ReportWire

Tag: State Senate

  • Is Texas turning blue? What a Democratic upset means — and doesn’t | Opinion

    [ad_1]

    Democrat Taylor Rehmet meets with supporters at his watch party at Nickel City in Fort Worth on Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025. Rehmet is headed for a runoff for the District 9 Senate seat.

    Democrat Taylor Rehmet meets with supporters at his watch party at Nickel City in Fort Worth on Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025. Rehmet is headed for a runoff for the District 9 Senate seat.

    edearman@star-telegram.com

    AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.

    Read our AI Policy.


    • Democrats won a surprise Tarrant County race, signaling new competitiveness in Texas.
    • Taylor Rehmet’s win relied on turnout and special-election quirks, not a statewide shift.
    • Republicans can regroup with resources and infrastructure, blunting Democrats statewide.

    Lightning finally struck Saturday for Texas Democrats.

    But you know the old saying about it hitting the same place twice.

    The party won a state Senate seat that should not have even been competitive, based on all the usual factors in politics. Taylor Rehmet, a previously unknown first-time candidate, stared down everyone from the president to the prevailing powers in Tarrant County politics. Republican Leigh Wambsganss had advantages in demographics, campaign resources and high-level connections that seemed sure to yield a comfortable win.

    All eyes in politics will gawk at Texas for a while. And they should. It’s well understood that Tarrant County is a bellwether for the state. If one of the largest Republican-dominated counties in the country is newly competitive, that changes political calculations from the courthouse and the statehouse to the White House.

    But is Rehmet’s victory replicable? It doesn’t matter much who the state senator is in District 9 for the next year. He’ll fill out an unexpired term for a stretch when the Legislature won’t even meet.

    What everyone wants to know is if Rehmet’s accomplishment can carry over to other races, perhaps for Congress or even statewide offices, where Republicans are on a 30-year winning streak.

    Tarrant County Democrats worked hard to take advantage of an unexpected opportunity. They displayed the acumen and effort required to overcome decades in the wilderness. They also caught almost every possible break in an unusual set of circumstances. Consider:

    Strong turnout. Democratic voters, seething at President Donald Trump and his Texas allies, turned out strongly for a special election, usually a sleepy affair. Rehmet managed a solid, if not spectacular, fundraising haul. He exercised a sound strategy and impressive message discipline, talking about meat-and-potato issues at the top of voters’ minds: Jobs and wages, inflation, and health care access and costs.

    Special election circumstances and luck. Rehmet got lucky. Wambsganss was weakened in the first round of voting when former Southlake Mayor John Huffman peeled off some of the GOP vote. Saturday’s runoff was the only contest on most ballots, allowing for a focused effort.

    Weird timing. What’s this about a January election? With campaigns for the March 3 primary also underway, voters were confused. Wambsganss, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Tarrant Republican leaders had to shout from the rooftops that this wasn’t the primary and voters needed to turn out on a cold Saturday.

    November ballot will be different for Texas Republicans

    Such factors won’t be at play in November. Prominent Republicans will be all over the ballot, led by an unbeatable Gov. Greg Abbott and his nine-figure campaign war chest. Democrats have a few primaries to settle and don’t know yet which, if any, of their candidates can run like Rehmet.

    Plus, Republicans will learn the lessons of this loss. They didn’t come to dominate the state by accident. It took years of planning, building campaign infrastructure and honing strong messages. It’s not the kind of thing that Democrats can match in nine months.

    Energized Democrats nationwide will pour money into the possibility of winning Texas. They’ve done so several times with less reason to hope than Rehmet’s victory provides. If they merely send tens of millions of dollars for the party’s U.S. Senate nominee to spend on TV and digital ads, that won’t do it.

    Rehmet didn’t win because he could saturate air waves, social media feeds and mailboxes. The party needs an infrastructure to help do that regularly and provide a framework for reliable voter turnout. Even if Democratic candidates aren’t up to snuff this year, it may be an opportunity to build the ship for better choices to pilot in 2028 and beyond.

    How Leigh Wambsganss lost Texas Senate runoff

    There’s also this: Wambsganss was far from the ideal candidate for this moment.

    Republicans selected a standard-bearer laden down with political baggage. Wambsganss was weighed down by her leadership in a far-right Christian conservative movement through a political committee that spent years targeting school board races. That kind of local activity won’t get much attention on the Sunday news shows, but it came to a head last year, when Keller school board members badly overreached with their attempt to split the district in half. Plenty of voters remembered.

    Republican Leigh Wambsganss speaks to supporters at Niki’s Italian Bistro in North Richland Hills after she advanced to a runoff for the District 9 Senate seat on Nov. 4, 2025. She was joined by District Attorney Phil Sorrells and District Clerk Tom Wilder.
    Republican Leigh Wambsganss speaks to supporters at Niki’s Italian Bistro in North Richland Hills after she advanced to a runoff for the District 9 Senate seat on Nov. 4, 2025. She was joined by District Attorney Phil Sorrells and District Clerk Tom Wilder. Eleanor Dearman edearman@star-telegram.com

    Wambsganss was MAGA to the point of absurdity, embracing nationalist cartoon character Steve Bannon, a former Trump aide. She tried to coast on her endorsement from Trump, likely engineered by Patrick without the president knowing much about Wambsganss or the race.

    She ran on issues that have worked for Texas Republicans for years: Cut property taxes, defend gun rights, secure the border and protect women and girls on gender issues.

    The problem is that GOP voters feel as if those wins are banked. “Maintain the status quo” isn’t much of a slogan. Independents, meanwhile, are worried more about their checkbooks than school library books.

    When the race changed, Wambsganss didn’t adjust well enough. She painted Rehmet as a dangerous liberal, highlighting stances of his that haven’t gotten much attention. By then, though, his identity was better established than most Texas Democratic candidates.

    In closing days, Wambsganss’ message was less about why she would be a good senator and more of a direct partisan appeal, warning local Republicans of the caliber of disaster indicated by a Democratic upset in their community.

    She even compared the race to the Alamo. Setting aside the faux pas of using that sacred battle to measure a run-of-the-mill legislative election, Wambsganss seemed to forget how that chapter in Texas history went.

    It ended up being a rallying point, and perhaps this will similarly lead Texas Republicans to stave off the most serious sustained barrage from Democrats in a long while.

    But the Alamo battle itself? It was a loss.

    Do you have an opinion on this topic? Tell us!

    We love to hear from Texans with opinions on the news — and to publish those views in the Opinion section.

    • Letters should be no more than 150 words.

    • Writers should submit letters only once every 30 days.

