vote

Relatives of the late President John F Kennedy slammed the centre’s board, saying the name cannot be changed under law.

Donald Trump’s name has been added to the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, just one day after his hand-picked board members controversially voted to rename the arts venue, the first time a national institution has been named after a sitting US president.

Workmen added metal lettering to the building’s exterior on Friday that declared, “The Donald J Trump and the John F Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”

“Today, we proudly unveil the updated exterior designation – honoring the leadership of President Donald J Trump and the enduring legacy of John F Kennedy,” the centre said on social media.

Family members of former President Kennedy, who was killed by an assassin’s bullet in 1963, as well as historians and Democratic lawmakers, have criticised the move, saying only an act of Congress could alter the name of the centre, which was designated as a living memorial to Kennedy a year after his assassination.

“The Kennedy Center was named by law. To change the name would require a revision of that 1964 law,” Ray Smock, a former House of Representatives historian, told the Associated Press (AP) news agency. “The Kennedy Center board is not a lawmaking entity. Congress makes laws,” Smock said.

The AP reports that the law naming the centre explicitly prohibits the board of trustees from making the centre into a memorial to anyone else, and from putting another person’s name on the building’s exterior.

Kerry Kennedy, a niece of former President Kennedy, said in a post on social media that she will remove Trump’s name herself when his term as president ends.

“Three years and one month from today, I’m going to grab a pickax and pull those letters off that building, but I’m going to need help holding the ladder. Are you in?” she wrote on X.

Naming a national institution after a sitting president is unprecedented in US history. Landmarks such as the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial and indeed, the Kennedy Center were all named after the deaths of the renowned US leaders.

Kennedy’s grandnephew, former Congressman Joe Kennedy III, also said the Kennedy Center, like the Lincoln Memorial, was a “living memorial to a fallen president” and cannot be renamed, “no matter what anyone says”.

Trump claimed on Thursday that he was “surprised” by the renaming of the Kennedy Center, even though he personally purged the centre’s previous board after calling it “too woke”.

He has also previously spoken about having his name added to the centre and appointed himself chairman of the centre’s board earlier this year.

Trump has sought to rein in the Kennedy Center since the start of his second term as part of an assault on cultural institutions that his administration has accused of being too left-wing.

Despite complaints from customers about rising electric bills, the California Public Utilities Commission voted 4 to 1 on Thursday to keep profits at Southern California Edison and the state’s other big investor-owned utilities at a level that consumer groups say has long been inflated.

The commission vote will slightly decrease the profit margins of Edison and three other big utilities beginning next year. Edison’s rate will fall to 10.03% from 10.3%.

Customers will see little impact in their bills from the decision. Because the utilities are continuing to spend more on wires and other infrastructure — capital costs that they earn profit on — that portion of customer bills is expected to continue to rise.

The vote angered consumer groups that had detailed in filings and hearings at the commission how the utilities’ return on equity — which sets the profit rate that the companies’ shareholders receive — had long been too high.

Among those testifying on behalf of consumers was Mark Ellis, the former chief economist for Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Gas. Ellis estimated that the companies’ profit margin should be closer to 6%.

He argued in a filing that the California commission had for years authorized the utilities to earn an excessive return on equity, resulting in an “unnecessary and unearned wealth transfer” from customers to the companies.

Cutting the return on equity to a little more than 6% would give Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric, SDG&E and SoCalGas a fair return, Ellis said, while saving their customers $6.1 billion a year.

The four commissioners who voted to keep the return on equity at about 10% — the percentage varies slightly for each company — said they believed they had found a balance between the 11% or higher rate that the four utilities had requested and the affordability concerns of utility customers.

Alice Reynolds, the commission’s president, said before the vote that she believed the decision “accurately reflects the evidence.”

Commissioner Darcie Houck disagreed and voted against the proposal. In her remarks, she detailed how California ratepayers were struggling to pay their bills.

“We have a duty to consider the consumer interest in determining what is a just and reasonable rate,” she said.

Consumer groups criticized the commission’s vote.

“For too long, utility companies have been extracting unreasonable profits from Californians just trying to heat or cool their homes or keep the lights on,” said Jenn Engstrom at CALPIRG. “As long as CPUC allows such lofty rates of return, it incentivizes power companies to overspend, increasing energy bills for everyone.”

California now has the nation’s second-highest electric rates after Hawaii.

Edison’s electric rates have risen by more than 40% in the last three years, according to a November analysis by the commission’s Public Advocates Office. More than 830,000 Edison customers are behind in paying their electric bills, the office said, each owing a balance of $835 on average.

The commission’s vote Thursday was in response to a March request from Edison and the three other big for-profit utilities. The companies pointed to the January wildfires in Los Angeles County, saying they needed to provide their shareholders with more profit to get them to continue to invest in their stock because of the threat of utility-caused fires in California.

In its filing, Edison asked for a return on equity of 11.75%, saying that it faced “elevated business risks,” including “the risk of extreme wildfires.”

The company told the commission that its stock had declined after the Jan. 7 Eaton fire and it needed the higher return on equity to attract investors to provide it with money for “wildfire mitigation and supporting California’s clean energy transition.”

Edison is facing hundreds of lawsuits filed by victims of the fire, which killed 19 people and destroyed thousands of homes in Altadena. The company has said the fire may have been sparked by its 100-year-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon, which it kept in place even though it hadn’t served customers since 1971.

Return on equity is crucial for utilities because it determines how much they and their shareholders earn each year on the electric lines, substations, pipelines and the rest of the system they build to serve customers.

Under the state’s system for setting electric rates, investors provide part of the money needed to build the infrastructure and then earn an annual return on that investment over the assets’ life, which can be 30 or 40 years.

In a January report, state legislative analyst Gabriel Petek detailed how electric rates at Edison and the state’s two other biggest investor-owned electric utilities were more than 60% higher than those charged by public utilities such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The public utilities don’t have investors or charge customers extra for profit.

Before the vote, dozens of utility customers from across the state wrote to the commission’s five members, who were appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, asking them to lower the utilities’ return on equity.

“A profit margin of 10% on infrastructure improvements is far too high and will only continue to increase the cost of living in California,” wrote James Ward, a Rancho Santa Margarita resident. “I just wish I could get a guaranteed profit margin of 10% on my investments.”

An expanded federal healthcare subsidy that grew out of the pandemic looks all but certain to expire on December 31, as Republican leaders in the United States faced a rebellion from within their own ranks.

On Wednesday, four centrist Republicans in the House of Representatives broke with their party’s leadership to support a Democratic-backed extension for the healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), sometimes called “Obamacare”.

By a vote of 204 to 203, the House voted to stop the last-minute move by Democrats, aided by four Republicans, to force quick votes on a three-year extension of the Affordable Care Act subsidy.

Democrats loudly protested, accusing Republican leadership of gavelling an end to the vote prematurely while some members were still trying to vote.

“That’s outrageous,” Democratic Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts yelled at Republican leadership.

Some of the 24 million Americans who buy their health insurance through the ACA programme could face sharply higher costs beginning on January 1 without action by Congress.

Twenty-six House members had not yet voted – and some were actively trying to do so – when the House Republican leadership gavelled the vote closed on Wednesday. It is rare but not unprecedented for House leadership to cut a contested vote short.

Democratic Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut said the decision prevented some Democrats from voting.

“Listen, it’s playing games when people’s lives are at stake,” DeLauro said. “They jettisoned it.”

It was the latest episode of congressional discord over the subsidies, which are slated to expire at the end of the year.

The vote also offered another key test to the Republican leadership of House Speaker Mike Johnson. Normally, Johnson determines which bills to bring to a House vote, but recently, his power has been circumvented by a series of “discharge petitions”, wherein a majority of representatives sign a petition to force a vote.

In a series of quickfire manoeuvres on Wednesday, Democrats resorted to one such discharge petition to force a vote on the healthcare subsidies in the new year.

They were joined by the four centrist Republicans: Mike Lawler of New York and Brian Fitzpatrick, Robert Bresnahan and Ryan MacKenzie of Pennsylvania.

The Democratic proposal would see the subsidies extended for three years.

But Republicans have largely rallied around their own proposal, a bill called the Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act. It would reduce some insurance premiums, though critics argue it would raise others, and it would also reduce healthcare subsidies overall.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Tuesday said the legislation would decrease the number of people with health insurance by an average of 100,000 per year through 2035.

Its money-saving provisions would reduce federal deficits by $35.6bn, the CBO said.

Republicans have a narrow 220-seat majority in the 435-seat House of Representatives, and Democrats are hoping to flip the chamber to their control in the 2026 midterm elections.

Three of the four Republicans who sided with the Democrats over the discharge petition are from the swing state of Pennsylvania, where voters could lean right or left.

Affordability has emerged as a central question ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Even if the Republican-controlled House manages to pass a healthcare bill this week, it is unlikely to be taken up by the Senate before Congress begins a looming end-of-year recess that would stop legislative action until January 5.

By then, millions of Americans will be looking at significantly more expensive health insurance premiums that could prompt some to go without coverage.

Wednesday’s House floor battle could embolden Democrats and some Republicans to revisit the issue in January, even though higher premiums will already be in the pipeline.

Referring to the House debate, moderate Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski told reporters: “I think that that will help prompt a response here in the Senate after the first of the new year, and I’m looking forward to that.”

The ACA subsidies were a major point of friction earlier this year as well, during the historic 43-day government shutdown.

Democrats had hoped to extend the subsidies during the debate over government spending, but Republican leaders refused to take up the issue until a continuing budget resolution was passed first.

WASHINGTON — Four centrist Republicans broke with Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday and signed onto a Democratic-led petition that will force a House vote on extending for three years an enhanced pandemic-era subsidy that lowers health insurance costs for millions of Americans.

The stunning move comes after House Republican leaders pushed ahead with a health care bill that does not address the soaring monthly premiums that millions of people will soon endure when the tax credits for those who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act expire at year’s end.

Democrats led by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York needed 218 signatures to force a floor vote on their bill, which would extend the subsides for three years.

Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, Robert Bresnahan and Ryan Mackenzie, all from Pennsylvania, and Mike Lawler of New York signed on Wednesday morning, pushing it to the magic number of 218. A vote on the subsidy bill could come as soon as January under House rules.

“Unfortunately, it is House leadership themselves that have forced this outcome.” Fitzpatrick said in a statement.

Origins of a Republican revolt

The revolt against GOP leadership came after days of talks centered on the health care subsidies.

Johnson, R-La., had discussed allowing more politically vulnerable GOP lawmakers a chance to vote on bills that would temporarily extend the subsidies while also adding changes such as income caps for beneficiaries. But after days of discussions, the leadership sided with the more conservative wing of the party’s conference, which has assailed the subsidies as propping up a failed marketplace through the ACA, which is widely known as “Obamacare.”

House Republicans pushed ahead Wednesday a 100-plus-page health care package without the subsidies, instead focusing on long-sought GOP proposals designed to expand insurance coverage options for small businesses and the self-employed.

Fitzpatrick and Lawler tried to add a temporary extension of the subsidies to the bill, but were denied.

“Our only request was a floor vote on this compromise, so that the American People’s voice could be heard on this issue. That request was rejected. Then, at the request of House leadership I, along with my colleagues, filed multiple amendments, and testified at length to those amendments,” Fitzpatrick said. “House leadership then decided to reject every single one of these amendments.

“As I’ve stated many times before, the only policy that is worse than a clean three-year extension without any reforms, is a policy of complete expiration without any bridge,” Fitzpatrick said.

Lawler, in a social media post, similarly said that “the failure of leadership” to permit a vote had left him with “no choice” but to sign the petition. He urged Johnson to bring the plan up for an immediate floor vote.

Path ahead is uncertain

Even if the subsidy bill were to pass the House, which is far from assured, it would face an arduous climb in the Republican-led Senate.

Republicans last week voted down a three-year extension of the subsidies and proposed an alternative that also failed. But in an encouraging sign for Democrats, four Republican senators crossed party lines to support their proposal.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., argued against the Democratic extension as “an attempt to disguise the real impact of Obamacare’s spiraling health care costs.”

Freking writes for the Associated Press.

BBC Sports Personality of the Year is back for 2025, celebrating a phenomenal 12 months of sporting drama and triumph.

It has been a year to remember in sport, including England winning the Women’s Euros and Women’s Rugby World Cup, Team Europe winning the Ryder Cup, Liverpool’s Premier League title, Arsenal’s Women’s Champions League success, and the Lions’ series win in Australia.

There were also record-breaking moments in cricket, athletics, golf, tennis, rugby league and many more.

Statement comes as regional body says no evidence of fraud in November vote that Trump-backed candidate Asfura leads.

The head of Honduras’s National Electoral Council (CNE) has decried acts preventing the ongoing recount of the Central American country’s presidential election, as a regional body said there was no reason to suspect fraud in the November 30 vote.

Ana Paola Hall’s statement on Monday came amid ongoing protests and unrest over the unresolved election. Nasry Asfura, a right-wing businessman publicly supported by US President Donald Trump, has held a razor-thin lead over his top opponent, Salvador Nasralla.

At least 99 percent of votes have already been counted, but CNE has said that nearly 2,800 ballots will need to be re-examined through a special recount.

In a post on X, Hall said disturbances seen in the country’s capital, Tegucigalpa, have “prevented the necessary conditions for the special recount to begin”.

Observers have said infighting at the CNE, which is run by three officials each representing one of the major political parties, has delayed reaching the final results.

Both Nasralla, a conservative, and outgoing left-wing President Xiomara Castro have alleged vote tampering, although several international missions have dismissed the claims.

On Monday, the Organization of American States (OAS), a regional body, said that despite a lack of expertise in overseeing the election, there was not “any evidence that would cast doubt on the results”.

The OAS mission “urgently calls on the electoral authorities to immediately begin the special recount and to explore all possible ways to obtain the official results as quickly as possible,” OAS official Eladio Loizaga said in a report he read to the group’s members.

“The current delay in processing and publishing the results is not justifiable,” he said in the report.

The OAS statement added that its mission of 101 observers from 19 countries “did not observe any malice or obvious manipulation of the electoral materials or computer systems”. The finding was in line with that of a parallel European Union mission.

The election in Honduras had been in turmoil even before polls opened, with several major parties, political figures, and foreign interference for months casting doubt on the election’s integrity.

The most prominent scandal involved an investigation by the attorney general into a member of Asfura’s National Party for allegedly discussing plans with a military officer to influence the vote.

The candidate for outgoing President Castro’s LIBRE party, Rixi Moncada, later told Reuters news agency that the alleged conspiracy proved the election was “the most rigged in history”.

Several candidates have also criticised the influence of Trump, who endorsed Asfura in the final stretch of the race and vowed to withhold US funding if his candidate did not win.

The US president also pardoned former Honduran President and National Party member Juan Orlando Hernandez, who had been convicted in the US of drug trafficking, two days before the vote.

Authorities in Honduras, a country of about 11 million, subsequently issued a fresh arrest warrant for Hernandez.

Paris says EU member states cannot vote on the trade agreement in its current state.

France has urged the European Union to postpone a vote on a trade deal with the South American bloc Mercosur, saying conditions are not yet in place for an agreement.

In a statement from Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu’s office on Sunday, Paris said that EU member states cannot vote on the trade agreement in its current state.

“France asks that the deadlines be pushed back to continue work on getting the legitimate measures of protection for our European agriculture,” the statement added.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is due to visit Brazil on Monday to finalise the landmark trade pact, which the 27-member union has been negotiating with the Mercosur trade bloc for more than 20 years. The agreement is being negotiated with four Mercosur members: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

But the Commission first has to get the approval of the EU member states before signing any trade deal, and Paris has made its objection to the deal with the Mercosur countries clear.

“Given a Mercosur summit is announced for December 20, it is clear in this context that the conditions have not been met for any vote [by states] on authorising the signing of the agreement,” the statement from Paris said.

Earlier on Sunday, in an interview with the German financial daily Handelsblatt, French Minister of the Economy and Finance Roland Lescure also said that the treaty as it stands, “is simply not acceptable”.

He added that securing robust and effective safeguard clauses was one of the three key conditions France set before giving its blessing to the agreement.

He said the other key points were ensuring that the same production standards that EU farmers face are implemented and proper “import controls” are established.

Farmers in France and some other European countries say the deal will create unfair competition due to less stringent standards, which they fear could destabilise already fragile European food sectors.

“Until we have obtained assurances on these three points, France will not accept the agreement,” said Lescure.

European nations are expected to vote on the trade pact between Tuesday and Friday, according to EU sources.

The European Parliament will also vote on Tuesday on safeguards to reassure farmers, particularly those in France, who are fiercely opposed to the treaty.

The EU is Mercosur’s second-largest trading partner in goods, with exports of 57 billion euros ($67bn) in 2024, according to the European Commission.

The EU is also the biggest foreign investor in Mercosur, with a stock of 390 billion euros ($458bn) in 2023.

If a trade deal is approved later this month, the EU-Mercosur agreement could create a common market of 722 million people.

INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana’s Republican-led Senate decisively rejected a redrawn congressional map Thursday that would have favored their party, defying months of pressure from President Trump and delivering a stark setback to the White House ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

The vote was overwhelmingly against the proposed redistricting, with more Republicans opposing than supporting the measure, signaling the limits of Trump’s influence even in one of the country’s most conservative states.

Trump has been urging Republicans nationwide to gerrymander their congressional maps in an unprecedented campaign to help the party maintain its thin majority in the House of Representatives. Although Texas, Missouri, Ohio and North Carolina went along, Indiana did not — despite cajoling and insults from the president and the possibility of primary challenges.

“The federal government should not dictate by threat or other means what should happen in our states,” said Spencer Deery, one of the Republican senators who voted no Thursday.

When the proposal failed, 31 to 19, cheers could be heard inside the chamber as well as shouts of “thank you!” The debate had been shadowed by the possibility of violence, and some lawmakers have received threats aimed at persuading them to support the proposal.

Trump tried to brush off the defeat, telling reporters in the Oval Office that he “wasn’t working on it very hard” despite his personal involvement in the pressure campaign.

Two Democratic districts targeted

The proposed map was designed to give Republicans control of all nine of Indiana’s congressional seats, up from the seven they currently hold. It would have essentially erased Indiana’s two Democratic-held districts — splitting Indianapolis among four districts that extend into rural areas, reshaping U.S. Rep. André Carson’s safe district in the city and eliminating the northwest Indiana district held by U.S. Rep. Frank J. Mrvan.

District boundaries are usually adjusted once a decade after a new census. But Trump has cast the issue in existential terms for his party as Democrats push to regain power in Washington.

“If Republicans will not do what is necessary to save our Country, they will eventually lose everything to the Democrats,” Trump wrote on social media the night before the vote.

The president said anyone who voted against the plan should lose their seats. Half of Indiana senators are up for reelection next year, and the conservative organization Turning Point Action had pledged to fund campaigns against them.

David McIntosh, president of Club for Growth, which had backed redistricting, said the vote allowed disloyal Republicans to “stick their finger in the eye of the president of the United States.”

Former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels praised the senators for “courageous principled leadership” in rejecting the new map.

A Republican who has vocally criticized Trump, Daniels said the outcome was “a major black eye for him and all the Washington groups that piled in, spent money, blustered and threatened.” He added that “this thing rubbed our state the wrong way and Republicans in our state very wrong from the jump.”

‘A full-court press’

Inside the state Senate chamber, Democratic lawmakers spoke out against redistricting ahead of the vote.

“Competition is healthy, my friends,” Sen. Fady Qaddoura said. “Any political party on Earth that cannot run and win based on the merits of its ideas is unworthy of governing.”

In the hallways outside, redistricting opponents chanted “Vote no!” and “Fair maps!” while holding signs with slogans such as “Losers cheat.”

Three times over the fall, Vice President JD Vance met with Republican senators — twice in Indianapolis and once in the White House — to urge their support. Trump joined a conference call with senators on Oct. 17 to make his own 15-minute pitch.

Behind the scenes, James Blair, Trump’s deputy White House chief of staff for political affairs, was in regular touch with members, as were other groups supporting the effort such as the Heritage Foundation and Turning Point USA.

“The administration made a full-court press,” said Republican Sen. Andy Zay, who said he was on the phone with White House aides sometimes multiple times per week, despite his commitment as a yes vote.

Across the country, mid-cycle redistricting so far has resulted in nine more congressional seats that Republicans believe they can win and six more congressional seats that Democrats think they can win — five in California. Some of the new maps, however, are facing litigation.

In Utah, a judge imposed new districts that could allow Democrats to win a seat, saying Republican lawmakers violated voter-backed standards against gerrymandering.

Republicans were split over plan

Despite Trump’s push, support for gerrymandering in Indiana’s Senate was uncertain. A dozen of the 50 senators had not publicly committed to a stance ahead of the vote.

Republican Sen. Greg Goode signaled his displeasure with the redistricting plan before voting no. He said some of his constituents objected to seeing their county split up or paired with Indianapolis. He expressed “love” for Trump but criticized what he called “over-the-top pressure” from inside and outside the state.

Sen. Michael Young, another Republican, said the stakes in Washington justify redistricting, as Democrats are only a few seats away from flipping control of the U.S. House in 2026. “I know this election is going to be very close,” he said.

Republican Sen. Mike Gaskill, the redistricting legislation’s sponsor, showed senators maps of congressional districts around the country, including several focused on Democratic-held seats in New England and Illinois. He argued that other states gerrymander and that Indiana Republicans should therefore play by the same rules.

The bill cleared its first hurdle Monday with a 6-3 Senate committee vote, although one Republican joined Democrats in opposing it and a few others signaled they might vote against the final version. The state House passed the proposal last week, with 12 Republicans siding with Democrats in opposition.

Among them was state Rep. Ed Clere, who said state troopers responded to a hoax message claiming there was a pipe bomb outside his home Wednesday evening. Indiana state police said “numerous others” received threats but wouldn’t offer details about an ongoing investigation.

In an interview, Clere said these threats were the inevitable result of Trump’s pressure campaign and a “winner-take-all mentality.”

“Words have consequences,” Clere said.

Volmert, Lamy and Beaumont write for the Associated Press and reported from Lansing, Mich., Indianapolis and Des Moines, respectively.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday rejected legislation to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits, essentially guaranteeing that millions of Americans will see a steep rise in costs at the beginning of the year.

Senators rejected a Democratic bill to extend the subsidies for three years and a Republican alternative that would have created new health savings accounts — an unceremonious end to a monthslong effort by Democrats to prevent the COVID-19-era subsidies from expiring on Jan. 1.

Ahead of the votes, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York warned Republicans that if they did not vote to extend the tax credits, “there won’t be another chance to act,” before premiums rise for many people who buy insurance off the ACA marketplaces.

“Let’s avert a disaster,” Schumer said. “The American people are watching.”

Republicans have argued that Affordable Care Act plans are too expensive and need to be overhauled. The health savings accounts in the GOP bill would give money directly to consumers instead of to insurance companies, an idea that has been echoed by President Trump. But Democrats immediately rejected the plan, saying that the accounts wouldn’t be enough to cover costs for most consumers.

Some Republicans have pushed their colleagues to extend the credits, including Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who said they should vote for a short-term extension so they can find agreement on the issue next year. “It’s too complicated and too difficult to get done in the limited time that we have left,” Tillis said Wednesday.

But despite the bipartisan desire to continue the credits, Republicans and Democrats have never engaged in meaningful or high-level negotiations on a solution, even after a small group of centrist Democrats struck a deal with Republicans last month to end the 43-day government shutdown in exchange for a vote on extending the ACA subsidies. Most Democratic lawmakers opposed the move as many Republicans made clear that they wanted the tax credits to expire.

The deal raised hopes for bipartisan compromise on healthcare. But that quickly faded with a lack of any real bipartisan talks.

The dueling Senate votes are the latest political messaging exercise in a Congress that has operated almost entirely on partisan terms, as Republicans pushed through a massive tax and spending cuts bill this summer using budget maneuvers that eliminated the need for Democratic votes. They also tweaked Senate rules to push past a Democratic blockade of all of Trump’s nominees.

An intractable issue

The votes were also the latest failed salvo in the debate over the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature law that Democrats passed along party lines in 2010 to expand access to insurance coverage.

Republicans have tried unsuccessfully since then to repeal or overhaul the law, arguing that healthcare is still too expensive. But they have struggled to find an alternative. In the meantime, Democrats have made the policy a central political issue in several elections, betting that the millions of people who buy healthcare on the government marketplaces want to keep their coverage.

“When people’s monthly payments spike next year, they’ll know it was Republicans that made it happen,” Schumer said in November, while making clear that Democrats would not seek compromise.

Even if they view it as a political win, the failed votes are a loss for Democrats who demanded an extension of the benefits as they forced a government shutdown for six weeks in October and November — and for the millions of people facing premium increases on Jan. 1.

Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the group tried to negotiate with Republicans after the shutdown ended. But, he said, the talks became unproductive when Republicans demanded language adding new limits for abortion coverage that were a “red line” for Democrats. He said Republicans were going to “own these increases.”

A plethora of plans, but little agreement

Republicans have used the looming expiration of the subsidies to renew their longstanding criticisms of the ACA, also called Obamacare, and to try, once more, to agree on what should be done.

Thune announced earlier this week that the GOP conference had decided to vote on the bill led by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee, and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, even as several Republican senators proposed alternate ideas.

In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has promised a vote next week. Republicans weighed different options in a conference meeting on Wednesday, with no apparent consensus.

Republican moderates in the House who could have competitive reelection bids next year are pushing Johnson to find a way to extend the subsidies. But more conservative members want to see the law overhauled.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) has pushed for a temporary extension, which he said could be an opening to take further steps on healthcare.

If they fail to act and healthcare costs go up, the approval rating for Congress “will get even lower,” Kiley said.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

To say the U.S. Senate has grown dysfunctional is like suggesting water is wet or the nighttime sky is dark.

The institution that fancies itself “the world’s greatest deliberative body” is supposed to serve as a cooling saucer that tempers the more hotheaded House, applying weight and wisdom as it addresses the Great Issues of Our Time. Instead, it’s devolved into an unsightly mess of gridlock and partisan hackery.

Part of that is owing to the filibuster, one of the Senate’s most distinctive features, which over roughly the last decade has been abused and misused to a point it’s become, in the words of congressional scholar Norman J. Ornstein, a singular “weapon of mass obstruction.”

Democrat Jeff Merkley, the junior U.S. senator from Oregon, has spent years on a mostly one-man crusade aimed at reforming the filibuster and restoring a bit of sunlight and self-discipline to the chamber.

In 2022, Merkley and his allies came within two votes of modifying the filibuster for voting rights legislation. He continues scouring for support for a broader overhaul.

“This is essential for people to see what their representatives are debating and then have the opportunity to weigh in,” said Merkley, speaking from the Capitol after a vote on the Senate floor.

“Without the public being able to see the obstruction,” he said, “they [can’t] really respond to it.”

What follows is a discussion of congressional process, but before your eyes glaze over, you should understand that process is what determines the way many things are accomplished — or not — in Washington, D.C.

The filibuster, which has changed over time, involves how long senators are allowed to speak on the Senate floor. Unlike the House, which has rules limiting debate, the Senate has no restrictions, unless a vote is taken to specifically end discussion and bring a matter to resolution. More on that in a moment.

In the broadest sense, the filibuster is a way to protect the interests of a minority of senators, as well as their constituents, by allowing a small but determined number of lawmakers — or even a lone member — to prevent a vote by commanding the floor and talking nonstop.

Perhaps the most famous, and certainly the most romanticized, version of a filibuster took place in the film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The fictitious Sen. Jefferson Smith, played by James Stewart, talks to the point of exhausted collapse as a way of garnering national notice and exposing political corruption.

The filibustering James Stewart received an Oscar nomination for lead actor for his portrayal of Sen. Jefferson Smith in the 1939 classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

(From the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences)

In the Frank Capra classic, the good guy wins. (It’s Hollywood, after all.) In real life, the filibuster has often been used for less noble purpose, most notably the decades-long thwarting of civil rights legislation.

A filibuster used to be a rare thing, its power holstered for all but the most important issues. But in recent years that’s changed, drastically. The filibuster — or, rather, the threat of a filibuster — has become almost routine.

In part, that’s because of how easy it’s become to gum up the Senate.

Members no longer need to hold the floor and talk nonstop, testing not just the power of their argument but their physical mettle and bladder control. These days it’s enough for a lawmaker to simply state their intention to filibuster. Typically, legislation is then laid aside as the Senate moves on to other business.

That pain-free approach has changed the very nature of the filibuster, Ornstein said, and transformed how the Senate operates, much to its detriment.

The burden is “supposed to be on the minority to really put itself … on the line to generate a larger debate” — a la the fictive Jefferson Smith — “and hope during the course of it that they can turn opinions around,” said Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “What’s happened is the burden has shifted to the majority [to break a filibuster], which is a bastardization of what the filibuster is supposed to be about.”

It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, by invoking cloture, to use Senate terminology. That means the passage of legislation now effectively requires a supermajority of the 100-member Senate. (There are workarounds, which, for instance, allowed President Trump’s massive tax-and-spending bill to pass on a 51-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaker.)

The filibuster gives outsized power to the minority.

To offer but two examples, there is strong public support for universal background checks for gun buyers and greater transparency in campaign finance. Both issues have majority backing in the Senate. No matter. Legislation to achieve each has repeatedly been filibustered to death.

That’s where Merkley would step in.

He would not eliminate the filibuster, a prerogative jealously guarded by members of both parties. (In a rare show of independence, Republican senators rejected President Trump’s call to scrap the filibuster to end the recent government shutdown.)

Rather, Merkley would eliminate what’s come to be called “the silent filibuster” and force lawmakers to actually take the floor and publicly press their case until they prevail, give up or physically give out. “My reform is based on the premise that the minority should have a voice,” he said, “but not a veto.”

Forcing senators to stand and deliver would make it more difficult to filibuster, ending its promiscuous overuse, Merkley suggested, and — ideally— engaging the public in a way privately messaging fellow senators — I dissent! — does not.

“Because it’s so visible publicly,” Merkley said, “the American citizens get to weigh in, and there’s consequences. They may frame you as a hero for your obstruction, or a bum, and that has a reflection in the next election.”

The power to repair itself rests entirely within the Senate, where lawmakers set their own rules and can change them as they see fit. (Nice work, if you can get it.)

The filibuster has been tweaked before. In 1917, senators adopted the rule allowing cloture if a two-thirds majority voted to end debate. In 1975, the Senate reduced that number to three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members.

More recently, Democrats changed the rules to prevent filibustering most presidential nominations. Republicans extended that to include Supreme Court nominees.

Reforming the filibuster is hardly a cure-all. The Senate has debased itself by ceding much of its authority and becoming little more than an arm of the Trump White House. Fixing that requires more than a procedural overhaul.

But forcing lawmakers to stand their ground, argue their case and seek to rally voters instead of lifting a pinkie and grinding the Senate to a halt? That’s something worth talking about.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Opponents of Missouri’s new congressional map submitted thousands of petition signatures Tuesday calling for a statewide referendum on a redistricting plan backed by President Trump as part of his quest to hold on to a slim Republican majority in next year’s elections.

Organizers of the petition drive said they turned in more than 300,000 signatures to the secretary of state’s office — more than the roughly 110,000 needed to suspend the new U.S. House districts from taking effect until a public vote can be held sometime next year.

Referendum votes in Missouri are automatically set for the upcoming November election, unless the General Assembly approves an earlier date during its regular session that begins in January. Missouri’s candidate filing period runs from Feb. 24 through March 31, but districts can still be changed after the deadline, as occurred when the legislature last approved districts in 2022.

The signatures also need to be formally verified by local election authorities and Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, who has argued the referendum is unconstitutional. But if the signatures hold up, the referendum could create a significant obstacle for Republicans who hope the new districts could help them win a currently Democratic-held seat in the Kansas City area in the November election.

“At the end of the day, these are going to have to get counted, and people are going to vote on this,” said Richard von Glahn, executive director of People Not Politicians, which sponsored the referendum drive.

Redistricting typically happens once a decade, after each census. But the national political parties are engaged in an unusual mid-decade redistricting battle after Trump urged Republican-led states to reshape House voting districts to their advantage. The Republican president is trying to avert a historical tendency for the incumbent’s party to lose seats in midterm elections.

Each House seat could be crucial, because Democrats need a net gain of just three seats to win control of the chamber and impede Trump’s agenda.

Redistricting is spreading through states

Texas was the first to respond to Trump’s call by passing a new congressional map that could help Republicans win five additional seats. The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way last week for the new districts to be used in the 2026 elections.

Republicans could gain one seat each under new maps passed in Missouri and North Carolina and have an improved chance at taking two additional seats under a new Ohio congressional map. In Indiana, senators are considering a proposal this week that also could help Republicans win two additional seats.

Democrats scored a victory in California, where voters in November approved a new Democratic-drawn congressional map that could help the party win five additional seats. Democrats could gain a seat in Utah under new congressional districts imposed by a judge.

But Republicans are challenging both states’ measures in court. And Utah lawmakers are meeting in a special session Tuesday to consider delaying the candidate filing deadline to allow more time for the legal challenge.

Virginia Democrats have also taken a first step toward mid-decade redistricting, with additional votes expected in the new year.

Missouri referendum sparks intense battle

People Not Politicians has raised about $5 million, coming mostly from out-of-state organizations opposed to the new map. National Republican-aligned groups have countered with more than $2 million for a committee supporting the new map.

Republicans have tried to thwart the referendum in numerous ways.

Organizations supporting the Republican redistricting have attempted to pay people up to $30,000 to quit gathering petition signatures, according to a lawsuit filed by Advanced Micro Targeting Inc., a company hired by People Not Politicians.

Hoskins, the secretary of state, contends he cannot legally count about 100,000 petition signatures gathered in the one-month span between legislative passage of the redistricting bill and his approval of the referendum petition’s format, but can only count those gathered after that.

Hoskins also wrote a ballot summary stating the new map “repeals Missouri’s existing gerrymandered congressional plan … and better reflects statewide voting patterns.” That’s the opposite of what referendum backers contend it does, and People Not Politicians is challenging that wording in court.

Meanwhile, Republican Atty. Gen. Catherine Hanaway filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Hoskins and the General Assembly asserting that congressional redistricting legislation cannot be subject to a referendum. Although a federal judge dismissed that suit Monday, the judge noted that Hoskins has “the power to declare the petition unconstitutional himself,” which would likely trigger a new court case.

Missouri’s restricting effort already has sparked an intense court battle. Lawsuits by opponents challenge the legality of Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe’s special session proclamation, assert that mid-decade redistricting isn’t allowed under Missouri’s constitution and claim the new districts run afoul of requirements to be compact, contiguous and equally populated.

It’s been more than a century since Missouri last held a referendum on a congressional redistricting plan. In 1922, the U.S. House districts approved by the Republican-led legislature were defeated by nearly 62% of the statewide vote.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

Sébastien Lecornu faces a vital test to his premiership over the social security budget bill.

France’s National Assembly is set to vote on a major social security budget bill, in a critical test for the embattled Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu, who has pledged to deliver the country’s 2026 budget before the end of the year.

Debate on the legislation began on Tuesday afternoon. Lecornu governs without a majority in parliament, and has sought support from the Socialist Party by offering concessions, including suspending President Emmanuel Macron’s controversial pension reform.

If lawmakers reject the plan, France could face another political crisis and a funding gap estimated at 30 billion euros ($35bn) for its healthcare, pension, and welfare systems.

“This social security budget bill is not perfect, but it is the best possible,” Lecornu wrote on X on Saturday, warning that failure to pass it would threaten social services, public finances, and the role of parliament.

Socialist leader Olivier Faure said on Monday that his party could back the bill after the government agreed to suspend Macron’s 2023 pension reform, which raised the retirement age, until after the 2027 presidential election.

But the far-right National Rally and the hard-left France Unbowed have both signalled their opposition, along with more moderate right-wing parties.

Even government allies, including the centrist Horizons party and conservative Republicans, could abstain or vote against the legislation. They argue that freezing the pension reform and raising taxes to win socialist support undermines earlier commitments.

France, the eurozone’s second-largest economy, has been under pressure to reduce its large budget deficit. But political instability has slowed those efforts since Macron’s snap election last year resulted in a hung parliament.

Lecornu, a close Macron ally, said last week that rejection of the bill would nearly double the expected shortfall from 17 billion to 30 billion euros ($20bn-$35bn), threatening the entire 2026 public spending plan.

Without a deal before year-end, the government may be forced to introduce temporary funding measures.

The government aims to bring the deficit below 5 percent of GDP next year, but its narrow political options have led to repeated clashes over public spending.

Budget disputes have already toppled three governments since last year’s election, including that of former Prime Minister Michel Barnier, who lost a no-confidence vote over his own budget bill.

Sport: Football Country: Egypt

Salah, the ‘Egyptian King’, scored 29 Premier League goals and broke a host of records as he helped Liverpool to a record-equalling 20th top-flight title in the 2024-25 season.

He became the first player to win the Golden Boot, the Playmaker award for most assists and the Premier League player of the season award in the same campaign. He was also named as the PFA men’s player of the year for a record third time and collected a third Football Writers’ footballer of the year award.

The 33-year-old became the highest-scoring overseas player in Premier League history, overtaking Sergio Aguero’s mark of 184.

Salah has scored five goals in 18 appearances for Liverpool so far this season, and on Saturday said he felt like he had been “thrown under the bus” by the club and that his relationship with head coach Arne Slot had broken down.

Central American nation on edge after voting plagued by fraud claims and a recent history of contested elections.

Election officials in Honduras have released updated voting results from the country’s November 30 election, following a three-day pause in tallies amid allegations of fraud and inconsistencies.

With 89 percent of ballots tallied on Monday, the conservative candidate Nasry Asfura held a slim lead of 40.21 percent over centrist contender Salvador Nasralla, who has 39.5 percent.

Rixi Moncada, a leftist candidate with the governing LIBRE party, is trailing in third place, with 19.28 percent.

“After carrying out the necessary technical actions (with external auditing), the data is now being updated in the results,” Ana Paola Hall, president of the National Electoral Council (CNE), said in a social media post.

Allegations of fraud had dominated the lead-up to the election, and statements from United States President Donald Trump-backed have likewise stirred controversy.

In the final days before the election, Trump indicated that he may not be able to work with anyone but Asfura. That, in turn, led to an outcry from other candidates who accused the US leader of election meddling.

The electoral body stated that about 14 percent of the tally sheets showed inconsistencies and would be reviewed. Hall added in her post that candidates must “stay alert and, where applicable, file the corresponding challenges in accordance with the law”.

Following a coup in 2009, Honduras experienced a period of repression and disputed elections that left many sceptical about the legitimacy of the electoral process. Security forces killed at least 16 people when they opened fire on protesters following a contested vote in 2017, with about 30 killed in protests across the country.

The prolonged vote-counting has fuelled concerns that similar clashes might erupt.

The opposition has also criticised Trump’s stated preference for Asfura as a form of interference, given his threat that US support could be withdrawn if he did not win.

Trump has previously written, “If he [Asfura] doesn’t win, the United States will not be throwing good money after bad.”

Moncada, the Libre candidate, has said she will not recognise the results that took place under “interference and coercion”. Nasralla has also said that Trump’s interference may have cost him votes.

Accusations of impropriety are widespread, with a conservative member of the CNE panel accusing a LIBRE member of “intimidation”, and Nasralla saying that “the corrupt ones are the ones holding up the counting process”.

Rights groups and civil society organisations have called for patience and transparency.

Former Rep. Colin Allred is ending his U.S. Senate campaign in Texas and instead will attempt a House comeback bid, potentially paving the way for Rep. Jasmine Crockett to enter the race for Democrats’ nomination in a state that is critical for the party’s long-shot hopes to reclaim a Senate majority in next year’s midterm elections.

Crockett, a high-profile House member who has sparred with President Trump, is expected to announce her decision on Monday, the final day of qualifying in Texas. Democrats expect she will enter the race for the seat now held by Republican Sen. John Cornyn. Democrats need a net gain of four Senate seats to wrest control from Republicans next November, and Texas, which Republicans have dominated for decades, is part of their ideal path.

Allred said in a statement Monday that he wanted to avoid “a bruising Senate primary and runoff” that could threaten Democrats’ chances in November. He said he would instead run for the House in a newly drawn district in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, which he previously represented in Congress before he won the Democrats’ Senate nomination in 2024 and lost the general election to Sen. Ted Cruz.

The former congressman did not name Crockett or state Rep. James Talarico, who has launched his Senate bid already, in his explanation. But Allred’s decision aligns with Crockett’s expected entry into the race. Her campaign has scheduled a “special announcement” in Dallas at 4:30 p.m. CST.

Republicans also expect a hotly contested primary among the incumbent Cornyn, state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton and U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt.

Allred says he wants to avoid a divisive Democratic primary

An internal party battle, Allred said, “would prevent the Democratic Party from going into this critical election unified against the danger posed to our communities and our Constitution by Donald Trump and one of his Republican bootlickers.”

Kamau Marshall, a Democratic consultant who has worked for Allred before and worked other campaigns in Texas, said Allred made the right call. But he said Talarico and Crockett both face distinct challenges and added that Democrats have work to do across the nation’s second-most populous state.

He said Crockett is a “solid national figure” who has a large social media following and is a frequent presence on cable news. That could be an advantage with Democratic primary voters, Marshall said, but not necessarily afterward.

“It’s going to be a sprint from now until the primary, but in Texas you have to think about the voter base overall in November, too,” Marshall said. “Who can do the work on the ground? After the primary, who can win in the general? … It’s about building complicated coalitions in a big state.”

Talarico, meanwhile, must raise money and build name recognition to make the leap from the Texas House of Representatives to a strong statewide candidate, Marshall said.

A winning Democratic candidate in Texas, Marshall said, would have to energize Black voters, mainly in metro Houston and Dallas, win the kind of diverse suburbs and exurbs like those Allred once represented in Congress, and get enough rural votes, especially among Latinos in the Rio Grande Valley.

Texas Democrats have big gaps to make up

The closest Democrats have come recently to a top-of-the-ticket victory in Texas elections was Beto O’Rourke’s challenge of Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018. O’Rourke campaigned in all 254 counties — a notable feat for Texas Democrats — and got 48.3% of the vote. But that was still a statewide deficit of 215,000 votes. Just four years later, O’Rourke was the gubernatorial nominee and lost to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott by more than 880,000 votes, a gap of nearly 11 percentage points. In 2024, Allred lost the Senate general election by nearly 960,000 votes or 8.5 points.

Allred’s new House district is part of the new congressional map that Texas’ GOP-run Legislature approved earlier this year as part of Trump’s push to redraw House boundaries to Republicans’ advantage. It includes some areas that Allred represented in Congress from 2019-25. Most of the district is currently being represented by Rep. Marc Veasey, but he has planned to run in a new, neighboring district.

A former professional football player and civil rights attorney, Allred was among Democrats’ star recruits for the 2018 midterms, when the party gained a net of 40 House seats, including multiple suburban and exurban districts in Texas, to win a House majority that redefined Trump’s first presidency.

Besides avoiding a free-for-all Senate primary, Marshall said Allred is helping Democrats’ cause by becoming a candidate for another office, and he said that’s a key for the party to have any shot at flipping the state.

“The infrastructure isn’t terrible but it clearly needs improvement,” he said. “Having strong, competitive candidates for every office is part of building that energy and operation. Texas needs strong candidates in House races, for governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general — every office — so that voters are hearing from Democrats everywhere.”

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Dec. 8 (UPI) — After a water leak damaged hundreds of books this morning at the Louvre in Paris, labor unions voted to strike against the iconic art museum.

Rolling walk-outs are set to begin Dec. 15. If all 2,100 employees join, it could cause closures during a peak season.

The strike notice said the unions no longer want to negotiate with museum Director Laurence des Cars.

It said “every day, museum spaces are closed well beyond the provisions of the guaranteed opening plan, due to insufficient staffing, technical failures and the building’s aging condition.”

“Staff are struggling with ever-increasing workloads, an increasingly harsh approach to human resources and contradictory directives that prevent a calm public service,” the notice said. Le Monde reported that the number of visits to the occupational psychologist rose from 37 in 2022 to 146 in 2024.

The museum suffered a water leak in its libraries that damaged hundreds of books, it announced earlier Monday.

The leak was discovered in late November and announced Sunday by Francis Steinbock, deputy administrator of the Louvre. Steinbock said up to 400 documents were damaged by the leak from one of the three library rooms in the museum’s Egyptian antiquities department. But no works of art were damaged, he said.

The pieces that were damaged were archaeology journals, mostly from the 18th and 19th centuries, that researchers consulted. Steinbock said dehumidifiers are in the room and the items are being dried one page at a time.

“No ancient works were affected,” said Hélène Guichard, director of the Egyptian antiquities department. “And the Louvre’s rapid and efficient response to the incident greatly limited the damage.”

The French Democratic Confederation of Labor, a union that represents some of the museum’s workers, posted on LinkedIn: “This new incident confirms a situation that has been deteriorating for too long, as the trade unions have been constantly alerting, including the CFDT-CULTURE.”

“Fragile infrastructure, a lack of strategic visibility on the work being carried out, and poor working conditions mean that the protection of the collections and the safety of staff and visitors remain insufficiently guaranteed,” it said. Union leaders would meet Monday morning to “decide on the next steps to be taken,” it added.

An October report by France’s Cour des Comptes, a public audit agency, was critical of the museum’s excessive spending on art “to the detriment of the maintenance and renovation of buildings.”

The Louvre is in a former palace, originally built as a fortress in the 12th century. The building’s deterioration has become an ongoing issue. A show was canceled in 2023 because pipes in the walls burst. In November, weak beams caused a gallery to close.

A major renovation was announced in January by President Emmanuel Macron and the Louvre’s director Laurence des Cars. Its goal is to ease overcrowding with a new entrance and a new room specifically for the Mona Lisa. Included are infrastructure repair and the outdated security system, which recently contributed to the jewel heist.

Steinbock said in a TV interview that the ventilation and heating network, which operates with water pipes, is scheduled to be replaced in September 2026.

ORLANDO, Fla. — A Chavez Ravine dream was yet again dashed on Sunday.

Fernando Valenzuela was once more denied induction to the National Baseball Hall of Fame.

Fourteen months removed from his death at the age of 63 in October 2024, and 27 years removed from the end of a pitching career measured by more than just wins, losses and ERA, Valenzuela failed to be elected for the 2026 Hall of Fame class by the Contemporary Baseball Era Committee — a 16-person group that once every three years considers players from the 1980s or later who had not been elected to the Hall through the traditional media vote.

Needing 12 votes from that committee to attain Hall of Fame status, Valenzuela instead came up short by receiving fewer than five.

Because Valenzuela didn’t receive five votes, he will be ineligible to be back on the Contemporary Era Committee’s ballot in 2028. The next time the committee could review his case won’t be until 2031.

Until then, his name will remain among the most notable snubs from Hall of Fame induction.

In his first year of traditional Hall of Fame voting eligibility in 2003, Valenzuela received just 6.2% of the writers’ vote, far from the 75% threshold required for election. In 2004, his name fell off the ballot after garnering a vote total of just 3.8%.

The problem then was that Valenzuela did not boast typical Hall of Fame numbers. Though he was a six-time All-Star, a Cy Young and rookie of the year award winner in 1981, and World Series hero in the Dodgers’ championship run that season, the left-hander posted only a 3.54 ERA in his 17-year, 173-win, 2,074-strikeout career, and amassed only 37.3 wins above replacement according to Baseball Reference.

Of the other 90 pitchers in the Hall of Fame, only one fellow modern-era inductee (Jesse Haines) had a career WAR below 40.0 and a career ERA above 3.50 (excluding players from the Negro Leagues).

Valenzuela’s impact, however, was defined far more than by just production and statistics — seemingly epitomizing the Hall’s motto of “preserving history, honoring excellence, connecting generations” with a career that changed the popularity of both the Dodgers and the sport.

Ever since his historic “Fernandomania” rookie season in 1981 — which started with eight consecutive victories for the then-20-year-old southpaw, and ended with his Cy Young, rookie of the year and World Series honors — the Mexican-born hurler had been an enduring cultural icon.

Valenzuela’s success greatly expanded baseball’s reach in Mexico and Latin America. His celebrity fueled a boom in Dodgers fandom, especially among Los Angeles’ Hispanic base.

This winter, hopes of that legacy being recognized in Cooperstown were rekindled when Valenzuela was named as one of eight finalists to be considered by the Hall of Fame’s Contemporary Era Committee.

He joined a group that also had Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Carlos Delgado, Jeff Kent, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy and Gary Sheffield — all of whom were evaluated by a 16-person panel made of former Hall of Fame inductees, former general managers, writers and a statistician, plus two current MLB owners (one of them, Arte Moreno of Angels).

In the end, only Kent (a former MVP and five-time All-Star who spent the final four years of his career with the Dodgers) received enough votes to earn a Hall of Fame election.

Bonds, Clemens and Sheffield joined Valenzuela among those to receive fewer than five votes.

Though Valenzuela never quite recaptured the heights of that singular 1981 campaign, he remained a celebrated and uniting figure over the rest of his 11-year Dodgers career, as well as in stops with the Angels and San Diego Padres, among others, over the back half of his playing days.

And since he first dropped off the traditional Hall of Fame ballot 21 years ago, there has been a persistent push from many in the baseball community — and especially the Dodgers’ fan base — to get Valenzuela into Cooperstown.

In 2023, the Dodgers even broke their unofficial rule of retiring only the numbers of the club’s Hall of Fame players, adding Valenzuela’s No. 34 to its ring of honor in a long-overdue celebration.

But for now, that will remain the most recognizable honor of Valenzuela’s contribution to the sport.

Once again, a doorway to Hall of Fame induction has been closed.