Democrat Faces Ouster From Congress Over Federal Charges, Ethics Findings
The House Ethics Committee has found that Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick violated campaign finance laws and other regulations by receiving more than $5 million in federal relief funds and directing a significant portion of that money toward political activities.
An eight-member subcommittee voted early Friday that Cherfilus-McCormick was guilty on 25 of 27 counts related to the case, following a rare public proceeding that lasted more than six hours the previous evening, the New York Post reported on Friday.
“Shortly after the House returns from the April recess, the full Committee will hold a hearing to determine what, if any, sanction would be appropriate for the Committee to recommend,” Ethics Chairman Michael Guest (R-Miss.) and Ranking Member Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement.
The subcommittee’s findings could lead to a recommendation that the full House censure or potentially expel Cherfilus-McCormick from Congress. The panel, composed of four Democrats and four Republicans, did not release a detailed vote breakdown. However, members from both parties questioned Cherfilus-McCormick’s defense during the hearing.
Her attorney, William Barzee, sought to delay the proceedings, citing an upcoming federal trial in which she is expected to face charges related to many of the same allegations.
In November 2025, federal prosecutors indicted Cherfilus-McCormick on 15 counts tied to allegations that she misused $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to support her congressional campaign, The Post noted.
Prosecutors allege that some of the funds were used for personal expenses, including the purchase of a 3.14-carat yellow diamond ring. If convicted on all counts, the 47-year-old could face up to 53 years in prison.
During Thursday’s hearing Barzee raised concerns that any findings by the Ethics Committee could influence the potential jury pool ahead of the federal trial. “She’s absolutely innocent. She’s looking forward to being in criminal court in order to prove her innocence, which I’m confident she’s going to be able to do,” he told the subcommittee members, claiming further that any determination in the House “will result in a loss of her constitutional rights.”
One of the counts not supported by a majority of the subcommittee involved allegations of money laundering intended to conceal the source of funds from a Florida-based corporation to Cherfilus-McCormick’s 2022 congressional campaign.
Another money laundering count was upheld, involving millions of dollars in federal funds paid to a for-profit health care company owned by members of the congresswoman’s family. According to House ethics findings, the company was involved in efforts tied to COVID-19 vaccination registration in Florida.
Between 2020 and 2021, Cherfilus-McCormick’s reported $86,000 salary from Trinity Health Care Solutions remained unchanged, even as the company received more than $6 million in government funding related to vaccination efforts, noted the outlet.
A House ethics report released in January found that at least $5.7 million of that funding was directed to a consulting firm that Cherfilus-McCormick wholly owned between March 2021 and October 2022, when the firm was voluntarily dissolved, The Post reported.
Last summer, the committee found that far-left Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez broke House ethics rules by accepting more than $3,700 in gifts for her appearance at the 2021 Met Gala — including the now-infamous “Tax The Rich” dress — but paid less than $1,000 for the items.
The found that the New York Democrat failed to follow House rules on gifts and improperly gave her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, a free ticket to the exclusive $35,000-per-head event, The New York Post reported at the time. But the panel stopped short of issuing any formal sanctions.
According to the committee, the fair-market value of the rented Brother Vellies dress, shoes, jewelry, handbag, and hairpiece totaled $3,724.04. Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign delayed payments for months and eventually paid just $990.76 — most of it from her own pocket.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
