Today's Brew previews the Republican primary in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District + looking back at voting during the 1918 pandemic
------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------

[link removed]

Welcome to the Tuesday, June 9, Brew. Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

* Previewing the Republican primary in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District
* Looking at voting during the last pandemic
* Florida Supreme Court rules ballot summary misleading

------------------------------------------------------------


** PREVIEWING THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY IN SOUTH CAROLINA’S 1ST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
------------------------------------------------------------

Five states are holding primaries for Congressional and state-level offices today: Georgia, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, and West Virginia. While Nevada, North Dakota, and South Carolina had always planned to hold primaries today, Georgia and West Virginia's primaries were originally scheduled to take place in May but were delayed ([link removed]) because of the coronavirus pandemic. West Virginia's primary was initially scheduled to take place May 12, while Georgia's was set for May 19.

Our elections team will be covering 1,020 races for 646 offices in the five states, including nine battleground elections ([link removed]) . Here are the battlegrounds we’ve previewed leading up to today:

* West Virginia’s gubernatorial ([link removed])) primaries ([link removed]))
* Democratic primary ([link removed])) for the U.S. Senate seat from Georgia
* Both ([link removed]) parties’ ([link removed])) primaries in Georgia’s 7th Congressional District

We’re rounding off our previews today with a look at the Republican primary for South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District ([link removed])) .

Four candidates—Chris Cox, Kathy Landing, Nancy Mace, and Brad Mole—are on the ballot. Local media have identified Landing, who is backed by the House Freedom Fund and former U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), and Mace, who has been endorsed by Club for Growth, the National Rifle Association, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), as leading candidates. The winner will face incumbent Rep. Joe Cunningham (D) in the general election.

THE 1ST IS ONE OF 30 HOUSE DISTRICTS NATIONWIDE WITH A DEMOCRATIC INCUMBENT REPRESENTING AN AREA THAT DONALD TRUMP WON IN THE 2016 ELECTION. Cunningham defeated Katie Arrington (R) in 2018 to win the open seat 50.6% to 49.2%. In 2016, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton (D) in the 1st District 53.5% to 40.4%. If no candidate receives over 50% of the vote in the primary, the top-two vote-getters will advance to a runoff on June 23. Cunningham is the first Democrat to hold the 1st District since 1981.

AND AN IMPORTANT REMINDER: TO FIND OUT WHAT'S ON YOUR BALLOT BEFORE HEADING TO THE POLLS, CHECK OUT OUR FREE sample ballot lookup tool ([link removed]) . Please consider sharing and recommending this resource within your networks. Ballotpedia has helped more than 1 million people research their ballot so far, and hope to reach many more this year.

If you prefer a mobile experience, download our app, _My Vote Ballotpedia_, on the app store ([link removed]) or Google Play ([link removed]) .

Learn more ([link removed]))

mailto:?&[email protected]&subject=Check out this info I found from Ballotpedia&body=[link removed] [blank] [link removed]'re%20covering%201,020%20races%20tonight%20https://go.ballotpedia.org/e/481201/une-9-202020via2040Ballotpedia/2645h5/547775372?h=sGULol-rzryIhUDh0CIMrHXKBu0NcabQA8HQLQ_w9SM's%20Daily%20Brew [blank] [blank] [link removed]
------------------------------------------------------------
[blank][link removed]
------------------------------------------------------------


** LOOKING AT VOTING DURING THE LAST PANDEMIC
------------------------------------------------------------

The United States held midterm elections in 1918 ([link removed])_and_the_1918_midterm_election_cycle) during the Spanish Flu pandemic, which was one of the most severe in history with 50 million deaths worldwide and 675,000 of those in the United States. As part of our coverage of the coronavirus outbreak, we're occasionally looking back at a story from the 1918 elections to see how America met the challenges of holding elections during a national health emergency.

On Nov. 7, 1918, the _Oakland Tribune _published an article titled, “Mask Violators Argue; Are Fined.” The article described how masks were required to vote, and those who did not wear one would be fined $10 (the equivalent of $169.79 in 2020 ([link removed]) ).

“
Heated discussion of election returns is not in violation of law, provided the participant keeps his flu mask properly adjusted; but should he overlook that important matter trouble awaits him. That is the verdict of ten or twelve men fined $10 each after being arrested in the county clerk’s office. Many alibis were offered by the offenders, who maintained that they were seriously handicapped by their masks in arguments over election returns with more fluent talkers. The arm of the law refused to accept any excuses, contending that epidemics could not be checked through the wearing of masks for bibs.
”

You can read the full article ([link removed]) here, courtesy of the University of Michigan Center for the History of Medicine and Michigan Publishing's _Influenza _Encyclopedia.

If you’re interested in stories like the above, WE’RE INCLUDING SOME OF THESE HISTORICAL EVENTS IN OUR NEWS COVERAGE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSES TO THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC. Click here ([link removed]) to subscribe to this weekly summary about the actions taken by federal, state, and local officials surrounding this situation, which comes out every Thursday.

Looking for more frequent coronavirus updates? Sign up ([link removed]) for our _Documenting America’s Path to Recovery _email, which comes out each weekday.

Learn more→ ([link removed])
------------------------------------------------------------


** FLORIDA SUPREME COURT RULES BALLOT SUMMARY MISLEADING
------------------------------------------------------------

In a 4-1 decision ([link removed]) , the Florida Supreme Court ruled June 4 that the ballot summary of the Ban on Semiautomatic Rifles and Shotguns Initiative ([link removed])) was misleading, and the initiative should not be placed on the 2022 ballot. The ruling invalidated all 174,564 valid signatures the sponsoring group, Ban Assault Weapons NOW, had gathered.

The initiative would ban possession of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, with certain exceptions. If a person lawfully owned one of these before the measure's effective date, their ownership of such firearm would still be legal (a) for one year after the measure's effective date or (b) after the owner registers the firearm by make, model, and serial number with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Records of such registration would be available for federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

In order to place the initiative back on the 2022 ballot, initiative proponents would need to begin the process again with an amended ballot summary.

Here’s the background:

* JANUARY 11, 2019: Ban Assault Weapons NOW submitted its ballot summary ([link removed]) for the initiative.
* JULY 26, 2019: Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) filed a motion ([link removed]) with the state Supreme Court arguing the measure's ballot summary was misleading and unclear and that the initiative should be blocked from the ballot.
* JUNE 4, 2020: The Florida Supreme Court agreed with Moody in its decision ([link removed]) . Supreme Court Justices Charles Canady, C. Alan Lawson, Carlos Muñiz, and Ricky Polston issued the majority opinion, while Justice Jorge Labarga dissented. Republican governors appointed all five of the justices (Canady, Labarga, and Polston were appointed by Charlie Crist before he switched to the Democratic Party).

Gail Schwartz, the chair of Ban Assault Weapons NOW, responded to the decision, saying ([link removed]) , "Not only has the Legislature recently made it harder to pass ballot initiatives, now the people must also face a Court of rightwing ideologues who will only approve initiatives they agree with politically."

George T. Levesque, an attorney representing the National Rifle Association, said ([link removed]) about the decision, “At the end of the day, it was a good win for folks who support the Second Amendment, but it was also a good win for the people of Florida, that they are only going to be voting on amendments that are not misleading.”

Ballotpedia tracks firearms ballot measures ([link removed]) by year. This year, voters in Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington will decide 12 ballot measures regarding regulations and rights to own, carry, use, sell, and buy firearms. So far, one is set to appear on the 2021 ballot, and two are set for the 2022 ballot.

Learn more→ ([link removed]))
------------------------------------------------------------

BALLOTPEDIA DEPENDS ON THE SUPPORT OF OUR READERS.

The Lucy Burns Institute, publisher of Ballotpedia, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. All donations are tax deductible to the extent of the law. Donations to the Lucy Burns Institute or Ballotpedia do not support any candidates or campaigns.


Click here to support our work ([link removed])

------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
** Follow on Twitter ([link removed])
** Friend on Facebook ([link removed])
_Copyright © 2020, All rights reserved._

OUR MAILING ADDRESS IS:

Ballotpedia
8383 Greenway Blvd
Suite 600
Middleton, WI 53562
Decide which emails you want from Ballotpedia.
** Unsubscribe [link removed]
or ** update subscription preferences [link removed]
.