DOCSLIB.ORG

Prosecutor Lobbying in the States, 2015-2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prosecutor Lobbying in the States, 2015-2018 Prosecutor Lobbying in the States, 2015-2018 The Prosecutors and Politics Project June 2021 Table of Contents About the Prosecutors and Politics Project ................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 4 About the Study ................................................................................................................... 12 State Reports ....................................................................................................................... 14 Alabama .................................................................................................................... 15 Alaska ........................................................................................................................ 19 Arizona ..................................................................................................................... 24 Arkansas .................................................................................................................. 30 California .................................................................................................................. 35 Colorado................................................................................................................... 46 Connecticut .............................................................................................................. 51 Delaware .................................................................................................................. 59 Florida ...................................................................................................................... 62 Georgia ...................................................................................................................... 73 Hawaii ...................................................................................................................... 80 Idaho ......................................................................................................................... 85 Illinois ...................................................................................................................... 90 Indiana ..................................................................................................................... 96 Iowa ........................................................................................................................ 104 Kansas .................................................................................................................... 109 Kentucky ................................................................................................................. 116 Louisiana ................................................................................................................ 120 Maine ....................................................................................................................... 128 Maryland ................................................................................................................ 134 Massachusetts ....................................................................................................... 138 Michigan ................................................................................................................. 143 Minnesota ............................................................................................................. 149 Mississippi .............................................................................................................159 Missouri ..................................................................................................................162 1 Montana................................................................................................................. 168 Nebraska ................................................................................................................. 173 Nevada ..................................................................................................................... 177 New Hampshire ................................................................................................... 190 New Jersey ..............................................................................................................197 New Mexico ........................................................................................................... 198 New York ............................................................................................................... 203 North Carolina ...................................................................................................... 210 North Dakota ......................................................................................................... 214 Ohio ......................................................................................................................... 220 Oklahoma .............................................................................................................. 224 Oregon .................................................................................................................... 233 Pennsylvania ........................................................................................................ 239 Rhode Island ......................................................................................................... 245 South Carolina ...................................................................................................... 252 South Dakota ........................................................................................................ 255 Tennessee .............................................................................................................. 262 Texas ...................................................................................................................... 268 Utah ........................................................................................................................ 276 Vermont ................................................................................................................. 283 Virginia .................................................................................................................. 290 Washington ........................................................................................................... 293 West Virginia ........................................................................................................ 299 Wisconsin .............................................................................................................. 304 Wyoming .................................................................................................................311 Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... 314 2 About the Prosecutors and Politics Project The Prosecutors and Politics Project is a research initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Law. Founded in 2018, the Project studies the role of prosecutors in the criminal justice system, focusing on both the political aspects of their selection and their political power. The Project endeavors to bring scholarly attention to the democratic accountability of elected prosecutors, to increase our understanding of the relationship between prosecutors and politics through empirical study, and to publicly share research in order to increase voters’ knowledge about their elected prosecutors and broader criminal justice issues. For more information about the Prosecutors and Politics Project, its mission, and its research, please visit https://law.unc.edu/academics/centers-and- programs/prosecutors-and-politics-project/ Questions about this report should be directed to the PPP director, Professor Carissa Byrne Hessick ([email protected]). 3 Executive Summary American prosecutors are active lobbyists who routinely support making the criminal law harsher. During the years 2015 to 2018, state and local prosecutors were involved in more than 25% of all criminal-justice-related bills introduced in the 50 state legislatures. Prosecutors were nearly twice as likely to lobby in favor of a law that created a new crime or otherwise increased the scope of criminal law than a law that would create a defense, decriminalize conduct, or otherwise narrow the scope of criminal law. And when state prosecutors lobbied in favor of a bill, it was more than twice as likely to pass than an average bill. Prosecutors appeared to have more success when they lobbied in favor of a bill than when they opposed a bill. Although bills with prosecutor support were twice as likely to pass, prosecutor opposition to a bill did not reduce its likelihood of passing. Notably, prosecutors were more successful when they supported criminal justice reform bills than when they supported traditional law-and-order bills. Approximately 60% of bills that narrowed the scope of criminal law and 55% of bills that decreased punishment passed when supported by prosecutors. In contrast, when prosecutors supported bills that increased the scope of criminal law, only 40% of those bills passed; and bills that increased punishments did not fare much better, passing only 42% of the time. Criminal Justice Bills Introduced More than 22,000 criminal law and criminal justice bills were
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Pre-Genocide
    Pre- Genocide 180571_Humanity in Action_UK.indd 1 23/08/2018 11.51 © The contributors and Humanity In Action (Denmark) 2018 Editors: Anders Jerichow and Cecilie Felicia Stokholm Banke Printed by Tarm Bogtryk Design: Rie Jerichow Translations from Danish: Anders Michael Nielsen ISBN 978-87-996497-1-6 Contributors to this anthology are unaware of - and of course not liable for – contributions other than their own. Thus, there is no uniform interpretation of genocides, nor a common evaluation of the readiness to protect today. Humanity In Action and the editors do not necessarily share the authors' assessments. Humanity In Action (Denmark) Dronningensgade 14 1420 Copenhagen K Phone +45 3542 0051 180571_Humanity in Action_UK.indd 2 23/08/2018 11.51 Anders Jerichow and Cecilie Felicia Stokholm Banke (ed.) Pre-Genocide Warnings and Readiness to Protect Humanity In Action (Denmark) 180571_Humanity in Action_UK.indd 3 23/08/2018 11.51 Contents Judith Goldstein Preparing ourselves for the future .................................................................. 6 Anders Jerichow: Introduction: Never Again? ............................................................................ 8 I. Genocide Armenian Nation: Inclusion and Exclusion under Ottoman Dominance – Taner Akcam ........... 22 Germany: Omens, hopes, warnings, threats: – Antisemitism 1918-1938 - Ulrich Herbert ............................................................................................. 30 Poland: Living apart – Konstanty Gebert ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Monday, June 28, 2021​
    STATE OF MINNESOTA​ Journal of the Senate​ NINETY-SECOND LEGISLATURE​ SPECIAL SESSION​ FOURTEENTH DAY​ St. Paul, Minnesota, Monday, June 28, 2021​ The Senate met at 10:00 a.m. and was called to order by the President.​ The members of the Senate paused for a moment of silent prayer and reflection.​ The members of the Senate gave the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of​ America.​ The roll was called, and the following Senators were present:​ Abeler​ Draheim​ Howe​ Marty​ Rest​ Anderson​ Duckworth​ Ingebrigtsen​ Mathews​ Rosen​ Bakk​ Dziedzic​ Isaacson​ McEwen​ Ruud​ Benson​ Eaton​ Jasinski​ Miller​ Senjem​ Bigham​ Eichorn​ Johnson​ Murphy​ Tomassoni​ Carlson​ Eken​ Johnson Stewart​ Nelson​ Torres Ray​ Chamberlain​ Fateh​ Kent​ Newman​ Utke​ Champion​ Franzen​ Kiffmeyer​ Newton​ Weber​ Clausen​ Frentz​ Klein​ Osmek​ Westrom​ Coleman​ Gazelka​ Koran​ Pappas​ Wiger​ Cwodzinski​ Goggin​ Kunesh​ Port​ Wiklund​ Dahms​ Hawj​ Lang​ Pratt​ Dibble​ Hoffman​ Latz​ Putnam​ Dornink​ Housley​ Limmer​ Rarick​ Pursuant to Rule 14.1, the President announced the following members intend to vote under​ Rule 40.7: Abeler, Carlson (California), Champion, Eaton, Eichorn, Eken, Fateh, Goggin, Hoffman,​ Howe, Kunesh, Lang, Latz, Newman, Newton, Osmek, Putnam, Rarick, Rest, Torres Ray, Utke,​ and Wiklund.​ The President declared a quorum present.​ The reading of the Journal was dispensed with and the Journal, as printed and corrected, was​ approved.​ MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS​ Senators Wiger and Chamberlain introduced --​ Senate Resolution No. 12: A Senate resolution honoring White Bear Lake Mayor Jo Emerson.​ Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.​ 1032​ JOURNAL OF THE SENATE​ [14TH DAY​ Senator Gazelka moved that H.F. No. 2 be taken from the table and given a second reading.​ The motion prevailed.​ H.F.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Meeting Agenda Westin St. Francis Hotel San Francisco, Ca July 30Th to August 3Rd
    ANNUAL MEETING AGENDA WESTIN ST. FRANCIS HOTEL SAN FRANCISCO, CA JULY 30TH TO AUGUST 3RD Registered attendees are invited to all open substantive sessions. All General Sessions will be held in the Grand Ballroom, Mezzanine Floor. CWAG Meetings are entirely casual. Resort wear would be most appropriate throughout the meeting. Business casual is appropriate for panelists. Sunday, July 30, 2017 6:00 pm Opening Dinner at Union Square Join us across the street from the St. Francis Hotel in Union Square for the opening dinner. Casual attire. Monday, July 31, 2017 7:00 am Breakfast available for all registered attendees 8:30 am Colonial Room, Mezzanine Floor 8:30 am Welcome 8:45 am Doug Chin, CWAG Chair and Attorney General of Hawaii Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California 8:45 am The Golden Rule: The California Experiment and the Role of State AGs 9:30 am in Fostering American Innovation Introduction: Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California Moderator: Jeff Tsai, Partner, Alston & Bird, LLP Panelists: Laura Stuber, Senior Special Assistant Attorney General, California Attorney General’s Office Rob Chesnut, General Counsel, Airbnb Carol Lam, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Qualcomm Kristin Sverchek, General Counsel, Lyft Technology has been a significant driver of the country’s economic growth as sectors and industries adapt to a new economy and changing workforce. As the birthplace of the modern technology boom, the State of California has been one of the country’s forerunners in innovation, as well as regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Statement by Law Enforcement Leaders on Protecting Voters
    Joint Statement by Law Enforcement Leaders on Protecting Voters As law enforcement leaders, elected prosecutors, and chief legal officers of our jurisdictions, we know that the right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and our identity as Americans, regardless of political affiliation. It is a constitutional right and, ultimately, a public trust and safety issue. Public trust in democracy, the rule of law, and the integrity of our government is integral to public safety. When one system is attacked and fails, it compromises the ability of all systems to function, including our criminal justice system. And when communities do not trust us, we cannot effectively keep them safe. Efforts to interfere with the United States Postal Service imperil the democratic process and erode confidence in the integrity of all government systems. Within the context of a pandemic, we should already be deeply concerned that crowds at polling places will endanger our residents. And now, recent threats and intimidation tactics, including deploying law enforcement to police the polls, raises the prospect of voter intimidation, damaging bonds of trust between law enforcement and communities they serve. This is playing out at a time when the number of Americans expressing confidence in law enforcement has fallen to an all-time low. That is why, as leaders charged with protecting public safety, we call for free and fair elections and condemn efforts to interfere with the Postal Service and undermine the voting process. It is more important than ever that we protect the integrity of our democracy, and, in the era of COVID-19, the ability to vote by mail is essential to protecting our cherished democratic process.
    [Show full text]
  • Angels Or Monsters?: Violent Crimes and Violent Children in Mexico City, 1927-1932 Jonathan Weber
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2006 Angels or Monsters?: Violent Crimes and Violent Children in Mexico City, 1927-1932 Jonathan Weber Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES ANGELS OR MONSTERS?: VIOLENT CRIMES AND VIOLENT CHILDREN IN MEXICO CITY, 1927-1932 BY JONATHAN WEBER A Thesis submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2006 The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Jonathan Weber defended on October 6, 2006. ______________________________ Robinson Herrera Professor Directing Thesis ______________________________ Rodney Anderson Committee Member ______________________________ Charles Upchurch Committee Member The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The first person I owe a great deal of thanks to is Dr. Linda Arnold of Virginia Tech University. Dr. Arnold was gracious enough to help me out in Mexico City by taking me under her wing and showing me the ropes. She also is responsible for being my soundboard for early ideas that I “bounced off” her. I look forward to being able to work with her some more for the dissertation. Another very special thanks goes out to everyone at the AGN, especially the janitorial staff for engaging me in a multitude of conversations as well as the archival cats that hang around outside (even the one who bit me and resulted in a series of rabies vaccinations begun in the Centro de Salud in Tlalpan).
    [Show full text]
  • Maura Healey Was Sworn in As Attorney General on January 21, 2015, Pledging to Lead the People’S Law Firm
    Maura Healey was sworn in as Attorney General on January 21, 2015, pledging to lead the People’s Law Firm. Since taking office, Healey has tackled issues touching the lives of residents across Massachusetts including the heroin and prescription drug abuse epidemic, escalating health care costs, workers' rights and student loan costs. She has focused on strengthening consumer protections and on improving our criminal justice system. Building on her promise to run an office that serves people across the state, Healey launched the Community Engagement Division in May 2015. The first-of-its-kind division brings the Attorney General’s Office and its work into neighborhoods and communities across the state. The Division has launched community office hours and has assisted with the rollout of several policy initiatives including the Earned Sick Time law and Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights. Healey is an advocate for a more equal and inclusive workplace. In May 2015, she announced that her office would provide six weeks of paid family leave for all employees – making the AG’s Office the first state agency to offer paid parental leave. The office has also helped shaped state legislation that would expand opportunities for women in the workplace including Pay Equity and Pregnant Workers Fairness bills. As a civil rights attorney, Healey is committed to ensuring that all residents are treated fairly. As former head of the office’s Civil Rights Division, Healey was the architect of the state’s successful challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and argued the case in federal court. As Attorney General, she has advocated for marriage equality and in support of bills to fight discrimination against transgender people.
    [Show full text]
  • Title Here – Option 1
    Post Election Briefing - State Attorneys General Stephen Cobb: Partner, Former Deputy Attorney General of Virginia Jim Schultz: Partner, Former Senior Associate White House Counsel, Former General Counsel to Pennsylvania Governor Bill Shepherd: Partner, Florida’s Former Statewide Prosecutor December 8, 2020 Copyright © 2020 Holland & Knight LLP. All Rights Reserved Thank you for joining today’s program • All participants are on mute • Please ask questions via Q&A box • Today’s program is being recorded and will be posted on our website • For technical assistance please reach out to the host via the chat box 2 Today’s Presenters Stephen Cobb Jim Schultz Bill Shepherd Partner Partner Partner Former Deputy Former Senior Associate Florida’s Former Attorney General White House Counsel, Statewide Prosecutor of Virginia Former General Counsel to Pennsylvania Governor 3 The Growing Role of State Attorneys General Looking Back on 2020 The Election Results 2021 – What to Expect 4 Priorities of State Attorneys General During 2020 • Consumer Protection • False Claims Act • Antitrust • Environmental Enforcement Actions • COVID-19 • Data Breach/Data Privacy 5 State Attorney General Race Results . Indiana . Pennsylvania . Todd Rokita (R) defeated Jonathan Weinzapfel (D) . Josh Shapiro* (D) defeated Heather Heidelbaugh (R) . Missouri . Utah . Eric Schmitt* (R) defeated Richard Finneran (D) . Sean D. Reyes* (R) defeated Greg Skordas (D) . Montana . Vermont . Austin Knudsen (R) defeated Ralph Graybill (D) vs. T.J. Donovan* (D) defeated H Brooke Paige (R) . North Carolina . Washington . Josh Stein* (D) defeated Jim O’Neill (R) . Bob Ferguson* (D) defeated Matt Larkin (R) . Oregon . West Virginia . Ellen Rosenblum* (D) defeated Michael Cross (R) . Patrick Morrisey* (R) defeated Sam Brown Petsonk (D) Aside from the 10 races detailed above, Maine’s next state legislature and the governors of New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa are due to appoint new AGs.
    [Show full text]
  • State Attorneys General a Communication from the Chief
    State Attorneys General A Communication from the Chief Legal Officers of the Following States and Territories: Alaska * American Samoa * California * Colorado * Connecticut * Delaware District of Columbia * Hawaii * Idaho * Illinois * Iowa * Kentucky * Maine Maryland * Massachusetts * Minnesota * Mississippi * Montana * Nebraska * Nevada New Hampshire * New Mexico * New York * North Carolina * Northern Mariana Islands Oregon * Pennsylvania * Rhode Island * South Dakota * Vermont * Virginia * Washington May 22, 2017 The Honorable Rodney P. Frelinghuysen The Honorable Nita Lowey Chairman Ranking Member U.S. House Committee on Appropriations U.S. House Committee on Appropriations 2306 Rayburn House Office Building 2365 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, DC 20515 The Honorable John Culberson The Honorable José Serrano Chairman Ranking Member U.S. House Committee on Appropriations U.S. House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, & Related Agencies & Related Agencies 2161 Rayburn House Office Building 2354 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, DC 20515 Re: Support for the Legal Services Corporation Dear Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Lowey, Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Serrano, As state attorneys general, we write in united, bipartisan opposition to the Trump Administration’s proposal to eliminate all federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) and legal services for rural and low-income Americans. For more than 40 years, under Republican and Democratic administrations, the Legal Services Corporation has helped our residents to access justice. LSC funding helps veterans and military families secure important benefits, it supports survivors of domestic violence seeking safety, and it assists families facing foreclosure and victims of natural disasters.
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing Health Care Market Consolidation and High Prices the Role of the States
    HEALTH POLICY CENTER RESEARCH REPORT Addressing Health Care Market Consolidation and High Prices The Role of the States Robert A. Berenson Jaime S. King Katherine L. Gudiksen Roslyn Murray URBAN INSTITUTE UC HASTINGS LAW UC HASTINGS LAW GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Adele Shartzer URBAN INSTITUTE January 2020 ABOUT THE URBAN INSTITUTE The nonprofit Urban Institute is a leading research organization dedicated to developing evidence-based insights that improve people’s lives and strengthen communities. For 50 years, Urban has been the trusted source for rigorous analysis of complex social and economic issues; strategic advice to policymakers, philanthropists, and practitioners; and new, promising ideas that expand opportunities for all. Our work inspires effective decisions that advance fairness and enhance the well-being of people and places. Copyright © January 2020. Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to the Urban Institute. Cover image by Tim Meko. Contents Acknowledgments iv Executive Summary v 1. Introduction 1 2. Employee Retirement Income Security’s Act 8 3. State Efforts to Promote Transparency 11 4. State Efforts to Regulate Consolidation and Promote Competition 17 5. State Options for Overseeing and Regulating Prices 44 6. Conclusion 68 Notes 69 References 79 About the Authors 86 Statement of Independence 87 Acknowledgments This report was funded by the Commonwealth Fund. We are grateful to them and to all our funders, who make it possible for Urban to advance its mission. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute or UC Hastings Law, its trustees, or its funders.
    [Show full text]
  • Omnibus June 2019 Dem Primary
    Democratic Dividing Lines Verified Voter Omnibus Survey N=484 Democrats or Democratic leaners June 22 - June 25, 2019 !X!1 Key Findings • Biden’s lead among 24 announced Democratic candidates has narrowed by 6-points since May to 32% of the Democratic vote. • Biden’s 6-point drop came with a concurrent 6-point gain by Elizabeth Warren to 11% of the Democratic vote, or 4- points behind Bernie Sanders who takes 15% of the Democratic vote. • Biden continues to lead both Sanders and Warren in head to head match-ups, but his lead has narrowed to 30-points from both Sanders and Warren, down from 36-points ahead of Sanders and 47-points ahead of Warren in May. • 73% of Democrats plan to watch the debates, or coverage of the debates. Ahead of the kickoff of tonight’s debates, we tested Democratic concern about two recent pieces of news about Biden — his flip flopping on the Hyde Amendment’s impact on access to abortion, and past associations with segregationists. • We found the Hyde Amendment resonates more strongly with Democratic voters, with 39% of Democrats concerned about Biden’s stance on the Hyde Amendment, and 22% concerned about his associations with segregationists. • Particularly concerned are women, African Americans, younger voters, and more educated voters. !2 Methodology • Using a voter file-matched online panel, we surveyed n=1,006 registered voters across the country from June 22 to June 25, 2019, with a sample of 484 Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents. • With our third monthly tracking survey of 2019, we were able to confirm the voting history of participants and track changes in the attitudes and behaviors of key 2020 voters since our last survey of verified Democratic or Democratic-leaning Independent voters from May 20 to May 21, 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • August 16, 2017 the Honorable Roger Wicker Chairman Senate
    August 16, 2017 The Honorable Roger Wicker Chairman Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation The Honorable Brian Schatz Ranking Member Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Honorable Marsha Blackburn Chairman House of Representatives Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Committee on Energy and Commerce The Honorable Michael Doyle Ranking Member House of Representative Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Committee on Energy and Commerce RE: Amendment of Communications Decency Act Dear Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz, Chairman Blackburn, and Ranking Member Doyle: In 2013, Attorneys General from 49 states and territories wrote to Congress, informing it that some courts have interpreted the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”) to render state and local authorities unable to take action against companies that actively profit from the promotion and facilitation of sex trafficking and crimes against children. Unfortunately, nearly four years later, this problem persists and these criminal profiteers often continue to operate with impunity. The recent news highlighting the potential complicity of online classified-ad company Backpage.com in soliciting sex traffickers’ ads for its website once again underscores the need 1850 M Street, NW to expand, not limit, the ability of all law-enforcement agencies to fight sex Twelfth Floor Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 326-6000 http://www.naag.org/ trafficking.1 The undersigned Attorneys General once again respectfully request that the United States Congress amend the CDA to affirm that state, territorial, and local authorities retain their traditional jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute those who facilitate illicit acts and endanger our most vulnerable citizens.
    [Show full text]
  • Biden Is Only Leading Dem to Top Trump in Ohio, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Former V.P
    Peter A. Brown, Assistant Director (203) 535-6203 Rubenstein Pat Smith (212) 843-8026 FOR RELEASE: JULY 25, 2019 BIDEN IS ONLY LEADING DEM TO TOP TRUMP IN OHIO, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY POLL FINDS; FORMER V.P. HAS BIG LEAD IN DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY Former Vice President Joseph Biden leads President Donald Trump 50 – 42 percent in the critical swing state of Ohio, the only leading Democratic candidate to top the Republican incumbent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. The other leading Democratic contenders each are locked in a dead heat with President Trump, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll finds: 46 percent for Trump to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with 45 percent; Trump at 46 percent to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 45 percent; 44 – 44 percent between Trump and California Sen. Kamala Harris; 44 – 44 percent between Trump and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg; 44 percent for Trump to 43 percent for New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. Women, black voters and independent voters give Biden his lead in the matchup with Trump. Biden leads 53 – 40 percent among women, as men are split with 46 percent for Biden and 45 percent for Trump. White voters are divided, with 48 percent for Trump and 45 percent for Biden. Black voters go Democratic 84 – 8 percent. Independent voters go to Biden 55 – 32 percent. Republicans back Trump 86 – 10 percent as Biden leads 96 – 2 percent among Democrats. “Former Vice President Joseph Biden calls himself a blue-collar guy. With Ohio certainly a blue-collar state, it is no surprise he is the Democrat who runs best against President Donald Trump and is solidly ahead in the Democratic primary in the Buckeye State,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
    [Show full text]