Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

image.thumb.png.f79dac432b7868a30b01be9cc225c310.png

RULES OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE

 

I. APPOINTMENT OF A SENATOR TO THE CHAIR.

a. In the absence of the Vice President the Senate Majority conference shall choose a President pro tempore, who shall hold the office and execute the duties thereof during the pleasure of the Senate and until another is elected or his term of office as a Senator expires.

b. In the absence of the Vice President, and pending the election of a President pro tempore, the Acting President pro tempore or the Secretary of the Senate, or in his absence the Assistance Secretary, shall perform the duties of the Chair. 

c. The President pro tempore shall have the right to name in open Senate or, if absent, in writing, a Senator to perform the duties of the Chair, including the signing of duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions but such substitution shall not extend beyond an adjournment, except by unanimous consent; and the Senator so named shall have the right to name in open session, or, if absent, in writing, a Senator to perform the duties of the Chair, but not to extend beyond an adjournment, except by unanimous consent. 

II. SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE RULES.

a. Any motions to suspend the rules must pass the Senate with a supermajority.

b. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules.

III. QUORUM.

a. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. 

b. No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave.

c. If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate.

d. Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order.

IV. THE CALENDAR AND DOCKETING PROCEDURES.

a. Senate Legislative Calendar. The Senate shall maintain an official Legislative Calendar to organize and schedule the consideration of bills, resolutions, nominations, treaties, and other matters requiring Senate action. The Calendar is divided into sections, including but not limited to:

1. Calendar of General Orders: Lists all measures reported from committees or placed on the calendar by unanimous consent.

2. Executive Calendar: Contains nominations and treaties submitted by the President requiring Senator confirmation or ratification.

3. Calendar of Special Orders: Includes items designated as special orders of business for consideration at specific times.

b. Referral to the Calendar. Measures may be placed directly on the Calendar by unanimous consent or by discharge from committee. 

c. Calendar Numbering. Each item placed on the Calendar shall be assigned a unique calendar number for reference purposes. Items are listed in the order in which they are placed on the Calendar unless otherwise specified by the Majority Leader.

d. Docket.

1. Authority to Docket Bills. The Majority Leader holds the authority to prioritize legislation by placing bills or resolutions on the Docket, a subsection of the Calendar of General Orders designated for prioritized consideration. 

2. Limitation on Docketed Items. The Majority Leader may designate as many bills as they would like at any given time as Docketed Items, as long as no more than five docketed items are being considered on the Senate floor at once. This limitation ensures focused consideration and prevents overloading the Senate's schedule. 

3. Designation Process. To place a bill or resolution on the Docket, the Majority Leader shall submit a written notice to the Presiding Officer specifying the item to be docketed. The Presiding Officer shall, according to the Calendar, place the bill or resolution on the floor of the Senate.

4. Removal from the Docket. A Docketed Item remains on the Docket until:

A. It is considered and disposed of by the Senate.

B. The Majority Leader submits a written notice to remove it.

C. It is displaced due to the docketing of a new item when the docket limit has been reached.

5. Replacing Docketed Items. When the Docket is full, the Majority Leader may replace a Docketed Item by removing an existing one and adding a new item, adhering to the docketed items limit. Notification of such changes must be provided in writing to the President pro tempore and the Senate.

e. Transparency. The Calendar shall reflect current Docketed Items, ensuring all Senators are informed of prioritized legislation. 

f. Consideration of Docketed Items.

1. Priority Scheduling. Docketed Items receive scheduling priority for floor consideration, debate, and voting. The Presiding Officer, in consultation with the Majority Leader, shall call up Docketed Items for consideration in the order designated unless otherwise ordered by the Senate.

2. Debate and Amendments.

A. Debate on Docketed Items proceeds according to standard Senate rules unless modified by unanimous consent or a special order.

B. Amendments to Docketed Items are permitted following normal procedures, maintaining the rights of all Senators.

3. Rights of Other Senators. 

A. While the Majority Leader controls the Docket, any Senator may move to suspend the rules and proceed to the consideration of items on the Calendar not on the Docket. Motions to suspend the rules and consider require a two-thirds majority vote unless otherwise specified.

g. Calendar Call and Management. 

1. Periodic Calendar Call. The Presiding Officer shall, at designated times, conduct a Calendar Call to inform the Senate of pending items. Senators may request unanimous consent to bring up items from the Calendar during this time.

2. Special Orders. 

A. Any subject may, by a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present, be made a special order of business for consideration and when the time so fixed for its consideration arrives the Presiding Officer shall lay it before the Senate, unless there be unfinished business in which case it takes its place on the Calendar of Special Orders in the order of time at which it was made special, to be considered in that order when there is no unfinished business.

B. All motions to change such order, or to proceed to the consideration of other business, shall be decided without debate.

3. Unfinished Business. Unfinished business retains its place on the Calendar and is considered before new items unless reordered by the Senate.

h. Emergency Docketing. In cases of national emergency or urgent necessity, the Majority Leader, after consulting with the Minority Leader, may request unanimous consent to exceed the docket limit for specific legislation. If unanimous consent is not obtained, the Senate may approve the request by a majority of Senators present.

i. Suspension of Limitations. The Senate, by a two-thirds vote of Senators present, may suspend the docket limitations to address pressing matters.

j. Enforcement and Points of Order. 

1. Points of Order.

A. Any Senator may raise a point of order if they believe the docketing procedures or calendar rules are not being followed.

B. Points of order shall be decided promptly by the Presiding Officer, subject to appeal to the Senate.

2. Appeals. Decisions of the President Officer regarding the Calendar and Docket may be appealed and decided by a majority vote of Senators present.

V. AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS. 

a. Submission and Consideration of Amendments.

1. Specific Motions. 

A. An amendment, and any instruction accompanying a motion to recommit, shall be motioned and read before being debated or voted on.

B. Any motion, amendment, or resolution may be withdrawn or modified by the mover at any time before a decision, amendment, or ordering of the yeas and nays. 

C. A motion to reconsider shall not be withdrawn without permission from the Senate.

2. Division of Questions. If the question in debate contains several propositions, any Senator may have the same divided for separate votes.

VI. RECONSIDERATION.

a. When a question has been decided by the Senate, any Senator voting with the prevailing side or who has not voted may, within 24 hours, move a reconsideration; and if the Senate shall refuse to reconsider such a motion entered, or if such a motion is withdrawn by leave of the Senate, or if upon reconsideration the Senate shall affirm its first decision, no further motion to reconsider shall be in order unless by unanimous consent. Every motion to reconsider shall be decided by a majority vote, and may be laid on the table without affecting the question in reference to which the same is made, which shall be a final disposition of the motion.

b. When a bill, resolution, report, amendment, order, or message, upon which a vote has been taken, shall have gone out of the possession of the Senate and been communicated to the House of Representatives, the motion to reconsider shall be accompanied by a motion to request the House to return the same; which last motion shall be acted upon immediately, and without debate, and if determined in the negative shall be a final disposition of the motion to reconsider.

VII. RULES OF DEBATE.

a. Recognition to Speak. Senators shall address all remarks to the Presiding Officer and avoid direct confrontation or personal attacks against other senators.

b. Filibuster. A filibuster may be initiated by any senator wishing to delay a vote by continuing debate. To maintain the filibuster, the senator must post 250 words every four (4) hours. If no post is made within that time frame, the filibuster ends, and the Senate will proceed to with business. Senate business stops when a filibuster begins. 

c. Cloture Motion. A motion for Cloture (to end debate) requires the support of three-fifths (60%) of senators present. Once Cloture is invoked, debate is limited to thirty (30) minutes, after which the Senate will proceed to a vote.

d. Whip Enforcement. Both the Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader may issue a Whip Card up to three times per session against any senator who violates a party whip. A senator receiving a Whip Card will see their influence reduced, with their role limited solely to casting their vote for the remainder of consideration on the legislation in which the whip card was used.

e. Decorum in Debate. All remarks during debate must maintain civility and respect. The Presiding Officer may call any senator to order for violating decorum, and persistent offenders may be subject to sanctions or removal from the session.

VIII. VOTING PROCEDURE.

a. Types of Votes. The Senate shall vote using one of the following methods:

1. Voice Vote: Senators verbally express "Aye" or "Nay" or "Present" to indicate their position.

2. Roll Call Vote: Each senator’s name is called, and their vote is individually recorded.

3. Unanimous Consent: If no senator objects to a motion, it may be approved without a formal vote.

b. Majority Vote: Most legislation requires a simple majority (50% +1) of senators present and voting to pass.

c. Supermajority Vote: Matters such as overriding a presidential veto, approving constitutional amendments, or a motion suspending the rules require a two-thirds (67%) majority.

IX. SESSION WITH CLOSED DOORS.

a. On a motion made and seconded to close the doors of the Senate, on the discussion of any business which may, in the opinion of a Senator, require secrecy, the Presiding Officer shall direct the galleries to be cleared; and during the discussion of such motion the doors shall remain closed.

b. When the Senate meets in closed session, confidentiality of information shall apply to any information and to the conduct of any debate transacted.

X. PRECEDENCE OF MOTIONS.

a. When a question is pending, no motion shall be received but

1. To adjourn.

2. To adjourn to a day certain, or that when the Senate adjourn it shall be to a day certain.

3. To take a recess.

4. To proceed to the consideration of executive business.

5. To lay on the table.

6. To postpone indefinitely.

7. To postpone to a day certain.

8. To commit.

9. To amend.

Which several motions shall have precedence as they stand arranged; and the motions relating to adjournment, to take a recess, to proceed to the consideration of executive business, to lay on the table, shall be decided without debate.

XI. COMMITTEES.

a. Establishment of Committees. The Majority Leader may create additional committees temporarily or long-term at his prerogative. The Senate may, by a motion, establish a committee. 

b. Conference Committee. When the Senate has passed legislation that later passes the House in different form and vice versa, the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader representing the Senate, and the Party Chairmen representing the House come together in conference committee to pass legislation. The finalized legislation is then subject to a 24 hour simple majority vote simultaneously in both chambers. The {Congressional Administrator} presides over Conference Committee.

c. Committee Procedures.

1. Committee Structure: Senators may be assigned to committees focused on specific policy areas (e.g., finance, judiciary). Each committee shall be chaired by a senator, who will manage the committee’s business, including bill hearings and amendments. Committees are initiated by the Senate Majority Leader. There shall be a total of two majority party Senators and one minority party Senators to compose any committee of the Senate.

2. Committee Hearings: Committees may convene hearings to discuss proposed legislation. Senators may invite expert testimony and debate the merits of the bill. Hearings can be initiated by the Senate Majority Leader. 

XII. FINAL PASSAGE OF BILLS. 

a. Final Vote: Once all debate and amendments are concluded, the Senate shall proceed to a final vote on the bill. A simple majority is required for the bill to pass unless a higher threshold is required (e.g., constitutional amendments).

b. Reconsideration of Votes: A senator who voted with the prevailing side on any issue may move to reconsider the vote. The motion to reconsider requires a simple majority to pass.

XIII. AMENDING THE RULES.

These standing rules may be amended by a simple majority vote of the Senate. Proposed amendments must be submitted in writing and debated before a vote.

Passed Q1, 2025

Edited by Brink

Levi M. Koenig
Senate Majority Leader, Freedom Caucus Chair
Republican from Florida

  • Jack locked and pinned this topic
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Latest VGS News

