# data[].attributes.body
so much has happened in just the first couple of months! it's crazy that all of this happened in 100 days!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
April 10 marked the 100th day of 2021.

The year has seen a number of major events, like the Capitol riots, the Texas winter storm, and Kim Kardashian filing for divorce from Kanye West.

Here are 38 major news events that happened in the first 100 days of 2021.

Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.

April 10 marked the 100th day of 2021.

The US entered a new phase of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic with the rollout of vaccines. Confirmed cases began to plateau and decrease, though coronavirus variants that continue to spread within certain states and communities have prompted health officials to advise Americans to continue to take appropriate precautions.

Outside of the pandemic, a number of unprecedented events happened in a little over three months into the new year, including the January 6 Capitol riot, the beginning of the trial of ex-Minnesota police officer Derek Chauvin in the killing of George Floyd, and Kim Kardashian filing for divorce from Kanye West after seven years of marriage.

Here are 38 major news events that happened in the first 100 days of 2021:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
April 10 marked 100 days into 2021. Here are 38 shocking things that have happened so far.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
April 10 marked the 100th day of 2021. The year has seen a number of major events, like the Capitol riots, the Texas winter storm, and Kim Kardashian filing for divorce from Kanye West. Here are 38 major news events that happened in the first 100 days of 2021.

# data[].attributes.body
This is great news! I wouldn't say justice, but people are being held accountable for their actions. This is a huge step in the right direction!!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chauvin faces hearing on federal charges in Floyd's death

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - The former Minneapolis police officer convicted of murder in George Floyd's death is scheduled to make an initial appearance Tuesday in federal court to face charges alleging he violated Floyd's civil rights by pinning the Black man to the pavement with his knee.

# data[].attributes.body
Becoming a state will allow the citizens that live there to vote. This would have been helpful in the elections in the past. It could also help in the future. Will they have to start paying state income tax?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Activist participate in a rally for D.C. statehood near the Capitol in Washington on Monday. (Shawn Thew/(SHAWN THEW/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock))

Now that Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the White House, advocates of making Washington, D.C., the 51st state believe they are on the brink of a historic opportunity.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee is convening Monday to hear the arguments for and against D.C. statehood, and Democrats pledge to bring the statehood bill to a vote before the summer.

But D.C. statehood still faces a number of high hurdles, not only in the narrowly divided Senate but in public opinion. A 2019 Gallup poll found that nearly two-thirds of Americans opposed D.C. statehood. Last year, statehood advocates launched a campaign to introduce the nation to everyday residents of their country's capital, arguing that perhaps the nation doesn't know enough about the people who live in the District to have an informed position about making it a state.

Here are the challenges that remain for statehood.

D.C. statehood moves from political fringe to the center of the national Democratic agenda

Why isn't D.C. already a state? What does the Constitution say?

D.C.'s founding is enshrined in the Constitution, which provides that the District - "not exceeding 10 Miles square" - would "become the Seat of the Government of the United States." For a brief period after the city's creation in 1790, residents enjoyed voting rights and were allowed to cast ballots as residents of Maryland or Virginia. But those rights ended shortly after Congress moved into town and the new Capitol in 1800 and passed the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801. The act stripped D.C. residents of their rights to vote in all federal elections, including for president, and gave Congress oversight of the city.

The District was not afforded presidential electors until the passage of the 23rd Amendment in 1961; its residents didn't get a nonvoting delegate in the House until 1970.

How can Congress change this?

Those opposed to making D.C. a state have argued that statehood for D.C. can't happen without a constitutional amendment. They say the founders intended the entire District to serve as the seat of the federal government, not as a state. But legislation put forth by nonvoting Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) every year since 1991 would not eliminate the "seat of government" that the Constitution calls for. Instead, H.R. 51 would shrink the national capital to a small complex of federal buildings, while allowing the rest of the District to become a state.

Proponents of statehood argue that this plan preserves the federal enclave - whose only requirement is that it can't exceed 10 square miles - and escapes the need for a constitutional amendment.

Outstanding questions remain over what would happen to the three electoral college votes currently afforded to the District when it becomes a smaller federal enclave. Some have wondered whether the 23rd Amendment would have to be repealed so that the few residents of the federal enclave - namely, those residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue - don't retain them.

What needs to happen for D.C. to become a state?

The bill to make D.C. a state has enough support in the House to pass again, and Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) has said in an interview that he expects the bill will pass the House before the summer. But it faces obstacles in the Senate.

Democrats occupy half the seats in that chamber, thanks to the January victories of Jon Ossoff and Raphael G. Warnock of Georgia, both of whom support statehood. That creates a 50-50 split in the Senate among Democrats and Republicans, with Vice President Harris able to cast the tiebreaking vote. She, like Biden, supports statehood.

But because of the Senate filibuster - which requires 60 votes rather than 51 for legislation to pass - a simple majority of Democrats in the Senate isn't good enough to pass statehood; the bill would need the support of at least 10 Senate Republicans as well.

Alternatively, the Senate could vote to end the filibuster, meaning that 50 votes in favor of statehood - plus Harris as the tiebreaker - would suffice.

A number of senators are pushing various filibuster reform proposals, such as returning to the "talking filibuster," or even creating an exception for voting rights legislation to counter Republican efforts to restrict voting access across the country.

Statehood advocates have another roadblock here: Not all Senate Democrats have signed on to support statehood. And not all of them support eliminating the Senate filibuster, including moderates such as Sens. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) (They are among six in the Democratic caucus who also did not co-sponsor the statehood bill last session.)

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has previously said he would make D.C. statehood among his top priorities, as a way of expanding voting rights. He did not rule out eliminating the filibuster when questioned at a news conference Jan. 6.

From the magazine: Is D.C. Finally on the Brink of Statehood?

What would the state be called?

The federal district would be reduced to a two-square-mile enclave, including the White House, Capitol Hill, the Supreme Court and other federal buildings. The rest of what is now the District would become the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth - honoring abolitionist Frederick Douglass.

Why statehood? Why not become a part of Maryland or Virginia?

While some have argued D.C. is too small to be a state, it's more populous than Wyoming and Vermont, with about 706,000 residents, and rivals the population of North Dakota.

Statehood advocates say it's a moral issue, an unjust lack of voting representation based on where a person lives - in this case, a historically African American city where 46 percent of residents are Black. Democrats are framing statehood as a central part of their voting rights platform.

But politically, Democrats also support the fight for statehood because D.C. would almost certainly elect two Democratic senators, making it easier for the party to solidify control of the Senate long-term. Local advocates avoidframing the debate as a partisan issue, sayingit's a question of equal representation under the law.

Still, Republicans are loath to give Democrats any political advantage. Some have instead pushed to make D.C. part of Virginia or Maryland, a proposal Rep. H. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) put forth as recently as last fall; it did not go anywhere. Rep. Andy Harris, the only Republican in Maryland's congressional delegation and a longtime opponent to D.C. autonomy, also supports the retrocession proposal. But most Marylanders oppose adding the District as a new county to their state, according to a 2019 Washington Post-University of Maryland poll.

Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) has been asked before about the possibility of retrocession. She has said D.C. would completely upend the current geopolitical powers in Maryland if it became a part of the state again. The District already has a larger population than any city in Maryland, though it is smaller than Montgomery and Prince George's counties. Back in 2019, Bowser said retrocession would just mean the theoretical next governor of Maryland would probably come from the District.

In January, after a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol, Bowser told reporters the unprecedented assault added urgency to the cause for statehood: D.C. residents, she said, risked their lives to defend a Congress that affords them no voting representation.

With Democrats in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, activists say they are in their strongest position yet to make D.C. the 51st state. (Drea Cornejo, Amber Ferguson, Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

What is the argument against D.C. becoming a state?

Strict constitutionalists say that D.C. statehood goes against the intent of the nation's founders. They argue the framers would have never wanted a small federal jurisdiction surrounded by a single state, which is the current solution prescribed by statehood advocates. They also raise the electoral-vote issue.

Republicans overwhelmingly agree that the only viable path toward statehood is through a constitutional amendment. Some in the GOP have also said that the District, and the people who live there, aren't the same as the average American in other parts of the country. Republicans have argued the city is too corrupt and too financially dependent on the federal government to be the 51st state - although the former argument does not have any bearing on voting rights elsewhere in the country, and D.C. residents pay among the most federal income taxes per capita in the nation.

Last year, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said that Washington, as a state, would only be "an appendage of the federal government" where the only "vital industries" are lobbying and bureaucracy. Wyoming may have a smaller population than D.C., but Cotton said it has a greater right to statehood because it's a "well-rounded, working-class state" with workers in mining, logging and construction.

And then there's the endless battle to control the Senate. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said that the campaign for statehood is just an attempt by Democrats to consolidate power with "two more liberal senators." McConnell once called the Democrat's campaign for statehood "full-bore socialism."

How many times has the House voted on D.C. statehood?

Twice. The House first voted on D.C. statehood in 1993, but the bill failed, 277 to 153. Then, last June, the House passed legislation to declare D.C. the nation's 51st state largely along party lines. It was the first time a chamber of Congress approved a bill granting the District statehood.

The Senate has never voted on D.C. statehood. McConnell refused to bring the House legislation to a vote.

Fenit Nirappil contributed to this report, which has been updated with new information.

Today's Headlines

The most important news stories of the day, curated by Post editors and delivered every morning.

By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Could D.C. become a state? Explaining the hurdles to statehood.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Now that Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the White House, advocates of making Washington, D.C., the 51st state believe they are on the brink of a historic opportunity. The House Oversight and Reform Committee is convening Monday to hear the arguments for and against D.C.

# data[].attributes.body
Joe Biden has been the light at the end of a very dark tunnel. He is promoting change and wants to make things better. He is planning to work on the economy and helping the people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
voters elected joe biden for this moment of racial reckoning - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voters elected Joe Biden for this moment of racial reckoning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Joe Biden's remarks before and after the conviction of Derek Chauvin for George Floyd's murder were clear and decisive. He called the evidence "overwhelming," said he was "praying that the verdict is the right verdict" and argued for the country to come together following a verdict that was a step toward racial justice in a country with systemic racism.

# data[].attributes.body
I am so happy that George Floyd's murder was held accountable. I think that this is great because :
- accountability
-Justice
- starts a trend of putting away murders that have killed innocent black people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside the Chauvin Jury Room: 11 of 12 Jurors Were Ready to Convict Right Away (Published 2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One juror described the seven hours of closed-door deliberations that led to Derek Chauvin’s murder conviction.

# data[].attributes.body
Want to know: What is legal and illegal for search and seizures
Know: Basic laws of what you can and can't do.

# data[].attributes.body
lynching should be a hate crime. I'm flabbergasted that it's not. How are we in 2021 and Lynching isn't illegal and a hate crime?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
To amend title 18, United States Code, to specify lynching as a deprivation of civil rights, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
This Act may be cited as the "Emmett Till Antilynching Act".

Congress finds the following:

(1) The crime of lynching succeeded slavery as the ultimate expression of racism in the United States following Reconstruction.

(2) Lynching was a widely acknowledged practice in the United States until the middle of the 20th century.

(3) Lynching was a crime that occurred throughout the United States, with documented incidents in all but four States.

(4) At least 4,742 people, predominantly African Americans, were reported lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968.

(5) Ninety-nine percent of all perpetrators of lynching escaped from punishment by State or local officials.

(6) Lynching prompted African Americans to form the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (referred to in this section as the "NAACP") and prompted members of B'nai B'rith to found the Anti-Defamation League.

(7) Mr. Walter White, as a member of the NAACP and later as the executive secretary of the NAACP from 1931 to 1955, meticulously investigated lynchings in the United States and worked tirelessly to end segregation and racialized terror.

(8) Nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress during the first half of the 20th century.

(9) Between 1890 and 1952, seven Presidents petitioned Congress to end lynching.

(10) Between 1920 and 1940, the House of Representatives passed three strong anti-lynching measures.

(11) Protection against lynching was the minimum and most basic of Federal responsibilities, and the Senate considered but failed to enact anti-lynching legislation despite repeated requests by civil rights groups, Presidents, and the House of Representatives to do so.

(12) The publication of "Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America" helped bring greater awareness and proper recognition of the victims of lynching.

(13) Only by coming to terms with history can the United States effectively champion human rights abroad.

(14) An apology offered in the spirit of true repentance moves the United States toward reconciliation and may become central to a new understanding, on which improved racial relations can be forged.

(15) Having concluded that a reckoning with our own history is the only way the country can effectively champion human rights abroad, 90 Members of the United States Senate agreed to Senate Resolution 39, 109th Congress, on June 13, 2005, to apologize to the victims of lynching and the descendants of those victims for the failure of the Senate to enact anti-lynching legislation.

(16) The National Memorial for Peace and Justice, which opened to the public in Montgomery, Alabama, on April 26, 2018, is the Nation's first memorial dedicated to the legacy of enslaved Black people, people terrorized by lynching, African Americans humiliated by racial segregation and Jim Crow, and people of color burdened with contemporary presumptions of guilt and police violence.

(17) Notwithstanding the Senate's apology and the heightened awareness and education about the Nation's legacy with lynching, it is wholly necessary and appropriate for the Congress to enact legislation, after 100 years of unsuccessful legislative efforts, finally to make lynching a Federal crime.

(18) Further, it is the sense of Congress that criminal action by a group increases the likelihood that the criminal object of that group will be successfully attained and decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality. Therefore, it is appropriate to specify criminal penalties for the crime of lynching, or any attempt or conspiracy to commit lynching.

(19) The United States Senate agreed to unanimously Senate Resolution 118, 115th Congress, on April 5, 2017, "[c]ondemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States" and taking notice specifically of Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics demonstrating that "among single-bias hate crime incidents in the United States, 59.2 percent of victims were targeted due to racial, ethnic, or ancestral bias, and among those victims, 52.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by the offenders' anti-Black or anti-African American bias".

(20) On September 14, 2017, President Donald J. Trump signed into law Senate Joint Resolution 49 ( Public Law 115-58; 131 Stat. 1149), wherein Congress "condemn[ed] the racist violence and domestic terrorist attack that took place between August 11 and August 12, 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia" and "urg[ed] the President and his administration to speak out against hate groups that espouse racism, extremism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and White supremacy; and use all resources available to the President and the President's Cabinet to address the growing prevalence of those hate groups in the United States".

(21) Senate Joint Resolution 49 ( Public Law 115-58; 131 Stat. 1149) specifically took notice of "hundreds of torch-bearing White nationalists, White supremacists, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis [who] chanted racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant slogans and violently engaged with counter-demonstrators on and around the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville" and that these groups "reportedly are organizing similar events in other cities in the United States and communities everywhere are concerned about the growing and open display of hate and violence being perpetrated by those groups".

(22) Lynching was a pernicious and pervasive tool that was used to interfere with multiple aspects of life-including the exercise of Federally protected rights, as enumerated in section 245 of title 18, United States Code, housing rights, as enumerated in section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 ( 42 U.S.C. 3631), and the free exercise of religion, as enumerated in section 247 of title 18, United States Code. Interference with these rights was often effectuated by multiple offenders and groups, rather than isolated individuals. Therefore, prohibiting conspiracies to violate each of these rights recognizes the history of lynching in the United States and serves to prohibit its use in the future.

(a) Offense.- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

"Whoever conspires with another person to violate section 245, 247, or 249 of this title or section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 ( 42 U.S.C. 3631) shall be punished in the same manner as a completed violation of such section, except that if the maximum term of imprisonment for such completed violation is less than 10 years, the person may be imprisoned for not more than 10 years.".

(b) Table of sections amendment.-The table of sections for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 249 the following:

SEC. 4. Determination of budgetary effects.

The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest statement titled "Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation" for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

Passed the House of Representatives February 26, 2020.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Text - H.R.35 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Emmett Till Antilynching Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To amend title 18, United States Code, to specify lynching as a deprivation of civil rights, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, This Act may be cited as the "Emmett Till Antilynching Act".

# data[].attributes.body
This is important because cops shouldn't be able to just randomly search me or arrest me for something that isn't illegal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This section is for teachers.

Use the links below to access:

student versions of the activities in .PDF and Word formats

how to differentiate and adapt the materials

how to scaffold the activities

how to extend the activities

technology suggestions

answers to select activities

Learn more about Street Law's commitment and approach to quality curriculum.)
The Case

After the Case

Teaching Strategies Used

Landmark Cases Glossary

The LandmarkCases.org glossary compiles all of the important vocab terms from case materials. It is provided as a view-only Google Sheet.

Planning Time and Activities
If you have one day . . .

Complete Setting the Stage: Bell-Ringer Activity

Read the background summary (***, **, *) and answer the questions.

Complete the Classifying Arguments Activity. Discuss which arguments the students find most convincing.

For homework, have students read the Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion, Key Excerpts from the Concurring Opinion, and Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinions and answer the questions. Follow-up the next day by reviewing the questions with students.

If you have two days . . .

Do the activities for the first day (excluding homework).

On the second day, complete Unmarked Opinions Activity

Complete You Decide: Is this a Legal School Search?

For homework, have students read the Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion, Key Excerpts from the Concurring Opinion, and Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinions and answer the questions. Follow-up the next day by reviewing the questions with students.

If you have three days . . . Note to teachers: We recommend that you invite a community resource person If you have four days . . . Note to teachers: We recommend that you invite a community resource person, such as a school administrator, police officer, judge, or lawyer, to assist in the activities described here for day four. Many of the scenarios are tricky and the answers can depend upon the nuances of state law. , such as a judge or lawyer, to assist in the activities described here for day three.

Complete the activities for the first and second days, including homework.

On the third day, complete Mini-Moot Court Activity: Safford v. Redding (2009)

For homework, have students complete Applying Precedents Activity: Pottawatomie v. Earls (2002)

Complete all of the activities for the first three days.

On the fourth day, complete School Searches and Cellphones: Compare and Contrast

Complete School Cell Phone Search Policy PSA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Landmark Supreme Court Cases (555) 123-4567, landmarkcases.dcwdbeta.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Landmark Supreme Court Cases | Cases - New Jersey v. T.L.O.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This section is for teachers. Use the links below to access: student versions of the activities in .PDF and Word formats how to differentiate and adapt the materials how to scaffold the activities how to extend the activities technology suggestions answers to select activities Learn more about Street Law's commitment and approach to quality curriculum.)

