Connect with us

Politics

Years after California put abortion on the ballot, Nevada and others try the same. It won't be so easy.

Published

on

Years after California put abortion on the ballot, Nevada and others try the same. It won't be so easy.

Nevada organizers last month celebrated a flood of voter signatures in support of placing a measure ensuring abortion rights on the November ballot.

But their work isn’t over — not even close.

Nevada is among about a dozen states where abortion activists are working to put the protection of reproductive rights into voters’ hands, as California did two years ago. But unlike in liberal California, organizers in some of those states must navigate a patchwork of onerous bureaucratic hurdles and overcome hostile political opposition.

Ballot measures in neighboring Nevada seeking to amend the state constitution must be approved by voters in two consecutive general elections.

Advertisement

“We will have to go through the process all over again,” Tova Yampolsky, the campaign manager for Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, said from a coffee shop in May just minutes from the casinos along the Strip as signatures were being officially tallied by election officials across the state.

For organizers like Yampolsky, that means at least two more years of uncertainty in an already uncertain political landscape after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the right to abortion nationwide in 2022. While former President Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee, has so far stopped short of calling for a national abortion ban, he has supported limiting access and has taken credit for appointing the conservative justices who overturned Roe vs. Wade.

Yampolksy’s team will have to fight for attention in the perpetual swing state, but in some ways, getting voter approval is the easy part. Recent polling shows strong abortion support among Nevadans.

It’s the path to the ballot that’s proving difficult. The campaign has already fended off Republican backed legal challenges over the ballot measure language. Now, they wait to see if they gathered enough eligible signatures equal to 10% of the total votes cast in the most recent general election — more than California’s 8% threshold. While California has no geographical requirement for signatures, in Nevada, support must be gathered equally from each of the state’s four congressional districts.

“We’re going to have to fight for every vote,” Yampolsky said. “We’re not taking anything for granted.”

Advertisement

Within weeks of the Supreme Court decision overturning federal abortion protections, the California Legislature was among the first in the nation to approve a statewide ballot measure to guarantee the “fundamental right to choose to have an abortion.” Top Democrats including Gov. Gavin Newsom helped pump millions of dollars into the campaign, and nearly 67% of voters approved the measure in the November 2022 election.

Voters in a handful of states, including Ohio, Michigan and Vermont, approved similar protections. More initiative efforts are now underway in states such as Arizona, Montana, Colorado, Arkansas and Florida.

“We’re seeing the important role that direct democracy plays in making sure the will of the people is heard,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which supports progressive causes. “Ballot measures are a key part of a thriving democracy. It’s giving people the agency to vote on issues that are incredibly popular and often transcend party lines.”

Some states have a more difficult path to abortion rights by way of direct democracy than others — and legislative attempts to make the ballot initiative process even harder have proliferated in recent years.

“Every legislative session we’re seeing new efforts to undermine the will of the people,” Fields Figueredo said.

Advertisement

California ballot measures require a simple majority of votes to win. In Florida, where abortion is banned after six weeks of pregnancy, initiatives require a 60% supermajority of votes to pass, and state Republicans recently tried to increase that threshold even higher to a two-thirds vote, or about 66%.

Abortion is banned in Arizona after 15 weeks of pregnancy, and reproductive health advocates remain leery about future access after a state court recently attempted a near total ban. Organizers say they have already acquired more than enough signatures to qualify for a ballot measure to secure abortion access in November.

To get on the ballot in Arizona, initiatives must get signatures that equal at least 15% of the electorate, and the Legislature has proposed adding a new requirement for that threshold to be met in each congressional district, not just statewide. Arizona Republicans also attempted to pass a law that would have allowed the Legislature to rein in some decisions made by ballot initiatives, but ironically, that proposal had to go to voters — and was rejected in 2022.

Republican lawmakers in Arkansas and Missouri, where ballot measures for abortion rights are underway, have also tried to make it harder for residents to legislate at the polls.

The timing is no coincidence, said Mini Timmaraju, president and chief executive of Reproductive Freedom For All, formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Advertisement

“They don’t have the majority and haven’t had the majority in a long time on this issue,” Timmaraju said of anti-abortion lawmakers nationwide. “They’ve orchestrated a whole mechanism to subvert and go around the majority will in this country.”

Anti-abortion activists have been working to thwart the initiatives, with some backing competing ballot measures — a move that abortion-rights groups say is meant to deter and confuse voters.

Nevada Right to Life Director Melissa Clement opposes the proposal in her state and accused Democrats of “taking one of the most difficult and traumatic decisions a woman can make and using it for political fodder.”

While organizers see newly proposed rules as strategic hurdles that make citizen led initiatives harder to succeed, Republicans who support them say that changing state constitutions is a serious matter that requires more safeguards.

Some states do not allow citizen led initiatives at all, including Texas and West Virginia, where most abortions are banned.

Advertisement

As in California, abortion is legal in Nevada up to 24 weeks, and providers have reported that they have seen an influx in patients from other states. Nevada voters in 1990 passed a referendum protecting abortion rights after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of more abortion restrictions then.

Lindsey Harmon, executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes Nevada, said even before the Dobbs decision, Nevadans prioritized “individual freedoms.” While abortion is legal in her state, she fears that the future is dependent on who is in office.

“There’s still threats out there,” Harmon said. “Even when you pass a measure successfully, you then have to go back and enforce that. You have to make the Legislature pull back old laws that are no longer constitutionally viable. You have to ask the regulatory bodies to go in there and change the regulations to match what is now in the state constitution. So this is a never-ending battle.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Published

on

Video: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

new video loaded: Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

transcript

transcript

Senate Republicans Block Limits to Trump’s War Powers

Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

“The yeas are 47. The nays are 53. The motion to discharge is not approved.” “President Trump decided to attack Iran. That decision was profound, deliberate and correct. The president understands the weight of war.” “Why is Donald Trump hellbent on making history repeat itself? Why is he plunging America headfirst into a war that Americans do not want, and which he cannot even explain? The American people deserve a say, and that is what our resolution is about.”

Advertisement
Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill that would have required President Trump to obtain congressional authorization to continue waging war against Iran.

By Shawn Paik

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

Published

on

DHS defends McLaughlin against allegations husband’s company profited millions from ad contracts: ‘Baseless’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: Newly obtained financial statements shed light on claims that former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s company made millions from a DHS advertising campaign.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem faced intense questioning during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, and Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., specifically called out the agency for contracting a public relations firm headed by McLaughlin’s husband, Benjamin Yoho.

“I have personally reviewed the allegations against Ms. McLaughlin, and I find them to be baseless,” DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News Digital. “Nothing illegal or unethical occurred with respect to these contracts. Ms. McLaughlin was not involved in selecting any subcontractors.

“She is, however, a superstar in the public affairs world, so I am not surprised that she married a successful businessman whose services were attractive to these outside firms.”

Advertisement

Newly obtained financial statements address allegations that former Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin’s husband’s firm improperly profited from a multimillion-dollar DHS ad campaign. Lawmakers pressed Secretary Kristi Noem over the contracts during a heated Senate hearing. (Jack Gruber/USA Today)

Kennedy alleged that Yoho’s firm, The Strategy Group, “got most of the money” out of what the Louisiana Republican senator says was $220 million in “television advertisements that feature [Noem] prominently.”

“I’m sorry,” Kennedy said. “Safe America Media was a company formed 11 days before you picked them. And that the Strategy Group got most of the money. And the head of that is married to your former spokesperson.”

“It’s just hard for me to believe knowing the president as I do, that you said, ‘Mr. President, here’s some ads I’ve cut, and I’m going to spend $220 million running them,’ that he would have agreed to that,” Kennedy explained. “I don’t think Russ Vought at OMB [Office of Management and Budget] would have agreed to that.”

‘YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!’: PROTESTER DRAGGED FROM KRISTI NOEM’S SENATE HEARING

Advertisement

Senate scrutiny intensified over a DHS advertising campaign after Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., questioned whether a firm linked to McLaughlin’s husband benefited unfairly. DHS officials and the company deny any wrongdoing or multimillion-dollar profits. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Strategy Group is a conservative advertising agency for which Yoho serves as CEO.

Figures obtained by Fox News Digital show a slightly lesser total advertising expenditure of approximately $185 million, with a total of roughly $146.5 million going to a campaign called “Save America.”

However, of the total that went to “Save America,” roughly $348,000 went to production costs, while the remaining $142 million went to “media buys.”

Sources at DHS say that media buys are the cost of actually buying the ads themselves, whether purchased from social media or for a TV ad.

Advertisement

Kennedy also alleged that the bidding process for the contracts never took place and that Safe America Media’s recent founding was a cause for concern and collusion between McLaughlin and her husband’s business. 

WATCH THE MOST VIRAL MOMENTS AS KRISTI NOEM’S HEARING GOES OFF THE RAILS

Debate over DHS’ “Save America” ad campaign intensified as senators challenged its costs and contractor ties, even as agency officials touted the initiative as a historic success in promoting self-deportation. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)

“Yes they did,” Noem responded during the hearing. “They went out to a competitive bid, and career officials at the department chose who would do those advertising commercials.”

The Strategy Group posted to X Tuesday that it never had a contract with the department. While it did receive several hundred thousand dollars for production costs associated with the advertising campaigns, The Strategy Group never made millions.

Advertisement

“The Strategy Group has never had a contract with DHS,” the post said. “We had a subcontract with Safe America [Media] for limited production services. Safe America paid us $226,137.17 total for 5 film shoots, 45 produced video advertisements and 6 produced radio advertisements.

DHS SPOKESWOMAN TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN TO LEAVE TRUMP ADMIN, SOURCE CONFIRMS

Critics raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in a high-dollar DHS advertising effort, but department representatives say McLaughlin recused herself and that subcontracting decisions were made independently. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“If you’re going to try to question our integrity, bring actual evidence — we did,” the post concluded.

Because these ads were purchased using public funds, all contract totals are publicly available. 

Advertisement

Lauren Bis, who took up the role of assistant secretary once McLaughlin left office, told Fox News Digital Tuesday that scrutiny from Republicans and Democrats over the advertising spending was unjustified because the campaigns resulted in “the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history.”

“Sanctuary politicians are attacking this ad campaign because it has been successful in CLOSING our borders and getting more than 2.2 million illegal aliens to LEAVE the U.S.,” Bis said. 

“The DHS domestic and international ad campaign was the most successful ad campaign in U.S. history. The results speak for themselves: 2.2 million illegal aliens self-deported, and we now have the most secure border in American history.”

KRISTI NOEM TO FACE SENATE GRILLING OVER MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS AS DHS SHUTDOWN HITS WEEK 3

The Trump administration reaffirmed that all illegal immigrants are eligible for deportations as they focus on arresting violent criminals first.  (Raquel Natalicchio/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Bis also compared the cost of arresting and deporting an illegal migrant to that of the minimal cost of an illegal migrant self-deporting. The department says the advertising campaign played a key role in marketing self-deportation.

A spokesperson at DHS also told Fox News Digital that contractors decide who they hire, fulfilling the terms of a contract, not the department itself. 

“By law, DHS cannot and does not determine, control or weigh in on who contractors hire or use to fulfill the terms of the contract,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. “Those decisions are made by the contractor alone. We have only become aware of these companies because of this inquiry and did not hire those companies.”

The spokesperson also noted that McLaughlin “recused herself” from interactions with subcontractors to avoid “any perceived appearance of impropriety.”

“Upon hearing who the subcontractors were for production of the ad, Ms. McLaughlin recused herself from any interaction or engagement with any subcontractors to avoid any perceived appearance of impropriety,” the spokesperson continued. “DHS Office of Public Affairs is the program officer. Ms. McLaughlin oversees the DHS Office of Public Affairs, which is simply the vehicle for this contract.”

Advertisement

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem takes her seat as she arrives to testify during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the criticism of her and her family by senators at the hearing is a matter of public manipulation.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“This is yet another example of politicians intentionally trying to dupe and manipulate the public to try to manufacture division and anger,” McLaughlin told Fox News Digital. “The ad spend and contracts are a matter of public record, and the process was done by the book.

“These politicians would rather smear private citizens and American small businesses than do any basic research.”

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Alexandra Koch contributed to this report.

Related Article

DHS defends ad blitz amid Senate scrutiny, says campaign drove 2.2M self-deportations and saved taxpayers $39B
Continue Reading

Politics

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Published

on

Senate rejects war powers measure to withdraw forces from Iran

Senate Republicans blocked a war powers resolution Wednesday designed to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities in Iran, as the Trump administration accelerates its military campaign in a conflict that has killed hundreds, including at least six American service members.

The motion failed in a vote of 47-53.

In addition to pulling out military resources from the Middle East, the measure — introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — would have required Congress’ explicit approval before future engagement with Iran, a power granted to the legislative branch in the Constitution.

The House, where Republicans also hold an advantage, is scheduled to weigh in on a similar measure Thursday. Even if both Democratic-led measures were to succeed, President Trump was widely expected to veto the legislation.

“We are doing very well on the war front, to put it mildly,” President Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday afternoon. The president, who has come under scrutiny for offering shifting explanations on the war’s endgame, said that if he was asked to scale the American military operation from one to 10, he would rate it a 15.

Advertisement

Democrats dispute that Trump possesses the authority to wage the ongoing operation in Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Acknowledging the measure was unlikely to succeed, they framed the vote as a strategy to force lawmakers to put their support for or opposition to the war on record.

“Today every senator — every single one — will pick a side,” Schumer said. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, or stand with Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and most of his Republican colleagues have maintained that the president carried out a “pre-emptive” and “defensive” strike in Iran, giving him full authority to continue unilateral military operations.

Republicans saw the vote as the “last roadblock” stopping Trump from carrying out his mission against the Islamic Republic.

Advertisement

“I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities and operations that are currently underway there. There are a lot of controversy and questions around the war powers act, but I think the president is acting in the best interest of the nation and our national security interests,” Thune said at a news conference.

Senators largely held to party loyalties, with the exception of Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, who broke ranks to support the measure, and Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who opposed it.

The vote comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war against Iran is “accelerating,” with American and Israeli forces expanding air operations into Iranian territory. He pointed to evidence released by U.S. Central Command of a submarine strike on an Iranian warship, and also lauded other strikes throughout the region as civilian casualties in Iran surpassed 1,000 on the fourth day of the conflict, according to rights groups.

“We’re going to continue to do well,” Trump said Wednesday. “We have the greatest military in the world by far and that was a tremendous threat to us for many years. Forty-seven years they’ve been killing our people and killing people all over the world, and we have great support.”

Republicans blocked a similar war powers vote in January after the president ordered U.S. special forces to capture and extradite Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in Caracas on drug trafficking charges.

Advertisement

GOP leaders argued that the outcome of that mission equated to a quick success in the Middle East, despite an uncertain timeline from the Department of Defense.

In the House, lawmakers will vote on a separate war powers effort Thursday. That bill is led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Instead of sending billions overseas, we need to invest in jobs, healthcare, and education here,” Khanna said on X.

In addition to that proposal, moderate Democrats in the House have introduced a separate resolution that would give the administration a 30-day window to justify continued hostilities in the Middle East before requiring a formal declaration of war or authorization from Congress.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending