Obama attorney general endorses candidate in Wisconsin Supreme Court race
Eric Holder, who served as attorney general of the United States under President Barack Obama, will be campaigning in support of Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Susan Crawford, according to the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which Holder chairs.
Holder is among the first major national leaders to campaign in support of Crawford.
"The fight for our democracy is unfolding at the ballot box in Wisconsin. This race is a choice between a court majority that is fair, balanced, and pro-democracy, and one that is anti-democracy, acting as another arm of an extreme right-wing agenda," Holder said in a statement to ABC News.
"Judge Susan Crawford is the commonsense candidate Wisconsinites want and deserve on their state's highest court -- somone who will follow the facts and the law as she evaluates the cases before her," he added.
While the race is technically nonpartisan, Crawford is running with the support of Democrats, while her opponent, Brad Schimel, has the support of Republicans.
Redistricting, or the redrawing of congressional and legislative district maps based on population data, is one of the issues that has come up in the closely watched race because the court has previously dealt with redistricting cases.
In 2024, the court ruled in favor of keeping Wisconsin's current congressional district map in place after previously rejecting legislative district maps.
Holder will be campaigning in support of Crawford on Monday in Madison, Wisconsin, and on Tuesday in Milwaukee.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court election is on April 1, and the contest for the seat of retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley is technically a nonpartisan race, though whoever wins the seat will help determine the ideological bent of the court -- which currently leans liberal.
Obama attorney general endorses candidate in Wisconsin Supreme Court race originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How the $1,000 ‘Trump accounts' for American babies compare to 529s and custodial Roth IRAs
President Donald Trump and American business leaders this week celebrated a provision in his tax bill that would create and fund investment accounts for babies born in the next few years. The accounts would be allowed to compound and grow tax-deferred, similar to the way some retirement accounts work. 'In addition to the substantial financial benefits of investing early in life, extensive research shows that children with savings accounts are more likely to graduate high school and college, buy a home, start a business and are less likely to be incarcerated,' Trump said. 'Trump accounts will contribute to the lifelong success of millions of newborn babies.' Here's what you should know about these 'baby 401(k)s' and how they compare to other savings plans for children. The so-called Trump accounts are part of Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that passed through the House of Representatives last month. Republicans are aiming to get the bill through the Senate and signed by Trump by July 4th. Here's how the accounts would work: The federal government would contribute $1,000 to an investment account for every American baby born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. An additional $5,000 in after-tax contributions could be made annually to the accounts by parents, employers or other private entities. The money would be invested in index funds that track the overall U.S. stock market. Accounts would be controlled by a child's legal guardians until age 18. Earnings would grow tax-deferred and qualified withdrawals would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. 'The compounded growth of an initial $1,000 investment at the time of birth, at an average annual return of 8 percent, would amount to nearly $4,000 by age 18, more than $10,000 by age 30, and over $148,000 by age 65,' according to Bankrate Chief Financial Analyst Greg McBride. 'The key to achieving this type of growth is leaving the money untouched. As Warren Buffett espouses, 'Never interrupt compounding.'' Several business leaders praised the accounts and said they'd make contributions to their employee's kids' accounts. 'We see … the establishment of these Trump Accounts as a simple yet powerful way to transform lives,' Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell said. 'Decades of research has shown that giving children a financial head start profoundly impacts their long-term success.' Get started: Match with an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals Trump Accounts have some similarities with 529 savings plans, but there are some notable differences. Funding: Trump accounts would be initially funded by the federal government, while 529 plans are typically funded by parents, grandparents or other relatives. Withdrawals: Withdrawals from 529 plans are tax-free as long as they're used for qualified educational expenses. Withdrawals from Trump accounts would have fewer restrictions on their uses, but are taxed at long-term capital gains rates. Contribution limits: Annual contributions for Trump accounts would be limited to $5,000, while 529 plans allow for much higher limits, from about $235,000 to more than $600,000, depending on the state that sponsors the plan (these are lifetime limits; there's no annual limit for 529s). Many people assume that the maximum 529 plan contribution is $19,000 per child in 2025 — or $38,000 if you file jointly — but that's the maximum amount you can contribute without exceeding the annual gift tax limit. (If you give someone more than that limit in any given year, then you're required to file a gift tax return, though you likely still won't owe taxes on the gift.) Here's what else you should know about using a 529 plan to save for your kids' education. Compare advisors: Bankrate's list of the best financial advisors Custodial Roth IRAs also allow kids to set aside money and have it be invested so it grows over time. Here's how they compare to the proposed Trump accounts. Earned income requirement: Trump accounts would be funded at birth and allow for additional contributions each year, while custodial Roth IRAs require a child to have earned income during the year in order to contribute. Contribution limits: Custodial Roth IRA contributions are limited to $7,000 in 2025, or the total amount of earned income a child has during the year, whichever is less. Trump accounts would allow for annual contributions of $5,000. Taxes on withdrawals: Withdrawals from Roth IRAs during retirement are tax-free, while withdrawals from the proposed Trump accounts would be taxed at the long-term capital gains rate. Here's more on custodial Roth IRAs. The proposed Trump Accounts would create new investment accounts for every American baby born in the next few years, funded with $1,000 from the federal government. The accounts would be invested in index funds that track the U.S. stock market and could receive additional contributions each year of $5,000 from private entities. The plan is subject to change as the bill makes its way through the legislative process. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hogg forgoes reelection for DNC vice chair
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Vice Chair David Hogg announced Wednesday that he would be forgoing reelection for his spot in the committee after DNC members voted to redo the vice chair election of Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta. 'I came into this role to play a positive role in creating the change our party needs. It is clear that there is a fundamental disagreement about the role of a Vice Chair — and it's okay to have disagreements. What isn't okay is allowing this to remain our focus when there is so much more we need to be focused on,' he said in a statement shared through his Leaders We Deserve group. 'Ultimately, I have decided to not run in this upcoming election so the party can focus on what really matters. I need to do this work with Leaders We Deserve, and it is going to remain my number one mission to build the strongest party possible,' he added. Earlier on Wednesday, DNC members voted 294 to 99 to redo the election of both vice chairs after Oklahoma DNC member Kalyn Free challenged the way the election was conducted in February, alleging in a letter that it unfairly gave the male candidates an advantage over the female vice chair candidates. The challenge was issued far before Hogg announced his group would be getting involved in primarying safe Democratic incumbents. But the two began to run in tandem as Hogg's decision to wade into Democratic contests drew the ire and disapproval from members of the party, including DNC Chair Ken Martin, who believed he shouldn't be doing so as an officer of the national party. Tensions between DNC leadership and Hogg came to a head earlier this week when audio was leaked of a Zoom call with DNC officers that happened last month and was published over the weekend, indicating Martin was frustrated with Hogg. Some members indicated that they were reconsidering how they would vote over whether the DNC should redo its vice chair election in light of the leaked reporting. Martin responded to Hogg's announcement in a statement saying, 'I commend David for his years of activism, organizing, and fighting for his generation, and while I continue to believe he is a powerful voice for this party, I respect his decision to step back from his post as Vice Chair.' 'I have no doubt that he will remain an important advocate for Democrats across the map. I appreciate his service as an officer, his hard work, and his dedication to the party,' Martin added. The DNC is set to hold its vice chair elections this week and next week. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
David Hogg exits DNC
David Hogg ended his 130-day tenure at the Democratic National Committee on Wednesday, opting not to run again for vice chair after DNC members voted to hold a re-vote for the job. 'I have decided to not run in this upcoming election so the party can focus on what really matters,' Hogg wrote in a letter announcing his decision. The news that Hogg would not seek the role again was first reported by Semafor. Hogg's decision ended a months-long saga that began with a botched Feb. 1 election, continued with a challenge by one of the Democrats who lost to him, and turned into a widely-covered argument about the future of the party. The 25-year-old Democrat, who frustrated some in the party when he told The New York Times that his political PAC would intervene in Democratic primaries, clashed with DNC Chair Ken Martin over a plan to bar that sort of politicking by committee members. 'I commend David for his years of activism, organizing, and fighting for his generation,' Martin said in a statement. 'While I continue to believe he is a powerful voice for this party, I respect his decision to step back from his post as vice chair. I have no doubt that he will remain an important advocate for Democrats across the map. I appreciate his service as an officer, his hard work, and his dedication to the party.'Last month, the DNC's rules and bylaws committee recommended that the full party vote to hold new elections, siding with Democratic activist Kalyn Free, who'd lost the Feb. 1 election for vice chair. On Wednesday afternoon, the DNC announced that the party had voted to approve Free's challenge by a 294-99 margin, and would hold new elections on the grounds that the Feb. 1 vote had violated its rules. In the new election, under the party's gender parity rules, one vice chair slot would be reserved for a male candidate, and one slot could go to a candidate of any gender. Malcolm Kenyatta, who was elected to the male vice chair slot on Feb. 1, had won more votes than Hogg that day; Hogg won the second slot over Free and two other female candidates. The re-vote loomed as much more difficult for Hogg. On Thursday, California DNC members held a call about their plans for this week's votes. Most did not favor holding a new election. But if one was held, several members who had supported Hogg before intended to support someone else, with several favoring Washington state Democratic chair Shasti Conrad, the runner-up to Hogg in February. 'I appreciate that DNC members wanted to rectify the issues with balloting in the previous election,' Conrad told Semafor. 'I'm looking forward to putting this all behind us, and getting back to the work of electing Democrats.' On Sunday, Politico published audio of a May 15 meeting between DNC officers, including Hogg, where Martin said that the vice chair had 'essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to' at a crucial time for the party. Hogg denied being the source of the leak, but that weakened his position with party members further, with several saying on the record, and on social media, that Hogg could not be trusted. That led to Wednesday's lopsided online vote for a new election. Candidates who had competed for the roles in February were allowed to run again, and to submit one-minute videos making their cases. According to several DNC members, Hogg was the only potential candidate who did not submit a video. The online election for the male vice chair role will be held as scheduled, ending on Saturday. Kenyatta will be the only candidate on the ballot, and the election for the other vice chair role will be held between Sunday and all that? Hogg's win on Feb. 1 came at the end of a long day when DNC members agreed to rush their final vote and get it over with. No one in the room expected this to happen next. Hogg had been clear that he co-led The Future We Deserve, a PAC that spent money to elect Democratic candidates. Free had filed her challenge to the vote weeks later. But not until April 15, when Shane Goldmacher of The New York Times reported that the PAC could spend money on primary challengers, did this explode into a controversy. Martin, who himself had once endorsed candidates as the chair of Minnesota's Democratic Farmer-Labor Party, was dead set on a rule banning party members from doing that in the future. This was, in part, a legacy of the 2016 presidential primary, where Hillary Clinton's early support from party members infuriated supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who called the primary rigged — even though Clinton would end up with more votes and more delegates elected in the primaries and caucuses. Ahead of the 2020 primary, Democrats changed their rules to prevent 'superdelegates' (DNC members not elected in primaries) from voting on the first ballot at a national nominating convention. And before the 2024 primary, the DNC voted to endorse Joe Biden as its nominee — a decision that complicated things for any potential Biden challenger, and the three who did run. A few states opted not to hold primaries altogether, pledging their delegates to Biden — who, of course, ended up bowing out before the convention, after the most damaging debate in the history of presidential elections. When will Democrats get past the party's internal struggles, all of them distractions from the work of opposing the Trump administration and beating Republicans? Today, they hope. The Hogg drama really didn't have any effect on Democrats' ability to win elections this year, like Wisconsin's state supreme court race and an Iowa state Senate election that flipped back a GOP-held seat. As Martin said on the call, obtained by Politico's Holly Otterbein, the story made Democrats look bad, distracted from their work, and made life easier for Republicans. But Hogg made his point, one that a lot of Democrats do agree with: There are a great many elderly incumbents who aren't doing much for the party, and they create problems for the people they want to serve when they die in office instead of letting new talent rise the Times, Goldmacher has more on Hogg's decision. 'It is clear that there is a fundamental disagreement about the role of a Vice Chair — and it's OK to have disagreements. What isn't OK is allowing this to remain our focus when there is so much more we need to be focused on.' In Fast Company, before the vote, Devin Gordon talked to Hogg about what might happen with his challenge to the party.
