Mediaboss Marketing

There was a time in the not too distant past when the Republican Party was known for its sneakiness, a product of the underhanded tricks of operatives like Lee Atwater and his protgs. These days, the GOP is more a fan of brute force tactics when it comes to winning elections, reworking the rules of the game to make it more winnable potentially even when they haven't won the most votes.

Even as the media shine lights on the individual components of the GOP's strategy from the slew of changes in election laws enacted or proposed in states like Georgia and Texas to the absolute circus that's taking place in Arizona's "audit" of the 2020 election it can be easy to miss how they fit together. But when you take a step back, it becomes clear that they're all interconnected, with one overarching goal: Republicans' opposition to free and fair elections boils down to a three-step plan to reclaim power in Washington and cement their control at the state level.

In three areas, the Republican Party is working to win elections not by persuading new voters to subscribe to their ideas, but by making their opponents incapable of victory.

I wrote last week about the choice Democrats face in whether to ban gerrymandering nationwide ahead of the 2022 midterms. While there are groups that want to end gerrymandering entirely, like former Attorney General Eric Holder's National Democratic Redistricting Committee, it has been an uphill climb to get politicians on board with giving up one of the most palatable uses of pure partisan power.

That works out well, though, for Republicans, who 10 years ago used their success in the 2010 midterms to draw favorable electoral maps that made it easier for them to keep control of the House. And that was done with the Voting Rights Act still in place to help keep their worst excesses in check.

In three areas, the Republican Party is working to win elections not by persuading new voters to subscribe to their ideas, but by making their opponents incapable of victory.

This time around, Republican legislatures are champing at the bit to use this period the first redistricting campaign since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013 to redraw election districts in ways that box out Democratic voters. And this time around, federal courts have less power to step in to redraw explicitly partisan borders. There is the threat that, as in North Carolina, state courts could still toss out maps that are clearly biased toward one party but that's a risk some Republicans are willing to take.

In doing so, the GOP has the ability to win elections before the candidates are even in place if there just aren't enough Democratic voters in a given map, there's no chance that seat could be the tipping point for a majority in the House. And as we were reminded in this most recent election, the House has the power to determine a winner in a presidential election when the Electoral College fails to give a candidate a majority.

This is the step that has gotten the most attention lately in the media and in Congress, as it's the form of voter suppression Americans are most familiar with thanks to the fights to end Jim Crow in the 1960s. Today, Republicans are using the lie that the 2020 election was rife with voter fraud as an excuse to introduce dozens of bills to change election laws to make it harder for their states' citizens to vote.

The real insidiousness here is that in many cases, these restrictions are subtle enough to seem logical and defensible to the unaware. Texas' new elections bill would shut down 24-hour voting locations and drive-thru voting; Georgia's new law sharply restricts the use of drop boxes to collect early voting ballots. In effect, Republicans argue, these laws are just about securing elections and resetting standards back to the pre-pandemic norm.

Is that the same as stripping people of their right to vote? No. But it does raise the difficulty of casting a vote. And in cases like the above, in which it was mostly urban, minority voters who took advantage of these easier voting methods, there is a definite attempt to reshape the electorate in effect.

It's akin to placing hurdles on a racetrack everyone still has the chance to run the race when the starting gun goes off, but there are obstacles in the way that will cause some people to trip or give up on running at all. What's worse is that the targeted way these changes are being designed makes it as though hurdles are being added to only some lanes.

Add the first two steps together and the odds of Democrats' keeping control of the House drop after the midterms. But it's step three that's the real innovation and the most anti-democratic idea that former President Donald Trump has brought to the table.

In contesting the results of the election, Trump offered no real evidence to prove that President Joe Biden had "stolen" the race from him. But his followers believed it and Republican leaders are hesitant to correct the record. That has led us to a place where investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which Trump's rhetoric spawned, is a partisan issue.

The violent overthrow of the election is a bit too distasteful for most mainstream Republicans. What could be a real endemic threat, though, is the farce playing out in Arizona. For the last three months, a "forensic analysis" of the election results in Maricopa County has been hunting for any sign that Trump's claims about fraud were true. Trump has apparently even thought that the Arizona audit was his ticket back to the White House.

While the "audit" has made a bunch of money for its backers, it has come up totally empty so far. That hasn't deterred Cyber Ninjas, the firm running the audit, from insisting last week that it needs to take its sideshow door to door to really make sure there was no fraud. Worse, as MSNBC columnist Charlie Sykes recently wrote, the fever swamp in Arizona is spreading to Pennsylvania and potentially other battleground states. There's little stopping this from becoming a normalized part of the post-election process and justifying further restrictions on voting rights.

And there are more "legitimate" efforts to bring about the same potential outcome of Republicans' being declared the winners of elections in which they didn't get the most votes. The most dangerous involve Republicans' taking direct, partisan control over how elections are run and decided. Georgia's election law strips the secretary of state of his power over the State Election Board, giving it to the hyperpartisan Legislature. The scrapped version of Texas' election bill would have given judges the power to directly toss out results of elections that seemed, for whatever reason, dodgy.

When you think about the efforts to shape control of the House and limit who gets to vote and a new willingness to change the results of elections after the fact, you get a world where Trump's long-shot effort to have the House declare him the winner over Biden would have a real shot at success.

The genius of this plan is that it involves manipulating the outcome at every stage of the election process: before, during and after voters' trips to the polls. Taken separately, any one of them can be an infringement on the people's right to choose their elected officials. Together, they're a nightmare for democracy.

This is the plan, in plain view for anyone who is willing to look. It's naive to suggest that this behavior is somehow ahistorical or outside what America is capable of accepting. But it would be nice if it could have been relegated to the past, where it belongs.

Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for MSNBC Daily, where he helps frame the news of the day for readers. He was previously at BuzzFeed News and holds a degree in international relations from Michigan State University.

View original post here:
Trump's 2020 loss gave the GOP the last key to 'win' the midterms - MSNBC

You wouldnt know it by watching Congress take long summer vacations and slowly mull infrastructure legislation, but Democrats are facing a fast-approaching deadline that could decide the partys political fate for the next decade.

By August 16, the US Census Bureau is scheduled to release data gathered in the 2020 census to the states, enabling state governments to begin redrawing their legislative and congressional districts.

If Democrats want to have their best shot at preventing Republicans from redrawing red states congressional districts in a way that could lock in a GOP House majority for a decade, they need to tweak and pass the For the People Act, their signature voting rights and democracy reform legislation, before that date.

The For the People Act would implement aseries of rules and procedures designed to curb partisan gerrymandering, the process of drawing legislative districts to benefit a political party. If the bill isnt passed before August 16, Democrats could modify its language to ensure some parts of its anti-gerrymandering provisions could take effect retroactively but not all of the legislations original redistricting reforms would be preserved this way. Theres also a risk that some Democrats may end up happy representing new, safely Democratic districts, and thus be less interested in passing reforms.

As of today, the bill has completely stalled. Itfailed in the Senate last month due to a Republican filibuster, and since a handful of conservative Democrats have steadfastly refused to eliminate or modify Senate filibuster rules requiring sixty votes to advance virtually all legislation, Republicans can continue to block the legislation indefinitely.

Its not clear how or when Democrats are planning to pass the bill. In recent weeks, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate have instead focused on negotiations over infrastructure legislation, a key priority of the Biden White House.

Both legislative houses are currently scheduled to be on recess for much of August. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, recently indicatedhe could keep senators in Washington for part of the August recess period but specifically to work on passing infrastructure legislation.

The For the People Act was supposed to be the Democratic Partys response to ongoing efforts by Republicans to restrict voting rights across the country. Supporters describe it as a democracy infrastructure bill or, as Elizabeth Hira, a policy counselor with the Brennan Center for Justice, calls it, the next great civil rights bill.

Not only is it beating back voter suppression, the likes of which weve been fighting since before 1965 with the Voting Rights Act, it actually does the forward-looking work to ask the question about what structural changes would need to exist in our democracy to actually create an inclusive democracy, Hira says.

To that end, the legislation would establish redistricting rules that include enhanced protections against minority voter dilution, mandate states use independent federal commissions to oversee their redistricting, and require transparency and public participation in the redrawing process.

For Democrats, the need to pass such a package could not be more urgent. Every ten years, following the release of updated demographic data from the US Census Bureau, states redraw congressional and legislative districts. Republicans, who dominated state legislative electionslast year, have proven to be willing to use the redistricting process to their extreme advantage.

And yet Democrats remain paralyzed on the issue a problem stemming from the top.

On the campaign trail, President Joe Bidenannounced that a first priority of a Biden Administration will be to lead on a comprehensive set of reforms like those reflected in the For the People Act (H. R. 1) to end special interest control of Washington and protect the voice and vote of every American.

As president, Biden followed this rhetoric with gestures signaling a desire to overhaul American democracy to be fairer and more inclusive. After the House passed its version of the For the People Act in March, he released a statementthat he was looking forward to signing the bill into law. Days later, Biden signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to expand ballot access.

The White House and Democrats even mobilized top brass to back the legislation. Vice President Kamala Harris hasled the administrations voting rights efforts, while former president Barack Obama and exattorney general Eric Holder held a teleconferencelast month urging Congress to compromise in order to get an iteration of the For the People Act passed.

Despite these gestures, however, the For the People Act remains stymied. On June 22, a vote to debate the bill failed in the Senate much to the chagrin of activists who, for months, have been calling on Senate Democrats and the Biden administration to embrace eliminating the filibuster.

Time is running out to pass the For the People Act, says Michael Li, the redistricting and voting counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. He says August 16, or shortly thereafter, is the deadline for Democrats to pass a bill containing the most robust [redistricting] reforms possible.

You could pass some things after August 16. The partisan gerrymandering ban, for example, could be retroactive, he says. But other things like the procedural requirements (the transparency and public participation requirements) could not be implemented.

But making parts of the bill retroactive could leave it less politically viable, says Li because, as he notes, As a practical matter, the politics of passage. . . potentially become more complicated once [redistricting] maps are passed. Thats because members of the House, including Democrats, could in some cases end up pleased with their newly redrawn districts, and therefore less interested in redoing them by passing the legislation.

Because Democrats have waited so long to pass the For the People Act, even if lawmakers find a way to pass the bill before the August 16 deadline, they will now have to rewrite some of its language regarding nonpartisan redistricting if they want it to apply to this cycle.

It is too late to create federal commissions to draw maps, so even though that is still technically in the bill, it wont be possible and will need to come out of any final bill, says Li. But there is time to implement national map-drawing rules, including a ban on partisan gerrymandering.

The uncertainty about whether Democrats will actually pass the For the People Act and whether it would even make a difference in the redistricting process is concerning for advocates who say there is a unique danger in Democrats not using their current control of the government to do away with gerrymandering once and for all.

I would have come out of the gates with a partisan gerrymandering bill, says author David Daley.

Few would know better than Daley. His 2016 book,Ratf**ked: The True Story Behind the Secret Plan to Steal Americas Democracy,recountshow the GOP weaponized the redistricting process after the 2010 midterms in defiance of unfavorable demographic trends.

The plan was called REDMAP and it was simple: pour money into state races to control the process and use it to disempower the opposition. The results were devastating for Democrats.

Democrats did not regain control of the House of Representatives until the 2018 midterms, despitewinninga majority of votes in congressional races in 2012, and have faced uphill battles at the state level ever since.

A 2017studyfrom the Brennan Center described the impact: In the 26 states that account for 85 percent of congressional districts, Republicans derive a net benefit of at least 16-17 congressional seats in the current Congress from partisan bias significantly more than previously thought.

Now, Daley predicts that unless legislation is passed to stop it, this redistricting cycle will be a drunken bacchanalia of gerrymandering, making what came before seem tame by comparison.

Law professor Lawrence Lessig shares Daleys concerns. Speaking to theDaily Poster, Lessig predicts that the gerrymandering we saw in 2010 is going to be gerrymandering on steroids in 2020. Lessig notes that in 2010, people were still worried that the Supreme Court was going to come in and strike down extreme partisan gerrymandering, but now the court said, Were not going to do anything.

The Supreme Court decision Lessig was referring to came down in June 2019 in the case ofRucho v. Common Cause. The court found that partisan gerrymandering was a political issue, and therefore not reviewable by federal courts.

TheRuchodecision is not the only one clearing the path for extreme gerrymandering. Six years earlier, in the case ofShelby County v. Holder, the court struck down a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that laid out the metrics used to determine which jurisdictions needed to obtain federal preclearance before changing their voting laws. The court found that the old standard which applied to places with a history of racial discrimination was no longer adequate and left it to Congress to find a new, workable formula. But lawmakers never came up with a substitute.

At the time, Greg Abbott, then Texas attorney general, lauded the decision, noting: Redistricting maps passed by the Legislature may. . . take effect without approval from the federal government.

The warnings of Daley and Lessig are likely prophetic. Democrats took a drubbing in down-ballot elections in 2020, despite Joe Bidens campaignpledgeto retake state legislatures.

Making matters worse for the party is its unilateral disarmament in the redistricting wars. In the last decade, several Democratic states, including New York, Colorado, and California, haveimplemented nonpartisan redistricting measuressince the last census, while big red states have not.Most of thethirty-one statesin which state legislatures draw the districts as a partisan matter are controlled by the GOP.

Since the failure of the For the People Act in the Senate, Biden has continued to speak about the need for voting rights reform.

Last week, the presidentpointed out that seventeen states have enacted 28 new laws to make it harder for American to vote, not to mention nearly 400 additional bills Republican members of state legislature are trying to pass. He labeledthe GOP efforts the 21st century Jim Crow assault.

Its the most dangerous threat to voting and the integrity of free and fair elections in our history, Bidensaid.

Despite the tough talk, Bidenstopped shortof calling for Senate filibuster reforms that might allow Democrats to actually do anything about the threat.

Some Democrats, like House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-SC, have now started pushing to exempt voting rights legislationand other constitutional measures from the filibuster.

Its a weak proposal, especially since it would mean the filibuster would continue to block major Democratic priorities like overhauling climate policy, reforming labor laws, and increasing the federal minimum wage.

With less than a month left before the census data is set to be released to the states, these efforts and all of the talk about preserving voting rights may be too little, too late. Unless Democrats manage to spring into action, quickly and decisively, Biden may never have full control of Congress again.

See more here:
The Clock Is Ticking on Preventing an Undemocratic GOP Power Grab in the House - Jacobin magazine

Mr. Bragg said repeatedly during the campaign that he had sued Mr. Trump or his administration more than 100 times during his tenure at the attorney generals office. He also said he expected to be attacked by Mr. Trump, who said this week that the investigation was a form of political persecution being led by New York radical-left prosecutors.

Mr. Vance, who did not seek re-election, is coordinating his efforts with Letitia James, New Yorks attorney general.

Preet Bharara, a former United States attorney in Manhattan who supervised Mr. Bragg and endorsed his candidacy, said Mr. Bragg had varied experience as a prosecutor, and that his work on white-collar crime and public corruption cases could come into play in the investigation into Mr. Trump and the case against Mr. Weisselberg and Mr. Trumps business.

He can handle this, Mr. Bharara said.

For much of the primary, Mr. Bragg was thought to be trailing Ms. Farhadian Weinstein, another former federal prosecutor who also served as counsel to the former U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder, and the Brooklyn district attorney, Eric Gonzalez. She dominated the fund-raising battle and gave her own campaign $8.2 million, more than three times as much money as anyone else raised overall, and led in most polls.

But a late resistance to her candidacy grew, in part because of the money she spent on the race. On Primary Day, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who did not endorse a candidate, discouraged voters from supporting Ms. Farhadian Weinstein during a radio interview, and cited Mr. Bragg and another contender, Tahanie Aboushi, as better choices.

Ms. Farhadian Weinstein said in a brief interview on Friday that she would continue to be an advocate for issues she focused on during the campaign, particularly violence against women, which she said was startlingly common and underreported.

Mr. Bragg will face Thomas Kenniff, the Republican candidate, in November. Mr. Kenniff, a former state prosecutor in Westchester County, N.Y., a member of the Army Judge Advocate Generals Corps and an Iraq War veteran, has said the Manhattan district attorney should be focused on law and order. In recent weeks, he had begun to attack Ms. Farhadian Weinstein, but then switched to criticizing Mr. Bragg.

See the original post here:
Alvin Bragg Likely to Take Over Trump Investigation - The New York Times

This July Fourth, for the 245th time, America will celebrate independence from British rule. But after President Joe Biden signed into law Juneteenth as a federal holiday, Americans are also forced to take a closer look at what this July Fourth represents.

More than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation, and two months after the end of the Civil War, enslaved African Americans in Texas found out they were free on June 19, 1865. The day has since been christened Juneteenth, also known as Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, Liberation Day and Emancipation Day.

With two wildly different yet celebratory liberation narratives about independence, Americans must reconcile her founding ideals with their spotty lived reality.

Frederick Douglass called America out on its hypocrisy more than a century and a half ago, in his 1852 speech, What, to the slave, is the Fourth of July? In it, Douglass stated that a country in the throes of slavery must close its yawning gap between the principles of the United States and the violence and trauma this country inflicted on Black people. His words still resonate today.

What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence. ... I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us, wrote Douglass. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine.

Yet despite the unequal treatment of African Americans in the United States, Black patriotism shines across the pages of U.S. history. African Americans fought in a segregated military in every war defending this country until 1948. Crispus Attucks, a brother of African and Native American ancestry from Framingham, was the first martyr for Americas independence in the American Revolution. Prince Estabrook, an enslaved man from Lexington and a Black Minuteman, was wounded in the Revolutions first battle.

Enslaved Africans who fought for the British, called Black Loyalists, were ensured their freedom after the war. Enslaved Africans who fought for the United States, sadly, were not.

But Black patriotism has been exhibited not just on the battlefields of Americas wars but also in demands for equality in her streets and arenas. San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, for example, began to protest police brutality against Black Americans and other forms of social injustice by taking a knee during the national anthem in 2016.

His actions were condemned as polarizing, un-American and unpatriotic. Former President Donald Trump stoked the flames, criticizing Kaepernick and his allies and labeling them as anti-the American flag, cops and the military.

In response came an outpouring of defense, celebrating Black Americans history of protest. Former Attorney General Eric Holder tweeted with a photo of Martin Luther King, Jr., down on his left knee in Selma, Ala, in 1965. Holder added, Taking a knee is not without precedent, Mr. President. Those who dared to protest have helped bring positive change. As King said in his Montgomery Bus Boycott speech on December 5, 1955, The great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right.

The controversy of taking a knee during the singing of The Star-Spangled Banner, America's beloved national anthem, brought heightened attention to the songs racist history. Francis Scott Key, who penned the lyrics, supported slavery and came from an influential plantation family in Maryland. The songs third verse, no longer sung after the Civil War, included the lyrics, No refuge could save the hireling and slave/From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.

When patriotism is narrowly defined, it can only be accepted and exhibited within the constraints of its own nations intolerance.

Acts of patriotism and protest, however, have yet to accomplish ultimate goals of equality and freedom from oppression. In depicting the mangling grip of white supremacist domestic terrorism on Black lives, Malcolm X in 1965 said, Thats not a chip on my shoulder. Thats your foot on my neck. Last year, the world saw a 9 minute and 29 second video of former Minnesota Police officer Derek Chauvins murder of George Floyd with his knee on Floyds neck. Floyd handcuffed, lying face down, saying, I cant breathe, went limp. Chauvin was sentenced to 22 and a half years in prison last week. The ongoing struggle against police brutality persists.

This Fourth of July, people will once again sing The Star-Spangled Banner. They will once again recite the Pledge of Allegiance, reenact the Continental Congress of 1776 and watch reproductions of the rockets red glare and bombs bursting in air. America will showcase her indomitable spirit of bravery and patriotism through this ongoing pandemic.

This Fourth, however, will be different from the previous ones. Juneteenth can no longer stand to the side of Americas celebration of independence. The newly recognized federal holiday should encourage Americans to reconsider and expand their ideas of patriotism, what loving ones country looks like. It highlights how Juneteenth and Black liberation is inextricably linked to America's core values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans.

More here:
What, In Light Of Juneteenth, Is The Fourth Of July? - wgbh.org - wgbh.org

A change to Ohios ballot rules could impact key Supreme Court races in 2022 and influence the leaning of the states highest court for years to come.

Gov. Mike DeWine signed a bill into law Thursday that will list candidates party affiliations on ballots for certain judicial races. This will include races for the Ohio Supreme Court as well as the dozen appellate court districts.

Ohios election system is currently unique in that judicial candidates campaign in partisan primaries, but the November General Election lists them without party affiliation. This is ostensibly to promote judicial independence, but is thought to contribute to significant ballot drop off more than 1 million Ohio voters in 2020 left the two Supreme Court races blank.

Republican supporters of adding ballot party affiliation say this change is necessary to provide more information to voters and also because the campaign trail already features partisan spending, endorsements and advertising.

In reality, the process of electing a judge is already simply partisan in nature, said Rep. D.J. Swearingen of Huron, who introduced legislation to make this change. Lawmakers ultimately approved an identical bill originating from the Ohio Senate.

This bill is sorely needed and long overdue, Swearingen added.

Democrats joined organizations like the Ohio State Bar Association, Ohio Courts of Appeals Judges Association and Ohio Judicial Conference in opposition. The executive director of the latter group, former Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer, told lawmakers that party affiliation is wholly irrelevant to the work of a judge and should not be included on ballots. Pfeifer blames the voting drop off to broader unfamiliarity with judicial candidates rather than political party confusion in the ballot box.

Pfeifer and other opponents point to the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits candidates from any political activity inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.

Judges are currently not even allowed to make statements implying how they would rule on a case before them under the code of judicial conduct, said state Rep. Bride Rose Sweeney, D-Cleveland. Then why would we further continue to require a party label that would make similar implications to voters?

Critics like state Rep. Stephanie Howse of Cleveland believe this change is only being sought for political purposes. Democrats have won three of the past four Ohio Supreme Court elections (held in 2018 and 2020), narrowing the Republican majority on the court to 4-3. GOP candidates have fared well in other statewide races where party affiliations are listed on the ballot.

I know we talked about being honest with voters, so lets just be real, Howse said. Be a straight-shooter. Yall scared. Its cool, because Democrats are absolutely coming for the Ohio Supreme Court in 22.

Another Republican sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Brian Stewart of Ashville, pushed back against this line of attack and noted his policy support predates the recent election results.

Stewart and Swearingen both highlighted earlier support for this change from Democrats.

The Ohio Democratic Party, in fact, once waged a legal battle seeking to include party affiliation on judicial ballots and viewed the forced nonpartisan labelling as being unconstitutional. The party lost this fight, and now a decade later sees its lawmakers fighting against such a change.

Just 18 months ago, Democratic state Rep. Michael Skindell sponsored legislation that would have added party affiliation to ballots unless a judicial candidate expressly opted out of having it listed. Skindell unsuccessfully ran for the Ohio Supreme Court in 2010 and his bipartisan legislation was cosponsored by Democratic state Rep. Michael OBrien of Warren.

Both Skindell and OBrien voted against the more recent legislation put forward by Republicans.

Democrats also accused the bill sponsors of cherry picking some judicial races to include while candidates for lower courts will continue to be listed on ballots without party affiliation.

Swearingen said this was intentional.

When we see a Super PAC or Eric Holder come in for a Municipal Court judge, let me know about it, because well put them in the next bill, he said, referring to the former Democratic attorney general who campaigned for Ohio Supreme Court candidates in 2020.

We dont see nearly the levels of fundraising and, quite frankly, national politics that occur at the Ohio Supreme Court levels and the appellate appeals levels that we would at the local level, Swearingen argued.

The change could have an impact on an election involving the governors son, Patrick DeWine, a Republican serving on the Ohio Supreme Court.

The younger DeWine has announced plans to campaign for chief justice in 2022 to replace sitting Chief Justice Maureen OConnor, who is forced to retire due to mandatory age restrictions.

He may end up facing Justice Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat elected to the court in 2020 who also jumped into the chief justice race.

Said Brunner about the possible ballot change, Frankly, my opinion is, just tell me the rules and Ill run.

THE MORNING NEWSLETTER

Subscribe now.

HELP US GROW

Make a tax-deductible donation.

Go here to see the original:
Ohio ballots will list party affiliations for top judicial candidates - Ohio Capital Journal