Last week brought several developments regarding Democrats on election integrity, demonstrating the party is falling into disarray over what is a widely supported issue for Americans. Some were not shocking, such as a lawsuit from Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. Others were a bit surprising, like strategist James Carville coming out in support of voter ID. Tony Kinnett, host of The Tony Kinnett Cast discussed the “rather spicy” election integrity news on last Thursday’s show. Shapiro did not take too well to a request from the Department of Homeland Security for voter data, despite news that broke earlier that week of a scandal in neighboring New Jersey with noncitizens being registered to vote and even casting ballots. Shapiro’s lawsuit came on Thursday, along with a post from the governor mocked by Kinnett. BREAKING: I’m suing the Trump Administration for holding millions of public safety dollars hostage in an attempt to take control of our elections.Donald Trump is actively threatening the safety of our communities and withholding resources from our law enforcement officers and…— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) July 23, 2026 Via an executive order from President Donald Trump, states must submit voter rolls so that DHS and the Department of Justice can ensure that felons, dead people, not yet naturalized citizens, and others who shouldn’t be voting, such as illegal immigrants, weren’t on the rolls. Shapiro’s post claimed that “public safety dollars” were being held “hostage” by the Trump administration in “an attempt to take control of our elections.” As Kinnett explained, the federal government can withhold funds for failure to follow standards. Kinnett took particular issue with how Shapiro claimed that “Pennsylvanians deserve leaders who protect their safety and right to vote.” “What do you think is going to hurt the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and their voting here?” Kinnett wondered, as he mentioned other states that have complied with the request. This includes his state of Indiana, where people were not thrown off the rolls. “I’m just not seeing the reason for all of the pearl-clutching unless you are worried about something being found on this voter information,” Kinnett added. Kinnett also addressed how Democrats are in disarray over election integrity. “The media is really struggling here because the Democrats are starting to split on this,” Kinnett said, referencing CNN’s Michael Smerconish. On his podcast, Smerconish referenced a January article from The New York Times trying to downplay Trump’s claim about illegal immigrants voting. It was something Smerconish said he had “relied on.” “I can’t say that any longer. I don’t know how often it does happen, but I can’t say any longer this never happens.” Attacks on election integrity are also coming from the far-left wing of the party. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., complained about a bipartisan bill that just passed, the Stop Insider Trading Act, despite how she claims to be against insider trading. Jayapal not only voted against the bill but called it “a weak a– bill” and threw a tantrum over the included voter ID for federal election provisions, claiming it involved “a new, extremely limited set of documents that you would have to provide to vote.” While Jayapal hysterically claimed that this bill “undermines our democracy,” Kinnett argued it “makes it harder for people who aren’t citizens to vote.” But Kinnett isn’t the only one to counter Jaypal. Rather, it’s “from inside the party,” meaning Carville. “He now comes out here to suggest very, very clearly that if you’re against voter ID, you’re kind of really, really stupid because voter ID makes sense,” Kinnett said. A clip of Carville on his podcast acknowledges that “for whatever reason,” support for voter ID polls well. Carville has come out in support of voter ID as he tries to claim the amount of voter fraud is “infinitesimal,” and that “it’s a very minor problem, but you gotta admit it barely exists.” Kinnett said that “even if it’s really, really small they still have to admit it’s there and that’s the point of a law,” adding, “the frequency of a crime does not change whether or not it should be a crime.” With such admissions from Smerconish and Carville, Kinnett offered, “they now have to say that it matters and that it should be a thing” to address voter fraud. “They have to admit that Americans want it.” Kinnett pointed to another example, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., who made news for his opposition to Trump’s remarks earlier this month addressing election security concerns. Last Sunday, Warner appeared on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” where host Jonathan Karl corrected the senator about Virginia’s voter ID laws. Karl acknowledged Democrats’ opposition to the SAVE America Act, but wanted to specifically address voter ID. In response, Warner tried to claim that “in Virginia, we have voter ID and photo ID” and that he has to show his ID. Karl interrupted him to remind “that’s actually not the case.” Virginia used to have voter ID, but under Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam, with Democrats in control of the legislature, that was repealed in 2020. Karl explained if you don’t have voter ID to show, you have to sign an affidavit, with Kinnett relishing how Warner was “scrambling” while also mocking how relaxed the rules still are.

A recent poll on Georgia elections shows Rep. Mike Collins leads Sen. Jon Ossoff among older voters in the race for U.S. Senate. Will votes by older Georgians cost the incumbent senator his job? In a poll conducted July 13-16 by Fabrizio Ward and Impact Research for AARP, Rep. Mike Collins leads voters over the age of 65 by 24 points. According to the respondents surveyed, both candidates hold leads among different demographic groups. Ossoff leads the race among younger voters by 30 points, according to the poll, which surveyed 1,060 likely voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. “It’s no surprise that Georgia’s most seasoned voters recognize Mike Collins as the clear choice. They can easily distinguish Mike’s proven record from Jon Ossoff’s socialist rhetoric,” a spokesperson for the Collins campaign told the Daily Signal. In an email, an Ossoff campaign spokesperson took a jab at Collins, saying, “Mike Collins has voted to gut Social Security and has expressed support for raising the retirement age, slashing the Social Security budget, and making it harder for seniors to get the benefits they’ve earned.” In a key race that might determine control of the Senate, the outcome could come down to which age group has the most motivation to show up on Election Day. Dr. Bernard Fraga, a professor of political science at Emory University, says older voters tend to vote more frequently than younger voters. “Older Americans vote more than younger Americans for a variety of reasons, but one important reason is that older voters tend to be more rooted in their communities and therefore more engaged with state and local politics overall,” he told the Daily Signal in an email. According to the poll, 88% of older voters, particularly those age 50 and older, rated their motivation to vote at 10 out of 10. Just 62% of voters under the age of 50 rated their motivation to vote at the same motivation level. Among older voters, Collins holds a significant lead—for respondents ages 50 and older, Collins leads Ossoff 53%-45%. However, the poll shows Ossoff leading Collins overall by 9 points, 52%-43%. Five percent of respondents said they were undecided. Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University, says the trend among older voters today is similar to patterns seen in Ossoff’s previous races. “The same pattern of support by different age groups was evident in Ossoff’s 2020 contests against David Perdue, based on exit polls,” he told the Daily Signal in an email. According to Abramowitz, racial composition is related to the poll’s disparities among age demographics. “Older voting groups include a much higher proportion of white voters than younger age groups,” he said. He concluded by stating, “President Trump is quite unpopular in Georgia, and this is undoubtedly helping Ossoff and other Democratic candidates.” Charles Bullock III, a professor of political science at the University of Georgia, said older voters definitely play an important role in elections. “Think about the various age groups, usually about 10-year categories. When you get about 65, they all get lumped together, and that is almost always, for every election I’ve looked at, that is the largest single component in terms of those who have cast ballots,” he said. Bullock added that the category of seniors accounts for nearly 25% of the total turnout of voters, and that when it comes to the composition of voters, older voters “tend to be the most Republican.” CONCLUSION According to Newsweek’s report on the poll results, Ossoff’s audience consists of younger voters and minorities. That corresponds with Abramowitz’s view that racial background can vary from age group to age group among voters. Collins, on the other hand, draws in older voters who tend to lean more Republican. Another potential factor in the outcome of the race is voting by independents. Ossoff leads among independents by 20 points, according to the poll results. Control of the Georgia seat, and even potentially the U.S. Senate, may come down to which generation of Georgians decides to show up and let their votes be counted in November.