# data[].attributes.body
This case means a lot to me because without this case I wouldn't have the right to do what I want with my body.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This section is for teachers.

Use the links below to access:

student versions of the activities in .PDF and Word formats

how to differentiate and adapt the materials

how to scaffold the activities

how to extend the activities

technology suggestions

answers to select activities

Learn more about Street Law's commitment and approach to quality curriculum.)
The Case

After the Case

Teaching Strategies Used

Landmark Cases Glossary

The LandmarkCases.org glossary compiles all of the important vocab terms from case materials. It is provided as a view-only Google Sheet.

Planning Time and Activities
If you have one day . . .

Read the background summary (***, **, *) and answer the questions.

Complete the Classifying Arguments Activity. Discuss which arguments the students find most convincing.

For homework, have students read the Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion and Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion and answer the questions. Follow-up the next day by reviewing the questions with students.

If you have two days . . .

Do all of the activities recommended for the first day (excluding homework).

Complete Is Privacy Protected in the Constitution?

Complete Precedent and Stare Decisis

For homework, have students read the Key Excerpts from the Majority Opinion and Key Excerpts from the Dissenting Opinion and answer the questions. Follow-up the next day by reviewing the questions with students.

If you have three days . . .

Do all of the activities recommended for the first and second day (including homework).

Complete The Casey Case: Roe Revisited?

Complete Applying Precedents Activity: Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016).

If you have four days . . .

Complete the activities for the first, second, and third days.

Complete Impact Data Analysis Activity.

In advanced classes, complete the Practice Free Response Question (***).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Landmark Supreme Court Cases (555) 123-4567, landmarkcases.dcwdbeta.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Landmark Supreme Court Cases | Cases - Roe v. Wade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This section is for teachers. Use the links below to access: student versions of the activities in .PDF and Word formats how to differentiate and adapt the materials how to scaffold the activities how to extend the activities technology suggestions answers to select activities Learn more about Street Law's commitment and approach to quality curriculum.)

# data[].attributes.body
"Liberal"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nearly seven in 10 liberals say they're satisfied with his handling of sexual harassment allegations, a new poll found.

Image

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been in dire straits for weeks.

Most of New York's major politicians have now called on him to resign, and he doesn't exactly have the full confidence of his state's voters, as a Siena College poll released yesterday showed. By an 18-point margin, respondents said they didn't want him to run for a fourth term next year, as he had been widely expected to do, and his favorability rating is as low as it's ever been.

But as harsh as those results might seem, the survey actually contained a remarkable amount of less-than-terrible news for the embattled governor. Just 35 percent of New York voters said he should "immediately resign," while 50 percent said he shouldn't. (Another 15 percent weren't sure.)

And only 34 percent said they doubted he would be able to continue governing effectively; 48 percent said he would be, the poll found.

A decisive majority, 57 percent, said they were satisfied with the apology Cuomo gave this month, while just 32 percent said they weren't.

Politics has been said to make strange bedfellows, and in this case Cuomo's most reliable supporters are some of the groups one might normally assume to be the most bothered by sexual harassment claims: namely, women and self-described liberal voters.

Women voters - who trend more Democratic than men - were five points more likely than their male counterparts to say the governor shouldn't resign (52 percent, compared with 47 percent). They were also five points more likely to call his apology satisfactory (59 percent, versus 54 percent of men).

Among liberals, a whopping 69 percent said they were satisfied with how he had addressed the allegations. Just 19 percent were dissatisfied.

Cuomo's favorability has fallen the furthest among Democrats, from 78 percent in a Siena poll last month to 59 percent now. Thirty percent of Democratic voters in New York now hold a negative view of their governor. Still, that's a broadly favorable rating.

The Siena poll was conducted throughout last week, with a vast majority of interviews taking place before many high-profile politicians in the state called on Cuomo to resign, including nearly the entire New York delegation in Congress. And late last week the State Assembly opened an impeachment investigation focused on Cuomo's actions toward women.

That investigation could turn up more damaging claims against him - and it is possible that more allegations could trickle out in news reports, as they have over the past two weeks, putting even greater pressure on the governor to step aside.

But it's clear from the poll that many New York voters don't think his actions warrant booting him from office - at least not yet.

Don Levy, the director of polling at Siena, said in an interview that the durability of Cuomo's support appeared to be driven largely by his very public role guiding the state through the coronavirus pandemic - and now that vaccines are being widely distributed, he may be reaping rewards.

Levy cited "the good will and capital that he built up with months of daily appearances, press conferences, PowerPoints," and pointed to a finding in the poll that 65 percent of New York voters said the worst of the pandemic was now behind us - the first time a majority have said this in a Siena survey.

"You have to surmise that a sizable number of New Yorkers credit Andrew Cuomo with getting us to this point," Levy said.

Of course, his handling of the pandemic has not been without hiccups. Last month, Cuomo publicly accepted responsibility for his role in suppressing the official count of Covid-19-related deaths in New York's nursing homes. Asked about a range of issues related to the pandemic, voters gave the governor positive marks on how he had handled all except one: publishing "all data" regarding Covid-related deaths in nursing homes.

Still, his handling of the pandemic continues to be his strong suit. Sixty percent of voters in the Siena poll approved of how he had handled the virus. That's his lowest number yet on this question, but still almost twice as high as the share who said they disapproved.

In February 2020, a month before Covid-19 was declared a pandemic and Cuomo ordered a statewide shutdown, New York voters were slightly more likely to say the state was headed in the wrong direction than to say it was on the right track. But as soon as the pandemic began, and Cuomo positioned himself as a frontline fighter against the virus, that flipped.

The next month, New York voters said by more than 2-to-1 that things were headed in the right direction in their state, and their views have not flipped negative again since. (By comparison, New York voters' views of where the nation at large was headed remained generally negative all of last year.)

This time four years ago, as Cuomo neared the end of his second term, New York voters were split on whether he should run again. Forty-eight percent said they'd like to see him re-elected, and 41 percent said they'd prefer that someone else take the reins, according to a Siena poll at the time. Ultimately, Cuomo easily fended off a primary challenge, and won re-election handily.

