Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Democrats are projected to notch several key wins across Tuesday’s elections, indicating both that abortion remains a motivating factor for voters and that the party can remain successful, including in red states, even in the face of President Joe Biden’s poor approval ratings.

A referendum to guarantee abortion access in Ohio was set to pass by a hefty margin, and Democrats in Virginia were projected to flip control of the entire state Legislature, as the party had loudly warned that unified GOP control in Richmond would result in a 15-week abortion ban.

Meanwhile, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, won a second term in a part of the country that just three years ago was handily won by former President Donald Trump, dealing a setback to Daniel Cameron, a rising star and state attorney general who was Republicans’ nominee in the race.

Here are six takeaways from Tuesday’s results:

Backlash to Roe v. Wade doesn’t seem to be going away

Tuesday’s election results made even more plain that, in the wake of last year’s Supreme Court decision scrapping constitutional protections for abortion, voters are casting ballots in favor of abortion access when it is a prominent election issue.

The Ohio vote on state Issue 1, to enshrine in the state constitution the “right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” including abortions, may ultimately pass by a double-digit margin in a state that Trump won twice by eight points and which recently elected a Republican governor and senator.

And in Virginia, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin had pushed hard for the GOP to take over the state government — while pitching what he called a 15-week “limit” on abortion, with exceptions — only to be rebuffed by Democratic messaging warning that Republicans wanted to curtail access.

Those two races followed a growing trend across the country, including in conservative places like Kansas and Kentucky, of states passing pro-abortion rights referendums since the 2022 decision striking down Roe v. Wade, the 1972 Supreme Court decision that first codified national protections for the procedure.

And despite the consistent results, Republicans still have been unable to unify around consistent messaging on abortion, including whether there should be federal restrictions, what exceptions should apply and how late into a pregnancy the procedure should or should not be allowed.

“Going into 2024, the energy is still on Democrats’ side. As long as Republicans embrace unpopular abortion stances and run extreme candidates, they will continue to under-perform. Fortunately for Democrats, the GOP seems unwilling to course correct,” said Democratic strategist Lis Smith.

A bad night for GOP rising stars

Tuesday’s results also marked major bumps in the road for Republican rising stars.

Youngkin, who won the Virginia governorship in what was seen as an upset in 2021, has been touted as a future presidential contender.

But his state’s legislative elections are likely to undercut his track record, given how much he involved himself in the races — spending months and raising millions of dollars to help boost other Republicans.

It’s unlikely that speculation over Youngkin’s future will fade completely, given his ability two years ago to win the governorship in a state that Biden won by 10 points in 2020, though Tuesday’s results will likely spark questions about his ability to win over Democratic voters in a post-Roe America.

“It … appears Youngkin doesn’t have as much political juice as he thought he did,” said Democratic strategist Karen Finney.

Cameron’s loss also tarnishes another emerging leader in the party.

The Kentucky attorney general, a 37-year-old Black Republican, is both a protégé of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and a Trump supporter who was able to win the former president’s endorsement. That combination fueled conjecture that Cameron would be able to bridge the Republican Party’s warring factions.

However, his loss in a state as Republican-friendly as Kentucky — despite its history of voting for Democratic governors — is likely to leave a mark. He looks set to lose to Beshear by more than then-Gov. Matt Bevin did in 2019, despite Bevin being swamped by approval issues.

How Beshear won

Beshear’s victory offers a potential path for Democrats looking to separate themselves from the national party brand and succeed in less liberal territory.

He ran in part on his record helping his state get through the COVID-19 pandemic and devastating floods and tornadoes, on top of touting economic development projects that had started during his term.

Cameron repeatedly sought to shift the focus to national issues, running ads trying to tie Beshear to Biden and promoting his own endorsement from Trump.

However, voters of all stripes told ABC News during a recent reporting trip to Kentucky that they viewed Beshear as separate from Biden, a message the governor incorporated in his victory speech Tuesday.

He called his win proof that “candidates should run for something and not against someone.”

National Democrats said they are taking notes.

“The overall results also illustrate the strength of the ground game, clearly defining the choice and importance of connecting with voters on their terms and the issues they care about. Gov. Beshear’s victory in Kentucky was a prime example,” Finney said.

Mississippi a silver lining for Republicans

Mississippi’s gubernatorial race did offer one big silver lining to Republicans.

Gov. Tate Reeves won a second term, ABC News projects, amid late speculation that Democratic nominee Brandon Presley, a second cousin of Elvis Presley, could take the race at least to a runoff by keeping the governor from winning at least 50% of the vote.

Presley had launched a full-court press to raise turnout among Black voters in a state where African Americans make up slightly less than 40% of the population, though it was not enough to keep his challenge alive. He also tried to link Reeves to corruption allegations, which Reeves dismissed.

The governor, for his part, depicted Presley as part of a band of “radical” Democrats — who haven’t won the governor’s mansion in more than two decades.

Philadelphia elects its first female mayor

Various parts of the country made history with their election choices on Tuesday.

Among them, Philadelphia was projected to elect its first female mayor.

Cherelle Parker previously worked as a teacher and served in the state legislature, representing northwest Philadelphia, and will serve as the city’s 100th mayor. She centered her campaign around public safety, education and economic issues, and she received endorsements from Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.

Her Republican opponent, David Oh, a former colleague on the Philadelphia City Council, would have also made history had he won, as the city’s first Asian American mayor.

Elsewhere, Democratic House of Representatives candidate Gabe Amo, a former Biden administration official, was projected to become the first person of color that Rhode Island sends to Congress.

Biden polls poorly, but other Democrats keep winning

Tuesday’s positive results for Democrats seem to fly in the face of recent public polling showing major issues for Biden, the leader of his party, raising concerns that he could be an anchor at the top of the ballot next year.

However, Democrats have consistently performed well in non-presidential elections since he took office, including during last year’s midterms and several specials this year.

Democrats who spoke to ABC News on Tuesday said the results don’t mean they’re out of the woods yet — but that the party may not be in as dire straits as some had feared.

“Voters in 2022 and ’23 have showed up for Democrats and our issues when the stakes are very high. That’s the best news out of tonight, because the 2024 stakes will be astronomical,” argued Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left group Third Way.

For his part, Biden took a victory lap Tuesday — calling to congratulate successful candidates like Beshear and Parker and seemingly swiping at polls showing him behind Trump in key swing states as a 2020 rematch appears increasingly likely.

“Across the country tonight, democracy won and MAGA lost,” Biden wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, referencing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan. “Voters vote. Polls don’t.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Republican Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is planning to issue multiple subpoenas aimed at President Joe Biden’s family, which are expected to start being issued as soon as Wednesday, sources tell ABC News.

The move would mark an attempt by Republicans to ramp up their impeachment inquiry into President Biden, which had faced delays during the weeks-long House speaker dispute.

Newly installed House Speaker Mike Johnson has said Republicans will “follow the evidence” when asked if the inquiry is heading toward impeaching President Biden. Johnson has also defended the prospects of subpoenaing Hunter Biden, telling Fox News that “desperate times call for desperate measures and that perhaps is overdue,” but a final decision had not been made.

The first hearing of the Republican-led impeachment inquiry into President Biden took place Sept. 28 and was dominated by contentious moments between Republicans and Democrats, but offered no new evidence.

The proceeding, which stretched for more than six hours, provided House Republicans the opportunity to lay out the various allegations they’ve already levied about the Biden family and their business dealings over the past nine months.

Several of the witnesses, including two witnesses called by Republicans, told the committee there wasn’t enough evidence yet to warrant impeaching President Biden.

Members on the committee also fiercely debated whether an inquiry was necessary, with Democrats pointing to an apparent lack of direct evidence implicating President Biden and Republicans arguing more investigation is needed.

As the September hearing ended, Comer had announced he would issue a subpoena to the president’s son and brother’s bank records “today.” Top Republicans, Comer included, had been threatening the move for months. They have said they believe the bank documents could provide smoking gun evidence so far missing in the case.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A majority of Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared inclined to uphold a 30-year-old federal ban on firearms for people under domestic violence restraining orders.

At the same time, during oral arguments in the case U.S. v. Rahimi, several conservative justices seemed to seek a narrow ruling that would reaffirm a generally expansive view of the Second Amendment.

The case comes at a time when firearms are a leading factor in intimate partner violence nationwide. A woman is five times more likely to die from a domestic abuse situation if a gun is involved, according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

The law in question requires state and federal courts to submit restraining orders to the national criminal background check system, which in turn blocks an attempted gun purchase. More than 77,000 gun sales have been denied under the law since 1998, according to the FBI.

Zackey Rahimi, a Texas drug dealer who was indicted for gun possession in violation of a restraining order obtained by his girlfriend, is challenging the ban as lacking historical precedent. A federal appeals court agreed with him and said the law should be struck down.

Last year, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority said only laws that have roots in American history and tradition can deprive citizens of a firearm. The Rahimi case is the first major test of the newly-promulgated standard.

“The government is looking down a dark well of American history and only seeing a reflection of itself,” Rahimi attorney Matthew Wright told the justices.

As hundreds of domestic violence survivors and gun safety advocates rallied outside the Court, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar vigorously defended the law as consistent with the nation’s long history of keeping guns from people who are not law-abiding or responsible.

“It’s an easy case,” Prelogar said. “The constitutional principle is clear. You can disarm dangerous persons.”

She said the law guards against a “profound harm” to women, the general public and law enforcement officers — and that Congress and legislatures in 48 states have embraced that view.

“I was struck by the data showing that armed domestic violence calls are the most dangerous type of call for a police officer to respond to in this country,” Prelogar told the justices. “And for those officers who die in the line of duty, virtually all of them are murdered with handguns.”

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett appeared to show support for the law. Both suggested that — even if there is not a “historical twin” for a law banning guns for people subject to domestic violence restraining orders — “dangerousness” of a person has long been a basis for gun restrictions.

The court’s liberal justices, who have been highly critical of the “history and tradition” test for gun restrictions, slammed the fact that the ban on guns for domestic abusers is even in question before them.

“I’m a little troubled. We have a history and tradition test that requires a culling of the history where only some people’s history counts,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Justice Elena Kagan pressed Rahimi’s attorney in seeming disbelief of what he was arguing.

“Do you think that the Congress can disarm people who are mentally ill, who have been committed to mental institutions?” Kagan asked Wright.

“There’s definitely a tradition for restricting sale or provision of weapons to the mentally ill,” Wright responded, “so I think ‘maybe’ is the answer to the tradition.”

Kagan accused Wright of ignoring the sweeping implications of his case.

“The implications of your argument are just so untenable,” she said. “Your argument applies to a wide variety of disarming actions, bans, what have you, that we take for granted now because it’s so obvious that people who have guns pose a great danger to others and you don’t give guns to people who have the kind of history of domestic violence that your client has or to the mentally ill.”

Several conservative justices, however, voiced concerns about the law’s potential to deprive non-violent Americans of their gun rights for an extended period of time — and without adequate due process.

“We’re told … that there are situations in which a family court judge who has to act quickly and may not have any investigative resources faces a he/she said situation, and the judge just says, ‘Well, I’m going to issue an order like this against both of the parties,'” said Justice Samuel Alito.

Prelogar disputed that it’s a common occurrence.

Justice Clarence Thomas worried the implications of upholding the law might be too broad: “What if someone is considered ‘not responsible’ for not storing their firearms properly?” he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to echo some of those concerns.

“Responsibility is a very broad concept,” Roberts said. “I mean, not taking your recycling to the curb on Thursdays. I mean, if it’s a serious problem, it’s irresponsible. Setting a bad example, you know, by yelling at a basketball game in a particular way. It seems to me that the problem with responsibility is that … what seems irresponsible to some people might seem like, well, that’s not a big deal to others.”

Prelogar said the standard for “responsible” citizen should be “dangerousness” with respect to the use of firearms.

The justices will vote on the case and spend the upcoming months drafting a decision, which is expected for release by the end of June.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who is facing a second censure resolution over her criticism of Israel, became emotional on the House floor Tuesday as she defended her views on the deadly conflict.

Tlaib rose to speak during debate on a resolution introduced by Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga., that would censure her for “promoting false narratives regarding the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and for calling for the destruction of the state of Israel.”

Tlaib’s critics point to her use of the phrase “from the river to the sea,” which is considered by some as a call for ending Israel’s existence. Tlaib, however, has said it’s “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.”

Surrounded by some of her progressive Democratic colleagues, Tlaib said she would not be “silenced” and accused members of distorting her words.

“I can’t believe we have to say this but Palestinian people are not disposable,” she said before she broke down in tears for several seconds. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., stood to comfort Tlaib before she continued.

“We are human beings just like anyone else. My sity, my grandmother — like all Palestinians — just wants to live her life with freedom and human dignity we all deserve,” she said. “Speaking up to save lives no matter faith, no matter ethnicity should not be controversial in this chamber. The cries of the Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me. What I don’t understand is why the cries of Palestinian children sound different to you all. We cannot lose our shared humanity.”

An attempt by House Democrats to table, or effectively kill, the McCormick resolution failed on Tuesday afternoon. The House debates the censure resolution Tuesday and is expected to hold a final passage vote Wednesday, according to an updated schedule from House Majority Whip Tom Emmer.

A vote to censure a member of Congress does not hold power beyond a public condemnation of the member’s behavior. It does not deny privileges in Congress or expel the member. A simple majority is all that is needed for a censure resolution to pass.

Censures are rare — more than more than two dozen House lawmakers have been censured.

It will be the second attempt in as many weeks looking to condemn Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American member of Congress, for her controversial comments about Israel amid its response to the deadly Hamas terror attack. The U.S. has designated Hamas a terrorist organization.

In Israel, at least 1,400 people have been killed and 6,900 others have been injured since the surprise attack on Oct. 7, according to Israeli officials. In the neighboring Gaza Strip, where Israel Defense Forces are deepening its operational activities, more than 10,000 people have been killed and nearly 26,000 have been injured, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry.

The first resolution, brought by Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene last week, was killed by House Democrats with the help of some Republicans. The House rejected the Georgia congresswoman’s effort by a vote of 222-186.

Tlaib first drew ire of some colleagues for refusing to apologize for blaming Israel for a deadly hospital blast in Gaza that U.S. officials believed to have been caused by a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket.

More recently, she’s faced pushback for calling for a cease-fire as the Israel-Gaza war rages on. She’s gone as far as to accuse President Joe Biden of supporting a Palestinian “genocide” over his administration’s resistance to a general cease-fire, though Biden has called for temporary pauses in the fighting to allow humanitarian aid to enter and for civilians to leave.

Tlaib defended her views during her five-minute speech on the House floor.

“Let me be clear: my criticism has always been of the Israeli government and Netanyahu’s actions. It’s important to separate people and governments, Mr. Chair, no government is beyond criticism,” Tlaib said. “The idea that criticizing the government of Israel is antisemitic sets a very dangerous precedent and it’s being used to silence diverse voices speaking up for human rights across our nation.”

She also again took aim at President Joe Biden, specifically over his past comment questioning the death toll statistics provided by Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry as well as his resistance to an overall cease-fire.

“Seventy-one percent of Michigan Democrats support a ceasefire. So, you can try to censure me, but you can’t silence their voices… President Biden must listen to and represent all of us, not just some of us,” she said.

Later Tuesday, the House is also planning to take up Greene’s revamped resolution to censure Tlaib.

Greene altered her resolution from last week, removing language that accused Tlaib of leading an “insurrection” during an Oct. 18 pro-Palestinian protest. In the new resolution, Greene wrote Tlaib “incited an illegal occupation at the United States Capitol Complex” through the protest.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — It’s Election Day in Virginia and the entire General Assembly is up for grabs.

Polls opened at 6 a.m. and will close at 7 p.m. local time. Projected election results are expected to begin after that, though officials won’t certify the votes until later.

According to the Virginia Department of Elections, 789,704 residents cast their ballots through early voting, including mail-in and in-person ballots.

Commissioner Susan Beals said on Tuesday that while the department is “making every effort this year to provide results as quickly and efficiently as possible,” she noted the length of this year’s ballot because it includes all 140 members of the General Assembly as well as other offices, from supervisors to sheriff’s commissioners.

When asked if there have been any issues at polling locations, Beals said there was a “brief issue” in Chesterfield County but that “everything has been resolved.” Two other counties experienced power outages, Beals added.

The state Legislature is currently split between the Democratic-led Senate and the Republican-led House of Delegates. That has stymied Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s agenda, including his push for a 15-week ban on abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, which the GOP believes is a compromise on the issue.

State Democrats, however, argue that conservatives will go further than that if they gain control of the entire state government and are hoping support for abortion access will be a motivating issue.

Both parties have heavily campaigned on abortion and education.

Political observers say the results will also influence Youngkin’s future, given his heavy involvement in the races.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — David Weiss, the special counsel investigating President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, appeared for voluntary testimony Tuesday behind closed doors before the House Judiciary Committee.

It’s rare for a special counsel to testify before a congressional committee while an investigation is ongoing, and Weiss is unlikely to reveal any details of his probe.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Weiss, who at the time was serving as the Delaware U.S. attorney appointed by former President Donald Trump, as special counsel in August.

Garland has said Weiss has been told he has “full authority” to make any charging decisions stemming from the investigation, even if that would involve bringing a case in a district outside Delaware.

The move came as a plea deal struck between Hunter Biden and federal prosecutors fell apart over the summer and the case appeared to be headed for trial. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to felony gun charges in October after the plea deal fell apart, following a yearslong investigation by special counsel Weiss.

Republicans have blasted Weiss’ appointment, after months of calling for a special counsel to be appointed, with House Oversight Chair James Comer, R-Ky., claiming the Department of Justice is trying to “stonewall” Congress’ own investigations into Hunter Biden and called the news part of a “Biden family cover-up,” despite Republicans offering no evidence of such a “cover-up.”

A spokesperson for Weiss said he will “make clear that he’s had and continues to have full authority over his investigation.”

“Consistent with department policy and the law, he will be unable to address the specifics of his investigation,” said Wyn Hornbuckle, a spokesperson for Weiss. “At the close of this matter, Special Counsel Weiss will prepare a report, which the Attorney General has committed to making public to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the law, department policy and the public interest.”

Since Republicans retook the House last year, they have launched multiple investigations aimed at learning more about who paid Hunter Biden in the past, and have contended that the swirl of foreign money sullies Joe Biden himself.

The GOP-led House Ways and Means Committee released transcripts in June of their interviews with two IRS whistleblowers that they say shows senior Biden administration officials stymied Weiss’ investigation into Hunter Biden.

In their testimony, the whistleblowers claim senior Justice Department officials blocked prosecutors’ attempts to bring charges against Hunter Biden in Washington and California, and refused to grant Weiss special counsel status.

Justice Department officials have disputed this claim, saying, “As both the Attorney General and U.S. Attorney David Weiss have said, U.S. Attorney Weiss has full authority over this matter, including responsibility for deciding where, when and whether to file charges as he deems appropriate. He needs no further approval to do so.” Several witnesses who appeared before the panel have undercut core claims made by the two IRS whistleblowers.

This interview also comes as House Republicans are looking to bolster support for their impeachment inquiry into President Biden and his family after weeks of it being on the back burner.

Hunter Biden’s attorneys have said they’ll seek a dismissal ahead of the trial date, which has not yet been set. The special counsel, meanwhile, has signaled his intention to bring separate tax charges against Hunter Biden in California or Washington, D.C., as well as possible charges related to his overseas business endeavors, which are also being investigated by GOP-led House Oversight Committee.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(CLEVELAND) — Ohio voters are casting their ballots on Tuesday to decide whether a proposed amendment will enshrine abortion in the state’s constitution.

The ballot measure, known as Issue 1, would change the Ohio constitution to establish “an individual right to one’s own reproductive medical treatment, including but not limited to abortion.” Treatment includes contraception, fertility treatments and miscarriage care.

If the amendment passes, it will create legal protection for a person or entity who assists someone receiving an abortion and prevent Ohio from “directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing or prohibiting abortion” before viability, generally considered between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation.

In Ohio, abortion is currently banned at 22 weeks or later, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that studies sexual and reproductive rights.

Patients seeking an abortion are forced to make two trips, first for an in-person counseling session and the second at least 24 hours later for the procedure itself.

Additionally, only a physician is able to perform an abortion and not another qualified health care professional.

Under the proposed amendment, the state can ban abortion after viability except when the life or health of the mother is in danger.

What’s more, a woman’s physician will be able to determine “on a case-by-case basis” whether the fetus is viable.

There is no language in the proposal about what type of health care professional is allowed or not allowed to perform an abortion.

Last year, voters in three states — California, Michigan and Vermont — enshrined abortion rights in their constitutions. Residents of Kentucky and Montana, however, voted against further restricting access to abortion services in 2022.

What’s more, during the 2022 primary election, voters in Kansas struck down a proposal to remove the right to abortion from the state’s constitution.

If Ohioans vote in favor of the amendment, the state would become the seventh to protect abortion rights via the ballot box since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

If the amendment is not passed, it could potentially pave the way for a six-week abortion ban to be reinstated.

In 2019, Ohio lawmakers passed a so-called heartbeat bill that bans abortions after cardiac activity can be detected, which occurs as early as six weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they’re pregnant. It was signed into law by Gov. Mike DeWine.

The ban had no exceptions for rape or incest. The only exceptions were cases of ectopic pregnancies and to prevent the mother’s death or impairment of a major bodily function.

A federal judge blocked the ban in 2019 but it was reinstated just hours after the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe.

Stories of the ban’s impact quickly emerged and gained national attention, including that of a 10-year-old girl who was raped and had to travel from Ohio to Indiana for an abortion.

In September 2022, an Ohio lower court granted a temporary restraining order before granting a preliminary injunction a few weeks later. The state’s Supreme Court is now considering whether to lift the injunction while legal challenges play out in the lower court.

If Issue 1 passes, the Supreme Court decision would have no standing. However, if it fails to pass, the court would have the opportunity reinforce the six-week ban.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — As the one-year countdown to the 2024 general election begins, candidates are looking to the youth vote as a means to grow support.

Building off of 2020 voter turnout, one college campus has become a bastion for a high standard of voter registration.

St. Olaf College in Northfield, Minnesota is home to a student body that turned out to vote at a rate 20% higher than the national average.

According to the school, nearly 88% of eligible students at the school voted in the 2020 election, a stark contrast to the 66% voting rate found at other universities across the country that same year. The latter figure is roughly in line with the national average voter rate, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Election ambassadors on St. Olaf’s campus approach students year-round looking to combat voter apathy.

Student Elijah Sonntag, who previously served as an election ambassador in 2022, said the role is largely about “being able to make that personal connection, and say, ‘Hey, your voice matters.'”

Ambassadors work to increase student body awareness of voter accessibility with stickers, online instructional materials and more. The campus also has its own polling location.

Darartu Musse, another St. Olaf student, said candidate engagement with college campuses could also help inspire the youth vote and inform students.

“Getting candidates or getting representatives to be more engaged with any type of community, including college campuses [and] immigrant communities is one way to increase voter turnout and is a solution for the information gap,” she said.

While it is true that college students tend to vote for Democrats more often, Alyssa H. Melby, assistant director for academic civic engagement at St. Olaf College, said that is unrelated to the school’s mission.

“We are ensuring that folks understand what their civic rights are and the opportunities to exercise them,” Melby said.

As institutions like St. Olaf work to increase voter turnout on college campuses, several historically red states have made moves that could reduce voter turnout among college students. States such as Texas, South Carolina and Tennessee, for example, which are among the 35 U.S. states that require voters to show some form of identification to cast a ballot, do not allow voters to use a student ID as a form of identification, according to the Campus Vote Project.

Abby Kiesa, deputy director of the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, or CIRCLE, at Tufts University, echoed a similar message to Melby, emphasizing her group’s mission to encourage college students to vote.

“I think that we just need to make a decision about whether we as a country want to help people participate in democracy or not,” she said.

Earlier this year, Democratic Gov. Tim Walz signed into law a slate of new legislation that, among other things, automatically adds residents to the voter rolls when they register for a driver’s license or state-issued ID, and allows 16 and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote, meaning they will be automatically added to the voter rolls once they turn 18.

“We want to be a model for voting,” Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar told ABC News. “And I think part of that is we value civic participation.”

According to CIRCLE, another way young people can become more engaged in the democratic process is to serve as a poll worker in elections. Currently, 44 states allow people under the age of 18 to serve as poll workers.

“The hands-on experience of serving as poll workers can improve young people’s trust in and knowledge about elections, which is often lacking in young people’s civic learning and development,” the organization said in a press release last year.

