logo
DNC will redo party elections for David Hogg and Malcolm Kenyatta's posts after procedural error

DNC will redo party elections for David Hogg and Malcolm Kenyatta's posts after procedural error

NBC News11-06-2025
The Democratic National Committee has voted to hold new elections for two of its vice-chair positions after a procedural challenge, meaning Florida activist David Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta, who were elected to the party's executive committee in February, have to run again in order to keep their positions.
They won't have to wait long: A new, virtual, election between Hogg and Kenyatta begins Thursday. And the loser will be able to run in a subsequent election for the final vice-chair slot.
The challenge that triggered the new election isn't directly related to Hogg's public spat with the DNC and its chairman, Ken Martin, over Hogg's decision to support primary challenges to Democratic incumbents. But the weeks-long episode, with Martin and other leaders backing a neutrality pledge for party officers, has inflamed tensions among members and kept the debate between Hogg and the party in the headlines.
Last month, the DNC's Credentials Committee voted to recommend that the party hold two new vice-chair elections because it found that the DNC mistakenly created an advantage for the two male candidates, Hogg and Kenyatta, as it managed the internal elections at the end of a marathon February party meeting in Washington, D.C.
Wednesday evening the DNC announced that 75% of the votes cast in a virtual election by its members voted in favor of approving that recommendation.
Because DNC rules require equal gender representation on its executive committee, not including the party chair, the results of previous elections in February meant the DNC had to elect at least one man to its final two vice-chair slots. But instead of holding individual votes for each position, one to be filled by a man and one by a candidate of any gender, the party decided to hold one single vote to decide who took the final two slots.
Oklahoma Democratic Committeewoman Kalyn Free, who unsuccessfully ran against Hogg and Kenyatta in the February vice-chair race, petitioned the DNC for a redo, claiming the decision to combine the ballots unfairly benefitted Hogg and Kenyatta over the female candidates who were eligible to win the final vice-chair slot.
Though Free's challenge was filed well before his public spat with Martin, Hogg framed the decision last month as proof the party was trying to strip him of his title over his support for primary challenges to Democratic incumbents. Both Martin and Kenyatta vehemently disagreed with his framing: Martin blamed a 'procedural error' from 'before I became chair' for the episode, and Kenyatta criticized Hogg for distracting from the party's work by arguing the vote amounted to personal retribution.
Tensions between Hogg and the party have been brewing for months, since the activist telegraphed his decision to back Democratic primary challenges. Ahead of the vote, Politico published a short clip of an internal Democratic Party call on which Martin vented his frustration with Hogg, saying the fight has 'essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to.'
The leak prompted another round of finger-pointing, with prominent DNC members accusing Hogg or his allies of orchestrating the leak. Hogg vehemently denied that and published a screenshot he said showed his text messages with the reporter who published the story.
An election for the first vice-chair position between Hogg and Kenyatta will run virtually from Thursday morning through Saturday afternoon. Then, the party will hold another virtual vote Sunday morning through Tuesday afternoon featuring the four remaining candidates who were eligible at the end of the February elections.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Wisconsin Supreme Court clears the way for a conversion therapy ban to be enacted
Wisconsin Supreme Court clears the way for a conversion therapy ban to be enacted

NBC News

time2 hours ago

  • NBC News

Wisconsin Supreme Court clears the way for a conversion therapy ban to be enacted

MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for the state to institute a ban on conversion therapy in a ruling that gives the governor more power over how state laws are enacted. The court ruled that a Republican-controlled legislative committee's rejection of a state agency rule that would ban the practice of conversion therapy for LGBTQ people was unconstitutional. The decision, which has a broad impact far beyond the conversion therapy issue, takes power away from the Legislature to block the enactment of rules by the governor's office that carry the force of law. The 4-3 ruling from the liberal-controlled court comes amid the national battle over LGBTQ+ rights. It is also part of a broader effort by the Democratic governor, who has vetoed Republican bills targeting transgender high school athletes, to rein in the power of the GOP-controlled Legislature. What is conversion therapy? What is known as conversion therapy is the scientifically discredited practice of using therapy to "convert" LGBTQ people to heterosexuality or traditional gender expectations. The practice has been banned in 23 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ rights think tank. It is also banned in more than a dozen communities across Wisconsin. Since April 2024, the Wisconsin professional licensing board for therapists, counselors and social workers has labeled conversion therapy as unprofessional conduct. Advocates seeking to ban the practice want to forbid mental health professionals in the state from counseling clients with the goal of changing their sexual orientation or gender identity. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in March to hear a Colorado case about whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ children. What is happening in Wisconsin? The provision barring conversion therapy in Wisconsin has been blocked twice by the Legislature's powerful Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules — a Republican-controlled panel in charge of approving state agency regulations. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling means the conversion therapy ban can be enacted. The court ruled that the legislative committee has been overreaching its authority in blocking a variety of other state regulations during Democratic Gov. Tony Evers' administration. The lawsuit brought by Evers targeted two votes by the joint committee. One deals with the Department of Safety and Professional Services' conversion therapy ban. The other vote blocked an update to the state's commercial building standards. Republicans who supported suspending the conversion therapy ban have insisted the issue isn't the policy itself, but whether the licensing board had the authority to take the action it did. Evers has been trying since 2020 to get the ban enacted, but the Legislature has stopped it from going into effect. Evers and legislative leaders did not immediately respond to messages seeking reaction to the ruling. Legislative power weakened by ruling The Legislature's attorney argued that decades of precedent backed up their argument, including a 1992 Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling upholding the Legislature's right to suspend state agency rules. Evers argued that by blocking the rule, the legislative committee is taking over powers that the state constitution assigns to the governor and exercising an unconstitutional "legislative veto." The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed with Evers. The court found that the Legislature was violating the state constitution's requirement that any laws pass both houses of the Legislature and be presented to the governor. Instead, in this case the Legislature was illegally taking "action that alters the legal rights and duties of the executive branch and the people of Wisconsin," Chief Justice Jill Karofsky wrote for the majority. She was joined by the court's three other liberal justices. Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn, in a dissent, said the court's ruling is "devoid of legal analysis and raises more questions than it answers." Hagedorn argued for a more narrow ruling that would have only declared unconstitutional the legislative committee's indefinite objection to a building code rule. Fellow conservative justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley also dissented, saying the ruling shifts too much power to the executive branch and holds the Legislature to a higher legal standard. Bradley said the ruling "lets the executive branch exercise lawmaking power unfettered and unchecked." The issue goes beyond conversion therapy The conversion therapy ban is one of several rules that have been blocked by the legislative committee. Others pertain to environmental regulations, vaccine requirements and public health protections. Environmental groups hailed the ruling. The decision will prevent a small number of lawmakers from blocking the enactment of environmental protections passed by the Legislature and signed into law, said Wilkin Gibart, executive director of Midwest Environmental Advocates. The court previously sided with Evers in one issue brought in the lawsuit, ruling 6-1 last year that another legislative committee was illegally preventing the state Department of Natural Resources from funding grants to local governments and nongovernmental organizations for environmental projects under the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program.

Independent Dan Osborn launches another Nebraska Senate run
Independent Dan Osborn launches another Nebraska Senate run

NBC News

time8 hours ago

  • NBC News

Independent Dan Osborn launches another Nebraska Senate run

Independent Dan Osborn launched another run for the Senate in Nebraska on Tuesday after having waged a surprisingly competitive, though ultimately unsuccessful, campaign last year. And Osborn said the biggest difference between last year and next year will be his Republican opponent. 'Everything that I talk about, I think Pete Ricketts embodies,' Osborn said in an interview, referring to the Republican senator and former governor who is running for his first full Senate term next year after he won a special election last year. 'Billionaires shouldn't be able to buy their way into Senate seats, first of all,' Osborn said. 'But it's this race to the bottom that people like me are experiencing, because it's — everything is so expensive, and it's just extremely difficult to get ahead in life.' Republicans have already signaled that they plan to deploy the same playbook they used against Osborn last year, casting him as a Democrat masquerading as an independent. Osborn went on to lose to Republican Sen. Deb Fischer by 7 percentage points. 'Despite his best efforts, Nebraskans found out that Osborn was a Democrat in disguise, funded by out-of-state Democrats like Chuck Schumer,' Fischer wrote in an X post in April, which Ricketts reshared, after Osborn said this year that he was exploring another Senate run. Republicans are looking to protect the party's 53-47 majority in the Senate next year. Osborn had been weighing runs for the Senate, the House or governor and launched a political action committee to support working-class candidates. Osborn received some financial support from Democrats during his 2024 bid, as the party did not field a candidate against Fischer. The Senate Majority PAC, which is aligned with Schumer, of New York, the Senate Democratic leader, donated to a super PAC that boosted Osborn, though outside groups cannot coordinate with campaigns. Osborn also had the backing of some prominent Democratic donors, like Tom Steyer, when he raised more than $15 million in his campaign. And he recently shared a fundraising link for ActBlue, a Democratic fundraising platform. But Osborn has still maintained independence from the Democratic Party, and he said he would not caucus with either party if were elected. 'First of all, I've been a registered independent from the time I could vote,' Osborn said. 'But second of all, I didn't ask for that money. This time around, I'm not going to ask for it again. The Democrats are going to do what the Democrats do, and Republicans are going to do what the Republicans are going to do. And I just want to show the people that an independent can win in a state like Nebraska or any state, for that matter.' Osborn told The New York Times last year that he was a Democrat until 2016, but he recently said he 'misspoke' during that interview. 'I was telling the reporter that I grew up in a conservative household, and I've voted for Democrats, and I've voted for Republicans,' Osborn said. 'I tend to vote based off of principles, first, before party. And somewhere in that conversation, that got skewed a little bit. I don't remember the context of the year 2016 and why that was relevant in the conversation.' KETV of Omaha reported that Osborn has been registered as a 'nonpartisan' since 2004, and state records also show a "Daniel L. Osborn" registered as nonpartisan. 'Fiscally, I would, I would fall in line with more of a traditional conservative,' Osborn said. 'Sometimes I think a small government can be a better government. But when it comes to social issues and lifting up people in need, I would lean left that way.' Osborn said he does not plan to seek the state Democratic Party's endorsement. Last year, Nebraska Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kleeb accused Osborn of 'going back on his word' by ultimately saying he did not want the party's endorsement after having quietly sought it for months. Osborn said that he had hoped for both the Democratic Party's and the Libertarian Party's support but that he decided to forgo the endorsements when they could not be made at the same time. 'I was seeking the endorsement of everybody,' he said. Republicans' efforts to paint him as a Democrat underscore the delicate balancing act Osborn faces as he runs in a state Donald Trump carried by 20 points last year. Osborn said he did not vote for Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris in November, instead writing in United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain for president. Osborn, a former union organizer, described Fain as 'one of my personal heroes.' During his Senate run last year, Osborn's campaign launched a TV ad saying he was with Trump 'on China, the border and draining the swamp.' Osborn said he still aligns with Trump on border security, saying former President Joe Biden 'did fail on the border.' Osborn had mixed views of Trump's trade policies, saying tariffs 'definitely have their time and place' but adding that they need to be 'calculated and targeted.' 'Blanket tariffs, especially with our neighbors Canada and Mexico, doesn't make any sense to me,' Osborn said. 'I think that all that's going to do is increase prices for the consumers and make life more expensive at a time where it's too damn expensive already.' Osborn was hesitant to directly criticize Trump by name, but he did say he would have voted against Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill, pointing to cuts in social programs and tax cuts that would benefit the wealthy. 'It's going to cut services for people. They're going to have to cut through so much red tape to continue to have their special-needs kids or whatever the case they're on these programs for,' he said. 'And folks like Ricketts are going to continue to make millions more off of these cuts. I just don't see how everybody didn't have a problem with that.'

The plot against Zohran Mamdani
The plot against Zohran Mamdani

New Statesman​

time9 hours ago

  • New Statesman​

The plot against Zohran Mamdani

Photo by Adam Gray/Bloomberg 'Why did you have to go on?' Lauren Bacall asks Humphrey Bogart at the end of The Big Sleep, the archetypal study of American sadism, cruelty and sleaze. 'Too many people told me to stop,' he answers, with a dash of valiant redemption. If Zohran Mamdani, the surprising winner of the Democratic primary for mayor of New York, wins the mayoralty in November, his victory will have much to do with a reflexive New York City response to the ugly hysteria opposing him. Donald Trump called the democratic-socialist Mamdani – a New York state assemblyman who was born in Uganda to Indian parents and became a US citizen in 2018 – 'a communist at the highest level.' A Republican congressman from Tennessee demanded that Mamdani's citizenship be revoked for supporting 'terrorism.' (Mamdani gave his 'love' to the 'Holy Five', a group that had been convicted in 2008 of financially supporting Hamas, in a 2017 rap song.) Billionaire Trump gofer Bill Ackman deplored Mamdani's 'socialist/communist' policies. Eric Adams, Mamdani's incumbent rival, and Andrew Cuomo, another potential competitor, both denounce him for being 'anti-Semitic.' After declaring Mamdani 'unfit' to be mayor, the attention-hungry New York Times shamefully published a hacked report by an anonymous right-wing source revealing that Mamdani checked a box identifying as 'Black or African-American' on his college application to Columbia. In fact, that was the only box the application offered that came close to describing his background. It's easy to see why Mamdani is so reviled. As the immigrant son of immigrant parents, he can accomplish two things. He has the biographical equity to pull the Democratic party away from the enraging identity politics that opened the door to Trump and to move it toward cultural and economic issues that touch most people. And just as Trump is using the pretext of immigration to create the beginnings of a nationalist-populist police state, Mamdani can make the wholly disproportionate hammer-blows against immigrants symbolic of the harsh new forces the right is now ranging against ordinary Americans. The son of a prominent filmmaker and a Columbia professor, Mamdani is, predictably, being portrayed by the right as a coddled elite. But far from coddled, he seems vulnerably authentic, for all his studied iron poise. He didn't get into Columbia. The rap song seems more the result of artlessly transparent feeling than grim ideology. In the most Jewish city in the world outside of Israel, he refuses to renounce his call for a 'global intifada' and his courageous insistence on Palestinian dignity and rights, though he is emphatic about Israel's right to exist. All it would take is one ingratiating betrayal of his beliefs to win over Jews alarmed by his sympathies. But he won't do it. If anything, Mamdani, who also enjoys substantial Jewish support, recalls the stubborn, ferociously independent New York Jewish intellectuals and political activists of yore. He is as honest as Adams and Cuomo are dishonest and corrupt. The former cut a deal with Trump's Justice Department to avoid a criminal trial on charges of bribery; the latter, as New York governor, forced nursing homes to accept patients with Covid during the pandemic, then lied about the large number of deaths that followed. Cuomo also resigned as governor in the wake of numerous accusations of sexual harassment. This isn't to say there wouldn't be legitimate worries should Mamdani go on to win. Trump's Darwinian 'big, beautiful bill' has exposed right populism as the con job it always was. Mamdani has to prove that left populism is something more than rhetoric – something more than the toothless Occupy Wall Street protest movement 15 years ago. 'John Lindsay was the best mayor New York ever had before he took office,' a wag said about another romantic upstart mayor, whose lack of political judgment and skill ran the city into the ground in the early 1970s. Mamdani's objectives of freezing the rent on rent-stabilised apartments, doubling the city's minimum wage, implementing free buses, offering free childcare, opening city-owned grocery stores, using social workers instead of police to handle people who appear to be mentally ill and blocking ICE deportations would be a humane revolution in American morality. But his proposals require lots of money. As for redeploying the police, there is a reason Cuomo carried a majority of the black vote in the Democratic primary. Unlike most of Mamdani's supporters, who are well-heeled millennials and Zoomers living in exclusive Manhattan enclaves, materially struggling black people suffer more than other groups in New York from crime, just as they suffer more from police brutality. The leaders of Occupy Wall Street were a study in white privilege. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Mamdani understands the funds his reforms require. What Bill Ackman frantically calls Mamdani's 'communism' consists of Mamdani's intention to raise taxes by 2 percent on New Yorkers making over $1 million dollars per year. (Two percent of $1 million is $20,000; Ackman's Patek Phillippe is worth over $800,000.) The revenue would be a blessing on a city that Michael Bloomberg, when mayor, made unaffordable to all but the wealthiest by means of carefully engineered housing and tax policies. But it is New York's governor, Kathy Hochul, who has the only authority to raise taxes. She is not going to alienate the moneyed class. Still the 33-year-old Mamdani, with his quiet, radiantly defiant smile, is a spot of life in the zombie world of American public life, ruled by sclerotic old men, their spineless enablers and bloviating billionaire mediocrities like Ackman, Thiel and Musk who think their every word rings with profundity and could care less about the public good. The gathering forces of American darkness want Zohran Mamdani as dead as they are. One prays for him to go on, in part simply because the very worst people want him to stop. [See also: Trump's war without honour] Related

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store