ELECTION CALLED - Republican Senator Learns Fate After Backstabbing Trump
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Incumbent Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito has won reelection in the West Virginia Republican primary, securing her position as one of the state’s most prominent figures in Washington.
The closely watched contest featured a packed field of candidates and highlighted divisions within the state’s GOP. Capito faced criticism from some party members for her vote against the SAVE America Act, a measure supported by President Donald Trump that would require proof of citizenship for federal voter registration and strengthen identification requirements.
Despite the criticism, Capito received an endorsement from President Trump. In her victory statement, she emphasized her commitment to West Virginia and her working relationship with the president. “Our campaign’s message to West Virginians has been straightforward from the beginning: I’ve never been in a better position to continue delivering for our state through my leadership positions and committee chairmanships,” Capito said.
She highlighted priorities such as working families, small business tax cuts, energy investment, infrastructure improvement, and community safety.
Capito first won election to the Senate in 2014, turning the seat Republican. She is the first woman to hold the office in the state. She currently serves as fourth in the Senate Republican majority leadership and chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. She has stressed her relationships with local leaders and her conservative record.
Capito faced five opponents in the primary, including state Sen. Tom Willis, a Republican from Berkeley County. Willis criticized Capito as a “RINO” and a “swamp creature,” accusing her of not aligning sufficiently with Trump’s agenda.
Willis cited Capito’s vote to approve funding for the Afghan Refugee Resettlement program and her support for Planned Parenthood funding as examples of positions he viewed as contrary to West Virginia’s interests. He also raised questions about insider trading concerns tied to her Senate role.
Willis claimed that during negotiations for the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Capito secured an appointment for her son as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia in exchange for her support. Capito has denied any impropriety and has emphasized her record of delivering for the state.
The primary results reflect ongoing debates within the Republican Party about loyalty to the president’s agenda and the balance between state-specific priorities and national policy goals. West Virginia has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1977, making the seat highly likely to remain Republican in the general election.
Capito’s victory ensures continuity in the state’s Senate representation, though it has highlighted internal party tensions. Observers note that the contest underscores the influence of Trump’s endorsement in Republican primaries while also showing that local dynamics and individual voting records remain important to voters.
The SAVE America Act remains a point of contention in Senate debates. The measure has faced procedural hurdles, with some Republicans, including Capito, voting against attaching it to certain funding bills. The legislation would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for federal voter registration and direct states to verify voter rolls against federal databases.
Supporters argue it strengthens election integrity, while opponents contend it could create unnecessary barriers for eligible voters. The bill’s future in the Senate continues to be debated as lawmakers weigh election security against access concerns.
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the West Virginia primary results will be watched closely for signals about voter sentiment in a deeply Republican state.
Capito’s reelection maintains the status quo for the state’s Senate delegation, but the primary battle has drawn national attention to the party’s internal dynamics. Both parties continue to monitor redistricting and election integrity issues that could influence the broader congressional landscape.
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.
