Want the scoop on hot races around the country? Get the digest emailed to you each weekday morning.
Sign up here.
Leading Off:
• MA-Gov: Hoo boy. State Attorney General Martha Coakley, who, unfortunately, needs no introduction, is reportedly "seriously thinking" about running for governor, according to an unnamed "person familiar with her decision-making." (Is there some reason she couldn't just say so publicly herself?) That same nameless being also adds that Coakley "knows she has to make a decision soon," and indeed, there's good reason for that. Massachusetts Democrats are holding their annual convention this month, but the party will only give speaking slots to those who have formally declared their candidacies by July 8. Count me as someone who likes that kind of incentive structure!
Senate:
• NC-Sen: Back in April, GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers said she'd decide on whether to run for Senate in June. That obviously hasn't happened, so now she tells Roll Call that she'll make up her mind "within two weeks." We'll see.
Gubernatorial:
• TX-Gov: For what it's worth, Politico reports that DGA chair Peter Shumlin and state Sen. Wendy Davis were in touch at some point last week. Not saying it means much, but there it is.
House:
• CA-45: We have our first non-Michele Bachmann retirement of the cycle, and it comes from an unexpected source. California Republican John Campbell, who was first elected in a special election in 2005, has announced that he will not seek re-election next year. Campbell faced a decent Democratic opponent last year in Irvine Mayor Sukhee Kang, but the conservative 45th went for Mitt Romney 55-43, and Campbell cruised to a 58-42 win. He's only 57 and would have had little trouble winning in the future, so his decision definitely comes as a surprise.
Given the district's demographics, it's very unlikely Democrats will be able to put up much of a fight here, even with an open seat. Indeed, thanks to California's top-two primary system, it's even possible that two Republicans could make it to the November general election, as we saw in the open 8th District last year. Undoubtedly, plenty of Republicans will be interested in replacing Campbell, though the Orange County Register calls state Sen. Mimi Walters "an early frontrunner." More names as we learn them.
• MN-08: Retail executive Stewart Mills formally launched his campaign against freshman Rep. Rick Nolan last week, making him the first Republican in the race. And in a comment you don't typically see from a politician, Mills added that he's "not going to cut" his shoulder-length hair. Even more uncommonly, it turns out that Mills, who is seeking a congressional seat deep in the heart of Vikings territory, is an unapologetic Packers fan! How you recover from something like that, I have no idea.
• NC-12: When President Obama nominated Rep. Mel Watt to run the federal agency that oversees Fannie Mae, we immediately wondered if Republicans would try to derail his nomination. Some were hostile, and some were warm, but now it looks like the former contingent may be winning the day. Watt faced a lot of hostility at a confirmation hearing last week, mostly because Republicans seem worried that he won't be an obedient servant of the banking industry. (The irony is that progressives don't have many reasons to love Watt, either.)
And at this point, it sounds like the betting line doesn't favor Watt getting the post. That would explain why the field of hopefuls seeking to replace him has been slow to coalesce, though several candidates reportedly are poised to run if Watt's appointment does make it through the Senate. Despite the holdup, two people have filed paperwork, according to Emily Cahn: attorney George Battle III (described as "the son of a prominent bishop"), and state Rep. Rodney Moore. Cahn also throws out a new potential name, Torre Jessup, who is Watt's district director. A long list of other potential contenders can be found here.
Other Races:
• CO Recall: On top of his legal challenge to the sufficiency of the language used on the petitions circulated to recall him, Democratic state Senate President John Morse is now claiming that organizers submitted fraudulent signatures. Morse's supporters say they re-canvassed a number of supposed signers who say they never actually signed anything, including one man who says his deceased wife's name appeared on a petition. Recall proponents, who used paid signature collectors, didn't offer a denial, only saying: "If there appears to be even the slightest amount of fraud, we, too, ask that it be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." That's not exactly a confident response.
Grab Bag:
• Montana: PPP's Montana miscellany shows that attitudes toward gay marriage have, as they have everywhere else, shifted considerably over the last two years. In 2011, Montanans opposed the idea by a 51-37 margin. Now, it's just 48-42 against, and that's only going to keep improving. There's also solid support for background checks for gun buyers, despite, at 58-35 in favor, as Tom Jensen notes, Montana ranking among the top five states in terms of gun ownership.
• VRA: One thing David Jarman mentioned in his wide-ranging roundup of responses to the Supreme Court's decision striking down the Voting Rights Act's preclearance regime under Section 4 is its little-known companion, Section 3. Unlike Section 4's broad coverage formula, Section 3 operates as a scalpel, allowing courts to "bail in" individual jurisdictions that have been found, on a case-by-case basis, to violate voting rights. Section 3 has been used successfully on a number of occasions, often as part of consent decrees, and law professor Richard Pildes offers some interesting thoughts on how it could be enhanced and improved by Congress to become an even more effective tool.
For much more on Section 3, check out this Yale Law Journal article by Travis Crum, who goes into detail on the law's history and application. Because of Section 3's narrower focus, it seems like it ought to withstand even John Roberts-style constitutional "scrutiny"... until, of course, he changes his mind once more. (And as an addendum, Michael Li thinks Texas could very well find itself bailed in as a result of pending litigation. That would be quite the irony indeed—and, of course, a major blow for justice.)