Fetterman Hints Dems May Ditch Filibuster If They Win Back Senate
Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman appeared to suggest that his party could nuke the filibuster rule in the Senate should they win back control of the upper chamber in a future election cycle. During a Fox News appearance on Sunday, he reminded a panel that his party ran on ditching the 60-vote rule to advance legislation as recently as a few years ago.
“I’d like to remind everybody that it wasn’t just a couple years ago every single Democrat, including myself – I campaigned on this…to remove the filibuster,” Fetterman said in response to a question about whether his Democratic colleagues still sought to do so.
“That was actually wrong – I was wrong for that, I would say that,” he continued. “Now, all of us love the filibuster, Democrats love the filibuster” because the rule gives his party power to disrupt the GOP majority’s agenda.
“I think it’s dangerous – real dangerous – to make the Senate essentially the same thing as the House and work as majority rules,” he said before repeating that his party, just a few years back, sought to dismantle the rule when they had the majority under President Biden.
At that time, two Democrats – Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Krysten Sinema of Arizona, both of whom are no longer in the chamber – opposed the rule change and drew the ire of their party.
Some took Fetterman’s response as a warning that, should his party regain a majority in the near future, Democrats will move on dismantling the filibuster – which President Trump has been pushing Republicans to do so they can pass the SAVE Act, which would require a voter ID to cast ballots in federal elections while severely curtailing mail-in voting.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune told Republican colleagues last week that the party does not currently have enough votes to advance a House-approved voting reform measure in the Senate by forcing Democrats to conduct a “talking filibuster.”
Thune’s comments came as Senate Republicans discussed the strategy during a closed-door lunch meeting. The proposal would require Democrats to continuously hold the Senate floor and debate the legislation to block it, potentially extending debate for days or weeks.
The legislation, known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, has been identified as a top priority by President Donald Trump, who raised the issue Monday during a policy meeting with House Republicans.
Speaking in Florida earlier that day, Trump said passage of the SAVE Act was important to Republican efforts to maintain control of Congress in the upcoming November elections. “It will guarantee the midterms. If you don’t get it, big trouble,” he said, per The Hill.
Democrats have argued that only a small number of cases involving immigrants in the country illegally voting in federal elections have been documented in recent years, and they falsely say available evidence does not support claims of widespread voter fraud.
At the same time, Trump has increased pressure on Senate Republican leaders to adopt the talking filibuster strategy to advance the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. Trump has also withheld an endorsement in the closely watched Republican Senate primary in Texas between John Cornyn and Ken Paxton.
Thune and other Republican leaders have encouraged Trump to back Cornyn, arguing that he may have a stronger chance of winning the general election. However, Trump has not yet announced his support for either candidate.
Asked about speculation that the White House may be delaying an endorsement because Trump disagrees with Senate Republicans over the talking filibuster approach, Thune acknowledged the possibility and said it was a concern.
“Yeah, I mean, that’s probably not a linkage that is in anybody’s best interest because voting on the SAVE America Act is something we can do but passage is not guaranteed,” Thune said, per The Hill. “You have to make political decisions independent of what the final disposition of that might be on the floor.”
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.
