A new poll shows Democratic U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin leading Republican state Sen. Tom Barrett by 5.7 percentage points in their tossup race for Congress in a battleground mid-Michigan district where abortion is a top issue motivating voters.

The survey of 400 likely general election voters, conducted Oct. 18-20, found that 47% of respondents plan to vote for Slotkin and 41.3% for Barrett. About 8% remain undecided, and 3.6% support Libertarian candidate Leah Dailey.

The poll conducted by the Lansing-based Glengariff Group Inc. was commissioned by The Detroit News and WDIV-TV (Channel 4) and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. The poll had a partisan breakdown of 43% of voters who identify as Republicans, 39% who vote Democratic and 17% who consider themselves political independents.

Slotkin of Lansing and Barrett of Charlotte are running in Michigan's new 7th District that covers the greater Lansing area, Livingston County and small corners of Oakland and Genesee counties. The race is considered among the most competitive and expensive U.S. House contests in the country in the Nov. 8 midterm elections.

A new poll shows Democratic U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin leading Republican state Sen. Tom Barrett by 5.7 percentage points in their tossup race for Congress in a battleground mid-Michigan district where abortion is a top issue motivating voters.

The survey of 400 likely general election voters, conducted Oct. 18-20, found that 47% of respondents plan to vote for Slotkin and 41.3% for Barrett. About 8% remain undecided, and 3.6% support Libertarian candidate Leah Dailey.

The poll conducted by the Lansing-based Glengariff Group Inc. was commissioned by The Detroit News and WDIV-TV (Channel 4) and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points. The poll had a partisan breakdown of 43% of voters who identify as Republicans, 39% who vote Democratic and 17% who consider themselves political independents.

Slotkin of Lansing and Barrett of Charlotte are running in Michigan's new 7th District that covers the greater Lansing area, Livingston County and small corners of Oakland and Genesee counties. The race is considered among the most competitive and expensive U.S. House contests in the country in the Nov. 8 midterm elections.

In 2018, we said Laura Kelly was the clear choice for Kansas governor, pointing out her “practical yet determined plan” to repair the fiscal damage of her predecessors.

She executed that plan. Today, we strongly endorse Kelly, a Democrat and the incumbent governor, for the second term she now seeks.

Kansans should not forget the disaster Kelly inherited when she took office in 2019. The state was still reeling from the tax cut “experiment” of former Gov. Sam Brownback, which led to cratering revenues and underfunded schools.

Remember endless special sessions? Last-minute budget transfers? Plummeting state credit ratings? “It was pretty dire,” Kelly said in September, during an hourlong grilling with The Star’s editorial board. “We were suffering under a huge debt. We weren’t able to pay our bills without robbing every bank account we had.”

As governor, Kelly ended the chaos by rightsizing the budget, repaying debt and shoring up the state’s credit.

She had help, of course. The federal government has provided billions for COVID-19 relief. The state’s economy has also rebounded, pouring hundreds of millions of additional dollars into state coffers.

She resisted repeated attempts to squander some of that money on tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy. She wasn’t always successful, but her efforts helped limit the damage.

In 2018, we said Laura Kelly was the clear choice for Kansas governor, pointing out her “practical yet determined plan” to repair the fiscal damage of her predecessors.

She executed that plan. Today, we strongly endorse Kelly, a Democrat and the incumbent governor, for the second term she now seeks.

Kansans should not forget the disaster Kelly inherited when she took office in 2019. The state was still reeling from the tax cut “experiment” of former Gov. Sam Brownback, which led to cratering revenues and underfunded schools.

Remember endless special sessions? Last-minute budget transfers? Plummeting state credit ratings? “It was pretty dire,” Kelly said in September, during an hourlong grilling with The Star’s editorial board. “We were suffering under a huge debt. We weren’t able to pay our bills without robbing every bank account we had.”

As governor, Kelly ended the chaos by rightsizing the budget, repaying debt and shoring up the state’s credit.

She had help, of course. The federal government has provided billions for COVID-19 relief. The state’s economy has also rebounded, pouring hundreds of millions of additional dollars into state coffers.

She resisted repeated attempts to squander some of that money on tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy. She wasn’t always successful, but her efforts helped limit the damage.

TULSA, Okla. — With three weeks until the November 8 election, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joy Hofmeister, who switched parties from Republican, is leading incumbent Republican Governor Kevin Stitt 49% to 42%, according to a poll conducted by an Oklahoma based political consulting firm, Ascend Action.

The poll was conducted by cell phone calls, with 70% of the responses by SMS text message and 30% by live calls. The sample of the population that was polled was 638 people the firm determined were most likely to vote in the general election based on voter history, consumer data and data obtained from voter surveys. About 8% of those polled were still undecided about who they would vote for to be the next governor. The margin of error for the poll is 3.9%.

Donald Trump won Oklahoma by over 30 points in 2020 — but Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt is still getting last-minute help to close out his reelection bid.

Stitt has been deadlocked in a string of recent public polls in the state with Democrat Joy Hofmeister, the state superintendent of education, who switched parties at the end of last year to launch her gubernatorial bid. Some surveys released since the beginning of the month have even shown Hofmeister with a narrow lead over the incumbent governor.

Against that backdrop, the Republican Governors Association announced a “seven figure” ad buy in support of Stitt — the second time the committee has rushed money into the state this cycle, after a group affiliated with the RGA bought ad time boosting him during the primary.

Stitt has faced a surprisingly robust wave of television ads attacking him over the last two years, which his allies point to as the reason why he is locked in a close contest. According to data from AdImpact, an ad tracking firm, over $7 million in advertising has been booked by groups either attacking Stitt or boosting Hofmeister in the general election, with an additional $1 million from her campaign. That’s on top of the at least $6 million more that other organizations spent against Stitt in the GOP primary, which he ultimately won comfortably.

And in an unusual display of unity in the state, the leaders of Oklahoma’s five largest Native American tribes all endorsed Hofmeister earlier this month, calling this year’s gubernatorial contest “the most important in generations for all Oklahomans” in a joint statement.

Citizens for Ethics
@CREWcrew

These are the top 5 corporate contributors to election deniers running for federal and state offices:

1. Koch Industries, $629,000
2. AT&T, $619,500
3. Home Depot, $544,500
4. UPS, $441,100
5. Boeing, $427,500

Corporations donated more than $35.6 million to election deniers

In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, the most influential corporations in America held themselves out as champions of democracy in the United States. These corporations said Biden was the legitimate winner and that efforts to sow doubts about the outcome were irresponsible, dangerous, and counterproductive.

On January 4, 2021, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — which represents almost every major corporation in the United States — released a statement warning that rejecting or questioning Biden's victory "undermines our democracy and the rule of law and will only result in further division across our nation." On the same day, the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group that represents hundreds of the nation's top CEOs, released a statement saying that "the integrity of the 2020 presidential election is not in doubt." Politicians that continue to question the results, the Business Roundtable said, create "ongoing division and distrust in our political system" and undermine economic growth.

But a comprehensive analysis of corporate political donations over the last two years by Popular Information reveals that Corporate America has not backed up its words with actions. Since January 2021, corporate PACs have donated over $35.6 million dollars to 291 candidates for federal and top statewide offices that continue to deny or question the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled Friday morning in the case of Reddick v. Louisiana denying some 1,500 people who are still in prison the right to a constitutional hearing.

"This decision will be remembered as a grave misstep in Louisiana history," the Promise of Justice Initiative said in a statement.

On May 10, 2022, the Louisiana Supreme Court heard arguments from the Promise of Justice Initiative and the Louisiana State Attorney General's Office in the case of Reddick v. Louisiana.

Reginald Reddick from Plaquemines Parish was convicted by a nonunanimous jury in 1997 after a 10-2 vote found him guilty of second-degree murder. He was then sentenced to life in prison.

"What we're looking at is, why were Louisianans deprived of their constitutional rights, black or white," said Jamila Johnson, Deputy Director of PJI and counsel for Reddick during the May hearing.

The Reddick case argued that more than 1,500 people who remain incarcerated due to nonunanimous jury verdicts should have access to a legal remedy.

These verdicts were nicknamed “Jim Crow Jury” convictions because of the role that they played in implicitly working to maintain white supremacy in Louisiana.

The vote was 6-1 with the court's only Black justice, Piper Griffin of New Orleans, dissenting.

The ruling, written by Justice Scott Crichton, also noted that the court refused to act as a "super-legislature by issuing a broader retroactivity approach than that approved by the voters of Louisiana, who amended the Constitution with prospective effect only,"

"We expressly note that the Legislature may determine that a broader subset of individuals are eligible for post-conviction relief. Likewise, the Governor has the power in individual cases to grant clemency under our state Constitution," Crichton wrote.

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled Friday morning in the case of Reddick v. Louisiana denying some 1,500 people who are still in prison the right to a constitutional hearing.

"This decision will be remembered as a grave misstep in Louisiana history," the Promise of Justice Initiative said in a statement.

On May 10, 2022, the Louisiana Supreme Court heard arguments from the Promise of Justice Initiative and the Louisiana State Attorney General's Office in the case of Reddick v. Louisiana.

Reginald Reddick from Plaquemines Parish was convicted by a nonunanimous jury in 1997 after a 10-2 vote found him guilty of second-degree murder. He was then sentenced to life in prison.

"What we're looking at is, why were Louisianans deprived of their constitutional rights, black or white," said Jamila Johnson, Deputy Director of PJI and counsel for Reddick during the May hearing.

The Reddick case argued that more than 1,500 people who remain incarcerated due to nonunanimous jury verdicts should have access to a legal remedy.

These verdicts were nicknamed “Jim Crow Jury” convictions because of the role that they played in implicitly working to maintain white supremacy in Louisiana.

The vote was 6-1 with the court's only Black justice, Piper Griffin of New Orleans, dissenting.

The ruling, written by Justice Scott Crichton, also noted that the court refused to act as a "super-legislature by issuing a broader retroactivity approach than that approved by the voters of Louisiana, who amended the Constitution with prospective effect only,"

"We expressly note that the Legislature may determine that a broader subset of individuals are eligible for post-conviction relief. Likewise, the Governor has the power in individual cases to grant clemency under our state Constitution," Crichton wrote.

Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Florida is a place of meanness. It’s a place where dissent is muzzled, where personal rights triumph over the greater good, where winning is more important than unity — especially if that victory moves him closer to a White House run.

That’s not the Florida we had four years ago. And it’s not a Florida that voters should tolerate for the next four years. There’s a far better choice in the Nov. 8 election: Democrat Charlie Crist.

DeSantis’ first term in office has been defined by stunt after stunt and made-for-Fox-News grandstanding as he claims successive wins in the culture wars created by the politics of division that he exploits for his own gain. Meanwhile, real crises such as the lack of affordable housing and property insurance are barely addressed.

There was the recent taxpayer-funded flight of Venezuelan asylum seekers from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard. The migrants reportedly were duped into believing they would get jobs, but instead ended up on the Massachusetts vacation island, pawns in DeSantis’ thirst for attention. His willingness to upend the lives of vulnerable people for self-aggrandizing publicity appears to have also been behind his boastful announcement in August of the arrest of 20 people, ex-offenders he said voted illegally. However, those arrested have told the Herald that their county election supervisor’s office said they could cast ballots after Floridians approved the restoration of voting rights for some ex-felons.

DeSantis’ own administration was responsible for flagging ineligible voters, but didn’t. Friday, a Miami circuit court judge threw out a criminal case against one of the people DeSantis accused of committing election fraud in the 2020 election.

Crist, 66, is seasoned, smart and reasonable. He treats people with courtesy, in contrast to DeSantis, who publicly snapped at high school students for wearing masks and accuse them of engaging in “COVID theater.”

Crist has detailed plans on how to tackle the affordable-housing crisis, one of the most important quality-of-life issues in the state. He’s a consensus builder, something we have missed since DeSantis took office, and he knows intimately how government works.

There certainly are knocks against Crist. He’s been criticized as a career politician and political chameleon. And it’s true that he’s a former Republican governor-turned-independent-turned-Democratic congressman who is now running for governor again. But he says the Republican Party left him, not the other way around, a realization shared by many traditional Republicans.

But more than anything, Crist is what we need to return Florida to normalcy and common decency. He would stop the culture wars over made-up issues that have no bearing on Floridians’ everyday lives and get on with the business of governing. And no matter how much Republicans try to paint Crist as a leftist or socialist, he’s not. Instead, he’s that rarely seen breed in the Florida politics of today: a moderate.