Connect with us

Midwest

Fellow Democratic mayor backs Tiffany Henyard's voter suppression claims: 'Telling the truth'

Published

on

Fellow Democratic mayor backs Tiffany Henyard's voter suppression claims: 'Telling the truth'

Controversial “super mayor” Tiffany Henyard has at least one partisan ally in her dispute with her local Democratic Party over allegations of voter suppression in a recent caucus.

During the Dec. 3 caucus, the Dolton, Illinois, mayor lost the Democratic nomination for Thornton Township supervisor, a position she currently holds. Henyard’s name was not even on the ballot because she did not have a certified assessor on her ticket, a requirement for all nominees. 

Over the last two weeks, Henyard has been threatening and attempting legal action against Illinois state Sen. Napolean Harris, the committeeman of the Democratic Party who chose to have a caucus instead of the typical primary election and won the nomination.

Henyard insisted after the caucus that her supporters were locked out of the venue and their “right to vote was hijacked” by Harris.

Tiffany Henyard, the scandal-plagued Democratic mayor of Dolton, is suing Thornton Township’s Democratic committee after losing her caucus. (Facebook)

Advertisement

‘NARCISSISTIC’ DEMOCRATIC MAYOR ACCUSED BY FORMER ASSISTANT OF PUTTING MAKEUP ARTIST ON TOWN’S PAYROLL

“Hundreds of eligible voters, including seniors, local mayors, local aldermen, local state senators and state representatives were locked out of the venue and forced to stand in freezing temperatures unable to access the voting process in a timely and fair manner,” she alleged.

A lawsuit was officially filed on Thursday against Harris and the Democratic Party for the Township of Thornton. It included Dixmoor mayor Fitzgerald Roberts as a co-petitioner after he was allegedly forced to wait outside the venue as well. However, the lawsuit had to be refiled after Roberts requested not to be listed as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Roberts told WGN that he is willing to testify on Henyard’s behalf but did not feel comfortable as a co-plaintiff. Roberts also attacked Harris, the defendant in the lawsuit, for how the caucus was handled.

“He took us back a long way to a time when people couldn’t vote,” Roberts said. “[Henyard] is telling the truth: People couldn’t get in.”

Advertisement

Dixmoor Mayor Fitzgerald Roberts agreed people were prevented from supporting Henyard during the caucus. (FOX 32 Chicago)

However, Henyard’s lawyer, Max Solomon, claimed Roberts was made aware of the original filing, but then “somebody got to him.”

“He knew he would be a named plaintiff. He knew because I spoke with him twice,” Solomon told Fox News Digital.

He added, “We had telephone conferences before filing. We had telephone conferences after the filing. He was supposed to show up for the press conference at 1 p.m. on that Friday. He didn’t show up. We believe that’s when somebody got to him. I don’t know about that, but I personally spoke with him.”

EMBATTLED DOLTON MAYOR TIFFANY HENYARD ACCUSED OF ‘POLITICALLY TARGETING’ TOWN’S OWN PARK DISTRICT

Advertisement

Fox News Digital reached out to Henyard and Roberts for comment.

The lawsuit alleges that Harris held a private event at the caucus location before the vote and prevented Henyard’s supporters from entering the facility. Henyard is hoping the caucus will be declared invalid and pave the way for a new one.

Henyard’s lawyer filed a new lawsuit after Roberts requested to be taken off as a co-petitioner.  (Fox 32)

Though she is not the Democratic nominee, Henyard could still be on the ballot in April for Thornton Township supervisor as a write-in or independent candidate. She is also up for re-election as Dolton mayor next year.

Advertisement

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

North Dakota

Challengers declare victory after ND Supreme Court rules against Legislature’s attempt to alter term limits

Published

on

Challengers declare victory after ND Supreme Court rules against Legislature’s attempt to alter term limits


BISMARCK — A constitutional ballot measure to amend the state’s term limits law as proposed by the Legislature will not appear on November’s ballot, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled Thursday, siding with petitioners who argued the Legislature exceeded its authority and violated the state constitution in proposing the changes.

“The people’s voice was heard,” Grand Forks County Commissioner Terry Bjerke said in reaction to the news.

Bjerke was a member of the sponsoring committee behind the successful 2022 effort to pass a term limits initiative, which amended the state constitution by capping legislative term limits to eight years in the House and eight years in the Senate. The amendment, which became article XV of the state constitution, also included a clause barring the Legislature from making constitutional changes to term limits.

During the 2025 session, however, lawmakers narrowly approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 4008, in which the legislature proposed Constitutional Measure 1, a ballot measure to amend the term limits language to allow legislators to decide in which chamber they want to serve their 16 years, and to repeal the clause limiting the legislative assembly’s authority to propose an amendment to alter or repeal term limits.

Advertisement

Bjerke and former Minot legislator Oley Larsen brought the lawsuit challenging the validity of the Legislature’s action in January, and the state Supreme Court

heard oral arguments in the case

this spring.

“Those term limits may only be altered by a measure proposed by the people rather than the Legislative Assembly. And yet a few years later, the Legislative Assembly is doing what they are prohibited from doing,” attorney Zachary Wallen argued on Bjerke and Larsen’s behalf.

Petitioner’s attorney Zachary Wallen, right, jots down notes for a rebuttal during a North Dakota Supreme Court hearing dealing with a term limits ballot measure on Thursday, April 2, 2026.

Tanner Ecker / The Bismarck Tribune

Advertisement

The Legislature’s attorneys argued the clause prohibiting legislative proposals to alter the constitutional term limits language “infringes on our republican form of government” by “limiting the people’s ability to vote on amendments proposed by their elected officials.”

Justice Jon Jensen seemed skeptical of that argument during the April 2 hearing, questioning whether a second vote was appropriate.

“The public did speak on this. The public spoke on it when it passed the original constitutional amendment and they said, ‘Legislature, you don’t even get to propose a change.’ They have already spoken on it,” Jensen said. “You want a second shot, or a second bite at the apple, not a first one, a second.”

In Thursday’s ruling, all five justices sided with Bjerke and Larsen.

Advertisement

“We … conclude the Legislative Assembly’s adoption of S.C.R. 4008 violated N.D. Const. art. XV … and declare S.C.R. 4008 and Constitutional Measure 1 void … We enjoin the Secretary of State from placing Constitutional Measure 1 on the November 2026 general election ballot,” the ruling said.

Bjerke thanked the legal team that worked on behalf of their lawsuit, and said he was grateful the court reached the conclusion it did.

“I’m thrilled that what the people voted on and approved has been validated,” Bjerke said.

He added that the Legislature had “multiple opportunities” to address term limits prior to 2022’s initiated measure and chose not to, and gave a nod to the country’s coming milestone and the process by which voters expressed their support for term limits.

“We’ve lasted 250 years,” Bjerke said. “I have two words for those elected leaders who think they aren’t: everyone’s replaceable.”

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Ohio

Prevent Blindness Ohio warns of firework dangers ahead of July 4 celebrations

Published

on

Prevent Blindness Ohio warns of firework dangers ahead of July 4 celebrations


COLUMBUS, Ohio — It’s almost America’s 250th birthday, and many Ohioans may already be planning their celebrations.

Many of those celebrations may include the use of fireworks. Prevent Blindness Ohio is warning about the potential dangers associated with the colorful explosives in light of its sixth annual Fireworks Safety Week, which runs from June 28 through July 4.

In a press release, the organization cites the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission in noting that there were 15 fireworks-related deaths and 13,000 injuries reported in 2025.

Most of the injuries were to hands and fingers, followed by the head, face and ears, with burns being the most common of all the injuries.

Advertisement

“The American Academy of Ophthalmology states that in the most severe eye injury cases, firework accidents can rupture the globe of the eye, cause chemical and thermal burns, corneal abrasions and retinal detachment — all of which can cause permanent eye damage and vision loss,” the release reads. “Fireworks-related eye injuries can combine blunt force trauma, heat burns and chemical exposure.”

The organization said it supports a ban on fireworks for all except licensed operators during public displays.

“We are thrilled to celebrate our nation’s 250th anniversary. We urge all Americans to celebrate safely by avoiding consumer fireworks,” said Amy Pulles, president and CEO of Prevent Blindness Ohio. “Accidents happen even during firework displays conducted by licensed professionals, so please use caution when attending those as well.”

For those who decide to use fireworks during their celebrations this year, the National Safety Council has the following safety tips:

  • “Never allow young children to handle fireworks

  • Older children should use them only under close adult supervision

  • Never use fireworks while impaired by drugs or alcohol

  • Anyone using fireworks or standing nearby should wear protective eyewear

  • Never hold lighted fireworks in your hands

  • Never light them indoors

  • Only use them away from people, houses and flammable material

  • Never point or throw fireworks at another person

  • Only light one device at a time and maintain a safe distance after lighting

  • Never ignite devices in a container

  • Do not try to re-light or handle malfunctioning fireworks

  • Soak both spent and unused fireworks in water for a few hours before discarding

  • Keep a bucket of water nearby to fully extinguish fireworks that don’t go off or in case of fire

  • Never use illegal fireworks”

Unless prohibited by local laws, Ohioans can discharge legal fireworks from 4 to 11 p.m. on July 3, 4 and 5, as well as the weekends before and after.

Advertisement

For more information on firework rules in Ohio, click here.

Interested in finding a Fourth of July fireworks show near you? Check out our list here.



Source link

Continue Reading

South Dakota

South Dakota Supreme Court upholds Box Elder burglary, assault convictions

Published

on

South Dakota Supreme Court upholds Box Elder burglary, assault convictions


RAPID CITY, S.D. (KOTA) – The South Dakota Supreme Court has upheld the convictions of a Pennington County man sentenced for threatening a Box Elder resident with a handgun during a 2025 home invasion.

In a unanimous decision, the court affirmed the convictions of Chris David Kujawa, who was found guilty of first-degree burglary and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Pennington County jury convicted Kujawa in May 2025, and he was sentenced to concurrent 12-year prison terms.

According to trial testimony, Kujawa forced his way into a Box Elder home, accused the homeowner of stealing property and pointed a handgun at the victim’s head while threatening to kill him. The victim testified Kujawa also threatened his wife.

Kujawa appealed the convictions, arguing the trial court improperly limited questions about the victim’s prior convictions and incorrectly responded to a question from jurors during deliberations.

Advertisement

The Supreme Court rejected those arguments, finding that any error related to the victim’s prior conviction did not affect the outcome of the case and that the judge properly directed jurors to review instructions that accurately stated the law.

“The Supreme Court’s decision affirms the jury’s verdict and recognizes the strength of the evidence presented at trial,” Attorney General Marty Jackley said in a statement.

The Attorney General’s Office represented the state during the appeal.

See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.

Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.

Advertisement

Copyright 2026 KOTA. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending