BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">JENNIFER SHUTT</a>

WASHINGTON — Voters are determining whether the next president enters office with a friendly Congress or a hostile one set on blocking their policies and nominees — and as the election roars into its last moments it’s still very unclear what the makeup of the House and Senate might be.

Most House races are not competitive. But House leaders are closely watching about two dozen toss-up contests to see whether Democrats or Republicans end up with the magic 218 lawmakers needed to control the speaker’s gavel, the agenda and the floor schedule.

The GOP’s razor-thin majority during the last two years created significant obstacles for leadership’s legislative goals and ended Kevin McCarthy’s speakership.

Neither political party is expected to gain a large House majority during the next Congress, set to begin in January. There’s even a possibility the majority party has less wiggle room than the 220-212 split that currently exists, along with three vacancies. Experts warn it may not be known on election night or for some time who’s won the House.

Senate leaders have been equally focused on hard-fought and close campaigns in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Any one of them could deliver control of the upper chamber.

Republicans are favored to turn over the West Virginia seat occupied by Joe Manchin III, potentially pushing them past the 50-member benchmark if they hold onto seats occupied by incumbents Ted Cruz in Texas, Deb Fischer in Nebraska and Rick Scott in Florida.

If Democrats keep 50 seats, that would mean whichever party holds the vice presidency controls the Senate, making even just one pickup in either direction a priority for both political parties.

The outcome in both the House and Senate will have sweeping implications for the country’s future, including whether the GOP overhauls Obamacare, how lawmakers address core aspects of Republicans’ 2017 tax law set to expire in the coming months and whether the country defaults on its debts for the first time in history.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report with Amy Walter&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/senate-race-ratings" target="_blank">rates</a>&nbsp;four Senate races as toss-ups, meaning there’s a relatively even chance for Democrats or Republicans to win.

While the campaigns have shifted around a bit during the last few months, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all considered neck and neck heading into Election Day.

Arizona and Nevada are categorized as leaning toward Democrats and Montana is expected to lean toward a Republican pickup, potentially giving the GOP its 51st seat and a narrow majority.

It’s also possible there could be upsets in Republican-held states traditionally considered safer, like Florida, Nebraska and Texas.That could alter the math for both Democrats and Republicans, depending on how things shake out after all the votes are counted, recounts finalized and lawsuits settled in the days and weeks following Nov. 5.

Jessica Taylor, editor for U.S. Senate and Governors at the Cook Political Report, said in a statement released Friday the “battle for the Senate fundamentally ends where the cycle began — with an overwhelmingly favorable map that very likely portends a GOP majority.”

Her projections show the GOP picking up two to five seats, giving the party a majority between 51 and 54 members.

A narrower majority, Taylor said, would allow “moderates like Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Maine Sen. Susan Collins to wield outsized influence in the next Congress.”

Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said during an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?539651-1/sen-gary-peters-discusses-senate-races" target="_blank">interview</a>&nbsp;with Washington Post Live in late October that he expects voters in Montana and Ohio will split their tickets.

He acknowledged getting voters to support Democratic Sens. Jon Tester in Montana and Sherrod Brown in Ohio, while also voting for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, will be much more challenging than in the past.

“Certainly, it’s not easy if there’s a lot of political gravity,” Peters said. “I’m not going to sugarcoat that in any way.”

But, he said, both Tester and Brown have been consistently polling within the margin of error against their GOP challengers.

“It’s about who’s going to get their voters out and do the kind of ground campaign necessary to win,” Peters said. “We’re doing that in Montana. We’re doing that in Ohio as well.”

The Senate is more important to the next president than the House, since the upper chamber is responsible for vetting and confirming the next commander-in-chief’s selections for their Cabinet as well as judicial nominees.

A GOP Senate would be a gift for Trump but likely tough for Vice President Kamala Harris.

The opposite could also be true — a Democratic majority in the Senate could put the brakes on many of Trump’s plans for a second term, while it would aid Harris in setting up her administration and potentially confirming a Supreme Court justice or two.

The Senate is the more bipartisan of the two chambers, thanks to the legislative filibuster — the rule requiring at least 60 senators agree to advance legislation toward final passage.

Without bipartisan support, bills and some nominees will be stuck in limbo, regardless of which party runs the Senate or controls the White House.

Philip Wallach, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, said a Harris administration and a Republican Senate would need to work out an agreement quickly “or risk going into some kind of protracted standoff over executive branch nominations.”

Both Trump and President Joe Biden had the luxury of same-party Senate control during their full terms and former President Barack Obama had a Democratic Senate during his first six years in office. Harris possibly having to work with the opposing party to establish her Cabinet would be especially challenging, Wallach said in an interview.

“I would expect Republicans to try to come up with some pretty concrete asks as a conference: To say, ‘If we’re going to put any of your nominees up for a vote, here’s what we want in return, and here’s what kind of nominees we will accept.’ And, you know, I expect that would play out as a fairly heated public confrontation,” he said.

Trump and a Republican Senate would likely agree on some nominees and policy goals, though there would be significant differences over issues like&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-vows-levy-horrible-tariffs-imports-rejecting-fears-inflation-spike" target="_blank">tariffs</a>.

“I think there are a lot of Republican senators who want to see some real limits to that, who still think of themselves as basically in favor of free trade and making sure that American businesses don’t find themselves on the wrong end of a trade war,” Wallach said. “Especially in the Senate, I just don’t think they’re that eager to just march to Trump’s tune.”

A Trump administration, he said, could also disagree with GOP lawmakers on the specific details of how to address tax policy.

“I think it’s a very live possibility that there could be a much more confrontational kind of dynamic this time around, in part, because Trump and some of the people right around him have this idea that playing nicely in 2017 was a big mistake,” Wallach said.

Control of the 435-member House is more uncertain than the Senate, with 22 races&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/house-race-ratings" target="_blank">rated as toss-ups</a>&nbsp;by the Cook Political Report.

Twelve of those are held by Republicans, while 10 are occupied by Democratic lawmakers. At the moment, 205 House seats are at least leaning toward a Democratic win, with 208 districts at least leaning toward Republicans.

The Cook Political Report’s final projections range from Republicans adding five seats to their majority to Democrats picking up 10 seats and taking over the majority again.

“The race for control of the U.S. House remains as close as it’s ever been,”

Erin Covey, editor for the House at CPR, said in a written statement.

“The battleground is confined to a few dozen seats, with neither party having a clear advantage in a majority of seats,” Covey added. “And with several competitive races in West Coast states that take longer to count their ballots, it’s highly possible we won’t know which party has control on election night.”

The House is essential to turning bills into law, though it doesn’t have any role in confirming presidential nominees. And unlike the Senate, there’s no legislative filibuster, which means the majority party can approve any bills it wants without buy-in from the minority party, as long as the leaders in the majority have the votes from their own members.

Republican control of at least one chamber of Congress and a Harris victory would force significant bipartisan compromise on must-pass legislation, like the dozen annual government funding bills and the defense policy bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act.

It could also lead to the types of bipartisan legislation that Biden made a hallmark of his term in office, including the bipartisan infrastructure law.

That type of divided government is unlikely to produce the sweeping changes to home ownership, prescription drug prices, price gouging and reproductive rights that Harris has highlighted throughout her campaign.

But it could lead Republicans and Democrats to resurrect&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/bipartisan-border-bill-loses-support-fails-procedural-vote-us-senate" target="_blank">the bipartisan immigration and border security bill</a>&nbsp;that Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford, Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy and Arizona independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema agreed to earlier this year.

Trump in the White House and Democrats holding onto at least one chamber in Congress could also force bipartisan compromise, though likely with a far different tone and approach than under a Harris-Republican Congress scenario.

Trump regaining the presidency along with GOP control of Congress would give the party at least two chances to use the complex budget reconciliation process to pass certain legislation.

The party would likely use one of those opportunities to address provisions in the 2017 Republican tax law that have expired or are about to.

The budget reconciliation process, which has considerable rules and restrictions, is how Republicans passed the tax bill during Trump’s first term in office.

It doesn’t require at least 60 senators to advance the bill. But it does include something known as a vote-a-rama, where the Senate holds dozens of votes on amendments to the bill. The process typically lasts throughout the night and gives the party not in power a chance to force their colleagues across the aisle to vote on tough issues.

Budget reconciliation is the process Republicans used to try to repeal and replace the 2010 health care law that’s often referred to as the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, during Trump’s first term in office.

Speaker Mike Jonson, R-La., said in late October on Fox Business that some of his<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-johnson-criticizes-obamacare-promises-massive-reform-trump-win-rcna177853" target="_blank">&nbsp;prior comments</a>&nbsp;about overhauling the ACA were taken out of context and that he wants to make changes to the program, but not entirely end it.

“I said the ACA, unfortunately, is deeply ingrained in our health care system now,” he said. “Do we need further improvements? Absolutely. We need to expand quality of care, access to care and obviously lower the cost of health care.”

Johnson said during the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRGW9IVOaP4" target="_blank">interview</a>&nbsp;that he was “convinced” Republicans would gain unified control of government following the election and that he had compiled a “two-hour slide show presentation” detailing what the GOP would do with that power.

“We will secure the border on day one with a President Trump executive order and then legislation to follow, and we will turn immediately to the economy,” Johnson said. “Energy policy will be the center of that as well.”

Deeply conservative House bills might not garner the support needed to overcome the Senate’s legislative filibuster.

Unified Republican control of Congress and the White House would challenge the GOP to address the nation’s debt limit mostly on its own during the first half of next year after&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-sends-biden-debt-limit-legislation-ahead-monday-default-deadline" target="_blank">the current law</a>&nbsp;expires.

A default on the nation’s debt is&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-hit-debt-limit-much-sooner-expected-thrusting-congress-showdown" target="_blank">vastly different from a partial government shutdown</a>, which takes place when Congress doesn’t pass an appropriations package on time.

Failing to either raise or suspend the nation’s debt limit, before what’s known as extraordinary measures runs out, would likely cause a global financial crisis.

The GOP has been extremely vocal about cutting government spending, but that is separate from addressing the nation’s debt limit, which gives the Treasury Department the borrowing authority to ensure all of the country’s bills are paid in full and on time.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/7/1720316487639.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">JENNIFER SHUTT</a>WASHINGTON — Voters are determining whether the next president enters office with a friendly Congress or a hostile one set on blocking their policies and nominees — and as the election roars into its last moments it’s still very unclear what the makeup of the House and Senate might be.Most House races are not competitive. But House leaders are closely watching about two dozen toss-up contests to see whether Democrats or Republicans end up with the magic 218 lawmakers needed to control the speaker’s gavel, the agenda and the floor schedule.The GOP’s razor-thin majority during the last two years created significant obstacles for leadership’s legislative goals and ended Kevin McCarthy’s speakership.Neither political party is expected to gain a large House majority during the next Congress, set to begin in January. There’s even a possibility the majority party has less wiggle room than the 220-212 split that currently exists, along with three vacancies. Experts warn it may not be known on election night or for some time who’s won the House.Senate leaders have been equally focused on hard-fought and close campaigns in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Any one of them could deliver control of the upper chamber.Republicans are favored to turn over the West Virginia seat occupied by Joe Manchin III, potentially pushing them past the 50-member benchmark if they hold onto seats occupied by incumbents Ted Cruz in Texas, Deb Fischer in Nebraska and Rick Scott in Florida.If Democrats keep 50 seats, that would mean whichever party holds the vice presidency controls the Senate, making even just one pickup in either direction a priority for both political parties.The outcome in both the House and Senate will have sweeping implications for the country’s future, including whether the GOP overhauls Obamacare, how lawmakers address core aspects of Republicans’ 2017 tax law set to expire in the coming months and whether the country defaults on its debts for the first time in history.<h2>Four tense toss-ups in the Senate</h2>The nonpartisan Cook Political Report with Amy Walter&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/senate-race-ratings" target="_blank">rates</a>&nbsp;four Senate races as toss-ups, meaning there’s a relatively even chance for Democrats or Republicans to win.While the campaigns have shifted around a bit during the last few months, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all considered neck and neck heading into Election Day.Arizona and Nevada are categorized as leaning toward Democrats and Montana is expected to lean toward a Republican pickup, potentially giving the GOP its 51st seat and a narrow majority.It’s also possible there could be upsets in Republican-held states traditionally considered safer, like Florida, Nebraska and Texas.That could alter the math for both Democrats and Republicans, depending on how things shake out after all the votes are counted, recounts finalized and lawsuits settled in the days and weeks following Nov. 5.Jessica Taylor, editor for U.S. Senate and Governors at the Cook Political Report, said in a statement released Friday the “battle for the Senate fundamentally ends where the cycle began — with an overwhelmingly favorable map that very likely portends a GOP majority.”Her projections show the GOP picking up two to five seats, giving the party a majority between 51 and 54 members.A narrower majority, Taylor said, would allow “moderates like Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Maine Sen. Susan Collins to wield outsized influence in the next Congress.”<h2>Will some voters split their tickets?</h2>Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said during an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?539651-1/sen-gary-peters-discusses-senate-races" target="_blank">interview</a>&nbsp;with Washington Post Live in late October that he expects voters in Montana and Ohio will split their tickets.He acknowledged getting voters to support Democratic Sens. Jon Tester in Montana and Sherrod Brown in Ohio, while also voting for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, will be much more challenging than in the past.“Certainly, it’s not easy if there’s a lot of political gravity,” Peters said. “I’m not going to sugarcoat that in any way.”But, he said, both Tester and Brown have been consistently polling within the margin of error against their GOP challengers.“It’s about who’s going to get their voters out and do the kind of ground campaign necessary to win,” Peters said. “We’re doing that in Montana. We’re doing that in Ohio as well.”The Senate is more important to the next president than the House, since the upper chamber is responsible for vetting and confirming the next commander-in-chief’s selections for their Cabinet as well as judicial nominees.A GOP Senate would be a gift for Trump but likely tough for Vice President Kamala Harris.The opposite could also be true — a Democratic majority in the Senate could put the brakes on many of Trump’s plans for a second term, while it would aid Harris in setting up her administration and potentially confirming a Supreme Court justice or two.The Senate is the more bipartisan of the two chambers, thanks to the legislative filibuster — the rule requiring at least 60 senators agree to advance legislation toward final passage.Without bipartisan support, bills and some nominees will be stuck in limbo, regardless of which party runs the Senate or controls the White House.<h2>Possible standoff</h2>Philip Wallach, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, said a Harris administration and a Republican Senate would need to work out an agreement quickly “or risk going into some kind of protracted standoff over executive branch nominations.”Both Trump and President Joe Biden had the luxury of same-party Senate control during their full terms and former President Barack Obama had a Democratic Senate during his first six years in office. Harris possibly having to work with the opposing party to establish her Cabinet would be especially challenging, Wallach said in an interview.“I would expect Republicans to try to come up with some pretty concrete asks as a conference: To say, ‘If we’re going to put any of your nominees up for a vote, here’s what we want in return, and here’s what kind of nominees we will accept.’ And, you know, I expect that would play out as a fairly heated public confrontation,” he said.Trump and a Republican Senate would likely agree on some nominees and policy goals, though there would be significant differences over issues like&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-vows-levy-horrible-tariffs-imports-rejecting-fears-inflation-spike" target="_blank">tariffs</a>.“I think there are a lot of Republican senators who want to see some real limits to that, who still think of themselves as basically in favor of free trade and making sure that American businesses don’t find themselves on the wrong end of a trade war,” Wallach said. “Especially in the Senate, I just don’t think they’re that eager to just march to Trump’s tune.”A Trump administration, he said, could also disagree with GOP lawmakers on the specific details of how to address tax policy.“I think it’s a very live possibility that there could be a much more confrontational kind of dynamic this time around, in part, because Trump and some of the people right around him have this idea that playing nicely in 2017 was a big mistake,” Wallach said.<h2>House ‘as close as it’s ever been’</h2>Control of the 435-member House is more uncertain than the Senate, with 22 races&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/house-race-ratings" target="_blank">rated as toss-ups</a>&nbsp;by the Cook Political Report.Twelve of those are held by Republicans, while 10 are occupied by Democratic lawmakers. At the moment, 205 House seats are at least leaning toward a Democratic win, with 208 districts at least leaning toward Republicans.The Cook Political Report’s final projections range from Republicans adding five seats to their majority to Democrats picking up 10 seats and taking over the majority again.“The race for control of the U.S. House remains as close as it’s ever been,”Erin Covey, editor for the House at CPR, said in a written statement.“The battleground is confined to a few dozen seats, with neither party having a clear advantage in a majority of seats,” Covey added. “And with several competitive races in West Coast states that take longer to count their ballots, it’s highly possible we won’t know which party has control on election night.”The House is essential to turning bills into law, though it doesn’t have any role in confirming presidential nominees. And unlike the Senate, there’s no legislative filibuster, which means the majority party can approve any bills it wants without buy-in from the minority party, as long as the leaders in the majority have the votes from their own members.Republican control of at least one chamber of Congress and a Harris victory would force significant bipartisan compromise on must-pass legislation, like the dozen annual government funding bills and the defense policy bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act.It could also lead to the types of bipartisan legislation that Biden made a hallmark of his term in office, including the bipartisan infrastructure law.That type of divided government is unlikely to produce the sweeping changes to home ownership, prescription drug prices, price gouging and reproductive rights that Harris has highlighted throughout her campaign.But it could lead Republicans and Democrats to resurrect&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/bipartisan-border-bill-loses-support-fails-procedural-vote-us-senate" target="_blank">the bipartisan immigration and border security bill</a>&nbsp;that Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford, Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy and Arizona independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema agreed to earlier this year.Trump in the White House and Democrats holding onto at least one chamber in Congress could also force bipartisan compromise, though likely with a far different tone and approach than under a Harris-Republican Congress scenario.<h2>GOP trifecta?</h2>Trump regaining the presidency along with GOP control of Congress would give the party at least two chances to use the complex budget reconciliation process to pass certain legislation.The party would likely use one of those opportunities to address provisions in the 2017 Republican tax law that have expired or are about to.The budget reconciliation process, which has considerable rules and restrictions, is how Republicans passed the tax bill during Trump’s first term in office.It doesn’t require at least 60 senators to advance the bill. But it does include something known as a vote-a-rama, where the Senate holds dozens of votes on amendments to the bill. The process typically lasts throughout the night and gives the party not in power a chance to force their colleagues across the aisle to vote on tough issues.Budget reconciliation is the process Republicans used to try to repeal and replace the 2010 health care law that’s often referred to as the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, during Trump’s first term in office.Speaker Mike Jonson, R-La., said in late October on Fox Business that some of his<a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-johnson-criticizes-obamacare-promises-massive-reform-trump-win-rcna177853" target="_blank">&nbsp;prior comments</a>&nbsp;about overhauling the ACA were taken out of context and that he wants to make changes to the program, but not entirely end it.“I said the ACA, unfortunately, is deeply ingrained in our health care system now,” he said. “Do we need further improvements? Absolutely. We need to expand quality of care, access to care and obviously lower the cost of health care.”Johnson said during the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRGW9IVOaP4" target="_blank">interview</a>&nbsp;that he was “convinced” Republicans would gain unified control of government following the election and that he had compiled a “two-hour slide show presentation” detailing what the GOP would do with that power.“We will secure the border on day one with a President Trump executive order and then legislation to follow, and we will turn immediately to the economy,” Johnson said. “Energy policy will be the center of that as well.”Deeply conservative House bills might not garner the support needed to overcome the Senate’s legislative filibuster.Unified Republican control of Congress and the White House would challenge the GOP to address the nation’s debt limit mostly on its own during the first half of next year after&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-sends-biden-debt-limit-legislation-ahead-monday-default-deadline" target="_blank">the current law</a>&nbsp;expires.A default on the nation’s debt is&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-hit-debt-limit-much-sooner-expected-thrusting-congress-showdown" target="_blank">vastly different from a partial government shutdown</a>, which takes place when Congress doesn’t pass an appropriations package on time.Failing to either raise or suspend the nation’s debt limit, before what’s known as extraordinary measures runs out, would likely cause a global financial crisis.The GOP has been extremely vocal about cutting government spending, but that is separate from addressing the nation’s debt limit, which gives the Treasury Department the borrowing authority to ensure all of the country’s bills are paid in full and on time.

Will control of Congress shift? The results hinge on a handful of states and races

Kansas’ Republican House and Senate committees and Gov. Laura Kelly’s PAC invested hundreds of thousands in competitive legislative races.

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/akaminski/">ANNA KAMINSKI</a> <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>

TOPEKA — Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly’s PAC and the Kansas Republican Senatorial Committee have poured around a half-million dollars each into competitive legislative races across Kansas, campaign finance reports released this week show. The Republican House Campaign Committee spent almost $1 million.

More than $470,000 from Kelly’s Middle of the Road PAC has been spent since the August primary on Democrats embroiled in battleground races, according to records published Monday through the Kansas Secretary of State’s campaign finance reporting system. The Republican Senatorial committee spent more than $498,000 during the same time period on the four races at risk of flipping to Democrats. The Republican House committee has spent its $978,000 since August on advertising-related costs for a dozen candidates and the state Republican party, finance records show.

Republicans have held a supermajority in the Kansas House since 2010, and Senate Republicans have held a supermajority since 1997. Democrats must flip two seats in the house and three in the senate while holding their existing cache in order to break the supermajorities.

The Senatorial committee’s treasurer, Michelle Schroeder, said the group’s spending was “focused solely on protecting and expanding our Republican supermajority.”

Kelly, a Democrat, launched the Middle of the Road PAC in&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/08/07/gov-laura-kelly-forms-pac-to-support-moderate-gop-democratic-legislative-candidates/">August 2023</a>&nbsp;to back moderate candidates, from either major party, and in an attempt to break the Republican legislative supermajority. Recipients of the nearly $500,000 were 12 Democrats. Those expenditures are just a fraction of the nearly $1.5 million the PAC has spent since late July.

Senate District 5 incumbent Sen. Jeff Pittman, a Leavenworth-area Democrat, received the highest cumulative dollar amount from the Middle of the Road PAC. Election forecasts favor a Pittman win over his opponent, Republican Jeff Klemp, of Lansing, by a thin margin. The senatorial committee spent almost twice as much on Klemp as Middle of the Road spent on Pittman.

Mike Pompeo, the U.S. Secretary of State during the Trump Administration and former Kansas GOP congressman, endorsed Klemp on Oct. 30.

Both the Middle of the Road PAC and the Senatorial committee spent on the other three toss-up Senate races in Johnson County. Middle of the Road PAC also spent on another Johnson County-area district, Senate District 35, with an open seat that’s been held by the same Republican for the past decade.

Middle of the Road PAC spent the least on Rep. Jason Probst, a Hutchinson Democrat running for reelection. His Republican opponent, Kyler Sweely, was recently the subject of a Wichita police investigation and online backlash after a video circulated in which he appears to jump on and hold a pillow over the head of a motionless woman on a bed. The Republican House committee spent just under $9,000 on Sweely while Middle of the Road spent more than $13,000 on Probst, according to campaign finance records.

Will Lawrence, senior advisor for the Middle of the Road PAC, said in a statement that the PAC “invested in hard-working candidates” and those “who aligned with Governor Kelly’s values.”

“The PAC deployed a strategic program that included mail, digital ads, and support for GOTV (get out the vote) efforts,” Lawrence said. “Supporters of our PAC can rest assured their investments were well spent.”

Representatives for the Republican House committee did not respond to Kansas Reflector’s requests for comment Friday.

The final day for voting in legislative races as well as for U.S. president is Tuesday.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/11/1730582245512.png" alt=" Gov. Laura Kelly tours the Axe Shedd during an April 25, 2024, visit to Emporia. Her Middle of the Road PAC since August has spent $470,000 on a dozen Democrats seeking legislative seats. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)" />
 <figcaption> Gov. Laura Kelly tours the Axe Shedd during an April 25, 2024, visit to Emporia. Her Middle of the Road PAC since August has spent $470,000 on a dozen Democrats seeking legislative seats. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Kansas’ Republican House and Senate committees and Gov. Laura Kelly’s PAC invested hundreds of thousands in competitive legislative races.</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/akaminski/">ANNA KAMINSKI</a> <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>TOPEKA — Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly’s PAC and the Kansas Republican Senatorial Committee have poured around a half-million dollars each into competitive legislative races across Kansas, campaign finance reports released this week show. The Republican House Campaign Committee spent almost $1 million.More than $470,000 from Kelly’s Middle of the Road PAC has been spent since the August primary on Democrats embroiled in battleground races, according to records published Monday through the Kansas Secretary of State’s campaign finance reporting system. The Republican Senatorial committee spent more than $498,000 during the same time period on the four races at risk of flipping to Democrats. The Republican House committee has spent its $978,000 since August on advertising-related costs for a dozen candidates and the state Republican party, finance records show.Republicans have held a supermajority in the Kansas House since 2010, and Senate Republicans have held a supermajority since 1997. Democrats must flip two seats in the house and three in the senate while holding their existing cache in order to break the supermajorities.The Senatorial committee’s treasurer, Michelle Schroeder, said the group’s spending was “focused solely on protecting and expanding our Republican supermajority.”Kelly, a Democrat, launched the Middle of the Road PAC in&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2023/08/07/gov-laura-kelly-forms-pac-to-support-moderate-gop-democratic-legislative-candidates/">August 2023</a>&nbsp;to back moderate candidates, from either major party, and in an attempt to break the Republican legislative supermajority. Recipients of the nearly $500,000 were 12 Democrats. Those expenditures are just a fraction of the nearly $1.5 million the PAC has spent since late July.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/11/1730582200042.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>Senate District 5 incumbent Sen. Jeff Pittman, a Leavenworth-area Democrat, received the highest cumulative dollar amount from the Middle of the Road PAC. Election forecasts favor a Pittman win over his opponent, Republican Jeff Klemp, of Lansing, by a thin margin. The senatorial committee spent almost twice as much on Klemp as Middle of the Road spent on Pittman.Mike Pompeo, the U.S. Secretary of State during the Trump Administration and former Kansas GOP congressman, endorsed Klemp on Oct. 30.Both the Middle of the Road PAC and the Senatorial committee spent on the other three toss-up Senate races in Johnson County. Middle of the Road PAC also spent on another Johnson County-area district, Senate District 35, with an open seat that’s been held by the same Republican for the past decade.Middle of the Road PAC spent the least on Rep. Jason Probst, a Hutchinson Democrat running for reelection. His Republican opponent, Kyler Sweely, was recently the subject of a Wichita police investigation and online backlash after a video circulated in which he appears to jump on and hold a pillow over the head of a motionless woman on a bed. The Republican House committee spent just under $9,000 on Sweely while Middle of the Road spent more than $13,000 on Probst, according to campaign finance records.Will Lawrence, senior advisor for the Middle of the Road PAC, said in a statement that the PAC “invested in hard-working candidates” and those “who aligned with Governor Kelly’s values.”“The PAC deployed a strategic program that included mail, digital ads, and support for GOTV (get out the vote) efforts,” Lawrence said. “Supporters of our PAC can rest assured their investments were well spent.”Representatives for the Republican House committee did not respond to Kansas Reflector’s requests for comment Friday.The final day for voting in legislative races as well as for U.S. president is Tuesday.

Kansas Republican committees, Democratic governor’s PAC spend big on battleground races

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">ARIANA FIGUEROA</a>

WASHINGTON — As the last weekend before Tuesday’s presidential election approaches, voters who want more insight on where the candidates stand on major policy issues can get up to speed through a States Newsroom Washington Bureau series.

In these 10 articles, States Newsroom reported on the policy positions taken by Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, ranging from education to taxes to Social Security and Medicare.

After the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 struck down the constitutional right to abortion, Democrats made restoring access to reproductive care a core campaign issue.

Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/reproductive-rights-where-do-trump-and-harris-stand" target="_blank">here</a>&nbsp;for the story

The U.S. Supreme Court has been mired in controversy, from several ethics scandals to calls from Democrats to expand the number of justices on the court.

Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/reforms-us-supreme-court-where-do-harris-and-trump-stand" target="_blank">here</a>&nbsp;for the story

One policy issue that Trump has made central to his campaign is immigration. At his campaign rallies across the country he’s promised mass deportations of millions of immigrants living in the country without authorization.

Harris has mainly stated that she would revive a bipartisan congressional agreement when it comes to addressing U.S. immigration policy.

Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/immigration-where-do-trump-and-harris-stand" target="_blank">here</a>&nbsp;for the story

Addressing the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will become an increasingly important job for the incoming president and Congress for the next decade.

Click<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/social-security-and-medicare-where-do-harris-and-trump-stand" target="_blank">&nbsp;here</a>&nbsp;for the story

As several states like North Carolina and Tennessee recover from Category 4 Hurricane Helene, climate change has taken up little attention in the 2024 presidential race, despite its wide-ranging effects.

Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/energy-and-climate-where-do-harris-and-trump-stand" target="_blank">here&nbsp;</a>for the story

While housing is typically handled at the local level, both presidential candidates want to tackle the housing crisis at the federal level.

Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/housing-where-do-trump-and-harris-stand" target="_blank">here</a>&nbsp;for the story

On the campaign trail, education policies have rarely been in the spotlight, though the candidates’ policies on K-12 and higher education widely differ.

Click<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/education-where-do-harris-and-trump-stand" target="_blank">&nbsp;here for the&nbsp;</a>story

A 2017 tax law crafted under the Trump administration is set to expire next year, meaning whichever candidate wins the White House will either overhaul the previous law or extend it.

Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/taxes-where-do-trump-and-harris-stand" target="_blank">here</a>&nbsp;for the story

Both candidates agree that gun violence is a problem, but that’s the end of where Harris and Trump are in concurrence.

Click<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/guns-where-do-trump-and-harris-stand" target="_blank">&nbsp;here</a>&nbsp;for story

Regardless of who wins the White House, the next president will have several international crises to address. That includes the Israel-Hamas war in the Middle East, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s refusal to retreat from Ukraine and U.S-China trade relations.

Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/foreign-policy-where-do-harris-and-trump-stand" target="_blank">here for the story</a>

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1726020929820.png" alt="Image courtesy ABC via CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Image courtesy ABC via CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">ARIANA FIGUEROA</a>WASHINGTON — As the last weekend before Tuesday’s presidential election approaches, voters who want more insight on where the candidates stand on major policy issues can get up to speed through a States Newsroom Washington Bureau series.In these 10 articles, States Newsroom reported on the policy positions taken by Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, ranging from education to taxes to Social Security and Medicare.They are:<h2>Reproductive Rights</h2>After the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 struck down the constitutional right to abortion, Democrats made restoring access to reproductive care a core campaign issue.Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/reproductive-rights-where-do-trump-and-harris-stand" target="_blank">here</a>&nbsp;for the story<h2>U.S. Supreme Court reform</h2>The U.S. Supreme Court has been mired in controversy, from several ethics scandals to calls from Democrats to expand the number of justices on the court.Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/reforms-us-supreme-court-where-do-harris-and-trump-stand" target="_blank">here</a>&nbsp;for the story<h2>Immigration</h2>One policy issue that Trump has made central to his campaign is immigration. At his campaign rallies across the country he’s promised mass deportations of millions of immigrants living in the country without authorization.Harris has mainly stated that she would revive a bipartisan congressional agreement when it comes to addressing U.S. immigration policy.Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/immigration-where-do-trump-and-harris-stand" target="_blank">here</a>&nbsp;for the story<h2>Social Security and Medicare</h2>Addressing the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will become an increasingly important job for the incoming president and Congress for the next decade.Click<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/social-security-and-medicare-where-do-harris-and-trump-stand" target="_blank">&nbsp;here</a>&nbsp;for the story<h2>Climate and Energy</h2>As several states like North Carolina and Tennessee recover from Category 4 Hurricane Helene, climate change has taken up little attention in the 2024 presidential race, despite its wide-ranging effects.Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/energy-and-climate-where-do-harris-and-trump-stand" target="_blank">here&nbsp;</a>for the story<h2>Housing</h2>While housing is typically handled at the local level, both presidential candidates want to tackle the housing crisis at the federal level.Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/housing-where-do-trump-and-harris-stand" target="_blank">here</a>&nbsp;for the story<h2>Education</h2>On the campaign trail, education policies have rarely been in the spotlight, though the candidates’ policies on K-12 and higher education widely differ.Click<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/education-where-do-harris-and-trump-stand" target="_blank">&nbsp;here for the&nbsp;</a>story<h2>Taxes</h2>A 2017 tax law crafted under the Trump administration is set to expire next year, meaning whichever candidate wins the White House will either overhaul the previous law or extend it.Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/taxes-where-do-trump-and-harris-stand" target="_blank">here</a>&nbsp;for the story<h2>Guns</h2>Both candidates agree that gun violence is a problem, but that’s the end of where Harris and Trump are in concurrence.Click<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/guns-where-do-trump-and-harris-stand" target="_blank">&nbsp;here</a>&nbsp;for story<h2>Foreign Policy</h2>Regardless of who wins the White House, the next president will have several international crises to address. That includes the Israel-Hamas war in the Middle East, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s refusal to retreat from Ukraine and U.S-China trade relations.Click&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/foreign-policy-where-do-harris-and-trump-stand" target="_blank">here for the story</a>

Where do Harris and Trump stand on 10 major policy issues?

Denton Loudermill, falsely accused on social media of being the shooter on Feb. 14 has once again sued state Sens. Rick Brattin, Denny Hoskins and Nick Schroer for defamation and invasion of privacy

BY:&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/rudi-keller/">RUDI KELLER</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

Three Republican Missouri state senators — including one running for secretary of state — are once again being sued by the man they incorrectly identified in social media posts as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/chiefs-super-bowl-parade-shooting-kansas-city-d9f4466b69cbb2dfe0f007414aebe730" target="_blank">being the shooter</a>&nbsp;at the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl victory celebration.

Denton Loudermill of Olathe, Kansas, filed lawsuits Thursday against state Sens. Denny Hoskins of Warrensburg, Rick Brattin of Harrisonville and Nick Schroer of Defiance. In the individual lawsuits, each is accused of violating Loudermill’s privacy and libeling him with their posts.&nbsp;

Hoskins is the GOP nominee for secretary of state. Brattin is seeking re-election in the 31st Senate District. Schroer, who won his seat in the Senate in 2022, is not on the ballot this year.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Similar lawsuits against all three men&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/21/judge-dismisses-case-against-missouri-senators-over-chiefs-parade-shooting-posts/">were dismissed Oct. 21</a>&nbsp;in Kansas federal court when U.S. District Judge John Broomes ruled he did not have jurisdiction over Brattin, Hoskins and Schroer.

In the more than nine months since the Feb. 14 victory parade and pep rally, people have not stopped making him feel uncomfortable, Loudermill said in a news conference with one of his attorneys, LaRonna Lassiter Saunders.

“They come through looking at me, on video on their phone, saying ‘yeah, that’s him,” he said. “That worries me sometimes.”

In an interview with The Independent, Lassiter Saunders said she believes the jurisdictional issue is solved with the new filing. It was important to refile the cases quickly, she said, because the legal nuances could be missed by a public that has only heard the cases were dismissed.

“It’s reported that the case gets tossed, then they’re thinking, there’s some merit to the Missouri senators position,” Lassiter Saunders said.

Hoskins, reached via text message, declined to respond to the new filing.

“I have not been served and I have no comment at this time,” he said.

Brattin and Schroer did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Like thousands of other regional residents, Loudermill went to Union Station in Kansas City for the pep rally that followed the Chiefs’ victory parade after this year’s Super Bowl. As the crowd was departing, an argument in the crowd resulted in gunfire.

The shooting at the end of the victory celebration left one person dead and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/17/kansas-city-super-bowl-rally-shooting-victims-pick-up-pieces-but-gun-violence-haunts-their-lives/">at least 24 people injured</a>.

Loudermill, who was born in Kansas and lives there now, was detained briefly because he was too slow to leave the area of the shooting, he told The Independent earlier this year.

A photo of him, seated, with his hands restrained behind his back, was posted on X, formally known as Twitter, by an account with the name Deep Truth Intel. That post incorrectly identified him with a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68353305" target="_blank">name associated with misinformation</a>&nbsp;posted after other shootings and said he was an undocumented immigrant.

Soon after that initial social media post, the Missouri Freedom Caucus, Hoskins, Brattin, Schroer and U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican, posted their own versions, some with the photo, some without. Burchett’s post said he was one of the shooters and referred to him as an “illegal alien.”

Burchett later deleted the tweet but included a screenshot of it&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/timburchett/status/1759645965445636470?s=20" target="_blank">that is still visible</a>&nbsp;in a separate post.

A lawsuit filed against Burchett in Kansas was also dismissed because of jurisdictional issues. Lassiter Saunders said Thursday that she is working with attorneys in the Washington, D.C., area to refile the case against Burchett.

“He is not off the hook,” she said.&nbsp;

Hoskins’ version on social media shared a screenshot of the initial anonymous post and blamed President Joe Biden and political leaders of Kansas City for making the shooting possible.

Brattin’s first post linking Loudermill to the shooting, since deleted, demanded “#POTUS CLOSE THE BORDER” and incorporated the deleted anonymous post that kicked everything off.

Schroer was the least certain post about the immigration and arrest status of Loudermill among the three.

Schroer’s post included a link to one from Burchett stating, over Loudermill’s photo, that “One of the Kansas City Chiefs victory parade shooters has been identified as an illegal Alien.”

“Can we get any confirmation or denial of this from local officials or law enforcement?” Schroer wrote. “I’ve been sent videos or stills showing at least 6 different people arrested from yesterday but officially told only 3 still in custody. The people deserve answers.”

In the complaint filed against Brattin, attorneys wrote that the lawmakers had no reason to make the comments directed at Loudermill.

“The publication of the false representation that plaintiff was an ‘illegal alien’ and a ‘shooter’ was not made in good faith nor was it made by (Brattin) with any legitimate interest in making or duty to make such assertions,” the filing states.

In the Kansas cases, the lawmakers were represented by Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who raised both the jurisdictional objections and claims that the senators were acting in their official capacity when they made their posts on social media. Therefore, the filings stated, they are protected by “legislative immunity.”&nbsp;

When the case was dismissed, Bailey put out a statement saying it was a victory for keeping “questions of Missouri law…in Missouri courts.”

Bailey’s office did not respond immediately to an email asking if the office would again provide representation. Lassiter Saunders said the attorney general should not take the case again.

“I would hope not, but given the track record of the attorney general doing as he pleases, it’s a possibility,” Lassiter Saunders said.

Bailey’s participation in the case generated its own dispute. In a May letter to the commissioner of the Office of Administration, the state agency that certifies payments from Missouri’s legal expense fund, Gov. Mike Parson wrote that no payments related to the lawsuits should be certified “without my approval or a court order.”

Bailey’s claim of legislative immunity is based in the Missouri Constitution’s provisions on legislative privileges. Along with being immune from arrest for minor offenses while the General Assembly is in session, members also “<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=III++++19&amp;bid=36212&amp;constit=y" target="_blank">shall not be questioned</a>&nbsp;for any speech or debate in either house in any other place.”

Social media posts are not statements or speeches made during debates in the chambers, Lassiter Saunders said.

“It wasn’t legitimate legislative activity,” she said. “They were following this story like hundreds of thousands of other people seeing tweets, retweeting, and we don’t believe it was the same.

The lawsuit seeks to vindicate a core American principle, the right to be let alone, Lassiter Saunders said.

“I would like to refocus the attention from politics to the principle of, private citizens should have the right to live their lives privately,” she said. “The elected officials need to be mindful and do a better job of not just speaking out because they have the authority to do so.”

The lawsuit states that because of the hostility of some people in the public, Loudermill has “injuries and actual damages including mental distress, sleeplessness, anxiety, and agitation.”

“I’m just getting all the attention still,” he said. “ I just want them to pay for that.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/10/1730420656214.png" alt="Denton Loudermill, right, appears with his attorney, LaRonna Lassiter Saunders, at an online news conference held Thursday to discuss his new defamation lawsuits against three Missouri state senators. (Screenshot via Zoom)" />
 <figcaption>Denton Loudermill, right, appears with his attorney, LaRonna Lassiter Saunders, at an online news conference held Thursday to discuss his new defamation lawsuits against three Missouri state senators. (Screenshot via Zoom)</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Denton Loudermill, falsely accused on social media of being the shooter on Feb. 14 has once again sued state Sens. Rick Brattin, Denny Hoskins and Nick Schroer for defamation and invasion of privacy</h2>BY:&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/rudi-keller/">RUDI KELLER</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>Three Republican Missouri state senators — including one running for secretary of state — are once again being sued by the man they incorrectly identified in social media posts as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/chiefs-super-bowl-parade-shooting-kansas-city-d9f4466b69cbb2dfe0f007414aebe730" target="_blank">being the shooter</a>&nbsp;at the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl victory celebration.Denton Loudermill of Olathe, Kansas, filed lawsuits Thursday against state Sens. Denny Hoskins of Warrensburg, Rick Brattin of Harrisonville and Nick Schroer of Defiance. In the individual lawsuits, each is accused of violating Loudermill’s privacy and libeling him with their posts.&nbsp;Hoskins is the GOP nominee for secretary of state. Brattin is seeking re-election in the 31st Senate District. Schroer, who won his seat in the Senate in 2022, is not on the ballot this year.The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Similar lawsuits against all three men&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/21/judge-dismisses-case-against-missouri-senators-over-chiefs-parade-shooting-posts/">were dismissed Oct. 21</a>&nbsp;in Kansas federal court when U.S. District Judge John Broomes ruled he did not have jurisdiction over Brattin, Hoskins and Schroer.In the more than nine months since the Feb. 14 victory parade and pep rally, people have not stopped making him feel uncomfortable, Loudermill said in a news conference with one of his attorneys, LaRonna Lassiter Saunders.Loudermill works at a car wash.“They come through looking at me, on video on their phone, saying ‘yeah, that’s him,” he said. “That worries me sometimes.”In an interview with The Independent, Lassiter Saunders said she believes the jurisdictional issue is solved with the new filing. It was important to refile the cases quickly, she said, because the legal nuances could be missed by a public that has only heard the cases were dismissed.“It’s reported that the case gets tossed, then they’re thinking, there’s some merit to the Missouri senators position,” Lassiter Saunders said.Hoskins, reached via text message, declined to respond to the new filing.“I have not been served and I have no comment at this time,” he said.Brattin and Schroer did not respond to messages seeking comment.Like thousands of other regional residents, Loudermill went to Union Station in Kansas City for the pep rally that followed the Chiefs’ victory parade after this year’s Super Bowl. As the crowd was departing, an argument in the crowd resulted in gunfire.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707939847272.png" alt="Image from online coverage of the victory parade" />
 <figcaption>Image from online coverage of the victory parade</figcaption>
 </figure>The shooting at the end of the victory celebration left one person dead and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/10/17/kansas-city-super-bowl-rally-shooting-victims-pick-up-pieces-but-gun-violence-haunts-their-lives/">at least 24 people injured</a>.Loudermill, who was born in Kansas and lives there now, was detained briefly because he was too slow to leave the area of the shooting, he told The Independent earlier this year.A photo of him, seated, with his hands restrained behind his back, was posted on X, formally known as Twitter, by an account with the name Deep Truth Intel. That post incorrectly identified him with a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68353305" target="_blank">name associated with misinformation</a>&nbsp;posted after other shootings and said he was an undocumented immigrant.Soon after that initial social media post, the Missouri Freedom Caucus, Hoskins, Brattin, Schroer and U.S. Rep. Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican, posted their own versions, some with the photo, some without. Burchett’s post said he was one of the shooters and referred to him as an “illegal alien.”Burchett later deleted the tweet but included a screenshot of it&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/timburchett/status/1759645965445636470?s=20" target="_blank">that is still visible</a>&nbsp;in a separate post.A lawsuit filed against Burchett in Kansas was also dismissed because of jurisdictional issues. Lassiter Saunders said Thursday that she is working with attorneys in the Washington, D.C., area to refile the case against Burchett.“He is not off the hook,” she said.&nbsp;Hoskins’ version on social media shared a screenshot of the initial anonymous post and blamed President Joe Biden and political leaders of Kansas City for making the shooting possible.Brattin’s first post linking Loudermill to the shooting, since deleted, demanded “#POTUS CLOSE THE BORDER” and incorporated the deleted anonymous post that kicked everything off.Schroer was the least certain post about the immigration and arrest status of Loudermill among the three.Schroer’s post included a link to one from Burchett stating, over Loudermill’s photo, that “One of the Kansas City Chiefs victory parade shooters has been identified as an illegal Alien.”“Can we get any confirmation or denial of this from local officials or law enforcement?” Schroer wrote. “I’ve been sent videos or stills showing at least 6 different people arrested from yesterday but officially told only 3 still in custody. The people deserve answers.”In the complaint filed against Brattin, attorneys wrote that the lawmakers had no reason to make the comments directed at Loudermill.“The publication of the false representation that plaintiff was an ‘illegal alien’ and a ‘shooter’ was not made in good faith nor was it made by (Brattin) with any legitimate interest in making or duty to make such assertions,” the filing states.In the Kansas cases, the lawmakers were represented by Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who raised both the jurisdictional objections and claims that the senators were acting in their official capacity when they made their posts on social media. Therefore, the filings stated, they are protected by “legislative immunity.”&nbsp;When the case was dismissed, Bailey put out a statement saying it was a victory for keeping “questions of Missouri law…in Missouri courts.”Bailey’s office did not respond immediately to an email asking if the office would again provide representation. Lassiter Saunders said the attorney general should not take the case again.“I would hope not, but given the track record of the attorney general doing as he pleases, it’s a possibility,” Lassiter Saunders said.Bailey’s participation in the case generated its own dispute. In a May letter to the commissioner of the Office of Administration, the state agency that certifies payments from Missouri’s legal expense fund, Gov. Mike Parson wrote that no payments related to the lawsuits should be certified “without my approval or a court order.”Bailey’s claim of legislative immunity is based in the Missouri Constitution’s provisions on legislative privileges. Along with being immune from arrest for minor offenses while the General Assembly is in session, members also “<a href="https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=III++++19&amp;bid=36212&amp;constit=y" target="_blank">shall not be questioned</a>&nbsp;for any speech or debate in either house in any other place.”Social media posts are not statements or speeches made during debates in the chambers, Lassiter Saunders said.“It wasn’t legitimate legislative activity,” she said. “They were following this story like hundreds of thousands of other people seeing tweets, retweeting, and we don’t believe it was the same.The lawsuit seeks to vindicate a core American principle, the right to be let alone, Lassiter Saunders said.“I would like to refocus the attention from politics to the principle of, private citizens should have the right to live their lives privately,” she said. “The elected officials need to be mindful and do a better job of not just speaking out because they have the authority to do so.”The lawsuit states that because of the hostility of some people in the public, Loudermill has “injuries and actual damages including mental distress, sleeplessness, anxiety, and agitation.”He rarely goes out, Loudermill said.“I’m just getting all the attention still,” he said. “ I just want them to pay for that.”

Defamation case against lawmakers over Chiefs parade shooting posts refiled in Missouri

JOHNSON COUNTY — An Emporia State University placed&nbsp; on administrative leave following an arrest for alleged child sex crimes is due back in court Wednesday.

Last week, 72-year-old Howard Pitler was booked into the Johnson County jail on requested charges of&nbsp; electronic solicitation of a child under 14 years old, according to online jail records. He met the requirements of a $25,000 bond and is no longer in&nbsp; custody.

According to Emporia State, "Upon being made aware of the arrest of Howard Pitler, the university responded immediately and placed Pitler on administrative leave. With our rich tradition as a premier Teachers College, the care and safety of students of all ages is of the utmost importance. Pitler taught fully online master’s level courses as an associate professor of School Leadership, Middle &amp; Secondary Teacher Education in The Teachers College. He has been at ESU since 2018. Emporia State will cooperate fully with authorities. We cannot comment further on an ongoing investigation."

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/10/1729898976418.png" alt="Pitler-photo Johnson County" />
 <figcaption>Pitler-photo Johnson County</figcaption>
 </figure>JOHNSON COUNTY — An Emporia State University placed&nbsp; on administrative leave following an arrest for alleged child sex crimes is due back in court Wednesday.Last week, 72-year-old Howard Pitler was booked into the Johnson County jail on requested charges of&nbsp; electronic solicitation of a child under 14 years old, according to online jail records. He met the requirements of a $25,000 bond and is no longer in&nbsp; custody.According to Emporia State, "Upon being made aware of the arrest of Howard Pitler, the university responded immediately and placed Pitler on administrative leave. With our rich tradition as a premier Teachers College, the care and safety of students of all ages is of the utmost importance. Pitler taught fully online master’s level courses as an associate professor of School Leadership, Middle &amp; Secondary Teacher Education in The Teachers College. He has been at ESU since 2018. Emporia State will cooperate fully with authorities. We cannot comment further on an ongoing investigation."

Emporia State professor due in court for alleged child sex crime

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/sherman-smith/">SHERMAN SMITH</a> <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>

TOPEKA — An adviser for Republican congressional candidate Derek Schmidt says the “fake newspaper” Democratic rival Nancy Boyda mailed to 160,000 households is “illegal” and “dishonest.”

Schmidt, a three-term Kansas attorney general and former state Senate majority leader, is challenging Boyda for the 2nd District seat that Boyda held from 2007 to 2009.

Boyda has repeatedly produced campaign materials this year without including the mandatory disclosure that they were paid for by her campaign. That includes two eight-page publications, which she labeled “The Kansas Voter Guide.” The latest arrived in mailboxes last week.

The publications provide Boyda-friendly mock news stories, a side-by-side comparison of the candidates on various issues, letters of endorsement for Boyda, and cartoons making fun of Schmidt.

In a statement for this story, Boyda says she mistakenly swapped a page that included the “paid for” designation with the printer at the last minute. She apologized to the voters of the 2nd District and thanked the Kansas Republican Party for calling attention to the situation in its weekly email newsletter.

“Believe me, the last thing we needed was negative press about what we believe is an excellent way to communicate directly with the voters,” Boyda said. “Again, I apologize we did not follow the letter of the law. It was never our intent.”

On Friday, the GOP newsletter complained that Boyda was “breaking federal campaign finance law” by not clearly labeling her publication as paid for by her campaign.

“Politicians who can’t adhere to even the most basic laws do not deserve your approval — or your vote,” the GOP newsletter said.

Kansas GOP chairman Mike Brown in September&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2024/09/20/kansas-gop-chairman-complains-about-democratic-congressional-candidates-lack-of-disclosures/">filed a complaint</a>&nbsp;with the Federal Election Commission alleging Boyda failed to include “paid for by” disclosures on billboards, videos, yard signs, campaign communications and her campaign website.

Eric Pahls, a Schmidt adviser, said Boyda was being “intentionally dishonest” by not disclosing her publication was “a paid hit piece.”

“Nancy Boyda’s fake newspaper is just the latest in her series of illegal and deceitful campaign activities that are currently under investigation,” Pahls said in a statement for this story. “She’s either incompetent or dishonest — Kansans will reject her either way.”

Boyda said she originally planned to produce three newspapers, but the printer informed the campaign that it only had the capacity to print two. She said the page that included the “paid for by” designation was “inadvertently left off” when she reworked the second and third mailers into a single publication.

She also noted that the return address on the mailing label reads “Boyda for Congress.”

“I want to be clear, that was our mistake, not the printer’s,” Boyda said. “This is an incredibly busy time for everyone and they were good partners to work with. It was our duty to get it right, not theirs.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/9/1727015582485.png" alt=" Democrat Nancy Boyda&nbsp; -photo by Grace Hills / Kansas Reflector" />
 <figcaption> Democrat Nancy Boyda&nbsp; -photo by Grace Hills / Kansas Reflector</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/sherman-smith/">SHERMAN SMITH</a> <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>TOPEKA — An adviser for Republican congressional candidate Derek Schmidt says the “fake newspaper” Democratic rival Nancy Boyda mailed to 160,000 households is “illegal” and “dishonest.”Schmidt, a three-term Kansas attorney general and former state Senate majority leader, is challenging Boyda for the 2nd District seat that Boyda held from 2007 to 2009.Boyda has repeatedly produced campaign materials this year without including the mandatory disclosure that they were paid for by her campaign. That includes two eight-page publications, which she labeled “The Kansas Voter Guide.” The latest arrived in mailboxes last week.The publications provide Boyda-friendly mock news stories, a side-by-side comparison of the candidates on various issues, letters of endorsement for Boyda, and cartoons making fun of Schmidt.In a statement for this story, Boyda says she mistakenly swapped a page that included the “paid for” designation with the printer at the last minute. She apologized to the voters of the 2nd District and thanked the Kansas Republican Party for calling attention to the situation in its weekly email newsletter.“Believe me, the last thing we needed was negative press about what we believe is an excellent way to communicate directly with the voters,” Boyda said. “Again, I apologize we did not follow the letter of the law. It was never our intent.”On Friday, the GOP newsletter complained that Boyda was “breaking federal campaign finance law” by not clearly labeling her publication as paid for by her campaign.“Politicians who can’t adhere to even the most basic laws do not deserve your approval — or your vote,” the GOP newsletter said.Kansas GOP chairman Mike Brown in September&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2024/09/20/kansas-gop-chairman-complains-about-democratic-congressional-candidates-lack-of-disclosures/">filed a complaint</a>&nbsp;with the Federal Election Commission alleging Boyda failed to include “paid for by” disclosures on billboards, videos, yard signs, campaign communications and her campaign website.Eric Pahls, a Schmidt adviser, said Boyda was being “intentionally dishonest” by not disclosing her publication was “a paid hit piece.”“Nancy Boyda’s fake newspaper is just the latest in her series of illegal and deceitful campaign activities that are currently under investigation,” Pahls said in a statement for this story. “She’s either incompetent or dishonest — Kansans will reject her either way.”Boyda said she originally planned to produce three newspapers, but the printer informed the campaign that it only had the capacity to print two. She said the page that included the “paid for by” designation was “inadvertently left off” when she reworked the second and third mailers into a single publication.She also noted that the return address on the mailing label reads “Boyda for Congress.”“I want to be clear, that was our mistake, not the printer’s,” Boyda said. “This is an incredibly busy time for everyone and they were good partners to work with. It was our duty to get it right, not theirs.”

Kansas Republicans blast Democrat for mailing ‘voter guide’ without campaign disclosure

Proponents of Amendment 3 have spent over $10 million on TV ads, more than 20 times what the opposition has invested

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/annaspoerre/">ANNA SPOERRE</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

An effort to legalize abortion in Missouri has raised nearly 10 times more than the political action committees seeking to stop it.&nbsp;

Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the campaign behind&nbsp;<a href="https://moconstitutionalfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Missourians-for-Constitutional-Freedom-Amendment.pdf" target="_blank">Amendment 3</a>, which would legalize abortion up until the point of fetal viability, has raised more than $30.9 million since launching its campaign in 2023, according to fundraising reports filed Monday with the Missouri Ethics Commission.

That includes roughly $9 million since Oct. 1, most of which came from out-of-state groups that&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/13/missouri-abortion-rights-campaign-doubles-fundraising-fairness-project/">aren’t required to disclose their donors.&nbsp;</a>

A half dozen PACs urging Missourians to vote against Amendment 3 collectively raised around $3.2 million.

This follows a trend seen in other states where abortion has been on the ballot: efforts to legalize or protect the procedure often outspend efforts to defeat it, including in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/ohios-2023-abortion-fight-cost-campaigns-70-million/" target="_blank">Ohio</a>, where a similar measure&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/11/07/us/elections/results-ohio-issue-1-abortion-rights.html" target="_blank">won with more than 56% of the vote.&nbsp;</a>

But Missouri is a particularly stark example of abortion-rights groups vastly outspending opposition.&nbsp;

One reason may be that less money is coming from the Catholic Church than in previous campaigns. A recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5144660#:~:text=An%20NPR%20and%20Religion%20News,%2D%20zero%2C%20Arizona%20%2D%20zero." target="_blank">analysis by NPR and Religion News Service</a>&nbsp;found U.S. bishops have donated significantly less this year to fight abortion measures than in 2022 and 2023.&nbsp;

While Catholic churches in Kansas spent nearly $4 million to fight an abortion referendum in Kansas in 2022, the Missouri dioceses have only invested about $30,000 in Missouri’s fight, the news outlets found.

In an effort to bridge this gap, some congregants are going door-to-door in opposition of the amendment.

“We pray for your assistance in this fight against Amendment 3,” Eric Holder, a&nbsp;volunteer with the local Knights of Columbus, prayed aloud in early October before canvassing in Independence.&nbsp;“We are like David facing Goliath. We pray that you be with us.”&nbsp;

He bowed his head alongside half a dozen other knights outside St. Mary’s Catholic Church before heading out to hang “vote no” fliers on about 1,000 doors.

Holder said he became passionate about ending abortion after he converted to Catholicism about 30 years ago and joined in the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. He was motivated in part by a relative with an unplanned pregnancy who contemplated abortion before walking into a pregnancy resource center in Kansas City where she was encouraged to keep her baby.&nbsp;

“Missouri could suddenly become one of the worst states in the union in terms of abortion,” Holder said, fearing “the degradation of the family” and a shift to a “pro-death” culture.&nbsp;

In the interview, Holder lamented the dearth of TV ads aired from a “vote no” perspective. Fighting the amendment, he said, felt like “throwing a pebble into a raging ocean.”

But that changed in the coming weeks, as the first ads went up on TV and radio opposing the amendment.&nbsp;

A virtual rally held last week brought out several big names against the amendment, many of whom urged viewers to donate to support the purchase of TV ads.&nbsp;

Hosts of the rally, which included guest appearances by Missouri Gov. Mike Parson and conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly, appealed to viewers to donate to fund for ads to run in the 11 days before the election.&nbsp;

“We need to invest in this fight to get the messages in front of people,” said David Bereit, Founder of 40 Days for Life.&nbsp;

A number of people heeded Bereit’s advice.

As of Monday, groups opposing Amendment 3 have spent about $545,000 on radio and TV ads.&nbsp;

Nearly $442,000 of that total was purchased since Thursday, the day of the rally.&nbsp;

More than half of that spending was in TV ads purchased by the Vitae Foundation, an anti-abortion research organization based in Missouri. The group’s president was among those who spoke at Thursday’s rally, asking for contributions for TV ads. The Vitae Foundation is not registered as Missouri PAC, and therefore hasn’t reported donors or spending as is required of PACS.&nbsp;

The foundation’s ads do not specifically name Amendment 3, but rather focus on abortion broadly, encouraging viewers to “think about it.”

But spending on anti-abortion ads remains miles behind spending on digital and TV ads encouraging Missourians to “vote yes.”

As of Monday, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom spent nearly $10.4 million on TV ads, and about $22,000 on radio ads, more than twenty times what the opposition has invested.

The campaign has seen widespread support since its inception. More than&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/03/missourians-signatures-abortion-amendment-viability/">380,000 Missourians signed an initiative petition</a>&nbsp;to put the amendment on the ballot, and most Democratic nominees have campaigned on their support for Amendment 3.&nbsp;<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fG46LwM4JRGAf-ZJSMEqKnJY_7kBABGI/view" target="_blank">More than 500 physicians and more than 300 other medical professionals</a>&nbsp;also signed a letter in support of&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/13/missouri-abortion-rights-campaign-doubles-fundraising-fairness-project/">Amendment 3.</a>&nbsp;

No excuse absentee voting in Missouri began Oct. 22. Election officials in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article294677984.html" target="_blank">Kansas City&nbsp;</a>and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.firstalert4.com/2024/10/25/early-voting-turnout-missouri-running-high/" target="_blank">St. Louis</a>&nbsp;are already reporting significant early voter turnouts ahead of the Nov. 5 General Election.&nbsp;

<a href="https://emersoncollegepolling.com/september-2024-missouri-poll-republican-candidates-lead-in-president-governor-senate-races/" target="_blank">A recent Emerson College poll</a>&nbsp;found 58% of those surveyed support Amendment 3, with 30% opposed. The most recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.slu.edu/research/research-institute/big-ideas/slu-poll/index.php" target="_blank">SLU/YouGov Poll</a>&nbsp;found that 52% supported the amendment and 34% opposed.

The Independent’s Rudi Keller contributed reporting.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/4/1712225243467.png" alt=" Volunteers with Missourians for Constitutional Freedom collect signatures in support of putting forward a ballot measure that would legalize abortion up to the point of fetal viability in Missouri. More than 500 people signed up for a campaign event on Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2024, in Kansas City (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption> Volunteers with Missourians for Constitutional Freedom collect signatures in support of putting forward a ballot measure that would legalize abortion up to the point of fetal viability in Missouri. More than 500 people signed up for a campaign event on Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2024, in Kansas City (Anna Spoerre/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Proponents of Amendment 3 have spent over $10 million on TV ads, more than 20 times what the opposition has invested</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/annaspoerre/">ANNA SPOERRE</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>An effort to legalize abortion in Missouri has raised nearly 10 times more than the political action committees seeking to stop it.&nbsp;Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the campaign behind&nbsp;<a href="https://moconstitutionalfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Missourians-for-Constitutional-Freedom-Amendment.pdf" target="_blank">Amendment 3</a>, which would legalize abortion up until the point of fetal viability, has raised more than $30.9 million since launching its campaign in 2023, according to fundraising reports filed Monday with the Missouri Ethics Commission.That includes roughly $9 million since Oct. 1, most of which came from out-of-state groups that&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/13/missouri-abortion-rights-campaign-doubles-fundraising-fairness-project/">aren’t required to disclose their donors.&nbsp;</a>A half dozen PACs urging Missourians to vote against Amendment 3 collectively raised around $3.2 million.This follows a trend seen in other states where abortion has been on the ballot: efforts to legalize or protect the procedure often outspend efforts to defeat it, including in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/ohios-2023-abortion-fight-cost-campaigns-70-million/" target="_blank">Ohio</a>, where a similar measure&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/11/07/us/elections/results-ohio-issue-1-abortion-rights.html" target="_blank">won with more than 56% of the vote.&nbsp;</a>But Missouri is a particularly stark example of abortion-rights groups vastly outspending opposition.&nbsp;One reason may be that less money is coming from the Catholic Church than in previous campaigns. A recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5144660#:~:text=An%20NPR%20and%20Religion%20News,%2D%20zero%2C%20Arizona%20%2D%20zero." target="_blank">analysis by NPR and Religion News Service</a>&nbsp;found U.S. bishops have donated significantly less this year to fight abortion measures than in 2022 and 2023.&nbsp;While Catholic churches in Kansas spent nearly $4 million to fight an abortion referendum in Kansas in 2022, the Missouri dioceses have only invested about $30,000 in Missouri’s fight, the news outlets found.In an effort to bridge this gap, some congregants are going door-to-door in opposition of the amendment.“We pray for your assistance in this fight against Amendment 3,” Eric Holder, a&nbsp;volunteer with the local Knights of Columbus, prayed aloud in early October before canvassing in Independence.&nbsp;“We are like David facing Goliath. We pray that you be with us.”&nbsp;He bowed his head alongside half a dozen other knights outside St. Mary’s Catholic Church before heading out to hang “vote no” fliers on about 1,000 doors.Holder said he became passionate about ending abortion after he converted to Catholicism about 30 years ago and joined in the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. He was motivated in part by a relative with an unplanned pregnancy who contemplated abortion before walking into a pregnancy resource center in Kansas City where she was encouraged to keep her baby.&nbsp;“Missouri could suddenly become one of the worst states in the union in terms of abortion,” Holder said, fearing “the degradation of the family” and a shift to a “pro-death” culture.&nbsp;In the interview, Holder lamented the dearth of TV ads aired from a “vote no” perspective. Fighting the amendment, he said, felt like “throwing a pebble into a raging ocean.”But that changed in the coming weeks, as the first ads went up on TV and radio opposing the amendment.&nbsp;A virtual rally held last week brought out several big names against the amendment, many of whom urged viewers to donate to support the purchase of TV ads.&nbsp;Hosts of the rally, which included guest appearances by Missouri Gov. Mike Parson and conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly, appealed to viewers to donate to fund for ads to run in the 11 days before the election.&nbsp;“We need to invest in this fight to get the messages in front of people,” said David Bereit, Founder of 40 Days for Life.&nbsp;A number of people heeded Bereit’s advice.As of Monday, groups opposing Amendment 3 have spent about $545,000 on radio and TV ads.&nbsp;Nearly $442,000 of that total was purchased since Thursday, the day of the rally.&nbsp;More than half of that spending was in TV ads purchased by the Vitae Foundation, an anti-abortion research organization based in Missouri. The group’s president was among those who spoke at Thursday’s rally, asking for contributions for TV ads. The Vitae Foundation is not registered as Missouri PAC, and therefore hasn’t reported donors or spending as is required of PACS.&nbsp;The foundation’s ads do not specifically name Amendment 3, but rather focus on abortion broadly, encouraging viewers to “think about it.”But spending on anti-abortion ads remains miles behind spending on digital and TV ads encouraging Missourians to “vote yes.”As of Monday, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom spent nearly $10.4 million on TV ads, and about $22,000 on radio ads, more than twenty times what the opposition has invested.The campaign has seen widespread support since its inception. More than&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/03/missourians-signatures-abortion-amendment-viability/">380,000 Missourians signed an initiative petition</a>&nbsp;to put the amendment on the ballot, and most Democratic nominees have campaigned on their support for Amendment 3.&nbsp;<a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fG46LwM4JRGAf-ZJSMEqKnJY_7kBABGI/view" target="_blank">More than 500 physicians and more than 300 other medical professionals</a>&nbsp;also signed a letter in support of&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/09/13/missouri-abortion-rights-campaign-doubles-fundraising-fairness-project/">Amendment 3.</a>&nbsp;No excuse absentee voting in Missouri began Oct. 22. Election officials in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/election/article294677984.html" target="_blank">Kansas City&nbsp;</a>and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.firstalert4.com/2024/10/25/early-voting-turnout-missouri-running-high/" target="_blank">St. Louis</a>&nbsp;are already reporting significant early voter turnouts ahead of the Nov. 5 General Election.&nbsp;<a href="https://emersoncollegepolling.com/september-2024-missouri-poll-republican-candidates-lead-in-president-governor-senate-races/" target="_blank">A recent Emerson College poll</a>&nbsp;found 58% of those surveyed support Amendment 3, with 30% opposed. The most recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.slu.edu/research/research-institute/big-ideas/slu-poll/index.php" target="_blank">SLU/YouGov Poll</a>&nbsp;found that 52% supported the amendment and 34% opposed.The Independent’s Rudi Keller contributed reporting.

Kbct