Quietly, Virginia is already voting for candidates looking for their party’s nomination at the end of our 45-day-long “voting season” on August 4. This was that “temporary” measure designed to protect you from COVID-19 that now gets treated as if Abraham Lincoln himself had the idea turned into law. In any event, voting in the Virginia primaries has begun, and one of the races that hasn’t received a lot of coverage yet is the race to see who will be the GOP Senate nominee to run against Mark Warner in November. Friday, June 26, the Family Foundation, in conjunction with the City Elders of Virginia, held a debate in Staunton between the three candidates for the nomination: David Williams, Kim Farington, and Bert Mizusawa. It was moderated flawlessly by former Virginia Delegate Chris Saxman, who started the organization Virginia FREE. The candidates all answered questions about various issues facing Commonwealth voters. Let’s focus on two: affordability and the SAVE America Act. Affordability The candidates were asked about affordability, housing, and what they would do to restore young people’s faith in “the system.” David Williams: “It goes back to taxes. As you said correctly, the youth are really the ones that are suffering. Right there in Northern Virginia, most of them can’t afford to live in Northern Virginia, and I think that’s the issue here as well. They’re having to move out because of high housing prices that are rising. And so what we have to do is, once again, it goes back to cutting the out-of-control spending that’s coming out of Richmond. Fifty-one different tax cuts or tax hikes on everything across the board. And so we have to get those taxes down so that these young folks have a little bit more money in their pockets. “And then also, at the federal level, we could look at extending and making permanent the child tax cuts. And that’s going to be important. That’s going to help relieve a little bit of stress on the youth.” Kim Farington: “I was very fortunate in that I was able to buy my first house when I was much younger than what the current average age is of around 40. And I think it’s important that we really look out for those first-time homebuyers. And I think an easy fix is to make sure that we don’t allow these large-volume corporations to buy a whole bunch of houses. And then they raise, because they get the volume discount, and then they raise the taxes or the price of the homes. And that outpaces the amount of money that these first-time homebuyers have to be able to afford that first home. “So if we don’t allow the volume discounts, and we don’t allow these big-box companies, big corporations, to sell those houses at such a profit, we can get more young generations into their first home, and all residents into their first home sooner.” Bert Mizusawa: “First of all, everybody has their own affordability problems. It depends on what your personal expenses are. And they’re different for the younger generations and the older generations. But one thing that is common is housing. And one thing specific that I would do is I would basically increase the capital gain exclusion on a sale of a principal residence. “Because my generation has basically bought a lot of real estate, and we are limited to a $250,000 capital gain exclusion if you’re single, $500,000 if you’re married. But that was the amount set back in the ’90s, and it has not been indexed to inflation. If we indexed to inflation, we would double the exclusion. I think we’d have a lot more of the older generation selling their homes, and it would decrease the prices and make housing much more available for our younger generations. And that would take care of the larger expense. So that’s one specific thing that I would do.” The SAVE America Act One question they were asked is the one that’s dogging Congress right now, and that’s about an issue enjoying 80% support among all voters, including 70% support among Democratic voters: the SAVE America Act. The candidates agreed that the law that would ensure only American citizens vote in American elections must be passed. Mizusawa: “Yes, I would actually ask [Majority Leader] John Thune to change the Senate rules, get rid of the filibuster. The SAVE America Act is so essential for a democracy. We need to get that through. And then if he can change the rules back, fine. But let’s get that through. Let’s get all the black and white issues passed. So I’m a big proponent of doing that.” Williams: “Absolutely, we have to support that. This is the crossroads that we face here in America. That is why President [Donald] Trump has been a top priority for him, to make sure that he pushes that through. “And if you look at where our country is going and how they are trying to bring socialist-type ideology into what we are in America, that should scare you. And that should cause you to get out and make sure that we get people out to vote, because they’re not playing with the rules anymore. Why would you need your I.D. to go to vote? Why would you need to show that you’re an American citizen? “So ask yourself these things and then understand what we are up against right now, because they’re not making policies. What they are looking at doing is, like I said, changing the culture, changing the fabric of America, and we cannot let that happen.” Farington: “I’ve seen it both ways. Whether you call it the Save America Act or the SAVE Act, it is so important to us that we get it passed. And I’m concerned why it’s taking so long to get it passed, considering its voter data integrity that we’re talking about here, the fundamental foundation of this country. And so I would definitely vote for it. “And what I would also recommend is, since it is having trouble getting through and getting passed, let’s break it down. And let’s have Congress and the Senate start focusing on the different aspects of the SAVE Act, Save America Act, so we can start to make progress toward that voter integrity that we need in this country that we all know exists. We even have New York City asking for two IDs, just to clear the snow on the streets. We should have that across America. Voter ID, let’s vote for Save America Act and SAVE Act.” At the end of the two-hour-long program, which you can watch here, the audience was asked to take part in a straw poll. A spokesperson for the organizers said we will know the results on Wednesday, July 1. In the meantime, take a look at the forum when you have a chance and email me with who you thought did the best: jtinthemorningradio@gmail.com. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. 

