Mediaboss Marketing

Victories by a liberal judge and a progressive mayoral candidate in two Midwestern states this week offered a glimpse of the mood of the electorate five months after the midterms, and it is a promising one for Democrats.

Janet Protasiewicz, the judge, won a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court by a remarkable margin: 11 percentage points in a state where elections are often decided by one or two. In Chicago, Brandon Johnson, the mayoral candidate, defeated a more conservative Democrat who had run on a crime-focused platform commonly employed by Republicans.

Here are five takeaways from the elections on Tuesday.

Judge Protasiewicz focused on abortion with laser precision, hammering the message that electing her was the only way to restore access in Wisconsin after the Supreme Courts Dobbs ruling allowed an 1849 ban to take effect. Democrats cannot overturn that ban in the Wisconsin Legislature, where Republicans hold large majorities thanks to gerrymandering, but the new liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court can.

Three political scientists Kathleen Dolan of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Barry Burden and Kathy Cramer of the University of Wisconsin-Madison cited the potency of abortion as the clear takeaway from the race, which brought not only a lopsided liberal victory (the election was nominally nonpartisan) but also unusually high turnout for a spring election in an off year.

Abortion rights have been a winning issue for Democrats since Roe v. Wade was overturned, including in red states, and the results in Wisconsin show that the effect is not fading. Abortion is still having legs and energizing and mobilizing the Democratic Party, Professor Dolan said.

The issue may have had particular resonance for Wisconsinites because of how starkly Dobbs affected them. In many other states where abortion was outlawed after the ruling, it was already functionally inaccessible, but Wisconsin went virtually overnight from four abortion clinics to none.

Its the unavoidable issue thats at the middle of everything, Professor Burden said.

In Chicago, a deep-blue city in a blue state where abortion remains legal, the dominant issue in the mayors race was crime and the tough on crime candidate, Paul Vallas, lost to Mr. Johnson, who walked back his support for cuts to police funding but stood by his position that a fundamentally different approach to public safety was needed.

Mr. Vallass campaign is a very easy campaign to run, said Christopher Mooney, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois Chicago. You just scare everybody. Its very effective, historically.

Which makes it noteworthy that it didnt work.

Political dynamics in a large city cannot necessarily be extrapolated nationally. But Republicans tried to make crime an issue in Wisconsin, too, including by putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot to tighten cash bail policies and, while the amendment passed, it did not drive Republican turnout. Nor did Mr. Kelly gain ground by focusing his campaign on crime.

Without Dobbs, crime might have been more salient, Professor Burden said. But the loss of abortion access puts that issue so far ahead of others, he said, it just doesnt leave room for policing or other things to really compete.

It was not entirely surprising that Chicago would elect a progressive like Mr. Johnson as mayor, or that its voters would reject tough-on-crime talk. In many urban areas, support for police reform is an electoral benefit, not an obstacle, Professor Burden noted.

But Wisconsin showed the breadth of Democratic strength. In the crucial WOW counties Waukesha, Ozaukee and Washington Counties, a suburban and traditionally red swath outside Milwaukee Judge Protasiewicz outperformed historical trends even more than Gov. Tony Evers did in winning re-election last November.

She ran up the margins on turnout in the blue areas and really overperformed in a lot of the more conservative areas, Professor Dolan said.

The same trend was visible in a special election for a State Senate seat in the northern Milwaukee suburbs: While the Republican candidate won, it was a very narrow victory. That is consistent, Professor Cramer said, with the shift of suburban voters nationwide toward Democrats in recent years.

In Wisconsin, from the moment it became clear that Daniel Kelly would be the conservative who advanced from a primary earlier this year, some Republicans expressed anxiety that he might cost them the election. After all, he had resoundingly lost another Supreme Court race just three years ago.

Mr. Kelly skipped several public forums and ran a mostly negative campaign, Professor Dolan said factors that might have hurt him. Its not like he didnt have a record of experience on which he could have run, but he didnt, she said. He didnt build a case for himself.

In other words, candidate quality which was a concern aired by some Republicans during the midterms as well still matters.

Campaign missteps may have contributed to Mr. Vallass loss in Chicago too. Mr. Johnson out-organized and out-hustled Mr. Vallas, who spent far more money on the campaign.

This in many ways came down to Paul Vallas, said Representative Brendan Boyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat who took part in an internet ad for Mr. Johnson.

Judge Protasiewiczs opponent, Mr. Kelly, was involved in efforts to overturn Wisconsins 2020 election on behalf of then-President Donald J. Trump. In the final days of the court race, he also welcomed the support of a conservative activist who was on the grounds of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The results of the midterms made clear that swing voters were repelled by candidates who had embraced Mr. Trumps election lies, and Mr. Kellys loss is one more data point.

Multiple democracy-related issues were at play in Wisconsin, including gerrymandering, which is not on the table in every state. But a broad argument about democracy being under threat on multiple fronts seems to have been effective, and analysts say that is an argument Democrats can make nationwide.

The sort of general political milieu for the last couple of years has been that we teeter on a knifes edge, Professor Dolan said. At some level, that was enough of a theme in the environment that people may not have gone to the polls to vote against a gerrymandered state legislature, but they had that sense of this race standing between us and lord knows what.

Jonathan Weisman contributed reporting.

Originally posted here:
5 Takeaways From the Wisconsin and Chicago Elections - The New York Times

House and Senate Democrats are demanding that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts launch an inquiry into Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and the luxury vacations he received as gifts from a GOP mega donor over more than 20 years.

Sixteen lawmakers led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., sent a letter to Roberts on Friday requesting an investigation into "allegations of unethical, and potentially unlawful, conduct." A ProPublica report published this week found that Thomas close friendship with real estate developer Harlan Crow allowed him to accompany the Texas billionaire on luxury vacations on his private jet and yacht, as well as free stays on Crows vast vacation property, among other benefits.

Democrats have alleged that Thomas breached ethics rules by failing to disclose these trips as gifts, some of which were valued at more than $500,000, according to ProPublica. The letter chastises the court for having "barely acknowledged" the allegations before.

"We believe that it is your duty as Chief Justice to safeguard public faith in the judiciary, and that fulfilling that duty requires swift, thorough, independent and transparent investigation into these allegations," the letter states.

CLARENCE THOMAS REPORT SPURS NEW CALLS FROM DEMOCRATS FOR SUPREME COURT CODE OF ETHICS

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has come under fire over reports he failed to disclose gifts from a major GOP donor. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Thomas issued a rare written statement responding to ProPublica's report Friday, insisting that he has always followed Supreme Court guidance on gift disclosures.

"Harlan and Kathy Crow are among our dearest friends, and we have been friends for over twenty-five years," Thomas said. "As friends do, we have joined them on a number of family trips during the more than quarter century we have known them. Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable."

"I have endeavored to follow that counsel throughout my tenure, and have always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines," he said. "These guidelines are now being changed, as the committee of the Judicial Conference responsible for financial disclosure for the entire federal judiciary just this past month announced new guidance. And, it is, of course, my intent to follow this guidance in the future."

JUSTICE THOMAS DEFENDS TRIPS TAKEN WITH DEAREST FRIENDS AFTER REPORT SAYS HE ACCEPTED GIFTS

Democrats have requested that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (right) open an investigation into previously undisclosed trips Associate Justice Clarence Thomas accepted from his friend, billionaire GOP megadonor Harlan Crow. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

In a statement to ProPublica, Crow denied ever trying to influence Thomas or put him in positions where other influential people could do the same.

"The hospitality we have extended to the Thomass (sic) over the years is no different from the hospitality we have extended to our many other dear friends," part of the statement reads. "We have never asked about a pending or lower court case, and Justice Thomas has never discussed one, and we have never sought to influence Justice Thomas on any legal or political issue. More generally, I am unaware of any of our friends ever lobbying or seeking to influence Justice Thomas on any case, and I would never invite anyone who I believe had any intention of doing that."

Last month, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which creates and oversees policies for federal courts, revised its ethics and financial disclosure guidelines to require the justices to disclose things like traveling by private jet and staying in resorts.

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS CALL FOR CLARENCE THOMAS IMPEACHMENT AFTER REPORTED UNDISCLOSED GIFTS FROM GOP MEGADONOR

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee, led 16 Democratic lawmakers in demanding that the Supreme Court investigate Thomas' "extensive billionaire-funded luxury travel and other outstanding allegations of misconduct." (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Democrats' letter notes that financial disclosure laws require top government officials to report gifts annually. It states there are "limited exceptions" for personal friendships, but argues, "these exceptions are not meant to allow government officials to hide from the public extravagant gifts by wealthy political interests.

The undersigned lawmakers said the Supreme Court should investigate who accompanied Thomas on the undisclosed trips and whether they have any connections to cases pending before the court. "We have reason to believe that Mr. Crow himself is connected to multiple groups that have filed amicus briefs with the Court," the Democrats wrote. "Yet the public has no way of knowing who else with interests related to Justice Thomas' official duties joined these trips."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Democrats said that if the court fails to act, they will push Congress to impose "a proper code of ethics" on the Supreme Court to "restore accountability" to the body.

Fox News' Brianna Herlihy, Shannon Bream, Elizabeth Elkind and Bill Mears contributed to this report.

Read more:
Democrats press Supreme Court chief justice to investigate Clarence Thomas' trips with GOP megadonor - Fox News

Democratic state Rep. Justin Jones of Nashville speaks before his colleagues voted to expel him from the House on Thursday. Constitutional scholars say such measures are very rare and have uncertain consequences. Seth Herald/Getty Images hide caption

Democratic state Rep. Justin Jones of Nashville speaks before his colleagues voted to expel him from the House on Thursday. Constitutional scholars say such measures are very rare and have uncertain consequences.

It's rare for any legislative body in the U.S. to expel a member most states have reportedly never done so. Even in that context, the circumstances in Tennessee where the Republican-led House expelled two Black lawmakers stand out.

"Most expulsions have involved criminal conduct or abusive behavior, not suppression of dissent or targeting of political opponents," state constitutional law expert Miriam Seifter told NPR in an email. "The Tennessee expulsions are therefore an extremely concerning outlier."

Reps. Justin Jones, D-Nashville, and Justin Pearson, D-Memphis, were ousted not for committing crimes but for breaching the rules of decorum. They used a bullhorn on the House floor, speaking without being recognized and leading protests calling for gun restrictions as Republicans, who hold a supermajority in the chamber, stood by.

"I think it's striking that the state legislature would even seek to expel them for such behavior, let alone actually succeed in garnering enough votes to expel them," Anita Krishnakumar, who studies legislation and statutory interpretation at the Georgetown University Law Center, told NPR in an email.

But the pair have now been ousted, months into their two-year terms. A third House Democrat, Rep. Gloria Johnson, narrowly escaped being expelled.

"What happened this week in Tennessee was an exercise of power used to send a political message: dissent and refusal to conform will not be tolerated," Vanderbilt University's Carrie Russell, a principal senior lecturer in political science, told NPR in an email.

Many state legislatures and the U.S. Congress have similarly broad disciplinary powers. But that authority has been used sparingly. Before this week, the two most recent expulsions in Tennessee's House came via overwhelmingly bipartisan votes to excise members on criminal or ethical grounds, rather than a supermajority imposing its will.

"Weaponizing legislative discipline reveals a concerning level of democratic dysfunction," said Seifter, who is the co-director of the State Democracy Research Initiative at the University of Wisconsin Law School. She added, "it suggests that more attention should focus on state-level government."

"Antidemocratic actions are far easier to pursue if state institutions receive limited scrutiny," Seifter said.

It's especially rare for a legislature to expel members over actions relating to substantive policy disagreements.

This is the first time multiple Tennessee legislators have been ousted in a single legislative session since 1866, when Tennessee was struggling to adopt citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people after the Civil War.

"The expulsion of six members from the Tennessee legislature in July 1866 was for 'the contempt of the authority of this House,' " Vanderbilt University's Russell, a principal senior lecturer in political science, told NPR.

"Specifically, the expulsion sanction was used because the representatives refused to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment (a condition necessary for Tennessee's readmission to the Union)," Russell said. By expelling the members, the chamber could meet its majority threshold more easily.

Protesters listen from the Tennessee House gallery during a protest to demand action on gun reform laws and to support three lawmakers who faced an expulsion vote in what experts call an extraordinary disciplinary move. Seth Herald/Getty Images hide caption

Protesters listen from the Tennessee House gallery during a protest to demand action on gun reform laws and to support three lawmakers who faced an expulsion vote in what experts call an extraordinary disciplinary move.

"So even then, it was used to excise dissenters," Russell added.

The Reconstruction-era precedent, Krishnakumar says, "highlights the fact that this is an unusual, rare step for a legislature to take and that it's something legislatures don't tend to do in times of normal politics."

Noting the intense political polarization and divisiveness of the post-Civil War years, Krishnakumar said, "I don't think it's an accident that we have to reach back to that era to see similar behavior by a legislature."

Of course, the current environment of intense political polarization extends beyond Tennessee. So, could majorities in other state legislatures follow suit, and expel politicians with whom they can't agree?

"At this point, it seems unlikely" to become a broad pattern, Seifter said.

"Unlike other ways that state legislators may entrench their power or act in a countermajoritarian fashion (a pattern I've written about here), disciplinary actions are typically self-limiting," she added.

One big reason: Even if a legislature succeeds in ousting a lawmaker, the state body probably won't have a say in what happens to that seat. In Tennessee, county or metro councils in affected districts can name an interim lawmaker and officials say they will reinstate Rep. Justin Jones, for instance.

In addition to that, Seifter said, "politically motivated expulsions are likely to be unpopular and mobilize opponents."

Still, Krishnakumar notes that in highly polarized times, elected officials are hunting for ways to score points with their supporters and one-up the opposing party.

She added, "This kind of expulsion, while deeply problematic from a democracy standpoint, provides a good way to score those points."

Read the original here:
After Tennessee House Republicans expelled 2 Democrats, will ... - NPR

WASHINGTON, DC Rising interest rates, historic inflation, and labor shortages, spurred by Democrat policies, are increasing pressure on working Americans and forcing small businesses to do more with less, the March jobs report shows.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (MO-08) made the following statement after the Bureau of Labor Statistics release showed job creation slowing down for the second consecutive month:

Small businesses and job creators are reacting to the dark clouds looming over the economy. The second consecutive slowdown in job creation is more evidence that Americas economy is sinking under the weight of Democrats failed policies.

These issues are top of mind for small businesses owners and workers who are struggling to make ends meet and provide for their families. The Ways and Means Committee is hearing directly from working Americans across the country who are anxious that Main Street businesses may not survive after two years of Democrat one-party rule, particularly as the cost of borrowing for businesses rises. They are telling us that Democrats anti-work policies have made it difficult to stock their shelves, hire workers, and keep their doors open. Witnesses shared that their neighbors and employees need tax relief to stay afloat, not Democrats green tax credits that benefit the wealthy and big corporations.

Key Background:

In Their Own Words: Oklahoma Small Business Owners

Witnesses at a recent Ways and Means Committee hearing in Yukon, Oklahoma, shared how tax relief would help their employees, neighbors, and customers:

Follow this link:
Chairman Smith: Job Creators Sinking Under Weight of Democrats ... - Ways and Means Committee

Sean Bagniewski. Photo courtesy of the Iowa Legislature

Polk County Democratic Party chair Sean Bagniewski was terminated from a state government contract position shortly after winning election to the Iowa House, he tells Axios.

Why it matters: Iowa law requires workers elected to a government office be granted a leave of absence from their regular employment.

Catch up fast: Bagniewski was an account manager for Maximus Health Services, a company contracted to help evaluate client care in Iowa's Medicaid program.

State of play: Iowa Medicaid director Elizabeth Matney notified Maximus in a Nov. 16 letter that Bagniewski's position is full time and that the department doesn't allow exceptions to the contract "nor do we intend to moving forward."

Of note: Iowa legislative sessions begin in early January and typically meet most weekdays through April.

What they're saying: Iowa did not request Maximus terminate Bagniewski, a spokesperson for the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said in a statement to Axios.

Zoom in: Iowa's law does not require employers to pay workers while they are on leave for their elected duties.

What's next: Bagniewski has sought legal advice but declined to say whether he plans to file a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Read more from the original source:
Democrat terminated from Iowa job after election win - Axios