Elections

Presidential candidate Ivan Cepeda accepted the victory of his opponent Abelardo de la Espriella.

Bogota, Colombia – Colombian presidential candidate Ivan Cepeda officially conceded defeat to hard-right populist Abelardo de la Espriella this morning following a tight run-off race.

While Cepeda had recognised the legitimacy of the preliminary results on Sunday, which gave de la Espriella a less than 1 percent lead, he said he would wait for the final, legally binding vote count, known as the scrutiny, before accepting defeat.

“I have decided to accept the result of this process, which indicates that Abelardo de la Espriella is the new president of the Republic,” said Cepeda in a livestreamed address on Wednesday.

While the voting verification process has not been fully completed, the National Registry, which oversees the elections, said yesterday that Sunday’s preliminary vote count was “99.997 percent” accurate after revision by judges at the municipal level. The vote must now be verified at the departmental and national levels.

There had been doubts among the Cepeda camp about the legitimacy of the vote process, with President Gustavo Petro – who was closely involved in the leftist candidate’s campaign – openly alleging fraud and foreign interference before and after the election.

“Electoral manipulation has been proven; I cannot say for certain that what has been uncovered guarantees an electoral victory [for Cepeda], but it is a fact,” wrote Petro on Monday.

For months, the president has warned about vulnerabilities in vote-counting software and clashed with the National Registry.

The president’s mistrust is largely based on the 2022 legislative election, in which his Historic Pact coalition recouped roughly half a million votes following the scrutinised vote count.

The recent memory of that vote led Petro and many Cepedistas (supporters of Cepeda) to believe that the roughly 250,000-vote margin between Cepeda and de la Espriella on Sunday could be overturned.

But the National Registry recorded high accuracy in both the preliminary count for March’s legislative election and the first round of the presidential race on May 31.

Petro also said that Washington’s interference in the election undermined the final result because President Donald Trump had endorsed Abelardo, breaking with tradition.

“President Donald Trump’s direct intervention nullifies the elections in Colombia,” wrote Petro in an X post yesterday.

But Cepeda’s concession appears to put distance between him and the president, who founded the Historic Pact movement.

“This suggests some sort of schism between Petro and Cepeda. While Petro’s term is sunsetting, Cepeda will likely become the leader of the opposition,” said Sergio Guzman, director of political risk consultancy Colombia Risk Analysis.

Cepeda, who is now expected to lead the Historic Pact party in the Senate, struck a conciliatory tone in his speech this morning: “I am doing this as an act of democratic responsibility, to contribute to harmony, peace and dialogue among Colombians.”

Colombia’s outgoing leftist president, Gustavo Petro, has alleged electoral fraud after preliminary results from a presidential run-off saw his handpicked candidate lose by a small margin.

In a barrage of posts on the social media site X on Monday, Petro alleged that the opposition bought votes and Israel and the United States interfered to help opposition far-right candidate Abelardo de la Espriella win.

Petro has refused to recognise the results and has called for an investigation by the judiciary.

The president, who was barred by the constitution from running for a second term, was Colombia’s first leftist president, putting him at odds with the US.

His administration is praised for reforms that boosted social spending, raised the minimum wage and redistributed land to poorer families. Petro also cut ties with Israel over Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and distanced himself from US President Donald Trump’s administration.

However, critics said his refusal to accept the election results risks inflaming political tensions – and violence. Here’s what we know:

What are the election results?

The first round of the presidential election was held on May 31. Neither of the two leading candidates – Abelardo de la Espriella of the right-wing Defenders of the Homeland movement and Senator Ivan Cepeda of the ruling Historic Pact – secured at least 50 percent of the vote, leading to a run-off on Sunday.

De la Espriella narrowly won with 49.66 percent over Cepeda’s 48.7 percent, according to preliminary results released on Monday by the National Registry, which manages vote numbers.

The razor-thin difference amounts to less than 1 percent of the vote and represents one of Colombia’s closest elections.

Trump-backed de la Espriella, 47, is to take office on August 7. The criminal lawyer is a multimillionaire who campaigned on tougher security and anti-leftist policies. He also has US citizenship.

De la Espriella’s win is part of a recent trend of Latin American countries electing far-right, populist leaders who are pro-Trump. Argentina’s Javier Milei, Honduras’s Nasry “Tito” Asfura, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele and Costa Rica’s Laura Fernandez Delgado all have close ties to the Trump administration.

Why is Petro alleging fraud?

Petro took to X to denounce in a series of posts what he said was voter fraud committed with the help of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Petro said there was evidence of manipulation of Form E-14, the official, handwritten tally of sheets filled out by poll workers at each voting station.

The form is a physical record of the vote count and is meant to prevent electoral fraud. It is filled out by hand, and digital scans are also uploaded to the National Registry’s portal for public auditing. If found to have errors, parties may request a recount.

Petro alleged that foreign actors accessed the National Registry’s website and rewrote voting data on some E-14 forms.

“Today we have evidence of a change in IP addresses of several servers of the national registry,” he posted.

“This means that the software was compromised and others wrote data for polling stations and voting posts. The only entity in the world capable of doing that is the state of Israel,” Petro added without providing evidence of Israel’s alleged involvement.

Petro said his party had requested a “technical audit” of the voting software before the elections and asked authorities to retrieve the digital footprints of all digitally transmitted documents to avoid modification. He claimed those requests were ignored.

The outgoing president shared videos of what he alleged captured the “premeditated” modification of E-14 forms. He also claimed the manipulation was done “from the offices of the Bautista brothers”.

Who are the Bautista brothers?

Petro was referring to Thomas Greg & Sons, an influential private logistics and security printing firm that runs Colombia’s electoral infrastructure. Until recently, it also printed Colombian passports.

It is run by brothers Fernando and Camilo Bautista Palacio. The duo was convicted of bank fraud in the US in the 1980s.

Thomas Greg & Sons, which was founded by their father, Gregorio, has been contracted by the National Registry for more than a decade to manage election logistics, preliminary vote counting and vote-tallying software.

Petro in April accused the Bautista brothers of negotiating a deal with de la Espriella that would see them secure the presidency for the far-right candidate in return for clinching passport printing contracts once more.

At the time, de la Espriella refuted the claims, and his lawyers threatened Petro with a lawsuit.

What are authorities saying?

Attorney General Gregorio Eljach has dismissed the allegations and told reporters there is “no evidence of fraud” with more than 99 percent of the votes counted.

De la Espriella, meanwhile, has so far not responded directly to Petro.

Is de la Espriella linked with Israel?

Yes, de la Espriella has consistently voiced support for Israel and campaigned in Colombia’s Jewish community, making pro-Israel promises and saying his government would “defend Judeo-Christian principles”.

He pledged to reverse Petro’s 2024 decision to cut ties with Israel and has promised to relocate the Colombian embassy to Jerusalem.

Netanyahu congratulated de la Espriella on Monday, saying: “I look forward to working with you to strengthen the bond between Israel and Colombia.”

How has the US reacted?

In his posts, Petro also blamed Trump for interfering in the elections by publicly endorsing a candidate and thus swaying voters.

Trump endorsed de la Espriella on his Truth Social platform weeks before the run-off.

Trump and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also congratulated de la Espriella on his preliminary win, and Trump took credit for the far-right candidate’s victory.

“He was in 10th place. I endorsed him, and he won the election. He called me last night and thanked me for the endorsement,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday.

Rubio wrote on X: “The Trump administration looks forward to working closely with your incoming administration to advance regional security cooperation, end illegal immigration to the United States, and strengthen our economic ties.”

Petro has invited Trump to make a statement on the electoral fraud allegations.

“I formally invite President Donald Trump to speak,” Petro wrote, adding that the US president bears responsibility for “having supported a candidate and not the freedom of the Colombian people”.

What is the US-Colombian relationship like?

Although both countries have close trade ties, diplomatic relations have often been strained over drug trafficking policies and relations with Israel, among other issues.

But relations essentially collapsed under the Trump and Petro administrations.

Petro in January last year refused to allow US migrant deportation planes to land in his country and said on X that the US “cannot treat Colombian migrants like criminals”.

In October, the US sanctioned Petro, his family and key officials in his government based on unproven allegations of involvement in the drug trade.

In January this year, the US military abducted leftist Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from his Caracas home after the Trump administration accused him of “narcoterrorism”.

Caracas, June 19, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez held a meeting on Thursday with a US-picked opposition figure to launch a new political dialogue process.

In a statement, Rodríguez, who is also the Venezuelan government’s lead negotiator, disclosed talks with “the representative of the opposition lawmakers from the 2015-2020 period,” Dinorah Figuera, to launch “a joint technical and political working group” with “an agenda containing concrete milestones and timelines” aimed at “strengthening democracy.”

In a separate statement, the expired opposition-controlled 2015 National Assembly explained that the central objective of the process is “the construction of a shared vision for the future.” The communiqué claimed that the dialogue aims to establish a “roadmap for the construction of a democratic scenario” in the country. 

Figuera also met with US Chargé d’Affaires John Barrett in Caracas on Thursday.

For its part, the US State Department welcomed the meeting, describing it as the “first step” toward “a free Venezuela.” The Trump administration has insisted on a “three-phase process” for the Caribbean nation which culminates with a political “transition.”

According to Washington, the proposed agenda includes priorities such as rebuilding democratic institutions, strengthening the National Electoral Council (CNE), restoring guarantees for political participation, and protecting the civil liberties necessary for an open political debate.

“The cornerstone of any transition is inclusive dialogue. We hope that conversations between Venezuelan political parties and the interim government in Caracas continue in the coming weeks so that this work can begin,” stated Thomas Pigott, spokesperson for US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Upon arriving at the airport on Thursday, Figuera told reporters that she had traveled to Venezuela at the invitation of the US State Department, with her tasks including the establishment of a “credible” electoral council. She added that her work intends to benefit all political forces while avoiding questions about whether the initiative had been coordinated with far-right leader María Corina Machado.

Figuera was among the lawmakers elected when the opposition won a parliamentary majority in December 2015. Anti-government parties attempted to use the National Assembly to overthrow the Nicolás Maduro government and pushed several laws that were struck down as unconstitutional. It was eventually sidelined after being declared in contempt by the Supreme Court, with the South American country’s legislation taken over by a government-supporting National Constituent Assembly. The ruling United Socialist Party (PSUV) retook control of the legislature in the 2020 and 2025 elections that were boycotted by many opposition sectors.

Though the 2015 National Assembly’s term expired in January 2021, it unilaterally renewed its own mandate for successive one-year periods. The defunct parliament retained US recognition as Venezuela’s legitimate authority, which allowed it to manage Venezuelan assets abroad. Washington’s backing ended in March when Trump recognized Acting President Delcy Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “sole leader.”

Figuera, who has lived in Spain since 2018, took over as president of the opposition-controlled body in January 2023 following the dissolution of the self-proclaimed “interim government” led by Juan Guaidó.

At the time, Venezuelan judicial authorities denounced Figuera’s role in an “illegitimate” parliament that aimed to “plunder Venezuelan assets abroad” and issued an arrest warrant and an Interpol red alert. While several opposition figures have benefited from an amnesty law approved by the present National Assembly in February, it is not known whether Figuera was among those whose legal cases were dropped.

Figuera’s return to Caracas also comes just weeks after the Unitary Platform—the coalition that groups the country’s main opposition parties—agreed during a meeting in Panama that far-right María Corina Machado would “lead negotiations with Chavismo to call elections” and eventually run as a presidential candidate.

Machado and the Unitary Platform have yet to comment on Figuera’s talks with the acting Delcy Rodríguez government, having previously demanded elections within a 40-week timeframe.

Since the January 3 strikes and kidnapping of Maduro, the Trump administration has wielded a strong influence over Venezuelan affairs. US officials have openly participated in legislative initiatives to open the Caribbean nation’s energy and mining sectors to Western companies while also accompanying corporate executives on trips to discuss business opportunities.

US forces likewise conducted an extrajudicial execution in Venezuelan territory earlier this month, with Caracas calling it a “joint operation” against organized crime.

Despite the diplomatic rapprochement and catering to US investment, Venezuelan authorities had previously brushed aside talk of early presidential elections. Maduro’s term, currently held by Delcy Rodríguez in an acting capacity, ends in January 2031. In a February interview with US conservative outlet Newsmax, parliamentary leader Jorge Rodríguez stated that no elections were expected in the short term because the priority was achieving economic stability.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

WASHINGTON — The relationship between President Trump and Senate Republicans neared a breaking point this week as he upended their efforts to speedily confirm one of his own nominees and said he would not sign the renewal of a key surveillance law unless they agree to new terms.

Trump’s overnight social media post Wednesday that he was delaying Jay Clayton’s nomination to become national intelligence director, just hours before the U.S. attorney’s confirmation hearing, further strained relations between the Senate and White House that have been worsening for weeks. Later that day, some Republican senators who have been hesitant to challenge the president directly on the Iran war were blunt in their criticism of his deal to end it.

“This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said in a post on X.

The open tensions are an almost complete reversal from a year ago when Senate Republicans worked closely with Trump on a complicated effort to push through his massive package of spending and tax cuts.

At the time, criticism of the president was almost nonexistent among Republicans on Capitol Hill, and they planned to highlight passage of that bill in the midterms. But as the November election draws closer and Republicans are trying to defend their majorities, Trump is instead needling Congress with his demands and reversals, driving several Republican senators to disparage his actions publicly for the first time.

“I think somebody’s not dialing the president into the complexities of what he’s done here,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said Wednesday after Clayton’s confirmation was postponed. “I mean, my God.”

The slow unraveling of what once seemed like an airtight alliance between the executive and legislative branches in a Republican-led Washington extends to their policy priorities.

Trump appears to have lost interest in most of the GOP agenda and has become almost singularly focused on his voting legislation to require proof of citizenship, which has almost no chance of passing. At the same time, he has asked members of Congress to fund parts of his White House ballroom project, allow a temporary intelligence director that none of them likes and cede their powers on the Iran war.

The growing rift has brought much of the Senate’s business to a halt and put Republicans who are up for reelection this year on the defensive. It has also put pressure on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who has been upfront with Trump about what he can and cannot do in the Senate.

Trump pressures Thune on voting bill

Trump has pressured Thune (R-S.D.) relentlessly to scrap the filibuster and pass the strict proof-of-citizenship legislation, called the SAVE America Act. Thune has told Trump publicly and privately that the votes are not there for either step. Still, Trump has kept up the push.

In a social media post Thursday, Trump said he would be “the last Republican president” if the voting bill does not pass.

“Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and the Republican Senate, must not let this ‘carnage’ happen,” Trump said. “They will go down on the wrong side of History, as will all Republicans who just stood by and watched.”

Nonetheless, Trump has yet to go after the well-liked Republican leader on a personal basis, as he often did with Thune’s predecessor, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Trump once called McConnell a “ dour, sullen, and unsmiling political hack.”

Trump and Thune talk frequently, even as Thune is sometimes giving the president news he does not want to hear. As Trump pushed for the voting bill, Thune scheduled weeks of floor time to consider it, an effort to make clear that the Senate was supportive, even if the votes are lacking.

Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt, one of the president’s closest allies in the Senate, said he has never heard Trump say anything negative about Thune.

“It’s a difficult position,” Schmitt said of Thune’s role in the Senate. “I think they have a good working relationship.”

One of Thune’s closest allies, Republican Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, said the even-keeled leader is the “right person at the right time.”

“In the Capitol today, he is the stable force,” Rounds said. “In Washington, D.C., today, he is the stable force.”

No signs of revolt among Senate GOP

There were no signs of a revolt within the GOP conference, for now, despite Trump’s pressure.

Thune “has managed it better than anyone else could manage it,” said Cassidy, who has become a more frequent Trump critic since a primary loss to a Trump-backed challenger.

Criticism of Trump has at times surfaced even among his closest Senate allies, especially with his proposed $1.776-billion settlement fund for his political allies and his pick for acting intelligence director, Bill Pulte, who has no known intelligence experience.

But the rift with Trump has also stoked some new internal tensions.

Several Republican senators criticized Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who has waged an online campaign to eliminate the filibuster and pass the SAVE America Act, in a private conference lunch this week for stoking dissension within the party in an election year.

Unbowed, Lee has kept up his social media campaign, including a post Friday on X in which he said that giving up because Republicans lack the votes is a “recipe for failure.”

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, one of those who spoke out at the meeting, replied that it is Lee’s job to find the votes, “if you can.”

“Can’t just complain about others,” Cornyn posted. “Prove us wrong.”

Trump’s dwindling number of allies

Some Senate Republicans have made clear they have no plans to separate themselves from Trump.

As several of his colleagues criticized Trump’s agreement with Iran this week, first-term Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) aggressively defended it on social media.

“Let’s get the Nobel Peace Prize ready!” Moreno posted on X.

But Trump has far fewer of those Senate allies than he did when they narrowly passed the tax and spending cuts legislation a year ago. That is in part because he has picked off some of the most loyal Republican votes himself.

Cassidy and Cornyn lost in primaries last month after Trump endorsed their opponents. Tillis announced he was not running for reelection last year after Trump repeatedly criticized him on social media.

Now all three have become frequent critics.

Shortly after his election loss, Cornyn posted on social media a fable about a frog and a scorpion. The scorpion asks the frog to carry it across a river, according to the fable, and then stings the frog in the middle of the river, “dooming them both.”

“The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung despite knowing the consequence,” Cornyn’s post read. “To which the scorpion replies: ‘I am sorry, but I couldn’t help myself. It’s my character.’ ”

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press.

Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has cruised to victory in a high-stakes by-election in northern England, paving the way for him to challenge Prime Minister Keir Starmer for the leadership of the Labour Party and the United Kingdom.

Burnham handily defeated his closest challenger, Robert Kenyon, the candidate for the anti-immigration Reform UK, in the seat of Makerfield, vote results showed early on Friday, securing the House of Commons seat he needs to mount a bid for the prime ministership.

Burnham won 24,927 votes, beating Kenyon by more than 9,000 votes.

Rebecca Shepherd of Restore Britain was a distant third, trailed by Michael Winstanley of the Conservative Party, Sarah Wakefield of the Green Party, and the Liberal Democrats’ Jake Austin.

“Everyone knows that politics is not working,” Burnham said in his victory speech.

“Everyone can feel that the country isn’t where it should be. Tonight could – just could – be the turning point. From here on, I will give everything that I have got to make it so, to ensure the name Makerfield is forever synonymous with bringing about the change this country needs.”

Burnham’s victory is likely to either precipitate Starmer’s resignation or set off a leadership contest pitting the prime minister against the outgoing mayor and Wes Streeting, the former health secretary.

Under the UK’s political system, MPs can choose a new prime minister without holding a general election.

Burnham is widely considered a strong favourite to become the next prime minister if he challenges Starmer.

In an Ipsos poll published earlier this week, Burnham was chosen by 25 percent of British adults as the preferred prime minister, compared with 12 percent for Starmer.

If he does succeed Starmer, Burnham, who was the early favourite in the 2015 Labour leadership race before coming second to Jeremy Corbyn, would be the UK’s seventh prime minister since the country voted for Brexit in 2016.

After leading Labour to a thumping election victory in 2024, Starmer has been under mounting pressure to step down amid widespread public dissatisfaction with his leadership.

Calls for his resignation within Labour have mounted since the party suffered crushing losses in local and regional elections in May.

Twenty ministers have resigned from Starmer’s government in less than two years, nearly half of whom expressed a loss of confidence in his leadership or clashed with him on policy, including Streeting.

Starmer has rebuffed calls to resign, pledging to fight any challenge to his leadership and insisting that such a contest would be a “bad thing for the country”.

Burnham – dubbed the “king of the north” for his grassroots appeal across northern England and his willingness to challenge Westminster – ran on the promise to “change Labour” to “change politics and change the country”.

As mayor of Greater Manchester, Burnham built an avid following across the UK’s less developed northern regions by channelling populist themes about elite apathy and industrial decline.

First elected mayor in 2017, and re-elected in 2021 and 2024, he has criticised the UK’s political system as “too London-centric” and taken aim at neoliberal economic policies and trickle-down economics that did not “trickle down very much at all”.

In his victory speech, Burnham said that Makerfield would be the “touchstone” for his politics.

“A Makerfield test at the heart of British politics will ensure that the places Westminster has neglected will now get fairness,” he said.

Burnham, who served in several ministerial portfolios under former Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, had been the narrow favourite in the race, holding a five-point lead over Kenyon in an opinion poll released on Saturday by pollster Opinium.

Labour’s Josh Simons, who previously held the seat of Makerfield, triggered the by-election last month by resigning his seat to allow Burnham to challenge Starmer.

About 75,000 people were entitled to vote in the constituency, which is located about 320km (200 miles) northwest of London.

Turnout was 58.75 percent, up from 52.4 percent at the 2024 general election.

Harare, Zimbabwe – Zimbabwean lawmakers have approved a bill that would replace direct presidential elections with a vote by parliament, a proposal that supporters say would promote policy continuity but that opponents fear could weaken democratic accountability and further entrench the ruling party’s grip on power.

“I just cannot believe that these are the people who want to elect a president on behalf of everyone,” Barnabas Gura, a 38-year-old from Harare’s Glen View suburb, told Al Jazeera.

“Only 210 members of parliament vote on behalf of a population of 15 million. It is preposterous.”

On Thursday, Constitutional Amendment Bill No 3 passed the National Assembly after 216 lawmakers voted in favour and 42 against. The bill now moves to the Senate, where it is also expected to secure the two-thirds majority required for constitutional amendments.

The bill seeks to amend Zimbabwe’s 2013 Constitution by replacing the direct election of the president with election by a joint sitting of the Senate and National Assembly.

Justice Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi, the bill’s sponsor, has rejected criticism that the proposed changes would undermine Zimbabwe’s constitutional order.

Speaking in parliament on June 3, Ziyambi said the bill was “not an abandonment of our constitutional order in any way, shape or form but a continuation of it”.

“It is a product of practical and experience of institutional reflection and of honesty that after more than a decade of implementation of certain provisions of the constitution requires refinement to enhance their functionality, coherence and their service to national progress,” he told lawmakers.

Ziyambi said there was considerable misinformation surrounding the bill, particularly on social media.

“This bill does not give the president a term extension or a third term. It does not take away the right to vote. It does not postpone elections. It does not concentrate power or the running of elections in the hands of the president,” he said.

Opponents, however, dispute that interpretation and argue the proposed changes would strengthen President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s influence over the political system and could pave the way for him to remain in office beyond the end of his constitutional term in 2028.

Bill threatens democracy

Supporters of the bill, including lawmakers from the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union–Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) and the opposition Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC), say the changes would promote long-term policy continuity and give Mnangagwa more time to complete his development agenda.

Gura is unconvinced.

He said two more years would not improve the lives of Zimbabweans struggling with poverty.

“Mnangagwa has failed for the past eight years. Only a few who are close to the ruling class are benefiting. More time will not make any difference,” he said.

ZANU-PF has been in power since Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980. Mnangagwa came to power in November 2017 after former President Robert Mugabe was removed from office following a military intervention.

Under the current constitution, Mnangagwa is due to leave office in 2028.

Pride Mkono, a social justice activist and human rights defender, said the proposed amendment would further entrench ZANU-PF’s dominance.

“Since independence, the ZANU-PF party has dominated politics until 2000, when it was challenged by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. However, the opposition is now comatose and lacks capacity to challenge it,” Mkono told Al Jazeera.

“So, we will effectively enter a one-party state, but one dominated by a cartel of individuals.”

He said the objective of the proposed changes was not to improve the lives of ordinary people.

“It means a continuation of economic and social services collapse and mass impoverishment of the masses,” Mkono said.

Obert Masaraure, a human rights defender and president of the Amalgamated Rural Teachers’ Union of Zimbabwe (ARTUZ), said the amendment would severely weaken the country’s fragile democracy.

“Power will be usurped from the people, and the executive acting in concert with the elites will freely loot national resources, exploit workers, destroy the environment and dehumanise our people without any restraint,” Masaraure told Al Jazeera.

Young people such as Gura say they have little reason to believe extending Mnangagwa’s tenure would improve their prospects.

He argues that removing direct presidential elections would strip citizens of one of the few mechanisms available to hold leaders accountable.

“This is a direct attack on accountability and transparency,” he said, adding that ZANU-PF had promised jobs ahead of the 2018 elections but failed to deliver.

Masaraure drew parallels with the colonial era.

“If you can not vote, you can not hold anyone accountable,” he said.

Violence and intimidation

A parliamentary committee report tabled in the National Assembly earlier this month said 99.4 percent of submissions received during nationwide consultations supported the proposed changes.

But the consultation process was marred by allegations of intimidation and violence.

Activists and rights groups say suspected state security agents abducted and tortured several opponents of the bill.

In Chiredzi, suspected ZANU-PF youths assaulted activist Gilbert Mutebuki after preventing him from speaking against the bill during a public hearing in late March.

Gura said he was also denied an opportunity to speak, along with other citizens opposed to the proposal.

Rawlings Magede, senior programme lead at Heal Zimbabwe Trust, disputed the parliamentary committee’s findings.