The Senate Republican Conference, chaired by Sens. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and co-chaired by James Lankford, R-Okla., sent an internal communication to Senate Republicans urging them to deflect any and all media questions about the SAVE America Act, according to a document obtained by the Daily Signal. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, described the communication in a statement to the Daily Signal as a “list of excuses” that he and “American voters are tired of reading.” The conference sent the internal communications after Lee, and conservative senators, such as Sens. Rick Scott, R-Fla., Jim Banks, R-Ind., Ashley Moody, R-Fla., John Kennedy, R-La., and Darline Graham, R-S.C., demanded that Senate Majority Leader John Thune cancel the scheduled August recess and instead abolish the filibuster and pass the voter integrity legislation. On Monday, President Donald Trump called on Thune in a Truth Social post to prevent the Senate from leaving town without passing the legislation. Thune did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment. The ‘List of Excuses’ The memorandum explicitly tells Republican Senate staffers to urge their bosses to deflect media questions on the SAVE America Act, party “infighting,” August recess, and the filibuster, as the media is looking for an opportunity to divide the conference. See the document here: Conference Prep 7.27 v.3Download The document lays out suggested talking points for the senators regarding possible questions from the media. “Media will try to divide Republicans by asking your boss to pick a ‘side’ in any given question,” the document reads. “It’s crucial to reject these false choices. Reject the false choice between the President and Senate leaders: express support for both. Reject the false choice between the SAVE Act and the filibuster: express support for both.” “End each answer by attacking Democrats for blocking SAVE,” the document continues. “Point to Republican unity in opposing the extremely dangerous Democrat socialist agenda, which will make life more dangerous and unaffordable for Americans,” the document continues. Further into the document, Republican leadership addresses the party’s “infighting” over the SAVE America Act once more, adding that the media is seeing this as an opportunity to create a divide among Republicans. “There’s nothing the media likes more than stories of conflict between Republicans, but the truth is that we are united in our fight to make life safer and more affordable for the American people,” the internal communications continues. In the document, Republican leadership then specifically instruct senators to tell the media that they are powerless over the passage of the SAVE America Act. “I want to pass the SAVE America Act just as much as the President, but we don’t have the votes to pass the SAVE America Act or eliminate the filibuster,” is the ideal response to questions on whether Thune should cancel recess to pass the voter integrity legislation. “I don’t think staying in session will make more votes appear. We are not going to get a single Democrat to vote for the SAVE America Act no matter how long we are in session. And we have work to do at home to make sure that we beat the Democrats in November.” Will Democrats Abolish the Filibuster? Despite pressure from the president, Vice-President JD Vance, and conservative lawmakers to abolish the 60-vote threshold known as the filibuster because Democrats would eliminate it anyhow once they rise to power, Senate Republican leadership is telling conservative senators that they should say that they are unsure of what Democrats will do if they rise to the majority again. And rather than pledging their support for eliminating the rule, Republicans should instead reiterate the point that if they were to eliminate the rule, Democrats would enact radical agendas once in power. Democrats already attempted to eliminate the filibuster in 2022 but fell short by two Democratic votes. “If we eliminate the filibuster, Democrats will make Puerto Rico and DC states, stage a complete federal takeover of our elections, and pack the Supreme Court. They will remove every barrier to their radical agenda,” the document suggests. “We’ve already seen what they will do when they have the opportunity: they’ve elected ‘Democratic Socialist’ candidates who hate America, use the flag to wipe off their hands, and use the “F” word to describe their feelings towards the United States.” “They will tax, spend, and regulate at levels America has never seen. The result will be runaway inflation and a destroyed economy,” it continues. “We can’t predict what the Democrats will do, but we know that they want nothing more than for Republicans to eliminate the filibuster for them.” Ultimately, the document advises that when confronted with this question, senators should tell the media that if Democrats decide to eliminate the filibuster, they are not “going to provide them political cover. We will make sure they own the decision and the consequences with voters.”

