By Rich Lowry

Its 2009 again, or feels like it.

That was when spontaneous, grassroots protests against overweening government sprang up and were widely derided in the media as dangerous and wrong-headed.

The protesters then were inveighing against Obamacare; the protestors now are striking out against the coronavirus lockdowns.

The anti-lockdown agitation shows that, despite the revolution in Republican politics wrought by President Donald Trump, opposition to government impositions is deeply embedded in the DNA of the right, and likely will reemerge even more starkly if former Vice President Joe Biden is elected president.

The tea party that was so powerful in the Obama years, roiling Republican Party politics and making stars out of the likes of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, sputtered out and was subsumed by the Trump movement in 2016.

The emphasis on constitutionalism, opposition to deficit spending, and American exceptionalism gave way to an emphasis on American strength, opposition to immigration, and nationalism.

The differences shouldnt be exaggerated the tea party was opposed to amnesty for undocumented immigrants and Trump has faithfully nominated constitutionalist judges. The tea party, like Trump, hated the mainstream media with a passion. But the shift from an overwhelming focus on fiscal issues to Trumpian cultural politics was very real.

The change was exemplified by the House Freedom Caucus, founded in 2015 and defined by its hard line on government spending, reliably lining up behind Donald Trump who has pursued a notably expansionary fiscal policy with huge budget deficits even before the coronavirus crisis.

The intellectual fashion among populists and religious traditionalists has been to attempt to establish a post-liberty or post-liberal agenda to forge a deeper foundation for the new Republican Party. Instead of obsessing over freedom and rights, conservatives would look to government to protect the common good.

This project, though, has been rocked by its first real-life encounter with governments acting to protect, as they see it, the common good.

One of its architects, the editor of the religious journal First Things, R.R. Reno, has sounded like one of the libertarians he so scorns during the crisis. First, he complained that he might get shamed if he were to host a dinner party during the height of the pandemic, although delaying a party would seem a small price to pay for someone so intensely committed to the common good.

More recently, he went on a tirade against wearing masks. Reno is apparently fine with a much stronger government, as long as it never issues public-health guidance not to his liking.

Reno has published vituperative attacks on the conservative writer (and my friend and former colleague) David French, supposedly for having a blinkered commitment to classical liberalism. But it is the hated French who has actually tried to thoughtfully balance liberty and the common good during the crisis, favoring the lockdowns at first and favoring reopening now that the lockdowns goals have been achieved.

Whats happened during the lockdowns is that the natural distrust that populists have of experts has expressed itself in opposition to government rules. Being told what to do by epidemiologists and government officials wielding all-caps SCIENCE as their authority has been enough to bring tea party-era liberty back in vogue.

Weve also seen a return of the glue that has held moral traditionalists and libertarians together in the conservative coalition for so long the belief that big government is a threat to traditional institutions. Hence, the focus on resuming church services.

In retrospect, the tea party wasnt as much a purely liberty movement as it seemed at the time. A populist anti-elitism was an enormously important factor, which is why it faded into the Trump movement so seamlessly. On the other hand, Trumpian populism has a big streak of liberty to it.

All it has taken to bring it to the fore is extraordinary government intrusion into our lives. If Biden is elected president, theres more where that came from.

Rich Lowry has been the editor of National Review since 1997. Hes a Fox News political analyst and writes for Politico and Time. He is on Twitter @RichLowry.

Follow this link:

COMMENTARY: A pandemic prompts the return of the tea party - The Daily World

My colleague Iain Murray has a great essay up at Law & Liberty today on why some groups of Americans are perceiving quarantine policies so differently from others. The reason is largely because different Americans have different value hierarchiesthat is, they prioritize different values when it comes to public policy. Some consider order and tradition most important (hierarchists), some consider equality to be number one (egalitarians), and some prefer to maximize freedom and individual autonomy (libertarians). As Iain writes:

When these values clash, we see political polarization at its worst. When they align, we see consensus and reform. Today, when consensus is probably most needed, they are clashing hard.

Egalitarians think an end to the lockdowns would hurt the vulnerable. Libertarians view the lockdowns as threatening freedomand even contact tracing as threatening civil liberties. Hierarchists particularly oppose restrictions on religious gatherings.

Persuading groups of people with different value orientations to agree on a single best policy is often a difficult enterprise. But we should still do the best we can to seek out the most relevant facts. When our friends and neighbors values lead them (and us) to focus only on certain factors and ignore others, good communicators should supply the perspective that our cognitive orientations are disposed to ignore. Sometimes that means being made aware of factors we failed to educate ourselves about entirely, but sometimes it means introducing nuance to a false binary. Iain again:

In thinking through this, we need to remember that risks are often relative. If we focus exclusively on the risks we are most concerned about, we can miss the other risks that obtain should our demands be met. It requires a degree of humility about the importance of our values to recognize this.

Nothing in life is entirely risk-free, but as human beings we have an unfortunate tendency to put things in safe and unsafe mental buckets. Were likely to think of driving a passenger sedan with multiple airbags a few miles to the nearest grocery store as being categorically safe, but driving a motorcycle all the way from Sturgis, South Dakota, to Daytona Beach, Florida, as being terribly risky. But of course there are hazards and pleasures to be found in each experience. One could get into a fatal accident pulling out of ones driveway on the road to Safeway or end up perfectly healthy after a cross-country bike tour as you turn onto Ridgewood Avenue in Daytona. Its a matter of chance, driving skill, and many other factors ranging from the weather to traffic conditions.

Thus, it was fascinating for me to read this article from Politico this morning that polled Americans on certain common behaviors during the coronavirus quarantine. They didnt just ask respondents and public health experts whether they thought something was safe or not, they asked how safe (or unsafe) they thought it was. So, on a scale from one (extremely low risk) to 10 (maximum risk), Americans thought that going for a run outside without a mask on was a 4.3 out of 10. The public health experts, on the other hand, thought that running without a mask was more like a 2.9 very low risk. On the other end of the spectrum, Americans thought attending a baseball game in a stadium full of people was a 7.7 out of 10, while the health experts scored it all the way up at 8.6.

These relative risk scores tell us a lot about both public perception and (assuming we respect the credentials of the health experts recruited by Politico), actual disease transmission hazards. This is, to put it lightly, much more useful and informative than simply being subject to a quarantine order with a long list of forbidden behaviors.

Any cityor household for that matterhas limited enforcement bandwidth, and when it comes to phased reopening plans, which most state and cities have embraced, we need to know which behaviors are less risky so that they can be permitted, while only continuing to restrict the very highest risk behaviors and activities.

But in most public policy and law enforcement cases, we never receive an explicit acknowledgment that there is anything like a risk spectrum or hierarchy; there are only permitted and forbidden categories. When activities that are actually low risk are included on lists of forbidden activities, it brings the entire enterprise into suspicion and disrepute.

Witness decades of government anti-drug propaganda that suggest that every illegal substance is equally hazardous. Anyone who has ever smoked marijuana knows that it doesnt immediately lead one into a soul-destroying Reefer Madness-style spiral of doom, countless televised public service announcements to the contrary. A widespread realization of this kind makes every other public health message issued by a government agency that less believable.

This doesnt mean that the government should publish a recreational drug shopping guide, but it does mean that public policy should acknowledge the relative risks of various behaviors, substances, and products, as well as the varying risk tolerances of its citizens.

If Americans knew that one thing they wanted to go out and do during the pandemic was four times more dangerous that another similar thing that they also wanted to do, I believe that the vast majority of them would voluntarily choose the activity that put their families and neighbors at less risk. But when we only have a long unranked list of do not activities, people are going tothe longer quarantine and stay-at-home orders stay in placeincreasingly disregard the entire list. And that makes us all less safe.

View post:

There Is No Such Thing as Safe - Competitive Enterprise Institute

WASHINGTON From Harvard Law School comes the latest conservative flirtation with authoritarianism. Professor Adrian Vermeule, a 2016 Catholic convert, is an integralist who regrets his academic specialty, the Constitution, and rejects the separation of church and state. His much-discussed recent Atlantic essay advocating a government that judges the quality and moral worth of public speech is unimportant as a practical political manifesto, but it is symptomatic of some conservatives fevers, despairs and temptations.

Common-good capitalism, Sen. Marco Rubios recent proposal, is capitalism minus the essence of capitalism limited government respectful of societys cumulative intelligence and preferences collaboratively revealed through market transactions. Vermeules common-good constitutionalism is Christian authoritarianism muscular paternalism, with government enforcing social solidarity for religious reasons. This is the Constitution minus the Framers purpose: a regime respectful of individuals diverse notions of the life worth living. Such respect is, he says, abominable.

He would jettison libertarian assumptions central to free-speech law and free-speech ideology. And: libertarian conceptions of property rights and economic rights also will have to go, insofar as they bar the state from enforcing duties of community and solidarity in the use and distribution of resources. Who will define these duties? Integralists will, because they have an answer to this perennial puzzle: If the people are corrupt, how do you persuade them to accept the yoke of virtue-enforcers? The answer: Forget persuasion. Hierarchies must employ coercion.

Common-good constitutionalisms main aim, Vermeule says, is not to minimize the abuse of power but to ensure that the ruler has the power needed to rule well. Such constitutionalism does not suffer from a horror of political domination and hierarchy because the law is parental, a wise teacher and an inculcator of good habits, wielded if necessary even against the subjects own perceptions of what is best for them. Besides, those perceptions are not really the subjects because under Vermeules regime the law will impose perceptions.

He thinks the Constitution, read imaginatively, will permit the transformation of the nation into a confessional state that punishes blasphemy and other departures from state-defined and state-enforced solidarity. His medieval aspiration rests on a non sequitur: All legal systems affirm certain values, therefore it is permissible to enforce orthodoxies.

Vermeule is not the only American conservative feeling the allure of tyranny. Like the American leftists who made pilgrimages to Fidel Castros Cuba, some self-styled conservatives today turn their lonely eyes to Viktor Orban, destroyer of Hungarys democracy. The prime ministers American enthusiasts probably are unfazed by his seizing upon COVID-19 as an excuse for taking the short step from the ethno-nationalist authoritarianism to which he gives the oxymoronic title illiberal democracy, to dictatorship.

In 2009, Orban said, We have only to win once, but then properly. And in 2013, he said: In a crisis, you dont need governance by institutions. Elected to a third term in 2018, he has extended direct or indirect control over courts (the Constitutional Court has been enlarged and packed) and the media, replacing a semblance of intragovernmental checks-and-balances with what he calls the system of national cooperation. During the COVID-19 crisis he will govern by decree, elections will be suspended, and he will decide when the crisis ends supposedly June 20.

Explaining his hostility to immigration, Orban says Hungarians do not want to be mixed ... We want to be how we became eleven hundred years ago here in the Carpathian Basin. Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes, authors of The Light that Failed, dryly marvel that Orban remembers so vividly what it was like to be Hungarian eleven centuries ago. Nostalgia functioning as political philosophy Vermeules nostalgia seems to be for the 14th century is usually romanticism untethered from information.

Last November, Patrick Deneen, the University of Notre Dame professor whose 2018 book Why Liberalism Failed explained his hope for a post-liberal American future, had a cordial Budapest meeting with Orban. The Hungarian surely sympathizes with Deneens root-and-branch rejection of classical liberalism, which Deneen disdains because it portrays humans as rights-bearing individuals who can fashion and pursue for themselves their own version of the good life. One name for what Deneen denounces is: the American project. He, Vermeule and some others on the Orban-admiring American right believe that political individualism the enabling, protection and celebration of individual autonomy is a misery-making mistake: Autonomous individuals are deracinated, unhappy and without virtue.

The moral of this story is not that there is theocracy in our future. Rather, it is that American conservatism, when severed from the Enlightenment and its finest result, the American Founding, becomes spectacularly unreasonable and literally unAmerican.

Will is a columnist for The Washington Post Writers Group.

Read more:

Will: The rise of conservative authoritarians - Roanoke Times

Wise King Ralph keeps a face mask at the ready.

by James A. Bacon

Im still digesting Governor Ralph Northams face-mask mandate, but my initial reaction is that it could be worse. I dislike the coercive aspect of his executive order. But requiring Virginians to wear face masks in public buildings and places of commerce is less intrusive than compelling businesses and workplaces to shut down. If ordering people to wear face masks allows Northam to feel better about loosening other restrictions, then its a net gain.

Theres an element to the face mask debate that I find curiously neglected in the conservative/libertarian commentary Ive seen. Conservatives and libertarians tout the virtue of personal responsibility. Regardless of whether or not face coverings protect you from getting the COVID-19 virus, they do reduce the chances that you will spread the virus. If we believe in personal responsibility as an alternative to government coercion, conservatives and libertarians need to live their values by acting responsibly.

I would go one step further: If conservatives and libertarians want to see Northam release his Vulcan Death Grip on Virginias economy, they should do everything within their power to ensure that the coronavirus does not spread. If Virginia sees a significant uptick in the spread of the virus, thats all the Governor needs to back peddle on his timid reversal of emergency shutdown measures.

There are good reasons to oppose the mandate. The Richmond Times-Dispatch actually gives a decent summary here:

Clark Mercer, Northams chief of staff, said health inspectors at the agency had the power to pull a license to operate if a business is found out of compliance with health regulations.

The Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police earlier Tuesday strongly opposed a face mask requirement, arguing that it could force businesses to enforce it, potentially exposing them to dangerous encounters.

The police chiefs association said the order turns good advice into a mandate that will be enforced with trespassing citations and by physically removing violators from businesses.

The group argued it destroys police/community relations and puts business owners in a no-win situation: either be prepared to confront people you value as customers, or avoid the risk of a potentially violent confrontation by keeping your business closed.

I fully share those concerns, and they are worth highlighting in the hope of reversing the mandate. But at the end of the day, Northam has virtually limitless power to rule by emergency decree. While we should work to limit that power legislatively and constitutionally, that is a long-term project. In the short term, we need to reopen the economy, and given Northams mindset and the fact that he has the power and we dont, that means doing what we can to drive the COVID-19 infection rate down.

Exercise personal responsibility: Wear masks and protect others from the virus.

Related

More here:

You Dont Have to Like the Decree, But Wear Face Masks Anyway - Bacon's Rebellion

Two Republicans and three Democrats are seeking their respective parties nominations for Indianas Sixth Congressional District in Tuesdays primary.

The seat is currently held by Rep. Greg Pence, R-Indiana, who is seeking a second term.

Pence is being challenged in the GOP primary by Mike Campbell of Wayne County, according to candidate filings.

In 2018, Pence defeated Democratic challenger Jeannine Lee Lake, winning his first term in Congress.

In Bartholomew County, Pence received 16,161 votes (60.86%), while Lake received 9,607 votes (36.18%), and Libertarian Thomas Ferkinhoff, 56, of Richmond, received 782 votes (2.95%). All sought political office for the first time in 2018.

Lake is running for the Democratic nomination again. She is being challenged by Barry Welsh of Hancock County and George T. Holland of Rush County, according to candidate filings.

The winners of the Republican and Democratic primaries will face each other in Novembers general election.

The Republic reached out to all five candidates to talk about why they are running and how they would address major issues affecting voters in their district. Only Pence and Lake responded.

View post:

Candidates seek party nominations for Indiana's Sixth Congressional District - The Republic

With less than two weeks left before 1,000 or so Libertarian Party delegates select their 2020 presidential and vice presidential nominees in an unprecedented online-only vote, you could probably forgive Jacob Hornberger for being a little irritable.

Hornberger, the 70-year-old founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation, has, after all, won a clear majority of the party's presidential primaries and caucuses, nonbinding though they may be. He has been in and out and back in Libertarian politics for more than two decades now. And yet ever since Rep. Justin Amash (LMich.) threw his hat into the ring on April 28, Hornberger has been all but ignored by the mainstream media, while Amash galivants on cable news networks and HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher.

So it came as little surprise Saturday night that when the formerly Republican and independent congressman participated in his first Libertarian presidential debate, it was Hornbergerauthor of an eight-part blog series titled, "Justin Amash, LP Interloper"who came out swinging hardest.

"Even the libertarian-leaning conservative members of Congress have websites that direct children to the website of the CIAthe most evil agency in U.S. history," Hornberger charged in his opening statement, reiterating his critique of a student resource page at amash.house.gov. "Conservatives love free enterprise, but have long supported the evil, immoral, socialist, central-planning, Republican/Democratic system of immigration controls, which has brought death and suffering to countless people, as well as a brutal police state consisting of highway checkpoints and other initiations of force against innocent people."

Running as he is a "campaign of principle for the party of principle," in a cycle where many Libertarians seem particularly eager to shed their image as a refuge for ideologically alienated and/or politically opportunistic ex-Republicans, Hornberger portrayed Amash as someone merely tinkering around the edges of the welfare/warfare state.

"Conservatives love to 'reform,'" he said. "But reform of tyranny is not freedom. Freedom is a dismantling of tyranny.In this election Libertarian Party members are asked to trade away our principles for a conservative/progressive/libertarian mush, all for the sake of big publicity and the hopes of garnering votes. If we make that trade, we become like them. We become conservatives and progressives. We become the party of expediency."

Those who assume Amash will waltz to a first-ballot nomination over Memorial Day weekend should take a look at the Libertarian Party of Kentucky's post-debate voting exercise among one-quarter of confirmed L.P. convention delegates. In the first round of polling, Amash received just 33.3 percent of the vote, compared to runner-up Hornberger's 21 percent. (The party requires winning candidates to earn 50 percent plus one vote, using an instant runoff process in which the last-place finisher in each round, and everyone under 5 percent, gets lopped off for the next.)

Amash eventually won the informal vote, but it took him six rounds. Here's how the totals went, as reported:

Round 1: Amash 33.3 percent, Hornberger 21 percent, Jo Jorgensen 16.6 percent, Vermin Supreme 7.7 percent, Judge Jim Gray 6.6 percent, Adam Kokesh 6.2 percent, John Monds 5 percent, Arvin Vohra 1.5 percent.

Round 2: Amash 35.1 percent, Hornberger 23.3 percent, Jorgensen 18.5 percent, Supreme 9.3 percent, Kokesh 7.7 percent, Gray 7 percent.

Round 3: Amash 37.3 percent, Hornberger 22.4 percent, Jorgensen 21.6 percent, Supreme 10.1 percent, Kokesh 8.6 percent.

Round 4: Amash 39.3 percent, Jorgensen 24.8 percent, Hornberger 22.9 percent, Supreme 13 percent.

Round 5: Amash 43.8 percent, Jorgensen 30.5 percent, Hornberger 25.7 percent.

Round 6: Amash 55.6 percent, Jorgensen 44.4 percent.

Jorgensen, the 1996 Libertarian vice presidential nominee who caught Hornberger from behind in Round 4 and eventually elbowed him out, is campaigning in a sort of third lane between the no-holds-barred radicalism of Hornberger and anarchist Adam Kokesh, and the more pragmatic approach favored by Amash and Judge Jim Gray. "I'm offering something that's principled and practical," she said in her closing statement Saturday night.

Jorgensen was the only other debate participant to significantly challenge Amash, albeit in a much less abrasive way than Hornberger (who said that he could not commit to endorsing the congressman should he win the nomination). In her opening statement, she asked Amash a series of questions, most of which he didn't address.

"Would you use your authority as commander-in-chief to end our involvement in foreign wars, stop subsidizing the defense of wealthy allies, and bring our troops home? I will," Jorgensen said. "Would youuse your pardon power to free people convicted of exposing government corruption, violating unconstitutional laws, or committing so-called crimes when there's no victim? I will. Would you immediately stop construction on President Trump's border wall boondoggle, and work to eliminate quotas on immigration so that anyone who wishes to come to America could do so legally? I will. And last, where do you stand on one of the most divisive issues in America: abortion? Do you support the Libertarian Party platform? I do. It's not enough to be better than Trump or Biden. Our nominee must be deeply principled with a long commitment to our party."

Amash did address abortion in the debate, saying at first: "I'm pro-life. I believe that the pro-life position is a Libertarian position, and my goal is to work outside of the Libertarian Party to convince people of that. I work with pregnancy resource centers, for example, here in West Michigan, to try to get the message out and spread the message about life. I don't think that the government is most effective at doing that sort of thing. As a president, the Libertarian Party supports the idea of not funding abortion providers. So, the Libertarian Party is aligned with my position on that."

Hornberger then grilled the congressman further:

Hornberger: You of course pride yourself on being a strict constitutionalist, a supporter of the Constitution. And you supported a bill that calledI think it was in the past couple of yearsthat called for a nationwide criminal ban on abortion, in which people who were caught engaging in an abortion would be convicted of a federal felony involving a five-year jail sentence. Can you tell me where in the Constitution you rely on to support this federal felony offense for abortion?

Amash: So I'm not sure about the particular bill you're referencing, because it was in the past and I don't know exactly which bill

Hornberger: It's House bill 36.

Amash: But I can answer the question. The 14th Amendment provides the power to have the federal government address state violations of people's rights. And as someone who's pro-life, I believe that a baby inside the womb is a life. And if I believe that that person is a life, then I think it's appropriate for the federal government to tell states that it is not okay to discriminate against these lives.

Now, as a presidential candidate, as a presidential nominee, I won't be making the legislation; the legislature will decide that. Congress decides on the legislation and sends things to my desk. With the parties very divided over this issue, nothing's going to come to my desk that does that.

That's my view of it, and when I'm voting in Congress, that's how I would vote. But as a presidential candidate, with respect to people who are concerned within the party because there is a split within the party between pro-life people and pro-choice people, the president will have very little opportunity for that kind of thing, because there is a huge divide within the party. So the only thing that is likely to come to my desk as president is a bill to not fund abortion providers, no federal funding for abortion providers, and that is something that all Libertarians within the party agree on. At least, the vast majority of them agree on that.

Hornberger's most influential backers, at the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus and on the podcasting airwaves, have dinged Amash for backing the "Deep State" in the impeachment of President Donald Trump (despite Amash's lead role in nearly de-funding the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance operations back in 2013), and for potentially being another in a lengthening line of ex-Republicans who fail to ignite a lasting ideological fire.

"I even think that in some scenarios 1 percent might be better than 4 percent," libertarian comedian Dave Smith said to Hornberger on an episode of his Part of the Problem podcast last month. "I think those votes are worthless if you didn't actually convert people or introduce them to liberty or change their way of looking at the world at all."

Or as Ludwig von Mises Institute senior fellow and popular podcaster Tom Woods, with whom Smith taped an Amash-criticizing podcast last week, said at a Mises Caucus-sponsored event down the street from the 2018 Libertarian National Convention: "So yeah, we won't get the 70 million votes, but maybe we get 1 million people who say, 'I never looked at the world the same way again after I listened to those people.'"

Amash's answer to the broad critique is to remind people that most Americans are not self-identified libertarians, no matter how intrinsically libertarian they may be without knowing it, and that political actors wishing to have any kind of influence need to acknowledge the fallen world around them.

"I've been a libertarian my entire life, a small-l libertarian," Amash said Saturday. "And I believe that when you work within government, you have to make those changes that will convince people to come to your side.You have to present libertarianism to them with the issues that they care about or are concerned about right now. It can't be some kind of overnight experiment where we re-work all of society or re-work all of our government."

"In fact," Amash continued, "that's arrogance in the form of central planning of another sort, to come in and say, 'We're just going to throw out everything we have overnight and start anew.' We have to do things gradually and carefully, and we have to trust the people to make decisions through our constitutional system of government."

View post:

The Libertarian Party Critique of Justin Amash - Reason

A group of 35 independent gyms and fitness centers is suing the state, saying they could reopen for business safely but theyre not being allowed to.

In a May 11 filing with the Lake County Court of Common Please, attorney Maurice Thompson argued that gyms "pose a significantly lower risk of harmful infections than nearly any alternative operation."

He said the gyms maintain private memberships, control who can come in and often operate by appointment. He added that, while "nearly 100% of deaths" from COVID-19 are people over 60, the same percentage of his clients' customers are under that age.

Thompson argued these gyms should never have been closed because they could have been operating safely all along.

"In prohibiting healthy behavior through exercise at Ohio gyms, Defendants continue to obstruct rather than advance Ohioans health, all the while having continuously overinflated the risk of harm to the general public," the complaint reads.

The lawsuit names Ohio Department of Health director Amy Acton and the Lake County General Health District as defendants.

Thompsons libertarian 1851 Center for Constitutional Lawfiled an earlier suit for a Columbus bridal shopclaiming it was unfairly shut down as a non-essential business. Thompson lost that case, but says this one is even stronger because the original stay-at-home order has changed.

The newStay Safe Ohio order, in basically opening80% of the economyand leaving gyms out, is much more arbitrary and much more unequal," Thompson says.

Asked about the lawsuit, Gov. Mike DeWine said he gets "sued a lot." On Thursday, the governor announced that gyms and fitness centers would be able to reopen May 26, with new guidelines developed by a state working group.

Excerpt from:

Libertarian Group Sues Ohio Again On Behalf Of Closed Gyms - WOSU

Dont these orders go beyond the Commerce Clause, infringe the Privileges or Immunities Clause, or violate one of the other constitutional provisions Im constantly banging on about? Surely Icant approve such extreme impositions on economic liberty, the right to travel, and just the basic freedom to go about your daily life as you choose so long as you dont get in the way of others freedom to do the same?

Well, thats the rub. As Iexplained during Catos online forum on Coronavirus and the Constitution, in apandemic when we dont know whos infected and infections are often asymptomatic, these sorts of restrictions end up maximizing freedom. The traditional libertarian principle that one has aright to swing ones fists, but that right ends at the tip of someone elses nose, means government can restrict our movements and activities, because were all fistswingers now.

This isnt like seatbelt mandates or soda restrictions, where the government regulates your behavior for our own good, becausesetting aside the issue of publicly borne health care coststhe only person you hurt by not wearing aseatbelt or drinking too much sugar is yourself. With communicable diseases, you violate others rights just by being around them.

The federal government is one of enumerated and thus limited powersat least in theory, if observed largely in the breach since the New Dealbut states have police powers to govern for the public health, safety, welfare, and morals (the last one having fallen away in recent decades). Accordingly, in light of the best epidemiological data we have, state and local executives ordered shut downs to prevent people from being around too many other people and thus spreading the disease.

Interestingly, despite the infamous pictures of springbreakers and St. Patricks Day revelers, these government actions were lagging indicators. Restaurant traffic and airline travel fell off acliff before any official action. Airports are still open, even though the president has total authority to shut them down, as George W. Bush did on 9/11.

People began socialdistancing and wearing masks without any edicts. Sports leagues canceled their seasons without so much as a dont play ball from state umpires.

Not being satisfied with this largescale recognition of the threat we face and compliance with commonsense rules for the new normal, however, governors and mayors have begun to overreach. Although Ihad been telling reporters that nobody was going to get arrested for reading in the park or enjoying wildlife with her family, police were indeed telling people to move along if they were in apublic space, even if they were nowhere near anybody else.

When we got questions at that Cato forum about restrictions on the sale of nonessential products or prohibitions on fishinga right going back to Magna Carta!I thought these were farfetched hypotheticals, but it turns out they were all too real.

Then came the bans on parking at achurch and staying in your car to hear asermon, ahead of Easter Sunday, no less, which led toone of the best district court opinionsIve read in along time, reversing such an order in Louisville. (Full disclosure: Judge Justin Walker is afriend, and Im advising the Mississippi Justice Institute on one of these cases in Greenville, Miss.)

Look, this isnt about religious liberty, or any other constitutional right in particular. Assuming that socialdistancing is required to flatten the curve and fight COVID-19, such rules are fine so long as theyre applied equally everywhere, whether to yoga studios or churches, hackathons or street protests.

