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
Democrats release proposed new California congressional map
Democrats on Friday released a proposed new California congressional map as they aim to counter Republican-led redistricting efforts in Texas. The proposal was submitted to the state legislature on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and comes as the latest development in an intensifying redistricting fight. 'Earlier today, the DCCC submitted a proposed congressional map to the legislative public portal with collaborative input from stakeholders and legislators. We anticipate this proposal will have widespread support both among California office holders and various stakeholders across the state,' executive director Julie Merz said in a release. 'We will not stand by as Republicans attempt to rig the election in their favor and choose their voters.' California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is vying to hold a special election this fall on a ballot measure that would suspend the state's independent redistricting commission until the end of the decade in an effort to keep up with Republican gerrymandering. Newsom has stressed that bypassing the commission, which Californians approved back in 2008 and 2010, would be temporary, and that redrawing the lines would only be triggered by redistricting in red states. Democrats in the California legislature are expected to move the measure forward when they reconvene next week, teeing up a November special election. The proposed maps are expected to effectively neutralize the would-be gains in Texas, where a plan backed by President Trump could net five GOP House seats, by creating five blue districts in California. The Republican incumbents effected by the new map are Reps. Kevin Kiley (R), Doug LaMalfa (R), Darrell Issa (R), Ken Calvert (R) and David Valadao (R). 'They do five seats, we do five seats,' Newsom has said. Democrats in the Texas state legislature fled earlier this month in a desperate bid to stall the GOP plan from moving forward, but they've signaled they could return if, among other conditions, California introduced its maps to counter the Lone Star State. 'I love my current congressional district, but I understand the stakes. Democracy is on the line,' Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said on X as news of the map broke. 'When this new map is approved by voters, I look forward to running in the new 42nd district, made up of my hometown of Long Beach, coastal OC, Costa Mesa & South Santa Ana. Let's go!' The National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) backed the maps, calling California's plan a 'measured response' to counteract Trump's 'blatant power grab in Texas. The Republicans' congressional campaign arm blasted the redistricting moves on Friday, arguing Newsom 'is shredding California's Constitution and disenfranchising voters to prop up his Presidential ambitions.'
CNN
10 minutes ago
- CNN
California Democrats release map ahead of redistricting in response to Texas
California Democrats on Friday released their redistricting proposal, aiming to produce up to five additional Democratic seats in the US House in response to Texas Republicans' mid-decade redrawing of lines at the behest of President Donald Trump. The release comes ahead of the California legislature meeting Monday, with final passage possible later next week. Unlike in Texas, where the GOP can pass new US House maps as soon as enough Democrats return from a nearly two-week absence denying them quorum, California Democrats will need voters to approve new maps in a November referendum. The extraordinary battle between the nation's two most populous states plays out as Trump has pushed Republican-led states to redraw their lines ahead of next year's midterms. That's led to outraged Democrats in blue states seeking to retaliate. 'Trump sparked this national crisis when he called Texas to rig the election. California is fighting back,' California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said in a statement. 'Democrats are empowering voters to protect working families and our democracy — with the most transparent process in the nation. Voters will see the maps and have the final say. The stakes couldn't be higher, but I'm confident we'll defeat this assault on our democracy and end Trump's attacks on California.' There are at least five seats in California that could flip from red to blue, according to a chart depicting the potential partisan makeup of districts. The chart was shown to California legislators this week and shared with CNN ahead of the maps' formal release. Four districts held by Republicans may flip from 'safe Republican' to 'safe Democratic' or 'lean Democratic' based on the chart's ratings under the new lines: California's 1st, 3rd and 41st districts, represented by GOP Reps. Doug LaMalfa, Kevin Kiley and Ken Calvert, shift to 'safe Democratic', while the 48th district, held by Darrell Issa, shifts to 'lean Democratic'. California's 13th District in the San Joaquin Valley, which Democratic Rep. Adam Gray flipped in a razor-thin race against former Rep. John Duarte in 2024, will be modified from 'lean Republican' to 'safe Democratic.' The map could add more Democratic voters to the 22nd District represented by GOP Rep. David Valadao, which includes parts of Bakersfield and stretches north, but it's unclear whether the changes could flip the battleground district to unseat him.
Chicago Tribune
39 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Trump administration partially retreats from a takeover of Washington's police. Here's what to know.
Federal troops are patrolling the National Mall and neighborhoods across Washington while President Donald Trump's administration exerts extraordinary power over law enforcement in the nation's capital. But the administration backed down from an attempt to take over the city's police department by installing its own emergency police commissioner after a federal judge indicated she would rule against it. The partial retreat interrupted one aspect of the most sweeping uses of federal authority over a local government in modern times. How it will play out and whether the federal government will use this experience as a potential blueprint for dealing with other cities remains up in the air. Here's what to know about the situation and what might come next: The Republican president this week announced he's taking control over Washington's police department and activating National Guard troops to reduce crime, an escalation of his aggressive approach to law enforcement. But District of Columbia officials say the action isn't needed, pointing out that violent crime in the district reached historic 30-year lows last year and is down significantly again this year. D.C.'s status as a congressionally established federal district gives Trump a window to assert more control over the district than other cities. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser didn't offer much resistance at first, allowing city workers to clear homeless encampments and work closely with federal immigration agents. But on Friday, the heavily Democratic district asked for an emergency court order blocking Trump officials from putting a federal official in charge of D.C. police. The Trump administration on Friday agreed to leave the Washington, D.C., police chief in control of the department. That came one day after Attorney General Pam Bondi said the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration would take over the police chief's duties, including authority over orders issued to officers. The two sides sparred in court for hours before U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes after the city sued to stop the order. The judge indicated the law likely doesn't grant the Trump administration power to fully take over city police, but it probably does give the president more power than the city might like. She pushed the two sides to compromise, promising to issue a court order temporarily blocking the administration from naming a new chief if they couldn't agree. But while Attorney General Pam Bondi agreed to leave the police chief in charge, she directed the District's police to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law. The showdown in Washington is the latest attempt by Trump to test the boundaries of his legal authority to carry out his tough-on-crime agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally. About 800 National Guard troops are being activated, with Humvees parked along the Washington Monument and near Union Station. Troops have been spotted standing outside baseball's Nationals Park and neighborhood restaurants. The White House says guard members aren't making arrests but are protecting law enforcement officers who are making arrests and helping deter violent crime. Trump says one of the objectives will be moving homeless people far from the city. Trump has the authority to do this for 30 days and says he might look into extending it. But that would require congressional approval. Whether Republicans in Congress would go along with that is unclear. Some D.C. residents have protested against the increased police presence. For some, the action echoes uncomfortable historical chapters when politicians used language to paint predominantly Black cities with racist narratives to shape public opinion and justify police action. Washington is very different from any other American city, and the rules that govern it give the federal government much more control than it would have anywhere else. Whether Trump is using this as a blueprint for how to approach cities — largely Democratic cities — that he wants to exert more control over remains to be seen.