In just seven years, Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) has spent nearly $60 million on lawyers. During fiscal year 2026 alone, the district set a new record, spending $14.4 million on legal fees. Fiscal YearLegal Fees2020$6,401,0782021$5,066,0492022$6,312,9892023$6,925,4752024$11,619,3322025$7,656,9682026$14,440,784Total$58,422,675 Source: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests and FCPS Transparency For a school system that routinely cites budget constraints when discussing teacher pay, classroom resources, and student services, these legal expenditures deserve far more public scrutiny than they have received. The most striking figure is the nearly $8.9 million paid to King & Spalding during fiscal year 2026. That single firm’s bill exceeded FCPS’s total annual legal spending in every fiscal year before fiscal year 2024. King & Spalding is representing FCPS in litigation brought by a teacher whistleblower who alleges that school officials participated in funding and facilitating student abortions without parental or guardian knowledge or consent. Although King & Spalding—the law firm that was both the district’s external “independent” investigator and its defense—has suggested that FCPS is innocent in all matters, the whistleblower continues to pursue charges for retaliation against a whistleblower. FCPS is also spending heavily to defend itself in litigation involving some of the district’s most controversial policies, including those concerning gender identity, student pronouns, access to sex-specific facilities and sports, and lack of parental notification regarding students’ gender transitions. FCPS Legal Fees by Law Firm, Fiscal Year 2026 Law FirmAmountKing & Spalding$8,933,304Hunton Andrews Kurth$1,665,330Blankingship & Keith$1,163,304Willkie Farr & Gallagher$906,246McGuireWoods$660,144Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore$464,112Michael E. Kinney PLC$336,418Isler Dare$180,275Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black$88,004Law Offices of Polly Chong Inc.$39,964Sands Anderson$3,682Total$14,440,784 Source: FCPS Transparency The legal spending extends well beyond courtroom defense. The district has repeatedly hired outside law firms to conduct what it characterizes as “independent” investigations into its own actions. Following allegations that an illegal immigrant sexually assaulted 13 female students at Fairfax High School, FCPS retained McGuireWoods to investigate the administration’s response, reportedly paying attorneys up to $1,850 per hour. The outcome surprised few. Last month, Superintendent Michelle Reid announced that “the external investigation confirmed that our administration acted promptly and appropriately to stop this behavior.” Then the district refused to release even a redacted copy of the report to parents or the public, citing attorney-client privilege. That sequence raises an obvious question: How “independent” is an investigation when the client selects the investigators, pays millions of dollars for their work, and then withholds the report from public view? Public schools exist to educate children—not to build legal war chests. Yet the district’s legal spending has become so large that it now rivals the budgets of many entire school divisions in Virginia. Taxpayers have every right to ask why a school district is spending nearly $60 million on lawyers in seven years. Parents have every right to ask why outside counsel is receiving millions while classrooms continue to compete for limited resources. And citizens should expect greater transparency when public dollars are used to defend controversial policies, commission “independent” investigations, and fight litigation against the very community the district is supposed to serve. Nearly $60 million in legal fees is not merely an accounting statistic. It is a reflection of institutional priorities. The question is whether those priorities still align with the educational mission that taxpayers expect FCPS to fulfill. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The Department of Health and Human Services will announce Wednesday that health care stakeholders have signed a first-of-its-kind pledge to improve mental health and addiction care nationwide. Insurers, health systems, provider organizations, medical societies, and behavioral health partners will sign the voluntary pledge to advance evidence-based, high-quality behavioral health care across the country. “As leaders committed to strengthening the nation’s behavioral health system and improving patient outcomes, we pledge to advance evidence-based, high-quality, patient-centered care for individuals experiencing mental health conditions and the chronic disease of addiction,” the pledge, obtained by the Daily Signal, reads. The pledge is a “shared and enduring commitment to advancing behavioral health care through evidence, innovation, professional standards, and continuous improvement.” The stakeholders promise to provide timely access to high-quality mental health and addiction treatment; evidence-based assessment, diagnosis, treatment, referral, and recovery support; and measurable quality standards, outcomes, accountability, and continuous improvement. They also pledge to use patient-centered, recovery-focused care that supports long-term wellness; clinical expertise and individualized treatment decisions based on patient needs and the best available evidence; and whole-person care, including addressing other chronic diseases. “Together, we pledge to advance evidence-based clinical pathways that build a behavioral health system rooted in quality, accountability, compassion, and recovery,” the pledge states. In June, HHS announced it would provide more than $700 million in funding for behavioral health initiatives, including mental illness, addiction, and homelessness.