Connect with us

Politics

Voter ID is headed for California’s November ballot

Published

on

Voter ID is headed for California’s November ballot

A ballot measure that would require Californians to show identification every time they vote in person, or use a special pin number when submitting mail-in ballots, has qualified for the November ballot, elections officials announced Friday.

The measure also would require election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens, aligning with a Republican-led push for new restrictions on voters in the wake of President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, and that undocumented immigrants are swaying elections by voting illegally.

Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio from San Diego has been pushing the measure for several years, while Trump and Republicans also are seeking a similar initiative at the federal level.

If passed, the California ballot measure would require a voter to present government-issued identification, such as a state driver’s license, every time they vote. Voters mailing ballots would be required to write a four-digit number, essentially a pin number, on their ballots matching the one generated when they registered to vote.

The pin would come from ID such as a driver’s license, or could be generated from the county. The vast majority of Californians mail in their ballots in elections.

Advertisement

Under the measure, election officials also must ensure that registered voters are U.S. citizens by using information from government records, which could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, and maintain accurate voter registration lists.

DeMaio said the measure is different than a federal proposal, known as the SAVE Act, which stalled out in the U.S. Senate this week.

DeMaio said the state ballot measure “does not do away with mail in ballots, because voters of all political backgrounds like the convenience of mail in ballots. So we want to keep that convenience.”

The ballot measure needs a simple majority to pass.

Under current law, Californians are not required to show or provide identification when casting a ballot in person or by mail. They are required to provide identification when registering to vote, and must swear under penalty of perjury, a felony, that they are eligible to vote and a U.S. citizen.

Advertisement

Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, told The Times that her group is committed to fighting the measure, arguing it would make it harder for people in the state to vote.

She said that people may forget to use a pin on their mail-in ballot, leading to their vote being disqualified. Similar changes in Texas, she said, led to a rise in rejected ballots due to technical errors.

“It doesn’t really weed out illegal voting,” which doesn’t actually exist, she said, “but it does cause more ballots to be incorrectly flagged and ultimately rejected.”

ACLU of Northern and Southern California, Common Cause, Disability Rights California also oppose the measure.

DeMaio filed for the ballot initiative in 2021 and 2023, but did not move forward with the signature collection process in order to fine-tune the ballot language.

Advertisement

He said his ballot measure wasn’t focused primarily about making sure that undocumented people don’t vote.

“That’s one element of concern that we’ve heard from some groups, but it really is making sure that, No. 1, we properly maintain our voter rolls,” he said.

Politics

Florida Dem filed for re-election days before resignation as House Ethics Committee ramped up pressure

Published

on

Florida Dem filed for re-election days before resignation as House Ethics Committee ramped up pressure

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick is still registered to run for re-election despite having resigned from office amid congressional and federal probes for allegedly mishandling disaster relief funding for personal gain.

On April 17, Cherfilus-McCormick submitted a notice of her candidacy to the Florida Department of State as a Democrat just a week before officially stepping down from office.

She resigned on Tuesday.

The filing raises questions about whether Cherfilus-McCormick believes she can still pursue political office despite facing intense scrutiny at the moment.

Advertisement

NANCY MACE CALLS ON CONGRESS TO RELEASE SEXUAL HARASSMENT RECORDS, WANTS AN ‘AVALANCHE OF RESIGNATIONS’

Former Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., speaks after being sworn in during a ceremony in the Broward County Commission chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on Jan. 27, 2025. (Joe Cavaretta/South Florida Sun Sentinel/Tribune News Service)

Her office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Cherfilus-McCormick’s decision to resign from office came right before the House Ethics Committee was scheduled to recommend she be punished for misusing disaster relief funding that she allegedly funneled through several companies into her campaign coffers. 

The committee found that she had committed 18 campaign finance violations, five counts of false financial disclosures, three counts of misusing official funds and one count of lack of candor.

Advertisement

Cherfilus-McCormick maintained her innocence but announced that she would defend herself outside of her time in office.

Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla. (Carline Jean/South Florida Sun Sentinel/Tribune News Service)

“This was not a fair process. The Ethics Committee refused my new attorney’s reasonable request for time to prepare my defense. I simply cannot stand by and allow my due process rights to be trampled on, and my good name to be tarnished,” Cherfilus-McCormick said in a press release.

“Rather than play these political games, I choose to step away so that I can devote my time to fighting for my neighbors in Florida’s 20th district. I hereby resign from the 119th Congress, effective immediately.”

While Cherfilus-McCormick’s departure from Congress halted the Ethics Committee’s authority over her, she also faces federal charges.

Advertisement

FEDERAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST DEM CONGRESSWOMAN FOLLOWING CONFRONTATION AT ICE FACILITY

Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, D-Fla., leaves the U.S. Capitol after the last votes of the week on March 27, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

She was indicted by a Miami grand jury in November for allegedly stealing $5 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has not yet announced a date for a special election to fill her vacant seat.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Tariffs Raised Consumers’ Prices, but the Refunds Go Only to Businesses

Published

on

Tariffs Raised Consumers’ Prices, but the Refunds Go Only to Businesses

You probably won’t receive a huge tariff refund.

The largest businesses stand to reap the biggest bucks as the Trump administration begins to return more than $166 billion in duties deemed illegal by the Supreme Court. Even though President Trump’s trade policies have led to higher prices for companies and consumers, many families aren’t in line to benefit directly from the coming refund checks.

The discrepancy is a reflection of the nation’s complicated import laws — and the ever-fluid nature of Mr. Trump’s trade war.

When the government applies taxes to foreign goods, it charges the firms and brokers that bring those items into the country. Those costs proved substantial during the president’s first year back in office, after he imposed a set of so-called reciprocal tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.

But a majority of justices on the nation’s highest court struck down those duties in February, forcing the administration to pay back much of its coveted tariff revenue. As a result, the government owes refunds to the importers on its record books — meaning companies, in many cases — even if those businesses ultimately shifted the costs of Mr. Trump’s taxes on to their customers.

Advertisement

The beneficiaries may include retail giants, such as Costco, Gap, Home Depot, Kohl’s, Lowe’s, Target and Walmart. For some, analysts estimate that the refunds may total into the billions of dollars apiece, leaving them with a choice of whether to keep the money or share it with consumers, even if indirectly in the form of future discounts.

But almost none of those U.S. retailers commented by Thursday on their exact plans. Only Costco promised previously to pass savings on to customers, without explaining how, as the buy-in-bulk company faces one of a series of class-action lawsuits from furious Americans who believe they are owed refunds.

Heather Boushey, who served on the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., described the refund process as a “windfall for businesses,” some of which foisted the tariffs on consumers.

“American families,” she added, “are certainly the losers.”

That could turn the tariff refunds into a divisive political issue, at a moment when a majority of voters have already expressed dissatisfaction with the president’s handling of the economy. Democrats have demanded that the administration return the money to families, but Mr. Trump has opposed returning the money at all — and he suggested this week that it would be “brilliant” if companies chose to forgo repayment.

Advertisement

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

For more than a year, Mr. Trump has insisted that foreigners, not Americans, have shouldered the financial burden of his punishing global trade war. But the data has always told a more complicated story, one in which Americans have actually been left to pay a substantial toll.

One measure from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, published in February, estimated that nearly 90 percent of the economic burden from Mr. Trump’s duties had fallen on U.S. companies and consumers. Its findings prompted an unusually harsh rebuke from the White House, which attacked the report’s economists for a conclusion at odds with the president’s beliefs.

Mr. Trump’s tariffs have also threatened to cut into families’ finances. Studying Mr. Trump’s latest rates in April, the Yale Budget Lab, a think tank, estimated that his policies could cause prices to rise as much as 1.1 percent in the short run, which would translate to an annual loss in income of about $1,500 per household. But it cautioned that its analysis rested on a set of assumptions about how Mr. Trump’s rates might evolve.

After Mr. Trump unveiled his highest duties last spring, companies in particular tried a variety of tactics to blunt the financial impact. They slowed imports, reduced staff, paused development, renegotiated deals with suppliers or absorbed the bite of tariffs into their bottom lines. And in some cases, they raised prices.

Advertisement

The costs of Mr. Trump’s trade war proved so staggering that some businesses sued in a bid to recover their money even before the Supreme Court ruled on whether the president had acted illegally. The official refund process commenced only on Monday, and by the government’s own count, the task ahead is monumental. By early March, there were more than 330,000 importers that had paid illegal tariffs on more than 53 million entries, customs officials said.

Some of the refunds may be significant. Walmart, for example, may stand to recover more than $10 billion in previously paid tariffs, according to an analysis this month from Citi Research. Target could be due more than $2 billion, Nike could receive $1 billion, and Home Depot could see a more than $500 million refund, the report found.

Paul Lejuez, a managing director at Citi Research who focuses on department stores, said the estimates did not include interest owed by the government on those refunds. He cautioned that the figures were imprecise calculations derived partly from companies’ financials.

Still, Mr. Lejuez said he expected retailers to face pressure soon from consumers, who want to see companies “show some signs of giving back.”

At least three, FedEx, UPS and DHL, have said they intend to share tariff refunds directly with customers. Frequently, the shipping giants pay tariffs as the official importers for shipped goods, but pass along the charges to the consumers, who placed the orders. Each said it would help customers recover money.

Advertisement

Other businesses have been more circumspect. At an April forum hosted by JPMorgan, John David Rainey, an executive vice president at Walmart, said he expected the big-box retailer to “certainly avail ourselves” of any refund process. But he offered few clues on Walmart’s plans for the money.

“We’ve absorbed a lot of that,” he told investors at the time, referring to the president’s tariffs. “In some cases, we had to pass along that price increase to customers.”

The lack of clarity has prompted some unsatisfied consumers to take matters into their own hands. In recent weeks, they have filed class-action lawsuits against FedEx, UPS and other brands, including Costco and Temu, the low-cost online marketplace, according to state and federal court records.

The lawsuits generally seek to recover money directly for shoppers, claiming that companies do not deserve to profit twice — first by raising prices on consumers, then from collecting federal tariff refunds plus interest.

“The consumer, for all intents and purposes, pays the tariff,” a set of lawyers argued in their lawsuit against Costco, filed in March. They asserted that the company’s pursuit of a refund “constitutes unjust enrichment at the expense” of customers.

Advertisement

David French, the executive vice president of government relations at the National Retail Federation, a lobbying group, said it would be difficult for companies to try to return money directly to consumers because executives cannot simply look at a tariff and “pull out a specific price increase from a retailer’s array of goods.”

But he said he expected some companies to try to give back in other ways. “It may not be a specific item on a receipt that says, ‘This is a tariff refund,’ but you’re going to see the money returned to customers in many cases,” Mr. French said.

Echoing the sentiment last month, Ron M. Vachris, the chief executive of Costco, told shareholders that his retailer would try to “find the best way to return this value to our members through lower prices and better values.” He also said that Costco did not “pass the full cost” of tariffs on to its members, and that calculating the “exact impact” of duties on prices was difficult.

Mr. Trump’s tariffs are expected to change again, as the White House looks to resurrect its previous sky-high rates using another set of trade powers. The president has already imposed a temporary, across-the-board tariff of 10 percent on most imports, using a provision of law that has been challenged in court.

The expected losses from tariffs still represent a sharp departure from the gains that Mr. Trump had once promised to Americans. Initially, the president had said he would return some of the money collected from his duties to families in the form of a rebate check. The idea never gained much traction even among Republicans in Congress, yet the president still pledged repeatedly to offer “a nice dividend to the people,” as he sought to shore up support for his economic agenda.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump does not appear to have mentioned the idea since losing at the Supreme Court, yet many Democrats have started to demand that his administration compensate families.

On Thursday, a group of Democratic lawmakers including Representatives Steven Horsford of Nevada and Suzan DelBene of Washington asked the top executives of Walmart, Target and other companies to ensure the coming tariff refunds “reach those who ultimately bore those costs.”

“American families felt the impact of these tariffs in everyday life,” they wrote in a letter. “The question of how refunds are distributed is one of corporate accountability and economic fairness.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump admin steps up next phase of effort to protect children’s health

Published

on

Trump admin steps up next phase of effort to protect children’s health

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: The Trump administration is stepping up its response to childhood lead exposure, launching new EPA public-education tools while pressing states to use previously awarded lead-mitigation funds that had gone unused, Fox News Digital learned. 

“There’s no safe level of lead exposure, and it’s well documented that children are more susceptible to the risks of lead. We’ve made a lot of progress over the decades in reducing childhood exposure to lead, but there’s still more work to do,” Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi told Fox News Digital in a Zoom interview. 

The EPA is revamping its website and launching a new story map tool aimed at making critical information on the risks of lead exposure easier for the public to access. The move comes as the agency shifts funding toward higher-impact efforts and steps up pressure on states to address contamination risks.

RFK JR DEFENDS TRUMP MOVE TO PROTECT PESTICIDE HE TIED TO ‘CHRONIC DISEASE EPIDEMIC’

Advertisement

The EPA is revamping its website and launching a new story map tool making critical information on the risks of lead exposure easier for the public to access. (Andrew Kelly/Reuters)

Lead can be commonly found in paint, household dust, drinking water, air, and soil. The new tools will provide information to the public on current regulations for prevention.

“We’re also enforcing our rules when it comes to the lead renovation and painting rule. This comes up when you’ve got older homes, 1978 and older. Those are the ones that are more likely to have lead in the home, in the paint,” said Fotouhi. “When those homes are being renovated, it’s critical that folks are following our standards for ensuring the safety of any children that are occupying that home during that renovation.”

OBAMA-ERA GREENHOUSE GAS RULES GONE AS EPA’S ZELDIN SIGNS ‘SINGLE LARGEST DEREGULATORY ACTION’ IN HISTORY

There are 4 million lead service lines carrying drinking water to homes. (iStock)

Advertisement

The agency announced $3 billion in new funding for states to reduce lead in drinking water while also reallocating $1.1 billion in unused funding. Fotouhi explained to Fox News Digital that previous federal dollars to protect against lead poisoning and replace service lines sat unused in a handful of states. 

“We’ve really focused on is making sure that states that received lead funding in the past are putting that money to good use,” said Fotouhi. “We encountered a number of situations where states had received funding from EPA to replace lead service lines but had not taken and spent those funds to do that work.”

There are 4 million lead service lines carrying drinking water to homes, according to a 2025 EPA report.

The EPA’s broader push to prevent lead poisoning also included $26 million for states and territories last year to address lead in drinking water at schools and child-care facilities, underscoring the administration’s focus on children’s exposure risks.

READ: DR. OZ PUTS ALL 50 GOVERNORS ON NOTICE OVER BILLIONS LOST TO MEDICAID FRAUD

Advertisement

Make America Healthy Again hats are given out at a news conference on removing synthetic dyes from America’s food supply, at the Health and Human Services Headquarters in Washington, DC on April 22, 2025. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)

A committee of senior leaders was reestablished in 2025 across the agency’s program offices and 10 regions as part of EPA’s agency-wide effort to reduce children’s exposure to lead.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“This is federal, this is precious federal grant funding. Designed specifically to reduce human health risk from lead exposure, and the states need to be doing their job here and putting that funding to good use,” said Fotouhi.

The administration has cast children’s health as a cross-agency priority, with HHS helping drive that push through the White House’s Make America Healthy Again initiative, which has focused in part on childhood chronic disease and environmental toxins.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending