Trump wants to end mail-in voting. DeSantis says Florida's system is fine
Asked about Trump's vow on Monday to 'lead a movement' to end the use of mail-in ballots, DeSantis said he thought it only applied to states that send mail ballots to all voters.
'What he means by vote my mail, I think, just in my conversations, is the states like California and Nevada and others, where they just send all these ballots out into the ether,' DeSantis said during a news conference.
He defended Florida's system, in which voters have to request a vote-by-mail ballot.
'I think what Florida has is absentee voting,' he said. He noted that county elections supervisors don't mail ballots to anyone who hasn't requested one.
Trump's post on Truth Social made no such distinctions. He wrote that he would issue an executive order to bring 'honesty' to the 2026 elections by getting 'rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS' as well as 'Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES.'
'It's time that the Republicans get tough and stop it, because the Democrats want it,' Trump later told reporters.
Trump does not have the power to change voting laws. The Constitution gives states the power to set the 'times, places and manner' of elections.
Trump's longstanding grievance with voting by mail — a method he has used to vote in Palm Beach County — has exposed rifts among Florida Republicans over the last few years.
The state's GOP leaders have promoted the use of voting by mail over the last two decades, even changing the name from 'absentee' to 'vote by mail' to imply that voters don't have to be absent to make use of it. More than 3 million Floridians voted by mail in last year's election.
But DeSantis and the party have had to bat down fringe elements who have embraced Trump's claims of widespread voter fraud, including with the use of mail-in ballots in Florida. Lawmakers have responded by making it harder to request, renew and submit mail ballots.
DeSantis said Tuesday that voting by mail is 'popular' in Florida, and he questioned how banning it outright would work.
'Clearly, you would need some absentee [ballots] for military overseas [voters], right?' DeSantis said. 'I mean, so that's at a minimum, you'd need that.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Texas House finally passes congressional redistricting map after weeks of walkouts, lock-ins and arrest warrants
The new map could secure the GOP five additional seats in Congress in next year's midterms. Democrats say they now plan to challenge the map in court. The Texas House of Representatives approved a new map for the state's congressional districts on Wednesday, cementing a legislative win for Republicans that had been put on hold for weeks when Democratic legislators fled the state to block its passage. The new map would give the GOP a chance to secure up to five additional seats in Congress in next year's midterm elections. A final vote in the state Senate, which is expected to approve the plan, is needed before the it can be signed into law. Democrats say they intend to challenge the map in court. Republicans first announced their intention to pursue redistricting outside of the usual 10-year cycle in June. But the fight over the plan didn't become a national story until earlier this month, when dozens of Democrats left the state in order to prevent the House from having enough members present to formally meet. Each absent Democrat was fined $500 a day during the roughly two weeks they were out of state. Texas's Republican governor Greg Abbott also threatened to have them removed from their seats and civil warrants were issued for their arrests. In the end, though, the Democrats opted to return home in order to 'build a strong public legislative record for the upcoming legal battle' over the maps. They argue that the new district violates both the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Their walkout, which was never likely to prevent the maps from passing entirely, inspired Democrats in blue states across the country to rally behind their cause, pleading to pursue their own redistricting plans to offset the GOP's gains in Texas. So far, only California has formally moved forward with that process. Democratic governor Gavin Newsom has called for a special election in November to ask voters to approve new district lines in the state. Texas Democrats returned to the House for the first time on Monday, which allowed the chamber to meet briefly before adjourning with a plan to meet again on Wednesday to consider the maps. At the end of Monday's session, the House's GOP leadership instituted a rule requiring all Democrats who had previously left the state to submit to police escort in order to be allowed to exit the Capitol. All but one, Rep. Nicole Collier of Fort Worth, consented. Collier chose instead to remain in the House chamber. She spent Tuesday night sleeping at her desk with her feet propped up on a rolling chair. Two of her colleagues, including House Minority Leader Gene Wu, joined her overnight protest Tuesday night. More Democrats did the same on Wednesday night. The House reconvened on Wednesday morning for a lengthy — and at times heated — debate over the redistricting plan. Democrats proposed a variety of amendments to the proposal, including one that would have only allowed the maps to go into effect if the federal government agreed to release all files related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. 'What we are doing today is unjust, it is un-Texan and it is un-American,' Democratic representative Cassandra Garcia Hernandez said before the bill's final passage. The bill was eventually passed in an 88—52 party-line vote. The issue now moves to the courts. The standards for what makes congressional maps legal or not can be complicated. The Supreme Court has ruled that gerrymandered maps drawn to give one party a political advantage are generally constitutional. However, district lines that deliberately weaken the voting power of a specific racial group are not. The fate of Texas's new map will hinge on whether the courts view it as a racial gerrymander, as Democrats claim, rather than a purely partisan one. Republicans are also looking at a number of other red states where they believe there may be opportunities to gain extra seats through redistricting, including Ohio, Missouri and Indiana. Democrats are doing the same in blue states outside of California, though their ability to put more favorable district lines in states like Illinois, Maryland and New York may be limited. Read more: Texas redistricting fight goes national as GOP, Dems prepare for more battles over future House maps The ultimate outcome of the redistricting battle, in Texas and nationwide, could play a major role in deciding which party has control of Congress after the 2026 midterms. Democrats only need to gain a small number of seats to get the majority in the House. If they do, they would effectively have veto power over any legislation Trump and the GOP want to pass. They would also have new oversight authority and the ability to launch investigations into the president's most controversial moves since he returned to office.
CBS News
14 minutes ago
- CBS News
Texas House passes GOP redistricting plan after weeks-long standoff
The Texas House of Representatives gave final passage on Wednesday to House Bill 4, a controversial Republican-backed proposal to redraw the state's congressional maps and potentially add up to five new GOP-leaning districts. Entering Wednesday, the bill needed to pass two votes in the House to advance to the Senate. Each vote passed 88-52. Before the final vote, lawmakers debated a series of amendments offered by Democrats, all of which were rejected by the Republican majority. The bill was the sole item on the agenda for the day's floor session, which began at 10 a.m. The Texas Senate, which approved a similar version of the redistricting legislation earlier this week, is scheduled to take up the House-passed bill when it convenes this Thursday at 7 p.m. If the Senate approves the House version without changes, the legislation could be sent to Gov. Greg Abbott by the end of the week. If not, the two chambers will need to reconcile differences in a conference committee. The vote came after a dramatic standoff earlier this month, when Democratic lawmakers fled the state to break quorum and block action on the redistricting bill. Their absence stalled the Legislature and effectively ended the first special session, delaying the measure for two weeks. Gov. Greg Abbott called a second special session hours after the first adjourned, and Democrats returned to the House chamber on Monday, allowing the legislation to move forward. That evening, HB 4 passed out of the House redistricting committee on a 12-8 party-line vote. To prevent another walkout, House Speaker Dustin Burrows imposed a rule requiring Democratic members to be escorted by Department of Public Safety officers if they wished to leave the Capitol. While most Democrats complied, Rep. Nicole Collier of Fort Worth refused. She was temporarily locked in the House chamber and was later allowed to go to her Capitol office. On Monday, Collier filed a petition in state court alleging she was under "illegal restraint by the government." The court has not yet ruled on the matter. On Tuesday, several other Democrats joined Collier in protest, tearing up their signed escort agreements and spending the night in the Capitol. With the passage of HB 4, Republican leaders dropped the escort requirement. The redistricting plan is expected to give Republicans a significant advantage in the 2026 midterm elections, potentially flipping up to five congressional seats.
Boston Globe
15 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Education Department quietly removes rules for teaching English learners
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Since March, the Education Department has also laid off nearly all workers in its Office of English Language Acquisition and has asked Congress to terminate funding for the federal program that helps pay for educating English-language learners. Last week, education advocates noticed that the guidance document related to English learning had a new label indicating it was rescinded and remains online 'for historical purposes only.' Advertisement On Tuesday, Education Department spokesperson Madi Biedermann said that the guidance for teaching English learners, which was originally set forth in 2015, was rescinded because it 'is not in line with administration policy.' Advertisement A Justice Department spokesperson responded to questions by sending a link to the July memorandum and said he had no comment when asked whether the guidance would be replaced. For decades, the federal government has held that failing to provide resources for people not proficient in English constitutes discrimination based on national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In rescinding the guidance, the Trump administration is signaling that it may stop enforcing the law under that long-standing interpretation. The Education and Justice departments have been responsible for enforcing the law. In the July memorandum, Attorney General Pam Bondi cited case law that says treating people, including students, who aren't proficient in English differently does not, on its face, amount to discrimination based on national origin. Other guidance related to language access for people using services across the federal government is also being suspended, according to the memo, and the Justice Department will create new guidance by mid-January to 'help agencies prioritize English while explaining precisely when and how multilingual assistance remains necessary.' The aim of the effort, Bondi said in a statement published alongside the memo, is to 'promote assimilation over division.' The consequences for school districts were not immediately clear, but advocates worry that rescinding the 2015 guidance could open the door for weaker instruction for English learners and upend decades of direction from the federal government to provide English-language services to students who need them. 'The Department of Education and the Department of Justice are walking away from 55 years of legal understanding and enforcement. I don't think we can understate how important that is,' said Michael Pillera, an attorney who worked at the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights for 10 years and now directs the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights. Advertisement Without pressure from the federal government to comply with the law, it is possible that some school districts will drop services, Pillera said, particularly as many districts struggle with financial pressures. 'It's going to ripple quickly,' he predicted. 'Schools were doing this because the Office for Civil Rights told them they had to.' Many districts will probably not change their services, but rescinding the guidance opens the door, said Leslie Villegas, an education policy analyst at New America, a think tank. Advocates may watch for changes in districts that previously had compliance problems or those that had open cases with the Office for Civil Rights related to English-language instruction, she noted. 'The rescission of this guidance may create the mentality that no one's watching,' Villegas said. In recent months, the Justice Department notified at least three school districts — in Boston; Newark; and Worcester, Massachusetts — that the government was releasing them from government monitoring that had been in place to ensure they offered services to English-language learners. 'Unfortunately, we're not at all surprised,' Anna Krieger, executive director of Massachusetts Advocates for Children, said of the Trump administration's latest move. 'It's a really devastating decision.'' In anticipation of such a shift, Krieger said in a phone interview Wednesday evening, state lawmakers recently took action to ensure ongoing protections for Massachusetts students who are learning English and those with disabilities. 'They will still have the same rights next year that they had in the last school year,' she said. Advertisement Supporters of immigration restrictions argued that relieving pressure on schools to provide these services might be helpful, especially given the costs to districts. 'If you devote all these resources to these kids coming in [to school] completely unprepared, inevitably it will diminish the quality of education others are getting,' said Ira Mehlman, spokesperson for the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Todd DuBois, communications director for U.S. English, a group that advocates for English as the official and common language, said some education is needed to help 'bridge the gap' for students who do not speak English, but the group is concerned that multilingualism 'gets in the way of teaching English literacy earlier in life.' Tonya Alanez of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
