voter

Oscar nominations landed Thursday morning and you’d really have to be a curmudgeon to complain, what with the year’s two best films, “One Battle After Another” and “Sinners,” hauling in the most nods. One of these movies is going to win best picture (probably “One Battle”), continuing a nice little streak of top-shelf winners. “Oppenheimer” to “Anora” to “One Battle After Another”? That’s the best run since the early ’90s when “The Silence of the Lambs,” “Unforgiven” and “Schindler’s List” prevailed.

Of course, not everyone is celebrating this morning. “Wicked: For Good”? The complete disrespectation! The latest “Avatar” sequel? More ash than fire.

The Oscars cap their nominees at five per category (with the exception of best picture), leading, invariably, to some surprises and omissions — some egregious, some understandable. For alliteration and search engine optimization, we’ll call these “snubs,” though you’d have to be a true narcissist, say somebody who’d threaten to invade a country because he felt scorned over not winning a prize, to really take it personally.

Fortunately, Hollywood is free of ego, leaving us just to rationally contemplate the academy’s choices and examine the snubs and surprises of the nominations for the 98th Academy Awards, which will be presented on March 15.

Cynthia Erivo, left, and Ariana Grande in “Wicked: For Good.”

(Giles Keyte/Universal Pictures/Giles Keyte / Universal Pictures)

SNUB: “Wicked: For Good” (picture)
The first “Wicked” earned 10 nominations last year, going on to win two Oscars. Surely, the sequel would be popular too. But the box office was down (more than $200 million globally), the reviews were mostly meh, and academy members took note. Duplicating the first movie’s Oscar haul was going to be a challenge, as some voters would naturally resist rewarding something they had just honored a year ago. And the material posed its own challenges, as the musical’s second act isn’t as fun or focused. But to go from 10 nominations to being completely shut out? What a difference a year makes.

SURPRISE: “F1” (picture)
There’s a demographic in the motion picture academy affectionately known as “steak-eaters,” men in the autumn of their years who appreciate a good Dad Movie centered on old(ish) guys who most definitely know best. With membership broadening, this demo has lost a bit of its influence over the years. But the dudes can take a victory lap today, celebrating the nomination of Joseph Kosinski’s swaggering, vroom-vroom sports movie.

SNUB: “Avatar: Fire and Ash” (picture)
The third “Avatar” movie has grossed $1.3 billion worldwide, which is impressive, though still about $1 billion behind 2022’s “Avatar: The Way of Water.” That movie, like the first one, was nominated for best picture. But “Fire and Ash” couldn’t even manage a nod from the Producers Guild, a group that operates from a bigger-the-better mentality. There’s a feeling of fatigue about the franchise, with even creator James Cameron giving the distinct impression that he’s ready to move on. Here’s another signal that it’s time.

SNUB: “It Was Just an Accident” (picture)
The warning signs were there. Jafar Panahi’s searing (and often funny) social critique of authoritarianism did not fare well on the Oscar or BAFTA early lists. But with the current political climate and the alarming events transpiring in Panahi’s native Iran, it still felt like it’d make the best picture cut. Its absence feels like a big miss or, less charitably, a dereliction of duty.

Stellan Skarsgård, left, and Elle Fanning in a scene from director Joachim Trier’s “Sentimental Value.”

(Kasper Tuxen/Neon)

SURPRISE: Joachim Trier, “Sentimental Value” (director)
Trier seemed to be slipping down the ranks of contenders, but voters no doubt appreciated his film’s salty view of Hollywood as well as the way “Sentimental Value” subtly shifted between past and present, hope and hurt. Trier also earned an original screenplay nomination, repeating the success he enjoyed with his last movie, “The Worst Person in the World,” also starring Renate Reinsve.

SNUB: Guillermo del Toro, “Frankenstein” (director)
Scorsese stumped for him, as did David Fincher, George Lucas and Jason Reitman. “It’s a remarkable work,” Scorsese said during a Q&A with Del Toro. “It stays with you. I dreamed of it.” The affable, movie-loving Del Toro has won many fans inside and outside the industry over the years, along with Oscars for directing and producing the 2017 best picture winner “The Shape of Water” and for “Pinocchio,” the enchanting 2022 movie that snagged animated feature. “Frankenstein” isn’t his best work, but Del Toro did snag a Directors Guild nod. And “Frankenstein” itself earned 9 Oscar nominations. The directors branch, though, went with Trier.

SNUB: Jafar Panahi, “It Was Just an Accident” (director)
Panahi has had quite the year: He won the Palme d’Or at Cannes in May and was sentenced in December to one year in prison for “propaganda activities” related to his work. Both speak to the effectiveness of “It Was Just an Accident,” a withering critique of the cruelty and corruption of an authoritarian regime. Panahi did receive his first Oscar nomination, an original screenplay nod.

SURPRISE: Kate Hudson, “Song Sung Blue” (lead actress)
Hudson’s winning turn in this sincere heart-warmer about a husband-wife Neil Diamond tribute act gave the actor her first nomination since her spectacular arrival a quarter-century ago in “Almost Famous.” “Song Sung Blue” had its own lane in this race, appealing to voters starved for the kind of sincere adult drama that studios once routinely made. And Hudson had a number of famous friends — Demi Moore, Reba McEntire and, of course, her mom, Goldie Hawn — hosting screenings and singing her praises. Maybe even singing some Neil Diamond songs. Who can resist? Not voters.

Chase Infiniti in “One Battle After Another.”

(Warner Bros. Pictures)

SNUB: Chase Infiniti, “One Battle After Another” (lead actress)
Infiniti’s placement in the lead category, clearing the decks in supporting for co-star Teyana Taylor, raised a few eyebrows. She’s only in the movie for about half an hour, and though her character drives the action and ends the movie in spectacular fashion, that wasn’t enough in a category flush with weightier work.

SNUB: Amanda Seyfried, “The Testament of Ann Lee” (lead actress)
For true believers in Seyfried’s frenzied work in Mona Fastvold’s story of devotion and delusion, it’s hard to shake this one off.

SNUB: Cynthia Erivo, “Wicked: For Good” (lead actress)
Here’s the rub: The second half of “Wicked” no longer centers Erivo’s Elphaba. When she’s on the screen — and not wearing that sex cardigan — she’s still great, masterfully conveying Elphaba’s vulnerability and sadness. But in a competitive lead actress category, Erivo simply didn’t have the screen time to convince voters to give her an encore nomination.

SURPRISE: Delroy Lindo, “Sinners” (supporting actor) Lindo finally earned his first Oscar nomination, riding the wave of “Sinners’” record haul. His portrayal of the world-weary Mississippi bluesman Delta Slim was central to the movie’s exploration of life in the Jim Crow South and included a powerful monologue that told the story of the lynching of a fellow musician. The movie wouldn’t have been as special without it.

Paul Mescal in “Hamnet.”

(Agata Grzybowska / Focus Features)

SNUB: Paul Mescal, “Hamnet” (supporting actor) He played Shakespeare, but voters weren’t in love. How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless audience.

SNUB: Ariana Grande, “Wicked: For Good” (supporting actress)
Grande functioned as a co-lead in the first “Wicked,” winning a supporting actress nomination last year, and took center stage in the sequel. But her Oscar fortunes waned as “Wicked: For Good” couldn’t replicate the spell the original cast on audiences. It’s possible too that, good as she is at light comedy, some voters didn’t buy Glinda’s transformation after spending nearly the entire movie betraying Elphaba at every turn. With friends like her, who needs enemies?

SURPRISE: Elle Fanning, “Sentimental Value” (supporting actress)
SAG-AFTRA voters ignored the cast of “Sentimental Value” for the Actor Awards, but the ensemble came back in a big way with the academy. Fanning, playing an A-list American actress navigating the strained family dynamics of the auteur who hired her for his comeback, joined Reinsve, Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas and Stellan Skarsgård among the nominees.

SNUB: Odessa A’zion, “Marty Supreme” (supporting actress)
A’zion’s chances at a nomination seemed to rise along with the success of “Marty Supreme.” She picked up an Actor Award nomination earlier this month for playing Rachel, the film’s chaos-creating schemer. Oh well. Maybe we’ll see her at the Emmys later this year for her tumultuous turn as a Gen Z influencer in “I Love LA.”

SNUB: “No Other Choice” (international feature)
Oscar voters have been resistant to Park Chan-wook in the past, ignoring the likes of “Decision to Leave” and “The Handmaiden.” But “No Other Choice,” a humane — and darkly comic — look at ugly things people can do when desperate felt like a potential breakthrough. Park will have to wait … again.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that California this fall may use its new election map, which is expected to send five more Democrats to Congress.

With no dissents, the justices rejected emergency appeals from California Republicans and President Trump’s lawyers, who claimed the map was a racial gerrymander to benefit Latinos, not a partisan effort to bolster Democrats.

Trump’s lawyers supported the California Republicans and filed a Supreme Court brief asserting that “California’s recent redistricting is tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

They pointed to statements from Paul Mitchell, who led the effort to redraw the districts, that he hoped to “bolster” Latino representatives in the Central Valley.

In response, the state’s attorneys told the court the GOP claims defied the public’s understanding of the mid-decade redistricting and contradicted the facts regarding the racial and ethnic makeup of the districts.

Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed re-drawing the state’s 52 congressional districts to “fight back against Trump’s power grab in Texas.”

He said that if Texas was going to redraw its districts to benefit Republicans so as to keep control of the House of Representatives, California should do the same to benefit Democrats.

The voters approved the change in November.

While the new map has five more Democratic-leaning districts, the state’s attorneys said it did not increase the number with a Latino majority.

“Before Proposition 50, there were 16 Latino-majority districts. After Proposition 50, there is the same number. The average Latino share of the voting-age population also declined in those 16 districts,” they wrote.

It would be “strange for California to undertake a mid-decade restricting effort with the predominant purpose of benefiting Latino voters and then enact a new map that contains an identical number of Latino-majority districts,” they said.

Trump’s lawyers pointed to the 13th Congressional District in Merced County and said its lines were drawn to benefit Latinos.

The state’s attorneys said that too was incorrect. “The Latino voting-age population [in District 13] decreased after Proposition 50’s enactment,” they said.

Three judges in Los Angeles heard evidence from both sides and upheld the new map in a 2-1 decision.

“We find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming,” said U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu.

In the past, the Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not bar state lawmakers from drawing election districts for political or partisan reasons, but it does forbid doing so based on the race of the voters.

In December, the court ruled for Texas Republicans and overturned a 2-1 decision that had blocked the use of its new election map.
The court’s conservatives agreed with Texas lawmakers who said they acted out of partisan motives, not with the aim of denying representation to Latino and Black voters.

“The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a concurring opinion.

California’s lawyers quoted Alito in supporting their map.

WASHINGTON — Speaker Mike Johnson’s ability to carry out President Trump’s “play call” for funding the government will be put to the test on Tuesday as the House votes on a bill to end the partial shutdown.

Johnson will need near-unanimous support from his Republican conference to proceed to a final vote, but he and other GOP leaders sounded confident during a Tuesday morning press conference that they will succeed. Johnson can afford to lose only one Republican on party line votes with perfect attendance, but some lawmakers had threatened to tank the effort if their priorities are not included. Trump weighed in with a social media post, telling them, “There can be NO CHANGES at this time.”

“We will work together in good faith to address the issues that have been raised, but we cannot have another long, pointless, and destructive Shutdown that will hurt our Country so badly — One that will not benefit Republicans or Democrats. I hope everyone will vote, YES!,” Trump wrote on his social media site.

The measure would end the partial government shutdown that began Saturday, funding most of the federal government through Sept. 30 and the Department of Homeland Security for two weeks as lawmakers negotiate potential changes for the agency that enforces the nation’s immigration laws — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

“The Republicans are going to do the responsible thing,” Johnson said.

Running Trump’s ‘play call’

The House had previously approved a final package of spending bills for this fiscal year ending Sept. 30, but the Senate broke up that package so that more negotiations could take place for the Homeland Security funding bill. Democrats are demanding changes in response to events in Minneapolis, where two American citizens were shot and killed by federal agents.

Johnson said on Fox News Channel’s “Fox News Sunday” it was Trump’s “play call to do it this way. He had already conceded he wants to turn down the volume, so to speak.” But GOP leaders sounded as if they still had work to do in convincing the rank-and-file to join them as House lawmakers returned to the Capitol on Monday after a week back in their congressional districts.

“We always work till the midnight hour to get the votes,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La. “You never start the process with everybody on board. You work through it, and you could say that about every major bill we’ve passed.”

The funding package passed the Senate on Friday. Trump says he’ll sign it immediately if it passes the House. Some Democrats are expected to vote for the final bill but not for the initial procedural measure setting the terms for the House debate, making it the tougher test for Johnson and the White House.

Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries has made clear that Democrats wouldn’t help Republicans out of their procedural jam, even though Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer helped negotiate the funding bill.

Jeffries, of New York, noted that the procedural vote covers a variety of issues that most Democrats oppose, including resolutions to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress over the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

“If they have some massive mandate,” Jeffries said of Republicans, “then go pass your rule, which includes toxic bills that we don’t support.”

Key differences from the last shutdown

The path to the current partial shutdown differs from the fall impasse, which affected more agencies and lasted a record 43 days.

Then, the debate was over extending temporary coronavirus pandemic-era subsidies for those who get health coverage through the Affordable Care Act. Democrats were unsuccessful in getting those subsidies included as part of a package to end the shutdown.

Congress has made important progress since then, passing six of the 12 annual appropriations bills that fund federal agencies and programs. That includes important programs such as nutrition assistance and fully operating national parks and historic sites. They are funded through Sept. 30.

But the remaining unpassed bills represent roughly three-quarters of federal spending, including the Defense Department. Service members and federal workers could miss paychecks depending upon the length of the current funding lapse.

Voting bill becomes last-minute obstacle

Some House Republicans have demanded that the funding package include legislation requiring voters to show proof of citizenship before they are eligible to participate in elections. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., had said the legislation, known as the SAVE Act, must be included in the appropriations package.

But Luna appeared to drop her objections late Monday, writing on social media that she had spoken with Trump about a “pathway forward” for the voting bill in the Senate that would keep the government open. Luna and Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., met with Trump at the White House.

The Brennan Center for Justice, a think tank focused on democracy and voting rights issues, said the voting bill’s passage would mean that Americans would need to produce a passport or birth certificate to register to vote and that at least 21 million voters lack ready access to those papers.

“If House Republicans add the SAVE Act to the bipartisan appropriations package it will lead to another prolonged Trump government shutdown,” said Schumer, of New York. “Let’s be clear, the SAVE Act is not about securing our elections. It is about suppressing voters.”

Johnson, of Louisiana, has operated with a thin majority throughout his tenure as speaker. But with Saturday’s special election in Texas, the Republican majority stands at a threadbare 218-214, shrinking the GOP’s ability to withstand defections.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP video journalist Nathan Ellgren and writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

FORT WORTH — Democrat Taylor Rehmet flipped a reliably Republican state Senate district in Texas in Saturday’s special election, continuing a string of surprise victories for Democrats across the U.S. in the year since President Trump returned to the White House.

Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick called it “a wake-up call for Republicans across Texas,” where the GOP controls every statewide office.

“Our voters cannot take anything for granted,” Patrick wrote on X, while noting low-turnout special elections are always unpredictable. “I know the energy and strength the Republican grassroots in Texas possess. We will come out fighting with a new resolve, and we will take this seat back in November.”

Rehmet, a labor union leader and veteran, easily defeated Republican Leigh Wambsganss, a conservative activist, in the Fort Worth-area district, which Trump had won by 17 points in 2024. With almost all votes counted, Rehmet was leading by more than 14 percentage points — a more than 30-point swing.

“This win goes to everyday working people,” Rehmet told supporters.

Rehmet’s victory added to Democrats’ record of overperforming in special elections so far this cycle, beginning in March — when they prevailed in a Pennsylvania legislative district made up of suburbanites and farmers that Democrats hadn’t held in a century — and continuing through November, when they dominated candidate and ballot contests from Maine to California. Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic socialist, was elected mayor of New York City, a Democratic stronghold that saw the highest voter turnout in a mayor’s race in 50 years.

The showings come as Trump’s approval ratings hover around or below 40%. A January AP-NORC poll found that a majority of U.S. adults disapprove of the way he’s handling foreign policy, trade negotiations and immigration, as well as the economy.

Democrats said Saturday’s results in Texas were further evidence that voters under the second Trump administration are motivated to reject GOP candidates and their policies.

Texas Democratic Party Chair Kendall Scudder said Rehmet won by standing with working people and talking to Texans about the future.

“This win shows what is possible in Texas with strong organizing, great candidates and strategic investments,” he said in a statement. “People are noticing that Democrats have the workers’ backs and are delivering results.”

Democrats’ other recent state victories included wins for governor in Virginia and New Jersey and in special elections in Kentucky and Iowa. And, while Republican Matt Van Epps won a Tennessee special election for a U.S. House seat, the relatively slim margin of victory gave Democrats hope in the district for this fall’s midterms.

With that backdrop in mind, Trump and Vice President JD Vance have pushed states to redraw their political maps to Republicans’ advantage headed into those contests, which will determine partisan control in Washington. Some Democratic states — most notably California — have countered with their own redistricting efforts.

The Texas Senate seat was open because the four-term GOP incumbent, Kelly Hancock, resigned to take a statewide office. Hancock easily won election each time he ran for the office, and Republicans have held the seat for decades.

The district is redder than its home county, Tarrant. Trump won the county by 5 points in 2024, but Democrat Joe Biden carried it in 2020 by about 1,800 votes out of more than 834,000 cast.

Trump posted about the race on his social media platform earlier Saturday, urging voters to get out to support Wambsganss. He called her a successful entrepreneur and “an incredible supporter” of his “Make America Great Again” movement.

Rehmet had support from national organizations including VoteVets, a veterans group that said it spent $500,000 on ads. Rehmet, who served in the Air Force and works as a machinist, campaigned on lowering costs, supporting public education and protecting jobs.

Wambsganss warned her party not to be complacent.

“The Democrats were energized,” she said in a statement. “Too many Republicans stayed home.”

Rehmet’s victory allows him to serve until early January, and he will face Wambganss again in the November general election to try to keep the seat for a full four-year term. The Texas Legislature is not set to reconvene until 2027, and the GOP still will have a comfortable majority.

Hanna and Smyth write for the Associated Press.

ATLANTA — It is a goal spreading among anti-tax crusaders — eliminate all property taxes on homeowners.

Rising property values have inflated tax bills in many states, but ending all homeowner taxes would cost billions or even tens of billions in most states. It is unclear whether lawmakers can pull it off without harming schools and local governments that rely on the taxes to provide services.

Officials in North Dakota say they are on their way, using state oil money. Wednesday, Republicans in the Georgia House unveiled a complex effort to phase out homeowner property taxes by 2032. In Florida, GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis says that is his goal, with lawmakers considering phasing out nonschool property taxes on homeowners over 10 years. And in Texas, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott says he wants to eliminate property taxes for schools.

Republicans are echoing those who say taxes, especially when the tax collector can seize a house for nonpayment, mean no one truly owns property.

“No one should ever face the loss of their home because they can’t pay rent to the government,” Georgia Republican House Speaker Jon Burns of Newington said Wednesday.

An election-year tax revolt

These audacious election-year efforts could be joined by ballot initiatives in Oklahoma and Ohio to eliminate all property taxes. Such initiatives were defeated in North Dakota in 2024 and failed to make the ballot in Nebraska that year, although organizers there are trying again. Another initiative in Michigan may also fail to make the ballot.

“We’re very much in this property tax revolt era, which is not unique, it’s not new. We’ve seen these revolts in the past,” said Manish Bhatt, vice president of state tax policy at the Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., group that is generally skeptical of new taxes.

Previous backlashes led to laws like California’s Proposition 13, a 1978 initiative that limited property tax rates and how much local governments could increase property valuations for tax purposes.

The efforts are aimed at voters like Tim Hodnett, a 65-year-old retiree in suburban Atlanta’s Lawrenceville. Hodnett’s annual property tax bill rose from $2,000 to $3,000 between 2018 and 2024. He sees those figures starkly because he paid off his mortgage years ago, and he pays his taxes all at once instead of making monthly payments.

Hodnett said he is disabled and living on $30,000 a year. He is about to get a big property tax break, because seniors in Gwinnett County are exempt from school property taxes, about two-thirds of his bill. But he would love not to pay that other $1,000.

“It would be nice to be exempt from property taxes,” Hodnett said.

Will there be replacement revenue?

The question is whether local governments and K-12 schools should be expected to cut spending, or whether they will be allowed to make up revenue from some other source.

“I think the complete elimination of the property tax for homeowners is really going to be very difficult in most states and localities around the country, and undesirable in most places,” said Adam Langley of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, a Massachusetts nonprofit that studies land use and taxation.

Florida Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia, a Republican, has been touring the state arguing that local governments are overspending, trying to show they don’t need the $19 billion in property taxes they collect from homeowners for whom the property is their primary residence. Local governments have been disputing those figures.

North Dakota is using earnings from the state’s $13.4-billion oil tax savings account to gradually wipe out homeowner property taxes. Last year, North Dakota’s Republican-controlled Legislature expanded its primary residence tax credit from $500 to $1,600 a year. Officials in December said the tax credit wiped out property taxes for 50,000 households last year and reduced bills for nearly 100,000 more. That cost $400 million in state subsidies for the 2025 and 2026 tax years.

“It works, and we know we can build on it to provide even more relief and get property taxes to zero for the vast majority of North Dakota homeowners,” Republican Gov. Kelly Armstrong said.

The situation is murkier in Texas, which has been using state surplus funds to finance property tax reductions, and under the Georgia proposal, which calls for shifting taxes around.

A shift from property to sales taxes

Burns wants Georgia to wipe out $5.2 billion in homeowner property taxes — more than a quarter of the $19.9 billion in property taxes collected in 2024 — telling cities, counties and school districts to fall back on current or new sales taxes.

Not only will Burns’ plan need the Republican-led Senate to agree, but it will require Democratic support to meet the two-thirds hurdle for a state constitutional amendment and then voter approval in November.

While most property taxes go to schools, the majority of sales taxes don’t in some communities. It is unclear whether localities would redivide sales taxes. Also, local governments and schools would remain limited to a combined 5% sales tax rate, atop the state’s 4% rate. Some schools and governments might not be able to raise sales taxes enough to recover lost revenue.

Georgia would go from currently shielding $5,000 in home value from taxation to $150,000 in 2031 before abolishing most homeowner property taxes in 2032. The plan would limit yearly property tax revenue growth to 3% on other kinds of property.

Local governments would able to send homeowners a yearly bill for specified services such as garbage pickup, street lighting, stormwater control and fire protection, but lawmakers aren’t calling that a tax. Voters could also approve assessments for government or school improvements. Authors said they haven’t decided whether property owners could lose homes for unpaid assessments.

Burns also wants to spend about $1 billion to cut property tax bills in 2026, but it is unclear whether Republican Gov. Brian Kemp will agree. A spokesperson declined to comment.

Georgia previously tried to limit how much home values could rise for tax purposes, one common approach nationwide. But a majority of school districts and many other local governments have opted out. Georgia’s senators are still pursuing that approach, with a Senate committee on Wednesday voting to make the limit mandatory.

Amy writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Jack Dura in Bismarck, N.D., contributed to this report.

The arrest of independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, in connection with an anti-ICE protest that interrupted a church service in Minnesota, is a test for the American people. Well, some of us. Many of us already didn’t like what we saw happening across the country. Many believed the un-American threats during the campaign and voted against this regime in 2024.

So this is a test for the Americans who — after seeing law enforcement seemingly use a 5-year-old as bait and shoot Renee Good and Alex Pretti to death — still said they’re on board with everything.

The voters who agreed with Donald Trump when he said “they’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime” back in 2015, and were OK with him 10 years later, popping up in the Epstein files and pardoning criminals — including a corrupt former Latin American leader who took bribes to let 400 tons of cocaine be smuggled into the U.S.

This isn’t a test for the voters whose biggest concern was the price of groceries or border security. This is a test for the voters who used that rhetoric about groceries and the border as cover for their unsavory feelings about immigrants. The same feelings that greeted other groups — the Jews, the Italians, the Irish — when they first came to this land. The ethnicity may be different, the conspiracy theories may be new, but at the end of the day, it’s the same old predictable story.

So, if you’re the type to cast a ballot just to own the libs, the arrest of journalists is a test for you.

On Jan. 18, protesters — believing one of the pastors at Cities Church in St. Paul was also the acting field director of the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement office — entered the building and disrupted a service. The only reason anyone outside of St. Paul knew any of this is that we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Because people like Lemon and Fort had the courage to be there, knowing they had 250 years of American tradition backing up their right to do their jobs. That’s the point of the 1st Amendment.

Remember, if we don’t have journalists like Fort and my friend Lemon — people who are willing to do the work required to document history, or read legislation, or hold elected officials accountable — then you no longer have freedom of the press. You have state-controlled media by way of oligarchy. That may feel good to some factions now, but the problem with “now” is that it never lasts. The Constitution, though, has a real opportunity to stick around. But it needs constant protection.

In the old days, the ultra-rich used to buy local media companies to make money or for prestige in the community. Now it feels as if many owners’ goal is to control and curb journalism. Once the free press is in a cage, free speech has little room to fly. That is the byproduct of this wave of media consolidation, whether the billionaires who are engaged in these acquisitions planned to do that or not.

In addition, historically journalism has been under attack by governments not because it was a threat to society, but because it threatens those who want to control society. The reason most presidents spar with journalists is that they want to control the narrative.

But it appears the current president wants to control reality.

The impulse to rewrite reality is why Trump established Truth Social. It’s why the administration posts AI-generated images and doctored photos.

The sense that the president can create his own truth is why one day, the administration can defend the 2nd Amendment, and the next, suggest that legally carrying a weapon is a fatal mistake. After all, if he is free to trample the 1st Amendment, what’s the problem with kicking the 2nd around whenever he needs to?

Trampling the rights of the people: that is the test — for the rapidly dwindling minority of Americans who still stand behind Trump. He’s experimenting to see if enough of his supporters will accept having their rights taken away so long as the theft appears not to hurt them.

For the many Americans who have never voted for Trump, the arrests of Lemon and Fort are not a total shock. We have seen the “Trump 2028” hats and take this thinly veiled threat against the 22nd Amendment seriously.

But for the Americans who vehemently denounced President Obama for wearing a tan suit, where exactly is “arresting journalists for doing their job” on the threat-to-democracy scale? And why do you think Trump is doing this now?

Nearly a year ago, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said she had the Epstein client list on her desk for review. Then the administration waffled and refused to turn over its files. On Friday, it finally did release 3 million pages of documents.

And on Thursday night, knowing that release was imminent, the Justice Department just happened to arrest journalists.

That doesn’t feel like a coincidence.

It doesn’t even feel like politics. It all feels like a test democracy desperately needs America to pass.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow