panel

Brazil’s top court rejects Bolsonaro’s coup sentence appeal, affirming his 27-year penalty for post-election power grab.

A five-member panel of Brazil’s Supreme Court has formed a majority to reject former President Jair Bolsonaro’s appeal challenging his 27-year prison sentence for plotting a coup to remain in power after the 2022 presidential election.

The 70-year-old far-right firebrand was found guilty by the same court in September of attempting to prevent President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking power. Prosecutors said the plan failed only because of a lack of support from the military’s top brass.

Justices Flavio Dino, Alexandre de Moraes and Cristiano Zanin voted to reject the appeal filed by Bolsonaro’s legal team. The remaining members of the panel have until November 14 to cast their votes in the Supreme Court’s system.

The former president will begin serving his sentence only after all appeals are exhausted.

Bolsonaro has been under house arrest since August for violating precautionary measures in a separate case. His lawyers are expected to request that he be allowed to serve his sentence under similar conditions due to health concerns.

Bolsonaro’s lawyers argued there had been “profound injustices” and “contradictions” in his conviction, and sought to have his prison sentence reduced.

Three of the Supreme Court judges weighing the appeal voted to reject it on Friday.

However, the result is not considered official until the court-imposed deadline at midnight on November 14.

Alexandre de Moraes, who presided over the trial, was the first to cast his vote electronically and wrote that arguments by Bolsonaro’s lawyers to have his sentence reduced were “without merit”.

Moraes, in a 141-page document seen by AFP, rejected defence claims they had been given an overwhelming amount of documents and digital files, preventing them from properly mounting their case.

He also rejected an argument that Bolsonaro had given up on the coup, saying it failed only because of external factors, not because the former president renounced it.

Moraes reaffirmed that there had been a deliberate coup attempt orchestrated under Bolsonaro’s leadership, with ample proof of his involvement.

He again underscored Bolsonaro’s role in instigating the January 8 assault on Brazil’s democratic institutions, when supporters demanded a military takeover to oust Lula.

‘Ruling justified’

Moraes ruled that the sentence of 27 years and 3 months was based on Bolsonaro’s high culpability as president and the severity and impact of the crimes. Moraes said Bolsonaro’s age had already been considered as a mitigating factor.

“The ruling justified all stages of the sentencing process,” Moraes wrote.

Two other judges voted in the same way shortly afterwards.

Because of health problems stemming from a stabbing attack in 2018, Bolsonaro could ask to serve his sentence under house arrest.

The trial against Bolsonaro angered his ally, US President Donald Trump, who imposed sanctions on Brazilian officials and punitive trade tariffs.

However, in recent months, tensions have thawed between Washington and Brasilia, with a meeting taking place between Trump and Lula and negotiations to reduce the tariffs.

An initiative from Bolsonaro supporters in Congress to push through an amnesty bill that could benefit him fizzled out after massive protests around the country.

Brazil’s large conservative electorate is currently without a champion heading into 2026 presidential elections, in which Lula, 80, has said he will seek a fourth term.

An Ohio panel adopted new U.S. House districts on Friday that could boost the GOP’s chances of winning two additional seats in next year’s elections and aid President Trump’s efforts to hold on to a slim congressional majority.

The action by the Ohio Redistricting Commission came as Virginia’s Democratic-led General Assembly advanced a proposed constitutional amendment that could pave the way for redistricting in the state ahead of the 2026 congressional elections. That measure still needs another round of legislative approval early next year before it can go to voters.

Trump has been urging Republican-led states to reshape their U.S. House districts in an attempt to win more seats. But unlike in other states, Ohio’s redistricting was required by the state constitution because the current districts were adopted after the 2020 census without bipartisan support.

Ohio joins Texas, Missouri and North Carolina, where Republican lawmakers already have revised their congressional districts.

Democrats have been pushing back. California voters are deciding Tuesday on a redistricting plan passed by the Democratic-led Legislature.

The political parties are in an intense battle, because Democrats need to gain just three seats in next year’s election to win control of the House and gain the power to impede Trump’s agenda.

In a rare bit of bipartisanship, Ohio’s new map won support from all five Republicans and both Democrats on the redistricting panel. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee praised the Ohio Democrats “for negotiating to prevent an even more egregious gerrymander” benefiting Republicans.

Republicans already hold 10 of Ohio’s 15 congressional seats. The new map could boost their chances in already competitive districts currently held by Democratic Reps. Greg Landsman in Cincinnati and Marcy Kaptur near Toledo. Kaptur won a 22nd term last year by about 2,400 votes, or less than 1 percentage point, in a district carried by Trump. Landsman was reelected with more than 54% of the vote.

National Democrats said they expect to hold both targeted seats and compete to flip three other districts where Republicans have won by narrow margins.

Ohio residents criticize new map

Ohio’s commission had faced a Friday deadline to adopt a new map, or else the task would have fallen to the GOP-led Legislature, which could have crafted districts even more favorable to Republicans. But any redistricting bill passed by the Legislature could have been subject to an initiative petition campaign from opponents seeking to force a public referendum on the new map.

The uncertainty of that legislative process provided commissioners of both parties with some incentive for compromise.

But Ohio residents who testified to commissioners Friday denounced the new districts. Julia Cattaneo, who wore a shirt saying “gerrymandering is cheating,” said the new map is gerrymandered more for Republicans than the one it is replacing and is not the sort of compromise needed.

“Yes, you are compromising — your integrity, honor, duty and to represent Ohioans,” she said.

Added resident Scott Sibley: “This map is an affront to democracy, and you should all — every one of you — be ashamed.”

Republican state Auditor Keith Farber, a member of the commission, defended the map during a testy exchange with one opponent. Because many Democrats live in cities and many Republicans in rural areas, he said there was no way to draw a map creating eight Republican and seven Democratic districts — as some had urged — without splitting cities, counties and townships.

Virginia Democrats point at Trump to defend redistricting

Virginia is represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans. Democratic lawmakers haven’t unveiled their planned new map, nor how many seats they are trying to gain, but said their moves are necessary to respond to the Trump-inspired gerrymandering in Republican-led states.

“Our voters are asking to have that voice. They’re asking that we protect democracy, that we not allow gerrymandering to happen throughout the country, and we sit back,” Democratic Sen. Barbara Favola said.

The proposed constitutional amendment would let lawmakers temporarily bypass a bipartisan commission and redraw congressional districts to their advantage. The Senate’s approval Friday followed House approval Wednesday.

The developments come as Virginia holds statewide elections Tuesday, where all 100 seats in the House of Delegates are on the ballot. Democrats would need to keep their slim majority in the lower chamber to advance the constitutional amendment again next year. It then would go to a statewide referendum.

Republican Sen. Mark Obenshain said Democrats were ignoring the will of voters who had overwhelmingly approved a bipartisan redistricting commission.

“Heaven forbid that we actually link arms and work together on something,” Obenshain said. “What the voters of Virginia said is, ‘We expect redistricting to be an issue that we work across the aisle on, that we link arms on.’”

But Democratic Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg, who has long championed the bipartisan redistricting commission, noted the panel still would be in charge of redistricting after the 2030 census.

“We’re not trying to end the practice of fair maps,” he said. “We are asking the voters if, in this one limited case, they want to ensure that a constitutional-norm-busting president can’t break the entire national election by twisting the arms of a few state legislatures.”

Indiana and Kansas could be next

Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Braun called a special session to begin Monday to redraw congressional districts, currently held by seven Republicans and two Democrats. But lawmakers don’t plan to begin work on that day. Although it’s unclear exactly when lawmakers will convene, state law gives the Legislature 40 days to complete a special session.

In Kansas, Republican lawmakers are trying to collect enough signatures from colleagues to call themselves into a special session on redistricting to begin Nov. 7. Senate President Ty Masterson says he has the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate, but House Republicans have at least a few holdouts. The petition drive is necessary because Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly isn’t likely to call a session to redraw the current map that has sent three Republicans and one Democrat to the House.

Lieb, Diaz and Scolforo write for the Associated Press. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo.; Scolforo from Harrisburg, Pa.; and Diaz from Richmond, Va. John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., and Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

Oct. 28 (UPI) — The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday asked the Justice Department to investigate former President Joe Biden‘s use of the autopen to sign executive orders and pardons.

The request came after the committee released a report on its investigation into Biden’s use of the autopen and whether it indicated an administration coverup of an alleged cognitive decline.

In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chairman of the committee, accused Biden’s aides of coordinating “a cover-up of the president’s diminishing faculties.”

Over the summer, the oversight committee interviewed more than a dozen former aides and advisers to Biden. Among those who appeared before the committee were former chiefs of staff Ron Klein and Jeff Zients, and Biden’s former physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who invoked the Fifth Amendment.

In addition to the letter to Bondi, Comer sent a letter to Andrea Anderson, chairwoman of the board of medicine at the District of Columbia Health calling on the board to investigate whether O’Connor was “derelict in his duty as a physician by, including but not limited to, issuing misleading medical reports, misrepresenting treatments, failing to conform to standards of practice, or other acts in violation of District of Columbia law regulating licensed physicians.”

The committee recommended that O’Connor’s medical license be revoked.

