House passes Rep. Pfluger's bill to block noncitizen voting in DC elections

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Concho Valley Homepage) — The House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill introduced by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, that would bar noncitizens from voting in local Washington, D.C., elections and repeal a 2022 D.C. law that granted that right.
The measure passed with bipartisan support in a 266-148 vote, marking the second consecutive year the House has approved similar legislation. A previous version passed in 2024 with a vote of 262-143.
No Kings movement to protest in West Texas against Trump's national ICE raids
Rep. Pfluger's bill targets the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022, which allowed noncitizen residents — including green card holders, undocumented immigrants, and foreign nationals — to vote in D.C. municipal elections after residing in the city for as little as 30 days.
'The radical D.C. Council decided to allow noncitizens — including illegal aliens and foreign agents — to vote in local elections,' Pfluger said in a statement following the vote. 'Allowing noncitizens to vote opens Pandora's box to D.C.'s already radical local policies, diluting the voting power of citizen voters.'
'Today, the House took action to defend that power and restore the sanctity of the voting process,' he added.
Texas THC ban: Lt. Gov. Patrick warns of youth health risks
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., praised the bill's passage.
'It's common sense that only American citizens should have the right to vote,' Comer said. 'Allowing noncitizens to vote in D.C. elections undermines the defining privilege of American citizenship and dilutes the right of American citizens to elect the candidates who best represent them. By passing H.R. 884, the House took a crucial step toward empowering American citizens in D.C. to vote in local elections and restoring the rule of law in our nation's capital.'
Comer added that the House Oversight Committee is 'committed to defending Americans' fundamental right to vote and responsible governance in D.C.,' and called on the Senate to take up the measure.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

33 minutes ago

• Newsweek

How Could Strait of Hormuz Closure Impact Americans?

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Iranian lawmakers have voted to support closing the Strait of Hormuz—a vital route for global oil and gas shipments—in response to U.S. airstrikes on three of the country's nuclear sites on Saturday, a move that if agreed upon by the Supreme Leader, could disrupt energy markets and drive up prices worldwide and stateside. Why It Matters Following U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, Isfahan, Fordow, and Natanz, the world waits as Iran considers its response. The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow, yet incredibly strategic waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point, the strait is about 21 miles wide, with two shipping lanes that are 2 miles wide in each direction. Around 20 percent of global oil trade passes through the Strait, with any closure likely to spike global prices. What To Know In the first fiscal quarter of 2025, the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) noted that just under 15 million barrels of crude oil and condensate, and about 8 million barrels of petroleum products were transported through the Strait. There are very few alternative routes for the large volume of oil that passes through the chokepoint. The average 20 million barrels of oil products that pass through make up around 20 percent of the global consumption. The price of Brent crude oil was already climbing ahead of the U.S. strikes, increasing from $69 per barrel on June 12 to $74 per barrel on June 13. While the EIA estimates that a large majority, around 80 percent, of the oil-based product moving through the Strait go to Asian markets, around 2 million barrels a day end up in the U.S. Stena Impero being seized and detained between July 19 and July 21, 2019 in Bandar Abbas, Iran as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital regional shipping channel. Stena Impero being seized and detained between July 19 and July 21, 2019 in Bandar Abbas, Iran as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital regional shipping channel. Tasnim/Getty Images If the Iranian government following the lead of the parliament, decides to close the Strait, Asian markets are expected to be most hit, but American markets will be too. Despite influence over the Strait, Iran doesn't supply the most oil that transports through it, Saudi Arabia does. Some experts have said that if Iran were to cut off access to the Strait, it could spike oil prices by 30 to 50 percent immediately, with gas prices likewise rising. "Oil prices would likely double, to well above $100. The extent to which that price shock would be sustainable is unclear," Marko Papic, chief strategist at BCA Research, told Newsweek in an email Sunday. He also noted that due to the overwhelming pressure campaign the country would face over its closure "the price shock would be of limited duration." "However," he continued, "it could impact confidence domestically, impact capex [capital expenditure] intentions by corporates, and thus trickle into the animal spirits [psychological factors that influence economic behavior] that affects not just stocks, but also the labor market." Fears that Iran could attack U.S. oil infrastructure in the region and levy its power over the Straits of Hormuz could "combine to make prices and speculation rise about the security and dependability of supply," Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London, previously told Newsweek. "Lack of clarity of how long this condition will last will also lead to hoarding or preemptive purchasing by other nations, so there are competition supply fears that will drive up prices," he added. Iran has been reluctant to close to Strait, even during times of intense conflict during the heat of the Iran-Iraq war. Infographic with map of the Gulf showing maritime tanker traffic in September 2024 through the Strait of Hormuz. Infographic with map of the Gulf showing maritime tanker traffic in September 2024 through the Strait of Hormuz. NALINI LEPETIT-CHELLA,OMAR KAMAL/AFP via Getty Images) What People Are Saying Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London, told Newsweek: "This is not an act that just stays in the Gulf region, it has wider global strategic ripples." Spencer Hakimian, founder of Tolou Capital Management, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday: "There are close to 50 large oil tankers scrambling to leave the Strait of Hormuz right now. Looks like the oil industry is expecting the Strait to be blockaded in the coming days." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday evening: "ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES." Brian Krassenstein, who has over 900,000 followers on X wrote on Sunday if the Strait is closed, people can expect: "U.S. Gas Prices likely Skyrocket. Potential $5–$7/gallon range depending on duration. Military Escalation Risk. U.S. Navy and allies likely to respond. Tanker delays affect oil, LNG, and related goods." What Happens Next? Any final decision on Iran's response, whether negotiation or closing the Strait or other, however, will largely rest with the country's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The parliament vote to close the Strait merely advises him of the option to pursue.

Miami Herald

40 minutes ago

• Miami Herald

Trump's Iran strike could boost — or ruin — his troubled presidency

President Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites is a high-stakes gamble that could either breathe new life into or irreparably damage his troubled second term in the White House. Yet for the world at large, it may well prove to be a welcome development. Before we get into why Trump's decision aligns with the consensus among the world's biggest democracies — that Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons — let's remember that Trump's popularity was falling fast before the strike. Only 42% of Americans approve of Trump's job performance, while 54% disapprove of it, according to a large-sample Reuters-IPSOS poll conducted June 11-16. Most Americans view Trump negatively, not only on the economy, which was once his strong point, but also on immigration, according to polls. The U.S. economy has slowed dramatically since Trump took office and launched his erratic tariff wars. According to the latest World Bank projections, the U.S. economy will only grow by 1.4% this year, which would be half of its 2.8% growth last year, in part because of the uncertainty created by Trump's on-and-off threats to impose huge import taxes on foreign goods. Likewise, many Trump voters in states with large immigrant communities, like Florida, are disappointed by Trump's decision to deport hundreds of thousands of immigrants without criminal records, including more than 350,000 Venezuelan Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders who entered the country legally. During the 2024 campaign, Republicans claimed that Trump would focus on deporting violent criminals. Before his Iran strike, Trump was also haunted by his growing image as a wavering leader. His repeated reversals of his own tariff ultimatums — first vowing to impose 145% tariffs on China, then reducing them to 30% — made him an object of mockery in European capitals and among U.S. critics. A Financial Times columnist popularized the acronym TACO — Trump Always Chickens out — to describe the U.S. president's trade strategy. Trump got visibly upset when he was asked about the TACO reference at a recent press conference. His fear of being perceived as an indecisive leader may have pushed him — after weeks of reportedly telling Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu he would not get dragged into the conflict — to join Israel's military offensive against Iran's nuclear sites. But if Trump's Iran gamble turns out well and Iran's theocratic dictatorship either crumbles or gives up its uranium enrichment program through diplomatic negotiations — a big if — Trump will be credited with having done something four previous presidents contemplated but ultimately failed to do. Internationally, virtually all major Western democracies agrees that Iran is a threat to Israel, and to the world. In a statement at the end of the June 16 summit of the G-7 group of Western democracies in Alberta, Canada, the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada said that 'We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.' The G-7 bloc's statement added that 'Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror in the Middle East,' and that 'We affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself.' Days earlier, on June 12, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for the first time in 20 years issued a statement warning that Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation agreements. Translation: Iran was enriching uranium at levels only justified to build nuclear weapons. Skeptics who don't follow Iran's political history may ask themselves why the world doesn't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons like India, Pakistan and other countries. The answer is simple: Unlike other countries, Iran has a state policy of trying to 'eliminate' a nearby sovereign country — Israel— that has been recognized by the United Nations since 1948. This is not about Western countries being against Iran's Jurassic theocracy for imprisoning women for failing to cover their heads with a hijab, or for executing gays, or any of its other abhorrent internal policies. The reason is that if we allow a country that calls for the destruction of another nation to have a nuclear bomb, it will set a precedent that makes the world even more dangerous. In Iran's case, it's not just Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's crazy rhetoric, but his actions. Iran has long provided financial aid to terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran's proxies have carried out terrorist attacks as far away as Argentina, where Hezbollah was found responsible for the bombing that killed 85 people and wounded hundreds at the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1994. There are many ways in which Trump's political gamble may go wrong, especially if Iran moved some of its enriched uranium into a secret location outside Fordo, or if it unifies Iranians behind their decrepit regime. But if Iran's regime falls, or agrees to a serious international nuclear monitoring agreement, Trump's faltering second term will get a second wind. Don't miss the 'Oppenheimer Presenta' TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog:

UPI

an hour ago

• UPI

Iran, Israel exchange airstrikes as US officials divided over bombing

1 of 3 | Israeli security stands in front of a residential building hit by an Iranian ballistic missile in Tel Aviv early Sunday morning, June 22, 2025. Iran launched two waves of missiles at Israel following the American bombing of its nuclear sites. Photo by Debbie Hill/ UPI | License Photo June 22 (UPI) -- Iran and Israel exchanged targeted airstrikes Sunday after President Donald Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear sites in Iran, leaving his administration and lawmakers divided over U.S. involvement. "We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program," Vice President JD Vance said in an interview with NBC News' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. It marked the first major official rhetoric that the United States is indeed "at war." Vance declined to confirm that Iran's nuclear sites were completely destroyed, saying that the U.S. has "substantially delayed" Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. His comments come after Russia said Sunday that other countries could provide Iran with nuclear weapons. The strike by the Trump administration has divided his supporters. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, for example, criticized what she called "neocon warmongers" in a post on social media Sunday afternoon. "America is $37 TRILLION in debt and all of these foreign wars have cost Americans TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars that never benefited any American," the lawmaker wrote in her post. "American troops have been killed and forever torn apart physically and mentally for regime change, foreign wars, and for military-industrial base profits. I'm sick of it. I can easily say I support nuclear-armed Israel's right to defend themselves and also say at the same time I don't want to fight or fund nuclear armed Israel's wars." Rep. Thomas Massie, another Republican, went as far to call the strike on Iran "not Constitutional" in his own post. He later criticized fellow Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson for stating that Trump "made the right call" with the airstrike. "Why didn't you call us back from vacation to vote on military action if there was a serious threat to our country?" Massie said in his remarks to Johnson. He reiterated that point Sunday in an interview with CBS News' "Face the Nation." Massie was joined on "Face the Nation" by fellow lawmaker Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat, with whom he worked last week to introduce a war powers resolution to prohibit U.S. forces from striking Iran without authorization from Congress. Khanna said in the interview that Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed a desire for Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes but the lawmaker noted that Iran had already been under a nuclear deal that the United States withdrew from. According to Khanna, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, which was negotiated by Iran, the United States and the European Union in 2015, the International Atomic Energy Agency did not find a single violation. "In the first Iraq war, the second Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan, Congress first got the briefings. Congress met and debated. It should have been declarations of war, but at least they did an authorization of use of military force," Massie added. "We haven't had that." The Israeli Defense Forces said in a statement Sunday that the Israeli Air Force used 30 fighter jets to attack dozens of military targets across Iran. "As part of the wave of attacks, fighter jets first attacked the 'Imam Hussein' strategic missile headquarters in the Yazd region, where long-range Khoramshahr missiles were stored," the IDF said. "From this headquarters, approximately 60 missiles were launched towards the State of Israel." The IDF added that it also hit missile launchers and military sites for the production of air defense batteries, and a drone warehouse in Isfahan, Bushehr and Ahvaz. Air raid sirens sounded across most of Israel on Sunday as Israeli Police acknowledged impacts from Iranian missiles on Sunday, including a strike in Tel Aviv that left at least six people with minor injuries, while videos shared on social media purportedly showed damage in Haifa. Meanwhile, Iranian state media reported Sunday that the Houthis -- formally known as Ansarullah -- expressed support for Iran after the U.S. strikes and would "stand by any Arab or Islamic country against U.S. aggression."