But theyre not fine when theyre arbitrarily targeted at some businesses and not others, as if coronavirus spreads more in gun shops than liquor stores. Theyre also not fine when they have nothing to do with socialdistancing, as with the fatwas against drivein liturgy or closing only aisles three and five of abigbox store. Or when tennis courts are closed even if the players wear allwhite masks and promise not to both go to the net at the same time. Or that video of the cop chasing that poor guy going for arun on the beach by his lonesome.

These ridiculous examples of petty tyranny led to mymost viral tweet ever: Angered by citations for being in park with nuclear family, or in car at church, or running on the beach. Or nonessential goods roped off in stores. These things have nothing to do with fighting the virus and everything to do with powerhungry politicians and law enforcement.

Just because significant restrictions on our daytoday lives are warranted doesnt mean its afreeforall for government coercion. To borrow alegal standard from adifferent context, the rules have to be congruent and proportional to the harm being addressed. As amatter of law, judges will give executives awide berth to deal with acrisis, but their enforcement measures still have to pass the constitutional smell test.

More fundamentally, any regulations that dont make common sense, that arent seen as reasonable by most people, are simply not going to be taken as legitimate, and they wont be followed. The American people will decide what restrictions are reasonable, and for how long. Just like they decided when to shut down, they have total authority to decide when to reopen.

Originally posted here:

The Government Has a Lot More Emergency Powers Than Libertarians Like, but It Still Can't Control Everything - Cato Institute

The libertarian-leaning Illinois Policy Institute has tried reaching out more to Democratic legislators since Gov. Bruce Rauner lost his reelection bid. Rauner at one point was so close to the group that he fired several of his longtime staffers and replaced some of them with IPI staff, which did not work out well, to say the least.

The organizations political wing has contributed money to more than a few legislative Democrats campaign funds in recent months, and they were able to introduce some bipartisan legislation last year and this year although the spring session is now mostly a bust because, as I write this, the General Assembly has no set plans to return amid the pandemic.

An IPI staffer even posed for a picture with Gov. J.B. Pritzker and posted it on Twitter last year. Looking forward to working with his administration, the caption read. Its been on a serious mission to change its image.

If you go to its website, youll see the IPI has devoted an entire section to empathetic interviews with small business owners about how theyre faring during the pandemic. Theyre well-written, including one featuring the owner of a Chicago restaurant.

In general, everyone is standing, waiting in the wings until were allowed to open back up regularly, which obviously no one knows when thats going to be yet, the owner was quoted as saying.

The organization claimed this week in a private Facebook group it runs that it wants the state to begin planning to reopen the economy and give people visibility on what that might look like.

But then it tipped its hand in the comment section.

As an owner of 2 small businesses, one essential (radon mitigation), one a restaurant ... nothing I can say will express the absolute disdain I have for this man or his policies, a commenter complained about Pritzker.

A Policy Institute staffer replied to her comment asking if she would be open to speaking to a member of the IPI team. Weve been doing our best to give our community a voice on our site and pressure JB to reopen the states economy.

Another commenter predicted that Pritzker and his boss lori lightfoot will kill Illinois. An IPI staffer replied with the same request to speak with her about her story. Weve been featuring small business owners on our site to try to pressure the governor to reopen the states economy.

The IPIs privately admitted agenda did not go over well with the governors press secretary, as you might imagine. She let it fly.

COVID-19 has left a trail of devastation across the globe. There is no country, no city, no community that is immune, wrote Jordan Abudayyeh. Every day, we grieve with the families who have lost loved ones in this battle. And we yearn for the time when life can return to normal.

We usually ignore the Illinois Policy Institutes institutionalized and reflexive partisanship, but in this time of crisis, we cannot afford to let this dangerous ideology go unanswered. We all want the economy to reopen no one more than the Governor, Abudayyeh continued. But to suggest that should happen before the science says it is safe is not only foolish, its dangerous.

In Illinois, more than 500 people have succumbed to the virus and more than 16,000 people have been sickened. Those numbers climb every single day and because of that fact, an overwhelming majority of Illinoisans are working together to flatten the curve. The IPI has lobbied for some atrocious policies in the past, but this time their efforts could mean the difference between life and death for many Illinoisans. They need to stop lying to people about whats at stake in this crisis and own up to the public responsibility we all have to be committed to a truthful and honest conversation about our collective public health.

Yikes.

A spokesperson for the IPI said they want the governor to establish a process and timeline to safely and effectively open the economy, so we are not only protecting lives but also safeguarding livelihoods.

But a timeline simply isnt possible right now because literally nobody can say with certainty when this will all end.

The spokesperson went on to say that the governors refusal to discuss this is causing uncertainty, which is making residents wary.

Wary of what, he didnt say.

We will continue to tell their story, he said. And continuing the pressure, no doubt.

Im thinking there will be no more photo-ops with the governor.

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and CapitolFax.com.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com.

See the original post here:

Libertarian Illinois Policy Institute wants a timeline for reopening businesses thats just not possible - Chicago Sun-Times

captionA woman holds a sign during a protest over concerns related to coronavirus disease (COVID-19), after attending an Easter Sunday church service organized by libertarian activist Ammon Bundy, at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise, Idaho, on April 12, 2020.sourceReuters/Jim Urquhart

Idahos coronavirus-related restrictions are under attack throughout the state as residents organize public gatherings and rallies demand businesses reopen.

Idaho Gov. Brad Little issued a stay-at-home order on March 25, banning all nonessential gatherings and shuttering all nonessential businesses. He recently extended the order until the end of April, angering some who have argued that the rules violate their constitutional rights.

You have to disobey, urged Wayne Hoffman, the president of the libertarian Idaho Freedom Foundation, in a Facebook Live broadcast on Wednesday. You have to do whats best for your business, you have to do whats best for your employees and your customers. You have to do whats best for your livelihoods and your families.

He continued: There are more of us than there are of them.

The restrictions have also sparked the ire of Ammon Bundy, the famed rancher and libertarian activist who led the armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon in 2016.

Bundy, who lives in Idaho, has organized a number of gatherings, including an Easter service that drew what appeared to be dozens of residents in a venue for a church service.

Photos showed the attendees sitting close together on fold-up chairs, none of whom wore masks or kept a distance of six feet, as public-health experts have recommended.

Bundy has argued to media and in Facebook videos that governments around the world are using the coronavirus as an excuse to destroy the agency of man.

I want the virus now, Bundy said, according to The New York Times.

The state has so far reported more than 1,400 cases of the coronavirus and 39 deaths from the disease, according to Johns Hopkins tally.

One Idaho lawmaker, State Rep. Heather Scott, urged residents to push back against the states stay-at-home order and exercise their constitutional rights to peacefully assemble.

In a letter titled The virus that tried to kill the Constitution, Scott warned that citizens were facing increasing restrictions of civil liberties during a climate of relentless fear mongering and media hysteria.

Some members of law enforcement, too, have questioned Littles order. Bonner County Sheriff Daryl Wheeler released an open letter urging Little to change course.

In the spirit of liberty and the Constitution, you can request those that are sick to stay home, but, at the same time, you must release the rest of us to go on with our normal business, he wrote. I do not believe that suspending the Constitution was wise, because COVID-19 is nothing like the Plague. We were misled by some Public Health Officials, and now it is time to reinstate our Constitution.

Idaho medical experts have reacted to the backlash with distress, saying the stay-at-home order was meant to slow the virus transmission and thereby protect vulnerable residents and reduce the pressure on hospitals.

Dont take legal advice from a doctor, Dr. Benjamin Good of Bonner General Health told The New York Times. And dont take medical advice from a sheriff.

Continue reading here:

Idahos stay-at-home order has sparked a rebellion, and outraged activists are urging people to disobey coronavirus restrictions - Business Insider

Why would two libertarian-leaning legislators vote against an anti-lynching law? Because lynchings are already illegal, and the law would further federalize crime and give prosecutors more powerincluding what amounts to an expansion of the federal death penalty.

On Wednesday, the House passed H.R. 35, the Emmet Till Antilynching Act, by a vote of 410 to 4. Those opposed included libertarian-leaning Reps. Justin Amash (IMich.) and Thomas Massie (RKy.); the other two voting "no" were Rep. Louie Gohmert (RTexas) and Rep. Ted Yoho (RFla.).

The Senate version of the bill passed unanimously last year. There are slight differences between the new bills, but The Washington Post reports that House Democrats are optimistic their version the legislation will be quickly passed by the Senate. Supporters of the measure expressed incredulity that it took so long to pass federal anti-lynching legislation:

Some of the bill's backers turned their fire on the four House members who dared to vote against it:

But they weren't voting "FOR lynching." As Amash notes, killing people because of their race is already a federal hate crime:

What H.R. 35 does is criminalize a conspiracy to violate existing federal hate crime laws or certain sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.It would also attach to these conspiracies the same punishment as the underlying crimes themselves, except in the case where the current crimes come with a maximum sentence of fewer than 10 years. In that case, the conspiracy to commit those crimes would be punishable by up to 10 years.

This, as Amash notes in a Twitter thread explaining his vote against the bill, would effectively expand the federal death penalty, which he would like to see abolished:

Amash also argues that the bill criminalizes conspiracies to commit crimes that the Constitution leaves to the states, thus doubling down on the federalization of criminal law. That, he points out, has not usually been a great development for the people anti-lynching legislation is supposed to protect.

Massie likewise raised constitutional concerns about the bill, while making the broader case against hate crimes as their special kind of criminal law.

"I voted against H.R. 35 because the Constitution specifies only a handful of federal crimes, and leaves the rest to individual states to prosecute," he tells Reason. "In addition, this bill expands current federal 'hate crime' laws. A crime is a crime, and all victims deserve equal justice. Adding enhanced penalties for 'hate' tends to endanger other liberties such as freedom of speech."

Gohmert took a different tack, arguingcontra Massie and Amashthat the bill doesn't do enough to punish lynching at the federal level.

"A version of the bill released on January 3 of this year stated that anyone who assembles with the intention of lynching or who causes death by lynching 'shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.' The bill we voted on today does not include this clause," Gohmert argued in a statement. "Such a hateful crime deserves a severe sentence, and I could not in good conscience vote on a bill that addresses lynching on such a low level."

For his part, Yoho toldNewsweekthat H.R. 35 was federal overreach and that hate crimes should be handled at the state level.

There's good reason to be concerned about expanding the number of things the federal government can prosecute as hate crimes, given how zealously the feds use such laws to stick people with harsh sentences they would never have gotten at the state level.

A good example is the case of Tiffany Harris, a black New York woman who was arrested in December 2019 after slapping three Jewish women while saying "fuck you, Jews."

Harris was initially charged with a number of crimes by New York officials, the most serious of which was assault in the third degree, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. If she were convicted under New York's hate crime law, she could get up to four years in prison.

In January, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in Harris' case, charging her with three hate crimes that could add an additional 10 years to any sentence she gets at the state level. Federal officials argued that additional punishment was necessary to deter a rise in anti-Semitic attacks.

"Federal hate crime laws invite this sort of capricious, politically motivated intervention, which is especially troubling given their weak constitutional basis," wrote Reason's Jacob Sullum at the time.

The anti-lynching bill that passed the House yesterday, whatever the good intentions behind it, will invite more federal prosecutions of this kind.

Read more here:

Why Libertarian-Leaning Reps. Massie and Amash Voted Against the House's Anti-Lynching Bill - Reason

Just yesterday, I was scrolling through Twitter and came across six separate tweets relating to the Libertarian perspective on government, particularly about what would be the lack of funding in a governmentless society. All six were criticizing the idea that our already failing infrastructure could be managed by anyone less than our current government system. When trying to debunk Libertarian theory, statists often mention infrastructure and highways, yet fail to see the fallacies in their argument. It is not complex nor complicated, yet here we are.

When I say government, I am talking about the forcible entity in which a series of officials are elected to rule over a group of people and use said peoples finances in order to maintain systems such as defense, infrastructure, etc. I am not talking about a private entity or a private group voluntarily formed for the betterment of a community.

Businesses

Business would most likely be the largest contributor to the cost of our roadways/infrastructure. While they wouldnt be coerced into paying their fair share through taxes, they would be pushed to contribute through the laws of economics and business. In order to sell their goods, they must have customers, and they must have a supplier. In order to reach their supplier and customers, some degree of infrastructure is highly necessary, otherwise no money is made.

In fact, businesses initially paid for much of our current railroad system, as private companies built them and maintained them. There would be many incentives to have infrastructure from a logistical standpoint, so why wouldnt businesses contribute?

Suppliers

In the business world, your company either sells a service or supplies those businesses with the essential tools needed to sell a service. In order to sell a service, you have to have the supplies required. Such supplies are made and transported by outside companies that manufacture products for businesses, and those supplies are also delivered via infrastructure. That is why Libertarian theory also mentions the suppliers in the chain of payment to private industry. Companies like UPS, FedEx, DHL and many more would all have to contribute in order to make a profit and sell their services.

Salesmen

Do you like buying new clothes or shoes? Do you have private insurance? Do you like ordering pizza? If you do, then you understand that someone has to sell those. Typically, salesmen work for a much larger operation than just themselves, but every so often, they are part of a small-scale business. Either way, they have to move their product, so sales people would be more likely to contribute an amount, however small compared to larger corporations.

Tourists

Indirectly, tourists would pay for a small portion of the infrastructure through the costs of traveling and expenditures. Sure, that money would come directly from the business, but where did the businesses get their funds? From the tourists, who also need some source of infrastructure in order to travel from place-to-place.

Homeowners/Common People

While the business world requires infrastructure through profit-motive, the everyday person will have to contribute in order to live their lives appropriately and comfortably. We use roads every day, whether it be for traveling to work, getting groceries, going shopping and so much more. In order for the common people to pay their share voluntarily, there could be sources such as GoFundMe or Kickstarter.com that allow someone to do the math on a project and its cost, and consumers could join those groups to pay a specific portion to ensure that the infrastructure is cared for and built appropriately.

Private companies would have many incentives to build, maintain, and repair our roads and infrastructure. To start, it is highly profitable. For our failing system, billions of dollars are expedited every year. Construction and base companies could make major amounts of money from building bridges, buildings, roads, etc.

Next, private companies would be held accountable by the consumer, who pays and uses the roads, to keep the infrastructure maintained and repaired as needed. Currently, this is where our government falls the shortest in the infrastructure category. You can hardly drive anywhere without seeing potholes, cracks, and other broken aspects of our highways, despite there being constant construction. If you switch over to the railways, private companies almost always uphold their rails, and keep them in the most usable shape possible. That is because of accountability.

If the people are happy, they will keep paying for roads to be placed, maintained, and repaired, so that itself should be enough of an incentive.

Otherwise, there would be no money going to the roads and companies/businessmen in charge of building such systems would go bankrupt.

In a privatized, free market system without a coercive government in place, our infrastructure will be cleaner, safer, and more efficient than our current system. This is because the owners of the road would have their own self-interest at heart, along with profit-motive.

Why, though? Because of economic competition and financial motivation. If Company A has a reputation for having the highest-quality, safest roads, then they will be making more of a profit than Company B, who makes roads that arent as dependable. If Company B wants to catch up with A, they will have to invest more time, money, and effort into their systems. If there are roads that are entirely unsafe, then you can simply not use them and they lose money, along with popularity.

Privatizing infrastructure would also introduce new technology, similar to some things used by private businesses. You could have apps like Yelp, TripAdvisor, and much more.

While most people cannot imagine a society without a gun to your head, it is not as complicated as it may seem. It just comes down to whether or not you want to cut out the middleman and keep asking yourself, But Muh Roads?

Continue reading here:

Without Government, Who Will Build The Roads? - The Libertarian Republic

Updated at 10 a.m. March 4 As the race for the Democratic presidential nominee narrows, Missouri voters will weigh in on Tuesday with their preference.

While most of the attention is focused on the heated Democratic primary, voters can choose to cast a ballot for the Republican, Libertarian, Green or Constitution party nominee. Heres what you need to know about your vote.

Who is on the ballot?

Heres what the ballots will look like:

Do I need to register my party affiliation?

Nope! Missouris primary is open, meaning you dont have to declare your party affiliation ahead of time. Just show up to your polling place and ask for the party ballot you want.

How many other states are voting Tuesday?

Five. So expect campaigns attention to be divided, with a lot of focus on Michigan, a swing state with 125 delegates, and Washington with 89.

How many delegates does Missouri have for each party?

Democrats have 68 pledged, 10 at-large (or superdelegates). Republicans have 54 delegates.

What happens after I vote?

Democratic delegates are allocated proportionally to the vote. Candidates have to meet a 15% vote threshold to get delegates. Pledged delegates are bound by the election results.

Republican delegates are winner-take-all if a candidate secures more than half of the votes.

Who have Democrats supported in the past?

Missouris Democratic presidential primary has been competitive in previous elections. In 2016, Hilary Clinton squeaked out a win over Bernie Sanders by less than 2,000 votes. The 2008 primary was also close, with Barack Obama beating Clinton.

History of Missouri's Democratic PrimaryInfogram

Where do I vote?

You can find your polling place on the Missouri Secretary of States website. Polls are open from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. (although if you are in line at that time, you will be able to cast your ballot).

Do I need to bring anything to the polls?

Bring some form of identification like a drivers license, passport, college ID, utility bill, bank statement, paycheck or government check. The Secretary of States website has more information on what counts; unlike previously, you will not need to sign an affidavit if you dont provide a passport or government-issued ID.

If you dont have an ID, you can cast a provisional ballot, which will count if the signature matches the one on your voter registration record or if you come back to the polling place with a photo ID.

Im still making up my mind.

Politico has a handy voter guide to sort by candidates or issues like health care and taxes.

Editor's note: This story has been updated throughout to reflect that the Missouri Democratic Party has canceled its candidate forum that was set for Sunday.

Aviva Okeson-Haberman is the Missouri government and politics reporter at KCUR 89.3. Follow her on Twitter: @avivaokeson.

Follow this link:

Missouri's Presidential Primary Is March 10 Here's What Voters Need To Know - KCUR

Support independent local journalism. Subscribe to The Post.

North Carolinas primary electionis Tuesday. In case youre new to casting a ballot, here are tips before you head to your polling place, according to the North Carolina State Board of Elections:

1. Whats a primary?

In a primary election, voters select a political partys candidate to appear on the ballot for the November general election.

2. Who can vote?

Voters who are registered with one of the five recognized parties (Constitution, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, or Republican) can cast a ballot in that partys primary election.

Unaffiliated voters can ask for a Democratic, Libertarian,orRepublican ballot, or nonpartisan ballot, if available.

Non-affiliated voters cantvote in the Constitution or Green parties primary, as those they are closed to independents.

3. When can you vote?

Polls across North Carolina are open from 6:30 a.m.-7:30 p.m. Tuesday. Voters in line at 7:30 p.m. will be able to cast a ballot. Lines tend to be longer before and after normal business hours.

4. Where to vote

Determine your polling place at the State Board website: https://vt.ncsbe.gov/PPLkup/.

5. Which contests and candidates are on your ballot?

Sample ballots are available online athttps://vt.ncsbe.gov/RegLkup/.

6. Casting a ballot:You can fill out a paper ballot or use a ballot marking device that produces a paper record.

If you hand-mark a paper ballot, completely fill in the oval to the left of each candidate or selection using a black pen.

If you tear, deface or wrongly mark the ballot, you can ask for a replacement. Be sure to verify your selections before putting the ballot into the tabulator, and make sure youve voted all pages of the ballot.

7. No same-day registration

Same-day registration is not available on Tuesday. Verify your registration status and political party affiliation at the state or local board of elections website.

8. Help for voters

If you need assistance at the polls, you can ask for it. Voters who cant enter the polling place can vote curbside. Once inside the polling place, voters who experience difficulties should request help from a poll worker.

9. No photo ID necessary

A federal district court blocked North Carolinas voter photo ID requirement in December and the injunction will stay in place until further notice.

The State Court of Appeals also temporarily blocked the law on Feb. 18.

10. Behave yourself

Voter intimidation is a crime. Voters who feel harassed or intimidated should alert an election official immediately or submit a report to the State Elections Board online at:https://goo.gl/v1yGew.

Will

See the article here:

What to know ahead of Super Tuesday primary in North Carolina - Charlotte Post

Ohios Presidential Primary Election is two weeks from today, Tuesday, March 3. Secretary of State Frank LaRose announced Tuesday that243,719absentee ballots have been requested by-mail or in-person and that 84,149 votes have been cast statewide.

Find out how you can vote early by visitingVoteOhio.gov.

Data was collected by the Ohio Secretary of States Office via an informal survey of Ohios 88 county boards of elections. Data as of Monday, March 2 are the following:

243,719 absentee ballots requested (203,277 by mail; 40,442 in person);

84,149 absentee ballots cast (40,442 in person, 43,707 by mail);

159,570 outstanding absentee ballots.

The ballots requested include:

138,346 Democratic;

93,519 Republican;

269 Libertarian; and

11,585 nonpartisan.

Of the ballots cast in person, so far there have been:

20,001 Democratic;

19,380 Republican;

57 Libertarian; and

1,004 nonpartisan.

Of the ballots cast in person, there have been:

21,768 Democratic;

19,380 Republican;

57 Libertarian; and

1,004 nonpartisan.

In Highland County, the breakdown includes:

251 absentee ballots requested;

238 absentee ballots cast;

13 absentee ballots outstanding;

92 Democratic ballots requested and 86 cast (55 in person, 31 by mail);

152 Republican ballots requested and 145 cast (120 in person, 25 by mail); and

Seven questions and issues ballots requested, all of which have been cast by mail.

In the 2020 presidential primary, voters across the state will have the opportunity to vote in a number of local races, as well as a total of 482 local issues and questions across 83 counties.

Read the original here:

highlandcountypress.com - The Highland County Press

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffDems unlikely to subpoena Bolton Trump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms Hillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus MORE (D-Calif.) says Democrats are making progressin their negotiationsover the reauthorization of a key surveillance bill, stating Tuesday that they areworking to includemore privacy protections.

Intraparty rifts have emerged in recent weeks as some progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans push toinclude additionalprivacy protection amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), while others argue that a clean reauthorization billhas a better chance of making it through the Senate.

Schiffsays he and his staffhave been working the House Judiciary Committee as well as Reps. Zoe LofgrenZoe Ellen LofgrenTrump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms Hillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus Schiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill MORE (Calif.) and Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalTrump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms Hillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus Schiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill MORE (Wash.) twoJudiciary Democrats who have pushed for more protections inan effort to get the bill passed by March 15. That's the deadline to extend three expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Actthattouch onroving wiretaps, lone wolf surveillance and a controversial program that allows the U.S. government to request access to phone metadata.

"We're trying to find as much common ground as we can," Schiff told The Hill. "We are trying to incorporate even more privacy protections in the hopes that we can get to an agreement in a timely way."

Schiff said some of Lofgren's amendments are being considered, including an amicus provision that would add an outside advocate for every FISA case in which an American is targetedas well asmake it illegal for the government to collect a U.S. citizens metadata.

"We're looking atexpanding the amicus provisions. We are lookingat limiting the period of attention to business records, what the business records provision can be used for,making sure thatyou can't use the business records to get things you would need a court order for in the criminal context,limiting the use of geolocation data or their usage oflocation information," Schiff said.

House Democrats last week were forced to pull their bill in the Judiciary Committeeand postpone a markup afterLofgrenthreatened to force votes on several FISA-related amendments. So far, a new markup has not been announced.

Schiff indicated an understanding has been reached on the issue of metadata butsaid they are still figuring out other issues like the amicus provisions.

"We're trying to figure out what's the capacity of the amicus but also how toweed out those cases that are truly routine that don't present any novel issues, making sure that that's a real distinction," he said.

He said one area of disagreement is whether some provisions could overly constrain the gathering of intelligence.

"Part of the issue is whether we use the FISAprocess to impose constraints that are not even present in the criminal law process, and that is a philosophical difference that may be driving some of the division on particular provisions," he said.

Jayapal, when asked about the state of negotiations, also saidthere'smore work to be done.

"So far, we are just not there, but we are continuing to talk and hope to see new proposals that address the areas we have raised," Jayapal said, adding that she too hopes to reauthorize by the deadline.

The debate has also engulfed Republicans, with GOP members clashing as well on whether they should have a clean reauthorization bill or overhaul it to include new protections.

Libertarian Republicanssuch as Sens.Rand Paul(R-Ky.) andMike Lee(R-Utah) arepushing forsweeping reforms.

Still, most Republicans are also pushing for additional protections, pointing tothe use of a wiretap on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page during the 2016 election.

Federal officials suspected Page of working as an unregistered foreign agent for Russia during the 2016 presidential election, particularly after he made a trip to the Kremlin in July of that year when questions were already swirling about the campaigns ties to Moscow.

They say the extensive review of the 2016 FISA process by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz aids their case. While he did not find evidence to suggest political bias impacted the FBIs decision to open the counterintelligence probe and concluded that the FBI had an authorized purpose for the inquiry, he did find17 significant errors or omissions in the surveillance warrant applications for Page, dating back to 2016.

Trump is also involved.He is expected to meet with key Republican allies in the House and Senate Tuesday afternoon to discuss the matter.It is unclear where Trump will stand onit.

Rep. Chris StewartChristopher (Chris) Douglas StewartSchiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill Trump shakes up Justice Department, intelligence community John Ratcliffe back under consideration by Trump for top intel job MORE (R-Utah), a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, also said he wants to outside advocatesas well as a transcriptof the court proceedings. If Democrats include such provisions, among a few others, then he believes Republican will also support the bill.

"The question is, will the White House support it? I think we'll know later on this afternoon," Stewart added.

Trumphas told congressional allies that he will not accept a clean reauthorization bill, as Attorney GeneralWilliam Barrand GOP leadership are said to support a position that is at odds with what Barr is said to have told senatorsearlier this month.

As the debate continues, some senatorshave stated their supportfora short-term extension to iron out the rest of the differences.

Schiff, meanwhile,indicated that he believes some Republicans are taking their push too far.

"We're open to any general policy proposals for reform. We are not open for politicizing this or using the bill to make partisan statements, and that's sort of where many Republicans are at the moment,"Schiff said.

Read the rest here:

Schiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill | TheHill - The Hill

Massachusetts isnt the only New England state voting on Super Tuesday this week; Maine and Vermont residents will head to the ballot box, too.

And while most attention is on the Democratic presidential primary, the Republican race has forced a few local moderate GOP elected officials into a precarious position.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the regions only Republican senator, told the Portland-based NBC affiliate WCSH in an interview Friday that she voted by absentee ballot ahead of the primary election Tuesday.

For whom? Collins didnt say.

The 67-year-old senator, who is facing her most formidable reelection challenge this year, has at times broke GOP ranks to speak out against President Donald Trump, perhaps most memorably to help block the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. But she has also faced criticism from liberal constituents for not doing so enough.

In 2016, Collins said she wouldnt vote for Trump, calling the then-Republican nominee unworthy of the presidency. She even said she would have voted for the Libertarian presidential ticket, if the partys vice presidential nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, was leading the ticket.

If the Libertarian ticket were reversed I would vote for the Libertarian ticket because I know Bill Weld well and I respect him a great deal, Collins said at the time.

Ironically, Weld is now in fact a presidential candidate, leading a ticket against Trump in the Republican presidential primary. However, Collins hasnt voiced support for his long-shot bid.

Im just not going to get into a discussion of presidential politics until 2020, Collins told CNN last April, after Weld announced his candidacy, calling such a discussion premature.

Now, even after casting a ballot, Collins is still mum.

Im focused on my job and also on my own campaign and Im just not going to get involved in presidential politics, she told WCSH, noting that her Democratic challenger Sara Giden, the Maine House speaker, also has not declared support for a candidate in her partys more competitive presidential primary.

Collinss campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Her position is eerily similar to that of her fellow Trump critic and Senate colleague Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential nominee in 2012, who now represents Utah, which also holds its presidential primary Tuesday. In 2016, Romney said he too would vote Libertarian, if only Weld was leading the ticket.

I wish Bill Weld were at the top, because I knew Bill Weld as the governor of my state, Massachusetts, and he was a terrific governor, Romney said at a conference in the summer before the election. I think he would be a great president.

When asked about Welds run in April, Romney like Collins told CNN that it was way too early for that. In February, he became the first U.S. senator to ever vote to remove a president of his own political party during Trumps impeachment trial. And yet, Romney hasnt publicly voiced support for Weld; a spokeswoman said Monday that they had nothing for share, when asked about his vote in Utahs primary.

After voting for his wife Ann during the 2016 general election, Romney told The Atlantic last month that she will probably get [a] second vote.

The approaches of the current Republican governors in New England have been a bit more mixed.

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, who has called Weld a mentor, hasnt said who he will vote for Tuesday, but says it wont be Trump.

As Ive said many times, I didnt vote for the president last time, and Im not going to vote for him this time, Baker told reporters last week.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, a fellow moderate Republican and frequent Trump critic, became the first sitting governor to endorse Weld earlier this month. Meanwhile, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu has largely stood by Trump and his administrations policies.

Get the latest breaking news sent directly to your phone. Download our free app.

See the original post here:

Susan Collins isnt saying who she voted for in the Republican presidential primary - Boston.com

LINCOLN An Ashland businesswoman with a familiar name in state legislative politics and a former state senator were among the candidates filing to run for the Nebraska Legislature on Monday, the last day to file for the May primary.

Helen Raikes filed to run against State Sen. Bruce Bostelman of Brainard, who now serves District 23, which is north and northeast of Lincoln.

Raikes, a 76-year-old independent, said she conducted 12 listening sessions with local voters before deciding to run.

Im ready to make a real difference for my neighbors, said Raikes, who is involved in the family farm and retail beef business. She said she will focus on property tax relief and helping small businesses and farmers succeed.

Raikes is retiring this spring as a professor of early childhood education at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She said she helped set in motion several of Nebraskas early childhood programs with her husband, the late State Sen. Ron Raikes, who served in the Legislature from 1998 to 2008.

Former State Sen. Ray Aguilar of Grand Island, a 72-year-old Republican who served in the Legislature from 1999 to 2009, also filed Monday. He will face current State Sen. Dan Quick, who is a registered Democrat.

Aguilar said he was urged by Gov. Pete Ricketts to run, but had been considering it anyway.

Its something I still have a passion for, Aguilar said.

Also filing on deadline day was Sheryl Lindau, a former mayor of Wayne. She will oppose incumbent State Sen. Joni Albrecht of Thurston to represent northeast Nebraskas District 17.

Lindau, who was mayor of Wayne from 1994 to 2004 and owned a retail clothing store there, said shes concerned about how partisan politics have become.

I dont believe there are Republican or Democratic answers to our problems, there are only Nebraska answers to our problems, Lindau said in a press release. I plan on seeking those answers, and representing every voter in the district, regardless of their political party.

Be the first to know when news happens. Get the latest breaking headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Of the 25 legislative seats up for election this year, 20 of them will have contested races.

One of the more active races will be in North Omaha, where seven candidates have filed for District 11 to replace State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, who has served in the State Legislature a record 46 years.

Omaha also will see a contested race for the Nebraska Public Service Commission. Incumbent Crystal Rhoades, a Democrat who represents District 2, will be opposed by two Republicans, Tim Davis and Krystal Gabel.

Another notable race seven Democrats will appear on the May 12 primary ballot to oppose U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse, a Republican.

A roundup of candidates in selected races (*denotes incumbent):

U.S. Senate

Democratic Chris Janicek of Omaha, Dennis Frank Macek of Lincoln, Larry Marvin of Fremont, Angie Philips of Omaha, Alisha Shelton of Omaha, Andy Stock of Lincoln, Daniel Wik of Norfolk

Libertarian Gene Siadek of Omaha

Republican Matt Innis of Crete, *Ben Sasse of Fremont

U.S. House of Representatives

Democrat Kate Bolz of Lincoln, Babs Ramsey of Bellevue

Libertarian Dennis Grace of Fremont

Republican *Jeff Fortenberry of Lincoln

Democrat Ann Ashford, Gladys Harrison, Kara Eastman, all of Omaha

Libertarian Tyler Schaeffer of Omaha

Republican Paul Anderson of Omaha, *Don Bacon of Papillion

Democrat Mark Elworth Jr. of Omaha

Libertarian Dustin Hobbs of Grand Island.

Republican Larry Lee Scott Bolinger of Alliance, Wayne Elfgren of Overton, Arron Kowalski of Grand Island, Justin Moran of Atkinson, *Adrian Smith of Gering

Nebraska Legislature

District 1 Janet Palmtag of Nebraska City, Dennis Schaardt of Steinauer, *Julie Slama of Peru

District 3 *Carol Blood, Rick Holdcroft, both of Bellevue

District 5 Gilbert Ayala, *Mike McDonnell, both of Omaha

District 7 Jorge Sotolongo, *Tony Vargas, both of Omaha

District 9 John Cavanaugh, Marque Snow, Mark Vondrasek, all of Omaha

District 11 Fred Conley, Gwen Easter, Terrell McKinney, Teela Mickles, John Sciara, Cornelius Williams, Dennis Womack, all of Omaha

District 13 *Justin Wayne of Omaha

District 15 David Rogers, *Lynne Walz, both of Fremont

District 17 *Joni Albrecht of Thurston, Sheryl Lindau of Wayne

District 19 Mike Flood of Norfolk

District 21 Joseph Couch, *Mike Hilgers, Brodey Weber, all of Lincoln

District 23 *Bruce Bostelman of Brainard, Helen Raikes of Ashland

District 25 *Suzanne Geist, Stephany Pleasant, both of Lincoln

District 27 Brenda Bickford, *Anna Wishart, both of Lincoln

District 29 Eliot Bostar, Jacob Campbell, Jennifer Carter, Neal Clayburn, Michael Connely, Lisa Lee, all of Lincoln

District 31 Mark Gruenewald, Alexander Martin, Rich Pahls, Tim Royers, Melanie Williams, all of Omaha

District 33 *Steve Halloran of Hastings

District 35 Ray Aguilar, *Dan Quick, both of Grand Island

District 37 Mercadies Damratowski, *John Lowe, both of Kearney

District 39 Allison Heimes, *Lou Ann Linehan, both of Elkhorn

District 41 *Tom Briese of Albion

District 43 *Tom Brewer of Gordon, Tanya Storer of Whitman

District 45 Susan Hester, Rita Sanders, both of Bellevue

District 47 *Steve Erdman of Bayard

District 49 Jen Day of Omaha, *Andrew La Grone of Gretna

Nebraska has 49 state senators in the Legislature. Click through to find your state senator and others.

District 1: State Sen. Julie Slama

From: Peru

Party: Republican

District 2: State Sen. Robert Clements

From: Elmwood

Party: Republican

District 3: State Sen. Carol Blood

From: Bellevue

Party: Democratic

District 4: State Sen. Robert Hilkemann

From: Omaha

Party: Republican

District 5: State Sen. Mike McDonnell

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 6: State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 7: State Sen. Tony Vargas

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 8: State Sen. Megan Hunt

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 9: State Sen. Sara Howard

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 10: State Sen. Wendy DeBoer

From: Bennington

Party: Democratic

District 11: State Sen. Ernie Chambers

From: Omaha

Party: Independent

District 12: State Sen. Steve Lathrop

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 13: State Sen. Justin Wayne

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 14: State Sen. John Arch

From: La Vista

Party: Republican

More here:

These are the candidates running for office Senate, House and Legislature in 2020 in Nebraska - Omaha World-Herald

OLYMPIA Its pretty easy to tell when ballots for Washingtons presidential primary arrive in the mail. About an hour later, the first phone calls and emails arrive from voters complaining about having to reveal their party affiliation.

The beauty of the states system of registering to vote without listing a party is that people can mark their state and local primary ballot for anyone they want. A Republican for the U.S. Senate, a Democrat for the U.S. House, a Libertarian for one legislative seat and a Constitutionalist for the other. Sort of a Golden Corral buffet of candidates, although theres no seconds for any particular office.

The downside of that system is that longtime Washington voters dont realize its not that way in most other states. In many, you register for a party when signing up to vote, and may be limited to that partys ballot in a primary election. Or you might be able to ask for the other partys ballot at the polling station, but you cant get both and skip back and forth.

Washington went through a long court battle with the states Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties over its primary system. When its Blanket Primary was ruled unconstitutional, it came up with the Top Two Primary, where party affiliation is technically a mere preference and the two candidates with the most votes move on to the general, even if that means its two Democrats or two Republicans facing off in November.

The Top Two might serve as an object lesson of being careful what you complain about, because you can always wind up with something you like less. Under the old Blanket Primary, if the Republicans fielded a candidate in the bluest of districts, or Democrats found someone in a ruby red one, they still made it to the general and a chance for lightning to strike. With the Top Two, there are districts where it doesnt make sense for one party to even try, and they sometimes dont.

Free and open voting in most primaries may be the reason that some Washington voters went ballistic when their presidential primary ballot arrived last week. Voicemails and emails from some seemed just a half-step from declaring I could have a ballot envelope with their party affiliation checked when I pry it from their cold, dead hands.

Personally, I dont care how you vote in this or any election. I generally hope you do vote, because otherwise why am I writing so much about elections? But if you dont want to vote for any reason, I can respect that.

I wont be voting in the presidential primary because the newspaper has a policy that its reporters not advocate for or against political issues or participate in political party activities. Voting in the presidential primary is a party activity something that often gets ignored in the overheated cable news coverage that treat presidential primaries pretty much the same as the general election.

Democrats are trying to decide who their nominee should be. In general, a strong supporter of, say, Bernie Sanders only cares what independents think if they are going to vote for Sanders. If theyre going to vote for someone else, he or she would likely say, What do you know? and just as soon they toss their ballots in the trash. Supporters of all other candidates likely take similar views.

Republicans have already decided, so President Donald Trump is the only name on their ballot in Washington and many other states. Its not really a primary as much as an affirmation.

Will the party affiliation boxes keep some Republicans from marking a Democratic ballot for the candidate they think will be the weakest against Trump? Probably not, and the likelihood that Democrats will even be able to spot them in the lists is pretty far-fetched unless its an extremely well-known Republican like Dan Evans or Slade Gorton.

Before you decide that you dont want to check that box, however, lets review some of the basics.

Checking the Democrat or Republican box in the presidential primary doesnt mean you will only be able to vote for that partys candidates in the state primary in August. That one remains the Top Two primary, with a single ballot that is almost certain to have some choices of candidates from parties youve never heard from.

Likewise, checking the Democrat or Republican box in the presidential primary does not mean you must vote for that partys presidential candidate in November. Its not a contract, its a chance to express an opinion.

If youre worried about someone seeing the envelope with your name and the party box you checked, and think for some reason that the postal carrier cares or even has time to check put your ballot in a drop box where it will mix with dozens or even hundreds of other ballots and provide you with some extra privacy.

Not checking the box but sending in your ballot means the local elections office will think you just forgot. The staff will likely contact you to correct that oversight. You could change your mind at that point. If not, eventually your ballot isnt going to be counted.

Some of the Democratic candidates on the ballot arent running anymore, because the ballot was printed before they dropped out, and some might drop out after Tuesdays primaries in 14 states. You can still vote for them if you want.

Like all other elections, no one will know whose name you mark, although if you check the Republican box its a pretty sure bet youre voting for Trump because hes the only option. You could write in a name, but those wont be tallied because the state GOP isnt listing any write-in options.

If you dont like checking the party box, thats within your rights. But dont call the local elections office to complain about having to do it. Dont write a nasty note on the envelope or on the ballot, because they dont make the rules.

You can call your state legislators and lobby for an affiliated option in 2024, but thats really only a half measure. Washington has had that in some presidential primaries; the state counted those votes separately, and they werent used for anything connected to selecting the people who would be running for president in November.

If you want to have a say in whos running in November, youll have to check the box.

Read more:

Spin Control: Yes, you have to check a party box. No, that shouldn't stop you from voting - The Spokesman-Review

The field is set for May as the deadline to file for elected office passed Monday night, and there will be contested races all throughout the ballot.

Two city council seats in Norfolk will be challenged by multiple candidates.

In the first ward, three candidates will compete for the seat held by Dick Pfeil, who is not seeking reelection. Those three are Christopher L. Moore, Juan E. Sandoval and Kory Hildebrand. In the second ward, four candidates have filed for Jim Langes seat: Frank Arens, Bill Hattery, Carl Weiland and Randy Dee. The top two vote-getters in each ward in May will advance to the general election in November.

At least two candidates will advance to the general election in the race for Madison County commissioner. Republicans Eric Stinson and Chris Thompson will compete in their partys primary, while Libertarian Zak Hookstra is running unopposed in that party. No Democratic candidate filed for the seat. Incumbent Christian Ohl declined to run for another term.

Three area state legislative seats will be contested between incumbent and challenger. Sen. Joni Albrecht of Thurston will face Sheryl Lindau of Wayne in District 17. The district covers Wayne, Thurston and Dakota counties. Sen. Lynne Walz of Fremont is being challenged by David Rogers of Fremont in District 15, which covers Dodge County. In District 43, which covers a large swath of North Central Nebraska, incumbent Tom Brewer of Gordon will be challenged by Tanya Storer of Whitman.

A Norfolkan also is throwing his hat into the race for the U.S. Senate. Dr. Daniel Wik, who was previously the Democratic nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2016, has filed in the Democratic primary for this years Senate race.

Dr. Wik, a pain management physician, faces a crowded field, with seven other candidates competing in the Democratic primary.

Other contested races include:

Four candidates will run for three seats on the Norfolk Public Schools board of education: incumbents Arnie Robinson and Sandy Wolfe and challengers Jenna Hatfield and Brenda Carhart.

Four candidates will run for three seats on the Elkhorn Valley board of education: incumbents Tyler Tegeler and Jenny Schutt, both of Meadow Grove, and challengers Sam Johnsen and Lucas Negus, both of Tilden.

Five candidates have filed for two seats on the Battle Creek City Council: incumbent Brent Nygren and challengers Chris Prauner, Nicole Schacher, Dave Trudeau and John Hrabanek.

Four candidates will compete for three seats on the Tilden City Council: incumbents Travis Rutjens and Darrell Wyatt, along with challengers Lisa A. Meyer and Terry James.

Patti Gubbels of Norfolk will run against Mike Goos of Columbus for a seat on the state board of education. The seat is held by Rachel Wise of Oakland, who has declined to run for another term.

Timothy Miller of Norfolk is challenging incumbent Jeff Scherer of Beemer for an at-large seat on the Northeast Community College board of governors.

Four races for seats on the Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources District board of directors are contested. Those include seats for subdistrict 1, between incumbent Aaron Zimmerman of Pierce and challenger Jay Reikofski of Foster; in subdistrict 2 incumbent Mark Hall of Norfolk is being challenged by Lee Klein of Norfolk; in subdistrict 4 Rod Zohner of Battle Creek and Michael Fleer of Battle Creek will vie for an open seat and Randy Ruppert of Fremont will challenge incumbent Gary Loftis of Craig in subdistrict 7.

Dennis Bridge of Royal and Cody Frank of Brunswick are running for an open seat on subdistrict 5 on the Upper Elkhorn NRD board of directors.

Incumbent Barry DeKay of Niobrara will be challenged by Aaron Troester of ONeill for a seat on the Nebraska Public Power District board of directors.

Several races, however, will proceed to May and November with no official opposition.

That includes Norfolk Mayor Josh Moenning, who is running for his second term.

Mike Flood, a Norfolk attorney and business owner, will run unopposed for the Nebraska Legislature to represent District 19, which covers Madison County. Flood, who previously served two terms in the Legislature, is running to replace Sen. Jim Scheer, who is ineligible because of term limits. Sen. Tom Briese of Albion will be running unopposed for a second term in District 41, which includes Boone, Antelope and Pierce counties.

Norfolk City Council incumbents Gary Jackson and Thad Murren also will advance with no opposing candidates.

In other uncontested races:

Jeremy Pochop, Toby Thompson and Sean Lindgren are running for three seats on the Battle Creek board of education. Pochop and Thompson are incumbents.

Eric L. Stone, Becky Wallin and Ginger Buhl-Jorgensen are running for three seats on the Newman Grove board of education. Wallin and Buhl-Jorgensen are incumbents.

Madison City Council incumbents Paul Kellen and Robert Fite are running unopposed to another term.

Donovan Ellis, Nicole Sedlacek, Arlan Kuehn, Gene Willers and Dirk Petersen are running unopposed in their respective districts for the Northeast Community College board of governors.

Cris Elznic is running unopposed to another term on the Newman Grove City Council.

Robert Huntley, Jerry Allemann and Matt Steffen are running unopposed for reelection to Lower Elkhorn NRD subdistricts 3, 5 and 6.

Russell Schmidt, Chris A. Johnson, Marcel Kramer, Carolyn A. Heine and Curtis Armstrong are all running unopposed to continue their terms on the Lewis & Clark NRD board of directors.

Karl Connell, Jack Engelhaupt, Randy Klawitter, Raymond Naprstek, Brian Kaczor, John Janzing and Donald Holtgrew are running unopposed to continue their terms on the Lower Niobrara NRD board of directors.

Leonard Danielski and Greg Wilke are running unopposed to another term on the Middle Niobrara NRD board of directors, while Tim Nollette is running for an open seat.

Roy Steward, Curtis Gotschall, Gene Kelly, Gary Bartak and Keith Heithoff are running unopposed to continue their terms on the Upper Elkhorn NRD board of directors. Arthur Tanderup is running unopposed for an open seat in subdistrict 6.

In the races for federal office, Republican Ben Sasse faces a challenge within his own party from Matt Innis of Crete. In addition to Dr. Wik, seven other Democrats have filed as well: Dennis F. Macek, Chris Janicek, Larry Marvin, Angie Philips, Alisha Shelton, Andy Stock and Gene Siadek.

In the first congressional district, Republican incumbent Jeff Fortenberry is unopposed in the primary, as is Libertarian challenger Dennis B. Grace. Democrats Kate Bolz of Lincoln and Babs Ramsey of Bellevue will compete in their partys primary.

In the third congressional district, incumbent Republican Adrian Smith faces a slew of challengers: Larry Bolinger, William Elfgren, Justin Moran and Arron Kowalski. Democrat Mark Elworth Jr. and Libertarian Dustin C. Hobbs face no opposition in their partys primaries.

Read this article:

Plenty of contested races on the ballot this year - Norfolk Daily News