Gay Republican MO state rep. is going to run for MO state senate

[MarkD]

A little over a year ago, I created this thread
https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=467635.msg8302483#msg8302483
to discuss the death of one gay Republican state rep. from St. Charles County, and I mentioned that there are two openly gay Republican state reps. The one who is still alive - Phil Christofanelli - was reelected to his fourth term a couple of months ago, less than two years after he came out of the closet during an interview on This Week in Missouri Politics.

(In that video, the point in which he comes out is at 6:00 minutes.)
Here is the news that, since he is term-limited in the house, he intends to run for senate district 23 next year.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/st-peters-state-rep-seeks-promotion-to-missouri-senate/article_0f831061-abc3-5b3e-8991-6b08346b7087.html

Christofanelli's first three elections to the house were in district 105, and then after redistricting last year, he ran for his last reelection in district 104. This term, he is chairman of the Insurance Policy Committee, also serves on Elementary and Secondary Education Committee, and on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Education. "School choice" is one of his pet issues.

As redrawn last year, senate district 23 encompasses all of the cities of St. Charles and St. Peters. When I average together the votes cast last year for US Senate, US House, and state Auditor, district 23 voted 55.22% Republican to 42.92% Democratic (which is a few points less Republican than average for the whole state). Voter turnout was just 2 points higher than average for MO. Ever since 1992, when redistricting first plunked 23 down into St. Charles County, no Democrat has been able to get elected to this district, and in 2012 they didn't even have a nominee who tried to run. (A couple of times, a Dem nominee did get over 45%, though.)
https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/Elections//Maps//2022%20JRC%20%20Senate%20District_23.pdf
The incumbent senator, Bill Eigel, is going to run for Governor next year.

I think we can take it for granted that he will NOT have a free pass to the Republican nomination for the senate. He likely will have an opponent in the primary (and if they're smart, any anti-gay Republicans who want to defeat him will coalesce behind just one opponent).

FYI, back in August 1994, I was elected to be Harvester Township Republican Committeeman, I just served for two years, then I was defeated for reelection in August 1996. Harvester Township is in the southern section of the current district 23 (and either all of it or most of it was also in that district during the 2000's and 2010's). I didn't come out of the closet to my fellow Republicans until June 2003, 2-3 days after the Supreme Court handed down Lawrence v. Texas. County Executive Joe Ortwerth was speaking out against that ruling at a meeting of St. Charles County Pachyderms, and I raised my hand, and said something like, I'm one of the few gay people in the country who is NOT popping a cork over this ruling. I've studied a lot about constitutional law, especially about the 14th Amendment, and I'm absolutely disgusted with judicial activism like this. I've learned that constitutional law is a lot like a box of choc'lits; ya never know what yer gonna git.

[Holmes]

I didn't come out of the closet to my fellow Republicans until June 2003, 2-3 days after the Supreme Court handed down Lawrence v. Texas. County Executive Joe Ortwerth was speaking out against that ruling at a meeting of St. Charles County Pachyderms, and I raised my hand, and said something like, I'm one of the few gay people in the country who is NOT popping a cork over this ruling. I've studied a lot about constitutional law, especially about the 14th Amendment, and I'm absolutely disgusted with judicial activism like this. I've learned that constitutional law is a lot like a box of choc'lits; ya never know what yer gonna git.

Sorry but a gay man going to a Republican meeting and proclaiming “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM” after a pro-gay ruling is kind of sad.

[Horus]

St. Charles county is still quite red so I'm sure he's favored. Republicans should start running gay guys like this in upper middle-upper class suburbs that are trending D. A lot of college educated white women will ticket split for Black or gay Republicans.

[Del Tachi]

St. Charles county is still quite red so I'm sure he's favored. Republicans should start running gay guys like this in upper middle-upper class suburbs that are trending D. A lot of college educated white women will ticket split for Black or gay Republicans.

lmao

No, White women in rich suburbs are still mostly a Republican-leaning demographic.  They only vote Democrat when we run terrible candidates. 

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I hope he gets crushed

[MarkD]

I didn't come out of the closet to my fellow Republicans until June 2003, 2-3 days after the Supreme Court handed down Lawrence v. Texas. County Executive Joe Ortwerth was speaking out against that ruling at a meeting of St. Charles County Pachyderms, and I raised my hand, and said something like, I'm one of the few gay people in the country who is NOT popping a cork over this ruling. I've studied a lot about constitutional law, especially about the 14th Amendment, and I'm absolutely disgusted with judicial activism like this. I've learned that constitutional law is a lot like a box of choc'lits; ya never know what yer gonna git.

Sorry but a gay man going to a Republican meeting and proclaiming “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM” after a pro-gay ruling is kind of sad.

You may feel sad FOR me, but I assure you that I do not feel any sadness about the fact that I want the legislative branch of the federal government and the state governments to create the laws that give us gay people equal rights, not the judicial branch. What does make me feel very, very sad is judicial activism -- judges making some laws, pretending that their interpretation of the Constitution(s) made them come to the conclusions that they did, when the truth is that they gave in to the temptation to use their own values to come to their conclusions. The reality of judicial activism makes me feel much sadDER than whatever sadness you feel for me.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I didn't come out of the closet to my fellow Republicans until June 2003, 2-3 days after the Supreme Court handed down Lawrence v. Texas. County Executive Joe Ortwerth was speaking out against that ruling at a meeting of St. Charles County Pachyderms, and I raised my hand, and said something like, I'm one of the few gay people in the country who is NOT popping a cork over this ruling. I've studied a lot about constitutional law, especially about the 14th Amendment, and I'm absolutely disgusted with judicial activism like this. I've learned that constitutional law is a lot like a box of choc'lits; ya never know what yer gonna git.

Sorry but a gay man going to a Republican meeting and proclaiming “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM” after a pro-gay ruling is kind of sad.

You may feel sad FOR me, but I assure you that I do not feel any sadness about the fact that I want the legislative branch of the federal government and the state governments to create the laws that give us gay people equal rights, not the judicial branch. What does make me feel very, very sad is judicial activism -- judges making some laws, pretending that their interpretation of the Constitution(s) made them come to the conclusions that they did, when the truth is that they gave in to the temptation to use their own values to come to their conclusions. The reality of judicial activism makes me feel much sadDER than whatever sadness you feel for me.

Sorry that we don't feel any empathy for your sadness over "judicial activism" when some of us don't have the privilege to wring our hands over how we get equal rights and protection from homophobia.

I hope that your fellow Republicans in 2003, who I'm sure only cared about the judicial activism and didn't see homosexuality as an abomination that needs to be purged, were very proud of you for attacking your fellow LGBT people for being happy about a ruling that banned dictatorial, theocratic laws that made them illegal.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I didn't come out of the closet to my fellow Republicans until June 2003, 2-3 days after the Supreme Court handed down Lawrence v. Texas. County Executive Joe Ortwerth was speaking out against that ruling at a meeting of St. Charles County Pachyderms, and I raised my hand, and said something like, I'm one of the few gay people in the country who is NOT popping a cork over this ruling. I've studied a lot about constitutional law, especially about the 14th Amendment, and I'm absolutely disgusted with judicial activism like this. I've learned that constitutional law is a lot like a box of choc'lits; ya never know what yer gonna git.

Sorry but a gay man going to a Republican meeting and proclaiming “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM” after a pro-gay ruling is kind of sad.

You may feel sad FOR me, but I assure you that I do not feel any sadness about the fact that I want the legislative branch of the federal government and the state governments to create the laws that give us gay people equal rights, not the judicial branch. What does make me feel very, very sad is judicial activism -- judges making some laws, pretending that their interpretation of the Constitution(s) made them come to the conclusions that they did, when the truth is that they gave in to the temptation to use their own values to come to their conclusions. The reality of judicial activism makes me feel much sadDER than whatever sadness you feel for me.

Sorry that we don't feel any empathy for your sadness over "judicial activism" when some of us don't have the privilege to wring our hands over how we get equal rights and protection from homophobia.

I hope that your fellow Republicans in 2003, who I'm sure only cared about the judicial activism and didn't see homosexuality as an abomination that needs to be purged, were very proud of you for attacking your fellow LGBT people for being happy about a ruling that banned dictatorial, theocratic laws that made them illegal.

It’s not lost on me that MarkD lives in the first state to repeal its sodomy law.

[MarkD]

I didn't come out of the closet to my fellow Republicans until June 2003, 2-3 days after the Supreme Court handed down Lawrence v. Texas. County Executive Joe Ortwerth was speaking out against that ruling at a meeting of St. Charles County Pachyderms, and I raised my hand, and said something like, I'm one of the few gay people in the country who is NOT popping a cork over this ruling. I've studied a lot about constitutional law, especially about the 14th Amendment, and I'm absolutely disgusted with judicial activism like this. I've learned that constitutional law is a lot like a box of choc'lits; ya never know what yer gonna git.

Sorry but a gay man going to a Republican meeting and proclaiming “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM” after a pro-gay ruling is kind of sad.

You may feel sad FOR me, but I assure you that I do not feel any sadness about the fact that I want the legislative branch of the federal government and the state governments to create the laws that give us gay people equal rights, not the judicial branch. What does make me feel very, very sad is judicial activism -- judges making some laws, pretending that their interpretation of the Constitution(s) made them come to the conclusions that they did, when the truth is that they gave in to the temptation to use their own values to come to their conclusions. The reality of judicial activism makes me feel much sadDER than whatever sadness you feel for me.

Sorry that we don't feel any empathy for your sadness over "judicial activism" when some of us don't have the privilege to wring our hands over how we get equal rights and protection from homophobia.

I hope that your fellow Republicans in 2003, who I'm sure only cared about the judicial activism and didn't see homosexuality as an abomination that needs to be purged, were very proud of you for attacking your fellow LGBT people for being happy about a ruling that banned dictatorial, theocratic laws that made them illegal.

It’s not lost on me that MarkD lives in the first state to repeal its sodomy law.

I currently live in IL, but I was born in St. Charles, MO, and I have lived about 80% of my life in MO. As I said above, I was elected to one two-year term as Harvester Township Republican Committeeman (that township is between the cities of St. Charles and Weldon Springs). MO was one of the states that still banned gay sex as of the time of the Lawrence decision (June 2003), and in August 2004, a little over 70% of MO voters approved a state constitutional ban on SSM, including, I am sure, at least a small majority of voters in the Democratic primary. (I didn't vote at all in that election/referendum. Voter turnout in that referendum was higher than it had ever been before - in terms of referenda that occurred simultaneous to a primary election, or other elections that were not Nov. general elections - or ever since, same circumstances.)

[MarkD]

Just a few hours ago I was attending a meeting of St. Charles County Pachyderm Club (which I used to attend regularly, every week, from mid-1989 through most of 2004), and I heard someone announce they are going to run for Senate District 23 next year, which means he is going to run against Christofanelli in the GOP primary. Today might not have been the first time he's made such an announcement, but I heard him say it today. That person is Rich Chrismer, whom I very clearly remember from the first time he ran for office 31 years ago, and who I continued having conversations with throughout the 1990's, and had some conversations in recent years. Rich knows that I'm gay, and so I'm sure he knows about Rep. Christofanelli too. Rich ran for the same Senate district 23 years ago! Here is his entire electoral history:
August 1992, Republican primary for state Rep. district 16:
Chrismer - 1,165 (46.8%)/ Ehlert - 696 (27.8%)/ Fricke - 629 (25.3%)
November 1992, general election for same district:
Chrismer - 7,748 (51.5%)/ Kendall (D) - 7,297 (48.5%)
November 1994, (unopposed in GOP primary), same district
Chrismer - 7,384 (60.0%)/ Hahn (D) - 4,913 (40.0%)
November 1996, (unopposed in GOP primary), same district
Chrismer - 9,394 (62.5%)/ Tomlinson (D) - 5,637 (37.5%)
November 1998, (unopposed in GOP primary), same district
Chrismer - 8,550 (86.0%)/ Hodge (L) - 1,388 (14.0%)
August 2000, Republican primary for state Sen. District 23 (which encompassed 2/3s of the county during the 90's)
Chuck Gross - 7,033 (52.84%)/ Rich Chrismer - 6,277 (47.16%)
2002 - Chrismer was elected to the position of St. Charles County Election Authority (a.k.a., Director of Elections) (This office was "new" as of that year. It was previously the County Clerk's job to be in charge of running the elections, but a change to the County Charter resulted in the position being given a new title. Several previous elections for the position of County Clerk had been won by Democrat Jim Primm.) (I'm currently trying to research, via email with that office, the actual results of the primary and general elections of 2002.)
November 2006, (unopposed in GOP primary), SCC Director of Elections
Chrismer - 71,568 (58.3%)/ Tracy (D) - 51,182 (41.7%)
November 2010, (unopposed in GOP primary), SCC Director of Elections
Chrismer - 95,748 (100.0%)
August 2014, GOP primary, SCC Director of Elections
Chrismer - 19,399 (50.8%)/ York - 15,516 (40.6%)/ Dienoff - 3,284 (8.6%)
November 2014, general election, SCC Director of Elections
Chrismer - 58,466 (63.0%)/ Runyan (D) - 34,343 (37.0%) (In the same election, my brother-in-law was the D nominee for County Executive; he was unopposed in the primary, but he lost overwhelmingly in the general election.)
I don't think Rich has run for any other offices since his 2014 reelection.
A race between Chrismer and Christofanelli is certainly not going to come down to just the fact the one is straight and the other is gay, there's also going to be a huge age difference.

[NewYorkExpress]

Just a few hours ago I was attending a meeting of St. Charles County Pachyderm Club (which I used to attend regularly, every week, from mid-1989 through most of 2004), and I heard someone announce they are going to run for Senate District 23 next year, which means he is going to run against Christofanelli in the GOP primary. Today might not have been the first time he's made such an announcement, but I heard him say it today. That person is Rich Chrismer, whom I very clearly remember from the first time he ran for office 31 years ago, and who I continued having conversations with throughout the 1990's, and had some conversations in recent years. Rich knows that I'm gay, and so I'm sure he knows about Rep. Christofanelli too. Rich ran for the same Senate district 23 years ago! Here is his entire electoral history:
August 1992, Republican primary for state Rep. district 16:
Chrismer - 1,165 (46.8%)/ Ehlert - 696 (27.8%)/ Fricke - 629 (25.3%)
November 1992, general election for same district:
Chrismer - 7,748 (51.5%)/ Kendall (D) - 7,297 (48.5%)
November 1994, (unopposed in GOP primary), same district
Chrismer - 7,384 (60.0%)/ Hahn (D) - 4,913 (40.0%)
November 1996, (unopposed in GOP primary), same district
Chrismer - 9,394 (62.5%)/ Tomlinson (D) - 5,637 (37.5%)
November 1998, (unopposed in GOP primary), same district
Chrismer - 8,550 (86.0%)/ Hodge (L) - 1,388 (14.0%)
August 2000, Republican primary for state Sen. District 23 (which encompassed 2/3s of the county during the 90's)
Chuck Gross - 7,033 (52.84%)/ Rich Chrismer - 6,277 (47.16%)
2002 - Chrismer was elected to the position of St. Charles County Election Authority (a.k.a., Director of Elections) (This office was "new" as of that year. It was previously the County Clerk's job to be in charge of running the elections, but a change to the County Charter resulted in the position being given a new title. Several previous elections for the position of County Clerk had been won by Democrat Jim Primm.) (I'm currently trying to research, via email with that office, the actual results of the primary and general elections of 2002.)
November 2006, (unopposed in GOP primary), SCC Director of Elections
Chrismer - 71,568 (58.3%)/ Tracy (D) - 51,182 (41.7%)
November 2010, (unopposed in GOP primary), SCC Director of Elections
Chrismer - 95,748 (100.0%)
August 2014, GOP primary, SCC Director of Elections
Chrismer - 19,399 (50.8%)/ York - 15,516 (40.6%)/ Dienoff - 3,284 (8.6%)
November 2014, general election, SCC Director of Elections
Chrismer - 58,466 (63.0%)/ Runyan (D) - 34,343 (37.0%) (In the same election, my brother-in-law was the D nominee for County Executive; he was unopposed in the primary, but he lost overwhelmingly in the general election.)
I don't think Rich has run for any other offices since his 2014 reelection.
A race between Chrismer and Christofanelli is certainly not going to come down to just the fact the one is straight and the other is gay, there's also going to be a huge age difference.

Primary is safe Chrismer. Republicans aren't going to vote for a gay man if there's another choice on the ballot.

[DaleCooper]

Gay Republicans are depressing.

[Lambsbread]

Sorry but a gay man going to a Republican meeting and proclaiming “JUDICIAL ACTIVISM” after a pro-gay ruling is kind of sad.

Slaves after the emancipation proclamation: "are we sure this is constitutional?"

[Vosem]

Gay Republicans are depressing.

What's wrong with trying to make the US a better place?

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Gay Republicans are depressing.

What's wrong with trying to make the US a better place?

They said Republican not democrat, and even if you believe that it’s nonsensical to serve a party calling for your destruction

[MarkD]

Gay Republicans are depressing.

What's wrong with trying to make the US a better place?

They said Republican not democrat, and even if you believe that it’s nonsensical to serve a party calling for your destruction

"Destruction"? How exactly are Republicans "calling for" that? Are they demanding execution? Are they demanding electroshock therapy? Why don't you muster up the bravery to explain exactly what you mean? Otherwise I will assume that you're merely a drama queen, trying to use inflammatory rhetoric to make yourself sound impressive.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Gay Republicans are depressing.

What's wrong with trying to make the US a better place?

They said Republican not democrat, and even if you believe that it’s nonsensical to serve a party calling for your destruction

"Destruction"? How exactly are Republicans "calling for" that? Are they demanding execution? Are they demanding electroshock therapy? Why don't you muster up the bravery to explain exactly what you mean? Otherwise I will assume that you're merely a drama queen, trying to use inflammatory rhetoric to make yourself sound impressive.

You’re intentionally playing dumb or grossly misinformed. Republicans are actively trying to destroy queer life by restricting our freedoms, our ability to exist in public in a lot of states, our ability to teach in schools, our ability to adopt children, and everything but outright criminalization.