republican voter

FLORENCE, S.C. — Few people have anything bad to say about Darline Graham, who was catapulted from obscurity last month when she was appointed to replace her late brother Lindsey Graham in the U.S. Senate.

“I think Darline’s wonderful,” said Kathy Bustos of Mount Pleasant after attending a Republican forum recently.

But that doesn’t mean Bustos wants to vote for her in the state’s special primary Tuesday.

“I think it’s a very nice gesture for her to have the rest of his term to complete, but I’m not sure that she’s really qualified or ready to be elected to the Senate,” she said.

It’s a common sentiment among Republican voters pondering an unexpected decision about replacing Lindsey Graham, who was nominated for a fifth term before he died last month from a tear in his aorta. Darline Graham was often by his side throughout his career, but she remains largely unknown in South Carolina’s clubby political circles.

President Trump has endorsed her, and she’s backed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is running television advertising to support her candidacy.

However, Graham has been largely absent from the campaign trail, spending most of her time in Washington as an interim senator. Her appointment to the role, instead of giving her a leg up over the competition, may ultimately hold her back by preventing her from getting to know voters during a weeks-long sprint to Tuesday.

A crowded field

She is up against several well-known Republicans, including Reps. Russell Fry and Ralph Norman, as well as former Gov. Mark Sanford. The crowded field makes a runoff more likely, and it would be held Aug. 25.

All of them spoke at a Friday meeting of the Fourth District Republican Club in Greenville, but Graham sent a video message, saying she was “in Washington working hard for you.” She promised to be “a great friend and ally” to Trump and that she wanted to “earn your vote.”

And at a candidates event in Florence on Saturday, where Graham spoke, some of her supporters said they backed the interim senator’s decision to stay in Washington, even if it meant not campaigning.

“She committed to not missing votes or not being there to push forward with those bills,” said Teresa Castrinos, who made the hours-long drive from Bluffton to see Graham. “I feel like she’s putting South Carolina first. She’s wanting to fulfill her time as a senator right now, so I really admire her for that.”

A low profile

While Lindsey Graham was single and well-known around the world, his sister lived a relatively quiet life with her husband and daughters in Lexington, S.C. She spent years in state government, working with people with disabilities and as an agency head of the South Carolina Commission for the Blind.

Before participating in Saturday’s event in Florence, her only public campaign event had been a candidates forum in Lexington. Charles Brentnell of Greenville County, who said he was still considering whom to vote for, liked her decision to stay in Washington when the Senate was in session.

“Let’s keep the Senate at the Senate instead of taking a month off for no good reason,” he said.

Appearing alongside other contenders Saturday, Graham apologized for reading from notes from a lectern, pointing to the Senate votes that kept her in Washington until just hours before she headed to meet voters in South Carolina.

“Yes, I have some notes. You know why? Because I haven’t slept in two days, so I’m going to keep my thoughts straight,” Graham said, adding that she opposed Senate recess but lost out to others who wanted to end votes and go home. “I wanted to stay there, and I wanted to get things done.”

Graham also participated in one of two televised debates, where she backed Trump’s plan to change filibuster rules to make it easier to pass the president’s bill for strict voter ID requirements.

While other candidates came to speak to the media gathered afterward, Graham skipped the session and merely gave a thumbs-up outside when asked how she felt the debate had gone.

In contrast to her loquacious late brother, Graham has not spoken with reporters in Capitol Hill hallways or fielded questions on the stump.

She’s spoken at length to Fox News personalities Sean Hannity and Trey Gowdy, both of whom eulogized Lindsey Graham at memorial services last month, and granted two interviews to local news outlets.

On Saturday, in her first gaggle with reporters, Graham addressed some of voters’ concerns, reiterating her commitment to do Senate work when the chamber is in session.

“I feel like my job is to be in D.C. working for everyone right now. I hate that I can’t be here. I want to be here,” she said. “That’s why I left and didn’t sleep at all last night, so I could attend today’s event.”

As to the skepticism in sending her to Washington for six years, Graham cited her state government experience, plus the last several weeks she’s had serving as interim senator.

“Trust me, I have learned a lot already, so I think I have experience,” she said.

A second debate took place while Graham was in Washington on Tuesday, a date her campaign pointed out had been scheduled despite the senator’s conflict.

Gigi Bray of Charleston said the idea of Darline Graham serving in the interim makes sense, but electing her to a full term does not.

“I think it’s a great honor for her to hold her brother’s spot till November, but it’s time for a change,” said Bray, who backs Sanford. “I don’t think she has a lot of government experience, and I think right now, with the state of our country, I think it’s very important that somebody has experience.”

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Backers of a November ballot measure that would require Californians to verify their identity when voting sued state officials on Monday, alleging bias in how the ballot’s summary is written.

A group led by California State Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) allege in a 10-page lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court that Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta violated election laws that require the “impartial” labeling of a measure’s purpose.

DeMaio accused Bonta of trying “to rig the vote” against the measure with “a false title claiming it prohibits citizens from voting” in California elections.

He also said the measure, which will appear as Proposition 39 on the November ballot, is “a bipartisan solution to Voter ID and is supported by a supermajority of Democratic, independent, and Republican voters.”

“We take our duty to prepare a title and summary and ballot label seriously, and we are confident the court will agree we have faithfully executed that duty here,” said a spokesperson for Bonta.

Proposition 39 would require voters to present government-issued identification, such as a state driver’s license, every time they vote in person.

Voters who use mail-in ballots — by far the most popular method of voting in California — would be required to write a four-digit number, essentially a PIN, on their ballot envelopes. The PIN would come from ID such as a driver’s license or could be generated from the county.

The measure also requires that the secretary of state and county elections officials to maintain accurate voter registration lists, verify citizenship, and report annually the percentage of each county’s voter roll that have been citizenship-verified.

Under current law, Californians are required to provide identification when registering to vote and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and are U.S. citizens.

They are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail.

The lawsuit, filed by Californians for Voter ID, Yes on 39 and Donald DiCostanzo, a registered voter who lives Orange County, argues that the attorney general office’s summary “is not a true and impartial statement of the measure’s purpose” and violates California Elections Code 9051, which requires neutrality.

The suit claims the language used for the summary during the signature-gathering process — a required step to get the measure on the ballot — was “neutral” and named both of the measure’s chief purposes.

The final language omits the measure’s mandate to maintain accurate voter rolls and and verify citizenship, and describes the measure in “prohibitive terms,” according to the suit.

The original language said the measure “establishes additional voters identification and citizenship verification requirements.”

“This measure would amend the California Constitution to further require that voters present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail; the State provide voter identification cards on request; and elections officials annually report percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified.”

The summary language now states that the measure: “Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.”

“Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.”

Election law expert Fred Woocher said that the law allows the ballot measure summary to be different than the description of the measure in circulation.

UCLA law professor Rick Hasen declined to weigh in on the arguments in the lawsuit, but said that “it’s common practice for the AG to write things in ways that that align with the political interests of the Attorney General.”

Hasen previously called the ballot measure a “disaster,” writing in a blog post that its requirements are vague and it would be costly and difficult for agencies to verify citizenship.

Proponents of an initiative to repeal gas tax increases in California sued then-Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, now a candidate for governor, in 2017 over a state-drafted title and summary which they argued was misleading and negative.

A judge sided with proponents, but an appellate court later rule in Becerra’s favor.

Buoyed by a new Congressional map favoring their party, California Democrats were eyeing Tuesday’s primary elections as a critical first step toward flipping a handful of House seats and taking back power in Washington.

Results from California’s massive and slow-moving election process were not immediately clear late Tuesday, as polls closed and mail ballots continued to be processed and counted. Still, Democrats were bullish about their chances of advancing candidates to November’s general election in all five districts that were redrawn in their favor as a result of last year’s Proposition 50 ballot measure.

“The path to winning back the House starts with voting in the June 2nd primary,” the California Democratic Party posted online Monday.

Meanwhile, California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin urged Republican voters to make their own voices heard too.

“Like President Trump said, we need to make it too big to rig,” Rankin said on “The Benny Show.” “We need to swamp the vote.”

One of the most closely watched races was in the redrawn 22nd Congressional District in the Central Valley, where incumbent Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) is facing challenges from moderate Assemblymember Jasmeet Kaur Bains (D-Delano) and progressive college professor Randy Villegas.

Another closely watched race was in the redrawn 48th Congressional District in San Diego and Riverside counties, where Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) decided to retire rather than run for reelection, and where Republican San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond — who is endorsed by Trump — is running against a pack of Democrats.

Prop. 50 — which Californians passed with nearly 65% of the vote a year ago — was California Democrats’ response to Texas Republicans redrawing their state’s Congressional maps in the GOP’s favor, at President Trump’s behest. It was also the only major Democratic counterpunch in the wider mid-decade redistricting brawl that has spread across the country in the last year.

Experts expect the redistricting battle to deliver a net gain of a handful or more House seats to Republicans. But Democrats could gain even more ground given Trump’s lousy approval ratings and the long history of midterm election losses for the president’s party.

Combined, those factors make the battle for control of the House incredibly close, which in turn makes the five seats up for grabs in California pivotal — and potentially decisive.

Tuesday’s primaries won’t determine if any of those five seats will indeed flip parties in November. However, the primaries will define those head-to-head races to come and better inform the odds of Democrats toppling Republican incumbents, experts said.

In addition to flipping the seats currently held by Valadao and Issa, Democrats are hoping to pick up three additional seats.

In the 1st Congressional District — which after Prop. 50 lost rural reaches of northeast California and picked up liberal North Bay communities — various candidates were vying for the seat long held by the late Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale), who died in January. They include Democratic state Sen. Mike McGuire and Republican Assemblymember James Gallagher, who is endorsed by Trump.

Voters from the existing district are also voting in a special election Tuesday to fill the remainder of LaMalfa’s term.

In the 3rd Congressional District, which lost an eastern rural stretch along Nevada and now holds more tightly to the Sacramento suburbs, Rep. Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove) — who currently represents a different district — is running to remain in Congress in a new seat.

Meanwhile, the 3rd Congressional District’s incumbent, Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-Rocklin), is seeking to do the opposite. He quit the Republican Party, became an independent and is now running for Bera’s current seat in Congressional District 6, which includes the city of Sacramento and Placer County suburbs.

In the 41st Congressional District, which became more liberal after Prop. 50 by losing voters in Riverside County and gaining them in Los Angeles County, a slate of candidates — including Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Whittier), who currently represents a different district — are running to replace Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona). Calvert, a 17-term incumbent, decided to run in the neighboring 40th Congressional District instead.

In the 40th Congressional District, which covers a swath of inland Orange County and portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, incumbent Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills) is now going head-to-head with Calvert, while also facing several Democratic challengers.

Other districts that were not part of the Prop. 50 shuffle are also attracting attention.

In the 11th Congressional District in San Francisco, several Democratic candidates are vying to replace Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the retiring former House Speaker, including state Sen. Scott Wiener; tech millionaire and Democratic political operative Saikat Chakrabarti; and Connie Chan, a member of the San Francisco board of supervisors who Pelosi endorsed.

Democrats are also closely watching several races where younger Democrats and progressives are challenging older incumbent Democrats, and where newer Democratic incumbents are seeking to hold onto their seats in relatively competitive districts.