While we're on the topic of Vermont politics (and books), I can't recommend Frank Bryan's book Real Democracy highly enough. Over decades, Bryan sent college students to attend town meetings throughout Vermont, where local residents make key decisions in a form of direct democracy that's uncommon elsewhere. The product is a highly readable book with plenty of local color about direct democracy in Vermont's towns.

—Dan Hopkins, 538 contributor

Ha, Jacob, to that point: If anyone is interested in some Vermont political history, here are a couple recs from someone who recently moved to the state (me). There's "The Star That Set: The Vermont Republican Party, 1854-1974," which lays out the rise and dominance of the GOP in Vermont, then its decline in the latter half of the 20th century as the state became two-party competitive. And "Philip Hoff: How Red Turned Blue in the Green Mountain State" investigates the changes in Vermont during the 1960s that surrounded Democratic Gov. Philip Hoff, the first Democrat to win Vermont's governorship after the Civil War. (This ends the Vermont Book Club portion of the evening.)

—Geoffrey Skelley, 538

ABC News projects North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson to be the Republican nominee for Governor in the state. This was the outcome that was widely expected, as Robinson had been leading the race. It's expected that he'll square off against state Attorney General Josh Stein, who is leading the Democratic primary, and it looks like it'll be a competitive race. If you're not familiar with Robinson, he first gained attention in 2018 when a video of him speaking at a Greensboro City Council meeting in support of gun rights went viral. In 2020, he was elected as Lieutenant Governor, the state's first Black Lieutenant Governor, and he has been a controversial figure.

A devout Christian, Robinson stays true to his roots by tending toward impassioned, sermon-style speeches. However, those speeches have often veered into inflammatory and bigoted language, particularly towards the LGBTQ+ community. As recently as February, he said that transgender women should be arrested for using the bathroom corresponding to their gender identity and suggested they "go outside." He has said straight couples are "superior" to gay couples, that "God made him issues, and that anyone in the GOP who doesn't support him will face God's "vengeance.". Suffice to say, he's a controversial figure, not unlike the party's leader, and will represent a significant shift in North Carolina state politics if he's elected to the governor's mansion this November.

—Kaleigh Rogers, 538

Yeah, Mary, I suspected we might see a sizable polling error or two! Polling presidential primaries is really hard — this century, presidential primary polls have missed the mark by an average of 9 points. And with just one poll in Vermont over the past month, we were putting a lot of eggs in one polling basket.

—Nathaniel Rakich, 538

Yesterday, the Supreme Court rejected the legal arguments claiming that Trump could be disqualified from running for president in 2024 because of his connection to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that anyone who held a public or constitutional office and has engaged in insurrection is ineligible to hold office in the future, unless Congress passes a law stating otherwise. Section 5 says that Congress can also pass laws to enforce any of the provisions in the amendment. Lawsuits in several states came forward to disqualify Trump on these grounds.

But until recently, very few people had given much thought to this part of the 14th amendment since the years immediately following the Civil War. Legal scholars brought up a couple of ambiguities — did it apply to the presidency, since a number of offices are named, but not the president? Do we have an agreed upon definition of what counts as participating in an insurrection and whether Trump did that in 2021? (Spoiler alert: No.)

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the state of Colorado could not disqualify Trump, though there were disagreements about how far to take that ruling. A majority held that Congress would need to pass a law in order to enforce Section 3. Though the unanimity of the ruling papered over some of the partisan politics, the timing was impossible to separate from political considerations, since it came just in time for today’s big round of contests.

—Julia Azari, 538 contributor