Georgia GOP's attempt to block Brad Raffensperger from running as a Republican may go nowhere
Delegates voted overwhelmingly at the state GOP convention on Saturday in Dalton to adopt a series of resolutions, including one declaring the party shall not 'take any action to allow Brad Raffensperger to qualify as a Republican' for future elections.
The resolution shows the deep hostility many Republican activists have toward Raffensperger following his refusal to help Donald Trump overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia. Alex Johnson chairs the Georgia Republican Assembly, a group that tries to influence the party. He said Raffensperger has been 'generally ignoring and disrespecting' the party, including attempts to change the election system, and that Republicans should be allowed to divorce Raffensperger.
'He doesn't listen to anything that the Republican party has asked him to do,' Johnson said Monday. 'He is hostile and has been hostile towards our presidential nominee and now a person who is president.'
But party Chairman Josh McKoon told reporters after the convention ended that while the resolution 'presents the sense of the convention on what should happen,' state law requires the party to allow Raffensperger to run as a Republican.
'I don't really see a way for the Georgia Republican Party to decline someone the opportunity to qualify,' McKoon said.
Spokespeople for Raffensperger did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. The two-term secretary of state has said he's considering running for governor or U.S. Senate in 2026.
Georgia has no party registration and its primary elections allow anyone to vote in the party nominating contest of their choice. That means it can be hard to tell who is truly a Republican or a Democrat.
Some Republicans favor a system of voter registration by party and primaries that allow only party members to vote. They also say party officials should decide which candidates should be allowed to run as Republicans.
The Georgia Republican Party's executive committee voted in January to expel former Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan after Duncan endorsed Democrat Kamala Harris for president. The committee voted to ban Duncan from party events and said it would not qualify Duncan to run as a Republican in the future.
But the party in 2023 rejected an attempt to ban ideological traitors from primary ballots. Last year, judges blocked attempts by a county party in northwest Georgia to act as gatekeepers for local candidates.
In a ruling regarding Catoosa County, the state Supreme Court did not get to the heart of the dispute over whether parities can create rules for qualifying candidates in primary elections beyond those found in Georgia law. Those who push that point of view claim being forced to qualify everyone who signs up violates their freedom of association under the U.S. Constitution.
'You can't force a Baptist church to ordain a Buddhist or a Muslim to be a Baptist minister,' said Nathaniel Darnell, president of the Georgia Republican Assembly. 'By the same token, you can't force somebody who is counteracting the Republican principles and objectives to be Republican.'
A federal judge rejected that argument, but some Catoosa County Republicans have appealed the case. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet ruled. Republicans in Chattooga and Pickens counties passed similar rules.
Those who want to act as gatekeepers generally are seeking to move the party to the right. The state convention on Saturday, for example, called for repealing both the state income tax and local property taxes.
Those who hold a different view say primary election voters should decide who's a true Republican. U.S. District Judge Billy Ray, a former chair of the Gwinnett County Republican Party, wrote that a party's associational rights are not 'absolute' and voters should decide primaries when he rejected the Catoosa County case now on appeal.
'Trying to limit who can run in a primary seems inconsistent with the purpose of a primary to start with,' Ray wrote in a footnote. 'Perhaps the Catoosa Republican Party doesn't believe that the citizens of Catoosa County can for themselves intelligently decide which candidates best embody the principles of the Republican Party.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone,' Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though President Trump's recently signed tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in CBP facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump unfroze education funding, but the damage is already done
Summer is when superintendents and principals finalize staffing and allocate resources for the year ahead. Instead, they've spent the past month scrambling to revise budgets and delay decisions after the Trump administration recklessly froze more than $6.8 billion in federal education funds approved by Congress four months ago — a move that unnecessarily threw school planning into chaos with the school year starting in just a few weeks. On June 30, the Education Department abruptly informed states it would not release key fiscal year 2025 education funds as scheduled, affecting programs like teacher training, English learner support and after-school services. After bipartisan backlash — including lawsuits from 24 states and pressure from Republican senators — the administration reversed course on July 25, announcing it would release the remaining funds. But the damage had already been done. The administration claimed the freeze was part of a 'programmatic review' to ensure spending aligned with White House priorities. Yet, the review was conducted without transparency while the funds were only released after intense political pressure. The Education Department stated 'guardrails' would be in place to prevent funds from being used in ways that violate executive orders, which is a vague statement that should raise concerns about future interference. Districts had built their budgets assuming these funds would arrive by July 1, as they do each year. Instead of preparing for the new school year, states and districts were forced to scramble to minimize the damage. In my home state of Texas, nearly 1,200 districts faced a freeze of $660 million, which represented about 16 percent of the state's total K-12 funding. I have spoken to superintendents, chief academic officers and chief financial officers who described how these unanticipated funding deficits undermined strategic investments into high-quality instruction and mental health services. In Tennessee, $106 million was frozen, representing 13.4 percent of the state's K-12 funding. Knox County Schools eliminated 28 central office positions, including staff supporting instruction for English learners. Florida had $400 million frozen. Pinellas County School District alone stood to lose $9 million. The superintendent reported that they would have to make cuts that directly affect student achievement while the school board chair said the freeze 'feels kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back.' Kansas saw $50 million frozen. Kansas City, Kan. Public Schools warned families that $4.9 million in lost funding would affect 'programs that directly support some of our most vulnerable students — including those from low-income families, English language learners and students with disabilities.' Even with the funds now being released, the uncertainty and disruption caused by the freeze will have lasting impacts. In some cases, district leaders were forced to make staffing and programming decisions without knowing whether critical federal support would be unfrozen. All who care about public education must make clear that this kind of reckless disruption is unacceptable and will carry political consequences. Governors from both parties should press their congressional delegations to pass legislation preventing future executive overreach. And Congress must require the Education Department to provide advance notice and justification for any future funding delays. The funding freeze was a reckless policy choice that disrespected educators, destabilized schools and put children at risk. Public education cannot function on the Trump administration's political whims and such unwarranted actions cannot go unchecked without the risk of normalizing executive overreach at the expense of students. Now is the time for all policymakers and educators to stand up for our schools and ensure that no child's education is ever again held hostage to such problematic politics.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Australian and Philippine forces launch largest military exercises near disputed South China Sea
MANILA, Philippines (AP) — Australia on Friday launched its largest military exercises with Philippine forces, involving more than 3,600 military personnel in live-fire drills, battle maneuvers and a beach assault at a Philippine town facing the disputed South China Sea, where the allies have raised alarm over Beijing's assertive actions. The exercises are called Alon, meaning wave in the Philippine language, and will showcase Australia's firepower. The drills will involve a guided-missile navy destroyer, F/A-18 supersonic fighter jets, a C-130 troop and cargo aircraft, Javelin anti-tank weapons and special forces sniper weapons. Military officials said defense forces from the United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand and Indonesia will join as observers. 'This exercise reflects Australia's commitment to working with partners to ensure we maintain a region where state sovereignty is protected, international law is followed and nations can make decisions free from coercion,' Vice Admiral Justin Jones of the Royal Australian Navy said in a statement. The combat exercises are 'an opportunity for us to practice how we collaborate and respond to shared security challenges and project force over great distances in the Indo-Pacific,' Jones said. The exercises will run until Aug. 29. Australia is the second country after the U.S. with a visiting forces agreement with the Philippines, allowing the deployment of large numbers of troops for combat exercises in each other's territory. The Philippines has signed a similar pact with Japan, which will take effect next month. It is in talks with several other Asian and Western countries including France and Canada for similar defense accords. China has deplored multinational war drills and alliances in or near the disputed South China Sea, saying the U.S. and its allies are 'ganging up' against it and militarizing the region. China claims most of the South China Sea, a busy global trade route, where it has had a spike of territorial faceoffs with the Philippines in recent years. Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan also lay claims to the resource-rich waters. On Monday, a Chinese navy ship collided with a Chinese coast guard ship while trying to drive away a smaller Philippine coast guard vessel in the Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea. The Australian Embassy in Manila expressed concern over 'the dangerous and unprofessional conduct of Chinese vessels near Scarborough Shoal involving the Philippine Coast Guard' and said the incident 'highlights the need for de-escalation, restraint and respect for international law.' In response, the U.S. deployed two warships off the Scarborough on Wednesday in what it called a freedom of navigation operation to protest China's expansive claims, restrictions and its demand for entry notifications in the disputed waters. In February, a Chinese J-16 fighter jet released flares that passed within 30 meters (100 feet) of an Australian P-8 Poseidon military surveillance plane in daylight and in international air space, Australian defense officials said at the time. Solve the daily Crossword
