Welcome to the Thursday, May 1, 2025, Brew. 

By: Lara Bonatesta

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

1. Between 1986 and 2024, 73% of U.S. Senators who ran for governor and 48% of governors who ran for Senate were elected 
2. Tennessee Legislature advances constitutional amendments on crime victims’ rights, bail, and property taxes to 2026 ballot 
3. Ohio case asks if ballot summary reviews regulate speech or lawmaking

Between 1986 and 2024, 73% of U.S. Senators who ran for governor and 48% of governors who ran for Senate were elected 

Before the 2026 midterm elections, parties are looking for candidates to run in the primaries. Thirty-six states are holding gubernatorial elections in 2026, and 16 incumbent governors are term-limited. There are also 33 U.S. Senate seats up for election. 

Senators and governors are both elected statewide, and some notable rumored candidates for Senate are current governors. Some gubernatorial candidates are also current senators. 

Current and former governors who are considered possible Senate candidates include former Gov. Roy Cooper (D-N.C.) and Gov. Brian Kemp (R-Ga.). As of April 2026, the Senate elections in Georgia and North Carolina have been ranked as battlegrounds.

At least three senators are also considered potential candidates for their state’s governorship in 2026, including the announced candidacy of Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and the rumored candidacies of Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.).

We looked at almost 40 years of data to get a sense of how many governors run for Senate and vice versa. Here’s how they performed.

Senators running for governor have a higher success rate than governors running for Senate. Of the senators who ran for governor, 10 (or 78%) were elected, two lost in general elections, and one lost in the primary. Of the governors who have run for Senate since 1986, 27 (or 48%) were elected, 21 lost in general elections, and seven lost in primaries. One withdrew before the primary. 

Governors running for Senate

Since 1986, 54 incumbent or ex-governors have run for a U.S. Senate seat in 56 elections. Roughly three governors have run for Senate each cycle since 1986, with a maximum of seven running in 1986 and none running in 1990, 2006, or 2022.

More Democratic governors have run for Senate than Republican governors. Of the governors who have run for Senate, 33 were Democrats, 17 were Republicans, and four were third-party candidates.

Republican governors had a higher win rate (59%) than Democratic governors (48%) in U.S. Senate races.  

Senators running for governor

Since 1986, 14 incumbent or ex-senators have run for governor. Roughly one senator has run for governor in every cycle since 1986, with the most senators running for governor in 1990 and 2010, when three senators ran for governor. 

More Republican senators have run for governor than Democratic senators. Of the senators who ran for governor, seven were Republicans, four were Democrats, and three were third-party candidates.

Republican senators running for governor also have a higher win rate (86%) than Democratic senators (75%). 

Click here to learn more about gubernatorial elections in 2026. Click here to learn more about U.S. Senate elections in 2026.

Tennessee Legislature advances constitutional amendments on crime victims’ rights, bail, and property taxes to 2026 ballot 

Tennessee voters will decide on three constitutional amendments on Nov. 3, 2026. The amendments address crime victims’ rights, bail eligibility, and state property taxes. 

Here is a brief overview of those amendments. 

SJR 9: Marsy’s Law Crime Victims’ Rights Amendment

Senate Joint Resolution 9 (SJR 9) would expand rights for crime victims based on Marsy’s Law. 

In 2009, Henry Nicholas, co-founder of Broadcom Corporation, founded Marsy’s Law for All LLC, the national organization advocating for Marsy’s Law. The law is named after Nicholas’ sister, Marsalee (“Marsy”) Nicholas, who was murdered in 1983. According to the organization, “Marsy’s Law seeks to provide an equal voice for crime victims through meaningful and enforceable constitutional rights.”

Since 2008, Marsy’s Law measures have appeared on the ballot 15 times across 14 states. The year with the most such measures was 2018, when there were six. Voters approved all 15 measures, but state courts in three states—Kentucky, Montana, and Pennsylvania—have since overturned them.  

Tennessee is the 15th state to decide on such a measure, and this is the first Marsy’s Law amendment on a state ballot since 2020. 

On March 3, the Senate voted 27-5 to pass SJR 9. All 27 Republicans voted for the amendment, and five Democrats voted against it. On April 21, the amendment passed the House unanimously.

State Sen. John Stevens (R) said, “Tennessee crime victims are not given the same amount of protection as convicted criminals. Marsy’s Law will ensure that victims have equal access to justice.” Former state Rep. Patsy Hazlewood (R) said, “No criminal should have more rights than the victim, and Marsy’s Law simply will ensure that won’t happen.”

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers stated that amendments modeled after Marsy’s Law create a too-broad definition of a victim’s right to privacy, which “erodes the availability of public safety information.” 

SJR 25: Remove Right to Bail for Certain Criminal Offenses Amendment

Senate Joint Resolution 25 (SJR 25) would expand the circumstances under which a judge can deny an individual’s right to bail if the “presumption of guilt is great.” Currently, judges can only deny bail to defendants accused of capital offenses. The amendment would allow judges to deny bail to defendants accused of acts of terrorism, second-degree murder, aggravated rape of a child, and grave acts of torture. The right to bail could also be removed for any crime where an individual, if convicted, could not be released from custody until they have served at least 85% of their sentence. 

On March 17, the Senate voted 23-6 to pass SJR 25. Twenty-three Republicans voted yes, and one Republican and five Democrats voted no. On April 21, the House voted 84-10 to pass SJR 25. Seventy-one Republicans and 13 Democrats voted yes, and 10 Democrats voted no. 

SJR 1: Prohibit State Property Taxes Amendment

Senate Joint Resolution 1 (SJR 1) would prohibit the Legislature from levying a state tax on real property. There is currently no statewide property tax, though the Legislature has the power to create one. There are county and municipal property taxes in Tennessee. 

On March 26, the Senate voted 26-5 to pass SJR 1. Twenty-six Republicans voted yes, and five Democrats voted no. On April 21, the House passed the amendment 89-6. 

Process for legislative amendments in Tennessee

In Tennessee, the Legislature must pass constitutional amendments in two consecutive sessions before putting them on the ballot. The Legislature passed all three amendments in the 2023-2024 sessions and approved all three again on April 21. 

Since 1985, Tennessee voters have decided on and approved 15 constitutional amendments. 

No other constitutional amendments are awaiting approval for 2026, and due to the two-session requirement, no more amendments can be placed on that ballot.

Amendments can only be placed on the ballot in the same general election as a gubernatorial race. This means the earliest voters may see any newly introduced constitutional amendments is November 2030. 

Click here to learn more about Tennessee’s 2026 ballot measures.

Ohio case asks if ballot summary reviews regulate speech or lawmaking

On April 22, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block a U.S. district court’s ruling that found that Ohio’s fair and truthful requirement for ballot initiative petitions violates the First Amendment. 

This law requires the Ohio Attorney General to determine whether submitted petition summaries are fair and truthful statements of the proposed law before advancing petitions to the Ohio Ballot Board. 

Here’s some more background on the case and the U.S. District Court ruling.

The case, Brown v. Yost, raised a broader legal question: Are rules for reviewing ballot initiative summaries subject to free speech protections, or are these rules just part of the state’s lawmaking process—the governmental mechanics that do not implicate the First Amendment?

The plaintiffs in the case were Cynthia Brown, Carlos Buford, and Jenny Sue Rowe, sponsors of a proposed ballot initiative that Attorney General Dave Yost (R) rejected under the fair and truthful requirement. They argued that the state’s review of petition summaries imposed government restrictions on political speech, as the standards were based on subjective and content-based judgments. 

Yost argued that the initiative process is an exercise of the state’s legislative power, not an expression of private speech rights, and that the U.S. Constitution does not require states to offer an initiative process. He also said the Constitution gives states with such a process considerable discretion to regulate it.

On March 14, U.S. District Court Judge James Graham ruled that the fair and truthful requirement violated the First Amendment. Graham wrote the law “subjects one component of plaintiffs’ speech… to the state’s editorial review.” He described the fair and truthful requirement as a content-based regulation, rather than a content-neutral rule, such as a signature threshold. He said there were no standards to guide or restrain “the Attorney General’s consideration of what is fair or truthful,” and “[a]s even defendant acknowledges… the state ‘effectively controls the message because the Attorney General has final approval authority.’”

Three courts issued orders on the case. You can read those here:

1. Order: U.S. Supreme Court (April 22, 2025)
2. Order: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (April 9, 2025)
3. Order: U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio (March 14, 2025)

Yost approved Brown, Buford, and Rowe’s petition on April 22. On April 29, the five-member Ohio Ballot Board found that the proposal complies with the state’s single-subject rule and approved the measure. Supporters must now submit at least 413,487 valid signatures by July 2 for the initiative to appear on the Nov. 4, 2025, ballot.

Click here to learn more about the initiative.