Mediaboss Marketing

MADISON, Wis. A Wisconsin judge said Thursday that a Republican-ordered, taxpayer-funded investigation into the 2020 election found absolutely no evidence of election fraud, but did reveal contempt for the states open records law by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and a former state Supreme Court justice he hired.

Dane County Circuit Judge Valerie Bailey-Rihn awarded about $98,000 in attorneys fees to the liberal watchdog group American Oversight, bringing an end in circuit court to one of four lawsuits the group filed. Voss attorney, Ron Stadler, said he was recommending that Vos appeal the ruling.

The fees will be paid by taxpayers, which is why the judge said she was not also awarding additional punitive damages against Vos. Costs to taxpayers for the investigation, including ongoing legal fees, have exceeded $1 million.

I think the people of the state of Wisconsin have been punished enough for this case, Bailey-Rihn said. I dont think it does anyone any good to have punitive damages placed on the innocent people of this state.

All of American Oversights lawsuits stem from records requests it made to Vos and Michael Gableman, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice hired by Vos in June 2021 to investigate the 2020 presidential election won by President Joe Biden. Vos ordered the investigation under pressure from election loser Donald Trump, who continues to falsely claim there was widespread fraud in Wisconsin and that Bidens win should be decertified, which is impossible and which Vos has repeatedly refused to support.

Even Gablemans attorney said decertification was pointless.

Bidens victory by nearly 21,000 votes has withstood recounts, multiple state and federal lawsuits, an audit by the nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau and a review by a conservative activist law firm, the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. An Associated Press review of Wisconsin and other battleground states also found far too little fraud to have tipped the election for Trump.

Vos and Gableman have suffered a series of defeats at the circuit court level in the American Oversight lawsuits. Along the way, both were found to be in contempt for refusing to comply with court orders to turn over records. Bailey-Rihn, presiding over her last hearing before retiring, expressed frustration Thursday.

This has been a long and torturous process to get here, she said. The reality is, whatever records there were, they were either destroyed or they werent kept. The problem for this court is no one knows when those records were destroyed.

State law requires lawmakers like Vos to retain records after an open records request for them has been filed. They can, and do, delete records if there is no pending open records request.

Gableman testified in another case that he routinely deleted records that he thought were not a part of the investigation. That resulted in American Oversight filing a fourth lawsuit alleging those deletions were against the law. That case, along with two others, is still pending.

A judge next month was to consider whether Gableman had fulfilled requirements to vacate an earlier contempt order for not turning over records. And in another case, Vos faced an Aug. 4 deadline to turn over additional records requested by American Oversight.

This whole case has been about trying to shine a light on government, Bailey-Rihn said. What it revealed, she said, was that in the early days of Gablemans probe, he was being paid $11,000 a month by taxpayers to sit in the New Berlin library to learn about election law because he knows nothing about election law.

Were all citizens of this state and this country, and we want our elections to be fair and not tainted by any sort of election fraud, the judge said. We have absolutely found out from this case there was absolutely no evidence of election fraud.

She said Vos and others have shown they believe they have no obligation to comply with the state open records law, they dont understand it, they dont follow the attorney generals guidance and they leave it to people who arent trained on the law to deal with it.

Thats one thing the citizens of this state have learned to their detriment, Bailey-Rihn said.

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Continued here:
Republican-ordered probe found 'absolutely no' election fraud in Wisconsin - Press Herald

I try to focus on those things that are important today and the issues in my district. If it comes up, I dont shy away from it, Newhouse said of his impeachment vote. But theres a lot of things that are going on. People are trying to tear down our dams; our agricultural industry has a lot of challenges; Inflation prices of everything has gone through the roof.

Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) faces a primary on Aug. 2.|Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images

Another four of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump retired rather than face the voters again, and two had primaries earlier this year. Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.) lost, but Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) prevailed.

Rice belongs in one camp of the impeachment-backing Republicans, Valadao in the other. Rice, along with Cheney and Meijer, have all at least somewhat embraced their role as Trump antagonists, hitting the Sunday morning talk shows, participating in long profiles with magazines or taking to Twitter to rehash and relitigate the events of Jan. 6.

Valadaos group, which includes Herrera Beutler and Newhouse, have tried to avoid the spotlight or excessive talk about their vote.

I think she is afraid, Republican Joe Kent said of Herrera Beutler, whom he is challenging in Washingtons all-party primary. She doesnt want to talk about impeachment. She does not.

Cheney is the most stark example of someone who did not shy away from the vote. As the vice chair of the Jan. 6 investigative committee, she has made her support for impeaching Trump a core part of her political identity. She has appeared at least once on all five of the major Sunday talk shows over the past year and a half (including some more than once), and shes also been on 60 Minutes.

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) delivers closing remarks during a hearing for the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.|Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

As her primary looms, polling has become so bleak that her campaign has begun courting Democratic voters. But Cheney insists she is comfortable with the political ramifications of her outspokenness.

If I have to choose between maintaining a seat in the House of Representatives, or protecting the constitutional republic and ensuring the American people know the truth about Donald Trump, Im going to choose the Constitution and the truth every single day, she said in a Sunday interview on CNNs State of the Union.

Meijer, a freshman from Western Michigan, had the largest media presence after Cheney, joining the talk show circuit throughout 2021 and participating in a long profile in The Atlantic.

But he has grown quieter on impeachment in recent months, and he is facing a surprisingly strong threat from John Gibbs, a former Trump administration official who received an endorsement from the former president. The incumbent outspent Gibbs by a 6-to-1 ratio as of mid-July, but Republicans have grown increasingly worried about Meijers fate in recent weeks.

While Gibbs has barely aired TV ads, a deluge of pro-Meijer spending flooded the district over the past week. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a pro-Meijer super PAC dumped a collective $1.1 million into boosting the incumbent, joining another veterans group that had already spent some $300,000.

Meijers Grand Rapids-based seat tilted to the left when it was redrawn in redistricting last year, and national Democrats hope their candidate will get to run against Gibbs, a staunch Trump supporter who is a fierce proponent of election fraud theories. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took the unusual step of meddling in the primary, placing a $425,000 ad buy meant to lure GOP voters toward Gibbs on Aug. 2 a move that angered some in the party.

Republicans have grown increasingly worried about Rep. Peter Meijers fate in recent weeks.|Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Washington State, home to two of the Republicans who voted to impeach, will also host primaries next Tuesday. But unlike Meijer, Newhouse and Herrera Beutler will each face a slew of challengers in an all-party contest. Trump has endorsed in each race.

Neither incumbent has meaningfully courted any national media. Though Herrera Beutler spoke publicly in early 2021 about a conversation she had with House Minority Kevin McCarthy, in which he told about a phone call he had with Trump on Jan. 6, she has since been quieter.

Shes not a national attention seeker, not running to be a talking head on any cable news network, Herrera Beutler campaign spokesman Craig Wheeler told POLITICO last week.

Her Trump-endorsed opponent, Joe Kent, framed it differently, accusing her of hiding from constituents, refusing to debate him and declining to hold in-person townhalls. The 2020 election, impeachment and Jan. 6 are still very hot button issues with a conservative base, he said. Its not going away. People want these issues dealt with.

Trump won her district by less than 5 points, meaning a Democrat is likely to snag one spot in the general election. But Herrera Beutler is competing with several Republicans who could split the anti-incumbent vote against her. Winning for Women Action Fund, a group that backs GOP women, has spent more than $1.5 million to aid her.

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) speaks at an event in Vancouver, Wash.|Taylor Balkom/The Columbian via AP

To the east, Newhouse is competing in a much more Trump-friendly district against several Republicans, including Loren Culp, the 2020 GOP governor nominee who nabbed Trumps backing.

GOP operatives are feeling more confident about Newhouse after a sustained $1.2 million ad blitz from the Republican Main Street Partnerships super PAC. Polling the group commissioned last week indicated the hits were working and that Culp dropped significantly from a previous survey. The group is airing three spots this week.

Newhouse himself has aired nearly $500,000 in ads, and his recent spots went negative on Culp, who has not run any TV ads of his own, according to data from AdImpact, a media tracking firm.

I follow the race and I have not heard once that hes mentioned impeachment, said Sarah Chamberlain, the president of the Republican Main Street Partnership. Inflation, gas prices and food shortages are top of mind for most voters, she noted.

Its one thing to take the vote, its another to keep talking about it, she said. Talk about what youre doing. That vote was a long time ago. Youve got a lot of votes between now and that. What are you doing lately?

That was the tactic adopted by Valadao, who narrowly advanced from his all-party primary in June over a far-right challenger. He kept his focus on water and broadband issues plaguing his rural Central Valley district and he managed to avoid Trump parachuting into his district to back a challenger before finishing in second place and securing a general election spot against Democrat Rudy Salas.

We knew what the most important issues to voters were, and thats what we talked about, said Robert Jones, a GOP operative and adviser to Valadao. The things that matter in D.C. and on cable news are not what matters in the Central Valley all the time usually never.

Valadao, Newhouse and Herrera Beutler also had all party-primaries which could offer more wiggle room to build a winning coalition.

In contrast, Mejier is set to face a chiefly GOP electorate, like Rice did in South Carolina in June. Rices opponent, Russell Fry, cleared 50 percent in the primary, clinching the nomination outright over Rice, without a runoff, in an embarrassing loss for the incumbent.

But Rice remained extremely outspoken about Trump and the perils of Jan. 6, particularly in the final weeks of the race. He sat for an interview with ABCs This Week, called Trump a bully and a tyrant and brought former House Speaker Paul Ryan and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie two Republicans who have also been critical of Trump to the district to campaign with him.

He kept doubling down on it, said Jerry Rovner, the GOP chairman for Rices 7th Congressional District. He started bringing down people that South Carolina people believe are not Republicans.

That was like a slap in the face, he said.

See the original post:
4 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump face their moment of reckoning - POLITICO

Democrats routinely and correctly warn the public that the Trump wing of the Republican Party poses an existential threat to American democracy. It may be surprising then to learn that theyre also spending tremendous sums of money quietly boosting Trumps picks in Republican primaries out of the hope that theyll be easier to beat in the general election. No matter the motive, its a reckless gamble, and it undermines the credibility of the partys message that its base must mobilize against burgeoning authoritarianism.

The DCCCs ad buy is a fantastic deal for Gibbs. For the Democrats, its playing with fire.

According to Politico, Democratic-aligned groups are spending tens of millions of dollars intervening in Republican primaries to help more extreme candidates win and to position them to run against Democrats. And the latest and most surprising example of this arose after an Axios report that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the official campaign arm of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, is spending close to half a million dollars on an ad campaign in Michigans third district to help the Trump-backed candidate, John Gibbs, in his bid to oust Republican incumbent Rep. Peter Meijer in the upcoming primary.

The advertisement masquerades as an attack ad, but it explicitly drives home Gibbs own messaging by linking him to Trump and indicating that hell continue to back Trumps policy agenda in Washington all without landing any substantive criticisms other than to label him too conservative (not a knock against a Republican in a primary). Its hundreds of thousands of dollars of free advertising for Gibbs in the final sprint before the primary next week.

Gibbs is not just an old-school Republican dipping his toes in Trumpy rhetoric to garner extra votes. Hes a Trump die-hard with the exact kinds of background Democrats consider dangerous: He worked in the Trump administration, won Trumps endorsement, backs Trumps 2020 disinformation, and has in the past promoted, according to CNN, an unfounded conspiracy theory that Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign chairman John Podesta took part in a Satanic ritual. Hes defended his hardline anti-abortion position, which opposes exceptions for incest and rape, by saying, There are many great Americans all around the country who were actually conceived from rape."

Gibbs target in the primary, Meijer, is in fact one of just 10 Republican members of the House who voted to impeach Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection one of those rare Republicans willing to push back against the party's slide toward strongman politics. But with Gibbs, the theory goes, Democrats will have a far better chance of winning in a polarized election.

The DCCCs ad buy is a fantastic deal for Gibbs. But for the Democrats, its playing with fire.

In a best-case scenario under this strategy, Gibbs, with the aid of the Democrats, wins the Republican primary and then loses the general election to the Democratic candidate, Hillary Scholten, in a race that she might have otherwise lost to Meijer. One reason that the DCCC may feel emboldened to use this tactic is that recent redistricting has made Michigans third district significantly more Democratic, turning a once deeply red district to a toss-up race, and potentially making Gibbs politics less competitive in a general election.

But even under this best-case scenario, there is a real cost involved: Dems help Gibbs win a primary, handing Trump another endorsement win and signaling to Republican observers in Michigan that the political winds favor right-wing extremism over Meijer-style moderation. It would also make it more likely that more candidates position themselves in the Trump vein in the 2024 Republican primaries, and also make Republicans nationwide more likely to view maverick pro-democracy votes, like Meijers impeachment vote, as a career killer.

Now in a worst-case scenario, Gibbs wins the primary and the general election, and ends up in Washington next year. This scenario isnt that far-fetched if Republican candidates were felled by promoting laughable conspiracy theories or making offensive remarks, then Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wouldnt have become one of the most high-profile Republicans in Congress in the last couple of years. And keep in mind that between inflation, crime rates, and a general historical disadvantage for incumbent parties in midterm elections, Republicans are poised for a wave election, meaning that even if Gibbs extremism is a turnoff for some Republicans, exceptionally high Republican turnout could be enough to help him win anyway.

This is all to say nothing of the simple fact that the Democrats' money could otherwise be spent directly helping vulnerable Democrats ahead of a potential November bloodbath.

Michigans third district isnt the only place where this risky strategy is being implemented. But the DCCCs intervention in the Meijer race is particularly infuriating to some House Democrats, who, as Politico notes, pay membership dues to the DCCC, and assume it reflects leadership attitudes about political strategy.

Many of them are concerned that the Democrats cant back GOP extremists and say that they pose an existential threat to democracy at the same time. Many of us are facing death threats over our efforts to tell the truth about Jan. 6. To have people boosting candidates telling the very kinds of lies that caused Jan. 6 and continues to put our democracy in danger, is just mind-blowing, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla. told Politico. Shes right.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MSNBC Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Politico, and he has also been published in The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation and elsewhere.

Follow this link:
Democrats boosting John Gibbs over Peter Meijer is part of a reckless ad strategy - MSNBC

Absentee ballot materials bundled with rubber bands on a table in the former Republican town clerks office waiting for the Democratic party chair to pick them up.

Testimony by a state election investigator that the former town clerk was involved in a ballot fraud scheme.

A still pending investigation of the clerk.

At State Superior Court in Stamford Wednesday, the office of the former town clerk appeared to be on trial as much as the one-time Democratic Party chair charged with forgery and filing false statements in absentee balloting 28 Class D felonies in all.

In the third day of the trial of John Mallozzi, who chaired the Stamford Democratic City Committee and was a member of the Democratic State Central Committee, Judge Kevin Randolph interjected testimony with questions to help untangle the confusing story of how absentee ballots were handled during Stamfords 2015 municipal election.

Mallozzi requested a bench trial, so it will be Randolph who will render a verdict after the testimony and evidence are presented. The trial is expected to end Friday.

The judge had a number of questions for Diane Pesiri, who has worked in the Stamford town clerks office for 22 years.

Pesiri, called as a witness by Assistant States Attorney Laurence Tamaccio, testified that the then-town clerk, Donna Loglisci, a Republican, gave her absentee ballot applications to get ready and that John Mallozzi would pick them up. I processed them and put a rubber band around them and put them on a table in Donnas office.

Mallozzis attorney, Stephan Seeger, questioned how Mallozzis initials, JM, got on absentee ballot materials he is charged with forging.

Pesiri testified that she wrote JM on ballot materials at Logliscis instruction.

The judge wanted clarity.

Donna Loglisci told you Mr. Mallozzi would pick them up? Randolph asked Pesiri.

Yes, Pesiri replied.

You put the initials on the documents before you saw Mr. Mallozzi collect them? the judge asked.

Yes. I was told he would pick them up. Thats why I put his initials there, Pesiri said.

She also testified that she saw Mallozzi pick up actual absentee ballots, not just applications for ballots. Asked whether she ever saw Mallozzi return completed ballots to the town clerks office, Pesiri said, If he brought them back, he would give them to Donna Loglisci.

Seeger extensively cross-examined another witness for the state, Scott Branfuhr, an investigator with the State Elections Enforcement Commission. Branfuhr testified that the commission, which began the investigation, referred the case to the states attorney after it uncovered evidence of several felonies involving Mallozzi.

Seeger grilled Branfuhr about a report Branfuhr prepared for the SEEC when he concluded his investigation.

Didnt you call it a scheme? Seeger asked.

I believe so, Branfuhr replied.

Two people are involved in a scheme, right? You cant do it with one person? Seeger asked.

No, Branfuhr replied.

Seeger asked why Branfuhr made a judgment that, in a plot involving Mallozzi and Loglisci, only Mallozzi was charged.

Isnt your job all about ensuring election integrity? Wasnt Donna Loglisci responsible for the absentee ballot process? Seeger asked.

Yes, Branfuhr said.

Branfuhr said the SEEC legal staff thought Loglisci should be charged with official negligence and fraud because she involved herself in a scheme to accept bogus absentee ballot applications and ballot sets.

Seeger asked, You knew Donna Loglisci broke the law, correct?

Yes, Branfuhr said.

Seeger asked whether Loglisci was not referred to the states attorney because she had agreed to become a witness against Mallozzi.

She cooperated to a certain degree, Branfuhr said. She neglected to tell us there was a quid pro quo.

A quid pro quo would mean Loglisci expected something from Mallozzi in return for giving him the ballots. Branfuhr did not explain what it was, and Seeger didnt ask.

Seeger did ask whether the SEEC investigation will continue. Branfuhr said the commission suspends its investigation while the state is bringing a case.

Do you still have the authority to go after Donna Loglisci? Seeger asked.

Yes, Branfuhr said.

Is that what the commission intends to do? Seeger asked.

That is what the commission intends to do, Branfuhr said.

Seeger has said that he and his client hope the case will publicize the need for more oversight of the absentee ballot system in Connecticut, and that procedures will be tightened to increase election integrity.

The case came to light when a Stamford man was told at his polling place that he could not vote because hed already voted by absentee ballot.

It turned out that a ballot had been taken out in the mans name without his knowledge. Investigators said they traced it to Mallozzi, and later found 13 other ballots that appeared to be forged.

Mallozzi is charged with 14 counts each of forgery in the second degree and filing false statements in absentee balloting. Class D felonies are punishable by up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000 per count.

Link:
Court Puts Actions of Former Republican Town Clerk in Spotlight at Trial of Democratic Boss - CT Examiner

Days after the Supreme Court overturned the right to abortion, Michigans Republican candidates for governor were asked if it was also time to roll back constitutional protections for gay rights.

None of the five candidates came to the defense of same-sex marriage.

They need to revisit it all, one candidate, Garrett Soldano, said at the debate, in Warren, Mich.

Michigans constitution, said another candidate, Ralph Rebandt, says that for the betterment of society, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Since the Supreme Court decision last month overturning Roe v. Wade, anti-gay rhetoric and calls to roll back established L.G.B.T.Q. protections have grown bolder. And while Republicans in Congress appear deeply divided about same-sex marriage nearly 50 House Republicans on Tuesday joined Democrats in supporting a bill that would recognize same-sex marriages at the federal level many Republican officials and candidates across the country have made attacking gay and transgender rights a party norm this midterm season.

In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton said after the Roe reversal that he would be willing and able to defend at the Supreme Court any law criminalizing sodomy enacted by the Legislature. Before that, the Republican Party of Texas adopted a platform that calls homosexuality an abnormal lifestyle choice.

In Utah, the Republican president of the State Senate, Stuart Adams, said he would support his states joining with others to press the Supreme Court to reverse the right of same-sex couples to wed. In Arizona, Kari Lake, a candidate for governor endorsed by Donald J. Trump, affirmed in a June 29 debate her support for a bill barring children from drag shows the latest target of supercharged rhetoric on the right.

And in Michigans governors race, Mr. Soldano released an ad belittling the use of specific pronouns by those who do not conform to traditional gender roles (My pronouns: Conservative/Patriot) and accusing the woke groomer mafia of wanting to indoctrinate children.

Some Democrats and advocates for L.G.B.T.Q. communities say the Republican attacks have deepened their concerns that the overturning of Roe could undermine other cases built on the same legal foundation the right to privacy provided in the Fourteenth Amendment and lead to increases in hate crimes as well as suicides of L.G.B.T.Q. youth.

The state of the midterms. We are now over halfway through this years midterm primary season, and some key ideas and questions have begun to emerge from the results. Heres a look at what weve learned so far:

The dominoes have started to fall, and they wont just stop at one, said Attorney General Dana Nessel of Michigan, a Democrat who was the first openly gay person elected to statewide office there. People should see the connection between reproductive rights, L.G.B.T.Q. rights, womens rights, interracial marriage these things are all connected legally.

This year, Republican-led states have already passed numerous restrictions on transgender young people and on school discussions of sexual orientation and gender.

In June, Louisiana became the 18th state, all with G.O.P.-led legislatures, to ban transgender students from playing on sports teams that match their gender identity. Laws to prohibit transitioning medical treatments to people under 18, such as puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries which advocates call gender-affirming care have been enacted by four states. And after Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida signed a law in March banning classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades, more than a dozen other states moved to imitate it.

In all, over 300 bills to restrict L.G.B.T.Q. rights have been introduced this year in 23 states, according to the Human Rights Campaign, the nations largest L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy organization.

The bills under consideration focus not on same-sex marriage but on transgender youth, on restricting school curriculums and on allowing groups to refuse services to L.G.B.T.Q. people based on religious faith. Most of the measures have no chance of passage because of opposition from Democrats and moderate Republicans.

Still, the Human Rights Campaign had characterized 2021 as the worst year in recent history for anti-L.G.B.T.Q. laws after states passed seven measures banning transgender athletes from sports teams that match their gender identity. So far in 2022, those numbers are already higher.

Officials and television commentators on the right have accused opponents of some of those new restrictions of seeking to sexualize or groom children. Grooming refers to the tactics used by sexual predators to manipulate their victims, but it has become deployed widely on the right to brand gay and transgender people as child molesters, evoking an earlier era of homophobia.

July 21, 2022, 7:00 p.m. ET

Some conservative advocacy groups that poured resources into transgender restrictions insist that they are not focused on challenging the 2015 Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage. But many L.G.B.T.Q. advocates say they believe their hard-won rights are under attack.

The far right is emboldened in a way they have not been in five decades, said State Representative Daniel Hernandez Jr. of Arizona, a Democrat and a co-founder of the Legislatures L.G.B.T.Q. caucus. In addition to trying to create even more restrictions on abortion, they are going after the L.G.B.T.Q. community even more.

Republicans say the laws focused on transgender youth are not transphobic as the left sees them but protect girls sports and put the brakes on irreversible medical treatments.

They said the issues have the power to peel away centrist voters, who polling shows are less committed to transgender rights than to same-sex marriage. A Washington Post-University of Maryland survey in May found 55 percent of Americans oppose letting transgender girls compete on girls high school teams. In a Gallup poll last year, 51 percent of Americans said changing ones gender is morally wrong.

I believe these are enormous issues for swing voters and moderates, said Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, a group that opposes civil rights protections for L.G.B.T.Q. people and plans to spend up to $12 million on ads before November.

One of the groups ads goes after Representative Peter Meijer, a Michigan Republican facing a primary challenge next month, for co-sponsoring a House bill that pairs anti-discrimination protections for L.G.B.T.Q. people with exemptions for religious groups. Saying the bill would put men in girls locker rooms, the ad asks, Would you trust Meijer with your daughter?

By contrast, Gov. Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, said hate has no place in the state after he vetoed an anti-transgender sports bill. Had it become law, he said, the ban would have a devastating impact on a vulnerable population already at greater risk of bullying and depression.

A 2022 survey by the Trevor Project, a suicide prevention group, found that nearly one in five transgender or gender-nonconforming young people had attempted suicide in the past year. L.G.B.T.Q. youth who feel accepted in their schools and community reported lower rates of suicide attempts.

The surge in transgender restrictions reflects a reversal of fortune for social conservatives from just a few years ago, when a focus on bathroom bills produced a backlash. A North Carolina law passed in 2016 requiring people to use public restrooms matching their birth gender contributed to the defeat of the Republican governor who signed it.

It made a lot of folks wary of going after transgender rights, said Gillian Branstetter, a communications strategist for the A.C.L.U. who is transgender.

But that changed with the focus on sports teams and transitioning medicine for minors, she said.

On the right, the transgender restrictions have been pushed by advocacy groups that have long opposed L.G.B.T.Q. rights and in some cases consulted in the drafting of legislation. And on the left, the wave of legislation has been used by liberal organizations to mobilize their base, fund-raise and help turn out voters in midterm primaries in a hostile national political climate for Democrats.

In Arizona, where Republicans control the Legislature and the governors office, a law enacted this year bars trans girls from competing on sports teams aligned with their gender and on transitioning surgery for people under 18.

My colleagues on the right have spent more time demonizing me and the L.G.B.T.Q. community than Ive ever seen, said Mr. Hernandez, the state representative, who is running in the Democratic primary for Congress on Aug. 2 in a Tucson-area seat.

In the Arizona primary for governor, Ms. Lake, the Trump-endorsed candidate who is leading in some polls, seized on a recent uproar over drag performers in response to a viral video of children at a Dallas drag show to demonstrate her sharp shift to the right.

They kicked God out of schools and welcomed the Drag Queens, Ms. Lake said in a tweet last month. They took down our Flag and replaced it with a rainbow. And Republican leaders in the Arizona Legislature, denouncing sexual perversion, called for a law barring children from drag shows.

But a drag performer in Phoenix, Rick Stevens, accused Ms. Lake, who he said had been a friend for years, of hypocrisy. Ive performed for Karis birthday, Ive performed in her home (with children present) and Ive performed for her at some of the seediest bars in Phoenix, he wrote on Instagram.

Mr. Stevens, who goes by the stage name Barbra Seville, posted photos of the two of them together one with Ms. Lake next to him while he is dressed in drag, and another when he is in drag and wearing Halloween-style skull makeup while she poses alongside him dressed as Elvis.

In a debate, Ms. Lake insisted Mr. Stevens was lying about performing at her home and her campaign threatened to sue him for defamation.

In Michigan, meanwhile, Ms. Nessel, the Democratic attorney general, joked at a civil rights conference in June that drag queens make everything better, and added, A drag queen for every school. In response, Tudor Dixon, a Republican candidate for governor, called this month for legislation letting parents sue school districts that host drag shows, despite there being no evidence that a district had ever done so.

Were taking the first step today to protecting children, Ms. Dixon said.

Link:
Republicans Sharpen Post-Roe Attacks on L.G.B.T.Q. Rights - The New York Times