Things are looking less favorable for him now, with just 34 percent of the state's voters - and only 46 percent of Democrats - saying they'd like the opportunity to re-elect him. But Cuomo, despite being broadly disliked by many of his colleagues in Albany, has weathered storms in the past.

"He's taken a hit," Levy said. "And could he go lower? Absolutely. But right now, public opinion seems to be saying: 'I'm prepared to wait this thing out for a little while.'"

On Politics is also available as a newsletter. Is there anything you think we're missing? Anything you want to see more of? We'd love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. Sign up here to get it delivered to your inbox.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Digging Into Liberals' Enduring Support for Andrew Cuomo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly seven in 10 liberals say they're satisfied with his handling of sexual harassment allegations, a new poll found. Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been in dire straits for weeks. Most of New York's major politicians have now called on him to resign, and he doesn't exactly have the full confidence of his state's voters, as a Siena College poll released yesterday showed.

# data[].attributes.body
"Conservative"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Teachers, parents and other members of a private Facebook group in Loudoun County, Virginia have been accused of compiling a list of names of district parents who oppose "critical race theory" and other progressive, raced-based classroom programs, according to the director of a local Republican political action committee.

Members of a Facebook group called the "Anti-Racist Parents of Loudoun County" have been accused of compiling a list of outspoken conservatives in order to track, hack and "doxx" them - or even intimidate them into self-censorship.

The group also contains teachers, school board members, elected officials and other "prominent members of the left-wing elite in Loudoun County," according to David Gordon, director of the Virginia Project, a Republican PAC.
WEBSITE LAUNCHED TO TRACK CRITICAL RACE THEORY TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION
"It's political racketeering," he told Fox News Wednesday. "Critical race theory is a political racket - what they do is they intimidate opponents."

Loudon County Public Schools did not immediately respond to a Fox News request for comment.

Gordon provided a number of screenshots allegedly taken from the private group that he says show evidence of an attempt at soliciting cybercriminals to go after groups opposed to teaching and taxpayer funding critical race theory programs.

In one post, a group member shared "a call for volunteers" to combat anti-critical race theory advocates and websites. She asked for volunteers to help "gather information" on critics of the controversial race-based education platform, to "infiltrate" their groups and sought "hackers who can either shut down their websites or redirect them."

Others show group members listing the names, addresses and workplaces of community members they disagree with.
PARENTS REBEL OVER POSH NYC SCHOOL'S 'OBSESSIVE FOCUS ON RACE'
Gordon said he had sent screenshots of multiple exchanges to law enforcement and that he planned to pursue civil proceedings against a number of the group's members.

He said he became involved after members of the group began attacking his PAC over a presentation that counters critical race theory and the significant costs such program carry at the taxpayers' expense.

"They crossed the line," he said. "They tried to infringe my basic First Amendment rights to engage in political activity. Everything we do is above board and completely honest."

Critics argue that critical race theory actually increases racism by focusing on sterotypes, lauding perceived victhimhood and, on occasion, encouraging segregation.

"What they're teaching is really just forced groupthink," Tina Ramirez, a former congressional candidate and the founder of Hardwired Global, which fights for religious freedoms in the Middle East, told Fox News. "They're actually teaching racism."
LEGAL COALITION FORMING TO STOP CRITICAL RACE THEORY TRAINING AROUND THE COUNTRY
Ramirez, a former teacher herself, argued that critical race theory programs are more about forced conformity than "diversity and equity."

"We should never be spending millions of dollars to train teachers how to indoctrinate children," she told Fox News. "When teachers come out of training, they should be trained to teach kids how to think, not what to think."
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
She said she would never want her biracial daughter taking part in a critical race theory course. And she argued that critical race theory itself and the alleged actions taken by "Anti-Racist Parents of Loudoun County" members fly in the face of the United States' Founding documents.

"Teachers not only indoctrinating, but bullying parents, there's a serious, serious problem here," she said. "You see this all over the world in countries that are authoritarian, you don't expect to see this in America. We're inherently all equal and should be allowed to express ourselves and our freedoms equally."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Virginia parents, teachers group accused of 'racketeering,' intimidating conservative parents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Teachers, parents and other members of a private Facebook group in Loudoun County, Virginia have been accused of compiling a list of names of district parents who oppose "critical race theory" and other progressive, raced-based classroom programs, according to the director of a local Republican political action committee.

# data[].attributes.body
fourth amendment; trying to get trying of the "no-knock warrant"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
State Representative LaKeshia Myers recently introduced a new bill to prevent the use of no-knock search warrants by Wisconsin law enforcement.

The bill was named "Breonna's Law" after Louisville, Kentucky EMT Breonna Taylor, the 26-year-old who was killed during such a raid in March 2020.

"It is most appropriate for us to begin Black History Month 2021 by introducing 'Breonna's Law,'" Myers said in a statement. "Breonna Taylor's life was taken while she was in the comfort of her own home, through the use of a no-knock warrant. While Taylor was not the subject of the warrant, her life was mercilessly ended through no fault of her own. It is because of this that we call on Wisconsin legislators to end the use of no-knock warrants."

Wisconsin became the first state to authorize no-knock search warrants in 1997. Since their introduction, no-knock raids have created controversy around police transparency and use of force.

"No-knock warrants are harmful to civilians and law enforcement officers alike," said Myers. "Milwaukee police officer Matthew Rittner was killed in the line of duty while his tactical unit executed a no-knock warrant in February 2019. Because of a no-knock search warrant, a wife lost her husband, Milwaukee lost a police officer and a child lost its father."

These searches are being reconsidered at the federal and state levels. In Congress last session, Senate Republicans wanted to track their use, while a Democratic House bill, endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus would have banned them on a federal level in drug cases and withhold federal policing grants to states that permit them in drug cases.

In 2020, a package of Juneteenth bills on police reform was forwarded by Gov. Tony Evers, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes and the the Legislative Black Caucus. It included a similar bill that "prohibits no-knock search warrants issued under state law by requiring a law enforcement officer who is executing a search warrant to identify himself or herself as a law enforcement officer and announce the authority and purpose of the entry, before entering the premises."

The Legislature did not take any action on these bills, instead forming a study committee that continues to meet but has not come out with its recommendations.

Myers' new bill, as described in her co-sponsorship memo accompanying it, "requires that a law enforcement officer executing a search warrant must, before entering the premises, identify himself or herself as a law enforcement officer and announce the authority and purpose of the entry. Under the bill, a law enforcement officer may execute a search warrant only between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. unless a judge authorizes the execution of the search warrant at another time for good cause."

Given the increased focus on police reform - and no-knock search warrants in particular - the Wisconsin Legislative Council put out an Information Memorandum on the practice in Sept. 2020, reviewing its complicated relationship with the Fourth Amendment and case law. As a result, the no-knock search warrant, a product of the War on Drugs, is being reconsidered. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution giving citizens the right to be protected against unlawful search and seizure is replicated in the Wisconsin Constitution.

"Knock-and-announce requirements before police forcibly enter a person's home - called the 'announcement rule' in Wisconsin - date back centuries to British common law, but exceptions to the rule have been carved out, including the no-knock search warrant," the memo states. Further, it notes, a 1995 case determined knock-and-announce was not a rigid, blanket rule, so no-knock searches are allowed as an exception that takes into account "countervailing law enforcement interests."

The Wisconsin Professional Police Association Executive Director Jim Palmer has been quoted by multiple media outlets, as being open to reconsideration of no-knock warrants by police and by lawmakers. He had doubts that his group would fight for the warrants, as they are not used frequently in Wisconsin and can be dangerous for both police officers and residents.

Body camera use by law enforcement has made the public increasingly aware of no-knock search warrants, as more people are able to see footage of the technique in action.

The bill's namesake, Taylor, was killed as law enforcement carried out a series of raids across the Louisville area. Police claimed they announced themselves when the raid began. Taylor's boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, however, said officers did not do so, and he thought someone was breaking into their home as they slept. After a shot was fired by the boyfriend, wounding one officer, other officers fired numerous shots into the apartment, killing Taylor.

One of the detectives involved, Brett Hankison, was fired in June for "wantonly and blindly" firing his weapon, according to his termination letter. Taylor's death brought to light the use of such raids, and "place-based" policing strategies that targeted areas being gentrified by the city.

"As the state that created no-knock warrants, Wisconsin has the responsibility to be the state to end their use," Myers said. "When you know better, you must do better, and this is a step in the right direction."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Legislative effort seeks to end no-knock search warrants in Wisconsin after almost a quarter century | The Milwaukee Independent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
State Representative LaKeshia Myers recently introduced a new bill to prevent the use of no-knock search warrants by Wisconsin law enforcement. The bill was named "Breonna's Law" after Louisville, Kentucky EMT Breonna Taylor, the 26-year-old who was killed during such a raid in March 2020.

# data[].attributes.body
Making it to where some things said can be unconstitutional

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
House Democrats' massive voter registration and campaign procedure reform bill gives federal bureaucrats vast new power to control political speech, according to an analysis of the proposal by the Institute for Free Speech (IFS).

"All of the provisions we analyzed are bad ideas, some of them are plainly unconstitutional, and some of them it would be dubious whether they were constitutional," IFS President David Keating told The Epoch Times Feb. 22.

Keating was referring to H.R. 1, the "For the People Act of 2021," the top priority legislation of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that includes a wide range of reforms in how Americans register to vote and cast their ballots in federal elections, as well as who can participate and how in campaigns for president, Senate and House of Representatives.

If H.R. 1 becomes law in its present form, according to critics, it will undermine constitutional liberties, while institutionalizing many of the registration and voting procedure changes made in 2020 in response to the CCP Virus pandemic. Those changes produced one of the most bitterly contested presidential outcomes in American history.

"Buried in H.R.1's nearly 800 pages is a censor's wish list of new burdens on speech and donor privacy. It proposes a democracy where civic engagement is punished and where fewer people have a voice in our government, our laws, and public life," said Eric Wang, the author of the study, in a statement accompanying release of the analysis.

Wang is an IFS senior fellow and Special Counsel in the Election Law practice group at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Wiley Rein, LLP.

Among the 14 constitutional problems identified by the IFS analysis in HR1's Title IV-including especially subtitles B, C and D-the first are HR1's provisions that "unconstitutionally regulate speech that mentions a federal candidate or elected official at any time under a vague, subjective, and dangerously broad standard that asks whether the speech "promotes," "attacks," "supports," or "opposes" (PASO) the candidate or official.

"This standard is impossible to understand and would likely regulate any mention of an elected official who hasn't announced their retirement."

The bill does this by creating a new category of regulated speech called "campaign-related disbursements" by non-profit advocacy groups and others interested in communicating about public policy issues.

Such speech would include any public communications that mention a specific candidate for federal office and attacks or supports that candidate "without regard to whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against" the candidate.

It would also include any public communication that is "susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than promoting, supporting, attacking, or opposing the nomination or Senate confirmation" of a federal court nominee.

Also included would be all public communications that meet the current law's definition of "electioneering communications," that is, radio and TV ads that merely mention a candidate or office holder by name. It also would impose significant new regulatory compliance costs on all Internet political speech that is not paid advertising.

"Thus, if H.R. 1 were enacted, it is likely that anyone operating a website, for example, may unwittingly run afoul of the [Federal Election Commission] FEC's disclaimer and reporting requirements by posting unflattering information about a federal candidate or elected official," the IFS analysis contends.

"This is because the costs of hosting and maintaining a website likely would qualify the website as a 'paid Internet or paid digital communication.'

"Similarly, a group that shares a voter guide or a legislative scorecard using a paid e-mail service or mobile device app likely would be making a 'paid Internet or paid digital communication' under H.R.1. Even a group's Facebook posts, Twitter tweets, and YouTube uploads could be regulated if paid staff are used to create such content."

Other unconstitutional problems among the 14 identified by the IFS study include provisions of H.R.1's Title IV that:

"Impose inflexible disclaimer requirements on online ads from American speakers that may make many forms of small, popular, and cost-effective ads advocating government policy changes or the election or defeat of candidates effectively impossible.

"Force groups to file burdensome and likely duplicative reports with the [FEC] if they sponsor ads that are deemed to PASO the President or Members of Congress in an attempt to persuade those officials to support or oppose policy issues, including legislation like H.R. 1.

"Force groups to publicly identify certain donors on these reports for issue ads and on the face of the ads themselves. In many instances, the donors being identified will have provided no funding for the ads. Faced with the prospect of being inaccurately associated with what, by law, would be considered (unjustifiably, in many or most instances) 'campaign' ads in FEC reports and disclaimers, many donors will stop giving to nonprofits, or these groups will self-censor."

"Force organizations that make grants to file reports and publicly identify their own donors if an organization is deemed to have 'reason to know that a donee entity has made or will make so-called "campaign-related disbursements."' This new vague and subjective standard will greatly increase the legal costs of vetting grants and many groups will simply end grant-making programs."

"Focus public attention on the individuals and donors associated with the sponsoring organizations rather than on the communications' message, exacerbating the politics of personal destruction and further coarsening political discourse."

In summary, the IFS analysis concluded that H.R.1 "would greatly increase the already onerous legal and administrative compliance costs, liability risk, and costs to donor and associational privacy for civic groups that speak about policy issues and politicians.

"Organizations and their supporters will be further deterred from speaking or be forced to divert additional resources away from their advocacy activities to pay for compliance staff and lawyers.

"Some groups will not be able to afford these costs or will violate the law unwittingly. Less speech by private citizens and organizations means politicians will be able to act with less accountability to public opinion and criticism. Consequently, citizens who would have otherwise heard their speech will have less information about their government."
Contact Mark Tapscott at Mark.Tapscott@epochtimes.nyc

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Democrats' H.R. 1 Has 'Unconstitutional' Limits on First Amendment: Free Speech Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
House Democrats' massive voter registration and campaign procedure reform bill gives federal bureaucrats vast new power to control political speech, according to an analysis of the proposal by the Institute for Free Speech (IFS).

# data[].attributes.body
I hope they can figure it out soon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. authorities are still working to unravel the full scope of the likely Russian hack that gave the "sophisticated" actor behind the breach complete access to files and email from at least nine government agencies and about 100 private companies, the top White House cybersecurity official said Wednesday.

Anne Neuberger, the newly appointed deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technology, also warned that the danger has not passed because the hackers breached networks of technology companies whose products could be used to launch additional intrusions.

A task force is investigating the extent of the damage from the breach, assessing potential responses and trying to confirm the identity of whoever was behind it - a process Neuberger warned will take more time.

"This is a sophisticated actor who did their best to hide their tracks," she told reporters at the White House. "We believe it took them months to plan and execute this compromise. It will take us some time to uncover this layer by layer."

U.S. authorities have said the breach, disclosed in December, appeared to be the work of Russian hackers. Neuberger, a former senior official at the National Security Agency who was appointed by President Joe Biden this month, went no further.

"An advanced, persistent threat actor likely of Russian origin was responsible," she said, without providing any further details and sounding a cryptic note on potential responses.
READ MORE: Justice Department says it's been affected by Russian hack
"This isn't the only case of malicious cyber activity of likely Russian origin, either for us or for our allies and partners," Neuberger added. "So, as we contemplate future response options, we are considering holistically what those activities were."

The Russian government has denied involvement.

Private security company FireEye was first to identify the breach, revealing that hackers hijacked widely used network software from SolarWinds Inc. to install malicious software through a what appeared to be a routine security update.

Intelligence agencies did not detect the breach because they largely have "no visibility into private-sector networks," and it was launched within the U.S., Neuberger said. The Biden administration supports changes to "culture and authorities" that prevented the hack from being detected on the federal civilian systems, she added.

The hack, Neuberger said, highlights the need to modernize the nation's IT infrastructure and its cyber defenses, issues that will be addressed in an upcoming executive order from Biden aimed at addressing security and technology gaps highlighted by the breach.

Several agencies have acknowledged that they were breached, including the Treasury Department and Justice Department, but the full list has not been publicly released. Once inside, the hackers had full access to the victims' data.

"The techniques that were used lead us to believe that any files or emails on a compromised network were likely to be compromised," Neuberger said.

Some members of Congress have criticized the response based on what they have been told so far, all in private. "The briefings we have received convey a disjointed and disorganized response to confronting the breach," Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, and Sen. Marco Rubio, Republican from Florida, said in a recent letter to the White House.

Neuberger said she intended to return to the Capitol to brief lawmakers in the coming days.
Associated Press writer Aamer Madhani contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. still unraveling 'sophisticated' hack of 9 government agencies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. authorities are still working to unravel the full scope of the likely Russian hack that gave the "sophisticated" actor behind the breach complete access to files and email from at least nine government agencies and about 100 private companies, the top White House cybersecurity official said Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.body
This is great, voter protection is needed after the 2020 election!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A group of Democratic senators sent President Biden a letter Wednesday urging him to use his executive powers to expand voting-rights protections and step up enforcement of campaign-finance violations as part of an effort to turn the page on what they say was former president Donald Trump's disregard for these priorities.

At least 20 senators, led by Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), asked Biden to take nearly a dozen steps to improve ballot access and address bad actors, including greater efforts to help eligible Americans to register to vote and beefed-up policing of election-related crimes by the Department of Justice, the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service.

"In some ways, the 2020 election showed the resiliency of our democracy," the senators wrote in a letter to be sent to Biden on Wednesday, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. "Still, we saw widespread voter suppression strategies, especially targeting communities of color, and record levels of dark money spent to unduly influence voters."

Those efforts culminated, they said, with "unprecedented attacks on the integrity of our election that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. These are symptoms of ongoing and deeply rooted inequities that we must confront together."

[Read: Democratic senators urge Biden to expand voting rights protections]

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Biden has already signaled that he plans to strengthen voter protections with his nomination of Vanita Gupta, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, to be associate attorney general, and Kristen Clarke, president of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, to lead the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice.

The senators' specific proposals include: expanding protections under the Voting Rights Act to curtail voter suppression by state and local governments; pushing the Justice Department and FEC to give higher priority to prosecuting voting-rights and campaign-finance violations; expanding ballot access for incarcerated voters and those with disabilities; requiring states to do more to assist with voter registration, particularly among Native Americans, naturalized citizens, veterans and the elderly; strengthening sanctions against foreign actors that interfere in U.S. elections; and reinstating disclosure requirements to the IRS for donors to nonprofits that do issue advocacy and are known as 501(c)(4)s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In wake of 2020 election, Democratic senators urge Biden to expand voting rights protections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A group of Democratic senators sent President Biden a letter Wednesday urging him to use his executive powers to expand voting-rights protections and step up enforcement of campaign-finance violations as part of an effort to turn the page on what they say was former president Donald Trump's disregard for these priorities.

# data[].attributes.body
Why won't the accept the governments help?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - On Wednesday, we wrote about how the likely California recall has shined a spotlight on progressive governance in the Golden State.

And today, we turn our attention to how the power outages in Texas have kicked off a debate about conservative governance in the Lone Star State.

As it turns out, most Texans are on a completely different power grid from the rest of the country, and it's by design - to avoid regulation by the feds.

And by the way, that philosophy of evading regulation still runs strong in the state's Republican Party to this day. Former Texas Gov. (and Energy Secretary!) Rick Perry said that "Texans would be without electricity for longer than three days to keep the federal government out of their business."

"Texas' deregulatory philosophy has caused them to put much less stringent rules on generators and system operators to be prepared for cold weather than other systems, where extreme cold is more common," one energy expert told NBC's Kevin Collier.

Yes, this was a "perfect storm" weather event. Yes, there's plenty of blame to go around. Yes - just like with the pandemic - there are nuanced policy debates to have about which problems to fix and how.

But none of that changes this fact: This wouldn't be happening without the state's decades-long energy policy choice to focus on cost rather than reliability - and to avoid federal oversight by making its own rules.

Gov. Greg Abbott (who's in cycle, don't forget) and his GOP predecessors will have to answer for that choice.

And - no matter where else he tries to place blame - that philosophy of small government will be a big part of what's on the ballot after this storm.

2.7 years: The drop in life expectancy for Black Americans during first half of 2020, according to new government study. (It was a drop of 1.9 years for Latinos and 0.8 years for whites.)

Nearly 12 million: The number of Texans facing water disruptions amid the continuing winter storm and blackout.

27,948,973: The number of confirmed cases of coronavirus in the United States, per the most recent data from NBC News and health officials. (That's 68,968 more than yesterday morning.)

492,592: The number of deaths in the United States from the virus so far, per the most recent data from NBC News. (That's 2,416 more than yesterday morning.)

63,398: The number of people currently hospitalized with coronavirus in the United States.

338.6 million: The number of coronavirus tests that have been administered in the United States so far, according to researchers at The COVID Tracking Project.

56,281,827: Number of vaccine doses administered in the U.S.

15,471,536: People fully vaccinated in the U.S.

70: The number of days left for Biden to reach his 100-day vaccination goal.

Biden's public option? Remember the Democratic primaries, when the presidential candidates spent 11 debates arguing about whether to pursue Medicare for All or a public option?

It was somewhat overshadowed by the subsequent year of national turmoil, but with Democrats now back in power in the middle of a pandemic, a bill could potentially pass within months. That means there's going to be a high-stakes fight to define what, exactly, Democrats' stance on a public option means.

On Wednesday, Senators Michael Bennet, D-Col. and Tim Kaine, D-Va. launched a push to enact their version of a public option, which they call "Medicare X." Relative to other Democratic public option proposals, it's a modest reform: The new "Medicare X" option would only be available for people who get insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

Kaine and Bennet introduced similar bills in the past, but this time they're aggressively trying to market it as the go-to choice for President Biden to endorse and sign ASAP.

Kaine and Bennet deliberately tweaked their legislation to more closely match Biden's campaign proposal, which called for a public option, but also increasing subsidies for ACA plans and capping premiums for higher earners at 8.5 percent of income (a two-year boost is in the upcoming Covid-19 bill). They've also already started talking to potential swing votes, like Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va. and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and to potential critics on the left, like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. And they structured their plan to be able to pass via reconciliation, making it an off-the-shelf option for the next big bill after Covid-19 relief.

It's worth keeping an eye on the reception "Medicare X" gets. Can progressive lawmakers muster support for an alternative that's more far reaching in a 50-50 Senate? Will conservatives, who have almost exclusively focused on attacking Medicare for All, be able to mount a convincing challenge to a smaller public option? And how will the moderates react if hospitals and doctors raise objections to a public plan that pays them less than private insurance?

The White House is releasing details of its immigration plan this morning, and the full plan will be presented to the House today and to the Senate when it comes back from recess.

Here are the highlights:

An eight-year path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants

Undocumented immigrants will be able to hold temporary status for five years and can apply for a Green Card

DREAMers who held temporary status as of Jan. 1, 2017 will be able to receive a Green Card without a wait

Repeals the three and 10-year unlawful presence penalty, which prohibits undocumented immigrants from coming back to the U.S. for between three and 10 years

Gives DHS the authority to regulate the number of employment Green Cards based on "macroeconomic conditions"

The immigration plan adds an additional proposal to Congress' lengthy to-do list from the Biden administration. Congress is planning on moving Biden's Covid-19 relief package through before the second week of March.

A U.S. attorney and the FBI have started an investigation into how the Cuomo administration handled data about Covid-19 deaths in nursing homes.

What does the timeline look like for the $1.9 trillion Covid-19 relief bill? (And what are the looming fights over a second spending measure?)

On March 11, Biden will mark the one-year anniversary of the nation's initial coronavirus lockdown.

Here's the latest on the immigration bill Biden is backing - and what activists and some skeptics are saying about it.

GameStop is back in the spotlight today.

It's not just David Perdue - Doug Collins may be looking for a Georgia comeback, too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Power crisis puts Texas small-government policy choices in the spotlight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - On Wednesday, we wrote about how the likely California recall has shined a spotlight on progressive governance in the Golden State. And today, we turn our attention to how the power outages in Texas have kicked off a debate about conservative governance in the Lone Star State.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the Political Spectrum? | Left Vs Right