Over 80 House Dem Candidates Revolt Against Jeffries Ahead of Midterms
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) may find himself caught in the very blue wave he hopes to ride into power this November. More and more Democratic candidates are telling Axios that they can’t promise to support his leadership.
It’s a big change from Jeffries’ once “untouchable” position in the Democratic Party just a few years ago. This could mean his path to the speakership will be harder than people thought, Axios noted.
Jeffries and his supporters say they aren’t worried at all about a mass defection. They point out that he hasn’t lost a Democratic vote in 20 speakers’ ballots, even though he is in the minority.
However, this group of new students could potentially be the first challenge to the previously unyielding support. A group of viable candidates has made it clear that voting for Jeffries as speaker is not a given if the Democrats win the House.
Axios reported last fall that more than 80 Democratic House candidates across the country were either not sure if they would support Jeffries’ leadership or were completely against it. Since then, things have only gotten worse for him.
Mai Vang, the leading progressive primary challenger to Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), previously said she would “support the person that my future colleagues elect as our leader.”
But in an unprompted statement last week, she told Axios: “The Democratic Party and its leadership—Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries—have failed to mobilize meaningful opposition to Trump’s illegal war and their silence as AIPAC and corporations flood Congressional primaries with millions of dollars is deafening.”
“I cannot support this kind of leadership,” Vang said. “If we want to defeat Trump and rebuild trust with working Americans, we need new leadership and a new direction.”
The Democratic establishment can’t just write off Vang as an “also-ran.”
Vang, a 41-year-old Sacramento City Council member, had raised $282,000 by the end of 2025, compared to Matsui’s $750,000. Vang was running against older lawmakers like Matsui, who is 81 years old.
Axios spoke with a House Democrat who said that Matsui has privately voiced worries about her chances of being re-elected and that she “has to pay attention.”
New retirement announcements and congressional map redraws since October have spawned open primaries featuring yet more candidates who are not yet sold on — or outright hostile to — Jeffries’ leadership.
“Most Democrats agree that he’s been failing to meet the moment,” said Adam Hamawy, a candidate in New Jersey’s 12th district, saying he is “looking for someone that’s gonna stand up to the administration.”
When asked if she would support Jeffries’ leadership, Claire Valdez, a New York State Assembly member who is running to replace retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), said in an interview with Axios that “there would need to be some conversations.”
“I’ve never met Leader Jeffries, I’ve never had conversations with him,” said Utah state Sen. Nate Blouin, the Congressional Progressive Caucus-backed candidate for a new, safely blue district in Salt Lake City.
Blouin said he looks forward to “voting for someone who is committed to fighting for our communities, our shared priorities, making sure that we are moving in a direction that is aligned with the American people on foreign policy.”
“I think those are critical concerns,” he added.
New York Assembly member Alex Bores, a candidate to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.)., said, “I’ve seen real fight coming from our caucus, and that matters.”
“There’s room to grow, but I’m encouraged,” he said, adding that Jeffries is “doing a difficult, thankless job” and that he would support his fellow New Yorker’s leadership.
Jeffries’ members credit him with navigating multiple government shutdowns and keeping his caucus largely unified.
Jeffries spokesperson Justin Chermol said in a statement to Axios: “Leader Jeffries is focused on addressing the affordability crisis, stopping the bombing in the Middle East, reining in ICE, and taking back the House to stop Republican extremists from destroying America.”
“Beyond that, we have zero interest in a frivolous story from the same outlet that once sensationally claimed Leader Jeffries was going to face a serious primary. How did that work out?” Chermol added.
Some candidates who are against Jeffries have suggested other options. Anabel Mendoza, a progressive candidate in Illinois’ 7th District, told Axios that she wants Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) to be in charge because she is “10 toes down on what matters.”
If the Democrats win the House and by how many seats, the results of these progressives’ primaries could decide whether Jeffries easily wins the speakership or has to go through the same 15-ballot slog as Kevin McCarthy in 2023.
How well these progressives perform in their primaries, and whether Jeffries wins the House and by how many seats, will determine whether he easily becomes Speaker or has to endure the same 15-ballot slog that Kevin McCarthy did in 2023.
Some candidates said that if Democrats don’t win the House, talks about Jeffries’ leadership will probably be completely different.
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.
