Georgia state Rep. Derrick Jackson to join 3 other Democrats in run for governor
ATLANTA, Ga. (AP) — Georgia state Rep. Derrick Jackson said Tuesday that he's running for governor next year, joining three other Democrats in a race without a clear frontrunner after two high-profile candidates decided not to run.
The metro Atlanta Democrat said he will launch his campaign Friday, emphasizing his work in business and politics and his 22 years of military service. The U.S. Navy veteran was elected to the state House in 2016 and worked as a marketing executive with General Electric.
As governor, Jackson said he would 'put Georgia families first," in part by expanding access to medical care and economic opportunities in rural areas.
'My Republican friends love to tout Georgia as the number one state to do business, but I'm going to campaign on making Georgia the number one place to work, to play, to have a family and for young professionals to realize that regardless of which of the 159 counties they live in, there's going to be opportunity there,' Jackson said in an interview with the Associated Press.
He plans to push for stricter gun regulations and to repeal Georgia's abortion law, which took effect in 2022 and effectively prohibited abortions beyond about six weeks of pregnancy.
Jackson will join former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, Atlanta state Sen. Jason Esteves and Atlanta pastor Olu Brown in the Democratic primary. They will compete for the Democratic nomination in the race to replace the state's popular term-limited Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. Democrat Stacey Abrams, who ran and lost to Kemp in 2018 and 2022, has not closed the door on a third run.
Jackson finished sixth in the Democratic primary for lieutenant governor in 2022. After losing, he was reelected to the House in 2023 following the death of state Rep. Tish Naghise. He was defeated last year by Rep. Carolyn Hugley after running for House minority leader. Despite past losses, Jackson said his experience campaigning for statewide office will help him pull ahead of his competitors.
Inspired by civil rights icon John Lewis, Jackson said he has a 'moral obligation' to run because he saw state and federal policies that were 'not right, not fair, not just.' He wants to help Georgians who could be impacted by President Donald Trump's sweeping bill that Jackson said 'will devastate a lot of families' with provisions such as cuts to Medicaid funds.
U.S. Rep. Lucy McBath, once the expected frontrunner known for her gun control advocacy, announced in March she wasn't running because she needed to focus on her husband's health after complications from cancer surgery. Former state Sen. Jason Carter, former President Jimmy Carter's moderate grandson and the Democrats' 2014 nominee for governor, said he would not run because his wife was diagnosed with cancer.
___
Kramon is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Follow Kramon on X: @charlottekramon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
25 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
California Lawmaker Leads Voter ID Ballot Initiative Signature Campaign
A California lawmaker is leading an attempt to place an initiative on the 2026 ballot to require voter ID as a statewide constitutional amendment. Republican Assemblyman Carl DeMaio of San Diego is seeking volunteers to help gather signatures and raise funds to let voters decide on two issues: whether citizenship should be verified at the time of voter registration and whether IDs should be required when casting a ballot. The
Fox News
29 minutes ago
- Fox News
Supreme Court rules unanimously in favor of straight Ohio woman who claimed discrimination
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of an Ohio woman who claimed she was discriminated against for job promotions in favor of gay candidates on Thursday. The ruling, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, finds that members of majority groups in protected classes do not need to meet a higher standard of evidence in order to establish discrimination. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion of the court in the 9-0 decision. "The Sixth Circuit has implemented a rule that requires certain Title VII plaintiffs—those who are members of majority groups—to satisfy a heightened evidentiary standard," Jackson wrote. "We conclude that Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs. Therefore, the judgment below is vacated." The woman in the case, Marlean Ames, is a heterosexual woman who had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004. She argued she was discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation after she was passed over for a promotion in 2019 in favor of a lesbian woman, and was then later replaced in her own role by a gay man. "Ames was qualified, had been denied a promotion in favor of a gay candidate, and was later demoted in favor of another gay candidate—evidence that would ordinarily satisfy her prima facie burden—before it specifically faulted Ames for failing to make the 'requisite showing of "background circumstances."'" Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Thursday's ruling strikes down the Sixth Circuit Court's "background circumstances" rule, which had required majority groups in protected classes to show special evidence of discrimination. Thursday's order does not fully resolve the case in Ames' favor, however. The court notes that Ohio had "alternative arguments" for why the Ohio government's treatment of Ames was justified. The justices said they are not weighing in on those alternative arguments, merely striking down the "background circumstances" rule. "We granted review to consider the validity of the "background circumstances" rule, and we reject that rule for the reasons set forth above. We leave it to the courts below to address any of Ohio's remaining arguments on remand," Jackson wrote. Ames' case was supported by the Justice Department, the American First Legal Foundation and the libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation. The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund was among the major groups backing Ohio in the case.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The sequel to Trump's so-called travel ban is not an improvement on the original
Ahead of the Republican presidential nominating contests in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2016, Donald Trump was looking to solidify his position as the likely GOP nominee. To that end, the future president came up with a stunning proposal: As 2015 neared its end, Trump declared his support for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' until such time that he was satisfied that U.S. officials understood 'what the hell is going on.' As regular readers know, it was a bigoted applause line — which his base eagerly embraced. It also turned into a campaign promise the Republican was eager to keep. On only his seventh day in the White House, Trump signed a policy that became known as the 'travel ban,' sparking outrage, bureaucratic chaos, family hardships and a series of messy legal fights. On the first day of Joe Biden's term, the then-Democratic president undid his predecessor's policy, signing a proclamation titled 'Ending Discriminatory Bans on Entry to The United States.' More than four years later, Trump is not only restoring his old policy, he's also adding to it. NBC News reported: In a return of one of the most controversial policies of his first term, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation Wednesday banning nationals from a dozen countries. ... Nationals of 12 countries will be barred from entering the United States: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It's difficult to summarize all of the granular details of the White House's latest move in a blog post — Team Trump published relatively detailed overviews online overnight, and NBC News' report is thorough — but in addition to the aforementioned 12 countries, seven other countries (Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela) will face partial travel restrictions. There will apparently be some exceptions for athletes competing in international events, as well as those who've qualified for Afghan special immigrant visas. The administration's policy is scheduled to take effect shortly after midnight on Monday, but whether the White House will change, overhaul or worsen the strategy between now and then remains to be seen. As the world begins assessing the practical, geopolitical and moral implications of Trump's new — but not improved — policy, let no one say this is surprising. On the campaign trail ahead of the 2024 election, the Republican boasted about blocking Muslims from entering the country during his first term, telling voters, 'We didn't want people coming into our country who really love the idea of blowing our country up.' Months later, Trump assured the electorate that he intended to restore and expand his original policy. (He vowed this would happen on the first day of his second term, though he missed his own deadline by 135 days.) But the fact that the incumbent president is following through on a misguided promise does not make a bad idea good. Indeed, Democratic Sen. Chris Coons described the White House's gambit as 'new Muslim ban' in a written statement. 'President Trump's own statement makes it clear exactly what this new executive order is: the latest attempt to institute his unpopular and immoral Muslim ban which was thrown out time and again by the courts in his first term,' the Delaware senator said. 'Improving our national security should be a bipartisan goal, but fear and bigotry do not keep Americans safe. What this will do instead is cause chaos, inflict pain, and break apart families, just as his prior attempts did. This order should be reversed, and Congress needs to reassert our role by passing laws that make our immigration system secure, effective and humane.' To be sure, some of the countries affected by the president's directive have Muslim populations, but some do not. That said, the White House's official 'fact sheet' on the policy specifically included this quote from Trump: 'We will restore the travel ban, some people call it the Trump travel ban, and keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country that was upheld by the Supreme Court.' There were already some indications that some Muslim-American voters were feeling buyers' remorse after having backed Trump last fall. The Republican's latest move probably won't help on this front. This article was originally published on
