Axios Today podcast: The national implications of the Virginia governor’s race


It’s the final week of the governor’s race in Virginia between Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Glenn Youngkin. It’s a huge test for Democrats as they try to hold onto this must-have state.

  • Plus, the Supreme Court decides to hear three abortion cases this term.

  • And, new FBI data shows how border towns are safer than other American cities.

Guests: Axios’ Fadel Allassan, Oriana Gonzalez and Russell Contreras.

Credits: Axios Today is produced in partnership with Pushkin Industries. The team includes Niala Boodhoo, Sara Kehaulani Goo, Dan Bobkoff, Alexandra Botti, Nuria Marquez Martinez, Alex Sugiura, Lydia McMullen-Laird, Michael Hanf, and David Toledo. Music is composed by Evan Viola. You can reach us at You can text questions, comments and story ideas to Niala as a text or voice memo to 202-918-4893.

Go deeper:

Get market news worthy of your time with Axios Markets. Subscribe for free.


NIALA BOODHOO: Good morning! Welcome to Axios Today!

It’s Monday October 25th. I’m Niala Boodhoo.

Here’s how we’re making you smarter today: The Supreme Court decides to hear three abortion cases this term. Plus, new FBI data shows how border towns are safer than other American cities.

But first, today’s One Big Thing: the national implications of the Virginia governor’s race.

It’s the final week of the closely-watched governor’s race in Virginia between Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Glenn Youngkin. This is a huge test for Democrats as they try to hold onto this must-have state. So much so that two former presidents are involved in this race. Former President Obama stumped for McAuliffe on Friday. And Former President Trump has repeatedly endorsed Youngkin. Axios’ associate editor Fadel Allassan is with me now to explain what this race means for the whole country. Hey Fadel!


NIALA: Fadel, first of all, let’s start with Democrat Terry McAuliffe. What strategy is he using to get people to the polls?

FADEL: Terry McAuliffe has been trying to get some of the same backlash that helped Democrats win their last two elections in 2017 and 2019, by painting his opponent, Glenn Youngkin as an extension of Trump. And Youngkin on the flip side, he wants to be seen in a way as a pro-Trump candidate, because that helps draw Republican turnout, but not so much so that it helps the backlash that helped Democrats win big in the state in the last few elections.

NIALA: Is it accurate to say that Glenn Youngkin is very pro-Trump or very Trumpy as Terry McAuliffe is painting him out to be?

FADEL: It’s complicated because like, for example, some of the more pro-Trump figures like Steve Bannon had a rally in Richmond recently, that was all about election integrity. And you know, this idea that the election was stolen and Youngkin wasn’t there at all. But at the same time, he made it a central part of his campaign early on in the primary, saying that he would start a task force to help election integrity in Virginia. He since said that Trump did not win the 2020 election, but he hasn’t been very forceful on it. And that’s something that McAuliffe has tried to seize on.

NIALA: What are the issues that McAuliffe and Youngkin are aligning themselves with in this race?

FADEL: This is the first time really where you’ve seen some of the more cultural issues break out to the forefront of the governor’s race. So the idea of critical race theory being taught in Virginia schools, which it’s not, that’s something that Youngkin has pushed forward and McAuliffe has hit back saying, you know, he’s being a conspiracy theorist.

NIALA: What’s at stake here?

FADEL: Republicans haven’t won in Virginia in over a decade, in a statewide race. If you ask them, they feel like this is their chance. And if you look at the polling, it seems like it’s going to be a lot closer this year. What we’re watching for is whether Democrats continue to win seats in the legislature, keep the governorship, or whether Republicans can finally break through, which would kind of show that the margins that Democrats have been winning by, in recent years, was a bit of a mirage. Perhaps because President Trump was in office and that drew out voters in the state against him.

NIALA: Fadel Allassan is an associate editor at Axios based in Arlington, Virginia. Thanks, Fadel.

FADEL: Thank you.


NIALA: We’ll be back in 15 seconds with the Supreme Court’s docket firming up on abortion rights cases.

[ad break]

NIALA: Welcome back to Axios Today, I’m Niala Boodhoo. The Supreme Court on Friday, agreed to hear two cases challenging the Texas abortion law that bans the procedure as early as six weeks into pregnancy. And that means the Supreme Court’s now going to hear three major abortion cases this term that could lead to changes in abortion rights across the country, even possibly overturning Roe vs. Wade. Axios’ Oriana Gonzalez has been tracking these cases and joins us now to catch us up. Hey Oriana!

ORIANA: Hi Niala.

NIALA: Can you tell us what the three cases are that have made their way to the Supreme Court this term?

ORIANA: The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear two cases a week from today, one from the Department of Justice and one from abortion providers in Texas, both of which are challenging a law in Texas that bans abortion as soon as six weeks into pregnancy. The Supreme Court allowed for the Texas law to remain in place because it said that there were too many procedural questions to answer before they decided to do that. And precisely the two cases on the Texas law are answering those procedural questions. The third case is actually happening a month after on December 1st. It’s a challenge to a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks.

NIALA: And do we know what procedural questions the Supreme Court is going to be looking at here and what they’re specifically going to be trying to determine?

ORIANA: The Texas law is different from any other anti-abortion bill that has been passed in recent years because it’s not the state that is enforcing the law, it’s the general public. The state is encouraging the general public to sue providers that help people get abortions. And in the abortion providers case, that’s exactly what the court is going to be looking at. Can states kind of give enforcement powers to the general public in order to avoid judicial review of a specific law.

NIALA: And what about the Mississippi case? What are they going to be looking at there?

ORIANA: In the Mississippi case, that’s where we’re getting into the nitty gritty of abortion. The Mississippi Attorney General’s actually asking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V. Wade. So in this one is where we’re going to specifically be seeing whether states have the authority to ban abortion, which is what Roe V. Wade and Planned Parenthood V. Casey, decided. So those two cases are Supreme Court cases that decided that states cannot ban abortions before viability.

NIALA: If that does happen, where does that leave states and their abortion restrictions or states that have passed laws in anticipation of Roe vs. Wade being overturned at the federal level?

ORIANA: The first two cases while they are procedural questions, if they succeed, they can technically be used as an argument to say that abortion is not allowed. So we have to remember that the Supreme Court could effectively take away the right to having an abortion without specifically getting rid of Roe. So if they say in the abortions providers case that federal courts have absolutely no power over state laws, like the Texas one, then that gives states an easy avenue to get around Roe and Planned Parenthood v Casey.

NIALA: Axios’ Oriana Gonzalez. Thank you, Oriana.

ORIANA: Thank you, Niala.

NIALA: We’ve talked about how much the homicide rate has gone up in the U.S., especially last year, but new F.B.I. statistics show some cities along the Southern U.S. border had a murder rate 10 times lower than Northern…


Source link