Shayla Adams-Stafford projected winner of Prince George's County District 5 County Council seat
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Md. () — Shayla Adams-Stafford (D) will now represent District 5 on the Prince George's County Council after defeating her republican counterpart in the county's special election, according to unofficial results from the
The special race was held to fill the District 5 seat, previously held by Jolene Ivey before she won the At-Large seat in November. The special election also elected a new county executive, a position that was left vacant when to represent Maryland in the U.S. Senate.
As of Tuesday night, the Adams-Stafford had secured 2,606 votes, or roughly 93% of the votes, with her Republican challenger, Fred Price Jr., receiving 191 votes, which is about 7%.
Roughly 1% of the votes were write-ins, according to the results.
Aisha Braveboy projected winner for Prince George's County executive
As Councilmember for District 5, Adams-Stafford will Bladensburg, Cheverly, Edmonston, Fairmount Heights, Glenarden, Landover, Colmar Manor, Cottage City, Springdale and portions of Mitchellville, Bowie, Lanham, Hyattsville, and Landover Hills.
During her Adams-Stafford, an , outlined her vision of lowering taxes and expanding services for seniors, pursuing community-based development, fostering union partnerships and addressing the 'root causes' of crime.
DC News Now reached out to the Adams-Stafford campaign for comment on the unofficial results but did not hear back in time for publication.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
19 minutes ago
Michigan House Republicans sue the secretary of state over election training materials
KALAMAZOO, Mich. -- Michigan Republicans are suing the battleground state's top elections executive over access to election training materials. The lawsuit filed Thursday is the latest escalation in a brewing dispute that began when the GOP took majority control of the state's House of Representatives last year. Since winning control of the chamber in the 2024 election, statehouse Republicans have repeatedly scrutinized the state's election processes and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat who is running for governor in 2026. The conflict comes as some state Republicans echo past false claims of election fraud in Michigan, which was a prime target of President Donald Trump and his backers after his 2020 election loss. Republicans on the chamber's Oversight Committee subpoenaed Benson in April, seeking access to training materials for local clerks and staff who administer elections, including access to the Bureau of Elections' online learning portal. Benson's office released some requested materials in response to the subpoena, but not all, citing cybersecurity and physical security concerns related to administering elections and the voting process. The office has said it needs to review the online portal for 'sensitive information" and make redactions. 'Since the beginning of this saga, Secretary Benson has asked lawmakers to let a court review their request for sensitive election information that, in the wrong hands, would compromise the security of our election machines, ballots and officials,' Michigan Department of State spokesperson Cheri Hardmon said in a statement Thursday. House Republicans say the goal of reviewing the material is to ensure clerks are trained in accordance with Michigan law. The House voted along party lines in May to hold Benson in contempt for not completely complying with the subpoena. The request for training materials originally came from GOP state Rep. Rachelle Smit, who has pushed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Smit is the chair of the House elections committee, which was renamed to the Elections Integrity Committee with the new Republican majority. 'Secretary Benson has proven she is unwilling to comply with our subpoena and Michigan law,' Rep. Smit said in a statement Thursday. 'She's skirted the rules and done whatever she could to avoid public scrutiny. It's become overwhelmingly clear that she will never release the training materials we're looking for without direction from a court." The lawsuit asks the Michigan Court of Claims to intervene and compel Benson to comply with the subpoena. 'The public interest is best served if the constitutional order of the State of Michigan is preserved and the Legislature can properly perform its duty to regulate the manner of elections in the state and, if deemed necessary, enact election laws for the benefit of Michigan residents,' the lawsuit says. Benson gained national attention for defending the results of the 2020 election in the face of Trump's attempts to undercut the outcome nationwide and in Michigan. Multiple audits — including one conducted by the then-Republican-controlled Michigan Senate — concluded former President Joe Biden won the state in 2020 and that there was no widespread or systemic fraud. Benson has remained a subject of GOP scrutiny this year. A Republican state representative introduced three articles of impeachment against Benson on Tuesday, and several of the accusations continue to cast doubts on the results of the 2020 election. With Democrats in control of the state Senate, it's unlikely the impeachment articles will result in a conviction.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Medicaid spending in Mass. has nearly quadrupled in the past 20 years. It needs reform.
Advertisement Medicaid was The cost of this is staggering. The budget for the state's Medicaid program, called MassHealth, has to over Advertisement But this explosion in the cost of Medicaid begs the question: Has all this spending led to better health outcomes? Surprisingly, Despite these findings, even modest Medicaid reform in Republican proposals before Congress — like encouraging community engagement through volunteering or work, preventing duplicate payments to insurers, and closing state-level However, it should be noted that the current proposals in Washington — which the House passed last week and are now in the Republican-controlled Senate — will result in more Medicaid spending over 10 years, not less. The bill merely slows the rate of growth. Only in Washington, D.C., is more spending decried as a cut. The fundamental issue remains: Are we prioritizing the right goals? Advertisement The evidence on the power of connection is . Past state-level experiments with work engagement in programs like food stamps and welfare cash assistance offer a promising road map. A Medicaid reform could similarly refocus state efforts on connecting enrollees with community engagement rather than solely maximizing federal funding. Encouragingly, these past reforms also saw a halving of the time individuals needed to stay on public assistance. Shouldn't we celebrate if someone like J.D. could earn enough to transition to employer-based or ACA coverage? Sadly, too often, critics characterize any transition off Medicaid as Advertisement While Medicaid reform often faces bipartisan heartburn, paradoxically there's longtime bipartisan agreement that major entitlement programs are growing unsustainably. If we can't at least slow the rate of growth, in part by delivering better outcomes, then our fiscal house of cards may fall, which hurts the most vulnerable. Our leaders must shift the debate from simply protecting the flow of federal dollars to ensuring that every Medicaid dollar genuinely improves patient health. Current inertia seems more about preserving the status quo than addressing the health impact on individuals like J.D. Meanwhile, our communities suffer as we miss out on J.D.'s contributions to society. The federal proposals provide a crucial moment to discuss opening doors of opportunity rather than defending a system that requires poverty for coverage. It's time to move beyond simply paying insurance companies for a card in J.D.'s pocket and focus on reforms that foster human thriving.
an hour ago
The implosion of a powerful political alliance: Trump and Musk in their own words
Last Friday, President Donald Trump heaped praise on Elon Musk as the tech billionaire prepared to leave his unorthodox White House job. Less than a week later, their potent political alliance met a dramatic end Thursday when the men attacked each other with blistering epithets. Trump threatened to go after Musk's business interests. Musk called for Trump's impeachment. Here's a look at the implosion of their relationship in their own words. 'Today it's about a man named Elon. And he's one of the greatest business leaders and innovators the world has ever produced. He stepped forward to put his very great talents into the service of our nation and we appreciate it. Just want to say that Elon has worked tirelessly helping lead the most sweeping and consequential government reform program in generations.' — Trump, May 30, Oval Office remarks ___ Trump invited cameras into the Oval Office last week to bid farewell to Musk, who said he was stepping away from his government work to focus on his businesses. Trump spoke effusively of Musk and his work with the Department of Government Efficiency for nearly 15 minutes straight. "I'll continue to be visiting here and be a friend and adviser to the president," Musk said. He marveled at the gold-tinged decorations Trump placed around the Oval Office. 'The oval office finally has the majesty that it deserves thanks to the president,' he said. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' — Musk, Tuesday, post on X. ___ Days after their Oval Office meeting, Musk escalated his previously restrained criticism of Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget bill, the president's top congressional priority. Still, he kept his critique focused on their policy disagreement. He did not go after Trump by name, even as he called on Republican lawmakers to vote down the bill and threatened political retribution against those who took Trump's side. 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people,' Musk wrote on X. Uncharacteristically for a man who rarely lets a snub go unanswered, Trump did not respond. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Musk's views on the bill were not a surprise to Trump, and his social media posting 'doesn't change the president's opinion.' Musk continued Wednesday, approvingly sharing social media posts and memes that criticized the budget's price tag and deficit impacts, though still directing his ire at Congress. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore." -- Trump, Thursday, Oval Office meeting with the German chancellor. ___ Trump said he was 'very disappointed in Elon" and was surprised by his benefactor's criticism. The war of words escalated rapidly from there. It all played out on their respective social media platforms, with Musk posting on X and Trump on Truth Social. Musk dismissed Trump's criticism. 'Whatever,' he wrote. He shared old Trump social media posts urging lawmakers to oppose deficit spending and increasing the debt ceiling. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk posted, a reference to Musk's record political spending last year, which topped $250 million. 'Such ingratitude,' he added. Trump said Musk had worn out his welcome at the White House and was mad that Trump was changing electric vehicle policies in ways that would financially harm Musk-led Tesla. 'Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!' Trump wrote. He added: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' 'Time to drop the really big bomb: Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' — Musk, Thursday, X post. ___ In a series of posts, he shined a spotlight on ties between Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the financier who killed himself while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. Some loud voices in Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement claim Epstein's suicide was staged by powerful figures, including prominent Democrats, who feared Epstein would expose their involvement in trafficking. Trump's own FBI leaders have dismissed such speculation and there's no evidence supporting it. 'Yes,' he wrote.
