Category Archives: Republican

The Republican primary elections across the country starting next month will signal how much influence Donald Trump still has in the party, crudely measured by how well candidates backed by the former president fare. The GOP primaries will also be worth watching to see whether some of the demographic shifts of the 2020 presidential electionthe partys modest gains with Hispanic voters and its slight recovery with black voterswill translate to the midterms.

More than a few black Republican candidates this year sit at the intersection of those two questions about the GOPs future, having been endorsed by Trump and figuring to be key to keeping the black voters that trickled back into the party after more than a decade away. These congressional aspirants are part of a record classthe National Republican Congressional Committee reports that more than 80 black candidates are running in the partys primaries this year, the most in history. They hope to improve on the partys dismal ability to seat black members of Congress: In the last century, there have only been 9 black Republican representatives and 2 black Republican senators. To put this in perspective, there have been more black Democrats in each Congress since 1971 than the total number of black Republicans for the last 100 years.

What, then, accounts for the rush of black Republicans this cycle? The answer might be found in another striking statistic: Of the 10 black congressional Republicans in the last century (Tim Scott was in the House before being appointed to the Senate in 2013), more than half6 of 10took office after 2010, and two of them are freshmen in the current Congress. Why, when black voters support for Republican candidates has been at historic lows for the last 15 years, would there be twice as many black Republicans serving in Congress in that same time frame?

My sense of it is that recent black Republicans in Congress have benefited from the persistent capture of the party by movementsfirst the Tea Party, now Trumpism. And when black candidatesin fact, racial or ethnic minority candidates generallyare able to convey a deeper alignment with the capturing movement than white candidates, they greatly improve their chances of winning the party primary decided by an electorate where 9 in 10 voters are white.

Put simply, movements like the Tea Party and Trumpism deepen partisan identity and make it far easier to identify who youre for and who youre against, even to the point of overlooking other traditional cues. As such, a black candidate who leans heavily into the movements symbols, rhetoric, and harsh critiques of prominent Democrats not only becomes an acceptable avatar but also an aegis against accusations of racial intolerance within the movement itself. Further, donning the partisan identity with the recognizable features of contemporary movement conservatism works to mitigate the perception of black Americans as beholden to big government progressivism that places these candidates at a disadvantage in Republican primaries from the outset.

Precisely because they have been such a relative rarity in Congress over the last century, black Republicans have been the subject of much scholarly curiosity that has produced insights against which we can test such propositions. Political historian Leah Wright Rigueurs book, The Loneliness of the Black Republican, is the definitive work on how these partisans have had to reconcile the partys perception of black Americas interests with black peoples impression of the Republican party. And many others, myself included, have explored what sort of candidates, conditions, and appeals could elicit more competition between the parties for black voters.

To the question of why black Republicans have had more success in recent years, two studies are particularly helpful. In one study conducted by political scientists Trey Hood III and Seth McKee and published in 2015, they found that white conservatives are either more supportive of minority Republicans or just as likely to vote for a minority as they are a white Republican. Moreover, their research showed that white conservatives consider minority Republican candidates to be inherently more conservative, such that increasing levels of conservatism in white voters led to them being more supportive of the minority Republican candidates relative to white ones.

Building on this, four political scientists published a paper last year that demonstrated when black candidates send conservative cues, they can win the support of white voters who register higher levels of racial resentment (a term which I have written about in detail). They found that among Republican respondents, increasing levels of racial resentment are associated with an even higher probability of voting for a black Republican and a lower probability of voting for a black Democrat. One of their central findings is that when a black Republican candidate communicates and embodies an individualist message that highlights the value of hard work and self-determination, white racial conservatives in either party are more likely to support that candidate over a white one.

Trumpism makes the conservative cues easily recognizableMAGA hats, talk of a stolen election, scapegoating of liberal elites, fake news grievances, Lock Her Up chants, border wall obsessions, the demonization of anyone and anything that (D) can be placed next to, and the list goes on. A black Republican in this vein not only undercuts negative perceptions Republican voters may have but builds support from among that same cohort. The opportunity this realization creates is too attractive for a not-insignificant number of potential black candidates to ignore. And so, they run.

Two important points worth keeping in mind: First, running does not equate to winning. It simply isnt enough to be black and Republican with the right messaging. After all, the messenger still matters, and Herschel Walker is no Will Hurd.

Second, just because this analysis is laid out in terms of rhetoric and strategy and positioning does not mean that these black Republican candidates are all disingenuous. Some are certainly brazen opportunists; others are earnest and pragmaticwe can only judge them by their words and deeds.

What does this all mean for the prospects of the record number of black Republicans running? It is too early to say anything definitive, but we have a clue. One set of Republican primaries has already taken place in Texas, where a couple of black Republicans contended for governor and for a newly created congressional district. In the former, Allen West, the one-term representative who rode the Tea Party wave into Congress and Trumpism to the chair of the Texas GOP, was trounced by the incumbent and Trump-supported governor Greg Abbott, managing only 12.3 percent of the primary vote. Conversely, Wesley Hunt, a Trump-endorsed Army veteran proficient in the movements cues, handily won the primary in a district that is solidly Republican. A key difference aside from the Trump endorsement? West is a bombastic firebrand whos polarizing even within the party, while Hunt is the picture of respectability who will toe the party line and not draw attention to himself.

Such contrasts can be found across the country. John James in Michigan is another Trump-backed military veteran seeking a House seat while former football star Herschel Walker hopes to land in the Senate on the strength of nothing but a Trump endorsement and name recognition.

Bottom line: Given the number of black Republican candidates and the developing dynamics of this midterm, it seems likely that there will be more black Republicans in the next Congress. And should the three sitting black congressional RepublicansUtah Rep. Burgess Owens, Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scottwin re-election in November, it will only take one other black Republican to make it the largest classfoursince 1875. And if two win? Itll be the largest in the nations history, tying the post-Fifteenth Amendment class of 1871 at five.

Whatever the outcome, we can be certain that the rise of Trumpism, like the Tea Party before it, paved the way for more black Republicans in Congress. Contemporary movement conservatism establishes a sort of subgroup identity that embraces minority exceptionalism. Importantly, this does not mean that the distinct conservatism found in black America will find expression in the Republican party, only that the toxic partisanship wreaking havoc on our democracy and society can sometimes work to conceal unresolved tensions along other fault lines.

Read this article:

Will 2022 Be the Year of the Black Republican? - The Bulwark

Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas speaks on the floor of the House of Representatives on April 23, 2020.House Television via AP

Roy texted Mark Meadows concerns about Trump's rhetoric and the effort to overturn the 2020 election.

He said Trump was "whipping his base into a conspiracy frenzy" and should "tone down the rhetoric."

He added that "we're driving a stake in the heart of the federal republic" by trying to reject electors.

Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas privately warned Mark Meadows that President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the election were inciting his base and undermining the country's electoral system in a series of texts in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.

The texts between Roy and Meadows, Trump's final White House chief of staff and a former member of Congress, were reported by CNN on Friday along with a series of texts from Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah.

"We must urge the President to tone down the rhetoric, and approach the legal challenge firmly, intelligently and effectively without resorting to throwing wild desperate haymakers or whipping his base into a conspiracy frenzy," Roy texted Meadows on November 9, two days after major networks called the 2020 election for President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.

Two days earlier, Roy texted Meadows that "we need ammo. We need fraud examples. We need it this weekend."

The texts show that the Texas Republican, a hardline conservative member of the House Freedom Caucus that Meadows helped found, was initially supportive of the former president's legal challenges to the election.

CNN reported that Roy was also supportive of John Eastman, a conservative legal scholar who later laid out a blueprint for Vice President Mike Pence to reject states' electors. On November 22, he texted Meadows to "get Eastman to file" in front of the state board of elections in Pennsylvania, one of the states where Trump hoped to reverse the election results.

But as early as December 10, prior to the meeting of the Electoral College , Roy publicly warned in a Twitter thread that the lawsuit filed by the Texas attorney general "represents a dangerous violation of federalism."

Story continues

"The president should call everyone off. It's the only path," Roy later texted Meadows on December 31. "If we substitute the will of states through electors with a vote by congress every 4 years... we have destroyed the electoral college... Respectfully."

"We're driving a stake in the heart of the federal republic," Roy texted Meadows the following day.

Roy later voted to certify the results of the 2020 election, breaking with 147 of his Republican colleagues. Following the riot on January 6, he said that "the President should never have spun up certain Americans to believe something that simply cannot be."

While Roy ultimately voted against impeaching the former president, he then declared on the House floor on Jan 13 that Trump "deserves universal condemnation for what was clearly, in my opinion, impeachable conduct."

Roy's communications director, Nate Madden, told CNN that the texts "speak for themselves," and Roy did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Link:

Republican Rep. Chip Roy privately warned that Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results were 'driving a stake in the heart of the federal...

The new Franklin & Marshal College Poll, like some other recent soundings, shows state Sen. Doug Mastriano, R-Franklin County, ahead by a nose in the nine-person Republican gubernatorial primary.

But Mastrianos lead is well within the polls margin of error, there are several candidates within striking distance as the race heads into its last month and 48 percent of those surveyed said they could not name a preferred candidate from those on the ballot.

The survey, conducted between March 30 and April 10, shows Mastriano registering support from 15 percent of the 317 registered Republicans surveyed, followed by former federal prosecutor Bill McSwain, 12 percent; and former U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, 10 percent.

David White, former member of the Delaware County Council, leads the rest of the pack with 5 percent support.

Trailing are former U.S. Rep. Melissa Hart and Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Gale, at 3 percent; state Sen. Jake Corman, R-Centre County, logged 2 percent; conservative thought leader Charlie Gerow pulled 1 percent and Northampton County physician Nche Zama had less than 1 percent.

The GOP winner is headed for a fall showdown with Attorney General Josh Shapiro, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee.

Current Gov. Tom Wolf is wrapping up his second term in office, the maximum permitted by the state Constitution.

Here is the original post:

Another poll shows Republican governors race still unsettled heading into last month of primary season - PennLive

In 2022, the Republican Party could really use a pep talk from the Gipper.

How the GOP of today cries out for the spirit of Ronald Reagan. He got right so many things that the Republicans of today are getting wrong.

For instance, I dont suppose Reagan, an ardent foe of the Soviet Union who demanded that Mikhail Gorbachev tear down this wall in Berlin, would look kindly on how former President Donald Trump fawns over Russian President Vladimir Putin. In the early days of the invasion of Ukraine, Trump dubbed Putin a genius.

Yes, because nothing moves your Mensa application to the top of the pile like overestimating the competence of your forces and underestimating the resistance of the opposition.

Nor would Reagan be proud of how some Republicans have of late done the bidding of organized labor by twisting an America First agenda into a familiar form of tariff-driven protectionism that says U.S. industries should be excused from having to compete with global competitors. For Republicans, the first hint that they made a colossal mistake by falling in line behind Trumps restrictive trade policies should have been when the Biden administration decided to keep those policies in place.

And, of course, Dutch who signed into law the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted legal status to nearly 2.7 million undocumented people would surely be disgusted by the way in which many Republicans now approach immigration. Whereas Reagan believed in welcoming the stranger and often spoke about how immigrants benefit America, the Republicans of today opportunistically grab hold of the issue with a toxic combination of dishonesty, cynicism, racism and fear.

Not that Democrats are much better. They lie to constituents and rail against the same restrictionist immigration policies that they later adopt as their own. They cater to organized labor, much of which wants to keep out foreign workers who could turn into competitors. They rack up record numbers of deportations, put refugee kids in cages and embrace light-skinned Ukraine refugees while rounding up dark-skinned Haitians using Border Patrol agents on horseback. Then, instead of just admitting their sins, anti-immigrant Democrats point fingers at Republicans for being the preferred party of nativists.

Im not sure. Has anyone polled nativists? I imagine they would be fine with the parts of President Joe Bidens immigration agenda that were borrowed from Trump.

However, one recent development that is causing angst among Republicans, and other Americans, is the Biden administrations decision to 86 Title 42. The controversial public health statute which has allowed Customs and Border Protection agents to turn away, since March 2020, as many as 1.7 million migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border without letting them apply for asylum is set to end on May 23.

All this turning away was done under the pretense of helping prevent the spread of COVID-19 into the United States, but where both the Trump and Biden administration really found Title 42 useful was as a convenient device to keep out immigrants and refugees.

In fact, the statute is so convenient that, in the Senate, a bipartisan group of lawmakers recently introduced a bill that would keep Title 42 in place presumably forever or at least until senators no longer have to run for re-election, whichever comes first.

Meanwhile, in the four U.S. states that border Mexico, Republicans are panic-stricken. They warn that the nations southern border is about to be overrun by the underprivileged, the unwashed, the unwanted.

You know, the same kinds of folks who built this country in the first place.

Leave it to politicians in both parties to take something intended to be temporary, and try to make it permanent to serve their short-term political interests.

Title 42 was supposed to be a temporary behavior modification to protect public health. You know, like masking. But while many Republicans couldnt wait to rip off their masks and protest against efforts by bureaucrats and local governing bodies to make masking permanent, they are in no similar hurry to surrender Title 42.

But surrender, we must. With nary a peep from Congress, the Biden administration has already lifted the policy with regard to Ukrainians who wish to apply for refugee status. It cant justify not doing the same for desperate people from other dark corners of the world.

America is strong enough and good enough to handle whatever comes her way. Just like she always has.

At least, I bet thats how Reagan would see it.

Ruben Navarrettes email address is crimscribe@icloud.com. His podcast, Ruben in the Center, is available through every podcast app.

See the original post here:

RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR.: The legacy of Reagan still looms large. Its the Republican Party that got smaller - Las Vegas Review-Journal

ITHACA, N.Y.Two candidates have filed enough petition signatures to run for the Republican nomination for Ithaca mayor, but one has challenged the others number of signatures, which could threaten their place on the ballot.

The two candidates are Ithaca conservative activist Zachary Winn, known for his vocal opposition to police reform and frequent condemnations of COVID-19 safety measures at local public meetings, as well as William Metro, best known for the phrase Do you want to see some magic? preceding his Magic Man routine on the Commons (as well as his public access television show).

Both submitted petitions for Republican mayoral runs earlier this month; their campaigns have not been previously reported. Similarly, both are expected to strike fairly hardline conservative stances during the primary: Metro is an avowed fan of former President Donald Trump and conservative icon Sean Hannity, while Winn has been seen in several confrontations with racial justice protesters in the last 18 months or so, especially in the lead-up to the 2020 election. He also runs the blog Ithaca Crime, which is about crime in Ithaca.

However, Winn has filed a General Objection with the Tompkins County Board of Elections, ostensibly contesting the validity of petitions that Metro submitted. Metro submitted 37 signatures on his designating petitions document; Winn submitted 61 signatures of his own. Board of Elections officials confirmed they are the only Republican candidates to submit designating petitions for the primary election, which takes place on June 28.

The specific nature of Winns complaint is unclear, though if he continues through the process he will have to specify his objections by next week. Signatories on petitions must be residents of the City of Ithaca and be a registered member of the same party as the candidatea glance at Metros petition shows that each of his signatures do indeed list Ithaca addresses. Some of the entries are difficult to read, though that is fairly common for designating petition submissions.

Winn, who ran for mayor at least one other time, in 2007, has not yet responded to a request for comment via email.

Winn submitted a General Objection yesterday.He now has 6 days to submit his specifications. He will need to submit his Specific Objections to our office by Monday, April 18th, said Republican Commissioner of Elections Tamara Scott.

According to the county Board of Elections, 37 petition signatures is the minimum threshold required to get on the ballot for Republicans, representing a certain percentage of the total number of registered Republicans within the City of Ithaca (for contrast, in the heavily Democratic city, 410 signatures are required for Democratic candidates). That means, technically, that if any of Metros signatures are thrown out, he will not have enough to get on the ballot unless he is granted more time.

Metro, in brief comments to The Ithaca Voice, said he does not know why his petitions would have been challenged.

Theyre all legit, Metro said. What reason does Zach have to challenge them? We are running in the same party. [] If he really wants to challenge me, he can do it on primary day at the ballot box.

Both candidates are running for the Republican nomination for Ithaca mayor, looking for the opportunity to face incumbent Democrat Laura Lewis, who is now serving as the acting mayor and is running unopposed for the Democratic nomination. Winn and Metro are likely to strike a very different tone from Lewis

Whoever is victorious in the November general election will serve one year to finish out former Mayor Svante Myricks term, and there will be another election in November 2023 to determine who will be the mayor for a full four-year term after that.

The last time a petition objection had a tangible impact on local politics was 2017, when Tompkins County Legislature candidate Keith Hannon was prevented from running as a Democrat because of an objection to his submitted petitions.

Read the rest here:

Two new Republican candidates for Ithaca mayor already sparring over petition signatures - The Ithaca Voice

LANSING, MI A legislative panel heard testimony Tuesday about a bill package that would change Michigan election law to, among other things, require the secretary of state to update and replace the photo of a person applying for a renewal drivers license and upload the updated photograph to the qualified voter file.

The House Election and Ethics Committee met Tuesday afternoon to hear testimony about several items including House Bills 5585, 5886 and 5887, which are sponsored by Rep. Ann Bollin, R-Brighton.

House Bills 5586 and 5587 also would shorten the period when a person may renew his or her license or ID card by mail, before an in-person renewal visit is required, from 12 years to eight years.

The passage of Proposal 3 in 2018 gave Michigan voters no-reason absentee voting and same-day voter registration.

While advocates of the 2018 ballot proposal view its passage and implementation as a success with residents getting a greater opportunity to register and vote absentee, Republican lawmakers opposed it, arguing the changes would weaken the security of elections.

Having a strong voter turnout should be a common goal. However, with the passage of this proposal, Michigan voters never have to appear before a local clerk to verify their identity, Bollin said. What is concerning is that a voters photo ID may not be updated.

Bollins bills would make it so Michigan law requires an updated photo to be taken every eight years.

Ive heard some concerns about putting it into the QVF (Qualified Voter File), Bollin said, adding that shes also considering submitting photos to the electronic poll book.

Then it would make much easier access, she said. Voters wouldnt necessarily have to pull their photo ID, or clerks would have the photo ID in the clerks office as we move to a lot more voters voting in-person.

The legislation would bring an additional one-time cost to the Department of State to implement changes to the current functionality between its automated Customer and Automotive Record System (CARS) and the Qualified Voter File. There would also be additional ongoing data storage costs to DOS for maintaining digital photo records.

CARS currently transmits text data to the QVF, including name, address, date of birth, gender, and for drivers license recipients, drivers license number and signature. The ability to transmit photographs to the QVF would require additional information technology programming costs.

It is not known at this time what those costs would be, or whether they could be supported with DOSs current ongoing appropriations. The average cost for a state IT project is approximately $300,000, according to a legislative analysis from the House Fiscal Agency.

The House Fiscal Agency analysis states the bills would not have a fiscal impact on city and township clerks offices, but would have indeterminate fiscal impacts on the offices if photograph identification were required for voting in the future. If photographs were required to vote, the bills would provide personnel cost savings to local clerks offices by reducing handling time and staff hourly costs of processing provisional envelope ballots at precinct voting locations and clerks offices.

The bill did not receive a vote Tuesday during the committee meeting.

READ MORE FROM MLIVE:

Whitmer vetoes Republican election bills aimed at voiding registration for certain voters

Whitmer vetoes election bills she says perpetuated Big Lie

See the rest here:

Republican voter ID bills would cut license renewal period from 12 to 8 years - MLive.com

Since Florida passed its controversial dont say gay bill, conservative states across America have been advancing similar bills as they attempt to ban the discussion of gender identity and sexual orientation in classrooms.

Last month, Floridas Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, signed into law the Parental Rights in Education bill. The law prohibits all discussion of sexuality and gender identity in schools, a move that advocates say will erase LGBTQ+ students and history.

Since the bills introduction and passage, various Republican-run states have filed similar legislation that mimics Floridas, reflecting a chilling wave of speech and identity restrictions across the country.

Over 156 gag-order bills targeting issues of identity have been introduced or refiled in 39 states since January 2021, according to a February report by PEN America, a non-profit that seeks to protect freedom of expression in the US. At least 105 of those target K-12 schools, 49 target higher education and 62 include mandatory punishments for those found in violation.

Floridas dont say gay bill is just the tip of the iceberg. While race, sex and American history remain the most common targets of censorship, bills silencing speech about LGBTQ+ identities have also surged to the fore, the organization said.

In March, Georgia legislators introduced the Common Humanity in Private Education Act. According to the act, No private or nonpublic school or program shall promote, compel, or encourage classroom discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not appropriate for the age and developmental stage of the student.

The act, which is sponsored by 10 Republican state senators, says a focus on racial and gender identity and its resulting discrimination on the basis of color, race, ethnicity and national origin is destructive to the fabric of American society.

LGBTQ+ advocates in Georgia have pushed back heavily against the bill, arguing that it is not about parental rights but rather restricting the activities, participation and learning of children in schools.

In Louisiana, a Republican state representative introduced a bill last month that seeks to ban discussions of gender identity and sexual orientation in certain public school classrooms.

The bill, proposed by representative Dodie Horton, seeks to prohibit teachers and others from discussing their sexual orientation or gender identity with students from kindergarten through 12th grade. It also seeks to also ban teachers and other presenters from discussing topics of sexual orientation and gender identity with students in kindergarten through eighth grade.

In February, Republicans in Kansas introduced a state House bill that would make the depiction of homosexuality in classroom materials a class B misdemeanor.

In Indiana, state legislators proposed a bill that would require schools to obtain prior informed written consent from the parent of a student who is less than eighteen years of age before the student may participate in any instruction on human sexuality.

The listed topics in the bill that would require parental consent includes abortion, birth control or contraceptives, sexual activity, sexual orientation, transgenderism and gender identity. Before obtaining written consent from parents, the bill would require schools to provide parents with informed written notice which shall accurately describe in detail the contents and nature of the instruction on human sexuality, including the purpose of the instruction on human sexuality.

A bill introduced by Tennessee state Republicans in February seeks to prohibit any instructional materials that promote, normalize, support, or address lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender issues or lifestyles.

In Arizona, proposed bills by Republican state senators include those that would block gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth, as well as force teachers, nurses and other school staff to disclose a minors gender identity to their parents.

Oklahoma state legislators recently passed a bill that prevents students enrolled in colleges from being required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling; provided, voluntary counseling shall not be prohibited. The law also states, Any orientation or requirement that presents any form of race or sex stereotyping or a bias on the basis of race or sex shall be prohibited.

Earlier this week, Ohio Republican representatives Jean Schmidt and Mike Loychik introduced a bill that would ban kindergarten through third-grade classrooms from discussing sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, classrooms with older students would be disallowed from featuring those topics in ways that are not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate.

In response to the bills introduction, Democratic representative Brigid Kelly called it a huge problem} and said: Were not giving people access to the tools, the materials, the lessons they need to prepare children for the diverse world that exists.

Similarly, South Carolina state lawmakers introduced a bill that would ban state entities, including schools from subjecting students to instruction, presentations, discussions, counseling, or materials in any medium that involves topics including sexual lifestyles, acts, or practices, as well as gender identity or lifestyles.

Additionally, like the Oklahoma law, another South Carolina bill seeks to prevent teachers, staff members and district employees from engaging in gender and sexual diversity training.

In states such as Wisconsin and Rhode Island, personal pronouns have also become a contentious subject for conservative lawmakers. Both chambers of the Wisconsin legislature have approved a bill which has yet to be signed into law that includes a parents right to choose pronouns for their children.

In Rhode Island, a proposed bill would require children to be addressed by their common names and the pronouns associated with their biological gender unless their parents grant permission to change them.

Floridas cruel dont say gay bill is one of hundreds of anti-LGBTQ bills moving through state legislatures, most of which primarily attack trans youth, the American Civil Liberties Union tweeted in February.

Censoring classroom discussions wont keep kids from being LGBTQ. It just piles on to the national pattern of attacks, it added.

Read more:

Floridas dont say gay bill inspired a chilling wave of Republican legislation - The Guardian

As a former Hamilton County Republican Party Chairman, I have a unique understanding of the way our local party qualifies candidates. Mike Dumitru is one of those candidates and I wholeheartedly support his candidacy for Circuit Court Judge, Division II.

Earlier this week, I received a mailer from the other candidate suggesting that Mike is not a true conservative and implying he voted in the Democratic primary in 2020. This is a patently false mischaracterization and is contradicted by Mikes voting record, which reflects that he voted in both Republican primaries in 2020. This type of campaigning is certainly troubling to me, especially in a judicial race. I have nothing against the other candidate as I do not know him and Im not sure I ever met him at our Republican party events through the years.

Just as troubling is the implicit statement that Mike is not a true Republican. I understand fully the values that make someone a Republican and Mike holds those values! He is a Republican under both the Bylaws and Rules of the Tennessee Republican Party but just as importantly in his actions and values. He is engaged in the local Republican party, has supported other local Republican candidates, and was seated as a voting delegate for his precinct in the last Hamilton County Republican Delegate Convention. Mike is a strict jurist who will enforce the law as written and passed by our elected representatives, will not legislate from the bench, and will rule narrowly. He will never be an activist judge. And his personal storyof a family who fled a communist country where the concept of small government was a mere fairy talehas colored the lens through which he views our government, including the judiciary.

But even setting aside his values, let me say this. I have personally known Judge Jeff Hollingsworth inside and outside of the courtroom for nearly 20 years. If you are looking for someone who will follow in the same footsteps, Mike Dumitru is your candidate. I have no doubt that he will bring to the position the same moral character, legal ability, and judicial temperament of Judge Hollingsworth while honorably serving our community as the Division II Circuit Court Judge.

I encourage all Republicans to join me and my family and vote for Mike Dumitru in the Republican primary for Circuit Court Judge during early voting or on May 3.

Tony SandersHamilton County Republican Party Chairman2013-2017

* * *

I've always been involved in this community and I've met a lot of people during those years as a businessman and volunteer. Mike Dumitru cares about Hamilton County and he's committed to our citizens and the judicialprocess.

Mike has proven he has the knowledge and the temperament to be a great judge. His strong work ethic, understanding of the importance of responsive local government , and willingness to listen to community concerns makes him the best in this race.

If you don't know Mike, you need to meet him. You'll see what I mean; he's the real thing and Hamilton County needs him.

Manny Rico, Local Businessman and former City Councilman

Go here to see the original:

This Republican Is Supporting Mike Dumitru - And Response - The Chattanoogan

The grinding battle over congressional redistricting is drawing to a close. And, contrary to expectations that the process would result in big Republican gains, the final House of Representatives map may well improve somewhat for Democrats.

The main reason is gerrymandering redrawing of district lines for partisan benefit. Republicans built on their existing gerrymanders to try to expand their House advantage, but Democrats fired back even more powerfully with gerrymanders of their own.

Basically, Democrats saved themselves by resorting to a tactic theyve previously denounced as not only unfair but downright unethical House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called gerrymandering unjust and deeply dangerous in 2019. But in the absence of national reforms banning the practice, refusing to gerrymander would have meant effective unilateral disarmament, ceding the GOP a significant advantage in the battle for control over the House.

Redistricting has proceeded like a tug of war. As state legislatures, judges, and commissions have approved new maps, creating more safe or swing districts in various states, the underlying partisanship of the median House district has been pulled in one direction, and then the other. The most powerful pulls came from either state legislatures that gerrymandered, or state courts that struck down certain gerrymandered maps, as this graphic shows:

This cycles Republican gerrymanders pulled the median district (which already leaned 2 percentage points to the right) another point further right. But state court rulings striking down North Carolina and Ohio maps effectively wiped out most of that net gain.

Meanwhile, Democratic gerrymanders in states like New York and Illinois pulled the median district nearly 3 points leftward, so it was actually close to neutral. (Joe Bidens margin in the median district would have nearly matched his national popular vote margin in the 2020 presidential election.) But an aggressive gerrymander in GOP-controlled Florida could soon shift things right again, if approved. Other state court rulings could shift things further, particularly in New York, where Democrats gerrymander is under scrutiny.

Currently, it looks like there will be close to an equal number of districts leaning left and right of the national average, with a slight edge to Republicans in the median district.

Now, its entirely possible, perhaps likely, that Democrats will still lose badly in House elections this fall the party has a small majority, President Biden is unpopular, and the historical pattern is for the incumbents party to struggle in the midterms. But unlike much of the previous decade, the underlying map may be at least somewhat less biased in Republicans favor.

The last national redistricting happened after Republicans won sweeping victories in the 2010 midterms, giving them control over many state legislatures and governorships. They used that power to draw lines that gave them a big advantage in the House.

By 2012, when that last redistricting was finished, the median House district leaned nearly 6 percentage points further toward Republicans presidentially than that years national popular vote. The results were clear: Obama won nationally by about 4 points in 2012, but he lost the median district by about 2 points. Whats more, 55 percent of the overall House districts (240 out of 435) leaned Republican, per the New York Times. That sizable advantage helped Republicans hold the House in 2012 despite Obamas national win.

But over the course of the ensuing decade, that GOP advantage significantly eroded. Changes in demographic voting patterns made many suburban districts less safe for Republicans. Meanwhile, courts struck down Republican gerrymanders in states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. By the time the 2020 results were in, the median House district still leaned toward Republicans, but only by 2 points, rather than 6 points. And about 52 percent of districts (228 out of 435) had a Republican lean.

That was real progress for Democrats on reducing the bias of the House, but it was accompanied by disappointment. First, though Democrats performed well in the 2018 and 2020 elections, they fell short of retaking several key governorships and legislatures, meaning Republicans would have the power to gerrymander again in these states. Second, the party had hoped the Supreme Court would declare partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional, banning it nationwide, but Trumps appointees moved to the court to the right and the conservative majority ruled otherwise. Third, efforts to pass a nationwide gerrymandering ban through the Democrat-controlled Congress under Biden were stymied by the Senate filibuster.

So as 2021 began, Republicans had the power of line-drawing in several swing states, as well as red states where they hadnt yet maxed out their advantage. The GOP still had an advantage in the House map, and now it seemed they could entrench and expand it.

There are varying ways to estimate the underlying partisanship of a district or an overall map, but for now, Ill focus mainly on a simple one: how the district voted in the most recent presidential race, compared to the national popular vote. (The New York Timess Nate Cohn used this metric in his own recent analysis.)

In 2020, Biden won the popular vote by a margin of 4.4 percentage points. If he won by more than that in a given district, Im calling that a Democratic-leaning district. If he won by less than that, or lost the district, Im calling it a Republican-leaning district. This metric lets us look at the partisan lean for the median House district (the one necessary to give a party a majority), and also measure how many districts lean toward Democrats or Republicans overall.

Focusing on the presidential numbers wont be a perfect guide to House results. House candidates run with their own strengths and weaknesses, and some manage to defy their districts underlying partisan lean. But there have been fewer such candidates lately in 2020, only 16 out of 435 House victors won a district where the opposite partys presidential candidate also won.

Other analysts may have slightly different specific calculations for the maps overall lean. For this cycle, Ive used the Cook Political Report (an invaluable resource for anyone closely following elections), which calculated the presidential results in each new district. As an alternative, Cook also uses a metric called the PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which incorporates the past two presidential elections. FiveThirtyEight has its own partisan lean score. The Economists G. Elliott Morris argues it can be most predictive to look at the presidential election prior to the most recent one. Still, these different estimates will probably be roughly similar overall.

Lets start by looking at how Republican gerrymandering attempts fared this cycle. The GOP did indeed try to expand their advantage in key states, but their overall impact was hampered by a few factors.

In the finalized maps so far, then, Republicans have ended up with just a handful of new districts leaning in their favor. But thats compared to a map that was already favorable to them, and they managed to preserve or strengthen preexisting pro-GOP maps in key states.

However, one other state may soon give them a big assist: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and GOP state legislative leaders have been at odds for months on just how much the House map should tilt in Republicans favor, with DeSantis pushing for a more extreme gerrymander. And just this week, DeSantis appeared to win: The legislature said it would approve whatever maps he wanted. Florida alone could move the median districts margin one percentage point to the right.

Democrats, meanwhile, really went to town with gerrymanders of their own in states they controlled:

That amounts to wiping out 12 Republican districts and creating 11 Democratic districts an enormous impact on the overall map.

One caveat is that some analysts think Democrats may have spread themselves a bit too thin in some of these maps by creating several districts that lean Democratic, but not strongly so, such that Republicans could very plausibly win in these areas in a strong GOP year. This is the case particularly in Illinois, Nevada, and New Mexico. Still, in a Republican wave year, the GOP is quite likely to win control of the House regardless of what happens in these states. But the lean-Democratic districts tip the balance when theres a close national contest.

There were also states in which redistricting was handled by commissions (rather than state legislatures), or where power was divided. For overall partisan balance, these proved to be close to a wash for instance, commissions eliminated a Republican-leaning district in both California and Michigan, but created a Republican-leaning district in both Arizona and Colorado. (Some Democrats are rueing the lost opportunities to gerrymander Colorado and Virginia, states where they had full control in 2021, because redistricting authority had been given to commissions there.)

Overall, then, the 2022 redistricting wars turned out to come down to a battle of the gerrymanders and Democrats ended up being more impactful.

Democrats have spent the past decade deriding gerrymandering as unethical and immoral, and trying to get it banned across the country.

Yet the plain reality is that, if they had decided not to do any of it, Republicans would not only have retained their existing advantage in the House map, they would have expanded it.

Though some states havent finalized their maps yet and these numbers can change, its currently looking like around 218 districts will have voted more for Trump than the national average in 2020, and 217 districts will have voted more for Biden (per the Cook Political Reports numbers). Furthermore, Bidens margin of victory in the median district would be about 1 percentage point lower than his margin of victory nationally. Thats not perfectly balanced, but its pretty balanced meaning the map itself will likely only swing outcomes in the very closest of elections.

Contrast this to a scenario where Democrats agreed to unilaterally disarm and do no gerrymandering or where the blue states tied their own hands by adopting serious anti-gerrymandering reforms.

Assuming something close to the 2020 maps remained in these states, around 230 of the overall new districts would have voted more for Trump than the national average, and the median district would have leaned nearly 4 points to the right of the national presidential popular vote.

A similar dynamic has arisen with other good-government reform issues, like campaign finance. Democrats spent a decade condemning conservative big money and dark money, and trying without success to rein in their influence. But the party thought it would be foolish to take the high ground by forswearing those practices. And eventually, by 2020, they arguably ended up mastering them more expertly than Republicans.

Republicans believe Democrats appeals to ethics were always situational. They point out that Democrats only began to complain about gerrymandering so loudly once Republicans got the chance to do so much of it in 2010, and that Democratic state parties have often been eager to gerrymander when theyve had the power to do so.

Still, all this does get at the difficulty of making reforms stick without a national solution. Theres a prisoners dilemma aspect to gerrymandering, in which agreeing not to get your hands dirty may well just mean agreeing to lose.

For Democrats genuinely concerned about good-government reforms, that poses a challenge. Without a national solution, is it worth it to try to keep reforming gerrymandering in blue-leaning states?

Or, if you do so, are you just a sucker?

Original post:

Democrats gerrymandered more effectively than Republicans this cycle - Vox.com

If you ask some (okay, many) conservative pundits, Democrats are grooming children. As in, grooming them to be abused by pedophiles. Some Republicans have even accused Democrats of being pedophiles themselves.

The grooming charges lump together concerns that kids are being introduced too early to sexually explicit material, to the existence of transgender people, and to non-heterosexual sexual orientations. In March, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed what critics have dubbed the Dont Say Gay bill, a measure that discourages teachers from discussing gender identity or sexual orientation in classrooms. Versions of the measure have been proposed in at least a dozen other states. Referring to the bill, DeSantiss spokesperson Christina Pushaw tweeted, If youre against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you dont denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children. A pastor even organized an anti-grooming rally at Disneys headquarters in California.

This type of rhetoric is damaging in its own right. As the commentator David French writes in his newsletter, Throwing around accusations of pedophilia, sympathy for pedophilia, grooming, or sympathy for grooming is a recipe for threats and violencean assessment that some historians endorse. This latest pedophilia panic overlaps with the false beliefs of the QAnon movement, which fueled the Pizzagate incident in 2016.

But bills such as Floridas are also likely to have a chilling effect on comprehensive sexual education in schools, with deleterious effects. Comprehensive sex ed doesnt just help prevent bullying; it helps kids have healthier relationships of all kinds, improves their communication skills, and even boosts their media literacy. Compared with abstinence-only sex education or no sex education at all, comprehensive sex ed helps reduce teen pregnancy rates. One meta-analysis found that European countries, many of which offer comprehensive, mandatory sex ed, including for young children, tend to have the lowest rates of child sexual abuse in the world. Sex education is the exact opposite of grooming, says Nora Gelperin, the director of sexuality education at Advocates for Youth, a sex-ed nonprofit. Sex education, even when started in the earliest grades, has shown to be protective for kids, especially around child sexual abuse.

A 2020 study that examined three decades of research on sex education found that comprehensive sex ed that begins in elementary school can help prevent child sex abuse, among other benefits. Stranger dangertype language isnt recommended these days; about 93 percent of child sexual-abuse victims know their abusers. Instead, these programs help children identify the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching, the difference between tattling and keeping unsafe secrets, and how to identify abusive situations. In other words, sex ed isnt groomingit helps protect kids from grooming.

Modern sex ed also seems to give kids a sense of empowerment, including by teaching them the correct names for their own genitals. Predators are less likely to select a child who can accurately talk about those body parts, Gelperin says, than a child that is ignorant of what those body parts are actually called. It also makes kids less likely to victimize one another: One program for eighth graders, called Safe Dates, was associated with lower rates of physical and sexual dating violence four years later, compared with a control group.

Experts recommend starting sex education as early as kindergarten and teaching it the way you would math. Five-year-olds dont tend to learn geometry, but they do learn about numbers and shapes. Similarly, experts say kindergartners dont need to be told about, for example, orgasms, but they are encouraged to understand what their body parts are and how to protect themselves from unwanted touching.

One of the best-regarded American sex-ed curricula is Rights, Respect, and Responsibility, or the 3Rs, developed by Advocates for Youth and available for free online. For kindergartners and first graders, the lessons focus on preventing bullying, setting boundaries about touching, and learning what types of things make babies (elephants, but not pizza). The most explicit section covers the proper names of genitalia, including an explanation that most girls have a hole called the vagina that is used when a female has a baby. The use of correct anatomical terms is meant to ensure that kids are understood if they ever report abuse. But also, this is your body and you have a right to know what the different parts are called, the curriculum explains.

The first-grade lesson plans also include a section about gender identity, in which teachers are encouraged to say something like You might feel like youre a boy even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are girl parts. You might feel like youre a girl even if you have body parts that some people might tell you are boy parts. And you might not feel like youre a boy or a girl, but youre a little bit of both. No matter how you feel, youre perfectly normal!

Though this message does not exactly comport with a socially conservative worldview, it hardly amounts to grooming children to be molested by pedophiles. The argument for providing information on sexual orientation and gender identity in elementary school is that children are likely to encounter these concepts in the wild. Between 2 million and 4 million American children are being raised by a non-straight parent. Some children might either be transgender themselves or have a parent who is. Advocates of this type of curriculum say these concepts can be explained more accurately in school, and help make kids who are not straight or cisgender feel welcomed.

But just because the 3Rs curriculum is recommended doesnt mean it gets taught. Far from it: Sex ed, like all lesson plans, varies dramatically by school district, and usually reflects the values of the surrounding community. For example, Texas, which has more children than almost any other state, does not require high schools to teach sex ed. As of 2017, most Texas schools districts took an abstinence-only approach to sex ed, and though the state has recently introduced some discussion of contraceptives in middle school, abstinence must be emphasized. Instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation is not currently offered in Florida from kindergarten to third grade, the ages targeted by the Dont Say Gay bill.

Most European countries do provide comprehensive sex ed in every school, however. Experts link Europeans superior sexual-health outcomeslower teen pregnancy rates, lower rates of sexual abuse, and lower STD rates among young peopleto better, earlier sex ed. In Western Europe, sex ed tends to be mandatory and blunt, and start before kindergarten; its like the 3Rs, but more graphic.

In the Netherlands, sex ed begins before many kids can read. From age 5, children are taught about reproduction, about pregnancy and birth of a baby, says Elsbeth Reitzema, the sexuality-education program officer at Rutgers, a Dutch nonprofit that helps run the countrys sex-ed programs. They also learn the main physical differences between boys and girls, about the genitals and their functions. By the end of primary school, children have learned about reproduction, pregnancy, and birth. They know that a woman, if she is fertile, can become pregnant through sex in the manner of penis-in-vagina sex. They also learn about being intersex, transgender, and nonbinary. When theyre 11, kids learn about masturbation.

One popular Dutch sex-ed curriculum explains to fourth graders that the clitoris is a very sensitive place. Touching it can give a nice feeling, according to Beyond Birds and Bees, a 2018 book in part about the Dutch approach to sex ed by Bonnie Rough, who has written on the same topic for The Atlantic. It is not customary for parents to take their children out of the lesson, Reitzema told me. Should parents object to the lessons, then the school will explain what the content of the lessons is. This usually removes the parents resistance to the lessons.

In Swedens mandatory sex-ed program, 7-to-9-year-olds learn about all body parts, and discuss gender, Hans Olsson, the countrys senior adviser on sexuality education, told me. School has a duty to counteract limiting gender patterns, already at [the] preschool level. Also in preschool, kids learn about bodily integrity and name their sexual organs. Rather than the proper terminology, though, Swedish kids use snopp, which is like willy, and snippa. (Dont know the equivalent word in English, Olsson said.) Starting in fourth grade, Swedish kids learn about LGBTQ issues.

Sara Zaske, the author of the German comparative-parenting book Achtung Baby, told me that her 7-year-old daughters class in Berlin read the childrens book Mummy Laid an Egg without asking parents permission first. The picture book, which was originally published in English, features cartoon drawings of Daddys tube and Mummys hole, along with the ways mummies and daddies fit together. Unlike in the United States, Zaske writes in her book, German kids learn much more about sex than conception. German schools cover STD prevention, yes, but also masturbation, orgasms, and homosexuality. Zaske quotes one doctor in an article on the city of Berlins official website as saying, Sex education cannot begin early enough.

Rough and others dont see these types of lessons as giving children ideas about sex and sexuality. After all, adults openly do thingsdrink alcohol, use the stove, drivethat kids cant. Kids understand when an activity is for adults only. She and other advocates reject the notion that telling kids about different sexual orientations or gender identities turns kids gay or gender-nonconforming. Teaching about the topics is not creating new LGBTQ students, says Elizabeth Schroeder, a sexuality educator and co-author of the 3Rs curriculum.

But most important, early sex ed opens up lines of communication between kids and responsible adults. If we start giving off the impression that sex is a topic that when you ask me a question that Im going to start acting weird and funny and dishonest about it, they quickly pick up that this is something off-limits, says Emily Rothman, a health-sciences professor at Boston University. So theyre either gonna think, Well, I can go to my friends or I can go to the internet. By which she means: to porn.

The larger point of this kind of instruction is what the Dutch call sexual assertiveness: If somebody is saying or doing something that makes your body feel uncomfortable, youve been taught how to notice that and what to do next, Rough told me. One aim of communicating freely about sex with a teacher or another trusted adult is the development of a trusting, trustworthy relationship with a grown-up who has the childs best interests at heart.

Meanwhile, only a quarter of U.S. public schools report that students practice communication, decision making, goal setting, or refusal skills as part of sex ed, Rough writes in her book. Instead, some American children learn about sex through porn, through experimentation, or, tragically, from an abuser. Because so much of American sex education treats sexual activity as dangerous or shameful, kids who are victimized by adults may feel that they have to keep it secret. European children who learn about their body, and are warned about inappropriate touching, can better protect themselves. There, Rough writes, those who prey on children can no longer benefit from their ignorance.

See the original post here:

Republicans Have Sex Ed All Wrong - The Atlantic