Koleszar announces run for Michigan Senate
Rep. Matt Koleszar (D-Plymouth) discusses his legislation, HB 5803, that would reduce school district contributions toward teacher retirement and use the excess money to supplement classroom needs. June 25, 2024. Photo by Jon King.
State Rep. Matt Koleszar (D-Plymouth Twp). announced Wednesday that he is running for state Senate.
Koleszar is running in the 5th District, which was redrawn for the 2026 elections after the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan ruled in 2023 that the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by drawing 13 state legislative boundaries predominantly on the basis of race.
No incumbent senators reside within the new district boundaries, which encompass Canton, Garden City, Inkster, Plymouth, Plymouth Township and Westland, Koleszar's campaign said.
Koleszar is a former teacher and was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in 2019. He chaired the House Education Committee in 2023 and 2024 when Democrats held the majority.
'Teachers are some of the hardest working professionals I know, and every single day as an educator turned legislator, I have taken that work ethic to Lansing,' Koleszar said.
Under Michigan's updated term-limit laws, Koleszar would be eligible to serve four more years in the Michigan Legislature – one full Senate term – once his current House term expires.
Among the signature achievements cited by Koleszar was his sponsorship of the state's hands-free driving legislation, which was signed into law in 2023.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans advance measure to ban noncitizens from voting in local DC elections
WASHINGTON — The House advanced a bill to ban noncitizens from voting in local elections in Washington, D.C., marking the latest step from Republicans to crack down on city policies they view as too liberal. Lawmakers voted 268-148 largely along party lines to advance the measure, sending the bill over to the Republican-led Senate for consideration. The bill managed to garner some bipartisan support after 56 Democrats voted in favor. However, the legislation's future is uncertain as it would require seven Democrats to buck party leadership and support the proposal. 'The right to vote is a defining privilege of American citizenship,' House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said in a speech on the House floor. 'Diluting that right by extending it to noncitizens — whether here legally or illegally — undermines the voice of D.C. residents.' The bill would overturn the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, a bill passed by the D.C. Council in 2022 that permits undocumented residents living in Washington to vote in local elections. City lawmakers have defended the measure by pointing to a 'long history of the U.S. allowing noncitizens to vote in local (or) state' elections. Lawmakers also note many of the undocumented residents pay local taxes, support businesses, and attend district schools — arguing that should qualify them to have a say in local elections. However, Republicans have argued that allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections sets a dangerous precedent that could negatively harm local governments. 'Some may wrongly dismiss these as local elections. The reality is local elections are a vital part of our democratic process and have a significant impact on communities,' Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, who led the bill in the House, said in a speech. 'Local elections determine matters such as taxation, the criminal code, and the election of city council members who create essential ordinances, including those that dictate voting rights.' Additionally, Republicans have criticized the law as a way to dilute 'the voice of American citizens.' 'It's also important to acknowledge that many local elections are decided by razor-thin margins underscoring their significance and importance of active participation,' Pfluger said. GOP lawmakers also cited opposition from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who withheld her signature from the ordinance but allowed it to take effect. 'Why would my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want foreigners to vote in local elections in Washington, D.C.? What's the purpose?' Pfluger said. 'Free and fair elections are prerequisites for the healthy republic our founding fathers envisioned, with the District of Columbia as the epicenter.' House Republicans passed a bill in 2023 seeking to repeal the D.C. law allowing noncitizens to vote. The bill was spearheaded by Republicans but 52 Democrats ultimately joined all Republicans in approving the bill despite efforts from Democratic leadership to quash the proposal. However, the legislation was never considered in the Senate, which was controlled by Democrats at the time. Despite not being a state, Washington is permitted to operate as an independent city government under the D.C. Home Rule Act. However, local laws are still subject to congressional approval before they can take effect, occasionally setting up showdowns between Congress and local lawmakers. The vote on Tuesday is the first of three bills being considered this week by the House to rein in some of D.C.'s local ordinances. Other proposals being considered would rescind D.C. Council policies allowing city employees to not comply with requests from the Department of Homeland Security or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Politico
24 minutes ago
- Politico
Rep. Mikie Sherrill wins Democratic nomination for NJ governor
Democrats chose Rep. Mikie Sherrill as their nominee for governor of New Jersey, as the party attempts to defy odds by holding onto the governorship for a third term in a row. The Associated Press called the race just under an hour after polls closed. The four-term member of Congress prevailed in the crowded Democratic primary field on Tuesday to succeed term-limited Gov. Phil Murphy. She'll face Republican Jack Ciattarelli, setting up a high-stakes battle of two party establishment favorites. Both sides acknowledge that November's election will be competitive. Although the electorate does favor Democrats, it's been decades since Democrats have won the governorship three terms in a row in the Garden State. But in recent history, the candidate of the party opposite of the one that controls the White House typically wins the race for governor. Still, Republicans are emboldened by President Donald Trump's closer-than-expected loss in New Jersey last November, as well as the gains they've made to cut into Democrats' voter registration advantage. And Republicans argue it helps that they have a candidate with high name ID: Ciattarelli ran for governor two times prior and narrowly lost to Murphy in 2021.
CNBC
24 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. appeals court rules
A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The Federal Circuit said the litigation raised issues of "exceptional importance" warranting the court to take the rare step of having the 11-member court hear the appeal, rather than have it go before a three-judge panel first. It scheduled arguments for July 31. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.
