Ohios Presidential Primary Election is two weeks from today, Tuesday, March 3. Secretary of State Frank LaRose announced Tuesday that243,719absentee ballots have been requested by-mail or in-person and that 84,149 votes have been cast statewide.

Find out how you can vote early by visitingVoteOhio.gov.

Data was collected by the Ohio Secretary of States Office via an informal survey of Ohios 88 county boards of elections. Data as of Monday, March 2 are the following:

243,719 absentee ballots requested (203,277 by mail; 40,442 in person);

84,149 absentee ballots cast (40,442 in person, 43,707 by mail);

159,570 outstanding absentee ballots.

The ballots requested include:

138,346 Democratic;

93,519 Republican;

269 Libertarian; and

11,585 nonpartisan.

Of the ballots cast in person, so far there have been:

20,001 Democratic;

19,380 Republican;

57 Libertarian; and

1,004 nonpartisan.

Of the ballots cast in person, there have been:

21,768 Democratic;

19,380 Republican;

57 Libertarian; and

1,004 nonpartisan.

In Highland County, the breakdown includes:

251 absentee ballots requested;

238 absentee ballots cast;

13 absentee ballots outstanding;

92 Democratic ballots requested and 86 cast (55 in person, 31 by mail);

152 Republican ballots requested and 145 cast (120 in person, 25 by mail); and

Seven questions and issues ballots requested, all of which have been cast by mail.

In the 2020 presidential primary, voters across the state will have the opportunity to vote in a number of local races, as well as a total of 482 local issues and questions across 83 counties.

Read the original here:

highlandcountypress.com - The Highland County Press

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffDems unlikely to subpoena Bolton Trump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms Hillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus MORE (D-Calif.) says Democrats are making progressin their negotiationsover the reauthorization of a key surveillance bill, stating Tuesday that they areworking to includemore privacy protections.

Intraparty rifts have emerged in recent weeks as some progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans push toinclude additionalprivacy protection amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), while others argue that a clean reauthorization billhas a better chance of making it through the Senate.

Schiffsays he and his staffhave been working the House Judiciary Committee as well as Reps. Zoe LofgrenZoe Ellen LofgrenTrump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms Hillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus Schiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill MORE (Calif.) and Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalTrump tells Republicans he won't extend surveillance law without FISA reforms Hillicon Valley: Democrats in talks to bridge surveillance divide | DHS confident in Super Tuesday election security | State pledges M cyber help to Ukraine | Facebook skipping SXSW amid coronavirus Schiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill MORE (Wash.) twoJudiciary Democrats who have pushed for more protections inan effort to get the bill passed by March 15. That's the deadline to extend three expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Actthattouch onroving wiretaps, lone wolf surveillance and a controversial program that allows the U.S. government to request access to phone metadata.

"We're trying to find as much common ground as we can," Schiff told The Hill. "We are trying to incorporate even more privacy protections in the hopes that we can get to an agreement in a timely way."

Schiff said some of Lofgren's amendments are being considered, including an amicus provision that would add an outside advocate for every FISA case in which an American is targetedas well asmake it illegal for the government to collect a U.S. citizens metadata.

"We're looking atexpanding the amicus provisions. We are lookingat limiting the period of attention to business records, what the business records provision can be used for,making sure thatyou can't use the business records to get things you would need a court order for in the criminal context,limiting the use of geolocation data or their usage oflocation information," Schiff said.

House Democrats last week were forced to pull their bill in the Judiciary Committeeand postpone a markup afterLofgrenthreatened to force votes on several FISA-related amendments. So far, a new markup has not been announced.

Schiff indicated an understanding has been reached on the issue of metadata butsaid they are still figuring out other issues like the amicus provisions.

"We're trying to figure out what's the capacity of the amicus but also how toweed out those cases that are truly routine that don't present any novel issues, making sure that that's a real distinction," he said.

He said one area of disagreement is whether some provisions could overly constrain the gathering of intelligence.

"Part of the issue is whether we use the FISAprocess to impose constraints that are not even present in the criminal law process, and that is a philosophical difference that may be driving some of the division on particular provisions," he said.

Jayapal, when asked about the state of negotiations, also saidthere'smore work to be done.

"So far, we are just not there, but we are continuing to talk and hope to see new proposals that address the areas we have raised," Jayapal said, adding that she too hopes to reauthorize by the deadline.

The debate has also engulfed Republicans, with GOP members clashing as well on whether they should have a clean reauthorization bill or overhaul it to include new protections.

Libertarian Republicanssuch as Sens.Rand Paul(R-Ky.) andMike Lee(R-Utah) arepushing forsweeping reforms.

Still, most Republicans are also pushing for additional protections, pointing tothe use of a wiretap on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page during the 2016 election.

Federal officials suspected Page of working as an unregistered foreign agent for Russia during the 2016 presidential election, particularly after he made a trip to the Kremlin in July of that year when questions were already swirling about the campaigns ties to Moscow.

They say the extensive review of the 2016 FISA process by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz aids their case. While he did not find evidence to suggest political bias impacted the FBIs decision to open the counterintelligence probe and concluded that the FBI had an authorized purpose for the inquiry, he did find17 significant errors or omissions in the surveillance warrant applications for Page, dating back to 2016.

Trump is also involved.He is expected to meet with key Republican allies in the House and Senate Tuesday afternoon to discuss the matter.It is unclear where Trump will stand onit.

Rep. Chris StewartChristopher (Chris) Douglas StewartSchiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill Trump shakes up Justice Department, intelligence community John Ratcliffe back under consideration by Trump for top intel job MORE (R-Utah), a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, also said he wants to outside advocatesas well as a transcriptof the court proceedings. If Democrats include such provisions, among a few others, then he believes Republican will also support the bill.

"The question is, will the White House support it? I think we'll know later on this afternoon," Stewart added.

Trumphas told congressional allies that he will not accept a clean reauthorization bill, as Attorney GeneralWilliam Barrand GOP leadership are said to support a position that is at odds with what Barr is said to have told senatorsearlier this month.

As the debate continues, some senatorshave stated their supportfora short-term extension to iron out the rest of the differences.

Schiff, meanwhile,indicated that he believes some Republicans are taking their push too far.

"We're open to any general policy proposals for reform. We are not open for politicizing this or using the bill to make partisan statements, and that's sort of where many Republicans are at the moment,"Schiff said.

Read the rest here:

Schiff says Democrats are negotiating to include more privacy protections in key surveillance bill | TheHill - The Hill

Massachusetts isnt the only New England state voting on Super Tuesday this week; Maine and Vermont residents will head to the ballot box, too.

And while most attention is on the Democratic presidential primary, the Republican race has forced a few local moderate GOP elected officials into a precarious position.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the regions only Republican senator, told the Portland-based NBC affiliate WCSH in an interview Friday that she voted by absentee ballot ahead of the primary election Tuesday.

For whom? Collins didnt say.

The 67-year-old senator, who is facing her most formidable reelection challenge this year, has at times broke GOP ranks to speak out against President Donald Trump, perhaps most memorably to help block the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. But she has also faced criticism from liberal constituents for not doing so enough.

In 2016, Collins said she wouldnt vote for Trump, calling the then-Republican nominee unworthy of the presidency. She even said she would have voted for the Libertarian presidential ticket, if the partys vice presidential nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, was leading the ticket.

If the Libertarian ticket were reversed I would vote for the Libertarian ticket because I know Bill Weld well and I respect him a great deal, Collins said at the time.

Ironically, Weld is now in fact a presidential candidate, leading a ticket against Trump in the Republican presidential primary. However, Collins hasnt voiced support for his long-shot bid.

Im just not going to get into a discussion of presidential politics until 2020, Collins told CNN last April, after Weld announced his candidacy, calling such a discussion premature.

Now, even after casting a ballot, Collins is still mum.

Im focused on my job and also on my own campaign and Im just not going to get involved in presidential politics, she told WCSH, noting that her Democratic challenger Sara Giden, the Maine House speaker, also has not declared support for a candidate in her partys more competitive presidential primary.

Collinss campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Her position is eerily similar to that of her fellow Trump critic and Senate colleague Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential nominee in 2012, who now represents Utah, which also holds its presidential primary Tuesday. In 2016, Romney said he too would vote Libertarian, if only Weld was leading the ticket.

I wish Bill Weld were at the top, because I knew Bill Weld as the governor of my state, Massachusetts, and he was a terrific governor, Romney said at a conference in the summer before the election. I think he would be a great president.

When asked about Welds run in April, Romney like Collins told CNN that it was way too early for that. In February, he became the first U.S. senator to ever vote to remove a president of his own political party during Trumps impeachment trial. And yet, Romney hasnt publicly voiced support for Weld; a spokeswoman said Monday that they had nothing for share, when asked about his vote in Utahs primary.

After voting for his wife Ann during the 2016 general election, Romney told The Atlantic last month that she will probably get [a] second vote.

The approaches of the current Republican governors in New England have been a bit more mixed.

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, who has called Weld a mentor, hasnt said who he will vote for Tuesday, but says it wont be Trump.

As Ive said many times, I didnt vote for the president last time, and Im not going to vote for him this time, Baker told reporters last week.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, a fellow moderate Republican and frequent Trump critic, became the first sitting governor to endorse Weld earlier this month. Meanwhile, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu has largely stood by Trump and his administrations policies.

Get the latest breaking news sent directly to your phone. Download our free app.

See the original post here:

Susan Collins isnt saying who she voted for in the Republican presidential primary - Boston.com

OLYMPIA Its pretty easy to tell when ballots for Washingtons presidential primary arrive in the mail. About an hour later, the first phone calls and emails arrive from voters complaining about having to reveal their party affiliation.

The beauty of the states system of registering to vote without listing a party is that people can mark their state and local primary ballot for anyone they want. A Republican for the U.S. Senate, a Democrat for the U.S. House, a Libertarian for one legislative seat and a Constitutionalist for the other. Sort of a Golden Corral buffet of candidates, although theres no seconds for any particular office.

The downside of that system is that longtime Washington voters dont realize its not that way in most other states. In many, you register for a party when signing up to vote, and may be limited to that partys ballot in a primary election. Or you might be able to ask for the other partys ballot at the polling station, but you cant get both and skip back and forth.

Washington went through a long court battle with the states Democratic, Republican and Libertarian parties over its primary system. When its Blanket Primary was ruled unconstitutional, it came up with the Top Two Primary, where party affiliation is technically a mere preference and the two candidates with the most votes move on to the general, even if that means its two Democrats or two Republicans facing off in November.

The Top Two might serve as an object lesson of being careful what you complain about, because you can always wind up with something you like less. Under the old Blanket Primary, if the Republicans fielded a candidate in the bluest of districts, or Democrats found someone in a ruby red one, they still made it to the general and a chance for lightning to strike. With the Top Two, there are districts where it doesnt make sense for one party to even try, and they sometimes dont.

Free and open voting in most primaries may be the reason that some Washington voters went ballistic when their presidential primary ballot arrived last week. Voicemails and emails from some seemed just a half-step from declaring I could have a ballot envelope with their party affiliation checked when I pry it from their cold, dead hands.

Personally, I dont care how you vote in this or any election. I generally hope you do vote, because otherwise why am I writing so much about elections? But if you dont want to vote for any reason, I can respect that.

I wont be voting in the presidential primary because the newspaper has a policy that its reporters not advocate for or against political issues or participate in political party activities. Voting in the presidential primary is a party activity something that often gets ignored in the overheated cable news coverage that treat presidential primaries pretty much the same as the general election.

Democrats are trying to decide who their nominee should be. In general, a strong supporter of, say, Bernie Sanders only cares what independents think if they are going to vote for Sanders. If theyre going to vote for someone else, he or she would likely say, What do you know? and just as soon they toss their ballots in the trash. Supporters of all other candidates likely take similar views.

Republicans have already decided, so President Donald Trump is the only name on their ballot in Washington and many other states. Its not really a primary as much as an affirmation.

Will the party affiliation boxes keep some Republicans from marking a Democratic ballot for the candidate they think will be the weakest against Trump? Probably not, and the likelihood that Democrats will even be able to spot them in the lists is pretty far-fetched unless its an extremely well-known Republican like Dan Evans or Slade Gorton.

Before you decide that you dont want to check that box, however, lets review some of the basics.

Checking the Democrat or Republican box in the presidential primary doesnt mean you will only be able to vote for that partys candidates in the state primary in August. That one remains the Top Two primary, with a single ballot that is almost certain to have some choices of candidates from parties youve never heard from.

Likewise, checking the Democrat or Republican box in the presidential primary does not mean you must vote for that partys presidential candidate in November. Its not a contract, its a chance to express an opinion.

If youre worried about someone seeing the envelope with your name and the party box you checked, and think for some reason that the postal carrier cares or even has time to check put your ballot in a drop box where it will mix with dozens or even hundreds of other ballots and provide you with some extra privacy.

Not checking the box but sending in your ballot means the local elections office will think you just forgot. The staff will likely contact you to correct that oversight. You could change your mind at that point. If not, eventually your ballot isnt going to be counted.

Some of the Democratic candidates on the ballot arent running anymore, because the ballot was printed before they dropped out, and some might drop out after Tuesdays primaries in 14 states. You can still vote for them if you want.

Like all other elections, no one will know whose name you mark, although if you check the Republican box its a pretty sure bet youre voting for Trump because hes the only option. You could write in a name, but those wont be tallied because the state GOP isnt listing any write-in options.

If you dont like checking the party box, thats within your rights. But dont call the local elections office to complain about having to do it. Dont write a nasty note on the envelope or on the ballot, because they dont make the rules.

You can call your state legislators and lobby for an affiliated option in 2024, but thats really only a half measure. Washington has had that in some presidential primaries; the state counted those votes separately, and they werent used for anything connected to selecting the people who would be running for president in November.

If you want to have a say in whos running in November, youll have to check the box.

Read more:

Spin Control: Yes, you have to check a party box. No, that shouldn't stop you from voting - The Spokesman-Review

The field is set for May as the deadline to file for elected office passed Monday night, and there will be contested races all throughout the ballot.

Two city council seats in Norfolk will be challenged by multiple candidates.

In the first ward, three candidates will compete for the seat held by Dick Pfeil, who is not seeking reelection. Those three are Christopher L. Moore, Juan E. Sandoval and Kory Hildebrand. In the second ward, four candidates have filed for Jim Langes seat: Frank Arens, Bill Hattery, Carl Weiland and Randy Dee. The top two vote-getters in each ward in May will advance to the general election in November.

At least two candidates will advance to the general election in the race for Madison County commissioner. Republicans Eric Stinson and Chris Thompson will compete in their partys primary, while Libertarian Zak Hookstra is running unopposed in that party. No Democratic candidate filed for the seat. Incumbent Christian Ohl declined to run for another term.

Three area state legislative seats will be contested between incumbent and challenger. Sen. Joni Albrecht of Thurston will face Sheryl Lindau of Wayne in District 17. The district covers Wayne, Thurston and Dakota counties. Sen. Lynne Walz of Fremont is being challenged by David Rogers of Fremont in District 15, which covers Dodge County. In District 43, which covers a large swath of North Central Nebraska, incumbent Tom Brewer of Gordon will be challenged by Tanya Storer of Whitman.

A Norfolkan also is throwing his hat into the race for the U.S. Senate. Dr. Daniel Wik, who was previously the Democratic nominee for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2016, has filed in the Democratic primary for this years Senate race.

Dr. Wik, a pain management physician, faces a crowded field, with seven other candidates competing in the Democratic primary.

Other contested races include:

Four candidates will run for three seats on the Norfolk Public Schools board of education: incumbents Arnie Robinson and Sandy Wolfe and challengers Jenna Hatfield and Brenda Carhart.

Four candidates will run for three seats on the Elkhorn Valley board of education: incumbents Tyler Tegeler and Jenny Schutt, both of Meadow Grove, and challengers Sam Johnsen and Lucas Negus, both of Tilden.

Five candidates have filed for two seats on the Battle Creek City Council: incumbent Brent Nygren and challengers Chris Prauner, Nicole Schacher, Dave Trudeau and John Hrabanek.

Four candidates will compete for three seats on the Tilden City Council: incumbents Travis Rutjens and Darrell Wyatt, along with challengers Lisa A. Meyer and Terry James.

Patti Gubbels of Norfolk will run against Mike Goos of Columbus for a seat on the state board of education. The seat is held by Rachel Wise of Oakland, who has declined to run for another term.

Timothy Miller of Norfolk is challenging incumbent Jeff Scherer of Beemer for an at-large seat on the Northeast Community College board of governors.

Four races for seats on the Lower Elkhorn Natural Resources District board of directors are contested. Those include seats for subdistrict 1, between incumbent Aaron Zimmerman of Pierce and challenger Jay Reikofski of Foster; in subdistrict 2 incumbent Mark Hall of Norfolk is being challenged by Lee Klein of Norfolk; in subdistrict 4 Rod Zohner of Battle Creek and Michael Fleer of Battle Creek will vie for an open seat and Randy Ruppert of Fremont will challenge incumbent Gary Loftis of Craig in subdistrict 7.

Dennis Bridge of Royal and Cody Frank of Brunswick are running for an open seat on subdistrict 5 on the Upper Elkhorn NRD board of directors.

Incumbent Barry DeKay of Niobrara will be challenged by Aaron Troester of ONeill for a seat on the Nebraska Public Power District board of directors.

Several races, however, will proceed to May and November with no official opposition.

That includes Norfolk Mayor Josh Moenning, who is running for his second term.

Mike Flood, a Norfolk attorney and business owner, will run unopposed for the Nebraska Legislature to represent District 19, which covers Madison County. Flood, who previously served two terms in the Legislature, is running to replace Sen. Jim Scheer, who is ineligible because of term limits. Sen. Tom Briese of Albion will be running unopposed for a second term in District 41, which includes Boone, Antelope and Pierce counties.

Norfolk City Council incumbents Gary Jackson and Thad Murren also will advance with no opposing candidates.

In other uncontested races:

Jeremy Pochop, Toby Thompson and Sean Lindgren are running for three seats on the Battle Creek board of education. Pochop and Thompson are incumbents.

Eric L. Stone, Becky Wallin and Ginger Buhl-Jorgensen are running for three seats on the Newman Grove board of education. Wallin and Buhl-Jorgensen are incumbents.

Madison City Council incumbents Paul Kellen and Robert Fite are running unopposed to another term.

Donovan Ellis, Nicole Sedlacek, Arlan Kuehn, Gene Willers and Dirk Petersen are running unopposed in their respective districts for the Northeast Community College board of governors.

Cris Elznic is running unopposed to another term on the Newman Grove City Council.

Robert Huntley, Jerry Allemann and Matt Steffen are running unopposed for reelection to Lower Elkhorn NRD subdistricts 3, 5 and 6.

Russell Schmidt, Chris A. Johnson, Marcel Kramer, Carolyn A. Heine and Curtis Armstrong are all running unopposed to continue their terms on the Lewis & Clark NRD board of directors.

Karl Connell, Jack Engelhaupt, Randy Klawitter, Raymond Naprstek, Brian Kaczor, John Janzing and Donald Holtgrew are running unopposed to continue their terms on the Lower Niobrara NRD board of directors.

Leonard Danielski and Greg Wilke are running unopposed to another term on the Middle Niobrara NRD board of directors, while Tim Nollette is running for an open seat.

Roy Steward, Curtis Gotschall, Gene Kelly, Gary Bartak and Keith Heithoff are running unopposed to continue their terms on the Upper Elkhorn NRD board of directors. Arthur Tanderup is running unopposed for an open seat in subdistrict 6.

In the races for federal office, Republican Ben Sasse faces a challenge within his own party from Matt Innis of Crete. In addition to Dr. Wik, seven other Democrats have filed as well: Dennis F. Macek, Chris Janicek, Larry Marvin, Angie Philips, Alisha Shelton, Andy Stock and Gene Siadek.

In the first congressional district, Republican incumbent Jeff Fortenberry is unopposed in the primary, as is Libertarian challenger Dennis B. Grace. Democrats Kate Bolz of Lincoln and Babs Ramsey of Bellevue will compete in their partys primary.

In the third congressional district, incumbent Republican Adrian Smith faces a slew of challengers: Larry Bolinger, William Elfgren, Justin Moran and Arron Kowalski. Democrat Mark Elworth Jr. and Libertarian Dustin C. Hobbs face no opposition in their partys primaries.

Read this article:

Plenty of contested races on the ballot this year - Norfolk Daily News

LINCOLN An Ashland businesswoman with a familiar name in state legislative politics and a former state senator were among the candidates filing to run for the Nebraska Legislature on Monday, the last day to file for the May primary.

Helen Raikes filed to run against State Sen. Bruce Bostelman of Brainard, who now serves District 23, which is north and northeast of Lincoln.

Raikes, a 76-year-old independent, said she conducted 12 listening sessions with local voters before deciding to run.

Im ready to make a real difference for my neighbors, said Raikes, who is involved in the family farm and retail beef business. She said she will focus on property tax relief and helping small businesses and farmers succeed.

Raikes is retiring this spring as a professor of early childhood education at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She said she helped set in motion several of Nebraskas early childhood programs with her husband, the late State Sen. Ron Raikes, who served in the Legislature from 1998 to 2008.

Former State Sen. Ray Aguilar of Grand Island, a 72-year-old Republican who served in the Legislature from 1999 to 2009, also filed Monday. He will face current State Sen. Dan Quick, who is a registered Democrat.

Aguilar said he was urged by Gov. Pete Ricketts to run, but had been considering it anyway.

Its something I still have a passion for, Aguilar said.

Also filing on deadline day was Sheryl Lindau, a former mayor of Wayne. She will oppose incumbent State Sen. Joni Albrecht of Thurston to represent northeast Nebraskas District 17.

Lindau, who was mayor of Wayne from 1994 to 2004 and owned a retail clothing store there, said shes concerned about how partisan politics have become.

I dont believe there are Republican or Democratic answers to our problems, there are only Nebraska answers to our problems, Lindau said in a press release. I plan on seeking those answers, and representing every voter in the district, regardless of their political party.

Be the first to know when news happens. Get the latest breaking headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Of the 25 legislative seats up for election this year, 20 of them will have contested races.

One of the more active races will be in North Omaha, where seven candidates have filed for District 11 to replace State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, who has served in the State Legislature a record 46 years.

Omaha also will see a contested race for the Nebraska Public Service Commission. Incumbent Crystal Rhoades, a Democrat who represents District 2, will be opposed by two Republicans, Tim Davis and Krystal Gabel.

Another notable race seven Democrats will appear on the May 12 primary ballot to oppose U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse, a Republican.

A roundup of candidates in selected races (*denotes incumbent):

U.S. Senate

Democratic Chris Janicek of Omaha, Dennis Frank Macek of Lincoln, Larry Marvin of Fremont, Angie Philips of Omaha, Alisha Shelton of Omaha, Andy Stock of Lincoln, Daniel Wik of Norfolk

Libertarian Gene Siadek of Omaha

Republican Matt Innis of Crete, *Ben Sasse of Fremont

U.S. House of Representatives

Democrat Kate Bolz of Lincoln, Babs Ramsey of Bellevue

Libertarian Dennis Grace of Fremont

Republican *Jeff Fortenberry of Lincoln

Democrat Ann Ashford, Gladys Harrison, Kara Eastman, all of Omaha

Libertarian Tyler Schaeffer of Omaha

Republican Paul Anderson of Omaha, *Don Bacon of Papillion

Democrat Mark Elworth Jr. of Omaha

Libertarian Dustin Hobbs of Grand Island.

Republican Larry Lee Scott Bolinger of Alliance, Wayne Elfgren of Overton, Arron Kowalski of Grand Island, Justin Moran of Atkinson, *Adrian Smith of Gering

Nebraska Legislature

District 1 Janet Palmtag of Nebraska City, Dennis Schaardt of Steinauer, *Julie Slama of Peru

District 3 *Carol Blood, Rick Holdcroft, both of Bellevue

District 5 Gilbert Ayala, *Mike McDonnell, both of Omaha

District 7 Jorge Sotolongo, *Tony Vargas, both of Omaha

District 9 John Cavanaugh, Marque Snow, Mark Vondrasek, all of Omaha

District 11 Fred Conley, Gwen Easter, Terrell McKinney, Teela Mickles, John Sciara, Cornelius Williams, Dennis Womack, all of Omaha

District 13 *Justin Wayne of Omaha

District 15 David Rogers, *Lynne Walz, both of Fremont

District 17 *Joni Albrecht of Thurston, Sheryl Lindau of Wayne

District 19 Mike Flood of Norfolk

District 21 Joseph Couch, *Mike Hilgers, Brodey Weber, all of Lincoln

District 23 *Bruce Bostelman of Brainard, Helen Raikes of Ashland

District 25 *Suzanne Geist, Stephany Pleasant, both of Lincoln

District 27 Brenda Bickford, *Anna Wishart, both of Lincoln

District 29 Eliot Bostar, Jacob Campbell, Jennifer Carter, Neal Clayburn, Michael Connely, Lisa Lee, all of Lincoln

District 31 Mark Gruenewald, Alexander Martin, Rich Pahls, Tim Royers, Melanie Williams, all of Omaha

District 33 *Steve Halloran of Hastings

District 35 Ray Aguilar, *Dan Quick, both of Grand Island

District 37 Mercadies Damratowski, *John Lowe, both of Kearney

District 39 Allison Heimes, *Lou Ann Linehan, both of Elkhorn

District 41 *Tom Briese of Albion

District 43 *Tom Brewer of Gordon, Tanya Storer of Whitman

District 45 Susan Hester, Rita Sanders, both of Bellevue

District 47 *Steve Erdman of Bayard

District 49 Jen Day of Omaha, *Andrew La Grone of Gretna

Nebraska has 49 state senators in the Legislature. Click through to find your state senator and others.

District 1: State Sen. Julie Slama

From: Peru

Party: Republican

District 2: State Sen. Robert Clements

From: Elmwood

Party: Republican

District 3: State Sen. Carol Blood

From: Bellevue

Party: Democratic

District 4: State Sen. Robert Hilkemann

From: Omaha

Party: Republican

District 5: State Sen. Mike McDonnell

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 6: State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 7: State Sen. Tony Vargas

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 8: State Sen. Megan Hunt

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 9: State Sen. Sara Howard

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 10: State Sen. Wendy DeBoer

From: Bennington

Party: Democratic

District 11: State Sen. Ernie Chambers

From: Omaha

Party: Independent

District 12: State Sen. Steve Lathrop

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 13: State Sen. Justin Wayne

From: Omaha

Party: Democratic

District 14: State Sen. John Arch

From: La Vista

Party: Republican

More here:

These are the candidates running for office Senate, House and Legislature in 2020 in Nebraska - Omaha World-Herald

I work with a 403(b) plan sponsor that will be terminating its plan. Can you confirm that affected participantsthose who would be immediately vestedonly includes non-vested participants that have not taken their full account value and have not had a 5-year break-in-service? In other words, if a non-vested participant took a distribution one year before the plan termination, that person would not be affected?

Stacey Bradford, Kimberly Boberg, David Levine and David Powell, with Groom Law Group, and Michael A. Webb, vice president, Retirement Plan Services, Cammack Retirement Group, answer:

Correct, non-vested employees who took distributions prior to the plan termination date would not be affected. Per the IRS webpage on 401(k) plan terminations (the rules are the same for 403(b) plans with regard to this particular issue):

100% vesting

All affected participants become fully vested in their account balances on the date of the full or partial plan termination, regardless of the plans vesting schedule.

Full termination Affected participants are current or former employees who havent received full payment of their vested interest by the plan termination date, unless theyve incurred at least 5 consecutive 1-year breaks in service.

Thus, if the participant in question took a full distribution of his vested amount one-year prior to the plan termination date, that person would not need to be fully vested in amounts that were not vested as of the date of that prior distribution because it occurred prior to the plan termination date.

Note that this response only addresses vesting upon plan termination; see our prior Ask the Experts column on this issue of whether such full and immediate vesting can occur on the date there is a complete discontinuance of contributions to a 403(b) plan.

NOTE: This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.

Tags

Reported by

Reprints

Go here to see the original:

Who Is Immediately Vested Upon Plan Termination? - PLANSPONSOR

To the Editor: I would like to thank Mark Archibald and the editors of the Daily Sun for including Navarro County's two Libertarian congressional candidates in the Candidate Features.

Voters should be informed about all choices coming up in November, especially voters who may not entirely agree with the positions of the Republican or Democrat parties.

For the November general election, Ed Adams is running for Texas House District 8 Representative; I am running for Texas Congressional District 6 Representative.

For more information, check out Facebook: Ed Adams for Texas House District 8 and Melanie Black, Libertarian for U.S. House of Representatives District 6.

For any questions, email navarro@lptexasorg or post on the Libertarian Party of Navarro County's Facebook page.

Melanie Black

Libertarian Party of Navarro County chair

Original post:

Letter to the Editor: Thank you | Letters To The Editor - Corsicana Daily Sun

If youre cultivating your personal style, its a great idea to look for references to get an idea of what you truly like. When youre able to draw inspiration from the styles of other people, it can help you envision your future wardrobe. Over time, youll gain the confidence to curate and customize a look thats unique to you.

When you think about most celebrities and fashion icons, they have references and inspirations they draw from in order to channel their most fashion-forward wardrobe. If youre a huge sports fan, look no further than Dani Alves. Dani Alves has a sense of style thats strong, unique and incredibly fly.

If youve followed his journey on Instagram, its not uncommon to see him at the latest fashion shows during the seasonal showcases. If you scroll through his Instagram profile, youll even see him strutting his stuff in a pair of his partners high heels. Its important to note that he actually did a great job. Essentially, Dani Alves is incredibly confident in his manhood, owns his style and cares about no other opinions.

This is the type of attitude you need to develop when youre desiring to create your own fashion-forward closet. When youre getting started, take a look at many of the men celebrity clothing lines that are on the market. Dani Alves has a line that is particularly perfect for the man who loves sports, fashion and athleisure wear. For both men and women, athleisure wear has definitely become a unique niche of its own. There are plenty of ways to rock the athleisure look in a way that helps you look polished, fashion-forward and ready at all times.

When youre able to mix prints well, its a lot easier to stand out as a person with a strong fashion sense. If you take a look at some of the pieces from Dani Alves line, youll see a mix of leopard with roses. Youll see animal prints mixed with black and white patterns. Its a really easy way to execute the mixed print look without thinking about it. You dont have to work on finding a mixed print pair of trousers to go with a specific top. All of the prints are already found in the top. Then, if you pair the top with a nice pair of well-tailored jeans, youre good to go.

Dont underestimate the chicness of all black. Black is naturally slimming. It always looks great on any skin tone. You can wear a simple pair of black leggings with a black jersey or button-down top. Then, if you want to add in some flair like Dani Alves, throw on a black studded leather jacket. Add some chunky Doc Marten boots for a total rocker look. If youre preparing to head to the gym, wear black sweatpants, black sneakers and a sleek black sweatshirt. The key is to make sure all of the pieces fit really well. If they dont, the monochromatic look will just become sloppy.

Dani Alves thrives within the realm of incorporating accessories. Granted, you dont have to get tattoos if you dont want to. However, its good to note that tattoos serve as their own accessories as well. They tell stories. Just try to avoid putting them on your face. Alternatively, you can stay in the realm of removable accessories like gold link chain necklaces, chunky rings and other statement pieces. Always keep a great crossbody bag or a simple pouch on hand in order to keep your essentials close. Its also great to throw on a pair of all-black sunglasses in a chic yet classic style. If you take a look at the glasses Audrey Hepburn wore in the movie, Breakfast at Tiffanys, those options are universally classic and flattering on both men and women.

Tailoring is non-negotiable. If you want to make sure your pieces look polished and refined, get them tailored to fit your body. Even the cheapest blazer at the thrift store can look like a custom Italian fit when its properly tailored. Though its a couple of extra dollars to maintain the pieces, never skip the step of tailoring your clothes.

As you work toward creating a look that works for you, consider pulling from inspirational celebrity icons like Dani Alves. As you study his style and figure out what you like most about it, you can adopt certain parts of it into your wardrobe. Keep in mind that you dont want to copy his look verbatim. If you do that, itll look forced and contrived. Instead, trust your inner instinct to decide what will work for you. You dont want to work on becoming Dani Alves 2.0. Instead, focus on becoming the best version of your fashion-forward self. Then, youll be able to own every part of you that walks into a room and commands the attention.

See the article here:

Dani Alves: The Reference in Fashion Among Celebrities - The Libertarian Republic

On March 3, 2020, Texans will have the opportunity to vote in primaries for six of the seven seats on Texas two courts of last resort holding elections this year.

Texas is unique in that it is one of two states in the nation with two courts of last resort: a Supreme Court and a Court of Criminal Appeals. The Texas Supreme Court is the court of last resort for civil matters. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the state's court of last resort for criminal matters. Both have nine judgeships.

A Republican primary will take place in the race for Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place Three, featuring Bert Richardson and Gina Parker.

The Democratic primaries and candidates are:

Texas Supreme Court, Place One: Amy Clark Meachum and Jerry Zimmerer.

Texas Supreme Court, Place Six: Kathy Cheng and Larry Praeger.

Texas Supreme Court, Place Seven: Brandy Voss and Staci Williams.

Texas Supreme Court, Place Eight: Peter M. Kelly and Gisela Triana.

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place Three: William Demond, Elizabeth Davis Frizell, and Dan Wood.

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Place Four: Tina Yoo Clinton and Steven Miears.

There will also be a general election for Place Nine on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Brandon Birmingham is running unopposed in the Democratic primary and David Newell is running unopposed in the Republican primary.

In addition to those primaries, Libertarian candidate Mark Ash will be running for Place 1 on the Supreme Court, Libertarian candidate William Brian Strange will be running for Place Seven of the Texas Supreme Court, and Libertarian candidate Tom Oxford will be running for Place Eight of the Texas Supreme Court.

The primary is scheduled for March 3, 2020, and a primary runoff is scheduled for May 26, 2020. The general election will occur on November 3, 2020.

The Center Square

Link:

Seven seats up for election on Texas two courts of last resort - The Center Square

Politically active young Oklahomans are headed to the polls on Tuesday with concerns about healthcare, climate change and the economy, according to a Gaylord News survey.

Survey participants were members of OU College Republicans, Young Democrats of Oklahoma, the OU Student Leftist Union and the OU College of Law.

Sixty-six percent of the 61 people who responded to the Feb. 13-21 survey were 18 to 25 years old. Eighty-four percent were registered voters and said they were politically engaged. Seventy-four percent said they were more politically engaged than their parents.

Forty-three percent identified as Republican and 38% as Democrat. Three percent said they were Libertarian and 16% were Independents.

Thirty-three percent said they were conservative, 23% said they were moderate, 15% were liberal and 12% said they were progressive. Ten percent chose Other.

The economy was ranked as the most important issue by 80% of those surveyed. Healthcare followed at 78%, with immigration and abortion tying for third at 77%.

Joseph Howard, 20, an Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps student, is vice president of OU College Republicans, the largest conservative club at the University of Oklahoma. An international studies major, Howard said he represents a new generation of Republican voters more likely to defy stereotypical expectations on issues of race and gender.

People have to understand that gay marriage is the law of the land, Howard said. And I think its incredibly remarkable and incredibly hopeful that we have the first openly gay presidential candidate running right now whos married, whos able to walk on stage and kiss his husband and hold hands with his husband, and nobody really bats an eye.

Howard said older members of his party have ignored or flat-out denied man-made causes of global warming, but he is hopeful younger Republicans can guide the party toward taking environmental issues seriously.

Were stewards of the earth, of one planet, and were ruining it, Howard said. And the Republican Party does have a rich environmental history, going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt creating the National Forest Service and establishing national parks..

Ruben Hernandez, 19, a freshman history major and member of OU College Republicans, said his views are more based on his religious beliefs than political ideology.

Im a Christian first, and a Republican second, he said.

The pro-life movement drew Hernandez, who is Catholic, but he is concerned about poverty and the environment.

My family is one that has come from a lot of poverty. But the way the left has wanted to institute tackling it Ive looked around other Latin American countries whove tried the same measures, and all it does is make sure people are equally poor, rather than giving them the means of social mobility.

Hernandez said the Green New Deal would largely be rendered ineffective because of the wealthy in other countries being able to exploit loopholes.

But I do acknowledge that some regulations will need to be stepped up as technology continues to change and corporations continue to gain more and more power, Hernandez said.

Hernandez said his political advocacy surprised his parents.

My familys had to deal with quite a bit, so they probably see it more as us vs. them, Hernandez said. They just dont think of politics or the grander scheme.

Seventy-nine percent said they followed President Donald Trumps impeachment trial. Fifty-eight percent said they were unfavorable toward Trump before the trial, while 32% said they viewed him favorably and 10% were indifferent. The trial did not change their opinions.

Logan Dunn, 22, a media student of Cherokee descent, grew up near Tulsa. The only child of a single mother, Dunn said she was not politically engaged until recently. She supports Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

A former libertarian who voted for Gary Johnson in 2016, Dunn said he is now a moderate Democrat and supported Andrew Yang.

As much as I like Bernie, hes not going to unite the country, because the right will go insane because they think a socialist is going to ruin America.

Dunn said his mother felt she did not have enough information to glean the right conclusions in the impeachment trial.

After a day and a half, I had to turn it off. Im still anti-Trump for a lot of reasons, but I think the two parties involved [werent] going to come to any agreement regardless, so Im less inclined to care.

The survey suggests that issues, not personalities, are the focus for young voters.

If you consume yourself with the nitty-gritty of everyday politics, instead of actually involving yourself with the issues underlying everything, youre going to end up being a much angrier person, Howard said.

Gaylord College student John Adkins contributed to this report.

Gaylord News is a reporting project of the Gaylord College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Oklahoma.

See the rest here:

Young Oklahomans worried about economy, healthcare, climate ahead of Super Tuesday - WoodwardNews.net

Voters can cast ballots for local, state, and federal offices during the 2020 primary election. (Port City Daily photo/File)

SOUTHEASTERN, N.C. The time for same-day registration during the early voting period is nearing an end ahead of the 2020 primary election. Select polling places have the opportunity to cast ballots in the partisan primary through Saturday before Super Tuesday.

Its important to remember voters may only cast ballots for the party theyre registered for; registered Republicans cannot vote in the Democratic primary unless they alter their voter registration during the early voting period and vice versa. Only voters registered as unaffiliated may only choose between Republican, Democratic, or Libertarian ballots in the primary.

Brunswick County is hosting early voting hours at five locations. This includes the Brunswick CountyBoard of Elections Office,Leland Cultural Arts Center,The Brunswick Center at Southport,National Guard Armoryin Shallotte, and theSouthwest Brunswick Branch Library. Remaining early voting hours at these locations include:

New Hanover County is hosting early voting hours at five locations. This includes the New Hanover CountyBoard of Elections Office, Cape Fear Community CollegesHealth Sciences Building,Carolina Beach Town Hall,Northeast Regional Library, and thePine Valley Library. Remaining early voting hours at these locations include:

Pender County is hosting early voting hours at three locations. This includes thePender County Annexin Hampstead, thePender County Board of Electionsin Burgaw, andCape Fear Community Collegein Hampstead. Remaining early voting hours at these locations include:

On March 3, voters must vote at their registered precinct. Its best to look up your precinct ahead of Election Day. Heres how:

Polls will open on Election Day at 6:30 a.m. and close at 7:30 p.m.

Original post:

Last chance to cast an early ballot before Super Tuesday [Free read] - Port City Daily

BOSTON Down in the polls, lagging in fundraising and blocked from the ballot in several states, former Republican Gov. Bill Weld isnt giving up on his long-shot bid to dethrone incumbent President Donald Trump in the upcoming GOP primaries.

Weld, 74, of Canton has been crisscrossing the state in the past week, visiting schools, food pantries, coffee shops and pizza parlors in a ground campaign to drum up votes ahead of the GOP primary. Despite the lopsided race, Weld said he is confident about his chances Tuesday when he will be on GOP ballots in several states, including Massachusetts.

Its a long shot, but this is a race that has to be run, Weld said during a visit Wednesday with the North of Boston Media Group editorial board. Donald Trump is an existential threat to the nation.

Weld is not well known nationally but is widely respected among veterans in the Republican establishment, and he has been highly critical of Trumps presidency.

He is a believer in free markets, global trade and the international order. He argues that Trump has abandoned the principles that have guided the GOP since President Ronald Reagan.

They keep calling me the RINO (Republican in name only), but Trump is the real RINO, Weld said. He has turned the Republican Party into his own personal cult.

On the campaign trail, Weld has talked about putting a price on carbon emissions to address climate change, reducing the deficit and restoring American diplomacy.

Generally recognized

Weld was first elected governor in 1990, defeating a conservative Democratic candidate, and hes been called one of Massachusetts most popular governors in recent history. In 1994, voters re-elected him by the widest margin for the governors office in state history, nearly 71%.

Two years after that, he mounted a campaign to unseat incumbent Democratic Sen. John Kerry but fell short. He left the governors office a year later when President Bill Clinton named him U.S. ambassador to Mexico.

Weld hasnt strayed far from the political stage in the years since he ran for governor of New York in 2005 and 2006. Four years ago, he ran on the Libertarian Partys presidential ticket as former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnsons running mate. They received about 4.5 million votes, or a little more than 3% of the national popular vote.

Next week, Welds name will appear on the statewide Republican primary ballot as a challenger to Trump but only because Secretary of State Bill Galvin, a Democrat, put it there.

Last year, when Weld declared his intention to run against Trump, state Republican Party Chairman Jim Lyons compared him to the infamous traitor Benedict Arnold.

Lyons cited Welds endorsement of President Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain for president in the 2008 elections and his race as the Libertarian vice presidential candidate in 2016.

State law allows the states top election official to unilaterally put a candidate on the primary ballot if the candidate is generally advocated or recognized a low bar for a former Republican governor.

Weld says the effort to keep him off the ballot in his home state is part of a national strategy by the Trump campaign to crush potential challengers.

Hes been kept off the ballot in seven states, including this weekends contest in South Carolina, after GOP officials there canceled the primary and endorsed Trumps re-election.

GOP officials in those states have pointed out that incumbent presidents seeking re-election have a long history of canceling primaries and note that doing so saves money.

Small budget

Weld hasnt exactly presented a serious challenge to Trump so far. He received about 9% of the vote in New Hampshires first-in-the-nation primary. He picked up one GOP delegate in the Iowa caucuses, where he got 426 votes.

His campaign hasnt been helped by Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican who has described Weld as a political mentor. Baker, who isnt a fan of Trump, has been tight-lipped about who he is supporting in the presidential race.

Weld said he understands Bakers reticence. Getting involved could backfire on the state, he said, if Trump seeks revenge.

It would hurt the commonwealth because federal funding would suddenly disappear, he said.

Weld has also struggled with fundraising. He has reported about $1.8 million in contributions since he entered the race, including a $250,000 personal loan.

As of Jan. 31, he only had about $18,000 left in his campaign account.

By comparison, the Republican National Committee and Trumps campaign have raised more than $525 million since January 2019 between two joint-fundraising committees.

Nonfactor

Local Republican officials say support for Trump is strong in Massachusetts and they shrug off suggestions that Weld has any chances of unseating the president, despite his popularity as governor.

Republican voters are happy with the way the economy is going and with the direction of the country, said Amy Carnevale, chairwoman of the Marblehead Republican Town Committee and a delegate for Trump at the Republican National Convention. The fact that voters turned out in record numbers in New Hampshire for the president is a clear indication of the enthusiasm.

Carnevale called Weld a nonfactor whose flirtations with other parties, not to mention Democrats, have squandered any good will he once had with GOP voters.

Most Republicans have written him off as a serious candidate, she said. I dont think hell get much support.

Rep. Lenny Mirra, a West Newbury Republican, voted for Weld as governor and reached across the isle to vote for the Johnson/Weld ticket in 2016, but said hes staying out of the current presidential race.

He said the former governor still has political chops but suggests his decision to run as a Libertarian hurt his support among conservative Republican voters.

He was enormously popular as governor, and I voted for him every time he ran, Mirra said. But I just dont see a lot of support for him this time around.

Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Groups newspapers and websites.

Read more:

Weld makes long-shot bid to unseat Trump - The Daily News of Newburyport

The Democratic primary battle between Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg could be easily resolved if they would realize how much they have in common. In fact, they would make a great ticket. Imagine the slogan: Sanders-Bloomberg: Because youre tired of running your own life.

Being a moderate libertarian or a libertarian moderate, Im not quite sure Im partial to those passages in the Constitution that say, Congress shall make no law. I have a high regard for both free markets and civil liberties, for both abortion rights and gun rights, for a humane safety net and fiscal prudence. The best government is one that performs only clearly essential functions and performs those well while recognizing its limits not only at home but also abroad.

Anyone of this general cast of mind, of course, can no more tolerate Donald Trump than a lamb could lie down with a Tyrannosaurus rex. Its hard to remember a president so contemptuous of such a wide range of liberties.

Freedom of speech? He wanted NFL players banished for kneeling during the national anthem. Freedom of the press? He regards the media as the enemy of the people. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Trump pulled back federal efforts to curb police abuses. Reproductive rights? Since the Supreme Courts 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, they have never been at greater risk.

He doesnt like laissez-faire capitalism, as evidenced by his hostility to international trade, his bullying of corporations that dont obey his commands and his bailouts of farmers. He has installed a legion of knaves, hacks and toadies to mishandle the indispensable tasks of the federal government such as fighting global pandemics or protecting the environment. His fiscal record is a fright.

Freedom of speech? He wanted NFL players banished for kneeling during the national anthem. Freedom of the press? He regards the media as the enemy of the people. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Trump pulled back federal efforts to curb police abuses. Reproductive rights? Since the Supreme Courts 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, they have never been at greater risk.

He doesnt like laissez-faire capitalism, as evidenced by his hostility to international trade, his bullying of corporations that dont obey his commands and his bailouts of farmers. He has installed a legion of knaves, hacks and toadies to mishandle the indispensable tasks of the federal government such as fighting global pandemics or protecting the environment. His fiscal record is a fright.

Either Sanders or Bloomberg would be an improvement, in the same way that it would be better to be trampled by beagles than by buffaloes.But each of these Democrats has plenty of debits on his record. Neither has much commitment to individual freedom as a matter of principle.

Sanders has only contempt for people who gain great wealth by creating something that people want. He wants to punish them even if they have made our lives better.

Its unfair to suggest that his policies would resemble communism. But his defense of Marxist regimes suggests a willingness to excuse harsh methods to advance what he sees as worthy purposes.

Sanders proposal for national rent control combines economic illiteracy with gross federal overreach. He believes in Medicare for All and he does mean all, including those who would rather keep their private health insurance. Its hard to escape the suspicion that in Sanders mind, the compulsory nature of his plan is not a necessary evil but a supreme virtue.

Then theres the matter of paying for it. As The New York Times reported, he estimated Sunday night on 60 Minutes that the price tag for his Medicare for All plan would be about $30 trillion over 10 years, but the revenue he identifies for it in the new outline totals about $17.5 trillion.

Bloomberg is overbearing and intrusive in his own way. As New York City mayor, he barred many businesses from selling sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces on public health grounds though a court overruled him. He waged war on flavored tobacco products and trans fats and required chain restaurants to post calorie counts.

He even deployed full-court pressure tactics to get new mothers to breast-feed, regardless of their needs or desires. The presumption of personal autonomy never found a place in Bloombergs heart.

His faith in coercion helps account for his support of stop-and-frisk tactics by New York police, which put a target on the backs of young Hispanic and African American men, the vast majority of them innocent. Under Bloomberg, the number of such encounters soared seven-fold. Though he now claims credit for reducing them, the reality is that a federal judge ruled the practice unconstitutional.

When that decision came down, Bloomberg raised fears of a lot of people dying. In fact, crime declined after stop and frisk was drastically curtailed. Bloomberg put his instincts above the liberties of New Yorkers, and his instincts proved wrong.

What he and Sanders share is an eagerness to override individual freedom whenever it hinders their plans and an impatience with limits on government authority. Their grand schemes are not as toxic or alarming as Trumps. But under any of these three, the right to be left alone would be left in the lurch.

Steve Chapman blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman. Follow him on Twitter @SteveChapman13 or at https://www.facebook.com/stevechapman13. To find out more about Steve Chapman and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at http://www.creators.com.

View original post here:

Sanders And Bloomberg Both Want To Run Your Life - The National Memo

SALT LAKE CITY A bill that would regulate how Utah law enforcement agencies use facial recognition technology has been unveiled in the state legislature.

Senate Bill 218, sponsored by Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, imposes some strict restrictions and limits its use to Utah's Department of Public Safety only. The agency has faced scrutiny on Capitol Hill over how it has used its facial recognition software at the request of agencies like the FBI and ICE.

FOX 13 reported last year on Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy and Technology finding DPS's system had scanned the images of every single person with a Utah driver's license thousands of times to find a wanted person. It alarmed both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, who promised regulation.

DPS has defended the system and insisted there are proper safeguards in place.

The issue has united groups like the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, the ACLU of Utah and the libertarian-leaning Libertas Institute, who have expressed concerns about privacy. In December, Sen. Kirk Cullimore, R-Sandy, told FOX 13 he was considering a bill that would let Utahns "opt in" to having their images used.

That bill was still listed as being "in process" on Saturday. But under Sen. Bramble's SB218, Utah DPS would be put under strict regulation:

The bill was made public on Saturday. A message left with a DPS spokesperson was not immediately returned. The Libertas Institute said it supported the legislation.

"The government has been using this technology for a decade in Utah without public knowledge or legislative oversight," the group said in a statement on its website. "This bill imposes important restrictions to better ensure privacy and appropriate use of new technology."

Read the rest here:

Bill to regulate facial recognition technology in Utah is unveiled in the legislature - fox13now.com

After the first day of filings for the Aug. 4 primary election, there was almost no competition for Jefferson County offices. But, things were more interesting at the state and federal levels.

Several primary races emerged for state legislative seats, and three Jefferson Countians filed for congressional seats.

Filings opened Tuesday, and will close at 5 p.m. Tuesday, March 31. Candidates in the primary will vie for their political partys nomination for whatever office theyre seeking.

Winners of primary elections will face off in the Nov. 3 general election, when the U.S. presidential election also will be held.

Candidates for county offices file at the Jefferson County Administration Center, 729 Maple St., in Hillsboro, while candidates for state offices file in Jefferson City.

According to information provided by Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, candidates who filed the first day were given a random number to determine the order their names will appear on the ballot. After the first day, candidates are placed on the ballot in the order of their filing.

Filings for local seats as of 5 p.m. Tuesday are listed below, with incumbents marked with an (I).

Jefferson County Council

District 2 Republican Renee Reuter, Imperial (I).

District 4 Republican Charles Groeteke, Barnhart (I).

District 6 No filings by the end of business Tuesday. Republican Dan Stallman is the incumbent.

For 2020, even-numbered districts are up for election. Elections for districts 1, 3, 5 and 7 will be held in 2022.

Assessor Republican Bob Boyer, Arnold (I).

Public Administrator Republican Steve Farmer, Imperial (I).

Sheriff Republican Dave Marshak (I), Festus.

Treasurer Republican Paula Wagner, Festus (I).

Circuit Judge

Division 2 Republican Darrell Missey, Fenton (I).

State representative

District 97 Republican Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Arnold (I).

District 111 Republican Shane Roden, Cedar Hill (I), Democrat Daniel (Vern) Cherry, Dittmer.

District 112 Republican Rob Vescovo, Arnold (I), Republican Chad Bicknell, Arnold.

District 113 Republican Dan Shaul, Imperial (I), Democrat Terry Burgess, Barnhart.

District 114 Republican Becky Ruth, Festus (I).

District 115 Republicans Cyndi Buchheit-Courtway, Festus, Marvin Fricke, De Soto, Ryan Jones, De Soto. Incumbent Elaine Gannon, R-De Soto, is term-limited.

District 118 Republican Mike McGirl, Potosi (I).

State Senate

District 3 Republicans Kent Scism, Farmington, Joshua Barrett, Fredericktown. The seat was vacated by Gary Romine, R-Farmington, who was appointed to the State Tax Commission.

U.S. House of Representatives

District 2 Republican Ann Wagner, Ballwin (I); Democrat Jill Schupp, St. Louis; Libertarian Martin Schulte, Ballwin.

District 3 Republicans Adela Wisdom, Williamsburg, Brandon Wilkinson, Cedar Hill; Democrats Megan Rezabek, Imperial, Dennis Oglesby, Warrenton; Libertarian Leonard J. Steinman II, Jefferson City. Incumbent Republican Blaine Luetkemeyer, St. Elizabeth, had not filed by end of business on Tuesday.

District 8 Republican Jason Smith, Salem (I); Democrat Kathy Ellis, Festus.

Committee positions

A committeeman and a committeewoman are elected for political parties in each township in the county. Listed below are those who had filed by 5 p.m. Tuesday.

REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

Central Township committeeman: John R. Gebel (I).

Central Township committeewoman: Rebecca Leonard (I).

Imperial Township committeeman: Jim Berberich (I), Steve Farmer.

Imperial Township committeewoman: Diane Berberich (I).

Joachim Township committeeman: George Bob Engelbach (I).

Joachim Township committeewoman: Janet Engelbach (I).

Meramec Township committeewoman: Connie Combs.

Plattin Township committeeman: David B. Courtway (I).

Rock Township committeeman: Bill Alter (I), Alan Leaderbrand.

Rock Township committeewoman: Angela Alter-Wren (I).

Windsor Township committeeman: David Day (I).

Windsor Township committeewoman: Whendy Moore, Sharon Swan.

DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE

Imperial Township committeewoman: Fran Newkirk (I).

Read the original post:

ICYMI: Few local races as filings for Aug. 4 primary open this week - Leader Publications

Its frustrating, if you were alive during part of the 20th century,to see humanity circle back around to the century-old argument between socialism and fascism, both stupid philosophies seemingly discredited by the most memorable,horrible experiences of that centurybut in its first few decades passionately defended by street-fighting gangs of young ideologues on German streets.

How did thisrecurrencehappen? Its like were walkinga philosophical Mobius stripor worse, since we barely seem to be moving, sitting in a Mobius chair somewhere beyond time and space, surveying 100years of pointless crisis and conflict yielding no real learning.

One thing Ive learned, though, is that if yougive government an inch, itlltake a mile, sometimes a mile of paved road. As Ive lamented before, ironically, both the left and elements of the far right (includingsome purporting to be my fellow anarcho-capitalist libertarians) point to the expense of road maintenance as justificationfor government taking on other duties.

Who will buildthe roads? ask the leftistsas if the private sector doesnt get that task donewith great frequencywhile some who (inaccurately, I think) call themselves anarcho-capitalists ask, Shouldnt we be able to stop people at the border if the alternative is them using roads at the expense of innocent taxpayers?as if theres no way to get people to pay for roads (hint: tolls) besides deploying fascistic border patrols with the legal authority toharass everyone within 100 milesof the border in numerous ways that (obviously) go far beyond defraying road-maintenance expenses.

Given the obvious and very long history of governments mission creep whenever it can find an excuse to act, whether byadding a welfare agency or a police function, the last thing we should do is come up with more rationales for its existence, especially those of us claiming to be libertarians of some sort.

I was thus alarmed to see an editor at the Mises Institute, Ryan McMaken, taking the borders-are-libertarian argument one perverse step farther, arguing that whats good for the U.S. taxpayer (mainly because it excludesuntaxedMexicans from roads, in theory)is in fact good for the taxpayers ofevery individual U.S. state, sowhy not have 50enforceable borders?

If Brexit makes England freer than EU membershipdoes, and over time theresreason to believe individual European countries are likely less prone to impose crazy regulations than would be a Brussels super-state, goes the argument, you can hardly tell New Jersey it has no right to enforce its border against possibly untaxed interlopers from Pennsylvania or New York. A single small state such as Jersey might even be less intrusive and wide-ranging in its entry requirements than the enforcers at a big national border tend to be. And if not, you can always go around it more easily than you can the country as a whole. So, a newly-hardened New Jersey border could be the key to fostering freedom!

But everything we know about the history of government means we must at least consider the obvious ways this plan might go wrong, and an honest reminder how uglyand burdensomeenforcement is at the national border is a good place to start. They dont just check for violent criminals and invading armies there, after allwhich in principle, I think virtually everyone would consider reasonable, absent the complete dissolution of nationsbutinsteaduse the national border as both an excuse and an opportunity to mold trade, population demographics, drug use patterns, internal employment trends, and more.

Nowadays, given the rights near-total obsession with immigration, one must assure them that one is not dismissing any of the thingsin that list as unimportantbut one is, iflibertarian, insisting that the important things are the last things one should want controlled by government. You insist on a border? Keep it simple, mostly-porous, and limited in its functions, more or less like government itself, if wemust have one at all (for now).

By contrast, I suppose the border-lovers should look with a certain amount of admiration at the (understandably) more-policed-than-average city boundaries of New York. Its almost like paying to enter Disney World driving into this place, and rest assured youre constantly being surveilled in the processmusic to the border-enforcers ears, I suppose. But consider the possibility that its no coincidence this city spawned authoritarians such as (Brooklyn-born) Bernie Sanders and a man who recently endorsed him, his fellow communist Bill de Blasio.

Occasionally, circumstances will make a border or even a siege mentality a necessity, but its hardly something torevel in. Given the tendency of the authoritarian elements of any political plan to come to fruition while the libertarian elements get perpetually delayed, I think its a safe bet 50hardened state bordersif put in placebeforethe welcome day the federal government ceases to exist, and especially if put in place by the federal government itself rather than, say, fiercely freedom-loving state-by-state secessionistswould just yield astill-vastnation at first annoyed and in time inured to constant checkpoints alongonesslowedtrek across what wouldstill be the United States of America, with most of its federal regulations still intact.

(By contrast, long story short, a Brexited UK can fairly easily resume thinking of itself as and behavinglike an independent countrysome of these distinctions must be more a matter of contingent history than pure philosophical idealism.)

Constant government checkpointscant be what a reasonable-approximation-of-liberty (or private property) looks like, any more than a ring ofgovernmentcops around every town or block is (and New York has come close to trying that, too, given all the barricades put up in the Bronx at certain hours).In theory,yes,that system mighteventuallyfortuitously decay into mere parcels of private propertytheultimate win for libertarianismbut you know damn well it might more easily decay into a system in which you must constantly present your papers to go across town, one morelayer of very palpable tyranny.

Most of that will sound rather far-off and speculative, but one crude,practical litmus test right now for separating the libertarians-in-spiritfrom the mereborder-lovers/Trumpers-in-spiritis seeing how people react to the news of Greyhoundannouncing it will not comply with searches of its vehicles by immigration agents who do not have warrants. The same people aghast at the independent-mindedness of sanctuary citieswill want Greyhound punished, I suppose, but since I still remember the days when non-leftists preferred capitalist enterprises and individual rights to latitude for government goons, I say: Go, Greyhound!

Todd Seavey is the author ofLibertarianism for Beginnersand is on Twitter at@ToddSeavey.

See the original post here:

Who Will Build the Road to Serfdom? - Splice Today

(Pixabay)The public-policy expert has some interesting ideas. But they arent necessarily new ones.

Oren Cass, formerly a domestic-policy adviser to the 2012 presidential campaign of Mitt Romney and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has launched a new organization, American Compass. Cass told the Washington Post that its goal is to think about what the post-Trump right-of-center is going to be. This debate is ongoing; Casss contributions to it will be familiar to readers of National Review.

Yet some of Casss immediate claims are worth questioning. Cass bemoans a purported domination of conservatism and the Republican Party by a market fundamentalism in many cases, held entirely in good faith; in some cases, more as a matter of political convenience. He also accuses conservatives of having for decades outsourced their economic thinking to libertarians such that libertarianism is now part of the prevailing orthodoxy (along with a progressive economics that is, he says, its mirror image).

The notion that libertarians have largely controlled the Right probably comes as a surprise to libertarians, who have watched helplessly over the past few decades as government has grown, debt and deficits have expanded, and the Federal Register accrues more pages (even as one of the consistent priorities of what Cass calls the inchoate earthquake of the Trump administration has been a concerted effort to fight this last trend).

Market fundamentalism, then, is a curious choice of villain. Few could survey the actual policy achievements of elected Republicans over the past few decades and claim they reflect that wholesale. Republicans during George W. Bushs presidency may have cut taxes, but they also increased spending (as have Trump-era Republicans), added a new federal agency, expanded an existing federal entitlement, and increased federal involvement in education. Bush himself proclaimed that we have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move, imposed unilateral tariffs (as President Trump has done), and spearheaded the TARP bailout of the financial industry, sacrificing free-market principles to save the free-market system, in his words.

President George H. W. Bush famously raised taxes and was never fully on board with what he had called President Reagans voodoo economics. The degree to which Reagan himself was on board with what became known as Reaganomics is the subject of some debate, largely due to his utility as a totem for both sides of this argument. But he did intervene in the economy specifically in behalf of Harley-Davidson. And libertarian economics had very little sway in the actual policy of the Republican Party before Reagan. If Casss dispute is instead with conservative rhetoric irrespective of its purported practitioners actions, then he ought to make that clear. (Few would contest that many elected Republicans have been hypocrites in this regard.)

Some of the participants on Casss side of this argument, which is ongoing, sometimes act as though the very idea of government involvement in the economy were both brand new and some incredible panacea for our ills. The truth, toward which Cass gestures when he writes that he seeks to reassert ideas like these [that he proposes] for a conservative coalition that once understood them intuitively, is that skepticism of the free market has a long history within the conservative tradition. Before neoconservative became a dirty word, neoconservatives, such as Irving Kristol, were offering Two Cheers for Capitalism. As far back as 1957, National Review itself dissented from the market fundamentalism of Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, via Whittaker Chamberss famous review. Just a decade ago, there were the reformocons, who sounded a lot like Cass and company do now in arguing for modest federal support for families and middle-income earners. When these groups made arguments in public, John Galt did not take over the transmission, nor did some Cato Institute grandee keep them from making their points. What Cass seeks to reassert never really left, even if its perceived relative strength has waxed and waned.

This may all seem like angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. Indeed, much of this debate has the character of a think-tank panel that has spilled out into the real world (Casss specific chosen antagonist in his National Review article is a vice president of the Heritage Foundation). But it is easier to act as though we simply havent tried certain things instead of admitting that we have tried some, and that sometimes they do work, but sometimes they dont. Cass would have a better case that our existing government policy has been inadequate than that we do not have one at all. And why has it been inadequate? Libertarian-leaning economists have had plenty to say about that: in public choice (Buchanan), the distribution of economic information (Hayek), monetary theory (Friedman), and more.

I do not invoke the celebrated insights of some libertarians merely to reject the very idea that the government has a place in the modern economy. I happen to agree with the argument Cass makes in his book The Once and Future Worker that it is foolish to devote immense federal resources to promoting higher education while leaving all other post-high-school paths to a hodgepodge of mostly state-based and private programs. Yet federal economic intervention is hardly the herald of something entirely new, either in the economy as a whole or on the right. A compass can help you find your way, but its even more useful if you know where you already are.

Read the original post:

How New Is the Oren Cass Approach? - National Review

No matter where you are in the world, the topic of Donald Trump and his impulsive phrases and decision are a divisive topic. It must be said that the prediction by those fearing that the U.S President was going to have the same fiery approach and eventually bring the whole country down with his has turned out to be largely untrue. But not necessarily because Trump has changed since his original campaign, but mostly because there are complex mechanisms at work in the white house that wont allow for complete chaos, and for one person to be fully in charge of everything. Trump has made many drastic changes to the U.S economy but has any of it actually paid off?

According to the president himself, the U.S economy is currently on historic high and is stronger than it has ever been. And of course, there are many who continue to challenge Trumps claim and amidst the influx of different opinions and contradictory facts it has become difficult to trust anyone outlet. Trumps entire political campaign and his actions as an already chosen president, has always been focused on the pro=growth attitude that prioritized this trend over many more, arguably more important topics. The main issue that most democrats have with Trump is that even though he is focused on growth, his policies often offer the gains for the price that most democrats and their supporters arent willing to pay. So when Trump says that his policies have actually helped the U.S to get its economy to where it was at an all-time high, he is definitely not lying. Although the methods used to get there can be quite controversial and often the main reason why the benefits of economic growth often get swept under the rug in the name of the sacrifices made for the said growth.

To claim that the U.S economy is the strongest it has ever been is a simple exaggeration that the historic data will dispute in no time, but it has definitely been doing well.

America does not like to admit it but its never-ending feud with China has affected the currency market. Just recently the president has set out to make some changes that would make up for the damages caused by the trade war and wants to help cryptocurrency bounce back to its better days. Even though the damages have not been all that harsh and China definitely has it much worse, the forex trading has definitely been more unpredictable for the U.S citizens and for those who trade in USD. This is why most trusted brokers in the USA have managed to keep the equilibrium as much as possible, but its difficult to remain unfazed when the entire world is feeling the effects of the trade war on their currencies and their economic lives as well. Trump is now trying to improve the situation by introducing new regulations. The new rule will allow Washington to levy tariffs on countries that are undervaluing the U.S currency, We dont know much about what criteria the white house will use to determine whether some countries qualify as underminers but this new rule has already raised some question about whether it will actually do some good or damage the currency further.

The stock market has actually been doing exceptionally well, meaning that Dow Jones Industrial Average has never been this high before. Coronavirus outbreak has changed the set up a bit but this doesnt take away from the fact that the President has improved the stock market situation by a lot. Trump has been consistently voicing his concern with the taxes for corporations and has not only cut down on the taxes but also implemented a much more U.S based approach to the stock market which has definitely paid off. This is one of those few cases where the success of his policies cant be argued against, and while for many this move is interpreted as Trump ensuring that the big and powerful companies keep growing and increasing their income, something that might not necessarily be the priority for the majority of the U.S population but the fact is that the stock market has greatly benefited from it and has allowed for more stability. But the complicated relationship with China has also managed to tempt with that even though the U.S does not want to admit that they are affected by their tensions with China.

The epicenter of all these developments and setbacks is tied to the Trade War. The dispute that has affected the entire world and has changed the setup of the world economy. What is worse is that two countries cant seem to communicate well enough to actually bring an end to this dispute that actually is not benefiting anyone all that much, even though the U.S and specifically Donald Trump would have you believe that it is largely unaffected by it. It is true that the country most affected by it is China, Huawei specifically. The telecommunications giant was forced to completely rethink their business model after the ban from the U.S and has since then tried to stay afloat and offer their services and products to other powerful countries While after the two years the company has managed to live in a new reality it is still an unnecessary one.

The two countries have tried to meet up and find a solution that would please everyone but the problem with having China and the U.S represented in the same room means that both want to be superior and dont want to seem weak under any circumstances.

The U.S has managed to find alternatives, mostly from the local productions and close partners but as both players are growing tired of endless talks and inconclusive discussions the pressure from the world to end this conflict is growing. Since the U.S, Trump specifically has proven that the can sustain the U.S economy without help from other major countries there might be higher chances of collaborative work since China is also growing tired of the burden of the bans and increased taxes.

Here is the original post:

Have Trump's economic decisions actually boosted the US? - The Libertarian Republic

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (DMass.) is a fan of Game of Thrones' heroine-turned-villain Daenerys Targaryen, and the presidential candidate did her best impression of the Dragon Queen during Wednesday night's Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas.

Warren came out swinging at the opening bell. She interrupted New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's first response with an absolute slobber-knocker.

She was just getting started. She would torch Bloomberg again and again during the two hour debateincluding one particularly effective broadside on Bloomberg's history of requiring employees to sign non-disclosure agreements about sexual harassment, which Warren said effectively silences women who have been subjected to workplace misogyny.

But she saved plenty of fire for the rest of the field too. She cremated former Vice President Joe Biden for having the audacity to work with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.) to pass legislation. She burned Pete Buttigieg for daring to offer an alternative to universal government-run health care, which he calls "Medicare for all who want it." Warren accused him of having nothing more than "a slogan that was thought up by his consultants." Even Sen. Amy Klobuchar (DMinn.), with whom Warren had previously shared some debate state camaraderie, took a turn in the barrel for having a health care plan that wasnot long enough, I guess?

Some of those attacks were more legitimate than others. (Realistically, the fact that Biden had good relationships with some Republican senators was a benefit for the Obama administration, as Warren would quickly discover if she managed to win the White House.) Still, it was a fiery and energetic performance from a candidate who seems to know she has nothing to lose at this point. The fundraising boost will help too.

Once Warren threw the first punch, everyone wanted a piece of the action. Buttigieg and Klobuchar sniped at one another throughout the night. Bloomberg torched Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.) for being a socialist who owns three houses. Even Biden showed a bit of life!

Bloomberg had the worst night of all. One that mightif debates matter, and I'm not sure they doraise serious questions about his viability going forward. "If the argument for Bloomberg's candidacy is that he's more electable than Sanders and Warrenand more energetic than Bidenthen that argument has suffered a significant setback. Maybe a fatal one," offers Reason's Robby Soave.

Even when he wasn't under attack from Warren and the other candidates, Bloomberg suffered from being "a stiff, incompetent political performer with a record in office that's so-so at best and who is aware that what seem to be his authentic policy views are too politically toxic to run on," as Vox's Matt Yglesias put it.

Bloomberg's presence on the stage likely helped Sen. Bernie Sanders (IVt.), who would otherwise have drawn the majority of the other candidates' fire after winning (or nearly winning, depending on how you count Iowa's results) the first two states. It's becoming clear that Sanders is the frontrunner now, but the bigger question is whether he can get an outright majority of the delegates. When asked last night, he was the only candidate on stage to say that a candidate with the plurality of the delegatesthat is, the largest pile but not an outright majorityshould be the nominee. Everyone else is now angling for a brokered convention, an outcome that the forecasters at FiveThirtyEight say is the most likely outcome of the race right now.

That brings us back to Warren. Her "Dracarys" approach to last night's debate could be seen as a way to say "if I can't win the nomination, no one will"or maybe "let's take this all the way to Milwaukee." On the other hand, it was notable that she didn't go after Sanders with the same venom she brought for the others. Might that be a sign that she's playing fullback for Sanders?

Regardless, Wednesday's debate was evidence that the Democratic presidential race has entered a new, more dramatic phase. One that will last for (checks calendar) a whole six days before we get to do this all over again.

"For secular libertarians, human dignity is taken as a given, and freedom flows from that. Catholic libertarians go one step further, believing our freedom comes from our dignitybut our dignity and our freedom come from God," writesReason's managing editor, Stephanie Slade, in a Libertarianism.org piece exploring the overlapand the occasional tensionbetween her Catholic faith and her belief in the merits of limited government.

Not here for theology? Do yourself a favor and read far enough to get to Pope Leo XIII's elegantly devastating critique of socialism.

Sure, Philadelphia's "soda tax" is a total disaster for businesses and consumers, but at least it's providing revenue for important public programs, right?

Wrong.

See the rest here:

Elizabeth Warren Is Here To Be Queen of the Ashes - Reason