    • Vox Libertatis Freedom Index 2025 Recap It has been one full year under a Republican President and Senate and, as we have mentioned, it is getting harder to tell where Democrats end and Republicans begin. From pricing workers out of a job to breaking up free enterprise, the two parties are seemingly in lock step in their mission to destroy the free market. The big exception is foreign policy where President Van Horn has led the U.S. in a bold new direction and the neoconservative movement has been marginalized to the Democratic minority and a handful of fringe Republicans like Senator Elizabeth Hunt (R-AL) who continues to wants to rage [expletive deleted] any country that looks at us wrong. With one year of the 119th Session of Congress in the books, here’s your Freedom Index for 2025. Happy New Year! The Good Leading the pack is Senator John Burton of Ohio and Senator Nate Calloway of Nebraska. These two bucked the far left lurch of the Republican Party after President Allred’s death to stick to one time conservative principles of free trade and restoring the private healthcare market. Senator Calloway is more traditionally conservative, but did some outstanding speeches at CATO of all places, defending free trade and entitlement reform. ‘[T]rade, like liberty, is a cornerstone of our republic,’ says Calloway. Burton put words into action, however, introducing actual legislation to restore free trade and save Medicare from its imminent demise. While imperfect, the bold initiatives gave these two the highest scores from a Republican or Democratic member of the U.S. Senate in the two year history of the Freedom Index. Burton gets a B- and Calloway gets a D, so do not rest on your laurels and get too confident just yet. Rounding out the top 3 is Democrat Ross McCallen of Arizona: A self-described ‘moderate’ Democrat, McCallen was not afraid to honor Arizona’s maverick tradition and still support civil liberties while some of his colleagues do not. The Bad On the bottom end of the spectrum is Democratic Senators Avraham and Baudelaire of Massachusetts, hindered mainly by a vestigial hawkish foreign policy and an extremely far left voting history, respectively. Foreign policy, immigration, and Medicare expansion kept Senator Sizemore of PA down into 2025. Republican Senator Albion of Ohio is forever dead to us after dumping billions of tax dollars into Lake Erie and while our old friend, Commie Kahiona, has lost her ever loving mind, veering so far extreme right on foreign policy into Senator Hunt (R-AL) level I-want-to-rage-[expletive deleted]-istan. For America’s sake, we hope all the neocons go on a one-way hunting trip with Dick Cheney. Neoconservatism is dead, it just took 17 years to count the buckshot. Meanwhile, Senator Minority Leader Rafael Coleman (D-CO) saw the most improvement between sessions due to his leadership on marijuana legalization and not having his name on every horrible piece of legislation again this session (that honor goes to the President). The Ugly One time leaders like Senator Earl Duplantis (R-LA), Levi Keonig (R-FL), and President Van Horn (R-KY) dropped significantly for championing and ushering through the People’s First Agenda and their ridiculous obsession with fish. One time VLFI leader Koenig plummeted the most between sessions for his wholesale allegiance to the People’s First Agenda and flip flop on minimum wage. We now live in a world where Bernie Bros are Republicans, neocons are Democrats, and we are neither at war with Eastasia nor Eurasia. President Van Horn’s triumphant policy of non-aggression kept him alive but just under the median this time due to the twin demons of his economic populism and Executive Order spree. His ranking also may be muted by not participating in our questionnaire. What, like the White House has been busy, or something? Methodology On the subject of questionnaires, we updated our methodology this time to give a chance for Senators to at least allege their positions to us, in confidence, to help flesh out a clearer picture on important issues that the Senate has yet to take action on. *cough, cough* #Legalize4/20 2026??? *cough* 53.57% responded to our questionnaire and everyone who did saw a statistically significant improvement in their scores of +13 points on average, even when they are wrong. While we appreciate the sometimes hilarious qualitative responses, this is a quantitative rubric and in most cases, it only ended up reducing respondents' scores. Keep the hate mail coming though: We will publish a greatest hits one day. If anyone did not get a chance to complete the questionnaire this time, we are continuing to accept them on a rolling basis. The mean overall was a 34.32%, which is an F-, but the mean from survey respondents was 47.09%; still an F- but a high F-.  Observations Without giving any names, there are some interesting observations from aggregate survey responses. First and foremost, 76.67% of respondents support marijuana legalization, even more than the 70% of Americans broadly in a 2023 PEW poll. Someone call Coleman: Its 4/20 some year? 80% said they do not oppose the right to bear arms (is that triple negative?) and 53.33% agree that the U.S. intervenes too much in other countries. To demonstrate the accuracy of this poll, (or how much Congress is a bunch of liars,) we asked if optimal wages are best determined by the market. 100% of the 50% who said they support free market wages voted to double the minimum wage last year. A clearer sign than ever that our public education system is failing us. Future of the Vox Libertatis Freedom Index Going forward, we will continue to update the Freedom Index each year, and send out new questionnaires but the outstanding previous questionnaires will also still be accepted indefinitely. We will do ad hoc Freedom Indices for important high profile races as in 2024 and are experimenting with adding a multidimensional model which will provide breakdown where a person stands on foreign policy, economic, and individual liberty. For example, President Van Horn scores very high on foreign policy but lower on economic liberty so his Index is really more of an odd L shape that the average does not fully highlight. We will continue to do our best to keep you informed and urge our elected leaders to always: #ChooseFreedom @TexAgRepublican@Elizabeth Hunt R-AL@Kandler@Albion@Brushbeck@Avner@Sovereign@Alaskansockeyepuffs@camilodeso@DMH@Jack
    • Istanbul Accords: Fragile Peace or a Gamble with Ukraine's Future? By Jared Kane, International Correspondent for Capitol Compass For several years of war and after untold devastation ravaged the country, the Ukraine-Russia Treaty dubbed the Istanbul Accords, has emerged as one of the most consequential moments of the decade. It is a promise of peace and stability. But it is built upon a bedrock of the same devastation that took hold of Ukraine when the war started in 2022. This treaty has been framed as a path to stability. Still, it has sparked intense debate across the globe, raising questions about its long-term implications for Ukraine's sovereignty. It's also a test of the resilience of democratic principles in the face of authoritarian aggression. The crux of the accords is the status of the Crimea Peninsula. This region, occupied by Russia in 2014 despite heavy international opposition, is heavy with symbolism for both nations. The agreement asserts Ukraine's formal sovereignty over the peninsula while granting Russia administrative control for the next two decades. This lease will cost Moscow $1 billion annually and a share of the revenue generated from the region's development. Oversight of this portion of the agreement will fall to an independent commission comprised of representatives from the OSCE, Turkey, China, and India. Supporters of the agreement view this compromise as a pragmatic resolution to an entrenched stalemate. At the same time, critics argue that it risks legitimizing territorial conquests and sets a dangerous precedent. By allowing Russia to retain any semblance of control, even temporarily, raises uncomfortable questions about the price of aggression and fragility of international norms. The accords also address the status of contested regions of Donetsk and Luhansk provinces. It grants them autonomy within Ukraine's borders. This concession on Ukraine's part acknowledges the realities of a divided population, particularly in areas with a significant Russian-speaking population. One could argue that proponents believe this measure could ease tensions and foster peaceful coexistence in the regions. At the same time, skeptics may fear it entrenches divisions and emboldens separatist movements. The most critical part of the agreement, especially in the eyes of Western powers, is Ukraine's neutrality pledge. This pledge is a sharp departure from its previous aspirations to join NATO. In exchange, Ukraine has been given security guarantees from major powers, including the United States, China, India, and Turkey. The White House argued, through an interview with the White House Press Secretary Ammon Rasmussen, that this was a "course correction from the last administration" and that it was necessary. To ensure peace, a demilitarized zone monitored by peacekeepers from Austria, China, Singapore, and Indonesia aims to provide stability and prevent renewed hostilities. While this is an attempt at fostering a lasting peace, the challenges of maintaining security in such a volatile environment remain daunting. The final part of the treaty is economic reconstruction; under the Istanbul Accords, Turkey and India will lead efforts to rebuild Ukraine's shattered infrastructure. Russia has also pledged financial support, though one could be concerned about the integrity and effectiveness of these commitments. For many Ukrainians, the prospect of rebuilding offers a glimmer of hope, tempered by concerns that inefficiency or corruption could ultimately undermine recovery efforts. This agreement underscores a shift in global power dynamics for the United States. With China and India playing such prominent roles in brokering the peace, America's position as the guarantor of democracy and democratic values faces significant challenges. Domestically, reactions have been mixed. The White House is proud to say that President Van Horn successfully brought the President of Russia and Ukraine to the table, saying, "This was a truly groundbreaking achievement and one that will promote peace in Eastern Europe and around the globe." Skeptics, on the other hand, like Chair of the Senate Progressive Caucus Osiris