Voters in Five States, DC Head to the Polls

Voters in New Jersey, Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, South Dakota and Washington, DC, cast ballots yesterday. Here are the notable results:

• President: The top two finishers in the various presidential primaries:
  
  

  	Republican		Democratic
  State	1st Place	2nd Place	1st Place	2nd Place
  Iowa	N/A (held 1/15)		N/A (held 3/5)
  Montana	Donald Trump, 90.8%	No preference, 9.2%	Joe Biden, 91.6%	No preference, 8.4%
  New Jersey	Trump, Uncontested		Biden, 88.5%	Uncommitted, 8.7%
  New Mexico	Trump, 84.5%	Nikki Haley, 8.6%	Biden, 83.5%	Uncommitted, 9.7%
  South Dakota	Trump, Uncontested		Biden, 74.6%	Marianne Williamson, 11.6%
  Washington, DC	N/A (held 3/3)		Biden, 87.2%	Williamson, 4.5%

  
  There is no evidence here that Donald Trump is being hurt by his felony convictions. That said, any conclusions you want to draw are going to be based on a grand total of two states, one of them very red and with an open primary (that would be Montana, of course).
  
  Perhaps you would like to see a few more states' primary votes before you make any judgments? Yes, us too. Unfortunately, this is the end of the line for the Republican nomination process—there are no more GOP primaries or caucuses this cycle. So, it's just those two states. And both of them allow early voting, so some percentage of the ballots were cast before it was known that Trump is a felon.
  
  
• U.S. Senate, New Jersey: Rep. Andy Kim (D-NJ) advanced easily, taking 75% of the vote. He will match up against hotelier Curtis Bashaw (R), who is wealthy enough to self-fund much of his campaign. The fairly centrist (by modern GOP standards) Bashaw defeated the Donald Trump-endorsed Christine Serrano Glassner (R), 45.6% to 38.6% (with several other candidates collecting the rest).
  
  New Jersey hasn't sent a Republican to the U.S. Senate in over half a century; the only possible way that Kim will have to sweat is if Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) is acquitted in his ongoing corruption trial. The Senator registered as an independent last week, and says he will run if he is not convicted. At the moment, Menendez is no threat to Kim, thanks to the stench of corruption. But if he's exonerated? Who knows? Anyone could win a three-way race.
  
  
• U.S. Senate, Montana: Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) absolutely pulverized his foolhardy primary opponent, Michael Hummert, laying claim to 97.1% of the vote. Tester will now face Tim Sheehy (R), who easily dispatched former Montana Secretary of State and Public Service Commissioner Brad Johnson (R), 73.6% to 19.5%. Sheehy is a veteran and a Republican in a veteran-friendly red state. However, he also has no experience in elective office, is something of a carpetbagger, and has some baggage, such as the fishiness surrounding the story of how (and whether) he was wounded in combat.
  
  
• IA-01: Tuesday's primary states, among them, have an unusually large number of competitive House seats (nine in total). It is a testament to the art of gerrymandering that, for example, a large state like Texas has two competitive seats, while a smaller state like Iowa has three. Among those is the R+3 IA-01, where Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) won a surprisingly close primary, 56% to 44% over far-right challenger David Pautsch. Miller-Meeks will now face off against state Rep. Christina Bohannan (D), who is running on kitchen-table issues.
  
  
• IA-02: The contest in this R+4 district will be between Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA) and small business owner Sarah Corkery (D), which is not a surprise because they were both unopposed. Corkery has built her campaign, first and foremost, on healthcare access.
  
  
• IA-03: Rep. Zach Nunn (R-IA) will try to hold his R+3 district against veteran and political operative Lanon Baccam (D). Baccam is a centrist, although he is also the only Iowa Democratic candidate among the three listed here whose website specifically mentions reproductive rights. He is also the son of Laotian immigrants. The Democratic establishment likes their chances here, and so is lavishing support on Baccam.
  
  
• NJ-02: Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) was unchallenged in his R+5 district. He will be pitted against entrepreneur Joseph Salerno (D), whose pitch primarily focuses on jobs, housing and the tax burden faced by the working class.
  
  
• NJ-05: Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) is going to defend his D+4 seat against Mary Jo Guinchard (R), who easily won her primary with 69.8% of the vote. Guinchard is a former singer and actor who has also served in a variety of municipal offices. She is anti-choice and encourages people to call her "MAGA Mary." You can judge for yourself how good a fit that is for a Democratic-leaning district with an incumbent 4-term congressman.
  
  
• NJ-07: Rep. Thomas Kean Jr. (R-NJ) is very much at risk in this R+1 district; his support for Donald Trump, and his unwillingness to hold town halls, talk to reporters, or otherwise engage with the public, make him somewhat unpopular. He survived a primary challenge, and will now lock horns with political newcomer and progressive Sue Altman, who has big-time support from EMILY's List. This one should be a barnburner.
  
  
• NJ-08: This is one of two House races we have listed here that is of interest for reasons other than being competitive (the district is D+22). It's the district of Rep. Rob Menendez Jr. (D-NJ) who, fairly or not, is being dragged down by his old man. Nonetheless, Junior survived his primary, taking 53.7% of the vote. He will cruise to victory in November, obviously.
  
  
• NJ-10: This is the other non-competitive race, since the district is D+30. Here, Rep. Donald Payne Jr. (D-NJ) won his uncontested primary. He will not be able to savor his victory, however, because he is dead. He expired after the deadline for ballot access, so the local Democratic organ will meet in a few weeks and pick a candidate to replace him. That candidate could be a talking donkey, and yet they will still steamroll Republican nominee Carmen Bucco, a haberdasher who has never served in political office. Bucco's signature issue is that police need to be given more money and more power to maintain "law and order." That may not be a great fit for a district that is 48.5% Black.
  
  
• NM-01: Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), whose district is D+5, was unopposed. However, the Republican primary was a nail biter. It appears that Steve Jones (R) has triumphed over Louie Sanchez, 51.4% to 48.6%. Jones' platform is: (1) God save the queen, and (2) Anarchy in the U.K. No wait, that's the wrong Steve Jones. The one in New Mexico is running on family values, MAGA and conspiratorial thinking. Stansbury doesn't appear to have too much to worry about.
  
  
• NM-02: Rep. Gabriel Vasquez (D-NM) already knew he would be defending his D+1 district against Yvette Herrell (R) because they were both unopposed. Herrell lost this seat to Xochitl Torres Small in 2018, won it from Small in 2020, then lost it to Vasquez in 2022. So, this will be her fourth run for the seat as she tries to even her record to .500. Each of the three previous elections was decided by two points or less, and this one presumably won't be any different. That said, her website rails against New Mexico's "late-term abortion tourism industry," which may not be a great match for the times.
  
  
• NM-03: Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM) will match up against Sharon Clahchischilliage (R) in this D+4 district, another case where both candidates were unopposed. Clahchischilliage is a member of the Navajo Nation and a former state representative. It is not easy to figure out what her issues are; all we know is that she loves guns, God and lower taxes. None of this comes from her website, incidentally, which says nothing about her platform.

That's the election news for now. This weekend, Guam and the Virgin Islands will hold their Democratic caucus (Guam) and primary (Virgin Islands). Then, next Tuesday, it's congressional primaries in Maine, Nevada, North Dakota and South Carolina. (Z)

Biden Issues Executive Order, Fallout Promptly Commences

As expected, Joe Biden issued an executive order yesterday, one that ostensibly seals the border to asylum seekers once a certain number of crossings has taken place. Note that the order only applies to unlawful crossings (i.e., those at non-approved intake points), which means that enforcement of the order would require DHS to do something that it (and its predecessors) have not been able to do in any of the 170 or so years since the Mexican-American War. This may explain why at least some folks who are currently making the trek northward greeted the news with a shrug. "They (the US) have been saying the same thing for a long time, since Trump was there, they are saying that the border is going to be closed," observed one. "They built a fence, they built the wall, but still the amount of people that come from our countries is too large."

The response to the executive order was, on the whole, exactly what you would expect. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) blasted it as "weak," a sentiment echoed by many other Republicans on The Hill. Of course, if the same exact order had come from Trump, they'd be dancing in the streets and celebrating his "strong" leadership. Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Congressional Progressive Caucus slammed the move. And the ACLU won the race to be the first organization to commit to a lawsuit.

Perhaps more instructive, however, was the response out of California. There, sentiments were most definitely split. On one hand, Sen. Alex Padilla (D) and Rep. Nanette Barragán (D) were not happy. On the other hand, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), Rep. Salud Carbajal (D) and San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, among others, lined up behind the President. What the folks in the latter category have in common is that they have a current or future need for moderate votes, including moderate Latino votes.

And that's the bottom line. As we pointed out yesterday, there is no issue doing more for Republican politicians right now than the border. We're not sure if abortion is doing more for the Democrats, or the border is doing more for the Republicans, but it's close. And now, having put the executive order out there, the White House is going to launch a full-on PR blitz. Team Biden knows it cannot completely erase the Republicans' advantage on border "security," but there's hope that they can eat away at the advantage, at least. And note that there is little the Republicans can do in the reverse direction, on abortion.

The timing here could not be more obvious. Border crossings always go up in the summer, and it was better for the administration to get out ahead of that, rather that to appear to be coming from a position of desperation. On top of that, Biden has a debate with Trump scheduled for June 27, which is just over 3 weeks from today. The XO will give Biden some small amount of armor as Trump tries to hit him over the head with immigration immigration immigration.

In the end, this will surely cost Biden some votes on his left flank. But the fact is that if an unenthusiastic progressive abandons Biden, then that person will almost certainly vote for a third-party candidate or else will skip the presidential election entirely. That's a -1 for the President. On the other hand, if a fence-sitting moderate/independent is persuaded to shift from Trump to Biden, that's a +2 for the President. And you can certainly see someone saying, "Well, Trump's a crook, and he's exhausting, and he and Biden aren't that different on the border anymore, and they're both old, so maybe I'll vote Biden."

In short, as long as Biden gains roughly as many centrists as he loses lefty votes, then he's winning big time. And as we wrote in our item yesterday, you can be 100% certain that the Biden campaign has polling numbers backing up this course of action. (Z)

Trump Legal News: Smooth Criminal

Most people, when facing criminal charges, either cop a plea or else prepare to defend themselves in court. Donald Trump is unwilling to do the former, and he's just gotten a reminder that the latter does not offer great odds for him. So, he's all-in on an option not available to 99.999999% of wrongdoers: a presidential self-pardon.

"Wait a minute," you might be saying right now. "A presidential pardon doesn't do him any good in the Georgia case, or the New York case." That is true... at the moment. But what Trump is pushing trained monkey/Speaker Mike Johnson to do is introduce a bill that would allow current or former presidents to automatically move all legal cases to federal court. That would then make the matter a "federal case," allowing Trump to invoke the pardon power, if he's reelected.

This is, quite obviously, a longshot plan. Actually, more like a long, long, long, longshot plan. First, it is unlikely that such a bill, even if Johnson brings it to the floor, would pass that chamber. There are some Republicans that don't want to be on record as effectively voting in support of "Trump can break any laws he wants." Even if the bill did pass the House, it's not getting past the Senate, nor is it getting a presidential signature. And even if we envision a future GOP trifecta, where the bill does become law, then Trump would need court rulings declaring that: (1) state cases moved to federal court really are federal cases and subject to the pardon power, and (2) presidents can self-pardon.

In short, this is almost certainly not a (literal) Get out of Jail Free card. So, why is Trump pursuing it? Maybe he's desperate. Or maybe his cognitive skills have declined to the point that he cannot see this is not a realistic course of action. Or maybe he just wants to force the Republican members of the House to take a vote that makes clear exactly where they stand vis-à-vis his felonious behavior, so he knows which of them get the Larry Hogan treatment. We favor explanation #3, but readers can reach their own conclusions.

Meanwhile, three more people in Trump's orbit were indicted yesterday. Attorney Ken "The Cheese" Chesebro, former state judge Jim Troupis, and GOP operative Mike Roman were all charged due to their involvement in the Wisconsin fake electors scheme. That's different from the Georgia fake electors scheme, the Arizona fake electors scheme, the Michigan fake electors scheme and the Nevada fake electors scheme, all of which have also produced criminal charges. Hard to imagine why Trump spends so much time and energy thinking of ways that he (and his cronies) can be exempted from having to, you know, abide by the law. (Z)

The Trump Prosecution Was Not Politically Motivated

Our semi-regular legal correspondent, A.R. in Los Angeles, who will one day be a regular legal correspondent, has some thoughts on the Donald Trump criminal fraud prosecution that are worth sharing. And so:

I offer some observations concerning the drumbeat that the Trump prosecution was "politically motivated."

First, it's always unclear to me what exactly is being called "politically motivated." The trial itself was simply the culmination of the very standard criminal justice process to which all defendants are subject. Trump was ably represented by a team of attorneys, who most of us could never afford. The verdict was rendered by a jury of 12 citizens, randomly selected, and they did their duty despite the enormous pressures even with their anonymity. So, it's inaccurate to characterize the trial in those terms. The indictment was brought forward by a grand jury also composed of everyday citizens who do not know what case they will hear. While even a Supreme Court Justice seems to believe that a D.A. can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, those who followed the very real political travails of Andy McCabe know that's not the case, as a grand jury failed to indict him for lack of evidence.

So, the Trump indictment, which was based on the voluminous evidence, and the trial were not politically motivated and proceeded with all the due process afforded every defendant. Incidentally, the defense could have raised the issue of selective prosecution, as they have in the classified documents case, but did not do so. And despite all the attacks against him, Judge Juan Merchan was actually easier on Trump and gave him and his team many more favorable rulings—which, frankly, is not unusual in a criminal trial. Judges typically err on the defendant's side.

Let's go back to the beginning, then. Was the investigation itself politically motivated? It began in the Southern District of N.Y. with Geoffrey Berman, whom Trump appointed after he fired Preet Bharara. In late 2018, Berman prosecuted Michael Cohen for tax fraud, who pleaded guilty and began cooperating with the Feds—you may remember our introduction to "Individual One." Also at this time prosecutors granted David Pecker immunity and entered into a non-prosecution agreement with AMI. Was that politically motivated? Once that investigation heated up (as well as the investigation into Rudy Guiliani's Ukraine activities), you may recall that Trump tried mightily to get it shut down, even announcing Berman's resignation, which Berman was quick to point out didn't happen. Berman did eventually "resign," but not before handing the case off to his very capable deputy, Audrey Strauss. Trump's efforts and that of his AG, Bill Barr, were politically motivated actions to interfere with investigations into the corrupt activities of his buddies while demanding sham investigations into Democrats to "even things out." So, if we're keeping score, the only politically motivated actions so far are those of Trump.

Ultimately, SDNY declined to go up the chain from Cohen and decided not to prosecute anyone else connected to his crimes. Was the decision not to prosecute politically motivated? The office was still getting enormous pressure from the Barr DOJ and Trump to drop the case. But it could also be that the case was not a slam dunk because of the charges involved (different from the state case), Cohen's credibility problems as well as Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg's, and the unique challenges posed in prosecuting a now-former president. Prosecuting Trump would be... well, now we know what anyone associated with the process will be subjected to. This article gives some good insight into those decisions.

The D.A.'s office simply made a different calculation, by all indications. Their investigation was opened right around the same time that Cohen was indicted, but they put theirs on pause to give the Feds first dibs. When the Feds didn't bring any charges after Trump had left office, their investigation began in earnest. And remember, it was undertaken when Cyrus Vance, who was not running for re-election, was the D.A. And even then, Trump obstructed the process as much as possible, leading to a Supreme Court case, Trump v. Vance, when Trump tried to quash Vance's subpoena to Mazar's for his tax records. You may recall that Trump argued he was absolutely immune from any criminal process of any kind. The Supreme Court held that Trump can rely on the defenses available to everyone else, but enjoys no special treatment as a sitting president. By this point we were in mid-2020 and Vance still didn't have the accounting records to prove his case. But wait, more legal wrangling, more court-ordered stays, until the Supreme Court finally denied Trump's stay request on Feb. 22, 2021. The records were released within hours of that ruling.

In the meantime, the office had charged the Trump Organization with tax fraud and had already won that case (in front of Merchan) before these charges were even brought. But Vance left office at the end of 2021, putting this investigation and this decision in the hands of his successor, Alvin Bragg. And remember again, when Bragg didn't immediately bring charges, two prosecutors resigned in protest. That does not sound like decisions are being made based on politics—that looks like careful, methodical, and responsible review of the investigation. He changed the focus of the investigation and brought in new members to the team. It was not until a year later that the grand jury handed down the indictment, and the attacks started immediately. If this was a political calculation, then it was the wrong one. Why would anyone take this on? Holding the powerful accountable is risky business. But it was done because prosecutors have a duty to follow the evidence where it leads and bring the case even if it's risky and dangerous and involves one of the most vindictive wannabe mob bosses on the planet and all of his deranged followers. This article details those decisions.

Let's talk about who did, and continues to, make this political and the price Bragg and his team have paid for bringing this case and having the audacity to win it. I would urge everyone not to be so quick to throw in with people whose own motives are suspect and jump on the political persecution bandwagon. This case was brought for no other reason than the DA's office was doing its job and had the courage to take it on. We should be thanking them for their service and for upholding the rule of law in the face of this onslaught of lies and smears.

The witnesses and their families, the jury, the judge, the clerk, the prosecutors—everyone associated with this case is being harassed and threatened. Cohen's family was doxxed; people are trying mightily to out the jurors and harass them. That is unacceptable and all of us have a duty to stand up against those threats. Don't you think the next Trump jury might think twice about rendering a guilty verdict or even serving at all? That's the whole point.

It also does a disservice to our justice system and undermines the foundation of our democracy to characterize it as yet another front in the culture wars simply because Trump and his minions have decided to attack it and label the judiciary as "rigged." Do we view our elections as part of the culture wars because they chant "stop the steal" 24/7? Electoral-Vote.com takes great pains, as it should, to combat that kind of misinformation when it comes to elections. The same care and defense should be mounted for our legal system. It's an all-hands-on-deck moment and we all need to step up to combat the attempts to tear it down.

Finally, I'm dismayed to see that old trope trotted out yet again that "everyone does it." No, we don't, because most of us don't run for president and then have to cover up an affair with a porn star to win. But putting that aside, most of us don't cheat on our taxes. And it's not because we can't figure out how, or are scared of getting caught. It's because it's against the law, plain and simple. And if we do break the law and get caught, pointing out that someone else also broke the law is not a defense.

There are plenty of people who just do the right thing—I would like my President to be one of them.

Thanks, A.R.! The only thing we would add is that most/all prosecutions of Donald Trump will be "novel" or will require significant interpretation and re-interpretation of existing law because Trump is very good at operating in gray areas, and at making sure he doesn't leave behind the evidence needed to convict someone in conventional fashion. (Z)

She's Got the Money

The billionaire class was lukewarm on Donald Trump for quite a long time, but their enthusiasm for him appears to be heating up. Is this because they've been forced to abandon hope for a more normal Republican to seize the nomination? Is it because he's made clear just how very much "for sale" he would be if he reclaims the White House? Something else? We don't know.

In any case, the latest fat cat to step to the plate for the 34-times-convicted felon is Miriam Adelson, widow of Sheldon. Four years ago, when Sheldon was still among the living, the couple bankrolled the pro-Trump PAC Preserve America to the tune of $80 million. Miriam just announced that she'll be backing Preserve America again, and she implied that her support would be even greater this time than it was in 2020.

What is Adelson buying with her money? We can think of three possibilities. First of all, like her husband, she is an outspoken supporter of Israel. So, she might want the candidate most likely to give PM Benjamin Netanyahu a blank check. Second, Trump and his circle have spent much time and effort in the past half-dozen years kissing the Adelson ring. Some people like being pandered to in this way, especially when the pandering is coming from a sitting U.S. president. Third, and finally, Adelson and her son-in-law have just made an aggressive move, purchasing majority ownership of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks. Their plan is to, in effect, create a Southern Las Vegas. At the moment, there are a lot of laws and regulatory barriers in the way of that plan. A friend in the White House could be useful when it comes to moving aside some of those laws and barriers.

Needless to say, this is not happy news for Democrats. However, there are a couple of silver linings. The first of those is something we have pointed out many times, but that is worth noting again. PACs spend money far less efficiently than campaigns do, primarily because PACs pay more for advertising. So, the impact of that $80 million will be watered down. That said, since it's a PAC that is not directly under Trump's control, Adelson can be reasonably confident the money will actually be spent on the campaign, as opposed to, you know, legal fees.

The second silver lining is that there may be a counterbalancing force about to enter the arena. Melinda Gates, ex-wife of Bill, has just departed the couple's foundation, and is now managing $12.5 billion in charitable funds of her own. Her key area of concern is women and girls, and more particularly, she is concerned with reproductive health and reproductive rights. Melinda just announced $500 million in grants to various individuals and organizations, some of them political in nature (e.g., National Women's Law Center). She also said the total give will be at least $1 billion in the next 2 years. That's $500 million that's yet to be allocated, and it's pretty easy to see some of that money making its way to, say, the DNC or EMILY's List. (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

We've said it before and we'll say it again. This thing is going to be decided in the North. However, we have a gut feeling that Arizona is also a toss-up on account of the Senate race and the GOP's toxic candidate, Kari Lake. Arizona has 11 EVs to Wisconsin's 10, so Biden could afford to lose Wisconsin if he wins Arizona. (Z)

State	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Michigan	47%	46%	May 30	May 31	Florida Atlantic U.
Pennsylvania	45%	47%	May 30	May 31	Florida Atlantic U.
Wisconsin	40%	41%	May 30	May 31	Florida Atlantic U.

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger