Tiny Reporter

Yesterday’s opinion in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties firmly validated the authority of federal courts to enforce arbitration awards made in cases already pending in federal court. The case is important for the practice of arbitration because it follows directly from a 2022 decision called Badgerow v Walters, in which the court held that federal courts won’t entertain a freestanding suit under the Federal Arbitration Act to confirm (or vacate) an arbitration award. As the court has now made clear, federal courts have the ability to confirm and enforce arbitration relief in cases for which federal jurisdiction was available for the original dispute.Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s opinion for a unanimous court is strongly written and unqualified in her conclusion. She starts by situating this particular dispute in the overall setting of FAA litigation. As she says, a motion under the FAA “can arrive in federal court in one of two ways. Sometimes (like in this case), an FAA motion arises in a pre-existing lawsuit.” Here, for example, Jules sued his former employer raising a variety of employment discrimination claims; some of those claims rested on federal law and so permitted him to bring that suit in federal court. The FAA came into it when the employer (Balazs) filed a motion under the FAA to compel Jules to resolve the dispute in arbitration.Sotomayor goes on to explain that “[i]n other cases, a ‘freestanding’ FAA motion can arrive in federal court outside of any pre-existing federal case.” Those cases, she notes, present a problem because the FAA is “something of an anomaly” in that it “is a federal statute that provides federal standards [but] ‘does not itself create federal jurisdiction.’” She then summarized the “two prior cases [in which the] Court has addressed how to assess jurisdiction over FAA motions filed as ‘freestanding’ actions in federal court.” The first, 2009’s Vaden v Discover Bank, presented a motion under Section 4 of the FAA to compel arbitration. In that context, “the Court held that … courts … assess jurisdiction by ‘looking through’ a motion to compel arbitration to the underlying dispute.” Only if federal courts would have had jurisdiction over litigation to resolve the underlying dispute – typically because the case raised a federal question or were from different states – would the federal court have jurisdiction over the freestanding Section 4 motion. The second was Badgerow, discussed above, a case involving motions to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA. As mentioned above, because those motions alone presented no basis for federal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court rejected federal jurisdiction over the matter.For Sotomayor, the “pre-existing jurisdiction over claims” that gave the district court federal jurisdiction over this case in the first instance left Vaden and Badgerow largely irrelevant. “To start,” she emphasized,assessing jurisdiction over a § 9 or § 10 motion in a case originally filed in federal court does not require ‘looking through’ the filed action. Instead, the court may assess its jurisdiction by looking at the suit that is already before it. … Here, the District Court had original jurisdiction … over Jules’s federal claims.For Sotomayor, because “[n]othing in the FAA eliminated that jurisdiction while the parties arbitrated, … when the parties returned to court after arbitration with § 9 and § 10 motions, the court had the same ‘jurisdiction to decide the case,’ and thus ‘jurisdiction to decide those motions,’ that it possessed from the start.”Sotomayor acknowledged “that, by the time the parties filed the §9 and §10 motions here, the arbitrator had issued an award that marked ‘a contractual resolution of the parties’ dispute,’” but for her that only underscored the case for federal jurisdiction over those motions: “Those motions required the District Court to assess whether there were grounds to vacate the award,” and they “were thus integral to determining whether the award would continue to serve as a valid defense to the original claims that had been stayed, but were still pending … until the court confirmed the award.”She closes with an emphatic summary: “[T]he question [here] is [] whether there is anything in the FAA that precludes the normal operation of federal jurisdiction regarding live claims that are still pending before a federal court. There is not.”Read more

The Supreme Court on Friday evening turned down a request by Virginia’s attorney general and other Virginia Democrats to allow the state to use a new congressional map, which would have been expected to strongly favor Democrats, in the 2026 elections.The denial came in a brief, unsigned order sent to reporters at 6:30 p.m. EDT on Friday – just 15 minutes after the court’s Public Information Office distributed the reply filed by Jay Jones, the Virginia attorney general, and Democratic legislators.There were no public dissents from the order. The effects of the court’s order are likely relatively minimal, because Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger had already indicated earlier this week that the state would not use the 2026 map in the upcoming elections.Jones and the other Virginia Democrats came to the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices to block a May 8 ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court that invalidated an amendment to the Virginia Constitution allowing the state’s Legislature to enact a new congressional map.The Virginia General Assembly had adopted the new map in February. But before the state could actually use the map, it needed the state’s voters to approve an amendment to the Virginia constitution that would give the General Assembly the power to draw a new congressional map outside of the normal cycle following the decennial census. In April, voters approved an amendment to the state’s constitution that gave the General Assembly the power to do so. Nevertheless, a divided Virginia Supreme Court struck that amendment down on the ground that the Legislature had not followed the correct procedures when it put the new amendment on the ballot. The majority explained that under the state constitution, the Legislature must approve a proposed amendment to the constitution during two different legislative sessions, which must be separated by an election to the General Assembly’s House of Delegates. Although the Legislature had voted on the proposed amendment for the first time on Oct. 31, 2025, the majority said, more than 1.3 million votes had already been cast by then – and, therefore, “the General Assembly passed the proposed constitutional amendment for the first time well after voters had begun casting ballots during the 2025 general election.”In their filing on Monday asking the justices to step in, Jay and the Virginia Democrats argued that the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling “overthrows [a] democratic outcome just days before the Commonwealth must begin its preparations to administer the 2026 midterm election.” Moreover, they contended, the dispute implicates “two critical issues of federal law” – the meaning of the term “election” under federal law, and the idea that the state court so “impermissibly transgressed the ordinary bounds of judicial review” that its ruling should be reversed.The Republican legislators (along with an election official and two individual voters) who challenged the new map countered that the request to block the state supreme court’s ruling was “extraordinary.” They emphasized that the case involved “state courts applying state law to hold state actors accountable” – and is thus not one in which the U.S. Supreme Court should intervene. To the extent that Jones and the Democrats now argue that the case involves federal issues, they added, the U.S. Supreme Court should not consider them because they did not raise those issues until they reached the Supreme Court.In a filing on Friday afternoon, Jones and the Democrats pushed back, telling the justices (among other things) that “Spanberger’s candid acknowledgment of where things presently stand, which is not part of the record, does not foreclose this Court from acting.” Instead, they argued, her comments merely indicated that “the Commonwealth will conduct its elections in the manner the law requires, and this Court’s intervention will inform that conduct.”Soon after the filing was submitted on Friday, the court denied the request by Jones and the Virginia Democrats without comment.Read more

Justice Clarence Thomas on Thursday afternoon spoke on the issue of shared national values. In an appearance at a conference outside Miami for judges and lawyers from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which includes Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, Thomas described growing up in Georgia during segregation and said that “we shared a country, no matter how badly we were treated, with our fellow citizens.”Thomas was interviewed for over an hour by Kasdin Mitchell, a former clerk who was recently nominated to serve as a federal judge in Texas. Mitchell asked Thomas to discuss remarks that he had made last month at the University of Texas to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.Thomas emphasized that the ideals outlined in the Declaration of Independence provide common ground for everyone in the United States. “We have different religions, we live in different places,” he said, but what do we have in common? “We can say this is something that we all treasure and we all agree on.” Even under segregation, he continued, we had that: as a child, he said, we “raised the flag everyday” and “said the Pledge of Allegiance.”In response to a question from Mitchell about what it means for rights to be self-evident, Thomas suggested that “we’ve disenfranchised most people” with discussions of legal theories like textualism and originalism – the principles that laws should be interpreted based only on the plain meaning of the text, and that the Constitution should be interpreted according to how it would have been understood when it was enacted. “Most people don’t understand those,” Thomas said. Instead, he explained, “we were taught from the cradle that we were equal in God’s eyes. … We could own property.” “Others may intrude upon those rights … but it was not theirs to take away.” He concluded, “Even people who are unlettered when I grew up took it as a given that in God’s eyes we were equal.”Noting that he had only planned to live in Washington, D.C., for two years but had stayed on for more than four decades, Thomas suggested that in Washington and other places many people fall short of the ideals outlined in the Declaration of Independence. These people, he said, “make promises and platitudes,” “but when it’s time to actually have courage … they fail or they find a reason or an excuse” not to act. He compared them (unfavorably) with the signers of the Declaration of Independence – who, he said, “put their names down” and “sealed their fate by signing” the document, because they faced the possibility that they could be hung for treason.Mitchell noted that last week Thomas became the second-longest serving justice (and in two years could become the longest-serving justice). Thomas responded wryly, “Thanks for letting me know that.”As he has in previous public appearances, Thomas expressed nostalgia for earlier iterations of the Supreme Court, telling Mitchell that “it’s a different court now” and he was “really grateful I had an opportunity to be on the court that I joined.” When he joined the Supreme Court in 1991, he said, the court included several members of the “greatest generation” – the cohort born during the first quarter of the 20th century. “Most of them had been in the military” and “lived through the depression. They thought the institution” of the Supreme Court and “the Constitution were much bigger than they were,” Thomas stressed. Thomas indicated that during that era, “the friendships were much, much deeper than” they are now, adding that “I came of age on that court.” He had just turned 43 when he was confirmed, while some of his colleagues at the time “had children older than I was and yet they treated me very fairly.”By contrast, he continued, he had known “the last four members of the current court” – Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – when they served as law clerks at the court, while he was a sitting justice. “The relationships are different,” Thomas said, “even though they are not negative in any way.”Thomas addressed his increased participation in oral arguments after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which prompted the court to switch at first to telephone arguments, in which each justice took turns asking questions. When the justices returned to the courtroom in September 2022, they reinstated the “free for all” questioning that they had used before the pandemic, but they now follow it up with a “round robin” round of questions in which each justice has a chance to ask questions without interruption from the other justices. Before the pandemic, Thomas rarely asked questions – even though, as Mitchell told the audience, his clerks were instructed to provide possible questions with each memorandum that they prepared before oral arguments.Thomas said that the “round robin” questioning during the pandemic “brought an order to the process.” Before the pandemic, he believed that the myriad interruptions were “rude and I said so.” He expressed satisfaction with the current set-up for oral arguments, which can often go well over the hour normally allotted. He said that “the current approach may run on a bit long, but you cannot say you have not had a chance to say your piece. … I can sit there all day.”Thomas also discussed his hiring of law clerks and his efforts to hire clerks from a variety of law schools outside of the Ivy League. He said proudly that he had had law clerks “from each of the flagship law schools in the” 11th Circuit – the University of Florida, the University of Georgia, and the University of Alabama. “I think there’s smart kids a lot of places,” he said, adding that he had “a young woman coming” to start as a law clerk “who started in community college” because of financial and family circumstances. “I like kids from regular backgrounds,” he said, with “parents who worry about the mortgage and fixing the transmission on the car.”Read more

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said Friday that he will grant clemency to Tina Peters, a former county clerk and darling of election conspiracy theorists who was serving a nine-year prison sentence for allowing unauthorized access to voting machines after the 2020 election. Polis, a Democrat, told CNN that he is halving her sentence, meaning she could be paroled within a month after accounting for time already served for aiding efforts to overturn the presidential election. The Colorado governor said his decision came after Peters acknowledged her wrongdoing in an application for leniency, which was obtained by CNN. POLITICO has not independently reviewed the document. Polis told CNN he believed Peters’ was unfairly punished for free expression in her comments alleging fraud in the 2020 election. “I hope that Democrats don’t sacrifice our deeply held belief in free speech because of political expediency or disregard for what people are saying,” Polis told CNN. “There should be no consideration of what we say, how unpopular it is, how inaccurate it is in sentencing or in criminal proceedings.” Polis’ decision followed months of intense pressure from President Donald Trump, who issued his own symbolic pardon of Peters last year, but cannot grant clemency for violations of state law. Trump has repeatedly called on Polis to free Peters, and his pressure campaign came as his administration has taken a series of actions to slash funding to and litigate against Colorado. Also in December, Trump vetoed a bipartisan bill meant to bring clean water to the state, the first and only veto of his second term. Polis told CNN he spoke with Trump privately about Peters’ case, but insisted he granted her clemency after “looking at the merits of the case.” The Democratic governor, who has occasionally bucked his own party, suggested he was weighing granting Peters clemency in March, after a former Democratic state senator was sentenced to probation and community service after being convicted of similar charges. “Justice in Colorado and America needs to be applied evenly, you never know when you might need to depend on the rule of law,” he wrote on X. Peters was convicted on four state felony charges in August 2024 by a Colorado jury after she fraudulently gave a right-wing activist affiliated with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell access to the Mesa County election system. She was unrepentant in her sentencing hearing two months later, telling the court that she’d “never done anything with malice to break the law.” Peters’ conviction was upheld by an appeals court in April, but ruled that the lower court’s decision to impose a nine-year sentence was too harsh. In a statement issued before Polis’ decision on Friday, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat now running for attorney general, strongly urged Polis not to grant leniency to Peters. “Peters organized the breach of the election equipment, broke the public trust and attacked the very foundations of our democratic process,” she said. “Her actions are still being used to try to undermine the 2026 election. She should get no special treatment by the Governor, and his statement is shocking and worrisome.” Peters’ case has long attracted the attention of prominent Republicans, including Trump, who falsely argue that former President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election was fraudulent. “Democrats have been relentless in their targeting of TINA PETERS, a Patriot who simply wanted to make sure that our Elections were Fair and Honest,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in December. “Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the ‘crime’ of demanding Honest Elections.”Read more

Georgia Democrats are worried their front-runner will fumble a “once in a generation” chance to win the governor’s mansion this year. Keisha Lance Bottoms has what should be an enviable résumé: former judge, city council member, mayor of Atlanta and senior White House adviser. She’s dominating public polling in the primary, bolstered by high name recognition in the Atlanta metro area. But a third of the Democratic electorate remains undecided, and her most high-profile endorsement is from former President Joe Biden, who left office deeply unpopular among Americans. The wariness from Georgia Democrats stems from a simmering concern about Bottoms’ ability to win a general election, conversations with more than a half-dozen strategists and officials revealed. They warn that the crown jewel of Bottoms’ work experience — leading the state’s biggest city — will be a major drag to her campaign. Her tenure was marked by turmoil as Atlanta, like other major cities at the time, grappled with the onset of the pandemic, social unrest and spikes in crime. Now, they worry, Bottoms could upend their best opportunity to flip the governorship for the first time in two decades. “Keisha, because she’s so strongly identified with the city of Atlanta, obviously faces a very high hurdle,” said Howard Franklin, a Georgia-based Democratic strategist who is unaffiliated in the primary, but briefly worked for one of Bottoms’ competitors in 2013. “I don’t think there’s anybody who’s paying attention to this race who thinks that Republicans are anything less than prepared to criticize and to pile on to the criticism of the four years that she was in office.” The Democrats interviewed, some of whom were granted anonymity to speak openly about the primary, fear her record will be easily caricatured by Republicans in the general election, leaving her vulnerable to attacks on issues like public safety. “The Republicans will eat her for lunch. The Republicans are begging us to nominate her,” said one longtime Democratic strategist unaffiliated in the race. “If she’s at the top of the ticket, the whole ticket loses. If she’s not … we can sweep it. The stakes are that high.” TaNisha Cameron, a spokesperson for Bottoms’ campaign, dismissed the concerns as political hand-wringing and said the Democrat is focused on “standing up to Donald Trump’s candidate for governor.” “Political insiders have underestimated Keisha Lance Bottoms her entire career, and she has constantly proven them wrong by winning elections and beating their hand-picked candidates. Keisha is leading in the polls in both the primary and general election because voters like her vision for Georgia’s future and her record of delivering for the people of Atlanta,” Cameron said in a statement, going on to highlight how Bottoms attracted nine Fortune 500 companies to Atlanta while in office and left the city with a $180 million budget surplus. Central to Bottoms’ pitch to voters is a pledge to expand Medicaid in Georgia and guarantee universal pre-K statewide. In mid-May, just a few weeks after the Supreme Court significantly limited the power of the Voting Rights Act, Bottoms released a comprehensive plan to protect access to the ballot in Georgia. This could be the Democratic Party’s last shot in a generation to grasp all the levers of political power in Georgia. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp is set to redraw the state’s congressional and state legislative districts ahead of 2028. And as President Donald Trump revives personal grievances about the 2020 election, the leading GOP gubernatorial candidates are vocal election deniers who continue to sow doubt about Georgia’s voting systems in a state that will be central to the 2028 presidential race. Each of Bottoms’ Democratic primary opponents is running in their own loosely defined lanes: former DeKalb County executive Michael Thurmond as the steady hand with experience in statewide office, former state Sen. Jason Esteves as the progressive next-generation leader, and Republican-turned-Democrat Geoff Duncan as a moderate trying to appeal to voters in the center. But those three contenders for runner-up have found themselves in a near statistical tie for second place for months. So far, they’re collectively holding Bottoms below the 50 percent threshold that she would need to win the race outright and advance to the general election. “It’s unfortunate right now, but in the state of Georgia versus what we saw in 2018 with Stacey Abrams, or what we saw with Warnock — we’re missing the light,” said Cobb County Democratic Chair Essence Johnson, who’s staying neutral in the primary. “We don’t have a true, strong light, because there’s so many differences. It’s great, because that shows what democracy is. But again, there’s a lot of candidates.” Some Democrats don’t see a major issue with Bottoms’ potential nomination — especially with the GOP in a tougher position, staring down Trump’s cratering approval ratings and struggling to message on voters’ cost of living concerns and an unpopular war in Iran. “The Republican Party is very underwater. I think the Republican Party is more underwater than Keisha Lance Bottoms is,” said John Jackson, the former DeKalb County Democratic Chair. “At the end of the day, she’s a competitive general election candidate.” One early general election poll shows Bottoms leading the three top Republicans running for governor, but all within the survey’s margin of error. A Bottoms win would be historic: She would be the first Black woman elected governor in the history of the country — and the first Black governor of the Peach State. The increased attention toward Bottoms’ performance with public safety did not happen in a vacuum, as several Black women — including former Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and D.C.’s Muriel Bowser — faced extra scrutiny from critics as they guided major American cities through the depths of the pandemic and nationwide protests. Bottoms’ defenders are confident in her standing with voters. “I have seen the kind of hand-wringing, and it is predominantly coming from very, very, insider politico Atlanta circles,” said Kristen Kiefer, Democratic chair in Houston County, which is located in central Georgia. Because of her party role, she cannot endorse a candidate. “What we saw from here, far from Atlanta, was somebody that was willing to stand up to the governor over mask mandates,” she said. “What we saw during social unrest was the city of Atlanta was making space for peaceful protests, but then, too, we all remember the night that Keisha was on TV with Killer Mike and T.I. telling everyone to go home and being ready to shut it down when it got out of hand.” Still, others remain worried that Bottoms could hurt their chances, even in a midterm year that favors their party. “Most Democrats who are being honest are nervous about the campaign of Mayor Bottoms, who, to be clear, brings a lot of strengths to the race,” said Andrew Heaton, a Georgia-based Democratic strategist who is unaffiliated in the primary. “[Republicans] are going to have to find messages against the other candidates. They’ve already got the attack ads on Mayor Bottoms written.” Bottoms touts her wins in city hall on the campaign trail. In interviews, she has highlighted her administration’s success in building more affordable housing in Atlanta and authorizing pay raises for the city’s law enforcement. Still, her abrupt decision not to seek a second term in 2021, following a period of unrest in Atlanta, continues to haunt her. “She’s got to answer some questions. She’s got to be able to answer these questions well: Why didn’t you run for reelection as mayor of Atlanta? There’s a perception that she ran away from that job,” said Jackson, whose tenure as DeKalb County Democratic Chair overlapped with Bottoms’ time as mayor. (Atlanta extends from Fulton County into DeKalb.) At the time, Bottoms said in a press conference that it was “time to pass the baton on to someone else,” but did not detail her reasons for giving up the opportunity for another four years in office. Pressed about her decision in a recent interview with Atlanta News First, Bottoms emphasized that she completed her term and didn’t skip out early. “I served the entirety of my first term as mayor,” she said. “I was asked to go to the Biden White House three times, and decided not to do it because I wanted to complete the term that I had been elected to serve.” The decision had followed a pounding four years in office that was dominated by the pandemic, a sharp rise in violent crime and protests over the police killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta. Bottoms’ response to the city’s social unrest drew bipartisan praise — particularly her impassioned remarks at a press conference with law enforcement telling protesters to “go home.” But Democrats and Republicans alike have already seized on her perceived biggest vulnerabilities ahead of Election Day: that a reminder of her tenure in office will evoke flashbacks of burning buildings and unrest. Esteves, the former state senator, attacked Bottoms on the debate stage last month over the death of 8-year-old Secoriea Turner, who was shot and killed while riding in a car near protests at the site where Atlanta police fatally shot Rayshard Brooks. “I did not allow gangs to take over blocks. We lived through 2020 together. It was the most trying time in recent history in our country,” Bottoms responded. “I made every decision that I thought was the best decision at that time. But you cannot have the death of a child — of any child — and not wonder what, if anything, you could have done differently.” Republicans, who have otherwise been mired in their own competitive and rancorous primary, have found time to preview their general election attacks against Bottoms. In an April ad, billionaire health care executive Rick Jackson said the former mayor “abandoned” her city in a crucial moment. “When the city needed her, she let Atlanta burn,” Jackson says over footage of protests in downtown Atlanta. That early Republican effort to attack Bottoms’ record is exactly what has some Democrats worried about her strength in a general election. “This is a strategic choice. Sometimes when we make these choices in voting, some of the choices can be emotional, some of them can be related to personal ties,” said state Rep. Michelle Au, who is backing Duncan in the gubernatorial primary. “But really the most important thing — or even the only important thing — is: Can this Democrat win? Because we can get a Democrat out of the primary, and that’s all fine, but if they can’t win in November, it does not achieve my goal.”Read more

Every week political cartoonists throughout the country and across the political spectrum apply their ink-stained skills to capture the foibles, memes, hypocrisies and other head-slapping events in the world of politics. The fruits of these labors are hundreds of cartoons that entertain and enrage readers of all political stripes. Here’s an offering of the best of this week’s crop, picked fresh off the Toonosphere. Edited by Matt Wuerker.Read more

Reza Pahlavi on Trump, Iran and whether the regime will ever fall lead imageRead more

DAYS THE BUDGET IS LATE: 44 TOTAL ECLIPSE OF THE SUN: Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman has made questioning the state’s commitment to green energy a key plank of his gubernatorial platform. Not so long ago, he had an entirely different focus. Back in 2017, the Republican served as a green energy company executive who was seeking a multibillion dollar federal contract to build a border wall comprised of solar panels. “The best thing about it is we could sell the energy to Mexico,” Blakeman said at the time during an appearance on Fox News. “So in fact, they would be paying for the wall. It’s a win, win, win.” Blakeman created Sustainable Technology LLC soon after President Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration and quickly began promoting the idea of having the government pay a private company to build the promised wall along the Mexican border. His pitch? The months-old company would be the perfect vehicle to manage the massive construction project thanks to its unique steel mesh design: “You can see through it,” Blakeman said of his 30-foot tall wall. “There’s no graffiti that can be put on it.” The plan also involved the feds guaranteeing the bonds needed to fund Blakeman’s barrier building. The company, his thinking went, would then sell around $120 million of energy annually and that would cover “between a third and a half of the price.” Trump wound up briefly flirting with the idea of a solar wall. “The rumor is, he saw us on [Fox News] and he saw our design and he started talking about it as a viable idea. I don’t know that to be a fact, but that is the rumor,” Blakeman said on Fox Business. “Solar wall, panels, beautiful,” Trump said at a rally 10 days later. “Pretty good imagination, right? My idea,” he said while pointing to himself. These days, Blakeman is a much less aggressive proponent of solar power — at least in the state he’s hoping to govern. “Our carbon footprint is miniscule compared to the rest of the world, here in New York state,” he said in Albany last week. “When you look at the cost-benefit analysis, you don’t get the return from green energy.” Long Island environmentalists say it’s “bizarre” to hear Blakeman’s attacks on solar power after a tenure in town and county government when he was largely silent on the issue. “There are solar panels all across the county he serves,” Citizens Campaign for the Environment’s Adrienne Esposito said. “Thirty years ago, we were working with groups across Long Island to get 1,000 homes to have solar roofs. Today, it’s like one out of every 10 homes has solar panels. So its success is growing and it’s been widely embraced by members of the public and businesses.” In a visit to Schoharie County last month, Blakeman criticized state efforts to install solar panels in rural neighborhoods. “Here in New York, it doesn’t make any sense,” he said, pointing to the fact that the panels are occasionally covered in snow. “This is a scam.” Still, he doesn’t oppose it everywhere — and specifically pointed to a “beautiful state” on the border. “I’m a big proponent of solar energy. I think it’s great in Arizona,” Blakeman said in Schoharie. “When you have 350 days a year of sunshine and the mean average temperature’s about 80 degrees all year long, yeah, it makes sense there.” — Bill MahoneyFrom the CapitolTAXING TIMES: New York lawmakers are weighing a statewide tax on cash real estate purchases, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie’s office confirmed. It’s not clear how the tax would be structured or what dollar amount would trigger it. The discussion is being held as state officials are poised to grant a similar tax for New York City. The proposal was panned by the Real Estate Board of New York. “New Yorkers are already the most heavily taxed residents in the country, and the City’s budget issues will not be solved by more taxes,” said the group’s president, James Whelan. “On the back of $500 million in a new second-home tax, putting even more costs on home buyers and sellers will further discourage transactions and threaten existing revenue collected by the State, City, and MTA.” Read more from POLITICO Pro’s Nick Reisman STICKER SHOCK: Democratic socialist congressional candidate Chuck Park seems to be a fan of the work of someone else running for Congress: upstate GOP contender Anthony Constantino. Park, the lefty challenger for Rep. Grace Meng’s Queens seat, has spent $3,180 — across 15 disbursements — on campaign materials from Sticker Mule, the sprawling sticker and printing business owned by Constantino. The irreverent Republican is locked in his own primary battle with Assemblymember Robert Smullen for Rep. Elise Stefanik’s seat. Constantino is a rapper, former boxer and massive pro-Trump sign owner who has been endorsed by President Donald Trump. When Playbook asked Park if he had a comment on his campaign’s Sticker Mule spending habits, he attacked his opponent and the support she receives from a pro-Israel PAC. “My opponent is taking hundreds of thousands in donations from AIPAC and weapons makers, but we can talk about where I buy stickers for volunteers,” Park said. “I’d be happy to compare my campaign’s finances with Rep. Meng’s at a debate.” Meng’s campaign declined to respond to Park’s attack. Financial records related to Park’s run for Congress — or lack thereof — also made headlines today for a different reason. City & State reported this morning that Park is four months late on filing his personal financial disclosure form. — Jason Beeferman PIED-A-RETURN: Democratic state lawmakers aren’t finished discussing an annual surcharge on luxury second homes outside of New York City. The statewide proposal, initially championed by Albany state Sen. Pat Fahy, was excised from state budget talks, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins told reporters this week. But Assembly Democrats were told recently in a closed-door meeting that the matter may resurface next year after it’s reviewed by state tax officials, according to three people with direct knowledge of the conversation. Read more from POLITICO Pro’s Nick ReismanFROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAILSLEEPY SCHLOSSBERG: Kennedy scion Jack Schlossberg spent the day defending himself after The New York Times published a deep dive into his campaign’s internal operations. The paper reported that Schlossberg’s campaign has experienced extremely high turnover — something we’ve covered at length in this newsletter — and that Schlossberg opted to take a nap or not show up during key campaign calls, the Times reported. Schlossberg also pulled out of a Working Families Party candidate interview in January and at least one candidate debate. In response to the piece, Schlossberg fired off posts on X in an apparent attempt to defend himself. In one, he posted a photo of himself where he appears to be sleeping. “Needed a quick nap !!” he said. Schlossberg went on CNN today too, telling the network’s host Dana Bash: “Once you’re declared the frontrunner, and early voting starts in less than a month, everyone’s got something to say,” he said. “People are trying to figure out how our campaign has been so successful. — Jason BeefermanIN OTHER NEWS— ‘BETTER WHEN DEAD’: Congressional candidate Alex Bores’ father wished death on Zionists and justified the bombing of a child in a screed of online posts. (Jewish Insider) — GUESSING GAME: Inconsistent market valuations for luxury New York City homes are muddying efforts to determine which properties will be targeted under Hochul’s proposed second-homes tax. (The New York Times) — BIG PRICETAG: Erie County is directing most of its $29 million surplus to a $21 million civil rights settlement, and the county attorney is waving off questions from lawmakers. (Buffalo News) Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.Read more

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry wants to be a kingmaker. But his efforts to elevate Rep. Julia Letlow’s Senate campaign is irritating other Republicans in the state. The first-term GOP governor has become a central figure in President Donald Trump’s revenge tour, working to boost Letlow to take down Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who is viewed by MAGA supporters as insufficiently loyal to the president. Landry has publicly endorsed her and dispatched his chief of staff to advise her campaign. Behind the scenes, he’s been urging major donors to financially support Letlow, according to six people familiar with his pressure campaign. But his aggressive efforts are annoying Louisiana Republicans, who see him as overstepping to prop up a candidate who is struggling to dominate as the front-runner, given her relatively low name ID and the rise of another MAGA candidate: State Treasurer John Fleming. Nearly a dozen GOP lawmakers, strategists and party leaders said in interviews that they’ve long been frustrated by his efforts to strong-arm the party over his legislative priorities and see the Senate race as the latest salvo. “We’re in some crazy territory where there are yes men all around the governor, and they don’t do anything he doesn’t want them to do, and they do everything he wants them to do,” said Kelby Daigle, St. Martin GOP parish chair, who supports Cassidy. One prominent Louisiana businessperson, granted anonymity to speak freely, said Landry had asked dozens of executives on a conference call earlier this year to donate to Letlow. The person, a Cassidy supporter, promptly hung up. “Governor Landry has gone all-in on Letlow and is pot committed at this point,” said a Louisiana Republican strategist, granted anonymity to speak freely. “It’s a gamble that could pay off big or drain his political capital.” The May 16 primary is likely headed to a run-off, and any combination of candidates may qualify. Polling shows Letlow with a slight lead over Fleming, with Cassidy in third.Getting Letlow to the finish line would be a huge boost for Landry in the eyes of the White House, which has set its sights on ousting Cassidy, who angered the MAGA base with his 2021 impeachment vote against the president. Still, the governor may not be the most compelling messenger himself: He’s facing sinking approval ratings in Louisiana, dropping to 43 percent in March, down from 58 percent the prior year. And his reputation as a highly transactional governor is exhausting other Republican leaders. “All this is him thinking that he can rig certain outcomes as a toady for the President,” said another GOP operative, who is unaffiliated with any of the Senate campaigns. The problem for Landry, the Republican said, is “people in Louisiana are fiercely independent. They don’t want to be told what to do.” Landry and the White House did not respond to requests for comment. “This narrative is absurd,” said Katherine Thordahl, Letlow campaign spokesperson. “Governor Landry is a friend and an ally, but he does not run Congresswoman Julia Letlow’s campaign. This is yet another desperate attempt by Rep. Letlow’s opponents to muddy the waters because they are losing this race.” Letlow was first elected to the House to fill the seat of her former husband, who died from Covid in 2020, days before being sworn in. She’s the first Republican woman to serve in Congress in Louisiana. And she has earned the backing of both Trump and the Make America Healthy Again movement, whose PAC has pledged $1 million in support, despite Cassidy’s attempts to paint her as inadequately conservative for previously supporting diversity initiatives in higher education. Her strongest supporter is Landry, a close ally of the White House who has moved further onto the national stage since becoming governor in 2024. Trump named him special envoy to Greenland last year, and he was one of the first Republican governors to welcome federal agents into their states when the U.S. Border Patrol was dispatched to New Orleans. But in Louisiana, Republicans say Landry has created a culture of fear, with frequent comparisons to Huey Long, the former governor and populist political boss. Few are willing to speak out against him. “Often people in his own party get punished more than the Democrats,” said state Rep. Aimee Freeman, a Democrat. Landry is known to bulldoze Republicans in the state legislature to get his priorities through — and readily punish detractors by wielding his line-item veto. Last year, he killed 16 spending projects in districts held by GOP lawmakers who voted against his top legislative priority. In another display of power, he chose to delay the state’s House races from May 16 to mid-July following the Supreme Court’s rejection of Louisiana’s congressional map, sending the election system into chaos. “This is unchecked power,” said Daigle, the GOP parish chair, of Landry’s decision to suspend House elections, which occurred after more than 42,000 ballots were cast. “We are in what I would say is some dangerous territory here, constitutionally speaking.” Landry’s GOP detractors in the state say the Senate race is just another example of Landry sharply wielding his bully pulpit, from his push to get big donors to back Letlow to blasting Cassidy at any opportunity.  Landry was behind the decision in 2024 to change the state’s electoral system, which used to combine all candidates into a single primary that any voter could participate in. The state now uses closed partisan primaries, which was seen as laying the groundwork for defeating Cassidy, given his unpopularity with the base. Cassidy must now win over those voters, who turn out in droves in primaries, without being able to rely on votes from Democrats and others who have padded his numbers in the past. Cassidy’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.Letlow could use the boost: Her war chest amounts to less than a quarter of Cassidy’s cash on hand. But her opponents have seized on Landry’s involvement. Cassidy filed an FEC complaint accusing Landry’s top political fundraiser of campaign finance violations while approaching donors on behalf of Letlow. And Fleming has accused Landry of being behind millions in negative advertisements going after his record on immigration and opposition to carbon sequestration, an issue that he has campaigned heavily on. Landry and Courtney Guastella, his top fundraiser, have not addressed the allegations publicly and didn’t respond to requests for comment. Thordahl, the Letlow spokesperson, said that Landry “asked Courtney to help his friend Julia Letlow because he knows she will stand with President Trump and fight for Louisiana. Courtney does not work for and is not an agent of the Letlow campaign.” Fleming, in an interview, said that voters “are just not buying” the attacks against him, citing his standing in the race. He and Landry have clashed over his Senate run, and Fleming has accused the governor of blocking his attempts to reach out to the White House to speak with Trump about his campaign. Fleming has also accused the Letlow campaign of dangling a job with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to get him out of the race. The Letlow campaign has denied that allegation. “So it just goes to show you really how desperate they are to try to get her elected,” he said. And Landry maintains some defenders in the Louisiana GOP. State Sen. Alan Seabaugh said he doesn’t begrudge Landry for wielding his influence over the party to affect the outcome of the Senate race — or to veto bills as he pleases. “He’s the governor. That is his authority,” he said. “Why Letlow? He desperately doesn’t want Bill Cassidy to get reelected.” Kelsey Brugger contributed reporting.Read more

BANGOR, Maine — Vice President JD Vance took his fraud-fighting tour to Maine on Thursday, attempting to cast President Donald Trump and Republicans as responsible stewards of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars in a pivotal purple state swing district. The speech provided an opportunity for Vance — one of the administration’s top communicators — to throw out red meat to the MAGA base. He blasted Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, blaming a rise in fraud in the state on her and former President Joe Biden. He claimed Maine was “maybe the bronze medalist” for fraud in the U.S., trailing only Minnesota and California. “Thankfully, one of them has already been kicked to the curb and one is on her way out the door,” Vance said, speaking in a hangar at the Bangor airport steps away from Air Force Two. But hanging heavy over Vance’s remarks — and unsaid in them — was the growing discontent voters feel as Trump’s war with Iran propels inflation to a three-year high, and the White House pushes for an unprecedented $1.5 trillion in Pentagon funding from taxpayers. Gontran Jean, who came to see Vance speak, told POLITICO he’s “not happy about” rising prices stemming from the war — but added, “we don’t really have a choice.” He said he would back Vance if he runs for president in 2028. Vance also used his visit to offer an olive branch to Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins — a frequent Trump critic who earlier this week voted with Democrats to try and rein in Trump’s war powers. Back in January, Trump thrashed Collins and other Republican senators who voted with Democrats to curtail his Venezuela incursion, saying they “should never be elected to office again.” Collins wasn’t present for Vance’s trip, with a spokesperson citing her perfect attendance for Senate votes. But Vance wasn’t bothered — and even heaped praise on the moderate senator. “Here’s the thing I’ll say about Susan Collins, is sometimes I get frustrated with Susan Collins, I almost wish that she was more partisan,” Vance said. “But the thing I love about Susan is she is independent, because Maine is an independent state. And frankly, if she was as partisan as I sometimes wish that she was, she would not be a good fit for the people of Maine.” It’s the latest example of a needle Vance attempts to thread between Trump’s impulses and the political realities on the ground. Collins faces a tight-looking general election contest with populist Democratic candidate Graham Platner that could partly decide the balance of the Senate. Vance’s speech was also the latest in a series of recent visits the presumed MAGA heir made to key states ahead of a potential 2028 presidential bid, including Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina and Arizona. Vance maintains he’s thinking only about the present and not future political ambitions. Bangor sits in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, which broke for Trump by more than 9 points in 2024 but has been held by Democratic Rep. Jared Golden since 2019. Last year, Golden announced he would not run for reelection, opening up a crowded primary for Democrats and a seat Republicans tabbed as a high chance to flip despite mounting headwinds for the party. Vance in his remarks shouted out Paul LePage, Maine’s former Republican governor and the frontrunner in the district, and used the opportunity to hammer home his fraud-busting message. The vice president called LePage “the biggest advocate for your tax dollars and the biggest threat to fraudsters that ever existed in the state of Maine.” Vance said “fraud has festered in Maine because this guy is no longer the governor.” In his speech before Vance took the stage, LePage vowed a renewed push to end fraud, which received raving enthusiasm from the audience. “Let’s kick Janet Mills to the curb, and let’s send Paul LePage to Washington,” Vance said.Read more

A lot of Democrats are willing to sacrifice Black voting power to beat the GOP. In the two weeks since the Supreme Court significantly narrowed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, Republicans have kicked off a fresh round of redistricting across the South. Their aim is to dismantle majority-minority districts, which they’ve long argued are unconstitutional, and to try to keep control of the House. New results from The POLITICO Poll show many Democrats want their party leaders to fight back hard — even if it means breaking up districts designed to protect the power of Black voters and other minority communities.In theory, Democrats want to keep those districts intact. When given no context on the recent Supreme Court decision, a 54 percent majority of people who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 say it is more important to protect the voting power of Black voters and other minorities, even if it means Democrats draw fewer seats. But that number changes significantly when the question is asked in the context of the Supreme Court ruling and Republican gerrymandering — and a 45 percent plurality instead say that Democrats must counter GOP efforts, “even if it means reducing the number of majority-minority districts.”Taken together, the poll results reveal that Republicans’ aggressive redistricting is testing Democrats’ appetite for a maximalist posture in response — and so far, many appear willing to embrace it to win the House. They’re even willing to throw away traditional liberal principles such as boosting the electoral power of voters of color in an effort to fight fire with fire. “Do I think you should do all of these carve outs? No. But do I think what we’ve just witnessed should have happened? No. Do I think that the Supreme Court should have come down with Callais? No,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.). “At some point you do have to stop and say, ‘This is madness, and all this is doing is unraveling democracy.’” But Democrats’ conversations “probably will have to” involve carving up majority-minority districts, said Kamlager-Dove. “It’s existential at this point, and this is a larger battle that we’re fighting for.” It’s a stunning admission from a Black lawmaker who represents a majority-Hispanic Los Angeles district: Defeating Republicans might be more important than protecting districts like hers. And it’s a real possibility the party would have to deploy the tactic if it hopes to stand a chance against the most aggressive Republican gerrymandering possible. To draw House seats with the best margins for the party — especially in states like Illinois and New York — district lines would likely need to be altered in a way that packs large numbers of Black voters into red-leaning areas in order to make them bluer. It’s not just a few Democrats switching their minds. Consider the Harris voters who initially say they would protect majority-minority districts: When asked about countering the GOP, they split roughly evenly, with 46 percent saying it’s more important to draw more blue seats and 41 percent saying the majority-minority districts should be kept together. The survey, conducted by Public First, sheds new light on an emerging front in the gerrymandering war that has spread across the nation. At least nine states will use new maps this fall, with others still weighing last-minute gerrymandering before the midterms. Many more are debating doing so in the lead up to 2028, as mapmaking rapidly becomes a top priority for both parties. The poll suggests people of color are more willing to accept the trade-off of having fewer majority-minority districts if it means beating Republicans, though margins of error are higher with the smaller sample sizes for this group. Pluralities of Black (42 percent), Hispanic (45 percent) and Asian American (48 percent) voters who either identified as Democrats or voted for Harris in 2024 — say it is more important to draw more blue seats, even if it means reducing the number of majority-minority districts. White Democrats and Harris voters appeared slightly less likely to support carving up the districts, with 39 percent supporting such a response, 33 percent opposing it and 28 percent unsure. Some Democratic leaders reject that drawing politically beneficial maps and preserving majority-minority districts are mutually exclusive. “As the person that draws the maps and stares at the data, I’m telling you that is not a binary choice,” said John Bisognano, the president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. “The Democratic Party has always basically been able to win elections, ensure that we are able to be in power in different states because of Black voters,” California Assemblymember Mia Bonta, a Democrat who’s also a Black Latina, said during a news conference. As Democrats push for more aggressive gerrymanders, she said, the party must guarantee “we do not forget and do not disregard the importance of making sure that Black voters are at the center of that.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who is ratcheting up pressure on his colleagues to redraw maps ahead of 2028, told POLITICO that the maps in California and Virginia show a “model for moving forward that won’t result in the dilution of Black representation.” Meanwhile, Republicans are eager to amplify the Democratic divisions over mapmaking, as the party continues to go all-in on drawing favorable House districts in an effort to shore up the party’s razor-thin House majority. “Those numbers seem to suggest there’s not a unified position on the path forward for Democrats on this issue,” said Adam Kincaid, president of the National Republican Redistricting Trust. “I think it shows a split in their coalition, and they’re going to need to have everybody on board in order to be successful in repealing or changing these redistricting commissions over the next couple years.” POLITICO’s Calen Razor and Lindsey Holden contributed to this report.  Read more

DAYS THE BUDGET IS LATE: 43 PRIMARY COLORS: Republican Assemblymember Robert Smullen sat down with Rep. Elise Stefanik five years ago to talk about a rural development bill, but instead he made a bold claim: He intended to challenge her in a GOP primary. The previously unreported meeting, according to two people with direct knowledge of the private conversation who were granted anonymity to discuss it, occurred in July 2021. Smullen never followed through with a Stefanik primary challenge. And in a statement, he denied ever planning to challenge her for the nomination. “I’ve never planned to primary Elise Stefanik,” he said in a statement. “I have too much respect for her, her leadership, and the job she has done fighting for NY-21 and Upstate New York.” According to the people, the sitdown occurred as Republican House members in deep blue New York were bracing for what was expected to be a challenging round of redistricting. Smullen’s primary threat against Stefanik was based, in part, on the potential of her home being drawn out of the sprawling North Country seat she’s represented since 2015. “To have the audacity to do that — to not read the room, but also not read the polling,” one of the people said. “By the end of the meeting he was set straight.” It also came months after Stefanik replaced then-Rep. Liz Cheney as the Republican House conference chair following the Wyoming Republican’s emergence as an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump. Stefanik had previously emerged as a prominent Trump ally in Congress. Yet Smullen over the years has donated frequently to Stefanik’s campaigns — including thousands of dollars between 2020 and 2024. She also frequently appeared alongside Smullen at events, like at an October 2022 fundraiser for his Assembly reelection campaign as well as a rally a month later. “I have known Elise personally for years, supported and donated to her campaigns, and appreciated her support for me during my own races,” Smullen said. “Like many elected officials and political allies do over the years, we had conversations about the future and the importance of continuing strong Republican representation for this district someday. That is very different from this narrative POLITICO is trying to create.” He added, “What is especially disappointing is that my opponent and his operatives are trying to drag Elise into a primary she has made clear she is staying out of so voters can make their own decision.” Smullen also told Playbook that Stefanik comforted his family when his son was hospitalized and later died after he was struck by a car. “During the hardest time in my family’s life, Elise was there for us while my son AJ was in the hospital and after we lost him. Those are not the actions of people involved in some fabricated political feud,” Smullen said. “I am focused on earning the support of voters across NY-21 and fighting for the conservative values that unite Republicans across Upstate New York.” The state lawmaker is now running for the House seat Stefanik is vacating this year, competing for the nomination against Republican Anthony Constantino, the Trump-endorsed candidate in the June 23 primary. Stefanik has not endorsed in the primary to succeed her. But her support is highly coveted by both Republican candidates. She’s represented the House district for the last decade, building up a base of ardent supporters and aligning herself closely with the president’s MAGA movement. Stefanik bowed out of running for reelection after scuttling a short-lived bid for governor. Her decision not to run for another term has ignited a heated Republican primary to succeed her in a ruby red House seat that Trump has handily won three times. Constantino, the CEO of the merchandise and printing company Sticker Mule, has marshaled the backing of Trump-allied luminaries like political operative Roger Stone, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and retired Gen. Michael Flynn. His candidacy has split Empire State Republicans, however. The New York Republican Committee in April formally endorsed Smullen — a rare nod by the party’s statewide leadership in a GOP primary. — Nick ReismanFROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAILHOCHUL FILMS VIDEO FOR LASHER: Gov. Kathy Hochul, Rep. Jerry Nadler, Assemblymember Micah Lasher and political strategist Morris Katz all walked into a bagel shop. It’s not the start of a joke, it’s what happened Tuesday at Tal Bagels on 90th and Broadway. The three elected officials were spotted with the wunderkind political strategist filming a video together for Lasher’s run for Congress, according to two Playbook spies and a third person who confirmed the events. State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Council Member Gale Brewer were also there. Lasher is running for the Manhattan seat held by Nadler, his former boss, and was already endorsed by Hochul, also his former boss, last month. But the soon-to-be released video will mark a unique level of involvement for Hochul in the race. In the 2024 Democratic primaries, Hochul held a strict no-primary-endorsements policy, even though she privately fundraised for some candidates. Now, she’s filming Katzian videos over lox & schmear for Lasher in a competitive primary, where he’s up against Assemblymember Alex Bores, Kennedy scion Jack Schlossberg and anti-Trump commentator George Conway. The meeting also shows a sort of détente in the political consulting world. In the bruising battle in neighboring NY-10, Katz’s Fight Agency is backing former city comptroller Brad Lander’s primary challenge of Rep. Dan Goldman, whose campaign is powered by consultants Haley Scott and Mark Guma. Guma and Scott both work on Lasher’s campaign, which now can officially count Katz as a partner. Behind the scenes, Katz, a key strategist on Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s campaign, has already been boosting Lasher. In February, POLITICO reported Katz was making calls to progressives to line up support for Lasher, identifying himself as “Morris Katz with the mayor” on the phone. In a statement, Lasher spokesperson Caroline Crowell celebrated how the great bagel confab represented a unity between the rival consultants. “Team Lasher is thrilled to welcome Fight Agency to our team that includes powerhouses Mark Guma and Haley Scott,” Crowell said. “We can’t wait for you to see what we’ve been cooking up. Stay tuned!” — Jason Beeferman and Irie Sentner RELATED: It’s unclear if Mamdani is going to wade into the primary for Nadler’s seat — and there haven’t been any significant signs that he will. But in an interview with the New York Editorial Board, Bores said he would “love” to have the mayor’s endorsement. “I haven’t talked to him about an endorsement,” Bores said, adding that he would “welcome his endorsement, just like I welcome the endorsement of any voter in the district.” “That’s a little lukewarm,” journalist Ben Smith replied. “Given the opportunity to ask and, yes, I would love to have his endorsement, but I don’t expect that he will get involved in this race,” Bores, who often likes to mention that he and Mamdani were basketball buddies in Albany, continued. Bores has raked in some eye-catching progressive endorsements, including from Our Revolution, the group founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). At a recent forum at a synagogue, both Bores and Lasher were asked if they regretted endorsing Mamdani in the general election; neither said no, but both qualified their support for the mayor, who has drawn the ire of some Jewish voters. NY-12 has a prominent Jewish constituency. — Madison FernandezFrom the CapitolCLOCK’S TICKING: The state Capitol is starting to take on some post-budget vibes — despite the fact that budget talks haven’t yet concluded. “This is later than usual,” Assemblymember David Weprin said of this year’s spending plan. “It took a long time till we were going to start doing regular bills because we thought we were going to have a budget relatively on time. Once that became a reality, we started taking up more regular bills.” The advocacy focus in the halls near the Legislature’s chambers has increasingly moved away from last-minute budget pleas to stand-alone bills. Weprin joined former Charlotte Hornets forward Michael Kidd-Gilchrist today to push for more insurance coverage for stuttering. Other groups pushed for bans on data centers, a herbicide prohibition and new regulations on gun safes. Both houses of the Legislature, meanwhile, are increasingly spending their days plowing through dense agendas. “Would I have wanted to be at this point in session?” Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said while announcing a consumer protection package Tuesday. “No, I would hope as always that we were able to get an on-time budget and that we were able to accomplish what we needed to accomplish sooner than now. But that has not stopped us from paying attention to the things we care about.” But time is still clearly running out — even if the budget is wrapped up next week, there will only be eight remaining session days. “We’re just going to run out of time,” Assemblymember Anna Kelles said. And while legislative leaders have been adamant that June 4 will remain the last day, that pinch is stirring talks of overtime. “I think we will have some special session after our session ends before the end of the year to do some bills we haven’t done,” Weprin predicted. — Bill MahoneyFROM THE DELEGATIONBELTWAY VITRIOL: Rep. Mike Lawler called antisemitic insults hurled at him by William Paul, the son of Sen. Rand Paul, “reprehensible” and “fucking disgusting.” NOTUS reported on Wednesday that last night, the younger Paul “confronted Lawler about Rep. Thomas Massie’s GOP primary election in Kentucky next week” and said that if he loses, it’s going to be because of “your people” — which he followed by saying “you Jews.” Speaking to reporters in Washington, Lawler said Paul “went on a roughly 10 minute diatribe about Israel and about Jews, about Paul Singer and accusing Jews of being responsible for so many things, playing right into the typical antisemitic tropes that so many people rely on.” Lawler is not Jewish. His district, just north of New York City, has a large Jewish population. “It speaks to a larger issue, obviously, in society and what we’re seeing among young people and what we see online,” he said. “This is the level of hatred and vitriol, frankly, that some of my Jewish colleagues experience, but many of my constituents experience.” Paul responded to the incident in an X post, writing that he “had too much to drink and said some things that don’t represent who I really am. I’m sorry and today I am seeking help for my drinking problem.” — Madison FernandezIN OTHER NEWS— WALDEN IN THE WATERS: A coalition of wealthy donors has raised over $1 million to oppose Mamdani’s agenda. (The New York Times) —COURTSIDE CONGESTION: The Knicks’ playoff run could collide with World Cup transit restrictions, creating a major commuting problem for Penn Station. (Gothamist) —MAYOR TAKES AIM: Mamdani is urging state regulators to block Western Union’s $500 million merger with Intermex, warning it could raise costs for immigrant New Yorkers. (Semafor) Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.Read more

South Carolina GOP Gov. Henry McMaster is expected to announce a special session on redistricting, teeing up the state legislature to pass a Republican gerrymander that would almost certainly cost Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn his seat in this year’s midterms. Clyburn is the sole Democrat in South Carolina’s House delegation; the new map would dismantle his district, leaving the state with 7 likely red seats and no Democratic-leaning ones. McMaster’s plan — confirmed by four people familiar with the decision, who were granted anonymity to share private details — is a reversal of his position earlier this month and follows pressure from President Donald Trump and his allies to gerrymander the state. The looming special session comes after five Republican state senators voted with Democrats to block a measure that would have allowed them to redraw South Carolina’s districts this cycle without a call from McMaster. The special session will let lawmakers pass a new map with a simple majority, making it likely that it will advance given the GOP’s margins. McMaster is expected to announce the plans later Wednesday, but he cannot formally call the special session until lawmakers adjourn their regular session, which will happen Thursday. And until the decision is official, it is possible he could change his mind. McMaster’s office did not respond to requests for comment. Fox Carolina News first reported McMasters’ plans to call the special session. “South Carolina isn’t done,” James Blair, who is leaving the White House to run midterm operations for Trump, posted on X Tuesday after lawmakers failed to reach the two-thirds threshold required to consider redistricting without a special session. The Supreme Court’s decision earlier this month to narrow the Voting Rights Act has kicked off a rapid-paced round of redistricting across the South, with Tennessee passing a new map and Louisiana poised to do the same. A new map in South Carolina would likely lock in a 7-0 House delegation for Republicans, though some of the GOP senators who opposed Tuesday’s vote said the map is no guarantee. Democrats are also bullish that a redraw could put a new seat in play, and the party’s top House campaign arm has begun recruiting in the state, as POLITICO reported earlier this week. State Senate leader Shane Massey, who was one of the five Republicans who opposed the measure on Tuesday, has begun communicating McMaster’s decision to lawmakers, one person familiar with the conversations said. It’s still unclear if Massey will try to sway Republicans who voted to open the door to a redraw to switch their votes.Read more

Pete Buttigieg is picking sides in a heated Senate Democratic primary in the state that cemented his national political profile. Buttigieg, who won the Iowa Democratic caucuses in 2020, is backing state Rep. Josh Turek — a move that shows his willingness to wade into contested primaries ahead of another possible presidential campaign. The endorsement comes shortly after Buttigieg’s former 2020 rival, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, visited earlier this week to campaign for Turek’s opponent, state Sen. Zach Wahls. “We made history in Iowa in 2020 because our campaign went everywhere,” Buttigieg said in a statement shared first with POLITICO. “We connected with people in rural towns and the largest cities, focused on the issues that affect everyday life, and brought Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans into the fold. Josh Turek has taken that same proven approach to his campaign, and that’s why I know he will be successful. I believe Iowa can make history again in 2026 by sending Josh to the U.S. Senate.” Buttigieg’s decision to pick sides in the once-early nominating state is a reversal for him. In March, he told POLITICO it was “not in my plans” when asked whether he would endorse in sharply contested primaries in his adopted home state of Michigan or in Iowa. And while it could help elevate Turek — and potentially give Buttigieg a valuable ally if he runs in 2028 — it carries some risk of alienating Wahls’ supporters in the hard-fought contest. It’s not a shock, however. Turek’s campaign in Iowa marks something of a reunion for Buttigieg’s 2020 campaign operation: his former national press secretary Chris Meagher is a Turek adviser, while Buttigieg’s former senior adviser Lis Smith and former aide Matt Corridoni are both advisers to The Bench, a new political group that’s been choosing sides in other Democratic primaries. It’s not clear whether Iowa will have anywhere near the outsized role it historically held in the Democratic nomination process next time around. A calamitous caucus-night vote count and app breakdown played a role in Democrats bumping Iowa from the front of the primary line in 2024. Iowa Democrats are trying to get back in the first four states, along with a bevy of other states. Democrats are expected to choose their nominating order later this year. Buttigieg joins Sens. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire in Turek’s corner — as well as former Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the last Democrat to represent the state in the Senate. “I am deeply honored to have Pete’s support in this race,” Turek said in a statement. “His unique ability to connect with Iowans who feel forgotten and left behind is exactly why he won the caucuses in 2020, and it’s that same approach that will help us win Senator Harkin’s seat back.”Read more

Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia Secretary of State and candidate for governor, was the target of a credible written threat, his campaign said Tuesday. Campaign spokesperson Ryan Mahoney said the threat came in the form of an apparent manifesto to a sheriff’s office in Mississippi that featured a photo of Raffensperger with the word “boom” scrawled across his face. It was unclear if it was related to the discovery on Tuesday — a day after the campaign was notified about the written threat — of a suspicious object found inside a vending machine at a campaign stop in Macon that prompted the campaign to move the event outside. The manifesto was not released and the motive was not publicly known, but the incidents are an apparent reminder of the potent threat of political violence in the U.S. especially for a high-profile candidate such as Raffensperger, who drew fierce criticism for resisting President Donald Trump’s efforts to resist the results of the 2020 election in Georgia. “When you stand on principle, when you do the right thing, and when you put people ahead of politics, not everyone will like it. In fact, some people may try to intimidate or do you harm,” Raffensperger said in a statement posted to social media. “So yes, we are dealing with an active threat. And no, I will not back down.” The Atlanta Journal Constitution first reported the written threat. The suspicious object was detected by a law enforcement canine at the Middle Georgia Regional Airport where Raffensperger was set to hold a campaign event later in the day. The Bibb County Sheriff’s Department said in a news release later that there were no hazardous devices detected, but did not provide specifics of what was discovered. The campaign went ahead with the scheduled event, opting to hold the gathering outside in the parking lot instead. No arrests have been made. Georgia State Patrol is leading the effort with support from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the FBI, Mahoney said, and the secretary will continue campaigning in the last week ahead of Georgia’s May 19 primary with heightened security. “The secretary of state’s office has a law enforcement unit, so we’ll start traveling with a handful of those guys until the threat is alleviated,” Mahoney said.Read more

DAYS THE BUDGET IS LATE: 42 ZO, THAT’S IT? For months, Mayor Zohran Mamdani has pressed the case that Albany must raise income and corporate taxes to help plug New York City’s $5.4 billion budget deficit. So in rolling out an executive budget today that closes the gap without his favored state-level tax hikes, Mamdani made a significant concession, showing he did not, in fact, need the increases from Albany to shore up his spending plan. When Playbook asked whether that means he’s throwing in the towel on his push for income and corporate tax increases, Mamdani signaled he’s content with the commitments he’s already secured. “I’ve been very open and honest about my vision, whether it be fast and free buses, or whether it be higher personal income taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers or the most profitable corporations — this budget is a reflection of that vision in its tax on the rich,” Mamdani said. Mamdani was referring to the pied-à-terre tax Gov. Kathy Hochul and legislators in Albany have committed to enacting as part of this year’s badly overdue state budget. The tax, which impacts owners of secondary homes in the city worth more than $5 million, is expected to generate $500 million in new annual revenue for the municipal coffers. That’s a far cry from the $9 billion in fresh revenue the democratic socialist said his income and corporate tax increases would annually produce during last year’s mayoral race. Still, Mamdani offered nothing but praise for Hochul when asked today whether he’s a little bit disappointed that she hasn’t conceded any ground on those fronts. “I see this as a win,” he said at City Hall. “And I do want to thank Gov. Hochul for her partnership. It is a partnership that reflects a commitment to the long-term health and vitality for the city.” A close Mamdani supporter echoed his sentiment — but added a caveat. “What we heard from the mayor today signals that between the governor and New York City, the deal is done and they have reached the goals that they are going to accomplish this year,” Jasmine Gripper, director of the New York Working Families Party, told Playbook. “But nonetheless, the fight doesn’t die.” Gripper’s comment opens the door to 2027, when Mamdani may have a better shot at convincing Hochul to push through his preferred tax hikes. Locked in a reelection race against Republican Bruce Blakeman, Hochul has been consistently reluctant to support tax increases this year. As long as she’s reelected to a second full term in November, the governor may be more inclined to back tax hikes in 2027, when the pressures of a competitive reelection contest aren’t looming. A Hochul spokesperson declined to comment on 2027 considerations. And a spokesperson for Mamdani didn’t comment on what his 2027 plans are vis-à-vis tax priorities in Albany. Mamdani’s executive budget this year indicates he will be in dire need of new revenue streams from Albany next year. The budget gap the city faces for fiscal year 2028 stands at over $7 billion, budget documents released today show. The gap for fiscal year 2029 is even larger, topping $9 billion, according to the new projections. Without additional intervention from the state next year, closing such exorbitant outyear gaps could prove difficult for the young democratic socialist — unless he shifts gears to further trim spending. Gustavo Gordillo, a co-chair of the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, made clear his group will continue pressuring Hochul to get behind higher taxes on the wealthy to stave off future municipal service cuts. “Closing the deficit was challenging. We did it. That’s an actual victory showing that socialists can govern,” Gordillo said. “But to deliver the full affordability agenda we will need a governor who stands with working New Yorkers instead of billionaire donors to make the rich pay what they owe.” — Chris Sommerfeldt and Joe AnutaFrom the CapitolBLAKEMAN WINS CASE ON MATCHING FUNDS: An Albany County judge has blocked an attempt from Democrats to deny GOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman access to $3.5 million in campaign matching funds. Blakeman was booted from the program in March after the Democratic majority on the Public Campaign Finance Board concluded he never filled out a nonexistent form identifying his running mate. Justice Denise Hartman concluded today that maneuver was “arbitrary and capricious.” “Blakeman registered his campaign and certified compliance with the Program, attended mandatory training, publicly identified their joint-ticket, and submitted certified amended filings 11 days before the filing deadline,” Hartman wrote. “Yet he received no notice that the PCFB considered the submissions deficient until after the filing deadline had lapsed.” Democrats on the board said “an appeal is likely.” Read more from POLITICO Pro’s Bill Mahoney.  UNIONS BACK PRISON REFORM: A dozen unions will soon announce their support for a pair of penal reform bills that advocates hope will be on the agenda for this year’s brief post-budget session. Labor organizations including 1199SEIU, District Council 37 and the New York State Nurses Association are backing the Earned Time Act, which would increase options for early release credits for participation in job training programs, and the Second Look Act, which would let inmates petition for early release after a decade. “New York is facing an ongoing labor shortage that is slowing economic growth and straining industries across the state,” the unions wrote in a letter to state leaders. “Hundreds of thousands of jobs remain unfilled, even as thousands of New Yorkers are locked out of the workforce due to long prison sentences and limited access to programs that would allow them to earn release.” Lawmakers are facing the likelihood they’ll have only two weeks to deal with post-budget issues before adjourning for the summer. But the Center for Community Alternatives’ Katie Schaffer was optimistic these measures might have some momentum, noting that state Sen. Jeremy Zellner’s decision today to cosponsor the Second Look Act means it’s now supported by a majority of his chamber. — Bill Mahoney STRIKING A DEAL — The Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Long Island Rail Road and five unions threatening to strike are only at odds over the fourth year of a three-year contract. The last contract expired three years ago. The unions and the MTA have already reached a deal on the retroactive pay for those years, but remain apart on the fourth year, which begins this summer, according to people familiar with the sensitive negotiations on both sides of the table. In public, the union’s last offer was a 5 percent pay increase, while the MTA’s was about 3 percent. At one point, the MTA looked for changes to work rules, which critics of the unions say are arcane and overly generous. Now, the MTA has moved on to looking for one-time lump sum payments as an alternative to salary increases in the fourth year. The advantage to the MTA is that one-time payments aren’t reoccurring, but the unions want a built-in pay increase and cite ongoing inflation. The unions said they are continuing to prepare for a strike and that no “contract talks” were scheduled today, though a formal bargaining session is scheduled for tomorrow. “We are having discussions today,” MTA spokesperson John McCarthy told POLITICO today. — Ry Rivard SEEKING A ZYN WIN: Some form of a tax on nicotine pouch products like Zyn is expected to be included in a final state budget deal. A coalition of private sector groups — including The Business Council of New York State — is trying to shape the details. The business organizations are pushing state lawmakers and Hochul to adopt a 67-cent flat, unit-based tax as an alternative to the original proposal, which would place a 75 percent wholesale tax on the products. The groups wrote in a letter to the governor and top state legislators that their proposal will still prevent those under 21 from accessing the products and curtail an illegal market. “It is a proven tax structure that keeps adult consumers purchasing through legal, taxed, and regulated channels, minimizes illicit trade, and preserves enforcement safeguards,” they wrote. “Importantly, it also provides stable and reliable revenue without importing the community and youth harms that accompany illegal markets.” — Nick Reisman GRAND JURY SUBPOENA: NYU Langone received a grand jury subpoena last week requesting six years of information on patients under 18 who received gender-affirming care and the medical staff involved, according to an online disclosure. Several other unnamed institutions received the subpoena, NYU Langone said in the notice. Under New York’s shield laws, local health care organizations must report subpoenas or requests for information regarding legally protected health activities to the state attorney general’s office. “We understand that these developments may be concerning to our patients, providers, and others,” the health system wrote in the notice. “Please know that NYU Langone takes the privacy of your protected health information very seriously and we are evaluating our response to the subpoena.” The subpoena by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Texas, which was first reported in the newsletter Erin in the Morning, indicates federal prosecutors empaneled a grand jury to weigh potential criminal charges. Federal agencies reportedly subpoenaed NYU Langone and Mount Sinai last year demanding information on care for transgender minors. NYU Langone shuttered its program for transgender youth earlier this year, citing the current regulatory environment. — Maya KaufmanFROM CITY HALLTHINKING ABOUT THE UNTHINKABLE — New York City Police Commissioner Jassica Tisch told a ballroom of civic leaders this morning that the city remains a terrorist target, especially this summer, with a series of “major international events, enormous public gatherings and historic commemorations,” including the World Cup and America’s 250th birthday party. “New York City is not only a global hub, it is a global target,” she said during a breakfast hosted by the Association for a Better New York. Tisch said that “what begins overseas often finds its way here,” alluding to the war with Iran, the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks in Israel and emerging warfare strategies involving drones. She also mentioned domestic threats and lone actors. What she didn’t go into is how a terrorist attack could scramble the political picture in New York City and affect the perception of her boss. “An attack will always be exploited by the Mamdani derangement crowd, but I think a lot of it would depend on where it comes from,” said Richard Flanagan, a professor at the College of Staten Island, who wrote a book on challenges facing mayors. Maki Haberfeld, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said if an attack comes from a Muslim group or individual inspired by ISIS, “It will be a huge liability for him because of who he is, being the first Muslim mayor of New York City.” Basil Smikle, a Democratic strategist and political analyst, said Mamdani would be criticized in the same ways he was during his campaign, as young and progressive. And Mamdani, unlike Rudy Giuliani, who was praised after the 9/11 attacks, hasn’t had years in public life building a reputation around law and order. The information and political environment is also different now. “That is a big difference from 2001 to now. You didn’t have the access to alternative viewpoints in the way you do now,” he said. Right now, Flanagan sees Mamdani, in part because he kept Tisch on as head of NYPD, as balancing the law-and-order coalition and his own base, which looks for police reforms. “It’s a fine line and he’s walking it,” he said. — Ry RivardIN OTHER NEWS— DYNAMIC DUO: President Donald Trump defended Mamdani on a conservative talk radio show Tuesday, calling him a ‘nice guy,’ but he criticized his proposed second-home tax, warning it could drive the rich out of the city. (POLITICO) — NOT-SO-NICE SUNSET: The presence of federal immigration enforcement agents in New York City is impacting immigrant-majority neighborhoods like Sunset Park, where nearly 80% of businesses reported a decrease in sales and foot traffic. (Gothamist) — FEES ON NOTICE: The New York senate is pushing to pass consumer protection bills that go after deceptive business practices, including surveillance pricing and junk fees. (Spectrum News)Read more

The South Carolina Senate just made it harder for the state to redraw its congressional map, resisting pressure from President Donald Trump. Lawmakers on Tuesday failed to reach the two-thirds majority needed to approve a measure that would have allowed them to take up a vote on redistricting even after the legislative session ends later this week. Five Republicans joined all Democrats in voting against the proposal. Republican Gov. Henry McMaster could still call a special session, though his office has so far dismissed that idea. The Tuesday vote doesn’t mark a definitive end for redistricting efforts in the Palmetto State. But it does make it less likely that Trump will get his wish of eliminating the state’s sole Democratic district — represented by the powerful Rep. Jim Clyburn — by this year’s midterm elections. “The South Carolina State Senate has a big vote tomorrow on Redistricting. I’m watching closely,” Trump wrote on social media Monday evening. Republican Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey told reporters in Columbia last week that he would oppose any effort to redraw the state’s congressional maps. His resistance drew the attention of Republicans in Washington, including Trump who called the senator at least twice to encourage him to take up the redistricting effort. Massey still voted against the measure. In an impassioned speech prior to Tuesday’s vote, he acknowledged that his decision will likely draw the ire of national Republicans: “I understand that there are likely consequences for me personally standing here right now and taking the position that I’m in. … My conscience is clear on this one, y’all.” He took a swipe at national Republicans for failing to deliver much with the majority they currently have. And he warned that if Republicans were to draw out Democrats entirely from the state’s congressional delegation, South Carolina risks losing influence the next time a Democrat occupies the White House. Given Tuesday’s vote, any further attempts to change the map will likely be met with similar resistance. Under sustained pressure from national Republicans, McMaster could still change tack and choose to call a special session to move forward with a redraw. It’s not the first time Trump has been met with resistance from within the GOP on redistricting. Republicans in Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Kentucky and New Hampshire resisted calls from Trump and his political team to redraw House lines last year — though several state lawmakers in the Hoosier State paid for that decision in this month’s primaries. Still, other southern states seemed poised to take up redraws after several court rulings gave Republicans an overall edge in the redistricting fight. The Supreme Court gave Alabama the go-ahead on Monday to erase a Black district, and Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves said in an interview last week that he has the authority to call a special session on redistricting.Read more

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed for years has publicly said he’s a physician — but there’s overwhelming evidence that he’s had no experience as a licensed medical doctor. This April, he gave an interview to a local TV journalist where he talked up his credentials as a physician multiple times. In March, he told a group of Teamsters nurses that he had “been in enough codes to watch who really does the work” and said that same month on a podcast that “I’ve been a doctor my whole career.” His LinkedIn profile currently says he’s a “physician,” and late last month he called himself “a physician and epidemiologist” at a Council of Baptist Pastors debate in Detroit. But according to a review of Michigan and New York state medical records, he’s never been granted a medical license in those states. El-Sayed’s hands-on experience treating patients appears to be a short clinical rotation called a sub-internship at a small hospital in Manhattan for four weeks at the end of medical school, he told a podcast in 2022, where he said his “job was to be the, like, worst doctor on the team” and he was “cosplaying a doctor.” “The perception in Michigan is that he is, at least at one point in his life, a licensed physician,” said Chris Dewitt, an unaligned Democratic strategist based in Michigan. “That apparently is not the case, and it blows up a big part of his campaign.” There’s no doubt that El-Sayed has top-notch medical credentials. He attended the University of Michigan Medical School and ended up receiving his medical degree from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. He has a doctorate in public health from Oxford University and worked as an assistant professor of epidemiology at Columbia for a year before moving to Detroit to be executive director and health officer of the Detroit Health Department. “He has earned the right to be called ‘doctor’ twice over,” El-Sayed spokesperson Roxie Richner said in a statement. Richner didn’t respond to questions about his use of the word “physician.” El-Sayed has said in the past that he decided not to practice medicine after treating a patient during medical school and decided he wanted to address systemic issues, instead of individual patients. But his history of suggesting to voters that he served as a practicing physician — with examples stretching back almost a decade — has muddled his personal history, adding confusion to his otherwise impressive achievements. In 2018, when El-Sayed was running for governor of Michigan, Crain’s Detroit Business published a story that also examined his claims of being a physician but not having a license to practice medicine in Michigan. “I think there’s a lot of ways that one serves as a physician. And I think the work that I have done and I continue to do is true to the core and the ethos of medicine,” El-Sayed told Crain’s Detroit Business at the time. “And when I took my Hippocratic Oath, that is still an oath that I use to guide my work today. I’m a physician because I have an MD, but I’m also a physician because of the work that I’ve dedicated my career to.” Yet El-Sayed has made his medical credentials a key part of his appeal on this campaign, often highlighting his background in medicine and as a physician — or not correcting people when they mention it. When Sen. Bernie Sanders appeared with El-Sayed last year at a Medicare town hall, the Vermont independent stopped to remind the livestreamed audience why he was backing El-Sayed: “there are no people in the Democratic caucus who are physicians,” he said. Abdul sat silently by and didn’t correct him. To some in Michigan’s political establishment, his claims are misleading. “It’s a weird thing to hang your hat on in terms of a biographical detail if you never actually practiced medicine,” said Adrian Hemond, a Democrat who is CEO of Lansing-based political consulting firm Grassroots Midwest. “It’s not as though he hasn’t done anything with all of the fancy education that he got like running public health programming for Wayne County and for the city of Detroit. And so maybe you would lean into that, as opposed to giving people the impression that you may have practiced medicine before,” Hemond said. Richner, El-Sayed’s spokesperson, said the Senate hopeful has two doctorates and has spent his career improving health care for Michiganders, including being a top champion of Medicare for All. His campaign pointed to a story he’s repeatedly told about why he wanted to work in public health and not practice medicine: When he was doing his sub-internship, he treated a homeless woman for a host of issues, including a head injury, AIDS and alcohol addiction. After she was discharged from the hospital, he ran into her sleeping on the subway and then realized that his calling was not to practice medicine, but instead to break the poverty cycle so there would be fewer patients like his last patient. “Rather than this being a gotcha attack, this is Dr. El-Sayed’s origin story — one that Michiganders are familiar with,” Richner said. Polls currently show a three-way primary contest between El-Sayed, Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow — with El-Sayed rising, a move that has alarmed some moderate Democrats because of some of his more progressive views on defunding the police and his controversial appearance with the left-leaning Twitch streamer Hasan Piker. El-Sayed has also touted being a “physician” in at least two instances when he was in New York even though New York state law prohibits people from using the title “physician” if one is not licensed. At one conference in 2015 in New York City that he was slated to speak at, his bio said he was “a public health physician and epidemiologist.” In a 2012 op-ed he wrote, he called himself “a social epidemiologist and physician” who was studying at Columbia. In 2018, he dressed up in a white doctor coat in an ad for his campaign for governor, and also used a photo of himself in the same garb last June for a fundraising pitch. El-Sayed’s publisher’s description of his 2020 book, titled “Healing Politics,” said El-Sayed was a physician who “could heal the sick.” In 2024, he said “many of my doctor friends” call him a “self-hating doctor” because “the way that we tend to operate tends not to put our patients first.” “I think it does matter for voters that he hasn’t really practiced medicine, but it’s part of a broader pattern of him doing a job and not sticking around very long,” said Joe DiSano, a Michigan Democratic consultant not affiliated with any campaign in the race. “If you’re gonna claim that you’re a doctor, you should have the practical experience of seeing patients on a regular basis.”Read more