“It is not true that most people are in support of the bill. Those supporting it are only a few who think that by supporting the bill, they will get some rewards. People are desperate for gifts,” Magede told Al Jazeera.

He said the reported level of support was misleading and did not reflect the views of many Zimbabweans.

ZANU-PF controls parliament

The ruling party controls both the National Assembly and the Senate.

Its parliamentary dominance grew after the 2023 elections, when Senator Sengezo Tshabangu recalled a number of CCC legislators, strengthening ZANU-PF’s position in parliament.

Critics say many opposition lawmakers who remained in parliament are politically vulnerable because of Tshabangu’s influence.

The opposition remains fragmented and has struggled to mount a coordinated challenge to the ruling party.

Mkono said that although ZANU-PF enjoys a two-thirds majority in parliament, passage of the bill was never really in doubt.

To prevent individual lawmakers from voting independently, he said, the party wanted an open vote by show of hands.

“This is subtle intimidation and closes all avenues for genuine expression of MPs’ views. It is as archaic as it is diabolic,” he said.

Wicknell Chivayo, a controversial businessman and ally of Mnangagwa, has faced accusations from critics of attempting to influence lawmakers through gifts of cash and vehicles.

In April, he offered legislators $3.6m if they passed the bill before withdrawing the offer following public criticism, including from some ZANU-PF youths.

During debate on the bill, Chivayo gave vehicles and cash to MPs Remigious Matangira and Samantha Mureyani after they spoke in support of it in the National Assembly. Critics have described such gifts as inducements intended to influence support for the bill.

Tatenda Chikumbu, from Kambuzuma, another densely populated suburb of Harare, said he has little faith in lawmakers.

“If they can be bribed and vote for the bill, how can I trust them to vote for the president once the amendment is done?” Chikumbu asked Al Jazeera.

Susan Matsunga, an opposition MP who received a vehicle from Chivayo, supported the bill during debates last week.

During voting in the National Assembly on Thursday, more than 30 opposition lawmakers voted in favour of the bill.

Courts are the last line of defence

With the bill now headed to the Senate, opponents are increasingly looking to the courts.

Mkono said legal challenges could slow the process, but argued that political mobilisation offered the strongest response.

“Social movements must be launched and all concerned Zimbabweans come together to fight this politically. That is the only viable option,” he said.

Several legal challenges are already before the courts.

Some citizens are suing their MPs for supporting the bill. Others are challenging proposals that could extend Mnangagwa’s tenure. Human rights activist Youngerson Matete has approached the High Court seeking to stop enactment of the bill without a referendum.

Many Zimbabweans, however, have lost confidence in the judiciary, which critics accuse of lacking independence. The Constitutional Court has already started dismissing some of the cases based on technicalities.

For Gura, the stakes extend beyond the next election cycle.

The proposed constitutional changes, he said, would shape the future of the country his children will inherit.

“This is a direct attack on accountability and transparency,” he said.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has warned that the United States should not interfere in his country’s upcoming presidential race, which is being held in October.

Wednesday’s remarks came after both Lula and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, attended the Group of 7 (G7) conference in Evian-les-Bains, France.

During a news conference, Lula said Trump was entitled to continue his relationship with the Bolsonaro family, whose patriarch, Jair Bolsonaro, led Brazil as president from 2019 to 2023.

“As far as I’m concerned, he can continue liking Bolsonaro, the father, the son, the grandson,” Lula said. “There is no problem with that. It’s his problem. There’s no accounting for taste.”

But Lula then proceeded to establish a firm red line: no interference in Brazil’s elections.

“Now, don’t meddle in the Brazilian elections, because the Brazilian elections are a Brazilian problem, just as American elections are their business, not mine,” Lula continued.

“All I want is the same respect for Brazil that I have for the United States. That’s it.”

A race between Lula and Bolsonaro

Lula is currently a leading contender ahead of October’s race. If the left-wing incumbent wins, it will be his fourth term as president of Brazil. He previously served from 2003 to 2011, before being re-elected to a non-consecutive third term in 2022.

But Lula’s top election rival is a member of the Bolsonaro family: Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, Jair’s eldest son. Flavio is running as the candidate for Brazil’s far-right Liberal Party.

Since returning to office for a second term, Trump has been accused of seeking to sway Latin American elections in favour of right-wing candidates.

In Argentina, he threatened to withhold economic support ahead of a key legislative election last October, and in November, he warned he might also suspend aid to Honduras if his preferred candidate did not win.

But in Brazil, questions have swirled as to whether Trump’s actions have already amounted to illegal intervention in the country’s judicial system.

Trump has made little secret of his support for the Bolsonaro family. Last year, after Jair Bolsonaro was charged with seeking to overturn his electoral defeat in 2022, Trump issued a public letter calling the trial a “witch hunt”.

“The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace,” Trump wrote. “This Trial should not be taking place.”

He proceeded to impose tariffs on certain Brazilian goods and sanctions on members of Brazil’s justice system, including Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes.

In September, Jair Bolsonaro was nevertheless sentenced to 27 years in prison for plotting an alleged coup and seeking to subvert Brazil’s democracy.

Trump calls Brazil ‘rough’

But the legal fallout has continued for the Bolsonaro family. After Jair’s third son, Eduardo Bolsonaro, lobbied the Trump administration on his father’s behalf, he was accused of orchestrating US interference in Brazil’s justice system.

Just this week, he was sentenced to four years in prison, after Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled his actions amounted to coercion. Eduardo has denied the charges and called the case a conflict of interest for Brazil’s courts.

Speaking at the G7 summit, Trump tried to address Eduardo’s sentence, though he appeared to mix the younger brother up with his older sibling, Flavio, the presidential candidate.

“ I hear they arrested somebody that’s running for office today,” Trump said. “ I heard that they arrested the Bolsonaro junior, who was doing well in the polls.”

Trump also suggested that Brazil had become “dangerous” for right-wing political views, an idea he has expressed before.

“It’s become a little rough country, right? Politically. A little dangerous, politically,” Trump said at one point.

At another, he appeared to compare the US election system to Brazil’s. “ They play pretty tough, but nobody plays tougher than the United States. Look, our elections are totally rigged. We have rigged elections,” he said.

But at Lula’s news conference, which was held separately, the Brazilian president dismissed concerns about the country’s electronic voting machines.

He called paper ballots a technology “of the last century” and offered to show Trump — a critic of electronic vote tabulation — how the machines work.

Reflecting on Trump’s assessment of Brazil, Lula also questioned the US president’s familiarity with the South American nation.

“I think he doesn’t know Brazil very well,” Lula said. “If he knows Brazil only through his relationship with the Bolsonaro family, then he doesn’t really know Brazil.”

Photo: Humberto Villalobos in February 2023, months before the last opposition primaries

While Washington’s focus seems to be shifting toward security and armed groups, Machado’s team keeps its priorities clear, looking beyond the immediate circumstances. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate keeps saying that an election will be the vehicle to channel a transition to democracy—an event where the anti-chavista movement sees itself as the clear winner. Following the 2023 and especially the 2024 elections (where the coalition successfully defended a clear victory for Edmundo González by collecting and publishing 85% of the official tally sheets), it is not far-fetched to say that this is where the Venezuelan opposition’s greatest strengths lie, even under adverse conditions.

At Caracas Chronicles, we sat down with Humberto Villalobos—Vente Venezuela’s electoral chief, who coordinated Machado’s famous defense machinery—to discuss the current gap between ideal electoral conditions and reality, now that the publication of the Panama Manifesto has opened the opposition to negotiating elections with chavismo, naming Machado as the leader (or conductora) of the process.

Machado’s team is proposing changes that, to a large extent, aim to “demolish” the electoral system as we know it. Among other measures, this involves migrating to a hybrid system that would get rid of the ExCle voting machines, (paper ballots would be counted by hand), establishing a CNE in a novel fashion, improving the Venezuelan Electoral Registry so it accurately reflects how the population is scattered both inside and abroad, and implementing a mechanism to legalize political party competition in practice.

Once a new CNE is formed and the electoral calendar is published, Villalobos says this study could contribute to the renewal of the Electoral Registry. Under the proposal, the Registry would be renewed in three months.

This is a baseline proposal that could change in a scenario where Villalobos views the US as the guarantor of an agreement: “Delcy will make proposals, we will too, and in the end, all those things will be considered to yield something reasonable.” He envisions an election that is “simpler to produce,” stripping away the obvious strategic advantages that chavismo has historically claimed for itself during elections. “Under other conditions,” Villalobos says, “none of this would even be on the table. But here they proved to us that they can pass an energy reform in 15 days. You could do something similar to make elections happen, something just as important as pumping oil.”

First: an independent citizen register

Villalobos began by describing the need to produce a rigorous study of the local and migrant populations to understand the country’s actual electoral reality. The opposition would gather information directly from the people to understand who still lives where the Electoral Registry says they do, who left the country, and how many voters would require a change in their polling station. Villalobos calls this empadronamiento: the creation of a citizen residency register. The objective, he notes, is for the majority of voters to update their addresses through a digital platform featuring biometric facial recognition (ABIS) identification mechanisms, or at registration points operated by a network of enumerators or empadronadores

Once a new CNE is established and the electoral calendar is released, this study could assist in overhauling the Electoral Registry, the current state of which Villalobos calls “disastrous.”

“While citizens are changing their voting addresses, they could also support a political party. From that, you would yield parties with validated groups of voters.” 

The digital platform and the network already exist. Vente has started the process with its own members, and all current enumerators hold positions within the party: “We originally thought of it just for Vente, and as we grew, we envisioned it as a solution for all Venezuelans.” They would only need the people’s consent to use their data. Villalobos admits that managing a database of this scale carries an enormous burden of responsibility, but the alternative would mean negotiating while relying exclusively on data managed by the chavista state, which “treats it as its own asset.”

“At the end of the day, we are the only ones ready to do it. The systems being employed are the ones we already used in the 2024 presidential election. We simply added an extra feature that allows for enrollment of this type,” Villalobos asserts. “That feature handled half of the tally sheets we transcribed. And that gives you the certainty that you can handle millions. Furthermore, the guarantee is being provided by María Corina Machado.”

Second: ad hoc CNE, Electoral Registry, and political parties

The proposal rests on the premise that the CNE’s current structure is too flawed to fix simply by appointing a new board of rectors (or “electoral commission,” as Marco Rubio has called it). They propose a new, temporary electoral authority termed ad hoc CNE, an entity created specifically to manage an electoral transition. From that point on, it would only require a new specialized company to carry out the formal overhaul of the Electoral Registry

“More than one company is already preparing its bid under the terms we are working with,” Villalobos says. “That bidding process would have to be run by the new CNE, a natural process that nobody else can handle.”

Data from the independent, citizen register “would serve as a foundation” for the state provider to shorten the process. Villalobos assures that, in this manner, the new Registry could be ready in three months. Meanwhile, political parties that have been suspended or intervened since the last decade would be legalized through groups of voters that endorse these political organizations. “While citizens are changing their voting addresses, they could also support a political party. From that, you would yield parties with validated groups of voters. That would save us a lot of time.” The concept of groups of voters (grupos de electores) exists in Venezuelan legislation, though not necessarily for these purposes. A new statute for the ad hoc CNE, Villalobos suggests, could change that.

The electoral expert noted that one additional provider would be needed to manage the calendar and the elections. Identity verification made possible by the technology first implemented in the independent citizen register would thus help the ad hoc CNE assign party representatives and witnesses.

Third: goodbye to the machines

The most ambitious part of the proposal is to discard the electronic voting system that has been in place in Venezuela throughout this century and move to a mixed system featuring manual counting and automatic transmission.

According to Villalobos, paper ballots would be counted by hand by polling station members in the presence of party representatives. Afterward, a photo and a scan of the voting tally sheet would be taken. The data of all votes would then be transmitted from the polling station to the CNE, the political parties, international institutions linked to the electoral process, universities, and media outlets.

“It works almost like a blockchain, because you will have multiple repositories of the original document, which prevents it from being altered. It isn’t a galactic development like a voting machine that does absolutely everything,” Villalobos says. “It would be a matter of scanning something, transcribing it, and sending it. That fits on a smartphone.”

Villalobos noted they will push to ensure there are no polling stations where it is impossible to deploy a witness.

He maintains that the current system operates like a “black box” where voters are forced to accept the results transmitted by the machines, which he claims can be manipulated by those managing the CNE. But didn’t the physical tally sheets printed by these machines on July 28, 2024—which proved Edmundo González won the election by a 2-to-1 margin—serve to show that the count itself wasn’t manipulated, but rather that the CNE simply fabricated results declaring Maduro the winner? Villalobos insists that the current technology failed because, regardless, opposition witnesses were unable to obtain 15% of the tally sheets. He asserts that without representatives at a polling center, “there are ways they can change your result.”

“The extraordinary concept of having a machine that does everything is not dominant worldwide. In Colombia [referring to the first round of presidential elections where Abelardo de la Espriella secured the majority of votes], where the process was not the fastest, we already had the results of all tally sheets within an hour and a half. All of them, not a single one was missing.”

Finally, Villalobos was emphatic that voting must end strictly at a specific hour (in Venezuela, polling stations commonly close at 6 pm, but voting can be extended if there are still voters in line). He also stressed that the opposition will push to ensure there are no polling stations where it is impossible to deploy a witness. In the 2024 presidential election and previous ones, voting centers were set up inside Misiones Vivienda (state housing complexes), communal council headquarters controlled by the ruling party, and military bases—places where the likelihood of a clean process and of collecting the printed tally sheet is usually much lower.

“Voting systems were created to resolve conflicts. The first step is for all of us to believe we won’t be cheated, because otherwise, we go right back to the same thing,” he concludes. “In any election, they can change the result of a polling center if you don’t have anyone there. That’s why we are going to motivate people to stay at the centers, to have the fiesta right there. So that you walk away from that center knowing it is impossible for them to change the results.”

The small constituency of Makerfield in northwest England has found itself in the eye of the storm of British politics with a by-election on Thursday that will not only produce a new member of parliament but could also pave the way for a new prime minister.

The by-election was triggered last month when the previous MP, Josh Simons, stood down to allow Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham to contest the seat. If Burnham wins, he intends to challenge UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for the leadership of the ruling Labour Party.

Starmer is facing mounting pressure to step aside following dismal council election results last month and this week’s resignation of Secretary of State for Defence John Healey and Armed Forces Minister Al Carns over the United Kingdom’s defence budget.

Seeking to derail Burham’s hopes for the Labour leadership, however, is far-right Reform UK candidate Robert Kenyon, whose campaign has been dogged by controversy over alleged sexist and misogynistic social media posts but who remains within striking distance in the polls. Reform came second at the last election in Makerfield, however, and are seen as presenting a real challenge to Labour, which has held the seat since its creation in 1983.

Here’s a closer look at the race, why it matters and how its consequences could extend far beyond Makerfield.

Why is a by-election happening in Makerfield?

Despite winning the 2024 general election in a landslide, Labour’s popularity has tanked over the past two years as support for the far-right, anti-immigration Reform UK has soared. In council elections last month, Reform swept up hundreds of council seats at Labour’s expense. Overall, Labour lost nearly 1,500 local council seats while Reform surged from 100 to about 1,450 seats.

On the right, Labour’s rhetoric on immigration has failed to stem support for Reform UK, which continues to attract both former Conservative voters and sections of Labour’s traditional working-class base – particularly in the north of England. On the left of the party, many voters who feel aggrieved by Starmer’s stance on Israel and cuts to welfare have shifted towards the Green Party.

Now, according to polling group Ipsos, Starmer is the most unpopular prime minister since it began voter surveys in the late 1970s.

As Labour’s internal tensions have grown as a result, Burnham has consistently emerged as one of the party membership’s preferred alternatives to Starmer. Recent polling suggests Starmer would defeat most potential challengers in a leadership contest, with one notable exception: Burnham.

As Mayor of Manchester, Burnham is not an MP and cannot currently stand for leadership of the Labour Party. Earlier this year, he was blocked from standing for Parliament via another by-election in Gorton and Denton, a seat Labour ultimately lost to the Green Party.

As pressure on the prime minister has mounted, however, Labour’s National Executive Committee has been increasingly unwilling to block Burnham from standing as an MP again.

Announcing his resignation as Makerfield MP following the council elections, Simons said Labour was heading towards a divisive leadership contest with “no hope, no energy that anything would change”. He described Makerfield as “where Andy Burnham has lived for 25 years” and said the mayor was “coming home”.

“Labour needs to change and the whole government needs to change,” Simons added.

Who is standing and what are they campaigning on?

Labour: Andy Burnham

Burnham currently serves as the highly popular Mayor of Greater Manchester, having left Westminster after previously serving in several cabinet positions under former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

As mayor, Burnham has built a reputation as one of Labour’s most recognisable politicians, benefitting from his distance from Westminster while arguing that it could learn from what he calls “Manchesterism” – a blend of pro-business policies designed to attract investment while bringing essential services back under public control.

Known by some supporters as the “King of the North”, Burnham gained national prominence for challenging the Conservative government during the COVID-19 pandemic and for his long-running campaign for justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster.

His appeal to Labour’s working-class base in the north of England has led some party members to view him as Labour’s strongest candidate for winning back the so-called “Red Wall” – former industrial constituencies that have increasingly shifted towards Reform UK in the north of England.

Political commentator and journalist Aaron Bastani told Al Jazeera that Burnham’s personal reputation “makes a difference” and that he represents Labour’s best chance against Reform UK.

“A lot of Reform voters actually like him. Many people have a good word to say about him, and he’s been a politician in the area for 25 years.”

But he added that, among some voters, he is still tarred by his “association with Labour as the party of government”.

“Many Reform voters see Labour as the party that backed the Iraq war, and there’s a deep sense of disillusionment with the political establishment … What’s interesting is that some Reform voters were making left-wing criticisms of Burnham, such as the cuts to winter fuel payments and broader dissatisfaction with the government’s direction.”

Reform UK: Robert Kenyon

Hoping to spoil Burnham’s chances is Reform’s Kenyon, affectionately referred to by some members of the UK media as “the plucky plumber” in reference to his profession. He represents a party whose rapid rise and anti-immigrant message has transformed Britain’s political landscape.

Reform UK’s rise has largely been driven by Nigel Farage, the architect of Brexit, whose party has capitalised on the collapse of support for the former ruling Conservative Party. Many big names from the Conservatives have defected to Reform in recent months. That has enabled Reform to attract both traditional right-wing voters and some former Labour supporters, largely on a platform that directs local grievances towards migration.

“For many voters, the proliferation of vape shops and takeaways on high streets has become a shorthand for a sense of decline,” Bastani told Al Jazeera.

“It’s often one of the first things people talk about when discussing immigration and changes to their local area. The concern isn’t really about vape shops themselves – they’re seen as visible symbols of a declining economic model, the loss of local identity and a feeling that places are deteriorating.”

Bastani, however, described Kenyon as “unimpressive”. His campaign has been overshadowed by allegations relating to historic social media activity.

Anti-extremism group HOPE not hate published posts attributed to Kenyon that included COVID-19 conspiracy theories, endorsements of sexualised comments about television presenter Carol Vorderman and remarks about female rugby players.

The group also highlighted comments on an online forum in which Kenyon allegedly described himself as sexist and suggested women make false rape allegations to obtain abortions.

Restore Britain: Rebecca Shepherd

Another factor is Restore Britain, a breakaway far-right party founded by former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe, who argues that Reform UK has become too mainstream and is no longer hard enough on combating undocumented immigration.

Lowe, a former Reform member, was suspended by Reform UK in March 2025 after publicly criticising party leader Nigel Farage and was later expelled following a series of workplace bullying allegations and complaints from female staff members, which he denies.

Since launching the new party less than four months ago, Restore Britain claims to have attracted more than 96,000 members and 13 councillors, many of them former Reform figures. Should a significant share of those voters ultimately switch from Reform UK, it could dent Reform’s share of the vote just enough to benefit Labour.

Conservative: Michael Winstanley

Winstanley is the former mayor of Wigan, standing as candidate for the former ruling Conservative Party. He was elected as a councillor for the local ward of Orrell and 2000, and served for 16 years.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called Winstanley “an excellent champion of the area having lived in, worked in and represented the local community for years”.

Observers do not expect any great show of Conservative voters at this election, however. In May’s local elections in Wigan, Labour won 42 seats, Reform 25, and the Conservatives got none. And, in the last general election in Makerfield, the Tories came in third – behind Labour and Reform – with just over 10 percent of the vote.

What do the polls say about the candidates?

Polling suggests the contest is effectively a two-horse race between Labour and Reform UK. The largest survey of the campaign, conducted by Opinium for Forward Democracy, indicates Burnham holds a narrow lead.

Based on a mixed-method survey of 543 local residents, Burnham leads Kenyon by five percentage points among voters most likely to cast a ballot. Among those rating themselves at least seven out of 10 likely to vote, Burnham stands on 46 percent compared with Kenyon’s 41 percent.

However, Kenyon’s share may have been damaged by the 7 percent that Shepherd is expected to win in Restore Britain’s first parliamentary outing. The Conservatives are polling at just 2 percent.

Furthermore, while Labour currently leads in the by-election campaign, the constituency’s longer-term political trajectory may ultimately favour Reform UK. When respondents were asked how they would vote in a future general election, Reform UK led with 42 percent compared with Labour’s 34 percent, suggesting that Burnham’s personal appeal may be helping Labour outperform its own national reputation.

In May, Labour lost all eight of its local council seats in Makerfield to Reform.

Tom de Grunwald, founder of Forward Democracy and StopReformUK.Vote, said tactical voting could prove decisive. “If you live in Makerfield and you would normally vote Green, Liberal Democrat, or anyone else, and you don’t want Reform UK to win this seat, the maths is clear: Andy Burnham is the only candidate who can stop them,” he said.

However, Bastani said he is sceptical that many Restore Britain supporters will ultimately return to Reform UK. “A lot of those voters now see Farage as part of the establishment,” he said, adding that Restore Britain could outperform expectations on polling day – which could split the far-right vote and benefit Burnham. While he expects Burnham to win, Bastani said the result should not obscure the rise of Reform.

“I’d be surprised if Burnham didn’t win. But if Reform were running a stronger candidate, this could look very different. If Farage somehow managed to win a seat like this against someone with Burnham’s profile, it would rank among the most significant political achievements of his career.”

WASHINGTON — As Spencer Pratt fell behind in the Los Angeles mayoral primary, an unexpected group began claiming election fraud: people tracking the Republican’s success on prediction markets, the increasingly popular online exchanges on which people can make bets on almost anything.

“Crazy how much voter fraud can be done with mail in ballots,” one user following bets on the mayoral race wrote last week on Kalshi, one of the top trading platforms.

“Same old California fraud,” said another who had bet that Pratt would win.

Election fraud claims extended to social media, where a handful of influencers who post content for prediction market platforms questioned the ballot count. “It’s a dead heat on Kalshi,” one user wrote on social media. “Is CA cheating to get Spencer Pratt out?”

Kalshi told the influencers to delete the posts, which violated company guidelines. Polymarket, the other leading platform, directed them to remove the paid partnership label from those posts.

The amplification of election misinformation by users who had money staked on the mayoral race adds a new twist to evolving scrutiny of prediction markets, and scholars say the ability to bet on elections broadly raises questions about whether the exchanges could alter how Americans engage in democracy.

“Elections are not a game,” said Davina Hurt, director of government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. “[If market] probabilities begin influencing donor decisions, media attention, the energy around [campaign] volunteers — at that point, markets aren’t just observing the election. They’re a part of it.”

Fans of the exchanges say they are powerful tools that can help decision makers, and company leaders have touted them as highly accurate predictors that can act as an antidote to misinformation and provide election insights.

“By shifting focus from ‘what people say’ to ‘where they put their money,’ and filtering out social media noise and pundit bias, we are providing a level of clarity and predictive power that cannot be matched,” said Kalshi spokesperson Dani Lever .

But these markets’ rapid rise has also raised a host of questions among members of Congress, state lawmakers and others — about betting on elections, wars and other political events, about potential insider trading, and about whether the platforms should be left to self-regulate. Some states are also in legal battles with the federal government over whether the activity amounts to gambling, which they seek to regulate.

“It’s like we’re in the 1930s with financial markets — we have some things that we want to regulate and restrict [as a country], and we’re sort of in the early stages of trying to lay out what the rules are,” said Koleman Strumpf, an economist at Wake Forest University.

Concerns about insider trading

The discourse around the Los Angeles mayoral race was the latest to raise questions at the intersection of prediction markets and politics. Earlier this year, an Army soldier was indicted after allegedly using his knowledge of the planned U.S. operation to capture former Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to make bets on it, winning more than $400,000. He has pleaded not guilty.

Around the same time, several anonymous users reportedly earned $2.4 million combined by making remarkably prescient bets on the Iran war, prompting concern in Congress about insider trading. And during the primary elections, Kalshi fined a few politicians for betting on themselves, while the Justice Department began investigating a former congressman on similar charges.

Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara speaks at a conference in Santa Monica, Calif., in April.

(Anna Webber / Inc.)

The episodes set off a debate in Washington. The Republican-led House Oversight Committee opened an investigation into potential insider trading, and a bipartisan group in Congress has introduced a flurry of bills seeking to put up guardrails. It remains unclear whether any will pass this session.

The chatter in Congress appeared to lead the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which regulates prediction markets, to propose a new framework last week to govern issues raised by lawmakers, such as potential betting on wars. Commission Chair Mike Selig said the proposal would allow for scrutiny of suspicious activity “while letting legitimate markets move forward pursuant to the public interest.”

The markets commission under former President Biden was viewed as somewhat skeptical of prediction markets; the agency under President Trump — whose eldest son holds advisory positions at both Polymarket and Kalshi — has been seen as more favorable to the industry. The federal government has sued several states over their attempts to regulate the markets under state laws banning sports gambling and other measures.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who has introduced legislation on the topic, said the agency’s framework would benefit the industry at the expense of the public interest.

The agency lacks “the leadership, will and investigative staff needed to confront the dangers of election misinformation, insider trading, and more,” Schiff said, “and seems content to allow the industry to police itself.”

Making bets

As California’s primary neared, people staked their dollars on the state’s races in droves. On Kalshi, trading volume on one contract about who will win the L.A. mayoral race in November had reached more than $117 million as of Tuesday.

Prediction market users trade on the outcome of future events, making money if they’re correct and losing money if they’re wrong. Someone can purchase a contract on the prediction that L.A. Mayor Karen Bass will win in November, a yes contract, or on the prediction that she will lose, a no contract.

On Tuesday, Bass contracts on Kalshi were selling at 63 cents each for yes and 38 cents for no, meaning the market was forecasting a 63% chance of her winning. Users receive $1 per contract if their prediction is correct, creating a profit on their initial investment.

Prediction markets generally create more accurate forecasts than political polls, according to Strumpf, whose research has examined 30 years of prediction markets in various forms.

Many of the issues critics raise are theoretical and have not been seen in practice, Strumpf said. By his analysis, there is no evidence that the markets have ever influenced an election outcome. He said serious traders tend to do extensive research in order to make money, meaning their bets are educated.

Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano), who has introduced legislation to prohibit event contracts involving terrorism, war, assassination and deaths, said the platforms may be useful in some cases but shouldn’t be left to police themselves. He said he’s concerned that the markets create “all the wrong incentives” for people, including political candidates and officials, to abuse inside knowledge.

“I don’t trust them to self-regulate at all,” Levin said of the companies. “The federal role should be guardrails that are reasonable and pragmatic.”

‘The sanctity of our elections’

Skeptics’ concerns regarding elections largely center around the markets’ introduction of a new way for money to potentially influence politics.

They say the desire to elevate a candidate’s market odds could create an incentive for market manipulation, and they worry that the votes of Americans using the market could be influenced by their desire to profit.

“This has real impacts for the sanctity of our elections,” said Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), who raised concerns about how prediction markets could impact the democratic process in a March letter to the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission. (California lawmakers are looking at the issue, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said, though none of the bills introduced this year have yet moved forward.)

The platforms create a potential new channel “for dark money to flow into our elections,” Krell said. “Specifically, someone who’s opposing or supporting a candidate could potentially use sites like Kalshi to elevate that candidate and impact the entire pool.”

The industry has endeavored to “get out in front” of concerns by creating their own policies aimed at preventing insider trading, market manipulation and other issues, said attorney Ronak D. Desai, partner and head of the congressional practice at the Washington law firm Paul Hastings.

Kalshi has a ban on those practices and has banned markets tied directly to death and war, Lever said. It also screens all new users and, in the first quarter of this year, blocked more than 100 potential insider trades and referred more than 20 cases to law enforcement.

In the case of the military member who bet on the United States’ operation in Venezuela, for instance, Polymarket caught the activity and referred the case to the Justice Department, a spokesperson said. The company has referred nearly 100 cases of suspicious activity to law enforcement, he said.

Election markets are not offered on Polymarket’s U.S. exchange — though users in the U.S. and other countries that ban the company’s international exchange are widely reported to access it using online tools.

“Polymarket prohibits trading based on stolen information, illegal tips, or information obtained in breach of a duty of trust, confidentiality, or other legal obligation,” the Polymarket spokesperson said in a statement.

Aaron Klein, senior fellow in the Center on Regulation and Markets at the Brookings Institution, predicted that pressure for further regulation would continue to mount.

“The top goal of a society is to have free and fair elections,” Klein said. “At a time in our nation’s history where people are doubting the integrity of elections and foreign governments are stoking those flames, we ought to be pretty careful.”

Donald Trump picks Mike Collins over Derek Dooley in race to determine who will face Democrat Jon Ossoff in November midterms.

United States President Donald Trump has made a late endorsement in a Republican run-off for a key US Senate race in Georgia ahead of the US midterm elections.

In a post on his Truth Social account, Trump threw his support behind US Representative Mike Collins over former football coach and political newcomer Derek Dooley.

Collins and Dooley will face off in a Republican run-off race on Tuesday to determine who will challenge incumbent Senator Jon Ossoff, a Democrat, in the midterm election in November.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump praised Collins for being a staunch supporter of his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and a “true friend, fighter, and WARRIOR”.

Ossoff entered office in 2021 as part of a blue wave in Georgia that saw the majority of the state vote for former US President Joe Biden, as well as his fellow Democrat, Senator Raphael Warnock.

Georgia, which had for decades been dominated by Republicans, swung back towards Trump in the 2024 vote. Defeating Ossoff is seen as one of the Republicans’ best chances at claiming a new seat in the 100-member chamber, where they are hoping to hold on to their slim 53-seat majority.

Democrats are hoping to win control of both the House and the Senate in November, which would create a major bulwark against Trump’s agenda during his final two years in office.

Republican divides

Trump’s endorsement pits Collins against Georgia’s Republican Governor Brian Kemp, who has supported Dooley.

Kemp has remained generally supportive of Trump, but has faced off with him on several issues, notably Trump’s evidence-less claims that the 2020 election in Georgia was marred by fraud.

Dooley has said he did not vote in 2016 or 2020 when Trump was on the ballot, and has maintained that the election results in Georgia were legitimate.

Collins carried about 40 percent of the vote during Georgia’s Republican primary on May 19, with Dooley taking about 30 percent. Representative Buddy Carter, who did not advance to the run-off, came in a close third.

It remains unclear how big of an impact Trump’s endorsement will have. He made the announcement after early voting had already ended for the run-off.

Trump’s endorsements have seen mixed results in the primary season.

Trump’s decision to back Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton was seen as aiding in the MAGA loyalist’s defeat of US Senator John Cornyn in Texas’s primary run-off.

Cornyn had widely been viewed as the strongest Republican candidate to take on Democratic challenger James Talarico in the general election.

In Iowa, Trump’s late endorsement of US Representative Randy Feenstra did not give him the bump needed to defeat fellow Republican Zach Lahn in the gubernatorial primary race.

Beyond the run-off in Georgia, Alabama will also hold several primary run-offs on Tuesday. That includes a Republican race for the solidly red seat of US Senator Tommy Tuberville, who is running for governor.

Oklahoma and the federal district of Washington, DC, will also hold primary votes.

Ana Cruz was 13 when she arrived to the U.S. from Mexico with her family. But after 23 years of living in Los Angeles, raising two children and working as a community organizer, she has never been able to vote in any elections because of her status as a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipient, which doesn’t offer a pathway to citizenship.

She’s now among those backing a proposal from Los Angeles City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez that would allow noncitizens to cast ballots in city and Los Angeles Unified School District elections.

“For me, it will be the first time I will have a chance to vote and help decide who represents me,” Cruz said during a press conference in support of the measure at City Hall Tuesday. “Without a doubt, this strengthens our democracy.”

Soto-Martínez is seeking council support to include the measure in a package of City Charter reforms that will go to voters for approval in the Nov. 3 general election. The council is scheduled to discuss this and other proposed charter changes Friday.

The expanded voting eligibility would only apply to Los Angeles city and Los Angeles Unified School District elections, and not county, state or federal contests.

Other cities and states, including Maryland, Vermont and San Francisco, have adopted similar measures.

“People have spent many years here, and in many cases, decades, contributing to the city of Los Angeles,” Soto-Martinez said. “This is about local representation and local democracy.”

The proposal has already faced push back.

Ira Mehlman, spokesperson for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said Tuesday that noncitizens who pay taxes benefit from public services, and temporary status serves as a probationary period until people take an oath to become citizens.

“Citizenship does mean something, it means you are a fully participating member of society,” he said. “It doesn’t seem unreasonable to say you’ve got to do some time here and demonstrate that you’re somebody that we want as a citizen.”

If placed on the ballot and approved by voters, the City Council would then need to pass an ordinance creating a residential voting program and establishing eligibility requirements.

While those requirements have yet to be determined, advocates have discussed possible options might include extending voting to lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, DACA recipients and others who live, work and pay taxes Los Angeles, according to the council member’s office.

Soto-Martínez first pitched the idea in April, with the support of councilmember Ysabel Jurado, who also signed the motion.

Soto-Martínez represents District 13, which includes many immigrant and mixed-status communities living in Echo Park, Hollywood and Filipinotown. He said the Trump administration has terrorized communities by conducting mass immigration raids and breaking up families, and that his measure is aimed at underscoring the city’s values.

“We say L.A. is for everyone, and that means no exceptions,” he said.

Among those who could benefit are Grace McManus, a Filipina mother, caregiver and resident of L.A. for 24 years. With permanent resident status, she said she has no say in electing officials who shape her everyday life, despite contributing taxes and caring for the elderly.

“I am too familiar with the feeling of working and taking on low-wage work while feeling invisible because my voice is disregarded just because of our broken immigration system,” McManus said.

Public speakers at Tuesday’s City Council meeting also urged approval.

“Trump and MAGA want to limit voting. We need to fight to expand it, so all of our neighbors have the same rights as us,” said Julie Van Winkle, vice president of the United Teachers Los Angeles, during public comment.

Martha Arévalo, executive director of the Central American Resource Center, stood alongside Soto-Martínez as he rallied for support.

“We know that immigrant communities uphold the economy in this nation, and I think that people who contribute to their community, that call this home, should have a say in their local government,” Arévalo said.

At a campaign rally in Armenia’s capital, Yerevan, on Saturday, one day before Armenia’s election, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, outfitted in a white button-up shirt and a red-brimmed baseball cap, held a look of determination.

Flanked by supporters waving their arms and flashing his campaign’s signature heart-shaped hand gesture, Pashinyan was perched centre stage, pounding away on a drum kit for the crowds – literally drumming up support.

By election day, his governing Civil Contract party appeared to have drummed up something more consequential: public backing for his vision of Armenia’s future following the loss of the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh to a crushing military defeat by Azerbaijan in 2023. 

Pashinyan, who formed a band earlier this year and campaigned with a series of concerts around the country, secured 49.8 percent of the vote in Sunday’s ballot, enough to retain a parliamentary majority.

His victory is seen as a test of his handling of the loss of the Nagorno-Karabakh region and his ability to steer the country away from Russian influence.

He has ultimately prevailed despite Russian meddling in Armenian politics, and the country now looks set to reorient itself away from its former ruler – signalling Armenians’ willingness to embrace a new direction, analysts say.

“Many Armenians are prepared to give his new vision a chance: an Armenia less defined by conflict, more open to normalising relations with Azerbaijan and Turkiye, and increasingly focused on building its future within its internationally recognised borders,” Zaur Shiriyev, an analyst at the Carnegie ⁠Russia Eurasia Center, told Al Jazeera.

‘Tired of conflict and war’

The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh could have spelled political doom for Pashinyan. By handing him a second term, Armenians have signalled that they are ready to put the conflict that has intermittently reared its head for decades behind them, analysts say.

“Nationalism no longer resonates among the public, which is demonstrably tired of conflict and war,” Richard Giragosian, director of the Yerevan-based Regional Studies Center, told Al Jazeera, even if the loss of the region remains an “open wound”, he said.

Nagorno-Karabakh, meanwhile, no longer features at all in the Armenian government’s defence reform, nor in its national security strategy, “a final confirmation of the new strategy of diversification”, Giragosian explained.

Peace efforts instead took centre stage in Pashinyan’s campaign, including the agreement he signed at the White House last August with Azerbaijan, finally ending the on-again-off-again war that had raged since the late 1980s.

Unlike in 2021, when Pashinyan’s campaign was shaped by the immediate aftermath of war and questions of political survival, Sunday’s vote became a clearer test of public support for his peace agenda, Shiriyev said.

Peace over nationalism

The result also demonstrates that the nationalist mantras peddled by opposition leaders have not been able to sway the majority of Armenians, said Svante Cornell, director of the Institute for Security and Development Policy and its Central Asia-Caucasus programme.

“The opposition represented a return to oligarchy, nationalism and forever conflict,” Cornell told Al Jazeera.

“While the Pashinyan government has its flaws, it represents something different than the past.”

The election saw the two main opposition forces – Strong Armenia and Armenia Alliance – win 41 seats combined in the new parliament, against the 64 seats the government holds, out of a total 105.

But Giragosian cautioned against overstating the opposition’s strength as, he said, the two opposition parties are unlikely to cooperate given the friction between their leaders – Russian-Armenian oligarch Samvel Karapetyan, whose Strong Armenia took 29 seats, and former President Robert Kocharian, whose Armenia Alliance won just 12.

“The division and dissent within the opposition will present a profound obstacle,” he said.

Although united in their shared pro-Russian leanings, Karapetyan is seen by Kocharian as an “interfering interloper”, with Kocharian himself resenting his third-place position behind Karapetyan, the analyst said.

“This is further exacerbated by Kocharian’s sense of entitlement, and his frustration of being rebuffed by Moscow in his prior attempts to gain direct Russian backing and support,” Giragosian added.

Still, Cornell said, the persistence of pro-Russian, nationalist sentiment in Armenia generally should not be taken lightly.

Until 2020, Armenia was governed by successive administrations that spent three decades pushing a nationalist identity, he said.

“To expect such views, such sentiments would just disappear – would be unrealistic,” Cornell noted.

Russian influence weakened – but not gone

In the lead-up to Sunday’s election, international observers had accused Russia of attempting to interfere – but its inability to change the result reflects Moscow’s limited reach in the country today, analysts say.

“Moscow still has tools in Armenia, but it no longer has the authority it once had,” Shiriyev said.

“In today’s Armenia, being seen as Russia’s preferred candidate can mobilise voters against you as much as for you.”

As Armenia strives to resist what Shiriyev refers to as the “gravitational pull” of the “Russian orbit”, a window of opportunity has been created by Moscow’s preoccupation with its invasion of Ukraine and a new openness from Western partners.

“The larger risk is from not altering strategy, and the benefits of a pivot to the West are both demonstrable and popular in Armenia today,” Giragosian said.

Russia, he added, is now increasingly viewed in Armenia as a “dangerously undependable so-called partner”.

Benyamin Poghosyan, an Armenia analyst at the Italian Institute for International Political Studies, argues that the primary foreign policy drivers of the election, however, were regional actors – not Russia or the West.

“The reality on the ground is far more nuanced,” Poghosyan told Al Jazeera. Armenia’s future relations with Azerbaijan and Turkiye, as well as the regional fallout from the conflict in Iran, are far greater influences, he said.

There are good reasons not to count Moscow out completely, however. While pro-Russian forces did not prevail this time, they will continue to assert their influence, Cornell said. He referred to the cautionary tale of another Caucasus country.

“In Georgia, the work of undermining a reformist and pro-Western government and turning the country around to a more pro-Russian line took over 15 years,” he said.

At the same time, Moscow still holds massive economic leverage over Yerevan, said the analysts.

Russia remains the primary export destination for Armenian agriculture and wine, is the main source of critical imports like wheat, and supplies the country with heavily discounted gas, Poghosyan noted.

“Because Russia has the capacity to inflict severe economic pain, Yerevan must tread carefully to protect its core interests without completely rupturing its relationship with Moscow,” he said.

Shiriyev added that many Armenians work in Russia, with families depending on remittances, and business ties running deep.

“By contrast, Western integration can still feel abstract and uncertain to many voters. That is why pro-Russian forces can still gain traction, even as Russia’s political image in Armenia has weakened,” he said.

A constitutional hurdle

But while Pashinyan’s re-election has strengthened his hand in the country’s peace process, it has not resolved one key sticking point for constitutional change to ensure it, said Shiriyev.

Azerbaijan has demanded a change to Yerevan’s constitution as a means of guaranteeing that no future Armenian government might revive claims related to Nagorno-Karabakh or Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.

“But Pashinyan lacks the two-thirds majority needed to move easily toward a referendum, and even a referendum would be politically uncertain,” said Shiriyev.

This election, Cornell said, was “a necessary but not sufficient condition for the peace process to advance”.

Poghosyan warned that if Baku refuses to drop these preconditions, “the peace agreement will remain stalled, leaving both nations trapped in a volatile state of ‘no war, no peace’”.

On the question of regional normalisation, however, the outlook has shifted.

Since the bilateral peace treaty was signed at the White House last August, Azerbaijan has lifted restrictions on trade and transit with Armenia and restarted talks on border demarcation – moves that Giragosian said have also accelerated the opening for Armenia-Turkiye normalisation.

“For Armenia,” said Shiriyev, “the West may offer the road, Russia increasingly acts as the roadblock, and normalisation with Azerbaijan and Turkiye is the real prize.”

Four states are set to hold their primary votes, further solidifying the battle lines for the United States midterm elections in November.

On Tuesday, citizens in Maine, South Carolina, North Dakota and Nevada are set to cast their ballots in party primaries, designed to select which Democratic and Republican candidates advance to the final round of voting.

But Maine has emerged as one of the most heated primary battlegrounds. With Democrats desperate to flip four seats in the US Senate, all eyes are on Republican Senator Susan Collins’s re-election campaign.

Democrats are hoping to defeat her in November, but the party has fractured over controversies related to its leading candidate, Graham Platner. The race has become one of the most closely watched of the primary season.

At stake in November is control of Congress, and each party is angling to put forward the strongest contender.

Currently, the Republican Party holds slender majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, but Democrats hope to wrest back control, in what would represent a major rebuke to President Donald Trump.

State-level races are also in play during Tuesday’s primaries. Several in key swing states like Nevada could have outsized influence over election administration in the years ahead.

Here are some of the key races to watch.

Key Senate race in Maine to be decided

The Democratic Party’s long-shot hope of retaking the Senate hinges on Maine, a lushly forested northeastern state largely bordered by Canada and the Atlantic Ocean.

The primary vote on Tuesday is widely expected to result in Platner advancing as the Democratic champion for November’s midterms. If so, he will take on the longtime incumbent, Republican Senator Collins, who is considered vulnerable to defeat.

Polls have consistently shown the 41-year-old progressive narrowly defeating Collins in the midterm in November.

Platner has appealed to left-wing voters with his positions in favour of universal healthcare and ending US support for Israel. But a slate of recent reports about his past relationships has threatened to chill the enthusiasm for his campaign.

An oyster farmer and former US Marine, Platner has faced accusations of “unsettling” behaviour towards women, including an alleged incident where he twisted one romantic partner’s arm. Platner has denied that allegation.

He has also permanently removed a skull-and-bones tattoo that critics likened to a Nazi symbol, saying he did not know its source.

Still, in Tuesday’s primary, Platner is expected to handily beat his closest Democratic rivals: environmental consultant David Costello and Governor Janet Mills, who will remain on the ballot despite announcing her withdrawal from the race.

Contests for Maine’s House and governor seats

But Maine boasts other nationally significant races, too. That includes the contest for the House seat left open after Democratic Representative Jared Golden announced he would not run for re-election.

Golden has represented Maine’s 2nd congressional district since 2019, and he has proven adept at retaining support, even though his coastal district leans conservative.

If Republicans pick up his seat, it would be a boon to the party’s effort to maintain control of the House. Former Republican Governor Paul LePage is running uncontested in his party’s primary to replace Golden.

Four Democrats, meanwhile, are competing in their party primary to take him on.

They include state Senator Joe Baldacci, state auditor Matthew Dunlap, social worker Paige Loud, and congressional staffer Jordan Wood. All four have charted a more leftward course than the outgoing lawmaker.

Maine’s governor’s race is also open, with Mills, a Democrat, leaving her post at the end of the year due to term limits.

The chance to win the governor’s mansion in November has attracted a crowded field to both party primaries. Each race features notable political scions.

On the left, there is Angus King III, whose father currently represents the state in the US Senate, as well as Hannah Pingree, the daughter of a current member of Congress. Running on the right is healthcare executive Jonathan Bush, a cousin of former President George W Bush.

Election administration looms large in Nevada

Nevada has remained a deeply purple state in recent years, leaning neither left nor right.

Democratic presidential contenders have narrowly won the state from 2008 to 2020, but President Donald Trump broke the streak in 2024, carrying just over 50 percent of the vote.

A staggering 45 percent of Nevada’s voters are registered as independents. That means they hold outsized sway in November’s midterm vote, but they will not be able to cast a ballot in Tuesday’s closed primaries, which are limited to party members only.

The sprawling western state is home to about 3.2 million residents. In the middle of its desert landscape sits Las Vegas, a global gambling and entertainment destination.

But the state has become a political football, in part because of its narrow partisan divide.

Trump and his allies have targeted the state by spreading false claims of election fraud in the wake of the Republican leader’s 2020 election defeat. Those assertions led him to clash with state Attorney General Aaron Ford, who pledged to defend his state’s election integrity.

Now, Ford is currently leading a crowded Democratic field to take on Republican incumbent Joe Lambardo for the governor’s mansion. Polls have shown Washoe County Commissioner Alexis Hill as his top challenger in the Democratic primary.

Lombardo — who has broken state records for his use of vetoes — also faces a deep bench of Republican challengers, but he is expected to skate to an easy victory on Tuesday.

Another key state position is up for grabs this November: Nevada’s secretary of state.

Like Ford, the role’s current occupant, Francisco Aguilar, is a vocal critic of Trump’s efforts to assert more federal control over election administration.

He is running unopposed on the Democratic side, so he automatically advances to November’s general election.

Four Republicans are running to challenge Aguilar, including Jim Marchant, a former state assemblyman who supported Trump’s unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

Another top primary contender is lawyer Shirley Folkins-Roberts, who has been endorsed by the state’s Republican governor.

On the national level, Nevada has four total seats in the House of Representatives. Three are currently held by Democrats, and one by a Republican.

On Tuesday, Republicans will select their challengers in a bid to unseat the Democratic incumbents, all of whom are running for re-election.

Meanwhile, the retirement of Republican Representative Mark Amodei has sparked hope that Democrats might, for the first time ever, win the state’s 2nd congressional district.

Eight Democrats are vying to be their party’s champion, while 13 candidates are running on the Republican side.

Democrats eye long-shot flip in South Carolina

Since last year, the Trump administration has led a controversial redistricting drive, pushing Republican-led states to redraw their congressional districts to better favour the party.

But last month, lawmakers in South Carolina chose not to pursue a redistricting plan — at least, not yet. Part of the reason came down to Tuesday’s primaries.

Thousands of voters cast their ballots last month as part of an early-voting campaign encouraged by Democrats. Any last-minute redistricting would have required throwing out those votes.

That has, for now, protected the majority Black district of longtime Representative Jim Clyburn, the only Democrat representing South Carolina in the House.

South Carolina, a southern, coastal state home to 5.5 million people, is considered rightward-leaning. But Democrats are seeking to defend their House seat in November’s midterms — and maybe pick up a second.

In Tuesday’s primaries, the 85-year-old Clyburn is expected to sail to victory against a long-shot Democratic challenger. He is all but assured to win in November as well, given his district’s reputation as a Democratic stronghold.

Democrats have also set their sights on flipping South Carolina’s 1st district, with Republican Nancy Mace vacating her seat to run for governor. Seven candidates are running in the Democratic primary race for the coastal district, while 10 Republicans will compete in their party primary.

One Senate seat will also be on Tuesday’s primary ballot: the one held by Republican Lindsey Graham. Despite several challengers, polls show the incumbent with a commanding lead.

Graham, a close Trump ally and a notable war hawk, has been one of Congress’s most vocal supporters of the US-Israel war on Iran.

This year, due to term limits, Governor Henry McMaster is unable to run for re-election. Given that South Carolina is a solidly red state overall, whoever wins Tuesday’s Republican primary is expected to coast to victory in November.

Recent polls have shown a tight race. Trump has endorsed Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette, but surveys show her neck and neck with state Attorney General Alan Wilson and Congresswoman Mace, who has at times broken with Trump over issues like the Iran war.

North Dakota’s lone congressional district

Primary day in the Great Plains state of North Dakota is expected to make few waves nationally.

Neither the governor nor the state’s two senators are up for re-election.

Political observers are expecting few surprises. North Dakota has been a Republican stronghold since the late 1960s.

The 435 seats in the US House are distributed among states based on their population size. But since North Dakota has only about 800,000 people, it has just one congressional district.

During Tuesday’s Republican primary, incumbent Representative Julie Fedorchak will seek to ward off a challenge from former State Department project manager Alex Balazs.

Democrat Trygve Hammer, meanwhile, is running unopposed in his party’s primary.

SACRAMENTO — Even before President Trump’s latest wave of unfounded claims of election fraud in California, a significant share of voters in the state expressed concerns about federal interference in the electoral process, according to a new poll.

Trump on Monday claimed on his social media site that the race for Los Angeles mayor was a “Rigged Election,” an allegation that came after Democrat Nithya Raman overtook Republican Spencer Pratt for second place in the ongoing primary election vote count.

Raman’s lead had prompted Rep. Abe Hamadeh, an Arizona Republican, to call for the election to be federalized, or run by the federal government rather than the state, a message Trump reposted.

Earlier Sunday, Trump had alleged during an interview with NBC News that California elections officials “were cheating.” That came after a debunked social media conspiracy theory claiming that a lag in an update of electronic voting data by the Associated Press showed Pratt was being cheated. On Monday, House Speaker Mike Johnson said the elections process in the L.A. mayoral race “stinks to high heaven.”

The ongoing attacks by Trump and his supporters continue to erode confidence in the nation’s elections, especially among Republicans, threatening a pillar of American democracy, said political scientist Eric Schickler, co-director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley.

“The president … wants to use those claims to make changes in the election process that could make it harder for people to vote, and that certainly is a threat to our democratic institutions,” Schickler said.

“One thing we’ve learned in recent years is that we just cannot take the voting process for granted, cannot take for granted that both sides will accept as legitimate the outcome, and can’t take for granted the idea that there won’t be efforts to essentially manipulate the vote counting process,” he added.

A new poll released Friday by the institute found that 41% of California voters were “not confident” that this year’s elections would be free of federal interference. Although 48% had confidence that there would be not meddling, the concerns expressed were still significant, Schickler said.

More telling was the partisan divide among voters when asked whether they have confidence that local officials would conduct fair and secure elections and that the vote count would be accurate. Among Democratic registered voters, 79% said they trusted elections officials to provide an accurate vote count. Among Republicans, 55% said they were not confident that would occur.

California voters who don’t belong to either party said by a 2-1 margin that they had confidence in the vote count, the poll showed.

“The positive is that local officials are still widely trusted by Democrats, no-party-preference voters, and at least a share of Republicans, though a lot fewer than I think in the past, and a lot fewer than you know we would want for a really healthy democracy,” Schickler said.

That growing mistrust among certain parts of the electorate comes after years of baseless claims by Trump that the 2020 election was stolen from him, as well as Republican-led efforts to restrict the use of mail-in ballots and impose new requirements for voters to show identification and proof of citizenship.

Recent rulings by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court also have rolled back federal protections under the Voting Rights Act. In April, the court sharply limited a part of those protections that had forced states to draw voting districts to help elect Black or Latino representatives to Congress, as well as state and local boards.

Trump and his allies have used California’s slow vote-counting process to allege cheating. The day after the June 2 primary, Trump claimed without evidence that Democrats were trying to “steal” the gubernatorial and L.A. mayoral primaries. The next day, he alleged that California Democrats had “found” mail-in ballots and were “rigging the election” with them.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber and other officials have said California’s voting system prioritizes voter accessibility and security over speedy results. The state has more than 23 million registered voters, and ballots go through numerous verification steps, including verifying signatures on mail-in ballots.

“Over 97% of our folks actually vote by mail. They want to keep that system. That system demands more contact, more touching of the ballot, more verification of the individuals who are voting. All of those things take time,” Weber said during a recent interview with ABC10 in Sacramento.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office called Trump’s claims during the recent “Meet the Press” interview the “most severe case of California Derangement Syndrome we’ve ever seen.”

Newsom is considering a 2028 run for president and has consistently warned that Trump may try to interfere in both the 2026 and 2028 elections.

The Berkeley poll found that California voters overall — 74% — want candidates running for president in 2028 to prioritize defending democracy and making voting more accessible. Among Democratic voters, 95% said that was important; among Republicans, 41%.

Funding for the poll was provided to IGS by the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, a private foundation based in San Francisco that aims to increase civic participation and improve the state’s democratic processes.

The poll of 8,578 registered California voters was conducted between May 19 and 25 online in English and Spanish and has a margin of error of about 2 percentage points in either direction.

Times staff writers Alene Tchekmedyian and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has declared victory after early results show his pro-EU ‘Civil Contract’ party with around 54% of the vote.

WASHINGTON — The last time Washington, D.C., residents chose a new delegate to Congress and a new mayor in the same election, gas was $1.33 a gallon and George H.W. Bush was president.

This fall they will do it again — under starkly different circumstances.

As the city heads toward pivotal primaries this month to pick candidates for those roles, President Trump’s influence on the nation’s capital is shaping up as a major campaign issue. The fresh slate of candidates is weighing how best to approach Trump’s Republican administration and congressional control over the heavily Democratic city’s affairs.

“It’s going to be a big sea change in city politics, no matter how the elections shake out,” said Amanda Huron, a professor at the University of the District of Columbia who teaches courses on D.C. history and politics. But Washington’s lack of full autonomy brings “all sorts of peculiarities around the city’s governance.”

Since Trump returned to office last year, the National Guard is on an open-ended deployment as part of what he calls a crime-fighting mission. He is putting his personal imprint on the city’s storied landmarks. And major cuts to the federal workforce have compounded economic pressures on the capital, which has one of the country’s highest unemployment rates.

The city has long had a unique, if fraught, relationship with the federal government: While residents can vote for their local leaders, they are limited by Washington’s status as a federal district in how much influence they can actually have on the city’s affairs. That limited autonomy has been further squeezed under Trump and his federal law enforcement takeover, launched last year.

This fall, current council members Janeese Lewis George and Kenyan McDuffie are the frontrunners vying to replace Mayor Muriel Bowser, elected in 2014. The leading candidates in the race to succeed long-serving congressional Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton are Robert White Jr. and Brooke Pinto, also D.C. council members.

On June 16, primaries will be held for those roles, which in an overwhelmingly Democratic city usually dictate who will take the top spot come November.

Washington, and its elected officials, have limited autonomy

Washington, unlike other cities, does not control its fate.

What choices voters have is through a limited home rule agreement passed by Congress in 1973 that allowed residents to elect their local government leaders.

But Congress retains control over local affairs, including the approval of the budget and laws passed by the city council. Congressional members elected by voters from thousands of miles away routinely introduce measures to impact city affairs.

That has meant local leaders must balance pressures from their constituents with the demands of Congress and the administration — an act Bowser was forced to perform repeatedly.

During Trump’s first term, she ordered the painting and naming of Black Lives Matter Plaza, just north of the White House, in 2020. Just months after Trump’s inauguration to his second term, she agreed to remove it in response to pressure from congressional Republicans.

That act, the decimation of the federal workforce by the Department of Government Efficiency and the surge by federal law enforcement and the National Guard into the city have emerged as central themes in the election season. Right now, about 3,500 troops are in the city — a number authorities say will climb to 5,000 as the country’s 250th anniversary celebrations approach.

Trump has routinely said his intervention has made Washington “one of the safest” and most beautiful cities in the country, enjoying a historic drop in crime.

Candidates campaign on promise of resistance to Trump

George told The Associated Press that her top priority is addressing “the affordability crisis here in D.C., which the Trump administration has only made worse by unjustly firing federal employees en masse and militarizing our streets.”

McDuffie said his top priority is public safety as crime continues to be an issue. He has said he would add 1,000 police officers over four years, fully staff the 911 call center after years of chronic staffing shortages and take a public health approach to violence reduction.

“We cannot have an affordable city,” he said, “without public safety as its foundation.”

Both said they would bolster the city’s legal defenses against federal overreach and said Bowser should have been less cooperative with federal authorities as they targeted members of the city’s immigrant communities.

Alex Dodd, co-founder of Free DC, an activist group supporting city independence, said the organization endorsed George because of her willingness to be more aggressive in opposing Trump and congressional Republicans.

“When our leaders comply with this administration before being forced, they are giving this regime an enormous advantage,” he said.

Pat Wheeler, a native Washingtonian and communications consultant who served as a department head at Morgan State University, applauded Bowser for cooperating with the Trump administration on some aspects. She noted failure to do so could have sparked retribution and a loss of what little control city officials have.

“Trump can snap his finger and the whole Republican Congress will say, ‘Let’s put a federal control board over the mayor,’” she said.

Affordability and social issues also concerns

The D.C. delegate position is a nonvoting one, but it grants the nearly 700,000 people of the district, who have no other representation in Congress, a voice through speechmaking on the House floor and bill introduction.

But critics said the 88-year-old Norton was diminished during the second Trump administration and not visible enough in the fight against administration and congressional overreach on the city’s autonomy. She filed paperwork to end her campaign for reelection in January.

Norton, who has served 18 terms, has had a storied career. She and her predecessor, Walter Fauntroy Jr., both had national standing coming out of the civil rights era.

“Eleanor Holmes Norton is maybe one of the last major political figures who comes out of the civil rights movement,” said Matt Dallek, a political historian at The George Washington University. “It’s a real passing of the torch.”

The campaigns of candidates running to replace her have centered on local control, Trump and affordability. Frontrunners and council members Pinto and White have also engaged in personal skirmishes questioning the origins of campaign contributions and connections to Republicans.

Pinto told the AP her top priority for the city is self-governance, something that has “never been a true reality for the people of D.C.”

She said affordability for the middle-class and working families is another concern.

White’s campaign has said he’s “not willing to continue to see our tax dollars used to allow DC police to cooperate and conspire with federal agents to trample our constitutional rights and to terrorize our communities.”

Brenda Manley, a longtime resident of Ward 7, an area with a storied Black history across the Anacostia River, said the city was well managed despite the tensions with Trump. But she said she hoped all the candidates would spend more time on the campaign focusing on programs that are beneficial to all residents, like a tuition grant program championed by Norton or major strides made in education during Bowser’s tenure.

“Those type of programs matter,” Manley said.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

Mogadishu, Somalia – Mustafa, 33, dreads election time in Somalia. He drives a bajaj — a three-wheeled taxi — and says that when tensions rise, as they always do when polls are near, the whole city feels it, and drivers like him are among the first.

On Wednesday, he was passing through the Hawl Wadaag district when heavy gunfire between government and opposition forces erupted all around him.

“I couldn’t even think. Everyone was shouting and running for their lives, and we all fled from the bullets,” he told Al Jazeera. “We haven’t seen fighting this bad in years.”

The shooting that began that afternoon around the homes of former Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khaire and, later, former President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, came as opposition figures were planning to organise protests against what they describe as an illegal term extension by incumbent President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud.

Khaire and Sharif Sheikh Ahmed were among opposition leaders spreadheading the planned protests amid rising tensions with the federal government.

The government said the planned protests would undermine security in a city still grappling with persistent armed violence.

Hundreds of families fled neighbourhoods near the fighting, and by the next day, many of the capital’s central areas had emptied. The sudden eruption of violence ended a period of improving security in Mogadishu, shattering the perception that the city had begun turning a corner.

“The most frustrating thing is that we have nothing to do with it, and it impacts so many of us,” Mustafa said. “We make our living in this city”.

Security forces sealed Maka al-Mukarama Road, one of Mogadishu’s main arteries, while Bakara market, the largest commercial hub in the city, was effectively closed for business.

“Look, it’s midday, and there’s almost no one here, shops are closed, and usually by this time the place is jammed,” Ahmed, a street vendor at Bakara market, told Al Jazeera, gesturing at shuttered stalls.

Ali Wardheere, the deputy central bank governor, estimated the direct cost to businesses and services at $3.8m, though he stressed the figure was a model-based projection, not an official or final tally.

Like most Somalis, Mustafa has never voted for a president or a member of parliament. The country has not held a direct election for national leadership since the late 1960s.

Since the state was re-established in 2012 after its 1991 collapse, leaders have been selected through an indirect system negotiated by clan elders and political elites.

As presidential terms near their end, low trust among political actors often leads to intense competition over power — and at times violence — as disputes over the electoral timetable come to a head.

At a press conference in late May, Sharif warned that the political deadlock could turn violent if negotiations failed.

“Where do things stand? [We say] Leave, and [you say] I won’t leave. What comes next? Bullets.”

The warning echoed events in 2021, when then-President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo remained in office more than a year beyond the end of his term, triggering clashes in Mogadishu before a political agreement was reached.

Higher stakes this election

This time, the political standoff carries higher stakes.

President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud says that constitutional amendments approved by parliament extended his mandate by an additional year from May 15. The opposition rejects that and has begun referring to him as a “former president”.

Two of Somalia’s most influential federal states also reject the amendments, leaving the country divided over the constitutional framework governing the next election, with no constitutional court to resolve the dispute.

After parliament approved the changes, Mohamud declared that the “provisional constitution, and the provisional era, was a sun which set yesterday,” signalling that his administration would press ahead despite objections from its opponents.

Tensions had been building for days. Ahead of a protest planned for Thursday, opposition leaders left the heavily fortified “green zone” near Mogadishu’s airport and returned to their residences across the city.

Some opposition figures said they would deploy their own armed guards at the demonstration, a proposal Mohamud rejected. The dispute heightened fears of a confrontation before fighting eventually broke out.

Both sides blame the other for starting the clashes. Khaire accused Mohamud of directing a “sustained and indiscriminate military assault” that lasted more than 20 hours, a claim Sharif echoed after fighting reached his own residence.

Ahmed Moalim Fiqi, the defence minister, accused the opposition of militarising the standoff, likening it to Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces and alleging that opposition figures had “distributed mortars and artillery across the capital”.

“Force and militias,” he said, would no longer be allowed to “seize power or block the state.”

How it came to this

The roots of the crisis run back to the 2012 provisional constitution, which set up a federal, parliamentary system built on broad consensus and clan-based power-sharing, which every government since has promised to achieve and failed to attain.

This year, after a long review, parliament amended the constitution through a disputed process that split the political class. The government has insisted that the new constitution advances the statebuilding process and that the Somali public should be allowed to directly elect its representatives.

For Ahmed Abdi Koshin, a federal MP who boycotted the draft, the danger is that the whole settlement comes apart. The process, he said, “clearly doesn’t have buy-in,” and the original constitution, for all its faults — “an imperfect product of compromise” — was the “only glue holding Somalia together”.

Koshin is not against a direct vote in principle, he said, but does not believe the country is ready for one. “We don’t have legislation for a direct vote; censuses and the security situation remains compromised. It really is up to the president to either reach a deal and save Somalia, or watch it fall apart,” he said.

The opposition, organised as a coalition known as the Somali Future Council and including two serving federal-state presidents, former prime ministers and a former president, has pressed Mohamud to accept that his mandate has ended and negotiate a new electoral framework, as in past transitions.

It alleges that his push for a direct vote is a pretext for extending his term and potentially securing another.

The government rejects that, casting a national one-person, one-vote election — the first since the 1960s — as essential to a drawn-out state-building project. When electoral talks collapsed on May 15, the Ministry of Information accused the opposition of bringing demands that ran counter to “the citizen’s fundamental right to vote and to be voted for”, and vowed to press ahead.

Mohamed Ibrahim Moalimuu, a lower-house MP who backed the amendments, said further delay could not be justified. “We’ve waited for more than 12 years,” he told Al Jazeera.

“If they had arguments against them, they should have taken part in the process and raised their issues. A constitution isn’t a Quran, and they should come back and work through parliament to make their views clear.”

A whole generation of Somalis, he noted, have never cast a ballot, and a real election “would be a major milestone and would bring some hope”.

The old indirect system, he added, was notoriously corrupt, with parliamentary seats changing hands for anywhere from $100,000 to as much as $1.3m. “This system is too dirty and keeps people out,” said Maliumuu. “It needs to be changed.”

A deeper problem

A regional official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to talk to the media, described an elite “divided strategically over what type of country they want, whether a strong centralised state or a weak decentralised one, and tactically over who the right candidate is to take them there”.

Mohamud, the official said, had moved from a decentralised vision for Somalia that embraces federalism towards a stronger executive, and his early, promising relationships with the federal-state leaders had since soured.

Those fractures have opened on several fronts at once.

Somaliland, which declared independence in 1991 and has stayed out of the constitutional review entirely, was recognised by Israel late last year after earlier courting Ethiopia.

Puntland and Jubaland, two of Somalia’s six federal states, have withdrawn from the federal system over the new constitution, while more than 100 MPs and senators from both boycotted the final vote.

Broader regional crises, from Sudan’s civil war to disease outbreaks elsewhere on the continent, have pushed Somalia further down the list of international priorities, leaving international engagement more fragmented and inconsistent.

The country is also grappling with a deepening humanitarian crisis and aid cuts, prompting famine monitors to warn of a heightened risk of hunger in parts of Somalia.

Yusuf Aynte, a veteran religious leader and former MP, said Somalia’s leaders needed to build consensus rather than push through changes that risk deepening divisions.

“The president says what he is doing is good, and that may be so,” he told Al Jazeera. “But the most important thing is what everyone can agree on.

“At the moment, Somalia has too many problems, and can’t afford to be distracted like this.”

Jamal Shiil, a youth activist, told Al Jazeera that Somalia’s large youth population would ultimately bear the cost of the persistent instability.

“Young people want to make a living here, for Somalia to be peaceful and not to have to leave because of the problems,” he said. “But if things don’t change it won’t leave them much of a choice”.

Colombia’s far-right, pro-Trump candidate, Abelardo de la Espriella, is in the lead after Colombia’s first round of elections. If he wins the June 21 runoff against left-wing Senator Ivan Cepeda, progressive policies could be reversed. Al Jazeera’s Hala Al Shami explains why US officials are invested in de la Espriella’s success and walks us through the stakes.

Well, that didn’t take long.

A day after California’s primary election, President Trump took to social media with baseless claims of election fraud — predictable, but also dangerous.

“Look what’s happening in California, the Dumocrats, right before our very eyes, are stealing the Vote,” Trump wrote in one post.

“There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California,” he wrote in another, apparently enamored of his latest juvenile slur.

Never mind that his candidate, Steve Hilton, is in the lead — for now anyway.

California has once again become the main dish on Trump’s buffet of bull-hockey as he continues to undermine democracy and consolidate authoritarian power, using this disingenuous and patently untrue narrative that American elections are rigged by shadowy Democratic forces working in collusion with illegal immigrants.

That last part is called the Great Replacement Theory, the idea that “elites” are replacing white people — and white voters — with Black and brown immigrants in a bid to destroy white culture. It’s at the heart of Trump’s voter fraud allegations.

The twist this time is that Hilton, the man who wants to represent all Californians, seems to be jumping on the election fraud conspiracy train with the president. I get it, there’s the MAGA base to feed, and it’s a base that feasts on outrage and fakery. Serving up resentment glazed with lies and propaganda has been the MAGA playbook for years under Trump, a strategy that no one can deny has been heartbreakingly effective.

But Hilton is a smart man and must certainly know that voter fraud is rare, to the point of being inconsequential to election outcomes. Hilton by his own admission understands voting patterns, and that in this cycle, Republicans have voted early and often by mail, despite Trump’s claims that all vote-by-mail should be suspect. So Hilton understands that early votes have skewed his way, and that later vote tallies will likely favor Democrats.

And Hilton is definitely intelligent enough to expect that in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly three to one, he will not keep the top spot in this primary, and a slim chance remains that he will not make it into the top two. That’s just simple math.

So if Hilton truly seeks to represent this state as its top elected executive, now is the time to renounce election fraud myths and stand up to Trump’s lies. If Hilton can’t say that he believes our recent election was free and fair, then he has no business being our governor.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the path he’s taking, even as it seems increasingly likely that he will advance to the general election.

This week, speaking with far-right podcaster and former Turning Point USA creative director Benny Johnson (who was allegedly duped into working for a Russian influence operation), Hilton said that while “so far we’re not seeing any signs” of cheating, “we’re going to be all over it. We’re not going to let them do that.”

Hilton was responding to a question from Johnson on whether Hilton will sue over “cheating.”

On a post-election appearance with Laura Ingraham, the conservative Fox News host who has repeatedly promoted the Great Replacement Theory, Hilton delved into more conspiracy.

“Just to really underline the point that you made about the corruption,” he told Ingraham an anecdote about supposed fraud in a previous election cycle when a “whistleblower” at the post office told him that they were instructed that a handwritten postmark was acceptable when sorting ballots to deliver to the county registrar.

“It’s just unbelievable, and of course, that’s why so many people don’t believe the results, but it just undermines confidence,” he told Ingraham, certainly knowing that the post office forwarding a ballot on to a county registrar in no way means it will be certified or counted. Would we really want the USPS deciding which ballots to deliver? Disingenuous on Hilton’s part at best.

“The whole thing is a joke,” Hilton went on to say of California elections, which of course, is absurd.

Thursday, when I asked Hilton’s team to speak with him about his views on voter fraud, they sent back a response that focused on the slowness of the California vote count; voter rolls Hilton has described as “wildly inaccurate,” which is a wildly inaccurate claim; and two instances of actual fraud with voter registration — not examples of votes that were counted.

To be sure, all those items are important. Any malfeasance should be punished, and the system should always strive to improve.

But how hard is it to simply be against fraud, while accurately acknowledging that it is rare and our current system provides accurate results?

I am against voter registration fraud. I am against vote fraud. I am absolutely pro-democracy, including policies such as mail-in voting that increase participation.

I do not believe that there is widespread fraud in the California primary, or in American elections in general, because the evidence does not support that conspiracy. I do not believe that Democrats are running a decades-long, nationwide conspiracy to replace white voters with votes from Black and brown undocumented immigrants, because that is both false and racist.

Pretty basic stuff, and statements in line with the values and common sense of the majority of Californians Hilton says he will represent.

If Hilton can’t come out and clearly say that Trump is wrong — about fraud and about the Great Replacement Theory — can he really be trusted to represent the values of the Golden State?

A former US Army combat surgeon who volunteered at Gaza hospital has a Democratic primary in New Jersey. Here’s what you need to know about Adam Hamawy.

Rebecca Bennett has won a high-stakes Democratic Party primary in the US state of New Jersey, setting up a contest against Republican Tom Kean Jr, backed by President Donald Trump, for one of the most competitive seats in the upcoming midterm elections.

Bennett, a former US Navy helicopter pilot, defeated three Democratic rivals in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, securing about 47.2 percent of the vote, according to projected results on Tuesday.

Her nearest competitor, Tina Shah, received 20.2 percent.

Kean and Bennett will now square off in November for a seat that has changed party hands twice within the past eight years and ranks as a key target for Democrats hoping to capture the House of Representatives.

Independent analysts rate the contest as a toss-up.

The race has attracted heightened attention because of Kean’s prolonged absence from Congress.

The Republican incumbent has missed more than 100 House votes since early March due to an undisclosed illness.

Despite his absence, Kean ran unopposed in the Republican primary with Trump’s backing.

Kean said on Tuesday that he remained focused on his recovery and expected to return to in-person work within weeks.

Hours before polls closed, Kean released a statement promising greater transparency about his health while suggesting his return to in-person work could take longer than previously anticipated.

On May 21, he said he expected to be back within “a couple of weeks”.

“Right now, I am focused on my recovery and, under the advice of healthcare professionals, I will transition from virtual to in-person work within a matter of weeks,” Kean had said.

Bennett targets cost of living, Kean’s absence

At an election night gathering in Somerville, New Jersey, Bennett sharply criticised Kean’s record and absence from Washington.

“You are failing us, and you do not deserve to represent us in Washington,” she told supporters, calling the congressman a “coward”.

Bennett built her campaign around her military service and economic issues, arguing that higher grocery and gasoline prices during the US-Israel war on Iran, combined with Trump’s tariffs, were squeezing working families.

Democrats have increasingly focused on the conflict’s economic impact, with higher energy costs contributing to inflation and broader cost-of-living pressures across the country.

The 7th Congressional District, which includes suburban communities, farm towns and Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, has emerged as one of New Jersey’s key battlegrounds.

The seat has changed hands repeatedly in recent election cycles, with Democrat Tom Malinowski defeating Republican Leonard Lance in 2018 before Kean unseated Malinowski in 2022.

Bennett’s victory over Tina Shah, Brian Varela and Michael Roth now sets up a high-stakes general election contest in a district both parties consider crucial to their House ambitions.

Kean, 57, is the scion of a storied New Jersey political family.

His father, Thomas Kean, served two terms as governor and later chaired the 9/11 Commission, a panel set up in 2002 to investigate the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US. He is also a descendant of William Livingston, New Jersey’s first governor.

The Republican congressman will also enter the race with the backing of Trump, who reiterated his support on the eve of the primary, despite Kean’s prolonged absence from Washington.

“Tom Kean has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election,” Trump wrote on social media, adding: “HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!”

Voters in the district have ousted incumbents in recent midterm elections, making the race one of the most competitive House contests in New Jersey.

Elsewhere in New Jersey, Analilia Mejia won the Democratic nomination in the 11th Congressional District, while LaMonica McIver secured the Democratic nomination in the 10th Congressional District.