ReportWire

Tag: state House

  • Senators want team ready to track possible federal infractions

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — As federal-state tensions flare in Minnesota, a majority of the Massachusetts Senate wrote to the governor and attorney general last week urging them to prepare for potential situations in which the Bay State could prosecute a federal official who is accused of abusing their authority here.

    Led by Sen. Michael Moore of Millbury, the 23 senators who signed Friday’s letter to Gov. Maura Healey and AG Andrea Campbell acknowledged that state-level prosecution of federal officials “faces a narrow legal path” but said it is “the only viable mechanism for accountability” should Massachusetts face a situation like what has unfolded in Minnesota. The senators pointed to ICE actions that they said “violate the rights to free speech, peaceful assembly, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures under the United States Constitution.”

    “Still, with sufficient evidence and will, a state may bring a prosecution against federal officials who violate state criminal law while acting in a manner that is not necessary and proper in the performance of their official federal duties. To that end, we respectfully request that Massachusetts undertake several actions to prepare to respond to, and when appropriate prosecute, federal officials who abuse their federal authority here,” the letter reads.

    The Democratic senators are seeking the creation of a “rapid response” task force to respond to allegations of federal abuses in Massachusetts, guidance from the attorney general to law enforcement highlighting “their authority and responsibility to collect evidence of federal misconduct” and more, and the establishment of an online portal for residents to submit complaints and evidence.

    Federal immigration enforcement officials have previously blamed “sanctuary policies” in Massachusetts that they say make it harder for them to remove criminals from the country, sometimes necessitating large-scale sweeps like ICE carried out here last year.

    Signed onto Moore’s letter are Sens. Cindy Friedman, Paul Mark, Patricia Jehlen, Mark Montigny, Jason Lewis, Joan Lovely, John Keenan, Michael Barrett, James Eldridge, Robyn Kennedy, Michael Brady, Rebecca Rausch, Adam Gomez, John Cronin, Paul Feeney, Liz Miranda, Sal DiDomenico, Jacob Oliveira, Pavel Payano, Barry Finegold, Nick Collins, and Michael Rush.  Lovely, Barrett and Rush hold Senate leadership posts.

    “The Trump Administration’s willingness to use the power of the federal government to hurt and even kill United States citizens is shocking. Massachusetts must be prepared for the possibility that President Trump unleashes his masked agents on the people of the Commonwealth for having the audacity to stand up to him,” Moore said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Colin A. Young

    Source link

  • Loss of trust affecting public safety, reformers say

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON —  Fears stemming from immigration enforcement have breathed some life into a long-stalled bill that’s meant to limit cooperation between local and federal immigration authorities.

    Dozens gathered in Gardner Auditorium at the State House Tuesday to support the so-called “Safe Communities Act” (S 1681/ H 2580) during a Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security. The bill would end 287(g) agreements that allow local law enforcement to carry out federal immigration officers’ responsibilities.

    Among those testifying were a few police chiefs, district attorneys and local elected officials — exactly the kind of people bill sponsor Sen. Jamie Eldridge said he wanted to back the proposal.

    “Probably the biggest is major chiefs that represent immigrant communities — that would be most helpful. That was also helpful to pass the driver’s license bill,” Eldridge said, referring to the law that took effect in 2023 and allows residents to apply for driver’s licenses regardless of their immigration status.

    The legislation has been filed every term since at least 2017 and has been loitering on Beacon Hill for years as top House and Senate Democrats have shown little interest in advancing it. The proposal was sent to a study order last session — effectively killing its progress that session. It has cleared the committee and in 2018 — during President Donald Trump’s first term — the Senate adopted the bill as a policy rider to the budget.

    Tuesday’s hearing was the first time lawmakers heard testimony on the bill since it was filed in February.

    Eldridge told the News Service that some legislators have “shifted” their stance on the proposal as a result of community outreach as well as information on how deportations would affect the commonwealth.

    ”I don’t think people realize how destructive the mass deportation impact would be in Massachusetts in terms of intensity and frequency,” Eldridge told the News Service Tuesday.

    Top Democratic legislative leaders have offered little support for the measure this session.

    When asked in September whether now is the time to advance the bill amid rising ICE activity in the state, House Speaker Ron Mariano said: “I don’t know if it’s a year for that.”

    “The issue of enforcing immigration laws is a purview of the federal government,” he said during a Sept. 8 press conference. “It’s not a purview of the state government. We are here to enforce the state laws, and we do that. And we do it very well. And so I think that there has to be a way for us to coexist without having to get into defining and limiting each other’s specific charges.”

    Senate President Karen Spilka was also noncommittal in September when pressed on whether the Legislature would pass the bill. She said much of what the proposal calls for is already standard practice in the state.

    When asked if he has heard from Spilka or Mariano on the proposal, Eldridge said he’s aware of “their support for immigrants” but not a specific bill as many have been filed this session aimed at protecting immigrants.

    “But you know the legislative process, it’s a two-year process, and the advocacy that happens today will hopefully have an impact on not just all the committee members, but the whole legislature,” Eldridge said.

    Just hours before the hearing, immigration advocates and labor unions held a rally at the State House urging lawmakers to pass proposals aimed at defending immigrant communities.

    “ICE’s actions are tearing at the fabric of communities all across our great commonwealth. ICE has gone too far: grabbing people on their way to work and school, smashing car windows, perpetrating violence, and destroying lives,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts in a statement. “The Trump administration’s capacity for cruelty and terror knows no bounds. It’s time for leaders in the Commonwealth to speak with one voice and say, ‘We will not assist ICE. We will not turn our police into ICE agents.”

    A majority of those testifying supported the act, noting immigrants are scared of increased ICE activity. Some say they are scared to go grocery shopping or take their kids to school. Others shared stories of avoiding seeking out medical care or help with domestic violence over fears of being deported.

    Many say this fear has eroded trust of local and state law enforcement.

    “Public safety depends on trust, and trust disappears when residents fear that any interaction with local government can lead to detention or deportation,” said Pauline Wells, superintendent of operations for the Cambridge Police Department, who was dressed in a full police uniform during the hearing. “…When community members trust law enforcement enough to come forward or call 911 we are all safe.”

    Cambridge has an ordinance restricting city officials from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement, except when it is required by law.

    Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan said the bill would restore trust in law enforcement.

    “We we are who we say we are. Words matter, having this as of law, having people know they are protected does matter across the commonwealth,” Ryan said.

    Berkshire District Attorney Timothy Shugrue also testified in support of the bill.

    While supporters of the Safe Communities Act dominated the hearing, other bills on the agenda address how law enforcement across the state can cooperate with federal immigration officials.

    One of these bills (S 1776) filed by Sen. Bruce Tarr is meant to empower law enforcement to assist federal immigration officers in detaining convicted criminals.

    Tarr noted the proposal — which is co-sponsored by two members of the committee — is a “common sense” way to outline when local and state law enforcement can comply with ICE.

    “This is not a broad or sweeping measure. This is one that is finely tailored to protect public safety,” Tarr said.

    Katie Castellani is a reporter for State House News Service and State Affairs Pro Massachusetts. Reach her at kcastellani@stateaffairs.com.

    [ad_2]

    Katie Castellani

    Source link

  • Cannabis trade group sues Michigan over new 24% wholesale tax – Detroit Metro Times

    [ad_1]

    The state’s largest cannabis trade group has filed a lawsuit against Michigan, arguing that a new 24% wholesale tax on marijuana is unconstitutional and will devastate a legal market already struggling from plummeting prices and numerous closures.

    The Michigan Cannabis Industry Association (MCIA) filed the complaint Tuesday in the Michigan Court of Claims, just hours after Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed the tax into law as part of the new state budget. The Senate approved the measure 19-17 last week after it passed the House 78-21.

    The lawsuit argues lawmakers lacked the three-quarters supermajority required to change voter-approved cannabis laws under the Michigan Constitution. When voters legalized recreational marijuana in 2018, they approved a 10% excise tax and 6% sales tax on retail cannabis sales. Any new or higher tax, the MCIA contends, amounts to an amendment of that ballot measure and therefore needs a supermajority vote.

    The lawsuit argues that lawmakers violated the constitutional protections that voters included in the 2018 ballot initiative that legalized recreational marijuana. The complaint adds that the new wholesale tax amounts to an additional excise tax under a different name. 

    “Legislative authority over marihuana excise taxes is exclusive to MRTMA; no other statute may intrude upon or duplicate the marihuana excise tax,” the lawsuit states. “Thus, additional excise taxes require a direct amendment to MRTMA itself.”

    Under the new law, the 24% tax will be levied on all marijuana sold or transferred to retailers beginning Jan. 1. The Whitmer administration projects it will raise roughly $420 million a year to fund road repairs.

    Cannabis businesses say the tax will drive up prices, fuel the illicit market, and force more licensed operators out of business.

    “This is going to be a nail in the coffin, especially for mom and pops,” said Tom Farrell, owner of the Refinery dispensaries in New Buffalo and Kalamazoo and Growing Pains, a cultivator. “The industry is in turmoil right now.”

    At Farrell’s Kalamazoo location, sales have dropped 70% in the past 18 months. 

    “It has been horrendous,” he said. “We had to lay off employees.”

    The MCIA’s lawsuit also accuses lawmakers of misleading the public by inserting the tax into a road-funding bill at the last minute. In addition the complaint alleges the measure unconstitutionally interferes with existing contracts between cannabis suppliers and retailers by taxing discounts and rebates that are already part of negotiated agreements.

    State leaders, including Whitmer and House Speaker Matt Hall, maintain that the tax is legal because it does not alter the existing excise tax structure approved by voters.

    Cannabis business owners and advocates strongly disagree. They argue the new tax undermines the intent of the 2018 legalization measure, which was designed to keep taxes low enough to compete with the unregulated market.

    “It’s a slap in the face to the cannabis industry and voters,” said Nick Hannawa, partner and chief legal counsel of Puff Cannabis, which operates 11 dispensaries. “It’s totally unfair to a struggling industry. We are already taxed more harshly than any other industry in the country.”

    Michigan’s cannabis market has already been reeling from oversupply, falling prices, and shrinking profit margins. In August, the average retail price of recreational flower dropped to a record low of $61.79 an ounce, which is down from $512 when legal sales began in 2020.

    Industry leaders warn that adding a 24% wholesale tax will push Michigan’s legal cannabis prices close to those in California, where high taxes eroded parts of the legal market and drove consumers back underground.

    In the same week the Michigan House approved the wholesale tax, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill to roll back a 25% tax increase on recreational cannabis. He approved the measure because the state’s high tax rates have forced thousands of legal businesses to shut down and drove residents to the unregulated market.

    The MCIA is seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the tax while the case moves forward.


    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • State readying what-if plans ahead of possible federal government shutdown

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — State government officials are girding for the possibility of a federal government shutdown, and executive branch leaders have been instructed to summarize concerns about their ability to address payroll concerns and lay out their plans to protect Massachusetts residents and resources.

    “We are asking departments for a quick turnaround, with responses to this memo due on Tuesday, September 30 by 5:00 pm.,” officials in the Office of the Comptroller and the Executive Office of Administration and Finance wrote Sept. 23 in a memo to state chief fiscal officers, budget directors and general counsels.

    Thomas Smith-Vaughan, chief operating officer in the Office of the Comptroller, and Assistant Secretary for Budget Christopher Marino told state officials in the memo that with the federal fiscal year set to begin Oct. 1, Congress has not passed any of the 12 full-year appropriations bills needed to fund the government.

    In the event of a shutdown, they wrote, federal agencies “must discontinue all non-essential discretionary functions until new funding legislation is passed and signed into law” but essential services will continue to function, as well as mandatory spending programs such as Social Security.

    The warning comes as partisan gridlock paralyzes Congress, which has failed to agree on a short-term continuing resolution or full-year appropriations. According to ABC News, members of Congress are on recess until Monday, Sept. 29, giving them just two days to act before the Oct. 1 deadline. With control of the House and Senate split, any funding deal will require bipartisan support — at least 60 votes in the Senate — a threshold that has proven elusive amid disagreements over priorities between Democrats and Republicans.

    The prospect of a shutdown comes as Massachusetts is navigating significant fiscal complexity. The Legislature passed a stream of funding bills earlier this year to address shortfalls in the fiscal 2025 budget, and the state’s $61 billion fiscal 2026 budget signed by Gov. Maura Healey this summer relies heavily on federal dollars.

    About $15.6 billion of the fiscal 2026 budget comes from federal reimbursements and grants, the vast majority of which support MassHealth through Medicaid payments.

    “A shutdown could create challenges for certain spending accounts in the General Federal Grants Fund, revenue collected through federal reimbursement, and for programs run and funded primarily by the federal government,” the memo says.

    Among the programs flagged as vulnerable are Medicaid waiver services at MassHealth and the Department of Developmental Services, the federal highway capital project fund, and Federal Emergency Management Agency grants. These categories align closely with where the state receives the bulk of its federal support.

    An analysis from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation recently estimated that federal cuts to Medicaid alone could have a $100 million impact on the state’s fiscal 2026 budget.

    The memo also notes that “agencies should not assume that additional state funding will be available. Therefore, please identify any state funding that would be required for the state to take on responsibility for critical federal programs and indicate whether and when legislative authorization would be required,” the memo says.

    Departments are being asked to assess their ability to cover bi-weekly payroll for employees currently paid through federal sources.

    A hearing is planned at the State House on Tuesday, the day before the shutdown deadline, where state officials will hear from economists and policy experts about the implications of federal funding shifts on the state’s economy.

    Real gross domestic product increased in the United States at an annual rate of 3.8% in the second quarter, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, after a 0.6% contraction in the first quarter — a sign of economic growth that has yet to resolve underlying fiscal tensions.

    The potential shutdown coincides with a broader retrenchment in federal fiscal commitments, particularly in areas like health care and nutrition assistance, putting further pressure on state-level services.

    Departments in Massachusetts have been through this before. According to the memo, agencies were asked to develop contingency plans in case of federal shutdowns in 2013, 2015, 2019, 2020, 2021, and most recently in 2024.

    “Negotiations are ongoing to attempt to reach a budget deal before the October 1 deadline. However, we must be prepared for the possibility that federal government operations and/or federal funding for many purposes and programs will not be authorized beyond that date,” the memo says.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Norton, Sam Drysdale

    Source link

  • When the White House calls, do state lawmakers listen?

    [ad_1]

    On the eve of the Texas House voting on a new congressional map, President Donald Trump ordered his “Republican friends” in the state legislature to get it to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk “ASAP.”

    They’re taking heed — the state House passed the map on Wednesday and the state Senate is expected to do so this evening, just days after Democrats ended their out-of-state protest and returned to Austin — clearing the way for passage by the end of the week. Trump’s direct message to Texas Republicans is the president applying his standard pressure campaign playbook that has worked on Capitol Hill to a new audience: state lawmakers.

    When Trump wants something, he’ll often directly ask for it himself. And the president really wants to see GOP states take up mid-decade redistricting to carve out more Republican seats.

    Texas Republicans, including Abbott, initially didn’t want to take on the gambit. But the White House forced their hand, setting off a redistricting arms race across the country that Republicans are well-positioned to win. Should states like Indiana, Missouri and Florida move forward with mid-decade mapmaking, Republicans could pick up as many as 10 new seats ahead of the midterms, and it’s unclear at this point if any Democratic-led states beyond California will jump in to blunt the GOP advantages.

    Indiana is the latest target of the White House’s political operation, and Trump’s allies are even making the unusual consideration of backing primaries to Indiana state lawmakers who won’t accept the mission — an unusually direct involvement from a president in a state legislature. Some Indiana Republicans have expressed public resistance to falling in line — like state Rep. Ed Clere, who told POLITICO that “under no circumstances will I vote for a new map.”

    Clere, a longtime member from Southern Indiana, said he doesn’t want to see emergency special sessions called unnecessarily, and he believes too many procedural and legal hurdles stand in the way. “What Texas and California are doing is simply wrong for America,” he said. “It is the political equivalent of the cold war concept of MAD — mutually assured destruction. Indiana needs to take the high road.”

    Democrats are mostly powerless to respond to the White House’s intrusion into state legislatures. “I cannot recall another time that this has happened,” said Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which works to elect Democrats to state legislatures. “At the core here, the president is pressuring these lawmakers to change the maps, because that is the only way that Republicans can win.”

    Indiana Gov. Mike Braun has put the onus on the legislature to take up redistricting. While legislative leaders have not revealed their plans, the pressure campaign is working on the congressional delegation, which one by one has come forward in support. And state lawmakers have been summoned to a White House meeting Aug. 26, according to invitations reviewed by POLITICO, where redistricting will likely be top of the agenda.

    Another state that is surely on the White House’s radar: Ohio, which — unlike the handful of states choosing to remake their maps — is required under state law to redraw its map ahead of 2026. The White House may apply similar pressure to Buckeye Republicans to go for a maximalist approach, as Republicans there debate whether to carve out two or three seats during their process.

    “You have to appreciate the hands-on engagement,” said Indiana Republican strategist Marty Obst, who predicted that Indiana will convene a special session on redistricting. “If [state lawmakers] know that the White House is active, and they know for the president himself this is a top priority, it’s going to be very hard for them not to carry that out.”

    Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s West Wing Playbook: Remaking Government newsletter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Homeowners demand relief from crumbling foundations

    Homeowners demand relief from crumbling foundations

    [ad_1]

    Homeowners clamoring for state help as they deal with the hefty costs of fixing their crumbling foundations, which could eventually render their houses unlivable, called on Gov. Maura Healey Wednesday to wield her executive power to kickstart a potential solution.

    Advocates with Massachusetts Residents Against Crumbling Foundations say they want Healey to issue an executive order to create a committee to develop recommendations on providing assistance for those dealing with crumbling concrete woes. Those recommendations could form the basis for legislation on a relief plan and account, which advocates say would help people who are on the hook for hundreds of thousands dollars in repair or replacement costs for their deteriorating home foundations, caused by pyrite or pyrrhotite minerals.

    “We are asking for the ability to form a committee to start a captive insurance plan or start a plan that would allow us to get assistance to fix these foundations. We are mirroring a plan that’s already in place and working in the state of Connecticut — they’ve replaced over 1,000 homes,” said Cynthia Poirier, an assessor in Brimfield and Holland. “They use a $1 a month surcharge on homeowners’ polices, no more than $12 a year. The first year alone, if we were able to put that together in Massachusetts, we’d raise close to $22 million.”

    A Healey spokesperson did not directly answer a News Service question about whether the governor is willing to issue an executive order sought by advocates.

    “The Healey-Driscoll Administration recognizes the importance of providing support to homeowners whose concrete foundations are crumbling,” Healey spokesperson Karissa Hand said. “We will continue to work together with our partners in the Legislature to evaluate potential solutions that would provide relief to homeowners.”

    Financial relief proposals have failed to gain momentum on Beacon Hill, despite persistent lobbying from affected homeowners.

    The Senate, in its affordable housing bond bill, unanimously adopted an amendment that would have created a crumbling concrete working group and relief fund. The policy did not survive closed-door conference committee negotiations. Amendment sponsors, including Sens. Peter Durant, Ryan Fattman, Michael Moore and Jake Oliveira, joined with advocates outside the State House Wednesday morning.

    Advocates say more than 40 municipalities are affected by what they call the “crumbling foundation crisis” that stymies affected homeowners from selling or refinancing their houses.

    “My position is we have enough money to spend on so many other things and support so many other people, but we need to support the people that have been paying taxes in all of these towns, with these homes that are no fault of their own,” Monson Select Board member Peter Warren said. “And they’re not getting any support.”

    [ad_2]

    Alison Kuznitz

    Source link

  • Michigan Governor Bans Conversion Therapy For LGBTQ Youth

    Michigan Governor Bans Conversion Therapy For LGBTQ Youth

    [ad_1]

    LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The scientifically discredited practice of so-called conversion therapy, which aims to “convert” LGBTQ+ people to heterosexuality or traditional gender expectations, is now banned for minors in Michigan under legislation signed Wednesday by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

    Michigan becomes the 22nd state to outlaw conversion therapy, which state lawmakers defined as any practice or treatment by a mental health professional that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. That does not include counseling that provides assistance to people undergoing a gender transition.

    Whitmer, who is the mother of a member of the LGBTQ community, said in a statement that banning the “horrific practice,” of conversion therapy was necessary to making Michigan a place “where you can be who you are.” She signed an executive directive in 2021 prohibiting the use of state and federal funds for conversion therapy on minors.

    An estimated 15% of LGBTQ minors in Michigan have reported that they have been threatened with or subjected to conversion therapy as of 2022, according to the advocacy group The Trevor Project.

    LGBTQ rights advocates have decried the practice for years, citing research suggesting the practice can increase the risk of suicide and depression.

    The ban was approved by the Michigan Senate last month in a 21-15 vote — with one Republican siding with Democrats — after previously being passed by the state House. Republicans in opposition said the legislation could interfere with the work of mental health professionals.

    Protecting the rights of Michigan’s LGBTQ community has been a priority for Democrats since they took control of the state government earlier this year. In March, lawmakers amended the state’s civil rights act to codify LGBTQ+ protections and permanently outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in the state.

    Lawmakers in Minnesota, where Democrats also seized control earlier this year, passed a similar ban on conversion therapy in April. In Arizona, Gov. Katie Hobbs issued an executive order last month that prohibits state agencies from using funds to promote or facilitate conversion therapy.

    The Human Rights Campaign declared a state of emergency for the LGBTQ+ community in May in response to what it called an “unprecedented and dangerous” spike in discriminatory legislation sweeping statehouses this year. The emergency declaration is the first in the 43-year history of the HRC.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why Not Whitmer?

    Why Not Whitmer?

    [ad_1]

    Why doesn’t Gretchen Whitmer just run for president? Or at least humor the suggestion?

    Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, sat cross-legged on the couch of a darkened TV studio in East Lansing, where a local PBS program called Off the Record is taped—a weird name for an interview show watched by 100,000 people.

    “I know!” agreed Whitmer, who wore a camouflage sweatshirt with Michigangster scripted across the front. We met here on a recent evening for an interview in which I would ask her—on the record—several variants of the above “running for president” question.

    No, of course she is not running for president, Whitmer told me. She 100 percent supports Joe Biden, who is great and vigorous and all of that—and not too old, definitely not too old. She just wants to help him win. Kamala Harris too. Love her!

    Clearly, though, Whitmer was happy to go through the Kabuki of being interrogated over whether she might change her mind. She didn’t bother with the annoyance that many ambitious pols feel compelled to feign—it’s such a hassle—when asked whether they might give the ol’ presidency a look. She giggled at many of my questions. Whitmer seems to genuinely enjoy being a politician, even the ridiculous and absurd parts of it, such as this.

    “So, you’re not running for president,” I said.

    “Correct,” she affirmed.

    “Why not?”

    “Because I just got reelected governor,” she replied, half-smirking. “And I made a commitment to the people of Michigan that I’m gonna fulfill it.” This has been Whitmer’s stock answer since she trounced the Republican Tudor Dixon by 11 points to win reelection last November.

    [Read: The case for a primary challenge to Joe Biden]

    Okay, sure. But a few days earlier, Whitmer had announced plans for a new political-action committee, the Fight Like Hell PAC, named for her oft-stated vow to preserve abortion rights after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. The PAC will allow the governor to raise money for Democrats across the country ahead of 2024—just the kind of thing restless and term-limited statewide leaders do when they are trying to take themselves national.

    And surely Whitmer noticed that, in early June, Biden had taken an unfortunate plunge while onstage during the U.S. Air Force Academy graduation. He was fine, but the viral episode underscored how nerve-racking it can be to watch an octogenarian run for reelection. Presumably Whitmer had also seen that 67 percent of respondents to a recent CBS News poll said they don’t think Biden should seek another term, a figure that includes 75 percent of independents and 42 percent of Democrats.

    No shortage of Democratic colleagues, operatives, and donors has encouraged Whitmer to seek the presidency—and not necessarily to wait until her second term ends. She is one of the top Democrats on the “If Biden backs out” index, and has even been offered up—including by me—as someone who might consider primarying him. Polls show a bipartisan yearning to avoid a Biden-Trump rematch that is not exactly shaping up to be a rolling pageant of joy.

    I followed Whitmer on a series of high-energy events across Michigan last week. She visited a dance studio in Detroit and a sporting-goods store in Lansing, where she signed a bill—the Crown Act—that will make it illegal to discriminate against citizens based on their hair style. “For far too long, we’ve known that hair-based discrimination has been used to deny equal opportunity for Black men and women,” Whitmer said to applause from a heavily Black audience.

    She is deft at pivoting from specific issues to the broader theme of personal freedom, particularly relating to her signature cause, abortion access. “Michigan is a state where we stand up for fundamental rights,” she continued. “Whether it’s the right to make your own decisions about your health and your body, the freedom to feel safe in your community.” Her list also included the freedom to move around. “Fix the damn roads” was Whitmer’s slogan when she first ran for governor, in 2018. After considerable gridlock over how to fund the work, the state’s roads are now plugged with orange construction barrels. “Our new state flower,” she calls them.

    Whitmer’s governing course has been bumpy at times, especially in her first term, when she confronted Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature. To pay for the road repairs, she proposed a 45-cent-per-gallon gas-tax increase—a deeply unpopular idea that quickly crashed. Whitmer would eventually bypass the legislature and pay for the road repairs through several billion dollars in bonds approved by the State Transportation Commission.

    [Read: Why Biden shouldn’t run in 2024]

    A hyperlocal message like “Fix the damn roads” is good for a cheerleader governor but not always a vehicle that travels well. Whitmer is, for better or worse, extremely Michigan—possessed of one of the thickest native accents I’ve heard, a pronounced northern twang that evokes the Upper Peninsula more than Detroit. She’s lived in the state for all of her 51 years: childhood in Lansing and Grand Rapids, college and law school at Michigan State, stints in the state House and Senate, a vacation cottage up north. Her foul-mouthed irreverence, goofy humor, and ability to pound beers and disarm adversaries make her a formidable operator in Lansing.

    “You could drop Gretchen Whitmer anywhere, and she can connect immediately,” Mike Duggan, the longtime mayor of Detroit, told me. “You could be sitting here in Detroit, up in Marquette talking about mining. She listens intently. People feel, like, a bond with her.”

    Across the state, Whitmer is known affectionately as “Big Gretch.” It’s not clear where the moniker started, and Whitmer didn’t love it at first. “There aren’t many women who want ‘Big’ on the front of her nickname,” she told me. But she went with it, in keeping with the ethos of her favorite movie, The Big Lebowski. The governor has embraced the film’s walk-off line—“The Dude abides”—as a personal credo of acceptance and willingness to roll with imperfect circumstances.

    Whitmer achieved national prominence during the pandemic, and it was not all pleasant—including a kidnapping plot against her for which the FBI arrested a motley but heavily armed band of self-styled militia men. Her lockdown policies faced fierce and at times unruly opposition. She was also a target of President Donald Trump, who dismissed her as “that woman from Michigan.” Whitmer took pride in the brush-off, put the quote on a T-shirt, and wore it on TV. Biden’s campaign team vetted her as a possible running mate in 2020. Whitmer said at the time that she was happy in her “dream job,” which is what politicians tend to say while they’re contemplating another one.

    [Gretchen Whitmer: The plot to kidnap me]

    Whitmer has two daughters in college and lives in the governor’s mansion with her second husband, Marc Mallory, a dentist, and their two dogs, a labradoodle (Kevin) and Aussiedoodle (Doug). As a matter of personal bias, I told Whitmer I am supportive of people giving human names to their pets. Or maybe I was just trying to flatter her into answering the question about running for president—crack the door open just a little and spare us this recurrent parade of elderlies.

    Whitmer, obviously, took none of my bait. She kept laughing, though—abided, even. “You know, it’s funny; ‘The Dude abides’—it’s a really wise philosophy,” she observed during our brief detour into film study. “There are just things you can’t control.”

    I took this to mean that Whitmer is ruling nothing out and is willing to adapt to the unforeseen. I pointed out that Americans were starved for new national leaders. Whitmer did not dispute this. Nor have Democrats nominated a fresh face since Barack Obama—and he had to jump the line for that to happen, in 2008, when it was supposed to be Hillary Clinton’s turn. Is Whitmer willing to “fight like hell” to upset the entrenched political order, or is that just a slogan?

    I also mentioned that if the anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can poll as high as 20 percent in the Democratic primary field, then many Democratic voters are clearly open to—even desperate for—someone not named Biden on the ballot. Why not give them a serious alternative?

    [Read: Joe Biden isn’t popular. That might not matter in 2024.]

    “You know, there are a lot of really talented Democratic leaders all across the country,” Whitmer told me. She would be proud to be considered among them.

    What if Biden changes his mind?

    “He’s running!”

    “Okay, but you saw him fall the other day,” I said. “Did your thinking, in that split second before Biden got up, change at all?”

    “No!”

    Whitmer was still laughing at this point, but I might have been pushing things—approaching dark and disrespectful. I had a flight to catch in Detroit, and a long drive from Lansing, with construction to contend with. “We’ll keep talkin’. How’s that?” Whitmer said. “And one of these days, we’ll have a beer. Or three.”

    We left things there, and the Michigangster governor returned to her lane, for now.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Leibovich

    Source link

  • The Most Dangerous Democrat in Iowa

    The Most Dangerous Democrat in Iowa

    [ad_1]

    The third graders were not interested in meeting the state auditor.

    It was career day at Samuelson Elementary School in Des Moines, and Rob Sand had assembled a table in the gymnasium alongside a dozen other grown-ups with jobs. All the other adults had brought props: the man from the bathroom-remodeling company handed out yellow rubber ducks, a local doctor let the kids poke and prod a model heart, and an engineer showed off a long, silly-looking tube that had something to do with the mass production of hot dogs.

    Sand had packed only a stack of fliers, and for an hour, the rail-thin auditor stood alone while most of the children gave him a wide berth. At one point, a little girl with braids approached him cautiously: “What’s auditing?” she asked. Sand was excited. “Auditing, well, it’s about finding the truth,” he told her, crouching down. “And it usually has to do with where money’s going or whether people are following the rules.” But the little girl wasn’t listening anymore. She was staring at the hot-dog tube.

    Sand has spent the past two months practically begging people to care about his job. Iowa Republicans passed a bill in March limiting the auditor’s access to information, against the Democrat’s loud objections, and the governor is expected to sign it soon. People on both sides of the political aisle told me that the bill is a blatantly partisan move meant to defang the last remaining Democrat in a statewide elected position. Republicans in Iowa are so determined to crush their opponents, in other words, that they’re going after a man whose office most of their constituents don’t even know exists.

    But as the lone Democrat in state office, Sand is a glimmer of hope for his party in Iowa, where the past several years have brought only defeat after miserable defeat. “They’re trying to clip his wings, but they paid him a compliment,” David Yepsen, a former chief political reporter at the Des Moines Register, told me, referring to Sand’s Republican adversaries. “He’s [got] an early leg up to be the Democratic nominee” for governor.

    Sand’s office in the Capitol building occupies a stately chain of rooms decorated with the heads of dead animals. I gasped when I walked in, suddenly face-to-face with an enormous bison. “North Star Preserve, Montour, Iowa,” Sand said. He pointed at the other trophies mounted on the walls and recited where in Iowa he’d shot them with his compound bow. “Madison County. Madison County. Des Moines city limits.”

    Sand is a Democrat, but he is a Democrat who hunts. Bowhunting may be a genuine passion, but it’s also part of the myth he’s built up around himself: a duty-bound centrist, who will hold everyone in government to account, no matter their party. He wears camo and seed-company hats. He goes to church every Sunday. He went out of his way to appoint a Republican, a Democrat, and an independent to serve on his leadership team in the auditor’s office.

    Sand often says that he hates political parties, and he constantly paraphrases John Adams: “My greatest fear is two great parties united only in their hatred of each other.” Sand registered as a Democrat in 2004 because of his Christian faith’s social gospel, he said; they do “a better job of looking out for those that are on the bottom rungs of society.”

    The auditor is 40 but looks 20. He’s lanky, with eyes that crinkle at the corners and a big forehead. Good-looking in an impish way, and a little preachy aside from the occasional expletive, Sand is part Pete Buttigieg, part youth pastor. Like Buttigieg, he was a young achiever. He grew up in Decorah, Iowa, then moved East to major in political science at Brown University. Somewhat incongruously, given his down-to-earth image today, Sand did some fashion modeling in college, appearing in runway shows in Paris and Milan. Today, he likes to say that he chose the University of Iowa over Harvard Law for his law degree. He worked for seven years under Democratic Attorney General Tom Miller, for whose office Sand successfully prosecuted, in his 30s, the Hot Lotto scandal, in which a man had rigged lottery tickets in five states.

    Sand can sometimes sound self-righteous—his wife’s brothers refer to him as “Baby Jesus.” But the job of auditor requires being a Goody Two-Shoes about the rules—and having a solid backbone. Sand seems to fit that bill. He didn’t drink until he was 22, and he stopped again for more than a decade as part of a commitment to a friend who was struggling with alcoholism. “He’s kind of a square, and he can come across as a little bit arrogant,” a personal friend of Sand’s, who asked for anonymity to speak more candidly, told me. “But he’s a hugely decent person.”

    Sand’s wife, Christine, the CEO of an agri-science business, comes from a wealthy family; her relatives have provided much of the funding for his campaigns. When Sand first ran, in 2018, his bid was notable for its dad humor—and his pledge to “wake up the watchdog,” bringing more action to the auditor’s office and cracking down hard on waste, fraud, and abuse. He did that: During the coronavirus pandemic, Sand’s office discovered that the Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, had misspent federal relief money on two occasions. But he also defended the governor on other occasions: When some residents accused the Iowa Department of Public Health of fudging COVID numbers, Sand’s office reported that the state’s data were accurate.

    Last year was not a good one for Democrats in Iowa. Sand won his reelection campaign by two-tenths of a percentage point; the two other Democrats in state office—the attorney general and the treasurer, each the longest-serving in their office in Iowa history—were knocked out of their seats. Reynolds was heard on tape in the spring of 2022 saying that she wanted her “own” attorney general and “a state auditor that’s not trying to sue me every time they turn around.”

    The governor got the former. Now her party’s working to deliver the latter.

    GOP lawmakers claimed that the new auditor bill was about protecting privacy. But the final version of the legislation prevents Sand from being able to subpoena state agencies for records. Disputes over information would instead be settled by an arbitration panel comprising one representative from Sand’s office, one from the governor’s office, and one from the agency being audited—most likely someone appointed by the governor. Sand would be outnumbered every time.

    The bill was the punctuation mark at the end of the most consequential legislative session Iowans have seen since 1965, Yepsen said, in which Republican lawmakers dutifully passed almost every item on the governor’s wishlist, including bans on gender-affirming care for minors, prohibitions on sexuality and gender discussions in school, and new limits on SNAP and Medicaid eligibility. Republicans have a lock on the legislature now in Iowa, and they’re using it.

    The auditor bill stands out most, though, for its almost comically obvious targeting of Sand. It is, in the phrase of my colleague David A. Graham, another example of “total politics”—a growing phenomenon in which politicians “use every legal tool at their disposal to gain advantage” without regard for democratic norms or long-term effects. We’ve seen similar moves in Tennessee, where Republicans in the state House expelled two Democrats over their gun-violence protests, and in Montana, where GOP lawmakers are trying to rewrite election laws for a single cycle to make it easier to defeat Democratic Senator Jon Tester.

    Well-respected, nonpolitical organizations such as the American Institute of CPAs and the National State Auditors Association have spoken out against the Iowa bill affecting Sand. Even six Republicans in the Iowa statehouse voted against it: “It opens the door to corruption,” one of them, Luana Stoltenberg, who represents the Davenport district and who attended the pro-Trump Stop the Steal protest near the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, told me. “It doesn’t matter who’s in [the office]—that’s wrong.”

    “If Rob Sand were a Republican, would this bill have been introduced, and would it have passed?” Mike Mahaffey, a former chair of the Iowa Republican Party who endorsed Sand in 2022, told me. “I think we all know—or we can plausibly argue—it probably wouldn’t have.” The legislation is shortsighted, he and other Republicans I talked to agreed. “Some of these Republican legislators (and it’s not just Iowa) are acting like they’ll never be in the minority again,” one Iowa GOP strategist, whom I agreed to grant anonymity so they could speak candidly, texted me.

    But for many Democrats, the Republicans’ targeting of Sand seems less about owning the libs than about neutralizing any political threat, however slight. Right now the auditor “is the entire Democratic bench. He’s their main hope,” Sand’s friend told me. “He’s their Luke Skywalker.”

    The Iowa Democrats’ Luke Skywalker drives a white Ford F-150 pickup, because of course he does. Sand picked me up in it last weekend on his way to two events in the conservative southwest corner of the state. Every year, he holds a town hall for each of Iowa’s 100 county seats; auditors don’t normally do that kind of thing. But Sand thinks it’s important for Iowans to hear what his office is up to. Or maybe he feels it’s important for people to know who he is.

    We stopped in Treynor, population 1,032, for what was billed as a bipartisan fundraising event; most attendees were Republicans, and Sand was one of three Democrats invited to speak. When he walked in, people flocked to him with questions. “Oh, Rob,” Shawnna Silvius, the mayor of nearby Red Oak, said. “You’ve really been going through it out there. You’re like a lone swan.” Sand laughed: “I haven’t gotten ‘lone swan’ before.”

    I watched as the auditor mingled for a while, looking fairly comfortable despite the fact that at least two of the lawmakers who’d voted to limit his power were sitting at a nearby table. People were finishing up their pork chops and cheesy potatoes when it was Sand’s turn to speak. He walked up to the podium, and went for it.

    The auditor bill “is a disaster in waiting for this state,” Sand told the room. Everyone was silent. He laid out the changes that the new legislation would make, and the consequences those changes would have. “The purpose of the Office of the Auditor of State is to prevent abuses of power that destroy our trust in our ability to have a system where we govern ourselves,” Sand concluded. “That was a revolutionary idea a little while back. If we want to keep it, we need to maintain those checks and balances.”

    When Sand finished, everyone clapped. A few Republicans came up to ask questions. They had no idea the bill did this, they said. How could they help? Was it too late? Sand wrote down his email and handed out business cards. He urged them all to reach out to the governor, share their concerns, and ask her not to sign the bill. “I didn’t vote for you,” one woman told Sand. “But I would have.”

    When we got back in the truck, I asked Sand what the point of all of it was. Of course Reynolds would sign. Was he possibly that naive? “Even if it’s finished, and the bill is done, this is really fucking important,” Sand said. People “need to know what is going on.” We sat while he thought out loud about whether anyone in that room would actually reach out to the governor, or email him to ask more questions—whether they’d care enough to follow through. “How else do I do this?” he asked me. “What else am I supposed to do?”

    Sand has been making many such speaking visits lately—and posting regularly on Twitter and Instagram—to broadcast his concerns to Iowans. But this moment has also provided an opportunity for Sand to broadcast himself. It’s obvious that he has bigger political ambitions. You can tell, in part, because he’s so eager to market himself. When a New York Times reporter asked him for suggestions of interesting Iowans to profile in 2020, Sand proposed that she write about him. He has taken at least two national reporters with him on hunting trips, just as he invited me along to watch as he stood up for his current cause. When I met Sand last week, he told me he was reading The Man From Ida Grove, the autobiography of Harold Hughes, a former Democratic senator and governor of the state—a little on the nose.

    Sand said he had thought about challenging Reynolds in 2022, but didn’t run because he didn’t want to miss out on time with his two young sons. Left unsaid was the political reality that last year would have been a terrible year to run. Reynolds crushed her Democratic opponent, Deidre DeJear, by nearly 20 points. Sand would probably have done better, but maybe not by much.

    He doesn’t have to decide now. Reynolds isn’t up for reelection until 2026, and by then, she may have decided not to run again—or maybe, if a Republican becomes the next president, she’ll have accepted a federal appointment. If Sand does run, he’ll have some trends in his favor: Most Iowa governors also grew up in small towns and served at least a term in public office. “In the field of Iowa Democrats, he’s the shiny light, and we don’t have a lot of light switches on right now,” Jan Norris, the chair of the Montgomery County Democrats, told me.

    But the broader political current would be pushing against him. For decades, Iowa was purple. Voters here sent Democrat Tom Harkin and Republican Chuck Grassley to the Senate, together, every chance they had. But in 2016, 31 counties that Barack Obama had won twice swung to Donald Trump—more than in any other state in the union. Six years later, Iowa elected an entirely Republican delegation to Congress for the first time in more than 60 years. Sand might have had a good shot at the governor’s mansion in that old version of Iowa. Whether he would in this one is not clear.

    “His fate is tied to the macro picture of what’s going on in the Midwest,” Yepsen, the former reporter, told me. Rural America is getting redder, and that’s a serious problem for Democrats, even one as demonstrably centrist as Sand. “Harry Truman couldn’t get elected anymore in Missouri,” Yepsen said. “George McGovern couldn’t win in South Dakota.”

    Our final stop on the truck tour of southwest Iowa was a church in Red Oak, population 5,362, where Sand gave a quick pep talk to the Montgomery County Democrats. He was casual, calm. He rolled up his sleeves and sat on the edge of a folding table to face them—youth-pastor mode. “Losing sucks—and that is what we have been doing at the top of the ticket for the last 10 years,” Sand acknowledged to the group of mostly older Iowans.

    One man asked what three issues Sand would emphasize if he were in charge of messaging for the Iowa Democratic Party. The auditor bill, Sand replied. People nodded. Plus the private-school vouchers and the way that Republicans are “criminalizing abortion.” The attendees took notes as Sand described an app they could download called MiniVAN that would help them with their door-knocking efforts.

    Sand urged the group of Democrats to have hope. He rattled off some stats: There were more split-ticket voters in Iowa than in any other competitive state in 2022, outside of Vermont. More than 48 percent of Iowans voted for three Democrats for statewide office in November. Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart lost her race in the Second Congressional District by only six votes in 2020—one of the closest House races in American history. Hearing it all, group members seemed to sit up taller in their chairs, like wilting plants getting a little water.

    “Democrats can win in the state of Iowa,” Sand said. “I’m not a unicorn.” But in Iowa, right now, he sort of is.

    [ad_2]

    Elaine Godfrey

    Source link

  • A World Without Chuck Grassley in the Senate?

    A World Without Chuck Grassley in the Senate?

    [ad_1]

    The long-serving Senator Chuck Grassley is, for lack of a comparison closer to home, Iowa’s Queen Elizabeth II. This is partly a matter of sheer longevity. At 89, the senator is older than John Deere’s first self-propelled combine, which appeared in 1947. He was 26 when Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and the Big Bopper died in a plane crash in 1959. The year Kevin Costner filmed Field of Dreams in Dyersville, 1988, Grassley was 55.

    Age aside, Grassley is simply a part of Iowa’s political furniture—many voters in the state have never known a time without him. When I was born, in 1993, he’d been the state’s senior senator for 12 years; he has held elected office—first in the state House, then in the U.S. House and Senate—since my father was 4 years old. For many Iowans, the day when Grassley would not be their senator has been scarcely imaginable.

    Until now, maybe. Every six years, Iowa Democrats have inched closer to unseating the seven-term Republican senator. This time, they seem closer than ever: A recent poll showed Grassley leading 64-year-old Mike Franken only narrowly, suggesting that this will be Grassley’s toughest reelection fight in four decades.

    Twelve years ago, he defeated Roxanne Conlin by 31 points. In 2016, he beat Patty Judge by 24. This year’s race against Franken didn’t seem particularly newsworthy until earlier this month, when Selzer & Company, Iowa’s most respected polling firm, released results from a survey showing that Grassley was leading Franken by a mere three percentage points. “It says to me that Franken is running a competent campaign and has a shot to defeat the seemingly invincible Chuck Grassley—previously perceived to be invincible,” J. Ann Selzer, the president of Selzer & Company, told the Des Moines Register.

    The poll is only a snapshot in time, and it could certainly prove wrong. But it’s reasonable to assume, given other polling since then, that Franken is closer to unseating Grassley than any challenger before him. The most obvious reason for this is that Iowans may finally be noticing how old their senator is—a veritable crinoid in the creek bed of Iowa politics. Although Grassley seems healthy—he runs several miles each morning and kicks off campaign events by doing push-ups onstage—more than 60 percent of the Selzer poll’s respondents said his age was a real concern. “There are a lot of voters between 75 and 85 who think, I wouldn’t want to be in the United States Senate right now. I wouldn’t want to have that life; why does he?” Jeff Link, an Iowa Democratic strategist, told me.

    For the first time in the history of this particular poll, more Iowan respondents disapprove of Grassley’s job performance than approve of it. Pair that dissatisfaction with the fact that Franken is a strong candidate. A retired Navy vice admiral from deep-red northwest Iowa, the Democrat could provide a nonthreatening alternative for the independents and Republicans who are reluctant to give Grassley another term. Franken “is energetic, very smart—almost loquacious—but he knows what he’s talking about,” David Oman, a state Republican strategist and a former co-chair of the Iowa GOP, told me. Despite that positive assessment, the recent emergence of an assault allegation from a former campaign manager might cool Democrats’ enthusiasm. (Franken has denied the allegation, and police have closed the case, calling it “unfounded.”)

    Undergirding all of these factors is the plain reality that Iowa, like the rest of the country, is becoming more partisan and more polarized. For 30 years, Iowans sent both Grassley and a Democrat, Tom Harkin, who retired in 2014, to the Senate at every chance, no matter which party was in the White House or who was occupying the governor’s mansion. The consensus among Iowans was that such a balance was ideal. But the days of winning big by being part of that balance are over.

    Grassley has changed, too. Back then, he was viewed as a kind of farmers-first independent, interested chiefly in restraining federal spending, whistleblower protections, and promoting free trade. Democrats liked him—and often voted for him. In 1991, Grassley was one of just two Republicans to vote against the Gulf War. “That made him seem above partisanship,” David Yepsen, a former reporter for the Des Moines Register, told me. Grassley’s image, among Iowans, was of a man who operated above the partisan fray.

    That gloss began to wear off in 2009. At first, Grassley seemed a willing negotiating partner on President Barack Obama’s plans for health-care reform; he worked for months on a bipartisan bill. But he hadn’t bargained for how unpopular the Affordable Care Act would be with his party’s base. During a tour of central Iowa that summer, Grassley was mobbed by Republicans and Tea Partiers who rejected the plan. He buckled under the pressure, abandoned the talks, and ultimately voted against the final bill. “He’d never been treated that way by his own party. It changed him,” Yepsen said. “It made him mindful that there’s a new kind of conservative out there, a new generation coming on—the populists.” And he responded accordingly.

    In the ensuing years, Grassley came to recognize that there were fewer and fewer points to be earned by working across the aisle. In 2016, as the chair of the Judiciary Committee, he was party to the Senate’s refusal to give Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing, and along with Republican leadership, he held open more than 100 seats on the federal bench during the final months of the Obama administration for Donald Trump to fill. “You can’t underestimate Democrats in Iowa watching his leadership in the Judiciary Committee putting all these conservatives on the Court, and seeing them now do their thing on the Dobbs decision,” Yepsen said. “Conservatives love it. But it makes him much more of a partisan.”

    Whether Grassley would support the candidacy of Donald Trump was initially an open question. The womanizing, scandal-plagued Republican presidential nominee seemed, after all, to be the Iowa senator’s bizarro opposite. Yet Grassley, like most others in the GOP, fell in line. He has stuck by Trump through vulgar comments and allegations. In 2019, Grassley—an actual author of the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act—defended Trump’s firing of the whistleblower and impeachment witness Alexander Vindman. Lately, Grassley has broken from his party only a handful of times, including to gently push back on some of Trump’s “America First” protectionist trade policies and to support the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure bill. The senator seems altogether untroubled by Trump’s effort to discredit the 2020 election, and continues to appear alongside him at rallies.

    “The way that [Grassley] didn’t stand up for much of anything is emblematic of the Republican Party in the years of Trump,” Bill Kristol, the editor at large of The Bulwark, told me. “People you thought would be independent just ended up going along.”

    Nowadays, the way Iowans view Grassley simply reflects their politics, not some old-timey desire for balance and comity. Democrats see him as an utter disappointment—a caricature of the man they may once have disagreed with but at least respected. Some Republicans are pleased with the careful line he’s walked, embracing Trump while hanging on to moderates. For other Republicans, Grassley is not nearly MAGA enough. This year, for the first time in his Senate career, Grassley faced a primary challenger. Jim Carlin, a state senator who has criticized Grassley for voting to certify the results of the 2020 election, earned 26 percent of the primary vote.

    Given this transformation in how Iowans regard Grassley, defeat at the hands of a Democrat is more plausible than it’s ever been. More plausible, but still not likely. The Selzer poll may have given Franken a jolt of momentum, including a burst of Hail Mary fundraising, but the state is reddening and the gap in party registration is wide and growing: The Iowa GOP has roughly 88,000 more registered voters this year than the Iowa Democratic Party, according to the Iowa secretary of state’s office. In 2020, that advantage was only about 20,000. This gap, combined with the historical precedent of higher Republican turnout in off-year elections, seems likely to add up to a Grassley victory. The numbers are “hugely problematic,” Jeff Link, the Democratic strategist, said—even for a three-star admiral.

    A world without Chuck Grassley in power is one in which most Iowans have never actually lived. That may be why “Faith in adversity” has recently become the unofficial motto of the state’s Democrats. This year, they even decided to put it on a sign. Orange placards dapple grassy lawns throughout Iowa, each bearing a message of hopeful conviction—We believe Michael Franken will defeat Chuck Grassley, the signs say—as though they can speak such a mammoth upset into existence.

    [ad_2]

    Elaine Godfrey

    Source link