rules

Aug. 19 (UPI) — A Missouri judge ruled Wednesday against voters seeking to put a Republican redistricting effort in the state to a referendum, stating that the new GOP-favored maps can be used in November’s midterm elections.

Cole County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Green ruled that referendum provisions in the state’s constitution do not apply to congressional redistricting.

“The Missouri Constitution does not supply any statement — let alone a clear one — reallocating authority over congressional redistricting away from the General Assembly to a referendum process,” Green wrote in his ruling.

The People Not Politicians coalition that filed the lawsuit told UPI in an emailed statement that what was important was that a ruling had been made, while accusing the Republicans of stalling the litigation process and stating that the case can now move forward toward the Missouri Supreme Court.

“The most important thing that happened today is that there was a ruling,” PNP Executive Director Richard von Glahn said.

“The state has tried to slow down the judicial process for months and now that we are out of Cole County, the real decision will be made. Our case now moves forward.”

Missouri Republicans spearheaded efforts to redraw the state’s congressional map last summer as part of President Donald Trump‘s push for GOP-led states to create more GOP-favored seats for November’s midterm elections.

The map, signed into law in September, redraws a Democrat-held district in Kansas City to be more rural, positioning it to lean more favorably toward Republicans. Of the state’s eight House seats, two are currently held by Democrats. The redraw is expected to reduce that to one.

Voters have challenged the redistricting effort. In December, PNP submitted more than 300,000 signatures to Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, to trigger a statewide referendum on the issue. While PNP contended that delivering the signatures would pause use of the new map, Hoskins disagreed.

In May, the state Supreme Court upheld the new map, while rejecting an argument that submitting referendum petitions automatically suspended the map.

On the day of the Aug. 4 primary, Hoskins issued a certificate finding PNP’s referendum petition was insufficient, stating the state’s Constitution does not permit referenda on congressional maps, prompting PNP to file a lawsuit that evening.

Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, a Republican, celebrated Wednesday’s decision in a social media statement, calling Green’s decision a “quick, common-sense ruling.”

“Missourians voted for candidates using this map in August, and they deserve the ability to elect those candidates in November,” he said.

The Republican Party also cheered it as a “resounding victory for Missouri voters and election integrity.”

“The court rejected Democrats’ latest scheme to overturn lawful congressional maps and create chaos ahead of the election. Missouri’s maps were fairly enacted by the legislature, upheld in court and used in this year’s primary. Today’s ruling makes clear those maps will stand,” Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters said in a statement.

The nationwide GOP effort to redraw maps comes as Trump has repeatedly voiced concern about potential impeachment proceedings if Republicans lose the House in November. Creating additional Republican-leaning seats increases the GOP’s chances of maintaining control of the chamber, making impeachment less likely while strengthening the Republicans’ ability to advance Trump’s agenda.

Texas was the first state to move on mid-decade redistricting, kicking off a gerrymandering arms race in which Democratic-led states sought to counter with their own maps and Republican-led states responded with additional redraws.

Since summer 2025, 17 statesMike Kehoe have moved to redistrict, with 10 states having changed their maps, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those 10 states, eight adopted GOP-favored maps while two adopted maps expected to benefit Democrats.

The SEC announced on Tuesday that it had filed a proposal titled “Regulation Crypto Assets”, giving crypto entrepreneurs a clearer, considerably lighter route to raising capital under federal securities law, according to the press release published by the regulator.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

It is the agency’s first formal rulemaking dedicated to crypto asset offerings, building on broader interpretive guidance the SEC issued in March, and would spare qualifying issuers the costly registration process required of most public offerings.

At the centre of the proposal sit two new exemptions.

The “startup exemption” would let an issuer raise up to $5 million (€4.3mn) over a four year period without registering the offering.

A second, the “fundraising exemption”, would permit raises of up to $75 million (€64.7mn) within any 12 month stretch, though issuers relying on it would still need to publish financial statements and meet ongoing reporting duties.

Both routes ask companies to give investors narrative, principles based disclosures, rather than the dense legal filings typically demanded of public listings.

The proposal also sets out a conditional safe harbour that could eventually place certain tokens outside the legal definition of a security, once an issuer has finished, or permanently abandoned, the managerial efforts it promised investors.

It would also override conflicting state registration rules for offerings made under the exemptions, sparing issuers from having to comply separately with individual state securities regimes.

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins described the package as a “minimum effective dose” of oversight, protecting investors while leaving builders maximum room to innovate.

The reception of the proposal has been largely warm.

Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association, said the move finally delivers the tailored regulatory clarity the sector has sought for years. Cody Carbone, CEO of the Digital Chamber, likewise praised the plan, pledging support in helping the industry expand within the US rather than abroad.

However, the proposal is far from final. It stays open for public comment for 60 days once published in the Federal Register, meaning its provisions could still change, or be scrapped, before any final rule is adopted.

US Senate stalls, regulator steps in

The SEC’s move comes roughly a week and a half after the US Senate left Washington for its summer recess without advancing the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act (H.R. 3633), the industry’s flagship bill, which would split oversight of digital assets between the SEC and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

US Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed a cloture motion on the bill on 7 August, but lawmakers departed before a vote was held. That motion is now due to come up again on 15 September, a procedural hurdle rather than a final vote, once senators return.

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins has argued on more than one occasion that only Congress can deliver a lasting, “future-proofed” framework able to survive changes in political leadership, and the Commission says it still backs the bill’s passage.

Even so, with its timetable slipping into autumn, the regulator appears to have decided not to wait, instead using powers it already holds to offer the industry some certainty while lawmakers prepare to resume the debate next month.

WASHINGTON — A federal district judge said Tuesday that paint tests on a 19th-century historic landmark building next to the White House can go ahead, advancing President Trump’s plans to add a new coat of white paint to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, for now.

Trump has suggested the massive building be painted as part of his push to remake and beautify the nation’s capital. Planners said the paint job would cost at least $7.5 million.

The proposal to paint the building has alarmed preservationists, architects, historians and others who argue that granite is not meant to be painted and that paint would trap moisture and degrade the stone.

U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich said plaintiffs in an ongoing case had not shown that minimal tests planned for the historic building would cause irreparable harm if those tests go ahead.

The plaintiffs, which include cultural preservationist groups, had sought a restraining order and a temporary injunction to stop the Trump administration from conducting tests and other preparatory work.

At issue was whether that work would get ahead of a larger question before the court over whether the General Services Administration could delegate its authority for such a project to the Executive Office.

“The plaintiffs’ motion rises and falls on irreparable harm,” Friedrich said from the bench. The test areas would include about 8 square feet of the building’s massive exterior and several panels that can’t be seen by the public, she said.

Friedrich said that while she was allowing that test to move ahead, she would not hesitate to step in and rule if the administration moved beyond the limited testing. She asked the parties to provide a status report by next Tuesday and ordered regular reports following that.

Gregory Werkheiser, a lawyer with Cultural Heritage Partners and one of the plaintiffs, said that while he and others challenging the painting plan were disappointed, “the reasons we brought this case are untouched by today’s decision.”

The larger issue, he said, is whether “the president has taken power illegally from the GSA and put it in his office in terms of this project and the implications of that. If that holds true for historic properties around the country, that could be devastating.”

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

MORE Brits are facing problems at the border in Europe, with many being stopped and facing even longer queues – and it could affect thousands.

The new Entry/Exit System (EES), which requires biometric checks from Brits, has been in place since April.

But a new report from The Telegraph has found that those with ‘faded fingerprints’ are being rejected by the machines – a problem associated with older passengers.

One 80-year-old woman told the publication how EES failed to recognise her fingerprints on a trip to Palma in Majorca.

Angela Evans said: “I tried several times, on different machines and with assistance from a member of staff, but to no avail. My fingerprints would not register.

“I suspect this is because of my age – 80 – and that my fingers are probably worn smooth and not ‘ridgy’ enough to record.”

HOL YES

Cheap holiday destinations with 86p beers, £15 flights & £129pp package breaks

CHEAP AS CHIPS

10 UK summer holidays that are CHEAPER than a takeaway – all £12pp or less

Another holidaymaker, Barbara, struggled to register her fingerprints at Salzburg Airport.

After holding up a “long line of passengers”, Barbara said she discovered she has “no fingerprints”.

Both women had to then see a member of airport staff and queue to have their passports manually stamped.

Another older couple couldn’t get through the EES gates at Naples Airport and had to join a queue that was so long it went outside the terminal.

After waiting for two hours and missing their transfer pick up, the couple were seen by a member of staff but said they were “put off flying” as a result.

While fingerprints don’t technically ‘fade’, they do change as skin loses its elasticity with age.

The surface is then less defined and harder for digital scanners to read.

It’s not the first issue to come with the introduction of EES.

One woman who is an identical twin faced a problem when she was mistaken for her sister.

In some cases, Brits have been left in queues of up to six hours while waiting to register with EES.

Some holidaymakers have even missed their flight because of delays at passport control.