President Donald Trump has taken particular issue with Biden’s use of the autopen during his presidency, though he, himself, has used it. In a Presidential Walk of Fame exhibit installed at the White House in September, photos of each president were displayed outside the West Wing, except Biden’s. Instead, a photo of an autopen was put in Biden’s place.

There’s been a long history of presidents using an autopen to sign the many documents that come across their desks each day, beginning with the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson. According to the Shapell Manuscript Foundation, which collects historical documents, Presidents Gerald Ford, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama used the device, some to sign the many requests for autographs and letters, others to sign important documents and orders.

In 2005, then-President George W. Bush asked the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel whether it was constitutional for him to sign official documents using the autopen. The office concluded that “the president need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law.”

Trump said he has used the autopen but not for important documents. In June, he ordered an investigation into Biden’s cognitive state.

Biden has denied Trump’s claims about his mental faculties and autopen use.

“I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said in a statement.

“I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations.

“Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false,” he added.

As a Los Angeles City Council aide, Jose Ugarte failed to disclose years worth of outside income he made from lobbying and consulting — and, as a result, was prepared to pay a fine.

But the city’s Ethics Commission has now rejected a $17,500 settlement agreement with the council candidate. Two commissioners said the fine was not quite large enough.

“We need to signal that this is a serious violation,” said Manjusha Kulkarni, the president of the commission, who voted against the settlement.

Ugarte is deputy chief of staff to Curren Price and is running to replace his longtime boss on the City Council. Price has endorsed him. But the council aide failed to report outside income from his consulting firm, Ugarte & Associates, for the years 2021, 2022 and 2023, according to Ethics Commission documents.

He said the failure to report the outside income was a “clerical reporting error.”

Although two of the commissioners want a steeper fine against Ugarte, the suggested bump isn’t that large.

Two commissioners voted in favor of the $17,500 settlement, but Kulkarni and another commissioner, Terry Kaufmann, agreed the settlement amount should be around $20,000.

It’s an amount that they believe could send a clearer message.

“There is great concern about what is happening in Los Angeles. … Individuals routinely violate the laws we put in place to ensure trust,” Kulkarni said.

Kaufmann added that she was concerned by the fact that Ugarte still worked for a council member and was running for office.

The proposed settlement with Ugarte included seven counts against him, and each comes with a potential $5,000 penalty. But since Ugarte was cooperative, the commission’s director of enforcement reduced the overall penalty by 50%, bringing it down from $35,000 to the $17,500 figure.

Ugarte told The Times that his work with Ugarte & Associates never overlapped with his time in Price’s office.

He started working for Price in 2013 but left the office in 2019. He returned in 2021. Ugarte & Associates was formed in 2018 and still conducts business. He co-owns the company with his sister.

A member of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners who led a nationwide search to hire a new LAPD chief and sparked condemnation from activists for his previous counterterrorism research is stepping down.

Erroll Southers confirmed his plans to resign through a spokesperson on Friday, ending a stormy two-year tenure on the influential civilian panel that watches over the LAPD.

The spokesperson said that Southers, 68, wanted to spend more time with his family and pursue other professional opportunities — something that wasn’t always allowed by the demands of serving as a commissioner. The officials often spend time outside their weekly meetings attending community events.

According to the spokesperson, Southers was not asked to submit his resignation, but she declined to say more about the timing of his departure.

Southers has been a member of the panel since 2023, when Mayor Karen Bass picked him to serve out the term of a departing commissioner.

Southers remained after serving out that term because of a bureaucratic loophole that allows new members to join any city commission if the City Council fails to vote on their appointment within 45 days. When the council members took no action on Southers earlier this month after his re-nomination by the mayor, a seat on the commission remained his by default.

His last commission meeting is expected to be Oct. 21 and he will step down at the end of that week. A replacement has not been announced by the mayor.

Southers had a long career in law enforcement before switching to academia and earning his doctorate in public policy. He worked as police officer in Santa Monica and later joined the FBI. He is currently a top security official in the administration at USC.

During this time on the commission, Southers pushed for changes to the way that the department hires and recruits new officers.

But more than any other commissioner, Southers has accumulated a loud chorus of detractors who point to his work on counterterrorism in the mid-2000s in Israel — which has especially become a lightning rod because of the ongoing crisis in Gaza.

Southers’ abrupt departure underscores the increasing difficulty in filling out one of the city’s most influential commissions. The panel was down a member for months after a former commissioner, Maria “Lou” Calanche, resigned so she could run for a City Council seat on the Eastside.

One previous candidate dropped out of the running after a disastrous hearing before the council, and another would-be commissioner quietly withdrew from running earlier this year.

Next Wednesday, a council committee will consider the nomination of Jeff Skobin, a San Fernando Valley car dealership executive and son of a former commissioner. Skobin’s move to the commission would still need approval from the full council.