Mediaboss Marketing

Ever since allies of Donald Trump in Michiganfailedto stall the certification of Joe Bidens win in 2020, they have pursued amethodical purgeof election officials who affirmed the results, replacing them with new canvassers who wanted to overturn the electionand who could thwart the will of voters in the future.

Conservatives put their cards on the table sooner than expected. With Trumps possible comeback bid still two years away, Republican members of Michigans State Board of Canvassers last week blocked two proposed constitutional amendments regarding abortion rights and voting rights. They flouted the usually-decisiverecommendationof the states Bureau of Elections, which had determined that both measures received more than enough signatures to appear on the November ballot.

The state Supreme Court intervened on Thursday in apair of5-2decisionsthat will put both amendments on the Nov. 8 ballot, meaning Michiganders will decide whether to codify the right to access abortionin the state constitutionand whether to expand ballot access by strengthening a slate of voting procedures like mail-in voting.

But this also marks a failure for Michigan Republicans trial balloon for subverting future elections, whether the 2024 presidential race or the midterms. Once again, GOP canvassers weaponized their role in the long chain of custody over election processes, and this time they stayed unified long enough to halt routine procedures. But a majority on the high court did not blink, signaling that they are willing to act as a backstopand could again in the future.

It was dangerous for democracy when Canvassers in Michigan said they would refuse to certify the election results in 2020, Josh Douglas, a University of Kentucky professor specialized in election law, toldBolts. The Michigan Supreme Courts decision on both of these initiatives show that refusing to put these issues on the ballot was the same kind of overreach.

For Leah Litman, a professor of law at the University of Michigan, the sequence of events at least establishes a precedent for how the states high court could intervene after the 2022 or 2024 elections if GOP canvassers similarly attempt to block results.

But that road map would only work if the court stays the same, she added.

Two justices on the Michigan Supreme Court are running for re-election in NovemberDemocrat Richard Bernstein, who voted with the majority on Thursday, and Republican Brian Zahra, one of the dissenters. The GOPwould flip the seven-member courtif it sweeps both seats. On the one hand, that would not have been enough to change Thursdays rulings since Republican Elizabeth Clement voted with the four Democrats. Four of the justices who voted to restore the amendments on Thursdayenough for a majorityhave terms that are meant to last through the end of 2026.

Still, the two rulings were handed down almost along party lines and Clement did not write an opinion in either, leaving some uncertainty over how a higher-profile partisan confrontation over a presidential election would unfold. The next two years could also bring an unforeseen vacancy on the court, which would befilledby whomever wins Novembers governors race between Democratic incumbent Gretchen Whitmer and Republican Tudor Dixon, who is endorsed by Trump and hasfalsely saidthe 2020 election was stolen.

Read this article:
Michigan Republicans Stumble in Dress Rehearsal for Overturning Future Elections - Election Law Blog

Three candidates challenging Gov. Chris Sununu for the Republican nomination for governor shared their thoughts on affordable housing, energy costs and other issues Friday night in the Granite State Debate.Sununu declined to attend the debate, and with a recent poll showing that 60% of Granite Staters approve of the job he's doing, the three candidates on the debate stage sought to show why Republican voters should choose them over the incumbent.>> Read debate participant bios: Acciard | Riley | TestermanVeteran and businessman Julian Acciard, conservative activist Karen Testerman and businessman Thad Riley focused squarely on Sununu and what they called his unconstitutional overreach, rather than on each other in the hourlong debate at St. Anselm College.Each candidate sought to harness conservative discontent with Sununu, who was criticized by some in his own party for what they saw as abusing his powers during the COVID-19 pandemic.>> Gubernatorial candidates on the issues"There are a lot of places where the governor continues to violate people's rights, as well as flip-flopping on many of the decisions that he's written letters to say that he would uphold," Testerman said.RE-WATCH DEBATE VIDEOSSee the full debate at this link, or view the debate by segment here:IntroductionsDebate formatWhy run against Sununu?Should NH defy enforcement of federal laws?Safe drinking waterShould NH take action against polluters?Workforce housingSchool funding fairnessSchool safetyEnergy costsBail reformParental rightsLightning round: Marijuana, immigration, favorite New England neighbor, NH constitutionNH's abortion lawSununu's potential POTUS aspirationsState's liquor monopolyProtecting health systems in a crisisClosing statementsFull videoAcciard took Sununu to task for criticizing Republican legislators."I believe in Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: you're not supposed to be shooting out in public against your own party," Acciard said. "But yet the governor goes out and does it every time that he gets in front of a microphone."Riley accused the governor of not looking out for the best interest of New Hampshire residents."The only thing worse than electing a career politician is electing the same career politician," he said. "And Chris Sununu is a career politician. He does things every day that don't make sense to Granite Staters."The candidates were asked for their solutions to some of the toughest problems facing New Hampshire, such as the lack of affordable housing. "We've got to get the bureaucracy out of New Hampshire," Riley said. "These zoning laws are doing more damage day in and day out for business leaders and communities and builders."Acciard agreed that zoning laws are part of the reason why affordable housing is hard to come by. He said cities and towns need to be open to allowing more forms of development."The towns have got to step up and start loosening (zoning laws) and allow for multifamily properties to be built and maybe some manufactured housing so we can actually start to house people, because we're losing our youngest people in the state," Acciard said. "They graduate, and they immediately leave."Testerman said the housing market has been skewed by demand from people outside the state."One of the interesting things about the housing market is that we're building a lot of housing that also is providing housing to the people who are working down in Boston," Testerman said.Each of the candidates said they would sign into law a parental bill of rights if it made it to their desk. Supports of such measures say they allow parents to be more involved with their children's school lives, but opponents say they could make the mental health crisis worse, with schools required to out LGBTQ students to their parents before they're ready.Acciard said that if sensitive topics are involved, parents can be informed without jeopardizing children."Parents should have a say in their kid's education for better or worse," he said. "These are our kids. We don't hand them into government custody and just let things be."Riley said parents increasingly believe that their voices don't matter in their children's schools."Political ideologues have infiltrated New Hampshire public schools," he said. "We need a governor who knows what's going on in our public schools, who's been a part of them for years and can fight back."Testerman said such a measure would help keep government in check in terms of education."It is important that parents be allowed to be involved in their children's education, and government has no right to take this over," she said.On the Democratic side of the race, Dr. Tom Sherman is running unopposed for the nomination.The debate was the final Granite State Debate being held before the primary election. The 1st District debate was held Tuesday, the 2nd District debate was held Wednesday and U.S. Senate Republican candidates debated on Thursday.Programming note: Due to the airing of the debate, ABC's episode of "The Con" will air at 1:36 a.m. Saturday.

Three candidates challenging Gov. Chris Sununu for the Republican nomination for governor shared their thoughts on affordable housing, energy costs and other issues Friday night in the Granite State Debate.

Sununu declined to attend the debate, and with a recent poll showing that 60% of Granite Staters approve of the job he's doing, the three candidates on the debate stage sought to show why Republican voters should choose them over the incumbent.

>> Read debate participant bios: Acciard | Riley | Testerman

Veteran and businessman Julian Acciard, conservative activist Karen Testerman and businessman Thad Riley focused squarely on Sununu and what they called his unconstitutional overreach, rather than on each other in the hourlong debate at St. Anselm College.

Each candidate sought to harness conservative discontent with Sununu, who was criticized by some in his own party for what they saw as abusing his powers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

>> Gubernatorial candidates on the issues

"There are a lot of places where the governor continues to violate people's rights, as well as flip-flopping on many of the decisions that he's written letters to say that he would uphold," Testerman said.

See the full debate at this link, or view the debate by segment here:

Acciard took Sununu to task for criticizing Republican legislators.

"I believe in Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: you're not supposed to be shooting out in public against your own party," Acciard said. "But yet the governor goes out and does it every time that he gets in front of a microphone."

Riley accused the governor of not looking out for the best interest of New Hampshire residents.

"The only thing worse than electing a career politician is electing the same career politician," he said. "And Chris Sununu is a career politician. He does things every day that don't make sense to Granite Staters."

The candidates were asked for their solutions to some of the toughest problems facing New Hampshire, such as the lack of affordable housing.

"We've got to get the bureaucracy out of New Hampshire," Riley said. "These zoning laws are doing more damage day in and day out for business leaders and communities and builders."

Acciard agreed that zoning laws are part of the reason why affordable housing is hard to come by. He said cities and towns need to be open to allowing more forms of development.

"The towns have got to step up and start loosening (zoning laws) and allow for multifamily properties to be built and maybe some manufactured housing so we can actually start to house people, because we're losing our youngest people in the state," Acciard said. "They graduate, and they immediately leave."

Testerman said the housing market has been skewed by demand from people outside the state.

"One of the interesting things about the housing market is that we're building a lot of housing that also is providing housing to the people who are working down in Boston," Testerman said.

Each of the candidates said they would sign into law a parental bill of rights if it made it to their desk. Supports of such measures say they allow parents to be more involved with their children's school lives, but opponents say they could make the mental health crisis worse, with schools required to out LGBTQ students to their parents before they're ready.

Acciard said that if sensitive topics are involved, parents can be informed without jeopardizing children.

"Parents should have a say in their kid's education for better or worse," he said. "These are our kids. We don't hand them into government custody and just let things be."

Riley said parents increasingly believe that their voices don't matter in their children's schools.

"Political ideologues have infiltrated New Hampshire public schools," he said. "We need a governor who knows what's going on in our public schools, who's been a part of them for years and can fight back."

Testerman said such a measure would help keep government in check in terms of education.

"It is important that parents be allowed to be involved in their children's education, and government has no right to take this over," she said.

On the Democratic side of the race, Dr. Tom Sherman is running unopposed for the nomination.

The debate was the final Granite State Debate being held before the primary election. The 1st District debate was held Tuesday, the 2nd District debate was held Wednesday and U.S. Senate Republican candidates debated on Thursday.

Programming note: Due to the airing of the debate, ABC's episode of "The Con" will air at 1:36 a.m. Saturday.

Link:
Republicans running for governor pitch themselves as alternatives to Sununu in debate - WMUR Manchester

Political parties, donors and dark-money groups have poured more than $2 million into the battle to control the state Senate, and both sides are focusing on just a handful of races that could determine the states political future.

In the top battleground districts, Democratic candidates have raised about $875,000 in donations, compared to about $749,000 for Republicans.

The highest totals are going to Rep. Dylan Roberts and Rep. Kyle Mullica, who are both running for the Senate and have so far significantly outpaced fundraising by their opponents.

Roberts has raised about $227,000 alone, compared to about $87,000 for Republican Matt Solomon, in a district that covers northwest Colorado. Roberts sum includes support from business groups and hundreds of individual donations.

Id say that shows an extraordinary commitment to fundraising, given the caps that are placed on candidates and how much they can raise, said Rob Witwer, a former Republican lawmaker and political analyst.

Individuals and businesses are limited to contributing $400 directly to a state Senate campaign, including the primary and general elections.

Both Mullica and Roberts are running for Senate seats that are competitive but lean toward Democrats. If both men win, it would likely derail Republicans goal of capturing the majority of the Senate this November.

Theres only a couple of paths for Republicans to take over the state Senate or the state House, and theyre going to be putting a lot of money into those paths, said Democratic campaign finance attorney Scott Martinez. Those paths go straight through Dylan Roberts and Kyle Mullica.

Republicans would have to flip four seats to take over the Senate, as opposed to nine seats in the House. That makes the Senate their best chance to gain some power in the state.

In several of the closer races, Republican campaigns do hold significant fundraising leads including Sen. Dennis Hisey in El Paso County and Sen. Rob Woodrow, whose district includes parts of Boulder and Larimer counties. The pair are running in competitive districts that the party likely must take to at least maintain their current power in the chamber.

These early campaign fundraising numbers are one piece of data about how the campaigns are going.

The money raised is your pulse rate. Its one of the most vital statistics, Martinez said.

But theres also another source of money in the elections: outside groups that independently spend money on the races. Republican groups have spent an estimated $844,000 on the battlegrounds, almost twice the $470,000 spent on the Democratic side.

And some of the biggest money is still to come. The Senate Democrats group has spent relatively little so far, but it had nearly $3 million in reserve on Aug. 31.

The Democrats strong reserves shows they have everything they need to prioritize the most competitive races in the last few weeks of the campaign, and its still a question mark whether Republicans will be able to match that effort, Witwer said.

The Senate Republicans spending group had significantly less in reserve, although it could quickly pull money over from other sources.

All the reports arent in yet what I do see is lots of Republican operatives being very busy on the soft side, where theyre out there raising money and buying up ad times, Martinez said. Theres certainly a lot of activity.

The outside money supporting candidates has been evenly spread across six contested Senate seats. Interestingly, the one race that hasnt attracted any outside spending is Senate District 15, which is one of the most closely divided districts in the state.

Most of the independent money on both sides is coming from groups affiliated with the political parties that generally dont disclose their individual donors. Supporters of the main Republican spending group, the Senate Majority Fund, include the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Colorado Action Fund, the GOPAC Election Fund and the Republican State Leadership Committee. Also spending heavily is the conservative group Unite for Colorado.

On the Democratic side, All Together Colorado is the main spending arm of the Senate Democrats. Its money comes from sources like the Colorado Fund for Children & Public Education the political wing of the Colorado Education Association, the state's largest teachers union as well as Education Reform Now Advocacy. Both groups have historically given to Democrats.

Also spending heavily for Democrats is Centennial State Prosperity Action, a group that says its focused on workers and health care.

Much of the outside spending will likely go toward negative ads in the most important races, Martinez said.

If I were Kyle Mullica and Dylan Roberts, Id fasten my seatbelt, Martinez said.

The Senate campaigns are largely focused on seven competitive elections. If Republicans want to retake the majority, they would likely have to win six of those races a potentially difficult task, since Democrats have generally outperformed Republicans in recent years in those districts.

However, Republicans also could have a path to the majority if they fall slightly short of that goal: They could pick up one more seat if a recall election against Sen. Kevin Priola succeeds next year. Priola recently became a Democrat after serving for years as a Republican.

All Together Colorado, the Democratic group, recently spent $9,000 in digital ads supporting Priola at the end of August.

Meanwhile, the financial lines are still being drawn. One new committee, Coloradans for Responsible Leadership, specifically aims to support Mullica and Roberts. That group is associated with Senate Democrats.

See more here:
Dark money and cash reserves: Democrats and Republicans are in a tight financial race for the state senate - Colorado Public Radio

When Florida Sen. Rick Scott unveiled a controversial policy agenda in February, the Republican leader was unrestrained in its ambitions. Scotts far-right fantasy touched on everything from abortion rights to school vouchers, tax hikes on the poor to lies about election administration. Even Social Security and Medicare would be jeopardized by the senators plan.

But Scotts 31-page document left one obvious thing out: The GOP senators blueprint didnt say anything about repealing or replacing the Affordable Care Act.

About a month later, Sen. Ron Johnson briefly suggested he wanted to put ACA repeal back on the table. The Wisconsin Republican is generally proud of his ideas, but in this instance, he scrambled to walk it back.

The developments served as a reminder: The politics of Obamacare have changed dramatically. Indeed, as Axios reported, the GOP is continuing to back off its earlier stances on the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans in tight congressional races are going silent on health care, scrubbing campaign websites of anti-abortion language and in some cases distancing themselves from past criticisms of the Affordable Care Act.... Its a marked contrast to vulnerable Democrats, whove been campaigning nonstop on enshrining abortion rights and the Inflation Reduction Acts health care provisions.

The article highlighted a variety of recent examples, including Nevadas Adam Laxalt: When the Republican ran for state attorney general in 2018, attacking the health care reform law was a central part of his candidacy. Four years later, Laxalt is running for the U.S. Senate; his pitch to voters is silent on the ACA; his website makes no mention of the law; and his spokesperson no longer wants to talk about his position.

There are plenty of things Republicans want to talk about this campaign season. The Affordable Care Act isnt one of them.

In the not-too-distant past, this wouldve been tough to predict. Indeed, for those of us who covered the political fight over the Affordable Care Act closely, this day seemed highly implausible. Before Barack Obama signed the reform package into law, Republicans condemned it as an economy-destroying attack on free enterprise and the American way of life. After the ACA became law, Republicans spent years not only denouncing the reforms, but also voting several dozen times to repeal it.

Now, even many conservative Republicans have moved on in part because Obamacare is working so effectively, and in part because Democrats used the issue to great effect in the 2018 midterms, en route to taking back the House.

But just because GOP officials and candidates have shifted their focus away from the ACA doesnt mean the substantive debate is over. Axios report added that Republicans willingness to distance themselves from their earlier condemnations begs the bigger question of what the GOPs health care agenda will look like if the party flips control of one or both houses of Congress.

Putting aside the misuse of begs the question, the underlying point matters. The Republican Party spent much of the past decade with a single message related to health care policy: Repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The GOP has not only dropped that goal, its also hoping voters forget that the party ever pursued such a regressive policy in the first place.

But the question for the electorate hasnt changed: What exactly would Republicans do on health care policy if put in positions of power?

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Read this article:
Why it matters that Republicans are abandoning their ACA attacks - MSNBC

Republicans are so incensed with President Bidens student loan forgiveness that they want to go to court to block it. That seems like political suicide to me, and if they want to actively align with debt collectors and label themselves as the Gimme Some Money party to 43 million student borrowers, let them go ahead.

The main legal hurdle Republicans face to their dream of immiserating student debtors is the concept of standing. A potential plaintiff has to be harmed by the cancellation of student debt in order to sue the federal government over it. And standing is going to be hard to come by, for a variety of reasons.

While Republicans figure out a way around that roadblock, the Biden administration can do a couple of things to bulletproof their policy. First, they can use the section of the law that more robustly conveys cancellation authority, rather than a shortcut tied to the pandemic. Second, they can extinguish the one likely group that could be granted standing, simplifying the student lending process at the same time. And third, they can rapidly implement debt forgiveness, because every borrower who gets $10,000 or $20,000 in relief, and every story publicizing it, will make it that much harder politically to overturn it.

More from David Dayen

The standing question is harder than it may sound, and Republicans know it. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who desperately wants to short-circuit a better life for college students and their families who are swimming in debt, explained on his podcast how much of a hurdle it will be. As a general matter, just being a taxpayer is not sufficient for the courts to conclude you have standing to challenge an expenditure of funds You have to find someone who was harmed by the expenditure of funds.

Recipients of student debt relief are, quite obviously, not being harmed at all. State education programs could be affected, but its hard to see how that would be in a negative way. The most authoritative investigation into this, from a Virginia Law Review article, found that nobody would have standing under current precedent.

Cruz postulated that a current student could sue by saying debt cancellation would lead to higher tuition rates. But he then said that would be far down the causal chain and wouldnt reflect a legitimate injury. Another option is finding someone just above the means test for eligibility, who makes more than $125,000 a year, and is being denied the debt relief. But aside from not being a particularly sympathetic plaintiff, winning on that argument wouldnt necessarily end debt relief so much as it would open it up to everyone. It could also effectively invalidate means testing across a whole length of policies, and Republicans probably dont want to risk that. Even Cruz said that its not at all clear a court would buy that argument.

The biggest candidates for standing are the student loan servicers, the for-profit companies contracted to handle day-to-day operations on the loans, such as collecting payments. It sounds straightforward that the servicers would be injured by having fewer loans to manage.

The main legal hurdle Republicans face to their dream of immiserating student debtors is the concept of standing.

But there are a few problems with that notion. First, the contracts with the government do not guarantee that any one servicer will get a defined number of loans. Since the payment pause at the beginning of the pandemic (which also denied student loan servicers fees and other remuneration but did not draw a lawsuit), several servicers have dropped out of the federal student loan program, so its not even necessarily the case that the remaining servicers will have fewer loans to service. And servicers are in the midst of renegotiating their loans with the federal government, and would be unlikely to pick a fight with the entity theyre bartering with for a good deal.

But even if, with all of that, a servicer sues over the debt relief program, its unlikely that their suit, if successful, would invalidate the forgiveness. As a federal contractor, they would likely have to sue for lost compensation, under the Contract Disputes Act. That suit would go through the Court of Federal Claims, and while appeals could route to the Supreme Court, and they are certainly fond of making up their own rules, the likely outcome even if the servicer wins would be a monetary payout, not the reversal of debt forgiveness.

Conservative groups are certainly looking to find someone to sue, and despite these long odds, that should be taken seriously. Trump has stacked the judiciary with hack judges who ignore the lawsuggesting a need for broader strategies. In particular, the administration can make some choices to make opposition more difficult, both legally and practically speaking.

Fordham University law professor Jed Shugerman has carved out a starring role for himself as the liberal fretter that debt cancellation will be overturned. Shugerman, a nominal supporter of the program, says that the Biden team based the debt relief on the wrong executive authorities, and that the opposition will probably prevail in a lawsuit if they dont change course. I dont agree that conservatives will automatically win a legal case, but Shugerman does have a point about the statutory authority.

The Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel legally blessed student debt cancellation through authority from the HEROES Act, a 2003 law that allows the Education Department to assist student borrowers during a national emergency if they were placed in a worse position financially. (The Education Department general counsel report uses the same authority.) This was the authority that the Trump administration used to pause payments, and since it worked for them, its somewhat logical for the OLC to use it for debt cancellation.

But several years ago, the Prospect laid out how the Education Department can use compromise and settlement authority under the Higher Education Act of 1965 to alter the terms of federally issued student debt at their discretion. That seems like a more robust authority for the current action, Shugerman surmises, and I agree. The national emergency has waned, and the courts have not allowed COVID as an excuse to extend things like the eviction moratorium or the vaccine mandate for all employers. The placed in a worse position clause could also prove a bit dicey: Borrowers might have to prove through past bank balances that COVID hurt them financially.

Compromise and settlement authority is just a better way to deliver broad-based relief of this type, that fits better with the administrations rhetoric on why theyre engaging in this. That should serve as the legal basis.

To guard against the student loan servicers having standing to sue, the government could just allow those contracts to expire or even buy their way out of the contracts, as I suggested over a year ago. We have an agency called the IRS that is perfectly capable of billing and collecting monthly student loan payments. And student loan servicers are actually terrible at their job, actively harming students by steering them into bad programs, misapplying payments, imposing illegal fees and penalties, and dozens of other violations. In addition to wiping away all that, you remove the biggest threat to standing. Removing the servicers is unlikely to happen overnight, but it should be the direction for the student loan program.

Finally, the legal threat to debt forgiveness makes implementing the forgiveness as fast as possible even more critical. Every story of someone receiving their cancellation will build momentum for a program that makes it tougher politically to dislodge. It wont necessarily deter the Supreme Court if theyre determined to make student borrowers suffer, but it will ensure that a major price is paid for that decision, not unlike what were seeing now with the Dobbs decision. The Court would likely have to break a lot of precedent around standing and executive deference to reinstate student debt; the more thats canceled first, the more painful that decision will be.

Visit link:
Why It'll Be Tough for Republicans to Cancel Student Debt Cancellation - The American Prospect