WESTBROOK, Maine – Maine Gov. Janet Mills on Thursday finally endorsed fellow Democrat Troy Jackson in his race against Republican Sen. Susan Collins, her first public show of support for the former Maine Senate president, with whom she clashed when Jackson led the chamber.
“I encourage Maine people to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot who will stand up for our values and stand up to Trump,” Mills wrote on X, indicating that she had voted for Jackson at her early voting site on Thursday.
Mills, who ran for Senate herself before dropping out this spring, had been notably silent since Jackson earned the Democratic nomination following the collapse of Graham Platner’s campaign.
Last month, Mills spokesperson Ben Goodman told MS NOW that Jackson had not contacted the governor about an endorsement but that she “would welcome a conversation” with him.
On Thursday, though, it was revealed that behind the scenes there had been a last-ditch effort between the two camps to unite Jackson and Mills.
Jackson told MS NOW at a press briefing in Westbrook Thursday morning that he had recently left a voice message for Mills but hadn’t heard back.
A person close to the governor, who was not authorized to speak publicly, confirmed that Jackson left the message seeking Mills’ endorsement shortly after his final, testy debate with Collins on Oct. 15. But Mills was about to depart on a trade mission to Ireland, which took her out of the country for several days. The day of the voicemail, aides for Mills and Jackson connected about getting them together to discuss an endorsement after Mills returned, the person close to Mills said.
But that meeting never happened.
When Mills’ team followed up this week, Jackson’s campaign “indicated an endorsement from her didn’t fit into their schedule for the final stretch,” the person said.
A Jackson spokesperson did not respond to an inquiry about that version of events.
On Thursday, before Mills posted her support, Jackson argued the lack of an endorsement from the governor was not an essential factor in his race, which polls suggest is razor-thin just five days out.
“Look, this race is not about me and Janet or anything like that,” he told MS NOW. “This race is about people that don’t have health care, people that don’t know how to fill their oil tanks, people that don’t know how to get their prescription drugs.”
“I’m not really sure, like, with the governor — I don’t take it personally or anything like that. I mean, Angus King didn’t endorse me either,” Jackson added, referring to Maine’s independent senator, who has historically not endorsed Collins’ opponents.
Jackson has not been shy about his rocky relationship with Mills.
“We obviously disagreed a lot — it’s no secret,” he said in April. “I mean, the governor vetoed more than 40 of my bills.”
CORRECTION (Oct. 29, 2026, 9:15 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article inaccurately depicted a piece of the timeline of the communication between aides for Jackson and Mills. Originally, the person close to the governor said an aide for Mills attempted to make contact after the governor returned from a trade mission and got no response. The person now says aides for both Jackson and Mills spoke on the day Jackson left the message in an attempt to setup a meeting between the two.
Alaska’s Republican governor ordered an investigation into Democrat Mary Peltola’s Senate campaign Wednesday after The New York Times reported her campaign was involved with another person named Dan Sullivan ending up on the ballot alongside Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, the Republican incumbent. That report that Peltola’s campaign attempted to put a finger on the scale provoked a fresh round of outrage from President Donald Trump, and, at first glance, it may have seemed to support an unprecedented lawsuit by the Department of Justice lawsuit to pre-emptively discredit a Peltola victory. But not even Wednesday’s political bombshell justifies the DOJ’s involvement.
There’s a lot to find concerning about the Peltola campaign’s shenanigans, but the federal government has no power to force Alaska to alter its election procedures.
The Peltola campaign denies it did anything untoward, but there’s plenty to be concerned about in the Times’ reporting. According to Peltola’s former campaign manager, who spoke extensively with the Times but retracted her comments before publication, the campaign worked with Senate Democrats’ campaign arm to recruit the second Dan Sullivan to run. The DOJ’s lawsuit to intervene in Alaska’s election in case the incumbent Republican senator loses also leans heavily on the Peltola campaign’s supposedly nefarious moves to confound voters.
But even if there were attempts to confound voters, that doesn’t mean voters will be confounded. The ballot makes exceedingly clear which Dan Sullivan is which. The incumbent Dan S. Sullivan has the word “Incumbent” next to his name and the label “Registered Republican,” and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.’s name is left unadorned.
And Edward Foley, a law professor and former Ohio solicitor general, explained in an MS NOW essay why concerns of voters accidentally denying the incumbent senator re-election are “significantly mitigated” by the state’s ranked choice voting system.
That doesn’t mean we should entirely disregard the reported shady tactics and condescension from people working to get Peltola elected. At one point, some Democratic strategists seemed to delight in the idea of confusing the public:
In one exchange of text messages obtained by The Times, Peltola advisers seemed to make fun of voters while watching a focus group, surmising the participants would be susceptible to being tricked into voting for a ballot spoiler.
“Do we have a scheme for you,” wrote a consultant for the Peltola campaign. A pollster on the chat wrote that one voter seemed like the perfect audience “for our ballot strategy plan :)”
Despite Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s call for an investigation, and the DOJ’s lawsuit, the Times report makes clear that “ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska.” But the department’s lawsuit says it has an “obligation to protect the integrity of its election” and, if Peltola wins, wants to block certification “pending an investigation to determine whether votes cast for Daniel J. Sullivan were meant to be cast for Senator Sullivan,” according to their lawsuit.
The DOJ’s suit quotes an initial claim from Carol Beecher, Alaska’s director of the division of elections, that Daniel J. Sullivan wanted to be on the ballot “for the purpose of confusing or misleading voters and compromising the fairness of the ballot.” But now Beecher is firmly against the DOJ’s suit. State lawyers in a motion to dismiss filed Monday argued that the federal government “lacks authority to intervene in state elections at all, much less in support of a favored candidate.”
If anything, in its own efforts to affect the race’s outcome, the DOJ may have jumped the gun.
Nothing in the Times’ report changes that. There may be consequences for Peltola and her campaign staff at the state level. As election law expert Rick Hasen noted, if anyone lied under oath about cooperation between Democrats and Dan J. Sullivan, then there could be cause for a perjury prosecution, but no allegations on that front had arisen as of Thursday afternoon.
Any such testimony would have come from Dan J. Sullivan’s lawsuit to remain on the ballot earlier this year. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in his favor, allowing him to remain an option for voters. Again, there’s a lot to find concerning about the Peltola campaign’s shenanigans, but the federal government has no power to force Alaska to alter its election procedures.
If anything, in its own efforts to affect the race’s outcome, the DOJ may have jumped the gun. I imagine there would be a lot more willingness to criticize Peltola outright, and a potentially less mixed bag reaction from Alaskans, without the federal intervention. As it stands, the case will still fall flat, and Alaska’s voters will still have their say in who represents them in the U.S. Senate — even if they have to take a few seconds longer to read their ballot.
A federal judge gave the government until noon on Friday to share which states had received letters trying to enlist them in an effort to find evidence of voter fraud.
The Trump campaign’s 2024 ad “Kamala Harris is for they/them” was devastatingly effective, and top Trump strategists credit it with winning over persuadable voters they badly needed. After that, it seemed safe to assume the attack would lose some of its punch. Democrats would have learned how to answer it.
So the estimated $58 million that state Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Republican Senate nominee in Texas, and his allies have spent on ads about the issue this cycle looked like a desperate “fighting the last war” move. Paxton is an unpopular candidate without a strong economy to cushion him, and his Democratic opponent, state Rep. James Talarico, has been ahead in nearly every public poll since July.
That turned out to be only half right.
We spent last week in Texas for the latest installment of MS NOW’s “The Voter Files,” talking with Hispanic voters in Harris County who backed Donald Trump in 2024, Democrats from the Houston suburbs, right-leaning voters from the Fort Worth suburbs and Trump voters in Hood County.
Among the right-leaning voters who are wavering, the issue has not lost any of its power. It probably isn’t enough to get Paxton over the finish line. But the barrage, which has included dirty tricks — like a fake transgender “resource guide” mailed to school-age kids — is working on the Republican base. It’s getting angry voters to the polls for Paxton, and it’s keeping conservatives who can’t stomach him from crossing over to Talarico.
The ads still work for many Republicans
Texas voters participate in a focus group moderated by Elise Jordan.MS NOW
Ashley, a Republican mother of four in the Fort Worth suburbs, is one of the angry ones. Both campaigns have denied sending the mailer.
“I honestly don’t care who sent it. I just don’t want the info in my house,” she said.
She would never consider voting for Talarico, who went to seminary and talks openly about his faith.
“Just because you went to seminary doesn’t mean you have Christian values,” she said. “If you’re supporting LGBTQ in any form or fashion in that regard, that’s not Christian.”
Susan is the other kind. She lives in the Fort Worth suburbs, has kids in high school and college, and almost always votes Republican. In the primary, she voted for Sen. John Cornyn, whom Paxton beat. She ought to be persuadable.
She feels about Paxton’s character the way she felt about Trump in 2016, when she voted third party. Trump’s first term won her over, and she voted for him in both 2020 and 2024.
“I would probably just not vote or vote libertarian as a protest,” she said. “I just cannot bring myself to vote for Paxton, and yet I know Talarico is in favor of this.”
“This” is what she sees as Talarico’s overly permissive approach to transgender issues involving minors. In 2021, during a hearing on a bill limiting students to school sports teams that match their sex assigned at birth, he argued that “there are six really common biological sexes.” He recanted last month on Fox News. But the ads have made sure those old remarks are everywhere, and Susan takes them as his real worldview.
She’s sympathetic to what she thinks is a misguided attempt at Christian compassion. But the transgender debate roiled her kids’ high school, so it’s personal, and it matters more to her than the issues where she’s closer to Democrats. She’s against the war with Iran, and she’s frustrated with how Trump has handled Immigration and Customs Enforcement, corruption and the economy.
There were eight right-leaning voters in our Fort Worth-area group. Six had voted for Cornyn in the primary, and several received mailers addressed to their children. Seven said where the candidates stand on transgender policy for kids would factor into how they vote.
A vulnerability for Democrats among Hispanic Trump voters
The issue also hits a nerve with the conservative Hispanic voters we met in Harris County. They voted for Trump in 2024, and they’re unhappy with the economy and with an immigration crackdown they consider overkill. That gives Democrats an opening on policy. Where Democrats keep losing them is on culture and shared values, and nothing matters more there than transgender rights.
“There’s certain things that are just a no-go for me, and it’s non-negotiable,” said Angelika, a mother of six. Cultural issues keep her “more towards the Republican side, because I believe Jesus should be in school,” Angelika explained. On transgender rights, she added, “I don’t want anyone teaching my kids about that kind of stuff.”
“You can’t have a kid, you know, deciding if you’re going to be a boy or girl at the age of seven, eight, or nine,” said Guillermo, who still leans toward Talarico.
Some of them didn’t buy Talarico’s walk back, which they found insincere and political.
“If you are going to say something, stand by it,” Caroline said. “On the other hand, Ken Paxton too, with all the scandals and the corruption, it’s kind of picking the lesser of two evils for me.”
Not everyone had closed the door. Adrian, a married homeowner from northern Houston, said he was open to Talarico if the Democrat would clarify where he stands.
“Talk more about religion, more about transgender,” he said. “If he focuses more on that and the cost of living, I would consider him.”
Why an undervote may not be enough
Texas voters participate in a focus group moderated by Elise Jordan.MS NOW
Four focus groups can’t tell you how a statewide race will go. But what we heard suggests the ads may get Paxton an undervote: conservatives who dislike him turning out but leaving the Senate race blank. Others, like Susan, may cast a protest vote for the libertarian. Neither group is crossing over to Talarico. But that isn’t enough for Paxton if Talarico keeps winning independents by double digits, as he has in recent polls, and Democratic voters stay this turbocharged.
The anti-transgender ads could turn out to be Republicans’ Maginot Line. After World War I, France spent a fortune on fortifications built for the last war, and in 1940, the Germans went around them. Republicans have spent an estimated $183 million nationwide on their own wall of ads. It may not hold back voter anger over the cost of living, corruption and Trump’s immigration crackdown, or the usual midterm backlash against the party in power. The fight has already moved somewhere else. Millions squandered, and more people are angry.
“I feel like it’s the Republicans that are constantly talking about this stuff, and I’m like, ‘Okay, but that doesn’t make my brisket cheaper,’” said one participant, an independent from Fort Bend County who generally votes Democratic.
The United States has privately warned Middle Eastern allies to prepare for renewed military operations against Iran following the 3 November congressional elections, according to diplomatic sources. Although President Donald Trump has not authorised further strikes, the warnings have heightened concerns about regional escalation, energy infrastructure and the consequences for European economies already facing rising fuel costs.
American officials have advised several governments in the Middle East to prepare for possible new military strikes against Iran after next week’s US midterm elections, raising the prospect of another escalation in a conflict that has already disrupted international energy markets.
According to an Associated Press investigation published on 29 October, two diplomats familiar with the warnings said US officials had urged regional allies to consider the possibility of Iranian retaliation against energy facilities and other critical infrastructure.
The diplomats emphasised that President Donald Trump had not made a final decision to resume military operations.
Nevertheless, Washington’s warnings suggest that preparations are being discussed for a potential campaign extending over several days.
Regional governments are concerned that retaliatory action by Iran or organisations aligned with Tehran could prolong the fighting beyond the duration initially envisaged by the United States.
The White House and American officials declined to comment on the reported communications.
Military Preparations and Political Timing
The warnings come as Trump approaches the final days of campaigning ahead of the 3 November elections.
The president has repeatedly suggested that further military action against Iran could follow the vote, although he has also claimed that the conflict may be approaching its conclusion.
During a campaign appearance in Texas, Trump said the war could end within weeks, while reiterating his insistence that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons.
The timing of possible military action remains uncertain.
The Pentagon has increased its regional military presence, including the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt and additional amphibious forces.
Approximately 9,000 military personnel were associated with the deployment announced in September.
However, the movement of forces does not establish that an attack has been authorised or that particular targets have been selected.
American military preparations can also serve as deterrence, signalling and contingency planning.
The distinction is important because the political consequences of renewed strikes would depend on their scale, objectives and Iranian response.
Tehran Maintains That Diplomacy Remains Possible
Iran has indicated that it remains willing to pursue negotiations.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on 28 October that Tehran was continuing to consider diplomatic proposals and wanted elements of its earlier ceasefire initiative to form the basis for renewed discussions.
That proposal had previously been rejected by Washington.
The continuing disagreement concerns both the conditions for ending military operations and wider questions about Iran’s nuclear programme.
The United Arab Emirates has urged the parties to seek political solutions and avoid returning to large-scale fighting.
Regional governments face a particularly difficult position because they may be exposed to retaliation even when they are not directly involved in American military operations.
Energy facilities, airports, ports and other infrastructure could become targets during an escalation.
Such attacks would also affect civilian populations and commercial activity beyond the immediate combatants.
The Conflict Has Already Spread
The war involving Iran, the United States and Israel began in late February and has subsequently affected other parts of the Middle East.
Iran-aligned Houthi forces have carried out attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure and airports, prompting retaliatory operations by a Saudi-led coalition against targets in Yemen.
These developments have complicated attempts to contain the conflict geographically.
The United States has not conducted a strike against Iran since early September, according to the reporting available on 29 October.
However, the absence of recent American attacks has not removed the risk of renewed operations.
Regional governments are therefore considering a range of possible developments, including limited strikes, a longer military campaign or retaliatory attacks preceding any American operation.
None of these scenarios should be treated as inevitable.
Europe Faces Another Energy Risk
For the European Union, a renewed confrontation would have implications extending well beyond diplomatic relations with Washington.
The Middle East remains a major source of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies.
The Strait of Hormuz is particularly important to international energy shipping, connecting producers in the Persian Gulf with markets in Europe and Asia.
An increase in attacks on shipping, production facilities or export terminals could place further pressure on global energy prices.
The consequences would not necessarily be confined to countries purchasing oil or gas directly from the region.
European consumers compete in internationally connected markets, meaning supply disruptions can influence prices even where import arrangements have been diversified.
The EU has substantially reduced its dependence on Russian pipeline gas since 2022, but growing reliance on liquefied natural gas creates exposure to fluctuations in international supply and demand.
A further Middle Eastern escalation could therefore complicate Europe’s efforts to rebuild gas reserves and contain industrial energy costs before winter.
Higher fuel prices would also affect transport, food production and household expenditure.
The Strategic Dilemma for European Governments
European governments must balance several interests.
They support efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation, maintain relations with the United States and preserve stability in the Middle East.
At the same time, they have a direct economic interest in avoiding prolonged disruption to maritime trade and energy production.
A new American military campaign could revive debates concerning the legality, necessity and proportionality of military action, particularly if diplomatic alternatives remain available.
European governments may also face decisions about the protection of their nationals, regional diplomatic missions and commercial shipping.
The immediate significance of Washington’s warnings lies in the possibility of renewed hostilities, not in confirmation that such hostilities have been ordered.
With the American elections approaching, governments across the Middle East and Europe are preparing for developments that remain contingent on decisions in Washington and Tehran.
Whether the warnings lead to military action or renewed diplomacy will determine the next phase of a conflict whose economic effects are already being felt far beyond the region.
Photo: Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Kaylianna Genier / US Navy / Wikimedia Commons (Public Domain).
Former Vice President Kamala Harris broke with some on the left flank of the Democratic Party on Wednesday over whether Democrats should pursue impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump if they regain control of Congress in November.
"The Parnas Perspective" host Aaron Parnas asked Harris what she would recommend Congress do if Democrats regain control following the midterm elections.
"Would it be to go the investigations route and potentially an impeachment one day," he asked, "or would it be go past policy and force the president to veto it?"
"I think that going on in the direction of impeachment is not a good idea. OK, just to be honest with you. Because we have limited resources and I think the energy and the resources need to be put into accountability, need to be put into investigations and that's where the time should be spent. Remember I was in the Senate for the last go-round and the votes aren't there, right? So that's how I feel," Harris said.
She argued Democrats need to focus on getting things done and that they should be "ruthless."
"When I say we should be ruthless, I don't mean cruel, but we should be uncompromising and not sit around, you know, being genteel about the relationships and instead actually get stuff done, whether it be about accountability or restoring, for example, what they took in terms of the Medicaid cuts, restoring what we need to do around some check and balance around this war nobody wants," the former VP said.
Some Democrats in Congress have pushed again to impeach Trump, who was impeached twice during his first term in office but acquitted in the Senate on both occasions. Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, forced a vote on a resolution to impeach Trump over his administration's immigration enforcement policies, including the deaths of people during federal immigration operations earlier this year. The move divided House Democrats, whose leaders have largely avoided emphasizing impeachment as they work to regain control of Congress in the November midterms.
Florida Democratic Senate candidate and state Rep. Angie Nixon said in an interview with Politico that she would not oppose impeachment hearings and would vote to remove Trump if elected.
"The Daily Show" host Jon Stewart expressed a similar sentiment during a question-and-answer segment at the end of his "The Weekly Show" podcast. He was asked whether Democrats should seek to impeach Trump if they regain control of Congress in the midterm elections.
He said he wanted Democrats to make a full-scale effort to rebalance the economy rather than hold performative hearings.
"I don't want to see a f---ing five-act performative play of House hearings," Stewart said. "I just don't want to see it. I don't want to see everybody having the opportunity to pantomime accountability because you know they're actually not going to bring it."
"There will be enormous pressure to seek accountability if Democrats win control in either or both chambers next week, but the push to make things better for the American people may be even more intense. If successful, Democrats would be wise to try to strike some balance and to work on parallel tracks to deliver results. Voters want justice and accountability, but they want affordable gas and groceries more," Costas Panagopoulos, a professor of political science at Northeastern University, told Fox News Digital of Harris' remarks.
Republican strategist Liz Mair, head of Mair strategies, said Harris was "right," in a statement to Fox News Digital. She added, "Democrats will win these midterms not because swing voters who deliver those victories want them to spend the next two years impeaching the president, but because they want them to focus on bringing costs down or at least limiting ongoing price hikes."
"Every second Democrats spend trying to impeach President Trump again is a minute they're not spending addressing affordability challenges, and appeasing their base at the expense of doing what they will literally have been elected to accomplish," Mair said.
Harris has endorsed several big institutional changes, such as Supreme Court expansion, possibly getting rid of the Electoral College, and Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico statehood.
A woman was shot directly outside the Republican Party of Virginia's headquarters in Richmond on Thursday afternoon, just days before Election Day, according to the state GOP.
The shooting occurred around 1:45 p.m. in front of the Obenshain Center, located in the 100 block of East Grace Street in downtown Richmond, according to local outlet WTVR.
In a post on X, the Virginia GOP said Richmond first responders arrived within minutes and confirmed that all party staff members were safe.
"Around 1:45 p.m. today, a woman was shot immediately in front of The Obenshain Center, the offices of the Republican Party of Virginia. City of Richmond first responders were at the scene within minutes. All Republican Party of Virginia staff are safe," the post read.
The party also said it had no indication that the shooting was connected to its operations.
"The proximity of this event notwithstanding, we have no indication that the shooting was related to the operations of the Republican Party of Virginia," the X post continued.
A New York Times investigation revealed an alleged effort by operatives liked to Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to recruit a second Dan Sullivan for Alaska’s ballot, but the report came as nearly 1 in 10 registered Alaska voters had already cast ballots.
The timing means roughly 58,000 voters may have made their choices before learning of the reported effort that critics say was intended to create confusion with a same-name candidate.
Peltola’s campaign and the DSCC have denied involvement.
Dan J. Sullivan made it to the four-candidate general election earlier this year after winning 2.5% of the vote in the primary. His campaign announcement did not list a party affiliation. His website does not state his position on any political issues.
"Dan Sullivan challenges Dan Sullivan for U.S. Senate Seat, urges Alaskans to defeat incumbent, elect a Sullivan who stands up for Alaska," it read.
The New York Times reported that the effort to recruit potential Republican spoiler candidates included Dan J. Sullivan. The effort spanned coordination between the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) to Peltola staffers, according to text messages, interviews and internal documents.
According to a source interviewed by the New York Times, Peltola was aware of the efforts.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit last week, seeking to delay certification if Sen. Dan Sullivan is defeated, citing the possible confusion. It’s unclear if the DOJ is likely to succeed on those grounds.
Under this system, voters rank their preferred candidates. If their top choice is eliminated, their support passes to their next-ranked option. While supporters of the process argue it expands voters' power and greatly increases the influence of candidates that may not otherwise be a top choice, critics believe it also introduces confusion.
Alaska state Sen. James Kaufman, a Republican, is one of those critics.
Kaufman fears that some voters won’t bother to fill out both the "Sullivans" on the ballot to cover their bases.
He believes there are still some voters in Alaska, especially Republicans, who refuse to use the system, citing disagreements with its implementation.
"Some people have a pretty strong traditionalist perspective: one person, one man, one vote," Kaufman said in an interview with Fox News Digital earlier this year.
"And, so, the ballot fatigue where people just don’t rank because maybe they disagree with it; there’s a pretty strong segment of the population here that just patently disagrees with the rank-choice voting system we ended up with. And they don’t necessarily believe in utilizing it," he added.
The midterm elections are just days away, and while anything can happen, the broad consensus among pollsters suggests a bad night for Republicans.
Hoping to shore up a victory for his party, President Donald Trump seized upon an idea: bribe the voters.
"If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them," Trump pledged in September, "I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000."
According to Vice President J.D. Vance, this "dividend"—which would cost more than $1.3 trillion—would come from the "extraordinary amount of revenue" generated by Trump's tariffs. Of course, that math doesn't work: According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, the U.S. took in just under $300 billion in tariff revenue between January 2025 and July 2026, not counting the amount it has had to refund after the Supreme Court found they were illegally imposed.
At that rate, it would take years of tariffs just to pay for Trump's dividend. Adding insult to injury, of course, is the fact that tariffs are paid by Americans, meaning we would be taxing ourselves to pay for our own disbursement.
But in the campaign season's closing days, Trump has made a number of other threats and offers, contingent on his party's success—a completely risible use of government power.
In September, three Ohio Republicans—Rep. Mike Turner and Sens. Bernie Moreno and Jon Husted—petitioned the president to build a planned Space Force training academy in their state.
"Every other state wants it," Trump said this month at an Ohio campaign rally. "If we win the midterms, Ohio will be very, very strongly considered."
Some of his pledges have been much more explicitly transactional.
On October 17, the Department of Defense—which Trump calls by its original name, the Department of War—announced a conditional $80 billion loan to pharmaceutical manufacturer Antheia. That same day, at a campaign rally in Kentucky, Trump made a pledge to the state's voters.
"If the Republicans win, the Department of War will be investing $100 million in the pharmaceutical company Antheia to revitalize a gigantic drug manufacturing facility in Winchester, Kentucky," he said. But he prefaced it by telling Rep. Andy Barr, the Republican running for the state's open Senate seat, "you have to win, Andy. Otherwise, forget it."
Days later in both Kansas and Iowa, Trump brought up E15, a gasoline blend that contains up to 15 percent ethanol derived from corn. It has advantages and disadvantages as an alternative to traditional gasoline, but it's a boon for corn-growing states.
"Normally, E15 is not allowed during the summer because warmer temperatures increase fuel evaporation and thus the formulation of ground ozone ('smog')," writes Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute.
The government can waive that restriction to address disruptions in the fuel supply, which it did in March amid gas price shocks related to Trump's war in Iran. The House passed a bill in May to make the waiver permanent and allow E15 to be sold year-round, which Trump backed in June; the Senate version of the Farm Bill includes a year-round E15 amendment, but Democrats have held up its passage.
"With Roger Marshall in the Senate," Trump told Kansans last week, "we will make year-round E15 permanent. But if [Democratic candidate] Adam Hamilton is in, I'm not doing it."
He then made the same pledge in Iowa, where Rep. Ashley Hinson is the Republican Senate nominee. "With Ashley in the Senate, we will make it year-round E15," Trump said. "We'll make it permanent."
Of course, it's nothing new for politicians to make big promises in exchange for your votes. Typically, they're all hollow to at least some degree.
And Trump's pledges do reflect some version of reality: Keeping the Senate in Republican hands will make it easier for him to do certain things. But some of his others have been downright indefensible, less like typical political bribery than outright extortion.
At a rally in North Carolina last month, he tied hurricane disaster aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to Senate candidate Michael Whatley's election.
"We spent more than $2 billion [in] FEMA funding," he told attendees. "You're waiting for some additional money…and I'm gonna get that to you, Michael. Now if Michael loses, I'm not sending it." He added right after, "I'm only kidding, you're gonna get it."
Other times, he didn't take it back: Trump appeared at a campaign rally in Georgia this week, stumping for Rep. Mike Collins to unseat Sen. Jon Ossoff, and part of his sales pitch was that if Ossoff wins, he may just ignore the state.
"President has a lot of power," he said, and there's "a big difference when he likes the people representing a state. Collins could call me anytime he wants." But if Ossoff wins, he added, he won't take the call, and he even narrated a hypothetical conversation to make his point: "'Tell him I'm not in.' 'But he needs money for Georgia.' 'I don't give a damn what he wants!'"
Also this week, Trump railed about the Senate race in Alaska, where Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan faces not only former Rep. Mary Peltola but a retired teacher also named Dan Sullivan. The New York Times reported this week that the Peltola campaign actively recruited the second Sullivan to run explicitly as a spoiler, to siphon votes away from the senator.
"I have delivered for Alaska at Historic Levels," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "The Democrats are trying to steal this important Republican Seat and, if that happens, everything we've done for Alaska will come to an immediate hault [sic]."
It's one thing to say the federal government shouldn't provide aid to states—and since taking office, the administration has cut or paused such disbursements by $177 billion. Last week, the FEMA administrator indicated that going forward, states should expect to shoulder more of their own disaster aid.
But this goes much further, with the president explicitly conditioning aid on whether or not the state's voters have displeased him.
Perhaps, as in North Carolina, Trump was simply joking; the White House did not respond to Reason's request for clarification.
But there's certainly precedent to suggest he was serious.
"Last September, the Department of Energy (DOE) recommended cancellation of 624 grants for clean energy projects that had been approved by the Biden administration," Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote in July. The government then "winnowed it down to 284 grants, all but one of which had been awarded to projects in states that were represented by Democrats in the U.S. Senate and had voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election."
In March, Politicoreported that Trump had approved 89 percent of disaster aid requests from states with a Republican governor and two Republican senators but only 23 percent of requests from states with Democrats in those offices.
According to the Idle RamblingSubstack, the trend continues: Trump has rejected nearly half of aid requests from Democrat-led states in this term while only rejecting 18 percent from Republican-led states.
But perhaps worst of all, he threatened not to pay out damages to people who suffered harm.
Between 1953 and 1987, the water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina was contaminated by leaks of fuel and dry cleaning chemicals. The government estimates that as many as 1 million people, both service members and their families, were exposed to toxic chemicals. The Department of Veterans Affairs officially recognizes eight diseases stemming from exposure, including multiple cancers and Parkinson's disease.
In 2022, Congress passed the Camp Lejeune Justice Act, which waived any federal government claims of immunity and allowed veterans to sue over exposure to tainted water. As of September 2026, the Department of Justice says it has paid out more than $879 million, out of more than $1.1 billion in settlement offers.
"We're also fighting for our great veterans, and taking care of those veterans who brought claims related to water contamination at Camp Lejeune," Trump told North Carolina rallygoers last week. "And if we win the House and the Senate, I am directing the Department of Justice to settle all remaining legitimate claims as soon as possible." But "if we don't win, there's no money. If we do win, you're getting it."
It should be clear by now that Trump values personal loyalty over all else. To that end, there is nothing he finds more disreputable than failing to do what he says.
In the closing days of this campaign season, he is making that more explicit than ever, tying his party's success in a state to whether the state is entitled to equal treatment under the law.
Trump was right that presidents have "a lot of power." He's also a living example of why they shouldn't.
In a July 16 letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said a "preliminary review" suggested there "may be as many as 190,832 non-citizens registered to vote" in her state. Weber was skeptical—for good reason, it turned out. Three months later, the Trump administration reduced that estimate by nearly 90 percent, saying about 20,000 "likely noncitizens" had received California vote-by-mail ballots.
The Justice Department gave Weber and Dean Logan, Los Angeles County's top election official, 48 hours to determine whether any of the people on the government's list were in fact citizens. Otherwise, it said, Weber and Logan should segregate those ballots and refrain from processing them until citizenship could be verified. After Weber and Logan declined to comply with the Justice Department's demands, it asked a federal judge for a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring them to do so—a request that he rejected in a scathing opinion on Wednesday.
"Never before in American history has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch," writes U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, a Bill Clinton appointee. "This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections. If Plaintiff's last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process. Over 20,000 registered Californians would potentially lose the right that generations of Americans have fought to preserve."
The Justice Department delivered its list of "likely noncitizens" to Logan three weeks before Election Day. At that point, Los Angeles County already had sent ballots to 5.9 million voters and processed 331,000 of them. Logan said he was "legally prohibited" from doing what the Justice Department wanted because it had failed to explain the methodology used to compile the list, raising the possibility that citizens would be denied their voting rights.
There was ample reason for that concern. On July 17, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin averred that "as many as" 15,903 noncitizens were registered to vote in Nevada. The following month, when the DHS submitted a list of allegedly illegal voters to Nevada election officials, the number had fallen to 185—99 percent lower than Mullin's original figure. It turned out that every one of those 185 voters was a U.S. citizen.
"DHS has identified over 250,000 potential non-citizens illegally registered to vote" in California, New Jersey, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, Mullin said in July. He was echoing President Donald Trump, who for years has grossly exaggerated the extent of illegal voting by noncitizens, often in service of his own vanity.
Trump has repeatedly claimed, for example, that he would have won the popular vote in 2016 but for "the millions of people who voted illegally," and in January 2024 he warned that noncitizen voters "could very well affect the next election." In a speech the night before Mullin's announcement, Trump asserted that the DHS had "identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections."
Judging from Nevada's experience, the actual number may be closer to zero. It is hard to say, because the methods used by the DHS remain hazy.
In the California case, Carter says, the DHS "purchased a voter file that appeared to reflect 'the actual voter rolls in California, that as of August 2025, may be used for the 2026 federal election.'" It "then 'enhance[d]' the voter data through a 'reliable third-party data analytics'" and used records maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to find "an internal USCIS immigration number" that "may" correspond to each registered voter. "The matches are scored," Carter notes, "because 'the resulting data may be incomplete, outdated, or mismatched.'"
The DHS "then compared the potential identity matches to Department of State and Social Security Administration data to screen out U.S. citizens," Carter adds. "In the next step, a confidence level was assigned (where a high score supported a 'strong identity link') and a manual review was conducted for each match to 'determine which registered voters'" were "likely to be aliens." Then came "a 'quality review' to identify issues such as 'duplicate entries' and 'incomplete records,'" followed by "an 'enrichment process' that utilized 'additional unique identifiers' to 'improv[e]' the matching process."
The government did not initially specify the source of the "reliable third-party data analytics." But it later revealed that "the third-party platform it relied on was
Lexis Nexis," Carter notes. "It remains unknown how Lexis Nexis performed its analysis, such as how it 'linked names to Social Security numbers not available on the California public voter file.' Plaintiff likewise did not explain what its 'enrichment process' entailed or how it occurred. Plaintiff also provided 'no error rates' or 'validation against a reliable benchmark' that would enable a determination of the accuracy of its findings. Omissions of this critical information prevent an evaluation of Plaintiff's procedure, including how Plaintiff reduced its initial claim of nearly 200,000 alleged noncitizens to 20,000 individuals."
Potential sources of error include conflating people with similar or identical names and outdated records that do not reflect recent naturalization. Because it is unclear how the DHS tried to address such problems, it is not surprising that Weber and Logan did not want to rely on the Trump administration's list, especially given its pattern of dramatically reducing the putative number of illegally registered voters.
"It is well-documented that matching voter registration records with data from other
administrative databases 'presents numerous challenges,'" Carter writes. And given the potential for error, he says, "Plaintiff's allegations are not credible." He adds that the TRO sought by the Justice Department "would likely lead to voter disenfranchisement" and "would create a significant administrative burden for Defendants, leading to chaos and upending the election."
In any event, Carter says, the Trump administration does not have legal standing to seek such an order. The government's main argument was that California officials, by refusing to segregate ballots from people on its list, were interfering with its enforcement of 18 USC 611, which makes it a misdemeanor for "any alien to vote" in a federal election.
"Defendants do not 'interfere' with the United States' ability to enforce Section 611 by
administering an ongoing election in accordance with established State and Federal law, rather than assuming new obligations pursuant to a federal criminal law they are not responsible for enforcing," Carter writes. It is well established that state officials have no obligation to enforce federal law, he notes, and that they cannot be "commandeered" to do so.
Nor does the federal government need such assistance to enforce Section 611. "The very same day the United States filed its TRO [application] in this Court, the Department of Justice brought charges against 28 individuals" in California under that law, Carter notes. It is not clear how many of those defendants, who represent 0.0001 percent of California's 23 million registered voters, actually cast ballots. But "if fraudulent voting occurs," Carter says, "the United States should uphold the law and bring additional Section 611 indictments against those non-citizens it believes actually voted illegally in the current—or a prior—election."
The Constitution gives states the primary responsibility for conducting elections, subject to explicit limits imposed by Congress. But the Justice Department's actions in this case "are indicative of a broad, ongoing pattern of attempted election interference by federal officials," Carter writes. The department "has filed at least thirty-one lawsuits in federal district courts across the country seeking complete voter rolls from the States. Out of the twenty-six decided cases, the DOJ has prevailed in precisely zero."
In addition to "its failed attempt to seek State voter rolls," Carter notes, "the United States has also requested that States act based on the Executive's own lists." But "sister district courts across the country have cast doubt" on the reliability of those lists for the same reasons that Carter cites in this case.
On October 23, the Justice Department "sent letters to every county in California requiring them to set aside the votes of alleged non-citizens," Carter notes. "The letters stated that election officials 'risk significant federal scrutiny' if they failed to comply with the Government's demands. The government reiterated its threat in open court yesterday, stating that State and County election officials who do not comply with their letter risk federal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2, which criminalizes aiding and abetting the commission of a criminal offense. The court reiterates what it said yesterday: these threats must stop."
Jason Turkish, fiancé of Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens, who lost to El-Sayed in primary, says voting for Republican Mike Rogers is 'very simple' choice
Michigan Democrat's Senate campaign says far-left Rebellion PAC behind ad is 'not affiliated in any way' with El-Sayed, but doesn't address how he views the content itself, which he has echoed in his own statements
Jaffa, Israel — Outside of Ahva Elementary School in Ajami, a historic Palestinian neighborhood just south of central Tel Aviv, the mood was defiant on October 27, the day of Israel’s national elections. “We fear that if we do not get this government out of power, we will lose everything,” one Palestinian voter told me after casting her ballot.
It came as no surprise that she, like most of the Palestinian citizens of Israel I interviewed on Election Day, asked not to be named. Since October 7, 2023, more than 400 Palestinian citizens of Israel have been investigated by police for “incitement,” often over social media posts, according to the legal rights group Adalah.
During the 1948 war, which Palestinians call the Nakba, most of Jaffa’s nearly 100,000 Palestinian residents fled or were expelled. The fewer than 4,000 who remained were concentrated in Ajami, fenced in with barbed wire, where they lived under Israeli military rule until 1949.
Just weeks ago, it was not clear that the parties most Palestinian citizens of Israel vote for would even appear on the ballot. In September, Israel’s Central Elections Committee, a body of party representatives, voted to disqualify both Arab parties — which are led by and draw most of their votes from Palestinian citizens of Israel — from running in the election. The Joint List is an alliance of three parties running together to clear the 3.25 percent threshold needed to enter the Knesset.
Hadash, a left-wing party with roots in Israel’s Communist Party, is the only one of the three with both Jewish and Palestinian members. Ta’al’s platform has historically focused on the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Balad, a Palestinian nationalist party, calls for Israel to become a state of all its citizens, with equal rights for everyone.
The other party, running independently, is Ra’am, a conservative Islamist party led by Mansour Abbas, which in 2021 became the first Arab party to join an Israeli governing coalition.
The two Arab parties were eventually reinstated and allowed to run in the Israeli election, but only after an appeal to Israel’s Supreme Court.
As Israelis vote to elect the country’s 26th parliament (Knesset), Palestinian voters in the Ajami neighborhood said Gaza was at the top of their minds. Just down the road is a public memorial displaying photos of some of the more than 20,000 children who have, according to a UN commission, been killed by the Israeli military in Gaza since October 7, 2023.
The memorial, at Hajj Kahil Square, has been torn down more than once. In May, according to Bokra, a Palestinian news site, two men, one of them carrying a rifle, ripped the photos from the walls. The next day, Jaffa residents put them back up and renamed the traffic circle the “Gaza Children’s Roundabout.” Police, who ultimately answer to Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s far right minister of national security, have also tried to stop protesters from displaying the images.
Whether or not to participate in Israel’s national elections has long been a fraught topic among Palestinian citizens of Israel.
Whether or not to participate in Israel’s national elections has long been a fraught topic among Palestinian citizens of Israel. Some fear that voting in the election would lend legitimacy to a state that expelled most of their families in 1948 and maintains a military occupation over Palestinians in the West Bank, and that human rights groups say has committed genocide in Gaza; but others view it as their only way to gather power in the Knesset, especially more than three years after October 7.
An unprecedented wave of homicides in the community has also pushed many to the polls. At least 184 Palestinian citizens of Israel have been killed this year, putting 2026 on pace to surpass last year’s record of 252, according to the Abraham Initiatives. Police filed indictments in just 12 percent of homicides in Palestinian communities by June 2026, compared with a historic rate of indictments in 65 percent of cases involving homicides committed against Jewish Israelis.
On Israel’s Election Day, a recorded voice message went out to more than 1 million Palestinian voters from Sousan Sultan, whose sister Susan was killed in April 2025, and whose husband, Ziad, was murdered last August. “My sister was murdered, and she cannot vote in the election,” Sultan said in the recording, asking voters to cast their ballots in her sister’s name.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his main challengers have all ruled out forming a coalition with the Arab parties, even as polls suggest the opposition may struggle to reach a majority without them. Throughout the campaign, Likud (Israel’s largest right-wing party) and its allies have made those parties a frequent target of their campaign ads, using Palestinian electoral power as a way to drum up turnout among anti-Palestinian blocs.
Some ads depict images of Palestinian political leaders, including Ahmad Tibi, who was an adviser to Yasser Arafat, alongside center-right politician Gadi Eisenkot, whose Yashar party leads the opposition, proclaiming the choice is “the right” or “Palestine.”
In the Negev, the desert region in Israel’s south that is home to most of the country’s roughly 300,000 Bedouin citizens, many of whom identify as Palestinians, voter turnout has historically been low. But in this election, that appears to have completely shifted. In the Bedouin village of al-Atawneh, turnout had reached 64 percent by noon on the day of the election, the highest in the country, according to Central Elections Committee data. In the last election, it was 41 percent for the entire day.
“We are seeing record-breaking voter turnout in the Naqab [the Arabic name for the Negev] today for the Knesset elections, reaching unprecedented levels,” Huda Abu Obaid, advocacy coordinator with the Negev Coexistence Forum, told Truthout on Election Day. “However, right-wing groups are intentionally delaying the voting process, forcing voters to wait in excessively long lines.”
Many of the Negev’s Bedouin citizens live in villages the state does not recognize, which lack connection to the national water and electricity grids and where homes face demolition for being built without permits. Israeli authorities demolished a record 5,187 buildings in Bedouin communities in the Negev in 2024 alone, up from 3,283 the year before, according to the Negev Coexistence Forum.
Far right parties sent their own observers to polling stations in Palestinian communities, and rights groups reported long delays in the Galilee, in the north, and the Negev, both home to large Palestinian populations. The Central Elections Committee said it had found no evidence of systematic tampering and that polling stations would stay open past 10:00 pm for anyone still in line.
On Election Day in 2015, Netanyahu warned in a video that Palestinian voters were heading to the polls “in droves,” a message widely credited with driving a late surge in support for Likud. This year, he did it again, warning his base of high Palestinian turnout and claiming, without evidence, that his opponents were trying to steal the election.
With about 84 percent of all votes counted by Wednesday afternoon, no party bloc was close to reaching the 61-seat threshold required to form a majority in the Knesset. Netanyahu’s bloc was the largest, at 54 seats, but it was still down from 68 he held in the outgoing Knesset. Meanwhile, the opposition bloc (composed of all non-Arab parties running to unseat Netanyahu) won 49 seats. The Arab parties won a combined total of 17 seats, the most they have ever won in history. Turnout among Palestinian citizens reached an estimated 80 percent, breaking a record set in 1999, and surpassing the turnout rate among Jewish Israeli voters for the first time ever.
Jafar Farah, director of the Mossawa Center, a Haifa-based advocacy group for Arab citizens of Israel, cautioned against reading too much into the numbers. Farah was elected to the No. 2 spot on Hadash’s slate in May but withdrew in September. He said the rise in Palestinian turnout does not necessarily mean Palestinian citizens have renewed faith in the Israeli state or its institutions, or believe the ballot can end the military occupation of the West Bank (a theme in some of the Joint List’s campaign ads), or change conditions in Gaza. Instead, Farah said, many voters see casting a ballot as a form of “damage control.”
At least 184 Palestinian citizens of Israel have been killed this year.
“The increase in turnout projected in the 2026 polls, if it materializes, cannot automatically be interpreted as a return of trust in the Israeli establishment or in the Arab parties,” Farah said. “It may also reflect a growing sense of the need for political protection in conditions marked by uncertainty.”
A May poll by Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center found that while more than 77 percent of Palestinian citizens of Israel want an Arab party in the next government, only 40 percent believe Jewish Israelis genuinely support a political partnership with them.
Netanyahu’s challengers offer little on the issues many Palestinian voters care about. Eisenkot’s party says it supports Jewish settlement wherever it is carried out legally and opposes a Palestinian state. Eisenkot himself has said anyone still thinking about a two-state solution after October 7 is “simply delusional.” Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who leads the B’Yachad list, has ruled out ceding any land to what he calls Israel’s enemies, an apparent reference to a Palestinian state.
As of today, the math appears simple: Without the Joint List or Ra’am joining the coalition, the opposition appears to have no way to form a majority in the Knesset. Yet Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Liberman, two right-wing opposition leaders, are still ruling out any government that relies on Arab parties, and Eisenkot has not dropped conditions for coalition partners that most Palestinian lawmakers are unlikely to accept.
Palestinian citizens of Israel turned out in record numbers to get the Netanyahu government out of power, but it remains to be seen whether the other opposition parties will join in their efforts.
For the past several weeks, Republicans worried about the outcome of Alaska’s U.S. Senate race have focused on one aspect of the contest above all others: the fact that there are two Dan Sullivans on the ballot.
After months of arguments, a state judge in Alaska ruled in late June that retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan could run against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, and a few months later, after the first round of balloting, state election officials finalized the top four candidates for Alaska’s unique system. Both Dan Sullivans advanced to the general election.
This has generated all kinds of allegations that the Democratic nominee, former Rep. Mary Peltola, and her allies coordinated behind the scenes to get the other Sullivan onto the ballot. The candidate and her team repeatedly said they weren’t involved, but The New York Times published a report Wednesday that called those denials into question. From the article:
The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his candidacy. But The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory.
Not surprisingly, Republicans who were already worked up about the allegations when there was no evidence became apoplectic in response to the newspaper’s report. Donald Trump publishedfourseparaterants to his social media platform, for example, each of which alleged unidentified crimes, called for Peltola’s disqualification or both. Around the same time, the president told reporters that the Democratic nominee “should resign,” and at a Wednesday night rally in Ohio, he also called for her prosecution.
On Thursday morning, Trump hedged on whether Peltola should be allowed to serve in the Senate, even if Alaskans elect her.
Other Republicans went down a similar path. Incumbent Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy ordered an investigation into whether Peltola’s campaign should face criminal or civil penalties; Attorney General Todd Blanche scurried to Fox News to accuse Democrats of “cheating”; House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer launched a congressional investigation; and even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who’s generally been friendly with Peltola, complained of “a culture of deception.”
For now, it’s fair to say that there are legitimate questions about what transpired, though they don’t yet have definitive answers. That said, even if the allegations are true, it’s important not to lose sight of the relevant details.
There’s a qualitative difference between genuine electoral scandals and routine campaign mischief. Asking an official who oversees a state elections system to “find” 11,780 votes that don’t exist is disgraceful on a historic scale, but looking for candidates with names similar to an opponent is a tactic with a deep American pedigree. It’s common enough to have earned a familiar name: ballot-stacking.
That’s not to say it’s a good thing. It’s not. But both parties have utilized this strategy for generations — there’s a classic story from 1946 about John F. Kennedy’s first congressional primary, which included two men named Joseph Russo — and it’s never been the subject of hysterics, Justice Department prosecutions or federal investigations.
The same is true of campaign mischief in general. Republicans, including one of Trump’s own lawyers, tried to help Kanye West qualify for the presidential ballot in 2020, as part of a dumb trick. GOP operatives did the same thing in the 2024 race, trying to boost Cornel West’s independent presidential campaign as part of an effort to improve Trump’s chances.
Even in the Sullivan-Peltola race, the Senate Republicans’ top super PAC has invested in a Green Party candidate from Arizona — not because it supports his candidacy, but because it’s playing a cheap electoral game.
Again, if members of Team Peltola denied involvement in a scheme they were involved in, they’ll deserve to be criticized for underhanded campaign tactics. But to pretend that the latest apparent instance of ballot-stacking is some kind of hair-on-fire scandal is a mistake.
The disgraced 60 Minutes hid the inconvenient truth entirely about its deportee sob story. The far-left Washington Post merely hid its inconvenient truth under 16 paragraphs.
Vice President JD Vance delivered an impassioned speech in eastern North Carolina on Wednesday, going after globalist leaders who he said have forgotten that being an American means something, connecting his time serving as a young Marine in the state to failed politicians in Washington.
President Trump ensured Flávio Bolsonaro, who lost a presidential election in Brazil and faces multiple criminal investigations there, could enter the United States, U.S. officials said.
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s effort to restore voting rights to tens of thousands of convicted felons sparked controversy Thursday after an attorney obtained an executive citation addressed to "Betty No Last Name," purportedly notifying the recipient that her voting rights had been restored.
The citation identifies No Last Name as one of more than 66,000 Virginians whose rights to vote, serve on juries and seek public office have reportedly been restored under Spanberger's administration. The controversy comes ahead of a Nov. 3 ballot measure that would make voting rights restoration automatic upon release from prison.
"It’s a big deal," said Virginia Beach attorney Tim Anderson, who first obtained the citation for No Last Name and shared it with Fox News Digital.
"It’s clear [Spanberger] didn’t sign it. No governor and no secretary of the commonwealth would sign a restoration order that says Betty No Last Name, so they’re not looking at it; they didn’t review anything," Anderson told Fox News Digital in an interview Thursday. Each citation bears the signatures of the governor and Secretary of the Commonwealth Candi Mundon-King.
"Whereas, Betty No Last Name, by reason of conviction(s), suffers political disabilities …," the citation obtained by Fox News Digital says.
Anderson said he obtained the citation through a public records request to the Chesapeake Sheriff's Office after reports emerged that restoration notices had been sent to felons who are now deceased. He said the document originated from Spanberger's office and was sent to the sheriff's office.
He speculated that the citations were generated through a mail merge of records and signed using an autopen despite language in the documents indicating that each case had been individually reviewed.
Former Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares also questioned whether the administration had individually reviewed the restoration cases.
"Four mentions of ‘Betty No Last Name’ and still no last name. I’m thinking perhaps Abigail Spanberger’s ‘individualized review’ is just imaginary," Miyares said in a statement.
Fox News Digital reached out to Spanberger, Mundon-King and the Chesapeake Sheriff's Office for comment. A sheriff's office official also confirmed veracity of the citation received in No Last Name's name, and provided an additional copy to Fox News Digital.
Anderson said he found the questionable citation after contacting only a handful of Virginia law enforcement agencies and believes similar cases may exist elsewhere in the state. He also suggested that officials whose signatures appear on the citations could face criminal liability if the documents were found to be fraudulent, potentially resulting in forfeiture of office.
Anderson’s finding went viral on social media Thursday, and critics pointed out how No Last Name’s citation colored the upcoming ballot question on automatic rights restoration for felons.
Some Virginia lawmakers have called for an independent audit of Spanberger's rights-restoration process. State Sen. Glen Sturtevant, R-Chesterfield, who has called for the audit, said reports have since emerged of restoration citations being sent to deceased individuals.
Login
