Elections

Commentary & Community

Trump a Big Factor in Virginia Governor’s Race

 

Donald Trump may not be on Virginia’s ballot this year, but he is certainly making his presence felt in the commonwealth’s gubernatorial race.

 

During a recent debate between Republican candidate Ed Gillespie and Democratic candidate Lt. Governor Ralph Northam, the president and other national issues played a large role in the discussion. In fact, moderator Judy Woodruff led off the questioning by asking about President Trump.

 

Lt. Governor Northam did not hold back, saying:

 

“I believe that our president is a dangerous man. I believe that he lacks empathy. You need to look no further than his mocking of the journalist. That’s all that I needed to see. And he also has difficulty telling the truth. And it happens again and again. As we say on the Eastern Shore, he lies like a rug.”

 

Gillespie countered by saying that it would do Virginia no good to have a governor who insults the president: “When you hear the lieutenant governor, he calls his campaign the resistance. Resistance 2017. What are you going to do as our governor? Call the White House and say, ‘please put me through to the narcissistic maniac?’”

 

While promoting good ties with the Trump White House, Gillespie did make it clear that he has differences with the president. For instance, Gillespie supports funding for the Chesapeake Bay cleanup, which Trump’s budget proposal slated for elimination.

 

During the debate, Northam stressed his opposition to hydraulic fracturing, his support of gun control, his desire to see Medicaid expanded to cover Virginians with higher incomes, and his opposition to restrictions on birth control. Gillespie discussed his plans to cut taxes, his support for gun rights, and said that he would work to end “sanctuary cities.”

 

This was the first in a series of three gubernatorial debates.

 

Do you think that gubernatorial races should focus on what President Trump is doing? Or do you think that governors and gubernatorial candidates should focus on state-level issues?

 

Virginia Senate Bill 872

 

Check out this key bill voted on by elected officials in Virginia, check-in to the VoteSpotter app to see how your legislators voted, and comment below to share what you think!

 

Senate Bill 872, Override Veto of Requirement for Photo ID for Absentee Ballots: Failed 20 to 19 in the state Senate on April 5, 2017.

 

To overturn the governor’s veto of legislation that requires that anyone requesting an absentee ballot by mail to include a copy of his or her photo ID with the request. Exempt from this requirement are military and overseas voters as well as voters with disabilities.

 

Comment below to share what you think of Virginia Senate Bill 872!

 

Iowa House Bill 640

 

Check out this key bill voted on by elected officials in Iowa, check-in to the VoteSpotter app to see how your legislators voted, and comment below to share what you think!

 

House Bill 640, To Require the Iowa Secretary of State to Spend $150,000 to Inform Voters of Iowa's Voter Registration Laws: Failed 41 to 56 in the state House on April 17, 2017. 

 

To amend a budget fill that funds several departments to require the Iowa Secretary of State to spend $150,000 "to provide information and education to Iowa’s voters about Iowa’s voter registration laws." The office of Secretary of State Paul Pate, who supported the voter-ID bill enacted by the Legislature this session, said it would spend $50,000. Opponents of the bill said that amount was not enough.

 

Comment below to share what you think of Iowa House Bill 640!

 

 

Virginia Senate Bill 1253

 

Check out this key bill voted on by elected officials in Virginia, check-in to the VoteSpotter app to see how your legislators voted, and comment below to share what you think!

 

Senate Bill 1253, Override Veto of Requiring Photo in Voting Pollbooks: Failed 21 to 19 in the state Senate on April 5, 2017. 

 

To override the governor’s veto of a bill requiring that electronic pollbooks contain a photo of a registered voter. If there is a photo for the voter in the pollbook, the election officer would be required to verify the voter by the photo. In these cases, the voter would not need to present a photo ID to vote.

 

Comment below to share what you think of Virginia Senate Bill 1253! 

 

 

North Carolina House Bill 253

 

Check out this key bill voted on by elected officials in North Carolina, check-in to the VoteSpotter app to see how your legislators voted, and comment below to share what you think!

 

House Bill 253, Show Political Party Labels of Nine Counties' School Board Candidates: Passed 34 to 13 in the state Senate on June 29, 2017.

 

To disclose school board candidates' party affiliations on voter ballots in Beaufort, Carteret, Cleveland, Dare, Hyde, Madison, Onslow, Pender, and Yancey counties.

 

Comment below to share what you think of North Carolina House Bill 253!

 

 

New Hampshire Senate Bill 33

 

Check out this key bill voted on by elected officials in New Hampshire, check-in to the VoteSpotter app to see how your legislators voted, and comment below to share what you think!

 

Senate Bill 33, Limit the Period of Applicability for Regulations on Organizational Speech, and Expand the Type of Communications that are Regulated: Passed 14 to 9 in the state Senate on February 23, 2017.

 

To expand state restrictions on speech by "political advocacy organizations"  60 days prior to an election, without regard to whether they are engaging in "express advocacy" (speech urging a yes or no vote for or against a candidate or measure).

 

Comment below to share what you think of New Hampshire Senate Bill 33!

 

 

Virginia Senate Bill 872

 

Check out this key bill voted on by elected officials in Virginia, check-in to the VoteSpotter app to see how your legislators voted, and comment below to share what you think!

 

Senate Bill 872, Override Veto of Requirement for Photo ID for Absentee Ballots: Failed 20 to 19 in the state Senate on April 5, 2017.

 

To overturn the governor’s veto of legislation that requires that anyone requesting an absentee ballot by mail to include a copy of his or her photo ID with the request. Exempt from this requirement are military and overseas voters as well as voters with disabilities.

 

Comment below to share what you think of Virginia Senate Bill 872!

 

 

Virginia Senate Bill 1105

 

Check out this key bill voted on by elected officials in Virginia, check-in to the VoteSpotter app to see how your legislators voted, and comment below to share what you think!

 

Senate Bill 1105, Override veto of investigating inflated voter rolls: Failed 21 to 19 in the state Senatea on 5 April, 2017.

To override the governor’s veto of a bill requiring local boards of elections to investigate when the number of voters in a county or city exceeds the number of people in that area who are 18 years old or older. This bill directs the local board of election to determine if anyone is improperly registered.

 

Comment below to share what you think of Virginia Senate Bill 1105!

 

 

The Hunt for Vote Fraud

 

President Trump has not been shy about raising questions about voter fraud or election integrity. He brought it up repeatedly during his campaign for president, and discussions of fraudulent votes and stolen elections have been occurring across the political spectrum since November. Now the president is working to resolve this issue on a national level.

 

His latest action on this front is the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. This commission has requested that states provide the names of registered voters as well as their addresses, dates of birth, political party affiliations, last four digits of social security numbers, and voting history going back to 2006. The commission does qualify the request by asking only for information that is publicly available.

 

This request has caused a lot of controversy with state election officials and the public. Some states are complying, others are refusing, and some are only supplying partial information. State officials are under no obligation to provide this information to this commission.

 

Supporters of the commission say it is necessary to examine the rolls of registered voters to see if they contain non-Americans, felons who are barred from voting, and people registered in multiple states – and then to see if these ineligible voters have cast ballots.

 

Opponents of the commission claim that this is a way to purge the voting roles of minority votes and others. They say that this is just another attempt to suppress voting and disenfranchise voters.

 

There are different aspects to the issue of election integrity. One pertains to voter registration rolls. Because these rolls may not be updated often or checked against other databases, they may contain the names of people who have died, people who have moved to another state, or those who are legally ineligible to vote for other reasons, such as citizenship status. Another issue is whether those ineligible voters have actually voted.

 

As is so often the case, the debate over these matters is tied up in partisan politics. Many Republicans want stricter scrutiny of voting, contending that it is necessary to ensure that only those who are eligible to vote do so. Democrats, meanwhile, attack such scrutiny as attempts to suppress the votes of people who are likely to vote Democratic.

 

What do you think? Do you support efforts to examine the voting rolls more closely? Or do you think that this effort is nothing more than a way to keep certain people from voting?

 

Nevada Assembly Bill 462

 

Check out this key bill voted on by elected officials in Nevada, check-in to the VoteSpotter app to see how your legislators voted, and comment below to share what you think!

 

Assembly Bill 462, To require a voter to provide identification at a polling place under certain circumstances: Passed 25 to 17 in the state Assembly on April 20, 2017 and 14 to 7 in the state Senate on May 19, 2017

 

To prohibit a candidate from holding an elected office if a court declares before the election that the candidate does not meet the qualifications for the office. The bill would also require that a candidate use the address at which the individual actually resides as the address to qualify for an elected office.

 

Comment below to share what you think of Nevada Assembly Bill 462!

 

Nevada Assembly Initiated Legislation 1

 

Check out this key bill voted on by elected officials in Nevada, check-in to the VoteSpotter app to see how your legislators voted, and comment below to share what you think!

 

Assembly Initiated Legislation 1, Approve motor voter initiative: Passed 41 to 0 in the state Assembly on April 5, 2017

 

To automatically register as a voter anyone who obtains or renews a driver’s license.

 

Comment below to share what you think of Nevada Assembly Initiated Legislation 1!

 

Ohio Senate Bill 44

 

Check out this key bill voted on by elected officials in Ohio, check-in to the VoteSpotter app to see how your legislators voted, and comment below to share what you think!

 

Senate Bill 44, Expand access to electronic filing for campaign finance reports: Passed 33 to 9 in the state Senate on March 15, 2017

 

Expands the categories of political entities that are permitted to file their campaign finance statements electronically to include candidates for the State Board of Education and certain local candidates and political entities.

 

Comment below to share what you think of Ohio Senate Bill 44!

 

Colorado Senate Bill 305

 

Check out this key bill voted on by elected officials in Colorado, check-in to the VoteSpotter app to see how your legislators voted, and comment below to share what you think!

 

Senate Bill 305, Restore primary elections for U.S. President and allow unaffiliated voters to participate in primaries: Passed 33 to 2 in the state Senate on May 10, 2017 and 65 to 0 in the state House on May 9, 2017

 

To conform state election laws with the results of voter-approved ballot initiatives in 2016. The bill would restore the party-based primary voting system for the U.S. Presidential election. The bill requires the general assembly to pay for any presidential primary elections. The bill also provides for unaffiliated voters to receive ballots for primary elections.

 

Comment below to share what you think of Colorado Senate Bill 305!

 

Wisconsin Assembly Resolution 4: Prohibit Using Private Lawyers to Defend Redistricting

 

Check out this key bill recently passed by elected officials in Wisconsin, check-in to the VoteSpotter app to see how your legislators voted, and comment below to share what you think!

 

Assembly Resolution 4, Prohibit using private lawyers to defend redistricting: Failed 35 to 62 in the state Assembly

 

To prohibit the legislature from contracting with private legal services to defend legislative redistricting efforts. In January, a federal court found that the legislative districts drawn by the legislature were unconstitutional. This bill would prohibit using tax revenue to pay private-sector attorneys to appeal. This vote was to withdraw the bill from committee to allow the entire Assembly to vote on it.

 

Comment below to share what you think of Wisconsin Assembly Resolution 4!

 

Is Gerrymandering Coming to an End?

 

Politicians drawing electoral districts to benefit politicians – it’s a practice that’s almost as old as the U.S. Criticism of this partisan redistricting, known as gerrymandering, also goes back to the early days of the republic. Actions by legislators and judges in 2017 may make some long-lasting changes to this long-lived process.

 

Practices vary, but in most states the legislature and the governor draw legislative and congressional districts. And while gerrymandering may be deplored by Republicans and Democrats alike, it is practiced by both parties to maximize their advantages at the ballot box.

 

In recent years there have been efforts to give nonpartisan commissions the power to draw these districts, in order to take the political considerations out of the process. Currently, four states have these independent commissions.

 

Actions to address gerrymandering go beyond mere legislative proposals. In some states, lawsuits have been filed to overturn what plaintiffs consider illegally partisan districts.

 

Here is what is happening in some states concerning gerrymandering:

 

Wisconsin – In January, a federal court ruled that Wisconsin’s legislative districts must be redrawn in time for the 2018 election. State legislators have approved using a private law firm to appeal this ruling, prompting complaints about using taxpayer dollars to do this.

 

Michigan – emboldened by the successful suit in Wisconsin, a former Democratic official is preparing to sue the state to overturn what he considers partisan gerrymandering in Michigan.

 

Virginia – legislators have advanced a resolution to amend the state constitution that would dampen gerrymandering by requiring that legislative and congressional districts must be compact, follow existing political boundaries (such as county lines), and not be drawn to protect a certain party or incumbent lawmakers.

 

Maryland – when in office, Governor Martin O’Malley approved a map containing some of the most gerrymandered congressional districts in the nation. Now that he’s out of office, O’Malley is having second thoughts. He has said he supports a nonpartisan commission to draw districts, something his successor in the governor’s office, Larry Hogan, is pushing legislators to adopt.

 

 

What do you think should be done about gerrymandering?

 

Virginia Senate Bill 872: Require Photo ID for Absentee Ballots

 

Check out this key bill recently passed by elected officials in Virginia, and go to www.votespotter.com to signup and see how your legislators voted.

 

Virginia Senate Bill 872, Require Photo ID for Absentee Ballots: Passed 20 to 19 in the state Senate on January 30, 2017

 

To require that anyone requesting an absentee ballot by mail to include a copy of his or her photo ID with the request. When the voter submits the completed ballot, he or she must also submit a copy of his or her photo ID. Exempt from this requirement are military and overseas voters as well as voters with disabilities.

 

Gun Control in the States

Gun rights or gun safety?

 

This is the question facing many lawmakers in states across the U.S. While Congress considered and failed to enact any gun control legislation in 2015 or 2016, state legislators have faced a variety of measures relating to gun regulation. In some states, we’ve seen stricter controls put on gun ownership or use. In other states, however, lawmakers have relaxed restrictions.

 

Stricter gun control laws

 

California legislators led the way in enacting new gun control laws in 2016, passing 12 bills that imposed new restrictions. Governor Jerry Brown signed most of them, such as a bill to require background checks for ammunition purchases, one banning guns with magazine locking devices, and one that prohibits temporary firearm loans to anyone but family members. Governor Brown vetoed bills that would have regulated unfinished firearm frames and that would have required the mandatory reporting of a lost or stolen firearm within 48 hours.

 

Connecticut passed legislation that would prohibit those who have a temporary restraining order filed against them from possessing firearms.

 

Voters weighed in on gun control laws in the 2016 election, too. In California, they continued the trend started by legislators by approving a ballot measure that requires a permit to buy ammunition, bans the possession of large-capacity magazines, and advances the effective date of a state law that prohibits buying ammunition out-of-state, among other things. Washington voters approved a referendum that allows courts to issue “extreme risk protection orders,” which allows guns to be taken from someone deemed to be a significant danger to himself or others. Nevada voters supported a ballot initiative that would require anyone who sells or transfers a firearm do so through a licensed dealer who must run a background check, while Maine voters rejected a similar measure.

 

Removing restrictions on guns

 

In states that are controlled by Republicans, gun legislation generally involves loosening rules on ownership or carrying.

 

For instance, Tennessee lawmakers passed bills allowing both concealed and open carry of firearms on college campuses, which the governor allowed to become law. Georgia legislators also passed a bill allowing the carrying of concealed firearms on college campuses, but Governor Nathan Deal vetoed it.

 

There were unique dynamics in the debate over gun laws in Virginia this year. In December 2015, Democratic Attorney General Mark Herring announced that the state would no longer recognize concealed carry permits issued by many other states. This prompted a backlash in the Republican legislature. Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe worked with legislators in 2016 and agreed to sign a bill that enshrines right-to-carry reciprocity in state law. In return, legislators passed bills favored by the governor that make it more difficult for domestic abusers to possess firearms and that station state police agents at gun shows to provide voluntary background checks.

 

Virginia legislators also passed a bill that would have allowed state workers to keep firearms in their cars and one that overturned the governor’s ban on firearms in state buildings. Both of these bills were vetoed by Governor McAuliffe.

 

In 2015 and 2016, four states (Kansas, West Virginia, Idaho, and Mississippi) passed laws allowing the carrying of concealed firearms without a permit. Other states have considered similar legislation. For instance, Virginia senators deadlocked 20 to 20 in a 2016 vote for a similar law in that state. Both houses of the Montana legislation voted in 2015 to allow concealed carry without a permit in that state’s cities and towns (it is already legal in outside of city limits), but Governor Brian Schweitzer vetoed it. New Hampshire’s governor also vetoed permit-less concealed carry legislation in 2015.

 

The Voters Speak: State Ballot Initiatives

Although laws differ across the country, voters in many states can have a direct say in governing through initiatives and referendums. According to the Initiative and Referendum Institute, voters in 34 states had their say on 157 ballot propositions. 

Here are some of the issues that voters decided in this way on Tuesday:

 

EMPLOYMENT

  • Alabama puts right-to-work in the state constitution. Virginia voters rejected the idea of putting it in their state’s constitution. 
  • Higher minimum wage: Arizona; Colorado; Washington enacted increases to their minimum wage requirements on businesses.

 

BLUE LAWS AND “SINFUL” BEHAVIOR

  • Go ahead, buy your full-strength beer at the supermarket: Oklahoma will let people buy full-strength beer at grocery stores and convenience stores on Sundays.
  • Wanna bet? New Jersey rejects letting casinos expand beyond Atlantic City. Massachusetts rejects putting slots at a race track. Rhode Island will now allow a casino in the town of Tiverton.
  • Cigarette taxes, yes and no: Voters in California, Colorado, Missouri, and North Dakota considered tobacco or cigarette tax increases. Only in California did a tax increase pass.

 

HOW WE ELECT AND PAY POLITICIANS

  • Politician pay raises: The pay of legislators in Minnesota will no longer be decided by legislators themselves. Instead, it will go to an independent committee.
  • Statewide ranked-choice voting: Maine enacts a new method of casting and counting ballots, which is used in some cities nationwide.
  • Voter ID required: Missouri will require people show a photo ID when voting.
  • Primaries open to all: Colorado allows people to vote in a party’s primary election without declaring a party affiliation.
  • Limits on campaign spending: Missouri and South Dakota will limit how much money people can contribute to state races; Washington approves a system of taxpayer funding on campaigns.
  • Keep partisan primaries: South Dakota rejected a measure to ban party affiliations in primary elections and replace it with a system under which the top two vote-getters in the primary appear on the general election ballot.

 

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

  • No to more charter schools: Massachusetts voters rejected a measure to expand charter schools.
  • No to state control of schools: Georgia voters said ”no” to a measure that would have allowed the state to take over under-performing public schools.

 

HEALTH CARE CHOICES

  • No to single-payer in one state: Colorado voters rejected a 10 percent payroll tax to fund a state-run health care system.
  • Doctor-assisted, on my own terms death: Colorado will let people who have a diagnosis of six months to live get a prescription for fatal doses of medication.

 

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

  • Capital punishment: Voters in Oklahoma say that capital punishment is not “cruel and unusual punishment,” and instructed the state to come up with a new means of execution of the existing ones are ruled impermissible by courts.
  • Voters in California rejected a ballot measure that would have repealed the death penalty, while narrowly approving a measure that would speed up the death penalty appeals process.  And Nebraskans overturned a state law that repealed the death penalty.

ENVIRONMENT

  • No to carbon taxes: Washington voters rejected a carbon tax that would have imposed a $100 per-ton carbon tax.

 

What Will Happen in the House in 2017?

Post-election update: Democrats gained seats in the House of Representatives, but not enough to end the GOP majority. Working with President Trump, House Republicans will likely pass legislation to repeal Obamacare (in whole or part) early in 2017. They could also move quickly to enact Trump’s tax policies and pass legislation to deal with immigration. Due to Paul Ryan’s lukewarm support of Trump, there will likely be efforts to replace him as Speaker of the House. These efforts probably do not have enough support to have any effect.

 

With Election Day quickly approaching, it seems likely that Republicans will retain control of the House of Representatives. Even though this is a continuation of the situation that exists currently, that does not mean that all will remain the same in the lower body of Congress.

 

Even if Republicans keep control, for instance, that does not mean that House Speaker Paul Ryan is guaranteed to keep his job. Some House members are dissatisfied at Ryan’s lackluster support of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. When the new session of Congress convenes in January, there will likely be some effort to replace Ryan as speaker. It is unlikely that a majority of the House members would support such an effort, however.

 

Under a Clinton presidency, a Republican-led House would act similar to what it has done under the Obama Administration. There would be major fights over the yearly appropriations bills, with the possibility of more partial-government shutdowns if the White House and Congress cannot agree. The House would also pass legislation, such as eliminating Obamacare, which members know will not survive the Senate or the president’s veto. Any major initiatives that President Clinton would propose would likely be stopped or scaled back by a Republican House. House Republicans would also be very likely to open numerous investigations into Hillary Clinton’s activities.

