How redistricting and the Supreme Court have cut voters out of US House races

2026-05-03 10:05 AM UTC / Reuters

By Joseph Ax

May 3, 2026 10:05 AM UTC Updated 1 hour ago

节点运行失败

U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to deliver the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 24, 2026. REUTERS/EVELYN HOCKSTEIN Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

May 3 (Reuters) – The number of competitive U.S. House of Representatives districts in this fall’s midterm elections was already near historic lows before the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday opened the door to even more aggressive efforts to draw district lines for political gain.

The court’s ruling, which arrived amid what was already an unprecedented national fight over congressional redistricting, may usher in a new era of nakedly partisan gerrymandering ​that results in still fewer competitive elections, leaving voters with less power than ever, experts said.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The lack of competitive races means that control of the U.S. House of ‌Representatives will likely be determined in November’s midterm election by fewer than 10% of Americans, with the winners in the vast majority of districts all but assured before a single ballot is cast, a Reuters analysis found.

Only 32 of the House’s 435 seats are currently considered competitive, according to the analysis. Those districts were rated either toss-ups or leaning toward Democrats or Republicans by three leading independent forecasters: Cook Political Report, the University of Virginia’s Crystal Ball and Inside Elections.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Most other districts ​are simply out of play. Cook, for instance, rates 375 seats, more than 85% of the House, as either “Solid Republican” or “Solid Democrat,” which means its analysts do not expect them to be ​seriously contested. Another 28 races are “likely” Republican or Democratic, according to Cook, meaning they are not competitive at present but might become so under new conditions.

This ⁠year boasts the fewest competitive House races at this stage of the election cycle since at least 2008, according to an archive of prior Cook ratings.

Democrats need to gain just three seats to win ​a House majority, giving them the power to block President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda and initiate investigations into his administration.

The shrinking House battlefield is the result of several factors, including increased political polarization. But the weaponization ​of congressional redistricting, or gerrymandering – which has gone into overdrive since last year, when Trump began pushing Republicans to draw new maps – is a critical element that is only going to accelerate after the Supreme Court’s ruling, according to experts.

“We are now in a cycle of gerrymandering wars,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School who maintains the website All About Redistricting. “What used to be a cold war has gotten very hot.”

The court hollowed out a provision of the federal ​Voting Rights Act that had blocked state legislatures from dismantling districts with mostly racial minority voters. Political observers expect Republican-led states to target a dozen or more Democratic-held majority-Black and majority-Latino seats that previously enjoyed stauncher ​protections.

“I think it gets worse before it gets better,” Levitt said. “And I think there’s plenty of room for it to get worse.”

‘NO GUARDRAILS’

The lack of competitive districts can have consequences for Congress, said Matthew Klein, a House analyst ‌with Cook. If ⁠House candidates only need to appeal to their base voters to win elections, rather than moderates or members of the opposing party, they are more likely to move toward the extremes instead of the political middle.

“If you look at Congress and how it acted 20 years ago, 30 years ago, even farther back, you see a Congress that is both less acrimonious and also more productive,” he said. “There used to be bills that passed with huge majorities on major issues. We just don’t really see that anymore.”

Gerrymandering has long been a feature of American democracy, but the practice has been supercharged in recent years as guardrails, both legal ​and institutional, have been torn down. In 2019, ​the Supreme Court found that while partisan gerrymandering ⁠may be undemocratic, federal courts had no role in regulating it.

Last year, Trump successfully pressured Texas Republicans to rip up their map and draw a new one targeting five Democratic incumbents, triggering a nationwide arms race that spread to nearly a dozen other states. That move eviscerated what had been a traditional norm ​limiting most redistricting to the start of each decade, after the U.S. Census population count is completed.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday, meanwhile, has given ​even more leeway to lawmakers ⁠to draw districts for their party’s benefit. And all of those developments have come against a backdrop of technological advances, with mapmakers able to identify Democratic and Republican voters down to the census block.

“If there are no guardrails, there are no guardrails,” Levitt said. “I think the constraint is now realpolitik and imagination, not, ‘We just don’t do that.’”

Gerrymandering is not the only culprit to blame for the lack of competitive districts. Voters have become more geographically ⁠sorted, as rural ​areas have trended conservative while suburban regions moved left.

And just as House members have become more polarized, so too have voters. ​Split-ticket voting, in which voters choose a candidate of one party for a higher office and another for a lower office, was once fairly common, but no longer.

In 2000, there were 86 House members elected whose districts voted for the opposing party’s presidential ​candidate, according to research by Kyle Kondik, the managing editor of Crystal Ball. In 2024, that number was down to 16.

Reporting by Joseph Ax; Additional reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Paul Thomasch and Daniel Wallis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Search ongoing for 2 U.S. service members missing after training exercises in Morocco

Updated on: May 3, 2026 / 7:56 AM EDT / AP

Two U.S. service members are missing in southwestern Morocco after taking part in annual multinational military exercises in the North African country, the United States African Command said Sunday.

The U.S., Morocco and other countries participating in the African Lion exercise has a search and rescue operation, AFRICOM said.

“The incident remains under investigation and the search is on-going,” it said in a statement.

The incident happened on May 2 near the Cap Draa Training Area near Tan Tan, close to the Atlantic Ocean. The exercise started in April and is billed to end early May.

African Lion, a war games exercise, is the largest annual joint military exercise on the continent and usually features high-ranking military officials from the U.S. and its top African allies.

U.S. military officials have said the annual multinational engagement serves as a venue for strengthening regional security cooperation and refining the readiness of participating forces for global crises.

The Supreme Court keeps overturning precedent. It swears that it’s not

2026-05-03 6:00 AM ET / CNN

By John Fritze

PUBLISHED May 3, 2026, 6:00 AM ET

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts look on during inauguration ceremonies in the US Capitol on January 20, 2025, in Washington, DC.

Chip Somodevilla/Pool/AFP/Getty Images

As the Supreme Court was barreling toward the final weeks of its term last year, Chief Justice John Roberts made a rare public appearance to defend his colleagues from criticism that they were all too eager to kick decades-old precedent to the curb.

Still bruising from anger on the left over the court’s monumental decision three years earlier to overturn Roe v. Wade, Roberts rattled off a series of stats underscoring that his court — the Roberts court — had taken aim at far fewer precedents than any of its modern predecessors, an average of less than two “overrulings” each year.

“I think people have a misunderstanding about how much the current court is overruling precedent,” Roberts told an audience at Georgetown University Law Center.

But just 10 days after he walked offstage, the Supreme Court let stand President Donald Trump’s firing of two senior labor officials despite a 1935 precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor that for decades has protected the leaders of independent agencies from dismissal by a president without cause.

Critics of the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision Wednesday gutting a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and voiding a Louisiana congressional map say the court did the same thing: effectively overturned decades-old precedent while not explicitly saying it was doing so.

“The upshot is that the majority, without any good reason, has overturned Congress’s studied determination — along with this court’s precedents upholding it — about how to rectify racial inequalities in electoral politics,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent for the three liberal justices.

The numbers Roberts cited were accurate, allowing him to argue the court is moving deliberately rather than leveling past cases. But those numbers don’t account for instances in which the court has pummeled a precedent without explicitly killing it. In just the past few years, the conservative majority has also veered from precedents involving religious freedom.

“To me, Callais is the latest example of a ruling from the Roberts court that, in the same breath, largely neuters a precedent without formally overruling it,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, referring to Wednesday’s case by its title, Louisiana v. Callais.

The distinction between formally and practically overturning precedents is important, Vladeck said.

“When only the lawyers understand what is and isn’t left of a prior decision, that makes it much harder to build the case for why the court, Congress or any other actor should respond.”

Killing it softly

Both conservative and liberal justices ostensibly frown on overturning precedent because it can undermine stability in the law and can make the court appear political, willing to shift views based on which justices are sitting on the bench.

In the voting rights case on Wednesday, Justice Samuel Alito, the conservative justice who wrote the court’s opinion, vigorously pushed back on Kagan.

In its 6-3 ruling, the first merits decision of the year to cleanly divide the conservative and liberal blocs, the court said voters claiming racial discrimination in redistricting must now demonstrate a “strong inference” that lawmakers intentionally redrew district boundaries to disadvantage minority voters.

But just three years ago, in a case involving Alabama’s congressional map called Allen v. Milligan, the Supreme Court largely rejected that same argument.

“Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, we have not overruled Allen,” Alito wrote, referring to the Alabama decision from 2023.

Alito said the court in Allen “adjudicated the case based on the parties’ arguments.” The state’s argument was essentially that it had drawn a map that resulted in only one majority Black district without considering race at all. How could that map be discriminatory, Alabama asked, if lawmakers never considered race?

On a 5-4 vote, the court rejected that idea and adhered instead to a 1982 revision of the Voting Rights Act that permitted groups to bring those claims based on discriminatory effects of a redistricting. In other words, it didn’t matter whether lawmakers intended to discriminate if the new district effectively deprived Black voters of an equal voice in the election.

“As this court has long recognized — and as all members of this court today agree — the text of §2 establishes an effects test, not an intent test,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion in Allen.

But in Wednesday’s majority opinion, joined by both Kavanaugh and Roberts, Alito said the law applies “only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the state intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”

“The court can dramatically rewrite precedents, and has, without formally overruling them,” Richard Pildes, a law professor at New York University and an expert on election law, told CNN.

A law school colleague, he noted, coined a phrase for the phenomenon: “stealth overrulings.”

“Determining whether the court has done this more in certain periods than others can be difficult,” Pildes said. “But in Callais, there’s no question the court has completely rewritten the framework prior cases had established for interpreting the VRA.”

Making it clear

When the Supreme Court’s conservative majority in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, it said so explicitly in the first pages of its opinion.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito wrote.

It was equally clear two years later, when the court overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 decision that empowered federal agencies to interpret vague laws and that had become a target for legal conservatives.

“Chevron,” Roberts wrote in that opinion, “is overruled.”

But veering from precedent — sometimes in a way that leaves it alive but on life support — is more common and less clear. Rulings that explicitly overturn a precedent occurred in only 4% of the 558 cases studied from 2005 to 2013 in which advocates targeted a prior decision, according to data collected by Lee Epstein, a law professor and political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis.

But departures, Epstein said, occurred in about 28% of those cases.

Laura Coates: ‘Today six Justices all but threw away the Voting Rights Act of 1965’

5:18 • Source: CNN

Laura Coates: ‘Today six Justices all but threw away the Voting Rights Act of 1965’

5:18

The Supreme Court in late April agreed to review a Colorado law that requires preschools receiving taxpayer money to enroll children of same-sex couples — setting up an important First Amendment showdown later this year that pits religious rights against LGBTQ families.

In granting the case, the justices specifically declined to take on a question about whether they should overturn a key 1990 precedent, Employment Division v. Smith, that religious groups feel gives the government too much leeway to infringe on religion. One reading of the court’s decision to brush aside that question is that a majority of justices have not coalesced around what to replace Smith with. Another is that the precedent has already been stripped of so much of its bite over the past decade that there’s little point.

The justices are confronting a similar situation as they review Trump’s push to fire the leaders at independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission. During oral arguments in December, a majority of justices signaled they would side with Trump, despite the 1935 precedent. During his argument to the court in December, Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted the court had already undermined Humphrey’s in a series of other cases challenging that notion of independent agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

“The court has repudiated Humphrey’s reasoning and confined it to its facts,” Sauer told the justices.

In other words, whether or not the court explicitly overrules Humphrey’s Executor this year may have limited impact. The precedent had already been hobbled.

伊朗革命卫队称美国须从两难之间做出抉择

2026年5月3日 18:37 / 联合早报

近期，伊朗与美国围绕霍尔木兹海峡石油运输展开对抗，美方曾扣押伊朗相关联油轮。图为5月1日，航经阿曼穆桑达姆霍尔木兹海峡的船只。 （路透社）

伊朗革命卫队星期天（5月3日）称，美国面临在“不可能的”军事行动与和伊朗达成“糟糕协议”之间的抉择。

路透社报道，伊朗革命卫队卫队情报组织通过国家电视台发表声明称，“（美国总统）特朗普必须在‘不可能的行动’或‘与伊朗达成糟糕协议’之间做出选择”。

伊朗媒体报道，德黑兰向美国提出的最新谈判方案共有14点提议，包括在所有战线结束战争、建立霍尔木兹海峡管理机制等。伊朗副外长称，做好和谈与战斗的两手准备。

美国总统特朗普则公开说，会很快研究伊方提案，但不太可能接受，也不排除再度采取军事行动。

另一方面，新华社引述伊朗法尔斯通讯社星期天报道称，一艘隶属于伊朗国家油轮公司的超大型油轮突破“域外海军舰队”的监控封锁，这艘油轮装载超过190万桶原油。

报道说，这显示伊朗在能源供应链管理及躲避美国海军监控的航运策略，也再次证明伊朗在保障能源运输安全方面的实操能力。

近期，伊朗与美国围绕霍尔木兹海峡石油运输展开对抗，美方曾扣押伊朗相关联油轮。

据美国防部消息，美海军分别于4月20日和4月22日，在印度洋拦截并登上两艘“从伊朗运输石油”的油轮。

近期，伊朗与美国围绕霍尔木兹海峡石油运输展开对抗，美方曾扣押伊朗相关联油轮。图为5月1日，航经阿曼穆桑达姆霍尔木兹海峡的船只。 （路透社）

伊朗革命卫队星期天（5月3日）称，美国面临在“不可能的”军事行动与和伊朗达成“糟糕协议”之间的抉择。

路透社报道，伊朗革命卫队卫队情报组织通过国家电视台发表声明称，“（美国总统）特朗普必须在‘不可能的行动’或‘与伊朗达成糟糕协议’之间做出选择”。

伊朗媒体报道，德黑兰向美国提出的最新谈判方案共有14点提议，包括在所有战线结束战争、建立霍尔木兹海峡管理机制等。伊朗副外长称，做好和谈与战斗的两手准备。

美国总统特朗普则公开说，会很快研究伊方提案，但不太可能接受，也不排除再度采取军事行动。

另一方面，新华社引述伊朗法尔斯通讯社星期天报道称，一艘隶属于伊朗国家油轮公司的超大型油轮突破“域外海军舰队”的监控封锁，这艘油轮装载超过190万桶原油。

报道说，这显示伊朗在能源供应链管理及躲避美国海军监控的航运策略，也再次证明伊朗在保障能源运输安全方面的实操能力。

近期，伊朗与美国围绕霍尔木兹海峡石油运输展开对抗，美方曾扣押伊朗相关联油轮。

据美国防部消息，美海军分别于4月20日和4月22日，在印度洋拦截并登上两艘“从伊朗运输石油”的油轮。

以色列批准从美国采购两个战机中队

2026年5月3日 19:11 / 联合早报

以色列国防部星期天说，以方将从美国洛克希德·马丁公司采购一个F-35战机中队，从美国波音公司采购一个F-15IA战机中队，总金额达数百亿新谢克尔。图为一架F-35战机在以色列南部的哈特泽里姆空军基地上空飞行。 （路透社）

以色列国防部星期天说，以色列军事采购部门已批准从美国采购两个战机中队。

新华社报道，以色列国防部发言人星期天（5月3日）发表声明说，以方将从美国洛克希德·马丁公司采购一个F-35战机中队，从美国波音公司采购一个F-15IA战机中队，总金额达数百亿新谢克尔。

采购方案包括将新战机全面整合到以色列空军，以及为战机提供全面的维护、备件和后勤支持。

这将是以色列自美国采购的第四个F-35战机中队和第二个F-15IA战机中队。

以色列国防部高级官员巴拉姆说，这次采购是以军执行未来十年“高风险安全形势”下“军力建设计划”的第一步，这项计划已获得以政府的批准，并获拨3500亿新谢克尔（约1514亿美元）的专项预算。

以色列国防部长卡茨说，从对伊朗的军事行动中取得的经验教训要求以色列“继续推进空中力量建设”，“以确保未来数十年的空中优势”，以色列将继续向军事力量投资，不断增强实力并始终“领先于敌人”。

以色列批准从美国采购两个战机中队

2026年5月3日 19:11 / 联合早报

以色列国防部星期天说，以方将从美国洛克希德·马丁公司采购一个F-35战机中队，从美国波音公司采购一个F-15IA战机中队，总金额达数百亿新谢克尔。图为一架F-35战机在以色列南部的哈特泽里姆空军基地上空飞行。 （路透社）

以色列国防部星期天说，以色列军事采购部门已批准从美国采购两个战机中队。

新华社报道，以色列国防部发言人星期天（5月3日）发表声明说，以方将从美国洛克希德·马丁公司采购一个F-35战机中队，从美国波音公司采购一个F-15IA战机中队，总金额达数百亿新谢克尔。

采购方案包括将新战机全面整合到以色列空军，以及为战机提供全面的维护、备件和后勤支持。

这将是以色列自美国采购的第四个F-35战机中队和第二个F-15IA战机中队。

以色列国防部高级官员巴拉姆说，这次采购是以军执行未来十年“高风险安全形势”下“军力建设计划”的第一步，这项计划已获得以政府的批准，并获拨3500亿新谢克尔（约1514亿美元）的专项预算。

以色列国防部长卡茨说，从对伊朗的军事行动中取得的经验教训要求以色列“继续推进空中力量建设”，“以确保未来数十年的空中优势”，以色列将继续向军事力量投资，不断增强实力并始终“领先于敌人”。

What six upcoming House primaries will reveal about Donald Trump and Democrats

2026-05-03T09:00:50.826Z / CNN

By Arit John

PUBLISHED May 3, 2026, 5:00 AM ET

Voters arrive at a polling place in Cincinnati, Ohio, during the 2024 presidential election.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images/File

More than a dozen states are set to hold US House primaries in the next five weeks.

Some will set up key general election matchups that could determine control of the US House in November. Others will reveal something about the dynamics that are shaping the two parties and what it means to be electable.

President Donald Trump’s political power will be put to a high-profile test in Kentucky, where he’s targeted Rep. Thomas Massie, and a crowded primary in Montana. And Democrats are facing off in crowded primaries in Pennsylvania, Nebraska and California, with opposing visions of the party’s future and who is most likely to flip Republican-held districts.

Here are six upcoming primary elections to watch.

May 5: Ohio’s 9th District

Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur beat Republican former state Rep. Derek Merrin by just under 2,400 votes in 2024. Two years later, Merrin is running in a crowded primary against four other Republicans in his bid for a rematch.

Derek Merrin attends a campaign rally in Holland, Ohio, on October 26, 2024.

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc./Getty Images/File

Merrin has pointed to his previous close finish, but other candidates have called for a fresh face. Merrin faces Air Force veteran Alea Nadeem, healthcare executive Anthony Campbell, state Rep. Josh Williams, and former Immigration and Customs Enforcement Deputy Director Madison Sheahan.

Republicans see this as a key pickup opportunity. Whoever wins the primary this May will be running on a more favorable map for Republicans following last year’s Ohio redistricting — though they’ll also face a Libertarian Party candidate as well. Two years ago, a Libertarian candidate won more than 15,000 votes, likely boosting Kaptur.

But Kaptur, who has represented the Toledo area since 1983, can’t be underestimated. She won her 2024 reelection bid even as Trump carried the district by nearly 7 points.

May 12: Nebraska’s 2nd District

Democrats are optimistic about winning back this seat now that five-term Rep. Don Bacon is retiring. Bacon was one of three Republicans in 2024 to win a district that went for former Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump, according to the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

Brinker Harding, an Omaha city councilman endorsed by Trump, has locked up the Republican nomination. Democrats, meanwhile, are wading through a crowded primary. Two candidates — former corporate executive Denise Powell and state Sen. John Cavanaugh — have led the field in fundraising and high-profile endorsements.

Powell’s allies, including EMILY’s List, which boosts Democratic women running for office who support abortion rights, have argued that if Cavanaugh is elected, the state’s Republican governor would be able to choose his replacement in the state Senate, potentially giving the state GOP an extra vote to change the way Nebraska awards Electoral College votes in presidential elections.

Nebraska and Maine are the only two states that award Electoral College votes by congressional district. Some Republicans in Nebraska have called for changing to a winner-take-all approach and eliminating the state’s “Blue Dot” in the 2nd District.

Reflecting the importance of that question, Cavanaugh has a section of his campaign website devoted to the Blue Dot. He argues that Nebraska Democrats are optimistic they will gain seats in the legislature in November, weakening Republicans’ ability to eliminate the standalone Electoral College district.

American Action Network, which describes itself as a center-right think tank, is airing ads saying Cavanaugh is “working to enact Trump’s policy right here in Nebraska.” That’s spurred talk that Trump allies are trying to undercut Cavanaugh with Democrats ahead of the primary.

“These dark money super PACs are just spreading MAGA Republican talking points,” state Sen. George Dungan says in one recent Cavanaugh ad.

May 19: Kentucky’s 4th District

This primary in a solidly Republican district isn’t about House control, but about the president’s control of his party.

Massie, the seven-term congressman and frequent thorn in Trump’s side, is running against former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein, who has the president’s endorsement.

Rep. Thomas Massie at the US Capitol on April 29, 2026.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Massie has frequently broken with Trump during the president’s second term and voted against the wishes of House Republican leadership. Those “no” votes — on spending bills and last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act —have held more weight as Republicans navigate a razor-thin majority. Massie also led a push to force a House vote on legislation requiring the Department of Justice to release its records on Jeffrey Epstein.

The president has also targeted Massie’s wife, saying the lawmaker has become a liberal because his spouse is supposedly “a Radical Left ‘flamethrower.’” Massie later brought her to the State of the Union address as his guest.

“So now he’s attacking my wife who voted for him three times,” Massie wrote on X. “Maybe someone told him she’s actually the one who suggested I ask Pam Bondi in person at a dinner when we would get Phase 2 of the Epstein files. Bondi said there were no more files. As they say, the rest is history.”

May 19: Pennsylvania’s 7th District

Four Democrats are vying for the chance to take on Republican Rep. Ryan Mackenzie in this toss-up district.

Bob Brooks, the president of the state firefighters’ union, has picked up endorsements from across the ideological spectrum, including Gov. Josh Shapiro and independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. He’s running on a populist message and touting his experiences with financial hardship as evidence that he understands the issues that matter to working-class voters.

Bob Brooks speaks during Gov. Josh Shapiro’s visit to the fire department in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, on April 18, 2025.

April Gamiz/The Allentown Morning Call/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

His opponents — former federal prosecutor Ryan Crosswell, former nonprofit executive Carol Obando-Derstine and former Northampton County Executive Lamont McClure — have started pouncing on negative stories about the perceived front-runner.

After the Washington Post reported on Brooks’ history of posting right-wing social media memes, including a post defending gun ownership following a deadly 2019 shooting in El Paso, Texas, Crosswell’s campaign manager, Nick Mattes, compared Brooks to Sen. John Fetterman, who has angered liberals by breaking with his fellow Democrats and praising Trump at times.

“Pennsylvania voters aren’t gonna be fooled again,” Mattes told the Post.

Brooks apologized in a statement to CNN for some of the posts and asked voters to look at his record of service to the community. He also said he was a lifelong Democrat — a dig at Crosswell, who spent most of his adult life as a registered Republican.

June 2: Montana’s 1st District

Rep. Ryan Zinke announced in early March that he would not seek reelection, setting up two competitive primaries for this western Montana seat.

This is the sort of Republican-leaning seat that Democrats believe they can win in a strong year with the right candidate. Zinke beat the Democrats’ 2024 nominee by nearly 8 points.

On the Democratic side, most of the attention has gone to Sam Forstag, a Sanders-endorsed former smokejumper and union leader who represents the party’s efforts to appeal to working-class voters with populist candidates. But he’s been outraised so far by Ryan Busse, a former gun company executive who now criticizes the industry. Matt Rains, an Army veteran and rancher, and Russell Cleveland, a Navy veteran, are also contesting the nomination.

On the Republican side, there is a competitive and at-times contentious primary. Aaron Flint, an Army National Guard veteran, entered the race in March with endorsements from Zinke, GOP Sen. Tim Sheehy and, soon after, Trump. The House Republicans’ campaign arm named Flint to its “MAGA Majority” list for the fall.

His rivals include Al Olszewski, a doctor and former state senator who narrowly lost to Zinke in 2022. Last month, Zinke laid into Olszewski in an opinion piece published by the Daily Inter Lake, accusing him of having spent “the better part of a decade lying to Montana, dividing conservatives,” and using his position as a county GOP chairman to “pull good candidates down.”

Olszewski described the attacks from Zinke as a “desperate attempt to knock my strong campaign off track” in a statement to CNN.

“This election really comes down to this: does Washington D.C. choose Montana’s congressman or do the People of Montana?” Olszewski said. “I believe it is the People of Montana, and I will continue to earn their support by focusing on issue-based messaging about the future of our great state.”

June 2: California’s 22nd District

California Democrats’ successful redistricting effort has scrambled the math for Republicans in several of the state’s congressional districts.

In California’s 40th District, incumbent Reps. Young Kim and Ken Calvert are battling for reelection after being drawn into the same district. In the 45th District, a contentious Republican field is vying to take on freshman Democratic Rep. Derek Tran in a seat that’s now more favorable for him.

But in the state’s Central Valley, Rep. David Valadao will still be a formidable opponent for whichever Democrat pulls ahead in the June 2 primary.

The two Democrats — state Assemblymember and physician Jasmeet Bains and school board trustee and activist Randy Villegas — represent different wings of the party.

Randy Villegas, left, and Jasmeet Bains.

Getty Images/Reuters

Bains, who is backed by EMILY’s List, has run as a moderate, while Villegas has run as a progressive. Villegas has criticized her for voting against advancing last year’s Democrat-led gerrymander and for accepting money from corporations. But some Democrats see her willingness to buck the party as an asset in a general election matchup against Valadao.

5月3日，乌克兰南部敖德萨州切尔诺莫尔斯克市附近的民宅被俄罗斯无人机袭击损毁。 （路透社）

（基辅／莫斯科综合电）俄乌战争持续延烧，乌克兰南部城市赫尔松星期天遭俄军无人机袭击，造成平民死伤。同时，莫斯科称拦截300多架乌无人机，其中一些无人机靠近首都莫斯科和圣彼得堡等大城市。

自2022年入侵乌克兰以来，俄罗斯几乎每晚都对乌克兰发动数百架无人机攻击，而乌克兰也持续展开报复性反击。近几个月来，双方都加大了无人机攻势。

法新社对乌空军公布的数据进行分析显示，俄罗斯4月向乌克兰发射的远程攻击无人机数量创下新高。根据数据，俄罗斯4月共发射6583架远程无人机，比3月的发射数量多2%。

乌克兰前线城市赫尔松（Kherson）的军方官员称，一架俄无人机星期天（5月3日）击中一辆私企公司车，造成一死四伤，其中包括一名63岁妇女。

俄国防部则称，俄防空部队夜间在西部边境约15个地区拦截并摧毁334架乌无人机。部分无人机在离前线较远的莫斯科附近被击落，另有59架无人机在列宁格勒州被击落。

泽连斯基称乌军袭击了两艘俄油轮

乌总统泽连斯基3日在社交媒体发文称，乌军在新罗西斯克港口附近水域袭击了两艘俄“影子船队”油轮，造成油轮无法使用。

据俄电视台报道，克里姆林宫发言人佩斯科夫3日说，如果乌克兰继续袭击俄石油基础设施，全球油价可能会进一步上涨。

他说：“如果俄石油减少出口，油价将从目前的水平（已经超过每桶120美元）进一步上涨。这意味着即使出口量减少，俄公司也能赚到更多钱，国家也能获得更多收入。”

5月3日，乌克兰南部敖德萨州切尔诺莫尔斯克市附近的民宅被俄罗斯无人机袭击损毁。 （路透社）

（基辅／莫斯科综合电）俄乌战争持续延烧，乌克兰南部城市赫尔松星期天遭俄军无人机袭击，造成平民死伤。同时，莫斯科称拦截300多架乌无人机，其中一些无人机靠近首都莫斯科和圣彼得堡等大城市。

自2022年入侵乌克兰以来，俄罗斯几乎每晚都对乌克兰发动数百架无人机攻击，而乌克兰也持续展开报复性反击。近几个月来，双方都加大了无人机攻势。

法新社对乌空军公布的数据进行分析显示，俄罗斯4月向乌克兰发射的远程攻击无人机数量创下新高。根据数据，俄罗斯4月共发射6583架远程无人机，比3月的发射数量多2%。

乌克兰前线城市赫尔松（Kherson）的军方官员称，一架俄无人机星期天（5月3日）击中一辆私企公司车，造成一死四伤，其中包括一名63岁妇女。

俄国防部则称，俄防空部队夜间在西部边境约15个地区拦截并摧毁334架乌无人机。部分无人机在离前线较远的莫斯科附近被击落，另有59架无人机在列宁格勒州被击落。

泽连斯基称乌军袭击了两艘俄油轮

乌总统泽连斯基3日在社交媒体发文称，乌军在新罗西斯克港口附近水域袭击了两艘俄“影子船队”油轮，造成油轮无法使用。

据俄电视台报道，克里姆林宫发言人佩斯科夫3日说，如果乌克兰继续袭击俄石油基础设施，全球油价可能会进一步上涨。

他说：“如果俄石油减少出口，油价将从目前的水平（已经超过每桶120美元）进一步上涨。这意味着即使出口量减少，俄公司也能赚到更多钱，国家也能获得更多收入。”