Friday, April 24, 2026

Ukraine War Update 4/24/2026



Ukraine's Sustained Drone Campaign against Russian Oil Infrastructure has Damaged or Destroyed Approximately 20% of Russia's Total Refining Capacity since early 2024.

Major Export Hubs at Ust-Luga and Primorsk, Critical Baltic Sea Petroleum Terminals, have been Hhit. The Strikes Target Russia's Primary War Funding Mechanism, with Oil and Gas Revenues Comprising roughly 30% of the Russian Federal Budget.

Ukraine began Scaling Remote Control for Interceptor Drones, a Step Officials say Boosts Air-Defense Efficiency while Reducing Risks to Operators. Remote Control Technology Allows Interceptor Drones to be Directed from Secure Locations such as Kyiv or Lviv, according to Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov.

Ukraine is the First to Scale Remote Control of Interception systems, He said.

More than 10 Manufacturers have Integrated Remote-Control Solutions under the Brave1 Initiative Ilaunched a year ago.

The Defense Ministry Targets 100% Detection and at least 95% Neutralization in Short-Range Air Defense. Fedorov cited Confirmed Results at Distances of Hundreds and Thousands of kilometers.

Recent Industry moves include Terra Drone’s Partnership with Amazing Drones and New Linza Systems from Quantum Frontline Industries.

Trump (R) has said the Duke of Sussex "is not speaking for the UK" after Harry told the U.S. to Honour its Obligations in the Ukrainian Conflict. Responding to the Speech Harry made during a Surprise Visit to Ukraine, Trump told Reporters: "I know one thing, Prince Harry is not speaking for the UK, that's for sure. I think I am speaking for the UK more than Prince Harry." "But I appreciate his advice very much," He added.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker


US Space Force Taps 12 Firms to Build Golden Dome



The U.S. Space Force has Awarded $3.2 Billion Contracts to 12 Companies, to Develop Space-Based Missile Defense Interceptor Systems, Advancing Trump's (R) Golden Dome Plan.

Golden Dome, Expected to cost $185 Billion, Envisions Expanding Ground-based Defenses such as Interceptor Missiles, Sensors, and Command-and-Control Systems, while adding Space-based Elements to Ddetect, Track, and Potentially Counter incoming Threats from orbit. These would include Advanced Satellite Networks and Still-Debated Orbital Weaponry.

The Space Force Granted Initial Prototype Agreements to Develop Space-based Interceptors Capable of Neutralizing Missile Threats shortly after Launch, Marking a Significant Shift in U.S. Missile Defense Strategy. Unlike Existing Ground-Based Systems, the Space-Based Interceptor (SBI) Program Deploys Weapons in Orbit, Enabling the U.S. Military to Engage and Destroy Threats earlier in their Flight Path.

In late 2025 and early 2026, Space Force's Space Systems Command Awarded 20 Agreements to Companies including SpaceX, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Anduril, with a Potential Combined Award Value of up to $3.2 billion to "ensure the government maintains contracting flexibility to award to the best provider," according to a Statement from the Space Force.

The Program aims to Ddevelop a Space-Based Missile Defense Interceptor System that will Demonstrate an Integrated Capability within the Golden Dome for America Architecture by 2028.

The Space Force also Awarded about Six small Golden Dome Contracts to build Competing Missile Defense Prototypes, Kicking-Off a Race for Future Ddeals worth Tens of Billions of Dollars, Reuters Reported in 11/2025.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker


Appeals Court Blocks Trump's Crackdown at US. Mexico Border



A Federal Appeals Court on 4/24/2026 Blocked Trump's (R) Directive Suspending Access to Asylum and other Legal Protections for Migrants Unlawfully Crossing the Southern Border. A Divided Panel of Three Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Ruled that Federal Immigration Law does Not allow Trump to Deport Migrants under New Summary Removal Proceedings Implemented by the Trump Administration or to Suspend their Right to Apply for Asylum.

Judge J. Michelle Childs (D) Authored the Decision for the Two-Judge Majority. She was joined by Judge Cornelia Pillard (I). Judge Justin Walker (R) Concurred in Part, but Dissented from the Court's Conclusion on the Legality of Trump's Directive to Effectively Close the Asylum System at the U.S.-Mexico Border.

"We conclude that the [Immigration and Nationality Act's] text, structure, and history make clear that in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts," Childs, a Biden (D) Appointee, Wrote for the Majority. "The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA's removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections," She added.

Walker, Appointed by Trump in His First Term, Agreed with His Colleagues' finding that the Executive Branch cannot Strip Migrants of Access to Procedures that Protect them from being Removed to Countries where they would likely be Persecuted or Tortured. But He said it is within the President's Lawful Discretion to Deny All Asylum Applications. Lee Gelernt, an Attorney for the "ACLU", which Challenged the Policy, said in a Statement that the Decision "will potentially save the lives of thousands of people fleeing grave danger who were denied even a hearing under the Trump administration's horrific asylum ban."

The Trump Administration can ask the Full D.C. Circuit (En-Bonk) to Review the Decision or Appeal to the Supreme Court. The Case is One of Many Aspects of Trump's Immigration Agenda that has faced Legal Challenges. During the 2024 Presidential Campaign, Trump Promised to Execute Mass Deportations if Elected and has Implemented Policies in His Second Term in Pursuit of that Aim.

On Trump's First day back in Office, He Directed His Administration to Suspend the Asylum Process for Millions of People Seeking to come to the U.S. due to Potential Torture or Persecution in their Native Countries. In His Executive Order, Trump said that there was an "invasion" into the U.S. and as a Result, He was "suspending the physical entry" of Undocumented Migrants into the Country until He Determined "that the invasion has concluded."

On the Heels of that Directive, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued Guidance Informing Immigration Authorities at the Southern Border that Individuals who Cross between Ports of Entry are "not permitted to apply for asylum." The Department also Declared that People Subject to Trump's Executive Order could be summarily Removed under One of Two New Processes, "direct repatriation" or "expedited removal," Without being Allowed to Request Aasylum. Under the Guidance, Asylum Officers were told Not to Ask Specific Questions about whether a Migrant has a Credible Fear of Persecution or Torture.

The Case before the D.C. Circuit arose in 2/2025, when a Group of Immigrant Rights' Groups filed a Lawsuit Challenging the Trump Administration's Efforts to Block the Asylum Pathway for Migrants at the U.S.-Mexico Border. They Argued that the Trump had Exceeded His Authority through the New summary Removal Procedures and that His Proclamation and the Homeland Security Department's Guidance Violated the Immigration Nationality Act (INA).

In 7/2025, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss (D) Certified as a Class all Migrants Subject to Trump's Directive who are or will be in the U.S. He also Sided with the Plaintiffs and Asylum Seekers, Finding that Neither the Immigration and Nationality Act or Constitution give Trump the "sweeping authority asserted" in the Proclamation and that an "appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."

The Justice Department (DOJ) Appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which Agreed to Narrow Portions of the Lower Court's Decision while Proceedings before the Appeals Court continued. That Panel did, however, Limit Trump's Efforts to Close the Asylum system at the Southern Border. In its Decision 4/24/2026, the D.C. Circuit Panel Affirmed the District Court's Decision in Favor of the Plaintiffs.

"The INA does not allow the President to remove Plaintiffs under summary removal procedures of his own making. Nor does it allow the Executive to suspend Plaintiffs' right to apply for asylum, deny Plaintiffs' access to withholding of removal under the INA, or curtail mandatory procedures for adjudicating Plaintiffs' Convention Against Torture claims," Childs wrote. The Trump administration had Argued that Immigration Law Authorizes the President to Restrict Migrants Subject to His Directive from invoking the Right to Apply for Asylum, but the Judges in the Majority Disagreed.

"To the contrary, barring foreign individuals who are physically present in the United States from applying for asylum and, if they make the statutory showing that they are eligible, from being considered to receive it cannot be squared with the statute," Childs said. She said that Numerous Sources, including from the Courts and the Executive Branch, point to the Conclusion that Congress Enacted the Asylum Statute, with Narrow Exceptions, to Grant All Foreign Nationals in the U.S. the Right to Apply for Asylum and have their Applications Adjudicated.

"If the Government wishes to modify this carefully structured and intricate system, it must present those arguments to the only branch of government able to amend the INA: Congress," Childs wrote.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker


Trump Eases Requirements for Preserving Presidential Records



The White House Quickly embraced a New Records Preservation Policy after the Justice Department (DOJ) deemed a Presidential Records Law Unconstitutional, Dismissing Decades-Old Requirements in favor of Discretionary Guidelines.

The DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued its O4/1/2026, Declaring that the Law, known as the Presidential Records Act (PRA), Exceeded Congress’s Powers. Within days, Staffers at the Executive Office of the President (EOP) received an email from the White House counsel instructing them to Follow a New Records Preservation Policy in line with the OLC Opinion and attend a Training.

White House Counsel David Alan Warrington (R) wrote to the Staffers that the PRA was “a significant departure from historical practice.” Warrington’s Memo was Included in a Lawsuit over the OLC Opinion.

The OLC is a Unit of the DOJ that provides Legal Advice to the Executive Branch, and its Opinion sparked immediate Concerns about how the Day-to-Day Records of Presidential Activity would be Preserved. The PRA says Records from a Presidency belong to the Public rather than to the President, and it Requires the White House to Preserve All Official Materials.

Ultimately, it is up to the Courts to determine whether the Law is Constitutional, but in the Meantime, the Trump (R) Administration has Seized on the OLC Opinion to Set its own Recordkeeping Policy. Experts say that the New White House Memo Weakens Safeguards, by making previously Mandatory Preservation Rules Discretionary, and that there will be Clear Differences between how Staffers are now asked to {reserve Records compared with previous Presidencies, including Trump’s First Tterm.

A 2/2017 Memo from then White House Lawyers to All White House Personnel, for example, Strictly Warned Staff Against the use of Personal Devices for Official business. It said they were “required to conduct all work-related communications on your official EOP email account, except in emergency circumstances.” The wording in the new memo, dated April 2, is less definitive, saying that EOP staff “should” conduct their work-related communications on their official work email accounts. It also says EOP staff “should” avoid using their personal devices for official government business “whenever possible.”

The Memo does Not Outline how Trump or Vice President JD Vance (R) should Preserve their Records. A White House Official, told The Washington Post that “it is impossible to view the memo and the mandatory training as anything but a requirement that staff preserve records.”

However, Jason R. Baron, a University of Maryland Professor who Focuses on the Intersection of Archives and the Law, said the new White House Memo “seriously undermines government accountability in making recordkeeping at the White House largely discretionary rather than mandatory.”

Noting that the Memo is framed as Guidance rather than a Legal Mandate, Baron wrote in an email that Nothing in the Policy “prevents the White House from directing the transfer or destruction of White House records, including tens of millions of e-mails, either before or after the end of the president’s second term in office.”

Similarly, the New EOP Guidance appears to be Less Strict than the 2017 Memo, on how to Memorialize Official Materials that are sent to Personal Accounts by Accident. The 2017 Directive said Emails or Texts that are sent to (or from) Personal Accounts with Material covered under the PRA must be Forwarded to an Official White House Platform within 20 days “via a screenshot or other means,” adding that “any employee who intentionally fails to take these actions may be subject to administrative or even criminal penalties.”

The New Guidance says such Texts must be Preserved only “when they are the sole record of official decision-making, government action, or contain unique information not available elsewhere.” Staffers are “encouraged” to Memorialize the Information in those Exchanges “in a more accessible format, such as an email or memorandum,” it adds, rather than Directly taking a Screenshot or otherwise Sharing the Relevant Exchange in its Entirety.

Patrick Eddington, a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, has Argued that the OLC Opinion could make Voter-Suppression efforts, for example, Harder to Detect. He said in an Interview that encouraging EOP Staffers to Draft Memorandums in lieu of Sharing Screenshots “is a great way to rewrite history.”

The White House Official maintained that Staff have been Instructed to Perform all Work on their Work Device and that an Approved Signal App can be Downloaded onto White House Phones, which also Saves Messages.

Baron pointed to a Section of the Memo that says EOP Components are “free to retain” previous Record-Preservation Policies, noting that this also means they are Free Not to. “While paying lip service to the need to preserve White House records, the memo actually gives EOP staff license to do the exact opposite,” He said.

"American Oversight", a Nonprofit focused on Enforcing Access to Government Records, has Filed a Lawsuit alongside the "American Historical Association", arguing that the OLC Opinion effectively Encourages the President to Violate the PRA.

Chioma Chukwu, Executive Director of American Oversight, said in a Statement that “the Trump administration is inviting the selective preservation of presidential records, which is inconsistent with the law.”

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a Government Ethics Watchdog, has also Signaled that it intends to go to Court to Dispute the OLC Opinion.

Jon Maier, CREW’s Senior Litigation Counsel, said the New Records Policy is “Inconsistent” with the PRA. The Administration, Maier said, “doesn’t get to pick and choose which parts of the law it wants to follow.”

The OLC Opinion came a little more than a year after the Trump Administration’s effort to Remove and Replace the Leadership of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Federal Government’s Independent Recordkeeping Agency.

The National Archives, known for Housing many of the Country’s Founding Documents and Overseeing Presidential Libraries, is also responsible for taking Custody of Records covered by the PRA when a President leaves Office. The White House has also Not said whether Trump Plans to give His Presidential Records to the Archives, once He Leaves Office. This is usally a Copy.

The National Archives did Not Respond to Multiple Requests for Comment. But former Archives Officials say it is Not Clear how the Agency will Operate in response to the OLC Opinion.

Gary Stern, who served as General Counsel for the National Archives and Records Administration for 26 years before Retiring at the End of Joe Biden’s (D) Presidency, wrote this month in an Op-Ed for The Post that the OLC Opinion “has opened the door to uncertainty and potential chaos.”

The Archives has typically been seen as Non-Political, but the Agency has been Targeted by Trump, since its Attempt to Recover Presidential Documents from His Florida Home after His FirstTterm, Culminating in a 2022 Raid by the FBI. That Raid found that Trump had taken Classified Material upon leaving Office.

The National Archivist is Appointed by the President, but unlike most Political Appointees, He or She does Not Typically leave Office at the End of a Presidential Administration. The National Archivist at the Start of Trump’s Second Term, Colleen J. Shogan, was Nominated by Biden in 2022 and Confirmed by the Senate in 2023.

Shortly after Trump was Sworn-In for a Second Presidential Term in 2025, Shogan was Fired at Trump’s Direction. In a Statement to The Post, Shogan said She “was never given a formal reason for my removal, but it came during a period of significant disagreement over the Presidential Records Act.”

While She did Not Explicitly Charge that Her Firing was Political, She added: “It’s difficult not to consider that context as relevant. The larger issue is what this means for transparency, congressional oversight, and public access to presidential records going forward.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker


Thursday, April 23, 2026

Electionline Weekly April23-2026



Legal Updates

Federal Litigation: Common Cause and four voters sued the Justice Department this week to block it from compiling a national voter database that the watchdog warns allows the government to surveil and disenfranchise millions of Americans. Common Cause, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union for D.C., argue the database’s creation and its use of the Department of Homeland Security’s Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements system clearly violates federal statutes, the separation of powers doctrine and the Constitution. “The U.S. Department of Justice has launched an illegal and unprecedented quest to stockpile millions of Americans’ confidential voter data in a system of records within its Civil Rights Division,” Common Cause claims in the 58-page lawsuit. “Never before has a federal agency centralized this volume of Americans’ voting data in a single system of records. And in so doing, DOJ has flouted statutory safeguards designed to ensure transparency and public participation in the federal government’s collection of Americans’ personal information.” Since President Donald Trump’s return to office, the Justice Department has demanded 48 states and the District turn over unreacted statewide voter registration lists, many of which contain sensitive information such as Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, signatures, birth dates, addresses, places of birth, party affiliation and voter history. To date, the Justice Department has sued the District and the 30 states that have pushed back on the demands in full, including: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Washington. According to Common Cause, the Department of Homeland Security “haphazardly” expanded its SAVE system, which was previously a limited tool for certain immigration-related databases, to conduct mass citizenship checks based on unreliable data. “The faulty new system and flawed comparison methodology has already falsely identified significant numbers of U.S. citizens as noncitizens, imperiling their fundamental right to vote,” Common Cause said. “And the system has proven especially unreliable for citizens born outside of the United States (e.g., naturalized, derived and acquired citizens), who are at a higher risk of being falsely identified as noncitizens.”

Alaska: Voting and civil rights groups sued Alaska elections officials, alleging that their sharing of the state’s full voter registration list with the U.S. Department of Justice violates the state constitution. The Alaska lawsuit was filed in state court against state Division of Elections officials by the League of Women Voters of Alaska and Alaska Black Caucus. It alleges the handing over of personal data on the voter list violates the right to privacy under the state constitution. It also says the memorandum of understanding violates due process by allowing the Justice Department to flag voters for removal “without any apparent notice or process for impacted voters to challenge those decisions.” The lawsuit names as defendants Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, who oversees the division, and division Director Carol Beecher. Sam Curtis, a spokesperson with the state Department of Law, said by email that it would be premature to comment on specific claims raised in the lawsuit. But Curtis said the department has previously explained in public hearings that state law “expressly permits the sharing of this information for authorized governmental purposes. That statute is on the books, and we will defend it.”

Arizona: Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap (R) will be given more authority in running elections after a judge sided with his office in a prolonged legal fight with the local board that shares responsibility for overseeing the vote. Heap sued the predominantly Republican county board of supervisors last summer, alleging it had illegally taken control of certain aspects of election administration. Heap claimed the board transferred funding, IT staff and some key functions – including management of ballot drop boxes and establishing early voting sites – away from his office through an agreement negotiated with his predecessor, whom he had recently defeated in a GOP primary. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney mostly sided with Heap’s office in his ruling. The board of supervisors “acted unlawfully and exceeded its statutory authority by seizing the recorder’s personnel, systems and equipment and refusing to return them” to the recorder, he wrote. Blaney also ruled that the recorder’s office is responsible for overseeing in-person early voting, among other duties, while the board is responsible for other operations, such as selecting election day voting locations, supplying polling locations and hiring poll workers. “The board’s assertion of plenary authority over election administration through its general supervisory powers is inconsistent with Arizona law,” the judge wrote.

California: Laura Lee Yourex, 63 of Costa Mesa, will be sentenced in October for registering her dog to vote in what she claimed was an attempt to expose election fraud. Yourex pleaded guilty April 10 to misdemeanor knowing registration of a nonexistent person to vote. As part of her plea deal with prosecutors, felony counts of perjury, procuring or offering a false or forged document to be filed, registered or recorded, and not being entitled to vote at an election were dismissed. She is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 16. Yourex illegally cast ballots in her dog’s name in the 2021 gubernatorial recall election and 2022 primary election, according to the Orange County district attorney’s office. Orange County Registrar of Voters Bob Page said his office was alerted to the fraud by former Huntington Beach City Atty. Michael Gates, who went on to work as an attorney with the civil rights division of the U.S. Justice Department. He has since left that post. “I received an email from former Huntington Beach City Atty. Michael Gates who said a voter talked to him and shared that her dog received a ballot,” Page said. “I quickly referred that to the district attorney to investigate.’’

Indiana: The law banning the use of public university student identification cards for voting is back in effect after an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit — as early voting for the state’s May 5 primary continues. A federal judge last week blocked enforcement when he granted a preliminary injunction sought by voter advocates alleging the ban “deliberately abridges young voters’ right to vote.” The plaintiffs include Count Us IN, Women4Change Indiana and Indiana University student Josh Montagne. The day after the injunction was set, Montagne used his student ID to vote on IU’s Bloomington campus, he confirmed to the Indiana Capital Chronicle. The state of Indiana filed an emergency motion for a suspension of the preliminary injunction. The appeals court granted the motion, pending appeal, and promised a “reasoned decision” within two business days. The state has maintained in court filings that the ban would impact a small number of students and that any burden created by the change is “minimal.” The judge and plaintiffs estimated between 40,000 and 90,000 students in Indiana could be affected.

Kansas: Former Coldwater Mayor Joe Ceballos reached a plea agreement with the Kansas Attorney General’s Office to drop the severity of charges related to voting illegally from six felony counts to three counts of disorderly election conduct, each a class B nonperson misdemeanor, court documents said. Ceballos is a legal permanent resident of the United States and a citizen of Mexico. During the interview process in 2025 to become an American citizen, Ceballos said he had voted in the past, which triggered his arrest. The plea agreement, finalized in Comanche County District Court, means deportation proceedings aren’t likely although that’s never off the table, said Ceballos’ attorney, Jess Hoeme. “Normally a felony or a crime of moral turpitude punishable by up to a year in jail would be the kinds of dispositions in a case that would prompt removal proceedings,” he said. “We were able to completely avoid that.” Ceballos won’t serve jail time and will pay a fine of $2,000, Hoeme said. He was given a six-month underlying sentence on each count, which was suspended, according to the plea agreement.

New Hampshire: New Hampshire’s secretary of state is pushing back against the federal government asking a judge to dismiss a lawsuit over access to the state’s voter database. The U.S. Department of Justice filed the lawsuit after the state refused to turn over a full voter list. In filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, state officials said they are protecting voters’ information, arguing that the federal government is asking for things that are personal and that the state is not allowed to give out. The lawsuit calls for the state to hand over voter data, including names, addresses, dates of birth and either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. The federal government says it needs the data to check elections, but the state says it’s not required or allowed to share the information. “The state law is very clear that confidential voter data, data that is not part of the public checklist, is to be kept private and confidential,” Secretary of State David Scanlan said. “And that’s my charge.” A hearing on the matter has been scheduled for April 29.

Rhode Island: U.S. District Court Judge Mary McElroy dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit demanding detailed voter data from Rhode Island, a decision that follows similar rulings in a handful of other states. McElroy sided with Rhode Island’s top election officials and civil rights advocates, writing that federal law does not permit the U.S. Department of Justice “to conduct the kind of fishing expedition it seeks here.” McElroy’s decision is similar to other rejections by federal judges across country since the Justice Department began seeking detailed voter data from the states. The information includes dates of birth, addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers. “The executive branch seems to have no problem taking actions that are clear Constitutional overreaches, regularly meddling in responsibilities that are the rights of the states,” Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg M. Amore said in a statement. “But the power of our democratic republic, built on three, coequal branches of government, is clearer than ever before.”

South Carolina: The South Carolina Supreme Court heard arguments this week in the unresolved dispute over the 2023 Atlantic Beach mayoral election during a live-streamed hearing. The court is tasked with deciding if a circuit court judge erred in upholding the municipal election commission’s finding that a new election was required after fraudulent ballots were discovered. The dispute stems from the November 2023 mayoral election in Atlantic Beach, where candidates Josephine Isom and John David were vying for the office. After an initial vote count showed Isom leading, 19 provisional ballots were added, with 18 of them counted, shifting the totals to favor David. Isom challenged these provisional votes, and 14 were later found to be fraudulent, prompting the municipal election commission to order a new election because the ballots were mixed and could not be separated. Isom’s attorney, Kenneth Davis, argued that a winner could have been declared without a new election. Davis contends that since the 14 fraudulent ballots were known to come from the provisional votes, with two cast for Isom and the rest for David, simple math could determine the outcome was 62-53 in favor of Isom.

Texas: Some Dallas County Republicans sued the county elections department in a bid to require voters to cast ballots for the May 26 primary runoff at specific polling places in their precincts rather than any location in the county. That precinct-based voting system on primary election day in March created chaos. Local party leadership is trying to reverse a decision made by its former chair, who resigned last week after facing backlash for agreeing to use countywide voting on election day in the runoff. But early voting for the runoff election starts May 18, and Dallas County election officials say it’s too late to change course. The lawsuit, filed in the Texas Fifth Court of Appeals by Barry Wernick, a Republican precinct chair and a candidate for Dallas County Commissioner District 2, is asking the court to require the county to use precinct polling places for the runoff election. Wernick is arguing the former party chair, Allen West, didn’t have the authority to agree to the use of countywide voting. Thirty-one party members signed declarations supporting the lawsuit, according to the filing. In addition, the county party’s executive committee voted in favor of using precinct polling places for the runoff election.

Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case brought by a conservative group that could determine whether sensitive information about people judged mentally incapable of voting is a public record. It’s the second time justices heard arguments in this case, which previously had been caught up in conflicting opinions issued by two of the state’s appeals court districts. It also became an attack point used by liberal Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor in the most recent Wisconsin Supreme Court election, which she won by 20 points. Her opponent, Appeals Court Judge Maria Lazar, wrote an opinion supportive of the conservative group’s position, which was unusual because it contradicted another appeals court ruling in a separate case on the same issue. The key question before justices is whether the information in Notices of Voting Eligibility should be publicly accessible. Courts send those forms to election officials after a judge in a guardianship case determines someone is not competent to cast a ballot. State law says “the fact that an individual has been found incompetent … is accessible to any person who demonstrates to the custodian of the records a need for that information.”

Wyoming: District Court Judge Michael McGrady dismissed proceedings to determine whether Becky Hadlock, who resigned earlier this month as Weston County clerk, should be removed from office for her conduct during and after the 2024 general election, court records show. McGrady granted a motion by both parties to dismiss the case April 16, one week after Hadlock resigned from office. Hadlock resigned April 9, one day after she was arrested and charged with violating the election code as an official and one count of falsifying election documents. Both are felonies that carry maximum penalties of up to five years in prison. “The Parties declare that [Hadlock] has resigned from the office of Weston County Clerk, effective April 9, 2026, and the Weston County Commissioners confirmed the finality of [her] resignation by formally declaring the office vacant on April 14, 2026. These actions have rendered the petition for removal of [Hadlock] moot,” according to the filing filed by both parties in the case seeking its dismissal. “The parties therefore agree and stipulate that this action is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear their own costs.” Since the court granted the motion, the case is now closed.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker


National Weather Service Potential Staff Cuts



The Trump (R) Administration is Reorganizing the National Weather Service (NWS) and making Changes to Forecasting, while a Key Union Representative Warns the Reorganization could involve potential Staff Cuts.

Federal Employees at the NWS’s Weather Forecast Offices, which provide People with Local Forecasts and Severe Weather Warnings, have learned about Impending Changes to their Baseline Staffing levels as part of the Transformation coming to the Weather service, said Tom Fahy, Legislative Director for the National Weather Service Employees Organization (NWSEO).

While the Administration acknowledged that it is undergoing a Reorganization, it Denies that the Weather Service faces Staff Cuts. “There are no staff cuts planned at NWS. In fact, we are hiring,” NWS Spokesperson Erica Grow Cei said in an email.

“Since late 2025, NWS has been hiring and onboarding a targeted number of meteorologists and other positions deemed necessary for operational continuity. We have filled over 200 positions since then,” Grow Cei added.

She acknowledged that there would be a Reorganization, which she said would “streamline administrative and management functions to promote greater accountability and Improve Efficiency. These are all a matter of atmospheric changes that are taking place, and the Weather Service has to be able to respond to them,”She added.

At the same time, the Weather Service appears to be Automating at least some of its Forecasts. An 4/8/2026 Forecast out of Montana noted that “The forecast beyond day 4 has little to no human intervention (per NWS policy) and should be used with caution.” The Shift saw Pushback among at least some Meteorologists.

“These changes disturb me about what kind of quality we’re going to continue to see” in Weather Forecasts, said Troy Kimmel, an Independent Incident Response Meteorologist and former Professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “It’s a day-by-day process you have to go through and look at the models [and] see how they’re performing,” Kimmel said, expressing Concerns that Locally based Meteorologists would be Cut-Out of Forecasts that are more than a few days away.

Last year, as part of its Efforts to Shrink the Size of the Federal Government, the Trump (R) Administration Fired Hundreds of People at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including NWS Staff. It later said that it was seeking to Reassign People to fill Roles at “critically understaffed” Weather Service Offices. It later decided to Hire more People. The Original Cuts received Significant Pushback.

Meanwhile, during His Confirmation Hearing, NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs said He would “ensure that staffing the Weather Service offices is a top priority. It’s really important for the people to be there because they have relationships with the people in the local community,” Jacobs said in 2025.

Testifying before Congress on 4/22/2026, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick (R) was asked about the Weather Service’s response to Tornadoes in Michigan. “We do not have staffing issues,” said Lutnick, whose Commerce Department oversees the Weather Service. “We are 24/7 across this great nation because the job of the National Weather Service is to protect the safety of America.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker


Wednesday, April 22, 2026

Trump Tells Gabbard She Must Resign Before Midterms



Trump (R) has Urged the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard (R), to Resign before the Midterm Elections later this year. Trump’s Cabinet has been Undergoing a Serious Purge this year. Some of the most Notable Figures have been Ousted in Shock Exits, Iincluding Attorney General Pam Bondi (R), Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R) and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem (R).

The White House has made it Clear to Gabbard, who Once got a Sickening Compliment from Trump in a Room Full of People, that they want Her Gone Before the Midterms. At this Point, Her Departure remains Unconfirmed and the Timing of any Potential Exit from Trump’s Cabinet remains Vague. It comes amid Growing Concern about Trump's Erratic Behavior, just days ago, Trump made a Disturbing Sex Comment on Stage that Stunned His Audience into Silence.

Now, the Public are Placing their Bets on Who is Next to be Axed from Trump’s Inner Circle. Many have their Money on Gabbard, whom the White House has reportedly Coaxed into Resigning.

Gabbard’s 2020 Presidential Campaign Heavily Centers around Ending Perpetual “regime change wars.” Throughout Her Campaign Trail, Sshe Argued that U.S. interventions in Places like: Iraq, Libya, and Syria, were Wasteful and Counter-Productive.

After the U.S. launched Strikes on Iran Earlier this Spring, Gabbard stood before the Senate Intelligence Committee, and made it Clear that She was Presenting Facts, instead of Her Own Opinion.

“I’d like to remind those who are watching what I am briefing here today conveys the intelligence community’s assessment of the threats facing US citizens, our homeland and our interests,” Gabbard told the Committee, “not my personal views or opinions.”

Gabbard’s Deputy, Joe Kent (R), Resigned in March, citing Ddisagreement over U.S. Involvement in the Iran War, and the Influence of Israel, and the Israeli Lobby in Domestic Politics. In Her Testimony before Capitol Hill, Gabbard Refused to Condemn Kent. Sources suggested that Her Unwillingness to do so Angered Trump, causing Him to Reflect on Her Own Loyalty.

When Asked if He still had Faith in Gabbard’s Leadership, Trump told Reporters, “Yeah, sure. I mean, she’s a little bit different in her thought process than me, but that doesn’t make somebody not available to serve.”

Another High Profile Figure from Trump’s Cabinet that People are Betting to be the Next out the door is FBI Director Kash Patel (R). This week, an Article by The Atlantic suggested that Patel was Suffering from an Alcohol Problem causing Unexplained Aabsences from Duty.

Patel responded by Filing a $250m Defamation Lawsuit against The Atlantic, Accusing the Magazine of publishing False and Damaging Claims about His Conduct in Office. The Lawsuit Stated that the Story included "false and obviously fabricated allegations designed to destroy Director Patel's reputation and drive him from office.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker