Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas is urging the Senate to rename the office building that bears the late Sen. Richard Russell’s (D-GA) moniker, The Hill reported. Green noted that Russell's segregationist bent was problematic and thus necessitates the change.
Green said that the existing name "sends a powerful signal about the kind of leadership and principles our country holds in high esteem," the Texas Democrat wrote in a letter sent to every Senator. "These symbols should inspire a vision of liberty and justice for all, not the glorification of a person who fought to deny basic rights to millions of Americans and to entrench white supremacy in our democracy,” he added.
Russell served in the upper chamber from 1933 until 1971 when he died. Shortly after his death, the Senate renamed the "Old Senate Office Building" to honor Russell in a vote that went 99-1 in favor of doing so.
Like many Democrats of his time, Russell was vehemently opposed to the Civil Rights Movement and later called the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the "separate but equal" precedent in public school policy a "flagrant abuse of judicial power and a violation of states' rights." Shockingly, Russell joined other Southern senators in the "Southern Manifesto," which sought to reverse the court's decision to desegregate public schools.
Russell would eventually change his tune in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act passed urging people to "comply with the law of the land." Still, the fact that he held such reprehensible views is compelling Green to make sure his name is removed from the building.
This is not the first time Green has initiated this action in the Senate. He tried similar initiatives in July 2020, February 2022, and in June of this year. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has also attempted a name change and introduced a 2018 resolution to rename the building after GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who died that year.
Green is not asking for it to be named after McCain or anyone else, but rather that the building return to its original designation until a "worthy successor" is found. "This clarion call is not an attempt to erase history, but an effort to ensure that our prominent public spaces reflect our best ideals, not our darkest actions," Green said.
"Continuing to honor racist Senator Russell in the very halls where he obstructed civil rights legislation is an affront to all who believe we cannot glorify racism. It is long past time for the Senate to remove this racist symbol of national shame," he added.
While Green is trying to change the name of a building, his other antics have made more headlines during his time in Congress. He was censured after interrupting President Donald Trump's address to the joint session of Congress earlier this year.
Green is prone to theatrics, but he made waves during Trump's speech by interrupting the president in his first address to lawmakers. Even 10 Democrats joined in to censure Green as many denounced his actions, Fox News reported.
"Al Green's childish outburst exposed the chaos and dysfunction within the Democrat party since President Trump's overwhelming win in November and his success in office thus far. It is not surprising that 198 Democrats refused to support Green's censure, given their history of radical, inflammatory rhetoric fueled by Trump Derangement Syndrome," said House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) at the time.
Of course, Green was thrown out of the joint session, and Democrats later sang "We Shall Overcome" when the censure was being introduced. Green's antics have continued as he attempted to impeach Trump several times and is at it once again.
"There will be articles of impeachment filed before the Christmas break, this I will pledge to you," Green said on Thursday, according to The Hill. The Texas Democrat has tried this before, but he keeps getting accolades from his fellow leftists each time he does it which is likely what spurs him to continue the effort.
The issue of whether to keep historical names and monuments continues and is an important conversation to have. While Green may have a point since Russell was a more contemporary lawmaker who held views antithetical to American values today, it still seems like another stunt from a Washington, D.C. swamp dweller who will do anything for attention.
President Donald Trump’s latest Truth Social tirade has ignited a firestorm, with Democrat leaders sounding the alarm over what they see as dangerous rhetoric targeting lawmakers.
At the heart of this controversy is a series of posts from Trump reacting to a viral video of six Democrat lawmakers urging military personnel to reject unlawful orders, prompting accusations of sedition from the president, fierce pushback from the left, and a broader debate over the potential for political violence, as Fox News reports.
The drama began with a video featuring Sens. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, alongside Reps. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Jason Crow of Colorado, and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, calling on service members and intelligence officials to defy orders they deem illegal.
Trump didn’t hold back, blasting the video on Truth Social as “really bad, and Dangerous to our Country,” and escalating with calls of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Let’s unpack that -- while frustration with perceived defiance of authority is understandable, suggesting capital punishment for elected officials is a rhetorical bazooka in a debate that needs a scalpel. The repost of a user’s comment, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD,” only fans the flames of an already tense situation.
Amid rising concerns over the legality of Trump’s military actions, including strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and National Guard deployments to Democrat-leaning cities, this video struck a raw nerve on both sides of the aisle.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the Senate floor, accusing Trump of directly calling “for the execution of elected officials,” warning that such language “makes political violence more likely."
Schumer’s imagery of Trump “lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline” paints a vivid picture, though one might argue it’s a tad dramatic -- still, with recent political violence like assassination attempts on Trump and others, the concern isn’t baseless.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed the outrage, labeling Trump’s words “disgusting and dangerous death threats against Members of Congress” in a joint statement, while coordinating with Capitol Police to protect the targeted lawmakers and their families.
Republicans, meanwhile, aren’t letting the Democrats off the hook, with Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina slamming the video as “Despicable” and demanding specifics on what unlawful orders these lawmakers are referencing.
Graham’s frustration is palpable when he asks, “What is an unlawful order, what the f--- is it?”—a fair question, as vague calls to defy authority can muddy the waters of military discipline, though his acknowledgment of Trump’s reaction as “over the top” shows even allies see the rhetoric as excessive.
The White House, through press secretary Karoline Leavitt, denied any intent to execute lawmakers, insisting Trump was reacting to calls to “defy the president’s lawful orders,” and warning that breaking the chain of command risks chaos and loss of life.
The six lawmakers defended their stance in a joint statement, arguing that Trump deems it “punishable by death” to simply restate legal obligations, reaffirming their support for service members adhering to constitutional duties.
This clash comes against a backdrop of heightened political unrest, including two attempts on Trump’s life, the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, and a surge in threats against Congress -- hardly the time for anyone to be tossing around execution talk, no matter how metaphorical.
While Trump’s defenders might argue he’s just venting frustration over perceived disloyalty, and Democrats may be amplifying the outrage for political points, the stakes here are real -- words matter, and in a nation already on edge, both sides need to dial down the heat before someone gets burned.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Barack Obama took the United States far into left field during eight years in the White House. He imposed the injurious Obamacare, he paid Iran's terror regime billions and repeatedly belittled the nation's Christian heritage.
He then stayed in Washington after his terms, lining up to serve essentially a third term when Hillary Clinton ran in 2016, but was that plan was disrupted by President Donald Trump's victory.
He did get that "third term" when Joe Biden, his own vice president, was elected in that questionable 2020 vote.
And he's now staging meetings and plans to return his party to power, according to the Daily Mail.
That publication confirmed Obama, who became a multimillionaire based on deals he made when he left the White House, "has descended into Washington DC for a secret meeting with Democrats to plot his party's return to power after Donald Trump leaves office."
The report said Obama "huddled" with dozens of Democrat newcomers to the U.S. House in a meeting held by ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
"The longtime Democratic leader was also spotted conniving in the shadows with one of the most progressive freshman Democratic lawmakers at the private event," the report revealed.
That would be Rep. Sarah McBride, a man who represents Delaware and is the first man who calls himself a woman to be in Congress.
The report explained McBride told Politico Obama's pathway forward for Democrats includes multiple voices.
"It's not going to be a former political leader or any single current political leader," McBride said.
Instead, the party's return will be because of "a broad bench of younger Democratic elected officials who can take the baton and carry it forward," he said.
Obama told lawmakers, "I get feeling discouraged sometimes. I get feeling worn out, tired, and embattled. But in our second term, Denis McDonough, my chief of staff, used to pass out stickers based on a conversation that he and I had had that talked about, 'we do not succumb to cynicism — cynicism is our enemy.' And it's pervasive in this town."
The report said Obama continued, "And that, I think, is our most important battle, right? We don't give into that, and then we're going to be able to figure out the same stuff."
He still, nearly two decades after he ascended to power at the Democratic National Convention in Denver prior to the 2008 election by planning to "fundamentally transform" America, is insisting his party is "creating the momentum and the opportunity for change."
He, of course, rode into the White House on unhappiness over the economy under George W. Bush, and his involvement in foreign wars.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It is Democrats in Congress who told the U.S. military to disobey President Donald Trump and not comply with "illegal" orders who are subverting the Constitution, a legal expert has revealed.
It is Charles "Cully" Stimson, the deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, the manager of the National Security Law Program, and a senior adviser at the Heritage Foundation, who wrote at Daily Signal that, "Six Democrat congressmen recently released a video directed at members of the U.S. military and intelligence communities imploring them to 'refuse illegal orders' from President Donald Trump. As former members of the military and intelligence community, they should be ashamed of themselves and retract their insubordinate, ignorant, and politically motivated diatribe."
He cited the video featuring Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.; Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.; Rep. Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.; Rep. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H.; Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., and Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo.
"One might expect that their military experience would make them more cautious, not less, about encouraging service members to reflexively doubt the legality of orders from America's commander in chief. But that's exactly what they did," he said.
Their rant:
Stimson cited the Democrats' claim that Trump's administration is "pitting our uniformed military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens."
"Really? How?" Stimson wrote. "These claims are simply false, no matter how fearful the tone. Military recruiting and morale are at historic highs. If service members are truly under 'enormous stress,' why are retention and recruitment numbers soaring?"
Further, the Democrats claimed the threats to the Constitution are coming "from right here at home."
"How exactly? They don't say," Stimson wrote.
He said military members already know they must not follow illegal orders but "what does that have to do with anything?"
The Democrats "never mention a single Trump administration order—or even a policy area—which they believe violates the Constitution. This vagueness reveals the real purpose of the video—political theater and yet another example of Trump Derangement Syndrome," he wrote.
He pointed out Crow, during an interview, was unable to name even one order from Trump that is illegal.
If members of the military doubt an order's legality, they "can—and do—consult with a uniformed lawyer, called a judge advocate general officer. I know, because I served as a Navy JAG for 30 years and retired as a two-time commanding officer with rank of captain," Stimson noted.
"The president doesn't pick up the phone and call a service member and order him to carry out a mission. Military orders flow through multiple levels—from the president to the secretary of defense, through the joint chiefs, to combatant commanders, to senior officers and eventually to units and individual service members. At each level, uniformed lawyers review orders and establish standing rules of engagement and specific rules of engagement for a particular mission," Stimson explained. "These congressmen know this, but that apparently didn't matter to them."
"These lawmakers' actions and words undermine good order and discipline in the armed forces by encouraging U.S. military personnel to question the orders of the commander in chief of the armed forces for no good reason, based on nothing more than mere political disagreement," he said.
"The Democrat congressmen should withdraw the video and apologize. They are undermining the authority of the commander in chief of the armed forces—an authority constitutionally vested in the president. If anyone is violating their oath to 'support and defend the Constitution,' it is them. Encouraging military personnel to disregard legitimate presidential authority based on unspecified, partisan grievances doesn't protect the Constitution—it subverts it."
Could the Bush dynasty be staging a quiet coup to reclaim the Republican Party from Donald Trump’s iron grip?
Whispers are growing that former President George W. Bush and his allies are crafting a strategy to steer the GOP back to their vision once Trump exits the White House, according to recent reports.
Let’s rewind to the public tensions first noted years ago. Back in 2019, Bush didn’t hold back, calling Trump’s foreign policy an “isolationist United States” that was “destabilizing around the world” and “dangerous for the sake of peace,” as reported by John Binder of Breitbart News. Some might say that’s a bold critique from a leader who oversaw wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where over 4,500 Americans died, including more than 3,500 in combat.
By 2021, Bush’s reservations about Trump remained evident. In a CBS News interview with Norah O’Donnell, he suggested Trump “lacked the ‘humility’ necessary to be an effective leader,” per Breitbart News. That’s a subtle jab that could rile a party now shaped by Trump’s bold persona.
Despite these public remarks, Bush has reportedly opted for silence on current criticisms. Sources indicate he’s steering clear of direct attacks on Trump, even as some former aides grumble about the MAGA movement’s dominance. It’s a calculated move—why stir the pot when you can wait for the right moment?
Behind the scenes, however, plans may already be in motion. Reports hint that Bush and his family are quietly working to influence the GOP’s future direction once Trump’s time is up.
The Daily Mail has stoked speculation with talk of a “shadow Republican Party” poised to emerge when Trump steps aside. This hidden network, with ties to influential figures nationwide, could be the Bush family’s trump card.
An unidentified former Bush official added fuel to the fire, noting Trump “knows that there’s no third term option.” That’s a stark reminder for MAGA supporters hoping for an endless Trump era.
The same official also pointed out that Vice President JD Vance “has a head start” among potential Republican contenders for 2028. Yet, they predicted a “big open field” within the party for that race, hinting the Bush camp sees room to maneuver.
Some notable figures are pushing Bush to take a more active role now. Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele has urged Bush to engage in party matters, claiming he has “a voice that would resonate with a lot more Americans.”
Still, rumors remain just that—unconfirmed speculation. The idea of a Bush resurgence might excite some longing for pre-MAGA days, but it could alienate a base loyal to Trump’s unfiltered style.
The notion of ending the so-called “Bush Exile,” as the Daily Mail describes it, sparks interest. Could a family once at the heart of Republican power reclaim the party from a movement that’s reshaped it?
For now, any Bush family plans stay in the realm of whispers and backroom talks. If they’re indeed plotting a return, it’s a long-term strategy avoiding the limelight.
What’s undeniable is that the Republican Party faces a pivotal moment. Will it hold fast to Trump’s populist surge or revert to the steady conservatism of the Bush years?
Only time will reveal the outcome, but if these reports hold any truth, the battle for the GOP’s identity is just beginning. The clash of old guard and new energy promises a fascinating struggle ahead.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
First, it was a coalition of Democrats in Congress who called for members of the U.S. military to disobey orders from their commander-in-chief that were "illegal," although that wasn't defined.
Then President Donald Trump noted that such actions, determined to the insurrectionist or treasonous, could result in penalties up to and including execution.
Then a "hyperventilating" Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., took to the social media stage to demand that Trump's comments cannot be tolerated, that it is time for Republicans, Democrats, business leaders and everyone else to "pick a f***ing side" against Trump.
Murphy's rant:
The president of the United States just called for Democratic members of Congress to be executed. This is not normal. We cannot allow this to feel normal. This, as far as I know, has never happened before in the history of the country. Every Democratic member of the Senate and the House, their life is in jeopardy right now, especially those that were specifically targeted by this social media post. Democratic senators and House members who were simply saying that no member of the military should act illegally or in violation of the Constitution.
The president of the United States just called for members of Congress to be executed. If you are a person of influence in this country, maybe it's time to pick a f***ing side. If you are a Republican in Congress, if you are a Republican governor, maybe it's time to draw a line in the sand and say that under no circumstances should the president of the United States be calling on his political opposition to be hanged. We are at a very dangerous moment right now. The president is engaged in the wholesale incitement, endorsement and rationalization of political violence in this country.
This is a very slippery slope that we are on. This is a moment for people to step up, for republicans to step up, for business leaders to step up. Anybody who has a voice or a soapbox in this country needs to draw a line in the sand and say that it is not acceptable for the president of the United States to call on the murder of his political oppositions."
Trump's comment:
SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, puishable by DEATH!
This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??? President DJT
And the original call for a military insurrection:
Murphy's diatribe failed to fully explain the call from his own party members for military members to defy the military's chain of command and follow orders of their own choosing, a circumstance that would deprive any military organization in the world of its ability to operate.
The Democrats didn't define "illegal" orders, but those presumably would be orders with which Democrats disagree politically.
Trump accurately pointed out that offense like insurrection, treason, and the like, have been dealt with harshly in America's past.
Further, it is Trump who has survived at least two assassination attempts in the last year or so, and it is Trump who repeatedly has been labeled a "Hitler" by Democrats. In fact, a newly elected Democrat state official openly called for the murder of his political opponent and his children — and Democrats still elected him to office.
A Florida Democrat has been indicted for allegedly swiping millions in disaster relief funds meant for desperate Americans. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) faces serious charges that could land her behind bars for decades, all while the nation grapples with the fallout of natural disasters.
The Department of Justice dropped a bombshell on Wednesday, announcing that a Miami grand jury indicted Cherfilus-McCormick for allegedly conspiring to steal $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to fuel her 2021 congressional campaign and personal coffers.
Let’s rewind to 2021, when Cherfilus-McCormick and her brother Edwin Cherfilus were working through their family healthcare company on a FEMA-funded contract for COVID-19 vaccination staffing.
Prosecutors say the company received a hefty overpayment of $5 million in July 2021 from FEMA, a windfall that apparently proved too tempting to handle ethically.
The indictment claims Cherfilus-McCormick, her brother, and several co-defendants routed this money through various accounts to hide its origins, a classic shell game that raises eyebrows about accountability in government contracts.
Even worse, a large chunk of this cash allegedly went straight into campaign contributions for her 2021 congressional run or was pocketed for personal gain—hardly the “public service” taxpayers expect.
The scheme gets murkier: Cherfilus-McCormick and a co-defendant, Nadege Leblanc, are accused of using straw donors to funnel contributions, channeling FEMA contract funds to associates who then donated to her campaign.
If these allegations hold up, we’re talking about a deliberate betrayal of trust at a time when disaster relief is a lifeline for so many struggling families.
Attorney General Pam Bondi didn’t mince words on this one: "Using disaster relief funds for self-enrichment is a particularly selfish, cynical crime." She’s right—diverting money meant for hurricane victims or pandemic recovery isn’t just wrong; it’s a gut punch to every American who believes in helping their neighbor.
If convicted, Cherfilus-McCormick could face up to 53 years in prison, a sentence that would send a loud message about messing with public funds.
The political heat is already on, with Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) announcing plans on X to file a motion to censure her and strip her of committee assignments on Veterans’ Affairs and Foreign Affairs.
Steube called it "one of the most egregious abuses of public trust I have ever seen," and it’s hard to argue with that when FEMA dollars are supposedly buying campaign ads instead of rebuilding lives.
The Republican Party of Florida also weighed in on X, demanding her immediate resignation and labeling the situation as “absolutely disgusting”—a sentiment many taxpayers might echo when they hear about relief funds being siphoned off.
While some might rush to defend Cherfilus-McCormick as a target of political witch hunts, the fact remains that these charges stem from a detailed indictment, not partisan gossip, and they follow a 2023 House Ethics Committee probe into her campaign finance practices.
At the end of the day, this case isn’t about left or right—it’s about right and wrong, and whether those entrusted with public resources can be held accountable when they allegedly prioritize personal ambition over public good.
Brace yourselves, folks—Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) just dropped a bombshell on the Capitol steps that’s stirring up a storm.
On Tuesday, Greene stood boldly with victims of Jeffrey Epstein, defending her push for a House vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act while countering President Donald Trump’s stinging accusation of being a "traitor."
This clash started brewing last week when Trump suggested Greene had "lost her way," a remark that sent ripples through the MAGA base.
Things escalated on Monday when Trump publicly dubbed Greene a "traitor" for challenging him after he reportedly pressed her to abandon a petition forcing a vote on releasing Epstein-related documents.
Greene didn’t flinch, reminding everyone she clinched her first primary victory without Trump’s endorsement, outmaneuvering eight male contenders in a tough race.
Her comeback was sharp, asserting that her loyalty was always a choice, not an obligation, and rooted in shared "America first" values.
“I was called a traitor by a man that I fought for five to six years for,” Greene stated. “I gave him my loyalty for free.”
“Let me tell you what a traitor is,” she added. “A traitor is an American that serves foreign countries and themselves. A patriot is an American that serves the United States of America and Americans like the women behind me.”
With those words, Greene cast herself as a champion for Epstein’s victims, labeling her push for the files’ release as a truly "patriotic" mission—take that as a subtle jab at Trump’s priorities.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act, aimed at compelling the federal government to disclose records linked to Epstein’s notorious activities, is slated for a House vote on Tuesday after a bipartisan petition forced the issue forward.
Greene gave a nod to the American public for ramping up pressure on Congress, proving that everyday voices can still shake up the halls of power.
Curiously, Trump changed his tune on Sunday, urging House Republicans to back the legislation despite earlier attempts to brush it aside, exposing a fracture within the MAGA movement.
Greene expects the House vote to sail through with near-unanimous support, reflecting a rare cross-party agreement on the need for transparency about Epstein’s network.
However, she cautioned that the "real fight" awaits after the bill’s initial passage, suggesting tougher battles against bureaucratic stonewalling or hidden opposition lie ahead.
If unraveling Washington’s secrets is the goal, this could be like wrestling a bear in a fog—Greene and her allies better gear up for a long haul.
Hold onto your hats, folks—President Donald Trump is turning up the heat on Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene with a fiery social media showdown that’s got everyone talking.
The clash exploded over the weekend as Trump unleashed a barrage of criticism on Truth Social, branding Greene a "traitor" and withdrawing his support, while Greene fired back, accusing his words of stirring up dangerous threats against her and her family, Fox News reported.
It all kicked off on Friday when Trump signaled he might back a primary challenger against Greene in her Georgia district, hinting that conservative voices in the area are fed up with her approach.
On Saturday, the president didn’t hold back, dubbing Greene a "RINO"—Republican in Name Only—and slamming her as a disgrace to the party’s values on Truth Social.
By Sunday, Trump doubled down, posting a scathing message calling her "Wacky Marjorie ‘Traitor’ Brown" and claiming that "nobody cares about this Traitor to our Country!" (Truth Social).
Let’s unpack that—while Trump’s frustration with party unity is understandable in a world where woke agendas often fracture conservative ranks, labeling a fellow Republican with such a loaded term feels like a punch that might bruise more than just egos.
Greene wasn’t about to sit quietly, responding on X with reports of disturbing harassment, including fake pizza deliveries to her home and a pipe bomb threat targeting her construction company’s office.
She pointed the finger squarely at Trump’s rhetoric, arguing his attacks act as a "dog whistle to dangerous radicals" that could escalate into real harm against her family (X).
While her concerns about safety are valid—nobody should face threats for political stances—some might wonder if tying Trump’s words directly to these incidents stretches the narrative a bit thin when radicals often act on their own twisted whims.
Trump’s decision to pull his endorsement on Friday was a seismic shift, as he openly invited a challenge in Greene’s district, promising his "Complete and Unyielding Support" to the right conservative contender (Truth Social).
This move signals a deep rift in a party that thrives on loyalty, especially when MAGA supporters have long seen Greene as a fighter against progressive overreach.
Yet, one has to ask if this public disavowal risks alienating a base that values her unapologetic style over polished party harmony.
In her defense, Greene adamantly rejected the traitor label, insisting she’s battled harder than most to back Trump’s campaign and agenda.
She cautioned that such a term from the president carries weight, hinting it could imply severe consequences for those deemed disloyal, which is a fair point when words from high office can inspire unintended actions.
Still, as this feud unfolds, conservatives might hope both sides cool the jets—after all, the real fight is against a radical left agenda, not within the ranks of those who’ve pledged to drain the swamp together.
Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) said Sunday she would comply with court orders to move two special elections for state legislature positions up from June to March, despite calling the orders "unlawful."
The special elections were overdue, since state law says they need to be held within 150 days of the vacancy.
Sen. Gary Stubblefield of Branch died and Rep. Carlton Wing of North Little Rock resigned to lead Arkansas PBS in September of last year, but Sanders used a clause in the law to go beyond 150 days when setting the special elections.
The clause says if it is “impracticable or unduly burdensome” to have an election within 150 days it is permissible to go beyond that time frame.
Sanders contended that she was saving taxpayers money by aligning them with existing elections and to allow enough time for absentee and military ballots to be returned.
While this was definitely true, there were other issues at play, including support for a $1 billion prison Sanders wants to build in Franklin County.
Sanders may have wanted the state legislature's makeup to stay the same because it would allow her to get the prison built; some candidates running in the special election would have opposed the effort.
At any rate, the move drew bipartisan criticism and lawsuits that resulted in the elections being moved up.
The state Democrat party, which was a plaintiff in the lawsuit in District 70, called the rulings “a huge win for democracy and for representation in Arkansas.”
“This proclamation achieves the goal of our lawsuit — to ensure the 30,000 Arkansans in House District 70 have representation,” DPA Chair retired Col. Marcus Jones said in the statement.
“Pulaski County election officials have previously confirmed they are ready and can assure a secure and fair election,” Jones said.
Both seats were vacated by Republicans and are likely to remain Republican, but the Democrat party still felt the need to get involved.
Sanders said that the March date with a January primary may violate the law regarding military voting, but would be in better compliance with the 150 day rule.
The June election dates would be more than double the 150 days permitted for a special election.