Xavier Becerra on Government Reform Democratic Representative (CA-31)

No on Prop 39: don't make it tougher for people to vote

HILTON: There's a majority in this state who agree that it's reasonable to show I.D. when you vote. And this attitude of just constantly talking about national politics, because he's got nothing to offer to change the direction of this state, when people are suffering so much, and he takes no responsibility for the policies that he's supported for the last 16 years of one-party rule, is an insult to every Californian.

Cut red tape for new businesses creating jobs

Joined UCLA Voting Rights Project to defend right to vote

Made structural changes at California Dept. of Justice

Overcome voting barriers by getting out to vote

The Trump Administration--they are putting a wall between you and the voting booth. But I have news for you here: They failed! During the November elections, Latinos, especially young people, came out to vote in historic numbers!

You don't believe me? With your votes last November, you changed the composition of Congress. The votes of congress members the President relied on, he no longer has them.

Keep campaign soft money; allow legal resident contributions.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) adopted principles on campaign finance reform today to ensure that the reform efforts underway in Congress do not limit the growing Latino population’s path to political empowerment. The CHC principles support maintaining the hard money individual contribution limit at $1000, allowing “soft money” to be used strictly for voter registration and turnout activities, ensuring that legal permanent residents are not stripped of their right to make campaign contributions, and raising election reform as philosophically linked to campaign finance reform without slowing down legislative progress on either effort. “These principles are very important to the empowerment of minorities and we will press forward to ensure they are addressed in whatever legislation is ultimately passed by Congress,” said Silvestre Reyes, Chair of the CHC. “We in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus hope to join with the Congressional Black Caucus to advance these principles.”

Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) adopted principles on campaign finance reform:
1. The CHC opposes the increased hard dollar campaign contribution limits as passed by the Senate. The limit in current law is $1000, and the Senate amended McCain-Feingold to raise the limit to $2000, indexed for inflation.
2. The CHC supports exemptions that would allow soft money to be used strictly for voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities.
3. The CHC supports the right of legal permanent residents to make campaign contributions. Current law allows this, but past amendments to campaign finance reform bills have sought to outlaw legal permanent residents’ right to make campaign contributions.
4. While campaign finance reform and election reform are linked philosophically because they seek to strengthen the integrity of our democracy, the CHC does not rule out nor necessarily support linking the two issues legislatively.

Subject independent 527s to rules for political committees.

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: `527 organizations` were inspired by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. The `527` refers to the relevant section of the tax code. 527s are independent organizations which raise and spend money on behalf of a candidate, without coordinating with the candidate. An example is the `Swift Boat` group in the 2004 elections. OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code must register as political committees.

SPONSOR`S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This bill would end the illegal practice of `527` groups spending soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections. A number of 527 groups raised and spent a substantial amount of soft money in a blatant effort to influence the outcome of last year`s Presidential election. These activities are illegal under existing laws, and yet once again, the FEC has failed to do its job and has refused to do anything to stop these illegal activities. Therefore, we must pursue all possible steps to overturn the FEC`s misinterpretation of the campaign finance laws, which is improperly allowing 527 groups whose purpose is to influence Federal elections to spend soft money on these efforts.

The bill we introduce today is simple. It would require that all 527s register as political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, including Federal limits on the contributions they receive, unless the money they raise and spend is only in connection with non-Federal elections.

Enough is enough. It is time to stop wasting taxpayer`s dollars on an agency that runs roughshod over the will of the Congress and the Constitution. We`ve fought too hard to sit back and allow this worthless agency to undermine the law.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. Hearings held; never came to a vote.

Prohibit non-legislated earmarks.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds for appropriations earmarks included only in congressional reports.

SPONSOR`S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. McCAIN: This bill would prohibit Federal agencies from obligating funds which have been earmarked only in congressional reports. This legislation is designed to help reign in unauthorized, unrequested, run-of-the-mill pork barrel projects.

Report language does not have the force of law. That fact has been lost when it comes to appropriations bills and reports. It has become a standard practice to load up committee reports with literally billions of dollars in unrequested, unauthorized, and wasteful pork barrel projects.

We simply must start making some very tough decisions around here if we are serious about improving our fiscal future. It is simply not fiscally responsible for us to continue to load up appropriations bills with wasteful and unnecessary spending, and good deals for special interests and their lobbyists. We have had ample opportunities to tighten our belts in this town in recent years, and we have taken a pass each and every time. We can`t put off the inevitable any longer.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management & Government Information; hearings held; never came to a vote.

Ban stock trading based on Congressional insider knowledge.

Congressional Summary:Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act): Amends the Securities Exchange Act and the Commodity Exchange Act to prohibit purchase or sale of either securities or commodities by a person in possession of material nonpublic information regarding pending or prospective legislative action.

• Amends the Ethics in Government Act to require formal disclosure of certain securities and commodities futures transactions.
• Amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act to subject to its registration, reporting, and disclosure requirements all political intelligence activities, contacts, firms, and consultants.

Bill explanation (ProCon.org, `Insider Trading by Congress`, Feb. 3, 2012):

• On Mar. 17, 2011, Tim Walz (D-MN) introduced the STOCK Act where it gained nine co-sponsors by Nov. 4, 2011.
• On Nov. 13, 2011, the TV show `60 Minutes` reported that several members of Congress allegedly used insider information for personal gain. The STOCK Act received 84 additional House co-sponsors in the five days following the report, and Scott Brown (R-MA) filed the STOCK Act in the Senate on Nov. 15, 2011. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) also filed a variation of the STOCK Act in the Senate on Nov. 17, 2011.
• On Jan. 24, 2012, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama said `Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow.`
• Immediately after the speech, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told reporters, `I think people should have enough sense not to do it [insider trading] without legislation, but I will support legislation.`
• On Feb. 2, 2012, a revised version of the STOCK Act passed in the Senate by a vote of 96-3 with Senators Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) dissenting.

Require full disclosure of independent campaign expenditures.

Congressional Summary:

• Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012 or DISCLOSE Act:
• Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to add to the definition of `independent expenditure` an expenditure by a person that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or takes a position on a candidates, qualifications, or fitness for office.
• Expands the period during which certain communications are treated as electioneering communications.
• Prescribes disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, and certain other entities, including a political committee with an account established for the purpose of accepting donations or contributions that do not comply with the contribution limits or source prohibitions under FECA (but only with respect to such accounts).
• Repeals the prohibition against political contributions by individuals age 17 or younger.

• On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, ruled that prohibiting corporations and unions from making independent expenditures in political campaigns was unconstitutional. This ruling is frequently described as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns, but these claims are incorrect. The ruling did remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their funds for direct advocacy, including endorsing for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.

  The result of Citizens United was that `Super PACs` spent millions on TV ads in the 2012 election, advocating both issues and candidates. The DISCLOSE Act attempts to reduce the negative effect of Citizens United by requiring disclosure of independent expenditures made by advocacy groups.

  Source: S3369/HR4010 12-HR4010 on Feb 9, 2012

  Full disclosure of campaign spending.

  Becerra co-sponsored DISCLOSE 2013 Act

  Disclosure of Information on Spending on Campaigns Leads to Open and Secure Elections Act of 2013 or DISCLOSE 2013 Act:

  • Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to redefine the term `independent expenditure` as an expenditure that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or is the functional equivalent of express advocacy because it can be interpreted only as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, taking into account whether the communication involved mentions a candidacy, a political party, or a challenger to a candidate, or takes a position on a candidates, qualifications, or fitness for office.
  • Expands the period during which certain communications are treated as electioneering communications.
  • Prescribes disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, and campaign-related disbursements.
  • Requires any communication transmitted through radio or television to include an individual or organizational disclosure statement, together with:
    1. the Top Two Funders List of the persons providing the largest and second largest aggregate payments of $10,000 or more for a radio communication, and
    2. the Top Five Funders List of the five persons providing the largest aggregate payments of $10,000 or more for a television communication.
  • Repeals the prohibition against political contributions by individuals age 17 or younger.
  • Requires a covered organization which submits regular, periodic reports to its shareholders, members, or donors on its finances or activities to include in each report, in a clear and conspicuous manner, the information included in the statements it has filed about campaign-related disbursements the organization has made during the period covered by the report.
  • Requires semiannual reports on election campaign contributions by registered lobbyists for any independent expenditure of $1,000 or more, including electioneering communication.
  Source: H.R.148 13-HR0148 on Jan 3, 2013

  No photo IDs to vote; they suppress the vote.

  Becerra signed Voting Rights Amendment Act

  Congressional Summary:Amends the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with respect to the requirement that a federal court retain jurisdiction for an appropriate period to prevent commencement of new devices to deny or abridge the right to vote. Expands the types of violations triggering the authority of a court to retain such jurisdiction to include certain violations of the Act as well as violations of any federal voting rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. [This bill would ban requiring photo IDs in order to vote].

  Opponents recommend voting NO because:Sen. Bob Dole (on related bill from 2007, whether to add an amendment allowing photo ID): I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly support this initiative.

  Proponents support voting YES because:Sen. Dianne Feinstein (on related bill from 2007): If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote [for Dole`s amendment] this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver`s licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election].

  Source: H.R.3899/S.1945 14_H3899 on Jan 16, 2014

  Public financing of federal campaigns by voter vouchers.

  Becerra co-sponsored H.R.20 & S.366

  Congressional Summary:<

  • Allow a refundable tax credit of 50% of cash contributions to congressional House campaigns, to be known as `My Voice Federal` contributions.
  • Select three states to operate a voucher pilot program.
  • Provide, upon request, a `My Voice Voucher` worth $50.
  • Authorizes the individual to submit the My Voice Voucher to qualified federal election candidates, allocating a portion of its value in $5 increments.
  • Permits an individual to revoke a My Voice Voucher within two days after submitting it to a candidate.
  • Establishes the Freedom From Influence Fund in the Treasury [for 6-to-1 matching funds for the vouchers].
  • Allows taxpayers to designate overpayments of tax for contribution to the Freedom From Influence Fund.

  Supporters reasons for voting YEA:Rep. Sarbanes: Big money warps Congress` priorities and erodes the public`s trust in government. This bold new legislation returns voice and power back to the American people:

  1. Empower everyday citizens to fuel Congressional campaigns by providing a My Voice Tax Credit.
  2. Amplify the voices of everyday Americans through a 6-to-1 match.
  3. Prevent Super PACs from drowning out small donor-backed candidates.

  Opponents reasons for voting NAY:(Bill Moyers, Feb. 19, 2015): This citizen engagement strategy, particularly when used to court small donors, is not without its critics. Small donors, at least in the current system, often tend to be political ideologues. That trend leaves many asking: won`t moving to small donors just empower extremists? Sarbanes counters, if Congress changes the political fundraising rules, they will also change the calculus for `the rational small donor who right now isn`t going to give $25 because they`ve figured out that it`s not going to matter.` The prospect of a 6-to-1 match might very well impact how those less ideologically extreme potential donors think about political giving.

  Source: Government By the People Act 15_H020 on Jan 21, 2015

  Automatic voter registration for all citizens.

  Becerra co-sponsored H.R.12 & S.1088

  Congressional Summary:

  • Require each state to make available official public websites for online voter registration.
  • Authorizes automated voter registration and establishes same day registration, and voter registration of individuals under 18 years of age.
  • Declares that the right to vote shall not be denied because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense.

  Supporters reasons for voting YEA: (BrennanCenter.org): Too many Americans go to vote on Election Day only to find their names are not on the voter rolls--often, wrongly deleted. The US is on the verge of a new paradigm for registering voters: automatic, permanent registration of eligible voters, which would add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls.

  Opponents reasons for voting NAY: (Gov. Christie`s veto message on the `Democracy Act`, Nov. 2015): Christie called a provision establishing automatic voter registration that requires New Jerseyan to opt out a `government-knows-best, backwards approach that would inconvenience citizens and waste government resources for no justifiable reason.` Automatic voter registration would have added 1.6 million people to the state`s voter rolls.

  (PopVox.org blog)
  • TN-8: I have voted in every election federal, state or local that I chose to. If people want to vote there is nothing but laziness preventing them from doing so today! Regarding photo ID`s you have one to drive, buy alcohol, and go to the doctor.
  • AL-2: This bill is so general that anyone that is alive, has lived, or will live in this century will be able to vote as well as non-Americans, pets, people without voting rights, and some people multiple times.
  • TN-3: This bill will surely bring about fixed voting in favor of the one who can cheat the most. How about having a voter photo card and a test to see if they are capable of voting and not just voting for whoever promises them more free stuff.
  Source: Voter Empowerment Act 15-H12 on Mar 19, 2015

  Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting.

  Becerra co-sponsored prohibiting 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting

  Rep. CONYERS: `Since the late 1950`s, the pernicious practice of `voter caging` has been used to discourage or prevent eligible voters from casting their vote. Recent elections have shown that caging tactics are not outdated, and in fact, have disenfranchised voters in recent midterm and Presidential elections. While caging efforts have traditionally been directed at minority communities, all voters are susceptible to these attempts at voter intimidation and suppression.

  `The undemocratic practice of voter caging involves sending mail to voters at the addresses at which they are registered to vote. Should such mail be returned as undeliverable or without a return receipt, the voter`s name is placed on a `caging list.` These caging lists are then used to challenge a voter`s registration or eligibility.

  `In my home State of Michigan, I have seen firsthand how caging efforts are used to harass, bully, and ultimately disenfranchise, eligible voters. With a Michigan lawmaker advocating `suppress the Detroit vote,` I cannot help but think that is synonymous with `suppress the Black vote` as Detroit is 83% African American. These voter suppression campaigns always seem to target our most vulnerable voters--racial minorities, low-income people, homeless people, and college students.

  `Caging tactics meant to suppress the vote do more than impede the right to vote. They threaten to erode the very core of our democracy. By eliminating barriers to the polls, we can help restore what has been missing from our elections--fairness, honesty, and integrity.`

  S.2305: PROHIBITION ON VOTER CAGING: No State or local election official shall prevent an individual from registering or voting in any election for Federal office, or challenge an individual`s registration status or eligibility to vote, if the sole basis for such decision or challenge is evidence consisting of a voter caging document or voter caging list; or an unverified match list. Source: Caging Prohibition Act (S.2305/H.R.5038) 2007-S2305 on Nov 5, 2007

  Click here for definitions & background information on Government Reform. Click here for a summary of all issue stances of Xavier Becerra. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Xavier Becerra. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Xavier Becerra. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Xavier Becerra. Click here for issue positions of other CA politicians. Click here for CA primary archives. Click here for CA secondary archives.
  Other governors on Government Reform:			Xavier Becerra on other issues:
  CA Gubernatorial: Antonio Villaraigosa Brian Dahle Caitlyn Jenner Doug Ose Eleni Kounalakis Eric Swalwell Gavin Newsom John Chiang John Cox Katie Porter Kevin Faulconer Kevin Paffrath Laura Smith Rob Bonta Steve Hilton Tom Steyer Zoltan Istvan CA Senatorial: Adam Schiff Alex Padilla Barbara Lee Gail Lightfoot James Bradley Jerome Horton Katie Porter Laphonza Butler Lily Zhou Mark Meuser Steve Garvey	Mayoral/Gubernatorial races 2025 (seated Jan. 2026): NJ Governor: Mikie Sherrill (D), U.S. Rep. NJ-11. vs.Jack Ciattarelli (R), State Assemblyman (2011-2018). NYC Mayor: Zohran Mamdani (D), New York State Assembly, 2021-2025. vs.Andrew Cuomo (I), former governor of New York, 2011-2021. vs.Curtis Sliwa (R), CEO of the Guardian Angels. VA Governor: Abigail Spanberger (D), U.S.Rep., VA-7 (2019-2024). vs.Winsome Earle-Sears (R), Lt. Gov. 2022-2026. Gubernatorial races 2026: AK: Mike Dunleavy(R,term-limited) vs.Click Bishop(R) vs.Nancy Dahlstrom(R) vs.Tom Begich(D) vs.Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins(D) vs.Bernadette Wilson(R) vs.Bill Walker(Independent) AL: Kay Ivey(R,term-limited) vs.Doug Jones(D) vs.Tommy Tuberville(R) vs.Will Boyd(D) vs.Yolanda Flowers(D) AR: Sarah Huckabee Sanders(R,for re-election) vs.Fredrick Love(D) AZ: Katie Hobbs(D,for re-election) vs.Andy Biggs(R) vs.David Schweikert(R) vs.Teri Hourihan(No Labels Party) vs.Karrin Taylor Robson(R,withdrew) CA: Gavin Newsom(D,term-limited) vs.Xavier Becerra(D) vs.Steve Hilton(R) vs.Katie Porter(D) vs.Tom Steyer(D) vs.Eric Swalwell(D) vs.Antonio Villaraigosa(D) vs.Eleni Kounalakis(D,withdrew to run for state treasurer) vs.Zoltan Istvan(L,withdrew) CO: Jared Polis(D,term-limited) vs.Greg Lopez(R then I) vs.Barbara Kirkmeyer(R) vs.Scott Bottoms(R) vs.Michael Bennet(D) vs.Phil Weiser(D) vs.Victor Marx(R) CT: Ned Lamont(D,for re-election) vs.Susan Bysiewicz(D for Lt.Gov.) vs.Ryan Fazio(R nominee) vs.Matthew Corey(R for Lt.Gov.) vs.Jen Tooker(R,withdrew) FL: Ron DeSantis(R,term-limited) vs.Jay Collins(R) vs.Paul Renner(R) vs.Byron Donalds(R) vs.David Jolly(R then D) vs.Jerry Demings(D) vs.Jason Pizzo(Independent) GA: Brian Kemp(R,term-limited) vs.Rick Jackson(R nominee) vs.Brad Raffensperger(R) vs.Chris Carr(R) vs.Burt Jones(R) vs.Keisha Lance Bottoms(D nominee) vs.Geoff Duncan(R then D) vs.Mike Thurmond(D) vs.Chase Oliver(Libertarian) HI: Josh Green(D,for re-election) vs. Donovan Dela Cruz(D) vs. Gary Cordery(R) IA: Kim Reynolds(R,retiring) vs.Rob Sand(D nominee) vs.Zach Lahn(R nominee) vs.Brad Sherman(R,lost 6/2/primary) vs.Randy Feenstra(R,lost 6/2/primary) vs.Rob Sand(D nomninee) ID: Brad Little(R,for re-election) vs.Terri Pickens(D) IL: J.B. Pritzker(D,for re-election) vs.Darren Bailey(R) KS: Laura Kelly(D,term-limited) vs.Cindy Holscher(D) vs.Jeff Colyer(R) vs.Ty Masterson(R) vs.Vicki Schmidt(R) KY (2027): Andy Beshear(D,term-limited) vs.Lt.Gov.Jacqueline Coleman(D) vs.Rep.Rocky Adkins(D) vs.U.S.Rep.James Comer(R) LA (2027): Jeff Landry(R,for re-election) vs.Former Gov.John Bel Edwards(D) vs.Treasurer John Schroder(R) vs.Former Gov.Mitch Landrieu(D) MA: Maura Healey(D,for re-election) vs.Mike Kennealy(R) vs.Mike Minogue(R) MD: Wes Moore(D,for re-election) vs.Dan Cox(R) vs.Christopher Bouchat(R,withdrew) ME: Janet Mills(D,term-limited) vs.Hannah Pingree(D nominee) vs.Rick Bennett(Independent) vs.Shenna Bellows(D) vs.Troy Jackson(D) vs.Robert Charles(R nominee) vs.Ed Crockett(I)	Gubernatorial races 2026: MI: Gretchen Whitmer(D,term-limited) vs.Aric Nesbitt(R) vs.Perry Johnson(R) vs.Jocelyn Benson(D) vs.John James(R) vs.Mike Cox(R) vs.Tom Leonard(R) vs.Mike Duggan(Independent) vs.Garlin Gilchrist(D,withdrew) MN: Tim Walz(D,retiring) vs.Lisa Demuth(R) vs.Mike Lindell(R) vs.Amy Klobuchar(D) vs.Scott Jensen(R,run for Auditor) vs.Jeff Johnson 2026(R,withdrew) MS (2027): Tate Reeves(R,term-limited) vs.Brandon Presley(D) vs.House Speaker Philip Gunn(R) vs.Auditor Shad White(R) vs.Ag.Cmsnr.Andy Gipson(R) NE: Jim Pillen(R,for re-election) vs.Lynne Walz(D) vs.Rick Beard(Legal Marijuana Party) vs.Brett Lindstrom(America First Party) NH: Kelly Ayotte(R,for re-election) vs.Jon Kiper(D) vs.Cinde Warmington(D) NM: Michelle Lujan-Grisham(D,term-limited) vs.Deb Haaland(D) vs.Gregg Hull(R) vs.Steve Lanier(R) NV: Joe Lombardo(R) vs.Aaron Ford(D) NY: Kathy Hochul(D,for re-election) vs.Bruce Blakeman(R) vs.Larry Sharpe(Libertarian) vs.Antonio Delgado(D,withdrew) vs.Elise Stefanik(R,withdrew) OH: Mike DeWine(R,term-limited) vs.Vivek Ramaswamy(R) vs.Amy Acton(D) vs.Donald Kissick(Libertarian) OK: Kevin Stitt(R,term-limited) vs.Gentner Drummond(R) vs.Mike Mazzei(R) vs.Jake Merrick(R) vs.Charles McCall(R) vs.Cyndi Munson(D nominee) vs.Connie Johnson(D) OR: Tina Kotek(D,for re-election) vs.Christine Drazan(R) PA: Josh Shapiro(D,for re-election) vs.Ken Krawchuk(Libertarian) vs.Stacy Garrity(R) RI: Dan McKee(D,for re-election) vs.Helena Foulkes(D) vs.Aaron Guckian(R) vs.Ken Block(i) SC: Henry McMaster(R,term-limited) vs.Nancy Mace(R) vs.Ralph Norman(R) vs.Pamela Evette(R) vs.Alan Wilson(R) vs.Jermaine Johnson(D) vs.Mullins McLeod(D) vs.Walid Hakim(Green) SD: Larry Rhoden(R,for re-election) vs.Dan Ahlers(D nominee) vs.Toby Doeden(R nominee) vs.Dusty Johnson(R,lost 6/2 primary) vs.Jon Hansen(R,lost 6/2 primary) vs.Marty Jackley(R,withdrew) TN: Bill Lee(R,term-limited) vs.Marsha Blackburn(R) vs.John Rose(R) vs.Jerri Green(D) vs.Carnita Atwater(D) vs.Misam Abidi(Independent) vs.Robert Vick(Independent) TX: Greg Abbott(R,for re-election) vs.Gina Hinojosa(D) vs.Chris Bell(D,lost primary) VT: Phil Scott(R,for re-election) vs.Amanda Janoo(D) WI: Tony Evers(D,retiring) vs.Tom Tiffany(R,nominee) vs.David Crowley(D,nominee) vs.Mandela Barnes(D) vs.Sara Rodriguez(D) vs.Kelda Helen Roys(D) vs.Francesca Hong(D) vs.Mike Thurow(Independent) WY: Mark Gordon(R,term-limited) vs.Eric Barlow(R) vs.Megan Degenfelder(R) vs.Ken Casner(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Local Issues Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty [Title9]

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Oct 25, 2026; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org