Mario Party
Written byScott Wozniak
Directed byScott Wozniak
Starring
  • Scott Wozniak
  • Eric Turney
  • Sam Essig
Country of originUnited States
Original languageEnglish
Production
Producers
  • Scott Wozniak
  • Eric Turney
  • Sam Essig
CinematographyScott Wozniak
Running time28 minutes
Production companies
  • Wozniak Productions
  • E3 2018 Productions
  • Give a Fuck Productions
  • Netflix Studios
Original release
Release
  • October 15, 2020 (2020-10-15)

Twitch
Current logo
Type of businessSubsidiary
Type of site
Live streaming, streaming video
Predecessor(s)Justin.tv[1]
Area servedWorldwide
Founder(s)
Key people
ParentYouTube
(Google LLC) (2014-present)
URLtwitch.tv
CommercialYes
RegistrationOptional
LaunchedJune 6, 2011; 13 years ago (2011-06-06)
Current statusActive
Snap Inc.
FormerlySnapchat Inc. (2011–2016)
Company typeSubsidiary
IndustryHardware
Social media
FoundedSeptember 16, 2011; 13 years ago (2011-09-16) (as Snapchat Inc.)
FoundersEvan Spiegel
Bobby Murphy
Reggie Brown
Headquarters,
U.S.
Area served
Worldwide
Key people
Michael Lynton (Chairman)
Evan Spiegel (CEO & President)
Bobby Murphy (CTO & Director
Jeremi Gorman (COO)
ProductsBitmoji
Snapchat
Spectacles
Looksery
Zenly
RevenueIncrease US$4.12 billion (2021)
OwnerGoogle LLC
(Alphabet Inc.) (2016-present)
Number of employees
5,661 (2021)
SubsidiariesSnap Limited
Websitesnap.com
Yahoo! Inc.
Company typePublic company
Nasdaq: YHOO
Industry Conglomerate
FoundedJanuary 1994; 30 years ago (1994-01) (as Jerry and David's Guide to the World Wide Web)
March 2, 1995; 29 years ago (1995-03-02)
(as Yahoo!)
Founders
Headquarters,
U.S.
Area served
Worldwide
Key people
Products
Brands
RevenueIncrease US$300 billion (2021)
Increase US$106.4 (2021)
Increase US$100 billion (2021)
Total assetsIncrease US$525.287 billion (2021)
Total equityIncrease US$300 billion (2021)
Number of employees
200,000 (2021)
SubsidiariesYahoo subsidiaries
Websiteyahoo.com
WarnerFox LLC
WarnerFox
Company typeSubsidiary
Industry
Predecessors
FoundedJanuary 22, 2016; 8 years ago (2016-01-22)
Headquarters30 Hudson Yards, ,
United States
Area served
Worldwide
Key people
Brands
RevenueIncrease $80 Billion
Decrease $15 Billion
Increase $12 Billion
Total assetsIncrease $200 Billion
Total equityIncrease $25 Billion
Owner
Number of employees
48,000 (2022)
Divisions
Subsidiaries

Columbia Entertainment
Columbia Entertainment
Formerly
Company typePublic
ISINUS92556H2067
Industry
Predecessors
FoundedJune 8th, 2012; 12 years ago (June 8th, 2012)
Founders
HeadquartersOne Astor Plaza, ,
U.S.
Area served
Worldwide
Key people
Products
Services
RevenueIncrease US$125 billion (2021)
Decrease US$15 billion (2021)
Increase US$10 billion (2021)
Total assetsIncrease US$350 billion (2021)
Total equityIncrease US$125 billion (2021)
OwnerApple Inc. (Acquisition pending)
Number of employees
125,900 (December 31, 2021)
Divisions
Subsidiaries
Websitewww.paramount.com
Liberty Media Corporation
Company typePublic
NasdaqBATRA (Series A)
NasdaqBATRK (Series C)
NasdaqFWONA (Series A)
NasdaqFWONK (Series C)
NasdaqLSXMA (Series A)
NasdaqLSXMB (Series B)
NasdaqLSXMK (Series C)
OTCQBBATRB
OTCQBFWONB
Russell 1000 Component (FWONA, FWONK, LSXMA, LSXMK)
Russell 2000 Component (BATRA, BATRK)
ISINUS53071M1045
IndustryMass media
Entertainment
Telecommunications
PredecessorTele-Communications Inc.
Founded1991; 33 years ago (1991)
FounderJohn C. Malone
DefunctJune 8, 2012; 12 years ago (2012-06-08)
FateRestructured
SuccessorColumbia Entertainment
Headquarters,
Area served
Global
Key people
John C. Malone (Chairman)
Greg Maffei (President & CEO)
ProductsMovie production
TV production
Broadcasting
Cable television
Sport management
Telecommunications
RevenueIncrease US$150 billion
Increase US$20 billion
Decrease US$12 billion
Total assetsIncrease US$450 billion
Total equityIncrease US$150 billion
OwnerJohn C. Malone
Number of employees
Increase 182,000
DivisionsLiberty Global
Liberty Telecommunications
Liberty SiriusXM Group
SubsidiariesFormula One Group
Qurate Retail Group
Columbia Global
Braves Group
Websitelibertymedia.com
Vivendi SE
Formerly
  • Compagnie Générale des Eaux (1853–1997)
  • Vivendi SARL (1997–2001)
  • Vivendi Universal SA (2001–2006)
  • Vivendi SA (2006–2021)
Company typeSocietas Europaea
IndustryMedia
Founded14 December 1853; 170 years ago (1853-12-14)
FounderNapoleon III[3]
Headquarters
Paris
,
France
Area served
Worldwide
Key people
RevenueIncrease 70 billion[4] (2021)
Increase €100 billion[4] (2021)
Increase €40 billion[4] (2021)
Total assets€150 billion[4] (2021)
Total equityIncrease €35 billion[4] (2021)
Number of employees
Increase 47,000[5] (2021)
Subsidiaries
Websitewww.vivendi.com
Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA
Company typePrivate
IndustryMass media
Founded1 July 1835; 189 years ago (1835-07-01)[6]
FounderCarl Bertelsmann
Headquarters,
Germany
Area served
Worldwide
Key people
ProductsPublishing, record label, broadcasting, cable television, television production, film production, video games
RevenueIncrease 40 billion (2021)
Increase €3 billion (2021)
Total assetsIncrease €75 billion (2021)
Total equityIncrease €14 billion (2021)
OwnerBertelsmann Stiftung
Number of employees
145,027 (2021)
Subsidiaries
Websitewww.bertelsmann.com
Footnotes / references
Annual Report 2021
2012 Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election

← 2010 June 5–6, 2012 2014 →
Turnout57.8% (Increase 8.1%)
 
Nominee Scott Walker Tom Barrett
Party Republican Democratic
Popular vote 1,220,462 1,279,603
Percentage 48.5% 50.8%

County results
Walker:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%
Barrett:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

Governor before election

Scott Walker
Republican

Elected Governor

Tom Barrett
Democratic

2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin

← 2016 November 8, 2022 2028 →
 
Nominee Ron Johnson Mandela Barnes
Party Republican Democratic
Popular vote 1,337,185 1,340,467
Percentage 49.9% 50.0%

Johnson:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%      >90%
Barnes:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%      >90%
Tie:      40–50%      50%
     No data

U.S. senator before election

Ron Johnson
Republican

Elected U.S. Senator

Mandela Barnes
Democratic

List of presidents of the United States from 1789 – till date.
No.[a] Portrait Name
(Birth–Death)
Term[8] Party[b][9] Election Vice President[10]
1 Painting of George Washington George Washington
(1732–1799)
[11]
April 30, 1789

March 4, 1797
Unaffiliated 1788–1789

1792

John Adams[c]
2 Painting of John Adams John Adams
(1735–1826)
[13]
March 4, 1797

March 4, 1801
Federalist 1796 Thomas Jefferson[d]
3 Painting of Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson
(1743–1826)
[15]
March 4, 1801

March 4, 1809
Democratic-
Republican
1800

1804

Aaron Burr

George Clinton

4 Painting of James Madison James Madison
(1751–1836)
[16]
March 4, 1809

March 4, 1817
Democratic-
Republican
1808

1812

George Clinton[e]

Vacant after
April 20, 1812


Elbridge Gerry[e]


Vacant after
November 23, 1814

5 Painting of James Monroe James Monroe
(1758–1831)
[18]
March 4, 1817

March 4, 1825
Democratic-
Republican
1816

1820

Daniel D. Tompkins
6 Painting of John Quincy Adams John Quincy Adams
(1767–1848)
[19]
March 4, 1825

March 4, 1829
Democratic-
Republican
[f]

National Republican

1824 John C. Calhoun[g]
7 Painting of Andrew Jackson Andrew Jackson
(1767–1845)
[22]
March 4, 1829

March 4, 1837
Democratic 1828

1832

John C. Calhoun[h]

Vacant after
December 28, 1832


Martin Van Buren

8 Painting of Martin Van Buren Martin Van Buren
(1782–1862)
[23]
March 4, 1837

March 4, 1841
Democratic 1836 Richard Mentor Johnson
9 Painting of William Henry Harrison William Henry Harrison
(1773–1841)
[24]
March 4, 1841

April 4, 1841[e]
Whig 1840 John Tyler
10 Black-and-white photographic portrait of John Tyler John Tyler
(1790–1862)
[25]
April 4, 1841[i]

March 4, 1845
Whig[j]

Unaffiliated

Vacant throughout
presidency
11 Black-and-white photographic portrait of James K. Polk James K. Polk
(1795–1849)
[28]
March 4, 1845

March 4, 1849
Democratic 1844 George M. Dallas
12 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Zachary Taylor Zachary Taylor
(1784–1850)
[29]
March 4, 1849

July 9, 1850[e]
Whig 1848 Millard Fillmore
13 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Millard Fillmore Millard Fillmore
(1800–1874)
[30]
July 9, 1850[k]

March 4, 1853
Whig Vacant throughout
presidency
14 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Franklin Pierce Franklin Pierce
(1804–1869)
[32]
March 4, 1853

March 4, 1857
Democratic 1852 William R. King[e]

Vacant after
April 18, 1853

15 Black-and-white photographic portrait of James Buchanan James Buchanan
(1791–1868)
[33]
March 4, 1857

March 4, 1861
Democratic 1856 John C. Breckinridge
16 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Abraham Lincoln Abraham Lincoln
(1809–1865)
[34]
March 4, 1861

April 15, 1865[e]
Republican

National Union[l]

1860

1864

Hannibal Hamlin

Andrew Johnson

17 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Andrew Johnson Andrew Johnson
(1808–1875)
[36]
April 15, 1865[m]

March 4, 1869
National Union[n]

Democratic

Vacant throughout
presidency
18 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Ulysses S. Grant Ulysses S. Grant
(1822–1885)
[37]
March 4, 1869

March 4, 1877
Republican 1868

1872

Schuyler Colfax

Henry Wilson[e]


Vacant after
November 22, 1875

19 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Rutherford B. Hayes Rutherford B. Hayes
(1822–1893)
[38]
March 4, 1877

March 4, 1881
Republican 1876 William A. Wheeler
20 Black-and-white photographic portrait of James A. Garfield James A. Garfield
(1831–1881)
[39]
March 4, 1881

September 19, 1881[e]
Republican 1880 Chester A. Arthur
21 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Chester A. Arthur Chester A. Arthur
(1829–1886)
[40]
September 19, 1881[o]

March 4, 1885
Republican Vacant throughout
presidency
22 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Grover Cleveland Grover Cleveland
(1837–1908)
[42]
March 4, 1885

March 4, 1889
Democratic 1884 Thomas A. Hendricks[e]

Vacant after
November 25, 1885

23 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Benjamin Harrison Benjamin Harrison
(1833–1901)
[43]
March 4, 1889

March 4, 1893
Republican 1888 Levi P. Morton
24 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Grover Cleveland Grover Cleveland
(1837–1908)
[42]
March 4, 1893

March 4, 1897
Democratic 1892 Adlai Stevenson I
25 Black-and-white photographic portrait of William McKinley William McKinley
(1843–1901)
[44]
March 4, 1897

September 14, 1901[e]
Republican 1896

1900

Garret Hobart[e]

Vacant after
November 21, 1899


Theodore Roosevelt

26 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Theodore Roosevelt Theodore Roosevelt
(1858–1919)
[45]
September 14, 1901[p]

March 4, 1909
Republican

1904

Vacant through
March 4, 1905

Charles W. Fairbanks

27 Black-and-white photographic portrait of William Howard Taft William Howard Taft
(1857–1930)
[47]
March 4, 1909

March 4, 1913
Republican 1908 James S. Sherman[e]

Vacant after
October 30, 1912

28 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Woodrow Wilson Woodrow Wilson
(1856–1924)
[48]
March 4, 1913

March 4, 1921
Democratic 1912

1916

Thomas R. Marshall
29 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Warren G. Harding Warren G. Harding
(1865–1923)
[49]
March 4, 1921

August 2, 1923[e]
Republican 1920 Calvin Coolidge
30 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Calvin Coolidge Calvin Coolidge
(1872–1933)
[50]
August 2, 1923[q]

March 4, 1929
Republican

1924

Vacant through
March 4, 1925

Charles G. Dawes

31 Black-and-white photographic portrait of Herbert Hoover Herbert Hoover
(1874–1964)
[52]
March 4, 1929

March 4, 1933
Republican 1928 Charles Curtis
32 Photographic portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt Franklin D. Roosevelt
(1882–1945)
[53]
March 4, 1933

April 12, 1945[e]
Democratic 1932

1936


1940


1944

John Nance Garner

Henry A. Wallace


Harry S. Truman

33 Photographic portrait of Harry S. Truman Harry S. Truman
(1884–1972)
[54]
April 12, 1945[r]

January 20, 1953
Democratic

1948

Vacant through
January 20, 1949

Alben W. Barkley

34 Photographic portrait of Dwight D. Eisenhower Dwight D. Eisenhower
(1890–1969)
[56]
January 20, 1953

January 20, 1961
Republican 1952

1956

Richard Nixon
35 Photographic portrait of John F. Kennedy John F. Kennedy
(1917–1963)
[57]
January 20, 1961

November 22, 1963[e]
Democratic 1960 Lyndon B. Johnson
36 Photographic portrait of Lyndon B. Johnson Lyndon B. Johnson
(1908–1973)
[58]
November 22, 1963[s]

January 20, 1969
Democratic

1964

Vacant through
January 20, 1965

Hubert Humphrey

37 Photographic portrait of Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter
(b. 1924)
[60]
January 20, 1969

January 20, 1977
Democratic 1968

1972

Walter Mondale
38 Photographic portrait of Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan
(1911–2004)
[61]
January 20, 1981

January 20, 1989
Republican 1976

1980

George H. W. Bush
39 Photographic portrait of George H. W. Bush George H. W. Bush
(1924–2018)
[62]
January 20, 1985

January 20, 1993
Republican 1980

1984

Dan Quayle
40 Photographic portrait of Bill Clinton Bill Clinton
(b. 1946)
[63]
January 20, 1993

January 20, 2001
Democratic 1992

1996

Al Gore
41 Photographic portrait of George W. Bush Al Gore
(b. 1948)
[64]
January 20, 2001

January 20, 2009
Democratic 2000

2004

Jeanne Shaheen
42 Photographic portrait of Barack Obama John McCain
(1936-2018)
[65]
January 20, 2009

January 20, 2013
Republican 2008 Charlie Crist
43 Photographic portrait of Barack Obama Barack Obama
(b. 1961)
[65]
January 20, 2013

January 20, 2021
Democratic 2012

2016

Joe Biden
44 Photographic portrait of Joe Biden Bernie Sanders
(b. 1941)
[66]
January 20, 2021

January 20, 2029
Democratic 2020

2024

Elizabeth Warren
45 Photographic portrait of Joe Biden Gretchen Whitmer
(b. 1971)
[66]
January 20, 2029

Incumbent
Democratic 2028 Tim Walz
Mike Castle
Official portrait, 2006
Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee
In office
February 3, 2021 – January 3, 2026
Preceded byJames Lankford
Succeeded bySarah McBride
Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee
In office
January 3, 2023 – January 3, 2026
Preceded byChuck Grassley
Succeeded bySarah McBride
Vice Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee
In office
January 3, 2017 – February 3, 2021
Preceded byBarbara Boxer
Succeeded byJames Lankford
United States Senator
from Delaware
In office
November 15, 2010 – January 3, 2026
Preceded byTed Kaufman
Succeeded bySarah McBride
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Delaware's at-large district
In office
January 3, 1993 – November 15, 2010
Preceded byTom Carper
Succeeded byJohn Carney
69th Governor of Delaware
In office
January 15, 1985 – December 31, 1992
LieutenantS. B. Woo
Dale E. Wolf
Preceded byPete du Pont
Succeeded byDale E. Wolf
20th Lieutenant Governor of Delaware
In office
January 20, 1981 – January 15, 1985
GovernorPete du Pont
Preceded byJames D. McGinnis
Succeeded byS. B. Woo
Member of the Delaware Senate
from the 1st district
In office
January 7, 1969 – January 4, 1977
Preceded byRussell D. F. Dineen
Succeeded byHarris McDowell III
Member of the Delaware House of Representatives
from the 6th district
In office
January 3, 1967 – January 7, 1969
Preceded byFrank A. Parisi
Succeeded byGeorge C. Hering III
Personal details
Born
Michael Newbold Castle

(1939-07-02) July 2, 1939 (age 85)
Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.
Political partyIndependent (2010–present)
Other political
affiliations
Republican (1965–2010)[t]
SpouseJane DiSabatino
EducationHamilton College (BS)
Georgetown University (LLB)

Results

edit
Results by county:
  O'Donnell—60-70%
  Castle—60–70%
Republican primary results[67]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Mike Castle 31,023 50.37%
Republican Christine O'Donnell 30,561 49.63%
Total votes 57,582 100.0%
2010 United States Senate special election in Delaware

← 2008 November 2, 2010 2014 →
 
Nominee Mike Castle Chris Coons
Party Republican Democratic
Popular vote 208,356 156,365
Percentage 53.3% 40.0%

County results
Castle:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

U.S. senator before election

Ted Kaufman
Democratic

Elected U.S. Senator

Mike Castle
Republican

Counties that flipped from Democratic to Republican

edit

By state

edit

The PVIs for states are calculated based on the results of the U.S. presidential elections in 2016 and 2020.[68] The table below reflects the current state of Congress and governors, based on the most recent election results.

