ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Removing President Donald Trump from office is now a focus in Washington after the riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Democrats and some Republicans are floating options. And several Minnesota leaders want action, but an expert questions if it can be done.

Leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi want the vice president to invoke the 25th Amendment, which could force Trump out on grounds that he's unfit to serve.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., has introduced articles of impeachment against Trump after he encouraged his supporters to descend on the Capitol, resulting in the violent insurrection.

Omar said even with just two weeks before Joe Biden is sworn in, it's clear the president needs to go.

"Every day he remains in office is a day the safety of America and the world is threatened," Omar asserted.

Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., is also calling for Trump's removal.

However, a political scientist from Brown University said even if either option is pursued quickly, there are still several steps that could block the effort.

She noted the 25th Amendment gives Trump a way to protest the move, and required votes in the House might not get enough Republican support.

Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General and a Democrat who previously served in Congress, said despite any roadblocks, leaders in Washington need to forcefully pursue ways to get rid of Trump.

"He will run again in 2024 if something is not done to address him," Ellison contended. "And even if he doesn't run, somebody will try to pick up his mantle and maybe be worse than him."

Rose McDermott, professor of political science at Brown University, said the 25th Amendment question is especially tricky, since a majority of White House Cabinet members need to sign off, in addition to the vice president. With staffers resigning, that makes that option harder.

"So the question is, how do you keep the guardrails on for the next 14 days?" McDermott wondered.

She noted military leaders do have the authority to reject demands from the president, if they're perceived as illegal.

But she added with fewer White House advisers staying on, it might be hard to monitor the Oval Office.


get more stories like this via email

BALTIMORE, Md. -- Maryland civil rights groups are proposing a lawsuit against Baltimore County if it adopts its current redistricting plan, claiming the map weakens representation for the area's diverse population.

Ryan Coleman, president of the Randallstown chapter of the NAACP, which would join with the ACLU of Maryland in suing the county, said the African American population in the area has soared to about 30% over the past 10 years and in some districts to 50%.

Yet the potential map packs the Black vote into just one district, maintaining a white majority in the other six districts, which the U.S. Supreme Court has counseled against in the Voting Rights Act.

"The map that they have drawn will dilute the African American voting power," Coleman contended. "And you can't tell me that with 300,000 African Americans in an 800,000-person county that we should only get one African American on the council."

The council will hold a public meeting on Dec. 14 for input on the plan. Then it will have a final approval vote on Dec. 20. If it decides to keep the current map, Coleman said his group and the ACLU will take legal action.

Parts of African American communities in the county are suffering from food deserts, crime and low-performing schools.

Deborah Jeon, legal director for the ACLU of Maryland, said those neighborhoods need representatives who care to bring needed change.

"We want the government to look like the county and not to maintain this system where the government, those at the top are all white, and the population is very diverse," Jeon asserted. "We're trying to promote representative democracy, and we think that benefits all of Baltimore County. "

Baltimore County was 60% white, about 30% Black and 6% Hispanic in the 2020 Census. In 2010, the area was 64% white, 26% Black and about 4% Hispanic.

MADISON, Wis. -- In a four-three decision this week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court backed a "least-change" approach to redistricting in the state.

The decision means the court will likely make minimal alterations when drawing Wisconsin's new legislative and congressional district maps, an important milestone in the redistricting process.

Sachin Chheda, director and co-founder of the Fair Elections Project, said the battle over the maps is far from over.

"They still have to develop and implement a map from the state court perspective," Chheda explained. "So they still have to come up with a map. And that will still take a few weeks, even maybe a couple of months."

Wisconsin's current district lines, which were drafted in 2011, have been criticized since then by anti-gerrymandering groups. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project, a nonpartisan watchdog initiative, gave the Republicans' new proposals a failing grade for favoring GOP candidates.

Chheda pointed out even as the maps make their way through the courts, Wisconsinites can still make their voices heard in the redistricting process.

"There's ways for people to be engaged in the fight," Chheda asserted. "Both by just drawing public attention to it and by advocating for legislation that would change this for the long-term, at both the state and federal level."

In the court's ruling, the majority held any alterations to district lines should be limited to reflect population changes and adhere to other legal requirements, like the Voting Rights Act, but said the court will not take into account districts' political composition when drafting new maps.

Anthony LoCoco, deputy counsel for the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which brought the case to court, said while other partisan issues may be at play in redistricting, it is not the court's duty to weigh them when drafting new maps.

"There are other political considerations that can go into drawing maps, but that would be the legislature's and, to a lesser extent, the governor's role," LoCoco contended.

The redistricting process is undertaken once every decade, as states receive results from the U.S. Census. The 2020 census data came late this year, which means a compressed timeline for updating the district boundaries.

FARGO, N.D. -- The U.S. Supreme Court today takes up arguments in a high-stakes abortion case. It coincides with divisive arguments over voter fraud, mask mandates and school curriculum, and recent findings suggest many Americans could use more civics knowledge as they debate the issues.

This fall, the Annenberg Public Policy Center released its annual survey of overall public "smarts" about the branches of government. Adults who correctly named all three branches increased to 56%, the highest since the survey began in 2006.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, called it woefully inadequate.

"If one doesn't understand that there are three branches, doesn't understand the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, that lack of knowledge increases the likelihood that when asked whether someone thinks that if the Supreme Court issues unpopular rulings, it might be best to get rid of the Supreme Court, a person is more likely to say yes," Jamieson cautioned.

Some divisive issues in the scope of government and constitutional protections have surfaced in North Dakota, including the state taking part in a lawsuit to overturn a workplace vaccine requirement for COVID-19. Mask-mandate debates also surfaced at many school board meetings across the state this fall.

While there has been more conversation about boosting civics education in schools, Jamieson feels the responsibility lies with the public in general to learn more. She added foundational knowledge of government is always important, but must be stressed in times like these.

"In an environment in which the branches are under stress, it becomes more important -- not less -- that the public understand why the founders set up the structure that we have," Jamieson argued.

She pointed out the news media can help by including more information when reporting on legislation or other matters related to government.

The survey revealed 61% of Americans incorrectly believes under the First Amendment, Facebook is required to allow all people to express themselves freely on the platform. And just over one in three people surveyed knew the correct lengths of terms for federal lawmakers.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.