DNC votes to redo vice chair elections of Hogg, Kenyatta
Members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have voted to redo its vice chair election, teeing up two separate votes for the positions held by David Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta.
The vote to redo the elections was 294-99.
Oklahoma DNC member Kalyn Free, who ran for a vice chair position and lost, filed a challenge in late February over the way the vice chair election was conducted, alleging in her letter that it unfairly gave the male candidates an advantage over the female vice chair candidates.
The DNC Credentials Committee determined last month it would move forward with the challenge and put the matter to a vote for the entire committee to see whether a majority of members believed the vice chair election should be conducted again.
Now, the DNC will hold two separate virtual votes, one running between June 12 and June 14 for a male vice chair ballot and another running June 15 to June 17 for a vice chair ballot in which any gender candidate can run.
Free's complaint over the February vice chair election is separate from a firestorm Hogg has ignited within the party over whether he should be involved in primarying members of the party while serving as a DNC officer.
Those tensions came to a head earlier this week when leaked audio of a Zoom call with DNC officers showed Chair Ken Martin expressing frustration with Hogg, telling the gun control activist in part: 'I don't think you intended this, but you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to, so it's really frustrating.'
While Hogg has sought to distance himself from the leaked audio, the ordeal has contributed to bubbling tensions between Hogg and DNC leadership. The controversy also prompted some members to rethink the way they were going to vote over the DNC vice chair election redo.
Even if Hogg survives the challenge and is reelected as vice chair, his position within the DNC is far from certain if he continues to stay involved in primaries against incumbents as an DNC officer.
Kenyatta quickly offered a statement saying he looked forward to making his case.
'I respect the vote of the DNC, and now we can almost bring this chapter to a close,' he said in a statement. 'I look forward to making my case to DNC members and our party as a whole on how we make life better and refocusing on Trump's attacks on our Constitution and working families.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Judge invokes monarchy talk while mulling Trump's National Guard deployment
A federal judge warned at a Thursday hearing that accepting the Trump administration's assertion he has no authority to review the president's National Guard deployment in Los Angeles is a slippery slope. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said he hoped to rule later in the day on California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) request to immediately restrict the troops' power on the ground, suggesting federal law at minimum required President Trump to alert the governor. The judge repeatedly emphasized that Trump is exercising presidential authority — not a king's — and the role comes with limitations. 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George,' Breyer said. 'It's not that a leader can simply say something and then it becomes it. It's a question of is a leader, a president or the governor, following the law as set forth in both the Constitution and statutes,' he continued. 'That's what a president, a governor or any leader must act under. Otherwise, they become something other than a constitutional officer.' Breyer seemed willing to agree with Newsom that Trump's deployment was legally defective, but it's still a question as to whether the judge will enjoin the president's directive or give the administration a chance to institute it the proper way. At the same time, Breyer appeared skeptical of blocking at this stage the 700 Marines sent to assist the several thousand guard members deployed. The Trump administration argues Breyer has no authority to review Trump's deployment of the National Guard because it is in the president's sole discretion. Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate argued that Trump was not required to seek approval from Newsom in mobilizing the guard, calling the governor 'merely a conduit.' The president does not have to call up a governor and 'invite them to Camp David' for a negotiation summit to call up the National Guard in their state, he said. 'There is one commander in chief of the armed forces, and when the president makes a decision, the states are subservient to the president's decision,' Shumate said. Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) contend that Trump was required to receive Newsom's consent before deploying the National Guard. 'They suggest, your honor, that there are no guardrails,' Nicholas Green, a lawyer for the state, said. Amid the legal battle, Trump said Thursday that he 'doesn't feel like a king.' He was responding to questions about 'No Kings' demonstrations expected around the country this weekend, which are set to coincide with a military parade marking the U.S. Army's 250th birthday. 'I have to go through hell to get stuff approved,' Trump said. Breyer during the hearing kept returning to monarchy talk, trying to determine how he could side with Trump without giving him unchecked power. 'What makes America great, different, is our Constitution and our robust discussion of views of the citizens,' the judge said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Former ICE Chief Of Staff Blasts Trump's 'Unprecedented' Move Amid LA Protests
A former chief of staff of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ripped President Donald Trump's administration for taking the 'unprecedented' action of deploying Marines and National Guard troops to protests in Los Angeles. Jason Houser, who served under former President Joe Biden and once was a top official in the Department of Homeland Security, told MSNBC's Ana Cabrera that troops from those forces have never accompanied his old agency on operations. 'The National Guard has been focused on the rioters and protesters but when they finally jump that line and you begin to see National Guard, Marines carrying out domestic immigration enforcement, that's a very scary line,' he said, 'both for law enforcement and also those migrants that were here legally, who had status and are now being targeted for arrest.' Houser emphasized that the Marines' training reflects a 'lethal tool' and, in terms of national security, the U.S. needs them to keep Americans safe from 'global threats.' 'But to have Marines and National Guard to begin doing knocks and bangs on doors, going to get families, children, vulnerable populations — it's not within their mission set or their training,' Houser said. As demonstrations continue against the president's aggressive immigration policies, photos shared by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement this week showed National Guard troops protecting federal immigration agents as they made arrests in Los Angeles. The president suggested using the National Guard to carry out his mass deportation campaign last year. Officials told the Associated Press that the troops weren't participating in enforcement activities but were providing security for agents in the L.A. area instead. Houser stressed that as the administration seeks to fulfill arrest quotas of non-criminal 'vetted and screened' migrants, it's 'turning our national security apparatus away' to enforce domestic immigration matters instead. In April, Houser struck a similar tone in a New York Times op-ed and later knocked the administration on MSNBC for engaging in 'dangerous political theater' through the misuse of federal law enforcement to 'drive a narrative' that migrants seeking protection under the law are here to harm Americans. 'It's risky, it's risky for our Constitution, it is inhumane, it is against our American values and, quite frankly, it's getting in the way of federal law enforcement carrying out the public safety protections that we need,' he told MSNBC at the time. Marines Deployed To Los Angeles Will Be Able To Detain Civilians Miley Cyrus Tells Monica Lewinsky About Losing 'Everything': 'My 2013 Is Your 1998' Kristi Noem Ripped For Latest 'Dehumanizing' Dig About People In Los Angeles ... And It's Bad
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Judge orders Trump to return National Guard to California's control
A federal judge on Thursday granted California Gov. Gavin Newsom's request to block the Trump administration from federalizing the National Guard for deployment to Los Angeles amid protests over federal immigration raids. The administration filed a notice of appeal appeal soon after the ruling. The big picture: The administration has activated some 4,000 National Guard members and mobilized hundreds of Marines in response to protests in the area sparked by federal immigration raids. Newsom has slammed the move as "purposefully inflammatory" and has been locked in a tense standoff with President Trump for days. The unrest has spread, with demonstrations denouncing the administration's mass deportation push popping up coast to coast. Driving the news: U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in a Thursday evening order in response to Newsom's request for emergency relief that the Trump administration's actions were "illegal." Catch up quick: On June 10, Newsom requested a temporary restraining order to "prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active duty Marines for law enforcement purposes on the streets of a civilian city." The request did not seek to bar the Guard from protecting federal buildings or property but rather sought "narrow relief tailored to avoid irreparable harm to our communities and the rule of law." Breyer did not initially intervene in that request and granted the Trump administration more time to respond to the governor. The other side: The Justice Department in a Wednesday filing argued that Trump had" every right under the Constitution and by statute to call forth the National Guard and Marines to quell lawless violence directed against enforcement of federal law."
