Maryland can ban assault-style weapons such as the AR-15, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, bolstering gun control efforts across the country under legal threat.

The majority ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit written by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, was joined by eight judges, with seven others penning a concurring opinion. Wilkinson repeatedly cited the landmark 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court upheld a Second Amendment right to possess a firearm at home for self-defense. That ruling also held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose” and weapons with firepower far exceeding the needs of self-defense “may be banned.”

After dissecting how high-powered assault rifles are ineffective and inappropriate for self-defense, and recounting in some detail the horrors of mass shootings in the United States, the court endorsed the Maryland law by saying, “Our nation has a strong tradition of regulating excessively dangerous weapons once it becomes clear that they are exacting an inordinate toll on public safety and societal wellbeing.”

The ruling is an expected but welcome victory for gun regulation advocates, who are fighting hundreds of lawsuits spurred by a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said such restrictions must be in line with the country’s “history and tradition.”

That high court decision dramatically expanded the reach of the Second Amendment, saying no public safety interest can justify novel restrictions on the right to bear arms. Only “dangerous and unusual” arms can be banned the Supreme Court said. But the justices have, for now, chosen not to intervene when federal courts have upheld bans on powerful and popular semiautomatic weapons.

Maryland’s policy was implemented in the wake of the 2013 Sandy Hook massacre, when an AR-15 was used to kill 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school.

The parties who challenged the Maryland law, including three gun rights organizations, said they would challenge Tuesday’s ruling. Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, said “the court’s analysis is flawed and that the challenged law is unconstitutional. We will be filing a petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court, as this case presents an excellent vehicle for the Court to settle this debate once and for all.”

The dissent was written by Judge Julius N. Richardson and joined by four others.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges,” Richardson wrote. “Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal.”

Richardson noted that “while history and tradition support the banning of weapons that are both dangerous and unusual, Maryland’s ban cannot pass constitutional muster as it prohibits the possession of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee once considered for the Supreme Court, said in oral arguments that states should have leeway in dealing with such weapons. He said he was particularly disturbed by the idea of the AR-15 as beyond regulation, given his experience with the similar M16 automatic rifle in the U.S. Army.

But other conservative judges on the court countered that the AR-15 is in such common use now that it cannot possibly be considered “unusual” enough to be banned.

Wilkinson’s opinion attacked that argument, saying that the Supreme Court ruling which reopened the Maryland case implied that a weapon must be “in common use today for self-defense” to be covered by the Second Amendment, focusing on the choice of the word “use” rather than “possession” of a weapon. The opinion noted that bans on machine guns, short-barreled shotguns and poison-firing guns have been upheld, and that an analysis of “common use … leads to absurd consequences because it totally detaches the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms from its purpose of individual self-defense.”

The majority ruling also tracked the evolution of the killing power of guns in the United States, from imprecise and infrequently used for homicides in 1776 to the first mass slaying of 10 people in 1949. The military’s call for increased firepower during both world wars led to the development of more efficient deadly weapons. Those guns, such as the AR-15, then moved to the civilian population, and “it took only 32 seconds for a lone shooter to murder nine people and shoot 17 others in Dayton, Ohio,” in 2019, Wilkinson wrote. The shootings of Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Orlando and many others are also cited as examples of the AR-15′s overwhelming lethality.

Both Congress and state legislatures have responded to the dangers posed by semiautomatic weapons, with California restricting possession of assault weapons in 1989 and Congress enacting a 10-year ban on such weapons in 1994. “Throughout this history,” Wilkinson wrote, “lies a strong tradition of regulating those weapons that were invented for offensive purposes and were ultimately proven to pose exceptional dangers to innocent civilians … The Maryland statute at issue is yet another chapter in this chronicle.”

“To disregard,” Wilkinson concluded, “this tradition today — when mass slaughters multiply and the innovation of weaponry proceeds apace — could imperil both the perception and reality of well-being in our nation … The Second Amendment … does not require courts to turn their backs to democratic cries — to pile hopelessness on top of grief.”

PHOENIX — An Arizona grand jury that indicted 18 Donald Trump allies this spring for their role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election had expressed interest in possible charges against the former president, according to a legal motion filed this week by state prosecutors.

It is unclear how many of the jurors were in favor of indicting the former president, who by then had been federally charged for his attempts to subvert Joe Biden’s win in a case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. The interest prompted the Arizona case’s lead prosecutor to give a PowerPoint presentation and request that jurors not indict Trump, according to the motion.

Nicholas Klingerman, assistant attorney general for the Arizona attorney general’s criminal division, cited a rule about prosecuting someone for the same crime twice as well as a lack of evidence.

“That is why I have not recommended that in the draft indictment, despite clear indications from you all that there’s an interest in pursuing a charge against him,” Klingerman told the jurors.

The court document offers a rare glimpse into Arizona grand jury proceedings, which are typically kept secret. The grand jury ultimately indicted Trump advisers such as former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman and Christina Bobb. Also charged are the 11 Arizona Republicans who signed paperwork on Dec. 14, 2020, that falsely described Trump as the rightful winner.

Trump was not indicted but was described as an unindicted co-conspirator. All of the defendants have pleaded not guilty.

A spokesperson for Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The motion filed this week was Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’s (D) response to assertions by many of the 18 defendants that the investigation was politically motivated.

The attorney general disputed that accusation and others in a 37-page document arguing that Mayes pursued the case, which is still in an early phase, based on factual evidence — not political motivations.

It describes a repeated guidance from prosecutors to the jury that it could choose to issue no indictments at all. In addition to Trump himself, prosecutors repeatedly urged jurors not to hand down indictments against an Arizona attorney for the state Republican Party as well as other figures associated with trying to undermine Trump’s loss, the motion said.

Prosecutors, for instance, asked jurors to not indict more than two dozen Republicans — including state lawmakers — who signed a document dated Dec. 14, 2020, that falsely purported to represent an official resolution of the state legislature, the motion said.

That document requested that GOP electors be counted or that Arizona’s electoral results be “nullified” until an audit of the results could be conducted.

The strategy to undo Biden’s loss through the alternate slate of electors ultimately failed in Arizona and six other states that Biden had won. It has become central to criminal cases mounted by state, local and federal prosecutors who have described it as an intended basis for Vice President Mike Pence to declare that the outcome of the election was in doubt on Jan. 6, 2021, when he presided over the congressional counting of electoral college votes. Pence declined to do so and a Trump-allied mob ransacked the Capitol.

Ellis, who was a legal adviser to Trump’s 2020 campaign and spread false information about the legitimacy of the outcome, was among those charged. She reached a cooperation deal with the attorney general on Monday that allowed her to avoid potential jail time and nine felony charges in exchange for her full cooperation and testimony.

The motion unsealed this week includes snippets of conversations between an investigator and the jury, which included 16 jurors and four alternates.

“At any time, have you ever received any indication from the current Attorney General, Kris Mayes that she wants a specific outcome from your investigation,” one juror asked.

“Absolutely not,” replied a lead investigator.

“So you have been free to come up with whatever the evidence you can find suggests?” asked the juror.

“Exactly,” the investigator said.

Throughout 18 days of testimony, the jury was repeatedly advised that it “controlled the investigation and the prosecutors would follow its direction,” the motion said.

In the spring, the jury had identified who it wanted to investigate, as well as the charges, the motion said. It provided prosecutors with a list of targets for investigation and sought a draft indictment from prosecutors.

When Klingerman gave the PowerPoint presentation on April 22, he noted that the drafted indictment did not name Trump.

“I know that may be disappointing to some of you,” he said. “I understand.”

PHILADELPHIA — Republican vice-presidential nominee Sen. JD Vance (Ohio) sees one similarity with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the man he’s now tapped to face off against: “We’re White guys from the Midwest.’

But the two men — sons of America’s heartland, who both joined the military as teenagers — are far different on policy, Vance stressed in his first public remarks since Walz’s selection Tuesday as Vice President Harris’s running mate.

“I guess there’s similarities there, but what’s different is the actual ideas about how best to serve people, White, Black, or anything else in the Midwest and everywhere else,” Vance said.

Speaking about four miles from where Harris and Walz will make their first public appearance together, Vance said Walz was “one of the most far-left radicals in the entire United States government at any level,’ pointing to a new Minnesota law that lets any resident regardless of immigration status obtain a driver’s license. Vance also criticized Harris over her decision to not select Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro as her running mate, saying she was bending “the knee to the most radical elements of her party.’ Democrats have sought to re-engage progressives angered by the Biden administration’s aid to Israel amid the conflict in Gaza, and Shapiro, who is Jewish and has been supportive of Israel, was seen by some as a risky choice.

In a statement after Vance’s comments, Harris campaign communications director Michael Tyler highlighted Walz’s biography as a veteran, teacher and football coach before his career in politics. Walz flipped a Republican-held congressional district in 2006 and held the seat for five terms before running for governor in 2018.

“Vice President Harris and Gov. Walz will spend the next 91 days crisscrossing the country on a message of opportunity, building up the middle class instead of cutting taxes for the rich, and fighting for our fundamental freedoms, including reproductive freedom,” Tyler said.

Meanwhile, Walz has formed a key part of the recent messaging from Democrats by labeling Vance and Trump as “weird,’ which the Harris campaign and surrogates have adopted. A Harris campaign official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to preview Walz’s remarks, said the governor will further define the contrast between the tickets’ policy differences, specifically focusing on abortion, health care and the middle class.

Vance said he would not commit to debating Walz until he is confirmed as the vice-presidential nominee at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago this month. He told reporters earlier on his campaign plane that he had called Walz to wish him congratulations. Walz didn’t answer but he left a message.

The Philadelphia audience, made up of local Republicans invited to the closed event, listened to stories of Pennsylvania families who lost loved ones to fentanyl overdoses and cheered as Vance went after Harris’s position on border security

Vance will follow Harris and Walz on the campaign trail this week as they embark on a tour of battleground states, in Wisconsin and Michigan on Tuesday and North Carolina on Wednesday. (Harris postponed events in North Carolina because of Tropical Storm Debby as of Tuesday but Vance has not moved his scheduled events.)

Vance also previewed what is expected to be an ongoing attack line against Walz, tying him to images of burning buildings during the racial justice protests in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s murder in 2020 during Walz’s first term as governor. Republican strategists have foreshadowed that such messaging will become increasingly common in ads and events.

“Nobody knows who Tim Walz is outside of Minnesota,” said Mike Berg, communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “Walz will be introduced to Midwestern voters as the governor who let Minnesota burn during the 2020 riots and supported making Minnesota a sanctuary state.”

In the audience at Vance’s event, Janet DePaul, a Pennsylvania voter in her 50s, said she hadn’t realized Walz was governor of Minnesota during the protests until Vance brought it up — cementing her belief that Walz was left-wing.

“I didn’t realize that he let the rioting go on,” she said.

On the other hand, Deborah McGinley, a 53-year-old Pennsylvania voter, said she didn’t come away with any different impression of Walz than she already had from listening to friends in Minnesota who complained about the destruction caused by protests in 2020. She said she understood why Vance instead focused most of his remarks on introducing himself to voters there for the first time and talking about issues.

“He is far, far left for me,” she said of Walz. “My mind would have never been changed with what JD was saying.”

Welcome to The Campaign Moment, your guide to the biggest developments in the 2024 election — now with more “you betcha,” “uff da,” hot dish and walleye.

(Make sure you are subscribed to this newsletter here. You can also hear my analysis weekly on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.)

The big moment

The two-week sprint to become the new Democratic vice-presidential pick concluded Tuesday with a winner few had predicted at the outset: Tim Walz. The formerly somewhat obscure — at least on the national stage — Minnesota governor now joins Vice President Harris for a three-month race to the presidential election.

And if Republicans weren’t prepared for the sudden shift at the top of the Democratic ticket from President Biden to Harris, they were loaded for bear this time, with a more focused message. They blanketed inboxes and social media with attacks on Walz. The prevailing talking point: that a “dangerously liberal” presidential candidate just picked a “dangerously liberal” running mate.

“RNC Statement on Dangerously Liberal Harris-Walz Ticket,” read the Republican National Committee’s press release.

“Even worse than Dangerously Liberal and Crooked Kamala Harris,” Republican nominee Donald Trump’s campaign said in a fundraising email.

“Kamala Harris and Tim Walz: Weak, Failed, Dangerously Liberal,” the Trump campaign said in a statement.

“Too Weird. Too Radical,” concluded an ad from the pro-Trump Make America Great Again super PAC.

It’s indeed an extension of the GOP playbook against Harris. As for how it will play?

There is no question that, among the reported finalists for the job, Walz is probably the most pleasing to liberals. But that’s in large part a reflection of the competition; the reported alternatives hailed from swing and even red-leaning states that require a more moderate approach and where the balance of power isn’t as conducive to the Democratic agenda.

Walz, by contrast, has been able to push through left-leaning policies in Minnesota with narrow Democratic majorities — a remarkable success story, the merits of the policies aside.

Among the pieces of legislation signed into law: universal school lunches; universal gun background checks and a “red flag” law; abortion rights; paid family and medical leave; rights to gender-affirming care (the legislation the PAC ad focused on); restoring the rights of felons to vote; legalizing recreational marijuana; and allowing undocumented Minnesotans to apply for driver’s licenses.

Republicans have also signaled they intend to criticize Walz for pandemic-era restrictions, including a mask mandate, as well as his response to the riots that followed George Floyd’s 2020 murder in Minneapolis at the hands of police. (Some have criticized Walz for not more quickly dispatching the National Guard.)

Democrats argue that while Democratic governors in more divided states haven’t gotten such policies enacted, that is more a reflection of the internal political obstacles they faced rather than the popularity of the proposals. The concepts behind the gun bills, for instance, have overwhelming support in polls. Abortion rights are increasingly popular. Mask mandates have fallen in popularity, but they were once quite popular, and even red states had them.

If there are potential liabilities with swing voters, you might see them in such things as the “trans refuge” bill that Walz signed to protect those seeking gender-affirming care (a divisive topic), the driver’s license law (a subject of previous GOP focus that could be pitched as being soft on the border crisis), and the riots (which could feed into GOP claims that Democrats are soft on crime).

But in politics, a lot depends on the messenger and how they sell their record. And on a personal level, Walz certainly doesn’t project “raging liberal.”

His roots are about as far from the East and West Coasts as is possible, literally; he was born in a small Nebraska town and came of political age in southern Minnesota. He embodies a Midwestern style that Harris’s campaign hopes will attract voters in such must-win states as Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. He’s a veteran who focused heavily on veterans issues in Congress, and he is a former longtime teacher and football coach. He has talked about how he’s a gun owner and was featured in Guns & Ammo magazine in 2016. And, at one point, he said he didn’t think Nancy Pelosi should be House speaker.

Before he was a governor, Walz was a member of Congress representing a Republican-leaning, somewhat rural southern Minnesota district; he won reelection in 2016 even as Trump was carrying it by 15 points.

Walz’s 2022 gubernatorial reelection win was a bit less resounding, basically matching Biden’s seven-point margin from two years prior. But that 2016 campaign would seem to suggest that Walz knows how to navigate a difficult political environment and appeal to swing voters.

He’ll do it now with more of an established record, oodles more scrutiny and on a much bigger stage — a stage that as recently as mid-July few foresaw Tim Walz being on.

A poll number to remember

44 percent

That is the percentage of registered voters in a CBS News-YouGov poll released Sunday that described Harris as “very liberal.” That’s notably higher than the percentage who called Trump “very conservative” (37 percent).

It’s something of a carryover from the race between Trump and Biden; a June Gallup poll showed 56 percent viewed Biden as “too liberal,” while 44 percent viewed Trump as “too conservative.” (That’s a slightly different question, but it’s unlikely that swing voters view being “very liberal” as an asset.)

That reinforces how much of an issue Harris’s perceived ideology could be — along with the balancing act she faced in selecting a running mate.

Many of the GOP attacks on Harris stem from positions she staked out in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, when she was focused on appealing to the left. They included banning fracking and offshore drilling, as well as a mandatory gun buyback program and supporting the Green New Deal. Harris has walked back some of those positions of late.

Take a moment to read:

• “Tim Walz’s journey from high school football coach to VP candidate” (Washington Post)
• “Where Tim Walz stands on key issues: Abortion, climate, marijuana and more” (Washington Post)
• “In two weeks, Harris’s campaign has reset the electoral map” (Washington Post)
• “$10M cash withdrawal drove secret probe into whether Trump took money from Egypt” (Washington Post)
• “The presidential race shifts — modestly, so far — toward Harris” (Washington Post)
• “What’s shaping up as tension points between Harris and the left” (Politico)

A month ago, the 2024 presidential election was slated to feature the two oldest candidates in American history. President Biden, 81, was seeking to defend his position in the face of a challenge from former president Donald Trump, 78.

Despite the relatively narrow difference in their ages, polling showed that the issue posed more of a challenge for the incumbent than the former president. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that 58 percent of Americans viewed both candidates as too old for another term as president, with another (heavily Republican) quarter saying that only Biden was. The presidential debate in late June cemented concerns about Biden’s age, and a month later he passed the baton to Vice President Harris, 59.

You know all this. What you might not realize is that, despite poll findings like the one cited above, the question of age has largely faded to the background — though the question of a generational power transition has not.

One interesting effect of Biden’s poor performance in that first debate is that while perceptions of his unfitness rose, so did those perceptions for Trump. In early June, YouGov polling conducted for the Economist found that 26 percent of Americans thought Trump’s age severely limited his ability to do the job of president. By late July, after Biden dropped out, more than a third said that about Trump.

But that’s largely because of a big jump in the number of Democrats who say that Trump’s age is a severe limitation. There was a nearly 20-point increase among Democrats — perhaps in part because they felt newly free to suggest that age might be a hindrance to a candidacy.

There was another change since June, too: Both major-party candidates have now selected their running mates. Trump chose Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as the Republican convention began last month. On Tuesday, Harris chose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D).

Vance is the youngest member of a presidential ticket in decades, the first member of the millennial generation to be a major-party nominee for president or vice president. Walz, on the other hand, was born in 1964 — the same year as Harris.

When Vance was first named, I made the chart below to show his unique position as a millennial. Harris and Walz — like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Trump, Barack Obama and myriad other candidates before them — are members of the baby boom generation.

Since this question of generational identity comes up not infrequently (and since I have some expertise on the subject), it’s worth noting that the baby boom as a demographic event wrapped up in mid-1964, while the generation is generally said to apply to everyone born that year. In other words, Walz (born in April) was a member of the baby boom itself, while Harris (born in October) wasn’t. Whether this makes her the second member of Gen X to be on a major-party ticket (after former Wisconsin congressman Paul D. Ryan) is up to your own subjective determination.

Notice on the above chart, though, that Harris and Walz (those overlapping circles at the right-most boundary of boomers and Gen X) sit closer to Trump than to Vance. Each will be 60 by the end of the year, giving them a cumulative age of 120 years — more than the 118 years of the Trump-Vance ticket. Each is above the 116.3-year-old average since 1976.

But age, as the saying has it, ain’t nothing but a number. For at least one prominent member of the Democratic coalition, the Walz pick marks a transition in political thinking.

“It does feel like a generational shift,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said in a live stream on Instagram a few hours after the Walz announcement. “And by that I mean the kinds of generational politics that the Democratic Party is trying to practice now is a real departure from years past.”

She noted that “a generational shift doesn’t just mean that you’re electing younger people,” pointing to support for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primaries. Harris’s selection of Walz, while a reinforcement of the dominance of the baby boom (see caveats above) was nonetheless in her estimation a marked shift in how Democrats do politics, one respecting the ideology of younger voters. This is a useful argument for her to make as one of the figures most crucial to energizing young voters, but that doesn’t mean she is incorrect or insincere in making it.

This question of age, though? Revamped. Trump would be older at this point in a second term than Biden is now, but he has largely escaped similar scrutiny (in large part because Biden’s manifestations of his age were more obvious). The Democratic nominee is far younger, but the ticket slightly older — even though it does mark a generational shift in either delineation (how you draw the baby boom boundary) or approach (to hear Ocasio-Cortez tell it).

It is, to put it glibly, not the same old race.

Voters in Missouri’s 1st Congressional District will head to the polls Tuesday as Rep. Cori Bush fights to hold on to her seat in the Democratic primary against St. Louis County prosecutor Wesley Bell, who is backed by a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group. The race between two liberal Black candidates in this district gets to the heart of a fissure within the Democratic Party over the United States’ unwavering support of Israel’s military operation in Gaza.

While the vote in Bush’s primary will be among the most hotly contested on Tuesday, it is one in a slew of House, Senate and gubernatorial races playing out in Missouri, Michigan and Washington.

In 2021, Bush became the district’s first Black congresswoman after defeating Rep. William Lacy Clay, a centrist Democrat who had held the office for two decades.

Her opponent, Bell, is backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), long considered to be Washington’s most powerful lobbying force, and he headed into the primary’s home stretch with a sizable monetary advantage. By the end of June, Bell had four times as much cash on hand as Bush. Outside groups — mostly the pro-Israel lobby, incensed by her pro-Palestinian views — spent more than $12 million in ads that attacked Bush and supported Bell, according to Washington nonprofit OpenSecrets.

As the Gaza war stretches into its 10th month, AIPAC and other groups in the pro-Israel lobby are fighting to shut down criticism of Israel in Congress by pouring millions of dollars into races against several members of “the Squad,” a group of House Democrats on the party’s left flank, who have criticized the Israeli government amid its war in Gaza. After the primary loss of Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) in June, Bush was their next target.

But at the heart of the race is a question of how voters want the Democratic Party to look going forward. The two candidates’ contrasting opinions on Israel’s war on Gaza, which is being waged 6,500 miles away, will make little difference in how most people choose, voters told The Washington Post. Instead, it has become a matter of style over substance, with Bell portraying himself as a more pragmatic choice.

Both candidates are facing allegations of improper behavior: Bush is under federal investigation over allegations that she misused campaign funds to hire her husband to provide security, while Bell is awaiting a civil trial over allegations that he fired people based on their gender, age and race. Both candidates have denied wrongdoing.

In a district Joe Biden carried by more than 60 points in 2020, the winner of Tuesday’s primary heads into November’s election as the strong favorite.

Democratic Senate primary in Missouri

Three Democrats are battling Tuesday in a race to determine who will face Sen. Josh Hawley in November. Hawley is running unopposed in the Republican primary.

Marine veteran Lucas Kunce is considered the front-runner against state Sen. Karla May and December Harmon, a community activist.

Wesley Bell had previously been a candidate in the Senate primary until he announced in October that he would mount a primary challenge against Democratic Rep. Cori Bush.

Democrats largely rallied around Kunce, who narrowly lost the Democratic nomination for Senate two years ago. He had a major financial advantage over May, raising over $10 million in his campaign, compared with just more than $50,000 that May raised this cycle, according to financial disclosures filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Missouri Democratic gubernatorial primary

Of the five Democratic candidates on Missouri’s gubernatorial ballot, the primary race is largely a contest between state Rep. Crystal Quade and business executive Mike Hamra.

Quade, who was elected to the Missouri House in 2016 and serves as its minority floor leader, a position she has held since 2019. Previously, she worked for a nonprofit dedicated to helping disadvantaged students in Missouri.

Hamra is the chief executive of Hamra Enterprises, his family’s business that operates several well-known food franchises, including Wendy’s and Panera Bread. He previously worked in the Commerce Department during the Clinton administration.

Missouri Republican gubernatorial primary

The three front-runners in Missouri’s GOP primary race for governor — Lt. Gov. Mike Kehoe, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft and state Sen. Bill Eigel — align closely with Donald Trump’s policies, and each received the former president’s endorsement to replace the state’s Republican governor, Mike Parson, who is term-limited.

“All have had excellent careers, and have been with me from the beginning,” Trump wrote in a July 27 Truth Social post, adding: “Choose any one of them — You can’t go wrong!”

Parson has endorsed Kehoe, as have several agricultural and law enforcement groups. Before becoming lieutenant governor, Kehoe served on the state’s Highway and Transportation Commission and in the state Senate, where he was the majority floor leader for three years.

Ashcroft, the son of former U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft, was first elected to the secretary of state post in 2016. In 2014, he had an unsuccessful run for the state Senate. Representing St. Charles County in the state Senate, Eigel previously served in the U.S. Air Force.

Democratic Senate primary in Michigan

One of the most closely followed races in Michigan is the race to replace Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D), who announced in January 2023 that she would not seek reelection to a fifth term. The once-crowded race is now a competition between three-term Rep. Elissa Slotkin and actor Hill Harper, a first-time political candidate.

The open Senate seat in Michigan is among a handful expected to help determine which party controls the chamber next year.

Slotkin, who has consistently dominated the race, has a sizable financial advantage over her competitors, raising more than the rest of the Democratic and Republican primary candidates combined.

The former CIA analyst and Defense Department official, who is Jewish, has faced criticism in Michigan — home to the largest population of Arab Americans in the country — for not being harder on Israel’s conduct in the war in Gaza.

Harper, best known for his role in “The Good Doctor,” called for a cease-fire in the war, which attracted Arab American support in the state.

Republican Senate primary in Michigan

While Republicans have united behind former congressman Mike Rogers, who has been endorsed by Trump and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the heavy favorite faces competition from underdogs.

Fellow former congressman Justin Amash and physician Sherry O’Donnell are also on the ballot. Entrepreneur Sandy Pensler also appears despite his withdrawal from the race several weeks ago. He endorsed Rogers — who previously served as an FBI special agent and chaired the House Intelligence Committee — at a rally with Trump last month.

Michigan Republicans haven’t won a U.S. Senate race in the state since 1994. And the race to replace Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D), who announced in January 2023 that she would not seek reelection, could prove key in determining the balance of power in Congress’s upper chamber.

Michigan’s 7th District primaries

In one of the most competitive House races in the country, left open by Slotkin’s Senate race, both parties’ candidates ran unopposed Tuesday.

The table is already set for a November battle between Democrat Curtis Hertel Jr. and Republican Tom Barrett as the parties battle for control in the House, where Republicans hold a narrow majority.

Michigan’s 8th District Democratic primary

In another Michigan seat that the Democrats are forced to defend without an incumbent this year — following the retirement of Rep. Daniel Kildee — the competition is down to three.

Kildee, who served the Flint area since 2013 after taking over from his uncle, who served in Congress for 36 years, has endorsed state Sen. Kristen McDonald Rivet.

Pamela Pugh, the state’s education board president, and Matt Collier, the former mayor of Flint, are also battling for the party’s nomination.

McDonald Rivet came into the race just one year into her four-year Senate term. She said in an interview with the AP that Kildee called her and encouraged her to run for his seat.

Michigan’s 8th District Republican primary

Three Republicans are vying to flip this hotly contested seat come November in the wake of Kildee’s retirement.

Paul Junge, a former TV anchor, is making another bid for the seat after losing by more than 10 points to Kildee in 2022. Mary Draves, a former chemical manufacturing executive at Dow Inc., and Anthony Hudson, a trucking company owner, are battling him in the race.

Junge is a clear favorite for the nomination, having vastly outraised his opponents. This race marks his third time running for the seat. He previously served in the Trump administration at the Department of Homeland Security.

Michigan’s 13th District Democratic primary

In this heavily Democratic district, Tuesday’s primary is likely to produce November’s winner. Rep. Shri Thanedar is facing off with Mary Waters, an at-large member of the Detroit City Council, and attorney Shakira Lynn Hawkins.

Former state senator Adam Hollier did not qualify for the ballot after the Wayne County clerk determined in May that he had not collected enough voter signatures.

Thanedar, who was elected in 2022, faced a push from members within his own party to replace him in the August primary, spearheaded by Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan. Other state Democratic officials also threw their support behind Waters as a replacement.

Washington gubernatorial primary

When Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), the longest-serving governor in the country, announced he would not seek reelection, he opened the floodgates for more than two dozen candidates to compete for a spot on the November ballot. Under the state’s primary system, the top two vote-getters will advance to the general election regardless of party.

Polls show the two front-runners are state Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) and former congressman Dave Reichert (R).

Ferguson, who received Inslee’s endorsement, served for a decade on the King County Council before his election as the state’s attorney general. In recent years, he, alongside several other Democratic attorneys general in the country, has pursued legal challenges against Republicans on hot-button issues including abortion and gun control.

A moderate Republican, Reichert spent seven terms in Congress before retiring in 2019. Before that, he gained national recognition for his work as a county sheriff in Washington, where he was on a task force that captured the “Green River Killer.” If Reichert makes the November ballot and wins, it would mark the end of a nearly 40-year dry spell in the governor’s office for the Republican Party, whose last successful candidate was John Dennis Spellman in 1980.

Washington’s 3rd District primary

This Republican-leaning district is set to be a key race in November in what local media has described as a “grudge match.” Democrats served an upset here in 2022, when Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez flipped the seat in the midterms. Now, right-wing Army veteran Joe Kent wants it back. Gluesenkamp Perez has drastically outraised her primary challengers and has a fairly direct line to November.

Kent has establishment support from the Washington state GOP but is facing competition from local legislator Leslie Lewallen, who has local GOP support. The latter believes she will be more palatable in the general election, pushing back on Kent’s election conspiracy theories and associations with far-right extremists.

Washington’s 4th District primary

Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), the incumbent in the state’s deep-red 4th Congressional District, faces two credible challengers, both propelled in part by endorsements from Trump.

Having won reelection in the district since 2014, Newhouse on Tuesday faces off against Tiffany Smiley, a former Republican Senate candidate who lost to Sen. Patty Murray (D) in 2022, and Jerrod Sessler, who has never held public office but received an early endorsement from Trump. Newhouse is one of only two House Republicans who remain in office of the 10 who voted to impeach Donald Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Of the other eight, four lost their reelection bids during the primaries and four others retired.

In a dig at Newhouse in April, Trump endorsed Sessler on Truth Social, writing that the candidate has his “Complete and Total Endorsement — He will never let you down!!!”

On Saturday, Trump extended a late endorsement to Smiley, who he described as a “tremendous America First Candidate.” He added that Newhouse was a “weak and pathetic” opponent who “stupidly voted to impeach me for absolutely no reason.”

In 2022, Newhouse fought off Sessler and five other GOP candidates. Sessler is a business executive and Navy veteran. Smiley is a former nurse who has since focused on advocacy work for veterans.

Washington’s 5th District primary

After nearly two decades representing Washington’s 5th Congressional District, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R) in February announced that she would not run for reelection. Candidates from both parties made for a crowded primary race Tuesday to replace McMorris Rodgers, who chaired the influential House Energy and Commerce Committee and was the first woman to do so.

With Washington’s primary system, the two candidates who receive the most votes, regardless of party, will face off in the November general election for the district, which includes Spokane, the state’s second-largest city.

The top Republican contenders in the race for the seat are state Rep. Jacquelin Maycumber and Spokane County Treasurer Michael Baumgartner. Before Maycumber was elected to her Washington House seat in 2017, she worked in biomedical research and law enforcement and served as a school board member. Baumgartner, who is serving his second term as Spokane County’s treasurer, was a state senator for eight years and worked for the State Department as an officer in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Maycumber and Baumgartner face Democratic challengers Bernadine Bank and Carmela Conroy. Bank worked for decades as a gynecologist in Spokane and, in 2022, began working with the local Democratic Party. Conroy worked as a deputy prosecuting attorney in Spokane County in the 1990s before spending about two decades with the State Department in various roles.

Washington’s 6th District primary

With Rep. Derek Kilmer (D), who has held the seat since 2013, not running for reelection, the race to succeed him has two Democratic front-runners: Hilary Franz, the state’s commissioner of public lands, and state Sen. Emily Randall.

Each received high-profile endorsements from across the state and raised more than $1 million each. Republican state Sen. Drew MacEwan is hoping to flip the seat, which has been won by Democrats for the past 60 years, but has raised significantly less than his Democratic opponents. The race this cycle saw record-breaking outside spending, with a pro-cryptocurrency super PAC, Protect Progress, pumping $1.5 million into ads to support Randall.