State PVI Party of
governor
Party
in Senate
House
balance
Alabama R+15 Republican Republican 6R, 1D
Alaska R+8 Republican Republican 1D
Arizona R+2 Democratic Democratic* 6R, 3D
Arkansas R+16 Republican Republican 4R
California D+13 Democratic Democratic 40D, 12R
Colorado D+4 Democratic Democratic 5D, 3R
Connecticut D+7 Democratic Democratic 5D
Delaware D+7 Democratic Democratic 1D
Florida R+3 Republican Both 16R, 13D
Georgia R+3 Republican Democratic 9R, 5D
Hawaii D+14 Democratic Democratic 2D
Idaho R+50 Republican Republican 1R
Illinois D+7 Democratic Democratic 14D, 3R
Indiana R+7 Republican Both 5D, 5R
Iowa D+5 Democratic Democratic 4D
Kansas R+10 Democratic Republican 3R, 1D
Kentucky R+16 Democratic Republican 5R, 1D
Louisiana R+12 Republican Republican 5R, 1D
Maine D+2 Democratic Democratic* 1D
Maryland D+14 Democratic Democratic 7D, 1R
Massachusetts D+15 Democratic Democratic 9D
Michigan R+1 Democratic Democratic 7D, 6R
Minnesota D+1 Democratic Democratic 4D, 4R
Mississippi R+11 Republican Republican 3R, 1D
Missouri R+4 Republican Both 4D, 4R
Montana EVEN Democratic Both 1D
Nebraska R+13 Republican Republican 3R
Nevada R+1 Republican Democratic 3D, 1R
New Hampshire D+1 Republican Democratic 2D
New Jersey D+6 Democratic Democratic 9D, 3R
New Mexico D+3 Democratic Democratic 3D
New York D+10 Democratic Democratic 15D, 11R
North Carolina R+3 Democratic Republican 7D, 7R
North Dakota R+20 Republican Republican 1R
Ohio R+6 Republican Both 8D, 7R
Oklahoma R+20 Republican Republican 5R
Oregon D+6 Democratic Democratic 5D, 1R
Pennsylvania R+2 Democratic Democratic 9D, 8R
Rhode Island D+8 Democratic Democratic 2D
South Carolina R+8 Republican Republican 6R, 1D
South Dakota R+16 Republican Republican 1R
Tennessee R+14 Republican Republican 8R, 1D
Texas R+5 Republican Republican 25R, 13D
Utah R+13 Republican Republican 3R, 1D
Vermont D+16 Republican Democratic* 1D
Virginia D+3 Republican Democratic 6D, 5R
Washington D+8 Democratic Democratic 8D, 2R
West Virginia R+22 Republican Republican 2R
Wisconsin R+2 Democratic Both 4D, 4R
Wyoming R+25 Republican Republican 1R
* Includes an independent senator who caucuses with the Democrats.


Question 1
3 November 2020

Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to establish a redistricting commission, consisting of eight members of the General Assembly and eight citizens of the Commonwealth, that is responsible for drawing the congressional and state legislative districts that will be subsequently voted on, but not changed by, the General Assembly and enacted without the Governor's involvement and to give the responsibility of drawing districts to the Supreme Court of Virginia if the redistricting commission fails to draw districts or the General Assembly fails to enact districts by certain deadlines?
Results
Choice
Votes %
Yes 2,782,960 65.98%
No 1,435,134 34.02%
Total votes 4,218,094 100.00%
Registered voters/turnout 5,975,752 70.59%

 
Results by county
  Yes—80–90%
  Yes—70–80%
  Yes—60–70%
  Yes—50–60%
  No—50–60%
Source: Virginia Department of Elections[69][70]
Johnson v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
 
Seal of the Wisconsin Supreme Court
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
Full case name Billie Johnson et al. v. Wisconsin Elections Commission et al.
DecidedNovember 30, 2021 (Johnson 1), March 3, 2022 (Johnson 2), April 15, 2022 (Johnson 3)
Questions presented
  • (1) Under the relevant state and federal laws, what factors should we consider in evaluating or creating new maps?
  • (2) Is the partisan makeup of districts a valid factor for us to consider in evaluating or creating new maps?
  • (3) The petitioners ask us to modify existing maps using a "least-change" approach. Should we do so, and if not, what approach should we use?
  • (4) As we evaluate or create new maps, what litigation process should we use to determine a constitutionally sufficient map?
Court membership
Judges sittingAnnette Ziegler, Chief Justice
Ann Walsh Bradley, Rebecca Bradley, Rebecca Dallet, Brian Hagedorn, Jill Karofsky, Patience Roggensack, Justices
Case opinions
  • The court shall adopt congressional and legislative maps that have the least changes necessary from previous congressional and legislative maps (Johnson 1)
  • Governor Evers' proposed legislative and congressional maps best fulfil the core retention principle, which defines the least changes doctrine, by making the minimal changes from previous maps (Johnson 2)
  • On remand from SCOTUS, the Legislature's maps best fulfil the least changes doctrine, they don't violate Wis Con Art. IV, Sec. 3 and 4 and they comply with the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and the principle of "one person, one vote" by being race neutral. The decision to adopt Governor Evers' proposed congressional maps remains the same (Johnson 3)
Decision by
  • R. Bradley (Johnson 1),
  • Hagedorn (Johnson 2)
  • Ziegler (Johnson 3)
Dissent
  • Karofsky, R. Dallet, A.Bradley (Johnson 1 and 3)
  • Ziegler, R. Bradley, Roggensack (Johnson 2)
Laws applied
Overruled by

Johnson v Wisconsin Elections Commission is a series of landmark cases heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court between November 2021 and April 2022, regarding congressional and legislative redistricting in Wisconsin. The cases were notable for being the first redistricting cases the Wisconsin Supreme Court in 60 years, breaking away from a precedent of declining to hear redistricting cases, and instead allowing the Federal Judiciary to litigate them instead, and for introducing a new legal standard to use for redistricting, often referred to as the "least changes" standard. This standard was overturned by the court's landmark decision in Clarke v. Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Background

edit

During the 2010 Midterm Elections, Republicans won control of the Wisconsin state government, with Scott Walker winning the 2010 governor election, and Republicans winning a majority in the Wisconsin Senate and a near supermajority in the Wisconsin Asssembly. After the 2010 Census, Wisconsin Republicans redistricted the legislative districts, and the congressional districts, to give the Republican party an edge in both congress, and especially the Wisconsin Legislature. The final redistricted maps resulted in one of the most successful partisan gerrymanders in the history of the United States. The gerrymander was a result of a Republican project known as REDMAP, which had the goal of entrenching Republican majorities in state legislatures and congressional districts. The results of this gerrymander were best seen in 2018, when in the 2018 Wisconsin State Assembly election, Wisconsin Democrats won 53% of the legislative vote, however Republicans retained their near supermajority in the assembly. The 2011 gerrymander was also the first time in nearly 40 years, in which Wisconsin redistricting was conducted by one-party government, the prior one-party redistricting taking place in 1983, in which Democrats conducted the redistricting. After the 2018 Wisconsin gubernatorial election, in which Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers defeated incumbent governor Scott Walker, Democrats regained control of the governorship, whilst the legislature remained Republican. Once the 2020 census had been conducted, under Wisconsin law, redistricting was to be conducted by the legislature, with gubernatorial approval. However, due to the divide in government, and increased political polarisation, the Wisconsin state government was unable to adopt a map on time, with both parties deferring to the courts. Democrats, represented by progressive law firm, Law Forward sought relief from the federal judiciary, whilst Republicans sought relief with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The federal cases On August 23, 2021, on behalf of the Republican plaintiffs, the conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty filed a petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, for the court to take original jurisdiction on the redistricting case. On September 22, 2021, the court agreed to take the case, assuming jurisdiction from federal courts, and overturning its 60 year precedent of deferring redistricting cases to the federal judiciary.

November 2021 Johnson v. Wisconsin Election Commission case (Johnson 1)

edit

On August 13, 2021, a group of Wisconsin voters, represented by progressive law firm, Law Forward filed a federal lawsuit, known as "Hunter v. Bostelmann", with the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, alleging that the 2011 congressional and legislative maps adopted by the Republican Party violated the principle of one person, one vote under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, and also contended that the legislature's inability to enact redistricted maps in time for the 2022 Wisconsin elections violated their freedom of association under the 1st Amendment. A few days later, on August 23, 2021, 2 different lawsuits were filed, one being federal and one being state-level. The federal lawsuit, under the name, "Black Leaders Organising for Communities v. Spindell" was also filed with the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin and also contended that the 2011 legislative maps violated the principle of "one man, one vote" under the 14th Amendment, as well as hindering their right to freedom of assembly under the 1st Amendment by not having a valid redistricting plan in place. Both federal lawsuits, were consolidated together on September 16, 2021. The state-level lawsuit, known as Johnson v Wisconsin, was brought by Wisconsin voters represented by conservative law firm Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty and asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to take original jurisdiction against challenges to the 2011 maps. The plaintiffs contended that the "one person, one vote" requirement in redistricting, had been violated by a malapportionment of the legislative and congressional maps due to the 2020 census, and therefore had to be redrawn. The plaintiffs also contended that this malapportionemnt was in violation of Art. IV of the Wisconsin Constitution, and therefore had to be redrawn. The plaintiffs also contended that the Wisconsin Supreme Court take action in the case, due to redistricting being a primarily state task, as opposed to a federal task. Finally, the plaintiffs asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to use "the principle of making the least number of changes to the existing maps as are necessary to meet the requirement of equal population and the remaining traditional redistricting criteria". On September 22, 2021, in a 4-3 decision along ideological lines, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to take the case. This was seen as a major deviation from prior Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent, as the court had previously rejected jurisdiction, and deferred redistricting cases to federal courts, often by a unanimous decision. The latest time this happened, was in 2002, with the case, "Jensen v. Wisconsin Elections Board", where the court rejected jurisdiction by citing they lacked the proper procedure to litigate redistricting, and allowed the federal courts to take the case instead. The last time the Wisconsin Supreme Court took a redistricting case, was in 1964 with "State ex rel. Reynolds v Zimmerman". After the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to take the case, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin stayed its lawsuit, extending its stay on November 18, 2021 to January 4, 2022, and giving a second and final extension of the stay on December 17, 2021 to January 28, 2022.

Decision

edit

On November 30, 2021, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its opinion, answering the first 3 questions, and stating that they had answered the 4th question, preliminarily, in an unpublished order. Writing for a plurality for question 1, and for the majority for questions 2 and 3, Justice Rebecca Bradley began her opinion by noting that the 2011 maps are unconstitutional under Wisconsin law, and that the United States Supreme Court declared "there are no legal standards by which judges may decide whether maps are politically "fair", under its landmark decision in Rucho v Common Cause. Justice Grassl Bradley herself agreed with the conclusion of SCOTUS by stating that the Wisconsin constitution requires the legislature to perform the task of redistricting. Justice Grassl Bradley also noted that intervenors in the lawsuit asked the court to consider Article 1, Section 2, the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Wisconsin Constitution's Declaration of Rights.

In answering the questions presented by the plaintiffs, Justice Grassl Bradley held that for any judicial remedy to resolve a redistricting dispute, the remedy must resolve the dispute "only to the extent necessary to remedy the violation of a justiciable and cognizable right protected under the United States Constitution, the VRA, or Article IV, Sections 3, 4, or 5 of the Wisconsin Constitution", that partisan composition doesn't constitute a "justiciable or cognizable right", and that any judicial remedy will make "the minimum changes necessary in order to conform the existing congressional and state legislative redistricting plans to constitutional and statutory requirements". Justice Grassl Bradley also stated that any revisions to the maps are only to fix the malapportionment produced by the census.

Justice Brian Hagedorn wrote a separate concurring opinion, starting his off, by agreeing with Justice Grassl Bradley, that, under Wisconsin law, the job of redistricting falls to the legislature, and not the judiciary, that "the job of the judiciary is to decide cases based on the law", "our role is appropriately limited to altering current district boundaries only as needed to comply with legal requirements", and "to the extent feasible, a court's role in redistricting should be modest and restrained". However, Justice Hagedorn's concurrence differed from the majority opinion in that he disagreed with the majority's conclusion that "only legal requirements may be considered in constructing a fitting remedy", instead asserting that "legal standards establish the need for a remedy and constrain the remedies we may impose, but they are not the only permissible judicial considerations when constructing a proper remedy". Justice Hagedorn notes Communities of interest as a consideration in redistricting cases, that is not a legal requirement. Justice Hagedorn also notes the dissent in his opinion, disagreeing with the dissent, stating that "the dissent argues we can take over the responsibility of the legislature entirely, discard policy judgments we don't like, and craft a new law from scratch consistent with our own policy concerns. The reader should look past pleas for fairness and see this for what it is: a claim of dangerously broad judicial power to fashion state policy. According to the dissent, this court should simply ignore the law on the books——one the dissent makes clear it is not fond of——and draft a new one more to its liking."

Dissent

edit

Justice Rebecca Dallet wrote the dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ann Walsh Bradley, and Jill Karofsky. Justice Dallet started her dissent of by stating, "Redistricting is an "inherently political and legislative——not judicial——task," even when judges do it." Justice Dallet reaffirmed and emphasised her position on redistricting cases, by stating that the prior precedent set by the Wisconsin Supreme Court of deferring to federal courts, was the best approach for handling redistricting, stating, "That is one reason why I said that the federal courts, comprised of judges insulated from partisan politics by lifetime appointments, are best suited to handle redistricting cases." Justice Dallet criticised the majority, for what she believed was "the political thicket of redistricting", and criticising the Court for not remaining neutral and non-partisan in redistricting cases. She also criticised the court for choosing the least changes principle as the criteria for redistricting, and arguing that using least changes for redistricting, was "effectively insulates future maps from being challenged as extreme partisan gerrymanders." Justice Dallet also said, that these two factors, in determining new maps, "The upshot of those two decisions, neither of which is politically neutral, is to elevate outdated partisan choices over neutral redistricting criteria. That outcome has potentially devastating consequences for representative government in Wisconsin."

Justice Dallet also directly criticised the court's decision to use the least changes priniciples, believing that the court's usage of this principle, was political, and non-partisan, stating "In that way, adopting a least-change approach is an inherently political choice. Try as it might, the majority is fooling no one by proclaiming its decision is neutral and apolitical." She also criticised the use of least changes, due to the fact, that the least changes had not been used in federal or state courts before, in redistricting cases, before the Johnson case, stating "The bottom line is that the least-change approach has no "general acceptance among reasonable jurists" when the court's starting point is a legislatively drawn map." However, Justice Dallet also concluded, that the least changes principle can be used in certain circumstances, noting that maps drawn by a court, that were based on a previous court drawn map, can be drawn using the least changes principle.

March 2022 Johnson v. Wisconsin Election Commission case (Johnson 2)

edit

Decision

edit

After the verdict in Johnson 1, the Wisconsin Supreme Court set and heard oral arguments on January 19, 2022, on what maps the court would adopt, after the 2020 census, and issuing its decision on March 3, 2022. Writing for the majority, Justice Brian Hagedorn started his opinion off by acknowledging that the process of redistricting falls towards the Wisconsin Legislature and Wisconsin Governor, and not the Wisconsin Judiciary, but that the lawsuit brought to the court was done to "remedy the malapportionment" of the 2020 census. Justice Hagedorn also mentions that the court intervened in the malapportionment case because that the political branches of Wisconsin failed to "carry out their constitutional responsibilities", and states "both this court and the United States Supreme Court have held that this failure implicates the constitutional rights of voters". As the court had not established a measure to enact the least changes principle in Johnson 1, Justice Hagedorn established his own method to enact the least changes principle, known as "Core Retention". Justice Hagedorn explained it as being "a measure of voters who remain in their prior districts". Justice Hagedorn came to the conclusion that Governor Tony Evers' proposed congressional district map was the map that best satisfied the core retention method, stating that Evers' map "moves 5.5% of the population to new districts, leaving 94.5% in their current districts. In raw numbers, the Governor's proposal to move 324,415 people to new districts is 60,041 fewer people than the next best proposal. In addition, Governor Evers' submission complies with the federal Constitution and all other applicable laws. We therefore adopt Governor Evers' proposed congressional map." For the legislative maps, Justice Hagedorn stated that 6 proposals of maps, from Black Leaders Organising for Communities, Citizens Maps and Scientists, Governor Evers, State Senator Janet Bewley, the Wisconsin Legislature, and the Hunter Intervenor-Petitioners, were given to the court, and that Governor Evers' maps, once again, were the maps which fulfilled the core retention metric, stating "In their senate proposals, both Governor Evers and the Legislature move a nearly identical 7.8% of voters to different districts (92.2% core retention), with a slight edge to the Legislature for moving 1,958 fewer people. However, in their assembly map proposals, Governor Evers moves 14.2% of voters to new districts, while the Legislature moves 15.8% (85.8% vs. 84.2% core retention), a difference that affects 96,178 people. No other proposal comes close. And beyond core retention, no other measure of least change alters the picture. The Governor's proposed senate and assembly maps produce less overall change than other submissions."

Garland v. Range
 
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Full case name BRYAN DAVID RANGE, Appellant v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; REGINA LOMBARDO, Acting Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
DecidedJune 6, 2023
Citation801 F.3d 1126 (2015)
Case history
Prior actionsCross-motions for summary judgment denied, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9799 (N.D. Cal. 2013)
Subsequent actionsOpinion amended, 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2016); cert. denied, Lenz v. 137 S.Ct. 2263 (2017)
2014 United States Senate election in Montana
 
← 2008 November 4, 2014 2020 →
     
Nominee Brian Schweitzer Marc Racicot
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 200,357 198,389
Percentage 50.25% 49.75%

 
County results
Schweitzer:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%
Racicot:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

U.S. senator before election

John Walsh[u]
Democratic

Elected U.S. Senator

Brian Schweitzer
Democratic

2020 United States Senate election in Montana
 
← 2014 November 3, 2020 2026 →
     
Nominee Brian Schweitzer Steve Daines
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 248,956 242,809
Percentage 50.62% 49.38%

 
 
Schweitzer:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%      >90%
Daines:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%      >90%

U.S. senator before election

Brian Schweitzer
Democratic

Elected U.S. Senator

Brian Schweitzer
Democratic

2004 United States Senate election in South Dakota
 
← 1998 November 2, 2004 2010 →
     
Nominee Tom Daschle John Thune
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 195,838 195,350
Percentage 50.06% 49.94%

 
County results
Thune:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%
Daschle:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

U.S. senator before election

Tom Daschle
Democratic

Elected U.S. Senator

Tom Daschle
Democratic

2014 United States Senate election in South Dakota
 
← 2008 November 3, 2020 2020 →
     
Nominee Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Mike Rounds
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 171,672 171,084
Percentage 50.06% 49.94%

 
County results
Rounds:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%
Herseth Sandlin:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%
     70–80%      >90%

U.S. senator before election

Tim Johnson
Democratic

Elected U.S. Senator

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Democratic

2000 North Dakota gubernatorial election
 
← 1996 November 7, 2000 2004 →
     
Nominee Heidi Heitkamp John Hoeven
Party Democratic–NPL Republican
Running mate Aaron Krauter Jack Dalrymple
Popular vote 159,255 155,244
Percentage 50.64% 49.36%

 
 
Heitkamp:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      80–90%
Hoeven:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

Governor before election

Ed Schafer
Republican

Elected Governor

Heidi Heitkamp
Democratic–NPL

2006 United States Senate election in Indiana
 
← 2000 November 7, 2006 2012 →
     
Nominee Baron Hill Richard Lugar
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 1,281,587 1,278,515
Percentage 50.06% 49.94%

 
 
Hill:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%
Lugar:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%

U.S. senator before election

Richard Lugar
Republican

Elected U.S. Senator

Baron Hill
Democratic

2006 United States Senate election in Montana
 
← 2000 November 7, 2006 2012 →
     
Nominee Brian Schweitzer Conrad Burns
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 199,845 196,283
Percentage 49.16% 48.29%

 
County results
Schweitzer:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%
Burns:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

U.S. senator before election

Conrad Burns
Republican

Elected U.S. Senator

Brian Schweitzer
Democratic

2010 United States Senate election in Montana
 
← 2004 November 2, 2010 2004 →
     
Nominee Jon Tester Denny Rehberg
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 205,782 201,708
Percentage 50.05% 49.95%

 
County results
Tester:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%
Rehberg:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

U.S. senator before election

Max Baucus
Democratic

Elected U.S. Senator

Jon Tester
Democratic

2000 United States Senate election in New York
 
← 1994 November 7, 2000 2006 →
     
Nominee George Pataki Hillary Rodham Clinton
Party Republican Democratic
Alliance Conservative Liberal
Popular vote 3,157,863 3,095,331
Percentage 50.50% 49.50%

 
County results

Pataki:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%

Clinton:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

U.S. senator before election

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Democratic

Elected U.S. Senator

George Pataki
Republican

2006 United States Senate election in New York
 
← 2000 November 7, 2006 2012 →
     
Nominee Joe Crowley George Pataki
Party Democratic Republican
Alliance Liberal Conservative
Popular vote 3,198,483 3,054,661
Percentage 51.15% 48.85%

 
County results
Crowley:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%
Pataki:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

U.S. senator before election

George Pataki
Republican

Elected U.S. Senator

Joe Crowley
Democratic

2006 United States Senate election in Montana
 
← 2000 November 7, 2006 2012 →
     
Nominee Brian Schweitzer Marc Racicot
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 203,456 203,049
Percentage 50.05% 49.95%

 
County results
Schweitzer:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%
Racicot:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

U.S. senator before election

Marc Racicot
Republican

Elected U.S. Senator

Brian Schweitzer
Democratic

2000 United States Senate election in Montana
 
← 2000 November 7, 2000 2006 →
     
Nominee Marc Racicot John Driscoll
Party Republican Democratic
Popular vote 321,813 80,453
Percentage 80.00% 20.00%

 
County results
Racicot:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

U.S. senator before election

Conrad Burns
Republican

Elected U.S. Senator

Marc Racicot
Republican

2000 Montana gubernatorial election
 
← 1996 November 7, 2000 2004 →
Turnout59.90% 10.70[71]
     
Nominee Brian Schweitzer Judy Martz
Party Democratic Republican
Running mate John Bohlinger Karl Ohs
Popular vote 201,374 200,892
Percentage 50.06% 49.94%

 
County results
Schweitzer:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%
Martz:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

Governor before election

Marc Racicot
Republican

Elected Governor

Brian Schweitzer
Democratic

2004 Montana gubernatorial election
 
← 2000 November 2, 2004 2008 →
Turnout71.4% 11.5[72]
     
Nominee Brian Schweitzer Bob Brown
Party Democratic Republican
Running mate John Bohlinger Dave Lewis
Popular vote 348,165 128,773
Percentage 73.00% 27.00%

 
County results
Schweitzer:      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%

Governor before election

Brian Schweitzer
Democratic

Elected Governor

John Bohlinger
Democratic

1998 United States Senate election in Montana
 
← 1992 November 3, 1998 2004 →
     
Nominee Max Baucus Denny Rehberg
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 201,935 182,111
Percentage 49.56% 44.69%

 
County results
Baucus:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%
Rehberg:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

U.S. senator before election

Max Baucus
Democratic

Elected U.S. Senator

Max Baucus
Democratic

2006 United States House of Representatives election in Montana
 
← 2004 November 7, 2006 2008 →
     
Nominee Jon Tester Denny Rehberg
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 243,675 162,450
Percentage 60.00% 40.00%

 
County results
Tester:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%
Rehberg:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%

U.S. Representative before election

Denny Rehberg
Republican

Elected U.S. Representative

Jon Tester
Democratic

2008 United States House of Representatives election in Montana
 
← 2006 November 4, 2008 2010 →
   
Nominee Jon Tester Brad Johnson
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 288,450 192,360
Percentage 60.00% 40.00%

 
County results
Tester:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%
Rehberg:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%

U.S. Representative before election

Denny Rehberg
Republican

Elected U.S. Representative

Jon Tester
Democratic

2010 United States Senate election in Montana
 
← 2004 November 2, 2010 2004 →
     
Nominee Jon Tester Steve Daines
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 205,782 201,708
Percentage 50.05% 49.95%

 
County results
Tester:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%
Daines:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%

U.S. senator before election

Max Baucus
Democratic

Elected U.S. Senator

Jon Tester
Democratic

  1. ^ a b Peters, Jay (November 19, 2020). "Another Twitch co-founder is leaving the company, leaving only one". The Verge. Archived from the original on February 10, 2021. Retrieved January 2, 2021.
  2. ^ The postal designation of Englewood, a city in neighboring Arapahoe County, is used in the company's mailing address.
  3. ^ "The group's origins". Vivendi. Archived from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved March 12, 2017.
  4. ^ a b c d e "Financial Report and Audited Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2021" (PDF). Vivendi. March 3, 2022. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 14, 2021. Retrieved April 27, 2022.
  5. ^ "Financial Report and Audited Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2019" (PDF). Vivendi. February 13, 2020. Retrieved March 31, 2020.[permanent dead link]
  6. ^ "Bertelsmann erinnert sich". Neue Westfälische (in German). July 2, 2015. p. 11.
  7. ^ Christian Müssgens (August 30, 2012). "Ein Familienwächter für Bertelsmann". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (in German). Retrieved May 19, 2016.
  8. ^ LOC; whitehouse.gov.
  9. ^ Guide to U.S. Elections (2010), pp. 257–258.
  10. ^ LOC.
  11. ^ McDonald (2000).
  12. ^ Guide to U.S. Elections (2010), pp. 197, 272; Nardulli (1992), p. 179.
  13. ^ Pencak (2000).
  14. ^ Guide to U.S. Elections (2010), p. 274.
  15. ^ Peterson (2000).
  16. ^ Banning (2000).
  17. ^ a b Neale (2004), p. 22.
  18. ^ Ammon (2000).
  19. ^ Hargreaves (2000).
  20. ^ Guide to U.S. Elections (2010), p. 228; Goldman (1951), p. 159.
  21. ^ Guide to U.S. Elections (2010), p. 892; Houpt (2010), pp. 26, 280.
  22. ^ Remini (2000).
  23. ^ Cole (2000).
  24. ^ Gutzman (2000).
  25. ^ Shade (2000).
  26. ^ Abbott (2013), p. 23.
  27. ^ Cash (2018), pp. 34–36.
  28. ^ Rawley (2000).
  29. ^ Smith (2000).
  30. ^ Anbinder (2000).
  31. ^ Abbott (2005), p. 639.
  32. ^ Gara (2000).
  33. ^ Gienapp (2000).
  34. ^ McPherson (b) (2000).
  35. ^ McSeveney (1986), p. 139.
  36. ^ a b c Trefousse (2000).
  37. ^ McPherson (a) (2000).
  38. ^ Hoogenboom (2000).
  39. ^ Peskin (2000).
  40. ^ Reeves (2000).
  41. ^ Greenberger (2017), pp. 174–175.
  42. ^ a b Campbell (2000).
  43. ^ Spetter (2000).
  44. ^ Gould (a) (2000).
  45. ^ Harbaugh (2000).
  46. ^ Abbott (2005), p. 639–640.
  47. ^ Gould (b) (2000).
  48. ^ Ambrosius (2000).
  49. ^ Hawley (2000).
  50. ^ McCoy (2000).
  51. ^ Senate.
  52. ^ Hoff (a) (2000).
  53. ^ Brinkley (2000).
  54. ^ Hamby (2000).
  55. ^ Abbott (2005), p. 636.
  56. ^ Ambrose (2000).
  57. ^ Parmet (2000).
  58. ^ Gardner (2000).
  59. ^ Abbott (2005), p. 633.
  60. ^ whitehouse.gov (a).
  61. ^ Schaller (2004).
  62. ^ whitehouse.gov (b).
  63. ^ whitehouse.gov (c).
  64. ^ whitehouse.gov (d).
  65. ^ a b whitehouse.gov (e).
  66. ^ a b whitehouse.gov (g).
  67. ^ Cite error: The named reference auto1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  68. ^ "2022 Cook PVI: State Map and List". The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter. July 12, 2022. Retrieved July 19, 2022.
  69. ^ "2020 November General". Virginia Elections. Virginia Department of Elections. Archived from the original on December 5, 2020. Retrieved December 1, 2020.
  70. ^ "Registration Statistics". Virginia Elections. Virginia Department of Elections. Archived from the original on November 14, 2020. Retrieved December 1, 2020.
  71. ^ "Montana Voter Turnout". Montana Secretary of State. February 22, 2018. Retrieved May 26, 2022.
  72. ^ "Montana Voter Turnout". Montana Secretary of State. February 22, 2018. Retrieved May 26, 2022.


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).