Republican Senate candidates seeking to replace McConnell aim to define themselves at Fancy Farm
FANCY FARM, Ky. (AP) — A renowned Kentucky picnic turned into a rapid-fire Republican political skirmish on Saturday, as three candidates competing to succeed longtime U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell tried to pick apart one another while seeking early momentum in their 2026 primary campaign.
Taking the stage amid milder-than-usual temperatures at the Fancy Farm picnic in western Kentucky, the GOP rivals — U.S. Rep. Andy Barr, former state Attorney General Daniel Cameron and entrepreneur Nate Morris — turned up the heat in vying for the coveted Senate seat. Each tried to define himself and their opponents while speaking before a raucous crowd and a statewide TV audience.
Barr and Cameron ripped into Morris' business record as founder of a waste software company and questioned Morris' credibility as a supporter of President Donald Trump's MAGA movement.
'Nate will do anything and say anything to run away from his past,' Cameron said. 'You can't claim to be MAGA when you build a company on ESG subsidies and DEI initiatives."
Barr quipped: 'Nate calls himself the trash man, but dumpster fire is more like it.'
Morris — who is campaigning as a populist and political outsider — kept up his strategy of harshly criticizing McConnell's legacy and trying to link Barr and Cameron to the venerable senator.
'If you want to know how Andy Barr or Daniel Cameron are going to act in the U.S. Senate – look no further than their 'mentor' Mitch McConnell,' Morris said.
'Both of these guys are very proud to tell you they wouldn't have careers if it weren't for Mitch,' Morris added. "Neither of these guys have built anything, done anything impactful, employed anyone.'
McConnell, a Fancy Farm participant for decades, didn't delve into the Senate race during his picnic speech Saturday. But he gave a spirited summary of his Senate career in a speech to a GOP breakfast gathering Saturday. He pointed to his record of steering enormous sums of federal funds to his home state to build or fix infrastructure, support agriculture and military installations and more.
McConnell, the longest-serving Senate party leader in U.S. history, revealed in February, on his 83rd birthday, that he won't seek another term in Kentucky and will retire when his current term ends.
With Democrats mostly skipping the picnic's political speeches, the crowd was divided among supporters of GOP candidates, cheering their favorite and jeering rival candidates.
Speaking at Fancy Farm — where picnic organizers like to say the mouthwatering barbecue is hot and the political rhetoric even spicier — is considered a rite of passage for candidates seeking statewide office in the GOP-leaning Bluegrass State. Kentucky's 2026 primary election is next spring.
Beside hurling insults at their rivals, the Senate candidates tried to define themselves at the picnic.
Barr portrayed his congressional experience as an advantage setting him apart. He represents a district stretching from central Kentucky's bluegrass region to the Appalachian foothills. Barr said he helped shape and pass Trump's massive tax cut and spending reduction legislation.
'Some politicians like to say 'I'm a Trump guy,' " Barr said. 'They talk about supporting the president. But I'm the only candidate in this race who's actually doing it -- day in and day out in Congress.'
Cameron, who is Black, used his speech to rail against diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
Cameron said he and his wife want their sons to 'grow up in a colorblind society, one based on merit and opportunity, not division and handouts. We don't need America built on diversity, equity and inclusion. We need America built on merit, excellence and intelligence.'
Morris touted his hard-line stance on immigration. He supports a moratorium on immigration into the United States until every immigrant currently in the country illegally is deported.
The three GOP rivals kept to one script they have all shared — lavishing praise on Trump. One of the biggest questions in the campaign is whether Trump will make an endorsement, seen as potentially decisive in determining who wins the primary.
Democratic Senate candidate Pamela Stevenson was invited but opted to skip the picnic. Kentucky hasn't elected a Democrat to the Senate since Wendell Ford in 1992. The lone Democratic candidate who spoke at the picnic on Saturday was congressional candidate John 'Drew' Williams.
Bruce Schreiner, The Associated Press
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
a few seconds ago
- Fox News
Fox News Politics Newsletter: Cornyn's 'Crooked Politicians' Crackdown
Welcome to the Fox News Politics newsletter, with the latest updates on the Trump administration, Capitol Hill and more Fox News politics content. Here's what's happening… -Major business group intervenes to blunt Newsom lawsuit attempting to reinstate EV mandates -Mamdani studies 'America's Worst Mayor' Brandon Johnson to avoid his political pitfalls: report -Trump's global reset of trade relationships will remain in the spotlight this week FIRST ON FOX: A Senate Republican wants to crack down on public officials who use their position to grow their wealth. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, is set to introduce legislation that would create stiffer penalties for public officials who commit federal bank fraud, tax fraud, or loan or mortgage fraud. Cornyn's bill comes on the heels of two such instances where top officials and lawmakers were hit with allegations of mortgage fraud. Indeed, Cornyn's Law Enforcement Tools to Interdict Troubling Investments in Abodes (LETITIA) Act is named for New York Attorney General Letitia James. The Justice Department earlier this year opened an investigation into James, who successfully won a civil case last year against President Donald Trump and his Trump Organization over allegations of faulty business practices, for alleged mortgage fraud…READ MORE. JET LAG: Trump's F-47 next-gen fighter jet threatened by delays as Boeing workers go on strike SPEECH POLICE STATE: Trump's full-court press against 'Orwellian' European censorship intensifies amid US efforts to unleash AI 'NOW I LOVE HER AD': Trump says he now 'loves' Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ad after learning she's a registered Republican HORROR CONTINUES: European leaders decry Hamas video of Israeli captives: 'unlimited inhumanity' CHINA IN CROSSHAIRS: FBI office in New Zealand will defend against Chinese influence, Patel says 'RIDICULOUS WAR': Trump confirms 2 nuclear submarines are 'in the region' to counter Russia 'CHAOTIC SITUATION': As Israel faces blame for the hunger crisis in Gaza, UN's own data shows most of its aid is looted BENEFIT BATTLE LINES: GOP memo preps House Republicans to tout Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' as Dems go on offense 'WANTED US TO PAY': Trump accuses Senate Democrats of using nominee confirmations as leverage for funding deals COWBOY CRACKDOWN: GOP governor greenlights state troopers to join ICE in immigration crackdown 'FIRE WITH FIRE': Hochul vows to 'fight fire with fire' on redistricting while hosting Texas Democrats who fled state 'TOO FAR': Cincinnati residents on edge after viral beatdown sparks crime concerns: 'What's gonna happen next?' 'UNCERTAIN RECOVERY': Danville, Virginia councilman faces possible 'years' of rehab after gasoline attack, boss says HAT IN RING: First on Fox: Republican firebrand Nancy Mace launches bid for South Carolina governor 'TEXANS DON'T RUN': Abbott threatens to remove House Dems from office following dramatic departure to avoid vote COACH VS. POLS: Republican Dooley jumps into Georgia's Senate race while touting support for Trump and taking aim at Ossoff Get the latest updates on the Trump administration and Congress, exclusive interviews and more on
Vox
a few seconds ago
- Vox
The Supreme Court just revealed its plan to make gerrymandering even worse
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. One of the biggest mysteries that has emerged from the Trump-era Supreme Court is the 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan. In Milligan, two of the Republican justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — voted with the Court's Democratic minority to strike down Alabama's racially gerrymandered congressional maps, ordering the state to redraw those maps to include an additional district with a Black majority. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. As Roberts emphasized in his opinion for the Court in Milligan, a lower court that also struck down these maps 'faithfully applied our precedents.' But the Roberts Court frequently overrules or ignores precedents that interpret the Voting Rights Act — the federal law at issue in Milligan — to do more than block the most egregious forms of Jim Crow-like voter suppression. And the Court's Republican majority is normally hostile to lawsuits challenging gerrymanders of any kind. Most notably, in Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Republican justices held that federal courts may not hear suits challenging partisan gerrymanders. Among other things, Rucho enables tactics like Texas Republicans' current plans to redraw that state's congressional maps to maximize GOP power in Congress. So why did two Republican justices break with their previous skepticism of gerrymandering suits in the Milligan case? A new order that the Supreme Court handed down Friday evening appears to answer that question. The new order, in a case known as Louisiana v. Callais, suggests that the Court's decision in Milligan was merely a minor detour, and that Roberts and Kavanaugh's votes in Milligan were largely driven by unwise legal decisions by Alabama's lawyers. The legal issues in the Callais case are virtually identical to the ones presented in Milligan, but the Court's new order indicates it is likely to use Callais to strike down the Voting Rights Act's safeguards against gerrymandering altogether. The Callais order, in other words, doesn't simply suggest that Milligan was a one-off decision that is unlikely to be repeated. It also suggests that the Court's Republican majority will resume its laissez-faire approach to gerrymandering, just as the redistricting wars appear to be heating up. A brief history of the Supreme Court's approach to gerrymandering Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of lawsuits alleging that a legislative map is illegally gerrymandered. Partisan gerrymandering suits claim that a map was drawn to maximize one major political party's power at the expense of the other. Racial gerrymandering suits, meanwhile, allege that a state's legislative maps improperly dilute the voting power of voters of a particular race. Prior to Rucho, the Court imposed minimal — but not entirely nonexistent — limits on partisan gerrymandering. It has historically been more aggressive in policing racial gerrymanders. The Supreme Court held in Davis v. Bandemer (1986) that federal courts may hear claims alleging that a state's maps are so egregiously partisan that they amount to unconstitutional discrimination. The idea is that maps that intentionally inflate Democratic voters' power, while minimizing Republican voters' power (or vice-versa) violate the Constitution's guarantee that all voters should have an equal say in elections. Notably, however, no five justices agreed to a single legal standard that would allow courts to determine which maps are illegal partisan gerrymanders in Davis. Nor did a majority of the Court set such a standard in later lawsuits challenging partisan gerrymanders. In Rucho, the Republican justices essentially announced that the Court would give up its quest to find such a standard. A few years later, in Alexander v. NAACP (2024), those justices went even further, declaring that 'as far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, a legislature may pursue partisan ends when it engages in redistricting.' Though Davis's limits on partisan gerrymandering were always fuzzy, it is likely that this ambiguity deterred at least some states from enacting extreme gerrymanders that might have caused the courts to intervene. At the very least, Rucho changed how states litigate gerrymandering suits. Before Rucho, states accused of gerrymandering would often try to offer another explanation for why their maps benefited one party or the other. Now, they will openly state in their briefs that they drew maps for partisan reasons — confident that federal judges will do nothing, despite these confessions. Historically, however, the Court has imposed more concrete limits on racial gerrymanders. In Milligan, for example, the Court struck down Alabama congressional maps that would have given Black voters a majority in just one of the state's seven districts (or 14 percent of the districts), despite the fact that Black people make up about 27 percent of the state's population. The Court ordered the state to draw new maps with two Black-majority districts. The linchpin of Milligan and similar cases is the Court's decision in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), which laid out the rules governing when an alleged racial gerrymander violates the Voting Rights Act (which broadly prohibits race discrimination in elections). The framework laid out in Gingles is notoriously complicated, but it turns on whether voters in a particular state vote in racially cohesive blocs. Thus, for example, in a state where the white majority supports Republicans nearly all of the time, while the Black minority supports Democrats nearly all of the time, Gingles sometimes requires courts to redraw the state's maps to ensure that the Black minority is adequately represented. This is because, in such a state, the white majority can wield its near-unanimous support for Republicans to cut Black voters (and Democrats) out of power altogether. In a different state, where both Black and white voters sometimes vote for either party, Gingles tells courts to stay out of redistricting. Black voters, after all, are United States citizens who have as much of a right to choose their leaders as anyone else. So, if they choose to be represented by a white Republican in a free and fair election, that's their choice and the courts should honor it. Because Gingles only kicks in when an electorate's racial demographics closely match its partisan voting patterns, it places some practical limits on both partisan and racial gerrymandering. In Milligan, for example, Alabama was not able to draw maps that maximized Republican voting power because doing so required the state to dilute Black voting power. So, even though Rucho prevents lawsuits that challenge partisan gerrymandering directly, Gingles sometimes allows suits which target it indirectly by alleging that a partisan gerrymander is also an impermissible racial gerrymander. But now the Court is signaling that it is likely to overrule Gingles and abolish suits alleging that racial gerrymanders violate the Voting Rights Act altogether. So what's the deal with the Court's new order in Callais? The Callais case is virtually identical to Milligan — indeed, the cases are so similar that Louisiana said in a brief to the justices that Callais 'presents the same question' as the Alabama redistricting case. Before the Callais case reached the justices, a lower court determined that Louisiana's congressional maps violate Gingles, and ordered the state to draw an additional Black-majority district. Nevertheless, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Callais last March, all six of the Republican justices appeared to disagree with this lower court's decision — although the lower court's decision merely applied the same legal rules that the Supreme Court applied two years earlier in Milligan. Then, at the end of June, the Court issued a brief order announcing that it would hold an unusual second oral argument in Callais, and that it would seek additional briefing from the parties in this case. On Friday, the Court issued a new order laying out what these parties should address in those briefs. Those briefs should examine whether the lower court order requiring Louisiana to draw an additional Black-majority district 'violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.' The justices, in other words, want briefing on whether Gingles — and the Voting Rights Act's safeguards against racial gerrymandering more broadly — are unconstitutional. This suggestion that the Voting Rights Act may be unconstitutional — or, at least, that it violates the Republican justices' vision of the Constitution — should not surprise anyone who has followed the Court's voting rights cases. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Republican justices neutralized a different provision of the Voting Rights Act, which required states with a history of racist election practices to 'preclear' new election laws with federal officials before they take effect. The Court's Republican majority labeled this provision 'strong medicine' that could be justified to combat the kind of widespread racial voting discrimination that existed during Jim Crow. But they argued that the United States was not racist enough in 2013 to justify letting preclearance remain in place. 'There is no denying,' Roberts wrote for the Court in Shelby County, 'that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions.' Although Kavanaugh joined nearly all of the majority opinion in Milligan, he also wrote a separate opinion indicating that he wanted to extend Shelby County to gerrymandering cases in a future ruling. 'Even if Congress in 1982 could constitutionally authorize race-based redistricting under [the Voting Rights Act] for some period of time,' Kavanaugh wrote, 'the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.' Gingles also suggests that Voting Rights Act suits challenging racial gerrymanders should eventually cease to exist. If the electorate ceases to be racially polarized — something that appears to be slowly happening — then Gingles plaintiffs will no longer be able to win cases, and the federal judiciary's role in redistricting will diminish. But Kavanaugh seems to be impatient to end these suits while many states remain racially polarized. Read in the context of Kavanaugh's Milligan opinion, in other words, the new Callais order suggests that a majority of the justices have decided the Voting Rights Act's safeguards against racial gerrymandering have reached their expiration date, and they are looking for arguments to justify striking them down. It now looks like Milligan was Gingles's last gasp. The Republican justices remain hostile both to the Voting Rights Act and toward gerrymandering suits more broadly. And they appear very likely to use Callais to remove one of the few remaining safeguards against gerrymanders.
NBC News
a few seconds ago
- NBC News
Redistricting clash escalates in Texas after Democrats scatter
The Texas state House is reconvening Monday afternoon amid a nationally watched clash over the GOP majority's plan to redraw the state's congressional lines, with dozens of Democrats fleeing the state to deprive Republicans of the ability to proceed with the plan. The bulk of the 50-plus Democrats who left the state are in Illinois, where they've been welcomed by Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker. Others are in Boston and in Albany, New York, where Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul is pushing for a change to state law to allow redistricting in response in future years. Back in Texas, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is threatening to boot them from office or send law enforcement to force them to return to the state. While the Texas state House plans to consider the GOP plan Monday afternoon, it cannot do so without a quorum — the presence of two-thirds of all state representatives. The rule means that 51 of the state's 62 Democratic House members can, by remaining out of state, prevent the Republican-led state House from moving forward with the legislation. Once the House gavels in and officially discovers it lacks that quorum to proceed, Texas Republican leaders will have to decide what to do next, as they have during various 'quorum breaks' for more than 150 years. This time, Abbott has raised the prospect of not only sending law enforcement after the Democrats but, asserting untested and tenuous legal authority, pushing courts to declare their seats vacant and call for new elections to fill them. Abbott has also suggested that Democrats fundraising to support their quorum break may be committing felony bribery. (The legislature enacted a $500-a-day punishment for breaking quorum after a similar Democratic effort in 2021) 'I will use my full extradition authority to demand the return to Texas of any potential out-of-state felons,' Abbott said in a statement Sunday. When asked whether Trump would call upon federal agents to arrest the Texas lawmakers who have left state jurisdiction, an administration official told NBC News: 'Abbott can handle his own state.' The clash stems from Abbott's decision to call a special session of the legislature this summer to address, among other topics, redistricting. President Donald Trump has pushed for a rare mid-decade redistricting, which the president has said would allow Republicans to pick up five more seats and pad their slim majority in the U.S. House ahead of next year's national elections, when Democrats will try to flip the chamber. The proposed map released by a Republican state lawmaker last week opened a path toward a 5-seat GOP gain, shifting boundaries around major cities and in South Texas to create 30 districts that Trump carried by double-digit margins during last fall's presidential election. Texas Republicans currently control 25 of the state's 38 congressional seats. Democrats have decried the move as a power play and criticized Republicans for moving on the redistricting bill before responding legislatively to the devastating floods earlier this summer that killed more than 100 people in Kerr County, outside of San Antonio. Democratic state Rep. Ann Johnson of Houston, speaking Sunday evening after arriving at a press conference at a strip mall about 30 miles west of Chicago, said the redistricting bill is only happening because Trump is 'afraid of the electorate next November.' 'Nobody wants this mid-redistrict draw. Nobody is asking for this. There is one human that wants this, and that is Donald Trump,' Johnson added. 'And Abbott has turned over the state of Texas to try to serve his purpose. This does no good for the people of Texas. In fact, it takes away the voice of millions of Texas.' But while many Republicans acknowledge the politics of the situation, they point to their party's significant majority in the legislature and control of Texas' statewide offices as justification. Republican state Rep. Cody Vasut told NBC News over the weekend that he evaluated the map by asking himself the question: 'Does this improve the political performance of Republicans in Texas?' 'When we've seen all of these blue states overperform with their maps and Texas is underperforming, that puts Republicans at a distinct disadvantage nationwide,' added Vasut, who chairs the state House redistricting committee. What happens next? The full scope of the Democrats' plans aren't clear. Texas' special legislative session cannot last more than 30 days, but Abbott could continue to call new ones indefinitely. While Pritzker has asked his staff to give the runaway Democrats logistical support, and the high-profile nature of the fight could help them raise funds to extend their trip, eventually one side has to cave. 'Democrats are looking to this as a messaging opportunity more than as a political or legal or legislative strategy. The options they have are pretty limited, so they best they can hope for is to use this as a spotlight moment to shine a light on some of the issues that they have with the Republicans in Texas and Donald Trump,' said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston. State Rep. Gina Hinojosa, a Democrat representing Austin who helped to organize a similar Democratic walkout in 2021 in response to election legislation, told NBC News last week that the effort four years prior was 'wildly successful' because it led to Republicans removing parts of the legislation — though the bills eventually became law. 'We could have never anticipated that the amount of publicity we brought onto Republicans would have shamed them into taking out those most egregious parts — so here's what I know: I know we'll fight with everything we've got. This is situational. We'll take it day by day, see what our best play is,' she said. Meanwhile, a group of state Senate Democrats, who were in Boston for the National Conference of State Legislatures' annual summit, told NBC News that while they'd remain in Boston through Wednesday, their future plans aren't yet determined. State Sen. Sarah Eckhardt, a Democrat who represents an Austin-area district, was realistic about what the lawmakers' decision to flee could achieve, saying the 'delay' can help Democrats 'see what other opportunities we have to stop it.' 'I don't know how long we can do this, but you know, we don't win every battle,' Eckhardt said. 'We don't know how this comes out, but to not fight this is simply not an option.'