Storm, claim that the President "left Ukraine cornered into a bad deal." European powers like Germany, France, and the UK are all cautiously optimistic about the Istanbul Accords and the future of peace. While Poland, Estonia, Canada, and other Eastern European NATO countries are privately lived, believing the treaty to be a direct betrayal of the Ukrainian people. Still, despite all of this, many observers, myself included, remain uneasy. The Istanbul Accords reflect a series of painful compromises that, while understandably necessary to end the war, could further erode the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity that underpin international law. Allowing an aggressor, like Russia, to maintain control over seized land, even under stringent conditions like those imposed in the accords, risks emboldening future acts of aggression. Ultimately, history will decide whether the Istanbul Accords represent an authentic and genuine step towards lasting peace or a strategic gamble that encourages those willing to rewrite borders through force and intimidation. For Ukraine, the stakes could not be higher. The nation's extraordinary resilience to the Russian onslaught has carried it through the darkest days of the war. Its future now hinges not only on its own determination but also on the international community's resolve to uphold the accords and hold Russia accountable. The world watches and holds its breath as one question remains unanswered: Can this fragile peace withstand its underlying contradictions, or will it be remembered as a missed opportunity by the West to defend freedom and democratic values with unwavering conviction? Full text of the Istanbul Accords can be found here:  
    • 2026 Midterm Preparations See Record Investments by Both Parties October 2025 – Washington, D.C. As the 2026 midterms loom, both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC) are executing unprecedented election readiness strategies, pouring massive resources into key battleground states. This cycle marks the largest coordinated investment since the high-stakes 2024 elections, with new RNC Chairman, Senator Tom Worthham of South Carolina, leading a broad-front strategy to rival the Democratic machine spearheaded by DNC Chairwoman Charlotte O’Hare. Historic Levels of Investment The combined resources poured into state-level campaigns reflect the parties’ understanding of the high stakes of the 2026 midterms. With control of Congress, state legislatures, and governorships on the line, both parties have tailored their strategies to focus on critical regions. The DNC’s investments span a mix of traditionally blue strongholds and swing states, with particular emphasis on expanding influence in Kansas, California, Michigan, and New Mexico. Meanwhile, the RNC is focused on reclaiming ground in Nevada, Georgia, and New Jersey while consolidating its base in Alaska, Florida, and Ohio. The following table shows the current funding advantage by state, based on relative investments: State Advantage Party Leading Alaska +1 DNC Arizona +3 GOP California +4 DNC Colorado +1 DNC Florida +1 GOP Georgia +3 GOP Iowa +3 GOP Kansas +9 DNC Maine +7 DNC Michigan +2 DNC Montana +3 GOP Nebraska +2 GOP New Hampshire +1 DNC New Jersey +2 GOP New Mexico +2 GOP New York +1 DNC Nevada +5 GOP North Carolina +1 GOP Ohio +2 GOP Pennsylvania +4 GOP South Carolina +6 DNC Texas +6 DNC Virginia +1 DNC Wisconsin +4 DNC DNC Strategy: Building on Momentum Chairwoman O’Hare has continued to emphasize deep, localized investments, with Kansas emerging as a surprising focal point. The DNC’s effort in the state have given the Kansas Democratic Party a massive 4 to 1 monetary advantage there reflects a broader strategy of flipping traditionally Republican states by activating progressive voter blocs and targeting moderate voters. “We’ve learned that when we engage voters early and with clear, impactful policies, we can expand our map,” O’Hare said during a recent interview. Massive funding has also been directed to New Mexico, California, and Michigan—states the Democrats hope to solidify as bastions of support amid growing Republican efforts. RNC Strategy: Broad-Front Counterattack RNC Chairman Worthham’s approach marks a shift from the Freedom Caucus-driven focus of prior years to a broader, more distributed strategy. States like Alaska and Nevada have seen significant resources as the GOP attempts to catch up or outpace Democratic investments and shore up vulnerable areas. In New Jersey and New Mexico, Republicans have made substantial investments to capitalize on recent electoral gains, including the gubernatorial win in New Jersey and competitive federal races in New Mexico. “We are competing everywhere, and we are competing to win,” Worthham stated at an RNC rally. “This is about bringing conservative values to every corner of America, no matter how blue or red.” Key Battlegrounds Several states are emerging as pivotal battlegrounds where the funding races have created closely contested environments: Alaska - Democrats and Republicans have matched each other almost dollar for dollar in the state, and with the Governor's race wide open, it's expected these levels of investments may continue. Georgia - Flipping Georgia at the state level has been a running dream of the Democrats for years. They possess both US Senate seats. The GOP knows this calculus as well as the Dems do and have ensured they are better funded, so far, for whomever ultimately challenges Ossof or has to defend the legacy of Brian Kemp. Michigan - Both the Democrats and the GOP have begun funneling cash into this key mid western state. While it has a Democratic lean, the Republicans are capable of punching through, if they can get a fundraising advantage, something the Dems currently hold. This comes during a vulnerable year with Governor Whitmer stepping down and it being unknown who will succeed her. New Jersey - New Jersey has turned into the frontlines of the battle between the RNC and the DNC and made it a true battleground state. with the investments seemingly not slowing down. New Hampshire - Republican Kelly Ayotte is in a tough re-election bid and her control of the New Hampshire legislature is up in the area, especially with recent Democratic investments in the state. New Mexico - The Republicans have tossed a significant investment campaign, hoping to capitalize on the retiring Democratic Governor and the defending US Senator in the state. The Republican lead will need to be fought into to relieve pressure on Democrats in the state. North Carolina - Recent Freedom Caucus victories in the state, combined with a superior GOP investment campaign is giving the advantage to the Republicans, but the Democrats are matching them as best we can. Republicans to be wary of repeating the campaign in Virginia, in this increasingly moderate and battleground state. Virginia - Democrats learned the gaming winning formula in Virginia in the past Gubernational race, and Republicans will have taken notes as they have begun investing heavily in Virginia. States of Concern for Either Side Kansas - The Democrats have a vastly larger warchest in Kansas, and whomever they use to succeed the outgoing Democratic Governor will be well funded to keep the Governor's Mansion in what is otherwise a solid ruby red state. Maine - The Democrats are honing in on outgoing Senator Hunt's seat, and the massive disparity between the Democrats and Republicans need to be given them pause, which may end up losing one of their seats in the Senate. Nevada - Democrats need to start rallying funds into the state, or else Governor Lombardo may keep the reins of power in Carson City and take control of the legislature to give the GOP a lock on this still extremely competitive state. Pennsylvania - Governor Josh Shapiro is already dealing with a GOP legislature and without investments into his organzation the GOP may be able to flip the Governor's Mansion and give them real momentum going into 2028. South Carolina - In one of the more shocking developments the Democrats have poured unanswered investments in South Carolina. While the Governor's race, or even the Senator Graham's re-election bids are not likely to flip, this could cause issues with the Congressional delegation, or cause some upsets in the state legislature, with the Democrats wanting to shift the momentum and put the entire east coast of southern states into play. Texas - No one doubts Governor Abbot or Senator Butcher's ability to hold their states, but Texas has been incredibly becoming more and more purple, and victory is no long as assured in Texas as it is in say Oklahoma. The Republicans have begun putting investments into the Lone Star State, but do not want to be outspent by the Democrats again. Wisconsin - The Republicans have otherwise ignored Wisconsin up to this point, and the Wisconsin Democratic Party knows how to capitalize on Republican weakness or lethargy. If they want a chance to taking back power from Governor Evers, or keeping their control of the legislature, they will need to push hard in the funding category. Criticism and Intrigue Both parties are facing criticism over the scale of their spending specifically on Election Readiness. While preparing elections is critical, critics note there has been less focus on state issue advocacy then there could be otherwise or candidate recruitment. One Democratic operative in Kansas put it bluntly "Having all this cash is great, not having a candidate to spend it on means it's not doing us any good". Still others have note the narrow focus on Election Readiness has allowed factions to sneak up the middle and take control of Party levers without opposition. While the DNC and RNC may not care as much directly on which faction is dominant in which state, the congressional delegations are concerned as are operatives on the ground when their bosses in the Governor's Mansions, don't align with a newly powerful faction at the state level, like the case of Gianforte in Montana, a strong Freedom Caucus man, now dealing with an resurgent Mainstreet state party. Meanwhile, observers are watching closely to see whether the RNC’s broad-front strategy can rival the DNC’s historically effective targeted investments. As 2026 approaches, the unprecedented resources being funneled into election readiness underscore the growing stakes of every election cycle. With America’s political landscape as polarized as ever, both parties are gearing up for a high-stakes fight for control of the nation’s future.
  • Upcoming Events

  • Recent Achievements


×
×
  • Create New...