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins is trailing her opponent in a new poll—but by an encouragingly slim margin. Democrats need to net four additional seats in order to gain control of the Senate. On Monday, the New York Times released a poll alongside the Portland Press Herald and Siena in which Democrat Senate nominee Graham Platner leads Collins 49% to 47% among likely voters. This lead is well within the survey’s 4.8 percent margin of error. The poll was conducted June 19 to 26. It bears noting that these numbers are some of the best Collins has had in years. In her 2020 campaign, she trailed her Democrat opponent in every single public poll, and by double digits in some polls. She ultimately won the race by over eight points.  Shawn Roderick, a Collins campaign spokesman, told the Daily Signal in a statement in response to the poll, “Maine people know Susan Collins. They know her unmatched work ethic, they respect her character and integrity, and they trust her to put Maine first.” Roderick added, “That’s a reputation she has earned by consistently showing up, listening, and delivering results for the people of our state.” NYT/PPH has Platner 49, Collins 47https://t.co/ccn7yizTQcCollins never even cracked 43 in 2020 public polls at least in RCP list https://t.co/IRSsBQIwBL— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) June 29, 2026 The numbers come after Platner has dealt with controversy over resurfaced online comments and a tattoo he had for years that resembles a Nazi-linked symbol. Most recently, The New York Times interviewed multiple former girlfriends of Platner, turning up allegations of physical roughness and eccentric behavior, although some spoke of him positively. Platner, who is endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is attempting to advance a hard-left platform in a state that has elected a Republican senator five times in a row. Platner supports “Medicare for all,” the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and has accused Israel of committing “genocide.” The survey also went into more granular detail on what Maine voters think of the character and record of the two candidates. Graham Platner is ahead of Collins by 2 points in new NYT poll.One of the most intriguing details: She has a 21-point lead among non-college voters as Platner has made centering the working class the center of his campaign. pic.twitter.com/EB2VXw6YPo— Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) June 29, 2026 Among likely voters, 47% agreed Platner “is too extreme,” and 34% said the same of Collins.  Meanwhile, 44% agreed Platner “has good character,” and 66% said the same of Collins. Similarly, 45% of voters said Platner has “the right kind of moral values,” with 61% saying so of Collins. A majority of likely voters suggested Platner’s controversies affect their likelihood to support him, with 28% saying they “cannot support” him as a result of them and 24% “questioning support.” But a plurality of 39% said the controversies have “no impact.” Still, there are bright spots for Platner in the survey. Among likely voters, 50% say Platner would do a better job at “being an independent voice” compared to 43% who said the same of Collins. Similarly, 50% say Platner would do a better job at “doing what’s best for ordinary Mainers,” compared to 46% who said so of Collins. Democrat candidate for US Senate Graham Platner: "We need to build new rights and new definitions of freedom." pic.twitter.com/dDWiAg247z— TheBlaze (@theblaze) June 22, 2026 However, when it comes to “bringing money and resources to Maine,” just 34% said Platner would do a better job, and 61% said Collins would do better. Collins wields influence as the chair of the Senate appropriations committee, which crafts agreements on annual funding bills. Platner’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment. This article has been updated with comment from Collins’ campaign. Related PostsVictor Davis Hanson Sets the Record Straight on Tucker Carlson and Graham PlatnerEditor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Victor Davis Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes. Jack Fowler: Victor, you mentioned Tucker, and I saw this post this morning on X, and it’s “Tucker Carlson defends…Victor Davis Hanson: America’s New Socialists Are Coming From the Upper ClassEditor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal senior contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal.   We are witnessing in this year of 2026, for the first time really in over a century, a resurgence…Democrats’ Midterm Strategy? Pretend to Be Working Class AgainEditor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal.  The Democratic Party has a lot of problems that have been widely discussed.   One of the most notorious is,…

The Supreme Court determined in an 5-4 ruling that states can continue counting ballots that arrive after Election Day. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the three Democrat appointees on the court.   The case of Watson v. Republican National Committee involved Mississippi’s policy of counting ballots that arrive up to five days after Election Day. At least 17 states and territories and the District of Columbia count ballots that arrive late, with at least two allowing them to arrive up to two weeks after Election Day. The case is named for Mississippi’s Secretary of State Michael Watson, a Republican who oversees state elections.  President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order on election integrity included a provision that would deny federal election funding grants to states that continue counting ballots arriving after Election Day. The counting of late-arriving ballots by states does not break along party lines.  Illinois and Utah count ballots arriving up to 14 days after Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as long as the ballots are postmarked by Election Day. Alaska and Maryland allow ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted up to 10 days after the election.  California, the District of Columbia, New York, and Oregon count ballots arriving seven days after the election. New Jersey counts ballots arriving up to six days post-election, while West Virginia’s grace period is five days.  Nevada and Ohio count to four days after Election Day, while Kansas, Massachusetts, and Virginia count ballots arriving up to three days after Election Day.  Washington state law says that ballots received after the election with postmarks before Election Day are counted, but no deadline is specified for when they must be received, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in October 2024 in the case from Mississippi that federal law requires mail-in ballots to arrive by Election Day. The ruling didn’t affect the election that year. This story is developing and may be updated.

WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) — The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear President Donald Trump’s bid to overturn a $5 million verdict in favor of E. Jean Carroll in a case in which a jury found him liable for sexually abusing the former magazine columnist and then defaming her. The justices turned away Trump’s appeal after a lower court upheld the 2023 jury verdict and rejected Trump’s arguments that the trial was unfair because the judge impermissibly let jurors hear evidence of his alleged past sexual misconduct. Trump has been battling Carroll, a former advice columnist for Elle magazine, ever since she published an excerpt from her memoir in 2019 in which she alleged that Trump had raped her in around 1996 in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan. Trump denied Carroll’s claims and asserted that she lied about the accusations both in 2019 while he was still serving his first term as president, and again in 2022 when he was out of office.  Trump’s Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation targeting Carroll, as it has against several other adversaries of the Republican president. The investigation, disclosed in May, was focused on whether Carroll committed perjury in testimony tied to the two civil lawsuits that she won against Trump. The case that led to the $5 million verdict concerned Trump’s statements in 2022 when he called Carroll’s claim a “hoax” and a “con job” in a post on social media. “This woman is not my type!” Trump added in the post.  Carroll sued Trump in federal court in Manhattan. Jurors in 2023 decided that Trump had sexually abused Carroll and defamed her, awarding $5 million in damages. They did not find that Trump raped Carroll, as she had claimed.  The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the verdict in 2024, ruling that evidence, including Trump bragging about his sexual prowess on an “Access Hollywood” video that surfaced during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, established a “repeated, idiosyncratic pattern of conduct” consistent with Carroll’s allegations. Trump’s lawyers told the Supreme Court that the trial judge “erroneously allowed testimony about multiple decades-old, unverified and unrelated allegations to be presented to the jury,” flouting federal rules governing the admission of evidence in a case. “Carroll waited more than 20 years to falsely accuse Donald Trump, who she politically opposes, until after he became the 45th President, when she could maximize political injury to him and profit for herself,” his lawyers wrote in a filing.  The 2nd Circuit in the other lawsuit Carroll won in 2025 declined to throw out an $83.3 million verdict reached by a jury in 2024 for defaming her when Trump first denied her claims in 2019 and asserted that she fabricated the accusations to sell her book. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

The Supreme Court held in a 5‑4 ruling that the president can’t fire members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors without cause while litigation continues. The majority held that President Donald Trump’s attempted firing of Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook violated the statutory requirement that the removal be for cause only. The justices determined that Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before her removal, affirming a lower court ruling in Cook’s favor. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, and the court’s three Democrat appointees were in the majority. “The statute provides that each member of the Board of Governors ‘shall hold office for a term of fourteen years . . . , unless sooner removed for cause by the President. … Whether a governor should be removed, it is true, is a decision only the President can make (short of impeachment),” Roberts wrote for the majority. “But that does not mean that he may make that decision for any reason, or no reason. Even when a statute ‘delegates discretionary authority’ to the Executive Branch, we have explained, our role ‘is, as always, to independently interpret the statute and effectuate the will of Congress subject to constitutional limits.'”  “No matter the precise definition of cause, or the scope of our review of any such determination, the president failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute,” Roberts later added. “Without such protections, she could not properly dispute the charges the President laid against her. We thus need not address Cook’s constitutional due process argument, for the statute alone makes it unlikely that the Government will prevail on appeal as to the validity of the procedures used to fire Cook.” Justices heard the case of Trump v. Cook in January. In an October emergency docket ruling, the court ruled that Cook could continue in her job after Trump attempted to oust her, while the justices further considered the matter. The question in the case is whether a president can fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors without cause or whether the organization created in 1913 is independent of those executive actions. Members of the board are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but Trump’s ouster of Cook marked the first time a president removed a board member. Critics of the firing say it jeopardizes the independence of the Fed. Supporters of the move have countered that government boards and commissions should be more accountable to elected officials.  Trump justified the removal based on alleged misstatements made by Cook on mortgage documents. Cook has denied any wrongdoing and contested the firing, saying a board member can only be removed “for cause” under the Federal Reserve Act, which includes due process for the employee.  The administration argued the president has broad discretion to remove a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and that the allegations of misstatements on mortgage statements meet the standard.