Politics
What to Watch in Today’s Big Elections in Wisconsin and Florida
Two states nearly a thousand miles apart will on Tuesday provide the best evidence yet of whether President Trump and his Republican allies maintain robust support or whether they face a growing backlash led by a re-energized Democratic Party.
In Wisconsin, a nearly $100 million race for control of the State Supreme Court has morphed from an important clash over the state’s direction into a referendum on Elon Musk’s supersized role in national politics.
In Florida, one of two special elections for deep-red House seats suddenly seems too close for comfort for Republicans. Democrats, while still expecting to lose, are watching the margins closely for signs that their party is ascendant.
Here are five big questions heading into Tuesday’s elections.
Will Elon Musk’s millions pay off?
Mr. Musk’s support for Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate in Wisconsin, has been a full-service political operation.
The billionaire and groups tied to him have spent more than $25 million, financing a potent ground game. An army of $25-an-hour canvassers has knocked on Trump voters’ doors, and pallets of glossy mailers have assured Republicans that Judge Schimel is a Trump ally. A conservative nonprofit with ties to Mr. Musk has helped blanket the airwaves with ads bashing the liberal candidate, Susan Crawford, as weak on crime. And Mr. Musk’s giving includes $3 million to the Republican Party of Wisconsin, which has funneled the money to help Judge Schimel.
That was all before Mr. Musk spoke for nearly two hours at a rally for Judge Schimel on Sunday night in Green Bay.
If Mr. Musk’s extraordinary effort is successful, Wisconsin Republicans will be hopeful of friendly rulings by a conservative-controlled court on cases about abortion rights, voting access and the power of the state’s Republican-run Legislature.
It is possible, however, that Mr. Musk’s largess comes at a political cost to Judge Schimel. Polling shows that Mr. Musk is just as unpopular among Wisconsin Democrats as Mr. Trump is, but without as much residual loyalty from Republicans. Democrats have framed Judge Crawford’s campaign around the idea that she is battling the world’s wealthiest person.
“We are in uncharted territory where we now have the richest man in the world who is trying to buy our election and the question is: Can he do it?” said Sarah Godlewski, the Democratic secretary of state of Wisconsin.
At her closing campaign rally Monday night in Madison, Judge Crawford skewered Mr. Musk for appearing at his rally wearing the foam yellow headwear preferred by the state’s sports fans.
“Let me talk about my opponent, Elon Musk,” she said. “I saw a picture of him yesterday with a cheesehead on. First time he’s been in Wisconsin, he has not earned the right to wear a cheesehead.”
Is the Democratic energy finally here?
Democratic hopes have slowly, cautiously started to rise.
The party crowed about flipping Republican-held state legislative seats in recent special elections in Iowa and Pennsylvania. And on Saturday, voters in Louisiana rejected four proposed constitutional amendments backed by Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, that would have overhauled parts of the state’s tax codes and toughened penalties for juvenile offenders.
But none of those was nearly as expensive or prominent as Tuesday’s contests, and so the question of whether they were one-off upsets or a harbinger of a broader Democratic resurgence will be determined by what happens in Wisconsin and, to a lesser extent, Florida.
A victory by Judge Crawford, a mild-mannered jurist, could put wind in the sails of a new Trump resistance, similar to Jon Ossoff in April 2017. While Mr. Ossoff, now a Georgia senator, lost what was then the most expensive House race ever, he became a fund-raising juggernaut and demonstrated to scores of other candidates a path to viability against Republicans in the first Trump era.
Wisconsin Democrats have placed Mr. Musk at the center of their messaging operations in the race: To make sure voters got the point, they branded a statewide tour “The People v. Elon Musk.” Fearful of being drowned out by Mr. Musk’s millions, Democrats have helped Judge Crawford shatter fund-raising records.
“We are figuring out the path forward,” said State Representative Greta Neubauer, a Racine Democrat who is her chamber’s minority leader.
Are Democrats really competitive in Florida?
House Republicans had expected their razor-thin majority to grow easily by two seats on Tuesday in elections to replace congressmen Mr. Trump picked last year to join his cabinet.
One, Michael Waltz, became the national security adviser, while the second, Matt Gaetz, resigned his seat and later withdrew from consideration as attorney general amid an ethics investigation and Republican opposition.
Mr. Trump endorsed Jimmy Patronis, the state’s chief financial officer, to replace Mr. Gaetz in the Panhandle and State Senator Randy Fine to replace Mr. Waltz in a northeastern district that includes the NASCAR hub of Daytona Beach.
But Mr. Fine’s Democratic opponent, Josh Weil, has handily out-raised him, prompting public warnings about Mr. Fine’s chances of a comfortable victory in a district Mr. Trump won by 30 percentage points. While Republicans are still expected to prevail, both parties are watching the margin of victory closely.
Despite the Republican worries, Democrats have not made significant outside investments to help Mr. Weil’s campaign. But on Friday, Mr. Weil did score a notable national endorsement from Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, and he campaigned on Sunday with Ken Martin, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
How much turnout does $100 million buy?
The last race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, two years ago, cost about $56 million to became the most expensive judicial election in American history.
That election drew 1.8 million voters, or about 56 percent of the state’s turnout in the presidential election in 2020 — a high percentage for a state court race.
Now, with spending approaching $100 million, a key factor in the outcome is how much higher turnout will go.
America Votes, a Democratic voter mobilization group that is active in the state, estimates that just over two million Wisconsinites will vote, an increase that could account for either juiced Democratic interest or a successful Republican turnout operation by Mr. Musk. If that many Wisconsinites do vote, the turnout will be about 60 percent of the state’s turnout last November.
And as much as voters say they hate onslaughts of negative advertising and attack mailers, the evidence shows that they drive up interest, excitement and turnout.
“Everywhere I’ve been in the state, we’re getting crowds like we did last November,” said Brian Schimming, the chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. “People are clicked in.”
Is Musk the future of our elections?
Mr. Musk has nearly unlimited wealth, the president’s ear and far-ranging power in Washington.
If he can single-handedly alter a state judicial race, how else might he inject himself into the country’s elections?
Victory in Wisconsin could embolden Mr. Musk to grow even more aggressive in throwing his billions behind Republican candidates for office this year and in the 2026 midterm elections. That could leave conservative candidates even more in thrall to Mr. Trump, if their primary financial benefactor continues to work out of the White House.
This is all happening while Mr. Musk stands to benefit financially from the candidates he has thrown his money and influence behind. Tesla, the electric vehicle company Mr. Musk controls, has a case against Wisconsin pending in the state’s courts, and Mr. Trump has gone out of his way to promote the billionaire’s products from the White House.
Defeat for conservatives, of course, would hardly mean that Mr. Musk would stop spending on elections. But it would prove to Democrats that he is beatable with enough money and base energy.
Still, while Democrats may see Mr. Musk as a figure who fires up their base and supercharges liberal fund-raising, that is a lot easier for them to do when Wisconsin is the marquee race in the country and a focus of national attention.
If Mr. Musk were bankrolling dozens of Trump-allied candidates for governor, Senate and Congress across the country next year, it could be a far more difficult proposition to match his financial might with the same degree of grass-roots enthusiasm when national attention is more diffuse.
Virginia’s top court on Friday struck down a congressional map drawn by Democrats and recently approved by voters, dealing a major blow to the party as it struggles to keep pace with Republicans in the nation’s redistricting battle.
The ruling will wipe out four newly drawn Democratic-leaning U.S. House districts in Virginia and means that Republicans will enter the midterm elections with a structural advantage from their moves to carve out more red districts across the country.
Congressional maps have for generations been drawn once a decade, after the census, to account for population shifts. But last year, President Trump started a rare, mid-decade gerrymandering war when he persuaded Texas officials to draw a new map to help Republicans as they face midterm headwinds. California countered with a map favoring Democrats. Other red and blue states followed.
After the Virginia map passed in a statewide referendum late last month, Democrats thought that they had battled Republicans to a draw, or that they had even eked out a small advantage. Then a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court prompted several Southern states to work to pass new maps, which will favor Republicans.
Now, the rejection of the new Virginia map means that across the country, Democrats stand to lose half a dozen safe seats, and possibly more, from redistricting alone.
Still, Republicans face a challenging political environment in their bid to retain control of their slim House majority, including worries about the economy, the unpopular war with Iran, high gas prices and Mr. Trump’s sagging approval ratings.
In its 4-to-3 decision, the Virginia Supreme Court wrote that Democratic legislators had violated the state’s constitution with their move to enact a new map meant to give their party 10 out of the state’s 11 U.S. House seats, up from the six it currently controls. Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment to allow for the map in a referendum.
The problem, the court’s majority suggested, was that the first vote on the amendment in the General Assembly, which would authorize Democrats to redraw the map, occurred days before last fall’s legislative elections — meaning that some Virginians who cast their ballots early did so without knowing how their state lawmakers would vote on the new map.
That, the justices wrote, violated the process in the State Constitution.
“This constitutional violation incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy,” the majority wrote.
Mr. Trump and Republicans celebrated the decision.
“Huge win for the Republican Party, and America, in Virginia,” the president posted on his social media site.
Democrats seemed despondent over the decision after eight months and nearly $70 million invested in passing the referendum.
Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the House minority leader, who lobbied Virginia legislators to advance their redistricting push and then campaigned for the referendum, said that “the decision to overturn an entire election is an unprecedented and undemocratic action that cannot stand.”
He added: “We are exploring all options to overturn this shocking decision.”
What those options are was not clear in the immediate aftermath of the decision.
Some legal experts believe that the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling may be the final word on the state’s maps before the election. That is because the case involved a state law challenge about whether state lawmakers had followed rules laid out in the Virginia Constitution, not a question of federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, said in a statement that “I am disappointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia’s ruling, but my focus as governor will be on ensuring that all voters have the information necessary to make their voices heard this November.”
Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling late last month that further weakened the Voting Rights Act, Republicans in Tennessee, Alabama and Louisiana have taken steps to draw new maps before the midterms. Those efforts could net Republicans a handful of additional safe seats before voters cast a ballot in November. South Carolina is also exploring a new map before November.
While Democrats have themselves grown more ruthless about gerrymandering, they are broadly struggling to keep up.
In part that is because years ago, some Democratic-controlled states like Virginia installed independent commissions to oversee their map-drawing process in an effort to insulate it from politics. But Republicans kept the power in state legislatures, allowing states like Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Missouri to enact partisan maps with few logistical hurdles.
In Virginia, voters approved the amendment to override the independent commission by about three percentage points after the General Assembly had passed it twice. But Republicans challenged nearly every aspect of the process. Most of these lawsuits were filed before in a county court in the rural southwestern corner of the state, where a judge repeatedly ruled in the Republicans’ favor. These rulings were appealed to the State Supreme Court.
In lawsuits, Republicans argued that the language in the amendment was misleading, that the new districts were not drawn compactly, that it was improper to vote on redistricting at a legislative session that had convened to discuss budget issues and that a state law required county clerks to post notices about the amendment months before it was actually voted on.
One of the most critical questions concerned the sequence of events in Virginia’s complex amendment process. Before voters weigh in on an amendment to the State Constitution, the General Assembly must approve it twice, with an election for the state’s House of Delegates taking place between the two votes. The first vote for this amendment was on Oct. 31, just days before the state election. With hundreds of thousands of Virginians having already voted, Republicans argued that the legislative action had come too late.
The court sided with that argument.
“Early Virginia voters unknowingly forfeited their constitutionally protected opportunity to vote for or against delegates who favor or disfavor amending the Constitution by not anticipating a legislative vote on a constitutional amendment four days before the last day of voting,” the court’s majority wrote in its ruling.
But Democrats’ loss in Virginia is likely to only further stoke more redistricting battles. Already, the party’s lawmakers in New York and Colorado have signaled a desire to try and redraw their maps before the 2028 elections, and Virginia Democrats are likely to be in a similar position, since the court mainly took issue with the process, not with the resulting map.
Abbie VanSickle contributed reporting.
Politics
Gorsuch says ideological divides on Supreme Court come down to ‘how you read law,’ not politics
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said differences among his colleagues on the high court are often less about politics than they are about diverging approaches to constitutional interpretation — a dynamic, he said, that influences both the court’s rulings and its internal relations.
“That has nothing to do with politics,” Gorsuch told Fox News Digital in a recent interview. “That has to do [with] how you read law. Interpretive methodologies.”
Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Donald Trump in 2017, has described himself as a “textualist,” noting his approach focuses on interpreting legal texts based on the ordinary meaning of the words as written. The philosophy is linked to originalism — or the view that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original public meaning when it was adopted.
Other justices have different interpretations, including ones that allow for evolving interpretations over time. Gorsuch stressed that differences, while significant, are not inherently personal.
JUSTICE THOMAS WARNS PROGRESSIVISM IS A THREAT TO AMERICA IN RARE PUBLIC REMARKS
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch speaks at the Reagan Library on May 5, 2026, in Simi Valley, Calif. (Getty Images)
“At the end of the day, you’re trying to get to the right answer under the law,” he said, adding that disagreement is an expected, and healthy, part of the process.
His remarks come as the federal judiciary and members of the Supreme Court have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, including by Trump and his allies, who have criticized the courts for impinging on what they see as the duties of the executive branch.
Trump took to Truth Social last month to criticize the Supreme Court’s conservative majority for showing him “very little loyalty” in blocking his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs in February.
He also suggested they might block his executive order seeking to end so-called “birthright citizenship” in the U.S.
“Certain ‘Republican’ Justices have just gone weak, stupid, and bad, completely violating what they ‘supposedly’ stood for,” Trump said.
JUSTICE GORSUCH HIGHLIGHTS HUMANITY, HISTORY IN CHILDREN’S BOOK CELEBRATING AMERICA’S 250TH ANNIVERSARY
President Donald Trump greets Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts as he arrives to deliver an address to a joint session of Congress in 2025. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
He contrasted this with liberal justices on the court, whom Trump said “stick together like glue, totally loyal to the people and ideology that got them there.”
Gorsuch, for his part, stressed that the justices often share plenty of common ground, even if their interpretation of the Constitution prompts them to reach different conclusions.
That approach, he suggested, carries over into how the justices work together behind closed doors — where collaboration and debate are central to the high court to perform its constitutional duties.
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS
The U.S. Supreme Court building is shown in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 13, 2023, as the court unveiled a new ethics code following scandals involving gifts and vacations received by some justices. (Mandel Ngan/AFP)
“The framers understood that people would come to the table with different views,” Gorsuch told Fox News Digital. “The goal is to reason together.”
While ideological divides can be sharp, Gorsuch emphasized that culture at the high court is built on mutual respect.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“If you sit and listen to someone long enough, you’re going to find something you can agree on,” he added. “Maybe you start there.”
Two press freedom groups that own shares in Paramount Skydance are demanding to see the company’s books and internal documents, citing allegations that the company’s leaders may have promised favors to the White House to win approval for Paramount’s deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.
The letter, sent Thursday to Paramount chief legal officer Makan Delrahim, says that media reports alleging that Paramount owner David Ellison and others promised favors to the Trump administration “create credible concern that Paramount leadership has offered, solicited, or effectuated a corrupt exchange,” which the groups argue would “constitute a breach of fiduciary duties” and open the company up to a “range of potential civil and criminal penalties.”
The letter cites Delaware law that allows stockholders to inspect the company’s books and records “for any proper purpose.”
Paramount declined to comment on the letter.
Among the issues raised in the letter are promises reportedly made by David Ellison and his father, Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison, that they would make “sweeping” changes at the news network CNN, which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.
The Ellison family acquired Paramount, which includes CBS and the storied Melrose Avenue film studio, last summer.
The letter cites changes implemented in CBS since their acquisition, including their decision to end late night television house Stephen Colbert’s show days after he characterized a settlement Paramount reached with Trump as a “big fat bribe.”
Under Ellison’s ownership, the letter says, numerous high-profile reporters have left the network and its ratings have dropped to “historic lows.”
Larry Ellison, who is backing the financing of Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner, reportedly told White House officials that Paramount would “implement the CBS playbook” at CNN if the merger is approved, and remove anchors and commentators at the cable news network that Trump doesn’t like, according to the letter.
The effort comes just two weeks after Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders overwhelmingly approved the proposed merger. Investors have supported the Larry Ellison family takeover, which would become the biggest Hollywood merger in nearly a decade. The deal would pay Warner stockholders $31 per share — four times the stock price a year ago.
The letter was written on behalf of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which develops secure communication tools for journalists and tracks violations of press freedom, and Reporters Without Borders, which tracks press freedom globally.
The organizations are being represented by former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, who established the Public Integrity Project this year to challenged alleged government corruption, as well as Delaware attorney Ronald Poliquin.
The missive, which could be a precursor to a lawsuit, opens another avenue of attack against the controversial $111-billion deal, which would transform the smaller Paramount into an industry titan.
With Warner Bros. Discovery, the Ellisons would also control HBO, TBS and the vast film and TV library of Warner Bros., which includes the Harry Potter, DC Comics, and Scooby-Doo, in addition to CNN.
Paramount, led 43-year-old David Ellison, wants to finalize its Warner Bros. takeover by the end of September. President Trump favors the deal; he has long agitated for changes at CNN.
But the proposed merger would saddle the combined company with $79 billion in debt, stoking fears that Paramount would be forced to make steep cost cuts to juggle such a large debt load.
Politicians, unions and progressive groups separately have pressed California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to scrutinize the proposed merger, hoping that he brings an antitrust lawsuit in an attempt to upend the deal.
More than 4,000 film industry workers, including Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston, Ted Danson, J.J. Abrams, Jane Fonda and Kristen Stewart, have signed an open letter imploring Bonta and other regulators to block the merger. The group lamented the proposed tie-up, saying it “would reduce the number of major U.S. film studios to just four.”
Opponents fear the consolidation would lead to massive layoffs and diminish the quality of programming that Warner Bros., CNN and HBO are known for.
Hollywood has sustained thousands of layoffs over the last seven years since Walt Disney Co. swallowed Fox’s entertainment assets in another huge merger. In addition, the film production economy hasn’t recovered from shutdowns during the 2023 labor strikes. An estimated 42,000 entertainment industry jobs were lost from 2022 and 2024.
On Thursday, 34 California Democrats in Congress also sent a letter to Bonta, encouraging him to look closely at the merger.
The deal is expected to become one of the largest leveraged buyouts ever.
Ballou, who is working with the press freedom groups, previously served as a Justice Department special counsel with expertise in private equity transactions.
He resigned from the Justice Department in January 2025 when Trump returned to office. In his book, “Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America,” Ballou examined large leveraged buyouts and found that many of which resulted in bankruptcies.
-
Kentucky4 minutes agoKentucky Girls Jumpers Surge as State Records Come Into Range
-
Louisiana10 minutes agoLouisiana baseball vs App State live score, TV and more from SBC series
-
Maine16 minutes agoWho visited Maine in 2025, and how much did they spend?
-
Maryland22 minutes agoMaryland students react to Canvas data breach
-
Michigan28 minutes agoI discovered anti-Zionism at the University of Michigan. I’m glad it lives on there
-
Massachusetts34 minutes agoFamily of fallen Massachusetts State Trooper attends ceremony remembering those killed in the line of duty – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News
-
Minnesota40 minutes ago1 injured after shooting in Inver Grove Heights, police say; search for suspect underway
-
Mississippi46 minutes ago
Voting Rights Upheaval Casts Shadow Over Mississippi Redistricting Case
