Squad-endorsed candidate once reportedly volunteered with group tied to al-Qaeda and testified for terrorist 'blind cleric'



A top candidate vying among a crowded field for New Jersey's 12th District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives is facing flak from other Democrats over his alleged terror ties.

Physician Adam Hamawy, who also served as a U.S. Army combat surgeon, downplayed his interactions with the "blind cleric" Omar Abdel-Rahman, the late Islamic leader with ties to the terror bombing at the World Trade Center in 1993.

'Any Muslim is going to be called a terrorist at some point, and these tropes are outdated and worn. Unfortunately, they continue to be used right now.'

Hamawy did not respond to a separate report indicating he had volunteered with a Chicago-based group in Bosnia that was later discovered to be a front for al-Qaeda and shut down.

Plainfield Mayor Adrian Mapp, who is also running for the Democratic nomination, called Hamawy a "radical extremist" over his ties to Abdel-Rahman.

"The blind sheikh was not a marginal or misunderstood figure," Mapp said. "He was a convicted terrorist, convicted of seditious conspiracy. He was connected to one of the darkest chapters in our nation's history."

Hamawy admitted that he carpooled with the blind sheikh once in 1991 and later testified for Abdel-Rahman out of a sense of "civic duty," but he called the accusations Islamophobic.

"I was called as a witness, and I gave my testimony under oath, and then I walked out," he explained. "It was never an issue back then, and they're trying to make it an issue now."

He also fired back at fellow Democrat Mapp.

"My patriotism and my record is clear," he added. "I think he's desperate, and desperate people say desperate things."

Hamawy obtained endorsements from high-profile politicians including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.).

According to a Jewish Insider report, he also worked for the "Benevolence International Foundation" according to an unearthed interview Hamawy had with the Newark Star Ledger from 1996.

The 911 Commission Report found that the group was part of a complex network of organizations set up to help provide resources for terrorist operations linked to Osama bin Laden.

Hamawy, who was born in Egypt, cited his extensive service in the U.S. military to undermine the accusations.

"Any Muslim is going to be called a terrorist at some point, and these tropes are outdated and worn. Unfortunately, they continue to be used right now," he said. "These are not serious arguments, and they're getting old."

RELATED: WHO director was a leader of political group designated as a terrorist organization by US officials

Mapp responded by saying he was not attacking Hamawy's faith and accused other Democrats of being too fearful to criticize his past ties to terrorists.

Hamawy and Mapp are running for the nomination to seek the office vacated by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D), who is retiring. Whoever wins will run in November against Republican Gregg Mele, who ran unopposed for the Republican nomination.

Abdel-Rahman died in 2017 at a federal prison in Butner, North Carolina.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Federal court strikes down Alabama's redistricting effort — Republicans to APPEAL at Supreme Court



Alabama Republicans immediately called for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after losing a redistricting battle at a three-judge panel of a federal court.

Republicans are trying to reinstate a 2023 congressional map that would allow them the possibility of picking up a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Democrats claimed the new map would send Alabama back to the '1950s and 60s.'

On Tuesday, a U.S. district court in Alabama sided against the map and ordered the state to use a map with two majority-black districts.

"Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination," read the ruling.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall released a statement after the ruling.

"I am disappointed, but not at all surprised, that the three-judge panel has again struck down Alabama’s blandly unobjectionable congressional map that has been in place for decades," wrote Marshall.

"I find nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court’s vacatur order of May 11 that would provide a basis for this outcome; thus, we will immediately appeal this decision to the Supreme Court," he added.

Rep. Shomari Figures, one of the Democrats representing a black-majority district in Alabama, praised the ruling but said Democrats were prepared to continue fighting at the Supreme Court.

"I am pleased with the Court's decision, but this case is still not over," he wrote.

"Although we expected the Court to reach this decision given the overwhelming evidence, we fully expect the State to immediately appeal the decision to the Supreme Court," Figures added. "This is a significant step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go before this fight is settled."

Figures had previously claimed the new map would send Alabama back to the "1950s and 60s in terms of Black political representation in the state."

RELATED: VIDEO: Ocasio-Cortez makes humiliating mistake while telling New York to take on the South

"We've seen it from Republicans across the country — their goal is to eliminate every opportunity district for an African American candidate in the country," Figures added in a separate comment.

Marshall expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would side with Republicans.

"This is a very fluid situation, and I will do my best to keep the People of Alabama apprised of our efforts," he added. "Know this — in my mind, it is not a matter of whether we win this case, only when."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republicans are WINNING the redistricting battle, CBS analysis says



An analysis of the states that have redrawn congressional districts for partisan advantage found that Republicans are winning the battle.

CBS News elections analyst Anthony Salvanto looked at the midterm elections map with Crystal Ball managing editor Kyle Kondik on Tuesday.

'My best guess ... is a Republican gain of seven seats, but there's a range on that. It could be a little lower, it could be a lot higher than that.'

Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri have redistricted in favor of Republicans and garnered the party between 10 and 16 extra seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Democrats have only been able to gain seats in California and Utah, for a possible gain between four and six seats, according to the analysis.

Overall, Republicans could have as many as 12 extra seats, while Democrats could only whittle down the advantage to four for the Republicans if everything went their way.

In addition, there are three states where efforts are pending and Republicans could pick up more seats. Those are Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina.

"The argument sort of goes back and forth. Is it maybe nine seats? Is it maybe six seats when this all nets out?" Salvanto said.

According to their analysis, there are only about 16 actual toss-up seats to be determined, and Republicans have an estimated 211 to 208 seat advantage. Whichever party gets to 218 seats will determine control of the House.

"Obviously we got to have the election first to determine what the actual effect of the redistricting was," Kondik responded. "My best guess ... is a Republican gain of seven seats, but there's a range on that. It could be a little lower, it could be a lot higher than that."

Salvanto pointed out one possible weakness for Republicans were Hispanics in Texas districts who had moved to the Republican Party in 2024 but may not show up in as significant numbers for the midterms.

RELATED: Utah Supreme Court justice abruptly RESIGNS after accusation involving redistricting attorney

"Just because you change a map to benefit yourself, it's not necessarily gonna do that," Kondik added.

"I would specifically look at the Republican redraws because 2026 is gonna stress test those maps in a way that they won't necessarily be tested for Democrats because this is probably gonna be a Democratic-leaning year."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Colorado Dem Uses State Capitol for Campaign Video in Apparent Violation of State Law

Manny Rutinel, a Democrat running in a Colorado swing district, said he was "not campaigning" when he filmed a confrontation between him and his Republican opponent in the state capitol building. Then he used an edited portion of the video that excluded the remark in fundraising emails for his congressional campaign.

The post Colorado Dem Uses State Capitol for Campaign Video in Apparent Violation of State Law appeared first on .

House Candidate Backed by AOC, Van Hollen Hails Cop-Killer Mumia Abu-Jamal as Black Freedom Fighter and Political Prisoner

A Pennsylvania House candidate endorsed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.), Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), and other leading far-left figures has hailed notorious cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal as one of several "Black freedom fighters" and "elderly political prisoners" and called for his release from prison.

The post House Candidate Backed by AOC, Van Hollen Hails Cop-Killer Mumia Abu-Jamal as Black Freedom Fighter and Political Prisoner appeared first on .

Alito shreds Ketanji Brown Jackson's unhinged dissent to SCOTUS' demand that Louisiana immediately redistrict



The U.S. Supreme Court issued a hugely consequential 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais last week, striking down the Bayou State's controversial 2024 congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and providing some much-needed clarity on "whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can indeed provide a compelling reason for race-based districting."

Democrats and other liberals — including Justice Elena Kagan — condemned the ruling, construing it as a gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and a setback for racial minority representation in American politics.

Less than a week after its monumental ruling, the high court gave critics another reason to rend their garments.

'The dissent's rhetoric ... lacks restraint.'

While it customarily waits 32 days after a ruling to issue its judgment, the Supreme Court on Monday granted Louisiana Republicans' request to fast-track the process and immediately finalize its opinion in the case, thereby enabling the Bayou State to draw a new congressional map favoring the GOP in time for the 2026 midterm elections.

The court noted in its unsigned order that the usual 32-day delay ordinarily affords the "losing party time to file a petition for rehearing"; however, in this case, the defenders of the unconstitutional gerrymander "have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment."

RELATED: Obama, Mamdani, other Democrats throw ugly tantrums after SCOTUS strikes racial gerrymander

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. JACQUELYN MARTIN/POOL/AFP/Getty Images

Absent that expression of intent or any opposition from Louisiana, the court allowed its ruling to go into effect immediately, prompting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to lash out at her colleagues in an unhinged four-page dissent.

"The Court's decision in these cases has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana," Jackson said in her opening salvo.

After criticizing Louisiana's eagerness to ditch its unlawful congressional map in the wake of the Callais ruling, Jackson said that "to avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures. But, today, the Court chooses the opposite."

Jackson said further that the court's expedited certification of the ruling "is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana's rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map" and represents an abandonment of constraints and principles that is "unwarranted and unwise."

Evidently it was Justice Samuel Alito's turn to dunk on Jackson over the latest in her series of trademark screeds.

Alito underscored in an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch that the charges leveled in Jackson's dissent "cannot go unanswered."

The conservative justice pointed out that if Jackson had her way, the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana would be "held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional," and that the Biden-nominated justice had failed to make the case for why it is somehow now too late for Louisiana to adopt a new, constitutionally compliant map and "not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map."

In response to the two reasons Jackson did provide for dooming Louisiana to use an unconstitutional map in the midterm elections — first, that the court should observe the customary 32-day delay, and second, that the court should do so to avoid the appearance of bias — Alito wrote that "one is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting."

Turning on its head the assertion by Jackson that an expedited ruling-certification process screams bias, Alito noted that the Biden-nominated justice failed to explain why "unthinking compliance" with the custom "does not create the appearance of partiality (by running out the clock) on behalf of those who may find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map."

Alito called Jackson's claim that the decision represents an unprincipled use of power "a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge."

The conservative justice concluded, "The dissent accuses the Court of 'unshackl[ing]' itself from 'constraints.' It is the dissent's rhetoric that lacks restraint."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Obama, Mamdani, other Democrats throw ugly tantrums after SCOTUS strikes racial gerrymander



Former President Barack Obama is among the many liberals who had conniptions Wednesday over the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in Louisiana.

While such critics have largely spun the ruling as a setback for racial minority representation in American politics, it appears they are chiefly concerned with how the ruling might affect Democrats politically in the the midterm elections and beyond.

How it started

Louisiana adopted a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 consensus, which then-House Speaker Pro Tempore Tanner Magee (R) claimed honored "traditional boundaries."

'This is one of the most consequential and devastating rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st century.'

Dissatisfied that only one of the Bayou State's six congressional districts had a black majority, a group of black voters sued the state, alleging that the new 2022 congressional map diluted black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

A federal judge appointed by Democrat former President Barack Obama ruled that the map likely violated the VRA and ordered the Louisiana legislature to add a second majority-black district.

Pursuant to this ruling, which was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Louisiana created a map with a second majority-black district — this time prompting a legal challenge by "non-African American" voters who recognized the new map both as a racial gerrymander and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Their case, Louisiana v. Callais, ultimately made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled on Wednesday that "because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State's use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander."

RELATED: 'Trump is racist' arguments seem to fall on deaf ears at SCOTUS TPS hearing about Haiti and Syria

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Beyond striking down the racial gerrymander in its 6-3 decision, the court provided some much-needed clarity on "whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can indeed provide a compelling reason for race-based districting."

Justice Samuel Alito noted in the opinion for the court, for example, that "interpreting §2 of the Voting Rights Act to outlaw a map solely because it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the Amendment does not protect. And such an interpretation would run headlong into the Act’s express disclaimer against racial proportionality."

Alito noted further that "§2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race."

Although the court's clarifications appear aimed at providing states with guidance on how to comply with Section 2 of the VRA without unduly discriminating on the basis of race and violating the U.S. Constitution, Justice Elena Kagan alerted fellow travelers in her dissent — which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — that the ruling will supposedly impact "racial equality in electoral opportunity."

"The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter," wrote Kagan.

"If other States follow Louisiana’s lead, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. And minority representation in government institutions will sharply decline."

Alito found Kagan's dissent to be "unabashedly at war with key precedents."

How it's going

Obama, a champion of Virginia's recent legally dubious gerrymander whose appointee's decision in 2022 unwittingly set the stage for the SCOTUS ruling, complained on social media, "Today's Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities — so long as they do it under the guise of 'partisanship' rather than explicit 'racial bias.'"

Obama accused the Supreme Court's conservative majority of "abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach" and hinted that the decision could affect the upcoming midterms.

He added that "such setbacks can be overcome" but only if "citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers."

Twice-failed Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris similarly bemoaned the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it "an outrage" that "turns back the clock on the foundational promise of equality and fairness in our election systems" and that is "part of an agenda that conservatives set in place decades ago to steal power from everyday people."

'This will embolden lawmakers in former slave-holding states.'

Like Obama, Harris expressed concern about the midterm elections and the possibility that red states will "rush to redraw districts" before voting begins.

Democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani of New York City also threw a fit online, calling the decision a "direct assault on the promise of the Voting Rights Act" that threatens to disenfranchise "millions of Americans along racial lines."

Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York, a Democrat who said in 2021 that her district needs to bring in migrants to increase the population in time for redistricting, claimed in a joint statement with other members of the Congressional Black Caucus that "with the stroke of a pen, this rogue, unaccountable Court has effectively signed the death certificate of the Voting Rights Act, undoing decades of Black progress."

"Not since Jim Crow have we seen this level of systematic disenfranchisement of Black voters," said the joint statement.

Failed Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams — the founder of a voter turnout group slapped last year with what the Georgia State Ethics commission said was the largest fine it has ever imposed — said in an alarmist op-ed for MS NOW that the ruling was a "direct hit" to the "fragile promise that every American's vote should carry equal weight."

"This is one of the most consequential and devastating rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st century," whined NAACP general counsel Kristen Clarke.

"This will embolden lawmakers in former slave-holding states to target and eradicate districts that have provided Black Americans a fair opportunity to elect candidates of choice, and they will do so with the blessing of this Court."

Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, characterized the 6-3 decision as "cruel" and a "significant setback for our multiracial democracy."

Rep. Cleo Fields, a Louisiana Democrat who benefited from the Bayou State's racially gerrymandered map struck down by the Supreme Court, condemned the ruling and suggested that while Louisiana now has the authority to adopt a new map, "redrawing maps at this stage would not be prudent."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Pure bigotry': CNN fearmongers about 'Christian nationalism' in election-narrative tease



Democrats, the liberal media, and activist outfits have concern-mongered for years about the imagined threat posed by "Christian nationalism," a catchall term used to describe their ideological foes who also happen to be Christian in a nation almost entirely founded by Christians and where today over six in 10 adults are Christian.

CNN appears keen to revive the left's moral panic on-theme ahead of the midterm elections with an hour-long documentary titled "The Rise of Christian Nationalism."

'If you’re worried about Christians radicalizing then maybe you should stop shooting up our schools, churches and now hockey rinks.'

Newly released teaser videos and a corresponding press release hint at the documentary's apparent political purpose: to instill fear in viewers over a supposed movement that host Pamela Brown claims is "working to redefine America as a Christian nation in the home, in a marriage, in schools, and in government" — a movement that Brown reckons is supercharged and unified in the wake of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk's assassination.

The network noted in its overview for the documentary, which airs Sunday, that:

Brown examines the growing influence of Christian nationalism, an ideology rooted in the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and that its laws and institutions should reflect Christian values. Through immersive reporting and on-the-ground access, the episode explores how a movement once largely confined to the margins of white evangelical culture has gained new visibility and political power.

Brown apparently believes she gleaned generalizable insights into "Christian nationalism" by chatting with critics and kicking around Christian communities linked to Pastor Doug Wilson, a theologian credited by the Wall Street Journal months ago with leading the rise of "Christian nationalism" under President Donald Trump.

"We embedded with a community under Pastor Wilson’s umbrella and spoke to women who have left the church and are now sounding the alarm," said Brown. "No matter where you live or what you believe, what we learned is especially consequential at this moment."

RELATED: Blue-state city leans into battle against ACLU over archangel Michael statue honoring police

Photo by Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

In one preview, Matthew Taylor — a specialist in "Muslim-Christian dialogue" who wrote a book sounding the alarm about imagined Christian threats to democracy — tells Brown that Kirk's memorial service "was one of the most potent examples of this shift in our culture that we're experiencing right now, where a large segment of American Christians are being activated by these ideas, radicalized by these ideas that say that they are the persecuted ones and that they need to stand up for Christians' rights."

Despite his intimation to the contrary, the ideas Taylor figures for radicalizing are based in fact. Christians, persecuted around the globe, are frequently targeted in the U.S., where radicals have not only sought to legislatively curb religious liberties but attacked churches and the faithful.

Brown, referencing a clip in which Taylor suggests that Christians take Trump for an "anointed figure" because he survived the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, said that "this is just one example of why Christian nationalists are having such a moment right now."

While some viewers might suspect that these alleged "Christian nationalists" are simply followers of Christ who also vigorously support their nation, definitions and criteria vary.

Brown defines "Christian nationalism" as "an ideology rooted in the belief that our country was founded as a Christian nation and that our laws and institutions should reflect Christian values."

The CNN host appears to be casting a big net granted a 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that six in 10 American adults said the founders intended America to be a Christian nation.

The Public Religion Research Institute, a group that has in recent years characterized Christian nationalism as "a major threat to the health of our democracy," has a slightly less vague understanding and can supposedly deduce if someone is a Christian nationalist on their responses to the following five statements:

  • "The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation."
  • "U.S. laws should be based on Christian values."
  • "If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore."
  • "Being Christian is an important part of being truly American."
  • "God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society."

In the wild, "Christian nationalist" appears in many cases to be a term externally applied, not chosen.

Vice President JD Vance, for instance, doesn't check all of the PPRI's boxes, having indicated that Americans don't have to be Christian but that "Christianity is America's creed." Nevertheless, he is frequently branded as a "Christian nationalist."

Despite stating in 2024 that "Christian Nationalism" is "a boogeyman they've invested to silence you," and having made a point of noting months before his murder that he had never described himself as a Christian nationalist, Kirk is branded as such in Brown's CNN documentary.

Patriotic Christians were quick to lambaste Brown and CNN over the documentary and the timing of its release.

Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts noted that "it's no accident that Pamela chose the first week of Lent to release this. The world saw one of the most prominent voices on the Right martyred by a radical leftist, with his death celebrated by the Left at large — but it’s conservative Christians you need to worry about."

"This is pure bigotry from an increasingly anti-Christian, anti-American Left that tolerates all kinds of dogmas influencing people’s politics — except those of conservative Christians," added Roberts.

Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, stated, "If you’re worried about Christians radicalizing then maybe you should stop shooting up our schools, churches and now hockey rinks. Killing Charlie and the 'this is what you get' messaging from the media was pretty radicalizing too."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Record' cash advantage gives GOP upper hand in state AG races



The country presently has 27 GOP state attorneys general and 23 Democrat state AGs — counting the Democrat-appointed lesbian activist in Hawaii. Republicans are fighting to maintain their dominance in the top legal offices across the country, the majority of which they have controlled since 2015.

There are 30 state attorney general seats on the ballot this November — 16 of which are presently occupied by Democrats and 14 of which are occupied by Republicans.

The Republican Attorneys General Association, whose support wasn't enough to spare former Virginia AG Jason Miyares from losing his re-election bid last year, announced on Friday that it raised "a record $29.3 million across all entities last year" — the most that any AG organization has reportedly ever raised in a calendar year.

'Four of the Toss-up AG races are in states that were considered presidential battlegrounds in 2024.'

"In 11 months, RAGA raised nearly $30 million for the first time ever," RAGA Executive Director Adam Piper said in a statement. "However, we must shatter previous fundraising records to ensure we protect battleground incumbent seats and pick up winnable seats."

"2026 is the largest election year for AG races, and RAGA is well positioned for another banner year," added Piper.

Among the incumbent Republican attorneys general now running or poised to run for re-election are:

Whereas Ohio's Dave Yost is ineligible to run again due to term limits, several other GOP incumbents are creating openings because they have their eyes set on different prizes.

RELATED: 'Going to get someone killed': Democratic AG shocks with talk about shooting ICE agents in 'stand your ground' Arizona

Georgia AG Chris Carr. Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Alabama AG Steve Marshall and Texas AG Ken Paxton are running for the Senate — Marshall for the seat of Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), who is running for governor, and Paxton to deny Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) a fifth term.

South Dakota AG Marty Jackley is running for Congress. Oklahoma AG Gentner Drummond is running for governor of his state.

Louis Jacobson at the University of Virginia's Center for Politics suggested in an analysis late last year that "of the 2025-26 AG races, seven states have competitive AG races: five Toss-ups, plus a Leans Republican and a Leans Democratic seat each."

"Democrats will largely be playing defense: All five Toss-up races are currently held by Democrats, with at least two of them open-seat races, and potentially more to come open if additional incumbents run for a different office," continued Jacobson. "Mirroring the national partisan split, four of the Toss-up AG races are in states that were considered presidential battlegrounds in 2024."

Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, and Wisconsin were identified as toss-up AG races. Jacobson suggested further that Carr (R) was well-positioned in Georgia.

"The remaining states with AG races this cycle include 10 Safe Republican seats, 3 Likely Republican seats, and 11 Safe Democratic seats," added Jacobson.

While the races in Maryland, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin are attracting significant national and donor attention, the contests in Iowa and Kansas — where Kobach is once again battling Democrat challenger Chris Mann — are fast becoming two of the most closely watched, reported MultiState.

Mann reportedly out-raised Kobach last year. Nevertheless, the incumbent had more cash on hand to kick off this election year.

Bird has managed to raise over $2 million for her re-election campaign — more than double what her Democrat challenger, Nate Willems, has netted. The Des Moines Register reported, however, that Willems has fared far better in terms of fundraising than his state's former Democrat AG, Tom Miller, who lost to Bird in 2022.

The race in Texas is similarly garnering national attention, though much of the present heat surrounds the Republican primary on March 3.

The candidates who will face off Tuesday in a debate moderated by BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey are:

  • Aaron Reitz, the Paxton-endorsed former assistant attorney general who has promised to "destroy the left" if elected;
  • Rep. Chip Roy, an antagonist of Paxton who has Texas Sen. Ted Cruz's endorsement;
  • Mayes Middleton, a Texas state senator who has characterized himself as proud supporter of President Trump and the America First agenda and has been endorsed by Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas); and
  • Joan Huffman, a Texas state senator who enjoys the support of various police unions and has been endorsed by National Fraternal Order of Police Vice President Joe Gamaldi.

The debate airs at 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Virginia Democrats just hit their first setback — and it could make a difference in the midterm elections



The Democrat-controlled Virginia General Assembly gave final legislative approval earlier this month to a proposed constitutional amendment that would give lawmakers emergency powers outside the 10-year redistricting process to gerrymander the Old Dominion's congressional maps.

"Virginia's proposed redistricting amendment is a response to what we're seeing in other states that have taken extreme measures to undermine democratic norms. This approach is short-term, highly targeted, and completely dependent on what other states decide to do themselves," Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) said last week.

"Virginia will be responsive and targeted, but only with the will of the people. I trust the voters to get this right," she continued.

However, Tazewell County Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. ruled on Tuesday that the approval of the proposed amendment — which former Gov. Glenn Youngkin characterized as a "shameless, reprehensible political power grab by Democrat lawmakers" — was illegal.

'Take a look in a mirror.'

Hurley noted in his ruling that Democratic lawmakers failed to follow the right procedure concerning the passage of a constitutional amendment. Democrats failed in part by flouting the requirement that a two-thirds supermajority approve of the introduction of the unrelated subject of redistricting at last October's special legislative session, he said.

"This blatant abuse of power by a majority IGNORES their own rules and resolutions thereby trampling ANY and ALL procedural rights of the minority," Hurley wrote.

Hurley noted further that using the special session to pass the measure in October was impermissible because early voting in the Virginia's 2025 elections had already begun and "the Constitution REQUIRES an intervening election FOLLOWING the first passage of a proposed Constitutional Amendment."

RELATED: This is what happens when a state elects a ‘moderate’ Democrat

Billy Schuerman/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

The judge also indicated that Section 30-13 of the Code of Virginia — which requires the posting of such a constitutional amendment at the front of every courthouse and its publication by clerk of the House of Delegates no "later than three months prior to the next ensuing general election of members of the House of Delegates" — was not followed.

"Defendants woefully argued that the posting could occur three (3) months prior to the 2027 election and still comply with the statute even if the proposed Constitutional Amendment was voted on in the Spring of 2026," Hurley wrote.

Hurley, evidently concerned about state Democrats' recent efforts to change related rules on the fly, noted, "Even if the General Assembly is NOT required to follow its own Rules and Resolutions, and even if 'election' is narrowly defined as 'Election Day,' the Court FINDS the General Assembly FAILED to comply with Section 30-13 of the Code of Virginia, which therefore PROHIBITS the proposed amendment from being submitted to the voters for their consideration."

Julie Merz, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the ruling was a "rogue decision" and expressed confidence it would be overturned on appeal.

The Democratic leaders in the Virginia House and Senate said in a joint statement, "Republicans who can't win at the ballot box are abusing the legal process in an attempt to sow confusion and block Virginians from voting. We will be appealing this ruling immediately."

The Virginia GOP noted in response that those Democrats now accusing Republicans of "abusing the legal process" were just found to have "violated the VA Constitution by trying to force a vote on a constitutional amendment to give themselves more political power without following the rules."

"Maybe take a look in a mirror," the state GOP added.

Failure on appeal could spell trouble for Democrats in the midterm elections. CNN indicated, after all, that Virginia "represents the largest potential number of seats Democrats still could pick up through redistricting."

While bad news for Democrats if the ruling stands, those congressional Republicans whose districts were targeted — Reps. Rob Wittman, Jen Kiggans, John McGuire, and Ben Cline — will likely be able to breathe easier.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!