Jay Jones wins Democratic nomination for Virginia attorney general
Former Del. Jay Jones will look to be the face of legal resistance to President Donald Trump in Virginia after winning the Democratic nomination for attorney general.
The race was closely watched among the down-ballot contests in Tuesday's Democratic primary election. He will face Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares in the November general election.
Democrats are also nominating a candidate for lieutenant governor from a field of six candidates, who remained locked in a tight race Tuesday night.
Jones defeated Shannon Taylor for the Democratic nomination in the race for attorney general despite his opponent casting him as lacking criminal prosecutorial experience.
'I am ready for this fight and to win this November,' Jones said in a victory statement.
Jones, who represented Norfolk in the House of Delegates for four years, comes from a long line of Hampton Roads politicians.
His father was also a delegate, and his grandfather was the first Black member of the Norfolk School Board. Jones previously ran for attorney general in 2021 but lost the primary to Democratic incumbent Mark Herring.
State Sen. Ghazala Hashmi led former Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney in the Democratic primary battle for lieutenant governor by a narrow margin.
Ballots remained to be counted, and close margins made the race too early to call.
The races will determine Democrats' statewide ticket and set the stage for a bellwether election later this year. Most of the nominees slated to be at the top of the November ticket have already been picked, and Republicans aren't having a statewide primary.
The November gubernatorial election is sure to make history. Democrat Abigail Spanberger, who ran for the Democratic nomination unopposed, will battle Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears — the only Republican who qualified for the ballot.
Their candidacies all but guarantee that Virginia will have a female governor — a first in the state's history since Patrick Henry's governorship nearly 250 years ago.
Virginia is one of two states that host statewide elections the year after a presidential election — New Jersey is the other — and the races are typically seen as referendums on the party in power before Congress heads into midterm elections.
Analysts will be looking for clues in both states about voter sentiment with Trump back in the Oval Office and Republicans controlling power in Washington.
Democrats' hold on Virginia has slipped in recent years, moving it close to swing-state status nationally. Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin beat former Gov. Terry McAuliffe in 2021. And although Democrats narrowly gained back complete control of the Legislature in a 2023 election, then-Vice President Kamala Harris won Virginia last year by less than six points, compared to former President Joe Biden's 10-point lead in 2020.
Still, Democrats have history on their side: The party of the sitting president typically suffers defeat in Virginia's statewide races. And considering Trump has never won the state, Democrats are probably better positioned to make gains once their ticket solidifies.
The six Democrats vying to be Virginia's next lieutenant governor aren't all that different on the issues: They support rights to abortion, a living wage, affordable housing and accessible health care. They also share similar criticisms of Trump.
The candidates notably fracture along regional lines, and distinctions emerge in what they have emphasized in stump speeches along the campaign trail.
Stoney has touted his ties to the Democratic Party and experience working under former Govs. Mark Warner and Terry McAuliffe. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg endorsed his campaign in June.
Hashmi is also from the Richmond area, representing part of the city and suburbs. Hashmi has pushed reproductive health in her bid and has been endorsed by abortion rights political action committees.
Virginia state Sen. Aaron Rouse, from Virginia Beach with ties to southwest Virginia, has also highlighted his legislative accomplishments.
Prince William County School Board Chair Babur Lateef, former federal prosecutor Victor Salgado and retired US Department of Labor worker Alex Bastani are from northern Virginia.
Lateef, an eye surgeon, has honed in on education and health care. Salgado has stressed the importance of strengthening democracy, and Bastani has emphasized labor rights.
Only one Republican candidate in each statewide contest is advancing to the ballot.
Earle-Sears became the gubernatorial nominee after Republicans Dave LaRock and Amanda Chase failed to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Both LaRock and Chase initially challenged Earle-Sears for not being fully aligned with Trump.
Conservative talk-radio host John Reid became the de facto nominee for lieutenant governor after his primary opponent left the race, and despite intraparty quarreling over whether he was tied to a social media account reposting pornography.
Miyares sailed to his spot on the ballot as the nominee for attorney general after announcing his reelection bid. On Tuesday night, he said of Jones' victory: 'My opponent's ideological record makes Virginia families less safe and our streets more violent.'
All 100 seats of the House of Delegates are up for election in November, and some nomination contests took place in Virginia's more competitive districts.
Democrat May Nivar won her primary race and will be taking on Republican incumbent Del. David Owen in a Richmond-area district that House liberals are vying to flip.
Democrat Lindsey Dougherty won her primary race and will battle Republican Del. Carrie Coyner in a Petersburg-area district.
Republicans and Democrats also had separate primaries to fill a competitive seat in the Chesapeake area, which opened after Republican Rep. Baxter Ennis announced his retirement. Republican Michael Lamonea and Democrat Karen Carnegie won their respective primaries for that seat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law restricting gender-affirming care for minors
Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law that restricts access to gender-affirming care for minors experiencing gender dysphoria, a decision that is likely to have broad implications for access to medical treatments for transgender youth in half of the country. In the case of U.S. v. Skrmetti, high court ruled 6-3 to reject the challenge brought by the Biden administration, three families and a physician who had argued that Tennessee's law violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. The court concluded that the state's measure, which is known as SB1 and was enacted in 2023, does not run afoul of the 14th Amendment. "Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. The court's majority found that Tennessee's law is not subject to a heightened level of judicial review and satisfies the most deferential standard, known as rational basis. "We are asked to decide whether SB 1 is subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause," Roberts wrote. "We hold it is not. SB1 does not classify on the bases that warrant heightened review." The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, were in dissent. Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench. The court, Sotomayor wrote, "obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it." Joined in her dissent by Kagan and Jackson, she continued: "The court's willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them." The Tennessee law Tennessee's law prohibits medical treatments like puberty blockers or hormone therapy for transgender adolescents under the age of 18. The state is one of 25 with laws that seek to restrict access to gender-affirming care for young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The case, U.S. v. Skrmetti, marked the first in which the Supreme Court stepped into the politically charged debate over health care for transgender youth. In addition to the state prohibitions, President Trump has issued executive orders that address what he calls "gender ideology." One declares that it is the federal government's policy to recognize "two sexes, male and the female," and the second threatens federal funding for medical institutions that offer gender-affirming care to young people under the age of 18. Mr. Trump's proposals are being challenged in the federal courts. Known as SB1, Tennessee's law prevents health care providers from administering puberty blockers or hormone therapy if they're meant to enable "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex." The state had argued that it has a "compelling interest in encouraging minors to appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty," and in barring treatments that "might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex." Shortly before the law took effect, three families with transgender children and a physician who provides the treatments to patients with gender dysphoria challenged the ban in federal court, arguing it is unconstitutional. The Biden administration then intervened in the case. A federal district court blocked the law, finding that it discriminates based on sex and transgender status. A divided panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit then reversed that decision and allowed Tennessee's ban to take effect while legal proceedings continued. The appeals court evaluated the law under rational-basis review, the most deferential of the tiers of judicial scrutiny. But the Biden administration and the families had argued Tennessee's ban should be subject to a more stringent level of review, known as heightened scrutiny, because it draws lines based on sex and discriminates based on transgender status. But Tennessee had argued that the state aims to protect young people from the consequences of the medical treatments, which it said are risky and unproven. The state said it was setting age- and use-based limits on medical care and exercising its authority to regulate medicine. Access to gender-affirming care has become a flashpoint in the culture wars, as half of the states have in recent years enacted laws that limit the availability of the medical interventions. Many of those same states have also enacted measures prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in women's sports. The court's decision The Supreme Court's conservative majority found that Tennessee's law classifies on the basis of age and medical use, since treatments like puberty blockers and hormones can be administered to treat certain conditions, but not gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder or gender incongruence. Classifications that turn on age or medical use are subject to only rational-basis review, the least demanding level of judicial review, it said. "Under SB 1, no minor may be administered puberty blockers or hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence; minors of any sex may be administered puberty blockers or hormones for other purposes," Roberts wrote. The majority said that Tennessee had "plausible reasons" for restricting access to gender-affirming care that brought its inquiry over the law's constitutionality to an end, namely concerns about the health risks. The justices said they wouldn't second-guess the legislature over the lines that the ban draws. "Recent developments only underscore the need for legislative flexibility in this area," Roberts wrote, pointing to a report from England's National Health Service that evaluated the evidence regarding the use of puberty blockers and hormones and characterized it as "remarkably weak." "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," he wrote. "The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best." Roberts concluded that the court's role is only to ensure that the law does not violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. Teen questioned after family's quadruple murder Iranians evacuate capital Tehran, some say the regime is frightened Parents, brother of slain Minnesota lawmaker Melissa Hortman speak about her death
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
InnovationRx: The Dangers Of RFK Jr.'s Vaccine Advisory Committee
In this week's edition of InnovationRx, we look at the dangers of RFK Jr.'s vaccine advisory committee, how Trump's visa ban bars foreign doctors, the first FDA-approved transcontinental telesurgery and more. To get it in your inbox, subscribe here. Dr. Robert Malone, one of the new members of the vaccine advisory committee, has promoted unproven treatments for Covid-19 and measles. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s remaking of the vaccine advisory committee represents a clear and present danger to public health. Last week, RFK Jr. disbanded the entire 17-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, known as ACIP. He then replaced the ousted members with eight people of his own choosing. The new members include Robert Malone, a former mRNA researcher who parlayed conspiracy theories about Covid-19 vaccines during the pandemic and has promoted unproven, alternative treatments for both Covid and measles. Other advisors include Martin Kulldorff, also an opponent of Covid shots and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated a herd immunity approach to the pandemic. The speed at which these new members were chosen raised red flags among experts. Until now, potential ACIP appointees were often vetted in a lengthy process that took more than a year to ensure they were qualified and didn't face any potential conflicts of interest. However, several of the new ACIP members don't have any expertise in vaccines or infectious disease, and two of them served as paid experts in a lawsuit against Merck involving its HPV vaccine. The new members are expected to convene at a scheduled ACIP meeting in Atlanta next week. The committee has been giving advice to doctors and patients on vaccination for 60 years. That advice is used by local governments for help in developing policies for schools that keep children safe and by health insurers to determine which vaccines they'll pay for and which they won't. The stakes of this advice is high because vaccination saves lives. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that giving routine vaccinations to children saved 1.1 million lives between 1994 and 2023. The shots also prevented about 508 million illnesses and 32 million hospitalizations in that time period. This past March, 6,653 foreign citizens, educated at foreign medical schools, matched to internships at American hospitals, according to data from the NRMP. Hasiba Karimi was supposed to be seeing patients at a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania hospital in just a few weeks. She is one of 144 foreign-born international medical school graduates who were slated to start their first year of residency in Pennsylvania this year, and are part of a solution to the critical shortage of doctors in the United States. But she won't be stateside anytime soon. That's because Karimi, who lives in Canada and got her medical education in Turkey, was born in Afghanistan. She was scheduled for an H-1B visa appointment on June 9, the same day President Donald Trump's executive order barring individuals from 19 specific countries from entering the United States took effect. While the order outlines some exceptions—including for diplomatic visas; athletes, coaches and relatives traveling for competitions; and for ethnic and religious minorities 'facing persecution in Iran'—it does not carve out an exception for doctors. So now Karimi, who spent years building her experience and resume to win this internship, can only wait and hope. 'One in four pediatric residents in the USA are international medical school graduates, and they are filling those spots in the most underserved communities that American graduates are not even applying to,' says Sebastian Arruarana, a resident physician at the Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, and an advocate for international medical graduates. 'If this is not solved, who will take care of our children?' Read more here. A gene editing therapy for severe hemophilia B showed promising results in a new study published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine. Between 2010 and 2012, 10 patients who had severe hemophilia B caused by a defect in their DNA that prevented their bodies from making Factor IX, a key blood clotting agent, received the therapy manufactured by St. Jude Research. The treatment they received included the correct gene. Prior to treatment, the patients required regular injections of Factor IX in order to prevent bleeding episodes. The NEJM study found that more than a decade later, the patients who received this gene therapy were still producing Factor IX. Seven of the patients were able to discontinue injections while the others were able to significantly reduce the amount needed. All reported far fewer bleeding incidents with no significant side effects from the medication. Because gene therapies are so expensive (often in the millions of dollars) a big question is whether a single administration can last without the need for additional doses. This study's findings show that it's possible for a treatment to remain durable for more than a decade, which is an encouraging finding for this class of medicine. Plus: 23andMe founder Anne Wojcicki will buy back the assets of the company from bankruptcy. She beat out Regeneron Pharmaceuticals with a $305 million bid. And Caris Life Sciences went public on Wednesday, raising $494 million at an expected valuation of more than $5 billion. Digital health startup Sword Health raised $40 million led by General Catalyst at a valuation of $4 billion. The company said it plans to use the new capital to expand its services to mental health care. It announced the launch of a new product, called Mind, that it said would combine an AI 'therapist' with human professionals. On Sunday, a patient in Angola received surgery for his prostate cancer. The team that performed the operation, meanwhile, was in Orlando, Florida–about 7,000 miles away. This was the first intercontinental operation of its kind to be approved by the FDA for a clinical trial of remote robotic surgery. The purpose of the test was to see if robotic surgery of this type could be performed at that distance using fiberoptic cables. The procedure was a success, which could pave the way for more remote procedures, increasing healthcare access in countries lacking in doctors and other resources. The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee ban on transgender care for minors. The justices voted 6-to-3 that limiting access to treatments such as puberty blockers for those under the age of 18 was not sex discrimination. The ruling, written by Justice John Roberts, comes as the Trump Administration has attacked transgender rights and could have an effect on two dozen other states with similar laws on the books. Leading medical groups endorse treatments for gender dysphoria. A federal judge ruled that hundreds of NIH grant terminations were 'void and illegal.' 'I have never seen racial discrimination by the government like this,' Judge William Young said from the bench. A coalition of academic groups proposed an alternative for NIH indirect cost reform in response to the Trump Administration's proposed slashing of billions in research overhead payments. Sarepta and Roche stopped the use of Duchenne muscular dystrophy therapy gene therapy Elevidys following two patients' deaths. The governor of Oregon signed a law enacting the country's strictest limits on private equity takeovers of medical practices. Germany's BioNTech agreed to buy rival CureVac to boost cancer research in $1.25 billion deal. South Africa built a medical research powerhouse. Trump's budget cuts have demolished it – and could threaten global progress on everything from heart disease to HIV. Digital startup Tennr raised $101 million at an undisclosed valuation to expand development of its software platform, which lets healthcare services automate and manage their faxes. (Yes, faxes–they're still a thing in healthcare.)
CNBC
39 minutes ago
- CNBC
Senate's budget proposal offers student loan borrowers fewer repayment options, loan limits for grad school
The U.S. Senate has released details about its version of the budget reconciliation package known as President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." The House passed its version of the bill on May 22, which included a number of proposals to reform the current federal student loan landscape, including the elimination of existing repayment plans and new limits on federal borrowing. The Senate's version — released by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee on June 10 — keeps most of those proposals in place, but takes out other regulations, like a loan limit on undergraduate borrowers. Critics say the bill removes important protections for vulnerable student loan borrowers, such as affordable repayment plans and recourse when students are harmed by their institution. "While the Senate has pared back or rejected many of the most harmful changes proposed by the House, the bill still harms the lowest-income loan borrowers and students to pay for tax cuts," Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, said in a statement on June 11. Proponents, however, say the bill addresses some of the major contributing factors to the student loan crisis and puts the onus on borrowers to repay their debts, rather than taxpayers. "While [former President Joe] Biden and Democrats unfairly attempted to shift student debt onto taxpayers that chose not to go to college, Republicans are taking on the root causes of the student debt crisis to lower the cost of tuition and improve Americans' access to opportunities that set them up for success," Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who chairs the HELP committee, said in a statement on June 10. Republicans hope to move the bill forward by July 4, but some provisions, namely cuts to Medicaid, are raising concerns about whether it will pass the Senate as is. But if the Senate's provisions remain in place, here's what it would mean for student loan borrowers. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill aim to streamline the repayment options for federal student loan borrowers. Borrowers currently have at least three different income-driven repayment plans available, as well as the standard repayment plan, to pay back their loans on timelines ranging from 10 to 25 years. If passed as proposed, borrowers whose loans are disbursed on or after July 1, 2026 will only have two options: a standard fixed-payment plan and a new income-driven repayment plan lawmakers have coined the Repayment Assistance Plan. Existing borrowers will be able to stay on older plans or switch into one of the new repayment plans. The new standard repayment plan will have borrowers paying back their loans for 10 to 25 years, depending on how much they borrow. Currently, the standard repayment plan calculates monthly payments to have the debt repaid in 10 years. RAP, the new income-driven repayment plan, will calculate monthly payments as between 1% and 10% of a borrower's discretionary income, down from the current offerings that set payments at 10%, 15% or 20% of a borrower's income, depending on the plan and when the loans were disbursed. On RAP, borrowers would be eligible to have their remaining balances forgiven after 30 years, up from the current 20 or 25 years. The House's proposal includes a stipulation that borrowers who enroll in RAP will not be able to switch out of the plan later, but the Senate's did not include that rule. The Senate's version of the bill maintains the House's goal of limiting the amount of loans students and their families can take out, but with different thresholds. Under the Senate's proposal, graduate borrowers would have a lifetime borrowing limit of $100,000, and up to $200,000 for students in professional programs, like medical school. Parents would have a borrowing limit of $65,000 per undergraduate student. Undergraduate borrowers would maintain the current aggregate limit of $31,000 for dependent students and $57,500 for independent borrowers. The House's version would impose a $50,000 lifetime borrowing limit for undergraduate students and eliminate subsidized loans that don't accrue interest while students are in school. That version also caps lifetime graduate borrowing at $100,000 or $150,000 for professional programs, and parent PLUS loans at $50,000 per parent. Currently, borrowers have a $138,500 lifetime limit for graduate loans, including any amount borrowed for undergraduate studies. Parents can borrow up to the cost of their student's attendance after any federal aid. Both bills eliminate grad PLUS loans, which have a higher interest rate than unsubsidized loans, but allow grad students to borrow up to their entire cost of attendance minus any federal aid. Both versions of the bill roll back regulations put in place to help borrowers who didn't get the full benefit of the education they went into debt for. The House and Senate proposals both eliminate borrower defense to repayment and closed school discharge rules, which allow borrowers to have their federal debt discharged if they prove they were defrauded by their academic institution or if their school wound up closing. The House version of the bill went a step further, eliminating the 90/10 and gainful employment rules, which aim to hold schools accountable for ensuring borrowers are getting the education necessary to land well-paying jobs. Both versions of the bill also eliminate deferment options that currently allow qualifying borrowers to pause payments when dealing with the economic hardship and unemployment.
