The Voting Rights Act, 1965-2026

Yesterday, the Supreme Court's attacks on democracy continued with its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This means that the last substantive part of the already-hollowed-out VRA is basically done for, and one of Lyndon B. Johnson's two signature legislative achievements is effectively dead.

The ruling is exactly as bad as feared, while being couched in language designed to disguise its impact. Leave it to Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, to put the final nail in the coffin of the VRA and yet to claim there's really nothing to see here. Yeah, and it's his wife who insists on flying racist flags at his house—what does he know from flags? Nothing to see there, either.

The 6-3 decision, which broke down along partisan lines, struck down LA-06—which was drawn as majority-Black to comply with the VRA following litigation—as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. If you're feeling whiplash, you're not alone. Just two years ago, this same Court upheld a decision requiring Alabama to draw a second majority-Black district to comply with the VRA. Here, Alito's decision seems to leapfrog the VRA to find that Louisiana's effort to comply with the federal law in the same way Alabama did now violates the Fifteenth Amendment. So, while the decision doesn't explicitly strike down Section 2, it renders it "essentially toothless," as Associate Justice Elena Kagan notes in her sharply-worded dissent.

Section 2 was strengthened in 1982 by a bipartisan majority, following a Supreme Court case that held that ONLY intentional race discrimination violated the VRA, prohibits ANY voting standards or practices that "result in a denial or abridgement of the right... to vote on account of race or color." After this change, federal courts held that race-based remedies to correct violations of the VRA were acceptable.

But the Supremes ignored all that history and the text of the law itself. The Court seems to be saying that to the extent court precedents interpreted Section 2 as going beyond what the Fifteenth Amendment allows, the tests under those precedents are wrong and must be modified. So, the problem is framed as one of an evolution of the Court's understanding of Section 2's goals rather than a problem with the statute itself. But that framing allows the Court to fashion a major reinterpretation of Section 2 that will likely undermine its goals without explicitly striking the section down. The Court has returned to its previous holding, before the statute was amended in 1982, that only intentional discrimination is unlawful because, the Court says, the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits ONLY purposeful race discrimination and NOT discriminatory impacts.

There's no question that in addressing race discrimination in voting, it's somewhere between "tricky" and "impossible" to offer solutions that aren't themselves race-based. And the Court should grapple with questions such as "When does 'equal protection' become improper preferential treatment?" and "How should discriminatory impacts be addressed to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal voting rights?" Yesterday's ruling doesn't address those questions. What it DOES do is set a very high bar for states to create majority-minority districts. But no doubt that outcome is purely coincidental.

As a result of this decision, many existing majority-minority districts are likely in jeopardy. According to Alito, even if there are maps that work without breaking up those districts, the state can still proceed if they provide "a legitimate reason for rejecting all those maps and eliminating all majority-minority districts." That's a pretty clear blueprint for states looking to "crack" those districts. If they can provide pretty much ANY justification for distributing minority communities across several districts, outside of "We did it to discriminate against minority voters," then that is enough to satisfy the Court. Of course, some states with such districts will keep them because either (1) Republicans don't control the redistricting process, or (2) even an aggressive gerrymander won't change anything.

The Downballot has a rundown of the House districts most vulnerable to being dismantled. Not surprisingly, all are in Southern states: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Florida and, of course, Louisiana. Each of those districts is currently represented by a non-white Democrat. And as the linked article points out, it's not just Congress that's impacted. State legislatures, city councils, school boards, etc. have all been required to follow the VRA, and now they can ignore it.

What can Congress do? Well, it can pass laws (when there's a majority that actually wants to do that) regulating the redistricting process and can set parameters and restrictions on the practice. Congress can also say that political blocs, who also happen to be of a particular race, should be kept together. In that case, Congress could plausibly say that race is incidental and that how the group votes is the primary driver since partisan gerrymandering is OK.

Meanwhile, how does one enforce the VRA now? It's hard to see how any group can prove a Section 2 violation under this new standard. Alito muses about "societal changes" and increased voter registration and turnout among minorities as reasons for changing how these claims are evaluated. He claims that the two-party system whereby most minorities vote for Democrats means that they now have the same "opportunity" as every other voter. It's a bizarre syllogism. That brings to mind Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's famous line from Shelby: "That's like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you're not getting wet."

This is a trend we've been seeing with this Court for all civil rights laws, namely the majority taking the view that remedial efforts to address race and gender discrimination are themselves discriminatory, and thus illegal. We're already seeing of reverse-discrimination suits claiming that any programs designed to remedy racism or past discriminatory practices are themselves suspect. Indeed, the Civil Whites Rights Division of the DOJ under Harmeet Dhillon has already directed her staff to take aim at programs meant to diversify the workplace, such as Coca-Cola's women's networking event. It's clear those claims will get a receptive audience at the Supreme Court. (L)

Trump Expects an Extended Stalemate in Iran

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Donald Trump is telling his aides to prepared for an "extended" blockage of Iranian ports. Iran wants to go back to the 7th century and Trump is willing to meet them about half way. Siege warfare, which is what he is aiming at, went out of style in the 15th century when the widespread availability of gunpowder made it possible for the attackers to blow up a castle's walls rather than waiting until the residents starved to death.

It is not likely to work now for two reasons. First, Iran's leaders—assuming it actually has any leaders right now, with the ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard duking it out—know that even if food, medicine, and other supplies run low, the people will not rise up against them. In January, when the people rose up against the regime, the military killed an estimated 30,000 people in cold blood. If they had to kill 300,000 to stay in power, they would not hesitate for a nanosecond. Assuming they know what a nanosecond is; after all, they didn't have nanoseconds in the 7th century. If you are having trouble visualizing a nanosecond, just remember that in a vacuum light travels almost 1 foot in a nanosecond. (V) thinks we should redefine the foot to be the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1 nanosecond.

Second, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, just visited Russia, presumably to ask Vladimir Putin for food, munitions, and other things. They can be delivered either over the Caspian Sea or overland through Azerbaijan. It is a 40-hour drive from Moscow to Tehran. Just take the M-4 south, turn left at Ленина, and keeping going south until you hit Baku, then it is just 10 more hours. Easy Peasy.

Trump thinks he can absorb more pain than the Iranians. Our guess is that is not true. If gas hits $6/gal. in Tehran, people will peep, but won't dare do anything. If it hits that in Texarkana, the locals will do more than peep. They will register to vote if they are not already registered. Trump knows that the House is probably already lost, but if he loses the Senate, too, no more judges or justices, and there will be an actual trial every time the House impeaches him. Here is a chart with the average national gas price for the past year from Gas Buddy. As you can see, the average price has gone up 32¢ in the past 10 days. Crude oil is now $126/barrel. How much more of this can Trump tolerate?

If a few weeks go by with no peace, no war, Trump might be tempted to start the bombing again, even if the generals warn him that munitions are running low. The U.S. has already bombed 13,000 primary targets. If Iran withstood that, it is very unlikely that hitting 13,000 secondary targets will force it into submission. Meanwhile, they will turn around and attack the oil infrastructure in the U.A.E., Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia with Shahed-136 drones. That will guarantee high oil prices for months or years to come. As an oil-exporting country, Iran wouldn't mind that at all. If the U.S. bombed Iran's oil infrastructure, China would no doubt be happy to make a deal like: "We'll rebuild it in exchange for future oil." (V)

Republicans Are Giddy about Narrow Democratic Win in Virginia.

Some Republicans are pointing to the narrow 3-point win for the redistricting measure in Virginia, compared to the blowout 15-point win for Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) last year, and thinking that help is on the way. All wrong, even though the Virginia Supreme Court has blocked certification until it has a chance to consider the case on its merits. On Monday, the Court heard oral arguments. Now the justices have to cogitate and make a ruling. They know it is very important so they want to issue a solid ruling, whichever way it goes. And remember, the case is not about whether gerrymandering is a good idea or not, but about whether the state legislature violated the rules in the state Constitution doing this.

The reasons the Republicans are wrong are threefold:

• "Yes" ≠ Democrat: Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini, who wrote the piece linked to at the start of this item, is making the false assumption that Virginians voted based on partisanship. In other words, Democrats voted "yes" and Republicans voted "no," and see, only a few more Democrats than Republicans.
  
