The Virginia Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a Republican challenge that could determine whether the new map stands.

As Straight Arrow reported, voters approved the map last week by a margin of 51.5% to 48.5% – a margin of fewer than 100,000 votes out of more than 3 million cast.

What’s at stake

If the map holds, it could shift Virginia’s current 6-5 Democratic edge in the U.S. House delegation to a 10-1 advantage.

That would flip four seats and cut into Republicans’ narrow overall majority.

What Republicans are arguing

Republicans say the Democratic-led General Assembly broke state rules by putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot to allow redistricting in the middle of the decade.

Their argument centers on process – not just the map itself.

They say lawmakers failed to meet a required 90-day public notice window and used ballot language that did not clearly explain what voters were approving. 

A circuit court Judge in Tazewell County agreed, temporarily blocking the results and writing that the referendum likely violates the state constitution and was “flagrantly misleading.” 

What happens next

Virginia’s attorney general appealed that ruling, arguing a single judge should not override the outcome of a statewide vote. 

The state Supreme Court will now decide whether the map can move forward – or whether last week’s results are thrown out.

Part of a broader fight

The case is the latest front in a national redistricting battle, with both parties working to redraw maps ahead of the midterms.

Republicans in Texas approved a map last year expected to add seats to their advantage.

Democrats responded in California with a voter-approved map designed to offset those gains.

More states, including Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, and Utah, have also redrawn districts as control of the House hangs in the balance. 

Many eyes now turn to Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis proposed a new U.S. House map Monday that aims to flip four additional seats for Republicans. Florida's legislature opens a special session Tuesday to redraw Congressional districts, among other tasks.

If the Florida legislature succeeds in sending a map to DeSantis' desk by the end of the legislative session, it would give Republicans a possible four-seat advantage over Democrats.

Reaction

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries praised the Virginia vote, calling it a sign Democrats are pushing back. “Democrats did not step back. We fought back. When they go low, we hit back hard,” he said. 

President Donald Trump criticized the outcome Sunday on Fox News, calling it “a very bad thing for our country.”

Round out your reading

• First, it was the schools. Now they’re coming for your cellphone at work.
• Why one of America’s top economic forecasters is worried about a recession.
• AI companies may not be adhering to their own guidelines — with potentially deadly outcomes.
• Data centers are a thorny issue for Democrats. Maine shows us why.
• We’re building a new Straight Arrow. Help us shape our future by taking our survey.

President Donald Trump ignited the redistricting push several months ago when he instructed Texas Republicans to create a map that solidifies their stronghold. They succeeded in votes and a court battle to ultimately secure five more GOP-friendly districts in the House of Representatives.

Virginia is the latest state to join the effort, where voters narrowly approved a referendum to allow the state’s Democratic-controlled legislature to redraw its congressional map. Legislators seek to add four Democratic seats, in addition to the previous six.

“10-1 here we come,” the state’s Democratic party wrote Tuesday on Facebook.

Trump, who started the national frenzy, lamented on Truth Social Wednesday about the election. He claimed the election was rigged against Republicans with a late push of mail-in ballots. According to The Associated Press, 1.5 million Virginians approved it against 1.4 million votes. 

“In addition to everything else, the language on the Referendum was purposefully unintelligible and deceptive,” Trump wrote. “As everyone knows, I am an extraordinarily brilliant person, and even I had no idea what the hell they were talking about in the Referendum, and neither do they!”

Counteracting efforts and pushes set the two parties up to have a projected net-zero change in seats. The gains are based on enacted and proposed maps in California, Missouri, Ohio, North Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia. The midterm election is on Nov. 3, and in the absence of it, a Democratic Party’s seat gain is projected based on past House elections.

All 435 seats in the House are up for election. Some states will also have U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races, as well as local elections.

Gains and losses across the board

Reapportionment resulted in Republicans carving out a possibility of one seat in Missouri, two North Carolina and Ohio, and five in Texas. Democrats created five possible seats in California, one in Utah and four in Virginia as of Wednesday. 

Louisiana’s proposed map is excluded from the count as it is central to a U.S. Supreme Court case — Louisiana v. Callais — challenging a provision in the Voting Rights Act that gave Black Americans representation in Congress. If the court rules in favor of the new map, Republicans would secure a one-seat advantage, and the provision would either be struck or revised, based on the court’s opinion.

The Hill reported that millions of dollars from “dark money groups” were involved in Virginia’s election. The publication said the groups are only classified as such because of their 501(c)(4) statuses, which meant groups don’t have to generally list where their funds came from. The referendum was supported by Virginians for Fair Elections, which raised $64.1 million, while the opposition group Virginians for Fair Maps raised $19.8 million. 

Redistricting isn’t over

The melee over how congressional boundaries look is far from over, as a number of states still look to redraw maps ahead of candidate filing deadlines. 

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Florida and South Carolina still have an interest in the horse race for who gets majority representation in Congress. In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis called for a special legislative session to address redistricting, artificial intelligence and medical rights, according to DeSantis’ proclamation. The session would last from April 28 to May 1.

“The Senate is not drafting or producing a map for introduction during the special session,” Florida Senate President Ben Albritton said in an April 15 memo. “It is our expectation that pursuant to the proclamation issued by the Governor and consistent with the process undertaken during the 2022 Special Session on Congressional Reapportionment, a proposal will be transmitted from the Governor’s Office to the Senate for our consideration.”

The session will end on May 1. Candidates have until June 12 to file with the state Division of Elections their intents to run.

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, told reporters in December that he wasn’t on board with the effort despite some lawmakers sharing an interest, FOX News reported. The state has a nine-to-one Republican to Democrat split. Rep. Jim Clyburn holds the lone Democratic seat. 

Still, State Rep. Jordan Pace filed House Bill 4717 that same month that would eliminate the lone Democrat district. It’s currently in the House Judiciary Committee for review.

“SC has 2/3 Republicans in both House & Senate,” Pace wrote Tuesday on X. “Despite that Republican leadership wouldn’t move my bill to oust Dem Jim Clyburn from a seat he’s been in for 30 years.”

States kill redrawing efforts

Not all states were on board with the tedious map-drawing process. 

The NCSL says that lawmakers in Indiana, Maryland and Washington either declined or allowed legislation on redistricting to die as their legislative sessions ended. Indiana legislators faced pushback from Trump after voting down his map that created a possible two-seat GOP majority.

In New York State, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked lawmakers from redrawing maps, according to NPR. It left a lower court’s stay in place, which mandated the state’s redistricting commission to draw maps, not lawmakers.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon requested all ballot-related information from the Wayne County clerk as part of an investigation into voter fraud, according to a copy Michigan’s Attorney General’s office shared. The county, which includes Detroit and Dearborn, dealt with several cases of election fraud in the 2020 election, Dhillon wrote. It has 1.46 million registered voters, according to the county clerk.

The news comes as FBI Director Kash Patel told Fox News on Sunday that “a thing or two” will happen this week regarding a long-debunked claim President Donald Trump has made that the 2020 election was rigged. Dhillon said during that same show that she’s still pursuing voter rolls from 30 states and Washington, D.C.

“Imagine what sloppy or worse situations the non-compliant states are trying to prevent the federal government from learing,” Dhillon wrote on X Monday. 

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, accused Trump of weaponizing the Justice Department to “sabotage” and “interfere” in state elections. Earlier this year, federal prosecutors opened investigations into an Arizona and Georgia county’s election results. 

In Arizona, the FBI sought records to verify Maricopa County’s 2020 election results, which Trump lost. The inquiry is complicated as Arizona law mandates counties to hold federal election ballots for no more than 24 months. Georgia’s Fulton County has been one of the epicenters of 2020 election claims, including the now-dismissed racketeering case against Trump and 18 others. 

If the Michigan county failed to comply with the letter, Dhillon threatened to seek a court order to compel the release.

Dhillon demands ballots based on 2020 claims

Dhillon wrote in her letter to Wayne County’s clerk that she requested ballots after learning about voter fraud allegations and convictions of Wayne County residents. 

• 
  
  Copy URL
  
• 
  
  Save image
  
• 
  
  Email
  
• 
  
  Facebook
  
• 
  
  Twitter / X
  
• 
  
  Reddit
  

Unbiased. Straight Facts.^TM

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 154 million people voted in the 2024 Presidential Election.

“Based on this history of fraud convictions and other allegations concerning the election procedures in Wayne County and,” Dhillon wrote, “for the purpose of ensuring that the foregoing federal election laws were not violated in the November 2024 federal election, we are requesting that you produce the following election-related records from that election: all ballots (including absentee and provisional), ballot receipts, and ballot envelopes.”

Those cases included Nancy Juanita Williams, whom Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel charged in 2021 for forging 26 absentee ballot applications. Williams’ case ended in 2023 with a guilty plea for seven counts of receiving payments to influence a vote, according to Wayne County Third Circuit Court records.

Dhillon also cited the cases against Carless Clark and John Paul Parana, both of whom were charged with impersonating a person to vote in an election, to justify her demands. According to 36th District Court records, Clark pleaded guilty to forging her grandson’s signature on his absentee ballot envelope in 2022. Parana pleaded guilty in 2021 to forging his daughter’s signature on her 2020 ballot, according to Nessel’s office.

The attorney also pointed to the Costantino v. Detroit, where a group of Wayne County voters sued the city of Detroit, alleging that the city processed and counted ballots from people who didn’t appear in the qualified voter file, instructed clerks to not verify absentee ballot signatures and coached voters to cast votes for then-presidential candidate Joe Biden.

A Wayne County Circuit Court ruled the plaintiffs didn’t substantiate their claims and that a demand for an election audit was unnecessary. The case reached the Michigan Supreme Court, which affirmed an appellate court’s order rejecting the lawsuit’s claims. Attorneys agreed to dismiss the case on Jan. 7.

“Using these prosecutions and recycling debunked 2020 election conspiracy theories as justification to demand copies of the ballots of Michigan residents is a clear attempt to bully clerks and spread fear, even after Donald Trump won Michigan in 2024,” Nessel said in a Sunday statement.

Trump won Michigan in the 2024 election, but lost in Wayne County. He earned 33.6% of the vote, while former Vice President Kamala Harris earned 62.5% of the vote. According to official Wayne County election results, More than 859,000 voters cast a ballot in the county.

At issue: whether to approve new congressional maps that could dramatically shift the balance of power in the state — and potentially the U.S. House.

What could change

As Straight Arrow News reported, Democrats are backing a proposal that would redraw district lines to give them an advantage in 10 of Virginia’s 11 congressional districts.

The current map, drawn by a court-appointed panel in 2021, leans 6 Democratic, 4 Republican, with one competitive seat, according to CNN.

Under the proposed map, that balance could shift sharply. Based on 2024 presidential results, Democrats would have carried 10 districts, compared to just one for Republicans.

The new boundaries would reshape key population centers – including Northern Virginia, areas near Washington, D.C., and Richmond – while creating a new district along the Blue Ridge Mountains.

If approved, the map could translate into as many as four additional Democratic seats in Congress.

Why it matters

Virginia is already closely divided in its congressional delegation, six Democrats to five Republicans.

A shift to a 10–1 advantage would not just reshape state politics, it could ripple nationally, where control of the House often hinges on just a handful of seats.

The arguments

Supporters say the move is about protecting democracy, and they have backing from top Democrats, including former President Barack Obama.

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine argues the new map would help ensure Congress can act as a check on President Donald Trump, citing concerns about election interference.

“90% of Virginians are not Democrats, that's true. But about 100% of Virginians want election results to be respected,” Kaine told “Fox News Sunday.” “We are deeply worried that Donald Trump will try to interfere with the election results this November or in 2028 because we saw him do it before and we have to have a Congress that will stand up to it.”

Opponents call it blatant gerrymandering.

Groups like Virginians for Fair Maps – along with Republican leaders including former Gov. Glenn Youngkin – argue Democrats are manipulating district lines to lock in power and dilute voter influence. 

They’ve also seized on Obama’s past criticism of redistricting, pointing to his earlier warning that the practice can make it “harder and harder to find common ground.”

Big money pouring in 

The redistricting battle has drawn tens of millions of dollars from both sides.

Time reports advocates for the referendum have raised more than $60 million, much of it from nonprofit groups that don’t disclose donors, often referred to as “dark money.”

Opponents, Time reports, have also spent heavily, including at least $23 million on efforts to defeat the measure.

Part of a national trend 

Virginia is the latest battleground in a growing redistricting arms race across the country.

Republicans in Texas redrew maps last year to try to flip Democratic seats. California Democrats responded with their own changes aimed at offsetting those gains. 
Other states – including North Carolina, Missouri and Ohio – have also moved to redraw congressional lines ahead of midterms in November.

All of this has heightened concerns by election security experts and voting rights advocates that the Trump administration may attempt to interfere in, or disrupt, elections that will determine which political party controls Congress.

“What Trump is trying to do is unconstitutional and extraordinarily dangerous,” Marilyn Marks, executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance, a nonprofit that works on election security issues, told Straight Arrow News. The Constitution gives states the primary authority to run elections.

“Any time we violate the Constitution,” Marks said, “it becomes dangerous to have the heavy hand of the federal government directly involved in, effectively, who gets elected anywhere, whether it’s local offices or federal offices. There is just no need for federal intervention of the type that Trump is looking to impose.”

For Trump, though, the stakes are high. He told congressional Republicans last month that if Democrats win a majority of House seats in 2026, he is sure to be impeached.

He has said he is focused on preventing widespread voter fraud. He continues to say undocumented immigrants are voting in large numbers in U.S. elections, even though numerous investigations have failed to find evidence to support those claims, and he has singled out Democratic-led states and cities for what he says is fraudulent voting.

“Look at some of the places — that horrible corruption on elections — and the federal government should not allow that,” he said on Feb. 3. “The federal government should get involved.”

Unusual interest

In many ways, Trump’s recent statements about 2026 are actually about 2020.

He continues to claim, without evidence, that the 2020 presidential election was rigged and that he was the rightful winner over Joe Biden. 

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, is overseeing an investigation into alleged fraud in 2020, even though her agency is barred by law from domestic operations. Gabbard was present Jan. 28 when FBI agents raided the elections office in Fulton County, Georgia. Agents seized thousands of voter records from the 2020 election, and Trump has said the investigation will lead to criminal charges.

Gabbard’s office seized voting machines and data from Puerto Rico several months ago as part of an investigation into alleged irregularities, Reuters reported last week. Reuters quoted anonymous sources as saying Gabbard’s office was trying to determine whether Venezuela tampered with the voting machines in 2020. Gabbard’s office denied trying to find a Venezuelan connection and said taking the machines was “standard practice in forensics analysis.”

State election officials complain, however, that while the Trump administration is attempting to exercise more control, it has cut funding for agencies that assist states with secure voting, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency.

“It’s harder now than it was, because we have these tools and we came to rely on these tools,” Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, told NBC News. “You can kind of jimmy up a solution to your problem, but those other tools that you were used to that can give you the best results are not there.”

'Surround the polls'

Another proposal for federal intervention in the midterms came from Steve Bannon, Trump’s former top strategist.

“We’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November,” Bannon said last week on his “War Room” podcast, referring to agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“We’re not going to sit here and allow you to steal the country again,” he said. “And you can whine and cry and throw your toys out of the pram all you want, but we will never again allow an election to be stolen.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt did not disavow Bannon’s comments.

“I can’t guarantee that an ICE agent won’t be around a polling location in November,” she said.

Such a federal presence would be unprecedented, voting rights advocates said.

“For decades, federal and state law has treated polling places as sensitive spaces where intimidation — whether explicit or implied — is prohibited because it undermines the right to vote,” Democracy Docket, a liberal news site, wrote. “The federal government has historically recognized polling places as off-limits for immigration enforcement, precisely to avoid deterring lawful voters.”

What state election officials say

Some state officials see Trump’s efforts as a threat to democracy.

“Everything we lived through in 2020 was the beginning — not the end — of this multi-year effort to dismantle democracy in America,” Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, told Politico. “We’re seeing it play out now in reaching a fever pitch in really extraordinary, unprecedented, scary ways.”

However, some Republican election officials have welcomed Trump’s interest in overseeing this year’s voting.

“I really appreciate the accountability and the oversight from the Trump administration in making sure that the law has been, was and will be followed,” Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray, a Republican, told Politico.

Other Republicans share concerns that the Trump administration is going too far.

“The things that have been said publicly, frankly, are quite appalling,” Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican who is also her state’s chief elections officer, said at a recent meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State, according to The New York Times. 

Referring to a Department of Justice official who criticized the performance of state election officials, Henderson added: “She’s pretty much slandered all of us. And to me, that’s problematic to publicly claim that secretaries of state are not doing our jobs and the federal government has to do it for us. Not OK.”

A sign of the seriousness of potential threats to the 2026 elections comes from the Carter Center, which has monitored elections in countries around the world since it was formed by former President Jimmy Carter in 1982.

This year, the center plans to place nonpartisan observers in polling places in five U.S. states: Georgia, Michigan, Montana, Nevada and New Mexico. Paige Alexander, the center’s executive director, recently told WABE, a public radio station in Atlanta, that the “shifting balance of power between state and federal is a space that we’re watching.”

Nine months before the 2026 midterm elections, their concerns about federal interference in local election procedures were only heightened when President Donald Trump suggested “nationalizing” elections in at least 15 locations — apparently including Atlanta, where he is still trying to prove he won the 2020 presidential election.

“Voters across the country are outraged at the violence inflicted on our communities, most visibly in Minnesota, by immigration enforcement and federal agents,” Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s voting rights project, told Straight Arrow News. “It is no surprise that the Trump administration is looking to manufacture reasons to challenge votes, change election rules, and kick voters off the rolls in 2026.”

“This raid is further proof that the Trump administration is desperate not only to sow distrust in our democratic process, but to distract from its egregious abuse of power,” Lakin added. 

In a divided nation, where the federal government and the states are increasingly at odds, Trump would like to take this constitutionally appointed power away from states. 

How he intends to do so is not yet clear. Whether it would be legal is far less murky.

‘We should take over the voting’

Recent days have given election security experts plenty to consider.

Last Thursday, FBI agents loaded hundreds of boxes of 2020 ballots into trucks at the Fulton County elections office in an Atlanta suburb. They worked under the supervision of Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, whose job normally involves overseeing the work of the nation’s spy agencies. However, Gabbard had announced last April that her office has been investigating voting machines to protect election integrity.

The day after the raid, Gabbard arranged a call between Trump and FBI agents involved in the raid. The call inserted Trump into a sensitive criminal investigation in which he has a personal stake.

Then, on Monday, Trump said on a podcast that Republicans should nationalize voting to obliterate what he calls widespread voter fraud.

“The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over.’ We should take over the voting … in at least many, 15 places,” Trump told podcast host Dan Bongino, the former deputy director of the FBI. “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting. We have states that are so crooked, and they’re counting votes.”

He singled out Georgia, which he said “everybody knows” he won in 2020. Joe Biden won the state by fewer than 12,000 votes out of about 500,000 cast.

“You’re going to see some interesting things” in Georgia, Trump said, apparently referring to the FBI raid.

Trump has a long history of claiming elections are rigged. Before the 2016 presidential election, he said that if he lost, it would be because of voter fraud. He continued claiming fraud, especially by noncitizen voters, after losing to Biden four years later — even though numerous investigations failed to verify his allegations. He predicted more fraud in 2024 and repeated the false claims about noncitizen voters in the interview with Bongino.

His repeated allegations have election law experts wondering whether he will intervene in the midterms in an effort to keep Republicans in control of Congress. He recently told Republican lawmakers that he expects to be impeached again — following two impeachments during his first term — if Democrats take power in the House.

Election law experts are concerned about the possibility that Trump will intervene in this year's midterm elections in an effort to maintain power over Congress. Trump also supports proposed legislation called the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.

The House passed the legislation, known as SAVE, last year, and a sponsor recently wrote a letter to Senate Republicans asking them to act on the measure.

“American elections should be fair and free, not subject to foreign influence,” wrote Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas. “Illegal aliens have no right to be in America, and they certainly shouldn’t be voting.”

However, the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center says the legislation “could silence millions of voters by creating new barriers to voter registration that make it harder for Americans to make their voices heard.”

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer described SAVE as “Jim Crow 2.0.”

Limited authority 

The president alone cannot constitutionally seize voting administration. The election clause in the U.S. Constitution bestows states with the power to determine the "time, places, and manners" of elections. Many election law experts say that the president cannot legally federalize elections. 

“The law is crystal clear: It is illegal to deploy federal troops or armed federal law enforcement to any polling place,” Sean Morales-Doyle, director of voting rights and elections for the Brennan Center for Justice, wrote. “In fact, it is a federal crime for anyone in the U.S. military to interfere in elections in any way. More specifically, it is a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to deploy federal ‘troops or armed men’ to any location where voting is taking place or elections are being held, unless ‘such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.’” 

Trump, however, has repeatedly taken unprecedented or at least unusual actions, from deploying the military on routine law enforcement missions to suing his own administration. “[G]iven the recent politicization of the Justice Department, it’s reasonable to doubt whether the administration’s own lawyers would pursue charges related to a deployment ordered by the president,” Morales-Doyle wrote. “But these crimes are subject to a five-year statute of limitations, so anyone who complies with such an order could still face prosecution in the future.”

Democrat Christian Menefee won a special election runoff Saturday in Texas’s 18th Congressional District, a seat opened last year following the death of Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner.

Democrat win narrows GOP House majority

Once Menefee is sworn in, Republicans – and Speaker Mike Johnson – will hold a razor-thin 218-214 majority, with three additional special elections pending in Georgia, New Jersey and California.

Menefee will serve out the remainder of Turner’s term through 2026, but only briefly before facing voters again. 

Redistricting reshapes the race

Under a redistricting plan pushed by President Donald Trump, Menefee’s district has been redrawn, forcing him into a March 3 primary against fellow Democrats Amanda Edwards – whom he just defeated – and longtime Houston-area Rep. Al Green.

The district, centered in Harris County and the Houston area, has long been a Democratic stronghold with large African American and Latino populations. 

Major upset in Texas State Senate race 

Elsewhere in Texas, Democrats are pointing to a surprise win that’s drawing national attention.

In Texas Senate District 9, union leader and Air Force veteran Taylor Rehmet defeated Republican Leigh Wambsganss by roughly 14 points – in a district Trump won by 17 points just two years ago.

Voting in the district was also affected by severe weather. Elections officials in Tarrant County closed all early voting locations in Senate District 9 on Sunday, Jan. 25, due to below-freezing temperatures. Polling sites reopened Monday, but with a delayed start.

Rehmet, a machinist at Lockheed Martin who became a Democrat while working in a factory in his 20s, ran a campaign focused on cost-of-living pressures, public education and working-class issues.

Democrats are hailing the result as a potential bellwether.

A broader Democratic strategy?

The New York Times reports Rehmet’s relaxed style and moderate tone may reflect a broader Democratic push toward candidates who avoid culture-war flashpoints. Rehmet has said he deliberately sidestepped divisive social issues, calling his effort a “people-powered campaign.”

Democratic consultants told the Times they believe candidates who emphasize economic and affordability concerns are resonating more with white working-class voters.

The trend isn’t limited to Texas. In Maine, Democrat Graham Platner – a military veteran and oyster farmer – is mounting a primary challenge against Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, as Republican Sen. Susan Collins seeks reelection.

“People are just demanding it,” said Democratic strategist Michael Kolenc, who works with candidates across Texas. “They are genuine guys worried about pocketbooks, worried about everyone in their community. It comes out of frustration.”

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee echoed that view, while national Republicans remain skeptical. Christian Martine, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, told the Times Democrats are still pushing what he called “the same radical socialist agenda that we’ve seen take hold from New York to California.“

Still, Republican leaders in Texas are taking notice.

Lt. Governor Dan Patrick called Rehmet’s win a “wake-up call for Republicans across Texas,” in a post on X. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis warned on X, “A swing of this magnitude is not something that can be dismissed. Republicans should be clear-eyed about the political environment heading into the midterms.”

When U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner died in the hours after the 2025 State of the Union address, the longtime politician left a wide void in his home city of Houston, Texas. Most pressingly, his passing at the age of 70 meant his Congressional seat would be vacant due to a death for the second time in less than a year.

Turner, a two-term Houston mayor who battled cancer during his final four years in office, had only been sworn into his first term in Congress 61 days earlier, filling the seat left open upon the death of Sheila Jackson Lee the previous summer. The 18th District — long a stronghold for Black Democrats — has remained vacant, affecting the razor-thin divide between Democrats and Republicans in the House. 

No matter the outcome of Saturday’s special election, the district is guaranteed to see a generational shift in its representation. Both candidates vying for the seat, Harris County Attorney Christian Menefee, 37, and former Houston City councilwoman Amanda Edwards, 44, are Millennials. Turner and Jackson Lee, the latter of whom represented the 18th district for 29 years, were both Baby Boomers. 

The fact that the 18th district has lost two older leaders in quick succession while younger candidates — including Edwards, once an intern of Jackson Lee’s — have waited for a chance to jump in, has not been lost on the district’s constituents. But, there are no rules that say one generation must step aside to make way for another in public service. 

Yet. 

Do Americans want a mandatory retirement age for elected officials?

During an event last week, Rahm Emanuel, a former Chicago mayor and ambassador to Japan, called for a mandatory retirement age of 75 for the president, cabinet officials, members of Congress and federal judges.

Emanuel, who has said he’d like to run for president in 2028, is trying to jumpstart the Democratic party. Many feel it is time to send the party in a new direction after former President Joe Biden was pushed to abandon his 2024 re-election campaign at 81. Emanuel’s call for the age limit also comes as President Donald Trump, 79, has appeared to fall asleep during meetings in the Oval Office in recent months.

This is not the first time a politician has floated limits on how long elected officials can serve in office. Pew Research Center polls show 79% of Americans favor maximum age limits for elected officials in Washington, D.C.; 74% support such limits for Supreme Court justices.

Age limits are a complex topic, said Tracey Gendron, chair and professor of gerontology at Virginia Commonwealth University.

“Using age as a barometer or a marker for anything is misguided and dangerous,” she said. “Age alone isn't a good indicator of anything — it's not a good indicator of health or cognitive status and you could end up limiting someone from participating who is really talented or a great advocate.”

Gendron said that while Trump will turn 80 in June, that birthday will mean something different for him than it would for someone else. While “aging is universal, everyone ages differently,” Gendron told Straight Arrow News. 

If Americans have concerns about how someone’s age could affect their service, that’s what voting booths are for, she said. 

“Part of the democratic process is that we get to vote,” she said. “You can do that rather than with a law that is putting ageism with practice into policy.” 

What kinds of term limits are already in place for politicians?

American presidents are limited to two terms; 37 states have some form of term limits for governors; and another 16 states have term limits for legislators, according to The New York Times. 

“People aren’t starting to campaign for office for the first time when they’re in their 80s,” said Scott Tillman, chief operating officer of U.S. Term Limits, a non-profit advocacy group in support of term limits. “So, with a term limit, you’d get a younger crowd.”

Congress has never imposed limits on itself, and the Constitution’s “good behavior” clause has long been interpreted as a lifetime appointment for federal judges.

Two of the nine Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., are 75 or older. The Senate has 17 members who are 75 or older, and the House has 45 such members.

If officials were serious about implementing age limits, it would be a drastic undertaking that would likely require amending the Constitution, according to Pew. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds vote in both the U.S. Senate and House, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states. Alternatively, Congress could call a convention to propose amendments if requested by two-thirds of the states — a threshold that has never been reached.

When the Constitution was initially written, people lived into their mid 40s and 50s, said Calvin Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the average life expectancy in the United States has risen to a new high of 79, thanks in large part to better access to health care, technology and public health standards. 

What do voters value?

Jillson said voters must consider whether they value an older incumbent’s experience more than youth and vitality and the possibility of new ideas.

“Experience is very valuable,” he said. “It means that the benefits can come back to the district. So in that case, you're looking at longevity and experience and clout, and saying, why would I replace that with youth and vigor?”

In Texas, there is no age limit for the executive or legislative branch, but there is one for the judicial branch, said Jon Taylor, the department chair of political science and geography at The University of Texas at San Antonio. For judges across the state, he said, there is a mandatory retirement age of 75. 

“Not only does it allow for younger, fresh minds and blood to get onto the bench but it also allows for some sort of exit strategy for a judge or justice,” Taylor told SAN. 

Taylor pointed out that other fields have retirement mandates, like in the military. He said something as taxing as the presidency or serving in Congress would lend itself well to an age limit.

The national conversation about age limits is intersecting with Houston politics, Jillson said, as the run-off election is held this weekend.

When Jackson Lee died in the summer of 2024 of complications from pancreatic cancer, her death set off an internal primary with numerous politicians, including Edwards, jockeying for a spot. Ultimately, Turner prevailed as the Democratic candidate. 

Before his eight-year tenure as mayor, Turner spent three decades in the Texas legislature and earned the nomination — and the votes — largely because of his name recognition and experience. 

What is happening in Houston, Taylor said, underscores the necessity of youth — particularly as the district has sat unrepresented for over a year, which he said is “unfair.” 

“When you have people who have increasing health issues as the years go along, we end up with the situation like what we had with Sheila Jackson Lee, and then what we have with Sylvester Turner,” Taylor said. “We have a lot of people who are younger, who have a lot of experience, and it's time to encourage people to understand that we all have limitations as we get older.”

While the winner of Saturday’s special election in Houston will be sworn into Congress shortly after the results are finalized, theirs will not be a long term. The winner will remain in the seat through the end of 2026, but a March 3 primary will determine who represents the 18th district beginning in 2027. Because of the redistricting in Texas, U.S. Rep. Al Green has been mapped out of the 9th district where he is finishing out his ninth term; he has already secured his place on the March 3 ballot in the 18th district. 

Green is 78.

The agency now says any talk show, be they daytime or late-night, that hosts a political candidate must offer equal time to the opposing candidate. This effectively puts and end to an exemption they were given in 2006.

Equal opportunities exemption ends

It started nearly 20 years ago, when the  FCC’s Media Bureau granted Jay Leno’s “Tonight Show” the ability to feature Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger during his run for California governor, without also hosting his Democratic opponent. Since then, networks have used that ruling as precedent when it comes to interviewing political candidates.

Federal law states that any FCC-licensed broadcaster that lets a candidate appear on its network must also give "equal opportunities" to all other candidates running for the same office. There is an exemption for "bona fide" news interviews and newscasts.

Even though Leno's "Tonight Show" was a talk show, not a newscast, the FCC determined the interview with Schwarzenegger counted as a news interview.

Trump appointed-FCC Chair Brendan Carr is now putting a stop to its continued use as a precedent.

"For years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late-night and daytime talk shows qualify as ‘bona fide news’ programs — even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes," Carr said in a statement Wednesday. "Today, the FCC reminded them of their obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities.”

The FCC’s Media Bureau said it “has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify” for an exemption.

How Trump factors in

President Donald Trump has been vocal about belief that talk shows — late-night shows, in particular — show anti-conservative bias. He's had a running feud with late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, blasting not only his show, but others like "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert."

On Wednesday, the president shared a story by the Los Angeles Times in a post on his Truth Social platform, calling out daytime talk show "The View," as well.

Trump has many times called for the FCC to revoke broadcast licenses for networks that consistently criticize him. He's also publicly called on NBC to fire both of its late-night hosts, Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers.

In September, Trump lauded ABC's decision to temporarily take "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" off air over comments Kimmel made about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and lamented the decision to put Kimmel back on air.

Equal opportunity criticism

Carr's decision is facing both pushback and praise.

Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez spoke out against the move, calling it an escalation of the FCC's push to censor and control speech.

"The First Amendment does not yield to government intimidation," Gomez said. "Broadcasters should not feel pressured to water down, sanitize or avoid critical coverage out of fear of regulatory retaliation.”

Meanwhile, conservative lawyer and head of the Center for American Rights, Daniel Suhr, echoed Trump's claims, calling out multiple talk shows he says "have consistently featured only Democratic candidates while shutting out Republicans" by name.

"This @FCC notice is an important step toward accountability for these legacy network shows," Suhr said in a post on X.

U.S. District Court Judge David Carter issued the ruling on Thursday, saying the Justice Department’s move to force California’s Secretary of State to turn over unredacted registration lists would erode privacy and voting rights. He added that it isn’t up to the executive branch to act on voting issues, but the legislative. 

Unbiased. Straight Facts.^TM

The Justice Department has lawsuits against 22 states and Washington, D.C. over refusals to turn over unredacted voter registration.

He said centralizing voter information would have a “chilling effect on voter registration” and would decrease voter turnout for fear that their information is being used inappropriately. 

“This risk threatens the right to vote which is the cornerstone of American democracy,” Carter wrote.

Theresa Lee, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project, told Straight Arrow News that California is now in the clear to ignore the DOJ’s request. She added that the data would have exposed people’s full names, birth dates, identification numbers and other personal information, which could lead to identity theft. 

“I think folks in California can, at least in the short term, breathe a little easier that their voter registration information isn’t going to be used against them in that way,” Lee said. 

The ACLU and League of Women Voters of California intervened on the lawsuit filed against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber. Weber said in a statement that she’d “continue to challenge this administration’s disregard for the rule of law and our right to vote.”

Lawsuits pending against 22 states, DC

With California’s lawsuit dismissed, attention is now on 22 states and Washington, D.C. to see where courts in those areas will rule. Lee said that while U.S. District Courts have their own jurisdictions, it wouldn’t be out of the ordinary for all other judges to make similar dismissals. 

The federal Election Assistance Commission says that most states have laws preventing the release of confidential information such as a Social Security Number, date of birth, ID numbers and other information. Voter registration lists are public documents, and have been used for jury selection or by political parties for campaign mailers. 

No state or territory releases information on how a person voted in an election. 

Bondi and DOJ Civil Rights Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in December the lawsuits were necessary to ensure elections were fair and free. They sued under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

“States that continue to defy federal voting laws interfere with our mission of ensuring that Americans have accurate voter lists as they go to the polls, that every vote counts equally, and that all voters have confidence in election results," Dhillon said.

Carter disagreed with that assertion, as he said the NVRA doesn’t give the Justice Department authority to demand such a list; the HAVA doesn’t have a disclosure provision; and the department’s request violated the Privacy, Driver’s Privacy Protection and the E-Government acts. He pointed to Congress passing the Privacy Act specifically to prevent the federal government from creating data repositories or a centralized system that houses American’s personal confidential information.

“The Court is concerned that the very issues that animated Congress to pass the Privacy Act — threats to American democracy amidst erosion of public trust regarding the Executive’s use of sensitive data — will play out again if the DOJ is given license to ignore the guardrails created by Congress in the Privacy Act,” Carter wrote.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, lawsuits are pending against: 

• Arizona
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Georgia
• Illinois
• Hawaii
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• New Hampshire
• New Mexico
• New York
• Nevada
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• Vermont
• Washington
• Washington, D.C.
• Wisconsin

Judges have issued a number of rulings throughout those areas. In Oregon, the state is tentatively permitted to withhold unredacted voter information.

But now, he argues, President Donald Trump has become a political liability for Republicans facing voters in November.

Democrats’ midterm message

Schumer says Democrats plan to center their campaign on three themes: costs, corruption and chaos.

On costs, he said Democrats will focus on everyday economic pressures, including health care, housing, groceries, energy, and child care — issues he believes are top of mind for voters.

 “The economy is the thing,“ Schumer told the Journal, arguing that Trump is increasingly focused on foreign military interventions while many Americans remain concerned about rising prices and household expenses. 

Where the numbers stand

Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate. Of the 35 seats up for election in November, Republicans are defending 22, while Democrats are defending 13. 

To regain control, Democrats would need to flip four GOP-held seats while holding all of their own — reaching the 51-seat threshold.

Four states to watch

Schumer identified four states where he believes Democrats have the strongest chance to flip seats:

• North Carolina, where Sen. Thom Tillis is retiring
• Maine, where longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins is viewed by Democrats as vulnerable
• Ohio, where a former Democratic senator, Sherrod Brown, is seeking a comeback against Republican Sen. Jon Husted
• Alaska, where former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola is challenging Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan

Republican pushback

Republicans quickly dismissed Schumer’s optimism.

Unbiased. Straight Facts.^TM

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 U.S. Senate seats are up for election in November.

Trump traveled to Detroit earlier this week, touting what he called a booming economy during stops at a Ford plant and the Detroit Economic Club.

“Growth is exploding, productivity is soaring, investment is booming, incomes are rising and inflation is defeated,“ Trump said. 

The National Republican Senatorial Committee also pushed back, with spokesperson Joanna Rodriguez calling the Democrats’ strategy unrealistic.

“Democrats’ battleground map is littered with failed career politicians no longer aligned with the values of their states,” she said.  

Early race ratings

Early analysis suggests Democrats still face an uphill climb.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report currently rates Alaska and Ohio as leaning Republican, with Maine and North Carolina listed as toss-ups.

Cook Political Report analyst Jessica Taylor cautioned that a Democratic takeover would require nearly everything to break their way, “even in what’s shaping up to be a favorable national midterm environment.“ 

The win is the latest in a string of Democratic victories around the country that have given the party momentum heading into the 2026 midterm elections. 

Ken Martin, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, called Hardman’s victory “a major check on Republican power.” It followed wins by two other Iowa Democrats — Mike Zimmer and Catelin Drey — in special elections in Republican-leaning Iowa districts earlier this year.

Hardman’s victory and effect on GOP’s supermajority 

Hardman replaces Democratic Sen. Claire Celsi, who died in October.

Republicans still hold a 33-17 majority in the state Senate, but Hardman’s win on Tuesday prevented the GOP from reaching the two-thirds margin needed for a supermajority. 

The election’s outcome was a blow to Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds ahead of the 2026 state legislative session, which begins Jan. 12. Without a supermajority, Republicans will need at least one Democratic vote to approve Reynolds’ appointments to key positions. Republicans also lost the ability to override vetoes and call for special sessions without Democratic help.

Ernst not running, Democrats eye possible pickup

Although Hardman won in a district that then-Vice President Kamala Harris carried by 17 points in last year’s presidential election, her win gave Democrats hope for a strong showing in the 2026 midterms.

Republican U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst is not seeking a third term, and Democrats hope to flip her seat as they try to take control of Congress.

Republicans currently hold a 53-47 margin in the Senate, with 35 seats up for election in November. Republicans will attempt to defend 22 of those seats, while Democrats will try to hold on to 13 while gaining in other states.  Democrats would need four pickups to take control of the Senate and blunt President Donald Trump’s agenda in his final two years in office. 

Eight candidates have joined the race to succeed Ernst: Democrats Chris Henry, Nathan Sage, Josh Turek and Zach Wahls and Republicans John Berman, Jim Carlin, Joshua Smith and Ashley Hinson. The primaries are scheduled for June 2.

Trump won Iowa by 13 points in 2024. All four U.S. House members from the state are Republicans, as are both senators. While Ernst is stepping down, 91-year-old Sen. Charles Grassley has not ruled out a run for a ninth term in 2028.  

Despite the loss this week, Iowa Republicans say they are confident the state will remain under GOP control.

“Although we fell short this time,” Jeff Kaufmann, the state Republican chairman, said, “the Republican Party of Iowa remains laser-focused on expanding our majorities in the Iowa Legislature and keeping Iowa ruby-red.”  

Earlier this year, Georgia’s Republican-led legislature approved an unusual measure, SB 244, that allows defendants to seek reimbursement for their attorneys fees if their criminal cases are dismissed due to a prosecutor’s improper conduct. Lawmakers reportedly had Trump’s case in mind in enacting the legislation.

Even then, the historic election interference case against Trump was in trouble. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis — whose office brought racketeering charges against Trump and 18 co-defendants — was removed after a panel of appeals court judges found that her romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she appointed to oversee the case, created an “appearance of impropriety.” 

A judge dismissed the case at the request of Pete Skandalakis, the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, who took over for Willis when she was disqualified.

“Given the complexity of the legal issues at hand — ranging from constitutional questions and the Supremacy Clause to immunity, jurisdiction, venue, speedy-trial concerns, and access to federal records — and even assuming each of these issues were resolved in the State’s favor, bringing this case before a jury in 2029, 2030, or even 2031 would be nothing short of a remarkable feat,” Skandalakis wrote. Continuing to pursue the case, he said, would be “illogical and unduly burdensome and costly for the State and for Fulton County.”

He did not mention the potential costs from SB 244.

DA ‘deserves to have to pay up’

Requiring the losing side in a civil case to pay attorneys’ fees is not unusual. In criminal cases, it is rare.

But more than a dozen Republican legislators who are allies of Trump sponsored a bill to do just that in cases like the president’s. Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, signed the bill into law after it passed mostly along party lines.

Trump then tapped the chief sponsor, Brandon Beach, a Republican from suburban Atlanta, to be Treasurer of the United States. 

Beach told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Willis “deserves to have to pay up on this.”

Trump’s legal fees for the Georgia case — one of four criminal indictments he faced after leaving office in 2021 — are expected to exceed $5.5 million over the past four years. The costs to all 18 defendants could total $10 million or more.

Fulton County taxpayers will likely need to cough up that money as a substantial part of the $40.4 million annual budget for the district attorney’s office.

The district attorney’s office did not respond to Straight Arrow News’ request for comment.

Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee will decide how much each defendant will be reimbursed. 

It’s an ignominious end for a case that once was considered the greatest threat to Trump’s freedom. 

“Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis received some difficult but not entirely unsurprising news over the Thanksgiving holiday: her sweeping election subversion case against President Donald Trump and several allies was officially dismissed, ending one of the most bizarre legal chapters in Georgia history,” Niles Francis wrote for the Georgia Recorder. “Willis, an elected Democrat, quickly emerged as one of the president’s most prominent political foes after the 2020 election, when her office launched an investigation into Trump’s attempts to stay in power following his narrow defeat.”

What Republicans say

“There's enough Democrats that I'm friends with that were willing to vote last week, and they were assured that Schumer would let them vote the way they need to this week, if they would just wait until after the election,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told reporters Tuesday. “Now, how the Democrats tried to spin it, I don't know what their spin will be, but I'm sure they're going to spin it. They're really good at messaging.”

Straight Arrow News (SAN) asked Schumer’s office for a response to Mullin’s statement but did not receive a response. Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., sent a letter to President Donald Trump Wednesday morning saying they were ready to negotiate anytime, anywhere. 

“We write to demand a bipartisan meeting of legislative leaders to end the GOP shutdown of the federal government and decisively address the Republican healthcare crisis,” the Democratic leaders wrote. 

Mullin is not the only Republican who believes more Democrats will vote to reopen the government now that the elections are over. 

“They've got elections this week, and the elections will be over with, so they will have turned out their base,” Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said. “I think that makes it a little bit easier for them now to come back in and actually get something done.”

What Democrats say

Throughout the shutdown, three Democrats have been voting to approve the continuing resolution (CR) that would temporarily fund the government, bringing the tally to 55-45. Five more Democrats have to vote in favor of the CR in order to hit the 60 votes needed for approval.

The Democrats who are expected to flip represent “purple” states, where voting against government funding could be used against them in the 2026 midterm elections. Democrats who represent safe blue states appear to be holding fast. 

“What have we done to endure all of this inconvenience and some pain if we don't accomplish something for the American people?” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said. “I sense and sympathize with the hurt that people are feeling. But the greater hurt is to go without health insurance, and that has to be the goal, rather than just capitulate and walking away.”

“My view on this is that we are in this fight for people who have no voice, who have no lobbyists, and who are literally making decisions — do they keep their health insurance, or do they figure out how to pay rent,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said.

What's next

Republican leaders in the House and Senate are currently negotiating how long the continuing resolution should last. The CR that’s been under consideration since before the government shut down only provides funding through November 21. That date is no longer feasible, given the shutdown has gone on for close to five weeks now.

The new dates under consideration include the end of December, the end of January, and even as late as March.

Media speculated about Padilla’s interest for months. His announcement narrows the field for other Democratic hopefuls aiming to finish in the top two in the June 2, 2026, primary.

The general election will take place on Nov. 3, 2026. Republicans have not held a statewide office in California since 2011, when Arnold Schwarzenegger left office.

More than a dozen candidates have entered the race, and additional prospective candidates have until March 6 to formally declare their candidacy and appear on the ballot.

Notable candidates already in the ring include current California Rep. Katie Porter, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, former Biden administration official Xavier Becerra and Fox News contributor Steve Hilton.

Businessman and former presidential candidate Tom Steyer and Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., have also expressed interest in running but have not formally announced their candidacies.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and current California Attorney General Rob Bonta previously stated that they would not enter the race.

How does the election work?

California uses a "jungle" primary system to determine candidates in the general election. The primary elections will take place on June 2, 2026. Voters can pick any candidate from any party, and the top two vote-getters will move on to the general election. This system makes the lead-up to the primary unique.

“You’ve got to have some level of name recognition, some level of money or resources, and some ability to move the regular, habitual voter into that primary system because it rewards the top two, and that means the more Democrats that are in the race, they’re kind of shooting at each other,” David McCuan, professor of political science at Sonoma State University, previously told Straight Arrow News.

A recent Emerson College poll found that about 40% of voters in California do not know who they plan to vote for in 2026.

Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo — who is running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary in June — and Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa were all on stage. 

Current New York Mayor Eric Adams did not attend the debate, as he dropped out of the race weeks ago.

Topics discussed

During the two-hour debate, the candidates butted heads on every topic. They discussed local issues — including crime, policing, housing and the nation's largest public school system — and national or international issues, such as how they would handle the Trump administration and their stances on the Gaza ceasefire deal.

One of the biggest topics was Trump himself, and how the candidates would work with him should they be elected.

Mamdani said he'd work with Trump “if it means delivering on lowering the cost of living for New Yorkers." However, he added, "If he ever wants to come for New Yorkers in the way that he has been, he’s going to have to get through me as the next mayor of this city.”

Cuomo made similar comments. He said he'd work with the president but would fight him if he tried to "hurt New York."

Sliwa said he would “sit and negotiate” with Trump. All three candidates said they don't think Trump should send National Guard troops to the city.

Polls show Mamdani, who won the Democratic primary, is the frontrunner in the race.

A second and final debate is scheduled for next week. Election day is Nov. 4.

Leading the Future

Leading the new PAC are political strategists Zac Moffatt and Josh Vlasto. Moffatt is the founder and CEO of Targeted Victory, a campaign consulting agency. Vlasto is a partner at Bamberger & Vlasto, a firm focused on campaign management and more.

"This is about more than technology,” Moffatt and Vlasto said in a joint statement. “It's about economic growth, national security, and global leadership. Leading the Future is here to make sure innovation wins."

Major supporters include venture capitalist firm Andreessen Horowitz, OpenAI president Greg Brockman and venture capitalist Ron Conway.

The PAC has already raised more than $100 million in initial funding. It will operate through a structured ecosystem of federal and state super PACs.

Unlike other PACs, this one will focus on one issue.

“A political party reflects lots and lots of different issues that the party supports different candidates for,” Richard Pildes, professor of Constitutional law at New York University,  told Straight Arrow News. “The party may have somewhat different views of different issues. This is a very, very targeted, single-issue-oriented super PAC.”

AI regulation

The team behind Leading the Future said the goal is to make sure the U.S. remains the global leader in AI through policies at the state and federal levels. They added that AI has already transformed the global economy and said America should lead in advancing policies that drive both innovation and economic growth.

They plan to oppose policies that stifle innovation or enable China to gain global AI superiority.

Bloomberg spoke with former Meta executive Nick Chegg about the AI race with China, who said what’s going on between Silicon Valley and politicians here in America is similar to how it works in China.

“The convergence of political power in D.C. and industrial power in Silicon Valley is in part premised on the view that that is the way to beat China in the race for AI supremacy,” former Meta executive Nick Clegg told Bloomberg. “But there are two things which are really interesting to observe about this: Firstly, in coming together in this very new, intimate relationship between Silicon Valley and DC, oddly enough, America is behaving more like the Chinese.”

Silicon Valley has historically backed liberal candidates. But in the last election, technology companies and executives supported more conservative candidates, including President Donald Trump.

Trump has been very pro-AI, issuing an executive order during his first term that pushed the U.S. to be a leader in the industry.

“We'll have to see which races they spend their money on,” Pildes said of the new PAC. “We'll have to see how much other money is coming into those races. Competitive congressional races can now involve huge amounts of money on both sides.”

There is also a growing divide in Silicon Valley over regulating AI models before they become too powerful.

“There is a vast force out there that’s looking to slow down AI deployment, prevent the American worker from benefiting from the U.S. leading in global innovation and job creation and erect a patchwork of regulation,” Vlasto and Moffatt said in a joint statement to the Wall Street Journal. “This is the ecosystem that is going to be the counterforce going into next year.”

Leading the Future will operate similarly to Fairshake, which is funded by some of the biggest players in the cryptocurrency industry. The organization successfully backed candidates during the 2024 election.

Big money in elections

Federal law prevents corporations from making direct contributions to candidates for U.S. offices. But PACs and super PACs allow companies to back candidates of their choosing without violating campaign finance laws. Those committees are not allowed to be directly affiliated with campaigns or candidates.

“When it comes to the kind of independent spending that super PACs do, it doesn't matter whether the money that comes into them comes from individuals or comes from the firms,” Pildes said. “Either one is constitutionally protected.”

It takes a significant amount of money to get anyone elected president. The Trump campaign and affiliated PACs spent nearly $1.5 billion during the last campaign season.

More than $245 million of that came from tech industry leader Elon Musk.

“I would be surprised if this particular new super PAC radically changes the debate about these issues and the reaction to the enormous amounts of money that now are spent on our elections,” Pildes said. “It's already the case that in public opinion polling, very large majorities of Americans don't like the system, don't like the amount of money that's spent on elections.”

In a recent Pew Research poll, 72% of those surveyed said there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns.

Newsmax said Monday it would pay Dominion in three installments over the next two years.

“We are pleased to have settled this matter,” Dominion said in a statement.

The settlement came more than two years after Fox News agreed to pay Dominion $787.5 million to resolve similar defamation claims.

Dominion sued Newsmax in 2021, alleging the network “manufactured, endorsed, repeated and broadcast a series of verifiably false yet devastating lies.”

Newsmax blames judge for settlement

Newsmax continued to deny wrongdoing and said its decision to settle was driven by what it described as judicial prejudice. 

“From the very beginning, Judge (Eric) Davis ruled in ways that strongly favored the plaintiffs and limited Newsmax’s ability to defend itself,” the company said in a statement.

It argued the judge “deprived the company of its ability to present a full defense” when he ruled in April that Newsmax had made “defamatory and false statements” about Dominion.

In its statement, Newsmax suggested without providing evidence that political favoritism was at play: “We were being punished for not being sympathetic to Joe Biden, who is from Delaware.”

The Delaware Superior Court declined to comment on Newsmax’s accusations of bias.

Comparisons to Fox News settlement

Newsmax also criticized Davis for barring jurors from hearing about the 2023 settlement between Dominion and Fox News. Newsmax said testimony about that case was  “critical for the jury to understand that Dominion had already been compensated.”

Davis also presided over the Fox News case.  Newsmax’s settlement with Dominion follows its agreement last September to pay Smartmatic, another voting technology firm, $40 million to to end a similar defamation case.

Despite the settlements, Newsmax has not retracted its coverage.

“We stand by our reporting as fair, balanced, and conducted within professional standards of journalism,” the network said.

Redistricting California

Newsom once again called for a special election in his state to redistrict and gain more seats in the U.S. House for the Democratic Party. He wants the election in the first week of November.

“It will coincide with many other municipal elections,” Newsom said. “We will raise an unprecedented amount of attention, and we will garner an unprecedented amount of support because people understand what's at stake.”

California uses an independent commission to redistrict, and it has been extremely successful, with no lawsuits challenging them filed after the last maps were drawn. Newsom said they are proud of that commission and not doing away with it, but he feels the state needs to rise to this moment.

“We tried to play by a higher set of standards and rules with our independent redistricting,” Newsom said. “And we believe in that, and we are not talking about eliminating that commission. We are talking about emergency measures to respond to what's happening in Texas, and we will nullify what happens in Texas.”

Newsom also made sure to highlight what he said is the biggest difference between California’s attempt to do this and Texas’.

“We're doing it in a fully transparent way, and we're doing it by asking the people of the state of California for their consent and support,” Newsom said. “Mark that stark contrast to what's happening in Texas.” 

Chair of the California Democratic congressional delegation, U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, said all California Democrats are willing to support the plan.

“We cannot stand here and just shrug as Trump and the Republicans try and rig the rules so they can avoid responsibility for the damage that they have done to this country,” Lofgren said. “We need a break on them, and we can get it in the midterm elections.”

While they have the support in the state legislature, what’s unclear is whether they have the necessary votes of Californians.

Redistricting Texas

This all began with President Donald Trump calling on Texas to redistrict to get Republicans five more seats in the U.S. House. Texas Democrats fled the state to prevent the state legislature from having the necessary number of members to hold a vote.

Newsom, Pelosi and other California Democrats expressed how proud they are of their colleagues in Texas.

“We thank you, not only for your courage, but for your patriotism,” Pelosi said. “I'm from Maryland originally, and I'm very proud that the national anthem was written there. And my favorite line in the anthem is ‘proof through the night that our flag was still there.’ We have a responsibility to prove through the night of this Trump administration, the darkness of it all, that our flag is still there with liberty and justice for all, and that is what I'm so proud of.”

Each California Democrat who spoke voiced their displeasure with the redistricting effort in Texas, invoking quotes from former first lady Michelle Obama to rapper Kendrick Lamar in their response.

“We are meeting this moment because this is not a turn the other cheek moment,” said Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, D-San Joaquin Valley. “While they continue to send blow after blow to the foundations of democracy, where I'm from, in Los Angeles, when they go low, we squabble up.”

The Texas Democrats in attendance continued to share their message that they are not running from anything but rather running to the front lines of an ongoing fight.

“This is about ensuring that the voters get to determine the outcome of their next election,” said state Rep.Ann Johnson, D-Houston. “We are now facing threats, the threat that we're going to lose our jobs, the threat of financial ruin, the threat that we be hunted down, as our colleagues sit on their hands and remain silent as we all get personal threats to our lives.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and other Texas GOP lawmakers have tried different tactics to get the Texas Democrats back to their state to have enough lawmakers to hold a vote. That includes replacing the ones who’ve fled the state.

Texas Rep. Gene Wu called that effort “meaningless,” according to NPR.

Meanwhile, the FBI answered a letter from U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, to help find and arrest the Democrats who left the state.

The notices, which The Associated Press said were sent to at least 19 states, contained information requests that varied based on the state. These ranged from how-tos on removing noncitizen voters, to personal information such as the last four digits of a person’s Social Security number, to discrepancies found in the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, according to letters election officials shared.

U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., said during a July Rules and Judiciary Committee forum that the department’s requests signal it’s prioritizing alleged voter fraud over voting rights. 

“In fact, this month, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco counties — local jurisdictions — were also hit with those requests,” Padilla said. “A move that looks a lot like they’re laying the groundwork for mass voter purges.” 

The Associated Press reported that offices in Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Utah and Wisconsin received the DOJ’s requests. Three election officials issued public responses to the department’s letter.

Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, said in a July 29 release that the federal government “overstepped” its boundaries with the request, which she rejected. The office included a copy of the DOJ’s July 24 letter that, among many things, sought voter information, how the state manages its voter rolls and the process for removing noncitizen voters.

DOJ requests voter rolls, compliance procedures

Election officials told the AP that the Justice Department sought information on how states comply with federal voting laws, their voter registration lists and detailed personal information on people who were removed from rolls for being noncitizens. The requests stemmed from what the DOJ said is states’ compliance with the Help America Vote and National Voter Registration Acts. 

In California, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego and San Francisco, election officials received the requests on removed voters. The requests included people’s voting records, dates of birth and ID numbers. Officials from seven states — Arizona, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Wisconsin — told the news site two DOJ lawyers requested a call on a potential information-sharing agreement. 

Many of the requests were qualified with the findings from a June survey on election administration and voting. The Justice Department made the requests to “enforce federal election laws and protect the integrity of federal elections,” the AP reported.

The League of Women Voters CEO, Celina Stewart, said in a July 18 statement that the requests are the Trump administration’s "continued abuse of power” as they sought historical data on how each person voted. She’s not swayed by the argument that the requests benefit election integrity, and said it would do the opposite.

“The Department of Justice demanding state election officials share sensitive data on voters and have voting equipment inspected is another attempt to undermine the security of our elections,” Stewart said. “With every attempt to interfere in the constitutionally mandated election processes of states, our democracy weakens.”

Two states publicly comply with requests

Unbiased. Straight Facts.^TM

Over May, June and July, the Department of Justice requested complete voter registration lists from at least 15 states. Some complied, while others contacted lawyers.

Officials from New Hampshire and Utah have already responded to the requests, according to letters posted online. New Hampshire Secretary of State David Scanlan, a Republican, referred the department to request voter information from each of the state’s 234 municipalities. 

Scanlan added that New Hampshire is exempt from the NVRA because it offers Election Day registration. That same provision applies to Idaho, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Wyoming, according to the EAC. He informed the DOJ about how the state processes voter applications, how it verifies voter registration with other state databases and how voters get removed from the statewide list.

Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican, serves as the state’s chief election official. She wrote on July 31 that her state is in compliance with the two election laws and has secure elections. Part of that is an annual review county clerks conduct in December to ensure those on the rolls are active voters. If someone hasn’t voted in two consecutive elections, Henderson said clerks inactivate a person’s registration and mail out a confirmation card. 

“The Office of the Lieutenant Governor has spent considerable time over the past two weeks manually compiling the requested data,” she wrote. “Utah is in the process of implementing a modern system with enhanced reporting capabilities that will be in place at the beginning of 2027.”

She provided the Justice Department with the state’s voter registration database, complete with vote history. It was not attached to Henderson’s release.

Bellows declined to provide that information to the DOJ, arguing it would harm voter privacy.

“They have no right to the sensitive, personal information of every voter in the State of Maine,” she said. “We will be telling them that in the days to come.”