    • Include your name, address (including city of residence), phone number and email address, so we can contact you if we have questions.

    You can submit a letter to the editor two ways:

    • Email letters@star-telegram.com (preferred).

    • Fill out this online form.

    Please note: Letters will be edited for style and clarity. Publication is not guaranteed. The best letters are focused on one topic.

    Related Stories from Fort Worth Star-Telegram

    Ryan J. Rusak is opinion editor of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. He grew up in Benbrook and is a TCU graduate. He spent more than 15 years as a political journalist, overseeing coverage of four presidential elections and several sessions of the Texas Legislature. He writes about Fort Worth/Tarrant County politics and government, along with Texas and national politics, education, social and cultural issues, and occasionally sports, music and pop culture. Rusak, who lives in east Fort Worth, was recently named Star Opinion Writer of the Year for 2024 by Texas Managing Editors, a news industry group.

    [ad_2]

    Ryan J. Rusak

    Source link

  • Michigan’s proposed cannabis caps could hurt consumers and small cities that rely on weed revenue  – Detroit Metro Times

    [ad_1]

    After delivering a serious blow to Michigan’s already struggling cannabis industry by imposing a 24% wholesale tax, state lawmakers are now trying to make amends with a set of bills aimed at limiting competition in the oversaturated market.

    Democrats who control the state Senate introduced a set of bills on Oct. 2 that would impose limits on new dispensaries and eliminate new large cultivation licenses. 

    While the legislation would benefit many established businesses, it would hurt consumers and smaller cities like Hazel Park and Ferndale by reducing tax revenue, eliminating cannabis jobs, and paving the way for regional monopolies, according to state analyses obtained by Metro Times

    Senate Bill 597, introduced by state Sens. Sam Singh, D-East Lansing, and Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield, would limit each municipality to one dispensary for every 10,000 residents. If approved, the legislation would prevent the state Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) from approving new dispensary licenses in municipalities that already exceed the limit. Municipalities with fewer than 10,000 residents would be limited to one retail license. 

    The bill wouldn’t force existing dispensaries to close, but once one shuts down, it couldn’t be replaced until the municipality falls below the cap. 

    On Oct. 15, the Senate Regulatory Affairs Committee voted 11-0 in favor of the bill that would cap new dispensaries. 

    The caps would defy the voter-approved initiative that legalized recreational marijuana in Michigan in 2018 and called for unlimited cannabis licenses. 

    When voters approved recreational cannabis in 2018, the ballot initiative called for unlimited business licenses. So any change to the initiative would require a three-quarter supermajority in the Senate and House. 

    While many in the industry support the legislation, it threatens smaller cities like Hazel Park (pop. 19,431), Ferndale (pop. 15,064), and Inkster (pop. 25,108), which have become cannabis hubs and rely on the tax revenue. Hazel Park has 10 dispensaries, Ferndale has six, and Inkster has seven, according to CRA records. The new legislation would limit Hazel Park and Ferndale to one dispensary each and Inkster to two.

    Cash-strapped municipalities have come to rely on cannabis revenue. With a 10% excise tax on recreational cannabis sales, hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to local governments, schools, and roads since 2020. 

    Municipalities shared nearly $100 million from excise taxes collected last year, according to the Michigan Department of Treasury. For each dispensary within their boundaries, cities and townships receive more than $58,000 annually.

    This year, Hazel Park received $582,300, a major source of revenue for a city with rapidly rising pension obligations. Without that money, the city “would have had to make cuts in services or pass those costs on to taxpayers,” Hazel Park City Manager Edward Klobucher told Metro Times in 2024

    Ferndale received $349,400 in excise tax revenue, and Inkster collected $407,600.  

    An Oct. 13 analysis by the Senate Fiscal Agency warns that a cap on licenses will harm small cities and towns and “create regional monopolies or oligopolies preventing new businesses from entering the marijuana market.”

    The agency points out that larger cities like Detroit have not yet reached their dispensary limit, but smaller municipalities have. In Detroit, which has a population of 645,705, there are 61 active dispensary licenses. The city’s cap would be 64.  

    “If small cities and villages were prevented from increasing the number of dispensaries while larger cities were not, there would be a shift of payments from small towns to larger cities,” the report states. 

    The legislation would also bar new large cultivation licenses that permit operators to grow as many as 2,000 plants. 

    The bills came in response to a new 24% wholesale tax that will be slapped on the struggling cannabis industry beginning on Jan. 1. With no feedback from the industry or consumers, the House approved the bill 78-21 in late September, and the Senate narrowly approved the tax 19-17 after cannabis business owners spoke out. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed the tax into law on Oct. 7.

    Hours later, the Michigan Cannabis Industry Association filed a lawsuit against the state, alleging the Senate lacked the three-quarters supermajority required to change a voter-approved initiative. Voters agreed to a 10% excise tax and 6% sales tax on retail cannabis sales. Any new or higher tax, the association contends, amounts to an amendment of the ballot measure and therefore needs a supermajority vote.

    Records obtained by Metro Times show lawmakers knew the increase was going to harm the industry and ultimately lead to a drop in excise taxes. On Sept. 26, a day after the House approved the tax hike with no public input, the Michigan Department of Treasury estimated the new tax will shrink the wholesale market by 14%.  

    By the state’s own estimates, lawmakers are harming cities that have embraced cannabis legalization and leaving consumers with higher prices and fewer choices. 

    At the same time, cannabis businesses are struggling to hang on in an industry that has more product than it can sell. Prices have plummeted, and sales continue to decline this year. Profit margins are razor thin, and many businesses have closed or are on the cusp of calling it quits. 

    Reducing competition would control oversupply and help existing businesses survive in a tough, competitive, and expensive industry, advocates say. 

    At a Senate Regulatory Affairs Committee meeting on Oct. 15, Moss blamed the wholesale tax vote on House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township. 

    “He said he would shut down the government if the 24% didn’t pass,” Moss said. 

    Moss pledged the Senate would “demonstrate in good faith that we are serious about listening to the industry,” which he said was “struggling with too many operators both in the grow and retail space, leading to unprofitability of product.”

    Robin Schneider, executive director of the Michigan Cannabis Industry Association, which represents more than 400 cannabis businesses, told the committee that her organization supports the limit on new dispensaries and large-scale cultivation licenses. She said the surplus of marijuana has created “stockpiles of cannabis that are currently sitting in facilities, rapidly losing value across the state.”

    “Unlimited cultivation licenses have created oversupply, causing wholesale prices to plummet, financially harming businesses all the way down the supply chain,” Schneider told the committee. “As we’ve seen in other states, unlimited cannabis production in the license market leads to failing businesses and sometimes diversion of product into the illicit market, and that puts our entire program at risk of federal noncompliance.” 

    But not all cannabis operators support the cap on licenses. At Alien Tech Farms, a relatively new grower of high-quality cannabis in Vassar, a small city of 2,727 located outside of Flint, the goal was to eventually open a dispensary. But Vassar already has more than one dispensary for every 10,000 residents, so opening one there would be impossible if the cap is passed. 

    “This would effectively freeze us all out from vertically integrating or expanding,” Alien Tech Farms owner Steve Wagner said. “That would be pretty tough. … It’s now feeling like we can’t go anywhere.”

    He added, “The little guys are seemingly stomped on.”

    It’s not yet clear if lawmakers can round up enough votes for a supermajority to approve the bills.


    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Former California Senate leader Toni Atkins drops out of 2026 governor’s race

    [ad_1]

    Toni Atkins, a former California Assembly speaker and former president pro tempore of the State Senate, is withdrawing her campaign to become the state’s next governor.She was among the crowded pool of Democrats hoping to take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s place once he terms out in 2026. In California, one can only hold the office of governor for two terms.In a Monday message to her supporters, she said it’s important that California Democrats be united in response to President Donald Trump’s policies.”That’s why it’s with such a heavy heart that I’m stepping aside today as a candidate for governor,” Atkins said. “Despite the strong support we’ve received and all we’ve achieved, there is simply no viable path forward to victory. Though my campaign is ending, I will keep fighting for California’s future.”Atkins is considered an LGBTQ+ trailblazer and was the lead author of a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion in California. Voters approved the measure in 2022. “Toni Atkins’ run in this race is only the latest chapter in a career defined by trustworthy service and lifting up others – a legacy that will continue to shape California for generations to come,” shared the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus in a statement, in part. “As the first openly LGBTQ+ individual and woman to lead both houses of our State Legislature, and as a proud member of our Caucus, Toni has shattered barriers once thought unbreakable and led with compassion, courage, and conviction. We were proud to support her campaign for governor because it was more than a candidacy – it was a powerful testament to how far our community has come and a beacon for what is possible.”Her withdrawal makes her the second prominent Democrat to drop out of the race, with current Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis announcing her dropped gubernatorial campaign in August.Former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris spent this past summer mulling a run for governor before ultimately deciding against it.Even with Atkins out, several Democrats are still in the race. They include:Former U.S. House Rep. Katie PorterState Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony ThurmondFormer U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier BecerraFormer Los Angeles Mayor Antonio VillaraigosaCalifornia Democratic Party Vice Chair Betty YeeFormer California Assembly Majority Leader Ian CalderonU.S. Sen. Alex Padilla told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala that he is also not ruling out a run for governor. His term ends in 2029.| RELATED | The full list of who’s running for California governorThe two prominent Republicans are Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton.According to a Berkeley IGS Poll last month, Porter held a small lead as first choice, but nearly twice as many voters were undecided.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Toni Atkins, a former California Assembly speaker and former president pro tempore of the State Senate, is withdrawing her campaign to become the state’s next governor.

    She was among the crowded pool of Democrats hoping to take Gov. Gavin Newsom’s place once he terms out in 2026. In California, one can only hold the office of governor for two terms.

    In a Monday message to her supporters, she said it’s important that California Democrats be united in response to President Donald Trump’s policies.

    “That’s why it’s with such a heavy heart that I’m stepping aside today as a candidate for governor,” Atkins said. “Despite the strong support we’ve received and all we’ve achieved, there is simply no viable path forward to victory. Though my campaign is ending, I will keep fighting for California’s future.”

    Atkins is considered an LGBTQ+ trailblazer and was the lead author of a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion in California. Voters approved the measure in 2022.

    “Toni Atkins’ run in this race is only the latest chapter in a career defined by trustworthy service and lifting up others – a legacy that will continue to shape California for generations to come,” shared the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus in a statement, in part. “As the first openly LGBTQ+ individual and woman to lead both houses of our State Legislature, and as a proud member of our Caucus, Toni has shattered barriers once thought unbreakable and led with compassion, courage, and conviction. We were proud to support her campaign for governor because it was more than a candidacy – it was a powerful testament to how far our community has come and a beacon for what is possible.”

    Her withdrawal makes her the second prominent Democrat to drop out of the race, with current Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis announcing her dropped gubernatorial campaign in August.

    Former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris spent this past summer mulling a run for governor before ultimately deciding against it.

    Even with Atkins out, several Democrats are still in the race. They include:

    • Former U.S. House Rep. Katie Porter
    • State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond
    • Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra
    • Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
    • California Democratic Party Vice Chair Betty Yee
    • Former California Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon

    U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla told KCRA 3’s Ashley Zavala that he is also not ruling out a run for governor. His term ends in 2029.

    | RELATED | The full list of who’s running for California governor

    The two prominent Republicans are Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton.

    According to a Berkeley IGS Poll last month, Porter held a small lead as first choice, but nearly twice as many voters were undecided.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Whitmer’s 24% cannabis tax plan alarms struggling industry – Detroit Metro Times

    [ad_1]

    Michigan’s cannabis industry is already struggling from plunging prices, layoffs, and shuttered dispensaries and cultivators. 

    Now Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is pushing a whopping 24% wholesale tax on marijuana products that business owners warn will accelerate closures and drive customers to the illicit market. 

    With little to no warning to the cannabis industry or its consumers, the state House on Thursday voted 78-21 to approve the tax, which is projected to raise $420 million a year. But industry leaders say that estimate ignores the inevitable loss in revenue from losing customers, dispensaries, and cultivators. 

    The tax hike was a bipartisan effort, with 10 Republicans and 11 Democrats voting against it. 

    As early as Tuesday, the state Senate will take up the bill, and some cannabis business leaders are in Lansing on Monday to urge senators to vote against the tax. They are also planning to protest outside the state Capitol on Tuesday.

    “This is going to be a nail in the coffin, especially for mom and pops,” says 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 his Refinery location in Kalamazoo, sales are down 70% over the past 18 months, he says.  

    “It has been horrendous,” Farrell tells Metro Times. “We had to lay off employees.” 

    Michigan’s recreational market is already taxed more than any industry in the state. Cannabis consumers pay a 10% excise tax and a 6% sales tax.  

    If approved, the tax increase will drive people to the illicit market, further harming the legal market and exposing consumers to untested, unregulated marijuana, cannabis businesses say.

    “It’s going to make the illicit market more affordable by a wide margin, and the tax revenue will escape the state completely,” Jesse Rose, founder of Exotic Matter, a flower and rosin cultivator, tells Metro Times. “It’s going to create a bigger black market. It’s funny that some politicians would be in support of that.”

    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.

    A 2024 report by California’s Department of Cannabis Control estimated that licensed growers supplied only about 38% of the cannabis consumed in the state, meaning roughly 62% came from the illicit market. 

    For whatever reason, state lawmakers aren’t learning from California’s troubles. 

    “We’ve already seen this story play out. California taxed the crap out of operators,” says Seth Miller, co-owner of Growing Pains. “Wise people are able to learn from others’ mistakes, not their own.”  

    Miller says the tax increase lacks “foresight” because it will ultimately erode state revenue by leading to a loss in payroll taxes and other sources of revenue. 

    “It’s going to stifle business, job growth, and income taxes,” Miller says. “I think it’s shortsighted.”

    Bill “Chocolate” Anderson, owner of the Refinery dispensary in Detroit and the cultivator Hytek agrees, pointing out that consumers are already under water with inflation and the economy. 

    “If the 24% tax is approved, it will crater the market,” Anderson says. “We’ll have one of the highest tax rates in the nation. It will slow everything down. Less weed will sell. The market is so fickle. A few dollars to the customer is a big deal.”

    Welcome to The Straight Dope, a weekly series that explores…


    While Whitmer and state lawmakers target the cannabis industry, legislators have not touched the 4% liquor tax since it was set in 1985. That may be because the liquor industry has one of the most powerful lobbies and has donated heavily to Whitmer and other lawmakers. 

    “It seems like they are picking on us because we don’t have the lobbyists that other industries do,” Anderson says. “They aren’t going after alcohol and tobacco.”

    The state’s Cannabis Regulatory Agency charges up to $24,000 a year just for a license. The fines for cannabis business violations are also far more punitive than those imposed on the liquor industry. On average, fines against cannabis businesses have exceeded $150,000 a month. By contrast, liquor fines generally don’t surpass $300 because lawmakers capped the penalties in 1998.   

    The tax hike defies the intent of voters who legalized recreational cannabis in 2018 as part of a ballot measure. The initiative required a 10% excise tax and 6% sales tax on cannabis sales. Cannabis advocates wanted to keep the rate relatively low to undercut the black market and ensure the legal market is thriving. 

    The proposed tax increase “is a slap in the face to the cannabis industry and voters,” says Nick Hannawa, partner and chief legal counsel of Puff Cannabis, which has 11 dispensaries and a 30,000-plant outdoor grow. 

    “It’s very sad. They are out of touch,” Hannawa says of lawmakers, noting they “snuck in” the tax increase in the House. “It’s totally unfair to a struggling industry. We are already taxed more harshly than any other industry in the country.”

    If the bill is ultimately approved, cannabis business owners plan to file a lawsuit against the state, arguing that lawmakers are barred from imposing a tax increase. Because recreational cannabis was approved as part of a ballot measure, any changes by the Legislature must pass with a three-fourths supermajority in both the House and Senate. 

    Whitmer is trying to get around that requirement by imposing a tax on wholesalers, instead of cannabis sales. But cannabis business leaders don’t accept that. 

    “We are not going to roll over and die,” Miller says. “I think this is unconstitutional. I can see this going to the state Supreme Court.”

    Cannabis industry experts estimate that a third of the sales in Michigan — or about $1 billion a year — come from border states like Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin in pursuit of lower prices. But the new 24% tax wouldn’t make the trip worthwhile, cannabis business owners say. 

    “A lot of Michigan’s revenue comes from these bordering states because we have lower taxes,” Steve Mayo, owner of Mitten Canna Co., a cultivator, says. “This tax increase would give them no incentive to come to Michigan.”

    The state’s cannabis excise tax raised about $331 million in revenue last year from $3.3 billion in sales. If the industry loses a third of its customers, that’s $110 million. And that’s not to mention state residents who flock to the illicit market for cheaper prices.

    Rose says the tax increase is a betrayal to cannabis businesses owners, many of whom dumped their life savings into the industry based on false promises. 

    “You put your life savings in an industry, and you build your business around what citizens voted for,” Rose says. “Now they want to add a big tax increase in one day. Find me another industry that has had that kind of tax increase overnight. No one would have done business in Michigan if they thought this was going to happen.” 

    Miller says he hopes the state Senate understands what’s at stake. 

    “Hopefully they can use reason and logic and the information we are providing to them,” Miller says. 

    The state’s cannabis market is struggling because the state doesn’t cap the number of businesses allowed in the market, like it does with liquor. As a result, the market is saturated with cannabis products, causing prices to plummet.

    In August, the average price of recreational flower hit a record low of $61.79 per ounce. The average price of an ounce was $82.50 last year, $128 in 2022, and $512 in January 2020, when legal sales began.

    The tax hike “is going to cripple the industry,” Mayo says. “It’s going to force a lot of businesses to close.”

    Rose says ignoring voters’ intent will only deepen the public’s distrust of elected officials. 

    “You destroy people’s faith in the government, which is too bad,” Rose says. “People are entrepreneurs, and they took a chance and built a new industry from scratch, and now this is how the state is going to react — to pull the rug out from beneath us?”


    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Veteran L.A. County politician to challenge Kenneth Mejia for city controller

    [ad_1]

    Isadore Hall, a former state legislator and Compton City Council member, launched a campaign Monday to challenge Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia.

    Mejia, a young leftist who electrified the typically staid race for controller in 2022, announced his own reelection bid earlier this month.

    Hall, who is backed by a slew of prominent endorsers, argues that Mejia has been more focused on “social media theatrics” than protecting tax dollars.

    He said he would bring common sense leadership and accountability, citing his lengthy track record in elected office and master’s degrees in management and public administration, as well as experience weeding out government waste and fraud in Compton.

    Hall, who moved to Los Angeles in 2016 and represented parts of the city in both the Assembly and the state Senate, said he launched his bid after being asked by “some elected officials,” along with several pastors and labor leaders, though he declined to provide specifics.

    Hall’s endorsements include L.A. County Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger, L.A. City Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, California Treasurer Fiona Ma, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and five state legislators. If elected, Hall would be the city’s first Black controller; Mejia, who is Filipino American, previously made history as the first Asian American elected to citywide office in L.A.

    “It’s one thing to be a great finance person or an auditor or a person who understands numbers … but you also have to have a temperament. You also have to understand the importance of governance,” Hall said, arguing that Mejia’s office is poorly managed and lacks good communication with city department heads and other local leaders.

    Mejia has sought to demystify the city’s complex budget process and finances with frequent social media videos. His office has audited the Los Angeles Police Department’s use of helicopters, homeless shelter bed data and the implementation of an anti-tenant harassment ordinance, among other topics.

    It’s still unclear whether other candidates will enter the race for controller — a coveted role that is one of three citywide offices, along with mayor and city attorney.

    L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez has been rumored to potentially be interested in a bid for either mayor or controller, though she declined to discuss her plans with The Times last week.

    Hall and Mejia represent vastly different flanks of the Democratic Party, and the coming race will almost certainly pit L.A. establishment politics against the city’s ascendant left.

    Three years ago, despite being heavily outspent, Mejia made political mincemeat of Paul Koretz, who had held elected office since before he was born. Young voters who were previously unaware that L.A. even had a controller were galvanized by Mejia’s unorthodox campaign, which directed an unprecedented spotlight toward L.A.’s chief accounting officer, auditor and paymaster.

    Mejia’s successful campaign coincided with a moment where faith in L.A. City Hall was at a nadir amid numerous criminal scandals and an explosive leaked recording of some City Council members frankly discussing politics in sometimes racist terms. The question in 2026 will be whether the civic pendulum has shifted and if the phrase “veteran politician” still doubles as an effective slur. Mejia will also now be running as the incumbent rather than an outsider.

    Hall, 52, has spent roughly 15 years in elected office, beginning with the Compton school board in his mid-20s.

    Like Mejia, who is now 34, Hall found success in politics relatively young. But his career ascended the old-fashioned way — through incrementally higher offices and with the support of the pastors, labor and community groups who have long powered the Democratic political machine in South L.A. and surrounding cities.

    After losing a hard-fought bid for Congress in 2016, Hall was appointed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown to the California Agricultural and Labor Relations Board. Hall was originally seen as a shoo-in victor during his congressional campaign, but underdog challenger Nanette Barragán succeeded, in part, by hammering him on his ties to special interests in the oil, alcohol and tobacco industries, according to prior Times reporting.

    Mejia first made his name with unsuccessful runs for Congress as a Green Party candidate. He found his stride and exploded as a political pied piper of sorts during the 2022 election, where his energetic TikTok videos, sharp billboards and occasional dances in a Pikachu costume helped fuel the energy of the moment.

    Attempts by critics to paint Mejia in 2022 as too “extreme” because of his anti-police positions and past bombastic tweets largely fell flat.

    He faced some growing pains in City Hall, including early staff turmoil within his office, but he has largely been a quieter presence than many expected.

    As the race heats up, Mejia will almost certainly attack Hall for a number of controversies involving campaign finance.

    During his 2014 campaign for state Senate, rivals attacked Hall for his use of campaign funds to pay for expensive dinners, limousine rentals, luxury suites at concerts and trips — expenses he defended as legitimate campaign costs.

    In his 2016 congressional run, he was accused of illegally spending general election funds during the primary. A Federal Election Commission audit confirmed some misuse but took no enforcement action.

    Hall said last week that he hadn’t been an expert in the complex rules of congressional campaign finance but held his accountant accountable for the error and learned from the experience.

    [ad_2]

    Julia Wick

    Source link

  • Texas GOP passes the House gerrymander Trump asked for

    [ad_1]

    Texas Republicans approved a new, aggressively gerrymandered congressional map early Saturday morning, moving forward with a power grab pushed by President Donald Trump.

    The GOP-controlled state Senate approved the map on a party-line vote after hours of debate that began Friday morning. Republicans used a procedural move to block a Democratic senator’s plans to filibuster the bill, forcing it to a vote — one final show of force from GOP leadership after weeks of partisan fighting.

    The map could ultimately help flip as many as five seats for the GOP starting with next year’s midterms. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is set to quickly sign the legislation, capping off a turbulent few weeks in Texas over Republicans’ now-successful effort to further skew the maps in the GOP’s favor ahead of the 2030 census.

    Under the new map, Republicans in Texas are aiming to earn 30 House seats — up from their current 25 — as they attempt to hold onto control of the chamber in what could be an unfavorable environment for them next year. Republicans currently have just a three-seat majority in the House, so the new Texas map alone will significantly affect their chances.

    The unusual offcycle redistricting effort in Texas has set off a contentious national tit-for-tat. California formally launched its preemptive retaliation on Thursday, with lawmakers approving a ballot measure redrawing the state’s map to create five new Democratic seats to offset Texas. That measure —which would temporarily circumvent the state’s independent redistricting commission — now goes to voters on the November ballot, a gerrymander Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has cast as necessary to preserve democracy.

    But Republicans could soon have the advantage as a redistricting battle escalates nationwide: The White House is pressuring other GOP states, like Indiana and Missouri, to take on their own redistricting gambits. Democratic governors in New York and Illinois have vowed to fight back, but have so far taken no concrete steps to do so.

    Democrats and civil rights groups have vowed to challenge the legality of the map, and will likely argue that Republicans unlawfully took race into consideration when redrawing the lines.

    Republicans, however, contend that they redrew the districts explicitly for partisan purposes and did not account for race or ethnicity.

    “I did not take race into consideration when drawing this map,” said state Sen. Phil King, the Texas Republican who wrote the redistricting legislation, at a committee hearing. “I drew it based on what would better perform for Republican candidates.”

    Racial gerrymandering claims are one of the last remaining ways to challenge a political map in federal court, since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 barred them from policing partisan gerrymandering. The new map – which was drawn using 2024 election data – creates four new majority-Hispanic districts, drawn to reflect Hispanic voters’ shift toward the GOP.

    Texas House Democrats protested the maps by leaving the state for two weeks, depriving Republicans of the ability to conduct legislative business. Those lawmakers returned on Monday — clearing the way for Republicans to quickly pass the legislation. Democrats racked up thousands of dollars in fines for ducking their legislative duties, and when they returned, House Speaker Dustin Burrows sought one last punishment: He ordered law enforcement to chaperone the Democrats to ensure they would be present for passage of the map.

    One Democrat, state Rep. Nicole Collier, refused to sign a permission slip allowing an officer to monitor her movements, instead staging a three-day sit-in on the House floor.

    “When I press that button to vote, I know these maps will harm my constituents — I won’t just go along quietly with their intimidation or their discrimination,” Collier said from the chamber.

    The Senate passed its map on Saturday morning after thwarting an attempted filibuster from another Democrat who planned to stage one last protest against the legislation. But Republicans made a procedural move that ended debate and the chamber approved the map along party lines.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Next Big Abortion Fight

    The Next Big Abortion Fight

    [ad_1]

    For the 150 or so people who filled a church hall in Toledo, Ohio, for a Thursday-night campaign rally last week, the chant of the evening featured a profanity usually discouraged in a house of God.

    “With all due respect, pastor, hell no!” shouted Betty Montgomery, a former Ohio attorney general. Montgomery is a Republican, which gave the largely Democratic audience even more reason to roar with approval. They had gathered at the Warren AME Church, in Toledo, to voice their opposition to a constitutional amendment that Ohio voters will approve or reject in a statewide referendum on August 8. Many of those in the boisterous crowd were experiencing a feeling unfamiliar to Democrats in the state over the past decade: optimism.

    If enacted, the Republican-backed proposal known as Issue 1 would raise the bar for any future changes to the state constitution. Currently, constitutional amendments in Ohio—including the one on next week’s ballot—need only a bare majority of voters to pass; the proposal seeks to make the threshold a 60-percent supermajority.

    In other years, a rules tweak like this one might pass without much notice. But next week’s referendum has galvanized Democratic opposition inside and outside Ohio, turning what the GOP had hoped would be a sleepy summertime election into an expensive partisan proxy battle. Conservatives have argued that making the constitution harder to amend would protect Ohio from liberal efforts to raise the minimum wage, tighten gun laws, and fight climate change. But the Republican-controlled legislature clearly timed this referendum to intercept a progressive march on one issue in particular: Ohioans will decide in November whether to make access to abortion a constitutional right, and the outcome of next week’s vote could mean the difference between victory and defeat for backers of abortion rights.

    A year after the fall of Roe v. Wade, the back-to-back votes will also test whether abortion as an issue can still propel voters to the polls in support of Democratic candidates and causes. If the abortion-rights side wins next week and in November, Ohio would become the largest GOP-controlled state to enshrine abortion protections into law. The abortion-rights movement is trying to replicate the success it found last summer in another red state, Kansas, where voters decisively rejected an amendment that would have allowed the legislature to ban abortion, presaging a midterm election in which Democrats performed better than expected in states where abortion rights were under threat.

    To prevent Democratic attempts to circumvent conservative state legislatures, Republican lawmakers have sought to restrict ballot initiatives across the country. Similar efforts are under way or have already won approval in states including Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, and Idaho. But to Democrats in Ohio and beyond, the August special election is perhaps the most brazen effort yet by Republicans to subvert the will of voters. Polls show that in Ohio, the abortion-rights amendment is likely to win more than 50 percent of the vote, as have similar ballot measures in other states. For Republicans to propose raising the threshold three months before the abortion vote in November looks like a transparent bid to move the proverbial goalposts right when their opponents are about to score.

    “I don’t think I’ve seen such a naked attempt to stay in power,” a former Democratic governor of Ohio, Dick Celeste, told the church crowd in Toledo. As in Kansas a year ago, the Republican majority in the state legislature scheduled the referendum for August—a time when the party assumed turnout would be low and favorable to their cause. (Adding to the Democratic outrage is the fact that just a few months earlier, Ohio Republicans had voted to restrict local governments from holding August elections, because they tend to draw so few people.) “They’re trying to slip it in,” Kelsey Suffel, a Democratic voter from Perrysburg, told me after she had cast an early vote.

    That Ohio Republicans would try a similar gambit so soon after the defeat their counterparts suffered in Kansas struck many Democrats as a sign of desperation. “The winds of change are blowing,” Celeste said in Toledo. “They’re afraid, and they should be afraid, because the people won’t tolerate it.”

    The upcoming vote will serve as an important measure of strength for Ohio Democrats ahead of elections in the state next year that could determine control of Congress. Democrats have had a long losing streak in Ohio. Donald Trump easily won the state in 2016 and 2020, and Republicans have won every statewide office except for that of Senator Sherrod Brown, who faces reelection next year. Still, there’s reason to believe Celeste is right to be optimistic. A Suffolk University poll released last week found that 57 percent of registered voters planned to vote against Issue 1. (A private survey commissioned by a nonpartisan group also found the August amendment losing, a Republican who had seen the results told me on the condition of anonymity.) Early-voting numbers have swamped predictions of low participation in an August election, suggesting that abortion remains a key motivator for getting people to turn out. Groups opposing the amendment have significantly outspent supporters of the change.

    Abortion isn’t explicitly on the ballot in Ohio next week, but the clear linkage between this referendum and the one on reproductive rights in November has divided the Republican coalition. Although the state’s current Republican governor, Mike DeWine, backs Issue 1, the two living GOP former governors, Bob Taft and John Kasich, oppose it as an overreach by the legislature.

    “That’s the giant cloud on this issue,” Steve Stivers, a former Republican member of Congress who now heads the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, told me. The Chamber of Commerce backs the amendment because, as Stivers said, it’ll help stop “bad ideas” such as raising the minimum wage, marijuana legalization, and proposals supported by organized labor. But, he said, many of his members were worried that the group would be dragged into a fight over abortion, on which it wants to stay neutral: “The timing is not ideal.”

    Democrats have highlighted comments from Republicans who have departed from the party’s official message and drawn a connection between the August referendum and the abortion vote this fall. “They’ve all said the quiet part out loud, which is this election is 100 percent about trying to prevent abortion rights from having a fair election in the fall,” the state Democratic chair, Liz Walters, told me.

    But to broaden its coalition, opponents of the amendment have advanced a simpler argument—preserve “majority rule”—that also seems to be resonating with voters. “I’m in favor of democracy,” explained Ed Moritz, an 85-year-old retired college professor standing outside his home in Cleveland, when I asked him why he was planning to vote no. Once a national bellwether, Ohio has become close to a one-party state in recent years. For Democrats, citizen-led constitutional amendments represent one of the few remaining checks on a legislature dominated by Republicans. Moritz noted that the GOP had already gerrymandered the Ohio legislature by drawing maps to ensure its future majorities. “This,” he said, “is an attempt to gerrymander the entire population.”

    To Frank LaRose, the suggestion that Issue 1 represents an assault on democracy is “hyperbole.” LaRose is Ohio’s Republican secretary of state and, of late, the public face of Issue 1. Traversing Ohio over the past few weeks, he’s used the suddenly high-profile campaign as a launching pad for his bid for the Republican nomination for Senate in 2024.

    LaRose, 44, served for eight years in the state Senate before becoming Ohio’s top elections officer in 2019. (He won a second term last year.) He’s a smooth debater and quick on his feet, but on the Issue 1 campaign, he’s not exactly exuding confidence.

    In an interview, he began by rattling off a litany of complaints about the opposition’s messaging, which he called “intentionally misleading.” LaRose accused Issue 1’s opponents of trying to bamboozle conservative voters with literature showing images of the Constitution being cut to pieces and equating the amendment with “Stop the Steal.” “That’s completely off base,” he said. “We’ve had to compete with that and with a mountain of money that they’ve had, and with a pretty organized and intentional effort by the media on this.”

    LaRose likes to remind people that even if voters approve Issue 1, citizens would still be able to pass, with a simple majority, ballot initiatives to create or repeal statutes in Ohio law. The August proposal applies only to the state constitution, which LaRose said is not designed for policy making. Left unsaid, however, is that unlike an amendment to the constitution, any statutory change approved by the voters could swiftly be reversed by the Republican majority in the legislature.

    “Imagine if the U.S. Constitution changed every year,” he said. “What instability would that create? Well, that’s what’s at risk if we don’t pass Issue 1.” LaRose’s argument ignored the fact that Ohio’s rules for constitutional amendments have been in place for more than a century and, during that time, just 19 of the 77 changes proposed by citizen petitions have passed. (Many others generated by the legislature have won approval by the voters.)

    LaRose has been spending a lot of his time explaining the amendment to confused voters, including Republicans. When I spoke with him last weekend, he had just finished addressing about two dozen people inside a cavernous 19th-century church in Steubenville. He described his stump speech as a “seventh-grade civics class” in which he explained the differences between the rarely amended federal Constitution and Ohio’s routinely amended founding document. The laws that Ohio could be saddled with if the voters reject Issue 1, LaRose warned, went far beyond abortion: “It’s every radical West Coast policy that they can think of that they want to bring to Ohio.”

    The challenges LaRose has faced in selling voters on the proposal soon became apparent. When I asked a pair of women who had questioned LaRose during his speech whether he had persuaded them, one simply replied, “No.” Another frustrated attendee who supported the proposal told LaRose that she had encountered voters who didn’t understand the merits of the idea.

    Republicans have had to spend more time than they’d like defending their claim that Issue 1 is not simply an effort to head off November’s abortion amendment. They have also found themselves playing catch-up on an election that they placed on the ballot. “They got out of the gate earlier than our side,” the state Republican Party chair, Alex Triantafilou, told me, referring to an early round of TV ads that opposition groups began running throughout the state.

    The GOP’s struggle to sell its proposal to voters adds to the perception that the party, in placing the measure on the ballot, was acting not from a position of strength but of weakness. The thinly disguised effort to preempt a simple-majority vote on abortion is surely a concession by Republicans that they are losing on the issue even in what has become a reliably red state.

    When I asked LaRose to respond to the concerns about abortion that Stivers reported from his members in the Chamber of Commerce, he lamented that it was another example of businesses succumbing to “cancel culture.”

    Confidence can be dangerous for a Democrat in Ohio. Barack Obama carried the state twice, but in both 2016 and 2020, late polls showing a tight race were proved wrong by two eight-point Trump victories. A similar trajectory played out last year, when the Republican J. D. Vance pulled away from the Democrat Tim Ryan in the closing weeks to secure a seven-point victory in Ohio’s Senate race.

    “Democrats in the state are beaten down,” says Matt Caffrey, the Columbus-based organizing director for Swing Left, a national group that steers party donors and volunteers to key races across the country. He’s seen the decline firsthand, telling me of the challenge Democrats have had in recruiting canvassers and engaging voters who have grown more discouraged with each defeat.

    That began to change this summer, Caffrey told me. Volunteers have flocked to canvassing events in large numbers, some for the first time—a highly unusual occurrence for a midsummer special election, he said. At a canvass launch I attended in Akron over the weekend, more than three dozen people showed up, including several first-timers. As I followed Democratic canvassers there and in Cleveland over two days last week, not a single voter who answered their door was unaware of the election or undecided about how they’d vote. “It’s kind of an easy campaign,” Michael Todd, a canvasser with the group Ohio Citizen Action in Cleveland, told me. “Not a whole lot of convincing needs to be done.”

    The response has prompted some Democrats to see the August election as an unexpected opportunity to reawaken a moribund state party. The referendum is a first for Swing Left, which has exclusively invested in candidate races since it formed after Trump’s victory in 2016. “It’s a great example of what we’re seeing across the country, which is the fight for reproductive freedom and the fight for democracy becoming closely attached,” the group’s executive director, Yasmin Radjy, told me in Akron. “We also think it’s really important to build momentum in Ohio, a state that we need to keep investing in.”

    A win next week would make the abortion referendum a heavy favorite to pass in November. And although Ohio is unlikely to regain its status as a presidential swing state in 2024, it could help determine control of Congress. Brown’s bid for a fourth term is expected to be one of the hardest-fought Senate races in the country, and at least three Ohio districts could be up for grabs in the closely divided House.

    For Democrats like Caffrey, the temptation to think bigger about a comeback in Ohio is tempered by the lingering uncertainty about next week’s outcome—whether the party will finally close out a victory in a state that has turned red, or confront another disappointment. “It would be hard for Democrats in Ohio to feel complacent. I wish we would be in a position to feel complacent,” Caffrey said with a smile. “This is more about building hope.”

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link

  • The Next Presidential Election Is Happening Right Now in the States

    The Next Presidential Election Is Happening Right Now in the States

    [ad_1]

    Kristen McDonald Rivet let out a big, slightly rueful laugh. “I was underestimating the level of national attention this race was going to get,” she told me. “In the extreme, I was underestimating it.”

    A city commissioner in Bay City, Michigan, McDonald Rivet decided earlier this year to run as a Democrat for the State Senate. She knew the race would be competitive in a closely divided district. But she had little inkling that the seat she was seeking would come to be regarded by Democratic operatives as one of the most crucial in the country.

    Thousands of people run for state legislatures every two years, and many of the campaigns are important but sleepy affairs that hinge on debates over tax rates, school funding, and the condition of roads and bridges. Not this year, however, and not in Michigan. With Republican election deniers running up and down the ballot in key battlegrounds, many Democrats believe that the fight for power in state capitals this fall could ultimately determine the outcome of the presidential election in 2024.

    Democrats have carried Michigan in seven of the past eight presidential elections, but they have not held the majority in its State Senate for nearly 40 years. This year, however, they need to pick up just three seats to dislodge Republicans from the majority, and a new legislative map drawn by an independent redistricting commission has given Democrats an opportunity even in a year in which the overall political environment is likely to be challenging for the party.

    If Michigan is famously shaped like a mitten, the Thirty-Fifth District sits between its thumb and forefinger, encompassing the tri-cities of Saginaw, Bay City, and Midland near the shores of Lake Huron. The area voted narrowly for Joe Biden in 2020, but Mariah Hill, the caucus director for the Michigan Senate Democrats, told me she considers it the party’s “majority-making seat.”

    McDonald Rivet won her election as a commissioner in Bay City with about 350 votes; this year, in her first run for a partisan office, she told me she had raised about $425,000, which is a considerable sum for a state legislative candidate. National groups such as EMILY’s List, the States Project, and EveryDistrict are directing money and resources to her campaign.

    Progressives have been intensifying their focus on state legislative power over the past decade. In the 2010 GOP wave, Republicans caught Democrats flat-footed, swept them from majorities across the country in 2010, and then locked in their advantage for years to come through gerrymandering in many states. Democrats reclaimed seven state legislative chambers in 2018, but their momentum slowed in 2020, when they failed to pick up a single chamber. They also lost the majorities they had gained in New Hampshire.

    In an earlier era of U.S. history, battles for control of state legislatures took on national importance as proxy fights for power in Washington. Before the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, state legislatures—not voters—appointed U.S. senators. In modern times, however, state legislatures are frequently overlooked relative to their influence on policies that most directly affect voters’ lives. Donors shell out hundreds of millions of dollars to sway presidential and congressional elections. But while gridlock often consumes Capitol Hill, state capitals are hives of legislative activity by comparison.

    The urgency behind the Democratic push to win back legislative chambers escalated in the run-up to 2020, when the party knew that the majorities elected that year would be tasked with drawing legislative and congressional maps after the decennial census. But it might be even greater now. The Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in June allowed states to severely restrict or altogether ban abortion, instantly raising the stakes of legislative races across the country.

    Another potential Supreme Court decision has spiked Democratic fears to a new level. The justices in the term that begins this month will hear arguments in Moore v. Harper, an election-law case that legal experts say could dramatically reshape how ballots are cast and counted across the country. Republican litigants want the high court to affirm what’s known as the independent-state-legislature theory, which posits that the Constitution gives near-universal power over the running of federal elections to state legislatures. A ruling adopting that argument—and four conservative justices have signaled that they are open to such an interpretation—would allow partisan legislative majorities to ignore or overrule state courts and election officials, potentially granting legal legitimacy to efforts by Donald Trump’s allies to overturn the will of voters in 2024.

    With the next presidential election in mind, Democrats have prioritized gubernatorial elections in the closely fought states, including Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia, where Trump tried to jawbone legislators and other high-ranking officials into overturning his defeat in 2020. They’ve also steered donations to long-neglected secretary-of-state races in some of those same battlegrounds. But the looming Supreme Court ruling in Moore v. Harper has, for some Democrats, turned the fight for state legislative control into the most pivotal of all. “A single state legislative race in Michigan or Arizona could well prove more important to our future than any congressional or U.S. Senate race in America,” Daniel Squadron, a co-founder of the States Project, told me.

    Squadron’s group is spending $60 million to back Democrats in state legislative races in just five states, in what it is calling the largest investment by a single outside organization ever for those campaigns. The effort is in part designed to counter what has historically been a significant GOP advantage, led by the Republican State Leadership Committee and major conservative donors, such as the Koch family.

    Precisely how realistic the States Project’s goals are, and where Democrats should be spending most heavily, is a source of some debate within the party. In Arizona, a swing of just more than 1,000 votes in the State House and 2,000 votes in the State Senate would have flipped those chambers to Democrats in 2020, and the party needs to pick up only one or two seats this year to win majorities. But Arizona’s maps became more favorable to Republicans in redistricting, and the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee—the party’s official state legislative arm—views winning majorities there as a relative long shot, especially during a difficult midterm year in which Democrats typically lose seats. The DLCC is instead more focused on protecting Democratic incumbents in Arizona and defending the party’s narrow advantages in states like Colorado and Nevada. Jessica Post, the committee’s president, acknowledges that there is a “philosophical difference” between the DLCC and some of the outside progressive groups.

    “We think that the playing field is wider than simply flipping three battleground states,” Post told me. “We think that we have to protect Democratic majorities across the country.” The States Project is also investing in a few states where Democrats narrowly control the legislature, including Maine and Nevada. But Squadron defended the decision to play offense elsewhere, noting that swaying state legislative races costs “a fraction” of what it does to influence statewide and national elections. “It’s necessary,” he said. “The stakes are high enough that whether the odds are low, medium, or high, we have to take this on.”

    There is widespread agreement, including among Republicans, that the Michigan State Senate is in play, and that the race in the Thirty-Fifth District could be decisive. “There’s no question things are tight right now,” Gustavo Portela, the deputy chief of staff for the Michigan Republican Party, told me. GOP candidates are focusing their campaigns heavily on inflation, he said, though he noted that the new maps tilt toward Democrats and that Republicans currently lag them in fundraising.

    Campaigns and outside groups are running TV ads in some districts, but the candidate who wins a state legislative race tends to be the one who knocks on the most doors. McDonald Rivet is facing a Republican state representative, Annette Glenn, who supported Trump and called for a “forensic audit” of the 2020 election in Michigan, which Joe Biden won by more than 150,000 votes. (Her campaign did not respond to requests for comment.)

    With an army of about 100 volunteers, McDonald Rivet told me her team has already knocked on more than 30,000 doors. Many of the people who answer cite worries about kitchen-table economic issues, or schools, or health care, or abortion—the topics you’d expect voters to bring up. But a surprising number, McDonald Rivet said, express unprompted concern about the future of American democracy, about whether election results will be respected. “I often hear people say, ‘I never thought I would question the health of democracy,’” she said. “‘These are things I have taken for granted my entire life.’”

    Protecting democracy is just one of the many issues McDonald Rivet highlights when she talks with voters, either at their homes or during the small meet-and-greet events she holds in the district. But she, too, is worried. Michigan Republicans have nominated election deniers for both governor and secretary of state. McDonald Rivet told me that some Republican candidates for the state legislature have stated publicly that the only electoral outcome they would accept in 2024 is a Trump victory.

    When I asked Portela whether a Republican legislative majority would honor the result of the popular vote for president, he twice dodged the question. “That’s nothing but fear-mongering from Democrats who are desperate,” he replied. “That’s not what’s at stake right now.” Perhaps he’s right. But to Democrats, it’s the evasiveness, the refusal to affirm a fundamental tenet of American elections, that suggests they are right to worry.

    [ad_2]

    Russell Berman

    Source link