Mediaboss Marketing

Sixty percent of Republican voters, along with several Republican candidates for federal and statewide offices, oppose implementing open primaries and ranked-choice voting in Nevadas elections, according to a new Nevada Independent/OH Predictive Insights poll.

Their overwhelming opposition just 16 percent of Republican likely voters expressed support for the initiative marks a growing trend of bipartisan disapproval of the major election changes proposed by Question 3 on this years general election ballot. It reverses a position of stronger support recorded among Nevada voters as recently as 10 weeks ago. (To learn more about Question 3, including how it works and arguments in favor of and against the initiative, click here.)

In July, a Nevada Independent/OH Predictive Insights poll found that registered Nevada voters supported the changes by a 15-point margin (42 percent support to 27 percent opposed). The new September poll instead surveyed likely voters, a more Republican-leaning group, and found significantly more opposition, which outweighed support for the changes by a 4-point margin (42 percent opposed to 38 percent support).

Meanwhile, opposition to Question 3 has grown stronger among prominent Nevada politicians and candidates for major offices. In May, top Nevada Democrats, including Gov. Steve Sisolak and U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen, sharply criticized the initiative, arguing that it would be too onerous for voters and create complications in the election process.

In statements to The Nevada Independent, top Republicans, including Rep. Mark Amodei, similarly panned the initiative, though their opposition largely centered around a portion that proposed moving Nevada from a closed primary system, in which only registered voters of the same political party can participate in a primary, to an open primary system that would allow registered voters to cast a ballot for any candidate regardless of party affiliation.

The method of voting proposed by Ballot Question 3, if passed, would undermine our established and proven primary election system, effectively making candidates run in two general elections every election cycle, Amodei said. [T]his initiative has the potential to open the ballot to negative influence from opposing political parties meddling in each other's electoral process.

Mark Robertson, the Republican candidate for Congressional District 1, also said he would vote no on Question 3, specifically arguing against open primary elections. The Republican nominees for lieutenant governor, attorney general and secretary of state are also against Question 3, they disclosed in statements to The Nevada Independent.

Their arguments were echoed on Saturday during a debate on the merits of open primaries and ranked-choice voting, which occurred as a part of IndyFest, the policy- and politics-focused conference hosted by The Nevada Independent.

Democrat-aligned attorney Bradley Schrager, who represented a Democratic voter who filed an unsuccessful lawsuit seeking to disqualify the initiative, characterized the initiative as an an attack on political parties, noting that roughly two-thirds of Nevada voters are registered with a major political party and arguing that the system would hurt minor party candidates.

My own particular view is this is going to destroy minor parties and independent groups. There's simply no way that those groups as currently constituted are going to be able to play in the money game that is politics and elections, he said.

Still, polling on the ballot question does not indicate it will be easily defeated, and many voters remain undecided. The July poll found that nearly a third of voters were unsure of whether they would support or oppose the initiative, and in the September poll, the uncertainty figure had only dropped to 20 percent.

With a large portion of undecided voters who could determine the success or failure of Question 3, the initiatives backers are spending millions of dollars to overcome opposition from the slew of top Democratic and Republican candidates.

From late September through Election Day, Nevada Voters First, the in-state political action committee supporting the ballot initiative, is spending more than $7 million on advertising in support of Question 3, according to the political ad tracking firm AdImpact.

Todd Bice, an attorney and president of Nevada Voters First, argued during the Saturday debate that the initiative would make Nevada elections more inclusionary by opening up primary elections to more than 600,000 registered voters (more than a third of the states electorate) who are not affiliated with a major party, while ranked-choice voting maximizes the opportunity for the voters to express their preferences.

By excluding some 600,000 registered voters in this state, you end up with a system where this small, tiny portion of the electorate, which tends to be the most partisan, who participate in the partisan primaries, end up choosing the candidate, Bice said. Then the two major parties give the electorate a take it or leave it choice.

But Schrager highlighted several popular arguments against the initiative, noting that Question 3 proposes a constitutional change (meaning it would have to be approved by a majority of voters in 2022 and 2024) that would make it very difficult for anyone to back out of it, if there are issues with the new system.

He also described the initiative as a particular project of extremely wealthy people, who ain't from around here, who are importing it into Nevada. The Institute for Political Innovation, a national group supporting the Nevada proposal, was founded by Katherine Gehl, a wealthy Chicago-based philanthropist who previously oversaw a food manufacturing company. Gehl and her associated Final Five Fund have contributed roughly $1.5 million in support of the Nevada initiative.

As of the end of June, Nevada Voters First has also received significant support from in-state groups, including $250,000 from the Nevada Association of Realtors, $25,000 from Station Casinos and $20,000 from Wynn Resorts.

The two attorneys also sparred over how the system would affect the quality of candidates in future elections. Bice argued that it would produce more candidates who appeal to the majority of voters, while Schrager argued that it would not necessarily modify the conduct of major candidates and parties.

As I've always understood it, politics is the clash of interests to produce policy results, right? That's not going to change, Schrager said. It's certainly not going to change because you have open primaries, or rank-choice voting. That is the nature of political conflict. That's going to continue. If there's three Democrats and two Republicans, they're all going to be acting as aggressively and pushing forward with their platforms, as they do now.

To learn more about where the candidates for federal and major statewide offices stand on Question 3, click here.

Editors Note: This story appears in Indy 2022, The Nevada Independents newsletter dedicated to comprehensive coverage of the 2022 election. Sign up for the newsletter here.

Excerpt from:
Bipartisan opposition to Question 3 mounts, with more Republicans against The Nevada Independent - The Nevada Independent

House Republicans have introduced more than a dozen impeachment resolutions against President Biden and his officials, far outpacing Democrats' formal impeachment efforts at this point in former President Trump's term.

Why it matters: The failed impeachment efforts provide a roadmap for the investigations that Republicans eager to make the rest of Biden's term a living nightmare will likely pursue if they retake the majority after the midterms.

Driving the news: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), one of the most right-wing members of Congress, introduced a new article of impeachment against Biden last week for selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to foreign nations a practice the Trump administration also engaged in.

By the numbers: House Republicans (mostly, but not all, members of the right-wing Freedom Caucus) have introduced a staggering 14 impeachment resolutions since Jan. 3, 2021.

The other side: Though Democrats in the 115th Congress talked a big game about impeaching Trump for everything from accepting emoluments to firing FBI Director Jim Comey, they only introduced four impeachment resolutions in his first two years.

Between the lines: Senior Republicans would likely draft their own articles if leadership ultimately decided to pursue impeachment after the midterms. But these toothless back-bench resolutions serve another valuable function: fundraising.

What were watching: If they take back the majority this year, dont expect conservatives' fervor for impeachment to subside.

Yes, but: Leading Republicans are still wary of rushing hastily into an impeachment effort without a clear basis.

Go here to see the original:
House Republicans have filed 14 impeachment resolutions against Biden officials - Axios

Despite not appearing on the November ballot, former President Donald Trump has played a major role in the midterm elections by endorsing a slew of Republican candidates.

But a number of high-profile Republicans in battleground states have placed their support behind the Democratic candidates opposing some of those Trump-endorsed nominees. Its not clear what effect, if any, the conflicting endorsements will have, but it does show how the Republican Party has fractured, to some extent, over whether to continue embracing the former president.

MAJORITY OF VOTERS HAVE ELECTION DENIERS ON BALLOT FOR POSITIONS THAT OVERSEE ELECTIONS

Heres a list of Republicans who have backed Democrats over their partys candidate:

Arizona

State Rep. Joel John (R) turned heads in Arizona after the Republican lawmaker endorsed Democratic candidate Adrian Fontes over Trump-backed state Rep. Mark Finchem (R) in the race for secretary of state.

Our nations history is full of heroes who bravely stood up to do what was right even if it wasnt popular in their respective camps, John said in a statement. We need more people like that today. I am proud to support Adrian Fontes and join noble Republicans and Independents who are willing to put country before party. His opponent is someone who sought to get rid of voting by mail and has sought to overturn the 2020 election. Arizona deserves better.

The race took on prominence in the states midterm elections after Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who currently holds the position and has staunchly defended the states administration of the 2020 election, announced she would not seek reelection and would run for Senate instead. The issue of election integrity has become central to the race, with Finchem backing Trumps unfounded claims that the 2020 election was riddled with fraud.

Arizona has become ground zero of Trumps claims of voter fraud, with the state Senate spending months auditing the 2020 election in Maricopa County. Top county officials criticized the effort, stressing a report on the matter offered "no new evidence" that would alter the result of 2020's presidential election.

Kansas

A handful of former Republican governors have thrown their support behind Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly (D-KS) in her reelection bid against state Attorney General Derek Schmidt, who was endorsed by Trump for his stances on border security and crime.

Former GOP Govs. Mike Hayden, who held office from 1987 to 1991, and Bill Graves, who held office from 1995 to 2003, endorsed Kelly, praising the incumbent for her bipartisan leadership.

"In 50 years in Kansas politics, I've seen the good times and the bad," Hayden said. "The affairs of Kansas are in good shape right now, and I credit the bipartisan approach of Gov. Kelly."

Former Govs. Kathleen Sebelius and John Carlin, both Democrats, also backed Kelly for reelection.

Oklahoma

Three Oklahoma state lawmakers have endorsed Democratic Senate candidate Kendra Horn in her fight against Trump-backed Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R).

Former Oklahoma House Speaker Kris Steele (R) offered his endorsement of Horn in a video on Wednesday, calling her "the kind of leader that we need to move our state forward in a positive, productive, and healthy direction."

Horn has also been endorsed by former GOP state party Chairman Stephen Jones as well as Republican Steven Agee, the former chairman of the Oklahoma City Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Pennsylvania

Several prominent Republicans have publicly endorsed Democratic candidate Josh Shapiro in his race against state Sen. Doug Mastriano for Pennsylvania governor. At least 16 Republicans publicly threw their support behind Shapiro in August after it was reported Mastriano posed for a photo wearing a Confederate uniform in 2014.

The governors race in Pennsylvania has become one of the higher-profile races, as it could have implications for how the 2024 presidential election is carried out in a key swing state. Throughout his campaign, Mastriano has backed claims by Trump that the 2020 election was rigged.

Republicans who have backed Shapiro include Michael Chertoff, who served as the secretary of Homeland Security under former President George W. Bush, and former state Rep. Mario Civera.

[Shapiro is] a staunch defender of our democratic institutions and will lead Pennsylvania with honor and integrity. I am proud to support his campaign for governor, Chertoff said.

Texas

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is seeking reelection this year, but several high-profile Republicans in the state, including former Republican Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff, have opted to support his Democratic opponent, Mike Collier.

Patrick is endorsed by Trump and touts the support on his website.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"As a former elected Republican, I'm putting partisanship aside and joining the growing number of Republicans voting for the man we think is best for Texas, and that's Mike Collier," Ratliff said in a statement.

Tarrant County Judge Glen Whitley and state Sen. Kel Seliger, both Republicans, have also endorsed the Democrat.

View post:
Turned on Trump: Here are the Republicans backing Democrats over MAGA candidates - Washington Examiner

Republican efforts to advance new policies to support families have proceeded unevenly and haltingly despite pressure to act in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

Republicans have proposed a range of federal and state measures to help mothers with unexpected pregnancies, such as added funding for agencies that support new and expecting families, reforming the foster care system, extending Medicaid coverage for postpartum mothers, and expanding paid family leave through voluntary buy-ins.

So far, though, the talk has only fitfully translated into broad Republican support or policy.

CONSERVATIVE HOUSE REPUBLICANS ROLL OUT POST-DOBBS 'FAMILY POLICY AGENDA'

"There's definitely been a lot more conversation about the importance of paid medical and family leave since Dobbs, however, we haven't seen that translate into action," said Sharita Gruberg, vice president of economic justice at the National Partnership for Women & Families.

While Republicans have proposed family policies for years, the June Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that determined there is no constitutional right to an abortion has placed renewed pressure on Republicans to take action to address the needs of women facing unplanned pregnancies as some states adopt restrictive abortion laws.

Members of the Republican Party have been divided on how to handle providing support to families, with some staunchly opposed to expanding social programs and others who are more open to creating avenues for aid. They also face an uphill battle to pass legislation without a majority, requiring support across the aisle.

Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mitt Romney (R-UT) reintroduced legislation in early September that would allow new parents to use a portion of their Social Security benefits for paid leave after the birth or adoption of a child. It drew endorsements from several influential organizations that oppose abortion but little support among their GOP colleagues.

"As we welcome more precious children into the world, the pro-life movement stands ready to ensure their mothers have the comprehensive support they need to provide for themselves and their families, said Marilyn Musgrave, vice president of government affairs for SBA Pro-Life America, in a statement.

The Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative members of the House GOP caucus, this week put forward a "Family Policy Agenda" that it plans to prioritize if the GOP wins back the majority after the midterm elections. It calls for reforming the foster care system, supporting crisis pregnancy centers, revising the adoption tax credit, and expanding postpartum Medicaid coverage.

"I was hoping that there would be even more Republican senators with their own visions of what a post-Dobbs governing agenda should look like, but I think in time, that will come, said Patrick Brown, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Those conversations have been happening, but I think there is a new urgency around them, and so that's nice to see.

Adrienne Schweer, a fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said she has seen renewed interest at the state and national levels since Dobbs in discussing paid family and medical leave.

"I haven't seen the legislation drop in lots of places, but I have definitely been fielding more interests from state lawmakers and from federal lawmakers in the last couple months," said Schweer. "There's definitely been an increased interest looking for new ideas and exploring the potential for bipartisan ideas, which there wasn't a lot of space for over the last couple of years, especially at the federal level."

Several states with restrictive abortion laws, including Louisiana, Kentucky, and South Carolina, have altered Medicaid, a public health insurance for people with low income, to extend postpartum coverage for new mothers from 60 days to 12 months.

Meanwhile, other states have taken different approaches. Indiana earmarked roughly $74 million for governmental and nonprofit programs aimed at increasing maternal and infant health, including $45 million toward agencies that support "healthy pregnancies, babies, families and foster and adoptive families" and $10 million for the Nurse Family Partnership, which has trained nurses visiting first-time mothers to assist beginning during pregnancy through the child's, or children's, second birthday. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) announced a website providing resources on pregnancy, new parents, financial assistance, and adoption after the Dobbs decision.

"In South Dakota, we value life. But being pro-life doesnt just mean caring about the unborn. It also means getting moms the help they need to be successful," Noem said in a statement at the time.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Brown said he has been encouraged by the proposals put forward and the "tangible" progress several states have made to extend Medicaid coverage for postpartum mothers.

"You can see how the conversation has opened up from some of the really hard ideological lines that used to be drawn not so long ago, Brown said. That gives me some encouragement that these conversations will continue to evolve and we can really make progress on ... being pro-life not just solely in protecting unborn life in the womb, although that is essential, but protecting it and in strengthening families and making sure kids are growing up in safe and healthy and happy environments afterwards.

Read the original:
Republicans struggle with cohesive message on family policies post-Dobbs - Washington Examiner

Deb Haalands job will get harder if Republicans clinch either chamber of Congress in November.

Democratic control of both the House and Senate has so far protected the Interior secretary and the rest of President Joe Bidens Cabinet from investigations, hearings and time-consuming document requests. Thats likely to change next year.

I would assume all of our Cabinet members will be in front of the committees a lot more than they used to be, said Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican who serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and oversees rulemaking issues from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Forecasters say chances are high for Republicans to win back the House. Taking the Senate is proving more difficult for the GOP, but its a strong possibility. And Haaland is one of the partys top targets.

Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, promised significant oversight of Haaland if he takes the committee gavel next year from West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, who has also not been a fan of Haalands work on fossil fuels.

New Mexico Republican Rep. Yvette Herrell, a freshman in a tough reelection fight, may become one of the Houses most dogged investigators of Haalands Interior Department. She recently took over the top GOP slot on the Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Environment and serves on the Natural Resources Committee (E&E Daily, Sept. 13).

Since the Biden administration has begun, the secretary of the Interior has only appeared before committee one time for questioning, Herrell said with displeasure during a meeting of the panel this month.

In truth, Cabinet secretary appearances are always relatively rare. During his two-year tenure as the Trump administrations first Interior secretary, Ryan Zinke only appeared twice before the House Natural Resources Committee.

Pointedly, though, Herrell said another top Biden administration official, Bureau of Land Management Director Tracy Stone-Manning, hasnt appeared at all before the panel.

The GOP theme is clear: Democrats have been lax in summoning Interior officials.

Haalands appointment in 2021 as the first Native American Interior secretary was heralded by many progressives and environmentalists. She was an outspoken champion of aggressive climate policies during her term representing New Mexico in the House and has made the elevation of Native issues a top priority at Interior.

But Republicans are eager to grill Haaland on another topic that hasnt been her central focus: oil and gas leasing on public lands.

GOP questions for Haaland write themselves in many ways, Lankford said.

Lankford said he wants more oversight on leases and Interiors permitting process, explaining that oversight should be diligent. For whatever reason, [Democrats] have chosen to not be diligent in oversight.

Interior spokesperson Melissa Schwartz declined to comment for this story.

From the minority, the GOP has telegraphed where its likely to focus its oversight efforts on the department.

House Republicans attempted to use a procedural tactic this month to prod the administration to fork over Interior ethics documents and records of oil and gas leasing policies. Democrats were able to block them for now (E&E Daily, Sept. 16).

Rep. Bruce Westerman, the House Natural Resources ranking member, who has accused Interior of slow-walking document production requests on Haalands watch, plans to press Interior on the operations of its ethics office, the allocation of funds under the Great American Outdoors Act, onshore and offshore leasing, and the Biden administrations goal of conserving 30 percent of Americas lands and waters by 2030, said his spokeswoman Rebekah Hoshiko.

So far this Congress, the GOP oversight team on the Natural Resources Committee has requested 191 documents from DOI and received only 32 substantive responses, Hoshiko said.

In the few responses we have received, DOI has taken a long time to transmit anything, she added.

Hoshiko pointed to a July 20, 2021, request for ethics documents related to Daniel Cordalis, the deputy solicitor for water. Interior provided a partial response on Dec. 29.

DOI took 155 days to produce documents that should have been readily available, Hoshiko said.

Agencies often ignore or drag their heels on oversight requests from the minority party in Congress, and Haalands Interior Department appears no different.

In March 2021, Westerman had asked for documents about permitting decisions and a staff briefing about monuments from Interior, according to a report prepared for Haaland by her staff.

Rather than release the documents, Interior responded to the request with a narrative response, said the report released under the Freedom of Information Act. Haalands staff noted in that document that Westerman was not committee chair.

As for Westermans request for a staff briefing on monuments, the report said, the department was preparing a written response instead.

Its difficult for the minority to get people from the administration in, said Sen. Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican who serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

You get really good government when you have a mixture of Rs and Ds holding the House and the Senate and the White House, Risch said.

If Republicans win either or both chambers of Congress in November, Risch added, agencies are going to have to answer a lot more questions and a lot harder questions.

Haaland has been on the other side of intense oversight hearings before. As a first-term congresswoman on the Natural Resources Committee in 2019, she grilled then-Trump Interior Solicitor Daniel Jorjani over a document production that she said was blatantly incomplete.

Haaland wondered whether Interiors response to the committee was simply incompetence, do you think, on the part of the department, or do you think they are purposefully withholding information from us?

Adversarial hearings also test the Cabinet secretarys grasp of management and departmental details. While underlings provide backup and can be turned to for some specific answers, the congressional grillings put the spotlight on department leaders whose strengths may be elsewhere.

Like a lot of ex-elected officials tasked with running a Cabinet agency, [Haaland] is a big-picture visionary and leaves the details and sense of urgency to others, Jorjani told E&E News in a recent interview.

An illustration occurred at a June 16, 2021, hearing convened by the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Interior and related agencies. Haaland appeared to discuss her departments budget request.

The senators questions were never antagonistic but they did get detailed, and on at least 10 issues including invasive species, Alaskan lands, national parks and firefighting, Haaland asked her then-budget chief Rachael Taylor to fill in with specifics.

Taylor deftly handled the questions, a review of the hearing transcript shows. She is now Haalands chief of staff.

Haalands appearances before Congress have been confused at best, said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, an oil and gas trade group. Haaland hasnt been able to give in-depth answers on policy, Sgamma added.

The Interior secretary will be forced to up her game if Republicans win either chamber of Congress, Sgamma said.

I think she should be able to speak to the issues in a better way, she said. The agency has an obligation to balance energy with a lot of other things. I think its time to hold her feet to the fire on that.

Obama administration officials who had also been shielded by Democrats controlling both the House and Senate faced regular interrogations after Republicans won control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections.

GOP lawmakers issued subpoenas to compel documents and testimony from the Interior Department related to the administrations drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. House Republicans also subpoenaed then-Interior Secretary Sally Jewell for documents relating to a spill at the Gold King mine in Colorado.

Bidens Democratic allies in Congress expect political grandstanding to guide much of the GOP oversight if Republicans hold gavels next year.

Based on my previous experience, if Republicans did win the majority, I think there would be oversight everywhere of the Biden administration, said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), chair of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Investigations. And unfortunately, I think a lot of this oversight would not be rooted in fact.

The Interior Department appears to be bracing itself for the possibility of intensified oversight. The department tapped Covington & Burling associate Perrin Cooke as oversight counsel in August (Greenwire, Aug. 30).

Beyond document requests and hearings, empowered GOP lawmakers could try to use the majority to impeach Biden and some of his top officials.

While Haaland and Interior would certainly face increased scrutiny if Republicans won either chamber, some lawmakers and Interior Department veterans think shell escape the brunt of the GOPs ire.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who serves on the House subcommittee that oversees Interiors spending, doesnt think Haaland will be as much of a political lightning rod as some other Biden administration officials, he said. But he does expect Republicans to demand more answers on topics like oil and gas leasing and public lands management.

I dont have any problem with her performance personally, Simpson said. I have a problem with the Biden agenda in general.

Reporter Jeremy Dillon contributed.

Read more:
Frustrated Republicans want to keep Haaland busy next year - E&E News