Mediaboss Marketing

In the hearing room on Capitol Hill this week, a parade of Trump advisors testified that they tried to tell the President that he had lost the 2020 election. Its possible that Trump knew he had lost but decided to pursue another, more cynical route to power by persisting in whats come to be known as the Big Lie. Or its possible that Trumps narcissism was so powerful that he simply couldnt believe the experts and pursued the Big Lie out of a delusional fantasy. Sorting this out will keep historians and psychiatrists busy for years to come. In the meantime, however, the Big Lie has become a prominent feature of some Republican primary races around the country and one more way of measuring Donald Trumps strength within the Republican Party.

The importance of the Big Lie was on display in the June 14 Republican primary in South Carolina. It featured two House races in which Republican candidates embraced Trumps delusion against two incumbent Republicans who refused to go along. In South Carolinas 1st district, incumbent Nancy Mace, was running for a second term. In 2020, she flipped a Democratic seat, campaigning as a solid supporter of Trump and ran with Trumps endorsement. But, appalled by the January 6 rioters, in one of her first acts in Congress she refused to object to the certification of electors, and she called on Trump to get off Twitter. Her opposition to the Big Lie earned her Trumps enmity and a primary opponent, Katie Arrington, who had Trumps support. Because the two candidates share many of the same positions on issues, the race largely revolved around Maces betrayal of Trump. In South Carolinas 7th congressional district, incumbent Tom Rice, also broke with Trump over the January 6 riotsgoing even farther than Mace did by voting to impeach Trump. That got him a primary challenger, state representative Russell Fry, who has been running with Trumps endorsement. Unlike Mace, Rice has not tried to soften his opposition to the Big Lie. On primary night, Mace won her race and Rice lost his.

In our study of all the candidates to date, we broke the Big Lie down into three parts in order to get a more nuanced understanding of how Republicans are dealing with this issue. In one we looked to see if the candidate mentioned the January 6 attack on the Capitol and how they felt about it. In another we looked for the candidates views on the 2020 election and in yet another we looked for the candidates views on issues of election integrity in general. In House and Senate primaries, we coded candidates websites, Facebook pages, other social media platforms and media interviews. So far, we have evaluated 759 Republican House and Senate candidates.

Republican candidates generally refrained from discussing the January 6 riots in their campaign materials. As Table 1 indicates, only 38 candidates or 5.01% of all Republican candidates made statements to the effect that January 6 was the work of patriots legitimately protesting a corrupt election. Surprisingly, slightly more Republican candidates made statements indicating January 6 was a violent insurrection/coup attempt and steps must be taken to protect democracy63 candidates or 8.3% of the total. The vast majority of Republican candidates did not seek to opine on January 6. Nearly 87% made no mention of the event at all.

The final columns in Table 1 show the percentage of candidates in each category who actually won their races. Surprisingly, the candidates who spoke out against the insurrection did better than those who supported it, but the numbers are small, there are still candidates in runoffs and there are still races to be decided.

We also looked for statements showing how candidates felt about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. More candidates had opinions on this than they did on January 6 but still not very many. As Table 2 indicates, 65 candidates or 8.56% of all candidates to date campaigned on something to the effect of, Bidens win was a myth, and Trump would have won without voter fraud. Notably more candidates believed something like, the election should have been investigated further, but I dont believe Biden is illegitimate; 113 candidates or 14.89% of all candidates to date said something like that in their campaign materials or appearances. As one would imagine, practically no Republican candidates went so far as to state that Biden won the election fairly. But, perhaps most importantly, 74.7% or 567 candidates made no mention of the legitimacy of the 2020 election at all.

Candidates who took the more moderate position, that the election should have been investigated further, did better than candidates who bought into the Big Lie. Only 14 Republican candidates believed Biden was the clear winner and they did well too.

Finally, we looked for general statements about election integrity with a focus on the future not the past. In Table 3, 42.6% or 323 candidates made statements in favor of election reforms that would make it harder to cheat, and only 17 candidates or 2.24% of the total made statements indicating that theyd like to make it easier for people to vote. Clearly the former was a safe haven for most candidates: expressing concern about election integrity without having to support the violence around January 6 or the Big Lie. But even here the majority of Republican candidates419 candidates or 55.2% of the total candidates to datestayed away from the issue.

On this issue, overall election integrity, Republican candidates who were in favor of tightening voting rules in the name of improving election integrity did fairly well. No wonder so many Republican candidates adopted this position. It was a forward-looking position that allowed them to express some doubt about the past without getting mired in approving or disapproving the violence of January 6 and without getting sucked into conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.

What are we to make of these findings?

First, January 6 and the 2020 elections do not loom as large in the minds of Republican candidates in 2022 as they do in the mind of Donald Trump.

Second, to the despair of many Republicans, Trumps strategy for the 2022 midterms has been all about him and the 2020 election. It is a backwards looking strategy that has resulted in mixed verdicts on Trump all across the countryas it did in South Carolina on June 14. And third, most of his victories are in deep red states and districts. Trump is not changing hearts and minds as much as he is activating a cadre of 2020 voters who are among his most passionate and committed.

Read more:
What impact are the events of January 6 having on the Republican primaries? - Brookings Institution

As the House committee on the Jan. 6 insurrection continues its public hearings, Republicans are scrambling to shift the blame away from themselves. Here are the biggest talking points the GOP is using to downplay the Capitol riots.

Come on, it was just the one Capitol.

Not like Congress was being ransacked all over the country.

These were 2,500 lone wolves.

The politicians on the right truly believe the highly coordinated effort was just the classic case of 2,500 lone wolves with an agenda.

They were actually chanting Hang my pants!

Republicans want to remind you that these insurrectionists had no intention of harming Mike Pence and were simply looking for a hanger with which to air-dry their wet clothes.

It was during designated rioting hours.

The mob made sure they stormed the Capitol only when destruction was specifically permitted.

No nuclear weapons were used.

Just think of what the Capitol wouldve looked like if so-called rioters dropped a bomb as powerful as a million tons of TNT.

Not a single kid got shot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, so its hardly the worst thing were complicit in.

They might actually have a point there.

Oh, dont be so dramatic. It was only Biden.

Its not like they tried to stop a presidency people were excited about.

This was nothing more than a couple thousand eighth-graders on their Washington, D.C. field trip.

Blaming the insurrection on a bunch of 13-year-olds visiting the monuments is a risky move the Republicans are willing to take.

The date Jan. 6, 2021, will never occur again.

This is a pretty factually sound argument.

It was all orchestrated by the Democrats.

This is immediately undermined by the Democrats complete inability to orchestrate anything.

Jan. 6 is a distant and irrelevant memory made up of unintelligible shapes for millions of Americans who are still struggling to learn object permanence.

Many arent even able to stand on their own two feet.

I dont have Incite an insurrection written in my calendar for Jan. 6, 2021, so it must not have happened.

If its not on the calendar, its impossible to prove.

If it was really such a bad day, how come so many members of Congress are still alive?

Even all of the really, really old senators survived.

It was faked in the same studio as the moon landing.

CGI technology really is incredible.

The Capitol building is ugly, anyway.

That neoclassical eyesore has been begging for vandalism for centuries.

Insurrection is the only reasonable response when you consider these people were really, really mad.

Makes a lot of sense when you look at it from their point of view.

There are 30 other days in January no one is willing to talk about.

Democrats are willfully ignoring the real issue, which is that January has 30 days besides Jan. 6.

We never would have known how ill-prepared we are for a coup if those protestors hadnt almost pulled one off.

Really, we should be grateful they pointed out some vulnerabilities in our system.

How were people supposed to know that was the Capitol building?

In their defense, every building in this dumb city is made out of white stone.

I am about to make a bad faith argument.

Whoops. Politicians usually just think this one.

Two words: Nancy Pelosi.

Succinct, but 100% to the point.

If you thought Jan. 6 was bad, just wait until Donald Trump becomes president again.

Its true, whatever is still to come will certainly be much worse and more worthy of criminal prosecution.

Pass.

Read the original here:
Biggest Republican Talking Points To Downplay January 6 - The Onion

Back in March, I started off an article with the sentence, Congressional redistricting the process of redrawing the nations 435 congressional districts to reflect the results of the 2020 census is not quite finished, but its getting darn close. Clearly, I jinxed it: Since then, the national redistricting landscape has changed substantially, thanks to a new Republican-drawn plan in Florida and a court-ordered remap of New York.

Moreover, its taken the 2021-22 redistricting cycle from a clear win for Democrats to something far more ambiguous perhaps best described as the preservation of a Republican-leaning status quo. And a ruling earlier this month striking down Louisianas congressional map is yet another reminder that the 2021-22 redistricting cycle aint over till its over and, in fact, very likely wont be over until well after 2022. That said, the map below is probably the one that will get used in this years congressional elections (with Louisiana pending, of course).

And as has been true for decades, this national congressional map is biased toward Republicans. Assuming Louisianas congressional map is reinstated upon appeal, the 2022 House map will feature 208 congressional districts with a FiveThirtyEight partisan lean of R+5 or redder, compared with 187 districts that have a FiveThirtyEight partisan lean of D+5 or bluer. Throw in the highly competitive seats, and 225 districts would be more Republican than the country as a whole, while 210 would be more Democratic. In other words, if the national House popular vote were perfectly tied, Republicans would theoretically win 225 seats and Democrats would win 210 (ignoring, for now, other factors like candidate quality).

By this measure, however, Democrats are actually in a slightly better position than they were before, having added a handful of Democratic-leaning seats. Under the old congressional lines (those used in the 2020 election), there were 208 congressional districts with partisan leans of R+5 or redder and 181 with partisan leans of D+5 or bluer. Counting swing seats, 230 seats were redder than the nation as a whole, while 205 seats were bluer.

However, by other measures, the new map is better for Republicans. First, the tipping-point congressional seat i.e., the majority-making 218th bluest and 218th reddest seat in the House is slightly more Republican-leaning. Under the old lines, the tipping-point seat had a FiveThirtyEight partisan lean of R+2.3; under the new ones, the tipping-point seat will have a FiveThirtyEight partisan lean of R+2.5 (again, assuming Louisianas map is reinstated on appeal).

In the short term (i.e., in this years midterms), Republicans are also more likely to pick up seats from redistricting. Remember that all the numbers above merely reflect each seats underlying partisanship; they dont account for which party currently holds each seat. And when we do that, we see that more Democratic-held seats have been turned red this redistricting cycle than Republican-held seats have been turned blue. By my calculations, Republicans can expect a net gain of roughly three or four seats this November due to the effects of redistricting alone not accounting for shifts in voter preference.

Some of the House maps GOP bias is due to geography (i.e., the Democratic tendency to cluster in cities, plus rural areas tendency to vote Republican). But a lot is also due to deliberate decisions by partisan mapmakers namely, Republican lawmakers drawing congressional maps that advantage their own party. In 2014, a pair of academics created a metric called the efficiency gap, which attempts to quantify this phenomenon by measuring how efficient a map is at converting votes into seats for a given party. And using this measure, we find that seven of the 11 most biased congressional maps in the country were drawn by Republicans, while only one Democratic-drawn map (Illinoiss) provides Democrats with more than 1.2 undeserved seats.

How many extra congressional seats Republicans or Democrats theoretically gained from biased map-drawing in each state that has completed redistricting as of June 14, 2022, according to the efficiency-gap metric

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, The Upshot, Voting Election and Science Team, Ryne Rohla/Decision Desk HQ

In fairness, this wasnt because Democrats didnt want to gerrymander. If given the opportunity, they may have tried to draw Democratic-friendly maps in states like Colorado or Washington where they have full control of state government. However, they didnt have the chance; those states have vested the power of redistricting in independent or bipartisan commissions. (Though commissions are not a cure-all for gerrymandering maps like Californias and New Jerseys still have notable Democratic biases despite being drawn by commissions.) As it was, though, only five maps this cycle (worth 32 districts) ended up getting enacted unilaterally by Democratic politicians or institutions, while 18 (worth 171 districts) were enacted unilaterally by Republican ones.

Thats an even bigger disparity than we expected at the beginning of the cycle, when we observed that Democrats controlled the redistricting process in eight states worth 75 districts but Republicans controlled the process in 20 states worth 187 districts. Thats because liberal courts cracked down on gerrymandering this cycle and generally enforced fairer congressional maps even when it hurt the Democratic Party. Most notably, Democrats initially drew maps with galling efficiency gaps in Maryland and New York, only to see them get struck down in court. However, courts in Republican-controlled states largely did not return the favor. For example, despite appearing to be slam-dunk illegal gerrymanders under established judicial precedent, Republican-drawn maps in Alabama, Florida and Ohio look like they will stand for at least the 2022 election.

The resulting national congressional rats nest doesnt just hurt Democrats; it also hurts the average voter who just wants their vote to matter. As Republicans drew maps to help protect their vulnerable incumbents, they decreased the number of competitive House seats around the country. The number of swing seats has been declining for years due to both gerrymandering and simple polarization, but this year, were on pace for the smallest number of non-safe seats (defined as having partisan leans between D+15 and R+15) in decades.

By our reckoning, the new maps have six fewer highly competitive seats (partisan leans between D+5 and R+5) than the old ones. The number of competitive Republican districts (partisan leans between R+5 and R+15) has decreased by even more 13 seats! However, the number of competitive Democratic districts (partisan leans between D+5 and D+15) has increased by 12.

The change in the number of solid and competitive seats from the old to the new House maps in states where Democrats enacted the new map, Republicans enacted the new map and both or neither party enacted the new map as of June 14, 2022

Solid Democratic seats have FiveThirtyEight partisan leans of D+15 or bluer; competitive Democratic seats have partisan leans between D+5 and D+15; highly competitive seats have partisan leans between D+5 and R+5; competitive Republican seats have partisan leans between R+5 and R+15; solid Republican seats have partisan leans of R+15 or redder.

Partisan lean is the average margin difference between how a state or district votes and how the country votes overall. This version of partisan lean, meant to be used for congressional and gubernatorial elections, is calculated as 50 percent the state or districts lean relative to the nation in the most recent presidential election, 25 percent its relative lean in the second-most-recent presidential election and 25 percent a custom state-legislative lean.

SOURCES: U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, THE UPSHOT, VOTING ELECTION AND SCIENCE TEAM, RYNE ROHLA/DECISION DESK HQ

This reflects the different goals the two parties had in redistricting this year, as can be seen plainly when we break down the seat change by which party enacted the new maps. Having won the 2011-12 redistricting cycle, Republicans had little left on their redistricting to-do list other than to reinforce Republican-held seats that werent as red as they could be. As a result, they drew a whopping 18 fewer swing and light-red seats in exchange for 16 more dark-red ones.

On the other hand, the number of solidly blue seats decreased by three in states where Democrats unilaterally redistricted. But the number of light-blue seats grew by six. Thats because Democrats goal in redistricting wasnt to draw safer seats for themselves; it was to draw more seats that leaned Democratic, whether by a lot or a little. The way they did this in states like Nevada and New Mexico was to dismantle solidly blue districts and spread their wealth of Democratic voters out among more districts.

To be sure, its a risky strategy. Democrats could hold several seats they might otherwise have lost but, in a particularly good election year for Republicans, they could also lose seats that wouldnt have been in danger under the old maps. But for a party trying to dig its way out from under a Republican-biased House map, it may be worth risking more losses in a worst-case scenario in order to make it possible for the party to win a majority in (more common) neutral scenarios.

Up to this point, Ive been focusing on the partisan impact of the 2021-22 redistricting cycle. But Id be remiss not to mention the racial impact too. As part of their efforts to draw the best possible maps for their side, both parties but mostly Republicans neglected to provide full representation to people of color.

Sometimes, this took the form of denying seats to racial minorities even when their numbers could support them. For example, Texass nonwhite population increased by almost 4 million people between the 2010 and 2020 censuses, almost single-handedly earning the state two new congressional districts. But the state did not add any new districts where people of color were the largest racial or ethnic group. Similarly, it is readily possible to draw two predominantly Black districts in Alabama and Louisiana, but the maps passed by those states Republican legislatures contained just one predominantly Black district each. (This is why Louisianas map has been found illegal, for now.) The new maps in Arkansas, Georgia and South Carolina are also currently subject to lawsuits over racial gerrymandering.

Other times, this took the form of actively decreasing the clout of nonwhite voters. This is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify since a racial group does not have to constitute a majority of a district in order for that district to elect that racial groups preferred candidate. But districts in Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina all got whiter to the extent that their ability to consistently elect Black or Hispanic voters candidate of choice is now in question. Most egregiously, the predominantly Black congressional district between Tallahassee and Jacksonville which was created explicitly to elect Black voters candidates of choice and both Democrats and Republicans alike agreed was constitutionally protected no longer exists under Floridas new map.

Voting-rights advocates are suing over that maneuver, too, and the case is currently pending before a mid-level Florida appeals court. A final decision isnt expected before the midterms (especially since the losing side would almost certainly appeal to the Florida Supreme Court anyway), but that doesnt mean the lawsuit will disappear. In fact, it is just one of many lawsuits that could continue to change the face of the national congressional map for years after the 2021-22 redistricting cycle is supposed to be complete.

On that note, we already know that at least one state will have to go through the redistricting process again during 2023-24: North Carolina. The North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the legislatures first two attempts at drawing a congressional map and eventually imposed its own, but the map is only valid for one election cycle. Several other states could join North Carolina. Theres Florida, of course, where past rulings by the Florida Supreme Court (albeit a less conservative one) suggest that the new map should be struck down as both a racial and partisan gerrymander. This would necessitate a complete redraw ahead of the elections in 2024 or, if the case really drags on, 2026.

The Ohio Supreme Court is also currently considering the legality of Ohio Republicans second attempt at a congressional map, which is not all that different from the one that was struck down as a partisan gerrymander in January. If they strike it down again, Ohio will have to adopt a new map for the 2024 elections. And regardless, Ohio will have to adopt a new map for 2026 anyway, since this one was not passed with bipartisan support, which is required in Ohio for a map to last the entire decade.

There are also Alabama and Louisiana, whose maps seem destined to be decided by a single U.S. Supreme Court decision next year, as they both hinge on the question of whether the Voting Rights Act requires them each to draw a second Black district. Because this is a federal case, the decision here could also inspire or force other states to redraw their maps to include fewer or more minority-opportunity seats, depending on which way the ruling goes.

But the case with the biggest potential repercussions is a federal lawsuit brought by Republicans in North Carolina that makes a radical argument: that only state legislatures, not state courts, have the power to draw new congressional districts. The Supreme Court will decide on Thursday whether to take the case, and if they decide to embrace its argument to the fullest, every congressional map not enacted by a legislature could be invalidated. This would mean not only throwing out court-ordered maps in Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, but potentially also commission-drawn maps in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey and Washington. In other words, the 2020s could see a historic amount of mid-decade redistricting.

And this underscores the folly of ever declaring redistricting complete; maps are never set in stone. The national congressional map might be darn close to final for 2022, but it will continue to evolve in the years after. While its tempting to wrap up our redistricting coverage with a neat little bow, Im not going to do that. Redistricting doesnt work like that. Maps could still change; partisan and racial biases could still get better or worse. This isnt goodbye; its see you later.

See the original post:
The New National Congressional Map Is Biased Toward Republicans - FiveThirtyEight

The Democratic Governors Association is financing a group running TV ads boosting the profile of Greg Lopez, one of two Republican candidates for governor in Colorado.

The DGA donated $1.5 million to Strong Colorado for All in recent weeks. That state-level super PAC then donated $600,000 to Colorado Information Network, another state-level super PAC that began airing the ads last week. The $600,000 is the only contribution Colorado Information Network reported in a filing made Monday with the Secretary of States Office.

The Colorado Information Network booked at least $915,000 worth of TV ads featuring Lopez to run through the June 28 primary. The group reported about $401,000 of that spending in its Monday report.

The ads stress Lopezs conservative credentials on abortion, gay marriage and former President Donald Trump.

Greg Lopez holds views that are too extreme and out-of-touch for Colorado, DGA spokeswoman Christina Amestoy said. Voters need to know what he believes in, what he would push on the state, and just how dangerous of a governor he could be.

Sign up here to get The Unaffiliated, our twice-weekly newsletter on Colorado politics and policy.

Each edition is filled with exclusive news, analysis and other behind-the-scenes information you wont find anywhere else. Subscribe today to see what all the buzz is about.

Although the ad features ominous music and concludes by saying that Lopez is too conservative for Colorado, it appears aimed at swaying conservative Republicans to select him over University of Colorado regent Heidi Ganahl in the gubernatorial primary.

Lopez and Ganahl arent household names in Colorado, meaning that if voters are more familiar with one candidate than the other they may be more likely to vote for that person.

Meanwhile, a nonprofit named Colorado Voter Guides, formed by the liberal nonprofit ProgressNow Colorado, sent a mailer comparing Lopezs position on abortion to that of Democratic Gov. Jared Polis. The mailer appears to be another effort to raise Lopezs profile.

Neither the mailer nor the TV ads directly suggest voting for Lopez.

It isnt the only spending in high-profile GOP primaries that appears to be coming from Democratic interests. A federal super PAC is spending $1.3 million to boost state Rep. Ron Hanks in his U.S. Senate contest against businessman Joe ODea. And unidentified groups are sending mailers that boost Weld County Commissioner Lori Saine in the four-way 8th Congressional District GOP primary.

The DGA is the largest donor to Strong Colorado for All, which says it advocates for Democratic statewide and legislative candidates. The DGA previously donated $75,000 to the PAC, while Education Reform Now Advocacy gave $150,000, Hasan Management gave $100,000 and Denver businessman Larry Mizel, who traditionally backs Republican candidates and causes, gave $25,000.

Strong Colorado for All has reserved $347,000 in TV ad time for the fall, though it isnt clear which races the money is aimed at.

Colorado Information Network was created in September 2018 and spent about $320,000 that year supporting Democrats in the general election. Its money came from nonprofit News for Democracy, a group that spent heavily on digital advertising to support Democrats in 2018.

The DGA also helped push GOP candidate Dan Maes across the primary finish line in 2010, but failed in an effort to help former U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez in 2014. Both Republicans ended up losing to former Gov. John Hickenlooper, now a Democratic U.S. senator.

We believe vital information needs to be seen by the people impacted, whether its a public health crisis, investigative reporting or keeping lawmakers accountable. This reporting depends on support from readers like you.

Excerpt from:
This is the group running ads boosting Republican Greg Lopez - The Colorado Sun

The Tennessee Supreme Court today held that the Tennessee Republican Party and its State Executive Committee (Republican Party) did not violate the Tennessee Open Meetings Act (TOMA) when they determined that Mr. Robert Starbuck Newsom a/k/a Robby Starbuck (Mr. Starbuck) would not be added to the ballot in the upcoming primary election for the United States House of Representatives 5th Congressional District.

This case arose after Mr. Starbuck filed a nominating petition to run as a candidate in the Republican primary for Tennessees 5th Congressional District. The Republican Party determined that Mr. Starbuck was not a bona fide Republican. As a result, they directed the Tennessee Coordinator of Elections to exclude Mr. Starbuck from the ballot.

Mr. Starbuck filed suit in federal court seeking an order requiring the Republican Party to restore him to the ballot. However, he later dismissed that lawsuit after failing to obtain injunctive relief from the federal court. Mr. Starbuck then filed suit in the Davidson County Chancery Court (the trial court) alleging, among other claims, that the Republican Party violated TOMA, a law that generally requires meetings of governing bodies to be open to the public. Mr. Starbuck asserted that the Republican Party violated TOMA by determining in a non-public meeting that he was not a bona fide Republican. For this reason, Mr. Starbuck argued that he should be added back to the ballot. The trial court agreed and ordered state officials who were not parties to the Chancery Court action to include Mr. Starbuck on the ballot as a Republican candidate for the 5th Congressional District.

Seeking expedited review of the trial courts order, the Republican Party filed an application for extraordinary appeal in the Court of Appeals, as well as a motion in the Supreme Court asking the Court to assume jurisdiction over the case. The state officials responsible for preparing the official ballot, the Secretary of State and the Coordinator of Elections, also filed a petition requesting that the trial courts injunction be vacated. The Supreme Court granted the Republican Partys request for expedited review and its application for extraordinary appeal.

In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the trial court erred when it determined that TOMA applied to the Republican Party under these circumstances. The Court concluded that, while TOMA applies to state primary boards, it does not apply to state executive committees. Because, by statute, a partys state executive committee decides whether a candidate is a bona fide member of the party, the Court concluded that the Republican Party was acting as a state executive committee when they determined that Mr. Starbuck was not a bona fide Republican. As a result, the Court vacated the trial courts order granting Mr. Starbuck a temporary injunction requiring him to be placed on the ballot and remanded the case to the trial court to resolve any other remaining claims.

To read the Supreme Courts opinion in Robert Starbuck a/k/a Robby Starbuck v. Tennessee Republican Party, et al., authored by Justice Jeff Bivins, visit the opinions section of TNCourts.gov.

Read more:
Tennessee Supreme Court Holds Tennessee Republican Party and Its State Executive Committee Did Not Violate the Tennessee Open Meetings Act Regarding...