As millions of Americans struggle to find time for vacations, President Joe Biden’s bountiful time off stands in sharp contrast.
Many Americans leave paid vacation days unused, while Biden has taken over 500 days off during his presidency, as the Washington Examiner reports, seemingly confirming rumors that he would be permitted to carry out the last months of his term as he saw fit, provided he ended his re-election campaign, as the Washington Examiner reports.
Americans are well-known for being hesitant to take vacation days. Despite having an average of 12 paid days off each year, most workers don’t use all of them. In fact, Americans take an average of just 11 vacation days annually, according to recent data. Some workers say they’re simply too busy to take a break from their jobs.
This reluctance to take vacations places Americans behind many of their global counterparts. For example, Japanese employees take an average of 12 vacation days each year. Despite everyday Americans' hesitation, President Biden has reportedly taken a staggering 532 days off in less than four years.
Biden’s vacation habits are a stark contrast to the American worker’s reality. Using data from travel company Expedia, Biden’s time off is equivalent to more than 48 years of vacation time for the average American employee. This comparison highlights the disparity between the president’s time off and the typical work-life balance experienced by many in the U.S.
The president frequently spends his vacations at his Wilmington, Delaware, home or at the beach in Delaware. Despite his time away from the White House, he remains on call for national matters and has been seen using his cellphone during these vacations. His vacations are regular, yet Biden is often spotted conducting presidential business during his time off.
Though the president’s frequent vacations raise eyebrows, the reality is that many Americans are overworked. A significant 32% of U.S. workers go a year or more without taking a single vacation, according to one report. In contrast, the global average is much lower, at around 18% of workers worldwide experiencing such long gaps between vacations.
For many, the idea of taking time off simply isn’t realistic. Whether due to demanding jobs or economic pressures, workers in the U.S. continue to struggle with the concept of work-life balance. With only 12 paid vacation days on average, it’s not uncommon for workers to forgo taking time off entirely.
This problem is compounded by the fact that American workers report feeling too busy to step away from their jobs. For some, the risk of falling behind or missing out on opportunities at work makes taking a break seem like a luxury rather than a necessity. This attitude toward vacation time creates a culture where workers are continually grinding, even at the expense of their well-being.
Meanwhile, the president’s approach to vacationing presents a stark contrast to that of the everyday worker. While many Americans hesitate to take time off, Biden has been able to spend more than 500 days on vacation, mostly at his Delaware properties.
President Biden’s extensive vacation time has not gone unnoticed by the public. As he continues to work remotely during his time off, many question the optics of such frequent vacations during a time when the average American is struggling to maintain a healthy work-life balance.
Although Biden stays in communication and is available for urgent matters, his lengthy periods away from the White House have raised concerns among some critics. These vacations, however, are in line with the tradition of presidents taking time away from Washington, D.C., to manage the stresses of the office.
Still, the comparison between Biden’s time off and the average American worker’s vacation habits remains stark. While Americans are twice as likely as their global counterparts to go a year or more without a break, the president has enjoyed more than a year’s worth of vacations in just three years.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s incoming class is less diverse this year, following a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in college admissions.
The 2024 data reveals a shift in the composition of UNC Chapel Hill’s student body, with a notable decline in minority enrollment and an increase in white and Asian students, as NC Newsline reports.
The university’s latest data shows that students identifying as white or Asian now make up 89.6% of first-year and transfer students, compared to 88.5% in 2023. Meanwhile, students from Black, Hispanic, and Native American backgrounds have seen a decrease, now comprising 19% of the class, down from 22.9% last year.
This marks the first academic year since the Supreme Court struck down the use of race-based considerations in admissions. The June 2023 decision, a 6-3 decision made along ideological lines, found that these policies violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
Following this decision, many universities, including UNC Chapel Hill, had to adjust their admissions processes. The university has acknowledged that it is still too early to determine long-term trends from a single year of data. “It’s too soon to see trends with just one year of data,” said Rachelle Feldman, the university’s vice provost for enrollment, in a statement.
Of the specific demographic changes, the largest drop was among Black students, whose enrollment decreased from 10.5% in 2023 to 7.8% in 2024. Hispanic enrollment also fell from 10.8% to 10.1%, and Native American students now make up just 1.1% of the class, down from 1.6% the previous year.
While the overall number of minority students decreased, the percentage of Asian students grew from 24.8% in 2023 to 25.8% this year. White students saw a slight increase, moving from 63.7% to 63.8% of the student population. Other smaller demographic groups, like Pacific Islanders, also saw modest growth, with their numbers increasing from 0.2% to 0.3% this year.
Despite these shifts, UNC Chapel Hill is committed to ensuring access for students from all backgrounds, according to Feldman. The university continues to welcome students from all 100 counties of North Carolina and beyond.
“We are committed to following the new law,” Feldman stated. She emphasized that UNC remains dedicated to making students from all parts of the state feel welcome and supported on campus, despite the changes in admissions policies. Feldman added that the university strives to ensure all students have confidence in the affordability and accessibility of a UNC education.
Despite the changes in diversity, interest in the university remains high. The school received a record number of applications for the fall 2024 semester, with 73,192 students applying, a 15.8% increase from the previous year.
The incoming class includes 4,641 first-year students and 983 transfer students, with 4,608 of them hailing from North Carolina. Another 1,016 students are from out-of-state or international locations. Students in the 2024 class come from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 79 countries, showing a broad geographic reach even as the racial diversity within the U.S. portion of the student body has shifted.
As the first-year post-affirmative action ruling landscape unfolds, many observers will be watching how the demographic trends at UNC Chapel Hill evolve. While some groups have seen enrollment declines, the university's leadership is focused on ensuring that students from every background can find a place at the institution.
Looking ahead, UNC Chapel Hill will likely continue to adapt its admissions strategies in light of the Supreme Court ruling, as schools across the country face similar challenges. The full impact of these changes may only become clear in future years. The drop in Black, Hispanic, and Native American enrollment stands in contrast to an increase in white and Asian students, reflecting the broader effects of the court's decision.
A New York judge has delayed former President Donald Trump’s sentencing in the hush money case led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Justice Juan Merchan rescheduled the sentencing -- in which Trump could receive prison time -- for Nov. 26, moving it beyond the presidential election, as Just the News reports.
The sentencing stems from Trump’s conviction earlier this year on 34 counts of falsifying business records. These charges are related to a 2016 payment made by Trump’s former attorney, Michael Cohen, to adult film star Stormy Daniels. The payment was made in an effort to keep Daniels from publicly discussing her alleged affair with Trump, a claim the former president has consistently denied.
The sentencing was originally scheduled for July 11, but was first postponed to Sept. 18. Now, in a second delay, the new date has been set for November 26. This timing moves it to just after the upcoming presidential election, in which Trump is once again seeking to win the White House.
Trump’s legal team had sought to delay the sentencing further while filing motions to dismiss the charges. His attorneys argue that the former president’s actions should have been protected under presidential immunity, given that the payment to Daniels was made during his 2016 campaign. This legal strategy has sparked debate among legal experts and political commentators.
A hearing was also scheduled for Sept. 16 to address Trump’s claims to immunity, but that has also been postponed. The hearing could play a significant role in the trajectory of the case moving forward.
In addition to seeking delays, Trump has asked the court to dismiss the guilty verdict entirely. His legal team contends that critical evidence and testimony should have been excluded, citing a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that could influence the former president's claims of presidential immunity.
Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that the payment to Daniels was a personal matter and not a violation of campaign finance laws. He has framed the case as politically motivated, suggesting that the charges were part of a broader effort to derail his 2024 campaign.
The delay in sentencing gives Trump more time to focus on his presidential run without the immediate distraction of a legal ruling hanging over his head. However, the ongoing legal battles ensure that the case will remain a significant part of the political landscape.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, under Bragg, has indicated it will continue to pursue the case vigorously. Bragg has faced significant pressure from both political supporters and detractors, many of whom argue that the case has broader implications for the rule of law and the accountability of elected officials.
For Trump, the delay represents both a temporary reprieve and an ongoing challenge. While he avoids immediate sentencing, the legal questions surrounding the case will likely remain a focus as his campaign progresses.
As the Nov. 26 sentencing date approaches, the intersection of Trump’s legal troubles and his political ambitions will continue to be a topic of significant public interest. Both his critics and supporters will be watching closely to see how the case unfolds and what impact, if any, it has on the broader election campaign.
The former president’s future, both in the courtroom and on the campaign trail, remains uncertain as legal battles continue to swirl around him.
Former President Donald Trump has expressed his opinions following a decision to delay his sentencing in the New York v. Trump case until after the 2024 presidential election.
Judge Juan Merchan agreed to postpone the sentencing, responding to a request from Trump's legal team to avoid impacting the electoral process, as Fox News reports.
Merchan set the new date for Nov. 26. The sentencing had already been rescheduled twice, first from July 11 to Sept. 18. Trump's lawyers argued that a sentencing during the election season would unduly influence and disrupt the proceedings.
Trump has harshly criticized the case in its entirety, claiming his innocence and assertingthat the subsequent delays indicate the lack of grounds for his conviction.
"The case should be dead," Trump stated, emphasizing that he committed no wrongdoing and describing the case as politically charged. He added: "The public understands that and so does every legal scholar that has looked at it and studied it."
Judge Merchan justified the delay by stating the public's trust in the judicial system necessitated a distraction-free sentencing, should it be required. He emphasized the complexity of the current period and the need for a focused sentencing hearing.
Merchan explained, "The public's confidence in the integrity of our judicial system demands a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors free from distraction or distortion." Explaining the depth of the situation, he remarked, "We are now at a place in time that is fraught with complexities rendering the requirements of a sentencing hearing, should one be necessary, difficult to execute."
Trump's appeal is based on arguments related to presidential immunity, which he says are supported by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. He continues to challenge the verdict and questions the impartiality of the judicial process.
Adding to the controversy, Trump suggested a conflict of interest connected to Judge Merchan’s daughter, who has worked with Democratic candidates, further implying political motivation behind his conviction. Trump maintained, "The case was delayed because everyone realizes there was no case and I did nothing wrong."
Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump, echoed the president’s sentiments, calling the case an "election interference witch hunt" and criticizing the judicial proceedings.
"There should be no sentencing in the Manhattan DA’s election interference witch hunt," Cheung declared, referencing what he views as politically motivated attacks against Trump. Cheung added, "As mandated by the United States Supreme Court, this case, along with all of the other Harris-Biden hoaxes, should be dismissed."
Judge Juan Merchan granted former President Donald Trump's request to delay his sentencing, now scheduled for Nov. 26. The delay follows Trump's appeal of the verdict resulting from a six-week trial led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump continues to claim his innocence and criticizes the case as politically motivated, raising questions about judicial impartiality.
Merchan asserts that public trust in the judicial system necessitates a focused and distraction-free sentencing hearing if it occurs. The trial's evidence included official communications from Trump’s administration, and the president’s legal team has invoked presidential immunity in its appeal. Trump's statements and the involvement of Judge Merchan’s daughter in Democratic campaigns have fueled ongoing political and legal debates.
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has seen a notable shift in the racial makeup of its incoming class following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision against affirmative action in higher education admissions.
The court’s ruling has led to a decrease in Black, Hispanic, and Native American students, with a corresponding rise in the percentage of white and Asian students in the university’s newest cohort, as NC Newsline reports.
In the fall of 2024, the percentage of first-year and transfer students identifying as white or Asian increased from 88.5% in 2023 to 89.6%. This shift in student demographics represents the first enrollment cycle since the Supreme Court decision, handed down in June 2023, declared race-conscious admissions practices unconstitutional.
The ruling, which came in a 6-3 vote, was based on the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The decision significantly impacted UNC Chapel Hill, whose admissions policies had previously considered race as a factor in creating a diverse student body.
The largest demographic decreases were observed among Black students. Their representation in the incoming class dropped from 10.5% in 2023 to 7.8% in 2024. This 2.7% decline marks the most significant reduction among all racial and ethnic groups at the university.
Hispanic student enrollment also saw a dip, falling from 10.8% in 2023 to 10.1% in 2024. Native American students experienced a similar decline, dropping from 1.6% to 1.1% over the same period.
The overall enrollment data shows that UNC Chapel Hill’s efforts to attract diverse populations face new challenges in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. While some students identified with more than one race or ethnicity, leading to totals exceeding 100%, the trend is clear: diversity in the traditional sense is declining.
Conversely, the university saw an increase in the number of Asian students. In the fall of 2024, Asian students made up 25.8% of the class, up from 24.8% in 2023. This 1% rise highlights the growing presence of this demographic in the university’s student body. White student enrollment also slightly increased, moving from 63.7% to 63.8% over the same time period. Meanwhile, Pacific Islander representation rose from 0.2% to 0.3%.
The overall student population for the 2024 incoming class includes 4,641 first-year students and 983 transfer students. A large portion of these students—4,608—are from North Carolina, while the remaining 1,016 hail from out-of-state or international locations.
Rachelle Feldman, UNC Chapel Hill’s vice provost for enrollment, urged caution in interpreting the early data. “It’s too soon to see trends with just one year of data,” she said. Feldman stressed that the university remains dedicated to both following the Supreme Court ruling and ensuring that students from all backgrounds feel encouraged to apply.
Feldman reiterated the institution's commitment to welcoming students from all 100 counties across North Carolina, emphasizing the university's affordability and inclusivity. Despite the demographic shifts, the total number of applicants to UNC Chapel Hill increased from 63,217 in 2023 to 73,192 in 2024, representing a 15.8% jump. Students in the incoming class come from 95 counties within North Carolina, all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and 79 countries.
The Supreme Court’s decision against affirmative action has ramifications beyond UNC Chapel Hill. Across the nation, colleges and universities are grappling with the ruling, as race-conscious admissions policies had been a longstanding tool for increasing diversity in higher education.
While some schools have seen similar drops in diversity, others are working to find alternative methods for maintaining varied student bodies within the constraints of the new legal landscape. The full effects of the ruling may take years to fully understand, as schools adjust to the new guidelines. As for UNC Chapel Hill, its leaders are committed to complying with the new laws while continuing to offer opportunities to students from all parts of the state and beyond.
Secretary of State Tony Blinken has signaled his intention to leave his position if Vice President Kamala Harris secures the presidency in 2024.
Blinken, citing personal reasons, has indicated he is unlikely to serve beyond the current administration if Harris is elected in November, as Just the News reports.
Speaking on Wednesday, Blinken suggested his decision stemmed from a desire to prioritize his family, particularly his children, whom he had spent time with during a recent break. "As to my own future, all I’m looking at right now is the balance of this administration and January," he stated.
The demands of Blinken’s role, which frequently keeps him away from home for extended periods, have been a significant factor in his decision. Secretaries of state often serve only one term due to the relentless travel and international responsibilities, according to historical precedent.
In his comments, Blinken emphasized the importance of spending more time with his family, especially his young children. He spends nearly half his time traveling as secretary of State, an intense schedule that has limited his availability for personal matters.
During a break, Blinken enjoyed time with his family, which reinforced his desire to step back from his current post. His statement suggests that while he remains committed to his duties for the remainder of the Biden administration, his focus will shift if Harris takes the White House.
Blinken has served as secretary of State since January 2021 and has been deeply involved in the administration’s foreign policy efforts. However, the strain of the job appears to have contributed to his decision not to continue if Harris is elected.
According to the Washington Post, it is not uncommon for secretaries of state to step down after a single term, given the immense pressures associated with the job. Blinken’s possible departure would follow this pattern, reflecting the high turnover among those who hold the office.
The job requires extensive travel, diplomacy, and the navigation of complex international issues. Balancing these demands with personal life has long been a challenge for those who occupy the role. Blinken’s comments mark the first time he has publicly indicated his likely departure from the position, though he has remained non-committal about the future beyond January 2025.
Should Harris win the presidency, Blinken’s departure could signal a significant shift in the direction of U.S. foreign policy. While he has not elaborated on his plans post-2024, his absence from the administration would leave a notable gap, given his extensive experience and diplomatic relationships.
Blinken has been a key figure in shaping the Biden administration’s foreign policy, including navigating major international crises and diplomatic engagements.
His successor, should Harris become president, would inherit a complex global landscape and the ongoing challenges of maintaining U.S. influence abroad. For now, Blinken remains focused on his role as Secretary of State, but his recent comments suggest a shift in priorities as he looks ahead to spending more time with his family.
Despite his deep involvement in the current administration’s foreign policy efforts, Blinken's personal life is taking precedence as the 2024 election looms. His comments about valuing time with his children suggest he may not seek another high-profile role in government in the near future. As the election approaches, Blinken’s future plans remain uncertain, but his intention to prioritize family life appears firmly in place.
Recent financial filings reveal that Vice President Kamala Harris's campaign paid the daughter of the judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s New York "hush money" trial.
The revelation of Harris's payment has raised concerns of conflict of interest, with GOP Congresswoman Elise Stefanik having filed a judicial ethics complaint against Judge Juan Merchan, as the lawmaker herself explained on X.
Kamala Harris’s Federal Election Commission (FEC) report from July 2024 indicates a payment of $468.00 to Authentic Campaigns, Inc., a firm owned by Loren Merchan, the daughter of Judge Juan Merchan. Judge Merchan is the presiding judge in the high-profile trial involving Donald Trump and alleged payments to Stormy Daniels. Harris’s payment has fueled a political storm, with allegations that the judge’s impartiality could be compromised.
Judge Juan Merchan played a key role in overseeing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Trump. The case involves accusations that Trump orchestrated a payment to silence adult film actress Stormy Daniels. His connection to the case has drawn attention in light of new financial information.
Loren Merchan's firm, Authentic Campaigns, has worked extensively with Democratic candidates, including President Biden and Vice President Harris. It has reportedly received millions from campaigns seeking to counter Trump. With the new information about Harris’s payments to the company, concerns over the relationship between Judge Merchan’s family and high-profile Democrats have intensified.
Stefanik, in her latest ethics complaint, contends that Judge Merchan’s involvement in Trump’s case is inappropriate, given his daughter’s financial interests. The New York State Judicial Code of Conduct mandates that a judge must recuse themselves from a case if a relative up to the sixth degree has a financial interest in its outcome.
“Today I filed a new judicial ethics complaint with the New York State Commission because new evidence on Kamala Harris’ most recent FEC filing shows she hired and paid Acting Justice Juan Merchan’s adult daughter’s company,” said Stefanik. She has been vocal about her concerns that Merchan’s daughter and her clients could benefit financially from the ongoing legal battles surrounding Trump.
The ethics complaint is not the first to be filed against Judge Merchan. Stefanik had previously filed a complaint in May 2024, but it was rejected by the New York State Commission in July. The current complaint draws on new evidence from Harris’s FEC filing, raising fresh doubts about the impartiality of the judge in such a politically charged case.
The timing of the FEC report coincides with key developments in both the Trump case and Kamala Harris’s political trajectory. On July 21, President Biden announced that he would not seek a second term, making Harris the presumptive Democratic nominee for the 2024 election. Less than two weeks later, her campaign disclosed the payment to Loren Merchan’s firm.
America First Legal (AFL), a conservative legal group, has also become involved in the case, filing a lawsuit demanding financial disclosures from Judge Merchan. AFL’s legal team stated, “Clearly, Justice Merchan’s daughter and her clients stand to profit handsomely from lawfare against President Trump.”
In addition to the ethics complaint, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has taken steps to investigate the matter further. Jordan subpoenaed Authentic Campaigns, Inc. in an effort to gather more information about the company’s financial dealings with Democratic candidates and any possible connection to Trump’s legal battles.
This investigation adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing ethical debate surrounding the judge and his daughter’s involvement in the case.
As Trump’s sentencing date still looms, questions about the integrity of the legal process have only grown louder.
The half-brother of former President Barack Obama has once again announced his support for Donald Trump.
Abon'go Malik Obama revealed he will be voting for Trump in the upcoming November election, continuing his public divergence from his brother’s political views, as the New York Post reports.
Malik, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Kenya, confirmed on Wednesday that he will cast his vote for the Republican candidate. As a registered Republican, this is not the first time Malik has chosen to back Trump. His support dates back to the 2016 and 2020 elections when he openly endorsed Trump over his brother's political allies.
Malik, who was Barack Obama’s best man at his 1992 wedding, has gradually distanced himself from his famous sibling over the years. He cited disappointment with the Democratic Party and his brother’s tenure as president. In past interviews and social media posts, Malik has expressed admiration for Donald Trump’s unfiltered style and his conservative policies.
In 2016, Malik criticized Hillary Clinton over her handling of classified information, particularly her use of a private email server. Malik attended the third presidential debate in 2016 as a guest of Donald Trump. His support for the former president has remained consistent, even as he voiced dissatisfaction with other prominent Democrats, including former Vice President Joe Biden.
In a post on X (formerly known as Twitter), Malik reiterated his criticism of the Democratic leadership. He mentioned that he had supported his brother throughout Barack’s presidency, but eventually grew disillusioned, stating that Barack Obama was "all about himself."
Despite their once close relationship, including Malik's visits to the White House during Barack’s presidency, the two brothers experienced a falling out over a legal controversy involving Malik's charity, the Barack H. Obama Foundation. This rift deepened over time as Malik’s political views shifted to the right. His stance on issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion is at odds with the more progressive positions of the Democratic Party.
Malik’s social media presence has highlighted his conservative shift, with posts praising Trump’s promise of free IVF treatments and endorsing various conservative viewpoints. Just last month, he posted support for Trump, commenting on the need for more children, aligning himself with pro-family values. The political shift experienced by Malik has not gone unnoticed in conservative circles. He recently voiced approval for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s backing of Trump during a rally in Arizona, further solidifying his position within the Republican Party.
Malik's endorsement of Trump comes at a time when former Congresswoman Liz Cheney has made her own political statement by endorsing Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party's presidential candidate. The contrast between these endorsements underscores the deep ideological divides within American politics, and in the case of Malik Obama, within families as well.
Barack Obama himself has reportedly played a role in supporting Harris' rise within the Democratic Party. As Malik publicly backs the opposing side, this stark familial divide continues to draw public attention. In September 2022, Malik publicly renounced his support for his brother, marking the end of any political alignment between the two. The former president has yet to publicly address Malik's repeated endorsements of Trump or his criticisms.
Malik’s involvement in U.S. politics is not limited to public statements and social media. He was a registered voter in Maryland as of 2016 and has continued to split his time between the United States and Kenya, where he maintains a residence.
Malik Obama has also drawn attention for his more controversial online posts. One of the most notable was his sharing of a forged birth certificate for his brother, playing into the so-called "birther" conspiracy that questioned Barack Obama's citizenship.
As the 2024 election approaches, Malik continues to use social media to voice his views. Recently, he referred to President Joe Biden as looking like he might “drop dead,” further solidifying his disdain for the current Democratic Party leadership. As of now, neither the Trump campaign nor the Harris campaign has responded to requests for comment on Malik’s endorsement. Despite the silence from both parties, Malik's public declaration continues to make headlines, underscoring the deep political and personal divisions in one of America's most prominent families.
With Election Day quickly approaching, a battle over the use of ballot drop boxes is intensifying in states and local governments across the United States.
As early voting looms, debates over drop box security, legality, convenience, and potential fraud are causing ripples across the nation’s election landscape, as Just the News reports.
Ballot drop boxes gained prominence during the 2020 election, but now, two months before the next general election, states and municipalities are reconsidering their use. From Ohio to Wisconsin to Wyoming, debates over the legality and security of drop boxes are raising concerns on both sides of the political spectrum.
In Ohio, the conversation around ballot drop boxes took a sharp turn after Secretary of State Frank LaRose issued a directive to local election officials last Saturday. LaRose’s directive restricts who can return ballots to drop boxes, limiting the task to the voter themselves. The move came as a response to a federal court ruling in July that partially invalidated a state law governing absentee ballots for disabled voters.
LaRose’s directive has drawn criticism from Ohio Democrats and local officials, who argue that it unfairly burdens voters and election workers. Jen Miller, the Executive Director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, noted that the new restrictions could make it harder for people to return ballots for loved ones, especially if they have limited availability during regular business hours. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, however, dismissed the idea of banning ballot drop boxes altogether. He emphasized that Ohio’s elections are well-managed and suggested that any major changes would require evidence of significant problems.
In Wisconsin, the issue of ballot drop boxes has led to different outcomes in various municipalities. Two towns in Waukesha County -- Brookfield and New Berlin -- recently voted to prohibit the use of drop boxes for the upcoming general election. This decision followed a July Supreme Court ruling that upheld the legality of drop boxes, reversing an earlier ruling that had deemed them illegal.
Local officials in these municipalities cited cost-saving measures and logistical concerns as reasons for the decision. Maintaining chain-of-custody records, installing surveillance systems, and employing extra security for drop boxes were all identified as burdensome responsibilities. Wisconsin’s approach contrasts with other states where drop boxes remain legal but are increasingly scrutinized. The divide in approaches reflects the broader national conversation over the role of drop boxes in the election system.
In Pennsylvania, some counties are voluntarily stepping away from the use of ballot drop boxes. Westmoreland County decided in March not to utilize drop boxes for the November election, continuing a trend that began after the 2020 presidential election.
Other counties in Pennsylvania, such as Beaver, Butler, and Fayette, have also chosen not to use ballot drop boxes. While not facing outright bans, the dwindling presence of drop boxes in the state suggests a shift in how counties are handling absentee voting. Despite these decisions, drop boxes remain a contentious issue for election officials who see them as a convenient way for voters to submit ballots, especially during the pandemic.
In Wyoming, Secretary of State Chuck Gray took a firm stance on the issue in June by rescinding previous directives that allowed for the use of drop boxes. Gray argued that drop boxes were not a secure method for absentee voting and pointed to a lack of statutory support for their use in Wyoming’s election code.
However, his decision has not gone without opposition. Malcolm Ervin, President of the County Clerks’ Association of Wyoming, defended the continued use of drop boxes. He argued that the phrase “delivered to the clerk” in the state’s election law gives county clerks discretion over whether to use drop boxes. This split in interpretation has yet to be resolved, leaving some Wyoming voters wondering what changes might come for future elections.
As Election Day nears and early voting begins in less than two weeks, the debate over ballot drop boxes continues to divide states and municipalities. In Ohio, new restrictions have prompted criticism, while Wisconsin towns have taken a step back from using drop boxes despite a Supreme Court ruling. Pennsylvania’s counties are quietly moving away from drop boxes altogether, and Wyoming’s Secretary of State has made it clear that he does not support their use in future elections.
The differing approaches highlight the complex balancing act between security, accessibility, and election integrity that officials face as they prepare for the upcoming election.
In a surprising twist, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called on his supporters to vote for Donald Trump in every state, even those in which he mounted a strong campaign of his own.
The former independent presidential candidate reversed his previous guidance, now encouraging his base to back Trump as a means to fulfill the goals of his campaign, as Just the News reports.
RFK, Jr., who previously ran for president as an independent, has shocked political observers by urging his supporters across the country to cast their ballots for Trump. This marks a significant change from his earlier position, which allowed supporters in non-competitive states to still vote for him.
In a fundraising email sent Thursday, Kennedy issued a direct plea, urging his followers to back Trump, regardless of where they live. "No matter what state you live in, I urge you to vote for Donald Trump," Kennedy wrote. He explained his rationale, stating that this was "the only way we can get me and everything I stand for into Washington D.C."
Kennedy had initially planned to remove his name from the ballot in just 10 key swing states. This decision was originally framed as a strategic move, aimed at preventing his candidacy from splitting the vote in battleground regions. The goal was to avoid hindering Trump’s path to the White House by siphoning votes from Republican-leaning constituencies in competitive races.
However, Kennedy has since expanded this plan. His latest decision includes removing his name from the ballot in several more states, including deep-red areas such as South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. This expansion signals an even deeper commitment to the strategy of consolidating support for Trump across the nation.
These traditionally Republican states are not typically seen as battlegrounds in presidential races, but Kennedy’s withdrawal from their ballots suggests an effort to further eliminate the possibility of divided votes that could hurt Trump’s campaign.
Before this shift, Kennedy had maintained a nuanced position. He had suggested that his supporters in key battleground states could cast their ballots for Trump while leaving room for voters in uncompetitive regions to continue supporting him. This approach allowed him to maintain a presence in the race without directly impacting the larger dynamics between Trump and the Democratic nominee.
The new message, however, eliminates this ambiguity. Kennedy now asks his base to support Trump outright in every state, signaling a complete alignment with Trump’s candidacy in the final stretch of the election cycle.
His decision reflects a clear pivot in his political calculations, driven by a desire to influence the national outcome in a way that aligns with his broader policy goals. Kennedy emphasized that the move is not about abandoning his own campaign, but rather ensuring that his political vision is represented in Washington through Trump's potential presidency.
Kennedy's Thursday fundraising email emphasized this newfound urgency. By urging his supporters to rally behind Trump, Kennedy linked his vision to that of Trump’s campaign, arguing that the Republican candidate represents the best vehicle for advancing the issues his own campaign championed.
"The reason is that is the only way we can get me and everything I stand for into Washington D.C.," Kennedy wrote, making it clear that his endorsement of Trump is based on shared objectives. His supporters, particularly those who resonated with his anti-establishment rhetoric, are now being directed to place their hopes for change in Trump's hands.
This call to action was designed to mobilize Kennedy’s base, ensuring that their political energy is redirected toward Trump’s candidacy. It represents a final step in Kennedy’s transformation from an independent contender to a vocal Trump supporter.