggers Jason Snead and Andrew Kloster wrote. “Such are the perverse incentives created by civil forfeiture laws.”
An investigation conducted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution looked into how funds over a five-year period were spent in Georgia. 
According to the newspaper, Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard spent thousands of dollars gleaned from civil forfeitures on pricey dinners and an elaborate home security system for himself. In November 2009, he allegedly paid $800 to rent out a movie theater. Three months later, Howard told his employees they’d have to take 10 furlough days due to budget constraints.
To many, like attorney Salzman, civil forfeitures represent a dangerous area of the U.S. justice system where, by law, a person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around.
On a national level, Salzman says a loophole in the federal law called equitable sharing allows authorities to circumvent the paper-thin protections offered on a state level.
In Ball Harbour, Fla., police raked in more than $5 million through its participation with the Justice Department’s asset forfeiture sharing program in 2011.  The town, which is home to only 2,500 permanent residents, made most of its money through the Justice Department’s Equitable Sharing program.
Under the federal program, state and local agencies work in tandem with the feds and often they are allowed to keep most of what they help seize. Property is often sold, with proceeds funneled back into local coffers. They money can go toward anything from new equipment to raises and other perks from the same officials who carried out the bust.
It’s the lopsided power of the law that many Americans who are targeted can’t afford to fight, Salzman says. 
Salzman, who took on the Caswell case pro bono, said law enforcement officials targeted his client’s property out of greed. 
The basic accusation they used to seize his motel was that Caswell could have done more to police what was happening in his own motel. That was news to Caswell, who says over the years he had comp’d the cops free rooms and space so they could set up stings and bust drug deals going down.
“I’ve found, which is kind of hard to believe, but I’m responsible for the action of people I don’t even know, I’ve never even met, and for the most part I have no control over them,” Caswell said in court.  “And I have to rent them a room unless I have a real good reason not to or I get accused of discrimination and that kind of thing.”
“And when they do something wrong, the government wants to steal my property for the actions of those people, which to me makes absolutely no sense,” he added. “It’s more like we’re in Russia or Venezuela or something.”
After a four-day trial, on Jan. 24, 2013, a federal judge in Boston dismissed the forfeiture action against the motel, ruling that the government engaged in “gross exaggeration” of the evidence and did not have authority to seize the property.