Supreme Court Allows New Hampshire to Restrict Student IDs for Voting Ahead of Midterms
The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed New Hampshire to enforce its restrictions on student identification cards for voting, intervening in a legal dispute less than two weeks before the November 2026 election.
In an order issued October 22, the Court paused two lower-court orders that had limited how state election officials could treat student IDs when verifying voters’ identities. The decision allows the state’s guidance to remain in effect while the legal challenge continues.
The case, Scanlan v. Coalition for Open Democracy, centers on a question with immediate implications for election administration: when a state changes its voter identification rules shortly before an election, how much authority should federal courts exercise to intervene?
The majority relied on a legal principle that generally cautions federal courts against changing election rules close to Election Day. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the lower court’s intervention did not warrant being blocked on that basis.
What the Supreme Court Decided
The Supreme Court granted New Hampshire officials’ request to pause the district court’s October 2 and October 5 preliminary injunction orders.
Those lower-court orders had addressed state guidance that went beyond removing student IDs from the list of identification documents expressly accepted under state law. The guidance also restricted election officials from considering student IDs as evidence of identity through alternative verification procedures.
By granting the stay, the Supreme Court restored the state’s ability to enforce that guidance while the case proceeds through the appeals process.
The order does not resolve every legal question in the dispute. Instead, it determines which rules and court orders apply during the ongoing litigation.
The distinction matters because an emergency stay is different from a final ruling on the merits. The Supreme Court has not issued a comprehensive decision establishing whether the challenged state policy is constitutional.
How New Hampshire Changed Its Voter ID Rules
The dispute began after New Hampshire lawmakers passed House Bill 323 in April 2026.
The legislation removed student identification cards from the list of documents expressly accepted as voter identification for obtaining a ballot. The law took effect in June.
Following the legislation, Secretary of State David Scanlan’s office issued guidance indicating that student IDs could not be used as proof of identity for voting-related purposes.
The Coalition for Open Democracy challenged the law and the state’s guidance in federal court. The organization argued that the restrictions placed an unconstitutional burden on young voters and improperly limited the ways election officials could verify identity.
The legal challenge involved two related but distinct questions.
First, could New Hampshire remove student IDs from the list of identification documents that election officials must accept?
Second, could the state also prevent officials from considering those cards as supporting evidence when a voter lacked another accepted form of identification?
That distinction became central to the district court proceedings.
Why the Lower Court Intervened
In its October 2 decision, the federal district court declined to block the new statutory restriction itself. However, it found that the challengers were likely to succeed, at the preliminary stage, in challenging the secretary of state’s broader guidance.
The court examined provisions of New Hampshire law that allow officials to consider other evidence when determining whether a person’s identity can be established.
Under that process, a student ID would not automatically qualify as an expressly accepted form of identification. However, the district court concluded that the card could still be considered alongside other available evidence under the alternative verification provisions.
The judge therefore ordered the state to revise its guidance for the November election.
The state challenged that intervention, arguing that the lower court’s orders should not take effect while the appeal proceeded. The dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court on an emergency application.
The Legal Principle Behind the Supreme Court’s Order
The majority relied on the principle associated with Purcell v. Gonzalez, a Supreme Court case addressing judicial intervention in election procedures close to an election.
Often referred to as the Purcell principle, it cautions federal courts against making last-minute changes to election rules because sudden changes can create confusion for voters and election administrators.
In its October 22 order, the Supreme Court stated that the district court had not identified a sufficient reason to depart from that principle in this case.
The majority’s order was brief. It did not provide a comprehensive analysis of every constitutional argument raised in the underlying lawsuit.
Instead, the justices stayed the lower court’s preliminary injunctions pending the First Circuit appeal and the disposition of any timely petition seeking further Supreme Court review.
The decision reflects the importance the Court placed on the timing of the lower court’s intervention. It does not mean that every election-related dispute must be decided in the state’s favor whenever voting is approaching.
Why Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Dissented
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the majority’s decision to grant the stay.
Her dissent focused on the nature of the district court’s intervention and whether it should be treated as the kind of last-minute change that the Purcell principle is intended to address.
The lower court had left the statutory restriction on expressly accepted student IDs in place. Its injunction instead addressed the state’s additional guidance preventing officials from considering student IDs under alternative identity-verification procedures.
Jackson’s reasoning emphasized that distinction. In her view, the lower court was requiring the state to provide accurate guidance about the existing legal framework rather than simply replacing a state election rule shortly before voting.
The disagreement illustrates a broader legal question: how should courts apply restrictions on late election-related interventions when a lower-court order concerns the interpretation or administration of an existing law?
The majority and the dissent approached that question differently. The Supreme Court’s stay means the lower-court orders will not control while the specified proceedings continue.
What the Ruling Means for Student Voters
For New Hampshire voters, the immediate consequence is that student IDs are subject to the state’s restrictive guidance while the stay remains in effect.
The ruling does not mean that college students are categorically barred from voting. Student status itself is not the issue before the Court. The dispute concerns the forms of identification and supporting evidence election officials may consider when verifying a voter’s identity.
Voters should not assume that a student ID alone will satisfy New Hampshire’s current identification requirements. Anyone planning to vote should consult the latest official guidance from the New Hampshire Secretary of State and confirm which documents are accepted.
This is especially important because election requirements can differ between states. A document accepted in one state may not satisfy the requirements in another.
The case also highlights the practical importance of understanding the difference between a document that officials must accept and evidence they may consider as part of an alternative verification process.
Those are separate legal questions, and the litigation arose in part because the state’s guidance treated them as the same.
What Happens Next in the Case?
The Supreme Court’s order keeps the legal dispute open.
The stay remains in place while the appeal proceeds in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and while the Court addresses any timely petition for a writ of certiorari.
If the Supreme Court denies a later petition for review, the stay will terminate automatically under the order. If the Court grants review, the stay will continue until the Court sends down its judgment.
These conditions distinguish the immediate effect of the emergency ruling from the eventual resolution of the broader legal challenge.
The lower court’s earlier decision addressed the likelihood of success at a preliminary stage, rather than delivering a final judgment on the constitutionality of every aspect of New Hampshire’s voter identification policy.
The appeals process will determine what happens next in the case, subject to any further action by the Supreme Court.
A Dispute With Implications Beyond One State
The New Hampshire case illustrates the legal and administrative questions that can arise when election rules change shortly before voting.
State officials have responsibilities for implementing identification requirements and administering elections. Federal courts, meanwhile, may be asked to determine whether particular rules or administrative instructions comply with federal law and constitutional protections.
When those questions reach the courts close to an election, judges must consider both the legal claims and the potential consequences of changing election procedures at short notice.
In this case, the Supreme Court’s immediate decision rests on the timing of the lower court’s intervention and the principle against last-minute judicial changes to election rules.
The broader dispute over New Hampshire’s student identification policy remains distinct from that emergency decision.
For now, state officials can enforce the challenged guidance while the litigation continues. The case’s eventual outcome will depend on further proceedings, not solely on the Court’s decision to grant a stay.
EXPLORE MORE:
MIDTERM UPDATES :
Georgia Sets First-Day Early Voting Record as Closely Watched Midterm Races Approach
Georgia voters cast a record number of in-person ballots on the first day of early voting for the 2026 midterm elections, signaling a strong start to the state’s three-week voting period as competitive races for the U.S. Senate and governor draw national attention.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger reported that 188,667 voters cast in-person ballots on Tuesday, October 13. That was 53,705 more than the 134,962 in-person votes recorded on the first day of early voting in 2022, an increase of approximately 40%. In 2018, the comparable first-day total was 70,849.
The figures establish a new first-day early-voting record for a Georgia midterm election, according to the Secretary of State’s Office.
Raffensperger Highlights Election Administration
Raffensperger, a Republican, attributed the record turnout to voters’ confidence in the state’s election system and the work of local election officials.
“This record-breaking turnout proves that voters have confidence in the integrity of our elections,” Raffensperger said in a statement. He also praised the 159 county election officials responsible for administering elections across Georgia.
The state reported an additional 10,267 accepted absentee ballots, showing that voting activity extended beyond in-person polling locations.
The early figures measure ballots cast, however, and do not establish which candidates or political parties will benefit from the increased participation. The political preferences of voters are not determined by turnout totals alone.
Senate Race Puts Georgia in the National Spotlight
Georgia’s U.S. Senate contest is among the closely watched races that could help determine control of the chamber.
Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff is seeking another term and faces Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Collins. Republicans are seeking to expand their Senate position, while Democrats are working to retain seats and compete for control of the chamber.
Recent polling has shown Ossoff ahead in some surveys, although polling is a snapshot of voter preferences at a particular time and does not determine the final result. The November 3 election will decide the contest.
Georgia’s political importance was also underscored by the 2024 presidential election, when Donald Trump carried the state by roughly two percentage points. That result illustrates how closely contested statewide elections in Georgia can be, but presidential results do not necessarily predict the outcome of a midterm race.
Governor’s Contest Adds to the Stakes
The governor’s race is another major contest on Georgia’s November ballot.
Republican businessman Rick Jackson is facing Democratic former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms in the race to succeed Gov. Brian Kemp, who is not seeking another term.
The candidates are competing for a statewide electorate that will also choose other state officials and decide proposed constitutional amendments. The campaign has drawn national attention as both parties seek to make their case to Georgia voters.
Early Voting Continues Through October 30
Georgia’s early-voting period runs from October 13 through October 30, ahead of Election Day on Tuesday, November 3. Voters can use an early-voting location within their county, with specific locations and hours varying by jurisdiction.
The record opening day marks a notable start to the voting period, but turnout totals will continue to change as more ballots are cast. The eventual political impact will depend on the choices voters make and the final results across the state’s races.
For now, the clearest conclusion from the first-day figures is that Georgia’s 2026 midterm election has begun with substantially more in-person early voting than at the start of either of the previous two midterm cycles.
MIDTERM UPDATES:
Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20) has formally resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives, with her resignation taking effect Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. EDT. Her departure comes amid an ongoing federal case and a congressional ethics review that has placed renewed attention on campaign finance rules, the use of federal relief funds, and accountability among elected officials. The resignation also adds to a series of recent departures from Congress involving lawmakers facing legal proceedings or ethics-related scrutiny.
As my colleague Frank Bruno reported late last month, an eight-member bipartisan subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee worked late into the night reviewing Cherfilus-McCormick’s conduct. The congresswoman faced allegations involving more than $5 million in federal disaster relief funds connected to a family business, with prosecutors alleging that a significant portion of the money was directed toward her 2022 congressional campaign. The case has drawn attention to the legal requirements governing federal assistance programs, campaign contributions, and financial disclosures by candidates seeking public office.
On Friday, the House Ethics Committee announced that, following approximately seven hours of deliberations, the subcommittee found “clear and convincing” evidence supporting 25 of the 27 allegations under review. Those findings could have moved the matter closer to a potential expulsion vote in the House of Representatives. Although the ethics proceedings represent a significant development, the committee’s conclusions should be distinguished from the separate federal criminal case, and allegations must be described in accordance with the relevant legal proceedings.
Throughout the controversy, Cherfilus-McCormick challenged the allegations and raised concerns about the treatment of her case, including claims of racial and gender bias. The dispute has highlighted broader questions about how congressional ethics investigations are conducted, how lawmakers respond to allegations of misconduct, and what standards should apply when elected officials face serious legal challenges. Her resignation now shifts attention toward the next steps in the federal case and the possible consequences for her political future.
Following the ethics subcommittee’s findings, Cherfilus-McCormick may also have faced the prospect of a difficult vote among House members if proceedings toward expulsion continued. Under House rules, expelling a member requires a two-thirds vote, making bipartisan support essential to such a decision. Rather than wait for the process to advance further, she submitted her formal resignation letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) ahead of a possible expulsion vote. Her departure leaves questions about the broader political implications of the case and how Congress will address other pending ethics matters.
Her resignation comes amid a series of departures involving three lawmakers: Cherfilus-McCormick, former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, and Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas. Their exits have intensified discussion about congressional oversight, political accountability, and the standards expected of elected representatives. Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Corey Mills of Florida is also facing calls for disciplinary action, potentially extending the recent period of uncertainty surrounding the House’s membership and internal proceedings.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) introduced a resolution seeking Mills’ expulsion following allegations involving domestic violence, sexual misconduct, claims concerning his military service, and the handling of federal contracts. Mills’ situation remains a separate matter, and the allegations should not be treated as established facts without appropriate findings or legal determinations. Whether the resolution receives sufficient Republican support remains uncertain. The developments nevertheless underscore the importance of transparent investigations, due process, and consistent ethical standards for public officials, regardless of party affiliation.
READ ALSO : Michigan Senate Race Tightens: New Poll Reveals Neck-and-Neck Contest
Ilhan Omar Accuses Trump Administration of Political Intimidation After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Rep. Ilhan Omar condemned President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home as part of an ongoing criminal investigation, accusing the government of weaponizing law enforcement against political opponents.
The Minnesota Democrat responded on X after agents from Homeland Security Investigations arrived at her residence early Monday morning. The Justice Department confirmed that investigators had executed a court-authorized search warrant but did not disclose details about the investigation.
“I’m ok. Make no mistake: this is an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement,” Omar wrote. She also accused Trump of directing years of attacks against her and declared, “I will not be silenced.”
The search, conducted weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, has intensified political tensions in Washington as Omar seeks reelection to the House. Federal authorities have not publicly outlined the specific allegations under investigation. (Associated Press; CBS News)
Justice Department Confirms Court-Authorized Search
Homeland Security Investigations agents arrived at Omar’s Washington-area residence at approximately 6 a.m., according to reports from Fox News and other outlets.
A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed that investigators carried out a search warrant obtained through the department, describing the operation as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.
Authorities have not publicly specified what evidence they sought, what materials were seized or whether any charges are being considered. The execution of a search warrant does not, by itself, establish that a crime occurred.
Reports Link Investigation to Immigration Paperwork
Fox News Digital reported that the investigation concerns alleged fraud involving immigration paperwork completed by Omar’s late father when she was a child. The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed those details or provided a full account of the allegations.
The search follows public comments by administration officials about an investigation involving Omar. In September, border czar Tom Homan acknowledged that a criminal investigation was underway.
Omar has denied wrongdoing and previously said she had not been contacted by federal authorities about an investigation. The precise scope of the inquiry remains unclear based on the information publicly released by the Justice Department. (CBS News; The Washington Post)
Omar Says Search Is Part of a Political Campaign Against Her
In her social media statement, Omar framed the search as the latest escalation in what she described as a prolonged effort by Trump to intimidate her.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” she wrote, adding that she would continue speaking out despite the search.
Omar, a prominent progressive Democrat who represents Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, has frequently clashed with Trump and other Republican leaders. Her immigration background and political positions have repeatedly made her a target of criticism from the president and his allies.
Her allegation that the search was politically motivated has not been established as fact. Federal officials have described the operation as part of an ongoing criminal investigation but have not publicly explained its timing or provided detailed evidence supporting the reported focus of the probe.
Search Draws Scrutiny Ahead of Midterm Elections
The timing of the search has raised questions among Democrats because it occurred shortly before the midterm elections, when Omar is campaigning for another term in Congress.
Senior Democrats criticized the action and questioned whether the timing was consistent with longstanding Justice Department practices intended to avoid investigative steps that could improperly influence elections. Such concerns do not, on their own, establish that the search was politically directed.
Republicans and administration officials have previously called for scrutiny of Omar’s background, while Omar has consistently rejected allegations of immigration fraud.
The investigation’s next steps remain uncertain. The Justice Department has not publicly released further details about the evidence sought during Monday’s search or announced criminal charges in connection with the reported allegations.
For now, the search has placed Omar at the center of a new political and legal dispute just weeks before voters head to the polls, with key questions about the investigation still unanswered.
READ MORE:New Poll Shows Close Race in Florida Senate Contest
Ashley Moody and Angie Nixon Deadlocked at 45% in New Florida Senate Poll
Republican Sen. Ashley Moody and Democratic challenger Angie Nixon are virtually tied in a new Florida Senate poll, with each receiving 45% support among likely voters.
The St. Pete Polls survey, conducted September 15-17 for Florida Politics, found Moody at 45.2% and Nixon at 44.8% before rounding. Another 3% selected someone else, while 7% remained undecided.
The survey included 913 likely voters and has a margin of error of ±3.2 percentage points. The four-tenths-of-a-point difference between the candidates is therefore well within the poll’s margin of error.
A Dramatic Difference From the Previous Poll
The St. Pete Polls numbers differ significantly from another survey conducted only days earlier.
A Quantus Insights poll conducted September 8-10 found Moody at 50.1% and Nixon at 42.7% among 733 likely voters.
A Change Research survey conducted September 7-9, meanwhile, put the candidates at 47% each. Earlier University of North Florida and Emerson College surveys had also shown Moody ahead.
Those differences demonstrate why individual polls should be interpreted cautiously. Pollsters use different sampling, weighting and likely-voter methodologies, and a single survey does not establish a trend or determine the eventual result.
Nixon’s Support Among Independent Voters
One of the most striking findings in the new St. Pete Polls survey is Nixon’s advantage among voters who are not affiliated with either major party.
Nixon leads Moody 50% to 37% among independent and minor-party voters, according to the survey.
Nixon also receives 12% support from Republican voters, while Moody receives 8% among Democrats. The poll found Nixon retaining 85% of Democratic voters, compared with Moody retaining 77% of Republicans.
The survey was weighted to reflect Florida’s active voter population, with the final sample consisting of approximately 42% Republicans, 31% Democrats and 27% voters without a major-party affiliation or registered with minor parties. Republicans have a substantial voter-registration advantage statewide.
Age Differences Stand Out
The candidates’ support also varies sharply by age.
Nixon leads among voters younger than 30 by 64% to 25%, according to the poll.
Among voters ages 30 to 49, Nixon leads 54% to 35%.
Moody leads among voters ages 50 to 69, 47% to 42%, and has a larger advantage among voters 70 and older, 61% to 32%.
Subgroup findings generally have greater uncertainty than the overall result because they are based on smaller numbers of respondents.
Race and Ethnicity Show Different Patterns
The survey also found substantial differences by race and ethnicity.
Nixon leads among Black voters 74% to 14%, while Moody leads among White voters 53% to 37%.
Nixon also leads among Hispanic voters, 51% to 39%, according to the survey.
The Hispanic result is particularly notable because Hispanic voters have been an important part of Florida’s changing electoral coalition in recent presidential elections. But the Senate poll is a statewide survey of likely voters and should not be treated as evidence that any particular demographic group will vote a certain way in November.
Both Candidates Have Different Political Backgrounds
Moody currently holds Florida’s Senate seat after Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed her to replace Marco Rubio, who left the Senate after being selected to serve as secretary of state.
Before joining the Senate, Moody served as Florida attorney general and won statewide elections in 2018 and 2022.
Nixon is a Democratic member of the Florida House representing Jacksonville. She won the Democratic Senate nomination over Alex Vindman, receiving 56% of the vote.
The Democratic primary was closely watched because Vindman had substantially greater campaign spending, according to reporting on the contest.
Fundraising Remains a Major Difference
The two campaigns also entered the general election with substantially different financial resources.
Moody reported raising approximately $11.3 million through the end of July and having about $8.4 million cash on hand after the primary.
Nixon had raised less than $1 million by that point, although her campaign reported a subsequent increase in fundraising following her primary victory.
Nixon has also criticized Moody over her handling of campaign debates. Moody declined the first of three debate invitations issued earlier this month, according to Florida Politics.
Florida’s Governor’s Race Is Also Close
The same St. Pete Polls survey found a similarly narrow contest in the Florida governor’s race.
Republican Rep. Byron Donalds received 44%, compared with 43% for Democrat David Jolly.
The one-point difference also falls well inside the poll’s margin of error.
The simultaneous closeness of the two statewide contests provides a snapshot of the political environment in Florida, but the Senate and governor’s races involve different candidates, campaigns and issues.
The Survey Comes After Conflicting Polling
The latest survey stands out partly because of how sharply it differs from several previous polls.
Quantus Insights’ September 8-10 survey gave Moody a roughly seven-point advantage after rounding. The University of North Florida’s July poll showed Moody ahead by eight points, while an Emerson College survey conducted in March showed a larger Moody advantage. A Change Research survey conducted earlier this month had the Senate race tied at 47% each.
Consequently, the 45%-45% result should not be interpreted in isolation.
It is one new measurement taken during a campaign in which the candidates’ support has varied considerably across surveys.
What the Poll Actually Shows
The clearest finding from the St. Pete Polls survey is that the two candidates are currently separated by less than one percentage point among the voters surveyed.
It does not establish that either candidate has a statistically significant statewide advantage. The 3.2-point margin of error is substantially larger than the four-tenths-of-a-point difference between Moody and Nixon.
The survey also leaves 7% undecided, while another 3% selected a candidate other than Moody or Nixon.
Those voters represent an important portion of the electorate that was not committed to either major-party candidate when the survey was conducted.
Election Day Is Still Ahead
The 2026 general election is scheduled for November 3. Polling conducted in September provides information about voter preferences at that particular point in the campaign, but it does not determine the eventual result.
For now, the Florida Senate race presents a sharp contrast between recent surveys: one showed Moody with a sizable numerical advantage, another showed the candidates tied, and the newest St. Pete Polls survey again places them essentially level.
The coming weeks of campaigning, additional polling, debates and voter decision-making will provide further information about how the race develops.
READ MORE:
Tom Cotton Leads Hallie Shoffner by 11 Points in New Arkansas Senate Poll
Republican Sen. Tom Cotton leads Democratic challenger Hallie Shoffner by 11 percentage points in a new poll of likely voters in Arkansas, according to survey results released ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections.
The GrayHouse survey, conducted from September 30 through October 4 among 550 likely voters, found Cotton with 50% support and Shoffner with 39%. The remaining respondents were undecided or supported other candidates, according to the reported results.
The findings offer a snapshot of the Arkansas Senate contest as Republicans and Democrats compete for control of the chamber. However, a single poll measures voter preferences during a specific period and does not determine the election outcome.
What the Arkansas Senate Poll Found
The survey reported the following levels of support:
Tom Cotton, Republican: 50%
Hallie Shoffner, Democrat: 39%
Reported margin: 11 percentage points
Some polling databases list both candidates one percentage point higher, at 51% for Cotton and 40% for Shoffner, while showing the same 11-point gap. Readers should consult the original survey release for the precise figures and full methodology.
The available polling records do not consistently provide a margin of error or detailed information about how respondents were contacted. As a result, the results should be interpreted with those limitations in mind.
Cotton Seeks a Third Senate Term
Cotton, a Republican and former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, is seeking a third six-year term in the Senate. He won his first Senate election in 2014 and secured reelection in 2020.
His political career has included a focus on national security, military policy and a tougher approach toward countries viewed by Washington as adversaries.
Arkansas has generally favored Republican candidates in recent federal elections, providing important context for the contest. Still, statewide political trends alone cannot establish how individual voters will decide the Senate race in November.
Shoffner Challenges the Incumbent
Shoffner, a farmer and the Democratic nominee, is seeking to unseat Cotton and offer voters an alternative to the state’s established Republican leadership.
The poll’s reported 39% support for Shoffner indicates a substantial share of surveyed likely voters backed the Democratic challenger during the fieldwork period. The survey alone does not explain why respondents preferred either candidate or how their views might change before Election Day.
The candidates’ campaign messages, policy positions, public appearances and outreach to voters will continue to shape the contest as the election approaches.
Why the Race Matters Nationally
The Arkansas contest is part of the wider 2026 Senate elections, in which both parties are seeking to gain or retain seats that will influence the chamber’s balance of power.
Republicans are defending seats in states across the country, while Democrats are pursuing opportunities to gain ground. The result in Arkansas will be one part of the broader national picture, alongside contests in more competitive states.
Because Cotton is the incumbent in a state that has leaned Republican in recent federal elections, the Arkansas race has a different political context from contests in closely divided states. Nevertheless, the outcome will be determined by votes cast in November, not by polling figures released beforehand.
What the Poll Can—and Cannot—Tell Voters
The GrayHouse survey provides a measure of support among 550 likely Arkansas voters interviewed between September 30 and October 4. It is not an official election result, and the reported margin should not be treated as a prediction.
The survey’s sponsorship and methodology are also relevant when evaluating its findings. A polling archive identifies America One Policies as the sponsor of a separate earlier GrayHouse survey in the Arkansas race, but the sponsorship of the September–October poll should be confirmed from its original release before being stated definitively.
With Election Day approaching, additional surveys, their methodologies and the broader campaign context will help provide a fuller picture of the contest. For now, the latest reported figures show Cotton at 50% and Shoffner at 39% among the likely voters surveyed.
READ MORE: Democratic Lawmaker Resigns Amid Ongoing Federal Legal Proceedings
Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (FL-20) has formally resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives, with her resignation taking effect Tuesday at 1:30 p.m. EDT. Her departure comes amid an ongoing federal case and a congressional ethics review that has placed renewed attention on campaign finance rules, the use of federal relief funds, and accountability among elected officials. The resignation also adds to a series of recent departures from Congress involving lawmakers facing legal proceedings or ethics-related scrutiny.
As my colleague Frank Bruno reported late last month, an eight-member bipartisan subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee worked late into the night reviewing Cherfilus-McCormick’s conduct. The congresswoman faced allegations involving more than $5 million in federal disaster relief funds connected to a family business, with prosecutors alleging that a significant portion of the money was directed toward her 2022 congressional campaign. The case has drawn attention to the legal requirements governing federal assistance programs, campaign contributions, and financial disclosures by candidates seeking public office.
On Friday, the House Ethics Committee announced that, following approximately seven hours of deliberations, the subcommittee found “clear and convincing” evidence supporting 25 of the 27 allegations under review. Those findings could have moved the matter closer to a potential expulsion vote in the House of Representatives. Although the ethics proceedings represent a significant development, the committee’s conclusions should be distinguished from the separate federal criminal case, and allegations must be described in accordance with the relevant legal proceedings.
Throughout the controversy, Cherfilus-McCormick challenged the allegations and raised concerns about the treatment of her case, including claims of racial and gender bias. The dispute has highlighted broader questions about how congressional ethics investigations are conducted, how lawmakers respond to allegations of misconduct, and what standards should apply when elected officials face serious legal challenges. Her resignation now shifts attention toward the next steps in the federal case and the possible consequences for her political future.
Following the ethics subcommittee’s findings, Cherfilus-McCormick may also have faced the prospect of a difficult vote among House members if proceedings toward expulsion continued. Under House rules, expelling a member requires a two-thirds vote, making bipartisan support essential to such a decision. Rather than wait for the process to advance further, she submitted her formal resignation letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) ahead of a possible expulsion vote. Her departure leaves questions about the broader political implications of the case and how Congress will address other pending ethics matters.
Her resignation comes amid a series of departures involving three lawmakers: Cherfilus-McCormick, former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, and Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas. Their exits have intensified discussion about congressional oversight, political accountability, and the standards expected of elected representatives. Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Corey Mills of Florida is also facing calls for disciplinary action, potentially extending the recent period of uncertainty surrounding the House’s membership and internal proceedings.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) introduced a resolution seeking Mills’ expulsion following allegations involving domestic violence, sexual misconduct, claims concerning his military service, and the handling of federal contracts. Mills’ situation remains a separate matter, and the allegations should not be treated as established facts without appropriate findings or legal determinations. Whether the resolution receives sufficient Republican support remains uncertain. The developments nevertheless underscore the importance of transparent investigations, due process, and consistent ethical standards for public officials, regardless of party affiliation.
READ ALSO : Michigan Senate Race Tightens: New Poll Reveals Neck-and-Neck Contest
Ilhan Omar Accuses Trump Administration of Political Intimidation After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Rep. Ilhan Omar condemned President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home as part of an ongoing criminal investigation, accusing the government of weaponizing law enforcement against political opponents.
The Minnesota Democrat responded on X after agents from Homeland Security Investigations arrived at her residence early Monday morning. The Justice Department confirmed that investigators had executed a court-authorized search warrant but did not disclose details about the investigation.
“I’m ok. Make no mistake: this is an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement,” Omar wrote. She also accused Trump of directing years of attacks against her and declared, “I will not be silenced.”
The search, conducted weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, has intensified political tensions in Washington as Omar seeks reelection to the House. Federal authorities have not publicly outlined the specific allegations under investigation. (Associated Press; CBS News)
Justice Department Confirms Court-Authorized Search
Homeland Security Investigations agents arrived at Omar’s Washington-area residence at approximately 6 a.m., according to reports from Fox News and other outlets.
A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed that investigators carried out a search warrant obtained through the department, describing the operation as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.
Authorities have not publicly specified what evidence they sought, what materials were seized or whether any charges are being considered. The execution of a search warrant does not, by itself, establish that a crime occurred.
Reports Link Investigation to Immigration Paperwork
Fox News Digital reported that the investigation concerns alleged fraud involving immigration paperwork completed by Omar’s late father when she was a child. The Justice Department has not publicly confirmed those details or provided a full account of the allegations.
The search follows public comments by administration officials about an investigation involving Omar. In September, border czar Tom Homan acknowledged that a criminal investigation was underway.
Omar has denied wrongdoing and previously said she had not been contacted by federal authorities about an investigation. The precise scope of the inquiry remains unclear based on the information publicly released by the Justice Department. (CBS News; The Washington Post)
Omar Says Search Is Part of a Political Campaign Against Her
In her social media statement, Omar framed the search as the latest escalation in what she described as a prolonged effort by Trump to intimidate her.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” she wrote, adding that she would continue speaking out despite the search.
Omar, a prominent progressive Democrat who represents Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, has frequently clashed with Trump and other Republican leaders. Her immigration background and political positions have repeatedly made her a target of criticism from the president and his allies.
Her allegation that the search was politically motivated has not been established as fact. Federal officials have described the operation as part of an ongoing criminal investigation but have not publicly explained its timing or provided detailed evidence supporting the reported focus of the probe.
Search Draws Scrutiny Ahead of Midterm Elections
The timing of the search has raised questions among Democrats because it occurred shortly before the midterm elections, when Omar is campaigning for another term in Congress.
Senior Democrats criticized the action and questioned whether the timing was consistent with longstanding Justice Department practices intended to avoid investigative steps that could improperly influence elections. Such concerns do not, on their own, establish that the search was politically directed.
Republicans and administration officials have previously called for scrutiny of Omar’s background, while Omar has consistently rejected allegations of immigration fraud.
The investigation’s next steps remain uncertain. The Justice Department has not publicly released further details about the evidence sought during Monday’s search or announced criminal charges in connection with the reported allegations.
For now, the search has placed Omar at the center of a new political and legal dispute just weeks before voters head to the polls, with key questions about the investigation still unanswered.
READ MORE:New Poll Shows Close Race in Florida Senate Contest
Ashley Moody and Angie Nixon Deadlocked at 45% in New Florida Senate Poll
Republican Sen. Ashley Moody and Democratic challenger Angie Nixon are virtually tied in a new Florida Senate poll, with each receiving 45% support among likely voters.
The St. Pete Polls survey, conducted September 15-17 for Florida Politics, found Moody at 45.2% and Nixon at 44.8% before rounding. Another 3% selected someone else, while 7% remained undecided.
The survey included 913 likely voters and has a margin of error of ±3.2 percentage points. The four-tenths-of-a-point difference between the candidates is therefore well within the poll’s margin of error.
A Dramatic Difference From the Previous Poll
The St. Pete Polls numbers differ significantly from another survey conducted only days earlier.
A Quantus Insights poll conducted September 8-10 found Moody at 50.1% and Nixon at 42.7% among 733 likely voters.
A Change Research survey conducted September 7-9, meanwhile, put the candidates at 47% each. Earlier University of North Florida and Emerson College surveys had also shown Moody ahead.
Those differences demonstrate why individual polls should be interpreted cautiously. Pollsters use different sampling, weighting and likely-voter methodologies, and a single survey does not establish a trend or determine the eventual result.
Nixon’s Support Among Independent Voters
One of the most striking findings in the new St. Pete Polls survey is Nixon’s advantage among voters who are not affiliated with either major party.
Nixon leads Moody 50% to 37% among independent and minor-party voters, according to the survey.
Nixon also receives 12% support from Republican voters, while Moody receives 8% among Democrats. The poll found Nixon retaining 85% of Democratic voters, compared with Moody retaining 77% of Republicans.
The survey was weighted to reflect Florida’s active voter population, with the final sample consisting of approximately 42% Republicans, 31% Democrats and 27% voters without a major-party affiliation or registered with minor parties. Republicans have a substantial voter-registration advantage statewide.
Age Differences Stand Out
The candidates’ support also varies sharply by age.
Nixon leads among voters younger than 30 by 64% to 25%, according to the poll.
Among voters ages 30 to 49, Nixon leads 54% to 35%.
Moody leads among voters ages 50 to 69, 47% to 42%, and has a larger advantage among voters 70 and older, 61% to 32%.
Subgroup findings generally have greater uncertainty than the overall result because they are based on smaller numbers of respondents.
Race and Ethnicity Show Different Patterns
The survey also found substantial differences by race and ethnicity.
Nixon leads among Black voters 74% to 14%, while Moody leads among White voters 53% to 37%.
Nixon also leads among Hispanic voters, 51% to 39%, according to the survey.
The Hispanic result is particularly notable because Hispanic voters have been an important part of Florida’s changing electoral coalition in recent presidential elections. But the Senate poll is a statewide survey of likely voters and should not be treated as evidence that any particular demographic group will vote a certain way in November.
Both Candidates Have Different Political Backgrounds
Moody currently holds Florida’s Senate seat after Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed her to replace Marco Rubio, who left the Senate after being selected to serve as secretary of state.
Before joining the Senate, Moody served as Florida attorney general and won statewide elections in 2018 and 2022.
Nixon is a Democratic member of the Florida House representing Jacksonville. She won the Democratic Senate nomination over Alex Vindman, receiving 56% of the vote.
The Democratic primary was closely watched because Vindman had substantially greater campaign spending, according to reporting on the contest.
Fundraising Remains a Major Difference
The two campaigns also entered the general election with substantially different financial resources.
Moody reported raising approximately $11.3 million through the end of July and having about $8.4 million cash on hand after the primary.
Nixon had raised less than $1 million by that point, although her campaign reported a subsequent increase in fundraising following her primary victory.
Nixon has also criticized Moody over her handling of campaign debates. Moody declined the first of three debate invitations issued earlier this month, according to Florida Politics.
Florida’s Governor’s Race Is Also Close
The same St. Pete Polls survey found a similarly narrow contest in the Florida governor’s race.
Republican Rep. Byron Donalds received 44%, compared with 43% for Democrat David Jolly.
The one-point difference also falls well inside the poll’s margin of error.
The simultaneous closeness of the two statewide contests provides a snapshot of the political environment in Florida, but the Senate and governor’s races involve different candidates, campaigns and issues.
The Survey Comes After Conflicting Polling
The latest survey stands out partly because of how sharply it differs from several previous polls.
Quantus Insights’ September 8-10 survey gave Moody a roughly seven-point advantage after rounding. The University of North Florida’s July poll showed Moody ahead by eight points, while an Emerson College survey conducted in March showed a larger Moody advantage. A Change Research survey conducted earlier this month had the Senate race tied at 47% each.
Consequently, the 45%-45% result should not be interpreted in isolation.
It is one new measurement taken during a campaign in which the candidates’ support has varied considerably across surveys.
What the Poll Actually Shows
The clearest finding from the St. Pete Polls survey is that the two candidates are currently separated by less than one percentage point among the voters surveyed.
It does not establish that either candidate has a statistically significant statewide advantage. The 3.2-point margin of error is substantially larger than the four-tenths-of-a-point difference between Moody and Nixon.
The survey also leaves 7% undecided, while another 3% selected a candidate other than Moody or Nixon.
Those voters represent an important portion of the electorate that was not committed to either major-party candidate when the survey was conducted.
Election Day Is Still Ahead
The 2026 general election is scheduled for November 3. Polling conducted in September provides information about voter preferences at that particular point in the campaign, but it does not determine the eventual result.
For now, the Florida Senate race presents a sharp contrast between recent surveys: one showed Moody with a sizable numerical advantage, another showed the candidates tied, and the newest St. Pete Polls survey again places them essentially level.
The coming weeks of campaigning, additional polling, debates and voter decision-making will provide further information about how the race develops.