With a year to go before the pivotal 2024 elections, Sonntag reflected on the idea that young voter turnout might eventually result in major changes to U.S. policy, especially when it comes to topics like climate change.

“If every single person who thought their vote didn’t matter went and voted, we could see a very different election,” he added.

 

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear arguments over a 30-year-old federal ban on firearms for people under domestic violence restraining orders.

The case, U.S. v. Rahimi, is a blockbuster test of a widely popular gun safety regulation and the Second Amendment at a time when firearms are a leading factor in intimate partner violence nationwide.

An estimated 12 million American adults are victims of domestic abuse every year; on average, 70 die every month from being shot by an intimate partner, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

A woman is five times more likely to die from a domestic abuse situation if a gun is involved, according to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

The justices are taking up the issue one year after a landmark decision made it more difficult for governments to restrict individual gun rights. The high court’s ruling said only laws “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” can be allowed.

“This is an opportunity for the justices to clarify the test, particularly as it applies to domestic abusers, and to a whole host of incredibly effective gun violence prevention laws,” said Kelly Roskam, director of law and policy at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

The 1994 federal statute at the center of the case requires thousands of domestic violence restraining orders issued each year by federal and state judges to be reported to the national background check system. In turn, they serve as a basis to deny a firearm sale.

More than 77,000 attempted firearm purchases by alleged domestic abusers have been blocked since 1998, according to the FBI.

“We know that it’s not just intimate partners murdering their partners. We know that they’re doing it with firearms and that these laws are preventing them from doing that,” said Roskam.

The gun ban is being challenged by Zackey Rahimi, a Texas drug dealer with a history of violence, who was indicted on charges of illegal gun possession while under a protective order secured by his girlfriend.

He argues in court documents the law is not supported by American history and tradition. Earlier this year, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, calling the measure an “outlier…that our ancestors would never have accepted.”

“This statute actually ends up disarming a bunch of law-abiding or otherwise good people that you might not expect when you first look at it,” said Aidan Johnston, a lobbyist with Gun Owners of America, which is backing Rahimi. “We’re fighting for the victims here who are disarmed by mutual restraining orders.”

The Biden administration, which is defending the law, insists the nation has a broad history and tradition of disarming people who are not “responsible, law-abiding citizens” — even if there is no exact historical replica of a law targeting domestic abusers.

“American legislatures have long disarmed individuals whom they have found to be dangerous, irresponsible, or otherwise unfit to possess arms,” the government says in court documents.

While the Supreme Court’s six-justice conservative majority has been generally advanced an expansive view of the Second Amendment — and closely scrutinized gun safety regulations, at least two justices have made clear they are wary of going too far.

“Properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a ‘variety’ of gun regulations,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointedly noted in a concurring opinion to last year’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett has also voiced clear support for gun restrictions on “dangerous people,” writing as an appeals court judge that some limits are entirely constitutional.

A decision in the Rahimi case is expected by the end of June 2024.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(CAMPBELL COUNTY, Ky.) — Republicans are hoping to sink Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear’s reelection bid on Tuesday by tying him to the widely unpopular President Joe Biden.

But in this ruby red state that Biden lost by more than 25 points three years ago, Beshear appears to be offering Democrats hope of local success amid party-wide handwringing: voters supporting both Beshear and his Republican challenger, Attorney General Daniel Cameron, told ABC News that the governor’s brand was strong enough to blunt any ties to the White House.

“Andy Beshear is a more liberal Democrat than the average Kentucky Democrat. Kentucky Democrats are pretty conservative. Now, is he the clone of Joe Biden? No,” said Steve Megerle, an attorney and lifelong Republican in Fort Thomas, who said he is debating between voting for Beshear and leaving the governor’s line blank on Tuesday.

“I probably don’t see Beshear as bad as Biden,” Carol Taylor told ABC News at a Cameron campaign event in Richmond. “I don’t think I can say anything good about [Biden].”

To be sure, Beshear’s reelection is no sure thing. A former state attorney general and son of a former governor, he narrowly won his first term in 2019 against an unpopular incumbent Republican and, given how the state usually votes, he’ll have to win over a large swath of conservatives to stay in office, with recent polling previewing a neck-and-neck race.

But interviews with more than 20 operatives and voters of both parties revealed a lack of the kind of vitriol about Beshear that is usually evident when a governor is about to be unseated.

The trend could prove notable for other down-ballot Democrats in 2024 as they try to persuade voters to view them separately from Biden while sharing a ticket with him.

The governor’s race could also show some signs of how Democrats will fare next year both in House seats the party holds where Donald Trump also won and in Senate races in Montana, Ohio and West Virginia, which like Kentucky often vote for Republicans.

Beshear has some big advantages, strategists and experts said: He holds the edge in fundraising, helping him lap Cameron in advertising, and he has been credited for his handling of floods and tornadoes that struck Kentucky during his term, including repeated travel to the disaster sites and other locations to tout economic development projects.

And while many Republicans continue to criticize closures during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, voters who spoke with ABC News also spontaneously cited Beshear’s daily press conferences to update Kentuckians.

“Oh gosh, what’s not to love? He really was a super calming effect during the pandemic,” said Laura Taylor, a stay-at-home mom in Fort Thomas.

Adele Gormley, another Beshear backer, put it even more bluntly: “He kept us alive during COVID.”

That’s not how the GOP sees it.

“Joe Biden was endorsed by Andy Beshear, and I can’t think of a bigger slap in the face to Kentuckians,” Cameron, his rival, said in an interview after a stop in Georgetown.

The attacks have caught on with some.

“I think his values are the total opposite, and he doesn’t align with the values of Kentuckians. I want to see him removed. He’s just a puppet for Joe Biden,” said Karson Carrier, a 22-year-old Eastern Kentucky University student.

However, most voters who spoke with ABC News said they view Beshear as not just another Democrat, with Megerle dubbing him “Andy dad jeans.”

Beshear’s disaster and pandemic response “put him in a light of someone that’s the healer in chief, with great compassion, and has kind of set him apart from a typical partisan politician,” said T.J. Litafik, a Kentucky GOP strategist.

The governor, who said he hasn’t spoken with Biden since last year’s flooding, swatted away Cameron’s attacks.

“He knows that if it’s me versus him, he can’t win. He’s trying to nationalize this race and trick people,” Beshear told ABC News at a stop in Newport.

So far, among other issues, he and Cameron have sparred over abortion access and school choice vouchers.

Some Republicans in the state complained that Beshear’s bipartisan popularity is undeserved, particularly over his promotion of tax cuts — which were pushed by the state Legislature’s GOP supermajority — and updates to the Brent Spence Bridge connecting Kentucky and Cincinnati, which some pointed out was arguably really accomplished by the White House and Congress authorizing new infrastructure money.

“It’s disturbing to me to see him take credit for that,” Republican state Rep. Kim Moser said of the tax cuts. “Unfortunately, not everyone studies the policy and the legislation that passes as much as, certainly, I do and my colleagues, because we work there.”

Whatever the outcome on Tuesday, strategists in both parties suggested Kentucky’s election could be something of a tea leaf for 2024. The state’s previous six gubernatorial races foreshadowed the results of the following year’s presidential election results, with the winning party in Kentucky matching the winning party in the White House.

“I think there are going to be things to learn here no matter whether it’s Cameron or Beshear,” said GOP strategist Scott Jennings, who has worked with Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell.

Other experts didn’t go that far, noting that it’s an off-year race for state rather than a federal office. And, they said, Beshear has the flexibility to make typical Democratic arguments on issues like abortion and transgender rights because he knows his views on such hot-button issues aren’t likely to be enacted and affect voters given that Republicans run the Legislature.

“Andy Beshear’s a terrible example for national Democrats of what to do, because he’s not by any means taking positions that make him a moderate,” said Jake Cox, a Kentucky GOP strategist who worked for Ryan Quarles’ gubernatorial primary campaign.

Still, Democrats are likely to take notes from Beshear’s tactics, including over his ability to use his massive fundraising advantage to try to win over detractors.

When meeting ABC News at a local bar, Megerle brought two pieces of pro-Cameron mail advertisements that he said he’s received. He then handed over eight mailers from Beshear’s campaign — saying those were just the ones he had kept.

While “it takes a lot for me to vote for a Democrat,” he said, he wasn’t ruling it out.

“I think I’ll figure it out when I walk into the booth on Election Day.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.