While the Ohio Legislature has made strides this week in key areas before summer recess, it was unable to come to agreement on the hot button issue of data centers. Lawmakers have been debating the level of regulation and tax breaks for data centers, while a joint committee is also studying the effects of data centers. As News 5 Cleveland reported, one specific debate focuses on whether or not data centers should receive a 50% tax exemption. These tax exemptions have significantly been in the news since Republican Gov. Mike DeWine on June 2 announced a pause on the exemptions, a move welcomed by committee members. However, some don’t think it goes far enough. That same day, state Rep. Tristan Rader, a Democrat, introduced his bill which would permanently do away with tax exemptions for data centers. A press release from Rader’s office claimed Ohio lost out on $1.6 billion for 2025 due to the tax exemption, a figure 11 times higher than predicted. The state Democrat framing the issue as being about affordability. “In a state where people have to constantly stretch their dollar further, do more with less, and even completely go without certain services, it is shameful that the state government would choose to give away over a billion dollars to big tech companies,” Rader said. “This is why I am introducing the repeal of the sales tax loophole in the House to make sure we are putting people first, not trillion-dollar tech companies.” Although Rader called DeWine’s temporary suspension “a step in the right direction,” he added that “it is not nearly enough.” “Governor DeWine never should have reinstated this exemption in the first place after it was eliminated in last year’s budget. Ohioans are tired of a tax system that shifts the burden onto working families while the wealthiest continue to receive special treatment. Our schools, roads, libraries, and public services depend on everyone paying their fair share, and this exemption should be permanently repealed,” he continued. Summer recess means it could be some time before the issue is fully addressed. Ohio NPR’s Sarah Donaldson spoke to state Sen. Brian Chavez, a Republican, who said that the Senate will not be coming back. big: Sen. Brian Chavez tells me the Ohio Senate will NOT be coming back, meaning data center bill is very, very likely dead until lame duck https://t.co/PVAaPwCd1l— Sarah Donaldson (@SarahEDon) June 11, 2026 During a summit on Tuesday in Cleveland, DeWine addressed concerns about data centers paying their own bills, quoted by Signal Ohio as saying local governments should “be aggressive” in trying to get a deal and should not “just take what they give you.” Advocates have pointed to the economic opportunity of data centers, as well as how much they have to do with countless data interactions in our daily lives. Those opposed to the expansion of data centers have been showing up in large numbers to offer testimony. One concern highlighted is the higher utility costs associated with the presence of data centers. There’s even a ballot initiative campaign calling for a ban. Currently, Ohio is sixth in the nation on data centers, behind states like Virginia and Texas, though it could lose that status. For that reason, DeWine warned against closing Ohio off to data centers. “But we can’t throw them completely out and say, ‘Oh no, we don’t — we want to close the walls of the state of Ohio and we don’t want any data centers to come in’ any more than we can do that to any other business,” DeWine said. “It’s just where the future is. This is now, and we have to be, we have to be part of it.”

A government watchdog group is threatening Minnesota with a lawsuit over its practice of allowing registered voters to “vouch” for potential voters who cannot provide proof of residency. Minnesota allows voters to register on Election Day and forgo proof of residency if another registered voter will affirm their eligibility to vote at a polling place. A registered voter can vouch for up to eight potential voters. The group America First Legal is threatening the state with a lawsuit, alleging the practice violates the National Voter Registration Act. America First Legal is representing Republican U.S. House candidate Paul Wikstrom, who is challenging incumbent Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn. A challenge under the federal law could be difficult, as a spokeswoman for Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon was quick to point out the state is exempt from the federal statute. “The National Voter Registration Act does not apply to Minnesota’s vouching laws. Minnesota has been exempt from the NVRA since the time the NVRA was passed,” Cassondra Knudson, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state’s office, told the Daily Signal. The National Voter Registration Act, also known as the “Motor Voter Act,” allows people to register to vote when getting their driver’s licenses. The law also requires states and localities to take measures to ensure voter registration lists are accurate and up to date. Minnesota is one of six states exempt from the law, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. The others are North Dakota, which does not require voters to register, and four other states that allow Election Day voter registration: Idaho, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. However, Minnesota stands out because the state’s law allows a registered voter to “vouch” for up to eight potential voters, America First Legal says. Furthermore, employees of residential facilities such as group homes, elder homes, or rehabilitation clinics may vouch for an unlimited number of registrants. The state frequently does not verify vouched registrations until after these voters cast their ballots—by which time it’s too late, according to a letter from Minneapolis lawyer Erick G. Kaardal and America First Legal attorney James K. Rogers to Simon. “Minnesota does not use provisional ballots for vouched registrations,” the letter states. “Once individuals register through vouching and vote, their ballot is immediately counted and commingled with other ballots, making it impossible to segregate or remove that ballot if the registration is later determined to be invalid. County election officials verify vouched registrations after the election through postal verification cards and database checks, but by that time, the ballot has already been counted. “Vouched registrations have substantially higher rates of undeliverable postal verification cards than registrations completed using documentary proof of residence, suggesting that a significant number of vouched individuals may not reside at the addresses provided. Similarly, voters registered through vouching are later placed in challenged status on voter rolls at significantly higher rates than voters who registered with documentary proof, indicating an elevated risk of registration irregularities.” The Minnesota “vouching” law has been in place in some form for about 50 years, said Knudson, the spokeswoman for the Minnesota Secretary of State’s office. “Use of the process is rare. In the 2024 general election, less than 0.6% of votes cast used this process,” Knudson said. “About 71% of those voters were already registered to vote but needed to update their name or address in their voter record.” She added that vouching is commonly used in senior living facilities or when an eligible voter has moved to a new address. “Every voter who registers or updates their registration on Election Day, including those who are vouched for, is recorded by local election officials and verified in our state database after each election,” Knudson added. “If a discrepancy is found during this process, it is referred to local law enforcement for investigation and possible prosecution.”

On June 8, in Belfast, Northern Ireland, a 30-year-old Sudanese asylum seeker named Hadi Alodid allegedly stabbed 44-year-old local Stephen Ogilvie repeatedly with a kitchen knife in the eyes, face, neck, and back. Ogilvie lost his left eye. Bystanders had to pull the attacker off him.  Alodid had entered through Dublin in 2023, claimed asylum, and received leave to remain until 2028. He now faces attempted murder charges. Why does this pattern keep repeating? Video of the frenzied assault spread instantly. The next night, Belfast erupted. Masked protesters torched vehicles and a bus, set homes ablaze, and clashed with police. Dozens were arrested.  Officials rushed to condemn “far-right thugs.” But what exactly provoked ordinary people to such fury on their own streets? Asylum policies have placed thousands of newcomers into communities without robust vetting or local consent. In this case it resulted in an attempt to kill an Irishman in his own neighborhood. Similar violence has triggered unrest in Dublin suburbs and elsewhere across Ireland. When these inevitable tragedies occur, why do authorities focus more on the resulting riots than on the policies that invited the chaos? Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom reacted to congressional funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and border operations by calling it arming “Trump’s private police” to “terrorize immigrants” based on “skin color and accent.” He labeled it “un-American.” Many individuals subject to immigration enforcement are foreigners who speak with accents—that is precisely the point. They are not random Americans being profiled by appearance; they are individuals who entered the country illegally, overstayed visas, or had asylum claims rejected.  Why does Newsom frame basic enforcement of existing law as racial or ethnic persecution rather than a necessary distinction based on legal status? As Ireland burns from migrant violence, why does Newsom double down on sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal enforcement?  California continues shielding thousands of criminal aliens with active ICE detainers, including those convicted of homicide, assault, and sexual offenses. Repeat offenders are released back into communities. High-profile killings follow. Yet the state’s resistance only hardens. Why this persistent choice?  In late May, Newsom signed Senate Bill 73 as an emergency measure. It restricts law enforcement access to ballots and polling sites without warrants and penalizes certain questioning of election processes.  California operates one of the most permissive voting systems in America. Universal mail-in ballots are sent automatically to all registered voters, ballots get accepted days after Election Day, and there’s no voter ID requirement for most voting.  Critics point to ballots mailed to outdated addresses, weak signature verification, and limited audits as creating obvious opportunities for fraud.  Why, then, does skepticism about elections trigger swift state power under SB 73, while concerns about released criminal aliens draw accusations of intolerance? Who exactly is being protected here?  Newsom’s California prioritizes shielding unlawfully present or failed-asylum individuals over the safety of citizens and legal residents.  Working-class neighborhoods absorb the costs. We get overwhelmed emergency rooms, strained schools, fentanyl deaths linked to open borders, and families shattered by preventable crimes—such as the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle in San Francisco, where the shooter, a repeat illegal immigrant deported five times, was released under sanctuary policies despite an ICE detainer. Legal immigrants who followed every rule watch the system they respected being undermined. Does this make sense? Enforcing immigration law is not cruelty. It is the basic requirement of any nation that wants to remain generous and orderly. Why pretend otherwise? America’s successful immigration history rested on controlled numbers, careful vetting, assimilation, and respect for the law.  Sanctuary non-cooperation and rhetorical attacks on enforcement erode those foundations. Rewarding evasion while eroding trust isn’t compassion. Ireland’s riots, sparked directly by the near-fatal stabbing of Ogilvie, expose the human price of expansive asylum policies without limits. Public patience eventually snaps when violence becomes routine and grievances are dismissed as bigotry.  California polls show similar majorities demanding secure borders and enforcement against criminal aliens. So why does state leadership continue choosing resistance over realism? Can leaders indefinitely side with lawlessness while brushing aside citizens’ concerns?  Newsom’s framing of ICE funding, combined with his sanctuary defense and election oversight, reveals a clear priority: protect certain violators and narratives, but police the skeptics. Is this sustainable?  Ordered, legal immigration has enriched societies that maintain sovereignty and the rule of law. Chaotic non-enforcement delivers precisely what Belfast is now experiencing: division, destruction, and distrust. As Ireland confronts the violent consequences of its policies, California’s embrace of sanctuary logic risks the same fractures here at home. Why do so many elites appear unable or unwilling to acknowledge the obvious?  Citizens in Ireland and America deserve governments that place their safety and the equal application of laws first—not ideology over lived reality.  How many more Belfasts will it take before these leaders are forced to confront the root cause—their radical open-border and sanctuary policies that harbor lawbreakers and import risks—rather than condemning the logical and predictable fury from citizens who are paying the price for those very policies? We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

A company owned by Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones is suing his rival in the Republican gubernatorial primary runoff election—but voters will render their own verdict this Tuesday. Last week, Jones Petroleum Co. sued healthcare CEO and gubernatorial candidate Rick Jackson for $100 million in damages, claiming one of his campaign ads hurt the company’s reputation by wrongly tying it to gambling, corruption, and bribery. In a complaint filed in Fulton County Superior Court, Jones’ company stated that it faces harm as long as the ad-related material remains accessible to the public. It further claims its franchise agreements are at risk if others think Jones Petroleum is engaged in illegal or unethical behavior. At issue is a pro-Jackson campaign ad from March 17 titled “BurtJonesforGA fixed the game, bet big on corruption, and hit the jackpot.” The ad and a related website, the lawsuit alleges, used the Jones Petroleum branding and tied it to “a criminal scheme involving gambling,” Atlanta’s 11 Alive reported. Jones’ company is the main shareholder of another company known as Convenience Stores Inc., which is permitted to run “coin-operated amusement machines” throughout the state, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. The lawsuit alleges that Jackson’s ad and corresponding website falsely depict the company as running an illegal casino. When asked for comment, Kayla Lott, a spokesperson for Jones, told the Daily Signal, “Is anyone surprised a guy that pretends to be endorsed by President Trump and Gov. Kemp would have a bad relationship with the truth?” President Donald Trump endorsed Jones for Georgia governor last August. However, both Republican candidates are fighting to win the MAGA base. The two men have a legal history. In early March, Jackson, a billionaire, sued Jones and his campaign for defamation. Jackson claimed the lieutenant governor wrongly smeared him by suggesting he became wealthy by aiding Planned Parenthood’s recruiting efforts and “helping doctors perform transgender surgeries on minors,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. Voters will decide which candidate they prefer on June 16, the date of the primary runoff. The winner will face-off against Keisha Lance Bottoms, the Democrat candidate, in the Nov. 3 general election. The Jackson campaign did not return the Daily Signal’s request for comment in time for publication.

As questions continue to swirl around Los Angeles’ mayoral election, newly surfaced videos show homeless individuals on Skid Row claiming they were paid cash to vote for Mayor Karen Bass. The allegations emerged just days after Republican Spencer Pratt lost a runoff spot as thousands of late-counted mail-in ballots shifted the race. In an interview on Skid Row posted to X on June 9, one homeless woman claimed she was paid $2 to vote for Bass. “They come out here all the time [to get votes],” she said. WOAH Homeless women living on Skid Row in Los Angeles says someone came and had her fill out a ballot for Karen BassThey told her who to vote for and then paid her $2 for the voteShe says “they come out here all the time” to get votes for Democrats“They told you to vote… pic.twitter.com/BEuPbM1RKg— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) June 9, 2026 In a separate interview posted this week, another woman on Skid Row claimed she was paid $5 and instructed to vote for Bass. Skid Row homeless claim they’ve been paid to vote for Karen Bass and Nithya Raman https://t.co/bElx1nmQM2 pic.twitter.com/cQ7dvgR59r— California Post (@californiapost) June 10, 2026 A third interview featured a man who claimed individuals regularly visit Skid Row to collect personal information from homeless residents in exchange for cash, then use that information to cast ballots. “They come down here to get your information, then they vote for you—some people will give you three bucks, some five,” said one man living on Skid Row.  Following the final vote count, LA City Councilwoman Nithya Raman finished ahead of Pratt by 29,368 votes, placing second, knocking him out of the race. Pratt has publicly questioned the results. In a post on X, he noted that Raman’s vote total increased by roughly 43,000 votes as mail-in ballots continued to be counted after election day, a figure he compared to widely cited estimates of Los Angeles’ homeless population. "A net swing of more than 43,000 votes since Tuesday.."43,000, huh? Where have I seen that number before…?Probably nothing. https://t.co/W2E3k6PHyR pic.twitter.com/ZfzHCy9enb— Spencer Pratt (@spencerpratt) June 8, 2026 This isn’t the first time allegations involving payments to homeless individuals for political activity have surfaced in Los Angeles. Earlier this month, 64-year-old Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong pleaded guilty in federal court to paying people on Skid Row to sign election-related petitions. According to O’Keefe Media Group, its undercover investigation helped expose Armstrong’s activities. The organization recorded Armstrong allegedly offering cash payments in exchange for petition signatures and later provided evidence to law enforcement authorities. Los Angeles Election Fraud Caught on Hidden CameraLA election petitioners were caught on tape giving homeless individuals other voters' information, instructing them to forge voter names and signatures, and offering cash and drugs as incentives to register to vote. https://t.co/lCmAAPktyR pic.twitter.com/mf4dsxv4Md— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) June 8, 2026 According to court records cited by The Epoch Times, Armstrong worked for years as a paid petition circulator, collecting signatures for ballot initiatives, referendums, and recall efforts. The publication reported that Armstrong specifically targeted Skid Row because of its “high concentration of people in a relatively small area who were willing to sign petitions in exchange for cash.” In a statement to the Daily Signal, O’Keefe Media Group said the latest allegations should be taken seriously. “Where there’s smoke there’s fire, and we found that fire with Brenda Lee Armstrong on Skid Row. She is not the only person doing these election crimes,” the group said. O’Keefe Media Group also encouraged concerned voters to visit Skid Row themselves. “Go to Fifth or Sixth Street—you’d be amazed what you can find on Skid Row in general. What we did was we went down to Skid Row and filmed Brenda and some of her masked colleagues trying to pay people to register to vote, sign petitions fraudulently, and using other real voters’ names.” Longtime pollster Stefani Buhajla told the Daily Signal that the allegations warrant further scrutiny. “The allegations against Karen Bass’ campaign are serious and should be investigated thoroughly,” she said. “One thing we do know is that homeless encampments are hotbeds for crime, gang activity, and corruption, and politicians exploiting the vulnerable populations … for gain, while repugnant, is not new. Elected leaders should be focused on compassionate solutions to this crisis, not taking advantage of it.” The allegations have added to ongoing debate surrounding the mayoral election, particularly among voters already skeptical of California’s lengthy ballot-counting process. One data analysis widely shared on social media, including by Elon Musk, questioned how Raman overtook Pratt after election day despite underperforming in certain precincts. The level of fraud here is mind-blowing https://t.co/FkgZp26a7w— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 8, 2026 Neither Bass nor Raman has publicly addressed the allegations made in the videos. Neither of the candidates’ campaigns returned the Daily Signal’s request for comment.