Mediaboss Marketing

James Craig, a former Detroit police chief, is among the Republican candidates for Michigan governor who've been blocked from the ballot after the state's elections bureau said they failed to file enough valid nominating signatures. Paul Sancya/AP hide caption

James Craig, a former Detroit police chief, is among the Republican candidates for Michigan governor who've been blocked from the ballot after the state's elections bureau said they failed to file enough valid nominating signatures.

Several Republican candidates for governor of Michigan, including some of the party's top hopefuls, have been blocked from the primary ballot after signatures the candidates submitted included alleged forgeries.

The five GOP candidates have said they were unaware of any problems with their signatures, and most are pursuing legal avenues to get on the Aug. 2 ballot.

The developments have upended the race to lead a key swing state.

Here's how we got here:

April 19 was the deadline for Michigan candidates for various offices to submit their filing paperwork with the secretary of state to appear on the primary ballot.

With their filing paperwork, candidates also had to turn in a certain number of valid signatures. Those running for governor had to submit a minimum of 15,000 signatures and a maximum of 30,000. That way, they'd have a cushion in case the Board of State Canvassers, an independent and bipartisan group with members appointed by the governor, determined not every signature submitted was valid.

The Republican field for governor initially had 10 candidates, and voters can only sign one campaign's nominating petition. Like in past cycles, campaigns adapted by using a mix of volunteer and paid petition circulators, or signature gatherers.

Within seven days of the filing deadline, the Board of State Canvassers or a county clerk can receive challenges to the nominating petitions.

"It's always prudent to look at [other candidates' signatures]. Until you look at them, you don't know whether it's worth taking a deeper look or not. At least flip through them," consultant John Yob told reporters after filing signatures with Republican gubernatorial hopeful Perry Johnson.

Nearly 30 candidates for offices ranging from U.S. House to a circuit court judgeship eventually faced a challenge by the time that period ended on April 26.

Notably, the Michigan Democratic Party targeted three of the Republicans running for governor: businessman Johnson, former Detroit Police Chief James Craig and businesswoman Tudor Dixon.

Democrats alleged evidence of rampant signature fraud in the nominating petitions for Craig and Johnson, and they also argued that Dixon's campaign had signature fraud and that her forms listed an incorrect date.

"You don't see clean petitions with 10 names. No cross-outs, every sheet completed you know, that's just not the way this works. People make mistakes, they cross things out, you get incomplete sheets," attorney Mark Brewer, a former state Democratic Party chair, said at a press conference.

The Board of State Canvassers agreed to evaluate the candidacy challenges.

Ahead of that, on May 23, the state Bureau of Elections published a report that claimed that 36 individual paid circulators faked thousands of signatures to take advantage of a payout that reached as high as $20 per signature on average.

"Although it is typical for staff to encounter some signatures of dubious authenticity scattered within nominating petitions, the Bureau is unaware of another election cycle in which this many circulators submitted such a substantial volume of fraudulent petition sheets consisting of invalid signatures," the report stated.

Issues included accusations of a practice known as "round robin-ing." That's when circulators take turns signing a petition with names from a list, sometimes switching pen colors. Other times, circulators allegedly turned in similar signature sheets for multiple campaigns.

The signature gatherers had worked across several campaigns. The state attorney general's office is looking into possibly pressing charges against them.

The Bureau of Elections report noted it "does not have reason to believe that any specific candidates or campaigns were aware of the activities of fraudulent-petition circulators," but after throwing out sheets of signatures from the circulators, the bureau found many candidates fell below the required threshold to run for office.

Those included GOP gubernatorial hopefuls Craig and Johnson. Dixon survived her challenges. Michigan State Police Capt. Michael Brown ended his campaign rather than associate his candidacy with signature fraud.

The Bureau of Elections report was sent to the Board of State Canvassers, which, during an eight-hour meeting on May 26, deadlocked on how to handle the affected campaigns for governor.

The two Democratic members of the board voted against allowing the candidates ballot access. The two Republican members voted the opposite way, taking issue with the practice of throwing out sheets of signatures turned in by suspected fraudsters rather than checking every petition sheet line-by-line.

The tie meant that the candidates were to be blocked from the primary ballot.

Common Cause, a nonpartisan group focused on upholding democracy, shared concerns over whether the process was rushed.

"This action is unprecedented, with challengers finding out about their alleged indiscretions just days before pleading their cases to the Board of Canvassers," Quentin Turner, Common Cause Michigan's policy director, said in a statement.

Michigan's Democratic secretary of state is set to certify eligible candidates by Friday, as some blocked candidates have sued to try to get their names on primary ballots.

But on Wednesday, the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected lawsuits from Johnson and fellow gubernatorial candidate Michael Markey, a financial adviser. Markey pledged to take his fight to the state Supreme Court.

Then on Thursday, the Michigan Court of Claims denied Craig's appeal. Craig too says he'll take the fight to the state's high court.

"The voters should be deciding who their candidates are, not an unelected board of government bureaucrats," he said in a statement.

If all else fails, running as a write-in candidate is an option for both the primary and general elections.

Michigan is a battleground state with conservatives both in the state and nationwide taking an interest in unseating incumbent Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. The Democrat has repeatedly sparred with the Republican-led state legislature across her tenure so far.

Regardless of pending litigation, Whitmer will take on a relative political newcomer as the Republican nominee.

Despite reported turmoil within the Craig campaign and Johnson's late entry into the race, both appeared in relatively strong positions before last week's developments.

The DeVos family, a heavyweight in Michigan conservative politics, has endorsed Dixon for governor. Any benefits of a DeVos bump, however, haven't yet been seen. In a recent polling, Dixon remained behind.

Originally posted here:
Michigan GOP candidates blocked from ballot: what to know - NPR

Last months vote in the U.S. Congress to appropriate $40 billion in additional military and budgetary assistance for Ukraine laid bare fissures in the Republican congressional caucus: 11 of 50 Senate Republicans voted against the bill, as did 57 of 208 House Republicans.

Was the Ukraine vote a harbinger of Republican national security squabbles to come? Was it a partisan vote against anything associated with President Joe Biden? Or was it a one-off reflecting a poorly drafted bill with too much extraneous baggage? More importantly, who will hold the foreign-policy reins in the likely Republican House (and possibly Senate) majority to come in 2023the isolationists or the internationalists?

Political pundits agree Republicans are likely to win back the House of Representatives and have a good shot at the Senate in the November 2022 midterm elections. That couldcaucus permittingpropel House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to the speakership and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to the post of majority leader. Of the two, McConnell is the known quantityan experienced legislator and parliamentarian and an old-school internationalist whose foreign-policy views were forged in the crucible of the Cold War. McCarthy, not so much. Indeed, its probably most accurate to say his foreign policy was forged in the crucible of former President Donald Trump.

As previous Republican speakers have learned to their displeasure, the Republican Party in todays House is less a caucus and more a raucous battle for primacy. Former Speaker John Boehner struggled against rebellious Tea Party upstarts, his successor Paul Ryan struggled against the self-named Freedom Caucus, and McCarthy is unlikely to have much fun either. In the minority, the Republican Party tendsemphasis intendedto stand together because the Democratic speaker and the executive in the White House are deemed public enemies No. 1 and No. 2. But with the majority comes the battle to control the agenda.

Domestic policy will likely dominate the politicking in Congress: inflation, crime, education, the border. But Russias invasion of Ukraine, like so many conflicts before it, has proved that as much as politicians wish to focus on nation building here at home, global realities intrude. Ukraine is the tip of the iceberg, but Republicans have their eye on plenty of other issues as well, including relations with China, the question of defending Taiwan, the continued isolation of Russia, the Middle East (think energy, Iran, and Israel), and, more broadly, defense spending. But before the substance of the foreign-policy challenge hits the House and Senate floors, the ideological question merits examination.

American Enterprise Institute scholar Colin Dueck divides the Republican Partys foreign policy into three schools: foreign-policy activists, foreign-policy hard-liners, and foreign-policy noninterventionists.

Looking back, its clear that so-called foreign-policy activists dominated Republican national security policymaking for much of the post-World War II era. These were the leaders who believed, as both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush regularly underscored, that the United States is not simply one nation among many but that it is a beacon of freedom to the world, a shining city on a hill.

Foreign-policy activists underwrote the Reagan Doctrine, the principle that the United States should lend a hand to all those hoping to halt the advance of communism wherever they were, including in Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Angola, El Salvador, and Grenada. Bush faced different challenges, but his underlying faith in U.S. power and values was similar. Rather than fighting communism, what Bush dubbed his Freedom Agenda took on the tyrannies that he believed fueled Salafi-jihadis. Yet his efforts were neither clearly thought through nor appropriately resourced. Worse yet, Bush could not convincingly argue that he was advancing U.S. national interests in every case. For the activist school, Bushs Iraq War proved to be their swan song.

Though the Iraq War offered an I told you so moment for the Republican Partys isolationist wing, its immediate beneficiaries were President Barack Obama and the Democratic Partys own End the endless wars crowdor so it seemed at first. But the intervening years offered the Republican Partys noninterventionists ample fodder: the disastrous war in Libya and the horrifying killing of a U.S. ambassador in Benghazi, the withdrawal from Iraq and the resulting rise of the Islamic State, the civil war in Syria and the ensuing cataclysmic refugee crisis. These crises were not the primary reason for Trumps election, but they didnt hurt his campaign. Rather, theytogether with Obamas self-labeled signature foreign-policy achievement, the Iran nuclear dealoffered an opportunity for Trump.

Donald Trumps political achievement in 2016 was to sense the possibility for a new [Republican] coalition unseen since before World War II, Dueck writes. He did this not by reiterating libertarian foreign-policy preferences. Rather, he combined non-interventionist criticism of endless wars with hardline stands on China, jihadist terrorism, anti-American dictatorships in Latin America, and US defense spending.

This is a sweet spot for Republican foreign policy, and understanding the reluctant internationalism of most of the partys votersa repudiation of the embarrassed anti-Americanism of the Democratic Partys far left and the activist internationalism that has heretofore characterized the Republican Party leadershipwill be key to geolocating a new Republican Congresss preferred national security policy.

A unifying theme for the Republican Party will be the challenge presented by China. It sells well with the base, and with trade liberalization off the table for the moment (for both parties), the question of China will likely come down to economic disengagement and Beijings threat to Taiwan.

A case in point is a recent letter co-written by Joe Manchin and Shelley Moore Capito (respectively the Democratic and Republican senators from West Virginia) urging Biden to include Taiwan in his newly proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. Republican signatories to the letter included James Risch, who is likely to be the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a new Republican-held Senate; Roger Wicker, the likely chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Marco Rubio, the likely chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; and most of the Republican members of the current Senate Appropriations Committee. Notably, several of the Senates more ardent Trump supporters, including Marsha Blackburn and Kevin Cramer, also joined the letter. (A similar House effort was also joined by likely future national security heavyweights, including probable House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul.)

Defense spending will be another key theme for the Republican Party. House and Senate Republicans have repeatedly slammed Bidens defense spending as inadequate to address the countrys many national security challenges and have only escalated those charges since Russias invasion of Ukraine. McConnell has called for a 5 percent increase in defense spending above inflation, and McCarthy has been equally energetic. Both understandas Trump didthat investing in the military can be cast as a deterrent as well as a down payment on victory in any eventual conflict. And here again, the base is with them.

Ditto for energy security: While there is a bipartisan constituency for pivoting away from the Middle Eastand a growing bipartisan opposition to renewing the Iran nuclear dealRepublicans are less focused on climate change issues and more on basic pocketbook challenges. That will mean more enthusiasm for restoring American energy independence, avoiding unnecessary bickering with Saudi Arabia (still a major swing producer of oil), and easing regulations on U.S. oil and gas production.

But what about Ukraine and cases like it? What about those 11 in the Senate and the 57 in the House? What about the conservative powerhouse think tank the Heritage Foundation and its political action committee drawing a line in the sand against the $40 billion Ukraine aid package? Like Heritage, Sen. Mike Braun finessed his opposition based not on the policy of aiding Ukraine but on the cost of doing so and the spiraling U.S. debt. Sen. Rand Paul, a perennial opponent of U.S. overseas engagement, pinned his no vote on the lack of an inspector general in the bill to oversee how the funds are spent.

Thats fair enough, but its hard to picture every one of those no votes switching tack if presented with a better or cleaner billnot when the Republican Partys rising stars include the likes of Senate candidate J.D. Vance, who during his campaign said, I gotta be honest with you, I dont really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.

Its relatively easy to predict that a Republican majority will continue to support arming and aiding Ukraine, because the vote has already happened. And though a significant minority of the Republican caucus voted no, it was a minority. But there are harder cases (though not just for the Republicans): the looming Chinese threat to Taiwan, for one.

Sure, theres a majority in both houses for including Taiwan in trading arrangements, and there are vocal advocates in both chambers for ending the U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity toward Taipei. But where will the Republican Party be on defending Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack? Will isolationists on both left and right actually have the power to steer a course? On its face, the answer appears to be no, but the devil is, proverbially, in the details. Sanctions on China would hit the Republican base hard, raising costs for basic goods even higher.

As with all such crystal ball gazing, sorting the powerful from the merely loud will be a chore. Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is ever-so-vocal and enjoys a substantial Twitter following, but she has little clout in the House of Representatives. Paul is consistently isolationist, but few ask how he will vote as they decide their stance on major issues.

More importantly, the majority of the Republican Party is not actually with them. Case in point: The TV host Tucker Carlson, pocket deity of Trump nostalgics, initially came out swinging against NATOs condemnations of Russian President Vladimir Putins attack on Ukraine, but he soon tempered his position once it became clear that ranging himself on the side of the Russian dictator was a losing cause.

Similarly, while all eyes focus on the Vances and Greenes, there actually remains a strong hawkish contingent in the Republican Party that is well represented on Capitol Hill, including by Sens. Tom Cotton, Rubio, and Ted Cruz, as well as Reps. Mike Gallagher, Elise Stefanik, and likely incoming House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Turner, among others. Although these members may not be interventionists in the style of George W. Bush, there should be no question that they are national security hawks keen on defending both U.S. interests and U.S. allies. That will almost certainly mean efforts to increase the defense budget; pressure to increase the quality, consistency, and speed of arms deliveries to Ukraine; and an even harder line on China, potentially including additional sanctions on Beijing (notwithstanding grumbling from certain quarters).

Finally, it pays to recall Trumps term in officenot the tweets, the bickering, the preening, or even the man himself, but rather the actual national security policy of the Trump administration, largely backed by the congressional Republican Party and its base. Trumps administration was tough on China, tough on Russia, tough on failed allied burden sharing, tough on Iran, pro-defense investment, pro-Israel, and, at the end of the day, actually pro-human rights (think troops in Syria to fight the Islamic State and counter the Russians, limitations on support for Saudi operations in Yemen, Magnitsky sanctions over the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, sanctions over the Uyghurs, a hard line on hostage taking). That, perhaps, is a better guide to the future than the huffing and puffing of the Charles Lindbergh wing of the Republican Party.

See the rest here:
How US Foreign Policy Could Change If the Republican Party Wins the 2022 Midterm Elections - Foreign Policy

The Republican party is building a grassroots army to target and potentially overturn election results in Democratic precincts, the Politico website reported on Wednesday, citing video evidence.

The alleged scheme includes installing party-trained volunteers prepared to challenge voters at Democratic-majority polling places, creating a website to put these workers in touch with local lawyers and establishing a network of district attorneys who could intervene to block vote counts.

Many Republicans still believe Donald Trumps lie that he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden because of widespread voter fraud. At state level the party has passed laws that make it harder to vote while pro-Trump candidates are running for positions that would give them control over future elections.

Politico obtained a series of recordings of Republican meetings between the summer of 2021 and May this year.

It said one from November shows Matthew Seifried, the Republican National Committees (RNC) election integrity director for Michigan, urging party activists in Wayne county to obtain official designations as poll workers.

Seifried says: Being a poll worker, you just have so many more rights and things you can do to stop something than [as] a poll challenger.

Some of the would-be poll workers complain that fraud was committed in 2020 and that the election was corrupt.

At another training session last October, Seifried promises support for such workers: Its going to be an army. Were going to have more lawyers than weve ever recruited, because lets be honest, thats where its going to be fought, right?

Politico also obtained Zoom tapings of Tim Griffin, legal counsel to the Amistad Project, a self-described election integrity group that Trumps former lawyer Rudy Giuliani once portrayed as a partner in the Trump campaigns legal efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Griffin is seen meeting with activists from multiple states and discussing plans for identifying friendly district attorneys who could stage interventions in local election disputes.

He says during one meeting in September: Remember, guys, were trying to build out a nationwide district attorney network. Your local district attorney, as we always say, is more powerful than your congressman.

Theyre the ones that can seat a grand jury. Theyre the ones that can start an investigation, issue subpoenas, make sure that records are retained, etc.

Politico added that installing party loyalists on the board of canvassers, which is responsible for certifying election results, also appears to be part of the Republican strategy.

The revelations are sure to intensify concerns about fresh assaults on American democracy in 2022 and 2024.

Nick Penniman, founder and chief executive of Issue One, an election watchdog group, told Politico: This is completely unprecedented in the history of American elections that a political party would be working at this granular level to put a network together. It looks like now the Trump forces are going directly after the legal system itself, and that should concern everyone.

The RNC insisted that it is simply trying to restore balance to election oversight in heavily Democratic cities such as Detroit. Gates McGavick, an RNC spokesperson, was quoted as saying: Democrats have had a monopoly on poll watching for 40 years, and it speaks volumes that theyre terrified of an even playing field.

The RNC is focused on training volunteers to take part in the election process because polling shows that American voters want bipartisan poll-watching to ensure transparency and security at the ballot box.

See the rest here:
Republican party building an army to overturn election results report - The Guardian US

In a sane country that actually valued human lives, last weeks mass shooting in Texasor, the one before that in Buffalo, or thousands before that in the years priorwould have marked the moment the elected officials whove refused to pass gun control legislation looked in the mirror and decided to stop being part of the problem.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is not a sane country, and instead of actually doing something to prevent these atrocities from occurring all the timein case you missed it, there have been 17 mass shootingssince Uvalde, TexasRepublicans have launched a competition in which they duke it out to see who can come up with the most ridiculous thing to blame mass shootings on besides guns. So far, thats included too many doors; not enough God; pot; single moms; unarmed teachers; and schools being designed without trip wires and man traps.

Obviously, the competition is fierce. But that didnt scare Missouri representative and Senate candidate Billy Long, who rolled up to Wednesdays interview with a local radio station withand excuse the phrase though we assume hell appreciate itthe big guns. Asked by host Branden Rathert if Is there any appetite in D.C. amongst Republicans to look at doing some things differently as it relates to guns, Long responded that No one has been able to come up with any kind of suggestion that would have helped in any of these situations fact-check: false! and that passing gun control measures is not the solution to the epidemic of gun violence. Unfortunately, theyre trying to blame inanimate objects for all of these tragedies,he said. Then he added: When I was growing up in Springfield, you had one or two murders a year. Now we have two, three, four a week in Springfield, Missouri, so something has happened to our society and I go back to abortion. When we decided it was okay to murder kids in their mothers wombs, life has no value to a lot of these folks.

As Jezebels Laura Bassett noted, thats a pretty rich explanation given that you dont typically hear about mass shootings being carried out by women whove undergone abortions, probably because mass shootings are almost exclusively the domain of men, a not insignificant number of which are violent misogynists (and racists and antisemites, etc). The U.K. legalized abortion five years before the U.S., yet strangely, it doesnt seem to have the same problem with mass shootings. If Long and his ilk were actually serious about preventing thousands of Americans being killed by guns every year, they might wonder why. Hint: It doesnt have to do with clotted cream or corgis. (Just so its clear: The actual reason that more mass shootings occur in the U.S. than any other wealthy country the answerthe only answeris the astronomical number of guns in this country.)

Elsewhere in conservative bullshit re: guns, on Wednesday, Doug Mastriano, the Pennsylvania GOP nominee for governor, shared and doubled down on a 2018 video of him likening gun control to the policies of Adolf Hitler. Its appalling to me any time theres a shooting, the left will jump on that as a way to advance an agenda to remove our right to bear arms, Mastriano says in the clip. We saw Lenin do the same thing in Russia. We saw Hitler do the same thing in Germany in the 30s. Where does it stop? Where do the tyrants stop infringing upon our rights?

If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, clickheretosubscribe.

See the article here:
Republican Congressman Blames Mass Shootings on Women Having Rights - Vanity Fair

None were, though, as each Republican lawmaker on stage grinned ear-to-ear after DeSantis made the comment, some visibly signaling they were not upset. Those who joined DeSantis included Senate President Wilton Simpson (R-Trilby) and incoming GOP Senate leader Kathleen Passidomo (R-Naples) as well as Speaker Chris Sprowls (R-Palm Harbor).

After DeSantis remarks, a handful gave their own comments replete with praise of DeSantis.

How about Ron DeSantis, Americas governor, said Simpson, echoing the nickname conservatives across the country have bestowed upon Floridas governor.

Simpson, an industrial egg farmer, is currently running for agriculture commissioner and has secured DeSantis endorsement.

DeSantis vetoed several high profile budget items sought by Simpson and top Senate Republicans from the spending plan, which was sent to the governor at $112 billion but will take effect next month at $109 billion. It still remains the biggest spending plan in state history despite the massive vetoes.

DeSantis vetoed $645 million secured by the Senate during final budget negotiations for the Department of Corrections to build a new prison; $350 million for Lake Okeechobee aquifer storage wells that were a Simpson priority; $50 million for a new 6th District Court of Appeals in Lakeland, the home of Senate budget chief Kelli Stargel (R-Lakeland); $50 million to widen a county road in Simpsons district; $20 million for two new state planes that the Senate requested; and $20 million that was a Simpson priority for Moffitt Cancer Center to secure front-end financing so it can begin development of a planned 775-acre life sciences park.

During the March conclusion of the Legislation session, Simpson called the Moffitt project, which is in his district, transformative.

The House was not spared in DeSantis veto carnage.

The governor cut a $1 billion fund proposed by the House to help the state grapple with the cost of inflation. Under the proposal, the $1 billion would have been set aside to help fund increases in material costs for state projects as inflation continues to remain high. As proposed by the House, it would have been called the Budgeting for Inflation that Drives Elevate Needs Fund, or BIDEN fund, a nod to spiking inflation under the Biden administration. Senators did not agree to that name, but did sign off on $1 billion in funding for the program.

Hammering Biden on inflation has been one of DeSantis favorite pastimes in recent months, including during Thursdays budget signing press conference, which he opened up by referring to Biden as Brandon.

You look at what he did in terms of fiscal and monetary policy, printing and printing trillions of dollars, DeSantis said. What did you get for that? Most sustained inflation this nation has seen in over 40 years.

Left unsaid was the more than $10 billion Florida has received from the Biden administration in Covid-19 relief funding over the past two years, including roughly $3.5 billion in the budget DeSantis just signed.

DeSantis also scrapped a House plan to take $200 million from school districts that defied the DeSantis administrations ban on mask mandates. Rep. Randy Fine (R-Palm Bay) wrote the plan, which would have blocked the money from being accessed by 12 counties that put in place school mask mandates against DeSantis order. But the governor blocked that idea freeing up the funding for all districts.

I direct the Department of Education to implement the Florida School Recognition Program consistent with this reading of the language, which is to reward eligible schools for their achievements, as districts actions have no bearing on a schools eligibility, DeSantis wrote in a letter accompanying his veto list.

I am somewhat befuddled by the letter, Fine told POLITICO in a text message. The language in the bill was explicit and clear.

Sprowls also took no issue with the vetoes, focusing his remarks on DeSantis decision to largely keep Floridas economy open during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has bolstered state coffers.

You guys have heard a lot of great news already about this budget, he said. This budget is as good as it is for the people of Florida for one reason and one reason only: and that is because our governor kept our state open.

The massive veto list does come as Florida is flush with cash. The newly signed budget includes more than $20 million in reserves, and just this month state economists revised revenue estimates up by more than $800 million compared with previous forecasts.

DeSantis also vetoed a request by Democratic Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, who is running for governor, for 83 positions to process and review concealed carry permits, which is a function overseen by her office. Fried blasted the decision, which comes on the heels of a wave of mass shootings across the country, as reckless and another signal the governor wants open carry, or allowing people to carry firearms without a permit.

Ron DeSantis just vetoed my concealed carry positions because he wants open carry, Fried tweeted. This is so dangerous and a warning to every Floridian, tourist, and business. Do NOT allow him another term.

Andrew Atterbury contributed to this report.

View original post here:
'Just the way it goes': DeSantis axes $3B from Legislature's budget in front of Republican leaders - POLITICO