FIREWORKS IN DC - Senate Votes on Save Act Voter ID - It's Official Now 1.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Republican majority in the Senate rejected a GOP-led effort to attach key provisions of election integrity legislation sought by President Donald Trump to a measure funding agencies of the Department of Homeland Security during an early Thursday morning vote. The amendment failed by a vote of 48 to 50.
Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky joined all Democrats in opposing the attachment of a modified version of the SAVE America Act to the bill funding immigration enforcement. Their defection occurred during the Senate’s lengthy “vote-a-rama,” a period in which lawmakers can propose votes on a wide range of amendments regardless of alignment with the main budget plan.
The outcome highlighted warnings from several Republicans in recent weeks that the proposal lacked sufficient support within the GOP to pass. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota had initiated an oral filibuster to advance the measure with a simple majority of 50 votes. Nevertheless, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana advocated for his version of the SAVE America Act and threatened to delay the process until Thursday.
Kennedy acknowledged that his approach might not align with the strict Senate rules governing the reconciliation process, known as the Byrd Rule, but argued that critics “can’t predict the future.” Had Kennedy’s proposal been adopted, it would have directed the Senate Rules Committee to draft legislation requiring voter ID for federal elections, limiting voting to Election Day, and mandating that ballots be counted within 36 hours. The plan also included a $10 billion cap for implementing those changes. The Senate Rules Committee, chaired by McConnell, would have been responsible for developing the legislation.
Collins previously said she supports the broader SAVE America Act but did not back this version of the proposal. Murkowski and Tillis also expressed opposition following the Republican-led push to advance the measure. Tillis and McConnell are both retiring after the midterm elections.
President Trump has consistently advocated for the passage of the SAVE America Act. Last month, he pledged not to sign any other bills until it is approved and stated that he would not accept a diluted version. Kennedy’s unsuccessful attempt occurred at a time when discussion surrounding the SAVE America Act had lost focus in the Senate in recent weeks. The Senate floor has been largely dominated by the GOP’s reconciliation gamble, efforts to reauthorize the nation’s contentious surveillance powers, and the ongoing war in Iran.
Nevertheless, Republican leadership currently has no plans to conclude its takeover of the floor. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson and McConnell have come out in support of Trump’s actions in Iran, even amid the president’s online statements threatening to practically wipe out Iran. McConnell, when asked about Trump’s comments, said he supports Trump’s efforts in Iran. “They’ve been at war with us for 47 years,” McConnell said. “They’ve killed Americans. They’ve killed Israelis. They’ve killed throughout the Middle East. They’re bad guys.” McConnell said he does not know how the conflict in Iran will end. However, he stated that the country’s capabilities have “significantly diminished.”
When Pope Leo XIV criticized the Iran war on Wednesday, Johnson used centuries-old Christian theological teachings to defend the Trump administration’s strikes against Tehran, calling them a “just war.”
The SAVE America Act would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, strengthen voter identification rules, and expand federal involvement in maintaining voter rolls. Polling has consistently shown broad public support for such requirements across party lines. The failed amendment vote reflects ongoing partisan divisions over election procedures, immigration enforcement funding, and the use of the reconciliation process. The Senate continues to navigate multiple high-stakes deadlines, with lawmakers weighing national security, fiscal priorities, and electoral integrity measures as the midterm cycle approaches.
Further attempts to advance voter ID provisions or related election integrity measures may occur in subsequent legislative vehicles. The outcome of the vote-a-rama has drawn attention to internal Republican dynamics and the challenges of achieving consensus on contentious policy riders during budget negotiations. Both parties are expected to continue debating the balance between security, access, and administrative feasibility in federal elections.
Florida PASSES Map Giving GOP 4 House Seats - Dems SCREAM, Throw Papers in Hissy Fit
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Florida House of Representatives approved Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ congressional redistricting plan on Wednesday morning in a vote of 83-28. The measure is expected to potentially flip up to four U.S. House seats to Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Rep. Angie Nixon, a Democratic contender for the U.S. Senate from Jacksonville, interrupted the voting process by yelling that the map “was out of order.” Later on Wednesday, the Florida Senate was scheduled to vote on the map. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision regarding Louisiana’s voting map, which found that legislators there had unlawfully utilized race to create a new majority-minority district, prompted that chamber to take a recess.
The House rejected a Democratic move to postpone in light of the decision on a voice vote. DeSantis has previously stated that if the court ruled as he anticipated, the Legislature would be “forced” to redesign the state’s map. “Called this one months ago,” the governor posted on social media. “The decision implicates a district in FL — the legal infirmities of which have been corrected in the newly-drawn (and soon to be enacted) map.”
If the Senate passes the map and DeSantis signs it into law, Florida would become the latest state to redistrict its congressional delegation in the middle of the decade, following red states such as Texas, North Carolina, and Missouri. This comes as the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s congressional map on Wednesday and sharply limited the use of race in drawing district boundaries in a major ruling that could carry significant consequences for future House elections.
Louisiana had been ordered by lower courts to create a second majority-Black congressional district in 2024 to comply with Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which bars states from diluting minority voting strength. The Trump administration and state officials challenged the revised map, arguing it amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
About one-third of Louisiana’s residents are African-American, and the state’s only two Democratic lawmakers in Congress (compared to four House Republicans) were elected from majority-black districts. The justices initially addressed the Louisiana map case during the 2024-25 term. In an unusual move, they ordered both sides to restate their arguments to consider the implications of both the 14th and 15th Amendments. The 15th Amendment, in particular, prohibits states from denying citizens equal protection under the law or restricting their rights based on race.
The ruling carries immense weight, with two prominent voting rights organizations noting earlier that the removal or restriction of Section 2 will likely empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage, in order to comply with the court. “However, it’s not clear if red states will be able to seize on the Supreme Court’s decision in time to significantly impact the 2026 midterms, in which Democrats are favored to retake the House of Representatives,” the New York Post reported. This would enable mapmakers to emphasize Republican strengths.
Voting rights organizations aligned with the Democratic Party already warned that the removal or restriction of Section 2 could empower Republican-led legislatures to change the boundaries of as many as 19 congressional districts to their advantage. Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund argue that if Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is invalidated, it could significantly increase the likelihood that Republicans will maintain control of the House of Representatives for years. Research has identified 27 congressional seats nationwide that Republicans could benefit from if the current legal and political landscape remains unchanged. Nineteen of these changes are directly tied to the potential loss of Section 2 protections.
The SCOTUS ruling will prompt many states to redraw maps ahead of November’s elections. The developments in Florida and the Supreme Court’s Louisiana decision reflect the broader national battle over congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterms. Courts have increasingly become the deciding factor in determining whether new congressional maps can be implemented. The outcomes could have significant implications for control of the U.S. House, with both parties engaged in aggressive redistricting strategies in recent cycles. The Florida map approval provides a potential gain for Republicans, while the Louisiana ruling could influence similar efforts in other states.
Legal experts note that procedural compliance and constitutional requirements will play a central role in ongoing redistricting disputes. The referendum’s narrow passage and subsequent legal challenges in various states highlight the high stakes involved in mid-decade redistricting efforts. Both parties continue to monitor developments closely as the midterm election cycle approaches, with redistricting disputes likely to shape the political landscape in multiple states.
Republican-Controlled U.S. House of Representatives Passes Major Legislation With a 265 to 148 Vote That Would Deport Migrants...
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation Wednesday aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants accused of assaulting police officers, approving the measure over strong opposition from most Democrats. Lawmakers voted 265-148 to pass the Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Cops Act, with 54 Democrats voting with the GOP. The bill was introduced by Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J.
The legislation would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to explicitly classify assault on a police officer as a deportable offense for noncitizens. Republicans said the measure is designed to ensure that illegal immigrants who attack law enforcement are removed from the country and barred from returning. “There is no reason that an illegal alien who attacks our law enforcement should remain in our country; that shows zero respect for our rule of law or our institutions, and they will not be positive contributors to society,” Van Drew said during debate on the House floor.
The bill mandates that federal authorities hold illegal immigrants in custody until deportation and establishes a new category of migrant inadmissibility specifically targeting those accused of assaulting police. After the bill passed, Rep. Tom Emmer, the House Majority Whip and No. 3 Republican, said, “House Democrats just voted to protect violent, illegal immigrants over our brave law enforcement officers. Once again, the Democrat Party proves they are the most anti-law enforcement party in history.”
Democrats largely opposed the bill, arguing that existing law already allows for the deportation of noncitizens convicted of such crimes. They characterized the legislation as unnecessary and duplicative. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., raised concerns about due process, arguing the bill could allow for deportation before a criminal conviction is secured. Republicans pushed back on that claim, saying the bill does not prevent criminal prosecution before removal and maintains existing legal processes. GOP lawmakers argued that the measure strengthens enforcement by closing perceived loopholes.
The bill faces long odds in the Senate, where it is expected to encounter significant Democratic opposition. Most legislation in the chamber requires 60 votes to advance. The vote comes amid increased scrutiny by House Republicans into public safety and immigration enforcement. Republicans have pointed to recent high-profile incidents involving noncitizens and law enforcement as evidence of systemic issues requiring legislative action.
Separately, a stunning new poll from CNN shows the Democratic Party lagging far behind the Republicans when it comes to economic issues. CNN data guru Harry Enten expressed surprise at the results. “You would think after all of the waves, after the last few months of the Donald Trump presidency, that you’d expect that Democrats would have this massive lead on the economy. It ain’t so,” he said. The poll found Republicans holding an eight-point advantage on the party with a better economic plan. Looking at Reuters/IPSOS data, Enten noted the Republican lead had grown to 12 points from nine points in May 2024. “This speaks to Democratic problems on the economy better than basically anything that you could possibly look at,” the analyst said. He added that Republicans have taken a stronghold on the middle-class vote.
The developments reflect ongoing partisan divisions over immigration enforcement, public safety, and economic messaging as lawmakers prepare for the midterm election cycle. The House vote on the deportation measure underscores Republican priorities on law and order, while the polling data highlights voter sentiment on economic issues despite ongoing debates over tariffs and other policies. Both parties continue to position themselves on these key topics, with implications for control of Congress in the upcoming elections. Legal analysts note that the deportation bill could face constitutional challenges if enacted, particularly around due process claims, while the economic polling suggests shifting voter perceptions that could influence campaign strategies in competitive districts.
Ilhan Omar FLEES as Feds Are Closing In As Congresswoman PANICS -Minnesota House Panel Falls Short on Omar Subpoena in Feedin...
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Minnesota lawmakers have failed to approve a subpoena targeting Rep. Ilhan Omar after a divided vote on a Republican-led effort to compel the congresswoman to testify and hand over documents connected to the sprawling Feeding Our Future fraud scandal. The failed vote marked a dramatic conclusion to months of escalating scrutiny surrounding Omar’s ties to legislation and community groups connected to the federal child nutrition program at the center of what prosecutors have described as one of the largest pandemic-era fraud schemes in the country.
The Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee voted 5-3 in favor of issuing the subpoena, falling one vote short of the six votes required under the state House’s bipartisan operating agreement. Committee Chair Kristin Robbins argued the subpoena had become necessary after Omar repeatedly declined invitations to testify and failed to respond to document requests tied to the investigation.
“We have reached out to Representative Ilhan Omar on multiple occasions, inviting her to testify and inviting and requesting documents,” Robbins said ahead of the vote. “The only tool left for us as a committee if we want to get these documents is to issue a subpoena.” Robbins and other Republicans on the panel have focused heavily on Omar’s role in sponsoring the federal MEALS Act during the COVID-19 pandemic. Republicans argue the legislation loosened oversight requirements in federal nutrition programs and created conditions that enabled large-scale fraud.
“Representative Omar had some role, whether inadvertent or not,” Robbins said. “She passed the MEALS Act in March of 2020, and that took the guardrails off the federal school nutrition program which created the conditions for Feeding Our Future.” The Feeding Our Future scandal has become one of Minnesota’s largest public corruption cases in recent history. Federal prosecutors allege that organizers and associates diverted hundreds of millions of dollars intended to feed low-income children during the pandemic through fake meal claims, shell nonprofits, and fraudulent reimbursement requests.
Dozens of individuals have been charged in the ongoing federal investigation, including nonprofit founder Aimee Bock and numerous business operators tied to Minnesota’s Somali community. Republicans on the committee have specifically sought communications involving Omar and several individuals connected to the fraud investigation, along with records tied to her public promotion of Safari Restaurant, a Minneapolis business later linked to the scandal.
Robbins also referenced a Somali-language television appearance in which Omar highlighted the restaurant as a meal distribution site during the pandemic. “We thought it’d be very helpful to understand from Rep. Omar’s perspective how she thought the MEALS Act impacted the community, why she brought it, what communication she had with the fraudsters,” Robbins said during Tuesday’s hearing.
Democrats on the committee strongly opposed the subpoena effort, accusing Republicans of politicizing the investigation and targeting Omar for partisan reasons. Dave Pinto, the committee’s lead Democrat, questioned the timing and practical purpose of issuing a subpoena with only days remaining in the legislative session. “Even if Omar were to testify or information is received, I do not see the committee doing anything with that information,” Pinto argued.
Pinto also referenced broader concerns about investigations involving political opponents under the Trump administration. “We know the president and federal administration have got no hesitation going after political enemies and investigating them in all sorts of ways,” he said during the hearing. The failed subpoena vote effectively blocks the Minnesota House committee from compelling Omar’s testimony before the legislative session concludes later this month.
Still, Robbins indicated Republicans are exploring other options to continue pursuing records and testimony. “They’re fading,” Robbins said. “But I’ll certainly talk to our friends in Congress to see if they would be willing to issue a subpoena.” Robbins added that federal authorities possess “a whole menu of legal options” because Omar is a sitting member of Congress.
The controversy surrounding Omar comes amid growing Republican efforts nationally to spotlight fraud and corruption in federal spending programs. The Feeding Our Future investigation has drawn national attention as one of the most prominent examples of alleged misuse of pandemic-era relief funds. Prosecutors have described the scheme as involving hundreds of millions of dollars in improperly obtained child nutrition funds through fraudulent meal claims and shell organizations.
Omar has not publicly responded to the failed subpoena vote or the committee’s document requests as of this report. The developments reflect ongoing partisan divisions over oversight of pandemic relief spending and accountability for elected officials. Democrats have framed the effort as a politically motivated attack, while Republicans maintain it is a legitimate exercise in government transparency and fraud prevention.
The Minnesota House committee’s actions are part of a broader pattern of state-level reviews examining how federal policies were administered locally and whether any gaps enabled exploitation. The failed subpoena vote does not end the scrutiny, as Robbins indicated Republicans may pursue alternative avenues, including federal-level options given Omar’s status as a sitting member of Congress. Legal experts note that such document requests and oversight hearings are standard tools in legislative investigations, allowing committees to gather information without formal subpoenas in initial stages.
The broader Feeding Our Future case has already led to multiple indictments and significant media coverage. Authorities continue to pursue leads related to the misuse of funds, with an emphasis on recovering taxpayer money and holding those responsible accountable. The Minnesota committee’s work is part of a wider pattern of state-level reviews examining the implementation and oversight of federal relief programs during the pandemic. As the legislative session concludes, the outcome of the subpoena vote may influence future oversight activities in Minnesota and provide additional context for national conversations about pandemic-era spending and governmental transparency.
Supreme Court Steps In and Changes Entire Landscape For 2026 Midterms with 6-3 Ruling - SCOTUS Lets Texas Use New...
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of the Republican Party by overturning a lower court’s decision that had stopped Texas from redrawing its congressional districts. The court’s decision was based on reasoning from an earlier case, Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, but it did not elaborate on the specific reasoning. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the three liberal justices, dissented.
The Supreme Court had given the state’s map a temporary thumbs up in December and California’s map a temporary thumbs up in February. Both states led the way in the mid-cycle redistricting fights that are now happening across the country. The Supreme Court’s approval of both states’ maps, which gave Republicans and Democrats five more seats each, effectively canceled out each other’s work before the 2026 midterm elections.
Last year, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, asked the Supreme Court to put a stop to a three-judge panel’s decision in the Western District of Texas that found 2-1 that race played too big of a role in its redraw. The Department of Justice also got involved, telling the Supreme Court to step in and change the decision. They said that Texas’ decision to change its map was based on “partisan objectives,” not racial ones, which could be against the Voting Rights Act.
The voting rights groups that sued Texas and Abbott said that the map was an illegal racial gerrymander. However, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on December 6 that the groups could not provide an alternative map that met Texas’ political needs. The unsigned order from the high court said that the lower court should not have “interfered with an active primary campaign, causing a lot of confusion and upsetting the delicate balance between federal and state elections.”
This comes amid a redistricting battle across the nation ahead of November’s midterms. A high-stakes legal fight over Virginia’s congressional map is intensifying as the Supreme Court of Virginia prepares to hear arguments on a voter-approved redistricting referendum that has already been blocked by a lower court. The outcome could reshape the state’s political map and influence control of multiple seats in the U.S. House, several political analysts have predicted.
The dispute began after Virginia voters approved a referendum that would redraw congressional districts in a way that analysts say could heavily favor Democrats, potentially giving them an advantage in up to 10 of the state’s 11 districts. However, shortly after the vote, Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. ruled that the referendum could not be certified, citing procedural violations in how the measure was placed on the ballot.
Hurley’s ruling marked the third time a court has found legal issues with the redistricting effort. In his decision, the judge concluded that state lawmakers failed to follow required steps under Virginia law, including rules governing the timing of ballot measures relative to early voting periods. Republican officials quickly moved to challenge the referendum, arguing both that the process was flawed and that the resulting map constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
The case now heads to the state’s highest court, where justices will consider whether the referendum complies with the Virginia Constitution and whether it was lawfully enacted. The case has moved toward the Supreme Court, where oral arguments are scheduled to address multiple legal questions. Among the key issues are whether the legislature violated procedural rules when advancing the referendum and whether the measure conflicts with existing constitutional provisions governing elections and redistricting.
The Virginia Supreme Court had previously declined to intervene before the referendum vote took place, allowing the measure to proceed to voters. Legal analysts suggested at the time that the court may have opted to wait for a fully developed legal challenge rather than act preemptively. Now, with a lower court blocking certification, the justices will be required to weigh both procedural and constitutional arguments under significant time pressure.
The developments in Texas and Virginia reflect the broader national battle over congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterms. Courts have increasingly become the deciding factor in determining whether new congressional maps can be implemented. The outcomes could have significant implications for control of the U.S. House, with both parties engaged in aggressive redistricting strategies in recent cycles. The Texas ruling provides a temporary green light for the state’s new map, while the Virginia case remains pending before the state’s highest court.
May you like
Legal experts note that procedural compliance and constitutional requirements will play a central role in the Virginia case. The referendum’s narrow passage and subsequent legal challenges highlight the high stakes involved in mid-decade redistricting efforts. Both parties continue to monitor developments closely as the midterm election cycle approaches, with redistricting disputes likely to shape the political landscape in multiple states.
