It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy.   

Photo by Michael Nigro/Sipa USA

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE GUN DEAL IN THE SENATE
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews ([link removed])
Correspondent

Hello from the attic of the U.S. Capitol.

Two levels below – in and around the Senate chamber – lawmakers are the closest they have been in decades to significant changes in federal firearms law. A deal that comes 28 years after the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act ([link removed]) , also known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Let’s go over what we know.

Where are we exactly in the process here? Over the weekend, 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans in the Senate agreed on a “framework” for what should be in a bill addressing gun violence. I will stress – this is not a bill. It is a robust outline for a bill.

What does a “framework” look like? It is not long. Just about 300 words, which you can read here ([link removed]) . This framework lays out nine components of gun legislation which have at least the support of enough Republicans to get through the Senate. That is eight more components than we have seen in decades. (The Senate passed the “Fix NICS” bill in 2017, which dealt with a loophole in gun background checks.)

What are the components here? Let’s group them a little more, to help see the contours of the bill.

Five deal specifically with gun law.
* Encourage more red flag or “crisis intervention orders” in states, to prevent people who have set off warning signs of possible violence from getting guns.
* Expand the background check for those under 21, to allow for a review of juvenile criminal and mental health records.
* Close a loophole that allows domestic abusers to continue to own firearms if they are not married to the person they abuse. (Sometimes called the “boyfriend loophole.” ([link removed]) )
* Toughen the crackdown on “straw purchases” of guns, purchases in which the person buying the gun is actually doing so for someone else.
* Sharpen the definition of “federally licensed firearms dealer” to close a loophole used by some gun traffickers.

The remaining four focus on broader prevention. They look at warning signs of potential violence as well as increasing school safety.
* Significantly increase mental health care and suicide prevention, to including more 24/7 community mental health centers around the country.
* Expand mental health services, including early intervention programs, at schools.
* Fund more telehealth options for mental health care.
* More funding for school safety. That could include security, as well as training for teachers and students.

What needs to happen now? Lawmakers need to agree on the details, including the language in the bill and how much it will cost. On Monday’s NewsHour ([link removed]) , we compared this to a group of people who have agreed on a drawing of a potential home. They now have to decide the precise dimensions and details of what goes inside.

How long will this take? In the modern Senate, this part of the process usually takes weeks and often months. However, in this case, the group of lawmakers backing this framework know that they need to seize the momentum now before opponents become more activated and memories of the massacre in Uvalde fade in their power.

The group hopes to have the bill written by the end of this week or early next week. Then they would ideally vote on it before the July 4 recess. That is an aggressive timeline.

Will this actually happen? It is possible. Here are some of the positive signs:
* Both Senate leaders have given it their blessings.
* Multiple sources tell us that Republicans do not want to alienate suburban women in particular. They know they have made gains with that group because of school concerns and do not want to lose with them because of inaction on gun violence and school safety.
* Democratic sources confirm what some have said publicly: There has been a shift in strategy on their side to trying to get some kind of meaningful legislation through, rather than break off talks when they fall far short of what Democrats want.

What else should we know? The framework wording is worth some close attention. We have confirmed that the senators involved personally hashed that out themselves, largely over text message chains. This is one reason it took a few days. (The goal had been to release it Friday, but it came out Sunday morning instead.)

If you have ever tried to work out language with another person in an important document, including birthday cards, you know this is not an easy task. Multiply that by 20. Then multiple it again by 100 because these are U.S. senators and each is just as important as the other 99.

This is to say, the ability of the group to work out the framework wording is itself a sign that a final bill is possible.

More on the gun debate from our reporting:
* Watch: What research says about identifying people who might commit mass shootings ([link removed]) .
* "Change Is Possible”: This weekend, hundreds of rallies across the U.S. were part of the national March For Our Lives against gun violence. In Oklahoma, a state ranked as having the seventh weakest gun laws in the nation, advocates gathered outside the state capitol to air their frustrations ([link removed]) against gun violence. Oklahoma City Communities Correspondent Adam Kemp reports.
* “Gun Violence Is Taking Over”: In New Orleans, gun violence has been a problem for decades as the number of deaths from firearms among children is steadily rising ([link removed]) . Communities Correspondent Roby Chavez reports on how the city is addressing the problem.

A CHANGE TO THE JAN. 6 HEARING SCHEDULE
By Joshua Barajas, @Josh_Barrage ([link removed])
Senior Editor, Digital

In an abrupt change, the Jan. committee announced today that the hearing originally scheduled for Wednesday is now postponed ([link removed]) to a not-yet-confirmed date.

That hearing, the third in a series of public, televised hearings over the investigation into the 2021 insurrection of the U.S. Capitol, was expected to focus on former President Donald Trump’s pressure on the Justice Department to support his false claims that the election was stolen.

This means that the next Jan. 6 public hearing will now be on Thursday, June 16 at 1 p.m. EDT. It’s expected to focus on Trump pressuring former Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 election. Digital anchor Nicole Ellis ([link removed]) will hold a live conversation shortly beforehand with White House correspondent Laura Barrón-López ([link removed]) to preview Thursday's hearing.

Check your local listings to find the PBS station near you, or watch online here ([link removed]) or in the player below.

[link removed]

You can also follow our live coverage on YouTube ([link removed]) , Twitter ([link removed]) and Facebook ([link removed]) , and see highlights on our Instagram ([link removed]) .

Who is testifying during this week’s hearing?

It’s not immediately clear.

The committee has been largely releasing more details a day before the hearing. For the latest and greatest on the Jan. 6 hearing schedule and who’s expected to testify, check out this page ([link removed]) . We’re updating that story as soon as we learn more.

Why the delay?

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and member of the Jan. 6 committee said the delay was due to technical issues.

“The staff is putting together all the videos. Doing one, two, three. It was overwhelming. So we’re trying to give them a little room,” she told reporters at the Capitol.

More on the Jan. 6 hearings from our coverage:
* Watch: What stands out from Day 2 ([link removed]) of Jan. 6 committee hearings. The second hearing focused on Trump's baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen, the people whotold him there was no evidence of fraud ([link removed]) and when he was given that information.
* One Big Question: There is another audience for these hearings: the Justice Department. There is some disagreement ([link removed]) within the committee about making criminal referrals to DOJ. The department has indicted some witnesses of interest already for failing to comply with subpoenas from Congress, but will the department bring charges against Trump ([link removed]) ?
* A Dramatic Opening: The first televised Jan. 6 hearing made the case that Trump was responsible for the attempted coup at the Capitol. Here’s what we learned ([link removed]) from that first of two prime-time hearings. Watch it, in full, here ([link removed]) .
* Perspectives: The hearings so far have underscored that Trump didn’t listen to people in his orbit – his former attorney general ([link removed]) and former campaign manager ([link removed]) – who told him he had lost the election and there was no evidence of fraud or interference. Yet some Republicans on Capitol Hill and in Congress didn’t accept – or were unwilling to say publicly – that this was true. Is this a norm that’s going to survive? Tamara Keith and Amy Walter weigh in ([link removed]) .

WILL GUNS BRING MORE PEOPLE TO THE POLLS?
By Laura Santhanam, @LauraSanthanam ([link removed])
Health Reporter & Coordinating Producer for Polling

As midterm elections approach, seven of 10 Americans say they’re more likely to vote in November after last month’s mass shootings at a school in Uvalde, Texas, and a grocery store in Buffalo, New York.

Image by Megan McGrew/PBS NewsHour

That’s according to the latest PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll ([link removed]) , which also found eroding support for gun rights, with six out of 10 Americans believing it is more important to control gun violence, a significant rise over the last decade.

Among the key takeaways:
* Gen Z and millennial voters, non-white voters, white men who graduated from college, and residents of small cities had some of the greatest enthusiasm for casting a ballot this fall.
* At 84 percent, Democrats appeared more motivated to vote than Republicans (65 percent) and independents (66 percent).

Two out of 10 adults said those shootings made no difference in how likely they might be to vote. White men who didn’t graduate from college and people in rural communities were more likely to say the shootings would not influence their voting behavior.

Nearly two-thirds of Gen Z and millennial voters also say they prioritize controlling gun violence over gun rights. Many members of these generations have participated in active shooter drills in their classrooms, gone to school under the threat of mass shootings for all or most of their educational careers. Many now have school-aged children.

A new type of single-issue voter engaged on controlling violence has emerged following, a result of the youth movement that mobilized after Parkland, particularly March for Our Lives and Students Demand Action, as well as growing research and political interest in reducing mass shootings, suicides, homicides and domestic violence, said Cassandra Crifasi, who directs research and policy at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins University.

Looking to the midterms, timing and urgency will play a bigger role in determining how much gun reform influences people’s votes, said Robert Blizzard, a Republican pollster with Public Opinion Strategies. What feels urgent now could swiftly be replaced by the next great tragedy or scandal, he said.

“In this current political climate, five months is a lifetime,” Blizzard said. “The challenge here is that this doesn’t happen in a vacuum.”

WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU!

The NewsHour wants to improve our reporting on numbers and math.

We’re hoping to speak with folks who are “math anxious” or uncomfortable with numbers to inform our reporting -- not only how we report numbers in our stories, but also how we can help make news work better for people who feel this way. The discussion, part of an Institutional Review Board-approved study, would take about an hour, and each participant will also receive a $40 gift card.

Please email [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) , if you are interested in more information ([link removed]) .

#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Tess Conciatori, @tkconch ([link removed])
White House Producer

Today is Election Day ([link removed]) in Maine, Nevada, North Dakota and South Carolina.

In the Palmetto state, Rep. Tom Rice – one of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after the Jan. 6 attack – is fighting to keep his seat ([link removed]) against a Trump-backed primary challenger in a race where Rice's impeachment vote is a major issue.

Our question: How many of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach the former president are not running for reelection in 2022?

Send your answers to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: The first Jan. 6 hearing Thursday comes days ahead of the 50th anniversary of this major political scandal. What was the scandal?

The answer: Watergate ([link removed]) . (Many readers got this one right.) Friday marks 50 years since the break-in at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C., that ultimately led to President Richard Nixon becoming the only U.S. president in history to resign.

Congratulations to our winners: Anita Kowalisyn, Bob Schmid and Karin Brown!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2022 NEWSHOUR LLC, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
3620 South 27th Street
Arlington, VA 22206

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
** update subscription preferences ([link removed])