  That's unlikely to be true because Democrats tend to be "good government" types and don't like gerrymandering. To be consistent (and morally upright), many Democrats voted "no" even though it hurt their party because they consider the principle of "gerrymandering is bad" to be more important than four House seats. Ruffini, a Republican, simply cannot conceive of a voter who would not go to the mattress, even if only one House seat was in play. His mental model comes from working with Republicans for years and he has probably never met one who said: "That is immoral so I won't do it, even though I could get some partisan advantage by doing it" and he assumes Democrats think the same way. Not all of them do.
  
  
• Turnout in November Will Save Us: Ruffini is assuming the Democrats' repeated blowout victories in special elections this year and last are due to Republicans being unmotivated in weird special elections, but come November with Congress at stake, they will show up in droves.
  
  Turns out that the assumption Republicans stayed home is false. An analysis of the turnout data for Democratic precincts and Republican precincts show the Democratic victories are not due (entirely) to normal Democratic turnout and weak Republican turnout. Specifically, comparing the early voting in last year's gubernatorial election in Virginia with the referendum, 7 points of the 12 point swing were due to vote switching and 5 points were due to turnout. In other words, persuasion, not motivation, is doing the heavy lifting.
  
  
• A Turnout Problem Is Comforting: A third problem is that if the Republicans' problem were just lazy voters, the solution is obvious: scream to the rooftops about protecting girls' sports and they will all show up. Problem solved. If, however, the problem is that independents, and even some Republicans, hate Donald Trump, there is no easy fix. It is more comforting for Republicans to believe the lie that they can fix the problem with money and more ads. If the real problem is that the voters don't like what they are selling, money won't solve that problem.

In short, the close margin in the redistricting measure is not a good indicator of what November will hold. Actual elections are a better indicator. (V)

The Bush Line Is in Sight

Last week there was an AP/NORC poll that had Donald Trump's approval at 33%. That was a huge drop since March. Now there is a Reuters/Ipsos poll with Trump's approval at 34%. This is starting to get serious. If Trump's approval hits the Bush line (32% approval) and stays there, Republicans will probably lose the Senate as well as the House. The Texas Senate race could be the canary in the coal mine. Yesterday, a second Texas poll was released showing state Rep. James Talarico (D) beating Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) 40% to 33% and beating Ken Paxton 42% to 34%.

Of course, two recent presidential approval polls in the low 30s aren't the whole story. Here are Trump's 10 most recent approval polls:

Pollster	Date	Approve	Disapprove	Net
Ipsos	April 24-27	34%	64%	Disapprove +30
YouGov	April 24-27	37%	59%	Disapprove +22
Morning Consult	April 24-27	45%	53%	Disapprove +8
HarrisX/Harris Poll	April 23-26	42%	53%	Disapprove +11
RMG Research	April 14-23	42%	55%	Disapprove +13
Quantus Insights	April 21-23	43%	56%	Disapprove +14
Morning Consult	April 15-20	42%	54%	Disapprove +12
Angus Reid Global	April 15-20	35%	59%	Disapprove +24
Ipsos	April 15-20	36%	62%	Disapprove +26
AP-NORC	April 16-20	33%	67%	Disapprove +34
Average		39%	58%	Disapprove +19

The average is more high 30s than low 30s, but as gas prices go up and hope for a quick resolution of the war in Iran go down, the more recent polls may be a harbinger of what's next. (V)

Democrats Are Up 10 Points in Generic House Poll

Although we don't normally put House races near the top, this polling item and the one above may be related. Presidential approval certainly is a major factor in the midterms, since voters often see midterms as a way to send the president a message. An even more direct indicator is to ask people: "Will you vote for the Democrat or the Republican for the House?" This factors in presidential approval, but also other factors such as "I love/hate my congresscritter," "the economy is wonderfull/terrible," and other things. It is far from perfect because candidate quality, money, and other factors can play a role, but it is still an interesting indicator.

The latest generic poll is from Emerson College and has the generic Democrat at 50% and the generic Republican at 40%. This is the biggest gap this cycle. It is also consistent with the trend in Emerson polls, so factors like "polling house bias" can't explain this. Throughout 2025, the Democrats were ahead by under 4 points. Since then it has exploded, as shown below.

Again, one poll does not a House majority make. Here are earlier House generic polls for comparison. What is interesting is that Emerson is a reputable pollster and there is a clear trend.

If the 10-point gap holds, there are 80 House Republicans in districts R+9 or bluer. All of them would potentially be in danger, although some incumbents are popular enough in their district to survive, some might luck out by drawing a weak opponent, etc. Still, it would be a bloodbath.

The director of the Emerson poll, Spencer Kimball, says that Democrats' gains are due to Latinos (D+35), Women (D+21), and independents (D+19). The poll also puts Donald Trump's approval rating at 40%, much better than the 34% in the Ipsos poll, so Emerson is definitely not oversampling Democrats. Kimball also noted that Trump is underwater by 41 points among Latinos, 29% approve to 70% disapprove, vs. and almost even split a year ago. This could be the story of 2026—Republicans lost the elections by infuriating Latinos beyond belief. We shall see. (V)

President Grassley?

One underreported aspect of the shooting at the WHCD on Saturday is that almost everyone in the line of succession was there. Probably not a good idea. Suppose that instead of a crazed lone gunman, Iran had sent one or more suicide bombers armed with deadly bombs, poison gas, or something that had wiped out everyone in the room? That would include Donald Trump. J.D. Vance and Mike Johnson. In that case, The 92-year-old President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Chuck Grassley (R-IA) (who wasn't there) would become president. Well, unless Grassley thought he was incapable of discharging the duties of the president for 3 years and refused the job. In that case Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins would become president as she would be the next-highest-ranking survivor. No doubt someday the U.S. will have a female president, but this wouldn't be the greatest way to do it. Here is the order of succession as determined by law.

While this wasn't a near miss, it could have been, and ought to generate some discussion. First, given the Pro Tem's high ranking in the list, maybe the Senate majority leader should always be the Pro Tem, not the oldest person in town. The majority leader has the job due to support of the majority caucus, not because he is the most senior member of the majority party. This is said with all due respect to Grassley, who is a competent senator, but the idea that someone who is 90+ should be third in line for the presidency is not a good idea in general. From 2001 to 2003, Strom Thurmond was the Pro Tem and he was 100 at the end. Also at the end he probably couldn't have told the difference between the White House and the Waffle House.

Second, the president, vice president and House speaker should probably not be in the same place at the same time (other than the White House) unless there is a very compelling reason. It is just too risky. A dinner for reporters is not a compelling reason. Maybe the State of the Union address is a compelling reason. Maybe not.

Third, number 7 in line is the attorney general. Suppose the first six were either dead or refused but #7 survived. Then Todd Blanche could have said: "Looks like I'm president. C'mon over Mr. Chief Justice to swear me in." But what if Rollins had said: "Whoa! You aren't AG. You are the acting AG. I am now president." Could get messy.

Clearly the succession act needs to be updated to clarify this. The obvious bug fix is to state that only a cabinet member who has been confirmed by the Senate for his or her current position is in the line of succession. Nonconfirmation wouldn't be the only reason a cabinet officer is skipped. A 32-year-old secretary cannot be president, nor can one who was not native born. For example, Alejandro Mayorkas, who was Secretary of Homeland Security in the Biden administration, was born in Cuba. Elaine Chao and Carlos Gutierrez are other recent cabinet officers who are not native-born and thus ineligible to succeed to the presidency.

Another potential way out if Grassley became president and didn't think he was up to the job would have been for him to accept and be sworn in. Then, his first act could have been to nominate a much younger vice president. As soon as that person was confirmed by both chambers of Congress, Grassley could resign and let the new president pick his or her own veep. (V)

Another Comey Is in the News

Yesterday, we had an item about how the DoJ is going after James Comey again. Turns out he is not the only Comey in the news. His daughter, Maurene Comey, is also in the news. And it opens a big can of worms.

In places like Russia, if Dear Leader doesn't like someone, it is not uncommon that not only is that person punished, but so is his family. Maybe Vladimir Putin gave Donald Trump a tip about that last time they met. Maurene was a graduate of the Harvard Law School and a federal prosecutor at SDNY, and a very good one at that. She handled over 100 cases, many of them high profile, and had an excellent track record. She was one of the stars at SDNY. On July 16, 2025, Trump had her fired, citing Art. II of the Constitution, which gives him the power to fire people he doesn't like and if they are not available, then their kids. Not surprisingly, Maurene sued the government.

Normally government labor disputes go to the Merit Systems Protection Board, but that agency is completely swamped because Trump has refused to fully staff it—to make it effectively impossible for government employees illegally fired to appeal their firing. However, Comey is an experienced lawyer and understands this stuff. Her suit said that because the letter that fired her cited the president's Art. II powers, she didn't have to go to the MSPB, but could go directly to federal court.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Jesse Furman, a Barack Obama appointee, ruled that Comey was right and because Trump had her fired based on his Art. II powers, Comey could seek redress in federal court. Comey was thrilled with his decision. This gives her the opportunity to make a separation-of-powers argument in court. She will claim that Congress passed a law saying that the president may not fire civil servants, like herself, on a whim so Trump has no authority to fire anyone other than political appointees subject to Senate confirmation. If she wins, large numbers of civil servants Trump has fired will immediately file federal lawsuits.

Furman's decision isn't the first one on this subject. Early in Trump v2.0, Trump fired the CFO of FEMA, Mary Comans. She also sued and 2 weeks ago, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff in Virginia made a similar ruling.

Hundreds, maybe thousands, of former government employees are likely to sue in federal court now. In the end, The Supreme Court is going to have to decide if the 1883 Pendleton Act, which created the civil service, is constitutional. The government is going to argue that the law is unconstitutional because Congress has no authority to tell the president he can't fire any government employee for any reason, or no reason, just because he got out of bed in the morning in a bad mood. If Trump wins, we go back to Andrew Jackson and the spoils system, in which a new president could fire every government employee on Day 1 and put in his own people.A merit-based civil service would then vanish in the blink of an eye.

Needless to say, Trump does not think (or care about) long-term consequences. If the Court gives the president unlimited power to fire civil servants just because he wants to, Democrats are going to start making lists of civil servants they want fired on Day 1 if a Democrat is elected president in 2028. Of course, a mass-firing of every civil servant Trump appointed, and every agency head he appointed, would make Republicans furious. Maybe even so angry that they would support a constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to protect certain government employees and create federal agencies that are independent of the president. Be careful what you wish for, and all that. (V)

Florida Legislature Passes Even More Gerrymandered Map

Yesterday, Florida legislators approved a new congressional map that might give Republicans four more House seats. This one is a little bit tricky because the Florida Constitution specifically bans partisan gerrymanders and it is tough to make a case that this one is not a partisan gerrymander. The problem is that Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) said the purpose of the map was to elect more Republicans. If the Florida Supreme Court makes an unusual decision to follow the state Constitution and not just do what the governor wants, Florida will almost certainly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. That Court has viewed partisan gerrymanders as perfectly all right if that is what the people's representatives want.

The courts need to move fast because candidates need to know what the map looks like so they can decide where to file. The primaries are in August, but absentee ballots go out weeks in advance. There is no time to waste.

If the new map holds, Republicans will probably get 24 of the 28 U.S. House seats in Florida (86%). In the 2024 election, Republicans got 58% of the statewide vote for U.S. House seats. If the Supreme Court upholds that, we may get another round the gerrymandering next year. The end game here is to make the House like the electoral college: Whenever a party controls the trifecta in a state, it gets all the House seats, the people be damned. That is not exactly what James Madison and friends had in mind.

However, in an extreme blue wave, it is possible that some of the districts have been diluted so much that long-time incumbents in not-quite-so-red-anymore districts could get swept away. But it would take a very big wave for that to happen. As noted above, Democrats lead in the generic poll by 10 points. If that holds, that would be big enough to turn the map into a dummymander. (V)

Progressive Democrats Unveil Their Affordability Agenda

Yesterday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus got its act together and released what it is calling a New Affordability Agenda. It includes 10 new bills that relate to the cost of living. If sold right, it could be as powerful as Newt Gingrich's Contract with America in 1994, which flipped 54 seats from blue to red.

Here are summaries of the 10 bills:

1. Establish a government program to sell generic drugs at a discount.
2. Crack down on for-profit utilities overcharging consumers.
3. Make gas cheaper by imposing a windfall-profits tax on oil companies and rebate the money.
4. Make child care cheaper by limiting it to no more than 7% of a family's income.
5. Build millions of new homes to bring prices down and offer first-time buyers a $20,000 credit.
6. Crack down on grocery stores that fix prices and companies that abuse seed patents.
7. Ban dynamic pricing where companies use AI and personal data to set individual prices.
8. Require companies to pay double time (not time and a half) for overtime.
9. Abolish super PACs so billionaires can't buy elections anymore.
10. Guarantee every worker 2 weeks of paid vacation

Some of these babies will cost money and that will be obtained by raising taxes on the wealthy. The last two don't exactly cut costs or raise wages, but are widely popular, so they got thrown in.

Most of these items poll well with a majority of voters. If most of the Democratic Party gets behind the list, it could have a big effect. Of course, getting all the noses pointed in the same direction won't be simple, but it would give many Democrats around the country something to run on and it would get a lot of publicity. (V)

MAHA Moms Are Furious

Robert Kennedy Jr.'s MAHA movement is becoming a political force, just not entirely the way the administration wants. In particular, MAHA moms are very angry about how the administration has handled glyphosate, the ingredient in the popular weed killer Roundup. Studies have shown that glyphosate causes cancer. Thousands of people exposed to Roundup have gotten non-Hodgkins lymphoma and have filed lawsuits against Roundup maker Monsanto, now a division of German chemical giant Bayer.

At issue is Donald Trump's February XO that would boost the production of glyphosate. This pits farmers (who love Roundup) against MAHA moms (who hate it).

The issue came to a head on Monday when the Supreme Court heard Monsanto v. Durnell, which has Monsanto facing off against John Durnell, a cancer survivor. He asserted that Monsanto was liable for damages caused by Roundup because it failed to comply with a state law requiring it to label Roundup as carcinogenic. The case is fairly technical, hinging on whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state laws requiring label warnings. In 2005, in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, the Supreme Court held that states can impose "requirements" on companies as long as they are functionally the same as FIFRA's misbranding standard.

The MAHA moms probably haven't read all of FIFRA or Bates but they don't want their babies poisoned. Many of them are following this case very closely. Hundreds of them showed up Monday outside the Supreme Court to protest against Monsanto. They are rooting for Durnell. If he wins, anyone injured by Roundup will be able to sue Monsanto or Bayer, which will put a lot of pressure on the company to at least put a warning on the label and maybe even withdraw the product from the market.

Despite the highly technical nature of FIFRA and the case, if Monsanto wins, the MAHA moms will be furious with Trump for his XO increasing production of glyphosate (to keep farmers happy). Aligning with the MAHA moms on this one would be a no-brainer for the Democrats. Here's the pitch: "Trump is poisoning babies to help a giant German chemical corporation increase its profits."

It is even more complicated than this. It is ironic is that back when Kennedy was an environmental lawyer, he was lead counsel in a 2018 court case in which a jury found Monsanto liable for a school groundskeeper getting cancer from Roundup and awarded the dying man $289 million. When Kennedy got his current job he promised to ban glyphosate, but Trump now overruled him. (V)

Trump Hates Thomas Massie--Massie Might Win Anyway

Donald Trump and most of the Kentucky Republican establishment are trying to defeat Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who is a conservative Republican but still a huge thorn in Trump's side. It is far from certain that Massie is dead meat in KY-04, which is part well-off Cincinnati suburbs and part rural. He is a big supporter of the Second Amendment, has fought to ease meat processing requirements, which would benefit farmers in his district, and is well known for trying to get the Epstein files out there, which is popular among the MAGA base. He also opposes the war in Iran, which aligns well with his constituents' wishes. Massie knows his district well and is constantly barnstorming, so many voters know him personally.

Trump is supporting combat veteran and dairy farmer Ed Gallrein, who has never run for public office before and is not well known in the district. Still, national Republicans have poured vastly more money into Gallrein's campaign than a Republican primary in an R+18 district would justify on political grounds. Why waste money on a primary when the GOP can't possibly lose the seat no matter who wins the primary?

Despite Trump throwing everything he has at Massie, it might not work. A Quantus Insights poll from early April shows Massie with a 9-point lead over Gallrein. Half the voters want an independent-minded representative vs. 37% who want anyone who will support Trump. And how Trumpy is Gallrein, really? In 2016, just after Trump won the nomination, Gallrein changed his party registration from Republican to independent, in protest. That has come up a couple of times. The primary is May 19. (V)

Pelosi Endorses Kennedy

NY-12 isn't just any old district. It is the district Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) has represented since 1992. It is the smallest district in the country, covering Manhattan from about 18th St. to 98th St. It is D+33 and extremely powerful and wealthy, with a median household income of $153,000. Now that Nadler is tossing in his cashmere towel, the Democratic primary is one of the hottest tickets in town.

Ten Democrats and five Republicans have filed to run. We understand why there are 10 Democrats in a D+33 district. We do not understand why there are any Republicans, but what do we know? The filing deadline has passed, so that's it. Most of the attention is focused on three Democrats. Assemblyman Micah Lasher was a staffer for Nadler, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY), and former mayor Michael Bloomberg. That kind of makes him the establishment candidate, no? Well, maybe not. Another candidate is Jack Schlossberg (formally John Bouvier Kennedy Schlossberg), a writer who happens to be the son of Caroline Kennedy and JFK's grandson. You don't get much more establishment than that. He was born in the district and went to school there until he headed off to Yale, where he editor-in-chief of The Yale Herald. Then he got a law degree from Harvard and passed the New York State bar exam in 2023. He lives in Chelsea.

His campaign is about what you would expect from a Kennedy. He wants to make housing affordable, protect health care, defend civil rights, and root out corruption in government. He is not a big fan of Donald Trump. One person who is a fan of his is Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who cut this ad for him:

The hyper-educated people who live on the Upper East Side and the Upper West Side are well aware of who Grandpa Jack was and who Speaker Emerita Nancy is. The candidate's CV's is not as long as Lasher's and maybe he doesn't know as much about the nuts and bolts of government as Lasher, but if he gets elected and has any questions, he knows who to ask. If he wins, speculation will immediately start about what office he will next run for and when. He is too big for a mere House seat, even one this wealthy and prestigious.

Also running is George Conway. Yeah, THAT George Conway. Kellyanne's ex. As a Democrat. George is splashy, but he is a lifelong conservative Republican in the (tied for) ninth most Democratic district in the country. Although Conway hates Donald Trump with the heat of 1,000 suns and has miles and miles of videotape proving it, Schlossberg hates Trump just as much, descends from at least four generations of Democrats, and is the grandson of a beloved president. For many Democrats, restoring the Kennedy legacy could be more important than having a technically very competent but otherwise generic Democrat represent them in the House.

A recent poll has Schlossberg at 25% of likely voters, Conway at 16%, and Lasher and state Assemblyman Alex Bores who wants a promotion tied at 11%. (V)

Fourth Republican Representative from Florida Is Retiring

Another representative is calling it quits. Daniel Webster (R-FL) has been in the House for 14 years and knows that being in the House minority is no fun at all. He was speaker of the Florida House before being elected to Congress. His biggest achievement in the Florida House was sponsoring a bill that would create "covenant marriage" in Florida, which would make divorce nearly impossible.

As you can see on our retirements page, 22 Democrats and 37 Republicans are retiring. This brings to mind something about rodents and seagoing vessels. Webster has 24 grandchildren, so he can spend his retirement buying birthday presents for them.

The district was R+8 before Florida's supermander yesterday. Charlie Cook hasn't rescored it yet, but this is the kind of district that may have lost some Republicans in order to stuff them into some previously blue district. (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger