Benjamin Guggenheim reports that “9 Republicans back Dem effort to revive Obamacare subsidies: The vote put House Republicans on the record for the first time this Congress on the enhanced tax credits that expired at the end of last year” at Politico: “Nine House Republicans broke rank Wednesday in support of advancing a Democratic bill that would revive key Obamacare subsidies for three years — a move that sets up a final passage vote Thursday that will for the first time this Congress put members of the House GOP Conference on the record for or against the enhanced tax credits…House members voted 221-205 — with all Democrats voting in favor — to move forward with a Democratic-led discharge petition to force consideration of the legislation against the explicit wishes of Speaker Mike Johnson…The Louisiana Republican for months refused to put a bill on the floor to prevent the credits from ultimately expiring Dec. 31, citing divisions within the GOP ranks over the policy but also criticizing the credits himself…Lack of movement prompted four vulnerable House GOP moderates — Rep. Mike Lawler of New York and Reps. Robert Bresnahan, Brian Fitzpatrick and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania — to provide the four necessary signatures late last year, allowing the Democrats’ discharge effort to now proceed…These Republican centrists fear the political ramifications of allowing the subsidies to remain lapsed in the face of spiking insurance premiums in an election year. All four voted to move ahead with the legislation Wednesday, alongside GOP Reps. María Elvira Salazar of Florida, Nick LaLota of New York, David Valadao of California, Thomas Kean of New Jersey and Max Miller of Ohio…Democrats applauded as the gavel went down to close the vote…The bill stands no chance of passage in the Senate, where there aren’t 60 votes to overcome the filibuster. But a bipartisan group of senators continues to meet in hopes of reaching a compromise agreement to extend the subsidies alongside some modest policy changes.”

“Democrats romp to victory in Virginia special elections,” Emily Singer reports at Daily Kos: “Tuesday night brought fresh evidence that a blue wave is building for the 2026 midterm elections, after Democrats won a pair of special elections for vacant state legislative seats in Virginia. In each election, Democrats improved on the margins won by former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election…Democrat Mike Jones won the state Senate seat vacated by Lt. Gov.-elect Ghazala Hashmi. Jones defeated Republican John Thomas, 70% to 30%, marking an 8-percentage-point improvement on Harris’ performance in 2024, according to VoteHub…Democrats also notched an 8-point overperformance in a Richmond-based House of Delegates district, where Democrat Charlie Schmidt defeated Republican Richard Stonage Jr. 79% to 20%, according to VoteHub…Consistently overperforming in special elections is a good sign that a party is set to do well in the next general election…In special elections during the 2025-26 cycle, Democrats overperformed Harris’ margin by an average of 13.3%, according to data collected by The Downballot. That’s higher than the 10.6% average overperformanceDemocrats notched ahead of the 2018 midterms, when the party went on to easily retake control of the House…Democrats’ strong performances in special elections have spooked Republicans, who are sounding alarm bells about the 2026 midterms. In fact, the chair of the Republican National Committee has publicly said his party will likely lose.”

At SCOTUSblog, David Boies shares his thoughts with 25 years perspective on the highly controversial and consequential Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore in 2001, the 25th anniversary of which was recently marked, alongside the 5th anniversary of the January 6th insurrection: As Boies, who represented Vice President Gore, explains: “In 2000, the Democratic candidate (Al Gore) received 48.4% of the popular vote, and the Republican candidate (George W. Bush) received 47.9%. In the days following the election, it was agreed that Gore had won 266 electoral votes, Bush had won 246, and Florida’s 25 votes were disputed. Bush led Gore in Florida by 537 votes. In close elections, Florida law provided for manual recounts to confirm “the intent of the voter.” This was especially important in the many Florida counties that still used old punch-card machines, which were notoriously error prone…On Thursday, Dec. 7, after a partial recount of four counties and full briefing, Barry Richards, representing Bush, and I, representing Gore, argued before the Florida Supreme Court. In its decision the following evening, that court agreed with me that certain votes that had been cast on time but excluded by Florida’s Republican secretary of state as recounted too late should be counted. This reduced Bush’s lead to less than 200 votes. The Florida Supreme Court also agreed with me that the entire state should be recounted. That court, however, rejected my argument that it should give the local canvassing boards guidance as to how to interpret Florida’s “intent of the voter” standard, appearing to accept Barry’s argument that the historical discretion accorded to the local boards had to be respected…The recount commenced the following morning, and by shortly after noon on Saturday, it was on schedule (with the possible exception of one county where the Republican canvassing board members refused to show up) to be completed by Sunday evening…During Saturday morning, Bush’s margin continued to decrease, and Gore believed the recount would soon show him narrowly ahead. I was less certain, but hopeful…However, on Saturday afternoon, five Republican members of the U.S. Supreme Court ordered Florida to stop counting the votes. The five justices acted without a hearing or briefs on the merits. They gave no explanation as to what, if anything, was improper. The only explanation for stopping the vote count in mid-stream was given by Justice Antonin Scalia: if the vote count showed Gore winning and the court later invalidated it, Bush (and the court) would look bad.”

Boies continues, “True enough. But obscuring the consequences of government action has never been seen as an appropriate goal in a free society. The four remaining justices (two Republicans, two Democrats) filed a bitter dissent…Gore and his whole team were shocked. For the first time in our nation’s history, the court was intervening to affect a presidential election. And it was doing so without a hearing – and without giving any explanation as to what error, if any, it believed was occurring…Three days later, at 10:00 p.m. EST on Dec. 12, after accelerated briefing and oral argument before the court by me on behalf of Gore, Ted Olson on behalf of Bush, and Joseph Klock on behalf of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, the same five justices held that Florida’s recount violated the equal protection clause because different canvassing boards interrupted the intent of the voter, making it more likely that a vote would be counted differently in some counties compared to others…The court further held that since Florida could not now complete a recount by the Dec. 12 “safe harbor” date, no further recount would take place. The majority ignored the procedures of the 1877 Act for resolving just such electoral college disputes… The four dissenting justices pointed out that the majority’s opinion was inconsistent with precedent, the rule of law, and the record below; that the federal issues were not substantial; that the court should never have taken the case in the first place; and that Dec. 12 was not a final date, and Florida, not federal judges, should choose whether Florida’s historical right to a recount outweighed any benefits of the safe harbor…The issue was not whether manual recounts to determine the interest of the voter were a good idea (a question that can reasonably be debated). The issue was whether, in the middle of an election, the Supreme Court would change the rules Florida had followed for a century (and that 35 other states followed, as well)…Although widely criticized by both conservative and liberal legal scholars, the initial public reaction was somewhat muted. People did not take to the streets. No shots were fired. No troops were needed. No bargains cut…In a gracious concession speech, Gore accepted the court’s decision and pledged his support for Bush as president. In his capacity as vice president presiding over the Senate’s count of the electoral votes, he even overruled objections to Florida’s slate of Republican electors.” More here.