The vote to remove Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar from Congress is finished...
Washington, D.C. - June 8, 2026
Rep. Randy Fine Signals Potential Expulsion Vote for Rep. Ilhan Omar and Introduces Dual Loyalty Legislation
Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., has indicated that a vote to expel Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., from Congress could move forward depending on the results of ongoing inquiries into allegations concerning her past. Fine specifically referenced expectations around information related to what he described as the “brother marriage thing.”
“We’re waiting to get the data on the brother marriage thing, which I think is coming,” Fine said during an interview. “If it turns out that that is actually the reality, will there be a vote on the floor to expel this woman from Congress? Absolutely.”
At the same time, Fine has introduced the “Disqualifying Dual Loyalty Act,” legislation that would require members of the House and Senate to hold allegiance solely to the United States. The proposal would mandate that lawmakers relinquish any foreign citizenship to remain in office.
Purpose of the Proposed Legislation
Fine framed the measure as necessary to ensure elected officials serve American interests without divided loyalties.
“The bottom line is that you can’t serve two masters,” Fine said. “If you’re going to serve in the United States Congress, you should serve America ONLY.”
Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., expressed support for the broader effort, emphasizing national security implications beyond voting decisions.
“It’s not just about the vote,” Harris said. “It’s about access to our national security secrets. They get to learn things that people from their home countries would never get to know.”
Harris also noted the number of lawmakers born outside the United States and raised questions about whether all prior allegiances have been formally renounced. He and Fine cited Omar and at least one state-level lawmaker as examples of officials they believe may prioritize foreign interests over U.S. interests, though specific evidence for broader claims was not detailed in their public statements.
Expulsion Process and Legislative Challenges
Any expulsion vote in the House would require a two-thirds majority, a high threshold that is rarely met. No formal expulsion proceedings have been scheduled, and it remains unclear whether sufficient support exists to advance the measure.
The “Disqualifying Dual Loyalty Act” would apply to both chambers of Congress. However, it faces significant obstacles in the Senate, where Democrats hold control and have shown little interest in advancing similar proposals.
“The Senate will never, ever pass it,” Harris said. “But we want to get it done […] it’s about Americans first.”
Broader Political Context
Fine described the legislation as part of a longer-term effort to reshape standards for holding federal office. He stated that the goal is to “weed out” individuals with divided loyalties and reinforce public trust in Congress.
The renewed focus on Omar, combined with the introduction of the dual loyalty measure, has intensified debate over issues of eligibility, loyalty, and national security within Congress. Supporters argue that dual citizenship creates potential conflicts, particularly for lawmakers with access to classified information. Critics of the effort maintain that existing constitutional requirements and ethical standards are sufficient.
The situation continues to develop as lawmakers consider both the specific allegations involving Omar and the wider implications of the proposed legislation.
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.
