How to Watch Top 25 Women’s College Basketball Games – Friday, November 22
Intech Investment Management LLC Purchases Shares of 50,756 Banc of California, Inc. (NYSE:BANC)In Pictures: Jimmy Carter continued campaigning long after leaving power
Surveillance tech advances by Biden could aid in Trump's promised crackdown on immigrationIntech Investment Management LLC purchased a new stake in Ambarella, Inc. ( NASDAQ:AMBA – Free Report ) during the third quarter, according to the company in its most recent Form 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The institutional investor purchased 12,801 shares of the semiconductor company’s stock, valued at approximately $722,000. Several other hedge funds and other institutional investors have also made changes to their positions in AMBA. Price T Rowe Associates Inc. MD lifted its stake in Ambarella by 7.9% in the first quarter. Price T Rowe Associates Inc. MD now owns 20,575 shares of the semiconductor company’s stock valued at $1,045,000 after buying an additional 1,502 shares during the period. Virtu Financial LLC raised its position in shares of Ambarella by 134.2% in the 1st quarter. Virtu Financial LLC now owns 13,837 shares of the semiconductor company’s stock valued at $702,000 after acquiring an additional 7,928 shares during the period. CWM LLC boosted its stake in Ambarella by 127.7% during the 2nd quarter. CWM LLC now owns 542 shares of the semiconductor company’s stock worth $29,000 after acquiring an additional 304 shares during the last quarter. Linden Thomas Advisory Services LLC grew its holdings in Ambarella by 1.7% during the second quarter. Linden Thomas Advisory Services LLC now owns 17,522 shares of the semiconductor company’s stock valued at $945,000 after purchasing an additional 288 shares during the period. Finally, SG Americas Securities LLC bought a new stake in Ambarella in the second quarter valued at approximately $841,000. 82.09% of the stock is currently owned by institutional investors. Ambarella Stock Performance NASDAQ AMBA opened at $71.55 on Friday. The stock has a market capitalization of $2.95 billion, a price-to-earnings ratio of -18.54 and a beta of 1.63. Ambarella, Inc. has a 52 week low of $39.69 and a 52 week high of $81.32. The stock’s 50 day moving average price is $59.27 and its two-hundred day moving average price is $55.31. Analyst Ratings Changes AMBA has been the topic of a number of recent analyst reports. Bank of America lifted their price target on shares of Ambarella from $57.00 to $65.00 and gave the stock an “underperform” rating in a research report on Wednesday. Needham & Company LLC raised their price objective on Ambarella from $90.00 to $100.00 and gave the stock a “buy” rating in a research note on Wednesday. Rosenblatt Securities reissued a “buy” rating and issued a $85.00 target price on shares of Ambarella in a research note on Friday, August 23rd. Northland Securities restated an “outperform” rating and issued a $95.00 price target (up from $75.00) on shares of Ambarella in a report on Wednesday. Finally, Westpark Capital reiterated a “buy” rating and set a $85.00 price objective on shares of Ambarella in a report on Monday, August 26th. Two research analysts have rated the stock with a sell rating, three have issued a hold rating and eight have assigned a buy rating to the company’s stock. According to data from MarketBeat, Ambarella presently has an average rating of “Hold” and an average target price of $81.67. View Our Latest Stock Report on Ambarella Insider Transactions at Ambarella In related news, VP Yun-Lung Chen sold 5,963 shares of the firm’s stock in a transaction dated Tuesday, September 3rd. The shares were sold at an average price of $57.56, for a total value of $343,230.28. Following the completion of the sale, the vice president now directly owns 62,026 shares in the company, valued at approximately $3,570,216.56. This trade represents a 8.77 % decrease in their position. The sale was disclosed in a document filed with the SEC, which is accessible through the SEC website . Also, VP Christopher Day sold 483 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Tuesday, September 17th. The stock was sold at an average price of $53.54, for a total value of $25,859.82. Following the transaction, the vice president now directly owns 21,370 shares in the company, valued at approximately $1,144,149.80. This trade represents a 2.21 % decrease in their position. The disclosure for this sale can be found here . Insiders have sold a total of 24,423 shares of company stock worth $1,356,402 in the last 90 days. Corporate insiders own 5.70% of the company’s stock. Ambarella Company Profile ( Free Report ) Ambarella, Inc develops semiconductor solutions that enable high-definition (HD) and ultra HD compression, image signal processing, and artificial intelligence processing worldwide. The company's system-on-a-chip designs integrated HD video processing, image processing, artificial intelligence computer vision algorithms, audio processing, and system functions onto a single chip for delivering video and image quality, differentiated functionality, and low power consumption. Read More Five stocks we like better than Ambarella Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPAC) What You Need to Know The Latest 13F Filings Are In: See Where Big Money Is Flowing Quiet Period Expirations Explained 3 Penny Stocks Ready to Break Out in 2025 Bank Stocks – Best Bank Stocks to Invest In FMC, Mosaic, Nutrien: Top Agricultural Stocks With Big Potential Want to see what other hedge funds are holding AMBA? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for Ambarella, Inc. ( NASDAQ:AMBA – Free Report ). Receive News & Ratings for Ambarella Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Ambarella and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Republicans made claims about illegal voting by noncitizens a centerpiece of their 2024 campaign messaging and plan to push legislation in the new Congress requiring voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Yet there's one place with a GOP supermajority where linking voting to citizenship appears to be a nonstarter: Kansas. That's because the state has been there, done that, and all but a few Republicans would prefer not to go there again. Kansas imposed a proof-of-citizenship requirement over a decade ago that grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory. The law, passed by the state Legislature in 2011 and implemented two years later, ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. That was 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn't been enforced since 2018. Kansas provides a cautionary tale about how pursuing an election concern that in fact is extremely rare risks disenfranchising a far greater number of people who are legally entitled to vote. The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Scott Schwab, championed the idea as a legislator and now says states and the federal government shouldn't touch it. “Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Schwab, a Republican. “It didn’t work out so well.” Steven Fish, a 45-year-old warehouse worker in eastern Kansas, said he understands the motivation behind the law. In his thinking, the state was like a store owner who fears getting robbed and installs locks. But in 2014, after the birth of his now 11-year-old son inspired him to be “a little more responsible” and follow politics, he didn’t have an acceptable copy of his birth certificate to get registered to vote in Kansas. “The locks didn’t work,” said Fish, one of nine Kansas residents who sued the state over the law. “You caught a bunch of people who didn’t do anything wrong.” Kansas' experience appeared to receive little if any attention outside the state as Republicans elsewhere pursued proof-of-citizenship requirements this year. Arizona enacted a requirement this year, applying it to voting for state and local elections but not for Congress or president. The Republican-led U.S. House passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the summer and plans to bring back similar legislation after the GOP won control of the Senate in November. In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state revised the form that poll workers use for voter eligibility challenges to require those not born in the U.S. to show naturalization papers to cast a regular ballot. A federal judge declined to block the practice days before the election. Also, sizable majorities of voters in Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and the presidential swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin were inspired to amend their state constitutions' provisions on voting even though the changes were only symbolic. Provisions that previously declared that all U.S. citizens could vote now say that only U.S. citizens can vote — a meaningless distinction with no practical effect on who is eligible. To be clear, voters already must attest to being U.S. citizens when they register to vote and noncitizens can face fines, prison and deportation if they lie and are caught. “There is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens can vote in American elections,” U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, the leading sponsor of the congressional proposal, said in an email statement to The Associated Press. After Kansas residents challenged their state's law, both a federal judge and federal appeals court concluded that it violated a law limiting states to collecting only the minimum information needed to determine whether someone is eligible to vote. That's an issue Congress could resolve. The courts ruled that with “scant” evidence of an actual problem, Kansas couldn't justify a law that kept hundreds of eligible citizens from registering for every noncitizen who was improperly registered. A federal judge concluded that the state’s evidence showed that only 39 noncitizens had registered to vote from 1999 through 2012 — an average of just three a year. In 2013, then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican who had built a national reputation advocating tough immigration laws, described the possibility of voting by immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as a serious threat. He was elected attorney general in 2022 and still strongly backs the idea, arguing that federal court rulings in the Kansas case “almost certainly got it wrong.” Kobach also said a key issue in the legal challenge — people being unable to fix problems with their registrations within a 90-day window — has probably been solved. “The technological challenge of how quickly can you verify someone’s citizenship is getting easier,” Kobach said. “As time goes on, it will get even easier.” The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Kansas case in 2020. But in August, it split 5-4 in allowing Arizona to continue enforcing its law for voting in state and local elections while a legal challenge goes forward. Seeing the possibility of a different Supreme Court decision in the future, U.S. Rep.-elect Derek Schmidt says states and Congress should pursue proof-of-citizenship requirements. Schmidt was the Kansas attorney general when his state's law was challenged. "If the same matter arose now and was litigated, the facts would be different," he said in an interview. But voting rights advocates dismiss the idea that a legal challenge would turn out differently. Mark Johnson, one of the attorneys who fought the Kansas law, said opponents now have a template for a successful court fight. “We know the people we can call," Johnson said. “We know that we’ve got the expert witnesses. We know how to try things like this.” He predicted "a flurry — a landslide — of litigation against this.” Initially, the Kansas requirement's impacts seemed to fall most heavily on politically unaffiliated and young voters. As of fall 2013, 57% of the voters blocked from registering were unaffiliated and 40% were under 30. But Fish was in his mid-30s, and six of the nine residents who sued over the Kansas law were 35 or older. Three even produced citizenship documents and still didn’t get registered, according to court documents. “There wasn’t a single one of us that was actually an illegal or had misinterpreted or misrepresented any information or had done anything wrong,” Fish said. He was supposed to produce his birth certificate when he sought to register in 2014 while renewing his Kansas driver's license at an office in a strip mall in Lawrence. A clerk wouldn't accept the copy Fish had of his birth certificate. He still doesn't know where to find the original, having been born on an Air Force base in Illinois that closed in the 1990s. Several of the people joining Fish in the lawsuit were veterans, all born in the U.S., and Fish said he was stunned that they could be prevented from registering. Liz Azore, a senior adviser to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, said millions of Americans haven't traveled outside the U.S. and don't have passports that might act as proof of citizenship, or don't have ready access to their birth certificates. She and other voting rights advocates are skeptical that there are administrative fixes that will make a proof-of-citizenship law run more smoothly today than it did in Kansas a decade ago. “It’s going to cover a lot of people from all walks of life,” Avore said. “It’s going to be disenfranchising large swaths of the country.” Associated Press writer Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Republicans made claims about illegal voting by noncitizens a centerpiece of their 2024 campaign messaging and plan to push legislation in the new Congress requiring voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship. Yet there's one place with a GOP supermajority where linking voting to citizenship appears to be a nonstarter: Kansas. That's because the state has been there, done that, and all but a few Republicans would prefer not to go there again. Kansas imposed a proof-of-citizenship requirement over a decade ago that grew into one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory. The law, passed by the state Legislature in 2011 and implemented two years later, ended up blocking the voter registrations of more than 31,000 U.S. citizens who were otherwise eligible to vote. That was 12% of everyone seeking to register in Kansas for the first time. Federal courts ultimately declared the law an unconstitutional burden on voting rights, and it hasn't been enforced since 2018. Kansas provides a cautionary tale about how pursuing an election concern that in fact is extremely rare risks disenfranchising a far greater number of people who are legally entitled to vote. The state’s top elections official, Secretary of State Scott Schwab, championed the idea as a legislator and now says states and the federal government shouldn't touch it. “Kansas did that 10 years ago,” said Schwab, a Republican. “It didn’t work out so well.” Steven Fish, a 45-year-old warehouse worker in eastern Kansas, said he understands the motivation behind the law. In his thinking, the state was like a store owner who fears getting robbed and installs locks. But in 2014, after the birth of his now 11-year-old son inspired him to be “a little more responsible” and follow politics, he didn’t have an acceptable copy of his birth certificate to get registered to vote in Kansas. “The locks didn’t work,” said Fish, one of nine Kansas residents who sued the state over the law. “You caught a bunch of people who didn’t do anything wrong.” Kansas' experience appeared to receive little if any attention outside the state as Republicans elsewhere pursued proof-of-citizenship requirements this year. Arizona enacted a requirement this year, applying it to voting for state and local elections but not for Congress or president. The Republican-led U.S. House passed a proof-of-citizenship requirement in the summer and plans to bring back similar legislation after the GOP won control of the Senate in November. In Ohio, the Republican secretary of state revised the form that poll workers use for voter eligibility challenges to require those not born in the U.S. to show naturalization papers to cast a regular ballot. A federal judge declined to block the practice days before the election. Also, sizable majorities of voters in Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina and the presidential swing states of North Carolina and Wisconsin were inspired to amend their state constitutions' provisions on voting even though the changes were only symbolic. Provisions that previously declared that all U.S. citizens could vote now say that only U.S. citizens can vote — a meaningless distinction with no practical effect on who is eligible. To be clear, voters already must attest to being U.S. citizens when they register to vote and noncitizens can face fines, prison and deportation if they lie and are caught. “There is nothing unconstitutional about ensuring that only American citizens can vote in American elections,” U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, the leading sponsor of the congressional proposal, said in an email statement to The Associated Press. After Kansas residents challenged their state's law, both a federal judge and federal appeals court concluded that it violated a law limiting states to collecting only the minimum information needed to determine whether someone is eligible to vote. That's an issue Congress could resolve. The courts ruled that with “scant” evidence of an actual problem, Kansas couldn't justify a law that kept hundreds of eligible citizens from registering for every noncitizen who was improperly registered. A federal judge concluded that the state’s evidence showed that only 39 noncitizens had registered to vote from 1999 through 2012 — an average of just three a year. In 2013, then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a Republican who had built a national reputation advocating tough immigration laws, described the possibility of voting by immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as a serious threat. He was elected attorney general in 2022 and still strongly backs the idea, arguing that federal court rulings in the Kansas case “almost certainly got it wrong.” Kobach also said a key issue in the legal challenge — people being unable to fix problems with their registrations within a 90-day window — has probably been solved. “The technological challenge of how quickly can you verify someone’s citizenship is getting easier,” Kobach said. “As time goes on, it will get even easier.” The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Kansas case in 2020. But in August, it split 5-4 in allowing Arizona to continue enforcing its law for voting in state and local elections while a legal challenge goes forward. Seeing the possibility of a different Supreme Court decision in the future, U.S. Rep.-elect Derek Schmidt says states and Congress should pursue proof-of-citizenship requirements. Schmidt was the Kansas attorney general when his state's law was challenged. "If the same matter arose now and was litigated, the facts would be different," he said in an interview. But voting rights advocates dismiss the idea that a legal challenge would turn out differently. Mark Johnson, one of the attorneys who fought the Kansas law, said opponents now have a template for a successful court fight. “We know the people we can call," Johnson said. “We know that we’ve got the expert witnesses. We know how to try things like this.” He predicted "a flurry — a landslide — of litigation against this.” Initially, the Kansas requirement's impacts seemed to fall most heavily on politically unaffiliated and young voters. As of fall 2013, 57% of the voters blocked from registering were unaffiliated and 40% were under 30. But Fish was in his mid-30s, and six of the nine residents who sued over the Kansas law were 35 or older. Three even produced citizenship documents and still didn’t get registered, according to court documents. “There wasn’t a single one of us that was actually an illegal or had misinterpreted or misrepresented any information or had done anything wrong,” Fish said. He was supposed to produce his birth certificate when he sought to register in 2014 while renewing his Kansas driver's license at an office in a strip mall in Lawrence. A clerk wouldn't accept the copy Fish had of his birth certificate. He still doesn't know where to find the original, having been born on an Air Force base in Illinois that closed in the 1990s. Several of the people joining Fish in the lawsuit were veterans, all born in the U.S., and Fish said he was stunned that they could be prevented from registering. Liz Azore, a senior adviser to the nonpartisan Voting Rights Lab, said millions of Americans haven't traveled outside the U.S. and don't have passports that might act as proof of citizenship, or don't have ready access to their birth certificates. She and other voting rights advocates are skeptical that there are administrative fixes that will make a proof-of-citizenship law run more smoothly today than it did in Kansas a decade ago. “It’s going to cover a lot of people from all walks of life,” Avore said. “It’s going to be disenfranchising large swaths of the country.” Associated Press writer Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.
An ugly scene in the aftermath of Saturday's rivalry game between Michigan and Ohio State resulted in players from both sides being by police. Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Thanks for the feedback.
Nvidia’s Bold Robotics Strategy: Will They Seize the Future?