 

President Trump would find it easier to work with a Republican House. The House members would not be a stumbling block to his major initiatives. Of course, Trump could face issues from the group of Republicans who did not support him or who only offered tepid support. It is unlikely that a Republican-majority House would act as a rubber stamp for President Trump, but it is also unlikely that they would frustrate him the way they would try to do President Clinton.

 

In the event that the Democrats took the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi would probably retake the gavel as speaker. She would use that power to support President Clinton’s initiatives or to thwart whatever President Trump sent to Capitol Hill. Under Democratic control, any major investigations of Clinton would be few, if any.

 

In the House of Representatives, whoever controls the majority of seats controls the agenda in a way that is unlike the Senate. There are few procedural checks on the majority’s power in the House, and there is nothing like the Senate filibuster. The Speaker of the House has vast powers to determine what the body does and what legislation will pass. That makes having a friendly House majority very important for whichever candidate wins the White House.

 

What do you think the House agenda should be for 2017?

 

The Senate Agenda for 2017

Post-election update: Republicans won most of the key Senate battles on Tuesday, setting up a scenario where a Republican majority will serve with President Trump. It is unclear the extent of the majority, since two races are currently unresolved. Regardless of the outcome of these races, Republicans will not have enough senators to defeat Democratic filibusters. That means Trump will have trouble getting his policies through this chamber if he does not work across party lines. Because Senate Republicans refused to hold a vote on Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, it is likely that Trump will face a fight early in his term over filling this Supreme Court vacancy. The Senate is also likely to tackle an Obamacare repeal early in 2017. Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell of Kentucky will be the majority leader and New York’s Chuck Schumer will be minority leader.

 

What will the U.S. Senate look like when new senators are sworn in on January 3, 2017?

 

The fate of Republican control of the Senate depends on how races turn out in a few states, such as North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, Democrats need to pick up four seats now held by Republicans (Tim Kaine, as vice president, would break any tie in a Senate divided 50-50 between the two parties). A Donald Trump win would mean that the Democrats need to gain five seats.

 

Because of the Senate’s rules and traditions, a switch in partisan control does not bring a major swing in policy direction. That is especially true in an evenly-divided Senate or one where a party has narrow majority. To advance a bill that has even a hint of controversy requires that the majority leader must find a super-majority. That is because a cloture motion, or motion to cut off debate on legislation, requires 60 votes.

 

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois is likely to be the majority leader if the Democrats take control of the Senate, and the minority leader if they don’t. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is almost certain to remain majority leader if his party retains control, but be demoted to minority leader if the Democrats prevail in enough close races to take the Senate.

 

Under a Clinton presidency, a Democratic Senate majority would not have a free hand to push through whatever legislation they favor. Even if they are in the minority, Republicans will have enough seats to block legislation and nominees through a filibuster. The reverse holds true for a Republican majority during a Trump administration. For a bill to emerge from the Senate, it takes bipartisan cooperation. Given this year’s election, that is likely to be in short supply no matter who sits in the White House.

 

The next president’s term could also see an end to the tradition that Supreme Court nominees are not filibustered. Republicans have already signaled that they may block any Clinton nominee to the high court, and Democrats may do the same under President Trump.

 

It is unclear how a Senate with a Republican majority would work under a Trump presidency. Some Republican senators, such as Jeff Flake from Arizona and Ben Sasse of Nebraska, have openly rejected the GOP nominee. Others have wavered in their support of him. Would these senators feel party loyalty to President Trump, or would they feel free to oppose him when he is office just as they oppose him on the campaign trail? A Democratic majority under a Trump presidency would ensure numerous roadblocks for any legislative proposal that may come from the White House.

 

Regardless of which party holds power, some senators in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party have said they would work with Vermont’s Bernie Sanders (who is an independent, but who caucuses with the Democrats) to push what they call a “progressive agenda” of a higher minimum wage, criminal justice reform, and a focus on the environment. These liberal senators have said that even under a Clinton presidency, they may oppose cabinet nominees who they view as too cozy with business.

 

Given the unpredictable nature of this election, no one can make a solid bet about which party will end up in control of the Senate in January 2017. Only once the votes are counted on Election Day will we know for sure.

 

What initiatives do you think senators should pursue next year?

 

Copyright © 2018 Votespotter Inc. All rights reserved.