party

Just weeks after Justin Bieber’s well-received Coachella headline gig, the singer played a small private event for tech, entertainment and defense industry moguls. Executives at controversial firms, such as surveillance tech giant Palantir, were also on the bill.

Bieber was a headliner at WNDR, entertainment executive Jeffrey Katzenberg’s invitation-only confab at the Rosewood Miramar in Montecito last week. The programming for the event was first reported by Puck.

The ultra A-list talks and guests included director James Cameron and former Disney CEO Bob Iger, YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, FIFA President Gianni Infantino, Oprah Winfrey and Julia Roberts, comedians Chris Rock and Trevor Noah and artist Jeff Koons on a panel discussion with LACMA chief Michael Govan.

Bieber, meanwhile, performed a Wednesday poolside set for attendees at the Rosewood. The “Swag” singer reportedly became the highest-paid headliner in Coachella history last month, and its most lucrative merch seller.

Representatives for Bieber did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While there was lighter programming (like a karaoke party with pop producers StarGate and a talk about snacks with chef Nancy Silverton), the bill included talks and cameos from major weapons and surveillance technology firms noted for their support for — or deep engagement with — the Trump administration.

One panel featured Anduril Industries’ Palmer Luckey, who recently welcomed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to its Southern California headquarters. “We are rebuilding the Arsenal of Freedom,” Hegseth said after the Anduril visit.

Palantir Chief Executive Alex Karp led another talk. Palantir’s AI-driven defense and surveillance software has faced scrutiny around how tech like its Maven Smart System may have been used to target civilians in the Iran war.

Karp also published a recent book, “The Technological Republic,” where he wrote that “We must resist the shallow temptation of a vacant and hollow pluralism. We, in America and more broadly the West, have for the past half century resisted defining national cultures in the name of inclusivity. But inclusion into what?”

Katzenberg’s WNDR conference is one of several recent multi-discipline, ultra-elite gatherings hosted by CEOs, including Jeff Bezos and Eric Schmidt. Katzenberg founded his investment firm WndrCo in 2017.

Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his Labour Party suffered significant losses in local elections, despite his huge majority in parliament.

He’s rejecting calls to resign – but faces new challenges from both the left and right.

So, why is the local vote so important?

Presenter: Mohammed Jamjoom

Guests:

Peter Geoghegan – Editor of the investigative news site, Democracy for Sale

Lesley Riddoch – Podcaster, journalist and author of: ‘Blossom: What Scotland Needs to Flourish’

Tim Bale – Professor of politics, Queen Mary University of London

The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down a voter-approved Democratic congressional redistricting plan, delivering another major setback to the party in a nationwide battle against Republicans for an edge in this year’s midterm elections.

The court ruled that the state’s Democratic-led legislature violated procedural requirements when it placed the constitutional amendment on the ballot to authorize the mid-decade redistricting. Voters narrowly approved the amendment April 21, but the court’s ruling renders the results of that vote meaningless.

“This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void,” the court said in its opinion.

Democrats had hoped to win as many as four additional U.S. House seats under Virginia’s redrawn U.S. House map as part of an attempt to offset Republican redistricting done elsewhere at the urging of President Donald Trump. That ruling, combined with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision severely weakening the Voting Rights Act, has supercharged the Republicans’ congressional gerrymandering advantage heading into this year’s midterm elections.

Legislative voting districts typically are redrawn once a decade after each census to account for population changes. But Trump started an unusual flurry of mid-decade redistricting last year when he encouraged Republican officials in Texas to redraw districts in a bid to win several additional U.S. House seats and hold on to their party’s narrow majority in the midterm elections.

California responded with new voter-approved districts drawn to Democrats’ advantage, and Utah’s top court imposed a new congressional map that also helps Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans stand to gain from new House districts passed in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee. They could add even more after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Voting Rights Act case, which has prompted some other Republican states to consider redrawing their maps in time for this year’s elections.

Virginia currently is represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans who were elected from districts imposed by a court after a bipartisan redistricting commission failed to agree on a map after the 2020 census. The new districts could have given Democrats an improved chance to win all but one of the state’s 11 congressional seats.

Under the Demcoratic-drawn map, five districts would have been anchored in the Democratic stronghold of northern Virginia, including one stretching out like a lobster to consume Republican-leaning rural areas. Revisions to four other districts across Richmond, southern Virginia and Hampton Roads would have diluted the voting power of conservative blocs in those areas. And a reshaped district in parts of western Virginia would have lumped together three Democratic-leaning college towns to offset other Republican voters.

The state Supreme Court’s seven justices are appointed by the state legislature, which has toggled back and forth between Democratic, Republican and split control over recent years. Legal experts say the body doesn’t have a set ideological profile

The case before the court focused not on the shape of the new districts but rather on the process the General Assembly used to authorize them.

Because the state’s redistricting commission was established by a voter-approved constitutional amendment, lawmakers had to propose an amendment to redraw the districts. That required approval of a resolution in two separate legislative sessions, with a state election sandwiched in between, to place the amendment on the ballot.

The legislature’s initial approval of the amendment occurred last October — while early voting was underway but before it concluded on the day of the general election. The legislature’s second vote on the amendment occurred after a new legislative session began in January. Lawmakers also approved a separate bill in February laying out the new districts, subject to voter approval of the constitutional amendment.

Judicial arguments focused on whether the legislature’s initial approval of the amendment came too late, because early voting already had begun for the 2025 general election.

Attorney Matthew Seligman, who defended the legislature, argued that the “election” should be defined narrowly to mean the Tuesday of the general election. In that case, the legislature’s first vote on the redistricting amendment occurred before the election and was constitutional, he told judges.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Thomas McCarthy, argued that an “election” should be interpreted to cover the entire period during which people can cast ballots, which lasts several weeks in Virginia. If that’s the case, he told justices, then the legislature’s initial endorsement of the redistricting amendment came too late to comply with the state constitution.

In January, a judge in rural Tazewell County, in southwestern Virginia, ruled that lawmakers failed to follow their own rules for adding the redistricting amendment to a special session last fall. Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. also ruled that lawmakers failed to initially approve the amendment before the public began voting in last year’s general election and that the state had failed to publish the amendment three months before the election, as required by law. As a result, he said, the amendment is invalid and void.

The Virginia Supreme Court placed Hurley’s order on hold and allowed the redistricting vote to proceed before hearing arguments on the case.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

With President Trump continuing to tank in the polls, the parlor game we know as “2028 Republican primary speculation” is back in full swing among the chattering classes.

Vice President JD Vance — who would normally be considered the heir apparent, and who just happened to make a campaign stop in Iowa recently — now finds his “America First” brand positioning complicated by Trump’s Iran misadventure. So much for an easy glide path to the nomination.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio would seem to benefit from Vance’s stumbles, but in a political moment that fetishizes “authenticity,” Rubio risks coming across like a man who irons his blue jeans. Add to that his reputation as a foreign policy hawk in a party that increasingly wants out of “forever wars,” and he’d be the ideal presidential candidate for … 2004.

All of which has opened the door to more imaginative speculation. “If Pat Buchanan and Roger Ailes had a baby,” former “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd recently quipped, “it would be Tucker Carlson.”

Ailes, of course, was the media-savvy evil genius who took Fox News to No. 1. And while “Pitchfork Pat’s” populist presidential campaigns weren’t ultimately victorious, he is credited with paving the way for Trump’s eventual 2016 victory.

As this comparison suggests, Carlson could make a formidable Republican presidential candidate. The hitch? Carlson and Trump have recently been trading blows, which is not where any potential Republican candidate wants to be.

For all of his polling woes, Trump still enjoys an 85% approval rating among Republicans, according to the recent Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll. And his recent defeat of Indiana Republican legislators who dared defy him over gerrymandering only underscores the point: Trump’s grip on the Republican Party remains firm.

Even if you dismiss talk of a third Trump term as overwrought constitutional fan fiction, it’s hard to imagine a Republican nominee emerging without Trump’s blessing — let alone in defiance of it.

Which brings us to the latest theory making the rounds: Trump isn’t going to pass this torch to anyone lacking the proper surname.

In this telling, Vance is the loyal, if naive, assistant manager waiting for the boss to retire and hand him the keys to the office — only to discover it’s a family business and the ne’er-do-well son has just pulled into the parking lot in a Ferrari.

Enter Donald Trump Jr., whose chief qualification is name recognition so strong it could probably win a Republican primary on its own.

Add to that daddy’s endorsement, and as the Bulwark’s Jonathan V. Last has noted about Vance and Rubio, “Challenging Don Jr. would turn them into enemies of the people.”

But that doesn’t mean this is a slam dunk for Junior.

As British-American journalist Sarah Baxter recently wrote, “like Logan Roy, the patriarch in the television drama Succession, Trump loves playing his children off against each other. He thinks it instills a healthy killer instinct in his privileged offspring.”

This is to say that Junior isn’t the only potential heir lurking in the wings.

Last year, for example, Eric Trump told a journalist: “I think I could do it. And by the way, I think other members of our family could do it too.”

Which brings us to the wildest speculation of all: Ivanka Trump.

Now, to be sure, Ivanka has kept a polite distance from politics (and her father) in recent years, and she doesn’t exactly electrify the MAGA faithful. But she was always her father’s favorite, and her aforementioned liabilities could be overcome with a sufficiently enthusiastic paternal endorsement.

And once she became the standard bearer, Ivanka could market herself as both continuity and “change” — a neat trick, if she can pull it off.

In that sense Republicans could keep the Trump brand while offering a kinder, gentler, fresher face — all while making GOP history with a female presidential nominee.

This, of course, raises the question: Why would Ivanka — or any of the Trumps — want to be part of a political dynasty?

Among the many reasons, the Trump family is raking in cash. Lots of it. And as long as the next president could conceivably be a family member — a possibility that remains operable even if a Trump family member were to lose the general election in 2028 — the spigot will remain on.

That’s one of the reasons that, although Vance would normally be Trump’s obvious successor, the smart money might actually be to bet on someone with the last name “Trump.”

Now, if this dynastic denouement sounds far-fetched, of course it is. But so was electing a thrice-married casino magnate to the presidency in 2016. And so reelecting him in 2024.

We’re living in an era when the seemingly improbable isn’t just possible — it might even be likely.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

The ruling Democratic Party’s (DP) push to put a constitutional change to a national vote in the upcoming local elections fell through Friday as the main opposition People Power Party (PPP) continued to boycott a parliamentary vote on the proposal.

Shortly after Friday’s plenary session opened, National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik announced that he will not put the amendment bill to a vote as the PPP warned it would launch a filibuster to block the proposal.

“I convened the plenary session again today in an effort to prevent the first constitutional amendment vote in 39 years from falling through,” Woo said. “But I believe further proceedings would be meaningless, seeing the (PPP) responding with a filibuster.”

The PPP boycotted a vote on the bill Thursday, leaving the unicameral parliament short of a quorum.

Cheong Wa Dae expressed regret over the National Assembly’s failure to pass the bill due to opposition from PPP lawmakers.

“The public will find it difficult to understand why they opposed even minimal constitutional changes aimed at safeguarding national security and democracy,” presidential spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said in a written briefing, noting that there had been broad public consensus on the need to “reflect the lessons” of former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s Dec. 3, 2024, martial law attempt in the Constitution.

“We urge the National Assembly to continue the discussions on the constitutional amendment with a greater sense of responsibility during the second half and to keep the promise it made to the people,” she added.

President Lee Jae Myung earlier highlighted the need to amend the constitution in “phases” if necessary, saying the Constitution, which has remained unchanged for nearly 40 years since 1987, may now be outdated.

The proposed bill aimed to tighten the rules for declaring martial law, requiring the president to obtain parliamentary approval without delay and stipulating that if the National Assembly rejects the declaration or fails to approve it within 48 hours, the martial law will be immediately nullified.

It also sought to include the 1980 pro-democracy uprising in Gwangju and the 1979 Busan-Masan pro-democracy protests in the preamble. It currently states that the country inherits the spirit of the April 19 revolution in 1960, which overthrew South Korea’s first president, Rhee Syng-man, over election fraud.

The bill was jointly proposed by 187 lawmakers from the DP and five minor parties.

A constitutional amendment requires two thirds of votes from sitting lawmakers to be put to a national referendum for final approval by a majority of ballots cast.

South Korea is set to hold its quadrennial local elections on June 3.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

Married At First Sight Australia fans were left in disbelief as the final dinner party descended into chaos and tears

Viewers confessed they found themselves shouting at their television screens during the final Married At First Sight Australia dinner party.

Fans branded it ‘unhinged’ as proceedings spiralled into mayhem and waterworks. Just a handful of episodes remain of the current reality series from Down Under, with Final Vows anticipated to broadcast next week.

While Australian audiences have already seen it through to the end, UK-based fans are almost completely up to speed. Once again, more than a dozen strangers exchanged vows upon meeting for the very first time as part of an unconventional social dating experiment.

Throughout recent weeks, audiences have been captivated by numerous dramatic developments and its climax is scheduled to reach British screens this week. One couple even chose to call it quits just days ahead of the finale.

Recent days have witnessed the surviving couples undertake a final challenge devised by the experts. This was succeeded by a catastrophic breakdown as multiple participants fled from the cameras, threatening to abandon the programme, reports OK!.

This evening’s episode (May 7) resumes just in time for the final dinner party. Scott, still shaken after his bride abandoned him, reveals that he suspects Gia has travelled back home. He says: “Gia sent me a voicemail. She’s upset and her daughter’s crying. She sent me pictures. I think she’s trying to make me feel bad?” Despite Gia’s earlier insistence that she’d quit the experiment and jetted off, Filip drops a bombshell – he’d actually spotted her in their apartment block. Unsurprisingly, she’s not about to miss out on Dinner Party drama.

Elsewhere, Alissa and David are battling to repair their relationship following their explosive row over the final challenge. David confronted Alissa about her conduct, which saw him storm off and Alissa hurl her wedding ring in his direction.

David offers an apology for removing his ring and expresses his desire to listen to Alissa’s perspective. However, Alissa refuses to say sorry for her antics during the lunch with the alternate matches, insisting she was simply enjoying herself. In a dramatic gesture, David drops to one knee and tries to slip the ring back onto her finger.

He declares: “I love you” and Alissa pauses before responding: “Thank you.”

The experts observe the exchange, with Mel Schilling appearing distinctly unimpressed by Alissa’s reply. She remarks: “That shows absolutely lack of flexibility and saying this is who I am, take me or leave me. She’s giving him nothing.” Alessandra adds: “I can’t believe that was her response to saying he loves her.”

Shortly after Gia makes her entrance, Bec wastes no time exposing her fabrications. Gia’s knee-jerk reaction is, predictably, to announce she wants out. Once more, Bec appears oblivious to the presence of cameras and microphones as her covert scheme unfolds before the audience. She instructs Gia: “They all know you weren’t in Melbourne. You know what you need to do.” Gia responds: “Out victim him. So, what am I saying?”

Bec advises: “I’m looking at this strategically. It’s not just about your relationship, it’s about all of Australia. This is your moment. And if you can cry, that would be great.”

During the confrontation, Gia delivers a rehearsed statement as directed by Bec. She declares: “Dear Scott (cue tears), this hurts in a way I didn’t think it could.”

Upon completion, Stella disapprovingly shakes her head, while Bec applauds in isolation and gestures for Gia to cease the waterworks. Scott then presents his own statement, which resonates far more with the majority of the group, including the words: “You are not the one for me. We are a different calibre of people.”

Gia attempts one final manoeuvre, suddenly levelling accusations at Scott, who has already departed, of pressuring her into a ‘showmance’. She further alleges he never paid her compliments, criticised her drinking habits and exploited her physically. Claims that devoted viewers have never witnessed on screen.

Audiences at home were swift to voice their reactions. One viewer questioned: “Is this more dramatic than the I’m A Celeb reunion?” Another remarked: “Gia for once was put in her place. So whatever else she says now will be met with pure disgust. No less than she deserves..” One person asked: “How many of us are arguing out loud with our TVs?” Another confessed: “‘To bare my soul, not for the cameras but for you’ – the worst performance I’ve ever seen, Gia. And loving this letter show down.”

Others remarked on David and Alissa’s predicament, with one stating: “So, David taking off his ring was unforgivable, but it was absolutely fine for Alissa to lob hers at him.”

And another: “Alissa pretending she didn’t do or say anything wrong at that dinner is unbelievable. And David is just being FAR too graceful. Bless his heart.”

Married At First Sight Australia continues Monday at 7.30PM on E4 and streaming on Channel 4.

Democrats have a huge opportunity to make a huge difference. But whether they’ll grab it is a huge question.

In 2020, I wrote that voters were “weary, anxious and looking for salve” after President Trump’s first term. I said then that the experienced, reassuring Joe Biden fit the moment. Now I fear that if Democrats nominate a similar presidential candidate in 2028, one who wins yet doesn’t act with alacrity on democracy preservation and helping Americans live better lives, a fed-up electorate will once again turn them out as ineffectual.

Who can or should lead the party at a time like this?

I’m not alone in hoping for a tough and confrontational 2028 nominee, someone who is aggressive, persistent and, when necessary, as ruthless as the forces on the opposite side. This person also must have the energy to undertake the mammoth task of repairing the institutional wreckage of Trumpism. Which suggests Democrats should be checking out younger nominees.

Fortunately, newer generations of leaders are emerging. Those who “get it,” in my view, include Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut.

Obviously any Democrat will be better than anyone from Trump’s team or orbit, including JD Vance, Donald Trump Jr. or Marco Rubio. The issue facing Democrats is whether moderate or policy wonkish people such as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear or Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro would be the democracy warriors this moment demands. Repairing a crucial interstate bridge with lightning speed is a great thing and, sometimes, so is outreach to Republicans and Fox News. But would they prioritize thinking big and fighting hard for the fundamental changes we need?

Where would centrist former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger, the new Virginia governor, land on this scale? Even after coming around to supporting new House maps that will net four seats for her party? Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, who began his podcast by inviting MAGA guests, championed a referendum on five new Democratic seats in his state and led his party to a redistricting triumph. Where would he land? Would he prioritize outreach to Republicans or the battle to assure a “no kings” future for America? The need for structural changes in our outdated institutions is glaringly obvious. Who will run to repair this country? Who can be trusted to follow through? Because the solutions are out there, staring us in the face:

Checks on presidential pardon power. A larger, term-limited Supreme Court bound to an enforceable ethics code. A national law requiring independent redistricting commissions or, better yet, multi-member districts with proportional representation. A voting rights law that sets minimum standards for mail voting, early voting and voter IDs. Anti-corruption laws that prevent profiteering by presidents and their allies. Explicit limits on presidential construction and alterations to federal properties. A stronger “impoundment” act with sharp teeth to make sure future presidents spend taxpayer money constitutionally, as Congress intends, instead of any way they want. D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood to start rebalancing a Congress and electoral college that have shortchanged urban America since the late 19th century.

It’s a long list, and there’s no guarantee that today’s Supreme Court would allow any of it. But realizing some of these goals will take decades; we can’t be discouraged by temporary impediments such as the current lineup of justices. The work on all of it should start ASAP — next year in the next Congress if Democrats are running one or both chambers. And at some point, we’ll have a different high court.

I can already hear the protests: What about affordability? That’s the best part: Trump has done so many things to make life more expensive that simply reversing them would have immediate impact. Stop the Iran war; reopen the Strait of Hormuz; aim to restore the Obama-era agreement that kept Iran’s nuclear ambitions in check; end the Trump tariffs; stop shrinking labor forces in agriculture, healthcare, construction and other industries by ending detentions and deportations of noncriminals; reverse last year’s tax breaks for elites and restore the money for Medicaid and health insurance premium subsidies; and kill off the Versailles-level Trump ballroom that he now wants to fund with taxpayer dollars (initially $400 million, now $1 billion).

Then Democrats could revisit some of their own affordability priorities, including the expanded child tax credit that significantly reduced child poverty, new ways to put housing within reach of more people and national paid family leave. They could also crack down on military spending that is pointless in the modern era and refocus on cheap and effective equipment such as drones like Ukraine is using to strike inside Russia.

As it happens, a stark indicator of the political tides came as I was writing this. Maine Gov. Janet Mills suddenly dropped out of the Democratic Senate primary race against Graham Platner. It was a lightning bolt, given her establishment support after being recruited by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. But in a way it was inevitable.

Mills is 78. If she had gone on to win the primary and defeat GOP Sen. Susan Collins, she would have been sworn in at age 79. Platner is 41, an oyster farmer and military veteran with a compelling, relatable persona. Though he has a controversial past, Mills’ negative ads did nothing to dent his appeal. Polls showed him winning the primary vote against Mills, sometimes by 2 to 1, and with a consistent general-election edge against Collins as well.

Platner told Jon Stewart last week that the party leadership establishment had largely ignored him. His message to them? “You should be curious, because I’m polling 40 points ahead.” By the next morning, Mills was out, and the establishment — Schumer and New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, chair of the Senate campaign committee — said they’d work with Platner to flip the seat.

The midterm races are sending Democrats clues. They should take them seriously.

Jill Lawrence is a journalist and the author of “The Art of the Political Deal: How Congress Beat the Odds and Broke Through Gridlock.” Bluesky: @jilldlawrence

One of the things journalism teaches you over and over again is that nothing ruins a good story quite like the facts.

Consider, for example, this week’s renewal of the chattering classes’ infatuation with the “tea party” movement, timed to coincide with the deadline to file federal income tax returns. The group is conventionally portrayed as a burgeoning populist expression of discontent that sprouted spontaneously from the grass-roots and cuts in new ways across sectional, class and gender lines.

Reams of analysis have proceeded from those assumptions, but like a great deal that’s based on anecdotal reporting, it turns out to be wrong. To their great credit, the New York Times and CBS undertook extensive, and expensive, polling that provides the first reliable look at the tea party supporters. Little that has been generally assumed survived the scrutiny.

As it turns out, fewer than 1 in 5 Americans “supports” the tea party movement in any respect, and just 4% of all adult Americans have contributed to it or attended one of its events or both. (On any given day, you probably could drum up twice as many people who think the Pentagon is hiding dead aliens in Area 51.)

Of the 18% of all adults who expressed support for the tea party, the overwhelming majority were white (89%), male (59%) Republicans over age 45 (75%) and significantly more affluent and better educated than the majority of Americans. One in five has an annual income greater than $100,000, and 37% have advanced degrees. More than 9 out of 10 think President Obama is pushing the country into “socialism.”

The survey also found that more than half of the tea party supporters say “the policies of the administration favor the poor, and 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with 11% of the general public.”

If all this is beginning to have a familiar ring, it’s because you’ve met these guys before: They’re the “angry white males” we’ve been reading about since political strategist-turned-analyst Kevin Phillips first identified them as an electoral presence during Richard Nixon’s successful presidential campaign in 1968.

They share many qualities with other Americans. For example, while 96% of tea party supporters say they disapprove of the current Congress, 40% think their own representative does a good job, a sentiment shared by 46% of all adults, 73% of whom disapprove of the performance of Congress as a whole.

They aren’t, however, implacable foes of “big government” or even of taxes. More than half (52%) told the pollsters they think their own “income taxes this year are fair,” just 10% less than all American adults. Moreover, a majority told follow-up interviewers that, though they wanted “smaller government,” they didn’t want cuts in our largest social programs, Social Security and Medicare.

So much for the surge of a new anti-government populism.

What the movement really amounts to is old wine in new skins, a re-branding of the old-fashioned angry white male in a camera-ready package tailored to the demands of the 24-hour cable news cycle.

Let’s return to this week, for example: There’s nothing harder for TV to cover than a tax-filing deadline — no conflict, no action pictures. By staging rallies on April 15, and particularly in Washington, the tea party’s strategists made themselves and their speakers the center of cable news coverage. This was true despite the fact that, as the poll demonstrates, a majority of the movement’s supporters think their taxes are fair.

As regular readers of this column will recall, the public packaging of the tea party movement — and particularly events that win it TV airtime, like cross-country bus tours, rallies and ads — is mainly the product of California Republican political consultants, foremost among them the Sacramento-based firm of Russo Marsh and Rogers. That company has not only promoted the movement but also used it to raise money for a political action committee, Our Country Deserves Better, founded to oppose Obama during the general election. This week, Politico reported that, according to federal filings, the Our Country PAC has raised $2.7 million since launching the Tea Party Express bus tours.

“That fundraising success,” Politico wrote, “has also meant a brisk business for Russo Marsh.” The website found that Russo Marsh and a sister firm received $1.9 million of the $4.1 million in payments made by the PAC; some of those funds would have gone for TV airtime and to vendors.

It’s good to see that all the creeping socialism in the nation hasn’t silenced traditional voices, like those of the angry white male, nor wrung the profit motive from our politics.

timothy.rutten@latimes.com

May 5 (UPI) — One of 23 people injured in a weekend shooting at a lake party in an Oklahoma City suburb has died, authorities said Tuesday as they continue to search for a suspect.

The shooting occurred at around 9 p.m. CDT Sunday at Lake Arcadia where a group of young people were having an unauthorized party near a campground that had been advertised across social media.

Police initially said 10 people were taken to area hospitals but warned the number would rise as individuals were transported by private vehicles.

The deceased victim was identified by the Edmond Police Department as “an 18-year-old young woman.”

“Our thoughts are with her loved ones, as well as all those affected by this tragic incident,” the Edmond Police Department said in a statement.

“We thank our community and media partners for their patience and understanding as we work to confirm details and release appropriate information. This investigation is being handled with the utmost care and seriousness.”

The announcement came a day after local police announced the casualty toll had increased to 23, with injuries ranging in severity. Some suffered gunshot wounds, authorities said.

Police said they were not releasing suspect information at this time but asked members of the public with information about the shooting to contact authorities.

Edmond Mayor Mark Nash issued a statement Monday explaining that shootings such as the one on Sunday are rare for the city and “will not define us.”

“We are a strong, engaged community. We support one another, we face challenges directly and we move forward together,” he said.

“That is what makes Edmond special, and that is exactly what we will continue to protect.”

SIMON Cowell has admitted spending a whopping £3M on a “dancing vaginas” birthday party and shelling out £2K to have a bath.

The Britain’s Got Talent judge, 66, has opened up about some of the wild ways he has splashed his cash over the years.

Simon, who has made a fortune from TV talent shows and also through bands like One Direction, has been candidly opening up about how he’s spent his enormous wealth over the years.

To launch his brand new podcast Tales from the Celebrity Trenches, Holy Moly founder Jamie East invited The X Factor creator onto his very first episode.

As the two got talking Simon didn’t hold back with his answers, and when asked if he once spent £3M on a birthday party featuring burlesque dancing vaginas, he coolly replied: “Absolutely correct. Those days are over., by the way.

“I didn’t know it was going to cost that much, I really didn’t.

READ MORE ON SIMON COWELL

sin-waita

I’m A Celeb’s Sinitta breaks silence on Simon Cowell ’40 year on and off romance’

SPECIAL ACT

Simon Cowell left emotional on BGT as he reunites with X Factor star 9 years on

“I think I’m still paying for it now. I honestly couldn’t believe it”

It was then revealed that the party was for his 50th birthday, which turned out to be quite the wild bash.

“I wish I could remember it. I honestly can’t. I remember taking, I think, half a Xanax before that because I was so anxious,” Simon revealed.

Jamie then asked him about the time he once paid £2,000 to check into the London Mandarin Oriental to take a bath because his was broken.

“I might have done that. Do you know, what I p***ed away so much money in hindsight. I do think about that, because my God, two grand on a bath?” Simon said.

“I’m a bit more cautious now, I think because I didn’t have a lot of money to start with.

“So when I started to make a lot of money, I’m like, ‘wow, this is fantastic’.

“And now I’m like, ‘God, why did I spend all that money?’ You know, all those lists, I’m not worth anywhere near that.”

Meanwhile, these days Simon is loved-up with long-term partner Lauren Silverman, 48, who he shares son Eric, 10, with.

But before her, he was known for having a string of famous beauties on his arm.

Just last month, The Sun revealed that his ex, Baywatch model Carmen Electra, and his fellow American Idol judge Paula Abdul are both working on memoirs AND are set to feature their relationships with the music mogul.

A Los Angeles literary agent said: “Paula and Carmen are strong women and they won’t hold back when it comes to their memoirs.

“Carmen dated Simon, so knows what he is like when the cameras stop rolling.

“Rumours have swirled for years about Paula and Simon.

“They had undeniable chemistry on American Idol and now Paula has the chance to put the record straight.”

Carmen and Simon were first linked in 2012 when she briefly starred as a guest judge on ITV show Britain’s Got Talent.

The pair were spotted on a series of dinner dates.

Speaking about Carmen in December 2012, Simon said: “She’s not my girlfriend. We’re people who date. She’s adorable, isn’t she?”

Paula had starred on American Idol with Simon for eight seasons between 2002 and 2009.

The pair, who also appear­ed together on The X Factor USA, were known for their chemistry on the shows.

YOU might have thought going on a barge break would be relaxing, quiet and peaceful being surrounded by nothing but nature and water.

That’s what I thought too, before I moored up on what was one of the biggest party spots in the Midlands.

Follow The Sun’s award-winning travel team on Instagram and Tiktok for top holiday tips and inspiration @thesuntravel.

Birmingham’s Gas Street basin is one of the most iconic stretches of canal in the world. So when we found a free mooring spot right there in the city centre we were delighted.

We tied up our rented barge to the metal posts and went out for dinner and a couple of drinks.

It was only when we returned to spend the evening on board that we realised it was going to be somewhat noisier than a few passing dog walkers or nesting geese at 5pm had initially made us realise.

GO GREEK

Five cheapest Greek hols islands as country lets Brits SKIP huge EU airport queues

SUN SPOT

Travel experts’ guide to lesser-known holiday spots that are quieter AND cheaper

Because by 9pm, it felt like we were moored on the party strip in Ayia Napa. 

There were disco boats with banging music passing on one side, and large groups of boisterous pedestrians on the other – passing very loudly between one bar or club and another. 

We had inadvertently plonked ourselves right in the very party heart of the Midlands. 

One year-round barge user told me that he has moored in this very spot before only to wake up adrift – one of those boisterous party people had untied him in the middle of the night as a prank.

It wasn’t until after two in the morning when the last of the last orders were called that it began to quieten down – and we started to hear the sound of geese again rather than dance music.

Thankfully we were still tied to those posts though. 

So the next morning, after coffee, we moved the boat another half a mile to a quieter spot where we would spend our second night in Brum. 

It was the only blip on what was to be a terrific long weekend in the Second City.

Because although I’d been to Birmingham several times before I’d never really devoted any time to the place – just headed straight to whatever job I had and then gone off again.

This trip was an attempt to redress this miss. And it was great fun – Birmingham was a blast. 

We aren’t the first people to realise this. The city has had a lot of money spent on it and tourism here has had a shot in the arm – not least from the success of Peaky Blinders, which is celebrated across the centre. You can’t miss the many references. 

Thanks to our very central location, it was also extremely navigable: that meal we had, at Indian street food restaurant Indico Mailbox, was barely a five minute walk from our bed. 

And, as Londoners, it felt very cheap. Very cheap indeed.

At one point I confidently told a bar worker that she had only charged us for one of our two drinks. She hadn’t, it really was £5.25 for a pint and a glass of wine. 

That was the cheapest round of quite a few – we found, as we often do, that a good way to see the sights was by turning our day there into a pub crawl.

So although we did get into some set piece tourism spots – the very good city gallery, the cathedral with its spectacular stained glass windows etc – it was while walking from one pub to another.

And goodness, does Birmingham have a vibrant pub scene. 

The standouts were: The Wellington, with its incredible array of real ales and ciders, The Craven Arms, The Spotted Dog and the Woodman.

The latter is currently isolated in the middle of vast building works next door to one of the oldest stations in the world, Curzon Street, which will also become one of the newest when HS2 finally opens.

Remarkably it still functions as a top, top boozer despite this. So that was our time in the city – now onto how we got there.

And this was what they call a life hack: we realised that for the same money it would cost to spend two nights in a city centre hotel and eat out for every meal, we could hire a barge and do (most of) our own cooking, as well as picking our own berth (see above for the pitfalls in this aspect of the plan).

We went as a single couple but two couples sharing could do this even more affordably – most boats have two double rooms.

We picked up our boat from – and returned it to – the marina at Alvechurch, some 11 miles south of the city centre.

It’s an interesting journey into the city for two main reasons.

Firstly you get to travel through – and if you like, you can tie up to explore – the famous Bournville suburb, where the Cadbury brothers, real-life Willy Wonkas, built a model Victorian neighbourhood for their chocolate factory workers – and it remains largely unchanged. 

Then there’s the dramatic Wast Hill tunnel, at 1.5 miles one of the longest in Britain’s entire 3000 mile canal network, which takes longer to navigate by slow moving barge than the train journey through the Channel Tunnel.

It has an extraordinary and slightly ghostly atmosphere within: complete darkness except for that distant pinprick of light at the end of the tunnel. 

But the great advantage of this short trip is that there are no locks! Just a five-hour each way tour followed by one single, easy-to-perform U-turn at the end before your return leg. 

It is without doubt the least demanding, most relaxing canal trip I have ever done. 

The only thing that could have improved it would have been if I were still young enough to have taken advantage of all that nightlife on our doorstep – or rather barge step.

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni have reached an agreement to resolve their legal dispute, bringing an abrupt end to a high-profile and increasingly contentious battle that had been set to go to trial in two weeks.

“The parties in the Blake Lively and Wayfarer Studios litigation have reached an agreement to resolve the matters,” lawyers for both sides said in a joint statement Monday in a case that has drawn outsized attention for more than a year.

“The end product — the movie ‘It Ends With Us’ — is a source of pride to all of us who worked to bring it to life. Raising awareness, and making a meaningful impact in the lives of domestic violence survivors — and all survivors — is a goal that we stand behind. We acknowledge the process presented challenges and recognize concerns raised by Ms. Lively deserved to be heard. We remain firmly committed to workplaces free of improprieties and unproductive environments. It is our sincere hope that this brings closure and allows all involved to move forward constructively and in peace, including a respectful environment online.”

The statement did not disclose the terms of the agreement.

The bitter dispute, which grew out of the production of the 2024 romantic drama “It Ends With Us,” had sprawled over months into a series of lawsuits, countersuits and public claims, with both sides offering sharply different accounts of what took place during and after filming.

Lively sued Baldoni, his production company Wayfarer Studios and others in December 2024, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation and other claims tied to her experience on the film. Baldoni denied the allegations and pushed back in court filings, arguing that the dispute had been mischaracterized.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman dismissed most of Lively’s claims, including her sexual harassment allegations, significantly narrowing the case ahead of a trial that had been scheduled to begin May 18 in New York.

The remaining claims, centered largely on alleged retaliation, had been expected to be the focus of the trial, which was likely to last two to three weeks and risked reputational damage to both parties.

It was not immediately clear whether the court had formally vacated the trial date.

May 4 (UPI) — A shooting erupted at a lake party in the Oklahoma City suburb of Edmond on Sunday night, according to police, who said at least 10 people were transported to area hospitals though the number of victims was expected to change.

Multiple law enforcement agencies responded to a party by Lake Arcadia following reports of shots fired just after 9 p.m. CDT and found several victims.

Ten people were transported to local hospitals in various conditions, Edmond Police Department spokesperson Emily Ward told reporters during a press conference, but she said the number was expected to increase as additional victims arrived at the hospitals in personal vehicles.

“At this time, I don’t have a condition on anyone as far as fatality or not,” she said.

No suspects were in police custody, and authorities were asking members of the public with information about the shooting to contact them, she said.

“This is obviously a very terrifying situation, and we understand the concern from the public and those involved, and we are working extremely hard to find the suspects and help these victims,” she said.

Investigators were at the scene and taking statements from victims and witnesses across the metro area, according to police.

“So that’s what we’ll be doing in these next multiple hours,” Ward added.

Little information about the shooting was made public.

Ward did not describe the party at the lake nor those who attended it, other than to say it was “a large group of young people.”

The man-made Arcadia Lake is located on the Deep Fork River in Edmond, an Oklahoma City suburb of about 99,000 people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Tens of thousands of partygoers gathered for an illegal “free party” at a military firing range near Bourges, despite warnings about unexploded World War II ordnance. Authorities warned of serious risks, while organisers said the event was attended by 40,000 to protest against proposed laws targeting unregistered raves.

NEW YORK — Maine just sent a blunt message to the Democratic Party’s national leaders.

Democratic Gov. Janet Mills was forced to abandon her U.S. Senate campaign last week, unable to generate sufficient fundraising or enthusiasm to compete against Graham Platner, an oyster farmer who has never served in elected office. The announcement marked a stinging defeat for Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who recruited Mills to lead the party’s decades-long quest to defeat Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

The swift eclipse of a two-term governor by a political neophyte highlighted a stark reality that has begun to take hold at a pivotal moment — Democratic voters are rejecting their party’s establishment and embracing new risks, even as their confidence grows that a blue wave is coming in November’s midterm elections.

Sometimes Democratic voters seem almost as angry at their own party’s aging, entrenched leadership as they are at President Trump.

“Rank-and-file Democrats don’t want the Democratic Party as we know it,” said Ezra Levin, co-founder of the Democratic resistance group Indivisible. “Rank-and-file Democrats want fighters.”

Local chapters of the group Indivisible, as well as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, and other leaders from the party’s progressive wing had already lined up behind Platner, who is now almost certain to be the Democratic nominee in one of the party’s best Senate pickup opportunities in the nation.

Platner on Friday said he would continue to speak out against his party’s leadership, including Schumer (D-N.Y.), although he acknowledged that the two spoke privately the night before.

“The fact that we’ve been able to do all of this without the help of the establishment, it puts us in such an amazing position,” Platner said on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe.” “My criticisms of the party leadership, my criticisms of the party, they have not changed, and I’ve been very vocal about that since the beginning. But we will absolutely take the help that we can get.”

Republicans, meanwhile, are giddy — and some moderate Democratic strategists are worried — that the anti-establishment shift may undermine the Democratic Party’s effort to win back control of Congress in November.

“Chuck Schumer has officially lost the first battle in his proxy war with Bernie Sanders,” said Bernadette Breslin, spokesperson for the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm. “As Sanders hits the campaign trail to prop up progressives in messy Democrat primaries in Michigan and Minnesota, Schumer’s chances of getting his preferred candidates through look grim.”

Beyond Maine

Maine is far from alone.

Prominent anti-establishment clashes are playing out in high-profile Senate races in Michigan, Minnesota and Iowa, along with House races in several states.

Sanders, the country’s highest-profile democratic socialist, continues to promote Platner and other critics of the Democratic Party’s national leadership. The Vermont senator planned to campaign over the weekend in Detroit with Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, who is running in a three-way Senate primary against Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

“There’s a desire to turn the page on the old guard,” Sanders’ political advisor Faiz Shakir said. “It’s not even just the Democratic electorate. There’s a populist mood in this country. You’d have to be blind not to see it.”

Indeed, McMorrow is actively working to remind voters that she would not support Schumer as Democrats’ Senate leader if given the chance.

“Frankly, I was the first person in this country to say no,” McMorrow said in a video she posted Thursday on social media. “It is a different moment. This is no longer a Republican Party we’re dealing with, it is a MAGA party that has been taken over by Trump loyalists. … You need to respond in a very different way.”

Veteran Democratic strategists like Lis Smith, who works with candidates across the country, tied the anti-establishment shift to the party’s painful losses in 2024, after President Biden abandoned his reelection bid and Vice President Kamala Harris went on to lose to Trump.

“After 2024, voters are sick of the gerontocracy, sick of the status quo, and Chuck Schumer has completely misread that,” Smith said.

Moderates are worried

Privately, Schumer’s allies downplay the impact of the anti-establishment backlash.

The Democratic leader’s preferred Senate picks in North Carolina, Ohio and Alaska haven’t faced the same challenges as Mills did in Maine. The four states represent the party’s most likely path to a majority in the chamber, which has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the Democrats.

Mills is the oldest of the candidates and, at 78, would have been the oldest freshman senator in history. She promised to serve one term if elected. Platner is 41.

Schumer’s team is unwilling to make any apologies for backing Mills over Platner.

“Leader Schumer’s North Star is taking back the Senate,” Schumer spokesperson Allison Biasotti said. “When no one thought a Senate majority was possible just a year ago, he made it a reality by recruiting great candidates across the country and laying out an agenda for lower costs and better lives for Americans.”

Some in the Democratic Party’s moderate wing are worried.

Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left group Third Way, said that Platner’s emergence in Maine “without a doubt” will make it harder for Democrats to defeat Collins in November. He warns that it could be the same elsewhere if Democratic primary voters rally behind anti-establishment candidates.

“Our message is if you would like to beat Donald Trump’s Republicans, you better nominate people who can win,” Bennett said.

Peoples writes for the Associated Press.

A shrinking number of seats will determine control of the U.S. House after Republicans and Democrats spent much of the last year redrawing congressional maps to erase swing districts.

Even before Florida’s Legislature approved a new Republican-leaning map last week, just 16 seats were listed as “tossups” by the Cook Political Report, the nonpartisan newsletter that serves as an unofficial electoral scorekeeper. Another 16 districts are listed as leaning toward Democrats or Republicans, with the outcome all but predetermined for more than 400 seats.

This could make for the fewest competitive seats since political analyst Charlie Cook first published his race ratings in 1984. That means even if historical trends and current events favor Democrats heading into November, they’re likely to fall short of the 41 districts they picked up in the 2018 midterms during the first Trump administration.

“There aren’t really 40 seats on the board potentially right now just because of redistricting and that polarization,” said Carrie Dann, managing editor of the Cook Political Report.

That reality allows the two political parties to concentrate their resources. The Democratic House campaign operation lists 44 Republican districts in play, and the GOP equivalent is aiding 17 challengers hoping to unseat Democratic incumbents.

Those numbers can change after primary elections, but one Republican operative familiar with the party’s plans said the total number of contested seats is about half of what those the parties fought over in the last midterm election in 2022.

Republicans say the smaller map favors them. Before the most recent spate of map changes, only three Republican House members were elected in districts that Democrat Kamala Harris won in 2024 — compared with 13 Democrats defending seats that Donald Trump won.

Zach Parkinson, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said his party has better campaign infrastructure in place.

“Part of that right now is financial, but part of it is also we’re all very synced up with the president, the White House,” Parkinson said. “Everyone on our side institutionally is rowing in the same direction.”

But Democrats note that Republican efforts to aggressively gerrymander districts in Texas and Florida could leave them even more vulnerable if Democrats leverage the same kind of voter enthusiasm they did in 2018, when they won enough seats to take back the House majority.

John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said congressional districts in Texas and Florida were already designed to favor Republicans.

“So what you need to do in order to create a deeper gerrymander is make more Republican seats competitive,” he said. “As the Democratic advantage grows, the likelihood and opportunity for dummymanders increases.”

A dummymander happens when one party gerrymanders so aggressively that it spreads its majority too thin — making its seats more vulnerable if the other party performs better than expected.

Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Nikki Fried said that’s what Republicans did in her state last week when the Legislature pushed through a new map that GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis said will yield his party four more seats.

“I am not actually worried,” Fried said. “All of my congressional members will be reelected. They’re strong in their communities and I feel very bullish about their possibilities.”

Democrats have been overperforming in off-year and special elections by an average of 17 points over Trump’s margin of victory in 2024, and Fried said that trend suggests Democrats could pick up nine seats in Florida alone.

That seems unlikely. A Cook Political Report poll of its 36 most competitive districts as of April 6 — which Trump won by an average of 2 points in 2024 — found a six-point Democratic advantage.

Neither party has been able to solidify much of an advantage through mid-decade redistricting. What started with Republicans in Texas was countered by Democrats in California. Republicans could pick up two more seats from new maps in Missouri and North Carolina. Virginia’s new map could give Democrats as many as four more seats, a move matched by Republicans in Florida.

And it’s not over yet. The Supreme Court’s decision Wednesday limiting the use of the Voting Rights Act to create majority-Black or majority-Hispanic districts has unlocked the potential for Republicans to pick up seats in Louisiana and Tennessee.

Korte writes for Bloomberg.

ST. LOUIS — Still smarting from their election loss and scornful of their departing leaders, ranking Republicans met Thursday to select a new party chairman, eyeing five candidates who stress unity but whose links to opposing factions and presidential hopefuls mirror the party’s deep clefts.

On the surface, the three-day meeting of the 165-member Republican National Committee to pick a new leader opened Thursday with a collegial sense of purpose: All five men seeking the post are conservatives who talk of renewing the party at the grass-roots level and loosening ties to the Washington Establishment that called the shots for 12 years.

But the mounting heat produced by this campaign has burnished the differences between the candidates and exposed hints of their ties to the forces buffeting the party–presidential aspirants, religious and anti-abortion elements, even the tattered remains of George Bush’s reelection apparatus.

Party veterans say none of the five–retiring Missouri Gov. John Ashcroft, Mississippi lawyer and political consultant Haley Barbour, Republican Congressional Committee Co-Chairman L. Spencer Abraham, former Army Secretary Howard H. (Bo) Calloway and Oregon party Chairman Craig L. Berkman–appear to have enough support to muster a first-ballot victory this afternoon.

Party regulars described Barbour and Abraham as the perceived front-runners, with Ashcroft, who gained national exposure last fall as a Bush campaign speaker, not far behind. But arriving committee members said up to 40% of the voting members appeared uncommitted.

Committed or not, some of the arriving committee members projected a prickly impatience with the soothing promises made by consultants and cellular phone-wielding floor whips. After 12 years of taking orders from Administration officials, some party officials gleefully flexed their independence.

Outside one reception, a Midwestern committeeman poked a startled staffer in the chest and huffed: “You’re beginning to sound exactly like the dolts we had to endure for the last four years.”

Karen Hughes, the executive director of the Texas Republican Party, said a “strong anti-Washington Establishment” mood pervades the gathering. “I think the deciding factor in the vote is who the members believe will allow them to be part of the process,” she said. “You don’t mind being a rubber stamp body when you win. But when you lose . . . .”

As they lobbied near well-stocked buffet tables in Hyatt Regency hotel hospitality suites and in secluded speeches in spare meeting rooms, the five contestants tried to capitalize on that sense of frustration. They echoed a growing cadre of party regulars who think that Bush’s presidential campaign was fatally flawed by the party’s failure to project a “big tent” image to a diverse nation.

“The sense that the party needs to be inclusionary is playing pretty well here,” said Eddie Mahe, a Republican political consultant who flew in from Washington to lobby for Calloway.

That yearning for a broader, more tolerant Republican Party masks a fear among many stalwarts that they are in danger of a grass-roots takeover by the religious right.

Mary Alice Lair, a national committeewoman from the small southeast Kansas town of Piqua, worries about the “new people,” her hushed description of Christian right volunteers who have swelled party membership rolls in her Republican precinct.

“We need to find ways to show the new people that we’re OK and to teach them how to operate as one group,” Lair said. “We need a chairman who can show the precincts how to organize properly.”

But even as candidates talked earnestly about tinkering with the grass roots, listening to regulars outside the Washington Beltway and turning a deaf ear to well-heeled consultants, they were relying on time-tested Capitol contacts and imported consultants to sway uncommitted members.

And, as they promised a turn in the party’s fortunes by welcoming all of its embittered factions, the five candidates were busy attacking each other for their links to future presidential contenders as varied as former Vice President Dan Quayle and Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, to Christian fundamentalist leaders like Pat Robertson and even to CBS News.

Abraham, a Michigan Republican leader, is selling himself as a leading candidate for change based on his roles in revitalizing his state’s party, in paring consultants’ costs and, as chairman of the congressional campaign committee, in funneling more money last year to Republican House candidates. But his opponents have attacked him for being openly supported by Quayle, who employed him as an aide.

Barbour, one of the earliest to announce his candidacy, has been criticized for his close ties to Gramm–thought to be a presidential possibility–and for representing CBS News against the Bush Administration in a battle over a cable TV bill last year.

Ashcroft has emphasized his recent role as a party spokesman in his bid to do similar work as party chairman. But it is Ashcroft’s very influence that may have prevented him from gaining an edge. His prominence in drafting the party’s platform last year has hurt him, some moderates say. And, like Abraham, he is burdened by his links to some of the powerful influences aiding him. Current RNC Chairman Richard N. Bond is said to favor him, as are a number of influential Christian right figures impressed with his strong anti-abortion stance. That kind of backing hurts the former governor as much as it aids him, party regulars said.

Calloway, who runs a political action committee founded by Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), is beloved by many committee members. But he is believed to be a long shot because, at 67, “he’s just too old,” one Abraham backer said.

Berkman, an Oregon moderate who prefers that the party move away from its anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights planks, is said to be limited by his regional support.

LOUSVILLE, Ky. — Another day, another change in the Kentucky Derby field, with this one adding another Southern California horse to the starting gate.

Right to Party was scratched Friday morning, the third straight day a horse has been withdrawn, following Silent Tactic and Fulleffort. The latest change brings Robusta off the also-eligible list, giving trainer Doug O’Neill a second horse in Saturday’s race.

Robusta, a Calumet Farm homebred sired by Accelerate, has only a maiden victory from five career starts. His best race was March 7 at Santa Anita when he finished just a head behind Potente in the San Felipe Stakes at odds of 67-1. But in his next start, he faded to last in the Santa Anita Derby.

Emisael Jaramillo originally was named to ride Robusta in the Kentucky Derby, but the Daily Racing Form reported the jockey will keep his commitments Saturday at Santa Anita and Cristian Torres will be aboard Robusta. Torres had been set to ride Silent Tactic.

O’Neill, who won the Derby in 2012 and 2016, also will start Pavlovian, who won the Sunland Park Derby and was second in the Louisiana Derby. The other Derby horses based in Southern California are Mark Glatt’s So Happy, Jeff Mullins’ Intrepido and Bob Baffert’s pair of Potente and Litmus Test.

Right to Party was scheduled to break from the No. 5 post position, meaning every horse outside him will move in a spot. Robusta will be in the No. 20 position.

‘The great puzzle’

While Massie has long dominated elections in Kentucky’s 4th district, polling this year shows a tighter race than expected.

A Quantus Insights survey conducted from April 6 to 7 showed Massie leading Gallrein 46.8 percent to 37.7 percent.

Another survey conducted by Big Data Poll in early April had Massie ahead with 52.4 percent to Gallrein’s 47.6 percent.

The relatively close primary could be a bellwether for Republican voting trends nationwide, according to Stephen Voss, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky.

“Massie is an early opportunity to see what Republican voters will do when their pro-Trump leanings clash with their conservative leanings,” Voss said. “That is the great puzzle of this race.”

This is not the first time Trump has turned against Massie, though. In 2020, another election year, Trump famously petitioned to “throw Massie out of the Republican Party”.

But by 2022, Trump had reversed course, endorsing Massie over a challenger who questioned the congressman’s commitment to the president.

Still, the past year has widened the rift between Trump and Massie, leading the president to make his most aggressive moves yet to unseat the congressman.

The two Republicans clashed on a range of issues in 2025. Massie, for example, opposed the president on his tax and spending measures, fearing increases to the national debt.

That meant voting against Trump’s signature piece of legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, last July.

The Kentucky Republican also denounced Trump’s campaign of foreign intervention. Last June, NBC News reported that it was after Massie criticised Trump’s strikes on Iran that the president’s allies began laying the groundwork for a primary challenge.

Massie also led the charge to compel the Department of Justice to release all the files related to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the late financier and convicted child sex offender.

Shortly thereafter, Trump gave his stamp of approval to Gallrein, posting on his Truth Social site, “RUN, ED, RUN.”

By that point, Gallrein, a military veteran and fifth-generation farmer, had yet to enter the race. Four days later, on October 21, he launched his bid.

Critics argue Gallrein’s platform does not offer much of a distinction from Massie’s. His campaign website lists his priorities as cutting taxes, reducing government spending, protecting gun rights and opposing abortion — issues Massie also supports.

“I don’t think he’s offering any kind of alternative, except for being the selection of Donald Trump,” Kahne said. “I think that’s it. That’s the only thing he has to offer.”

But Gallrein has drawn heavily from Trump’s endorsement, using it as a badge of loyalty and authenticity.

“You deserve an authentic, true Republican conservative that stands shoulder to shoulder with our president and the Republican Party,” Gallrein declared at the Trump rally in March.

Trump, meanwhile, told the crowd he had grown so frustrated that he just wanted “somebody with a warm body to beat Massie”.

WASHINGTON — Directly outside the Washington Hilton ballroom, as the yearly White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner got underway Saturday, a Times reporter had just entered the men’s room when he heard a handful of loud pops ring out.

“Shooter!” someone shouted. “Get down! Shots fired!”

Inside the ballroom, thousands of journalists and politicians began to duck for cover as the event devolved from a celebration of free speech to a scene of fear.

The Times had six reporters at the dinner, seated at a table near the right side of the stage.

The Times reporter in the restroom, Gavin Quinton, heard the gunfire around 8:30 p.m. He had left The Times’ table minutes earlier, moving past the TV cameras and up toward the raised terrace near the ballroom’s security entrance. He crossed paths with CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer.

Outside the restroom, Cole Tomas Allen, 31, had broken into a sprint through the metal detectors, security footage would later show, getting within feet of the ballroom entrance.

Five or six shots fired by Secret Service agents missed Allen before agents brought him down near a staircase leading to the main floor, where Trump sat prominently in view.

A federal agent was hit in the chest in the exchange of gunfire but was wearing a bullet-proof vest and not seriously injured.

Inside the restroom, Quinton crouched near a corner. Others rushed into the room, including three hotel security guards who flung themselves in so quickly their backs slammed against the tiled wall. Within moments, a Secret Service agent positioned himself at the bathroom entrance, his pistol drawn.

“Head count?” he asked.

“A dozen — no, 15!” someone shouted back.

People stayed locked in bathroom stalls. Some tried to overcome the poor cellphone service to call loved ones. Confused, the mix of tuxedo-clad attendees, uniformed hotel guards and waitstaff tried to piece together what had happened.

“He had a gun,” one of the hotel guards said.

Another witness told Quinton that he initially thought Blitzer had been the shooter’s target.

“I look around and I hear shots as I’m opening the door. And I turn and I see him,” the man said of the gunman. “I look again and I’m like, ‘Oh, they just shot someone.’ ”

Blitzer, who was tackled to the floor by officers during the incident, would later say that “the first thing that went through my mind was whether he was going to shoot me.”

As the group speculated over whether the shooter had died in the volley, one man wondered aloud whether the event would continue. Initially thinking the gunman must have been killed, Quinton replied no.

“Why not?” the man asked. “It’s a bad guy who’s dead. It was a good f— ending. Seriously.”

The Washington Hilton has hosted the annual correspondents’ dinner for decades. The event, referred to locally as “Nerd Prom,” now comes with a slate of pre-parties and after-parties.

This was the president’s first appearance at the dinner since 2015; he had skipped it during his entire first term.

Questions now surround the security protocols. Guests faced little screening to enter the hotel on Saturday — a quick flash of a paper ticket — before heading down escalators to the only area with magnetometers, where bags were also searched.

Trump had entered the ballroom at 8:15 p.m. as the Marine band played “Hail to the Chief.”

Twenty minutes later, videos show, Secret Service officers with ballistic vests and long guns barked instructions to clear a path as they rushed into the ballroom and onto the stage.

One agent pulled Vice President JD Vance away. Another escorted Trump, who appeared to trip, but later explained he had been urged to drop to the floor.

Other officials — Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, FBI Director Kash Patel, Homeland Security advisor Stephen Miller — were quickly whisked away too.

At The Times’ table in the ballroom, nothing appeared amiss at first.

Waiters had just begun to clear plates of spring pea and burrata salad. The reporters did not hear the gunshots, but watched as the room fell silent and others began to drop from their seats and duck under the floor-length white tablecloths.

One reporter lost a shoe in the process and then feared a gunman would spot it. She dragged it under the table.

They stayed in place for several minutes, texting loved ones and waiting for an all-clear, but none came.

From under the tablecloth, reporters heard someone yell out, “God bless America! USA!” They feared that was the shooter.

It turned out to be Dan Scavino, White House deputy chief of staff. The chant did not catch on.

Eventually, others could be heard speaking loudly and dishes clanking. Guests began to peek out from under their tables and warily stand up. Uneasy laughter flickered about the ballroom.

Cellphone service inside the ballroom was spotty. There was confusion at first about whether a shooting had occurred or whether plates dropping to the floor had been mistaken for gunshots.

“I thought it was a tray going down,” Trump said later.

Just before 9 p.m., Weijia Jiang, a senior White House correspondent for CBS News who is president of the White House Correspondents’ Assn., told guests the program would “resume momentarily.”

A half hour later, Jiang returned to the stage and announced that law enforcement had requested guests leave the premises. She said Trump had told her no one was hurt and that he, the first lady and members of the Cabinet were safe.

In closing remarks, Jiang said journalism is a public service “because when there is an emergency, we run to the crisis — not away from it.”

“And on a night when we are thinking about the freedoms of the 1st Amendment, we must also think about how fragile they are,” she said. “I saw all of you reporting, and that’s what we do.”

Law enforcement and media leaders offered conflicting guidance. Quinton was among the first to evacuate the building, though the vast majority of guests waited inside for longer.

On his way out, he noticed a metal detector had already partially been dismantled when the shooter ran through.

Quinton passed the grounded shooter, restrained on his stomach, near the staircase just 20 or so feet from the bathroom entrance. He lifted his phone and recorded a brief, shaky video of the scene before security forced him out of the hotel and onto the street.

The entire spectrum of emotion was on display when security finally ordered everyone to evacuate. Women in gowns ran in fear. One man sobbed into the sleeves of his evening jacket.

Photos on social media showed others stopping to take selfies. Some drank wine straight form the bottle.

Quinton spotted the presidential motorcade outside of the hotel lobby at about 8:45 p.m. Around the same time, an ambulance arrived as about 100 event attendees were escorted out of the secured event perimeter.

More law enforcement was inside the hotel as guests exited the building, including agents from the Secret Service, ATF, FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. National Guard soldiers replaced celebrities and politicians at the red carpet entrance.

Outside, Metropolitan police ushered people north on Columbia Road NW. Hungry guests in tuxedos filed into a nearby 7-Eleven. The dinner’s main course — prime beef and Maine lobster — had not been served.

At the White House afterward, Trump said the event would be rescheduled.

“We’re not going to let anybody take over our society,” he told reporters who had rushed to the news conference still dressed in gowns and black tie. “We’re not going to cancel things out because we can’t do that.”

Meanwhile, the night’s after-parties continued, though organizers attempted a more somber tone. MS NOW, for instance, told those who had RSVP’d that their “Democracy After Hours” party would be a “space for friends and colleagues to be together.”

Independent journalist Tara Palmeri posted a photo on the social media site X of a full party with blue mood lighting.

“People were still partying, still hitting WHCD afterparties last night,” she wrote. “Epstein corruption, an escalating Iran conflict, and an active shooter— and Washington just… kept going. The cognitive dissonance is the system.”

On Sunday morning, the Washington Hilton appeared back to normal, except for the presence of journalists using the hotel as a backdrop for their live shots.

The protracted uncertainty over control of Congress reverberated through both major political parties on Wednesday, as Democrats basked in the relief of the red wave that wasn’t and Republicans became increasingly clear-eyed that the lingering influence of former President Trump had hamstrung their party.

President Biden’s emphasis during the campaign season on the extremism of “MAGA Republicans” had been greeted skeptically by many. In the Democratic Party’s better-than-expected showing, though, he saw vindication of his appeals for civility and normalcy.

“This election season, American people made it clear: They don’t want every day going forward to be a constant political battle,” Biden said at a White House news conference. “The future of America is too promising to be trapped in endless political warfare.”

Amid high inflation and Biden’s lackluster approval numbers, Democrats’ hopes had hinged on voters being more put off by Trump’s imprint on the Republican Party — be it the divisive candidates he endorsed, the political violence that festered from his lies about election fraud, or the reversal of federal abortion protections made possible by justices he appointed to the Supreme Court.

“We knew going into the cycle that there was going to be an opportunity to rally a moral majority that is an anti-MAGA coalition,” said Tory Gavito, president of Way to Win, a progressive donor network. “When I say that, I include everyone from [GOP Rep.] Liz Cheney to [democratic socialist Sen.] Bernie Sanders. Think about that spectrum of the middle to the left coming together to say Republicans are just too damn extreme.”

If recent history is any guide, Trump’s not going anywhere. The once and likely future presidential candidate is unpopular, but he continues to exercise outsized sway over the Republican base, and could hobble the party for the next two years and beyond.

“While in certain ways yesterday’s election was somewhat disappointing, from my personal standpoint it was a very big victory,” Trump said on his conservative social media network, Truth Social, pointing to the record of candidates he endorsed. “219 WINS and 16 Losses in the General – Who has ever done better than that?”

The specter of the former president hampered the GOP’s ability to frame the midterm as a referendum on Biden, said Ken Spain, a GOP strategist and former spokesman for the party’s House campaign arm.

“Trump was always a looming shadow over this election, more than Republicans probably wanted to admit,” he said. “This essentially became a choice election between an unpopular president and an even more unpopular Trump.”

There were signs that patience was running thin among Republican power brokers. Notably, Trump’s much-beloved New York Post, the tabloid owned by conservative media magnate Rupert Murdoch, featured Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on its cover Wednesday with the headline “DeFuture.” DeSantis is widely considered Trump’s biggest threat for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

Republicans still had a chance of winning both chambers of Congress as vote-counting continued Wednesday. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) projected confidence that his party would win the five additional seats necessary to take the majority there, and announced his intention to run for speaker of the House.

Whether he secures a majority may come down to his home state. California’s 11 competitive races remained unsettled as of Wednesday evening, with results trickling in slowly, as is common with the state’s methodical ballot-counting procedures.

Republicans had targeted incumbent Democratic Reps. Katie Porter and Mike Levin in Orange County, as well as an open seat in the Central Valley, as possible pick-ups. But Democrats were also watching the returns for the potential to oust vulnerable GOP Reps. David Valadao of Hanford and Ken Calvert of Corona.

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin notched a close win over Democratic challenger Mandela Barnes, giving Republicans a 49-48 advantage in the Senate, with races in Georgia, Arizona and Nevada yet to be decided.

With neither candidate in Georgia winning more than 50% of the vote, the race will go to a Dec. 6 runoff, like the one that decided Senate control in 2020. A 50-50 split in the Senate would let Democrats maintain control with Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaking vote.

Republicans made some successful pushes into blue territory; in New York, for example, they appeared likely to win four Democratic-held House seats. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, a New York Democrat who led his party’s efforts to keep the House, conceded his own race Wednesday morning to Mike Lawler, a Republican state assemblyman.

Still, the night was distinctly underwhelming for a party that contemplated a blowout win in the House and an assured majority in the Senate.

“Definitely not a Republican wave, that’s for darn sure,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday night on NBC as he predicted a narrow win for Republicans in the Senate.

Paradoxically, a small Republican majority in the House would likely give Trump more leverage there, as McCarthy would have to depend on continued support from acolytes of the former president, such as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, to exercise the GOP’s majority power.

Biden, speaking at the White House on Wednesday, said he had not had much occasion to interact with McCarthy but planned to talk with him later in the day. The president promised to work with Republicans in Congress, but noted pointedly that the American people had also sent the message that they wanted the GOP to show similar cooperation.

The president was happy to point out that his party had defied expectations, noting that “while the press and the pundits [were] predicting a giant red wave, it didn’t happen.”

National exit polls gave a glimpse into why Republicans fizzled. The surveys showed inflation was a top concern among voters. But abortion ranked second. That, and the relative weakness of Trump-backed candidates, helped Democrats stay in the fight.

Many voters appeared willing to swallow their disappointment with Biden. An NBC exit poll showed Democrats narrowly winning — 49% to 45% — among voters who “somewhat disapprove” of Biden’s performance.

Results in Michigan underscored the extent of the Republican Party’s disappointments. Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, whom Trump had attacked relentlessly, defeated his endorsed candidate, Tudor Dixon, and Democratic incumbents held on to the state’s attorney general and secretary of state posts and gained control of the Legislature as well.

The GOP failed to oust Rep. Elissa Slotkin, a vulnerable Democrat in a Michigan swing district that barely backed Biden two years ago. Elsewhere in the state, a Trump-backed candidate — who in the primary beat Rep. Peter Meijer, a Republican who had voted to impeach the former president — lost in the general election, costing Republicans a seat in the surprisingly tight battle for control of the House.

Michigan voters also approved a ballot measure striking down a 1931 ban on abortion, and voters in Kentucky rejected an initiative that would have amended the state constitution to make clear it did not protect abortion rights.

The Republicans’ loss of a Senate seat in Pennsylvania could prove the most consequential if Democrats keep the chamber. Lt. Gov. John Fetterman defeated Mehmet Oz, a television doctor and first-time candidate backed by Trump. Fetterman, still recovering from a stroke, painted the untested Oz as an elite carpetbagger.

Many of the gubernatorial candidates Trump backed also lost or were in danger of losing as of Wednesday afternoon. DeSantis’ double-digit win in Florida, as well as his strong coattails for Republicans in the House, served as a stark contrast. But Trump has said he will run again even if party leaders prefer DeSantis. Opinion polls, at least for now, show the former president as the prohibitive favorite to capture the party’s nomination.

Jason Miller, an advisor to Trump, told the BBC on Wednesday morning that he was urging Trump to postpone an announcement that he will run again from next week — as he has been teasing — to December, to avoid distracting from a potential Senate runoff in Georgia. But Miller said he remained 100% certain that Trump would run.

“Many of the people who are championing Ron DeSantis for president are the same people who were skeptical of President Trump ever since he came down the escalator in 2015,” Miller said, recalling Trump’s improbable announcement for the 2016 race.

Miller predicted that Trump would “have his hands full” but would ultimately win the nomination again.

Mason reported from Los Angeles and Bierman from Washington. Times staff writer Erin B. Logan contributed to this report from Washington.

Democrats on Wednesday celebrated an election win in Virginia that could put them slightly ahead in the national redistricting competition that President Trump triggered in an attempt to preserve his party’s House majority in this year’s midterms, but it will not be the final round.

Now that it’s been approved by voters, the new Virginia map will have to clear additional legal hurdles. On Wednesday, the state attorney general’s office said it would immediately appeal a ruling earlier in the day from a judge in rural southern Virginia who ordered that the results of Tuesday’s vote not be certified.

Ultimately, the Virginia Supreme Court will decide whether Democratic lawmakers violated procedural rules when they referred a constitutional amendment to the ballot authorizing the new U.S. House districts that could help Democrats win as many as four additional seats in the state. If so, that could invalidate the map voters narrowly approved Tuesday.

What happens next in Florida also will matter.

The state’s Republican-controlled Legislature is to meet in a special session next week that GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis called in part to draw a new map to expand the party’s congressional majority there. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to issue an opinion by the end of June in a Louisiana case that could overturn a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and lead to redrawn political maps across the South, though almost all of those could not happen until 2028.

After voters passed the Virginia amendment, Democrats could tentatively claim that they netted 10 seats nationally from the mid-decade redistricting, compared with the nine that Republicans claim. Even if things swing again in the GOP’s favor, the net result of Trump’s campaign would be at best an incremental increase in the number of GOP-leaning House seats at a time when his approval rating is dropping and Republican anxiety over losing control of Congress in November is rising.

“We have successfully blunted Trump’s attempt to completely hijack the midterms,” said John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

Many Republicans agreed.

“The GOP will now lose net seats across the country. If you’re going to pick a fight, at least win it,” Ari Fleischer, who was a spokesman for President George W. Bush, posted on the social media site X after the Virginia vote. “All this was foreseeable and avoidable. We should not have started this fight.”

Adam Kincaid, executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, argued that it is too soon to declare one party a victor.

“It’s an ongoing process with many legal challenges pending, and it’s far too early for sweeping statements on the final outcome,” he said.

Trump on Wednesday tried to undermine the Virginia result by leveling groundless accusations of fraud similar to ones he made after losing the 2020 presidential election. He called the Virginia vote “RIGGED” and “Crooked” in a post on his social media site and added, “Let’s see if the Courts will fix this travesty of ‘Justice.’”

Redistricting spread from Texas to other states

Redistricting is typically done every 10 years after each census, unless ordered by a court. But last summer, Trump pushed a redrawing in Texas, prodding the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature to add up to five winnable House seats for his party. Trump then began pressuring other Republican-run states to follow. Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio have since created more GOP-leaning seats in addition to Texas.

Democrats began to fight back, even though they were more constrained because several Democratic-controlled states had maps drawn by independent commissions rather than lawmakers and governors.

To counter Texas, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, pushed the Democratic-controlled Legislature to place a redistricting initiative on last fall’s ballot. After voters overwhelmingly approved it, the measure will replace a commission-approved map with one that could gain Democrats five seats.

Democrats reclaimed the Legislature and governor’s office in November in Virginia and swiftly moved to replicate California’s move with an even more aggressive redistricting plan. It replaces a congressional map imposed by a court after the last census that had resulted in a 6-5 edge for Democrats with one that could allow Democrats to win as many as 10 seats.

“We are not going to let anyone tilt the system without a response,” state Senate President L. Louise Lucas said at a news conference Wednesday.

Courts could still have a say on redistricting

In Washington, U.S. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York warned Florida Republicans, who have been openly nervous about redrawing their district boundaries and potentially spreading their core voters too thin before an election that appears to be trending against them.

“Our message to Florida Republicans right now is, ‘F around and find out,’” Jeffries said.

House Majority Forward, the nonprofit arm of the super political action committee aligned with House Democrats, has spent nearly $60 million to push back against Republicans’ redistricting efforts. Some $40 million of that was on the Virginia campaign.

Another obstacle in Florida is an anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment that was approved by state voters in 2010. It is likely that any new Florida map would trigger significant litigation, although six of the state Supreme Court’s seven justices were appointed by Republicans.

Nicholas Stephanopolous, a Harvard law professor, said a challenge for DeSantis is that the Florida amendment forbids drawing lines for purely partisan purposes, so he has to find some other excuse for revising the map. “Even with that sort of acquiescent state supreme court, I don’t think it’s a done deal,” Stephanopolous said.

The Virginia move comes with its own legal issues. Republicans have challenged the process that Democrats used to place the measure on the ballot and the state Supreme Court opted to wait for the vote before even scheduling arguments in the case. It is unclear when a ruling could come.

Wednesday’s ruling stopping certification came from a separate case that Republicans filed with the same lower court judge, whose initial ruling against the initiative was put on hold by the state supreme court.

“The ballot box was never the final word here,” Terry Kilgore, the Virginia House Republican leader, said in a statement after Tuesday’s vote. “Serious legal questions remain about both the wording of this referendum and the process used to put it before voters.”

The biggest legal wild card is held by the U.S. Supreme Court. Its conservative majority could throw out a requirement under the Voting Rights Act that in areas with a large minority population, mapmakers draw districts that are more favorable to the election of minority candidates.

That provision has led to the creation of several majority-minority congressional seats, especially in the South. Without it, Republicans in conservative states could shrink the number of U.S. House seats winnable by Democrats even further.

But it’s unlikely that any state other than Louisiana, which brought the lawsuit the high court will rule on, would be able to adjust its congressional lines in time for November even if the court eliminates that provision, known as Section Two. That’s because the November election is already officially underway in most states and candidate filing deadlines — and, in some cases, primary elections — have already passed.

Riccardi and Lieb write for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro and Leah Askarinam in Washington contributed to this report.