Category Archives: Democrat

Kevin Rinkes latest campaign ad is nothing if not eye-catching.

The ad, designed to bolster the Michigan car dealers campaign for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, features Rinke standing next to an actor made up to look like a zombie wearing a Biden-Harris T-shirt and multiple "I voted" stickers.

"Why is it that dead people always vote Democrat(ic)?" Rinke says, motioning to the zombie with bugged-out eyes and a wide-open mouth. Rinke goes on to accuse Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of failing to crack down on voter fraud, saying that if he wins the governorship, hell make sure that voters are "registered, identified and alive."

Katie Martin, a spokesperson for the Rinke campaign, said that a "quick Google search will show multiple news articles on deceased voters voting in elections."

Ballots cast on behalf of dead people does happen, though its a tiny fraction of all votes. However, a Google search like the one the Rinke campaign requested actually shows that its assertion that dead people "always" vote Democratic is itself a zombie claim and no less mythical than an actual zombie.

"This ad is so incorrect it gave me a headache," said Thessalia Merivaki, a political scientist at Mississippi State University who studies voter fraud. She said there is "zero evidence" that ballots cast by dead people account for more than a tiny fraction of all votes recorded, and theres also "zero evidence" that such ballots have uniformly been cast in favor of Democrats, Merivaki added.

Allegations of voter fraud in Michigan

Politicians aligned with former President Donald Trump have consistently raised the specter of voter fraud to explain how Trump could have lost the state to Joe Biden by more than 154,000 votes in the 2020 presidential race after winning it in 2016. But none of these claims hold water.

For instance, a viral tweet said Wayne County home to Detroit saw thousands of ballots cast by deceased voters. However, the list contained names of voters outside the county; several were not listed as ever having received or cast an absentee ballot; and at least one voter listed said she was alive and cast a ballot in the election.

The Michigan Secretary of States office has previously said that it is "not aware of a single confirmed case showing that a ballot was actually cast on behalf of a deceased individual in the state."

Officials have ways to flag deceased voters, and clerks across the state successfully identified thousands of voters who submitted absentee ballots in 2020 but died before Election Day. Their ballots werent counted. In total, clerks across Michigan rejected 3,469 absentee ballots cast by people who were alive when they returned them but died before Election Day on Nov. 3, 2020.

A review by Michigans Office of the Auditor General thoroughly debunked charges by Trump and his allies that thousands of ballots were cast on behalf of dead Michigan voters in the 2020 election. The vast majority 98.8% of votes cast by those who died before the 2020 election passed away less than 40 days before Election Day.

Ballots cast on behalf of dead voters are rare in other states, too. Merivaki pointed to a 2021 study of Washington states vote-by-mail program, a system that is used statewide. The analysis found "extraordinarily low rates of potential fraud related to deceased individuals ballots."

The study concluded that "among roughly 4.5 million distinct voters in Washington state (2011-18), we estimate that there are 14 deceased individuals whose ballots might have been cast suspiciously long after their death, representing 0.0003% of voters. Even these few cases may reflect two individuals with the same name and birth date, or clerical errors, rather than fraud."

An official review in Georgia found that in the 2020 election, just four absentee ballots were cast on behalf of deceased voters.

What fraud cases do exist include many examples of voters acting in grief over the loss of a relative.

For instance, in Pierce County, Washington, auditor Julie Anderson found five instances of ballot fraud on behalf of dead voters in the 2020 election, several of which were cast by "a household member who firmly believes their loved one would have wanted to vote and wanted to participate," the Tacoma News-Tribune reported. (The newspaper did not report the partisan affiliation of the voters.)

What is the partisan affiliation of ballots cast for dead voters?

States like Michigan typically make public whether a voter has cast a ballot in a given election, but they do not specify for whom an individual has voted. In fact, the government doesnt even know how someone voted because a marked-up absentee ballot is removed from its envelope before being counted, a process that separates specific votes cast from a voters identifying information.

When we combed news reports in recent years for cases of ballot fraud on behalf of deceased voters, we found that Republicans were more often the perpetrators. This does not mean that only Republicans perpetrate this kind of fraud; ours is not a scientific study, and its possible that other occurrences, by either Democrats or Republicans, have not been detected or reported on. (One study commissioned by WBBM-TV in Chicago found that 119 ballots were cast on behalf of dead people in the city over the decade ending in 2016; while the city is heavily Democratic, the partisan leanings of the perpetrators are unclear.)

Regardless, the presence of any Republicans committing this sort of voter fraud is enough to undercut Rinkes sweeping statement that only Democrats do it.

Here are some examples:

Nevada: In the aftermath of Bidens roughly 34,000-vote win over Trump in Nevada, Donald Kirk Hartle, a Republican, told KLAS-TV that he was "surprised" to see that his wife cast a ballot "because she passed away three years ago. That is pretty sickening to me, to be honest with you."

While Hartles story quickly gained attention from GOP leaders and pundits who were questioning the results of the states presidential vote, the tale eventually fell apart, as investigators concluded that Hartle himself had cast the fraudulent ballot.

Hartle pleaded guilty to one count of voting more than once in an election, receiving a sentence of probation and a $2,000 fine.

Pennsylvania: Bruce Bartman from Marple voted on behalf of his late mother in the 2020 presidential election. He pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury and one count of unlawful voting and was sentenced to five years of probation.

Bartman said his illegal vote was cast for Donald Trump, the Associated Press reported. He also registered his late mother-in-law but did not secure an absentee ballot for her.

Bartman apologized, telling the court, "I was isolated last year in lockdown. I listened to too much propaganda and made a stupid mistake."

Meanwhile, in August 2021, a man from the Wilkes-Barre area pleaded guilty to a third-degree misdemeanor not for voting fraudulently but for filing an absentee ballot application in the name of his late mother. The application cited a need to vote absentee because the mans mother was purportedly "visiting great grand kids Oct. 24-Nov. 10."

The defendant, Robert Richard Lynn, was a registered Republican, the Times-Leader newspaper reported, citing state records. He was sentenced to six months of probation and 40 hours of community service.

Florida: In 2020, voter Larry Wiggins of Manatee County tried to "test" the system by requesting a ballot for his late wife. "I heard so much about ballots being sent in and people just having found them in different places," Wiggins told WFLA-TV. "I feel like I havent done anything wrong." He told the Tampa station, "I said, Well, let me just send it in and see whats going to happen, to see if theyre actually going to send a ballot for her to vote."

The request was flagged by the local elections office when it went through standard identity checks, so Wiggins did not receive a ballot. Instead, his case received a criminal referral. He pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 24 months of probation and 100 hours of community service.

Wiggins told WFLA that he was a Democrat who supported Trump.

Arizona: Tracey Kay McKee of Phoenix cast her late mothers ballot in the 2020 general election. She was sentenced to two years of probation, fines and community service.

Both McKee and her recently deceased mother were registered Republicans, the Associated Press reported. In court, prosecutors noted that McKee railed against absentee voting during an interview with investigators in which she denied casting the ballot herself, saying, "I dont believe that this was a fair election. I do believe there was a lot of voter fraud."

Colorado: In 2017, a woman from Golden pleaded guilty to voting twice for her late father. Toni Lee Newbill had cast ballots in the 2013 general election and the 2016 Republican primary.

Our ruling

Rinke said, "Dead people always vote Democrat."

Not every case of voting on behalf of the dead has been discovered, adjudicated in court, and received media coverage. However, six cases that have surfaced during the past five years produced either a plea of guilty or no contest, and in each case the defendant was either a registered Republican or acknowledged voting for Trump.

Even this small number of cases is enough to invalidate Rinkes sweeping statement that only Democrats do this.

We rate the statement False.

RELATED: All of our fact-checks about elections

RELATED: All of our fact-checks about Michigan

See the rest here:

Debunking the zombie claim that 'dead people always vote Democrat' - PolitiFact

ATLANTA One look at the results of Georgias primary election last week led many Republicans to believe it was the product of Democratic meddling. Former President Donald J. Trumps recruited challengers lost in grand fashion in his most sought-after races: David Perdue was routed by Gov. Brian Kemp by more than 50 percentage points, while Representative Jody Hice fell to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger by nearly 20.

Mr. Trump and his allies pointed to so-called Democratic crossover voters as the cause of their shellackings. In Georgias open primary system, Democrats and Republicans can vote in the other partys primary if they wish, and more than 37,000 people cast early ballots in this years Republican primary election after voting in the Democratic primary in 2020.

Some Democrats, for their part, staked a claim to these voters, arguing that they had crossed over to strategically support candidates who reject Mr. Trumps falsehoods about the 2020 election. Most of the crossover voters, the Democrats said, would return to the party in November.

But a closer look at these voters paints a more complicated picture. Just 7 percent of those who voted early during last months Republican primary cast ballots for Democrats in that partys 2020 primary election, according to the data firm L2. And 70 percent of this years crossover voters who cast early ballots in the G.O.P. primary had participated in both Democratic and Republican primaries over the last decade.

These voters, data suggests, are less Republican traitors or stalwart Democrats aiming to stop Trump loyalists than they are highly sought-after and unpredictable swing voters.

I didnt want any of the Trumpsters becoming a candidate, said Frances Cooper, 43, who voted in Columbia County, two hours east of Atlanta.

A self-described moderate, Ms. Cooper said that she had voted in both Democratic and Republican primaries in the past, and that she could often vote either way. This time, she said, Mr. Kemp had been pretty good, and was the best of our options. She was undecided about the November general election for governor, but if anything leaning toward Kemp.

Voters like Ms. Cooper base their choices in every election on multiple variables: their political leanings, how competitive one partys primary might be or the overall environment in any given election year, among others. Some Democratic voters in deep-red counties opted for a Republican ballot because they believed it would be a more effective vote. Others, frustrated with leadership in Washington, voted according to their misgivings.

Many unknowns still remain. The current data on crossover voters includes only those who cast ballots during Georgias three-week early voting period, when the most politically engaged people tend to vote. In addition to traditional swing voters or disaffected Democrats, a portion of those who crossed over were indeed probably Democratic voters switching strategically to the Republican primary to spite the former president.

Yet the crossover voters who cast early ballots in last months Republican primary are not demographically representative of Georgias multiracial Democratic base, which also includes a growing number of young voters. Fifty-five percent of these early crossover voters were above the age of 65, and 85 percent were white, according to voter registration data. Less than 3 percent were between the ages of 18 and 29.

It is unclear whether a majority of these voters will return to support Democrats this November, as some in the party expect, or whether they will vote again for Republicans in large numbers.

I think theres a real danger on the part of Democrats in Georgia to just assume that they arent going to lose some of those voters from 2020, said Erik Iverson, a Republican pollster who works with Georgia campaigns.

No race has attracted more debate about crossover voting than the Republican primary for secretary of state, in which Mr. Raffensperger, the incumbent, who had rejected attempts to subvert the 2020 election, defeated Mr. Hice, a Trump-endorsed challenger.

Though Mr. Raffensperger won by almost 20 points, he escaped being forced into a runoff election by finishing with 52.3 percent of the vote, or 2.3 percent above the majority threshold that would have prompted a runoff.

Operatives on both sides of the aisle have speculated that crossover voting was a chief reason that Mr. Raffensperger avoided a runoff. But drawing such a conclusion ignores the many reasons for crossover voting in Georgia, and probably overestimates the number of true Democrats voting for Mr. Raffensperger.

That would be an awful lot of crossover voting, said Scott H. Ainsworth, a professor of political science at the University of Georgia, adding that Mr. Raffenspergers nearly 30,000-vote margin to avoid a runoff had most likely been spurred by more than just meandering former Democratic primary voters.

Still, that hasnt dissuaded some from pointing to crossover voters as a root cause of Mr. Raffenspergers success.

Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, a Republican who founded the group Country First, which supports pro-democracy G.O.P. candidates, cited the Georgia secretary of states victory as proof of his organizations effectiveness.

Why are these midterms so important? This years races could tip the balance of power in Congress to Republicans, hobbling President Bidens agenda for the second half of his term. They will also test former President Donald J. Trumps role as a G.O.P. kingmaker. Heres what to know:

What are the midterm elections? Midterms take place two years after a presidential election, at the midpoint of a presidential term hence the name. This year, a lot of seats are up for grabs, including all 435 House seats, 35 of the 100 Senate seats and 36 of 50 governorships.

What do the midterms mean for Biden? With slim majorities in Congress, Democrats have struggled to pass Mr. Bidens agenda. Republican control of the House or Senate would make the presidents legislative goals a near-impossibility.

What are the races to watch? Only a handful of seats will determine if Democrats maintain control of the House over Republicans, and a single state could shift power in the 50-50 Senate. Here are 10 races to watch in the Houseand Senate, as well as several key governors contests.

When are the key races taking place? The primary gauntletis already underway. Closely watched racesin Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia wereheld in May, with more taking place through the summer. Primaries run until September before the general election on Nov. 8.

Go deeper. What is redistrictingand how does it affect the midterm elections? How does polling work? How do you register to vote? Weve got more answers to your pressing midterm questions here.

I have no doubt we made the impact, Mr. Kinzinger said. His group distributed mailers, sent text messages and ran television ads in support of Mr. Raffensperger. The groups message to Georgia Democrats, who had largely noncompetitive races for governor and Senate, was to vote in the Republican primary instead. Mr. Kinzinger said the efforts helped Mr. Raffensperger avoid a runoff.

The organization has tried to lift candidates in states including Texas and North Carolina, where it successfully helped to oust Representative Madison Cawthorn. The group has plans to support candidates in Michigan and to defend Republican incumbents like Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming.

Sometimes, the motivation for Democrats or Republicans to cross over into the other partys primary goes deeper than statewide contests. For example, if voters are drawn into a noncompetitive district, they will sometimes vote in the other partys primary if it will essentially determine the general election winner.

Take Clarke County in Georgia. Home to Athens, a Democratic-leaning city, the county is wholly contained in the 10th Congressional District, a decidedly Republican seat held by Mr. Hice (he did not run for re-election because he was running for secretary of state). In Clarke County, roughly 900 voters who cast early ballots in the Republican primary had voted in the Democratic primary in 2020, one of the largest county totals of crossover voters outside the Atlanta area.

Those voters, however, may not have been focused on the statewide races but on the closely contested primary election to replace Mr. Hice. Whoever prevailed in the multicandidate Republican primary was likely to win in November in a district that Mr. Hice carried by 25 points in 2020.

Theres a lot of Democrats in Athens and Clarke County who will have no meaningful voice in their choice for Congress unless they vote in the primary, said Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University. There are probably some Democratic voters who were just voting quite rationally in the sense that they wanted their voice heard in a House race, and that is their only meaningful opportunity to do so.

Nate Cohn contributed reporting.

Read the original:

A Georgia Mystery: How Many Democrats Voted in the G.O.P. Primary? - The New York Times

Twenty state Democratic parties are moving forward with efforts to be the first to vote in the 2024 presidential Democratic primaries a potential change that will attract more attention if President Biden decides not to run for reelection.

All four of the states that have kicked off the nominating process since 2008, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, confirmed to CBS News that they are submitting applications to remain in the early window.

Iowa is fighting to keep its first-in-the-nation status, following the chaotic caucuses in 2020, when ittook days to release resultsdue to an issue with reporting software. Some Democrats have said that Iowa's lack of diversity and competitiveness during recent general elections should also cost the state its spot.

Fourteen other states, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad are also vying for the early window. They indicated in early May that they wanted to be among the first nominating contests. Applications are due by the end of the day on Friday.

The states that have confirmed they're turning in their applications include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington.

The Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) approved criteria in April for selecting up to five states to be in the early window. The committee's three main criteria for selecting the states will be diversity, competitiveness and feasibility. At least one state is to be selected from the East, Midwest, South and West regions.

Multiple sources told CBS News that Michigan and Minnesota are both considered strong candidates and at least one of them could get into the early window. If one of those states were to move into the early window, it's unclear what impact that would have on Iowa, another Midwestern state, which has held the first nominating contest for decades.

Michigan would need approval from its legislature, which is currently controlled by Republicans, to move the primary date. A source familiar told CBS News that Michigan Democrats are working with a lobbying firm to help with their presentation and the GOP issue.

For Minnesota to move its primary date, the state's Democratic and Republican party chairs would have to reach an agreement. The fact that the state does not have to rely on a GOP state legislature to change their primary date is a selling point for its pitch to the DNC.

Minnesota's Democratic Party has been in ongoing talks with its GOP counterparts. A source familiar with the party's bid says Republicans recognize "the significant benefits that would come with being an early primary state."

David Hann, the chair of the Minnesota Republican Party, told CBS News that he spoke with Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Chair Ken Martin about the Democrats' efforts to move up into the early window. But he said that he hasn't been officially asked about moving the date and would want to know what the RNC rules would allow.

"We have not given any opinion about it," Hann said. "I'd want to talk to the Republican National Committee to find out exactly what rules may exist about our ability to change the primary date."

According to the RNC's rules, states that hold elections prior to March 1 "violate the calendar" and will lose delegates. There are avenues for them to apply for a waiver and be exempt from the rules.

While the Democrats are weighing significant changes to their early primary calendar, the Republican calendar will remain the same as it was in 2020, meaning Iowa Republicans will hold the first contest for the GOP.

Should the order of states changes, the effects may not be fully evident in 2024, when the president is expected to run for reelection. In that case, a few states could cancel their primaries if not enough challengers qualify for the ballot. Four states canceled their primaries in 2012, when President Obama was running for his second term.

The RBC will hear presentations on June 22 and 23 before making a decision on which states will enter the early window during its meetings on Aug. 5 and 6.

It's possible that not all parties that apply to get into the early window will have a chance to make their case in a presentation, according to an email obtained by CBS News that was sent to state parties in late May.

"RBC Co-Chairs Jim Roosevelt and Minyon Moore will select a subset of states to make presentations to the RBC during the June 22-24 meeting in Washington, DC," the email said. "The Co-Chairs will make their determination after applications are submitted by a date to be announced prior to the deadline. Parties not selected to present may contact Party Affairs to arrange a meeting with the Co-Chairs to discuss the determination."

Applicants were asked to address questions about diversity, competitiveness and feasibility, according to a document obtained by CBS News. The resolution approved in April defined diversity as racial, ethnic, geographic and economic diversity, as well as union representation.

The questions around competitiveness ask states how holding an early contest there would help Democrats in a presidential general election and to highlight any gains made by Democrats in the state since 2012. The feasibility questions asked how a primary date is set, how a date could be changed and whether there have been conversations with state officials about moving the primary into the early window.

For states that hold caucuses or party-run primaries, rather than state-run primaries, there are additional questions about why the state uses that method of voting, any changes that would be made for 2024 and the number of caucus or voting locations. Throughout the discussions about the early window, several RBC members and speakers on listening sessions were critical of the caucus process.

Another factor to be considered is the cost of television advertising in a state. That could especially impact states like Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Texas, which have especially large media markets.

Trending News

CBS News political reporter.

The rest is here:

20 states vying to be first to vet 2024 Democratic presidential hopefuls - CBS News

Robert Rivas, a San Benito County Democrat and an advocate for farmworkers, secured the support Tuesday from his current Democratic colleagues to become the next speaker of the California Assembly.

The announcement was made Tuesday night in a joint statement with Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) at the conclusion of a lengthy closed-door meeting of Assembly Democrats, capping off a tumultuous few days as they each sought control of the lower house.

The two legislators offered no timeline for a transition of power to Rivas, who said the caucus wants to keep Rendon in charge until at least the end of the legislative session in August. The statement was not clear on when Rivas would succeed Rendon or how long he will have to hold his supporters together to officially secure the job.

I applaud Robert Rivas for securing the support of a majority of the current Democratic Caucus to succeed me as Speaker of the Assembly, Rendon said in the statement.

I agree with the majority of our current caucus that Speaker Rendon should remain as Speaker for at least the rest of this legislative session, Rivas said. I look forward to working with him for the betterment of California and the unity of the Assembly Democratic Caucus.

Democrats currently hold 58 of the chambers 80 seats.

The November election will bring a new crop of lawmakers to the Assembly to fill seats left vacant by legislators who have resigned, termed out, or declined to run for reelection. Rivas could have to earn the support of incoming lawmakers later this year if he is not officially confirmed as speaker before they take the oath of office in December.

The ascension of Rivas would signal the beginning of the end of Rendons more than six years as the most powerful legislator in the lower house and the longest-serving California Assembly speaker in the last quarter of a century.

Leadership changes in the Legislature are often negotiated in private and announced in a joint statement between the outgoing and incoming leader. But Rivas effort to replace Rendon turned into an unusual power struggle.

Rivas, 42, first approached Rendon on Friday, claiming to have secured commitments of support for his bid to become speaker from a majority of Assembly Democrats. But Rendon initially rebuffed Rivas attempt to be acknowledged as his successor.

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) has served as leader of the lower house since 2016.

(Associated Press)

Several hours after the contentious meeting on Friday, Rivas sent out a press release announcing that he had secured enough votes from members of the Democratic Caucus to become the next Speaker of the California State Assembly.

All members of the Assembly, regardless of party, vote on the choice of the houses speaker. Typically a formal vote to elect a speaker takes place when a new legislative session convenes and a leadership transition is put in place, but aspiring leaders sometimes push for an informal agreement when they earn enough support in the majority caucus.

Both lawmakers worked to shore up support to their side over the weekend, while some of their allies launched blistering attacks on social media.

On Tuesday, Rivas supporters in the Assembly forced a private caucus meeting shortly after the Assembly floor session began.

Rendons supporters wanted to postpone the caucus until after Tuesdays floor session ended. A few Republicans joined Rivas group of progressive and moderate allies in a series of procedural votes to convene a caucus, in which Democratic lawmakers spent several hours discussing the potential speakership succession. Lawmakers said that no vote was taken in that meeting.

The expected change would mark a power shift in the Legislature and likely lead to a shuffling of committee chairs and other key positions. Whether theres a substantial policy difference between Rivas and Rendon remains to be seen.

A cornerstone of Rendons leadership philosophy has been to delegate his offices power, giving committee chairs more control over the fate of legislation. As opposed to a top-down style favored by some Assembly leaders in the past, his approach made committee chairs more influential with interest groups at the state Capitol and, in turn, made those lawmakers among his most powerful allies.

Rivas was elected in 2018. The Latino lawmakers Assembly biography says he was raised by his single mother and grandparents in Paicines, where his grandfather was a farmworker. He was elected to the San Benito County Board of Supervisors in 2010 and served two four-year terms. His current Assembly district, considered a safe Democratic seat, includes Big Sur, Gilroy, Salinas, Watsonville and a smattering of other communities along the Central Coast.

The California Labor Federation, an umbrella organization that represents more than 1,000 labor unions and 2 million workers, gave Rivas a 95% voting score during his time in the Assembly, which means he has backed nearly all labor proposals that came before him.

The United Food and Commercial Workers, consumer attorneys, firefighters and the Service Employees International Unions California State Council funded an independent expenditure committee to support his first race for the Assembly. He also received support from charter schools and the California Building Industry Association. Oil companies opposed his campaign.

See more here:

Democrat Robert Rivas is poised to be next Assembly speaker - Los Angeles Times

ALBANY State Republican Party leadership on Tuesday cast an already stalled proposal by Democrats to align local elections with the presidential and gubernatorial cycles as not an attempt to increase voter turnout, but rather to "rig the system" and "illegally seize power."

The state of the final week of the legislative session for Democrats remain issues like access to firearms and reproductive health care. Republican leaders turned out in full force outside the state Capitol on Tuesday to knock down a bill they described as having a "chilling effect" on the shape of local elections and, consequently, could lead to fewer Republicans holding local office.

"They are once again on a mission to illegally seize power and offend our entire election system in this great state," state GOP Chairman Nick Langworthy said. Democrats, he said, are "focused on rigging the system to put themselves into permanent power at every local government."

The Republicans went forward with their news conference even as it was reported that the legislation had stalled. Democrats said it requires public hearings before any action would be taken.

The bill, sponsored by state Sen. James Skoufis, D-Cornwall, and Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, D-Scarsdale, would require elections outside of New York City to be held on even years, which align with gubernatorial and presidential elections.

Turnout is exceptionally higher in even years, which draws high-profile statewide or nationwide races. Last year, 28 percent of active registered voters in New York cast a ballot compared to 70 percent in 2020 during the presidential cycle, according to state Board of Election data.

"This is a brazen, craven political power grab at its most naked form," state Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt said.

The proposal was filed in December but amended in recent days.

The New York State Association of Counties expressed concern about it, according to Langworthy, which led to Republican Party leading a publicity blitz to stop the legislation. A fundraising email from the state GOP asked people to contribute to the party to help "protect free and fair elections in New York."

Absent from the fundraising pitch and the speeches Tuesday were mention of a host of election reforms that Democrats have either already passed or expect to push through in the final days of session.

Senate Democrats have also passed legislation this month to create mandatory training for elections commissioners and making them full-time employees, in addition to reforming the New York City Board of Elections and establishing a poll worker training curriculum.

The Senate Majority said Tuesday it plans to pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act this week, which the majority office described as the "most robust voter protections at any state level in the United States and provide legal recourse for denying or abridging any individuals right to vote."

"I am proud that New York is standing as a true bastion of voting rights despite the anti-democratic rollbacks being set forth by Republicans across the nation," Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said in a statement.

State Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt, when asked about whether he supports the Voting Rights Act and other Democrat-sponsored reforms, questioned the intent of the bill package given the current election laws on the books.

"I don't see the legitimate reason why we need to continue to push these," Ortt said. "I think it's about something else. I think it's about cementing a power base as opposed to actually making voting easy, which is very easy here in New York."

Ortt added: "We talk about voting integrity. They talk about voting suppression. They always say voting fraud is a myth. Show me the voting suppression. Show me where somebody who wants to vote cannot vote."

Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay, when asked about the Voting Rights Act, pointed attention back to the Democrat's bill on even year elections while noting, "we certainly are not against turnout and making voting easier."

"I'm not sure what they're proposing, but listen, we're open," Barclay said. "But one thing we want to make sure and why I get suspicious, very often they do it for political advantage versus really trying to help people get access to the polls."

State Sen. Zellnor Myrie, D-Brooklyn, who chairs the Senate Election Committee and sponsored the Voting Rights Act, said in a statement that, "while states across the country have worked overtime to restrict voting rights, the New York (legislation) will strengthen protections for all voters, especially those who have historically been disenfranchised."

The GOP news conference that was billed as an "election integrity rally" featured state leaders and local elected officials including Rensselaer County Executive Steve McLaughlin, who is accused of misusing campaign funds and falsifying campaign finance filings in a pending indictment being prosecuted by the state attorney general's office.

McLaughlin called the dead legislation a "heat-seeking missile." He hinted at possible legal action by Republicans if the bill were to pass, saying that Democrats have "no right to supersede our charter."

Langworthy went a step further, saying if the bill were to pass and Gov. Kathy Hochul doesn't veto it, the party is ready to file legal action similar to the recent case they brought that overturned the political boundary maps drawn by Democrats in the Legislature.

"If she refuses to do so, let this be a warning, we will do everything in our power to stop this from becoming law," Langworthy said.

Langworthy also said he is concerned Democrats want races to focus on national issues that could benefit their candidates. Local races, although they have substantially lower turnout, should focus on issues closer to home, he said. In even year races, airtime is often filled with expensive advertisements from statewide and national candidates, pushing down-ballot issues off center stage.

When asked about how Republicans running in school board races focused on the national topic of "critical race theory," and how that factors into races focused on local issues, he said, "there's nothing more local than the curriculum your kids are fed at school."

Read the original here:

State Republicans say stalled Democrat election bill an attempt to 'rig the system' - Times Union

In my opinion, choosing where to retire primarily based on the political makeup of a place is a big mistake.

There are so many other factors that should take precedence like weather, cost of living, availability of recreation/entertainment opportunities, quality healthcare, and so much more.

But I know in todays political climate, a places politics do play a big role for many people.

With that in mind, I present to you this breakdown of the political leanings of various parts of Florida.

Most of the data presented here comes from BestPlaces.net, and if you'd like to dive deeper into the politics of any specific place not listed below, that's a great place to start.

Again, I cant stress enough, I hope you dont look at this list and rule out specific places just because of its political makeup before taking all factors into consideration.

On to the list!

The criteria I used for this was any place with one party in the 50% range in the last Presidential election.

When I survey my readers about what part of Florida they are most interested in moving to, this part of Florida always comes out on top.

In the TampaSt. PetersburgClearwater Metro Area 48.3% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 50.4% voted Republican.

The Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater metro area voted Republican in 2020, 2016 and 2004, and Democratic in 2012, 2008 and 2000.

Jumping over to the east coast, in the Port St. Lucie Metro Area 45.1% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 54.1% voted Republican.

The Port St. Lucie metro area voted Republican in 2020, 2016, 2012 and 2004, and Democratic in 2008 and 2000.

In the OrlandoKissimmee-Sanford Metro Area 55.3% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 43.4% voted Republican.

The Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford metro area voted Democratic in the four most recent Presidential elections, after 2000 and 2004 went Republican.

Home to Florida's second best-selling community, Lakewood Ranch, the North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton Metro Area saw 42.9% of the people vote Democrat in the last presidential election and 56.0% vote Republican.

The North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

Home to the world's first Latitude Margaritaville 55+ community, the Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach Metro Area saw 41.8% of the people vote Democrat in the last presidential election and 57.0% vote Republican.

The Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach metro area has voted Republican in three most recent Presidential elections, after voting Democratic in the previous three.

In Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville Metro Area 41.1% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 57.5% voted Republican. The Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

In the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach Metro Area 57.5% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 41.7% voted Republican. The Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metro area has favored the Democratic in every Presidential election since 2000

Located about an hour southwest of Orlando, the Lakeland-Winter Haven Metro Area saw 42.2% of people vote Democrat in the last presidential election and 56.6% vote Republican. The Lakeland-Winter Haven metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

In the Jacksonville Metro Area 43.5% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 55.0% voted Republican. The Jacksonville metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

In the Key West Metro Area 45.5% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 53.4% voted Republican.

The criteria I used for this category is any place where greater than ~60% voted Democrat in the last Presidential election.

In the Gainesville Metro Area 59.8% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 38.6% voted Republican.

The Gainesville metro area has favored the Democratic in every Presidential election since 2000.

In the Tallahassee Metro Area 60.2% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 38.4% voted Republican. The Tallahassee metro area has favored the Democratic in every Presidential election since 2000.

In my research, I could not find any metros that could be considered Democrat strongholds according to the methodology I used for this analysis.

The criteria I used for this is any place where greater than ~60% voted Republican in the last Presidential election.

George W. Bush and Donald Trump have visited The Villages on multiple occasions, and based on what is often reported in the news, you might think The Villages is the most Republican place in Florida.

But according to how I'm grouping different areas for this article, it's not even classified as a Republican stronghold. Definitely strongly leaning, but not quite a stronghold.

In The Villages Metro Area 31.7% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 67.8% voted Republican. The Villages metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

The Ocala area is home to several 55+ communities, like On Top of the World and Del Webb Stone Creek.

In the Ocala Metro Area 36.6% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 62.4% voted Republican. The Ocala metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

Located in Southwest Florida, the Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island Metro Area saw 37.3% of the people vote Democrat in the last presidential election and 61.9% vote Republican.

The Naples-Immokalee-Marco Island metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

Also in Southwest Florida, in the Cape CoralFort Myers Metro Area 39.9% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 59.1% voted Republican. The Cape Coral-Fort Myers metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

Located about 2 hours due south of Orlando, in the Sebring Metro Area 32.4% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 66.8% voted Republican. The Sebring metro area favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

Located on Florida's east coast, about 30 miles north of Port St. Lucie, the Sebastian-Vero Beach Metro Area saw 38.7% of the people vote Democrat in the last presidential election and 60.2% vote Republican. The Sebastian-Vero Beach metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

Punta Gorda is in Southwest Florida, about 25 miles north of Fort Myers.

In the Punta Gorda Metro Area 36.3% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 62.8% voted Republican. The Punta Gorda metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

This is the westernmost part of the Florida Panhandle, just before you get to Alabama.

Home to the iconic U.S. Navy Blue Angels, the Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent Metro Area saw 35.7% of residents vote Democrat in the last presidential election and 62.4% vote Republican.

The Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

Located about an hour west of Latitude Margaritaville Watersound in the Florida Panhandle, the Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin Metro Area 27.8% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 70.2% voted Republican.

The Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

Homosassa Springs is part of Florida's Nature Coast, and just 10 miles from Crystal River, the Manatee Capital of the World.

In the Homosassa Springs Metro Area 29.0% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 70.0% voted Republican.

Lake City is located about an hour west of Jacksonville, not too far south of the Florida-Georgia state line.

In Lake City Metro Area 26.9% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election, 72.0% voted for the Republican Party, and the remaining 1.0% voted Independent. The Lake City metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000

In the Panama City Metro Area 27.2% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 71.2% voted Republican. The Panama City metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

Palatka is located about 45 minutes southwest of St. Augustine.

In the Palatka Metro Area 28.9% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 70.1% voted Republican. The Palatka metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

Okeechobee is about 45 minutes west of Port St. Lucie, and generally is not known as a retirement hotspot.

In the Okeechobee Metro Area 27.5% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election, and 71.8% voted Republican. The Okeechobee metro area has favored the Republican in every Presidential election since 2000.

Wauchula is about an hour and a half north of Fort Myers, pretty much in the middle of nowhere, so I doubt many of you will choose to retire there, no matter how well you like the politics.

In the Wauchula Metro Area 27.0% of the people voted Democrat in the last presidential election and 72.0% voted Republican.

Again, I cant stress enough that I sincerely hope you dont base your decision on where to retire based solely on this list.

There are so many other factors that contribute to a happy retirement life that should be considered before politics weigh in.

While I welcome comments and reader input on most articles on this site, Ive turned them off on this post to protect my sanity.

Thanks for reading!

See more here:

Where Democrats and Republicans Live in Florida - Florida for Boomers

Over the last couple of months, theres been some striking reporting about Jared Kushner and the generous funding hes received from Saudi Arabia. The New York Times reported yesterday that the deals have sparked the interest of a key congressional committee which has begun an investigation.

Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, the New York Democrat who leads the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, gave Mr. Kushner a two-week deadline in a letter sent on Thursday to furnish documents related to the Saudi funds investment last year in his firm, Affinity Partners. She also asked for any personal correspondence between Mr. Kushner and the Saudi kingdoms de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, during or after the Trump administration.

Kushners lawyer said in a written statement that the former White House official fully abided by all legal and ethical guidelines both during and after his government service. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee dont appear convinced.

In an eight-page letter, Maloney told Kushner the panel is investigating whether your personal financial interests improperly influenced U.S. foreign policy during the administration of your father-in-law, former President Trump.

Given the available information, it appears to be a line of inquiry rooted in evidence.

Lets circle back to our earlier coverage to review how we arrived at this point. Throughout Trumps presidency, the Republican administration went out of its way to side with Riyadh, thanks to a foreign policy in the region that was shaped, at least in part, by Kushner, who made multiple trips to Saudi Arabia.

Six months after his father-in-law left the White House, Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from the main Saudi sovereign wealth fund despite the fact that those responsible for helping oversee the fund were highly skeptical about giving Kushners firm this money. In fact, they accurately noted that Trumps son-in-law had no relevant experience, and the firms operations were deemed unsatisfactory in all aspects.

Kushner got the money anyway, alongside an agreement that after the firm received its first $500 million installment, the inexperienced former White House official would hire a qualified investment team, which seems like the sort of thing Kushner probably shouldve done before the $2 billion deal.

Regardless, it was a tough deal to defend. Indeed, when the news first came to public light, there was a question as to whether the Saudis agreed to such an investment because of services rendered which is to say, a possible reward for the pro-Saudi work Kushner did during his time in the White House or because of possible services to come in the event of a second term for his father-in-law.

But in a follow-up report from the Times, the details started to look a little worse: Toward the end of the Trump era, while some on the Republicans team explored ways to keep the then-president in power despite his defeat, Kushner didnt just prepare for life after a powerful White House role, he also made a series of additional trips to the Middle East, meeting with representatives of countries his newly formed private equity firm would soon approach for substantial financial investments.

Its not exactly a stretch to wonder about the degree to which Kushner may have leveraged his White House role to advance his business interests. Its also not too surprising the House Oversight Committee has a few questions about all of this.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Excerpt from:

Democrats begin an investigation into Jared Kushners Saudi deals - MSNBC

Eric Alterman is lecturing and traveling in Israel and Jordan this week, and so todays Altercation is authored by the historian Michael Kazin, a professor of history at Georgetown University and the author, most recently, of What It Took to Win: A History of the Democratic Party, from which the below is adapted.

To judge by media coverage of the Democrats, youd think nothing is going on within the party but battles between progressives who want to pass sweeping pieces of legislation like Build Back Better and the PRO Act and moderates who fret that increasing federal spending will add to inflation and alienate business. This may be unfairthe mainstream media often arebut we would be fooling ourselves were we to fail to admit that the party itself has a serious identity problem.

In fact, there are more influential progressives or leftists (or whatever your term of choice) inside the Democratic Party now than at any time in decades. To make a lasting difference in the life of the countryrather than winning Twitter fights or gaining face time on MSNBCthey might learn something from the career of a bygone senator from New York who may have been the most powerful progressive who never ran for the White House in the two centuries the Democrats have existed as a mass institution.

During that span, a remarkable array of heroes and villains have made the party their political home. The virtuous set obviously includes Franklin D. Roosevelt, who signed into law Social Security and other pillars of the limited welfare state, and led the nation to victory in World War II. It also includes John Lewis, who fought for voting rights for all Americans as a young activist and then spoke out for economic as well as racial equality during his 19 terms in Congress. Among the rogues are Roger Taney, a close aide to Andrew Jackson, who appointed him chief justice of the United States. From the bench in 1857, Taney intoned that Black people had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. And then there is George Wallace, the infamous Alabama governor, who exploited white hostility toward civil rights and liberal elites to become a darling of the far right in the 1960s and early 1970s.

But to name such figures, whether famous or infamous, neglects those party stalwarts, scarcely remembered today, who labored hard and long to enact critical reforms that stand as hallmarks of progressive achievement. Throughout their history, Democrats have done best when they espoused a vision of moral capitalism and policies to match. At a time when Democrats are struggling to enact programs like universal pre-kindergarten and expanded Medicare benefits, they can learn from the careers of once prominent, now little known, lawmakers who won election after election by championing policies to help the great majority of working Americans.

Most prominent among the forgotten is Robert Ferdinand Wagner. Born in a German Rhineland village in 1877, Wagner emigrated to New York City with his parents a few years later. His father had owned a small business in the Old Country but made his living as a janitor in the New World, at a salary of about a dollar a day. Discontented with his lot, Reinhard Wagner and his wife sailed back to Germany near the end of the 19th century and never returned. But Robert completed high school and then graduated from City College in Manhattan. He won an award as class orator that presaged his future career in politics.

Read more Altercation

Wagner soon enlisted in the ranks of Tammany Hall, the citys potent Democratic machine. In 1904, he got elected, with Tammanys endorsement, to the New York state legislature. With the help of female reformers like Frances Perkins (who later became labor secretary during the New Deal), he worked to pass bills for accident compensation and factory inspection aimed to prevent horrible events like the 1911 fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company that killed 146 workers, most of them female immigrants. Mary Dreier, a pioneer labor organizer, recalled traveling with Wagner to vegetable farms in upstate New York where young women toiled for as long as 19 hours a day. She recalled that Wagner was very astute asking questions about the children, who often accompanied their mothers to the fields.

In 1926, Wagner won a seat in the U.S. Senate by clinging to the coattails of Al Smith, then his states popular governor. On Capitol Hill, he proposed measures to aid the unemployed and use government funds to stabilize the economy. When FDR became president, Wagner seized a unique opportunity to pass bold initiatives to markedly improve the lives of working Americans. Leon Keyserling, a 27-year-old economist on his staff, wrote the National Labor Relations Act, which the press immediately dubbed the Wagner Act, although it was co-sponsored with a congressman from Massachusetts. The senator also introduced bills to erect millions of units of public housing and provide every citizen with health insurance. Wagners reputation as the most prominent and most effective labor liberal in America made him the natural choice to oversee the drafting of the 1936 Democratic platform, on which FDR ran his campaign for re-election that carried all but two states and gave the Democrats huge majorities in both houses.

Wagner was also one of the few Democrats in Congress whose empathy for ordinary people never faded at the color line. In 1934, he proposed a bill to make lynching a federal crime and fought, in vain, to stop Southerners in his party from filibustering it to death. He also sought to amend the Social Security Act and his own National Labor Relations Act to include domestic workers and farmworkersoccupations held by two-thirds of Black workers in the South. But the New Yorker and his fellow liberals lost that struggle, too; Southern Democrats composed too large a bloc in the party and had too much power in Congress. But Wagner did show his unflagging commitment to racial equality when he proposed, in 1940, a successful amendment to the new Selective Service Act that outlawed discrimination in the Army Air Corps and other elite branches of the military.

The German immigrant had come a long way from his days as a young cog of the New York Democratic machine. Still, Wagner understood just how essential both loyalty and a strong organization were in politicsand so he kept the faith. Tammany Hall may justly claim the title of the cradle of modern liberalism in America, he told an Independence Day crowd in 1937.

Wagner had another exemplary quality few politicians have ever possessed: He was as lacking in egotism and a hunger for adoration as any intensely public man could be. One New York journalist who followed Wagner throughout his career described him as an unassuming man sincere and unaffected, he has neither the desire nor the talent for self-exploitation. The senator, groused another reporter, does not put on a good show.

Yet in his modest fashion, he did as much as any New Dealer but FDR himself to advance, in the words of his partys 1940 platform (which Wagner drafted), the essential freedom, dignity and opportunity of the American worker. And he did this in a period of depression and foreign war that tested the survival of democracy in the nation and the world more than at any time in history.

Wagner remained in the Senate until near his death in 1953. A year later, his only child, Robert Wagner Jr., was elected mayor of New York City. The consistent labor liberal ran the metropolis until 1965. During his final term, he broke with Tammany Hall, whose clout had weakened considerably since it had launched his fathers eminent career.

If Democrats hope to dominate national politics again. as they did during the middle of the last century, they will have to develop leaders able to build a strong organization committed to advancing the economic interests of Americans who work hard but have too little to show for it. This is the hard, unglamorous work of politics. It requires both movement-building and deal-making, and if any current progressive Democrat wishes to earn him- or herself a record like that of Robert Wagner, they had better get to work on both.

Michael left us some room that should not go to waste, so here, from the Journal of the History of Ideas, is a forum on Black intellectual history that definitely will not make it into any of the curricula in Florida or Virginia anytime soon.

And I did not want to go two weeks in a row with no music. I am a fan of cover versions and I wrote up some of my favorite way back when The New York Times asked me to pick some in 2008, here. I am also a fan of Mr. Springsteen and so todays bonuses include Bruce doing Love Me Tender and Drift Away, Like a Rolling Stone, and the famous Leipzig 2013 You Never Can Tell, with over 60,000,000 views. Bruce apparently did not remember that he did the song (also unrehearsed) in 2009, but the bootleg I grew up listening to was from 1974. Listen to how differently Bruce used to talk on stage back then: Im married, Im selling insurance

And if you remember this song (and useful metaphor) fondly, as I do, then you ought to love this one perhaps even more.

See the original post here:

Altercation: The Best (Progressive) Democrat You Probably Never Heard Of - The American Prospect

In my view, these solidly red states provide fertile ground for populist Democratic challengers who are willing to run against the party establishment and in favor of strong working-class appeals. In 2020 in Kentucky, Charles Booker took on his own partys favored candidate, Amy McGrath, in the Senate primary and almost won. Today, due to his resilience, he is the partys nominee to take on Rand Paul in November.

Consider Alabama. A state that has witnessed two campaigns to unionize Amazon in the past couple of years and has seen a brutal union-busting effort by the Warrior Met Coal company against its own workers. These worker-led movements have popular support in the state. Alabamians are hungry for someone to speak to their pain, carry their fight in the political area, and importantly, take on a struggle that necessarily entails friction with their wealthy corporate paymasters. Due to GOP Senator Richard Shelbys retirement, there is an open seat. This should be fertile ground for redefinition of the Democratic brand. And while the contest might not be immediately successful, waging this kind of battle is necessary for repositioning the party to potentially win down-ballot seats or even claim a Senate victory in the years to come.

The alternative is to simply give up. But it wasnt that long ago when Democratsbuffeted by FDR/New Deal branding and the molding of generations of Democratic votersheld Senate seats in places like Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, and Louisiana, all of which have races this year. Its just like Edison said: The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

Here is the original post:

How the Democrats Can Become the Party of the People Again - The New Republic

Two nearly identical text boxes appear on the respective campaign websites for Henry Cuellar and Jessica Cisneros, the Democrats locked in a heated primary runoff to represent south Texas in Congress.

Cuellars text box warns voters that Cisneros would defund the police and border patrol, which would make us less safe and wreck our local economy. Cisneros, in turn, blasts Cuellar for opposing womens right to choose amid a nationwide crackdown on reproductive care.

The parallel advisories read like shorthand for the battle thats brewing among Democrats in Texas, where centrist incumbents like Cuellar are facing a mushrooming cohort of young and progressive voters frustrated by the status quo.

I want people to take away from what were doing people-power people can go toe-to-toe with any kind of corporate special interest, Cisneros told the Guardian. And that we still have power over what we want our future and our narrative to be here in Texas, despite all odds.

Texas-28 is a heavily gerrymandered, predominantly Latino congressional district that rides the US-Mexico border, including the city of Laredo, before sprawling across south-central Texas to reach into San Antonio. During the primary election in March, voters there were so split that barely a thousand votes divided Cuellar from Cisneros, while neither candidate received the majority they needed to win.

Now, the runoff on 24 May has come to represent not only a race for the coveted congressional seat, but also a referendum on the future of Democratic politics in Texas and nationally.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, House majority whip, James E Clyburn, and House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, have thrown the full-throated support of the Democratic establishment behind Cuellar, while endorsements from progressive icons such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have elevated Cisneros as a rising star on the national stage.

If Cuellar wins, this is a story of how the Democratic machine and the old system is still strong in the district. And if Jessica Cisneros wins, the narrative is this is another successful Latina politician carrying the community forward, said Katsuo Nishikawa Chvez, an associate professor of political science at Trinity University.

Cuellar did not grant the Guardians request for an interview.

Cuellar and Cisneros both Mexican American lawyers from Laredo represent two radically different visions of what south Texas is and could be.

Cuellar has served nine terms in the US House of Representatives, where last summer he teamed up with the Republican senator Lindsey Graham to portray migrants as disease carriers and demand that the Biden administration end the surge at the US-Mexico border. By contrast, Cisneros, 28, has spent much of her early career fighting on the frontlines for immigrant families and asylum seekers, and part of her platform is more humane border and immigration policies that include a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized residents.

Their strategies also diverge on campaign finance. Cuellar has funded years of congressional bids with contributions from donors that have notably included the National Rifle Association and oil and gas industry Pacs. Cisneros, meanwhile, has publicly sworn off campaign donations from corporate Pacs and lobbyists and yet still far outpaced Cuellars fundraising numbers during the first quarter of 2022.

At least part of Cisneross fundraising success earlier this year may be linked to the FBIs raid on Cuellars home in January, which immediately embroiled his office in scandal. A Texas Tribune analysis found that in the days after the raid, Cisneross campaign contributions soared, although what exactly the FBI was investigating remains unclear and Cuellar maintains he has done nothing wrong.

Now, in the days leading up to the runoff, another major controversy has taken center stage: the candidates opposing views on reproductive care. After a leaked draft opinion went viral suggesting the supreme courts intention to overturn Roe v Wade the landmark decision that established a constitutional right to abortion in the US Cuellar has faced renewed scrutiny from reproductive rights champions as the lone Democratic representative to vote against codifying the right to an abortion last September.

Cisneros, in turn, has vowed to protect that right. In a statement following the draft leak, she called on the Democratic leadership to withdraw their support of Henry Cuellar who is the last anti-choice Democrat in the House.

The 2022 election is Cisneross second bid to unseat Cuellar, whom she also ran against in 2020 as a first-time, 26-year-old challenger. After she lost that race by less than 4% of the vote, she said she felt compelled to try one more time.

What folks were telling us over and over and over again was that, you know, the way things are right now isnt working, and that they want a different version an alternative version of what south Texas can look like, because they felt like they were being taken for granted, Cisneros said.

Residents in Texas-28 have a lot working against them, which may explain why some could feel like they and their votes are undervalued. For one, increased voter restrictions, closed or relocated polling places, and other serious barriers that require more time and energy make it so that by design, many Texans of color dont vote when they perceive an election to be low stakes.

Everything we see looks to be orchestrated in a way that makes voting for Latinos hard and almost impossible, said Nishikawa Chvez, who suggested it was hard to look at the Texas governments actions and not recognize a systemic interest in suppressing the Latino vote.

In a self-fulfilling prophecy, candidates from both parties also chronically underinvest their limited resources in Latino communities like Texas-28 because they dont know how to reach them and assume they probably wont go to the polls, Nishikawa Chvez said.

Jen Ramos, a state Democratic executive committeewoman for the Texas Democratic party, has been getting out the vote for Cisneros in Laredo and San Antonio, where some residents have told her its the first time their doors have ever been knocked by a political campaign.

The fact that these folks have never had their door knocked on, have never been contacted before, and were talking to people and meeting them where theyre at, thats a real disappointment for an elected official whos been in office for as long as he [Cuellar] has, Ramos said.

If there was anything Ramos noticed growing up in Texas-28, it was the defeated feeling that nothing ever changed within her community, no matter who was in power. Henry Cuellar has been in office almost as long as Ive been alive, and yet nothing has inspired any change or difference, nor has he ever bothered to talk to anybody in the community, she said.

Shes optimistic that things could finally be different with Cisneros representing the district: I think that Jessicas race is the very first time in a long time that the region and the community has seen the sense of hope.

But not everyone in the district agrees with the kind of change Cisneros represents. Texas-28 is a perfect microcosm of how Latino voters are in no way a monolith, and closer to the borders Rio Grande, constituents trend more conservative, Catholic and pro-gun rights than in San Antonios working-class neighborhoods, Nishikawa Chvez explained.

Its a huge district, and its cut in such a way to maximize Republican votes, he said. And so you get a kind of a schizophrenic area.

Generational and gendered divides complicate matters further. Older voters speak Cuellars language around good jobs, border security and Catholic values, while a growing constituency of highly educated young Latinos hear their values represented in Cisneros. Meanwhile, Latina matriarchs are pushing their communities to vote for issues beyond the economy, such as healthcare access, the environment and quality education.

Ultimately, the runoff will come down to who actually turns out, a question that may have a larger impact on how politicians appeal to Latinos in future, Nishikawa Chvez suggested.

How this election goes is going to tell us a little bit about the future, about how to approach or how to campaign and to get the votes of Latino voters in the US, he said.

For now, Cisneros is hoping to find common ground with her neighbors across the district by listening to what they want addressed. When were talking about increasing the minimum wage and Medicare for All, she said, theyre kitchen-table issues that, you know, people are much more concerned about.

Change doesnt happen overnight, Cisneros added. Every little thing that were doing every single day, I mean, is helping us build a brighter future. But I do know that when we win on 24 May, I really hope that it is the beginning of change in south Texas.

Go here to see the original:

Will Texas pick a progressive or anti-abortion Democrat in heated runoff? - The Guardian US